Amer (2009)

OCTOBER 29, 2011

GENRE: GIALLO (?), WEIRD

SOURCE: DVD (ONLINE RENTAL)

More than any film I’ve ever seen, Amer depicted dreams and nightmares as accurately as possible, even though it wasn’t a dream-based movie. As far as I can tell, there are no actual dreams in the movie (that’s not to say it all happened), but yet it’s all presented in a fragmented, stream-of-conscious way; telling a very basic story that makes sense as you experience it, but would be impossible to explain to someone later without sounding like an idiot. “No, it’s really good, it’s about this girl who goes to a salon and sees a kid playing ball so she runs for a while and sees a biker…”

That is a “description” of the middle part of the film, which is also the shortest. The closest I can get to describing Amer would be that it was an anthology of sorts, depicting a woman in three different stages of her life; as a child, as a late teen, and as a young woman. In each story she encounters a different type of “villain” that you’d find in an Argento or Bava film (an old witch in the first, a town filled with leering men in the second, and a black gloved killer in the third), and overall it sort of goes through the stages of one’s sexual awakening – she sees her parents going at it in the first act, realizes she’s hot in the second, and finally… well I’m not sure what the hell’s going on in act three for the most part, but there’s a scene where she takes a bath with some candles, and you can probably figure out what she does then.

In other words, it’s an artsy horror film, something that usually turns me off, but there was something quite compelling about Amer. It was almost like the world’s longest experimental short film; every shot was striking but short, it was very flashy and stylish, and I often wasn’t sure where it was going at any point. It was also remarkably short on dialogue – I’m not exaggerating when I say that there were probably only 30 lines in the entire movie, most of them in the first act and almost none of them delivered directly on camera. However, it did not lack for sound FX – EVERYTHING in this movie had exaggerated sound work, from the whrrrp of a tight leather glove to the bouncing of a soccer ball. If someone was watching Amer in an adjacent room, you might suspect they were just listening to some sort of “Foley 101” CD.

That is, when there wasn’t any music playing. There isn’t much of it, but it’s all sourced from other films, not unlike a Tarantino film or Shutter Island. One piece in particular reminded me of the awesome "Too Risky A Day For A Regatta" from Tentacles, and thus I wasn’t too surprised to discover that it was from the same composer (Stelvio Cipriani), albeit for a different film. It’s something that I’m surprised doesn’t happen more often; while you can’t just toss the Halloween or Nightmare On Elm Street themes into a movie without distracting the hell out of an audience, surely there are enough obscure/awesome horror films (or even non-horror) to draw from rather than compose new music that usually kind of sucks. I mean, apart from Saw, has there been a single great horror theme in the past 10 years that will live on as part of pop culture?

Back to the movie, it almost functions as a stylistic love letter to the “jist” of great Gialli past, sort of like how Doomsday was like a medley of “covers” of the best action scenes in the past 25 years (the Road Warrior climax, the Escape From New York “combat trial”, etc). It never really takes anything directly from any of Argento or Bava’s films that I can think of, but their influence is clear throughout, particularly in the first sequence, which is heavily imbued with shots drenched entirely in single primary colors, sometimes even in sequence (so you’ll see a shot that’s colored entirely blue, then see it again in red). And the primarily daylight set killer scenes in the 3rd act will may you a déjà vu of Tenebre or Four Flies On Gray Velvet, but the “plot” has no relation to those films.

As if to back up my “it’s like a long short film” idea, the only extra on the DVD is a collection of short films that directors Helene Cattet and Bruno Forzani have made over the past 10 years, so they are clearly comfortable telling a story in an abbreviated amount of time. Interestingly, they all show off things that were eventually explored in greater depth in Amer; the first short is all sound design (no dialogue whatsoever), the second has a fascination with closeups of eyeballs and keyholes (a major component of the first story in Amer), etc. And they all FEEL like Gialli, sans bothersome things like a storyline that can be summed up in any meaningful way. I wouldn’t have any interest in them on their own without the film as context (at times they make Amer seem like the most conventional movie ever made), but it’s interesting to see their progression as filmmakers while sticking with this same sort of material. I mean, if I made a feature film, even if it was horror, it wouldn’t be anything like the short films I made in college, though I hope I’d still get to cast my good friend Matt in a role.

Obviously, this isn’t for everyone, and it almost defies critique since it’s all style and focused on conjuring up emotions in the viewer, which means some might feel absolutely nothing and just shut it off, whereas it made me want to go outside naked while eating an apple, for some reason (I opted to remain clothed and play Arkham City, however). Some folks go to the museum and look at a Picasso; others might just turn on Amer. Curious to see what the team does next, they certainly have the FEEL of old school Italian horror (despite being French!) down pat – let’s see if they can do a straight up narrative as well.

What say you?

Amer (2009)

By: Abdallh Gamal on: 7:07 PM

Faces Of Death (1978)

JANUARY 5, 2009

GENRE: MOCKUMENTARY, WEIRD

SOURCE: BLU-RAY (OWN COLLECTION)

Every budding horror fan remembers hearing about Faces Of Death as a young lad. “It’s got REAL deaths in it!” your cool friend would say. “You saw it?” you’d ask, and he’d lie and say yes and talk about how gory and awesome it was. Well, I am now that cool friend. But I did watch it, and quite frankly, it’s not awesome at all. Actually, it’s pretty fucking boring.

By now everyone knows that half of the footage is staged (dead giveaway – multiple camera angles on certain events when you should be able to see the other camera), which in a way makes the movie even MORE boring. If it was legitimately a bunch of footage of folks or animals really dying, then being slow would be more forgivable, because then the more “action” the movie contained would mean more people/animals really being killed, and that’s not a good thing. So if they are making shit up, why not go for broke! Show a real cattle being killed in the slaughterhouse, then fake a guy getting his head blown off or whatever. Keep it moving!

Instead, we get long stretches where real or not, the footage has no death. And at one point, there aren’t any “faces” either, because the movie stops cold(er) for a good ten minutes to warn us about the dangers of littering and pollution. I bet your schoolyard pal never boasted about the cool scene where you see a bunch of beer and soda cans on a beach. We also get lectured on hunger, World War II, nuclear weapons, and being careful while hiking. Actually, the guy who falls while rock climbing (called a “boy”, dude looks 30) is one of the few times in the movie I wasn’t sure if it was fake or real, so I guess I shouldn’t knock that part.

Another major flaw in the setup is that the narrator, Dr Frances B. Gross, not only has a ludicrous name, but he keeps saying how he’s there in the events we watch. Apparently, he traveled the entire world, took part in rituals, orgies, executions, monkeytorture, the whole shebang. But never ONCE does he appear in any of the footage, nor does anyone seem to actually address him. Where the hell is he?

All that said, it does have its moments. The gator and bear attacks are pretty funny, because everyone is Joe Steady on the camera at first, but then the moment the animal “attacks” it’s suddenly presented in “camera rolling down a hill o vision”, even from the cameras being held by people who aren’t involved with the incident. I also like the random bits that get tossed in, like when they show a French guy being assassinated sans any sort of explanation or context.

Oddly, the film’s soundtrack is more entertaining than anything. We get a creepy piano version of Old McDonald over the “farm animals becoming my sandwich” sequence, and a hauntingly beautiful piece over the electric chair stuff. The new 5.1 mix is also appropriately wacky; basically the only time the surrounds kick in is when an animal is squealing or howling. Nice.

The Blu-Ray (yes, Faces of fucking Death is on Blu-Ray, but LOTR and Armageddon and Star Wars and Jurassic Park are not) has a bunch of extras, but since the 105 minute movie left me pretty close to zzztown, I didn’t look at any of them. If I get a chance I will, but the only one that sounded interesting was an interview with the film’s editor, whom I assume isn’t going to be playing into the film’s validity. Everything else sounded like it was geared towards those among you who think this is either a. real or b. even really worth watching.

What say you?

Faces Of Death (1978)

By: Abdallh Gamal on: 11:47 PM

A Real Friend (2006)

DECEMBER 19, 2008

GENRE: PSYCHOLOGICAL, WEIRD
SOURCE: DVD (ONLINE RENTAL)

As I watched A Real Friend (Spanish: Adivina Quién Soy), I began wondering why no one's made the movie before, because the story is simple and also through its very design allows a filmmaker to pay homage to his favorite horror movies. Basically, a lonely little girl escapes into the horror movies she watches; her imaginary friends are Leatherface, Nosferatu, and Mr. Hyde. And maybe Pennywise or Cheezo... there's a clown that pops up every now and then, but he never really gets a moment to shine. They are in the kill scenes, and also pop up in the background from time to time. Leatherface is essentially the girl's best friend, and does things like give her a hug when her parents are fighting. Brilliant!

The attention to detail was truly admirable, particularly for Leatherface. They never say his name (or the name of the movie), but the costume/mask are spot on perfect, as is the performance of Aitor Mazo (credited as Bubba, another nice reference). The film clips are recreated pretty accurately (though the "Chainsaw Dance" finale is set on a beach for some reason), and Mazo actually does a better job than at least 2 of the actual Leatherface performers (likewise, whoever did the makeup for this should be brought on to do any future installments of the regular franchise). Writer/Director Enrique Urbizu doesn't stop there though; when Leatherface cuts down a door he makes the exact same pattern that Gunnar Hansen did in the original film. Also, the frequent news reports that we overhear echo those in the first film (i.e. they are all about the discovery of bodies, murders, etc).

I loved this, because I hate when a movie sort of parodies a well known movie killer, but does it completely wrong. Like in The Blob when they go see a faux Jason movie. The mask is all wrong, the style is totally off... it's more distracting than entertaining. But not here; apparently the rights/licenses were not obtained (Nosferatu is in the public domain, so that's the only one they call out by name) but the detail is so accurate even a non-horror fan would probably figure out who the other monsters were.

Another thing that struck me was how much Spanish TV allows in their films (all 6 in this series are TV movies). At one point the girl's teacher picks up a hooker, who goes down on him in his car and then spits his load onto the sidewalk, and the girl's mom is seeing taking it from behind in a broom closet. Plus the murders are pretty gory. Our TV shows might have a lot of profanity, but even on Heroes (possibly the goriest mainstream show of all time) you never see a decapitated head rolling around (for proof, check out the recent decapitation of Universal Studios shirt guy).

I just wish it had been a little better overall. It starts off solid, but it loses steam once the "vampire" reveals his true identity. And then the twist ending really feels like a copout; without spoiling anything, I really was hoping to put this one into a different genre (which would also spoil it, but whatever). Luckily, the movie had earned a lot of goodwill with its horror-fan appealing setup and way above average attention to detail, so I was able to forgive it. It's just a shame that I can't give it a fully positive review, something I thought for sure I would after the first 30-40 minutes had charmed me so.

Another bummer is that I spent half the movie wishing that I had known a 12 year old girl who liked to watch Texas Chain Saw Massacre in her spare time. If this girl was in my 6th or 7th grade class, she surely would have been the first girl to tell me she only liked me as a friend.

There is one aspect about the movie that really struck me as bizarre: the protagonist's insane methods of food storage. At one point, she wants pineapple for her pizza, and retrieves some from under the sink. Who the hell keeps food under the sink? But the really baffling one came early on, when the mom asked if the girl had eaten the "Macaroni salad that was wrapped in tin foil and put in the microwave." What the fuck? Tin foil in the microwave? Macaroni salad kept in anything BUT a fridge? Remind me to never eat anything at this fictional person's home.

The making of is decent, if not essential. Urbizu is clearly a talented guy, and even in this brief look one can tell he cares deeply about all aspects of his production. As with the others, no other features are provided. I would think that there would be deleted scenes on all of them, since they have to fit a certain length to fit on TV (they are all 75 minutes long). Oh well.

What say you?

A Real Friend (2006)

By: Abdallh Gamal on: 8:44 PM

Sheitan (2006)

JUNE 2, 2008

GENRE: FRENCH, WEIRD
SOURCE: DVD (OWN COLLECTION)

Anyone want a copy of Sheitan? I didn’t hate it, but I can’t imagine watching it again. This is why I more or less stopped blind buying; I end up owning films like this. And with the ‘rules’ of Horror Movie A Day dictating that I watch a ‘new movie every day’, I never have time to rewatch something unless I truly love it. Or it’s the Halloween remake.

Sheitan was recommended by my good friend Anonymous (twice!), and other folks with better names have sung its praises as well. And it’s certainly worth watching, but I have a problem with any movie in which the back of the DVD tells me more about what the fuck is going on than the actual film does. The movie, it would seem, is just about a batshit farmer named Joseph (the always interesting Vincent Cassell) who takes in yet another group of young thuggish French citizens (do ANY French people below 30 behave in a civilized manner?) and acts like a complete nut, but since they want to fuck one another the kids all stick around anyway. Finally he goes even MORE apeshit and begins punching and kicking them, before his wife/sister literally squirts out a kid, they make a doll and then smile, and the movie’s over. Huh? But the back of the DVD tells me that they are Satan worshippers and Joseph has made a demonic pact. Gotcha.

Still, it’s an entertaining movie, thanks to Cassell’s unpredictable behavior, the oddball supporting characters (including a trio of abnormally skinny redneck boys), some truly fucked up sequences (one of the girls our heroes lust after masturbates a dog for some reason), and my not-quite-resolved quest to understand what the hell was going on and how the movie was considered horror. On the surface, it’s another “kids run afoul of rednecks” movie, but it is presented in a manner quite unlike anything I’ve ever seen. Good or bad is your call, but undeniably different. Even though it was late and I was quite tired when I watched it, I never even dozed for a second (my standard “forgetting to read the subtitles” sickness applies, however – maybe the demonic pact stuff was better explained), because I was just too joyfully baffled by what was on the screen. Come on, how many movies feature the characters singing lyrics like “Hit up yo grandma and rape your dad”?

The movie also won me over a bit by reminding me of Tourist Trap. At one point our heroes walk into an attic and there are mannequins and doll parts (doll eyes, doll mouth, doll legs...), just like Chuck Connors’ workshop. If there’s anything I feel is entirely lacking in pretty much all modern horror, it would be things that remind me of Tourist Trap.

The only real unquestionable flaw in the film is when it stops cold about an hour or so in (the counter didn’t work for this particular DVD – anyone else have this problem? I had no idea how much was left, ever!), as one of the jerk heroes tells a story about a girl with an ugly vagina. Not that it’s without amusement, but it’s the type of thing that should have been in the film’s first act, not the last. It’s a slow film anyway (in terms of horror/violence), to stop it dead just to tell a goofy joke is a bit unforgivable.

As for extras, nothing to write blogs about – a making of/interview with Cassell that details the origin of the film and offers some standard behind the scenes footage of no real interest (though I was surprised to discover that the hot springs seen in the film was actually a built set). Which makes two in a row from Tartan that have been pretty lacking in this department – maybe I just lucked out with my first bunch of selections from the company, all of which were pretty wealthy in the features department. A few deleted scenes would have been nice, especially since there are a couple of noticeable gaps in the story (one of the girls disappears entirely with no explanation). The trailer is also there, but I don’t consider that an extra, it should be standard, like scene selection and anamorphic transfers.

(Somewhere, a Lionsgate exec is thinking that last line is in error.)

What say you?

Sheitan (2006)

By: Abdallh Gamal on: 1:02 AM

Tender Flesh (1974)

MAY 13, 2008

GENRE: CANNIBAL, WEIRD
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (REVIVAL SCREENING)

The worst thing about seeing a gem like Tender Flesh (aka Welcome To Arrow Beach) is that it’s so obscure that I can’t talk to anyone about it except the folks I saw it with. It’s never been released on DVD, and the VHS is long out of print (Half.com doesn’t even have an entry for it for you to ‘wish list’). I know one HMAD reader saw it, because I randomly sat next to him, but for the rest of you, I hope you’ve either seen it, or know a way to see it. The trailer is below (another fine idea from Chris!), to whet your appetite.

The film itself isn’t much to write about – a girl is invited into a home run by two weird folks (a brother and sister who kiss a bit too lovingly), and before long discovers that the guy is a cannibal. She escapes, no one believes her but her Dirk Diggler-y boyfriend, someone else enters the home who isn’t so lucky... standard stuff for this kind of movie. But what makes it so wonderful is the nearly nonstop quirkiness of the whole thing. For example, early on, our heroine (Meg Foster!) hitches a ride with an Owen Wilson-ish guy who promptly floors it, gets chased by the cops, and flips the car. He’s never heard from again, but while the cops investigate his car, they find a bag of cocaine. The chief (or sheriff, I forget) tells his deputy to take it back and that it “better all be there!”. He then rubs his nose and snorts. One assumes that he’s just clearing his nose of an errant booger, but the subject of the scene just makes it hilarious.

Later, Foster and Diggler are discussing whether to go back to the house or not, in the kitchen of her temporary home. On the walls are several diagrams that detail the different sections of cow, pig, chicken, and woodland creature that one could eat. A chicken’s head is a 6, for example. Why is that there? Who knows, but I love it anyway. It’s also around this time that one of the finest pieces of dialogue ever written, recited, and recorded is unleashed upon us all: “He kills people... GIRL people!”

There’s also another line that I can’t remember exactly, but the jist of it is “There are any number of places a girl can stick herself with a needle!” (they are discussing heroin). Again, it’s just off-kilter enough to be memorable.

Sadly, there isn’t much cannibal action, and the brother/sister incest never goes beyond a make out session (one that is cut from abruptly – not sure if the print itself was cut or if it was just a bad edit). It also gets a bit slow, as we spend too much time with the assorted cops going about their day. But the oddball dialogue (Foster’s in particular), silly background stuff, and soundtrack were more than enough to keep me entertained. In other words, perfect New Beverly movie. I'm actually quite surprised it's not on my Chilling Classics set.

Before Flesh was 2000 Maniacs, a film that I’d pretty much ONLY want to watch at the Bev. The print was pretty bad... color was OK but the audio was muffled almost the entire time. Two guests came, one of which is none other than Steven Poster, who is now a successful director of photography, most notably all of Richard Kelly’s films (and I got to talk to him about Southland Tales, I guess a Blu-Ray is being seriously considered, wooo). And it was good to see Grindhouse guru Eric Caidin up and about, as he was attacked in his store a couple weeks ago (you’d never know it though – the guy is definitely a trooper). All in all, definitely worth the trip, even if some cock in the ass totally stole my spot as I was trying to park.

What say you?

Tender Flesh (1974)

By: Abdallh Gamal on: 11:01 PM

Howling II: Your Sister Is A Werewolf (1985)

APRIL 29, 2008

GENRE: WEIRD, WEREWOLF
SOURCE: CABLE (FLIX)

I had to make a tough decision when choosing today’s movie. With a newly purchased copy of GTAIV in my hands, I really didn’t want to stop playing in order to watch my 500th horror movie in a row (give or take). So I thought about it, and decided that the film I watched had to be something I probably wouldn’t like anyway, rather than unfairly “waste” a good movie on a day when I would be watching the clock more than the film. So really, is there any better candidate than Howling II? Let’s look at the facts – I didn’t like the original very much; Christopher Lee, the film’s STAR, considers it the worst film he’s ever done (even after he made Attack of the Clones); and it’s been almost universally derided by everyone else for the past 20 years or so. In fact, in all of my life, I’ve only encountered one man who liked it, and this sod also likes, well, Attack of the Clones. So I figured it was a safe bet, and it’s reasonably running time ensured it wouldn’t be too long before I was back punching hookers in the face and running over cops. Not to mention - more time to play GTAIV.

To be honest, the film wasn’t exactly a train wreck. Well, it WAS, but in a mostly enjoyable way. It took a while, but eventually the nonsensical storyline, haphazard directing/editing, abysmally awkward scene transitions, and just plain cheapness of the film sort of won me over. It’s impossible to hate a film in which we get a clock wipe to a scene of three werewolves (two women one man) engaging in a ménage a trois, while the man makes this wonderful, almost melancholy musical howl. Then they checker wipe to a midget or something.

Yes, wipes. It’s as if the editor just got the Avid “transition” package (and a time machine, I guess, since Avids weren’t around then) and was determined to use each and every one of them in the film, regardless of sense. And you really can’t blame him for such proclivities, as few scenes in the film ever really connect to the ones before or after them (from either a visual or storytelling standpoint). For example, at one point our bland hero and blander heroine check into a hotel. He asks for two rooms, and is visibly angry that they have to share one. And yet, 12 or so seconds later, she asks him for a hug and he goes right into some good ol’ “against the wall” fucking. Why’d you want two rooms if you could hardly wait for the bellhop to leave before engaging in the film’s only non-werewolf based sex scene? The whole movie is like a cinematic non sequitur.

For a sequel in which not a single cast or crew member returned (Dee Wallace’s corpse is played by a woman who couldn’t look less like Dee Wallace if she tried), it actually does a decent job of retaining the original’s themes. “Werewolf as cult”, bestiality, boring dialogue scenes... they’re all here, just as they were in Joe Dante’s original. The only major difference is the pitiful effects. Whereas Rob Bottin’s work in the original continues to impress, this shit couldn’t even have been admirable in 1985. At one point you can pretty much see where the wolf arm ended on the human performer, and there are no full-blown transformation scenes either (we just see close-ups of things like arms and back hair). A mid 80s horror movie where the makeup effects are the WORST thing about it? This movie’s puzzling nature never ceases!

What say you?

Howling II: Your Sister Is A Werewolf (1985)

By: Abdallh Gamal on: 9:40 PM

The Pit (1981)

APRIL 25, 2008

GENRE: KILLER KID, WEIRD
SOURCE: DVD (OWN COLLECTION)

As I’ve said ones of times, the nice thing about Horror Movie A Day is that my complete lack of discernible criteria for choosing what I watch results in my finding not only a film I never would have watched otherwise, but possibly had never heard of at all (will one of the grammar police make sure that’s verbally correct? It looks wrong.). Such is the case with The Pit, a film that was recommended by Charmuh but I had forgotten about until a few weeks ago when I was rummaging through the cheap DVDs at Amoeba Music in Hollywood. There’s a zombie movie with Horshack on the flip-side of the disc – if that’s half as good as this movie, then it will be among the finest purchases I have ever made. And keep in mind, just last week I bought a chocolate pie.

A few months back I reviewed a film called Freaky Farley, a lovable, if uneven, independent oddity that featured a guy claiming that monsters lived in the woods. The funniest part of the movie was the reveal that the monsters were in fact, real. There’s a similar aspect to this film – our creepy killer kid claims that something called Trollogs live in a giant pit in the woods. About 20 or so minutes into the film, he goes to talk to them, and sure enough, there are four or five hairy goblin things in there. It’s fucking hilarious. Another, sadly unexplored odd aspect to the plot is that his teddy bear is alive as well. At one point, we see the bear’s head move, but this idea is never addressed again. According to the IMDb, the monsters were always intended to be a figment of the kid’s imagination, but this was changed during production. I think it’s all for the better – the movie wouldn’t be nearly as charmingly insane if the kid was just, well, insane.

Another hilarious thing about the movie is that you can’t really blame Jamie for tossing folks into a pit. As the film begins, he simply goes to talk to an older kid, and the dude punches him right in the face. A neighbor girl is so mean to him it makes Lucy pulling the football away from Charlie Brown look sort of sweet and kind, and an old lady calls him a freak for no reason whatsoever. Sure, the kid is a bit off, but these people are downright vicious. Kick their ass, Jamie! Also, it has a really odd sense of what women can or can’t do. The babysitter picks up a knife after Jamie offers to get it. When he gets mad, she explains “Women are capable of a lot more these days.” Later, when someone claims that they can’t spell very well, she replies “Who can?” I can, you dumb broad!

It’s also a genuinely creepy movie at times. Jamie falls in love with his babysitter, which leads to a scene where he convinces her to bathe him. In addition to the fact that she washes his back for like 10 minutes straight (it’s fucking clean, woman!), at one point during this lengthy wash Jamie alludes to his mother molesting him while she bathes him. Also, he just watches her sleep at one point, and she’s barely concerned. This creepiness carries over to the production itself – again, according to the IMDb, the director’s wife didn’t allow him to film any of the nude scenes, except for the ones with his own daughter. Uh....

And this is the first thing we see in the film. Not even a production logo flashes by before we are subjected to a terrifying clown cake.

The only thing I didn’t like about the movie is that Jamie disappears for like 20 minutes straight during the film’s 3rd act. He’s the best part of the movie (the not-exactly Oscar caliber acting of Sammy Snyders helps immensely), so to have him MIA for so long definitely blunts the film’s impact. He re-surfaces in time for a delightfully mean-spirited ending though, so not all is lost.

Granted, the film is rather obscure (the fact that almost everyone involved never made another film again doesn’t help), but even with that, I was amazed to discover how little known it was even among horror nerds. I kept asking folks about it at the Fangoria convention today, and the only guy I spoke to who knew what I was talking about was an Anchor Bay rep – and they are the ones who distributed the damn thing! I believe it’s still in print (my copy was new, not used), so it shouldn’t be that hard to find. For the love of talking Teddy Bears and clown cakes, I urge you to seek it out and watch it. Christ, just look at the poster (in the Amazon link)! How can you NOT love this movie already???

What say you?

The Pit (1981)

By: Abdallh Gamal on: 11:41 PM

Audition (1999)

APRIL 19, 2008

GENRE: ASIAN, WEIRD
SOURCE: DVD (OWN COLLECTION)

Since I believe the day I was born, people have been telling me to watch Audition (aka Ôdishon), saying "You'll love it!", "It's the most fucked up movie ever!" and things along those lines. What no one DID tell me is that it is in fact an incredibly boring movie, one that's not very well-filmed to boot, with all of the horror confined to a 10 minute chunk near the end of the film (save for a random shot of a bag throwing itself across the room about halfway through).

Afterwards I was told that that was the point of the movie - to lull you into boredom so that the torture stuff was all the more shocking and hard to watch. Well, fine, but that's not a movie. That's an exercise. Maybe it would work in 1999, on an audience who didn't even know it was a horror movie, but a movie that can only work under very specific circumstances isn't something I can particularly recommend, even if I HAD watched it under said circumstances. You know, Memento hinges on a gimmick as well, but it's still a well-crafted, highly enjoyable film to watch a 2nd or 3rd time.

And this isn't a complaint, but more of a warning to anyone who hasn't seen it yet and feels compelled to do so after reading this review: the torture really ain't all that disturbing. She cuts off his foot and sticks a few needles in his body (and eyes - the most cringe-worthy part of the entire sequence is when she "flicks" the needles protruding from his ocular region), and that's about it. Her frequent repeating of "Kittykittykitty" (misspelled Japanese for "Deeper, deeper") is more chilling than anything she's actually doing, and a decade later, it's almost kind of funny that the film had to be cut for an R rating; the stuff in the R-rated Saw films is far more graphic and disturbing. So if you're looking to be TRULY disturbed, you probably won't find it here if you've kept up with your modern "torture porn".

One thing I did like is how they filled in back-story via a hallucination that the main guy suffers as he is passing out from a drugged drink. It's one of those "is this real or completely imagined" type sequences, and it's probably the highlight of the film. More stuff like that and the film would have been great, but since it's more or less an experimental piece, it would nullify his attempt.

I'm glad the movie has its fans, and I do wish I could go back and watch it completely un-prepared for what I was about to see. But I can't say that even then I'd be particularly amazed by it, because intentional or not, the fact remains that 95% of the movie is lifeless and dull (and since it's not in English, I don't even have the option of "just listening" to it while I work on a Sudoku or something). I didn't see Psycho until the mid 90s; I didn't see Exorcist until 2000 (thankfully, it was the original version, not the 2000 "Version You Wish You Never Saw" or whatever the fuck it was called), etc., and I was still able to enjoy those films immensely, despite the "outdated" feel of certain sequences and the fact that I had already seen the dozens of movies that ripped those films off in subsequent years. And in Psycho's case, the comparison is incredibly apt, as the big "thrill" of that film for a first time audience was seeing its heroine killed 1/3 of the way through - something I already knew! But it still worked, because the performances, the technical aspects, the story, etc. were almost or just as compelling. That's how you do it!

I've only seen one other Miike film - his Masters of Horror (Imprint), which I really liked, due to Billy Drago's insane performance, the truly upsetting imagery (fetuses + river = ew), and the fact that it was half as long as Audition. Knowing that, which of his movies would you, dear reader, think I might enjoy? I assume not all of his films are the equivalent of an inverse pop quiz.

What say you?

Audition (1999)

By: Abdallh Gamal on: 6:09 PM

Blood Diner (1987)

APRIL 8, 2008

GENRE: COMEDIC, HERO KILLER, WEIRD
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (REVIVAL SCREENING)

Have I ever explained the strange law of the universe that dictates that whenever I work the night shift (I alternate my work schedule – one week I start at 930 am and leave at 6, the next I start at 1 pm and leave whenever everything’s done, usually round 7:30) on a night that I have something to do, I will get out late? However, if I have zero plans or opportunities, I will be out even earlier than average. It never fails. I’ve even tested it, buying tickets for a 10 o clock movie and watching as my twelve bucks got wasted as I sat in my office until close to 11, a record “late” night at the time. So my chances for seeing Blood Diner were pretty slim, as it was the first of the double feature at the New Beverly tonight.

And, true to form, I got out of work around 8:30, an hour later than usual for a Tuesday night. So I raced down to the Bev, hoping to get there in time to find parking, buy some “refreshments”, and enter in time for the start of Scream Bloody Murder, which was supposed to start around 9:30. But I had a sneaking suspicion that the movie started late, so I went to the box office before I bought beer, and discovered that Diner had only started about 10 minutes prior (due to the raffle, guest introduction, usual 20 minute delay due to the long concession line, and 15 minutes of trailers). Hurrah!

Sadly as it was dark I couldn’t find any friends, so I had to sit alone and experience this masterpiece of gloriously batshit cinema. It would pair nicely with Pieces (both movies even involve a human jigsaw puzzle!), as it’s just so ridiculous, so strangely plotted, and so damn delightful that it could only be appreciated with a big crowd. The plot finds a pair of brothers looking to appease their uncle, a talking brain with googly eyes*, by serving up human food to their diner patrons, while constructing a reincarnation of the goddess Sheetar. Nazi wrestlers, a nude aerobics class, rival diner owners, and a ventriloquist hobo also fit into the plot.

The strange thing about it was that it was eventually exhausting. I noticed that even the New Bev crowd began growing silent as it went on, with the laughs coming less frequently and not lasting as long. The finale picked up a bit, but it was a bit odd to “hear” silence for a couple minutes at a time once the film passed the halfway mark.

The funniest thing about the movie is what little concern the non-killer characters displayed for the horrible violent acts going on around them. At one point the brothers try to enter a club and the bouncer gives them a hard time. So they toss him out into the street, where he is immediately killed by a passing car. No one seems to care much. It’s breathtaking. There’s also a lot of random background stuff, such as a scene where three cops walk down a hall discussing the case. In the background, there is a scuffle between a prisoner and a few guards, which no one else seems to notice. Then again, the foreground has its own violence, as the police chief guy suddenly decks the hero cop for making a crazy suggestion (which probably turned out to be true).

How can you not love this movie?

Even weirder, it’s directed by a woman (Jackie Kong)! Almost every female character in the movie is needlessly punched or slapped around, so this little factoid, which I learned after the movie, is pretty surprising. Also, it makes Slumber Party Massacre (also surprisingly female-helmed) another fine choice for a double feature with Diner.

I had never heard of this one before it was announced for a screening at the Bev (apparently it's a quasi-remake of Blood Feast, which I haven't seen either), so I thank them again for letting me discover it. And Scream Bloody Murder was just as delightful as it was when I first saw it, though the laughter of the crowd resulted in my beloved “Who ever bought you a steak before?” line being completely drowned out. I should point out that the laughter was from an earlier line in the film, and NOT the annoying woman sitting near the front who kept MST3king the movie. The occasional comment is fine (preferably if it’s actually funny), but for the most part, these movies are funny enough on their own. We don’t need would-be Tom Servos borderline ruining it for everyone else. And the thing is, no one laughed at a single thing she said! Other occasional comments from other folks in the crowd were met with a small smattering of laughter, but hers fell flat every single time. You’d think after a few duds that she would realize that the rest of the crowd didn’t “appreciate” her genius and shut the fuck up, but no. She just kept saying random things that barely even made sense half the time. Luckily, one of the guys who run the Grindhouse told her to shut her pie hole after a while. Thanks pal!

What say you?

*They were actually regular eyes, not googly eyes, but the amazing SNL sketch with Christopher Walken was still fresh in my head, so everytime they showed the damn thing I had flashbacks and laughed my ass off. “Eye contact is important!”

Blood Diner (1987)

By: Abdallh Gamal on: 11:53 PM

Shrooms (2006)

MARCH 18, 2008

GENRE: SLASHER, WEIRD
SOURCE: DVD (OWN COLLECTION)

Sometime this week, Bloody-Disgusting will be posting a list of the 10 dumbest slasher motives in history (history being the ones I’ve seen, and then in turn, remember). Shrooms made the cut, but unlike most of the other movies on the list, I actually kind of liked the movie, so the motive didn’t really anger me.

It IS really stupid though.

I was surprised that I liked the movie at all, because all SIX of our main characters are druggies. Lame as I may be, I’m pretty much against all drug use, so giving a shit about 6 people who are SPECIFICALLY going into the woods for no other reason than to get high is asking a lot of me. But I kind of liked them to a degree, and luckily (surprisingly, in fact), little of the film is given to them sitting around eating mushrooms and “tripping” (not even as much as in The Tripper, in fact). In fact, the film had more in common with Severance, in both look (both movies look like they were shot entirely at 7 o clock in the morning) and structure (both films end in a large compound in the middle of the woods – sure, why not?). And you all know I love Severance.

However, it’s not all killing either (though there’s a lot more bloodshed than I was expecting as well). It seems everyone in this group dislikes everyone else, so there’s a lot of bickering and catfighting to put up with. In fact, I could have used a bit MORE “tripping” as a result; it was vastly more amusing to see a guy talk to a cow than listen to two girls fight over a guy who’s already dead (unbeknownst to them). There’s also a part where a guy grabs a slimy mass and says “You see this frog cum?” that had me laughing for like 10, maybe 12 seconds straight.

Also, the movie is smart enough to avoid having any of the characters fall into a giant mushroom and hallucinate for the entire episode. If you know what I’m referring to – is that also the moment you realized that show really started to suck?

In the end, my only real problem with the film was its confusing subplot of a certain mushroom giving the girl the ability to see the future. First of all, what? How the hell would that work? Second (BIG SPOILER HERE), this character turns out to be the killer! Why bother giving the one person who doesn’t have any need to prevent anyone’s demise a big idiotic superpower that renders certain sections of the film annoying/wholly implausible (plausibility being a relative term when it comes to movies like this)? Sure, it helps make the ending of the film a bit more of a surprise, but it’s still entirely unnecessary in the long run.

End spoilers.

Also, an important plot point relies on our believing that the main dude wouldn’t want to nail this girl:

Uh, no. He’s got her alone in the woods, they’re both a bit fucked up, and he’s gonna ignore her? I don’t buy it. Horror nerds may be interested to learn that she is Lindsay Haun, aka the main evil girl from Carpenter’s Village of the Damned remake. It’s good to know she grew up cute, and now there’s even more reason not to watch that movie (who wants to look at a little girl now that they know she’s going to be hot in 12 years?)

The DVD has a nice collection of extras: deleted scenes, alternate endings (which are the same in terms of who the killer is, they just have alternate epilogues), and an audio commentary that is much dryer than I was hoping for. They take the film very serious, and even though Shrooms is nowhere near as goofy as I was expecting, the track could have used the same amount of levity that the film had. And according to the track, the film was shot on HDD, and looks fantastic. More stuff like this, and maybe digital films that look good will be the rule, rather than the exception.

What say you?

Shrooms (2006)

By: Abdallh Gamal on: 11:07 PM