Being a fan of the original It's Alive and the sequel It Lives Again, I was looking forward to Larry Cohen's third and final mutant baby movie. The first film is filled with social commentary about medical research and how women were given this certain drug while being pregnant that causes their fetus to turn into mutant creatures. The second film takes place a year later with the father of the first film trying to help an expecting couple deal with their creature child. I am not sure what Larry Cohen was thinking with when he wrote/directed this third film. It was as if he was forced to make the third film and decided to make it silly and turn everything into a big joke.
It's Alive III starts off promising. A father of a mutant baby is in court and proves to the court that his child isn't a monster and shouldn't be killed. A kindly judge sentences the baby and four other mutant babies to a remote island where they will be unharmed. When the judge passes away, the father is then forced to go back to the island with a bunch of scientists to see how the babies are doing and possibly bring back one of them.
Michael Moriarty is the star and he is just a weird actor to begin with. He never seems to take a role seriously and in a weird way, I kind of get a kick out of that but his schtick gets old in this very quickly. Why is this father contstantly making jokes? Why can't he look at anyone in the eye when he speaks? The father seems more strange than the baby. And that is my biggest problem with this film, the film just seems so odd and out of place with the other two films. I don't get the joke.
The budget also seems to be at it's lowest here and we barely catch glimpses of the creatures but when we do, it looks really phony and silly. On top of that, we get scenes edited out of place. Two characters can be talking and then it cuts into their sentence and we see something else happen briefly and then it jumps back into the previous scene where it left off. Even certain shots even get re-used at times! The film just seems like a sloppy mess thrown together.
And to make matters worse, the film barely takes place on the island but at some cheap amusement park where we get long scenes of punks fighting people at the park or Michael Moriarty trying to pick up women or Karen Black throwing up in some man's car with him screaming and swearing at her. Was there even a script for this? Seems like everyone making this film was in on some joke that we the audience are not.
Skip this film and check out the first two movies.
Man of a Thousand Faces
The great Lon Chaney from London After Midnight
Oct 9, 2010
October 9th - MY SOUL TO TAKE - 3D (2010)
Wow...I am speechless. I don't know where to start or what to say. Wes Craven's newest shitfest may be the single worst film I have ever seen in my life. I am not kidding, I have seen alot of films and I cannot think of a worse film than My Soul to Take. If I really hate a person and I wanted them to feel pure pain for an hour and 40 minutes, I would make them watch this. The military can now use this film for torture tactics against the Taliban.
I seriously have been staring at this screen for a good 10 minutes, not knowing what to say. I honestly feel dumber after having seen this pile of dung. I think I can explain the plot. But it is difficult because it literally makes zero sense. It has something to do with a killer with split personalities being killed and 16 years later, seven kids who were born on the day he died are now being haunted by the killer. Something along those lines because I am unsure if that is even true. The film is a mess in every way so might as well start with the script. Blame that on Craven as well, he wrote this crap. The screenplay is so inept and so confusing, no one knew what was going on through out this film. Scenes were edited so choppily or dragged on for so long and each scene had NOTHING to do with any of the other scenes. I counted at least 20 times where I said outloud, "What?" with a laugh because I found it funny. In fact, I was screaming with laughter at certain lines of dialogue ( "I want to see my unborn child." "Fuck your fucking unborn child!" ) or scenes that wouldn't end (high schoolers presenting a science project which had nothing to do with the story) or the opening of the film that was suppose to set up the story but had everyone so confused and wondering what they just saw. I guess this is either the worst film ever made or the funniest film of 2010.
The acting right from the get go is atrocious. Lines are delivered so flat and plain, it was groan inducing. Now the question remains, is the acting awful OR was it the lines that they were given bad? I think a combination of both. The characters themselves are so annoying and so phony, it was amazing in itself. I kept thinking: This can't really be happening right? Is this a joke?
The music is also awful. The music cues don't match at all with what is going on screen. The music isn't suspensful or scary or builds any suspense at all.
And the film just refused to end! Scenes would go on forever and it just wouldn't stop. The greatest sin for any movie is to be boring. Wes Craven has commited the sin. His film Vampire in Brooklyn is Citizen Kane compared to this. And this isn't one of those "so bad it's good" movies. No this is plain bad. Beyond bad.
And the 3-D sucked as well! It didn't work whatsoever however it did accomplish plenty of blurry images and ghostly characters that shouldn't have been seen. I swear this movie had to have been converted into 3-D as it looked lousy and after awhile I watched the film without the glasses and the picture looked fine to me. So yeah, I paid $13 for this turd. Maybe it was God's will for me to see this so I can warn you all about this putrid mess. Stay...far..away. I am serious. Don't go near it. The man who created Freddy is dead. I mock Romero, Carpenter and Raimi for making lousy horror films in their later years, but Mr. Craven... you are now the king. Congratulations. You haven't just made the worst film of 2010, you have made the worst film in your career. And crying about the MPAA or blaming the distributor won't work this time. The game is up.
I seriously have been staring at this screen for a good 10 minutes, not knowing what to say. I honestly feel dumber after having seen this pile of dung. I think I can explain the plot. But it is difficult because it literally makes zero sense. It has something to do with a killer with split personalities being killed and 16 years later, seven kids who were born on the day he died are now being haunted by the killer. Something along those lines because I am unsure if that is even true. The film is a mess in every way so might as well start with the script. Blame that on Craven as well, he wrote this crap. The screenplay is so inept and so confusing, no one knew what was going on through out this film. Scenes were edited so choppily or dragged on for so long and each scene had NOTHING to do with any of the other scenes. I counted at least 20 times where I said outloud, "What?" with a laugh because I found it funny. In fact, I was screaming with laughter at certain lines of dialogue ( "I want to see my unborn child." "Fuck your fucking unborn child!" ) or scenes that wouldn't end (high schoolers presenting a science project which had nothing to do with the story) or the opening of the film that was suppose to set up the story but had everyone so confused and wondering what they just saw. I guess this is either the worst film ever made or the funniest film of 2010.
The acting right from the get go is atrocious. Lines are delivered so flat and plain, it was groan inducing. Now the question remains, is the acting awful OR was it the lines that they were given bad? I think a combination of both. The characters themselves are so annoying and so phony, it was amazing in itself. I kept thinking: This can't really be happening right? Is this a joke?
The music is also awful. The music cues don't match at all with what is going on screen. The music isn't suspensful or scary or builds any suspense at all.
And the film just refused to end! Scenes would go on forever and it just wouldn't stop. The greatest sin for any movie is to be boring. Wes Craven has commited the sin. His film Vampire in Brooklyn is Citizen Kane compared to this. And this isn't one of those "so bad it's good" movies. No this is plain bad. Beyond bad.
And the 3-D sucked as well! It didn't work whatsoever however it did accomplish plenty of blurry images and ghostly characters that shouldn't have been seen. I swear this movie had to have been converted into 3-D as it looked lousy and after awhile I watched the film without the glasses and the picture looked fine to me. So yeah, I paid $13 for this turd. Maybe it was God's will for me to see this so I can warn you all about this putrid mess. Stay...far..away. I am serious. Don't go near it. The man who created Freddy is dead. I mock Romero, Carpenter and Raimi for making lousy horror films in their later years, but Mr. Craven... you are now the king. Congratulations. You haven't just made the worst film of 2010, you have made the worst film in your career. And crying about the MPAA or blaming the distributor won't work this time. The game is up.
Oct 8, 2010
October 8th - Olga's Girls (1964)
I guess I messed up on this. I thought this was a horror film and it really isn't. However, it is a sleazy film and if you like old 1960's sex films, this is for you.
Shot in black and white, Olga's Girls has no dialogue. It is a fake documentary with a narration by a male narrator and at times, Olga herself. The movie tells the story of Olga's life as a madame who buys junkie prostitutes, has lesbian sex, performs S&M, beats up her merchandise and once in awhile does the occasional murder. It is a really strange film and at times humerous and just bizarre.
The women are mostly big breasted and seem to be topless alot. Think of a Russ Meyer movie with more S&M and that is what you would get. The problem is, even though it is only 70 minutes long, the film gets boring and just drags. The weirdness soon wears off and you catch yourself checking the clock to see how much longer the film will last.
I guess you would need to be in the right mood to watch Olga's Girls. I'm just not sure what kind of mood that would be.
Shot in black and white, Olga's Girls has no dialogue. It is a fake documentary with a narration by a male narrator and at times, Olga herself. The movie tells the story of Olga's life as a madame who buys junkie prostitutes, has lesbian sex, performs S&M, beats up her merchandise and once in awhile does the occasional murder. It is a really strange film and at times humerous and just bizarre.
The women are mostly big breasted and seem to be topless alot. Think of a Russ Meyer movie with more S&M and that is what you would get. The problem is, even though it is only 70 minutes long, the film gets boring and just drags. The weirdness soon wears off and you catch yourself checking the clock to see how much longer the film will last.
I guess you would need to be in the right mood to watch Olga's Girls. I'm just not sure what kind of mood that would be.
Oct 7, 2010
October 7th - BLOODLUST! (1961)
I wanted a quick short film this time around as I wanted to watch the Chicago Blackhawks home opener so I went with an old drive-in exploitation film Bloodlust! This is borderline Ed Wood territory.
A bunch of youths are having fun on a boat (fishing and shooting discs - which seems really odd and out of place from the get go) decide to jump on the dingy and travel to an island to explore. They soon meet up with Dr. Balleau who takes them hostage with the help of his nuts henchmen (dressed like old 30's criminals and have the IQ of maybe 50). The good doctor likes to hunt and he is now bored with animals and his trophy case needs to be filled with humans. Yeah, it's pretty much a rip off of The Most Dangerous Game.
I did enjoy some humerous moments like the character of Betty knows judo and everytime she performs a move the camera is speeded up. I like Robert Reed (father of Brady Bunch and a closet homosexual) looking uncomfortable everytime he has to hold or touch or kiss his girlfriend. I laughed at some of the obviously fake severed heads and body parts. The ending literally ends with a guy screaming super loud and then suddenly cuts off. I will say I was surprised by the amount of blood in such an older film.
Bloodlust! is a piece of shit movie but with the right friends and enough alcoholic beverages, it isn't too bad. I prefer this than some big budget CGI bullshit starring actors from either Lost or The Hills.
A bunch of youths are having fun on a boat (fishing and shooting discs - which seems really odd and out of place from the get go) decide to jump on the dingy and travel to an island to explore. They soon meet up with Dr. Balleau who takes them hostage with the help of his nuts henchmen (dressed like old 30's criminals and have the IQ of maybe 50). The good doctor likes to hunt and he is now bored with animals and his trophy case needs to be filled with humans. Yeah, it's pretty much a rip off of The Most Dangerous Game.
I did enjoy some humerous moments like the character of Betty knows judo and everytime she performs a move the camera is speeded up. I like Robert Reed (father of Brady Bunch and a closet homosexual) looking uncomfortable everytime he has to hold or touch or kiss his girlfriend. I laughed at some of the obviously fake severed heads and body parts. The ending literally ends with a guy screaming super loud and then suddenly cuts off. I will say I was surprised by the amount of blood in such an older film.
Bloodlust! is a piece of shit movie but with the right friends and enough alcoholic beverages, it isn't too bad. I prefer this than some big budget CGI bullshit starring actors from either Lost or The Hills.
Oct 6, 2010
October 6th - I SELL THE DEAD (2008)
One of the joys I get being a movie fan is stumbling across a film that I haven't heard much about and having a ball watching it. I know a movie is good when I am talking to myself and laughing along with it and no one is around me. Or maybe I am losing my mind. Either way, I Sell the Dead is one of those films that I really enjoyed alot. If you are in the mood for a fast paced, 90 minute horror/comedy as if directed by The Coen Brothers, Terry Gilliam and Tim Burton with a touch of Evil Dead 2 thrown in, this is for you.
The comic book-esque story is about a 19th century grave robber who is about to be executed the next day. He speaks to a priest and just opens up to him, telling him his life story as a grave robber and his many adventures with vampires, aliens and zombies. Director Glenn McQuaid does a good job in the director's chair and I hope to see more films by him. He is primarily a visual effects artist and this is only his second film. The visual effects and editing is original and not done to show off (although I could have done without a few cartoon/comic book sequences).
The cast is very good too with Dominic Monaghan as the grave robber telling his life story. His comic timing works well in this. His partner in crime is played by Larry Fessenden who is also just as funny. I am a fan of Fessenden's directorial work such as Habit and the underrated Wendigo and he shows here that he is also a decent actor. Ron Perlman and Angus Scrimm also have smaller but meaty roles.
What also adds to the fun is that you can tell that director McQuaid loves horor and isn't poking fun but making a film that embraces the genre. He does focus more on the humor than the horror but the movie is so much fun, it wasn't a big deal to me. I was even impressed with how little CGI was used in this which seems to be the norm in all modern horror films. I hope my expectations weren't low because of my hatred for most modern horror films, thus making this review biased.
I really recommend I Sell the Dead if you are in the mood for light horror or just something a bit different.
The comic book-esque story is about a 19th century grave robber who is about to be executed the next day. He speaks to a priest and just opens up to him, telling him his life story as a grave robber and his many adventures with vampires, aliens and zombies. Director Glenn McQuaid does a good job in the director's chair and I hope to see more films by him. He is primarily a visual effects artist and this is only his second film. The visual effects and editing is original and not done to show off (although I could have done without a few cartoon/comic book sequences).
The cast is very good too with Dominic Monaghan as the grave robber telling his life story. His comic timing works well in this. His partner in crime is played by Larry Fessenden who is also just as funny. I am a fan of Fessenden's directorial work such as Habit and the underrated Wendigo and he shows here that he is also a decent actor. Ron Perlman and Angus Scrimm also have smaller but meaty roles.
What also adds to the fun is that you can tell that director McQuaid loves horor and isn't poking fun but making a film that embraces the genre. He does focus more on the humor than the horror but the movie is so much fun, it wasn't a big deal to me. I was even impressed with how little CGI was used in this which seems to be the norm in all modern horror films. I hope my expectations weren't low because of my hatred for most modern horror films, thus making this review biased.
I really recommend I Sell the Dead if you are in the mood for light horror or just something a bit different.
Oct 5, 2010
October 5th - LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT (2009)
Ok, I guess it was time to review a contemporary movie huh?
Anyone who knows me, should already know about my weird and strange love for the original Last House on the Left. As much as it is dated and sometimes downright silly, I always found it strangely disturbing and yet a fast paced horror film with a great soundtrack done by the films main villain, David Hess. Known for not only being Wes Craven's first film, it is known for being one of the first exploitation horror films that showed rape and torture in such graphic detail. In today's standards, it may be considered weak. But I love every bit of that movie. So yeah, when I heard of the remake coming out, I slammed my foot down and refused to pay money to see it. When it got semi-decent reviews I became intrigued and decided to wait for DVD. I have been holding off for awhile and finally I broke down.
The Last House on the Left remake is the story of a family coping with the death of a son/brother. It is summer time so the family decides to go to their cottage in the woods for awhile. The daughter and her carefree friend end up meeting a "family" of escaped convicts who take the gals hostage as the cops are on their tail. When the girls try to escape, the convicts rape and kill them. They take refuge in one of the dead girls homes and when the Mom and Dad find out, they take matter sin their own hands.
I will admit, the remake changed a few things in the storyline that now work: the family dealing with the death of a loved one worked well, the girl's neckless is now a gift from her dead brother and not some hippie peace symbol, the father being a doctor is shown more and put to some use, instead of the car breaking down it is run off the road by the girl's trying to escape. One of the attacks in the house was dirty and realistic. Little things like this worked well.
However, there was more problems I had with some of the changes. The villains look too much like movie stars playing bad guys. They are too good looking with either a mustache or bruise to cover up their good looks. There is no David Hess or Fred Lincoln in this film. The fact that Krug was able to control his junkie son by promising him drugs is now gone and Junior is now just afraid of his dad because he's scary and mean. I never got a feeling the family was very close to the daughter and I liked how the original showed the mother and father in love with one another and cared for their daughter. The music was too Hollywood-ish and was just typical suspense/horror movie music with some lame "cool" song tagged on at the end. And this version pusses out in the third act by allowing some characters to live, making the audience say, "What the fuck?"
The original film is still more brutal, sad, and disturbing than this Hollywood remake. Sure, this one has more blood and special effects but the realism seems to be missing. The villains in the original played and tortured their victims verbally (Krug demands one of the girls to "piss her pants") and physically (Krug carves his name on one of the girl's chest). But yet the villains had a few moments when they were just regular human beings (although very trailer trashy) and not just stone cold killers.
I will say I didn't hate this. Like I said, some changes in the story worked and aside from the third act, I was never bored with the film. It wasn't bad but it just seems like it's sole purpose in existence was to make money and jump on the remake bandwagon. And by going down that road, the film leads to nowhere.
Anyone who knows me, should already know about my weird and strange love for the original Last House on the Left. As much as it is dated and sometimes downright silly, I always found it strangely disturbing and yet a fast paced horror film with a great soundtrack done by the films main villain, David Hess. Known for not only being Wes Craven's first film, it is known for being one of the first exploitation horror films that showed rape and torture in such graphic detail. In today's standards, it may be considered weak. But I love every bit of that movie. So yeah, when I heard of the remake coming out, I slammed my foot down and refused to pay money to see it. When it got semi-decent reviews I became intrigued and decided to wait for DVD. I have been holding off for awhile and finally I broke down.
The Last House on the Left remake is the story of a family coping with the death of a son/brother. It is summer time so the family decides to go to their cottage in the woods for awhile. The daughter and her carefree friend end up meeting a "family" of escaped convicts who take the gals hostage as the cops are on their tail. When the girls try to escape, the convicts rape and kill them. They take refuge in one of the dead girls homes and when the Mom and Dad find out, they take matter sin their own hands.
I will admit, the remake changed a few things in the storyline that now work: the family dealing with the death of a loved one worked well, the girl's neckless is now a gift from her dead brother and not some hippie peace symbol, the father being a doctor is shown more and put to some use, instead of the car breaking down it is run off the road by the girl's trying to escape. One of the attacks in the house was dirty and realistic. Little things like this worked well.
However, there was more problems I had with some of the changes. The villains look too much like movie stars playing bad guys. They are too good looking with either a mustache or bruise to cover up their good looks. There is no David Hess or Fred Lincoln in this film. The fact that Krug was able to control his junkie son by promising him drugs is now gone and Junior is now just afraid of his dad because he's scary and mean. I never got a feeling the family was very close to the daughter and I liked how the original showed the mother and father in love with one another and cared for their daughter. The music was too Hollywood-ish and was just typical suspense/horror movie music with some lame "cool" song tagged on at the end. And this version pusses out in the third act by allowing some characters to live, making the audience say, "What the fuck?"
The original film is still more brutal, sad, and disturbing than this Hollywood remake. Sure, this one has more blood and special effects but the realism seems to be missing. The villains in the original played and tortured their victims verbally (Krug demands one of the girls to "piss her pants") and physically (Krug carves his name on one of the girl's chest). But yet the villains had a few moments when they were just regular human beings (although very trailer trashy) and not just stone cold killers.
I will say I didn't hate this. Like I said, some changes in the story worked and aside from the third act, I was never bored with the film. It wasn't bad but it just seems like it's sole purpose in existence was to make money and jump on the remake bandwagon. And by going down that road, the film leads to nowhere.
October 4th - BRIDES OF DRACULA (1960)
Sorry this took me so long to post. I couldn't log on to this site for some reason while I was at work to write my review.
I never knew this but Brides of Dracula is actually the sequel to 1958's Horror of Dracula. Horror of Dracula is one of my favorite Dracula films and for me, no one beats Christopher Lee as Dracula. I always believed the second film was Dracula- Prince of Darkness but I was wrong. This is the sequel and what threw me off is that Dracula isn't even in this film!
The bizarre story is about a young student teacher who gets mixed up with an old family curse. Unbeknownst to her, she accidentally frees a young man chained in his room but happens to be a vampire. The town is now attacked by the vampire and it's up to Professor Van Helsing (Peter Cushing, who returns from Horror of Dracula) to stop the vampire. The story centers on the young woman who frees the vampire but then suddenly switches POV once Van Helsing comes into the picture. It's really odd.
The title of the film is also strange to me since there are no brides and there is no Dracula (although a brief reference is made of him) . Minor complaints though because like most Hammer films, the movie is filled with great atmosphere such as bats, castles, and graveyards. Peter Cushing is always good and his charming and kind Van Helsing is always great to watch. The women are beautiful and the direction is decent and shot in a nice wide scope.
If I have any complaints, it would be the thrown together screenplay and the title of the movie. But it's still worth a look. If you have never seen any Hammer films from the 50's, 60's or 70's, you are missing out on some great horror films.
I never knew this but Brides of Dracula is actually the sequel to 1958's Horror of Dracula. Horror of Dracula is one of my favorite Dracula films and for me, no one beats Christopher Lee as Dracula. I always believed the second film was Dracula- Prince of Darkness but I was wrong. This is the sequel and what threw me off is that Dracula isn't even in this film!
The bizarre story is about a young student teacher who gets mixed up with an old family curse. Unbeknownst to her, she accidentally frees a young man chained in his room but happens to be a vampire. The town is now attacked by the vampire and it's up to Professor Van Helsing (Peter Cushing, who returns from Horror of Dracula) to stop the vampire. The story centers on the young woman who frees the vampire but then suddenly switches POV once Van Helsing comes into the picture. It's really odd.
The title of the film is also strange to me since there are no brides and there is no Dracula (although a brief reference is made of him) . Minor complaints though because like most Hammer films, the movie is filled with great atmosphere such as bats, castles, and graveyards. Peter Cushing is always good and his charming and kind Van Helsing is always great to watch. The women are beautiful and the direction is decent and shot in a nice wide scope.
If I have any complaints, it would be the thrown together screenplay and the title of the movie. But it's still worth a look. If you have never seen any Hammer films from the 50's, 60's or 70's, you are missing out on some great horror films.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)