Lorna the Exorcist [1974]

As Linda is turning 18 - her father is being harassed by a mysterious woman named Lorna who is demanding that he turn over his daughter to her.

This is an amazing hyper-sexual head trip - it's a glorious treat for Franco fans that this film was finally found and reconstructed and released with such care by Mondo Macabre. The print has been damaged by the porn distributor who purchased it and cut in hardcore sex into it - but enough of the original print survived for it to fixed back to its original form as scratchy at time as it appears - unfortunately the soundtrack seemed to have suffered more.

Even with the hardcore scenes removed - Franco's version is intense for how sexually explicit it was. His fascination with the female genitalia is in full force - not only with his usual zoom into that region - but the lingering of the shot - and the fact that the actors actually engage each other in that region. It indeed takes you out of the movie a bit - but it also is part of the head trip that was designed as part of the story. It's purposely hypnotizing and graphic but also misleading as it becomes horrifying with Franco introducing a quite possibly one of his most disturbing ideas when he has monsters creeping out of a woman's privates. That must have been conflicting and personal for Franco - making his favorite part of a woman's anatomy horrifying.

Lina Romay as Linda was outstanding - one of her best roles - right up there with the Countess from Female Vampire. She was youthful and energetic - and slowly became more disturbed - culminating with what seemed like a complete loss of restraint and giving herself over completely into the role. Pamela Stanford commanded your attention - with her slinky, smooth, cool and mysterious demeanor - as Lorna. I'm not sure how much her ridiculously wild eye make-up played a role in how strangely fascinating she was - but she carried an amazing intensity to the role.

Franco used a resort town in the south of Spain as the setting for this story - it was still in the midst of being constructed - which allowed him to cleverly pull of successful flashbacks. Also, considering how it was being made as a resort town the architecture was a bit more unique and pretty - it provided a very surreal background for this old world Faustian tale.

The direction was classic Franco - where there were plenty of lingering scenes - which hypnotize you and leave you unaware of exactly all that's going on. The film starts with an 8 minute sex scene - and it's so intense and lingering you are left wondering what's going on - and as it pulls you out - he switches it up quickly and throws a lot at you. I personally love that shit - it pushes the boundaries of what you should be expecting and keeps me more engaged to his films than most directors. His use of a pulsating repetitive music in his soundtrack was also put to great use making the atmosphere of the film more surreal and hypnotic.

Lorna the Exorcist is a must see for Franco fans - storming into my Top 5 list of his films - and I'm grateful that this print was finally reconstructed and released with such care. I think it's a perfect representation of Franco working in his wheelhouse of sexual horror using universal themes in the early 70's - it's quite brilliant and haunting.

Tucker & Dale vs. Evil [2011]

As what typically happens – I publish my end of the year list – and not too long after I watch a movie that deserves a mention on that list. If I had waited just one day to publish the list – I would’ve been able to add this movie because I saw it the day after I published it.

The movie of course is TUCKER & DALE VS. EVIL – which when Netflix kept recommending it to me – I kept ignoring it because it always appeared next to such films as SUPER SNAKE VS MEGA CROC VS MECHA-SHARK and that kind of straight to DVD trash in the horror section.

TUCKER & DALE VS EVIL is ridiculous fun – it’s one of those movies I wished I came up with the concept for. It’s such a great twist on the killer hillbilly horror/slasher films – and the best part is – I went in cold – no previews – no synopsis readings – no review readings - so I didn’t know any of the jokes or any of the “twists” if they were meant to be twists or not.

Therefore I can’t give this film a review or a synopsis – because it’s a better film to me because I had no clue what to expect. All I can say is if you like horror comedies – this one is up there with DEAD ALIVE, ARMY OF DARKNESS and SHAUN OF THE DEAD – it is in the ‘top of the top’ class. To adjust my recently published Favorites of 2011 list – this one would push its way in the middle pretty easily – no lower than the #5 spot.

The Rite [2011]

A faith questioning priest is sent to learn the ways of exorcism in Rome.

Based on another true story of exorcism... Okay, really? I’m starting to believe that the Catholic Church is really in the movie business. I want to make a dark dark comedy where this is true – and they decide to keep doing this shit with all these fucking exorcism movies that come out “based on true stories”. I mean – I guess we can say “it’s true it’s based on a story” – because all these films are starting to feel like propaganda. I appreciate that the faith questioning priest was thinking mental disorders – but of course Hannibal Lector was there to help encourage him that it’s real. I’m not taking a piss on the religion of it all – just the movies – and since all these exorcisms are done in secret without records of it – there’s no way to officially debunk everything. The movie was okay – nothing great – just enough to make me not turn it off.

The Awful Dr. Orlof [1961]

Dr. Orlof and his assistant Morpho are out on the town kidnapping pretty women – so he can force them to donate their faces (and bodies) to his disfigured daughter.

Remember when I said Franco likes to do medical oddity films? Well, I also should have mentioned that he likes to repeat the same themes – even plotlines of previous films. The Awful Dr. Orlof was remade by him as the film I reviewed for yesterday – Faceless. I wish I knew that before I went in – but I tend to hit the jackpot when I watch several Franco films in a row – they will end up being the exact same plots – Franco remaking Franco.

So, the Howard Vernon Dr. Orlof reference is no longer lost on me from Faceless.

The film was fairly fun – it had an old monster film feel to it – though I thought they spent too much time in the investigation than in the “horror” – so I was a little bored by the film. Morpho was a very disturbing monster – I quite liked the portrayal by Richardo Valle. The mask was a bit cheesy – but how he would walk, his posture and how he mouth words was actually fairly creepy.

Actually the entire cast was very good – though the roles were fairly standard. Vernon was a creepy Dr. Orlof – San Martin was a great straight up detective – Lorys was a steamy but sassy love interest with backbone.

I was a little taken aback when there were a few flashes of bare chests – I just wasn’t expecting that. It seemed as though this was a fairly mainstream horror film – like something along the lines of the Universal classics – so when Morpho grabs the girl and he rips her shirt off and we zoom in to see her boobs struggle – I was surprised. There wasn’t much of it – but maybe a full 15 seconds in the entire film – but like I said – I didn’t expect it.

I have a hard time with explaining this film – as it just felt like something was missing and I can’t really pinpoint it. Something with the story – it just felt stop & go with the plotlines – it just felt off. I kind of liked the movie – I kind of didn’t.

You can tell Franco was at the helm for the most part – but he was playing up as a sort of a classic monster movie director – so there wasn’t much exciting to talk about when it came to the style of direction.
The story was fairly coherent – though I would’ve liked more time with Orlof explaining his desire to reconstruct his daughter’s looks (and I’m not sure if I missed an explanation as to what happened to her). The direction was solid – the movie was kind of fun in that classic monster film sense – but was lacking – another take it or leave it Franco film for me.

Faceless [1988]

Also known as - Les Preadateurs de la Nuit

While having a night out on the town a disgruntled ex-patient confronts Dr. Flamand with a beaker of acid – missing him and dumping it on Flamand’s sister’s face. Flamand becomes dedicated to figuring out how to do a face transplant surgery in order to save his sister’s, Ingrid’s, beauty – by kidnapping and forcing donors.

There I go again with another long synopsis – sorry about that.

Everything was a bit too 80’s for my taste – especially since it’s a Jesus Franco film. It was apparent he’s got a budget – and a one really crappy 80’s synth pop song to play over and over. In a way it the 80’s is a great decade for Franco to do another medical oddity film – considering that seemed to one of his favorite genres – the 80’s you have the rise of excess and plastic surgery – it makes sense.

The problem with giving Franco a budget though is that some of his filmmaking charm gets lost – and with a budget also comes producers wanting to wrap things up before they go over budget – so not every little fun part Franco may have planned can be included.

The acting was fairly solid – I was pretty impressed and happy that everyone fit into place wonderfully. Helmut Berger was delightful and intense as Dr. Flamand – and his devious sexy assistant Natalie [played by Brigitte Lahaie] made for a great duo with solid on screen chemistry. Chris Mitchum was a slimy private eye – looking into one of the missing girls – not sure if the role really needed slime – but it worked.

There was a fun cameo – with Franco alums Howard Vernon as Dr. Orlof and Lina Romay as his wife. I’m thinking I might need to dig into my Orlof box-set that I picked up on the cheap – maybe this will be a Jess Franco Halloween? Who’s with me? Who knows what the hell I’m talking about? Yay!

Anyway, Dr. Flamand had a really creepy obsession with his sister – it kept confusing me if it was his wife or his sister. I mean – getting off watching his sister playing dominatrix with their grunt is a bit much – and those lingering full lipped kisses in his flashbacks. Creepy. But hell – sexual deviance is a mark of a good Franco film – so I’ll take it!

The effects were pretty good – though it was obvious that Ingrid was tearing off latex from her face when the acid was thrown. The Nazi face transplant specialist tearing up the dummy head when the operation went bad was odd – and cheesy – but it was a solid effect. That’s one thing a budget will do for you – increase the realism/creepiness of the effects – which isn’t something that I’ve personally seen in a Franco medical oddity film.

The plotline was easy to follow – which was very nice. The pacing worked and the direction was solid. My only issue was that my copy just didn’t seem to work – every 20-minutes or so it would jump to the main menu – then I would have to fast forward through the chapter selection to get to where it left off and it would play fine for another 20-minutes.

It seemed like Franco wasn’t happy with the film – but said in the interview that with time he seemed to think “it’s not all bad” – and I’d agree. It’s all right – certainly watchable – not especially memorable.

This is my 400th published entry – thanks for reading & checking me out! I appreciate it!

The Rites of Frankenstein [1972]

Evil Caligostro sends his evil bird vampire woman creation to kill Dr. Frankenstein so that he may steal his monster to have it do his bidding!

The middle part of the film was a bit of a mess – and I’m not really too sure what Caligostro was aiming at having the monster kidnap beautiful women. It sounded as though Caligostro wanted the women for himself as Melisa mentioned at one point – they were to be of such beauty and please him – but suddenly he was interested in creating his own woman monster to pair up with Frankenstein’s monster. The purpose was also very unclear – maybe he liked watching monster sex?

There was a VERY undeveloped sub-plot involving Lina Romay as Esmerelda – who heard evil voices – that mostly liked to repeat her name. She would ask some old lady what the voices were all about – but I’m not sure if this old woman knew she was in a movie – she looked very concerned that this young woman in thigh high boots and a frock kept putting her head in her lap.

It’s especially a muddled up mess when you are introduced to the zombies – which I thought were called Panthos. I later come to question if they were just zombies and Panthos was some kind of demon spirit they all worshiped. If Caligostro had an army of zombies – why did he need Dr. Frankenstein’s monster? They didn’t explain that. From what we saw of the zombies – it only looked like they were good at wandering through the woods with sheets wrapped around them – with their faces poking out - looking like ghosts that were afraid they would bump into stuff.

Melisa the bird vampire creature was kind of fun – but the tweeting sound effects she made when she stalked or feasted was (really) annoying. She was hot though! Vera Frankenstein was a misguided character – I thought she was all about bringing down Caligorstro – but she pretty much turned herself in – and submitted to his will. Caligostro himself was a master of having Melisa speak for him – even though he was not mute – but it gave him time to stare with his eyes very wide. The monster was actually pretty good – a big man covered in silver paint – there wasn’t much more needed.

Here’s the thing – if you go into a Jess Franco film thinking that you’ll understand everything that is happening right away – or be able to follow a simple plot line – you’re going to be disappointed. He seems to provide puzzle pieces at times – and expects you to take the leap with those pieces in order to complete his story. It’s not exactly a successful narrative style – but for people who enjoy his work – it’s fun.

The other thing fans of Franco’s work expect – is a bit (of a barrel full) of sleaze – and for some reason there were plenty of great opportunities for sleaze – but no sleaze! A woman is strapped down to a table – perfect opportunity for her to be buck naked. There was an artist model posing fully clothed – and it made me really wonder if a nude portrait would be more fun. There’s a woman who’s taking off her clothes – another fairly good opportunity for her to be shown in the buff – but she’s a modest undress-er on camera. It turns out that the Synapse release was some non-sleaze version – where all the sleaze was actually hiding in the ‘Alternate Footage’ section of the DVD – but it also shows all those scenes redone with nudity.

Overall – for a Franco film – it was more coherent than some and fairly fun. I wish my version had the sleaze in the film – which would have made it better. Also, if Lina Romay got a chance to do anything more than lay her head on an old woman’s lap and sit by a creek – it would’ve been even better. Yet, as it is – it’s okay – a take it or leave it Franco film.

The Thing [2011]

An alien spacecraft and creature are discovered under the Antarctic ice – they send a scientist down to meet with the established Norwegian research crew to discover what it could be. The creature – breaks loose and starts mimicking the humans – leaving everyone uncertain who is human and who is alien.

Usually, I leave the synopsis vague – but since this is a prequel to John Carpenter’s 1982 remake (of The Thing from Another World, 1951) – I think we all know what’s really going on. The ultimate question is – does it hold up to Carpenter’s remake – in a word: Yes.

Sure, the effects are updated a bit – given a nice computer upheaval for elements that simply would be too difficult to do without computers – but there also seemed to be plenty of analog effects that worked just as well as they did back in 1982.

The scares were plentiful – and I’m not sure if it was just the theater I was in – but my ears are ringing a bit from all the intense sound effects. The story stayed true to the 1982 version – and you want to stay and watch the ending credits sequence – and run home and pop in your copy of the 1982 version.

The direction was just what you needed in a horror film – going from intense calmness or lingering fear – to scare! The acting was fairly standard – though some of these Norwegian’s looked the same to me (I don’t mean it that way – don’t give me that look – NO not all Norwegian’s look the same – you know what I mean – sorry – okay). The questions in regards to who is a Thing is a fun one – I liked how they tried to get to that – and I liked how for the most part the pieces fit.

Here’s the thing (didn’t mean the pun) – if you haven’t seen the John Carpenter version – it’s ultimately more creepy to watch that one and not even bother with the prequel (though it’s a good horror film) – because the aftermath of everything that happens is shown in the very beginning of that film – and it’s almost always better to be left with that air of mystery with a horror film. Carpenter’s version is one of my favorite films of the 1980’s – it holds up very well – I recommend it if you haven’t seen it.

I do recommend this film – if you’re looking for a big screen scare this Halloween – especially if you enjoyed Carpenter’s version and would liked to have a few questions answered. It’s a good film and it stands alone by itself – it encapsulates its very own story. I’m not going to tell you it’s creative – because it’s a retread of a lot of the ideas from the Carpenter version – but it entertains and doesn’t insult you and that’s just as good.

[SPOILER – there’s a Thing in this room!]

The Howling [1981]

A TV news anchor, Karen White, is investigating a series of gruesome murders – ends up so traumatized she is sent off to a relaxation camp – unfortunately for her – it’s not too relaxing.

The film really set a great atmosphere. Investigating a serial killer – the dark claustrophobic city – the way everyone was so intense about this crazed killer – the close-up shots. It was exciting.

Then we find ourselves whisked away to the “woods” or the “beach” or the “mountains” (I really could not tell) to a One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest set of weirdos – and it became fairly comical. How anyone was expected to “relax” at that “resort” is beyond me. The psychiatrist’s relationship with Karen and the rest of her news team really confounded me – and it didn’t seem so weird in the beginning – but as the film went on and his relationship with his resort really made me question the legitimacy of his character within their world.

The film ended up boiling down to be an effect film (which were saved up for the end as they were either really cool or really cheesy) – but felt like kind of a horror comedy. When someone is turning into a werewolf in front of you – you don’t just hang out and watch – make your move and attack or run (wolfmen have nards remember). The bizarre nympho woman character was entertaining I guess. The most likable character was killed – which is always a bummer in a horror film.
- -
So, I have a stack of 8 horror films waiting to be watched for the posts leading up to Halloween – some of the films I have seen previously but haven’t watched my copy of it – some of the films I bought blind. This was one of the movies I bought blind at the Goodwill – I figured that since it spawned a series sequels (some notoriously bad) – it might be worth a looksee. Unfortunately, it’s making me question watching these blind purchase horror films.

The Thing [2011]

I will sit and bitch and complain with you in regards to how annoying all these unnecessary sequels, prequels and remakes are. Hollywood is addicted to proven commodities and not willing to take any risk in exploring new ideas - and potentially great films. There's just too much money involved these days.

That being said, I will happily hold my tongue about this prequel.

John Carpenter's interpretation of THE THING is amazing as a stand alone 80's horror film - but it also left a lot of backstory that could easily fill an interesting movie - and from the trailers - it looks like someone actually nailed it...

Double Feature Friday: [REC] (2007) / [REC 2] (2009)

A news segment about a reporter following a local Barcelona group of firefighters on their nightly routine suddenly becomes documentation of some kind of outbreak of some contagious disease that causes people to become rabid killers.

[REC] is one of my top 5 favorite horror movies of the past decade. It’s essentially a zombie movie – but it’s far more thrilling than the DAWN OF THE DEAD remake because it’s told from a first person point of view. It blends what feels like news footage from a war zone into what’s simply a claustrophobic zombie experience.

Throw in the intrigue of how quickly the building is quarantined and the intrigue into what mysteries are being hidden and where – the film works on a variety of levels for both thrills and on-the-fly narrative. The direction of the film must have been tricky – as you would have to have your cinematographer running around as a character – and monitoring the adlibbed both camera movements and dialogue – it’s an easy recipe to fail at for someone who didn’t have a big pair of brass balls. The lead actress is likable and convincing as both a fluff news reporter – and as a terrified as she becomes as the situation unfolds.

[REC] was remade almost shot for shot in the US and released as the film QUARANTINE – I beg you to SKIP that version and go straight to the source.

Nearly an hour since the events in [REC] a swat team is sent into the quarantined building along with a priest to find out what’s going on.

What [REC] succeeds at – [REC 2] tries to tweak only mildly. Each swat team characters has a helmet camera to monitor what they see – so there are multiple cameras at work as opposed to the single camera in [REC]. Then it takes what the audience perceives as the rabid zombie virus and turns it on its ear – which is hinted at toward the end of [REC] – but even if there was never a sequel – one could be happy with the direction of the first film without this film as an addendum.

[REC 2] does more story telling than the first film – it leads the audience down a certain path instead of spinning them around in an office chair and dropping them into a mess. So, in a way they are two completely different films – but the same concepts were being used as story telling elements. I do admit that the freshness of the first film doesn’t come off as well into the second – but I think that has more to do with the storytelling in the second – which is understandable – you have to change the formula a bit for a sequel to this kind of film.

I love how it turned the zombie element on its ear – I’m honestly getting a little bored of zombies – not as much as I’m sick of vampires – but there’s too much zombie stuff going around these days. There are some good twists – and some head scratchers in this film – but after a step back from watching them both – they make far more sense than most American horror movies.

Though I have not seen QUARANTINE 2 – from the previews it appears that it abandon’s all that the premise that makes [REC 2] special – which actually makes me curious to see Q2 a bit.

Two additional [REC] films are being planned – reading that just now gives me a little chill up my spine – I can’t wait.

Insidious 2: Never Say Never [2011]

Now, my completely FAKE review of INSIDIOUS – based on what the poster looks like.

A family tries to buy a home from Justin Beiber – but he doesn’t want to sell it at all! When the courts award the house to the family because even the courts think Justin Beiber is a spoiled little shit – he gets really mad.

So mad he TURNS RED!!!

Beiber shows a much darker side than what I ever expected of him – but that’s what puberty will do to you!

His first strategy for getting the family to give back his house was obviously to sing and dance out in front of the house on the sidewalk – you’ve got to have the kiddie music tie in if you’re gonna have a horror movie based around Beiber. I understand that but to the length that they went and how well the family acted impartially-terrified was horrific all in itself. I actually went into the kitchen and started looking for my Rachel Ray knife set ready to slit my own wrists and sign over my apartment to Beiber in my own blood.

When that didn’t work – and Beiber got even more enraged he started standing in front of the house just staring into it with his face unchanged – just like in the poster – for what appeared to be days. When the dog came up and piddled on his leg for the 4th time – is when I think Beibs went from a human to a demon – the 5th time was just too much if you ask me. I get the 6th time was to drive in the emphasis of his mission – but the 7th time kind of made me sick to my stomach.

Beiber then decides to pull out the ACME catalog and orders a doggie door – installs it on their back door when they are at work – and then later that night sneaks in and rearranges their potted plants – caught by the wife character – she calls the police – Beiber is arrested and spends the night in jail – only released out on bail when he seduces a local gang member by doing more singing (the head resting on the bars of the cell – and the other inmates rhythmically banging their metal cups against the bars – made for a sweet scene) – once out of jail Beibs heads right back over to the house hides in a pile of dead leaves and waits for them to leave for work the next morning – then he goes through the doggie door once again – only to discover they boobie trapped the house to explode if he enters the house – melting his face but leaving his hair intact – we see Beibs apparently dead body and we zoom in on his eyes that pop open and scare the bejesus out of everyone... Thus setting the scene for the sequel; INSIDIOUS 3: BABY BABY BABY

Insidious [2011]

A family moves into a new house – and suddenly their son is in a coma and the wife sees a bunch of creepy people all around who menace her newborn and attack her – but when she calls for hubby’s help – they’re gone! So, they move – and it keeps happening!! What’s going on here?

After a certain amount of dropping piano sounds and screams – I became apathetic to the whole movie. It wasn’t a bad movie – it just relied too much on those aspects to get scares – when I thought it was doing a fine job building suspense on its own – it didn’t need to result to cheap tactics.

The movie reminded me a lot of the atmosphere that the PARANORMAL ACTIVITY movies were trying to build (and it’s from the makers of – so it makes sense) – with the calm eeriness – then something happens that grips your throat and you’re instantly freaked out. Instead of allowing that air it self out though they threw in a loud bang sound effect – which I honestly couldn’t tell if they wanted you to believe that it was coming from inside the house or from the soundtrack.

I also felt the filmmakers almost intended to make a simple haunted house movie by the way they introduced the books falling off the shelf while everyone was in the kitchen eating breakfast in the beginning. If you’ve seen the movie and know the “twists” – then you’ll know how this scene doesn’t make any sense – unless it’s JUST the house. I guess they will leave those answers to the eventual sequel.

The ending was a shame – there’s a lot of horror movies that end the exact same way – and I would’ve just liked to see the opposite because I felt that would’ve made for a BETTER twist.

Again, it wasn’t a bad film – there were some redeeming qualities – such as the reliance of the idea of what is left unseen. I’m not sure if it was intended as part of the freaky nature – but the relation of where things/people were in relation to each other was left me confused and it brought me into the story a bit because it wasn’t set in a way that I could immediately identify. I tend to think it was a bit of bad filmmaking but it worked for me.

From the advertisements I saw – it was pimped as being from the ‘makers of PARANORMAL ACTIVITY’ – even if it was directed by the creator of the SAW franchise. So, when the SAW puppet made a blatant cameo I felt that was a dick length scene – the “I’ve spawned more sequels and I was on the scene before you PARANORMAL ACTIVITY guy” – because I CAN’T see the point of having that puppet drawn on the chalk board in hubby’s classroom. No point – other than Ego of the director. It’s fine if you want to work the puppet in – but making that blatant? There’s a lot of moving boxes – couldn’t the puppet be somewhere in the background half hidden by boxes? No... Let’s essentially turn a scene where we’re supposed to concentrate on the lead character having a phone conversation – and put a drawing of the puppet over his shoulder the entire time!

The film isn’t bad – but it’s just above average for me – you’ll get for the most part what you expect from it.

The Cars That Ate Paris [1974]

Weir’s first feature length film – done on a shoe-string budget and essentially given a tight timetable to finish this film. It’s often criticized for being too quirky to be horror – for Western audiences I can agree – but if you expand your mind and think outside the box of what horror is – it’s a surrealistic nightmare.


Weir – though on such a small budget uses all he can to build up his directing skill – he builds up the atmosphere of this town to perfection. Uses odd interesting camera angles to help create the feeling that this town isn’t like other towns – and that it’s so far removed from “the real” world that their everyday is of course nothing like our everyday.


The rest is an excerpt from a review I wrote back in August 2008:


This movie deals with a small town in Australia named Paris that has an odd way of sustaining its economy. Since it’s so far out in the country with under-developed roads and infrastructure – they “purposely” cause the cars that pass through to crash – “because city folk have a hard time with those old dirt roads” – then they loot the wrecks for valuables. Any survivors are either lobotomized or in some cases (such as children) adopted as part of the town. One day they cause two brothers to crash – killing one of them – and the other Arthur is left petrified of driving and is adopted into the town as the mayor’s new “son” (even though he must be in his 30’s).

The town is split into essentially 2 factions – the elders who run the show – and the youth who spend their time drag racing around the town causing problems. I love this dichotomy especially when it comes to one of the themes – old vs. new. The old timers are obviously in the wrong – but in their minds they are right. And they raised their kids doing the wrong/right things – and the kids as they grow up they rebel and take it to the next level of wrong/right. Which of course in the minds of the elders is viewed as wrong – though it’s essentially the same thing that the elders do.

Then you have Arthur who’s caught in the middle – played by Terry Camilleri who pulls off in a subtle mousy performance – he’s the perspective that we all share as the viewer. At first we aren’t 100% sure of what’s going on – and as it develops we start getting the hang of it – and then are further repulsed by the town’s behavior.

The budget of this film must have been tiny – but they make the most of it. Using and destroying plenty of junker cars and building and destroying pretty much an entire town. The acting - which is a bit hammy – is pulled off well by essentially a bunch of amateurs. The one thing this film does have heaps of is – talent behind the camera – Weir really displays some great directing chops and does a fantastic job of creating a feel of isolation and even claustrophobia which help further define Arthur’s state of mind.

Y is for... [part 2]

If you were to argue that Mel Brooks's Young Frankenstein ranks among the top-ten funniest movies of all time, nobody could reasonably dispute the claim. Spoofing classic horror in the way that Brooks's previous film Blazing Saddles sent up classic Westerns, the movie is both a loving tribute and a raucous, irreverent parody of Universal's classic horror films Frankenstein (1931) and Bride of Frankenstein (1935). Filming in glorious black and white, Brooks re-created the Frankenstein laboratory using the same equipment from the original Frankenstein (courtesy of designer Kenneth Strickfaden), and this loving attention to physical and stylistic detail creates a solid foundation for nonstop comedy. The story, of course, involves Frederick Frankenstein (Gene Wilder) and his effort to resume experiments in re-animation pioneered by his late father. (He's got some help, since dad left behind a book titled How I Did It.) Assisting him is the hapless hunchback Igor (Marty Feldman) and the buxom but none-too-bright maiden Inga (Teri Garr), and when Frankenstein succeeds in creating his monster (Peter Boyle), the stage is set for an outrageous revision of the Frankenstein legend. With comedy highlights too numerous to mention, Brooks guides his brilliant cast (also including Cloris Leachman, Madeline Kahn, Kenneth Mars, and Gene Hackman in a classic cameo role) through scene after scene of inspired hilarity. Indeed, Young Frankenstein is a charmed film, nothing less than a comedy classic, representing the finest work from everyone involved. Not one joke has lost its payoff, and none of the countless gags have lost their zany appeal. From a career that includes some of the best comedies ever made, this is the film for which Mel Brooks will be most fondly remembered. Befitting a classic, the Special Edition DVD includes audio commentary by Mel Brooks, a "making of" documentary, interviews with the cast, hilarious bloopers and outtakes, and the original theatrical trailers. No video library should be without a copy of Young Frankenstein. And just remember--that's Fronkensteen. (synopsis provided by Amazon.com)

released 1974

directed by Mel Brooks

V is for...

Beyond being Jess Franco's masterpiece, Vampyros Lesbos is a highpoint of the lesbian vampire film genre. Like Daughters of Darkness, The Vampire Lovers, and the New Wave vampire film, The Hunger, Vampyros features an extremely hot vampire, Countess Nadina Carody (Soledad Miranda), who dances at strip clubs in her spare time. In a brutally sexy opening scene, Miranda hypnotically seduces audience member Linda Westinghouse (Ewa Strömberg), calling her to her castle in Anatolia, on business from which Westinghouse never returns. Linda's boyfriend, Omar (Andrés Monales), eventually finds Linda institutionalized, cared for by one Dr. Seward. The characters in Vampyros Lesbos are foils for the cast of Bram Stoker's Dracula, in radical opposition to the traditional, clichéd horror film stereotypes. Psychedelic moments, like when Linda is seduced by the Queen of the Night, recall the grainy, erotic scenes of Jean Rollin's Requiem Pour Un Vampire, and Le Frisson Des Vampires. To dwell on the convoluted plot is clearly missing the point. With arguably the best horror movie soundtrack every released, Vampyros Lesbos revels in the sultry aspects of vampirism, resulting in long, romantic sequences of nude women playing in ocean waves, lying on chaise lounges, and making out in bed. Franco's other films, like She Killed in Ecstasy and Venus in Furs, serve as sequels, so see this first. In fact, see this film period. (synopsis provided by Amazon.com)

released 1970

directed by Jesus Franco

Prey [1978]

Strange lights in the sky awaken Jessica from her sleep – she’s scared she runs to Jo – her lover in the next room – who is more than willing to calm her down. Anderson is making out with his girlfriend in the woods when he gets out to take a pee is attacked. The next morning Anderson shows up at Jessica & Jo’s country house looking dazed and acting concussed – they invite him to stay with them. But there’s something wrong with Anderson - he’s possessed by an alien!

This is an acting tour de force! Each character is so extremely messed up that you it brings up the obvious question – “who’s the real monster?”

Jessica is just too naïve to be believed – or are all Canadians like that? (ha ha – sorry guys) She obviously lost her parents in a sudden and traumatic way that allowed Jo to sweep in and “help” her by basically kidnapping her. Yet, she’s overly trusting of this strange man who literally wanders into their house – and she’s immediately drawn to him as a lover. Then again – Jessica is the only one who points out the strangeness of Anderson - how he never eats – or how his name is ANDERS ANDERSON!

Anders Anderson is obviously messed in the head to the point where I wouldn’t feel comfortable around him so why would two women living alone in the country feel comfortable around him beats me. He’s played very low key and withdrawn – yet has an extremely profound moment where the three of them are playing hide & seek and he tells Jessica that she’s a prisoner of Jo’s. I can see the importance of having Anderson deliver that particular line – but it’s so out of character that it’s just not believable.
Jo is comically militant. She belittles Anderson for being a male in so many annoying ways that she should’ve noticed right away that Anderson wasn’t reacting – and instead of Jessica pointing out Anderson’s oddities - it should’ve been Jo. She emasculates Anderson by dressing him up as a woman at a party after he does a very manly thing and saves the women from the fox (who was the patsy for Anderson’s blood lust). Yet, she awkwardly tries to kiss Anderson while they are dancing – which shows some cracks in Jo yet that doesn’t seem to affect her past that particular scene.

The directing of Norman J. Warren is standard in this film. There are only few highlights to his craft – namely the ending chase scene - along with the bizarre “drowning” scene (which is worth watching the film for). One reoccurring part of the film seemed like they kind of threw together some b-roll and a voice overdub to make up for a ‘nada scene’ – which is just poor directing.

The writing as I pointed out above doesn’t really add up. Motives of the characters are uncertain and character depth is never really given to each of them 3 main characters. I should also point out that the story is more of a series of odd events – than a full on plot. I do particularly like how the sex scenes are quite cynical and disturbing – it was a welcomed touch to go along with the extreme characters – so I’ll give kudos to the screenplay for that.

It was a fine movie that drew me in with it’s acting – yet not much further in than that.

Storm Watching

Over the holiday weekend we were hit with some massive thunderstorms so I pulled some movies off the shelf and had a movie marathon - none of which do I want to write up in anything huge - so here's the quick 2-sentence hits.

Psycho [1960]
The scariest thing in this movie is the scene of the getting rid of the body - it seemed almost in real time - and that's all it takes to make you never seen again. The end with the condescending psychiatrist's speech explaining and over explaining doesn't hold up well for modern audiences.


One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest [1975]
I think this one holds up pretty well all the way around for modern audiences - the whole antiestablishment feelings people seem to always seem to carry with them from generation to generation. After this particular viewing, I was feeling that Mac brings it on himself - so even though I get the message of the overall movie - I wasn't feeling much sympathy for the anti-hero.
Lars and the Real Girl [2007]
This one is starting to pull away from the pack and it might make it into my top 10 movies - every time I watch it - I have the same reaction like I was watching it the first time. I love how the town pulls together for Lars - making Bianca real - bending just enough of their lives to pull Lars back into "reality".
Splice [2010]
It's the same old Frankenstein story but with a modern genetics twist and more sexual tension. Something about this time - made me draw a few parallels to some of Jesus Franco's creature/genetic abomination films - and wonder if he had helped inspire any bit of the story.

S is for... [part 4]

With laughs and gross-outs aplenty, Slither is the best horror comedy since Shaun of the Dead. Having written for the jubilant trash-mongers at Troma Films before scripting 2004's well-received remake of Dawn of the Dead, writer-director James Gunn crafted this hilarious splatter-fest as an homage to the comically violent horror films of the 1970s and '80s, and he gets it just right with a low-budget look, perfect casting, grisly make-up effects and judicious use of CGI gore. The story's a deliberate monster-mash, borrowing from a dozen other movies with its plot about an invasion of slithery slug-like parasites from outer space, arriving (via meteorite) in the redneck town of Wheelsy, South Carolina, where they turn most of the local yokels into flesh-eating zombies. The first victim (played by Michael Rooker) turns into a squid-like, multi-tentacled host monster (kill him and you kill 'em all), and his terrified wife (Elizabeth Banks) teams up with Wheelsy's sheriff (Nathan Fillion, from Firefly and Serenity) and mayor (comedic scene-stealer Gregg Henry) to eradicate the alien threat before Wheelsy turns into Slugville. Gunn handles comedy and horror with exuberant flair, and Slither's greatest strength is that it never aspires to be anything more than it is: 96 minutes of good laughs and gruesomeness, served up with the kind of gleeful abandon that only true horror buffs can fully appreciate. (synopsis provided by Amazon.com)

released 2006

directed by James Gunn

S is for...

A young girl moves in with her Uncle Alexander after her parents car mysteriously explodes. After being taken in by her cousins, she soon begins to suffer strange visions. But what she doesn't know is that her planned role in the house is more sinister than she could have expected. (synopsis provided by the back cover)

released 1976

directed by Norman J. Warren

FRIDAY THE 13TH: JASON LIVES [1986]

Happy Friday the 13th everybody – though my blog is still showing Wednesday as the most current entry – I think the gremlins got it for some classic Friday the 13th shenanigans. If you should ever see this entry – I’ve got a bunch of movies stacked up to watch so I’m not sure if I will partake in an installment or two of my favorite of the 80’s slasher films; FRIDAY THE 13TH.

But why not make a bonus (well considering my entry for today was deleted by the gremlins - this isn't much of a bonus anymore is it?) entry about my favorite of the films - the 6th installment – JASON LIVES.

It’s the beginning of the ridiculous side of the series – after this film he fights a telekinetic, goes to Manhattan, Hell, outer space and then fights Freddy. It’s also the beginning of Jason Voorhees becoming more than just a masked slayer – he becomes supernatural with a little shout out to Frankenstein’s electricity reanimation scene. It could be argued that Jason was never killed in the previous films or that he has already been enchanted with some supernatural healing ability – but in this installment – there’s no denying – Jason had been dead and buried worm chow for years – only to be resurrected!

The film has a better pace – and more extreme/silly killings than its predecessors – and it’s cheesy as all get out – it’s actually more of an action film. It’s also infamous for not having any nudity – the only of the Friday the 13th films to exclude it – not that it doesn’t have probably the most memorable sex scenes in the franchise. That ridiculous camper sex – cheesy 80’s music scene will remain in my mind as one of the dumbest sex scenes I have ever seen.

The plot is typical for a Jason film – campers show up at the lake to camp and be teenagers – and Jason kills them. The things that make this film stand apart is Tommy Jarvis – the boy who stopped Jason in the 4th installment is so haunted by him that he digs up Jason to burn the remains of the body – only for Jason to be electrocuted and to rise again. There’s also a little interesting theme that plays into the whole angle that Jason hates immoral behavior – when he goes in to kill a little girl – she prays and he goes away.

The rest is Jason stalking around – killing at a good pace – and though it’s pre-Kane Hodder – it’s a solid performance by the actor(s) who play the hockey masked killer.