Grabbers (2012)

grabbers_UK_1400x2100-500x750Ah, Netflix Roulette…much like the game it takes its namesake from (and the variant that uses a marble and spinning board instead of a pistol), you never know what you’re going to get.  Flipping through my recommendations this evening, I thought the description of this film sounded like some cheesy monster fun, so I decided to check it out.  Let’s see if it’s good or if it’s the cinematic equivalent of a bullet to the brain, shall we?

Spoilers ensue.

On the remote island of Erin, off the coast of Ireland, local police officer O’Shea (Richard Coyle) resents having been paired with workaholic newcomer Lisa Nolan (Ruth Bradley).  However, while investigating a beaching of mutilated whale carcasses, they come to realize that the island has become host to a group of blood-sucking tentacled creatures (a precredit sequence suggests that the creatures either came from space, or were disturbed by a falling meteorite).  As the creatures move in to start feeding on the local populace, a chance encounter between one of the monsters and Paddy, the town drunk, reveals that the creatures will die if they consume alcohol-tainted blood.

The townsfolk gather in the local pub to bolster themselves as an oncoming storm provides the creatures with a means of crawling further inland.  But will a BAC of .2 be enough when the big daddy monster emerges?

It’s nice to see a horror-comedy these days that isn’t a zombie movie.  It really is.  In a lot of ways, it’s very much a wet Irish TREMORS, something that I think was very much intentional, straight down to the naming of the monsters as “Grabbers” being reminiscent of the way the worms in TREMORS were dubbed “Graboids” — and with characters arguing over whether the chosen name was a good one or not.

The monsters are delightfully simple, just writhing masses of tentacles surrounding a wet, sphincter-like mouth; shorter tentacles ring the mouth more closely, and a whiplike tongue emerges to drain blood.  For the most part the monsters are realized through CGI, which I’d almost say is a requirement for creatures of this sort, except I’ve seen EL MONSTRO DEL MAR, which manages to create a tentacled beastie with wholly practical effects.  Regardless, I loved the monsters here.

I also really loved the “look” of the cast.  These are not the “beautiful” people of a Hollywood production; the faces on display here are stark, weathered features, lives lived hard displayed in every line, wrinkle and crease.  This just visually gives the film so much more character then if everyone was generically attractive.  The people are like the landscape of Erin Island – grim and worn, but unbeaten.

Finally, THANK YOU to the filmmakers for putting a flaregun to good use in the film.  Too few monster movies take advantage of this handy little tool.  Of course, I pretty much just want to shoot off a flaregun at anything and everything, so take that with a grain of salt.

Final Analysis: A fun little monster movie that doesn’t take itself particularly seriously, has a good looking set of creatures, some solid performances, good comedy and some beautifully Irish feckers who don’t hesitate to turn a Super Soaker into a flamethrower.  I say give it a watch; I don’t think you’ll be terribly disappointed.

Overall, I give GRABBERS (2012)…

four_barrels_of_toxic_waste

FOUR BARRELS OF TOXIC WASTE.

Filed in Reviews | Comment Now

Alien from L.A. (1988)

alien_from_la_poster_01Greetings, readers, Bill here. Now, if you follow us on Facebook, you’ll know I’ve been saying for weeks now that I’d be reviewing this film. And I just kept either having life get in the way or delaying in favor of other films. I’ve got some free time tonight, however, and decided that there’s no time like the present to get on with reviewing this film, which was featured in the 5th season of Mystery Science Theater 3000.  Without further ado, let’s take a look at Albert Pyun (whose work was last featured here in the form of RADIOACTIVE DREAMS)’s 1988 film ALIEN FROM L.A., starring supermodel and philanthropist Kathy Ireland in her first film role, shall we?

Spoilers ensue.

Wanda Saknussem (Ireland, in giant glasses and apparently huffing helium between takes) is a shy, nervous, nerdy girl.  Just hours after her boyfriend dumps her for lacking a sense of adventure, she receives news that her father, archaeologist Arnold Saknussem, has disappeared, presumed dead.  Overcoming her fear of flying, she jets to North Africa to put his papers in order.

She discovers that her father had a pet theory that “Atlantis” was the name of an alien spaceship that crash-landed on Earth and then sank deep underground; beneath her father’s apartment she discovers an underground chamber, through which she blunders, ultimately setting off (apparently the chamber was built by the Ancient Rube-Goldbergians) a chain of events that deposits her squarely on the outskirts of Atlantis.  On the run from both the fascistic government of Atlantis and the minions of a diminutive crime boss (Deep Roy, of RETURN OF THE JEDI and Tim Burton’s adaptation of CHARLIE AND THE CHOCOLATE FACTORY), she teams up with an inconsistently-Australian miner named Gus (William R. Moses) and a charismatic rogue named, appropriately, Charmin (Thom Matthews, of RETURN OF THE LIVING DEAD and FRIDAY THE 13TH PART 6: JASON LIVES!) to escape back to the surface world with her father in tow.

That, uh…wow.  What? What was that even…? Man, God bless Albert Pyun, because he tells the stories no one else can or will tell.  Movies like this one and RADIOACTIVE DREAMS showcase a boundless imagination, one that cannot and will not be constrained by such puny regards as a budget.  I’m looking forward to checking out Pyun’s sequel to STREETS OF FIRE, ROAD TO HELL, just to see what he does with the subject material and the setting.

This is just a plain damn weird film, no two ways about it.  I’m mystified, absolutely mystified, readers, as to why the Atlanteans constantly refer to Kathy Ireland as “big-boned.”  She’s not noticeably taller, and certainly no plumper, then any random Atlantean, so that can’t be it.  Are they looking to use her bones as currency? Food? Medicine? I don’t know.  If anyone has an answer to this, please let me know, because I’m not finding it.

I really like the dystopian vibe of Atlantis in this film, and its decadent, heavily-industrialized look is perfectly apropros; keep in mind that Atlantis is a city within a spaceship, its inhabitants having no concept of a world beyond their borders, and you have to imagine there’s been some heavy inbreeding down there.  Add to that just the boredom of a stagnating culture existing solely within a single cavernous spaceship, and the outrageous New Wave make-ups and fashions on display here, the gladiatorial combat, the recreational drug use…it all makes perfect sense within the context of the film.

The acting here…it’s not great, people.  It’s a high-concept film but the budget and talent (in front of the camera, at least) simply isn’t there to support it.  Kathy Ireland does not rise above the level of irritating throughout the course of the film, with her shrill, nasally voice (Is that her real voice? Or is she channeling the Chipettes?) and the bumbling, clumsy nature of the character.  Thom Mathews and Deep Roy do the best they can with what they’re given, while William R. Moses’ Australian accent wanders in and out of every other word.

In a weird way, the film does have a legitimate sci-fi pedigree, borrowing from Jules Verne’s Journey to the Center of the Earth; Wanda and her father’s surname comes from the adventurer who precedes Verne’s protagonists into the Hollow Earth, and her father’s name, Arnold Saknussem, could be read as an anglicized version of Arne Saknussem, the adventurer from the novel.

Final Analysis: A weird, cheesy, fun B-movie romp.  Pretty readily available in various Midnight Movie releases from MGM, as well as the MST3K version from Shout! Factory, it’s worth a watch, with or without the riffing.

Overall, I give ALIEN FROM L.A. (1988)…

three_barrels_of_toxic_waste

THREE BARRELS OF TOXIC WASTE.

Filed in Reviews | Comment Now

Demon Resurrection (2008)

2233699b1aa8ebb570d97d5b8ab05a98a6140fedGreetings, readers, Bill here with another special treat for you, this time a screener sent to us for review by writer/director William Hopkins. I’d intended to review it this past weekend, but between putting in some overtime at work and running the normal errands that come with semi-responsible quasi-adulthood, my weekend just seemed to get away from me.  However, I happened to find myself with some time tonight, so I decided to park my ass on the couch and give the ol’ DVD a spin.  Let’s see how this film stacks up, shall we?

Spoilers ensue.

Grace’s friends are worried about her.  She’s pale, weak, withdrawn…ever since she moved in with her new boyfriend John, it’s like she’s become a different person.  Believing her to be on drugs, her friends try to stage an intervention.  Upon arriving at the house Grace and John share, they discover that Grace got herself mixed up in something a lot worse then dope – she went off the deep end into a Satanic cult, and John rescued her from their orgiastic clutches and is nursing her back to health.

Unfortunately for Grace, John and Grace’s concerned friends, the demonic powers worshiped by the cult will not be so easily thwarted, and before long an army of zombies and cultists have surrounded the house.  With John’s occult guidance, do these meddling kids stand a chance at fighting back against Satan himself?

I never know what to expect when I’m sent screeners, readers, and those of you who have been with me for a while may remember that for a long time I didn’t accept screeners after having been very badly burned by a filmmaker unhappy with the review I gave his film.

DEMON RESURRECTION is compared, in a blurb from Buried.com quoted on the back cover, to “H.P. Lovecraft meets Night of the Living Dead,” which seems a bit disingenuous to me; just because there’s zombies surrounding an isolated house doesn’t necessitate the comparison to NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD, while just because Cthulhu shows up in an illustration in a grimoire one of the characters carries doesn’t mean Lovecraft’s name should be invoked.

That being said, this is a film that very openly wears its inspirations on its sleeve.  It’s hard not to see where films like NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD, EVIL DEAD and ALIEN inspired elements of this film.  This is not to say the film’s predictable and by-the-numbers; oh no, it’s got some twists that even took a jaded old cinephile like me by surprise.

I thought that DEMON RESURRECTION was a very ambitious film in the story it had to tell, and tried to pack a great deal into its 88-minute run time.  This works both to the film’s credit and its detriment; at no point does the film really slow down or become dull, but at the same time most of the protagonists are nondescript and the viewer isn’t given the opportunity to care about them before they’re gruesomely murdered.

While I’m not much of a zombie fan, I have to say the zombies in this film are some of my favorites of recent years.  With their dusty, skeletal faces and burlap-and-noose ensembles, they remind one of the undead in ZOMBI 2 or TOMBS OF THE BLIND DEAD, and likewise, they don’t play by Romero’s rules.  Glowing faintly green through the magic of post-production effects, these skull-faced ghouls climb ladders, set ambushes and navigate obstacles so handily that most of the cast doesn’t stand a chance of survival against them.

Final Analysis: An ambitious film that shoots for the moon in a way that too many indie productions don’t nowadays, DEMON RESURRECTION doesn’t break much in the way of new ground, but it held my attention a lot tighter then many big-budget Hollywood productions have recently.

Overall, I give DEMON RESURRECTION (2008)…

three_barrels_of_toxic_waste

THREE BARRELS OF TOXIC WASTE.

Filed in Reviews | Comment Now

Beast of the Yellow Night (1971)

combo_beast_of_yellow_night_poster_01Greetings, readers, Bill here. I’m coming to you early today because basically all systems were not go at the office I work at. In fact, no systems were go, and rather than stand around doing BS make-work while staring zombie-like at the clock waiting for it to be 5 pm, I decided to take a half-day, run some errands, mail some goodies to a couple friends in the horror blogosphere, and then watch a movie before I have to pick my girlfriend up from her job. I’ve been meaning to watch this one for review for a while now, and decided that there’s no better time then the present in which to watch a Filipino werewolf/Satanism flick directed by Eddie Romero! Let’s take a look, shall we?

Spoilers ensue.

The Philippines, 1946.  While the War in the Pacific may be over, there’s still a strong American presence in the islands.  One of these Americans, Joseph Langdon (John Ashley, of MAD DOCTOR OF BLOOD ISLAND, BRIDES OF BLOOD, TWILIGHT PEOPLE, and an assortment of other Filipino horror films) has a couple big problems.  A traitor and deserter from the army, while fleeing through the jungle he happens to eat an extremely poisonous piece of fruit.  As he lies dying, he’s approached by a fat, sweaty Satan (Vic Diaz, previously seen around these parts in THE THIRSTY DEAD and RAW FORCE) who offers him a way out and a new life.

Now, Langdon is taking over the life of an American businessman killed in an industrial accident, posing as the dead man to further Satan’s aims.  To make matters more complicated, Langdon’s efforts to resist Satan get him punished with random transformations into a hairy, bloodthirsty beast…

And in case the trailer has you actually interested in seeing the film, this public domain cheapie can be seen on YouTube in its entirety here:

So that’s THE BEAST OF THE YELLOW NIGHT.  I’m not sure why it’s a “Yellow Night,” or what a yellow night actually entails, but there is a lot of bile-yellow fog clouds that billow up out of nowhere whenever Satan shows up, so maybe that’s it?

I’m not going to lie to you readers, this film is extremely slow moving, extremely poorly-lit, and extremely dull.  Much of the film is simply too dark to see anything going on, and the well-lit scenes tend to be long stretches of stilted-delivery dialogue between John Ashley and Mary Wilcox about why their characters should love one another but don’t.

What is good about this film is what it represents; John Ashley and Eddie Romero largely financed this film themselves, though they received additional funding from Roger Corman in exchange for theatrical distribution rights for the film through his New World Pictures company.  The experience convinced Corman to finance more films shot in the Philippines.  Films like THE BIG DOLL HOUSE, THE BIG BIRD CAGE, UP FROM THE DEPTHS, TNT JACKSON…a wide variety of true exploitation classics, all spun out of the profit Corman turned on BEAST OF THE YELLOW NIGHT!

Final Analysis: Is BEAST OF THE YELLOW NIGHT a good movie? Not particularly.  As I said, for the most part it’s too dark to see what’s going on, the acting is terrible, and it commits the cardinal sin of any movie, it’s boring.  There’s a few interesting moments scattered throughout the film, mostly relating to the Langdon-monster making sad eyes and pining over his lost soul and lost humanity.  But it’s not enough to really save the movie.  I didn’t hate it, but it didn’t particularly win me over.  If you’re an Eddie Romero/John Ashley completist, the film’s in the public domain (and I linked to the full film on YouTube above), but otherwise I’d largely say don’t bother.

Overall, I give BEAST OF THE YELLOW NIGHT (1971)…

two_barrels_of_toxic_waste

TWO BARRELS OF TOXIC WASTE.

Filed in Reviews | Comment Now

Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters (2013)

hansel_and_gretel_witch_huntersWhat’s this, readers? A Monday evening review? That hasn’t happened in a long time…not since the last time I was single, at any rate. But, while playing Netflix roulette with my girlfriend looking for something I could stand and which she could half-watch while knitting, we decided to give this a whirl after the first episode of HEMLOCK GROVE proved too intense for her. And let me just say, we made the right choice. We both had a blast watching this film.  But enough about my personal life, let’s take a look, shall we?

Spoilers ensue.

So after their horrific formative experience with the witch in the gingerbread house (building codes having been much laxer in the late middle ages then they are now), Hansel (Jeremy Renner) and Gretel (Gemma Arterton) find themselves soon having grown up with the title of “Witch Hunter” applied after their names.  As they slay witch after witch across Europe, building up an arsenal of ridiculous steampunk weaponry, they also collect hefty fee after hefty fee from the villages they save from the predation of witches.

Their latest job leads them to the town of Augsberg, near where they were born, and the siblings quickly find themselves up to their necks in witches.  They soon find that the witches are gathering for the Blood Moon, a super-charged Sabbath that comes around once every generation.  The witches have something very bad planned, but can Hansel & Gretel stop them in time?

I can’t remember the last time I had this much fun watching a movie, or laughed harder.  This film was panned pretty hard by the critics for gratuitous violence and a weak plot, but you know what? Fuck ‘em if they can’t take a joke, this movie doesn’t take itself too seriously and neither should you.

The violence IS in fact over the top, though not quite to such garish extremes as Tarantino routinely achieves.  Heads are blown off, witches are shredded on razor wire, rusty knives are driven into guts, at one point a pair of conjoined-twin witches are partially separated in the gooiest way possible.  The blood is all tempera-paint red, like in all the best Italian horror, and a couple deaths were described by my girlfriend as “extra-chunky.”

The arsenal on display here is…I don’t think anachronistic is a strong enough word here.  It’s the same sort of steampunk weaponry on display in films like VAN HELSING, only my best guess is that this film is set in the late 1500s, making the Gatling gun, revolvers and other “modern” weaponry extra out-of-place.  Add to that the double-crossbow that can shoot in two different directions…

What took me by surprise was that in the fight scenes, Hansel and Gretel appear almost comically inept.  Actually no, not “almost.”  They’re comically inept.  Every witch they encounter flings them around like rag dolls, smashing them into walls, trees, whatever’s available.  I thought these two had been hunting witches for years, how is it that every witch they meet gets the drop on them and kicks their asses until they manage to get a lucky shot in? Heck, even in scenes when they’re fighting just regular people, not supernatural bitches, they get their asses handed to them in pretty short order.  How the hell have these two survived as long as they have?

To take matters even further, Hansel’s a diabetic! As he explains in the film, that initial witch they were captured by as children forced him to eat so much candy that he got sick, and now he has to give himself steampunk insulin shots (on a schedule dictated by a steampunk watch he wears) to keep from slipping into a diabetic coma.

The film was written and directed by Tommy Wirkola, best known in horror circles for the quirky Nazi Zombie movie DEAD SNOW, and like DEAD SNOW showcases a really great blend of comedy and horror.  In addition, here Wirkola has a stellar cast to work with, both with the two leads and with the supporting cast.  Peter Stormare (THE BIG LEBOWSKI) appears as a cruel and conniving sheriff, Rainer Bock (INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS) plays the mayor of Augsberg, Famke Janssen (GOLDENEYE, X-MEN) plays the head evil witch, and Derek Mears (the 2009 version of FRIDAY THE 13TH) appears as Edward the Troll.  That’s a hell of an ensemble cast, and nobody gave a bad performance that I could see.

The film is very beautiful, visually, with a lovely color palette on display through the costuming, especially on the witches’ costumes.  The sets themselves tend to be on the drab side, making the costumes pop that much more.  The witches themselves are a fantastic mix of beautiful and loathsome, no two looking quite alike though with some common themes – darkened eye sockets, pale eyes, and cracked, pallid skid are pretty prominent, though some witches sport scales, horns, tattoos…and then of course there’s the oddballs like the aforementioned conjoined-twin witches.  The sharp contrast between the vividly-colored witches and the browns and grays of the “human world” also seems like it’s almost a comment on the contrast between “magic” and “science” but I might be reading too much into it.

Final Analysis: Is this a “good” movie? Well, that depends on what you’re looking for.  CASABLANCA this ain’t, but if you want to see witches getting blown away and chopped up in glorious full color explosions of gore along with some snarky, F-bomb laden dialogue, then this more than satisfies.  Like I said at the start, I had a lot of fun watching this film, and it didn’t outstay its welcome (word on the street is a sequel is coming, so we’ll see) so I really don’t have any complaints to voice about this film.  I enjoyed it, and I’d say it’s more then worth checking out.

Overall, I give HANSEL & GRETEL: WITCH HUNTERS (2013)…

five_barrels_of_toxic_waste

FIVE BARRELS OF TOXIC WASTE.

Filed in Reviews | Comment Now

Nude on the Moon (1961)

Nude_on_the_moon_poster_01_Crisco_EditHow’s that for an attention-grabbing title, readers? Bill here again, this time with a classic 1960s “Nudie Cutie” from director Doris Wishman, the woman responsible for such classics as DEADLY WEAPONS. I really love these “Nudie Cuties” — they’re so sweet and innocent, you know? They’re not overtly sexual, they’re not crass, they’re just cute and fun…and full of real, natural boobs on real, natural female bodies, not the plasticine parts of the modern day. This is a short little film, so let’s take a look, shall we?

Spoilers ensue.

Jeff is a virile(ish) young scientist working in the lab of his older colleague, known simply as “The Professor.”  Jeff works night and day on a top secret project, working so hard that he fails to notice that his secretary, Cathy, is absolutely aching for him.  The Professor notices, however, and tries to counsel Cathy on her unrequited love and to nudge Jeff in the direction of Cathy’s heaving bosoms.  But at the same time, the Professor is also working on Jeff’s secret project — it’s a rocket to the moon! It has to be kept top secret because of reasons.

The rocket launches, leaving Earth’s gravity in about 4 seconds (which should have reduced Jeff and the Professor to something resembling a Hefty bag full of chunky beef stew dropped off the roof of the Chrysler building) and arriving at the lush, verdant sphere of South Flori-I mean, the moon.  Jeff and the Professor put on their spandex moon-suits and open helmets and go exploring, quickly discovering a population of topless, perky women bouncing around and sunbathing atop monolithic coral furniture (Coral Castle.  Check it out).  Astonishingly, Jeff and the Professor all but ignore the boobilicious beauties in favor of taking pictures of rocks and collecting soil samples.

With their oxygen supply running low (despite having open-faced helmets and breathing the moon-air), Jeff suddenly finds himself smitten with the Moon Queen.  Forced to leave her behind, Jeff takes another look at his long-suffering secretary Cathy.  Without her clothes, she looks an awful lot like the Moon Queen…

And here’s the full movie, courtesy of YouTube, for you to enjoy.

So, there’s not bloody much of a plot here to discuss.  The film is pretty much all fluff – prior to the rocket launch the film is padded with shots of Cathy typing and typical 1960s “Science – IN ACTION!” shots.  After the rocket lands, the film lands in typical Nudie Cutie territory, with no story to get in the way of the boobage.  Just long, lingering shots of curvaceous cuties wandering around in the warm sunshine and sitting on various large rocks.

The production values of the film are perhaps the textbook definition of sub-par; while Ms. Wishman was never working with Spielbergian budgets, this film takes the cake in terms of cheapness.  I mean, you only have to provide wardrobe for two actors, and the space suits on display here are what we get?

The women here are charming and easy on the eyes, especially if you’re like me, and prefer unaugmented girls next door types, the ones with big hips and cellulite buttocks and less-then-spherical breasts.  I happen to like this quite a bit, and so I find the women on display here absolutely endearing.  Audiences with a preference for Baywatch bodies and flawless tans will be disappointed by the flesh on display here.

Final Analysis: The film honestly has very little going for it but female nudity of the sort one gets in a more innocent time, when breasts went “bo-oi-oi-oing” upon release from a bullet bra and the idea of lounging nude in the sun for one’s health was in vogue and the idea of filming it and displaying it as “educational” was likewise in vogue.

Overall, I give NUDE ON THE MOON (1961)…

two_barrels_of_toxic_waste

TWO BARRELS OF TOXIC WASTE.

Filed in Reviews | Comment Now

The Mothman Prophecies (2002)

The-Mothman-Prophecies-2002-movie-posterGreetings, readers, Bill here again. After watching LORD OF TEARS last night I had this film on my mind – Something akin, perhaps, to the Six Degrees of Cryptozoological Kevin Bacon. One of the inspirations for LORD OF TEARS’ Owlman was the legendary Cornish Owlman, which falls into the same category of mysterious winged humanoids as West Virginia’s Mothman, which inspired paranormal investigator John A. Keel to write a book on the phenomena, which inspired this movie.  I haven’t watched this one in years but I remember it very favorably.  Let’s take a look-see, shall we?

Spoilers ensue.

John Klein (Richard Gere), a journalist whose star is on the rise, and his lovely wife (Debra Messing) are out house-hunting.  After finding one they like, driving home to DC, she loses control of the vehicle and spins out of control, her skull cracking against the glass of the window.  In the hospital, she speaks to John (who was not injured in the crash) of seeing something right before she spun out…something winged, with red eyes that seemed to burn right into her.  Before dying, she fills a sketchbook with haunting images – images the doctors mistake for “angels.”

The quest for answers begins to consume Klein’s life, and two years later he finds himself in Point Pleasant, West Virginia with no idea of how he got there.  He finds the town in the grip of terror – residents are reporting strange lights in the sky, unusual phone calls from someone identifying themself as “Indrid Cold,” and most frighteningly, sightings of a winged, humanoid figure with burning red eyes.  Klein teams up with local police officer Connie Mills (Laura Linney) to investigate the disturbances, and find themselves faced with one essential question: Is the Mothman an omen, warning of disaster…or a harbinger of disaster itself?

The events of Point Pleasant began in 1966 when two young couples, looking for a romantic evening, drove out to a former WWII munitions plant turned wildlife sanctuary.  While out there, they encountered a flying entity with shining red eyes.  This triggered a series of similar sightings that lasted over a year.  Numerous people claimed encounters with the mysterious “Mothman,” some claiming the creature’s burning eyes left them with actual physical burns, migraines or temporary blindness.  The story was first brought to wider attention when ufoologist and sometimes-hoaxer Gray Barker wrote it up in his book The Silver Bridge in 1970; it received even wider attention when John Keel released the book The Mothman Prophecies in 1975.  It is, unsurprisingly, from this latter book that the film is derived.

Keel’s hypothesis was not that Mothman was an extraterrestrial creature, but an ultraterrestrial creature – something from another dimension, something that in past centuries has been interpreted as fairies or demons, and that while essentially non-malevolent, this entity or entities are portents, warnings of something terrible due to occur, and quite possibly serve as psychopomps – ferrymen of the souls of the recently-deceased – for those slain in the disasters they foretell.  The film largely follows Keel’s ideas, espoused to Gere’s character by a minor character, a paranormalist named “Leek” in honor of the late John Keel.

The Mothman “flap” of 1966-1967 came to a shocking conclusion with the collapse of the Silver Bridge, and the film likewise climaxes with the collapse of the bridge into the icy waters below.

Richard Gere gives a fine performance here as a rational man, a journalist used to dealing in objective truth, dropped into a situation where rationality has flown out the window and the universe is playing by an unfamiliar set of rules.  As the film progresses, it does a great job translating his progressive breaking with reality into something the viewer can readily follow, repeating footage (as Klein seems to repeat actions or events), sonic overlays, and suggestive imagery; paintings or statuary of angels are placed into shots, for example, and there’s recurrent sequences in which two red lights – traffic lights, a car’s taillights, Christmas tree lights – appear side by side.  Though he “appears” in the film only in a few scant frames, Mothman’s presence in the film is almost suffocating.  He’s ever-present.

Final Analysis: THE MOTHMAN PROPHECIES  is not a film that ties up its mysteries neatly in the final reel.  If closure is something you want in a film, look elsewhere.  It’s a film about atmosphere, about mood, about the fear of the unknown and the confrontation of that fear.  It’s about a time and place where reality intersected with something else, somewhere else, for thirteen months.  If you can grok that, by all means give THE MOTHMAN PROPHECIES a try.  It does a damn good job at what it sets out to do.

Overall, I give THE MOTHMAN PROPHECIES (2002)…

four_barrels_of_toxic_waste

FOUR BARRELS OF TOXIC WASTE.

Filed in Reviews | Comment Now

Lord of Tears (2013)

lord-of-tears-posterGreetings, readers, Bill here with a midweek update. I’d received this film awhile back as a reward for having backed the Kickstarter — the DVD arriving wrapped in Deadly Nightshade-purple paper and sealed with a piece of tape affixing an owl feather over the folds in the paper. Theatrical, no? I’d been intrigued by this film since the director, Lawrie Brewster, contacted the Blood Sprayer Facebook page – another place my writing can be found, under the nom de plume “J.D. Malinger.” I’d mentioned the film to a coworker the other day as a promising-looking ghost story inspired by the Slenderman mythos, so let’s see if I’m a liar or not, shall we?

Spoilers ensue.

Upon the passing of his mother, James Findlay inherits the ancestral mansion – and with it, a written admonition from his mother to never set foot in the old house again, that exposure to something within its moldering walls drove him mad as a child – and only years away from the house allowed his fractured mind to recover.  James reasons that while he doesn’t remember much from living at the old house as a child, surely he’d remember going crazy, right?

James moves back into the old house, and begins to experience unnatural events; birds cluster outside his window, cawing and refusing the vacate, and nightmare-jumbles of long-suppressed memories rise up to bedevil him as he tries to sleep.  As the mystery deepens, a malevolent humanoid figure, a taloned and feathered fiend known to James since childhood as the Owlman, emerges…

Given the prominence that the Owlman is given in the advertising for this film, viewers might be forgiven for expecting LORD OF TEARS to be a paranormal monster romp in the vein of something like PARANORMAL ACTIVITY or perhaps THE EXORCIST.  It really isn’t, though — the filmmakers drew a lot more inspiration from THE RING and related J-horror films; films that drew heavily on the mythology of their country of origin and that weren’t afraid to allow a slow building of tension punctuated with fleeting moments of sheer adrenaline-pumping terror.

LORD OF TEARS likewise draws on the legendry of the Scottish countryside, as well as the Cornish stories of the Owlman, a man-sized owl-like creature said to have terrorized Cornwall in the 1960s and 1970s, possibly a relative of the American “Mothman.”

The film likewise moves very slowly, both for better and worse.  At times, the leisurely pace accentuates James’ growing mental aberration, giving the audience time to savor the horror he’s experiencing.  At other times, I at least was left wondering when the film would get on with it already.  LORD OF TEARS clocks in at about 100 minutes, and I think it runs just a little too long.

Aesthetically, the film is beautifully shot, with some amazing harshly-lit scenes that blur back and forth between the physical objects James is seeing, and him remembering them as they were in his youth.  Light and Shadow, those two most essential tools of the visual arts, are applied with a master’s touch where they serve to the best effect here; at no point is the film so dark that we can’t see what’s going on, but when it serve the purpose of the story for the lights to go out, they go fucking out.

The editing and some of the visual storytelling of the film I think will be a turn-off for some; it’s very stylized and in places very surrealistic, very Ken Russell-y a la ALTERED STATES or LAIR OF THE WHITE WORM.  Given the way the film deals with the vagaries of memory and elements of nightmare, I think the surrealistic editing is a valid choice, I just know that it won’t appeal to all audiences.

Final Analysis: Slow-burning, moody and haunting, LORD OF TEARS won’t appeal to all audiences and doesn’t quite fill out its runtime as thickly as I’d like, it’s nevertheless an extremely sharp and stylish indie ghost story that doesn’t underestimate the intelligence of its audience and indeed doesn’t hesitate to challenge viewers to step up to its intellectual level and piece together otherwise dissociated knowledge and ideas along with it.  I dug it.

Overall, I give LORD OF TEARS (2013)…

four_barrels_of_toxic_waste

FOUR BARRELS OF TOXIC WASTE.

Filed in Reviews | Comment Now

Chupacabra Vs. The Alamo (2013)

Chupacabra-vs.-the-Alamo-2013-posterGreetings, readers, Bill here. Now, I’ve no doubt I’m a bit rusty at this, having not written a review in several months. I can imagine no better way to knock the rust off then with a SyFy Channel Original Movie. This one I got on a five-pack with MEGA SHARK VS. GIANT OCTOPUS (which I didn’t care for in 2009), MEGA PIRANHA (which I loved on initial release) and a couple environmental disaster flicks I don’t give a rat’s ass about, because they don’t have monsters in them. But at $1 apiece (the DVD was in a $5 bin at Walmart), no great loss. Tonight’s film is extra special; I’ve been keeping a running tally of how many films I own copies of, and CHUPACABRA VS. THE ALAMO marks #1000.  Following SyFy/Asylum’s recent trend of putting 1980s stars and singers in their films, CHUPACABRA VS. THE ALAMO stars Erik Estrada — let’s take a look, shall we?

Spoilers ensue.

DEA Agent Carlos Seguin (Estrada) has a hell of a problem on his hands – a group of drug-runners have been discovered in a tunnel between Mexico and San Antonio, brutally murdered and torn to pieces.  While Seguin favors a hypothesis that this was cartel-on-cartel violence, his new partner Taylor (Julia Benson, of SGU: Stargate Universe) believes that the drug-runners were murdered by a pack of strange, wrinkled, hairless coyote-like creatures, one of which was found dead in the tunnel with the smugglers.

Naturally, the hot chick is correct, and a pack of wrinkled, hairless coyote-like creatures, Chupacabras, have traveled from Mexico into San Antonio.  And to make matters worse, examination of the dead Chupacabra they found shows that it, and likely the rest of its pack, is infected with rabies.  Like I said, DEA Agent Carlos Seguin has a hell of a problem on his hands.

The Chupacabra, or Chupacabras (I’ve seen both as acceptable singular and plural forms) is an interesting monsters, something of a break-out instant superstar in the world of the paranormal and cryptozoology.  Unlike Bigfoot, whose pedigree dates back to the 1950s, or Nessie who’s been seen since the 1930s, the Chupacabras really only burst out onto the scene in 1996.  While original reports described a creature resembling the traditional “Grey” alien with a row of spikes down its back and long claws and fangs, the creature soon underwent a metamorphosis unlike anything in prior cryptozoological literature — from a spiny alien to a hairless canid, after a rancher in Blanco, Texas came forward with a carcass of what he believed to have been a Chupacabra he’d killed while it was harassing his chickens.  Several similar corpses have been found, all of which, once subject to actual scientific analysis, have turned out to be various forms of canines – mostly coyotes – with sarcoptic mange, a disease caused by a parasitic mite that causes hair loss.

Interestingly, while all previous Chupacabra movies I’ve seen have had something at least vaguely resembling the original description – if no more than simply humanoid with giant fangs and bulging eyes – this is the first I’ve heard of that’s gone the route of the mangy coyote-creature.  I’m wondering if, in a few years’ time, people will completely forget that the Chupacabra ever looked like a spiny alien.

For those interested in reading a comprehensive report on the Chupacabras phenomenon, as well as learn the sci-fi monster movie that inspired the first report, may I recommend Ben Radford’s incredible work, Tracking the Chupacabras: The Vampire Beast in Fact, Fiction and Folklore? You won’t regret it.

As for CHUPACABRA VS. THE ALAMO, it’s pretty standard run-of-the-mill fare for SyFy Channel, nothing truly special but an acceptable way to kill an hour and a half.  Most of the acting varies from bland and flat to wildly histrionic, with no sort of balance in between – and I love how blatantly obvious it is that Estrada didn’t even try to take this seriously and cranked the ham-factor to 12 with his performance.

The CGI is just utterly terrible.  Just, I can’t even.  Terrible.  How far are the budgets shrinking on these SyFy Channel Original Movies? Every one looks worse then the film that precedes it.  There is no reason, just absolutely no reason, for films like this and CAMEL SPIDERS to look so much worse then the CGI in films like ANACONDA or THE RELIC, you know? Technology has f’ing improved! CGI has gotten cheaper to utilize! Why does it look like crap?

Final Analysis: An acceptable way to fritter away an hour and a half, but it’s kind of like a meal you eat just for the perfunctory act of taking in nourishment, rather then for any sort of gustatory pleasure.  The monsters are poorly realized and don’t interact with their environment in any significant way, though a couple are killed off by means reminiscent of the kitchen kills in the original GREMLINS.  Erik Estrada gave a fine hammy performance, though I thought efforts to shoe-horn family drama for his character into the plot felt forced and superficial.  I’m not sure I’d watch this again, I think I’m much more likely to reach for a “classic” Chupacabra movie with the older monster design.

Overall, I give CHUPACABRA VS. THE ALAMO (2013)…

two_barrels_of_toxic_waste

TWO BARRELS OF TOXIC WASTE.

Filed in Reviews | Comment Now

Back…with a Vengeance

Long time, no see. I know in my last posting I’d announced my retirement, but it seems like that may have been premature.  Time and again over the last few months, I found myself thinking about this old site, and a couple times wanted to pull it out and dust it off – especially a few times during conversations about movies with coworkers.  Today the subject of Troma came up between myself and a couple coworkers, and I found myself getting so passionate in the conversation and enjoying myself so much, I knew it was time to get back on the horse.

Hopefully my leave of absence hasn’t fucked me in the ass too hard in terms of losing readers.  Hopefully a lot of people had me in an rss feed or are following on Facebook, and will see this.  I didn’t realize just how many people were seeing my posts until the statistics were pointed out to me a couple months after I “retired.”  I genuinely thought that I was just shouting into the void, and that nobody saw any of this, ever, and that thought was deeply discouraging to me, and played a major role in my decision to retire.  I mean, yeah, I’m doing this for me — not for fame, or fortune, or attention…but a little attention now and then is nice, you know?

So I’m going to get back to providing the absolute best quality reviews available to read anywhere on the web or otherwise – I’m not saying that to be arrogant, but I am shedding a lot of unwarranted humility.  I’ve read a lot of other peoples’ blogs and checked out all the big names in horror magazines, and I gotta say, there’s a lot of dreck out there.  I do excellent work, and I think anyone who’s been reading here for any length of time will agree with me on that point.  There’s no point in me being aggressively modest about my talents – I fucking rock, and it’s time for me to embrace that.

Coming soon: reviews of LORD OF TEARS, CHUPACABRA VS. THE ALAMO, and others.  I’m hoping you’ll enjoy what I have to say about them.

Filed in Miscellaneous | Comment Now