I already reviewed The Strangers upon its initial theatrical release. You can read that bit of Pulitzer Prize worthy journalism here:

http://pacinofan.wordpress.com/2008/06/02/pseudo-review-the-strangers/

Suffice to say, I dug the movie. I know it falters a bit towards the end, but overall the film works for me. I think your enjoyment of it depends on how much you care about the victims.

The DVD, on the other hand, doesn’t work for me at all. The packaging states that it includes the theatrical and unrated versions. The only real difference between the two is a bit of extra “struggling” towards the end of the unrated version that, to be honest, weakens the very last scene. Anyone hoping for a hardcore sex scene with Liv Tyler (or Scott Speedman, whatever floats your boat) will be surely disappointed. The only special features on the disc are some deleted scenes and a making of doc that runs just over nine minutes and features no earth shattering revelations on the film. The two deleted scenes are pretty meaningless as they simply reinforce that Scott Speedman really wanted to marry Liv Tyler, but she doesn’t want to marry him. I was hoping the bonus content would give more insight on the Strangers themselves, or on the so called “true story” the movie is supposedly based. Instead we learn Live Tyler hurt her hand pounding on a window, and Scott Speedman’s character took a drink before proposing to Liv Tyler.  

The Strangers is a pretty disappointing DVD package. Had I known the bonus content was so weak, I would’ve have waited for it to hit the previously viewed bin at blockbuster. Even a director’s commentary would have made me happy, but we don’t even get that. Maybe there saving that for a double dip, but if they are I won’t be getting it. I’m not gonna spend money on a better version of a DVD that should have been right the first time.

Basically what I’m saying is, the movie is very recommended but the DVD, not so much.

The one thing you can definitely say about Burnt Offerings is that it’s got one hell of an inspired cast. Karen Black, Oliver Reed, Burgess Meredith, and Bette Davis in her “I’m old, I better do a lot of horror movies before I die” stage of her career all do some wicked scenery chewing.

This tale of a family renting a creepy summer house is filled with plenty of dread, but it doesn’t really get cooking until the last 20 minutes or so. Granted, that last 20 minutes is definitely creepy. The movie features the standard Horror movie “door you’re not supposed to open” gag, but does a terrific job building up to the inevitable unlocking. There’s definitely a 70’s “Made for TV” vibe to it (it was directed by TV horror guru Dan Curtis after all) but I think it may have had a theatrical release. Also keep in mind that in the 70’s, “made for TV” wasn’t such a bad thing. Hopefully the Sci-Fi Channel is listening.

The movie ends up being quite ambiguous and the audience isn’t spoon fed many conclusions. Suffice to say, this summer House has some evil mojo and it affects the family members to varying degrees. Oh yeah, it also features one of the creepiest dude’s I’ve ever laid my eyes on; The Chauffeur! He is one a freaky lookin’ mofo!

Burnt Offerings isn’t quite a classic, but the cool cast and scary final act made this 2 hours well wasted.

There’s not much about the plot of the newest SAW film I can talk about without ruining a few surprises. Let’s just say that Police Detective Mark Hoffman secretly continues his duties as Jigsaw’s apprentice, while FBI Agent Strahm is hot on his trail. Oh yeah, there’s also a bunch of unlucky bastards locked up in a basement that have to play classic Jigsaw “games” (not half as fun as Reindeer games, FYI).

Kudos to the writers for being able to make different events in the SAW films seem connected, even if they were originally never intended to be. The series is constantly being retconned, but the writers always have a way of making it make sense (as long as you don’t think too hard about it). You don’t have to have seen the previous movies to enjoy SAW V, but it sure adds an extra layer of coolness to see how different events now interlock.

As usual, the film keeps you guessing and it’s always fun waiting for the dramatic SAW theme to play as the expected twist is revealed (although SAW V doesn’t really have all that shocking a climax compared to the other films). You‘ll also notice that the death traps are more brutal than usual, but lack the twisted cleverness we’ve come to expect from Jigsaw. Of course, this makes sense since it’s no longer Jigsaw creating them.  

One of the questions left unanswered from SAW IV was how the hell Hoffman ever got mixed up w/ Jigsaw. SAW V answers that question, and the explanation is more or less satisfactory. Of course, for every answer, SAW V poses a couple more questions. There are two fairly big loose ends left open at the end of the flick, and I’m assuming these will get explained in SAW VI. SAW V, more than any of the other sequels, really sets things up for the next installment. 

To be honest, I don’t know how much farther the series can go before it becomes self parody (some may argue it already has). Tobin Bell as Jigsaw is a huge part of what makes the series work, but you have to believe there are only so many more flashbacks left to show before they get silly. There’s also the danger that the more you explain about Jigsaw’s past, the more you hurt his mystique. Plus, I think that the whole franchise is guilty of killing off the more interesting characters. I’d much rather see Donnie Wahlberg’s Detective Matthews than the fairly bland Agent Strahm.

Speaking of characters I wasn’t too hot over, I was never terribly interested in the seemingly random (but not really random at all) group of strangers trapped together. I think this was due to the film never having time to explore them very much.   

The main gripe I have with SAW V is that Hoffman isn’t really playing “the game” fairly. Agent Strahm suspects Hoffman of being Jigsaw’s accomplice, so Hoffman wants to get rid of him. Killing someone to save your own skin seems very un-Jigsaw like to me.  

Bottom line, if you’re a fan of the series, you’ll probably like this one. It’s not the best of the bunch, but the filmmakers are still doing a good job keeping the intricate house of continuity cards together. At the very least, I’m still not bored of the series and I’ll be back next Halloween to check out SAW VI.

There was a time, not too long ago, that a new Zombie movie was as scarce as artistic integrity in Uwe Boll. That’s changed in recent years as nowadays you can’t throw a rock with out hitting a Zombie movie in the head. It’s like were living (dead) in a new Golden Age of Zombie film.  

This Zombie resurgence has brought about some great flicks, such as the modern day classic Shaun of the Dead. The recent popularity of Zombies even allowed the King of the Undead, George Romero, to finally continue his critically acclaimed Dead series with Land of the Dead and Diary of the Dead. Speaking of Romero, there was even a remake of his classic Dawn of the Dead that should have been horrible… but was surprisingly pretty good! On the other rotted hand, Zombie fans have had to put up with some real garbage. House of the Dead was perhaps the worst Zombie movie ever made (and a completely joyless experience to sit through). We had an alleged sequel to Romero’s Day of the Dead that was merely cashing in on some jack off owning the rights to the name. Speaking of Day, let’s not forget the ill fated remake of the original that should have been horrible… and was. With Zombie popularity at an all time high (it’s actually kind of peaked) it’s inevitable that the genre become watered down, and occasionally drowned.

This brings us to the recently released (on DVD anyway) Dance of the Dead. I’d heard good things about this one, so I had pretty high hopes. You can tell that all involved tried their hardest to make a fun movie. I dug the plot (a Zombie outbreak on Prom Night, and only a few dateless high school kids to try and stop it) and it features characters that are, for the most part, likeable. One of the best things about the movie is that it has teenaged characters played by, wait for it… actual teenagers! It’s an amazing concept, I know, but it brings a sense of reallism to an otherwise unrealistic story. It’s a lot easier to care about High schoolers and relate to their teenage angst when they’re played by real teens, not CW Network rejects that all look like they just had a boob jobs.

Dance also boasts some pretty good effects and just enough gore to remind you that zombies like to eat guts. I like the fact that the effects were primarily practical, with just a few digital touch ups when needed (that’s how you use digital effects Mr. Lucas).

It’s obvious the filmmakers were trying for a Shaun of the Dead vibe. The comedy comes from the characters and their situations, but the horror and zombie aspects are played pretty straight. It’s not an instant classic like Shaun, but it’s still a good mix of comedy and Zombie carnage.  

The one thing that really didn’t work for me was the Rock Band. All their scenes involve cringe worthy “rockin’ out” moments with god awful songs. They were also involved in a pretty weak subplot about Zombies being mesmerized by music that had my eyes rolling so hard my retinas detached.

As far as low budget Zombie flicks go, Dance of Dead is far from the worse. Likeable characters, the Dead rising from the grave, and the occasional body being ripped apart by a horde of hungry flesh eaters is all I really wanted from Dance, and it pretty much delivered.

Horror fans seem to have a weird relationship with Dario Argento. Although he’s considered to be one of the true Masters of European Horror, fans today talk mainly about his alleged decline as a director and seem to take his bad films personally. It’s to the point where some people question if he was ever any good in the first place. This leads us to Mother of Tears, Argento’s latest film and the long awaited finale to the Three Mothers trilogy. The first film in the trilogy (the classic Suspiria) is considered Argento’s best. Combine that with the fact many fans consider him washed up, and you’re gonna get some pretty wonky expectations.

 Here’s the plot in a nutshell (probably an evil, poisonous nutshell MHAHAHA): For reasons unexplained or just too convoluted for me to have taken note of, the discovery of an ancient Urn in Rome leads to the re-awakening of the most powerful and evil Witch known to mankind. All the witches on earth (looking a lot like Helen Behan Carter) converge on the city to pay their respects and act all demonic and stuff. This sudden influx of evil causes mass suicides and violent crime to plague Rome, making it burn once again. Add in a lot gratuitous nudity and violence and you have Mother of Tears.

 Opinion on this one really varies. Some call it Argento’s worst film ever, while others say it’s his best in years (even that can be considered faint praise). I guess I’m somewhere in the middle since I enjoyed it, but never had terribly high expectations going in. It definitely never bored me and even has a few genuinely chilling moments. Best of all, MOT is one of the bloodiest flicks I’ve seen in a good long while. We get a people strangled with their own intestines; a face hacked up with an axe, and a vaginal insertion that makes the tree rape scene in Evil Dead look down right romantic. The film also has no problem killing off a few bratty kids, usually a horror movie taboo.

 The film is not without its flaws however, and two of them are pretty major since they deal with the films’ lead performances. Asia Argento is about as convincing as a broomstick playing a Paleontologist that may have mystical powers. It doesn’t help that her character seems to know nothing about Paleontology, or that she does incredibly stupid things (like throw her cell phone out of a speeding car). I can buy Asia as a hooker, but a Scientist? Not so much. At the other end of the bad acting spectrum is Moran Atias as the titular “Mother of Tears”. She looks really good naked (which she is most of the time) but she just doesn’t have the acting skills to play the embodiment of evil (I’m not even sure she has the acting skills to play a reasonable fax simile of evil). Having the main Heroine and Villainess deliver such poor performances definitely hurt the film. Also, Rome is supposed to be in a state of chaos on an apocalyptic scale, but budgetary constraints make the carnage look like it’s limited to only a few streets and alleyways.

Complaints aside, at the end of the 102 minute run time, I was left entertained. The ridiculous and possibly anatomically incorrect gore scenes are ultimately what save the flick for me. I’m not a huge Argento fan, so I wasn’t expecting it to be the greatest film ever, nor was I expecting it to be the worst. I know hardcore Argento fans may be disappointed that it’s not a modern day classic, but it’s still good enough for me to recommend as long as you know how to keep your expectations in check.

Here’s the movie that many claim started the infamous Italian Cannibal Cycle (not to be confused with the Cannibal-cave, Cannibal-boat, or Cannibal-mobile). Even though the Cannibals in question only make a cameo appearance, it does feature most of the sub-genre’s staples; real animal slaughter, stupid white people getting lost in the jungle, and a healthy dose of gratuitous nudity. However, Man from Deep River reminds me more of a Grindhouse version of Dances with Wolves than your typical Cannibal flick.

The story centers on a Photographer named John Bradley who, of course, ventures way too deep in to the jungle. He’s captured by a native tribe and soon put to work as a slave. Eventually he makes an escape attempt but is re-captured, killing one of the natives in the process. Oddly enough, this act of violence against the Tribe actually earns Bradley their respect and he’s eventually initiated in to it (he even gets a hot native girl for a wife in the deal). Actual Cannibals don’t come in to play until much later when Bradley’s tribe is attacked by a group of flesh feasters. We only get one scene of actual gut munching, but don’t worry; a few tongues are cut off beforehand just to whet your appetite.

Man from Deep River is actually a pretty good film, and not just because it hits all the right exploitation beats. At the movie’s heart is an attempt to explore man’s primal urge to inflict violence. The flick basically says that even so called “civilized” society isn’t all that different than primitive man. Early on, Bradley is seen watching a Kick Boxing match, screaming for blood. Later on in the movie we see natives cheering on cockfighting and other assorted forced animal battles. It’s of course disturbing to watch animals kill each other, but is it really all that different than John’s blood lust during the Kick boxing match? What does it say about Bradley that he us so easily acclimatized in to the tribe? The main questions is: wouldn’t all of society be better off if woman were allowed to go topless more, as they do in the jungle?     

It’s hard to take the movie completely seriously since it has the cheesy dubbing that plagues most Italian exploitation films. Also, for a bunch primitive natives living deep in the jungle, they sure have nicely waxed eyebrows. Still, I was taken by surprise at how intelligent Man from Deep River attempts to be. It’s not as fun as Cannibal Ferox, or as shocking as the “classic” Cannibal Apocalypse, but as a dramatic character study (albeit one with exploitation flare) it works surprisingly well

After witnessing the brutal murder of his entire family (by a monster no less) young Jack Brooks grows up to be a bitter rageaholic. Luckily, an all out demon attack gives him a great outlet for his anger management issues. This leads to all sorts of spilled monster guts in the Canuck Horror flick Jack Brooks: Monster Slayer.

I wanted to like Jack Brooks: Monster Slayer a lot more than I did. I’m not Saying it was a bad movie or anything, I actually enjoyed it quite a bit. I was just so giddy at the thought of some old school latex monster fighting that I couldn’t help but be a little let down when I saw it. The main issue I have with the film is the pacing. There are scenes that just seem “off” some how and really drag. In fact, it’s not until the last 20 minutes or so that we finally get some hot guy on monster action. With that said, you have to respect a low budget monster movie that goes for old school effects over CG. Even with a limited budget, the monster effects all look great. The creatures run the gauntlet of Evil Dead like Deadites to Lords of the Ring style Ogres.

On the acting front, Trevor Matthews does a great job channeling his inner Ash as our titular hero. Its clear Jack has anger issues, but Matthews makes him such a likeable everyman that you can’t help but cheer for him. It also features modern day horror legend Robert Englund in a role that’s much bigger than advertised. For some reason I thought he only had a cameo but he’s actually one of the main characters.

JB: MS is a lot like a Superhero movie in that it has to cover a lot of back story in order to explain the hero’s origin and still squeeze in the actual conflict. I think Jack’s future Monster Slaying will be a lot more streamlined now that the origin is out of the way (think Spider-Man II or The Dark Knight as the ultimate examples of this).

With obvious nods to films like Night of the Demons and Evil Dead (actually, more like Evil Dead II) Jack Brooks Monster:  Slayer is a lot of fun for 80’s monster kids. Not perfect by any means, I’m still intrigued to see what Beasties Jack battles next as I’m pretty sure Jack will be back.

Run Fat Boy Run and How to Loose Friends and Alienate People are two flicks that, under normal circumstances, I wouldn’t have thought twice about. However, Simon Pegg stars in both and I’m a card carrying member of the Simon Pegg fan club (we should call ourselves Peggy’s) so I had to see them. The allure of Simon Pegg is just too damn strong to resist.

Run Fatboy Run
Like I said, my man-love for Pegg makes me do weird things, such as pay to see a Romantic Comedy directed by Ross. To my shock and awe, I actually liked it.

Pegg is in all his likeable slacker glory as an out of shape security guard trying to get back the girl he left at the altar years prior. Hank “man I voice a lot of Simpsons’ characters” Azaria is good as the handsome and successful romantic rival that we’ve all learned to hate in movies like this (even if there’s no real reason too). Especially funny is Shaun of the Dead alumni Dylan Moran who plays the standard “best friend of the hero” role. He makes it more memorable than usual with a running gag of appearing nude from the waist down several times (male nudity = funny).

The movie is admittedly contrived and the ending never even remotely in doubt but I still enjoyed it. I was never bored and I laughed out loud, not much more you can ask for from a comedy when expectations aren’t all that high.

How to Loose Friends and Alienate People
What should have been a biting satire of celebrity and the media that felatiates them ends up as nothing more than a hackneyed (more hackneyed than usual) romantic comedy. Run Fatboy Run is down right revolutionary in comparison. It’s a shame too because it features a good cast lead by Pegg’s usual awesomeness and stand out performances by Gillian Anderson and Jeff Bridges. Unfortunately, not even the combined might of Shaun, Scully, and The Dude can save this flick from a sub par script and pedestrian direction.

HTLFAAP goes down as a missed opportunity since the premise had the potential for all sorts of satirical funny. Maybe the filmmakers were afraid that skewering the cult of celebrity would piss off the wrong people or something. I’m tempted to pick up the book in which the movie is based to see just how watered down the film is in comparison.

On the plus side, it does feature some full frontal trans-sexual nudity, which is something you don’t see everyday… and if you do see it everyday I’m not judging.

The two biggest problems I had with my viewing experience of Quarantine didn’t have anything to do with the actual movie.

Problem #1: Why do I always have to sit by the most annoying people in the universe whenever I go to the movies? I had the extreme misfortune to be sitting in front of two teenaged girls that talked non-stop during the film. Apparently they were both too malformed to even know how to whisper. They also really enjoyed kicking the back of my seat. Unless kicking the back of someone’s chair in a movie theatre is teenage girl code for “Let’s have sex,” I find that pretty damn rude. I don’t want to overreact or anything, but if they both die of vagina cancer I wouldn’t be the least bit upset.

Problem #2:

Dear Jackoff that cut the trailer,

Next time you might want to consider not giving away the end of the f**king movie. Seriously, WTF dude??!?!?!

Sincerely,
Me

Anyhoo, the actual flick itself wasn’t bad. Jennifer Carpenter plays a dumb ass Reporter doing a routine “Day in the life” piece on the Fire Department. You can tell she wishes she had a bigger story to cover, and in the ultimate example of “Be careful what wish you wish for,” she soon gets it. Locked inside of an apartment building filled with a bunch of 28 Days Later rejects, all she can do is tell her cameraman to keep filming “no matter what” and hope the truth eventually get’s out.

Quarantine is the latest in the recent trend of Shockumentary style horror (Cloverfield and Diary of the Dead are other recent examples). This isn’t anything new (Cannibal Holocaust was probably the first) but it’s kind of interesting we’re seeing it so much right now. I think it has a lot to do with all the amateur footage that finds its way on to CNN nowadays.

The movie is by no means perfect. You can play a fun drinking game by taking a swig every time a character remembers a secret way out of the building, only to be thwarted every time. You’re also forced to wonder how many people need to be bitten in the face before the characters in the movie learn to stay the hell away from anyone frothing at the mouth.

Ultimately, I get the feeling that everyone involved tried real hard to make a good horror movie. There’s lots of blood and few truly disturbing scenes. Plus, the final 20 minutes or so are down right scary (even if the film’s climax is ruined by the trailers).

I’ve paid to see worse movies, and there’s really not a whole heck of a lot else playing horror-wise in theatres right now. If you’re in the need for some blood and guts on the big screen, go ahead and give Quarantine a try.

P.S. Keep in mind Quarantine is a remake of the Spanish film [REC]. Not to get all film snobbish, but I get the feeling the original is probably better.

If Things was an attempt to be Canada’s answer to Evil Dead, someone didn’t quite understand the question.

This cornea mutilating motion picture may very well be the worst movie I’ve ever seen. I came to that realization less than 20 minutes in to it (the following 65 minutes only reinforced that notion). To say it’s an incomprehensibly bad film is to insult incomprehensibility, and it would give Things the distinction of being a film.

The plot, as best I can discern, is about an experimental form of artificial insemination that has disastrous and somehow demonic consequences. A couple, desperate to have a child, let’s the local Satan worshipping mad scientist have a quick poke at the ol’ uterus. Instead of a baby, these experiments spawn monstrous… things (ohhh, now I get it). That quick synopsis is way more coherent than the film deserves. Watching this movie is like staring at the face of God; human eyes will have a hard time comprehending what they’re seeing.

At times it’s almost as if the filmmakers are in on the joke, but I’m not sure they ever truly recognized just how potent this bad movie dynamite was (and by dynamite I mean something more akin to explosive diarrhea). Director Andrew Jordan’s stunning technical ineptitude makes Ed Wood look like Akira Kurosawa. You get the feeling that Helen Keller, with a script written by an 8 year old, could’ve made a better flick.

To say the movie is low budget is like saying KD Lang may not be in to guys. The score of the film seems to have been created by hitting “demo” on a Keyboard and the sound mixed by Marlee Matlin (I’m running out of deaf and/or blind celebrities for this review). I’m not sure what types of cameras were used to shoot this but I suspect they were homemade, possibly using Vaseline jars. Even the credits are cheap. They look like someone was playing around with the fonts on their brand new Commodore 64.

To its credit, Things does feature full frontal female nudity within the first 2 minutes. Gotta give props to that. It’s also pretty gory, although it’s more Special Olympics than special effects; they try real hard but something just doesn’t look right.

Some bad movies call for beer and pizza. This one requires something a little stronger, like abthinse and crystal meth. Being the sick twisted soul that I am, I felt a strange sensation while watching Things; almost as if I was being… entertained. Maybe entertained isn’t the right word, more like enthralled by the sheer might of its crapulence.

I can really only recommend Things to two types of people: bad movie lovers, and my sworn enemies. To the curious that seek this film out, don’t say I didn’t warn you.

Special thanks to the Lords of Canadian B-Movies, Canuxploitaion.com, for my copy of Things. Check out their much better written review of the movie here:

 http://www.canuxploitation.com/review/things.html