Film Review - Kristy (2014) - Spoilers

The recipe for Kristy. Take a decent premise; a network of killers target young women for ritual slaughter, calling each Kristy as a reference to Christ. Put a decent actress in the lead; Haley Bennett plays the Final Girl (well, only girl) Justine and is competent in an uninteresting role. Add some decent cinematography.

And then completely ruin any chance of making a watchable movie with a plot that is so implausible and a story so cliche ridden that I think screenwriter Anthony Jaswinski wanted to insult the intelligence of anyone watching the movie.

Justine is a college student staying alone on the campus of a university for Thanksgiving. She is the only student there, something that already stretches the bounds of credulity. While out on a provision run, she encounters Violet (Ashely Green), a member of a nation-wide cult that murders girls and posts the killings on-line. Justine is picked at random; but the killers seem to have a perfect knowledge of the campus, how to disable power and communications and her exact location. Jump scares, near misses and the inability to hide from four people on a large campus drag out the runtime until we get some Final Girl butt-kicking and the Justine's stalkers are killed. As credits roll, we learn that police are taking apart the cult. Justine gets the last word saying, "Justine is dead, I am now Kristy." An after credit sequence, however, indicates that Justine is killed by a cell of the cult. So, not so Final of a Girl after all.

It would be pointless to go through every flaw in the story, since there are so many of them. The most annoying are the inhuman competence of the killers and their ability to appear out of nowhere whenever it is dramatically convenient or it's time for a jump scare. However, those are just things that annoyed me the most; the script is full of hackneyed ideas and well-worn cliches. The story offers nothing original, has no engaging characters and thematically is hollow. The film is a waste of time.

Not Recommended.

Film Review - Spring (2014) - Spoilers

Spring is a great movie. It is blessed with actual on-screen chemistry between the leads, Lou Taylor Pucci and the luminous Nadia Hilker. It has a story that is genuinely creepy, at least until the end when there is a bit too much exposition about what the not-quite-human Louise (Hilker) is going through. The effects are good, if at times a bit cartoonish. The cinematography is clean and attractive and the script is well written. Add to this a well-essayed meet-cute style romance and you have an engaging and unique horror film.

"I'd still like to grab coffee or something, sometime. Because I think you're the most attractive person I've ever seen. But that doesn't outweigh that you might be a mental patient and I gotta make sure that you're the kind of crazy I can deal with." - Evan

Evan (Pucci) is a mid-twenty-something that life has handed one disaster after another. The opening scene sees him at his mother's deathbed, as she wastes away from cancer. It is later revealed that his father died a few years earlier from heart failure and that Even had to leave college to take care of his mom. On the night of her funeral, he gets into a fight in the bar he works at and is fired. The guy he beat up files charges and the police are after Evan. He leaves the US, picking Italy at random. He winds up at a sea-side town, Polignano a Mare, where he catches the eye of Louise. After some flirtation, the two form a quick and intimate bond. However, Louise is not what she seems. Evan discovers she has a horrific secret. Will love win out in the end?

"I am not a sociopath, okay? I just have really bad luck." - Louise

Spring takes some of the tropes of the star-crossed lovers/meet-cute instant romance and gives them a nice twist. The girl has secret, but it's not that she used to be fat or is really a secretary and not a princess or has a controlling family; it's that she is an immortal mutant, whose genetic code runs riot every couple of decades and she spawns teeth and tentacles. Evan is a little closer to a stereotype; however, Pucci makes him very appealing. It was a good idea to have him spend some screen-time first with his drunk, druggie friend Tommy (Jeremy Gardner) and then, when he gets to Italy, two English versions of Tommy and then juxtaposes those relationships with that of an elderly farmer, Angelo (Francesco Carnelutti), who hires Evan as a farmhand when he arrives in Polignano. We get to see the effects that life's challenges have had on Evan when he's with the "lads," but also his more inquisitive, sensitive side when he is with Angelo, without his character ever slipping into some unrealistic sappiness.

The film looks beautiful. The moment when Evan and Louise first see each other in the tight confines of the town square is masterful. Shot in slow motion, with Louise in a seductive red dress and Evan emerging from shadows into sunlight as he turns to watch he walk away sets the stage for the relationship to come. Dream-like, hinting at the flirtatious and difficult nature of Louise (after all, she makes eye contact and then walks away from him) and sets her up as something of a predator. The early creature scenes are effective, although the limits of the CG show near the end, when we see a bit too much of Louise transformed into some kind of fish/squid.

As a Lovecraft fan, I also appreciated the nods to his work (and the work of subsequent authors in the Cthulhu-mythos). Louise is kind of a hot shuggoth or an offspring Ubbo-Sathla. If you don't know what that is, don't worry; it just means you're not an ubergeek like me. The idea of an inbred and not quite human population is something shows up time and again in Lovecraftian stories. And the visual tone, at least initially, would fit a mythos story with partially glimpsed weirdness and visual tone that instills a sense of unease in the viewer.

There are problems with the film. It goes a little longer than the story warranted. The last act, which is heavy on unnecessary backstory, could have been tightened up. The over-explanation of Louise's power actually makes it more confusing. Why is she sprouting tentacles at one point and wolf-like features at another? Is Louise (and others like her) the source of our mythology of werewolves, vampires, succubi, etc? Why does she sometimes look like a rotting corpse? Why even bother with the nonsensical exposition about embryonic and adult stem cells? None of this last minute exposition ruins the film; but it is unnecessary and needlessly complicates the dark fairy tale tone the film established. There's also a last minute red herring - Evan is suddenly being pursued by the police for a visa violation - that goes no where. And ending, in which Louise chooses Evan over immortality, is never in doubt.

These problems are minor compared to everything the creative team did right. Spring is a great film and one that any fan of horror films or even off-beat romances needs to see.

Highly recommended.

Film Review - Creep (2014) - Spoilers

Creep. Is it a tired collection of jump scares, amateurish and telegraphed plot twists, horror genre clichés and one of the dumbest protagonists in film history, all tied up in dull, found footage bow? Or is it a sly send-up of all those things, a knowing look at the tropes of the slasher genre and found footage visual style? Depending on which question you answer 'yes' might determine whether you like this 78 minute long film or whether it is a waste of your time.

Aaron (Patrick Brice) is a videographer who answers an advert from Josef (Mark Duplass). Josef says he has terminal cancer and wants to create a movie for his unborn son. Josef starts out as a weirdo and only gets worse as the story progresses. Aaron sticks around, even after Josef confesses some disturbing facts about his life. After a full day of odd behavior, Aaron has had enough and manages to get away from Josef, who has been successfully getting Aaron to stay longer and longer at the cabin. Aaron thinks he has gotten away; but Josef, who says he loves Aaron tracks him down to his home and sends him disturbing DVDs and gifts. Finally, Josef asks Aaron to meet him one last time for "closure." Will Aaron rid himself of this "creep?"

Josef is disturbing from almost the first moment Aaron meets him. His idea of fun is to leap out at Aaron from a concealed location, providing the film with literal jump-scares. His first "scene" for his son is of him taking a bath with an imaginary toddler. He starts to refer to Aaron as his best friend and says that he loves him. Through all of this, Josef continues to hang around. Why? Because he's the victim, of course.

There are some good aspects to the film. Duplass is a pretty good actor and gets into the role of Josef. Although the pace is slow, at 78 minutes the film doesn't go on too long. While the only "frightening" parts are the jump scares, a lampshade is hung on them. Josef literally says he likes to jump at people to startle them, the essence of the jump scare.

Everything else is kind of a mess. While the found footage aspect fits into the story, it doesn't add anything. It looks like another filmmaker decided to cut costs and use the found footage style to provide cover for bad cinematography and a low-budget. The finale requires Aaron to behave in a way that no human being actually would, going to meet the clearly disturbed (and dangerous) Josef. Of course, he pays for it, in standard horror movie fashion.

Ultimately, the film has nothing new to offer to the slasher or thriller genres. Aaron is too dumb to sympathize with and Josef so weird that the final reveal doesn't make much sense. Josef is a serial killer and apparently has dozens of victims. But, it he follows the same pattern he did with Aaron, we have to believe that a significant percentage of the population of the US is made up of idiots. Hmmm...well, maybe that's not so far-fetched.

If you see this movie as a commentary on the clichés of the genre, then it works a bit better. But, it still doesn't say anything new. Anyone watching this kind of movie knows the tropes, understands the problems with them and has already seen films like Scream that did a much better job of turning spotlight on these stereotypes and clichés.

Not Recommended.

31 Days of Halloween (Day 31) - Halloween III: Season of the Witch (1982)

What better way to celebrate the big day, than with the most underrated film in the Halloween series. Yes, Halloween III, the only film I know of to feature murderous druids using Halloween masks to enact a mass sacrifice of America's children. Fun!

Before getting into that, a little announcement: starting Monday and going through all of November, The Last Great Roadshow will be devoted to film noir. Yep, it's time for Noir November. Each day, I'll check out a noir film, from the most well-known to the most obscure.

Now, on to Halloween III!

The movie drops the audience right into the action. It is October 23rd on a lonely road in California. Harry Grimbridge (Al Berry) is running for his life, pursued by two men in a car. He kills one, evades the other and stumbles into a filling station, clutching a Halloween mask and muttering "they're coming." Harry is taken to a hospital where we meet our hero, Dr Challis (Tom Atkins). He's an alcoholic doctor with an ex-wife (Nancy Loomis). Not exactly a matinee idol. A few hours after arriving, a man in a suit (not unlike the man Harry killed) shows up and kills Harry, then immolates himself in his car. It's an effective opening, one that grabs your attention and one that let's you know something is weird and sinister is happening, without spoon-speeding you information.

Later, Challis is approached by into Grimbridge's daughter, Ellie (the yummy, if bland, Stacey Nelkin) and the two of them travel to Santa Mira, home of Silver Shamrock, makers of the mask that Harry had in his hands. Why they do this is not really well established; it's the last place Ellie knows he was and thinks there is something fishy about the company and Challis goes along because...well, she's hot.

This is why parents tell kids not to eat too much candy on Halloween. True story.

Santa Mira is the definition of a company town. Most of the people work for the Silver Shamrock, which is run by Irish immigrant Conel Cochran (Dan O'Herlihy). Surveillance cameras are mounted everywhere, there's a curfew, and men in suits patrol the streets, but no one seems to have a problem with this (well, one guy does, but he comes to a bad end).

Over the course of the film, we find out that Cochran is a late-20th century druid who has a) stolen a megalith from Stonehenge, b) placed microchips made from the stone in each of the masks, c) created a spell that will be broadcast on Halloween (the feast of Samhain, as Cochran points out, when the "barriers are down between the real and unreal") and will cause the wearers head to erupt into a fountain of snakes, insects, and other noxious creatures as part of a sacrifice to the old gods. Oh, and he's also made killer robots that look like people (i.e., the dapper hitmen).

Challis does his best to stop Cochran's plans. He kills Cochran and his underlings and blows up the factory; however, he fails to get all of the TV stations to pull the "big Halloween give-away" which is carrying the signal and the film ends with Challis screaming "stop it" as the ad plays and we fade to black. The end.

I appreciate what the filmmakers tried to do. With the death of Michael Meyers at the end of Halloween II, producers Debra Hill and John Carpenter wanted to create a new film each Halloween, but not limiting it to the increasingly crowded slasher genre. The story, by Nigel Kneale, the man responsible for the Quatermass series (with rewrites by Carpenter and director Tommy Lee Wallace; Kneale was not happy with the amount of violence in the film and had his name removed) is an interesting critique of commercialism, the power of corporations, and growing paranoia (healthy, in this case) in the expanding surveillance society. It also has some neat ideas, particularity the melding of ancient religion and primal magic with cutting edge technology. And, as an apocalypse-film junkie, I like the idea of a quasi-magical disaster, one that is realized, not averted by the last minute heroics.

Stacey Nelkin's only expression...come on crack a smile or something...you're creeping me out!

But, there are a lot of plot holes. While I don't need everything explained to me, I do need some things - like character motivations - made clear. Also, there is one plot point - where Ellie is replaced by an android, which we find out later when she attacks Challis - that makes no sense at all and was obviously put in just to give the audience a last little jump. It fits in with the theme of tricks being played (Cochran says his murderous plan is, in part, "a trick on the children") but is so nonsensical it greatly detracts from the film.

The acting is uneven. I like Atkins; although his motivation is a weak, he does make for a believable reluctant hero. O'Herlihey seems to be enjoying his part, effectively mixing joviality with a sinister undertone. Nelkin, however, doesn;t have much range, coming across as a blank slate. And none of the other characters make an impression.

The effects are in general good - there are some nice gore effects including a well-done decapitation - although there are some weak one's as well. The direction by Tommy Lee Wallace is adequate, with some standout night photography that effectively creates tension and has a rich depth of field (the result, I assume of DP extraordinaire Dean Cundey). The score by John Carpenter is great (assuming you like Carpenter's music, which I do).

Apparently, Tom Atkins really doesn't like telemarketers. Calm down man, they gotta eat too.

It is in the terms of story and plot that the film has it's faults. There are numerous moments - particularly in the third act - when you really, REALLY have to suspend disbelief. A few are addressed in the film. My favorite occurs when Cochran is monloguing to Challis about his plans while standing in front of the Stonehenge megalith, telling him that he "wouldn't believe how" they got the stone to the US. It's a clever moment; this throw-away line hints at greater forces at work behind the story we are being told. However, for every smart bit of writing like that, there are a lot of other plot points that make no sense. How can Cochran create lifelike androids in a run down factory in Northern California? Why are technicians still chipping off pieces of Stonehenge hours before the signal is going to be broadcast? The final scene, with Challis trying to get the signal pulled from air, makes no sense. Who is he even talking too? Someone who can get a commercial pulled nationally off of every channel...except one, of course. Cochran has one of his androids kill a pathologist (Teddy played by Wendy Wessberg) who is working with Challis and discovers that the hospital assassin was an android. Why does eh do this? In a few hours, every kid who has a Silver Shamrock mask on is going to have his or her head burst open in a shower of snakes and crickets. Won't that be enough to have the US Air Force bombing Santa Mira out of existence the next day? And these are only some of the problems with the story.

In the end, with the numerous problems of story and character development and motivation, is Halloween III a movie worth watching? Yes, it is. The film is still engaging and there is a real sense of danger. There are a lot of fun and interesting ideas, even if they are not all fully realized or adequately integrated into the story. And the movie does get points for trying something different, a techno-magical apocalypse, one that does not have a happy ending. Released into a sea of slasher films, this was a bit of a gamble, one that unfortunately didn't pay off as Halloween 4 would see the return of Mike Meyers.

Finally, as my own little trick, watch the video below and see if you can ever get rid of the Silver Shamrock advert jingle once you hear it. And...Happy Halloween!!!!!!!

31 Days of Halloween (Day 30) - The Church AKA Demons 3 AKA WTF?

In 1985, Lamberto Bava showed that Italian horror films were still capable of kicking you in the teeth with the surreal demonic possession splatter flick Demons. Set in a West Berlin cinema, Demons has a group of filmgoers being slaughtered by an ever increasing number of demonic creatures, possibly generated by the film being show. It doesn't make any sense, but it does have a lot of arresting images and a breakneck pace. Demons 2 is closely related, showing what happens to a hermetically sealed apartment complex when a demon emerges from a TV set and starts infecting people with it's evil. While not as good as the original, it is still pretty neat.

This kind of thing is never good.

The Church, officially is a sequel, but has nothing to do with the first two films, except for dealing with demons. Starting in the Middle Ages with a group of Teutonic Knights butchering a coven of witches, the film quickly moves to the modern day (1989). A church has been built over the mass grave of the witches. While the church is undergoing restoration work, the new church librarian, Evan (Tomas Arana) breaches a seal in the crypt, unleashing the evil trapped underneath.

The next day a group of members of the restoration team, a bunch of tourists and some fashion photographers and models are trapped in the church. The demons start to possess some of the people - spreading like a disease that causes hallucinations and violent, aberrant behavior - while others are killed off. Unlike the non-stop action of the first two Demons films, The Church builds slowly and never achieves their kinetic fierceness.

The face of evil...a bad trip...or a bit of both?

Finally, Father Gus (Hugh Quarshie whose character has little screen time and no development before the third act, at which point he becomes the hero) figures out a way to collapse the church with a mechanism built into the structure when it was constructed as a fail-safe device. He does so in time to stop the spread of the demonic forces to the outside world. Or does he? There is a predictable twist ending, with the one survivor (Asia Argento) coming back to pay respects to her dead parents and unleashing the evil again. Or something like that. The end.

Although the movie suffers from a weak script, poor characterization and a story that leaves a lot of questions unanswered, it is still a pretty good horror movie. There are some neat images. The demons look cool - a standout is a scene in which art historian Lisa is having sex with a very classic looking devil (reptilian skin, horns, bat wings, horse head). Like many such scenes in the movie, it is weird and lyrical and audacious. Unfortunately, most of the movie is like this; provocative images strung together with a dumb story and weak acting.

It is worth watching, if only to see some the set-pieces and tableaux the creative team came up with. Just don;t expect a story that operates on any level other than dream logic.

31 Days of Halloween (Day 28) - End of Days (1999)

In the event of an apocalypse who are you going to call? Arnold Schwarzenegger, of course. Duh...

I'm not sure if the idea of having Satan fight Arnold on the eve of the millennium was a good idea; but it certainly is an entertaining one. And End of Days does entertain.

Arnold plays Jericho Cane, a cliche and stereotype...umm, I mean a former cop who burned out after his wife and child were killed and is now a suicidal mess who works for a private security firm with a wise-cracking sidekick, Bobby Chicago (Kevin Pollak). 3 days before the millennium, Satan possesses the body of a banker (Gabriel Byrne) and goes in search of Christine York (Robin Tunney) who is prophesied to bear the Anti-Christ. Violent wackiness ensues as Arnold tries to stop Satan from getting the girl and ushering in Hell on Earth.

Arnold and Satan discuss puppies and Christmas.

Overall, the movie isn't that good, in a conventional sense. The acting ranges from okay, if under-used (Pollak, Udo Kier as a disciple of Satan and CCH Pounder as a police detective) to the okay, but one-note (Arnold and Byrne) to the painful to watch (Tunney). There are a lot of plot-holes and poorly developed plot points and the story is pretty sketchy (for example, it's not clear why Satan even needs an anti-Christ, since he's able to wander around and cause mayhem on his own without too many problems...except for Arnold shaped problems, of course).

What the movie has going for it is a sense of bizarre fun, a "let's toss in the kitchen sink" approach that makes this a very watchable film. Some highlights:

• Every action scene is well done. Director Peter Hyams knows how to keep movies moving and this one is no exception. In particular, the opener, with Arnold dangling from a helicopter by a cable while running across the rooftops and streets of New York in pursuit of a sniper, is a standout scene.
• Udo Kier plays a Satanist who oozes an urbane evil...at least, until Satan punches his head off. Udo is one of those actors who has screen presence and is always fun to watch.
• Udo's wife and daughter merging into one while having sex with Satan.
• Arnold calling Satan a "choir boy" compared to him.
• The apple of the damned. Just a great image, with what start as maggots on an apple turning into writhing bodies.
• The secret societies at play. Vatican hitmen, ubiquitous Satanists, weird Catholic cults keeping prophesying gypsy women tied up in basements. There is a real effort into creating a sense that there is a longer, deeper war going on.
• The final Satan design (see below) is effective, coming across as more of a Lovecraftian Old One than the standard tails, horn and pitchfork.
  

  The face (and wings) of evil.

• Arnold blowing up Satan with a grenade launcher.
• The "hammer-in-the-face" lack of subtlety of the Christ imagery. Yes, Arnold is crucified. But, he also gets to shoot Satan worshipers with a machine gun. Jesus never did that.

As you can probably gather, this film is a bunch of neat images and scenes mashed up into a big messy ball. It is such a weird horror/big budget action/Arnold Schwarzenegger vehicle that it has charm about it that overcomes its basic silliness. Check it out.

Robin Tunney looking hot. No, this is not from the movie...didn't you notice, super-hot?

31 Days of Halloween (Day 26) - The Playgirls and the Vampire (1960)

The word of the day is "vampires." I decided to check out this Italian shocker (filmed as L'Ultima Preda del Vampiro)...well, maybe shocker is a little strong. How about, "I decided to check out this Italian movie starring a bunch of hot chicks in diaphanous gowns, a creepy sort-of hero and a fairly ineffectual vampire."

The film opens with a shot of a hand emerging from a crypt and then cuts to a pair of hands running up a great set of gams (that's slang for "legs" for those of you who weren't alive in the 1940s). Which is pretty much all you need to know about the tone. The entire movie shifts between mild horror and mild T&A.

A group of showgirls, their manager Lucas (Alfredo Rizzo) and driver/pianist/general flunky Frank (Leonardo Botta) are traveling through a generic European setting by bus. They are short of money and have just fled from their last hotel without paying the bill. The road they are on is blocked by a landslide, so they take a side-road - never a good idea - and find the Castle Kernassy. They head inside, looking for shelter and find Count Gabor Kernassy (Walter Brandi). He grudgingly welcomes them to stay, warns them to obey his rules and not stray from the guest rooms and then disappears. One of the dancers, Vera (the fetching Lyne Rocco), resembles a long-dead ancestor of the Count. Even in 1960, this was a pretty hackneyed plot device. She does spend much of the movie walking around in a transparent nightie, however, so it balances out.

Vera seems to be missing the point...or should I say, points).

On the first night, one of the dancers - Katia (Maria Giovannini) ignores the Count's orders, wanders off into the castle and winds up dead. Her death is explained away as an accident, a fall from one of the castle windows. She is buried on the grounds of the castle. The Count convinces the troupe to stay, saying the only bridge has been washed out. This provides an opportunity for the girls to prance around in lingerie and engage in some cheesy dance numbers, including a pretty awesome striptease by Erika Di Centa.

Katia demonstrates the benefits of good oral hygiene

Vera confronts the Count underneath the painting of the Count;s ancestor who looks like her. Both express a mutual attraction, as well as a belief that they were meant to meet. While out for a walk that night, Vera discovers that Katia's body has been dug up. She thinks she sees the Count skulking about, but he flees when she calls to him. The next day, she discovers a laboratory - complete with smoke belching beakers and a human skull on a desk. She also finds Katia's body laid out on a slab. The Count shows up and spouts a lot of confusing nonsense, by way of explanation. He says he working to fight against some ancient evil and that Katia may have been murdered although by whom he won't say. Vera, not the brightest bulb and infatuated, is satisfied with his non-answer.

Katia discovers just how high the stakes are. Ouch...sorry...

There is a vampire lurking about, an ancestor of the Count who looks just like him. Like the Count, the vampire is infatuated with Vera, who resembles his dead wife. Katia comes back from the dead, Vera is attacked by the vampire, the Count tries to help and is knocked out. Katia, walking around naked (she provides the only clear nudity in the movie, a brief topless shot) but shrouded in shadow, is not happy about being replaced by a vampire Vera. Katia tries to attack the unconscious Vera is killed by vampire Count in a surprisingly gruesome (for the time) scene. The Count confronts his undead ancestor, telling him that he has developed a means to end the vampire's endless existence. The vampire tells him to get bent, that he likes being immortal. Fighting ensues and the Count manages to dispatch the vampire and rescue Vera. You might think that's the end. nope; there's still a ton of exposition, giving background information that is no longer important. In fact, the conclusion feels like padding. The menace is dead; I don't need 10 minutes of backstory and a long goodbye sequence between Vera and the Count. Finally, Vera leaves on the bus to resume her exciting life as a penniless showgirl and a voice-over informs us that the Count s going to sell the castle and find her. The end.

Erika Di Centa showing us why she's in the movie.

There are some serious story problems, particularly the tonal shifts from fairly moody scenes dealing with the horror plot to weak humor and cheesecake shots. The final confrontation between the Count and the vampire isn't very exciting (with the exception of Katiea's staking with a burning torch). And the experiments being carried out by the Count are never adequately explained. Is he trying to cure vampirism or just kill his ancestor? The point that Vera looks like the dead wife of the vampire is made repeatedly; but how this happened or why Vera acts at times like she has been to the castle, is never explained.

However, there are a lot of fun parts to the movie. It is shot in full on Gothic style complete with an imposing castle, a dank dungeon with crypts, and rainless thunder-storms. Brandi is good in the dual role of hero and menace. The female cast members are quite attractive and appear in various states of undress which was the main selling point of the movie. The dialogue is serviceable, although full of awkward lines. The black and white photography gives the film a nice, moody feel. While the film shows its low budget (Frank goes off to check on the bridge, finds it actually is washed out, discovers a village and talks to the villagers about the castle...all of camera) but the castle interiors are a mix of pretty good (some of the scenes were filmed at an actual castle) and pretty awful. The dungeon set, is especially bad, looking painfully fake. There are some nice shot compositions and a few moments of effective horror.

Taken for what it is - a mix of horror genre cliches and excuses for attractive women to walk around in skimpy outfits - The Playgirls and the Vampire is a fun movie. Check it out.

31 Days of Halloween - Bonus Post - Demonic (2005)

The cover art; the best thing about the movie.

Filmed as Forest of the Damned by any name, it is an ineptly made snoozefest. It has an interesting premise - that a forest in England is inhabited by angels cast out of Heaven for having sexual feelings - but that's it. I saw the cover art on Netflix - a nasty looking demon face with huge fangs - and thought "why not, it's Netflix." Well, this movie answers that question. Why not? Because some films are so bad, they shouldn't be seen.

The film is populated with one-note, stereotypical characters, not out of place in an early '80s slasher movie. The story meanders about, with no coherency beyond the initial setup (mini-van full of unappealing twenty-somethings stranded in woods with monsters). The conclusion, with the only survivor now helping the angels get victims, has no rational; it just happens because, as everyone knows, movies are better with a twist ending....right?

The uninspired camera work drifts between dull static shots and spastic cutting, with a few night vision scenes tossed in at random. There is a wasted appearance by Tom Savini. Usually, Savini seems to be having fun when he's on screen; here, he just seems to be waiting for his paycheck. The film crew manages to make the fallen angels - all women, who are naked throughout the movie - look completely unappealing. It is clear they are not supposed to be and that the actresses are attractive; they are just filmed so poorly that they look pale and anorexic. The film does have a few decent gore sequences, so I will give the effects team a nod; but it is not enough to counteract the tedium.

Avoid at all costs.

31 Days of Halloween (Day 25) - V/H/S/2 (2013)

When I saw V/H/S (2012) earlier this year, I wasn't impressed. The film had gotten a lot of good buzz when it came out, but the various stories - both films are found-footage anthologies - ranged from mildly interesting to mind-numbingly dull. None of the characters presented were sympathetic or even relatable. On top of this were the normal "found-footage" issues, in particular, the poor quality of the cinematography. While not a disaster, it is not worth a second viewing.

While checking out Netflix last night, I noticed the sequel and decided to give it a shot. I was ready to be underwhelmed again. I was happily surprised that this installment is much better in all respects.

V/H/S/2 is made up of five stories. The first story "Tape 49", is also the wrap-around device. A pair of private detectives are hired to discover the whereabouts of a missing college students. They go to his home and find that there are TVs and videotapes scattered around, as well as a laptop. The other stories are videotapes that the detectives watch.

"Phase I Clinical Trials" follows a man who has had an experimental artificial eye implanted, one which records what he is seeing. And what he sees are some very unhappy ghosts. "A Ride In The Park" takes place on the first day of a zombie apocalypse, as a biker with Go Pro camera is bitten, turns into an undead gut muncher and then things get worse. "Safe Haven" is set in a cult's compound in Indonesia. A camera crew is going in to conduct an interview and do a little covert filming using disguised cameras. What follows is bug-nuts insane, incredibly gory and pretty amazing. Finally, "Slumber Party Alien Abduction" is about...while aliens abducting people during a slumber party.

Even zombies understand basic bike safety.

The weakest story is probably the wrap-around. It does its job - provide an excuse for the other segments - but the ending doesn't make much sense. I was watching this with my Horror Movie Baby. Her response "what was that all about" pretty much sums it up. "Phase I" has issues as well, mostly due to the unimpressive ghost make-up (think Carnival of Lost Souls) and the flat acting by the lead, Adam Wingard, who also directed this segment. "Ride" is much better, with some intense gore and an ending that was funny, gruesome and sad. However, if you have a problem with seeing fake intestines in extreme close-up (since the camera is mounted on the helmet of the zombie-biker) you may want to close your eyes at certain points. "Safe Haven" is the best segment, with extreme gore, some uncertainty about which characters - if any - will survive, a pretty awesome monster, and a lot of creativity and disturbing images packed into about 20 minutes. As a bonus, much of the dialogue is in Indonesian, which makes it a good learning tool for me, since I'm currently studying the language. So, that makes it edutainment. Finally, "Slumber Party" is fun, if predictable. It does have some nice alien costumes - a variation on the classic Grey - and the extensive use of a doggy cam! I did find that the sound was a problem, with some of the dialogue lost.

Overall, everything about V/H/S/2 improves on the original. The acting is better and the stories are more original and imaginative. The reduction in the number of stories (from 6 to 5) gives more time to develop each one. The shaky-cam, a drawback of many found-footage films, does get to be a bit much at times, particularly during "Slumber Party." That said, the direction, particularly Eduardo Sánchez and Gregg Hale who co-directed "Ride," is uniformly good, with a number of memorable images and the clever use of format conventions - "natural" lighting, lack of focus at times on the action - to effectively cover budget constraints. Unlike the original, this is a movie I'll be watching again. Check it out.

31 Days of Halloween (Day 23) - World of the Dead: The Zombie Diaries 2 (2011)

I haven't seen the original film, but I heard some good things about it. When the sequel popped up on Netflix, I decided "what the heck, I have 90 minutes to kill." And kill them I did. Slowly and painfully. Each minute was chained to a wooden table and I went to town on it with power tools. My minutes screamed for mercy (don't they always) but I was merciless. I was going to watch this movie to the bitter end.

The Zombie Diaries 2 is a found footage film. I am not dismissive of the sub-genre, particularly since I include mockumentaries (I consider them closely related). Movies like The Blair Witch Project, This is Spinal Tap, [Rec] and Punishment Park use the format to great advantage, giving the illusion of immediacy and a heightened sense of reality, even in unreal situations. Zombie Diaries 2 is not in the same ballpark as these movies. It's not even playing the same game.

Set a few months after a zombie-spawning virus has spread across the world, the story centers on a small group of soldiers and a single civilian who are making their way across England, in the hope of finding transportation to the imagined safety of mainland Europe. Along the way, they encounter a depraved group of survivors who are marauding across the countryside, as well as groups of zombies, hungry for human flesh. Added urgency is provided when the commanding officer of the group tells them that England is going to be subjected to a sustained bombardment, as it is the worst hit area in Europe. When the handful of survivors make it to a coastal base, they find that the base is deserted...except for the zombies of course. One man makes it out and encounters a pair of refugees from the mainland who tell him that things are no better there. The end.

As far as a concept for a zombie story goes, this isn't bad. As I was watching it, I could imagine how this would play out on the page and how it might read as coherent and worthwhile. Unfortunately for the filmmakers, the potential of the story is not translated to the screen. This film is a complete disaster, an exercise in lazy film-making.

I'll leave aside that it looks cheap. It is a low-budget movie after all. The make-up effects are okay, no worse than many other low-budget horror films out there. They look pretty bad compared to The Walking Dead; but not to the point where they detract from the film. Also, the last 90 seconds, where the film breaks out of the "found footage" format actually looks good and creates an appropriately bleak conclusion. That's where the good stuff ends.

Plotholes, abound, the most egregious of which takes place in the first five minutes. The film begins in a secure military base. However, the filmmakers wanted to kill off most of the characters and get the survivors on the move. Okay, that's a fairly standard film trope, one that I don't have a problem with. It is the way it is executed in this movie that makes no sense. One night, the main gate is left open. Why? How? That is never explained. It is such an obvious and non-nonsensical plot device, that it makes one wonder if the filmmakers have contempt for their audience.

It gets worse. The problem with found footage films is that you need an excuse for the camera man to keep filming when a normal person would stop and do something else. This movie fails miserable in this regard. We do know why the cameraman is making a film; he is a military videographer stationed at the base, creating a record for posterity. That makes sense; the problem arises as the story unfolds. The cameraman, an armed soldier, keeps filming even when his comrades are being torn apart. This makes no sense. Even worse, at no point does anyone bring this up. In some movies in this sub-genre, there is at least a moment when the filmmakers acknowledge the artificiality of the artistic conceit ("Why don't you put that camera down?" "Someone has to document the zombie/giant monster/angry broccoli attack."). It may make no sense; but at least there is the attempt. In The Zombie Diaries2 we get nothing. There are easy - and obvious - fixes for this. Here's one for free; don't make him a soldier. Just make him a civilian, someone who has never handled a gun in his life, someone who uses the camera as his defense/distancing mechanism. In Zombie Diaries 2, you get the feeling that the filmmakers were just too lazy to bother coming up with a rationale.

The story also treats us to an unpleasant and stereotyped rape scene. Sexual assault in a movie can be a powerful and appropriate moment. Think of Deliverance and Irreversible; in those cases the sexual assault is integral to the story. No matter how graphic it is, the viewer understands the story-driven reason for why it is happening. Here, it seems like an excuse to show some violence against a woman, show some tits, indulge in the stereotype of the "simple-minded boy being made a man" by having sex and make the villains more reprehensible in one of the easiest ways possible. It's not even the ugliness of the scene that it is a problem...it's just so dumb and pointless that it feels like filler.

The editing of the film makes little sense. Most of the story is shown in a linear fashion, with the camera showing the events leading from the base to the coast (the rape is filmed by the attackers who have taken the soldiers captive). Intercut with this linear film are scenes from a massacre of civilians the soldiers participated in before the movie begins. Why are these scenes there? I understand why they are there for the story; what doesn't make sense is why they are interspersed with the movie that is being filmed. The cameraman would literally have to be editing in the "flashback" scenes. That makes no sense at all.

Also, who is the audience? Since the cameraman is killed, the camera lost amongst a horde of the undead and England is, apparently, being bombed out of existence, who is watching the movie? Most films in this genre - at least the good ones - have a plot point indicating the audience. In Blair Witch, the film is discovered in the woods; in Cloverfield, the digital camera is discovered in the ruins of New York; with Diary of the Dead, the film is created and released on the Internet. Here...nothing.

If this movie had been filmed conventionally (not as found footage) the story might have been interesting enough to make the film worthwhile. If the found footage aspect had been handled more logically - say the cameraman is being sent out with a squad of soldiers to recon some critical facility (even sticking with the evacuation premise) and is transmitting the images back to a central base - then that conceit could have worked. As it is The Zombie Diaries 2 is an example of lazy, sloppy film-making and should be watched as a good example of how not to make a movie.