Frenzy

(1972)

Although this was the second to last film that I watched, I saved this review for last so I could end on a high note. Hitchcock is by and far my favorite director. The most amazing thing about him is how he knew exactly what buttons to push to get a rise out of his audience. In this film as with many other Hitchcock films, he shows us the bad guy right up front instead of making us guess throughout the film about who the villain might be. With the whodunnit portion of the film out of the way there is no need to be looking at each character with suspicion they all become potential victims. Then he fucks with us by putting innocent, unaware regular every day Joe types in peril as we squirm in our seats and yell pointlessly at the screen. I love this man, his films evoke emotions in me like no others.


I first saw Frenzy at the Bay State drive-in theater with my parents and my brothers & sister. Re-watching it now after all this years, I have to question my parents judgment in thinking this was a family movie. I was pretty young and my memories of the film were vague at best. I did however remember the opening scene, a dead woman whom is discovered floating in the Thames river. After that the film was a blur and now I can see why. As a kid I would have been bored stiff with the character building time after the initial shock opening. My guess is that it was the second feature and I most likely fell asleep and missed the rest of the film. So, this very well could be the first time I watched this film in it's entirety.


The plot is simple, a serial rapist/murderer known as the “Necktie Murderer” is terrorizing London. The police are hot on the trail of a suspect, but they are fingering the wrong man. Poor hot headed Richard Blaney, his life is a mess. He's lost his job, he drinks too much and can't seem to control his temper. Now the cops are badgering him as a suspect in a series of murders. Good thing he has his best friend local fruit seller Bob Rusk to have his back. The only problem with Bob is that he's the real murderer and it's real convenient for him that the police have their eye on Richard instead. Watching Bob charm and manipulate everyone around him was mesmerizing. He's one smooth character full of cockiness and self assurance. At one point he notices a pin is missing from his lapel then realizes with horror that it must be on the body of the victim he just disposed of. This leads to an incredibly tense sequence involving Bob, a dead woman and a potato truck. Incredible scene that just sent this film over the top for me.


This concludes my reviews for Horrorthon 2009 wrapping it up with 99 films this year. I don't know that I'll ever be able to top last years 110 count. Perhaps I'll go for quality instead of quantity next year. I'm looking forward to reading more reviews as the rest of you finish your postings. Horrorthon!

Extreme Dagobah tourism video

Them (Ils)

(2007)
Landshark posted a mediocre review of this movie last year. Ok, it wasn’t mediocre, it was exceptional and I insist you read it before going any further here. And don’t just pretend to read it either because I’ll be able to tell.

Are you back? Good. You just fell for the oldest Horrorthon trick in the book. Now I don’t have to provide a summary, suckers!

Unlike the other French movies I messed with this year, Them concentrates on tension rather than excessive, soul crushing, agonizing torture. That's the first problem. The second is that I really only had enough room for one French home invasion flick this year. Though Them has far more in common with The Strangers (and was made first) I cannot help but compare it to the jarring and far more memorable Inside.

Once the initial surprise regarding the nature of their attackers wears off, a big fat let down kind of sinks in. Landshark touched upon this and I'd just like to add- damn straight! I actually started to judge the protagonists harshly the more I learned about “them”. Eventually I found myself shaking my head knowingly and offering advice. “Why didn’t they just_____?” and “Why, what I would have done is _____.” Also the plausibility of “them” orchestrating such an effective Michael Myers-like assault comes into question. I grow weary of typing “them” so I'll leave it there. If you like scares with relatively little gore then this baby's for you.

Troll

(1986) Zero stars

Soon after the Potter family moves into a new apartment building, young Wendy begins exploring her new environment. Wandering into the laundry room in the basement she meets evil Torok, a gross little troll that immediately places Wendy under a spell, which enables him to assume her form. Torok’s goal is to turn the apartment building into his lost fairy kingdom, or something stupid like that. Possessing Wendy enables him to wander around the building undetected as he unleashes fairy world, or something stupid like that. As Torok slowly transforms the apartments into fairly world, Wendy’s brother, who somehow figures this all out, enlists the aid of Torok’s ex-wife, a former magical princess, to put an end to Torok’s evil plan, or something stupid like that.



It’s no secret that I have viewed hundreds of horror movies over the years. Throughout this pointless nerd journey I have been exposed to many horror sub-genres. Some are great (e.g., “found footage”) some are bad (e.g. Return of the Killer Tomatoes,) and then there’s a sub-sub category of horror that is so bad that it almost angers me. I have never been able to get through any Troma films or, quite frankly, much of what Catfreek plows through. I find these films to be endurance tests I don’t want to take. There’s a huge difference between a horror movie that ends up being unintentionally awful (e.g., The Ring 2) versus one that was knowingly bad upon conception (e.g., Return of the Killer Tomatoes).



Over the years my earnest attempts to view more horror films than anyone else has occasionally led me down a tedious path to the bad-bad film category. Often I discover these films buried within a horror movie “50 pack” and I watch out of desperation for something novel. This year I was determined to avoid any ultra-crap and instead focus on buzz-worthy films, the 1940s, or any new movies from the past year. Inevitably I caved one evening when I found myself in a car waiting for Whirlygirl to get out of class. She generously left me with her laptop but much to my horror I realized that the only film I had on me was Troll (yes I carry a handful of movies on my person during October for just such emergency situations).



With a footlong from Subway, a large diet Coke, and a meager bag of Baked Lays, I settled in for a Troll viewing. Sadly I finished my footlong far too quickly and realized that I still had 70 minutes of Trollish badness to get through. I also had to pee really badly but I was parked in a large parking lot far from any toilets or even trees. Lamenting the loss of my sandwich and crossing my legs tightly (that never works) I resigned myself to my plight and pushed through the mess that is Troll.



Troll is every bit as awful as you might conclude from my above plot description. I can honestly say that there wasn’t a single enjoyable moment in the entire celluloid mess. A stupid plot combined with bad acting and terrible fx equals abject misery. Worse, I was still hungry and I had to pee.

Well that didn't take long

From worstpreviews, Now that "Paranormal Activity" has become an enormous hit, everyone knew that it would spark lots of copycats attempting to duplicate its success.

Simius Films has now announced that it has completed their first production, called "Paranormal Effect," which is a supernatural film about one of the most famous Japanese curses. Check out the trailer for the handheld camera movie below.

Plot: Visiting her native Japan with her American boyfriend Darren, Reiko is disappointed to see him spend most of his time filming local stereotypes. Already upset, Reiko draws the line when Darren walks into a forbidden cave, which, according to local beliefs, enshrines shinto gods since the dawn of time. From then, Reiko and Darren start witnessing strange things happening around them, some of which they manage to catch on camera. Will they have time to understand what is upon them before it is too late?

See trailer here

This is the droid you were looking for

From geekology, As noted by one of my girlfriend sites, a search for R2-D2 in the new Star Trek has ended. (Also of note: there was a search to find R2-D2 in the new Star Trek?) The above shot has been confirmed to be the fabled cross-franchise, fan-fiction-like appearance by the droid in J.J. Abrams' reboot.

Fans of both series should enjoy the subtle nod from one fictional universe to another, whereas superfans of either series should be vexed for years trying to figure out how to justify a being from a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away showing up in the 23rd century, and determining what disastrous consequences this anomaly may hold for both universes.

Want

From geekology, Listen, I'm not here to tell you to follow Jesus or smoke buddha or whatever, I'm just here to report the things I see and maybe make a couple drug connections in the process. And this is a 'dinosaur eating the Jesus fish' car decal. Love it or hate it, you've got to admit it's the first time you've ever seen a t-rex holding something with its little arms. And THAT, my friends, is biblical.

Uwe Boll makes a film people actually want to see?

Uwe Boll's latest, "Rampage" has been getting some good buzz. The trailer looks like fun, check it out.

Halloween II

(2009)


Picking up immediately after the events of Halloween this sequel focuses on the aftermath of Michael’s rampage. Laurie Strode is understandably traumatized and must be sedated as she is carted off to Haddonfield Hospital. A year later we find Laurie still recovering from her mental and physical wounds as she attempts to put her life back together. Meanwhile Halloween is approaching and Michael, who apparently spent the year as a homeless person, slowly makes his way back to Haddonfield carrying a dark secret.



Halloween II fails on so many levels that I don’t know where to begin. In Carpenter’s Halloween, Haddonfield is a middle class neighborhood that could stand for “everytown”. In Zombie’s version Haddonfield is a grim, backwoods sea of rednecks, drunks and hookers, which brings up another complaint; why does Zombie insist on making all his characters greasy, filthy, and generally revolting? Zombie’s rednecks are not exclusive to his Halloween films and it begs the question, just where in the hell did Zombie grow up?



The characters, like the characters in all of Zombie’s films, are unlikable and generally loathsome. Carpenter’s Halloween worked well for many reasons including a sympathetic character to root for. Jamie Lee Curtis’ Laurie was a sensitive, heart-of-gold nerd and we loved her (and related to her). Her friends were regular generally likable teenagers who liked to drink and fool around. Zombie’s Laurie is a smug, snarky, self-absorbed twit with equally self-absorbed selfish friends. I couldn’t care less if anyone survived Michael’s slashing mission in Zombie’s universe. Even worse, In Zombie’s Halloween Dr. Loomis lacks a moral compass and has been reduced to a fame whore who shamelessly hawks his book about his famous patient (FYI psychiatrists are not allowed to write tell-all books about their patients, it’s kind of a no no in the field). Then there’s this,



Inexplicably Sheri Moon Zombie (Michael’s mother) appears several times in the film, occasionally on a white horse with young Michael Myers. The purpose of these surreal appearances continues to elude me. Is the appearance of an “angelic” mother supposed to supplant the reality that his mother was a hooker? Is this supposed to create sympathy for Michael? In the original Halloween we knew precious little about Michael’s back story. Zombie is intent on “explaining” why Michael became a psychopath. I don’t care why, it’s not relevant and it demystifies the Myers mystique.



Additional complaints include Michael’s vulgar grunting as he slashes his way through town; stabbing sounds that are amplified to the point of being ludicrous; and Zombie’s choice to jettison Carpenter’s Halloween score, which was essential for making Halloween “scary” and for making it the classic that it is today. Carpenter chose tension/”clean” slashing over gore. Zombie’s Michael eviscerates men, women, and animals in graphic detail. Yuck.


How I miss thee

Zombie’s 2 Halloween films are sadistic, hateful, nihilistic experiences. Like all of Zombie’s films his Halloween series seem to reflect an utter disdain for humanity. He appears to use the “Halloween” name as an excuse to further a disquieting agenda of hopelessness. There is nothing wrong with creating a gritty slasher film, but make us care a little. Zombie eschews scares for despondency. I don’t like to be depressed after I watch a horror movie.

Cleavagefield

2009



Overheard the other night at the Stan household:

MRSX: (scrolling through the cable menu) “On Cinemax, there’s a movie called Cleavagefield.”

STAN: (dropping beer, charging in from kitchen) “No way! A soft-core porn parody of Cloverfield? We’ve GOT to watch it!”

MRSX: (holds remote limply, eyes glaze over)

STAN: “No, seriously, it’ll be hilarious! I can review it, and –“

MRSX: (plummets out window)

So anyway, not to be deterred, I sat down and vowed to stick with it to the bitter end, knowing that it would mean getting less than 5 hours of sleep (I average 6). But this was for a good cause, nay, the BEST cause. I couldn’t let Horrorthon down on this one. “Found footage” has “found” the niche of soft-core porn parody. These are the kind of moments upon which the wheels of history turn.

On to the plot - (pause for 5 minutes of giddy laughter). No, seriously, there is absolutely nothing in this film that isn’t fully explained by the first two syllables of the title. Special entertaining differences between this and Cloverfield:


VERSUS this


1. The going-away party is also, of course, a slumber party, as Tiffany is off to Sweden to make a high-end porn film.

2. The moth-mites that drop off the monster have an insatiable appetite for women’s clothing. That is to say, clothing being worn at the time.

3. The girls are all trying to get back across town to save the lead blonde’s Chihuahua. (More on the Chihuahua later)

3. The monster tends to sneeze occasionally, spewing out huge volumes of green slime. Our heroines, in an extraordinary coincidence, are standing right underneath the monster’s nostrils, and find themselves soaked in green slime from head to toe.



In another coincidence that just blows the viewer’s logic circuits, there just happens to be a strip club RIGHT around the corner. With a working shower. That has JUST enough room for four naked women in it. It’s this kind of intelligent, bracketed storytelling that…oh, wait – sorry. Random sentence from my last review that has NO business being here.

4. All of the “flashback footage” that’s been “taped over” is actually just many different people having sex, some of whom aren’t even tangentially related to any of the main characters or the plot (I chuckle every time I type that word in this review). In HandsomeStan’s Pun Of The Week, I’d like to say that this footage really helps flesh out the characters.

*sound of Stan being kicked off the blog*

The movie actually scores one honestly and truly funny moment, fully separate from the crap collection of other attempts at self-aware humor (one guy has a line at some point to the effect of “We’ve all got to stay alive to make more money in the sequel!” So bad, it’s even worse than you could possibly imagine.) Anyway, the big moment comes when one set of boobs asks another, “Where’s the monster?” To which the second set of boobs replies, “Over there.” Cut to this shot:



It still makes me laugh to look at it. The implied situation, that the monster would take the time to do this, and that it’s physically possible, scores on all levels: absurdity, accurate visual parody of the leaning-building shot in Cloverfield, overall execution, and overall silliness. Alas, the moment was as small as the lead actresses’ combined IQ.



Of special note is that the human cast in the movie have apparently no qualms about taking on a role in this film. One would think there would be a trace of shame or embarrassment, something in someone’s bearing that just says, “I only did this because I’m three months late on my gas payment.” You can usually spot this look on at least one cast member of a soft-core porn. Or so I’m told. This guy I know, he watches a ton of it, and he told me.

The only place that that look of downright outward shame appears is, interestingly, on the chihuahua. The dog actually stares at the camera pointedly as if to say “You and I both know this is a terrible, terrible choice.”



This is the sort of movie that will almost certainly end up as the sole surviving artifact of humanity. A future alien explorer, Gorblox or otherwise, rummages through a pile of charred, twisted rubble. Pulls out a worn, beaten DVD. Wipes away the dust on the cover to reveal: “Cleavagefield.”



Imagine, for a moment, the untold millions of years that humanity has struggled to walk upright, invent fire, make and use tools, expand its intelligence, become self-aware. Humanity took countless eons to grow incrementally from simple primates into fantastically complex beings with the ability to explore neighboring planets and peer into the subatomic fabric of very universe itself.

Quantum physics? Check. Vaccines? Check. Interplanetary travel? Check. Cleavagefield? Check. As Nature’s final joke on us, this movie will be how we are remembered as a species. Just wait.

[EPILOGUE: MrsX didn’t REALLY jump out the window. Here’s some excerpted quotes from her viewing experience:

“This is like Ugly People Fucking Hour.”

“He still has his socks on!”

“Oh, what do you know – no penis!” (when observing daylight between two thrusting crotches)

STAN: “I can only imagine the casting for this movie.”

MRSX: “I don’t think they did.”]

The Invisible Man's Revenge

(1944)**1/2

In the fifth installment of the Universal’s popular Invisible Man series Robert Griffin escapes from a psych ward and becomes a fugitive. His first stop is the palatial home of his former friends Jasper and Irene. His goal is to get half the money they owe him from a diamond mine in Africa they discovered together years earlier and to marry their daughter Julie, who is engaged to Mark, a young local reporter. Things don’t go according to plan and after being drugged by his “friends” he is tossed out their home like yesterday’s garbage. A chance encounter with a scientist eager to test his invisibility formula provides Robert with the ability to elude police and to have his revenge on his old friends. Meanwhile Mark begins to believe the rumors about an “invisible” man and he agrees to help the police apprehend this menace.



Separated at birth?

Although The Invisible Man’s Revenge returns the series to its more sinister roots (the previous two installments Invisible Agent and The Invisible Woman are just plain silly), the result is less than satisfying. The convoluted plot makes little sense and relies on coincidences and unlikely decision-making. Worse, many key questions are never properly answered. For example, did Robert’s friends really cheat him out of money? Given that they assumed he was dead, why would they keep his money for him during the 3 years of his absence? If indeed they did steal from him there is certainly no “revenge” as the title would have you believe. Also, why is Robert in love with Julie, a woman he has never even met? Finally, there are no sympathetic characters to root for; they all seem like a bunch of jerks. It’s a shame that this once promising franchise devolved into lazy script writing. With an idea as cool as invisibility it makes little sense that four vastly inferior sequels followed the excellent original.