COMING ATTRACTIONS: OUR FEBRUARY PREVIEW

CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT:  FEBRUARY 2010 MOVIES PREVIEW
by Michael Arruda and L.L. Soares

(MICHAEL ARRUDA and L.L. SOARES creep through a fog shrouded forest, each carrying a hunting rifle.  A full moon shines overhead.)

MA:  Ssh!  I think I hear something.

LS:  That’s just your stomach.  I told you not to eat all that roast beast!  (Points to a strange looking flower.)  Look!  Wolfsbane!

MA (recites):

“Even a man who is pure in heart

And who says his prayers by night

May become a wolf when the wolfsbane blooms

And the autumn moon is bright.”

LS: Ahh, the immortal words of Maria Ouspenskaya as the wise old gypsy woman, Maleva!

MA:  Of course, this little ditty comes from Universal’s THE WOLF MAN (1941).  The words proved so popular that over the years they’ve been listed in some sources as an “Ancient Gypsy Rhyme,” when in reality, they were penned by screenwriter Curt Siodmak.  These lines were also spoken in the film by Evelyn Ankers and Claude Rains.  In fact, about the only person who doesn’t utter these words in the movie is Lon Chaney Jr. as the Wolf Man!

THE WOLF MAN is arguably the best werewolf movie ever made, and we’ll be kicking off our February columns with a review of the remake of THE WOLF MAN starring Benicio Del Toro and Anthony Hopkins.  It opens on February 12.

LS:  Yeah, I’m a big fan of the original WOLF MAN, too. It was one of the last great Universal horror films of the 1940s. And it introduced the world to Larry Talbot, as played by Lon Chaney, Jr. – a great, sympathetic character who truly does not want to turn into a werewolf and endanger the lives of the ones he loves.

And I hope they have a gypsy woman in the new one as cool as Ouspenskaya was!

(A sexy female model wearing gypsy garb strolls by and blows a kiss at them.)

LS:  I said cool, not hot!

MA:  Hot’s not so bad!

LS:  You’re right.

I’m surprised it has taken so long for someone to remake this movie, especially considering how many remakes of classics like FRANKENSTEIN and DRACULA there have been.

MA:  Yes, for some reason werewolf movies have never taken off.  Even Hammer Films which made their own FRANKENSTEIN and DRACULA series only made the one werewolf picture, THE CURSE OF THE WEREWOLF (1961) starring Oliver Reed, a classic in its own right.

LS: Yeah, CURSE OF THE WEREWOLF was pretty great, too.

(They hear a loud roar)

MA:  THAT wasn’t my stomach.

Anyway, I have to admit, the previews for this one look very good, but I’ll reserve judgment until I see the movie.  I like the old black and white Universal monster movies so much I cringe at the idea of their being remade.  I’m not against remakes in general— heck, I got into horror because of the Hammer remakes— but I just don’t want to see anything awful and silly like VAN HELSING (2004).

The previews for THE WOLF MAN look serious enough, so hopefully this will bode well for the movie itself.  To me, the biggest sticking point of any modern day werewolf movie is the depiction of the werewolf.  I’ve yet to see a CGI werewolf that I’ve liked or that I’ve found scary.  I enjoy the old-fashioned man-in-make-up werewolves of yesteryear, as I actually find these older depictions scarier.  If the folks making the new WOLF MAN get the werewolf right, then that’ll go a long way.

LS: I think the remake of THE WOLF MAN looks pretty good, too. First off, it’s a period piece, which I think works better than if it had been brought into the present day. Secondly, it has two great actors in it, Benecio del Toro as Larry Talbot, and Anthony Hopkins has his father. Not bad choices at all! And what I’ve seen of the werewolf looks pretty cool. They only show him briefly in the trailer, but there are some cool transformation scenes. I’m guessing they’ll be using a mixture of make-up effects and CGI.

Considering this one had a lot of trouble early on, such as one director leaving and another taking over, this movie looks damn good and is one of the films I was most looking forward to in 2010. I hope it’s as good as it looks, but as you said, I’ll reserve judgment until I actually see it.

(MA & LS leave the forest and hop into a small row boat.  They head out to sea, towards a scary looking building situated high on an island cliff.)

MA:  Next up, it’s the heavy hitters, as director Martin Scorsese and actor Leonardo DiCaprio take on the genre with SHUTTER ISLAND, coming out on February 19.  I would guess that this one will draw in a lot of folks who don’t otherwise go to horror movies, because of the star power of DiCaprio and Scorsese.

The preview looks good enough, but to be honest, I have no idea how this one’s going to be.  It could be polished yet dull, hopelessly predictable, or it could be edgy and exciting, full of things unexpected.

LS:  Yeah, this one could go either way. I’m a Scorcese fan, but his last few films haven’t been as satisfying to me as his earlier work. Even the much-ballyhooed THE DEPARTED was one I liked, but didn’t love. Part of the problem has been his casting choices, such as DiCaprio, who has worked with Scorcese before, and is here again. I’m just not much of a fan of the guy. But the movie looks atmospheric enough. And it is Scorcese, so I’m sure it will have some good things going for it.

(MA & LS pass by the island and land on shore of the mainland.  They leave their boat and head towards a small town.)

MA:  Last up in February is THE CRAZIES, due out on February 26.  This one’s also a remake.  I didn’t see the original.  You must have seen it, right?

LS: Yeah, the original THE CRAZIES was directed by George A. Romero in 1973, and while I’ve seen most of Romero’s output, I have to admit, I think THE CRAZIES is one of his weakest films. In a lot of ways I just thought it was a retread of his classic, NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD, except instead of zombies we have a virus that makes people go crazy.

Since I thought the original was less than spectacular, this is the perfect kind of movie for a remake, if a director were to actually improve upon it. That’s the big question with this one. Is it going to be an improvement, or just a waste of time?

MA:  I liked the preview a lot, so I’m hoping THE CRAZIES will be a good one.

(MA and LS find themselves standing in the center of town, when suddenly they are surrounded by a group of townspeople gone crazy.  These people look like undead zombies.  A werewolf, up high on the roof of a building, howls at the full moon, then jumps down and joins the group of crazy people surrounding MA & LS.

MA:  Okay, I guess we’re all here.

LS:  Excellent!  (Opens door to a pub and motions for everyone to enter.)  Who’s buying?

MA (to audience):  Well, that does it for our Coming Attractions preview for February.  We’ll see you next weekend with our review of THE WOLF MAN.

LS:  In the meantime—.

(Werewolf approaches and hands them each a beer.  They all howl.)

—END—

Larry Talbot sure hopes the remake of

THE WOLF MAN doesn’t suck.

THE HAUNTING IN CONNECTICUT

(Keeping in our plan to publish brand new columns every Monday – we did something a little different this week. Since there wasn’t a new horror movie in theaters this weekend, we went back and watched a movie we missed back in 2009. The week THE HAUNTING IN CONNECTICUT came out, we reviewed another film, and this one fell between the cracks. So we’re correcting that, by reviewing the DVD now. So even though the movie is not brand new, this review is. And now, on with the show ~ LS)

***

CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT: THE HAUNTING IN CONNECTICUT
by Michael Arruda & L.L. Soares

FADE IN

(THE SCENE: a dimly lit room. A group of people sit around a table, holding hands. Among them are MICHAEL ARRUDA and L.L. SOARES)

(LS begins to shake and his mouth opens to release tendrils of what appears to be ghostly ectoplasm)

MA: Wow, I didn’t know you could channel ghosts! That ectoplasm is pretty scary!

LS: What ectoplasm? I’m just getting over the flu (Laughs)

(People at the table groan and wince.  LS wipes his mouth and nose with his hands, then extends his arms to hold hands again.)  Shall we continue?

(The people at the table storm away from the table in disgust.)

MA:  Just like you to clear a room.

LS:  This was a complete waste of time, anyway.  (holds out hands).  You wouldn’t happen to have a towel? I’ve been slimed.

(SLIMER from GHOSTBUSTERS is in the corner, laughing)

MA:  Something even better.  Hand sanitizer propellant!  (Holds up what looks like a fire extinguisher and blasts LS with a gooey foam.)

LS:  What the hell??

MA (smiles):  Here’s your towel.  (throws towel)  It’s been a while since I’ve done something like that.  Remember the good old days, when we used to spend our time trying to kill each other during these reviews, like SPY VS. SPY?

LS:  I’ll remember now.

MA: So was this séance just to set the mood for this week’s Cinema Knife Fight?

LS: Yep, this week we’re reviewing the DVD of THE HAUNTING OF CONNECTICUT, a ghostly tale that first hit theaters in 2009. Something better must have come out that week, because we didn’t review this movie when it first came out, and it kind of fell between the cracks for us. So here we are, correcting that.

MA: Yeah, I’d actually heard some good buzz about this movie and thought we should give it a chance.

LS: You can’t always believe what you hear. So do you want me to start this one?

MA: Be my guest!

LS: THE HAUNTING IN CONNECTICUT is the tale of the Campbell family, headed by mom Sara (Virginia Madsen) and dad Peter (Martin Donovan). They also have three kids, the oldest of which, Matt (Kyle Gallner) is undergoing aggressive treatment for cancer, which leaves him full of aches, pains, and nausea.

When Sara becomes increasingly exhausted from driving hours back and forth to the hospital to take Matt for treatment, the family decides to rent a house closer to the hospital, in Connecticut, at least until Matt’s treatment is over with.

Unfortunately, the house they choose to stay in is haunted by very aggressive ghosts!

MA: I’ll say!

LS: As we learn more about the house, we find out it used to be a funeral home, and the man who ran it, Ramsey Aickman  (John Bluethner) was also a necromancer, who sought to contact and control the spirits of the dead, with the help of his assistant Jonah (Erik Berg).  Jonah was a powerful medium. Aickman carves words in Latin on corpses and slices off their eyelids. Together they seek to have power over the dead – and fail miserably. Now the house is full of angry souls.

As if the Campbell family didn’t have enough to deal with, with Matt’s cancer.

A fellow cancer patient, Reverend Popescu (Elias Koteas), befriends Matt and believes the stories the boy tells him about ghostly apparitions and spooky goings on, so he tries to help them free the house of its ghosts.

And that is the story in a nutshell.

Okay, my first complaint is about the title. Can you think of a more bland, non-scary title than THE HAUNTING IN CONNECTICUT?

MA:  How about THE HAUNTING IN CONNECTICUT OF A FAMILY WHO ARE ONLY RENTING?  Or THE HAUNTING IN CONNECTICUT OF A FAMILY WHO REALLY LIVE IN ANOTHER STATE?  Or we could go with THE HAUNTING IN VERMONT, a rural tale about a possessed cow who goes around scaring people.

LS:  That lame title alone was enough to keep me from being too interested when it was originally released. That, and the fact that it looked like a complete rip-off of THE AMITYVILLE HORROR, based on the theatrical trailer.

However, the acting is good for the most part. Kyle Gallner has acted in several TV shows, from VERONICA MARS to THE SHIELD to SMALLVILLE (as well as the recent horror flick JENNIFER’S BODY), and he always turns in a believable performance. He’s an intense kid, and he really does a good job making us sympathize with what Matt is going through (especially when he is told that if he has hallucinations, they may stop his treatment, so he keeps quiet and suffers in silence).

MA:  I didn’t really like Kyle Gallner all that much.  I thought he was too much of a downer.

LS:  His character has cancer!  What did you want him to do?  Sing and dance?

MA:  I thought it was too much gloom and doom with him.  He was difficult to watch.

LS: I think he was supposed to be.

Elias Koteas (who will forever be Vaughn for me from David Cronenberg’s classic, CRASH (1996), but who also has been in other horror films like THE PROPHECY (1995), APT PUPIL (1998), and LOST SOULS (2000),) also turns in a good performance as the reverend, who is worn away from cancer treatment, but does his best to help the family.

MA:  I liked Koteas too, though I thought he was better in THE FOURTH KIND, which we reviewed back in November.

LS: Oh yeah, he was good in that one, too!

MA:  And although his acting is first rate here, the actual character of the reverend doesn’t really pack the same punch as say the priests in THE EXORCIST (1973), for example.  We know he is ill, close to death, but we don’t know a whole lot else about him or his background.

LS: Dude, let’s face it. There’s NOTHING about this movie that packs the same punch as THE EXORCIST.

(CASPER THE GHOST suddenly pops out from a wall and stands before them)

CASPER: Hello. Will you be my friends?

LS: Beat it, you twerp.

MA: You know, I love cartoons, from Bugs Bunny to Spongebob Squarepants, but I have to say, I have NEVER been able to get into or enjoy Casper the Friendly Ghost.  As a cartoon character, you need a lot of work.  Sorry.  Maybe if you want to entertain babies or something—.

CASPER (Bursts into tears):  WHAT MEANIES! (Goes back into the wall).

MA:  Meanies? I think we’re rather nice.  Sometimes.

LS:  The other actors are mostly so-so. Madsen, who has turned in good performances in the past, seems one-dimensional and rather annoying here as a stressed-out mother. I didn’t like her much at all.

MA:  Very annoying.

LS:  And Martin Donovan, an actor I’ve always liked and who was a regular fixture in the films of indie director Hal Hartley, has a pretty thankless job here as yet another flawed parent (the kind of boring role he seems to play a lot of these days).

MA:  I thought the dad was a big wimp!  I think I liked his character the least.

LS: Yeah, but believe me, he’s a good actor when given the chance.

The other, younger kids, Mary and Billy (Sophi Knight and Ty Wood) are okay, but rather bland, and a live-in babysitter around Matt’s age, Wendy  (Amanda Crew) rounds out the Campbell clan.

The story itself, however is often implausible and annoying. For example, when they first move into the house in Connecticut, Matt has scary dreams about a room in the basement, and yet, when it’s his turn to choose a bedroom, what room does he choose? The room in the basement. What the hell?

And way too many times when spooky things happen, and people should just get out of the house, they don’t, which is just plain stupid.

MA:  I agree.  I thought some of the early scenes in the house were REALLY creepy.  I would have been out of there so fast—.  But like you said, these characters stay.

LS:  Needless to say, as the story goes on, what we first think are Matt’s hallucinations due to his treatment turn out to be all too real, thanks to the gruesome history of the house, and as the family witnesses the haunting as well, they bond together to get through a paranormal nightmare.

So what did I think? I think those people who told you this one was worth seeing were pulling your leg, Michael. I found this movie often stupid and aggravating, despite actors Gallner and Koteas trying to add some gravitas to the proceedings. It’s another dumb haunted house story where people are too dumb to leave. And, for that reason, it’s hard to feel sorry for them.

I did like some of the imagery, though. Especially the scenes where zombies without eyelids, covered in writing that has been carved into their skin (reminding me a bit of Clive Barker’s BOOKS OF BLOOD) make their appearance. The flashback to a scene where young Jonah coughs up wriggling strands of ectoplasm during a séance is pretty effective, too. But it’s not enough to save this movie.

MA: I’m with you.  I didn’t really like this one all that much either.  But I can see why some people might have liked it.  Like you said, the imagery in this film is pretty scary.  I thought in terms of gore, it really pushed the envelope with its PG-13 rating.  I mean, there’s eyelids being sliced off, gooey ectoplasm spewing out of orifices, and letters carved in skin.  This easily could have been “R” rated.

And I thought a lot of the creepy scenes inside the house really worked.  The movie did a good job capturing what it feels like to be alone in a house at night, when all sorts of things start freaking you out.  Of course, in this case, it turns out that these freaky things are more than just a tree branch hitting a window or a creak of the floorboard, but still, I thought the scenes in the house were effective.

What I liked most about this movie was that the pain the characters feel, especially the parents, comes off as genuine.  The parents are in agony about their teen son fighting for his life, battling cancer, so I was already feeling uncomfortable even before all the scares started happening.  Their genuine angst made the scares in the film all the more disturbing.

LS: Wait a minute. You just said the mother was annoying and the father was a big wimp. You made it clear that you really didn’t care for the parents’ characters at all. And now you say their angst was what you liked most about this movie?

MA:   That’s right.  At first, their angst was genuine, and I liked this a lot early on, but as the film went on I did find the mom annoying and the dad increasingly spineless.

So, when all was said and done, I didn’t particularly enjoy THE HAUNTING IN CONNECTICUT.  This surprised me, because the acting in the film is solid, the story makes sense, there’s some very scary scenes, the writing’s not bad, but if I had to put my finger on it and come up with the number one reason I did NOT like this movie, it’d be it failed to win me over.

(COWARDLY LION comes down the hall toward them)

COWARDLY LION: I do believe in spooks, I do believe in spooks

LS: What a big baby!

COWARDLY LION: Am not! (He runs away)

MA: While I thought the story made sense, it wasn’t original by any means.  It’s pretty much just another haunted house tale, a story about spirits who are not at rest.  It plays like an update of THE AMITYVILLE HORROR.  I almost wish the story wasn’t explained so neatly in the end, because it would have been creepier not to know so much.  Which is weird for me to say since usually I like as many details as possible, but this was a case where the story explanation was akin to turning on the lights and ruining the mood.

LS: You thought this movie made sense? Awful things happen, and the family sticks around. You think that’s logical?

MA: I thought the story of a house being haunted by spirits angry over the misguided actions of a necromancer made sense, yes.  People refusing to leave a haunted house, not so much, though you could make the argument they were distracted by their son’s terminal condition.

And while the characters were genuinely interesting, they didn’t blow me away by any means.  THE HAUNTING IN CONNECTICUT is a film pushing the envelope, teetering on the edge of big time fright, but it doesn’t quite get over the top.

LS: Some of the characters are interesting, not all. And I didn’t think this teetered on the edge of “big time fright” at all. It was strictly junior league.

MA: Well, that about wraps things up.  Anything else you want to add?

LS:  Yeah, you know what the funniest part of this movie was?

MA:  What?

LS:  The disclaimer at the beginning. That had me rolling on the floor.

MA: Which one was that?

LS: The one that read “Based on True Events.”

MA and LS start laughing uncontrollably.

FADE TO BLACK

© Copyright 2010 by Michael Arruda and L.L. Soares

COMING NEXT WEEK!

Coming soon: our February Preview column, letting you know what’s coming in theaters this month. And a new review of the DVD – THE HAUNTING IN CONNECTICUT.

In the meantime, have a great weekend!

TERMINATOR SALVATION

CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT: TERMINATOR SALVATION (2009)
by Michael Arruda and L. L. Soares

FADE IN

(THE SCENE:  a futuristic landscape, decimated by war, with screaming people fleeing in every direction, as an 80-foot tall terminator machine opens fire on them. MICHAEL ARRUDA and L.L. SOARES are among the fleeing humans. They jump into an abandoned jeep, and with L.L. behind the wheel, race away with the giant machine in hot pursuit).

MA (raising his voice to be heard over all the pandemonium):  Welcome to another edition of CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT. L.L. and I have traveled to the not-so-distant future to see firsthand what it’s like to live in the TERMINATOR world, to bring you the most authentic review possible of the new movie, TERMINATOR SALVATION (2009).

LS:  Yeah, and it sucks!

MA:  What?  The movie or visiting this futuristic world?

LS: Both! This world isn’t exciting enough for me. If we gotta be in a post-apocalyptic future, I’d prefer the one from THE ROAD WARRIOR or even Romero’s zombie world. This one is tired and predictable.

MA:  This is also a Cinema Knife Fight first:  the first time we’ve attempted to review a movie while traveling at excessive speeds in a burnt-out vehicle while being chased by an impossibly huge terminator machine. So, here goes. I hope you can hear me okay!

LS:  Hold on just a second. (while still holding the steering wheel with one hand, LS holds a machine gun with his other, and aiming over his shoulder, opens fire at the terminator behemoth with a hail of bullets.)  Take that, you oversized piece of mechanical shi—! (machine gun fire drowns out his words). Go to hell, mother f— (more well-timed machine gun fire).

(LS turns to MA) I hate that you insist on keeping this column PG-rated!

MA: Stop complaining and keep shooting!  Anyway, today’s movie, TERMINATOR SALVATION, is the fourth movie in the TERMINATOR franchise, following TERMINATOR 3:  RISE OF THE MACHINES (2003), and it’s the first not to star Arnold Schwarzenegger. This one stars Christian Bale, who gets to strut his tough guy self on screen once again, only this time sans the BATMAN mask.

I’ve always liked the TERMINATOR movies, with my favorite being the original THE TERMINATOR (1984), though I enjoyed TERMINATOR 2:  JUDGMENT DAY (1991) nearly as much. Still, I wasn’t all that interested in seeing this one. For some reason, the thought of another Terminator movie did nothing for me. I had low expectations, and though it wasn’t as bad as I feared it might be, it wasn’t as good as I’d hoped.

This one is the first movie to take place in the future, and it tells the story of an adult John Connor (Christian Bale). Connor was the boy in the original movies who had to survive in order to grow into adulthood so he could lead the successful resistance against the revolting machines. Yeah, I know it’s kinda crazy, and doesn’t make a whole lot of sense if you think about it too much. Thanks to the “good” Schwarzenegger Terminator of movies 2 and 3, Connor does survive, and we find him here in the future doing his thing leading the humans against the machines.

Connor is also looking for Kyle Reese (Anton Yelchin) (Yelchin also plays Chekov in the new STAR TREK movie), the young man he must send into the past to save his mother from the original Terminator.

LS: Yeah, and Reese also gets to bang Linda Hamilton, since he also happens to be John Connor’s father in the past. Chew on that one for awhile.

MA:  Lucky, Reese. Anyway, trouble is, the machines are also looking for Reese, and for Connor, so they can kill them both.

While you would think John Connor would be the most interesting character in the film, he isn’t. That distinction belongs to new character Marcus Wright (Sam Worthington). As the movie opens, we witness Wright on death row, and just before he is to be executed, he signs his body away to be used for cancer research.

Wright awakens in the future, and finds himself in the middle of the war between humans and machines. He also finds Kyle Reese, though he doesn’t know Reese from a hole in the wall.

LS: Don’t forget Reese’s sidekick, the little mute girl played by Jadagrace.

MA:  I don’t know. I wasn’t that impressed by Jadagrace. Aren’t there always likeable little kids like her in these futuristic movies?  Like the kids with Charlton Heston in THE OMEGA MAN (1971)?  I think that’s where it started. They must all belong to a secret club.

After Reese is captured by the terminator machines, Wright hooks up with resistance fighter Blair Williams (Moon Bloodgood) and accompanies her to her base, where he meets John Connor.

LS: Moon Bloodgood? What kinda name is that? Well, despite the goofy moniker, I thought she was really good here. And kinda hot.

MA: It is here where the discovery is made that Marcus isn’t human anymore, but is half- human/half-machine.

LS: Whoa! That’s a major spoiler you’re giving away. But it’s kind of hard to review the flick without spilling the beans. Then again, the trailer already gives that away, and there are plenty of clues beforehand. So it’s really not that much of a surprise, after all. Ho hum.

MA: It is also here where the film hits its high note and is most interesting. Marcus has to deal with the horror of learning that he’s really a cyborg. And John Connor is caught off guard by this discovery, because in the audio tapes his mother left him from the past, filling him in on every possible piece of information she deemed would be helpful to him, nothing is mentioned of half-human/half-machine beings. He realizes he is facing something new.

Connor is also confused because his first inclination is to destroy Marcus, but Marcus displays more humanity than he expects, and when he tells Connor he knows the location of Kyle Reese, and offers to find him for Connor, Connor is faced with the dilemma of not knowing whether or not he can trust the cyborg.

In addition to wanting to save his friend Reese, Marcus is also driven by the need to find out who made him this way and why.

The film builds to a conclusion that ultimately brings Connor, Marcus, and Reese together as they fend off the unrelenting, unstoppable terminator machines, with the future of the human race at stake.

LS: Well, they’re not really “unstoppable” – otherwise humans wouldn’t stand a chance!

MA:  Tell that to big dude chasing us!

I liked TERMINATOR SALVATION, but I didn’t love it.

The best part of the movie for me was the performance by Sam Worthington as Marcus Wright. I thought he delivered the best performance in the movie, by far. Whenever he was on screen, the film was that much more entertaining. And it also didn’t hurt that Marcus was the best written character in the film, by screenwriters John D. Brancato and Michael Ferris, who also wrote TERMINATOR 3:  RISE OF THE MACHINES.

LS: Yeah, I totally agree about Worthington. He’s the real actor to watch here. In fact, I would go so far as to say he is the ONLY reason to see this movie.

MA: Though John Connor is trying to save the human race, his character isn’t fleshed out anywhere near as much as Marcus. With his personal plight of discovering that now he’s half machine, Marcus is in a league above the rest of the characters in the film, in terms of drama.

Christian Bale is OK as John Connor. He certainly delivers a solid performance, but as written, Connor isn’t all that interesting. We know he wants to save the human race, but other than the fact that he’s the “Chosen One”, we don’t really get to see how he’s qualified to be that leader. He doesn’t say or do anything that puts his stamp on the label that he’s the “guy” to save the world, which I think is less the fault of Bale and more the writers.

LS: I am so tired of the whole “Chosen One” archetype. It’s so damn narcissistic! Oh look at me, I’m the only one who can save the whole planet. Look how special I am!

How lame. Too many movies rely on this crap.

As for the acting, I actually don’t think Bale is as great as everyone thinks he is. He was good in smaller movies like AMERICAN PSYCHO and THE MACHINIST. But I still contend that ANYONE can play Batman. He’s one-dimensional.

MA:  Tell that to Adam West!

LS:  I’m not talking about that show. That was a comedy. I’m talking about the recent movies.

MA (wearing Batman costume):  I’m Batman.

LS (opens fire at MA with machine gun):  Now, you’re dead Batman.

And John Connor isn’t much different. Connor seems to have just one emotional reaction to everything that is thrown at him – righteous anger. He’s so ultra-serious and ultra-bland that I found him to be the least interesting character in this movie. Every time he’s on screen I just found myself hoping it would be over soon.

MA (now without the Batman costume): Gotta love that Batman body armor!   I enjoyed Bale in the 3:10 TO YUMA remake with Russell Crowe, and I didn’t really mind him as Batman, but as John Connor, I’d have to agree with you that he wasn’t that interesting.

Moon Bloodgood is bloody good (heh, heh) as Blair Williams, and Anton Yelchin turns in a respectable performance as young Kyle Reese, though he was more memorable in the new STAR TREK flick. And Yelchin somewhat resembles a younger version of Michael Biehn, who played the Kyle Reese role in the original TERMINATOR in 1984.

LS: Like I already said, I thought Moon was good. But I couldn’t give a crap about Yelchin. I kept hoping the robots would kill him. Bale too.

MA: The weakest part of TERMINATOR SALVATION, however, is the lack of a central villain. This film needs a baddie, desperately. The bad guys here are terminator machines, and there are tons of them, in all their animatronic/CGI glory, but there’s no one main bad guy, who really gives Connor and Marcus a run for their money. Even in the films where Schwarzenegger’s terminator was the hero, there was a single bad guy, a central terminator villain for him to square off against. In general, the hero is only as good as the villain, and in this case, there really wasn’t a villain.

LS: I agree. Movies like this are only as good as their bad guys. In this movie, the bad guy is Skynet – a friggin military computer system that has acquired consciousness. How exciting is that?

(Quick shot of MA slumped forward on the dashboard, asleep, with a pool of drool beneath his lips).

See what I mean?  That said, there are some cool robots this time around. For example, it’s interesting how a lot of the man-sized terminators, with their exposed skull faces, reminded me an awful lot of zombies this time around. There’s even one scene with a robot who’s lower body has been blown away, that attacks Connor with just its upper torso, that really conjured up George Romero’s zombies. In fact, these models of the terminators even have a vulnerable spot in the back of their heads that causes them to lose control if you hit it.

MA: Aim for the heads!

LS: Yee-haw! Exactly. Another robot, that looks like a giant metal man without a head – just like the one that’s chasing us! – reminded me an awful lot of the recent remake of WAR OF THE WORLDS. Not only did the robot make the same screeching metal noise as the Martian ships did in that movie, but it also grabs humans and drops them into a gigantic basket, which is very similar to WAR OF THE WORLDS as well.

MA:  Too similar. I thought it was a rip-off of the WAR OF THE WORLDS movie.

LS:  Oh yeah, those worm-like aquatic robots were pretty cool, too. But wasn’t there something similar in the MATRIX movies?

It seems like the writers this time around took some ideas and imagery from other movies. I guess that’s called a “homage.”

MA:  Really?  I thought it was called “running out of ideas.”

I also thought the look of the film was nothing to get excited about. With its charcoal gray landscape, the film almost looks black and white at times.

LS: Yeah, it wasn’t bleak enough at all!

(A robot MOTORCYCLE zooms past the jeep)

MOTORCYCLE: Nyah, nyah, you guys can’t catch me!

LS: Who cares? You’re lame anyway (fires machine gun and the motorcycle explodes)

MA: The special effects were slightly above average. They certainly didn’t wow me by any means, but they served their purpose. The film was dedicated to the memory of Stan Winston, who passed away last year. Winston’s special effects in TERMINATOR 2 won an Academy Award that year.

Director McG handled the action sequences very well. While I’ve seen more intense sequences, I’ve also seen a lot worse

I thought the music by Danny Elfman pretty ordinary, and not up to his usual standards of film music. Other than the original Terminator theme music, which was played sparingly, nothing else stood out.

As a science fiction action movie, TERMINATOR SALVATION hits its mark. It’s not all that intelligent, but it is slickly done, generally entertaining, and far from boring.

LS: Far from boring? (laughs loudly)

MA: While you may find that funny, I wasn’t bored at all. However, it’s certainly not dark enough or horrific enough to be considered a science fiction horror movie, and this is consistent with the previous films in the series, which all leaned toward action rather than horror. If action’s your thing, especially of the science fiction variety, you’ll enjoy TERMINATOR SALVATION. It’s a decent enough thrill ride that won’t wow you, but it will entertain you. What did you think, LL?

LS: I have to admit, I’m not a huge fan of the Terminator series, but I did love the first movie. Despite its low budget, the first TERMINATOR was a lot of fun, and featured Arnold Schwarzenegger in perhaps his best role ever as a murderous robot from the future. He was just terrific in that role. T2 brought the storyline into the big budget blockbuster realm, and it never looked back. For me, I lost interest in T2 when Edward Furlong tells the Ahnald-bot “Do not kill.” In that moment, not only were Arnold’s balls snipped, but the entire series was neutered as far as I was concerned. Arnold’s killer robot wasn’t some kid’s pet to be domesticated.

By the time the third movie rolled around, I had just lost interest. The TV show, THE SARAH CONNOR CHRONICLES, was much of the same. It started out promising enough (especially Summer Glau as a terminator who also happened to look like a teenage girl!), but over time got so bogged down in its own mythology that I  just found it all incredibly boring, and stopped watching.

So, I didn’t have very high hopes for the newest installment, TERMINATOR SALVATION. And, for the most part, it was as underwhelming as I expected. Although as we have discussed, Sam Worthington is the only reason this movie is not a complete waste of time.

It was also good to see the usually great Michael Ironside here, as resistance leader General Ashdown, even if his character was a complete idiot who refused to heed John Connor’s advice, just for the sake of creating dramatic tension.

The rest of the cast is pretty forgettable, including Bryce Dallas Howard as Connor’s pregnant wife, Kate. She has been the only saving grace in a few M. Night Shyamalan movies recently, but here she has a totally thankless and undeveloped role.

I didn’t totally hate TERMINATOR SALVATION, but I can’t really recommend it either. I found a lot of it rather tedious, and, aside from Worthington, there’s nobody here that really grabs your attention.

Maybe it’s time for this series to finally be put to rest. It’s starting to become as tiresome as the god-awful MATRIX movies, another series that I hope we’ve seen the last of.

MA:  I don’t know. The way things ended, it sure looks like someone out there is thinking about TERMINATOR 5.  And though I didn’t love this movie, unlike you, I do recommend it. I think the action is entertaining enough to make it worth your while, even though the story isn’t as imaginative as it could have been, and I didn’t mind the acting as much as you.

LS:  Well, I liked the fact that there were several different kinds of terminators, even if they were kind of “familiar.” There’s even a surprise appearance by an old school terminator late in the film.

(LS’s cell phone rings, and he answers it)

LS: Who the hell is this?

ARNOLD: This is the governor of California calling. I vanted to thank you for mentioning my cameo in the new TERMINATOR movie.

LS: That wasn’t even you, it was some kind of CGI effect.

ARNOLD: Oh no, that’s me. I’m bigger and stronger than ever now. I hope you enjoyed my performance. I am very big and strong, you know.

LS: Yeah, yeah.

ARNOLD: I must go now. My state needs me.

LS: So long.

ARNOLD: Hasta la vista, baby! (laughs uncontrollably)

LS: Jeesh, what a ham.

The ending is incredibly sappy, and the manipulative music score doesn’t help (so no, I wasn’t impressed with Danny Elfman’s work here either).

And, like I said before, this is easily one of Bale’s weakest roles in awhile. Then again I’ve never really cared much for the character of John Connor. Even though he’s supposedly some kind of messiah who is fated to save mankind from the machines, I never found him all that compelling. Which is why I always root for the robots in these movies.

MA:  I would have to agree with you about the character of John Connor. He’s boring.  But I like Bale, and I think had the John Connor character been written better, the results would have been more satisfying.

LS:  The robots are way cooler.

MA: Well, those same robots you like so much are trying to kill us now!

LS: It’s not their fault. They’ve just never met a cool-ass human before. Their loss.

(The jeep pulls up in front of a KFC restaurant, with tires screeching)

MA: You’ve got to be kidding me. This is no time for a snack.

LS: No, in the back, there’s a time machine, right next to the deep fryer. We can get back to our own time again.

MA: Finally! Well, this wraps things up for this installment of Cinema Knife Fight, the only review column where the writers put their lives on the line to bring you the truth about today’s movies.

(The giant robot fires a missile that blows up the KFC before they can reach it)

MA:  Ooops!  Not to worry, though. We’ll just implement Plan B.

LS:  Plan B?

MA:  As in, we just walk off the set.

LS:  We can do that?

MA:  We’re writers, we can do anything.

(LS and MA step from the jeep and walk down a set of stairs which leads them off the soundstage into a lobby).

LS: So much for the wonders of time travel.

MA:  We’ll see you all next time.

LS:   That’s right. (in his best “Arnold” voice)  Ve’ll be back!

FADE OUT

(Originally published on Fear Zone on 5/29/2009)

© Copyright 2009 by Michael Arruda and L.L. Soares

First Step Toward the Stoker!

We interrupt our regular programming for a special announcement.

Movies got the Oscars. Science fiction writers have the Hugo. Mystery writers have their Edgars.

Well, us horror writers have got the Stokers, awards given out by the Horror Writers Association (HWA), and as of this morning, CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT has made the preliminary ballot for the Bram Stoker award in the Non-Fiction category.

What does this mean? Well, it’s only the first step toward the Stoker awards. But we still have to stay alive through another round of voting to (hopefully) make it to the final ballot. Here’s hoping we somehow make it.

I admit, we’re a long shot. But this was exciting news. And it’s one step in the right direction.

More on our progress as it develops….

In the meantime, please help us get the word out about Cinema Knife Fight, especially if you happen to know active members of the HWA who like to vote. (wink wink)

And thanks to all our friends for your continued support.

Let’s make Cinema Knife Fight the “Stoker-Winning Movie Review Column” for the Horror Industry. Man, that sounds nice.

Best,

Michael and LL

ALIEN TRESPASS

ALIEN TRESPASS (Solo review)
L.L. Soares

FADE IN

(SCENE: The interior of a spaceship. LL SOARES is in a cage made of laser beams in the middle of a control room.)

LS: Hiya, folks. Welcome to Cinema Strangehold. This is what we call it when only one of us Cinema Knife Fight guys can review a movie that we had both planned to review. So how come Michael isn’t here? Well, it turns out that the movie we were going to review this week, ALIEN TRESPASS, was only available in limited release, and wasn’t playing anywhere near him. So I get to examine it solo.

I saw ALIEN TRESPASS in an independent art theater and I guess the big question is, does this movie deserve a much wider release? Sadly, my answer would have to be a resounding “No.”

Ever look back on those goofy sci-fi movies of the 1950s and 60s with fond nostalgia? Yeah, me too. But I’m not really sure how badly we need a new movie to emulate the look and feel of those innocent times. Not that it’s impossible to do well. THE LOST SKELETON OF CADAVRA (from 2001) was able to capture the feel of the old films, and still provide some laughs and surprises of its own. ALIEN TRESPASS might have a bigger budget and some recognizable stars, but it is nowhere in LOST SKELETON’s league.

When ALIEN TRESPASS opens, we’re treated to some simulated newsreel footage of the 1950s, complete with “news” stories about early rocket launches and the “dust-up” between old-time film star M. Eric McCormack (or as we know him in modern times, Eric McCormack, the star of the sitcom WILL & GRACE) – lovingly called “Merick” by his fans in this alternate universe; I guess McCormack doesn’t have to do sitcoms in this splinter of reality – and a pompous studio head named Jeremy Goldstone (Brad Dryborough), who clearly went to the Louis B. Meyer School of Studio Executives. Because of a disagreement, the studio mogul has decided not to release McCormack’s new movie, ALIEN TRESPASS, even though “Merick” says in a filmed interview that it features the best acting of his career. I have to admit, I was a little puzzled by the newsreel bits. Maybe they were just added to pad out the movie’s running time, because frankly they don’t add much to the movie. We never really get what this studio feud is all about, and strangely, the movie never returns to it. Instead, we just dive head-first into the “lost” film that was the topic of discussion.

In the movie-within- the-movie, McCormack plays Ted Lewis, a professor-type with a hankering for astronomy , who is celebrating his wedding anniversary with his horny wife Lana (Jody Thompson, who’s actually good at this) on the same night that a shower of falling stars rains down on the earth. One of the falling bits of space debris turns out to be a spaceship that hurtles off its course. After a crash landing, a strange phallic creature called a Gotah escapes (it’s like a giant cucumber with one big eye and tentacles). When Prof. Lewis goes to investigate, his body is taken over by “the alien equivalent of a federal marshal” named Urp, who then goes about trying to track down the dangerous Gotah before it multiplies and takes over the earth.

Along the way, the Gotah, which alternates between being seen and being invisible (which gives us a lot of PEEK-A-BOO moments! Aw shucks!), uses its tentacles to reduce several people to gooey puddles (sucking the nutrients right out of them), and just being an all-around pest.

Other citizens in the town of Mojave include a loudmouth cop (Robert Patrick from TERMINATOR II), a sad sack police chief on the verge of retirement (Dan Lauria, the father from THE WONDER YEARS), a feisty waitress with a crush on Professor Lewis named Tammy (Jenni Baird), who helps the Lewis-possessed Urp with his hunt for the Gotah, a trio of teenagers who get in the thick of the action, and two local idiots named Lloyd and Bubba (Jonathan Young and Michael Roberds respectively).

There really is no reason to go into much more detail, because the movie sticks to the clich?s of its genre, and moves in a strictly predictable, and often boring, direction. Sure, the fashions and props look genuine for the time period, and the acting is suitably (and annoyingly) wooden most of the time, especially McCormack doing his Klaatu (from THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL) imitation, but director R.W. Goodwin and his cohorts failed to realize a few things. First of all, the movies it lovingly spoofs from the 1950s (mostly the work of people like Roger Corman and his low-budget peers) were campy fun because they took themselves seriously, despite their ludicrous scripts and effects. To make a movie that is INTENTIONALLY campy kind of defeats the purpose. And if you do attempt such a thing, then recreating such a film with just as meager a budget and at least some personality of its own, such as LOST SKELETON OF CADAVRA, might work. But making a bland follow-the-numbers homage like ALIEN TRESPASS is kind of a self-defeating experiment. It doesn’t have much personality of its own, and I found myself shifting in my seat a lot and even zoning out a few times due to sheer restlessness.

The Gotah is a silly enough monster, and is obviously made of rubber (with probably some CGI thrown in, considering everything has to have CGI these days), but the fact that the movie is filmed in vivid colors makes it appear even more fake than the goofy rubber monsters it’s trying to emulate. The reason those silly creatures didn’t look quite as awful in the 50s – and the reason they had any coolness to them at all – was mostly due to the fact that black and white film tends to make these kinds of things look better. To film it in color is to shine a bright light that tells us “Look the monster is rubber and goofy!” which is obviously the point of a movie like this, but which loses something in the attempt.

Even a scene where the Gotah invades a movie theater showing the 1958 film THE BLOB, and the moviegoers run out screaming at the same time people on the screen are doing the same thing when the Blob invades a similar theater – a scene that obviously thinks it is very clever – elicited little more than a yawn from me.

ALIEN TRESPASS isn’t a very exciting film. It sticks to the very clich?s it seeks to poke fun at, giving us the equivalent of a haunted house ride with just a few dark rooms and no scares. The end result is that you feel kind of cheated.

I know there are people who will enjoy this little walk down memory lane, but I was surprised to find that I wasn’t one of them, since I really do enjoy a lot of the movies it so slavishly tries to recreate. I found ALIEN TRESPASS to be pretty much a waste of 90 minutes, and I can think of a dozen real 1950s films I’d rather have spent the time watching, instead of this lame facsimile.
I also found myself wondering why this movie got a theatrical release at all (rather than going straight to DVD), and yet director Larry Blamire’s follow-up to LOST SKELETON OF CADAVRA, entitled TRAIL OF THE SCREAMING FOREHEAD (2007), did not. I’ve seen some scenes from SCREAMING FOREHEAD and it looks a hundred times better than ALIEN TRESPASS.

And with that, I will end this review. Frankly, I’m getting a bit sleepy just thinking about this tiresome flick.
(LS pokes his finger through a laser beam “bar” of his cage and is surprised to find that it doesn’t burn him, so he steps through the beams and out of the cage.)

LS: I’m free! I can’t believe how easy that was.

(As LS pokes around at the various switches and funny lights, alarms suddenly go off and two tall, rubbery-looking aliens with huge eyes enter the room)

ALIEN 1: The earthling has escaped his cage!

ALIEN 2: These humans are tricky creatures.

LS: Hey guys, what does this switch do?

ALIENS 1 & 2 (in unison): NOOOOOOO!

(Spaceship hurtles down toward earth)

LS: Well, I guess I’m going home now. At least I didn’t get probed while I was trapped on this flying pie tin. See you next time!

(And with a loud explosion, the column FADES OUT)

***

(Originally published on Fear Zone on 4/6/2009)

© Copyright 2009 by L.L. Soares

TOKYO GORE POLICE!

CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT:  TOKYO GORE POLICE
by Michael Arruda and L. L. Soares

FADE IN

(On a street in downtown Tokyo, MICHAEL ARRUDA and LL SOARES are dressed in police armor. The buildings are dark and the road is full with bodies)

MA: What happened here?

LS: I don’t know. Maybe someone was angry that they canceled THE BIONIC WOMAN.

MA: Really?  Seeing that we’re in Tokyo, I would have imagined some giant monster with hot breath having something to do with this.

LS: I dunno. They look sort of chopped up to me.

MA: Anyway, today we’re reviewing a DVD, right?

LS: Yes. This week we’re reviewing the Japanese film TOKYO GORE POLICE (2008), and it certainly lives up to its name. If you’ve got a problem with gruesome effects and fountains for blood, then chances are this movie is not for you.

MA:  I’d say about a 99.9% chance.

LS:  TOKYO GORE POLICE is not very scary, however. It’s actually more of a live-action cartoon.   And it definitely has a sense of humor to it. On those levels, it really works. The plot may not always make a lot of sense, but basically it’s about a near-future Japan where the police force is privatized, and criminals are shot dead in the street. One of their best officers is Ruka (Eihi Shiina), a stoic and beautiful police woman who is an expert with a samurai sword. In fact, she’s so formidable that she is their prime agent in the war against a new public menace called the “Engineers.”

These Engineers are biological criminals who can adapt their bodies when wounded. For example, if a hand gets shot off, the stub might just bond with a chainsaw. Or a stomach wound might become a giant mouth. It’s not very easy to kill these mutants, but Ruka is the best there is at protecting the city from them.

MA:  You know, I liked the idea of the Engineers.  I thought it very creative, and had this movie not been so damned grotesque, it might have been good, but more on that later.

LS:  The story also flashes back to the death of Ruka’s father when she was younger. He was a good cop who spoke out against the corporation that sought to privatize the police force, and he got shot in the head for his troubles. The question as to who killed him is one of the main mysteries of the movie, and ties Ruka’s fate directly to that of a geneticist who also happens to be the leader and creator of the Engineers.

There’s also some weirdness (hell, everything in this movie is weird) about a strange key-shaped tumor that is inside each of the body-modified Engineers. But not only is it present in them, they can “insert” these tumors into other people and turn them into Engineers as well. I thought this was a pretty cool way to propagate their species.

Some of the strange body mutations reminded me of David Croneneberg’s “body horror” movies like VIDEODROME and EXISTENZ.  But even more than that, TOKYO GORE POLICE reminded me of the classic Japanese flick, TETSUO: THE IRON MAN, which dealt with a businessman who slowly transformed into a machine. Like TESTSUO, TOKYO GORE POLICE has a real comic book feel to it, more like a live-action anime film than an out and out horror movie. A lot of the acting is over the top, and some of the scenes are very funny. Some of the mutations are pretty hilarious as well, including a man whose penis is transformed into a kind of cannon.

(A deranged mutant attacks them and they open fire, shooting it to bits. From its damaged head pops up two new heads. One looks like MOE and the other one looks like CURLY from The Three Stooges)

MOE: Spread out! (pokes CURLY in the eyes).

CURLY: NYAAAAAAAAAH

(MOE’s arm punches CURLY’s head and they fall down on the ground, wrestling)

LS: The lead performance by Eihi Shiina is perfect, though. While everyone around her is spilling over into camp, she plays it completely straight, and is terrific as Ruka.  Some people might recognize her as the scary girl form Takashi Miike’s classic from 1998, AUDITION, easily one of my favorite horror films of the last two decades. In AUDITION, she was downright terrifying. Here, she’s the no-nonsense cop in a world gone insane. She’s terrific in both roles.

I’ve actually wanted to see this movie ever since I first heard about it last year. A friend of mine saw the trailer at a convention and raved about it, but frankly they had me at the title. There is something just so cool about a movie called TOKYO GORE POLICE. Luckily, the movie itself lived up to its title. This flick literally sprays blood everywhere, it’s like a Tarantino film on steroids, and it’s a lot of fun in the process.

I don’t mind saying I really enjoyed this one.

So what did you think of it, Michael? For some reason, I thought this wouldn’t be your cup of tea, but I could be wrong.

MA:  First let me commend you on your description of this movie.  You do it justice, and describe it in near-perfect detail.  The one thing I disagree with you on, is likability.  See, I hated TOKYO GORE POLICE, and I’ll tell you why.

Oh, it has nothing to do with the way the movie looks.  On style points alone, TOKYO GORE POLICE nearly won me over.  The people behind this movie, specifically the person calling the shots behind the camera, clearly know how to film a movie.

LS: That would be cinematographer  Shu G. Momose and director Yoshihiro Nishimura.

MA: There are some wonderfully photographed scenes chock full of memorable images. So in terms of style, TOKYO GORE POLICE is full of it.  Too bad it’s also full of gore.

TOKYO GORE POLICE is the most stylish piece of smut I’ve seen in a long time.

LS: Smut? Here we go.  I think your Puritanical side is showing again, Michael.

MA: That’s smut as in obscenity, as in being offensive.   I enjoyed nearly all the scenes that didn’t include gore, yes, all three of them.  Seriously, there’s more than three, but there’s so much blood and grotesque mutilations going on in scene after scene that, unless you’re really into that sort of thing, it’s just not fun.  Still, art-wise, this movie looks terrific.  Too bad it constantly goes for the gross-out, because in doing so, it negates its style points.  You’re too busy feeling sick and nauseous to notice how good the film looks.

(Another freaky mutant that looks like a muscular version of HELLO KITTY attacks and they open fire. This time its stomach rips open to reveal…)

(SIGN FLASHES ON SCREEN:  THIS GAG HAS BEEN CUT OUT DUE TO ITS BEING PURE FILTH!)

(The screen goes blank, and then suddenly resumes)

LS (wiping blood off his face): The thing is, I didn’t feel sick or nauseous once. But then again, I’ve never been particularly squeamish about blood – especially fake blood that is obviously over the top.

MA: I do agree with you about Eihi Shiina.  I thought she was terrific in the lead as well.  And that was part of the film’s style, to have Shiina’s beauty juxtaposed with the grotesque crimes around her.

And I liked the music score.  A lot.

LS: I agree with you there.

MA: But while you enjoyed the film’s campy plot and thought it was funny, I was simply too distracted by the putrid images to even care.  I didn’t laugh once.  Had less emphasis been placed on the gore, I might have loved this movie, but as it stands now, I did not.

Now, obviously, gore’s the point of the movie.  That’s why it’s called TOKYO GORE POLICE.

LS: I’d say so.

MA: Yeah, with a title like that, you kinda know what you’re in for.  Still, it could have been a far different movie and still retained its campy edginess.  If you’re like me, you’re hoping a film like this is campy fun.  Sadly, while it is campy, it’s not fun.  It’s just gross.  For those of you who like gross-outs, have fun.  You’ll no doubt love this movie.  But for those of us who actually want to enjoy a movie without throwing up, don’t bother with this trash.

And it is trash.  When you place so much emphasis on gore, you can’t be anything but.

LS: Really? That’s news to me.

MA: See, it says so right here! (Hands LS a newspaper with the headline, EXCESSIVE GORE IS TRASH!).

LS:  Which just goes to show you, you can’t believe everything you read in the newspaper!

MA:   I have no respect for this movie, and I continue to believe that movies like this do more harm to the horror genre than good.   Who would choose to sit down and watch this movie other than a hardcore fan?  And if that’s all you’re aiming for, that small percentage of audience, then that’ s not saying much.

LS: I disagree completely. I think this could appeal to a lot of people who aren’t bothered by extreme effects. I could see this becoming a huge cult movie with the college crowd. Trash implies this movie has no redeeming value. But seriously, redeeming value is in the eye of the beholder. It’s also a moral question, and frankly, in a medium that is supposed to provide entertainment, I don’t think moral stances really need to be involved.

MA:  In the eyes of one who watches lots of horror movies, it has no redeeming value.   Going for the gross-out has always been and will continue to be the easiest way to get a scare, or in this case, in a movie that’ s not really trying to be scary, to get a reaction.  Writers who can’t do better always settle for the gross-out.  Certainly, writers who can do better can choose to go for the gross-out as well.  That’s fine.

LS:  Um, can you please make up your mind?

MA (ignores him): Unfortunately, writers who can’t do better never write the scariest scene ever.  My point is that the gross-out is the basest form of horror.  Always has been.  Always will be.  There’s no getting around it.  Once you go for the gross-out, whether you intend to or not, you’ve lowered yourself, and there’s no talking your way out of it.

Dirt is dirt.  To clean dirt, you don’t cover it up and say “Look how good this dirt looks.”  No.  To clean dirt, you get rid of it.  You remove the dirt and what’s left is clean.  A movie like TOKYO GORE POLICE is full of gore, filth, and things that gross you out just to gross you out.  With these things in the film, I can’t respect it, nor can I say too many good things about it.

To me, watching TOKYO GORE POLICE is as much fun as sitting in front of your toilet bowl and throwing up after you’ve been out drinking all night.  Did I say that it was a particularly stylish toilet bowl?

LS: That’s funny, because I would think that a movie called TOKYO GORE POLICE really wants to get a reaction out of its viewers, and whether you enjoyed it or not, you certainly had a reaction. At least you have to admit, you can’t be indifferent to this one.

But, as I’ve said,  I totally disagree with your comments about the gore content in this film. Because it is so cartoony, I find it difficult to take any of this movie seriously.  So it’s hard for me to understand your comments about it being “trash” or “dirt.” That seems a bit exaggerated and reactionary to me.

MA:  So it’s cartoony.  It’s still gross.

LS: Gross. What are you, five years old and collecting Garbage Pail Kids?

At the same time, I found myself wondering at times, while watching it, what it would have been like if it had played it completely straight. If they’d left out the cartoony gags and the humor. That might have been even more interesting. But I’m guessing, if that were the case, you wouldn’t even be here reviewing it with me, because that probably would have been a lot more disturbing.

But we’re not reviewing what it could have been, we’re reviewing what it is, and I, for one, had a great time watching this one. I found it very entertaining, visually fascinating, and often, just plain goofy.

It’s times like these that I’m glad you don’t control what movies get released. Something like TOKYO GORE POLICE would never get made, and I, for one, would find that very sad.

MA:  Here, have a tissue.  I’m all broken up.  Seriously, I’m not taking away your favorite films from you. I could give a care if they make hundreds of movies like this.  But as long as they do, and as long as I see them, I’m going to give my opinion, which I’m going to guess most of the time will be negative because I prefer films that are a bit easier on the senses.  I’d rather have my eyes well with tears from an emotional reaction rather than feeling like I’ve been punched in the nose.  I’m not into that.

LS:  This all comes back to a debate we’ll probably have for eternity, the whole “quiet horror vs. extreme horror” argument. While you seem pretty firm in your belief that there’s no place for gore at all, and that less is always better, I still maintain that there’s room for both kinds of expression.

MA: I didn’t say that.

LS (turns to face screen): Lloyd, can you rewind the tape?

(FILM RUNS BACKWARDS AND THEN STOPS AT KEY MOMENTS)

MA:  Too bad it’s also full of gore.

MA:  I enjoyed nearly all the scenes that didn’t include gore.

(MA holds up a newspaper that reads EXCESSIVE GORE IS TRASH! while he dances around)

LS: I rest my case.

MA:  And I rest mine- I didn’t hear myself say there’s no place for gore, or that less is always better, though it usually is.  And I didn’t dance around – you added that in digitally!

Look, there’s always room for gore, and there’s times when going for the gross-out works too, but it’s easy to do, and when you do it so much, as is the case in this movie, where nearly every “horror” scene is a gross-out, it gets old fast.

LS:  I like plenty of “quiet” horror movies and books, but I think it would be pretty bland if that was the only kind we got. Sometimes it’s just very cathartic and fun to go hog wild with the blood and guts.  And there’s no reason why people who like this sort of thing need to feel ashamed or that they need to defend it.

MA:  I agree, up to a point, which is why I liked a movie like PUNISHER WAR ZONE. But TOKYO GORE POLICE crossed the line for me.  My senses were assaulted just a bit too much during this one.

LS:  The bottom line is, it’s not friggin real. It’s not hurting anyone. So your desire to wipe this kind of thing off the face of the planet just strikes me as killing an ant with an rocket launcher. The audience for this kind of flick will find it. People who won’t like it, will stay away. In this case, the title represents total truth in advertising, and it makes it an easy decision.

So we’re going to have to disagree about this one. Strongly.

But I still think it’s silly to have such a strong, angry reaction to a movie that, at its most basic level, is just plain silly. I, for one, can’t wait for TOKYO GORE POLICE 2.

MA: I’m not angry.  I just didn’t like the movie.  You had a strong positive reaction to it, and I had a strong negative reaction.

(GODZILLA pops his head up from behind a tall building)

GODZILLA: Hey, at least I never resorted to filthy gore to get a reaction out of anyone.

MA: No, but you did talk in one of your films.  GODZILLA VS. GIGAN, I think.   Now, that was scary!!

(GODZILLA scowls, then breathes fire on them, burning them into two crisps)

FADE OUT

(First published on Fear Zone on 3/23/2009)

© Copyright 2009 by Michael Arruda and L.L. Soares

ALIEN RAIDERS

DVD REVIEW:  ALIEN RAIDERS (2008)
by Michael Arruda

It’s no secret that during the last year and a half, as I reviewed a bunch of low budget DVD releases, finding movies worth recommending was not an easy task.

I’m happy to announce, right off the bat, that ALIEN RAIDERS (2008) is the first low budget DVD release I’ve seen in a long while that I recommend strongly.  It’s a kinetic, frenetic story that entertains and scares at the same time.

Made in 2008, it was released on DVD on February 17, 2009.

ALIEN RAIDERS takes place inside a supermarket in a small town, and begins when a group of masked armed intruders take over the supermarket, holding everyone hostage.  Worse yet, they begin shooting the customers execution style.  But all is not as it seems.

See, the gunmen, as violent and as scary as they are, aren’t really the bad guys.  They’re scientists searching for aliens who have infiltrated the town.  A la John Carpenter’s THE THING, the alien is embedded inside the human host’s body, and so to the naked eye you can’t tell who is alien and who is human.

There is a test the armed scientists can perform on the hostages, and that involves cutting off a finger.  If the person is an alien, the finger will grow back.  As you can imagine, the hostages are terrified, convinced they’ve been captured by a band of heavily armed lunatics.

Meanwhile, outside the supermarket, the police have surrounded the building and are attempting to negotiate with the gunmen.  Things grow even more tense when the alien finally is discovered, and suddenly unleashes a vicious attack on everyone inside the supermarket.  Pandemonium ensues, and what follows is a high octane alien/human blood fest that’s not to be missed.

One of the best descriptions of how ALIEN RAIDERS works comes from actor Carlos Bernard in one of the specials on the DVD.  He called the movie a cross between DOG DAY AFTERNOON (1975) and John Carpenter’s THE THING (1982), and this is an apt description.  There is a very high level of intensity in this movie that is kept going throughout.  There are very few slow parts.

For a low budget movie, the acting is excellent, and I’m not just talking about lead actor Carlos Bernard (from TVs 24).  Sure, he delivers a strong performance, but he’s surrounded by players who all make the material work.  Matthew St. Patrick as head cop Seth Steadman, Courtney Ford as the foxy scientist Sterling, Rockmond Dunbar as one of the gun-toting heavies, Kane, and Jeffrey Licon and Samantha Streets as two hostage teenagers all make lasting impressions.  There are even more actors who stand out.  Heck, the acting in this movie is better than the acting in some of the major theatrical releases.  It’s that good.

Director Ben Rock creates many memorable scenes.  The opening shoot-out and take-over of the supermarket is reminiscent of the mayhem caused by the Joker in THE DARK KNIGHT.

Later scenes invoke memories of John Carpenter’s THE THING.  The scene where the scientists must cut off a finger from each hostage in order to perform the alien test is particularly grueling.

The screenplay by Julia Fair and David Simkins is very well done.  The conversations are realistic, and the plot somehow believable.  It’s believable because the story doesn’t spend time going into specifics regarding the aliens.  Instead, it spends most of its time on the people, on their fear, and on how horrible it is for both the hostages— how terrified they are—and for the scientists with the guns.  These scientists don’t want to be killing people.  They’re shooting people because they know how dangerous and how deadly the aliens are.  They know that the aliens must be found out and destroyed, no matter the cost.  Then, there are the police outside.  The head negotiator, Seth, learns that his step-daughter is one of the hostages.

As you can see, there’s a lot going on here, and as a result the human elements in this movie really work.  I really cared a lot for these characters.  This is a rarity for horror movies these days, to care so much for the characters involved.

If there’s one drawback to ALIEN RAIDERS, it would be the special effects, but it wouldn’t be for lack of trying.  There are a lot of gore effects here.  They’re just not always effective.  They’re not bad— I’ve seen a lot worse—- but they’re not that great either, and compared to the level of directing, writing, and acting in this movie, the gore effects don’t measure up.

Furthermore, compared to the topnotch effects in John Carpenter’s THE THING, a movie made nearly 30 years ago, they’re inferior.  You’d like to think that a modern day movie would have better special effects than something that had come before it.  So, this works against ALIEN RAIDERS.

Still, you have to commend everyone who was involved in the making of this movie.  Their hearts were certainly in the right place, even if their budget wasn’t.

ALIEN RAIDERS is the best of the recent DVD releases I’ve seen in a while.  It’s frightening, action-packed, filled with likeable, memorable characters, and a heck of a lot of fun.

It’s definitely worth a rental.

—-END—

LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT (2009)

CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT: LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT (2009)
by Michael Arruda and L.L. Soares

FADE IN

(Close-up of LL SOARES lying down on a table with his head inside a microwave oven. MICHAEL ARRUDA enters the room)

MA: What are you doing?  Cleaning the microwave with your tongue again?

LS: No, I’m— hmm, it does need cleaning—I’m just drying my hair. Can you push the START button for me?

MA: You don’t have any hair. Now stop fooling around so we can review the new remake of LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT.

LS (pulls himself out of the microwave and sits up on the table. He pats his head):  I used to have hair.

So Where was I? Ahhh, revenge. One of my favorite themes in horror fiction. And LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT is about nothing if not revenge.

MA:  Well said, Lex Luthor.

LS:  First off a little history lesson. This is actually the third version of LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT, unless you count Ingmar Bergman’s film VIRGIN SPRING (1960), which supposedly was the inspiration for the first LAST HOUSE, then the movie’s been made four times!

The original LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT (1972) was the debut film of director Wes Craven. The plot is pretty simple. Two girls trying to score some pot before a concert come into the orbit of some escaped convicts who brutally rape and kill them. The convicts then end up at the house of one of the girl’s parents, who find out the truth, and exact their revenge against the evil-doers.

I’m actually a fan of Craven’s original film. Sure, it’s a sleaze/exploitation classic, but it’s also a powerful and disturbing movie.

MA:  I didn’t like Craven’s original film.  While you think it’s a classic, I found it trashy and exploitative.  And I think it’s interesting that our different takes on the original influences how we view the remake. More on that as we continue.

LS:  I’m one of these people who think good horror should actually screw with your head.  I’m all for dopey fun like the FRIDAY THE 13TH movies and stuff like that, but the real good stuff includes films that actually disturb you. Like the original TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE (1974) and more recent fair like JACK KETCHUM’S THE GIRL NEXT DOOR (2007).

MA:  I agree with you on this point.

LS:  Yeah, sure you do.

MA:  I do.  I think there are some horror movies that succeed because they disturb you, and that’s a good thing.  Others succeed without disturbing you.  But there’s a difference in my book between being disturbed and feeling revulsion.  That’s a point where you and I differ.

LS:  The original LAST HOUSE was one of these films that really got under your skin. The lead convict, Krug, as played by the amazing David Hess, was pure evil, with a real penchant for sadism. The girls in the original film weren’t just murdered, they were humiliated and brutalized first, and these scenes lasted a long time, to really make for a very unpleasant experience.

MA:  Which is a major reason why I didn’t like the original movie.

LS:  So by the time the bad guys ended up at the house of their victims’ parents, you hated them enough so that you really relished when they got their comeuppance.

MA:  I felt the same way in the remake, without the long agonizing scene of brutality.

LS:  I have to admit, I’m not a big Wes Craven fan, mostly because of his awful SCREAM films of the 90s.

MA:  The SCREAM films aren’t awful.

LS:  Seriously, they’re complete friggin garbage. And they also ushered in the whole Dawson’s Creek era of horror films, where every single one had to be about stupid kids. Suddenly, adults didn’t have a place in horror stories anymore. Complete casts were comprised of nothing but teenagers and twenty-somethings pretending to be teenagers, thanks to Craven as his SCREAM writer Kevin Williamson. This was actually one of the lowest points ever in the genre, between movies like the SCREAM series and equally lame rip-offs like I KNOW WHAT YOU DID LAST SUMMER.

It figures you’d like this trash. With SCREAM, Craven pretty much turned horror movies into a joke, and it was years before they were taken seriously again.

MA:  I think you’re giving Craven way too much credit here.  I don’t think he single-handedly made the horror industry a laughing stock.  The SCREAM films were funny for a reason, because the slasher franchises had gotten so silly over the years it was difficult to take them seriously, so the SCREAM movies poked fun at the clichés and pratfalls these movies had fallen into, and they did so with sharp humor (heh, heh) while remaining scary to boot.

LS: But back in the 1970s, when he was first starting out, Craven actually knew how to make a decent horror film. LAST HOUSE is very effective, as is his second film, THE HILLS HAVE EYES (which also had a decent remake made out of it a few years ago). After that, he pretty much lost his way, although he did create THE NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET series and Freddy Krueger.

But early on, he was the man. Needless to say, it didn’t last long.

MA:  Actually, he got better with age. So, take that, Dr. Evil!

LS:  Are you sure you’re not brain damaged? But back to LAST HOUSE. The first time it was remade was in the 2005 film CHAOS, directed by David DeFalco. It may not give credit to the source material, but CHAOS is almost the exact same story. CHAOS is actually a pretty decent remake, too, with Kevin Gage starring as the sadistic  escaped convict Chaos, who is the new version of the original convict Krug. I actually thought that version was pretty decent, and while it wasn’t as intense as the original film, it didn’t hold back on the violence and brutality.

The new version of LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT is much less raw, but the basic premise is the same. This time around, John and Emma Collingwood (Tony Goldwyn and Monica Potter), along with their teenage daughter Mari (Sara Paxton), head out to a summer cottage in the middle of the woods for their summer vacation. Not only are they going there to escape their jobs and everyday life, they’re also going  to get away from the grief of losing their son Ben, who died a year earlier.

When Mari borrows the family SUV to go visit her friend Paige (Martha MacIsaac), her parents decide to make the best of their first night in their summer home by having a romantic dinner together.

While Mari is visiting Paige at her job, as a cashier at a liquor store, they meet Justin (Spencer Treat Clark), a shy young man who offers to get them some primo pot if they’ll let him buy cigarettes (he’s not 21 yet, presumably). They agree and go back to his motel room. Things only go downhill from there.

All versions of this film play upon parental fears, which gives the story most of its power. Not only is it about parents whose child goes off on her own and falls prey to violent strangers, but her situation begins when she goes to score drugs (of course, since drugs are clearly evil in this context). While partying with Justin, the girls are surprised by the appearance of Justin’s father Krug (Garret Dillahunt) and his sidekicks Francis (Krug’s brother, played by Aaron Paul) and Krug’s  psychotic girlfriend Sadie (Riki Lindhome). Francis and Sadie have just sprung Krug from police custody (in an opening sequence they kill two cops who were planning to bring Krug in) and they’re all over the newspapers. Krug decides that, now that the girls have seen them, it’s not safe to keep them alive. Of course, he’s not about to kill them off before having a little fun with them first.

A road trip in Mari’s parents’ car goes awry when they have a car crash (when Mari and Paige try to escape). The angry criminals brutalize the girls, leaving them for dead. But with the car totaled and with a storm on the way, they have no choice but to seek shelter at the nearest possible place, which turns out to be the summer home of Emma’s parents. When they learn the truth about their new houseguests, the parents seek bloody revenge against these inhuman bastards.

Part of what made the original film so effective was its low-budget look. It  added a kind of documentary quality to the film that made it seem more realistic, and thus possible.

MA: Which is a fancy way of saying the film looked cheap.

LS:  The acting didn’t hurt either. The entire cast of the original Craven film was very good, especially David Hess as the incredibly creepy, curly-haired psychotic named Krug.

Some people may recognize Garret Dillahunt from his appearances on the HBO show DEADWOOD, where he played two roles (one of which was a wild west serial killer). He’s  a good actor and has his moments here, but he simply is not as intense and just plain scary as Hess was in Craven’s original film.

There’s also a slickness to the new film that wasn’t in the original. This is clearly a Hollywood film. And the more brutal aspects of the original film are absent here. The torture and killing of the girls, for instance, is a scene which lasts much longer in the original. Here, they almost seem in a hurry to get that part over with, and linger much longer on the parents’ revenge in the final act. The infamous fellatio scene from the original film is also absent here. Instead, the big moment of the revenge motif is a scene involving a microwave, which is hinted at in the trailer, and doesn’t disappoint (But for some reason it did seem kind of goofy).

All in all, I think the remake was well done and wasn’t particularly painful to sit through for a real fan of the original like myself. However, the remake, while not awful, does not hold a candle to the original.

But what did you think, Michael?

MA:  I think you hit the nail on the head when you said your reaction was influenced by you being a fan of the original. The same thing happened to me, but in the opposite way. I did not like the original, but— and I can’t believe I’m going to say this— I liked this movie. A lot.

I expected not to like THE LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT. I expected it to be raw, raunchy, and excessively violent, but a funny thing happened while watching this movie. I found myself caring for the characters, and I felt genuine suspense during the latter half of the film, worrying about what might happen to the girl’s parents as they encountered the criminals. Suddenly I realized I was really into this movie.

The main reason I liked this film was that the story really drew me in. I cared about the characters and felt uncomfortable when bad things started to happen.

The original movie really wasn’t on my mind as I watched this version, which allowed me to view this movie with a fresh, open mind. I wasn’t thinking about comparing scenes or knowing in advance what was going to happen. No, I simply watched this film and experienced it as its own movie.

I agree with you about the violence not being as raw in this one, but I think that worked just fine. It wasn’t wimpy, that’s for sure. It contained R-rated violence, but it wasn’t exploitative.  Sure, it was brutal, but— and this is where I’ve criticized other gory movies— it had a purpose. Hear that?  A purpose! It wasn’t mindless gore. We have nasty criminals, real life baddies, not cliché, and if you think these guys aren’t like some real people, just watch the 6:00 news. Sad, but true. They’re not superhuman, like Jason or Michael Myers, which means that when they do real nasty things to two very likeable people, it’s believable and it’s scary.

Sure, the murder/rape scene isn’t as long or as brutal as the one in the original, but it’s still a difficult scene to watch, difficult enough to make its point, which is to give the girl’s parents a justifiable reason to fight back against these guys. It’s certainly not a PG-13 rated scene. I don’t think the movie wimped out on the violence. I think it just didn’t go overboard.

LS: I agree that the rape scene here is pretty intense, although it’s toned down in comparison to the original film and is not as stomach-churning as it was there. The original movie made you despise the bad guys even more, if that’s possible.

MA: I have to admit, I wanted the girl’s parents to get back at these guys. Now, the movie does a very good job of making this possible, which is one of the major reasons I liked it. Normally, I’m not into vengeance/revenge, and in a story like this, I’m thinking, you could call the police!  How about that for an option?  Sounds pretty good to me.

But the movie does a good job taking this option off the table, in a very believable way. Outside is a powerful,  raging thunderstorm. Phone service is out, including their cell phone. When they find their daughter, who has somehow crawled home, danger is imminent. Should the criminals see their daughter, they’re in deep trouble. They also need to get her to the hospital as soon as possible to save her life. There isn’t time to think rationally. They have got to act and act now. So, when they do the things they do, it’s not as if they’ve sat down and planned an elaborate revenge/torture scheme to get back at the bad guys. Most of what they do is in self-defense anyway. If they don’t act, most likely they’re going to be killed. The movie does a good job of giving these people little choice but to fight, and so for those of us who prefer to choose violence as a last resort, these scenes of vengeance work.

LS: You know, one thing I wondered about in both version of LAST HOUSE, was why, if these criminals are so hardcore violent, why are they so well behaved when they go to the parents’ house? They’re in the middle of nowhere, trapped in a storm with a nice (and seemingly harmless) couple, and they suddenly remember their manners? Considering Krug and the gang are still on the run and still psychotic, you’d think that LAST HOUSE would turn into a slaughterhouse at this point.

MA: I thought the acting was all very good. While there wasn’t one performance in particular that stood heads above the others, as a group, the performers all satisfied. I liked Garret Dillahunt as Krug.  When he was on screen, I felt uncomfortable as to what he might be capable of doing at any given moment.

I enjoyed Aaron Paul as Krug’s brother and Riki Lindhome as Sadie, the psycho  girlfriend. And Spencer Treat Clark as Justin, Krug’s son, was especially effective as the one member of the group with a conscience.

LS: Justin’s character is a lot more important to the storyline this time than he was in the previous versions (he was called Junior in the original film). You certainly care about him more, here.

MA:  Sara Paxton was fine as Mari, and she showed the right amount of fear and bravery in her scenes with the criminals.

LS: I’ll go one step further and say that Paxton was the best thing in the whole movie. She was really believable as Mari, a mature, level-headed girl who does her best to deal with a situation that is out of her control. I thought she was really terrific in this movie. It was a brave performance.

MA:  I also really liked Tony Goldwyn and Monica Potter as the parents. The scene where Potter has to pretend to show interest in Krug’s brother is a good one.

LS:  Yep, she’s great, too. Some horror fans might remember that Potter was also in the original SAW back in 2004.

MA:  Better than the acting was the screenplay. As written by Adam Alleca and Carl Ellsworth, it really works. This version of THE LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT is the kind of movie I’ve been talking about lately, as one that’s been sorely missing in the horror film world:  a truly adult tale of horror that has some depth to it. Is it high art?  Certainly not. Is it my favorite kind of horror movie, one that includes supernatural elements?  Nope. But it is a genuine horror tale that gives reasons for its violence.

I also enjoyed the direction by Dennis Iliadis. I found the murder/rape scene very disturbing. It was not a scene I enjoyed watching, but it set the stage for what was to come later. The scene where Mari is swimming for her life, and she’s being shot at, I thought was extremely suspenseful, as was the scene later when the dad is reaching for the gun by the bed where Krug and Sadie are sleeping.

Like you, I didn’t find the violence in this one too raw, which was perfectly fine for me. Sure, there were a couple of over the top scenes, like the garbage disposal scene and the microwave scene, but these worked for me as well.  The garbage disposal scene would have been a completely different animal had it been instigated by a character like, say Jason or Michael Myers. Had that been the case, it would have just been yet another clichéd horror movie scene. In this case, it’s instigated by two human beings pushed to their limits. There’s a big difference.

And the final microwave scene was so fast it was like an exclamation point, or a knock-out punch. One quick strike and you’re out. I hope dear old dad has a good lawyer, by the way, because the other killings could all be passed off as self-defense, but it might be difficult getting a judge to believe that about the microwave stunt!

(addressing audience) If you find yourself tempted to stay away from this movie, fearing it might be trashy or repulsive, I’m here to tell you otherwise. It’s not. It is violent. It is disturbing. But it’s also a very good movie, much better than the previews make it out to be.

Get out there and see it.

LS:  As usual with most remakes, I didn’t think this one lived up to the original. But I also think that this year has been a really good year for above-average remakes of older films. Better than the dreck we’ve had to sit through in previous years. I enjoyed the remakes of MY BLOODY VALENTINE and (to a lesser degree) FRIDAY THE 13^TH, and this one just keeps the ball rolling. However, where those other two remakes were violent, dumb fun, the remake of LAST HOUSE is an effective film in its own right that takes itself seriously, and that works as both a suspenseful crime film as well as a vicious story that spills over into true horror.

You’re right about us coming at this from different ends of the spectrum, but we’re pretty much in agreement here. The remake of LAST HOUSE is a well-made and effective horror film, and worth checking out.

MA:  Yes it is, and it’s better than the remakes of MY BLOODY VALENTINE or FRIDAY THE 13^th, two films I didn’t like.

(Behind them, out from the microwave pops a miniature version of LS, except he has hair cut in a bowl haircut. LS hoists the little guy upon his shoulders.)

LS:  Aaah, it’s my clone, Mini Moe!

MA (confused):  Mini Moe?

LS:  “Mini Me” was already taken.

(Mini Moe leans over and pokes two fingers into MA’s eyes. MA cries out and stumbles off camera, followed by a great crash.)

LS:  Thatta boy!  Say good-bye to the people, Mini Moe. (Mini Moe and LS give the finger to the audience as the microwave oven beeps in the background)

FADE OUT.

(Originally published on Fear Zone on 3/15/2009)

© Copyright 2009 by Michael Arruda and L.L. Soares

—–

(Editor’s Note: I totally forgot about “Mini-Moe.” I gotta bring him back sometime ~LS)

WATCHMEN

CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT: WATCHMEN (2009)
by Michael Arruda and L. L. Soares

FADE IN

(As the screen slowly lightens, the first thing we hear is shouting and screaming, and then realize we’re in the middle of a riot inside a maximum security prison. Violent criminals are engaging the prison guards in a bloody battle. Onto this scene walk MICHAEL ARRUDA and L.L. SOARES.)

MA:  We really do visit the nicest places.

LS:  And the food here ain’t too bad, either (he’s holding a bowl of chocolate pudding and eating from it)

(A screaming prisoner is tossed over their heads and crashes into some prison bars with a thud. He slides to the floor, seeing cartoon stars)

MA:  Today we’re reviewing the new superhero movie, WATCHMEN (2009) based on the graphic novel by Alan Moore.

LS: And Dave Gibbons. Why does everyone always forget the artist? Comic books are a collaborative medium, after all. (looks around) So we’re meeting inside a prison this time, huh? I’m assuming you enjoyed the prison sequence in this movie as much as I did.

MA: And you’d be right. It is one of my favorite scenes in the movie. But more on that in a bit.

WATCHMEN takes place in 1985 in a parallel world in which Richard Nixon is still president, having ended presidential term limits. Nixon remains popular because with the Watchmen’s help he won the Vietnam War, and then convinced the nation that the opposing political parties were Communists. It is against this backdrop, with the threat of all-out nuclear war with the Soviet Union, that the tale of the WATCHMEN unfolds.

The Watchmen are masked heroes who have fought crime over the years, beginning in the 1940s right up to the 1980s. During this span, some have retired and been replaced by younger crime fighters who donned their same costumes to continue the fight against crime, and some new heroes have appeared as well.

LS: Actually, in the 40s, they weren’t called The Watchmen. They were called The Minutemen. And you forgot to mention that in the 80s, masked superheroes are illegal, no doubt because a paranoid government wants to keep them in line. The only ones still fighting crime as the film opens are Rorschach (who has gone underground for the most part) and the Comedian (who works for the government directly). Dr. Manhattan doesn’t even count, because he’s not really human anymore.

MA:  I didn’t forget to mention these things. I chose not to. I prefer brief plot summaries.

So, the movie begins with one of the aging Watchmen named the Comedian (Jeffrey Dean Morgan) being murdered. The dark and mysterious vigilante Rorschach (Jackie Earle Haley) believes the Comedian’s murder is part of a plot to wipe out the masked heroes, and he seeks the assistance of fellow Watchmen to investigate.

LS: Is it just me or did Jeffrey Dean Morgan remind you an awful lot of Robert Downey, Jr. in this role. I mean, I know director Zack Snyder was going for mostly unknown actors here, to focus our attention on the characters, but Morgan is the spitting image of Downey. And his voice reminded me a lot of J.K. Simmons (J. Jonah Jameson from the SPIDER-MAN movies).

MA (laughing):  That’s so true!  He looked so much like Downey, I almost thought it was Downey!

During the investigation, we learn the back stories of the various masked heroes, such as Silk Spectre (Malin Akerman), Nite Owl (Patrick Wilson), Dr. Manhattan (Billy Crudup) and Ozymandias (Matthew Goode). Although the investigation into the Comedian’s murder is the driving force of the movie, 2/3 of the flick really is about who these people are, and why they do the things they do. Once they solve the mystery of who killed the Comedian, then the film switch gears and becomes more of a traditional good guys vs. bad guys superhero plot.

LS: First off, they don’t solve his murder until the very end, so the movie doesn’t exactly switch gears away from the murder at some point. The murder is always there in the plot.

At the same time, the mystery itself is pretty arbitrary. This movie isn’t about a murder. It’s about the characters and their humanity. And there not much that’s traditional or commonplace about this movie.

MA:  No, the very end is when the credits roll. The murder is solved before then, and there is more that happens in terms of action after it is solved. And I found the last act of the film more traditional than the beginning and middle. That being said, WATCHMEN really isn’t a superhero movie, not in the way we’ve come to know them, but rather, a movie about masked heroes.

LS: It’s not a superhero movie; it’s a movie about masked heroes? What the hell are you talking about?? Do you ever actually listen to what you’re saying?

MA: I try not to.  Seriously, my point is this:  WATCHMEN is not a superhero movie in the traditional sense of the word. It’s a dark drama about people wearing masks who fight crime. I realize they’re supposed to be superheroes, but their story has more in common with a tale like THE SEVEN SAMURAI (1954) than say IRON MAN or SPIDER-MAN.

I really liked WATCHMEN, yet I think this movie will struggle to be a hit, mostly because of its unconventional narrative style.

LS: Struggle to be a hit? That’s funny, the showing I saw was sold out. So were all the other showings that night until midnight. That’s some “struggle.”

MA: We’ll see, but I think the fact that it’s marketed as a superhero flick will work against it.

For 2/3 of this film, more or less, the narrative jumps all over the place, back and forth through time, as we see these heroes in various stages of their lives. Now, I really liked this. I thought it refreshing to tell a story not in the same old traditional way. I have no problem with the narrative jumping around, especially when everything comes together by the end of the movie, and you’re left satisfied, as everything makes sense and loose ends are tied together.

But there are drawbacks to this style. It requires a patient audience, since the story isn’t explained in an easy-to-follow conventional way.

LS: I think after movies like MEMENTO and especially after TV shows like LOST, audiences are sophisticated enough to follow a plot that jumps from the past to the present to the future, like hopscotch.

MA: It also makes for slow pacing. Compared to a movie like THE DARK KNIGHT, which starts its frenetic pace immediately and honestly doesn’t let up until the end credits role, WATCHMEN moves slowly, and you really need to exercise some patience to get through the early parts.

LS: Okay, on this point, we are in complete disagreement. I think THE DARK NIGHT was one of the most overrated flicks I’ve ever seen. Don’t get me wrong, I liked it, but I didn’t think it was a masterpiece, and I don’t think it moved at a frenetic pace throughout. I thought the beginning was slow (especially the crappy plot involving a Hong Kong businessman), I thought it was over-long, and Batman was so bland that anyone could have played that role. It was Heath Ledger as the Joker (and to a lesser degree Aaron Eckhart’s Two-Face) who made the movie great. Every time Ledger was onscreen, the movie crackled with energy. When he wasn’t around, the movie kinda slumped a bit for me.

WATCHMEN didn’t slow down once for me. All of the characters were fascinating, and I wanted to know more about them. The movie is based on a complex, 12-issue comic series that easily could have made for a 10-hour movie, and is condensed into less than 3 hours, so there’s certainly plenty of plot and characterization to keep us watching. In fact, there was so much going on in WATCHMEN that it didn’t drag for me once. While I looked at my watch several times during DARK KNIGHT.

MA: At times it felt like a 10-hour movie. Hey, I loved the movie, but it took its time.

What made this slow pace work for me was that I enjoyed all the characters. My favorite was Rorschach, and I could have watched an entire movie just about him. He reminded me a bit of DARKMAN, the character played by Liam Neeson back in 1990.

LS: Rorschach, and the Watchmen came out in the 80s, so they were way before DARKMAN. You never read the comics, did you? And DARKMAN is no way as developed or interesting as Rorschach is in this movie.

MA:  But WATCHMEN the movie came out in 2009, 19 years after DARKMAN, and it’s the movie I’m reviewing today, not the comic. Not having read the comics is irrelevant, by the way. Movies stand on their own.

Jackie Earle Haley delivers the best performance in the movie as Rorschach.  He’s riveting and intense, and his scenes in prison are among my favorite of the movie.

(The prisoners and guards momentarily cease their battle and pause long enough to erupt in a great cheer. MA & LS acknowledge them, and then they return to their fighting.)

LS: Me, too. Haley was actually one of the kids in the original BAD NEWS BEARS (1976) and we hadn’t seen him in much since. He got a lot of acclaim for the 2006 movie LITTLE CHILDREN in which he played a pedophile who just got out of jail and goes home to live with his mother. He was good in that movie, playing a very unlikable character, and he’s great here as Rorschach. These two roles show that he’s one of the best actors of the past couple of years, and someone needs to put him in more movies.

MA:  I also enjoyed Billy Crudup as Dr. Manhattan. The image of the giant Dr. Manhattan fighting in Vietnam is one of the more memorable of the movie. It brought back memories of that old black and white classic from the 1950s THE AMAZING COLOSSAL MAN (1957).

LS: I thought Crudup was really good, too. And he’s CGI-enhanced throughout the film, too, as a big, glowing blue guy. But he’s believable as someone who has been transformed into something so powerful and awe-inspiring that he has a hard time relating to his fellow humans anymore. I also thought it was interesting that he is naked most of the time (as he is in the comics), and for once, a movie gives us real nudity. No loincloth, no spandex shorts to hide his naughty bits. There is no question that Dr. Manhattan is a real man, if you get my drift. I found that kind of refreshing. And it’s no doubt one reason for the R- rating.

(DR. MANHATTAN suddenly materialized out of thin air with thousands of sparks)

DR. MANHATTAN: Where am I?

LS: Oh, you’ve come to help us stop the prison break!

DR. MANHATTAN: Nope. I meant to materialize at the drugstore. I need some Magnums. See you guys!

(He disappears again)

MA: To me, Nite Owl, Silk Spectre and Ozymandias were less successful and a little less interesting, but they weren’t bad. They certainly were better defined than some of the characters in the X- MEN movies, which always seemed to be mostly about Wolverine.

LS: I really think Patrick Wilson was terrific as Nite Owl. He’s the most human character in the movie, and the one we are meant to relate to, and he does a terrific job in the role.

If you look at it from this point of view, you’ll see that WATCHMEN gives us lots of comic book archetypes, used in interesting ways, as well as a wide spectrum of personality types. Rorschach is the psychotic hero who is so obsessed with fighting crime and punishing evil-doers that it is the focus of his entire life. He doesn’t even consider himself a real person when he’s not in costume. And he lives in squalor, just barely a step up from being homeless, because the trappings of everyday life just don’t matter to him.

Dr. Manhattan, on the other hand, is so outside of human experience, so god-like, that he’s completely lost touch with the world around him. Human concerns just don’t seem very important to him anymore, because he sees the bigger picture. He’s even able to transport himself to other worlds in the blink of an eye. So petty human politics don’t mean much to him.

Nite Owl, by comparison, is the Everyman. He’s clearly human, clearly flawed, and he’s not so sure of himself. He’s the middle ground between the gutter (Rorschach) and the stars (Dr. Manhattan).

Just another example that we’re dealing with big ideas here. Not just people running around in silly costumes.

MA: I agree with you on the “big ideas” point.

Even the Comedian, who’s killed off before the opening credits begin, is given lots of screen time through flashbacks. The Comedian is also one of my favorite characters, and like Rorschach, I could have watched an entire movie about the Comedian alone. I thought Jeffrey Dean Morgan delivered a strong scene-stealing performance throughout.

LS: Yeah, I loved that character, too. And while he does die so early on, he’s in the movie a lot. And he’s a complete bastard. But that’s what makes him so interesting. Not everyone who dons a costume is altruistic. So it’s interesting to see what his motivations are. Greed and lust, mostly.

MA: The movie is filled with neat visuals and impressive fight scenes. In addition to the aforementioned giant Dr. Manhattan in Vietnam, there’s also an amazing crystal machine created by the doctor on Mars, as well as the ice fortress sequence at the North Pole, at the end of the movie. The film looks terrific. Director Zack Snyder (the 2004 remake of DAWN OF THE DEAD, and 300, another big comic book adaptation) has made a very watchable movie that is a feast for the eyes.

LS: Yeah, it looks great.

MA: The plot as written I thought was rather silly. I didn’t particularly care for it, nor was I wowed by the parallel Richard Nixon world. The film could have worked well and these characters been just as interesting in a normal world. I thought this plot was a drawback. The threat of a nuclear war with the Soviet Union just doesn’t have the same impact any more as it did say back in the 1980s, mostly because the Soviet Union as it was doesn’t exist anymore. The story seemed dated, therefore.

LS: There was supposedly a discussion about whether to follow Moore’s original storyline here, or update it for a modern audience, and they decided to stick with the original. I don’t think it’s silly at all, though. The character of Nixon is kind of annoying and cartoony, but the idea is that he didn’t have to resort to Watergate because he has superheroes on his side to do all the dirty work (like fighting in Vietnam), is interesting.

It’s also not difficult to simply update this in your mind to our modern world, where countries like Iran and North Korea are threatening to acquire nuclear capability – and nuclear war is still a possible threat. While the plot of the film does distance us from things, it’s not difficult to see how it mirrors modern times.

MA: Plus, the movie doesn’t really explain how these heroes get their superpowers, which is a problem, since we see these guys and gals kicking butt against huge numbers of opponents. Are they just lucky?  I think not. The one exception is Dr. Manhattan, who we see exposed to radiation. I guess exposed is too kind a word. He literally disintegrates. Not to worry, he comes back, bigger and better than ever!

LS: I actually think that the only person with real super powers is Dr. Manhattan. The rest are just skilled fighters whose abilities are enhanced by their costumes (a’la Batman). Although during some fight scenes it really does appear that they have super strength.

MA: WATCHMEN is not as good as last year’s THE DARK KNIGHT, but in all fairness, few films are. As I said last year, DARK KNIGHT is the best superhero movie I’ve ever seen, and IRON MAN, which also came out last year, is a close second. So, recent competition is extremely tough.

And I know I said earlier that WATCHMEN isn’t really a superhero movie, but, fairly or unfairly, it’s to these movies that it will no doubt be compared.

LS: I disagree on all counts. DARK KNIGHT is good, but flawed. WATCHMEN is easily the best comic book adaptation so far. I thought it was brilliantly written (mostly because it sticks close to Alan Moore’s original story) and visually powerful. This isn’t some kids’ movie about guys in long underwear. It’s the LAWRENCE OF ARABIA of superhero movies.

MA:  Excuse me. (Leans into a barf bag and throws up.) The LAWRENCE OF ARABIA of superhero movies? Wow.

LS:  I also find it odd that this movie has been getting a lot of mediocre reviews across the country by mainstream critics. What exactly aren’t they getting about the movie? Some people seem to have a problem with the fact that some of the plot points were changed (especially toward the end) from the comic. Or that it doesn’t include all of the storylines that ran through the comics. But the truth is, it was a Herculean task to take the greatest graphic novel ever written and turn it into a movie that runs just under three hours. Some things had to get clipped. Some things had to get simplified. But on the whole, it is very faithful to the source material.

MA:  I think the pacing isn’t there, and I think the narrative isn’t easy to follow. I liked it, but unlike you, I think it’s flawed. It’s also a very adult tale, with dark themes and some bloody violence, and it should be viewed with this in mind. Keep the kiddies at home.

LS: It’s rated R for a reason. Between Billy Crudup’s penis, Rorschach’s ultra-violence, and some R-rated sex scenes, this is not THE SUPER FRIENDS. And rightly so.

MA:  And while I thought the plot silly, the actual writing was excellent. So, in spite of the mediocre plot, writers David Hayter and Alex Tse succeed in crafting an enjoyable story, which actually works more as a series of successful character sketches than a traditional narrative plot. They’ve put together a host of interesting characters, told their stories in ways that capture the imagination, and succeed in doing so even though the driving plot these characters find themselves in doesn’t do them justice.

I for one didn’t mind the slow pace of this movie at all. The characters and their stories held my interest until the action heats up towards the end.

LS: It’s not slow! Stop saying that!

MA: Well, it’s not an action-packed vehicle either.

While it never really wows, WATCHMEN is an intriguing dark tale of masked heroes that makes its points and succeeds in entertaining. So, as long as you’re not expecting a traditional superhero movie, and if you’re in the mood for a dark adult story that does border on horror, then WATCHMEN is a movie for you. I really liked it and highly recommend it.

LS: I was a major fan of the original series by Moore and Gibbons, and I was a little concerned about how it would get adapted to film. But I’m very pleased with the result. Considering the time constraints, I think they condensed an epic story into a smart, exciting movie that works.

It wowed me, and I’m a fan. It wowed a friend of mine who saw it with me, and he had never read the comics and didn’t know what to expect. So this one should please fans and non-fans alike.

So go see it already!

(They look around to see everyone on the ground. The riot is over)

LS: We missed all the fun. We didn’t even have time to do many gags.

MA: Oh well.  (Looks over his shoulder)  Sorry about that guys.  Maybe next time?

(Behind them stand Richard Nixon, Lawrence of Arabia, Robert Downey Jr., the animated Super Friends, several colonial Minutemen, J. Jonah Jameson, a group of samurai, Batman, Nite Owl, and the Amazing Colossal Man, all shaking their heads in frustration and complaining about wasted time.)

LS:  Don’t forget to take home your complimentary chocolate pudding.

FADE OUT

(Originally published on Ferar Zone on 3/8/2009)

© Copyright 2009 by Michael Arruda and L.L. Soares