The Reassessment Files: SHATTERBRAIN (aka THE RESURRECTED) (1992)

The Reassessment Files:
SHATTERBRAIN (originally titled: THE RESURRECTED)
By Paul McMahon

SHATTERBRAIN came out in 1992 under the far more appropriate title THE RESURRECTED. I didn’t get the opportunity to see it right away. As I established in my last column, I came to the works of Lovecraft relatively late. By the time I got around to seeing THE RESURRECTED, I had read enough that I was impressed with how closely the movie mirrored the tone and feel of Lovecraft’s work. I liked it overall, and told friends it was an upper-tier B-movie, well worth hunting down and checking out.

The story begins with a confusing mess in a gore-spattered cell of the Waite Institute. Amid the blood, we see scorch marks on the floor, a headless corpse, shattered overhead lights and an open window with a suitcase smashed on the concrete four floors below. Charles Ward has escaped! We are then transported across the city to the March Agency, where someone — presumably March — is bloody and beaten and dictating into a tape recorder the closing events of the case of Charles Dexter Ward.

He begins: “Three weeks ago, Providence was a sane enough place….”

It’s the same trite, “Sleight Of Hand Start” that these days is over-used and much-abused. Normally this turns me off, but here director Dan O’Bannon (who also directed RETURN OF THE LIVING DEAD, 1985, and wrote ALIEN, 1979, DEAD & BURIED, 1981, and the original TOTAL RECALL, 1990) uses the trope to good effect, giving us a taste of weirdness and leaving us with a good number of questions to ponder while the story builds.

Claire Ward hires John March to look into the business of her estranged husband, Charles Dexter Ward. He was working on something in their carriage house until — between the foul smells and the all-night noises — she told him to find someplace else to conduct his experiments. He moved to a long-forgotten house owned by his family in Pawtuxet Valley. Recently, the police contacted her, asking if she knew why her husband was receiving the remains of dead human beings at all hours of the night.

Lonnie: “What?”

March: “I don’t know. That’s why I’m a detective, to find out all about what I don’t know.”

The strangeness of this mystery, coupled with the gory images that started us off, keeps us interested and invested as John March and his assistant Lonnie delve into the increasingly morbid world of Charles Dexter Ward.

The buildup is slow, with quite a few twists and turns. We learn that Charles inherited an old family trunk from “an obscure relative,” and that his strange behavior began shortly after. We learn that his family had a long and sordid history in Providence. We learn that Charles took on an assistant, a man that Claire is afraid of called Dr. Ash. Each secret we learn is not only weirder than the last, but promises even weirder secrets to be revealed, the last of which — what happened in that padded cell at the Waite Institute — comes at us like a car crashing after a very long skid.

The acting is exactly what you would expect. John Terry (ZODIAC, 2007) does a serviceable job as Detective John March, delivering his lines with the seen-it-all matter-of-factness you’d expect of a detective that had been in the business for a long time. Jane Sibbet (various TV appearances such as CHEERS, FRIENDS and more recently OUT OF JIMMY’S HEAD) plays Claire Ward serviceably as well, a rich girl who is accustomed to getting what she wants but is thrown off by the oddball nature of her husband’s activities.

Chris Sarandon plays both Charles Dexter Ward and Charles’s distant relative Joseph Curwen in his usual commanding fashion. He owns the movie when he’s on screen, and his smirk is obviously hiding far more than he lets on.

What really sets this movie apart is the shocking and creepy special make up effects created by Todd Masters’ Company. A lot of the monsters are shot in bright light, and the camera lingers on them as they squirm and writhe and try to communicate. They are in such bad shape that it is obvious these are not costumed actors, but detailed and remarkable animatronics. The workmanship involved and the puppeteers required to pull these effects off must have cost a lot of money — and with this movie you can see that money on the screen.

Originally, I believed this movie was just Lovecraft-ish. The opening credit sequence is less-than-average and does very little to hold your attention. That would explain how on my first viewing I missed the writing credit for Brent V. Friedman (TICKS, 1993 and NECRONOMICON: BOOK OF THE DEAD, also 1993), which stated that he based the movie on Lovecraft’s story “The Case of Charles Dexter Ward.” Turns out, THE RESURRECTED is the most faithful adaptation of Lovecraft’s work that I’ve seen.

The fact that this was released straight-to-video in the early nineties tells you that it’s one the distributor had little confidence in. As much as I enjoyed the film, I think their decision was the right one. I can’t see this little tension-builder blowing anyone away on the big screen. It certainly wouldn’t have impressed fans of 1985’s RE-ANIMATOR, who would most likely have considered THE RESURRECTED boring. I think giving the film a chance to slowly build a fan base on VHS was the right choice.

The only moment in the movie that comes close to living up to the idiotic new title “Shatterbrain.”

I do not understand the decision to re-release it under the ultra-dumbass title SHATTERBRAIN. On the one hand, the word says nothing about the movie. On the other, it implies exploding heads and enough gore and screaming to make the hardest of hardcore fans grin. I go on record saying that the decision to re-title the film this way could only have been cooked up by a room full of suited morons.

If you can only find a copy of this under the title chosen by this pool of dopes, I still recommend giving it a look. Just pay no attention to the packaging. It’s a very cool movie.

First viewing: 3 out of 5 stars

Reassessment: 3 out of 5 stars: Still an upper-tier B-movie, well worth hunting down and checking out.

© Copyright 2012 by Paul McMahon

Advertisements

“The Reassessment Files” Take a Second Look at John Carpenter’s IN THE MOUTH OF MADNESS (1994)

The Reassessment Files:
IN THE MOUTH OF MADNESS (1994)
By Paul McMahon (The Distracted Critic)

John Trent: You’re waiting to hear about my “them,” aren’t you?

Dr. Wrenn: Your what?

John Trent: My “them.”Every paranoid schizophrenic has one; a “them,” a “they,” an “it”. And you want to hear about my “them,” don’t you?

****

Maybe that’s where this first “Reassessment Files” should begin, eh? My “them.”

John Carpenter’s IN THE MOUTH OF MADNESS came out in 1994—almost two decades ago. I rented the VHS from a mom and pop place called Lake Ripple Video near where I grew up. The store itself was a bit of a sore spot with me, because before the video people moved in that shop was The Yankee Bookseller, and it’s where I spent every lawn-mowing and snow-shoveling dollar I earned. Lake Ripple Video has also long since closed. But I digress. Before I’ve even started, I digress.

The timing of the movie was such that I was on the verge of being unemployed because my job was closing. (Seeing a trend here? The mid-nineties sucked for that sort of thing.) I had a lot on my mind. The end result was that IN THE MOUTH OF MADNESS came across as disjointed and incoherent, a blatant mess with logic holes and dropped plot strands. It looped endlessly and ended abruptly, leaving far more questions than answers. The kicker was, I really wanted to like it, having seen a CNN filler interview in which Carpenter promised this movie would have more and better monsters than had ever been seen on the silver screen before. Anyone who knows me knows I’m a sucker for a monster story, so naturally I took that promise to heart.

Carpenter’s movie disappointed in a huge way. For the guy who brought THE THING (1982) to the big screen, I expected a hell of a lot more. Frankly, I got a much better view of the monsters during the CNN interview. I grumbled all the way back to Lake Ripple Video and tossed the whole IN THE MOUTH OF MADNESS concept onto my mental trash heap and moved on.

Over the past few years, though, I have heard repeatedly at cons and on Facebook and from friends whose opinions I trust that IN THE MOUTH OF MADNESS is one of the very best H.P. Lovecraft homages that exists. I’ve always used my skeptical eyebrow when dealing with these crazies. It’s a strategy that has worked well in the past, but lately there are more and more of these loonies to contend with, and my eyebrow is tiring. It seemed my best option was for me to give the film another look.

Since the movie is just shy of two decades old, I’m going to reveal spoilers if they come up. If that’s going to bug you, go watch the film before you read another word.

The movie opens with John Trent (Sam Neill, JURASSIC PARK ,1993) being thrown into a padded cell in a very busy lunatic asylum. Once his raving subsides, he’s visited by Dr. Wrenn (David Warner, THE OMEN, 1976) and is coaxed into telling his story. He reveals that he was an insurance investigator, and he was sent to investigate a claim by a big-time New York publishing house that their star author—Sutter Cain (Jurgen Prochnow, most notably DAS BOOT, 1981) —has disappeared with his latest manuscript. As Trent reads and studies Cain’s books to familiarize himself with the case, we learn he’s anti-horror, most likely anti-fantasy, and probably anti-fiction of any form. Waking from a nightmare featuring repetitive disturbing images, he discovers strange lines on the covers of Cain’s paperbacks. He cuts them out and pieces them together. They form a map of New Hampshire, revealing the exact location of Cain’s fictional town of Hobb’s End.

To him, this means that the whole “disappearing author” thing is a publicity stunt and not a real mystery. If Trent seems more than a little disappointed by this, he seems positively put-out that he’s sent to find the town with Cain’s editor, the sultry Linda Styles (Julie Carmen, FRIGHT NIGHT II, 1988). Styles insists that the only person to have read the entire manuscript, Cain’s agent, went crazy. Turns out the agent is the same nut that attacked Trent with an axe in broad daylight and was shot dead by police earlier in the movie. Eventually, Trent falls asleep in the car and Styles manages to find the town after experiencing some haunting activity on the road, including a weird sequence where the car seems to be flying. Trent wakes when they arrive and they investigate the seemingly deserted town, finally discovering that Cain is living in the town’s church.

I came to the writings of Lovecraft after I saw the film. I’d say that has a bit to do with my not ‘getting it’ the first time. This time, I was surprised to find a veritable smorgasbord of creepy Lovecraftian images and events. There were many quick, indirect images of things that could be defined as “unnamable” and “unspeakable.” A lot of the horror happened indirectly and was hard to identify. On the two occasions that Styles reads Cain’s work aloud, she actually read passages of Lovecraft’s work, most notably “The Rats In The Walls.”

Things get complicated as Styles’ personality is swallowed by the town, resulting in her becoming more of a hindrance than an ally. When she disappears one evening, Trent finds her in the dark old church, watching Cain write. Trent watches as well and with a flourish Cain finishes the last page of his manuscript. The same Cain’s agent already read, which is why he went mad in the first place. If the book wasn’t finished until now, how could that have happened?

Driving people insane is the whole point of Cain’s book, by the way. Cain wants to drive his readers mad. Once a high enough percentage of the population is crazy, the Old Ones who sleep beneath the skin of the Earth can arise and rule the world.

Ah, the Old Ones...

This brings us to my biggest complaint, and the main reason I gave the film such poor marks all those years ago. The Old Ones are loosed before Trent has delivered the manuscript, so before anyone has read the thing. They, in fact, chase him through a mystical tunnel out of Hobbs End and into reality, and at no time do we get a clear shot of the things. Yeah, there are images of parts– a few drooly teeth here, an angry looking eye there, a pair of sharp talons on a scaly, deformed foot– but never a really good look at the monsters. I realize this was in keeping with Lovecraft’s style, but it definitely bucks Carpenter’s promise of “more and better monsters than had ever been seen on the silver screen before.”

“More and better monsters than had ever been seen on the silver screen before!” – Enjoy this screenshot. It’s the best look you’re going to get.

They are “onscreen”– used a stopwatch to time it– thirty seconds out of a movie 5,700 seconds long, and a lot of this segment is Trent running, falling, and screaming. Even crap movies have more monster than this. If you absolutely insist on counting Mrs. Pickman’s “reveal” and Styles’ “transformation,” the total monster-on-screen ratio is two minutes out of 195.

Hardly “more and better monsters” at all.

Watching the sequences on freeze frame, it’s obvious the “Wall of Old Ones” cost a lot of money to pull off. We’re talking a dozen to twenty puppeteers just to make the creatures seem alive. To spend that kind of money and then not show the damn things… suffice to say that it’s one of the rare instances where if I’d been producing I would’ve stepped in and enforced my will that there be more– and clearer– shots of the creatures. “Put my money on the screen,” I’d have said. “Lovecraft used the terms ‘unnamable’ and ‘unspeakable’ because he dealt with the printed word and couldn’t fully convey the unusual monstrosities he was seeing. You, John Carpenter, are a filmmaker who has hired the wildest creative imaginers in the business today (The KNB effects group of Robert Kurtzman, Gregory Nicotero and Howard Berger), so you have no excuse to hide your vision from the viewer.”

Anyway… I went into the movie this time expecting to be let down. Without the pressures that were dragging me down the first time I watched it, and with having read most of Lovecraft’s body of work in the interim, I was able to get into the spirit of the movie a lot deeper and it meant a lot more to me. The homages and tributes were recognizable and fun, and I had a good time, even though the monsters are few and far between.

I still think the film would’ve rocked with a THE LOST WORLD: JURASSIC PARK (1997)- type montage, where each monster is seen mutilating people in a different city. That would’ve been “more and better monsters.”

First viewing: 1 out of 5 stars

Reassessment: 3 1/2 out of 5 stars.

Best Lovecraft homage ever? I remember one I liked better.

Stay tuned.

© Copyright 2012 by Paul McMahon

THE DUNWICH HORROR!

CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT: THE DUNWICH HORROR (2009)
by Michael Arruda and L. L. Soares

FADE IN.

(Scene: A WOMAN lies on a bed, ready to give birth.  A DOCTOR and a NURSE prepare to deliver the baby).

DOCTOR:  Here it comes! Here it comes! (sound of baby crying)  You have a healthy baby boy!

WOMAN (relieved): Why, thank you, doctor. (She suddenly starts screaming again).

NURSE (pointing to woman):  Doctor, there’s another one. She’s having twins.

DOCTOR (leans towards woman):  What the—?  Oh my God!  (DOCTOR and NURSE scream in unison, abject terror etched on their features)

(A baby with the head of L. L. SOARES crawls out onto the bed.  It looks at trembling doctor and nurse)

LS:  Don’t just stand there, give me a hand.  Anyone have a beer?  It’s been a long nine months.  I’m thirsty! And someone give me a towel. I need a shower after that!

(MICHAEL ARRUDA enters room, dressed in a white lab coat. Looking very serious – almost Rod Serling-esque – he addresses the camera)

MA:  The scene you have just witnessed is far more disturbing than anything you’ll see in the new movie THE DUNWICH HORROR (2009), now available on pay cable.

LS:  Someone give me a friggin bottle! (starts hollering)

MA:  I know what kind of bottle you want.  Go take a nap or something.

LS (pops a cigar in his mouth and lights it): Where did that doctor go anyway? Y’know, this being “born again” ain’t all it’s cracked up to be.

Oh well, let’s get on with this.  We have a movie to review.

MA:  Yes we do, and that would be the new version of the H.P. Lovecraft story, THE DUNWICH HORROR (2009).  Interesting about this flick:  it’s currently available on OnDemand cable, before its theatrical release in August.

LL:  It’ll probably be a very limited release though.

MA:  And I can see why!  This movie’s not very good.

LS (takes a puff of the cigar): Oh, crabapples!

MA: It starts with a birth, a scene very similar to the one we just witnessed, but far less scary.  A woman gives birth to twins, the first a boy, and the second— a tentacled monster!   We jump ahead ten years, to find a group of professors searching for the original copy of the fabled “necromancer book,” a book they need to restore order to the universe.

LS: Necromancer book? You act like this is the first time you’ve ever heard of the legendary NECRONOMICON, the notorious occult tome that made many an appearance in the stories of H.P. Lovecraft.

MA:  Necro this.  Necro that.  Necronomicon?  Sounds like a supersized scoreboard at a basketball game!  Look, they’re showing the replay on the Necronomicon!  I’ve just never been all that into the whole Lovecraft Necromancer thing.

(A tall, bald ALIEN holding a gigantic book pops up)

ALIEN: It’s a cook book!

LS: What’s with all these people popping up all the time? It’s like an episode of LAUGH-IN in here!

(LS blows cigar smoke into MA’s face.)

MA:  Don’t you know that babies shouldn’t smoke? It will stunt your growth!

The scholars are led by Dr. Henry Armitage (Dean Stockwell), who gives instructions to the two younger members of his team, former lovers Professor Fay Morgan (Sarah Lieving) and Walter Rice (Griff Furst).  Their search eventually leads them to the home of the bizarre twins.  The “normal” twin is now an adult, Wilbur Whateley (Jeffrey Combs).  Come to find out, he’s not so normal, as he ages 10 times as fast as a normal human. So he’s now in a 40 year-old body, but with the mind of a 4 year old.

LS: Yeah, the way Combs kept distorting his face all the time, he reminded me of Billy Bob Thornton in SLING BLADE.

(BILLY BOB pops his head in)

BILLY BOB: UnnHuhhh.

FORREST GUMP: And don’t forget me! My name is Forrest Gump!

(LS chases them around the hospital room with a cleaver)

MA:  Hey!  You’re a baby!  Babies can’t run!

LS:  They can’t do this, either! (opens door and throws cleaver, followed by a high-pitched scream).

MA (sighs): Leave it to cleaver.

There’s a lot of supernatural mumbo jumbo along the way, but ultimately, there’s a confrontation between the good guys and the bad guys over the mysterious book, and in a movie with as little imagination as this one, you know who wins.

LS: It’s not just any mysterious book, dammit. It’s the friggin NECRONOMICON, and it holds the secrets to opening a portal between dimensions to let in the Old Ones, like Cthulhu, who were once gods in our world. We’re talking about the very backbone of the Cthulhu Mythos here. Even the Necronomicon’s original author, Abdul Alhazred, appears in this movie!

And Wilbur’s brother isn’t just a tentacle monster, he’s the physical manifestation of the Lovecraftian god Yog-Sothoth, born from the womb of a human woman. This is all major, apocalyptic stuff that you’re dismissing out of hand!

MA:  Yawn!  Wake me when you get to the part where they meet Harry Potter and the hobbits.  This is more the stuff of fantasy than horror, and perhaps had the movie version been better, I would have cared more, but as it stands now, I don’t.

And that’s because this movie was poorly conceived, with unimaginative writing, and below-average acting performances.  The pacing is slow and the scares non-existent.  It doesn’t even work as a supernatural drama.  It’s too boring.  It plays like a TV- movie, and I can certainly see why this would have a limited release.

LS: Okay, I agree with you that it’s not a very good movie, and that it’s slow-paced. But for some reason I didn’t have much trouble sticking with it. And I found a lot of it entertaining. What about the crazy mother who runs around in various goofy wigs? What about the second-rate exorcism scene at the beginning?

MA:  It’s second-rate.

LS:  What about those spooky tentacles that pulled people into the ether?

MA:  So, you’re saying that you actually liked this movie.  (Pauses for a moment of stunned silence.)  Wow.  I’m surprised.  All joking aside, I really expected you not to like this one.  I thought you’d find it way too tepid for your tastes.  Look at you, puffing on a cigar, wanting a beer, which you no doubt consume regularly for breakfast.  This film played more like a cream soda.  Wow.  I’m stunned.

Director/writer Leigh Scott has filled this movie with cliché dialogue and dull situations.  There is one rather intriguing scene, where Wilbur kidnaps a beautiful young woman from a gas station in order to “feed” his monster brother.  There’s some edginess to this scene that shows potential for scares, but the rest of the movie doesn’t live up to it.

LS: That scene was okay. Another one I really enjoyed was when Professors Morgan and Rice go to see the ancient wise man, Olas Wormius (Jeffrey Alan Pilars), who is supposedly three thousand years old, but who looks to be a 40-year old fat man, surrounded by naked dancing girls (who are supposed to be exotic, but who look an awful lot like the Suicide Girls). He even enters the room, levitating at least a foot off the ground! Now that was cool! How can you not love a master showman like that? I wanted more Wormius!

(Eastern music plays in the background and topless dancing girls start belly-dancing)

MA: This is the second movie I’ve seen this year by Scott, and the second one I haven’t liked.  Scott wrote and directed a film called FRANKENSTEIN REBORN (2005) which I saw on DVD, a supposed homage to the Hammer Frankenstein films.  It wasn’t very good, but it had its moments, and it was much more horrific than the mild-mannered DUNWICH HORROR.  It too was hampered by below-average acting and unimaginative directing.

LS: Rats, I didn’t get to see FRANKENSTEIN REBORN, but I bet it has some fun, goofy moments too!

MA:  It does.  It’s not awful.  It’s just not very good.  But you’d probably like it a lot.  It was rather visceral.

(LS sits in playpen playing with bloody intestines):  Like this?

MA:  Something like that.  Hey!  Stop that!  Take that out of your mouth!  You don’t know where that intestine’s been!

But back to THE DUNWICH HORROR.  The cast here is not very good.  Dean Stockwell, who also appeared in the 1970 version of this movie, is a solid actor, and he’s fine here.  He just doesn’t do a whole lot, even though he does have considerable screen time.  Still, it’s always enjoyable to see an older actor get the lead.

LS: I like Stockwell and I’m glad he’s in this remake. I saw the original DUNWICH HORROR a long time ago, and barely remember it, but Stockwell played the Wilbur role in the original, and that the movie focused primarily on his trying to seduce Sandra Dee to become part of an arcane ritual to open the portal between worlds. Obviously, none of the sexy stuff with Dee was in Lovecraft’s original story. I also remember some very psychedelic effects, that were very much of that movie’s time. It probably seems dated now, but hippies must have loved it, man!

(A HIPPIE pops up)

HIPPIE:  The effects were far out, man.  They were flashing in my mind like tiny stars inside my head, man, and they spoke to me of love, like everyone loved everybody else, and we were all at peace, and were all one, and it was far out, man.  You wouldn’t understand.  You’re too old, man.  You’re over 30.

MA:  True, (whispers) but have you noticed that you’re over 60?

HIPPIE:  Really?

MA:  See for yourself (hands HIPPIE a mirror.)

HIPPIE:  Oh, bummer man.  In that case, never trust a man over 80.  (flashes a peace sign and walks away).

LS:  Something tells me that this remake, however flawed, is more faithful to the source material.

MA: Griff Furst as hero Walter Rice was as bland as a slice of white bread, and although Sarah Lieving fares slightly better as Professor Fay Morgan, her performance isn’t strong by any means.  Jeffrey Combs as the supernatural man-child Wilbur is OK, but he mostly walks around looking scary without actually doing a whole lot, though the scene where he vomits into a man’s face has some punch.

LS (grinning):  Like this?

MA:  Don’t even think it!

LS: Combs is always great, and lifts up any movie he’s in, even this one. His character isn’t given an awful lot to do, but I enjoyed whenever he was onscreen. I mean, his character here is no Herbert West by any means, but he at least knows how to turn in an entertaining performance.

MA: It was interesting to watch a story based on the work of H.P Lovecraft, but ultimately, this movie plays much more like a fantasy than a horror movie.  As soon as Dean Stockwell started shooting fire from his hands, I was ready to hit fast forward.  The film doesn’t come off as believable at all.

LS: Aww, come on! Okay, the fire and lightning shooting from Stockwell’s hands was pretty hokey. But what about the scene where Stockwell is traumatized by seeing the face of Yog-Sothoth, which pokes out and leers at him from a purple cloud? That goofy face had me laughing out loud, especially when Stockwell looked so horrified by it! Now that’s acting!

MA:  It’s a story that’s hard to believe to begin with, so it would have been helpful had the artists involved tried harder to make the audience believe what was going on.  I didn’t get this impression at all.

LS: There are “artists” involved with this movie? Funny, I don’t remember seeing anything in this movie that could qualify as “art.”

MA:   The only thing I believed was that Professor Fay Morgan had once broken off her relationship with Walter Rice, the hero.  He’s annoying.  That part of the story was believable.

LS: I actually thought Professor Rice was good as the Doubting Thomas of an academic who refuses to believe in the Old Ones, until he has no choice but to admit their existence if he’s going to banish them back to where they came from. Sure, he’s a smug, abrasive guy, but I thought that fit the character nicely. I found Professor Morgan, while more visually interesting (she reminded me a bit of Gina Gershon), to have even less of a personality. But you’re right, their relationship isn’t all that interesting. Who cares if they’re together or not?  I actually wish she’d fallen for Wormius. Now there’s a charismatic fellow! I wish he’d been the hero of the film –  he was much more compelling than Professor Rice or even Henry Armitage and his lightning-emitting fingertips!

MA: THE DUNWICH HORROR is a slow-moving boring film, a minor movie, not really worthy of the work of H.P. Lovecraft.  Skip it.  What about you, LL?  What did you think?

LS: I found it more entertaining than you did, obviously. I admit, it was low-budget junk. But it had its moments. I always enjoy Combs and Stockwell. The monsters made me laugh. I can’t imagine this getting a theatrical release at all, though, and I’ll believe that when I see it. (In the meantime, for those who are interested, it is on OnDemand for the rest of June).

Oops, I think it’s time someone changed my diaper.

MA: Don’t look at me!

LS: Where did those dancing girls go? Baby wants some milk!

MA: Hopefully LL will grow up in time for our next review! And hopefully next time we’ll get a better movie to review. See you all then!

FADE OUT.

(Note: The crazy stills from the movie (above) are only here because this one didn’t have a movie poster or a DVD cover to show)

(First published on Fear Zone on 6/22/2009)

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