Early this week, Mr. Matt Kelly said, “Hey, Allison, you should review Birdemic for your weekly column.  It’ll be great!”  And me, being the innocent and so naïve person that I am, trusted him and sat down to watch it.

What I thought would be an experience of greatness, of a bad movie along the lines of so many other bad movies that I love, turned out to be the equivalent of attending an eighth grade science fair where most of the children are severely autistic and prone to rocking back and forth while braiding lanyards and forcing them upon the hapless attendees, then shanking any male passersby if they are wearing Old Spice.

Possibly an eagle, possibly bad CGI.

Birdemic was released in 2008, having spent a theoretical four years in production—the delay attributed to the slow personal funding of writer and director James Nguyen (Tidbit: the IMDB biography of Mr. Nguyen contains the phrase, “Also known as Master of Romantic Thrillers Among the new generation of auteurs in the 21st Century”), and panned with such incredible intensity that it became a cult classic.

Personally, I can’t imagine sitting through this film ever again, so to imagine that there’s a large group of people out there that actually enjoy watching this flaming pile of cloaca is quite difficult.  Then to face myself with the task of hand writing letters to each of them explaining why they’re wrong… it’s rather daunting, but ultimately worth the effort.

This movie stars –and I use that term very, very loosely— Alan Bagh as the infinitely punchable software salesman, Rod, and Whitney Moore as the toothy fashion model, Nathalie.  There some other “supporting casts”, but I’m not going to mention their names so they can begin to heal from the trauma of their experience.

For when one cast isn't enough.

Because of time constraints, and the sheer volume of rant I have on this movie, I’m going to attempt to limit myself to summarizing the first ten minutes of the film—which is great, because FOUR OF THOSE MINUTES are devoted to following dipshit Rod around in his blue mustang while the opening credits roll to a looped twenty second track that wishes it had been composed by Richard Band, but can’t quite claim to be of actual musical value.

The remaining six minutes introduce us to the incredible sound quality that will plague the rest of the movie: varying levels of sound, asinine levels of sound, sound that makes you want to learn to do post-production mixing so no one you truly care for will ever have to experience what you’re experiencing.  Then if your senses weren’t feeling violated enough, Nguyen shoves a terrifying European waitress into view, who takes Rod’s order and, in a display of mercy not found often in this movie, disappears.

"Don't show fear, Nathalie, just don't show fear and maybe he'll go away."

While waiting for his bratwurst, Rod spots Nathalie and, as she flees because she feels him watching her like a total creep while she cuts her toast, he checks out her ass.  After confirming her ass is of high quality, he suddenly realizes that she is the Girl For Him, leaving Helga heartbroken by doing a dine-and-dash and not even finishing the orange juice she so carefully poured for him.

Once he manages to catch up to his darling power-walker, awkward dialogue ensues.  During this conversation, we discover that not only can he not act, he also is unable to hide his serial rapist nature.  We are also able to confirm that, yes, he has never had sex in his life and likely never will.

"I'm gonna cut out her kidneys and use them for slippers."

Nathalie, sensing that she’s spending time in the company of a terrible actor, attempts to escape his company, but he chases her down once more and holds her at the vicious knife-point of painful awkwardness until she gives him her number.

So that’s about ten minutes, give or take a couple of minutes because I cannot bear to recount the details of this awful story any longer.

In sum, birds begin to indiscriminately attack the residents of Half Moon Bay by dropping bird bombs (not a euphemism—they’re actually exploding when they crash into buildings) on them, spraying them with acidic cloaca, or doing a fly-by tearing out of throats.  Rod and Nathalie band together with another young couple and they take to the road, battling the birds and trying to save what little survivors remain in what appears to be some godawful birdocaplyse commercial for Greenpeace.

They used paper napkins, and now they must pay.

By studying this film, I’ve come up with a list of ten guidelines for those of us that will eventually be faced battling this fowl menace.

ALLISON’S SURVIVAL TIPS FOR SURVIVORS WHO WANT TO SURVIVE AN ATTACK FROM EXPLODING AVIANS THAT CHALLENGE THEIR SURVIVAL

1.  Want to picnic on the cliffs or play on the beach during a bird attack?  Go for it!  Birds hate beaches!

2.  You still need to follow basic traffic laws no matter how much your life may be in danger—there’s no excuse for dangerous driving.

3.  If you happen to come across a group of people holed up in a bus, you should probably get them out of their safe environment—it’ll toughen them up.

4.  It’s totally safe to leave your gas-filled car on the side of the road with the keys still in the ignition—no one will take it, especially during an emergency.

5.  Hippies live in the woods and will dispense wisdom.  They survive on tree bark, pine cones, and the beneficence of the Mother Goddess.

6.  Gas isn’t that important to travel.  Mom’s mini-van gets excellent mileage, so feel free to leave a few gallons behind—it’ll magically show back up in your car later.

7.  It’s perfectly safe to drink water from a creek in the California woods—they’re totally unpolluted.

8.  Convenience store clerks are devoted to their posts, and will not leave even during the birdacolypse, so don’t even think about snagging those Twinkies for free.

9.  You’ll always know when to take cover, because when birds dive towards the ground they make missile noises and explode.

10.  Don’t worry about stocking up on cash– even though the phone lines may be down, stores will still be able to accept your credit card.

Remember this face-- you'll be seeing it later tonight... at your window.

Now that you’re properly prepared for this avian devastation, I highly suggest that you never, never ever, NEVER watch this film.  Do NOT queue it up on Netflix on Demand, do NOT subject yourself to the worst editing I’ve ever seen, do NOT watch the awkward, lingering transitions and the phone conversations that make you think that both parties are suffering from some sort of brain degradation.  Pick another movie, hell, pick Troll 2 or Thankskillingboth of which Netflix offered up as suitable alternatives to this flick.

Just stay the flock away, and if you do decide to sit down and witness this debeakal, you’ll definitely egret it.

It was announced online today that MGM and Screen Gems have offered the titular role in their remake of the classic Brian DePalma horror film Carrie to 15-year-old actress Chloe Moretz (Kick-Ass, Hugo). The retelling of the 1974 Stephen King novel being directed by Kimberly Peirce (Stop-Loss, Boys Don’t Cry) is slated for a late 2013 release-date.  A couple months back when the film was first announced, it was revealed that Roberto Aguirre-Sacasa, who helped rewrite the best-selling Spider-Man: Turn Off The Dark Broadway musical, had penned the new adaptation.  Aguirre-Sacasa is said to have written a version that’s more faithful to the original novel and more grounded than the original film.

Carrie is about a girl in high school who’s regularly bullied by her classmates and her mother.  Unbeknownst to them however, Carrie possesses dangerous telepathic powers.  Just when it seems like her life is starting to turn around as she stands on stage with her hot date at prom, she falls victim to a mean-spirited prank designed by her peers. In an iconic and chilling scene, Carrie unleashes her psychic rage upon the high school prom.

We know thanks to Kick-Ass and Let Me In (the American retelling of Let The Right One In) that Moretz has the acting chops to pull off the role. She’s proved that she’s comfortable with a wide range of roles ranging from sweet and innocent to violent and dangerous. When (and if) she officially signs on, the studio will turn its attention to casting the roles of Carrie’s prom date and her mother.

Check out the trailer for the original 1976 Carrie, Directed by Brian DePalma.

You should probably read the review of this movie first, if you want this to make any sense.  I mean, do what you want, but that’s my advice.

A:  You were speaking briefly about the idea of emotional inheritance in the movie earlier.  I was hoping if you could speak a little more about that.

JC: This movie comes from some investigation of something that I felt when I was a kid when I was having my first nightmares and, not at that time—later on, I realized that part of the nightmares I had had at that time were connected and related with some secrets of my family, things that my parents didn’t tell me.  But those secrets were living with us and, because when you’re a kid you’re completely sensitive and picking up on so many things from your parents… well, they were trying to hide those things from me and I think it was a mistake to do that.  I understand why they did it—because they were trying to protect me from the ugly truth, but the reality is that I think when you do that to your kids, they create something worse than the truth.  So this movie is about that, how sometimes secrets become a monster and how sometimes your fears are inherited from your family, and then the fear becomes a legacy.   That’s something that really drives me crazy on many levels and I felt that it was important to share that idea with the audience through this particular story.

A:  Then movie was inspired by you reflecting on your childhood?

JC:  Yes.  I was working with the screenwriters, trying to create a kind of structure with the characters and in every single sequence I was trying to track those emotions from the past and try to use them as an inspiration for the movie.  And I can tell you that the character of Juan, the Spanish boy, was a reflection of my feelings at that age because I knew that there was something strange in my house as a child and, in the movie, I used the fantasy of a boy writing a story as a sort of running away from that strange feeling which I think really shows that emotional part of myself.

A: Juan’s story also allows the creation of a monster that can be defeated, as opposed to a secret hovering around the house.  It gives a definition and a shape, something that you can combat that your parents can protect you from instead of something that your parents are creating for you.

JC:  That’s a theme in the movie for sure.

A: So, you said you had nightmares when you were young.  In the movie, the two children’s parents deal with their offspring’s nightmares in very different ways.  How did your parents deal with your nightmares? Were they frightened of them because it was like having their secrets come out, or were they dismissive?

JC:  I remember them being dismissive and, yes, part of the movie is based on that attitude.  But I’m not blaming my parents for handling it in that way, it was something that they did because they wanted to survive in a very difficult environment.  But it was, for me, a very strange thing to grow up with that lack of truth.

A:  So this movie is really addressing things for you?

JC:  Yes, absolutely.

A:  When did you realize that the nightmares you were having were connected to things going on behind the scenes with your family?

JC:  I do therapy, and there was one session with my psychiatrist where we were talking about a nightmare that I had had.  He had me imagine that I was waking up in the middle of the night and that there was somebody in my bedroom.  Then my psychiatrist told me to go and face that person, so I stood up and started walking towards the person hiding in the corner and then he asked me, “Who is that guy?” I remember seeing the face for a second in my mind and it was me, it was me in the corner and I had the revelation: “Oh my god, it’s me— I’m my own ghost,” which I completely believe.  Sometimes your nightmares and your dark side are connected, meaning that your dark side is you and your own problems.  That boy in the corner wasn’t a ghost, he was a very scared boy trying to tell me that the problem, the fear I was experiencing, was connected with something else—the things I felt when I was a kid.

A:  If you were your own nightmare, where did you get the inspiration for the Hollow Face character?

JC:  The concept of mystery in the movie gives the emotional drive to the story.  When we were thinking about the creation of an unique and special monster that would support that drive, the idea about the monster looking for his identity was something I felt was new and fresh and supported of that theme of mystery in a very visual way.  Who is this monster?  Why don’t we see his face?  And it was the perfect reflection of logic and emotional drive for the main characters to want to know who he is.  A monster without a face—if you want to defeat him, you have to see his face, you have to find the identity of this monster.

A: When I was watching it, the end actually made me feel really sad for Hollow Face.  Was there any sort of backstory for that character?

JC: In the first version of the screenplay, we had a much longer version of the background, but finally we decided to compress it to make the ending more clear and understandable. I think, as an audience member myself, that we didn’t need more than those basics to understand the story.  I really believe that if you put some small element into a movie, the audience will imagine the rest of the story.  I really love those types of movies, the way they use elements and details that makes one feel that the movie has become a mirror that the viewer reflects themselves in to think about their own stories.  So when we don’t develop certain things, we try to clearly play a note, a single note, and hopefully that note has a kind of a resonance in the audience’s mind and they build the rest of the story.  So that was intentional with the monster.

A:  Were there a lot of other scenes were cut from the movie?

JC:  In this structure, which is very back and forth and jumpy, I would say not too many scenes were cut, but there are several sequences cut that I hope you will enjoy on the DVD.  These were scenes that I thought “Yes, I would love to see that in the movie!” but finally decided not to keep them.  As we polished the story, we cut some of the English scenes out because the balance of the English story and the Spanish one needed to be equal, more or less, and some of the English scenes didn’t connect so well with the Spanish story at times.  And it’s funny, because when you’re reading the screenplay, you don’t notice, you think that everything flows so well.  Then when you watch it on the screen, you realize that you can screw up so many things that you didn’t even think of and, yes, it was one of the things that I didn’t understand when I was collaborating with the writers to produce the screenplay, that the balance of the two stories needs to be about equal.  And it was a pity because we had to pull stuff out of the movie—really good stuff, but I know the movie was better once we simplified the story.

A: So was cutting those scenes upsetting for you?

JC: W when you cut, it’s a moment of suffering, but then when I watched the whole movie without those pieces, I was happier because I saw how much better everything is when it’s clean and simple.

A: Were there going to be any different endings, or did you always know that the very last scene was going to be there?

JC:  I think from the very beginning, the concept of revealing the story in this kind of fable-like tone was clear to me.  Especially because the movie is about an unfinished story which is why, in the end, the father has to finish the story, and that was part of the concept from the very beginning.  In the process of the development, we went through different ways of doing the ending, but finally we ended up with the one you saw, which is like an exorcism almost, and a very cathartic way to end the film.

 

Intruders opens in theaters on March 30, 2012.

I have a thing for fairy tales, those simplisitic little stories that offer something different up each time I read them. I also have a thing for horror movies, where things don’t always end up happily ever after.

Few movies can effectively combine both the scare and feel of horror and the simplistic, constantly changing perception of fairy tales, but Juan Carlos Fresnadillo (28 Weeks Later) mangages to blend together those traits in his latest film, Intruders, with the creation of the monster, Hollow Face.

Hollow Face is a creature without a face that roams the streets at night looking for a child’s face to steal so he can be loved– for who could love a beast without a face?

Intruders is the tale of two children who are both stalked by this monster in his attempt to possess a face. We are fist introduced to Hollow Face in a nightmare, when he attacks Juan (Izan Corchero) and his mother (Pilar Lopez de Ayala) in their apartment in Spain. Just when we think things are going to reach a climax, Juan wakes, screaming for his mother.

But Hollow Face isn’t simply consigned to the dream world. Twelve-year-old Mia (Ella Purnel) and her father (Clive Owen) become physically endangered when the pre-teen begins to near-compulsively attempt to write the ending of a scary story she found hidden in the hollow of a tree. By reading this story and then attempting to finish it herself, she wakes Hollow Face and allows him access to her home, where he hides in her closet waiting for the right time to strike.

As she and her father attempt to do battle with the physical threat of Hollow Face, Mia’s mother (Carice van Houten) is skeptical of the danger and forces Mia away from the only person who not only believes her stories of Hollow Face, but will try to protect her from the creature.

While this battle goes on, Juan’s mother attempts to deal with what she seems to think is a possession and, as Juan’s nightmares begin to cross over into the real world, alternatively seeks out religious comfort and shuns it– which does little to address the danger Juan is in.

The story was fascinating, the overlapping tales of the two tormented children and how their respective parents attempted to deal with their offspring’s fears. The use of dark shadows in corners and Mia’s haunted closet triggered childhood memories of huddling under my blankets after reading a particularly scary story, fearfully eyeing my closet.

However, even with the characters in the story that most all of us can identify with– as either terrified children or parents dealing with that horror, and even with the fascinating story, parts of the movie’s internal logic began to fall apart at the end, leaving questions not just unanswered but unable to be answered within the system the movie put forth.

If you are one of those people that leaves theaters and rigorously complains that the movie did not make sense, that factors x, y, and z did not add up on a logical level, and you place the majority of the movie’s value on its logical consistency, this may not be the movie for you.

However, if you are able to suspend disbelief, as we are asked to do so often when dealing with fairy tales and fantasy stories, if you do not need a constant form of logical support to enjoy something as a piece of film, I highly suggest taking the time to go down to your local theater to view the tale of Hollow Face.

To read an interview with director Juan Carlos Fresnadillo on the thoughts behind this film, please click here.

Intruders releases in theaters on March 30th, 2012.

In all of my years (months) reviewing Netflix on Demand horror movies, I’ve yet to see one that quite lended itself so well to being made into a porn.

Not that I watch horror movies looking to adapt them to pornography– I just hope that they become sex-loaded on their own for my, er, viewing pleasure.

Kinda an awkward picture choice, given the above paragraph.

Which means it is with much happiness that I share with you the 2006 horror flick, “5ive Girls”. No, that isn’t a leet typo leaking out as I write, it’s the actual spelling of the actual title. As opposed to the fake spelling of the fake title. Keep up, kids.

The same man who brought us the television series Todd and the Book of Pure Evil and the movie Ham & Cheese, Warren P. Sonoda, was not only the director of this fabulous movie that lends itself to satisfying most of my sexual needs, but also the writer. So, thank you, Mr. Sonoda. Especially for the spanking scene. (More on that later.)

Unsuccessful Sequels: The People That Hang Out Next to the Stairs.

We’ve got some faces you, the reader (See, I’m the writer and, if you’re reading this, that makes you the reader. Unless you’re not reading it. Then you can fuck off.), probably won’t recognize but will definitely appreciate.

First, we have Amy Lalonde (Possibly recognizable as Tracy Thurman in Romero’s Diary of the Dead as well as a bit part in Battlestar Galactica. I mean, she’s done other stuff, but you probably haven’t watched it, so don’t expect me to write sentences about all this shit you haven’t seen because you aren’t dedicated to the art of film. Jesus.), then Jennifer Miller (playing someone called Lap Vixen Thumper from something called Bitch Slap which I now need to hunt down like a crazed stalker), and finally Jordan Madley (who is way too hot, like way, way too hot, and you might know her from, most recently, an episode of Femme Fatales).

Oh, and there’s this other guy, Ron Perlman. You might have heard of him. No? Okay, well, let’s move into the plot then.

See, he's this actor that... oh, never mind.

We open on a cute little blonde, Elizbeth, sitting in a classroom, sketching Satanic images, you know, like you do in Catholic school. It’s kinda their paint-by-numbers fallback, if you aren’t hip to such things.

After a brief interaction with Father Drake (Perlman) that gives us the not so subtle hint that he’s molesting the girls, Elizabeth is suddenly possessed by something that possesses things. It’s all very complicated. After the possession is complete, Elizabeth is gone, only a bloody mess left at her desk. (It’s too easy, so I’m not going to.)

"Come here often?" "Uh, yeah."

Before we can see the fallout of this bloody disappearance (British cursing or descriptive phrasing? You be the judge.), the movie suddenly attacks us with the phrase “FIVE YEARS LATER”. I find this all very unfair, as I wanted more blonde and less blood screen time.

So five years down the line, Alex Garrison, another young blonde chick, is getting dropped off at the same Catholic school by her father. Apparently, she’s done something (or not) that has broken the camels back, crossed the line, gone past the point of no return, thrown stones in glass houses, put two birds in one bush, allowed her loose lips to sink… wait, what?

Sour grapes cannot change their spots. What?

We learn that she is now one of five female students at the newly re-opened Saint Mark’s School for Girls, run by the kinda psychotic head mistress, Miss Pearce. Can someone please explain to me what, exactly, a “head mistress” does? I think I’ve met some in my time.

Slowly, the girls are introduced. You know, after the strip search. (Note: Not. Joking.) We have the witch, Connie, the badass, Mara, the blind anarchist, Cecila, the softie, Leah, and Alex, our female lead.

This room's feng shui is totally off.

During this time, Miss Pearce also takes blood samples and, in doing so, causes Alex to reveal her telekinetic powers. All the girls have some sort of psychic power that is eventually revealed as the movie progresses, and some of them are more useful than others.

As the classes begin, strange things begin to happen. None of it is ever spooky, jump-inducing, or even tension building. (That’s okay, because this isn’t one of those movies.) Quite quickly, we see that Elizabeth (Remember, that blonde from the beginning of the movie? Man, it was only a few paragraphs ago, how could you forget already??) is haunting the school, trapped between life and death.

Part of aforementioned strip search. And hot.

The movie, however, isn’t about how Elizabeth haunts the five girls. She barely features, appearing every so often and never being a true threat. Where the threat lies, and this is fairly obvious from the get-go so I’m not spoiling it for anyone, is in Miss Pearce, who is messing with things she ought not to be messin’ with, to quote scads of other movies.

Now, why should you watch this film? First off, it has hot girls in Catholic school girl outfits. That’s a seller right there. Secondly, there’s a bit of sexy school girl lesbianism. Thirdly, of course, there’s some bare-chestedness. Most importantly, however, we’ve got a spanking scene. Yup– plaid school girl skirt up around the waist, bent over a desk, being beaten with a yard stick by a hot blonde in a pencil skirt and blouse.

You're welcome.

And some of you might be reading this and going, “OH MY GAWD, YOU ARE THE SICKEST PERSON EVER, HOW COULD YOU PUT THIS IN YOUR REVIEW?!” But I’d like to point out that for each person that says that, there’s five people queuing up this movie right now.

Also, sickest person ever? I’d argue that. Here’s a true story, a tidbit into the life of your vaguely beloved author.

A couple of weeks ago, I was at my favorite club. A fully grown man at least a decade older than me approached me and asked if he could sit on my lap. He disclaimered it by telling me that there was nothing pervy about it. I declined, and then he explained that he had a particular fetish for women who dress as taxi cabs and let him ride them, piggy-back style. And that, if they won’t dress like cabs, he just wants to sit on them. I told him no, no thank you, please no thank you, please goodbye, and bolted.

THIS IS A TRUE STORY. MY LIFE IS HELL.

She is, admittedly, not having the best time either.

In conclusion: school girls. Spanking. Skirts. Win. Having a fetish for anthropomorphic taxi cabs? Lose.

This movie (back to the topic at hand), also has this weird Satanic Care Bear scene that is infinitely amazing. Not because it’s filmed excellently, but because it’s a fucking Devil Care Bear scene. You don’t see that every day. Or any day, really.

Was this film good? It was sketchy. Some points were great, some points, not so much. The soundtrack seemed as though every episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer was condensed into one movie. The dialogue was occasionally spotty, and some things simply did not make sense or were not followed through with (i.e. Father Drake’s love of molestation).

"It's a hard-knock life for us."

But it was an easy watch, an entertaining watch, and not exactly typical. There were some great shots in there, great lighting (sometimes), and amusing (if out of place) one-liners that tried to make this movie smarter than it was.

So do what I would do: pop some popcorn and grab some lotion and a box of tissues, and fire this film up on Netflix. Just make sure your blinds are closed before you begin– you don’t want any more awkward moments with the neighbors.

At the Silent House press conference a couple of weeks ago, its ladying lady, Elizabeth Olsen, mentioned her current favorite horror movie, a French flick called Ils. (Translation: take a goddamned French class, people! I can’t do all of your work for you.) With much curiosity, I queued it up and, days later, I’m still not quite sure how to feel about it.

They're probably watching The Orphanage. Or Bio-Dome.

There’s not a good deal to say on the film’s background. While there’s several reviews on IMDB and a middling score on Rotten Tomatoes, this movie doesn’t seem like it really entered the festival circuit or make much of an attempt (any attempt?) at the box office.

The actors are, as they tend to be in European movies, European and therefore foreign to ye old readership here at Geekscape. Not saying that you’re ignorant. Just saying that I’m ignorant and, so as not to feel so alone, projecting my ignorance onto you. It’s a bonding experience, really. Don’t you feel closer to me already?

American-centric knowledge-base-wise (I’m not sure how I feel about that phrasing.  How do you feel about it?  Comfortable?), the only real recognizable entities on this film are the directors (who also functioned as the writers), David Moreau and Xavier Palud, who directed the American version of The Eye (you know, that flick with Jennifer Lo–, er, Jessica Alba), which wasn’t that great.

She likes to hold her pillow and pretend it's Edward.

The movie starts off with the heading:

Snagov, Romania October 6, 2002 11:45p.m.

I like it when movies have a time-stamp. Makes me feel secure. Anyhow, after the time-stamp, we start with a mother and cunty daughter driving along a road at night, perfectly peaceful (oh, that’s a lie) until a strange goat-like shape darts in front of the car.

Okay, it wasn’t a goat. Could have been a person. Possibly both. A goat-person.

They go nose-first into some sort of pole, which somehow causes their radio to turn on and blast some annoying metal. When they try to re-start their car and leave, the engine won’t turn so the mother gets out, pops the hood, and fiddles with the engine.

Apparently there was a crossover with Sliders going on at the same time, as she was sucked into a portal. Or something. Basically, she vanishes, leaving her cunty daughter to plod around the car calling for her like a sad little sheep… until the bushes whisper a response.

My prom night ended similarly.

She does the smart thing (hurrah!) and bolts into the car, rolls up the windows, locks the door, and discovers that the keys are gone. Someone outside beeps the car to unlock, so Cunty Dwarf grabs her cell phone and calls the police. Who put her on hold. And it starts raining.

Then the car explodes. It’s really tragic. The phone goes flying from the vehicle and the last thing that we see before we cut to the opening credits is a tiny hand wrapping around the phone as the police dispatcher finally picks up.

I might have made that all up. I’m kinda in a mood. A mood where I make things up. Or this may be made up. YOU’LL NEVER KNOW UNLESS YOU WATCH THE MOVIE! BWAHAHAHA!

Cut to the next day. We are introduced to Clementine, hottie French teacher, as she wraps up for the afternoon and begins her drive home, complete with sexy little phone call to her husband, Lucas, and rubbernecking at the abandoned vehicle last seen with Cunty Dwarf.

It's like Titanic, but with more stabbings.

After a few scenes of domestic bliss with her husband, Clementine curls up on the couch to go through her students’ work. However, before she gets too far in, the phone rings. The noises on the other end are indistinguishable.

At 3:45AM, she wakes up, hearing strange noises outside, and selfishly wakes her sleeping husband so they can check on the noises together as opposed to letting him continue to sleep like she would if she actually loved him. On my planet, that’s grounds for a divorce right there.

Anyhow, they manage to stumble their way downstairs to discover that Clementine’s car has been moved. See, that’s what kids do these days. Forget toilet papering, it’s all about car relocation.

Honey, I think those kids relocated our car again.

When Lucas goes to confront the car, it pulls a Herbie the Love Bug and drives off into the night. Being intelligent people that were clearly designed for an indie romance rather than a horror movie, they call the cops (which turn out to be useless) and decide to deal with it in the morning.

Then the lights go out.

Too much of a cliffhanger for you? Are your fingers tightly wrapped around the arms of your chair? Mine would be, but I’m in bed. And typing. I’m not the mutant with four arms that you think me to be.

Eventually, the monster is revealed (finally, a movie to break the recent streak of showing me the big bad by the three-minute mark!) and the audience is left to mull over, well, everything. This movie takes a very common beast, one that features in a surprising number of horror films, and puts a strong slant on it, forcing it at the viewer at a new angle that they didn’t necessarily expect.

She is about to find out what makes Jack a dull boy.

Monster-digestion aside, it’s a little hard for me to make fun of this movie. It’s not that it’s fantastic– it certainly doesn’t reach the level of The Orphanage, nor is it mediocre in such a way that causes a lack of commentary. It was just the right mix of story, isolation, and disturbing claustrophobic imagery that ultimately caused me a sort of unsettled discontent.

The “seven days…” call I received after viewing this film certainly didn’t help my comfort level, either.

So, if you want something that deviates from your standard horror plot and digs itself into your bones, not so much on a fear level as much as with actual horror (in the way that we no longer use that word), Ils might be for you. Just ignore the shitty video quality Netflix gives you with this one.

Every year at SXSW there is at least one “secret screening” which becomes a main topic of conversation for all festival goers.The debate and anticipation over what will be shown is almost always more enjoyable than what you end up getting. This year the exciting, and entirely improbable, rumor was that, since Joss Whedon was in town for Cabin in the Woods, we’d be getting The Avengers. People always seem to shoot for the stars with these predictions, even though history has shown that tentpole films NEVER show up in these slots.

This rumor was crushed early, however, as it was leaked that we’d be getting Sinister, an upcoming horror movie from local Aint It Cool critic C. Robert “Massawyrm” Cargill and Exorcism of Emily Rose director Scott Derrickson. So as delusional comic book fans shuffled away to other screenings or cheap drinks, I got in line to see if this critic turned screenwriter could add something new to the haunted house horror genre.

He could not.

Sinister tells the tale of a true crime author, played by Ethan Hawke, chasing the success of one of his early books, a success he’s been unable to repeat. He latches onto a new case of a bizarre family suicide and decides to make that the topic of his next book. He also decides the best way to get a feel for the crime is to move his family, unbeknownst to them, into the house where the event occurred. You can probably take it from here.

The problem with Sinister is not that it’s a bad movie, it’s really not. It’s just exactly what you’d expect from this kind of thing. The scares are telegraphed. The glossy filmmaking takes away from any visceral thrills. The supernatural villain is a bit silly. It’s just unmemorable in every way.

There is potential here for something truly unique and haunting, which makes the blandness all the more disappointing. The opening scene is truly unsettling and promises a different movie than the one you get. The opening shows a super 8 film of the suicide that is to become the subject of our leads next book. It’s shown in full and with minimal music or sound other than the clicking film reel. The method of suicide is different than anything I’ve seen before and I was really hoping that I was in for something not quite like anything I’ve seen before.

These super 8 films, more of which are discovered in the house, play a big role in the film and are all equally unsettling and shown in full. These are easily the best moments of the movie. They add an injection of style and horror that’s absent from the rest of the film, although their impact is lessened as the filmmakers decide to replace the unnerving silence with overwrought music.

The performances are solid and the personal drama of a writer so desperate to re-attain fame and glory that he endangers his family is actually well done. All the elements for something great are here, but they are just used as window dressing.

If you don’t mind the familiar formula and are just looking for an unchallenging horror flick to watch on Netflix with your girlfriend, you could certainly do worse than Sinister. It’s just hard not to pine for the movie it could have been.

I can’t really remember the first time I saw “Evil Dead 2.”

I think it was the summer of 1996, right after I had graduated high school. At that time, I had only just started to become a film nut in earnest, having held down a job at a movie theater for a few months. I was in anew state of mind by then. I didn’t just have a few films I loved, but was slowly growing into the cinema snob that I am today, memorizing arcane facts, and becoming familiar with the careers of little-known character actors. I had seen Sam Raimi’s “Army of Darkness” a few years before, and did indeed fall in love with it. But by 1996, it was more than just a wacky movie. It was an important film. And so, in my youthful enthusiasm, I likely sought out “Evil Dead 2.” Did I get it from 20/20 Video on Wilshire in Santa Monica, CA? The one that’s now a hairdresser? That would be the most likely place.

I do know that, by the time I got to college, I knew it. I had bought it on video, and was using any excuse I could to watch it. Whenever I met someone new, I would typically plop them down in front of “Evil Dead 2” as a bonding exercise. I did similar ploys with “Eraserhead,” and “The Rocky Horror Picture Show.” It was a cult litmus. If they could understand “Evil Dead 2,” they could understand me.

Keep in mind, this was way, way back in the late 1990s, when geek culture had not yet exploded in earnest. The kids who watched “Evil Dead 2” on a regular basis were not the cool kids yet. They were the outsiders. Like for realsies. I ran in those circles. I had friend who played “Magic: The Gathering,” and my roommate in my second year was a member of the Anime club. My local video store, Backstage Video (which, I recently learned, is still proudly in business) offered a special every weekday: five movies, five days, five dollars. I was swimming in my new-found geekiness, hanging out with fellow nerds and watching as many movies as I could.

Like most people, though, I found “Evil Dead 2” to be a head above the other horror flicks I had seen. This was more than a mere horror movie. This was part of a growing canon. “Evil Dead 2” belonged in the same circles of thought as films like “The Shining” and “Clerks.” There were movies, and there were Great Movies. “Evil Dead 2” was a Great Movie. Have you ever asked an 18-24-year-old to list their ten favorite movies? You’ll usually find a mixture of legitimately classic films they had just discovered, a few more recent greats that they had seen recently, and a handful of goofy genre films that, usually for reasons of nostalgia, are near the top of their list for canon’s sake. As a result, you’ll find kids who list “Casablanca” in their top-10, but it will still fall behind “Evil Dead 2.”

As I aged, and passed kicking and screaming into my 30s (and, trust me, it’s not bad here), I went through several cycles of film fandom. I watched obtuse indie films and experimental movies ((I still own my copy of “Begotten.”). I went through that early 20s phase of extreme shit, wherein I saw things like “Mondo Cane,” “El Topo,” and “Pink Flamingos.” I went through a camp phase, and watched Douglas Sirk for the first time. I caught up on my classic horror, and am now the proud owner of several “Wolf Man” pictures. It wasn’t until my 30s that I managed to catch up on some of the greater ’80s classics, and I finally saw “Die Hard” and “Lethal Weapon.” Yeah, it took me that long. And, since I was also going to film school, I went through a long and intense period of European Art Films, wherein I fell in love with Jean-Pierre Melville, Ingmar Bergman, Werner Herzog, and all the rest of that crowd. I even caught up on the notoriously difficult great filmmakers like Yasujiro Ozu, Bela Tarr, and Robert Bresson.

And through it all, I have never lost my appreciate for “Evil Dead 2.” I sat down recently to re-watch it for the purposes of this essay. Even though I had seen the film over a dozen times at this point, it was still pleasant and funny and delightfully gory.

And it endures. “Evil Dead 2” is still played at midnight screenings all over the country. I haven’t visited too many college campuses recently, but I get the sense that a DVD of “Evil Dead 2” is now standard suburban issue for teenagers. The same way Classic Queen was.

Why does “Evil Dead 2” persist in the way it does? Why is it still part of the singular cult canon? Why do teenage boys the world over still hold it up as something sacred?

It can’t be its mythology. The film, in terms of story and myth, is surprisingly trim. Sam Raimi, the film’s director, was clearly not trying to expand on “The Evil Dead” which he had made six year before. He was clearly more interested in doing the same film correctly. “The Evil Dead” was an attempt at a legitimate horror film, which, to our eyes, looks shabby and campy. “Evil Dead 2” was his attempt to up the stakes, and make the silly stuff even sillier. He was not interested in expanding a myth, explaining the monsters, or giving poor Ash a backstory. No. None of that. In this modern age, we seem to have reached a frustrating place where all stories must interconnect. All TV shows are long-form dramas now rather than episodic snippets. Even comic book movies bleed into one another, thanks to the upcoming mashup of “The Avengers.” “Evil Dead 2,” by contrast, is without connective material. It is boldly and happily content to stay inside itself and merrily not make any larger sense.

What do the demons want? They’ve been asleep for millennia, and now they’re eager to cause mischief. They can haunt a building and make dead things come back to life. They can possess you if they want. They can float abstractly through the woods, but also seem to live inside evil trees. This is an evil that is, at once, smoke, zombies, ghosts, zombies, and creatures. No rules. No way to kill it. Just a buncha random shit.

It can’t be its horror. I realized something kind of revelatory this last time I watched it: “Evil Dead 2” is not scary. I never thought it was. I always found myself giggling at the film. Sure, it has several moments of atmospheric creepiness, and the creature effects are surprisingly advanced, given the film’s time and budget. But I never found myself curled up in a ball, shrinking away from the fearfulness on display. And I was a fearful kid. Even though I loved horror movies today, there was a time when they would give me nightmares on a regular basis. I remember when the video box for “Evil Dead 2” hit the shelves at my local video store, and the sight of Bruce Campbell being strangled by a disembodied hand was enough to scare me. I dunno. Maybe I was too old by the time I saw it, but nothing in “Evil Dead 2” was scary.

It’s certainly not the dialogue. Sure, we like to quote the film in our geek conversations with one another, but this is hardly David Mamet. Looking over the Internet Movie Database reveals these gems: “Old double-barrel here will blow your guts to Kingdom Come!” “You did it kid…” “Here’s your new home!,” and, my personal favorite “Maybe something trying to make its way into our world.” The dialogue is a weird mutation of badass action clichés and functional expository horror wastrels. There’s no inner music to the dialogue. It’s just as blunt as the wacky visuals.

I don’t think it’s even the film’s quality that really drives it. “Evil Dead 2” may be a good deal better and far more sophisticated than its zero-budget forebear, but it’s still kind of shabby. There was only one set (built in a high school in Detroit), and only one exterior, out in the woods of North Carolina. The story is clunky and moves on an odd way. Indeed, it’s only 6 minutes before the first decapitation. Less than ten minutes later, Ash is chainsawing the severed head in half. Sam Raimi has since gone on to make some really great movies. He did four superhero movies (although “Darkman” and Spider-Man 2” are really the only good ones), and even made a legitimate tragedy with “A Simple Plan.” In comparison, “Evil Dead 2” feels low-fi and, through certain section, amateurish. To be fair, it was only Raimi’s third film.

But then, it’s that shabbiness that makes it stand apart. With low budget films, its the earnestness that usually makes them notable. Raimi, for all the goofy camerawork, oddball padding, and bizarro horror/comedy scenes of Bruce Campbell fighting off monsters and ghosts, was clearly making something he believed in. He clearly thought all of this was amusing as Hell, and filmed what he wanted.

And while it may look cheap, it looks great.

 

And about that dialogue. As teenage boys, we tend to immerse ourselves in shallow action films, and are drawn to delightfully callow badassery. And no hero is more delightfully callow than Ash. As played by Bruce Campbell, Ash is a handsome and put-upon everyman whose workaday attitude and practical thinking lead him to deal with evil ghosts in the most pragmatic fashion. For instance, when he sees a monster lunging toward him, he doesn’t think to prepare a weapon for decapitation, but merely punches it in the face. Indeed, there is a lot of punching in this film. People punch monsters and monsters punch people. That’s kind o brilliant. The spawn of ancient evil forces lurches up from under the ground, and all they can think to do it smack you around a little bit.

Evil Dead 2: Dead By Dawn” may have all the trappings of a horror film; the ancient curses, the evil book, the monsters, the death, the buckets of blood; but it’s not a horror film “Evil Dead 2” is a comedy. While there had been horror comedies leading up to 1987, I don’t think any had been as effective as this. What Sam Raimi does is expertly use the iconography of horror in the language of comedy. Horror films are intended to invoke fear in the viewer. I don’t think this was ever Raimi’s M.O. He wanted to make you laugh. That the laughs came from demon possession, slayings, and chainsaws is incidental. “Evil Dead 2” is a horror classic, but it really ought to be in the comedy section of the video store.

So when poor Jake (Dan Hicks) is dragged into the fruit cellar by the demon-possessed Henrietta (Ted Raimi in ghoulish makeup), and buckets of Kool-Aid looking blood flood out through the trap door, we cackle and cackle. Not because we’re immature and cruel-minded teenage boys (although that may have a lot to do with it), but because the film is so deft at creating the comedy of the situation. When Ash has to knock off his girlfriend’s head with a shovel, and later dismember her with a chainsaw, it’s actually a funny moment. When Ash has to stab himself in the hand – in order to fight the evil that has taken possession of it – it makes a kind of sense.

Oh yes. Chainsaws. Thanks to “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre,” chainsaws are now a regular slaying tool in a serial killer’s arsenal. Thanks to “Evil Dead 2,” chainsaws are now weapons. Indeed, thanks to “Evil Dead 2,” most young men can’t look at chainsaws going through wood any longer. It looks wrong. Chainsaws are not for wood. Chainsaws are for zombie limbs. It is now a truth as inevitable as the phases of the moon.

The thing that really makes “Evil Dead 2” into a triumph, though is, I think, its overall tone. Since it’s making comedy out of horror, there’s a naughty streak of anarchic irreverence to the affair. This is not a dark and broody film about real death. This is a film that makes death into a joke. And a really funny joke at that. When we’re teenagers, we find ourselves fighting to survive through a hormonal miasma of new ideas, new feelings, and new ways to be humiliated. As geeks, we find ourselves suddenly ostracized for the interests that, a few years previous, would not be shunned by our peers. We have to content with new concepts and rules that we didn’t bother to contemplate as children. Stuff like death, sexuality, politics, beliefs. We have a new-found resentment of authority, once we find that parents, teachers and cops would take away the vices we have just discovered. Our best defense (and it’s not a very sophisticated one) is to merely dismiss anything that has even the slightest whiff of authoritarian control and irrelevant or stupid. Cops are dumb. Religion is dumb. Teachers are dumb. Parents are dumb. I don’t like anything. I’m going to go read my “Fangoria” magazines, and set my old toys on fire.

Into this miasma jumps “Evil Dead 2,” a film that makes light of death, and turns a bland action badass into a hugely funny demon fighter. A film that takes all the darkness and seriousness of life, and turns it on ear. Look kids, the film seems to be saying to each of us, here’s something that has all the mayhem you crave, but is still fun. There is no darkness. There is only joy and comedy. This is not about real suffering. This makes light of suffering. This makes horror into laughter. Sometimes, after a hard day of high school, you can pop I this film, and remind yourself that you can laugh.

Evil Dead 2: Dead By Dawn” gave us hope. It let us see that we could still have a sense of humor. As the ages pass, teenage boys watch the film, and still jibe with its gloriously clunky, gory, edgy, dark laughter. Not cruel. Not evil. But certainly irreverent. And its that irreverence we crave. Why do you think teenagers like “Monty Python’s Flying Circus” so much?

Will “Evil Dead 2” survive? I hope so. As time passes, and new films enter the cult canon, “Evil Dead 2” might one day find itself teetering away from its relevance as a cult icon. It may pass into that place where aging gorehouds remain the only class of people who still discuss it. I suspect, though, that there is something eternal about the film. Something grand. Something joyously universal about this silly, bloody film wherein a tree monster gets chainsawed in the eyeball. It may seem like a niche “cult” film, but there is a part in all of us that can remember a time when this sort of film would have been the most important thing in the world to us.

For many it was.

Today marks the films’ 25th anniversary; it was released on March 13th 1987. Happy anniversary, you li’l deadites. Please continue your important work.

Happy anniversary, you.

 

It was more than two years ago that I first thought I would get a chance to see Cabin in the Woods. The film, shot in 2009, was rumored to be a secret screening at Fantastic Fest here in Austin. They were even handing out posters, each with phrase poking fun at horror tropes. “If you hear a loud noise outside….have sex.”

Alas, the rumors proved false, but the movie was supposed to come out in a few months anyway. Then MGM went bankrupt and Cabin in the Woods was shelved. A tough blow for the movie, and for the legion of Joss Whedon fans excited to see him and his crew take another shot at a feature length movie. Cut to this past weekend, two years later, where Cabin opened SXSW to near universal praise. I’d say it was worth the wait.

It’s tough to talk about the movie since much of the joy lies in the surprise. The less you know, the better. Unfortunately, the initial trailer, which I managed not to see until after viewing the movie, already gives away slightly too much. I’ll just say that Joss Whedon and Drew Goddard take your standard horror set up of a small group of college kids taking an ill advised vacation to the backwoods, and then proceed to deconstruct and then expand that into something jaw droppingly awesome.

The deconstruction is fun but, despite a unique premise, isn’t something particularly new. Ever since Scream this kind of meta commentary has become commonplace and audiences are well aware of the cliches. The recounting of horror movie rules doesn’t have the same effect as it did a decade ago. Just recently, movies like Behind the Mask and Tucker and Dale have found equally unique ways to cover the same ground. So while that bit is enjoyable, if that’s all Cabin was it wouldn’t have made much of an impact. The expansion, however, is spectacular. Just when you think you know what the movie is, it turns to something else and rides a geek adrenaline high all the way till the end.

Joss and Drew, writer of Cloverfield and many Buffy/Angel episodes, are masters at creating “the moment”. The build up and pay off of set pieces are absolutely perfect. It’s musical in the way everything flows together and builds to a climax. This is a movie where they somehow made the ‘ding’ of an arriving elevator one of the most exciting things you’ve ever seen. It’s impressive.

The cast is a mix of Whedon regulars and new faces, and maybe a surprise appearance or two. Kristin Connolly is perfectly charming and sympathetic as the ‘virgin’ lead. Chris “Thor” Hemsworth takes a backseat in this pre-fame ‘jock’ role and it’s interesting to see him play a college kid after larger than life turns as a god and Kirk’s dad. Richard Jenkins and Bradley Whitford are wonderful and provide the films biggest laughs. The only performance I had an issue with was from Dollhouse co-star Fran Kranz. Fran is the ‘stoner’ of our stereotypical group and is given some of the best lines, but he overplays the “I’m so high, man” thing and is never believable. This is particularly unfortunate since his character is essentially the audience surrogate. He’s the one who speaks for us, just in a silly voice.

Even Kranz is redeemed by the films incredible climax, though. It’s something that must be seen, preferably with a group of like minded friends. It’s a fist pumping, spontaneous clapping, holy shit celebration. During the Q&A, an audience member asked the crew if they knew they were making the last horror movie ever. In some ways that feels accurate, as this takes the genre and blows it sky high. It’ll be interesting to see what future filmmakers make from the rubble.

At SXSW tonight, I got a chance to talk to Joss Whedon and Drew Goddard about their new movie “The Cabin in the Woods”. We talked about the movie being shot 3 years ago, whether Chris Helmsworth got Joss the job directing The Avengers and what it was like developing a “cabin in the woods” style horror film!

We also talked to Cabin actress Anna Hutchison about her role in the movie… and her former life as a Power Ranger! Yup. We’re pretty much awesome… and so is the film! Expect a review soon!

In 2003, husband and wife team Laura Lau and Chris Kentis made a splash (ha!) with their low-budget DYI thriller Open Water. Nearly ten years later, they’ve come to us with their newest work, Silent House.

Silent House is the rapid American remake of a 2010 Spanish-language Uruguayan film (unsurprisingly titled La Casa Muda) that did fairly well in the festival circuit, bringing it to the attention of producer Agnes Mentre, and thus into the hands of Lau/Kentis.

What was so special about La Casa Muda was that it appeared to be shot as a continuous take. While this is not actually accurate– the movie was shot over several takes cleverly edited together, the surprising and difficult choice in style gave something different to the movie that caught the notice of audiences.

However, this might have caused a problem with the style overwhelming the plot, not simply in terms of audience attention, but also in how limited it is in terms of establishing the traditional filmic narrative we’ve grown acclimated to. More on that in a moment.

Plot-wise, this movie centers on the “true events” that took place in an isolated, semi-abandoned house that a young girl, Sarah (Elizabeth Olsen), her father (Adam Trese), and her uncle (Eric Sheffer Stevens) are trying to fix up for sale.

After basic character introductions and a tiff over home repairs between Sarah’s father and uncle that causes the latter to storm off in a fit of anger, Sarah ends up exploring the house, unable to find her father, and hearing unnerving noises that hint that she might have unwelcome company.

Without giving the plot away, most of the rest of the movie is a good deal of running, hyperventilating, and the discovery of somewhat disturbing rooms in the basement.

Shifting away from the plot so as not to pepper this article with spoilers, let’s go back to the decision to shoot this 88 minute film in such a way as to resemble one continuous take.

This obviously wasn’t an easy project. It was stressful simply listening to Lau and Kentis talk about the struggles of everyone meeting their queues at the press conference, as many of the effects were practical (meaning no CGI) and a single half-second mis-step could result in an entire shot being ruined.

There was also a matter of the camera choreography. Lau and Kentis selected Igor Martinovic, whose work you might know from Man on Wire, as their Director of Photography. It was absolutely fascinating to read the press notes on how Olsen and Martinovic had to somewhat sync to each other’s movements as he followed her through the house.

My favorite quote from the press notes, something that I felt really summed up the effort that went into filming this film came from Kentis while talking on a scene where Olsen leaves the house and gets into a car. “Two camera operators were involved in that scene and the choreography was all about preparation. They were running wth the camera and passing the camera in and out of the car and from the front of the car to back and our A.D. crew had to be totally on the ball with cues because everything had to happen at exact moments.”

While the directors likely don’t want you watching this movie just for the technical aspects– which is quite understandable, it’s something that’s amazing to watch and attempt to understand the effort that had to go into such a movie.

It also gives you an insight into how we make and watch movies. So much character development and storyline comes from little side shots that this movie isn’t really allowed. We never leave Olsen’s side which, while it adds to the feelings of being trapped that the movie encourages, it gives a stark contrast to the way we currently use film to tell stories.

In a way, this movie challenges the way we define reality through film. This film is infinitely more “real” of an experience than one where we’re jumping from person to person, place to place. There’s no b-footage filling our gaps of knowledge, setting the scene.

There are so many complex visual layers to the average Hollywood film that it’s somewhat unsettling to see a movie that is so stripped down, not just visually, but in the amount of information that it gives the audience. We see what Sarah sees, we go where Sarah goes– the usual omniscience of the audience is lost giving, while not a totally new experience, something we haven’t seen in a long while.

Silent House opens in theaters on March 9th.

According to Deadline.comPiranha helmer Alexandre Aja is negotiating to direct Undying Love, an adaptation of the Image Comics title created by Tomm Coker and Daniel Freedman for Warner Bros studios. The movie will revolve around a former solider who falls for a vampire, though in order to be with her, he must take on the vampire who created her in the first place and his army of monsters in the Hong Kong underworld. Original comics book series creators Coker and Freedman are writing the script.

Director Alexandre Aja, the French director best known for the horror film High Tension and the remake of The Hills Have Eyes and Piranha 3D, is still in negotiations, so no cast news to report yet, but as long as the vampires don’t sparkle like the bedazzled Twilight vamps and it doesn’t star anyone from The CW, I am so far intrigued.

Director Alexandre Aja

Rarely do I get stir-crazy and bored while watching horror movies. There’s nearly always something redemptive about them, whether it be a great scene (Ghost Ship, I’m looking at you), a great soundtrack, or hysterically bad acting. Truly, I usually can find something to latch onto.

2007’s Ghosts of Goldfield is one of the few films that I gave up on trying to enjoy and instead embraced the boredom that comes with those few movies that aren’t good,but aren’t laughably shitty either.

This is just too easy. I'd feel guilty about taking advantage.

The acting wasn’t good, even though there’s a definite spread of talent. Our lead actress, Marnette Patterson, is a constant television actress with the standard extra roles on the even more standard host of shows. Our cliched “sexy chick”, Mandy Amano (who is quite attractive, I will say), has been in minor roles in movies such things as Coyote Ugly (one of my guilty pleasures) and Crank: High Voltage (less a guilty pleasure and more of a source of masturbation material). Really, though, the only actor of note (and the only one that can actually act) is Kellan Lutz.

You know, Kellan Lutz. Emmett Cullen from the Twilight series. Poseidon from Immortals. Kellan Lutz. Weird sorta blip there. Speaking of blips, let’s just go into the beginning of the movie summary with an awkward transition. Yay!

Kellan Lutz, god of wetness, god of moisture, and things that are wet.

The scene is set: a desert drive in a white SUV overlaid with the opening credits and pictures of old ghost towns. We hear the chatter of inane kids in their early twenties regarding their road trip to a haunted motel, where I pull the gem:

“Today we’re headin’ up to the famous Goldfield Hotel to see if we can find us some real live ghosts.”

If poor phrasing was a sin, this guy would be dead already.

Also! We get to see the ghost, prompting the following mid-movie-watching note:

Didn’t you guys learn anything from Muoi: The Legend of a Potrait? Jesus. Stop revealing the goddamned end boss 50 seconds into the movie. Who do I need to call to make this stop happening? SOMEONE, GET GEORGE ROMERO ON THE PHONE, STAT.

As we get some degree of introduction to the characters, we learn that the blonde is a psychology major, working on her thesis which, as far as I can tell, has absolutely nothing to do with psychology. Brunette is a red shirt, working on her five-finger discount and mad faux-lesbian skills. She’ll be the first to die, just before Mr. English-Ain’t-Mah-First-Language gets taken out by a rogue piece of rusty pipe. There are also three guys, but they’re indistinguishable from each other until about forty-five minutes in.

"I brought an enema bag."

The car ride continues until the blonde falls asleep in the fading light and we get to flash-forward to the scene where one of the guys, a hipster-looking douchebag, gets killed. So not only is the monster being revealed again, so is one of the deaths.

Of course, I could see hipsters being knifed in the skull all day and not get sick of it, so it’s not such a bad thing. God, I hope we see it like eight more times.

Blonde also hears, “Come back to me…” as she wakes, whispered by the ghost. When she comes to, she’s clutching her necklace.

I brightened this picture and upped the contrast just for *you*.

Okay, how many people want to bet that by the end of this movie, everyone is dead but the blonde, who is not killed by the ghost because the ghost is actually her grandmother or great-grandmother who died while looking for her baby (who was kidnapped or whatever) who ended up being perfectly fine and starting a family of her own? WHO WANTS TO LAY SOME MONEY ON THE LINE?!

I’m at the 3 minute, 15 second mark of this movie, and if this doesn’t work out like I predicted, I’m going to punish myself by eating a chocolate chip cookie. If it does work out, I’m eating a chocolate chip cookie *and* making a booty call. (Post-movie update: I might have been wrong, but the theme was there. I’m still making that call.)

Around sunset, the car dies while taking a shortcut to the hotel. Bad dialogue ensues about why the car broke down but, really, the car was probably just rebelling against the douchey-est haircut known to man that the driver was sporting. If he let someone cut it to something that contained lesser levels of douchery, the car would start again.

BRB, going completely out of my established character.

After much whining, they start walking to the hotel. I can’t even speak to the line of “We’ve been walking so long, it’s dark already,” when they started walking at goddamned sunset. Someone punch the goddamned brunette for me. Just reach through the goddamned screen and just pop her one.

During their night wanderings, they find an old cemetary. Good for them. Anyhow, the little cunty brunette decides she doesn’t wanna go into the cemetery and you can’t make her, waaaah. Until, of course, the whispering starts. “Bloooody finger, bloooooody finnggerrrr!”

Sorry. Was re-living my campfire story days.

“Where’s my baby? Where’s my baaaabyyyyyy?” followed by, “Closer, my darling, closer.” Which was followed by a coyote howl. OF COURSE IT WAS.

"This place lacks room service. I'm giving it three stars on Yelp."

The blonde experiences double-vision and a sudden sepia-toned flashback where we get to witness some godawful dancing and the reveal that one hundred (or whatever) years ago, the blonde used to be a waitress in the bar where the ghost worked (while alive, you nitwits).

When she comes out of it, the brunette is racing towards her and one of the idiots… er, men… is missing. Mike. Whichever one that one was.

He ends up popping out from behind a grave, scaring everyone, and then announcing repeatedly that he “got” them all. You know, being an idiotic horror movie stereotype.

So, death order as stands is:

1. Cunty brunette who needs a good punching
2. Mike (may or may not have English issues)
3. Idiot with English issues (may or may not be Mike)

After their brush with stupidity, the five kids head into the suddenly located ghost town to hopefully suddenly locate the hotel.

Hotel = suddenly located! \o/

Let’s take a moment to note that this is supposed to be a ghost town, you know, one of those California/Nevada/Arizona towns that was all hustle and bustle while people were working towards their Manifest Destiny or mining the shit out of the mountains and then dried up for a variety of reasons, generally in the 1920s.

So please ignore the goddamned stop sign in front of the hotel. Oh, and the open bar across the street from the hotel. You know, in the town that one of the less mentally disabled kids said had no vistors aside from the occasional tourist.

STOP: sucking so goddamned much.

After awkward and vaguely illogical conversation with the bartender and his lone patron, the Scooby gang gets a key to the abandoned (and fully furnished and clean) hotel, with instructions not to go into room 109. (Because you know those instructions’ll be followed.)

The bartender explains that George Winfield, Elizabeth’s boss and sex-patron, killed poor Elizabeth in room 109. During this story, the bartender gets incredibly, oddly emotional about Elizabeth and then, when asked if he somehow knew her (kids can’t do math), he explains that he’s seen paintings of her and basically put all of his sex drive into pastels and turned into a total dead-chick-stalking creep.

I may have elaborated on that last part.

The look of concern you're seeing is them watching the final cut of this film.

After story time is over, the kids walk over to the hotel, where the blonde has another sepia-toned flashback where she sees Elizabeth receive the gift of a necklace (Whaaat? Like the necklace the blonde was playing with at the beginning of the film? SHOCKING.) from her beau “for the baby”.

Back in modern day, the cunty brunette steals the hotel desk’s bell while the idiot who likes to scare people scares people again and then busts out the alcohol.

It’s almost like they want to die.

The next hour of this movie is spent with them roaming around multiple locations cobbled together to represent a hotel that is mostly birthed from locations that were clearly not built in the early 1900s. From fire sprinklers to uniform gray carpeting to flouresent lights to modern plumbing, the hotel fails to provide any atmosphere except for the sad sort of desperate amusement one gets when visiting one of those truck stops/mini-casinos that dot the highways in Nevada.

Topless and inebriated-- just like I like them.

What are they doing while roaming? Fuck if I know. There seems to be an overarching plot… kinda. I mean, it’s mostly there. And then there’s all these little potential side plots that amount to nothing and then there’s just severe amounts of minor plot inconsistencies that make the whole thing rather shaky, and I’m not sure if I should blame those issues on the screenwriter or the editor.

In sum: Editing fail. Script fail. Character fail. Plot fail. Location fail. Fail fail. (Or would that be “success fail”? I just wanted to write “fail fail”. Seemed like a good idea.)

I don’t suggest queuing this up on your Netflix. It’s simply not worth it. I can’t even design a drinking game around this, other than “drink every time Kellan Lutz is hot”, which is a totally gimme.

Until next week, kids.

Eli Roth is an asshole. No, not because he blew smoke in Gilmore’s face a few Comic Cons ago. If you’ve met Gilmore, you’d also want to blow smoke in his face. No, Eli Roth is an asshole because for a split second he gave me hope in horror and then became the leader of what was wrong with it.

In 6th grade I became a big horror movie buff. By my freshmen year of high school I had lost all respect for horror. The new films coming out refused to be scary or fun. They were boring films that took themselves entirely too seriously movies like Jeepers Creepers and Valentine. Then I saw Cabin Fever. It was everything I’d been missing in the post Scream days: just good clean stupid fun. I thought “truly, this director Eli Roth will bring horror back into its gory, humorous and scary roots.” Ultimately this didn’t happen. Instead, he made the Hostel sequels and became Quentin Tarantino’s favorite pet project. Thankfully, people like Adam Greene and James Gunn have since stood up and proved that there are still directors out there making good fun horror movies.

Cabin Fever 2

When I saw the direct-to-DVD release of Cabin Fever 2: Spring Fever in my local Best Buy I was immediately apprehensive about it. Then I saw a good sign. Eli Roth had nothing to do with it, no producer credit, writer credit or director credit. Instead it was written and directed by Ti West, a man who’s career has been on the rise since directing The House of the Devil and The Innkeepers. Ti West has disowned this movie, which I think is a little harsh. The movie is far better than he seems to want to give it credit for.

The movie picks up where the original Cabin Fever left off. Our ‘hero’ Paul is disfigured and dying. He crawls out of the creek where we last saw him and wanders out into the middle of street where he’s hit by a school bus. These first 3 minutes of film already set up that you are in for a gore-filled laugh-fest.

Through a fun animated sequence, we see how the creek Paul was lying in was connected to a bottled-water company and the water bottles with Paul’s virus are being distributed to the local high school.

The Senior Prom is coming up and John wants to go with his long time crush Cassie or not at all. Meanwhile his best friend Alex has a random hook-up with Liz who promises that she might show up to the prom if she can get off work.

The prom begins and everything you’d want in a horror movie is present: sex, blood and hilarious one-liners. The movie could have easily failed but it doesn’t for multiple reasons. For starters the cast is great. The actress who plays Cassie is quite adorable. She reminds me of a Riki Lindhome/Felicia Day type. Meanwhile, the actors playing our leads Alex and John are charming and believable.

Cabin Fever 2 Main characters
Our Main Characters Realize that Prom Sucks

My favorite aspect of the movie is its depictions of sex. Unlike most horror movies, the sex is never played for sexiness for a single second. Between Liz giving Alex a very awkward blowjob and then spitting his semen into the sink or two characters having sex in a pool before dying of the infection, it’s never even slightly sexy.

The movie currently has no Rotten Tomatoes critical score but the user score is a pathetic 16%. That’s just unfair. I mean, Hostel: Part 2 has a 45% user rating and it doesn’t nearly have the likeable characters, good one-liners and general sense of fun that Cabin Fever 2 has.

Despite what critics and Ti West say Cabin Fever 2: Spring Break is a good way to waste 86 minutes.

Tell us some of your favorite guilty pleasures in the Guilty Pleasures Thread!

When he’s not watching movies that almost everyone involved in the making of has all but abandoned you can find Matt Kelly tweeting, hosting his podcast The Saint Mort Show and posting in his blog Pure Mattitude

I know some of you may have been panicking at the absence of my typical Wednesday article and I would like to let you know that I appreciate your concern and apologize. You see, when a woman likes a man (or men), she loses track of time and gains a certain… bodily soreness which results in delayed reviews.

Most of my dreams start like this.

In 2010, things happened. The Berlin Wall fell. Pearl Harbor was bombed. Napoleon was exiled to Saint Helena and two Valley kids retrieved him before becoming the biggest band to grace Earth’s history: Wyld Stallyns. Somewhere in all this uproar, a German film titled We Are the Night was released.

Much (exactly) like with other European films I’ve reviewed, no one is actually going to know who any of the actors are and, continuing with my belief that Europeans have no true emotions, we’re going to skip this section.

Pout about it, why don't you? We know you're faking.

Actually, I’m going to lie about the actors.  That seems even better.

Dick “fucking” Van Dyke plays the lead female bloodsucker, Louise. You may know Dick “fucking” Van Dyke from movies such as How I Married a Machete Murderer (the hapless Arlo) and I Know What you Did Six Summers Ago in Band Camp (Yvette’s cuckold, Gregory). We also have Macauly Culkin as Lena, Gabriel Byrnes as Charlotte, and Cillian “Oh My God, Take Me Now, You Creepy Blue-eyed Man” Murphy as Nora. If you watch carefully, you might notice a few cameos from people such as Ian McKellan and Colin Firth.

So it’s a pretty star-studded(ish) cast that you won’t want to miss. Ever. Just watch this movie on repeat and bask in its golden light, but don’t forget to turn over half-way through, as we don’t want you getting skin cancer.

It's hard to believe he played Scarecrow. He's got such range.

Before I launch into the summary of the start of this movie (which I am now beginning to question as a good format for a review), I have to really address what I feel is a truly important topic in regards to this film.

We Are the Night“? What does that even mean, really? Are they personifying the night, as I’ve always imagined a personified night to be more along the lines of a Greek goddess or something. Flowly dark robes, glitter in their hair, prone to family in-fighting.

You know what? Fuck this “we are the night” spooky bullshit. How goth do they need to sound, anyway? How about “We are three vampire bitches in Europe”?

GET OVER YO’SELFS, GOTH SUBCULTURE.

Quick summary of this film: crazy blonde lesbian vampire is focused on the idea of finding her soulmate and then never, ever, ever, EVER letting her go. No matter what. Even if she wants to leave. Kill her, cut off her limbs, bronze said limbs, make them into some sort of surrealist art on wheels that she would drag behind her for the rest of her life.

In sum: a typical lesbian relationship.

Caption screened so as to avoid hatemail.

I know that I now have at least five friends who are planning on punching me for the above statement the next time I see them. For the moment, I will wave at you across the internet and remind you that you can’t reach me from where you are now, and you’ll likely forget to inflict pain on me by the next time we meet.

With this crazy blonde we get sidekicks in the form of an adorable quirky sometimes-redhead and a sultry brunette that managed to keep my attention the entire movie. We also have the strawberry blonde love interest.

I keep trying to order her from the catalog, but she never arrives.

You might be wondering why I’m not calling these characters by their names. I’m wondering too.

There is one other character: the male lead and love interest to Miss Strawberry Blonde 2010. He’s a cop, and, to my mind, is way too young and attractive to be a cop. Well, at least an American cop. If all cops in France look like this dude, send me over. I’ll bring my own handcuffs.

He's not really my type but, you know... handcuffs.

Continuing with this hair-identified plot, we’ve got these five characters, three of which are of The Undead, one of which looks like death, and another which is there solely to be a plot device.

Simply: brunette is miserable, redhead is everything you’d expect from a hyperactive anime character, blonde is nuts and obsessive, strawberry blonde is smarter than most give her credit for, and blond is a cop that barely features but has impact on the story.

Does that make sense? No?

Okay, let’s sell you on this movie. The strawberry blonde goes exploring one night and sees two dudes climb through a hole in a fence. She follows them into DINOSAUR LAND!!!

HOLY SHIT, IT'S JURASSIC PARK!!

Dinosaur Land disappointingly turns out not to be a land of dinosaurs at all, but an underground club full of incredibly hot people in skimpy outfits. Totally fucking lame and lacking in its possibly reptilian, possibly avian content.

While at the lame club, that blonde vampiress sees the strawberry blonde’s tendency towards pick-pocket activities and strategically places some cash in eyesight and then does the “come hither, Imma lesbian with money” dance at her, which looks creepily like a seizure, but with more oral sex.

The strawberry blonde, being young and naive, takes the bait. Eventually winds up a vampire. (Serious side note: the transformation scene for this is one the best I’ve ever seen in the category of “beautiful turning into a vampire scenes”.)

Not Dinosaur Land, but a suitable alternative.

Being a vampire movie, the strawberry blonde isn’t exactly happy with this transformation, though she tries to hide it. Wants her human life back. Cries a lot. Blames Lestat for turning her. Changes Kirsten Dunst into a vampire, leaves the swamps of New Orleans, has dirty sex with Christian Slater. Dirty, dirty sex.

Shit, that was the summary of my latest fan-fic! Now the plot is spoiled!!

My grief at spoiling my upcoming novel aside, this movie goes exactly to where you think it will. However, while there’s more than a couple cliches come with the expected plot that are scattered through it’s scenes, the film itself done with a bit more pizzazz than we (I) have come to expect from the genre.

I actually enjoyed it (after the rough beginning, which was totally overdone), as it was something fun. The photography, while not amazing and epic, had more than one typically sees in a horror movie, which I have to appreciate, especially now with the nausea-inducing found-footage trend.

This movie does come with a warning, I will be honest. While there are lesbians, there’s no lesbian sex. I can’t actually remember seeing a single bare breast (not that I was manning the TitWatch 2012 campaign or anything). But there’s some dude junk, if you have a fear of dude junk.

Fears dude junk. (For which I am so, so glad. So. Glad.)

So, if you want to watch a movie that hits all the vampire cliches we’ve grown to expect (and if you can overcome your horror of dude junk), this is the film for you. Just ignore the incredibly shit dubbing and fire up Netflix.

When I was a kid Tim Burton was my favorite director. I didn’t know who he was but based on the fact that four of my favorite movies as a kid (Frankenweenie, Pee Wee’s Big Adventure, Beetlejuice and Batman) were all directed by him it’s obvious I was a fan of his style. Frankenweenie I caught on the Disney channel one day and I assumed it was an old film being that it was black & white. And now Burton is remaking the film in the stop-motion animation style he’s become known for.

The trailer looks great, full of the same energy and fun as the original. I find it funny that this film is being put out by Disney since the original Frankenweenie led to Burton being fired by Disney for ‘wasting company resources’ on something ‘too scary for kids’.

The fine people at Troma Entertainment have released a video of Lloyd Kaufman’s (as seen/heard on Geekscape and Saint Mort Show) failed addition to the It Gets Better movement. Proving once again that Troma does comedy better than anyone else they manage to satirize the It Gets Better Movement, make fun of Christian Bale’s T4 freak out  and say that Lloyd Kaufman is a celebrity. Enjoy!

I couldn’t be more excited for this movie. Piranha 3D was one of the best horror remakes in the last few years and definitely the best usage of 3D since that awful awful fad came back. This trailer is packed with everything we want to see. Double D’s, Ving Rhames, Piranha attacks during a sex scene and of course David Hasselhoff. There’s no way I’m missing this one in theaters.

According to recent box office records, The Woman In Black earned 14.5m GBP (~$23m) after holding the top spot for over three weeks. The recent records where:

02/11/2001 The Others £11,880,848

29/01/1993 Bram Stoker’s Dracula £11,548,429

20/01/1995 Interview With the Vampire £10,674,956

07/01/2000 Sleepy Hollow £10,047,381

09/04/2004 Shaun Of The Dead £6,692,683

01/11/2002 28 Days Later £6,296,734

11/05/2007 28 Weeks Later £5,350,158

What do you think? Is this all apart of the Potter magic or is the little wizard growing up into a robust actor?

Greetings Instant Watchers,

Every week movies appear and disappear on netflix instant watch. Nothing is more frustrating when a movie was there and the next day it’s gone when you were planning to watch it. We here at Geekscape want to make sure this stressful thing doesn’t occur to you! So here’s our recommendation of a movie to instant watch before it’s removed on Feb. 28th, 2012

THE GHOST AND MR. CHICKEN (1966)

In the 50’s and 60’s Don Knotts was a big name in comedy. One of his finest films was this horror/comedy. In it Knotts plays Luther Heggs (aka Mr. Chicken), a wanna-be journalist who is hired to cover the mystery of the town’s haunted house. The film was written and directed by Alan Rafkin, Jim Fritzell and Everett Greenbaum (all who worked on The Andy Griffin Show). If you’ve only known Don Knotts as that guy who turns into a cartoon fish in a weird WWII kids movie or the inspiration for the principal on Doug, then you should check out this movie and see why he’s a comedy legend.

Also leaving Instant Watch this week:

Feb. 28th: Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time, Bedazzled (1967), The Lady Eve, Valley of the Dolls, The Reluctant Astronaut, Thirtysome 

Feb. 29th: Toy Story 3, Tron: Legacy, Let Me In

I’ve been tapering off on my enjoyment of found footage videos. I was never that impressed with The Blair Witch Project and Paranormal Activity 3 really fell flat. I’m over it, you know?

That bitching, fortunately, has little to do with the 2007 film, Death of a Ghost Hunter. I just felt like starting this article with a complaint. A second complaint? Why the hell is my neighbor’s fire alarm going off? Take out the damn battery already!

Death of a Ghost Hunter was this little movie made by another one of those incestuous bubbles of people that seem to form in the film business. This particular bubbly set circles around such titles as: The Frankenstein Syndrome, The Great American Snuff Film, and The Greatest American Snuff Film. (I think those last two might be related.)

I thought I'd open with a nice ass-shot. Because I'm tasteless.

The actors in it are unmentionable at the moment– no one that anyone would recognize unless they’re somehow obsessed with the great or the greatest american fictional snuff films, so instead I’m going to take this time to thank my neighbor for finally removing his smoke detector’s battery. Thank y– fuck. False alarm. (Har.)

Away from that high-pitched beeping and into the film, Death of a Ghost Hunter opens as being based on true events. The highly broken up opening crawl reads:

In 1982, Minister Joseph Masterson and his family were murdered inside their home.

(insert crazy footage here of slaughter involving a Colonel Mustard in the library with the candlestick)

“Ghost Hunting” is the process in which paranormal investigators use modern technology to obtain tangible evidence regarding the existence of life after death.

In 2002, renowned ghost hunter Carter Simms, was offered $5,000 to perform a paranormal investigation on the Masterson House.

Her investigation stands as the single most tragic paranormal inquiry in American history.

It ended with her death.

This film is based on the journal entries she made during her investigation.

When I first started watching this movie, I assumed that there was some basis of fact that inspired a weird story. That was quickly dashed when I saw the name “Carter Simms”. No one names their little girl “Carter Simms”. (Found-footage screenwriters take note: don’t do shit like this.)

Ghost Hunter Detective Alucard Phantom Carter Simms-Holmes.

During the whole textual introduction, we get to watch Ms. Simms drive out to Arizona, engage with one of the remaining Mastersons, all while doing the most unbelieveable, “I’m-reading-this-from-a-script”, voice-over I may have ever heard.

From the incredibly shoddy voice over, we learn that, after witnessing an unexplainable event, Seth Masterson has not only hired Carter to examine the house, but also has brought on a journalist and a video technician to record her experiences. Carter isn’t happy about the potential interference, but she accepts that he is the client and he is going to be
paying her a chunk of money for three days of work.

Is this thing on? What?? OH HAI GUYZ!

The next day, Carter goes into the house and begins to walk through the place. While exploring she (and us, of course) gets the crap scared out of her by the tactless and slightly nerdy video technician, Colin. Shortly after, sassy and street-wise Yvette shows up on the scene, waggling her finger. (Being sassy and street-wise means she’s going to die first, by the way.)

You would think, much like Carter did, that we’d have our whole crew for the movie by this point but, much like Carter, you’d be wrong. The waif-like Mary Young knocks on the door and introduces herself as the spiritual advocate for the Masterson family, there to stand guard on their reputation as good Christians.

Mary Young Creepersmith

This is the part where I’d pull out some sort of weapon and bean her in the skull simply for being creepy, but no one in the movie seems to have my epic foresight.

After (poorly acted) introductions are made, our four-person crew starts their sleep-over party with Carter “Mood-Killer” Simms recounting the details of the Masterson murders from the police report and uncomfortably segues into Colin recording Carter as she wanders around the house attempting to take temperature readings.

When they arrive in the master bedroom, where Mr. Masterson had his throat slit, the temperature suddenly drops and everyone panics and bolts back to Command Center (AKA: the dining room) where, eventually, one of the chairs moves (making everyone panic again).

Look at that woodwork!

Two more nights with increasing paranormal activity (har har) take place and result in the culmination of this movie… which I rather enjoyed.

Parts of this movie actually surprised me, as it strayed just far enough from the usual formulaic presentation that we’ve all gotten so used to. I will admit that, about ten minutes in, I was about to switch movies. I didn’t want to watch a bunch of poorly acted crap. But I stayed with it and, yes, while the acting occasionally knocked me out of the movie, I’m
glad I stuck around.

Yvette "Oh-no-she-didn't!" Sandoval

Do I think it could have been done better, with a bigger budget and better actors? Yes, of course it could– and it would have been amazing. But the people who helped put this movie together and, yes, after a very shaky start created something pretty damn neat.

I definitely suggest putting this movie in your Netflix Instant Queue for future scary-movie-night viewing– just be prepared to wade through the first ten minutes.  Also, neighbor, thanks for finally taking care of your wailing smoke detector.  I’m now less likely to make attempts on your life.

 

Bryans Singer and Fuller To Bring Back Star Trek To TV?

I’ve mentioned in this column before a few times in recent weeks how writer/producers Bryan Fuller and Bryan Singer are working on a Munsters reboot for NBC, now re-titled Mockingbird Lane. But these two might have more than just the Munsters in mind for television, and in fact are hoping to possibly collaborate on a new television incarnation of Star Trek in the near future.

Both Singer and Fuller are huge Trekkers; Singer even has a cameo in Star Trek: Nemesis as a random helmsman, and before producing cult series Pushing Daisies and Dead Like Me, Fuller got his start as a young staff writer on Voyager and Deep Space Nine. In late 2005, after Star Trek:Enterprise was cancelled, ending an eighteen year run of non stop Trek on television, Singer had his longtime friend and fellow writer/director Robert Meyer Burnett come up with a detailed pitch for Paramount for a new Trek show called Star Trek: Federation. Federation was set in the year 3000 to a vastly changed and declining United Federation of Planets. Singer and Burnett’s  proposal took into account how television storytelling had changed since the glory days of The Next Generation, something that Enterprise ultimately failed at. When Paramount decided to let the franchise rest on television for a while and reboot the series on the big screen instead with JJ Abrams’ film, Singer dropped pursuing his pitch. However, it’s been seven years since all that…could Singer and new colleague Fuller be reviving this idea?

My personal opinion is that while Singer and Burnett’s pitch for Federation is exactly what the franchise needs for television…now is probably not the time to do it. The movie franchise was only recently re-launched, and the first sequel does not arrive till next year. I say Let JJ Abrams and crew wrap their new Trek trilogy, and then maybe in say, 2016 (the 50th Anniversary of Star Trek) they could bring back the series to television and people would welcome it back with open arms after such a long absence.  The world of television is in major flux right now anyway, with the cost of shows growing and the viewership shrinking, and Netflix and the like becoming a new venue for showcasing new television series. Waiting a bit longer allows for the dust to settle in the television world AND whets the appetite for more television Star Trek among the general public.

 

Jessica Lange Returns To American Horror Story


Something else I mentioned in this column a few weeks back was the news that FX’s new hit series American Horror Story would effectively reboot every season, with a new haunted location and a new cast of characters and actors each time. But series producers Ryan Murphy and Brad Falchuk have made at least one concession about returning former cast members, as Jessica Lange is confirmed as returning for the second season.  

Jessica Lange was easily the show’s most valuable player, as her acting elevated the show’s sometimes cheestastic and over the top craziness to something resembling really good Grand Guignol theater. American Horror Story also got Lange a much deserved Golden Globe recently, and it would be foolish of the producers not to capitalize on Lange’s talent and buzz for as long as possible. Not much else is known yet about season two of the show, which isn’t set to debut until October. But FX released one promo image for the second season this week, which seemingly suggests not a haunted house, but a haunted hospital instead. I guess we’ll all find out just what location is haunted, as well as what other cast members will be returning, when the show comes back in the Fall.

 

Anne Rice’s Lestat Might Return To The Big Screen

For the last few years, as the vampire trend has spread through Hollywood like wildfire (or herpes) there has been one very noticeable omission: The Vampire Lestat, and all the other undead denizens of Anne Rice’s Vampire Chronicles series of novels.  But it looks like that might change very soon, as Ron Howard’s Imagine Entertainment has bought the rights to Anne Rice’s fourth Vampire novel The Tale of the Body Thief. Author Anne Rice announced the news on her Facebook page this week that Imagine has acquired the rights to Body Thief, and hired writer Lee Patterson, who wrote a well-regarded screenplay titled Snatched, to write the script. Producing with Imagine are Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci, the writer-producers behind  FringeStar Trek and Transformers. Say what you will about this particular writing duo, but just about everything they work on eventually gets greenlit.

While it might seems strange to effectively reboot a film series using book number four in the cycle, Tale of the Body Thief is more or less a stand alone story that only really references characters and events from the first novel Interview with the Vampire, which was already successfully made into a movie. In the novel, Lestat is killing serial killers in Miami (kind of like a vampiric version of the television series Dexter) and grows bored of existence and tries to end his life, only to find that he can’t actually die. When approached by a mortal psychic who claims he can switch bodies for a brief time and Lestat can gain his mortality back, Lestat jumps at the chance, even when the titular body thief makes off with his powerful body and he has to track him down and get it back.


Unlike the two previous installments in the Vampire Chronicles, The Vampire Lestat and The Queen of the Damned, which both have a huge cast of characters and move around in time a lot, Body Thief is a pretty linearly straight forward story that would be far easier to make into a two hour movie than the previous two books in the series. I still maintain that the first three books of the series would make for a great cable series though. Please, someone in Hollywood get on that soon.

Buffy Makes A Controversial Choice, Gets Headlines In The Process

And  while we are on the subject of vampires, arguably the most famous vampire slayer of all time, Buffy Summers, made media headlines this week for probably the most unlikeliest of reasons. SPOILERS for Buffy from here on out folks- In Joss Whedon’s current comic book continuation of the series for Dark Horse Comics (Season 9 to be precise) Buffy has found out she is pregnant. In this past week’s issue, Buffy mulls over her options about what to do with her pregnancy, and ultimately decides to get an abortion.  It isn’t a decision Buffy comes to lightly, and it is handled extremely well by writer Andrew Chambliss and series creator Whedon.


Of course, just because Buffy is planning on getting an abortion doesn’t mean she’ll be successful at it though. The character of Buffy seems convinced the father is any number of men she could have had sex with (but conveniently doesn’t remember) back in a raging house warming party in issue #1 of Season 9. However (again-SPOILERS) I would be genuinely shocked if the father of the baby is anyone other than long time vampire love Angel, whom Buffy had sex with at the end of Season 8 while both characters were in this mystical God-like state (don’t ask) Yes, those events were supposed to take place a good six months prior to the where the comic storylines take place now, but who is to say how long mystical pregnancies are supposed to last? And do you really think Joss Whedon would have the father of Buffy’s baby be some new character the readers have little emotional investment in, or have the father be none other than Buffy’s greatest lover/enemy?

Of course, if this really does end up being just  “A very special episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer” where she gets an abortion and just has to deal with the consequences in a real life kinda way, then the father just might be a nobody. BUT…if indeed the baby can’t be aborted somehow and she is forced to have it, then I stick to my theory that the father is none other than Angel. If I’m right, then you heard it here first fellow geeks.

DC To Launch Smallville Season 11 In Comic Book Form

Taking a cue from Dark Horse Comics’ previously mentioned continuation of the Buffy the Vampire Slayer tv series, DC Comics is looking to continue the long running (ten frickin’ seasons) television series Smallville with a comic book version of Season 11. The Smallville television series ended with the Tom Welling version of Clark Kent finally wearing the cape and tights of Superman, making some longtime rabid fans of the series really happy. Seriously, just watch this one fan watch the Smallville series finale around the five minute mark-I’ve never had an orgasm this intense. 

Although previously rumored to be a series of prose novels, DC Comics have officially announced a “Smallville Season 11” comic book series this past week, which will be published digitally beginning April 13 with a new issue every week. The series will also be collected in print beginning in May. Series scribe will be Bryan Q. Miller, a former writer and story editor from the TV series, as well as former writer of the Stephanie Brown version of Batgirl which ended last year before the big DC reboot. The current plan is to pick up some six months from where the show left off, with Clark finally embracing his role as a public super hero. As part of the press release, Miller said “I couldn’t be more excited to help give seasoned viewers and new readers an all-access pass to Clark’s first year in the cape.

Smallville is certainly the most popular version of Superman in the media since the Christopher Reeve version, so continuing that version of the character seems like a no-brainer to me. My question is-which of the new DC 52 Earths is “Earth-Smallville?” And will Supes ever wear the red shorts or not? Because ya know, I find that I kinda miss those.


 

The following review may contain Spoilers! Be warned! That’s how we roll here!

“April is the cruelest month”…or so the saying goes. Well, for movie geeks, that may be truer than for anyone else. January through April is the doldrums of the film release calendar, with few exceptions. It’s pretty much the dumping ground for movies that weren’t good enough to get released in the higher profile Holiday frame of the previous year. April is the worst though, because you are just a few short weeks away from May, when all the big genre blockbusters that you’re actually looking forward to come out. But it’s possible that the month of April has hit a new low with the release of the latest in what seems like a never ending string of horror remakes: Prom Night.

Now, I’m not totally against remakes. Some of the greatest horror flicks of all time are remakes; like John Carpenter’s The Thing and David Cronenberg’s The Fly. But let’s face it; those are the exceptions to the rule. Most of the time we are stuck with uninspired garbage made for no other reason than to cash in on name recognition. And in the last few years, it’s only gotten worse.

In a way though, a movie like Prom Night is the best example of a movie that should be remade, because frankly, the original isn’t very good. In theory, you have nowhere to go but up. I can’t say I really remember the original movie all that much, but I do remember the experience: a friend and I rented the movie and watched it instead of going to our actual senior prom, and probably fantasized that the unfortunate victims in it were some of our own classmates that we didn’t like. The plot had something to do with a bunch of kids bullying some little girl till she dies accidentally, and years later her brother getting revenge by killing them all off on the night of senior prom. This was made during Jamie Lee Curtis’ post Halloween career plan of starring in shittier knock-offs of the role that made her famous (this same career tactic would later make a star out of Julia Roberts). Other than the very basic premise of kids getting knocked off at the prom, the 1980 and 2008 versions of Prom Night only share the name in common.

Prom Night 2008 is an excruciating exercise in unoriginality. A true oxymoron, this may be the first PG-13 Slasher movie ever. The original film at LEAST had a mildly engaging “who’s really the killer?” plot and, like any exploitation movie worth it’s name, it had plenty of over the top blood and gore. This new version didn’t deliver either of the two.

We are introduced to Donna (Brittany Snow, who looks a lot like a pre-coke whore Tara Reid), a high school senior who has her entire family killed by an obsessed former teacher who was previously stalking her. Unlike the horror films of yore, Prom Night 2008 removes the masked killer and replaces him with something that scares young girls today far, far more in our To Catch A Predator world: The Creepy Older Guy. Cut to three years later, our blonde and personality-less heroine and her equally pretty and vapid friends and boyfriend are getting ready to celebrate their senior prom in style. Of course, crazy stalker killer guy escapes from the loony bin just in time to ruin everyone’s night of underage drinking and sex.

The rest of the movie is essentially oodles of horrible and pointless dialogue from our teen victims. This all happens while our killer patiently waits in their hotel room for each of the kids to come back up for one stupid reason or another. He then disgraces the genre itself by disposing of them in the most boring and bloodless way possible. He even offs a housekeeper and a hotel employee for no other reason than to add to the body count. The killings in this movie were so tame they could have easily been in some Lifetime TV movie starring a side character from One Tree Hill and it would have been exactly the same.

As bad as this movie is, I won’t lie and say it wasn’t sort of fun to watch at certain points – in a Mystery Science Theater 3000 way, of course. This enjoyment was only magnified by the fact that I watched the movie in an urban theater with a gaggle of teenagers whom apparently had never seen a horror flick in their entire lives – judging by the screams that came after every clichéd scare moment that could have possibly been squeeze into this poorly written script. The audience’s clueless reactions were far more entertaining than the actual movie.

I think the fact that this movie actually managed to scare ANYONE was actually far more frightening than anything that was onscreen. Prom Night is 90 minutes that feels more like 3 hours, so do yourself a favor and skip it and wait along with the rest of us for American horror to actually get good again. It’s bound to happen eventually.