One Missed Call (2008)

i watched the american remake of one missed call this week, and i’m a little scared to share my feelings on it. from the get-go, this film had the cards stacked against it. the cast is largely unremarkable and the director has done nothing you’re likely to have seen. more importantly, one missed call is yet another j-horror american remake… and frankly, even people who loved the ring and the grudge (like me) are getting a little sick of these things. furthermore, the original version of one missed call was directed by takishi miike, which sets some pretty high expectations for anyone trying to redo it. perhaps most tellingly, this remake was rushed through production and quickly dumped rather unceremoniously into theaters which shows that the studio had little faith in it.

add all of that together and you’re almost guaranteed to get a box office flop that’s largely ignored by audiences and universally panned by critics. and that’s exactly what happened. with a truly stunning 0% rottentomatoes rating, it seems that all the signs were correct and this is one crappy movie. to put that rottentomatoes score into perspective… both fear dot com and uwe boll’s the house of the dead managed a respectable 4% rating, while my personal favorite for worst film of all time, alone in the dark (also from boll), scored 1%.

that means that, at least from a critical point of view, one missed call is somewhere between four and infinite times worse than fear dot com… wow.

which brings me to the point where i’m a bit ashamed to share my personal opinion on this film. at the risk of losing the respect of horror fans everywhere, i have to stay… i kind of liked it. it’s not that i disagree with any of the chief complaints i’ve seen raised against the film. the acting is mediocre at best, the plot is illogical and often self-contradictory and the writing takes what was an amazingly clear storyline in the original film (particularly for a j-horror piece) and makes such a muddled mess of it that the big twist at the end is basically incomprehensible unless you’ve seen the source material. for example, it’s clearly established throughout the film that the ghost can only kill those that it calls and leaves ominous cell phone messages for… then what are we to make of a scene where the ghost kills a cat? did fluffy have his own cell phone? that and several other scenes serve no purpose other than to create cheap scares, often at the expense of the narrative. which brings me back to why i liked it…

structurally, the film may be a mess and i’m a little irritated that portions of the original that i really liked (in particular, the ring tone and the ending) are handled so poorly… but i have to say that the movie is entertaining. the whole piece has a very creepy mood that i quite enjoyed and most of the scares really worked for me. i’ve always enjoyed those scares where a character is looking at a backdrop of normalcy and then sees one little thing is really off (like a passerby has a demonic, distorted face) and no else notices it (e.g., jacob’s ladder or the eight or ten seconds of the exorcism of emily rose worth watching — see super-creepy animated gif here). this film is filled with moments like that, and almost every one of them got me. i’ve learned that different things scare different people and it’s a little unfair to call a horror film bad just because it didn’t scare you — some people don’t understand what the big deal is about a dark-haired girl with bad posture, but for other people the ring made them spend the night hiding in the dryer. one missed call is not a good film… but i found it atmospheric and creepy enough that i thoroughly enjoyed watching it. i would recommend it to fans of the original series, people with a moderate-to-high tolerance for j-horror nonsense or those that just don’t feel like thinking too hard for an hour and a half.

REC

it’s a bit shocking that its taken hollywood almost a full decade to successfully rip-off the highly effective ‘found footage’ structure from the blair witch project, but that seems to be the case. the long wait for more nausea-inducing shaky-cam footage is over though, as this year gives us both cloverfield (rowr!) and the upcoming quarantine. the latter is the american remake of the spanish film rec, a blair witch-esque take on zombies. quarantine is a bit strange in that it’s the only remake i know of that was already planned before the original film had even been released. i don’t know if quarantine will be any good, but i do think it’s kind of sad that most american horror fans won’t be exposed to rec simply because it has subtitles. i have heard that the trailers for quarantine blatantly give away the ending to rec, so i have avoided watching them thus far…

i imagine rec will eventually find its way to a region 1 dvd release, but in the meantime the best way to see it is to either a) live in a different country or b) peruse the back alleys and darker corners of the interwebs and find a bootleg. i won’t tell you which of these options i chose, however i have now successfully viewed rec in its entirety, and i have to say that i’m fairly impressed. i don’t know that it’s the scariest movie ever (as many bloggers have claimed) but it’s entertaining and inventive, particularly for such a low budget film. these shaky-cam, first-person horror films are most effective in a theater surrounded by a screaming audience… so this may explain why i wasn’t as completely blown away as some (similar to the way many found blair witch rather dull when watched on dvd, while i found it terrifying opening night in a sold-out screening). however, regardless of how you see it, it is an unsettling and effective picture with engaging characters and an interesting story that unfolds at a quick, steady pace. ultimately for me, though, it didn’t fully live up to the expectations set by the trailer (see below).

i’m interested to hear other’s thoughts that have seen it. i loved the final scene which utterly creeped me out, but i couldn’t stop thinking about one minor scene early on that bugged me because it broke the rules of the “found footage” framework. it’s a little hard to describe, but for those that have seen cloverfield… do you remember right after the statue of liberty scene where they decide to rewind the tape and rewatch what had been recorded? what happened from the audience viewpoint is the tape stops then restarts with the people discussing their reviewing of the footage. a similar scene occurs in rec… but what you see is the movie actually rewind and replay itself so that the characters in the film can rewatch it. from a “we’re actually watching the video tape recovered from the camera” point of view, that makes no sense. however, that’s a minor complaint and likely something i should have just ignored given i’d already suspended my disbelief enough to accept, without question, the existence of the living dead.

The Cook (2008)

Jon’s Thoughts…

The Cook (2008)

April is National Poetry Month and I was planning to celebrate it by posting another round of Haiku Reviews. But I’ve decided against that for a couple of reasons. First, I just discovered the really terrific 353 Haiku Movie Review, a site dedicated entirely to the fine art of Haiku Movie Reviews. Since there’s already a site devoted to the most well-known of Japanese poetry styles, I’ve decided to explore some other possibilities for poetry reviews. In the near future, expect to see reviews of new and classic horror films in the form of sestinas, villanelles, Anglo-Saxon riddles, rounds, rondelles, odes, cantos, Petrarchan and Shakespearean sonnets, couplets, limericks, ballads, blank verse, and other forms of poetic expression.

So, to kick off my new series, I offer the following Pantoum Review of the recently released slasher The Cook. It’s about—no surprises here—a cook who shows up at at a college sorority house and goes to work as much more than a mere cook. As he chops up one college vixen after another and serves them as dinner, the film develops a strong gross-out factor. The special effects are pretty standard and the film borrows heavily from classic slashers such as Sorority House Massacre and Slumber Party Massacre, while featuring all the clichés you’d expect from a film of this sort. The characters are all caricatures of the college nerd, the sorority tease, the straight-laced bookworm, and so on. However, the cook, brilliantly played by Mark Hengst, brings some unusual and quirky traits to the role of slasher. For example, he has no motivation at all. There’s no back story explaining that he was once spurned by an uptight college girl. He’s simply bonkers. Much of his performance relies on physical comedy, as he has relatively few lines because he’s impersonating a Hungarian who speaks little English. But he gets a lot of mileage out of repeating the phrase “ok.” He’s incredibly fun to watch on screen and I think he’s got a great career ahead of him. The Cook will probably never go down in history as even a cult classic, but slasher fans should check it out, if for no other reason than Hengst’s performance.


The pantoum is a form that first became popular in France in the mid-eighteenth century, but it originates from the South Pacific. The form is simple enough: the first and third lines of the initial quatrain become the first and third of the next. The stanzas follow an ABAB rhyme pattern, and the poem concludes with the very first line. The repetition seems a perfect homage to a film that recycles so much material from earlier slashers, and the form of the pantoum is as quirky and odd as The Cook itself.


A Pantoum Review of THE COOK (2008)

A fake Hungarian arrives on campus to work as a cook.
He kills sorority girls by slicing, dicing, and making sauté.
He offers no reason or motivation from his little phrase book.
The cook’s knife does the talking. His only line in English is “Ok!”

He kills sorority girls by slicing, dicing, and making sauté,
while the only other guy in the film, a hopeless nerd, tries to get laid.
The cook’s knife does the talking. His only line in English is “Ok!”
But the nerd never stops talking, even when he’s afraid.

While the only other guy in the film, a hopeless nerd, tries to get laid,
the sisters are all killed: the bookworm, the tease, the ditz, and the prude.
The nerd never stops talking, even when he’s afraid.
In fact, all the characters are clichés, and they all become food.

The sisters are all killed: the bookworm, the tease, the ditz, and the prude,
even the one who was friendly and pure and played by the book.
In fact, all the characters are clichés, and they all become food,
when a fake Hungarian arrives on campus to work as a cook.






corey’s thoughts…

typically i watch crappy slasher fare from my netflix queue late at night, alone, long after my fiancée has fallen asleep. if i had watched the cook under such conditions, i doubt i’d be writing about it right now as it is not a particularly good movie. however, some films can benefit greatly from the conditions under which they are watched… and the cook is one of those. i watched it with jon (via skype) and was already a couple of drinks into the evening when we started it. those circumstances led to a situation where the cook‘s flaws were minimized and its strengths greatly magnified.

the cook is not well written, acted or directed and is horribly unoriginal. this is a typical straight-to-video horror/comedy slasher with walking stereotypes as characters and no scares. however, the film does have two huge pluses going for it — it’s obvious the filmmakers love the genre and the actor portraying the villain is absolutely brilliant. in regards to the former, all too commonly first-time horror directors make nods and winks to other horror films in a way that is simply annoying (e.g., naming your lead character ‘romero’ or something). the cook references other films, but always cleverly and, more importantly, its obvious in every frame of the film that the people producing it enjoyed every second of working on the cook. that’s not always enough to make a bad script watchable, but in this case it is.

propelling the cook from just ‘watchable’ to ‘fabulously entertaining’ is the performance from the actor playing the title character. mark hengst plays the cook with such zest and enjoyment, it’s not possible to watch it without laughing. so few slasher villains are actually portrayed as ‘crazy.’ michael and jason are mutes and robotic in their movements… freddy may be evil, but he’s clearly rational. the cook is a raving lunatic who can’t be reasoned with… not because he’s an unfeeling killing machine, but because he’s completely off his nut (see my short compilation video below).

i wholeheartedly recommend the cook to any slasher fan, although i would suggest you watch it with a friend or two who are likely to enjoy such a ridiculous, over-the-top film. and please, please… keep watching through the credits to see some outtakes that are actually worth waiting for.

Corey and Jon on Near Dark (1987)

this post was written for the final girl film club… read a lot more about near dark there.


corey’s thoughts…

released just weeks apart, near dark and the lost boys are my two favorite vampire films. 1987 was a fantastic year for bloodsuckers. it had never occurred to me until i began writing this post, but the films are remarkably similar. in terms of plot, they are nearly identical.

a naive young man is seduced by a beautiful woman and unwillingly turned into a vampire. the man struggles with what he is becoming versus what he was, as well as deciding between his new nocturnal family and his original one. ultimately, humanity wins out and our hero kills everyone in the girl’s family (except for her) and finds a way to cure vampirism, saving the day and winning the girl.

structurally they may be similar, but their tones are very different. near dark is far more serious and introspective than the goofy antics present in the lost boys. their treatment of vampire mythology also differs greatly, with near dark essentially writing its own rules as opposed to the highly traditional treatment of vampires in the lost boys.

some may prefer the light tone and mystical attributes of the antagonists in the lost boys, while others may be partial to the darker tone and more biologically based villains of near dark. personally, i’m not entirely sure which i prefer, as i love them both. luckily though, these are not the dark ages and, using the scientific method, we may be able to objectively determine which is the greater of the two. below i will compare/contrast near dark and the lost boys on several important aspects. at the end, we shall tally up the scores and determine which is truly deserving of the title “the greatest vampire film ever made.”

caleb
michael

hero

the hero is an important part of any monster story, as he/she usually represents the viewpoint of the audience. here we have michael and caleb, who look remarkably alike. michael takes more to his newly found vampiric abilities and actually ends up using them to defeat his adversaries. caleb rarely uses his vampire strengths at all, instead just vomiting a lot. however, caleb does defeat a whole family of vampires without any special abilities at all, using only his cunning and horseback riding/truck driving abilities. caleb is mostly pro-active and deals with a strange situation as best he can while michael spends most of his screen time whining, running doe-eyed after the girl and arguing with his younger brother. a close call, but i’d have to give this one to caleb, despite the fact he essentially starts the movie off as a date rapist.

winner: near dark

mae
star

love interest

neither mae nor star are a particularly strong character. they both are there simply to serve as first the seductress and later the damsel in distress. both have tendencies to ramble on about nothing and occasionally sound insane. mae, however, seems a little more knowledgeable, stands up for caleb quite a bit and actually pushes the story forward. she also works the short, blond hair better than most, so i’ll give this one to her.

winner: near dark

severen
david

apprentice villain

while neither david nor severen are the true ‘head’ of their respective vampire families, they are the most colorful and active villains. keifer sutherland is incredibly intimidating as david, and despite a bad haircut manages to be cool as all hell. severen has the best dialogue from either film (“first, you’re gonna give me back my spur, then i’m gonna knock your tonsils out your asshole. what do you think of them apples?”) and plays the charismatic psycho so well, i consider this bill paxton’s finest role. this one is too close to call…

winner: tie

jesse
max

master villain

max isn’t revealed to be the head vampire until the last act of the film, but he’s entertaining thoughout the entire picture as the bumbling suitor to michael’s mother, making his turn to the dark side even more shocking. jesse is known to be the leader throughout all of near dark, and seems to do a pretty good job of it (except for a few odd calls to launch large attacks very close to dawn). max is never terribly threatening while jesse is almost as cool as severen from the get-go… plus jesse can spit out bullets, is barely phased by a knife in the mouth and gets to say things like “you’re not gonna look so good… with your face ripped off.” i gotta say jesse wins this one by a landslide.

winner: near dark

homer
laddie

child vampire

it’s never stated exactly how old homer is, but we know he’s an adult trapped in a child’s body. he still reverts to child-like behaviors occasionally (e.g., running to diamondback when he realizes the sun has risen and they’re trapped), but for the most part he’s quite the bad-ass, shooting and killing alongside everyone else. as for laddie… does anyone remember him at all? except for the “it’s the attack of eddie munster!” scene near the finale, he seems to have nothing to do in the lost boys. this one goes to homer, all the way.

winner: near dark

fashion

both families of vampires have nailed the white trash vampire look, but in slightly different ways. near dark goes more towards the redneck side of things with cowboy hats, spurs and civil war era jackets. the lost boys are more punk, with their excessive jewlerly and leather outfits. it’s a close call, but i have to side on the lost boys here… david’s black coat is just too cool for school.

winner: the lost boys

hair

this one is a no-brainer. jesse and the gang seem completely unaware of what conditioner is while the lost boys obviously spend hours each day taking care of their 80s hair band perms and carefully gelled spikes and curls.

winner: the lost boys

abilities

the vampires of near dark don’t seem to have a whole lot of the perks normally associated with their condition. sure they’re super strong, immortal and heal quickly from almost any wound… but the lost boys have all that and a bag of chips. they can fly, sorta turn into bats and, of course, have retractable fangs. no contest here…

winner: the lost boys

vulnerability

while the near dark gang might not get all the bells and whistles of vampirism, they also don’t receive most of the drawbacks associated with becoming a creature of the night. they’re vulnerable to daylight and exploding trucks it seems, but religious artifacts/wood don’t do diddly. the lost boys, on the other hand, can be taken down with a water gun or an antler through the chest.

winner: near dark

cure

if you’re going to turn your hero into a monster, you need a feasible way to revert them back to normal before the credits roll. in the lost boys this involves killing the “head” vampire, which reverts everyone below him back to normal. in near dark the easiest way to rid yourself of being undead is a blood transfusion. neither of these really seem to naturally follow from what we know of the creatures, and both seem a little silly… however, watching max get nailed by giant stakes thrown off a truck is far more fun to watch than a veterinarian performing a blood transfusion — so the lost boys wins.

winner: the lost boys

kathryn bigelow
joel schumacher

director

other than point break, kathryn bigelow hasn’t given us a whole lot beyond writing/directing near dark… however, she is in no way responsible for batman & robin — so she wins by default.

winner: near dark

number of coreys

even if i didn’t share the name, i think any film benefits from having one of the coreys in it. the fact that the lost boys features both of them while near dark lacks any coreys at all… well, the lost boys win in a shut out performance.

winner: the lost boys

number of creepy, oily, half-naked saxophone players

one thing i’ve always remembered from the lost boys is the bizarre performance of the enthusiastic, lip-syncing naked guy playing saxophone at the opening of the film. i know this was the 80s, but i remember the 80s, and this was not the kind of thing the young kids found entertaining. when assessing the final number of dancing, greasy nude saxophone players that should be in your movie… the answer should always be ‘zero.’ so near dark wins this one without contest.

winner: near dark

by my math, that means that near dark narrowly edges out the lost boys, 6-5. i had always suspected that near dark was slightly better, but had never put it through the rigors of an objective comparison before. thusly, it is with the certainty that only science can give us that i claim the following:

near dark is the greatest vampire film EVAR.







Jon’s Thoughts…

Long before Anne Rice turned vampires into foppish French aristocrats or moody, goth-glam crooners, 80s vampires were pure badass. Written and directed by Kathryn Bigelow, 1987’s Near Dark is as carefully cool as it is scary.

Near Dark was released the same year as The Lost Boys, which makes 1987 the best year ever for vampire films. Both films use the vampire myth to explore the allure of gangs, and all the sex, drugs, and rock-n-roll that presumably derive from that lifestyle. This was something of a national obsession in the just-say-no Reagan decade.

In Near Dark, Caleb Colton, a young and doe-eyed country bumpkin, meets Mae at his town’s local watering hole. Mae appears to be a cute, but down-on-her luck stranger. It’s the sort of combination that wholesome boys like Caleb find impossible to ignore. Of course, she’s not the naïf that she seems, and he soon finds out that he’s in over his head when he meets her rough-and-tumble family of violent outlaws, led by Jesse Hooker and his wife, Diamondback. And they’re all vampires, which makes them far more dangerous, and far more appealing. Young Caleb is soon on the road with them, much to the dismay of his straight-laced father, a ranch veterinarian, who, like any good cowboy, saddles up and gives chase.

It’s impossible to miss the morality tale implicit in the narrative of Near Dark. Can Caleb and his wholesome family rescue young Mae and save her from a violent, dysfunctional family? Of course they can, and with a little elbow grease, old-fashioned gumption, and a homemade blood transfusion machine, she’s as right as rain by the film’s end. The purity of the American heartland is a redemptive force. In fact, even though the subtext for Near Dark involves 80s drug and gang culture, the vampires in the film could be replaced with, say, Apaches and you’d have a Western nearly identical to John Ford’s The Searchers, in which a civil-war veteran spends years scouring the American southwest looking for his nieces after they’re kidnapped and eventually acculturated by Comanche Indians.

However, the strength of the American myth is not the real point of this film. The film’s heart belongs to the vampires, and no amount of 80s-style moralizing can drive a proverbial stake through it. For example, the film’s most memorable scene, by far, is Caleb’s barroom initiation into the vampire lifestyle. It’s the one scene that I most vividly remembered years after I saw Near Dark in 1987, and it’s the scene that still has the most resonance and appeal twenty years later. It’s a brilliant piece of filmmaking that is as subversive as it is just plain fun to watch.

Take, for instance, the vampires’ entrance into what Severen, the real badass of the family, calls “shit kicker heaven,” a roadhouse on the edge of town. Severen and his family are brazen and fearless, and there’s something thrilling about the way they storm into a bar so seedy the toilet seats are likely to give you hepatitis c and the patrons would ordinarily be the meanest sob’s in town. I suppose this is why young Caleb can’t seem to say no to their influence, and why audiences always find vampires so attractive as well. Sure, they symbolize a rock n’ roll fun, but more than that, they symbolize the kind of pure, unfettered libertine lifestyle that we all dream about from time to time. For instance, there’s just something irresistible about the “turn-the-tables-on-the-bar-thugs dynamic” at work in this scene. I find it hard not to enjoy the way Severen takes on the toughest looking dude in the bar by first spilling his drink, then spitting in his face.

If this weren’t enough, the bar scene is brilliantly punctuated by some really great rock-n-roll gems from the 80s. Severen and his family make their entrance to the tune of John Parr‘s power-chord anthem “Naughty, Naughty.” The song’s playful, albeit seedy, depiction of risqué and deviant sexual predation is perfect for this film. The song makes you want to dance, even if you just know you’re gonna feel really guilty about it later. The scene also includes the brilliant cover of Little Willie John’s “Fever” by The Cramps. With songs such as “I Was a Teenage Werewolf,” “The Creature From the Black Leather Lagoon,” and “The Surfing Dead,” the Cramps are no strangers to horror films. Their contribution to this scene gives it an appropriate mood of low-key, slithering cool that you know will soon turn downright ugly.

And it does turn ugly, which is partly what makes this scene to gripping and so subversive. In a grotesque parody of a sit-down family meal, Jessse, Razorback, Mae, and the man-child Homer, murder the waitress and then fill a beer mug with blood. Severen dances around the bar before brutally killing a patron and then the bartender with his sharpened spurs. Even little Homer does his part by shooting a victim in the back. When the killing spree ends, Mae slow dances with the last victim, an unfortunate yokel who’s been selected for Caleb’s first kill. This is perhaps the creepiest part of the entire scene. It’s part cheesy prom-night dance, part solemn ceremony for his impending human sacrifice. It’s an unexpected change of pace in a scene that consists of one unexpected reversal after another. The scene is deliberately cool, then barbarically violent, then somber.

At the end of this scene, Caleb fails his initiation. He simply can’t commit murder, and he eventually gives it all up to go back home to his wholesome family and farm. It’s the decent thing to do, and, of course, we all want him to do the decent thing. America’s heartland is saved from the vampires, just as every Western features the triumph of American civilization over savagery. In this one aspect, Near Dark departs from John Ford’s The Searchers. At its conclusion, John Wayne discovers to his horror and shame that his niece has no intention of being rescued. She’s not only a part of Comanche society, but also happily married, so he ultimately fails to bring her back home. It’s a thoroughly ambivalent conclusion that’s missing from Near Dark. Caleb escapes the savages. Still, I’ll wager that most of us who watch this film wish that Caleb could have stayed with Severen for at least a little while longer.

Trailers From Hell

i’ve recently become addicted to old movie trailers (e.g., the 42nd street forever dvd collections) and i found a site i thought i’d pass along. trailers from hell features old trailers with commentary by modern horror directors like john landis, edgar wright, eli roth, joe dante, and others. trailers can be viewed with or without the commentary, but hearing directors discuss the influence of these films is usually the most interesting part. the trailers themselves run the gamut from absolute classics (psycho, peeping tom, night of the living dead) to schlocky trash (squirm, creature from the haunted sea, exorcist 2). i haven’t seen them all, but i’ve included four that i particularly liked below… see the rest at trailersfromhell.com.


three on a meathook (eli roth)

suspiria (edgar wright)

psycho (john landis)

night of the living dead (george hickenlooper)

Fan Art Field Trip: Halloween

twice now we’ve gone on safari into the often bizarre but always fascinating world of slasher film fan art (see here and here). in the near future we’ll be looking into similar artistic endeavors related to an american werewolf in london, re-animator and others… but today it’s time to look at the character for whom this site is named, my favorite of the classic slashers — halloween‘s michael myers.



KILLERS at the BEACH
by ~ inkchocobo

starting off with a bang, here’s an unsurprising homo-erotic depiction of freddy, michael and jason enjoying some time off at the beach. the artist explains that freddy is flexing, michael was about to attack him until a dolphin bonked him and jason is left alone on the shore with a flower. some questions though… why does michael have a spear? why does jason have a flower? is that really the best beach background you could find? and, perhaps most importantly… why would someone be compelled to draw this?

Lets have a closer look..
by ~ Moesph

following a similar romantic theme is this rather unique idea of what a michael vs. jason film would be like. the artist explains his vision…

“michael’s burying his head into Jason’s manly boobs- er I mean pecs.

had nothing to do at my grandma’s.”



Halloween Michael Myers Mask
by ~ Nooperz

all too often the myers mask looks nonthreatening or just ‘off’ somehow (particularly after the first film). in this pencil sketch, it looks perfect.

Sleeping Myers. . .
by ~ Alptrauma

an interpretative, emotional and strangely beautiful rendering of michael…



Ghost Attempt – Michael Myers
by ~ thedemogorgon

what’s going on here, exactly? all i can figure is michael is looking for a christmas tree while marty mcfly is having trouble getting his mom and dad together at the ‘enchantment under the sea’ dance.

MicHael-myers—–
by ~ masterofstickmen

isn’t this just a screenshot from the film with the default settings on the photoshop texturizer filter?



Chibi Myers Desktop Wallpaper
by * darkravenofchaos

i have to admit it… that’s kinda adorable. this is one of my favorites.

Halloween
by ~ SarshelYam

a striking, simple and unique take on halloween. this is exactly the kind of thing i was hoping to find when i began looking into fan art for these posts. not and endless parade of ‘michael and jason making out,’ ‘michael as a sexy cat,’ ‘michael as a woman,’ etc..



FMJ -_-
by ~ MzMorgana

speaking of which… here’s how the artist describes this piece.

“ahhah.. This might be a bit weird. I dunno, I have this thing about drawing male chars I love as females.. It’s not very well done, I did it on a school lesson kinda fast.”

Snickers
by ~ pennyonthericher

michael in a dress. you may be asking, “why is a drawing of michael myers in a dress titled ‘snickers’?” well, the artist explains that’s because they found the snickers super bowl commercial really funny. makes perfect sense to me.



Michael Myers Dragon
by ~ RaptorBarry

this 14 year old artist is actually really pretty good. apparently this was requested, so one can’t really blame the artist for the subject matter… but that leaves me wondering for what purpose a person requests a picture of michael myers as a blue dragon wearing a purple shirt?

zomg
by ~ CannibalWeasel

you can’t make this kind of stuff up. yes, that’s michael myers as a skunk nuzzling up to a predator. the description of this piece is:

“Please… Don’t hurt me for this!!”



Trick… or Treat?
by * monroeart

did the world really need this? can’t you people just depict michael myers in a normal, healthy way — you know, like cutting up teenagers with a kitchen knife?

They say he hunts on Halloween
by * Kristehvampire

this is not only disturbing, but exemplifies really unsafe pumpkin carving technique.



JasonxMichael2 by MzMorgana
by ~ Hack-N-Slash-Club

the artist creepily critiques his own work in the description of this one…

What I like: See for yourself.
What I dislike: I don’t want michael to be feminine, and I don’t want Jason to be a perv.

Lethal Love
by ~ LasCamisasDeRayas

here we have the shape and annie wilkes (stephen king’s misery) married and expecting. john carpenter and rob reiner should hop on this idea quick…



Myers
by ~ Ztian

i know the shape doesn’t speak, but looking at this i can’t help but imagine him talking. take your fists and push on your cheeks from each side, towards your mouth so it’s all squooshy. now say ‘nom nom nom’ really loud… that’s kinda what i imagine him saying here.

Michael Ref. Sheet – UPDATE
by ~ data-7-panther-dude

sheesh… not another anatomically correct portrait of michael myers as a mixed-breed cat wearing gold earrings.



michael myers
by ~ fhghghjh

i chose this one just because the text made me laugh.

he’s come. and when he’s come… you die!

Michael vs. Elvis
by ~ evilchibiminion

one of my favorite of the ‘cute’ caricatures i’ve seen, i absolutely love how michael is depicted here in cartoon form. apparently this was drawn by request for a t-shirt, and again i’m left wondering what need someone had for this exact scenario be depicted visually. maybe something for a halloween and bubba ho-tep film festival?



Michael Myers .. I guess..
by * XxXAzucarXxX

this is what michael might look like if he showed up on the cartoon network. i like how fantastically mischievous he looks…

Rob Zombie’s Michael Myers
by ~ planedreamer

this reminds me of the scene where the guy gets nailed to the kitchen wall and michael looks at him puzzled, like he’s not quite sure why his toy stopped moving. here michael looks defeated, unsatisfied and a little sad, despite obviously having just killed. in a lot of ways, this is better than the remake that inspired it.



Horrorfest 2007

the after dark horrorfest (aka 8 films to die for) (aka that horror film festival you didn’t go see) has been running for two years now. each year eight independent horror films are released in theaters for a weekend before quickly going to dvd. the commercials claim every year, certain horror films are deemed too graphic, violent, and disturbing for general audiences…and these are those films. it’s smart marketing, but misleading for the most part. the film’s aren’t all that disturbing, nor are they always the neglected and hidden gems of horror lurking beneath the mainstream that you might be hoping for. however, love or hate the films, it’s still exciting that independent horror is getting some attention. i just finished going through this year’s offerings, which i’ve listed best to worst and ramble on about below.

a surprisingly good film, this is basically a manhattan version of 28 days later. with rat people. there’s lots of not-so-subtle political commentary here, all told through the gritty realism of the uber-shaky cam. new york looks fantastic, the characters are realistic and sympathetic and as silly as the phrase ‘rat people’ might sound, they’re actually pretty scary. unfortunately it seems that every entry into this film festival is legally obligated to ignore one or more of the fundamental aspects of good filmmaking… and in this case, it’s plot and editing. it’s often hard to tell just what the hell is going on due to the frantic editing and, more globally, it’s not always clear how one scene connects to another or what the bigger picture version of the storyline is. the characters and overall situation was so intriguing i was prepared to forgive a few instances of confusion… until the end. i’m all for ambiguous endings, but i hate endings that seem to be saying over-its-shoulder as it walks away from you “hey, wasn’t that awesome? what an amazing and coherent finish to a fabulous story, eh?” all the while leaving you scratching your head and screaming “hey, wait up! what the hell just happened?” i spent a little time online and could find no one that fully understood exactly what we’re to assume happens to the characters at the end. if you have some idea, please let me know. please.

15 minutes into nightmare man, i was regretting my purchase of all eight of these films. this was gonna suck. it’s setup that some bimbo is convinced there’s an african-mask wearing psycho in her dreams that’s trying to kill her. her oh-so-european husband is taking her up to the loony bin in the hopes someone can fix that little problem. they run out of gas and the husband tells his not-really-all-that-mentally-stable wife to stay in the car while he walks 10 miles to get gas. then an african-mask wearing psycho shows up for real and starts stalking her.

at this point, was convinced i would soon need to turn it off. the masked guy was not scary, the characters were ridiculous and i felt like a fool every second i continued to watch it because it seemed like a really, really lame episode of tales from the crypt. the plot seemed horribly predictable… of course the husband is stalking her (likely for insurance money)… and of course he’ll get his karma/morally-dictated gruesome fate by the end. and then something happened…

the wife ran to find safety in a house inhabited by a bunch of college kids playing ‘truth or dare.’ scantily clad women were suddenly running around all over the place, dropping usually amusingly bad dialogue and grabbing crossbows. some guy punched out the wife for raving about the ‘nightmare man’ trapped inside her. the whole film suddenly stole (rather unabashedly) the tone (and even specific shots) from the evil dead series; and while it’s hardly on the caliber of those films… it’d certainly become much more entertaining all of a sudden. the writing was actually more clever than i’d thought as numerous plot twists led to a conclusion far different than the one i’d predicted… and far more satisfying. the whole thing has a very campy 1980s night of the demons feel to it which is a difficult tone to get right, but which nightmare man largely succeeds at. reviews on this one are incredibly mixed, but i recommend it… although, to set the right mood, i might suggest you watch it with friends. and you ask your friends to bring alcohol.

this is one of the better entries this year. i mean, how bad can a movie be that features michael madsen as a fur coat wearing cannibal?

in the future oil has run out and the world sinks into chaos…etc. etc. a group of survivors are trying to start a new society in an abandoned hospital (lead by the annoyingly on-the-nose named dr. darwin) then michael madsen and vinnie jones show up with a bunch of their buddies and decide they want to eat dr. darwin and his friends. lots of running and hiding and axes to the head follow, leading to a rather anti-climatic showdown as the last of would-be-human-mcnuggets decides to fight back. despite several flaws, this is a decent, stylistic entry into the post-apocalyptic survival horror genre and worth checking out.

apart from a few moments in lake dead, this is the only film of the eight that one could really say has some disturbing things in it. based true events, it follows the basic blueprint of hostel and turistas as a group of naive americans get various body parts removed in a foreign country. rider strong (also seen in tooth and nail above) leads the cast… but the stand-out performance comes from former hobbit and goonie, sean astin. cashing in on the fact that seeing an actor we’ve grown up loving play a psycho is always disconcerting, samwise gamgee turns out to be one sick mofo.

the story is interesting and the violence is brutal… and while too much of it plays out like a television crime drama, overall it’s an effective, if somewhat derivative film. dvd features are plentiful, including a group commentary, behind the scenes featurette and short documentary on the story behind the film.

the deaths of ian stone is a quirky little film which has more in common with sci-fi action films such as the matrix and underworld than any horror film. the basic premise is simple, cool and ultimately doomed as you know nothing could ever explain it in a satisfying way.

ian stone is caught in a clive barker version of groundhog day. he keeps getting killed and then promptly wakes up in a new life… one day he’s a taxi driver, the next he’s a hockey player, the next a drug addict, etc. he keeps running into the same people though (who also inhabit new roles) and begins remembering pieces of earlier existences. oh, and there’s these wicked black-smoke-ghost-thingies chasing him around sometimes.

budget constraints and a “not-as-cool-as-the-matrix-or-dark-city” plot explanation keep this from being a really great film. style oozes off the screen (even if some of it is stolen from terry gilliam) and the acting is decent enough. the creature effects range from really impressive to pretty crappy (despite having stan winston involved), but this is the low-budget world after all. ultimately ian stone is just too ambitious for the resources the film had and suffers from the ultimate in lame endings — “you don’t need weapons, skill, or even luck to defeat giant, evil, soul-sucking, could-kill-you-with-their-pinky-finger monsters – all you need is love.”

lake dead is pretty bad. it starts off promisingly enough… some sisters inherit a motel and go to check it out (correct me if i’m wrong, but it’s the same set as in the unfortunately subtitled pumpkinhead 2: blood wings, without a bit of set dressing changed). unfortunately for the sisters and their accompanying suitors, the place is infested with inbred murderous rednecks.

there’s plenty of nudity, a couple of impressive and gruesome deaths, and at least one suspenseful scene… but all of that happens in the first half. the entire film is filled with boring dialogue and uninspired villains and, unfortunately, the last half of the movie is really just the latter spouting the former. while we’re discussing villains… these truly are the weakest slasher villains in recent memory. one is a obviously modeled on r. lee ermey ‘s character from texas chainsaw, but with all the menace and creepiness replaced with ineptitude and smarminess. then there are the redneck twins which look far more like geico cave-men (see here) than anything from the hills have eyes or wrong turn. the film may be worth seeing just to witness the worst final one-liner i’ve heard in a while.

just based on the premise, this was the film I was most excited about. everything about this film seemed to say “here be a groovy movie about people digging up a creepy-crawlie that kills interesting characters in fun and exciting ways before the most interesting of the characters figure out a fun and exciting way to burn/impale-on-a-stick/blow-up the creepy-crawlie. you know, like in tremors.” some of those elements are present in this film, but it neglects the most important of the adjectives (“interesting,” “fun,” and “exciting”) and instead replaces them with “stereotypical,” “predictable” and “boring.” emmanuelle vaugier does a decent job as the alcoholic sheriff despite having little to work with from the script and tom (aka mr. friendly) from lost pops up a few times… but generally, the characters are horribly generic and unremarkable. instead of focusing on the characters, humor or tension, the movie spends far too much time explaining the ridiculous and unnecessary back story of the monster, insulting the intelligence of anyone who’s taken 9th grade biology. even without the incredibly dumb origin story, the monster is little more than a poor imitation of giger’s alien (complete with a face-hugger-type removable appendage that seems to serve no purpose), redone in sci-fi channel quality cgi. particularly memorable is a not-so-special effect where a character does a triple back-flip when thrown back from an exploding building. i tried really hard to enjoy this movie… but the movie was surprisingly adamant that i dislike it.

holy moly, that’s an impressive poster. with a promising cast (frank whaley, gabrielle anwar, traci lords) and a poster reminiscent of hostel and the girl next door… i was expecting a lot from this. unfortunately, the poster is horribly misleading as this ended up being my least favorite of this year’s 8films2die4.

a bunch of childhood friends are brought together when an old friend dies (a la last year’s very memorable the gravedancers). a treasure map leads them to an abandoned barn which contains a trunk with a dead child in it. the rest of the film plays out in an abandoned building… and absolutely nothing happens. when the scariest thing in your movie is gabrielle anwar sucking her thumb… you need to rethink your horror movie.

stylistically, this is one of the strongest entries. the cinematography is beautiful and beckons back to the incredibly creepy session 9. unfortunately that’s where the comparisons end. this is the most exposition heavy horror film i’ve ever seen… and that’s in a film where a text crawl at the opening explains the entire plot twist of the movie. seriously… why would you give away the only mystery in your movie in the opening 2 minutes? i seem to recall there being a similarly ill-advised voice-over in the opening of dark city… but even it didn’t ruin the film as completely as this does.

this film desperately wants to be a creepy, atmospheric ghost story that relies on story instead of gore… unfortunately, the ghost isn’t remotely scary and the story isn’t remotely interesting so there’s not much left but listening to unlikable characters whine in the dark. the nail in the coffin for me though was the ending. i have absolutely no idea what the flashback tacked on to the end means, and unlike the ending of mulberry street mentioned earlier… i have no real desire to find out.

We’re on the lamb

what’s the LAMB, you may well be heard to ask? well, according to their site the LAMB is “a directory of movie blogs – a one-stop shop for readers and bloggers alike.” basically it’s a central hub for movie blogs and related information. we were just added to their listing, so check out our little profile. and be sure to visit some of the other blogs listed there as well… i haven’t had time to visit them all, but the ones i’ve seen have been incredibly well-written and many are horror-themed.

Shredder (2003)

You, the readers of Eo2L, have cast your votes and it looks like the snowboarding film Shredder has won by a slim margin. Corey and I had originally planned to decide who would review the film with an arm wrestling tournament, but we settled it like gentlemen instead. He agreed to let me review this one, partly because other than playing SSX 3 on his XBox, he’s never been on a ski slope in his entire life. My overall take on Shredder is that it’s not a great film per se, but if you stick with it and give it a chance, it’s actually quite a bit of fun and definitely worth seeing if you’re a snowboard fan or simply in the mood for an old-fashioned 80s style slasher.

I’ll admit that my first response after seeing Shredder was to simply use it as part of my ongoing haiku reviews, so I wrote the following:

Icy dead people
are fun, but frisky skiers
belong at the lake.

But even though haiku is a precise and demanding art form, I felt that Eo2L voters deserved more than seventeen syllables. Plus, the more I thought about the film, the more I realized that I really did like it. It’s pretty decent mashup of exploitation and slasher films, as evident in the 70s-style title screen, which is actually really terrific on a number of levels.

Still, the film does have its share of problems, especially given the current state of the horror genre. For instance, I love the fact that contemporary horror films such as Wolf Creek and the Hostel and Saw franchises seem to understand horror fans want to sit in the dark and see something that is scary as hell, but also sometimes want visual spectacle; something so unreal and grotesque and over the top that it approaches the realm of fantasy. Or, if you want to get artsy-fartsy intellectual about it, we don’t always demand realism; sometimes we want allegories for modern life and the human condition. For all their violence and special effects, even recent zombie flicks such as 28 Weeks Later are really exaggerated allegories for modern alienation resulting from the industrial military complex and an overly aggressive and paternal American foreign policy. I think now is an especially good time to be a fan of horror films.

Where does that leave a film such as Shredder? It’s a film that’s unfortunately too easy to ignore or dismiss. Directed by Greg Huson and starring Scott Weinger, Lindsy McKeon, Juleah Weikel, and Billy O, Shredder is about a group of snowboarders who head out to an abandoned ski resort for a weekend of typical teen fun and debauchery. It turns out that this particular ski resort was the site of a tragic, murderous confrontation between an innocent young skier and a gang of wild snowboarders. Now a masked skier patrols the area, seeking revenge on all snowboarders who cross his path, especially those who break the “rules of the slope,” a copy of which he carries with him at all times. He kills this new arrival of teens, one by one, until the inevitable showdown with the few pluckier survivors. In this regard, Shredder builds on the epic antagonisms between old-fashioned, rule-abiding skiers and young, rebel snowboarders.

The plot of Shredder isn’t exactly Hamlet (or even Green Eggs & Hamlet), but somehow it still works. In fact, I think a ski slope is actually a perfect location for a slasher. It’s remote and isolated, it inspires appropriately punishable behavior, and skiing is something that most of us can relate to, but it’s still a little bit exotic. Actually, it reminds me why Jason’s hockey mask was so incredibly effective. At the time of its debut, hockey was popular enough to make the mask a recognizable icon, but still exotic enough to make it a little bit strange and uncanny. A catcher’s mask simply wouldn’t have worked.

A serious problem with the film is that none of the characters are really all that likeable. For instance, Kimbely Van Arx is a spoiled brat. She’s the sort of snob that becomes the villain in any given teen flick. Then there’s “Skyler,” an audio-visual nerd who can’t ever seem to shut up or put down his camera. Adding some international flavor is “Christophe,” the self-styled Cassanova poser of the group who claims he’s “from Europe.” He’s supposed to be sexy and suave, but he reminds me of Andy Kaufman’s “foreign guy”character , Latka, who appeared in Taxi and came from Caspiar, an island in the Caspian Sea that tragically sank.

Another problem is the really, really bad editing. I like fast-cut, jerky, collision-style MTV editing as much as the next guy, but… wait, no I don’t. I like the other kind of editing — thoughtful and well-paced. The editing in Shredder is intended to mimic the energy and intensity of thrashing it out on some totally gnarly powder, but in reality the film looks as if it were edited by those obnoxious ‘tards who “do the Dew” in Mountain Dew soda commercials. Actually, I’ve just unfairly insulted Mountain Dew commercials, which do have a sense of style and consistent tone. Shredder consists of too many cuts within the exact same shot, all of which creates a black-light staccato effect that’s simply annoying and conveys nothing.

This isn’t to say that Shredder is a stupid film. It has quite a few moments of clever meta-cinema along the lines of The Blair Witch Project and Scream. For instance, tough girl Pike chastises Kimberly for forgetting to “never go down in the basement.” Likewise, Skyler informs the killer that “you can’t kill me because I’m a virgin” just before he’s impaled with a ski pole right through his own camera. This may be statement about voyeurism borrowed from Michael Powell’s brilliant 1960 film Peeping Tom, but it also seems appropriate for our YouTube obsessed digital age. Most of the death scenes are also entertaining nods to classic slashers, especially in the way the killer dispatches his victims in increasingly outrageous fashion. One victim is left dangling from the ski lift as it carries her up and down the slope for what seems like the duration of the entire film. Another victim is hidden inside a snowman. There’s also some interesting experimentation with the traditional concept of the final girl. Shredder’s final girl, the aptly named Pike, wisecracks and fistfights her way through the film and then saves the final dude at the finale before making it clear that she’s her own woman.

Unfortunately, other than this little bit of commentary about traditional gender roles, Shredder has no allegorical content whatsoever. In fact, there’s no moral, theme, or point to be found in Shredder. None. Nada. Zilch. This is not typical of recent horror films. The zombies in Romero’s new Diary of the Dead are more aware and have much more to say than the kids in Shredder. In fact, I’d wager that Romero’s zombies would beat those kids in any sort of socio-political debate, or even a test of basic problem-solving skills, as evident in the fact that Cole has trouble figuring out how to get past the ski slope’s high tech security system (a padlocked chain).

Shredder has flaws from its very first frame, but don’t let that stop you from seeing it, as the film is a worthwhile respite from the current trends in horror. It’s refreshing that Shredder demands nothing from you. It’s a respectable combination of mindless sex, sports, and death, and I think we need films like this. Amid so much bad news about our failing economy, our disastrous foreign policy, and our obsessive interests in Britney’s latest act of depravity, this film is like watching the Super Bowl. Some horror films give you a good emotional or intellectual workout, putting you through your paces and letting you sort out all those dark and nastier aspects of our human psyche and American culture. Shredder is more like the mental equivalent of eating a big plate of nachos and then washing it all down with a cold can of Bud. It’s not good for you, but sometimes you just really need to indulge yourself.

April Fool’s Day (2008)

the original april fool’s day (1986) was not a huge success, and this is often blamed on its rather lame ending wherein it’s revealed that none of the murders actually happened. nothing pisses off an audience more than finding out that everything they just spent a significant amount of time watching and became invested in was bullshit (just ask anyone who remember the 8th season of dallas). you would think anyone remaking such a film would take care in not repeating the same mistake… but instead they seem to have changed everything except the aspects of the original that failed. gone are the interesting characters, deaths and witty dialogue that made the original so watchable… in their place we find unlikable stereotypes, idiotic stalk/slash sequences and a plot so predictable you’d have to be a coked up, blind-folded mongoose currently engaged in a riki-tiki-tavi style battle-to-the-death with a king cobra who is winning to not piece together who the killer is by the time the opening credits finish. and don’t let the ‘unrated’ description fool you… this would be lucky to warrant a pg-13. i can only assume the producers were too embarrassed by their film to even ask the mpaa to watch it.

if the filmmakers are going to put so little effort into making this movie, i don’t see why anyone should expend any more effort reviewing it… so here’s my review.

this sucky movie is full of suck.