John Dies at the End

            Before I go into this particular review, let it be known that, yes, I am a fanboy.  I have enjoyed David Wong's comedic and often insightful writings at Cracked.com for years, and when I finally read John Dies at the End as well as This Book is Full of Spiders last year, I immediately pushed them way up my chart of best books I've ever devoured (figuratively).  So to say that I really, really, really wanted to like the film adaptation of his first novel is an understatement.

            Add in the fact that it was directed by Don Coscarelli, the man who brought us Bubba Ho-Tep, Beastmaster and Phantasm, and you get a potential joygasm 7 miles long.

            On to the review!

            Long story short, I loved it.  Of course, the film had to make several edits from the book in order to make it a sleek 99 minutes, but there is absolutely no down time.  This film comes as close to the sheer insanity of the novel as is possible.

            John Dies at the End is a story about drugs, alternate dimensions, and all-around strangeness.  It stars Chase Williamson as Dave, a simple guy who never really wanted much out of life other than normalcy and his dealings with everything but. 

            Our film starts out with Dave trying to get his story out via a reporter named Arnie (Paul Giamatti).  He knows the story he has to tell is utterly insane, so he does his best to convince Arnie with several examples of the strangeness around them. 

            This strangeness is all linked directly to a drug with unknown origins called Soy Sauce.  It all kicks off when Dave's best friend John (Rob Mayes) goes to an after-party and ends up taking a hit of Soy Sauce.  Also, at this party the drug dealer explodes, but things like that just happen in John Dies at the End.

            It turns out that John is the only person who doesn't go missing from the aforementioned after-party, so he and Dave are taken in by local cops for questioning.  Then things get really, really out of hand.

            I have to give it to Mr. Coscarelli for keeping the insanity flowing, especially when the book relies so heavily on Dave's constant commentary.  Yes, there is a lot of voice-over work in this film, and I think it's almost necessary in order to help those unfamiliar with the book keep up.

            The rest of the plot involves such strange creatures as a meat monster, tiny flies with a hive-mind, strangers from other dimensions, phantom limbs and a psychic dog.

            Yeah, it's that kind of movie.

            While John Dies at the End does have its flaws--they took my favorite character from the book and combined a second character with her, many of my favorite parts had to be edited for time, Dr. Marconi (Clancy Brown) was heavily edited, the ending is a bit more messy than I would have preferred--it is still a fantastically entertaining merry-go-round of chaos.

            Plus, while it is a bit violent and gory at times, this is more of a strange adventure than it is a horror film.  It's something like Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure meets a Stephen King novel.

Horror Origins: Dawn of the Dead (2004)

            Two weeks ago I reviewed 1978's Dawn of the Dead for my Horror Origins series.  I'm not going to re-defend my position on believing it and not Night of the Living Dead is the true start of the series.  But I will readily admit that this gave me the opportunity to compare and contrast 2004's Dawn of the Dead remake.

            Muahahahahaha!

            On to the review!

            George Romero's original Dawn of the Dead was a very slow-burning horror movie that tried to scare us as much through the horrors of consumerism as it did with the horrors of a zombie outbreak.  Zack Snyder's 2004 version drops most of that sissy consumerism talk and gives us faster, scarier zombies to make up for it.

            Nurse Ana (Sarah Polley) wakes up one morning to find the neighbor girl standing in her hallway, refusing to answer any questions.  Despite this, Ana wants to find out what's wrong, but of course the ungrateful brat just proceeds to bite into her husband's neck.  This has the unsettling effect of first killing and then zombifying him.

            As she tries to flee her idyllic Milwaukee suburb, she joins up with police officer Kenneth (Ving Rhames), Best Buy salesman Michael (Jake Weber), petty crook Andre (Mekhi Phifer) and Andre's pregnant wife Luda (Inna Korobkina).  In an attempt to hide out from the growing zombie population, they head to the local mall only to find it occupied by three mall cops.  Of course, the leader CJ (Michael Kelly) is a giant douche and he locks them up in one of the stores.

            While they at first don't mind incarceration over being eaten, they later force a coup and take in several other survivors.  Over time they see their supplies and hopes dwindle, so they decide to try to get to a boat and make their way to an island, any island, in the hopes that it will be safer than the now-surrounded-by-the-undead mall.

            When I say that this is just an actioned-up, thought-free version of the original, I really mean it.  The zombies are scary-fast and viscously brutal.  There are no real subplots to speak of, other than a few character development arcs that do nothing in the end but add to the violence.  The mall is not the playground it's made out to be in the original Dawn of the Dead.  Here it is merely the set piece for some sexy, brutal man-on-zombie action.

            While the zombies are certainly better looking than the original thanks to 25 years of make-up development, it's somehow less frightening to see people caught and devoured by these new creatures.  When you're bitten by a dull-witted, shambling, sorry excuse for a murderer, there is a certain amount of shame and horror involved.  When you're grabbed by a drooling murder-creature running at a full Usain Bolt sprint, it's just a shitty day.

            For the observant, there are a few nods to the original.  For example, the original biker gang leader from the 1978 version, Tom Savini, shows up on TV as a cocky, confident County Sheriff who demonstrates how best to kill this new menace.

            One other point of interest is something I noticed while watching the opening scene.  The latest Resident Evil movie, Resident Evil: Retribution began with a nearly identical opening.  Similar deaths, similar chaos when the female lead steps outside, same violence and similar reactions all-around.  It's to the point that I would be interested to know if they actually used the same studio back lot.

            Overall, it's a fine, moderately entertaining action movie that did well enough to get its own remake sequels, but it's a far cry from the creepy, intense atmosphere of the original.  While the viewer was never really sure what was going to happen or who was going to die in the 1978 version, here you can pretty much label your characters as Victims 1-10.

            If you love action movies and violence, I would recommend Dawn of the Dead 2004 as your movie.  If you want a horror, you may want to look someplace else.

Session 9

            There will be no Horror Origins this week because Netflix still hasn't delivered the next movie.  Unfortunately, while I'm not running low on horror series, I'm running low on easily accessible ones.  So in honor of my new life as a bachelor living in an apartment far larger than I need, let's talk about insanity.  More specifically: slow, simmering insanity and how a location can make or break the creepiness of a film.

            On to the review!

            I first saw Session 9 when I was stationed on Okinawa.  For most of 2002 I was on a huge horror kick, and I was renting as many of them as I could get my grubby little hands on.  I had never heard of the movie, but after viewing, it quickly became one of my all-time favorite psychological horrors.

            The movie itself is sparse on people and focused on plot.  Gordon (Peter Mullan) runs a floundering asbestos removal business and needs a good job to get himself and his crew back on their feet.  Thus, he grossly underbids his competition in an effort to win a government contract cleaning up an abandoned mental hospital.  It's a 2-3 week job, and he promises to get it done in one.  If they pull it off, they'll all receive a $10K bonus.

            Unfortunately, as these things typically go, shit does not get pulled off.  His only concession to the difficulty of the task is to add one more person to their usual 4-man crew.  Along with right-hand man Phil (David Caruso), possible future lawyer Mike (Stephen Gevedon) and kinda-asshole Hank (Josh Lucas), Gordon brings in his nephew Jeff (Brendan Sexton III)  to help out.  When one of the crew stops coming into work, they replace him with Craig (Larry Fessenden), a guy who has one of the best IMDB photos around.

            While all the characters are deeply flawed, their flaws play off each other, giving you the feeling that these actors actually spent years working together.  Their personalities clash and complement, making you feel that they like, hate, and respect each other just like actual coworkers do.  Their ability to play so well off each other is also what helps make Session 9 such a well done film.

            Before I go on, I think I need to single what makes the film amazing, rather than just good.  The Danvers State Asylum in Danvers, Massachusetts is the secret ingredient.  It's this sprawling, acres-wide institution that manages to impart true creepiness and, counter-intuitively, a strong sense of claustrophobia.  I really cannot stress enough just how perfectly they picked their location.  The place absolutely oozes paranoia.

            At first, it's just another job.  Yeah, they've gotta bust their asses, but work is work.  It's not until Mike finds a box labeled 'Session 9' that things start to get creepy.  As Mike tries to find more and more time to listen to the recordings of Mary, a woman with multiple personalities, things around the work site become increasingly dangerous and disturbing. 

            What works so well is the combination of men breaking down due to stress with these recordings overlayed on top of it.  Mary has three personalities inside her:  Princess, Billy and Simon.  Billy protects her from reality, Princess does most of the talking, and Simon...well Simon is a bit of a problem.  The doctor constantly tries to coerce Simon out in an effort to make Mary understand just what happened to her when she was a child.  Throwing these strange tapes on top of the film's events is what create an trulymulti-layered creepfest.

            Since getting into the plot would mean ruining a phenomenal movie, I'll leave you with this.  People are fallible.  They are susceptible to events around them.  Whether you're sane or not, we all have breaking points.

            Yes, Session 9 has its problems.  There are some ridiculous lines.  There are over-the-top moments of foreshadowing.  The entire thing, when broken down, is absolutely ludicrous.  But it's to the credit of the actors and the location, as well as the real, truly disturbing location, that makes it my second-favorite psychological horror.  Only The Changeling is more disturbing, or has a better 'twist' ending.

Horror Origins: The Howling

            I’ll be honest.  I watched today’s movie while shredding documents and reading Cracked.com.

            Why?  Because boring, that’s why.

            On to the (half-assed) review!

            There’s a reason that there are no huge werewolf movies in the works.  The last one, The Wolfman, tanked.  This was in spite of featuring Benicio Del Toro and Anthony Hopkins.  For good werewolf movies, pickings are slim.  An American Werewolf in London is one, Dog Soldiers another, and Ginger Snaps would be the third.  Aaaaaaaaaand that takes care of that.

            Notice how I didn’t mention The Howling?

            First and foremost, the biggest problem with The Howling as a franchise is that there is no fixed protagonist.  Vampire movies work as both horror movies and franchise films because we can identify individual vampires.  Dracula is Dracula.  Vlad is Vlad.  Bill the asshole vampire is Bill the asshole vampire.  Werewolves, however, are interchangeable as wolves, and nothing special while in human form. 

            So right off the bat, The Howling had to find a way for us to give a shit about the bad guys.  They tried by giving us a crazy serial killer named Eddie The Mangler (Robert Picardo).  In the beginning of the film, our intrepid reporter Karen (Dee Wallace) is following leads to Eddie, who wants to give her an ‘exclusive.’  Turns out he wanted to werewolf her face in, but he’s shot mid-transformation.  Karen, meanwhile, is so traumatized that she forgets the entire incident.  The scars are still there, however.  Now she can’t seem to handle being back in the television studio, so she’s sent to a retreat with her husband Bill (Christopher Stone). 

            Once at the retreat, uninterestingly named ‘The Colony,’ things get 'strange.'  Weird things start happening.  Also, werewolves.

            Fortunately, all is not lost, as Karen’s colleagues continue to look into Eddie’s past.  With the help of a werewolf-knowledgeable bookstore owner, they find out that The Colony may be something…dun-dun-DUUUN…dangerous!

            Despite sounding at least half-interesting on paper, this entire movie is boring.  Even for 1981, there’s no suspense.  Everything is predictable as hell and the special effects hurt my feelings.  An American Werewolf in London came out the same year, and the transformation scene was phenomenal.  The secret?  They knew that they didn’t have the technology to show a seamless transition, so they didn’t.  They just gave us bits and pieces, letting us fill in the rest.

            Nobody told The Howling that, so viewers are forced to watch a slooooow transformation (seriously, it’s over 2 minutes long) in which the person spends a solid minute looking like popcorn is popping under their skin.  Then…cut to terrible cartoon?

            I really can't recommend The Howling to anyone.  It’s not a good werewolf movie even by the low standards of werewolf movies.  It’s a terrible horror film by horror standards, and it’s mostly a crappy movie by any standards.  Sorry, Joe Dante, but I don't think you hit your stride until Gremlins.

           

Program note:  I’m moving.  Thanks to the useless, stupid rules in place down here, I have to disconnect my cable, turn off my account, turn in my modem, get proof of account cancellation, take that proof to the same company in another town 9 miles away, and then make an installation appointment.  

See you when I get back!

Halloween

            There are likely hundreds of 'great' movies that I have yet to see.  The problem with the word great is that it's so subjective.  Whether or not a film is good depends on who you talk to.  Some people may be upset that I have yet to watch The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly whereas others may take offense when I mention that I haven't seen SixteenCandles.  As far as I'm concerned, there are only about a dozen classics that I really, truly want to see.

            Halloween was the biggest, and quite likely the only, horror movie on that list.

            I've mentioned before how the late 70's and early 80's seems to have been the horror film heyday in America.  The ratings system had let go of Hollywood's balls and more and more of our films were being release with adult content.  Of course, for the longest time that just meant nudity and swearing (see: every hippy film from 1965+).  Then, it was B movie actions, then B movie horrors.  Suddenly, mainstream horror films were getting in on the action of throwing blood everywhere.

            This is not one of those films.

On to the review!

           

            Halloween opens with a death in the neighborhood, and the only blood you see is on the dead body and a little on the knife.  I'm fairly certain I've had paper cuts that bled more than the victim did, despite her 20 stab wounds.  That's not what matters, though.  What matters is that a deranged little kid is knife-wielder.

            Cut to 15 years later, and it's now Halloween, 1963, and the little kid is a big, frighteningly powerful mental patient.  Michael Meyers is his name, and, oh yeah, he just escaped.  Oops.

            While no genuine reason is ever given, the doctor in charge of Michael's therapy, Dr. Sam Loomis (Donald Pleasence) just knows that the Meyers boy is obsessed with the scene of the crime.  All that boy wants to do is go back home and maybe kill a few more people.  Unfortunately, Dr. Loomis is having a hell of a time convincing anyone to help him.

            Meanwhile, the very same neighborhood that was Michael's stomping ground is now home to three lovely young ladies.  Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis), Lynda van der Klok (P.J. Soles) and Annie Brackett (Nancy Kyes) are just three teenage girls who have shit to do tonight, and they want to relax and have fun while doing it, as teenagers are wont do to. 

            Of course, by 'shit to do,' I mean two of them have to babysit and the third wants to get trashed and bone her boyfriend.

            On a side note, I would really like to know just how far the 'if you have sex in a horror movie you will die' trope goes back.  Seriously, I think this horror movie staple existed before horror movies did.

            Anyways, back in Halloween land, the girls find themselves encountering a creep in a station wagon throughout the day.  Chalking it up to a harmless weirdo or overenthusiastic Halloween aficionado, they shrug it off and go about their business.  Of course, once night falls things take a turn for the worse.

            What I love most about Halloween is its sadistic obsession with creating tension.  The music will build and the scene will go exactly how you expect it to go, but then nothing happens.  Nobody gets hurt, the killer doesn't show up.  Okay, well, maybe they're going to do it now?  Nope, just more tension. 

            What director John Carpenter does with Halloween is brilliant.  He created this world where you know exactly what is going to happen from the opening moments of the film.  So in order to deliver any scares, he has to let the entire film simmer.

            And oh, what a slow, slow simmer it is.  This movie luxuriates in making you guess when the next victim is going to meet their end.  The only thing promised is that death won't happen the moment you expect it to.  No, that was just a tension builder.  The real thing is just around the corner...maybe.

            As a horror movie, it relies on genuine human emotion for its scares.  There are almost no 'boo' moments, and like I said before, there isn't really any blood or gore to speak of.  Halloween is frightening because it's about a silent, psychotic killer who patiently and methodically goes about removing innocent people from their pulses.

            Michael Meyers is what sets Halloween apart from the other crazed killers of the 70's and 80's.  He is patient.  Yes, the first Friday the 13th saw the killer taking advantage of situations, but mostly opportunistic.  Meyers is like a skilled trapper, setting everything up just right and attacking when his prey is at its weakest.  This was a huge difference when compared to people like Freddy, Leatherface and Pinhead.  Those guys just wanted you dead.  Meyers didn't want you to see it coming.

            Just like that, I didn't see how much I'd enjoy this film coming.  While it doesn't have the ridiculous excitement of Critters or the clever twists that characterized the first few Nightmare on Elm Street films, Halloween is a super-serious film about a super-deadly killer.  The problem is, everything hinges on playing it straight, making Meyers deadly, yes, but still human.  Once the later films make him out to be something more, they stop being scary and just start getting silly.

Oh yeah, did I mention the music?  

Prometheus

            It’s been 15 years since the last Alien film.  With Alien Resurrection, it looked like all the stories were told in that particular universe, however unsatisfactorily it may have been for some fans.  Then came the news of Ridley Scott making a prequel film and exploring the origins of the Space Jockey.  People were excited, to say the least. 

            Of course, dreams were meant to be shattered, and over the last year Scott has waffled on his claims, alternately claiming that the movie was going to be a direct prequel, then not a prequel so much as exploring the same universe, then nothing like the Alien films at all, then back to a universe exploration.  I stopped paying attention to the chatter about three months ago in an effort to keep my sanity.

            So what does Prometheus ultimately have to do with the same universe that saw Weyland Corp. tampering with alien life forms at Ripley’s expense?

            Everything.

            On to the review!

            The gist of the story is that a pair of archeologists developed a theory that we were created by an alien race.  They manage to convince Peter Weyland of Weyland industries to finance an exploratory mission.  Thanks to him, the ship Prometheus sets its sights on a distant planet.  Almost three years later, the crew comes out of cryo-sleep just in time for Christmas Day, 2093. 

            The crew is divided evenly into two groups.  The first group is made up entirely of redshirts.  These are the guys that were put here just to pad the death toll.  Some of them don’t even have speaking roles.

            The second group make up the meat and potatoes of our story.  The two archeologists are Elizabeth Shaw (Noomi Rapace) and Charlie Holloway (Logan Marshall-Green).  They love the shit out of each other, and they’re the driving force behind the initial expedition on the alien planet.  These are our two protagonists.

            On the antagonist side are two fascinating characters.  Charlize Theron is Meredith Vickers, the Weyland Corporation’s expedition leader.  She is, of course, not happy about the entire thing and frequently attempts to put Charlie and Elizabeth in their place, convinced that she is the one in charge.  Yes, that’s right.  Charlize Theron is playing the bad guy in two hit movies simultaneously.  I won’t be surprised if Prometheus and Snow White and the Huntsman are the top two movies in America this weekend, both fueled by Theron’s amazing ability to play a total bitch.

Additionally, we have our legally-required android, David (Michael Fassbender).  He’s far more enigmatic and potentially deadly than Lance Henriksen’s Bishop.  He ends up driving the plot to increasingly deadly effect.  All the while, his creepy, emotionless-yet-slightly-smirking smile is perfect.  You’re never sure if he’s a psychopath or just poorly programmed.

The fleshed-out neutral characters include the captain, Janek (Iris Elba), who provides much of our comedic relief, a geologist, Fifield (Sean Harris), a biologist, Milburn (Rafe Spall), and a medic, Ford (Kate Dickie) who at no point breastfeeds a 12 year-old boy.  (Yes, that was a Game of Thrones joke.)  While the IMDB cast list has a few other main characters, I recommend you not check it out if you haven’t seen the movie, as the cast list is a spoiler in of itself.

The beautiful part of Prometheus is that it feels like a throwback film.  It’s not a 2012 blockbuster movie by any stretch of the imagination.  It’s pacing is slow and deliberate.  The movie builds upon itself over time, often content to let the camera linger over gorgeous scenery or amazing, expansive set pieces.  Yes, the film eventually becomes an action-packed extravaganza, but that’s the second half.  We do not get to that until after we’ve been enveloped by the universe that Ridley Scott created.

Yes, the Space Jockeys are explored and explained, at least a bit.  Yes, there are strange biological goings-on here, and yes it is very much an Alien prequel.

That being said, here is a word of warning.  Don’t go into the movie expecting fan service.  There are many dots to connect between this and the other films, but it’s not done in the same manner as, say, The Avengers, where there was a certain amount of fanboy catering.  These connections are often subtle.  Some are simply lost in the background.  It’s also much more similar to Alien than it is to Aliens, as the crew has no idea what’s going on, and the mystery is just as dangerous as the world itself.

I’m just glad that Ridley Scott’s universe is fictional, because every other life form in the universe is Goth as fuck.

Paranormal Activity

There’s one thing that people need to take into account before badmouthing some types of cinema.  Sure, Paranormal Activity was a polarizing film, but how many people disliked it for the wrong reasons?  If you hate movies that are filmed ‘amateur’ or ‘found-footage’ style, then you really shouldn’t even be watching them. 

            Plus, you absolutely cannot be completely and totally disbelieving in the supernatural.  You don’t have to believe in the paranormal world, but you can’t not believe and expect to be affected at all.

            On to the review!

            In 2007, Paranormal Activity made a killing at the box office.  Throw in the fact that it was filmed for a few measly thousand, and Hollywood was looking at insane profits.  It made absolutely perfect sense to franchise it.  (Whether or not the law of diminishing returns has hit this particular franchise already is not the point of this discussion.  I could fill up several pages on that alone.)

            For those of you who are not familiar with the film, it follows a happy couple as they try to get to the bottom of what’s wrong with one of them.  Micah (Micah Sloat) is worried about his girlfriend Katie (Katie Featherston) and has purchased a camera in the hopes that he can get to the bottom of it.  Of course, they get far more than they bargained for.

            Like any good horror film, the situation unfolds slowly.  Little occurs in the first half of the movie, and Micah’s personal disbelief in the entire situation often diffuses what little tension there is.  A few things go bump in the night, but the film is mostly content to let you get comfortable with the house and the people who reside in it.

            Of course, the second half is a bit crazier, but the best part of Paranormal Activity is the fact that it never fully explains why Katie is being haunted.  Even after the movie ends, there are quite a few questions that are never answered.  (Again, the other movies don’t count just yet.  The less said about the ending of 3, the better.)

            I feel that this film also does something else that’s very important to a horror franchise: the ability to suspend disbelief.  By making it an amateur film, nobody has to worry about anyone acting ‘out of character’ because the characters simply act like themselves, going so far as to use their own first names in the film.

            While I personally loved the chills that this film gave me, I’m never surprised when others find it to be dull or boring.  For all of you out there who don’t like this or any other ‘supernatural’ or ‘possession’ movie out there, here’s a suggestion.  Stop watching them.  There will never be an amazing film, since Poltergeist and The Exorcist got there first.  There will still be good ones that drip out of Hollywood once in a while, but they won’t be game-changers.

            Speaking of firsts, next week I get to watch Poltergeist!

Horror Origins: A Nightmare on Elm Street

What are some of the most iconic sounds and phrases from film?  I’m talking about a phrase or a tiny clip of music that instantly conjures an entire film to mind, filling you with nostalgia. There are the usual quotes from classic movies, such as “Frankly my dear, I don’t give a damn” and “STELLA!!!!”  Plus there are audio clips, like the Imperial March or the opening music to Star Trek.  Once you hear it, you can never forget its source material.

For me, it’s all about the horrors.  The theme to Friday the 13^th is great.  “Ch-ch-ch-ah-ah-ahh.”  Then there is the screeching noise in Psycho’s shower scene.  On top of all that,  my most memorable horror film audio clip is most definitely the little girls singing “One two Freddy’s coming for you…”

On to the review!

A Nightmare on Elm Street’s Freddy Kruger is quite possibly Wes Craven’s greatest creation.  As played by Robert Englund, Freddy was the perfect amount of creepy, disturbing and otherworldly.  The casting was also an important part of the film’s success.  Especially early in the franchise, you were never quite sure if the man behind the makeup was maybe a little too into his role.  On more than one occasion I caught myself wondering if this guy just really good at playing a crazed, dream-stalking killer, or did he actually relish the chance to ‘murder’ teenaged victims?

Like most horror films, A Nightmare on Elm Street eventually suffers from the dreaded law of diminishing returns.  Personally, I think it holds up as a franchise for longer than most, with Dream Warriors arguably the best in the series (and my personal favorite).  More importantly, the first Nightmare, unlike many other franchise starters, perfectly sets the tone that will carry through to most every sequel.  As much as people complain about too much slapstick and humor finding its way into later installments, there was already humor present in the first film.  From Freddy’s accordion arms to the striped roof implying that our murderous anti-hero is disguised as a sports car, there was always something playful about his insanity.

This sets it far apart from other movies like Friday the 13^th and Critters, films that didn’t find their voice until later, or completely changed their tone after just one or two films.  I like to argue that A Nightmare on Elm Street didn’t devolve into a humorous parody of itself so much as add a bit more humor in each installment.

As far as the original goes, it gets off to a perfect start.  The very first scene guarantees the audience knows that this movie is all about a crazed killer with a knife glove.  We start off in the middle of Nancy’s nightmare (played by Heather Langenkamp, who would later reprise her role in several sequels).  She’s being chased by a crazed guy in a tacky sweater, and he seems dead set on her demise.  When she discusses it with her high school friends and boyfriend, it turns out that they all dreamt about the same guy.  Later, when her two friends, Rod (Jsu Garcia) and Christina (Amanda Wyss) are separately slaughtered in their sleep, she and her boyfriend Glen (a very young Johnny Depp) try to stay awake as long as possible in an effort to avoid his nightmare realm.

What makes this film so much fun is its creative special effects.  I’ve mentioned Freddy’s accordion arms, which manage to be creepy as well as oddball, but the best parts of the film involve the revolving room.  Twice in the movie, a room is moved on its axis to give the impression of blood (or a person) flowing all over the walls and ceiling.  Despite improvements made in the special FX department in the last 20 years, it’s still a very simple way to imply a loss of sanity, and it still holds up well.

As far as franchise firsts go, I want to go on record as stating that A Nightmare on Elm Street is quite possibly the best in the horror genre.  It didn’t force huge, plot-changing twists into its sequels like Friday the 13^th did.  It didn’t immediately devolve into complete camp and comedy like Critters did.  It also avoided an incredibly boring beginning installment, unlike Hellraiser.  While not necessarily scary, it’s still creepy, and it will always be a testament to the creativity and genius of Wes Craven.

Next week:  Critters!  Hells yes!

The Human Centipede II: A Genuinely Terrible Film

            Remember a few weeks back when I wrote an entire article defending the sub-sub-genre of ‘Torture Porn?’  Remember how I said there was a place for all sorts of films, and I personally enjoyed the challenge of watching a film that tried to make me turn away in horror or disgust with the way it chose to unfold the story?  No?  Well, just pretend you did so that the next paragraph makes sense.

Apparently there are filmmakers out there who completely forgot that they still need a story when then make a movie (looking at you, Vincent Gallo).  It seems that some directors are so wrapped up in trying to prove that they can gross out the audience that they’ve forgotten something very important.

            It’s not disturbing if the audience fails to give a shit.

            Tom Six is my new poster boy for clueless director who got it all wrong.  (Good for you, Vincent Gallo!)

            On to the evisceration…errr…review!

            Do you recall the ‘hype’ surrounding The Human Centipede?  “100% Medically Accurate!”  “So disgusting I nearly threw up in the theater!” (I don’t think I got the quote perfectly, but it was attributed to Hostel director Eli Roth.  This makes me inexplicably sad.)

            It turns out that most of us found THC (hehehe) to be incredibly freaking boring.  Medically accurate or not, there just wasn’t any substance to the movie.  If you’re going to make a horror movie, you need to either make me really, truly, genuinely give a crap about the main characters, or you have to make it so brutally over-the-top that I can’t help but be amused/disgusted/horrified by your actions. 

Good horror movies manage to do both.  I can’t be the only person who actually liked the kids in Hostel and was rooting for some of them to get out alive.  Surely I’m not the only one who felt at least a little pity for the protagonist of A Serbian Film.  Unfortunately, THC gave me three people sewn together that I barely knew and didn’t care about.  It also gave me almost no violence or disturbing imagery.  Sorry, but three people parading around a backyard wearing diapers isn’t disturbing, it’s silly.

So when I heard that Tom Six was going to sequel his horrible, boring horror film, I actually held out a tiny little bit of hope.  I didn’t care if it was going to be a remake, a reworking or a full sequel.  I simply wanted Mr. Six to address his critics and try to make a genuinely creepy, disturbing film.

To my chagrin, what we got was 90 minutes of petulance.  It’s as if Tom Six threw a temper tantrum, screamed “They think my movie was boring?  They didn’t think it was violent enough?  Fine, I’ll show them violence!  I’ll give them disturbing imagery!”  I like to imagine he did it while kicking over Lego’s and jumping up and down like a 3 year old in the midst of a sugar-fueled tantrum.

I’m not going to do anyone in the movie the disservice of mentioning them, because if they’re wise they won’t even put this failure of a film on their resumes.  I’m not going to get into details because there’s really nothing that stands out as good or bad.  The film goes for shock value and falls flat at every turn.  The only thing I liked was the silent antagonist.  That was okay.  Everything else sucked giant donkey droppings.

Yes, The Human Centipede II has lots of violence and lots of disturbing imagery.  Despite all this, I still fails to be over-the-top or truly brutal in any way.  It just stays silly.  Here’s what THCII has to offer: absolutely no reason to care about anyone in the movie, scenes that luxuriate in their violence to the point where it’s obvious Tom Six is just trying (and failing) to get people to squirm, and an antagonist that is neither fearsome nor pitiable, merely pitiful.  I have never been so disappointed in a movie in my life.  Even Birdemic has more reasons for recommendations than THCII.  At least with Birdemic you get a chance to laugh with your friends.

Yup.  I went there.  I’m officially on the record as saying that Birdemic is a better movie than The Human Centipede II.  Even worse is the fact that Mr. Six is hell-bent on making a trilogy out of it all. 

Who the heck is funding this guy???