World of Horror

Photobucket Trouble

2011-02-03T10:00:00.000-08:00

I'm posting some absurd, random pics because Photobucket is having a TON of problems lately.

Tales from the Crypt - Season 4, Episode 12: "Strung Along"

2010-09-24T07:04:00.000-07:00

Plot:
Joseph Renfield is a sweet aging puppeteer and former TV star who's having a lot of problems with his younger wife, Ellen. She's particularly unhappy with how much of a recluse he is- they never go out anywhere together. And how jealous he is that she's a popular actress. This gets to be such a problem that she doesn't spend much time with friends anymore. He also has health problems and is becoming deeply sorrowful and depressed. He talks to himself, they start drifting apart. Then, he gets a letter that cheers him up. He's been asked to participate in a television special and they want him to do one of his old puppet acts. But Ellen doesn't want him overdoing it so he agrees to hire an assistant. Along comes David. And he wants to change the old act. He's also only too happy to stir things up even more between Joseph and Ellen. Leading Joseph to start talking again - about doing something to fix the Ellen situation. He wants to divorce her. But his puppet Koco has something deadlier in mind.

Thoughts & Observations:
Kevin Yagher strikes again! After season 2's weak "Lower Berth," he returns to direct another stinker with this awful season 4 contribution. A bit of a mix of 1978's Magic, 1988's Child's Play (why not? Yagher is responsible for the look of Chucky, and if you notice- you'll see him and The Cryptkeeper have the exact same eyeballs), and season 2's "Three's a Crowd" with some of "The Ventriloquist's Dummy"s freak factor...and a little of season 3's "Spoiled" to round it out. Donald O'Connor's kindly old puppeteer is too old-fashioned and classic in his manners while all the rest of the people he knows are too obnoxious, loud, and impulsive. His sweet old man routine does not mix well with the unbelievably shrill and callow soap-opera theatrics of Patricia Charbonneau, nor the intensely seductive bedroom-voiced therapist routine Zach Galligan's (Gremlins, Waxwork) got going on. He's so irritatingly child-like here, he borders on prepubescent. At one point O'Connor mentions Galligan kissing his ass... and that's exactly what it feels like he's doing. He could be talking to anyone this way and it would seem as though he were trying to seduce them. The twist comes too little, too late, and so does the blood-letting- of which there isn't nearly enough. And in the meantime, all this episode has amounted to was a really, really, really bad soap-opera ... about a puppeteer... and a creepy clown marionette... Huh? This one is so bad, it hurts. Definitely one of the worst of the season.

Grades
Writing: C-

This one's a sincere toss-up. Because the biggest problem here is not that it's a bad idea. Exactly. It's just an extremely lame idea. The twist is much too loaded and lacks balance. Like much of season 4, it's just there for shock value and lacks the proper build-up to the true shocks of season 3 (the show's best season, by far). It basically comes out of nowhere and it all rests on the second biggest cliche of the series, which makes this episode different from the quite amusingly bad shock that topped the deliriously bizarre first episode, Tom Hank's "None but the Lonely Heart." It also doesn't have the almost anger-inducing novelty of episode 5's finisher to Stephen Hopkins' "Beauty Rest." I have a theory that killer-doll type plots are the hardest to make interesting. You're lucky if you can get by on just the creepiness factor alone (and Koco is not creepy). This story might have worked with a different cast. As it stands... it's pretty much impossible to think anything about these characters other than: "I can't wait 'til they're dead."

Style / Direction: C

One of the problems with watching the episode now is fucking Warner Bros. owning the rights to the show. Sure, HBO's transfers on their horror DVD's often looked like shit (especially 1995's underrated - and likely to stay that way, thanks to that retarded company - Tales from the Hood). Even on John Waters' splatter-film comedy/satire, Serial Mom. But had the rights to this television franchise fallen in Universal's lap instead, you could pretty much bet big money on the transfer being better. This season looks like shit run over twice on DVD. Awful color timing (in darkly lit rooms, you can barely make out the actors having faces at all). So it would be almost impossible to appreciate the episode for how Yagher might have been trying to work with darkness and shadows (of which, there is a lot of both here). But there are some good things to look at onscreen. Mostly Patricia's sexy, tight skin, and Zach Galligan's hypnotically melting brown eyes. And Donald O'Connor's big, hot-looking butt. Don't look at me like that- he was in his early 60's at the time (and how old is Sylvester Stallone now?). He was fit enough and even showed off that he still had lots of spice in an episode of The Nanny. Besides, Patricia's character still had sex with him. Also, the house the couple live in is really nice (and I've got a weird thing about pool scenes anyway).

Acting: D

Donald O'Connor does not belong here. And when I say that, I mean it as a compliment. The only way to describe this mix of people is with words like "vulgar" and phrases like "we passed awkward weeks ago." Wife Ellen is clearly a gold-digger. Not just because of the age difference, but because of how pushy and demanding she is (how could a marriage possibly have lasted this long when she goes berserk over the smallest things). She speeds through lines, barks reversed-psychological threats, and when she gets mad... she seeks to tear the other person's head off. Her character is meant to be yelling in harmony with the now elevated intensity level of the conversation. But this woman is screaming- like a person does when they want the argument over and done-with now. Your brain barely even registers what she's saying, you mainly hear the booming volume level (and her voice honestly sounds much too like Sigourney Weaver's - an actress who actually knew a thing or two about balance). Galligan is too... distracting to be a righteous figure here. He takes the position of being the one to say everything the Joseph character wants to say to Ellen but can't, "calling her out" for possibly cheating on him, being nasty, etc. Yet, his character never rises above that "I say I'm your friend but I'm really madly in love with you" implication that is inherent in all his performances. But, O'Connor is doing a serviceable job.

Special Effects / Gore: D+

As far as technical credit goes, the puppets look good but not creepy. The effect of their usage is meant to suggest psychological freakiness and not blatant killer-doll creature fx. Except in one, really fake-looking, stabbing scene. The most impressive thing you'll see is a decent slashed throat. And when I say slashed instead of slashing, I mean just that. A pre-slashed throat. I'm not a demanding gorehound but I say it's the least they can give us in something this awful- a creepy killer doll and some neat gore effects (especially since Child's Play was lite on gore and the death scenes weren't that great anyway). You'll get neither here, but you could do worse than what you do get here.

Music Score: C-

For a 27-minute episode of an HBO show, this music score is decent. Though, like everything in this episode, it's decent at best and nothing more. The main theme is good and circus-y. A bit like a jack in the box. And you may even find yourself humming it a little (it's playing in my head right now but anything can get stuck in my head, I'm not particular about that sort of thing). It's one of the better elements of this crappy episode. Yet, it's not without it's cringe-worthy moments. Especially the music Ellen and her friend play on their boombox. And... when I say "music," I mean funky score piece masquerading as a sort of early 90's cheap pop song. Emphasis on the word "cheap." You'll know the difference between this and Milli Vanilli, let's just say.

Atmosphere: D-

The only thing here that could almost pass for creepy is a scene involving a human on puppet strings, which creates a shadow silhouette upon a watcher who's suitably unsettled. The music can't do the work for all the elements that are lacking here, so it does what it can and then you can't see anything. So, the camera may suddenly decide to race to the sight of something it wants you to be shocked by... but the shot is interrupted by what we can only assume now (because of the bad DVD transfer, so perhaps that's to blame for this) are poorly shot scenes. As for a feeling you might get, I personally kept returning to: "I can't wait 'til it's over."

In Conclusion:
Terrible episode. Its' best is not good and it's worst is really bad.

Final Grade: D- (2 out of 10)

Tales from the Crypt - Season 6, Episode 10: "In the Groove"

2010-09-21T02:02:00.000-07:00

Plot:
Gary and Rita are brother and sister owners of a radio station. She's a cold, bitter business woman who makes the corporate decisions and he's the station's biggest embarrassment- an angry, out of control sexual fantasy talk show host with no callers. After he loses his last sponsor, Rita shakes things up by moving his show to a new time slot and then, partners him up with bookish blonde Valerie. Valerie says she has some ideas on how to make it better. On his first night with her, things begin to get steamy. The call-in lines light up like crazy. His ratings rise. Eventually, after the first month of this- his show becomes a hit. And his sister Rita is none too happy about it. Neither, to his surprise, is Valerie. She wants him to talk about something other than sex. When he does, old family wounds open up. Rita goes on the warpath. And his worst nightmare comes true...

Thoughts & Observations:
Miguel Ferrer is such a hottie. Now, here's a man who can get away with a toughguy front. Though, not so much in this episode where he plays a frustrated D.J. whose show has a theme about sex. He just... complains a lot. And, taking the awful twist into account, he's so easy to manipulate that you realize he wasn't a strong character to begin with- unlike the toughguys in earlier episodes (i.e.: Lance Henriksen's Reno in Season 2's "Cutting Cards"). The only person here with any real character is sitcom pro Wendie Malick, stunning as always as the evil, bitchy sister. It's not a great bitch role, but she looks great playing it. Then, we've got the blonde (Linda Doucett) who practically just sits there and lets her hair do all the talking. I have a hard time believing she gets in anyone's head. Anyway, the twist in this episode is so bad, that you realize how much you wish they would have gone for something supernatural. Heck, The Ben Stiller Show did a parody of Tales from the Crypt that is shockingly similar to this episode's storyline and yet- that had a better twist than this boring "conspiracy" plot. Who else was waiting to see the ghost of the evil dead mother come back and kill someone? Also, not enough shots of Ferrer in those leather pants. Cameos include the multi-talented Rusty Schwimmer (the strip-search guard in Candyman, Jason Goes to Hell: The Final Friday) as a jilted caller (but why is she dressed like she works at a fast-food chicken franchise?), and - believe it or not - the real Slash from Guns 'N Roses playing another D.J. who I can only assume is supposed to be a fake Slash.

Grades
Writing: F

As I said above, this story just plain sucks. We're talking more loose ends, dead ends, and flat ideas than you can shake a stick at. The characters aren't interesting, likable, or entertaining. Gary is probably supposed to be some kind of Howard Stern knockoff. He's got the deep, sexy voice and can yell with the best of them. But he completely lacks charisma as a personality. Valerie is completely lame. Had the story given her more to do, maybe then her "I'm just sitting here, being blonde and fit" label would be useful for something. Sister Rita is mean and spiteful but she's not really any fun, as these kinds of characters can be when done right. It would have been equally lame to try and turn her into a younger version of their mother, but we don't even get that much depth and insight into what makes her tick. It's just a nasty family and that can be boring- as it certainly is here. The plot is not interesting nor does it leave any real room to do anything creepy or scary. At best, you have some implications of incestual thoughts (which no one cares about anyway). Then, I already mentioned that the twist sucks so, you know what I think about skipping this episode.

Style / Direction: C-

Maybe this is supposed to be some dark-yellow room-lit noir sort of thing. Visually, there's almost nothing going on. Lots of dull offices, house rooms... it's as dull to look at it as is to try to find substance within. You get a little color with the buttons on the control consoles and a couple lights. And the ending has a couple people dressed in sleek black clothing. How stimulating! The fashion is kind of boring as well, but Wendie and Miguel wear clothes well. No good shots of the main cast in anything especially alluring.

Acting: B-

The acting quality is underwhelming but it's definitely serviceable and shows that, in a better show, this cast is worth what they were paid on later shows such as Crossing Jordan and Just Shoot Me. Wendie is too rushed in all her deliveries and Linda Ducett (as mentioned before) is a total snore. Which just leaves us with Slash, who is exactly what they hired him for: presence, and Miguel who gives it all he's got and is his usual sexy, brooding self in the confrontation scenes. And with this character, you know almost every scene is a confronation.

Special Effects / Gore: C+

A little blood on someone who has already been killed and we see a little blood on a knife during a stabbing... but we don't see the stabbing itself. The rest is just make-up and, other than Wendie's red lipstick, I barely noticed anything. Just all the yellow light.

Music Score: D

You'll barely notice it, which means that must be what they wanted. It's lifeless, cliched, tired. Not special at all.

Atmosphere: C-

The 6th season of Tales from the Crypt is the weakest out of the first six, so this episode blends in with most of the others. Which means, you will get some atmosphere. You will know it's an episode of this show if you watch it in a row with the others. And you'll get the same sort of vibe as you get with several other episodes. Thank the show, ignore the episode.

In Conclusion:
I think you got it all above. There's nothing more I can say.

Final Grade: D (3 out of 10)
-

Horror Marathons for Halloween

2009-08-31T02:43:00.000-07:00

Anyone planning one? I had a big one planned last year but it was screwed up by familial circumstances. This year- nothing's going to stop me. Not even death (who's already too busy in the new Final Destination movie). Let's hope my DVD player doesn't break from all the extra play it's going to be getting.

It might change, but here's what the basic schedule looks like so far:

October 31st
1. Suspiria (1977)
2. A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984)
3. The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974)
4. Phantasm (1979)
5. The Evil Dead (1981)
6. Halloween (1978)

October 30th
1. Dead Dudes in the House (1988)
2. Killer Klowns from Outer Space (1988)
3. Friday the 13th Part III (1982)
4. Carrie (1976)
5. Creepshow (1982)
6. Scream (1996)

October 29th
1. Rosemary's Baby (1968)
2. Dead Alive (1992)
3. Friday the 13th Part VI: Jason Lives (1986)
4. Dawn of the Dead (1978)
5. An American Werewolf in London (1981)
6. The Fog (1980)

October 28th
1. The Shining (1980)
2. Alien (1979)
3. The Exorcist (1973)
4. The Last House on the Left (1972)
5. The Howling (1981)
6. Black Christmas (1974)

October 27th
1. Hellraiser (1987)
2. Ginger Snaps (2000)
3. Poltergeist (1982)
4. Friday the 13th Part VII: The New Blood (1988)
5. Zombie (1979)
6. Piranha (1978)

October 26th
1. Deranged (1973)
2. Squirm (1976)
3. Deathdream (1973)
4. Fright Night (1985)
5. Friday the 13th (1980)
6. Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors (1987)

October 25th
1. The Return of the Living Dead (1985)
2. Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992)
3. Arachnophobia (1990)
4. Child's Play (1988)
5. Candyman (1992)
6. The Silence of the Lambs (1991)

October 24th
1. Psycho II (1983)
2. Clownhouse (1990)
3. Tales from the Hood (1995)
4. Brain Damage (1988)
5. From Beyond (1986)
6. Gremlins (1984)

October 23rd
1. Leprechaun 2 (1994)
2. Def by Temptation (1990)
3. Opera (1987)
4. Pet Sematary (1989)
5. The Stepford Wives (1975)
6. Rabid Grannies (1989)

October 22nd
1. Salem's Lot (1979)
2. Rabid (1977)
3. Tenebre (1982)
4. There's Nothing Out There (1990)
5. Bride of Chucky (1998)
6. Cemetery Man (1994)

October 21st
1. The Hills Have Eyes (1977)
2. The Amityville Horror (1979)
3. May (2002)
4. Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer (1986)
5. The Fly (1986)
6. Misery (1990)

October 20th
1. Demons 2 (1986)
2. Deep Red (1975)
3. Videodrome (1982)
4. The Thing (1982)
5. Dolls (1987)
6. Friday the 13th Part II (1981)

October 19th
1. Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy's Revenge (1985)
2. Basket Case (1982)
3. It (1990)
4. Poltergeist II: The Other Side (1986)
5. Cat People (1982)
6. Sleepy Hollow (1999)

October 18th
1. Halloween II (1981)
2. Friday the 13th Part VIII: Jason Takes Manhattan (1989)
3. Phenomena (1984)
4. Halloween H20: 20 Years Later (1998)
5. It's Alive (1973)
6. The Beyond (1981)
7. Masters of Horror: Cigarette Burns (2005)

October 17th
1. Just Before Dawn (1980)
2. House (1986)
3. Psycho III (1986)
4. Motel Hell (1980)
5. Inferno (1980)
6. Friday the 13th Part V: A New Beginning (1985)
7. Masters of Horror: Sick Girl (2005)

October 16th
1. Demons (1985)
2. Halloween III: Season of the Witch (1982)
3. Sleepaway Camp (1983)
4. Leprechaun (1993)
5. Dust Devil (1992)
6. Nightmare on Elm Street 4: The Dream Master (1988)

October 15th
1. Gremlins 2: The New Batch (1990)
2. Q the Winged Serpent (1982)
3. Dr. Giggles (1992)
4. Bad Taste (1987)
5. Leprechaun 3 (1995)
6. Children of the Corn (1984)

October 14th
1. Hell Night (1981)
2. Open Water (2003)
3. Innocent Blood (1992)
4. Troll 2 (1990)
5. Christmas Evil / You Better Watch Out (1980)
6. Urban Legend (1998)

October 13th
1. Psycho IV: The Beginning (1990)
2. 28 Days Later (2002)
3. The Bird with the Crystal Plumage (1969)
4. The Crazies (1973)
5. Evil Dead II: Dead by Dawn (1987)
6. The Stuff (1985)

October 12th
1. The Serpent and the Rainbow (1988)
2. Alone in the Dark (1981)
3. Nightmare on Elm Street 5: The Dream Child (1989)
4. American Psycho (2000)
5. Wes Craven's New Nightmare (1994)
6. C.H.U.D. (1984)

October 11th
1. Ghoulies 2 (1987)
2. Poltergeist III (1989)
3. After Midnight (1989)
4. The Company of Wolves (1984)
5. Island of the Alive: It's Alive III (1987)
6. Sleepwalkers (1992)

October 10th (my Birthday)
1. Deadly Friend (1986)
2. The Hunger (1983)
3. Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare (1991)
4. What's the Matter with Helen? (1970)
5. Little Shop of Horrors (1986)

October 9th
1. The Boogey Man (1980)
2. Let Sleeping Corpses Lie / The Living Dead at Manchester Morgue (1973)
3. The Omen (1976)
4. Friday the 13th: The Final Chapter (1984)
5. Don't Look Now (1973)
6. Tremors (1990)
7. Masters of Horror: The Fair Haired Child (2005)

October 8th
1. Sisters (1973)
2. Wolfen (1981)
3. Blue Sunshine (1978)
4. God Told Me To (1976)
5. Martin (1976)
6. Frogs (1972)
7. Masters of Horror: Jenifer (2005)

October 7th
1. Phantom of the Opera (1989)
2. Slugs (1987)
3. People Under the Stairs (1991)
4. Nightmare City (1980)
5. I, Madman (1989)
6. Monster in the Closet (1983)
7. Masters of Horror: Incident On and Off a Mountain Road (2005)

October 6th
1. Popcorn (1990)
2. Cat's Eye (1985)
3. Trauma (1993)
4. Vamp (1986)
5. Scream 2 (1997)
6. Ghoulies (1985)
7. Masters of Horror: Dance of the Dead (2005)

October 5th
1. Scream 3 (2000)
2. Private Parts (1972)
3. Fright (1971)
4. Day of the Dead (1985)
5. Sleepaway Camp 3 (1989)
6. Critters 2 (1988)

October 4th
1. I Know What You Did Last Summer (1997)
2. I Still Know What You Did Last Summer (1998)
3. City of the Living Dead (1980)
4. House by the Cemetery (1981)
5. Manhattan Baby (1982)
6. Howling III: The Marsupials (1987)

October 3rd
1. Bones (2001)
2. Hello, Mary Lou: Prom Night II (1987)
3. The Kiss (1988)
4. The Stendhal Syndrome (1996)
5. Mary Reilly (1996)
6. Near Dark (1987)
7. Masters of Horror: Pick Me Up (2005)

October 2nd
1. Re-Animator (1985)
2. The Brood (1979)
3. Pumpkinhead (1988)
4. Society (1989)
5. The Others (2001)
6. The Dead Next Door (198?)
7. Masters of Horror: Homecoming (2005)

October 1st
1. Eyes of Laura Mars (1978)
2. Riding the Bullet (2003)
3. Chillers (1987)
4. Shocker (1989)
5. Amityville: It's About Time (1992)
6. From Dusk Till Dawn (1996)
7. Masters of Horror: The Washingtonians (2006)
-

Demons (1985)

2009-07-19T05:26:00.000-07:00

Plot:
In Germany - Cheryl is given free tickets by a mysterious masked man to a movie premiere. Her and her friend arrive at the brand new Metropol theater where others have been given the tickets too. They all sit down to watch an unknown horror movie, where unbeknownst to them- what ever happens on the screen, happens inside the theater. Soon, a contagious zombie-demon plague breaks out and slowly infects almost the entire audience, who have been cemented inside so they can't escape.

Thoughts & Observations:
It's time we should all get smart about Italian horror. Many fans are not. Take for example, how many people thought Dario Argento directed this 1985 splatter film about a demon plague passing from person to person in a movie theater. I'll bet even after watching the first 23 minutes, they still thought Argento was behind this. First of all- it says "Dario Argento presents" on all the trailers, posters, ad material, and even the first seconds of the movie. He didn't direct it. Lamberto Bava did. But should this confusion surprise anyone? Some complete retards even though Wes Craven made the godawful Wishmaster just because it said "Wes Craven presents" on all the stuff for that movie. Some horror fans make too many mistakes like these.

There is of course a slight difference between the two becoming name brands. Wes Craven's was only a name on those films and he made money off of the usage of it. With Demons, Argento was a little more hands-on. He even was on the set for some of it. Another mark of the "Dario Argento presents" stable is that he knew all the filmmakers who made those films and co-wrote and produced all the films. But having his name on these films means nothing. If you've seen an Argento film- you know he would never direct something like this. It's a whole other ballpark, as some might say.

Argento's films are so much more graceful, complex, fascinating, and stylish. Not that Demons doesn't have its' moments. It does. But it's far more in the vein of something Lucio Fulci would have made. Only much harder and faster. Sort of like - if Fulci had made a more teenaged, pop culture appealing version of The Evil Dead. That film being the standard of making something like Night of the Living Dead more hardcore, or taking it to the next level. Cutting out some of the substance, which takes time to carefully orchestrate properly. Turning the substance into the shocks and awe of the filmmaking tricks.

Demons is meant to take Evil Dead to the next level, the way that film did with Night, and The Exorcist. And, arguably, The Shining. In terms of gore and body count- it does. Both are doled out in far higher quantities than Raimi's 1981 masterpiece. However, the hard and fast law that rules Demons makes it an empty and cheap film. And one that will bore you several times before it's over. Especially, since the plot revolves around a large group of people trapped in a place. Like other films, namely Return of the Living Dead, it takes the rest of the movie for anyone to escape. Finding a way out dominates the whole thing.

Fortunately for Return, the characters are really interesting or fun. So even though they're breaking down, stressing out, and flipping their wigs- you like watching them through to the end. Unfortunately for Demons, it's just a bunch of nobodies. Mostly faceless and nameless people who've already made themselves annoying to establish as they enter the theater that we're supposed to enjoy them being killed. That's one of the things that puts huge strain on this film. For example, as we discover they've been cemented up inside, they start losing their cool. As anyone would. But that kind of stress isn't fun to watch. It's maybe a little too real for an Italian gorefest.

Another example of this is when the movie starts. Tony the pimp is a real bang-up guy. He insults his prostitutes by calling one of them ugly, and frequently calls them "bitch"es. Then, there is a husband and wife. He's a real romantic type. He only takes his wife to free horror movies and when she complains (which she only does maybe twice), he yells at her. Then, he starts complaining because he knows the women sitting nearby are prostitutes. Yeah- like he wouldn't pay to have a night alone with either one of them. Seriously, this guy is a class-A jerk! And it's the night of their Anniversary too.

But back to the mass of people trapped. This leads to sequences like screeching wives with run mascara, people clawing each others' fingers bloody to try and dent the concrete walls, and a room that has the supernatural power to make all females spontaneously burst into hysterical screaming and nervous breakdowns. I'm a little confused about something - what's with the sexist character portrayals of women in films like these? Fulci had a similar relationship with his female characters in his films. Which I'll try to explain when I tackle his work a little later. It's not that serious in Demons, but it's still highly prevalent throughout.

Especially in scenes in a car with a bunch of cocaine-snorting juvenile delinquents. The young blonde girl is insulted viciously left and right, including incredibly personal and sexually demeaning things. And she's portrayed as so... to say stupid would be dismissive. She's trying to get along with the group of 3 guys, although the only one she likes is the violent psychopath with the car, Ripper, who is also the meanest one to her. Though overall, I'm not complaining about these interludes. The punks are really the only people I enjoy watching, as well as maybe George and Cheryl. The reason why is because we get more 80's pop-rock music, we finally get out of that damn theater, and because there's a strangely potent and erotic scene where the guy nicest to the girl, Nina, gently scrapes her skin with a razor blade, which she seems to be loving.

Grades:
Writing = D

It's been said of Italian horror films that story isn't that important. I would agree, but after being spoiled by more than 10 truly engrossing Argento films- ideas are important. And that counts for every horror film. As a matter of fact, they don't get cheaper than Fulci and his ideas are genuinely scary even if the finished products are usually laughable and sometimes embarrassing. But this movie's characters and plot development just don't work, overall. If the point really is watching a bunch of people load in and get knocked off, why is the fact that some are prostitutes important? Why is a sophisticated looking woman who takes care of a blind man sneaking off to meet some gross sleazeball like she's having an affair? And why is the awesomely ice cold Usherette character so mysterious and creepy, if she's going to end up being picked off like all the other victims? What's the point of the character build up if it's one big free-for-all?

Style / Direction = B+

Like almost all other Italian horror films- if it doesn't look good, it doesn't draw in the crowds over there in Italy. The 70's and 80's theater-goers over there were really in love with style. And so, Demons looks fabulous. A little gothic, a little gritty, grotesque and a little eerie, very flashy camerawork, and the pacing is highly effective. For a brainless gorefest meant to make you recoil and talk about the gore scenes and such later on with your friends, this works.

Acting = B-

Acting is a very hard thing to criticize and discuss in an Italian horror film. When shooting most of their films, Italian directors and crew don't use sound. They just shoot camera footage with people talking and dub the dialogue later. This allows them to get the performances they want without worrying about the actors getting their lines right and all that. So, the facial expressions seem to be working just fine. But the English dubbing voices for the characters is almost always horrendously over the top. This film is no exception.

Special Effects / Gore = A-

This film belongs to a select group of Italian horror films that form the heyday of Italy's best gore and special effects work. Even Argento's skin and flesh tearing doesn't usually look this good. And Fulci's stuff almost always looks terrible. Demons is the cream of the crop of Italian gore films. Especially when it comes to the film's big transformation sequence, with the second prostitute who crashes through the screen. The teeth and claws ripping through her hands. Excellent makeup and animatronic work! These are some damn scary-looking zombie creatures (they don't really classify as demons, since demons are actually possessed human beings in religious mythology).

Music Score = A

Argento's go-to guy, Claudio Simonetti from the legendary rock group Goblin does the more impressive score pieces here. Creepy, brooding, unusual, almost bug zapper-like numbers with chime and whirlwind sound effects that set a great little mood. The best thing about the smaller music tracks is how you almost don't notice them at all. But they're there. Also- how different they are from anything you've heard before. Just shows how valuable Simonetti is to the Italian film industry. The man is a genius, always inventive.

Atmosphere = C

The film does have atmosphere. Some. Especially in the first maybe 11 minutes. But that theater begins to get mighty boring after a short while. And something like the projection booth scene, where we find ourselves somewhere new, is too rare. The best attributes here are the camerawork, the music, and the lighting. Which is moody. But after 40 minutes, the movie drags on too much.

In Conclusion:
While the technical craft is strong and it's a good enough looking little ugly thing that will surely have you on the edge of your seat the first time you see it, the second viewing is guaranteed to be a snooze. For a more "hard rock" version of The Evil Dead, this film doesn't quite have its' staying power. It hasn't stood the test of time nearly as well. Had it been a little more interesting or carefully planned out, it could have been Argento's zombie film. Instead it's Lamberto Bava's claim to fame. And though I'd rather watch this again than any of his father, Mario Bava's stuff- he's just more of a follower than his father was. It unfortunately feels as though Fulci accomplished more. I recommend the film's quite superior sequel (also directed by Lamberto) over this.

Final Grade: C (5.5 out of 10)

Friday the 13th (1980)

2009-07-17T23:19:00.000-07:00

Plot:
1958 - 2 young camp counselors are mysteriously murdered and Camp Crystal Lake closes. 21 years later, Steve Christy wants to re-open. He hires 7 new counselors to help him. Then, one by one they are killed by the same murderer from 1958. Does the camp really have a death curse on it?

Thoughts & Observations:
We can't really lie and fluff up the reputation of these films. In some circles, they are seen as purely exploitational gorefests. As a matter of fact- the violence in these films seems to bother more people than the pointless, gratuitous nudity. The killings in these films are often brought up when they're being criticized. But as any horror fan who loves this period in the genre knows - violence is a necessary ingredient in the horror film. We can't lose sight of the need for the threat of death. But the thing that makes this franchise, in particular, problematic are all the incredibly cheap and boring sex / undressing scenes. Now that's exploitational.

And, just look at the plots of most of these movies. Paramount Home Video have made them sound mysterious and scary (or gluttonous) enough since the VHS releases I'm sure most of us checked out when we were in the Horror section at our local Blockbuster as kids (or, home town video store). What features all too prominently in these films are characters being loud, drinking, making really stupid sex / scatological jokes, doing harder drugs (cocaine, marijuana, perhaps other things), and taking their clothes off and humping or otherwise cavorting about. It would be really nice to be able to call them anything other than what they are. But... that's what they are, folks. Especially, Part IV of the series. The Final Chapter.

They often lose sight of the artistry of the horror film, in order to show lots of T&A. Even on women with quite small breasts and way too skinny bodies. Though thankfully, it doesn't look like they hired any women who were starving themselves slowly to death (remember the bathtub scene in The Shining?). I'm not a woman, but if I were, I would want a healthy, curvy body. I wouldn't want to look like a tiny stick. Which brings another question to the table- why weren't more actresses at this time more self-conscious? They certainly became so after the wave of Friday the 13th had begun washing over popular culture.

One feature that you just have to love from the Friday the 13th franchise is the isolation of character after character. This works better in the first and third films. But soon it's a formula that becomes comfortable and disappointing if it's ever missing. Or underplayed. It's also a great opportunity to get the more annoying characters to finally shut their mouths. Though in sequels, some of them would go on talking to themselves (Pete in Part V: A New Beginning, for example). Except for the occasional, "Wanda... ?" (my inclusion, none of the characters in the series were named Wanda) or the always popular, "stop fooling around!"

As for Friday's placement in the genre... Well, it gets a reputation as a Halloween rip-off. In a way, this is completely unfair. What it really takes from Halloween are the P.O.V. shots of the killer stalking victims. And, perhaps, the single running lone female survivor in jeopardy, mostly screaming and hiding from the killer. But, there are several differences. In Carpenter's film- you were meant to know who the killer was from the start. It wasn't a whodunit in any way. And, what about the added theme of children in peril? Or, in the case of Michael Myers- evil children? Then, Michael is the killer. Jason is really a device of mystery. Something to divert your attention in a way. A tragic figure even.

The music scores by Carpenter and Harry Manfredini couldn't be more different. Carpenter's is more keyboard / synthesizer-driven and brooding in a heady, atmospheric way. Something very cutting edge. Manfredini's is truly in the mode of a classical suspense "picture." Orchestral with swelling, heavy strings, that really screeches if the volume level is too high (with any luck, the new Paramount "Deluxe Edition" DVD's 5.1 track has fixed this effect and lessened it). Since this is my first movie discussion, it's important to say how vital music and audio in horror is to me in the genre. And the feel of dialogue and the mood the movie uses its soundtrack to set. Which is of course why Friday the 13th is a better than average movie in some regards and Halloween is an outright masterpiece.

It's not the first slasher film to come along (but then again, neither was Carpenter's landmark film). 1971's Bay of Blood (aka- Twitch of the Death Nerve) and 74's Black Christmas and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre came before it. In terms of the genre though, a mix between Friday the 13th and William Lustig's hideously shitty Maniac dictated what the slasher film would be over the years of underwhelming stuff, ranging from the completely dull My Bloody Valentine to the utter turds like The Prowler. Though the Friday series always held the record for highest body count. Even throughout the long competition with New Line's inventive and visually compelling A Nightmare on Elm Street franchise.

Grades:
Writing = C-

Reading that plot really shows this film has no ambition to have a message or a more serious point to it. And that's great if the director shows an incredible visual style, which this one does not. Though the film has begotten a lot of theories over the years that it's a conservative "How (Not) To" on social behaviors. That, these characters pay with their lives for having sex out of wedlock. Of course, to this the director has several times talked it off, saying that wasn't his intention at all. I believe him. Anyway, give it some credit for including themes that remain consistent throughout. Such as references to bad luck and things like the full moon, which of course is still unlucky. And at least the writer really tried when it came to Jason and Mrs. Voorhees' backstory. Her high-pitched and emotionally wild and raw speech to Alice has reached iconic status among fans like me.

Style / Direction = A-

I think this is where Friday the 13th really shines. Though he's not as show-offy as Steve Miner who directed Parts 2 and 3, Sean S. Cunningham does seem to have an idea of what to do with the camera. Even if a lot of the shots were improvised or devised on-location, this is a scenically dreamy movie. It's remarkably well shot, at least where the cabin interiors and woodsy outdoors meet Harry Manfredini's score. The film does drag on in terms of pace, but that's one of the things that has kept me coming back over the many years I've loved this movie. It allows the film to idol the crisp days of early summer. This is what hopefully offsets or balances out the often perverted and lame qualities of the dialogue and characterization.

Acting = D+

The quality of acting in a film like Friday the 13th is hardly the point, it's true. There are a couple not-too-terrible people sprinkled throughout the movie. Of course, Walt Gorney (Crazy Ralph) and Betsy Palmer (Mrs. Voorhees) need not be mentioned. Everyone remembers them, because they're great. Kevin Bacon isn't awful, but the one who really seems to have a future here is Laurie Bartram as the vegan weed-fiend Brenda. She's excellent. Totally natural and seems to be comfortable in this role, and among such terrible supporting players. One of the true hallmarks of the Friday the 13th series is bad acting and awful dialogue.

Music Score = B+

Special Effects / Gore = C

Atmosphere = B-

The best feature of Friday the 13th is definitely the setting. The summer camp, the woods, the chilling shots of the full moon, the cold rain, and the various cabin areas. Coming from someone who absolutely hated to go camping as a kid- this movie actually makes me reconsider that position. Whenever a movie is fun to watch, sort of touring the sights instead of having to be there just to get into it - you know it's special.

In Conclusion:
I think what we're really talking about here is charm. In 1980, this was a bit schlocky or campy and I know others picked up on it too. These films have become classics. Because their low technical quality and low-middle brow-ness is very charming, looking back from these ultra slick and high modern times. I think that's why people love these movies. The look and the feel of the films is charming. Like, the same way Motel Hell was stupid back then but is charming now. Ya know? Also- in these pathetic new days of garbage like Saw and Haute (High) Tension trying to recapture the grimey glory days of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, The Hills Have Eyes, and Friday the 13th - this was the real thing! This was true gritty.

Final Grade: C+ (5.5 out of 10)