TWISTED KISSES

I was scanning through a bunch of articles I wrote a while back for Slack Jaw Punks. And I realized that website really isn’t functioning anymore. I haven’t posted there for a few years so it’s not surprising that the site’s demise went unnoticed. It’s cool to see they have a podcast but a website…not so much.

I thought it might be fun to revisit those articles and repost them at The Monkey House. Most of them had to do with movies in general (I think there’s a tv show list in there somewhere) so we’ll showcase them on this page.

For the first article, as Valentine’s Day is a week away, it seems appropriate to repost my top 10 list of gross-out spit-swapping in movies. I actually didn’t update it because all of these still stand true!

(Originally Published for Slack Jaw Punks, 2016)

After running some errands the other day and witnessing all the red and pink and hearts and lace and love and invasive décor reminding us all we’re almost out of time to buy more meaningless crap for our significant others so they’ll know HOW MUCH WE LOVE THEM OH GODS DON’T LEAVE ME FOR JERRY IN THE MAILROOM I SWEAR I’LL DO WHATEVER YOU WANT I CAN CHANGE…

What was I talking about?

Oh, right. Valentine’s Day is just around the corner and it got me thinking about kissing. But then again, what doesn’t? I wanted to highlight just a few movies that showcased the darker side of lip-locking. You know, the scenes that made you go…

 Or even…

I had to include one television example simply for its historical significance but the rest are mostly gag-inducing freak shows of cinematic saliva.

So take a peek. Think about them. Discuss them with your friends and family. Get in a fist fight over ‘em with your roommate. Maybe recreate them yourself, if you’re man enough.

WARNING: SPOILERS – but for cripe’s sake, the newest offering in my list is 15 years old. So stop crying. Just stop it.

Jethrine and Tyler, Beverly Hillbillies (the movie), 1993.  I know there are haters out there but this was one hell of a delightfully funny flick. Diedrich Bader plays Jethro Bodine, as well as his twin sister, Jethrine. This delicate little flower (all 6’2” of her) takes a shine to Tyler, played by Rob Schneider, a sniveling little con man. As the climactic wedding scene wraps up, Jethrine grabs Tyler and strong-arms him into a good 30-second smooch. Hysterical and not a little unnerving, especially watching Tyler try, and fail, to detach himself from the towering southern belle.

“I don’t have to give the dress back, do I?”

2. Anck Su Namun and Imhotep, The Mummy Returns, 2001.  The sequel to The Mummy (obvi) shows us bad boy Imhotep being resurrected, again. His reincarnated love joins him this time to destroy the world or escape Hell or something. Whatever. I have no problem with Patricia Velasquez kissing Arnold Vosloo (talk about yummy mummy). But when Anck Su Namun decides to lock lips with Imhotep’s resurrected rotting corpse, well, then I have issues that I just can’t resolve.

“You’re gonna put on some Chapstick first, right?”

3. Uncle Belvedere and Ramona, Cry Baby, 1990. I am not a huge John Waters fan. But this flick is chock full of camp and satire and black comedy so I just couldn’t turn away. Except for one part. I was pretty grossed out by everyone tongue-jockeying in the extreme-sport style French kissing scene up at Turkey Point (aka The Redneck Riviera). And as rock-n-roll awesome as Iggy Pop is, watching him slime someone’s face as he basically tries to swallow it is just too much for me to process.

“Did you have ring baloney for lunch?”

4. Kirk and Uhura, Star Trek, “Plato’s Stepchildren”, Season Three, 1968.  Say what you will about William Shatner but the man was hottie heaven in the 60’s. In the third season, Kirk and other members of the Enterprise crew are psychokinetically manipulated by an alien race because apparently being psionically endowed means you can be a giant ass hat (yeah, I had to double check the definition of psionically – shut up). Kirk and his Communications Officer, Uhura, are forced to kiss. Not only does it put a strain on the Captain/Crew professional relationship, it was the first interracial kiss aired on prime-time television. Pretty cool, huh?

“Watch the tongue, white devil.”

5. Dr. Frank-N-Furter and Brad (and Janet), Rocky Horror Picture Show, 1975. Two hapless goody goodies stumble upon the home of a Transsexual Transylvanian mad scientist and his cronies. They are forced to stay, sans clothing, to witness the doctor’s incredible creation. For those who just don’t GET Rocky Horror, you may find the whole experience head-scratching bizarre. The kissing in RHPS is not twisted because Tim Curry is dressed in drag. It’s not because he goes for Brad after making the blond muscular love slave, Rocky, or that he then goes after Janet. It’s, uh, well…it’s…I think…I’m sorry. Can we just take a minute to bathe in the gorgeous glory of Tim Curry, please?

“Take a ride on my frank-n-furter. I dare ya.”

6. Brian and Meg, Family Guy, “Barely Legal”, Season Five (2006).  Meg, the only daughter of Peter and Lois Griffin, whom everyone hates or forgets about, can’t get a date for her prom.  So out of pity, the family dog, Brian, decides to take her. He drinks himself practically blind thinking it’s the only way he can tolerate the whole evening. Until he starts making out with her. Meg then develops an unstable ‘fatal attraction’ obsession with Brian. That poor dog.

“Was…was that even legal?”

7. Luke and Leia, Star Wars, 1977.  Okay. I don’t care if this is one of the best movie franchises EVAH. George Lucas wrote MULTIPLE SCENES with Luke and Leia kissing or almost kissing, even though he admitted early on that theirs was a familial bond! Siblings sucking face is just plain oogey even if the audience isn’t aware of the relationship yet. And don’t give me that ‘oh, they didn’t know at the time’ or ‘they’re just movie characters, you spaz’.  Being ignorant of the rules, or not truly bound to them because you’re not real, doesn’t exclude you from them. Period.

“Incest at its best.”

8. Jake Gray and Marisol, Devour, 2005.  Jake Gray gets involved in an on-line game called “The Pathway”. Once he’s in, people start to die and he suspects the Devil may be involved. As he investigates, the truths revealed are not exactly what he expected. Okay. I don’t care if the most beautiful man in existence is in this flick. Mothers and sons kissing each other is just plain oogey, even if they are The Devil and her Antichrist offspring and we expect that kinda behavior from them.  See #7 for the rest of the rant.

Any reason to post a picture of Jensen Ackles… I mean, just LOOK at the man.

 

9.  Sheila and Deadite Ash, Army of Darkness, 1992.  In this hilarious third installment (Yes, it’s no longer scary. It’s funny. Get over it.) Ash gets pulled through time and into the past, where he STILL has to fight Deadites in order to save the day and win the girl. Now, Bruce Campbell is sexy and adorable and who the heck wouldn’t want to kiss him?  But after Good Ash buries Bad Ash, who then rises from the grave as Deadite Ash, even The Chin can’t save him. So when DA clamps his rotten slimy mouth onto poor Sheila, make sure you’ve got the puke bucket handy.

“Do I have something on my face?”

10. Billy and Heidi Halleck, Thinner, 1996.  So Billy is a slimy lawyer who, while driving home one night, gets a little road head from his wife. And wouldn’t you know it? He got so distracted that he ran over an old gypsy, killing her. Now her son has cursed Billy to lose weight until he dies, UNLESS he passes the curse on to someone else. Naturally he blames his wife for this whole mess so why not give it to her? The curse takes only a good night’s sleep to run its course and the next morning Billy is so happy at seeing the gelatinous slip-n-slide his wife has become that he plants a big one right on her desiccated face. I think I just threw up in my mouth a little.

“Honey, I don’t think that new night cream is working.”

Now get out there and suck some face, people!

WHATS OLD IS NEW AGAIN (and sometimes again) (and maybe again)

I’m actually getting into an almost ‘real’ convention schedule again, so the next few weekends will be busy with pre-con prep and post-con exhaustion. These review posts won’t be as regular as I’d like, but I’ll do my best!

I’ve been itching to do this compare/contrast for a while, but the OG wasn’t available to stream anywhere. And, honestly, I didn’t want to buy it because it’s not a favorite. But I finally found it and now, here we are. Let’s take a look at 1960’s 13 Ghosts and 2001 Thirt13en Ghosts!

SPOILERS: As per usual, I will be spoiling plot points and story reveals. It’s not my fault if you haven’t gotten around to watching movies that are 20 and 60 years old.

Original Film: Thirteen Ghosts (1960)

Directed by William Castle (he of gimmick filled movies, this being no exception), 13 Ghosts is about an absent minded, penniless professor, Cyrus Zorba, and his family. After collectors come and taken away all their furniture and belongings, Cyrus gets a telegram from a lawyer named Ben Rush. He needs to speak with Cyrus immediately.

Turns out Cyrus’ uncle, Dr. Zorba, has recently died and left his estate to Cyrus. Apparently, Cyrus thought the man died a long time ago, but Ben tells him Dr. Zorba only wanted people to think he was dead. By doing so, he could conduct his crazy experiments in peace. Experiments that involved travelling the world and collecting ghosts. So not only does Cyrus inherit a fancy mansion, he and his family get the ghosts that come with it.

Of course, they laugh it off. How could that be true? Ben is not amused, and in fact tries to talk them out of taking possession of the home. But as Cyrus, his wife, Hilda, and children, Buck and Madea (wait…seriously?), have no where to live, they move in. Along with the house, and ghosts, Dr. Zorba left Cyrus a pair of weird glasses, though he didn’t leave a note explaining what the hell they’re for.

When they move into the house, they meet the housekeeper, Elaine (played by Margaret Hamilton – yep, the Wicked Witch of the West. Believe me, that comes back later.). She would like to remain on the job until she can find something else. She is a bit off-putting, but the Zorbas have no problem with her remaining in the house.

As they settle in that first night, Buck (oh, he’s so incorrigible) finds a Ouija board to play with. What could go wrong? As the answer to that scares the crap scared out of them, and Ben continues to bemoan the awful house and whole situation of the Dr. being found shredded to death, everyone just shrugs off the floating planchette and turns in for the night.

Once everyone goes to bed, the ghosts start acting up. Cyrus hears some strange noises and goes to investigate. He stumbles onto Dr. Zorba’s hidden laboratory! Using those strange glasses, Cyrus is able to see all the ghosts that are, in fact, stuck in the house. At one point, a giant spinning wheel of fire attacks him and Cyrus is actually hurt. Cyrus grabs a book, written in Latin, and skedaddles the fuck out of that damned lab. He speaks to his boss the next day, showing him the book and asking for help in translation. At first, the boss thinks this Dr. Zorba guy is a kook. But after cross-referencing some articles at the University that speak of a Dr. Zorba and his ability to capture ghosts, he’s not so sure.

The book describes the eleven ghosts Dr. Zorba captured, plus the twelfth ghost – which is the doctor himself! He states he will stay in the house in order to get revenge for what was done to him (WHAT WAS IT???). Before they can read more, Hilda calls for Cyrus to come home ASAP.

When he arrives, a few of the ghosts are wreaking havoc in the kitchen. Buck explains everything, that Emilio is the ghost of a chef who murdered his wife and her lover, sister-in-law, and mother-in-law. He’s all very non-plussed about the whole situation. Turns out, the housekeeper told him about all the ghosts and now Cyrus needs to know more.

Though Dr. Zorba left her out of his plans right before he died, Elaine used to help him with his experiments. When he was alive, he could control the ghosts. But now that he’s dead, they’re getting all cantankerous and aggressive. She also explains that the doctor converted most of his assets to cash and withdrew all the money from the bank. He hid it somewhere in the house but she doesn’t know where.

That night, after Madea is attacked by one of the spirits (or so we assume…), Cyrus says they need to leave. Ben thinks that’s a great idea. You don’t need to search for the hidden fortune – it probably doesn’t exist anyway. Yeah, get out. The sooner the better. Like, now.

Hmmm…not suspicious at all there, Ben.

But before they leave, Cyrus’ boss translates more from that Latin book, finding a clue to where the Doc probably hid his money. If only they could find the medium that Dr. Zorba worked with when he was alive, they could ask her to contact the doctor’s spirit. Well, holy shit. Wouldn’t you know the housekeeper, Elaine, was just that medium!

They ask for her help and if they find the money, they’ll move out in the morning.

Well, things get pretty scary as they contact Dr. Zorba. He warns them that someone is going to die tonight, completing the thirteen-ghost collection. And, if you can believe it, Ben tries to MURDER BUCK, the 10-year-old boy who’s keeps falling for the lawyer’s lies about finding the money for the family. Dr. Zorba pops up just in the nick of time, allowing Buck to escape and forcing Ben into the boy’s place, where he is crushed to death and becomes the 13th ghost.

The final scene shows us the family counting out a pile of cash, while Buck talks to Elaine about the spirits. They’re gone but they’ll be back. Buck hopes real soon before he skips off screen, probably wishing to see more people murdered (weird fucking kid) and the special ghost-seeing glasses explode. Elaine picks up a broom, breaks the 4th wall, and moves away. As the front door to the house slowly closes on its own, all the ghosts pop up in the foyer one at a time, including Ben, then the words, “House for Sale”, magically appear over the door.

Uh…okay.

This movie has a much more fun, silly, tongue-in-cheek attitude than I remembered. I mean, there are parts that are rather somber and disturbing, but over all its more lighthearted than the usual horror fare.

The character development was better than I thought. None of the main characters felt superfluous or unnecessary. The twists of Ben being a bad guy and Elaine being a medium would surprise most first-time viewers. Ben is helpful, courteous, and courting Madea throughout the film, though as we discover, it was probably just to give him an excuse to keep coming to the house to find the hidden treasure. Also his attempted murder of a child…I’d forgotten about that. That was some dark shit against the backdrop of breezy humor.

The effects…well, remember this is 1960 and technology was not what it is today. However, as this was a William Castle film, the movie was filmed in “Illusion-O” and the viewer needed special glasses to see the ghosts. They looked like 3-D glasses but, unlike those, the viewer could look through one color filter with both eyes. The red intensified the appearance of the ghosts, while the blue made them appear more faded. And from what I read, the DVD release of the movie included a pair of these glasses.

Yeah, I might have to go buy it now.

However, I think the artistic renderings of the ghosts in the opening credits were scarier than those in the film itself. Which isn’t that surprising, actually. And some of those ghost sequences went on FAAAAR too long. Buck sees the lion tamer and lion in the basement, and watches them move back and forth for at least five minutes. The movie is only an hour and a half, but with some of these f/x scenes, it dragged the story down and just padded the run time.

The acting is mediocre, and I wish they explained why Buck was so fucking fascinated by death. He really wanted to see someone murdered in real life, and says that out loud several times. For such a precocious kid, it really seemed to set the stage for Buck to become a serial killer later on. Someone should have made THAT sequel.

In general, it’s a typical Castle B-horror movie that’s enjoyable, with some genuine scares, creep-factor, and wholesome dad-joke style humor.

And now on to the 2001 remake, Thir13en Ghosts.

If you’re not into the more humor-laden or silly horror films of the earlier decades, then honey, hold on to your tits because this does a 180 from the OG film.

Some of the story elements are similar, like the special glasses needed to see the spirits, and Cyrus’ name, and…uh, that’s about it. Let me break it down a bit more.

The opening scene shows us Cyrus Kriticos as he, his employed psychic, Dennis, and gaggle of security guys (I guess) hunt down the violent and terrifying ghost of a serial murderer. While a do-gooder, Kalina, and her friend, Damon, protest with empty threats, the behemoth spirit makes an appearance and murders nearly everyone present, including Cyrus and Damon.

THEN we get the opening credits. What a great way to start a film, people.

Arthur Kriticos, his wife, Jean, and their two kids, Kathy and Bobby, live a happy, wonderful life. That is until a fire devastates their home, kills Jean, and forces the rest of the family to struggle daily with financial woes. One day, a lawyer contacts Arthur and arrives at his apartment with a digital recording from Arthur’s uncle, Cyrus.

Unfortunately for Cyrus, he’s dead now. But that’s good news for Arthur and the fam. As Cyrus’ sole heir, Arthur inherits everything. Cyrus led a life in search of knowledge and, um, stuff. So the unique house and all the treasures inside belong to Arthur now. He’ll never have to worry about money again.

They meet the lawyer at the house the following evening, greeted by Dennis disguised as a power company employee who says he needs to check the breakers. Everyone heads inside, after Arthur uses the most ornate key I’ve ever seen, to open the door. When he does that, some kind of machine kicks on in the basement.

Hmmm…what’s that all about?

While Arthur and the lawyer discuss specifics, Kathy, Bobby, and housekeeper, Maggie, explore the home. Dennis heads downstairs, looking for the money that Cyrus owed him. There he finds the entire basement filled with containment cubes – large, glass containers, scribbled over with Latin texts. After suffering a seizure (which is what happens when Dennis gets a psychic impression), he pulls out a pair of the special glasses used to see the spirits. Every cube in the basement contains a ghost.

Okay, screw the money. Dennis needs to warn Arthur and his family. The lawyer tries to discredit the whole story, and Dennis’ behavior, but he knows the truth about what Cyrus was up to. But as the machine in the basement winds up, the house walls shift, blocking the exit, and making the house more confusing to navigate.

It’s also releasing all the violent angry spirits from their confinements.

Luckily for the family, Kalina shows up during one of the shifting moments. She came to free all the trapped souls in the house, and turns out, save their lives. She and Dennis don’t get along too well, as you may imagine, but it’s a good thing she shows up as she explains what the hell is going on.

Yeah, its an exposition dump, but it’s so very interesting to me.

The house is actually a machine that Cyrus built. By powering it with the energies of specific ghosts, it will open the Oculus Infernum, the all-seeing Eye of Hell. If knowledge is power, then the man who controls the eye is the most powerful of all. Eleven of the trapped ghosts have been released, and the house needs twelve.

But Dennis remembers that Damon said something about Cyrus needing a 13th ghost, which he’d never be able to procure. According to Kalina, it’s actually a failsafe. It stops the machine from becoming completely functional. The 13th ghost has to be a living sacrifice, someone willing to give up their own life to save another. And because Arthur’s dead wife is one of the spirits trapped (sweet Jeebus, can you imagine?), and his kids have disappeared and are assumed in great danger, he needs to become that 13th ghost to save them.

Determined to save his family, Arthur heads out into the house with Dennis, taking one of the glass walls covered in Latin containment spells, to search for the kids. Maggie and Kalina go to find the ‘engine’ of the machine and prep C4 bombs just in case Arthur fails.

Except Kalina isn’t trying to stop shit. She’s actually in love and league with Cyrus, who faked his own death to lure Arthur and his family. After getting Kalina to put the kids in genuine danger, Cyrus tricks her into a trap where she is killed.

Ah, l’amour.

After all the ghosts have been summoned, and the kids put right in the middle, Arthur notes Cyrus standing off to the side watching it all. Well, that doesn’t make much sense unless…Arthur figures it all out, confronting Cyrus and getting his ass handed to him. Fortunately, Maggie has a trick up her sleeve. Though Kalina knocked her out, she didn’t kill her. So Maggie starts pulling levers, turns off the summoning spells, and jacks up the machine into self-destruct mode. Free from their capture, the twelve ghosts turn on Cyrus and kill him before traipsing off into the afterlife.

Arthur and his children survive, Jean comes to say one last goodbye (thankfully not in her hospital gown and burned flesh), and Maggie takes her ass back to NY and away from all these crazy white people.

FIN

A lot of people blast this movie with hate. And I guess I can understand. A little. I, personally, find this remake to be one of the few that is BETTER than the original.

One of the reasons I can make that statement is the acting. With actors like F. Murray Abraham, Tony Shalhoub, Matthew Lillard, and Embeth Davidtz, it’s not like you’re going in expecting Amateur Hour during open mic night at the local choke and puke. F. Murray’s Cyrus is played with over-the-top gusto, which works for a megalomaniac; Tony’s Arthur reflects a man who’s been beaten down by circumstances beyond his control; Matthew plays a wonderfully greedy coward in Dennis, but also gives him depth as he tries to navigate the new world of ‘good guy’; and Kalina, that poor naïve love-sick woman whose rose-colored glasses obscure the man Cyrus really is, and the criminal she’s become for him. There’s much more emotional attachment to the characters in this film than the original and I’m not ashamed to say I cried several times throughout the movie.

Another reason is the dark, bloody, violent nature of the visuals and the story itself. It takes the bright mood of the original and throws it in the dungeon, pees on its head, then locks it up for all eternity. Granted, the remake tries its hand at some humor, though most of it doesn’t hit its marks. Dennis’ jokes are probably the best, and Maggie has a good zinger about crazy white people, but otherwise, the humor falls flat.

The ghosts in this version are terrifying. Gone are the cheesy Castle gimmicks. These ghosts represent harsh realities, gruesome deaths, and violence beyond comprehension. There are times we get sneak peeks of them, even when the characters in the film can’t see them. Even after their introductions, we don’t always get long, solid looks at them. I think that makes them a bit scarier, more intriguing than if they ran around in full view all the time. The editing helped a lot with that, though I know some reviewers were mad about it, or thought it too distracting.

Whatever, Roger Ebert…

I think the story is more fully developed, and it probably helped that the writer of the original film was the writer on the remake. Giving the characters more depth, a believable motivation for the ghost collecting, containment and summoning spells, even the book that contains the information of the ghosts themselves, the Black Zodiac, created such a richer world for us to get lost in.

The visuals were gorgeous. Dark and bloody, but spectacular. The same production company produced the House on Haunted Hill remake so that would explain why I thought they had the same look and feel. Higher on the gore factor, hyper violent but without unnecessary animal deaths (let’s be honest – no animal deaths are ever necessary). I also loved that the house shone with bright gold or sparkling elements, but the basement was filled with shadows, rusty electronics, and blood.

The only things I didn’t enjoy were the more obvious CGI effects. Kalina’s death, the machine itself, Kathy’s sudden wounds as The Jackyl attacks her, and the burned-out house at the end look pretty crappy. The spells in the glass are cool, and Cyrus’ death as he’s torn apart looks pretty convincing. But the majority of the kills and blood effects were practical, which I appreciate. The lawyer’s death is one of the more unique kills I’ve ever seen in a film.

This film gets more shit than it really should. Is it a perfect film? No, and I don’t know many out there. But from character development, story depth, practical f/x, photography, editing, music, general production, and the talent pool available here, it’s a well-made film that offers a lot of disturbing elements, creepiness, emotion, and, in the end, a little bit of hope.

The remake outshines the original in nearly every way. So the winner here has to be the 2001 remake, Thir13en Ghosts.

WINNER: 2001 Remake Thir13en Ghosts!

WHATS OLD IS NEW AGAIN (and sometimes again) (and maybe again)

I thought it might be time to do the old compare/contrast review for one of my favorite Vincent Price films and it’s remake. Most of the time, I already have a bias in favor of an OG film (and usually, it’s justified). I couldn’t remember a whole lot about the remake on this one, except to say that I thought I enjoyed it somewhat, but it was just okay.

Happy to say, I was partly wrong.

But let’s kick things off with the original 1959 House on Haunted Hill.

(SPOILER ALERT: As both these films are at least 20 years old, I will be giving away plot points and story reveals through the review. Get over it.)

Quick synopsis for the uninitiated: A millionaire invites five people to a haunted house for a party he’s throwing for his wife. They all must spend the night in the house and if they survive, each person gets $10,000 (that would be around $90K in today’s money). As you might guess, the ghosts in the house have other ideas and put all the guests through terror before the night is over. Do any of them survive?

All right, let’s get down to the nitty gritty. Directed by William Castle, this film came out in 1959, so you may be wondering why it’s in black and white. Color movies were available at the time, so I can only guess it was either an artistic choice or a budgetary one. Either way, I prefer it in its original black/white, as opposed to the colorized version that came out in 2005.

(I think any black and white film that gets the colorized treatment looks terrible and it weakens the original film)

The films starts right off with narration from one of the characters, Pritchard, but his image is on the screen and talking directly to the viewer. He gives us a vague dark history lesson on the house. Then the host of the party, Frederick Loren, pops up and gives us some more narration, sounding like he’s reading the invitation he sent out before introducing all the guests as they make their way to the house. We’ve got Lance, the ex-pilot; Nora, a secretary supporting her whole family; Ruth, a local paper columnist with a large gambling debt; Dr. Trent studying hysteria brought on by fear; and Pritchard, the only remaining member of the family who owns the home.

All of this happens before the credits even begin!

Once we get through all that, then we can watch this like any other film. We are not involved anymore, but we have been primed and prepped.

The characters are all well developed. Besides the interesting info dump with the narration, we get to know the characters as the story progresses, though I do feel the columnist, Ruth, is left wanting for a bit more meat to her story. But I think they make up for it by making her a target of the dripping blood that moves around the house.

I think the most development comes with Frederick and his wife, Annabelle. It’s obvious they absolutely abhor each other; they’ve tried to kill each other before; she only married him for his money and he knows she’s sleeps around. I love how the animosity between them is very underplayed, though. They don’t call each other names or cuss each other out, and they certainly don’t act unbecoming in front of the guests. It’s a good tension builder and the tiny snippets the others see make them come to all the wrong conclusions.

The exterior shots of the house are of the Ennis House in California, built by Frank Lloyd Right. Very modern, lots of cube shapes, etc. Sound stages were used for the interior shots, with different styles mixed throughout the ‘home’. It’s a little off putting, as you don’t expect to see the Victorian style gas lamps, dark wood, and thick carpeting. So we’re already off-kilter right from the start. I’m also guessing the acid pit in the cellar was not a normal part of 1920’s architecture or home conveniences.

(Personally, it’s my favorite part)

The music fits perfectly into a 1959 horror film. At times dramatic, a sweeping orchestral score, hints of minor chords or dissonance that enhance each scene. It never detracts or does any disservice to the overall feel and mood of the whole movie.

As the movie progresses, Pritchard, whose own brother was murdered in the house, keeps insisting on how the ghosts who live here are mad and will attack anyone they can. More than likely, someone will end up dead and joining the gaggle of spirits before the night is over. Aside from the blood dripping, everything else that happens in the house can be explained – once you get to the big twist, that is. Up until that point, though, it does seem like the house is haunted. Nora receives the brunt of the torment, though, so by the 3rd act, she’s absolutely hysterical with terror.

And that brings me to the twist. You see, one of the guests, Doctor Trent, is having an affair with Annabelle. They agreed to this little party so they could set someone up to shoot Frederick. She wouldn’t get arrested, no one would be any wiser, and she’d get all his money. And with Nora completely hysterical, and running around with a gun to protect herself, it’s only a matter of time.

Oh, Nora shoots him all right, after Annabelle fakes her own death which solidifies everyone’s beliefs that Frederick killed her. Trouble is, Frederick already knew what those scheming nasties were up to and turns the table on them both, using the convenient vat of acid to achieve his revenge. It’s a double twist! In fact, I think my favorite line comes from Frederick after he gets rids of Annabelle. “It’s a pity you didn’t know when you started your game of murder that I was playing, too.”

When I saw this as a kid, this twist and big reveal were quite a shock to me. I loved it. It may seem cliché or an overused trope today (and it can be) but if you rewatch the film, knowing what’s going down, you will see Annabelle and David dropping hints to their plan, how they’re gauging each guest’s fear level, planting seeds to create alibis or allies. It’s all done with subtlety and double meanings, and if you’re not paying attention, you could miss it.

I do love the ending. While the David and Annabelle get their just desserts, it’s obvious Frederick murdered them, or set them up to ‘have accidents’ in the acid pit. But he turns himself in, or at least tells everyone he’ll let the authorities decide if he’s guilty. It’s almost like Frederick Loren is Lawful Evil, you know?

There are a few things that irk me about this film, though.

• While Pritchard is going on and on about all the ghosts, he pulls a butcher knife from a hidden compartment in one of the sofa arms in the drawing room. It was used to kill his brother. WHY IS IT STILL IN THE COUCH, THOUGH??

• The acid vat in the cellar was used to get rid of some victims. And it’s still full of acid. WHY THOUGH?

• After Annabelle’s “death”, the guests convene in the drawing room to discuss what the hell is going on. But the doctor doesn’t bother Nora (she’s already hysterical at this point) because it doesn’t concern her. WHY THOUGH? She’s in the house, right? Annabelle is dead either by ghosts or one of the other guests so IT CERTAINLY FUCKING CONCERNS NORA.

• Once Nora has reached the peak of hysteria, she grabs a gun and heads for the cellar. WHY THOUGH? She just saw Dead Annabelle outside her window. Shouldn’t she seek safety with Lance at least, since they’ve been kinda lovey dovey from the start?

• The tricks David and Annabelle play on Nora don’t really add up. There seem to be too many of them, happening too quickly at opposite ends of the house, to be plausible. However, maybe some of them, as well as the dripping blood, are the result of supernatural beings inhabiting the house…The whole ghost idea is hammered on again and again with very little evidence, just Pritchard’s word. And I kind of like that it’s very vague and open to interpretation.

This is one of my favorite films from the fifties, and definitely in my top five with Vincent Price as the star. Despite its few faults, I will always adore it and it’s a go to film when I need a little nostalgic comfort.

And now, let’s get a good look at the remake from 1999, directed by William Malone.

The basic story is the same – millionaire invites an assortment of people desperate for money to spend the night in a haunted house. He and his wife hate each other, and she wants him dead so she can get all his money. She and her lover plan the same hijinks as the OG – get someone so scared and convinced her husband is a killer that they, in turn, will kill him.

That is about the only similarity to the original film. This remake takes things to a much crazier, much creepier level. So much so that it almost feels like a completely NEW film with a haze of familiarity to the original.

Instead of opening with narration, we get a flashback. Dr. Vannacutt, the head doctor at the Vannacutt Asylum, is performing a medical experiment on a live patient, while one nurse assists and one films the whole procedure. Unbeknownst to them, all the patients have broken out of their rooms and taken over the asylum, killing everyone, including the two nurses and Vannacutt, in the most brutal fashions. But not before Vannacutt trips the emergency lockdown mechanism, which throws down heavy steel doors through which no one can escape. When the asylum catches fire during the riot, all but five people on the staff die.

That flashback is part of a television “true crime” episode Evelyn Price is watching while taking a bubble bath. She is the young wife of the eccentric Stephen Price, amusement park mogul, master of thrills and surprises, and millionaire. She emails him a list for the party; Stephen changes it immediately. Their whole exchange establishes that hate/hate relationship between them.

However, once Price leaves his office, with the party guest list open on his computer, something hacks the system and changes the names of the invitees.

When we finally get the opening credits, and the procession of the invited guests making their way to the house, Marilyn Manson’s cover of The Eurhythmics’ “Sweet Dreams (Are Made of This)” plays. They couldn’t have chosen a better song. Anyone familiar with his style of music can understand what I mean. Raw and creepy.

From the beginning of this movie, the tone is completely different from the original. It’s dark, unsettling, crueler, and atmospheric in the truest sense of the word gothic. The asylum, updated as a house, looms large atop a hill, a monstrosity in the dark. The inside is modern and stark, mostly blacks and whites – at least the main floor is. Once the guests venture into the basement, it’s a little more cliché with it’s rusty water-stained walls, cobwebs, discarded gurneys and clunky outdated machinery from the asylum days. The skinned specimens in display cases at the bottom of the stairs are a nice touch, though.

Generally, the characters are similar, in personalities and circumstances. Eddie’s former ballplayer the counterpart to Lance’s ex-pilot; Sarah is the modern Nora; Melissa is the new form of media journalist, replacing Ruth’s newspaper column. Price does have one of his park employees in a hidden monitoring room, spying on everyone and running a few mechanical tricks and surprises for the guests, but otherwise feels like the original eccentric. Evelyn is a bit more crude, definitely more sociopathic and twisted, but still a little money-grubbing whore.

The one clear difference is Chris Kattan’s Pritchett. Compared to the original Pritchard’s doom-and-gloom character, Pritchett is a high strung, scared as fuck, impatient man who just wants to get his money and get the fuck out of dodge. Yes, he believes the house is haunted and has caused many tragedies over the years. He tries to downplay it a bit at first, but once they are all locked in, he shares more than enough horror stories about the history of the asylum and Dr. Vannicutt’s own madness.

Chris Kattan is an absolute DELIGHT in this film and all of my favorite lines were uttered by him.

One of the big differences in this version is that there is NO DOUBT supernatural forces are at work. Though the characters question everything from minute one, considering Price’s reputation and all, the viewer is given no choice but to believe everything that Pritchett warns the guests about. Obviously Vannicutt’s victims are super pissed, but the true evil, the darkness embodied by the house, is responsible for everything.

The house changed the guest list; the house tripped the security doors; the house has no morals and will kill them all. We eventually learn that everyone invited to the party is related to one of the five surviving staff members of the original asylum. The house doesn’t brook no escapees, people.

And just so you don’t forget that little truth nugget, all but two of the characters die horrible, nasty deaths.

Because of that, we get a lot more practical special effects in this flick. Aside from the skinned specimens in the basement, there is a shit ton of blood, desiccated bodies, a severed head, gut stabbing, electrocution, body with a missing face (like someone took a melon baller to the head), and gun shots. And that’s not even counting the massacre of the opening story about the 1931 asylum riot!

Major creepy factor throughout the entire film. From the sets to the cinematography, the kills and ghosts, the viewer is delighted and disgusted by everything happening. I think that’s what makes this look and feel like a completely different film from the original. It’s more like a distant cousin’s wife’s brother-in-law’s uncle than a carbon copy.

The few issues I had:

1. Some of the pacing. When they lock Price up in one of the old machines, used to treat schizophrenia, his torment and hallucinations go on far too long. The surreal nature of the treatment procedure loses its hold on the viewer after a couple of minutes. Also everyone constantly running to the basement then back to the living room then back to the basement and back to the living room…tiresome.

2. I also don’t believe that Sarah can fix the basement power issues by rewiring a rusty, crusty fuse box that hadn’t been updated or touched since 1931. I don’t think that’s how it works. Electricians in the audience? Help me out on this one?

3. Sarah believes Price is a killer way too soon, and never doubts that conviction. At least in the original, Nora started to think maybe she was overreacting or just unsure of who she saw doing what. Sarah knows nothing about anyone here, so why is she so sure Price is a murderer?

4. Jump scares. Only a few but still, I hate them. They’re a cheap parlor trick.

5. The effect used to create “the darkness” of the house looked more like a Rorschach ink blot test than anything otherworldly and dangerous. But I think for the time period and technology available, it was okay.

Not too much nitpicking from me. These issues were minor compared to the rest of the movie. I hadn’t watched this one in years so I’d forgotten a lot of it. And I’m honestly surprised to say I thoroughly enjoyed it. After some research, I’ve found that three major scenes and chunks of footage were cut from the film mostly because of running time constraints. So now I’m going to have to go buy a copy and see what’s its like with all that put back in.

I don’t think either film wins over the other. Both are fantastic examples of two different styles of haunted house stories. I’m going to have to call this one as a tie.

WHATS OLD IS NEW AGAIN (and sometimes again) (and maybe again)

The Wicker Man (1973) vs The Wicker Man (2006)

I’ve noticed on a few of my streaming services that there are a lot of original horror movies AND they’re remakes available. Now is the perfect time to get back to my compare and contrast series of the old and new films. Well, new is a relative term, as we will see in this post, that the more recent film is fifteen years old already.

For this review, we’re going to look at The Wicker Man. I hadn’t watched the original in a while, and I never could bring myself to view the remake as I’ve heard SO MANY BAD THINGS. But, like pulling a band aid off a hairy arm, I figured I should just watch the remake and get it over with.

SPOILER WARNING: More than likely, I will spoil the story and surprises throughout both films. To be fair, they’re not new but I understand someone may not have seen either of them yet. So if you don’t want anything ruined, stop reading here, go watch the movies, then come back. Cool? Cool.

Here’s the basic premise, which is mostly identical to both films. A police officer receives a letter from someone at a remote island, called Summerisle, begging for his help in finding a missing child. When he arrives, the people there are stand-offish, a little squirrely, and sketchy af. While searching for the child, the officer uncovers quite a mystery based in ancient pagan rituals and beliefs. And when he finds the answer? It ends VERY BADLY for him.

(Does this sound familiar? Midsommar had the same vibe, right? Yeah, not original. Moving on.)

Now let’s get into the specifics of each film, the first being the 2006 remake starring Nicolas Cage, Ellen Burstyn, Kate Beahan, Frances Conroy, Molly Parker, and Leelee Sobieski. Cage plays Edward Malus, a police officer, who is contacted by his ex-fiancé, Willow Woodward. In her letter, she says her daughter is missing and still somewhere on this small island of Summerisle.

Edward obviously still has some unresolved issues with Willow so heads out right away. He’s actually on leave because he was involved in a traffic accident with a mother and daughter, who were killed, and he’s having nightmares and awful visions of the whole thing. So he’s got the time to spare.

After bribing his way to the island with the pilot who drops off supplies every day, Ed arrives to a cold greeting from some local women. But after heading to the local tavern/inn, he meets up with Willow to find out what’s going on with her daughter, Rowan. As he investigates, he overhears or learns a lot of weird shit that goes on in the community. Eventually, he realizes that this commune is dedicated to the ‘ancient rituals’ particularly for the annual harvest. And they seem to blame Rowan for the bad crop last year.

Hmmm…could that be a reason they want her gone?

And as is always the case with communities like this one (secluded, different, off-grid kinda ways), Edward must meet with their leader, Sister Summerisle, to continue his investigation. Yes, her ancestors found this island, settling here after fleeing persecution in 17th century Europe (first to Salem – whoops) before making their way out west. Here’s where we get the major info dump of the community’s history. They are pagans, they worship and make sacrifices to the goddess for their lives and harvest, and they’re basically a matriarchal society. Men are good enough for breeding, but not much else. GIRL POWER!

Can you guess what this might mean for Edward, who’s done nothing but snoop and bully his way into their lives?

Once Edward realizes they plan to sacrifice Rowan at this year’s harvest festival, he disguises himself in one of the participant’s costume. At just the right moment, he frees Rowan and runs off into the woods. AAAAAAANNNNNDDDDD…..Rowan leads him right back to the gathered women.

And here we get the long exposition of what’s happened throughout the film, just in case you were too fucking stupid to figure it out for yourself. Turns out, they’ve been manipulating him from minute one to become the true sacrifice for this ritual. And when I say minute one, I mean from the moment Willow left the island years ago to begin their relationship in the first place, to the woman and child in the accident, to a fellow female officer that works with him.

Sorry, Ed, but it’s for the greater good. Thanks for coming. Take care now. Bye-bye then.

Okay, analysis time. I was actually surprised that this wasn’t as bad as I’d been led to believe. Don’t get me wrong – there are a lot of problems with this film. But I wasn’t curled up in the fetal position, crying for my mommy, by the time it was over.

The cinematography, music, sound, editing, and the overall production value were top notch. Gorgeous settings, good special effects, atmospheric music to set the mood. Everything worked together to make a seamless film. I also appreciated the nod to the original movie with Edward’s last name: Malus. That’s a species of apple, and in the original film, the major harvest was apples, not honey. There were quite a few nods to the original film but I’ll let you figure those out for yourselves.

Nic Cage was pretty decent. He can become a caricature of himself sometimes, and he bounced a little back and forth over that line through the film. But overall, I enjoyed his performance. I did NOT get the head-in-a-cage-of-bees scene in the copy I watched. Not sure if that’s a director’s cut or extra on the DVD, but it wouldn’t have much sense anyway as Edward is allergic to bees and it would have killed him almost immediately.

He delivered a few jokes in the film that had me burst out with laughter. Even though his acting does get manic – which worked sometimes for a character that’s becoming more desperate as the films goes on - his comedic timing is perfect. And later in the film, when Ed cold-cocks one woman and beats the crap out of another, I was not offended or taken aback. It made sense for his character. I actually wished he took his gun to the first woman, but you know, tomayto-tomahto.

I have to say that while I didn’t feel as bad for Edward when he’s dragged to his death, it’s still unsettling to watch him trapped in the giant Wicker Man, as the flames crawl up toward him and he starts screaming.

As for the other characters, those on the island, no one is likeable. Because they’re so manipulative, constantly use double-speak instead of giving direct answers, and absolute man-haters, I didn’t give a shit about any of them. They weren’t even whimsical or amusing. Just spiteful. The whole idea that Sister Summerisle is the queen bee, and the men are simply drones for the labor needed on the island (and their seed, of course, let’s not forget about the baby making seed) and all the women just cater to her ideals, pissed me off more than I thought it would.

Yes, I understand that women have been suppressed for centuries and this commune was not having any of that. But being the complete opposite doesn’t right the wrongs. Hating men, thinking they’re only good for procreation, only worshipping the female aspect of nature and the gods, praying to have only girl babies, not boys, does not reset the balance. That’s not how any of this works, ladies.

Honestly, that ‘only female’ aspect of the storyline ruined the movie. It’s just as bad, in my opinion, as to when the old witchcraft movies made all witches Satan worshippers. They’ve taken a religion that’s not Christian (in this case, paganism) and manipulated it for their box office numbers or to turn the main narrative on its head. Also, it’s trendy to put women in positions of power that have been denied them forever. And it’s ALWAYS a good idea to follow the trends, amirite?

The ending was pretty damned weak, too. Willow and LeeLee’s character, Honey, go to a bar in a major city to find themselves some new men. Honey meets a cop in training. SHOCKED, I TELL YOU. But then this doesn’t fit the story that they need specific sacrifices to ensure a bad harvest doesn’t happen two years in a row. I had the same questions in regards to Edward’s manipulation. Did they anticipate a shitty harvest eventually? Was this just insurance in case things went south with the honeybees? Or are they just a group of self-serving evil bitches, that used their sexual appeal to trick men into their cycle of she-woman man-hater crazy?

While the film looked great, and the acting was good, the overall story and female centric snobbery just turned me off. It’s a one and done experience, and I’m glad it’s over.

Now, on to the 1973 original.

The premise is identical, with just a few exceptions:

1.    The cop, Sergeant Howie, received a letter about a missing girl but doesn’t know who originally sent it.

2.    The townspeople are actually dressed in clothing of the current decade; the remake had them wear more period clothing, like the late 1800s or early 1900s. The original had a more unsettled feel with the contrast between modern clothing and ancient religious practices.

3.    Yes, the apple harvest is a big motivator for their actions, but it takes place after the fertility festival so naturally, there is a ton of fertility symbolism through the film. That goes hand in hand with all the nudity and sexually explicit song lyrics.

4.    Speaking of songs, this movie is damned near a musical as people break out into song all throughout the film.

5.    The whole belief system of the island is truer to paganism (except for the human sacrifice), where gods AND goddesses are important to life, rituals, and beliefs. This makes sense as there was a surge in paganism in the 60s and 70s.

It had been a while since I’d watched the original Wicker Man so I had nearly forgotten about ALL THE DAMNED SONGS. However, they fit the pagan themes of the story, even if I feel there were just too many of them. They did make me tune out for those few minutes each time someone started singing (except for Willow’s song and dance number…if you’ve seen the film, you know what I’m talking about *rowr*).

Fertility plays a huge part during the calendar period of the movie. The cop shows up right before the May Day celebration, which explains why there are so many nekkid people running around, open sensuality and sex, symbols of rabbits everywhere, and everyone being all randy. Sergeant Howie, however, is a devout Christian and certainly doesn’t approve of sex before marriage. So you can imagine why being stuck on this island with a bunch of pagans right before the major fertility sabbat could be unsettling for him.

You still get the feeling that everyone on the island is keeping a big secret, and therefore, being less than helpful in the sergeant’s inquiries. But everyone still has a twinkle in their eye – like they’re all in on a big joke, and just fucking with Howie, enjoying his frustration and prudish ideals. They don’t exude the sense of hatred and disgust that the remake gives us. They are all open about being pagans and what they believe, despite (or perhaps because of) the sergeant’s stout Christian faith.

The acting is stellar, of course. With stars like Christopher Lee, Ingrid Pitt, Britt Ekland, Diane Cilento, and Edward Woodward as Sgt. Howie, it’s hard to make a crap film. Lee as Lord Summerisle, while commanding in his role, is also lighthearted and quick to joke. Ingrid, Britt, and Diane play a perfect trio of sensual women that practically drag Howie around by his nose in order to mislead him – and even tempt him, albeit briefly.

Now, while the inhabitants of Summerisle in the original movie are much more likeable, that doesn’t make them any less terrifying. In fact, when the shit hits the fan, they are downright horrifying. During their May Day celebration, they incorporate a sword circle that intermittently pulls the swords together. If anyone’s head is in the circle at that particular time – CHOP! Each member of the community has to do that, though, so even the pagans aren’t safe from a possible gruesome death. And Howie is in disguise at this point, so he’s got a 50/50 chance of biting it before he can save Rowan. It’s a great tension builder.

When we finally get to the climactic scene, there are two specific instances that gave me goosebumps. First, as Howie is dragged to the giant Wicker Man for sacrifice, he’s begging and pleading to his God for help. Then as the flames slowly consume his prison, he prays and vows not to waver in his faith. The whole sequence is quite moving.

The second happens when from inside his confinement, Howie’s trying to reason with the community. But they have all joined hands and are swaying back and forth, singing joyously and smiling. It finally dawns on the sergeant that he’s doomed to die, burned in sacrifice to the pagan gods. I think that was when my heart truly broke for Howie and I realized that the hero doesn’t always win in the end. The viewer is truly worn out by being the voyeur to Howie’s emotional and spiritual roller coaster ride, and his death leaves us in a saddened stupor.

At least, that’s how I felt when it was all over.

Even though I don’t feel the remake is as awful as denounced, and I disliked the copious amounts of singing in the OG, the 1973 Wicker Man is by far the superior film. Its characters offer us more depth, more joy, a lot of sexy fun…you know, before the horrific murder. The story is engaging, the settings both beautiful and unforgiving, the acting is top notch, and as a whole package it still holds up nearly 50 years later. I don’t think I can ever say the same for the remake.

WINNER: 1973’s The Wicker Man

The Haunting of Bly Manor - Review

Yes, I set up this page for movies, but this Netflix series is so cinematic, it could pass for one. So my review will live here, snug as a bug in a rug.

As someone who watched The Haunting of Hill House, and loved every creepy moment of it, I was more than excited to see the teasers and trailers for The Haunting of Bly Manor. It’s the second installment in Mike Flanagan’s Haunting series (I’m not sure how many he has planned).

I expected Bly to be like Hill, quite unnerving and scary, dark, bloody, creepy, and filled with “blink or you’ll miss them” moments and scares. But what I got, what Flanagan gave us, was an entirely different kind of story; one that involves ghosts, yes, but each with its own heartbreaking origin, and lasting effects.

To quote one of the final lines of the show, “You said it was a ghost story. It isn’t. It’s a love story.” Everything that happens at Bly Manor, good or bad, originates with love.

I won’t spoil any plot elements, but if you’ve read The Turn of the Screw, or seen any of its film adaptations, you’ll already know the basic premise. The rest of the story was fleshed out from there, so it did spin off in new directions, and some other elements were added in.

But I can comment on a few things, and hopefully what I share will make you want to go stream the entire nine episodes in one sitting (or two, like I did).

1. Story: So many people went into this believing it would be nearly a carbon copy of The Haunting of Hill House (I did). Not surprising, since many of the actors from that series played roles in this one. They did not reprise the same characters at all; this was not a continuing story of Hill House or the Crain family. And because we absolutely DID NOT get a repeat of Hill House, so many folks are out there screaming foul, and crying into their pumpkin cinnamon ales and half-caff, lo fat, espressos with oat milk. But like I stated above, once you realize this series is based on The Turn of the Screw, your expectations take a back seat - or they should. This is a hauntingly heartbreaking story. Yes, there are literal ghosts here, but they aren’t the only kind represented. Regret, guilt, abandonment, death, love, hate, fear - all of these elements create ghosts, too, ones that haunt the living AND the dead. So do me a favor. If you watched this wanting creepy, jump scares galore, blood and gore, and were disappointed, PLEASE re-watch it, and put all that shit to the side. Throw away your 1980’s definition of goth (believe me, that irony is not lost here), and keep the 18th century meaning closer to heart. It will completely change your perspective, and make all the difference. (check this link for some quick descriptions of what makes gothic literature: CHARACTERISTICS OF GOTHIC NOVELS )

2. Cinematography: It was actually filmed in British Colombia, Canada, but if I hadn’t looked that up, I would have thought for sure it was filmed in England. The grounds of Bly Manor itself were fittingly gloomy, foggy, depressing, and gave us an overall feel of things abandoned and forgotten - which fits the story PERFECTLY. Lighting (or lack there of), composition, color, focus, the way certain scenes were framed gave us a heads up that maybe we didn’t need to watch Dani’s every movement as she walked through the foyer, but instead should have concentrated on that dark corner by the stairs…. All worked seamlessly together to create a visually stunning show.

3. Style: The beginning and end of the series take place in 2007, but the majority of the story is told in a flashback to 1987. And it represented the time period well. Not everyone had a “Frankie Goes to Hollywood” t-shirt, or bangs up to the ceiling, or shoulder pads for days. It’s much more subtle than that, but stylized enough for anyone who survived that fashion garbage dump of an era (*coughMEcoughcough *) to easily walk in at any time during the entire series, and realize when it took place. But even beyond the costuming, the language, the music, the sets all told us what year it was. You could even see and feel the 2000’s style that started and ended the show.

4. Acting: Every actor in this series was top notch. Even the two kids exceled as Flora and Miles, two children hiding a BIG secret. I think Kate Siegel, whose part was not as extensive as it was in Hill House, stole the show every time she was on screen. I’ve spied a few comments on-line that dragged T’Nia Miller through the mud for her ‘lacking’ performance as Mrs. Grose. And all I can say is: fuck off, you mouth breathing half-wits. As a viewer, there’s a lot we learned only as the characters did. So as Mrs. Grose evolved, and unearthed her personal truth, it made T’Nia’s performance THAT much more fantastic. But I have to say, overall, Henry Thomas gave one of the best performances of his career in this show. I’ve always liked him, but I never sang his praises from the rooftop. That is all about to change, my dear friends. I’ve already begun to dig a moat around my house to fill with marshmallow fluff, just in case I fall as I scream my little lungs out. He was absolutely phenomenal in this series.

I have a feeling I could almost write a dissertation on this television series if given enough time, and coffee. I know I can get hyperbolic in many aspects of fandom, but for realzies, I’m serious, like totally and fer shure, that this has been one of the best tv shows I’ve watched in a while. I’m excited to see where Mike Flanagan will lead us next, even if he scares me so much to induce a heart attack, even if he grosses me out to the point of puking, or even if he breaks my heart, and reduces me to a blubbering wreck.

WHAT’S OLD IS NEW AGAIN (and sometimes again) (and maybe again)

In honor of Valentine’s Day, I thought it would be good to do a compare/contrast review of the 1981 original My Bloody Valentine and its 2009 remake. While the stories of each film don’t necessarily revolve around the holiday itself (no one was a jilted lover or humiliated by the object of an affection), the catalyst for the mayhem happens to occur on said holiday, and takes an eerie hold over each town on February 14 each year.

WARNING: There will be spoilers! The original movie is thirty-nine years old, and the remake is eleven. So don’t be a whiny ass bitch if I reveal major plot points, okay?

Let’s start with the original – 1981’s My Bloody Valentine

(directed by George Milhalka; written by Stephan Miller and Beaird)

1961, Valentine Bluffs: During a 100-year Valentine’s Day dance tradition, five men are trapped in an explosion in the town’s mine. The two supervisors, eager to finish work and get to the party, forgot to check the methane levels while the miners were in the tunnels, and…BOOM. Six weeks later, rescue workers finally get through only to find one survivor  – Harry Warden. How did he do it, you ask? By killing and eating his coworkers, of course! Naturally, he went insane during the ordeal, and was committed to a mental institution. Exactly one year later, Harry breaks out, and murders the two supervisors responsible for the tragedy. He extracted their hearts, put them in heart-shaped candy boxes, and left them at the town’s dance with a warning: don’t ever have another Valentine’s Day dance again, and he will return every year to make sure they heed his warning.

Twenty years later, the town is having their first Valentine’s Day dance since that terrible day. Kids today don’t give a damn about Harry Warden and all that mumbo jumbo. Especially TJ, who’s returned to town to win back his girl, Sarah, despite her on-going relationship with his old pal, Axel. Tensions ensue, as you might imagine, but it’s nothing compared to what’s coming for them all.

Unfortunately, Harry must have gotten wind of their party plans because the Mayor receives a heart-shaped box, and it ain’t holding a bunch of candy. It contains the bloody heart of…someone (titty woman in the opening scene – no biggie, let’s move on). They can’t prove it’s Warden, but it puts the Mayor and the Sheriff on edge, especially since the mental hospital Harry was committed to has absolutely no record of Harry Warden, which means he’s dead, been transferred, or escaped!

Once another member of the community is murdered, complete with jaunty little rhyming note from Harry Warden, this puts all the old timers on lockdown. The dance is canceled, dammit! But those dang kids just won’t take no for an answer. They decide to have one anyway, in the little union hall next to the mine. What a splendid idea!

Harry takes exception to this, and starts murdering the party goers, one by one.

You will eat it and you will LOVE it!

I can’t exactly explain why, but this is one of my all-time favorite slasher films from the 1980s, and probably ever. It’s not that the acting is superb, or that I don’t see faults in the film. I do. But maybe it’s the purity of the movie that I like so much. This is not one of those big budget, Hollywood monstrosities, packed with beautiful, insipid celebrities. No backlots or sound stages. It was filmed in a real mine, and a real small town in Nova Scotia, Canada.

Most of the characters are developed well, so we care about what happens to them. I really want TJ to win Sarah back, but I feel bad for Axel at the same time; the town launderette maven, Mabel, has a crush on the Sheriff, but he doesn’t find out until after she’s dead (I honestly cried when he received a box of candy from her, post mortem); and honestly, I want Harry to kill EVERYONE.

That said, the bartender (named Happy, if you can believe that) is the cliché of ‘old grumpy man who warns others of trouble’ character. But when he slings the word ‘asshole’ all over the place, it makes him so likeable. Because he ain’t wrong, my dear viewers. And sure, Patty and Howard are annoying as fuck, and a lot of the minor characters are there as fodder. That just means we can enjoy the practical effects of the kills instead of worrying about the absences those deaths bring.

I think the only CGI special effect was the dripping hearts of the opening title – and that was probably good, old fashioned animation. The kills, body parts, blood, crashes and explosions, were all done with practical effects. Several somber scenes (say that five times fast) were given that element of despair or terror because of something simple, not some cheap shitty computer graphic. After the murders start, and the dance is canceled, we can see random paper hearts and streamers blowing down the street, reminding us what could have been. And one scene in the mine, in the area where the men change out of their coveralls, is creepy as fuck. Especially when the clothes start dropping down from the ceiling randomly, putting one character in a maze of coal dusted uniforms and gas masks, before she’s murdered.

The big reveal at the end felt sort of tacked on. Like, ‘Oh, shit. Remember Axel’s dad was one of the supervisors that Harry killed twenty years ago…yeah, that would fuck anyone up, right?’ I mean, I know this is Podunk, Canada, and the eighties, and behavioral sciences weren’t what they are today, but…

However, I do love the fact that Axel survives, and the end shot is just of him, running deeper into the mines, calling out to Harry and laughing manically. The last thing you see is the light on his helmet as it gets smaller and smaller, and then winks out.

So aside from the little nitpicky elements that are really more my hang-ups than real faults that detract from the film (which they don’t), MBV 1981 is a fantastic early slasher film that hits all the right spots at the all right times.

Now, let’s check out the 2009 remake of My Bloody Valentine

(directed by Patrick Lussier, screenplay by Todd Farmer and Zane Smith)

NOTE: The original theatrical release utilized 3D technology, but I’m not going to comment on that aspect. 3D is cool and all, but it gives me a headache, and I never watch that version on the DVD I own.

Most of the basic story elements are the same, but there are a few twists and turns.

The film opens just after the mine collapse, and finding the lone survivor, Harry Warden, but he’s in a coma. After some amount of time, Harry wakes up and starts slaughtering everyone. And I mean everyone that crosses his path, whether they were responsible for the mine explosion or not. All the miners blamed Tom Hanniger, the owner’s son, but he consistently pleads his innocence while trying to pick up the pieces of his life now.

While part of the mine is closed, that doesn’t stop the young population of the town from partying in the abandoned mine shafts. Tom is a little leery of going in (for obvious reasons) but his friends, Axel and Irene, and girlfriend, Sarah, think he just needs to relax. And as soon as he does, Harry shows up and kills more people. While Tom takes a pickaxe to the shoulder, his friends and girlfriend skadoodle.

But that’s okay because the sheriff shows up just in time to blow Harry Warden’s ass into grass, right in front of Tom, who’s splattered with Harry’s blood. Harry runs off into the mines, but another cave in finally finishes him off for good.

Awesome.

Ten years later, Mr. Hanniger dies, and Tom returns to town to sell the mine. His former friend, Axel, is now married to his former girlfriend, Sarah; the entire town is pissed off because who knows what will happened after the mine is sold. But what does Tom care? He just wants to get back out of town and live a normal life, albeit with the aid of modern pharmaceuticals and PTSD.

I am all that is man!

Unfortunately, Tom’s plan to sell the mine brings Harry Warden back, and he’s on a tear to kill everyone. Again.

But is it Harry? Or is something else more sinister going on?

I admit – I only went to see this at the theater because Jensen Ackles plays Tom Hanniger. Jensen on the big screen, in 3D? Heeellllllz yeah. Probably not the best reason to spend $8 on a movie ticket, but I personally believe I got more than my money’s worth.

And the film wasn’t all that bad either!

Right off the bat, this version of MBV is much gorier, and seems to have a higher body count than the original, though according to Dead-Meat Wiki, the remake only has a couple more in total. (My copy of the original was the super edited version to avoid an X rating at the time; hopefully I’ll get my hands on the uncut/restored version someday.) There are hacked up bodies all over the hospital, and scattered throughout the mine. And this is all before Harry is killed in a cave in. Aside from the 3D stuff, the kills are made with practical f/x, and some are damned entertaining.

The main characters are well developed. Aside from some opening exposition, we get to witness people’s actions to let us know who’s a good guy and who’s a bad guy. And I do love that we get to find out that Harry is really dead, according to the men who murdered him (what, he didn’t die in a mine collapse? The hell you say.) So we now have a good five suspects to choose from as we try to unravel this mystery.

But then as they all die off, we’re left with Axel and Tom. Axel is a great red herring. There’s a lot of shit going on with him – an affair, pregnant mistress, stress at Tom’s return (knowing his wife loved Tom ten years ago), and stress with all the murder. But after watching this film a couple of times, it becomes pretty damned evident that Tom’s been the killer since his return.

My theory is he broke when Harry was shot in front of him years earlier, and even with therapy and drugs, he’s still riding the struggle bus. When he comes back to sell the mine – the memories of that horrible accident, seeing his love married to a philandering asshat, everyone getting pissed off at him – his mind snaps for good, and he becomes Harry. The big reveal scene is pretty damned effective as we see the change come over Tom, and he is lost forever.

Like I said, the killings practical (sans 3D), but there is one computer generated effect seen while Tom is moving down through the mine to kill Sarah and Axel. As he passes each hanging light, he smashes it with a pickaxe, and the image of Harry, in full mining regalia, is superimposed over Tom’s body. Very effective, and rather chilling. And of course, the final scene, after Harry (Tom) sneaks out of the collapsed mine in a rescue worker’s uniform, he offers the camera a quick, knowing glance, before disappearing off into the night.

Yaaasssss….

While this is not a perfect remake or reimagining (are there any of those?), this was done well and we end up with a very entertaining film, with lots of blood and gore, and just enough story twists/changes that freshen up the legend a bit.

So basically, the take away here is both films are good and worth watching (maybe the original a titch more because this is my column and I say so). Maybe watch both and see which one works better for you or if you are entertained equally by both. It could happen…

Long Live Harry Warden!

---

WHATS OLD IS NEW AGAIN (and sometimes again) (and maybe again)

With Christmas just three weeks away, seems like now is a good time to compare/contrast the original and remake films of Black Christmas. To be fair, I grew up with the original and have always loved it. So don’t @ me if I seem a little biased (even though it is a superior film - spoiler alert!) and this compare/contrast is a bit longer than I anticipated. You might want to get a drink before starting. I’m just saying...

via GIPHY

Quick summary of the story, just in case you’re new: a small group of sorority girls, still at school for Christmas break (because they aren’t going home or their families don’t want them or they just haven’t gotten organized enough to leave) are stalked and killed off by a psychopath.

So let’s start with the remake this time around.

THERE WILL BE SPOILERS. OH YES, THERE WILL BE SPOILERS.

2006

The core story remains the same, but we get a few added elements. The character of Claire is fleshed out in the sense that we get to meet her sister, Leigh, a woman Claire hasn’t had a good relationship with since she was young, and now wants to change that. The Billy story is also built up, as in the characters tell us exactly who he is, what happened to him and why, what he did, where he is now, and what he’s up to.

So glad they did that so I didn’t have to figure it out for myself....

via GIPHY

There’s also a new character, Agnes. She exists in the original, but only when Billy says her name. In 2006, they give her flesh and blood, and make her just as nutzoid as Billy. Her origin story is disturbing, to say the least, but it fits in with the new feel of the remake - over the top, in your face, fast-paced crazy.

One of the aspects I enjoyed about the remake is the inclusion of flashback scenes. Not the story within them, really, but I like that kind of format. There are three of them, and each one brings us more and more backstory for Billy, and his formative years. By the time the third flashback comes around, Billy is broken and unredeemable.

Another thing I like is the character of Leigh, (technically Claire’s half-sister, but it’s really not important except as filler). You see and feel how much she really wants to reconnect with Claire, and when she goes missing, Leigh is heartbroken and angry, very determined to find her baby sister - alive. I actually cried a few times when Leigh was emoting. Kristen Cloke, the actress playing Leigh, did a fantastic job.

I did also appreciate those Easter eggs. The glass unicorn, the ice skates, the actress who played Phyl in the original film portrays the house mother in the remake. Those are nice touches brought to an otherwise empty film.

Other than those few points, the rest of the movie was mostly crap. Like I mentioned, I like flashback style. But for this, the writers used it to spoon feed us Billy’s backstory: his birth defect, his mom’s hate, the abuse, his mom sexing him up to produce Agnes (which, by the way, if the mom hates just looking at Billy, why would she fuck him??), etc. I appreciate it more when the writers don’t treat the audience like a herd of mouth breathers, and let them figure stuff out on their own through more subtleties.

via GIPHY

I also don’t like the idea that the sorority sisters know who Billy is because again, Billy’s backstory is completely spelled out. Just like Top Dollar laments about Devil’s Night becoming an institution, that’s what Billy is here. It doesn’t make him scarier, or even sympathetic, when you explain away his psychopathic tendencies. Or turn him into a tradition by a group of young women whose house mother doesn’t even know the truth of his life, which was conveniently explained by the townie boyfriend.

One thing that really irked me was the forced drama and irony. It’s true that the NEC (National Electric Code) wasn’t made mandatory by federal law until 1972, so maybe in this particular old house, the main fuse breaker would be outside. But UNDER the porch because…reasons? Give me a fucking break. The whole incest angle; the blizzard and power outage; Billy and Agnes having ‘eye’ issues and then they both have severe eye trauma; impaled on a Christmas tree….JUST STAAAAHP.

via GIPHY

I don’t mind violence and quality kills. Anyone who’s read any of my reviews on Cinema Head Cheese or Slack Jaw Punks knows I’ve watched a lot of that, and enjoyed it. I grew up in the eighties, for crying out loud. But that’s all this movie is - ninety minutes of a hack and slash, full tilt boogie, manic frenzy. There’s no time dedicated to building tension, relationships, characters, or atmosphere. It’s attempted with the flashbacks, but fails. The girls in the house are complete fodder, and I wanted them to die (except Leigh). The red herrings were A PLENTY, but didn’t add anything. We knew from the beginning that Billy wasn’t killing anyone at the house so the big reveal of Agnes doing it felt added on - like, ‘oh, by the way, his sister was nuts, too, and was released from the hospital a few months ago, but we lost track of her. Sorry to interrupt. You can go back to being murdered now.’

Laaaame.

I understand where the writers were going with this. Broadening Billy’s story, trapping the girls alone in a storm with no help coming, relying on teamwork to aid their chances of survival. Perhaps they tried to update this for a new audience by adding in new bits and updated technology, to make this movie their own. But it doesn’t feel new - for a remake or for any kind of film. It simply seems they added more kills and spilled more blood, sped up the pace, and dipped the killer in the yellow goo of twisted family dynamics. It’s not interesting; it’s not original; it’s not good.

1974

So what makes the original Black Christmas superior to the remake? Sit down, kiddies, and grab some cookies and milk.

I actually watched the original two days in a row to make sure I was hearing and seeing everything correctly, and my conclusions were based on stuff actually in the movie (or not in the movie, as the case may be).

Let’s start with the characters. Each of the ‘main’ sorority sisters embodies something relatable. Jess and her unplanned pregnancy; Barb and her drinking/distant family; Phyl is sweet and level-headed, but knows how to relax; Clare is innocent and virginal. I’m not saying everyone relates to all of them, but there are enough character traits grounded in real world aspects to make them believable. The house mother, Mrs. Mac, is rough around the edges, but she’s endearing and hilarious, and brings us the tension relief we need.

Even the more fringe characters - Clare’s boyfriend and father - are brought to life enough for us to identify with or sympathize toward. Jeepers, even the mom whose daughter goes missing halfway through the movie, unrelated to the girls (or is she?), totally steals the scene when her daughter’s body is found. And her scream is never heard, only seen. Chilling.

The story is amazing; it’s the epitome of stranger danger. Unknown assailant, for reasons unknown to anyone, including the viewer, sneaks into a sorority house, and starts killing off the girls still there during Christmas break. Through his disturbing phone calls, we can infer his name is Billy, and that he did some really awful things. He doesn’t come right out and say it, though. Using disjointed and mimicked voices, we can infer he hurt and/or killed a child named Agnes.

Did you notice I used the word infer a couple times? That’s where the beauty of the story comes in. Many aspects of it were left ambiguous, which gets the viewers involved in the storytelling. Aside from his very first phone call, he only calls the house after he kills someone. So what’s with the call that Jess answers where none of the main characters died? We find out later a high school girl has gone missing. Was Billy responsible for that? Was it a distraction to separate his victims from the safety of the herd?

And how does this guy know how to maneuver through the house so easily without getting caught? Most of us have assumed, or bought into the theory, that he used to live there as a boy, and he was locked in the attic by a hateful mother. After he kills her and his little sister, Agnes, he’s locked away in a nuthouse. But nowhere in the film is that ever discussed. There’s not even some random news report alerting the public to an escaped mental patient.

via GIPHY

Interesting, no?

Right from the start, we’re put into the killer’s point of view (via a special rig created and worn by the cinematographer as he moved around the house). And though his phone calls might make us think he’s a complete psychopath, his voice at the end of the first call, once he stops screeching, simply says, “I’m going to kill you,” is too calm to belong to a true psycho. His methodical stalking, staying hidden, keeping quiet, watching and waiting for just the right moments to kill, speak more volumes of controlled killer than madman. I personally believe now that the death of the high school girl was part of his overall plan, which shows so much calculation and long-term planning on his part. And let’s not forget to mention, he’s calling the girls from the other phone line that’s in the house mother’s room. I mean, that is the most insidious dick move EVAR.

The deaths are good, but not over the top gore. That was the call of the director, Bob Clark, and I agree it makes the murders much more meaningful when the violence is toned down. It makes them more impactful emotionally, not just visually. And as Billy kills them, or just before, speaking to the girls as if they are Agnes, shows another layer of the onion that is his mental state.

Even as I type this, I’m starting to question exactly what Billy’s mental status is. Is he crazy? Is he delusional? Does he have split personalities? I JUST DON’T KNOW. And I love that.

via GIPHY

Thankfully there’s only one red herring in all of this, and it is sort of believable, if you can put yourself in the movie. Imagine how you would feel, 100% certain your boyfriend couldn’t possibly be the killer because he was in the house when one of the calls happened, only to discover the calls were coming from inside the house, and you might understand how Jess could misinterpret his actions. Even the police fell for it, which is something else I like in the original. Seeing the police brought in, watching them chase their tails by simply doing their jobs, but still end up with the wrong guy, is terrifying. It’s almost like Billy planned it all to go that way from the start.

Did he? I DON’T KNOW.

The last thing I want to mention is the tension building. Because the story developed slowly, the kills are not complete mania with buckets of blood and squishing eyeballs (like the remake), plus the ambiguous nature of the plot all add to the audience’s discomfort. The music was composed by putting utensils and combs in the strings of a piano so it would sound weird when played. Plus the composer put pressure on the tapes to slow them down while they recorded, further warping the sounds. And it totally works! And the final shot, after the police are wrapping things up and Jess has been sedated, the camera focuses on the door to the attic where we see it open just a bit, indicating Billy is still in the house, and on the move again.

But when you think it’s over, and the camera pans away from the house while the credits roll, you can hear the phone ringing. Now, with the already established idea that Billy calls after he kills someone, many assume that he has now killed Jess after she’s been left alone and drugged, though without the visual proof, we are forever left wondering about her fate.

via GIPHY

And all that is why the 1974 original Black Christmas movie is superior to the 2006 remake. I could have delved even further into the nuances of both films, more so on the original, but this is not a college thesis or research paper, so I will wrap this up. If you’re going to watch any incarnation of this flick, PLEASE watch the original. Trust me, I only want the best for you. And it’s the best.

via GIPHY

 HAPPY HOLIDAYS!!

WHAT’S OLD IS NEW AGAIN (and sometimes again) (and maybe again)

Here at the Monkey House, my writing projects have been a bit on the sparse side. And it’ll still be lacking for a while (busy season at the hubby’s store and I help out, so that takes time away from my creative ventures). But as Friday the 13th rolled around last week, I thought that would be the perfect opportunity to springboard a new series at my site: comparing/reviewing original films and their remakes. Some have more than one remake or reboot or whatever the fuck Hollywood calls it to distract you from their lack of originality, but I’m not sure I’ll cover each and every one.

And for the most part, I’d like to concentrate on movies that AREN’T based off books. Each of those films can be seen as different interpretations, as opposed to strictly remakes, but that’s mostly semantics, and I don’t have the time or energy to debate which is which.

I’m not going to worry too much about spoilers because a lot of these original films came out pre-MTV (that’s 1981 for those of you playing at home). If you’ve neither seen nor heard of them, that’s on you. Not me.

So let’s get going with Friday the 13th vs Friday the 13th.

Original 1980

For the uninitiated, here’s the back story: in 1958, Camp Crystal Lake is the site of a tragic drowning of a young, special needs boy, named Jason. The campers who were supposed to be paying attention to all of their young charges (not just Jason) we’re making love instead, so it’s basically their fault the kid died. After someone murders them, the camp is shut down and abandoned. Just a hair over twenty years later, some do-gooders decide to open the camp back up for another generation of youngsters. Unfortunately, an unknown killer doesn’t take too kindly to that idea, and decides to murder them all.

This film is part of the original generation of slashers - masked or unknown killer going after a group of young people because reasons. Some explain why, some don’t, but either way you know the shit’s gonna hit the fan if you’re under twenty-five. I personally liked the story/reasoning behind the F13 killer because it’s universal. I think most of us can relate to or understand the need for revenge, particularly after the loss of a child. Granted, the 1980 counselors-to-be aren’t responsible for Jason’s death, but to the broken heart of a mother, thinking her son’s memory could be left in peace, that’s enough to shatter her psyche even further and honestly, I’m on her side.

As for the acting in this film, it’s pretty bad, though for a bunch of unknowns, it’s not terrible. I really liked Laurie Bartram as Brenda, and it’s a nice, albeit shallow, vehicle for Kevin Bacon. Obviously Betsy Palmer is the real star here, though we don’t see her until the last ten minutes of the film. But her performance, as the broken mom on a tear for revenge, is brilliant. I also love that her last real-world movie performance was 1959 (the year before Jason drowned) and she only took this role because she needed to get a new car, thinking it would be a quick paycheck and no one would even remember the film.

Adorbs.

The characters are mostly throw-away, in my opinion, but there does seem to be less douchebaggery in the original than the remake. 1980’s Neddy, while annoying, isn’t an asshat so we can forgive him, unlike Trent, from 2009, who is just such a total fuckwad. Everyone else is either set dressing for a particular scene or fodder for the kill count. But I’d like to point out that, despite Roger Ebert’s insistence that this should be included in the misogynistic trope in slasher films, the survivor AND the killer are both women, so fuck any critic who lumps this in with the more generic women hating out there.

Yeah, I said it. Fuck the critics. Though if any of them hate the real deaths of real animals, I’m okay with that - and it turns out the snake death in the original F13 was real. And now I’m traumatized and hate the film, and Tom Savini for adding it in, just a bit.

As this was shot in 1980, the look of the film is definitely not slick and shiny, like more modern movies. Definitely lacking in the cinematography aspect. And I like that. All the films of this era look rougher, a little grainy, as if lost to time and not discovered until 50 years after being made. Even when they were new, they had the same worn appearance. I know that has to do with the filming ratio, film format, development, processing, and the actual camera used. I don’t know shit from poop in the technical side of the movie business. I just know I dig it.

While not a perfect film (honestly, very few of those exist), and not even my favorite in the franchise, it has its place in history and is worthy of its revered status. If you haven’t seen it, even if your resistant to ‘old’ horror movies, do yourself a favor and watch.

You know you want to. You like to watch, don’t you? Yeah...

Okay, wow. Let’s move on to the 2009 remake!

Remake 2009

We’ve got a similar story going - and by that I mean Jason is in it. Everything else kinda changed though. We get a quick recap, with different actors, of the final scene between Pamela and Alice from the original film. Then it goes off the rails. We see a quick shot of a youngster’s legs as he picks up the headless Mother Voorhees’ locket, then skedaddles (thereby confirming Jenny’s theory that Jason was there and witnessed the murder). Flash to present day to a group of young people hiking out into the woods to camp, and by camp I mean find the hidden pot farm from which to pilfer goodies. One of those is Whitney, and while the others are killed, she is kept alive for reasons unknown, but hinted at. Six weeks later, Whitney’s brother, Clay, is trying to find her, as the local cops are LESS than useless. He crosses paths with another group of young people who just wanna have a good time, but get caught up in the merciless murdering machine that is Jason Voorhees.

The story is okay. I can appreciate the filmmakers wanting to do something a little different from the original, instead of just throwing up a rehash. It’s like they took elements from several films in the franchise and mooshed them together (I’m not saying I liked it, but I can appreciate it). Pamela Schmamela, let’s get Jason in here right meow! That’s what the kids want these days! Which, let’s be honest, is mostly true. I do find Jason’s subterranean abode a titch more believable. I would think that kind of dwelling would be easier to hide in than some ramshackle ramshack in the middle of the woods (a la Part 2). I mean really, no one came across that bitch in all those years?

The film itself is much prettier than the original. Much more cinematic, the colors are brighter, the dark scenes spookier, as opposed to “what the fuck is going on? I can’t see shit!” While it doesn’t have the grainy look of the original film, the atmosphere of Jason’s domain is definitely rougher than the outside scenes. You can almost feel the mood shift while you’re watching. I also love the little nods to previous films thrown around, one being a quick glimpse of a wheelchair (poor Mark and the backwards machete to the face in Part 2).

While the acting is much better, it also seems like a wasted vehicle for some of the talent here. Richard Burton as the inept cop; Danielle Panabaker as Jenna; even Rosemary Knower as the Old Lady (she’s only in one short scene, but her presence is quite palpable and I wish her screen time was longer). Honestly, I only watched this because Jared Padalecki stars as Clay. But all of the characters, even his, seemed kinda shallow, and I didn’t really care what happened to any of them. There’s also a lot more douchebaggery going on with the characters in the remake, which added to my ‘couldn’t possibly care less’ attitude toward their fates. That, and the fucking weak ass, lame dick ending -  dear gods, did anyone actually think that was interesting or clever or new - really kept the score on this remake very low.

Funny story - I went with a handful of my writer group’s members to see this in the theater. 1) we were the oldest people in attendance; and 2) we were laughing through the whole film, while the newbs in the audience were screaming and shitting their pants.

So while there are some elements I enjoyed in the remake, it is a mediocre at best attempt to refresh a franchise that had gone a little silly in its longevity (I’m looking at you, Jason Takes Manhattan). If you want a proper introduction into Jason Voorhees and his mommy issues, watch the original Friday the 13th from 1980. Trust me. It’s better for your overall mental health.

WINNER: Friday the 13th, 1980

ROTTENTAIL (2019) Review

Monkey at the Movies

All the bananas you bring me get doled (knee slap) out here. Which films earn the most? Read on to find out…

I’ve been thinking about writing up more film reviews to post on my personal website. I’m sure some of these will be written sober and some…will not. It’s all very new, so I’ll have to play around a bit with the format. And you’d think, as a writer, I could come up with a pithy title all on my own. But, to quote K-Pop’s BTS, “Not today.” So thanks to my hubby extraordinaire for naming this new department at my website:

MONKEY AT THE MOVIES

And I can’t think of a better film to kick off this new endeavor than Rottentail (2019).

For the uninitiated, Rottentail is based on a graphic novel of the same name written by David C. Hayes, Kevin Moyers, and Kurt Belcher. I’ve known David IRL for quite a while now, and he and Kevin are two of the founders of Cinema Head Cheese (where I’ve been posting film reviews since 2011.) And though I don’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings, I do give as honest reviews as I can, even in regard to my friends’ works. EVEN WHEN THEY SUCK.

*coughcoughBLOWcoughcough*

Basically, if I don’t like a movie, I’ll say so, despite my real, or perceived, friendship with anyone involved.

Okay, now that the disclaimer is out of the way, let’s get to the movie.

Rottentail is the story of Peter Cotten, a meek, nerdy little scientist working on a fertility serum at a secret government facility. His competitor, Dr. Serius Stanley, is mutating rabbits across the hall. The military mucky-mucks want super soldiers (when DON’T they?) and Stanley takes as much attention, and funding, away from Cotten as possible. When Peter discovers the horrid conditions of Stanley’s rabbits, he attempts to free the most mutated, and vicious, of the bunch. Naturally, the hairless abomination bites Peter, beginning a chain reaction in our hero that mutates him into a giant, killer man-rabbit.

I mean, what else were you expecting?

But it might have been a fortuitous accident. Peter’s childhood love interest, Anna, has returned to town to ask for Peter’s help. Seems that Jake Mulligan, Peter’s childhood nemesis turned religious leader, is planning to destroy Anna’s grandfather’s church in order to expand his ministry. The fact that Jake is still the douchiest douche bag to ever douche in Douchetown, makes it that much easier for Peter’s new identity, Rottentail, to step up and clean house.

And by clean house, I mean kill everything and everyone that gets in his way. Cue 90 minutes of madness and mayhem, and you’ve got the movie, Rottentail.

I went into this film anticipating I would be mostly entertained. For anyone who watches or reviews independent horror films on a regular basis (read: me) you learn not to set the expectation bar too high, you know what I mean? I’m happy to report that I was blown away – on nearly every level.

The story is pretty standard, as far as “man bitten by radioactive/mutated/alien life force and mutates into a monster” goes, but I love that it really commits to the comedic element. It’s a ridiculous premise, so why not run with it? The dialogue and one-liners are hysterical, and it’s one of those films you’ll need to watch a few times to catch every little aside and winkwink moment (the thimble and two blueberries line still has me giggling.) Even the tongue-in-cheek character names are worthy of a few chuckles (Peter Cotten, Serius Stanley, Anna Banana.)

From the mutant bunny, to blood spray and rolling heads, and even the makeup used to create Rottentail himself, the practical effects are perfection. One particular scene, with Jake Mulligan and how he deals with a loose end, was forever imprinted on my neurons. I will compare every similar death scene in all future movies to this one from now on.

The acting is top notch. William McNamara, as Jake Mulligan, plays such a good asshole; he’s one of those characters that you adore to hate, with every fiber of your being. There is nothing redeemable about Mulligan – at all – but he’s better that way. Gianni Capaldi, as Dr. Stanley, is another despicable character, who’s just slightly more loveable than Mulligan. I think it’s his accent. But the main attraction here is Corin Nemec as Peter/Rottentail. His geek-turned-monster-hero transformation is beautiful to behold. Corin OWNED that role, and made it his bitch. I have to say this is some of the best work I’ve seen him do over his decades-long career.

Though all of the above is wonderful, is Rottentail a perfect film? Hell no. The CGI effects were weak; some of the acting was a bit lackluster (I personally think Dominique Swain is capable of so much more than what I saw in this film); and a lot of the humor leans toward the 12-year-old boy demographic.

But those few things are really all the fault I can find here. This movie is not for everyone. The horror snobs or literary film folks are not the target audience. This is low-budget, low-brow, crude, rude, and ridiculous – but in the most entertaining way possible. I will be adding this fun ride of a film to my collection ASAP.

[If you’d like to sign up for the advance purchase of the blu-ray + DVD combo pack, click HERE.]

8 Bananas (out of 10)

Testing...Testing....

Monkey at the Movies

All the bananas you bring me get doled (knee slap) out here. Which films earn the most? Read on to find out…

When I posted a couple weeks ago about my new department here on my site (Monkey at the Movies) I should have made the page a “blog” instead of just a regular “page.”

Fuck me and my web design illiteracy…

So, now I’m creating a new blog page for my MATM posts, making it easier to jump or link to a specific review. And I’m trying to insert a banner or WHATEVER that will show up on each post. But since it’s not working (or, more accurately, I can’t figure out how to get it to work) I’ll just plan on manually inserting the above image and text for each post.

Gaaaahhhhhh…..help me…..

I’ll eventually move my first review to this blog page but let’s see how this works before I make a complete clusterfuck of everything here.