Last Blog On The Left

Spain have managed to raise some fine filmmakers through the years. Film buffs can discuss the virtues of Pedro Almodovár and Luis Bunuel´s films ad nauseum and although there´s no denying that they are (and were) excellent directors, my favorite Spanish director is Alex De La Iglesia and today I sat down to watch a film I haven´t seen in quite a while: his feature film debut “Accion Mutanté” (which, as a matter of fact was produced by Pedro Almodovár back in 1993). Even though this film holds some nostalgic value to me, I still think that it holds up quite well today. It´s a wonderful mix of genres: science fiction, action, gore, satire, comedy and it´s not afraid to be silly, either. This is the kind of film that only comes along once in a blue moon. The storyline is absolutely brilliant!

The film takes place in a future world that is ruled by good-looking people. In this genetically perfect world, a terrorist group of mutants (or “physically challenged”, as we might say today), led by Ramon (Antonio Resines) decides to kidnap the daughter of Orujo (Fernando Guillén), a rich businessman, to claim the rights of the ugly people. After a bloody attack at her birthday party, the group escapes from the police in their spaceship. But once on the ship, it seems that Ramon has a different agenda than the rest of the gang.

This was one of those films that I had to spend a long time hunting down on VHS when I was a teenager and when I finally got a hold of a copy, I pretty damn near wore it out. I don´t know how many times I watched it! But time has passed since those teenage kicks and it wasn´t without a fair amount of trepidation I placed the DVD in the tray earlier today. It has been unavailable on DVD, except for a Spanish release without English subtitles, until a couple of months back, when England had the good taste to release it. “Will it still hold up?” and half an hour into the film I could start to relax, knowing that Iglesia´s films is still extremely entertaining and is more relevant today than ever in its satire of the society´s obsession with beauty and the billion dollar industry that is cosmetic surgery. That doesn´t mean that the film bogs down with some heavy handed social commentary, oh no! The film still skips along at a pretty decent pace and it plays out like a very violent cartoon. This is what´s one of the film´s many strengths: It is a violent sci-fi-action-comedy but beneath the surface, you can sense Iglesia´s obvious contempt for the Spanish bourgeois and that´s what makes it´s so entertaining. It really takes the piss out of society´s upper class. Much in the same way that Brian Yuzna did in “Society” (1989), even though the latter is a superior film. “Accion Mutanté” got compared to “Robocop” (1987) when it was released and I can definitely see the similarities between them now. I didn´t think too much about that back when I was a teen but it´s pretty clear now. Iglesia have managed to create a sci-fi-romp, much like Verhoeven did with his film. Both are very violent and unfold pretty much like a comic book (with the aestathics to boot) and that´s what you get, if you choose to not look any deeper. The social commentary and criticism is there, in both films, but the directors never resorts to preaching. It´s quite a feat, to get away with that and unfortunately, that is not something we see a lot of today in films; that kind of subtle social criticism. It is definitely lacking in today´s genre films. Even the master himself, George A. Romero, got a bit too heavy-handed with all the talk about internet and whatnot in his latest zombie-effort, “Diary of the Dead” (2007).

Now, it sounds like I´m making this out to be some sort of low-key, thought-provoking masterpiece in the science-fiction realm, like “Blade Runner” (1982) or something. That is not the case! That is not what you should expect when you sit down to watch this. What you should expect is a hysterically funny, demented, twisted, brutal flick. Like I said, the kind that only comes along once in a blue moon.

This was Alex De La Iglesia´s feature debut and he has gone on to make many other great films. “Day of the Beast” (1995) is probably even better than “Accion Mutanté” but not as bizarre. In my mind, his greatest film the one film he did in USA back in 1997: “Perdita Durango” aka “Dance With The Devil”. It is based on a book by Barry Gifford, who wrote the novel David Lynch´s “Wild At Heart” (1990) was based on. It features Javier Bardem in his English language debut and that film is so insanely bizarre that it defies belief… but that´s a story for another rainy day.

Stay ghoul & take scare,

Thomas Lovecraft 

Sometimes, when you sit down to watch a newly released horror film you have such high expectations and you have such a clear image of what you want that movie to be that you end up in state of quiet despair and heartache after you sat through it. All those expectations that you had were crushed. “Is this really the movie that you saw the trailer for?”, you ask yourself as you try to make some sense into this confusing world we live in. The trailer didn´t even remind you of what you´d just seen. So that´s it, you go about your business and probably hit the bottle every now and then again and maybe complain about the movie once in a while when you´re discussing horror movies with your equally obsessed friends. But then a funny thing happens… you thought that you had forgot all about the movie but then suddenly it starts popping up in your mind from time to time. Then someone asks you if you´ve seen it and when you describe it, you ask yourself “Was this movie really that bad in the first place?”

 You catch yourself talking about the film and using words as “cool”, “original” and “not that bad, after all”. That´s when you have to face the facts: maybe you were wrong in the first place! Maybe your taste in movies isn´t impeccable, like you´ve told yourself all your life. You´re gonna have to give this movie a second chance.

This is what happened to me and the vampire-revenge-flick “Rise: Blood Hunter” (2007). I saw the trailers for this one and was really excited about it! When I finally sat down to watch it I expected to witness a blood soaked, violent horror movie which would play like a throwback to 70´s lurid exploitation-revenge flicks, filled with nudity… starring Lucy Liu! What more can a guy ask for in a horror movie?  That´s what the trailer had me prepared for. Needless to say, I was pretty disappointed.

Well, like I described in the opening paragraphs, I recently saw this movie again and now that I know what to expect of it, I definitely appreciate it a whole lot more. I can see what writer-director Sebastian Gutierrez was going for, although I am convinced that this isn´t the film that he had in his mind. In some ways, this movie is a failure. But it´s definitely an interesting failure and I think that it deserves your attention for a couple of hours.

 Lucy Liu plays reporter Sadie Blake, who has written an exposé about teenage Goths. While further investigating it and a cult that may have been murdering teenagers she ends up at an address in Koreatown. She finds an abandoned house with a basement full of blood. She is abducted by a stranger and taken to the leader of the cult, Bishop (played by James D´Arcy). Bishop and his mate Eve (Carla Gugino) kill Sadie and they have a necrophilic threesome with her body. Later, Sadie awakes in the freezer of the morgue and promises to take her revenge them.

This is what you´d call a “revisionistic” vampire film. That means that the V-word is never mentioned throughout the film. In fact, the “vampires” in this one doesn´t even have fangs. That´s fine by me. I think that the movie does a fine job in depicting the blood thirst as an addiction. Since the vampires doesn´t have any fangs, the children of the night in this film is forced to employ a cutting tool, of sorts. Garlic has no effect on them, either. What does kill them is the small crossbow that Sadie wields. Why is never explained, but let me tell ya, Lucy Liu and a crossbow is a good idea all around.

When I saw this movie the first time, no matter how disappointed I was, I couldn´t ignore the fact that film looks amazing! The cinematographer on this one is John Toll, who also worked on “The Thin Red Line” (1998) and that is a film of astounding beauty. He has definitely infused this film with some great visuals. The photo contributes to create a dark and moody atmosphere that really elevates the film. It´s definitely one of the most strikingly handsome vampire films I´ve ever seen.  

You see, this is not the exploitation-extravaganza that you might expect from its trailers, but instead a pretty serious, somber and surprisingly mature vampire film. It´s more of a mood piece and Lucy Liu does a really good job in bringing her character, Sadie Blake, to life. I really love that character´s name! I think that it´s a great name for a vampire character. I don´t know if it is because it makes me think of Laurell K. Hamilton´s popular Anita Blake-character, but I think it´s a great, mythic name that would be perfect for a recurring character. I´d love to see a sequel to this film. The concept is perfect for straight-to-DVD-sequels.

I´ll admit that no, “Rise: Blood Hunter” isn´t a fantastic film by any means and it is pretty predictable. It doesn´t offer up any twists and turns for the viewer, unfortunately. What it does offer up is lots of great, little quirky moments and some pretty amusing dialogue. For example, when Sadie is about to be turned into a vampire she begs Bishop and Eve to spare her with a plead of “I´m a good person!”, when Eve answers “Hippie talk, Sadie…” Carla Gugino is one hip, hip lady.

Despite its many flaws, one of the things that “Rise” does have going for it is its actors. Like I´ve mentioned, Liu is great in this one and Carla Gugino is fantastic. The scene between her and Liu in the nightclub really proves what a great actress she is. I´ve been waiting for her big break since I saw her in a blond wig in Brian De Palma´s underrated “Snake Eyes” (1998). There´s also an array of amusing cameos: Robert Forster pops up in the beginning, Nick Lachey (Jessica Simpson´s ex-husband) turns up as a not so gifted thug and Marilyn Manson (who is damn near unrecognizable without the make-up) plays a bartender. Mikael Chiklis from TV´s “The Shield” plays a (surprise, surprise!) depressed, boozy cop and it goes without saying that he´s got that role down to a T. All around there are some fine performances in this film.

  The film doesn´t offer much in the way of traditional vampire action, which was one of the things that made me dislike the film the first time around. However, there is a fairly liberal amount of blood and nudity. The scene where Sadie wakes up in the morgue and finds her way out of there and kills her first victim is beautiful. I think that this is Lucy Liu´s best performance (but then again, what do we have to compare it with? “Ballistic: Ecks vs. Sever” (2002)?). The nudity and the deliberate pacing kind of give the movie a slightly European feel. It doesn´t feel like your typical American film and I think that that was I was expecting the first time around. 

So lower your expectations and settle in for the glorious sight of Lucy Liu in a bikini, soaked in blood and getting her revenge on… and if you don´t like it the first time around, give it another go!

Stay ghoul & take scare,

Thomas Lovecraft  

I´ve just seen the French horror film ”Inside”. I was not prepared for it. Not prepared at all. It is one of the best horror films I´ve seen this year. As a matter of fact, it ranks as one of the best of this century. Clearly, France is the place to be when it comes to horror right now. In the last couple of years they´ve given us “Hauté Tension” (2003), “Sheitan” (2006) and “Calvaire” (2004) and no matter how great those films are, they have to step aside and make room for the new king of the gore-soaked hill… “À l’intérieur” aka ”Inside” (2007). It is already somewhat notorious, due to its graphic nature and subject matter but you know how the song goes. Whenever a horror film garners some publicity and the mainstream press starts writing about how incredibly violent it is, you are almost always let down when you finally see the movie. As we all know, horror fans have a different set of standards and a whole ´nother threshold of tolerance when it comes to violence in movies. I´ll be the first one to admit it: it´s not often that something makes me cringe nowadays. I am jaded, to say the least and that makes me a little depressed. I don´t get a rise out of much these days, but “Inside” made my hairs stand on end! This is a film designed to terrorize you and while it is incredibly graphic, I wouldn´t say that it falls under the “torture porn”-category (I really hate that term, yet I find myself using it over and over again), it is much more interesting than that. As much as I may appreciate both the “Hostel” and the “Saw”-movies, this film manages to conjure up real terror. I haven´t seen that in a film for quite some time.

Here´s the story in a nutshell: Sarah (Alysson Paradis) is nine months pregnant and still grieving over her dead boyfriend, who she lost recently in a car accident. On Christmas Eve a mysterious woman (Beatrice Dallé) shows up at her house and claims that she wants her baby.What happens after this defies description. I would do you a disservice if I told you too much. The best way to view this film is if you know as little as possible about it (which kinda makes me wonder why I´m writing this, hmmm…).

While this film is incredibly violent it is also incredibly beautiful. Directors Alexandre Bustillo and Julien Maury have managed to make their bloodshed extremely appealing, visually speaking. The cinematography is glorious and they make real interesting use of the way they use light. Beatrice Dallé´s entrance into the film is one of the most beautifully shot introductions I´ve ever seen. Dallé is, for lack of a better words, amazing in this role! I thought she was pretty damn good in Claire Denis´ “Trouble Every Day” (2001) but she really knocks this one out of the park. I haven´t been this scared by a woman on screen since I first saw the character of Asami in Takashi Miike´s “Audition” (1999). Not only is the cinematography beautiful but the sound design is incredible. The music is there for one, and one reason only: to scare the living daylights out of you! It reminded me of Tobe Hooper´s “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre” (1974), in this aspect. It is quite unnerving, to say the least and just like in “Texas Chainsaw…” it´s not always music we´re hearing but more like disturbing sounds of different sorts. Very effective.

I could go on and on about this film but that would ruin it for you, the few lost souls who wander by this resting stop for deranged minds. If you call yourself a fan of horror movies, this is the film to see right now. It may be emotionally draining but this film is a truly amazing piece of art! Provocative, violent, brutal, beautiful and perverse…

Stay ghoul & take scare,

Thomas Lovecraft

Well, summer is finally here and I don´t know about you but I´ve been spending a lot of it in front of my TV, re-visiting some of John Carpenter´s great films. The last week I´ve watched “They Live” (1988), “Prince of Darkness” (1987) and “Christine” (1983). These aren´t among the master of horror´s most popular films but they are still beloved by many horror fans out there. I know that I love them. However, it´s not any of those films that I wanna turn your attention to. The one I wanna talk about is Carpenter´s latest directing-outing, the deeply underrated, widely disliked “Ghosts of Mars” (2001).   To be truly honest with you, this isn´t a guilty pleasure for me mainly because I don´t feel the slightest amount of guilt for liking it. I think it´s a great film, made by a director who knows exactly what he´s doing. The reason why so many people was rubbed the wrong way when this one was released is because they took it too seriously. At least that´s what I think… 

 Basically, this is Carpenter´s western that he has never gotten the opportunity to make. If you´re at all familiar with his films, you know that many of his films are just re-workings of classic western-stories, especially “Assault on Precinct 13” (1976) which owes a lot to “Rio Bravo” (1959). This is also the case with “Ghosts of Mars”. In a way, it bears a lot of similarities to “Assault on Precinct 13”. Since Carpenter came crashing into the film industry after the western-heydays were over, he´s basically been making his versions of them since then. That includes, as in this case, mixing it up with horror, science-fiction, action, comedy and some gore. If you take this film too seriously, you´re missing the whole point of the film. I don´t think that Carpenter at all set out to make a “serious” horror film, like for example “The Thing”. This film has some pretty silly dialogue and to be honest, some pretty silly situations. But you see, Carpenter is a far too talented filmmaker and every frame of this film gives me the impression that this is exactly what he was aiming for. This is his action-sci-fi-cowboy-horror-magnum opus!

I am well aware that this is indeed a B-movie, but I say that with the best intentions. There´s no great twists to the story and it is told in a very efficient way. This is a lean, mean and very entertaining action flick that clocks in at around 90 minutes. The story is told in the most effective way: a group of lawmen- and women since the lead is played by Natasha Henstridge, arrive on Mars to find an abandoned town. The miners who lived there are all missing. The only survivors are the ones who are locked in the jail. Among them is the infamous Desolation Jones, played by Ice Cube. Before long, the officers and the criminals are forced to work together to survive the ghosts that are haunting Mars and possessing its people.

This is pure B-western stuff and all the better for it! We get the two heroes on respective side of the law, yet they are extremely similar, we get a train-sequence and the supporting roles that aren´t so much characters as they are archetypes. This is Carpenter distilling everything he loves about the western genre down into 90 extremely entertaining minutes.  This is not my favorite John Carpenter movie, not by a longshot, but I can´t see how you can enjoy Carpenter´s previous films and then not like this one? We get a drug-addled Natasha Henstridge in a tight, black SWAT uniform and I don´t know about you, but I find that strangely arousing. Her lesbian commander is played by Pam Grier and her horny sergeant is played by Jason Statham. This is B-movie heaven, fiends! We also get Carpenter´s trademark soundtrack, a whole lot of head-chopping, gunfights and dismemberment. Heads do indeed roll in this movie. And last but not least, we get a villain who is billed as “Big Daddy Mars”. I mean come on, what´s not to like here? 

John Carpenter´s films have a funny way of being ripped apart by critics upon their release and then slowly building their fan base on home video. “The Thing” (1982) was considered a failure when released. That was also the case with “Big Trouble In Little China” (1986). I am convinced that in a couple of year´s time, “Ghosts of Mars” reputation will be vastly improved. It´s too much fun, you can´t help but like it. I think that this one makes a great double bill with Carpenter´s previous film, “Vampires” (1998), which was also basically a western disguised as a horror film. Like I said, this is not my favorite Carpenter movie but it is without a doubt my favorite “Mars”-movie. The ones that spring to mind are “Mars Attacks!” (1996), “Red Planet” (2000) and “Mission To Mars” (2000). This one kicks their collective asses. If you don´t believe me, treat yourself for once and check it out… 

I really hope that Carpenter gets his long-rumored projects “L.A. Gothic” and “The Prince” off the ground within the near future. There oughtta be some kinda law in Hollywood, guaranteeing us one John Carpenter film per year. Since “Ghosts of Mars”, he´s only directed two episodes of “Masters of Horror” and while they were among the best of the series that is not nearly enough to satisfy me…

 Stay ghoul & take scare,

 Thomas Lovecraft

I really liked Douglas Buck´s remake of Brian De Palma´s classic “Sisters”, as I´ve mentioned here earlier. I think that Buck is a filmmaker with a unique vision and an original sense of style. He really put his spin on the story and updated it in a clever way. Buck´s earlier work includes the short films “Cutting Moments” (1997), “Home” (1998) and “Prologue” (2003). These films are powerful stuff. “Cutting moments” are among the most excruciating pieces of film that I´ve ever laid my eyes on. It´s not for the faint of heart, so to speak.

Anyway, what I´m trying to say is that Buck is among the most interesting filmmakers working in the horror genre today. I think that he will produce fantastic films for years to come. That´s why I was a bit saddened when “Sisters” only got a straight-to-DVD-release. It deserved a wider audience and more critical attention. I held my breath, fearing that this was Buck´s only chance at a feature film and that it was over now. That´s why I was extremely happy yesterday when fangoria.com published this headline: “Doug Buck puts together THE BROKEN IMAGO”. Apparently, Buck has just returned from Argentina where he has shot the teaser for his new film, “The Broken Imago”.  Here´s what it´s about, according to Fangoria:

“… the movie is set on a remote island where nature has turned against humanity, in the form of a virus that causes horrible deformities in its victims. The staff of a Catholic boarding school begin to turn against each other as they succumb to the sickness, and realize that the children aren’t dying—but are beginning to undergo a different transformation”.

  A virus that causes horrible deformities in its victims? Where do I sign up? This kind of imagery is something that Buck will have a field day with, I can promise you that. Here´s how Buck himself describes this project: “If I had to make a comparison, I’d call it LORD OF THE FLIES as made by David Cronenberg”.

Now, if that doesn´t make your palms wet with excitement, you are a cold, cold human being. I´m really looking forward to this one and will keep my eyes and ears peeled for further updates. Douglas Buck for president!

Stay ghoul & take scare,

 Thomas Lovecraft

It´s time for some more guilty pleasures, my fiends, and the lucky one out this time around is ”Bleeders” aka ”Hemoglobin” aka “The Descendant”. This little gem was released back in 1997. Back then times were a lot brighter. We were younger, Misfits still released good records and all the members of the Ramones were still alive. In other words, things were a lot better then. Now, some would argue that this film is not one of those things that were better back then but I beg to differ. This flick is exactly one of the things that made the years between 95-99 the last great years in straight-to-video-horror. Here´s the lowdown…

For those unlucky bastards out there who haven´t had the pleasure of seeing this little masterpiece, here´s the story:  The story takes place on a small island somewhere in the New England area. John Strauss and his wife Kathleen (played by Roy Dupuis and Kristin Lehman) have travelled there to find the answer to John´s hereditary blood condition. John is an orphan but they have discovered that he was born on the island. It seems that the islanders have never heard of a Strauss family, though. Meanwhile, the island´s cemetery is being dug up, since the woods that have been used to build the coffins is below standard. It also seems that a lot of the bodies have disappeared. At the same time, a creature is discovered. The creature is dead and the local doctor, Marlowe (played by the almighty Rutger Hauer), examines it. It seems that it shares John´s blood condition.  

“Bleeders” is based on a story called “Lurking Fear” by one Howard Phillips Lovecraft and any movie that is based on his works immediately holds interest to me. Most of the adaptations doesn´t work but I actually think that this one does. I may be the only one. “Bleeders” has managed to reach a staggering 2.9 at imdb.com.

  What are it then that makes this movie work, except the fact that it holds some nostalgic value to me? One of the reasons is the script. It is written by Charles Adair, Dan O`Bannon & Ronald Shusett. When it comes to Lovecraft, O´Bannon is the man! This is the guy who co-wrote (with Shusett) “Alien” (1979), “Dead and Buried” (1981), “Total Recall” (1990), and he directed the best Lovecraft adaptation ever: “The Resurrected” (1992). This man knows what he´s doing and it shows in the script. Bear in mind that this movie would have obviously benefited for having a couple of more millions to spend in its budget, and it clearly suffers from that. But script-wise, O´Bannon and Shusett manage to keep the pace going, while managing to wring some suspense from Lovecraft´s material. It has a nice build-up and I know that a lot of people complain that the film is too slow-moving, but don´t listen to those cretins! 

One of the things that I like best about the film is the sexuality of it. This is a love story between John and Kathleen, but it´s also about the love and longing one can feel for your family. There´s not a lot of nudity or sex scenes on display in this film, but sexuality is all over this flick. Twisted sexuality, I might add. Since this is a B-movie it has the advantage of being able to deal with a lot of subject matters we don´t get to witness in big budget studio-horror, such as incestuous relationships causing genetic mutations. There´s also a touch of hermaphrodites thrown in, for good measure.  That´s one of the things that this movie has going for itself…

  Director Peter Svatek has also managed to find some really beautiful locations for the film and the cinematography is definitely above average, when it comes to straight-to-DVD-horror. Especially if you compare it to the DV-filmed home movies we have to sit through nowadays. As a matter of fact, the scene in the tunnels below the graveyard is quite beautiful. So is the finale by the lighthouse. “Bleeders” has the look of an old, gothic horror movie.   BUT, we mustn´t forget one of the real reasons why “Bleeders” is such a cool, little film: the legendary Rutger Hauer! Here he plays the washed-out, boozy Dr. Marlowe and he does it gloriously! I think all the actors gets away with their honor intact, but this is the kind of role that Hauer does best. He´s reluctant to help out in the beginning, he has his demons from his past and he drinks a lot. This film is also a part of what I like to call Hauer´s “bowtie-period”. I don´t know if you remember this but there were a couple of films from these years where Hauer insisted on wearing a bowtie. I have no idea what his fascination with this outfit was but he used in this one, “Precious Find” (1996) and “Bone Daddy” (1998). We can only speculate in what the reasons were…  I also think that the make-up is pretty cool, too. I know a lot of people complained about it when it was released and I wasn´t totally satisfied back then, either. But this movie has grown on me over the years because in this film we get old-fashioned physical make-up. No CGI, whatsoever! That is why I mentioned, at the beginning, that 1995-99 was the last really good years for straight-to-video-horror. Somewhere around 2000 a sad decline in quality occurred, when it comes to the special effects in low budget horror. CGI entered the scene and after that, physical effects went out the window. And the joy and fun of watching B-horror movies followed soon after, unfortunately. That is why this film is one of the last, truly great, old-school-straight-to-video-horror-flicks ever released and if you haven´t seen it you owe it to yourself to give it a chance. Seek this one out and if you don´t like it… I promise to claim full responsibility for what will ensue… 

Stay ghoul & take scare,

 Thomas Lovecraft    

”Piranha” (1978) is one of my all-time favorite exploitation/horror films. Director Joe Dante managed to create a hilarious take on “Jaws” with this subversive and very entertaining creature-flick, based on a magnificent script by John Sayles. This is one of those films that I´ve seen way too many times to even keep track of… and now it´s “Piranha” ´s turn to be remade. I should be furious. But I´m not. What´s wrong with this picture?

First of all, the remake is being directed by Alexandre Aja, who became know on the horror scene a couple of years back with the excellent “Hauté Tension” (2003). He also was responsible for the awesome remake of “The Hills Have Eyes” (2006). So, the film is clearly in safe hands. He knows how to keep a remake original, so to speak.The other reason why this seems like a good idea is that Greg Nicotero and his FX company KNB is responsible for the effects. This bodes very well, indeed. Here´s what Nicotero told darkhorizons.com a while back:

“[Piranha] is pretty straightforward. It’s ‘Girls Gone Wild’ with boobs and blood and piranhas. You can’t really mess that up.”

The man is absolutely right! You can´t really mess that up. It feels good to know that Aja is going for the straightforward approach and won´t try to camp it up and play it for laughs, even though the original had its fair share of humor. And let´s be honest, what more do you want from a movie, other than boobs, blood and killer piranhas?

Apparently, Aja & co will shoot the film in the new 3-D technique that James Cameron has developed. It´s been way too long since we had a really good killer fish-movie and I don´t know about you but I´m more than ready. Maybe finally we´ll be able to wipe those awful memories of “Jaws 3-D” from our minds…

Take scare & stay ghoul,

Thomas Lovecraft

It´s time for another guilty pleasure, my fiends… A film that´s been so bashed, that is so despised that you will start to question my sanity: John Frankenheimer´s version of “The Island of Dr. Moreau” from 1996.

 This one sits proudly in my shelf and I´ll tell you why: This is a film that not even the majority of my fellow horror hounds can´t seem to appreciate. They can´t stand it! Yet, I find it perversely entertaining. To truly appreciate this film, you need to get some background on its production. This film was supposed to be Richard Stanley´s follow-up to his masterpiece “Dust Devil” (1992). If you´re familiar with that film or his debut, “Hardware” (1990), you can imagine what his take on H.G. Wells´ classic tale of gene manipulation would have been like. Supposedly, Stanley´s script had a ton of gore in it and a sex scene between the male lead character, who´s human and the female lead, who´s a cat-girl-creature-thing. To make a long story short: the movie company got cold feet, Val Kilmer refused to take directions and Richard Stanley got the boot. But, they had to save their investment so they called an old seasoned pro, John Frankenheimer. He took the job as a director-for-hire, just to get the film made on time. He did and it didn´t do very well. Critics hated it and so should I. You see, I´m a huge fan of Richard Stanley and I´ve always wanted to see what he would have done with it, if he would have been given the chance to complete his vision of the film. It´s probably one of the greatest sci-fi-horror movies never made.

What is it then that makes “The island of Dr. Moreau” worth your time? And why have I seen it more than a couple of times? I´ll tell you why, this is a truly bizarre film and I can´t help but enjoy it. Marlon Brando, who portrays Dr. Moreau, is clearly having a ball. He sports a British accent with a lisp, wears white make-up and a hat that his servants fills with ice every now and then AND… he keeps a pet/butler, played by Nelson De La Rosa who was the world´s smallest man. The two of them perform a piano duet that has gotta be seen to be believed.

Make no mistake; this movie is a huge mess. A film that switches director during the course of the filming has got to be. But somehow, “The Island of Dr. Moreau” manages to survive all that. The script deals with a very interesting premise: what if we were able to create a new race of beings? What would this mean for us, religiously and morally? The script actually manages to deal somewhat with these questions, in a halfway satisfying manner. Then we have the cinematography, which is fantastic. This is a very beautiful film to look at. Also, the actors are quite good in this one. Val Kilmer is suitably apathetic and drugged-up, David Thewlis is great as the innocent visitor, Brando is like a mentioned gloriously over-the-top and then we have the unforgettable Fairuza Balk. Whatever happened to her? She was the new “it”-girl for a while and did a few genre-roles but after this one she´s unfortunately stayed away from the horror genre. She did have a role in Larry Cohen´s “Masters of Horror”-episode “Pick Me Up”, but that´s about it. I had hopes for this girl. I thought she was gonna be the new scream queen. Sadly, things doesn´t always pan out the way you expect them to. We also get the amazing Ron Perlman in heavy make-up as “The Sayer of the Law”.

But back to the movie at hand: I think that it does a pretty good job of racking up the tension and it builds an aura of mystique around Dr. Moreau and his intentions. It also manages to build towards a strange and nightmarish finale, which would have been twice as violent if Stanley would have remained at the reigns. Frankenheimer still manages to serve up some really bizarre imagery and Stan Winston´s creature make-up is truly amazing. This is the kind of movies they´re not making anymore. If it would have been shot today, the creatures would have, without a doubt, been CGI-ed. For instance, in Will Smith´s latest effort, “I Am Legend”. What the hell were those creatures anyway? They weren´t vampires and they weren´t zombies… All we know for sure is that they were the offspring of some computer nerd in Hollywood, which is a shame.

One of the things that I appreciate about this film is that it actually tries to say something about the nature of good versus evil. For all the bizarre imagery it does contain, it does have its ambition. Is there a beast inside all of us and how much human can you find in the beasts? It doesn´t give us all the answers. No, far from it but the movie does have the courage to offer up these questions and that´s something you might not expect from a flick like this. “The Island of Dr. Moreau” isn´t without its merits and I think this has been overlooked for too long. “The Island of Dr. Moreau” is not a mainstream film. It´s way too weird for that. I can guarantee you that they wouldn´t have gotten away with something like that nowadays. That´s why I urge you, dear fiends, to give it another chance! It definitely has something going that you might just appreciate this time around. If nothing else, you get to see Fairuza Balk dance… and that´s pretty goddamn cool, if you ask me.

Stay ghoul, take scare and stay tuned for some more rambling about my guilty pleasures, 

Thomas Lovecraft   

I´ve often wondered how movie critics go about when they review a film. In particular, I´ve wondered how they go about when they´re about to review a horror film? How does one judge a horror film? By which criteria should they be scrutinized?

We all know that horror fans have a pretty high threshold when it comes to tolerance. We´ll forgive most anything in a horror film, just as there´s one aspect of the movie that we like, right? I know that I work that way. If a movie entertains you, then it´s a good movie, right? Not everyone would agree with that but to be honest, who cares? The most important thing about a film is that if it YOU think it´s entertaining then that should be enough and that alone should justify a second viewing. Sometimes reality doesn´t work that way. There are films that you have to defend constantly. Let´s call these films “guilty pleasures”. In your heart of hearts, you know that these movies aren´t very good. You know that people regard them as pure drivel. I´m talking about the movies that when they were released, were mocked and laughed at because of their utter lousiness.I mean the movies that you don´t admit openly that you actually like, except to your closest friends who´s into the same stuff like you; the kind of movies that when you´re at a party and everyone starts complaining about how bad that flick was, you just don´t have the energy to start defending that movie again… That´s why I´ve decided to step into the confession booth for you, my fiends. It´s about time that someone speaks up for these movies that everyone loathes, but I find myself re-watching every now and then…

One of these films is Neil LaBute´s widely hated remake of “The Wicker Man” (2006), starring Nicolas Cage. Now, one thing you should know is that I don´t think that the original version is that amazing. I mean, I like it and it has Christopher Lee in it and for what it´s worth, we do get to see Britt Ekland´s body double dance naked like a crazy person up against a wall. Not to forget that Ingrid Pitt also has a small role. That´s the things I do like about the film.

 Then there´s the things I don´t like about it: like the countless song and dance numbers. I can´t get past them and have always had a problem with them. I´m not saying that LaBute´s remake is a masterpiece. Most people will complain about the fact that it isn´t horrifying at all, but if you can show me one person who thinks that the original is scary, I´ll gladly accompany them to the nearest mental institution. LaBute´s take on the story is a slick, entertaining remake with some twists and turns to the story that I really enjoyed. I thought that LaBute´s sense of humor worked for this material. That´s what most people doesn´t seem to realize: this is a dark, twisted comedy working within the confines of the horror genre. You´re not supposed to take it deadly serious. It works much better that way. I mean, when Cage stand, pointing a gun at a young girl and shouts the line “Step away from the bicycle!”, do you really think that LaBute and co think that they were invading Ingmar Berman-territory? It´s supposed to be funny, but since LaBute has a history of making dark, “serious” movies, he´s suddenly not allowed to have a sense of humor?

Last time I checked, this movie had a whooping 3.5 over at imdb.com and it´s kinda hard to fully grasp the anger that this film awakes in its viewers. People doesn´t just dislike this film, they loathe it and they seem to have a personal vendetta with LaBute and Cage after this one and I was prepared for one of the worst spectacles in the annals of movie history when I sat down to watch this one. That may be the best way to watch any film, with your expectations lowered as much as humanly possible. Anyway, I found that the movie had quite a bit of atmosphere along with a sense of dread. I know that a lot of people have a huge problem with the ending of the film and Nicolas Cage´s bear suit… but really, don´t you think that you take life a little too seriously if you allow yourself to get that worked up over a thing like that? It´s worth checking out this film alone for the scene where Cage dropkicks the lady in the stomach. What people doesn´t realize is that we should instead be singing Nicolas cage´s praises for having the guts to do something so politically incorrect on film.

  Besides, a film that is dedicated to Johnny Ramone, can´t be all that bad… I bet my left nut that Johnny Ramone would have loved the scene where Cage´s character knocks out the lady.

See you soon with some more of my guilty pleasures…

Stay ghoul,

Thomas Lovecraft