The Boogeyman

1980, Dir. by Ulli Lommel.

When I write these reviews, one of the hardest things to do is find three or four images from the film that represent things I want to talk about, which I do in an effort to avoid boring you fine people with my prose. When I do this, I have to distinguish the names of the photos so I know what I'm looking for, usually naming them something like "mynameisbrucebruce" or "mynameisbrucedogbowl" (Unless I'm not reviewing My Name is Bruce, like now).

This became difficult while capturing images from Ulli Lommel's The Boogeyman. For starters, I got a first person shot that mimics Halloween, entitled "boogeymanknife". Then, I went with a picture of the lead actress being scared by a mirror, which I entitled "boogeymanmirror". I laughed, because I realized then that most of the images I'd want to use would involve a mirror, and now I had to change their names. Then I grabbed the image posted above, and tried to name it "boogeymanknife" - before being reminded by the save function that that photo already exists. It was then I realized that every scene of note - and I struggle to call any scene in this movie notable - involved a knife or mirror. It's that predictable.

The Plot
On a dark night, little Willy and Lacey are watching through the window as their young and whorish mother entertains an abusive young man. Mommy doesn't like this, and the kids end up being put to bed. They don't stay there, and soon mommy's man friend has a few stab wounds and lacks a pulse.

Then we fast forward. Lacey is married and living with her husband and his family on a farm, where Willy (pictured above), who hasn't spoken since "that night", helps out too (all while being creepy looking and having a giant jaw). But Lacey still has random bouts of terror, especially when facing mirrors, and she's soon forced to return to their childhood home by her husband (not her psychiatrist, played by horror legend John Carradine). When she gets there, she meets the kids that live there currently (whose parents are gone for the weekend, something you never want to have happen to you in a horror film), and breaks the mirror that's been in her mother's old bedroom since "that night". Her husband decides enough is enough, and brings the mirror back to the farm, putting it back together so she's forced to face it...or until it's able to kill them all. Sigh.

The Good
The film has a few good shots, even if many of them are mirror images of shots from predecessors like Halloween and Black Christmas. The musical score also is impressive at moments, but that goes away quickly, too. None of the actors break character, and are generally in frame.

That's about it.

The Bad
This section was invented for films like The Boogeyman. But I have no idea where to begin.

Well, looking at the "good" things above, problems jump out. The film obviously and blatantly mimics previous slashers, with near identical shots, an opening that's more like Carpenter's Halloween than Rob Zombie's remake was, and many other scenes that mirror better giallo films of the 1970s. The plot does diverge into a different territory with a focus late in the film on mythology of broken mirrors (really), but this change is silly and takes the film away from either a focus on real human psychology or a supernatural "boogeyman" - which is something you'd assume it would have, based on the title.

Acting across the board is bad, but that's common for a slasher film. Nicholas Love and Suzanna Love, real life siblings, play Willy and Lacey as adults, and neither is particularly competent. Ms. Love co-authored the script with director Lommel, and it's clear that the star and director were on the same page while watching the film - I'm just not sure I was while viewing it.

The musical score seemed cool at first, despite echoing Carpenter's Halloween score heavily. It grew old very, very quickly. There are two or three main themes that repeat throughout the entire film, and they seem to pop up randomly. In any scene, at any moment, there's a chance the score you've been hearing over and over for the entire 80 minutes will kick in. And drive you crazy.

There's more I could say about The Boogeyman, from its introduction of side characters that exist as victims (and worse, some characters are introduced as potential victims and then disappear from the film for good before even being used in that regard) to its hokey "open" ending that adds to the bad taste that was already left in the viewer's mouth. But I'll be nice.

Random Moments

• One more complaint: Lacey is directly involved in the actions of "that night", but is treated as innocent for the rest of the film. She's told repeatedly not to feel like it was her fault...even though it kind of was.
  
• The first-person scenes that evoke Halloween in the opening aren't even shot in frame. That's why I had to say "generally in frame" in my Good section. What kind of movie can't even allow me to use "The film was in frame" as a positive without being wrong? Ugh!

The Verdict
It's obvious by now, at least to me, that I've spent more time thinking about the ineptitude of The Boogeyman than was spent thinking about the making of the film. Billed as "the 1980 original" on new DVD packaging, which assumes it's connected to the 2005 film Boogeyman, I was hoping for at least a fun slasher that could provide some insight into that film's failures. Instead, I was reminiscing about how much I liked 2005's Boogeyman...and I didn't like 2005's Boogeyman. Just ugh. Somebody get this movie out of my head.

The Mike's Rating: RUN AWAY!

Journey to the Far Side of the Sun

1969, Dir. by Robert Parrish

The box cover for the DVD release of Journey to the Far Side of the Sun proclaims "Man has conquered the moon. Now take another momentous journey!" As if it wasn't hard enough to not look at this film as an attempt to cash in on the space craze of the late 1960s. Also borrowing slightly from Kubrick and 2001: A Space Odyssey, Journey to the Far Side of the Sun is a film that could easily have fallen out of interest as a rehash of the ideas and films of the time. Thankfully, the similarities are only an outer shell for the adventure, and the film provides itself with plenty of chances to carve its own niche in the sci-fi canon.

The Plot
Really, there's not much to say that this film's title doesn't imply. In the future, the European Space Exploration Council discovers that there appears to be an unknown and eerily similar planet in the same orbit as Earth on the opposite side of the sun. Naturally, the first response is to send out some astronauts to investigate, and American Glen Ross (Roy Thinnes, fresh off cult TV hit The Invaders) and Brit John Kane (Ian Hendry, known to cult horror audiences from appearances in Captain Kronos-Vampire Hunter, Theater of Blood, and the original Tales from the Crypt film) are more than willing to take the trip. After a colorful trip around the sun, they find themselves on the new planet - maybe.

The Good
While this Journey started off as something we feel like we may have seen before, it quickly bucks many of the ideas we had coming into the film. The astronauts, as well as their superior (played by Patrick Wymark of Witchfinder General) are developed well early in the film, and there's a lot done to make us care about the mission before these two men are hurtled into the abyss. Thinnes' story, particularly involving his wife and her trouble dealing with his space travels and their effects on him, is well drawn and engaging, and Hendry's Kane is a sufficiently cynical counterbalance. Wymark might get as much screentime as either of the stars, and gives a likeable performance that helps keep the characters' relationships seeming genuine.

The film is also controlled well by director Robert Parrish, previously an Oscar winning editor, who shows a clear understanding of what his goals are for the film. While Kubrick's 2001 is lauded for its approach to the silent interactions between humanity and space, Parrish brings forth his ideas with a lot of dialogue and a few well-placed visual representations. It's unfair to compare almost any sci-fi film to 2001's approach, and that is still the case here - but it is worth noting that Parrish made this film his own and shook that film's shadow early on. The film also features the visual style I love about this era in regard to set design and use of colors, with cavernous rooms of many colors and a sharp contrast in color and mood from scene to scene. The scope might not match an epic like 2001, but there's more than enough visual flair to delight the eyes.

The Bad
There are some early worries about the film getting its feet set, and the first act of the film takes its time in making its ideas and purpose known to the viewer. In retrospect, this helped develop the characters and their psyches, but at first glance the slow start creates some concern in pace for a relatively short film. It's also surprising how little of the film actually deals with the interstellar journey, but the places the screenwriters and director take the film in the final act make up for this. I had no idea where the film was going with just over a half-hour left, but the turn the story took provided an interesting turn and kept me thinking even after the finish (even if the final frames may seem to leave some ideas on the table).

Random Moments

• I mentioned the settings earlier, but I must add that I really want a "futuristic" 60s home. Too cool.
• Also visually impressive - the landing and rescue on the other planet. The still doesn't really do it justice, sadly.
• One more thing I desire - a cool orange space suit!
• And, we've got a lot of cool miniature effects, especially in the final minutes. Always appreciated.
  

The Verdict
Journey to the Far Side of the Sun doesn't do anything extremely well, but it hits enough right notes to leave a very favorable impression. The final act and its conclusions may leave some unimpressed, but I found the film's ideas intriguing enough to make me think about it further. Adding that to a generally impressive visual style is more than enough to put this space and mind adventure over the top in my book. If you're looking for a thought-provoking space adventure, and aren't feeling up the daunting challenge of something like Kubrick's film, Journey to the Far Side of the Sun is an enjoyable midnight subsititute.

The Mike's Rating: Prime Choice

Bad Dreams

1988, Dir. by Andrew Fleming.

If you've ever heard of a guy named Freddy Krueger, you know that dreams were a bad place to be in a horror film in the last half of the 1980s. Jennifer Rubin knows this all too well.

Right after making her film debut as former heroin addict Taryn in A Nightmare on Elm Street 3 (and if you've seen that film, you definitely will remember her disgusting demise), Rubin took the lead in Bad Dreams, a thriller in which she plays a young woman who survives a suicide cult but is left in a coma, and then wakes up in the late '80s (and apparently she hasn't aged in the approximately ten years since the incident, which the movie doesn't really go in to). Anyway, comas have bad results psychologically in movies, and this one is no exception. What follows is a film that's eerily similar to the aforementioned Elm Street sequel, but has enough of its own ideas to remain watchable.

The Plot
After the burning down of the country home of the Unity Field "religious sect", a young woman named Cynthia (Rubin) is found still alive. She's in a coma for a decade, and then awakes to find herself in a Los Angeles mental hospital. She meets the group she'll be part of which has different people of different ages and diagnoses, all of whom are unstable and unwillingly ready to be the fodder of some kind of villain.

That villain arises when Cynthia begins to see visions of the leader of Unity Field, Harris, who takes both his human form and a burnt-up/bloody/creepy form. The latter is scarier, of course, but Harris still has some of his cult-captain-charisma left in his rotting corpse, and he begins to influence the actions of the group members, with deadly precision.

The Good
Bad Dreams doesn't appear to be an original or interesting piece of film early on, but it bucks a few preconceptions as it progresses. It took me a long time to get over the similarities with ANOES3, which is one of my favorite horror sequels of the time period, but by the time the third act of the film was kicking in I had forgotten those thoughts and found myself caught in director Andrew Fleming's film (BTW, the director has since gone on to make films such as The Craft, Dick, and Hamlet 2...and I would not have pegged him for having a film this dark in him). The plot goes toward a psychological explanation in the final act which, despite being flimsy in reality, makes it a little more intriguing than many horror cliches of the era.

Rubin is quite passable in the lead, playing the "survivor girl" role well. Richard Lynch provides sufficient creepiness as Harris, too. It's a shame the rest of the cast (anchored by Re-Animator's Bruce Abbott as the young doctor taken by caring for Cynthia) isn't as effective, but there aren't many large problems with them either. Also on the plus side, the 84 minute flick is well-paced and never dull. There's an "original" ending on the DVD that would have given the film a better sense of closure, and probably upped my grade of the film considerably, but the film we're given instead still does enough to leave a positive first impression.

The Bad
One of the biggest problems facing the film is the side characters, most of whom fit very easily into stereotypes that other horrors of the decade had created. There's the overly dramatic '80s teen punk girl, the young handsome doctor with a heart of gold, the uncaring older psychiatrist, the self-centered hotshot, and more. Rubin's Cynthia is also not original when compared to characters like Heather Langenkamp's Nancy in the Elm Street films, but she at least puts enough into the role to make the character seem worthy of notice.

As stated above, the ending lacks some closure. I didn't think too poorly of it on first thought, but watching the director's original ending in the special features left me longing for a little more. The film deals with psychological issues in a ham-fisted manner, and the additions that were planned for the ending (minus the last 30 seconds or so), would have given the psychological issues facing Cynthia a little more depth.

Random Moments

• I can't say too much about this moment without spoiling part of the film, so I'll just say this: A bottle of formaldehyde? Really? That makes sense? Just a random bottle of formaldehyde?
• The film's end credits are surprisingly accompanied by GNR's 'Sweet Child 'o Mine'.
  
• I've pimped the original ending throughout this review, but I do need to mention that, if they were to use that ending, the last 30 seconds of it need to go.

The Verdict
Bad Dreams doesn't do everything right, and definitely has problems in character development and originality. But there's a lot of good in its ideas, and Fleming, Rubin, and company do enough to keep it entertaining. I'm always more forgiving with horror films of the '80s that don't start their title with Friday the 13th or A Nightmare on Elm Street, so I'll give Bad Dreams a recommendation as an enjoyable midnight horror for fans of the genre's most commercial decade.

The Mike's Rating: Solid Selection

The Anniversary

1968, Dir. by Roy Ward Baker

The legendary Hammer Films studio is known primarily for their recreations of Universal's classic monsters, specifically their run of Dracula films from 1958-1974 that usually featured Christopher Lee. What a lot of film fans don't know starting out is that Hammer also produced a slew of other films in genres that range from prehistoric epics to swashbucklers to even the occasional dark comedy starring a Hollywood legend. That would be this one.

The Anniversary stars the legendary Bette Davis as a one-eyed mother of three, much to the dismay of '80s songstress Kim Carnes (you know, who sang Bette Davis Eyes). She's vicious and manipulative, and one heck of twisted blast to behold.

The Plot
Mrs. Taggart (Davis) and her sons run the family carpentry business, despite Mr. Taggart's passing years before. However, things are less than friendly. Her oldest son, Henry, is a pervert who steals women's clothing (but at least leaves money on the clotheslines) for his own pleasure. The middle son, Terry is married with five kids and a sixth on the way, but his tired of his mother's control and plans to move to Canada with the family as an escape. And the youngest, Tom, is a smart-alec who can't wait to show off his new young fiancee to mom, and to do whatever it takes to shut her up.

I know you're probably thinking "Hey, that's an interesting group of characters! I wonder if there's some kind of event that could bring them together for entertainment's sake?". Well, that's why the movie's called The Anniversary. Duh.

The Good
No commentary on this film could possible begin with anything but Davis' turn as Mrs. Taggart. Billed as "the most MERCILESS mother of them all!" in promotional materials, Davis hams it up with glee, taking joy in the fact she's unleashed as such a diabolical character. This was her second tour with Hammer after the known The Nanny three year's earlier, but it's clear that she is having a lot of fun with the comedic evil she shows in this film. She also does a great job of interacting with the rest of the cast, and holds the proceedings together quite nicely.

Thankfully, it's a two way street, and the rest of the cast holds their own against the overbearing matriarch. Sheila Hancock is most effective as Terry's controlling wife who's mother's archnemesis for most of the film, and Elaine Taylor gets in some chops as young Tom's fiancee Shirley. There's an interesting dynamic throughout the film in regard to the female characters taking control of the males in their relationships (in fact, it could be said that Henry's perversion is an effort to compensate for the lack of a controlling woman of his own). This plays heavily in the final act, as Davis' mother pits everyone against each other while watching with glee.

The film is directed by Roy Ward Baker who made a lot of horror for Hammer (including their Kung Fu crossover The Legend of the 7 Golden Vampires), but also directed Marilyn Monroe in another dark comedy, Don't Bother to Knock, and the original Titanic epic A Night to Remember. He doesn't get a chance to use his varied skills in this very staged production (which was adapted from a play by master Hammer scribe Jimmy Sangster), but he paces the film extremely well. There's a lot going on throughout the day the film takes place in (even fireworks!), and he and Sangster do a great job of bringing it all together without confusion.

The Bad
The biggest complaint I had with The Anniversary came in the final act. As the plot continues to escalate by the mother pitting everyone against each other, there are a few revelations and plot devices that take the film a bit too far over the line that separates dark comedy from twisted psychodrama. Particular alarming are a couple of tricks involving possibly dead children which, while serving their purpose of proving how vile Mother is, come off as incredibly harsh and slightly difficult to stomach. Of course, there's also the question of why these characters would even give such a demanding and inhuman character so much attention, which is not always answered in regard to each character. The film never dwells too much on these faults or lets them get out of hand, thankfully, but it treads close to uncomfortable ground often enough that many viewers could be turned off to the film in general.

Random Moments

• Davis' eyepatch is a crucial plot point in the second act, and I'm partially glad it was explained...but on the other hand, just letting her have an eyepatch should be enough to prove evil exists! (I'm guessing they had to distinguish her from a pirate, hence the explanation).
• Don't miss the strange revelation of the young Shirley's "flaw"...a strange defect that seems kinda cooky...before you consider the rest of the film.
• Also memorable is a short scene in which Terry and Karen's children are shown to be quite scared by Grandma's eccentricities. I wouldn't have gone near her, either.

The Verdict
The Anniversary is about as dark as a comedy of its era could be, and I admire the fearlessness of all involved. With Davis taking the lead and the capable family playing it straight faced, it takes a while for the film to grab ahold of the viewer. Hours after viewing the film, I can't help but shake my head in surprise at a lot of the twists, and smile at the all-out tenacity of Baker's adaptation. The Anniversary is a strange entry into Hammer's canon, but I think it's a welcome addition that I'd recommend to anyone interested in a twisted family tale or a high-cheese star performance.

The Mike's Rating: Prime Choice

The Unknown

1927, Dir. by Tod Browning

(OK. I'm in parentheses.

The reason for this is simple. Today's review is of The Unknown, one of the classic collaborations of Director Tod Browning and Star Lon Chaney, Sr. Since it was made in 1927, and movies with sound were a bit of a luxury then, it's a silent film. Thus, I'm putting my review in parentheses, so it'll be silent too. As an homage, of sorts.

The film in question focuses on Mr. Chaney playing Alonzo, an armless knife-thrower (you read that right) in a circus who's madly in love with the daughter of the proprietor (played by a young Joan Crawford). She's sick of the men that put their hands all over her, especially the local strongman who's after her attention too. But there's a catch, because Alonzo's not what he seems. Tragic and ironic hijinks ensue.

Anyway, I can't say anything about this movie that Chaney couldn't have said himself....without talking. "The Man With 1000 Faces" makes this movie a masterpiece with his face....thus I'm gonna let him cover my review too....

Here's what Lon thinks (and you can click to see his closeups). I think it translates to awesomeness.)

My Name is Bruce

2008, Dir. by Bruce Campbell

Bruce. Campbell. Those two words alone can bring music to the ears. A couple of reviews back I talked about how "Icon" status seems to be a dime a dozen for horror "stars" of the last 30 years. Well, in the case of Bruce Campbell, it's all true, baby.

Best of all, Mr. Campbell knows it. Though it could be argued he's only been the star of four successful films, he's made his name as the preeminent name in b-movie schlock for an entire generation of film geeks. In fact, he's now to that great point in an actor's career...where he gets to make fun of himself. There is much rejoicing.

The Plot
The movie begins by telling us of the legend of Guan Di, the ancient Chinese god of war and guardian of bean dip, who happens to have been trapped in a mine in a small town called Gold Lick over 100 years ago. Unfortunately, a young man named Jeff who's obsessed with the movies of a certain Mr. Campbell, along with a friend and their lady friends of the evening, unleashes (or unreashes, depending on who you talk to) said demon. And somehow he convinces the town there's only one man that can save them - the man who's currently starring in Cavealien 2.

Meanwhile, the real-life Mr. Campbell has his own problems. He's hated for his antics on set of his latest sequel, having trouble relating with his agent (old friend Ted Raimi in one of three roles), and placated only by drinking alcohol, even if it comes from a dog bowl. (If you read nothing else in this review, at least click on that last link. It's worth it.)

So, Campbell jumps at the opportunity for a new role slaying a demon in Gold Lick, especially after being kidnapped and meeting Jeff's young mother. When he realizes the demon is real, he's forced to show his true colors.

The Good
Fans of horror cinema of the last three decades will find much to love in Campbell's mix of hero worship and self-deprecation. The script (which Campbell didn't write, surprisingly) is inspired by an old series of comics featuring Hollywood hero Alan Ladd (aka, Shane) facing challenges based on the films he'd starred in and is always charming, if not deep. Campbell eats up the chance to be the big man on campus, and he should - most of the film was shot on his property in Oregon in a move made to avoid upping the film's budget. He never has a problem being the butt of a joke, but also is still as good as ever when taking on the hero role. The rest of the cast knows their role opposite the director/star/main character, and no one seems to take anything too seriously.

There are a lot of in-jokes for fans, of course, with references to some of Bruce's films and spoofs of some of his less ambitious works (like the previously mentioned Cavealien films, which sadly don't exist in the real world). A couple of old friends from the past show up in Evil Dead 2's Dan Hicks and Army of Darkness' Tim Quill (who I nicknamed Fu Manchu many years ago thanks to his awesome mustache), although their presence is spent primarily on a silly Brokeback Mountain gag. His Evil Dead co-star Ellen Sandweiss (who I erroneously referred to as his girlfriend in that film in a past review, when she actually portrayed his sister Cheryl) also appears in a brief role, this time as his ex-wife Cheryl.

Finally, the demon Guan Di is pretty cool. In fact, I'd say the film's best serious moments are when the demon pops up, which is a testament to the crew for making an effective b-movie monster and backing it up well.

The Bad
My want to love My Name is Bruce is far too strong for me to say too much negative about the film. One could argue that Campbell's film is ridiculously cheesy, not funny unless you don't know the back stories, and entirely self-serving. To which I would say - "Yeah. So????"

In all seriousness, I did have some issues with My Name is Bruce. Some of the humor is quite juvenile - there are gay jokes, prostitute jokes, even transgender jokes. None of this is meanspirited, but it's a slight letdown after the serious, yet hilarious tone of Campbell's last masterpiece, Bubba Ho-Tep. As well, there's not much depth to Campbell's "character", and it would have been nice to see the star take a more serious approach to his career choices at some point, even if only for a monologue.

Random Moments

• Instead of that serious moment, we get this scene instead. Which it's really hard to complain about.
• While I thought my nerdness was big, the young Jeff has one heck of a memorabilia collection. And he creates this for Bruce...I want one.
• During one scene, the background music is clearly Bernard Herrmann's score from Psycho. I thought I recognized the music in some other scenes, but that was the only one I could clearly place.

The Verdict
My Name is Bruce was predestined for greatness, and I knew going in that there was no way the film could live up to the expectations of fans like myself. Thankfully, Campbell and his cast and crew put together a fun film that hits more than enough to keep a nerd like me happy. While I'm initially sad the film didn't blow the last 27 and 3/4 years of my film-going life out of the water, I know I'll keep watching it over and over again. I know that I've already watched all the special features, and I know that I'll soon be watching the film with commentary. I know that it will live on more for me than many better films, because it hits the cheesy notes that I dig and it seems sure to continue to go down easy. I know that, as a sort of lifetime achievement piece, it's already a crucial part of my Midnight Movie canon.

The Mike's Rating: Legends Series

Cujo

1983, Dir. by Lewis Teague

For starters, this will be one of the few movies I review on this website that I have starred in a remake of. It's true - I did play the role of Cujo in a friend's project during our 12th Grade Contemporary Literature class (or something like that, I don't even remember what the class was called). With all due respect to the fella to the left of this text, I was one convincing rabid Saint Bernard.

Hollywood has higher standards, however, and thus the 1983 adaptation of Stephen King's novel did not star The Mike. It was a wise move, because I was two at the time, and still had a peanut shaped head. So, 1 Cool point goes out to director Lewis Teague and the producers.

The Plot
Vic and Donna Trenton (Daniel Hugh-Kelly and Dee Wallace), and their six-year-old son Tad (Danny Pintauro) live a happy life in Maine. But like most people Stephen King writes into his home state, things aren't entirely what they seem. Vic's successful advertising job is slipping away, as is his marriage - as it appears Donna is having an affair with a town handyman (Christopher Stone, Wallace's husband in real life at the time). Things go to crud, Vic leaves town to try and save his job, and Donna and Tad take their breaking down pinto to the farm of a local mechanic (the cool Ed Lauter), which happens to be on the completely secluded side of town (and it's funny how many small towns have these!)

Oh, and at the same time, said mechanic's friendly Saint Bernard, Cujo (an ancient indian term for "unstoppable force" - not a good sign) has gotten a bad case of rabies, and become determined to kill anything that moves. Couple that with the Trentons' car breaking down right in that driveway on the completely secluded side of town, and you've got a horror movie!

The Good
As the attempt at a synopsis above shows (or maybe doesn't, I don't know) there isn't a lot to King's story. He contributed heavily to the film's script, but it's clear that a lot of the book's ideas made it straight into the film. While a lot of the more descriptive bits of the book aren't fleshed out in the film, the man vs. beast nature of the story is still evident. Most importantly, the hopelessness that sets in on the trapped mother and son is thick, and there's a lot of natural tension - disregarding a ridiculous spinning camera while everyone cries and screams shot.

The beast dog himself is pretty impressive. Five Saint Bernards under heavy makeup, plus a robotronic beast and a dog suit for humans were used to bring Cujo to life, but you'd never know it from watching the film. It interacts well with the actors, especially Wallace (working on her third creature feature in three years), who conveys terror wonderfully.

The film's best scene comes when Wallace's Donna tries to escape but decides to look under the car...not a good idea.

The Bad
For all the good things Cujo has going for it in the simple story elements, there's bit wrong with it too. The film seems imbalanced while it's going, as there seems to be more time spent on the story's beginning and characters than is spent with the infected beast. The exposition is welcome and helpful, but the slightly shortened second half makes me wish for a little more carnage once the film's over.

Most importantly, my biggest pet peeve about any movie lives within this film - the inconsistent and occasionally terrible child actor. Young Mr. Pinatauro, while acceptable for most of the film, becomes grating while trapped in the car. I give him some credit, considering the film is a little taxing for a young man, but I needed a little less screaming at times. It's like he took it to 11, when 8 would have sufficed.

Random Moments

• There's a Pavlovian undercurrent when Cujo's violence is triggered, twice, by the ringing telephone in the mechanic's home.
• There's a police officer named Bannerman that shows up in the final act...a reference to the sherrif in King's The Dead Zone.
• Who's responsible for getting Cujo to be this rabid fellow he becomes? This little fella.

The Verdict
Cujo is a solid little horror film, but it never really reaches the level of the text. Of the King books I've read (and can remember), this is one of the most difficult to adapt, because a large portion of the book is explanation of the setting and the dog's actions - things that are more easily explained than conveyed on film. There are enough interesting moments to make it a watchable and slightly enjoyable film, but there are also reminders of why it's sometimes better to read a book that hamper the movie from being great.

The Mike's Rating: Solid Selection

Satan's Playground

2005, Dir. by Dante Tomaselli

Ever since American horror films had their boom in the Reagan era (and there's got to be a correlation there), a lot of people have earned the status of "icons of horror". The thing is, they're not all Robert Englund or Bruce Campbell. Thus is the case with Satan's Playground - a Texas Chainsaw Massacre wannabe that fails to even meet Wrong Turn's standards - which boasts not one but THREE "icons". They include Felissa Rose of Sleepaway Camp fame; Ellen Sandweiss who was Campbell's lady friend in The Evil Dead; and Edwin Neal - the deranged hitchiker from the original TCM.

There are a couple things one needs to remember when names like these get thrown around as carrying a modern flick. Firstly, there's a reason you haven't seen them headlining horrors in the last 2 decades - they're not entirely good actors. Secondly - and more crucially - they're usually desperate. This means any role, any time, as long as their name gets on the promo materials.

Despite these factors, I went ahead and watched Satan's Playground anyway. Is it because I'm too faithful, or because I'm stupid? Are they one and the same? You decide.

The Plot
Donna (Rose) and her gangly-Michael Phelps-looking autistic son Sean, along with her sister Paula (Sandweiss) are traveling along the Jersey roadways when their car breaks down. Looking for help, they come across the home of 96 year-old Mrs. Leeds, a creepy old lady living with two of her deranged kids, who has claims here 13th child was actually a bat-faced devil. Killings and bloodlettings ensue.

If this sounds kind of familiar, it's because it's based on the real-life urban legend of the Jersey Devil, which the hockey team was named after (and which was also the topic of a far superior episode of the X-Files). It's supposedly a hooved biped with wings and the aforementioned bat-face that roams the countryside of Pine Barrens, NJ - but it's never shown on screen here, so we wouldn't know.

The Good
Well, most of the film is in frame. Other than that, I don't have much.

I suppose I could give slight credit in regard to the Leeds family, as they are definitely creepy looking. Rose does as good a job as she can in the lead, and can still scream, but she's not really built to carry a film like she has to here.

The Bad
Pretty much everything. For starters, the movie is dull. There's little character development, and people choose their actions for the sake of the plot, which is entirely paint-by-numbers. Tomaselli tries to compensate by adding an overbearing musical score and ridiculous sound effects. So basically you get 80 minutes of running around and being chased and screaming, wihtout any levity. The movie wants to be a non-stop nightmare, but it's not engaging enough to be intimidating. It's a snarling teddy bear of a film.

The final act is especially frustrating, with a great example of the unmistakable horror tradition called "I've brought a lone cop who doesn't believe in backup or radios for contacting others, clearly everything will be OK, right? Oh crap!" This leads to the Evil Dead ripoff ending, mercifully ending the film before I had to sit in its stench any longer.

Random Moments

• There's nothing notable or memorable in this movie. Even Rose, who I've grown a sick crush on through horror documentaries and interviews I've seen her in, is slightly disappointing. I blame the movie though, not her.
  
• OK, there's one funny moment when the son gets sucked into a suckhole in the ground, which made me think of many ironic "Michael Phelps lookalike is drowning!" jokes.

The Verdict
I spent most of the runtime of this movie trying to think of the word to describe how much it sucked. I'm gonna go with festered. This movie sat on my TV screen festering for 82 minutes, reminding me of how bad being a fan of cult cinema can get. Sorry to the "icons" involved, but they already got their paychecks.

Felissa, if you're out there reading this (and you should be), your movie sucked, and you should have known better. You're still awesome. Love and kisses, The Mike.

The Mike's Rating: RUN AWAY!

Frankenstein Unbound

1990, Dir. by Roger Corman

When it comes to making independent b-movies, there's no bigger name than Roger Corman. Between 1955 and 1971, Corman directed nearly 50 feature films, and was notorious for quickly putting together a product that could thrill drive-in audiences. These films included many adaptations of Edgar Allan Poe's work (generally with Vincent Price in the lead), sci-fi fare like Attack of the Crab Monsters and She Gods of Shark Reef, and even crime films, westerns, and war movies. He left the directors chair to produce dozens more films in the 1970s and 1980s, but made a return one more time - 1990's Frankenstein Unbound.

I don't know why Corman would agree to make this, of all films, after avoiding the director credit for 19 years, but I can theorize. Part of me wants to say I understand his reasoning. The Frankenstein legend, as originally written by Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley, has been my favorite book for many years. I've read it multiple times, and have come to the realization through my cinematic pursuits that the story as she told it is something no one has really been able to capture that story as it was intended. From watching Frankenstein Unbound, it appears to me that Corman's intention was not to capture the young Mrs. Shelley's story....but to add his own flavor to the Frankenstein legacy.

Or, maybe he just wanted to go hang out in Italy and film a movie for fun. But I like to give more credit than is sometimes due, so I'll go with the last paragraph.

The Plot
Now, if you know anything about Frankenstein, you might be wondering why the still from the film features people sitting in a car with pods that's supposed to look futuristic even though Batman the TV series did it 25 years earlier. It's a good question, because this is not the Frankenstein you know.

In fact, our film starts in the year 2031, with scientist John Buchanan working on a new super nuclear laser weapon that could change humanity...except that it seems to have opened up a portal in the sky that no one really understands. Buchanan finds out first hand when a Genghis Khan wannabe pops out from the sky at him and some kids who were burying a bike in his yard, and finds himself sucked through the wormhole (thankfully, with his talking future car). He lands in 1817 Italy, and finds himself in the middle of the Frankenstein tale.

Buchanan thinks it's odd when he meets Dr. Frankenstein (Raul Julia), but doesn't think it's too odd. In fact, he pretty much wows Doc Frank with things like a digital wristwatch and a ballpoint pen. But when he also meets Miss Mary Wollstonecraft Godwin (Bridget Fonda), who's engaged to Lord Byron Shelley and happens to be writing a book, and he realizes he's in the middle of a real legend. And then it gets confusing.

The Good
Frankenstein Unbound is nothing if not creative. While it's not the first film to transcend time and space in regard to killers (Time After Time did it and did it right in '79), it takes an interesting turn in dealing with both the writer and the characters in separate stories. In fact, the parallel between Buchanan's interactions with each side of the story is one of the film's more interesting ideas, even if it is not fully realized in the film's short run-time. Other positives include the fact that both Hurt and Julia both put more vigor into their performances than the film is really worth, and that there's some beautiful scenery. But that's where the short list ends.

The Bad
It's hard to rip apart a film like Frankenstein Unbound, because anyone who watches it will probably jump to the "What the hell?" stage very quickly. But the biggest disappointment, as is usual with the Frankenstein tale on film, is that the real drama of Shelley's novel - the monster's search for acceptance and rage against the maker that made him hideous - is still nonexistent. The film does get into the Bride section of the story, but the monster itself (played by Nick Brimble) is not scary, interesting, or humane. The film skips over the parts of the legend in which the monster is trying to help others and trying to earn acceptance, leaving the story dull whenever his carnage occurs on or off screen.

Random Moments

• The Monster just looks silly. I'm not sure why sprockets coming out of cheeks and the forehead made sense, but that's what they went with.
• Fonda's young Mary proclaims to Buchanan, after being wooed by his 21st century awesomeness, that "Percy and Byron preach free love. I practice it." Today, there's a four letter word for that!
• Speaking of that silly monster, for some reason they decided Dr. Frankenstein would have needed to piece together eyes of three different colors to make him work to. Just look at this box cover, and marvel in the silliness.

The Verdict
Sometimes an idea for a movie is so bad that it almost seems good - like it's something you want to hate, but you're just too darn shocked that it exists to fully give up on it. Frankenstein Unbound fits that mold perfectly. It's utterly ridiculous, but it's got good actors hamming it up, a director that knows how to make something out of nothing, and a talking car. Can I find any reason to recommend someone watch Frankenstein Unbound? Not at all. But it's just crazy enough that I can't fully dismiss it. It happened. That's about it.

The Mike's Rating: Time Burner

Hell Ride

2008, Dir. by Larry Bishop

One of the factors that can redeem almost any independent film, especially those looking to hit with cult audiences, is when a film is clearly a labor of love for the people behind it. If you don't have the budget, the manpower, or the time, you're going to have to wing it. And when you do, it generally helps to be really interested in making the movie you set out to make, as well as willing to take the steps needed to succeed. Many times, this gets genre filmmakers like Peter Jackson and Sam Raimi noticed, and leads to their commercial successes.

The problem with that, however, is that every once in a while you'll run into a film that's clearly a labor of love for the filmmaker, who clearly has his stamp on every part of the film...but he turns out to not be any good at making movies. Thus is the case with Hell Ride, a biker picture from Writer/Director/Star Larry Bishop that ends up being difficult to watch mostly due to his proclivities.

The Plot
Hell Ride focuses on a band of bikers called the Victors, led by Bishop's Pistolero, who has memories of his youth and the girl he lost that drive him to...well, drive. He's accompanied on hsi travels by other Victors, most notably The Gent (Michael Madsen, continuing his trend of picking up roles in awful movies) and Comanche (Eric Balfour). The former is a aging ladies man (although, every male character in this incredibly chauvanistic film fits that description), while the latter is the youngest member of the group whose claim that he's "Just a guy named Comanche" doubles for the phrase "I HAVE A SECRET CRUCIAL TO THE PLOT!" being tattooed on his forehead. Pistolero and fellas are on the hunt for information regarding some lost loot and his personal revenge for the death of his childhood lover. And, that's really about all the plot, save a rival gang lead by master thug Vinnie Jones; and one of Pistolero's women named Nada (played by the gorgeous Leonor Varela of Blade II fame) who...well, shows up with knowledge when the film requires it (or, when the film requires someone for Pistolero to talk dirty with).

The Good
Not a lot fits this category. Varela's introduction, backed by music from Neko Case, is a good looking moment until the lips of her and Bishop start flapping and the f-word gets dropped about 30 times in 4 minutes. Neko's music makes the scene vivid and memorable before the dialogue drives you crazy, and the attractive actress quickly becomes sleazy through Bishop's male-fantasy inspired dialogue.

The film features brief appearances from b-movie all-stars Dennis Hopper and David Carradine, who add to the film slightly while picking up a paycheck. Hopper adds some humor and plays a small part in the finale, while Carradine shows up for one exposition scene before meeting a gruesome demise. Their combined experience in hamming it up for a crappy director shows through, even though they're only on screen for a short time.

The Bad
I've made note several times of the awful script and dialogue involved in this film, but it's worth repeating. Bishop uses sexual references whenever possible, perhaps in an attempt to make the characters seem "cool". When he's not having characters spew out the story, he's working in uninspired flashbacks, tracking shots of the bikers driving around curves in the mountains, and more naked women than you can shake a stick at. That last thing is generally acceptable, but Bishop just seems to have a way of making the entire film seem sleazy, missing the tone he was going for completely. It's no secret that the film is supposed to mimic Grindhouse films of the '60s and '70s (the trailers for both Grindhouse features start the DVD), but the film never comes close to feeling like something any audience would hunger for or find intriguing.

Bishop the actor is equally disappointing, giving a performance that resembles Tom Savini impersonating Madsen and Nick Nolte poorly (and I say that with all due respect to the famed goremaster, but let's face it- Tom isn't walking away with the golden man with the tiny buttocks any time soon). Madsen goes through the motions much as he did in Bloodrayne or Croc; and Jones is his usual over the top self as the head baddie who's probably given Bishop's worst sex-related dialogue. Outside of Carradine and Hopper (and I suppose Varela from a visual standpoint), the rest of the cast is forgettable.

Random Moments

• Pistolero seems pretty attached to Varela's character, but has sex with at least 4 other women throughout the film. Bishop really hooked himself up here.
• Jones' recount of what his tattoos mean to a young prostitute could be the most disgusting scene of recent memory.
• Varela's character, when meeting Pistolero in their first full scene, offers to f-word Pistolero NINE times before he can get a word in. Yeah, this movie's definitely not written to be degrading to women. NOT!

The Verdict
I'm not sure why, but I don't feel like giving Hell Ride the lowest possible rating despite how much it annoys me. Bishop did succeed at making the film he wanted to make, and that has to be worth something. However, I don't think Bishop's film will be interesting to many people that aren't Bishop himself, and it's borderline offensive to the intelligence of the filmgoer in most scenes. Definitely a movie I wouldn't recommend to anyone.

The Mike's Rating: Skip It!

Repo! The Genetic Opera

2008, Dir. by Darren Lynn Bousman

Repo! The Genetic Opera is not the kind of midnight movie I generally seek out. Since The Rocky Horror Picture Show and (my personal favorite) Phantom of the Paradise rocked theaters in the mid '70s; there have been several entries in the midnight musical genre, but few that captured madness and inventiveness as those two films. Despite my preconceptions, Repo! managed to remind me fondly of those films, and put its own stamp on the midnight musical genre.

The Plot
Set in the always evolving "not-too-distant" future, our film opens with a comic book style rehash of the near fall of civilization due to genetic organ failures, and the savior that came to the world, Rotti Largo, founder of GeneCo - the company responsible for legal organ transplants. It also introduces us to the person who comes into play when those receiving organs don't pay up on time, the Repo Man. If you don't know how one would reposess an organ, this is the time when I should tell you that the director's first three films were Saw sequels. That should help you get the picture.

Rotti (played with surprising grace by Goodfellas' Paul Sorvino) is dying, and has to choose an heir to the throne from among his three children. The oldest, Luigi (The Devils Rejects' Bill Moseley), is a foul mouth with a violent temper. The youngest, Pavi (someone named Ogre from a band called Skinny Puppy that I've never heard of) steals the faces of others to hide his own disfiguration, and the last, Amber Sweet (played by....Paris Hilton...don't run away...please!), is addicted to cosmetic surgeries and the street drug Zydrate, which is an anesthetic for surgical pain relief (that is also extracted from the dead).

Across town we meet Shilo Wallace (Alexa Vega) a seventeen year old girl plagued by "a blood disease" and her single father Nathan (Buffy the Vampire Slayer's Anthony Stewart Head)...who has hidden the secret that he is GeneCo's top Repo Man from his daughter all his life. Through flashbacks, it's revealed that Shilo's mother, who died during childbirth, was involved with both Rotti and Nathan, and now the dying "savior" wants to reconnect with Shilo and let her in on the truths of their twisted society.

The Good
When the film says it's an opera, it really is an opera. There are few breaks in the musical action, and every cast member takes part in the act. More impressive, they do so with great enthusiasm. Vega and Head are especially effective in the daughter/father scenes, especially as the film closes in on the finale; and they throw themselves into the musical numbers with little hesitation. Sorvino and Hilton get in some good licks, but the latter is primarily carried by the musicians of the cast. The biggest assets in the cast, however, are Sarah Brightman and Terrance Zdunich.

Brightman is most known for her on-stage work, including originating the Christine Daae role in Andrew Lloyd Webber's Phantom of the Opera (Brightman and Webber were married briefly, as well). Here she plays Blind Mag - the star of GeneCo's top entertainment event, the titular Genetic Opera. She's also involved in the past of Nathan, Rotti, and Shilo; and provides a crucial turn in the plot in her few scenes. She gets the film's most operatic musical number, and provides a foil to the corrupt family dynamics of the film.

Zdunich plays a more tertiary role as well, as the Graverobber who supplies Zydrate to addicts and serves as an overseer of the film's developments. He's crucial in educating Shilo to the dangers around her, and carries Hilton through one of the film's best scenes. Oh, and he also co-created the original play and co-wrote the film with Darren Smith (who gets onscreen to kickoff the opera festivities in the final act.)

The cast as a whole is largely responsible for the film's success, but a lot of credit must also go to Darren Lynn Bousman. I mentioned that his previous work was in the torture porn of the Saw series, and it's more than surprising to view how well he puts this film together on such a limited budget. He creates a lot of world for a film with so few resources (although the film seems a little staged at times), which keeps the film feeling like the sci-fi/horror epic that the money didn't allow.

The Bad
I spent a lot of time on the things I liked about the movie, but it's still a hard sell. As with all midnight movies, quality is relative, and the film has its fair share of questionable choices. It's definitely a movie that will hook some from the start and lose others immediately. It's an incredibly dark and violent film at times, and an almost Shakespearean tale at others. To say it's not a movie for the masses is an understatement.

I found Moseley to be the only member of the cast whose performance didn't fit the movie. And, outside of a few early scenes involving Vega and Head, I was caught up in the characters enough to forgive some of the more dramatic/overdone acting, which will not be easy for all viewers. Hilton's performance, which I found myself surprisingly not angered by, is one I could easily see drawing the ire of some viewers, as many of her scenes are among the film's silliest. Realistically, if someone isn't going in expecting a full-blast rock opera, they're going to probably have trouble dealing with the acting.

Also, it is easy to look at the film's world and draw parallels to other sci-fi films. In its ideas, Repo is not the most original film. I felt like the execution of these ideas, and especially the effort put into presenting them in a new manner made up for this, but it might fall on the other side of that line for others.

And, of course, the music is key. If you don't like it, you won't like the film...because it really is all music. Here's a snippet via a YouTube video for your perusal.

Random Moments

• I haven't talked about it too much, but there is a LOT of blood spilled and organs removed in this movie. Just making sure to mention that.
• Watch out for the creepy 3-D portraits of Shilo's deceased mother in their home. They're a little much.
• The opening of the final Opera features some truly random nudity.
• If you want to see Paris Hilton horribly disfigured, this is a good place to start.
• According to many reports I've read, there are upwards of 50 songs in the 97 minute film.

The Verdict
When I started this site and stated my principles, I mentioned that I, among other things, was looking for "films that dare to take us places that most people never really care to think about". Repo! The Genetic Opera does so with vigor, which is the most I can ever ask of a midnight movie. I don't know if it will catch on and gain any kind of cult status like the films I mentioned at the beginning of my review (though there sadly isn't enough of a Phantom of the Paradise cult), but the fact that it got me this interested in its world is a surprising victory. I won't be surprised to see many others falling under the Repo Man's spell, leading them to respect this inventive and tragic rock opera.

The Mike's Rating: Legends Series

Wild at Heart

1990, Dir. by David Lynch

What would have happened if Elvis and Marilyn were star-crossed lovers on a cross-country road trip to hell? That seems to be the question asked by David Lynch's 1990 film Wild at Heart, but - as we've come to expect from the man behind Blue Velvet and Mulholland Drive - it's not the only question the film presents. Lynch provides a twisting, twisted ride that grips the viewer with a nightmarish tone; but also seems incomprehensible upon first glance and features some maddeningly overblown and confusing technical and dramatic touches.

The Plot
Despite my first statement, the film is not actually about Mr. Presley and Ms. Monroe, though it's clear throughout (and is acknowledged by all involved) that the characters were modeled after these icons. Nicolas Cage and Laura Dern star as Sailor and Lula, whom me meet on the night of a brawl that ends with Sailor killing a man that attacked the couple during some sort of social function. Sailor is sent away for manslaughter, and we then find him released 7 years later and put on a plane full of other inmates.

Wait - that was a different Nic Cage movie. This is the one where he's sent away for manslaughter and released 2 years later to reunite with Luna. My bad

Moving on, Luna's mother (played by Dern's real mother, Diane Ladd, is furious about her daughter's choice of lifestyle and beau, and takes the next logical step - enlisting both of her boyfriends (a timid crook played by Harry Dean Stanton and a unstable gangster played by J.E. Freeman) to hunt down and dispose of Sailor (which leads to vicious torture scene, another Lynch staple). In the meantime, and without knowing mommie dearest's plan, Sailor and Luna set off for California, meeting odd characters and the hitmen sent to destroy them along the way.

The Good
The most endearing quality of Lynch's film is the mood of the proceedings. The film references pop culture's icons I mentioned (as well as the Wizard of Oz?) often, but the biggest theme is focused on the characters being trapped in a hell they can't escape. There are some frustrating and annoying tricks Lynch uses to achieve this (most notably frequent recurring images of fire and burning, and unecessary and grating "stingers" or screams in the soundtrack), but the film has moments that achieve great tension and haunt the viewer even after the film ends. Most notable is a dreamlike scene in which Sailor and Lula happen upon an automobile accident and find a delirious young woman (the gorgeous Sherilyn Fenn of Twin Peaks and Of Mice and Men) who doesn't realize the situation she's in. There are plenty of great shots that build on this idea and help the viewer believe the characters are actually in some sort of purgatory, they seem undercut by some overly aggressive symbolism by the director.

Cage is admirable in the lead, and Willem Dafoe shows up and adds a delicious sleaze to the proceedings in the final hour. Ladd's performance as the mother was applauded by critics, and even garnered an Oscar nomination, but I found her to be overacting in key scenes, and was not so impressed. Dern had the same problem at times, but I felt her performance as Lula was more acceptable in the long run. Cage and Dern's relate to each other well throughout, and without that the film would probably be near unwatchable. The film relies heavily on Sailor and Lula being "straight" characters trapped in a more confusing universe, and Cage and Dern keep that dynamic alive throughout the film.

The Bad
By now you may have noticed that I'm having trouble finishing a sentence without stating a failure within the movie. Unfortunately, the film is inconsistent in almost every way. There are some great scenes, and there are some equally confusing scenes. There are some interesting psychological insinuations, but there are also some strange scenes that push the film into silly territory. And this goes on in regard to all parts of the film - the acting, the music/sound editing, the dialogue, etc. Lynch never seems to have a full handle on where he wants the film to go from a dramatic standpoint. I'm not sure that's ever been something he has worried about, but from a viewer's standpoint, it's frustrating.

Random Moments (and we've got a lot of 'em)

• Lula's mother randomly cuts her wrist and covers herself in blood at one moment, before calling up her first boyfriend (Stanton) to check on the assassination progress.
• Cage does Presley decently, including performing two songs.
• There's some creepy voodoo stuff, which leads to a torture scene.
• Sheryl Lee, who starred in Lynch's Twin Peaks movie two years later (and who I thus confuse with Sherilyn Fenn, even though the look nothing alike) makes a cameo during the goofy climax.
• What's a good way to introudce a creepy Willem Dafoe? Well according to Lynch and the film, it's to flank him with three 400+ pound naked women. No joke.
• Oh yeah, and King of the Creeps Crispin Glover also appears in a flashback as Lula's crazy cousin.

The Verdict
If I were someone more interested in the art of filmmaking, I might be more impressed with Wild at Heart. As someone just looking for entertainment and a story, I can't help but be disappointed. Lynch shows repeatedly that he can tell a story and make it dramatic, but he seems more interested in taking the viewer for a mental ride that's full of unanswered riddles. I can't completely deny the film's merits, as it does work as a two hour nightmare, but it doesn't do enough to make it as memorable as Lynch's more known films (and I'll still take The Elephant Man over any of 'em) nor enough to make it an enjoyable experience. When it all comes down to the end, the film is wild in too many places than just the heart.

The Mike's Rating: Time Burner

The Lost Skeleton of Cadavra

2001, Dir. by Larry Blamire

"From the company that brought you Zombies of Mora Tau and Lawrence of Arabia!" (yes, that's the tagline!) comes a spoof of bad '50s sci-fi that's clearly spent 40 years studying that era in cinema. In fact, it will be very hard for me to write the rest of this review without breaking into spontaneous laughter, because there aren't many movies that seem so perfectly made for me (one character even screams "for the love of Mike!" in a scene!) as this one does.

The Plot
The Lost Skeleton of Cadavra, as stated by Director/Writer/Star Larry Blamire, is a tribute to Z-Grade Science Fiction Films. And it imitates one perfectly. The film begins with scientist Paul Armstrong and his wife Betty (Blamire and Fay Masterson) venturing into a wooded area in search of a rare element, Atmosphereum. Paul loves science, as is determined through multiple conversations about how much Paul loves science. Meanwhile, a more "disgusting" scientist Dr. Roger Fleming(Brian Howe, recognizable now as one of Clint's sons in Gran Torino) is on the Atmosphereum's trail, but for a more devious reason - he wants to awaken the terrible Lost Skeleton of Cadavra!

Oh, and also a husband and wife pair of aliens from the planet Marva, Kro-Bar and Lattis, crash-land on Earth and their pet mutant gets loose. And Dr. Fleming creates a female named Animala from four forest animals and dust, using the aliens' lost Transmutatron. And there's a forest ranger named Ranger Brad that loves to help people who're lost in the woods.

The Good
First of all, the film is gloriously shot in black-and-white. And shot in famous Bronson Canyon, the setting for the likes of the infamous Robot Monster and a myriad of other creature/alien flicks of the era. Blamire and crew make it clear from the opening that they were fully committed to becoming the kind of film they wanted to pay tribute to, and it pays off in full. To be perfectly honest, my first viewing of Lost Skeleton made me feel like I had watched an Ed Wood film, and left me scratching my head. But the more I looked back, and the more I remembered old sci-fi films I'd marveled at, the more the film's charm showed through. Now, I've seen it multiple times, and it seems to grow more relevant as a record of midnight cinema's history with each viewing.

But, primarily, the movie is hilarious. From strange sight gags like the miniature rocket in broccoli trees, to strangely clunky dialouge, to the obviously visible wires that control the skeleton, the film pulls no strings (well, except the ones on the skeleton). Blamire and Masterson play the "straight" characters, but the entire film is played with a straight face. This is especially joyous in the aliens' behavior (great hammy performances by Andrew Parks and Susan McConnell), and in the silly sensuality of Animala, considering that she's made from four different forest animals. The Mutant, as pictured above, is goofy (though it looks better than that tree that's Stanford's mascot!), yet always on the attack - which makes it fit in perfectly eith the movie's charm. And, of course, there's the skeleton, which is an actual science lab skeleton on wires, but also a idol to the devious doc and a telepathic terror to the rest of the characters. Ridiculous, yet straight faced.

The Bad
Well, like I said above, it's a film that takes some getting used to. Awkward is a good word for it. It balances on the line between spot-on and ridiculous at times, and it took me multiple viewings to realize how self-aware the film is. Hopefully, you're quicker than me, and will catch it first time.

I can't promise the film will be relevant to those that aren't immersed in the sci-fi of this era, either. But I think it can be entertaining in a "so bad it's good way" regardless, something the filmmakers were hoping for while making it.

Random Quotes (because they're too good to share time with moments)

• While posing as a human, Kro-Bar is flustered when Dr. Fleming accuses he and his wife of being aliens, and retorts quickly with "Aliens? Us? Is this one of your Earth jokes?"
• Ranger Brad stops by to inform the Armstrongs of the mutant's first horrible mutilation, and assures them that "We take our horrible mutilations seriously in these parts!" This leads to the scientific Paul pondering "Mutilate...mutant...mutilate...mutant. I wonder."
• Dr. Armstrong also repeats many times how much he loves "doing science", most notably by telling his wife "If you keep cooking like that, I won't have enough energy to move, let alone do science!"
• And my favorite, Ranger Brad stating when asked if the mutilation could have been due to a bear that "I've seen a bear do things, well...even things that a bear wouldn't even do."

The Verdict
It's only one film, but Larry Blamire and everyone else that worked on this film are officially on my cool list. The Lost Skeleton of Cadavra is a testament to exactly why I created this site - the fact that even the most ridiculous movies can thrill us, inspire us, and make us smile. Here's hoping the upcoming sequel The Lost Skeleton Returns Again! is half as funny, and that Blamire's follow up idea The Trail of the Screaming Forehead finds its way to theaters someday. If you have any interest in midnight cinema, and even a passing interest in the sci-fi films of the 50s, The Lost Skeleton of Cadavra is an absoulte must see.

The Mike's Rating: Legends Series

Teenage Caveman

2002, Dir. by Larry Clark

If you've read my rating system that sits to the right of this review, there's a word that sums up many of the movies one finds when looking for this kind of movie - mistakes. Sometimes, a title, a poster, or even just an image leads a midnight movie lover to take a chance on a film they know little about....and the results can be dangerous.

I thought I knew what I was getting into with Teenage Caveman. I knew it was a remake of a 1950s flick from Roger Corman/American International Pictures, despite having not seen the original. I also reognized the director's name, and was looking forward to a gritty, perhaps overly dramatic monster flick. But there's where I made my mistake.

The movie is directed by Larry Clark. I was thinking of Larry Cohen.

You see, Larry Cohen had been directing creature features like It's Alive! and Q: The Winged Serpent since the early '70s; while Larry Clark had been making teens doing naughty things involving murder and AIDS movies since the mid '90s. Needless to say, there's a bit of a difference in their styles.

So, Teenage Caveman happened upon me. In fact, I think it took a big, steaming happened upon me.

The Good
My first thought after typing the title for this section was to just type "Nope." and move on. But I decided I have to say something. My second thought was to type "Well, at least it had boobs.", but that seemed a bit too little. Then I decided I was being too open in my thought process.

I've got nothin'. The picture above, of the teenage caveclan looking over a deserted Seattle, looks good. The movie had potential for that moment, 17 minutes into the film. One good moment's better than none, I guess.

The Plot
It's the future. People have reverted to caveman ways, because of some kind of disease or weather, and the leader of the tribe, our lead, David's father, likes to rape cavewomen. He also gives David (Andrew Keegan) guff for "reading"...although the reading material of choice is Penthouse. After dad tries to rape David's girlfriend, Sarah (Tara Subkoff), David kills papa, and the duo and their friends (Why is it always a group of three couples in these movies?) head off into the distance.

And then they wake up like this. And meet a Shawn Michaels wannabe and his girlfriend who've taken them in in the middle of the city (where the "cavemen" spend the rest of the movie, in early 2000's fashion, nonetheless) and decided to teach them about things like drug use and sexual promiscuity. This leads to an extended bit of teen lewd behavior, complete with everyone getting naked, doing drugs, and being annoying. Except David and Sarah, who are uncomfortable with such things. They'd like their love to be pure, but David starts to yearn, Sarah yells at him about how she performs certain services on him, and the movie continues to spiral into further idiocy.

Oh yeah, and their new keepers happen to be some kind of mutants that kill people by sexing them, I think in order to try and further their mutation.

The Bad
Where to begin? Clark's film shows a complete lack of interest in being anything more than a teenage romp on film, mixed with a monster finale. This was one of many remakes produced by a company calling themselves "Creature Features" in the early 2000s, and it seems clear to me that their main goal was to try and make something that would pander to the youth of a new millenium. However, in doing so they forgot to make the film appealing in anyway, unless you're that into sex and drugs. It seems Clark really wanted to make the film "relevant", in some way, but it's impossible to tell if he's trying to play off of an AIDS scare or parallel the Garden of Eden, or something inbetween.

Acting is mediocre to poor throughout. None of the cast seems interesting as anything more than a sterotypical Hollywood face of the generation, with the villainous city heathens overacting in every scene, leading to a rubber suit laden finale. The monster action, even at full strength, is uninspiring, and the film ends with a whimper instead of a bang.

Random Moments

• There's a weird moment in the final scene where a parallel is drawn by a Dr. J autographed basketball and a severed head.
• I'm not sure if I've ever seen another movie in which every major female character gets topless...multiple times, nonetheless.

The Verdict
Teenage Caveman is one of those movies that makes one feel bad about liking genre films. It makes you want to go rent whatever Sandra Bullock or Keanu Reeves just made and call it a night. It makes you look for chores around the house - laundry, dishes, anything - to do instead of watching it. It also makes you remember that, while you're currently thinking about bashing your head through a soft spot in the wall, there's a better idea for a midnight movie out there somewhere. And when it's over, and you realize that you've lived to see another 90 minutes, you feel stronger for doing so.

The tagline on the Teenage Caveman DVD reads "The Future Sucks". If you decide to watch this movie, you'll agree for those 89 minutes.

The Mike's Rating: RUN AWAY!

Sweet Sweetback's Baadasssss Song

1971, Dir. by Melvin Van Peebles

In 2003, Mario Van Peebles - most known to filmgoers as star of things like Highlander 3 and Solo (and those are reviews for another day) - directed, wrote, and starred in Baadasssss!, a chronicle of his father's journey to make this film. The younger Van Peebles' film is a heartfelt drama that shows an interesting side of society and cinema at the time, while giving his father's film credit for starting the exploitation movement of the 1970s. It really makes you believe there was a revolution at hand, and that his father was a pioneer in the history of cinema.

I can't debate those points, nor do I want to. But I can say one thing - Sweet Sweetback's Baadasssss Song, relevant or not, is a mess of a motion picture.

The Plot
The film begins with young Sweetback (played by a 14 year old Mario), losing his virginity with a prostitute. And it's a vivid scene. After that, we're introduced to adult Sweetback - now a prostitute who does "public shows", and is apparently important enough to be a friend of the local police. That changes when two white police officers take him along (for no particular reason) so he can witness them beating a member of the Black Panthers severely. Sweetback can't take this any longer, and in a blind rage beats down the two officers. Then he goes on the run.

And that's about it for the plot, even though there are about 70 minutes left in the film at this point. The rest of the film involves Sweetback running, meeting old friends, having more sex, and continuing to run. According to Melvin, it's his way of showing "how to get the man's foot out of your ass". According to The Mike, it's dull.

The Good
I'm very glad I saw his son's tribute film before I saw Melvin's "masterpiece". With background knowledge, it's really interesting to see how the film played out considering the behind the scenes issues, and it's also easier to understand the motivation behind the film. As Melvin has said repeatedly, previous films about the black community were always told from the white perspective. While I'm not sure Van Peebles' voice is the voice of the entire black community, it's definitely a new voice compared to what Hollywood was used to, and it opened the door for a lot of movies that succeeded thereafter. Van Peebles also succeeds in using extras and real people to provide the image of the black community, and the solidarity of the characters had to be a point of pride for those dealing with the racial tensions of the time. This is probably the film's biggest achievement, and the one thing that keeps me from labeling a total disaster.

The film boasts a dreamlike quality throughout, with camera tricks, changes in color schemes, and background music composed by Van Peebles and played by a then unknown band called Earth, Wind, and Fire. While the film lacks in plot, the odd presentation actually plays to its favor, and at least keeps it interesting from a visual standpoint, a pretty strong achievement for an independent film of the time.

The Bad
I've said it already, but I'll say it again, in more simple terms. This is a 97 minute movie about a man running from the police and being a manwhore while doing so. That's it. It's terribly paced, repetitive, and lacks tension throughout. In the meantime, lots of characters are barely introduced, many scenes involve characters talking directly to the camera, and the vulgarity of it is pretty hard to swallow.

Random Moments

• There's not much more to say outside of "See Sweetback Run".
• Beware the penises.
• The final scene's onscreen warning might be the highlight of the film.

The Verdict
I'm not of the race or era to pass judgement on the phenomenon that was Sweet Sweetback's Baadasssss Song. With an assist from his son's film, it's easy to see why Melvin Van Peebles made the film he did, and the fact that it's still being seen and talked about almost 40 years later is a greater achievement than most independent filmmakers can ever dream of.

But seriously, just watch his son's film if you're interested from a technical standpoint. I don't mean to be the man and stick my foot anywhere, but this movie is inept more often than it is interesting.

The Mike's Rating: Skip It!