The Human Centipede (First Sequence)

(2009, Dir. by Tom Six.)

When I was in school, one of the assignments that came up was pretty simple - conduct some sort of scientific experiment.  As a farm child, I offered up a pretty corny experiment.  In fact, I tried to grow corn in foam cups filled with soil.  One cup was fed Miracle Gro on a daily basis, one was fed water, and one was fed Gatorade - I believe it was Lemon Lime Gatorade, to be exact.

(For those wondering, it's exactly what you'd think it is - the Miracle Gro produced a bigger stalk than the water, and the Gatorade - despite its electrolytes - produced no corn stalk.  And yes, I did this a full decade before Idiocracy happened.)

This has nothing to do with The Human Centipede, except to point out that my type of science is decidedly different from that of Dr. Heiter, played by Dieter Laser.  If you're at all familiar with the film, which has created buzz simply by being shocking, you know what his experiment is.  If not, I'll spell it out simply: Dr. Heiter wants to cut off some people's kneecaps, stitch their mouths to others' back ends, and created the titular Centipede.  Do not ask why, because I'm not even sure I can tell you that. 

When news of the film broke, I immediately chocked it up as one of those signs that I'm growing increasingly out of touch with the modern horror fan.  I've read some say that this film is "Frankenstein for the Saw Generation", and that sentiment makes me sick to my stomach.  What we have in The Human Centipede isn't a morality tale about the dangers of playing God, it's an attempt to be repulsive for the sake of repulsion.  Heck, The Human Centipede's lack of humanity makes Saw look like Frankenstein.

I know I'm coming off all sour grapes here, and my problem isn't the fact that the film exists. It's the fact that the film exists with so little actual drama to it.  There's no story here.  A couple of American tourists - both incredibly vapid - stumble upon the Doc's secluded home, an art deco setting that just has to be hiding something.  (To be fair, the set design is one of the few highlights of the film.)  Sure enough, the girls are roofied quicker than you can say Jack Robinson.  A film that was interested in building characters would take some time to develop the characters; to build a rapport with the Doctor before his sick mind is revealed to them.  This is not that film.

Soon enough, the girls and a previously captured Japanese man are sewn together, with the man who can't speak English in the front acting as the mouthpiece of the Centipede.  This leaves us with about an hour of film in which the man yells angrily in Japanese at Dr. Heiter, who speaks with an accent that's hard to get through, while the girls whimper as loudly as is possible while their mouths are tied to bums.  The performances of Laser as Heiter and Akihiro Kitamura as the man aren't bad, but they seem pretty wasted in an endless cycle of "YOU ARE A CRAZY PERSON WHO'S TORTURING US!" (All caps denotes the Japanese language, naturally) and "Yes, I am torturing you, and you might die soon".

I guess the goal of the film is to gross us out, but I didn't find it very effective in that regard.  There are some gross moments dealing with the surgery and resulting infections, and that moment when we realize how bowel movements work creates some haunting thoughts, but the film played a lot tamer than I thought it would.  There are some gory moments as the film goes on that result in some impressive bloodletting, but it's nothing that should really get under the skin of anyone who would be interested in watching a film like this.  The final moments are effective on an emotional level, but seemed to emphasize the hollow nature of the film to me.

With little effect from the gore and no human drama (the characters are so poorly developed that I considered their fate the same way I would consider the fate of an animal), the only thing left for Six's film is the hope that it will make us think about the depravity we've seen and will inspire fear in that regard.  But the concept is inherently silly (and had been spoofed so many times before the film even hit DVD) that there's little to ponder.  Sure, it would be terrifying if a doctor stapled my mouth to an anus, but I'm not too worried about that happening in the near future.  (I've got too much junk in the trunk to make an effective Centi-piece anyway.)

I'd say there's an audience for this film, but only in the "Hey everyone, lets all watch The Human Centipede and have some fun with it!" regard.  This isn't a moral tale of horror or a haunting mind who plays God.  It's an endurance test for the viewer, one that's much easier to get through and much less interesting than I hoped it could be.  When Frankenstein happened in 1931, advertisements proclaimed that "To have seen it is to wear a badge of courage!"  Though The Human Centipede will be remembered for its one-of-a-kind idea, I wouldn't offer more than a badge of resilience for surviving this one.

Midnight Top Five - Horror Movies I Take For Granted

Sometimes a fine movie seems less than fine, and there's no good reason for it.  This seems to be one of the great struggles I have as a film fan, because sometimes I realize that I have - for whatever reason - been completely ignorant of just how much I enjoy a movie.  I never said I wasn't dense.

For example, I recently rewatched Deliverance with some friends who hadn't seen it yet.  I was in "Oh yeah, this is an awesome movie mode", but I hadn't seen the film in at least five years, and I'd simply lost my grip on just how much that film impresses me.  I didn't remember the intense moral dilemma, I remembered the shock scenes and Burt Reynolds' ridiculous wet suit and lack of mustache.  And that's just not right.

And now, here's five horror picks for things I occasionally take for granted.  It's not them, it's me.

The Lost Boys (1987, Dir. by Joel Schumacher.) - I was recently checking out a commentary on the film and its far-too-late sequels over at the fine young blog Malice of Horrorland, and was again reminded of how I devalue The Lost Boys among both horror films and the pop films of the 1980s.  I often think of it alongside films like Gremlins or Fright Night in the horror realm, or films like The Breakfast Club or The 'Burbs in '80s land, but The Lost Boys is really a totally different animal than any of those films that reside in my favorite lists. 

Whenever I actually decide to watch The Lost Boys, I always love it.  It's quick paced and funny, yet darker than most of those popular '80s films I love.  The cast meshes established talent and young talent well, and Barnard Hughes' Grandpa is one of my favorite side characters in horror.  (That final line he delivers is so freakin' money, and it doesn't even know it.)  But when I'm not thinking about it, I seem to just toss it aside with '80s horrors like Pumpkinhead or Hellraiser - films that I love in parts, but don't fully love - and The Lost Boys really doesn't belong in that category.

(On a side note, I also maintain that Lost Boys director Joel Schumacher, the whipping boy of 99% of cinephiles, might be the most unfairly criticized filmmaker of our times.  He ain't Orson Welles, but anyone who can make the likes of this, Falling Down, Tigerland, and A Time to Kill can't possibly be the worst director of all-time.  Yes, he screwed up Batman, but it's not like Tim Burton was doing great with the character either, despite what nostalgia tells you.  And I kind of liked The Number 23, too.)

Rosemary's Baby (1968, Dir. by Roman Polanski.) - "The 1970s were the golden age of horror."  That's what I say sometimes, thinking of the trend of mentally and visually revolting films that came out of that decade.  But when I get caught up in the likes of The Exorcist, The Omen, and The Sentinel - I tend to forget that the trend that brought me to this belief can be traced to the release of Rosemary's Baby in 1968. 

Polanski's film certainly has a more restrained pace than those films, but brings more than adequate amounts of chills and thrills.  Most of those moments come without considering the twists in the script, which turn likeable faces like John Cassavetes and Ralph Bellamy into instruments of fear.  Yet I seem to leave it off of my recommendations to others, and the only good reason I can think of is that it came out two years before the '70s started and I thus forget it.  (Needless to say, I work in mysterious ways.)

Stir of Echoes (1999, Dir. by David Koepp.) - I strongly considered listing The Sixth Sense here, because I remember loving the experience that was that film when it happened.  I remember being stoked about it being the first horror movie I ever remembered being nominated for Best Picture at the Oscars.  However, I also remember becoming completely sick of the movie afterward, when everyone and their mother was spoiling it for everyone else. (I helped do that for some, too.)  It's no secret that everything M. Night Shyamalan has done since (with the exception of Unbreakable, which I dearly love) has helped me block it from my memory, either.  I haven't watched the film since its video debut, in fact.

However, the fact that I'm thinking about The Sixth Sense first when thinking about creepy ghost stories of 1999 proves that the movie from that year that I completely loved - David Koepp's adaptation of Richard Matheson's Stir of Echoes - is the film I need to be thinking about.  Most lost it in the shadows of that Bruce Willis flick, and even I - who loved the creepy visuals and fascinating story that was Stir - have at times forgotten it entirely.  Should I forget a film I loved because a film whose reputation frustrated me overshadows it?  Of course not.  Sorry, Kevin Bacon!

The Child's Play Series (1988-2004) - I'm not sure that I can defend these films from a cinematic standpoint, though Tom Holland's original film is an extremely effective chiller.  But that's not where my mind's at here.  I mean, I've watched all of the Friday the 13th films multiple times.  I don't like the Friday the 13th films.  And these movies, which range from good to ridiculous but fun, are ones I completely ignore.

I've seen the original three or four times, which is probably half as many times as I've seen other series-starting horrors of the era like A Nightmare on Elm Street or Friday the 13thwatch all the F13s repeatedly, I should give Chucky some attention, right?

Scream (1996, Dir. by Wes Craven.) - One of the character flaws I have that I'm well aware of is that I am occasionally intentionally ignorant to things that are extremely popular.  I'm not sure if my goal is to be "cool" by being different, but the times when I proclaim how much I love Scream 2 over its predecessor are about as rebellious as The Mike gets. 

Fact of the matter is, Scream is a technically proficient horror film with fine characters, good action, and an intelligent script.  It is every bit the game changer people say it is. (And also, Rose McGowan is ridiculously cute in it.  Like, ubercute.)  The sequel is a ton of fun, and Liev Schreiber and Timothy Olyphant (two of my favorite actors) are fantastic in it.  But if I were able to stop myself an think about both films, I'd probably admit that the original is a far more effective and relevant piece of horror. 

I still have the capacity to change, don't I?
 

FMWL Indie Spotlight - The Darkness Within

(2009, Dir. by Dom Portalla.)

Like most independent horror films out there that are fighting for their chance, I had no knowledge of The Darkness Within until it showed up over at Planet of Terror - the place where independent horror films come to light.  Thanks to a giveaway on that site via the illustrious Cortez the Killer, a copy made its way to my doorstep and I sat down with the film by writer/director/editor Dom Portalla.

The Darkness Within starts off by introducing us to a happy young couple, Chad and Ashley, who are starting a new life in a new town.  They seem to be very in love with each other and don't have a care in the world - except that Ashley is terrified of spiders and Chad thinks the neighbor is spying on them.  The neighbor, played by Ken Flott quickly dismisses any concerns Chad has, and his young landlady and her friend with benefits - a couple of foul-mouthed, pot-smoking gamers - don't see anything strange going on either.  Chad becomes increasingly frustrated with his escalating predicament, and the film builds tension through his reaction to the predicament.  Is there someone watching him, or are there bigger demons that go bump in Chad's night?

The cast primarily consists of inexperienced young talent, but I found myself pretty pleased with them across the board. They know this isn't Shakespeare, and these actors and actresses do a fine job of presenting realistic dialogue that helps the film seem authentic.  I was especially fond of Stephanie Maheu as the foul-mouthed young landlady who, along with Sean Pierce as her cohort, did what was necessary to present all of the improper traits you'd expect from modern youngsters who don't bother being politically correct.  I've dealt with plenty of imbeciles professionally, and these two hit the spot in that regard.  Michelle Romano, as Ashley, seems to be forcing a little in the early scenes of the film, but by the end of the film her performance turned around quite nicely.  A similar commentary could be made regarding Jimmy Scanlon, who leads the film as Chad.  Both characters don't seem quite right in the early going, but as the plot unfolds the doubts I had about their performances began to make sense.  Like many horror films of late - the Paranormal Activity films come to mind - the twists in the plot change our perspective regarding the characters. In this case, I found myself recognizing a lot of the things that made sense about these performances as the credits rolled.

It's obvious that Portalla put this film together on the cheap (the sound quality of the film makes this very evident, but is a small price to pay for what the rest of the film has to offer), but it's easy to see that he knows his way around the camera.  While a lot of independent filmmakers settle into certain angles from which they'll always shoot certain areas, Portalla keeps the view fresh and changes the angle of view often, which is necessary for a film which wants to keep us considering the psyche of its characters.  The film is edited well, running briskly through 90 minutes of screen-time with little filler.  I already mentioned the everyday realism of the dialogue, but it bears repeating that Portalla has created a world that a viewer should easily relate to.

As the plot twists and turns to the finale, there might be some moments of disdain from the trained viewer, and I could see where one would think that it tries too hard to get an extra twist or two in.  But after some thought, I'm pretty content with what Portalla was selling.  I don't think the film treads a lot of new ground, and it's prone to the same traps that most independent films fall into, but there's something really endearing about it.  This is a bold piece of independent filmmaking that succeeds within its resources and provides solid entertainment.  Portalla and crew know how to tell a story and make it memorable, which means The Darkness Within should keep you thinking long after the finale. 

In a bold move, the final scene ties us into two of the greatest chillers ever made - but I think that confidence fits the film and its crew perfectly.  The Darkness Within is a horror film with heart; the kind whose creators must have always known where they were going with their project.  I'm glad I was here to find it, and definitely recommend it.

If you want more info on The Darkness Within, check out Portalla's company's website, Door Eleven Productions - where you'll find more info on how you can see the film and the people behind it!

Midnight Movie of the Week #45 - Cat's Eye

There's something I've been hiding from you all for the entirety of my blogging tenure.  It wasn't intentional, but it happened.  I just never thought it was important until now.  The fact of the matter is that I am, with 100% certainty, a cat person. 

I'm not talking the Simone Simon/Nastassja Kinski style cat person, but I am saying that I will take a cool cat over a mangy mutt any day of the week.  Growing up in the country meant that my family cared for at least 100 cats throughout my adolescence, and most all of them were great friends of mine.  I've yet to adopt my own cat as an adult - that's way too much time I'd have to commit to something that poops - but I still go out of my way to visit my friends and family's cats whenever possible.  They're just so darn awesome.

Which brings me to one of my childhood horror pleasures, Stephen King's anthology flick Cat's Eye.  Piggybacking off the success of other King films of the era - Cujo and Christine have cameos during the opening credits, and a scene from The Dead Zone is shown at one point - this trilogy of tales reunites King (who wrote the screenplay, his first) with Cujo director Lewis Teague and Firestarter star Drew Barrymore.  (BTW, if anyone ever figures out what the deal is with Firestarter, please let me know.  That flick gives me fits.)  Cat's Eye also bears a slight resemblance to that other King anthology that came before it, Creepshow.  If nothing else, the film is a living example of how popular King was at the time.  (Also, the bridge on which a first act scene occurs would reprise its role as a bridge in Maximum Overdrive!)

I called this an anthology before, and I suppose that I should call it that.  There are in fact three unique stories told, all tied together by the poor cat who has to suffer through them all.  It all starts in New York City where a businessman (played by no less than JAMES WOODS!) tries to quit smoking with the help of a sadistic cessation company, then moves on to Atlantic City where we meet a gambler on the ledge, then on to North Carolina where Drew Barrymore lives with her parents and bird.  But I like to look at the film as one story about one brave cat.

I know it's a stretch.  In the first act our feline friend is merely used as part of an example of what our gangster anti-smoking advocates are capable of, and in the second he's merely a red herring to a game of cat and mouse.  I'm not all that interested in these stories, though Woods' turn as a paranoid smoker going on ex-smoker is pretty fun and that segment has a few good comic turns alongside several unfortunately silly comic scenes.  The middle segment (starring Airplane's Robert Hays) is technically sound and is sure to be memorable to those with a fear of heights, but seems a lot like filler and features a payoff that is also silly.  I guess silly is an operative word for the film, but the final chapter is where it stops being annoying and starts being completely enjoyable.

In this segment, occurring after our heroic tabby cat - now named "The General" by Ms. Barrymore - has made this dangerous journey on paw, he comes face to face with his greatest nemesis - a six-inch tall troll who plans to suck the breath from a young girl.  Yes, apparently little Amanda's grandmother once warned her family that cats would suck the breath out of you if you let them in your bedroom while they sleep, and this troll just happens to show up and try to suck Amanda's breath at the same time The General arrives.  It sounds kind of ridiculous, and it is - but a live action horror in which a cat battles on the side of good?  THAT's something I want to see.

The diabolical troll is one of the most haunting memories from my childhood, and it still thrills me today.  The beady-eyed fellow with bells on his hat and a distinctive grunt is slightly amusing, but is no less frightening than the claymation creatures in the likes of Tibor Tikacs' The Gate.  The battles between cat and troll are surprisingly action-packed, and there's a good bit of blood for a film which arrived in the early days of the PG-13 rating.  The troll wields a tiny serrated blade that makes him even more menacing, and I remember checking my floor for tiny knives a few times when I was a kid.  I won't go anywhere near spoiling how the final showdown ends, but rest assured that it still leaves me pumping my fist in excitement.

I'm a little sad that the cat who stars went uncredited, because that little bugger went through heck in this film.  He's tortured by a slew of folks, from the fellows at Quitters Inc. to the Atlantic City casino bosses to that darn Candy Clark (who would appear later in the remake of The Blob!).  He's electrocuted, kicked, imprisoned - and all before he has to battle the troll.  Yet The General marches forward, riding hobo on trains and eating hot dogs with the homeless, because Drew needs a hero.  Like I said, I should call this an anthology.  But I'm telling you all that that cat - that darn cat! - is the star of this film, no matter what little Drew or James Woods says.  Kudos to you, General.  It's been an honor serving alongside your movie for over 20 years.

Random Horror Throwdown - Dead Alive vs. Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon

Prime time's back again!  Yeah, it seems like the Random Horror Throwdown and I have been fickle mistresses over the last few months.  Everything was going well, then there was a break, then there was another break, then Hammer Films Month happened...and now here we are.  So, it's entirely possible that you're relatively new to the site and don't know the Random Horror Throwdown yet.  The easy solution to that?  Click here and check out the history of said Throwdown!

Now, on to our current matchup, in which Peter Jackson's gorefest Dead Alive takes on the indie slasher hit Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon!      

  

VS.

The Movies:

Dead Alive (1992, Dir. by Peter Jackson.)

Starring: Timothy Balme, Diana Penalver, Elizabeth Moody.
IMDB Synopsis: A young man's mother is bitten by a Sumatran rat-monkey. She gets sick and dies, at which time she comes back to life, killing and eating dogs, nurses, friends, and neighbors.  (Note from The Mike: This sounds kind of like Lord of the Rings, doesn't it?  I mean, just replace Sumatran rat-monkey with Gollum and....well....nope, I've got nothin'.  Just filling space, I guess.)

Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon (2006, Dir. by Scott Glosserman.)
Starring: Nathan Baesel, Angela Goethals, Robert Englund.
IMDB Synopsis: The next great psycho horror slasher has given a documentary crew exclusive access to his life as he plans his reign of terror over the sleepy town of Glen Echo, all the while deconstructing the conventions and archetypes of the horror genre for them. (Note from The Mike: This synopsis, though posted on IMDB, is actually from a press release about the film.  Boo to you IMDB, your synopsi are actually intelligent tonight.  You're losing your touch!)

The Plots:
Dead Alive's plot (or lack thereof) is pretty well explained in the synopsis above.  There's a monkey, then there are zombies, then there is carnage.  Normally I'm strongly in favor of zombies over slashers.  But you know what I do love?  Breaking down the tendencies of the slasher film.  And that's where Behind the Mask succeeds.  The idea of the slashers we've come to love being real, and a fellow training himself to become one of them is a pretty brilliant idea, and Behind the Mask makes it even better than it sounds.  That's totally a point for Behind the Mask. (1-0, Behind the Mask leads.)

The Gore:
I feel like I have to bring this up, because it is what Dead Alive is.  There's some solid gore in Behind the Mask - that apple juicing thing is pretty sweet - but nothing that comes even close to Jackson's film's wackiness.  The lawnmower bit alone is worth a point for Dead Alive. (1-1.)

The Directors: 
I don't really know anything about Scott Glosserman aside from Behind the Mask.  I know he did a fantastic job on it, but that's about it.  On the other hand, there's Peter Jackson.  Even if I'm not a big fan of the last 37 hours of the Lord of the Rings Trilogy (Seriously, once he killed Sean Bean I lost interest.), I have to give the man credit for making something that most people think is wicked awesome and cool and stuff.  Plus I love The Frighteners and his take on King Kong is breathtaking.  So he wins a point for Dead Alive, which is nothing if not inventive. (2-1, Dead Alive leads.)

The Casts:
I'm gonna be up front with you here.  Behind the Mask will win this point, and it's not because of any of the horror "icons" like Robert Englund, Kane Hodder, or Zelda Rubenstein that are in it.  It's not because veteran cool dude Scott Wilson pops in and is memorable, either.  It's because Nathan Baesel, as Leslie Vernon, is a freaking rock star.  He makes us want to love him, even though we know - because he tells us - that he's gonna murder a bunch of people just for tits and giggles.  How can it be?  Because he's just that suave, I guess.  One point, Behind the Mask. (2-2.)

My Experience With The Films:
I've powered through the first four points, because this where I'm gonna cause some drama.  It should be pretty obvious by now that I really dig what Behind the Mask has to offer.  I've seen it at least 5 times in the last two and a half years, and it always goes down easy.  In modern horror, there aren't many films that are a sure thing with me, but this is one of 'em.

And then there's Dead Alive.  I admire what was done in Dead Alive, I like the gore, I like the quick pace that fills most of the movie....but I don't really like it as a whole.  There, I said it.  It's gore for the sake of gore at times, and that ain't what I'm in horror for.  If I've got the choice between a horror comedy that makes me laugh with its characters and plot and a horror comedy that is based upon gross gags and gore...I'm probably gonna lead toward the former.

This Choice is Like:
(Note from The Mike: OK, I hate using football stories in these things, but it's what I know.  And I only have like three good personal football stories from my day, and this is one of them, and...well, I'm using it to explain my reasoning here.  Sorry.)

When I was in high school and played football, there was one game that I still remember clearly.  I played tackle, and we were dominating the defensive front pretty much all game.  In the third quarter, the coach sent in a play that called for our back to run off tackle behind me as I sealed a defensive tackle inside and the fullback led the way to the corner.  It gained a bunch of yards.  Next play, he called the same thing and it worked again.  Third time, same result.  On the fourth play, the back who ran in with the play call looked at us and said "Same play, and we're running it until we score."  So, we ran the same play over and over again, and went on an easy ten play scoring drive to put the game away.  (For those who don't understand football, the short version of this story is that something came easy to us, so we exploited it and repeated it until we achieved a positive result.)

Why did our coach do this, when there were more sophisticated things he could have done?  There are two reasons, but I think the primary reason was that he recognized that this was our niche.  We were comfortable running this play, so we didn't need a change up.  The play seemed like it was designed specifically for that situation, because it lined up perfectly against their defense based on the talent level of our players.

(And, if you're curious as to the second reason why our coach did this, it's pretty simple.  He was my father.)

Behind the Mask is one of those films to me.  I know Dead Alive is a beloved zombie splatterfest to most, but I'm fine running with Behind the Mask repeatedly because it fits my niche as a horror fan who loves a good laugh and a bit of psychological deconstruction.  So I'm giving it the final point and the win. (3-2, Behind the Mask wins!)

(Note from The Mike: OK, I'm a little rusty.  But next Random Horror Throwdown will be better, I swear.  And also, if you read where I said football and think of soccer....dude.  Not cool.)

Final Girl Film Club - The Funhouse

1981, Dir. by Tobe Hooper.

(Note from The Mike: I apologize for the brief delay in starting this review.  I did a Google search for the film's poster....and then I had to take a time out to go brush my teeth.)

It's that time again, the time in which the Final Girl Film Club, headed by Stacie Ponder of Final Girl, takes its prisoners.  I willingly jumped at the chance to join in on this month's festivities, because the film chosen was Tobe Hooper's carnival-based horror The Funhouse, a film I'd been wanting to revisit for years. 

(To cover the popular topic regarding Hooper, I should state that I have no evidence that he actually directed this movie, besides the credits.  It's very possible that anyone from Steven Spielberg to executive-producer/Commando director Mark Lester to Mark Twain actually directed this movie.  I don't believe that, but I figured I'd clarify this point for the Hooper skeptics out there.)

Onward to The Funhouse, an alternately brilliant and disappointing piece of horror.  Hooper (if that is his real name), fills the opening act of the film with references to horrors past, covering the classic Universal monsters and Psycho in the opening scene that follows an ominous and effective credit sequence.  The opening sequence also blatantly mimics Halloween, using the first person slasher technique that little Michael Myers made famous.  The message that's immediately sent is simple - the filmmakers seem intent on reminding us that most of us crave the chance to be scared, but it's more fun if it's really happening - even if it's a goof.

In these scenes, we're introduced to our (very naked) protagonist, played by the uncomfortably young-looking Elizabeth Berridge.  It's quickly established that her Amy is the purest character in the film; strikingly similar to Halloween heroine Laurie Strode who was played by Jamie Lee Curtis.  While she isn't the commanding human presence Curtis was in that film - few have matched that trend-setting performance - Berridge carries the same low vocal tones and focuses a lot of her attention on appearing uncomfortable in social settings.  As she wanders the carnival setting on a double date with the hunky Buzz and her friends Liz and Richie, her eyes dart around quickly to assess her surroundings, and she forces smiles toward her friends to hide her concerns.  Berridge does a truly fine job becoming a teen who's in over her head, and her ability to emote goes a long way toward creating an uneasy feeling during the opening act of the film.  But more on her later...

There's plenty going on at this dark carnival that helps the viewer realize why she should be uneasy.  Amy and her friends don't do themselves any favors with their decision to go to the carnival at nearly 10 PM and the people they see there give her good reason to feel uncomfortable.  There's an imposing, uncoordinated mute dressed as Frankenstein's monster, a witchy fortune teller with a sharp tongue, a vampire-themed magician (Phantom of the Paradise star William Finley in a juicy cameo), and an ominous barker (or are there three different barkers?) played by veteran actor Kevin Conway.  Everything at the carnival seems to come with a coat of grime, and a haggard old woman appears around Amy at times to warn that "God is watching you".  The film might not make it all the way to being creepy, but it's at least an uneasy experience for the viewer.  The characters went out in search of something that would give them this reaction, but they don't seem like they've considered the reality of this situation.

Once the lights are out and Richie makes the boneheaded suggestion that they spend the night in the funhouse, the group witnesses the darker side of the freak show.  What follows includes prostitution, elaborate traps, and the reveal of that slimy mouth shown in the film's poster.  It belongs to Gunther, the barker's deformed son who was hiding under that Frankenstein costume, and he becomes the villain the group must deal with.  The film starts to become ridiculous around this point, as the build of the opening scenes erodes into a series of ridiculous set pieces inside the funhouse.  There seem to be swords and daggers everywhere, and everything is automated to kill.  I know Hooper's goal was to make it seem like The Funhouse is a living trap (in a way, the film predates Saw in this regard), but it never really seems that imposing.  There are some scenes that get under the viewer's skin - the one in which Liz begs for her life and offers the mutant sex stands out - but the whole second and third act seem to miss as often as they hit.  The setting inside the funhouse is surprisingly less interesting than the carnival scenes we saw before business hours ended.

Also off the mark is Berridge's reaction to the situation around her in the final scenes.  I can't go into details regarding the conclusion, but she becomes the anti-Laurie Strode as the tension rises around her.  While that character was a fighter who dealt with her fear as she battled to survive, Amy loses control completely.  She winces and screams and makes weird facial contortions and just freaks the heck out.  It's overacting to the extreme, and it kind of negates any effectiveness the finale could have had.

There seems to be a message behind The Funhouse's portrayal of these carny freaks, with the Barker repeating that the freaks on public display are "creatures of God" in early scenes (there are also a few references to some freaks being from my home of Iowa, but I'm gonna let that slide), and it seems like Hooper wanted to do something more profound with this.  But when it degenerates to the point of a screaming freak and a screaming girl battling amidst a bunch of huge gears, I instead spend my time wondering how the film got that far off track.

I like what The Funhouse offers, and the opening act sets everything up fantastically.  The rest of the film isn't necessarily bad, but it seems like the film squanders an opportunity to be truly excellent.  It's definitely one of the slimiest films of its era, which earns it a lot of points for being unique during a time in which horror became repetition, but the final product comes together about as well as poor Gunther's upper lip.

(If you don't want to take my word for it, head on over to Final Girl, where plenty of film-club rockers will have their takes on the film ready to roll too!)

Centurion

(2010, Dir. by Neil Marshall.)

I know next to nothing about European history.  I also don't know much about Europe.  Like, I have trouble figuring out what is and is not a part of Great Britain.  I know that a lot of people from across the pond read this blog, and I apologize thoroughly for my ignorance.  I'm all for a cup of tea and I thank you all for Hammer Films, Rowan Atkinson, and (of course), Sean Freakin' Connery.

My point is that Centurion - in which a horde of Romans (alleged to be the mysterious Ninth Legion) try to fend off something called the Picts and end up running for their lives in 117 A.D. - didn't strike a historical chord with me.  I'm OK with that - trying to sort out every war's point and purpose hurts my cranium - and I instead chose to look at Centurion as a bit of fun with a lot of blood.  That resulted in me finding this a highly entertaining action film.

One topic I don't need a history lesson on is director Neil Marshall, who I've long loved loudly.  I've found much to love about each of his four films, and approached Centurion with the kind of anticipation that most save for Harry Potter or Twilight or True Blood films.  (Yes, I know there's no True Blood films...YET.)  Marshall has quickly become an institution to me, even when in his most derivative works (like his 2008 actioner Doomsday).

Centurion can definitely be seen as a response to the popularity of recent sword and sandal entertainment like 300 and Spartacus: Blood and Sand, but I found that Marshall's film more closely resembled his debut feature, the werewolves vs. soldiers flick Dog Soldiers.  I've been a big fan of that film since the day it appeared on DVD (if I recall correctly, I covered it in one of my first DVD columns back in Box Office Boredom's heyday), and I wasn't long into Centurion before I started seeing the similarities.  After some military set up that involves a Centurion (Inglourious Basterds' Michael Fassbender) teaming up with a General (Dominic West) and a tracker (the latest Bond gal, Olga Kurylenko); Centurion becomes a survival flick.  Like Dog Soldiers, the film ends up following a small group of soldiers who survive a surprise attack and are left on the run for their life. Plus, when you consider the copious amounts of blood and use of survival tactics, Centurion seems more like a horror film than a historical drama. (And, Dog Soldiers co-star Liam Cunningham makes a welcome return as one of the potential survivors.  And there is at least one shot of the full moon.)

In line with his two previous action films (counting Dog Soldiers alongside Doomsday for a minute), Centurion keeps a brisk pace and doesn't stall much between violent set pieces.  These scenes are framed well, and feature more than enough bloodletting to keep action and horror fans pleased.  The moments that do surrounded them are filled with sweeping shots of the men trying to escape across the Scottish terrain (accompanied by a fantastic score by Ilan Eshkeri) and some brief exposition regarding the Centurion's character and the brutality of the Picts.  The film looks about as good as you could expect it to, especially on a modest $12 million budget; Marshall once again succeeds in creating an efficient film that feels like a big budget spectacle.

Something else that jumped out at me, for the fourth time in four films, is that Marshall puts a large burden of his violence on the shoulders of female characters.  Though it seemed primarily a plot device when he gave the lone female character in Dog Soldiers a crucial role in the fate of the characters, he followed that with an all-female cast in The Descent and a female lead in Doomsday - and in both of those cases he gave the "tough guy" roles to women.  This time out he gives Kurylenko plenty of chances to be a big bad mama on screen, and also offers up his wife, Axelle Carolyn, as another Pict hunter who scores plenty of vicious kills.  Though these characters aren't deep in any regards - and I think I can count their combined lines of dialogue on one hand - it's incredibly relevant that Marshall again puts women on an equal playing field with men. He even gives them the upper hand in several situations, and these two characters are far more intimidating to the viewer than the bland Pict "king" who is the Romans' initial target.  This doesn't feel like it's a sensational technique in which Marshall just wants to draw the male gaze toward these women - it feels like Marshall truly wants to honor these women by showing them at their bloody best. He has shown us through these four films that both men and women can kick butt in his world, and Centurion is no exception to that rule.

Centurion is a nice next step in Marshall's filmography, as it stays true to his intense, up-tempo style and offers enjoyably violent carnage; adding up to a fine bit of entertainment that kept me hooked for just under 100 minutes.  It might not be the best film I've seen lately based on its story or characters, but in a year that's been short on macho cinema it's an incredibly welcome diversion. 

Midnight Movie of the Week #44 - Vice Squad

If you're looking for quality '80s sleaze, you can't do much better than a film in which a pimp named Ramrod brutalizes unfaithful employees while a hooker with a kind heart runs around - backed by the police - giving "golden showers" and fending off borderline necrophiliacs.

I know what you're thinking, and yes, I did just say that.  That film is the 1982 flick Vice Squad; which certainly is the kind of film that "goes around the world" a few times and is filled to the brink with lines like 'Who belongs to these two whores?" and "If beauty was a minute, mama; you'd be an hour!"  (If you're having trouble keeping up with me, don't worry.  One of the cops in the first act gives us a nice little prostitution vocab lesson.)

Season Hubley, then the wife of (the greatest actor who ever lived) Kurt Russell, stars as Princess, the previously mentioned undercover ho.  As they say in the business, Princess is "outlaw" - meaning she answers to no pimp.  Yep, Princess is the prototypical independent woman, using her feminine wiles to get ahead in this world.  (And by feminine wiles, I mean sexing.)

With a young daughter to care for, Princess can't allow herself to end up in jail.  So, she takes up with a kind cop played by Gary Swanson, an actor who seems to exist at the midpoint between Steve McQueen and Michael Moriarty.  The cop, Walsh, has his hands full with a slew of degenerates that are shown in a frantic and awkwardly hilarious scene in the booking area of his L.A. precinct, but the king fish that he needs to find is the maniac cowboy pimp Ramrod who I mentioned in the opening.

Ramrod is played with insane vigor by Wings Hauser, father of actor Cole Hauser who spent some time on the fringe of popular cinema in the early part of the 2000s.  The elder Hauser, with his gigantic chin, curly hair, and wide-eyed Gary Busey expressions, is ridiculously fantastic in the role.  His escape from the backseat of a police vehicle is a solid action set, and the skills he shows while ricocheting his handcuffed body off a parked car are pretty impressive.  Also, if you're a filmmaker wanting to know how to create a psychotic villain, I'd say introducing him through a scene in which he sadistically mutilates a young woman's nether regions is a decent way to go.  (Hauser also sings the song that bookends the film, Neon Slime, which covers the film's perspective on Los Angeles' children of the night, and is posted below.)

I've mentioned a lot of really seedy things that are discussed in Vice Squad, and I haven't even begun to scratch the surface of the film's depraved mindset.  The police/killer pimp plot is surrounded by Princess' exploits and the sick characters she meets while she's spending a night on the job.  One of the most interesting scenes occurs when she begins trading workplace stories with Officer Walsh, drawing a parallel between the things he faces as an officer of the law and the things she willingly invites into her life.  She shows a tough exterior, wanting the world to know that nothing can get to her, but behind the scenes she struggles to keep up with the world around her.  A mid film scene in which she is hired by a chauffeur to deal with a very particular old man is an incredibly memorable and truly creepy scene, and is probably the high point among the film's oddities.

Vice Squad is directed by Gary A. Sherman, who debuted with previous MMOTW Raw Meat and hit a horror home run with 1981's Dead and Buried (which was written by the great Dan O'Bannon).  Like Raw Meat before it, Sherman's film spends most of its time on the fringe of indecency yet never really shows the goods.  I've mentioned a slew of lewd, pornographic, disturbing behaviors here, and of course none of them actually appear on screen.  The film claims to be based on a composite of events that occurred in Hollywood, but its goal isn't to cause a physical response from the viewer.  Sherman just wants to expose the seedy underbelly of L.A., and he didn't need to invent a clan of underground cannibals to do it.

As improper as it is, Vice Squad surprises me with moments of human decency that help the film become more than a feast of pimps and tricksters.  Hubley's Princess does dirty, nasty things; then meets up with coworkers for a bit of "girl talk".  She lets men ravage her; then smiles nicely as they finish and leaves them wanting more.  It's these little touches - surrounded by a idealist cop and a pimp that has no moral reasoning - that really makes Vice Squad a stand out piece of trash; the kind of trash that I highly recommend.

FMWL Indie Spotlight - Midnight Son

As I constantly reevaluate what I'm doing with FMWL, one of the things that's popped up in my mind is that I don't do nearly enough regarding independent horror/genre cinema.  In the past several months I've been blessed to find some of the most amazing independent flicks out there - like Dawning, The Commune, and Dead Hooker in a Trunk - yet also cursed by the likes of Nightmare Alley.  I never really intended to cover indie flicks here, but a lot of opportunities to do so have presented themselves to me nonetheless.  Why fight it?

Thus, I present the Indie Spotlight section of FMWL, in which I will focus on some interesting indie projects as they come to me.  I'll start today with a trailer for a nifty looking vampire thriller, Midnight Son.  I'm a day late on this one - a lot of other blogs have already ran with the info - but a look at the trailer makes me think it should be repeated.  Check it out below!

 

Looking at this trailer, I see a few things that jump out at me.  The most obvious, of course, is that there's no damn sparkling.

Aside from the fact that it is clearly not Twilight, which is AWESOME, this looks like it could be my kind of vampire flick.  I dig the gritty urban setting, which reminds me of Larry Fessenden's cool vampire/addiction flick Habit.  Here's hoping for the best from producer Matt Compton, writer/director/producer Scott Leberecht, and everyone else involved.  I look forward to what their Midnight has to offer!

If you want more info on Midnight Son, check out the official site, the Facebook page, and/or the Twitter account for the film! 

The Halloween Weekend 2010 Horror Movie Recap (Part Two)

Read Part One HERE!

(Note from The Mike: While reading part one over, I realized that I often spent time blaming things on "the ladies".  This isn't intended to be a sexist gesture, as I find that most "ladies" are amazing and awesome and should be revered.  It must be noted that a) these ladies are great people who I am wicked fond of (including my (O)PP co-host The H-Bomb (who is also my arch nemesis)), and b) they're also the kind of ladies that are old friends and hadn't seen each other in a while...and thus they couldn't shut their yappers.  So, know that I am not opposed to ladies, I am opposed to movie-watching yappers.)

Now on to Part Two!

Sunday, October 31st
HALLOWEEN

OK, so I survived two nights of light crowds.  Now it's game time.  After I made it through a wicked cool Packers win (like I said, can't give up my football, as awesome as horror is), it was on to an 8-hour "Scary Movie-Athon" that my friends set up.  Of course, I was in charge of movies.  (And nachos, which are my specialty.  YUM.)

(Before we begin, mini-rant time!  I hate, hate, HATE the term "scary movies".  They're horror movies.  And when someone tells me "Bring something scary!", how the heck am I supposed to know what to bring?  I don't know their fears, and what's scary to me might not be scary to the next person.  Case in point - Prince of Darkness, which I covered in Part One.  I am honestly scared by that movie, despite its silliness, because I get scared at the idea of an evil force entering our world.  Yet those who don't care to think about that won't find it scary.  Some are scared of other things that don't scare me at all.  It's all about their personal perspective!

Next time someone asks me for scary movies, I'm sitting them down for a counseling session until they tell me their deepest fears.  That oughta teach 'em.)

Movie #1 - We started the day off with The Strangers.  I threw this into the mix at the beginning of the weekend because it was kind of recent, and because I knew it was the kind of movie that a normal crowd would at least find creepy.  I'm still not totally sold on the flick - I think the ending goes way too torture porn, and now that I've seen Inside it seems trite - but it's a fun diversion with some great imagery.  (Speaking of Inside, I totally decided that my close friends and I are going to have a foreign horror night soon.  They can't stop me, I'm a force of nature.  It will happen.)

With the crowd up to 8 at this point (5 dudes, 3 dudettes), there was a lot of discussion going around the room.  Myself and a friend got a little too chatty at one point, when I remembered that this was the summer where this film and the July release of The Incredible Hulk made it very clear that Liv Tyler had "had some work done" to make her not look like her dad anymore.  (Now THAT, might be sexist.  And a bit rude.)

Most of the crowd had a lot of trouble with Scott Speedman, too, as we spent a large amount of time discussing his similarities to Scott Caan.  In fact, when the final credits rolled, one of the ladies exclaimed in surprise when she found out it actually was Scott Speedman.  As a light (yet dark) starter for the day, people had fun with it...mostly because the images of the titular Strangers were creeping them out, I think.

Movie #2 - After a quick food break because the nachos were done (and delicious), we sat through the process of my friends trying to hook up their XBox so we could watch Paranormal Activity on Netflix Instant Watch.

I did not want Paranormal Activity involved in the day.  This was not part of my plan.  Still, I intended on bringing a copy of the film because they requested it (I mean, I do like the film, I'm just a little sick of hearing about it), but I totally forgot it in favor of my crock pot when I was leaving home.  (I get a little mush-brained when I'm excited about my Packers winning.)

I feel like I've said everything I have to say about this movie already.  But I was surprised that our crowd (now up to 10 people...big Iowan party!) a) had not seen it, and b) primarily had a lot of fun with it.  There was a lot of commentary about Micah's douchebaggery, as there should be, but there were still a lot of exclamations of discomfort during the film, even if we did watch it during daylight (to protect us from evil, naturally).  So I guess giving up control worked in this situation, because there were surprisingly few complaints about this flick.

Movie #3 - Darkness had crossed the land before we got movie number 3 queued up, and this time I was taking control of the situation.  This was the moment I'd been waiting for, the hidden agenda among my selections for the weekend was now coming to pass.  I was not taking no for an answer; I was putting in the next DVD no matter what people said.

The film? Suspiria.

Yes, this was the moment where I stopped being a "This is something they might like!" guy and became a "Y'all are watching this and y'all are gonna like it!" guy.  I knew days, maybe even weeks in advance that this was the best chance I'd ever have to introduce them to Argento.  And in my heart, I knew that they NEEDED to be introduced to Argento.  Of course, before starting, I had to offer disclaimers about the blood being made of paint and about the dialogue being heavily dubbed due to language barriers.  I also told them that this was "kind of a big deal" and that Argento has been called "The Italian Hitchcock".  No pressure there, Mikey boy.

The look of the film, with its vibrant colors and wicked Goblin score, won over the crowd for the most part, but they lost the plot pretty easily and were back in "let's determine why the characters' actions are illogical" mode.  When I told them "It's going to get weird here" right before the final scenes, they of course responded with "Compared to what it's already been?"  Nice comeback, you cheeky monkeys!

So yeah, I don't think anyone's gonna rush out and buy their own copy of Suspiria, sadly.  But I know - deep down inside I know - that someday soon one of them will say something to the effect of "Hey, what was that one movie called that one time?  The one with the bright colors at the ballet school?"  And when I remind them it was Suspiria, they'll say something along the lines of "That flick was so cool!"

I believe it, because I have to hold on to the hope that everyone will love Argento someday.

(Also, the crowd decided to cast Harry Potter starlet Emma Watson as the lead in a potential remake of Suspiria.  Sad thing is, I kinda see it.)

Movie #4 - About half the crowd cleared out by the time we were prepping for the fourth movie of the day.  Among the leftover horrors I'd brought, there weren't many heavyweights left, so we threw in Pumpkinhead to end the evening.

This was the first time I'd seen the film in widescreen, having recently updated from the old P&S DVD, and I was very impressed by the presentation.  This is a film that had terrified me on VHS when I was 9 years old (I think it may have been the first R-rated film I was shown), and I still get a little creeped by the monster.

Of course, the big story of the viewing among the crowd was that a) one of the young backwoods girls was in some TV show with Claire Danes, and b) another of the wee lasses was Mayim Bialik of Blossom fame.  That's right, Blossom herself.  WHOA.

(On a random film criticism note, it always makes me laugh when we randomly see Lance Henriksen's Ed Harley using a flamethrower to start a fire in the film's opening scene.  One of the great "Gee, you gotta wonder if that's gonna come into play later on...." moments in film history.)

So, the film happened quickly, I enjoyed it, everyone else was pretty much dead, and the night ended with one of my favorite on-screen demons ever.  All 13 people who watched horror films at some point over the weekend lived to see another day.

Closing Thoughts:
When I started Part One yesterday, I noted that I sometimes dread this experience.  I'm not sure why, as I'm thankful as can be to have been blessed with friends who're at least willing to try these films out.  I could have gotten booted from the place the minute I suggested a 33 year old Italian film or a film about a vat of liquid Satan, but I didn't.  And even though the approach these people have to films doesn't match my vigor, I can't say they don't show an interest.

Still the difficulty remains when trying to determine what horrors fans of "normal" cinema will find effective.  I can't say I was very surprised by the results, and I kinda wish I had taken a couple of shots with less known flicks (I can't think of any good examples, except something like Triangle which I'd already shown some of them).  Good thing is, I know I'll keep trying to figure it out.  Halloween's more than one weekend out of the year in The Mike's land.

The Halloween Weekend 2010 Horror Movie Recap (Part One)

I'll be honest and up front with you all as I start this off: As much as I love Halloween, I kind of dread the actual holiday, particularly when it falls on a weekend.  It's not the stupid people out on the streets (not to mention that I live in a college town and it was also Homecoming this weekend) that I dread, it's not the choosing of a costume (didn't even get into my crate of masks this year, sadly) that gives me fear.  It's having to pick movies for all those friends and acquaintances who want to see "scary" movies that drives me batty.

In my time as an awesome horror fan who's wicked cool, I've come to accept the fact that a lot of people - like, at least 96.3% of people - don't mesh well with horror cinema.  Some just are too wussy to watch anything that might scare them, some can't suspend disbelief at all, and some just don't seem willing to care about horror films.  Yet, when Halloween comes around, they suddenly want to be scared.  My friends, who are also awesome and wicked cool, try harder to be part of the other 3.7% than most sane people would.  And I still have trouble pleasing their urge for scares.

Does that deter me from trying?  No, because I'm way too much of a control freak to let Halloween off that easy.  So now, I'm gonna go all Randy Meeks and tell y'all how the weekend of viewing went.

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 29th
Movie #1 - After I escaped my workplace, I settled in at home with some time to kill and some writing to get done.  Since I was writing about Halloween for the Locus Focus thang over at Shredded Cheddar (CHEAP PLUG!), I popped in the blu-ray of said film.  I actually ended up watching it, then starting back at the point where the film enters Haddonfield and watching it again.  It's my favorite horror, so of course I love it.  I will add the blu-ray kind of cheapens the film to me, as have the last few DVD editions.  The colors just aren't right, and the soundtrack is too clean.  I'll be happy to stick with my original Anchor Bay DVD next time I want to watch it.

Movie #2 - After I finished up some writing and some real-world work stuff, it was off to start the weekend of horror (and football, I can't very well give that up on a fall weekend) with some friends.  It was a small crowd to start, a total of four viewers, and I was presented a pre-ordered late birthday gift from my friends: a blu-ray copy of Psycho.  The friends who had bought it for me have acquired my love for Hitchcock over the years, so it was quickly put in the player and enjoyed by all.  My weekend was two-for-two....but it was almost too easy.

(By the way, the blu-ray is pretty good.  The picture is fantastically crisp, and the sound is really impressive.  Didn't have a chance to get into the features, but it looks like a great package.)

SATURDAY, OCTOBER 30th

After a morning of tailgating and an afternoon ISU victory (GO STATE!), we were back for a couple more flicks.  The crowd was up to six viewers now, with a former roommate who was used to sharing horrors with me joining the crowd, and I had my bag of goodies that I chose for the weekend ready to go.  While they were debating which flick we should pick (for the life of me, I can NOT figure out what my old roommate has against Creepshow - he clearly must be evil), I may have jumped the gun a bit and made the decision for them.

Movie #3 - Thus, I popped in my copy of John Carpenter's Prince of Darkness and let 'er rip.  I made sure to use the term "vat of liquid Satan" about 36 times in the minute before I hit play, because I wanted to make sure they understood that this movie takes place on a slightly different plane of existence than they're used to.  For the most part, they missed that message.

Now, I love the heck out of Prince of Darkness.  I think it's dark and creepy, and I dig the crazy religious horror it offers.  As a horror fan, it doesn't bother me when a green satanic liquid squirts at a radiologist with glasses and she happens to have her mouth open.  That's just what NEEDS to happen at that moment in the movie, and I'm good with that.  To them (particularly the lady folks in the room), that was a bit ridiculous.  As were the swarms of bugs, the mirror imagery, and the dreams.  Ahhhhh, the dreams.  My favorite part of the movie.  I don't think they cared for the dreams.

There were a few "ewww"s and "ahhhh"s, and I was a little surprised by how well they reacted to the epic scene involving Alice Cooper and a half-bike, but in general I'm afraid I'd have to put this in the loss column.  They just weren't in my head on this one.  That's OK though, I still loved it.

(The ladies also seemed offended by the fact that the African American character, once doomed, sings 'Amazing Grace'.  Racism or creepiness?  I say creepiness.  That dude rules.)

Movie #4 - After the ladies deemed that flick ridiculous, they decided that the next movie needed to be something "scary".  This is one of my biggest pet peeves in flick watching, but I let it roll this time (more on that in Part Two).  I talked them into trying what might be my favorite haunted house film, The Legend of Hell House.  Buzzword to coaching them up for this flick? "Weird sexual stuff".  They, of course, asked if this was a porno.  (I'm not sure why my friends assume I'm going to bring over a porno some day.  Seriously, the closest I ever came to bringing a porno was the time I showed them Straw Dogs.  And I honestly had forgotten about the rape scene.)

Of course, the ladies that were so ridiculousized by the previous movie fell asleep soon after this one started.  The rest of us had a lot of fun trying to figure it out, and I had one of those "Whoa, I really love this movie more than I remember" experiences.  It's such a rich film with all kinds of odd stuff, and unpredictable too.  The ending is much maligned, but I liked it more this time.  It didn't go over poorly with the couple of friends that made it through it, either.  I call it a win, but only because the ladies stopped their yabbering.  (Also, Gayle Hunnicutt is amazing in this movie.  Just had to say it.)

In fact, that's probably my second biggest pet peeve about watching these flicks with people.  When you invite people over to watch movies, and want to experience something from the movies...you should probably commit to not talking about random events throughout the entire movie.  We had to rewind a couple of times early in this flick, because of talking over the exposition; and I had to do Cliff's Notes of Prince of Darkness at many moments.  Next year, I'm only taking silent horror movies.  That'll teach 'em.

Read Part Two HERE!