Midnight Movie of the Week #137 - The Initiation

The Initiation is one of those movies that I always want to recommend to people, yet I never seem to recommend it to people.  That might be because it's really just OK as a whole film, but it also ignores the fact that The Initiation has pretty much everything I love about a slasher film that's just OK as a whole film.  And when the indomitable Stacie Ponder of Final Girl offered up a Film Club Second Chance opportunity to talk about The Initiation...well, I didn't have any excuse left.  Here's all the pretty things about The Initiation that make me smiley.

Daphne Zuniga - she of Spaceballs and Melrose Place and The Dorm That Dripped Blood - stars as a wonderfully simple survivor girl.  By simple, I of course mean she has that perfect combination of the elements a survivor girl needs.  First of all, most guys on her campus would date her if they had a chance.  Secondly, she seems to be aware of her surroundings and only partially superficial.  And thirdly - and most importantly -she has weird dreams and a traumatic past.  Put that stuff together, shake it, add a pinch of thyme and spread it over a cracker and you've got a tasty survivor girl treat.

Around your survivor girl, there are a few things you need for the slasher recipe, and The Initiation has them.  Established mature folks who can show up and effect the plot? Yup, it's got Clu Gulager and Vera Miles as Zuniga's rich and secret-keeping parents.  A bunch of fodder for a knifey killer? We are, in fact, talking about a film with a bunch of sorority pledges and their doofus boyfriends.  A setting to kill for? Just wait till you see this weird supermall/tower thing that shows up in the final reel.

(Oh, and The Initiation also has that weird guy who wasn't Pierce Brosnan on Remington Steele, complete with crazy hair and awful tie/blue jeans combo.  I know the guy - James Read - has a name, but he will forever be the doofus from Remington Steele to me.  Which is awesome. His role as potential savior via science is just one more of the film's random charms.)

Rest assured, dear reader, that The Initiation isn't just about the parts.  Believe me, this film is put together in ways you wouldn't believe.  The past trauma aspect of most slasher films is present, as much of the film's mystery comes when the viewer is trying to figure out what the flashbacks and visions we see really mean.  Our leads parents, played with grand ol' intensity by Miles and Gulager, add a lot to the film with their over-the-top reaction to their daughters trauma, which provides plenty of cheesy slasher drama.

 And while that's all going on - and while we all KNOW that something's wrong because we're watching a movie where people die in bad ways - the bubbly and bumbling supporting characters make all the wrong decisions that keep our movie going.  Heck, one character gives this incredibly sad talk about sexual abuse that feels very much like that Phoebe Cates "Why I Don't Like Christmas" speech from Gremlins - and then decides it's time to have casual sex in a mall for fun now that she's shared.  You can not force this kind of ridiculousness. But sometimes, it just happens.

Lastly, just when you think the film couldn't be more perfectly ridiculous, you get the final plot twist.  And it is a treat.  I can't even go into it here (it is, after all, a final plot twist), but you just need to know it's there and it's waiting for you.  And you need to go see it.  So head over to Instant Watch or a video store or my Lair - I got the DVD right here, let's party! - and check out The Initiation.  You'll thank me later.

Oh and - as always with the '80s - there's the fashion.  The glorious, glorious fashion. Gotta love it.

FMWL Indie Spotlight - Screaming in High Heels

(2012, Dir. by Jason Paul Collum.)

The three women who are profiled in Screaming in High Heels - Brinke Stevens, Linnea Quigley, and Michelle Bauer - certainly have a special place in the history of smutty b-cinema.  The majority of their films - things like Nightmare Sisters, Hollywood Chainsaw Hookers, and Sorority Babes in the Slimeball Bowl-O-Rama - are not what I was expecting when I became a horror fan after watching things like The Phantom of the Opera, The Creature from the Black Lagoon, and The Blob.  So I've always found their slice of the horror pie - the one filled with direct-to-VHS titles that generally offered great nudity and terrible storytelling - to be a strange one.

For those who weren't around in the '80s, Screaming in High Heels documents who these women are and how they got here, but it also spends much of its time (perhaps too much) trying to justify why these movies were necessary and how these movies were so great.  There's an incredible bias on display, as the few people interviewed are directors and actors who worked on the films headlined by the three women, and some of these men seem a little too excited about their work.  There's a loving tone, to be sure, but the amount of superlatives thrown around makes it really hard to really believe that these guys are offering a fair assessment of a subgenre they made a living in.

(I do not intend to debate whether or not these men are right or wrong about the value of their films.  Where there's a niche, there's value in a product.  My thoughts on these films - most of which I am not acquainted with - is a different story for a different day.)

The heart of this documentary - as the title suggests - is the three women who headlined this era.  Each of the actresses appears and is frank and candid about their experiences, for the most part. (Though, I did think it was a little weird when Brinke Stevens explained how "she studied SCIENCE" and she came to LA "to get a job IN SCIENCE" like she was a bad sci-fi character. An area of specialty might have made her story more palpable.)  Bauer, who has distanced herself from acting more than the others, is the most down to Earth and accessible of the the three queens, while Quigley and Stevens seem to still fit perfectly with the image they represented in their heyday.  In each case, it's easy to see the intrigue each actress offered to their films (which is not just their willingness to get naked, of course).

The trouble with Screaming in High Heels, on the whole, is that there's just not a lot of intrigue outside of a few tidbits in interviews that perk your ears.  Unlike more accomplished genre docs - like the amazing Corman's World, which I covered earlier this year - the scope of this film is very limited.  We get the opinions of the three stars and a half dozen folks who worked with them - and that's it.  I suppose the argument could be made that this doc, like the film's its talking about, should be held to a much lesser standard than more financially sound productions, but it still feels like there's a lack of outside perspective.  Instead of fans and critics talking about these actresses and filmmakers, we get these actresses and filmmakers talking about fans and critics.  There's talk about families of the involved, but no actual talk with the families of those involved. Things like this hurt my interest in the film, and left me a little bored at times.

If you don't know much about these women and these films, and want to learn what they were about in their own words, Screaming in High Heels should interest you.  Just be prepared for a rather slight and one-sided look at these films.  The low retail price of the disc compared to other releases seems to reflect the short (it's barely an hour long) and sweet approach to the production. On the other hand, fans of these films and stars probably aren't going to learn a lot from Screaming in High Heels.  To me it feels more like a DVD extra than a full length documentary, because it doesn't dig deep enough to really cover a wide berth of topics regarding this movement in genre film.

Screaming in High Heels will be out on DVD on August 28th, and is worth at least a rental to those interested in learning about the best of '80s sleaze scream queens.  Horror buffs will probably enjoy the interviews, but might feel like they already know a lot of what's being said.  Still, this one's probably worth a rental.

The Mike's Top 50 Horror Movies Countdown: #19 - Rosemary's Baby

Previously on the Countdown: Number 50 - Happy Birthday to Me  Number 49 - Prince of Darkness  Number 48 - House on Haunted Hill  Number 47 - The Monster Squad  Number 46 - Hellraiser  Number 45 - The Fog  Number 44 - Creature From the Black Lagoon  Number 43 - Zombie  Number 42 - Tales from the Crypt  Number 41 - Bubba Ho-Tep  Number 40 - Phantom of the Paradise  Number 39 - Dog Soldiers Number 38 - Pontypool  Number 37 - Dark Water  Number 36 - Army of Darkness Number 35 - The Legend of Hell House  Number 34 - Poltergeist  Number 33 - The Abominable Dr. Phibes  Number 32 - The Phantom of the Opera  Number 31 - The House of the Devil   Number 30 - Evil Dead II  Number 29 - Dead of Night  Number 28 - Carnival of Souls  Number 27 - Nosferatu  Number 26 - Candyman  Number 25 - The Texas Chain Saw Massacre  Number 24 - Horror of Dracula  Number 23 - The Wicker Man  Number 22 - Suspiria  Number 21 - The Omen  Number 20 - Spider Baby or, The Maddest Story Ever Told

Rosemary's Baby

(1968, Dir. by Roman Polanski.)

 Why It's Here:

A fantastic book I read last year - Shock Value, which is reviewed here, to be exact - certainly gave me new light on just what it is about Rosemary's Baby that is so impressive.  I've always found it to be one of the most engrossing paranoia horror films out there (Let's not kid ourselves - despite the ending and its implications, the horror of this movie comes from Mia Farrow's struggles to deal with her unusual pregnancy), but when I was given more information about the film's path to the screen it seemed to take on more significance.  The culture of horror changed - if not forever, at least for the next decade - when Paramount Pictures was bold enough to let a young hotshot auteur turn a William Castle production into something that shook the mold of the horror film completely.

The Moment That Changes Everything:

From its opening, Rosemary's Baby is a different kind of horror film than we'd ever seen before.  Even today, almost 45 years later, there aren't many films like it out there.  But the final minutes change the movie again, and the restraint shown by Polanski during the finale is perhaps the most masterful touch of the entire film.

It Makes a Great Double Feature With:

At this point in this list, I'm really digging for double feature picks. After all, most of the best horror films are the best horror films because they stand above everything else out there.  So I'm going with the easy one here, and suggesting fans of Rosemary's Baby might want to pair it up with Polanski's other psychothriller about a blonde in peril, Repulsion.  It's a more surreal ride than Rosemary's - which seems like a tall task, but it is - and it's got some visuals that will drop jaws.

What It Means To Me:

I kind of feel like 19 is too low for Rosemary's Baby - especially since the next few spots contain a lot of slighter but more personal favorites.  It's a truly important piece of cinema that has to be one of the 10 most groundbreaking horror films out there. This film really did help to change the perception of horror when it was released (if only for a time), and it still packs a punch on repeat viewings. Rosemary's Baby belongs among the best horror has to offer, and it seems to get better every time I see it.

FMWL Indie Spotlight - Beyond the Grave

(2010, Dir. by Davi de Oliveira Pinheiro.)

A zombie apocalypse movie from the heart of Brazil, Beyond the Grave (or, Porto dos Mortos, if you're so inclined) takes a shoestring budget and puts together a film that looks like an epic horror adventure.  The road-tripping film uses its surroundings very well, and the biggest success here might be just how much the film makes it look like the world has ended.

Hopping from place to place and covering several violent characters, Beyond the Grave is primarily centered on a man in black played by Rafael Tombini, whose image will probable evoke memories of Robert Rodriguez' films.  There's certainly a bit of El Mariachi in the violent-but-heroic character, who moves through the film with a chip on his shoulder and an eye for revenge.  We learn bits about the character - the film is heavy on monologues that deal with past hurts - but mostly we just need to understand that he's a lone wolf who will take down those that oppose him. 

The opposition, as is generally the case on a zombie apocalypse, is twofold.  Sure, there are bloodstained zombies roaming the countryside, but the biggest challenges come from some possessed killers who reign terror upon the few remaining humans that our nameless lead shows compassion for.  This makes for a pretty interesting switch in expectations in the middle of the film, but also leaves the film feeling a bit disjointed as it moves on.  I kind of feel like it forgets about them zombies for long stretches of the film, .

Special effects are one of the biggest worries I had about the film, as much of the creature effects are underwhelming.  The undead that are presented range from simple and effective to completely over the top, but none of the creatures really evoke much of an emotional response.  The possession side of the plot is handled very simply, possibly due to the film's low budget, but I was much more interested in that part of the film than its few zombie stragglers. 

The most interesting thing about Beyond the Grave, to me, is probably the tone of the film.  There are plenty of moments that feel like they were inspired by Rodriguez or Tarantino - especially when the director chooses to let music take over the film's soundtrack while a character does something cool - but the film never really takes off as a fast-paced adventure or a "something's around the corner" style shocker.  The film moves rather slowly with its emotions, and it seems like the goal was to really create a sense of emptiness and dread that fills this world gone mad.  There are a lot of things about the film that remind me of Stephen King's work - characters who can't find the normalcy they seek, discussions about hope, etc. - and I like where the filmmakers heads were at in this regard. I'm not sure their message got to me in every scene - perhaps something was lost in translation, or perhaps the dramatic impact of some reveals just misfired for me - but I was certainly intrigued by the film's bleak perspective.  I definitely enjoyed the film's departure from gore and mayhem in this more introspective moments, which looked great against the run down settings of the film.

I'm not entirely sure what I think about Beyond the Grave on the whole.  Parts of the film seemed to leave me wanting, while others had me very interested in the world that these filmmakers created and the plight of our one-note hero.  I know I'm going to be thinking about the movie for a while, but I worry that my thoughts will sway more toward what it missed than what it said.  Regardless, this is certainly an interesting addition to the horror pantheon, and I do recommend that horror fans - particularly those with a taste for the apocalypse - keep an eye out for this one.  It's the work of filmmakers who have something unique to offer us.

For more information in Beyond the Grave, be sure to check out the film's official site or its Facebook page.  In the meantime, here's the trailer for your perusal.

Midnight Movie of the Week #136 - Hello Mary Lou: Prom Night II

Prom Night II doesn't sound like much of an idea.  Even the most fervent supporters of the slasher film will probably admit that 1980's Prom Night - which is most known for Jamie Lee Curtis' unfortunate dancing and a series of "Wait a minute, what the heck happened to get the guy from Naked Gun into this movie?" moments - is not an entirely successful film.  That Canadian slasher film was one of the first and most obvious ripoffs of the Halloween formula, but it missed most of the things that made that film and several other slashers great - particularly when it came to the film's sluggish pace.

And yet, when you find Hello Mary Lou: Prom Night II, you'll find a horror sequel that's surprisingly talked about and has grown something of a cult following.  Primarily, I think, because Hello Mary Lou is kind of ridiculously crazy.  It's not your average slasher film - and Prom Night, in fact, is the definition of "average slasher film" - it's a body possessing mish-mash of themes from Carrie, The Exorcist, A Nightmare on Elm Street and plenty of other horror movies I'm probably missing.  This movie is basically the horror version of the Mongolian Buffet restaurant that's a mile from my apartment: it looks like one thing while it actually has all different types of things, things that are often put together in a pattern that lacks any type of common sense.  While these things are often disappointing on their own, but when you put them all together you get a decadent mixture that leaves you stuffed to the brim and content.

The film, like many slashers, starts in the past.  It's 1957 and Mary Lou Maloney is the slut belle of the ball at the good old fashioned high school prom.  Unfortunately for her, she cheats on her date, causes a big stir, and ends up set on fire while she's crowned Prom Queen.  The fire kills Mary Lou, but I guess there's a bright side to her predicament. She doesn't wake up pregnant the morning after prom gets to become a rageful spirit of destruction.

We flash forward to 1987 - the year of the film's release - and meet Vicki Carpenter, a mild mannered girl with extra Christian parents and a sweet side.  Vicki's biggest problems, aside from being a mixture of Carrie White and Nancy Thompson, come from normal high school problems like parental control and that one witchy girl who gets her kicks by picking on the girl who's not at all intimidating.  At least not until she inherits the spirit of Mary Lou through a conveniently preserved prom dress.

Unlike its drab predecessor, Hello Mary Lou: Prom Night II (or, HMLPN2 if I get tired of typing that), enjoys breaking the mold that slasher films were stuck in early in the 1980s.  Part of me wonders why the film even bothered to inherit the Prom Night name at all (Probable answer = money.), because this film is such a different animal than Jamie Lee's Dance Party.  Director Bruce Pittman packs the film with wacky visuals and bizarre scenes - like an evil rocking horse or a naked and possessed Vicki stalking a friend in the girls locker room - that remind of abstract '80s horrors like Prince of Darkness or The Pit.

Like that Mongolian Buffet - I'm sticking with that analogy because it makes so much sense in my brain - the pieces of HMLPN2 aren't always good fits with the rest of the meal.  A first time viewer will probably mutter something like "Wait, what?" a few times, but that just adds to the charm as the film crashes through the its plot with a carefree disregard for normalcy.  There's a little bit of Evil Dead in the film's spirit, because anything can happen at any time in this film's universe.

As the story wraps up, it allows the great Michael Ironside to take over alongside Lisa Schrage, who plays the imposing Mary Lou with vigor.  Their performances, mixed with the younger folks (Wendy Lyon has impressive range as Vicki), keep the unpredictable film interesting as it moves with such a brisk pace.  This takes our attention off the little details, leaving us to remember the film in a positive light.

Hello Mary Lou: Prom Night II isn't a titan of horror, even by '80s standards.  But it gets plenty of bonus points for effort, because it spares nothing in an attempt to do something fun with a brand name and a silly plot.  It's hard to call a movie that calls itself a sequel and seems to borrow ideas from so many others an original piece of horror - maybe it's more of a Mad Libs horror movie? - but I still would bet that most people who seek out this movie are in for a few surprises.

The Mike's Top 50 Horror Movies Countdown: #20 - Spider Baby

Previously on the Countdown: Number 50 - Happy Birthday to Me  Number 49 - Prince of Darkness  Number 48 - House on Haunted Hill  Number 47 - The Monster Squad  Number 46 - Hellraiser  Number 45 - The Fog  Number 44 - Creature From the Black Lagoon  Number 43 - Zombie  Number 42 - Tales from the Crypt  Number 41 - Bubba Ho-Tep  Number 40 - Phantom of the Paradise  Number 39 - Dog Soldiers Number 38 - Pontypool  Number 37 - Dark Water  Number 36 - Army of Darkness Number 35 - The Legend of Hell House  Number 34 - Poltergeist  Number 33 - The Abominable Dr. Phibes  Number 32 - The Phantom of the Opera  Number 31 - The House of the Devil   Number 30 - Evil Dead II  Number 29 - Dead of Night  Number 28 - Carnival of Souls  Number 27 - Nosferatu  Number 26 - Candyman  Number 25 - The Texas Chain Saw Massacre  Number 24 - Horror of Dracula  Number 23 - The Wicker Man  Number 22 - Suspiria  Number 21 - The Omen

Spider Baby or, The Maddest Story Ever Told

(1968, Dir. by Jack Hill.)

Why It's Here:

If The Addams Family were more murderous and cannibalistic, it would look a lot like Spider Baby.  Jack Hill's macabre tale of a reclusive family of oddities lives on as one of the least known treasures in horror history.  With a deeply sinister sense of humor and a fond farewell of a performance from horror icon Lon Chaney, Jr, the film covers plenty of ground.  But it always comes back to a place that is dark and fun, a place that perfectly fits with what I love about horror.

The Moment That Changes Everything:

The opening scene, in which comedian Mantan Moreland plays a messenger that pulls what I like to call a "Scatman Crothers", sets up the murderous side of the film perfectly.  When it's paired with later events - like a teary eyed speech from the great Mr. Chaney - it reminds us how an unpredictable a film like this can be.

It Makes a Great Double Feature With:

The film that I'd most like to pair up with Spider Baby (based on historical connections) is coming up later on this list, so I need to think a little deeper tonight.  Really, Spider Baby is one of those films that could slide into different genres, playing well against a horror comedy like Ivan Reitman's Cannibal Girls or a sleazy tale of evil like The Hills Have Eyes.  I feel that it's a slight injustice to compare the film to these examples - both are much less interesting than Spider Baby - but it's hard to nail down a place for Spider Baby when it covers so much ground as a genre-bending film.  In fact, the best thing to play alongside Spider Baby - if you're up for a little music - would be The Rocky Horror Picture Show.  Both films bring the same frantic picture of a "family" gone bad.

What It Means To Me:

Spider Baby reminds me why I'm always looking for more great horror.  This is a film that I'd never heard of until recent years, and it may have slipped through the cracks if circumstances were a little different.  There has been a lot of horror made in the century, and if you don't keep looking for the good stuff you may miss out on something great.  To me, Spider Baby is dedicated to all those crazy horror buffs out there. Crazy folks like me, who won't rest until they've uncovered all the great horror they can find.

[REC] 3: Genesis

(2012, Dir. by Paco Plaza.)

I sometimes forget just how good the [REC] series has been.  Though a certain studio - *cough*SONY SUCKS*cough* - tried to ruin the first film for us (by buying it, shelving it, and releasing their own remake first), the original film's found-footage meets 28 Days Later concept would have rivaled Paranormal Activity in popularity had it just been a) released and b) in English.  Unfortunately, us Americans can't be trusted with nice things, and [REC] and its terrific sequel [REC] 2 have been left for most Yankees to find on DVD.

A lot of film franchises go through some addition as they go on, but it's the subtractions from the equation that make [REC] 3: Genesis such a unique direction for the series.  There are fundamental changes - Sony's no longer involved and the awesome Magnet Releasing is distributing the film, and co-director of the first two films Jaume Balaguero has left director duties to counterpart Paco Plaza - but the biggest change is that the found footage gimmick (and the quarantined apartment complex) from the first two films is just a memory.

The change in pace that is [REC] 3 is a surprising follow up to the second film, but Plaza's film seems comfortable being a parallel story to the events of its predecessors.  There's only a minor tie in to the first film, as one of the guests at a wedding is connected to the outbreak we saw there, but the aggressive and frantic zombie-esque aggressors from those films return with a vengeance.  The twist ending from the second film is part of this film's narrative - and Plaza finds some clever ways to remind us just what the creatures are - but the story is completely new and focused mostly on the newly married couple - Clara and Koldo - who find themselves in the middle of the carnage.

Without the handheld camera viewpoint for most of the film and with a more cinematic approach, [REC] 3 does seem to lose some of the tension of its predecessors.  This film is not "in your face" as much as its parents were, but the pace doesn't suffer.  Instead, Plaza's new direction mixes the survival aspects of classic zombie films with some gory humor, and the film plays like more lighthearted films like Night of the Demons or The Return of the Living Dead when it does let up on the gas.  There is still plenty of blood spewed, but Plaza finds ways to move between dramatic and comedic splatter to keep the film moving.  The split between comedy and seriousness is another new turn in the series, but neither side of that equation overwhelms the other and effects the bigger picture.

With the added focus on gore and the romantic side of the script, the film is set up perfectly for Leticia Dolera (who stars as Clara) to shine, and she takes advantage of the opportunity.  Confined to a wedding dress and exceedingly runny makeup for the duration of the film, the role primarily requires Dolera to look the part of a woman who's fighting for her future, and Dolera does not miss a beat.  The diminutive actress handles herself very well throughout the film, and horror fans will surely enjoy her ability to handle a chainsaw.  The rest of the cast is made up of folks with a similar willingness to face the gory side of the film with their tongue in cheek, which leads to Clara standing up as a somewhat comic heroine in a horror film with a welcome slapstick edge.

The changing pace is probably the biggest obstacle to overcome with [REC] 3, and fans of the series who expect more of the same might find the tone to be too much to bear.  I do think the film feels slight in comparison to the first two films, but it's still a lot of fun to watch and a nice new twist on the mythology these filmmakers have created.  With Clara and Koldo's plight as the primary focus the film feels a little like a fan fiction tale, but the violent action and the unforgiving shocks fit the series well.  It's different, but I'd recommend it alongside the first two films to anyone who wants to see something special in the modern horror scene.  And, with [REC] Apocalypse in production - and promising to reconnect with the ending of [REC] 2 - I have a feeling that there's more great horror that will be rolling out of Spain in the near future.

Midnight Movie of the Week #135 - Total Recall

Now that it's been checked off on Hollywood's "To Be Remade" list, it's a good time to look back at Total Recall.  An inorganic combination of opposing elements - the bulk of Schwarzenegger added to the satire of  director Paul Verhoeven added to the sci-fi style of writer Dan O'Bannon - Total Recall has the potential to be both a jumbled mess and a unique triumph.  I, like many, believe the film fits clearly into the second category, partially because I'm all for what my father would call "amazing new combinations".

First off, there's the Schwarzenegger aspect of the film, which is basically the elephant-in-the-middle-of-the-room for a lot of people.  They fail to mind the fact that he starred in 3-4 of the greatest science fiction films ever made (NOT debatable, this is a FACT in my world), they get caught on his lack of diction and ridiculously serious face and the fact that he can't really...what's the word...oh yeah, ACT.  I - obviously - think those people are completely crazy.

I'm not going to argue the finer points of the art of Schwarzeneggerisms.  Yes, the guy has an accent thicker than bank vaults and yes, he walks into every single room the same way and does this weird look around thing that's exactly the same in every single movie.  But there is something amazing that Schwarzenegger brings to science fiction, primarily because his physique and personality seems custom made for a world in which reality isn't reality.  The guy's a perfect future hero (also perfect robo-warrior and perfect ancient battler, but those are different stories), because he can play doofus while still looking like an unnatural beast.  For example, there's the moment where he tries to explain the whole Quaid vs. Hauser thing to Melina after he meets her on Mars, where the big lug just seems to be a complete everydude.  But he's also got that whole looking suspicious like he's a future spy down well too, so it all comes together.  The fact of the matter is, this film doesn't work without Schwarzenegger in the role.  He's too perfect for what Quaid/Hauser is in a future society - especially when there's a disconnect between dream and reality.

It's no coincidence that many of the supporting characters in the film skew to opposite ends of the reality spectrum.  Sharon Stone's work as Quaid's "wife" is certainly perfect for the manufactured parts of the plot, because someone who acts, looks, and fights like her is probably either a secret sex agent or part of an elaborate dream sequence.  The same can be said for the villainous characters, led by Michael Ironside's leather jacketed pursuer and Ronny Cox' slimy politician, as these characters' actions sway the film toward the conspiracy/reality idea.  On the other hand, characters that are involved in the Recall side of things - like the doctor/intervention agent played by Roy Brocksmith in the film's most ambiguous scene and the other doctors of Rekall who seem right out of a Beverly Hills stereotype.  These characters sell the scientific/not reality aspect of the film, and much of the fun that the film offers comes from trying to find out what each person means to the question at hand - even on repeat viewings.

We don't get a ton of the sly satire Verhoeven is known for - the stuff that made Robocop and Starship Troopers so memorable at times - but Total Recall still manages to show the director's focus on how the media has an effect on the characters' journeys.  It is a television commercial that seals the deal for Quaid and his trip to Rekall, and most of the characters who aren't Quaid/Hauser or Melina spend most of the movie trying to convince Quaid to conform to the kind of life that society wants for him.  Like Robocop before, the director paints a line between those who want power and the people who want good old-fashioned justice.  Both Quaid and Robocop would be perfect for an old High Noon style western, and it's clear Verhoeven's take on the future includes a disconnect between the past and the future that seemed imminent in the late '80s.

Speaking of the future, we also get Dan O'Bannon & Ronald Shusett's vision of the future from a script standpoint, which allows for plenty of gadgetry and another showdown between old and new.  Like most great sci-fi writers, there are plenty of little twists thrown in - like televisions on the train and x-ray machines for detecting guns - that seem not at all futuristic these days.  But part of the charm of Total Recall, again like other great sci-fi works, is that changes to technology are handled with ease (the difficulty of traveling between planets is an absolute afterthought in the film) while past technologies (i.e. - guns, drills, flannel shirts) are kept around because they're useful.  The writers - following in the footsteps of the great Philip K. Dick - are having a lot of fun creating this reality.

Well, I guess I shouldn't get too caught up in reality - the interpretation of what Total Recall actually is is entirely up to you - but the point remains that the universe(s) created in Total Recall work on plenty of levels.  This conjunction between the star, director, and writers (leading all the way back to Dick's short story) makes Total Recall a versatile film that works as an action spectacle, as a statement on society, and as a tale of the future.  Don't underestimate the combination of elements at work here - I think they come together perfectly.

Midnight Top Five - The "What I've Been Learning From Buffy and Angel" Edition

A couple of weeks ago, I wrote about Buffy The Vampire Slayer the movie because a) I love it, and b) I was watching a bunch of it.  And that's pretty much where I'm still at.  I think I'm in "I'm late to the party so I better hurry up and get as much partying in as I can before some drunk person makes everything awkward and things crash to an uncomfortable halt" mode.  I was about halfway through Season Three when I did that, and I had things to say that were kind of like this...

After powerhousing through the vastly improved season two (and now about half of season three) in recent weeks, I've certainly changed my position on television's Buffy.  I still struggle with some of the characters and it seems like there are more episodes where Buffy slays non-vampires than vampires, but it's got the same balance between goofy fun and serious drama (that refuses to be affected by an outlandish premise) that I've come to expect from the other things I've seen from Whedon. Sometimes I think that the way to tell if a TV show is great is to see whether or not you will continue to be addicted to the show when you wish the writers would change the characters' decisions or relationships.  For example, when you have to deal with Casey and Dana never working out on Sports Night or when Veronica Mars continues to choose the stupidest boyfriends ever (and manages to get roofied approximately 27 times) - but you stick with them anyway.  The Buffy Show passes that test with flying colors, because there are so many moments - particularly so far in season three - where I find myself thinking "Oh Buffy! What you doin' girl?!" or "Man, Xander just needs to never open his mouth again!". I think these things, but I'm still desperate to see where the show goes next and am already ready to forgive the characters as soon as they do something to totally redeem themselves.

Seriously, I wrote all of that in a review of something that wasn't what I was talking about...and now I have more to say. I'm almost done with Season Five of Buffy and Season Two of Angel - and boy, do I have things to say about Angel - so here's the first Midnight Top Five I've put together in a long while.  It might even end up with a Part 2 some day.

Top Five Things I've Learned From Buffy and Angel

It's OK for the Hero to NOT be Super Perfect

When Kristy Swanson was Buffy (which I will henceforth refer to as "Buffy 1.0"), the character was a flawed hero.  But she wasn't a serious flawed hero, she was comically flawed.  It was all "Oh ha! She cares too much about her hair and says what if!" imperfections, and the movie worked as a comedy because of it.  But the question I had as I dove into more Buffy - I still have next to no memory of Season 1, which might say something about Season 1 - I kept asking myself how a "serious" take on the teenage girl turned slayer could work while keeping Buffy acting like a "Buffy".  (Is there an Urban Dictionary definition for a Buffy? I probably don't want to know if there is, but to me the name - pre-Slayer - equates to aloofness.)

Sarah Michelle Gellar's "Buffy 2.0" definitely lacks the "Valley Girl" tendencies of her predecessor.  Sure, there are passing references to her shopping days and that weird moment when she wants to be Homecoming Queen, but this version of the Buffster is much smarter, darker, and more emotional than her precursor.  And yet, she remains decidedly imperfect.

The catch is that this Buffy, like I alluded to in the quoted article, makes some really dumb decisions. I don't mean this in the "horror movie character running up the stairs or dropping the knife" sense of dumb, I mean this in an interpersonal sense of dumb.  The thing is, this show is almost entirely about the interactions between the characters, and almost all of them are allowed to make plenty of mistakes by the writers.  We've got couples who cheat on each other, secrets being kept, and hidden powers, and no one on the show seems to be less-than-truthful more often Than Buffy.

When I commented that I sometimes wished the characters would change their decisions or relationships, I was thinking particularly of Buffy.  There are so many moments when I find myself looking at the screen and thinking 'Dammit Buffy, you're messing everything up again and being totally selfish" - like that time when she spent half a season obsessed with sexing a doofus or that time when she completely ignored Giles forever - and yet I recognize that her errors are incredibly human ones.  When I made an off-hand comment about Buffy's selfishness one time, I was immediately redirected that "she's earned" the chance to make some mistakes.  I'm not sure I entirely agree with that - there are times when she still lacks decency - but the show goes a long way to allow her flaws to be a part of the character arc. It's really fantastic to see a show give a heroic character so many inadequacies.

You Don't Have To Follow Monster Stereotypes

As a horror addict, it's easy to become a purist.  One of the things we struggle with the most is when someone changes the mythology or look or actions of one of our precious monsters.  Buffy and Angel balance on a fine line in this regard, using the "Chinese buffet" strategy with horror mythology- they take what they want and leave the rest.

For example, vampire staples are present throughout the Buffyverse.  Vamps can't enter homes without permission (and MAN, they use this as often as they can), wooden stakes through the heart kill them, and - obviously - they drink blood and can turn others into vampires.  But these vamps take on a lot of new forms, most notably the crinkled brow form as shown above, and the shows rarely feel like they're borrowing from things we've seen before. 

The "other" creatures - ranging from demons to ghosts to werewolves and more - that we encounter in the land of Buffy and Angel also seem to have new twists on old formulas.  There are still moments that make me cringe - the first werewolf transformation we see had me muttering 'Well, we all can't be Rick Baker" sarcastically - but both shows manage to keep things fresh by peppering in different takes on common monsters as they need to. One fantastic example is "Adam", who takes on a lead role in Season 4, a sort of Frankenstein with a deep, yet reasonable voice, and a very unique look and skill set.  Despite the floppy disk drive - one of the rare things that really shows the series' age - he's a neat twist on horror standards.

That Spike Character is Really Quite Something

Considering the fact that Buffy the Vampire Slayer seemed to exist as one of those teenage girl shows when it came out - one could argue that it had the exact same intentions as Twilight with none of the terrible incompetence - and I was a teenage boy when the show came out, a character who looked like Spike was part of the reason I didn't watch the show at time. There was football to be played and nacho cheese to be eaten, and I was just not going to go out of my way to watch a show about a teenage girl (even if it is a teenage girl I had a MAJOR teenage crush on) be wooed by vampires with bleached hair in leather jackets.  Yes, that's more the fault of the other guy I'm getting ready to talk about, but Spike's image seemed to sell the fact that Buffy was not for me to that younger and more "we must beat our chests and watch large men fight while being manly" than I am now.

But now that I'm an adult, it's come to my attention that Spike is the best thing about whichever show he's on 97% of the time.  James Marsters brings so much to the show every time he shows up, and I actually find myself rooting for more Spike every time I turn on Buffy.  The chip - an incredibly contrived idea that the writers continue to run with - was seriously the best thing to happen to Spike, because the writers suddenly have the ability to put the character into a crossover role that exists somewhere between being in the "Scooby Gang" and being the "Big Bad".  Spike is one of the more fluid television characters I know of, and the comedic stylings of Marsters - which start with the disconnect between his British accent and his stupid blonde hair - help make Spike completely entertaining in his role.

Now About That Angel Character...

I find Spike entertaining because of the freedom that his character is allowed.  Angel, on the other hand, is a character that I find completely fascinating because of his character's arc.  I started watching Angel - the show - as an afterthought, because I really didn't care that much about Angel - the character - while he was a love interest for Buffy.  There were moments when I was really in to the character (most of which seemed to occur while he was in vampire mode) during his Buffy run, but the whole dynamic between Buffy and him seriously derailed the show sometimes.  I think that was probably intentional and probably what I was supposed to care about, but I often found myself in "stop with the Romeo and Juliet and get back to fighting demons and showing off Eliza Dushku's hotness" mode instead.

When the switch to Angel the show happened, however, I was surprised to find myself completely trapped in his spin-off show.  David Boreanaz, like Marsters, shows the most range of anyone in the cast. He plays both sides of the equation well: his uncomfortable good guy is humorous and relatable, while his vampiric bad side is imposing and effective.  The good guy side is part of what really drew me in to season one of Angel - basically, Boreanaz is allowed to be an introvert superhero, something introverts like me can definitely smile at - and the twists with his character so far in season two - including a fantastic moment where he is thought to be "something different" by his opponents - do a lot for the show.  Buffy still seems like the more complete show so far - the "family" relationships between the characters elevate it to a special place - but I've found myself incredibly interested in most episodes of Angel thus far.

(Not one of the Five things, but I'd be a fool to not mention how much Charisma Carpenter's Cordelia brings to each show as well.  She has gone from vain gal to comic relief to soul-of-the-show thus far, and I've really enjoyed what I thought was first a throwaway high school stereotype character.  It's safe to say that the three characters that really draw me in to these shows - Spike, Angel, and Cordelia - are the three who have kept me most interested in their changing paths through their journey.)

By The Way...You Don't Need a R Rating to do Horror

I already knew this, but it bears repeating.  You simply do not need to be a gory, nudity-filled, and foul-mouthed thing to be an effective piece of horror.  Both Buffy and Angel are simply TV-14 - the television equivalent of PG-13 that's one louder - but they manage to be decidedly adult with their themes at times.  Buffy has lots of sexual scenes (many of which feed into that title character's flaws) that push the boundaries of what can be shown on TV, while the writing of Joss Whedon and pals always seems to find inventive ways to hurl insults and exclaim curses without actually using curse words.

And then there's the violence.  Sure, the shows both needed to cut a few corners to stay on network television, but they manage to show the things they need to show.  Blood flows from wounds often and dismemberments are a common theme.  There are some subtle and fantastic effects - one character in season two of Angel shows off an awesomely floppy neck wound that reminds me of Griffin Dunne in An American Werewolf in London.  And - most impressive to me - there's a kill near the end of season two of Buffy that is one of the coolest and most memorable I've ever seen.  The camera actually cuts back from the brisk moment of vampire violence (if you've seen the show, you might have guessed I'm talking about the moment pictured above - especially since I posted the picture), but the moment is presented beautifully.  The movement of the actors, the lighting, the sound effects and music - all of it just comes together brilliantly.  This is a completely perfect horror kill -  it's abrupt and shocking, even though we can see it coming - and it doesn't bother with blood or a close up of the damage.  It doesn't have to show us these things directly, because we're emotionally invested in the moment and don't even need the details.  More horror tales should follow its lead.

Obligatory image of evil Willow.

I could probably go on and on about things I've dug in these shows so far.  But I'll let you add to the discussion instead.  In case you're a vampire, I'll make it clear - I invite you to hit up the comments below and talk to me about your Buffy/Angel experiences.  

While you do that....I'm gonna go finish up season five of Buffy.  See you next time Midnight Warriors!

Oh, and I for some reason seriously love the Angel theme. Am I emo now? Does this make me emo?

The Mike's Top 50 Horror Movies Countdown: #21 - The Omen

Previously on the Countdown: Number 50 - Happy Birthday to Me  Number 49 - Prince of Darkness  Number 48 - House on Haunted Hill  Number 47 - The Monster Squad  Number 46 - Hellraiser  Number 45 - The Fog  Number 44 - Creature From the Black Lagoon  Number 43 - Zombie  Number 42 - Tales from the Crypt  Number 41 - Bubba Ho-Tep  Number 40 - Phantom of the Paradise  Number 39 - Dog Soldiers Number 38 - Pontypool  Number 37 - Dark Water  Number 36 - Army of Darkness Number 35 - The Legend of Hell House  Number 34 - Poltergeist  Number 33 - The Abominable Dr. Phibes  Number 32 - The Phantom of the Opera  Number 31 - The House of the Devil   Number 30 - Evil Dead II  Number 29 - Dead of Night  Number 28 - Carnival of Souls  Number 27 - Nosferatu  Number 26 - Candyman  Number 25 - The Texas Chain Saw Massacre  Number 24 - Horror of Dracula  Number 23 - The Wicker Man  Number 22 - Suspiria

The Omen

(1976, Dir. by Richard Donner.)

Why It's Here:

It's the silly to conclusion to what many call "The Unholy Trilogy" of horror films that crashed the Oscars in the late '60s and early '70s - along with the more successful Rosemary's Baby and The Exorcist - but The Omen still packs a rare punch to the gut despite its flaws.  The Omen takes an inventive stance on doomsday prophecies, while providing some of the most memorable on-screen deaths ever and the most ominous pieces of music in horror history.  The whole thing would be funny if it weren't so darn serious about its religious game of terror, as the film's dark tone manages to overcome the more ridiculous details of the plot.

The Moment That Changes Everything:

The "It's all for you Damien" moment is probably the film's most iconic scene, but I've got another scene that sums up The Omen to me.  It's the plight of Father Brennan, played with passion by Patrick Troughton, that has always been The Omen's biggest draw for me.  When the father tries to warn Gregory Peck's character of impending doom, that's when the film really starts to drip with tension.  And Father Brennan's final scene is the perfect representation of this over-dramatic horror tale.

It Makes a Great Double Feature With:

I've already mentioned the other two films that are most commonly referenced with The Omen, but the '70s were ripe with other horrors worth mentioning.  If you want to scare people out of ever having children, you could pair The Omen with Larry Cohen's It's Alive, a look at a much more physically monstrous child from the notoriously raw horror director.  The two movies back to back should provide nightmares for any expecting parent.

What It Means To Me:

I met The Omen relatively early in my exploration of horror cinema, so there are times when I feel like I might be giving it a free pass on some of its less desirable qualities - like its cast (Sorry, but Gregory Peck has never done it for me and Lee Remick is hammier than Christmas dinner) and its tendency to go all the way over the top at times.  But I'm still captivated every time I watch the movie, as those tonal issues just seem to add to the melodrama of the whole thing. The Omen is one of the loudest horror films out there - both literally and figuratively - but that has become its greatest asset to me.

Midnight Movie of the Week #134 - Blood and Black Lace

Mixing some overbearing music, lighting that randomly covers every color in the rainbow and - at least to us Americans - some incredibly stiff dubbing, Blood and Black Lace might not seem like a must see piece of horror history.  Some might argue that the film is little more than a cheap detective picture that looks like it was shot in a whorehouse. And when I put it that way, it sounds like a crappy flick.  Luckily, I'm the crappy one here - because I'm not the guy who can put all those elements together and somehow make something that's insanely fascinating.

That guy would be Mario Bava, whose films (along with Dario Argento's) reside in my mind as Italy's most valuable export.  Bava's a director who made a living by combining beauty with death, but he's never pulled this off just as well as he does in Blood and Black Lace.  There's an unhealthy dose of sleaze pouring off the screen - you could probably guess as much from the title - but there's trickery in his work too.

The film's debauchery begins as it follows a bunch of models and a bunch of men as a faceless killer moves about their house of fashion.  The house is large and full of mannequins and pretty people, but also the whole place is lit up like that scene in Vertigo where we see Kim Novak's silhouette against a dark background while the green light from the hotel sign pours in through her windows.  (Yes, that was literally the best way I could describe the lighting in this film. If you haven't seen Vertigo I can't help you here.)  I look at the cast, and I look at the setting, and I sit there and I think to myself "My God, if Bava was young and working today he'd probably cast porn stars in his film."

Of course, this is 1964, so Bava's brand of pornographic horror is incredibly tame compared to our times.  Clothes are ripped and lace is exposed, but nothing more than that.  There's an element of sexuality throughout the film - the black lace part of the title wasn't about doilies - but its an undercurrent for most of the movie.  The final act picks up the frantic sensuality of what is going on in the film's mysterious plot, leading to some hammy overacting as the film reaches its finale.

While the plot and motivations behind Blood and Black Lace could also belong to a late-night Cinemax presentation, it's Bava's ability to make all of this sleaze seem so artistic that makes his film something special. I mean, I freakin' compared it to Hitchcock earlier! Do you have any idea how much it means for me to compare something to Hitchcock?  It's a shame that copies of Bava's films are so poorly preserved, because I can only imagine how great this thing would have felt on a fresh print and a big theater screen.

It's unfair to say that the visual component is Blood and Black Lace's only redeeming factor, because Bava also seems to have strong control over the pace and tone of his film.  It's hampered by some production values and age, but the nuts and bolts are all in place and the final coat of polish over what we see leaves the film looking like a winner.  Blood and Black Lace is a simple proto-slasher with some Scooby-like detective moments, but it's also a piece of seedy art that provides a fantastic horror viewing experience.