Universal Soldier
May. 6th, 2006 | 09:36 am
An intentionally entertaining movie by Roland Emmerich? Surely you jest.
---
Once upon a time, I guess it was a pretty big deal that two of America's biggest action stars -- namely Jean-Claude Van Damme and Dolph Lundgren -- had teamed up to duke it out for roughly 100 minutes as reanimated soldiers who perished during Vietnam. The movie, Universal Soldier, was successful enough to warrant three subpar sequels, none of which could muster even a tenth of the energy found in the original. I admittedly didn't watch this during its theatrical run, due to the fact that, back in the day, I wasn't too keen on the likes of Jean-Claude Van Damme OR Dolph Lundgren. The idea of the two of them working together didn't thrill me, either, so it's taken me quite a few years to work this title in my schedule. Thankfully, Roland Emmerich's sci-fi actioner is better than most of the post-Terminator flicks I've seen, filled to overflowing with explosions, head shots, and plenty of spin kicks. Oh, yeah. You gotta love the spin kicks.
The story starts out in Vietnam, where Luc Deveraux (Van Damme) confronts the psychotic Sgt. Andrew Scott (Lundgren) after he butchers an entire village and makes a nifty necklace out of his victims' severed ears. The end result of this muddy confrontation is the death of both men, who are immediately packed in ice and shipped off to nowhere in particular as the government attempts to cover-up this nasty little fiasco. Years later, the two men have been repacked, reanimated, and reprogrammed to become the ultimate fighting machine, a super-strong hulking brute who does EXACTLY what he's told. After defusing a nasty hostage situation, a recently-fired hotshot reporter decides to investigate the origins of these strange soldiers. Her nosiness, however, proves fatal; after getting busted for snapping some shots of one of the wounded soldiers, the resurrected Andrew Scott effectively puts a bullet in her cameraman's skull. Haunted by the memories of the senseless slaughter all those years ago, Deveraux clocks his former superior and takes off with the reporter. As his humanity slowly begins to return, Scott slowly begins to sink into the insanity that cost him his life in Vietnam. Before long, he has this genetically-altered army at his disposal, and the hunt for Deveraux is about to get personal.
Though I hate most of Roland Emmerich's recent movies, I have to say that his eye for big-budget extravaganzas helps Universal Soldier succeed as a purely visceral action experience. There's no third act twist, no cheesy reveals -- just loads of loud, explosive action and few moments of light humor as Devreaux reacquaints himself with the real world. A fine example of the latter is probably the diner scene, where our hero finds himself without the funds needed to pay for his oversized meal. When things get rowdy, Devreaux dispenses some damage, after which he sits down with a bowl of popcorn and sighs like a happy child. For some bizarre reason, that scene has stuck with me more than any other sequence in the film. Too bad Emmerich lost his touch with films like Independence Day and Godzilla, though his Americanization of Tokyo's master of destruction is good for a laugh once a year or so.
Lundgren and Van Damme are apparently having a good time, and their performances are that much better because of it. While Jean-Claude gets to play the clean cut killing machine with a heart of gold, Dolph gets to chew scenery as if it were a Denny's breakfast combo. Whether he's freaking out inside a grocery store or tossing grenades from a moving vehicle, Lundgren actually seems to have a pulse, a trait absent from many of his movies. I'm used to seeing the guy in more serious roles, you see, so this change of pace is actually quite nice. This is easily one of his better movies, right behind the HIGHLY underrated version of The Punisher that's currently collecting dust in cut-out bins across the nation. Everyone else is just dandy, too, including Ed O'Ross and a quick cameo by the late Jerry Orbach. And as my wife will tell you, EVERYTHING is better with a little Orbach. You'll be missed, Jerry.
Since everything else seems to fall into place, you'd think this would leave room for Emmerich to completely botch the action. Thankfully, this is probably the film's greatest achievement, featuring quite a few nifty set pieces for Van Damme and Lundgren to show off the goods that made them stars in the first place. The aforementioned diner scene is a pure Jean-Claude moment, while the final showdown belongs entirely to Lundgren. Though he doesn't have the physical presence of his co-star, Dolph tears through the material with manic glee as he kicks, punches, and tosses Van Damme around his parents' farm. It's cheesy as hell, yes, but you have to admit it's a ton of fun. Go on -- admit it. Sitting down with a well-executed action picture can be wholly rewarding, and Universal Soldier's numerous attempts to wow us do so with its tongue pressed firmly against its cheek. It's a big bloody cartoon, people. If you're looking for a serious action flick, well, I'd advise you to look elsewhere.
However, for those who don't mind a little goofiness with their explosions, Universal Soldier is the way to go. Deviating just a smidge from their usual cinematic vehicles, it allows both seasoned actors to explore characters we rarely get to see them play. Though Jean-Claude is no stranger to playing a hero, he does so here without the cocky attitude present in his other features. Dolph, meanwhile, shows just enough restraint as the film's proverbial madman to keep the material grounded in the comic book fantasy world Emmerich has so skillfully crafted. It's not the end-all be-all of 90's action films, but you could definitely do worse. A quick word of advice: Avoid the first two sequels like the plague and go directly to Universal Soldier: The Return once you've consumed the original. In fact, that's where I'm headed in a few minutes.
After I've finished my severed ear necklace, of course.
---
Once upon a time, I guess it was a pretty big deal that two of America's biggest action stars -- namely Jean-Claude Van Damme and Dolph Lundgren -- had teamed up to duke it out for roughly 100 minutes as reanimated soldiers who perished during Vietnam. The movie, Universal Soldier, was successful enough to warrant three subpar sequels, none of which could muster even a tenth of the energy found in the original. I admittedly didn't watch this during its theatrical run, due to the fact that, back in the day, I wasn't too keen on the likes of Jean-Claude Van Damme OR Dolph Lundgren. The idea of the two of them working together didn't thrill me, either, so it's taken me quite a few years to work this title in my schedule. Thankfully, Roland Emmerich's sci-fi actioner is better than most of the post-Terminator flicks I've seen, filled to overflowing with explosions, head shots, and plenty of spin kicks. Oh, yeah. You gotta love the spin kicks.
The story starts out in Vietnam, where Luc Deveraux (Van Damme) confronts the psychotic Sgt. Andrew Scott (Lundgren) after he butchers an entire village and makes a nifty necklace out of his victims' severed ears. The end result of this muddy confrontation is the death of both men, who are immediately packed in ice and shipped off to nowhere in particular as the government attempts to cover-up this nasty little fiasco. Years later, the two men have been repacked, reanimated, and reprogrammed to become the ultimate fighting machine, a super-strong hulking brute who does EXACTLY what he's told. After defusing a nasty hostage situation, a recently-fired hotshot reporter decides to investigate the origins of these strange soldiers. Her nosiness, however, proves fatal; after getting busted for snapping some shots of one of the wounded soldiers, the resurrected Andrew Scott effectively puts a bullet in her cameraman's skull. Haunted by the memories of the senseless slaughter all those years ago, Deveraux clocks his former superior and takes off with the reporter. As his humanity slowly begins to return, Scott slowly begins to sink into the insanity that cost him his life in Vietnam. Before long, he has this genetically-altered army at his disposal, and the hunt for Deveraux is about to get personal.
Though I hate most of Roland Emmerich's recent movies, I have to say that his eye for big-budget extravaganzas helps Universal Soldier succeed as a purely visceral action experience. There's no third act twist, no cheesy reveals -- just loads of loud, explosive action and few moments of light humor as Devreaux reacquaints himself with the real world. A fine example of the latter is probably the diner scene, where our hero finds himself without the funds needed to pay for his oversized meal. When things get rowdy, Devreaux dispenses some damage, after which he sits down with a bowl of popcorn and sighs like a happy child. For some bizarre reason, that scene has stuck with me more than any other sequence in the film. Too bad Emmerich lost his touch with films like Independence Day and Godzilla, though his Americanization of Tokyo's master of destruction is good for a laugh once a year or so.
Lundgren and Van Damme are apparently having a good time, and their performances are that much better because of it. While Jean-Claude gets to play the clean cut killing machine with a heart of gold, Dolph gets to chew scenery as if it were a Denny's breakfast combo. Whether he's freaking out inside a grocery store or tossing grenades from a moving vehicle, Lundgren actually seems to have a pulse, a trait absent from many of his movies. I'm used to seeing the guy in more serious roles, you see, so this change of pace is actually quite nice. This is easily one of his better movies, right behind the HIGHLY underrated version of The Punisher that's currently collecting dust in cut-out bins across the nation. Everyone else is just dandy, too, including Ed O'Ross and a quick cameo by the late Jerry Orbach. And as my wife will tell you, EVERYTHING is better with a little Orbach. You'll be missed, Jerry.
Since everything else seems to fall into place, you'd think this would leave room for Emmerich to completely botch the action. Thankfully, this is probably the film's greatest achievement, featuring quite a few nifty set pieces for Van Damme and Lundgren to show off the goods that made them stars in the first place. The aforementioned diner scene is a pure Jean-Claude moment, while the final showdown belongs entirely to Lundgren. Though he doesn't have the physical presence of his co-star, Dolph tears through the material with manic glee as he kicks, punches, and tosses Van Damme around his parents' farm. It's cheesy as hell, yes, but you have to admit it's a ton of fun. Go on -- admit it. Sitting down with a well-executed action picture can be wholly rewarding, and Universal Soldier's numerous attempts to wow us do so with its tongue pressed firmly against its cheek. It's a big bloody cartoon, people. If you're looking for a serious action flick, well, I'd advise you to look elsewhere.
However, for those who don't mind a little goofiness with their explosions, Universal Soldier is the way to go. Deviating just a smidge from their usual cinematic vehicles, it allows both seasoned actors to explore characters we rarely get to see them play. Though Jean-Claude is no stranger to playing a hero, he does so here without the cocky attitude present in his other features. Dolph, meanwhile, shows just enough restraint as the film's proverbial madman to keep the material grounded in the comic book fantasy world Emmerich has so skillfully crafted. It's not the end-all be-all of 90's action films, but you could definitely do worse. A quick word of advice: Avoid the first two sequels like the plague and go directly to Universal Soldier: The Return once you've consumed the original. In fact, that's where I'm headed in a few minutes.
After I've finished my severed ear necklace, of course.
Link | Leave a comment | Add to Memories | Tell a Friend
Blood Diner
May. 6th, 2006 | 01:59 pm
All you vegetarians can kiss my blood sauce.
---
During my lonely days as a high school freshmen, I was a frequent customer of Blockbuster Video, long before DVDs were even a glint in the retail industry's eye. So much so, in fact, that almost everyone on-staff knew my pathetic ass by name, often commenting quite loudly to other employees and customers alike that I was a pretty sad individual. Didn't matter to me, though; I was on a mission to consume as many movies as I possibly could in a given week, regardless of how nerdy they presumed I was. Anyway, once I had devoured every silly picture listed in my tattered spiral-bound notebook, I started with the A's in the horror section and slowly worked my way through their entire selection, which was fairly impressive for a Blockbuster Video franchise. One film I could never bring myself to rent, however, was Jackie Kong's Blood Diner, whose cover art and synopsis never really appealed to me. It was one of the few movies I purposely skipped, since it seemed to be nothing more than a low-budget sleazefest. Now, I as begrudgingly approach my 30's, I'm obsessed with these campy low-budget horror flicks, and I'd love the opportunity to travel back in time to inform my 15 year-old self that Blood Diner is, in fact, worthy of a rental. Actually, scratch that.
Blood Diner is sheer brilliance. Period.
To be quite honest, dear readers, I really don't know to describe the movie to those who haven't had a chance to witness its genius in action. From the poorly-dubbed voiceovers to the incredibly lame dialogue, it's one of the craziest slashers I've ever seen. Ever. Seriously. EVER. To accurately describe the proceedings is rather difficult, but I will say that it's in the same vein as the highly underrated Motel Hell, though Diner seems to be the more mentally unstable of the two. There are so many laugh-out-loud moments that I actually started writing this review as a list of the jokes that worked, then scrapped the idea for fear it would ruin the many surprises awaiting those brave enough to set foot inside Jackie Kong's surreal world of disembodied talking brains, nude aerobics, and pointless Nazi references. It's pure insanity from start to finish, and I loved every frame of it.
Michael and George Tutman (Rick Burks and Carl Crew, respectively) run a little vegetarian diner with the help of their weird uncle, who just happens to be a disembodied, foul-mouthed brain floating in a jar of mystery juice. However, the Tutman's diner isn't exactly what it claims to be; not only do they use human parts for their "special seasoning," but the diner also serves as a front for an ancient ritual that will bring back the long-dead goddess Sheetar, who must be constructed using various female body parts ala Bride of Re-Animator -- though not as gooey -- and resurrected during the film's climatic "blood buffet." Hot on their trail, however, are two mismatched cops and their physically abusive chief, who won't hesitate to put a fist in your stomach if you get just an inch out-of-line. But that's where the logic ends, since Blood Diner boasts some of the goofiest scenes ever filmed, from the slaughter of several nude cheerleaders to the crushing of some poor bouncer's head outside of a popular nightclub, followed immediately by a loud burst of laughter from those who happened to witness the crime.
I could go on and on about my favorite moments from this descent into mind-numbing trash, but I really want those who haven't seen it to experience the film completely, without the stink of the spoilers I so desperately want to spill here. But I will refrain from such antics, since I think Blood Diner's charm lies in the fact that you have no idea what's around the proverbial corner. Will the next scene feature the sloppy, overweight, belch-laden vegetarian devotee who spends all of his free time eating the Tutman's special recipes, or will you get yet another bit featuring the meat-obsessed brothers during their gory preparation of the Sheetar ritual? It's these unexpected moments that make Blood Diner truly entertaining, since the script follows no preset formula and separates itself from the use of everyday common sense. Damn, is it magical.
There's also a fair amount of gore on display, though the specifics I will keep under wraps, since it's so off-the-wall outrageous that to mention it here would dilute the experience for Blood Diner virgins. It's never presented seriously, and stays true to the likes of Frank Henenlotter's Basket Case series and, once again, Motel Hell. It's all played for laughs, of course, and though some of it is too stupid to garner more than a brief chuckle, some scenes are truly gut-busting, which prompted this reviewer to rewind and watch several scenes more than once. I almost never do that, you see, since I like to watch movies in one long chunk, sans interruptions. For me to replay a specific scene due to the bizarre nature of the material is quite an accomplishment. I have no doubt that you'll do the same thing, too.
I saw this one on VHS, and not by choice. I wasn't able to locate a proper DVD release, and had to settle for the worn copy my local video store has in stock. There appears to be a Region 2 release via Dragon, though they sometimes mistreat the films they choose to distribute. However, I did discover, after some extensive research on the Internet, that Monsters HD recently aired a crystal-clear widescreen version of Blood Diner, uncut and intact, complete with an Artisan logo at the beginning. Why hasn't this been released on DVD? Why? I want to know the answer to this most perplexing question, since I think there's definitely an audience out there for it. Perhaps I'll start a petition. After all, that seems to be the thing to do these days when you can't find your favorite film on DVD. Together, maybe we can bring this forgotten gem to the masses. With its demented mixture of humor, gore, and absurdity, Blood Diner deserves preservation. Sheetar demands it!
All hail Sheetar! Oh, and the blood buffet is open until nine.
---
During my lonely days as a high school freshmen, I was a frequent customer of Blockbuster Video, long before DVDs were even a glint in the retail industry's eye. So much so, in fact, that almost everyone on-staff knew my pathetic ass by name, often commenting quite loudly to other employees and customers alike that I was a pretty sad individual. Didn't matter to me, though; I was on a mission to consume as many movies as I possibly could in a given week, regardless of how nerdy they presumed I was. Anyway, once I had devoured every silly picture listed in my tattered spiral-bound notebook, I started with the A's in the horror section and slowly worked my way through their entire selection, which was fairly impressive for a Blockbuster Video franchise. One film I could never bring myself to rent, however, was Jackie Kong's Blood Diner, whose cover art and synopsis never really appealed to me. It was one of the few movies I purposely skipped, since it seemed to be nothing more than a low-budget sleazefest. Now, I as begrudgingly approach my 30's, I'm obsessed with these campy low-budget horror flicks, and I'd love the opportunity to travel back in time to inform my 15 year-old self that Blood Diner is, in fact, worthy of a rental. Actually, scratch that.
Blood Diner is sheer brilliance. Period.
To be quite honest, dear readers, I really don't know to describe the movie to those who haven't had a chance to witness its genius in action. From the poorly-dubbed voiceovers to the incredibly lame dialogue, it's one of the craziest slashers I've ever seen. Ever. Seriously. EVER. To accurately describe the proceedings is rather difficult, but I will say that it's in the same vein as the highly underrated Motel Hell, though Diner seems to be the more mentally unstable of the two. There are so many laugh-out-loud moments that I actually started writing this review as a list of the jokes that worked, then scrapped the idea for fear it would ruin the many surprises awaiting those brave enough to set foot inside Jackie Kong's surreal world of disembodied talking brains, nude aerobics, and pointless Nazi references. It's pure insanity from start to finish, and I loved every frame of it.
Michael and George Tutman (Rick Burks and Carl Crew, respectively) run a little vegetarian diner with the help of their weird uncle, who just happens to be a disembodied, foul-mouthed brain floating in a jar of mystery juice. However, the Tutman's diner isn't exactly what it claims to be; not only do they use human parts for their "special seasoning," but the diner also serves as a front for an ancient ritual that will bring back the long-dead goddess Sheetar, who must be constructed using various female body parts ala Bride of Re-Animator -- though not as gooey -- and resurrected during the film's climatic "blood buffet." Hot on their trail, however, are two mismatched cops and their physically abusive chief, who won't hesitate to put a fist in your stomach if you get just an inch out-of-line. But that's where the logic ends, since Blood Diner boasts some of the goofiest scenes ever filmed, from the slaughter of several nude cheerleaders to the crushing of some poor bouncer's head outside of a popular nightclub, followed immediately by a loud burst of laughter from those who happened to witness the crime.
I could go on and on about my favorite moments from this descent into mind-numbing trash, but I really want those who haven't seen it to experience the film completely, without the stink of the spoilers I so desperately want to spill here. But I will refrain from such antics, since I think Blood Diner's charm lies in the fact that you have no idea what's around the proverbial corner. Will the next scene feature the sloppy, overweight, belch-laden vegetarian devotee who spends all of his free time eating the Tutman's special recipes, or will you get yet another bit featuring the meat-obsessed brothers during their gory preparation of the Sheetar ritual? It's these unexpected moments that make Blood Diner truly entertaining, since the script follows no preset formula and separates itself from the use of everyday common sense. Damn, is it magical.
There's also a fair amount of gore on display, though the specifics I will keep under wraps, since it's so off-the-wall outrageous that to mention it here would dilute the experience for Blood Diner virgins. It's never presented seriously, and stays true to the likes of Frank Henenlotter's Basket Case series and, once again, Motel Hell. It's all played for laughs, of course, and though some of it is too stupid to garner more than a brief chuckle, some scenes are truly gut-busting, which prompted this reviewer to rewind and watch several scenes more than once. I almost never do that, you see, since I like to watch movies in one long chunk, sans interruptions. For me to replay a specific scene due to the bizarre nature of the material is quite an accomplishment. I have no doubt that you'll do the same thing, too.
I saw this one on VHS, and not by choice. I wasn't able to locate a proper DVD release, and had to settle for the worn copy my local video store has in stock. There appears to be a Region 2 release via Dragon, though they sometimes mistreat the films they choose to distribute. However, I did discover, after some extensive research on the Internet, that Monsters HD recently aired a crystal-clear widescreen version of Blood Diner, uncut and intact, complete with an Artisan logo at the beginning. Why hasn't this been released on DVD? Why? I want to know the answer to this most perplexing question, since I think there's definitely an audience out there for it. Perhaps I'll start a petition. After all, that seems to be the thing to do these days when you can't find your favorite film on DVD. Together, maybe we can bring this forgotten gem to the masses. With its demented mixture of humor, gore, and absurdity, Blood Diner deserves preservation. Sheetar demands it!
All hail Sheetar! Oh, and the blood buffet is open until nine.
Link | Leave a comment {1} | Add to Memories | Tell a Friend
Hunting Humans
May. 6th, 2006 | 02:27 pm
Fear of Clowns sucked.
---
I purchased Hunting Humans at 2005's Horrorfind Weekend, along with Fear of Clowns as kind of two-pack deal. Both films were cheaper than buying Fear of Clowns on its own, since the price was jacked up due to director Kevin Kangas' indecipherable scribble on the back. Since I couldn't care less whether or not someone doodles on my copy or not, I opted for the real value: two flicks for the price of one. Seeing as that I was pretty pumped about seeing FOC, imagine my surprise when Hunting Humans turned out to be the stronger of the two, though it does have its own share of problems. However, it's nowhere near the trainwreck that is Fear of Clowns, which, I guess, is a sort of compliment. Not a very good compliment, mind you, but a compliment nonetheless. Let's not dwell on the mistakes for now. There's always time for that later.
Aric Blue (Rick Ganz) is a cocky guy; he's got a great job, good lucks, and he's an unstoppable killing machine. That's because, according to the film's narration, he knows the in's and out's of the serial killing game, allowing him to remain two steps ahead of those who seek to capture him. His motto? Never develop a pattern, since that's how people get killed...and busted by the fuzz. However, his skills are put to the ultimate test when his victim-to-be is murdered by someone else, someone that claims to have figured out Aric's own patterns. This shakes our beloved killer out of safety zone, forcing him to play a game designed by a demented madman, one that can match him blow-for-blow. Now Aric must turn the tables on this mysterious stranger, or end up becoming a victim himself.
I hated Rick Ganz in Fear of Clowns. Not only did he bring nothing to the table, but he was horribly miscast as the heroine's shady love interest. I just didn't buy him in it. However, Ganz shines like a buff, bright star in Hunting Humans, embodying the film's anti-hero with a certain amount of cool sophistication that makes you like him despite the fact that he's an egotistical prick. He also has a wicked sense of humor -- as you'll discover throughout the film's narration -- one that keeps the story from delving too far into camp. After all, a serial killer vs. serial killer flick isn't that original, but with the help of Ganz and a surprisingly decent supporting cast, director Kevin Kangas manages to pull off a fast-paced thriller with a twist. It almost makes me feel bad for hating Fear of Clowns as much as I do, though after watching Hunting Humans, I should go back and hate it some more. Kangas impressed the hell out of me with this one, and it makes me hate FOC that much worse since it's such an amazing step backwards for the guy.
Hunting Humans is certainly a stylish product, but it does carry around quite a bit of baggage, some of which might turn off those who aren't familiar with low-budget productions such as this. For one, the picture is very grainy and VERY pixelated in certain spots. Now, I'm not sure if this came about due to the distributor's shoddy encoding or if the blame lies squarely on Kangas, so I'll let it slide. Then again, it really doesn't bother me at all, so I'll just let this stand as a warning to those who have difficulties watching films with this sort of problem. Also, the editing is a tad rough; there are way too many jagged cuts, not to mention enough slow motion to fill eighteen feature-length debuts. These are mistakes I've seen a lot of first-time directors make, so you can't slight the guy for it. It's not all bad, of course. To add a bit of sunshine to this rather depressing segment of my review, I will say that Hunting Humans sports an impressive score, one that wouldn't be out-of-place in a film with a much bigger budget.
However, all of my love for this film came to an abrupt halt when I beheld its laughable conclusion. 18 guns? Fake websites? Please. This is the stuff of primetime cop shows like CSI and all its ilk. I wanted more of a punch -- especially when Aric's arch-enemy finally makes his on-screen debut -- but, sadly, it loses steam quickly and farts around the room like a balloon with its string cut. How things could have turned so sour so quickly is beyond me, considering I was grooving to the proceedings up until the last ten minutes or so. An ending will pretty much make or break a movie for me, and though the one found here is impossibly lame, I still walked away from Hunting Humans feeling satisfied. Somewhat. It's not unlike ordering fried chicken and getting batter-dipped fish: it's still good, but it's not chicken.
Heh.
Anyway, should you watch Hunting Humans? Definitely. In fact, rent it along with Fear of Clowns so you can see how poorly the latter is. Seriously. Do it. It might make you appreciate Kangas' debut that much more if you can see him at his lowest point as an independent filmmaker. I do hope the guy gets back on his feet soon, since this one shows lots of promise. I'm not doubting Kangas' skills as a director, mind you, but I am wondering if he should find someone else to handle scripting duties. A true writer/director is very hard to find, since they usually don't go hand-in-hand. Lots of good directors can't write a script to save their lives, and though Hunting Humans shows Kevin's skill as a director, I can't help but feel that, if he'd found someone to help polish the script, he would have a cult classic on his hands. In fact, I wouldn't mind seeing a sequel. Aric Blue is a wonderful character, and it allows Rick Ganz to put his acting chops to good use.
As long as Kangas keeps the clowns at home, that is.
---
I purchased Hunting Humans at 2005's Horrorfind Weekend, along with Fear of Clowns as kind of two-pack deal. Both films were cheaper than buying Fear of Clowns on its own, since the price was jacked up due to director Kevin Kangas' indecipherable scribble on the back. Since I couldn't care less whether or not someone doodles on my copy or not, I opted for the real value: two flicks for the price of one. Seeing as that I was pretty pumped about seeing FOC, imagine my surprise when Hunting Humans turned out to be the stronger of the two, though it does have its own share of problems. However, it's nowhere near the trainwreck that is Fear of Clowns, which, I guess, is a sort of compliment. Not a very good compliment, mind you, but a compliment nonetheless. Let's not dwell on the mistakes for now. There's always time for that later.
Aric Blue (Rick Ganz) is a cocky guy; he's got a great job, good lucks, and he's an unstoppable killing machine. That's because, according to the film's narration, he knows the in's and out's of the serial killing game, allowing him to remain two steps ahead of those who seek to capture him. His motto? Never develop a pattern, since that's how people get killed...and busted by the fuzz. However, his skills are put to the ultimate test when his victim-to-be is murdered by someone else, someone that claims to have figured out Aric's own patterns. This shakes our beloved killer out of safety zone, forcing him to play a game designed by a demented madman, one that can match him blow-for-blow. Now Aric must turn the tables on this mysterious stranger, or end up becoming a victim himself.
I hated Rick Ganz in Fear of Clowns. Not only did he bring nothing to the table, but he was horribly miscast as the heroine's shady love interest. I just didn't buy him in it. However, Ganz shines like a buff, bright star in Hunting Humans, embodying the film's anti-hero with a certain amount of cool sophistication that makes you like him despite the fact that he's an egotistical prick. He also has a wicked sense of humor -- as you'll discover throughout the film's narration -- one that keeps the story from delving too far into camp. After all, a serial killer vs. serial killer flick isn't that original, but with the help of Ganz and a surprisingly decent supporting cast, director Kevin Kangas manages to pull off a fast-paced thriller with a twist. It almost makes me feel bad for hating Fear of Clowns as much as I do, though after watching Hunting Humans, I should go back and hate it some more. Kangas impressed the hell out of me with this one, and it makes me hate FOC that much worse since it's such an amazing step backwards for the guy.
Hunting Humans is certainly a stylish product, but it does carry around quite a bit of baggage, some of which might turn off those who aren't familiar with low-budget productions such as this. For one, the picture is very grainy and VERY pixelated in certain spots. Now, I'm not sure if this came about due to the distributor's shoddy encoding or if the blame lies squarely on Kangas, so I'll let it slide. Then again, it really doesn't bother me at all, so I'll just let this stand as a warning to those who have difficulties watching films with this sort of problem. Also, the editing is a tad rough; there are way too many jagged cuts, not to mention enough slow motion to fill eighteen feature-length debuts. These are mistakes I've seen a lot of first-time directors make, so you can't slight the guy for it. It's not all bad, of course. To add a bit of sunshine to this rather depressing segment of my review, I will say that Hunting Humans sports an impressive score, one that wouldn't be out-of-place in a film with a much bigger budget.
However, all of my love for this film came to an abrupt halt when I beheld its laughable conclusion. 18 guns? Fake websites? Please. This is the stuff of primetime cop shows like CSI and all its ilk. I wanted more of a punch -- especially when Aric's arch-enemy finally makes his on-screen debut -- but, sadly, it loses steam quickly and farts around the room like a balloon with its string cut. How things could have turned so sour so quickly is beyond me, considering I was grooving to the proceedings up until the last ten minutes or so. An ending will pretty much make or break a movie for me, and though the one found here is impossibly lame, I still walked away from Hunting Humans feeling satisfied. Somewhat. It's not unlike ordering fried chicken and getting batter-dipped fish: it's still good, but it's not chicken.
Heh.
Anyway, should you watch Hunting Humans? Definitely. In fact, rent it along with Fear of Clowns so you can see how poorly the latter is. Seriously. Do it. It might make you appreciate Kangas' debut that much more if you can see him at his lowest point as an independent filmmaker. I do hope the guy gets back on his feet soon, since this one shows lots of promise. I'm not doubting Kangas' skills as a director, mind you, but I am wondering if he should find someone else to handle scripting duties. A true writer/director is very hard to find, since they usually don't go hand-in-hand. Lots of good directors can't write a script to save their lives, and though Hunting Humans shows Kevin's skill as a director, I can't help but feel that, if he'd found someone to help polish the script, he would have a cult classic on his hands. In fact, I wouldn't mind seeing a sequel. Aric Blue is a wonderful character, and it allows Rick Ganz to put his acting chops to good use.
As long as Kangas keeps the clowns at home, that is.
Link | Leave a comment | Add to Memories | Tell a Friend
Tamara
May. 6th, 2006 | 02:56 pm
Take a 90 minute nap and save yourself the pain.
---
Let me get two things out of the way before I tackle Tamara, the latest teen slasher to snore its way across the big screen. Don't be fooled by the "From the Creator of Final Destination" tag Lion's Gate has plastered across the top of the DVD. James Wong, the director and real visionary behind Final Destination, has nothing to do with this film. Instead, you get Jeffrey Reddick, one of Destinations three "writers." So, calling him the "creator" is kind of stretching it. Sure, he came up with the basic premise, but having read the original script, I can safely say that Wong is guy with the vision. With that in mind, Lion's Gate should probably rephrase that tag to read something like, "From One of the Three Hacks Who Brought You Final Destination." Because let's face it, folks: while entertaining, Final Destinaton is far from a masterpiece. What's worse is their choice of DVD artwork, which shows the lovely little Tamara wielding an axe. It's a strange image to use since you NEVER get to see Tamara do anything remotely threatening with an axe, unless you consider tossing one aside to be an exercise in terror.
There's a lot of buzz surrounding this film, and for the life of me I can't understand why. It even received a sizable article in the Lexington Herald-Leader -- albeit with a one-and-a-half star review -- though I do think it's because Reddick is a Kentucky native and not due to the film's superb quality. What you get is essentially a by-the-numbers high school slasher filled with lame stereotypes and tired cliches, executed with the grace of a USA Original Movie. It also suffers from what I like to call "She's All That Syndrome," where the filmmakers try their best to make a good-looking chick appear unattractive and dumpy. Like Rachael Leigh Cook before her, Jenna Dewan plays the ugly and unpopular high school loser, who, after some makeup and tight clothes, turns into a super-hot sex vixen. Yeah, right. Pull the other one. Not for a second did I find Dewan to be unattractive. Then again, you'd have to try pretty hard to really mess her up.
The story is as basic as first-grade math: Bullies pick on loser, accidentally kill loser, and spend the rest of movie trying to stay alive since the loser has somehow returned from beyond the grave. That's fine. I kind of expected as much. What I didn't expect was for Tamara to be such a wimp. I figured since we get a by-the-numbers story, director Jeremy Haft would amp up the gore and violence, considering we do have the "creator" of Final Destination on-board. The deaths, sadly, lack any sort of imagination, and the squishy gore shots are VERY few and far between. You see, Tamara doesn't actually kill anyone. She takes control of their feeble minds with but a touch of her hand, sending these brainless automatons to do her dirty work. You get some self-mutilation, bloody bulimia, and a few impalements. Pretty weak stuff in this day and age.
I won't even discuss the acting. It's not worth mentioning. Besides, I think everyone involved would like to forget all about this disaster. If you've seen any of those post-Scream "slashers" from the mid-90's, you'll know what to expect. It's not bad, but it's not great, either. And in my humble opinion, it's worse to be middle-of-the-road than an outright stinker.
One thing I'd like to touch on is the fact that, in order to get revenge on two good-looking heterosexual guys, she turns them gay. Now, this scene could have been executed wonderfully, with both guys pounding away at each other while hating every second of it. Instead, they end up in bed together -- WITH THEIR CLOTHES ON -- and actually seem to enjoy one another's company. Now, if they find pleasure in the act, how is that revenge? Is it just because she turned them gay? Is making someone gay really that terrible? They don't seem to mind, so how is that a bad thing? Because, in my opinion, if you're having a good time, who cares where your wiggle stick goes? But I'm trying to find logic in and illogical movie. Silly me.
Ugh. I've wasted enough time on this trash. If you like hollow characters, recycled plotlines, and spending 93 minutes of your life watching mind-numbing drivel, then you might find Tamara to be your perfect woman. For the rest of us, it's not unlike watching a train wreck were the passengers in peril are trying to react the way Hollywood expects them to. Besides, how can you really enjoy a movie where the guy who contributed the least to Tamara's demise gets the worst on-screen death? Again, I'm trying to find the logic in this pointless mess. Rent Cry_Wolf, instead.
Tamara should've stayed dead.
---
Let me get two things out of the way before I tackle Tamara, the latest teen slasher to snore its way across the big screen. Don't be fooled by the "From the Creator of Final Destination" tag Lion's Gate has plastered across the top of the DVD. James Wong, the director and real visionary behind Final Destination, has nothing to do with this film. Instead, you get Jeffrey Reddick, one of Destinations three "writers." So, calling him the "creator" is kind of stretching it. Sure, he came up with the basic premise, but having read the original script, I can safely say that Wong is guy with the vision. With that in mind, Lion's Gate should probably rephrase that tag to read something like, "From One of the Three Hacks Who Brought You Final Destination." Because let's face it, folks: while entertaining, Final Destinaton is far from a masterpiece. What's worse is their choice of DVD artwork, which shows the lovely little Tamara wielding an axe. It's a strange image to use since you NEVER get to see Tamara do anything remotely threatening with an axe, unless you consider tossing one aside to be an exercise in terror.
There's a lot of buzz surrounding this film, and for the life of me I can't understand why. It even received a sizable article in the Lexington Herald-Leader -- albeit with a one-and-a-half star review -- though I do think it's because Reddick is a Kentucky native and not due to the film's superb quality. What you get is essentially a by-the-numbers high school slasher filled with lame stereotypes and tired cliches, executed with the grace of a USA Original Movie. It also suffers from what I like to call "She's All That Syndrome," where the filmmakers try their best to make a good-looking chick appear unattractive and dumpy. Like Rachael Leigh Cook before her, Jenna Dewan plays the ugly and unpopular high school loser, who, after some makeup and tight clothes, turns into a super-hot sex vixen. Yeah, right. Pull the other one. Not for a second did I find Dewan to be unattractive. Then again, you'd have to try pretty hard to really mess her up.
The story is as basic as first-grade math: Bullies pick on loser, accidentally kill loser, and spend the rest of movie trying to stay alive since the loser has somehow returned from beyond the grave. That's fine. I kind of expected as much. What I didn't expect was for Tamara to be such a wimp. I figured since we get a by-the-numbers story, director Jeremy Haft would amp up the gore and violence, considering we do have the "creator" of Final Destination on-board. The deaths, sadly, lack any sort of imagination, and the squishy gore shots are VERY few and far between. You see, Tamara doesn't actually kill anyone. She takes control of their feeble minds with but a touch of her hand, sending these brainless automatons to do her dirty work. You get some self-mutilation, bloody bulimia, and a few impalements. Pretty weak stuff in this day and age.
I won't even discuss the acting. It's not worth mentioning. Besides, I think everyone involved would like to forget all about this disaster. If you've seen any of those post-Scream "slashers" from the mid-90's, you'll know what to expect. It's not bad, but it's not great, either. And in my humble opinion, it's worse to be middle-of-the-road than an outright stinker.
One thing I'd like to touch on is the fact that, in order to get revenge on two good-looking heterosexual guys, she turns them gay. Now, this scene could have been executed wonderfully, with both guys pounding away at each other while hating every second of it. Instead, they end up in bed together -- WITH THEIR CLOTHES ON -- and actually seem to enjoy one another's company. Now, if they find pleasure in the act, how is that revenge? Is it just because she turned them gay? Is making someone gay really that terrible? They don't seem to mind, so how is that a bad thing? Because, in my opinion, if you're having a good time, who cares where your wiggle stick goes? But I'm trying to find logic in and illogical movie. Silly me.
Ugh. I've wasted enough time on this trash. If you like hollow characters, recycled plotlines, and spending 93 minutes of your life watching mind-numbing drivel, then you might find Tamara to be your perfect woman. For the rest of us, it's not unlike watching a train wreck were the passengers in peril are trying to react the way Hollywood expects them to. Besides, how can you really enjoy a movie where the guy who contributed the least to Tamara's demise gets the worst on-screen death? Again, I'm trying to find the logic in this pointless mess. Rent Cry_Wolf, instead.
Tamara should've stayed dead.
Link | Leave a comment {3} | Add to Memories | Tell a Friend
Mortuary
May. 6th, 2006 | 03:25 pm
Tobe Hooper proves he's nothing special.
---
Tobe Hooper is an interesting fellow. Not because he makes good movies, mind you, but because the guy is so pathetically inconsistent that it actually embarrasses me at times. How can the man responsible for The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Poltergeist created such drivel as Lifeforce and Crocodile? It just boggles the mind. Don't get me wrong; I don't expect the guy to hit a homerun every time he steps to the plate, but the distance between his good films and his bad films is quite staggering. Anyway, things were beginning to look up for Mr. Hooper with his spit-and-polish "remake" of The Toolbox Murders, starring genre darling Angela Bettis. While not a classic by any means, it was definitely an entertaining supernatural slasher that managed to deliver a few thrilling moments, only to fall apart during Rance Howard's unintentionally hilarious Scooby Doo reveal at the film's conclusion. These are minor complaints, however, since Hooper's version sits comfortably in my DVD collection.
As I mentioned earlier, Hooper is rather inconsistent, so expecting him to stay on the upswing for too long is akin to always betting on the three-legged horse with the retarded jockey. His laughable entry in the Masters of Horror series ("Dance of the Dead") is probably the weakest episode yet. Instead of focusing on his strengths, Hooper decided to use this venue as a way of experimenting with something a bit different. Enter the "shaky cam," used to its full potential in the Matt Damon vehicle The Bourne Supremacy. The application of this nauseating technique fit the tone of that film perfectly, adding a level of intensity to its bone-cracking action sequences. However, Hooper's inexperience with this particular gimmick was clear from the start, and his weak script didn't live up to the nail-biting suspense he was hoping to build. His so-called "comeback," it seemed, was nothing more than Internet buzz generated by diehard fans.
With this long-winded exposition out of the way, I can now focus on what brought you here in the first place. Mortuary is, if nothing else, an interesting failure; instead of being 100% horrible, it's mostly 65% good, 25% meh, and 10% garbage. I think this is due to Hooper's "kitchen sink" approach to Jace Anderson and Adam Gierasch's braindead script. Instead of, say, filming a straight-forward zombie picture, Tobe is content with throwing every half-baked idea he can think of at you in the span of 90 minutes. Along with these walking, talking zombies, you get a deformed psychopath (the distant cousin of Coffin Baby, perhaps?), a Lovecraftian monster, and a storyline that fails to coherently bring these outrageous ideas together in the end. And while it was nice to Denise Crosby of Star Trek: The Next Generation fame back in action, it's sad that she ended up wasting her skills in such an uneven film.
After losing her husband to the bony fingers of Mr. Reaper, Leslie (Crosby) moves her son Jonathan (Dan Byrd) and her daughter Jamie (Stephanie Patton) into an old mortuary in hopes of starting a new life for her family...in the middle of nowhere. Not only is the house itself ready to implode, but there's a nifty little graveyard right out front where the local thugs like to create "graveyard babies" with their lady friends. Did I mention the house comes complete with a backed-up septic tank and a weird form of black moss that seems to gravitate towards spilled blood? I didn't? Well, you get that, too, as well as a colorful cast of local characters, all of whom are quick to tell poor Jonathan that the mortuary's previous owners had a son by the name of Bobby Fowler, who may or may not still be alive and well somewhere on the property. Throw in a cute but highly-annoying love interest (Alexandra Adi) and the prerequisite Scooby Doo mystery and you've got yourself yet another generic Tobe Hooper movie, complete with a cornball ending that will leave you shaking your head and cursing your love for the genre at the same time.
I guess my biggest problem with the movie is that it really doesn't know what it wants to be. Is it a family drama? A light comedy? A rejected Tales from the Crypt episode that someone felt the need to stretch into a full-length feature? Is it a -- GASP! -- horror film? Surely you jest. Because of the constant shifts in tone, the film ends up being a contrived mess that lacks any cohesion whatsoever. If that wasn't enough, you're also forced to contend with an ending that relies heavily on a cheap, ineffective CGI monster that should have been constructed with latex, foam, and a few puppeteers. However, considering the rest of the film is just as silly as it's hackneyed ending, I should have expected as much. Instead, I kept hoping the movie would eventually get off the ground and take flight in the last 15 minutes, since I was under the impression that it was heading somewhere worthwhile. Unfortunately, my hopes and dreams for a decent film were pummeled and left for dead on the side of a busy highway like so many truck-stop hookers. Things like that tend to happen when you combine annoying characters, weak humor, and bland horror in hopes of achieving something special.
The real highlight, however, is up-and-coming star Dan Byrd, who seems to be having a good time despite the lame dialogue and sleepy script. He's really the only reason you should bother with Mortuary, since his performance kept me from dozing off completely during the film's several snore-inducing sequences. Thankfully he has a rather meaty role in Alexandre Aja's The Hills Have Eyes remake this spring, which also happens to be rather high on my list of anticipated horror films for 2006. Hoorah for me.
Had Hooper decided early on what kind of film he wanted to make, perhaps Mortuary wouldn't be such an insufferable bore. Then again, with a screenplay from the duo that brought you both Crocodile AND Crocodile 2, it's a wonder this film ever had a snowball's chance in hell of being anything other than middle-of-the-road. As it stands, it's pretty much worthless, with the exception of a creepy scene in the mortuary's basement and a wonderful performance from Dan Byrd, who definitely deserves better things. Some would have you believe that Mortuary shares the same perspective as Return of the Living Dead and Night of the Creeps, but to compare this monstrosity to such genre classics borderlines on mental collapse. Tobe Hooper, it seems, is just another unreliable filmmaker with a long list of failures on his resume. Sometimes his film's work, sometimes they don't. That's just the chance you take when you sit down with the guy's work. Of course, you could do much worse than Mortuary, since it does sport rather high productions values and some rather interesting ideas. But goofy zombies, a deformed psycho, and Lovecraftian undertones just can't save it from mediocrity. Oh, well. At least it's better than Crocodile.
Then again, what isn't?
---
Tobe Hooper is an interesting fellow. Not because he makes good movies, mind you, but because the guy is so pathetically inconsistent that it actually embarrasses me at times. How can the man responsible for The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Poltergeist created such drivel as Lifeforce and Crocodile? It just boggles the mind. Don't get me wrong; I don't expect the guy to hit a homerun every time he steps to the plate, but the distance between his good films and his bad films is quite staggering. Anyway, things were beginning to look up for Mr. Hooper with his spit-and-polish "remake" of The Toolbox Murders, starring genre darling Angela Bettis. While not a classic by any means, it was definitely an entertaining supernatural slasher that managed to deliver a few thrilling moments, only to fall apart during Rance Howard's unintentionally hilarious Scooby Doo reveal at the film's conclusion. These are minor complaints, however, since Hooper's version sits comfortably in my DVD collection.
As I mentioned earlier, Hooper is rather inconsistent, so expecting him to stay on the upswing for too long is akin to always betting on the three-legged horse with the retarded jockey. His laughable entry in the Masters of Horror series ("Dance of the Dead") is probably the weakest episode yet. Instead of focusing on his strengths, Hooper decided to use this venue as a way of experimenting with something a bit different. Enter the "shaky cam," used to its full potential in the Matt Damon vehicle The Bourne Supremacy. The application of this nauseating technique fit the tone of that film perfectly, adding a level of intensity to its bone-cracking action sequences. However, Hooper's inexperience with this particular gimmick was clear from the start, and his weak script didn't live up to the nail-biting suspense he was hoping to build. His so-called "comeback," it seemed, was nothing more than Internet buzz generated by diehard fans.
With this long-winded exposition out of the way, I can now focus on what brought you here in the first place. Mortuary is, if nothing else, an interesting failure; instead of being 100% horrible, it's mostly 65% good, 25% meh, and 10% garbage. I think this is due to Hooper's "kitchen sink" approach to Jace Anderson and Adam Gierasch's braindead script. Instead of, say, filming a straight-forward zombie picture, Tobe is content with throwing every half-baked idea he can think of at you in the span of 90 minutes. Along with these walking, talking zombies, you get a deformed psychopath (the distant cousin of Coffin Baby, perhaps?), a Lovecraftian monster, and a storyline that fails to coherently bring these outrageous ideas together in the end. And while it was nice to Denise Crosby of Star Trek: The Next Generation fame back in action, it's sad that she ended up wasting her skills in such an uneven film.
After losing her husband to the bony fingers of Mr. Reaper, Leslie (Crosby) moves her son Jonathan (Dan Byrd) and her daughter Jamie (Stephanie Patton) into an old mortuary in hopes of starting a new life for her family...in the middle of nowhere. Not only is the house itself ready to implode, but there's a nifty little graveyard right out front where the local thugs like to create "graveyard babies" with their lady friends. Did I mention the house comes complete with a backed-up septic tank and a weird form of black moss that seems to gravitate towards spilled blood? I didn't? Well, you get that, too, as well as a colorful cast of local characters, all of whom are quick to tell poor Jonathan that the mortuary's previous owners had a son by the name of Bobby Fowler, who may or may not still be alive and well somewhere on the property. Throw in a cute but highly-annoying love interest (Alexandra Adi) and the prerequisite Scooby Doo mystery and you've got yourself yet another generic Tobe Hooper movie, complete with a cornball ending that will leave you shaking your head and cursing your love for the genre at the same time.
I guess my biggest problem with the movie is that it really doesn't know what it wants to be. Is it a family drama? A light comedy? A rejected Tales from the Crypt episode that someone felt the need to stretch into a full-length feature? Is it a -- GASP! -- horror film? Surely you jest. Because of the constant shifts in tone, the film ends up being a contrived mess that lacks any cohesion whatsoever. If that wasn't enough, you're also forced to contend with an ending that relies heavily on a cheap, ineffective CGI monster that should have been constructed with latex, foam, and a few puppeteers. However, considering the rest of the film is just as silly as it's hackneyed ending, I should have expected as much. Instead, I kept hoping the movie would eventually get off the ground and take flight in the last 15 minutes, since I was under the impression that it was heading somewhere worthwhile. Unfortunately, my hopes and dreams for a decent film were pummeled and left for dead on the side of a busy highway like so many truck-stop hookers. Things like that tend to happen when you combine annoying characters, weak humor, and bland horror in hopes of achieving something special.
The real highlight, however, is up-and-coming star Dan Byrd, who seems to be having a good time despite the lame dialogue and sleepy script. He's really the only reason you should bother with Mortuary, since his performance kept me from dozing off completely during the film's several snore-inducing sequences. Thankfully he has a rather meaty role in Alexandre Aja's The Hills Have Eyes remake this spring, which also happens to be rather high on my list of anticipated horror films for 2006. Hoorah for me.
Had Hooper decided early on what kind of film he wanted to make, perhaps Mortuary wouldn't be such an insufferable bore. Then again, with a screenplay from the duo that brought you both Crocodile AND Crocodile 2, it's a wonder this film ever had a snowball's chance in hell of being anything other than middle-of-the-road. As it stands, it's pretty much worthless, with the exception of a creepy scene in the mortuary's basement and a wonderful performance from Dan Byrd, who definitely deserves better things. Some would have you believe that Mortuary shares the same perspective as Return of the Living Dead and Night of the Creeps, but to compare this monstrosity to such genre classics borderlines on mental collapse. Tobe Hooper, it seems, is just another unreliable filmmaker with a long list of failures on his resume. Sometimes his film's work, sometimes they don't. That's just the chance you take when you sit down with the guy's work. Of course, you could do much worse than Mortuary, since it does sport rather high productions values and some rather interesting ideas. But goofy zombies, a deformed psycho, and Lovecraftian undertones just can't save it from mediocrity. Oh, well. At least it's better than Crocodile.
Then again, what isn't?