Riddick: A Tale of Three Movies
Riddick is the tale of three movies. It starts off with Riddick stranded on a planet that unfortunately is “not Furya.” Then, he disappears for 40 minutes while we watch two groups of mercenaries argue, fight and chew bubble gum. Eventually, Riddick reappears and it becomes a Pitch Black rehash as Diesel survives the improbable and murders many poisonous water lizard type things.
Pitch Black was a low-budget marvel that looked great and gave the world a fantastic anti-hero. The $23 million dollar movie came out of nowhere and became a cult classic. The CGI was used sparingly, the monsters were intimidating and the characters were interesting creature fodder. Riddick was not an invincible killing machine. He was a badass dude who didn’t want to die via night loving winged beasts. Vin and director David Twohy (Perfect Getaway) followed up Pitch Black with the massive turd known as The Chronicles of Riddick. The massive space opera was critically defiled and bombed in the theaters. The night visioned character was thought to be dead until the massive success of Universal’s Fast and Furious 4, 5 and 6. Universal is happy with Vin being happy so they ponied up $38 million and let Twohy and Vin resurrect the character.
The first 30 minutes are wonderful as Vin fights to survive, finds a friend and battles a poisonous water monster. It is scarce, fun and focuses on character building. It reminded me of Cast Away mixed with Bear Grylls Man vs. Wild. However, things go awry after he finds a mercenary outpost. He triggers an alarm then disappears while we are stuck with muscular caricatures, murdered women and lots of gum chewing (the really bad guys chew gum). The movie gets stuck in a slog while people we don’t care about do things that nobody cares about. The lone stand out from this bunch is Katee Sackhoff who rises above her underwritten role and delivers a convincingly tough character (Sharni Vinson did the same thing in You’re Next). Eventually, Riddick allows himself to be imprisoned and things get good again (Monster mayhem and decapitations!).
When buying a ticket for a film called Riddick the viewer expects to watch the titular hero inflict pain on necromongers, creatures and jerky mercenaries. We don’t want random folk telling us how evil he is for 40 minutes while waiting for him to beat them all up. Vin’s Fast series has excelled because it knows what the viewers want and gives it to them ten fold. Riddick starts off intelligently then proceeds to boggle the mind with lack of Riddick. I can’t wait to listen to the director’s commentary to know why they made the swap.
Watch Riddick. Appreciate a passion project. Watch A Pefect Getaway. Get ready for Fast Seven. Buy the Riddick Blu-ray, watch the first 30 minutes, skip 40 minutes then watch the finale.
Share this post:
Deathstalker II: Duel of the Titans (1987)
MY CALL: Not nearly as epic of a guilty pleasure as the original nor as outrageous, but still LOADS of bad, bad, so very bad fun. This sequel focuses more on comedy than it’s more serious-toned and much more breasty predecessor. IF YOU LIKE THIS WATCH: Deathstalker (1983).
Back by popular demand comes the long-awaited sequel to Deathstalker (1983)!!! Leaving some big shoes to fill, Rick Hill did not return to reprise his lead role as Deathstalker. I guess after the raging success of the seminal Deathstalker film he was busy working on Hollywood studio pictures–but evidently none of them ever got made (just check him out on IMDB). Attempting to do justice to the role is newcomer John Terlesky (Vampirella, Chopping Mall).
Always stumbling his way into adventure, Deathstalker meets Reena the semi-cute seer (Monique Gabrielle; 976-Evil II, Evil Toons, The Return of Swamp Thing), his main squeeze for the movie–while he’s being faithful anyway. She foresees his upcoming adventure and knows some of the bad guys he’s supposed to face.
For someone who sees the future, Reena was pretty shocked by these zombies.
Hey, Reena? Did you foresee the threesome Deathstalker was planning while you were…JUST IN THE OTHER ROOM!!!
Oh, Reena. How quickly you forget Deathstalker’s ways. When will you just learn to avoid frat bros with unearned nicknames like Deathstalker?
The cast of villains includes the extremely androgynous condescending and fabulously manscaped Jarek the sorcerer, his scantily clad head henchwoman Sultana (Toni Naples; Sorority House Massacre II, Sorceress, Chopping Mall) and the even more scantily clad soul-sucking Princess Evie (also played by Monique Gabrielle), who he made by cloning the soul of Reena. These villains bring Deathstalker boring fights, fun humorous villainy banter, and one awkwardly loooong sex scene.
Here’s Sultana–and she’s wearing some perfectly practical combat gear. It looks VERY supportive.
Hmmm. What shall I do today? Do we have any young boys left?
Here is Princess Evie thinking about sucking a lucky young man’s soul.
She sucked it. She sucked the soul right out of the guy. You can tell by the soul drippings coming down her lips.
But you don’t get good at sucking souls over night…it takes lots of practice.
Oh no! Now she’s going to suck Deathstalker’s soul! How can we stop the evil soul-sucking Evie? Simple. Blunt force trauma to the head.
During their adventure, which is much more aimless than the original, Deathstalker and Reena encounter a cemetery full of zombies, survive some Indiana Jones-esque traps, meet an Amazon Princess (Maria Socas; The Warrior and the Sorceress) and Deathstalker enters a wrestling death match with the plus-sized Amazon champion Gorgo (Queen Kong). The action is all pretty boring for action’s sake, but they have their funny moments.
Amazons come in all shapes and sizes, you know?
Yeah, this looks fair.
This sequel seems to lack much of the attempted high fantasy of the original. But what this lacked in Dungeons & Dragons ilk, it more than made up for with super cheesy one-liners. Sadly, this humorous approach to the franchise left little room for gore, as we find none of the festive battle amputations of the original except for one delicious finisher to the finale fight.
So Deathstalker and Jarek are the “Titans” that “duel” in this lame fight. A frat bro with a dumb nickname and this other guy who looks like he’s never done a push-up in his life? Yeah, this fight’s gonna’ be awesome!
[death gargle]
Some playful quotes include “What’s your name?” To which Deathstalker of course replies “Deathstalker.” “Is that your first name or your last name?” There are plenty of sex-based jokes as well. For example, “Is that your sword or are you just happy to see me?” I’m not saying the writing is clever. I’m just saying it made me smile, even if it was stupid.
To that end, I should point out that, despite the nudity, this sequel is not an exploitation flick like the original. Men aren’t forcing themselves on women, Deathstalker isn’t as much of a jerk frat bro, there is no rape, women are generally treated with more respect (as opposed to entirely with disrespect in part 1) and the female characters share in delivering the comedy.
Oh, right. In the end they crown Reena princess. She dresses in the same conservative wardrobe as her evil soul-sucking clone twin Evie.
This is a more “wholesome” TnA fantasy-adventure flick. Oh, and stick around for the credits. They show us some endearing bloopers.
Share this post:
John’s Old School Horror Corner: The Innocents (1961)
MY CALL: Not scary, not even a little bit, not even to a child. I would recommend this to no one who has seen and enjoyed a horror movie that released after 1970. As far as horror goes this is lifeless; regrettably stagnant. However, there’s an okay story behind it all. IF YOU LIKE THIS WATCH: The Good Son (1993) for kinder-horror and The Conjuring (2013) for a classic-style horror story involving kids.
Okay. So, normally I’d normally never watch a movie this old. I typically stick to the 70s for my “really old” horror. Why? Well, as someone who grew up in the 80s I was never–NEVER–impressed by the dated “classics” of the 50s and 60s with Christopher Lee and Vincent Price. I think they’re lame. They probably once were scary, back before people came up with much more scary stuff in the films of the following decades. But know this. It’s not about CGI or effects for me. It’s that these old movies were made in a time when people were soft to the likes of suspense and scares (in my opinion).
I took a long shot chance on this film because someone wrote that The Exorcist (1973), The Visitor (1979) and this film were the three greatest horror movies he’d ever seen. I agree with the status of The Exorcist. The Visitor was truly awful, but so weird it was funny (unintentionally, that is, and not in a good way). And that leaves The Innocents to be judged…
A wealthy man inherits two young children. Wanting nothing to do with them, he hires a governess to replace the deceased governess before her to raise them. When we first meet the children, Flora is an angelic delight and Miles has just been expelled from school, but seems quite polite and charming all the same.
Like any modern spin on this story, weird things start to happen around the governess. Only, in this dated medium, the transpiring events and the uninspired camera angles filming them are in no way creepy. She sees figures, hears voices and the housekeeper slips and says a few suspicious things. But it never feels urgent or forewarning–even though I know it’s supposed to. Other things that would be terrifying or off-putting in the hands of a director today strike me as mundane…the boy asks if the governess’ house is “large enough to hide secrets,” unidentified figures pace in the shadows, Miles gives the governess a long and overly mature kiss, and the kids play a game of hide and seek (see The Conjuring to see this done well). Once we graduate to hints of violence and temper in the children, it’s not a fraction as eerie as it should be.
The housekeeper plays the role of the enabler. Like the children’s acolyte, she attempts to dismiss or belittle the governess’ increasing concerns regarding the children. It’s as if she wants the governess to question her own senses.
The #1 Amazon review stated “The Innocents is as scary as anything that’s come out of Hollywood in the last twenty years.” I couldn’t disagree more. Basically, EVERYTHING in the last 20-30 years of horror has been far scarier than this. For this, held to modern standards, is not at all scary or suspenseful. This feels no more “scary” than a drama about an overwhelmed single parent on the Lifetime Network or the Hallmark Channel. I struggle to believe that in 1961 this was considered scary until I realized how little of a horror education people had at the time, with no PG-13 or R-rated movies trying to push the envelope for the biggest scare, shock, reveal, tension or twist. No. Like the picture, this is black and white and just as plain. Even the attempts at jump scares were completely ineffective as if someone turned the horror dial to “mute.”
The only good thing I have to say about this was that the two child actors were spectacular! Not scary, but quite talented.
I would recommend this to no one who has seen a horror movie that released after 1970. As far as horror goes this is lifeless; regrettably stagnant.
Share this post:
John’s Horror Corner: The Boneyard (1991), it’s not your average hulking, evil, mutant zombie poodle movie
MY CALL: Asian children mummy zombies, an eight foot tall old lady ghoul and a roid-raging mutant poodle monster…yup, you’ve got to see this. Once this movie got going (about halfway through) it was a lot of fun and it managed to steer away from being “just another zombie movie” while maintaining all of the hokiness. IF YOU LIKE THIS WATCH: Other older zombie movies that successful avoid being “just another zombie movie” include Flesh Eating Mothers (1988) and Dead-Alive (1992). For some other horror movies that stand out from the same old recycled paradigms try The Abomination (1988), Leviathan (1989), The Deadly Spawn (1983), The Kindred (1987), Night of the Creeps (1986), The Thing (1982; not The Thing 2011), and Slither (2006).
A detective and a homely psychic go to a coroner’s office to investigate a Japanese man’s claim that his ancestors have been protecting humanity from zombie children. This sounds fun, but it takes over 40 minutes for anything to happen and those 40 minutes are painfully stale with wretched writing and talentless acting; it’s not even campy or cheesy, it’s just plain bad even by “bad horror” standards.
Meet your resident psychic. Hey, remember how horror movies always used to cast bikini models to play scientists, psychics and paranormal investigators? And how we’d roll our eyes out how lame that was…? Yeah, I’m missing that right now.
When she’s not using her second sight to hunt down Asian children zombies, she dreams about hugging dead children zombies.
Thankfully, at some point they realized they had to let the cat out of the bag. And in this case “the cat” is a trio of slimy, twitchy Asian zombie children. These zombies have a little more flavor than most. Being hundreds of years old, they look a bit like unwrapped mummies with sunken leathery faces and being children makes them a bit more creepy.
This looks like a paparazzi photo of Lindsay Lohan skipping out on rehab again.
Like any good zombie, these zombies manage to infect others. Not by bite, but by contact with their slime. A despicably heinous old lady becomes infected and mutates into an eight foot tall, googly-eyed ghoul with menacingly clumsy long-limbed prosthetics. It was hilarious and awesome! Another fine infection greets us when the woman’s poodle licks up some slimy zombie secretions. This poodle transforms into a giant, roid-raging monster reminiscent of Dead-Alive (1992).
Here is our before picture of a crotchety old lady and her dog.
Once this movie got going (about halfway through) it was a lot of fun and it managed to steer away from being “just another zombie movie” while maintaining all of the hokiness.
Share this post:
The Day (2011), when big risks, low budgets and strong female leads produce greatness!
MY CALL: Believably tough women (and men) in a desperate situation fight for their lives…and I bought it! It’s a familiar premise presented in a gritty different way that works surprisingly well with actors capable of matching the grave tone. IF YOU LIKED THIS WATCH: The Shrine (2010) and The Last Exorcism (2010), both with extremely different premises but offer similarly unexpected surprises from low budgets. I hope the best for these risk-taking filmmakers.
A group of survivors in a post-apocalyptic world have banded together, pooled their resources, and are trying to survive. We know there were originally twelve of them and now they are down to five. But what caused the apocalypse and wiped out humanity, killed their seven friends, and whatever it is they’re protecting themselves from remains a mystery.
Our survivors include Adam (Shawn Ashmore; the X-Men trilogy, The Following, Mother’s Day, The Ruins), Rick (Dominic Monaghan; Heroes, The Lord of the Rings trilogy, Lost), Shannon (Shannyn Sossamon; One Missed Call, Catacombs, The Order), Mary (Ashley Bell; The Last Exorcism, The Last Exorcism Part 2) and Henson (Cory Hardrict; Warm Bodies, Return of the Living Dead: Rave to the Grave & Necropolis). As you can see, all of these actors have a fair bit of experience when it comes to supernatural and horror themes.
Whereas Mary comes off as the tough-as-nails survivalist right away, Shannon is much more compassionate, embracing her sensitive needs for her “family” above her own survival. But when things turn grave, both of these women grow a thick, gritty skin. They’re both tough and I found their actions and strength credible–which isn’t common in action or horror movies. Score one for good casting, direction, writing and solid acting for these two actresses (Ashley Bell and Shannyn Sossamon)! I hope to see these actresses getting more serious work in the near future! Of the two, Ashley Bell was most shocking–a breakthrough performance really–and her character had the backstory and motivation to justify her outstanding actions (and the acting behind them). In my eyes, she joins the ranks of Scream Queen Sharni Vinson for her work in You’re Next (2013).
Ashley Bell
With this strong heroine-emergent threat comes a double-crossing twist. As we identify their enemies, more enemies emerge from within. I’m intentionally not revealing what their enemies are because I didn’t know when I watched this (and I’m grateful I didn’t know). So I’d advise you not to read other reviews for fear of such revelations.
I must say that I am impressed with the action quality in this movie, a movie which I never even heard of until Amazon recommended it. Really impressed. There isn’t a ton of action, but what you get is heavy-hitting, brutal and not over-sensationalized with Hollywood choreography. Everyone isn’t a ninja or ex-special ops agent. Their tactics were smart, simple and appropriate to the situation and resources at hand. They’re fighting to survive and I believed they were fighting to survive. Only in a few brief moments did I question anyone’s combat prowess as a bit too much–but let’s just let them have their moments, right? I’m also happy to forgive some CGI use for blood spurts during the phenomenal action sequence at the finale.
The acting wasn’t amazing across the board. But it was often credible, much more credible than you’d expect given the budget. In its non-mainstream style and breakthrough overall quality (again, minding the low budget) this movie struck me much as did The Shrine (2010), which was also not like much else I had seen and also featured an Ashmore twin (Aaron, in this case). The black and white medium chosen by the director (who has 20 years of experience as a second unit or assistant director) struck me as risky, but it worked wonders for the pilot of The Walking Dead and it worked well here. Speaking of which, The Walking Dead season 4 writer Luke Passmore wrote this.
These filmmakers took some risks and it paid off in spades! Watch this and appreciate how no one else tries to do this and, when and if they do, they over-sensationalize and consequently fail.
Share this post:
Bad Movie Tuesday: The Saviors of Subpar
SPOILER ALERT!!!! Read John’s review for a neat spoiler free journey into death via animal masked intruder.
Bilge Ebiri of Vulture wrote “every horror movie, on some fundamental level, traffic in bullsh**.” I agree because the horror genre is rife with too much explanation, too few solid characters and the need for an immersed viewing experience. Every horror film is a step away from being crap and You’re Next tries to subvert that but instead creates a plot device for cracked skulls. You’re Next traffics in bullsh** but unwittingly creates a character who puts on boots and walks around the muck. Sharni Vinson carries the film on her petite shoulders as she navigates the hornet’s nest of white-collar violence.
You’re Next raises too many questions. For instance, why the animal masks? Can you only see straight ahead? Why murder your family for inheritance? Why write “You’re Next” on walls? How long does that take? What if a victim accidentally walks in on you writing this? How do you hire accomplices? Why leave your mom upstairs knowing the killer is upstairs? Why did the killers camp out in the house for two days? Why not lock the door? I understand that asking too many questions about the horror genre will make it implode onto itself but these questions kept popping up and made for a quizzical experience.
The overall positive consensus of You’re Next stems from the horror genres lack of quality. Aside from James Wan and Ty West (Who cameos in the film) the horror genre has become a mixed bag of remakes (Evil Dead), prequels (Texas Chainsaw blah blah), sequels (Puppet Master) and found footage shlock (Chernobyll Diaries). Horror movies are either sleek drones of violence or expository machines that rid the world of mystery. Thus, when a movie expresses a new idea or clear voice it is instantly praised. Audiences clamor for horror and will throw down their hard-earned cash to watch The Purge or Sinister. In the last five years I’ve enjoyed a hand full of horror films. The Conjuring, Insidious, Devil and Apollo 18 are enjoyable because they made me laugh, jump or appreciate Philly looking evil. I use the word “enjoyable” because the films weren’t masochistic gloss machines of death or excuses for a pretty lady to murder dumb killers.
You’re Next falls apart when it comes to explaining the villain’s motives. They are a bunch of rich punks who hire surfer/drug addicts to play killers. Their personalities don’t fit their actions and they come across as nothing more than bodies to put cool masks on. Thus, when they are dispatched there is no tension. The director Adam Wingard wanted to show off blood splatter and skull crushing and lost sight of what makes horror effective. I like the movies mentioned earlier because evil witches, red demons, moon rock spiders and the Devil are pure evil and want destruction on every level. There is no pettiness, selfishness or acting. They want to kill and their motives are understandable on the primal level. So, you worry for the heroes because they are in over their heads. Tension is built and not deflated due to escalating danger from evil spirits or spider rocks (FYI Apollo 18 is not a good film. It is bonkers and wonderfully bad).
However, the film eventually turns the tables and introduces us to a practical spitfire (Sharni Vinson, Bait 3D) who kicks ass and hits dudes many times in the head with meat tenderizers. She doesn’t recover miraculously from injury, sets neat Home Alone type traps and is believably wiry. As the plot falls into bullsh** she rises above the story and helps us leave the theater happy. As she finishes up the movie by putting a blender on a person’s head and impaling a dude’s neck with a screwdriver you wish her the best. She is a plot device who ends up in a hornet’s nest of white-collar violence but that doesn’t stop you from hoping she recovers.
The reason this film is exists is to let blood, guts and sex flow freely. The animal masks were meant for marketing reasons and the characters are given traits and not personalities. I wish the director would have focused more on story and not the inevitable murder. I get that a bunch of killers being killed can be enjoyable but it feels like an excuse for blood. Many horror films have not needed to satiate the viewer’s lust for blood spillage. Some of the genre’s classics have built memorable tension by making us care for the characters and genuinely shocking us. You’re Next is told with a tongue-in-cheek vibe and thus is an exercise of indie macabre.
Watch You’re Next . Support the new horror creators. Don’t drink the kool-aid yet.
Share this post:
John’s Horror Corner: Bait 3D (2012)
MY CALL: A simple not-too-over-the-top story, tolerable acting, some really fun kills and floating body parts make this well worth a low budget watch. IF YOU LIKE THIS WATCH: Jaws (1975; if you’re in a serious mood). But if you’re looking for something a little more festive, then aim for Deep Blue Sea (1999), Shark Night 3D (2011), Piranha (1978), Piranha 3D (2010), Piranha 3DD (2012).
The story is simple. After a tsunami ravages an Australian beach town, survivors are trapped in a grocery store with a hungry great white shark. The setting makes for a nice change of pace amid the shark movie extravaganza that has filled the last decade (e.g., Sharktopus, Mega Shark, Sharknado, Sand Sharks, Megalodon, Megashark vs. Giant Crocosaurus, Snow Shark, Megashark vs. Giant Octopus, Jersey Shore Shark Attack, Dinoshark, Attack of the Jurassic Shark, Jaws in Japan, Ghost Shark, Malibu Shark Attack, Super Shark, Swamp Shark, 12 Days of Terror, Two-Headed shark Attack, Shark Swarm, Sharks in Venice, Spring Break Shark Attack, Shark Attack in the Mediterranean, Open Water, Red Water, The Reef, Hammerhead…need I go on?).
This is a bit more than a group of scantily clad brainless beauties and over-sexed underwear model punks against some sharks. Tina (Scream Queen Sharni Vinson; You’re Next) and her ex-fiancée Rory (Xavier Samuel; The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn – Part 2, Anonymous) are among the survivors. They’re real people with real problems and real feelings. A criminal (Julian McMahon; Nip/Tuck, Fantastic Four) and a young juvenile delinquent are among the dozen survivors, so naturally there is some bickering about trust issues. But we don’t find ourselves too bogged down by their simple dynamic. Some of the acting is pretty bad, but at least Sharni Vinson holds her own throughout (though not with a lead role or a breakout performance like she did in You’re Next) and Julian McMahon is also consistent.
Once the action starts, the girls are not in bathing suits and everyone keep their shirts on. Lending a bit more credibility to the movie, rather unflatteringly the girls are clothed and wet with stringy hair and all most of the time; far from dolled up. They also come up with some neat ideas, including a believable improvised diving suit caged for shark bite resistance and tubed for respiration. Even when predictable, a couple of the kills were especially entertaining. They also made good use of a cute dog.
Director Kimble Rendall has little experience being in charge, but has an impressive resume as a second unit director including two of the Matrix movies, I, Robot (2004), Killer Elite (2011) and Underworld: Rise of the Lycans (2009), so I’d expect he’s learned a bit about building tension and action. His skills translated well in Bait–understanding his budget limitations.
There’s a mixed bag of terrible to acceptable CGI wound and shark effects. But really fun anyway. Latex and prosthetics work were easily “good enough,” but what saves the movie’s effects are the humorously placed severed parts. Whether bobbing in the water or drifting asunder, there’s plenty to entertain. But, by the end you’ll find yourself wondering just how many people a 12-foot shark can eat before it gets full.
All in all, well worth a low budget watch.
Share this post:
John’s Horror Corner: Martyrs (2008), a transcendental journey of French extremism paved with suffering
FYI: This should be treated as NOT SAFE FOR WORK. So don’t come complaining to us when your boss peaks over your shoulder to your monitor and sees gore slathered, beaten or partially naked women, gushy exit wounds or generally disturbing imagery (see images below). That’s on you! This is a horror post. I can’t (and won’t) make everything PG. LOL
MY CALL: Pain and transcendence paint the theme of this intense, cruel, relentlessly brutal film that will lead you to dark places free from the moral burdens of compassion. IF YOU LIKE THIS WATCH: Though not quite as intense, Deadgirl (2008) and I Spit on Your Grave (1978, 2010) push moral boundaries far and hard. LANGUAGE: French; I bought the “unrated” DVD which offered it dubbed in English. The dubbing is really poor–think Anime.
Amazon offers a friendly piece of advice: “Avoid, if you can, reading anything about Martyrs before viewing–this ultra-intense Canadian-French shocker benefits from discovering its horrors cold.” I followed that advice. I haven’t even seen a trailer. What follows is my account of this film which was revered by some as being among the “10 most disturbing horror movies” and by Amazon as only advisable to “the most hardcore patrons of 21st-century torture cinema.” I find over-hyping to be symptomatic of the breeding grounds of mediocrity. Does this film follow suit? No. Does it break free from the over-played mold? ABSOLUTELY! So I suggest you STOP READING THIS REVIEW UNLESS YOU’VE ALREADY SEEN THE MOVIE.
We are introduced to an underage Lucie escaping an abandoned building where she was kept captive, beaten and malnourished under destitute conditions presumably as a sex slave. Lucie ages through adolescence exhibiting damaged antisocial tendencies and self-destructive proclivities. 15 years later, Lucie (Mylène Jampanoï; Hereafter) pays a visit to her to childhood captors. She finds revenge, but no true satisfaction; only utter mental breakdown exacerbated by her surrogate tormentor, her demon-like anthropomorphized self-loathing and guilt.
Be prepared for a steady stream of disturbing imagery with mixed distortions between compassion and black-hearted evil.
Anna (Morjana Alaoui) has been watching out for Lucie since they met in an orphanage. She arrives at the scene of Lucie’s revenge. It’s bad. Really bad. And Anna tries to help clean up the mess and keep Lucie out of trouble.
Just when you thought you knew where the story was going, another weird story arc falls in your lap…over and over again. This film is beyond bonkers, but executed intelligently. You find yourself caught between wanting to laugh at how senseless it all is and wanting to scream because it’s frustratingly insane. But, by the end, everything feels well-linked together in hindsight; in fact, brilliantly so.
This woman came across some tough times. Her every movement, twitch and mumble conveys a powerful pain.
This film is rich in gore, visceral brutality, intensity, violence (against women; not sexual in nature), torture and desperation. There is also a fair bit of nudity. But it is presented more to embrace humility and vulnerability than perversion. Artfully handled, the nudity is an effective device that will elicit many feelings, none of which being arousal.
Pascal Laugier, the man to blame for The Tall Man (2012), wrote and directed this film. The Tall Man was an indecisively written film featuring an unreliable story, making for an unsatisfying waste of time drowning itself in too many loose plot elements. Did that happen here? Well…sort of. Yes in the sense of the complete plot-based pandemonium which somehow neatly tied together in the end. No in the sense that I actually loved this film–whereas I hated The Tall Man. Organized madness best describes Laughier’s storytelling style. If you crave brutal intensity, let this film impress you.
Share this post:
Tokyo Shock: Sars Wars: Bangkok Zombie Crisis (2004), pre-Tokyo Shock era and it shows
MY CALL: Aiming more towards comedy than shoxploitation, this is a n early and rather tame Tokyo Shock-esque installment. IF YOU LIKE THIS WATCH: Helldriver (2010), Meatball Machine (2005), Vampire Girl vs Frankenstein Girl (2009),Tokyo Gore Police (2009) and Machine Girl (2008). LANGUAGE: Thai. I bought my DVD in 2010 and it did not offer an English-dubbed audio alternative.
This contribution to the Tokyo Shock subgenre hails from Thailand, but tries to deliver all of the nonsensical fun of Japanese installments. Our completely plausible story takes place in the future, when the news assures that Thailand is 100% virus-free–not so much as a common cold!–and will not be affected by the Sars virus. Cut to Africa: everyone is dead and turning into zombies, a CGI roach crawls out of a Sars zombie’s mouth and flies to Thailand where it bites a man–yes, first reported roach bite like…ever. Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaand presto! We have a bad movie!
So this roach flies from Africa to Thailand…
A cute animation depicting what Africa now looks like…
The roach bites this guy…who turns into this tooth-filed menace…who gets stabbed in the neck with an iron.
Our roach-bitten victim becomes a pus-spewing, vomiting, pulsating mess that begins eating cats and infecting the people of Bangkok immediately. Once infected , they go all Evil Dead with brow and cheek bone demon make-up and develop some heinously jagged teeth.
Then our Sars zombie patient zero starts biting things, which in turn become uglier versions of themselves.
From here the nonsense kicks into high gear. Unlike the more recently released Tokyo Gore Police (2009) and Machine Girl (2008), the slapstick is not limited to the gore. Our characters find themselves speaking with all the seriousness of cartoon characters, they dodge bullets with cartwheels, they dance to their own theme music and the toughest characters are Asian school girls (exactly like Tokyo Gore Police and Machine Girl).
The action is quite limited in quality, high in frequency, and often supplemented by weak comedic antics. Blood abounds, but the rubber guts and severed parts that I yearn for were quite rare. A CGI zombie baby birth offered a brief change of pace, but by and large the effects failed to find the “shock” that earned this movie subgenre its name. But hey, there was a strong hesitation to show any nudity–I suppose to keep our attention on the art on display before our eyes.
Here’s the evil CGI Sars zombie baby.
What really keeps this movie down below the ranks of, for example, Meatball Machine (2005) and Vampire Girl vs Frankenstein Girl (2009) is the overuse of CGI effects. Typical Tokyo Shock films focus on over-the-top blood sprays, wacky monster prosthetics and armor, violent slapstick amputations and WTF-mutant-cybernetic-perverted-weapons, only rarely turning to CGI. Whereas this installment uses CGI to the point of reliance. In the beginning of the movie a severed, Sars-animated cat’s tail is eaten by a python, which then grows into some giant monstrosity of a demon anaconda and starts eating people. This offered a WTF-random element to the movie with CGI and that’s all fine. However, the snake became a recurring theme, growing bigger and making the low quality CGI more of a blaring flaw than a fun complement. By the story’s end this snake monster served the role as the video game “last guy”–and it wasn’t impressive or fun. EPIC BAD GUY FAIL!!!!
Perhaps this movie predated the uprising of Tokyo Shock. However, its nature is inescapably similar and likewise inescapable are comparisons to its newer, much better counterparts. I feel like this movie would have been way more fun if I saw it back in 2004…before the availability of the higher quality found in subsequent releases.
Share this post:
MY CALL: For lovers of truly bad horror and bad, cheesy horror comedy, this is a God-awful winner. All others should keep a safe distance. IF YOU LIKE THIS WATCH: Killer Workout (1987), Death Spa (1989) and Hellgate (1990) are all served with extra cheese as well; lots of laughs.
This cheesy 80s horror comedy comes with a moral lesson: adultery is wrong. In order to demonstrate the accurate real life consequences of adultery, this articulate film afflicts adulteresses with an STD. The symptoms? No biggie. Just uncontrollable compulsive cannibalistic infanticide in the form of sexually-transmitted zombiism.
“Infanticide is a solid $5 vocab word meaning the intentional killing of infants or, more generally, one’s offspring.”
Everybody in this movie is unpleasant. The mothers are all catty, spiteful, unfaithful, gossiping alcoholics who speak pure vitriol. The fathers are all cheaters or wife-beating alcoholics. The kids, proving that the apple doesn’t fall far from the proverbial slutty tree, are sassy and promiscuous. A local well-to-do nurse flagrantly ignores HIPPA laws. The ice cream truck man is dating a baby-faced high schooler while making eyes at every other young girl in town. At one point, we actually see a cop and the coroner having a beer while discussing an autopsy…standing over the body in the morgue…drinking beer!
See? EVERYBODY is unpleasant.
Once infected with this STD, the mothers behave like silly, flesh-eating monsters. You know that saying “I actually think she would eat her own young”? Yeah, it’s pretty much like that. Mothers start eating their smallest and most vulnerable children first with cheesy zombie gore and cheesy zombie facial expressions. Some of them are more tactful, trying to fatten up their kids with milk-heavy diets. Others have super strength and unhinging jaws–really funny and weak effects on the jaw, but it was an enjoyable brief highlight.
When witnesses to these horror speak up they are naturally not taken seriously…”Really, I came home and saw my mother eating my baby brother.” “My mother…she ate my father.” “She’s never done anything like this before.”
Somehow the oddly short lovesick coroner and the irregularly tall amorous nurse work together to create an antivirus with no educational background in immunology, no lab rats or human trials, and no access to a biomedical research facility.
The director of this masterpiece could never seem to decide if the STD-virus turned them into living zombies or methodical cannibals, but that was surely forgivable among the melee of other flaws in this fun-spirited FUBARed mess. The effects were obviously weak, but festively cheesy and accompanied by entertaining sloppy chewing sound effects. But there’s dismemberment, flesh-tearing and over-the-top zombie make-ups and dental inserts–these things are inherently fun to any horrorhound. The make-up work is so silly. It reminds me of Killer Klowns from Outer Space meets the Joker.
To refer to the acting quality as wooden would be far too complimentary. These actors–if we dare to call them actors–seem to just “say” their lines at the camera with a faltering pace as if they were struggling to remember them like a 4th grader reciting a speech in front of his class.
For lovers of truly bad horror and bad, cheesy horror comedy, this is a God-awful winner.
Movies, Films & Flix 