Do you remember the film Torque? I sure do. It was an unfortunate movie that jumped on the Fast and the Furious bandwagon. I’d compare it to the quickly cancelled shows The Playboy Club and Pan Am that were made to ride the alcoholic coattails of Mad Men. Torque was a gonzo copycat that featured a sassy Ice Cube, personalized biker gear and the diet cola version of biker gangs.
Today I am going to analyze a perplexing scene that I’ve found humorous for many years. It is one of those scenes that could be easily ignored but I’ve built it into mythical proportions.
Sidenote: When I say “mythical proportions” I mean told a few of my buddies about it.
Here is what the bad scene includes:
1. A good looking female biker
2. A good looking male biker
3. two bottles of Budweiser beer
4. A swing set
Here is how the scene plays out. The two have just been chased by a mulleted man and a leather clad Jaime Pressly. They are hiding out in a dilapidated playground and decide to wax poetic. Here are their pictures if you wondering what Ramone loving biker gang folk look like.
The man walks out with two bottles of Budweiser and he hands one to the woman and he keeps the other bottle for himself. He takes a swig of his beer and throws it into the darkness. He then grabs the woman’s beer, takes one sip and throws it away too.
Two bottles of beer, two sips and two throws. Why did they buy the beer in the first place? They were in the middle of nowhere and they picked up beer, put it on their bikes then proceeded to break the bottles in a playground. The guy breaks them so casually you feel like he does it all the time. I’d hate to drink with the guy because he would go through a case and in five minutes and leave you with nothing.
I never understood this scene. From a production stand point how many bottles did they have to throw. Who cleaned this up? Did Budweiser force them to have the beer in the scene and the director got mad about it? I haven’t seen beer wasted like that since Stone Cold Steve Austin was running wild in the WWE. Is the director talking about how many beers he wants thrown in this scene?
We will never get to the bottom of this scene. Imagine asking the director why he chose to waste the beer. He would think you were insane or that you love Budweiser. I don’t ever want to know why the scene was so random. I don’t want to know why their clothes are so clean and stylized.
I appreciate the dumb. Sometimes you need movies that make zero sense and spend more time on Jaime Pressly’s fake tattoos and this guys mullett.
Share this post:
Pitch Perfect
Pitch Perfect is charming, weird and confident. The movie is a mixture of John Hughes meets Best in Show meets Bring it on. Pitch Perfect dives into collegiate a cappella with aplomb and lots of love. Anna Kendrick proves to be an amicable and saucy lead while Rebel Wilson steals the show as a Tasmanian force of nature named Fat Amy.
The film tells the story of two a cappella groups who are both vying for acoustic glory. For me the story wasn’t about who wins or loses because you knew what would happen. I enjoyed the journey because of the characters. Rebel is a large force of comedy and newcomer Skylar Austin is a less abrasive miniature version of Dane Cook.
The squirrely guy from Workaholics steals many scenes as well. His reaction to becoming a background singer to John Mayer is a funny blast of improv. When you read this quote just picture the little Workaholics guy saying it.
“I might buy a leather jacket or some aviators. I might even get a piercing. It is all so exciting.”
The biggest problem with this film is that the authenticity makes several missteps stand out. After Bridesmaids it seems like every female centered movie needs vomit. Bachelorette and Pitch Perfect feature copious amounts of projectile vomit that go beyond excessive. Also, a strange subplot about Kendrick’s dislike of her stepmother is odd because you never meet the woman who receives the rancor.
I loved that the singers are popular on campus. The students love their intricate song numbers but still like the jocks and people who are actually cool more. Also, I dug that two of the main characters bond over David Guetta while standing naked in the shower. Also, I’m certain most of the younger folk who watch the film will have no idea what The Breakfast Club is. However, it is hard to dislike this film because it creates memorable characters and moments where you want to stand up and clap. The mash ups feature some fun songs and listening to Anna Kendrick rap No Diggity is worth the price of admission.
Kay Cannon (30 Rock, New Girl) wrote this film and she did a wonderful podcast with Grantland writer Andy Greenwald (listen to it here). The Hollywood Prospectus podcast talks about her career and how Pitch Perfect came to fruition. It is a great listen and could make your morning drive much more enjoyable.
Watch Pitch Perfect. Enjoy Pitch Perfect. Buy the soundtrack. Hope the Rebel Wilson will be in many more movies. Appreciate the Kendrick.
Share this post:
Coriolanus
Sometimes you need some Shakespeare. Sometimes you need a contemporary take on Shakespeare’s works. Sometimes you need to see Ralph Fienes looking like a gangster.
Coriolanus is the tale of a banished general who teams up with his enemy to beat up a whole lot of people. Along the way there are double crosses, big speeches and me forever equating Brian Cox with Super Troopers. What I love about Shakespeare is how the language flows and how well it holds up. It takes a few minutes to get into the flow but once it does you understand why every actor wants to land a role in a Shakespeare movie/play/remake/revisioning. The writing allow actors to flex their thespian chops and most likely get nominated for an Oscar like Vanessa Redgrave did in this film.
Ralph Fiennes has picked a rare gem to make his directorial debut. Not only was the script written but it gave him a wonderful role to sink his teeth into. Dolph Lundgren directs film so he can make out with buxom babes and play the drums. Fiennes directed this movie so he could look cool and spout fantastic lines.
Fiennes: “So over here I will be making a bombastic speech whilst I shoot people with my AK-47.”
The film is at 94% on Rotten Tomatoes and is playing on Netflix so watch it if you are a fan of thespians acting, Ralph Fiennes not being Voldemort and Shakespeare’s redemption after the bombastically dumb film Anonymous.
Share this post:
Bad Movie Tuesday: The Best Worst Sequel
The 32 have become one. One film stands above the rest. A film that people love despite the 26% on Rotten Tomatoes and complete lack of cohesion. A film that has dialogue so clunky it hurts the soul and makes you wonder how the same guy helped write The Dark Knight. However, the badness is mixed with some fantastic moments of violence, head kick montages, leather jackets and lots of flexing
If you haven’t noticed the winner is Blade: Trinity. The movie fully deserves the victory and every other other subsequent bad sequel award ever. If you haven’t read the other tournament posts catch up here with 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.
The best part of this film is that Blade not only kills 1,182 vampires he also demolishes all subtlety. It tells you everything and features dumbness supreme and quotes aplenty. For instance, they have to rehash the Blade/Whistler relationship in seven seconds.
Blade: “You worry too much old man.”
Whistler: “I’ve been doing since before you were born. You are like a son to me.”
For every bad bit of dialogue there are lines like this from Ryan Reynolds:
“You made a vampire Pomeranian?”
“I ate a lot of garlic and I just farted.”
“Coc* juggling thunder c**t.”
Or you hear Parker Posey say:
“Are you getting enough fatty acids? have you tried lake trout or mackerel?”
This is a weird movie. It is equal parts inept and hilarious. You don’t quite know what to think about it. You go from confused, annoyed, happy and back to annoyed many times. To analyze this film too deeply would lead to a rabbit hole of never-ending questions and you’d eventually find yourself walking slow motion and pointing guns in stylish ways.
There is one thing that is clear. In the Blade World cleaning up vampires has never been easier. They explode into ash and disappear. It made me long for the Dracula Dead and Loving it explosions (watch the blood explosion here.) Blade: Trinity is a mixture of convenience (lightsader) and comedic actors (Patton Oswalt). The main bad guy is a deep-V loving Dracula who looks like an extra from Interview with the Vampire. There is an added scene in the directors cut when he marvels at Count Chocula and kills two unsuspecting goths who run a vampire store. He is the oldest vampire alive but he still runs from Blade and kidnaps babies. This modern day Drake makes the Dracula from Dracula 2000 or John Carpenter’s lead vampire look three dimensional.
There are so many slow motion walking scenes in this film I wonder if it could have been cut down to 20 minutes of fights and gratuitous bicep flexing.
As I’m writing this there is a scene where hundreds of cops have Biel, Reynolds and Snipes surrounded. A car comes out of nowhere and picks them up. The cops unload hundreds of bullets (they all miss) and the crew drives away. Nobody follows them and it is simply mind-blowing in ways that Inception could never match.
It is a tale of two different movies. Blade is all business and the night stalkers are all jokes. Together they walk slowly and kick people in the face. Wesley Snipes did zero press for this film and Jessica Biel told interviewers that he never talked to her or Reynolds. I can understand why. He carried the two prior fantastic films and now he has two muscular people taking over his film series. The intro of the film tells us that the nightstalkers were just along for Blade’s ride. However, more time is spent on Jessica Biel montages than building Blade’s character. I don’t remember a single line Blade spoke. I do remember the Rocky 4 style montage involving Biel’s arrows and not Dolph Lundgren fists.
I’d place most of the blame on the director David Goyer. He is a fantastic writer (Dark City, Blade 2, Batman Begins, Jumper, Man of Steel) but his directing borders on soul punching (Unborn, Invisible). You can see what he wanted to do and managed to get a likable cast who got ripped out of their minds. He also matched De-Generation X member HHH with generation-X queen Parker Posey. He then put everyone in stylish duds and made HHH wear an ill-fitting polo.
Blade: Trinity succeeds in being equal parts dumb and entertaining. The dumb isn’t distracting because it is entertaining. This is proven with the tournament victory. Many voted. One movie won. Blade: Trinity is the rare daywalker of bad movies. Watch it. Love it. Walk in Slow motion.
Share this post:
Looper
Looper is a fantastic film. This is the type of movie where you are elated that you are watching something original. It feels like a unique vision by a man who has brought us nothing but unique visions. Looper feels devoid of studio interference because it was allowed to live or die on the strength of its director. This is a creative story told from an important new filmmaker who is proving to be incredibly capable. It is an important addition to the new wave of intelligent science fiction.
Rian Johnson is making himself known as a man with a versatile style. His films Brick, The Brothers Bloom and Looper have ranged from modern noir, cheeky heist and now science fiction. Johnson doesn’t quite reach the bar set by Duncan Jones (Moon, Source Code) but he does create an interesting new world that is worth exploring. It is exciting to have young gun directors like Johnson, Jones, Gareth Edwards (Monsters) and Neill Blomkamp (District 9). They are directors out there who take original stories and create new classics.
I do not want to give away too much about this film. The basic story is that JGL is a hitman who kills men who are sent back in time via illegal time travel. The life is glamorous amidst the poverty running rampant in future America. The problem is eventually all loopers have their loops closed and they have to kill the older versions of themselves. It is a short life full of murder, drugs and Piper Perabo.
When Bruce Willis appears as a younger JGL the movie dives into several more layers of creativity. JGL decides not to kill him and the story takes twists and turns that lead to a conclusion that will instigate many nerdy conversations. This is a film that could have been nothing but complicated exposition and wonky logic. However, it forgoes the science and focuses on the story. I’m certain the story could be broken down but it never feels necessary because you enjoy the ride. It is nice watching Bruce Willis not sleepwalking through a role and Jeff Daniels in other places than the Newsroom. Emily Blunt is a welcome addition as a tough farm owner who is the mother of an interesting child.
Looper is full of big ideas and wonderful performances. You may disagree with the ending but at least it is something you care about. The film is full of visionary shots and carefully crafted characters. Rian Johnson is emerging as a force in Hollywood and is doing it his way. I guarantee when you walk out of the theater your face will look like this.
Share this post:
Bad Movie Tuesday: The Best of the Worst Round 5
The 32 have become two. Blade: Trinity and X-Men: The Last Stand will squaring off in a huge battle that makes the Alcatraz battle in X-Men still seem like a terrible Alcatraz battle. If you haven’t been following the tournament you’ve missed multiple rants about Trinity’s death, Wolverine kicking a regenerating mutant in the balls and sharks getting stabbed by boats. I put together a list of sequels that are so bad they are enjoyably awesome. The best of the these highly enjoyable films have been decided by a weekly vote and is finally coming to a conclusion. Check out rounds 1, 2, 3 and 4.
The point of this tournament is to celebrate badness that created something wonderful. These are hilarious films that can be watched over and over because you always see or hear something new. I discovered something new today as I watched the preview Rifftrax for X-Men.
When you leave a bad movie you are annoyed. However, walking out of both of these films I had a huge smile on my face due to the cheekiness and hilarious ineptitude. For instance, Blade: Trinity made this guy Dracula. The worst part is that they didn’t keep the mustache.
X-Men had a scene where Magneto moves the entire Golden Gate Bridge so they can get to Alcatraz. Why didn’t he just pick up sections of the bridge and throw them at the prison and smoosh it? From my experience the best bad movies are the ones that create lots of questions. I asked many questions during X-Men. Why is that dude a porcupine? Why is James Marsden yelling? Why does Halle Berry always have a different haircut?
These two films deserve to be battling it out in the final. They are both incredibly ill-conceived and feature moments so absurd they become kinda awesome. For instance, Blade and crew have just turned dozens of vampires into dust and found themselves cornered by hundreds of cops. However, a car pulls out of nowhere and picks up the good guys and drives away without ever being chased. Sitting in the theater I scratched my head, shrugged and rolled with the dumbness.
I’ve never said “huh?” more in my life. Every moment of these films destroy the good will of the previous and prove that likable Reynolds should never star in a comic book movie ever again (Wolverine, Blade, Green Lantern). I’d wager they spent more time on Ryan’s facial hair than they did writing the script. The result was silly dialogue, Patton Oswalt playing basketball and fantastic facial hair.
This movie was an excuse to have two muscular good-looking thespians beat people up while they battle Parker Posey. Yep, Posey is the villain along with wrestler HHH and a mustache-less Dracula.
What does the winner of the tournament receive? It gets it’s very own Bad Movie Tuesday in which I lovingly lampoon it.
Vote. Comment. Like. Comment. Share. Enjoy the badness. Share.
Share this post:
The Best Fights of Film Part 2: Undefeatable (1993) and Riki-Oh: The Story of Riki (1991)
I encountered the most delightful clip on YouTube recently. It was titled “best fight scene of all time.” Naturally, I assumed this would be a clip of an awful fight. I was correct. What I did not expect was that this fight actually seemed to be made back in 1993 with the foresight that one day, through the advent of the not-yet-widespread internet, the world would recognize it as one of the most—whatever “-est” word you want to use here—fight scene ever made. Most ridiculous comes to mind. But, for sheer laugh-out-loud quality, this must be considered among the best fight scenes ever made.
The movie is called Undefeatable (1993) and stars the lovely-butted kick queen of the 90s Cynthia Rothrock. When I was a preteen I seriously wanted to marry this chick, by the way. Here’s the plot: A woman avenges her sister’s death at the hands of a crazed martial arts rapist. That’s it. That’s all you’ll get from IMDB! You know right away that this is going to be awesome! I mean…there’s a “crazed martial arts rapist!” What does a fight with a crazed martial arts rapist look like?
Here it is…
CLICK HERE TO WATCH THE BEST FIGHT SCENE EVER MADE
Instead of slowing down the footage here, they slow down the actors’ actual movements for the slow motion action! But let me tell you how else this fight scene is awesome…!
The bad guy initiates that he accepts the hero’s challenge by tastefully licking his knife.
They always–ALWAYS–appear to be posing. Here they’re posing while in some sort of “strength locked” stare down.
And here they somehow appear to be posing in the middle of the execution of a maneuver that his striking the villain in the throat. Mind you, they’re still staring each other in the eye! Not even a kick to the throat will back this villain out of a staring contest!
The bad guy gets hit in the head so hard he has the Jerry Curl knocked right off his head!
Just to let you know how serious this movie is, early on Cynthia Rothrock does one of her cleavage katas.
Now that we’ve had a taste of the ridiculous, I have another YouTube fight scene treasure for you. It was called the “most realistic fight scene ever.” It’s from a movie called Riki-Oh: The Story of Ricky (1991). Keeping in good stride with how seriously this flick takes itself, on the DVD sleeve you can read “It’s Evil Dead 2, Braindead [i.e., Dead Alive] and The Matrix, times ten, turned up to eleven.”
CLICK HERE TO WATCH THE MOST REALISTIC FIGHT SCENE EVER MADE
To answer your question: YES!!! He did take two flaps of his own skin to stitch his gaping wound, mid-combat, before being strangled by someone else’s intestines that they cut and pulled out of themselves! I hope this made your day like it did mine.
Yup. That happens!
Product of another gloriously subtle scene from this movie.
In case you missed The Best Fights of Film: Part 1, CLICK HERE.
The first installment actually includes fights that are well done, as opposed to this more comical take on the best fights.
Share this post:
Machine Gun Preacher
“If a terrorist or murderer kidnapped somebody you loved and I could save them would it matter how I did it?”
Machine Gun Preacher is a labor of love that came together to tell an interesting story. The film is truly independent and tells the true story of a reformed convict who turns his attentions to rescuing children in Uganda. Critics have been unfair to the screenplay and heavy handed story telling. I understand their complaints but I found the low-budget film making strangely compelling. Gerard Butler’s character is wildly uneven as he goes through all of the tropes of the genre. The movie is paint by the numbers but the story isn’t. This is a man who did something with his life. He overcame a violent beginning and tried to make a difference. I love that the filmmakers somewhat succeeded in telling a story that deserved to be told.
Gerard Butler plays Sam Childers. A drug addled motorcycle gang member who would probably think SAMCRO was wimpy. His lifestyle took him down a dark path that lead to him becoming a born again Christian. He teamed up with the Sudan Peoples liberation Army (SPLA) to fight the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA). the LRA is a violent regime responsible for 400,000 deaths and the enslaving of 40,000 children. The atrocities are heart breaking and he fights the LRA with violence and a machine gun. There is a moment in the film where Butler and the SPLA save some children from certain death slavery. As he leaves to go back home one of the kids does not want to leave his side. The kid becomes a mini bodyguard and eventual salvation. It is moments like this that make the film watchable. It shows what good came from his actions.
The film draws a very clear line of excess and poverty. Life back in the states is odd to Butler as he watches people spend hundreds of dollars during excessive parties yet only donating $150 to the African cause. This culture clash inevitably and predictably forces Butler to become a jerk to his family and best friend.
I can’t imagine the psychological toll that the atrocities of Uganda and his own violent past took on Sam Childers. These experiences create an interesting character who almost becomes three dimensional despite the writing. However, the script doesn’t give Butler enough room to breath and instead makes it all too familiar. I do appreciate the normalcy of Michael Shannon as Butler’s best friend though.
Machine Gun Preacher is the story of a broken man who does the best he can. I’m happy I watched this film because afterwards I read about Sam Childers and his mission in Uganda. The movie raises interesting questions (violence instead of diplomacy?) and manages to overcome the stock script to become a worthwhile film to watch. I do wish they would have made a documentary because the footage at the end proved to be more interesting than the film.
Share this post:
John’s Horror Corner: Intruders (2011)
MY CALL: It took me a long time to deduce the point of this movie. Once I did, there was no satisfaction as there should have been. It’s not that anything was presented poorly per se. I think it’s that they didn’t present what they needed to in order to sell me on this story. However, it was quite creepy. IF YOU LIKE THIS WATCH: Other stories about domestic “entities” hunting children include Boogeyman (2005), Don’t Be Afraid of the Dark (2011; The Hof also reviewed this), and Hide and Seek (2005).
The opening scene of this movie casts a less serious mood than one would expect from an R-rated horror. Two children (one 12, one 8) living in different countries (England and Spain) are visited nightly by a faceless being who wants to take them—or possession them (?). Each child has found a convincingly similar story about the faceless fiend. Quickly quelling this immature storytelling notion is the disturbing faceless imagery of “Hollowface,” our spectral intruder named as such by both children.
The young English girl learns the name “Hollowface” from a handwritten story she found in a box that was in a rotten out tree hole, completely out of sight, ten feet above the ground. Interesting place for a box, right? What is it about horror movies and boxes? Are boxes inherently terrifying and I just didn’t get the memo? Seven, the Cube franchise, the Hellraiser franchise, The Possession…lots of mean boxes out there.
The parents of each child (which include Clive Owen) have their own passed-down methods of alleviating their children’s fears: nostalgic children’s books, burning an effigy in the yard (a bit extreme if you ask me), closing your eyes and counting to five—none of them seem to work. Then some strange things start happening with the parents, too: a near death experience for Clive Owen’s work buddy and the Spanish boy’s mom has some issues finding credibility when claiming demonic possession.
http://lefthandhorror.com/2012/07/21/intruders-2011-movie-review/
Moments like this, pointing to the hooded shadow in the background, tease us into wondering if this is a supernatural horror or a psychological thriller.
The children’s childish(?) fears worsen toward mania and the parents have difficulty handling their terror. But what happens when the parents start seeing the same thing? Both children’s parents adopt increasingly paranoid, but protective, behavior. The British family turns to the police, the Spanish family to the church; both fail to find credibility in the parents’ stories which, in their mind, is a case of the children’s story “infecting” the parents. When efforts to help these families inexplicably fail, they are considered crazy and/or psychological explanations are forced upon them.
As the movie wears on, the parents’ sanity wears thin. You cans see it in the parents’ faces. Pale, sleepless and perpetually scared and paranoid. It really helped out the already successfully creepy tone.
The child actors both do splendidly in being credibly horrified while receiving a lot of screen time. Throughout the process the audience questions the notion of “Hollowface.” Is it just a common term (i.e., a title like the boogeyman) used by some analyst through whose eyes we perceive this story (i.e., this movie’s perspective)? Or is the story told through the eyes of the children and parents? Or just the children? Or just the parents? Is the common element between both families—this specifically named villain with an unmistakable appearance—the clue that tells us that this is really happening to these people? Or is it just a device, a paralleling machination dreamt up by a screenplay writer or director to lead us into a sense of awareness and comfortable conclusion before pulling the rug out from under our feet?
http://franzpatrick.com/2012/08/13/intruders/
Creeptastic!
The mystery is revealed to us, and gracefully so. However, I can’t help but to disagree with the direction they chose thereafter. All in all, a nice idea delivered too off-target to receive a serious endorsement from me. But director Juan Carlos Fresnadillo (28 Weeks Later, the upcoming Highlander) sets the mood fantastically.
http://chrichtonsworld.blogspot.com/2012/03/review-intruders-2011.html
Share this post:
John’s Horror Corner: V/H/S (2012), a fun little anthology
MY CALL: Looking for a film that features vampire chicks, zombies, poltergeists, aliens and even has elements of a “house movie?” Well, depending my interpretation of what I saw in the melee of clips from this film you may be in for all that and more…all be it in small doses. We get to taste a lot of stories and ideas and, if we don’t like one of the shorts after ten minutes, just wait ten more minutes for the next one to start. If you like anthologies then don’t miss this. IF YOU LIKE THIS WATCH: Trick ’r Treat (2007), the Creepshow franchise (1982, 1987, 2006), the upcoming more scene-than-story 26-short The ABC’s of Death, and if you want something truly raunchy Chillerama (2011). TRAILER: CLICK HERE. RELEASE DATE: While this is already available on Amazon and Video-on Demand (since August 31st, 2012), the actual theatrical release date is October 5th, 2012.
Episodic horror anthology meets found footage as the movie opens with random home movies of three miscreants performing a series of arrestable offenses. They seem to do what they do purely for fun and will surely deserve whatever ill-fate that may find them by this movie’s end. Somehow one of these guys was offered a smash-and-grab job to steal a videotape from someone’s home. For some truly idiotic reason—though quite convenient for this movie’s concept—not one, but two of these criminals decide to videotape this crime. They break into the house and find the owner dead in an armchair, sitting in front of half a dozen TVs that are still on, besieged by VHS videotapes.
Anyway, clearly one of these guys never saw The Ring because he happily starts watching the tapes one after the other, alone, in the room with the dead guy who was watching the tapes! As he watches his cohorts search the rest of the house and we watch the short films that comprise this episodic anthology. Like many such episodic horror film, the introductory story additionally moves on briefly in between the shorts with interesting developments.
These short films vary substantially in film, acting, gore, direction and writing quality. The first, fourth and fifth (out of five) short films were much better than the second and third, both of which were so mundane I’d be happier if they were altogether omitted at the expense of the film’s running time. Below is a summary of each short film and, sometimes, a cheeky quote…
The link above leads to a site with the complete version each of these five images.
Amateur Night. A group of frat-type guys, one with a spy-camera in his eyeglasses, go whoring around town with the ambition of getting tits on film. The spy-wared individual, later quite inebriated, picks up a pale, squirrely, large-eyed girl (Hannah Fierman; The Vampire Diaries). After a healthy dose of seriously drunk driving, acquaintance rape and group sex, their squirrely girl goes absolutely ape-shit-feral. What ensues is purely shock cinema, as if it wasn’t already testing boundaries, complete with murder sex, bloody full frontal male and female nudity, gore, and genital dismemberment. [Spoiled by the trailer…SPOILER from here…] This chick, which I can only describe as a cross between a rabid cat-woman and a vampire, is truly creepy, awkward, brutal, sexy and terrifying all at once. […to here. End SPOILER] The story ends on a cheesy, yet appropriate note. This was a great shock-short with very strong make-up and effects.
Best Quote: In an effort to dissuade his friend from having sex with the squirrely chick, one bro says to the other “Wait, man. Don’t do it. Look at her feet.” Director: David Bruckner (The Signal) really impressed me here. I’d love to see this as an entire movie, but I’m not sure how that would work. Of course, I thought that about Splice, which turned out fine in my eyes.
Second Honeymoon. A young couple (Joe Swanberg and Sophia Takal) take a road trip out west. After retiring to their hotel room for the evening a young woman (Kate Lynn Sheil) knocks on their door and requests a ride, which the couple denies. After they fall asleep…I’m not revealing anything else about this short, not that there’s much to spoil. The couple’s dynamic is entertaining to watch, but the “horror” of the short just wasn’t there and the attempted “shock” at the end wasn’t shocking.
Best Quote: While recording her on a video camera a guy says to his girlfriend “Hey, take off your sweatshirt. I have a really good idea.” Director: Ti West (The ABCs of Death, The Innkeepers) disappointed me here. He was going for ultra-creepy but delivered nothing but lame.
Tuesday the 17th. This short combined the teleporting Jason Voorhees killer concept with the Freddy Krueger dream-killer meets White Noise premise mached-up via Blair Witch’s shaky video camera. Sound bold? Maybe too bold? This short never had a chance to develop and the delivery was cheap, uncreative and poorly executed. The gore was also poor, though abundant. Want to know about the plot? Four college kids go to a lake house. That’s right. They go to a Cabin in the Woods and it doesn’t pay off for them or the viewers. That about covers it.
Best Quote: “You should’ve ninja’d that shit!” Director: Glenn McQuaid (I Sell the Dead) got one thing right here. Camera tricks. They’re no longer original, but they perked my interest before I lost interest in this short.
The Sick Thing That Happened to Emily. A guy has a series of Skype dates with his long distance college girlfriend (the very cute Helen Rogers). Over the course of these recorded Skype calls (even though in the film they complain that they weren’t recording them—yet here some criminal is watching them on a VHS tape in a dead guy’s house) they investigate her “haunted” apartment. The mood is good. The scares were decent and made me jumpy. There is also some very effective head-turning gore. Not really gory, but a strong sort of off-putting in a couple scenes. The ending makes no sense and even leads us to scratch our heads and question the true genre of the short.
Director: Joel Swanberg (You’re Next) did well. I liked getting to know the characters. I found their couple’s dynamic credible and interesting in a way that served the story quite well. And I liked that it could make me jump…sort of…internally at least. You know what I mean?
10/31/98. Four bros go to a Halloween party. But the house is empty. They explore, a few odd things happen, and they find some Klan rally-exorcism-virgin sacrifice evidently transpiring in the attic. The bros try to save the damsel under the assumption that the aggressive hillbillies rallying around her are the bad guys. From here, what started out as a seemingly aimless short turned into a fantastically done “house movie” escape with cool effects, some of which felt unique to this film. Pulse-ghost-zombie arms reaching through the walls and the floors, objects flying about, a window actually shrinks so as to create a sense that the outside world was closed off to the house’s captives… really nicely done.
Director: “Radio Silence,” a troupe of several young directors, impressed me. What doesn’t impress me is their troupe name, which makes it difficult for me to follow their work and upcoming projects on IMDB.
Just because I disliked a couple of these shorts in no way means this wasn’t a fun experience. We get to taste a lot of stories and ideas and, if we don’t like one of the shorts after ten minutes, we just wait ten more minutes for the next one to start. If you like anthologies then don’t miss this.
Movies, Films & Flix 