“Straw Dogs” Unleashes Dustin Hoffman, Badass

There was recently a movie called “Straw Dogs” starring Kate Bosworth and Alexander Skarsgard (aka Eric Northman from “True Blood”).  Like the Nicolas Cage version of “The Wicker Man”, it was a remake of a much better film. To be honest, the “Straw Dogs” remake isn’t nearly as bad as the Cage “Wicker Man”, it’s not even a bad film. The original is just much, much better.

Directed by the legendary Sam Peckinpah (“The Wild Bunch”), known for his extreme violence and hard-boiled themes, the film is set in the time it was released, 1971, but given the locale it might as well have been today. In the film, American mathematician David Sumner (Dustin Hoffman) goes to the tiny village of Wakely in Cornwall, England where his beautiful wife Amy (Susan George) grew up in order to have the peace and quiet he needs to work.

Staying at her vacant and rustic family home, the young couple has plenty of time together, but things aren’t going well.  Basically, David wants to work and Amy is bored.  She keeps trying to get his attention, but he gives her little because he’s trying to work.  Being in a remote area of England, where to this day technology can be spotty, she has nothing to keep her occupied other than books and records.  So she feels neglected.

What makes matters worse is they decide to have work done on the house, and the men they hire to do it happen to be a rough bunch Amy hung out with before she moved away.  They’re led by her former boyfriend, Charlie Venner (Del Venney), who still has feelings for Amy, and he and the men make no secret of ogling Amy whenever they’re around.  They’re driven to a frenzy one day when they see Amy undress through a window, and there’s a question of whether she knew it and did it for the attention.  Maybe, maybe not.  The effect is the same.  Their interest is piqued and Charlie, who already thinks David is unworthy of Amy, decides to take her back.

Immortal controversy

Charlie hatches a plan to take David hunting with the group.  While they’re all out, Charlie sneaks away, heads back to the house, and propositions Amy.  She refuses, and in a famously controversial scene, he forces himself on her.  To his surprise, one of his friends followed him back to the house, and when Charlie is done he demands his own turn at gunpoint.  The scene is no less controversial or brutal today than it was 40 years ago.

Meanwhile, in the village, Janice Hedden (Sally Thomsett), daughter of the boisterous Tom Hedden (Peter Vaughan) , a drinking pal of Charlie and his gang, has been flirting with Henry Niles (David Warner), a mentally disabled gentle giant.  Because of an unknown incident in the past, Henry is constantly reminded by his brother to leave women alone.  Reminding often means a slap to the face.  And Henry has been leaving women alone, but Janice won’t leave him alone, despite the warnings of her father and his friends.

One night, she takes things too far and Niles accidentally strangles her. He flees and is hit in the road by David and Amy, who take him back to their home.  Finding Janice, Tom Hedden and Charlie go on the hunt for Henry Niles.  They eventually arrive at David and Amy’s home and demand that they give up Niles.

Brutal siege and standoff

David knows the men will kill Niles, and refuses to release him.  The men begin a siege of the home with David and his wife doing their best to keep the men from getting into the house, and then dealing with them when they do.  Think of the climax of “Skyfall” without the automatic weapons.  Actually, “Skyfall” made me think of “Straw Dogs” and that was probably intentional.

In typical Peckinpah fashion this climax is extremely violent and full of suspense.  In the final moments Hoffman is convincingly transformed from a wish-washy nerd into a violent, clever, possibly sadistic killer.  And this climax is made more powerful in contrast to the very long, slow, action-free beginning of the film.

The film is a classic, masterfully directed with an outstanding cast, but it’s not for the squeamish.

Go On and Give the Deadgirl a Kiss!

Deadgirl (2008) has somewhat brought me back to the horror genre, although I guess this movie would test your limits as to what you think horror really is. Gore? Scare factor? Psychological? This film offers up very little gore and scares, but it is indeed psychologically scary, especially if you are a woman.

Rickie (Shiloh Fernandez, Skateland) and JT (Noah Segan, Brick) are skipping school and what better place to do so? An abandoned hospital, of course! On their journey of destruction via boys-being-boys by ransacking the hospital for their amusement, they come across a barricaded door that has been rusted shut. They pry it open and with further snooping find something very surprising hidden in a corner of the room. A naked woman (Jenny Spain) tied to a bed and covered in plastic. The weird thing is is that she is still breathing. Seeing this as a very messed up situation, Rickie wants to get out of there and get the woman help. JT on the other hand, well, he has a completely different mindset. Instead of seeing a woman left for dead that needs help, all he sees is a piece of snatch that he can have for his taking anytime he wants. This pollutes his mind so much that when Rickie suggests getting her help, JT hits him with the vigor of, “How dare you try to take this away from me?!” Thus, the woman becomes a sex slave for JT, raped countless times over and over again and Rickie is confused on what he should do about it. Instead of going to the police and possibly suffering a trespassing ticket, Rickie instead tries to release her at one point, but once she has one free hand she maniacally grabs onto him. He manages to free himself just in time as JT and their other friend let in on the deal return to the room for some more romping. As much as JT and his other friend use the woman for their own pleasure it really troubled me that they never bathed her from the dirt and grime that was on her when she was found. From what we know from a rusted door, she has been down there a long time. Ew. They just use her like a toy, dirty and all. Nor do they use condoms. What?!

Another big crux in the story is that JT convinces Rickie to come back to see the woman shortly after their first encounter with her. Rickie has a gun on him. JT steals the gun and shoots the woman…and she is still alive. JT confesses that he has killed her three times already and she still lives. There is no explanation whatsoever. At one point JT stabs her in the head, with a big knife which proves the zombie theory wrong. JT admits he choked her to death and broke her neck when she tried biting him. It comes apparent throughout the movie that she doesn’t bite for hunger, she bites for survival. What we also learn is that she contaminates her victims with her saliva. As some big bully jocks get wind of the jewel, “a woman who is down for anything,” they go to embark on this journey. One jock was shying away, but knowing damn well what would happen Rickie taunts the jock into letting the woman give him a blow job. Yep, you can guess what happened because it did! She bites him! The next day, not only is the jock starting to smell of rotting meat (like the woman), his insides explode out of him and he is presumably still alive. That is all you hear about that.

All hell breaks loose, meaning the woman is freed, attacks, and as Rickie stands in her way by accident, you think, “Shit, it’s all over from here.” Somewhere inside her head she knows that he tried to help her numerous times and pushes him out of the way. She gets out, but not before taking something away from Rickie in the process. She is left to wander who knows where. I guess be aware of the naked chick running around in your neighborhood?

Must-See Horror Films Part 5: the 1960s

    

Horror films in the ’60s are characterized by two landmark black-and-white films that each changed the genre forever.  At one end of the decade, in 1960, there was director Alfred Hitchcock’s legendary masterpiece “Psycho” which was arguably the first slasher film. At the other end of the decade, in 1968, there was the original “Night of the Living Dead” by George Romero – the most influential zombie film ever made and one of the most influential horror films of all time.  But there were plenty of films in between to mark the decade, which pulled film out of the communist threat/bug-eyed alien groove of the 50s and into something considerably darker.

“Psycho” (1960)

I can’t imagine not at least knowing about the film “Psycho” even if you haven’t seen it.  If you’re not a Hitchcock fan but you are aware that there was a director named Alfred Hitchcock, this is likely to be one of the films you know he’s done.  As detailed in the recent film, “Hitchcock,” starring Anthony Hopkins, “Psycho” actually stands out from the rest of his body of work because he wanted to do something different.  Virtually all of his films involve murder, but with “Psycho” we have murder, possible incest, cross-dressing, and corpse desecration, though most of that isn’t on-camera.

On-camera or not, these are concepts and themes that would still be risqué today, and Hitchcock had them in this film 50 years ago.  Not only did “Psycho” change film, it changed how people felt about showers and roadside motels. . Its influence can’t be exaggerated.

“Black Sunday” (1960)

This disturbing tale of witchcraft, vampirism, curses, and torture made actress Barbara Steele a horror legend.  It also may have been the first time movie goers outside Italy began to suspect there is something really, really, wrong with Italians thanks to the guiding hand of director Mario Bava in his official debut (save the hatemail, my grandmother came here from the old country and I can probably make a better calzone than you thanks to her).  When directors Lucio Fulgi and Dario Argento became prominent, that opinion would be deeply reinforced.

Like “Psycho,” “Black Sunday” pushes the limits of what films could do in 1960, and parts are shocking even today.  It takes a strong stomach to continue watching after the initial scene when Barbara Steele’s character is brutally tortured and gruesomely executed by her own brother.  I still have nightmares from it. If you can make it past that scene, the rest of the film is still terrifying.

* A Note on Hammer films

Looking at “Black Sunday,” it seems to be appropriate to mention the horror films put out by the British Hammer studios, which were huge in the 1960s and 70s.  I haven’t reviewed any of them or included any of them in this series because quite frankly I haven’t seen too many in completion.

I should.  I’ve heard some are good.  They include horror legends Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee most of the time.  And Hammer films were the first to feature vampires with fangs, as we usually see them today.

But I’m biased.  Growing up in America, I thought Frankenstein’s Monster, Dracula, and the Mummy should look a certain way, and that was how they were in Universal films.  And while the Hammer films tended to be in color, which is good, and sometimes had nudity and more graphic violence, both of which are important to teens and tweens, the blood dripping down Dracula’s face usually looked like the tempera paint we used in art class at school, and the films tend to have the hallmark feature of British films – lots of people in cottages and manor houses sitting around talking and no monsters, which is godawful boring.

Because of my bias, I’m asking for your help.  If you’ve seen the Hammer horror films and want to discuss their merit, which are good, better, and best, contact me at davidqpugh@juno.com and we’ll run it here.  Really.

“Little Shop of Horrors” (1960)

While “Psycho” was a film so powerful, it changed the world, Roger Corman was and continues to be a producer and director so prolific that his influence can’t really be measured.  “Little Shop of Horrors” is possibly Corman’s best-known film and a good example of his work.  A little bit scary and a lot corny with a dab of social commentary, it was billed as a comedy and gained prominence when it was distributed with Black Sunday and became huge thanks to regular airing on television. The film is basically the tale of a plant that develops intelligence and grows to enormous size when it ingests human flesh.  From that point the plant gains speech and regularly demands more, more, more!  It was later developed into a musical, which was then readapted into a film, which itself isn’t bad.

One of the things Corman films are known for is featuring early appearances from actors who would later become stars, or stars who were once prominent, but were in need of work.  In this case, we have an early appearance from superstar Jack Nicholson, who had appeared for Corman before but was still largely unknown.

Another noteworthy fact about Corman is that he is known as one of the most successful producers of all time because every one of his films has made a profit.  He always shoots a film on time and within his budget if not considerably below.  In this case, “Little Shop of Horrors” was shot in just two days using sets from a previous Corman film, thus keeping budget low.  Doing smart but effective production enabled Corman to produce far more films than other producers and directors, and thanks to drive-ins and television, his films became popular, with “Little Shop” being probably the best example.  His films typically feature monsters, bikers, aliens, freaks, or attractive women in prison, thus the drive-in and late-night tv appeal, and when his success couldn’t be ignored, others imitated him with their own corny but enjoyable films, filling the decade with similar fare.

Like the goofy monster films on SyFy?  You can thank Roger Corman. Even if he didn’t make your favorite, and he may have, he’s at least the film’s spiritual godfather.

“The Birds” (1963)

One of Hitchcock’s other best-known and most unique films, “The Birds” depicts a town under siege by flocks of residents we all take for granted every day – birds.  They attack every human they see, pecking and scratching, blinding and killing without reason, until they just…stop.  After seeing this film you’ll likely get nervous when you see unusually large numbers of birds on your lawn or on that telephone line near your house, just like you’ll feel vulnerable in the shower after seeing “Psycho.” Those are the everyday occurrences Hitchcock capitalized on and made terrifying with his films, which is a testament to his brilliance.

 

“The Fearless Vampire Killers” (1967)

Before gaining international notoriety when his wife Sharon Tate was killed by the Manson family, and infamy from a scandalous incident with an underage actress, Roman Polanski was an acclaimed director, and he continued to be with later films such as “The Ninth Gate.”  In the case of this film, Polanski wanted to do a straightforward period vampire film starring his future wife Tate, but prior to release MGM recut it to give it the feel of a kooky comedy and added, “Pardon Me But Your Teeth Are in My Neck” to the title. Polanski didn’t appreciate this, but it did make a very distinct film, much like the later offering, “Godzilla vs. the Smog Monster.”

“Night of the Living Dead” (1968)

This is the one that started it all.  There were other zombie films before this one, but there might as well not have been.  In George Romero’s original classic, there are no stars, no well-known professional actors, but it doesn’t matter.  The script is good, the performances are good, the characters are realistic, and so is the blood orgy” scene in which zombies tear apart and eat the organs of a living victim in grisly detail.  There have been many sequels, imitations, and tributes, including a recent 3-D version with Sid Haig, but none are as good as the original.  You must see this film.

“Targets” (1968)

This film is one of the reasons I wanted to write this series.  Before I saw it on TV in a hotel room, I had never heard of it.  As soon as I saw it I was enthralled and knew I had to find the film, launching a quest that lasted 8 years.  I’ve been recommending it and lending it to people every since, and each person has agreed it’s a masterpiece.

The film is a great example if not the best example of one of the other things Roger Corman is known for – taking a step back and letting someone else direct a film he’s producing if that person has a knack for or interest in directing.  By doing this, he gave directors like Ron Howard and Francis Ford Coppola their first big break.  In the case of “Targets” future acclaimed director Peter Bogdanovich asked Corman if he could direct a film.  Corman said he could, as long as he used Boris Karloff, who was under contract at the time, and featured clips from previous Corman films.  Bogdanovich agreed, and used both extremely well.

Karloff stars as Byron Orlok, a character who was basically  himself – an actor known for horror films who plans to make one more public appearance before his retirement.  The event is a double feature of Orlok’s most well-known movies (both of them old Corman films).  Bogdanovich himself plays Sammy Michaels, a young colleague of Orlok who works as his agent, aide, and friend.  While Orlok is prepping for the event, a young insurance agent goes mad, shoots his wife and parents, and continues on a shooting spree that brings him to the drive-in where Orlok will appear.  He sets up a sniper’s next behind the screen and picks off patrons as the film rolls.

The scenes with the sniper are chilling and disturbing, but Karloff clearly steals the show.  You get a rare glimpse of his comic side when he wakes up with a hangover, and every time he walks past a mirror he scares himself because he’s such a master of horror that yes, his very image scares even himself.  Also good are all of the scenes with Karloff and Bogdanovich, in which we see the interplay and affection between the two men, another element you rarely if ever seen in a Karloff film.  Finally, we get to see Karloff as a hero – a final rarity – at the same time as we see images of Karoloff on the drive-in screen as a monster.  Brilliant.

I love, love, love this film. Find it, see it, love it, spread the word.  Then others can love “Targets” too.

“Noise” is a Hidden Gem Worth Finding

I really don’t know why Ally Sheedy doesn’t get more work.  She was a member of the Brat Pack in the 1980′s, playing an iconic role in the iconic film, “The Breakfast Club.”  And in 2004 she showed she still had excellent acting chops playing a heroin-addicted photographer in “High Art.”  The same year she did this film, “Noise,” in which she personified a nightmare crazy neighbor.  I had never heard of this film but I’m glad I found it.

The actual lead in this film is Trish Goff, who plays Joyce Chandler, a young woman who is emotionally fragile after divorcing her college professor husband.  After an extensive search she manages to find a good apartment she can afford in a building where there is only one other tenant, Charlotte Bancroft, played by Sheedy.

Joyce finishes moving in and tries to relax with some friends when Charlotte comes home, slams the door, and clomps up the stairs as loudly as possible, shocking Joyce and her guests.  This is a specter of things to come as later that night Joyce is awakened to the sound of music booming out of Charlotte’s apartment at 4 a.m. She goes up to complain, but decides against it, opting instead to slide a note under her neighbor’s door in the morning.  Later, Charlotte shows up at Joyce’s door and confronts her.  This is the first time we actually see Sheedy’s character in the flesh and she exudes crazy and evil like no other character or actress since Glenn Close played Alex in “Fatal Attraction.”  Insanity flashes from Sheedy’s eyes like light from a firefly and it’s a wonder to behold.

It seems Charlotte didn’t appreciate Joyce’s note, and so she makes more noise that night and every night, keeping Joyce from sleeping and starting a battle of wits and wills that quickly escalates into the danger zone.

Self-destruction and imperfection

From there, the film takes an interesting turn.  Normally in these types of situations, at least in the movies, our two adversaries square off and get crazy, crossing moral lines if not legal ones.  That happens, but what we really get to see is that Joyce has very self-destructive tendencies and doesn’t always make good decisions.

We see early on that she smokes and she could eat more.  And we learn from her ex that her drinking contributed to the end of their once-ideal marriage.  As she sleeps less and stresses out more form the noise Charlotte makes at night and sometimes during the day, we see her drinking pick up again.  She also starts having questionable choices in and encounters with men.

Between the lack of sleep and drinking, Joyce’s job becomes affected and she’s sent home for a mandatory vacation. Unpaid.  It doesn’t go well.

Missed opportunities

Further illustrating Joyce’s questionable judgment are two key episodes.  One, she is told several times she should just move.  She refuses, saying it was too hard to find and finance the apartment.  Then she refuses again when her ex even offers to finance the move.  She’d rather not sleep and be driven crazy than accept help or defeat.

Opportunity two comes when Charlotte is severely beaten up in her apartment and left for dead.  Semi-conscious, she taps an S.O.S. on her floor and Joyce goes up to investigate.  Finding Charlotte on the floor in a pool of blood and barely alive, she calls 911 – badly, I might add.  A 10-year old with developmental disabilities may have done a better job making the call.  State your name, what’s going on, where you are, don’t hang up, that’s what it takes.  I think she does maybe one of those things successfully.

Regardless of the quality of the all, why make it at all?  This psychopath has been a relentless pain for weeks, threatening your sanity, your job, and really all aspects of your life.  Close the door, go downstairs, pour a drink, and enjoy the silence.  If you notice a smell or have a problem after, say, a few days, call the super or the landlord. Problem solved without a shot fired or any personal confrontation.  “I thought she went on vacation officer.  We weren’t close.”

But no.  She calls 911 and they save her life and Joyce does enjoy the silence while her neighbor is in the hospital.  But then she comes back, as all obnoxious people, and the endgame begins, one that does not disappoint.

I heartily recommend this film if you can find it.  I also recommend a letter-writing campaign  or possibly a series of protests to get more work for Ally Sheedy and less work for whatever over-exposed/undertalented actor/actress is annoying you at this time.

“Dexter Season 8″ – All’s Well That Ends Well

In my previous reviews of the Showtime series “Dexter” (http://sogooditsscary.com/?p=168 http://sogooditsscary.com/?p=37) I mentioned that the overall theme of the series is Dexter’s gradual change from cold psychopath with a fake life to a fully feeling human being with a life he cares about who happens to kill people.  There are also themes for different seasons, such as parenthood and religion.  With the final season we continue Dexter’s journey towards humanity with a seasonal theme of family.

One of the first things that struck me about this season was the lack of mayhem.  Despite being the final season of a show about a serial killer, there weren’t more murders or more spectacular murders, though of course people are killed fairly regularly.  Instead, the focus is on continuing to explore the relationship between forensic specialist/serial killer Dexter Morgan (Michael C. Hall) and his sister Debra (Jennifer Carpenter).

Destroy and rebuild

Things have changed in the aftermath of last season’s finale, in which Debra shot and killed Captain LaGuerta (Lauren Velez) to protect herself and Dexter when LaGuerta discovered Dexter’s identity as the Bay Harbor Butcher and uncovered Debra’s complicity in the cover-up of his killing of the Dooms Day Killer.

For me as a viewer, seeing the annoying, corrupt, and frequently revolting LaGuerta take one to the chest and die instantly was like an early Christmas present, a dream come true, not unlike Tara getting a shotgun blast to the head in “True Blood.” Even better, unlike Tara, LaGuerta stayed dead.  The producers may have known she was annoying because the first scene of this season is the dedication of the LaGuerta memorial bench.  Of the attendees, only her ex-husband, now-Lieutenant Angel Batista (David Zayas) seems to care that the LaGuerta Memorial will be a place “where people put their butts.”  I enjoy that idea, and the idea that birds will crap on it, and homeless people will sleep on it and possibly soil themselves at the same time, as a continuing testimony to LaGuerta’s great works of public service.

Dexter seems unfazed by her death, but Debra isn’t dealing with it well.  She quit the police force, where she had been promoted to lieutenant, and started working or a private investigation firm.  We find her undercover on a case, taking excessive risks as she gets personally involved with the jewel thief who took the jewels she is supposed to recover.  She’s indulging in prescription and illegal drugs, usually at the same time, and is smoking and drinking, all in an effort to numb the guilt and pain she feels for killing her former captain.

Bravo encore, Jennifer Carpenter!

I noted in my review of Season 7 that Jennifer Carpenter’s performance was exceptional, and I was immediately impressed again this season as her character took a dark, desperate turn.  In the first few episodes we see flashes of Debra the detective, collecting evidence and working on the case, but then she turns instantly into Debra on a self-destructive tailspin, snorting cocaine and passing out in her car while driving drunk.  When Dexter confronts her, we see angry, hurt Debra defiantly pushing Dexter away.  to stay in the hell of her own making.  It’s impressive to watch and makes me hope that whatever work Carpenter gets post-”Dexter” is something worthy of her talent.

Dr. Vogel and the Brain Surgeon

The primary plot of the season then, is seeing how Dexter will save Debra from herself and how the two of them will manage to have a relationship in the aftermath of LaGuerta’s murder.  This is made more complicated with the introduction of Dr. Vogel (Charlotte Rampling), a psychiatrist who specializes in the treatment of psychopaths.  Returning Deputy Chief Tom Matthews (Geoff Pierson) worked with Vogel years ago and has called her in to consult on Miami’s latest serial killer dubbed, “The Brain Surgeon” because the victims are found with the backs of their heads cut off and areas of the brain removed.

Vogel takes an immediate interest in Dexter for a unique reason: She worked with Dexter’s adoptive father Harry to create the code of conduct Dexter uses to survive as a serial killer.  As this revelation about Dexter comes to light, Vogel steps in to help Debra stabilize her life after diagnosing her with post-traumatic stress disorder.  In turn, Vogel enlists Dexter’s aid in catching the Brain Surgeon when that case becomes a personal threat.

With each kill, the Brain Surgeon has been depositing a jar with the preserved brain sample on Vogel’s doorstep.  When she brings Dexter on the case, two jars are left, labeled “His” and “Hers,” indicating the killer knows and is watching her. Vogel believes the killer is a former patient of hers, but she doesn’t know which one, and she can’t tell the police because the methods she has used in the past were sometimes unorthodox.  Were these methods to come to light as the police helped her it could cost her career. Dexter agrees to find and stop the Brain Surgeon before he kills Dr. Vogel or him, but she has had dozens of clients, and all of them were psychopaths, so it’s not an easy task.

This brings up another point I addressed in a previous review, which is relatively minor but still a concern for the series overall: How many serial killers can realistically be in the Miami area? Seriously.  I understand the urge to kill Miamians – the snowbirds, the retirees, the tourists, the excessive number of transplanted New Yorkers, the endless pastel colors, it’s maddening.  But it’s not our biggest city, and the idea that there would be a new serial killer at work there every year for several years seems unlikely.

With this season as Dexter goes through Vogel’s patient list we find that there are several operating in the Miami area at the same time.  I find that hard to believe.  I know the show’s shtick is Dexter killing bad guys, but there are other kinds of bad guys out there.  Rapists, serial rapists, terrorists, child molesters, pick one and put him on Dexter’s table, we’ll still watch.

Hannah McKay returns

The final challenge facing Deb and Dexter is the return of Hannah McKay (Yvonne Strahovski), the love of Dexter’s life.  She is the only person who accepts him as he really is because she’s a killer herself.  Deb has problems with Hannah in principle because at her core Deb is a cop and Hannah has gotten away with multiple murders.  But she also has serious problems with Hannah because Hannah tried to kill her and only stopped trying to kill her because of her feelings for Dexter.

When Hannah comes back this season we find she’s married to the super-rich Miles Castner (Julian Sands) who happens to also be super-controlling.  Hannah likes having a new identity security, and luxury, but she wants freedom and possibly love.  So she reaches out to Dexter, who helps despite Deb’s protests.

It’s great to have Hannah back for several reasons.  One, she’s beautiful and she and Dexter have excellent chemistry.  Two, she’s an excellent character with depth who is portrayed well.  Three, going with the season’s theme of family, Hannah rounds out a very warped family dynamic that includes Dr. Vogel (mother), Dexter (son), Hannah (wife), and Deb (sister), plus others who cycle in and out, all of whom play off each other in fascinating ways.

Endgame

With Hannah coming in for the second half of the season, the series starts to wind up, with suspense increasing every episode as Dexter continues his hunt for the Brain Surgeon while trying to keep wanted fugitive Hannah from being arrested.  Once again a couple, Hannah and Dexter decide to grab Dexter’s son Harrison and run away together to ind whatever version of Happily Ever After can be achieved by two serial killers.  But Dexter insists on killing the Brain Surgeon first, so the race is on to kill him in time to board the plane to a new life.

This plays out very well, and the plots weave together nicely, with a federal marshal who is pursuing Hannah eventually enlisting Jacob Elway (Sean Patrick Flannery) Deb’s boss at the detective agency, in the attempt.  There are moments when it seems there’s danger at every turn, which is exciting except for one logistical problem.

I’ll die before I dye

As much effort as Deb and Dexter put into keeping Hannah safe, she doesn’t make much effort herself.  Think of “The Fugitive,” either the classic TV show or the excellent film with Harrison Ford.  Even with his name and picture everywhere, wrongfully convicted murderer Richard Kimble is able to avoid capture with an alias, a shave, and some hair dye.  Hannah may not be a world-famous surgeon like Kimble, but she is very smart, and so is Dexter.  Yet neither of them thinks to get Hannah some dark hair color so her eyebrows and hair will match, and maybe pick up some sunglasses and touristy clothes.

Nope, every time Hannah takes a risk by going out in public she has long blonde hair and fashionable outfits, making her look exactly like the Hannah McKay who has her picture all over TV.  Dexter points out in one episode that being out with Harrison may help because the police are looking for a woman alone, not a woman with a child.  True.  But even with Harrison she was still recognized.  Had Hannah made herself look like a soccer mom with a cap, a t-shirt, some shorts or sweats, and maybe Popsicle or Oreo stains on her shirt, that would have probably done the trick and only taken about 5 minutes.  For a smart show, that bit was a bit on the obviously dumb side.

No spoilers

I’m not going to give away the series’ ending, just in case you didn’t spoil it for yourself elsewhere.  It’s good, and fairly powerful, even surprising.  Now, with the last season done, “Dexter” can join “Firefly,” “Veronica Mars,” “X-Files,” “Star Trek”  and other shows that have ended, leaving fans wanting more.  New episodes, a movie, another movie, a spinoff, anything.  But please, not a musical.

Plush will make you sweat…and blush!

Catherine Hardwicke’s (Twilight, Thirteen) movie Plush (2013) is another thriller as opposed to a horror film, but it is a good flick nonetheless. As many of you have noticed I have strayed away from horror movies in the past few articles because honestly I have not seen a decent horror movie, new or old, that is really worth my time to write about. Instead I have been clogging my Netflix queue with independent suspenseful thrillers since that seems to be where the art is these days. Nevertheless, another digression, back to Plush.

This movie had me at the hot guitarist guys with dark hair and guyliner. Even big ball-bustin’ writer/horror enthusiasts like myself have their weaknesses. I also harbor a fantasy of being a rock goddess for 4 ½ minutes that will rock your face off, but since I have absolutely no musical talent that I care about it will just forever be a dream. Either way, enter this movie. I got to watch a fantasy on screen, but whatever.

Hayley (Sucker Punch‘s Emily Browning) and her brother Jack (Thomas Dekker, The CW’s The Secret Circle) headline a pretty successful rock band together. Hayley meets Carter (Cam Gigandet, Twilight) and starts a family as where Jack continues to live the rock star life which ultimately ends in him overdosing. After her grief, Hayley returns to the music scene with a very, very bad wig and finds a replacement guitarist for her band. Enzo (Xavier Samuel, The Twilight Saga: Eclipse [has anyone noticed a trend here?!]) turns out to not only be a super-fan of Plush, but is also a musical genius and even looks like Jack. With all the above talents his induction into the band makes things pretty easy. The new Plush album flops and Hayley seeks solace in Enzo’s arms because at first she thinks he is gay. Wrong. They start a very hot and torrid love affair creating better music along the way. The affair is a little unhinged because in a sense Hayley is sleeping with a guy that not only takes the place of, but looks like her brother. Very weird, but still steamy enough to make you forget about that tidbit and remind yourself that he is not her brother.

When Hayley starts to get creepy gifts from a stalker things start to take a turn, but she brushes it off. Enzo starts to immerse himself further into Hayley’s life becoming slightly unstable as they go along (and he still manages to look gorgeous even being crazy, what the hell?). A few deaths here and there, a few story threads that make events make more sense, a couple of surprises, some hot sex scenes, Enzo in leather pants holding a film camera….yeah, I liked this movie for all the wrong (or right?) reasons. Hardwicke delivers her usual style in this movie (think blue filters on the camera lenses and hand cams), but the movie isn’t the greatest of hers that I have seen. It offers up more eye-candy than anything else for the person with any groupie fantasies.

“Frankenstein Theory” is a Different Monster in a Different Mold

The plot of “Frankenstein Theory is pretty good.  Young genius Dr. Jonathan Venkenheim (Kris Lemche) believes Mary Shelley’s classic novel “Frankenstein” was a true story disguised as fiction.  He bases this belief on old letters his grandfather gave him that are very similar if not identical to letters that appear in the narrative novel.  The main difference is the name “Venkenheim” rather than “Frankenstein.” If Professor Venkenheim is correct, that means his ancestor was the inspiration for the infamous Dr. Frankenstein and he’s the heir to the Frankenstein legacy.

In order to prove his theory, Venkenheim assembles a team to go to the Arctic and find the monster.  The team consists of himself, his colleague Vicky (Heather Stephens) a small documentary film crew, and a guide who will help them in the frozen wilds of northern Canada.

Warm up the cookie cutter

From there, originality largely ends. Aside from the different take on the Frankenstein story, what we have after the beginning is pretty much your standard pseudo-documentary.  Running around in the wilderness, the crew are eliminated one by one over the course of a week, with plenty of creepy glowy-eyed  night vision shots and minimal gore.  Really, for all intents and purposes, the rest of the film could be called “Wendigo,” “Cougar Rampage,” “Deadly Mallards,” or “PMSing She-Sasquatch.”

Of course, in the last 10 minutes you see the monster.  Yup, he looks pretty much like he does on the box.  Makes you wonder what corpses were used to make a monster that big, but wondering implies brain activity, which hampers enjoyment of the film.

On the upside, the acting is good.

Logistical problems

Along the lines of being like most other pseudo-documentaries soon to by on the SyFy Channel, a few questions come to mind:

– Why would the monster wait to kill them individually?  They’re in the middle of nowhere, they have only one gun, and the monster is huge and intelligent.  Especially after the gun-toting guide and his gun are gone, there’s no point in waiting.  Just stride in, kill them, take what you want, and get on with your monster day.

– Why does the monster roar like every other  generic movie monster?  Yes, for a while we’re supposed to wonder if it’s a bear.  But the monster is made from human parts, and it doesn’t sound at all human.

On the plus side, if you’re not tired of fake documentaries yet, this can be an enjoyable film.  Also, as I mentioned, the acting is good.  There aren’t any big stars or even B,C, or D-listers in the cast, no token recognizable name or face most horror movies bring in, and that may have actually helped.  The cast put their hearts into their roles and it worked.  If the acting was a wash, the film would be a total loss. But, since the acting is good I recommend keeping it on if you haven’t it seen it, but don’t go through any special effort to find it.

Pacific Rim: Utter Man-Child Boner Flick…and I Love it!

I am not one for man-child giant monster and robot movies, however, Guillermo del Toro’s Pacific Rim (2013) really gets my biscuits in a twist. I was already a fan of Guillermo’s even before this flick hit theaters, but oh my. Although I did not hesitate to see this movie in theaters I had my reservations because, well, like I just said it was not the type of movie I would normally go for. I liked the movie so much that I wanted to go back into the theater and watch it again! Let me tell you about this movie…

Kaijus, a big creepy monster that takes different forms (some look like lizards, others look like sharks, and even gorillas!) have surfaced out of an alternate dimension that formed in a fissure at the bottom of the Pacific ocean. They were created to bring about an apocalypse and wipe out the human race. Jaegers, big huge battle bots (or gigantic humanoid mecha) are created to kill the Kaijus with the ultimate intent of destroying the breach at the bottom of the ocean. So far they have failed at closing the breach. As Charlie Hunnam’s (Sons of Anarchy) character Raleigh says, “The Jaeger is only as good as it’s pilot.” Through mind drifting or joining the neural bridge the pilots become one with each other and the bot. During battle when Raleigh loses his brother, he sees and feels the pain that his brother suffered.

Fast forward five years later and the Kaijus are getting worse. They are becoming bigger and smarter. The time is up and everyone has to act fast. Raleigh is brought out of retirement to operate Gipsy Danger, he and his brother’s Jaeger with a new rookie pilot. Then this is where all the fun begins!

There is more to the story, but I hope you get the gist because really you just need to have the volume cranked on surround sound, the blu-ray copy and you are set! Although the score music is pretty damned epic I would have loved to hear some hard guitar riffs and metal music to really get the juices flowing. That’s not delivered, but you can make up your own soundtrack. The special effects are awesome and the scenery is beautiful.

This movie makes me geek out so hardcore and I can’t even explain why. It is a movie that was created to introduce this genre to children, but it has something for everyone. Action, suspense, a little bit of horror, sci-fi, and even…romance? OK OK you get to see Charlie Hunnam without his shirt. They had to put something in there for the ladies. Whatever your poison might be don’t bounce this movie off the rim! HA! Yeah I’m not funny….

“World War Z” Makes Zombies Real

I loved this movie.  Loved it.  Start to finish, end to end, I loved this film.  Is it perfect?  No.  But it is by far one of the best zombie movies I’ve ever seen, and I’ve seen more than I can remember.  It’s on a par with “28 Days Later.”

I don’t read any reviews or fan reactions until after I’ve seen a movie, so I went into this as an almost complete blank slate.  I’m familiar with the book and listened to the audiobook, both of which are excellent, but when I heard there would be a movie, I had no expectations, though I knew I’d see it.  It was a huge-budget feature hyper-marketed everywhere.  It could suck, it could be great, it could be in-between.

Of the negative opinions I’ve read about the film since, the two chief complaints I’ve heard are bad acting, particularly from Brad Pitt, and the degree in which the film differs from the book.

Non-issue issues

On Pitt’s acting, I had no problem with it.  This is not a heavily dramatic film, it’s an action film with a few dramatic moments, only one of which I thought Pitt was iffy in.  In that scene, Pitt has been injured and detained and is worried about his family.  A scientist says he knows how Pitt must feel.  When Pitt counters that the scientist couldn’t know how he feels, since he has no family, the scientist says the reason he has no family is because they were all killed by zombies.  Pitt’s character feels like an ass, which Pitt doesn’t convey well, but for the rest of the movie he’s fine, as is everyone else.

Peter Capaldi does a particularly good job as a doctor/scientist working for the World Health Organization (WHO) which is fitting since his part is billed as “Who Doctor” and he is going to be TVs 12th “Doctor Who.”

As for differing from the book, you have to.  The original novel by Max Brooks provides an account of the zombie apocalypse tens years after it occurred, including social and environmental ramifications, from a variety of viewpoints.  That would be best done as a series, not a single film.

To make “World War Z” the film, the filmmakers gave us a central character to tie all of the events together.  That character is Gerry Lane (Pitt), a former UN Crisis Investigator called out of retirement to help solve the mystery of the zombie plague.

 Quid pro quo

Lane agrees to track down the cause of the zombie virus so a cure may be found in exchange for the UN keeping his family safe at a time when resources are dwindling and safety is relative.

He starts in South Korea, where the first recorded attacks occurred.  Upon learning from a CIA double agent (David Morse) that Israel surrounded Jerusalem with a wall before the attacks in Korea, Lane heads there to find out what Israel knew and how they knew it before everyone else.  Each step of the way, Lane encounters more zombies, and each encounter gives him another clue about what the zombies are and how to defeat them.

Realistic terror

If you’ve seen “28 Days Later” you may recall the shock you felt the first time you saw zombies run.  After decades of seeing zombies stumble, shuffle, grope, and lurch, suddenly it was a whole new ball game of death.  There’s a scene about 10 minutes into “World War Z” when we’re watching the city of Philadelphia literally being swept by a wave of zombies, that provides a very similar feeling of horrified awe.  It may even exceed the shock of seeing zombies run because you see it happen and you’re horrified, then the horror is redoubled, and in your mind you think it’s believable.  This is the way it could happen.

Different zombie films have had different causes for their zombies, who do different things.  In this film, we have a virus of unknown origin turning normal healthy humans into undead biting machines.  And that’s exactly what they are this time.  These zombies don’t eat the living. They just bite.  They’re virus carriers with the motivation to spread the virus as much as possible.  And like other viruses, it quickly becomes more aggressive.  We learn that it took 10 minutes for the initial victim to turn, but when Gerry Lane sees a victim bitten in Philadelphia, it takes a mere 12 seconds, in a very well produced segment of the scene.

That makes these zombies the most terrifying I have ever seen.  Think about it. They run – very quickly.  They bite virtually everyone they see, and one bite transmits the virus.  They don’t stop to eat the victim, which takes time.  They just keep running and biting.  In 12 seconds you have a new zombie, ready to bite and turn someone else.  One zombie could make several others in under a minute, and each one it turns could make another, turning the one zombie who was chasing you into an army very, very quickly.

And this happens.  In addition, similar to other zombies, these zombies aren’t totally mindless.  They are stimulated and drawn to sensory input, particularly sound, and they will hone in on a target and do anything to get to it, including hurtling through glass or scaling a wall.

A terrifying effect created by the zombies’ combined abilities to multiply in number and zero in on targets is that there are literally waves of zombies crashing like a tsunami down the streets of Philadelphia.  In Jerusalem, the zombies pile up outside the wall, then jump on the pile, scaling each other until the pile of zombies is higher than the wall.  At that point they just fling themselves over, heedless of injury (they’re already dead), biting and infecting those inside, making the walls a trap for the living.  This is eerily similar to army ants swarming in nature, covering an enemy or food source in seconds and wiping out huge areas of land through sheer numbers.  If you’ve seen the damage the tiny creatures can do, it’s amazing, and the fictional effect is similarly jaw-dropping.

Smart book, smart film

One of the things I liked bout the book by Max Brooks was that it was smart.  Zombies have been done to death, no pun intended, so what could be done differently?  Brooks does several things, starting with showing the fight for civilization from the front lines, but also brining up logistical points like zombies being ineffective in extreme cold.  They don’t circulate or burn calories the way we do, so in cold their meat just freezes.  And again, Brooks zombies don’t eat the living, they just bite, which takes care of the question of why zombies would eat the living.  They probably can’t digest us, so what would be the point?

Not all of this is in the movie, and in fact most of it isn’t, but some of it is, and the spirit of it is.  For me, for one movie, that was enough.  To truly do justice to Brooks’ work, a series would be needed, and I wouldn’t mind seeing that either, though two zombie series being on at the same time (the other being “The Walking Dead”) would almost certainly mean one would fail due to over-saturation, and that would be a shame.

“The Wicker Tree” is Unworthy of Its Roots

When I found out a sequel to the original “The Wicker Man” had been made, written and directed by Robin Hardy, director of the original and featuring an appearance by original star and horror legend Christopher Lee, I knew I had to see it.

If your only familiarity with “The Wicker Man” is the abominable, senseless remake with Nicolas Cage, you’re not alone.  Have faith in those who know better and track down the 1973 version with Edward Woodward and Christopher Lee.  It’s developed a cult following and has a reputation for being the “Citizen Kane of horror films” for good reason.  The acting is excellent, the plot is good, it’s full of suspense and surprises, and it’s very, very well done.  I’d probably rate it among the top 10 horror films of all time, maybe in the top 5.

Which is why “The Wicker Tree” is so disappointing.  It’s not a 100% bad film.  It’s just nowhere near as good on any of the levels where “The Wicker Man” was great, and on some levels it’s indeed bad.  To be fair, a movie should be judged on its own merit, not on how it stacks up against what came before.  Sadly, even from that perspective this film is tepid fare at best.

Scottish Texans visiting Scotland

In the film, Beth (Brittania Nicol) and Steve (Henry Garrett) are born-again Christians from Dallas, Texas who volunteer to preach the Good News of Jesus Christ to the wild heathens of Scotland, near the Scots-English border.  Forget Botswana or Borneo or the Inuit peoples of the Arctic Circle, there are souls to be saved in Scotland, where St. Andrew’s cross is on the flag and Christianity took hold early in the first millennium, A.D.

When we first meet Steve, Beth is going to pick him up on the way to church.  Knowing the plot from reading the DVD package, I already thought, “Why the hell are Texans going to Scotland?” which you may have gathered from the sarcasm saturating the preceding paragraph.  But then it all becomes clear when Steve speaks and it’s obvious he’s just  a Scotsman working in Dallas as a cowboy or at least dressed as one.  Either way, clearly they’re going to evangelize in Scotland because that’s where he’s from.

No.

In reality, they’re both supposed to be from Texas and Henry Garrett can’t hold an accent much better than Kevin Costner could in “Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves.” In fact, his entire portrayal of a Texas cowboy, from accent to slightly bow-legged swagger would be a parody if it weren’t just painfully bad.  He looks like a Scotsman on vacation in Cancun with a case of Montezuma’s Revenge.

Brittania Nicol isn’t as bad.  She actually looks like a Southern American girl; curvy and fresh-faced with big blonde hair, and her accent stays true.  What I’m not convinced of is the behavior of her character, which isn’t Nicol’s fault.

Virgins in the land of temptation

A chief wrinkle in the film is that Steve and Beth have taken vows of chastity and intend to stay pure until they’re married.  They even have the silver rings to prove it.  Not unusual, there is a purity trend among Christian youth and they wear such rings.

Problem #1 I had is that the young couple is prone to making out.  A lot.  Quite openly.  My wife grew up in the Bible Belt, so I asked her about this.  She says it happens, and devotion to the purity pledge varies by each couple or individual.  But I have a hard time believing they’d be bold with their PDAs in front of the congregation and their minister.  I made no such pledge and I’d still have a hard time making out with my girlfriend in front of our parish priest or any priest for that matter. It’s just weird.

Problem #2 comes when the couple go to Scotland, and it requires some context to understand the full awkwardness.  This young couple is supposed to be on a two-year mission in Scotland.  Two years.  Almost half the length of Captain Kirk’s original five-year mission into space with the Enterprise.  And they’re so devoted to each other that Beth introduces Steve as “you could say my fiancé’.”

So naturally after they’ve been in-country for one day and they’re both off doing their own thing, when Steve encounters one of the locals skinny dipping, he doesn’t hesitate to drop trou, accept her invitation to join her, and take her to the bareback rodeo yee-haw.  Really?  After 1 day.  The situation isn’t even framed with him being overcome by her beauty, or a fight with Beth, or he’s drunk, or it’s a spell.  He just sees her, she talks to him, he jumps in, they do it.  Then he feels bad.  Whatever.

The village of eternal teenagers

What Beth and Steve don’t know is, well, many things, since the local community leaders very easily question and school them on points of basic theology they haven’t considered or have answers to.  You’d think people sent on a two-year mission would be better prepared.  But what they really don’t know is, the community they’re in has turned to Celtic pagan beliefs because they are suffering from infertility due most likely to the proximity of a nuclear power plant.  As their leader, Sir Lachlan Morrison (Graham McTavish), who also runs the plant, says, “A decrease in births, or even birth defects would be understandable, but not no births at all.”

The entire village is focused on solving the fertility problem, though really only two of them seem to address the issue by having lots and lots of sex, which may be the central problem even more than the power plant.  The rest of the village tends to act like adolescents, listening at the window as the one couple is having sex, and tossing out endless double entendres and chuckling.

Which leads to the intrigue.  Our young Texans are part of the plan.  They’re not the first to come to town to spread the Word.  Many have, and all have been an unwitting part of the pagan ritual to help bring life to the village, first by conceiving a child, then by dying.  In terms of a plot that’s not bad, but the execution is lacking.

Ho-hum, hum-drum, and dumb

We’ve covered pathetic acting, questionable logistics, and characterization.  Now let’s look at pacing and tone.  The movie is 96 minutes long.  The last 10 or 15 minutes are good, with taut suspense, action, and surprises.  I liked that.  You probably would, too.  You just have to sit through 80 other minutes to get there.  80 minutes that start in an American that’s noticeably off before going to Scotland, where not much happens.

Sure, there’s the sex, but it’s nothing special, and there’s no outstanding lobster bisque to balance it out.  There’s a good amount of topless nudity, but nothing shocking or graphic or really very interesting.  Any run-of-the-mill R-rated horror film or comedy is likely to be more shocking, graphic, or interesting.  Try “Waiting” or any of the “Harold and Kumar” films for examples of better uses of nudity.  And really, the snickering and innuendos from the villagers get tiresome if you’re over 21.  If you’re 12, seeing boobies is always exciting, but a 12-year old wouldn’t likely sit through much of the rest of the film to see them.  It would be fast-forward all the way.

Take away the nudity and what do those 80 minutes have?  No violence, no particular terror or suspense, and lackluster characters.

One positive note

Earlier I contrasted the performances of leads Henry Garrett and Britannia Nicol.  That actually can be expanded toward the whole movie.  Everything is forgettable in the film, including the Christopher Lee cameo, except for the performance of Nicol.  She’s convincingly American; her character stays true to herself and her beliefs, even though she’s tempted and tested; and if that’s really her singing, she has a world-class voice.

There is one slip regarding her voice, however.  And it once again indicates that the filmmakers don’t quite get America.  When it’s revealed that Beth was a Country star with a slightly raunchy music video in her past, we get to hear her song and see the video.  Sure, they line dance, but she doesn’t sound country.  Beth sings in high soprano with little to no twang.  It almost looks right, but it doesn’t sound right. I can’t think of any Country star who doesn’t sing alto, and they all have at least a hint of twang.  Missing that is just one more symptom of the film’s fatal disease of not being all wrong, but not being right either.