Movie #3 - "Sex & Fury" (1973)

Jeesh... Talk about the title saying it all....

Not a horror film, but a violent and bloody exploitation flick from Japan. Hey, if Fangoria can have "Kill Bill" on their cover, I can count this one for sure. Because not only does it have two of the old school 3 B's of horror (Blood, Boobs & Beasts), but some of the situations it chooses to depict are pretty horrifying.

The first thing I took away from this movie - a story of daughter seeking revenge for her detective father's murder in early 20th century Japan - is how obvious an influence it was. Not just on Quentin Tarantino's Kill Bill, but on other directors, especially Takashi Miike. The cinematography for the carnage is amazing. The opening fight with a nude, tattooed woman kicking (or slicing, rather) butt against a small army of foes, in slow motion in the snow... amazing. Even as the blood sprays - and boy does it spray - the scene remains more of an artistic piece of cinema rather than just standard exploitation fare. Mind you, it's really kick-ass art, but more on the art side than on the trashy side.

Not to say it's without it's share of trash. All manner of depravity is portrayed here: rape, murder, prostitution, torture... the staples of the genre are there. It wouldn't be exploitation cinema if they weren't present. Which leads me to the second thing I took away from this film - a reminder about what exploitation cinema really is. It seems to me, that all cinema is voyeurism. Vicariously, we delight in the hopes, dreams and struggles of the protagonist. Exploitation films simply acknowledge and indulge that fact to an amped up degree.

Sure, the results are not for everybody, and oftentime in exploitation flicks, it's not even done well. At the heart of every story the elements of life, sex and death are present. They are integral parts of existence; why wouldn't they be part of every story? Exploitation cinema just accepts it and revels in it a bit more, and a bit more crudely.

But movies like "Sex & Fury" really straddle that line though. The ugly bits are ugly, no doubt. But the way the story is told in beautiful to see. Elegant color schemes, striking images... These help make Sex & Fury more than your standard revenge flick. It actually humanizes it's subjects, makes you care about them and then... hits you over the head with "the goods"

If you can stomach some rough stuff, I highly recommend this sleazy, stylish revenge flick.

Movie for 10/3/07 - Undetermined, though probably a short one. :)

Movie #4 - "Shock" (1946)

In the words of my wife, "Holy crap! That's Vincent Price! And he's young!"

Yup, Vincent Price was indeed young once and even existed without his trademark thin mustache. Weird to imagine, I know. But facts is facts, and this movie is the celluloid proof in the proverbial pudding. So, let's recap the facts as they stand:

-Vincent Price is in this movie.
-He's young in it.
-No mustache.

So where does that leave us? At the beginning, I suppose. 'Shock' is a nice 1940's psychological horror film in the Val Lewton vein. Simple but nifty premise, moderately developed characters and enough action to keep the plot moving. Sort of an economy model horror story. Lean, but effective.

Vincent Price is Dr. Richard Cross, head of a lovely asylum in the country who just happens to be a murderer. To be fair, he's a rather nice, compassionate one. He just has a tendency to wig out and whack an occasional person in the head with a candlestick. Nothing major. But when a young Army bride anxiously awaiting the arrival of her POW husband happens to witness an incident involving his wife and falls into a state of... wait for it.... wait for it... SHOCK! What is a murderer to do? Why "treat" her at your very own asylum of course!

Plotwise, the film is clever and bare bones. Nowadays, it would maybe be an average 'Law & Order' episode, but here, it's allowed to develop some fun sidetracks and nifty set-pieces like Army bride's cool film starting dream sequence (I really wish they had done more with that gimmick) and an interlude where a dangerous psycho named Mr. Edwards gets loose and tries to dispatch our two leading ladies.

Ah, the other leading lady... Lynn Bari plays Elaine Jordan, Vincent's secret lover and the Lady MacBeth figure. While she never goes mad, she does inspire Vince's bad behavior, and keeps him off the straight and narrow. She's very, very bad in a very good way here. She's not over the top, and is actually sympathetic and believable. And that's the thing here, as despicable as some of the characters are, you can still muster sympathy for them. The effort didn't go into padding this film, it went into making real, believable characters and succeeds. Mostly because it doesn't try to stretch their story out longer than it needs to be.

The film is a good fun throw back to a different kind of horror, simpler but still visceral and I'll even say a bit more clever than most of today's horror or suspense films. Definitely worth a look.

Last note: Vincent Price fans know that some of his most memorable cinematic moments come when he breaks the 4th wall. I'm thinking the Dr. Phibes films and his dark comedies (especially 'The Raven'), here. You can tell that there are at least a couple of times when he'd absolutely love to raise his eyebrows to the camera as a nod to all the drama going on around him.

Movie for 10/4/07 - By (sorta) request, "The Mummy's Ghost" (1944)

Coming soon: "Microwave Massacre" (1983), "28 Days Later" (2002), "MoH: Incident On And Off A Mountain Road" (2005), "Dracula" (1931), "Tarkan vs. The Vikings" (1971)

Movie #5 - "The Mummy's Ghost" (1944)

I am a fan of vintage Universal Horror. The unholy gang of Dracula, The Wolf Man, The Mummy, The Gill Man and Frankenstein still reign supreme in my book. So, when Universal put out their box sets of the collected films of their star beasties, I was understandably excited. Here, laid before me where their entire legacies, start to finish. While each had their charms, it did become apparent that some series fared better than others. For example: Frankenstein. Not only was the first film amazing (see entry #1), but it was followed by 2 sequels that are equal, if not better, than the first. After that it tapers off a bit. Dracula, on the other hand. One great film (though there are some who would debate even that), and then the series nosedived. Hard.

Even between these two ends of the spectrum, 'The Mummy' remains (ha!) an odd duck. Advertisements for the original Mummy movie, starring Boris Karloff, proclaimed it, "The Strangest Tale Ever Told". In many ways, they were right. The film wasn't traditional horror. There were certainly supernatural and menacing elements, but it focused on reincarnation, ancient gods still holding power, and a doomed love affair that tried to defy time. Certainly this last element would seem to be more of an influence on modern tales of Dracula, especially Francins Ford Coppola's remake which took it's reincarnation angle neither from the 1931 original 'Dracula' nor Bram Stoker's book.

The oddness continues with The Mummy's sequel "The Mummy's Hand", which tried to reinvent the franchise as an action/adventure story (very much in line with the recent Mummy remake). It added formulaic bits of backstory that were used in all of the following Mummy movies. The Tana leaves, the ancient  order of Egyptian priest trying to reclaim the body of an ancient princess, and the slow, lumbering mummy who chokes you out. Who was the comedian who said that if The Mummy caught you, you deserved it for being so slow? Well, no mind.

"The Mummy's Ghost" uses the same basic template of every Mummy sequel. Mummy is alive! Priest sent to get princess's body using The Mummy (Lon Chaney Jr.)! Stuff happens! There is that odd lost love subplot hanging around! That's our film in a nutshell. Here are the important, distinguishing bits for this one:

-Person + Egyptian decent = magic powers!
-John Carradine + bronzer = Egyptian!
-Yes, the dog's name is 'Peanuts', though it never sounds like it when they yell for him... how embarrassing.
-New England towns are quite adept at setting up neighborhood Mummy patrols. Go figure.

Like most of the later Universal Monster movies, this is a fun distraction. You know what you're getting, you know the rules of the monster, you know that the script was thrown together hastily. Yet, they retain a certain level of camp and fun. Mindless Halloween flavored entertainment to be sure. With the glut of bad horror out there, you could do a lot worse this season, than to curl up with your Mummy.

Movie for 10/5/07 - 'Tarkan vs. The Vikings' (1971)

And, if I don't get to update over the weekend:

Movie for 10/6/07 - 'Dracula' (1931)

Movie for 10/7/07 - Undetermined

Movie #7 - “Dracula” (1931)

Ah… ol’ Drac. Has a monster’s story been told in so many different ways as yours?  Has the monster type been reinvented as many times as you, the vampire?

Not that I can think of. The Vampire have gone from smelly, repugnant beings of pure rotting, life drinking terror to smooth, suave sophisticates, angsty gothlings, and fey depressing whiners. Think of a variation in that spectrum, and chances are it has been covered. If not in some literary form, then at least in some direct-to-video fashion.

‘Dracula’ arrived at a crucial point in the Vampire’s - and thus the character’s - development. Thanks to the Bram Stoker novel, the vampire had become a more thoughtful character. Still decidedly evil, he was now more of a calculator, a manipulator. This ruthless cunning was perfect for the stage, and as theatrical versions of ‘Dracula’ started appearing, people started picking up on the erotic subtext of the vampire mythos. Seeing it acted out on stage, helped expose it, and allowed other to run with it. (Attention vampire scholars: Yes, I’m over-simplifying horribly.)

By the time they were ready to finally film Dracula, the character had changed from monstrous, sinister force a la Count Orlock (“Nosferatu”) to the more refined, even sexy version we know today. A Hungarian actor by the name of Bela Lugosi  had managed to make quite a name for himself playing ol’ Drac on stage, and when Carl Laemlle, Jr. decided to put him in Universal’s first “talkie” horror movie, it turned out to be an iconic move.

‘Dracula’ is without a doubt an iconic movie. An important movie. A milestone of horror… but, man… it hasn’t aged well.

Don’t get me wrong, I love Lugosi’s turn as Dracula. I love Dwight Frye’s Renfield, Edward Van Sloan is a consummate Van Helsing. There are scene ingrained on the cinematic landscape, and some sets and sequences still have the power to make you shudder a bit. Ultimately, though, the story is not a well told one, at least by today’s standards. The fact that it was adapted from a stage play is very evident as the scenes are largely stagnant (exception: several shots often credited to German Director of Photography  Karl Freund), there is not incidental music - only music to begin and end the film. These tell-tale signs become a bit of cinematic sleep-inducers as  this classic story struggles against the weight of its own plot unfolding.

Tod Browning did some amazing work in the sound era (“Freaks”, anyone?) but it shows that “Dracula” was his first talkie… he’s an artist still unsure of the medium, and trying to stay in his comfort area by relying on time tested techniques that may not necessarily suit this new storytelling style.

I could go on and on about my love and dislike for this movie. But in the end, I will cop out here and recommend that you watch it, and see what you can find in it. I see brilliant moments, that must have been groundbreaking and shocking back then… but nowadays become a bit of a bore.

Following change due to The Sleepy:

Movie for 10/7/07 - “MoH: Incident On And Off A Mountain Road” (2005)

10/8/07 - “Army Of Darkness” (1992)

10/9/07 - “Microwave Massacre” (1983)

Coming Soon - “Death Spa” (1988), “Dead Birds” (2005), “The Wicker Man” (2006)

Movie #9 - "Army Of Darkness" (1992)

Why was Sam Raimi the perfect choice to direct "Spider Man"? Go on, think about it. There were a whole slew of directors who wanted the project. The fact remains that 99% of them would have completely botched the project. So, again, what made Sam Raimi the perfect choice to direct "Spider Man" and it's sequels? It's because Sam knows how to get in touch with his inner 12-year-old. Just watch "Army Of Darkness".

Even if you're not familiar with the prequels, "Evil Dead" and "Evil Dead 2", you'll be able to jump right into the story. A 20th century man (Ash!) is dropped (literally) along with an Oldsmobile (again, literally) into the dark ages. Only to find that the evil forces he'd been battling in the present, were also in the past. What's a guy to do? Fire up the chainsaw, baby...

"Army Of Darkness" is very different in tone then the previous to films. Whereas "Evil Dead" was a straightforward and very effective horror story, and "Evil Dead 2" told the same story with comedic elements, "Army Of Darkness" transforms into nothing short of a fantasy picture, with plenty of horror elements and trappings, that doesn't shy away from the goofiness of it's own conceits. With this film, you have to have the ability to say, "Sure! Why not?" If you really can't you're not just missing out on a lot of fun, but you're in for a lot of headaces.

You see, this movie almost perfectly encapsulates the inner workings of a 12-year-old boy. There is magic, adventure, monsters, a token pretty woman (I mean at 12, females are kinda scary and sex is just a vague, scary, fascinating notion - one will do), corny jokes, explosions and even science (just the cool parts)! Also, a hero. Not the goody, goody Superman type, but the (deeply) flawed hero who thing somehow seem to work out for. Had my comic-book addled mind seen this film at 12, it just may have popped. So it's a good thing I was a bit older when it came out.

Another cool thing about this movie, is that you can see just how far, for better or for worse, special effects technology has come. I mean, here's a movie with no CGI. Practical effects, start to finish. Now, every movie has some sort of CGI it seems (at least every Sci-Fi original no-budget picture does), so this is refreshing. Sure, some of the effects haven't aged well, but when you give in to the spirit of the tale, it becomes part of the charm.

If you hate horror movies, watch this one. You'll have a blast. If you love horror movies, watch this one. You'll have a blast. "Army Of Darkness" is a ride movie, so hold on and go with it.

Movie for 10/9/07 due to me forgetting there was no mail yesterday - "The Wicker Man" (1973)

Movie for 10/10/07 - "Microwave Massacre" (1983)

Coming Soon:  “Death Spa” (1988), “Dead Birds” (2005), “The Wicker Man” (2006), "MoH: Pick Me Up" (2005), "Dawn Of The Dead" (2004)