Halloween 2015: October 25

The Final Girls (2015)

My initial reaction to the announcement of “The Final Girls” was ambivalence. There have been so many jokey, meta takes on the slasher genre. We know all the rules: the virginal final girl, the masked and unstoppable killers, the crimes in the past, the isolated location, and the death of the teens who partake of drugs, sex, or assholery. It’s old hat. It didn’t help that, around the same time, an entirely different project entitled “Final Girl” – minus the plural and definite article – was also being prepped for release. (And now, “The Final Girls” is out on VOD while “Final Girl” is on DVD. Confusing, right?) When reviews of “The Final Girls” started to roll in, they were all very positive. In an October when “Crimson Peak” was supposed to be the horror event of the season, this indie comedy has become the celebrated belle of the ball. I’ll be the judge of that!

Amanda Cartwright is a struggling actress and single mom. In the eighties, she appeared in an infamous slasher flick called “Camp Bloodbath,” which remains her sole claim to fame. The close connection between Amanda and her daughter Max is shattered when Amanda dies in a car crash. Ten years later, a movie nerd friend of Max talks her into appearing at a midnight screening of “Camp Bloodbath.” A fire breaks out in the theater and, through some magical juju, Max and her friends end up inside the movie. The group has to survive the rules and limitations of the slasher film while Max bonds with the character played by her mother.

Like I said, there are really no more witty observations of the slasher genre left to be made. “The Final Girls” trots out many of the observed clichés. The teenage characters are all played by much older actors that fit the stock parts of the slut, the jock, the stoner, etc. What makes “The Final Girls” work is that its humor is more absurd. It’s not just built on making fun of slasher troupes. The characters are intentionally silly. The jock is a sex-crazed, posturing, ridiculous asshole. The slutty girl dresses exclusively in a tied-off shirt and jean shorts. Her exposed breasts summons the killers, which causes the cast to dress her in duct tape, oven mitts, and a life jacket. What is more clever is when “The Final Girls” comments on filmic, narrative concepts. When a flashback happens, sepia colors drip from the sky, the heroes carried along with the flashback. Later, a flashback is triggered to escape a dangerous situation. The titles and credits appear on-screen, characters interacting with them. The movie-world is filmed in the bright colors of eighties cinema, which is a nice touch. Mostly, the jokes are like are the silly dialogue and goofball character beats. “Is new wave real?,” for example. Or characters stumbling into their own booby traps.

“The Final Girls” is a funny, colorful riff on the “Friday the 13th” films specifically. This is all well and good. What makes the movie truly memorable is that it actually has heart. The opening scene between Max and Amanda quickly, effectively establishes the close relationship between the mother and daughter. When Max enters the movie-world, she decides to save her mother’s character. Though Amanda’s character Nancy is defined as “the shy girl with the guitar and the clip pad,” who looses her virginity and dies in the first half-hour, Max reaches out to her inner humanity. That’s an interesting thought, that even the minor characters have an inner-life. Max and Nancy have several heart-to-hearts, the daughter hoping she can carry her beloved mom’s character into the real world. However, Nancy has to fulfill her destiny so that Max can live up to her full potential. This is an interesting comment on how much a parent has to sacrifice for their child. Honestly, “The Final Girls” tugs at your heart strings a bit which definitely elevates it above its goofy comedy roots.

Lastly, “The Final Girls” has an incredibly game cast. I loved Taissa Farmiga and Malin Akerman as Max and her mom. They’re funny, charming, cute, and fully realized. After watching so many nineties slashers full of pretty actors, it’s a nice touch that “The Final Girls” is cast with people the look like real human beings. Alexander Ludwig is hunky but in a realistic, boy-next-door way. Alia Shawkat and Thomas Middleditch definitely don’t look like your typical movie stars. The cast is really amusing and solid. The film-within-the-film performers truly go for it. Adam DeVine is hilarious, improvising many of his goofy, ridiculous lines. Angela Trimbur’s mid-movie dance scene is hilariously silly. Tory N. Tompson dresses absurdly and has no problem acting equally silly. I also love the quirky, quasi-romance he forms with Shawkat’s character.

“The Final Girls” truly is a ball from beginning to end. My only issue with it is the rating: How can one make a truthful homage to the blood-and-guts and T&A soaked films of the eighties within a PG-13 rating? That’s a disappointment yet “The Final Girls” is good enough that you hardly notice. While I’m not ready to declare this movie the horror darling of the season, “The Final Girls” is really a lot of fun. Highly recommended! [8/10]

Strange Invaders (1983)

I’ve probably mentioned this before. Back in the day, I had an appointment every Friday night with “AMC’s efx.” A late night programming block hosted by Stan Winston, every week they would show two different special effects film. (Disappointingly, this did not always mean a sci-fi or horror movie. I remember tuning in one night and getting “The Enemy Below.” That was a bummer.) Anyhoo, one night they were showing Hammer’s “The Abominable Snowman” and “Strange Invaders,” two films I had never seen before. That same night, my mom’s then-boyfriend dragged me to a baseball game I had no interest in. He was one of those asinine pricks determined to foster an interest in sports in me. He promised me that I’d be home in time for the movie. That was before the game ran into ten extra innings. I still hate baseball. Good story, right? Anyway, I’m finally seeing “Strange Invaders.”

Charles Bigelow is an etymologist working at a community college in New York. His ex-wife shows up one night with their daughter. She drops the kid off and disappears, on a journey into the Midwest. Looking for his wife, Charles finds himself in the town of Centerville, Illinois. The town’s fashion is stuck in the fifties and they don’t welcome outsiders. He soon realizes the residents of the town are aliens. In order to get to the bottom of this, Charles teams up with a tabloid reporter and heads down a rabbit hole of alien conspiracy.

“Strange Invaders” was written and directed by Michael Laughlin. It was intended as the second part of a thematic trilogy, after 1981’s “Strange Behavior.” (Which I’ve also never seen.) Both films are apparently homages to 1950s genre cinema. Baby boomer nostalgia was probably pretty big at the time, as those kids would be in their thirties by then. “Strange Invaders” seems to be commenting, intentionally or not, on that nostalgia. The town of Centerville is stuck in the fifties. Yet that is never shown as a good thing. The people reject all outsiders. I wish “Strange Invaders” could’ve taken this further, maybe commenting on the racism and sexism of the time period. Instead, “Strange Invaders” leaves behind Centerville as a setting early on, the story spinning in odder directions. Still, it’s interesting that it tries.

Instead, “Strange Invaders” is an odd romantic/comedy full of sleuthing. Paul Le Mat is an unconventional leading man, mostly basically his face is incredibly off-putting looking. However, he’s still kind of charming. A nerdy bug expert is not your typical genre movie hero. Midway through the film, he teams up with Nancy Allen’s tabloid reporter. Allen plays nearly the same performance she would play in the next year’s “Not for Publication.” Nancy brings the same crackling charm to the part that she shows in everything. She has solid chemistry with Le Mat. The two are getting close only a few hours after meeting each other but, unlike how it usually works in movies, I actually kind of buy it here. The way the mystery evolves is convoluted, starting with Wallace Shawn getting zapped in the shower and leading up to Michael Lerner as a mental patient. Yet “Strange Invaders” keeps you guessing, if nothing else.

Like seemingly every other alien invasion movie I’ve watched this month, “Strange Invaders” is another variation on the body snatcher premise. However, the eighties version adds some gooey special effects. The aliens tear off their human skins, revealing bug-eyed extraterrestrial bodies underneath. Later, we see the invaders suck the essence out of people, causing the bodies to melt. For all its awesome latex monster effects, “Strange Invaders” tosses in an interesting last act twist: The invaders aren’t actually malevolent. They’re science researchers, not unlike Charles. After finishing their study, they leave the planet and return every person they’ve captured or replaced. This necessitates plenty of false leads. All the lightning beams and glowing balls of blue energy don’t really pan out. Still, the script provides a clever spin on the expected formula.

Unlike many of eighties take on fifties monster movies, “Strange Invaders” doesn’t have too much of a following. It’s not exactly a classic. The acting from some of the supporting players is a bit ropy. The plot twists and turns in some sloppy directions. A last minute focus on Charles’ daughter, which the aliens want to do something with, is a narrative dead-end. Still, fans of fifties sci-fi or eighties monster movies will probably enjoy it. Worth the wait? Sure! [7/10]

Eel Girl (2008)

Here’s another weirdo horror short the internet recommend I watch. “Eel Girl” feels less like a proper short film and more like a scene from a larger story. In a military research facility of some sort, a scientist is left alone with his work. He opens a door and unleashes a female creature, an aquatic humanoid of some fashion. He is drawn towards the Eel Girl, which is not a very good idea.

Some eel species really can unhinged their jaws and swallow huge objects whole. “Eel Girl” builds upon this idea to create a truly unnerving, uncomfortable image. This is just one image though and the film has little else to offer. It’s not quite six minute but “Eel Girl” still has to pad out its run time. There’s a long sequence of the scientist and the titular character glaring at each other though the glass while a super distracting electronic/dance score plays. The monster make-up, which was provided by WETA Workshops, are pretty good I suppose. The short is well-shot. Because the internet is such a weird place, “Eel Girl” tends to generate two divergent reactions. There are a handful of “reaction” videos on Youtube, of people watching the short in disgust or shock. On the other hand, the short also appeals to vore fetishests, people sexually aroused by the idea of being eaten alive. Having your work re-appropriated by creepy perverts: Now that’s terrifying! [6/10]

Halloween 2015: October 24

Interview with the Vampire (1994)

For years, horror fans would debate the merits of the sexy vampire. For a long time, I felt pretty, sexy vampires were an affront to everything the vampire stood for. They’re undead, blood sucking monsters, not goth teenager’s imaginary boyfriends! Many other fans felt this way. However, since the rise of the sparkly vampire, it’s become easier to defend the sexy vampire. Yes, pretty boy vampires with flaxen hair, blemish-free skin, and romantic eyes are ridiculous. But at least they still kill people. At least they’re still monsters. Take, for example, “Interview with the Vampire.” When Anne Rice’s book first became hugely popular, I blamed her for the proliferation of the romantic vampire. (This is silly, since the vampire genre has always been awash with romance.) Now, in a post-“Twilight” world, “Interview with the Vampire” looks way better then it did twenty years ago.

In 1791, Louis de Pointe du Lac lost his wife and daughter, along with his will to live. His acceptance of death led him into the fangs of Lestat de Lioncourt, a hedonistic vampire. Lestat bites Louis, transforming him into an immortal vampire. The two vampires debate, about the ethics of killing humans, about what to do with their adopted vampire daughter. Soon, Louis flees to Europe, in search of an older breed of vampire. And now, two hundred years later, he tells his story to a young journalist in a San Francisco hotel room.

“Interview with the Vampire” has one of the cleanest three act structures I’ve seen in a while. The first third of the movie focuses on Louis’ early adventures with Lestat and, eventually, Claudia. The second part details his journeys in Europe. The final part has him returning to America. The first part is probably the least compelling. Brad Pitt is slightly flat as Louis. Moreover, the character is extremely whiny. He spends far too much of the film brooding about his desire to drink blood. We all know he’s going to give in and kill people eventually, making the endless debates meaningless. No wonder Lestat, played by Tom Cruise at his most glamorously theatrical, would become the series’ flagship character. Anne Rice willingly embraces the gay subtext of the vampire archetype. Lestat and Louis basically have a contentious but nevertheless romantic relationship. When Claudia enters the picture, the three become a family, two homosexual fathers raising a daughter together. This is a parallel the film itself makes. Claudia’s entry into the story certainly perks up the first act, thanks to Kristen Dunst’s fiery performance. Still, there’s only so much to be mined from Lestat’s decadence contrasting with Louis’ reluctance.

Weirdly, once Lestat is temporary taken out of the picture, “Interview with the Vampire” picks up considerable speed. (His quasi-death certainly provides the film with its goriest moments.) By exploring Europe, the story is given a nice scope. More focus is given to Claudia and her conflict, of living forever in a little girl’s body. Mostly, the introduction of an older society of vampires provides a much needed adversary. Stephen Rea as the clownish but sinister Santiago gives the movie a colorful villain. The entire “Theater of the Vampire” sequence, where vampires feed upon victims on a stage but frame it as performance art, is fantastic. The scene where Armand, played by a smoldering Antonio Banderas, seduces the female victim best illustrates how vampires are both frightening and alluring. Mostly, this subplot gives the film a more concrete conflict then just Louis and Lestat’s philosophical differences. A vampire killing another vampire is the only crime the order recognizes. Thus, Claudia and Louis are punished. When Louis escapes, he goes on a roaring rampage of revenge. It’s a fantastic sequence and, honestly, the story could have ended there.

However, I am glad the movie continues. As the story reaches it ending, the plot moves into the modern age. The passing of time is brilliantly shown in a montage where Louis watches various movies in a theater. The final encounter between Louis and Lestat is more tragic then intense, the elder vampire becoming somewhat pathetic in his old age. The framing device, featuring Christan Slater as the interviewer, don’t add much but does root the story in as specific place and time.  “Interview with the Vampire” was directed by Neil Jordon, whose films are always gorgeous. Accordingly, the film is elegantly and beautifully shot. Jordan’s use of colors are warm, rich, and sensual. Naturally, the period costumes and sets are fantastic.

“Interview with the Vampire” is perhaps too long and Brad Pitt is still kind of a drag. Anne Rice is very inconsistent with what abilities her vampires are given. Some can read thoughts, for ill-defined reasons. They can’t shape shift or hypnotize but can move at super speed, a special effect that hasn’t aged well. The characters in-film dismisses the pop culture version of vampires yet sunlight is the only thing that easily kills them. It remains an adsorbing film throughout, even up to that goofy, sequel-hook ending. I can understand fans dismissing its prancing, glamorous, queer vampires. I like the film and it’s too glammy for me at times. Even though it might have launched a damnable subculture, “Interview with the Vampire” is still a pretty good movie. [7/10]

The Day Mars Invaded Earth (1963)

We’ve always been fascinated by the possibility that life exists on Mars. That our nearest celestial neighbor may contain life has fired the imagination for centuries. Even into the sixties, as the Space Age began and scientists became increasingly certain that there wasn’t life on Mars, sci-fi writers continued to look towards the Red Planet. The precisely entitled “The Day Mars Invaded Earth” was written by Harry Spalding, a minor genre scribe who would go on write “The Earth Dies Screaming,” “Curse of the Fly,” and “The Watcher in the Woods.” It is the only science fiction film made by Maury Dexter, who otherwise specialized in studio programmers. The movie has mostly been forgotten but is notable as a late example of the old school alien invasion story.

Dr. David Fielding is a scientist in charge of a program to land a robotic probe on Mars. As Martian probes are wont to, the latest one has disappeared on the surface of the planet. Fielding returns to his spacious California home, to his wife and two kids. Afterwards, everyone in the family begins to notice something strange. Odd-acting doppelgangers have seemingly appeared around the home. Soon, Dr. Fielding discovers that these doubles are the first wave in an invasion of Earth by insidious Martian forces.

In his review of “Earth vs. the Flying Saucer,” ever-true genre reviewer Dave Sindelar noted that most alien invasion films don’t deliver on the promise of their premise. My mini-marathon of invasion films has certainly made that apparent. “The Day Mars Invaded Earth” doesn’t feature any Martian doom fleets marching on Earth. Instead, it’s another variation on the body snatcher idea. The Martians make copies of their intended victims. Once the original is scratched out, they can replace them and facilitate their take-over. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the body snatcher concept is the cheapest type of alien invasion to create. It requires no make-up or special effects beyond the actors themselves. There’s no doubt that “The Day Mars Invaded Earth” was a very cheap production. Its idea of a spooky special effect is the camera going blurry over an actor’s face.

“The Day Mars Invaded Earth” is an intensely slow-paced movie. Most of the film, for that matter, is made up of people wandering the mansion grounds. That is Greystone Mansion, by a way, a frequent presence in TV and movies. Dr. Fielding walks around the building, the camera tracking him at every turn. Next, his wife walks around for a long time. Before the movie is over, we see the son take a trip around the house. The most exciting thing to happen in the first half of “The Day Mars Invaded Earth” is a car careening off the road, the actual crash happening off-screen. “The Day Mars Invaded Earth” is so low-key that the building’s gate not opening is a major dramatic incident. Actually, there’s a lot of talk about the gate being forced closed. Someone crow-barring the gate open is shot with the intensity of a chase sequence. Not very much happens in “The Day Mars Invaded Earth” is the point I’m making.

There is at least one memory thing about the movie though. No, it’s not the performances. Kent Taylor is a snore at the doctor. Marie Windsor is melodramatic as his wife. Gregg Shank is so squeaky-clean as the son that it strains believably. The film ends with a confrontation between the humans and the Martian doppelgangers. No, not the doctor or any of his family members. It’s an associate of his, a minor side character. Anyway, using their powers, the Martians burn the man down into ash, an outline of his body left on the ground. The next scene shows four more smoking, ash silhouettes, each one corresponding to a member of the family. As the film ends, the family seemingly leaves in their car. Considering most of “The Day Mars Invaded Earth” feels like an undistinguished fifties B-movie, it’s bleak, downbeat, sixties-style ending comes as a real surprise.

If only the whole movie was as moody and effective as that conclusion. There are other interesting ideas floating around inside it. An alien race that is so advance that it’s non-corporal could’ve been better deployed in a less chintzy, cheap movie. As it is, “The Day Mars Invaded Earth” is one slowest, soggiest sci-fi B-flicks I’ve ever seen. You’ll be fighting to keep your eyes open the entire time. [5/10]

Suckablood (2012)

There’s such a thing as doing too much. “Suckablood” fancies itself a “gothic fairy tale.” In rhyming verse, the story is related. A young girl won’t stop sucking her thumbs, despite her mother whipping her hands as a deterrent. She is told that, if she doesn’t stop sucking her thumbs, a monster called the Suckablood will appear and attack her. Seeking comfort but frightened, she resists. The ending of the short plays out in exactly the way you’d expect.

“Suckablood” is built upon ridiculously overwrought visuals. The short begins with a spooky mansion on a dark and stormy night, fog billowing outside. It continues on with high-contrast shadowy shots. I should love this, right? Yet everything in “Suckablood” is generated in a computer. There’s no weight, warmth, or interior reality to its universe. It feels like a Hallmark Halloween card, cobbling together the clichés of the genre. The decision to tell the story via rhyme was an incredibly irritating one. Many of the rhymes are painful, bludgeoned into fitting. The titular monster is a generic goblin with elongated ears and nose. The moral of the story is easily, obviously predicted. Thankfully it’s only six minutes. I’m imaging a feature length version of this story and it would be painful. “Suckablood” has all the right ingredients but none of the heart and soul necessary to pull something like this off. [4/10]

Halloween 2015: October 23

The Beast with Five Fingers (1946)

Let’s talk about killer hand movies. It’s a funny sort of subgenre, isn’t it? We’re about due for a new one. For a while there, we were getting one about once a decade. The sixties brought “The Crawling Hand.” The seventies had “And Now the Screaming Starts!” Oliver Stone made “The Hand” in the eighties. “Idle Hands” of the late nineties is the last major one I can think of. Obviously, Thing from “The Addams Family” is the most culturally significant example, though he’s not much of a killer. You wouldn’t think a disembodied hand would be that difficult of a threat to overcome. Yet the idea endures. As far as I can tell, “The Beast with Five Fingers” is the earliest film to be about such a subject. Written by classic horror scribe Curt Siodmak and starring Peter Lorre, it is the only horror film Warner Bros. would make in the forties.

In the Italian village of San Stefano lives Francis Ingram, a concert pianist rendered immobile and cantankerous with age. He harbors feelings for his live-in nurse, Julie. She is in love with Bruce Conrad, a would-be conman who also lives in the home. Among the other residents is Hilary Cummins, a strange man obsessed with the occult. When Ingram dies suddenly, from a fall down the stairs, his fortune is willed to Julie. Not long after his death, the mansion is haunted by the spirit of Ingram’s severed hand. It stalks and it kills, Francis’ rage seemingly extending from beyond the grave. Conrad, Julie, and a private investigator seek to undercover the truth before they become the hand’s next victims.

I’ve noted my devotion to the horror films Universal made in the thirties and forties. As I explore films from other companies made during the same time, I’ve grown to admire the efficiency of Universal’s films. “The Beast with Five Fingers” takes about a half-and-hour to get to the good stuff. The film conforms to the standards of the time, with love triangles, romantic banter, and broad comic relief. When “The Beast” gets down to business, it works very well. Sequences of the old home at night, haunted by a piano played by an unseen force, have that classic kind of spookiness I desire. Moments exploring an old crypt or the manor’s hidden rooms also appeal to me. The special effects used to bring the hand to life were quite sophisticated for their time. The sequences of the hand stalking its victims border on the comical yet still manage to work. The best scene in the film occurs when Lorre’s character sees the hand rising from a box. He chases it around the room, behind the book cases, until Lorre hammers a nail into it. If it had committed fully to its gothic horror roots, “The Beast” probably would’ve been amazing from start to finish.

As big a star as the hand is, Peter Lorre is the one who makes the film. Many scenes are devoted to Lorre loosing his shit. When the owners of the mansion threaten to take his books away, he shrieks in wild-eyed abandon. The sequence of him battling the hand has the actor reaching a fever pitch. When unconvinced of his own sanity, he pulls at his hair, screaming like a madman. It’s awesome. The rest of the cast isn’t bad. J. Carrol Naish puts on a ridiculous Italian accent as the detective. Robert Alda has some roguish charm, mixing up the standard hero role. Andrea King as Julie, though lovely, is a bit too sleepy. They’re not bad. But Lorre owns the film, scraping the heavens with his delightfully demented performance. Nobody did sweaty, unhinged insanity with as much panache as him.

When focused on the spookiness or Lorre hamming it up in magnificent ways, “The Beast with Five Fingers” is a joy. Unfortunately, this does not occupy the entire feature. Long scenes are devoted to Alda and King’s romance. Half the men in the film are pursuing King. The love interests pile up after a while. A subplot involves the people in the town being fearful of everyone who lives in the mansion. This never builds to much. There are mysteries at hand too. There’s a secret vault, which can only be opened with a particular combination. Naturally, there’s a lot of discussion about the old man’s wealth. Disappointingly, the film is not content with just being a monster movie. It has to cook up a logical solution to what has happened. There’s a lengthy denouncement, explaining every unusual event in the story. The true identity of the killer is very easy to guess. As fun as that can be, I kind of wish they had just stuck with the creeping hand.

“The Beast with Five Fingers,” even with that awesome title, is not quite the classic for the ages I was hoping for. When it focuses on the murderous hand, it is quite good. When it allows Lorre to go nuts, it’s awesome. Otherwise, it’s a bit too typical of the time and place. Still, classic horror fans won’t want it to crawl away. [7/10]

The Pool (2001)

By 2001, the slasher revival was pretty much over in the states. Obviously, foreign countries thought the trend was still worth exploiting. “The Pool” is a German production, with actors from the U.S., Scotland, Britain, the Czech Republic, Australia, and who knows where else. Obviously meant to cash in on the post-“Scream” wave of horror, the film came a little too late for that. It slipped onto DVD over here, noticed by no one. Hardcore horror fans don’t seem to have much to say about it. It doesn’t even have a review over at Hysteria Lives!, which is basically the database for these sort of things. Does “The Pool” deserve to be overlooked?

At a prestigious European prep school, classes have ended for the summer. Sara and Greg, and their group of ten friends, are all graduating. They decide to throw a huge graduation party that night. With the help of Marty, a lock-picker and thief, they break into a large, in-door water park. As they frolic in the pools, a machete-wielding murderer sneaks into the building. One by one, he picks the teens off. Could the killer be one of the group or is he an interloper?

The biggest problem with “The Pool” – or “Swimming Pool,” if you’re watching the film anywhere else in the world – is its cast. “The Pool” has twelve main characters. These aren’t nameless side characters introduced to pad out the body count. They each get their own subplots, most of them coupled off romantically. The worst part is that none of them are memorable. The cast is a generic lot of interchangeable, blandly attractive teenagers. I honestly couldn’t tell who was who most of the time. Worst yet, many of the teens are actively irritating. They’re all obnoxious, entitled rich brats. There’s a long stretch where two of the males beat up everyone they suspect of being the killer. An utterly routine subplot involves Greg cheating on Sara with Carmen, the Czech swimmer girl. (Yes, her diving abilities become important later.) There is some wasted potential here, as the cast includes two future stars. James McAvoy plays the sad sack who just got dumped by his middle class girlfriend, played by Isla Fisher. Fisher is easily the most sympathetic character but, because “The Pool” has its priories all fucked up, she is the first to die.

Part of the charm of eighties slasher flicks is their grit, grounding the story in a visible reality. Re-watch the original “Friday the 13th.” It’s sleazy as fuck. Nineties slasher flicks usually went in the opposite direction. They starred underwear models and looked like car commercials. “The Pool” is maybe the slickest slasher I’ve ever seen. All the bodies are hairless and all the abs are washboard. The first scene has the killer attacking a couple in a mansion. The smooth blue filters and occasional slow-motion let’s you know how commercial the whole movie will look. The first half is mostly devoted to pretty people drinking and hanging out in their swimsuits. It’s the kind of shit you could see on any episode of “The Real World.” Everyone drives an expensive sports car or a huge truck. I suspect much of “The Pool’s” budget was provided by product placement. Every time someone drinks a beer, the Heineken logo is prominently placed. The killer drives a Toyota truck. The camera makes sure you know it’s a Toyota. In short, “The Pool” is as slick, as insipidly flashy, as its watery location.

If “The Pool” is such a lame duck, why did I bother watching it at all? Because the killer looks really cool. Unlike most slashers, which opt for bulky, “The Pool’s” murderer is tall and lean. He wears a black shirt, leather pants, and those strappy boots that Goths love so much. On his face is a truly bitching skull mask. He wields a machete. In the film’s sole clever moment, the blade is inscribed with the phrase “Have a nice day!” Admittedly, “The Pool” is gorier and sexier then most films of its type. There’s plenty of blood, slashing, and stabbing. The best kill occurs when the machete blade is extended up into a water slide, just as a girl is coming down it. The identity of the killer is meaningless, as none of the characters register. His motive is utterly ridiculous and overheated. Still, he looks cool and that counts for something in this game.

I have little doubt that the European producers of “The Pool” meant to outdo their American counterparts. More supermodel actors! More blood! More nudity! More spiffy photography! More obnoxious rock music on the soundtrack! Excess is not always a good thing, not even in the horror genre. “The Pool” is utterly forgettable. The nineties slasher revival died the death it deserved. [5/10]

The Little Mermaid (2011)

If you’re wondering where I’m getting all these short films this year, before the Six Weeks started I googled “horror short films.” I found some list that recommended some of the stuff I’ll be watching over the next few days. “The Little Mermaid” was apparently part of a themed series done at the Vancouver Film School. The series reimagined fairy tales as horror stories. (Considering about half of the internet is devoted to reimaginings of the Disney Princesses now, this wasn’t a very novel idea.) This take on “The Little Mermaid” is set a in circus tent in a desolate forest landscape. Spectators watch dispassionately as the ringleader feeds a bathtub-bound mermaid a fish. After the small crowd leaves, the mermaid and the man have a confrontation.

There’s not a lot to “The Little Mermaid,” plot wise. The progression of the story is telegraphed from the first scene. You know the captured mermaid will have her revenge on the tormentor. About the only surprise comes in how she gets that revenge. It involves the mermaid’s siren song, an ability you think she would have used long before then. What is worth liking about “The Little Mermaid” is its production values. The establishing shot makes good use of green screen backgrounds. The color design of the circus tent is appropriately grimy. The creature make-up on the mermaid is well done. Interestingly, the film is almost entirely without dialogue. There’s not very much to “The Little Mermaid” but it’s not bad, for what it is. Director Nicholas Humphries has had a decent career, with many short films and a few features. That’s nice. [6/10]

Halloween 2015: October 22

The Entity (1982)

When I first heard of “The Entity,” it was referred to as the “ghost rape movie.” That’s not the kind of capsule synopsis that does any film any favors. I wrote it off as a creepy exploitation flick. Over the years though, I heard more people talk about “The Entity” in a serious, thoughtful way. Martin Scorsese called it one of the scariest films of all time. Quentin Tarantino used part of its soundtrack in “Inglourious Basterds.” Though the content may seemingly be outrageous, the film has garnered the reputation of a hidden horror gem. It’s enough of a classic that there have been two attempts now to remake it. Now the time has come for me to actually watch “The Entity” and make up my own mind about it.

Carla Moran is a single mother, living in suburban California and attempting to scrap together a living for herself and her three kids. After a seemingly normal day, she is attacked in her bedroom by an unseen force, beaten and raped. The attacks continue, each one as brutal as the one before it. Her son doesn’t believe her, until he sees an attack himself. The psychologist she talks to is skeptical. Her boyfriend and her best friend think she was dreaming. To Carla, the Entity is real. When a pair of parapsychologists get involved, Carla has an oppretunity to convince others.

“The Entity” is frequently a difficult film to watch and doesn’t entirely succeed in its narrative goals. However, one element of the movie is consistently impressive. Barbara Hershey begins the movie with steely determination, working hard to find a better job so she can take care of her kids. The movie puts her through the emotional wringer. She weeps, cries, and is abused. Perhaps worst then the attack scenes are when she has to discuss what’s happen to her with disbelieving friends and professionals. Hershey is willing to go to extremely vulnerable places. She spends nearly the entire film traumatized. As the story goes, Carla develops a defiant streak. She confronts the Entity, determined not to let the abuse break her mind. It’s a brave performance.

To refer to “The Entity” as the “ghost rape movie” really isn’t very fair. However, there’s little doubt that the attack sequences are brutal and disturbing. The first one happens incredibly suddenly. Hershey is slapped hard across the face, her mouth bleeds, and she is tossed on the bed. The most extended and disturbing attacks occurs in the bathroom, her limbs bound, her face shoved into the shower curtain. During the attacks, the camera always focuses on Hershey’s faces, her fear and raw panic. This makes sure the sequences are never titillating or exploitative. (There's nowhere near as much nudity in the film as you'd expect.) Every time the ghost attacks, Charles Bernstein’s score features a bleating, shrieking siren. Even when there’s no sexual abuse, the violence is sudden and shocking, such as when a room is torn apart. “The Entity” attempts to examine the ramifications of guilt and trauma surrounding a rape. When the spirit takes her in her sleep, Carla has an orgasm, which makes her feel terrible. It’s obviously an incredibly difficult subject. It’s hard to say if “The Entity” says anything deep about the topic. However, it certainly makes the viewer feel Carla’s terror.

“The Entity” is reportedly based on a true story. (The real Carla was an alcoholic with a history of mental illness, no anomalous events were witnessed first hand, and most of the people who collaborated her story aren’t creditable.) In this vein, “The Entity” is also a film about science and skepticism. Ron Silver plays the shrink Carla runs to. He doesn’t believe in ghosts. Throughout the film, he makes the case that demons and ghosts are the result of beliefs, not fact. When Carla finds the parapsychologist eager to believe her story, Silver confronts them. He’s concerned that people are supporting her delusion. If “The Entity” kept things ambiguous, suggesting these events truly are only in Carla’s mind, maybe this subplot would have had more meaning. But the film presents everything that happens literally. The final act is as much devoted to convincing Silver’s character that the spirit is real as it is giving Hershey’s character resolution. The lengths the film goes for this – which involves liquid hydrogen and a reconstruction of Carla’s home – pushes believably. Overall, the “science vs. superstition” aspect of the plot is interesting but ultimately underwritten.

I wonder how “The Entity” would be receive by a modern audience. It’s not impossible to read the film from a feminist angle. After witnessing an attack, Carla’s boyfriend abandons her. Only after confronting the spirit on her own does she find solidarity. The film, interestingly, doesn’t conclude on a definitive note. The attacks continue after the story ends. “The Entity” is impressive as a powerful performance piece for Barbara Hershey and a shocking, disturbing horror film. It doesn’t lack raw power but never becomes exploitative either. With a slightly more focused script, it could’ve been an all-time grade. Taken the way it is, it’s a quite good horror film with many things worth recommending about it. [8/10]

Outer Space (2000)

One of the reasons I decided this would be the year I gave “The Entity” a shot is because I’ve been reading a lot about “Outer Space,” an experimental short film made entirely of footage from “The Entity.” Sounds like a great double feature, right? It should be emphasized that “Outer Space” is incredibly experimental. In black-and-white, different reels of film fade in and out of each other. There’s a lot of distortion and chaos. The screen rapidly flashes in black and white. Barbara Hershey’s face is reflected on itself, spinning in and around the center of the screen. Voices are heard speaking in reverse. It’s an exceedingly chaotic collection of filmic imagery, pre-existing footage spliced up and fed back through a projector.

So what the hell does one make of something like this? It’s not a movie in any traditional sense. “Outer Space” has no plot. It is merely a collection of flashing images. Occasionally, an interesting or poetic shot will appear. At one point, mirrored shots of a window fade into each other, the edges of the film reel passing over them like ghosts. Another shot has Hershey’s face multiply repeatedly, starring into itself. Mostly though, “Outer Space” is just noise, aural and visual static. A solid third of the short is composed of nothing but flashing lights, which should’ve prompted a seizure warning. It doesn’t comment on “The Entity” in any way. I’m not sure what the title means but this is sort of what I imagine traveling through a worm hole would look like. If it means anything, it’s about seeing how far the physical properties of film can be stretched. Does it produce a particular mood? Not much besides irritation. Is it all that interesting? Maybe more far-out space cadets can get something out of this abrasive audio/visual tone poem. It mostly just made my eyes hurt. [5/10]

Invasion of the Saucer Men (1957)

Monster kids the world over fondly recall the bug-eyed monster designs of the 1950s. Usually nuclear or extraterrestrial in origin, the creatures represent the half-way point between the little green men of World War II tabloids and the grays of modern ufology. Big brains, big eyes, shiny suits, and colorful skin were the usual attributes. Among these particular critters, there’s few more iconic than the titular threat of “Invasion of the Saucer Men.” Most every documentary I’ve seen about ‘50s sci-fi always featured the Saucer Men. This overlooks that the movie is actually a light-hearted horror/comedy that doesn’t take itself very seriously at all.

Johnny and Joan are newly-weds but still act like horny teenagers. They, for example, haven’t kicked the habit of parking at lovers' lane and making out. One such night is interrupted when a flying saucer lands in the woods. They strike one of the little green men with their car, getting the authorities involved. The cops don’t believe the teens. Soon, a pair of drunken con-men, the local military and a grumpy cattle farmer becomes involved. The Saucer Men outsmart each of them, leaving the teenagers to save the day.

Though its script does some mildly clever things, it’s not surprising that “Invasion of the Saucer Men” is best remembered for its rubber monsters. The Saucer Men are prime examples of the bug-eyed rubber monster. Their eyes are huge and unblinking, with cat-like irises. Their expressions are stuck in perpetual grimaces, thanks to their permanently furrowed brows and half-opened mouths. Their big, wrinkled brains look like head of lettuces, which is a nice touch. Mostly, it’s the Saucer Men’s abilities that make them memorable. They have an extra set of eyeballs on the top of their hands, which is an interesting touch. After being struck with a car, the dead alien detaches his arm which then crawls around on its own. This leads to a cute scene of the alien hand unknowingly harassing the female lead. Though the Saucer Men carry weapons, they also have built-in defenses. From syringes inside their fingers, they can inject victims with alcohol. When applied to an already drunk individual, this can be deadly. Mostly, the inventiveness of the monsters represents how surprisingly clever “Invasion fo the Saucer Men” can be.

That “Invasion of the Saucer Men” keeps a sense of humor about itself matters. The film is seemingly aware of the clichés of the genre. When the teens report the alien invaders to the cops, they don’t believe them. When they talk to the military, they don’t believe them either. Unlike a lot of fifties creature features where the military seems incompetent by accident, this movie intentionally makes its military incompetent. The Saucer Men are even savvy enough to dent the teens’ car, in an attempt to frame them. Because of an accident involving a spilled bottle of alcohol, everyone assumes they’re drunk. For extra fun, the movie throws in some actual drunks. There’s a ridiculous subplot about a farmer’s cow that also likes booze. Alcohol is a huge plot point, it turns out. “Invasion of the Saucer Men” is not quite sharp enough to be a satire of the genre but it’s clear those making the movie had fun playing with the conventions of the genre.

Also helping matters is the capable cast. Making the teen protagonists a married couple is a fun idea, another one of the movie’s mild subversion. Steven Terrell and Gloria Castillo are both likable in the part. I like that Castillo is not just a screaming damsel in distress, as she actually helps the plot move forward a few times. Terrell keeps things light-hearted as the hero. Mostly, the pair of drunks is the most memorable characters. Future Riddler Frank Gorshin has some giddy fun as Joe, who is characterized half-way between boozer and con-men. As his long suffering (and equally sloshed roommate), Lyn Osborn is also good. The sequence of him cleaning out the fridge to make room for the dead alien got a laugh out of me.

Like many alien invasion flicks, “Invasion of the Saucer Men” cooks up a ridiculous, last-minute weakness for the invaders. You’d think the Saucer Men wouldn’t attack a planet that is bathed in sunshine for half a day, if that’s what makes them explode. Breezy enough to excuse any of its silliness, the film should be a good time for any fans of fifties camp or rubber monster movies. [7/10]

Halloween 2015: October 21

Carnival of Souls (1962)

As I’ve watched a lot of weird stuff this Halloween, I’ve made continued references to enjoying locally produced films. When movies were made totally outside the studio system, they often displayed the deeply personal viewpoints of their creative, committed filmmakers. The lucky films were the ones that were rediscovered as low budget oddities. Most were totally forgotten. Occasionally, a genuine classic would sneak out of the world of outsider cinema. “Carnival of Souls” is one such classic. An odd-ball combination of art house aspiration and industrial film making starkness, the film has endured as an eerie landmark of low budget movie-making.

Mary is out on a Sunday drive with some girlfriends. A car full of guys challenges them to a race. The vehicle plummets off a bridge and everyone inside drowns… Except for Mary. Soon afterwards, she moves to Salt Lake City to play the organ in a church. On the road, Mary is haunted by the apparition of a pale, grinning man in a suit. The spectre pursues her every turn. While in Utah, Mary is drawn to Saltair, an abandoned carnival on the beach. There, the spirits of the dead rise from their watery graves, pulling people into a macabre dance. And the ghosts want Mary to join their dance.

In the early days of my internet surfing, I came upon a long-since-gone website called TheyreComing.com. Barbara Jo’s review of “Carnival of Souls” was especially insightful and I’m probably going to pillage it some here. “Carnival of Souls” is a film about fears: Fear of death, fear of sex, fear of religion, fear of not being noticed. Mary describes herself as a loner. It’s odd that she’s introduced with friends, as she spends much of the movie alone. The script never outright says if Mary is an atheist but, at the very least, she’s ambivalent about religion. This rejection of faith eventually gets her ejected from her organist job. She rejects men, having no interest in a boyfriend, sex, or love. The man who lives across the hall, John Linden, is an especially sleazy suitor. He spies on her as she gets dressed. He barges into her room in the morning. While the two are out, he gets drunk and calls her frigid. Afterwards, he kisses her. Every time, she rejects him. The ghostly man who pursues her often approaches with open arms. At one point, he appears with his head on her shoulder, smiling impishly. At the carnival, all of the ghost dance in couples. Except for the Man. He wants Mary. As much as Mary rejects the human world, it beckons to her, demanding she participate in the rituals of friendship, romantic love, and sex.

Sex leads to maturity and maturity, inevitably, leads to death. Which is what “Carnival of Souls” primarily concerns itself with. The movie’s twist ending is probably well known but look away now if you haven’t seen it: Mary didn’t survive the car crash at the beginning. Whether or not Mary is a ghost or the film is her dying fantasy is left ambiguous. If death = sex, then Mary’s avoidance of relationship also means she’s dodging death. Every time the Man approaches her, she flees. Yet he always has a way of catching up with her. He’ll appear outside her car window, in the stairway of her apartment, or in the pews of the church. No matter how much we run, death always has a way of catching up with us. The “Mary is a ghost” theory is supported by long scenes where she is seemingly cut off from the world. It’s as if no one can see or hear her. The only people who interact with her are the pasty faced ghouls she is frightened of. In an odd way, the movie grants her wish of being alone. When isolated from the world, she suddenly finds herself afraid. Mary is a classic anxious personality type. She rejects companionship yet longs for it all the same.

Obviously, “Carnival of Souls” can be read from different allegorical angles. But perhaps the film is most successful as an eerie, disquieting horror picture. The make-up for the ghostly Man and the other lost souls is simple as can be. Somehow, the white corpse paint becomes unnerving, when shot by the proper eye. There are long scenes in “Carnival of Souls” with no dialogue. Instead, they are powered by Gene Moore’s unquestionably creepy organ score. While playing the instrument in church, Mary’s mind wanders to Saltair. We see the dead people emerge from the waters, wet, starring, but smiling. In alternating slow or fast motion, the couples dance around the room, spinning in circles. The filmmakers came upon a true prize with the real life, abandoned Saltair Pavilion. The empty, dreary halls of the carnival grounds have a still air about them. Even on film, you can sense the eerie quality of this place. The climax, where Mary is finally drawn into the dance, is the film at its most powerfully odd. The black and white images flicker across the screen, feeling as much like a nightmare as a movie.

Candance Hilligoss has the difficult task of being both cold, uneasy, panicked, and frightened. She succeeds in that goal. Writer/director Herk Harvey had a long history making industrial and educational films. This gifted the movie with an austere, grounded-in-reality feeling. At the same time, the director strived for an artistic, dream-like quality. The two moods combine to make “Carnival of Souls” a surreal, unnerving horror classic. It’s a haunting peak into the mind of a nervous woman who feels no acceptance even when among the dead. [9/10]

Lovers Lane (2000)

Blogging is not an exact science, you guys. Especially not during these autumn months when I’m watching two or three movies a day. When I’m doing a theme, I usually procure the films I’ll be talking about before hand. Sometimes though, there are mix-ups. “Lovers Lane,” a post-“Scream” slasher I wanted to see, proved a surprisingly tricky movie to get a hold off. My local rental store, where I can first recall seeing it on the shelves years back, didn’t have it. It wasn’t available through any streaming service, legal or otherwise. (In English anyway. It’s up on Youtube in unsubtitled French, which didn’t help me much.) I had to rely on my Netflix by-mail service, where the movie had a “very long wait.” This usually translates to “We don’t know when you’ll get it.” Well, Netflix came through and “Lovers Lane” arrived in my mail box today. Was this little movie worth the hassle?

In 1987, a man and a woman were brutally murdered at the local lovers’ lane by an escaped lunatic with a hook for a hand. Neither victim was with their spouse. Thirteen years later, the children of the slaughtered adults are now teenagers. Mandy is a shy outcast while Michael just dumped his girlfriend, the most popular girl in school. As its Valentine’s Day, the teens are planning a party down at lovers’ lane. Naturally, the hook-handed madman escapes again. He’s headed back to lovers’ lane with murder on his mind. Can Mandy’s dad, the police chief, and Michael’s mom, the high school principal, rescue their kids in time?

“Lovers Lane” was obviously made to cash in on the success of “I Know What You Did Last Summer” and “Urban Legend.” Despite the hook wielding villain and urban legend-inspired premise, “Lovers Lane” doesn’t resemble either film that much. Instead, it has more in common with eighties slasher flicks. It embraces the clichés of the genre, with the “crime in the past” opening, the killer smashing through a door or the incompetent cops following the teens around. Mostly, the movie’s cast of goofy teen characters is what most reminds of those beloved flicks from the eighties. Erin J. Dean’s Mandy is believably mousy, with a sarcastic edge. Billy O’Sullivan plays Doug, the joker character who is a lovable loser. Sarah Lancaster is amusingly bitchy as evil popular girl Chloe. The only recognizable name in the cast is Anna Faris, who is wonderfully charming as bubbly cheerleader Jannelle. Not all the characters are that memorable. There’s an indistinct couple and boring hero Michael. The characters and performances are broad but in a likable, kind of funny way.

“Lovers Lane’s” plot is essentially split in two halves. The first half follows the teen as they’re tracked down by the killer, picked off one-by-one. The other half follows the the sheriff and the principal as they sleuth around. This story line is actually a lot of fun. Soap opera actor Matt Riedy is believable as the sheriff. In one of her two screen credits, Suzanne Bouchard is surprisingly funny as the principal. One scene has her punching out a drunken teenager at the bowling alley. While investigating an abandoned house, they nearly shoot each other. Their subplot eventually spirals down into utter ridiculousness. After the film’s story is seemingly wrapped up, there’s a total of three different reveals of who the killer is. At least one of them is totally baffling. (One of them you can be easily guessed by looking at which major character is absent throughout most of the film.) The killer’s motivation is even more random. However, watching Riedy and Bouchard have adventures made me smile in a silly, dumb kind of way more often then I would’ve expected.

What I liked about “Lovers Lane” is its tone of simple, stupid enjoyment and goofy characters. But how does it fare as a hack-and-slash picture? The gore isn’t very explicit. Mostly, we see the bodies of victims killed off-screen, some Karo syrup leaking from their mouths. Maybe this off-screen approach is best, since the goriest death looks like a water balloon full of red food dye was tossed into a car window. While “Lovers Lane” is far more charming then “I Know What You Did Last Summer,” the studio movie had the cooler looking hook-hand killer. The prison uniform, ski-mask, and hood combo this slasher wears isn’t very inspired. While the film is light on the red stuff, it fulfills the other end of the exploitation movie promise. The movie begins with some female nudity and features more of it as it goes on. So it has that going for it. There’s also an apparent call-back to “The Hills Have Eyes,” in the form of a familiar-looking booby trap.

I bet a lot of people with laugh off “Lovers Lane.” The movie’s production levels are strictly low budget. Half the story takes place in a nondescript farm house, for example. The script is silly and cliched. The characters are an exaggerated lot. One man’s criticisms is another man’s amusement. “Lovers Lane” is the kind of dumb slasher movie snack that definitely appeals to me. Let me return the disc to Netflix in a timely manner, so that others may enjoy its goofball allure. [7/10]

The Hairy Hands (2010)

The first time I heard the legend of the Hairy Hands of Dartmorr was in Daniel Cohen’s book, “Monsters You’ve Never Heard Of.” I hadn’t thought about that ghost story in years. Until the other day when, browsing Doug Bradley’s IMDb page, I saw this short film listed there. Sounds like good Halloween viewing to me! The short is about a man, who has abandoned his wife and child and made off with some work money, driving down the desolate country roads of Dartmorr. While fighting off sleep, he listens to a radio program discussing the Hairy Hands: Ghostly hands that appear on the road, wrenching drivers’ hands off their steering wheels. The man doesn’t take the story seriously until he encounters the Hairy Hands himself.

“The Hairy Hands” is presented in an interesting fashion. It’s a stop motion film shot with real actors on green-screen sets. So the performers move in an intentionally jerky fashion, presented among animated, otherworldly backgrounds. Considering the film is mostly just a guy driving his car, this is certainly an interesting way to enliven the material. There’s very little spoken dialogue in the film, most of the words coming via voice-over. (That’s where Doug Bradley comes in.) When the Hairy Hands appear, it’s initially startling. However, since the whole movie is shot in this odd fashion, it doesn’t make the similarly jittering, ghostly hands all that creepy.

The sound design of “The Hairy Hands” is also unusually abrasive. Too much of the short is taken up by annoying static emanating from the radio. In his head, we hear the protagonist arguing with his wife, their screaming baby in the background. None of that is very inviting, is it? Lastly, the main character is a jerk. He’s a thief, an abusive husband, and a deadbeat dad. This means “The Hairy Hands” is a simple story of a bad man being punished. The film had the chance to spin the titular ghosts into avenging spirits or something. It lets that chance slip by. Some obviously creative people worked on “The Hairy Hands.” Maybe a good film could still be made from the Dartmoor legend. Despite the interesting presentation, there’s not enough story or good will here to make this short worth seeking out. [5/10]

Halloween 2015: October 20

One Hour Photo (2002)

When Robin Williams passed away last year, a cry of mourning erupted from the internet. Williams, the definitive pop culture comedian for a whole generation of people, had killed himself. That someone who always seemed so energetic and effervescent could take their own life was a shock for a lot of people. Not me. There had always been a darkness to Williams, the inevitable lows to his manic highs. On screen, he was usually a cut-up. Occasionally, he would acknowledge that simmering sadness inside him with dramatic roles like “Good Will Hunting” or “Insomnia.” The most frightening of the thrillers Williams starred in was 2002’s “One Hour Photo.”

Sy Perrish is the senior worker behind the one hour photo stand at the local SavMart. Sy prides himself upon his work, as he creates vibrant, colorful photographs of people’s treasured memories. When one family, the Yorkins, come into the shop, he always goes out of his way to make polite conversation. Sy has watched Nina and Will’s marriage develop. He’s watched their son, Jake, grow up. The seemingly ideal family fills a hole in Sy’s lonely, sad heart. He collects photos of the Yorkins, making extra prints for himself. He fantasizes about a life with the family. And when he discovers that the Yorkins are less then ideal, Sy begins to contemplate committing violent acts.

Sy may be the most painfully lonely and sad character Robin Williams ever played. He has nothing in his life. He spends all day under sickly fluorescent lights before returning to an empty apartment. This is why his job is so important to him, why he places so much value on developing people’s photos. (It’s slightly ironic that the professional Sy takes such pride in, developing physical film, would be rendered totally obsolescent only a few years after the movie’s release.) During his voice-over narration, Sy acknowledges that photographs don’t honestly represent someone’s life. Pictures are of people’s happy moments, not their sad or traumatic moments. Yet Sy has difficulty understand that when it comes to the Yorkins. The saddest moments in the film are when Sy fantasizes about being part of the Yorkins’ family. About hanging out in the home by himself, chilling on the coach, or being there on a joyful Christmas morning. Except for young Jake who senses Sy’s sadness, the family doesn’t think about Sy much at all. He loves them dearly, in an obsessed, distant way, but he means nothing to them. Williams suppresses his usual hyper energy. The character’s ordinary quality emphasizes his deep loneliness, Williams’ deep blue eyes showing a quiet depression. It’s such an achingly sad, utterly human, and touching performance, one of the actor’s all time best.

“One Hour Photo” was basically the feature debut of Mark Romanek, a super-star music video director. Romanek’s detail-oriented style is well-suited to the film. Fittingly, many sequences are shot as if they’re photographs. Many scenes are purposely picturesque. Like Sy and Jake walking towards his home, through a tunnel of trees, the grass littered with autumn leaves. Or Jake standing outside his bedroom, tearfully listening to his parents argue. The scenes of Sy’s time at home or work are always shot in swallow, muted colors. The scenes of the Yorkins home are shot with bright, warm colors. Romanek doesn’t rely too much on stylish tricks. There’s a long zoom into the mechanisms of a camera and a number of dolly shots. His commitment to tying the entire film into its themes sometimes leads to on-the-nose symbolism. Sy has a nightmare where he bleeds from the eyes, as if in reaction to the awful things he’s seen. As he’s about to set out on his crazy plan, he glances over to a galloping coin-operated horse toy. Usually, Romanek is smart enough to let his performers work honestly inside a beautifully composed scene.

“One Hour Photo” may seem like an odd choice for my Halloween Horrorfest Blog-a-thon. It’s the most slow burn of thrillers, functioning on character development and Williams’ extraordinary performance for most of its run time. As his life falls apart, he displays more disturbing behavior. He yells at a photo equipment repair man. He explodes at his boss while being fired. Afterwards, he snaps pictures of his boss’ daughters, while talking about the hunting-oriented origins of the word ‘snapshot.’ The slowly cooking pot of suspense boils over in the last act. In a series of meticulous manipulations, Sy confronts Will and his mistress in their hotel room, sexually violating both without laying a finger on them. It’s a stark, unnerving sequence, honestly earning the movie the label of horror film. The scene leaves the audience shaken.

“One Hour Photo” isn’t perfect. In the final minutes, why Sy is such a disturbed person is revealed, in an overly blunt and simple conclusion. The film sometimes lays its themes out too neatly, especially when quoting Deepak Chopra. Michael Vartan and Erin Daniels give underwritten performances as Will and his mistress. The narrative frequently feels as if it’s spinning its wheels, delaying the inevitable conclusion. Yet every time I watch the film, I’m deeply affected by it. Robin Williams gives a powerful performance and the movie tells a sad, emotional, and unnerving story. [8/10]

Earth vs. the Flying Saucers (1956)

The alien invasion films of the fifties gifted us with many iconic images: The war machines emerging from the capsule in “War of the Worlds,” the big brain and goggles eyes of “This Island Earth’s” Metaluna Mutant, the Martian Overlord in his glass dome from “Invaders from Mars.” Yet few made a bigger impact then “Earth vs. the Flying Saucers.” The images of stop-motion UFOs, floating over Washington D.C., accompanied by a bizarre humming noise, has appeared in countless documentaries and programs about genre cinema or UFO sightings. Ray Harryhausen gifted the world with countless, brilliant stop-motion creations over his career. With the possible exception of the skeletons from “Jason and the Argonauts,” none seem as beloved or wide reaching as the titular threat from “Earth vs. the Flying Saucers.”

Project Skyhook, a government aerospace program to launch satellites into outer space, has run into some problems. Something is shooting the satellites down before the scientists can even make contact with them. Dr. Russell Marvin and his wife Carol, daughter of a general at the base, are especially affected by this. While approaching the base, the two spot a flying saucer in the sky above them. Soon, a flying saucer touches down on the base. Shots are fired, the invaders exploding the human artillery with laser beams, and the General is abducted. Soon, the pilots of the saucers make their intentions known to the Earth men. If Earth does not cooperate with them, our cities will destroyed.

Horror fans like me sometimes get funny looks when we say that movies like this are escapist entertainment for us. Why would watching flying saucers level Earth cities be comforting? There’s a simple answer to that question. Yes, cities are destroyed and people die in “Earth vs. the Flying Saucers.” The movie also features reasonable scientist heroes. They're affiliated with the U.S. government, know what the hell they’re doing and successfully save the day. After the first attack, Hugh Marlowe’s Dr. Marvin contacts the extraterrestrials. Within their ship, he has an all-things-considered civil conversation with them. When it’s clear that the saucernauts can’t be placated and intend to destroy our world, he immediately sets out to find a way to defeat them. After discovering the invaders are sensitive to sound, he organizes a council to whip up a hyper-sonic gun that will disable them. That’s the fantasy, that any government could be that organized when dealing with a threat as serious as alien invaders. It certainly doesn’t hurt that Hugh Marlowe and Joan Taylor have incredible chemistry as the Marvins. The early scenes of them kissing and flirting signals that “Earth vs. the Flying Saucers” is going to be a likable, fun time.

As likable as the cast is and as cleanly written as the script is, what people really remember about “Earth vs. the Flying Saucers” are the special effects. Ray Harryhausen usually brought monsters or dinosaurs to life. Mechanical creations were seemingly out of his wheelhouse. I say “seemingly” because the flying saucers are amazing looking. Unlike most cinematic UFOs, the saucers are not detail lacking pie pans. There’s a stationary dome in the center of the saucer, surrounded by a spinning, slotted vanes. A smooth tube emerges from the ship’s bottom when the saucers land. From the same opening, pointed antennas emerge to blast people with death rays. The saucers make a peculiar humming noise as they float through the air. Harryhausen gifts the saucers with a surprising amount of character, with the ways they tilt or move. The actual aliens were likely inspired by Gort from “The Day the Earth Stood Still.” They wear smoothed, grey suits topped with oblong domes. From their knobby hands, they shoot waves that dissolve rifles right out of soldiers’ hands. When the helmets are removed, the aliens look like classical big-headed saucermen.

The stop motion mayhem of the last act is what really stuck with people. For the finale, the saucers fly over Washington D.C. Proving that blockbusters destroying notable landmarks is not a modern invention, the UFOs in “Earth vs. the Flying Saucer” target famous structures all around our capital. The Washington Monument is toppled by a saucer’s lips, crushing fleeing citizens. The saucers land on the front lawn of the White House which, otherwise and amazingly, escapes destruction. A saucer smashes through the windows of Union Station. Maybe the most famous image in the film comes when a downed saucer wobbles through the air before crashing into the dome of the Capitol building. Though Harryhausen’s creations are obviously not real, the effects are still amazingly convincing. “Earth vs. the Flying Saucer” has all the carnage of “Independence Day” but a third of the run time and with way more charm.

The cast is delightful, the screenplay is economically written, and the special effects are utterly mind-blowing. Harryhausen’s incredible work continues to define the pop culture image of the flying saucer. There are more insightful or more thrilling alien invasion films made before and after “Earth vs. the Flying Saucer.” Yet few are as purely entertaining. The film is a perfectly satisfying snack for monster kids. [7/10]

Blinky^TM (2011)

When “Blinky^TM” hit the internet a few years back, it made something of a splash. It had most everything people look for in a viral short. The special effects were surprisingly slick and the disturbing content lent the film a “We dare you to watch!” quality. The story is as follows: In the near future, most every home has a robot companion. Blinky is a brand name for a friendly seeming robot, that can clean, cook, and play with your kids. Deeply affected by his parents’ dissolving marriage, Alex asks for his own Blinky for Christmas. At first, the kid enjoys the robot’s company. Soon, he starts taking his frustration out on the robot. A programming error within the machine has unforeseen, horrifying consequences.

“Blinky^TM ” is not just an internet shock film. There’s a slow tension building throughout every second of the short’s 13 minutes. The household is disturbed, Alex’s parents fighting all the time. It’s clear that Blinky’s introduction will only delay the boy’s misery for so long. Within a montage, we see Alex and Blinky’s relationship sour from summer fun to frustrated violence. Max Records, otherwise known as the kid from “Where the Wild Things Are,” acts out in a way that makes his inner turmoil obvious. As the short goes on, Blinky becomes increasingly creepy, his fixed smile taking on a sinister quality. This is most obvious in a scene where he appears in the boy’s bedroom. When the violence comes, it’s not especially graphic. Instead, it’s the presentation that makes the gore disturbing, the shocking context of the act. It’s horrifying but also oddly tragic and seemingly inevitable.

There are other elements to “Blinky^TM ” that deepens the short. Despite the unnerving homicides he eventually commits, you still feel kind of bad for Blinky. One short scene has the machine and the boy walking down the street, passing another robotic slave. The two robots’ make overly long eye contact. Afterwards, the bags he’s carrying split, the groceries spilling out, and Alex leaves Blinky to clean it up. On TV, we see news report about newly introduced war robots or other malfunctioning machines. It’s clear that the film’s world is on the verge of a robotic uprising. And maybe it’s not undeserved. Some reviewers flat-out hate the kid and think his gruesome fate was justified. I relate to Alex, understanding that he’s a hurt boy unprepared to handle the pain of his parents’ divorce. Yet his treatment of Blinky is awful. He leaves the robot out in the rain for hours. He throws things at the machine, hits him with a bat. He gives intentionally conflicting orders to the servant, just so he can chastise him. Maybe that’s the moral of “Blinky^TM.”  No matter no much pain you may be going through, it’s still not an excuse to treat others like crap.

Even after he commits violence, Blinky remains cute and somehow innocent, which makes the bloody acts all the more stomach churning. I’ve probably said too much, as the short is surely more effective the less you know about it. Director Ruairi Robinson clearly has a strong visual sense, an ability to handle special effects, and a willingness to deliver grisly chills. After this, he made the feature “The Last Days on Mars,” which went by without much notice. Now, another internet short of his, called “The Leviathan,” has received a lot of attention. That’s being expanded into a feature but I kind of wonder if short films aren’t Robinson’s specialty. I suppose we’ll know after he becomes a notable name or sinks into obscurity. As for “Blinky^TM ,” it’s smart sci-fi, disturbing horror, and good film making. [8/10]