Banned In Queensland

Under Down Under: The Tunnel (2011) Review

2012-01-12T10:00:00.012+11:00

If The Blair Witch Project met and fell in love with Rec while holidaying in Spain and then moved to Australia to start a family, their first born child might look a lot like The Tunnel.

The Tunnel is a faux “talking heads” documentary featuring journalist Natasha (Bel Delia) and cameraman Steve (Steve Davis) recounting a fateful expedition into Sydney’s disused underground railway tunnels whilst investigating a potential government cover-up surrounding an abandoned plan to convert the tunnels into a water recycling facility.

Natasha hears rumours that people are living in the tunnels and is stone-walled by government officials whenever she asks any questions, or tries to get permission to go into the tunnels. So, like an (increasingly rare) proper journalist she decides to investigate without permission, and heads into the tunnels one dark and gloomy night accompanied by cameraman Steve, fellow journalist Peter (Andy Rodoreda) and sound man “Tangles” (Luke Arnold).

Natasha and Steve’s retelling of the doomed decent is intercut with footage shot on Steve’s broadcast quality TV camera and a handy cam Peter takes into the tunnels.

Real Australian newsreader, Peter Overton, appears in "The Tunnel" and, disappointingly, survives.

I think it’s fair to say that we need another faux documentary or found footage movie like we need another Friday The 13th sequel (just to be clear, the Friday the 13th franchise probably should have stopped about 4 movies ago; 6 if you count the spin-off and remake), but as long as suckers like me keep paying to see ‘em I guess they are going to keep getting made, and complaining is futile (not to mention, hypocritical).

All that said, The Tunnel is a pretty good example of this sub-genre. It looks and sounds incredibly authentic. The dialogue is very natural, and sounds genuinely Australian without sounding like it’s going out of its way to be so. There are small touches like using real Australian newsreader, Peter Overton, which add to the illusion of authenticity. Even Steve Davis, who plays the cameraman Steve, is a real cameraman. The only chink in the “authenticity” amour is the unconvincing performance of Peter McAllem as the Government’s Water Minister.

The suspense builds gradually with the “horror” not really being delivered until the final act. The tunnel dwelling antagonist(s) are virtually never shown which, in my frequently ignored opinion, makes it all the more suspenseful, but might be a disappointment for gore hounds looking for a fix of bloody monster madness. The film carries an M rating (roughly equivalent to PG-13), so as you can probably guess anyway, the carnage is mostly implied, not shown.

In the most succinct terms The Tunnel has one great strength and one great weakness. Its strength is its aforementioned feeling of authenticity and, more specifically, the brilliant performances by Bel Delia and Steve Davis. Its weakness is its narrative structure (i.e. having two of the four protagonists recounting the events in a talking heads doco). Basically, anyone with an IQ above room temperature can deduce who is going to survive and who isn’t, which undermines the suspense of the final act somewhat.

Whilst the The Tunnel does feel derivative, it’s still a very accomplished production, and is really the first Aussie genre pic I’ve felt comfortable recommending for a long time. So, you know, check it out, mate.

VHS Cover Of The Day: The Adventures Of Buckaroo Banzai Across The 8th Dimension (1984)

2012-01-06T21:11:00.012+11:00

Yeah, yeah, I know The Adventures Of Buckaroo Banzai Across The 8th Dimension is not horror, but this old VHS cover is so ace I had to post it anyway.

VHS Cover Of The Day: From Dusk Till Dawn (1996)

2012-01-04T21:10:00.007+11:00

Click on the image for more dusk and more dawn.

VHS Cover Of The Day: Scream (1996)

2012-01-02T21:09:00.004+11:00

Click on the image for more resolutions

VHS Cover Of The Day: The Lost Boys (1987)

2011-12-31T21:08:00.001+11:00

Click on image to increase its enormity.

VHS Cover Of The Day: An American Werewolf In London (1981)

2011-12-29T21:07:00.004+11:00

Click on the image to make it biggerer

VHS Cover Of The Day: Fright Night (1985)

2011-12-27T21:06:00.002+11:00

Click on the image for enlargificationisationism

VHS Cover Of The Day: The Ref (1994)

2011-12-25T21:05:00.011+11:00

Click on the image for enlargificationisation

From everyone here at BIQ (ie me), we (ie I) wish you a very Happy Christmas
and a Merry New Year.

Cheers!

VHS Cover Of The Day: House (1986)

2011-12-23T21:04:00.002+11:00

Click on the image to unsmall it

VHS Cover Of The Day: The Lair Of The White Worm (1988)

2011-12-21T21:03:00.003+11:00

Click on the image for more pixels

VHS Cover Of The Day: The Serpent And The Rainbow (1988)

2011-12-19T21:02:00.002+11:00

Click on the image for largerisation

VHS Cover Of The Day: Hardware (1990)

2011-12-17T21:01:00.003+11:00

Click on the image for bigness

Very Horrible System

2011-12-15T21:00:00.046+11:00

I’m not a pathological hoarder, but I do have trouble chucking out stuff, that’s in good order, even if I have absolutely no use for it. My collection of old VHS tapes is a prime example. They are just the sort of thing I have trouble ditching even though they are pretty much useless.

I mean, I don’t think I’ve watched a movie on VHS for over 10 years. Even if I wanted to watch a VHS tape (which I don’t) there is no VHS recorder currently set up anywhere in my house, so a big box of VHS tapes is truly a waste of space.

Now, don’t get me wrong, I have really fond memories of watching movies on VHS in the 80’s and 90’s (and of the old video libraries). But, it’s important to separate one’s fondness of the movies from any misplaced nostalgic fondness of that crappy old format.

The fact is, VHS kinda sucked: low resolution, panned & scanned, images that deteriorated with each subsequent view. You could pretty much be guaranteed that when you hired an old horror movie from the cheap section of the video library it would have some sort of picture quality problem. (BTW - Did the “tracking” button on VHS recorders ever really do anything?)

So… where was I? Oh yeah… I had a heap of old VHS tapes that really needed to go but I couldn’t bring myself to chuck ‘em, until… I had the brilliant idea (actually, I think I read about someone else doing it) of chucking the tapes and hard plastic cases but keeping all the cover artwork. Somehow, the part of my brain that makes me save stuff was OK with jettisoning the tapes and plastic cases as long I kept cover art. So that’s exactly what I did.

That was a few months ago.

More recently, I discovered the too-cool-for-school website VHS Wasteland; a blog dedicated to preserving VHS cover art. This inspired me to scan and submit my covers. But after reading the fine print, it turns out that they’re a bit picky when it comes to the submission format. Combine that with the fact that I'm a lazy ass and it was all a bit too hard. So I've decided to scan ‘em and post ‘em here at BIQ instead.

After all, everyone loves pretty pictures and it’ll be a cool way to keep the blog “alive” over the next few weeks when I’ll invariably be too busy over-eating and over-drinking to sit down and articulate, in any detail, what a moral minefield Deadgirl is, for example.

Here's a taste of things to come:

Click on the image for enlargification

About Bloody Time: The House Of The Devil (2009) Review

2011-12-11T16:00:00.005+11:00

Finally. The House Of The Devil has made its way down under. Sure, it went direct to DVD. Sure, it’s been out in other territories for 33 years, but it’s finally here and I finally got to see it. Finally.

Shot, edited and directed in a style almost identical to a late 70’s or early 80’s horror movie, The House Of The Devil is more than just a pastiche of, or homage to, films of that era. It’s a genuinely suspenseful horror that’s much creepier than many of its modern contemporaries. Whilst I was being facetious when describing the lateness of the film’s release here, it could actually pass for a 33 year old film.

Like most films of this ilk the plot is pretty light on. Samantha (Jocelin Donahue) is a college student sharing a dorm room with a young woman who seems to have only two modes of operation; shagging and sleeping. Neither of which she is capable of doing quietly. So Sam decides to move out and rent a house of her own. Oddly, she makes this decision before figuring out how she is going to make the rent payments, so subsequently snookers herself into taking a suspect babysitting job in order to raise the cash.

The baby sitting job is “suspect” because the creepy client, Mr Ulman (Tom Noonan), lives in a house in the middle of nowhere, and is initially deceitful about the true nature of the babysitting gig. After offering Sam more money than she can refuse, Ulman and his equally creepy wife (Mary Woronov) leave Sam alone in their house to look after their aging mother who, Sam is assured, will probably not even emerge from her upstairs bedroom.

What ensues is a series of increasingly tense moments as Sam explores the house and uncovers the truth behind what the Ulman’s really get up to when they’re not eating out.

She doesn't know it yet, but Sam's gonna need a bigger knife.

Anything I have to say about this film is going to read like really old news to many readers. The House Of the Devil came, saw and conquered North America several years ago, but on the off chance there’s any uninitiated readers out there here’s the deal…

If you like your horror slow and suspenseful The House Of The Devil will have you gnawing your fingernails off, or curling your toes until they cramp, or whatever it is you do when a suspenseful horror film totally creeps you out. If, however, you like your horror frantic and bloody then there’s every chance this film will put you to sleep.

Me? I felt very tense for a good proportion of the film’s running time. I love films like this that use fairly innocuous elements to wind you up with anticipation. Of course, writer/director Ti West does such a brilliant job of building the suspense almost any conclusion was going to be an anti-climax, and… well… the film’s final act is a little bit of a letdown. When the evil inside the house is revealed I could literally feel the tension easing. It just wasn’t as horrifying as I was anticipating, but I don’t think anything could have been.

The House Of The Devil is a thoroughbred old school horror movie that is arguably more effective than most of its modern contemporaries. My only hope is that if Ti West makes a sequel it won’t be delivered down under via the same drunken, disabled, carrier pigeon that delivered the original.

Crazy Canadian College Kid Killers: Tucker And Dale Vs Evil (2010) Review

2011-11-26T12:30:00.004+11:00

Anyone who has studied Horror 101 knows exactly what happens when a bunch of college kids head out into the woods and run into some seedy looking rednecks. Right? But, what if the rednecks were just good, honest, caring individuals who didn't want to hurt anyone? Well, let me just check the Horror 101 syllabus here… OK, if the rednecks are nice people then you ain't got no antagonists and therefore you ain't got no horror movie. Hang on… has Eli Craig read this?

Tucker (Alan Tudyk) and Dale (Tyler Labine) are a couple of simple men (rednecks, if you like (bogans, to my fellow Aussies)) who've just bought themselves a "fixer upper" cabin in the middle of the woods. Their newly acquired piece of real-estate is a bit of a dump but Tucker & Dale think they've hit the jackpot with such a prestigious property.

On the first trip to their exclusive new abode they have one of those "horror movie" encounters with a group of "horror movie" college kids at one of those impossibly dingy "horror movie" gas stations. It's text book stuff until writer/director Eli Craig shows us the encounter from both perspectives. From the kids' point of view Tucker & Dale are a couple of creepy threatening looking rednecks straight out of the Horror 101 syllabus. But, from Tucker & Dale's perspective they're just a couple of regular guys out for a spot of fishin' and cabin renovating, while the college kids are aloof snobs.

After this initial counter, the college kids and Tucker & Dale go their separate ways but, of course, their paths cross again in the deep dark woods. This triggers a series of misunderstandings and miscommunications that escalate into a full on blood bath.

The ever helpful Tucker & Dale search for legless college kid.

I'm very close to proclaiming Tucker And Dale Vs Evil as the second best horror-comedy I've ever seen. Writer/director Eli Craig's role reversal idea is so simple (yet so brilliant), you wonder why no one has thought of it before.

The horror-comedy subgenre is littered with duds, like Club Dread and The Tripper, that failed to make me laugh or give me a scare. Even the stupendously overrated Shaun of the Dead really didn’t do much for me (uh oh… was that the sound of BIQs very few regular readers storming out?). Horror-comedy is a tough thing to get right. Too often film-makers don't have a clear idea about whether a particular scene is supposed to be funny or scary and it ends up being neither. Eli Craig’s writing and direction virtually never misfires this way.

Admittedly, Tucker And Dale Vs Evil is mostly played for laughs and isn't particularly scary or suspenseful. There's plenty of gore, but it's principally a comedy movie made for (and by, I expect) horror fans. Craig subverts all the usual horror movie tropes mining for laughs and most of the gags are right on target. He's also very ably serviced by Tudyk and Labine who have perfect comic timing and delivery (particulalry Labine who virtually steals the show).

Given that Tucker And Dale Vs Evil went direct to DVD here with absolutely no fanfare, my expectations were low. I'd heard some positive buzz about it but I've heard good buzz about other horror-comedies in the past (yes, I’m looking you again Shaun) that have ultimately been disappointing, so I had no reason to think it would necessarily be any good. But, it was good. Very good.

If you’re a fan of horror and have a proper sense of humour you really shouldn’t miss Tucker And Dale Vs Evil.

How To Traumatise A 7 Year Old: The Haunted House (2003) Review

2011-11-11T18:40:00.109+11:00

In my home country of Straylia, Halloween is not observed with the same level of enthusiasm or acceptance as it appears to be in the US. So, I don’t really feel comfortable letting my kids (2 girls; 7 and 9 years old) go trick-or-treating in case they encounter a stranger who makes their displeasure at being trick-or-treated a bit too well known to my kids.

This, of course, doesn’t stop my kids asking to go trick-or-treating every year so I’m usually prepared with a consolation prize for when I inevitably disappointment them with my “no trick-or-treating” ruling. This year, I offered then a “Halloween Movie Night”. The suggestion was a big hit, and had the desired effect of adequately distracting them from the fact that they weren't going trick-or-treating. I'd boast about what an awesome parent I am if it wasn't for the fact that I'm not. A fact that will become plainly evident if you continue reading.

So, my kids set about making decorations for our home theatre lounge room while I tried to figure out what movie we were going to watch. Bearing in mind that my kids have consumed a steady diet of G rated Pixar and Dreamworks animation since birth, I didn't want to traumatise them with something too frightening. So, after extensive research (OK, I googled “kids Halloween movies”) I presented them with following short list from which to choose their first "scary" movie: Casper, The Corpse Bride, Ghostbusters, The Haunted Mansion, and The Nightmare Before Christmas (all rated PG or G).

“What’s a mansion?” my 7 year old daughter asked.

“It’s like a really, really big house,” I explained.

“Wow,” she said, “so a haunted mansion would be even scarier than a haunted house?”

“Well, it’s bigger. I’m not sure about scarier,” I clarified.

“I want to watch The Haunted Mansion!” she blurted.

“Yeah, me too,” declared my 9 year old daughter.

So The Haunted Mansion it was.

The Haunted Mansion starts with an ominous olden day prelude set in the titular mansion. A large aristocratic party is going swimmingly until someone dies from a poisoned chalice and then someone else hangs themselves.

Sure, it's a Disney movie, but it's not a "Disney" movie.

The movie then skips to the present day and introduces us to husband and wife real estate agents Jim Evers (Eddie Murphy) and Sara Evers (Marsha Thomason) of “Evers & Evers” estate agency. Things are a little rocky between Jim and Sara because Jim spends more time flogging real estate than - uhm... it's a PG rated movie so let's just say - attending to Sara's needs. So, as recompense for his inattentiveness he offers to take Sara and their kids, Michael (Marc John Jefferies) and Megan (Aree Davis) away for the weekend.

Before the family sets off for some quality time together Sara gets a call from a potential client requesting her services to sell an expansive family mansion. Surprise, surprise, it's the mansion from the ominous olden days prelude. The client is also oddly insistent that Sara be the agent and not Jim. Sara just wants to blow the client off and go on their weekend getaway as planned, but Jim insists on “stopping by” the mansion on the way.

When the whole family “stops by” the mansion they are greeted by the creepy butler, Ramsley (Terence Stamp), who introduces them to mansion’s owner Master Gracey (Nathaniel Parker). Sara is made to feel welcome, but the rest of the family are given the cold shoulder. Jim is so enthusiastic about securing such a prestigious property, however; he barely notices he’s not really welcome.

Before too long a storm rolls in, flooding the road into the mansion, and forces the Evers family to stay the night. What ensues is a series of increasingly spooky events that put the Evers family in peril and reveal the mansion’s dark secrets.

"Here, give this psychiatrist a call. He specialises in paediatric care and post-traumatic stress syndrome."

The Haunted Mansion is a pretty stock standard haunted house movie pitched at a younger (but not too young (I'll elaborate on that in a moment)) audience. Eddie Murphy is at his charmingly amusing best as Jim Evers, and Terence Stamp is customarily pitch perfect as the creepy butler. Overall, the movie has a pretty good balance of humour and scares. The rest of the cast is solid in their fairly perfunctory roles, and the production design is probably the best I’ve seen for a haunted house movie.

OK, let's be clear about this, The Haunted Mansion is not a movie for hard-core horror fans nor, as it turns out, is it really for very young viewers either. This movie is really pitched at the pre-teen audience and, in my frequently ignored opinion, it is pitched perfectly. It’s not so frightening that it will traumatise pre-teens, nor is it so soft and cuddly that they’ll easily dismiss it as "lame" or “unscary”.

Unfortunately, my 7 year old daughter was a bit too young for it. I didn’t pick up on the fact it was really frightening her during the movie, but when the credits rolled she bolted out of our home theatre room in tears. I’m expecting social services to stop by and remove her from my care any day now. (Please, no comments about what a crap Dad I am, I already feel terrible).

On the brighter side, my 9 year old daughter put on a brave face and said she didn’t find it scary. Although she did chatter nervously during some sequences, so I think, for her at least, it was the perfect introduction to "scary" movies.

BIQ Guide To Horror Clichés: Dead mobile phone battery.

2011-11-04T20:05:00.000+11:00

In the 10 to 15 years I’ve been using a mobile phone I reckon I’ve been caught out with a flat battery maybe once or twice. But in the world of horror cinema nobody ever recharges their mobile phone battery, ever.

I know the "dead battery" cliché is BS because, in the real world, I regularly see teenagers in a trance like state staring and pocking at their mobile phone like they are giving a small rodent a shiatsu massage. I steadfastly refuse to believe it’s not charged and they are just staring at and caressing a blank screen.

Cliché Annoyance Factor: ~~Low~~ / Moderate / ~~High~~

Rant O’Clock: LG - Life’s Glitchy

2011-11-02T19:00:00.002+11:00

After much deliberation and procrastination I finally got around to buying a new TV for my living room recently. I purchased an LG 55” LED LCD “Cinema 3D” TV (55LW6500).

I’d never bought an LG product before, but seeing as they were the only manufacturer offering passive 3D TVs I decided go with LG.

In order to minimise any compatibility issues between the TV and the Blu-ray 3D player I choose an LG Blu-ray 3D player (BD660) too.

You know how it is when you have two pieces of electronic equipment that don’t get along: the manufacturer of the component A blames the manufacturer of component B, and vice versa. So, when buying equipment that needs to get along, I try to buy from the same manufacturer in order to avoid such heartache.

A fat lot of good it did me in this instance…

LG’s Glorious Two Dimensional Blurry “3D”.

At first I was reasonably happy with the 3D imagery the LG produced from the handful of Blu-ray 3D titles I purchased along with the TV. Cloudy With A Chance Of Meatballs and Despicable Me, in particular, looked great.

A few weeks after buying the TV, Rio was released on Blu-ray 3D. Given the dearth of decent Blu-ray 3D titles I raced out and purchased this title, sight unseen. But when I came to watch it on my expensive new telly something was wrong…

When the image was slow moving it looked OK, but as soon as the image moved fast the perception of depth was lost and the image became blurry. If you paused the image it became obvious that the problem was the result of the left and right images being slightly out of sync. That is, instead of getting a different perspective of the same frame in each eye, you get a different perspective of different frames in each eye.

After googling “Rio 3D Blu-ray problem” I found a couple of forum discussions about the issue. There appeared to be one common denominator to the problem: LG Blu-ray players (Urgh).

I called LG and was pleasantly surprised that I got to talk to a real person whose first language was actually English. But my enthusiasm quickly wanned when it became obvious that this polite, well-spoken, man was not aware of the issue and seemed more interested in getting rid of me than actually solving the problem. In the end he told me that the issue would be logged and a firmware update would be released to solve the problem, if necessary.

It felt like a generic fob off, but I gave him the benefit of the doubt and waited patiently for a firmware update to be released.

Three weeks later, with no firmware update in sight, I decided to write to LG requesting an update on the status of this issue. Here’s what Paul from LG Australia had to say:

The issue is that there is one off productions that use a particular codec when creating the discs that are incompatible with certain DVD players. In this case Rio appears to be an example of how the codec of a disc clashes with the reader of a DVD player.

If and when LG release an update to rectify this issue, it will be available on this link > http://www.lg.com/au/support/product/support-product-profile.jsp?customerModelCode=BD660&matchedModelCode=1400004280&searchEngineModelCode=BD660&targetPage=support-product-profile

Please regularly check this for any new additions to the update list.

I hope this has been of some assistance.

If LG rectify this issue? WTF! Paul, I paid good money for a “Blu-ray 3D” player, I damn well expect it to play “Blu-ray 3D” discs. It’s not optional! And, no, you’ve been of no bloody assistance at all!

I can only assume “Paul” is some lame AI program that automatically responds to emails LG receives. How else does one explain his constant references to “DVD player” when I explicitly explained the problem was with an LG BD660 Blu-ray 3D player? And the inference that it’s acceptable that some discs just “clash” with some players is, with all due respect to Paulbot, totally unacceptable.

LG’s Really Dumb Smart TV

Whilst my big gripe with LG is that the Blu-ray 3D player they sold me doesn’t work properly and that they don’t seem to care now that they have my money, I have also been mightily underwhelmed by their “Smart TV”

The ads for LG Smart TV imply that the platform has bazillions of LG apps (akin to what’s available on all those slick Apple gadgets) that will transform your TV into the most comprehensive home entertainment device ever conceived.

The truth is there’s a handful of crappy games that’ll you’ll play once before wondering why you bothered, a very glitchy media streaming app, and a YouTube app that is basically broken.

The YouTube app is by far the biggest disappointment. It starts up playing a “randomly” selected video, but I actually think a disgruntled LG app developer has coded it to find the most offensive clip possible rather than a truly random selection. I’ve only used the YouTube app four times (because it sucks as badly as it does), and on three occasions the randomly selected clip featured some talentless moron squealing “fuck”, or “fucking”, or “mother fucker”, or some other witless derivative of the f-word within the first few seconds. The one time it didn’t feature an f-word riddled rant from some YouTube halfwit, it featured a song about masturbation. Nice… Here kids, gather round and check out this awesome fucking fucked mother fucker masturbation app on the LG Smart TV.

This opening random selection “feature” of the LG Smart TV YouTube app begs two blindingly obvious questions: 1) Why does the app have to play a video at start up? 2) If you are going to do this, why not make the starting video one from an LG Channel, or some other vetted channel that isn’t going to start swearing at you as soon as you launch the app? It defies belief that LG allowed this app to be released and it farcical that they call it “Smart”.

All that said, the auto-swearing feature is not the worst of the YouTube app’s problems. Finding the videos you want to watch is basically an impossible chore. The app only gives you a clunky text search facility for finding videos. It’s really unintuitive to use, often doesn’t return the video you’re after, and often responds very sluggishly to remote control button presses. You can’t sign into a YouTube account and get access to your favourites, your subscriptions, or recommendations. You don’t even get the default recommendations for “guest” users of YouTube.

Frankly, the Smart TV YouTube app is unusable and LG should be embarrassed for including it.

I can think of another word starting with "Fu" that describes LG's Smart TV.

The Smart TV media streaming app is another disappointment. In order to get it to work you need to install Plex Media Server on your PC. It works OK if you have a wired Ethernet connection from your TV to your computer, but if you have a wireless connection (as I believe most people would) it’s hopelessly unreliable. Sometimes the app will connect to the server and work flawlessly, other times it just can’t “see” the server and fails to make a connection. There's no recognisable pattern to when it will or won't work. The Plex developers says it’s a bug in Windows 7, but oddly, this bug doesn’t affect any other apps on the LG Smart TV platform that require network connectivity… go figure.

The whole Smart TV thing feels like a rushed product. Nothing works well, and some things don’t work at all. The best app is probably the vTuner internet radio app, but even it lacks basic features like current track information.

BIQ Guide To Horror Clichés: Antagonist in the cabinet mirror.

2011-11-01T20:04:00.008+11:00

Has opening and closing your mirrored bathroom medicine cabinet ever summonsed a madman to suddenly appear behind you? No, me neither. But it happens with startling regularity in the world of horror cinema, does it not?

Because this cliché has been so overused we now just expect someone evil to suddenly appear every time a mirrored medicine cabinet is closed in a horror movie. With this in mind, film-makers have resorted to subverting the cliché by using the same setup, but when the mirrored cabinet is closed nothing appears (ooh, how subversive). It’s often used as a softener before some other jump scare is trotted out shortly afterwards.

The only problem is, sadly, it’s now got to the point where even the subversion of the cliché is now cliché.

Cliché Annoyance Factor: ~~Low~~ / Moderate / ~~High~~

BIQ Is Back

2011-10-31T21:00:00.015+11:00

Sorry for the lack of updates this month, fan, but during October excrement became genuine. Or, as the kids say, shit got real. I won't bore you with the gory personal details, other than to say bloggering had to take a back seat this month.

But, now, it's time to get back into the bloggering saddle and rabbit on about horror movies some more.

I should probably point out that I normally take it easy (bloggering wise) during October anyway. All my stateside contemporaries go a little nuts this time of year thanks to Halloween (aka The Festival of Gutless Pumkins), so when they are churing out daily updates of excessive horror goodness I figure if you can't beat 'em... give up (at least until November).

Besides, Halloween isn't the only party that happens this month. The beauty of living in a country with virtually zero cultural significance is that you can pinch everyone else's traditions. Need a break from Halloween celebrations? No problem. Grab an unpractically large glass mug, fill it with German beer, guzzle away and... voila, you're celebrating Oktoberfest!

Mmmmm... Oktoberfest.

Frankly, I don't need an excuse to celebrate horror or drink rediculously large glasses of German beer, but if this month had a saving grace it was that we had one (excuse) for each of those activities this month.

BIQ Guide To Horror Clichés: No mobile phone signal.

2011-09-30T20:03:00.001+10:00

Are telecommunications in the United States really as bad as horror movies would have us believe? According to the world of horror cinema the only place to get a reliable mobile phone signal is in a box buried under ground in the middle of the Iraqi desert.

In Australia, I’ve only ever been one place where I couldn’t get a mobile phone signal: Ellalong, NSW. As the name suggests it’s an “‘ell of a long” way away. So far away, in fact, I seriously doubt any madman would actually bother heading out there to kill anyone.

Cliché Annoyance Factor: ~~Low~~ / Moderate / ~~High~~

BIQ Guide To Horror Clichés: Everyone drinking the same beer.

2011-09-26T20:02:00.002+10:00

What kind of inbred nonsense is a social gathering where everyone drinks the same beer?

It's the curse of product placement deals that has allowed the cliché, of everyone drinking the same lager, to germinate. Of course, this cliché isn't exclusively limited horror movies, but the horror genre is the proud domain of the very worst example of this cliché; My Bloody Valentine

In My Bloody Valentine everyone, everywhere, drinks Moosehead. It's like some sort of alternate universe where Moosehead is the only beer that exists. Holy crap, now that I think about it in those terms, it's just occurred to me how horrific that movie really is.

Cliche Annoyance Factor: Low / ~~Moderate~~ / ~~High~~

BIQ Guide To Horror Clichés: Fleeing a car in a straight line.

2011-09-23T20:01:00.001+10:00

If you’re on foot and a madman, who wants to kill you, is perusing you in a car, what is the most effective way to evade certain death?

I’m going to go out on a limb and say that running in a straight line in the path of the car is probably the 2nd most ineffective strategy possible (standing stationary in front of the car being the most ineffective).

Yet, in the world of horror cinema, protagonists inexplicably employ this strategy all the time. It’s not usually until they trip over and fall flat on their face that they finally see the flaw in this strategy and craw out of the path of the car on hands and knees, often (conveniently) just in the nick of time.

Now, not only is running in a straight line an idiotic strategy for evading a car, but the best way to get out of the path of a car (once you finally wake up to the fact that that is indeed what you need to do) is not on hands and knees either. I’m reminded of what numerous football coaches have preached to me over the years; “keep your feet”. It is basic human biomechanics: you can move faster when you are upright on two legs, rather than down on all fours.

Cliché Annoyance Factor: ~~Low~~ / ~~Moderate~~ / High

Chicks Who Love Guns: Sucker Punch (2011) Review

2011-08-30T21:00:00.003+10:00

Seeing hot young scantily-clad girls fighting in frantic action sequences all strung together in a brooding esoteric plot, would have totally popped my cork when I was a teenager. Now, however, copping an eyeful of Emily Browning brandishing big weapons and strutting around in a micro skirt, heels and thigh-high tights, with no legitimate context, just makes me feel like a dirty old man.

After the death of her mother, Baby Doll (Emily Browning) and her sister are left in the care of their abusive stepdad. When Stepdad tries to assault Sister, Baby Doll grabs a gun and attempts to put a bullet in him, but accidently kills her sister instead. Doh!

At least, I think that's what happened in the Sucker Punch prelude. It's shot entirely in slow-mo with an overwrought cover version of the Eurhythmics' classic Sweet Dreams playing over the whole thing, so what transpires during the shooting scene isn't 100% clear. In fact, this prelude had me quickly double checking the DVD cover to make sure I had hired Sucker Punch and not the latest MTV compilation.

Whatever happened in the music video prelude, Baby Doll is promptly carted off to an insane asylum (presumably convicted of her sister's death) where, on arrival, Stepdad bribes an attending physician to have her lobotomised before the end of the week (presumably to stop her revealing his abuses). Shortly after Baby Doll's admission, the asylum somehow turns into a sleazy cabaret night club. The transition is jarring and writer/director Zack Snyder gives no clue, visual or otherwise, as to why it happens. Ultimately, we have to assume that what we are seeing is Baby Doll's fantasy version of her bleak reality, but Snyder just forges ahead unconcerned whether his audience has any idea what the hell he is doing.

Within this fantasy, one of the hospitals' psychiatrists (Carla Gugino) is now a dance instructor who urges Baby Doll to join the ensemble of other "dancers" (in reality they are the other asylum patients). When forced by the dance instructor to shake her groove thing, Baby Doll is somehow transported to yet another fantasy world. Here, she is given a quick mission briefing by some mysterious "wise" old stranger (Scott Glen) before being set upon on by all manner of weird and wonderful monsters. It's at this point that Sucker Punch starts to feel more like a video game than MTV (sorry, I mean, movie), as Baby Doll kicks ass, Scott Pilgrim style, in this fantasy world within a fantasy world.

Once her battle concludes she emerges back at the night club, where everyone present is rapturously applauding her dance routine. We never get to see her dance, because this has happened in the level 1 fantasy world, while we were witnessing the level 2 fantasy world kick-assery. You follow? It's a bit like Inception, without the coherence or purpose.

After her first dance she hatches a plan to escape the asylum, before she is lobotomised, that involves performing three more dances and dragging her fellow patient/dancer friends along for three more fantasy-world-within-a-fantasy-world kick-ass missions. Oddly, none of the missions seem even remotely related to one another, with all the locations and antagonists being completely different each time. The other girls reluctantly agree to help Baby Doll, but once they enter the fantasy world they too dress and fight like they have just escaped a teenage boy's wet dream.

"Do you two have this problem? Everytime I roundhouse, this stupid outfit rides up my ass and pinches my tits!"

Like Snyder’s previous movies (300 and Watchmen) Sucker Punch is visually sumptuous. There probably isn't a frame that isn't somehow computer generated or manipulated, but Snyder uses technology as a means to end, creating truly gorgeous visual imagery. Say whatever else you want about Snyder (and I will very shortly), but you have to acknowledge he's an impressive visual artist.

That’s the good news.

The bad news is that Snyder is a pretty lousy story teller. In fact, he doesn't even really have a story here to tell. He uses a depressingly awful predicament (Baby Doll's abuse and incarceration) as a framework to indulge in pure male fantasy. If you don't think about what you are watching and why it's happening I guess you can get lost in the visuals on offer. But, as soon as you start to think about the fact that Snyder is trying to exhilarate us with a fantasy supposedly conceived by a tortured young woman as escapism from a truly horrific reality; it just feels like all kinds of wrong.

I mean, it's really a double edged sword. If you care about the characters you can't genuinely be enthralled by their escapist adventures, knowing what's happening to them in the real world. If you forget the real world, the escapist adventures all seem a bit hollow because the characters no longer have any grounding in reality, and no real purpose in their missions.

Each time the ensemble of barely dressed hot young women started brandishing powerful firearms in their latest arbitrary videogame-esque fantasy mission, I was reminded of that Chicks Who Love Guns video Ordell (Samuel L Jackson) watches in Jackie Brown. Ultimately, such misogynistic fantasy just doesn't fit with the tale of an abused young woman left to rot in an asylum, which makes Sucker Punch a strangely unsatisfying experience despite is undeniably impressive visual flair.

Green Amber Read: Spiral (2007) Reveiw

2011-08-24T20:00:00.002+10:00

Spiral begins with our main man, Mason (Joel David Moore), in a disorienting scene of psychosis. It’s late at night and Mason is having some sort of panic attack. He’s hyperventilating and generally acting like his world is about to end (kinda like when I run out of beer). The light spilling from the bathroom door jamb seems to be the source of his disquiet, but there’s obviously more to it than simply being shocked by the cost of energy-saving light bulbs.

Mason telephones his friend Berkeley (Zachary Levi) who calmly talks him into taking a hit of Ventolin and dragging his neurotic ass back to bed. Berkeley’s weary demeanour gives you the impression that this isn’t the first time he’s had to deal with one of Mason’s intense late night anxiety attacks.

In the calm light of the following day Mason goes to work at an insurance company where he disinterestingly sells insurance over the phone. He goes to every effort to avoid any and all human contact on the way to his neat sterile office cubicle. He can’t, however, avoid Berkeley who, it turns out, is also his boss. Berkely berates him for being late, but it seems like the dressing down is more for the benefit of other employees. He needs to be seen to be disciplining Mason. You get the distinct impression, from these early encounters, that Berkeley has assumed the role of a pseudo guardian for the barely functional Mason.

Before too long, Mason is befriended by a new hire at the insurance company, Amber (Amber Tamblyn). Over lunch one day, she notices the sketches of a beautiful woman that Mason has in his spiral sketch book and starts inquiring about his art and the woman featured in it. Mason is not forthcoming with details, which seems to pique Amber’s interest even further. Through sheer persistence Amber forges a friendship, of sorts, with Mason and eventually starts modelling for him in a new series of sketches and paintings.

"Perhaps if I act like a complete weirdo no one will notice me."

Spiral is a slow burn psychological thriller that rewards the patient viewer. I guess it’s not difficult to guess how the movie might end, as there’s really only two or three ways it can play out, but I was never really certain about which way it was going to go. Even if you are certain you have the movie’s conclusion pegged, I’d suggest that the journey there is still pretty intriguing, and often suspenseful. It plays like a more thrilling version of He Was A Quiet Man.

Unlike Hatchet and Frozen, Adam Green is working from someone else’s script here. It’s less talky and humorous than his own screenplays but Green, the director, shows he is perfectly capable of turning the leaner script into an involving movie. He has no trouble making the dialogue-free scenes compelling viewing.

The performances are all pretty good, but the movie really rests on Joel David Moore’s shoulders. He co-wrote the script, co-produced the movie and plays the lead of Mason. He’s reasonably solid most of the time but occasionally I thought he overplayed Mason’s sullen but nervous routine. Maybe it was just because he was on screen so much, but at times it felt like I was watching an actor playing an anxious basket case rather than an actual anxious basket case.

The other minor niggle I had was with a really jarring exchange between Mason and Amber where I felt like I was suddenly listening to the screenwriter talking, not the characters. In a conversation where Amber is telling Mason about her dislike of the insurance company job, she rather oddly says she’d rather be a “feminist or a ninja”. It’s a truly bizarre line and Tamblyn, not surprisingly, struggles to deliver it with conviction. Mason then asks Amber what it is that feminists do (an equally odd response, that’s clearly a contrived set up for Amber’s punch line). Amber responds by saying that feminists just bitch and complain about stuff. Good grief. It’s not funny, it’s completely out of character, and you can’t help but think you’re listening to the film-maker’s “voice” instead of that of the character. Granted, it’s a fairly minor misdemeanour in an otherwise accomplished movie, but Green and Moore need to get out of the habit of using their characters as personal mouth pieces.

With Sprial, Adam Green continues to demonstrate his ability to create interesting genre pictures with limited resources, and also shows that he’s no one trick pony. Hatchet, Spiral and Frozen are all quite different movies, but the one thing that they have in common is that they’re all quite good.

Turdsday Movie Review: The Tripper (2006)

2011-08-11T18:00:00.000+10:00

Sometimes you reach a point when viewing filmed entertainment made by, or featuring, a particular individual that you find yourself wondering why it is exactly that this individual is gainfully employed in the industry. I rented The Tripper because it was written and directed by David Arquette. It wasn't until afterwards that I thought, "hang on, why did I do that?"

The Tripper feels like it's the product of jotting down a whole bunch of ideas, sticking them in a blender and filming what comes out. I'm speaking metaphorically, of course, because if you did that literally you'd just end up with grey sludge which, in fairness, would be less interesting than The Tripper. But only just.

The Tripper starts with a contrived prelude, set sometime during Ronald Regan's presidency, featuring a stand-off between a hardworking, struggling logger just trying to do his job (of chopping down trees) and a belligerent arrogant hippy standing in the way of the logging trucks. The poor old logger pleads with the hippy that his wife is dying of cancer and desperately needs medical attention that he can only afford if he's allowed to get his logging done. The heartless hippy doesn't give a shit and soon finds himself on the wrong end of a chainsaw when the logger's young son snaps and attacks him.

The film then skips ahead to the present day... and... well... I'm not sure where to start in terms of giving you a concise plot synopsis that adequately describes all the random crap that transpires during The Tripper.

I guess the basic story is this: a music festival, held in the forest, is terrorised by a madman with an axe wearing a Ronald Regan mask.

The Tripper crew quietly ponder who put the clown in the red hat in charge.

That, of course, only scratches the surface of what transpires. There are the potty-mouthed escapades of a principle group of stoner protagonists at the festival. There's a group of local rednecks (including Arquette in a minor role) who terrorise the festival goers. There's the clichéd Mayor who insists the festival must go ahead even when things start to turn pear shaped. There's the under-resourced local law enforcement trying to keep a lid on things. There's the desperate promoter, trying to smooth things over. There's full-on musical numbers. There are nudists strolling here and there. There's a complicated romance between two of the main stoner kids. There's a pathological ex-boyfriend sent to complicate the already, aforementioned, complicated romance. And then... there's the logger's son... all grown up, sporting a Ronald Regan mask, and randomly wielding an axe amongst it all. And I do mean randomly.

Add to all this madness and mayhem some seriously confused political sub-text and The Tripper is a complete mess. It doesn't work as a horror movie because it's never scary or suspenseful, and if Arquette was hoping to make some sort of political point his message comes across as being incredibly muddled (think Sarah Palin at her I-don't-know-the-difference-between-North-and-South-Korea worst). The basic idea sounds like it should be a hoot, but it's such an undisciplined scatter-brained effort, full of clichés and half-baked ideas, it's actually a bit of a bore.

I'm now at a bit of a loss to explain why I ever thought that a film "written and directed by David Arquette" would necessarily be a good thing. Notwithstanding Arquette's outstanding, academy award worthy, performance as Deputy Dewey in the Scream films (ahem), I'm just not sure exactly why Arquette has the profile he has, or how he got finance to write and direct The Tripper.

Despite a few promising elements in The Tripper, Arquette fails to convert them into a cohesive horror and/or comedy movie, and his performance as one of the rednecks is a pretty awful cherry on top of his grey sludge cake.

Seul à la Maison: Inside (2007) Review

2011-08-03T20:00:00.014+10:00

In most modern French horror cinema you can count on two things:
1) nut-tearingly extreme violence.
2) a genre-bending narrative u-turn somewhere throughout the movie.

Bucking this trend is Inside, which delivers the requisite everyone's-wearing-their-guts-on-the-outside violence but rather subversively doesn't suddenly become a completely different movie halfway through proceedings. It starts as a home invasion movie and, rather refreshingly (for a French horror film), finishes as one.

A pregnant Sarah (Alysson Paradis) and her unborn baby survive a car accident that claims the life of her husband. Not surprisingly, this puts her in a pretty depressed state of mind. During the last four months of her pregnancy she distances herself physically and emotionally from the family and friends who try to support her through the difficult time. So much so that, with her pregnancy just about full term, she finds herself home alone on Christmas Eve.

But this ain’t no Home Alone...

The peace and quiet Sarah is "enjoying" is rudely interrupted by a stranger at her door. Sarah wisely doesn't open the door to the stranger who claims to have broken down and needs access to her phone. She is polite but refuses the stranger entry into her house. The stranger is polite but ominously insistent that she come in and use the phone. The stand-off becomes increasing tense before the stranger reveals knowledge of Sarah that suggests she is no stranger at all.

What ensues is a gripping, intense, home invasion movie with all the disturbingly violent trimmings we've come to expect from French horror.

"Santa?... Santa, is that you?"

As an aside, if Inside ever gets remade in the US (actually scratch that... when Inside gets remade in the US) I'd love to see Macaulay Culkin in a protagonist role getting brutally slain.

With the possible exception of one brief moment shortly before the film's conclusion that I had trouble making sense of, everything else is played pretty straight. It's a good old fashioned horror narrative told with plenty of good new fashioned violence. It's suspenseful and gruesome in equal measure. The ending is unsurprising, but still quite disturbing, which is exactly how this sort of thing should conclude.

Quick BIQ Review: Hard Candy (2005)

2011-07-21T23:00:00.000+10:00

Exploiting themes that probably shouldn't be exploited, I expect Hard Candy would have been offensive if it wasn't so ridiculous.

It's a shame because the opening 15 minutes could have been the start of a much better film. Ellen Page's performance is sensational and David Slade's direction is impressive but, the screenplay is so contrived and exploitative, it's difficult to appreciate their fine work.

I honestly think writer, Brian Nelson, must have had the infinite improbability drive blowing smoke when he concocted the ludicrous ending.

This sort of thing can, and has, be done better: look no further than Death And The Maiden (ironically, a Roman Polanski film) for evidence of this.

Nooooo! Minister: Tower Of Evil (1972) Review

2011-07-17T21:00:00.004+10:00

Have you ever watched an Agatha Christie movie and thought to yourself "this is good and all, but it could really use some more blood and gore and tits and ass"? No, I don't watch Agatha Christie movies either. But I imagine the creators of Tower Of Evil did and they were probably thinking along these lines when they created... well, you know... Tower Of Evil.

The titular tower is actually a decommissioned light house that sits upon a rock called Snape Island. We first see it when a couple of caretakers arrive on the island only to discover three brutally slain bodies. For reasons that aren't immediately obvious, the caretakers don't seem surprised by the carnage, but they are caught off guard when a crazy young woman emerges from a cupboard in the disused lighthouse (sorry, in the Tower... Of... Evilllll!) and stabs one of them to death.

The authorities quickly deduce that the crazy young woman, now hospitalised in a catatonic state, was a friend of the three dead people, and that she must have flipped out and murdered them, along with the caretaker who we know she stabbed. But the girl's family doesn't buy it, so they hire a private investigator to find out what really happened.

In order to get to Snape Island, the PI hitches a ride with a group of archaeologists who had planned to visit the island and search for ancient artefacts before all the murder and mayhem had broken out. Not surprisingly, for a movie of this genre, when the ensemble gets to the island the murder and mayhem resumes.

"I'm just saying... if you want to be taken seriously as an archaeologist, you might want to reconsider that outfit."

Tower of Evil is a strange mix of sex & violence exploitation, fine British character acting, and salacious innuendo riddled dialogue. All the archaeologists seem to have some sort of sexual history with one another and are either constantly flirting or denigrating each other, with ribald language, in between getting murdered. And when they're not getting murdered or having saucy conversations they are delivering plot-driving expository dialogue with more conviction than an actor in this kind of film has any right to.

Consistent with the uneven tone is the uneven pacing. There are moments when the film is effective and suspenseful, but there are other times when there's not much of anything really happening. The characters constantly separate, for no logical reason, making portions of the film feel repetitive; "Oh, no, someone died, let's split up and look for clues... Oh look, someone else died, let's split up again and look for clues again."

Beyond the film's strangely uneven tone and pace, the most distracting element for me was actually seeing a young Derek Fowlds playing one of the archaeologists. To me Fowlds is, and always will be, Bernard from TV's Yes Minister. How did this mild mannered public service secretary get caught up in this rambunctious affair? I know it's unfair to criticise a film for casting an actor because he will be typecast 10 years in the future, but I still found it distracting.

At the risk of sounding like a perennial fence sitter, Tower Of Evil was just another horror pic, in a long list of horror pics, that left me feeling ambivalent. It's not good, but it's not bad either. It just is. I'm sure Agatha would not be happy with such an ambiguous conclusion.

Quick BIQ Review: Beerfest (2006)

2011-07-15T20:00:00.009+10:00

Beerfest is a complex, multi layered film that defies easy analysis.

At its heart is the simple tale of two American restaurant proprietors, of German ancestry, who are asked by their aging grandmother to return the ashes of their recently deceased grandfather to Germany. When they get to Germany the seemingly simple task becomes unexpectedly complicated due to a number of complex cultural and family issues.

Beerfest is a beautiful movie going experience that delves deeply into cultural cross-pollination, with a loving emphasis on the ubiquitous, age old, amber fluid. The American makers of this impressive feature film even respect German Purity Law that stipulates Jurgen Prochnow must star.

Top 5 Nightmare Inducing Movies

2011-07-11T20:00:00.007+10:00

It's becoming increasing rare for horror movies to genuinely frighten or unsettle me, and I can't remember the last time a movie actually gave me nightmares. But, I have to admit, I haven't always been such an unflinching hard-core bad-ass.

Ahem.

In fact, I remember, as a youngster, several movies gave me terrible nightmares. I've seen some of these movies again as an adult and am amazed by how innocuous they are.

So just for your amusement I thought I'd share with you the top 5 movies (in no particularly order) that emotionally scarred me as a child. Enjoy...

Phobia (1980)

I don't remember being overly frightened by Phobia whilst actually watching it (on TV), but I do remember it giving me some of my most vivid nightmares when I went to bed straight after it.

The story is pretty simple; a bunch of different people with different phobias are attending group therapy, when they suddenly start dying one by one in circumstances related to their phobia. It's possible I didn't even watch this movie all the way to the end but I distinctly remember being awoken, more than once, by a nightmare where I met the same fate as the claustrophobic character in the movie.

I haven't revisited Phobia since seeing on TV in the early 80's, but I'd be willing to bet that it would have no way near the impact today as it did 30 years ago.

Alien (1979)

Alien is probably the only movie that gave me nightmares as a kid that is actually still pretty effective today.

Again, it was the early 80's, when I watched Alien on TV immediately before going to bed. I don't remember the specifics of the nightmare(s) but I remember waking several times that night from "bad thoughts" sown from the seeds of having watched Alien.

I can watch Alien now, impervious to its scares, but I can at least see why it scared the begezus out of me as a kid.

Trilogy Of Terror (1975)

If you ask anyone, who saw this anthology movie in the 70's, what they remember of it, there's every chance they will recall the "Voodoo Doll" segment but nothing else. That's certainly the case for me. For all I knew the "Voodoo Doll" segment was the whole movie.

The thing about the "Voodoo Doll" segment that literally sent chills through my pre-pubescent body, sometime in the late 70’s, was its shocking conclusion. Few things have creeped me out as much as that finale.

I happened to catch Trilogy Of Terror again on TV sometime during the early 90's and... well... I can't think of a euphemism that adequately disguises how laughably bad it was and how much of a wuss I must have been as a kid. Again, I can't remember the other two segments (it seems that they just refuse to stick in my memory), but the "Voodoo Doll" segment again stood out, this time around, for its pure ridiculousness. It's just so weird to think that something so silly gave me nightmares as a kid.

The Last of Sheila (1973)

Of all the movies that gave me nightmares The Last Of Sheila is the one I really want to revisit the most.

I don't remember what it was about. I don't think I watched all of it. And I don't remember what happened in my nightmares. But, I do remember watching part of it on TV at my Grandmother's (probably in the late 70's) then going to bed and having multiple nightmares.

The IMDB score is surprisingly high so I’d really like to see it again. Unfortunately, no Australian distributor has released it on DVD. One day, maybe.

A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984)

OK, I'm cheating a little here because A Nightmare On Elm Street didn't actually give me nightmares. Phobia, Alien, Trilogy Of Terror and The Last Of Sheila are the big 4. But "Top 4" sounds kind of lame so I've picked A Nightmare On Elm Street as filler for my "Top 5" nightmare inducing movies.

Whilst A Nightmare On Elm Street didn't give me nightmares I did nearly poop my shorts when watching it on VHS at home alone one day in the mid 80's. I figured watching it in daylight might make the experience less scary, but I soon realised that being alone in daylight is actually scarier than night time when you have company.

So, anyway... about half way through the movie, during one of the film's many quiet suspenseful scenes, the creaky concertina doors in the front hall of my parent's house blow open. Now, I've not had it medically diagnosed, but I'm pretty sure I had a mild stroke when this happened. It scared every fibre of excrement out of me. Now, you might well say, "but BIQ, the doors scared you not the movie". Not true. Those doors had a habit of blowing open and it had never bothered me previously. But when it happened at that time during that movie... it was a like a real live waking nightmare.

Candyman's Friday the 13th on Elm Street: Hatchet (2006) Review

2011-06-29T21:00:00.032+10:00

When watching Bad Taste at Melbourne's Valhalla Cinema in the late 80's (how's that for cool retro name dropping?) I got the impression I was watching something more than just low budget schlock. I'm not going to claim that I predicted Peter Jackson's subsequently meteoric rise, but Bad Taste had a certain flair that made me think Jackson was capable of bigger and better things. After recently catching up with Hatchet I have to say that I had a similar feeling about its creator Adam Green...

In a prelude set in the Louisiana bayou, Hatchet starts with a couple of rednecks (Robert Englund and Joshua Ainsley) out at night huntin' for gators. Before you can say, "is it just me or is Robert Englund actually not that good an actor" the two rednecks meet a bloody gruesome end at the hands of someone or something far more more brutal than those harmless little 'ole gators.

After Englund collects his pay cheque, we catch up with Ben (Joel David Moore) and Marcus (Deon Richmond) partying at the nearby Mardi Gras. In what is the first sign that Adam Green doesn't have a lot of money, all the Mardi Gras shots are in close up, trying to fool the audience that a dozen or so extras are actually hundreds of revellers. It doesn't work but it hardly matters.

Ben and Marcus are quickly separated from the crowd, because Ben isn't in the mood for partying. He's recently split with his girlfriend and would rather go on a ghost tour of the local wetlands than get mixed up in the drunken debauchery of Mardi Gras. Marcus, quite rightly, tries to convince Ben that beer and women are better than swamps and ghosts. But, for reasons that are impossible for a mere mortal like me to comprehend, he fails.

When Ben and Marcus knock on the door of, ghost tour operator, Reverend Zombie (Tony Todd (are you seeing a pattern with the casting of the minor roles yet?)) instead of getting a warm welcome and a tour ticket they get an ominous warning about how unsafe it is to tour the bayou at night, and a refusal to take them there. At Ben's insistence the Reverend reluctantly recommends another tour operator. Again Marcus wants out of swamps and ghosts and in to beer and women, but Ben is hell bent of doing something more in tune with his current depressed mood.

Our two bantering, bickering, bosom buddies finally catch up with the one and only tour operator (Parry Shen) still taking people out into the wetlands at night and join a motley group of characters also taking the tour. We have just enough time to get to know these characters before the tour goes pear shaped. The group starts getting picked off and brutally carrved up, one by one, by someone resembling local legend Victor Crowley (Kane Hodder (surely you can see the casting pattern now?)), who we learn all about via an expository monologue delivered by the tour passenger Ben becomes keen on, Mary-Beth (Tamara Feldmen).

"...if you look to your left you'll see the heritage listed Crowley mansion, and immediately to your right a bloody bludgeoned corpse. Moving right along, just up ahead you'll notice..."

For the first two acts Hatchet actually plays more like a comedy than a horror, which is fine by me because it's actually funny. I've seen plenty of comedies that aren't as funny as Hatchet. Tony Todd is hilarious as Reverend Zombie, and Perry Shen is good value as the replacement tour guide. The banter between Ben And Marcus also had me laughing out loud on several occasions during the first two acts of the movie. If you're looking for a comedy and can stomach the over-the-top gore that's delivered in the prelude and last act, you could do a lot worse than Hatchet.

I guess for hard-core horror purists, however, the lack of scares on offer might be a disappointment. Ironically, when the movie sobers up and flies straight in the last act it actually become less entertaining. Writer/director Adam Green falls into the trap of having his protagonists doing inexplicably dumb things in order to confine the action to one place and allow his antagonist easy pickings. At one point, for instance, they all agree that fleeing is hopeless and they need to stay and fight. Uhm, OK. But after taking the fight to Crowley and temporarily knocking him down they then all agree that they need to flee, without finishing him off. What the?

Hatchet is not a great horror movie, but Green shows a lot of promise as a film-maker working with limited resources, and has a definite flair for comedy. Unlike when I saw Peter Jackson's first low budget shocker, I do have the benefit of some hind-sight in this instance. I've already seen Green's follow-up Frozen, which is in all respects a superior movie, and confirmation that Green is a genuine talent. Still, I had a good time with Hatchet which, despite its flaws, is a surprisingly enjoyable horror/comedy.

You're Entitled To My Opinion: Documentary Vs Mockumentary

2011-06-24T18:00:00.039+10:00

It probably comes as no surprise that, given I'm such a light-weight in the world of horror/exploitation movie blogging, I actually watch a lot of movies that are not horror and/or exploitation.

Catfish, for example, is a movie I was eagerly anticipating despite it being a movie I wouldn't normally discuss here at the BIQ. But, after having watched it recently it got me thinking about how the proliferation of faux documentaries (and fake internet viral videos) has made it almost impossible to watch a "documentary" without continually searching for clues of fakery, rather than just enjoying the story. Given that the horror genre is disproportionally represented in the faux documentary (aka mockumentary) category I figured it was an appropriate subject for discussion here.

Regardless of whether a film like Catfish is fact or fiction it's becoming obvious, from other examples, that film-makers who set out to make a fake documentary are going to greater lengths to fool their audience. Whilst it was fairly easy to find out that The Blair Witch Project was a work of fiction, the film-makers responsible for more recent movies like I’m Still Here and Exit Through The Gift Shop have gone to far greater lengths to fool audiences.

Even with my highly tuned bullshit detector, I'm struggling to decide if Catfish is fact or fiction. If it's fact, then all the fakes that have preceded it have clearly destroyed my ability to trust "documentary" film-makers. If it's fake (and history has taught me that if there's any doubt then it usually is fake) then it is the most convincing one yet.

Whenever a film like I'm Still Here or Exit Through The Gift Shop is released there is the inevitable debate in public forums about whether it's fact or fiction. But, more interestingly (to me at least), is the fact that some people simply don't care; "It's a good movie. I don't care if it's real or not." I admire people who can rest with that thought. I can't. Not knowing drives me nuts.

So, why does not knowing if a "documentary" is fact or fiction bug me so much? I've never really thought about it in any great detail, because prior to Exit Through The Gift Shop I'd never encountered a movie where the answer to the question, of whether it was fact or fiction, was not immediately obvious to me. But the burning question of Catfish’s authenticity has made me evaluate why it bothers me. Why I need to know. Here's my theory...

Whenever I get asked about my love of horror movies I calmly explain that it's escapism. It's about experiencing danger in a safe environment. It's like riding an amusement park ride. It's about getting a visceral thrill, but knowing that ultimately you can walk away unscathed. It doesn't matter how far a horror movie pushes the boundaries there is one universal safety net: it's not real.

Understanding the difference between reality and fantasy is crucial when moderating our behaviour. A character in a horror movie can get away with virtually anything. Real life doesn't work that way. When delusional nut-jobs loose a grip on reality they start doing stuff that's just not socially acceptable. So, whilst I've never really thought about it in these terms, I now realise that it's very important for me to know the difference between reality and fantasy because not knowing puts you in a position of not being able to reliably moderate your behaviour.

Megan Faccio (aka Aimee Gonzales (aka Women With Tenuous Link To Story Gratuitously Added to Blog Post Because She's Gorgeous))

Of course, I'm not going to lose my grip on reality and go on a wild murderous shooting spree, or start exposing myself to strangers, simply because I can't tell if Catfish is real or not. It's just the very thin edge of a much larger wedge. Being unable to tell the difference clearly sends my brain into a spin. Sub-consciously, I guess, I really need to know if something is real or not to keep me sane.

So, what's your take on this? Are faux documentaries eroding the trust you have in real documentaries? Does it matter to you whether a movie like Catfish is real or not? Discuss...

Bloody Rosemary: Rosemary's Killer [aka The Prowler] (1981) Review

2011-06-17T20:00:00.003+10:00

I feel like I've been writing a lot of negative reviews in recent times, and whenever I get into one of these "every movie I've seen lately is crap" ruts I start to question my faith. My faith in filmed entertainment, that is. Will no movie ever please me ever again? Have I finally outgrown the allure of moving pictures? Thankfully, my faith is usually restored by a movie that eventually comes along and shines brightly amongst the pile of excrement I've been wading through. A movie that winks at me a says, "you're not the problem BIQ, they were the problem." It's all the more satisfying when this movie is such an undiscovered gem like Rosemary's Killer...

In a prelude set in 1945 (but looking suspiciously like a 40's themed party taking place in the 80's), Rosemary attends the graduation dance with her civy boyfriend, Roy, after having dispensed with her, WWII serving, soldier boyfriend via a "Dear John" letter. Things are going swimmingly at the dance until Rose and Roy step outside for some extramarital shenanigans. Before you can say "well, didn't she turn out to be a floosy" an unidentified person armed with an identified pitch fork shows up and... well... pitch forks the hanky-pankying couple to death.

The movie then skips ahead to the "present day" (which happens to be 1981 at the time this movie was made) and a group of hot young hipsters are preparing for the first graduation dance to be held since the pitch-forky events of 1945. Now, you're never gonna guess what happens next... Rosemary's killer, who was never identified or caught in 1945, makes a triumphant return and starts carving up those damn teens on the night of the graduation dance.

I bet you never saw that coming.

"I honestly don't think this is the way to the dance."

Yeah, OK, Rosemary's Killer is not exactly ground breaking cinema. It follows the conventions of the genre pretty faithfully and never really surprises. Fans of the more well-known My Bloody Valentine will probably also complain about the striking similarity of its plot. But here's the thing; whilst Rosemary's Killer does nothing new it does what it does better than most of its contemporaries, including My Bloody Valentine.

The performances are all way above par for an 80's slasher, the score is wonderfully effective, and Tom Savini's visual effects are gruesomely convincing. The titular killer gets around in army fatigues and some sort of desert storm face covering. Whilst this is not as iconic as the kit that other 80's slasher antagonists got around in, it's still an effective way to keep the killer's identity hidden until the movie's finale, which is more effective (and makes more sense) than most other slashers of the era.

Rosemary's Killer goes by the name of The Prowler in other territories, but a "rose by any other name would smell just as sweet". Ahem. In truth, neither title serves the film particularly well. "The Prowler" is too generic, too forgettable, and just plain lame. "Rosemary’s Killer" is a better title but it's hard to look at it and not think "don't you mean Rosemary's Baby?".

Whether it was the multiple uninspiring titles that led to the film's relative obscurity, or whether it's just not as good as I’m giving it credit for, Rosemary's Killer is still an undiscovered gem in my metaphorical books. So, if you're in the mood for some 80's slasher goodness I say you could easily do a lot worse than Rosemary's Killer (aka The Prowler).

Quick BIQ Review: The Locals (2003)

2011-06-14T21:00:00.002+10:00

Australia gave the world Houseboat Horror, so New Zealand finally retaliated with The Locals. That comparison may be a bit harsh, but I’m struggling to find anything nice to say about this poorly scripted, over-acted, ineffective little Kiwi "horror" flick.

Apart from beging poorly scripted, over-acted, and generally ineffective, the thing that is most notably wrong with the film is the lighting. The film takes place mostly at night in the New Zealand country side. So in theory it should be dark, right? Wrong. Every scene is lit with 50 gazillion mega watt spot lights just out of frame, making the whole thing look like Friday Night Football. It’s distracting and distinctly unscary.

I guess at the heart of this film is a good story idea, but the execution is real amateur hour stuff.

Chrome Dome: Laid To Rest (2009) Review

2011-06-06T21:00:00.032+10:00

After seeing Indiana Jones And The Crystal Skull I thought to myself, "that skull will probably never work again." But his hard working agent has proven me wrong by getting him a gig as the chrome plated face mask of the brutal bald antagonist in the low budget slasher Laid To Rest.

Laid To Rest starts with an unnamed girl (Bobbi Sue Luther) waking up in a funeral home coffin. She rocks around until she finally knocks her coffin off its perch, breaking it open and allowing her to escape. But, once free, she then faces the problem of not knowing who she is, where she is, or how she got there. We the audience are also left to ponder how a woman, with such an enormous chest, fit in the coffin to start with.

Before too long our principle antagonist, Chromeskull (Nick Principe) shows up wearing a... well, you know... chrome skull, and brutally dispatches the funeral home curator, before turning his attention to the unnamed girl. But Little Miss Big Boobs makes a miraculous escape and manages to hitch a ride with passer-by Tucker (Kevin Gage) who drives her to the relative safety of his home that he shares with his wife Cindy (Lena Headey).

Cindy is, of course, displeased with the arrival because as we all know; women automatically despise other women with larger breasts. But after a lot of dull dialogue she finally agrees with Tucker to shelter Miss Twin Peaks for the night. After some more yawn-inducing chit-chat between our threesome, Chromeskull finally (and thankfully) show ups and dishes out some more seriously brutal slasher action.

"A brutal killer is on the loose? That's nice honey. *Yawn*"

I don't know for sure but I'm guessing writer/director Robert Hall's background is probably in visual effects, because the visual effects on offer here are truly amazing for a production of this scale, but everything else is disappointingly sub-par.

I really thought that I was now pretty much immune to the impact of blood and gore in movies but Laid To Rest gave me a real jolt when Chromeskull started carving people up. Thanks to the brilliant brutality of the kill scenes and Chromeskull's silent motivation-less demeanour the movie works well when he's on screen. Even though the camcorder he has mounted on his shoulder to film his victims is a little too reminiscent of a stuffed parrot one might expect to find accompanying a cheesy pirate costume.

But, when Chromeskull is absent the movie is a chore to watch. The protagonists sit around lamenting the lack of gas in one car, the speed limiter on another car, the lack of phones, the slow boot time of a computer, the distance to reach police, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah...

Hall feels the need to explain absolutely everything. So instead of simply having our protagonists desperately fleeing, with Chromeskull in pursuit, they instead sit around calmly explaining to one another in an inordinate amount of detail why they are going nowhere. It totally kills the pace of the movie. You're left wondering; what the hell is Chromeskull is doing during these lengthy stagnant scenes? Is he polishing his face? Shopping for a new HD video camera? Why the hell isn't he taking care of business and attacking these tiresome half-wits with those big shiny knives of his?

Another annoyance is the fact that the unnamed girl, who the other protagonists eventually nickname "Princess" (disappointingly, not a euphemism for a large breasted woman), talks in some pseudo "amnesia dialogue" that Hall has cooked up. You see she has forgotten the nouns for certain things so instead refers to them with words or phrases that sound like a really bad foreign language translation. She refers to the coffin from which she escapes as a "dead box", for example. Ergh. Why does she remember the noun "box" but not "coffin"? It’s unconvincing, unnecessary, and becomes really irritating after a while.

"Princess" (Bobbi Sue Luther) and her two "front side round fleshy protrusions".

Raid To Rest is one of many low budget horror movies that just appears on the shelf of my local video library with absolutely no fanfare. After being emotionally scarred by such turds as Jeckle + Hyde and Catacombs I tend to avoid these DTV movies unless a credible source recommends them. It was Marvin over at The Montana Mancave Massacre who gave a qualified recommendation of Laid To Rest, which is why I gave it a go.

The kill scenes are indeed brutally impressive and make the movie worth watching for them alone. It's just a crying shame that when Chromeskull goes AWOL, which happens far too often in the first two acts of the movie, the whole thing grinds to a dull talky halt.

Quick BIQ Review: Zero Day (2003)

2011-06-03T19:00:00.000+10:00

Zero Day is a POV movie that presents us with the video diary of two teenage boys who plot, plan, and ultimately carry out a High School massacre.

It's sombre stuff that, done badly, could come off as insulting exploitation. Thankfully, realistic performances and dialogue combined with the director's wise choice not to contrive things in a manner that would lead you to any particular conclusion about the boys, all make Zero Day an interesting look at why good teenagers turn bad. Very bad.

True Horror: My Eden Lake (Day 5)

2011-06-02T17:30:00.000+10:00

This is the continuing story of My Eden Lake, be sure to read all about Day 1, Day 2, Day 3, and Day 4.

Thursday - Day 5

All of Dipstick & Numbnut's adventures had, up until this point in time, taken place outside of school hours. But on Day 5 they decided to mix it up a little by harrassing us at 1:30pm in the afternoon.

Why weren't they in school? I can't say for sure, but somehow I don't think getting a good education is high on their priorities. At least, it's not as high as dressing up like a pirate, with Tourette syndrome, and swinging by my place of work to dish out some more abuse. This time, just for laughs, they added indecent exposure to their repertoire.

Of course, the early hour of the day meant that all of my collegues, who had not witnessed Dipstick and Numbnut's antics first hand previously, now understood what I'd been dealing with. A plus, of sorts.

You know, they say a picture tells a thousand words so I'm just going to let the photos I took of these assballs on Day 5 tell the story. All of these photos were taken from inside our office. Click on the images for a better view...

Day 5 Thoughts

WTF?!

True Horror: My Eden Lake (Day 4)

2011-06-01T17:30:00.007+10:00

This is the continuing story of My Eden Lake, be sure to read all about Day 1, Day 2, and Day 3.

Wednesday - Day 4

They're Baaaaack!

Lurking behind trees on the front of the property, that is my place of work (yes, still a manuacturing facility still manufacturing nothing), Dipstick & Numbnut yell abuse at me from a safe distance as I leave work alone.

At this point, I can't lie to you, I'm getting tired of these dickheads. I pull out my trusty digital camera in order to collect even more evidence that these fucktards simply won't go away, and low and behold the sight of my camera sends them running faster than a pensioner at Thursday opening time at Aldi.

Dipstick & Numbnut flee into the night...
intimidated by the mighty power of my Canon Ixus!

Day 4 Thoughts

The Canon is mightier than the sword.

Also, I have to admit to being somewhat amused (or is it bemused?) by that fact that Dipstick & Numbnut don't seem to notice the irony of calling me a "fucking gutless pussy" whilst fleeing like seaguls at the sight of a compact digital camera.

Quick BIQ Review: Nothing (2003)

2011-05-31T19:00:00.000+10:00

Nothing tells the story of a couple of losers who run afoul of just about everyone they've ever met in their life. Just when it looks like their house is about to be demolished and both of them carted off to jail for crimes they didn't commit, their collective will power somehow makes the entire world outside their apartment disappear.

It's an interesting concept and, visually, it's well realised: that's the good news. The bad news is that neither of these two losers are terribly likable or sympathetic, and the film just doesn’t know whether to play it for laughs, scares, or drama. Ultimately Nothing fails to really work on any level. The performances end up being way over the top and the film's ultimate conclusion reminded me of one of those stupid old Rodney Rude jokes.

True Horror: My Eden Lake (Day 3)

2011-05-30T17:30:00.005+10:00

This is the continuing story of My Eden Lake, be sure to read all about Day 1 and Day 2.

Monday - Day 3

In between day 2 and 3 I enjoyed a relaxing weekend (yes, quietly enoying a few German lagers while watching Australian football), only to return to work the following Monday to be greeted by this...

I wonder who could possibly have done this?

I have a hunch, which my physio is working on (c'mon, that joke never gets old), but I reckon I might also know who left these gracious messages on the front entrance windows. Of course, because no one actually witnessed this misdemeanour, it's all a bit too much hassle for the Police to bother investigating.

Day 3 Thoughts

Tegan Lane was dead for 15 years before some dedicated social workers and a really smart prosecution lawyer finally put her mother behind bars. Why? Because the Police never investigated her disappearance properly in the first place.

So I guess I shouldn't be surprised that the Police are not interested in the comparitively minor misdemeanours of Dipstick & Numbnut. It's just disappointing, to me, given the evidence we have against them; a photo of Dipstick (click this link to see it, but click gently, he's only a minor), one of their darts, and half a dozen witnesses to their day 1 and 2 activities. They are clearly locals and could easily be found and charged (or at least given a warning).

The other problem is that this lack of interest from local law enforcement has clearly emboldened Dipstick & Numbnut, and you start to worry about what other crap they are going to pull if they think they can keep getting away with it.

Blair Rec Paranormal Broadcast Exorcism: The Last Exorcism (2010) Review

2011-05-27T19:00:00.000+10:00

I think I speak for a lot of punters when I say that the best way to approach a movie is to know as little about it as possible. When freed from preconceptions and expectations you can just enjoy a movie for what it is. So, I was pretty pleased with myself that I'd managed to avoid all the publicity and opinion of The Last Exorcism before sitting down to watch it. I literally had no idea what to expect. But a few frames in it soon became obvious I was watching another "found footage" movie. Ergh. It was really too soon after Paranormal Activity 2 to do this dance again, and for once (in fairness to both me and the film-makers) it would have actually been better to know what I was in for so I could have given The Last Exorcism some more breathing space after Paranormal Activity 2. Oh, well...

Cotton Marcus (Patrick Fabian) has been an evangelical preacher his whole life. We meet him via the lens of two documentary film-makers as he describes to them his life as a preacher specialising in exorcisms. He reveals, bluntly, that exorcisms are fake (shocking, I know), but explains that for years he thought he was doing a good thing because of the placebo effect it had on the deluded people he performed them on.

Frankly, if people are stupid enough to believe in demonic possession, I say let the devil eat their soul... nom, nom, nom.

But, the ill health of Cotton's own young son has left him questioning his faith, and the emerging reports of exorcisms going horribly wrong, at the hands of other preachers, has inspired him to expose exorcisms for the fakery they are.

'Please, God, no... not another "found footage" movie!'

This basic set-up takes quite a while, and leaves you wondering what the movie is really about for too long. That said, once Cotton finally explains that he's going to conduct his last exorcism and wants a documentary film crew to film it and expose to the world what fakery exorcisms really are, you can predict the trajectory of the rest of the movie in an instant.

As a horror movie, it's just not that effective. The scares are too little too late, and the conclusion is as silly as it is predictable.

But, the strange thing is that The Last Exorcism actually (kind of) works as religious satire. At least it did for me. Patrick Fabian's Cotton is a funny, engaging character. I'd be lying if I said I didn't enjoy his story. I'm just a little surprised the film-maker's didn't realise, when they were editing their movie, that perhaps what they had on their hands was a movie that would work better as pure satire rather than the half-baked horror movie they ultimately cut together. I reckon, with major re-editing and minimal reshooting, The Last Exorcism, could have been a movie more akin to Four Lions than The Blair Witch Project, and would have been better for it.

If you're looking for "found footage" thrills to rival The Blair Witch Project, Rec, or Paranormal Activity then you're in for a big disappointment with The Last Exorcism. It's just too predictable and delivers it's weak scares too late. But if you have a healthy disrespect for religious hokum, you might get something out this movie that, for a good percentage of its run time, does a pretty good job of taking the piss out of such hokum.

True Horror: My Eden Lake (Day 2)

2011-05-26T17:30:00.009+10:00

This is the continuing story of My Eden Lake, be sure to read all about Day 1.

Thursday - Day 2

Dipstick & Numbnut returned to my place of work (yes, the manufacturing facility that doesn't manufacture anything) to egg my car.

It's at this point I started to feel less threatened and more bemused by these losers. You see, they hit the car of a colleague (who had parked where I parked the previous day) instead of my car. My car was safely parked out of sight because I had a feeling they might return and do something like this. But, apparently these morons didn't notice that the car they egged was a completely different make and model to mine. Or maybe, they just didn't care.

Either way, I have to admit, this was actually a bit of a win for me. Firstly, my car didn't get egged. Secondly, they were pissing off more people from my office, so if this kid ever turns up dead somewhere, I won't be the only suspect.

Again, Police were notified. Again, interest in our situation was from them was, like, you know, whatever.

Day 2 Thoughts

It occurs to me now that Dipstick & Numbnut are probably well versed in how to piss people off without actually crossing a line that would make them of any interest to the Police. So I don't think they are actually dangerous, they are just a fucking nuisance.

I can can only hope that one day, when they are old enough, they'll do 65 in a 60 zone, or possibly work in a donut shop. Let's see how well they evade Police attention then.

True Horror: My Eden Lake (Day 1)

2011-05-25T17:30:00.004+10:00

I'm not in the habit of posting personal crap here. Frankly, my life just isn't that interesting, and I struggle to understand the point of blogs where people, who have similarly uneventful lives, chronicle them in an inordinate amount of detail for public consumption.

I mean, you don't wanna read that I drank too much Weihenstephan one Friday night and woke up with a headache the following Saturday morning, do you? I didn't get in a bar fight. I didn't puke in public. I didn't shag a complete stranger. Hell, I didn't even leave home. I'm no Tucker Max. I just sat on the couch quietly getting pissed (I sort of forgot that the Weihenstephan stubbies were 500ml not 330ml), while I watched the footy on my big TV. The only reason to mention it is to make the point of how un-mention-worthy it is.

But a couple of weeks ago something eventful did happen. Well, it was eventful by my standards. I have to admit that the local constabulary categorised it as a "low priority". So, you see, even the exciting crap in my life is kinda lame in the overall scheme of things.

Wednesday - Day 1

I work at a manufacturing facility that no longer manufactures anything (which is a whole other story). In our heyday about 350 people worked here. Now there are 7. There's another small company who rent space from us who employ another 40 people or so, but their office space is quite separate from ours and we don't have much to do with them.

On this day, we had a couple of kids loitering around the facility. Let's call them Dipstick and Numbnut. They were approximately 12 and 14 years old respectively. They tampered with our mail bag. They were throwing darts near our front entrance. They refused to leave the premises after being asked to do so, on multiple occasions, by several different staff members. They were what people of my parent’s generation would describe as "trouble makers".

After the kind pregnant customer service rep asked them to leave, they refused. After the gently spoken churchy accountant asked them to leave, they refused. So, yours truly decided to have a go. Seeing as "asking nicely" wasn't working I instead used fairly strong language to indicate my displeasure at them tampering with our mail, throwing darts and refusing to leave. I photographed them and confiscated one of their darts, before they took off yelling abuse at me as they did.

Exciting so far, no?

About 20 minutes later I went to leave for the day. I was the only person left from my company. Yep, alone in the dark. When I stepped outside Dipstick and Numbnut were back. Dipstick had re-collected all his darts and was now screaming abuse at me "you fucking pussy, come here and fucking finish what you started!"

Now, as tempting as that proposal was, I had the good sense to know that if I reduced this kid's head to a crimson stain on the front path, the cleaning lady would not be happy, and I would probably end up in jail. So, I went back inside and called the police.

Police procedure is such an awesome thing. They will not come out unless you stay exactly where you are (you know, where the threat is), and they won’t give you an ETA.

"You're being threatened by 2 kids with darts? OK here's what you do... stay right there and don't move or you'll make it hard for the kids to aim properly. The more injured you are the more likely it is that we'll get the Sarg's permission to escalate your complaint from low to medium. Excuse me for a moment... hey Frank, can you take the speed camera out to the straight, we snared a shit load when Pete took it out there on Chewsdy... Sorry about that, where was I? Oh yeah, stay right where you are indefinitely and we might come out eventually."

I waited for the Police for a while but it was getting late and I was growing tired of listening to Dipstick screaming "come out, you fucking gutless pussy!" I mean, how retarded does a kid have to be to mistake me for a cat? And how on earth does he think any cat could possibly live without an intestinal system anyway? What a moron.

So, I called the police back and told them that, as fun as it was being subjected to Dipstick's verbal tirade, I really had to leave and go collect my own children from supervised care. The irony, of having to depart for that particular reason, seemed to be lost on the disinterested constable I spoke to.

When I left I got more verbal abuse and Dipstick actually chased my car screaming abuse at my tail gate as I drove out of the car park. As he chased me, the reverse gear in my car starting speaking to me, "use me, use me, use me," it whispered. But, once again, the practicality of removing the DNA of a dead kid off my rear bumper was something I wasn't really prepared to contend with late on a school night, so I drove away.

LOST DOG - Please call owner on:
2727-727368 (CRAP-PARENT)

I later found out that these charming characters had remained on site after my departure and dished out more abuse to some staff from the other company that operates on our large site.

Day 1 Thoughts

My run-in with these little fucktards bought home to me why Eden Lake is such an effective movie. I'm not going to suggest that my little stoush with these little turds was anything like what happened in that movie. If it was, it should be obvious to those who have seen the movie, that I would not be blogging about it now. But, it did highlight to me how young boys, who want to threaten or hurt you, are incredibly difficult to deal with. When you're confronted you feel helpless because you know that they are a protected species. You just can't touch them, and they know it. But they have the physical capability to harm you just like another adult. To me, that's scary shit. You just can't protect yourself until, well... probably until it's too late.

Quick BIQ Review: Dracula 2001 (2000)

2011-05-23T21:00:00.002+10:00

Apart from "crap", I'm not sure what to call this film.

On the (Australian) DVD cover the film's title is Dracula 2000. On the disc I shoved in my DVD player the film's title is Dracula 2000, but when the film starts the opening credits boldly declare "Wes Craven presents Dracula 2001". For a moment I thought I must have accidentally picked up the sequel to Dracula 2000. I hadn’t. I later learned that this film was released as Dracula 2000 in the US, but then re-titled Dracula 2001 for its UK release. Obviously the distributors of the (Australian) DVD simply didn't care enough about this little turd to make sure the DVD cover art matched the film's titles.

OK, so apart from the film's identity crisis, what's wrong with it? Pretty much everything. It looks nice, but the script is so uninspired it feels like you're watching a regurgitated composite of every other vampire movie ever made. If you're going to make yet another vampire movie I think you need to bring something new to the table, and Dracula 2001 categorically fails to do so.

After the similarly disastrous Vampire In Brooklyn I'm surprised Wes Craven was so willing to lend his name to another dud vampire movie.

Whatever this film is called in your country, avoid it.

Diminshing Returns: Paranormal Activity 2 (2010) Review

2011-05-11T20:00:00.019+10:00

There is a pretty simple rule of diminishing returns when it comes to sequels. In theory, an original film has the potential to appeal to everyone. A sequel, however, usually only has the potential to appeal to the select group of people who liked the original. As each sequel is created the potential audience continues to get smaller and smaller, until you end up with a franchise full stop like I Will Always Know What You Did Last Summer; a movie that no one cares about and only bears a passing resemblance to the original movie that spawned it. Paranormal Activity 2 is, like so many other sequels, the first step towards making the "Paranormal Activity" name something that no one cares about and has little to do with the impressive original.

Paranormal Activity 2 is a prequel, of sorts, commencing its story approximately six months prior to the events depicted in the original movie. This time around the focus is on Katie's sister, Kristi (Sprague Grayden), and her family. One evening they come home to find their home completely trashed. So, in a knee jerk reaction, Dad (Brian Boland) decides to get a security company to come in and install security cameras all throughout the house. Whilst this is clearly a contrivance designed to free the movie's writer from having to have his characters constantly filming everything themselves, I have to concede that it’s a clever idea, by sequel standards, and helps make Paranormal Activity 2 one of those rare sequels that manage to do something a little different but are still respectful of the original.

What ensues, of course, are a series of bump-in-the-night scares similar to what we got in the original, as the paranormal entity increasingly makes its presence felt. Again, all revealed in the "found footage". The movie eventually catches up to the time of the original movie and passes it providing a brief glimpse of what happened after the events of the original.

"Seriously, like, Auntie Katie is, like, totally, a total spaz."

Whilst I was impressed by the inventiveness of the story and the way it was told, Paranormal Activity 2 didn't have me on the edge of my seat quite like the original. The same "Day X" subtitles are used to chronicle the events in a linear fashion but, unlike the original, Paranormal Activity 2 often chronicles days were literally nothing happens. There can be a fine line between building suspense and boring your audience and, in my frequently ignored opinion, this movie leaves the audience waiting too long too often for it to be really effective.

The other thing that bugged me a little was the way in which the security camera footage was edited together. Whenever the paranormal entity made a bump in the night we would see or, more accurately, hear it from the point of view of a security camera that was not in the room that the activity occurred in. The editor would then cut to the security camera in the room where the activity had just occurred giving us a glimpse of the spooky aftermath. So, the question has to be asked; why didn't the editor just include the footage from the room that the activity occurred in? All the cameras are running all the time, after all. The answer, of course, is because the editor is making a horror movie, not really presenting us with raw "found footage". If the movie had been more effective I’d be more forgiving of this particular contrivance, but after watching long periods of nothing I found this conceit (of featuring the wrong camera at the wrong time) taking me out of the moment on a number occasions.

Paranormal Activity 2 has a surprisingly solid story and some effective moments, making it an above average sequel. But, fans of the original approaching this movie in dark coloured underwear, hoping to have the crap scared out of them again, are likely to be somewhat disappointed by its comparative lack of intensity. Of course, that disappointment is unlikely to stop Paramount continuing to trot out sequels until every last fan of the original has lost interest.

Harper’s Bizarre: Suspiria (1977) Review

2011-05-04T21:00:00.020+10:00

When it comes to my love of horror movies I feel like an outcast living in a no-man's-land between the real world, where regular folk think I have an unhealthy level of interest in the genre, and the world of seasoned horror genre aficionados where I'm a comparative light weight with very little authority on the genre.

Ask your average Joe what they think of Suspiria and they'll likely have no idea what you're talking about and ask you in return when did you suddenly develop a lisp. Ask an internet horror blogger about Suspiria and you'll think they just popped an eccy as you witness the love for this movie pour from every... uhm... pore of their body. Now, if you'd asked me last week I would have said, "It's one of many Dario Argento movies I haven't seen". Ask me this week, and my response is yet another affirmation of my horror movie purgatory between the real world and the world of hard-core horror genre enthusiasts.

Suzy (Jessica Harper) is an American ballet dancer who travels to Germany to train at an exclusive dance school. When she arrives she is accompanied by dramatic gusts of wind blowing through the airport terminal, a frenetic music score, wild stormy weather, and flashing red lights in the back of her cab. It is, without a doubt, the most dramatic airport transfer ever committed to film.

In the 1970's German taxi drivers were often known to place flashing red lights on their rear parcel shelf in a bid to fool other drivers into thinking that they were an emergency services vehicle, ensuring them clear passage through Germany's notoriously congested traffic.

When Suzy arrives at the dance school she sees an overacting woman with poorly looped dialogue fleeing the school in a state of over-baked distress. When Suzy tries to check-in at the dance school a voice on the intercom refuses her entry and tells her to go away. Suzy pleads her case with the voice on the intercom, that she's a new student who is expected, but it is to no avail. She eventually gives up, gets back in her cab, and goes... well, I don't know where... because the movie then disorientating jumps to a set piece where two women are murdered... somewhere.

After the two women are murdered, writer/director Dario Argento cuts to the following day. Suzy heads back to the dance school after spending the night at... well, who knows... and this time, in the calm light of day, she receives a warm welcome from the women who run the school. We soon learn, via the poorly looped, expository, dialogue that the woman Suzy saw fleeing the school the previous night was one of the two women murdered... somewhere.

What ensues are a series of equally illogical and disorientating death scenes all centred around the dance school, a wholly unconvincing scene of exposition where Suzy learns from a couple of quacks what the source of the menace at the school is, and finally an anti-climactic stab-stab-stab-burn ending. The cherry on top of this half-baked pie is the first line of the final credits: "You have been watching Suspira". Thanks for the reminder Dario, for a while there I thought I was watching How Not To Decorate.

Argento creates atmosphere with red light.

Even the most enthusiastic admirers of Suspiria don't deny the story telling is flawed. To be honest, from what I'd read about Suspiria prior to watching it, I was expecting it to be more esoteric and impenetrable than it actually is. It turns out that the basic story is actually fairly conventional and does, very loosely, make sense. It's just really poorly told, with Argento clearly more interested in mood and atmosphere than a coherent narrative.

It's the film's visual splendour and frenetic soundtrack that that admirers love to shovel praise on. For me, impressive visuals are no substitute for character and story. Even if they were, I just wasn't as impressed with the film's visuals as so many others are. All locations are soaked, to the point of oozing, in garish primary colours. Scenes are illuminated by coloured party lights with a very strong emphasis on red, because, you know, red is the colour of bloooooooooooood!!! Ahem.

Argento creates even more atmosphere with even more red light.

Unidentified Suspiria actress goes perilously close to drowning in atmosphere.

I can only assume that hard-core fans who drool over Agrento's technicolor yawn have never been inside a sex shop, because these establishments are all decorated and lit pretty much the same way as the Suspiria sets. Garish solid colours adorn the walls whilst halls and entrances are bathed in red light. If you've ever been into one of these seedy establishments Argento's production design suddenly looks more like a derivative of the décor at Penelope's Porn Palace than the visual masterpiece it's often touted as.

I wanted to like Suspiria. I really did. And during the opening scenes I thought maybe I was going to. Maybe I was finally going to fit with the hard-core horror crowd. But, sadly, the muddled storytelling and porn shop visuals soon had me on the verge of falling asleep, dreaming about my destiny to forever languish in nightmare purgatory between the real world and the world of true horror fandom.

You have been reading a review of Suspiria.

BIQ Guide To Remakes: I Spit On Your Grave

2011-04-27T20:00:00.001+10:00

Original: 1978
Remake: 2010
Best Version: Remake

Whilst I have serious problems with the last act of the remake it’s still a much more accomplished film than the infamous, but awful original. Read all about it here.

BIQ Guide To Remakes: The Last House On The Left

2011-04-25T20:00:00.002+10:00

Original: 1972
Remake: 2009
Best Version: Tied

The original is raw and brutal, but hopelessly uneven in tone. The remake is a better production that's more even in tone, but it pulls its punches and has a fucking ludicrous ending. On balance, neither version really impressed me more than the other. Next!

Turdsday Movie Review: Skyline (2010)

2011-04-21T19:00:00.003+10:00

In lieu of doing a full review of Skyline I've instead decided to post a transcript of a conversation between Colin and Greg Strause (the directors of Skyline), that occurred at the end of a Hy*drau*lx production meeting sometime in 2009. Enjoy...

Colin Strause: Hey Bro, I've been meaning to talk to you about something.
Greg Strause: What's that?
CS: I'm kind of tired of doing effects for other people's movies. I reckon we should make our own movie.
GS: Oh, not that old chestnut. We did make our own movie and everyone hated it.
CS: "Alien Versus Predator: Requiem" wasn't our movie it was fucking Fox's movie. I mean we should make our movie. Raise the cash ourselves. Make the movie we wanna make.
GS: Hmmm... what kind of movie did you have in mind?
CS: OK, sit down because I've been thinkin' about this and I reckon it could be awesome.
GS: Go on.
CS: An alien invasion movie set in LA.
GS: Cool. What’s the story?
CS: Aliens invade LA.
CG: And?
CS: Aliens in all different shapes and sizes invade LA. Some are huge. Some are small. Some walk. Some fly. Some have long tentacles. Some could be shaped like a big rock with a huge vagina shaped mouth...
GS: Awesome. So what happens?
CS: ...and some have big four way pincer claws, and some have a long scaly tongue like thing that can whip out and grab shit like a frogs' tongue and...
GS: Yeah, yeah, cool, I get that. Lots of different kinds of aliens, but what's the plot?
CS: OK, OK, so all the aliens have this blue light thing, right? Like on my blu-ray player. That's what they all have in common. That's what ties them together, so the audience doesn’t think it's just a bunch of random shit we made up. And their mother ships fire big blue lights that turn you into some sort of zombie if you look at it. We could use that cool visible veins effect on the humans that look at the blue light.
GS: Col, I understand the visuals. I like the concept. But what's the basic plot, dude?
CS: They attack people! The aliens! They attack people. People like us, I guess... in LA!
GS: Yeah, OK, but what actually happens? Give me the detail.
CS: Oh, yeah, right, well, they turn some people into zombies with the blue light and vaporise them. But some people get sucked up... like hundreds of people get sucked up... into the big mother ships like a giant freakin' vacuum. We can use that multiple human silhouette motion capture effect. Then some people could get grabbed by tentacles and sucked into these tube-like orifices. Then some people get crushed by big stomping aliens. Then, when the military attack them…
GS: The military attacks the aliens?
CS: Yeah.
GS: Awesome. Now we're talkin' plot. I like it. Go on.
CS: When the military attacks with helicopters the aliens take 'em down with those long scaly tongue like whips. And there's these crazy ass dog fights between air force stealth bombers and flying aliens.
GS: Oh man, that's cool.
CS: So we should do it right? We should make this movie?
GS: You're definitely onto something. This could be seriously awesome. But we need characters.
CS: Characters?
GS: People.
CS: Humans?
GS: Right. Main characters. I think they should be everyday people. People like you and me.
CS: Assholes living in LA?
GS: Touché. But I'm serious. Critics lap that character development shit up. OK, let me think. We should have... a pregnant chick. Yeah, a young couple... she's pregnant, but not too pregnant because she needs to be hot. Wait! I've got it! She's pregnant but the boyfriend doesn't know it. That's drama, dude. That's academy award shit.
CS: Maybe she could be impregnated by the aliens?
GS: Yeah, I dunno about that. Let's stick with them being regular folk with a human baby for now.
CS: OK, we could shoot the talky drama crap in our condo, that way we'll have more money to spend on effects.
GS: More effects, yeah, cool... no, wait, regular folk don’t live in condos.
CS: They don't?
GS: Dude, regular folk have to pay $20 for a cinema ticket and $30 for a new DVD, how the hell are they going to be able to afford living in a condo?
CS: Oh. OK. So, uhm... maybe... oh, I know, the regular dude and the pregnant-but-still-hot chick are from out of town, visiting friends who live in a condo.
GS: Perfect
CS: Yeah. Hot friends. Who have hot pool parties with lots of bikini chicks.
GS: Nice.
CS: So, they talk shit for a while, but not too long, and then the aliens attack...
GS: And the military attack back, with our characters getting caught up in it all.
CS: Aliens of all different shapes and sizes.
GS: Right, I think you said that already.
CS: Sorry.
GS: It's OK. You’re excited, I understand. So then how does it end?
CS: What?
GS: How does the movie end?
CS: Hmmm... good question.
GS: You don’t have an ending?
CS: Uhm...
GS: I think you need an ending. I mean, you've got a beginning and middle...
CS: Isn't that enough?
GS: Yeah, fuck it, let's do this thing.

BIQ Guide To Remakes: Black Christmas

2011-04-19T20:00:00.000+10:00

Original: 1974
Remake: 2006
Best Version: Original

This is a hands down non contest. What made the original so scary was not knowing who was tormenting the sorority sisters, or why. So what did the film-makers in charge of the remake do? They decided to take the one element that made the original so suspenseful and completely screw it up by dedicating a large portion of their remake to explaining everything with a stupid new Rob-Zombie-ish back story. Ergh.

BIQ Guide To Remakes: The Omen

2011-04-17T20:00:00.000+10:00

Original: 1976
Remake: 2006
Best Version: Original

For reasons I’m unlikely to be able to distil, in the amount of space I allocate to these Remake Guides, religious hokum was scary thirty years ago but today just seems silly. Maybe that says more about me and my sacrilegious lack of faith as an adult than the quality of these films, but whatever the case, the original Omen scared the crap out of me as a youngster, whilst the remake was a bore that felt like it had been made thirty years too late.

BIQ Guide To Remakes: It's Alive

2011-04-15T20:00:00.000+10:00

Original: 1974
Remake: 2008
Best Version: Remake

This is the only title where I’ve reviewed the original and the remake in full here at BIQ, so do yourself a favour and check out my old crap (1974 review, 2008 review) to gain a deeper understanding of why the remake is superior to the original. Alternatively you can just take my word for it that the remake is the least worst killer baby movie.

Pretty Crazy In Pink: The Loved Ones (2009) Review

2011-04-13T21:00:00.028+10:00

I think it's time for a new sub-genre label to describe movies like The Loved Ones. I propose "torture schlock". Torture schlock is essentially a derivative of torture porn, but with one significant difference. Torture schlock is set apart from torture porn by its grinning, giggling, maniacal, fruit-loop caricature antagonists. Torture schlock features an unholy combination of bloody gruesome violence and ridiculous cartoon villains that are impossible to take seriously. For other examples of this sub-genre, check out just about any film on Rob Zombie's CV. I guess the dichotomy of the extreme violence and the antagonist's dementedly cheery demeanour is supposed to be unsettling? But I just find it bemusing and, ultimately, ineffective as "horror".

Oddly, The Loved Ones starts like yet another depressing Aussie drama. Brent (Xavier Samuel) and his mother are a barely functioning family, struggling to cope with the aftermath of a serious car accident Brent and his father were involved in. The only shining light in Brent's miserable life is girlfriend Holly (Victoria Thaine) who not only tolerates the "emotional retard" (her jocular characterisation of Brent, not mine), but clearly loves him.

It turns out, however, that Holly isn't the only girl on campus with feelings for Brent. Prior to the school dance, the nerdishly cute Lola (Robin McLeavy) apprehensively approaches the melancholy Brent and nervously asks him to accompany her to the dance. He politely declines her invitation because he's already committed to taking Holly. Brent might have crap taste in music and be well overdue for a haircut, but at least his moral compass is working.

Now, up until this point in the movie, everything is played pretty straight. Yes, the characters are all emotionally damaged (this is an Australian film after all), but they are all "normal". The characterisations are serious, and everyone seems like a "real" person, including Lola. But then writer/director, Sean Byrne, switches on the infinite improbability drive...

Lola's father (John Brumpton) kidnaps Brent, on the night of the school dance, so that his precious Lola can have a fun evening torturing and tormenting him, at their secluded country cottage, as some sort of bizarre substitute for attending the dance with him.

Lola is... the Pretty In Pink, Prom Night, Diller Killer!

While Lola and her Daddy inflict cruel and unusual punishment on poor young Brent, The Love Ones occasionally checks in with Brent's mate, and his catatonic school dance date, smoking dope and listening to heavy metal in the school car park, completely oblivious to Brent's fate. It's an utterly pointless sub-plot that's only linked to the main story towards the very end of proceedings. The link doesn't really justify its inclusion, which really screws up the pace and tone of the movie. Maybe Byrne was going for comic relief with these scenes but they're not funny and, like the pickles in a McDonald's cheeseburger, it's difficult to understand why they are there.

Similar to Tomorrow When The War Began, I wanted to like The Loved Ones. Whilst it starts like another dreary Aussie drama, it's not long before the splatter starts and this film drives headlong into genre territory. I am, again, grateful that an Aussie film-maker is attempting an entertaining genre pic. And to be fair, it is a better example of its genre than Tomorrow When The War Began was of its genre. But, (and you knew the "but" was coming didn’t you), it's hopelessly uneven in tone, and finds itself in a sub-genre that I find rather unsatisfying.

Watching someone have their feet nailed to the floor is not suspenseful or scary. It's just plain gross. When the perpetrator is a melodramatic lunatic it goes from being gross to just plain silly. Perhaps there is scope here for very dark comedy, and maybe that's what Byrne was shooting for, but it's not funny enough (to me at least) to really work on that level.

OK, I did chuckle once, at Lola's theme song, but that probably had more to do with my disdain for Casey Chambers' whiny little ditty "Am I Pretty Enough" than any comedic genius associated with including it in The Loved Ones soundtrack.

All that said, The Loved Ones is certainly no worse than a lot of Hollywood horror movies. Thankfully, the days of Australian horror movies being sub-standard excrement well below the lowest standard set by Hollywood (I'm thinking Blood Moon, Houseboat Horror, and Body Melt, just to name a few) are well and truly behind us. Whilst The Loved Ones wasn't really to my taste, it is very well made, very well performed, and sure to please those torture schlock fans who do like to watch people have their feet nailed to the floor by a grinning nut-job.

BIQ Guide To Remakes: Prom Night

2011-04-11T20:00:00.000+10:00

Original: 1980
Remake: 2008
Best Version: Original

Similar to The Amytiville Horror, neither the original nor the remake of Prom Night really lit my torch. The original is a pretty slow affair and featured way too much disco dancing. The remake is just complete sanitised blandness. I give the nod to the original because it was better for its time than the remake, but again, I wouldn’t really recommend either.

BIQ Guide To Remakes: When A Stranger Calls

2011-04-10T20:00:00.002+10:00

Original: 1979
Remake: 2006
Best Version: Tied

If the original When A Stranger Calls had been distributed by the Weinsteins it might well been cut up and released as to separate movies (like Kill Bill and Grindhouse). When A Stranger Calls: Part I (1979) would have contained the awesome “have you checked the children” sequence. When A Stranger Calls: Part II (1979) would have contained the dull detective story featuring Charles Durning lugging his fat ass all over town. In this alternate reality I would rate the original When A Stranger Calls: Part I (1979) better than the 2006 remake, which I would in turn rate better than the original When A Stranger Calls: Part II (1979). Do you see what I’m saying, or have I just made my point more complicated than it needed to be? The original has both moments of brilliance and tedium. The remake never reaches the spectacular heights of the original but it doesn’t stoop as low either. On balance, does that make them even? I guess so, but I’m happy to be convinced otherwise.

BIQ Guide To Remakes: The Amityville Horror

2011-04-09T20:00:00.000+10:00

Original: 1979
Remake: 2005
Best Version: Remake

Both versions of The Amityville Horror are pretty dull. The story of a bunch of people, who slowly become cranky with one another because the house they are living in has funny shaped windows, just isn’t that interesting. I guess the remake is more effective, but I wouldn’t really recommend either of these snore-fests.

BIQ Guide To Remakes: Psycho

2011-04-07T20:00:00.000+10:00

Original: 1960
Remake : 1998
Best Version: Original

What the fuck was Gus Van Sant thinking? Really! What?! I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that a guy who thinks that aimlessly following untrained actors around with a steady-cam can pass for filmed entertainment (I’m talking about his pretentious wank of a film Elephant, in case I’ve lost you), would also think that doing a scene-for-scene remake of arguably the best horror movie ever created was a good idea. It is, of course, not a good idea. It’s a fucking stupid idea. The Psycho remake is, without a shadow of a doubt, the most ill-conceived (and lazy) remake ever made.

Vampires Vs Frogs: Lost Boys: The Thirst [aka Lost Boys 3] (2010) Review

2011-04-05T21:00:00.012+10:00

If Lost Boys: The Tribe (aka Lost Boys 2) had been called The Tribe: A Vampire Movie That Has Nothing To Do With "The Lost Boys" I might not have disliked it as much as I did (just to be clear, I disliked it quite a lot). It had virtually nothing in common with the seminal vampire movie it was purporting to be a sequel to. The story didn't relate. The tone was all wrong. Ergh... It might have been an OK movie in its own right but to use the Lost Boys name to sell it was an act of fraud.

Now we have a second Lost Boys direct-to-video sequel in the form of Lost Boys: The Thirst. This time around at least the film-makers have attempted to pay homage to the original classic (and it is a "classic" BTW, don't let no stinkin' Twilight fan tell you otherwise), but sadly it's all a bit half-baked and really only serves as another skid mark on the Lost Boys legacy.

The story, for what it's worth, revolves around some globe-trotting DJ, DJ X (Seb Castang), who is really a vampire infecting legions of ravers with "The Thirst" a thinly veiled party drug that's actually vampire blood. A woman, whose brother has been captured by DJ X to be sacrificed at his next rave, enlists the help of Edgar Frog (Corey Feldman) to take down DJ X when he arrives in some place that's not Santa Carla.

"This didn't seem quite so stupid when we were kids."

The logic holes here are boundless. If legions of ravers around the world are being turned into vampires how is it possible that no one seems to have noticed? And why would anyone want to do that anyway? If you're a vampire, wouldn't converting everyone else into vampires leave you with no shemps left to feed on. The story really makes no sense, and again, is out of step with the modest scope of the original Lost Boys film.

On the positive side of the ledger, the tone of the film is closer to the original than the previous sequel, with Feldman giving us a modestly humorous adult Edgar Frog as our principle reluctant hero. There are also plenty of references in the screen play to the original film. At one point Edgar even reels off just about everyone's name from original and explains to Alan Frog (Jamison Newlander), who is sadly underutilised as an even more relucant-er hero, why they are not in this movie. Yes, it's awfully clunky exposition but it was good to see these characters acknowledged, nonetheless.

Lost Boys: The Thirst really is pretty stupid, and not a patch on the original film, but it is an improvement of the previous sequel and there were just enough elements of homage to the original to make it all tolerable.

BIQ Guide To Remakes: House Of Wax

2011-04-03T20:00:00.000+10:00

Original: 1953
Remake: 2005
Best Version: Original

The original House of Wax was made before I was even born, but during the minor 3D resurgence of the 1980’s it was re-released in cinemas in a nice new polarised 3D version. I remember other people in the cinema scoffing and laughing at it, but I have to admit it creeped me out. What can I say, I was only young and Vincent Price is a scary dude. The only real redeeming features of the preposterous remake were Paris Hilton’s death scene and the delicious Elisha Cuthbert.

BIQ Guide To Remakes: Dawn Of The Dad

2011-04-02T20:00:00.002+11:00

Original: 1978
Remake: 2004
Best Version: Tied

I think George Romero gets all together way too much credit for the “satire” people read into in the original Dawn Of The Dead. I can’t help thinking that George’s thought processes really didn’t extend beyond “hey, wouldn’t it be cool to shoot a zombie flick in a shopping mall”. Both the original and the remake are basically fun shopping mall zombie movies and I don’t really rate either more highly than the other.

BIQ Guide To Remakes: April Fool's Day

2011-04-01T20:00:00.005+11:00

Original: 1986
Remake: 2008
Best Version: Original

This one is really no contest. The original is a bona fide classic. The remake is direct-to-video excrement directed by a couple of bozos who like refer to themselves as The Butcher Brothers. No, they are not brothers, but yes, metaphorically speaking, I guess they are butchers. Even setting aside my love for the original, and my disdain for the idiocy of a couple of hacks referring to themselves as “The Butcher Brothers”, it’s easy to see that the April Fool’s Day story, or more specifically it’s “twist” ending, really doesn’t lend itself to remaking and just should not have been attempted in the first place.

BIQ Guide To Remakes: My Bloody Valentine

2011-03-31T20:00:00.004+11:00

Original: 1981
Remake: 2009
Best Version: Tied

I enjoyed the My Bloody Valentine remake in glorious anaglyph 3D, when it was first released on DVD. Actually, to be honest, anaglyph 3D (where you use red/cyan glasses, in case you’re wondering) is not really “glorious” at all (shocking, I know); the image is murky, the colour is all screwed up, and the 3D effects are blurry. But should I really let the crappy anaglyph 3D affect my judgement of the MBV remake? Well, if distributors are going to release it on DVD that way then, yes, I think it’s fair. So, on one hand, we have the original: a one and a half hour long commercial for Moosehead beer. On the other hand, we have the remake: a murky 3D slasher. I’m gonna call it a tie and pretend I actually thought about it for longer than it took me to check the spelling of “anaglyph”.

BIQ Guide To Remakes: A Nightmare On Elm Street

2011-03-30T20:00:00.006+11:00

Original: 1984
Remake: 2010
Best Version: Original

Similar to the Friday The 13th remake, the film-makers behind the Elm Street re-do attempted to reconcile what their main protagonist had become in the sequels with what he started out as in the original. By the time Freddy’s Dead: The Final Nightmare hit cinemas (yes, that crap got a cinema release), Freddy was a wise-cracking cartoon character with a brightly lit latex face. This, of course, was a long way removed from the virtually mute shadowy disfigured demon that tormented the first batch of Elm Street kids in the original. Jackie Earle Haley’s interpretation of Freddy in the remake is impressive and certainly more effective than Robert Englund’s version of Freddy in the later sequels, but it's not as effective as Englund's original Freddy and it's not enough to make the 2010 version anything more than an unnecessary re-tread.

BIQ Guide To Remakes: The Hills Have Eyes

2011-03-29T20:00:00.005+11:00

Original: 1977
Remake: 2006
Best Version: Remake

Wes Craven’s resume contains a strange mix of seminal and shitty horror movies. A Nightmare On Elm Street is a genuine classic. Deadly Friend is pure idiocy. The original The Hills Have Eyes is, in my frequently ignored opinion, one of Craven’s lesser movies. After directing the impressive High Tension, the highly talented Alexandre Aja got the nod to direct the remake which is, in all respects, superior to Craven’s schlocky original.

BIQ Guide To Remakes: Halloween

2011-03-28T20:00:00.002+11:00

Original: 1978
Remake 2007
Best Version: Original

Even though I am of the marginalised opinion that John Carpenter’s original is somewhat over-rated, and the remake is Rob Zombie’s least worst film, I still have to give the nod to Carpenter’s original as the better version. I just don’t think the margin is as wide as many people assert. That said, Mr Zombie’s total and utter abomination, Halloween II, should be avoided at all costs.

BIQ Guide To Remakes: Friday The 13th

2011-03-27T20:00:00.002+11:00

Original: 1980
Remake: 2009
Best Version: Original

As Kevin Williamson famously reminded us in Scream, Jason Vorhees is not the killer in the original Friday The 13th. But, of course, thanks to the plethora of Friday sequels, Jason is synonymous with Friday the 13th. So, the film-makers responsible for the remake set about rejigging the origin story in order to make Friday The 13th about Jason. This idea has merit, but the result is really just another preposterous Jason slasher that lacked the suspense and thrills of the original.

Torch A Pawn: I Spit On Your Grave (2010) Review

2011-03-24T21:00:00.008+11:00

In amongst this pile of words that I try to pass off as a blog, I think I've previously mentioned that I don't have a problem with film-makers remaking an old film if the original hasn't aged well or was not very good to begin with. This certainly applies to the original I Spit On Your Grave. Whilst it has an interesting history with Australian censors (which you can read about here), the film itself is pretty awful. If I remember correctly the original ISOYG basically has two modes of operation: stupid & boring. Opening rape scene: stupid. Middle section where nothing happens: boring. Final scenes of revenge: stupid.

So now we have the inevitable remake (I say "inevitable" because Hollywood seems to be on a collective mission to remake every frickin' horror movie ever made) which fixes a lot of the problems that the original film had, but in doing so creates a few problems of its own. It's not entirely dissimilar to what happens when I try to fix things around my house.

After the success of her previous novel, Jennifer (Sarah Butler) decides she needs some genuine solitude to write her follow up novel. So, she does what all good horror movie protagonists do and heads out into the woods to stay in an isolated cabin. On route to the cabin she gets slightly lost and has an ominous encounter with a group of rednecks when she stops to ask for directions at one of those grungy grimy single-pump gas stations you only ever see in horror movies.

Jennifer eventually finds her peaceful idyllic secluded cabin and, briefly, enjoys some quality writing time and vino consumption. Of course, such idyllic peace can't last long when you're staying in a horror movie cabin after a run-in with some horror movie rednecks at a horror movie gas station. So, not surprisingly, Jennifer receives a visit from the rednecks who proceed to physically and emotionally torment her before icing their particularly nasty metaphoric cake by raping her.

I don't think it's a spoiler to reveal that, after Jennifer makes an improbable (read: impossible) escape from her tormentors, she returns quite some time later to exact some cruel and unusual revenge.

"I'm gonna kill those bastards... no, wait... I'm gonna fix my hair, then I'm gonna kill those bastards!"

The major improvements over the original here are the pacing, the performances, and the gravitas of the scene in which Jennifer is tormented and raped. All these elements were crap in the original. If I remember correctly the original's rape scene, in particular, played more like a Benny Hill skit than a horrific scene of torment. This is not the case here. The protracted scene of torment in this new version is not "enjoyable" to watch, but it's credible, horrific, and effective.

The major problem with this remake is the improbability and exploitive nature of Jennifer's revenge scenes. Basically, the film works reasonably well up until the point where Jennifer escapes her tormentors, but then it jumps the shark with a phenomenal amount of clearance.

In the original we see our female protagonist slowly (too slowing for it to be effective filmed entertainment, but anyway) recover from her ordeal, before exacting her implausible revenge. In the remake she simply disappears and reappears without a skerrick of a clue as to how she manages it. She then seeks revenge using methods that would make Jigsaw proud. It's at this point you feel like you're watching a series of contrivances conceived by a screen writer, not the wrath of a woman brutally tormented and raped, and it completely undermines any chance you have of taking any of it seriously.

Additionally, like most modern torture porn, there's a complete absence of suspense. This stuff just isn't scary. I guess, to be fair, the very early scenes are ominous and, briefly, suspenseful but once the torment and torture start it's more gross than scary.

Whilst, in most respects, this remake is a superior effort to its predecessor, that's a bit like saying wood chips taste better than dirt. Yeah, sure, this remake is an improvement but the bar was set so low by the original, that's not really saying much.

One Guy No Girls And A Coffin: Buried (2010) Review

2011-03-18T19:00:00.003+11:00

If you've got a lawyer you might want get them on the phone because there's every chance you're going to want to take legal action after what I'm about to say...

I like Ryan Reynolds. Always have.

There, I said it. So, you know, sue me.

Ever since Reynolds made Two Guys A Girl And A Pizza Place the moderate success it was rather than the flop it deserved to be, he has been the shining light in a number of sub-standard projects. He's proven his comedic ability in movies like Van Wilder: Party Liason and his dramatic ability in movies like The Amityville Horror. Now, don't get me wrong, neither of those movies are terribly good, but Reynolds was good in them. With the possible exception of The Nines, the only thing Reynolds hasn't quite managed to do is get on board a project really worthy of his talents. Until now…

Buried starts in total darkness, where we can only hear muffled and increasingly distressed breathing sounds. Eventually a flicker of light, from a Zippo lighter, illuminates the face of Paul Conroy (Ryan Reynolds) a truck driver working in Iraq who, we quickly learn, was ambushed by some Iraqis knocked unconscious and buried alive in a coffin somewhere.

For reasons that become apparent later, there's a working mobile phone in the coffin with Conroy, left by his abductors. Conroy uses the phone to try to call for help, but is continually frustrated by government bureaucrats who don't take him seriously or the voice mail messages of people who don't answer. Obviously with limited phone battery life and, more importantly, limited oxygen, he becomes increasingly anxious about his dire predicament.

Buried completely subverts the Horror genre by featuring a mobile phone that actually works.

Most people that are aware of this movie are aware of the fact that the whole thing takes place inside a coffin. It sounds like a gimmick, and maybe it was conceived as a gimmick, but it certainly doesn't play that way. Never seeing what's happening outside the coffin makes Conroy's plight all the more compelling, and his horrific story all the more immediate. And despite the confines of such a small physical space, Rodrigo Cortes’ creative direction never lets the proceedings feel static.

You virtually never get any respite from the claustrophobia Conroy is feeling because you're effectively trapped right along with him. I watch Buried in my darkened home theatre and I was literally squirming in my seat, subconsciously (I guess), trying to escape from the confines of Conroy's coffin. It's uncomfortable to watch, but in the best possible way.

The film isn't just a riveting suspense story; it also has a bit to say about our occupation of Iraq, western bureaucracies, heartless corporations, and the impure motives of some "freedom fighters". But it never becomes didactic. It's all there to serve the story, and it all rings true.

Buried is really the best kind of horror movie: a film so good that no one wants to label it a "horror movie" and saddle it with the baggage of so many other inferior movies. But make no mistake, this is a horror movie in the truest sense of the word, and thanks to its clever script, creative direction and customarily excellent central performance by Mr Reynolds, it's the best one I’ve seen for a long time.

You're Entitled To My Opinion: Crazy Charlie

2011-03-11T19:00:00.009+11:00

Does anyone here remember the last time a well-known actor seemed to completely loose his marbles in full public view? Here's a reminder:

Of course, it turned out to be an elaborate hoax designed to be the subject of, and marketing for, the faux documentary I'm Still Here.

With that in mind, am I the only one that thinks Charlie Sheen has been acting just a little bit too wacky lately? Whenever I see the latest transmission from planet Crazy Charlie, I can't help wondering whether it's all a put-on that's ultimately going to end with the release of a new documentary about his life, or some lame reality TV show.

If Charlie's lunatic rants had actually been deeply offensive (like Mel Gibson's tirades), I might think "woah, this guy has really lost it". But so far all the stuff I've seen has been pretty inoffensive. Yeah, he's been completely nutty, and even narcissistic, but ultimately he's been pretty harmless.

Just like Joaquin Phoenix.

So, am I being too cynical, or is Charlie Sheen currently giving the best performance of his career?

"Coming Soon to a theatre near you... Charlie Sheen is The Rockstar From Mars"

BOO!: The Haunting In Connecticut (2009) Review

2011-03-09T21:00:00.013+11:00

The opening credits of The Haunting In Connecticut state that this film is "based on the true story". Not just any true story, the true story. If we are to believe the film-makers this, apparently, is the Highlander of ghost stories.

It's a big call which begs the question; can any film – scratch that – can the film live up to the expectations created by such a bold opening declaration. Can blind, deaf, limbless pigs fly? The answer, of course, is no, not really. What the opening credits should have said was that this film is "loosely based on a story that some bullshit artist claims to be true." Had that been the intro, then maybe The Haunting In Connecticut might not have been such a disappointment. Although to be honest, I actually doubt that.

In the late 1980's the Campbell family's eldest son Matt (Kyle Gallner) is receiving experimental treatment for his cancer at a Connecticut hospital. The long commute to the hospital is taking its toll on Matt and his mum Sara (Virginia Madsen) so the family relocates to a big cheap rental near the hospital. Why is the rent cheap? Like all movies that start this way, and as the real estate agent actually spells out, this place "has a history".

Before long Matt starts seeing... BOO! ...ghostly apparitions, but he's indirectly encouraged to keep them to himself because... BOO! ...if his doctors find out that he's seeing things... BOO! ...they are likely to interpret his visions as a sign of brain damage and... BOO! ...cease his treatment.

The story goes from unbelievable to preposterous as... BOO! ...the history of the house is revealed and the other family members, including three other kids, are... BOO! ...drawn into Matt's nightmares.

"Just look at this mess on the wall! We're totally gonna loose our bond."

A better title for this film might have been Jump Scares in Connecticut. To make up for the lack of suspense in the story director Peter Cornwell, inserts more jump scares into his movie than my local Chinese takeaway puts peas in their special fried rice (just to be clear, they put too many). Cornwell's like a kid who gets a positive reaction to a practical joke and then decides that if one practical joke went over well then a barrage of practical jokes is sure to be a huge hit. It just becomes tiring after a while. You become less concerned with the characters and plot, and more worried about when the next random crap is going to suddenly appear in frame accompanied by a loud BAHZING in the soundtrack.

Other problems with the film include the nagging questions of why Matt persists with sleeping in the basement given that it appears to be the epicentre of the haunting, and why they all don't just leave the house when things get really nasty, given that they are only renting.

There's also an underdeveloped sub-plot involving Matt's Dad (Martin Donavon (the "go to" actor for a normal looking guy with a dark side)) who's a recovering alcoholic struggling with a new business venture. At first his predicament seems like a contrivance of plot in order to make Sara and the kids more vulnerable as they are forced to stay in the house alone without Dad. But later in the film Dad falls off the wagon, and very briefly becomes more of a threat to the family than the house's ghosts. It's, sort of, just there and feels half-baked.

All that said THIC (unfortunate acronym, no?), is not a total disaster. It's well made, well performed and is actually pretty effective in the early stages, before the silliness and... BOO! ...excessive jumps scares take over. It's watchable, despite it's many flaws.

And that, my friends, concludes the review of the movie about the true story.

Quick BIQ Review: The Last Horror Movie (2003)

2011-03-06T20:00:00.000+11:00

The Last Horror Movie is a particularly difficult movie to review. Just about anything you say about it is a potential spoiler, and I'm still somewhat undecided about whether I really liked it or not.

It is just about the purest form of high-concept, low-budget, movie making you're ever likely to see, which has it's pluses and minuses. I think the concept is truly brilliant, but the execution (if you'll pardon the pun) lets it down a little.

That said, if you think for a moment that what you are watching could be real, or even start asking yourself "what if it was real…", The Last Horror Movie is quite effective, and probably the scariest thing you'll ever watch. On the other hand, if that thought never enters your head, then you're more likely to laugh the whole thing off as a silly low budget shocker.

I have to admit, towards the later stages, this movie did get under my skin and managed, very briefly, to genuinely scare me.

PS - For reasons that I can't really eleborate on (IE spoilers), this is the one and only movie I'd suggest would be better enjoyed on VHS than DVD.

Turdsday Movie Review: Anatomy Of Hell (2004)

2011-03-03T21:00:00.004+11:00

Has the thought of using a used tampon as a tea bag ever crossed your mind? No, me neither. It has, however, crossed Catherine Breillat's mind. But rather than filing that thought in the "things best not admitting to having thought about" compartment of her brain (like I believe most sane human beings would) she decided to include it, and other similarly bizarre notions, in her infamous piece of pretentious exploitation, Anatomy Of Hell.

Anatomy Of Hell starts with some dude whose name we never learn (Rocco Siffredi) shaking his groove thing at a gay dance club. Some straight chick whose name we also never learn (Amira Casar), is wondering aimlessly around the same club. Eventually she heads for the restroom brushing past Siffredi on the way. For reasons that don't really make any sense, Siffredi decides to check out what Casar is doing in the restroom. When he discovers her trying to slash her wrists he stops her, but not in a heroic "don't do that, life is precious" kind of way, more of a "don't mess up the bathroom of my favourite dance club with your damn blood" kind of way.

After getting Casar some medical attention the pair go for a long walk together because, as we all know, there's nothing gay guys like to do more than walk the streets at night with a suicidal straight chick. The evening concludes pretty much as you would expect. Casar gives Siffredi a blow job and offers him cash to regularly visit her and stare at her in the nuddy. No, I'm not making this crap up, that's what happens.

The rest of the movie chronicles the series of visits Siffredi pays Casar, as part of the "deal", where Casar gets her gear off and Siffredi sits in the corner, drinking JD, looking at her contemptuously. At least, I think it was supposed to be a contemptuous look. It's a bit hard to tell with Siffredi, who seems to be channelling such thespians as Chuck Norris, Jean Claude Van Damme, and Dolph Lundgren. The allegedly contemptuous looks are accompanied by esoteric insults that the pair direct at each other's gender.

The rendezvouses become increasingly strange as Siffredi starts getting his gear off too and doing odd things to Casar like applying lip-stick around her anus, or drinking a glass of water with her blood soaked tampon floating in it like a tea bag. Unfortunately, their infrequent cryptic dialogue really gives you no clue as to why they are doing what they are doing.

If Catherine Breillat really wants to be known as a serious film-maker rather than a creator of pretentious exploitation then she really needs to stop casting porn-star Siffredi in her films, and focus a little more on creating some real characters. Her films actually remind me of Rob Zombie's films in that her characters don't act like real people, they act like characters out of a Catherine Breillat movie. She's also so obviously trying to shock her audience, without any credible context for those shocks; it's really hard not to view it all as anything other than desperate exploitation. Again, just like Rob Zombie's films.

Any doubt about whether Anatomy Of Hell is lofty high art that I didn't understand or tacky exploitation (which is very little doubt, I should point out) is erased by the odd blurb that actually appears at the beginning of the movie. Before the opening credits roll, there's a wordy disclaimer about how the explicit close ups of Casar's character are a body double, not actress Amira Casar. Uhm, OK. Whatever. If the film isn't exploitative then why is such a disclaimer necessary? I can't say for sure why it’s there, but you could well imagine Amira Casar insisting on it in order to distance herself from what even she realises is exploitative vision.

After the similarly bizarre Romance (my first Catherine Breillat movie), I thought maybe something had been lost in translation. So, giving Breillat the benefit of the doubt, I gave Anatomy Of Hell a chance. Sadly, Anatomy Of Hell is even worse than Romance and just confirmed what I thought about Breillat from the outset. Her films are pretentious and exploitative, which is a thoroughly awful combination.

Mixed Bag: Baghead (2008) Review

2011-02-28T20:00:00.003+11:00

For various, uninteresting, reasons a significant amount time often passes in between the moment I pick a movie to watch and when I actually watch it. Combine that fact with my poor memory and I often find myself sitting down to watch a movie with no real clue as to why I chose it. Sometimes it soon becomes obvious, like when Patsy Kensit started getting her gear off in the truly awful Bitter Harvest. But other times I'm still none the wiser even by the time the final credits roll. And so it was with Baghead, an ultra-low budget indie pic that defies easy categorisation.

Chad (Steve Zissis), Matt (Ross Partridge), Michelle (Greta Gerwig), and Catherine (Elise Muller) are a group of friends struggling to make a living as actors in LA. After attending the premiere of an ultra-low budget movie made by another friend of Matt's, the group is inspired to make their own movie. They all subsequently agree to Chad's suggestion of going to a remote retreat in the woods for the weekend to brainstorm and script a movie with four plum roles for them all to play.

Unfortunately, relationship tensions (and alcoholism) make working together, to develop a movie, problematic. Chad's keen on Michelle, but she only wants to be friends. Matt and Catherine have been in an on-again-off-again relationship, that's currently off, but Catherine is in denial about how much she still loves Matt. Michelle has the hots for Matt, but he doesn't want to screw her out of respect for his best bud Chad.

So, not surprisingly, on the first night of brainstorming at the secluded cabin the group spend more time drinking than thinking. The excessive alcohol consumption causes Michelle to wake in the middle of the night and stumble outside to puke. Whilst evacuating the contents of her stomach she catches a glimpse of a stalker with a bag on his head lurking around the cabin. She's so wasted, however, that when she wakes in the morning, safely in her bed, she assumes her late night excursion was just a dream. Entertained by Michelle's recounting of her dream, Matt suggests using the concept as the basis for their movie.

Before you can say, "isn't it weird and/or convenient how life sometimes imitates art?" the group starts to actually be tormented by a bag-headed antagonist. Is it just one of the group being wacky-crazy-zany, or are they really being stalked by an early model Jason Voorhees?

If I remember correctly, I found Baghead in the "Comedy" section of my local video library. Whilst it does have some funny moments it's not predominantly a comedy. For a good portion of its running time it plays like a horror movie, but again to call it horror movie would be misleading. It also satirises the culture of struggling film-makers and actors in Hollywood, but yet again, it's not a full blown satire either. It's a little bit of all these things and, strangely, it kind of works in spite of itself.

I say "in spite of itself" because genre-bending like this often doesn't work. Additionally, the performances aren't great and the movie looks awful.

Part of the problem with the look of the movie is that it appears to have been shot on cheap video equipment, but worse than that is the unnecessarily shaky camerawork. I guess it's supposed to give the movie a home-made feel, but it's so crappy it draws attention to itself in the worst possible way. No one shoots their home movies this badly anymore, and even if they did, this is not a point-of-view (POV) movie anyway, so why shoot it like one?

Despite its ugly look and genre-bending story, Baghead is amusing when its attempting to be, and suspenseful when its attempting to be. So, if you approach it with no preconceptions (like I did) it's not an entirely bad way to spend 80 minutes.

Top 5 Best Horror Movie Endings

2011-02-25T20:00:00.002+11:00

As an antidote to the Top 5 Worst Horror Movie Endings I present to you the Top 5 Best Horror Movie endings. See, I'm not all negativity. I'm sure I've probably overlooked some gem that others hold in higher regard than any of my selections, but these are the grand finales that blew me away when I saw them and have stayed with me ever since.

Spoiler Alert – Do I need to say it again? Given that I'm talking about how these movies end; the following discussion is chockfull of spoilers.

5. The Orphanage (2007)

Some really well-crafted misdirection, leaves the protagonists (and the audience) blind to the fact the poor little adopted son was right under their (and our) nose the whole movie. Dead. When his fate is finally revealed it's a sublime ending to one of the best horror movies released in recent years.

4. April Fool’s Day (1986)

I know a good number of people brag that they picked the ending early and that it's so obvious that anyone who didn't is a moron. OK, let's back up for a moment. In 1986 the slasher formula was well and truly entrenched: someone, or something, wronged in some way some time ago returns to kill, one by one, a group of people somehow linked to the original wrong doing. The closest thing to a twist ending you ever got was the antagonist showing signs of life after being categorically killed dead fatally.

Now, I saw April Fool's Day upon its original theatrical release. I was young and had been consuming a steady diet of formulaic slashers, so I just wasn't expecting, or even looking for, a "twist" ending. When it's finally revealed that the whole movie was just a series April fool's pranks and everyone is still alive and well it completely took me by surprise. It might not seem so now, but the conclusion was actually pretty subversive for its time. At least, that's what I tell myself when people call me a moron.

3. Skeleton Key, The (2005)

I just don't understand the lack of love for this film. It has some really tense moments that come from great performances and rock solid direction. The ambience of the Deep South is so well captured and the ending is an absolute cracker.

OK, by now you can probably guess that I like twist endings. But not stupid arbitrary twist endings that are not supported by the events that precede it (think High Tension). I love a twist ending you don't see coming even though it ultimately makes perfect sense. The Voodoo body swapping that happens at the end of The Skeleton Key does make perfect sense, and I for one didn't see it coming, which left me reeling and very much in love with The Skeleton Key (or Kate Hudson, I can't be sure).

2. The Sixth Sense (1999)

It's easy to forget how much we all loved The Sixth Sense after its theatrical release, now that M Night Shyamalan has gone on to make so many turkeys, and become somewhat of a laughing stock. But the revelation that Bruce Willis was dead and had been since the first few minutes of the film gave me goose bumps, and is easily one of the best horror movie finales of all time, despite the memory of it being tarnished somewhat by Shyamalan’s subsequent output.

1. Psycho (1960)

To be clear here, I'm talking about the reveal of Norman’s mother in the Bates’ mansion basement. Who knew she was dead? Who knew Norman had a split personality? And how bloody creepy was the mummified Mrs Bates? That ending is an absolute cracker and has yet to be topped.

Admittedly, I tend to forget that there is an expository monologue from Norman’s shrink that comes after that killer moment which does let a bit of steam out of the finale, but I still content that Psycho has the most impressive conclusion to any horror movie, ever.

Final Girl Film Club: Frozen (2010) Review

2011-02-21T20:00:00.000+11:00

Once upon a time the phrase "direct to video" was movie distribution speak for "shit", or "shitty", or "shit like". (Before any Billable Hours fan writes and complains that I ripped that line off Clarke Claxton, don’t bother. You and I are the only people that ever watched that show and no one else is going to know what the hell you are talking about.) But "direct to video" is no longer a badge of dishonour given only to movies that stink beyond the tolerance of your average set of human nostrils. No, for a multitude of, mostly economic, reasons there are now some real gems making their debut on DVD rather than the local multiplex, and I offer you Frozen as proof of this contention.

Dan (Kevin Zeger) and Joe (Shawn Ashmore) are best buds on their annual weekend ski trip, but this year are accompanied by Dan's new Girlfriend, Parker (Emma Bell). Frosty tension is the air because Joe is feeling displaced by Parker's intrusion into their annual male odyssey, whist Parker is feeling uncomfortable with Joe's icy treatment, given Dan's insistence that she accompany them.

Frosty tension? Icy treatment? You see what I'm doing with those adjectives? Never mind.

Our cool threesome banter, bicker and ski right up until closing time Sunday night at the weekend ski resort. Then, in an attempt to appease Joe's dissatisfaction with the way the weekend has panned out, the trio convince the docile lift operator to let them onto the ski lift for one last run after its official closing. Before you can say, "wouldn’t it be fucked up if they got half way up the mountain and there was a mix up at the base of the lift that meant the docile operator left someone else in charge who didn't understand that they were still on the lift", that's exactly what happens. The ski resort shuts down and our three protagonists are left hanging in the cold, a very long way above the ground, and a very long way away from anyone who could possibly hear their chilly screams.

Frozen does for threesomes what Open Water did for couples.

Frozen's basic premise is brilliantly simple: three people stuck on an isolated ski lift. It's a great premise, but you need more than a great premise to make an engrossing movie. The Locals had an interesting premise, but that movie sucked large desiccated turds thanks to the amateur hour execution. To turn your decent premise into a decent movie you need a compelling script, and competent direction, which writer/director, Adam Green, delivers in snow shovels. He's also very well serviced by his trio of actors, especially Ashmore and Bell.

Frozen really draws you in because Joe, Dan and Parker seem like real characters rather than the clichéd character types that often populate these kinds of movies, and the dynamic of their relationship is not just credible, it's relatable. When they realise that they've been stranded on the lift and are unlikely to be discovered until the resort reopens in a week's time their reactions are believable and captivating, whilst Green's assured direction keeps the tension mounting slowly but surely.

The "horror" in Frozen comes from the gradual deterioration of the protagonists' situation and the fact that there's no easy out for them. There's no knife wielding maniac, or creepy supernatural forces on offer here, nor will you be leaping through your seats from cheap jump scares. As such, this movie might disappoint viewers looking for more visceral thrills. Frozen doesn't shock, or frighten, you so much as it fills you with an inescapable feeling of dread, which is arguably more affecting.

Perhaps the best barometer for determining if you're likely to enjoy Frozen, is your reaction to Open Water. I think it's probably safe to say, if you liked Open Water, you'll dig Frozen. But, if you thought that that movie was, like, you know, totally boring man, then Frozen probably isn't going to be your cup of Red Bull either.

I'm guessing the main complaints directed at Frozen are going to be about the implausibility of getting stuck on a ski lift for such a long time, and about how the protagonists could have more easily escaped their predicament. To that I'd say, yes their predicament is unlikely, but it is possible, and the important thing when making a movie about something unlikely (but possible) is to do it convincingly, and Frozen does. As for our trio being able to escape more easily, to that I simply say, "bollocks". Green shoots the film on a real ski lift, and it's pretty clear to anyone with a reasonable understanding of gravitational force, that there is no easy out for the trio. With the possible exception of what Parker does with her glove at one stage, most of the trio's actions are believable and understandable.

My only complaint with the movie is the speed with which the third character's fate is resolved after the fate of the first two characters is known. It feels a little rushed and seems like a lost opportunity to extract more "horror" from the story. But that's a minor quibble in an otherwise very accomplished genre pic.

Put simply, Frozen is a movie that rewards the patient viewer with a genuine, believable, tale of horror, which is not something I find myself saying very often these days. The fact that it didn’t screen in Australian cinemas should not put you off checking out this impressive little chiller.

Related Links:
Final Girl Film Club
Final Girl

Top 5 Worst Horror Movie Endings

2011-02-17T22:00:00.003+11:00

Unfortunately, the horror genre has a disproportionate number of movies with cocked up endings. I'm talking about those endings that don't make a lick of sense, and often feel tacked on in a desperate attempt to conclude proceedings with a bang.

The really infuriating finales are the ones that conclude what are otherwise good movies. I mean, if a movie sucks dog-slobbered-tennis-balls, then a crap ending is to be expected, but when a movie is travelling well, before the film-makers trot out a stupid ending, then it can be really infuriating.

Here are my picks for the worst 5 horror movie endings.

Spoiler Alert - Hopefully it's obvious that, given that I'm talking about how these movies end, the following discussion is chockfull of spoilers. If it's not obvious then, you know, be warned: the following discussion is chockfull of spoilers.

5. Friday The 13th (1980)

Part of me didn't want to include Friday The 13th in this list. I mean, if it wasn't for this film's stupid ending it seems unlikely that Jason Voorhees would have gone on to become the indestructible antagonist of all the sequels that followed and it is hard to imagine the horror genre without good 'ole Jason.

But let's be honest, that final scene in Friday with the retarded kid leaping from the lake is just plain dumb and, if you can separate your love of Jason from your critical analysis of the original movie, it's hard not to think of it as anything other than a ridiculous way to conclude this hallmark slasher.

4. The Descent Part 2 (2009)

In the opening scene of The Descent Part 2, a red-neck discovers the bloodied, bruised and virtually catatonic Sarah (the only apparent survivor from the original movie) alone in the woods. So, what does he do? He dutifully takes her to the closest hospital. Fair enough too.

Fast forward to the end of the movie, after another hellish descent into the "uncharted" caverns (someone should really get around to charting those damn caverns), and another lone female survivor emerges all bloodied and battered. Again, she's met by the same red-neck that saved Sarah at the beginning of the movie. So what does our resident red-neck saviour do this time? Take her to the hospital, like last time? No, he clubs her over the head with a shovel and feeds her to the cave dwellers. WTF? I mean, what the fuck?! If this red-neck is into bopping people off and feeding them to the cave dwellers why didn’t he do it when he had the chance to do so at the beginning of the movie? It doesn't make a lick of sense and it's a stupid way to end an otherwise an above average sequel.

3. Deadly Friend (1986)

I haven't seen Deadly Friend since its original theatrical release, and I literally cannot remember anything about it except the idiotic ending where the robot bursts out of Kristy Swanson's skin. I actually remember my reaction better than I remember the film: "that's just fucking stupid," or something along those highly articulate lines.

I guess Wes Craven was buoyed by the success A Nightmare On Elm Street and, given that it had an esoteric ending, he decided to go one better (and by "one better" I mean "completely loose the plot") with Deadly Friend.

2. Last House On The Left, The (2009)

I'm not too precious about remakes. I figure if an old movie hasn't aged well, or wasn't that well executed in the first place then, sure, go ahead and remake it. That's how I felt about The Last House On The left. The 1972 original is notorious, to be sure, but if you look in the dictionary you’ll see that "notorious" and "good" are not synonymous.

For the most part, this 2009 remake is better than the original. It is more even in tone, better acted, and overall a more accomplished movie… until the end.

I think the film was supposed to end after the family finally conquer the bad guys and escape on a boat, headed for the local hospital. That would make sense. What doesn't make sense is the seemingly tacked on ending where Dad returns to the house to torture the main bad guy by microwaving his head. It is so idiotic, for so many reasons, you're left wondering whether the film's producers are developmentally delayed or whether they simply don't give a crap that their movie is now a moronic joke.

1. The Mist (2007)

Does Frank Darabont have kids? God, I hope not. I would find that genuinely unnerving given that he wrote and directed the conclusion to The Mist. But, I'm getting ahead of myself.

This film's conclusion is wrong for a number of reasons:
- The utter ridiculousness of the survivors all so readily agreeing to be euthanized, when their car runs out of gas, without a protest or even a suggestion of other possible courses of action.
- The lame contrivance of there being enough bullets for all but one person.
- The preposterous contrivance of the mist clearing and the military rolling in minutes after the main protagonist shoots his fellow survivors.

But what makes this shithouse ending the worst horror movie ending ever (in the history of ever) is the ease with which the main protagonist decides to shoot his own son in the head. This comes after he clearly demonstrates, for the entire length of the movie, his relentless determination to keep himself and his son alive and the obvious love he has for his son.
"You know, son, trying to drive out of this mist wasn't a bad idea, but it looks like we're out of gas."
"So, what do we do now, Dad?"
"There's only one thing we can do, son."
"Try siphoning some gas from another car?"
"Nope."
"Try jacking another car?"
"Nope."
"Look for another safe place to hide?"
"Not even close, son."
"I dunno Dad, what should we do next?"
"I'm gonna blow you brains out."
"Oh... of course... I feel so stupid, why didn't I think of that."

Really Frank? Is that what you'd do? Geezus, I'm glad you're not my father. Seriously. Worst. Horror movie. Ending. Ever. Hands. Down.

Turdsday Movie Review: 9 Songs (2004)

2011-02-10T23:00:00.002+11:00

I'm all for more realistic depictions of sex in mainstream cinema, but it seems everyone who attempts it ends up making a cruddy film. The most disappointing thing about Michael Winterbum's 9 Songs is that it's a lost opportunity to finally disprove the cinematic equation that explicit sex = crap film (or video, as the case may be).

Whilst the performances in 9 Songs are far superior to anything you'll see in your average porn flick, Winterbum really lets them down by not crafting any character or narrative. I really wanted to know more about the two leads, Lisa & Matt, but instead of seeing more of their relationship in between the frequent sex scenes all we get is dodgy concert footage of songs that seem to have no thematic or emotional tie to the couples' relationship.

Sex scene, dodgy concert footage, sex scene, dodgy concert footage, and so it goes on for the, in-joke, 69 minutes running time.

It's like watching Pay TV with someone arbitrarily flicking between the adult channel and the music channel.

9 Songs fails as conventional cinema due to it's lack of character and story, and it fails as pornography due it's lack of genuinely arousing explicit sex (sorry porn fans, despite the controversy, there’s actually not that much genuinely explicit sex in 9 Songs).

Baby Bumps Off: It’s Alive (2008) Review

2011-01-30T18:00:00.007+11:00

Do we need more proof that filmmakers are so bankrupt of original ideas that they will remake absolutely anything? No? Too bad, because more proof is here, in the form of It's Alive, the 2008 remake (released DTV here in 2010) of the somewhat obscure 1974 original of the same name.

Lenore (Bijou Phillips) is a heavily pregnant post-grad college student who decides to put her studies on hold to move in with her boyfriend, and father of her baby, Frank (James Murray) to see out the pregnancy and have the baby. Shortly after moving in with Frank, Lenore goes into premature labour. Frank dutifully rushes her to hospital where her obstetrician explains that the baby has had a "growth spurt" and is ready to be delivered via caesarean section, stat.

What ensues is shown in disorientating jumps cuts, shaky camera work and almost subliminal flashes of bloody images. The end result: Lenore and baby are bloodied but alive, whilst the four medical practitioners in attendance are all dead. Bloody, splattered all over the room, dead.

Thanks to the effects of the anaesthesia, Lenore can't recall what happened. So the cops are left scratching their heads trying to figure out what went down while Lenore and Frank head home with their new born bundle of joy, Daniel, as if having your obstetrician and a team of medicos brutally slain during your birth is no real biggy. In the comfort of Frank's remote retreat things go from bad to worse, as their baby grows up fast and develops a taste for flesh even faster.

If you set aside the question of why you would bother remaking It's Alive and just, for a moment, assume that it had to be done, this updated version does do a lot of things right.

In the original, the baby's exploits and the post-traumatic stress of the parents were told as two separate sub-plots, only converging towards the end of the film. By changing this, and having the baby go home with Lenore and Frank, the remake feels less disjointed and Lenore's neurosis ultimately makes more sense.

The overt, borderline preachy, social commentary of the original has also been toned down a lot. The new film updates the message, taking a swipe at the usage of the internet for self-diagnosis and self-medication, but it makes its point relatively succinctly and then moves on. There are no rambling didactic monologues like there was in the original.

Finally, director Josef Rusnak, shows us plenty of carnage but hardly ever shows us the actual baby. He obviously understands that showing the baby in anything more than fleeting glances just highlights how ridiculous the whole notion is and leaves the audience in a state of laughter rather than a state of horror.

So, compared to the original, this remake is all good. That said, you still have to ask: is it a good film in its own right? Sadly, the answer is no, not really. You just can't escape the fact that the basic premise is pure schlock, and it doesn't matter how competent the execution, killer babies are just plain daft.

The film is also brutally short, not really allowing time for much of anything to actually happen. Just when things start to get going it all comes to a grinding halt. In fact, when the end comes you might just assume it's one of those faux endings that are followed by a resurrection of the antagonist before another finale or crescendo. The closing credits will swiftly inform you you've assumed wrong.

You could argue that the basic premise is so silly that the 1974 original probably shouldn't have been made, and therefore a modern remake is doubly pointless. In the end this remake just feels like a turd polishing exercise. Everyone involved has done a good job, but you're ultimately left wondering why they bothered with such a dubious project.

Off Topic: Dot Dot Dot

2011-01-28T12:45:00.000+11:00

In May 2009 developer Jeremy Bush (aka Rhete) created a flash "game", Super PSTW Action RPG, that was clearly a joke parodying adventure and RPG games. PSTW stands for Press Space To Win, which is explained on the front screen of the "game".

In February 2010 a kid (aka Axeman13), too stupid to realise it was a joke, posted an earnest, but typo riddled, rant about just how crap the game was.

Amused the comments, the developer enlisted a voice actor, Deven Mack (aka D-Mac-Double), to record a reading of the review including phonetic pronunciations of all the misspellings.

Then this month, a graphic artist (aka RicePirate) created an animated flash of the comments to accompany the voice actor’s reading.

Here’s the end result, which I thought was hilarious...

…but you might think is worthles.

You’re Entitled To My Opinion: Gervais At The Globes

2011-01-19T18:00:00.009+11:00

Did Ricky Gervais go too far with some of his jokes at this year's Golden Globe awards?

I think you can get away with being "controversial" if you're actually funny, but the problem for Gervais (as is often the problem with Gervais) is that he just wasn't.

I mean, did anyone actually find his gay Scientology gag funny? Tom Cruise and Scientology are pretty easy targets but still Gervais' gibe was clunky, and lacked any real wit. I didn't laugh, and neither did anyone at the award ceremony.

You can usually tell when people find an "offensive" or "controversial" gag funny: they laugh first and groan second. When a joke is not funny, the groan comes first, as it did on a number of occasions during Gervais' hosting duties.

And his "Ashton Kutcher's Dad" joke didn't even really make sense.

I've never found Ricky Gervais to be terribly funny and his stint on the Golden Globes hasn't changed my mind. The thing I do find amusing, however, is that many observers are now posing the question "will this kill Gervais' chances of making it big in Hollywood?" Honestly, I though Ghost Town and The Invention Of Lying already had.

Of course, in this age of faux controversy publicity stunts the whole thing was probably a deliberate attempt to generate interest in an award ceremony that no one gives a gay scientologist's dad's ass about anyway.

Today, When I Committed Treason: Tomorrow, When The War Began (2010) Review

2011-01-13T20:00:00.019+11:00

Sometimes I feel like a traitor for not being as generous towards Australian films as a lot of Australian film critics seem to be. But I just can't bring myself to forgive a film for clichéd characters, clunky dialogue, dull action, and an incomplete story simply because the people that made it come from the same country as me. Err... mate!

In Tomorrow, When The War Began, Ellie (Caitlin Stasey) and Corrie (Rachel Hurd-Wood) are BFFs living in the small town of Wirrawee. One day, they decide to go on a camping trip to a remote secluded location with Corrie’s boyfriend (Lincoln Lewis).

In what turns out to be the first of many examples of lazy screen-writing, Ellie's parents arbitrarily stipulate that at least seven kids must go on the trip, so Ellie does a phone around enlisting a bad boy (Deniz Akdeniz), a hot girl (Phoebe Tonkin), an Asian guy (Chris Pang), and a religious nerd (Ashleigh Cummings) to accompany them. Before you ask "where's the stoner slacker kid?" don't worry, they pick him (Andy Ryan) up later in the adventure. If it were established that these kids were actually good friends, or if fate threw them together somehow, I might forgive the clichéd character types, but the setup is so lazy and unconvincing that the contrivance (of these disparate kids deciding to go camping together) becomes a particularly annoying way to establish proceedings.

After the short camping trip, filled with clunky pseudo-philosophical dialogue that I defy anyone to describe as anything other than completely unconvincing, our Whitman's sampler pack of teenage character types returns home to discover a foreign alliance has invaded the country and taken everyone they know and love prisoner. Of course, our heroes do what those American kids in 1984's Red Dawn did and decide to fight back.

If an alliance of foreign nations really did invade Australia, their motivation might very well be to stop us making films like Tomorrow, When The War Began.

I really wanted to like this film. I mean, I do appreciate that someone in this country has tried to make something other than another depressing, gritty, urban drama. Unfortunately, Tomorrow just ends up being a stark illustration of the fact that attempting to make an engrossing action/adventure film and actually succeeding are two significantly different things.

Most of the film's problems come from writer/director Stuart Beattie's screenplay. It's just littered with unconvincing situations and dialogue, that continually jar you out of the moment. Take for example a scene where the religious nerd gets permission from her strictly religious father to go on the camping trip. He clearly has serious reservations about his precious daughter fraternising with any boys, so the notion that he'd approve of her camping with the local criminal bad boy, just doesn't ring true. Also, early on, a big deal is made of Ellie borrowing her parents Landrover for the camping trip, but when hot girl vomits in it, Ellie, oddly, just laughs like it's no problem. It's almost as if Beattie continually forgets what he wrote on the previous page of his script.

The main attack that the kids plan and execute against the occupying force is also hopelessly unconvincing. We're expected to believe that an invading force that can so ruthlessly and efficiently round up so many people as POWs, and orchestrate such a well organised invasion would leave a key strategic piece of infrastructure guarded by half a dozen infantry that could be easily displaced by a herd of cows? Really? I mean, really?! Perhaps if North Korea continue to get out of hand we should just send South Korea some cattle.

Another annoyance is just how hackneyed the characters' transformations all are. They are all just as obvious as their character type. Will bad boy ultimately become good? Will the timid religious nerd come out of her shell? Will hot girl become more down-to-earth? Will Corrie’s cowardly boyfriend become more courageous? Will the stoner kid become more responsible? You know the answer to these questions as soon as you recognise the types and, sadly, that is very early on in the proceedings.

Finally, Tomorrow commits my favourite movie making sin: it has no ending. It finishes like a TV pilot with all the main "characters" established but most of their adventures obviously yet to come. Note to film's producers: TV pilots belong on TV!

All the films flaws would be more forgivable if the film was funny, or entertaining in an escapist sort of fashion. But the whole thing is fairly humourless and the action sequences, whilst impressive by Australian film standards, are pretty low rent compared to your average Hollywood action/adventure. Sorry, but, exploding ride-on lawn-mowers just don't get the blood pumping.

The film's one saving grace is the excellent cinematography. I can't deny that the film looks great, but that's just not enough to elevate Tomorrow above being a dull, predictable, b-grade genre pic. Err... fair dinkum!

Quick BIQ Review: The Ring Two (2005)

2010-12-19T20:00:00.000+11:00

Compared to it's predecessor, The Ring Two is less scary, makes less sense, and contains more Australians.

The most intriguing thing about The Ring Two is why Naomi Watts' hairstyle inexplicably changes so dramatically shortly after the film begins.

The performances are good and the direction is solid, but the story is so silly and arbitrary this muddled sequel really fails to impress.

True Horror: Keli Lane found guilty of murder

2010-12-16T20:00:00.002+11:00

Have you ever had one of those conversations that go something like this:

"Did you hear about that guy who they think killed his daughter in Dubbo?"
"Oh, you mean the little girl they found in the oil drum?"
"Oil drum? No, she was drowned in the bath tub. Wasn't the oil drum murder in Adelaide?"
"Hmm, I'm not sure, I thought it was Dubbo, but I could be wrong. I heard about a bathtub drowning in Sydney."
"That was the little boy who drowned at his Aunt's place wasn't it?"
"Was it an Aunt? I thought it was the father's girlfriend."
"Oh, yeah. No, this one was a little girl in Dubbo."

These conversations are the result of the fact that real life criminal stories have such a disjointed narrative. It can be literally years between the first media reports of a crime taking place and any kind of resolution. And whilst one case "goes quiet" for an extended time there are many other cases that get reported in between. Cases with similar details seem to blend together, particularly if you are only taking a casual interest.

I rarely take more than a casual interest in real life criminal cases, and am always confusing facts from one case with another, but the recent trial of Keli Lane for the murder of her newborn infant, Tegan, in 1996 really piqued my interest. It's just such a bizarre case. If it had been a fictitious film I would almost certainly be scoffing at how implausible it all was.

It seems truth really is stranger than fiction.

If you're not familiar with the case I'll do my best to sum it up in 50 words or less...

Between 1995 and 1999 a young elite water polo player, Keli Lane, had 3 unwanted full-term pregnancies. She gave the first and third babies up for adoption, but the second baby, born in 1996, is still unaccounted for to this day.

Lane kept all three pregnancies and births secret from her parents (with whom she was living), her boyfriend (who she was shagging), the biological fathers (confirmed not to be the boyfriend for babies no. 1 and 3), her friends and her water polo team mates. How? Don't ask. No one, including Lane, has provided a convincing explanation of how she did it.

Because Lane had kept all pregnancies secret no one seemed to know that Tegan even existed, let alone that she was missing. It wasn’t until Keli was organising the adoption of her third baby that social workers realised Tegan was unaccounted for. At first, Lane tried to deny ever having given birth to Tegan. When presented with evidence that she'd given birth to Tegan in Auburn Hospital in 1996 she changed her story and said she'd given Tegan away to a couple in Perth. When social workers referred the matter to police as a "missing person" case, Lane again changed her story saying that she gave Tegan to the biological father, a man she first identified as Andrew Morris, but then later identified as Andrew Norris.

In the 10 years since, there's been a coronial inquiry (which recommended Tegan's disappearance be investigated as a homicide) and an extensive police search for Andrew Morris/Norris and Tegan. The police ultimately concluded that Andrew Morris/Norris did not exist and Tegan must have been killed by Keli sometime between leaving Auburn Hospital at approx 11am, on 14th Sept. 1996, and arriving at her parent’s house, without Tegan, at approximately 3pm on the same day.

Keli Lane was tried for Tegan's murder this year and after a 4 month trial, the jury spent a week deliberating before telling the judge that they couldn't reach a unanimous verdict. The judge then gave the jury the option of returning a majority verdict (IE 11 votes to 1). Before you could say "Keli Lane is fast running out of friends" the jury returned with a majority "guilty" verdict.

...OK, that's a lot more than 50 words, but I did my best.

Keli Lane outside court - before the verdict, obviously.

I think most observers were shocked by the verdict. Whilst it's pretty obvious Lane is a pathological liar and her story is bollocks, the prosecution case was highly circumstantial. With no physical evidence and a less than compelling motive (Tegan was a "problem" that Keli wanted to get rid of) in light of the fact that she'd adopted out the other babies, "reasonable doubt" seemed to be built in. Apparently eleven out of the twelve Jurors didn't see it that way.

After the trial concluded, the Judge released police interview footage from 2003. In it police confront Keli about the fact that none of her stories are checking out, and if she doesn’t come clean about what happened to Tegan it will be referred to the coroner. The really weird thing about Lane, in that video, is the way she reacts to various things the police say to her. When she’s confronted with the suggestion that Tegan is untraceable and possibly dead, Lane doesn’t seem too perturbed. But when the police indicate that they’ll have to start interviewing family and friends to try to get to the truth of the matter, Lane gets really upset at the prospect of them finding out she ever had Tegan. Dead kid = no problem. Embarrassing pregnancy = "No! Please don’t tell anyone!" And if Lane really is innocent, then it’s truly bizarre that she doesn’t protest her innocence in the police interview more. She denies killing Tegan, but doesn’t seem that interested in explaining what became of Tegan, in order to clear her name.

That police interview is the only real incite we get into Keli and her strange behaviour. She didn’t give evidence at the coronial inquest, she didn’t give evidence at the trial, and she’s never been interviewed by the media. According to freelance journalist Rachel Jane Chin, who twittered updates throughout the trial and is publishing a book about the case in the new year, Keli always appeared calm and confident in court. Chin observed that Lane’s parents had “aged 10 years” during the trial, but Keli always looked “fresh”. Whilst a person’s physical appearance is really not an accurate barometer of their psychology, it’s still unsettling that such a normal, dare I say attractive, looking woman led such a bizarre life.

Of course the story will probably go quiet again, in the media, until Keli’s sentencing hearing in February next year. I guess it’s possible her lawyers will mount some sort of an appeal after that time too. It’ll be very interesting to see if Keli’s story changes again in a bid to get out of jail.

Even though Keli Lane is now behind bars, officially guilty of killing her daughter Tegan, I suspect this story still has some way to run.

And I’ll be very surprised if someone doesn’t make a movie about it.

Quick BIQ Review: Cube 2: Hypercube (2002)

2010-12-12T18:00:00.000+11:00

I don't know whether to praise the film makers for injecting some new ideas into the Cube universe, or to slap them for even attempting to make a sequel to a film which simply didn't need one.

I'm leaning towards the later.

On the plus side, the performances are better and the rules of the new Hypercube make the familiar narrative (of a bunch of people stuck in a bunch of cubes) seem fresher than it probably is. But the attempt, this time around, to explain who and/or what is outside the cube feels all wrong. I have to admit that I wasn't particularly enamoured with the ambiguity of the original's ending, but the ending to Cube 2 is even less satisfying.

Rant O'Clock: 3D Blu-ray

2010-12-10T17:30:00.002+11:00

Earlier this year I decided it was about time I replaced my 13 year old RPTV, that resembles 2001's big black monolith, with a nice new LCD or Plasma HD flat screen TV.

I've got the cash and I'm ready to buy, but nine months later I haven't made a purchase. Why? The very people that stand to profit from my purchase are the very people who seem to be going out of their way to discourage me from buying.

My conundrum is simple. I don't want to buy a 2D TV only for it to become a white elephant in 12 months time, if 3D takes off. But I don't want to go to the extra expense of buying a 3D TV right now because you simply can't get any content for them.

The ridiculous thing about the lack of content is not that 3D movies haven't been published on 3D Blu-ray. They have. The ridiculous thing is these films are being exclusively released bundled with the TVs or some other "starter" pack. If you buy a Samsumg you'll get Monsters Vs Aliens for "free", but you can't go and buy Avatar. If you buy a Panasonic you'll get Avatar for "free" but you can't buy Alice in Wonderland.

Virtually all the major titles released on 3D Blu-ray are not available for purchase separately. In other words, after you spend thousands of dollars on your new 3D TV, 3D Blu-ray player, and (proprietary) 3D glasses you're stuck watching the one lousy movie that came bundled with your TV.

What the flying fuck are these corporations thinking? Do they honestly think that I'll spend thousands of dollars without thinking about what else I might be able to do with the equipment, apart from watch Monsters Vs Aliens?

The vague promise from retail sales people that more 3D Blu-ray titles are coming seems pretty hollow in light of the fact that some of these exclusivity deals (like Panasonic's Avatar deal) allegedly last for 12 months, and "big" upcoming releases (like the Shrek 1 to 4 3D Blu-ray set) are still being stitched up in exclusive bundles.

So, I'm going to keep my cash and continuing to holding off purchasing any TV, until the likes of Panasonic, Samsung, and Sony quit with this ridiculous "exclusive bundling" nonsense.

So there!

Misnomer Monday

2010-11-15T20:00:00.000+11:00

I'd like to take this opportunity to thank Sean Cunningham and all the good folk responsible for the Friday The 13th series of films. Without your fine work Misnomer Monday simply wouldn't be possible. So, I thank you from the bottom of my pile of thank yous.

As we all know Jason takes a boat ride to Manhattan in the eighth Friday The 13th installment, but never really "takes Manhattan". Apologies to anyone who hasn't seen this fine film for that sock knocking spoiler.

So, to that question: what should it have been called?

Friday The 13th Part VIII: All Aboard The S.S. Voorhees?
Jason Vs The Boat People?

Final Girl Film Club: The Funhouse (1981) Review

2010-11-07T17:00:00.000+11:00

The idea of going to the carnival is always way more appealing than the reality of actually going. Carnivals look like big clown mouths full of fun, but they invariably turn out to be an expensive way of mingling with people who don't shower enough and experiencing attractions that are sadly lacking a decent preventative maintenance schedule. So it shouldn't have come as a surprise that a horror movie set at a carnival, whilst sounding like a really cool idea, like most carnivals, turns out to be a bit of a let down.

The Funhouse begins with Amy (Elizabeth Berridge, looking spookily like Alyson Hannigan) getting ready to go out on a double date to the carnival that's in town. Her loving father strongly urges Amy not to go to the carnival because, according to the clunky expository script from which he is reading, two girls were murdered in the last town that this particular carnival visited.

Ominous, no?

In what is the first indication that this movie is 30 years old, Amy actually respects her parents and decides to try to convince her date, Buzz (Cooper Huckabee), to go to the movies instead of the carnival (seriously, when was the last time a young character in a horror movie showed their parents any respect?). Of course, Buzz is a douche (that's more like it) and insists on going to the carnival. After picking up the other fast and free couple, Ritchie (Miles Chapin) and Liz (Largo Woodruff), our four thrill seekers arrive at the carnival and do stuff that you do at a carnival. Tobe Hooper films all of it, seemingly in real time. It's not until well into the film that, for reasons that don't make a lot of sense, our party of four decide to spend the night in the Funhouse and things, predictably, start to go horribly wrong.

You can well image the genesis of The Funhouse. Some bright spark thought it would cool to make a horror movie set in a carnival because, let's face it, they can be creepy places, and decided Tope Hooper would be the man to direct it because The Texas Chainsaw Massacre was ace, man. Beyond that they had nothing, so the result is a well directed film of a seriously underdeveloped script.

For far too long, nothing really happens in The Funhouse. I'm a patient man and I appreciate films that take time to establish character and mood, but that's not what happens the first hour of The Funhouse. What we get are nicely shot scenes of four kids we hardly know visiting a carnival, and a pointless sub-plot involving Amy's brother following her to the carnival.

When The Funhouse does finally get going in the final act there are some suspenseful moments and the film always looks good. Hooper really does the best he can with the underdeveloped narrative. So I guess if you have a nostalgic penchant for carnivals, these elements, combined with your nostalgia, might be enough to make The Funhouse appealing to you. Sadly, for me, this film just served as an unnecessary reminder of how crap carnivals are.

Related Links:
Final Girl Film Club
Final Girl

Quick BIQ Review: Apocalypto (2006)

2010-11-05T20:00:00.000+11:00

If you were to cross Ten Canoes with any one of the many revenge-fantasy flicks that Mel Gibson has been involved with over the years (I’m thinking Ransom, Payback, Mad Max, Paparazzi, and even the original Lethal Weapon) you would end up with something approximating Apocalypto.

The marketing, and even the title, of this film hint that it is about the downfall of the Mayan civilisation. It's not. I knew nothing about Mayan society before watching Apocalypto and I now know next to nothing about it after watching Apocalypto. That’s not a criticism of the film, it's merely an observation.

Apocalypto is principally about one man's struggle to protect his family and save his own skin from a brutal regime. It is an engrossing, violent, adventure. However, the 500 year old setting and use of subtitles don't really disguise what amounts to yet another film where Gibson explores his favourite theme of violent retribution as a solution to injustice.

Quick BIQ Review: Cabin Fever (2002)

2010-11-03T20:00:00.000+11:00

Cabin Fever was obviously an attempt to emulate the early 80's horror cult classic Evil Dead. The problem is that Evil Dead was a genuinely scary movie for it's time and has only become a cheesy cult classic since. Cabin Fever feels like it's setting out to be a cheesy cult classic from day one, and doesn't really work.

Five teenagers head out into the middle of the woods to stay in an isolated cabin. Sound familiar? It sure looks familiar. Everything from the woods to the tool shed and, of course, the cabin itself, look like they've been dusted off from the old Evil Dead set. Once there, a nasty virus/disease is let loose amongst the happy campers by a strange man that stumbles across their cabin.

The biggest problem with Cabin Fever is that it is never really scary and never terribly funny. Contrivances are stacked on top of contrivances to keep the campers stuck at the cabin while the virus threatens to kill them all, but it’s all to no avail. Incidental characters drop in and out undermining any tension that may have been created by the campers isolation, and the virus itself is a fairly innocuous threat in horror movie terms. To make this ineffective horror movie even less effective it’s ending is positively up-beat and really lacks that final punch that is the staple of so many successful horror movies.

Misnomer Monday

2010-11-01T18:00:00.000+11:00

Apparently Debbie doesn't actually do Dallas... or, uhm, so I've heard.

Any suggestions for what it should have been called?

I've Seeeen The Light!: The Descent: Part 2 (2009) Review

2010-10-01T20:00:00.003+10:00

The Descent was easily one of the best horror movies of the past decade. It did a lot of things right, not the least of which was the lighting. As I mentioned in my ramblings about The Descent, too often in horror movies, a scene is illuminated when there is no logical source of light. It's particularly frustrating when characters are fumbling around, as if it is pitch black, but we (the audience) can clearly see everything. “What, are you frickin’ blind?! The knife’s right there! I can see it, why can’t you?!” It requires a suspension of disbelief that I'm just not capable of, and has ruined many a horror movie for me. In The Descent, instead of falling into the trap of lighting scenes that shouldn't be lit, so we can see the action, Neil Marshall actually uses the lack of light to make the film more immersive and really ratchet up the tension. I'm convinced it's a large part of the reason why the film works so well.

So, now that I’m the record (twice) about how stupefyingly good the lighting was in the original Descent, you're probably not going to be surprised when I say that the biggest problem with the sequel is... you guessed it, kids: the lighting. But I'll get to that in a moment.

The Descent: Part 2 picks up two days after the events depicted in The Descent, with a search party out looking for the six women that disappeared, caverning in the Appalachian Mountains. Before you can say "I wonder when the first jump scare will happen", a local hillbilly, some way away from where the search party is looking, stumbles across a bloodied, battered, and borderline catatonic Sarah (Shauna Macdonald), one of the six women who made the original hellish descent.

Sarah is quickly escorted to hospital, and is given a clean bill of (physical) health by doctors, but is unresponsive to questioning from the local cops about what happened to her and her five friends. Good cop, Ellen (Krysten Cummings), just thinks Sarah’s in shock. But bad cop, Vaines (Gavan O’Herlihy), thinks she’s hiding something.

For reasons that aren't well explained, bad cop Vaines subsequently decides to form a small sub-search-party on the quiet and go search the area were Sarah was found, dragging the dazed and confused Sarah along for the ride. Conveniently, or coincidently, this means we now have a new party of six - Ellen, Vaines, Sarah and three rescue workers (including the too-cute-for-words, Australian actress, Anna Skeller) - making another descent into the "unchartered" caverns.

To be completely fair, The Descent: Part 2 is pretty good by horror movie sequel standards. But to be completely complete, horror movie sequel standards are pretty low. The film starts well, and the early cavern scenes are effective, but as the film moves into its third act director, Jon Harris, strays from what made the original film so effective and it hurts his sequel, big time.

Harris lays on the blood & gore, which is all fine and dandy, but in case there's any chance his audience might not see all the money he spent on the blood & gore effects he lights the "pitch black" caverns like a Victorian ballroom. We get a much better view of everything, to be sure, but it completely shatters the illusion of these poor sods being stuck in a dark, claustrophobic, cavern. It also means we see more of the cave dwellers and, as is so often the case with movie monsters, the more we see of them the less scary they become.

If the inexplicable bright lights illuminating the pitch black caverns don't ruin the final act for you then the film's conclusion surely will. The final scene feels like a desperate afterthought. Actually, an afterthought infers some sort of "thought", and that’s probably misleading. Clearly, no thought went into the film's finale which makes virtually no sense, and is completely irreconcilable with the events that transpire at the beginning of the film. It's not bad enough to take the award for most idiotic ending away from the recent Last House On The Left remake, but it's not far off.

The Descent: Part 2 works well for a good portion of its running time and is probably better than a sequel to The Descent deserves to be. It's just a shame Harris mishandles the film's last act, because it had the potential to be a genuinely worthy sequel.

Creepy Crawling: The Descent (2005) Review

2010-09-29T20:00:00.003+10:00

Sarah (Shauna Macdonald), Juno (Natalie Mendoza), and Beth (Alex Reid) are a trio of care free adventurers until their world is turned upside down by the sudden death of Sarah's husband and daughter in a tragic accident. A year after the accident Juno decides to get the band back together and organises a caverning expedition in the Appalachian Mountains for the trio and another three friends. Seeds of doubt about Juno's true intentions are sown early and it's not long before the expedition turns pear shaped. The six women find themselves lost in an uncharted cave system, and the seemingly neurotic Sarah believes they are not alone.

I've seen so many horror movies, and am so accustomed to all the techniques used to shock audiences it's pretty rare for jump scares to catch me off guard these days. Such is the talent of Neil Marshall, however, that I damn near leapt through the back of my seat on more than one occasion whilst watching The Descent.

But there's more than just well orchestrated "boo" moments on offer here. The claustrophobic nature of crawling through caves is so well captured you almost feel like you’re stuck in these ridiculously confined spaces right along with the women. With the way Marsall shoots this film, merely being stuck in these caves is creepy enough, but when the real threat to the women’s life emerges The Descent really ratchets up the tension.

Some might complain about the weak characterisations (particularly of the three additional friends) but we get enough of an insight into the principle characters of Sarah and Juno to care about what happens to them.

Another thing that impressed me about this film was the lighting. Too often in horror movies when there is no logical no source of light, film-makers light the scene anyway (check out the little known New Zealand horror film The Locals for the absolute worst example of what I'm talking about). In a pitch black cavern the only light that should exist is the light from the girls' torches, flares and glow sticks. Marshall mostly adheres to this, which is commendable given the number of horror films that don't.

After the cooler than cool Dog Soldiers it was great to see such a promising director follow up with what is arguably an even better film.

Misnomer Monday

2010-09-27T20:00:00.000+10:00

You just know when film-makers shove the word "final" in the title it most probably won't be. This film's misnomer title is kinda cool because it's actually a double barrelled misnomer. As New Nightmare and Freddy Vs Jason proved, this 1991 outing did not signal Freddy's death, nor was it the final nightmare.

So, to the inevitable question: what should it have been called?

Freddy Doesn't Die: Ever?
A Nightmare On Elm Street 6: The Dream Anaglyph Glasses?
A Nightmare On Elm Street 6: Freddy Walks Into a Bar...?

Quick BIQ Review: The Last House On The Left (1972)

2010-09-25T20:00:00.000+10:00

There are a number of cinematic heuristics that hold true for most movie goers. Things like: sequels are generally not as good as the originals, and: all Uwe Boll movies suck. After seeing The Last House On The Left, there’s another I’d like to suggest, and that is: notorious 70’s horror movies are never as shocking as they are reputed to be.

I imagine The Last House On The Left may have been shocking in 1972, but today it’s just, well, a patchy old horror movie. I say “patchy” because everything from the direction, to the performances, to the cinematography, to the story itself, are all over the shop. The performances of the three main “bad guys” are solid and the scenes where they torment their victims are effective. However, the performances of the victim’s parents are woefully unconvincing and when combined with the exploitative plotting in the later stages of the film the whole thing just becomes laughably inept.

After finally seeing this notorious film I just kept wondering what all the fuss was about.

Turdsday Movie Review: Rampage: The Hillside Strangler Murders (2006)

2010-09-23T20:00:00.003+10:00

I wasn't very impressed with the unscary, unfunny horror/comedy Club Dread. But shinning like a diamond in that pile of poo was the stunning Brittany Daniel. Naturally, after seeing Club Dread, I was keen to see more of Ms Daniel, so when I read that she had the lead role and appeared naked in the direct-to-video release Rampage: The Hillside Strangler Murders… well, let’s just say I rented this movie for all the wrong reasons.

Rampage: The Hillside Strangler Murders starts rather ominously: with an opening credit sequence that has no opening credits. The camera swirls around capturing glimpses of red light district neons before fading to black. The screen remains black for a while, before we get more swirling neons, and another fade to black, more swirling neons, more black, and so it goes on, like we’re supposed to be watching the opening credits… but there are none. Apparently Chris Fisher, the director of this train wreck, decided to move the credits to the end of the film, but it never occurred to him to get rid of the opening sequence designed to house them. Good grief.

From this bewildering opening onwards, the camera never stops moving in Rampage. It constantly, incessantly, swirls around and around and around and around the subjects it's filming. Watching this wretched film is like riding the Gravitron for an hour and a half. It took quite a great deal of self control for me to hold down my dinner while watching this spectacularly ill-conceived film.

For those interested in a plot synopsis, I think it was basically some derivative nonsense about a shrink (Brittany Daniel) and a serial killer (Clifton Collins Jr.), but I was just too distracted by my motion sickness to really take any of it in. According to people who know more about the real hillside strangler murder cases than I do, this film is wildly inaccurate.

Not even a naked Brittany Daniel could save this truly dreadful film.

Rampage: The Hillside Strangler Murders is exclusively available on DVD, but you could experience pretty much the same thing for less money if you simply held a picture of Brittany Daniel at arm’s length and gave yourself a wizzy dizz.

Top 20 Horror Movies

2010-09-21T20:00:00.003+10:00

The seminal high preistess of horror blogging, Ms Stacie Ponder (aka Final Girl), has put the call out for everyone's top 20 horror movies (Linkety-Link). Why? It matters not. It's not our job to question, it's our job to create lists.

So, putting together a list of one's favourite 20 horror movies should be pretty simple, right? Wrong, douchebag! It's a god-forsaken nightmare, more frightening than any movie that might actually make it onto any resultant list.

What should be included? What should be excluded? Is Pretty Women really a "horror" movie? These are the inevitable questions one must grapple with if one is to produce a Top 20 Horror Movies list of any credence. We have until the 26th of this month to finalise our lists so I'm taking my time and thinkin' out loud, here's what I have so far...

01. Psycho (1960)
02. Scream (1996)
03. A Nightmare On Elm Street (1984)
04. Ring, The (2002)
05. Alien (1979)
06. Orphanage, The (2007)
07. Rec (2007)
08. April Fool's Day (1986)
09. Evil Dead, The (1981)
10. An American Werewolf In London (1981)
11. Funny Games (2007)
12. Descent, The (2005)
13. Rosemary's Baby (1968)
14. Identity (2003)
15. Skeleton Key, The (2005)
16. Saw (2004)
17. Eden Lake (2008)
18. Psycho II (1983)
19. New Nightmare (1994)
20. Donkey Punch (2008)

Reserves - Movies I'd like to have in the list that I can't quite squeeze in
Child's Play (1988)
Dog Soldiers (2002)
Exorcist, The (1973)
High Tension (2003)
Open Water (2003)
Pathology (2008)
Serpent and the Rainbow (1988)
Sixth Sense, The (1999)
Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974)

Toga Party Massacre: 300 (2006) Review

2010-09-19T17:00:00.001+10:00

One of the most disappointing things about the DVD release of 300 is that it doesn’t come with a coupon to order the Wenham Workout video. If I can briefly steal from the vernacular of Friday Night Football commentators, David Wenham is HUGE!, in 300. He’s so pumped up that I suspect if you were to stick a pressure gauge up his butt it would register well over 200 PSI.

But I well and truly digress.

When King Leonidas (Gerard Butler) learns that a Persian invasion of Sparta is imminent, as a matter of Spartan law, he seeks permission from the religious elders to deploy the Spartan army to fight the Persians and defend Sparta. The elder’s make the suicidal decision of declining his request (notch that up as another win for religion), so he instead hand picks 300 Spartan warriors and goes for a stroll to the Hot Gates, a narrow pass the Persians must traverse in order to concur Sparta. Here, the King and his brave, buff, toga party fend off wave after wave of Persian attacks, in between yelling quite a bit about glory and death.

Visually, 300 is simply stunning. I can’t honestly recall a film this visually striking. But it seems that so much effort has gone into making the film look good no one seemed terribly concerned about whether the story could sustain proceedings for 2 hours, and it really doesn’t.

The first battle is entertaining, but each subsequent attack by the Persians becomes less and less interesting. Seeing a man being impaled with a large spear in a shower of computer generated blood is fun once or twice but after the 57th slow-mo impaling it all becomes a bit monotonous. I guess I was expecting excitement and tension, the likes of which I experienced when I first saw the mother of all battle-against-the-odds movies Zulu. But 300 doesn’t really deliver in this regard. It’s more akin to watching someone else play a video game… with cool graphics!

Gerard Butler does a tremendous job delivering his lines with conviction and gusto. He plays a very straight bat, and you can almost believe that someone, at some point, may have actually acted and spoken this way, but the same can’t be said for David Wenham. The silly voice he puts on is at complete odds with his newly acquired physique, and an affirmation that he was completely the wrong actor for the role of the King’s messenger man Dilios.

For me 300 is a classic example of a 2.5 star film, it’s not a failure, but it’s not one I’d readily recommend.

WTF Friday

2010-09-17T17:00:00.005+10:00

He is Sir Robert, and he's come to play for you...

Quick BIQ Review: The Devil’s Rejects (2005)

2010-09-14T21:00:00.001+10:00

One could be forgiven for thinking that the title of this puerile schlock was a reference to Rob Zombie’s screenplays. It, instead, refers to the merry band of mass murderers that Mr Zombie introduced us to in 2002’s House of 1000 Corpses and what theses unwashed, potty-mouthed, lunatics have been up to since the events of that film. In case anyone cares.

I give credit to alleged musician turned film-maker, Rob Zombie, for not calling his sequel House of 2000 Corpses, and the fact that it’s one of the few contemporary movies to revisit the 70’s in a way that actually feels like you’re watching a 70’s flick. But it’s there that my faint praise for this film has to stop and make way for the inevitable observation that The Devil’s Rejects is a completely juvenile piece of work that’s even less effective than it’s fairly ineffective predecessor.