Brains, Blood, Boomsticks, & Broods

So I went rogue and watched a movie without my fellow schlockers. Actually I watched 2, in the blog to follow I’ll put up my thoughts on Part III. Why on earth would I abandon my fellow schlockers? Because this movie violates rule #1 of schlock: I’ve seen it before, and I’m sure quite a few of them had to0.

First off I was nervous. Not about Jason showing up and shoving an icepick into my head, but because I hadn’t seen the original in a a really, really long time. Now *spoiler alert for the original* I remembered his mom was crazy fucked up and killed all the campers, at least I was pretty sure. But I couldn’t remember what the hell happened to Jason and why she was so pissed off. I started off searching the good ole’ webs and then realized “this was the freakin 80s! They had to recap everything.” Sure enough the beginning starts off with the lone survivor from the original having nightmares, which are the perfect segue for the memory challenged or the skip-aheaders. It’s a great way to start and the damn thing just keeps getting better.

Friday the 13th is a freaking classic for a reason and it’s sequel is no slouch in the bedroom either. Teenagers wanna have sex and Jason wants to kill people. You like sex. You like Jason. It’s really a no brainer. The thing about this movie: it’s fun if you’re by yourself and it’s fun with a group of people. You can’t go wrong here, from the tight claustrophobic cropping of the camera to the endless shots of Jason’s feet as he walks around stalking girls in tight shorts and boys with bad hair. There are still some genuine scares, but for the most part it’s all popcorn fodder. If you haven’t seen it in a while throw it on and a hockey mask for good measure, and remember It’s all done now. Mommy is pleased. You’ve done a good job.

4/5 headless moms

What it’s got: Dead campers, soon to be dead campers, psychology, Rolling Rock, the obligatory warning and the obligatory skinny dip, Betsy Palmer, machetes, fluffy dog with a bow in it’s hair, who where’s short shorts?

What it’s missing: Any way for Ginny to not be batshit crazy for the rest of her life

I know. I know. This movie doesn’t belong on this blog. And please believe me when I say I’m not the voice of dissent for the sake of dissenting, but I felt like somebody needed to be the big warning sticker on this movie that said “Save yourself 2 hours”. Right now it has an 8.2 rating on IMDB. For me that’s  something akin to driving down the interstate where you see a nasty accident and miles of cars stopped in anticipation of moving again. A little further down the road you see cars moving freely about to get lodged in the epic traffic jam that is Her. I was moving freely at 8:00. I got my life back at 10:00.

It started off with a tremendous amount of promise like most trips into the Adirondacks on a 4th of July weekend, but about 20 minutes in it became an epic mess of relationship awkwardness. The last line I remember enjoying was “choke me with the dead cat”. After that, I felt like I was a voyeur on the sad pathetic potential of our digitally interwoven future. It’s an excellent premise, and the Director of Photography contributed some pristine moments which question our relationship with these digital devices we carry around, but the medium was ultimately tried, tired, and laughable for it’s didactically trite metaphors.

Looking at Ted, which you do a lot of.

I’m biased. I watch a lot of crap. My wife loves the romantic flicks though. She’s a real sucker for them. In fact in the realm of Venn diagrams our movie overlap is very, very, very, very tiny. So small we tend to agree on parts of movies instead of the whole thing. That said, most movies we watch fall into one of our categories of appreciation. Her failed both of us. We’re not the be all end all, but it’s a pretty big fucking achievement.

I know few people will ever stumble across this post, and fewer still will heed the warning. Regardless here’s some advice on how to prepare yourself:

1) Set the expectation bar to low.

2) Imagine the movie is renamed Watching Ted Twombly’s Face

3) Make lot’s of snacks, bring a book, possibly a video game (whatever kept you company in those quiet awkward moments after your parents got into an argument, that’s pretty much how you’ll spend an hour of the film).

4) Once Scarlett Johansson starts talking (and it hurts to say this), bump it up to 3x speed. She does a fine job, but the “Best Original Screenplay” suggests there were a TON of remakes last year…

Be your own judge (really don’t, just skip the damn thing) but for me it was:

2/5 elevator rides

What it has: Swearing animated figures, boiling tea kettle, ear buds, 100 minutes of awkwardness, dynamic facial gestures by Joaquin Phoenix, an excellent aesthetic sense, weird pants, and a whole new realm of ChatRoulette

What it’s missing: Anything that wasn’t covered in Say Anything, litter, poor folks, body on body intercourse

Howdy schlockianados! I was realized it was 4 years and 2 months ago (give or take a few days) that I laid the Brains, Blood, Boomsticks Scepter down and strayed from writing about the crap we love to watch. Well I can say after two weeks back on the wagon it feels like we’re racing through the woods at night clubbing anything that moves and calling ourselves heroes. I’m not sure what the last sentence means, but I think it means we’re back.

This week continuing our campaign we watched William Friedkin’s Sorcerer (a remake of the French The Wages of Fear). Yeah, it’s the same Friedkin that made The Exorcist (you don’t have to waste time checking IMDB). You probably haven’t heard of it because who the hell would name a flick about assassins, truck drivers hauling nitroglycerin, and super mega explosions Sorcerer is beyond me, and apparently it was beyond his audience too. They all decided to go out and see Star Wars which came out the same week and was aptly enough about an intergalactic laser fight…. hmmmmm… Star Wars… go figure.

Since nobody saw the movie, Friedkin decided to dub it the best film of his career, and the rest of us were too busy wondering if Luke and Leia were ever gonna do it. Turns out Friedkin needed a PR firm to help him with this damn fine film, and we came up with some titles (based on mixed drinks) that really would have helped this movie sell some tickets. In no particular order we recommend: Adios Motherfucker, Truck Punch, Fire Dragon, or CHOMP (Cro-Magnon Haulers of Mortal Peril)… okay so I made the last one up.

Crossing the Bridge

Anyway it turns out it’s a damn fine flick, and to quote one observer “this movie has a lot of truck driving.” The truck driving takes place over some damn fine cinematography though, even if does take quite some time for the story to develop. To be perfectly honest there was a lot of talking going on during the first half hour which made the sub titles hard to read, but overall only affected our empathy for the characters (we had none). The stories pretty clear even though Friedkin works hard to make it seem more complicated than it really is: Some dudes do some bad things. Those dudes flee to South America. Said dudes are out of money and agree to take on a suicide trucking mission so they can get back to drinking and hookers.

We were continually delighted by the well composed cinematography which was punctuated by some fantastic explosions. The scene where the trucks cross the rope bridge is every bit as nail biting as was advertised and probably because it was absolute hell to film. After viewing the film it felt more like a metaphor for the arduous journey it took for Friedkin to complete the movie than the existentialist journey it’s purported to be. The only thing that got this film completed was his absolute desire and love for it. It’s also what probably broke his back as a director, and anyone’s desire to finance his work in the future.

What it has: Explosions!, brilliant cinematography, fire, really weird noses, lot’s of truck driving, watches, Nitroglycerine and quite a few corpses

What is doesn’t have: Sylvester Stallone, any freaking special features (on the DVD), a good title, a brave helicopter pilot, or a good reward (8000 pesos, really?!?!)

Watch it if: You’re a fan of the director, love great cinematography, enjoy well crafted films, have a thing for truck drivers layered in sweat and grime.

I rate it 4/5 pesos (there’s really not much wrong here, it  just wasn’t “perfect”)

What we drank with it:

Adios Motherfucker

3/4 oz Black Velvet

3/4 oz Jack Daniels

1/4 oz Peach Schnapps

1/4 oz grenadine syrup

1/2 oz sweet sour

Shake’em together over ice and hold on to yer titties….

Happy Schlocko de Mayo as we celebrate the triumphant return of schlockfest. The unanimous group selection this week was the aforementioned Who Can Kill A Child? Originally it was released in the US as Island of the Damned, which meant they chopped about five minutes off of it. Now in a group setting you should be warned WCKAC opens with historical footage of Auschwitz, The Vietnam War, famines in Asia and Africa all showing…. you guessed it…. corpses of children. It can be kind of a buzz kill unless your group is prone to short term memory loss, alcoholism, or could kill a child.

Child Killer…

This opening was of course chopped off for the US release because, well we’re Americans, and we couldn’t have our utopian ideals tampered with. All kidding aside this film is an incredible find. Guillermo Del Torro has cited it as influential on Pan’s Labyrinth. There’s nothing plasticized about any of the characters in the film, and there are some really solid performances by the children. You have to be down for 70s pacing and a few excessive attempts at tension building, but overall there’s not much to dislike about this film (and Jake, Pat, & Jen used the slower moments for a some good ole 70s free love). If you’re looking for a good, fun lovin’ slasher you better look elsewhere, however if you’re looking for some key tie-ins to cinema (think Battle Royale meets Night of the Living Dead, with an emphasis on the psychological factor) then give this one a shot.

Line of the evening: “Are these guys supposed to be British?”

“Of course they are, look at their teeth.”

I’d give this one 4/5 Rotisserie Chickens (as an update some members of schlock were curious why this didn’t make a “5”. The following reasons: excessive non-sequitur genocide sequence, extra 15 minutes of pacing they could have left out, they should’ve killed more kids!)

We’ve been supposed to watch this one for a while. In fact almost every week for three months it’s been on the list as the movie to watch. However, it’s always been supplanted by some other director’s dream that couldn’t gurgle above mediocrity. Fearful that all of the buildup would lead to a massive schlockfest meltdown we went for it.

A Cat in the Brain is Fulci’s homage to…. well, Fulci. And dammit, we at schlockfest like Fulci. We like Fulci so much we laid the burden of saving schlockfest squarely on this director’s shoulders. That’s right, schlockfest has hit a low. With the crap we watch it’s a painful event more akin to a marathon. The greatest reward is being able to say you finished, and for some of us that includes a nap. And the only people you can share your victories with are the ones who endured with you.

The movie opens brilliantly, and then gets stuck in a rut it never emerges from. Collectively we decided the biggest issue with the movie was Fulci actually trying to work within a plot. Normally he operates under the pretense of a plot and takes his movies anywhere he pleases. In this instance he operated under the pretense NO plot and somehow got stuck in one. He used the same scenes over and over and over, and just when you thought he wouldn’t do it again… you get it.

He also took an interesting direction in trying to describe his lack of personal sanity, but he doesn’t really succeed there unless you call his failure a personal triumph as an example of insanity. Have I lost you yet? Good. Because that’s the mindset you need to be in to watch this one. It was by far the weakest effort of the three Fulci movies we’ve watched. The other problem I think is that you’re watching a director of a niche genre make reference to his whole catalog of niche films. (Something along the lines of Horror>Foreign Horror>Foreign Horror Schlock>Foreign Horror Schlock Directors>Personal catalogs of that directors films) Though if that’s the case it would be our fault for not watching more Fulci movies…. and I guess that’s a good place to leave it: A Cat in the Brain is for the extremely well seasoned Fulci watcher, hold off until you know all his children by name and what his grandfather’s favorite vineyard is.

What it has: that damn guy with a chainsaw, a cat eating a brain, hypnosis, a piano wire, a really great trailer, token eye scene, gore, and psychosis

What it’s missing: Well… like any good fulci film it has almost everything, even fulci himself

Be warned… it’s a lot slower than the trailer… and wait till you have a few other Fulci’s under your belt.

2.5/5 metronomes

Schlock is conducive to creating an adage about high expectations, and The Burrowers served as a prime example. Well the first thing is: it certainly isn’t schlock. However, we adjusted, switched mindsets and hunkered down for what was a highly recommended flick. All of us in the room, mind you, are not only horror fans, but Western junkies as well. What could be better? Last week: sheep meet zombies, this week: John Wayne takes on the undead…

... but she's so cold, pa.

Except it didn’t really come together that way. It was the quietest schlock night we’ve had in a while. There wasn’t a tremendous amount to laugh at, the scares were nonexistent and the cinematography was there, but nothing amazing. When it was all said and done and the credits were rolling Jude summed it up best with”It was a mediocre western, a mediocre horror, and the sum of it’s parts was less than…” Less than what?! But like the wise sage that he is, he had already disappeared before we could ask.

If you think it’s a flick for you:  you’ll get just as much enjoyment out of it by yourself as you would with a group. Save it for a night when you have nothing else to do.

What it has: racial tensions, people on horses, people underneath the ground, people on horses riding across open fields, people in uniforms chasing people underground, evil people (mainly the one’s on horses, in uniforms, chasing the people underground), native people, and finally that “oh shit, you showed us the monster moment”

What it’s missing: some singularly badass protagonist that makes it a western worth watching; aliens; spaceships; a cool reason for the burrowers other than the tired, cliched one we always get; a Penelope Cruz intermission

As you can see there was nothing here that blew us away, and there was really nothing to hate. All in all we were just a bit indifferent.

2/5 translation errors

I’ve been lazy. I haven’t been writing, but that doesn’t mean I haven’t been watching. Black Sheep, not the Chris Farley movie from the 90s, is one of my favorites. It’s like going home to chicken fried steak, mashed potatoes/gravy and creamed corn. It’s all you could ever want, and you leave satisfied. It also gives me hope that amazing horror comedy can still be made.

So it’s no surprise that when I had a group of nonschlockers over wanting to have a good time I pulled this one off the shelf. Why else? Because by the end of the movie 6/7 people spent the whole movie laughing, and the seventh person spent the whole movie hiding behind a pillow squealing with fear from the zombie sheep. Oh, that’s right, zombie sheep.

The movie takes one of the more humanist countries, gives them  greedy capitalists, and pits them against the most fearful herbivores to ever munch grass. And if that’s not enough of a plot (at least by schlock standards) it goes everywhere a sheep movie can go, everywhere. And while it goes there, it looks really good. Weta Workshops did the special effects (same company that did Lord of the Rings).

But enough babbling, here’s what it has: zombie sheep, methane gas, golden shear awards, Experience, hippies, International investors, Frau fetish scientist, cattle dog, acupuncture, evil older brothers, and a genetically altered wool sheep’s coat guaranteed to be softer when you grab it from the sides

What it’s missing: anybody you’ll recognize, the Fiords, neighbors, or cows

I’m sure you’ve already seen it, but in case you haven’t…

5/5 Baaaaaas at the moon

Maybe I’m reacting to the hype. Maybe I’m a bad critic. Or just maybe the camera was shaking so freaking much I was always cognizant of the fact I was watching a bad movie. (Don’t hate me cause I’m honest.) I’m not going to sit here and pick it apart, but c’mon, your premise is that a news crew is filming this entire event. Why does it need to look like you strapped the camera to the back of a gorilla and threw bananas against the wall. I saw Cloverfield, I can hang, but this was simply too much. I was never able to divest myself from the fact I was staring at a shaking image, and because of that there were no scares or thrills, only a lot of eyerubbing.

Funny, Scary, or... "Jake. Wake Up!"

Then there was the plot. There are throngs of forums of people ready to make love to this film and declare it the Citizen Kane of horror. Why? The story wasn’t new. The acting was typical. And decisions by the characters were bland. No one broke a window; did something morally deprave; hell, even the source of the virus was given deniable plausibility by trying to do the right thing in God’s eyes. There were plenty of opportunities for these questionable acts to happen. For instance when we’re watching the Health Inspector through the window, but even this scene makes the conspiracy fall apart. He was just trying to do the right thing!

All this said, it wasn’t the worst movie I’ve ever seen or even truly bad. [REC] just really rubbed me the wrong way because of all the hype. It doesn’t live up. If you were a child in the 90s and missed Blair Witch Project and saw this in the theatres… maybe I get it? However, it fails itself on so many levels it’s frustrating. Why doesn’t anyone go crazy and do something irrational? Why do TV sets still work when the power in the building is out? Why? Why? Why? I’ll stop. Hell, watch it. Everyone else seems to be in love with it, but I’m not enamored.

What it’s got: Fast zombies, Old ladies in panties, Graphic bite wounds, A tailor shop with stretchers, A cameraman with DT’s, Plastic drapes, a dumbass health inspector, religious overtones, rabid dogs, angry children, an introduction whose sole purpose was to push this into 80 minute range

What it’s missing: a reason for the hype, a working cure, pyrotechnics, a budget (but I’m cool with that), a reason why we’re watching it in the first place (not sarcastically, but plot wise), any moral ambiguity in the character’s actions

Lower your expectations, turn on the dubbing, enjoy the show?

2/5 Festival Awards