Blogcritics

Announcement: Short-content feeds

Phillip Winn — Sun, 26 Aug 2007 12:00:00 EDT

Sunday, August 26, 2007, marks the switch of all Blogcritics.org article feeds from full-content to short-content. This is the result of several converging factors, and is unfortunately a permanent decision (as permanent as any decision can be on the web, that is). We are aware of all of the reasons that this is a Bad Idea, and we are aware that some of you will be quite upset about having to click on something to read the free content, and we're sorry. Unfortunately, despite great effort, full-content feeds are not currently economically viable. Two other factors are involved: full-content feeds have resulted in an unprecedented level of content theft, with BC content appearing on many websites, usually spam sites, without attribution or permission. This duplicate content causes a cascading set of problems, not the least of which is that search engines generally aren't favorable to duplicate content, and don't always guess correctly. Finally, our RSS advertising partner is strongly in favor of short-content feeds. We hope that you'll continue to subscribe to BC via RSS, and when an article grabs your eye, it's only a click away, still free on the BC website. Thank you for your understanding.

The Weekly Horror Double Bill: Of Unknown Origin and Willard

Ian Woolstencroft — Sat, 17 Mar 2007 16:55:49 EDT

This week we've got a bit of a pest control problem with two very different solutions. You've got rats in your house. Do you:a) Do whatever it takes to kill the varmint?or b) Make it your best buddy? Of Unknown Origin (1983) The title of George P. Cosmatos' film may suggest some otherworldly menace but, in truth, it’s about a rat and one mild-mannered office worker's obsession with exterminating said rodent. When Bart Hughes’ wife and son go on vacation, Bart stays behind. He’s hoping for a promotion and can’t risk going away at such a crucial time. It’s not long however, before he realises he’s not alone in his newly renovated townhouse. Director Cosmatos builds the tension like a master, giving us point of view shots of the “creature” accompanied by creepy scurrying sounds. It’s not so much not wanting to reveal the “monster” too soon as giving you, the viewer, a similar perspective to Bart, thus tying you more closely to the film's central character. A pre-Robocop Peter Weller plays Bart Hughes in a tour de force performance that sucks you into the film; it has to, as Bart is the only fully developed character in the movie. We may encounter his fellow office workers and even his wife and child, but they’re not essential to the story. This is a primal tale of man against beast, with Bart’s need to kill the creature so all-consuming that nothing else matters, not work, not family, nothing but his need to end the vermin’s life. The director realises he’s telling an epic story on a small scale and the film is littered with references to other famous man-against-nature encounters; the book Bart throws at the ceiling when he hears the rat scratching above him is Moby Dick, a movie showing on TV is John Sturges’ adaptation of Hemingway’s The Old Man of the Sea. It may go a tad over the top towards the end, as Bart does more damage to the home he restored than the rat does, but then that’s the nature of obsession. This is a little gem of a film that really deserves to be more well known. The trailer paints it as a supernatural tale in the vein of The Amityville Horror but it’s all the more effective for having a “real” monster. You’ll be listening for telltale sounds for days after it's ended. Willard (2003) An EC horror comic come to life is the best way to describe this remake of the '70s classic about a boy and his rat. Willard Stiles lives with his elderly mother in a large ramshackle house and works as a low level employee at the company his late father built. When he attempts to deal with a rat problem in the cellar of the old house he instead winds up befriending the rats, in particular a white rat he calls Socrates. As well as Socrates, Willard also encounters a large rat who he dubs Ben. Soon he’s feeding the rats, with more and more of them coming until the basement is a virtual sea of vermin. Picked on by his tyrannical boss, played with relish (always a good accompaniment to ham) by R. Lee Ermey, Willard uses the rats to get some payback, first in minor ways but gradually escalating to murder. Director Glen Morgan was responsible for the worst of the current glut of horror remakes, Black Christmas. With that film he seemed to be trying for a similar tongue in cheek feel to this one but thanks to a risible script, some diabolical (in the worst possible way) performances, and a large helping of studio interference, he failed miserably. What he got wrong on that film he gets right here. For starters there’s some excellent casting. Crispin Glover is perfect as the cartoonish, socially inept Willard and it’s hard to believe he wasn’t first choice for the role (Joaquin Phoenix and Macaulay Culkin both turned down the part). Ermey is the real villain of the film, a caricature of a greedy, bullying employer, and he milks the part for all it’s worth, providing much of the film's humour. Obviously a fan of the original, Morgan pays homage to it, with the photos and paintings of Willard’s dead father clearly Bruce Davison, who played Willard in that film. He also makes good use of Michael Jackson’s song "Ben" that featured in the 1972 sequel, using it during my favourite scene, where a cat finds itself in the house with literally thousands of rats and nowhere to run. What the film lacks in gore and scares it makes up for with comic book violence and a knowing sense of humour, far from a classic but still a fun way to spend an evening.

Ian Woolstencroft was brought up on a diet of John Wayne movies and Marvel Comics and still has a passion for both. Now as a blogcritic he finally understands what Spider-Man's Uncle Ben meant when he said 'With great power comes great responsibility.'

Weekly Horror Double Bill: Spiders and Arachnid

Ian Woolstencroft — Thu, 8 Mar 2007 22:00:38 EST

I feel the same way about spiders as Indiana Jones does about snakes - I hate them! Given that fact you'd probably think a couple of movies about giant arachnids wouldn't get anywhere near my DVD player, but you'd be wrong. After watching Arachnophobia I came out of the cinema thinking I could deal with even the biggest (at least the biggest we get in the UK) of the ugly little buggers. Until I encountered one anyway.So, armed with a really BIG slipper, bring it on!Spiders (2000) When you’re dealing with giant spider movies you can be pretty sure you’re in for some cheese, the question is will it be tasty cheddar or stinky gorgonzola. Well, in the case of Spiders it’s definitely the latter. What we have here is an attempt to merge Alien with Arachnophobia, with a secret government experiment to combine extraterrestrial and spider DNA. A dim-witted reporter and her equally intellectually challenged crew stumble on to the scheme and end up trapped in a secret base with the hybrid spider. The DVD sleeve says this is from the FX team who created From Dusk Till Dawn, Spawn, and Wishmaster. That may be so but here they are responsible for some of the worst CGI effects I’ve ever seen. It’s bad enough when the film stays in the confined space of the base but when things head outside for the over-the-top climax with a spider of King Kong-sized proportions, it’s so bad it’s not even funny. Ineptly directed by Gary Jones, a man whose career highlight was working on the Xena and Hercules TV series, this was a real chore to sit through. Lead actress Lana Parrilla is a familiar face, having had recurring roles in 24, NYPD Blue, and Boomtown but here, with everything working against her, she’s not up to the task of saving a very bad movie; still even Sigourney Weaver couldn’t have salvaged this one. Hard as it may be to believe, they actually made a sequel to this abomination - Spiders II: Breeding Ground. Needless to say I’ll be avoiding that one like… well, like a spider.Arachnid (2001) Several rungs up the ladder from Spiders but still firmly in B-movie territory, this alters the mix replacing Alien with Predator as a group of intrepid scientists and soldiers head for an isolated island to find out what’s been killing the natives. Jack Sholder made the extremely enjoyable low budget SF movie The Hidden, and while this comes nowhere near that level of competence he knows how to generate some tension. What lets this down most is a badly written script with some poorly realised characters. There is also an ill-conceived plot twist that ties one of the characters to a plane that went down on the island years before. The effects are pretty poor, although compared to Spiders they’re the height of realism. This time it’s the special effects crew of Species and The Abyss doing the business. Those films showed what they could do when a ton of Hollywood money was thrown at the film; here we see what they can do on a shoestring budget and they deserve an A for effort even if the finished product is a little lacking. The cast is the usual bunch of nobodies that you’ve never heard of and probably never will. Given a script that requires the characters to act in the most ridiculous manner it’s not fair to blame the actors too much and no one stands out as particularly bad. Or particularly good either. Produced in Spain by Re-Animator’s Brian Yuzna this must rank as one of the low points of his career as it must for Jack Shoulder who never fulfilled the promise of The Hidden.

The Weekly Horror Double Bill: Long Weekend and Wilderness

Ian Woolstencroft — Sat, 3 Mar 2007 14:55:52 EST

This week we’re going camping. The Long Weekend (1978) This low budget '70s Australian film is something of a lost treasure and shows that sometimes having no money can almost be a blessing. There are no make-up or special effects to hide behind and this seems to have made all involved up there game to compensate. The film only has two characters – Peter and Marcia, a married couple whose relationship is on the rocks. In an attempt to save their marriage they take a weekend break to a secluded beach and it’s their experiences there that make up the bulk of the film. Strange sounds at night and a mysterious shape in the water are just some of the terrors they encounter and rather than bring them closer, their trip serves to drive them even further apart. It gradually becomes clear that Peter and Marcia are the villains here, not just attacking each other but the idyllic beach environment as well and Mother Nature isn’t happy. The characters are brilliantly realised but you don’t sympathise with them -- rather you observe with a sense of revulsion as their history of infidelity and abortion unfolds. Given the assured direction, you expect director Colin Eggleston to have ascended to the heights of his fellow countrymen Peter (Picnic at Hanging Rock) Weir and George (Mad Max) Miller. Sadly, though, this is his career highlight -- but what a highlight! He makes the environment a living thing. What you can’t see is usually far more effective than what you can and this is true here where most of the time you don’t see anything; instead you hear sounds that turn the woods into an alien world full of unknown threats. He also shows a gift for character as he cuts open Peter and Marcia’s marriage and lets us see its dark innards. As Peter and Marcia, John Hargreaves and Briony Behets are completely convincing. The structure of the film is such that you’re not sure who you’re supposed to be rooting for (Peter? Marcia? their marriage?) and the script gives them both the chance to be good and bad, not to mention downright ugly. Also worthy of mention is screenwriter Everett De Roche. Patrick is probably one of the most well known Australian horror films of the '70s and that to came from Roche’s pen and was made the same year. This film, though, is more of a character study, with Roche dissecting the couple's relationship. Rarely do horror films have such keenly observed characters; these aren’t the usual stereotypes but real people, shown to us warts and all. It’s a real joy when you discover a film as rewarding as this one and I can’t recommend it highly enough. Fans of '70s horror owe it to themselves to check it out. Wilderness (2006) There is a new wave of British horror directors making films that are as good as (and often better) than anything produced across the Atlantic. Leading the pack is Neil Marshall (Dog Soldiers, The Descent) and hot on his heels is Christopher Smith (Creep, Severance). Wilderness' director Michael J. Bassett isn’t so much tagging along behind as being dragged. His first film Deathwatch attempted to merge the horror and war genres with less than spectacular results. This time we get a blend of Dog Soldiers with that old chestnut, The Most Dangerous Game. A group of juvenile prisoners are taken to a small island on a camping trip after a fellow prisoner commits suicide. Why do they get the pleasure of this little holiday? Simple, because the plot requires them to be on the island. The plot also requires that a group of young female offenders be camping there as well just so we can have a few cross gender confrontations and a (none too explicit) sex scene. Then people start dying and it’s clear someone else is on the island, someone who thinks the unwitting campers are fair game. Wilderness is trying for a group dynamic similar to that of the squaddies in Dog Soldiers but without that film's inventive, not to mention humorous, script. Sean Pertwee is even on hand as the prison guard responsible for the boys and the part is a virtual carbon copy of Harry Wells, the sergeant he played in Dog Soldiers. Sadly Pertwee’s character is taken out far too early and it’s left to the inexperienced young actors to carry the film, something they fail to do. It’s not fair to blame them however. This film's failure rests squarely with Bassett, who manages to create zero tension. Clearly bereft of original ideas, he relies on gore to keep the audience watching, and while there is plenty of ketchup splashed about, it's not enough to take your mind off the flimsy plot and cringe-worthy dialogue. Then of course we have the identity of the killer, a plot device so contrived as to beggar belief. Still by that point you’ll have given up hope and quite possibly the will to live. Avoid.

The Weekly Horror Double Bill: Watchers and Phantoms

Ian Woolstencroft — Thu, 22 Feb 2007 12:42:24 EST

This week's pairing features two tales from the mind of Dean Koontz. Is Koontz the poor man's Stephen King? He is when is comes to cinematic adaptations.Watchers (1988) Corey Haim out-acted by a dog shock! Come to think of it Corey Haim out-acts a dog would have been more of a surprise. Haim plays the teenage hero in this adaptation of the Dean R. Koontz bestseller. When he finds a lost dog he takes it home with him, little suspecting the mutt has escaped from a secret research lab or that it’s probably more intelligent than he is. It was part of an experiment to create the perfect killing machine, the dog itself acting as a lure to draw another genetically engineered creature to its victim. That other creature is free as well and looking to carve itself a little Haim sandwich. While the novel this is based on had an equally silly premise, it was still able to craft some effective moments, most notably the climax which manages to elicit the reader’s sympathy for the “bad” beastie. There’s none of that here; everything is black and white. With the best moments of the novel excised, this has been turned into a simple boy and his dog tale albeit witha horror/SF slant. Nothing wrong with that per se -- I’ve enjoyed many a shaggy dog story, but then they never starred Cory Haim. He’s all '80s hair and zero acting ability, and I really wasn’t kidding about the dog having superior thespian abilities. Helping to make things slightly more bearable is horror stalwart Michael Ironside, an actor capable of great performances when given something decent to work with. On the other hand when he knows he’s making a dog (pun intended) he can be so over the top that he’s worth watching just to see how much of the scenery he’ll chew. Here his performance is equal parts ham and cheese and while he doesn’t make the film worthwhile, he does liven things up if you are unable to avoid it.By far the scariest thing about the film (well, excluding Haim's hair) is that it spawned not one, not two, but three sequels! Phantoms (1998) Another Koontz book gets the movie treatment but at least this one has a decent cast. We've seen the “everyone in the town’s gone missing” thing before. Still, while this may not be original, the first half of director Joe Chappelle’s film is at least effective, creating a nice creepy atmosphere that has you wondering what the hell is going on. It only falls apart when it starts to reveal its secrets. Sisters Lisa (Rose McGowan) and Jennifer (Joanna Going) arrive in Snowfield, California to discover most of the residents missing and the rest dead. While looking around town they bump into Sheriff Bryce Hammond and two of his deputies. Hammond is played by Ben Affleck, who appears far too young to be an ex-FBI agent turned small town peace officer. Liev Schreiber gets to act nuts as Deputy Stu Wargle and you get the impression Wargle didn’t have both oars in the water even before things went crazy, so it’s not much of a surprise that the unseen enemy uses him to work through. As I said, this is all enjoyable enough, but things begin to fall apart with the introduction of Peter O’Toole as a scientist who’s the only one who knows what’s going on. He arrives in town with the military and starts spouting about “ancient evil” and the like. It’s clear his character is only there to explain what they are up against while the military are there just to provide more victims. It’s a thankless role and one not worthy of an actor of O’Toole’s stature. Still he does his best with what he’s got, delivering lines like “But this thing is what wiped out the dinosaurs! Which were pretty tough fucking customers!” with tongue firmly in cheek. Not a bad film but one that leaves you with the feeling it could have been so much more had it not stayed so slavishly close to its source material, but then that's the problem you face when the original author is also the screenwriter and executive producer.

The Weekly Horror Double Bill: My Bloody Valentine and Valentine

Ian Woolstencroft — Wed, 14 Feb 2007 13:02:26 EST

Last Halloween I reminisced about the horror double bills of my childhood that acquainted me with such lifelong friends as Karloff, Cushing, and Lee. Well now I’m going to try and recapture a little of the magic of those fiendish pairings with a weekly foray into the world of horror cinema. Each week will feature two films, usually one old (pre-1990) and one modern, with a (sometimes tenuous) link. This inaugural outing features the perfect pairing for Valentine’s Day.My Bloody Valentine (1981)An early entry in the glut of stalk 'n' slash films that followed the success of Friday the 13th, this ranks as one of the weakest in the subgenre, lacking not only in suspense but also in those other staples of this kind of film – sex and gore.The pre-credits sequence features a bit of kinky sex as a miner gets it on with a hot blond down in the mine. After she fondles his air hose (no, that’s not a euphemism) he spots her heart-shaped tattoo and decides rather than get off with her he’ll just off her. The film takes place in the mining town of Valentine's Bluff where several years before a group of miners were trapped underground. Only one man walked away from the tragedy -- Harry Warden, who survived the weeks it took to rescue him by turning cannibal. A year latter Harry went on a killing spree seeking revenge on those responsible for the accident by cutting their hearts out on Valentine’s Day. Harry was found insane and should be spending the rest of his days in a padded cell but when people start dying as the town plans its first Valentine’s Day party in twenty years, Harry seems the obvious suspect, particularly as the victims bear the marks of his trademark open heart surgery.This is clearly a Friday the 13th clone, with the action transplanted to the mine. It even tries to pull a similar “Who’s the killer?” style twist at the end, although unless you’re completely new to this kind of film you’ll have guessed who the real culprit is within the first half hour. The film is populated by the standard bunch of nobodies, none of whom have gone on to great things subsequently. Still, they all manage to remember their lines and, as most are only there to provide victims for the pickaxe-wielding killer, that’s as much as you can really expect. This kind of film stands or falls on the strength of the director but George Mihalka clearly isn’t up to the task. He’s given what must surely be a gift of a location for creating a suspenseful chase; dark, confined, and oppressive, the mine shaft where the climax of the film takes place is crying out for a John Carpenter or even a Steve Miner to make effective use of it, but Mihalka just gives us lots of running around in the dark.With no scares, no nudity, and practically no gore, there’s absolutely no reason to watch this film.Valentine (2001)Jump forward twenty years and the stalk 'n' slash movie is given a new coat of self-referential paint thanks to Wes Craven’s Scream. As with Friday the 13th the film generated a rash of Scream wannabes – I know What You Did Last Summer, Urban Legend, and Cherry Falls, just to name a few. Unlike the '80s however, this time it was familiar faces who were meeting a gruesome end, as well-known Hollywood names were queuing up to be offed. Directed by Jamie Blanks (Urban Legend), Valentine came in towards the end of the craze but was still able to boast a cast featuring Denise Richards, Katherine Heigl, and David Boreanaz. What’s most surprising about this is that although it was based on a novel, there doesn’t seem to be enough plot here for even a short story. Geeky kid gets rejected by all the girls at a high school dance except the fat girl and when he’s caught practising mouth to mouth with her, a gang of boys beat the crap out of him after she claims he attacked her. Jump forward twenty years and he’s back for revenge. That's it for the plot.While the acting talent has improved, the characters remain as clichéd as ever with one of the girls even referring to them as “the popular one”, “the brainy one”, “the fun one”, “the sexy one”, and “the big, fat one”. An attempt at the knowing humour of Scream? Possibly, but if so, it falls flat as do the numerous references to other horror flicks of which Carrie and Halloween are only the most obvious.While the identity of the killer is clear even from an early stage (and gets more obvious as he kills the other possible candidates) the film still tries to keep us guessing even to the extent of pulling a double bluff at the end that you’d have to be deaf and blind not to spot coming. One day someone may make a good Valentine’s Day horror movie, till then we’ll have to make do with this. While it may not be scary it does feature Denise Richards in a hot tub (sadly not naked) and that must weigh in its favour. Unfortunately it’s all that does.