MONKEY SHINES

MONKEY SHINES, based on the novel of the same name, tells the story of a former athlete turned quadriplegic. As he adjusts to the trauma of life in a chair, he gets a gift from his buddy - a primate researcher – an assistant monkey named Ella. Ella carries with her a secret. She's been treated with human brain cells.

Monkey and Master soon form a bond, one bordering on telepathic. And soon, Ella is doing more than turning pages and getting drinks. Ella starts taking out the people or birds that do him harm. The Monkey, well, shines.

I wasn't sure what to expect. At first, it starts SLOW and is very dated. It's one thing to have a movie reflect the time it was made it, but this thing screamed late 1980's.

The movie gets rolling though, when Ella gets to killing.

Directed by George Romero, the film plays on some nice creepy moments and Ella, being so cute and lethal is a nice conflict. Not unlike the affect of the sweet little kid turn killer motif. The romance storyline is heavy handed and the monkey sound f'x while they were getting it on was a bit...much.

Trailer.

THE HOUSE ON HAUNTED HILL

When I was a kid, I vaguely remember seeing THE HOUSE ON HAUNTED HILL and it scared the dickens out of me. I mean, a pool of acid?

The film Is standard haunted house fare, though I wonder if this was one of the movies that might have created the rules of the genre.

A group of random strangers are invited to a random dinner party by a mysterious couple with a taste for the macabre. The rules are simple: stay the night, stay alive and get 10 grand. Quickly we learn that there are many horrors: ghosts, trap doors, the afore mentioned acid, ect.

Leading the group is the Vincent Price, an eccentric millionaire whose wives have a habit of shuffling off the mortal coil rather...early. He is the star of the show, the creepy demeanor, the accept, just his overall screen presence carries the film. After all, if he's creepy enough for Thriller.

The film definitely has its freaky moments. For the most part, I cannot help but look at the movie as a bit of a cliché, but one wonders what it would have been like to see the movie in theaters without that jaded cynicism that accompanies the modern audience.

SANTA'S SLAY

One of my best friends and fellow filmmaker, Carlo Rodriguez (Gothic Films, Underdogs FilmDistribution) and I often relive the classic argument “what's in a name.” Carlo and I tend to employ different strategies when naming our films to achieve an admittedly different result.

When you watch a film called SANTA'S SLAY (get it?) you kind of know what you're going to get. (Score 1 for Carlo!) What made this film one of the most badass things I've see lately is that you got everything you were expecting.

From the opening dinner scene where Chris Kattan and Jimmy (I can call him that ) Caan get it in yule tide fashion to the bloody bitter end, the movie delivers. Most of the kills are Christmas themed (he kills a stripper with miseltoe; exploding gifts decapitate kids; sharpened candy cane anyone?) and are all played for laughs. The movie would have been enjoyable had it just been THAT. But there's more. Bill Goldberg is killer as the “jolly old Elf.” There's a great performance from Robert Culp (who doesn't love him?) and a neat story line explaining that Santa is really Satan's son. You see, Santa used to like to kill people once a year, but he loses a bet with an angel and, for a thousand years, he has to be nice. Well, times up and the killing spree begins. (All of this is told through an awesome claymation sequence in which Santa loses a game of curling to curse him for the thousand years. I knew that game would get us.)

The kills are violent, but funny. A nice darkly comedic tale. And in case you're scoring at home, it isn't just a Christian problem. Our friendly neighborhood Jewish deli owner gets it with his own menorah. He gurgles “there is a Santa Clause.” And of course the cops tough talk him: “Someone turned off his festival of lights. Wait, something isn't kosher here.”

Nothing better than a movie that doesn't take itself too seriously. Even the music is badass using rock covers of Christmas carols.

Trailer.

BLOOD CREEK

BLOOD CREEK tells the story of a Nazi occult expert searching for mystical runes in West Virginia prior to WWII. He's a scary dude. Most Nazis are. The film FFWDs a few decades and this Nazi occultist is now a mystical force that drinks blood and cannot die, but is trapped on the farm by the original owners who also have not aged a day. HENRY CAVIL (Future Superman) plays an EMT who's searching for his brother – missing two years. When he shows up, he learns that he's been trapped on the farm and slowly bled in order to feed the blood Nazi.

They journey to the farm to fight the Nazi. There are some truly wicked moments, including an awesome sequence with zombie flesh eating horses which isn't nearly as silly as it sounds. It's wall to wall action and some gnarley effects. Which is where the movie loses steam. The action occurs at breakneck speed to the point that any attempt to: develop characters, focus on the evil of the Nazi regime or feel for the enormity of the situation is lost.

At the end of the day, I thought it was an original concept for a horror movie. Although, I'm an easy target since I normally dig movies about evil Nazi's obsessed with the occult (Raiders, Hellboy :-). So, while not executed to perfection, it's good for at least a few good creepy moments (watch out for those horses). Oh, and don't be scared about the fact that Shumacher directed. Not a bat nipple in sight.

Trailer.

HALLOWEEN (Remake)

Before I begin to tear apart Zombie's HALLOWEEN remake, let me start by saying that, in general, I like the movie. In fact, I like it exponentially more every time I see it. The problem, of course, is that I can't help but look at it through the vein of someone 100% devoted to Carpenter's original.

Zombie follows the same essential plot line that Carpenter did. Michael Meyers kills his sister on Halloween night and 15 years later returns to kill again. Zombie has the luxury of building on the family motif from the beginning. (That Michael Meyers was Laurie's sister is not part of the Carpenter original until the sequel).

Zombie takes the opportunity to provide some backstory to Michael and much like George Lucas and Vader, this is where the problems start for me. Halloween worked on many levels mostly because it was Middle class America gone wrong for no reason.  He was just "evil."  Zombie's film, however explains that Mike has an affinity for torturing animals and is the product of a poor stripper with horrible taste in men. It eliminates that which made Michael different from horror films leading up to the original: Michael was from a normal family, not poor white trash. Being white trash isolates him from the rest of his community.  He might as well have been from Transylvania or outer space. As a result, the idea of evil rising from among us isn't really there.  This isn't to say that the “Michael as a kid killer” stuff doesn't work on some levels. His handling of the bully while the theme builds is one such moment that kind of rocks.

The part of the movie where Zombie's changes really do work involve young Michael and Dr. Loomis. I love that they went so far into the therapy that it shows the devotion of Loomis to Michael, both in his therapy and eventually, his desire to keep him locked up.

For the end of the movie, we essentially get a 2nd/3^rd act that is a remake of Carpenter's film. It's violent, brutal and I dug Tyler Mane as a more imposing Michael. I thought Danny Trejo and his role was touching and allowed Zombie to show just how “gone” Michael is. One misstep, and this is a big one, is the casting, characterization of Laurie Strode. Scout Taylor-Compton completely doesn't “get” the role that launched Jamie Lee Curtis to fame. Where Curtis was shy, introverted and helped to create one of the key “rules” of slasher film, Taylor-Compton is hyper active and in dire need of some Riddilin. In this one, I just wish that Taylor-Compton would get it from Michael. I did love that Zombie brought Danielle Harris back. She was awesome in Halloween IV – V.

All in all, it's a way above average slasher film. It just doesn't quite hold up to the weight of the original. Michael was the first of the wave of movie killers as pop culture icons, so its always great to see him wielf the butcher knife.

I'd love to comment on Zombies HALLOWEEN II, but I'm still not sure what that's about.

STRAW DOGS

When I set the list up, I figured I would see STRAW DOGS in the theater. I didn't realize that this was a remake. Having not seen the original, I can't make an intelligent argument on whether it does or doesn't improve on the Peckinpah film.

I was “in” for the cast. Big TRUE BLOOD fan and I'm a big fan of James Marsden, James Woods and Walton Goggins. Kate Bosworth, in general, annoys me, but oh well.

The problem with the movie is, for the most part, nothing happens. It's reduced to creepy stares from rednecks and jokes about the soft, mamby pamby screenwriter (hey!).

In the end, the narrative is flat and not deserving of the cast assembled. Plot lines are introduced and then not dealt with. When the climax does occur, its a frantic mess with some entertaining moments but often feels unmotivated and out of the blue. As if they decided “well we're at the 1 hour mark, something HAS to happen.” The lack of motivation stems from the poorly executed script that largely ignores the opportunities for dialog about the differences between classes, rural/urban and past/future for a frenzied blood soaked finale with little payoff.

THE EXORCIST

So, my first entry into my Halloween Challenge for 2011 is THE EXORCIST.

The minute one hears the title of this flick, especially younger viewers, there is danger of being caught up in the cliché. This film has been spoofed, mocked and stolen from for the past 30 years and one can see the film without having “seen” the film.

For me, THE EXORCIST holds up, not only as one of the greatest horror films of all time, but one of the best examples of American cinema. Its pacing is deliberate, its characters rich and complicated and its villain the kind of evil that invades and corrupts anything it desires, in this case, a little girl. It is bold, daring and unapologetic in its portrayal of the Devil's corruption.

Nothing about this film is intended to be cheap or tawdry. You won't find camp sluts with boobies dangling, nor will you ever root for the villain as he cuts a swath through co-eds. Instead, the film challenges faith, psychology and normalcy with such depth that moments of the film creep you out and stay with you long after it's over. The film mixes subtlety with the extreme. While there is no global threat (the fate of mankind isn't at stake here) we know, through the performances, that the fate of this little girl might be all that stands between all of us and and an eternity of hell or grace. That this goal is never stated makes it seem more real and makes us both terrified by whats happening to Reagan and feel for her at the same time.

As a filmmaker, the story of how they brought the movie to life: from using a meatlocker for Reagan's room to throwing the actors around agains their will, there is a feeling that these folks worked their tail off.

In short, I love the film. Everything about it. As a Catholic, I will say that I am a believer that, if God can work through us, why not the other side. And that part is scary. Funny story: I went to see the film with Father Dennis Peterson (RIP). He said, if he'd been the Exorcist, he would have shot the firl and left. I guess he was scared too.

What say you?