days 2 and 3.... spoooooooky

well, the WAS going to be daily...

lazy blogger. lazy.


anyway....

so today... errr... yesterday, i am going to talk about one of the more predominant threads in slasher/horror movies: holidays.

of course, duh, there's the entire halloween series - debate its quality all you want (and i will, later) - but holidays and horror really somehow go hand in hand.

probably the next most prolific horror holiday is christmas. now, gremlins aside (yes, it is sometimes considered a horror movie, and is probably one of the better "wink wink nudge nudge" style horror movies, before the whole trend in the mid 90's that "scream" started - yes, another post for another day), there are really two major players on the scene here.

first we have "black christmas." bad, "hot teen" filled remakes aside - as a general rule, i don't see remakes of horror movies, unless they really intrigue me, which they basically never do - black christmas was really the standard bearer for the whole "holiday slasher" film genre (and actually came 4 years BEFORE "halloween"!) it also was one of the first "the killer is in the house" movies. and, honestly, it's kind of a good movie.

the cast: juliette, lois lane, and david bowman! (errr... olivia hussey, margot kidder, and keir dullea). kidder was before her heyday, and was sort of a scream queen at the time - amityville horror, etc; dullea was still probably mostly known for 2001 (i didn't even know that he actually has been in quite a few movies, though none of them particularly great movies); and olivia hussey's career had sort of devolved from zefirelli's "romeo and juliet" - yeah, she played the virgin mary a few years later, and would one day play mother theresa - but she also ended up playing mrs bates in the bad made for Showtime "Psycho" sequel).

it's odd that this one even holds up - few slasher movies do, especially since all the deconstruction done on the genre. i mean, that it even qualified for a remake is testament to that... but yeah.

on the other side of the coin, we have "silent night, deadly night". now, when i was a kid, i actually thought that this movies was just a punchline to some joke told on the gary shandling show (i am pretty sure it was there, at least). little did i know that not only was it for real, but it also had a host of sequels!

plot is basically, kid sees dad murdered and mom raped by guy in a santa suit - after being told that santa punishes those who are naughty by his catatonic grandfather (he even warned his mom, after she said something unkind about santa, that she would be punished). so he's scarred. grows up, dresses as santa one day, and ends up going after "naughty" people - since this was the 80's, it wasn't just revenge that drove him - teenagers having sex, etc all were declared "naughty!" the end then brings us one of the most blatant openings for a sequel ever - when the killer is killed, as all slasher movie killers are, at least apparently, the camera pans to his younger brother - who also witnessed mom and dad getting killed - who says to the camera "naughty."

this one does not hold up. not in the slightest. pure 1984 cheese. seriously, if this movie wasn;t shown on the USA network's saturday midnight movie thing - which the only rule for what they would show was apparently that it had to be shit - i would be surprised. seriously, the best slasher movies are the ones that are somewhat inventive - hell, even sleepaway camp with the whole "female killer who's actually a male!" reveal has a certain quality to it - but this just seemed like someone saying "hey, let's make the killer a guy in a santa suit!" followes by "oooh, let's make a lot of quick, even cheaper, sequels!"

other holiday horror:
"my bloody valentine" and "valentine" for, well, duh.

"leprechaun" - ok, i don't think it takes place on st patrick's day but...

and, for easter (no, giant killer bunnies don't count):
the passion of the christ (zombie!)
the last temptation of christ (zombie! william dafoe!!)

* and yes, the last one was a joke....

week of "horror": day one

yes, every day for the next week (plus one, because i suppose i'll make an actual post on actual halloween day) i am going to postg about a horror movie. or in some cases, a "horror" movie (y'know, the ones that are supposed to be scary, but are kind of ridiculous...)

which is how i start. with the ridiculous:
Wes Craven's first film, "the last house on the left."

Now, looking at the cover (this is the Canadian edition, apparently, though the US edition of the DVD has the same image) gives you a sort of "psycho/amityville horror/house" vibe. ooooh. scarrrrry!

and incredibly misleading...

basically, the movie is a cheesy, and extremely exploitative "horror" version of Bergman's "The Virgin Spring."

yes, that's right. wes craven adapted bergman into a horror film.



granted, this was the early 70's. the exorcist had just scared the bejeezus out of everyone, so horror was a nice commodty. and craven, who would go on to create the nightmare on elm street series - probably the one thing with his name on it really worth watching, "new nightmare aside" - was just giving the people what they wanted. sort of.

the plot is simple enough. it's mari's birthday. she is going to a concert with her rebellious friend phyllis (to see a band called bloodlust). parents give her a nice necklace. they go to the city, try to score some pot, meet some escaped criminals who proceed to rape phyllis. the next morning, they throw the girls in their trunk and head out of town, with mari's worried parents at home, calling the cops.

criminal's car breaks down right in front of mari's house (ooooh. coincidence.) and they criminals lead the girls through the woods, where a series of exploitative torture happens, including a gratuitous lesbian sex scene:
which really adds nothing to the horror. i mean, it's not even to the quality of russ meyer standards. granted, they could easily remake this movie today as one of those ridiculously annoying "torture porn" style horror movies. but it's really just... ech.

so finally they end up killing the girls (phyills when she tries to escape and mari, after they rape her again, gets shot while swimming/escaping in the nearby lake). the killers "clean themselves up" and then go to...


mari's parents house. where they are welcomed, though the parents are obviously suspicious of them. then, mom sees mari's necklace and the killers' dirty/bloody clothes, which oddly prompts them to run down to the lake where they find mari (who they say is already dead, but oddly is moving and gasping for breath - apparently due to a redubbing of dialogue). they then decide to take revenge....

first the husband sets a bunch of home alone style traps (electric wiring on the doorknobs, shaving cream on the floor to make it slippery, etc). mom then seduces one of the killers - the one who stabbed phyllis - who takes him down to the river where she bites off his penis, apparently killing him - again, this mostly made me think of russ meyer. granted, you don't see anything particularly sexual but... then dad, who is a doctor, comes after the other three more diectly, with a shotgun.

etc. etc. ultimately, the bumbling cops show up just as the good doctor is shoving the business end of a chainsaw into the face of the "leader" of the killers (who has just forced his stepson to blow his own brains out). they tell him to stop but, well, too late. leaving them to contemplate what they have just done....

(for a better plot description, go to the wikipedia entry)

right.

so aside from the crappy cinemtography - stylistically it seems almost like it was done like texas chainsaw massacre would eventually be done - and the incredibly cheesy/sexploitation vibe (film opens up with mari in the shower). the biggest problem with the movie is the tone, which is largely set by the music. apparently, it was an intentional counterpoint to the horrors on the screen or whatever, but any movie where the killers have a theme song that plays while they are driving (called "baddies theme" - and apparently performed by one of the stars of the film) is just... wrong. then there are crappy synthesizer sounds throughout the killing scenes - sort of like music Psycho as performed by tangerine dream.

ug. thankfully, craven would go on to better things. most of the stars of the movie went on to do nothing, or further their careers through more exploitative crap (the girl who played innocent mary, went on to such fine films as "legacy of satan" and "massage parlor hookers"; the actor who played the main killer was in a movie called "nutcracker: an american nightmare")

so was the movie scary? no. there is no real suspense in the movie, as every scene of "horror" is pretty much telegraphed to the audience long before it happens. even the rape scenes lack any "shock" value - which craven seems to be confusing with horror, much like a lot of supposed horror movie directors are doing these days... (yes, eli roth, whoever directed the saw movies, etc, i'm looking right at you guys...)

tomorrow... well... i don't know yet...

book love 10/14

i am a big fan of silly old ads, cookbooks, etc. (huge fan of lileks.com, though it's probably been a year since i last looked at it, as it seriously was missing things like updates). so this book is pretty much awesome.




best titles:

"the day amanda came"
"the awful disclosures of maria monk"
"cookery for the middle classes"
"totty: the truth about ten mysterious terms"
"what to do if it's catching"

i'm sure a site exists that has some of the covers, which are just as funny, if not funnier...

ok... that's all...

some girly ass shit made be myinnergeekdom

i made it:



http://www.littlemousevintage.com/item.php?item_id=49&page=3

(there's only 3! omg!! buy one now!!)

ah. geek love.

full disclosure 1: in high school German class, i once did a skit in which we had to do things said on an airplane/in the airport. a line in ours was "der film ist Howard the Duck, ein film aus America." so...

so marvel has relaunched everyone's favorite anthropomorphic duck in a new series...

now, when they brought him back in the Civil War: Choosing Sides one shot, it was kinda cool. in part because the story made sense: howard pissed off about registering, goes to do so anyway, and is told that he doesn't exist. pissed off duckiness ensues.

so i had some high hopes for the series, or at least was very curious as to exactly what they would do with Howard in the current marvel universe...

well, the art, as seen here, was quite nice. and i have to say, this opening splash page of Howard dreaming he's playing cards with other 70's era marvel monster characters - though the placement of Ben Grimm seems odd. anyway. so yeah, art lovely.

the story....

umm...

granted, i actually think there was a printing error in mine, as the "plot" seemes to start out of nowhere in the middle of what seems more to be the intro. there's no noticable framing device to say it's supposed to be that way so i can only assume it's not.

oddly, that doesn't save anything...

essentially it seems that howard is driving beverly to her rehearsal - actually she's driving, though she doesn't know how - then while he;'s waiting he picks up in his cab two scientists who want to... shoot him. i mean, if the story is going somewhere it hasn't started yet. there are little jokes that work. and again, art = good but... but...

i don't know. i, to be honest, quite love howard the duck. i''ve read - though i don't own - the essential howard the duck.the original run was brilliant. slightly surreal. and just... awesome. it was a sadly underrated - kind of like omega the unknown, the relaunch of which i seem to have missed, despite really wanting to check out jonathan lethem's take on the character (though i hear it, too, was underwhelming) - book from steve gerber. and... yeah.

but my true love for the character comes from this fine piece of cinematic fun. ok, it was ridiculously ill conceived and very poorly executed - so bad that George Lucas actually
dissavowed his involvement in the production. yeah, it's probably one of the worst movies ever made. but it's also fucking brilliant.

full disclosure 2: i used to watch this movie every time it came on TV and quite possibly rented it a few times once we had a VCR. i also remember being 7 or 8 and playing howard the duck with some of the other neighborhood kids. yep. playing. howard the duck.

seriously: tim robbins, leah thompson, geoffrey jones (that's right: thomas jefferson himself... okay, he was also that dad in beetlejuice, and has done numerous other films. but i always seem his as thomas jefferson). all acting with a bunch of different midgets in a duck suit. true, the plot had nothing to do with anything from the comic book - changing beverly to a musician was one thing, making a villain called "the dark lord of the universe" show up which was a badly done, animatronic alien that reminded me a little of the aliens in "explorers" or AT least, like a really badly renderred man-thing... the fact is, Howard the Duck could have, like the original comic, been a brilliant satire. but george lucas is not known for that. so instead we get howard's "fish out of water" observations (duck out of water?) such as, when he is served eggs, or "if god had intended ducks to fly, he wouldn't hava taken away our wings." HA! and then the marty mcfly style jamming with beverly's band? awesomely necessary!

and really, that's where i stand on the new series so far. yeah, we probably don't need a new origin story. i mean, hell, he's a duck, on earth, with humans, one of whom he has a definitely non-platonic relationship with. what more origin do you need? no, he's not an established spiderman type character but, i mean, hell, he got his own video game for crying out loud !

i guess, the fact is that i. love. howard the duck. yeah, the new series could be a waste of time and ink. and yeah, his one time as a hollywood star pretty much sucked, and completely diminished the character. but, still, howard the duck rules. that's all.