film    print    sound    leisure    forum
company line »

shopping guide »

contact us »

get reviewed »

get published »

expand yourself »


find it »

Teleport City search allows you to search our entire site as well as our favorite sites about cult films, obscure music, literature, and swank living.


film home | a-b | c-d | e-f | g-h | i-l | m-n | o-q | r-s | t-v | w-z

Friday, March 28, 2008

Phantom of Soho

Release Year: 1964
Country: Germany
Starring: Dieter Borsche, Barbara Rutting, Hans Sohnker, Peter Vogel, Helga Sommerfeld, Werner Peters, Hans Nielsen, Stanislav Ledinek, Otto Waldis, Hans Hamacher, Elisabeth Flickenschildt.
Writer: Ladislas Fodor
Director: Franz Josef Gottlieb
Cinematographer: Richard Angst
Music: Martin Bottcher
Producer: Artur Brauner
Original Title: Das Phantom von Soho
Availability: Buy it from Amazon


There are a couple key themes that define Teleport City and to which I frequently refer. First among these is that Teleport City was always envisioned as a response to the taunt, "Get a life!" or, alternately, "Get a girlfriend!" Part of the reason the reviews I write so often diverge into tangential stories about silly adventures, history (both accurate and suspect), and the circumstances under which I've viewed these movies and how said circumstances have influenced my reactions is because I like to illustrate what I've learned and experienced first-hand from my many strange years in cult film fandom: that we do have lives, often exceptionally fun lives at that. The second of the over-arching themes that inform Teleport City is that you should be happy this is your hobby, because you will never want for new material. No matter how much you've seen, you've never seen it all, and you will discover new and amazing films from all over the world with pleasing regularity. Exploring these films leads, often, to exploring other cultures, other countries, other customs and histories, and learning about far more than simply the film you happen to be watching.

Case in point would be the little sub-genre -- "family" might be more appropriate -- known as "krimi," a series of fantastical German murder mystery movies based on the works of British author Edgar Wallace and drawing influence from a sprawling landscape of source material that includes pulp adventures, noir crime dramas, James Bond, and old horror films. Until a few years ago, I'd never heard of "krimi" films. Back in the day, I had a German film class in what we then referred t as "college," or sometimes "university." Back in this time period, I would ride to class on my pennyfarthing bicycle beneath trees dripping with the vibrantly colored leaves of fall, my letterman sweater rakishly unbuttoned and my books slung around my shoulder in a satchel, whistling the latest hit by The Ink Spots and thinking of my sweetheart Annabeth and the grand we time we'd have that weekend when I would borrow my chum's horseless motor carriage to drive her up to the country for a picnic, where I would serenade her with some ukulele playing. Oh, that was truly the golden fall of '92!


The film class covered the basics of German film -- meaning we watched some Metropolis, Doctor Caligari, Nosferatu, Triumph of the Will, Jew Suss, Ali: Fear Eats the Soul, The Lost Honor of Katarina Blum, American Friend, The Seventh Cross, and the dreaded The Goalie's Anxiety at the Penalty Kick. Although the professor was a grand man and once scheduled a make-up class at his own home, where he had an early, pre-flatscreen television version of a home theater, an indoor pool, and a feast of spaetzel and bratwurst (apparently being the head of the Germanic and Slavic Languages department married to the head of the Russian Language department has its perks beyond just being able to stage the siege of Stalingrad in your back yard every night), and even though he taught me the word vergangenheits-bewaltigung, there was no mention of krimi. For that matter, there was no mention of the Jerry Cotton FBI-adventure films starring George Nader, or of Superargo, so in the end, I have to question the quality of education I received. Still, and despite The Goalie's Anxiety at the Penalty Kick, one of the better film classes I took, even though (and possibly because) the professor wasn't trained in film studies. Plus, Sigfried Kracauer's From Caligari to Hitler was a fine book, and the class itself benefited from sharing a semester with a "Women and Film" class which was excruciating (this is what you get when you do schedule drop-add at the last minute -- please, o Lord! No more Jane Campion!).

I also learned that I wanted a Wiemar Republic era nightclub in my house. Later, of course, I became more of a grown up and dispensed with such childish fantasies. Nowadays, I want a Jess Franco nightclub in my house.

With this basic foundation in German cinema, it was many years before I visited that nation's movies again, and when I did, it was a decidedly different type of film than those I'd been watching in school. Fewer pensive stares and excessively long takes, and more George Nader and his perfectly sculpted hair jumping out of Jaguar cars and shooting gangsters. When the book Fear Without Frontiers came out, I got my first glimpse at the weird world of krimi and knew, immediately, that this was a type of film I was going to want to see. As is often the case, however, recent knowledge and enthusiasm abut a certain film or type of films has no direct correlation to the ability to actually obtain and watch the movies. So while I could sit in my study, contentedly puffing on my pipe and sipping a glass of fine Glenrothes as I marveled at photos of skull-faced killers and arch-villains in pointy crimson hoods or frog outfits, I could not carry my enthusiasm out to my own home theater for viewing. My only option at the time was to shell out stacks of lettuce in exchange for bootleg copies of dubious quality.


But the era of DVD often rewards the cheap and patient, and too long ago, Alpha Video -- DVD-era heir to the throne of Goodtimes Video -- was kind enough to make bootleg copies of dubious quality unnecessary, as one could now freely purchse semi-bootleg copies of dubious quality, but for four dollars instead of fourteen. Alpha Video dumped a number of krimi onto cheap DVDs, followed shortly by an "Edgar Wallace Collection" released by Retrocinema. I also discovered that some of the films I already owned were, in fact, based in some degree on the works of Edgar Wallace, though in at least some of these cases, the connection is dubious. In others, the whims and obsessions of the director override any other identity the film may possess. That is to say, The Devil Came from Akasava is not a krimi; it is a Jess Franco film. Slowly, and far more lazily than someone who possesses actual drive and motivation, I was able to piece together a half-ass knowledge of the history of Edgar Wallace and how the Germans came to love him so much that they based a bunch of cheap movies on his stories.

Wallace was born in the London slums in the latter half of the 1800s, his father an actor, his mother a dancer -- two professions and a life that we can see reflected as major influences in Wallace's work. In 1896, he found himself stationed in South Africa, serving in the Boer War and developing a nascent writing career as a reporter. His work attracted the attention of none other than Rudyard Kipling, who encouraged Wallace to continue his writing career. Wallace, himself a great admirer of Kipling, wisely took the advice, and before too long, he was making enough money as a foreign correspondent in South Africa to afford a wife and a comfortable existence for the both of them. Then, just as quickly, he lost all his money, because that's the way us writers are. After returning to England in 1902, he published his first serialized novel in 1905, but once again he proved a better writer than financial adviser, as a crackpot promotional scheme that offered readers a reward if they could figure out the solution to the book resulted in lawsuits, bankruptcy, and the loss of his copyright for the story.

But at least he had a new career, even if he had to maintain it to stay one step ahead of poverty -- something I'm sure no other writer has ever experienced. It was a relatively unspectacular career for some time, but in 1921, something suddenly caught fire. It was in this year that Wallace's name became synonymous with mystery writing. By 1928, it is reported that nearly a quarter of the books being printed in England were Edgar Wallace mysteries. He managed to get himself a plum job as the figurehead president at British Lion Films, which meant that he would be getting cuts of all future and past films based on his work. In 1931, after an unsuccessful bid for Parliament (the gambling habit came back to haunt him), he went to the United States and attempted to scare up a screenwriting job for himself. He had a hard time finding takers for any but one of his scripts, and that one he managed to sell to RKO Pictures, though they insisted on a different title, something more exotic than The Beast. And so was born King Kong. Wallace died shortly afterward, in 1932. By that time, he had written some 250 books and plays, countless short stories, and left his family $68,000 -- not a bad sum in 1932, so long as you ignore that it was countered by the $400,000 in debt he amassed as a result of gambling on the ponies and a love of throwing big parties.


One of his sons, Bryan Edgar, himself a budding writer, took on the task of selling his late father's work for the screen and of writing new books in the style of and "inspired by the work of Edgar Wallace." So I guess he was like a proto-Christopher Tolkien. When Bryan Edgar moved to West Germany after the war, he brought with him the infectious enthusiasm for his father's work that had resulted in so many books and so many films based on those books. Wallace's stories were very popular in Germany throughout the 1920s, thought exactly how this came to be I'm not sure. I guess it was part of the treaty the Allies made Germany sign at the end of World War I. "Cede all territories, disarm and disband your military, make Kaiser Wilhelm shave his mustache, and oh yes, you must read Edgar Wallace novels" -- that's the actual text of the Treaty of Versailles, though I would by irresponsible if I didn't mention that there is a hand-written addition, in pencil, from U.S. President Woodrow Wilson, ever anxious to be fair and forgiving, that says, "You can sell the books after you are done reading them, or trade them for a slice of bread." Needless to say, this conciliatory amendment enraged David Lloyd George, who proceeded to doodle a picture on the back of the treaty of Woodrow Wilson and Kaiser Wilhelm, sitting in a tree, K-I-S-S-I-N-G. Unfortunately for Prime Minister Lloyd George, he was caught doing this by Georges Clemenceau, who used this knowledge to force England to cede its claim to Wilhelm's mustache, which would now become the property of France and be placed prominently on the face of Clemenceau himself so as to teach Lloyd George a lesson about being naughty.

See the important things you learn when you read a review at Teleport City?

Anyway, much like the British, the Germans were keen on making cinematic adaptations of Edgar Wallace novels. However, all production of these films was halted, and indeed the books themselves were banned, with the rise of Hitler and the Nazis. When Bryan Edgar Wallace arrived in West Germany after the war, his appearance coincided with a general revival of interest in crime films, thanks in no small part to the films of the French New Wave, who were keen on drawing influences from old American noir and crime films and championing genres of cinema previously dismissed as unworthy of serious consideration. The atmosphere was right, and before too long, interest in Wallace's works was revived, and so too was the production of films based on those novels. In 1959, with the release of The Fellowship of the Frog, the krimi was born.

There were two competing studios cranking out Edgar Wallace movies at the time, though most fans consider the string of films released by Rialto to be the definitive krimi series. Most of the films were dubbed into English for American audiences, and some were retitled for distribution elsewhere. Over time, the films based of works by Edgar Wallace became mixed in with the films based on the works of Bryan Edgar Wallace, writing in his father's style. The result is a bit confusing, especially so far removed from the original years of release and with so little information previously available. The end result is a wonderful krimi maze as convoluted and confusing, yet fun to wander through, as the plots of the films themselves.

Phantom of Soho is among the films attributed to Edgar Wallace but actually the work of his son, and rather than being one of the Rialo productions, was made by the studio CCC. As far as krimi go, it is not considered to be the best, but that's no indication that it isn't very good, and it still serves as a textbook example of the shared elements of Edgar Wallace krimi. As with all exceptionally convoluted and twisted stories, it can be distilled into one very simple idea: someone is killing people in and around a cabaret in London's seamy Soho district, and Scotland Yard needs to catch the killer. As with most "whodunits," we encounter a number of possible suspects, including a massage therapist employed by the owner of the club, a knife-throwing fake Arab, a beautiful dancer and photographer, a salty old fisherman, a writer, and even the chief of Scotland Yard himself. Attempting to crack the case is stolid British inspector Patten (Dieter Borsche) and his rather bizarre assistant, Hallam (Peter Vogel). Cracking the case consists of the two inspectors spending a lot of time hanging out in the nightclub that seems somehow inextricably linked to the strange murders. Soon, we are neck deep in a plot that involves insurance fraud, blackmail, lots of women in black lingerie, and lost of people skulking about dark, twisting, and excessively foggy Soho streets.


Although Phantom of Soho is not a Rialto production, and although it is based on a novel by Bryan Edgar Wallace rather than his father, it's still quite a fun, old fashioned mystery with a few modern twists (primarily in the form of half-naked women parading about the place, and even a couple very brief glimpses of nudity -- which must have been novel at the time for a mainstream film, and it contains pretty much everything that defines the krimi. First and foremost, there is the outrageous villain. The titular phantom of Soho is perhaps less outlandish than some of its krimi compatriots, largely because the phantom remains unseen for the majority of the film, represented only by a point of view shot in which we see only the killer's hands, wearing sparkly silver gloves and brandishing a knife. But when the appearance of the phantom is finally revealed, it is suitably creepy and fulfills the krimi tendency to feature criminal masterminds in outfits that are at once very cool and utterly absurd. I don't see how, even in a seedy neighborhood, you could parade around in sparkly gloves, a funerary shroud, and a decaying skull mask without attracting at least some attention, but then, this is only a loose interpretation of reality, so I guess such things are permissible. Edgar Walllace was a pulp writer, after all, and the pulps thrived on such villains. And besides, around this same time, Kriminal would have been running around in a full-on skeleton-themed body stocking, so maybe it was just one of the many trends of London in the swingin' 60s.

We also have the requisite cast of potential suspects, suspicion being removed from them one by one and each succumbs to the blade o the mysterious phantom, until finally we are left with the core possibilities: the writer, the dancer/photographer, the doctor/physical therapist, the club owner, and the chief of Scotland Yard. All are connected in some way to a plot involving the sinking of an ocean liner in order to collect on the insurance money (this is not a central mystery to the plot, and is revealed fairly early in the story). The eventual reveal isn't entirely a surprise, but then, it rarely is these days, given how many movies have been made in this style. And besides, the fun of the krimi is rarely in being fooled by the unmasking of the killer. It's in the ride, and Phantom of Soho is an interesting ride indeed, steeped in eerie atmosphere cribbed from film noir and old horror films. The Soho of this movie is a fantastic, almost mythical creation, the result of someone who might never have been to Soho trying to make it up based on the things they've heard about it -- not at all unlike American and Italian Westerns serving up a mythical version of the Old West based on legend and romance rather than hard facts. This Soho is, as I said, covered in fog at all hours of the day and night. Clandestine couplings and seedy goings-on take place in every club, in the shadows of every alley, the rooms of every hotel, every movement softened to impressionism by the ever-present mist that clings to the neighborhood like the shroud of death itself. The Phantom of Soho exists in a fantasy world composed of such images -- similar in a way to the city occupied by the heroes and villains of Streets of Fire so many years later -- and seemingly equal parts 1920s romanticism and 1960s modernism, resulting in a film that exists in a time and place that is familiar but not quite real. This is realized through the use of studio sets and location shooting on the streets of Hamburg. The final product is a recreation of London that is completely unreal yet totally believable, obviously recognizable but with a hint of the alien, as if something lurking in that fog just isn't quite right. It is the conjuring of this mood that serves to be the greatest attribute of The Phantom of Soho, for the plot itself is somewhat slow and prone to lots of talking.

Just as the movie strives to create a mythical London, so too does it strive to create fiction-perfect ideals of Scotland Yard inspectors in the persons of Patten and Hallam. Patten is the stock stoic cop in a trenchcoat, navigating the seedy underbelly of London without ever seeming to be uncomfortable or distracted by the women in their underwear that thankfully populate the focal point of the crimes. His opposite number is Hallam, who represents one of the genuinely funny comic relief character, primarily because the comedy of his character comes not from broad attempts at slapstick, but rather from the fact that the presentation of the character is just so weird. It's a Germanic interpretation of the famous dry wit of the Brits ("At last, I can realize the dream of arresting my own boss."). In a modern production of this film, Hallam would be played by Cripsen Glover. As it is, Peter Vogel looks like a Peter Sellers character and really makes the whole film worth watching -- well, him and Helga Sommerfeld as Corrine, the dancer/photographer who spends most of the movie in fetching black lingerie and little else. Actor Peter Vogel was a tragic case, obviously talented but prone to depression. He attempted to kill himself on one occasion, by jumping out of a window during a film premier, and succeeded in another attempt at suicide, this time by poisoning himself. I really don't know the details of his life and career, but his turn as Hallam is really inspired.


But if there is a real star of the film it's the art design and direction. Director Franz Josef Gottlieb spent the 60s directing similar murder mysteries and pulp-inspired adventures, bringing an avant garde touch to his films that was most likely informed by French interpretations of American noir and the old German horror film's fascination with expressionism and strange shot set-ups. The Phantom of Soho is full of arty composition and awkward angles, but far from feeling gratuitous, these decisions seem perfectly in line with the bizarre feel of the film and the desire to create a sense of familiar reality that is, at the same time, disturbingly unreal. This is probably thanks largely to Swiss cinematographer Richard Angst, whose career stretched as far back as the pre-Hitler Weimar era of the 1920s. Very early in his career, Angst found himself working alongside Leni Riefenstahl, one of Germany's most talented and most notorious film personalities, on Arnold Frank's demanding cycle of mountaineering adventure films: The White Hell of Pitz Palu, Storm Over Mount Blanc, White Frenzy, and S.O.S. Iceberg. Cutting his teeth in the silent era of German film undoubtedly informed the cinematographer's sense of the surreal, and his experience on those challenging films helped him become one of the great cinematographers of early adventure cinema. In 1959, when legendary German director Fritz Lang returned to Germany for the first time since World War II (Lang not being especially friendly with the Nazis, nor they with him), he hired Angst for the color remake of his earlier India-themed epics, The Tiger of Eschnapur and The Indian Tomb. Angst's approach to Phantom of Soho works wonderfully, infusing the film with a unique feel and tying it through imagery to the horror films of the silent era, just as the plot of the film would later tie into a new type of thriller: the Italian giallo.

There is much that is similar between the krimi and the giallo, and especially The Phantom of Soho, which is one of the more lurid krimis, and the work of Dario Argento. The krimi films grew from the pulp stories, with a dash of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes thrown in, and integrated the whodunit mystery with elements of horror and the fantastic. Giallo would take the same hybrid approach, one foot in horror and the other in the murder mystery, though the Italians did not carry over the reliance on a pulpy, outrageous villain in a crazy costume. But much of what we can see in the giallo cycle of the 1970s is present already in The Phantom of Soho: the mysterious killer, the list of suspects, the preoccupation with seedy locations, the inclusion of art and artists (specifically, writers, models/dancers, and photographers), and the protagonists working his way doggedly through a progressively more tangled web are all elements that became de rigueur for gialli -- themselves outgrowths of the Italian pulp novels from which they take their name ("giallo" or yellow -- because the books were easily identified by their signifying yellow covers).


Central to the plot of The Phantom of Soho is both photography and, even moreso, writing. Among the many potential suspects in the film is a woman with a successful career as a writer and an intimate relationship with the head of Scotland Yard. She challenges the inspectors to solve the case before she does, confident that as a writer with a fresh and sometimes outlandish imagination, she is better suited for working such an unusual case as that of the phantom of Soho. In this sense, the movie becomes a story that is writing itself as it goes. Argento would use this same concept in his 1982 thriller, Tenebrae, which while not being a remake of The Phantom of Soho, certainly uses the Bryan Edgar Wallace story and the related movie as its inspiration and basis.

Although the pace of the film is slow -- too slow for some people, with too meager a pay-off at the end -- I think it's a great little movie. The atmosphere is incredible, the cinematography inventive, and the story both strange and entertaining. It plays an important role in the long history of thrillers, and especially n thrillers infused with elements of the horrific. As an introduction to the world of Edgar Wallace and German krimi, one should probably start with The Fellowship of the Frog or any of the Rialto productions available on DVD. Being written by Wallace's son and produced by CCC, The Phantom of Soho is more of a "related tangent," and shouldn't be used as a basis for building a working knowledge of krimi -- though it absolutely should be included in any expansion of one's knowledge.


Kaiser Wilhelm, his hotly contested mustache, and his Phantom of Soho themed hat.

Labels: , , , , ,

posted by Keith at | 3 Comments


Thursday, September 07, 2006

Blood Oath

2006, United States. Starring Natalie Hart, Roger Horn, Jamie Reynolds, Katie Vaughan, Pat Holt, Tiffany Shepis, Tina Krause, Enrique Camacho, J. Thomas Bailey, Angela Schmidt, Stephanie Vickers, Jamie Alford, Sarah Bloodworth, Alex Kendall. Drected by David Buchert. Written by David Meier Smith.

I'll kick this off with a disclaimer right up front: I not only know the guy who directed this movie, but have in fact known him since high school when we occasionally became involved in making videos for class projects. If you've ever looked at the AFI's list of top 100 films, you might have seen such titles as Richard the Protagonist (being a thrilling tale of the discovery of America by men who arrived in a 1986 Honda Civic) and the epic Papa MacBeth. Anyway, I'm pretty sure those are on the list, though I haven't checked myself. Needless to say, reviewing a film from someone you have known and liked for nigh these past seventeen or eighteen years (Jesus...) is tricky.

Especially when that film is a micro-budget horror film about a group of people being stalked through the woods by a maniacal killer. There's a lot of movies like that. A whole lot. And almost all of them are awful. Not just awful; torturous. They're torturous because the people making them usually have an abysmal script, irritating characters who bicker through the entire movie, slow pacing brought on as a result of incompetent editing, and nary a single instance of originality in the entire film. When you've heard the story a million times, the millionth and first time you hear it better be good, because if it isn't, then the whole thing is even more boring and tedious than it would be if you hadn't already heard the story a million times. Telling an old story well is a worthwhile endeavor. Telling an old story in an incompetent and boring fashion is something that really steams my monkeys.

I am less biased by the fact that another friend for an equally long time is seen in the pre-credit prologue getting a blow job then having his head (the one attached to his neck) chopped off. It's not that he's any less of a friend; it's just that I resent being tricked into watching any friend pretend to get a blowjob. As far as I'm concerned, he deserved to be decapitated for that.

Plus, all sex is dirty and wrong, as you all no doubt already know.

With this disclaimer dutifully laid down, allow me to issue another. In the past, I have judged micro-budget indy productions by different and far more forgiving standards than I would a glossy, polished, big-studio affair like, say, For Y'ur Height Only. To some degree, this still holds true. I don't expect modest horror films made by horror film fans to have the high-tech sheen of a multi-million dollar production, or even a million dollar production, or frankly, even and hundred-thousand-dollar production. However, what I do expect is decent writing and an entertaining time. Those don't cost very much, and a movie of any scale should be able to deliver them to me. You don't get points from me anymore for simply having made a film. I know it's hard work, and it's a great personal achievement, but if I write a shitty novel, no one compliments me on the fact that, "at least you wrote a book." So technical considerations might get a pass; entertainment value considerations do not.

Finally, I am not nearly in touch with the horror underground as I used to be, which is something I'd like to rectify in the coming months since it is as fun as it is goofy. So I'm not up on the more recent filmmakers (other than my favorite punching bag, Brad Sykes) and thus not really equipped to compare Blood Oath to, say Dante Tomaselli's Satan's Playground or anyone else who might be toiling away in the trenches. I used to know a lot about this stuff, but I've been out of touch ever since Todd Sheets and movies like Splatter Farm. I need to play some catch-up, so listen up all you budding horror film directors: send me your damn movies. Well, unless it's one of those "a chilling ride alongside a serial killer" type films. I hate those.

And with all that out of the way, we can delve into the world of Blood Oath, which fails to differ itself from the countless other "maniac in the woods" films (or in remote Texas farmhouses, since the movie owes a debt to The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, among others) thanks to no real deviation from exactly the plot you expect it to have, but does differ itself by offering up undeveloped but otherwise likable characters who don't spend inordinate amounts of time yelling and arguing with each other, as well as some good direction that isn't intrusive or full of technical trickery (as in all that flashy, hyperactive editing and pointless "slow motion to super-fast motion then back to slow motion nonsense in so many horror and action movies these days).

The movie begins with a prologue in which a couple fooling around in the woods (Enrique "Papa MacBeth" Camacho and micro-budget horror mainstay Tiffany Shepis) are rudely interrupted by...a cell phone call. The fact that this guy is willing to interrupt oral sex from Tiffany Shepis in order to answer his cell phone means he's just asking for a decapitation, which is exactly what he gets. And Tiffany meets a quick and gory end as well, resulting in her part being just a cameo, but hell, she's a welcome addition to any film, even if just for a couple minutes. The scene goes on a little too long (after all, we know these people are basically out there to get killed), but not so long that it becomes infuriating. The decapitation effect is as bad as it is funny (wisely, it is the only real foray away from practical effects and into the realm of digital effects). All in all, though, it's a more promising start than in 99% of micro-budget horror films, thanks largely to the fact that Shepis is a decent actress and Camacho isn't far behind. The slightly bad news is that the film's best actors just got killed off before the credits.

From there, it's a pretty predictable script about a group of people on a camping trip who hear a legend about a murder house and the psychopath who lives there. Naturally, they go searching for it, and exactly what you expect to happen, happens. The psycho and the house are reminiscent of Leatherface and his abode in The Texas Chainsaw Massacre -- complete with gender-bending weirdness. The local legend and camping are reminiscent of (dare I invoke the unspeakable title) Blair Witch, though this movie is a straight-forward narrative and not a fake documentary, and it's not like "campers get killed" was invented by that film. Pretty much every other "killer in the woods" film shares moments with Blood Oath, since none of them ever bother to try and be the least bit different from one another. David Meier Smith's script never dares stray from exactly what you expect it to do, and this hurts the pace of the film somewhat. Blood Oath isn't actually poorly paced, but sometimes it seems that way simply because you know what's going to happen and, as a result, you tends to get impatient waiting for it to happen.

Part of the problem lies with the scenario, but part of it lies in the fact that the four principal players aren't really that interesting, so spending time with them is a little duller than spending time with someone like Vincent Price, who could be doing nothing but reading the receipt from his last trip to the grocery store and it would still seem enthralling. The leads here simply aren't very strong, and none of them are especially good actors (though most of them aren't especially bad, either, which is a welcome digression from the micro-budget norm). However, they each enjoy the saving grace of not being wretched, vile human beings.

Horror films, both big and tiny, tend to suffer from the desire to make their main group of characters as horrible, unsympathetic, and unlikable as possible, resulting in a movie full of shrieking, bitchy assholes. This is supposed to make watching them die seem more satisfying, but mostly I just find it intolerable. Rather than make the death more satisfying, it only makes it more boring since, really, why should I even give a damn? Why would anyone even hang out with most of the people in a horror film? Only reality TV manages to pack in more hateful, grating characters. Blood Oath's quartet of leads may not be developed characters, but at least you can understand why they would have friends. They're decent folk, likable even, and up until the very end, they behave like actual human beings might behave in a given situation. The male leads (Roger Horn and Jamie Reynolds) are a bit weaker as actors than the females (Natalie Hart and Katie Vaughan), but honestly, we're still light years above the average Brad Sykes actor.

And at least no one resorts of pointless "head clutching," the most ridiculous way to express "fear and panic" as discussed way back in 1998 when we reviewed Todd Sheets shot on video micro-budget horror "classic" Goblin (although there is a little too much of the runner-up, "curling up into fetal position). In fact, if you want all my reflections on DIY horror films and the trials of making such a movie, then rather than repeat myself here, I suggest you also take time out to read the reviews both of Goblin and Twisted Issues.

Actually, reflecting on Goblin and comparing it to something like Blood Oath makes me realize how far we've come in many respects. I mean, I even liked Goblin, but it's obvious Blood Oath represents a quantum leap above the beloved shot-on-video homebrew horror films of my younger days. Acting may still be bad, but many micro-budget films now have access to a network of independent horror film regulars that almost count as a professional pool of talent. Editing is light years ahead, thanks largely to the advent of digital video and editing, which frees the editor from having to deal with bulky, difficult-to-control linear VHS editing systems that meant you could only have a maximum one or two passes at a film before the VHS would degrade to the point that it would start becoming unusable.

Blood Oath does boast decent editing, better even than many of its contemporary films that tend to linger pointlessly on boring scenes because someone was too lazy to edit the scene down. The only time Blood Oath lingers pointlessly is during its gratuitous nudity (courtesy of a group of female hikers who pop up out of nowhere specifically to show their boobs and get killed), but as you all know by now, pointlessly lingering over gratuitous nudity is something of which I whole-heartedly approve.

Director Dave Buchert shows some real talent for his chosen profession. Inexperienced directors tend to either demand way too much directorial/camera intervention, resulting in intrusive direction similar to what you get in most bigger-budget horror and action films, or they set their camera up on a tripod and film scenes as if they were being acted out on a stage, with no edits and no motion at all. Buchert moves the camera around, but we're not delving into shaky-cam territory or anything. He goes for interesting angles and framing and seems to actually be trying to do a good job, as opposed to many micro-budget directors who turn in directorial jobs that stink of, "I have no talent and don't give a damn about this movie anyway." Buchert obviously has some talent, and he obviously gives a damn, and that results in a much more enjoyable movie.

The film's psycho, once revealed, is more irritating than terrifying (and the rags in which it is clad look less like the rags of a forest-dwelling psycho and more like a nice, clean patchwork quilt -- quite a feat for a freak chopping up wayward campers and with apparently only the one set of clothes), and the "final girl" twist that gets introduced doesn't really seem to have much of a point. Although the film manages to avoid eye-rolling "why the hell would anyone do that" moments for most of the running time, that starts to fall apart during the end when characters run back into the murder house for no other reason than the script demands it of them. And people do tend to linger and take a break at moments when any other person would just high tail it out of there. Once again, the predictability of the script works against the movie and one finds oneself getting impatient with the running about, since we already know where it's going to lead. I find myself sometimes shouting, "Get on with it!" even when something is happening. The script just makes it seem like the movie isn't getting on with things, even when it is.

Lest it sound like I'm kicking the screenwriter too much (writers are always meanest to other writers, after all), I should point out that, aside from decently likable characters, there are several things the script does well. For starters, it manages to generate some moments of genuine suspense. Well, maybe suspense isn't exactly the correct term. Something close to that. Although I've already picked on the fact that the plot is strictly by-the-books and thus makes the movie seem slower in spots than it really is, there are also points at which the predictability of the action contributes to heightening the tension, especially during the scenes where our intrepid quartet of Scoobie Doo kids explore the inevitable derelict farmhouse. We know it's going to end bad, and in this case -- at least for me -- that serves to make these moments sort of fun.

Of course, there's the obligatory "what the hell?" moment where, after escaping the house of terrors and the killer within, some of the characters turn around and run back inside the house. I always hate it when scripts demand that characters so something colossally stupid just to move the story along, and running back inside the house where you know a killer in a bad dress is rampaging about has got to rank up there pretty high on the list of dumb things you can do, right below killing Sho Kosugi's son or stealing something from Tony Jaa's village.

Back to the good, however, the finale is pretty well paced and well-shot, and is an example of how you can take the well-worn scene and make it good simply by executing it well. Once the film hits the final dozen minutes or so -- ie, when the action takes over from the plotting -- the editing, direction, acting, and pacing all click. How the movie is going to end was never in doubt, but Buchert and crew manage to make it a pretty fun ride regardless. Nailing the ending means that it becomes easy to forget the film's missteps throughout the rest of the running time, and the result of that is that I turned the film off, shrugged my shoulders, and thought to myself, "Well, that wasn't half bad."

Blood Oath also has the wisdom to stick to the woods and an abandoned house. Many are the micro-budget films that flaunt their cheapness by trying to pass someone's unfinished basement off as a strip club or their bedroom off as an FBI office. Horror films often stick to the woods because they're free and you don't have to do much work on sets. They allow you to mask the fact that you don't have much money by putting you in a position where you don't have to show off sets. Like Versus, Blood Oath successfully masks budgetary restraints by living within its means and not trying to pass off someone's dining room as a top secret government research facility.

At the end of the day, Blood Oath is the rare micro-budget horror film that is more good than bad, and though it has obvious flaws in the scripting and acting departments (and the acting is never so egregiously bad that I can't just roll with it), it manages to be a more enjoyable horror film than most horror films I've watched recently (and that includes not just micro-budget junk like Goth, but also big-budget junk like Hostel and those Saw movies -- oh, how I loathe you, Hostel and those Saw movies). It's well-directed, decently edited, and boasts characters you can easily tolerate. These "killer in the woods" films are sort of a horror filmmaker rite of passage. I think everyone has to make one before they can move on to anything else. Blood Oath doesn't do anything different or overly interesting with the formula, but it does apply the formula in a decent fashion. Even if Dave wasn't a friend of mine, I'd probably still be giving Blood Oath high marks for directing and overall technical craftsmanship. And even though as a writer I harp endlessly on the relative weakness of the script, I still came out of Blood Oath heaving a sigh of relief over the realization that I really did think the film was all right, and I could write an honest review of it and not feel like I was sticking a dagger into someone's heart.

Well, at least not very far.

Labels: , , ,

posted by Keith at | 5 Comments


Friday, January 20, 2006

Bay of Blood

1971, Italy. AKA Twitch of the Death Nerve. Starring Claudine Auger, Luigi Pistilli, Claudio Camaso, Anna Maria Rosati, Cristea Avram, Leopoldo Trieste, Laura Betti, Brigitte Skay, Isa Miranda, Paola Montenero, Guido Boccaccini, Roberto Bonanni, Giovanni Nuvoletti. Directed by Mario Bava. Written by Mario Bava.

I'm going to have to cram a bunch of history up front in this review, so if you already know most of it, please forgive me. I feel it sets the stage properly for those among you who aren't nerdy enough to have a vast and swelling knowledge of the ins and outs of British censorship efforts, Italian slasher-thriller movies, and the joyous day those two tastes were plunged together into a scrummy treat known as the "Video Nasties" list.

Let me first take back to a time when Samantha Fox was still a fox and the world was just beginning to discover the pleasure of home video systems. England has always had a somewhat contentious relationship with cinema censorship, and certain types who like to get upset over idiotic things were worried about the fact that the rules governing the rating, licensing, and editing of films for release to British theaters had not been written in a language that would allow them to be applied equally to films distributed on video. This little lapse in the foresight of censorship laws to anticipate the invention and subsequent wildfire-like spread of VCRs meant that films previously cut or banned could be legally (more or less) distributed in uncut format on videotape.

Certain newspapers (The sensationalist Daily Mail being the leading culprit) in need of a moral crusade over which to express their burning outrage and indignation began a crusade against the potential free-for-all of home video, dubbing the sick and disgusting movies one could acquire for home viewing the "video nasties," since movies that benefited from the loophole were presumably packed with sex and violence and swarthy Italians stabbing each other in the eye. Having nothing better to do that day, and perhaps looking for something that would take the edge off less important problems, like the IRA putting bombs in garbage bins and mailboxes, the cause was embraced, thereby turning a bunch of films it was likely no one wanted to see in the first place into overnight legends and must-have taboo items.

With a few swift strokes of the quill pen (I assume they still use those in England), a whole stack of awful movies got to plaster their oversized 1980s boxes with the phrase, "Banned in the U.K." For most of these movies -- the bulk of which were horror films from the United States and Italy which were considered so heinous in their content that they would fray the very moral fabric of youth Britannia -- there was no better advertising than being placed on the instantly-infamous Video Nasties list. Whatever revenues were lost by having British borders sealed against their intrusion was undoubtedly recouped via the spike in interest the banning caused elsewhere. The Young Ones did a whole episode revolving around efforts to obtain one of the movies on the Nasties list, and The Damned wrote a song about it.

However, listing the Video Nasties as "banned" is slightly misleading. At the time the list was created, film censorship was handled by the courts, and a certain standard had to be met for a film to be eligible for censorship or outright banning. The Video Nasties list was actually a list of films the public prosecutors thought would be worth pursuing in court. So they were not so much banned as they were "potentially banned," with excessive sex, violence, or more importantly, sex-related violence being the primary focus of moral disgust. Just getting on the list was enough to effectively keep a film out of England, though, because no company wanted to invest money in releasing a tape that could potentially be confiscated a couple weeks or months later. Anyway, that's how I understand the history of the list. I may have taken a misstep here and there, so please alert me if I have.

Reading through the list can cause one to take pause and wonder what sort of criteria went into developing the titles that appear on it. Some of them make sense. If you're going to ban a sick and perverse film, you can't do much better than have Cannibal Holocaust as your poster child. But other titles seem straight out of left field, with nothing in them that could possibly justify a banning under the guidelines set up by the BBFC for a country where Benny Hill could still conjure up random gusts of wind that would make a buxom lady's dress blow off, thus causing her to run around in fast motion wearing nothing but her knickers while Benny fluttered his eyelashes. Sure, some of the movies were gory, but really, where was the danger to morality in a movie as ludicrous as Lucio Fulci's Zombie or Luigi Cozzi's Contamination? And how did a movie like Tobe Hooper's Funhouse make the list? Or Dario Argento's Inferno, easily one of the least gory films he'd made?

The big problem with the list, it was revealed, was that not only did it make a bunch of crappy, boring films (and some genuinely good ones) instant must-see "classics" of shock cinema, but the titles on the list were often placed there by people who had never seen the actual movie, or had simply run across a picture of the box art, or had gotten the movie confused with some other movie. It was a complete hodge-podge with no real research put into it. And like most attempts to ban or censor horror films, it only increased interest in the movies that made the cut, so to speak.

Fulci's Zombie, Sam Raimi's Evil Dead, and Umberto Lenzi's Make them Die Slowly benefited hugely from inclusion on the list. I distinctly remember the giant boxes in the video store for both Zombie and Make them Die Slowly celebrating the banning of the films in England. Most of the movies on the list have since been released in the UK uncut on DVD, but having been place don the Video Nasties list will forever remain a badge of accomplishment for many of the titles. Heck, for some of them, it's about the only good thing they have going for them. Can you imagine fighting customs agents, smuggling in a video, risking fines and imprisonment, then sitting down to discover all your effort resulted in a movie as godawful boring as Funhouse?

Among the titles on the list was Mario Bava's 1971 proto-slasher film Bay of Blood, known these days in the United States as Twitch of the Death Nerve. Bava, as you should know, is considered more or less the godfather of the Italian horror films, and one of the legendary greats of the genre as a whole. Any list of the best horror films of all time compiled by someone who knows about movies made before 1995 or so is pretty likely to contain at least one, and possibly several, Mario Bava films: gothic horror films Black Sunday (aka Mask of Satan) starring Barbara Steele, Kill, Baby...Kill!, or The Whip and the Body starring Christopher Lee; or perhaps his more modern horror films like Twitch of the Death Nerve and Blood and Black Lace. Bava's visual style was defined by his affinity for moody, hallucinatory atmosphere and candy-colored phantasmagorical lighting and remains to this day a major influence on filmmakers. With Blood and Black Lace, he pretty much created the Italian giallo film -- murder mysteries and supernatural thrillers that drew heavily from pulp novels and relied heavily on shocking murders and a highly stylized visual approach.

Since Bava was from an older generation of filmmaker, he tended to restrain himself when it came to sex and gore. There was titillation, to be sure, and plenty of violence. But nudity was rare, sex scenes were non-existent, and bloody gore almost never made an appearance. Even as other filmmakers embraced increasingly lax regulations about what they could show on screen, Bava -- like his contemporaries at England's Hammer Studios -- stayed his hand. At least until 1971.

Perhaps it was the fact that Bava had been saddled with a string of unsatisfying projects, thus filling the venerable director with frustration he needed to vent. Maybe he just thought the time was right. Or maybe he felt that the script for Bay of Blood was witty and funny enough for people to recognize that the excess was there to create an almost comic book-like sense of the absurd that couldn't possibly be taken seriously by anyone. Whatever the motivation, Bava decided to pull out the stops for Bay, which has ended up with more titles than I care to list. I'm sticking with Bay because it's the shortest.

The film opens with serene shots of a wooded lake. As the credits role, it becomes evident that we're following the flight of an insect. As the credits wrap up, the fly suddenly and without reason drops dead. It's a foreshadowing of what's to come -- that anyone, and any time, is going to die in this film; that they will, in fact, be dropping like flies. Mimicking this opening is the next scene, which consists of an old woman in a wheelchair puttering about her fancy abode. Her daily routine is rudely interrupted when a man appears and strangles her with a noose, leaving her dead and dangling in a doorway. One would assume that the remainder of the film would revolve around various players attempting to discover the identity of the murderer, but Bava short-circuits that expectation by immediately panning up and revealing the killer's face -- then promptly has the killer murdered by yet another killer. I don't know if you would call this "playful," but it is an indicator that Bava is going to infuse this film with a little more humor than might be expected in a film with a title like Bay of Blood.

From there, the story proper kicks in. After the old woman's death, the home and accompany murky lake are up for grabs by a cast of potential heirs, all of whom descend upon the house ostensibly for the sorting out of the will, but mostly so they can plot, connive, and be murdered by the mysterious assailant. Most of the cast is of a nasty disposition, and all of them have various things to hide. The twists and turns in gialli are often, oh let's say, either far-fetched or completely uninteresting, but Bava keeps viewers guessing and interested in the identity of the killer -- or killers, because it seems more than one person is bloodying their axe at this remote paradise. There's not much point in going through the machinations and revelations of the plot, since listing who stabs who inthe back (sometimes literally) doesn't have the same impact of simply lying back and watching the bloody delerium unfold on the screen. Suffice it to say that no one is especially nice, not even the odl woman we see murdered int he very beginning. It's possible that the symbolic fly from the credit sequence was a nice enough fellow, but then given the fly's tendency to vomit it's filthy eggs onto the top of your sandwich, it's likely that the fly was as much a scheming jerk as everyone else.

Bay is a strong film, though not my favorite Bava outing (I prefer Kill, Baby...Kill! and Blood and Black Lace). Still, it's one of the best giallo films ever made, and it also has the somewhat dubious honor of being considered by many to be the first "slasher" film. For my money, establishing the first slasher film is a tricky proposition -- why is this a slasher film and Blood and Black Lace not? Whatever the case, it certainly means the slasher film was boiling long before the previously cited "first" slasher film, John Carpenter's Halloween. Without a doubt, Halloween was the impetus for the flood o' blood that spilled during much of the 1980s, but the Friday the 13th films have pretty much become the poster children, however bad most of them may have been, for the whole genre. There's not much doubt in my mind that the template for the F13 films was lifted wholesale from Mario Bava's much smarter, cleverer Bay of Blood.

Bay establishes all the essential genre cliches that would be mercilessly flogged some ten years or so later. You have the remote, wooded location and a seemingly complete lack of police force. You have the diverse group of generally unlikable characters. You have most of those characters getting murdered by sometimes outlandish methods, then piled up in some central location for someone else to stumble across. And perhaps most important of all, you have the founding of the "get naked, then get killed" pattern that became the lifeblood, so to speak, of the entire slasher genre. Bava flirted with nudity in previous films, but it was generally incidental -- who would make a movie with Edwige Fenech, for instance, and not get her naked for at least a couple shots? With Bay of Blood, however, Bava went further with nudity than he had before, though it's still nothing compared to what we'd be seeing in the coming years from other Italian thrillers. But what's more important is that the film sets up the pattern: a woman gets naked, either for sex or for skinny dipping, and moments later they get skewered.

Much has been made of the psychological implications of this tendency, that it is a manifestation of a repressed and/or oppressive male reaction to female liberation, arguments like that. In many of the later slasher movies, I don't doubt this one bit. It's mean-spirited venting, scenes written by frustrated horror writing nerds who weren't getting lucky with naked women of their own, so they take their frustrations out on female characters, and then in turn provide both titillation and some sort of grim, twisted satisfaction for the portion of the viewing population that shares their sentiments. With Bava, however, the entire premise seems less sinister, but that may just be me. What makes Bay of Blood markedly different from the slasher films it would inspire is the undeniable sense of humor that pervades everything. It's a twisted sense of humor, no doubt, but it's obvious that Mario Bava is out on a bit of a lark with this film, and as such there's really no point to getting especially upset or unnerved by any of the implications. Bava has always, in my eyes, been a slightly less controlled and more visually daring peer of Alfred Hitchcock, and Bay feels similar in many ways to late-era Hitchcock, or a particularly edgy Agatha Christie novel.

There are plenty of other elements that set Bay of Blood apart from the pack it eventually unleashed. For starters, Mario Bava is a much better director than just about everyone else who made a slasher film, many of whom were helming one of their first films when they slid behind the camera to shoot the carnage in the woods, or wherever their film may have been set (it was probably the woods). But Bava was a veteran director, cinematographer, and writer by 1971, with some four decades of experience under his belt. His visual flare and stylistic approach shines through. He also has the good sense to populate his movie not just with a bunch of more or less anonymous, pretty throw-away non-actors who do nothing more than serve as fodder for the killer, but also with a cast of seasoned vets who know their way around a movie and lend it an element of maturity that is sorely missing from the teen slasher films of the eighties. Bond fans will be pleased to stumble across Thunderball Bond girl Claudine Auger in the film. Me? I'd be happy to stumble across Claudine Auger just about anywhere.

So Bay of Blood is neither your typical giallo or your typical slasher film. It's something much smarter and better composed than the bulk of films it inspired, as is often the case. It was Bava's last great film, though I might be willing say second-to-last, as Lisa and the Devil is pretty spectacular and by far his weirdest film. Bay is mean but not exactly mean-spirited, clever without being irritating, and really just sort of nastily funny. One gets the feeling that Bava really relished the opportunity, after infusing so many of his films with a humanist compassion toward the lead characters, to simply cut loose and let a bunch of conniving, spoiled schemers really have it.

So why did it make the Video Nasties list? You'd have to ask whoever put it on there, but my guess would be the mix of bare breasts and bloody mayhem caused it to be placed in the crosshairs. But it's just as likely that the box art set someone off, or that one of the people compiling the list was trying to sell some bayfront property and thought a title like this might hurt their chances. Whatever the case, while the Video Nasties list is nothing more than an oddity of eighties entertainment paranoia that has been largely forgotten except as the butt of jokes, Mario Bava and Bava's Bay of Blood have been rediscovered by a new generation thanks to DVD, and Bava's influence and importance to filmmaking continues to be explored and exalted.

Labels: , , , ,

posted by Keith at | 0 Comments


Wednesday, August 01, 2001

Silent Night, Deadly Night

1984, United States. Robert Brian Wilson, Starring Lilyan Chauvin, Gilmer McCormick, Toni Nero, Britt Leach, Nancy Borgenicht, H.E.D. Redford, Linnea Quigley, Leo Geter, Randy Stumpf, Will Hare, Tara Buckman, Charles Dierkop. Directed by Charles E. Sellier Jr.

Although I'm a huge fan of horror, I'm not so hot on slasher films. Oh sure, I like the original Halloween, but that's like saying Curly is your favorite Stooge, or Curly is your favorite Globe Trotter. Who doesn't feel that way? But with precious few exceptions, I have very little patience with slasher films despite having cut my b-movie teeth on them as a lad during the late 1970s and early 1980s, the golden age of such films. When it comes to horror, give me a good ghost or zombie film any day, or even a bad ghost or zombie film.

With the recent glut of teen slasher films to hit the market in the wake of gratingly annoying Scream, things have been made even worse. Now you have to endure not only the age-old slasher formula, but you have to watch it being done with a ludicrously obvious "aren't we so clever" style of self-referentialism. Ha ha ha, sure it's a bad movie, but we all know it's bad, and because we tried to make a bad movie, and the movie is bad, it must be a good movie. Such is the reasoning in this era where any piss-poor flop of a movie will be repackaged as "witty satire and spoofing," and suddenly your hunk of head cheese is "smart and cutting edge."

About the only thing that could make the slasher films of the 1990s tolerable is if one of them was about a fed-up horror fan hunting down and killing everyone who ever had any involvement in Scream and it's seemingly infinite number of clones. Yep, that means you, to, Wes Cravens. You think we've forgotten that you not only gave us Scream, but also have titles like Shocker to your credit as well?

Slasher films have always been pretty lame, but the slasher films of today completely lack any guts -- figuratively as well as literally. One of the first things that struck me while watching Silent Night, Deadly Night, one of the sillier but also better films of the early 1980s slasher boom, was how much more you could get away with back then. I mean, we talk about how repressed the Reagan era was and how shockingly violent the films of today have become, but the truth is very much the opposite. We were living the high life in the 1980s, and the films of today, while featuring bigger and louder explosions, are relatively anemic and, well, wimpy when compared to their forefathers. Where's the grue, baby? If you're not going to challenge my intellect or bring on some scare, you better hit me with heavy doses of the red stuff. The modern slasher film is as tame as one of those muzzled bears that wears a tu-tu and rides around on a unicycle at a circus, but not even 10% as entertaining or morally offensive.

Even if the slashers of old were rather rotten films, at least they had running through them a streak of serious misanthropic meanness, which was far easier to swallow than the condescending, "See, we're goofing on the whole genre because we're so clever!" attitude that has ruined the horror film and become nothing more than a crutch for people to use in justifying their lack of creativity and talent. At least the old slasher films, dumb as toast though they may have been, were bold enough to sock us with a little brutal gore.

So, with that said, let's move on to our look at one of the better scary Santa films, and one of the better slasher films in general. Our film begins on Christmas Eve, that magical night, with little Billy and his family en route to visit crazy ol' grandpa in the nursing home. Unfortunately, gramps is a vegetable and doesn't respond very much to the visit. The adults go off to discuss grandpa's state, leaving little Billy to set next to the catatonic old man. Nothing says Christmas joy to a child quite like being left to sit in a room with catatonic drooling old men.

But hark! Gramps is not so far gone into the realm beyond that he can't snap out of it long enough to give the "cackling old man" warning that seemed to be part of all slasher films. In every one of them, our heroes encounter some goofball old man who laughs a lot -- but in an evil way, like how you laugh at Carrot Top, not in a funny way, like how you laugh at the pain of those around you. Grandpa cackles and tells Billy that Santa may bring toys to all the good little boys and girls, but he brings swift and brutal vengeance down upon those who have offended his sense of morality.

Gramps then lapses back into a state of coma just in time to not be seen by the adults, leaving Billy's opinion of Jolly Ol' St. Nick forever changed. Had the kid gone to see the abysmal Santa Claus: The Movie starring Dudley Moore as an alcoholic millionaire elf (or something), Billy would have already developed a healthy grudge against Santa. I mean, this is the guy who, when you want a new GI Joe Figure, brings you "GI Army Man," the K-Mart knock-off of a GI Joe figure. So what you get is just close enough to what you wanted, yet still so very far away, that your disappointment is far greater than if you'd just gotten some socks instead. This is what Santa does to us.

Meanwhile, a guy wearing a Santa suit robs a store, murders the clerk, then promptly breaks down on a dark and deserted road. Just as Billy is really getting worked up by a rather disturbing "Santa Claus is Creepin' Around" carol about how Santa is looking in your windows and watching you masturbate (well, those weren't the exact words, but it was the gist of it), the family stumbles across broke-down Killin' Claus. Being a murderous guy and all, he promptly kills Billy's dad. Billy escapes and hides, only to witness Santa rape, mutilate, and eventually kill his mother. Only Billy and his newborn brother survive. Fade to black.

And fade back in some years later. Billy and his brother are in one of those orphanages run by abusive nuns. Luckily, all orphanages run by really abusive mean old nuns generally keep at least one cute and kindly young nun on staff. Something about quotas or something, I'm told. Billy is a fairly well-adjusted young boy, at least until the time o' Yule roles around. Then he starts drawing pictures of Santa murdering people. The good nun is suspicious that Billy may still be haunted by the murder of his parents, but the Mother Superior blows that off and says he remembers absolutely nothing about it, even though it happened when he was like seven years old and it's only been a couple years. You'd think that the whole drawing pictures of Santa slaughtering people, not to mention screaming like a banshee and running away any time he catches sight of a guy in a Santa suit, might be enough to disprove Mother Superior's theory that the murders did not affect him in any way whatsoever.

Her solution for his irrational fear of Santa, founded on nothing more than the flimsy fact that he once watched Santa rape and murder him mom and shoot his dad in the head, is to make him hang around people dressed as Santa all the time. In one of the film's better sequences, she tries to force a screaming Billy to sit on Santa's lap as Santa chuckles heartily. Little Billy hauls off and slugs Santa, knocking his fat ass out of the chair into into the Christmas scene. I don't know. I guess I'm easily amused, but I never get tired of that scene.

Not helping Billy's mental state out any is Mother Superior's obsession with punishing naughtiness, something that Billy also remembers St. Nick doing. She relishes beating the children, and nothing makes her day more than catching teenagers having sex and whipping them but good. Billy has the good fortune of watching some teenagers go at it and get busted, thus does he learn that sex is naughty.

We then skip ahead some years again, and find Billy has grown into a muscular and fine looking young man played by Robert Brian Wilson. The cute and kindly nun, who apparently does not age, gets Billy a job in the stock room of a toy store, which seems a rather stupid thing to do for a kid who sent into fits of convulsing and hysterics at the mere thought of Santa Claus. Sure things are fine through the summer because Billy does not have a deep rooted fear of guys on stilts dressed as Uncle Sam, but did they think that Christmas wasn't eventually going to roll around, or that maybe this toy store wouldn't really be into it?

Billy's a good worker, but his manager is a dick. He always makes Billy do the hard work, then takes all the credit. I think we can all relate to this, and I think we also know who's going to be the first to go once the mayhem begins. Billy also gets to flirt with the right cute Pamela (Toni Nero), but of course, even though Billy is handsome and buff and polite and treats her with respect and friendliness, she shacks up with the asshole guy. Ain't it always the case?

As Christmas approaches, Billy begins to get a little touchy. On Christmas Eve, the guy who was supposed to play the in-store Santa calls in sick, and everyone agrees that Billy would make a great Santa. he spends most of the day whispering to little children about how Santa will punish them severely if they do anything naughty.

After hours, the staff gathers together for a late-night party, presumably because none of them have any family of their own. The asshole guy tries to put the moves on Pam, but she resists, resulting in him slapping her around and tearing her shirt off in a scene that looks just like the one between the evil Santa and Billy's mom. Unfortunately for the asshole guy, Billy sees it, and it finally pushes him over the edge. Clad in his Santa suit, he assumes the powers of retribution and punishment granted Santa, or so he sees it. He makes quick work of the asshole, strangling him with some cords, but is so far gone that he can't help but see Pamela as anything but naughty. So she gets punished as well.

Being on a roll, he offs the owner of the store and the head cashier as well, all in fairly gory fashion. one thing I like about this movie more than many other slasher films is that the methods of killing, while sometimes a bit silly, never reach the level of absolute absurdity that they tended to in other films, where someone might wish that they could be a glowing star atop a Christmas tree, only to later be impaled by a glowing star atop a Christmas tree. For the most part, Billy just grabs whatever's handy, usually a hammer or an ax, and goes to town.

Meanwhile, in the Donald Pleasance role from Halloween, the cute nun realizes that Billy was made to play Santa, and it's driven him mad. So she pursues him across town with the cops, always one or two steps behind him and his mayhem. The role of these characters is twofold. First, they must provide exposition on the mental state of the killer. In this, it's all about how Billy's fear of Santa and his associating Santa with murderous punishment, has driven him to kill. In Halloween, Pleasance got to ramble about talking about pure eee-ville in the eyes of a boy.

Their second function is to show up at the scene of a grisly murder and mutter, "He's been here."

Billy is off having a field day of death while the cops bungle to and fro. Among his many Santa stops is a home where two teens -- one of whom is a young Linnea Quigley before age and drugs took their toll -- are getting it on atop a pool table while the young girl they are babysitting lurks about upstairs wondering about what Santa will bring her. Of course, Santa is bringing a stocking full o' pain this year, and he expresses his distaste for premarital sex by impaling poor Linnea on the antlers of a mounted deer head, then takes out her boyfriend as well. The boyfriend is played by that blonde haired dude who plays the sort of snobby blonde hair dude in all sorts of films during the 1980s. I think he got his ass kicked by Ralph Macchio.

The best part of this whole scene is when the little girl sees Billy as Santa sneaking out of the house. She stops him to say hi, and Billy asks her if she's done anything naughty as he slowly draws a utility knife. She assures him she is nice, not naughty. Appeased by her innocence, Billy gives her a gift: the utility knife. It's a priceless moment because Billy's face is so earnest, and whoever the little girl actress is has an absolutely wonderful look of confusion.

Billy then hauls ass out to some remote sledding hill where a couple of sled-hill bullies are picking on two other kids. I first laughed at the notion of teenage tough guys who hang out on snowy hills bullying people and stealing their sleds. I grew up near all sorts of sled hills and bullies, and none of them seemed to rank ruling the sled hill very high on their list of priorities. They had more important things to do, like airbrushing a picture of a half naked elf maiden on the side of their van or learning how to play "Beth" so they could sing it to their girlfriend. The first time I encountered the sled hill bully was in the film Jack Frost, and I made fun of it. But now I see this movie also has sled hill bullies, so I have to assume that these people do in fact exist. They have to be pretty damn low on the bully scale though, the wimpy bullies that other bullies make fun of. Sled hill bullies must be the bully equivalent of Lucky the Leprechaun, who had to guard a bowl of cereal when all the other leprechauns got to guard pots of gold.

Just like the sled hill bullies in Jack Frost, one of the sled hill bullies here goes sledding down the hill only to get decapitated, this time by the ax-weilding Billy. I don't know if Billy was following these two guys around hoping they would do something naughty, or if he was just crouching out there in the middle of the woods just hoping someone naughty might happen by. He could have been out there a pretty long time, and since Santa has to get all his death delivered before Christmas morning, you think he'd be more conscious of time.

The fuzz and their nun figure Billy is going to head for the orphanage to kill that annoying Mother Superior. Quite frankly, though I'd never advocate the ax murdering of cranky old nuns in real life, within the context of this film, it's really difficult to drum up any hope that she'll be saved in the nick of time. In a brilliant stroke, the police issue orders to shoot on sight all people dressed as Santa, which seems like a really stupid order to give on Christmas. Sure enough, a cop staking out the orphanage drops the first Santa he spies, which happens to be some poor priest visiting the kids. Do priests really dress up as Santa? I figured they would always dismiss Santa as some Pagan devilry, but I guess getting a Christmas day visit from a guy dressed as Jesus, while more religious, isn't as uplifting for the kids. besides, you'd have to find a real sucker to walk around in a loin cloth and crown of thorns in December.

The cop doesn't have much time to be wrought with Catholic guilt over having killed an innocent man, because Billy shows up soon thereafter and plants an ax in the guy. Then he moves on to Mother Superior. Billy is let in by his little brother, who weirdly enough, is still the same age he was when Billy was ten. Mother Superior, ever the cast-iron bitch, just keeps on shouting at poor Billy, even though he's dressed as Santa and carrying an ax coated with the blood of the naughty. This seems at least as smart as that drill sergeant screaming at a raving lunatic holding a loaded rifle in Full Metal Jacket, only this one is even worse because the guy is dressed as Santa. See, whether you believe in God or not, whether you feel your faith is like an aegis against all evil, one thing you should not do is insult a crazy guy dressed as Santa carrying an ax. I try to give you good advice, and this is pretty high up there.

Just as Bill is about to cleave the abusive nun in two, the cops show up and blow him away. Christmas is saved!

Of course, being a horror film, it has to have an open ending, so we zoom in on Billy's little bro, staring at his dying sibling, then pointing and chirping "Naughty!"

The thing that sets this apart from most other slasher films is that they really try hard to make an interesting character out of Billy, and they succeed. Although it's hard to get behind his ax murderin', we can certainly understand and pity him after all he has gone through. There is a depth of character not present in most films of this nature, and not present in any films of any nature these days.

There's also a pretty strong statement against the whole concept of "Catholic guilt," which keeps us ashamed of damn near everything we might actually want to do. The movie characterizes religion in the Mother Superior, who in her own way is as looney as Billy winds up being. Rather than chopping up the naughty with an ax, she abuses them mercilessly and subjects them to constant mental anguish. The one good nun we see is ineffectual against the greater notion of punishment for all sins real and perceived.

If you were crazy or stoned, or just really pretentious, or in need of an essay, you could also look at Murderin' Santa versus the nuns as being symbolic of ancient Pagan traditions fighting with Christianity. As just about everyone knows, I assume, Christmas was more or less an invented holiday. Jesus wasn't born on December 25th, or so say most Biblical scholars. But Christians needed a way to convince the wild pagans of the north -- my people, incidentally -- to become God-fearin', repressed, guilt-ridden Christians like everyone else. So they made up Christmas, and put it on December 25th, a significant Pagan holiday. That way they wouldn't even have to change their day of celebration. Santa remains a symbol of Christmas' pagan roots, which is why so many devout Christians don't care for the jolly fat toymaker. You can find hours of amusing reading material about how Santa=Satan, and how Santa is just a way for drunk homosexual hobos to get little kids to sit on their laps.

I'm generally not one to harsh on another's religion. I realize some people take that stuff seriously. Having been raised with no religion, and having leanings toward the wild-eyed Paganism of my ancestors kicking it up in the far northern reaches of Scotland, I'm not big on religious persecution and am willing to live and live. But I have no problem making endless amounts of fun at the twisted, hate-mongering freaks of the world who use religion as a convenient excuse to subject those around them to constant abuse and pain, whether they be Catholic, Baptist, Muslim, or Zoroastrian.

These are the people who make me want to go skyclad to one of their little ice cream socials, hooting like a madman and dancing naked under the moon while twirling about a walking stick and brandishing a copy of The Hobbit or some other foul tome of Satanism. The people who use God or any diety as an excuse to hate another race, burn or ban a book, attack a person for their sexual preference, and generally bend the world to match their incredibly warped and bitter version of morality are the sword enemies of Teleport City, and we issue forth like a great muster of loin-cloth clad heathens bent on annoying these people endlessly by simply not adhering to their repressed, guilt-riddled, hateful views on life and how to live it. Hear the call! We are all around ye, and we're naked!

So right here in a 1980s slasher film we have the continuing struggle of Paganism against repressive Christianity, and after centuries of being hunted, burned, hanged, tortured, and forced to convert, the Pagans finally got themselves an ax-wielding Claus. Let the games begin!

The whole mythology of Santa and his role in corrupting Christians is muddied when one takes into account the plot of the Mexican movie Santa Claus, in which Santa faces off against the minions of Satan. So just who is Santa? A rogue demon all dressed in red, as much at odds with the kingdom of Christ as he is with the minions of the Dark Lord? A lone warrior playing judge, jury, and in the case of this film, executioner? Who is he, and what does he want? It becomes obvious, then, that Santa is in fact some sort of proto-vigilante, an avenging angel, very much like Charles Bronson's character in Death Wish or The Punisher in spirit, if not in attire.

Perhaps, however, this film is far more subversive. A secret fundamentalist recruitment movie aiming to undermine our children's trust in Santa Claus, to teach them that he is evil, and only an out-of-shape old cop with a loaded revolver can offer you eternal salvation.

Silent Night, Deadly Night also succeeds in being clever from time to time. The utility knife scene is simply hilarious in a very dry way, and the frequent allusions to the punishment of naughty people and the Christmas carols about Santa sneaking about are well-done, even if they are a bit obvious. Put in the context of this film, you begin to realize how weird the whole concept of a laughing fat man keeping tabs on you, then breaking into your home to leave you gifts or coal, actually is. Once harmless carols become far more disturbing when set to scenes of Santa knocking people off.

As I said in the beginning, I was surprised to see just how much this film was able to get away with, and how pathetically tame modern slasher films seem by comparison. It'd been some fifteen years since I'd last watched this movie, and I found it pretty effective. It held up well, and pitted against the slashers of the 1990s and the 2000s, Silent Night, Deadly Night would plant an ax in their head, shove a Christmas tree up their bum, then dance gleefully about their useless quivering corpses whilst laughing heartily.

Sure it's a silly film. I mean, it's about a guy dressed as Santa killing people. There's a built-in silliness in that scenario. But beyond the goofiness, there's actually a decently-constructed horror film here that takes on religious issues and manages to create a central character that is evil and all, but also invokes pity and sympathy for all that he's endured. We witness his progression into madness, and it's well done.

I went into Silent Night, Deadly Night expecting to be groaning in pain throughout, much like I so on Christmas Eve when my family gathers around to chain smoke and watch golf on television all night. I was pleasantly surprised to find a fairly enjoyable slasher film that certainly had more thought put into it than most other films of the genre.

Labels: ,

posted by Keith at | 0 Comments


Saturday, March 03, 2001

Uncle Sam

1996, United States. Starring: Jason Adelman, Isaac Hayes, Laura Alcalde, Raquel Alessi, Abby Ball, Stan Barrett, Timothy Bottoms, Mark Chadwick, Richard Cumming, Chris Durand, Matthew Flint, Robert Forster, David 'Shark' Fralick, Tim Grimm, Bo Hopkins, Taylor Jones, Desirae Klein, Jason Lustig, Tom McFadden, Zachary McLemon, Leslie Neale, Christopher Ogden, Morgan Paull, Frank Pesce, P.J. Soles, Anne Tremko, Joseph Vitare. Directed by William Lustig.

After finishing this movie (a feat in itself), I realized I'd been way to hard on Jack Frost. That movie is actually pretty good when compared to Uncle Sam.

Somewhere, a group of people were sitting around, probably smoking pot, and one of them said, "You know what would be really scary? A dude dressed as Uncle Sam going around killing people." Thus the movie was born. Obviously, the writers of the film had some issues with those Uncle Sam guys on stilts -- and frankly, that's one thing I agree with them on. What's up with that? Did Uncle Sam walk around during the Revolutionary War on giant stilts, waving and going "Hey there, you limey bastards!" Uncle Sam stilt guys are only slightly less disturbing than clowns and David Bowie.

I really don't know where to begin with this one. It's major downfall is that it isn't a tongue-in-cheek comedy. At least Jack Frost knew better than to take itself seriously. This movie actually comes at you with all sorts of rather heavy-handed preaching (not to mention heavy-handed pacing) about America, freedom of speech, and making war sound like a glorious adventure. It seems like someone had an actual message to deliver. Too bad this was their envelope.

You might wonder why I keep bringing up Jack Frost. Other than just getting a kick out of mentioning Jack Frost as much as possible, and apart from the fact that I rented them both at the same time and watched them back to back (I dare any of you to try and do the same), there are actual other similarities. Both come from A-Pix pictures, which I think might just be Full Moon Productions in disguise. Damnit, a movie like this does not get made without Charles Band being involved!!! Both boxes feature almost identical "holograms of terror." Both suck. But at least Jack Frost was funky enough to be somewhat enjoyable.

Uncle Sam has a real cast, or at least people who, in a better film, might comprise a real cast. B-movie veteran PJ Soles is in it for a few, and my man Isaac Hayes stars as a war vet minus one leg. Haye's presence in the film created the only real tension. We desperately wanted him to live and were on the edge of our seats wondering if Isaac would beat the odds and make it to the end. This isn't even a function of the "black man must always die" thing horror films get tagged with; it's more a function of my expectation that any big name star costs too much to employ for the entire film, so they are killed off first. Dispatch with Roddy McDowell and leave us with 80 minutes of Clu Gulager.

Luckily for the makers of Uncle Sam, Isaac had lost most of his money to the IRS and other tools of The Man. It was before he was mining South Park gold, so I guess he worked pretty cheap to pay the bills.

So what we have here is a movie where some asshole gets killed by "friendly fire" during the Gulf War. They finally find his body and ship it back to his hometown, where his wife and sister commiserate about what an abusive sumbitch he was. His sisters creepy son, however, idolizes his dead uncle and spends a lot of time trying to open the coffin.

This goes on for about 40 minutes. Yes, nearly half the film is spent in the living room. Occasionally Isaac Hayes limps in to give a speech about the horrors of war. The boy, who is like a frail, sickly version of Henry Thomas from ET, has bad "1970s kid" hair even though this movie was made in 1996. I thought he was freaky, but things got even worse when they introduced his doughy, blind friend. More on that later.

Meanwhile, Jody is busy being all clammy and creepy and arguing with his teacher about military service. Wait a second. Where the hell do these people live. In the movie, the Fourth of July is in just a couple days, and they're still in school? Jeez, that sucks. I guess this really is a horror movie.

Eventually, the corpse gets it's lazy ass around to rising from the grave, or at least from the coffin. It took him 40 minutes to do that, and he didn't even have to claw his way up out of the ground. What a bum. Anyway, the best I can come up with is that he rises from the grave because ... well, fuck it. Point is, he's dead and decayed and ready to kick some commie ass. First he goes after some flag burning neo-nazi teens. No wait, first he goes after an Uncle Sam guy on stilts. This guy uses his position as the town's official "Uncle Sam Guy on stilts" to look into women's windows while they are undressing. Somehow, I think there less conspicuous ways to peep than on stilts while wearing a shiny red, white, and blue outfit. Even dull people tend to notice things like that.



Anyway, Sam offs Sam and takes his costume. Why? Because this movie is called Uncle Sam. And the zombie's name is Sam, and he's the kid's uncle. You see where I am going with this?



After the peeping tom and the teenagers, Sam shows up at the 4th of July parade, where he offs a draft-dodging teacher, a crooked lawyer, a greedy politician, some pot smoking teen, and another Nazi youth kid who was bullying people in a potato sack race.



Yes, the "Potato Sack Bully" is right up there with the "Sled-Ridin' Gang" from Jack Frost. These vicious gangs must be stopped! And luckily, a serial killin' snowman and a zombie dressed up like Uncle Sam are ready for the job.



Most of the murders take place off camera because they can't afford to stage any special effects.



Later on, Sam kills a cop who was dating his wife. Creepy hero, Jody, learns about Sam's true nature as an abuser, rapist, and incestuous child molester. This pasty blind kid shows up (he was maimed in a bizarre fireworks accident) and all of a sudden has a psychic ability to sense where Sam is. At first it seemed like Sam and the doughboy were pals. But I guess they aren't as he and the creepy kid seek the aid of Isaac Hayes, who steals a Revolutionary War cannon to use against Sam.



This movie takes itself way too seriously. I mean, the guy is dressed like Uncle Sam. But everything is buried under mountains of rhetoric about the horrors of war, the corruption of America, and other such lofty things. It's a message best not delivered by a murderous zombie dressed as Uncle Sam. But even worse than that is the fact that most of this movie consists of people sitting around. I'm a patient man, but sometimes, enough is enough.



Isaac Hayes does what he can. Too bad he didn't write the score. The creepy kid, Jody, is pretty flat, but he's no worse than any other kid. Still, he's pretty far up on my Ichirometer (Ichiro being the little kid from Godzilla's Revenge and the living embodiment of everything an annoying little kid should be). The doughy boy is even creepier. And why was he so wise all of a sudden?



This movie really sucks. It's not even much fun. I would definitely rather watch Jack Frost. Hell, I'd rather watch any of the Leprechaun movies than ever suffer through Uncle Sam again. But perhaps this movie will make you question blind patriotism, hero worship, and the corruption of America.



It made me question what the hell I'd been thinking when I picked it up at the video store.

Labels: , ,

posted by Keith at | 0 Comments


Thursday, March 01, 2001

Jack Frost

1996, United States. Starring Scott MacDonald, Christopher Allport, Stephen Mendel, F. William Parker, Eileen Seeley, Rob LaBelle, Zack Eginton, Jack Lindine, Kelly Jean Peters, Marsha Clark, Chip Heller, Brian Leckner, Darren Campbell, Shannon Elizabeth Fabal, Paul Keith. Directed by Michael Cooney. Buy it from Amazon.

Why oh why do I do the horrible things I do? Not long after watching this film, I posted a lament on alt.horror, bemoaning the sacrifices people like myself make for your benefit. You don't know the pain; you can't understand the suffering. You don't know what it's like to sit and scrutinize all four Leprechaun films. I wanted to share my pain with you, the web surfer. That's why I write these reviews; that's why I do this website. It's not because I love you or want to be loved by you. It's because I cannot control my urge to watch the most atrocious, painful films ever made, and deep down I want to inflict that same pain on you.

Jack Frost is not the most painful movie experience of my life. On the scale of pain, Jack Frost clocks in at about the same level as, oh, let's say a spinal tap. I would imagine this Jack Frost is actually a lot less painful than the more recent mainstream Jack Frost, in which Michael Keaton rips off this movie and the lame-ass movie Fluke. Fluke was this annoying heartfelt Christmas film about a father who is killed in a car wreck one snowy night and resurrected as his son's dog. Jack Frost starring Michael Keaton was the same exact thing, only he got put in a snowman's body.

I take no small degree of delight in thinking that somewhere out there, people are picking up this Jack Frost and thinking it is the Michael Keaton Jack Frost. With any luck, these people are parents who will also go, "Oh look at this cute muppet movie!' and also rent Meet the Feebles.

So Jack Frost. What we have here is a movie that thought it was clever and witty. That thought, not surprisingly, was wrong.

The movie begins with a "chilling Christmas story," voiced over the credits. An adult pretends to be a child by talking in a stupid squeaky voice and mispronouncing things. Like when she squeals "Pweeeeze!" Her uncle or some crazy-ass old fart tells her a story about Jack Frost, the serial killer who slaughtered 38 people before finally getting caught. And oh my -- on this very night, he is being executed.

Cut to the "Executional Transfer Vehicle." Now I may not be well versed in the America prison system, but I could have sworn that they usually kept the death row prisoners in a prison with a death row. And I know that when transporting a convicted mass murderer, they would probably have more than one old guard with him. I mean, Hannibal Lector -- they strapped his ass to a dolly and put that funny mask on him. Jack Frost, America's deadliest serial killer of all time, is handcuffed and stuck in the back of an ice cream truck with a retired member of the Mayberry police force.

As if this situation wasn't volatile enough, the "death row inmate delivery truck" isn't the only delivery truck out on this stormy night. No, the "Genetic Engineering Delivery Truck" is also out. Call me crazy, but you'd think they would, I don't know, postpone both the transfer of America's deadliest killer and a truckload of unstable genetic engineering crap until after the big blizzard. I guess that's why I'm not a prison warden or a genetic engineer, though. I just can't make the tough calls.

In a shocking twist, these two trucks collide. I can see the scene now:

"You got genetic mutation juice in my serial killer!"

"You got serial killer in my genetic mutation juice."

Yes, two great tastes that resulted in Jack Frost. The genetic stuff makes Jack combine with the snow around him. He comes out looking like a styrofoam snowman. I don't know if this is what the engineers had in mind, that they could bond people with snow. It seems like a pretty strange avenue for research. But then, someone did spend millions of dollars on a study to see why women in abusive relationships are more depressed and likely to commit suicide than women in stable and loving relationships. Science knows no bounds.

It doesn't take long for Jack Frost to waddle his snowy ass into the town where he got caught and start zinging us with those wacky murder one-liners we all know and love. Only, this time, it's a snowman. There's something intensely not scary about a snowman. I mean, sure, maybe if this was the Kalahari Desert and I was a bushman, and a snowman came running at me, that would probably be pretty shocking. But as it stands, a snowman is a hard thing for me to be terrified beyond belief by.

Of course, the snowman can't just waffle people to death with his broom. He has to engage in the horror film tradition of "wacky death." The first murder occurs when a group of sled bullies -- yes they are a gang of tough young punks who bully others on the sled hills -- make fun of the snowman. Out of nowhere, the snowman has arms and knocks one of the bullies in front of a fast approaching sled. This sled, which looked like standard K-Mart issue, apparently had rockets on the back and samurai sword blades on the bottom, because it cleanly severs the bully's head. Having grown up in Kentucky, I did my fair share of sledding, and I've been hit by my fair share of sleds. Never once was I decapitated, no matter how well waxed the sled blades were. They were still blunt, flat pieces of metal.

There's so many things wrong with this whole scene. I mean, for one, there's the menacing snowman thing, but we're beyond that by now. So we have sled bullies. Really? A gang of guys who like to sled down hills and don't let no other punk stand in their way. Seriously, do these gangs exist? Having lived in Florida and now in New York, I thought I'd heard of every type of gang. Latin Killers. Born to Kill. Vicious gangs of sled riders are a new one on me.

And then there's the fact that this giant snowman leaps to life and attacks a kid, and only one kid seems to notice. And where the heck did those arms come from?

In all fairness, I must mention that the snowman leaping to life isn't actually shown. You see, that would require a special effect. Instead, it's just some jumpy editing, we see the big snowy arm, and that's about it. In fact, through almost the whole movie, Jack Frost does nothing but sit there. I mean, they didn't even fork over the cash for a decent puppet mouth so it would look more like he was talking.

"Wacky killing" is soon joined by the other horror film staple, the post-murder one-liner. This trend in horror began with Freddy but was actually honed by Arnold Swartzenegger in the action genre. The action genre gave birth to it, as the earliest examples I can find of the post-kill one-liner are in James Bond films. Since then, America has been unable to produce a script without having the hero or villain hurl a sly one-liner after he's killed someone. My favorite will always be, "Let off some steam, Bennet!" from the Swartzenegger film, Commando. At best they are a mild but amusing annoyance. At worst, they don't even have very much to do with the killing.

Guess which end of the spectrum the quips in Jack Frost come from!

In one scene, Jack tries to posses someone by melting himself down to water (he has that power) and going inside them. When it doesn't work too well, Jack spews himself out the guy's mouth then proclaims, "Don't eat the yellow snow!"

It's good advice and all, but what does it have to do with that whole scene?

Anyway, Jack's murderous rampage continues. He puts an ax down some guy's throat, and then he turns an old lady into a Christmas ornament of bloody horror. The big pay-off comes when the snowman gets to have sex with a regular human woman.

Yes indeed. He takes that carrot nose of his and, well, you figure it out. It's pretty sick and tasteless. I mean, it is a snowman having sex, so there's some entertainment value there. But raping a teenager with a carrot nose a snowman has affixed to his lower abdominal region is, well ... you know, for some reason, if Joe D'Amato had come up with this, it would have been fine. Anyway, the snowman has sex. Go figure that shit out.

Oh yeah, I almost forgot. The local sheriff is on the case, and he is frustrated by those uptight city slicker FBI agents who look down on small town folk. This is the source of much hilarity. And Jack Frost can shoot icicles.

In the end, they discover the only way to defeat the killer snowman is with anti-freeze. Get it? Because he is frozen. See?

This has been an epic review, but a film this mind-bendingly bad deserves this much space. I mean, this movie got made. Those of you in film class take note. Your professor will tell you how hard it is to sell a script. Don't listen to him. Just send your script to A-Pix and Full Moon Productions. You can even just send them the gist of it written out on a napkin. They will make your movie.

I've actually had worse experiences than Jack Frost, but that doesn't mean I want to repeat it. Despite the hilarious sounding premise and that snowman sex scene, the movie is mostly just badly acted, boring filler. Nothing is very funny and the suspense and terror are actually in the negative range. Not that it was ever supposed to be. My lament about how a snowman is not scary was not a fact lost on the makers of this film. They obviously had tongue in cheek (read the end credits very carefully -- they're the best part of the film, and not just because it means the film is over). It just didn't work out very well. Instead of "clever," it's more like a script written by three college-age horror fans who had too much to drink. And that's probably exactly what it was.

And yet, and I can't prevent myself from suggesting that you at least consider watching this film. It's awful, but god damnit, a snowman kills people and has sex. That's got to be worth something.

Labels: , ,

posted by Keith at | 0 Comments