Movie Review: Intruder (1989)

Well, son of a bitch! I'm pissed. I'll tell you why: this whole movie was pretty much my idea, my pipe dream, but I didn't know that this movie existed until a few weeks ago. You see, for about six months I worked the overnight shift at my grocery store stocking shelves (word of advice: NEVER accept a job like this. It blows. Not the job itself, but the hours). Putting boxes of Trix and Cheerios on the shelf, I'd let my horror mind run away with me and start thinking about how a grocery store at night would be a terrific setting for a horror film, with the night crew being stalked throughout the store by a maniacal killer. I thought of all the nasty implements that grocery stores have that would make amazingly gory deaths - meat cutters, deli slicers, the fucking cardboard baler - and I thought, Hell yeah! This would be one kick ass horror movie and nobody's ever thought of it before!

... And then I decided to watch this movie Intruder that Netflix recommended to me. Lo and behold, it's about a killer stalking the night crew at a grocery store. FUCK. There goes my big break.

Okay, I'm over it. On to the review.

Clean up on aisle 9!: Intruder starts just before a local grocery store closes for the night, and one of the cashiers, Jennifer, gets a visit from her psycho ex-boyfriend. It gets violent and the other guys working at the store soon boot him out and start work for the night. However, someone else is in the store too, taking out the night crew one by one in bloody ways. 

First of all, this movie has the boring-est credit sequence I have ever seen. It consists only of a still shot of the moon as each credit fades in and out on the screen. Wow, what a snoozer. You'd think from this that the rest of the movie would be pretty bad, but alas this was only some clever trickery. For the rest of Intruder is, quite simply, 80s slasher HEAVEN. It's not really that well made or anything, and that is precisely what makes it a-mazing.

I don't even know where to start on how awesomely bad and cheesy Intruder is. Let's just take it from the worst choreographed fight scene in cinematic history. Jennifer's ex-BF is being all douchebaggy so the other dudes come running to help. Obviously none of them has ever been in a real street fight or taken a single hour of karate, so all their punches and holds look fucking awkward. There's also a lot of weird POV and high angle camera shots, but trust me, that's only the beginning of the weird camera work going on here.

At least director Scott Spiegel keeps the movie interesting looking by putting the camera in whatever weird place he can think of. So we get all these odd looking point of views looking at the characters - including from the floor underneath the dirt Jennifer is sweeping up, from the bottom of a trash can, and one I've never seen before which was from inside a rotary dial phone. Sometimes these angle choices seemed out of place and like the director was playing with what might look cool or something, as they didn't serve any real purpose. Much like Halloween or Black Christmas, all we see of the killer before his final reveal is his own point-of-view as he kills his victims, or simply his dark shadow on the wall. There's some perverted heavy breathing during the POV shots - but maybe the camera guy was just out of breath.

One thing that made me insanely happy was to see Renee Estevez, a.k.a. the final girl from Sleepaway Camp 2, quite possibly my favorite of all 80s slasher sleaze. And there's more familiar faces hidden in this group of grocery store clerks including Sam and Ted Raimi, plus a cameo at the end by none other than Bruce Campbell. Ted is his typical goofball role as Produce Joe, who bops around like a dork listening to his headphones and oblivious to everything. 

The kills are true retro-licious, with the killer mostly using what I can only describe as a machete-knife. I don't want to use a cliche and say that he is compensating for something, but SERIOUSLY. That is one ungodly large knife. Sleepaway Camp girl gets it first, but she's just stabbed. Boring. The others are much better though, including a guy getting skewered through the eye on one of those receipt stabber things; a knife through the back of the head; poor Sam Raimi getting impaled on a meat hook; a head getting crunched by the cardboard baler; and a guy getting his head run through that weird meat-cutting machine. 

I'm thinking that Netflix only gave me a watered-down version of the movie, because some of what I was reading about it and pictures I found on the Internet were not in the film. Like this pic from the guy getting his head cut in half in the meat-cutter:

Wish I could have seen that unedited scene. Anyway. The baler death would have been a lot cooler in my movie. Wanna hear what I was thinking? Okay, the balers we have now (or at least the one at my store) are much larger than what was in the film - in fact, the bale chamber is the perfect size for a normal sized human to fit in the bottom. And they're pretty deep, too, with the big smoosher thing coming down veeeery slowly. After a certain point, there is no escaping. So wouldn't it be a lot more suspenseful if somebody woke up inside one of those things or something, having to watch the thing that's going to turn your body into mincemeat come at you so slowly and loudly. 

The most glorious moment of the film occurs at the end when Jennifer attacks the killer after being drug from underneath a car. Read this carefully now: Jennifer stabs him in the chest with the machete-knife, the killer falls over on his back, and as his body hits the ground, the knife fucking FLIES OUT OF HIS BODY out of frame, only to land perfectly blade down on a cardboard box. My horror-loving heart is all a-flutter. That was simply fan-fucking-tastic. 

Most of the dialogue was hilariously cheesy, and consisted of a lot of that horror movie cliche stuff like "Hey, [insert name here] stop fooling around!" Plus there was a great moment where one of the guys was telling a story about how psycho BF Craig once beat a guy with a blender. "A blender?" "Yeah, a Hamilton Beach blender." 

Very fun little movie. It needs more love! Let's give it some!

Sidenote: Apparently a jar of Wheat Germ can be both delicious AND a deadly weapon. Good to know.

Religious Double Feature: Devil and The Last Exorcism

I'm doing my happy dance, y'all. I've hit my first blog-related milestone, which is to get 100 followers. Can I get a "woo-woo"???

Devil-ish plot: Five strangers enter an elevator in an office building together, and soon find themselves stuck twenty floors up. As the police and security officers try to free the stranded passengers, deadly happenings start pitting the strangers against each other. Each time the lights go out, another person dies, and one security man believes that one of the them is the Devil himself.

If a movie can be compared to a novel, then Devil would be more like a short story. It presents all the elements of character, motivation and plot but doesn't give itself enough time to satisfyingly carry these things out. This is no surprise, though, seeing as how the movie is less than 90 minutes long.

But while the ending of the movie still leaves you feeling somewhat incomplete, I have to say that the movie itself isn't really that bad. You get skeptical when you hear about a movie taking place in a freaking elevator (or maybe a little excited to find out how the director is going to pull it off) and the melding of those scenes with the scenes on the outside were done well. We never feel like we're stuck in either place for too long. The dialogue and actions of the characters are believable, if at times a little over dramatic.

At times, Devil felt a bit like Clue or a Sherlock Holmes story. Four suspects. Which one killed the guy in the dark? And of course that's the big question you're asking yourself before you even see the movie is Which one is the devil?, but when the answer is finally revealed, it is no big shock or twist. You're just kind of thinking, "Oh, okay. That's cool, I guess." See what I mean? Incomplete. Anticlimactic. The big message of the film dealing with the last two characters seemingly fades into the distance, or feels like it was tacked on last minute. M. Night seems to believe strongly in fate and faith, as both of these issues were a major theme in Signs and The Lady in the Water.

Of course this is a horror site and we must discuss the gore quotient. The movie is low on blood and guts but I was happy with the variety of killing methods used, given the limited supplies in the elevator. There's throat-slashing, hanging, and a gruesome broken neck with head twisted almost completely around. Could have been better, but not too bad.

Anyway, pretty okay movie that should have given itself a little bit more time to fully explore its issues.

The power of Christ compels me to tell you the plot: Reverend Cotton Marcus is setting out to debunk his long career with exorcisms by taking a documentary crew to what will hopefully be his "last exorcism." They go to the Sweetzer farm in rural Louisiana where a father believes his teenage daughter, Nell, is possessed, and become involved in something they never expected.

Of these two movies that I watched today, I'm inclined to say that The Last Exorcism was a bit better. Even the rather mundane first 30 minutes that set up Cotton's story; his somewhat lapse in faith; and the fact that he is a big fat phony when it comes to doing actual exorcisms is still interesting to watch because it is well shot and acted. Patrick Fabian is excellent as the charismatic yet human good ole boy reverend and carries the film well. Nell is also fabulously played by the young Ashley Bell, although if I'm going to compare, I'd have to say that she was far outshone by Jennifer Carpenter in The Exorcism of Emily Rose. Still, her performance is spot on for the material.

On the acting note, where the hell have I seen this Fabian dude before? His IMDb has a ton of TV shit that he's done but I can't point out where I remember him from. Let me look again... OH YEAH! Professor Jeremiah Lasky on the short-lived Saved by the Bell: The College Years. Memories! Sorry. Back to the show.

Like I said, the movie manages to keep the viewer's interest throughout but it really heats up after the fake exorcism when we realize that there really is something wrong with Nell. Then it heats up yet again for the finale, which comes about as quite unexpected and surprising. The movie moves fast and the scene progression is logical with something new to try to figure out at each turn in the story.

I honestly don't know how to feel about the documentary style used. I mean it was done convincingly and it does work for the movie, I'm just not sure about why they chose to do it that way. It could just as easily have worked if shot like a regular movie. However, this style certainly gives a specific feel to the story, with the immediacy and unexpectedness of the actions. Sometimes during these moments, though, you're yelling at the camera guy "I can't see what's going on! Move to the left!" or some other such obscenities. But the camera is not terribly shaky and is framed up well most of the time so that the documentary style never really becomes that much of a nuisance and you get used to it fairly quickly.

Going a little off-topic again, it's amazing how the camera guy can go from natural light to artificial light without white balancing the camera and still have the colors come out true to life. It looks like he only changes filters, which would still fuck up your colors anyway. Just sayin'.

I'm actually surprised at how much I liked this movie. Hearing about another exorcism movie with a young girl as the possession victim left me with that "oi, not again" feeling, but The Last Exorcism manages to do things a little different and still keep the scare-and-creep factor relatively high. A few well placed twists leave you feeling duped for a minute, only to have it be twisted around the other way and give your senses a bit of a shock. Me would recommend to you. See it.

My Conundrum about Funny Games

Let's talk Funny Games. I've been wanting to post something about this film for awhile, but I still couldn't process my feelings about it. I needed to try to wrap my head around the fact that I really like it and really don't like it at the same time.

My introduction to the film was pure chance - or perhaps it was fate. I had not heard word one about it prior to running across the snazzy cover at the video store. I've now seen both Michael Haneke's original version and the American version, but the one I blindly picked up at the video store that day was the American one and that will be the one I'll be referring to in this discussion. Haneke directed both movies and the American version is a shot for shot, line for line, and action for action remake of the original, so they are basically the same movie.

Anyway, like I said, the DVD cover is what attracted me to the movie. It's a plain white cover with gloved hands resting on a bloody golf club. That combined with the oxymoronic title of Funny Games (okay, the name itself is not oxymoron but rather an oxymoron to the picture, I mean) made me pick it up and look at it. I read the synopsis, saw that it starred Naomi Watts and Tim Roth, and thought it sounded like a good thriller.

Mmm, not so much. Instead what I got was something completely different. Don't get me wrong, I saw the skill of the movie right off the bat. This is one of THOSE movies; one of those artsy-fartsy, never gets a single shot wrong kind of movies. There is no music save for the credit sequence. Every shot is meticulously and methodically set up and executed. Every action by every actor and every line they say is precisely and specifically planned out to milk an expected reaction out of the viewer. The technical skill is obvious and that is why I like the movie so much. It's a good movie.

But I don't like what the movie says - or what people have interpreted it to be saying. To be clear about what issue I'm addressing here, here's a true story: My initial reaction to the film was that it was emotionally exhausting, but again, a good movie. So when I found it a the video store for cheap, I immediately picked it up for purchase. My sister was with me at the time and asked what the movie was about. I told her - family held hostage and crap by these two psychos blah blah blah and here's what she said: "Does the little kid get killed?" "Yeah, actually, he gets shot in the head." "Why do you want to watch a movie where a little boy gets shot?" HARSH. And she said that with all seriousness. I actually felt really bad, like, almost dirty. I know she was probably only saying that because she has a young son of her own (well actually she has two now) and so she is probably more personally affected by that than I am at my point in life, but still. Her comment had me seriously considering if there was something wrong with me.

I've scoffed at such perceived notions of horror and other violent film fans in the past. But the nature of how the violence was depicted in Funny Games and my liking it coupled with my sister's comment made me look into the issue more. I read many discussions on the internet regarding this movie and its message. A lot of what I read interpreted the director's meaning as a comment on violent movies and why people watch them. Funny Games' synopsis promises a lot of violence but never actually shows it. The constant breaking of the fourth wall and the rewind scene tease the viewer about what they are going to and not going to see, and we should know right away from these scenes that the good guys are not going to win in this situation. The bad guys had the control from the beginning and throughout, so it seems like the movie is asking, "Why/Are you going to keep watching this? You know it's going to turn out bad for the good guys. Do you want to see them die?!"

The experience of watching Funny Games for the first time was frankly rather unsettling, uncomfortable, and a trip to a place I didn't want to go, personally. I didn't want to be labeled a villain for enjoying violent movies, nor did I want to be confronted with why I like watching them in the first place. I haven't been hardcore into to horror for as long as I have been into more intense and dramatic media overall. The harder to watch, the more emotional... the more I wanted to see. In real life, I'm one of those emotional-bottlers. I may be feeling a lot of serious stuff, but I'd never tell anyone about it. So I learned that I could feel any and all things by experiencing them vicariously through film. Once you do that, however, you basically have no choice but to become emotionally involved in almost everything you watch (or at least anything serious enough to evoke such a response).

And so because of the story of Funny Games and the superb way it was acted, of course I was emotionally invested in the characters and their plight. Sure, I wanted to see some violence if it was presented, but not against the family. In this sense then, the director failed. Putting the most insane violence in one movie - with limbs flying off, decapitations, death by saw or whatever - doesn't do anything for me in the least emotionally. But kill one child off-screen with a shotgun and I'm a wreck. It's all relative to the situation put before you on the screen.

From "7 Days"

Typing this now, I am also for the umpteenth time watching 7 Days, one of the most cold and depressing and emotional movies I've seen in a long time. But at the same time, it is an absolutely gorgeous movie. Beautifully shot and superbly acted, and it deals with a lot of tough issues. Another true story: My brother-in-law borrowed The Last House on the Left 2009 from me, and when he came back from watching it, he was like, "You like this movie?! That scene where the girl is raped?" Again, I felt bad, but I had to tell myself that yes, I do like this movie - love it, in fact - because I think it is a beautifully done picture, including the rape scene. Art is not The Forty Year Old Virgin. Art is those pictures and movies that dare to show you the real world and its harsh realities. The intent of art is to get those emotions out of you and really make you feel them. Funny Games, 7 Days, and The Last House on the Left all do these things very well, but the dark places they get into and the issues they force you to confront make some people very uncomfortable. And they don't understand why others do actually like watching that kind of stuff.

I'm talking in circles, I'm sure, but Funny Games and my sister's comment to me about it have been bothering me in the back of my mind ever since it happened. I know that I'm no serial killer and watching a hundred horror films will never make me go out and kill a person in real life, but why do I get all giddy and think it's awesome when a guy's head is chopped off and blood spurts everywhere? It's all part of the gag and the fun and escapism these movies provide and not because I think violent death is "cool.

So I guess what I'm trying to say is that if you have ever asked yourself that serious question of you like to watch dozens of people getting killed on screen, ask yourself how you react to a movie like Funny Games. Stories of real-life violence or violence in a movie that is presented in a more realistic way should still make you sick and disgusted, and if that's the truth, then you're okay. Go out and watch all the horror movies you want and know that it's alright. Most of you have probably already gotten over this issue, but in the weeks it has taken me to write this post, I know now that other people don't have to be okay with me watching these movies. I do. And you know what? I know I'm fine.

Movie Review: Frontier(s) (2007)

46 movies in my DVD queue, 57 movies in my instant queue. GOOD GRAVY. Not all of them are horror... but a fair number are. I don't know how else to get through them except one by one... by one by one by one. First up is Frontier(s).

"Intrigue" is French for "plot": A group of friends flee Paris during political riots with stolen cash, hoping to take their ill-gotten gains across the border to Amsterdam. They get split up and two of the boys, Tom and Farid, make it to an isolated inn. However, by the time the others, Alex and Yasmine, arrive, the group is in a horrifying situation with the Neo-Nazi family running the inn. There's another guy named Sami somewhere here but he's not part of the main story.

A bit haphazard at times, Frontier(s) is still a nice entry into the rave of ultra-gore films from those kooky French people. It starts out as a totally different than what it becomes, with a sort of crime-thriller feel. The credit sequence has several news-footage type shots of the rioting in Paris and our main group of friends running from the po-po and one of them getting shot. None of this really matters, though. The weird shit happens when the boys get to the inn and almost immediately proceed to have sex with the two women they find there. This is quite possibly the most awkward seduction I've ever seen. First of all, Tom is ugly and most obviously a douchebag. It's strange what Nazi cannibal chicks find appealing, isn't it?

Anyway, for comparison's sake, I'll say that this movie is a little bit Texas Chain Saw Massacre and a little bit Hostel (in the gore sense, not the poorly acted, misogynistic script). It comes *this* close to being as gory as High Tension, while trying to be as emotional as Martyrs. So there's a lot of stolen concepts blended in with a semi-new one of a crazed patriarch using Yasmine and his other female family members to create a master race.

However, this concept serves only to get across the fact that this dude and his family is nucking futs and never takes it anywhere further than that. The plot for the rest of the movie is simply a chase movie as Yasmine chops her way through the family to get to safety, with the help of the hunchback shy girl whose name I never caught. Most horror films end up as a chase movies by the beginning of the third act and I've come to accept that. Here, it leaves the movie falling a little flat. Sure, Yasmine's been through some crazy stuff and lost her friends and whatever but there's no real even attempted cathartic ending - the movie just, well... ends.

So in all, as I'm writing this just after seeing the movie, I gotta say that while it tried to offer something new to horror fans, a lot of Frontier(s) felt like shit I've seen 100 times before - only it was done better those other 100 times. The other films in the After Dark Horrorfest have not been that impressive either, save for a few minor accomplishments.

But I'll give the movie props for what it gets right. The few scenes of extreme gore are well-placed and well-executed. Remember in Hot Fuzz where Nick Frost's character asks, "Is it true that there's a place in a man's head that if you shoot it, it will blow up?"? Frontier(s) answers with, "HELL YES!" When Yasmine is saved from Crazy Brother #1 in the elevator, he's shot in the head. It is not most of his head that explodes as other horror films show, but his entire fucking head down to part of his neck. Awwwwwesome.

Let us not speak of the Achille's tendon cutting. We just don't need to go there. It sucks hardcore and nobody likes watching that crap, SO. Moving on.

Another great moment is when Alex and Yasmine are at one point chained to the wall in a pig pen. They manage to free Yasmine by breaking the chain and she has to dig through the mud and muck to get underneath the fence. The pigs are waiting on the other side and I had one shining glimmer of hope that maybe these were trained man-eating pigs or something and they would attack her. Sadly, this did not transpire. Oh what might have been.

There's also a nice shot after Yasmine has dispatched the last of the Nazis where the rain comes down, washing away the blood that covered her face, and she lets out a yell. Of triumph or horror, we don't know, but they do one of my favorite things in movies by shooting the rain in slow motion while she belts out her release to the heavens. I just love slow motion rain and think it looks incredibly beautiful.

Anyone else notice how Gilberta, the blonde chick, is dressed exactly like Sheri Moon Zombie in The Devil's Rejects? Just sayin'.