What Horror Lisa Marie Watched Last Night #53: Halloween II (directed by Rick Rosenthal)

Posted on October 17, 2012 by Lisa Marie Bowman

Last night, I watched Halloween II. No, I’m not referring to the rather disturbing Rob Zombie movie that came out in 2009. Instead, this Halloween II was the original sequel to the original Halloween. This version was written by John Carpenter and Debra Hill. It was released in 1981 and I saw it in 2012, via Cinemax.

Why Was I Watching It?

Because it’s October, of course! It’s horror month and Halloween is one of the great horror movies. Would Halloween II turn out to be another great horror movie? Well, to be honest, I figured it probably wouldn’t but I decided to watch it anyway.

What Was It About?

Halloween II picks up exactly from where the first Halloween ended. The sole surviving babysitter, Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis), is being rushed to the hospital by two paramedics, one nice (Lance Guest) and one kinda crude and pervy (Leo Rossi). Two guesses which one of our two paramedics eventually ends up dead. Meanwhile, Michael Myers has apparently survived being shot six times and falling out of a second story window and he’s still wandering around Haddonfield, Indiana. Best of all, Dr. Sam Loomis (Donald Pleasence) is still running around all over the place, telling anyone who will listen that it wasn’t his idea to allow Michael to be released. (In one of the film’s best running jokes, everyone responds to Loomis’ protestations by saying stuff like, “Damn you for letting him out!” “Uhmm, I didn’t…” Dr. Loomis mutters at one point.) It quickly becomes apparent that Michael’s rampage wasn’t quite as random as it seemed in the first film. He’s after Laurie and, once he breaks into the local hospital, it seems like he might very well get her. Why? Because, for the most part, it appears that every single citizen of Haddonfield is a total and complete moron.

What Worked?

Halloween II is actually one the better of the slasher sequels of the early 80s. While it can’t compare to the first Halloween, it’s still a fairly suspenseful little film and Michael Myers is just as frightening as ever. However, what truly makes this film memorable, is Donald Pleasence’s unhinged performance as Dr. Loomis. Whereas in the first film, Pleasence played Loomis as just being somewhat testy and annoyed, his performance here suggests that, in the minute or so between shooting Michael and then looking out the window at the end of the first film, Loomis has managed to totally lose his mind. Pleasence gives one of the most mannered, over the top performances in film history in Halloween II and it works perfectly. Whenever the film starts to drag, Pleasence shows up and injects a nice bit of crazy into the proceedings. My favorite moment comes when Loomis suddenly yells at a policeman, “What is it you guys you usually do? FIRE A WARNING SHOT!?”

Lance Guest, who plays the nice paramedic, was really quite likable. I know there’s some debate as to the ultimate fate of his character but I chose to believe that he survived.

The Halloween theme music is still probably one of the most effective horror soundtracks to have not been composed by Goblin or Riz Ortolani. When it came on the TV last night, our cat Doc actually got scared and ran out of the room.

What Didn’t Work?

It’s not the first Halloween.

While the film nominally stars Jamie Lee Curtis, Laurie spends most of the film catatonic and she never really gets to do much other than run from Michael. Say what you will about how Laurie kept dropping her weapons at the end of the first Halloween, she still at least fought back. In Halloween II, Laurie is reduced to being a stereotypical victim.

“Oh my God! Just like me!” Moments

I have to admit that I kinda related to the three nurses who were on call at the hospital. I related to Karen (Pamela Susan Shoop) because, like her, I have, in the past, shown a weakness for bad boys who insist on making out in a hot tub even while there’s a merciless serial killer wandering about. I related to Jill (Tawny Moyer) because, like her, I tend to look at my nails whenever I get bored at work. Most of all, I related to Janet (Ana Alicia), because she couldn’t figure out how to use a walkie talkie. (And, seriously, what type of name is walkie-talkie anyway? It sounds like a cutesy robot.)

So, as opposed to most other slasher films, I was able to find instant empathy with not one but three characters! Unfortunately, all three of those nurses were dead by the end of the film so, seriously … agck!

Lessons Learned:

I would not survive a slasher film.

James Bond Film Review: Dr. No (dir. by Terrence Young)

Posted on October 17, 2012 by Lisa Marie Bowman

Hi there! As you may already know, in the days leading up to the release of Skyfall, we’re going to be looking at the previous films in the James Bond franchise. Today, we take a quick look at the first of the “official” James Bond films — 1962’s Dr. No.

Dr. No is a film of many firsts. It was the first film to be adapted from one of Ian Fleming’s original novels. (Though it was not the first adaptation, that honor going to the 1954 made-for-tv version of Casino Royale). It was, of course, the first Bond film to be produced by the legendary team of Harry Saltzman and Albert Broccoli. It featured the first true Bond girl, with Ursula Andress playing Honey Rider and spending the entire film in an iconic white bikini. Dr. No featured the first appearance of both M and Miss Moneypenny (played, respectively, by Bernard Lee and Lois Maxwell). That iconic theme music made its first appearance in Dr. No as well. However, most importantly, Dr. No featured the first appearance by Sean Connery in the role of James Bond. Even more than Andress’ white bikini, Connery is the reason why Dr. No proved to be the rather unlikely launching pad for one of the most succesful film franchises in cinematic history.

Dr. No, in fact, is a film that contains so many historic firsts that, often, it seems like reviewers tend to neglect the film itself and, instead, chose to concentrate on the film’s legacy. And indeed, 50 years after it was first released, it’s difficult to watch Dr. No without viewing everything about it in relation to what the James Bond franchise would eventually become. Instead of evaluating the film on its own individual merits, the tendency is to watch Dr. No and to spend a lot of time thinking things like: That’s the first time the world ever heard Sean Connery say, “Bond, James Bond.” We tend to forget that, when Connery and director Terrence Young actually made Dr. No, they had no way of knowing that 22 sequels would follow. They didn’t know that they were making film history.

Dr. No begins with a shooting in Jamaica. John Strangeways, the British Intelligence station chief, is ambushed and gunned down by three assassins. Shortly afterward, in a surprisingly brutal scene, his secretary is also assassinated. In response, James Bond is summoned to the offices of MI6. When he receives the summons, Bond is busy gambling and seducing Sylvia Trench (Eunice Grayson). Sylvia, incidentally, was originally meant to be a character who would pop up in all of the subsequent Bond films. Basically, she would have functioned as Bond’s girlfriend, the loyal woman who waited at home while Bond went to exotic countries and slept with every other woman in the world. Perhaps wisely, this idea was abandoned after just two movies but still, Bond’s initial meeting with Sylvia (and the audience) is such an iconic moment that words simply won’t do it justice. Here it is, for your viewing pleasure:

This scene has to rank as one of the best intro scenes in film history. In just a few brief minutes, this scene tells us everything that we need to know about both James Bond and, even more importantly, Sean Connery’s interpretation of the character. In this scene, Connery’s Bond is the epitome of narcissistic charm, giving just a hint of the determined cruelty lurking right underneath the surface. It’s especially interesting to compare Connery’s Bond here to Daniel Craig’s interpretation of the character. Whereas Craig’s Bond often seems to be on the verge of having a nervous breakdown, Connery is established in his first scene as being a cool and calm professional. Craig may be the ideal Bond for our troubled reality but Connery will always be the Bond of our dreams and fantasies.

Bond is sent to Jamaica, where he teams up with CIA agent Felix Leiter (played by Jack Lord). Again, it’s interesting to compare this version of Felix Leiter with Jeffrey Wright’s more-recent interpretation of Felix. Whereas Jack Lord’s Felix Leiter is a cool, calm professional (a bit like an asexual version of Connery’s Bond, to be honest), Jeffrey Wright’s Felix often seems to be mired in self-loathing. Both interpretations are perfectly legitimate (and Felix is usually such a superfluous character that just about any interpretation will do). Instead, they’re interesting largely because of the way that each one of them epitomizes the decade in which each film was made.

With the help of Leiter, Bond quickly figures out that Strangeways’ death is linked to the mysterious, Dr. No (Joseph Wiseman), who has his own private island near Jamaica. The natives claim that a dragon guards the island but Bond, never one to let something like that stop him (especially when it’s always his allies — like the unfortunate Quarrel — who get killed in these films, as opposed to him) sneaks onto the island. It’s here that he first spies Honey Rider (Ursula Andress) walking along the beach. Again, Honey’s introduction is such an iconic scene that, rather than try to describe it, it’s better just to show it:

For all the talk of how the Bond girls were often sexist stereotypes, I would have loved to have been an old school Bond girl. Seriously, they got to be all sexy, they got to make love to James Bond, and occasionally, they got to help save the world. Seriously, what fun!

I’ve spent so much time talking about James Bond and Honey Rider that I haven’t left much room for Dr. No. But that’s okay because, to be honest, Dr. No is not really that interesting of a villain. As opposed to future Bond villains, Dr. No is something of a bland character. Joseph Wiseman plays him with a lot of menace and he has a few over the top moments but it doesn’t matter because there’s really nothing to distinguish Dr. No from any other megalomaniac that’s ever shown up in a low budget spy movie. He’s a perfectly acceptable villain but he’s not an extremely memorable one. (Perhaps if Christopher Lee had accepted the role when it was offered to him, Dr. No would have been a bit more of an effective character.) Rest assured that Dr. No does have an impressive secret headquarters and, that once he does capture Bond and Honey, he takes his time to explain all of his evil plans as opposed to doing something sensible like killing them.

So, how does Dr. No hold up 50 years after first being released?

Surprisingly well.

Despite having a weak villain, Dr. No is still a lot of fun. As opposed to future Bond films, Dr. No was a low-budget affair and, at it’s best, it comes across as an appealing B-movie. Ultimately, the film is best known for introducing audiences to Sean Connery in the role of James Bond and perhaps that is for the best because Connery truly is the best thing in Dr. No. Five decades later, you can still see why the world was so intrigued with both the actor and the character.

Tomorrow, we’ll take a look at one of my personal favorite films of all time — From Russia With Love!

Horror Scenes That I Love: The Conquistador Scene From Lucio Fulci’s Zombi 2

Posted on October 12, 2012 by Lisa Marie Bowman

Both Arleigh and I have devoted a lot of time on the site to talking about our mutual admiration for the films of Italian horror director Lucio Fulci. While Fulci will always have as many detractors as defenders, the fact of the matter is that Fulci has been a major and often unacknowledged influence on the direction of horror cinema. To cite just one prominent example, the disturbing and graphic body horror of The Walking Dead has less to do with Romero and everything to do with Fulci.

Fulci remains a controversial figure and that’s not surprising. For every Fulci lover, there’s a detractor. For every good horror film that he made between 1979 and 1982, there’s a terrible one that he made in the years leading up to his mysterious death. But what everyone seems to agree on is that his 1979 epic Zombi 2 is one of the best (and most important) of the post-Romero Zombie films. Zombi 2 may have been produced to take advantage of the popularity of Romero’s Dawn of the Dead but Fulci created a film that transcended its origins.

(Personally, I prefer Fulci’s film to Romero’s but that’s a discussion for another day.)

Zombi 2 is a film that’s provided us with a few scenes that we love here at the Shattered Lens. Whether it’s the scene where a zombie wrestles with a shark or the very first Fulci’s signature eyeball impaling, Zombi 2 is a film that is full of memorable scenes. Tonight, I want to highlight another moment from Zombi 2 — the conquistador scene.

As this scene begins, the film’s star are already fleeing from an army of zombies when they discover that it’s not just the recently deceased that they have to fear. This is a scene that manages to be shameless, silly, and disturbingly effective at the same time. In other words, it’s pure Fulci.

A Grindhouse Horror Review: Zombie Holocaust (dir. by Marino Girolami)

Posted on October 10, 2012 by Lisa Marie Bowman

Traditionally, I like to start my film reviews with a trailer but, with this trailer, I do feel the need to include a quick warning. The film being advertised, 1980’s Zombie Holocaust, was released at the height of the Italian exploitation boom and combined two notably gory genres of horror — the cannibal film and the zombie film. The trailer below is pretty explicit (even by the standards of the free speech zone known as the Shattered Lens) and is definitely not safe for work.

Like many of the classic Italian grindhouse films, Zombie Holocaust opens in New York City. A hospital attendant is caught devouring a cadaver in a morgue. After he attempts to escape by throwing himself out of a window, it’s discovered that 1) he’s a native of the Asian Molucca islands and 2) he’s only one of several natives to have both recently immigrated to New York City and gotten a job at a morgue. Dead bodies across NYC are being eaten and anthropologist Lori (played by Aelxandra Delli Colli, who is best known for being the only sympathetic character in Lucio Fulci’s New York Ripper) is determined to discover why.

In order to investigate, Lori and Dr. Peter Chandler (played by Ian McCullough, who was also in Fulci’s classic Zombi 2) lead an expedition to the island. Almost as soon as the expedition arrives, they find themselves being pursued by not only cannibals but zombies as well! Even worse, it turns out that there’s a mad scientist on the island. Dr. Obrero (Donald O’Brien, an Irish actor who appeared in a few hundred Italian films of every possible genre) is convinced that he can unlock the secrets of life by experimenting on dead bodies and doing brain transplants.

(To be honest, I’ve seen this film a few times and I’m still not quite sure what exactly Dr. Obrero was trying to accomplish but I guess it doesn’t matter. He’s a mad scientist with his own private laboratory so I guess he can pretty much do whatever he wants.)

I love Italian zombie films but, for the most part, I try to avoid the cannibal films. I saw both Cannibal Ferox and Cannibal Apocalypse because they both featured Giovanni Lombardo Radice and I saw Cannibal Holocaust because, seriously, that’s one of those films that any student of cinematic horror has to see at least one time. But otherwise, I tend to avoid the cannibal films because, to me, they’re just not that much fun to watch. (And the fact that most of them contain scenes of actual animal cruelty doesn’t help…)

However, Zombie Holocaust is one of the rare cannibal films that I can watch and enjoy because it’s just so ludicrous and over-the-top. It also helps that the film’s gore is so obviously fake that it becomes almost a postmodern statement on Italian cannibal films. And, finally, this film has got zombies in it and who doesn’t love zombies?

Of the countless zombie films that came out of Italy during the early 80s, Zombie Holocaust is one of the odder entries in the genre. While most Italian exploitation films were shameless when it came to imitating other movies, Zombie Holocaust attempts to outdo them all by cramming the conventions of three different genres into one mess of a movie. As such, the movie starts out as a standard cannibal film just to suddenly become an almost shot-by-shot remake of Zombi 2 before then finally wrapping things up by having Donald O’Brien pop up, acting like Peter Cushing in a Hammer Frankenstein film. There’s nothing graceful or subtle about this film’s everything-and-the-kitchen-sink approach to its story and, while the end result isn’t exactly pretty, it’s still watchable in much the same way that a televised police chase is watchable.

Director Marino Girolami was a veteran filmmakers who was ending a long career with his work on Zombie Holocaust and you have to admire the fact that, as opposed to many other filmmakers who have found themselves in a similar situation, he made an honest and unapologetic exploitation film, a shameless rip-off of about a thousand other films. Instead of being embarrassed by the film’s silliness, he instead embraced it and his cast did the same.

Playing the lead role, Scottish actor Ian McCullough plays his character with an attitude that, at times, almost comes across as a parody of stiff upper lip English imperialism. You may have to be a fan of grindhouse cinema to truly appreciate it but, whenever I’ve sat through this film, I always found myself smiling every time that McCullough discovered that another member of his expedition has been killed and responded with a frustrated, “And none of this would have happened if you had simply done as I had told you to do.” By the end of the film, I was expecting McCullough to approach the last remaining native and tell him, “You’re a better man than I am, Gunga Din.”

However, the film is truly stolen by Donald O’Brien, who plays the mad scientist with an almost alarming sense of authenticity. For the most part, nothing that O’Brien says during the film makes the least bit of sense but he delivers the lines with such conviction that it really doesn’t matter. In one of the film’s most famous scenes, O’Brien delivers the line, “Patient’s screams annoying me…performed removal of vocal chords.” It takes a special type of actor to make a line like that work and O’Brien was that actor.

Indeed, watching a film like this, it’s hard not to admire the fact that both the filmmakers and the cast managed to stay sane regardless of how ludicrous the film eventually became. That’s perhaps the best way to describe Zombie Holocaust. It’s ludicrous but it’s still a lot of fun.

(Speaking of ludicrous and fun, when Zombie Holocaust was released here in the States, it was renamed Dr. Butcher, M.D. and it was apparently advertised by a sound truck known as the Butchermobile. To me, that sounds like a lot of fun and it again reminds me that I was born a few decades too late.)

Horror Film Review: House At The End of the Street (dir. by Mark Tonderai)

Posted on October 8, 2012 by Lisa Marie Bowman

Hi there! I’m back! For the past two weeks, I’ve been “on the road,” traveling from my home in Texas to Baltimore, Maryland and then back to Texas again. It was a great two weeks and a much-needed vacation and now, I am back at my office here at the Shattered Lens Bunker, and I am refreshed and I am ready to get caught up on what really matters: reviewing movies.

This is October, perhaps the third greatest month of the year. Traditionally, October is horror month here at the Shattered Lens and, for my first post-vacation film review, I want to take a look at an underappreciated horror film that came out right before I left for Maryland. It was released to theaters on September 21st, was the number one film in the country for a week, and got next to no love from either mainstream critics or my fellow film bloggers. It’s still playing at a theater near you and, believe it or not, it’s not that bad. The name of the film? The House At The End of the Street.

(Or, as my BFF Evelyn and I called it, “The House at the End of the Cleavage” because seriously…)

In The House At The End of Street, recently divorced Sarah (Elisabeth Shue) and her daughter Elissa (Jennifer Lawrence) move to a small country home. Sarah has managed to buy a house that she really shouldn’t be able to afford and the new neighbors quickly explain to them that this is because, many years ago, a crazy girl named Carrie-Ann was living at the house at the end of the street and she murdered her parents before then disappearing into the woods. Apparently, this has caused all of the property values in town to plummet and I really have to wonder why. I’m not a real estate expert (for instance, I have no idea what a mortgage is and I have no desire to learn) but, personally, I would love to live next to a murder house. Seriously, imagine the interesting conversations that could be started by saying, “So, my neighbor buried a salesman in his basement…”

But anyway, it turns out that Elissa has a perfect view of the house at the end of the street from her bedroom window and she quickly discovers that the house is not deserted. It turns out that Carrie-Anne’s brother Ryan (Max Thieriot) is living in the house and, despite being shunned by the entire community, he seems to be a nice, sensitive guy. Despite her mother’s misgiving, Elissa befriends Ryan and defends him against everyone who claims that he’s crazy.

Of course, what Elissa doesn’t know is that there’s another girl in Ryan’s life and she’s locked up in his basement…

When I look over the negative reviews of House at the End of the Street (especially the ones written by male film bloggers), I frequently come across the phrase “lifetime movie.” Their argument seems to be that House At The End of the Street, with its emphasis on a single mom raising her daughter, was essentially just a PG-13 rated Lifetime movie.

Well, they’re right.

But so what?

Seriously, Lifetime movies are a lot of fun to watch when you’re in the right mood for them and that’s a perfect way to describe House At The End Of The Street. It’s a lot of fun, the type of silly horror film that’s fun to watch with a group of friends. Max Thieriot plays the type of cute but damaged (and potentially dangerous) outsider that every girl has had a crush on and, for the boys in the audience, there’s plenty of cleavage and visible bra straps.

Finally, I think the main reason that House At The End of the Street stayed with me is because both Elisabeth Shue and Jennifer Lawrence really invested themselves in their roles. They were totally believable as mother and daughter and their loving but occasionally contentious relationship felt totally true-to-life (or, at the very least, it was true to my life). Lawrence and Shue both give performances that bring some unexpected depth to this underrated film.

Quick Review: The Master (dir. by Paul T. Anderson)

Posted on October 4, 2012 by Leonard Wilson

If I had a choice between watching the worst of Paul T. Anderson’s films and the best of Paul W.S. Anderson’s films, P.T. would win just about every time. Unless of course it’s about Event Horizon. I love that film, but that’s for a different review.

Sometimes, you walk into a movie expecting one thing, and are given something completely different. I decided to see Paul Thomas Anderson’s The Master on a whim. It is as amazing as it is strange. Most of the movies I’ve seen lately have been event based, but it was nice to catch a film that seemed more character driven. The film’s protagonist, Freddy Quell is as unorthodox as they come, and I wouldn’t be shocked in the least to see Joaquin Phoenix get some major recognition for this. It’s not without it’s problems, though I’d see it again in a heartbeat.

I’ll be the first to admit that I’m not terribly qualified for a movie like this – it’s very “art house”, much like Refn’s Drive and Von Trier’s Melancholia (one of which I own and the other I love). A lot of it for me felt like the story wasn’t really going anywhere, though I loved the character interactions. Reviewing a film like this requires a bit more depth and understanding of cinema on a whole than what I currently have. For me, there are moments where it almost feels like Anderson said..”Well, they did this…” with someone asking him “And then…?” right after every new point. By the time you’re done with the film, you may ask yourself just what it was you just saw (or what was the point of it, more or less). Then again, I had a similar feeling with the first half of Melancholia and adore that film because of it’s second half. What rescues The Master are the performances, particularly Phoenix’s, that help raise the movie when it threatens to sputter. This, along with the cinematography, really adds to things. The film is beautiful, especially when viewed in the 70MM format. There are some great wide-angle shots, the framing is sweet and the focus is brilliant considering you’re not watching a digital presentation. That’s at least what I took from it, visually. Anderson can make a film look beautiful.

If you can catch a 70MM showing, definitely try to do so.

Okay, that’s sweet, but what is the movie about?

The Master is basically the story of Freddy Quell, a former Naval officer who doesn’t quite walk a straight road. He has a penchant for two things – an explosive temper and the ability to make moonshine out just about any liquid. From his first line, one gets the idea that something is just a little off with him, and it confused me a little in the opening scenes. I guess what I expected was a little different from what I got. Watching someone compulsively masturbate on a beach will do that to you.

Freddy, who finds himself in some odd jobs and situations, stumbles his way onto a boat and finds himself the next morning the guest of one Lancaster Dodd (Philip Seymour Hoffman), the leader of a group that follow a movement called “The Cause”. Dodd asks Freddy to stay and make more of his special brew. This becomes the start of a journey for both individuals. Freddy comes to find that Dodd is quite the interesting person, being invited to have his entourage stay with different friends and share with them the way he’s found to improve upon the human condition. There is a beautiful 10 minute question and answer auditing session between Dodd and Quell that’s a great example of the acting and focus in the film. Everyone seemed to go all out with their performances, which comes to no surprise given how well There Will Be Blood turned out. Amy Adams also has a good role as Dodd’s wife, supporting him through his plans in a number of ways. Having worked with Phillip Seymour Hoffman in the past, they seem to have some great chemistry together. Much of what she did was a little shocking for me, but she handled her scenes very well.

In trying to save Freddy from himself and his reckless ways, The Master doesn’t quite lead the audience where they think it’ll go. Not that it has to, mind you. However, if you’re walking into the film expecting something grand by the end of the film, you may find yourself somewhat disappointed. At least, my audience didn’t seem to voice a lot of good words for the story, though most of what I did hear was praise for the actors. I loved it, but it was just started to lose me in the last 15 minutes. However, the performances are such a standout that you really can’t ignore the film. I’m almost certain that come awards time, The Master will be in the mix.

A Horror Quickie With Lisa Marie: Slaughter High (dir by George Dugdale, Mark Ezra, and Peter Litten)

Posted on October 4, 2012 by Lisa Marie Bowman

Before I left on my vacation, I watched several free horror movies on Fearnet. The majority of those films were worth exactly what I paid for them but, occasionally, I came across a film that was worth a quarter or two more. One of those fifty cent films was Slaughter High.

Though it was obviously made a few years earlier, Slaughter High was released in 1986 and was a part of the whole mid-80s slasher cycle. Like many of the films in this cycle, Slaughter High opens with a high school prank gone wrong. Poor Marty (Simon Scuddamore) is the victim of an incredibly cruel April Fool’s Day prank that ends with him totally naked and being dunked in a toilet by a group of 8 students who are surprisingly sadistic. Of course, part of that sadism could have something to do with the fact that they all appear to be in their 30s, yet they’re still students in high school. A coach (who appears to be the only teacher in the entire school) happens to come across the students tormenting Marty and he punishes them by ordering them to go to the gym and start doing push ups.

“This is all Marty’s fault!” one of the 8 sadists exclaims.

So, naturally, they play yet another prank on poor Marty. This prank involves Marty smoking a poisoned joint and then accidentally spilling a jug of acid on his face. As his tormenters watch, a seriously disfigured Marty is taken out of the school on a stretcher.

Exactly ten years later, the 8 sadists (who have now all graduated) get an invitation to attend a reunion at the old high school. When they arrive, they discover that 1) they’re the only ones who have been invited and 2) the high school has been abandoned and is on the verge of collapsing. Now, you might think that this might lead at least one of them to remember that it’s been exactly 10 years since they totally destroyed Marty’s face and life but you would be wrong. Instead, the group decides to break into the old school and spend the night.

You can probably guess how well that works out. Even as our guests discover that random pictures of Marty have been posted throughout the school, none of them suspects that something bad might be about to happen. In fact, it’s not until one of them drinks a beer that’s been spiked with acid that it occurs to any of them that they might not be alone…

Slaughter High is something of a surprise, a low-budget horror film that works exactly because it doesn’t make any sense. Nobody in this film acts like a logical (or halfway intelligent) human being and that — along with a genuinely creepy setting, a camera that never stops prowling through the dark corridors of that dilapidated school, and some surprisingly brutal death scenes — all comes together to create a narrative that feels more and more dream-like as the story continues. Narrative logic is ignored in favor of nightmarish imagery and the end result is a slasher film that seems to be directly descended from Lucio Fulci’s Beyond trilogy.

It’s hard to talk about Slaughter High without talking about the film’s ending and it’s impossible to talk about that ending without spoiling the entire film. So, I’ll just say that Slaughter High has two endings. One concludes the action at the school and then, a few minutes later, there’s a twist ending that concludes the film as a whole. Just on the basis of a few online reviews that I’ve read, the “twist ending” is something that people either love or they hate. Myself, I felt that the film’s first ending would have been a perfect place to end things but, at the same time, the twist didn’t bother me. If nothing else, it nicely complimented the entire film’s lack of narrative logic.

A sad sidenote: Simon Scuddamore, who plays Marty here, never made another film because he apparently killed himself a few weeks after filming his role. On another odd casting note, Caroline Munro plays one of Marty’s high school tormentors despite being in her mid-30s at the time.

A Horror Quickie With Lisa Marie: The Amityville Curse (dir. by Tom Berry)

Posted on October 3, 2012 by Lisa Marie Bowman

Before I left for my vacation, I watched several of the free horror movies that are available on Fearnet and, to a large extent, I got what I paid for. That said, seeing as how it is October and how this Horror Month here at the Shattered Lens, I committed myself to reviewing each film that I watched via Fearnet, regardless of how thoroughly awful any particular film might turn out to be.

And that brings us to The Amityville Curse, a Canadian film from 1990 that was made to capitalize on the whole Amityville Horror scam.

In the Amityville Curse, a group of 6 friends spend the night in a haunted house and things work out as you might expect. You’d be justified in assuming that the haunted house is the same house from the Amityville Horror but you’d be wrong. Instead, they’re staying in a different house that just happens to also be in Amityville and which just happens to be haunted as well. (One lesson to be learned from this mess of a movie: when it comes to haunted house stories, it’s often best to keep things simple.)

Apparently, decades earlier, a priest was murdered in the house while taking confession and the local community has scorned the house ever since. However, at the start of the film, a fat, balding guy and his boring wife buy the house and their friends come down to help with the remodel. Unfortunately, one of those friends is played by Kim Coates and, as everyone knows, the minute Kim Coates shows up in a horror movie, he’s going to end up getting possessed and killing a lot people.

Which is pretty much what happens here.

I have to admit that I feel sorry for Kim Coates whenever I see him in a movie like this. Kim Coates (who is currently a member of the cast of Sons of Anarchy) is a talented character actor and, when given the chance, he has proven that he can play likable and sympathetic characters. But, he’s got these slightly off-center eyes and a nervous, jumpy manner about him. As a result, whenever he shows up in a movie, he always seems to be killing people. Whenever I see a talented actor like Kim Coates in a movie like The Amityville Curse, I clench my little hand into a fist and I shake it at the unkind Gods of typecasting.

As for The Amityville Curse, well, what can I really say about it? This is a truly terrible movie, one of the worst that I’ve ever seen. It’s a horror movie without a single scare. It’s the type of movie that I would warn everyone to stay away from except that I doubt this already obscure film will ever again see the light of day.

Except maybe on Fearnet.

‘Looper’ Review (dir. Rian Johnson)

Posted on October 2, 2012 by leonth3duke

‘Looper’, the mind bending and smart new time-travel film by Rian Johnson is one of the most effective and balanced science fiction films to be released in the last few years. Its mix of realism and sci-fi elements bring a level of emotion and heart to its own unique and complex universe in a way that reminded me of classics such as ‘Blade Runner’ and ‘Twelve Monkeys’.

The film takes place in a futuristic, though familiar, 2044 city where the buildings are bigger, poverty is more prevalent and organized crime seems to hold much of the power. The focus of the story is Joe (Joseph Gordon Levitt) who is a “Looper”, a specialized assassin hired and trained to kill individuals from the future.

We are told early on through narration that time travel has not yet been invented in the story’s present but it will be in thirty years. In that time it will be outlawed; but criminal organizations who have to deal with increased technological advances in solving murders use “black market” time travel devices to send their living victims back to the present. There they are killed by assassins like Joe, who dispose of the bodies. This leaves no trace of the person’s death in the future, and the Looper is killing and disposing of a body that technically should not exist in his present.

Joe, like other Loopers, is paid well and lives a fairly extravagant lifestyle that includes lots of drinking, drugs, women and nice cars. The only down side of being a Looper is that a provision in their contract states that in the future their older selves will be sent back in time, to be disposed of, by their younger self. This is to “close the loop” as the film explains, a way of disposing of those individuals still around who are no longer needed but have knowledge of these criminal acts.

The main narrative of the story kicks off when Joe’s older self, played by Bruce Willis, is sent back in time to be killed. Joe hesitates when the time comes and ‘Old Joe’ escapes, causing Joe to be hunted by his bosses for this mistake. At the same time Joe tries to track down his older self in an attempt to “make things right”. The situation is made all the more complicated because Old Joe has plans of his own, turning what most going in expecting to simply be an action thriller into a much more complex and emotional story.

The thing that I loved most about Johnson’s “Looper” is how grounded it managed to feel while also still containing some very interesting fictional elements. There is a level of detail in the story to support a whole series of films; but Johnson smartly decided to focus more on the human element. Much of this comes in the second half, and some people will certainly begin to lose interest as the pace slows and the story takes a turn most wouldn’t expect. But for me, this is where the film really comes into its own. This is where they take all the exposition and style that came early in the film and use it to support that much more relatable, and honestly much more interesting, human element. Yes, Johnson could have easily copped-out and turned this into nothing more than a straight forward action thriller but instead he slows down enough to contemplate the themes of regret, sacrifice and loss that most time-travel films tend to ignore.

Of course, whenever anyone makes this sort of film there are continuity and logic issues that tend to pop up. With “Looper”, although one could try to nit-pick and question the logic of this FICTIONAL time-travel film (a rather pointless endeavor if you ask me), most of what occurs works within the narrative. Films such as this, no matter how absurd their stories may at times be, only need to work within the universe created by the writer and luckily it works brilliantly here. Johnson plays around with the ideas of paradoxes and time lines, but the film doesn’t take itself too seriously. Smartly even its own characters acknowledge the “over-complicatedness” of time travel logic.

What it does establish is that things are not fixed. Time, and life in general, is much more ‘cloudy’ and unclear than we might think. And yet, it also hints at the idea that changes in the present don’t have as big of an effect on the future as long as other timelines continue down the path they initially started. In this sense Johnson could make major changes to his character’s present and still promise them that their futures could still be the same. For some this prospect drives them to do unspeakable things. For others this loop that we are caught in, always heading towards the same future, might not be worth the effects it has on those they come in contact with. These questions and ideas, and how the characters choose to approach them, lead to what I felt was a very powerful ending.

Besides the intelligence and heart of the script, the other big surprise here is the wonderful acting across the board. Joseph Gordon Levitt, with the help of prosthesis, truly becomes his character and at times I forgot it was even him. Emily Blunt managed to help anchor much of the story’s heart and her performance truly sold the more emotional moments of the story, which was key to the film’s success.

The true stand out, in my opinion, was Bruce Willis. He brought so many layers to his character, something I haven’t seen him do this well in this sort of film in many years. (He did give another great performance this year in the much different ‘Moonrise Kingdom’). Willis managed to make it so you can not forgive but could at least empathize with his character’s terrible actions. He not only expressed the pains of what he has done, but also sells the ‘necessity’, at least from his perspective, of what is to come. Credit again must also be given to Johnson for providing just enough develop of these characters to support their emotion, motivations and decisions.

I could not end without mentioning the score by Nathan Johnson. A perfect mood setter and at times quite beautiful. I don’t think it gets nearly enough recognition and so I had to mention it. Other than that I’d have to say that ‘Looper’ not only lived up to my expectations, but surpassed them. It did it in a way that reminded me of ‘Drive’ last year. I had a lot of anticipation going in for both but really didn’t know what to expect. What I got from each was a lot of style, great performances, smart scripts and stories that deviated away from the norm; stories that took the risk of focusing on character more than anything and although the end results were totally different than what I expected going in, I could not be more happy with what I got. Because of that I’d say ‘Looper’ is one of the best films of its kind, a soon to be classic, and also one of the best films so far this year. I’d highly recommend this great movie going experience to all.

A Horror Quickie With Lisa Marie: 976-Evil II (dir. by Jim Wynorski)

Posted on October 2, 2012 by Lisa Marie Bowman

(Before I left on my vacation, I made it a point to watch several horror films that were available for free on Fearnet. In the case of many of the films, I suspect that I may have paid too much. Regardless, since it is October and horror month here at the Shattered Lens, I am going to share my thoughts on some of these Fearnet films.)

Before I review 976-Evil II, I need to make a quick confession The one time that I attempted to watch the first 976-Evil, I ended up falling asleep immediately after the opening credits. I don’t know much about the film beyond the fact that it was directed by Robert Englund and, even by the standards of the majority of the films that are available on Fearnet, it looked to be cheap and unimpressive.

That said, as I watched Part 2, it quickly became apparent that it’s not really necessary to have seen the first film to follow the plot of the second.

A small town in California has a problem. Mr. Grubeck (an enjoyably over-the-top performance from Rene Assa) is the dean of the local college (which, to be honest, looks a lot like a high school). Grubeck is a courtly, middle-aged man who lives in a nice house and just happens to be a demented serial killer. He’s been dialing a mysterious phone number and, with each call, he gains more and more supernatural powers.

At that start of the film, however, a drunk janitor (played by George “Buck” Flower, of course) sees Grubeck killing a student. The janitor goes to the police and Grubeck is promptly arrested and placed in jail. Unfortunately, the police allow Grubeck his one phone call and Grubeck, of course, dials 976-Evil. As a result, Grubeck is given the power to wander about in astral form while his physical body rests. Grubeck uses his powers to start killing anyone who can link him to the murders, as well as to stalk a student named Robin (Debbie James).

However, Robin has another stalker. Spike (Patrick O’Bryan), who was apparently the protaganist of the first film, comes rolling into town on his motorcycle and soon, he and Robin are searching for a way to defeat Grubeck once and for all.

(As a sidenote, I think that the minute a baby is named Spike, the rest of his or her life is pretty much predestined.)

976-Evil II is the type of film that almost always gets universally negative (and snide) reviews but, when taken on its own terms, it’s actually a fun little movie. This is the type of film where all of the actors speak their lines in the most dramatic way possible and authority figures react to bad news by defiantly slamming their hand on top of their desk. In short, this is a film that is not meant to be taken seriously and its obvious that director Jim Wynorski understood that. This is a film that winks at the audience even as it grows more and more implausible. While the film’s scares are more likely to make you smile than jump, there is one very effective sequence where Robin’s friend Paula (played by Leslie Ryan) finds herself literally sucked into the TV. At first, since she was watching It’s a Wonderful Life, everything’s okay. But then, somebody changes the channel to Night of the Living Dead. It’s this type of outrageous sequence that distinguishes 976-Evil II from other similar (but forgettable) horror films.

976-Evil II was released in 1992 and, wow, is it obvious. Everyone has big hair, wears too much spandex, and uses a landline phone. Even the villainous Mr. Grubeck wears a vest with a floral design. That said, the film was so dated as to be oddly charming.

That’s actually how I would sum up 976-Evil II as a whole.

Oddly charming.