hearse_for_hire Reviews

The Cabin in the Woods (2011)

Pull apart your cheeks, insert your head, and you will know "The Cabin in the Woods"

[2/10 · 23 March 2014]

As a person who has spent the majority of his childhood watching horror movies, I am aware that the genre can get a little plodding at times. There are only so many tropes to follow out, and the genre is in constant need of new angles to approach. For every new idea in horror, the drill is that many movies after will borrow and pinch little pieces here and there from the last hot concept, mixed with parts of great flicks that came before. Such is horror; a genre not so much steeped in originality, but in the audacity of individual filmmakers to either one-up each other in craziness, or give a new twist to a concept by approaching it with a left-field idea or humor. Rarely does an original idea come along.

But if you were expecting me to say anything positive about "The Cabin in the Woods" in regards to this observation, go ahead and stop reading right now. I have been very open to many interpretations of horror, but this movie just plain arouses my hatred.

TCITW comes from the school of movies like Scream, a movie I disliked as a teenager in the 90's. The concept is to use the vehicle of the slasher movie(several teens are gradually reduced to one survivor) to poke fun at the horror genre and reveal a few details about its basic concepts and inner workings. Also, there is a plot-changing twist midway through that changes the entire tone of this movie from a slasher to a much broader critique of horror in general. While Scream has a decidedly slasher-centric view, this movie further funnels the entire horror genre into a larger concept that is supposed to serve as an observation about why we watch horror.

This movie is self-referential to the point of self-destruction. It so blatantly flaunts its "breaking the fourth wall" ethos that it forgets to build a first, second, or third wall. The basic plot would probably be a pretty decent idea if it wasn't so laden with the obsession with dissecting the horror genre. It mugs and winks so hard at you that it has the flavor of a YouTube video where someone just goes "I'm so cute" into the camera over and over. Even a fairly good action sequence for about 20 minutes toward the end can't save this turd.

I think the makers of this movie are out of touch. This movie smecks of contempt. It is as decidedly ersatz as a person wearing eyeglasses without lenses, who winks at you and repeatedly says, "Guess what, these glasses have no lenses". It seems to lecture you that you should know better, as if you didn't know all this about horror before this shitty movie came out.

I think the thing that kills me the most about TCITW is that it shows a complete lack of sincerity. I don't particularly like Scream either, but it was made with a good amount of tongue-in- cheek humor by a director who actually defined some of the greatest tropes in horror.

TCITW is like a jealous douche who looks down their nose and says "it's all been done", but never really has a clue what's to be done next. I would much prefer a genre romp with a few flaws than a movie that just derides horror for tools to cackle at.

The Game (1984)

You can do anything you want to me... but not THIS!

[3/10 · 20 December 2013]

Of the films of Bill Rebane, a clearly Z-grade director, this one has the most sway with me. First off, the concept is drawn directly from the classic flick House on Haunted Hill. Three millionaires bring a host of contestants to a resort to compete in "The Game", where their fears will be played against them and the last one standing will emerge with a cool mil. Story seems simple enough, right?

And that's where it gets complicated. The plot is extremely convoluted. Other than the three millionaires thing and a series of random scares, a lot of half-cocked theories get thrown around, some people may or may not have died, or just left out of boredom, and even inexplicably return... nobody is who they seems and some people reveal sinister intentions, but then again there are no plot points that really tell you whether these crazy twists are tied to the main story, or part of a secondary plot tied in with the main one. Even the narrator eventually admits to being bamboozled.

Now all that probably makes you say, "Well, I would hate this movie." Yes, perhaps from a traditional plot-driven perspective; but take a minute to consider this film in a different light.

From a strictly visual/aesthetic standpoint, this movie does have something to offer. It reminds me of my youth in the suburbs, where the carnival would come to town once a year. Like its obvious forerunner, House on Haunted Hill, The Game has a major connection to the carnival dark ride. If you ever went to a carnival you would remember one of these, where you took a rickety cart through a truck trailer full of plastic spooks and people in crappy ghost costumes. But when that ghost jumped out at you, it wasn't digital, it was in the real world. The thrill of surprise was there, and until you know what's grabbing you, all scares are equal. That ghost might be a carnival employee, or it might be your Uncle John's creepy friend from the shop you were scared of, overalls around his ankles, ready to bugger you. The smell of Old Spice and denim may have scarred you for life at that sad moment in 1987. I'm sorry, I have revealed too much.

But, despite glaring flaws, The Game is redeeming in its visual/film sleaze factor. Gritty grimy film stock, garish coloration, bad film music that I am pretty sure is some of the same as in Bloodsucking Freaks (high camp piano that sounds like a villain from a western), arguably the best "white folks dancing" scene in history(!), and great 70s/80s cusp bad haircuts. The acting is porno-caliber, and I kept wondering whether this was going to turn into a porno at some point, especially given my previous experience with such wacko 70's fare as Sex Seance and Horror Whore (AKA Hard Gore). There's an eye candy factor to the girls. Miss Shelley is cute. Her dingbat antics are hammy yet endearing; a big part of the flick's personality. Cindy is definitely a hottie. I would gladly have stood in a line to audition for the role of the puking hand puppet that came up through her mattress. I found myself wondering if they ever were in anything else, but I'll leave it to my fellow net-nerds to figure that out.

That said, it's not even C-grade acting, absolute crap for traditional production, but fun for a party flick for the crew to cackle about and awesome as stock footage or to make people wonder, WTF did that come from? What's 80 minutes of your life? Grab a nice beer and decide for yourself.

2-Headed Shark Attack (2012 Video)

You'll be tempted to mop the kitchen floor.

[2/10 · 26 October 2013]

This bad boy is a bit hard to swallow. I appreciated the lovely young actresses that contributed to this, it will serve as a snapshot of their youth and they can show their grandkids. "See Timmy, I was in a movie!"

This movie may help at your next kegger to show rock hard abs and pecs and luscious breasts and buttocks to party goers to encourage their drunken and ultimately regrettable hookups. And throw in a two-headed shark, a 90's style nu-metal soundtrack, and Carmen Electra, and boy howdy, you got it all! Don't forget to pour at a 33 degree angle.

A bad movie can be "so bad it's good", or just plain bad, but I will go on the record saying this movie is just plain bad. You may be tempted to alphabetize your record collection, vacuum the house or do your taxes during most of this movie. Condensed down to its essence, this movie would be an entertaining bad flick as a 30 minute short, but as a feature length, it drags in ways that simply lost my attention and compelled me to find something to while away the gaps in the action. Don't get me wrong, though. The nudity was nice, but cold comfort in a production that drags like bed springs through a mud bog. The shark makes few appearances, and for a bad shark movie you need to pour on the shark! It's just the rules of bad film. Yes, I love boobs but I watched this movie for a shark (OK, a shark and boobs).

But, as i mentioned earlier, you could throw it on at a party and get your drunk friends to rip on it. Throw some conversation in the mix in between scenes and this movie would be a much better watch. But the rating here reflects an objective opinion, and not MST3K standards. Your value may vary, depending on how stoned or apathetic you are.

I often have been called gullible at best and have at times been involved in scientology, short-term loans, and flipping beanie babies, but I have a very difficult time believing that Brooke Hogan knows how to weld and that a bad ass sea captain winces in agony at a dime-sized scrape on his leg.

Cannibal Holocaust (1980)

An inflection point in cinematic history.

[8/10 · 20 October 2013]

Cannibal Holocaust is a film approached by viewers with a variety of attitudes, ranging from reverence to utter disgust. I will attempt to add my two cents to the pile without retreading too much or delving into cinematic history too far.

Cannibal Holocaust is a 1980 film directed by Ruggero Deodato, chronicling the journey of an NYU professor into the South American jungle to recover the films of his four associates, who have mysteriously disappeared whilst on assignment. With help from some equally experienced and jaded guides, he navigates through the lands of the Yacumo tribe to the Yanomamo tribe, who with some coaxing and a peace offering relinquish the films of the crew.

With some other associates in the television business, he reviews the films and learns the horrible truth behind the film crew and their expedition, which ultimately forces the viewer to question: who is the civilized, and who is the savage?

The professor's journey serves as a lesson, wherein we learn about the intricacies of the two tribes, and how despite the typically Western view of such cultures and their inherent brutality, there is indeed a sense of justice and a harmony among these people. But make no mistake: the jungle is still a dangerous place, and the justice itself is both harsh and swift.

What we learn from the footage of the crew is that while the outside world views the tribes as a primitive and backward people, it is ultimately the conduct of the outsiders in the film crew that disrupt the balance of life in the tribes, and the result is captured in all its gory glory on the film.

This film contains not only gore in the conventional horror sense, but a certain amount of real life animal killing. I will not run down the list of animals, but the most famous/infamous scene, which features a large turtle, is one of the most sobering things I have seen in any movie, ever. Even as a jaded horror fan, this scene still induces a chilling silence in the room, in both mixed company and my own solo viewings.

From a historical perspective, this movie is extremely important, as the culmination of the entire "Mondo" genre and a prediction of things to come in human experience and entertainment. The film "Mondo Cane" represented a bleeding edge of film, where human experience, sometimes sublime, sometimes frightening, was captured in real time on film. Only after some time and investigation did we learn that some of Jacopetti and Prosperi's classic footage was embellished, or in some cases outright fabricated.

Flash forward a few years to Cannibal Holocaust, and we are forced to ask ourselves the question that arises from this phenomenon: If we can take cinema verite and make it "realer than real", then what limits are there to impose? We can not only capture the truthful horrors of the world, but make an even more repugnant reality by manipulating the brush with our own hands. And to what end? Before, it was to outline a certain line against which reality and human morality bristled. Now, we use the line for our own ends to create outrage, and the resulting titillation is entertainment. So, by nature, this film is the climax of a wave of Italian cinema that predicted our current forms of entertainment, like reality TV and other self-referential products, by a good amount of time.

But, the judgment is yours. Is it right? Wrong? Were these the only films, or even artistic movement to predict this concept? Maybe it was the inevitable result, as bloodsport is not unique to humanity, but comes and goes in waves. So, art? Trash? You be the judge. But I implore you to definitely watch it!

An interesting note: some people have seen this and thought it was a snuff film, which gives me a laugh. But one thing does sit oddly with me. If this was an Italian crew, in the middle of Colombia, how did they get all that meat and blood to shoot those gore scenes? Maybe reality is a little more blurred than I once thought.

Devil's Playground (1932)

A Portrait of a Simpler Time???

[4/10 · 23 September 2013]

This movie is a time capsule and historical curiosity. Made by a person who was clearly pretty wealthy (he made a "talkie" as a vacation memento in 1932(!)), this movie chronicles the reckless abandon of a spoiled heir as he slices and dices his way through the flora and fauna of Central America.

Marvel as he casually engages in acts of wanton brutality with his friends, such as spearing a 2000 lb devil ray, harpooning and hanging a giant sea turtle, and pumping bullets into a whale.

I don't even think it's the cruelty of this that bothers me, but rather the flippant and jocular attitude these guys display while doing it. That and some good ol' down home racism as they mock the locals for their poverty and their "lack of fishing skills".

Normally I respect the nastiness of killing under the assumption that it results in the feeding of the hungry, but the fact that this guy whacks some giant specimens in the course of a week's vacation makes me think that a lot of these animals were treated as trash and wasted, which causes this picture to leave a bad taste in the mouth. So that essentially makes this picture an incidental brother to Cannibal Holocaust, but rather than the indigestion and sadness that accompanies Deodato's opus, this one celebrates the violence on screen as the epitome of manliness and sport. A shining example of entitled hubris.