Horror – Zachary Mule

MILLENNIAL NASTIES: ANALYZING A DECADE OF BRUTAL HORROR FILM VIOLENCE

(ARIEL POWERS-SCHAUB; 182 pages; ENCYCLOPOCALYPSE PUBLICATIONS; 2024)

There are many books out there about horror films; it’s an immensely popular genre. So it’s a perfectly reasonable proposition to put together a new volume that focuses on horror cinema of the new millennium. But this new MILLENNIAL NASTIES tome startles by zeroing in on the most violent and nihilistic films, comprising the so-called “torture porn” genre and the films that followed in its wake. It’s doubly startling by being written by a female author, that being Ariel Powers-Schaub. Maybe it’s narrow-minded of me to even SAY that; after all, women ARE a big part of the horror-loving audience. But girls don’t do so well in horror films (excepting the whole “final girl” trope that we are all familiar with); killing off “helpless” or naive females is a staple of the genre, so I simply wouldn’t have predicted a woman serving up a comprehensive look at this popular phenomenon. What is most startling of ALL, however, is that this book ends up being insightful, comprehensive, thorough and absolutely a blast to read… I would call it “required reading” for fans of “brutal horror films,” which the title makes clear it sets out to examine. We’re talking the SAW franchise, many of the works of director Eli Roth (HOSTEL, CABIN FEVER, et cetera), and chapters dealing with specific thematic areas like “Fucked Up Families” (ex: Rob Zombie’s THE DEVIL’S REJECTS), “You Can’t Cheat Death” (the FINAL DESTINATION franchise) and the comically titled “The Locals Run This Town” (THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE and THE HILLS HAVE EYES, two films discussed in a rather large section of the book titled “The Era of Remakes: Nasti-fication For a New Generation”). Powers-Schaub clearly has an abiding interest in modern bloody horror films, but she does those of us who are fascinated by this genre (but not obsessive) a real favor by comparing original films to remakes, first films in a series to subsequent sequels, and most importantly, WHAT exactly stands out, plot-wise, acting-wise and “memorable kill”-wise in each film. That takes real ambition, and an ability to contextualize the appeal of films that, for a large number of people out there, are just too SICK and stomach-churning to ever go near.

In the Foreword, editor Zoe Rose Smith praises Powers-Schaub thusly:

“I could intrinsically sense just how passionate and dedicated she (Ariel) was to not only the horror genre, but to certain niches and even certain films like SAW. It didn’t take long before Ariel began to show just how committed to horror she was; with such a wonderful way of delivering her thoughts on different topics and really expanding her voice across all things from slashers with THE SLUMBER PARTY MASSACRE to found footage with THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT to torture porn with HOSTEL… ”

MILLENNIAL NASTIES (author ARIEL POWERS-SCHAUB) (publicity photo)

Some people may view films where people are tortured or carved up creatively as nothing but abominable trash (and I KNOW some of those people), but after all, it’s a violent world, and films have always reflected that. Any genre of cinema that is enduringly popular deserves to be taken seriously, and I can’t imagine ANY writer doing a more balanced and entertaining analysis of the SAW franchise, THE STRANGERS, HOSTEL, WOLF CREEK, WRONG TURN (that film and its sequel are part of a very entertaining section titled “Original Slashers”), THE LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT (remake), et al, than what Ms Powers-Schaub gives us here. I smiled repeatedly as I read her prose, and sometimes felt my jaw drop as I read her pithy and memorable assessments. Some examples:

“Most of the academic writing about torture porn and similar films has been analyzing the impact of 9/11. America’s sense of security from the 1990s was shattered. Suddenly, Americans were fearful of The Other, The Outsider. Bigotry made a huge comeback, though it never really left. And American attitudes became both very sad and angry, stuck in an ‘us versus them’ mentality. This book is not focused on 9/11, but it is mentioned when relevant to the analysis. Horror films always reflect the world around them, and these films were born from global trauma.”

SAW Franchise artwork (image created by: JOSHUA WILLIAMS)

“Throughout the SAW franchise, each film tackles multiple themes, and offers just as much plot and character development as it does blood and guts. The films in the SAW franchise all have similar setups, and a formula that gets more strongly entrenched as the decade progresses. The main villain (or anti-hero, depending on who you ask), is a man named John Kramer, a successful engineer and entrepreneur. After he suffers some personal tragedies, he begins trapping and testing victims of his choice, and makes them confront their own will to live. The press calls him Jigsaw because he always takes a piece of skin, shaped like a puzzle piece, as a trophy when his victims die. It was possible to keep strong plot threads in each film because of creative consistency. Members of the cast and crew worked on multiple movies, most notably Tobin Bell, the actor who played John Kramer/Jigsaw. The themes explored in the franchise that are the most consistent throughout all have to do with family and loyalty. Jigsaw is particularly interested in fatherhood, and what it means to be a good father. The films in the franchise also offer an exploration of systems meant to help people, specifically the police and medical care… ”

“Much like the phenomenon that occurred with THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE (Director: Hooper, 1974), people remember SAW being more violent and gruesome than it is. Most of the torture and violence is implied, or kept partially hidden, most likely due to budget constraints of the debut film makers. Part of SAW’s signature look is the frantic editing, sometimes giving the film a feeling similar to a music video. The editing style trend happened accidentally, because the film makers didn’t have the time or the budget to shoot enough takes of all the scenes they needed and decided to make up for it in the editing. That style of editing became a hallmark of the decade and torture porn genre, seen in many other MILLENNIAL NASTIES in this book.”

“During the Millennial Nasty decade, American characters were often portrayed as afraid of the world. In America’s reality, it was becoming clear that people in other countries didn’t necessarily trust us, as global citizens watched America’s involvement in war. That feeling of mistrust led to a trend in filmmaking where some vacationers – usually young and beautiful tourists – went off to an unfamiliar area and didn’t make it home. Tourists, especially white tourists, in these movies are hunted and killed for their physical and national characteristics. This wasn’t strictly an American fear, however. An excellent example from Australia, WOLF CREEK, explored similar themes. CABIN FEVER fits in this chapter, as well, although the fear is domestic and biological, as campers and a small town are picked off by a disease. However, the fear of the disease leads to person-on-person violence and represents the nastiness that can happen when Americans fear for their safety and try to protect themselves. In each of these films, vacationers are hoping to rely on the kindness of strangers for help, and they are let down in the worst ways…”

“HOSTEL is supposed to be making fun of Americans, highlighting the ways we can move about the world in boorish ways, anticipating everyone to meet our needs. And HOSTEL could have made this point, but it just misses. By focusing on the male characters who are victimized, and keeping the story tightly centered on their experience, HOSTEL does not take time to comment on human trafficking and exploitation or American exceptionalism. In fact, the film has the opposite effect, making people angrier at Americans. Slovakian officials decried the film and said it was offensive to depict their culture in such a way.”

“The focus on men’s experiences in HOSTEL is a unique one. Men are crying and begging for their lives in this film. That did not fit the macho portrayal of masculinity that was so prevalent in this era. It also subverts a trope that relies on purity being a saving grace in horror films. Drawing on our knowledge of the Final Girl, the audience may think Josh will be the lone survivor, because he resists the temptations of Amsterdam the most, though he is not perfect. But in fact, Pax is the Final Boy, who has been trying to influence Josh the whole time. Josh ending his night early is what gets him caught before Pax. HOSTEL succeeds in flipping a horror trope on its head to surprise audiences with a Final Boy who loves sex and partying. That was surprising and refreshing at the time… ”

“HOUSE OF 1000 CORPSES is a staple of the Millennial Nasty era, and also somehow apart from it, because Zombie started the film in an earlier era. Production wrapped in 2000, but the film had to go through many cuts to be considered suitable for audiences. And then 9/11 happened, and many horror films were significantly cut and/or delayed as the world reacted to the tragedy. This combination of events adds up to a film that was released into an era that was ready and waiting for violence and nihilism on screen, but created in an era where that was a fresh take on horror. That makes HOUSE OF 1000 CORPSES feel timeless, in a way some other films discussed in this book will not.”

“In my 2021 review for GHOULS MAGAZINE, I describe what puts this film snugly in its era:

“Rob Zombie used this movie as a conduit to talk to the audience, and to challenge us. Though this movie would later be called torture porn, there is no sexual violence. However, there are many close-up shots of faces and bodies of dead women, which, even if not explicitly sexualized, are very clearly on display more than men. And there is a lot of overlap in sexiness with horror imagery. For example, images of women stripping while also playing with toy skeletons. There are several shots where characters are talking directly to the camera, in a way that can make the audience feel exposed. In the opening, when Captain Spaulding is being robbed and not backing down, the last thing he says to the robbers is ‘and most of all, fuck you,’ and shoots a gun at the camera. This tells the audience that Zombie does not care about our boundaries, and we are in his world now. Later, when the danger is obvious and we are worried for our main characters, the local cops find one of the cheerleaders, dead and in the trunk of a car. She is naked, and has the words ‘trick or treat’ carved into her skin. As the camera lingers on her body, we hear Otis in a voiceover, saying over and over again, louder and louder ‘hope you like what you see!’ The audience is forced to sit with the horrifying image, and question why we may, in fact, like what we see. Near the end of the film, as Denise and Jerry are dressed and bound for sacrifice, Otis speaks to Jerry, but looks directly into the camera and tells the viewer, ‘It’s all true, the boogeyman is real and you found him.’ I hear this as Zombie claiming to be Hollywood’s new boogeyman, a hopeful statement when this was filmed. This film means to push your boundaries and have you question your own comfort with what’s on screen… ”

“What makes this film (WRONG TURN) a sign of things to come throughout the decade is how brutal and violent it is. The cannibals’ house is covered in filth, and the lighting in the interior scenes makes it appear even grimier than it is… The house is by far the nastiest part of the film – very different from the clean homes and good schools of the ‘90s slashers. The kills are nasty for a slasher – that is to say, compared to some other films discussed in this book, these kills are nothing special. But compared to the history of slashers, in which teenagers were often stabbed, sometimes off screen, WRONG TURN offers more gore. For example, Francine is garroted by barbed wire and Carly’s head is chopped in half. And, of course, the family of cannibals. As WRONG TURN became a franchise, the lore around the cannibals and where they came from expanded. But the first movie doesn’t explain much, and in it the cannibals don’t speak, so both the characters and the audience are left with no understanding. The cannibals communicate by making clicking sounds and cackling, and they move through the woods quickly and stealthily. They are three men, all dressed in dirty clothes and missing fingers, teeth, and hair. The cannibals do not care how they are perceived by other people, possibly because they see others as food, and we don’t normally care what our food thinks of us. There is no attempt to hide their crimes. They are not shy about the graveyard of tourists’ cars they have on their property, or the personal items collected from their victims. Because we cannot understand the cannibal family’s motives or communication, they are ‘othered’ by default. WRONG TURN is a franchise about fear of The Other; fear of what we don’t understand. That has always been a topic ripe for exploration through the horror genre, and especially in the early 2000s when America was so distrustful of anyone we considered The Other.”

I could continue to quote many other passages at length from this fascinating book, but ultimately your level of interest in it will depend on how much you watch or care about the horror movies the author discusses. I personally found it fascinating how she divides up roughly a decade’s worth of dark horror films into meaningful categories, such as “home invasion” stories (y’all remember that very disturbing entry THE STRANGERS, where the bound victims ask WHY the merciless killers are doing what they’re doing, and the quick answer is “because you were HOME”?), Americans on vacation overseas, “fucked-up families,” et cetera. It reveals how recurring themes and tropes in horror films are used both to give the audience what they want, and to find refreshing variations for the often eager young filmmakers to explore. Powers-Schaub does a terrific job in the remakes section of comparing disturbing and legendary ‘70s horror classics like THE LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT, to its edgy millennial update, discussing both villains and victims (and the revenge part of each story) with gusto. She provides a personal and intellectual throughline that gives this whole volume far more creative and contemplative HEFT than you might think in such a project. Do you have to be familiar with the genre written about to appreciate this book? Well, the author doesn’t necessarily think so, although she points to the original Tobe Hooper classic THE TEXAS CHAIN SAW MASSACRE as being somewhat of a granddaddy to what followed. She writes:

“If I can suggest watching one film before reading, let it be Tobe Hooper’s 1974 classic THE TEXAS CHAIN SAW MASSACRE. That may come as a surprising recommendation, since it’s not a Millennial Nasty. It is, in fact, one of the original Video Nasties, and it has influenced horror ever since it hit drive-in theater screens. It is referenced throughout this book, as its influences impact the analysis of Millennial Nasties. Three characters are mentioned by name throughout this book, and I will credit them here:

Sally Hardesty: the final girl, played by Marilyn Burns

Pam: Sally’s best friend, played by Teri McMinn

Leatherface: the chainsaw-wielding killer, played by Gunnar Hansen.”

What’s fascinating about the influence of TTCM is that for all its shocking depravity at the time in the mid-’70s, there was very little blood or guts shown on the screen. The suspense came from the buildup and the careful editing. But the films the author talks about in detail here are generally explicit, depicting depraved human cruelty and sadism that show us all the things we have nightmares about or read in violent crime stories here and there. She does a superb job of providing context, giving us a clear idea of WHERE the themes of these films come from and even whether there is some sort of moral foundation in evidence. And far from being films made by hacks looking to earn a quick buck from a known formula, many of these films were produced by thoughtful directors such as James Wan, Eli Roth, Bryan Bertino and Roland Joffe, who have all done significant work in different genres. Powers-Schaub was attentive to the evolution and influence of horror films from a younger age, and she’s consistently interesting in what she has to say here. In her intro, she writes that she “couldn’t remember a time in her life before horror stories,” and wrote about the SAW franchise as a way to “process my feelings about the Covid-19 pandemic,” which led to the opportunity to write for GHOULS MAGAZINE. Of MILLENNIAL NASTIES, a culmination of sorts of her interest in the topic, she tells us:

“This book is a series of essays analyzing specific horror films in a specific time period… It includes some personal opinions and some of my own observations of the world around me. There aren’t many books written yet that analyze this decade and subgenre, which is exciting, and a bit daunting. On a very personal note, this book has been inside of me for years, and I needed to get it out. I am so thankful that I got to. This is not an academic text. I wanted to write my own analyses of these films, make my own points, not gather points made by others or slow down the reader with lots of citations. It’s not a behind-the-scenes or a making-of text, either. Sometimes, production details are included when they were relevant to my analysis, but analysis remained my primary goal. It is not an exhaustive list of every film that could be explored, but rather the most important films to analyze for trends and themes in this time period… ”

Mission accomplished, Ariel! I just don’t think many other books will appear that have as much to say about certain trends in horror for a decade-plus, than MILLENNIAL NASTIES. From discussing what “torture porn” does or does not mean, to the recurring themes and franchises that draw ongoing interest from horror audiences, to how changing times and social events affect both filmmakers and their genre fans, this book has plenty to say from an enormously gifted, thoughtful writer. Yes, there’s some disgusting things portrayed in these films, and Powers-Schaub is not at all above taking some directors and writers to task when they sink into misogyny, racism, et cetera. But I am truly impressed with her ability to keep the reader entertained and stimulated, with a focus here that makes sense and stirs the emotions. I would argue that this book is actually culturally significant, a survey of one grouping of modern horror films that you might think would only appeal to fans of the gross-out and hardcore bloodletting of a HOSTEL, WRONG TURN, WOLF CREEK, et cetera. But the author is taking a much bigger view of all this in her book, telling us something about humanity (or lack of it), fear and the changing nature of vulnerability and ANGST in the modern world. As such, MILLENNIAL NASTIES has something interesting to say about the importance of therapy and making creative choices. She’s made a good one here, in a truly unique book that I think I will be reading multiple times.

BODY PARTS

(SCREAMBOX EXCLUSIVE/SIDUS FILM PRODUCTIONS/DHL STUDIO/BLOODY DISGUSTING/CINEVERSE (104 minutes; Rated R); 2023)

The Korean (Heads up: There is reading involved!) horror anthology BODY PARTS (directed by Won-kyung Choi, Byeong-deock Jeon, Jisam, Jang-mi Kim, Gwang-Jin Lee and Wally Seo, but no information is given as to who directed which segment) offers a chilling exploration into the dark depths of cult-like fanaticism and personal vendettas. The film’s connecting thread follows a young reporter named Si-kyung (played by Kim Chae-Eun), who is hired by a detective known only as Mister Hwayoung to infiltrate a sinister cult-like ceremony by a group that worships a figure known as “the Father.” Each of the interconnecting stories focuses on a single cult member who must offer a gift in exchange for their release from their dread existence: The collection of a different body part by the five “participants.” Over the course of five different vignettes, the movie delves into the disturbing backstories of how each came to possess these individual body parts.

The film skillfully builds tension as it reveals the twisted actions that took place for these individuals to attain these specific body parts, starting with a story called “The Reek,” which leads to the attainment of a nose. Following is “Water Ghost Boy,” moving into the eyes. “exorcism.net” shows how Seon-min was able to acquire a tongue. Then we delve into “A Former Resident,” where Gyu-Hyeong was able to attain a torso. The story of what is unfolding with these gifts starts to become more and more in focus with the real motive of why the offerings are being delivered to the Father. When the young reporter is caught, she pleads to Mister Hwayoung for help, but he leaves her alone to face her fate. The betrayal leads to the detective’s own grim demise.

The narrative is haunting, with each character’s story adding layers to the cult’s ritual and its eerie allure. The climax, where the Father grants each member a wish to kill someone they hate, is both shocking and thought-provoking, leaving viewers questioning the price of revenge and blind devotion. The performances are gripping, with the cast (unfortunately, as with the directors, aside from the one exception above, there is almost no information about who played which part) delivering intense and believable portrayals of their tormented characters. The film’s atmosphere is suitably dark and foreboding, enhancing the sense of dread that permeates the story. Overall, the movie is a compelling psychological horror that examines the extremes of human desperation and the terrifying consequences of unchecked fanaticism. It’s a must-watch for fans of the horror genre who appreciate a well-crafted, unsettling narrative with an extra dose of gore, blood and splatter. BODY PARTS premieres on the Screambox streaming platform on July 30

HEY, MA! WATCH THIS Movies | Kasey Lehmkuhl | July 27, 2024 | Anthology BODY PARTS Byeong-deock Jeon Gwang-Jin Lee Han Sang-hyuk Horror Jang-mi Kim Jisam Jo Woo-ri Kim Ahyeon Kim Chae-Eun Kim Min-Seok Korean Kwon Ah-Reum Movies Psychological Thriller Rated R Screambox Wally Seo Won-kyung Choi

THE MOOR

(NUCLEAR TANGERINE/BULLDOG FILM DISTRIBUTION (120 minutes; Rated R); 2024)

I’ll say this for the producers of THE MOOR, a spooky child abduction mystery story set among the bleak, forbidding landscape of the Yorkshire moors: They’re a patient lot. Where most films about hauntings or horrifying events usually do their dastardly “darkness of human nature” deeds in 90 minutes or so, THE MOOR takes its sweet time and puts you through two hours of gothic atmosphere and slow-burn buildup to keep you engrossed. This proves to be a mixed blessing, but you gotta admire first-time director Chris Cronin’s level of confidence and focus in sticking to a particular aesthetic to tell his tale of grim kidnappings in not-so-jolly old England. And while his film won’t command the attention of EVERY viewer, those that can appreciate a mystery story that unfolds more like a literary classic than a conventional scary movie with “jump scares” and shit, will find lots to get lost in here. And without any question at all, child kidnappings is about as terrifying as anything in real life gets… they HAPPEN, and often when they end in murder, which is the case here, the killers are not always found.

THE MOOR (SOPHIA LA PORTA) (Screen Shot)

This particular story begins when two childhood friends go to a candy store to pocket some goodies, with young Claire detailing to her pal Danny how her not-at-all smart plan will take place. When things seem to be taking too long, Claire goes into the store to check things out, despite the fact that the owner does not care for her at all, a fact she makes clear. Danny is nowhere around, and Claire is told that the little boy’s father came and picked him up, a blatant lie. The film then jumps to many years later, when the adult Claire (Sophia La Porta), still traumatized by never knowing what happened to Danny, is in conversation with Danny’s father, Bill (a haunted and credible David Edward-Robertson), who posits that the nearby moors may hold some of the answers they are seeking. Not sure at ALL why he decides this; would a vast unforgiving wilderness be where your average psycho kiddie snatcher would take his pint-sized victims to dispose of? Maybe; I know nothing of such matters. Anyway, Bill wants to investigate the dark and foggy terrain of the moors (a striking landscape that has graced quite a few mystery films through the years) with the help of a psychic (Elizabeth Dormer-Phillips) and an experienced local, Thornley (the great Bernard Hill, who played King Theoden in the LOTR franchise, in one of his last performances), who has maps of the terrain they are seeking to explore and familiarity with the entire nightmarish saga. Of the series of kidnappings that have terrorized the area, Thornley says “Normally it’s around about 10% of young people who leave the area they were brought up in. But since that summer, it’s been about 50%. Personally I think they just didn’t want to see that place out their window anymore.”

THE MOOR (ELIZABETH DORMER-PHILLIPS) (Screen Shot)

He has a point… once the film takes us out onto the actual moors, it’s about as unfriendly and brooding a landscape as you could ever hope to see. Miles and miles of marshy NOTHINGNESS, perpetually in fog or shadow, where you could take a terrible fall, get hopelessly lost, or encounter something you would NEVER want to see in your worst nightmare. The film counts on us being deeply unsettled by this unfriendly expanse, and primed for ANY freaky event or discovery that might take place.

Except… there aren’t that many of them. Suspense builds rather slowly, and there are lots of scenes of our intrepid investigators wandering around in the grim nothingness clearly out of their element, and having a few combative conversations about what is really going on. As a viewer, you may find yourself ASKING what is “really going on,” and longing for a clear denouement. Some documentary style interview segments, a la the BLAIR WITCH PROJECT, try to fill in a few blanks for us, and clearly the film wants us to be open to the supernatural elements presented here, even though we already know a man has been arrested for the child killings and may possibly be released soon. We WANT Bill to learn the fate of his child, and for Claire to start having peaceful nights again once she learns the fate of her childhood friend. And let it be said that the ACTING is uniformly excellent in this film; those Brits do this stuff with class and absolute discipline; you will definitely BELIEVE there is a mystery to be solved here. La Porta and Edward-Robertson are both totally credible.

THE MOOR (SOPHIA LA PORTA, DAVID EDWARD-ROBERTSON, VICKI HACKETT, ELIZABETH DORMER-PHILLIPS, MARK PEACHEY) (Screen Shot)

But how much of this will be “riveting cinema” to you, ultimately? That is a highly individual thing. I really was compelled by the setting of this film, the chance to see the actual MOORS for the forbidding landscape they are, NOT a manufactured landscape. And I also felt I was in the presence of compelling, worthy filmmakers throughout. But was I scared? Was I really keen on the ultimate conclusion to this strange saga? Not so much, frankly. I tend to like my “evil” made straightforward and abundantly clear. So I don’t think most of you will get that from THE MOOR. But as a quietly gripping look at a truly ongoing nightmare, with an imposing natural landscape as one of the clear “villains,” this film is quite powerful in its own way. The “moor,” the scarier. Or something like that.

HEY, MA! WATCH THIS Movies | Kevin Renick | July 21, 2024 | Bernard Hill Child Abduction Chris Cronin David Edward-Robertson Elizabeth Dormer-Phillips England Horror Mark Peachey Movies Psychological Thriller Rated R Sophia La Porta THE MOOR Vicki Hackett

THE GIRL IN THE TRUNK

(SUNRISE FILMS/VERTIGO RELEASING/LONE TOWER VISIONS/A BIGGER BOAT/ROUNOW PRODUCTIONS (90 minutes; Unrated); 2024)

One of the things I love about movies is the chance to experience something from a unique point of view, to live vicariously through a character’s actions, and maybe wonder if you’d behave in a similar manner or completely differently given their challenges in the story. There are so MANY movies out there, of course, that they tend to fall to well-worn tropes of plot development to hold your interest, and that can be tedious. I tend to really like films that show you characters in trapped situations, and to hold your interest by how they build the drama and suspense. A film I reviewed for ZM a couple of years ago was focused entirely on a young pregnant woman trapped in her car on a mountainside in a serious car accident. It was incredibly suspenseful, and when it turned into a horror film in the last half hour, the shocks were well earned. But I’m here right now to talk about THE GIRL IN THE TRUNK, a fairly ingenious little thriller that makes the most of its singular premise. Almost the entire movie consists of the plight and actions of a woman named Amanda Jennings (Katharina Sporrer) who has been kidnapped by an unknown baddie and tossed into the trunk of her rental car. We see a simple shot of her high heel shoes as she unsuccessfully tries to return the car at the film’s beginning, then the furtive actions of a stranger as he quietly gets in that same car without her seeing him. And next we are right in the trunk with her, her hands and mouth taped, trying to figure out what the fuck happened. Amanda has her cell phone, and that becomes absolutely central to the unfolding events. She is wearing a long white wedding dress, and she is a feisty, determined gal who manages to get the tape off her mouth and to call 911 on her phone. The detached sounding male operator asks her a series of increasingly annoying questions, including her location, to which she can only answer “somewhere north of Houston.” When she complains about his questions – after all she can’t give much info being trapped in the trunk of a car – he says “You’re under a lot of stress. but we’re doing all we can.” In the first of many small twists, it turns out the operator is, in fact, her kidnapper, She’s in the trunk and he’s the driver, and their “relationship” is going to evolve through a subsequent series of phone chats.

THE GIRL IN THE TRUNK (KATHARINA SPORRER) (Screen Shot)

So that’s the basic premise, and I gotta say, writer/director Jonas Kvist Jensen does an impressive job of giving us the claustrophobic feeling of being stuck in the trunk of a car, trying to figure out what to do. There isn’t much light, true, but Amanda finds a tool in the trunk that she uses first to poke a hole big enough to see out the back (ingeniously, this allows us to see what happens a few times when the kidnapper stops the car), and later to create an opening through which she can see the driver. In a good example of how cell phones can be used to help move a modern story along, Amanda even manages to snap a photo of her captor, who we’ll soon learn is an ordinary looking, middle-aged white guy named Michael Bellrose (Caspar Phillipson). I don’t think it’s necessary to spill every plot element here, as I think you SHOULD see this movie. But through a series of “games” and tense phone exchanges, we learn that Amanda is a runaway bride, that she and Bellrose have a connection to the same bank, and that getting ahold of her father on the phone turns out to be a key development. Bellrose’s intentions towards Amanda are a bit hazy, but he’s a seriously malevolent dude. When a good samaritan approaches the car offering to help Bellerose with something, the situation goes south in a hurry. And to my knowledge, this is the first cinematic example of a murder being shown to us via a hole in the trunk of a car. Generating even MORE suspense is when our psycho kidnapper tells Amanda she’s going to have company soon, and he slips a scorpion into the trunk through the main opening. This is filmed extremely well, with the critter crawling all over her and her having to maintain the kind of absolute cool that you or I likely would NOT possess. Scenes of this nature in so MANY films can be tiring and insulting to one’s intelligence. Here, it is a marvel of suspenseful pacing, and I wanted to cheer over Amanda’s believable actions. I also loved what happens when a good-natured female police officer stops the car and has a normal-seeming chat with Bellrose. Amanda has to listen to the dialogue without yelling out and risking her life. You’ll THINK you know how this scene is going to turn out, but trust me, you’ll be surprised. Some real thought went into this script and the necessity of getting from “point A” to “point B.” And if you are tired of thrillers and horror films where women either act stupidly or simply act as helpless victims, you’ll enjoy the plucky, sarcastic manner of the heroine here, and how she does her best to one-up the kidnapper mostly through dialogue. At most turns, this film avoids the obvious, which greatly impressed me. And whereas in the typical horror film (and THE GIRL IN THE TRUNK is ostensibly in that category) you’ll have to endure either an unpleasant or simply unbelievable ending, this cool little movie has a solid conclusion, almost cheer-worthy in fact. I found myself amazed at the end, and that doesn’t happen very often.

THE GIRL IN THE TRUNK (CASPAR PHILLIPSON) (Screen Shot)

My only criticism, and it’s basically a small one, is that while Sporrer is clearly a talented actress, her character rarely shows the kind of fear and vulnerability that I would think most women would display in her circumstances. She’s in a clearly desperate situation, and may very well be facing the end of her life, yet she always acts with confidence and resolve. It’s refreshing in a way, but wouldn’t it be more authentic if she lost her cool a couple of times? The “game” that Bellerose keeps her locked into, unwillingly, reveals her to be a more than capable opponent. And Phillipson is definitely a credible baddie, a blandly ordinary creep who insists he is “not really a violent man.” There’s a discernible vulnerability to him that again is somewhat refreshing, and the ongoing dialogue between him and our heroine is fast moving and full of interesting quirks. But overall, this movie is Jensen’s show; he deserves the bulk of the credit for how well this movie works as the writer and director, and I can’t imagine that many other films will be made that so successfully utilize the cramped trunk of a car the way this one does. So thumbs up from me on this surprising little thriller. It’s not flashy, and it’s mostly free of jump scares and the typical bloody violence inherent in this genre. But THE GIRL IN THE TRUNK is a minor miracle, a film that takes one of the most terrifying scenarios any woman could imagine and turns it into something riveting and even thoughtful. This movie beats the odds consistently for films of this nature, and I can only be grateful as a viewer.

HEY, MA! WATCH THIS Movies | Kevin Renick | May 26, 2024 | Caspar Phillipson Horror Jonas Kvist Jensen Katharina Sporrer Kidnapping Movies Psychological Thriller THE GIRL IN THE TRUNK Unrated

HERE FOR BLOOD

(SCREAMBOX ORIGINAL/PAGEMAN PRODUCTIONS/BLOODY DISGUSTING/CINEVERSE (101 minutes; Unrated); 2024)

This is a horror movie that is aptly named, as it indicates that if you watch horror movies in hopes of seeing a lot of blood, this one delivers. Throughout the film, there is spurting blood from stabbings, limbs getting cut off and even a couple of outrageously over the top head choppings. So I am saying all that upfront so you know that bloody violence is the order of the day in this’un. But since it is billed as a “horror/comedy,” the undertone of absurdity and satire helps alleviate any revulsion you may feel about the killings, although I have to say, the first two were really rather shocking… they happen in the film’s first 15 minutes. But what’s it ABOUT, you ask? Well, there’s this wrestler guy named Tom O’Bannon (Shawn Roberts) who makes less than a good living from cheap matches that a sleazy promoter stages for peanuts. Tom isn’t happy about his plight but hasn’t much choice in the matter. His attractive girlfriend Phoebe (Joelle Farrow) has an important test to cram for, and she asks Tom to fill in for just two hours for a babysitting job she agreed to do for friends, who have a young daughter named Grace (Maya Misaljevic). Tom is anything but thrilled about this but reluctantly agrees. Problem is, the house has been targeted for sinister reasons by a band of psycho cultists. When Tom orders a pizza for him and Grace, the pizza delivery guy is slaughtered in brutal fashion, and then it’s abundantly clear something horrible is taking place. And when Tom investigates a couple of weird sounds, the mayhem begins in earnest.

HERE FOR BLOOD (MAYA MISALJEVIC) (Screen Shot)

That’s the setup in a nutshell.

HERE FOR BLOOD (JOELLE FARROW, SHAWN ROBERTS) (Screen Shot)

I don’t really think, in a low-budget horror film such as this, that you need either a detailed plot synopsis or an analytical review of how successful the horror tropes are. Most people watch horror for the visceral kicks a film provides and the overall entertainment value. We’ve seen plenty of films about home invasions by masked psychos, which is the deal here, but this movie seems to delight in a level of excess that definitely makes an impression. One of the dimmer of the psycho cultists, apparently named “Bernie” (Jesse Buck) gets his face held to a red hot stove burner by Tom, screaming his head off; he also gets stabbed a bunch and has a hand cut off. The way Buck screams and pouts angrily throughout is the first sign you should NOT take this movie too seriously. Performance-wise, Buck is over the top but clearly understanding of the TONE that director Daniel Turres is going for. Which is a kind of high-energy schlock-carnage. “We are under attack by a gang of sex perverts!” Tom declares to Phoebe when she finally arrives after her studying is finished. “Everybody grab a knife,” he adds. There are tons of knives in this film, and an axe or two, all utilized regularly. “Just chop!” Tom tells Phoebe when she is wondering how they are going to subdue one of the killers. Phoebe is reluctant at first to do any killing and seems pathetically unhelpful, but when a killer calls her a bad name, she does some chopping all right, to such an extent that Tom has to tell her she can STOP now. Blood spurting in all directions is all the evidence needed that one of the baddies has been taken down. I laughed at that scene, honestly. And I laughed even more when Grace’s parents return home; this seemingly innocuous but neurotic couple, played with sitcom-like dopiness by Tara Spence-Nairn and Michael Therriault, provide some of the meant-for-relief laughter in the film’s final third. Considering the grim nature of the intruders and the detailed butchery we witness, the presence of these two quarreling knuckleheads will either help you relax or annoy the shit out of you. It sort of did BOTH for me.

HERE FOR BLOOD (JOELLE FARROW) (Screen Shot)

The killers are part of a cult, naturally, preparing for some kind of “ascension” that involves both a disemboweled talking head (voiced by Twisted Sister’s Dee Snider) that keeps saying “Feed me!” (a la the plant in LITTLE SHOP OF HORRORS), and the sacrifice of an attractive young woman, which is Phoebe’s intended role in all this and a point of attentive self-awareness and parody by the filmmakers, who score a point or so for that in terms of comedy. “We all knew the risks of joining a cult,” one of the homeowners casually declares. “But it’ll all be okay when we ASCEND.” Of course. That’s how it’s supposed to work! HERE FOR BLOOD is not a boring movie – it keeps things moving along at a good pace, and one or two setpieces of insane bloodletting, though winking at past films like THE EVIL DEAD and REANIMATOR, aren’t quite as deleriously funny as they’d like to be. The acting is not very good, for the most part, although the muscular Shawn Roberts tries to anchor things as best he can (and takes a thorough beating throughout). At one point, young Grace points to a bloody figure on the floor and asks “Is that guy DEAD?” “Yeah,” Tom replies. “Sucks, cause he was a fan of mine, too.” I laughed at that scene, and plenty of others. Clearly the intent was to have some fun with the genre by both the director and writer James Roberts. But it’s no classic, and much of the acting is just too stiff to be memorable. Still, it’s worth a watch for horror fans that like to be repulsed or startled by what they see. And I give the film an extra point or two by letting the good guys win despite going through hell. But many will perhaps NOT make it to the end of this one without a decisive response either yay or nay. But if you’re “here for blood” when you sit down to view this piece of self-aware horror carnage, chances are you will get what you came for.

HEY, MA! WATCH THIS Movies Streaming Video | Kevin Renick | April 27, 2024 | Action Movie Comedy Daniel Turres Dee Snider HERE FOR BLOOD Horror James Roberts Jesse Buck Joelle Farrow Maya Misaljevic Movie Trailer Movies Screambox Shawn Roberts Slasher Movie Unrated Wrestling Movie

DAUGHTER

(DARK STAR PICTURES/YELLOW VEIL PICTURES/THIRTEENTH FLOOR PICTURES/ONE WORLD ENTERTAINMENT(96 minutes; Unrated); 2023)

I have a particular fondness for weird and unpredictable movies. So many films these days are by-the-book entries in their respective genres, and anything in the horror/suspense world is more likely than not to give the viewers what they want, more or less. DAUGHTER, a memorable little indie project from writer/director Corey Deshon, is a well-made offering that grabbed my attention right away. It starts with two masked individuals chasing a terrified girl through a bleak landscape, and I think one of the dudes mutters something to the other, after their terrible act, like “Remember, you were responsible for this.” But whether I got that quote right or not, we are soon privy to the terror experienced by a different girl played by Vivien Ngo, as she is being menaced, oddly in a “respectful” manner, by “Father’ (Casper van Dien, best known from STARSHIP TROOPERS, in a career-best performance here). Father is explaining to the girl that she is now part of his family, that she will be addressed as the titular “Daughter,” and that she is badly needed as a companion for “Brother,” played by Ian Alexander. And there is a “Mother” around also, Elyse Dinh. Both the women here are Vietnamese, and this is never explained, though they do use the language to speak to each other, presumably to keep “Father” from understanding their conversations. We have our setup: A cult-like family who think that the “outside” is “poison,” and that safety can only be counted on inside, are fixed on having the right daughter to complete their family, and to bring happiness to their son. Something really weird is going on, and the movie hangs on our suspense about what in hell is happening.

DAUGHTER (IAN ALEXANDER, CASPER VAN DIEN, ELYSE DINH) (photo courtesy DARK STAR PICTURES)

It is worth mentioning the score here, as I believe that music can have a huge role in one’s response to a film. This one was done by David Strother, a composer I don’t know, and it’s a doozy. All tense strings (likely cello and violin/viola) which are often discordant and almost always insistent, but very evocative. They tell us rather straightforwardly that something is really OFF in this scenario, and I think the music is very effective. Deshon made a good choice in utilizing this composer.

DAUGHTER (ELYSE DINH, CASPER VAN DIEN, IAN ALEXANDER) (photo courtesy DARK STAR PICTURES)

It was also a curious and very successful choice to put van Dien in the lead. We’ve seen this actor as an energetic and rather heroic type in past films, and here he is unhinged, spooked (in that way so common to overwrought cult leaders) and singularly set on his one dysfunctional goal: To maintain the semblance of a family and overcome any hesitation on the part of the girl(s) he kidnaps. “This is going to be home for a while,” he tells the scared Daughter. “You have to understand that. You’re part of a family now… I can’t do this without you.” We’ve all read sick news stories about cult kidnappings before, so the grim resonance of this scenario is vividly real. Ngo shows initial reticence and fear, but gradually we see her start to become a bit calculating, and the actress does a credible job starting to “adapt.” She slowly starts to become agreeable, though she is wacked in the face by Father wielding a rolled-up newspaper at one point. She is gingerly trying to push the limits a bit. And while she starts playing with the “Brother,” first at a board game he seems to fancy and then via a “storytelling exercise” that she has to persuade him to engage in (it soon leads to a weird bit of theatricality), Father is suspicious throughout, hovering never far away and making sure both of the “siblings” (as well as we the audience) are kept on edge. He reads periodically from a tattered book (it could be the Bible or some other culty guidebook), and he keeps saying things like “the diseases out there don’t play by the rules!” and issuing warnings like “Don’t you poison that boy!” and “Don’t ruin everything.” The youngster, Ian Alexander, has one of the difficult challenges here: How to show his innocent enthusiasm for “fun” and bonding with his new sibling, and his absolute adherence to Father’s wishes, while clearly getting rattled when something doesn’t seem right. Alexander has a crucial – and a bit inscrutable – role here and he fulfills it well.

DAUGHTER (ELYSE DINH, CASPER VAN DIEN, VIVIEN NGO, IAN ALEXANDER) (photo courtesy DARK STAR PICTURES)

But the film mostly belongs to Casper van Dien. He is entirely believable, quite scary, and a million miles away from his heroic part in STARSHIP TROOPERS. He wears monastic plain clothes (they all do), is clearly disturbed about what he perceives as the sick reality of the outside world, and shows how quickly he might go OFF, and hurt you. He makes it clear early on that if he thinks you DESERVE to be hurt, you WILL be. That keeps you guessing all the way to the end.

DAUGHTER (CASPER VAN DIEN, IAN ALEXANDER) (photo courtesy DARK STAR PICTURES)

It’s remarkable that director Strother keeps sex totally out of the picture here… the reality of most cults I have ever read about is that part of the MO when kidnapping women is to prey on them sexually. That is NOT part of this particular story. Also a surprise was the ending, which I won’t give away. Some things are left hanging, and you’re left knowing mostly, as one of the captioned chapter titles tell us, that you’ve seen “A Story About Sick People.” I found this film scarily resonant and relevant. We live in a world these days where all kinds of predatory creeps, whether motivated by religion or not, force or pressure people to do the things the sickos want, sometimes having to give up their old lives. DAUGHTER does not make everything clear about the reality we are witnessing, and each of the characters ends up representing a separate aspect of life in a dysfunctional (potentially dystopian?) small-scale system. It’s unsettling, unnerving and sometimes quite disturbing. But the decision-making process that went into the production of this offbeat gem of a film was thoughtful and deliberate, and it pays off. Kudos to the director and the acting foursome for serving up something that you’re not likely to forget, and avoiding almost all the clichés of this particular cinematic milieu.

(DAUGHTER premieres in theaters and On Demand on February 10, 2023, with a DVD release scheduled for May 9.)

HEY, MA! WATCH THIS Movies | Kevin Renick | February 9, 2023 | Casper Van Dien Corey Deshon DAUGHTER David Strother Digital On Demand Elyse Dinh Enslavement Horror Ian Alexander Indoctrination Kidnapping Movies Theatrical Release Unrated Vietnamese Actors Vivien Ngo

THE ANDY BAKER TAPE

(TERROR FILMS/4:02 PRODUCTIONS (69 minutes; Unrated); 2021)

The “found footage” phenomenon in the cinematic universe turned out to be a clever new wrinkle, one that found more creative approaches than the average person might think. THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT turned out to be one of the most purely profitable films in history, having been made on a shoestring budget by Daniel Myrick and Eduardo Sanchez, but then utilizing a compelling and unique promotional approach that drew audiences in droves. PARANORMAL ACTIVITY spawned a seemingly endless franchise, and there have been plenty of other movies that utilized the found footage thing successfully. Now we have THE ANDY BAKER TAPE, and while it hardly breaks new ground, it does show you can keep viewers interested in this kind of approach with a suspenseful setup and interesting actors. The film has both, with just two characters, Jeff Blake (Bret Lada, who also directs) and Andy Baker (Dustin Fontaine) holding your attention for a film that lasts little more than an hour. Blake is a culinary specialist hoping to finalize plans for his own show on the Food Network. He recruits his half brother, the titular Andy, to help him scout out some locations and hopefully interact with him in some scenes. This would seem to be a workable enough proposition, except that… Andy turns out to be kind of weird. He can’t seem to simply play to the camera for ordinary questions Jeff asks him, and he gets offended over nothing at all at times, keeping Jeff on edge. Lurking in the past for both men is the death of their father, whom Jeff says was killed in a horrible car accident. And both have the spectre of failure uppermost in their minds – Jeff because of the uncertainty of the offer for his own foodie show, and Andy because of a “deal” he was counting on that… falls through. Which has happened to him before.

THE ANDY BAKER TAPE (BRET LADA, DUSTIN FONTAINE) (publicity still)

We see these two guys checking out eateries in rural America, getting more and more impatient with each other (impatience is a wicked sort of behavioral thing in this movie), and battling at times for control of the big, mostly unseen camera. We’re told right at the beginning, just as with other movies in this genre, that their “footage” was put together from many hours that were “discovered” after the two disappeared. Eventually there are a few bad things that happen, mostly pointing at Andy as being… a bad and disturbed dude. I do count myself as a fan of unhinged behavior, and I don’t need every single thing explained to me. I DO hope for good, believable performances, and thankfully these two actors are quite convincing overall. Lada is a charismatic, dark-haired chap that is convincingly distraught when he discovers that his half-brother is not a trustworthy character. Fontaine is scruffier and harder to pin down in his behavior and motivations, but that’s the point. What do you do when you’re trying to achieve a career breakthrough and a relative seems like he could help at first, but then ends up threatening every single thing? “You can’t pick your family” is the tag line here, and boy is Jeff Blake sorry for THAT!

THE ANDY BAKER TAPE (DUSTIN FONTAINE, BRET LADA) (publicity still)

The quick running time, evocative empty landscapes, and most of all, the conviction in the lead performances make THE ANDY BAKER TAPE a more than worthy view. There really aren’t that many films out there that I’m aware of, that only focus on TWO guys interacting. Seeing ordinary behavior turn into something unsettling and then horrifying, is a more than relevant theme in these crazy times. So yeah, I appreciated this film quite a bit when I watched it in the middle of the night. And it’s without a doubt a worthy addition to the “found footage canon.”

HEY, MA! WATCH THIS Movies | Kevin Renick | August 23, 2022 | Bret Lada Digital Dustin Fontaine Horror Movies Psychological Thriller Terror Films THE ANDY BAKER TAPE

WAITING FOR YOUR CALL: THE TIMOTHY WOODARD, JUNIOR INTERVIEW

TIMOTHY WOODWARD, JUNIOR (photo credit: EVAN DE NORMANDIE)

Timothy Woodward, Junior is an actor, a writer, a producer and a director. He has done at least one of those jobs, and in some cases, most of those jobs on a variety of TV shows and film projects, including STUDIO CITY, HICKOK, BEYOND THE LAW, AMERICAN VIOLENCE and THE FINAL WISH.

Woodward’s current project is THE CALL, a psychological horror movie set in 1987 and starring the wonderful duo of Lin Shaye (THE FINAL WISH and the INSIDIOUS franchise) and Tobin Bell (the SAW franchise) as a seclusive couple who, after being tormented by four teenage pranksters (played by Chester Rushing, Erin Sanders, Mike Manning and Sloane Morgan Siegel), suffer a horrible tragedy. Edward Cranston calls the four to tell them that his wife, Edith, has died and has named each of them in her will. There’s a catch, however. For them to collect the money, each of them must go to a room in the Cranston home and make a phone call… to Edith, who had a telephone buried with her. If the youths can stay on the line for one minute, they will get their inheritance. Along the way, each must face their biggest fears and regrets. The film is a dark and brooding character study that occasionally brings to mind the lurid Slasher flicks of the 1980s in vivid splashes of red.

After a brief run at drive-in theaters in October, THE CALL will be available on DVD and Blu-Ray on December 15 at the usual outlets. This brief phone interview with Timothy was conducted on October 2, the day of the film’s theatrical release.

THE MULE: So, we got ten minutes. Let’s jump right into it. Watched the movie last night. I liked it… a lot. I’ve gotta say, a lot of stuff made sense to me that didn’t make sense in the trailer. Primarily, the press release said that it was set in 1987 and I couldn’t, for the life of me, figure out why such a bizarre… I mean, why pick 1987? And then… I mean, this is an homage to those classic Horror/Slasher movies from that time period.

TIMOTHY WOODWARD, JUNIOR: Yeah. For sure. And, you know, I turned four years old in 1987. That was the first year I watched my first ever Horror movie. So, that’s also why I picked that year. Could be the setting, ‘cause it was originally kind of generic ‘80s, so I picked ‘87. I just thought there was a lot of Horror that was coming out around that time. I kinda started setting out the sort of ‘80s Horror vibe.

THE MULE: Yeah, it worked really well, too.

TWJ: Thank you. I think we’re gonna release another trailer that’s gonna have more of an ‘80s vibe. We had two and we were going back and forth on which one we were gonna use. We didn’t want people, when they saw the trailer, to think that we were using the ‘80s almost as a crutch. So, we wanted to kinda catch people with the hook and then potentially release another one where we kinda focus on, you know, the more… as we get closer to the movie, the uniqueness instead of violence in the trailer.

THE CALL (Lin Shaye) (photo courtesy: CINEDIGM)

THE MULE: Sure, sure. The one thing I gotta ask you, man: Working with Lin and Tobin had to be just absolutely incredible. How did you snag them for this work? I know that Lin had… she’s got a production credit in there but, other than that, how did you end up choosing them for these roles and how was it to work with them?

TWJ: So, I got the script, actually, from Lin’s manager through Lin. They were already producers on it and they gave it to me to direct. I worked with Lin on THE FINAL WISH. Jeffrey Reddick (producer on both films) and I had a really good rapport and working relationship on that movie and they liked what I did. They came to me and said, “Hey, look, we’ve got this script and we’d like you to direct it, maybe come on board as producer. What do you think?” And I wanted to work with Miss Lin again… in a heartbeat so, I read it, liked the concept and we started punching up the characters and, I think a couple months later we were in production, ready to go.

THE CALL (Tobin Bell) (photo courtesy: CINEDIGM)

And, you know, the idea of Edward Cranston… we were trying to figure out… there’s this couple, revenge that has to happen, there’s… if you’ve seen the film, there’>s probably things that aren’t in the trailer, it’s not just a straight they break windows and a revenge thing by any means. So, you wanted someone who would feel suspect a little bit, did he have anything to with this. Someone, you know, who just fit and Tobin had come across in conversations between me, Gina (Rugolo, another producer on the film) and Lin and he just felt like a perfect fit from the start. I’m just so glad we went that direction because I think he did such a great job and Lin and him had such good chemistry immediately. Which, you usually don’t see people just walk on set, you know, never really met in person or worked together before in person and they’re iconic like that, in a certain genre, and then they just click and they disappear into their characters like they are just who they are, you know. They look like they fit, they feel like they fit and those scenes were so easy because their chemistry was so good. It was just point the camera and shoot.

THE MULE: Yeah. That’s amazing that you got into production so quickly. That almost never happens.

TWJ: Yeah, we were lucky that we were able to do it, to pull it off.

THE MULE: The… uh… I’m gonna put “teenagers” in quotes here, but they all really pretty much hit the spot with their characters and the horror aspect, their horror at what was going on… from originally, >you know, the whole prank thing… there’s a backstory there that’s just amazing.

TWJ: Thank you, man. Yeah, that’s something that I carved out… even while we were filming, I was coming up with different situations and ideas for that because the backstory in the original script wasn’t fleshed out much for each character, it wasn’t much more of a blueprint. The two weren’t originally brothers and we said, “Hey, let’s make them brothers.” I worked with Jeffrey Reddick and Patrick – Patrcik Stibbs, who wrote it and Jeffrey Reddick, who was a producer – and, I was like, “Let’s make these guys brothers and, then, kinda create a situation for all of them where it’s just a little bit more personal.” You know, the idea is, hopefully you think one way about a person, then you feel another way in another moment. And it makes you feel for them or you don’t. It’s just to make them feel more three dimensional, so they didn’t just feel like complete cardboard characters until you feel like, “Hey, I understand why this person may be this way.” I can understand what this person’s going through.

THE CALL (Chester Rushing, Erin Sanders, Mike Manning, Sloane Morgan Siegel) (photo courtesy: CINEDIGM)

THE MULE: Right. I was actually going to say that, without giving anything away, all four of those characters come with baggage that kinda makes sense for… the way they turned out. Let’s put it that way.

TWJ: Yeah. Definitely. Yeah, for sure. And, their story for why they’re doing what they’re doing, you know… again, can’t give away too much… but, you feel one way, you think one way and then, it’s something else and the trailer tells you something completely different. That’s kind of the idea, we want you going in not really knowing exactly what it is you’re going to see and exactly who to pull for and in what way and be just… entertaining, you know. A psychological war. Psychological war is important to me because I think that’s… the idea of living in your mind and repeating your worst nightmares and your dreams… I mean, your fears on loop and repeat, that’s pretty terrible thing to be, you know.

THE MULE: And, it does work on that level, as well, as far as psychological horror, psychological thriller, whatever you want to call it. And, not only is it an homage back to those very bloody ‘80s kind of Horror things, but even back further than that when the horror wasn’t actually shown on screen, it was just intimated. I mean, it works really well because there’s stuff going on in that… in the final third of that movie that really… it sets the standard for stuff to come, I think.

THE CALL (Brooklyn Anne Miller) (photo courtesy: CINEDIGM)

TWJ: Yeah. That was the idea and it’s just a little bit… people are like, “Well, you got Tobin from SAW and SAW was gory… ” and people kinda automatically assume from the trailer that it’s gonna be really just this… gory film and I’m going, “You may be surprised. It’s not going to be just like you think.” It’s very different… on purpose. It was done that way because I think your mind can imagine way worse than what I can show you. If I can show you a piece of it, your mind can go other places, you know. So, that’s the thing about it. Whether it’s JAWS and the shark, you know… if you see it all the time it becomes this way… But, we wanted to pull out spots in a few areas to make your mind go, “Oh, shit!” and just let you wonder what they’re going through. Even at the end of it, ya know.

Actor/Creator Features/Interviews DVD/Blu-Ray HEY, MA! WATCH THIS Movies | Darren Tracy | December 12, 2020 | Chester Rushing Creator Interviews DVD/Blu-Ray Erin Sanders Gina Rugolo Horror Jeffrey Reddick Lin Shaye Mike Manning Movies Patrick Stibbs Psychological Thriller Slasher Movie Sloane Morgan Siegel THE CALL THE FINAL WISH Timothy Woodward Junior Tobin Bell

HAWK AND REV: VAMPIRE SLAYERS

(RBG FILMS/CLUMSY TIGER PRODUCTIONS/LOADED IMAGE ENTERTAINMENT (85 minutes; Unrated); 2020)

Without a doubt, this is one of the silliest movies I have ever seen. HAWK AND REV: VAMPIRE SLAYERS aims to be a kind of cross between DUMB AND DUMBER and THE LOST BOYS, in that it focuses on two very dim-witted friends, Hawk (Ryan Barton-Grimley) and Rev, his vegan-hippie space cadet counterpart (Ari Schneider) who are sure their town of Santa Muerte, California is being plagued by vampires. They wisecrack about everything, assemble a plan to take on the bloodsuckers that may or may not include the eye patch-wearing tough guy Jasper (Richard Gayler), and find time to parody other, better-known films such as FROM DUSK TILL DAWN. In fact, when former security guard Hawk tries to make a point about predictability to his clueless friend, he rattles off a long list of quotes from classic movies that Rev shows unblinking ignorance of. It’s a preposterous scene, and yet, it did sort of make me chuckle. So did a brief chat about how yes, you can still rent DVDs in some places, and seeing a trio of punk rockers mistaken for vamps (one of whom is a black leather covered gimp in an homage to Tarantino’s PULP FICTION… silent, but shown eating popcorn in one scene). The low-budget movie eases into its absurdity at first, with most of the budget apparently spent on some gory scenes that are over the top a la Monty Python. But by the final half hour, it simply goes all in on complete and total idiocy that, if you’re in the mood for it, will possibly give you giggle fits. The film is like an ego project for some college students making their magnum opus, probably stoned for most of the production. Weirdly, though, the acting is decent in a self-indulgent way, and Barton-Grimley is no newcomer. He’s been in the business for years, and I recognize him from one or two TV projects I can’t recall the names of. He’s obviously having a great time here, sending up every cliche in the world of vampire and crime investigation type films. The two leads are joined by a female writer named Theo (Jana Savage), who comes across as though she were doing little more than helping a couple of pals. And a bit of extreme gore in that last half hour will make college students chuckle, perhaps, but likely won’t be of much interest to anyone else.

HAWK AND REV: VAMPIRE SLAYERS (Ari Schneider, Jana Savage, Ryan Barton-Grimley) (publicity still)

I thought at first of including some of the more comical lines of dialogue in this review, and decided against it. The pace of this film is frenetic, and it wears its willful stupidity proudly, honestly wanting to be a throwback to the ‘80s on almost every level. There is an audience for this kind of movie, just as there was for DUMB AND DUMBER, although that one was art compared to the slim production values of this thing. And yet, its gleeful dedication to a brainless aesthetic is admirable. I DID actually laugh a few times, and once I realized that nothing serious was going to happen and the “stakes” (pun intended) would remain low, I could appreciate the lack of pretension here and the high number of ridiculous scenes. But forget all about stuff you’ve seen before like BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER if you watch this. That Joss Whedon show is like MASTERPIECE THEATRE compared to Hawk and Rev’s exploits. Describing the plot beyond what I’ve already said is pointless. These “vampire slayers” are just wanna-be’s, lug-headed friends whose main purpose is to send up a couple of time-worn genres. They do that moderately well at times, but any expectations at all for this film beyond indulging in some extreme silliness, are likely to result in head shaking and exhaustion. And yikes, it looks like a sequel dealing with werewolves is out there. You gotta be howling mad to make a franchise out of this stuff.

HEY, MA! WATCH THIS Movies Streaming Video | Kevin Renick | October 25, 2020 | Action Movie Ari Schneider Buddy Movie Comedy Comedy Homage HAWK AND REV: VAMPIRE SLAYERS Horror Jana Savage Monster Movie Movie Trailer Richard Gayler Ryan Barton-Grimley Spoof Streaming Video Unrated Vampire Movie

LIMBO

(UNCORK’D ENTERTAINMENT/ALTERNATE ENDING FILMS/LIMBO ENTERTAINMENT (89 minutes; Unrated); 2020)

Whenever I’m assigned a review for a low-budget indie type film, usually something I’ve never heard of before, I have a tendency to mentally prepare myself for an experience that’ll be tedious and hard to write about, as has been the case more than a few times. It’s just that there are only so many ways to make a film genuinely entertaining and interesting; the “surprise factor” is a rarity in below-the-radar films. Imagine my pleasant reaction, then, when LIMBO turned up, on a particularly bad day for me when I was mostly making myself kill time, and lo and behold it grabbed me right away and didn’t let go. There have been other films that combined the legal profession and the underlying theme of good versus evil – THE DEVIL’S ADVOCATE comes to mind – but there is enough clever, offbeat stuff in LIMBO to make it a worthy viewing experience. A timeless theme that has occurred throughout the history of films is given some curious new life here thanks to writer/director Mark H Young’s clear interest in the whole “heaven or hell” debate. And yes, I was surprised.

LIMBO (Veronica Cartwright) (publicity still)

A bad brute of a guy, Jimmy Boyle (Lew Temple) commits a senseless murder of a mother of three (Veronica Cartwright in a brief but memorable appearance), and must face justice. It’s giving nothing away to say that he dies himself; the film is concerned with whether he’s going to go to hell, or get a “redemption” that would allow him to go to heaven. So two attorneys in a dingy underworld office must argue the case: Balthazar (Lucian Charles Collier), a young looking guy with an oddly casual accent, gets to make what surely appears to be an open-and-shut case for why this reprehensible killer should go straight to hell, even though the “witnesses” called indicate he had a horrible, abusive father and a drug-addict mother. But not so fast: the white-suited new attorney for Jimmy, an attractive gal named Cassiel (Scottie Thompson) has some pluck and energy to take a deeper look into Jimmy’s past; this includes exploring his atypical relationship with a self-aware prostitute named Angela (Lauryn Canny). Balthazar is being pressured to “close this case down” quickly by a nasty rep for Lucifer named Belial (a fiery Peter Jacobson). And it sure seems like Jimmy is irredeemable; in fact, Cassiel tries to quit the case, figuring this is just NOT going so well. But Mark H Young has some things he wants to say about humanity and justice. “I’m very confused,” Cassiel tells Balthazar at one point. “I put my trust in God. But now that I’ve seen what humans can do with my own eyes, I don’t know what I believe anymore.” And the film does take a more interesting than you’d expect view of what makes a guy bad, with a couple of interesting twists.

LIMBO (Richard Rhiele, Lucian Charles Collier) (publicity still)

There is some dark humor along the way, and a crucial bit of acting levity by Richard Riehle as Phil, a wisecracking stenographer, whom film fans will remember from his role as Tom Smykowski in the cult film OFFICE SPACE. I enjoyed the understated, sort of weary back-and-forth between Collier and Thompson, two actors I was not familiar with; there’s a grudging mutual respect for the very separate worlds of good and evil that each has to represent. We do see various demons with minimal horns sticking out of their heads, including Riehle’s character, walking in and out of various scenes, and there’s an amusing sequence in a hell bar. And by the time Lucifer himself appears near the end (James Purefoy, adding to the endless unique interpretations of a character we’ve been conditioned to ALWAYS be curious about), enough interesting stuff has unfolded in this movie to make Purefoy’s performance a genuine delight.

While Temple is mostly one-dimensional in his portrayal as Jimmy, he is certainly unsettling to watch and provides a mostly compelling story arc. Thompson and Collier are both so unconventional they make things move along rather briskly, and Jacobson and Riehle are excellent. LIMBO aims for a fresh look at the most timeless theme in the world, that being good versus evil – and there are times when the plot is really a stretch. Jimmy doesn’t give us enough depth to care that much about him, and certainly there are questions of plausibility throughout. But I truly liked the setup of this film, and the whole notion of everyone getting a “trial” to see which way they are going after they die. The script has more panache than I expected, and I would say Young is a director to watch. I was never bored watching LIMBO; in fact, I am kind of eager to see it again. That’s a surprising thing for me to say, considering my not so enthusiastic attitude when the opening credits first rolled.

HEY, MA! WATCH THIS Movies | Kevin Renick | August 14, 2020 | Comedy Crime Drama Drama Horror James Purefoy Lauryn Canny Legal Thriller Lew Temple LIMBO Lucian Charles Collier Mark H Young Movies Peter Jacobson Richard Riehle Scottie Thompson Unrated Veronica Cartwright

WHAT’S INSIDE