Day 327: Thankskilling

Thankskilling

Let's talk turkey

Happy Thanksgiving everyone! Even if you're not an American, Happy Thanksgiving. As is Thanksgiving tradition, today we post on Facebook about what we're supposedly thankful for and then take part in the American tradition of eating too much. This is followed by going to stores and trampling people to buy a flat-screen television for $20 cheaper. If I'm thankful for anything, it's that I have loyal readers that enjoy reading my reviews. If it wasn't for you, I would have stopped doing this a long time ago.

There are plenty of holiday-related horror movies that have come out over the years. We have Halloween, April Fool's Day, Black Christmas, My Bloody Valentine, New Year's Evil, and Easter Bunny Kill! Kill!. Soon, we're going to have to make movies about smaller holidays like Arbor Day, President's Day, and Flag Day. The one major holiday missing from the list is Thanksgiving. The holiday itself doesn't seem to lend much to a horror story. It's not a religious holiday and is spent mostly eating and watching football. Terrifying to a select few, but it's not a lot to work with. When the double feature-length movie Grindhouse hit theaters, it included previews of other fake horror movies such as "Machete" and "Don't". One of those previews was Eli Roth's "Thanksgiving". That was the closest thing we had for a Thanksgiving horror movie until a few kids took some initiative and made their own Thanksgiving-themed horror movie.

Lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllladies

Thankskilling is a 2009 independent horror movie written, produced and directed by Jordan Downey and Kevin Stewart. A group of five friends head home from college on their Thanksgiving break when they run into car trouble. The group includes Johnny the jock, Kristen the good girl, Darren the nerd, Billy the redneck, and Ali the slut. They decide to camp out for the night and Darren tells them the story of a killer turkey, creatively named Turkie. During the first Thanksgiving, a powerful Native American shaman created the murderous, filthy-mouthed Turkie to kill any white people in it's path during the time around Thanksgiving. Kristen thinks she sees Turkie in the woods, but the rest of the group laugh her off. Turkie, is in fact in the woods and kills the dog of a vagrant named Oscar The Hermit. Oscar swears revenge and tries to track down Turkie. As the group makes their way home, Turkie follows by hijacking a car. He kills Johnny's parents and (sigh) has sex with Ali before snapping her neck. He then kills Kristen's father and wears his face as a mask. The group makes it to Kristen's house where they are unable to see through Turkie's disguise as they look for a book that may help defeat the evil bird. Will they be able to stop Turkie before it's too late?

The creators of Thankskilling dub their movie "the ultimate low budget experience" and boy are they not lying. The movie was made on a shoestring budget of about $3,500 plus a small investment from a distribution company. I can't fault the movie for having little money to work with and I truly do applaud two young filmmakers for having fun and created the film they wanted to make. What I can fault them for is making an unfunny movie. I'm sure this will chap a few asses from the chattering internet-class, but I barely laughed throughout the entire movies. A few chuckles here and there, but nothing really stood out to me as being genuinely hysterical. Some will claim that the movie has a "so bad it's good quality" and sure, I can see that, but I don't agree with it. Turkie itself is just a cheap demented-looking plastic puppet. I wasn't expecting anything special and they delivered. The 12 year-old in me still finds cursing funny, but their comes a point when Turkie just says filthy words just because. It gets old and forced very quickly. Some of the jokes are non sequiturs or have no segways, as if they come out of nowhere. For every half-funny joke, there are about 15 that are not funny at all.

I almost feel bad criticizing the movie, like calling double-dribble on your dog during a game of basketball. I can look past the nonsensical story, I mean, fine a talking turkey that kills people. I've seen crazier things. For all it's ridiculousness, the plot doesn't bother me. The story itself doesn't make much sense and their are some forehead-slapping scenes throughout. I couldn't believe they actually showed the turkey puppet raping Ali. It wasn't funny and really made me dislike the entire movie. To my surprise, the acting is actually passable for such a low-budget film and the direction is fine. There is plenty of violence and blood with a few good kills here and there. As far as horror villains go, Turkie isn't that bad. He's a remorseless killing machine with a sick sense of humor. I suppose it's better than a non-talking killer turkey.

This picture broke my brain

Thankskilling would fit in perfectly with the Troma family of insane movies like Poultrygeist, Dumpster Baby, and Butt Crack. It's cheap and ridiculous which is perfect for some people. Not me, though. I found a lot of the jokes unfunny and sophomoric. Maybe surrounded by drunk friends making fun of it would have made it more enjoyable, but that wasn't the case. What I'm thankful for is that the movie was only about an hour long. The killings are decent and there is a good amount of blood. The jokes aren't too funny and the turkey rape-scene still bothers me. I thought the necrophilia scene in Masters of Horror: Haeckel's Tale was bad, but this may equal it. If you're looking for something crass and full of nonsense, you may actually enjoy Thankskilling. Beyond that, what can I tell you? It's a movie about a killer turkey puppet. What do you expect?

2.5/10

Day 317: Brain Dead

Brain Dead

In your face!

When you've watched over 300 horror movies in a calendar year, you tend to get bored. For every good horror movie, there's about 50 that are terrible. Find me a great unique zombie movie and I'll find you 10 that are almost exactly the same and boring as shit. In order to stave off boredom, I have to resort to searching for movies with interesting story choices, different directors, or in today's case, an almost mythical combination of actors.

Brain Dead (not to be confused with Peter Jackson's Braindead/Dead Alive) is a 1990 psychological horror movie starring Bill Pullman (Independence Day, Spaceballs) as neurosurgeon Dr. Rex Martin. Martin is actively researching brain afflictions, specifically paranoia. He works in a lab literally filled with jars containing brains. He cares deeply for each brain stating they once belonged to actual people and deserve to be treated with respect. School friend Jim Reston (Bill Paxton, Apollo 13, Frailty), a successful businessman at the omni-corporation Eunice, reaches out to Martin when a work problem arises. John Halsey, a mathematician for Eunice, was working on something extremely secretive when he suffered a mental breakdown. Now in a mental institution, Halsey is extremely paranoid and unable to answer the most basic of questions. Martin performs brain surgery on Halsey, but begins to have strange hallucinations and dreams. He constantly sees a man in white, covered with blood, wherever he goes. Martin begins to feel paranoid, as if he is being followed. He soon suspects that his wife is cheating on him with Jim. The dreams and hallucinations intensify and soon Martin wakes up in the mental institution. The man covered in blood is now his doctor who informs Martin that there is no Halsey and that Martin was never a neurosurgeon. What is reality and what is fiction in Dr. Martin's world and will he ever find out the truth?

"You're right. His brains do look like my mother."

When your movie is based around the idea of the main character having no idea what is happening, the same is going to happen with the audience. Of course, that's the point as the audience is along for the ride, going through the same twists and turns as the main character. This type of story needs to carefully weave the story without leaving the audience bored and confused. Brain Dead comes very close to hitting that threshold. Some movies are able to pull off the crazy “what the hell is going on” genre, but Brain Dead never goes full out, content with just confusing the audience. I really wanted to know what really was happening with Dr. Martin, but everything is such a confused mess that I soon stopped caring. The inclusion of the man covered in blood was unsettling, but we don't get him for long as the dreams continue to change. The movie does have a little bit of gore and if you're squeamish, you may really squirm at the brain surgery scenes.

The big reason why I chose this movie is because it has both Bill Pullman and Bill Paxton. Both men are constantly confused with one another so it's fun to see them in the same movie. It's almost like seeing a unicorn ride the Loch Ness monster. Remember, Bill Pullman played the president in Independence Day and Bill Paxton is the other guy. It's fun to see them interact as they have very good chemistry with each other. Pullman pulls off the neurotic scientist role very well and Paxton was born to be a slimy late 80's businessman. Beyond that, the movie doesn't have much to offer. Other than the blood-covered man, there are no real scares and very little tension. Existential moments come off as forced or silly when they should have been deep and poignant. The ending is a little disappointing considering all the twists and turns in the story. 

Best buddy movie ever

Other than the neat quirk of having Bill Pullman and Bill Paxton in the same movie, there isn't anything special about Brain Dead. Many other movies try to confuse the audience with dreams and hallucinations with better results. Brain Dead is too confusing for it's own good and ends up reducing the audience's interest. All the plot twists become tiresome and annoying halfway through the movie, leaving the audience bored and restless. There aren't many scares, but if you have a weak stomach, you may want to skip certain surgery scenes. The one bright-side of the movie? At least you now know the name of the movie that had both Pullman and Paxton in it. Now go win trivia night at your local bar.

3/10

Day 142: Inferno

Inferno

Feelin' hot, hot, hot

One of the best parts of doing this blog is to discover new movies and see films I've wanted to see for a long time. It also gives me a chance to explore writers and directors that are well-known in the horror world, but whose works never make it on to television. One of these directors is Dario Argento. For years, I have heard people praise his work, but it was never readily available for me to watch. Now, thanks to the internet and streaming video, you're able to watch just about anything. I really enjoyed Argento's work on Masters of Horror: Pelts, but that was based on a short story and geared towards an American audience. Would I like Argento in his crazy prime?

Written and directed by Dario Argento, Inferno is a 1980 supernatural horror film and sequel to Suspiria. The movie is based in part on the concept of “Our Ladies of Sorrow” from the book Suspiria de Profundis. Rose Elliot, a young woman living in New York City, reads an old book written by Verelli called The Three Mothers which tells of three sisters who rule the world through sorrow, tears, and darkness. Each sister lives in a different house; one in New York, Freiburg, and Rome. Rose believes she is living in one of the houses and writes to her brother, Mark, who is studying Musicology in Rome. Mark's friend Sara reads the letter and goes to the library to read The Three Mothers. She is attacked by a deformed man who recognizes the book, but is able to escape. Back at her apartment, Sara and a man named Carlo are stabbed to death by an unknown assailant. Rose calls Mark, telling him she is afraid of what she has discovered. Two shadowy figures appear and brutally murder her. Mark travels to New York where he encounters a strange nurse caring for an old mute named Professor Arnold. He learns that Rose is missing and seeks out the man who sold her the book, Kazanian. He is of no help and is soon killed by lots of cats. Mark is able to discover from Rose's letter, a secret passageway underneath her floor where he discovers Professor Arnold. Who is this Professor and his nurse and what do they want with Mark?

"Where do you get your nails done?"

If my description sounds a bit off and confusing, you're not alone. Right off the bat, I was screwed because this is the second of the Three Sisters trilogy of Argento films. I had no idea, and there's really know way to know that unless you look it up. Inferno is watchable on it's own, but I have to assume that seeing Suspiria first would answer a lot of questions. Different is the best way to describe this movie. The story is very abstract, unlike most horror movies that come out today. During the entire movie, I kept saying to myself “What the hell is going on?” No amount of mind-altering substances can really help follow or explain just what is happening. The motivations for characters are questionable and some are introduced just to be killed. When it comes to an Argento movies, I know you're not supposed to understand everything, but I understood just about nothing and was left scratching my head. The violence is pretty good and the blood used had a thick, paint like texture to it. The scene where Kazanian was attacked was unintentionally hysterical. It pretty much looked like people off screen were tossing cats in his face.

Despite my general confusion, I kept watching because the movie is still captivating. The bright and specific colors used in the movie are staples for Argento and make for a rich viewing experience. Unlike Suspiria, which used the awesome synth music of Goblin, Inferno has a coke-fueled rock-opera composed by Keith Emerson. The music is particularly loud and doesn't really fit in with what's happening on screen. Where Goblin could create that vintage 70's-80's horror atmosphere, Emerson's music bludgeons you over the head with a copy of Xanadu. Another major complaint I had was that the movie appeared to be dubbed. I was following the actors mouths, and they were definitely speaking English, but the voices were off. Maybe this was just the version I watched, but if this was intentional, why?! Is it just to fuck with the audience even more? I can't really talk about the acting because of this problem, but it seemed fine.

"Gasp! That was my good knife!"

One of the biggest questions I ask myself whenever I review a movie is, “Was I entertained?” So did Inferno entertain me? In a word, no. I found the story so confusing and crazy that I couldn't really focus on what was happening. I spent most of the time going “What the fuck?” That's not to say the movie isn't good, because there are good things in it, it was just too much to handle. Inferno has good violence and is cinematically beautiful. I may have enjoyed it more if I had seen Suspiria, but you should be able to pick up a movie and be able to follow it, even if it is out of order. I understand that I don't get “it” and that's fine. To be clear, I don't hate Inferno and I do think you should watch it. You should just be prepared for a trip into the insane world of Dario Argento.

5/10