Day 106: The Lost Tribe

The Lost Tribe

 If only they had stayed lost

I'm on the road this weekend, visiting New York City, and despite the lovely weather, I managed to cram in a horror movie to review. It's because I love you so much. That, and I'd hate to miss a day. Lucky for, I picked a movie that required about as much effort to watch as it did to make. I recall seeing the cover for this movie in various video stores and it looked interesting enough. Once again, I fall victim to judging a movie by it's cover.

The Lost Tribe tells the story of a few people who get shipwrecked after picking up an injured stranger and land on a small island in the Pacific Ocean. The surviving people bury the injured stranger, but his body mysteriously disappears. Searching on the island, they find a dog and evidence of an archaeological dig. One by one, the people are picked off by unseen assailants. It is revealed that the archaeologists on the island discovered the missing link between primates and humans. The Vatican had silenced the archaeologists because they didn't want the evolutionary find to become known and presumably hurt the Church. It is also revealed that the missing links are still alive on the island and have been killing everyone. Will the last surviving person, Anna, be able to get off the island or will the lost tribe claim another victim in the name of evolution?

No, please kill me first so I don't have to keep watching!

The basic story for this movie is pretty far-fetched, but not necessarily terrible. It's the execution that's terrible. I can get behind the idea of some sort of unknown tribe of people living in a remote area and hell, I can even get behind some sort of massive Vatican conspiracy. That sounds like it could be a fun movie. Not this movie, of course. Going beyond the brain freeze this movie gives me as someone who studied anthropology, the conspiracy aspect is never fully explored and not given enough time. More time is spent on the lost tribe (rightly so) grunting a Klingon-like language and jumping from tree to tree (wrongly so). They pretty much look like the Uruk-Hai from Lord of the Rings. with a little simian DNA thrown in. Who knew that thousands of years of uninterrupted evolution would look like a creature from a popular movie that came out a few years before this one?

Another thing that greatly annoyed me was a ripoff of the Predator-vision used to show the creature's point of view. They couldn't even use they heat signature vision from Predator, just some black and white negative picture. It looked like a promo from the now back in the WCW days of wrestling. I know they wanted to be creative, but they couldn't think of something else? Animals are able to see at least some colors, but these evolved creatures could only see low-definition black and white? There's an attempt at some character development, but it's really not important to the story. I probably couldn't name three characters in this movie. I do know that Lance Henriksen (Pumpkinhead, Millenium) was briefly in this, but I can't really figure out why. The acting is passable at best and the shots are shaky and dizzying during action scenes.

I see your tummy!

Lost Tribe might have sounded like a good first draft for a low-rent horror movie, but it never moved beyond the original notes scribbled onto a bar napkin. There are plenty of plot holes and mediocre acting doesn't help me forget how silly the story comes off. The Vatican conspiracy is only window dressing for the movie, which is unfortunate because it could have actually been interesting. The creatures are unoriginal and their grunting language is very annoying to listen to. There is a good chunk of the movie where no words are said, just the lost tribe talking without any subtitles. This isn't the worst movie I've ever seen, but that doesn't make it a good movie. Don't waste your time.

3/10

Day 105: Tucker & Dale Vs. Evil

Tucker & Dale vs. Evil

I look forward to Tucker & Dale vs. Mitt Romney

(Blogger's note: I'm on the road again this weekend. Ms. Meghan has been kind enough to fill in for me with a review. I have watched this movie and enjoyed it just as much. I'll be back tomorrow with a new review.)

Hello friends it is I, Ms. Meghan with another film review for you, and this time it's Tucker and Dale vs. Evil! While the last movie I reviewed wasn't even a horror movie, Tucker and Dale definitely fits the bill, managing to have horror, plenty of gore, and a fantastically self-aware sense of humor. 

Oh god, Snooki naked!

The story follows a group of college kids who are taking a trip out to the woods to drink, get naked, and other shenanigans. Along the way they run into Tucker (the always charming Alan Tudyk) and Dale (Tyler Labine), a couple of rednecks who are going to their newly acquired fishing cabin to start fixing it up and making it pretty. About 20 years before this, a gruesome series of murders occurs in these very woods and it is these murders that get group leader Chad (Jesse Moss) worked up and convincing the rest of the group that Tucker and Dale are murderous rednecks out to kill them all. Really, his name is Chad, he thinks he is the center of the universe and has the popped collar to prove it.

 Listen to me when I tell you "Atlas Shrugged" will change your life!

So Chad, being the classist freak that he is turns everyone in the group against T & D and leads them on a mission to rescue Allison (Katrina Bowden) after she mysteriously disappears. Except it turns out this is all one big misunderstanding about T & D, as Tucker rescued Allison from an untimely death by drowning, and was now nursing her back to health in his cabin. While there is a big misunderstanding about T & D, this is still a horror film. There are still some incredibly good, gory deaths, and there is definitely a murderous sociopath running around. The death scenes are unexpected but very well executed, with a good use of both effects and comedic timing to make them both convincing and completely hilarious.

Look at those shoes!

This film is pretty low on the "horror" scale though; it has some tense moments and there is a murderous sociopath, but it's definitely a comedy with some horror like "Shaun of the Dead". The film is worth watching as a meta-commentary on the horror genre as a whole, as it is self aware without being ridiculous about it, unlike the entire Scream franchise. The great thing about this is that if you have Netflix streaming, you could (and should) watch this movie right now. It's funny, gory, a tiny bit scary and just a really well done movie, and it is well worth taking the time to watch.

10/10

Day 104: House

House

Our house, in the middle of our street

Don't worry, this isn't a review of that TV show with the jerk doctor. This is the horror-comedy movie from the 80's. I wasn't really sure what to expect when I chose this movie. I mean, it's called House. It's got to be a typical movie about an evil house that has bleeding walls and stuff, right? Well, this was the 80's and it was far from typical.

House, directed by Steve Miner (Friday the 13^th, Dawn of the Dead remake), stars William Katt (The Greatest American Hero, Carrie) as horror novelist Roger Cobb. Roger recently separated from his actress wife Sandy after their son disappeared under mysterious circumstances. Roger is having serious writer's block for his new novel, which is going to be about his experiences serving in Vietnam. His Aunt has recently committed suicide, and rather than selling her old house, Roger decides to move in for a while in order to help his writing process. Roger begins to have intense, graphic nightmares involving monsters attacking him and memories of his time in Vietnam come out, particularly about a soldier named Big Ben. Roger investigates the house after hearing strange noises and is physically attacked by a disfigured monster. He tries to convince his neighbor, Harold, (George Wendt, Cheers, Masters of Horror: Family) that the house is haunted, but Harold doesn't believe him. Harold actually calls Sandy and tells her that he is worried for Roger's safety. The monsters and attacks keep coming and Harold sees one of the monsters firsthand. Roger discovers another world within the evil house and ventures inside. What does this have to do with his intense memories of Big Ben and his lost son?

Sgt. Fury And His Howling Corpsemandos

I can definitely say that this was not the type of movie I expected when I began to watch it. That's not a bad thing, it's just unexpected. The story is pretty weird and the people involved may or may not have been on illegal substances. It bounces around a bit too much for my liking, particularly with the Vietnam flashbacks that look like they were filmed in someone's backyard. Those flashbacks turn out to be fairly important at the end, but, in the moment, it just felt like they were wasting time. There are a few plotholes and if you think too much about it, blood might come pouring out of your ears. Luckily, the movie is entertaining enough where you can ignore some of the flaws.

The monsters in House look great with a lot of attention to detail. Modern movies could learn a thing or two in how to make monsters. No need for CGI, just good old-fashioned makeup, latex, and creativity. The acting is pretty good throughout and William Katt puts on a good performance. George Wendt is lovable, as always. The humor is not exactly a knee-slapper, but you'll crack a few smiles. The problem with adding a lot of humor is that it takes away the fear and House had some jump-out-of-your seat scary moments. I think the movie would have been better if they had focused more on the horror and a little less on the humor. Have some humor, but don't overshadow the horror part of the story. 

Newt Gingrich looks terrible!

There is more than meets the eye when it comes to House. I give the writers credit for thinking outside the horror box and including some different elements to their movie. The story itself is a bit convoluted and has a few holes, but it's still entertaining. The acting is good and the monsters look great. I think if House was remade today with a stronger focus on horror, it could actually be very good. House is worth your time just to see George Wendt being George Wendt and to see some great monsters.

6.5/10

Day 103: Masters of Horror: Chocolate

Masters of Horror: Chocolate

Fudge

Usually when you see the title of a movie, it's a good indication of what actually occurs in said movie. Alien has an alien in it. Clear And Present Danger has danger. Erin Brockovich has someone named Erin Brockovich as the main character. You see what I'm getting at. What do you think a movie will be about when it's called “Masters of Horror: Chocolate”? You're expecting some sort of scary movie involving chocolate. Maybe evil chocolate Easter bunnies eating children or people turning into chocolate. You know, something involving horror and food. But no. Not this movie. This might as well be called “Masters of Boredom: Fuck You For An Hour”.

Masters of Horror: Chocolate stars Henry Thomas (E.T., Psycho IV) as a divorcee named Jaime who develops artificial flavors for a food company. Jaime starts seeing and experiences scenes from someone else's life. He randomly tastes chocolate, which he claims is the best chocolate he's ever had. The experiences become more intense including one scene where Jaime feels this person having sex. He also experiences this person murdering their mate in a fit of jealous rage. Jaime investigates and using his memories, is able to track down the person in western Canada. His search leads him to a woman named Catherine. Jamie confesses his love for her and they become closer. Will Jaime's love for Catherine blind him to the danger he is in and if he experiences what she experiences, does it work the other way around?

This is some damn exciting stuff

If you're wondering what the hell this movie has to do with horror, join the club. The only thing scary about this movie is that people thought it belonged in the Masters of Horror series. Nothing in this movie resembles horror. Jamie's weird sensory phenomena is never explained. Not even hinted at. This movie as an hour long and they couldn't bring themselves to give 2 minutes of explanation? They spent plenty of time making me feel really uncomfortable with awkward sex scenes. Chocolate is the first-person shooter of sex scenes. If this movie was in 3D, I would have pressed charges for aggravated sexual assault.

The story itself is uninspired and unoriginal. We've seen this type of story before in horror, such as in the Hong Kong film, Jian Gui (remade as The Eye in the United States). You know what the difference was between those movies and Chocolate? Those were fucking horror movies! The acting in Chocolate is pretty bad. If you ever wanted to see Elliot from E.T as an adult and wanted to see him have a goofy shocked look on his face for an hour, this is your movie. Matt Frewer (Max Headroom, Dawn of the Dead remake) is pretty entertaining, but his role is pretty pointless. In fact, almost all the characters with the exception of Jamie, Catherine, and her murdered lover are pointless. Why do we need to see Jamie's ex wife and kid? Or how about the woman he meets in the supermarket and sleeps with? It's all a waste of time.

Not pictured: horror

Its not fair to call Chocolate a bad horror movie because it's not even a horror movie. We can just call it a bad movie. The story is extremely weak and a majority of the scenes are pointless. The acting is pretty terrible and the numerous sex scenes scarred me for life. Do yourself a favor and avoid seeing this movie. I'm going to watch some playoff hockey to erase this movie from my memory. Go Rangers!

1/10

Day 102: Village Of The Damned

Village Of The Damned

Pink Eye is going around that village

Oh, remakes. The bane of every horror and science fiction fan's existence. It seems like Hollywood today is filled with comic book adaptations, tween novel movies, and remakes. In the last few years we've had remakes of Black Christmas, A Nightmare On Elm Street, The Amityville Horror, The Hills Have Eyes, Prom Night, and My Bloody Valentine. That's just skimming the surface of Hollywood's “I dunno, do you have any ideas” brain-freeze. Remakes are nothing new. Since the early days of cinema, stories have been remade, re-shot, and re-imagined. Take Frankenstein for example. That story has been on the big screen in one form or another at least 30 times. But how about a remake that came out in 1995 and was directed by John Carpenter? Surely that must have been good, right? Right?!

Village of the Damned is a remake of the 1960 film of the same name, which was based on the novel The Midwich Cuckoos by John Wyndham. The movie takes place in the small coastal California town of Midwich and stars Christopher Reeve (Superman, Deathtrap) as Dr. Alan Chaffee. An unseen force sweeps over the town, rendering everyone unconscious and ten women, including Alan's wife, Barbara, mysterious pregnant. The children appear normal, but after a few years, they all being to have pale skin, white hair, steel-blue eyes, vast intelligence, and an emotionless, creepy vibe. The children are paired off, but one of the boys, David, is without a match because it died in child birth, thus giving him some emotion. It is revealed that the children have supernatural powers and are able to read people's minds. Alan's daughter, Mara, is the leader of the children, and uses her powers to make Barbara commit suicide. Dr. Susan Verner (Kirstie Alley, Cheers, Look Who's Talking) is sent by the government to study the strange phenomena and the children. She reveals that there were other groups of children with the same powers born throughout the world, but were killed when people realized they were not human. It turns out Susan kept the dead baby to study it and the children kill her. Will Alan be able to block the children from reading his thoughts and stop them before they take over the world?

I'm freaked out more by their weird clothes

This version of Village of the Damned differs from the original in a few ways, slightly altering the story a bit, but not enough so that it is drastically different. This version, though, seriously lacks in fear and scary moments. The original British version has a fun, Twilight Zone feel to it, with some old-school scares. This modern remake just kind of exists without having a real goal or direction. Sure, emotionless children that all look the same are creepy, but not scary. The story isn't very exciting and almost downright calm at certain points. There are a few decent scenes, like when the entire town passes out and when the children make the police turn their guns on themselves, but those are just small glimmers of excitement.

The biggest problem with Village of the Damned is the casting. I have no idea what they were thinking casting Kirstie Alley as the mysterious, chain-smoking government doctor. This was just two years removed from Cheers ending, so I can only imagine the reaction of audiences back then. It must have been similar to reactions of Tara Reid playing a scientist in Alone In The Dark. She tries, but she is just completely wrong for the role. Christopher Reeve fairs better, but even he feels wrong for some reason. Mark Hamill has a small role in the movie and he's always enjoyable.

"Why are we in this movie?"

Sometimes remakes are a good thing. They introduce new audiences to a great story or, with the aid of new technology, can improve a movie and make it better. Sadly, this is not the case for Village of the Damned. It's a boring movie with questionable casting and mediocre action. It's even more disappointing knowing that John Carpenter directed. Maybe he can try again in another ten years.

4/10

Day 101: Friday The 13th Part 2

Friday the 13^th Part 2

But the creativity doesn't

The term “Cult Classic” gets thrown around a lot when talking about horror movies from the 80's. Sometimes the name is perfect for a movie that was underappreciated when it first came out, but through word of mouth and video tapes (now DVDs and Blu Rays), it has gained a faithful and loving based. Evil Dead is a good example. Unfortunately, almost every horror movie from that era gets slapped with a “cult classic” status no matter how shitty it really is. Throw in one of the most famous slashers in horror movie history and you have a recipe for disappointment.

Friday the 13^th Part 2 starts off with Alice Hardy, the only survivor of the Crystal Lake murders of Pamela Voorhees. Despite seeing her pulled underwater by Jason in the first movie, it is revealed that that never happened and no boy was found in the lake. Alice, though traumatized by the experience, decides to live by herself to deal with her issues. It's an unfortunate choice because Jason kills her with an ice pick. Five years later, a group of teenagers come to Crystal Lake to reopen the camp. There really isn't much more story to tell unfortunately. In typical 80's slasher fashion, the teens all have sex and are then brutally murdered by Jason. Seriously, that's all there really is to this movie. Most of the characters names are inconsequential and have no real connection to the first movie. We see that Jason carries around the head of his dead mother, and one of the surviving teens, Ginny, is briefly able to convince Jason that she is his mother. Unfortunately it doesn't last too long. Will Ginny be able to stop Jason and make it out of Crystal Lake alive?

The forgotten California Raisin

As you can tell from my half-assed description of this movie, there really wasn't much of a story. What should have been a story about Alice Hardy battling it out with Jason became just a rehash of the first movie with a different villain. Apparently, Adrienne King, who played Alice, was unhappy being bothered by rabid Friday the 13^th fans and wanted her involvement to be as minimal as possible. That's unfortunate because it actually would have been nice to have a stronger connection to the first movie. Beyond the sex and killing, there really isn't much to Part 2. It came out in 1981 and hasn't aged very well with all the slashers and horror movies that have come out since.

My biggest problem (other than being bored out of my mind) was Jason himself. When you think of Jason Voorhees, you think of a giant guy with a hockey mask and some sort of jumpsuit. Part 2 didn't use the hockey mask and instead had Jason wear what looks like a potato sack with one hole cut out to see. I guess they were going for a Michael Myers style blank mask where you could mentally project whatever image you wanted onto his face. Unfortunately it just made me think of Oogie Boogie from A Nightmare Before Christmas. He's also wearing flannel and overalls, which actually makes sense when you think about it, but makes less sense when you think about it even more. How did Jason find clothes, let alone find clothes that fit him? He's supposed to be a killing machine so when did he have time to find appropriate outdoorsman clothes? Did he murder his way through a Dick's Sporting Goods? Regardless, the killing throughout is good, but certainly not great. 

He looks like he's about to shuck some corn to death

Friday the 13^th Part 2 had a lot of potential for a fun slasher movie, but settled for scare-by-numbers. There is almost no story and no emotional connection is made with the audience to have you care about the characters. There are a few decent scenes and you can see a glimmer of good ideas here and there, but it's just not enough. We all know and love Jason, but dubbing this cult classic is just wrong. It's important because it introduces us to Jason, but its just not a good movie.

3/10

Day 100: The Thing

The Thing

You got a little something on your...oh that is your face

100 days! They said it couldn't be done. We showed them. We showed them all! MUHAHAHAHA. It certainly wasn't easy to get to this point, but I'm glad I've made it this far and even happier that you are reading. Thanks to the great people that talk to me through Twitter (@365DaysofHorror) and to all the international visitors I receive. I decided to treat myself for this anniversary by watching one of my favorite horror movies: John Carpetner's The Thing.

The Thing is a 1982 science fiction horror movie based on the John W. Campbell novel, Who Goes There? Set in the Antarctic, the movie stars Kurt Russell (Escape From New York, Death Proof) as helicopter pilot R.J. MacReady. A Norwegian helicopter chases after a dog through the tundra until it accidentally explodes outside the American research facility. MacReady and Dr. Cooper (Richard Dysart) fly out to the Norwegian facility for answers, but only find more questions as they discover a charred, mangled humanoid corpse. They bring it back to base where Dr. Blair (Wilford Brimley, Coccoon, The Natural) conducts an autopsy, concluding that it had a normal set of internal organs. The dog that was chased by the helicopter is put in a kennel with the other dogs. The dog transforms into a hideous creature, killing the other dogs. The emergency lever is hit and Childs (Keith David, Pitch Black, Gargoyles) kills it with a flamethrower. Blair conducts an autopsy on the creature and discovers that it is capable of imitating other beings and suspects that anyone could be replaced. The group investigates the Norwegian station again and discover a massive crater and a massive hole in the ice, where they believe the creature had emerged from. Meanwhile, the creature's remains become active again and attacks one of the crew members, Bennings. The creature begins to take his form, but it burned by the crew before he could completely assimilate. Blair, who has lost his mind at the thought of this creature being able to completely take over the world, has destroyed the radio and killed the sled dogs. The crew locks him in a shed to keep him from hurting himself and others. The crew begins to turn on each other. Any one of them could be the alien creature. Will MacReady be able to stop the creature or is he already a monster?

You should really moisturize

The Thing does absolutely everything correct for a horror movie. The source material is very good to being with and John Carpenter is able to capture the desolate hopelessness of the frozen tundra. The reason why the movie is so effective is because it is legitimately scary. You are scared of the unknown, alien creature and you are scared that it could look like anything. Like a good mystery novel, every person is a suspect. You even begin to wonder if MacReady is the alien. Throw in some downright terrifying effects and makeup with a good amount of violence and you're ready to jump out of your skin. Seriously, the prosthetics and animatronics used in the movie are impressively scary. The music throughout the movie sets a tense and frightening tone that never lets up. Despite being made in 1982, The Thing is still scaring people to this day, something not so easy in the over-saturated world of horror.

The acting is another large part of why the movie works. Kurt Russell, Keith David, and Wilford Brimley are all brilliant in their roles. It is become they are so convincing that we are able to fully immerse ourselves into the story. Russell and David are their usual badass selves while Brimley goes out of his comfort zone to play a doctor who's gone insane with fear. The action is solid throughout and although the movie runs a little long, about 110 minutes, you never feel bored. 

Welcome to Man Town. Population: Beard

I know a lot of people love The Thing, so if I've missed something, don't tell me. I don't want to know. I just know that this is a fantastic horror movie with great directing, acting, and action. I have yet to see the prequel (I've heard mixed things), but I may have to check it out one day. Here's to another 100 movie reviews. Cheers!

10/10