Sunday 30 June 2024

Ghoulies III: Ghoulies Go to College (1991)

 


Directors: John Carl Buechler

Screenplay: Brent Olson

Casts: Evan MacKenzie as Skip Carter, Kevin McCarthy as Professor Ragnar, Eva LaRue as Erin Riddle, John R. Johnston as Jeremy Heilman, Patrick Labyorteaux as Mookey, Billy Morrissette as Wes, Hope Marie Carlton as Veronica

A Night of a Thousand Horror (Movies)

 

Ragnar has no dick.

After a high for this franchise for me, the second sequel comes four years later and from Vestron Video, a home video company who became part of Lionsgate and were rechristened as their home distribution arm. Vestron also included Vestron Pictures, their production and distribution arm, and their spin-off Lightning Pictures, which Ghoulies III comes from. When Lionsgate Home Entertainment announced its revival of the Vestron Video brand as a Blu-ray and DVD reissue label in 2016, you naturally got to see the films they produced and distributed, such as Earth Girls Are Easy (1988) to Ken Russell's Gothic (1986) alongside many horror films.

The tone has also drastically changed on from the previous films, as when not biting a face off, not only have these Ghoulies are going to get degrees, they have now learnt to talk. It is set up in a period twenty one years prior to this episode in the franchise, so there is going to have to be a continuity loophole that, as established in Part II with a giant Ghoul being summoned, various species of demons per film exist that are related. More noticeable is that there is more overt slapstick than even before in its broader tone, more goofier gags and even actual nudity for titillation, a horror comedy that is more comedy in terms of its college setting. Set during a prank week between male fraternities for a Prank Crown, lead Skip Carter (Evan MacKenzie) is gunning for it whilst twenty one years earlier, these Ghoulies were captured using a comic book, an underground publication using real demon summoning spells, which is found by one of Skip's frat brothers sat on the John when he knocks a wall tile off and reveals it. The comic is with the incantations to summon them from their sacred jar, i.e. sacred toilet bowl, as they are not even hiding the franchise's obsession with them, with someone being flushed to death in one. That links with the sense of childish humour that would pass were it not for the female nudity, the more overt horror later on or the main villain, a hateable blond jock, being continually called a Hitler Youth.

That comic is confiscated by a hated teacher, Professor Ragnar (Kevin McCarthy), who becomes power hungry and summons the Ghoulies to do his bidding. One major aspect of Ghoulies III which may put viewers off is that this is less a plot from here on but more a setting for a goofy slapstick film, less homicidal Ghoulies but vandalising Ghoulies, who are late to the Freddy Krueger 'one liners' which became popular in the late eighties into the early nineties for horror cinema, which alongside the more broad tone may find extremely annoying. The most prominent film in director John Carl Buechler's career, outside of his special effects work, is being the director of Friday the 13th: The New Blood (1988), the film which had Jason Voorhees fight a telekinetic girl, which would be remiss to not bring up, and here he came to this with a film that was clearly more a humorous and a pastiche of horror than meant to be scary, with a script by Brent Olson, who is listed as having never done anything else.

Another is the more explicit sense of horniness, with actual nudity and one character, Veronica (Hope Marie Carlton), who when she is not trying to seduce multiple male characters including Skip is the kind of person who dances in her underwear less in her own world in her bedroom, but wanting to give ghosts an eyeful. Considering she is an Andy Sidaris alumnus, through multiple films including Hard Ticket to Hawaii (1987), that is not an insult to her existence either in the film, but this does cross a line at times. There is horniness which can be acceptable including explicit titillation, but this includes the film ogling the women without giving them characters, where even the comedy security guard is a pervert trying to score panties, and has creepy Ghoulies ogling women in the shower, there only for the sight of women in showers for a sex comedy. The only consolation in that later scene is that, as anyone who has seen Phantom of the Paradise (1974), strangely this was not the first time a Psycho parody with a plunger involved transpired.

There is still horror here, the Ghoulies still killing people, even if here it involves the aforementioned death by toilet, and the finale does even get more over the top in a cool way, with someone melting and a giant prosthetic body suit costume with a stomach face. However we are fully falling into parody of the franchise itself here, with a literal cartoon bomb at one point and slapstick with the security guard and his beloved (and named) golf cart. You can feel this as our lead Skip is a pure archetype, and that his love interest Erin (Eva LaRue) is precariously generic, expecting Skip to give up his pranking and become respectable, but is a stereotypical plot that will change her mind on this, and that it encourages (in both male and female versions) this idea of stripping away one's personality, or a contrived self reflection to stay as you are. Ghoulies III is still fun, but I feel this has jumped the proverbial toilet itself, even if in a distinct way, and would have lost people who liked the balance of before between the two other films.  Certainly as time passes there is a sense the film has already felt out of time in the moment it was realised, feeling like a late eighties movie washed up on the shore of the nineties, and as much as there was cultural blurring into the later decade, this is one of those cases where, for its fun moments, it feels aged and lacked multiple virtues of the previous sequel.

Friday 28 June 2024

Ghoulies & Ghoulies II (1984 & 1987)



Director(s): Luca Bercovici (Ghoulies)

Screenplays: Luca Bercovici and Jefery Levy (Ghoulies) / Charlie Dolan and Dennis Paoli (Ghoulies II)

Cast:

Ghoulies: Peter Liapis as Jonathan Graves, Lisa Pelikan as Rebecca, Scott Thomson as Mike, Ralph Seymour as Mark "Toad Boy", Mariska Hargitay as Donna, Keith Joe Dick as Dick, David Dayan as Eddie, Victoria Catlin as Anastasia, Charene Cathleen as Robin, Tamara De Treaux as Greedigut, Peter Risch as Grizzel, Michael Des Barres as Malcolm Graves, Jack Nance as Wolfgang

Ghoulies II: Damon Martin as Larry, Royal Dano as Uncle Ned, Phil Fondacaro as Sir Nigel Penneyweight, J. Downing as P. Hardin, Kerry Remsen as Nicole, Dale Wyatt as Dixie, Jon Pennell as Bobby, Sasha Jenson as Teddy, Starr Andreeff as Alice, William Butler as Merle, Donnie Jeffcoat as Eddie, Christopher Burton as Leo

A Night of a Thousand Horror (Movies)

 

I'm a magician you sons of bitches. You can't kill me!

I did not expect the Ghoulies franchise begins with a Satanic cult about to sacrifice a baby in the scene, but like so many horror franchises, they either deviate from their original premises in the later sequels, or in this case develop their selling point after time, What would become the titular centre point for these films took their jumping point from a script by co-writer/director Luca Bercovici, who would work on the first film, and afterwards leave with his work continued on with the other three films. It is not a surprise though that this is a Charles Band production, distributed by his Empire Pictures, from a man who has set forth many a franchise about tiny homicidal puppets.

The baby is thankfully saved, even if his mother takes his place, growing up to be Jonathan Graves (Peter Liapis), inheriting the family home where this tale originates from with Wolfgang, a cult member who helped rescue him, as his sole family and an excuse to get David Lynch alumni Jack Nance in a nicely appreciated cameo with some plot importance. Cue a party with slasher film archetypes, goofballs obsessed with strip poker in a home full of occult literature, making the bad decision to perform an occult ritual whilst drunk. Even sober, this is a dumb idea, as Jonathan becomes obsessed, possessed even, to develop him magic skills and becomes overcome with them. That and summoning the titular Ghoulies, starting with a hairy weasel goblin that stands up to one's knees, which are going to be there to terrorise people.

It is strange that I come into this series always presumed to have a more comedic edge, and I only admit only seeing Ghoulies IV (1994) growing up with a less than stellar reaction, so that was not a good perspective for all this time to ever have had. The first film undeniably is trying to be more serious, which just happened to involved involve homicidal critters played with puppets, who feel like an afterthought here and whose comedic aspects would be ran with further in later films. If you accept they are razor toothed and have a thing for eating faces, they are cuter than menacing, even if it's my sick view of cuteness inspired by having Monsters in My Pocket toys as a kid, and sadly maligned. They are, for a film made when Joe Dante's Gremlins (1984) exists, an arbitrary aspect to a plot more focused about a man being possessed by his satanic father from the grave, making this as a work that is indebted to the era's tropes in the Ghoulies' inclusion, to the point Gremlins' producers Warner Brothers sued this film for the similarities to Gremlins but lost1. Despite this luck, the Ghoulies are never taken advantage of this selling point, and there was a sense for me, going through these films for the review, this was the least interesting of the ones so far. I will concede that this film had issues I have sympathy for, such as the fact the production ran out of budget midway through and required the filmmakers to find funding2, and there are many aspects to how this film could have turned out which were rejected. One I admit might have made the film more my thing, that being Jeffrey Combs being in the cast, but this was also once meant to be a children's film, and was meant to be in 3D, so Ghoulies had a chaotic coarse to even get made I have to take into consideration1.

There is certainly a whimsical charm to this, Charles Band produced films having a sense of love within themselves for their playfulness, film pulp for its own sake like lifting the clown puppet from Poltergeist (1982), or two dwarf actors playing mystic servants summoned by Jonathan, looking like cast members from a high fantasy film or from Knightmare, the 1980s British TV series which experimented with early green screen to send its contestants into said worlds. I will also say that Richard Band, Charles Band's brother, and Shirley Walker, a pioneer for being one of the first female film composers in Hollywood, also compose between them a score which feels like it is from a larger budget production and is great. Richard Band is an unsung hero for these genre films for his work, whilst Walker, with her work for DC Comic animated adaptations, like Batman: The Animated Series, to her work on the Final Destination series, would sadly pass in 2006.  Thankfully, in 2014 The American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers (ASCAP) created the Shirley Walker Award in 2014 to honour the diversity of film and television music, to emphasis her importance in the industry.

Brutally however, this is just not a film for me. I will not say it is bad, which defeats the purpose of a review by saying films are just not for me, but it is true here. I like the attitude behind this film, but it does drift off into a plot I had no interest in. One legitimate criticism I have, regardless of my awareness of the production issues, is those titular ghouls who do immediately stand out - the green demon baby ones to the weasel goblin, when not eating its way out the chicken on the dining table, being a pervert hiding under your bed during an attempted occult sex ritual - are not really a part of the material. This film clearly realised this mistake as these creatures eventually became the central focus in later films, whilst this particular film is an acquired taste for me personally. An early film in his career, his first directorial production, Luca Bercovici would continue on to the likes of Rockula (1990), which seems more appealing for me for being about a vampire wanting to have a career in rock music with Susan Tyrrell and musician Bo Diddley among the cast.

Ghoulies II is a considerably more focused and interesting film for me, opening with Anthony Dawson, of Alfred Hitchcock's Dial M for Murder (1954), in a cameo as a priest running away from Satanists with Ghoulies in a cloth sack. His attempt to dispose of them for the sake of humanity in a barrel of waste, conveniently marked as "Extremely Toxic" and left open to mist in a garage, ends up with him in said barrel and melting into a skeleton. The Ghoulies escape, five of them, and hitch a ride with travellers for a carnival who stopped at the garage, one of which is Royal Dano, already having been Abraham Lincoln's voice at the Hall of Presidents attraction at Disney's Magic Kingdom beforehand in his career alongside cinema, playing an alcoholic ex-magician who runs a haunted house named Satan's Den.

There are many improvements for what is a silly tale, the first being that needed focus on the Ghoulies themselves, legitimately evil critters who enjoy causing pain and mischief, one even knowing how to use a switchblade, which becomes more threatening. They are stuck in Satan's Den, and from here, this is significantly more interesting as a sequel for me, with the added caveat that I have a bias for carnival set films anyway, making this more tantalising. Dano is running the attraction, with the help of his nephew Larry (Damon Martin), which is one of the rides in danger of being closed by an evil eighties yuppie, an accountant who has plants to axe the attractions going in the red, Satan's Den likely to be replaced by ladies' mud wrestling by the end of the week only for the Ghoulies to accidentally bring more customers into the attraction that night. A worthy mention too, as he is a great inclusion, is Phil Fondacaro; whilst some of the lines in regards to him being an actor with dwarfism have not aged well, his character is awesome, a former Shakespearian actor and friend to Larry named Sir Nigel, a carnival employee who gets into the thick of the plot too.

It is perverse to think Satan's Den is not doing well but is far more elaborate than most real haunted houses I have been to, one I wish to go to, as this is a heightened movie version of the carnival with the production team (and real ride operators) deserving praise for this exaggerated setting. The film was fun to just watch for its production design in context of a goofy late eighties horror movie, in terms that everything is like the place of one's dreams, Satan's Den itself a vast building with elaborate practical attractions, like pop-up mummies, that emphasis the joy of the real ones you walk past in ordinary life if they had the production values of a small genre film, to the art design through the carnival like for the entrance of the "Arabian" exotic dancers. The score by Fuzzbee Morse, the awesomely named composer whose credits for musicians he has worked on is actually too long to pick from but least includes Frank Zappa to actor Harry Dean Stanton, is awesome to and adds to this with pure horror synth, and as much of the enjoyment comes from showing so many clichés of the era but in an enjoyable way. The ladies' mud wrestling reference is one of these, and it is to the point a child randomly has a shuriken throwing star on him, in the era of the ninja craze, to throw at rat creatures who puke green goo on them, because naturally kids have shuriken stars on them. They even went as far, for the metal head character who has to take his "tunes" with a boom box into the haunted house, the production got then notorious band W.A.S.P. to record a song exclusively for the production; before lead singer Blackie Lawless moved to more serious lyrics in the late eighties to early nineties albums, and then returned to his Christian faith, they were controversial for Tipper Gore angering songs like Animal (Fuck like a Beast) and him having a buzz saw codpiece, a perfect band for this era of heavy metal interlinking with heavy metal before the more serious and critically acclaimed albums took over for W.A.S.P. onwards.

Eventually bringing in a bigger-than-human size costume for the final, it has no pretence, already playing to humour further than the prequel even if with a sick streak, as the chaos in the carnival that ends this film evoking the influence of Gremlins, varying between overt slapstick pratfalls to a critter causing a ride cart to fly off and kill at least two people glibly. Also there is a fixation on toilets, the series trope from the prequel that followed from this, as the Ghoulie in a toilet moment from before is escalated in a painful way. Its director Albert Band, father of Charles Band, was clearly a safe pair of hands for this production, late into a career mostly as a producer but making films like I Bury the Living (1958) in the fifties, so the sense the film was able to be as entertaining and fun as it was comes with the sense of someone, as a producer for most of his career at this point, who thankfully knew what to shot to win the punters over. The next film, which took four years to appear, took this series further into comedy to the point it may put people off, whilst here, the balance between the humour and playful horror tone is perfect. After the sense that the first Ghoulies did not stand out for me at all, this was a nice change of pace. If you are a fan of the first film, I will not take away from your enjoyment of it, merely that I thankfully got the film I enjoyed within the second.

 

======

1) 10 Crazy Things You Didn't Know About Ghoulies, written by Jake Dee and published for Screen Rant on October 31st 2019.

2) Interview with Luca Bercovici (Ghoulies), written and published for Love-it-Loud on June 28th 2018. Retrieved August 24th 2018 on the Web Archive.


Wednesday 26 June 2024

Grindhouse (2007)

 


Directors: Robert Rodriguez (Planet Terror), Quentin Tarantino (Death Proof)

Screenplays: Robert Rodriguez (Planet Terror), Quentin Tarantino (Death Proof)

Cast:

Planet Terror: Rose McGowan as Cherry Darling, Freddy Rodriguez as "El Wray", Josh Brolin as Dr. William Block, Marley Shelton as Dr. Dakota Block, Jeff Fahey as J.T. Hague, Michael Biehn as Sheriff Hague, Rebel Rodriguez as Tony Block, Bruce Willis as Lieutenant Muldoon, Naveen Andrews as Dr. John "Abby" Abbington, Julio Oscar Mechoso as Romy, Fergie as Tammy Visan, Nicky Katt as Joe

Death Proof: Kurt Russell as Stuntman Mike McKay, Zoë Bell as herself, Rosario Dawson as Abernathy Ross, Vanessa Ferlito as Arlene/Butterfly, Sydney Tamiia Poitier as Jungle Julia Lucai, Tracie Thoms as Kim Mathis, Jordan Ladd as Shanna, Rose McGowan as Pam, Mary Elizabeth Winstead as Lee Montgomery

A Night of a Thousand Horror (Movies)

 

About as useless as a pecker on a Pope.

Grindhouse was a fascinating one-off, and as time has passed, it feels for me like a project that was never going to be a big hit and always the cult title. Considering Quentin Tarantino prior to this created the Kill Bill project, which was split into two theatrical releases, and were tributes to genre cinema with even an animated sequence from a Japanese studio, that may seen questionable as a comment, but I see Grindhouse as more of a niche concept in principal. It was a tribute to certain types of cinemas of the past than necessarily the genre films churned in them 24/7 on the notorious 42nd Street of New York City and other locations, something which is more specific to get the references to in the project itself. Kill Bill had the advantage of being split into two halves, and riding the wave of interest of the likes of martial arts cinema, whilst this was a three hour double bill as a concept rather than the genres chosen by him and Robert Rodriguez. It appeals in principal, but in mind that this was a large budget project too, rather than a fictional double bill made on the lower budget, the project was always going to be in danger if it did not have the right amount of advertising and the right release, which it sadly did not.

The idea of paying tribute to this idea for a large budget projection was a risk, and if anything, when I was just getting into cinema at this time, it did at least catch a wave of interest in old genre and cult films that carried into decades after. It also lead to a wave of "neo-Grindhouse" films not really evoking the old exploitation films but replicating the template Grindhouse itself became, and it neither helped back then, whilst I want to return to them all, I hated most of those films when I watched them. The lack of box office success in the United States also lead to the films being split up into two theatrical features for the British market, including their initial DVD/Blu Ray releases. Contextually, Grindhouse itself came to me in its intended form with me more appreciative of its goal, whilst unfortunately, the lack of box office success when released in the United States lead to the Weinstein Company initally splitting the films up into two theatrical features for the British market. Death Proof, Tarantino's entry, was not a film I received well at all, to the point as a young lad who got into films like Pulp Fiction (1994) I thought he had lost his mojo entirely with this extended theatrical release when I caught up to this on DVD. What it was, remembering how divisive the responses from others at the time was as well, is clearly a transitional stage for his films.

But Grindhouse itself, when finally released as intended eventually, began with Robert Rodriguez’s than-fake trailer for Machete, imagining character actor Danny Trejo as a Mexican immigrant with governmental combat skills being double crossed, and thus going on a revenge mission. Fake trailers were one of the touches that were part of the Grindhouse project, though this one was kept for Planet Terror’s individual releases as here, the others lost in a project that was meant to recreate the experience of these cinemas, including some real ephemeral material shown at cinemas like the ones about age restrictions. They were touches more for a cult film crowd, but were cool to include, and whilst some of it has not aged well, entirely the stuff nodding to The Weinstein Company and the rightly disgraced Harvey Weinstein, the material is all interesting. Machete’s is interesting as it did become a film in 2010 through Rodriguez himself, with a sequel later that got more ridiculous, turning into an exploitation spin on US immigration politics. It also connects to how Planet Terror itself, as that later film, are both jokey over-the-top pastiches at their heart, full of stunt casting as Machete itself would have Lindsay Lohan as one of the roles in the trailer’s biggest gag, Trejo seducing a US senator’s wife and daughter at the same time, and inexplicably Steven Segal.

Planet Terror itself, which is about a bio chemical weapon causing a zombie outbreak, takes this further as we can have six degrees of separation games the TV series Lost, the Die Hard franchise, The Lawnmower Man (1992), and a member of the Black Eyed Peas. Planet Terror was a safer film of the two parts of this production, a pastiche with a budget to get away with violence which would have given eighties moralists a collective heart attack, with a name cast and a complete lack of seriousness meant for a crowd viewing. Planet Terror, as we set up the outbreak and the key leads, such as the mysterious traveller El Wray (Freddy Rodriguez) to ex-go-go dancer Cherry Darling (Rose McGowan), immediately shows the most contentious legacy of the Grindhouse project, that being the artificially created grain and celluloid print damage, more for all the other films which took influence to copy this aesthetic than necessarily being controversial for Grindhouse itself. If you watched any neo-Grindhouse film of the time, and this could even be found in micro-budget productions, between the late 2000s to the early 2010s, you would have seen digitally added film grain and damage, replicated from what Grindhouse did on a considerably larger budget. This is a tribute to how exploitation films in the original cinemas could be old, battered prints and as both halves play, the creators of these new films imagined the worse case scenarios where film reels went missing or salacious moments, as Planet Terror plays with, were cut out by the projectionists for keepsakes. With hindsight, this was preparing us for the tactile nature of any Blu Ray release of a title where the negative was lost and a film was preserved from a screening print, but this also makes one aware Grindhouse was always the imagined version of the thing the creators were paying tribute to. This was an imagined Grindhouse where you could have not really captured the real places, more so as Rodriquez’s is less the ideal of these types of films, from the seventies, but more the eighties films as they were coming to VHS and video rental stores.

Time is convoluted in both films, tributes to the past but made and set at the time they were produced in, and with Planet Terror, as an entire military platoon infected with the bio weapon end up in a deal gone wrong that unleashes the gas onto the local community, the tone also feels closer to a Return of the Living Dead (1985), and that era of cinema. What you get in a post-ironic form is something between the late seventies and a John Carpenter love-in, with the score paying tribute to his music, to the mid-eighties straight to video practical effects driven work. What between the gooey practical effects by Tom Savini, who gets an onscreen role too, and tributes between Lucio Fulci eye trauma, and possibly even Cannibal Apocalypse (1980) by Antonio Margheriti as an action horror film, and this feels slightly different to the goal Tarantino was after with his a seventies throwback. It is amazing to see a large budget tribute to all these, and also managing to get away with a child shooting themselves by accident, as a real taboo, but alongside Rodriguez’s trademark to make his films as independently as possible by his own hands, Planet Terror itself is purposely cool and deliberately absurd in construct.

Even when he has some really nasty gore, and sexual threat at one point, Quentin Tarantino in a cameo having a knack, between this and From Dusk Till Dawn (1996), for playing creepy sexual deviants, Rodriguez plays this with pathos and parody at the same time. You feel real emotional connection to Michael Biehn and Jeff Fahey as brothers in the end, but it surrounds Biehn trying to force Fahey to give up his secret barbecue recipe even in the midst of the zombie apocalypse. Even in mind that Freddy Rodriguez feels one of the weaker figures, because he had to play the mysterious and sombre tough lead, his character finds himself the straight man among everyone else and eventually having to ride a pocket motorbike in a scene deliberately done for humour. There are also the obvious stunt casting moments, like having Bruce Willis as the lead of the military platoon, and the little details of Rodriguez’s own interests, making the kind of film he would want as a viewer in the truest sense. Planet Terror can also claim to have its own obsession with male genital trauma, be it Naveen Andrews, the Lost series alumni as a shady scientist, being obsessed with collecting castrated testicles, to how Tarantino, as long as he gets to name check Ava Gardner and monologue, has his penis melt off before the film ends.

Planet Terror in context made sense to begin Grindhouse, the party starter even if, with hindsight, Death Proof as the film which got the most negative reactions initially became the more interesting to unpack. Planet Terror itself is fun and ridiculous, even if now with a melancholia of how, really, this is Rose McGowan’s film. This is the moment where we sadly do have to talk about Harvey Weinstein, as alongside the fact she drifted away from films very prominently advertised in the 2010s, she is one of the women named as one of his victims, accusing him for horrible crimes, when the MeToo movement came to exist in the 2010s, that finally led to him ending in jail. Rodriguez, who dated McGowan, has talked that he learnt of the trauma she went through, and deliberately cast her in Planet Terror as a rebuttal to her being effectively blacklisted by Weinstein for crimes he committed to her. Rodriquez argued the box office failure of Grindhouse was Harvey Weinstein burying the project for this by under promoting the film1. Whatever the circumstances for why the film was not a box office success, she is also the best thing in Planet Terror too, given Cherry Darling a playful spark between wanting to be a comedian and talking of all her useless little talents through the film. This is even before we get to her character spending most of the film without a leg, the special effects still great to this day, and leading to the image that sold this film even if it only happens near the end of Planet Terror, attaching a rifle with a rocket launcher attachment as an improvised false leg. It is the kind of role, one of two through both films, which should have been a platform for even bigger films but sadly was not to be.

The original way to see the two films that make up Grinndhouse meant we never got the trailers originally meant to split them up. Rob Zombie’s Werewolf Women of the SS, feeling like a pitch reel to an actual project, does encapsulate how exploitation films are historically contextualised and more complicated than Grindhouse itself, in this case the moral quandary that led to the Naziploitation genre. Most of those films got on the Video Nasties list in the United Kingdom and most are still not allowed to be released due to their perceived mix of sex, violence and Nazis by the British Board of Film Classification, the one exception being the one with the really infamous VHS cover, SS Experiment Love Camp (1976), which is just bad taste and inexplicably links to the theme of genital trauma as a male character has his surgically removed, to be given to a high ranking Nazi officer, and is naturally not pleased. How they came to be is not something I can adequately write, in mind they come twenty to thirty years after the fallout of World War II and were as much for illicit sexploitation scenarios as part of the lasting effect of that war, but Zombie’s take is broad and over-the-top. It is not portraying the completely exploitative aspect to an Italian film like SS Experiment Love Camp nor the serious takes on the subject, like The Night Porter (1974), also coming out at the time. Some may know this trailer for Nicolas Cage as the Fiendish Doctor Fu Manchu, another contentious exploitation concept we English, and Sax Rohmer, have to be blamed for, but alongside the fact they do not have him in yellow face as Christopher Lee did playing the character a few times in the sixties, the absurdity is there in the premise of Nazis having a secret werewolf woman project and yet also bringing in this character as a possible sub-contractor to the project. Could it have worked? It would have been highly stylised and divisive as Rob Zombie’s other work, especially as this was the time he helmed two Halloween reboots, though the trailer promised if they were able to make a film with Udo Kier, Sybil Danning and Bill Moseley as a mad Germanic doctor, let alone Nicolas Cage, I would have been interested.

Don’t by Edgar Wright was a really good parody of seventies horror. A tribute to the nastier side of British horror, the world of directors like Pete Walker, the nod to Video Nasties was appropriate in the last paragraph as, at one time, having “Don’t” in the title was seen as a good marketing tool at one point and lead to a lot of films on that Video Nasties list which fit this, such as Don’t Go Into the Woods (1981) to Don’t Go in the House (1979). Wright’s feels like it was meant to be a trailer and nothing else, perfect as it is as a cavalcade of seedy British horror from the seventies distilled into a short work, including the fact they had recognisable faces from our TV to films, making cameos from Nick Frost as a man baby in a diaper in a grungy basement appropriate as a stunt cameo on two levels. Thanksgiving from Eli Roth also pulled out a memorable trailer, though his in 2023 finally became a full feature by himself. How a thanksgiving slasher film never already existed is strange, but he clearly saw Don’t in the editing stages and felt he had to top it, having images as a tribute to murky independent slashers that will scar a few viewers. He gets the aesthetic of slashers, and for a director I do vary on, certainly, for the man who never held back for Hostel (2005) to The Green Inferno (2013), he made sure to make a work that was memorable. He took the type of film that came in the wake of Friday the 13th being successful, and lead to independent producers all jumping on the band wagon, and made the trailer to the imaginary one Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel warned viewers about. The ill advised decision of one girl to do strip trampolining to the human turkey is enough to claw into the human memory against a viewer’s will, but I can now thank Roth, with a human head on chicken for added grossness, for the snapshot of inappropriate use of poultry that will last.

These three trailers are a prelude, and honestly a palette cleaner, for Death Proof as whilst it is set around Quentin Tarantino wanting to stage a car chase in the tradition of classic seventies car chase films like Vanishing Point (1971), to which he and those involved pulled it off completely, his film is a literal gear change on purpose throughout itself. Death Proof for all its potential flaws, subjective to the viewer, is the far more complex film to dissect as the set-up, a tribute to car films without using CGI, however led to a deliberate shift onwards in how his films would be structured. It is close to a slasher premise too in how it follows a homicidal stunt driver named Stuntman Mike (Kurt Russell) who targets women with a “death proof” car, one reinforced as old car stunt vehicles were to allow him to survive horrible crashes, barring some injuries, but still drive head first into victims’ cars and kill them. Where this film did not originally work for me, and I found it a disappointment, is that this is a dialogue heavy work with a simple two act structure, very simple, but lets the dialogue linger far longer than it originally did in older films of his before.

I hated the extended cut, as many, because I came to Tarantino through work which was crime pastiches with sassy dialogue on a surface level, still found here in a different genre but with a clear change in tone. A spoiler has to be nodded to for two films at once, but this is the structure of Alfred Hitchcock’s Psycho (1960) entirely, following one group of women before the second act introduces another set. Tarantino focuses on characters, in a slasher template, you would only linger on for ten minutes for an entitled longer length, forcing one to live with them far longer than other films. It is not perfect: some of the dialogue caused me to cringe and think of how pissed off Spike Lee was with him for certain choices of words for black characters, though the debate about whether Tarantino can write female leads is subjective, as I am not going to dismiss the idea of women who are gear heads and watch Dirty Mary, Crazy Larry (1974) as they exist. I do also have an uncomfortable question of whether sexism ever came into the issue about this film getting a negative reaction from what I perceived of it having back in the day. Even from a male director-writer, it is almost entirely about women talking in the downtime between spectacle scenes, and yet was one of his most divisive films. Certainly there is a sense here we were moving away from monologues about what Big Macs were named in France, ebbing away in favour for the dialogue fully taking over as the prime mover of his stories. Tarantino was already reaching this with Jackie Brown (1997), entering more complex emotions, and I vividly remember Kill Bill Part 2 (2004) already being divisive, as it went against the high octane shock that was the first part, with its memorable sword battle finale, with far more tonal shifts, and even went out of its way to undercut the final revenge against “Bill” himself by having it being a languid character drama for the final act. What is changing from this point and Death Proof feels like the final gasp of the earlier part of his career, the moment he was no longer the “cool” cult director who was mainstream, but the esoteric director-writer who still spoke in cult films, and had the budgets to allow him to make the films he did on after Grindhouse, who instead wanted to play with structure and pace in dialogue driven movies onwards.

The importance of the women in the cast cannot be understated - Vanessa Ferlito, Rose McGowan again in another role, Sydney Tamiia Poitier, Tracie Thoms, Rosario Dawson, Mary Elizabeth Winstead – all giving great performances with dialogue which, whether you think of it, is a lot more dynamic than sadly could still be passed to actresses into films made after this, and by the second half, we switch to Stuntman Mike having the tables turned and the emphasis on a strong female cast in its centre integral to the production. From the cool character that showed Kurt Russell was always good, to being out of his depth and showing he is still good playing a snivelling weasel, he encounters a group including stunt women for that final act, such as New Zealand stunt actress Zoe Bell playing Zoe Bell, Tarantino in probably the sweetest moment of his entire career paying tribute to someone who worked on the Kill Bill project, and would continue to work with him throughout the others film onscreen as an actress. He lets her play herself whilst also getting to pull off an insane stunt involving playing "ship's mass", hanging off a car at fast speed for real on camera, and no less on the same car from one of the films ritualised lavished upon in the dialogue. The second half legitimately emphases this was always a film about strong women and symbolically castrating male ego, making that disconcerting thought sexism played into the reaction to the film’s lengthy dialogue more concerning if purely speculative. It is telling how even a seemingly pointless cameo by Eli Roth actually makes sense, as he makes a good sleaze ball in a more conventional sort, in a dialogue scene in the Grindhouse version where he plans with a friend to get women drunk enough they allow men to join them at a beach house for the weekend, still a scummy toxic male attitude. More examples of this are found in the extended cut, with one extended scene involving an "Italian Vogue" magazine being offered at a gas station, and it is contrasted by a legitimate psychopath in Stuntman Mike, whose modus operandi briefly evokes J.D. Ballad’s controversial novel Crash (1973), and David Cronenberg’s controversial 1996 adaptation, when someone suggests mowing women down in his car, an item symbolically connected to masculinity in a variety of pop culture, as a sexual thrill. The ending even plays to a symbolic act of pegging but with a female driver ramming the male driver's car from behind over and over.

The extended cut complicated this as it alters the pace. It has new scenes, and removes the "Missing Footage" section, tricking the viewer into not being able to see the clothed lap dance set up with Vanessa Ferlito in the first act. It also allows one to appreciate the music as, even when I hated the film, I still got hold of the soundtrack album as, between T. Rex's Jeepster to April March's interpretation of Chick Habit, a Serge Gainsbourg number she added new English lyrics to, Quentin Tarantino always was always good at choosing existing songs for his films. Though the extended cut itself adds scenes that now feel good and of worth in having, in Grindhouse, the pacing works entirely, and it feels as if, after Kill Bill and the car chase that succeeds triumphantly here, Tarantino was waving goodbye to his older films entirely. Action still transpires in films like Django Unchained (2012), but when The Hateful Eight (2015) was set up as a misanthropic chamber piece I saw at the cinema, set in the confines of a western and set in a cabin, I see something changed when we got to Inglourious Basterds (2009) with his attitude to his stories.

Grindhouse altogether is a compelling work, one which was a mad project to get off the ground at all, as unless they stayed with lower budgets, Tarantino and Rodriguez’s dream ballooned out into what it became always placed a harder target for it to reach due to a niche concept. That niche, the re-admiration of cult and genre cinema, did thankfully pay off as, whilst not a success and with half of it divisive originally, it followed a wave of things that happened for the better. The likes of “Ozploitation” became a concept for example, as one documentary Not Quite Hollywood: The Wild, Untold Story of Ozploitation! a year later helped Australian heritage to be celebrated, with this film in Tarantino's end credits thanking a big name in that documentary, filmmaker Brian Trenchard-Smith, in a detail predating this example. Eventually you will get Blu Ray (and 4K) restorations of even maligned filmmakers like Al Adamson in big special edition, and that is ultimately the real success of the Grindhouse project, which was a big and intriguing tribute to these projects which got fans even if the box office was not a success. That did become an industry, and grew into something great, making this a film I would still salute for helping with this trajectory. Also undeniably, in terms of my fascination especially with films which break the three hour plus lengths, as they can be very unconventional films in their own right even as stereotypical "serious dramas", there is something about a three plus hour tribute to an actual genre film double bill that is compelling, especially as so much is to be talked about and appreciated in all its moving parts. In turn, it makes one wish I had greater access to the modern day double bill retrospectives in cinemas which do not have the potential urine smell in the theatre.

======

1) Robert Rodriguez Says Casting Rose McGowan in ‘Grindhouse’ Was an F-U to Harvey Weinstein, written by Brent Lang and published by Variety on October 27th 2017.

Monday 24 June 2024

Games of the Abstract: Time Crisis 5 (2015)

 


Developer: Bandai Namco

Publisher: Bandai Namco

One to Two Players

Originally for: Arcade

 

After nine years from Time Crisis 4 (2006), a new sequel to the Namco lightgun shooter franchise came into being during the Unity engine era. That is neither a pointless reference, as not only was this a Unity engine production, but in 2018, Sega used Unity to resurrect the House of the Dead lightgun franchise with Scarlet Dawn, a moment of both legendary companies reviving their lightgun franchises in the high definition gaming era. Sadly we did not get a healthy crop of these types of games in this mould, nor actual ports either, making it the more tragic when the Scarlet Dawn cabinet, a huge sit-in spectacle cabinet, disappeared from the seaside arcade I found it within, replaced by an incredibly inferior Raw Thrills machine based on the Walking Dead. It meant an immediate must, even if pumping a comical amount of coins into it, to beat the Time Crisis 5 machine when I spotted it in the wild, all in fear it would be replaced by an inferior machine the year after.

Time Crisis 5 is an entry back into this absurd action film created in game form, factoring in that the spin-off Razing Storm (2009), which I have softened onto in hindsight, was escalating this franchise from the original. In the first game, you were rescuing the president's daughter, only to get to giant super robots by Razing Storm and Time Crisis 4. By Time Crisis 4, you had swarms of nano-like insect robots as super weapons, nuclear missiles being threatened to be used, and having to use a literal man-bridge to reach the final boss, which has to be one of the best (and funniest) I have encountered in this genre. By the fifth game, in which your new protagonists, a pair of lovable himbos, Luke O'Neil (Player One) with his beach bum tattooed look, and Marc Godart (Player Two) in the most swagger blue suit top for a gun fight combined with white tiger stripe trousers, are for the first stage already with the spin-offs now to pull lore from, trying to get a briefcase away from a figure named Wild Dog, who appeared as the central antagonist back in the original Time Crisis. It is still as ridiculous as part four as a big dumb action film in pace and tone, though the first prominent aspect, beyond the swanky new graphics, is the twin pedals instead of the one that this series created and set its structure around.

The pedal, and how you could hide behind cover, became Time Crisis' innovation, and this time, alongside wisely ditching using the pedal to switch weapons from Time Crisis 4, brings now a left and right one per player. Barring Level 2, the requisite level having a fire fight in a vehicle, a battle helicopter here, this means you in each area can move around enemies. Dodging their shots, you are able to immediately reload by switching cover, and then stand up and take shots, as well as do as before even if this game really emphasises using both sets than the one from previous games. It makes the legs and especially the feet sore, stood up for the whole campaign, but if Time Crisis 6 ever existed and could run with this, this simple add-on provides so much. Alongside the ability to swing around enemies, dodging bosses attacks with glee and always keeping on them, set up with the larger mini-gun enemies in Level 1 with red targets on their weapon's highly flammable fuel tanks, it also means having to switch between the two hiding areas to be able to hit certain goons without cover hiding them. Bosses, with those visible red targets, move to target you, forcing you to switch sides to flank them, weaving between the rest covers and dodge hazards. This simple mechanic adds so much fun and strategy.

Beyond this, Time Crisis 5 has a very simple story, but as I have come to found, I prefer lightgun games actually having a story even if it is really cheesy, rather than a tech demo gallery shooter as I have found in later advancements like VR Agent (2023). Alongside the Player Two character of Time Crisis 2 (1997) betraying you, which was distinct even without prior knowledge as he spends most of the game as a crotchety veteran who feels too old for this, there is also the fact in mind to the original Time Crisis being released a year before Resident Evil (1996), this clearly took inspiration from the later and the boom of zombies popular culture. Here, as a turn in this game, you eventually fight super soldiers who cannot feel pain, experiments who are effectively melee attack undead who you are encouraged, more so than the regular goons, to shot in the head immediately to quickly dispose of in a cavern level.

Beyond this, it is a series of set pieces. This has an inversion of a set piece from Time Crisis 4, taking pot shots at a boss as they are in a prolonged fist fight with one of your friendly NPCs, here the NPC ultimately the villain, but the boss also an American ninja in a room full of priceless but breakable antiques. There is the first level raid of a hotel for Wild Dog, Level 2 an on-helicopter scene against a train, which changes the pace, alongside Wild Dog's end on Level 3, even is vague enough in the explosion he can return. Then you find yourself in a cave, with a super naturally enhanced street punk as a boss, where whilst he attempts summon a dangerous energy blast, zombies act like a shield you need to switch covers to-and-fro between to hit him. My one disappointment with Time Crisis 5, honestly, is the lack of the ridiculous ending to match the humour of a man-bridge from the previous game's final boss, though this one does have them hiding behind an ED-209 stand-in on a hover platform like a coward, with your female lead saving the day by driving an entire helicopter into a missile, and having to hit precise targets to knock a man off a platform to oblivion after putting many bullets into him already. It is appropriately ridiculous to compensate, and that is the operative word. What separated this genre from a mere shooting gallery was when, however, they were influenced by the likes of American action films as with a lot of Japanese video games of certain genres, and the influence was exaggerated in these absurd but earnest games that I fell in love with as with Time Crisis 5 that could also match this tone with their solid gameplay.

Thursday 20 June 2024

2001 Maniacs (2005) / 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams (2010)

 


Director: Tim Sullivan

Screenplay: Tim Sullivan and Chris Kobin [and Christopher Tuffin for 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams]

Cast:

2001 Maniacs:

Robert Englund as Mayor George W. Buckman, Lin Shaye as Granny Boone, Giuseppe Andrews as Harper Alexander, Jay Gillespie as Anderson Lee, Matthew Carey as Cory Jones, Peter Stormare as Professor Ackerman, Marla Malcolm as Joey, Gina Marie Heekin as Kat, Brian Gross as Ricky, Mushond Lee as Malcolm

2001 Maniacs - Field of Screams:

Bill Moseley as Mayor George W. Buckman, Trevor Wright as Falcon, Lin Shaye as Granny Boone, Christa Campbell as Milk Maiden, Ahmed Best as Crow, Adam Robitel as Lester, Nivek Ogre as Harper Alexander, Andrea Leon as Val Turner

A Night of a Thousand Horror (Movies)

 

You’re boning your cousin, and I’m a pig?

Full Spoilers Ahead

I want to return to a lot of films I once hated with a more positive outlook on them, but the 2000s remakes of Herschell Gordon Lewis’ Two Thousand Maniacs (1964) sadly belongs to that category of those where I had my initial issues with grow, cultivating into a clear and understood view of why I cannot vibe with them. More so as this time I saw the 2010 sequel, which also establishes that these films belonging to an era of cinema I grew up with which is now old, not inherently a criticism in itself, but with these unfortunately belonging to the side I glad is less common nowadays. The edgy opening of the original, splicing real Civil War photos with creepy music and slashes in the soundtrack, alongside immediately raising the concerns of how the remake series tackles the Civil War, fully shows the mid-2000s aesthetic of horror is now old after I grew up with it. The first film was produced by Raw Nerve, Eli Roth's company with Scott Spiegel, and Boaz Yakin which produced his two Hostel films, marking this particular aesthetical era, even in a more overtly comedic case here, of a grungy and more explicit type of American horror. There are also, unfortunately, obnoxious frat boys as the leads, who after being very bad in their Civil War classes thus end up ironically in the past whilst trying to get to a party Florida. They end up, as in Lewis’ version, in Pleasant Valley, a Southern Confederate throwback which openly wants to get revenge on the North for the Civil War by luring and killing Northern Yankees.

The obnoxiousness is there, as no one is likable even if you are eventually meant to sympathize with them, to the point I cared more for Eli Roth in a cameo as a guy who throws dead armadillos at passing cars, claims they ran over his pet, and guilts them into free car rides with his dog Dr. Mambo. The sequel has the same issue, even if parodying the Paris Hilton and Nicole Richie reality TV show, The Simple Life, which lasted from 2003 to 2007 with its obnoxious reality TV blonde stand ins and its small crew. Only the two films having male characters who are gay or embrace it is a nickel of empathy, and this tellingly comes from Tim Sullivan, as a LGBTQ horror filmmaker, whose entry for the anthology film Chillarama (2011) having the evocatively named I was a Teenage Werebear which plays to the slang version of “bear”, not just the mythological idea of bear men. I wish this was the direction we went more with, alongside the streaks of camp as these are horror comedies, as all my problems with both films begin and end with them attempting to play to taboos with these Southern hick stereotypes, with racism and various taboos, which comes off as a terrible strain of ironically nudging to these for discomfort humour whilst still having the stereotypes and racism.

The Pleasant Valley locals are evil, indiscriminating killing and eating Northerners, but they are mean to be anti-heroes which you whoop for despite the fact the first film plays to their more overt racism unlike the original film, especially as Robert Englund as Mayor George W. Buckman, the head of the community, is a really good casting choice as a lead. Herschell Gordon Lewis’ original film never addressed the uncomfortable issues of how the Southern Confederacy, whilst only lasting from 1861 to 1865, fought the Civil War for an idealized view of the South based on plantations and slavery, yet he managed to find the right balance and even melancholia for the film made after Blood Feast (1963), where he invented the splatter genre, that had a great high concept premise. It had a playful goofiness which undercut the premise's moral implications, but fully took advantage of the themes as it was set hundred years after the Civil War with the literal ghosts of the South against the North. Whilst out of context the song he wrote is a problematic earworm, and becomes more so in the grungy metalish version in the remake films, The South's Gonna Rise Again, in context it is a perfect opening song for the tone in context and fully informed the themes of his lurid little drive-in production with the right sick humored tone. That being a Southern town in the past, random bystanders in the war, who were destroyed and had become the hate driven killers against a cast, including Blood Feast’s William Kerwin, who are actual adults and actually sympathetic. Whilst never dealing with the truly problematic nature of the Confederate, even for a wacky sixties gore film which is deeply silly and made by a filmmaker who even laughed at the notion of artist pretense of artistry in cinema, the film managed somehow to get the idea that these Southerners, once tragic side casualties in a war which killed both sides, became these gleeful limb lopping psychopathic ghosts but with the Northern Yankees figures you want to see survive. You can challenge that sentence, and the film, for glossing over the South's history of plantations and slavery, and you are absolutely right too dear reader, but there is no sense of the film being pro-Confederate either, or worse smudging the tone, just an exploitation film perfectly tapping into a history moment like an old wound in a good example of bad taste.

Here, playing these Southern stereotypes’ more overt racism in the 2005 film, with an African American character with his Asian girlfriend the stick of this, the ironic humour around tackling this becomes as problematic for me for that attempted irony, which gets worse in the sequel and is attempting a detachment which cannot past muster when it falls into an un-PC attitude we challenge nowadays. This is not just even morally but, with respect for Tim Sullivan and the co-screenwriters for both films, that for me, trying to be edgy deliberately in ways like this comes off as the wet fart of humour. There is a scene of Englund, part of a group of cannibalistic ghosts, with a pair of chopsticks talking about having Chinese food which, as a British lad with awareness of his culture, evokes the worse of the lame British comedies of the seventies and so. Forgetting just the political correctness, this type of un-PC humour, for deliberately provocation nowadays against the "woke" or here in irony, is a deuce chill culturally evoking a lame uncle ruining the mood with an off-colour joke, or a bad comedian in an old English pub. This especially amplifies for the sequel, but it is found in the prequel to, which is juggling this with gory set pieces undercut by the humour.

The stereotyping of the Southerners is an issue too, as there is a precise difference in criticizing the Confederacy, with the Confederate flags on display in these films more uncomfortable for me as time passes, as a viewer not even from the United States, to falling to a stereotype as bad as the racist lines played for ironic humour. There is a sheep shagging joke that continues into the sequel, where they probably could not afford an actual sheep, and it felt like the obvious joke to have whilst we have these stereotypes. The ones in the original sixties film were stereotypes, but not as heavy handed, and they were even felt to have more period accurate costumes; whilst the sequel has a shift in budget, to the point they decide to move and have a touring Pleasant Valley, rather than using a set, the costumes especially on the women of the town, who tempt the men folk from the North, feels like sexy Southern belle costumes from a party shop. This is neither a criticism as I do not punch down on budgets and production design, especially for the sequel, but it unfortunately emphasizes the sarcasm and broadness for the first film, with a larger budget, to exaggerate in questionable ways, that this is a horror comedy in how broad and eye rolling it is on the premise, than with Lewis' entire career even with his more nastier films where the premise is taken seriously, but the one liners and pity sense of dialogue made them funny.


The aesthetic has aged in funny ways – there is music from what sounds like Smash Mouth and I wish was, and there is a 2000s horniness which, whilst with copious nudity and that interesting subplot with a gay male character, never really gets sexy in the truest sense. There is all that nudity, a lot of gore, and acid moonshine that burns through a bed used, alongside a guy getting a poker through the arse, but what is meant with a sick humour as the original film becomes broader than Herschell Gordon Lewis’ original, which is said loving his films as a viewer but admitting they were never subtle. That ironic detachment, alongside the ending where the melancholic epilogue of the original is rushed and the survivors die, letting the Southerners win, really was what I was not a fan of this film originally, and stuck out now as a much older guy. The same set up happens in the second film, with the villains winning and even less an attempt at sympathetic leads as a pretense, and magnifies the issues of the previous film more greatly.

2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams opens with a comic book prologue, but raises the issue that this is more overt in tackling the maniacs’ origins even as a horror comedy, the details that Herschell Gordon Lewis avoided where, yes, the Civil War likely led to innocents on both sides dying, but the Confederates becoming a problematic lynchpin that ignores slavery as a concept. Even if you ignore this, I have with Field of Screams a film that even with brief moments, and someone like Bill Moseley replacing Englund as Major Buckman doing his hardest to raise my spirits, a charismatic actor even in the most dire of viewing experiences, where I found myself miserable viewing the film. This is considerably rare nowadays as my concept of taste and pleasure with cinema is sometimes likely to baffle others.

There is a definite shift in the tone just in terms of the cameras used. We have gone from the 2000s to the straight to video late 2000s/early 2010s, a huge shift in horror cinema where, as mentioned, the Maniacs have completed disregarded being ghosts tied to one locations and go on tour, by bus, to a new location to get to more Northerners. A huge shift is felt too in how, whilst both of them are horror comedies, the prequel has a foot in the time of Eli Roth’s Hostel (2005) and other extremer horror films, whilst the sequel even with its own gore, with a buzz saw going through a woman in a deliberately ghoulish way, is at a time when the post-Grindhouse (2007) and more pastiche nature of gore movies came to be. Repo: The Genetic Opera (2008) is notable to name check from this period, as Moseley came from that film, as did Nivek Ogre, member of the industrial band Skinny Puppy. This is parodying the then-finished reality TV show as two stereotypes of blonde airheads filming a reality show only to end up at the new travelling Pleasant Valley, one of them in the one weird joke that vaguely worked for me having a pet dog named Biscuit who already died and is kept taxidermied, talked to by the owner as if still alive. By this point, this is not even trying to have serious moments, with the leads all deliberately obnoxious, the sheep one of the maniacs is having a relationship fake, and shenanigans with Mayor George W. Buckman more of a horny old dog than a threat.

And yet there is also a Jewish stereotype, and whilst the maniacs have a more diverse cast, with a Chinese woman and African American proudly among their cannibalistic peers, it leads to the former, China Rose, speaking with a stereotypical voice, and an ongoing joke about a returning maniac, Granny Boone (Lin Shaye), having a relationship with the latter, alongside a fantasy sequence of Buckman's with a black female Northerner, which play off uncomfortable themes of plantation sexual relationships with an obvious end credits punch line that has aged like a fine murder. The post-ironic humour had aged badly from the 2000s onwards, and arguably it is worse as this is trying to be sarcastic and edgy on these types of stereotypes, but slipped into a pretense to even have. This even starts to slip into being wacky in a way that does not work, like an abrupt Southern aerobics joke, and at that point I realize that I find ways to appreciate most films but I have my limited. Even those with wavering acting performances, lack of budget or production quality, tangents away from plots or lack of plots, and all the half marks seen as "bad" cinema are things I now do not care for, and can love films for, but I still find both questionable jokes and forced wackiness like this are a toxic combination for me.

I can now enjoy silly, messy horror films many would dismiss as terrible or even the worst films, but Field of Screams, even with some fun and Bill Moseley on top of his game, was pointless and painful in the way I used to hate films of the past. There is no hate nowadays, only numbness, and it is not the curse of wokeness, but feeling like this type of humour is the equivalent of smearing your own feces on yourself as a protest, next to the fact that next to the original film, there is none of the camp fun, only this sense of sarcasm which I cannot vibe with well. Even as lurid horror comedies, the first has a generic plot pace for me as a viewer, and the latter is neither a plot with a point nor a weird tangent fest like horror cinema at its weirdest, so I find myself a fan of neither for countless reasons.