By Jason Marsiglia 

Out of 4

I’m not usually one of those guys that believe that a horror film necessitates an “R” rating to be good. There are plenty of perfectly frightening and effective horror films that have carried a “PG-13” or hell, even a “PG”. Jaws was “PG”, believe it or not (seems odd today, to think of Jaws as a “PG”, but it was), and it was visceral. The suspense was built to unnerving effect and when the scare actually hit, you were knocked clean on your ass. Did it have gore? Sure, some. Not a lot, but it was present. The point was, the shark attacks didn’t have to be ramped up to “R”-rated levels of gore to shock or frighten you. It just told a damn good story, and you kinda did the rest. Jump ahead 35 years, and we’re given the Piranha remake in 2010 – a film that knew it would be compared to Jaws (is there a man-eating fish film that isn’t?), and decided – very blatantly – that it was going to go for a non-stop gore, sex, and carnage exploitation film, and put it to such an extreme that regardless of how thin the plot was, you had to sit back and laugh at the its audacity and shamelessness.

Now we have Shark Night 3D, a movie that seemed to want to echo the terror of Jaws and the sleaze of Piranha, but didn’t have the conviction, the creativity, the brains or the balls to pull off either one. What results is the cinematic equivalent of a pitcher deciding to throw a fastball, changing his mind mid-throw, and sending the ball straight into the dirt.

A group of Louisiana college students travel to a friend’s isolated lake house for some sun bathing, water-skiing and hell…maybe a little more if everyone plays their cards right. Soon, people start getting picked off by sharks that seem to have mysteriously populated the lake. Efforts to call for help are nixed to bad phone reception and a chase with a shark resulted in their speedboat exploding. Forced to rely on a couple of local rednecks, the friends desperately try to escape the lake with their parts in tact.

I’ve already hinted at the film’s rating issue, so to continue to speak about how director David R. Ellis constantly tries to high wire some gratuity into a film whose rating simply doesn’t support it, seems worthless. There’s a little blood, chicks in bikinis and one dude’s bare ass. I’ve seen episodes of “Baywatch” that were more boner-inducing. Probably more intense, too. So to watch it is like watching a film edited for television, except it’s not edited and you paid $10+ to see it (if you were unlucky enough to catch it in theaters, of course – a rental won’t feel nearly as damaging to your wallet, is it felt to mine).

Secondly, the “rednecks”. People are paying to see people get eaten by sharks. Not only is it unnecessary for the film to have villains in the mix, but the sleazy, racist, sneering bozos in this movie are your typical Deliverance-bred rednecks, complete with leering, body-molesting stares. Always a joy to see characters like this, particularly in movies that didn’t require them.

And lastly, the “twist”. My GOD, the “twist”…

Like villains, a “twist” to an animal attack movie is, at most, an odd and unnecessary inclusion. Defying my almost overwhelming urge to warn potential viewers how stupid the twist is, I won’t spoil it here. But when you find out why the sharks are there, how they got there, and what purpose they serve, you’re either going to laugh at the film’s sudden detour into “Stupid-ville”, or slap your fucking forehead and wonder why, in a movie already so bad, does this development piss you off so much. I’m telling you, when you hear the reasons why this is happening, and how the Discovery Channel’s annual “Shark Week” marathon fits into it, you’ll be stunned by the stupidity. And this doesn’t take into consideration the massive plot holes and sheer unlikeliness it takes to achieve this stupidity.

The CGI shark effects are about parallel with the CGI in say, Deep Blue Sea. Not quite Sharktopus, but you get the idea. Oh, and they “roar” too – something that, after Jaws: The Revenge, audiences clearly just LOVE in shark attack films. The performances range anywhere from wooden to melodramatic, with the exception being former “American Idol” runner up Katharine McPhee, who’s actually a better actress than most people who got into the biz through their vocal talents (and certainly one of the sexiest). She’s natural, funny, evokes some decent panic when it’s needed and looks fucking great in a bikini. Otherwise, we get the lovely Sara Paxton, who after such a grueling performance in the Last House on the Left remake, seems either really wooden or just bored here. She seems to “inhabit” scenes, and not really act in them. Hatchet’s Joel David Moore is funny and engaging here, but he’s basically playing the same guy from Hatchet. I’m not complaining, but it felt phoned in.

But overall, the sheer ineptitude of the film, the unnecessary plot developments and the mysterious need to include villains are what waterlog this tame excuse for a late summer shocker. I don’t particularly care for a film that assumes I’ll “settle” or “suspend disbelief” to such heights, and Shark Night 3D seems confident that everyone will do just that. Let me put it this way: I spent most of this film trying to decide which film I’d rather be watching between this and Jaws: The Revenge.

The sad thing is, I wasn’t able to decide at all. How’s that chum taste?

C: Sara Paxton, Chris Carmack, Dustin Milligan, Katharine McPhee, Joshua Leonard. D: David R. Ellis. Sub genre: Animal Attack. Time: 91 minutes. Ratio: (1.85:1) Widescreen. Rated PG-13: Some animal attacks and related gore, language, sexual references, brief nudity, some disturbing imagery and a few racial elements.

The Best Digital Bang For Your Hard-Earned Buck:

 First, I want to address the 3D issue here. Shark Night was originally titled – in theaters – as Shark Night 3D. For home video, they’ve digitally erased the 3D in the title. Did they finally realize that using the theatrical gimmick of 3D as part of the film’s actual title was stupid? Or did they give the film another quick once-over and realize that even on DVD/Blu-Ray, the price of a 3D copy wouldn’t be worth the cost to produce, since I can’t imagine anyone giving a shit to pay extra for the product?

Your guess is as good as mine, but what was formerly Shark Night 3D is now simply Shark Night, and there appears to be no plans for a 3D double-dip on the horizon.

Cry me a shark-infested river, right? Moving on.

First there’s Shark Attack! Kill Machine! (5:43), a quick montage of every death in the film, which amounts to about five minutes. Something akin to what New Line used to do with the Nightmare on Elm Street DVDs and their “Jump to a Nightmare” feature, this pretty much sums up every death scene in one tidy little package. Again…it amounts to five minutes of footage…six if you’re lucky. The film itself is 91 minutes. You do the math, folks. Either watch this bonus feature and save the extra 84 minutes of your life from wasting away, or consider this a SPOILER feature. Your call.

Shark Night’s Survival Guide (4:08) is a collection of trivia questions about shark attacks, intermingled with clips from the film for “added effect”, I’m sure. Uninteresting, unless you’re one of the five people in the world who isn’t compulsively engrossed by Discovery Channel’s annual “Shark Week” marathons.

A couple of very brief behind-the-scenes featurettes are included, titled Fake Sharks, Real Scares (5:24) and Ellis’ Island (4:22). The first takes a look at the mixture of CGI sharks and practical animatronics, while the latter is simply some behind-the-scenes set footage that includes interviews with cast and crew.

Rounding it off are the film’s Theatrical Trailer (1:59) and some standard DVD Sneak Peeks (10:10) for various other titles.

Sequels: None, but if they can keep churning out direct-to-video sequels to Anaconda or whatever, I don’t see why we wouldn’t eventually see this film birth a litter of bad sequels in its wake.

Remakes: Ha! Not yet…but there’s always room for improvement here.

Alternative Cinema

What comes to mind when hearing a title like PSYCHO HOLOCAUST? Right off the bat I go towards an old school/retro feel akin to BLUE HOLOCAUST, ZOMBIE HOLOCAUST, JUNGLE HOLOCAUST, CANNIBAL HOLOCUAST, etc…. A name like that brings goosebumps of excitement……..but done today? Not everyone gets it. Sure they are into all things 70′s/80′s but try and translate, not all have gotten it right. So yeah, we are talking a grindhouse throwback for sure. If THE GIALLOS FLAME (BLACK DEVIL DOLL, HOBO WITH A SHOTGUN,)bring the music he is most notable for, you know something is right there., I just hope the film uses the music in its proper context.

So six friends go for a camping trip only to be subjected to all things goreful and splatterific. Cut, hack, evicerate, maim, decapitate, gorge, slice, mutilate, fuck, grind- its all there. All the things us sauce lovers want out of a movie, if it delivers in respect  and all we have been subjected to in the past then embrace we do. Grainy look, incredible score, insane gore, and flat ironed characters to be knocked off one by one roughly translate to one drunken filled night in celluloid heaven. They could have played with the colour correcting a little more in certain scenes to bring us that film look then video but I guess it goes back to how creative one is and how much time you really wanna spend on the final product. Something as a filmmaker myself pay very close attention to. Although it does have a monstrous feeling of brutality and distaste to it all, especially the final sodomy scene involving some sort of tool which I will not disclose. Think yet another TEXAS CHAINSAW backwoods rendition which has been done to death. Family of freaks, the approachable one (Trent Haaga-Suburbun Nightmare, Terror Firmer) in one of his coolest and insane roles, the sick one and the mutant fuck  with a mask aka Pillowface?. Blah blah blah blah again. Try and point out the severe Tom Savini reference, if you know his background.

Let’s go back to the music- movies are 50 % visual and 50% music. THE GIALLOS FLAME are all about all things GOBLIN, Euro and 70′s soundtracks done to a tee.  When placed right it gives off such a glorious feeling you can’t turn away from, for me at least.

The DVD extras are head noddingly boring. Holy crap. Holy crap!!!!!!! I tried to get through it all but it just goes and goes and goes on with no interest at all. Fuck it, just watch the dam movie you indie freaks and enjoy a bit of nostalgia in its goriest form.

Incoming search terms:

• psycho holocaust

It was supposed to be a joke. But the man in the suit wasn’t laughing…he was attacking. Eyes bugged out. Skin pale and lifeless. Arms outstretched and hungrily gnashing at the brother’s neck. This man was clearly insane!

But he wasn’t insane. He was a zombie. A “flesh-eating ghoul” as Romero has been known to call them from time to time, and he was the first one ever to grace the screen in the legendary zombie classic “Night of the Living Dead” in 1968.

Furthermore, being the first of six films in Romero’s epic zombie series, Bill Hinzman would forever have the honor of being known as not only the FIRST ghoul introduced in the film…he was the first introduced to the entire series.

He was played by Bill Hinzman, and sadly, the man who staggered before the screen as one of cinema’s most iconic zombies, has passed away at the age of 75.

Bill Hinzman continued to work in the horror genre from then on, often re-collaborating with George Romero and many other “Night” alumni in films such as “Season of the Witch” (1972), “The Crazies” (1973), and the little seen “There’s Always Vanilla” (1971). While he typically appeared in small roles – often as a “ghoul”, or a “crazy” or an “intruder” – Hinzman, a deep-rooted crewmember in Romero’s guerilla filmmaking team, spent more time behind the camera than in front of it.

Often assisting with the film’s photography and lighting among other odd jobs, Hinzman was simply always “there”, always willing to lend a hand in any way he could to the production. A real hands-on guy, it seemed only a logical progression that Hinzman would pursue an interest in some of his own projects, which led to several instances of writing and producing his own films.

Frequently collaborating with “Night” co-writer John A. Russo on films like 1982’s “Midnight”, the two would team up on Hinzman’s directorial debut, a 1987 slasher called “The Majorettes”.

 In 1988, exactly 20 years after his film debut in “Night of the Living Dead”, Hinzman would make a zombie film of his own called “Flesh Eater”. With complete creative control, Hinzman would direct, produce, write, star, edit and photograph the film, which, in a peripheral way, resumed the story of his nameless ghoul from “Night of the Living Dead”.

While Bill always had a hand in some project, even as late as last year’s “River of Darkness”, he always found time to hit the convention circuit and meet his fans face-to-face. Never one just to shake a hand, sign an autograph and take a picture, Bill would often appear in full zombie make-up (shabby suit and all) to give his fans that much MORE when they came to his table, in an effort to heighten the experience.

Appearing all over the country at various conventions and events, (not the least of which, a huge component and supporter of Spooky Empire, Inc.’s own yearly convention) it was more than evident upon meeting him that he was not only still very proud of his work in “Night of the Living Dead” and embraced it wholeheartedly, but was immensely appreciative and gracious to his fans, both young and old, and just couldn’t wait to meet YOU and shake YOUR hand for having shared his work. Imagine meeting someone you’ve been a fan of for several years – possibly decades – and HE is more excited to meet YOU than you are of him. That’s exactly the feeling Hinzman provided for his fans, which left many with a pleasant memory and experience they won’t soon forget.

Bill is survived by his wife Bonnie and daughter Heidi, who often shared time with him on the set in various roles, right alongside of him. He will be missed by his friends, family, and legions of fans.

Bill Hinzman - RIP

From all of us here at Horrorvein and Spooky Empire, Inc…Rest in Peace, Mr. Hinzman. You will be dearly missed.

– Jason Marsiglia

Incoming search terms:

• bill hinzman

FEAR FILM Motion Picture Studios

Jason was recently named one of 5 Screenplay Finalists at the 2011 FREAK SHOW Horror Film Festival in Orlando Florida. We wish Jason all the best with his new project and look forward to reviewing the film when it’s released!

More news to come

Incoming search terms:

• something in the dark film

(1933)

By Jason Marsiglia

Out of 4

The Invisible Man is a well-revered classic in the horror genre, and I can certainly understand why. Here’s a film that boasts ingenious, yet practical special effects to achieve the impression of an invisible madman running rampant around England. It was inducted into the National Film Registry for preservation back in 2008 by the Library of Congress for its cinematic (and historic) significance. And its always been a cornerstone film in Universal’s vaults both as a horror  and science fiction film.

So why does this movie irritate me so damn much?

The film, based (rather loosely, most of the time) on the novel by H.G. Wells, centers on a scientist named Jack Griffin who has found the secret to invisibility, managing to make himself completely disappear, unless he’s wearing clothes or bandages. Cloistering himself up in a room above a local tavern, Dr. Griffin toils day and night to find a cure for his invisible predicament, but it isn’t long before curious bar patrons and the local police figure him out – sending the doctor into a mad and violent frenzy (in no small part to the invisibility drug’s side effect of heightened aggression and madness).

The rest of the movie is basically the invisible doctor terrorizing the countryside with murder and various mayhem, while the townspeople and police scatter around, trying to figure out a way to capture something they can’t see.

Obviously, the real highlight of The Invisible Man is the special effects by John Fulton, John Mescall and Frank Williams. For its era, there are tricks done in this movie that I’m still not 100% sure of how they were achieved. Obviously, early “green screen” technology was employed here (or in this case, black felt and trick photography), but to see the type of effect it has on a film of this age, and to know that we’re still employing the same tricks almost 80 years later is remarkable. Then of course is the unmistakable voice of Claude Rains as the invisible doctor. Having to emote through layers of clothing, bandages or – more often than not – “thin air” can’t be an easy task. Yet Rains keeps the invisible villain a cold, menacing, cackling ghost of a nightmare. He’s one mean son of a bitch, lemme tell ya. His antics go from silly hijinks like snatching hats from people’s heads and kicking them in the ass, to derailing whole trains and murdering passengers in the fiery carnage.

Director James Whale, who helmed the wonderfully macabre Frankenstein from ’31 has nothing short of a winner on his hands – and it was one. The Invisible Man opened to great reviews, amazed audiences and made a bundle of cash for Universal.

So why do I have to be such a stick in the mud, huh? What makes me so pretentious to find something to dislike in a film that’s been an “etched-in-stone” classic for generations? It’s actually really simple.

It’s no secret to horror buffs of the Golden Age and hardcore James Whale fans alike that Whale had a soft spot for theater actors. Not a problem, really – a good many wonderful actors of the stage translated to the screen effortlessly. However, in the case of The Invisible Man, the stage actors here were so dramatic, so animated and so over-the-top, that they felt less like characters in a film, and more like overdrawn caricatures in a comedy. It’s distracting, at best.

And God help me, when one of Whales’ favorite “oddballs” Una O’Connor enters the fray with her obnoxious shrieking and hysterics, my teeth started grinding away. A quick mosey around the internet proves O’Connor was something of a cult icon in her day, and loved by most audiences for her bug-eyed expressions and creaky old crone voice. Here, on my TV, in my house, the woman couldn’t shut up soon enough, and Whale lovingly gives the annoying old bat more than enough screen time to tempt you into throwing a bowling ball through your television. Whale’s tendency to shine spotlight on goofball characters like this would be more commonplace in his future films (O’Connor unfortunately also appears in Bride of Frankenstein, doing the same shrill shtick she does here), but it was something largely lacking in Frankenstein two years prior, and thank God for it. Frankenstein was a grim film, set in its tone. Unfortunately for The Invisible Man, there’s horrible acts of violence and venom a-plenty coming from our vile, invisible madman…and it’s all overshadowed by Whale’s attempts at humor.

For instance, why is every other character in The Invisible Man so stupid? I don’t just mean annoyingly stupid like O’Connor. No, I mean truly, hopelessly, ineptly stupid! Is it that the invisible Dr. Griffin is such a genius, or rather that the entire population of the town he’s terrorizing are a bunch of blithering idiots? Every police officer is a bumbling moron, practically falling over each other in piles in their goof-ball attempts to capture Griffin (an embarrassing scene involving paint guns and an alley cat almost had me banging my head against the wall), and every townsperson is either a bug-eyed dope (O’Connor again, for example) or a drunken wino whose pants got kicked by our jovial lunatic – witnesses quickly written off as the drunks they clearly appear to be by the “you’re not so swift yourselves” police force.

Was all of this supposed to be funny? Did Whale deem the H.G. Wells story too dark or straightforward that he felt the need to inject the film with this crowd of loonies? For the life of me, I’ll never know, and so much time is spent on these jackass locals that The Invisible Man became less and less suspenseful by the minute, and far more annoying and off-beat in equal time. Add to that some glaring mistakes in logic and timing (how does a countryside get a newspaper reporting a policeman’s murder before the body is even removed from the crime scene?) and you get a film that continually irritated and annoyed me.

It really is a pity that The Invisible Man is so off-putting to me. I wanted to like this movie, I really did. And the special effects are so damn amazing for their time that I was simply astounded. But damn it, I just couldn’t get past the side-characters who dominate such a large portion of the film. It’s a complete misfire to me, and while I know I’m in the minority, I just couldn’t bring myself to ignore the film’s faults and focus on its  many technical achievements.

C: Claude Rains, William Harrigan, Gloria Stuart, Henry Travers, Una O’Connor. D: James Whale. Sub genre: Mad Scientist. Time: 71 minutes. Ratio: (1.33:1) Fullscreen. Not Rated: Some violence.

The Best Digital Bang For Your Hard-Earned Buck:

The best bonus feature for this movie is a documentary called “Now You See Him! The Invisible Man Revealed!” which chronicles the production of the film, including its impressive special effects and some comparisons to the novel. They also go into brief detail about every sequel to follow the film, and how the special effects progressed from film to film. They even stop to chat a little about The Invisible Man’s run-ins with Abbott and Constello, so it’s a pretty complete history of Universal’s involvement with the character.

We also get an Audio Commentary by Rudy Behlmer who is always fun to listen to.

And it’s rounded out with some Production Notes, Biographies and a Photo Gallery of Production and Publicity skills.

Sequels: We wouldn’t see (so to speak) another Invisible Man until 1940, in The Invisible Man Returns.

Remakes: H.G. Wells’ novel would be adapted many times over, to various extents – sometimes directly, sometimes simply borrowing the idea of an Invisible Man – but a true remake of this film is slated to be released in 2013 by Universal Pictures.

Incoming search terms:

• invisible man movie
• the invisible man movie
• the invisible man 1933
• the invisible man movie 1933
• the invisible man film

Yes, it’s that time again for another  fun and whacky Video Review from your Uncle Cannibal Cam. For those of you that love underground horror, Cannibal Cam has all the goods for you!

(1982)

By Jason Marsiglia

Out of 4

The story has become something of Marsiglia lore in my family. A brilliant, calculated move on my dad’s part that shook my foundations about just what a horror film was capable of doing to an unassuming viewer. I had just started getting into horror films and was still rather naively trekking through the genre, but I had very little to go on at the time. Having really only seen George A. Romero’s Creepshow, I guess I had it in my head that “this is what horror movies are”. It was my first “real” horror film, so it served as a template. That said, I wanted something “like that”, and pestered my dad to rent more horror films.

He ran out and rented 1931’s Frankenstein because it was something that frightened him as a kid and he wanted to share it with us. We watch it, and my brother and I are absolutely howling with laughter. It was so cheesy! Now, a father myself, I dread that day – when I pop in something I find exciting for my kids and it’s promptly laughed out of the room. Only now do I realize what kind of a blow that must have been for dad. We essentially pissed on something beloved from his childhood, and then when the laughter subsided, we said, “Dad, seriously, rent something scary next time, okay?”

Now, obviously, Frankenstein is a wonderful film and I adore it. But I was a dumb kid back then, so I rather obnoxiously assumed my dad didn’t “get” what kind of “scary” I was talking about or asking for. So the next weekend, he quietly brought home John Carpenter’s remake of the 1951 Howard Hawks classic The Thing From Another World. My brother and I snickered. The Thing? Even at that age, it sounded cheap and like a B-grade sci-fi disaster. A monster so cheesy they couldn’t even classify it with a suitable title – just “the thing”. Okay, right, sure. This will be scary.

Dad didn’t mind. He let us laugh, let us get it all out. But when he popped that tape into the VCR, his two obnoxious, snickering kids shut the fuck up – real quick.

The “kennel scene” alone made my skin go ashy. My brother was done. His towel was thrown in. Dad, having chalked himself up a HUGE victory for himself, had gotten his revenge, and it landed hard in that living room. He casually asked me if I wanted to finish the film, adding in a justifiably condescending tone, “that is, of course, unless you’re too scared…”

Never one to back down from a challenge, I agreed to finish the film. Not only wasn’t I going to leave my dignity on the floor (where my jaw had dropped in horror), but this was an opportunity to put my money where my shit-talking mouth was. Dad did, after all, meet my challenge to “rent something scary”, after all…

The following 109 minutes were some of the most harrowing, terrifying cinematic experiences of my life.

The basic premise, about a research team in the Antarctic running across a malevolent creature from space, is the same as the 1951 film it’s remaking. However, John Carpenter and company have decided to adapt the John W. Campbell Jr. story “Who Goes There?” in a much more literal sense. Shying away from what’s become standard of alien or monster movies at the time (people in scary – or not so scary – rubber suits), they create the creature described in the tale – a vicious alien that can consume and mimic its prey to the smallest detail. When a Norwegian lands a chopper at their camp taking shots at a fleeing Alaskan Husky, it’s the Norwegian who’s considered crazy and shot dead when he starts waving the gun and screaming incomprehensible threats (which, ultimately, were desperate warnings to save the puzzled Americans).

The dog is ushered into a kennel with the other dogs, and immediately begins to split apart and consume the other frightened dogs in what could possibly be one of the most frightening sequences in film history, and certainly one of the most complex and ghastly in special effects by far. And it’s just the first of many, as the creature escapes the kennel, and now neither the team – nor the audience – has any idea who “the thing” is.

Up until this point, Carpenter’s films were expert examples of mood and dread over style and effects. With The Thing, Carpenter hired on the budding young effects artist Rob Bottin, who created the werewolf make-up and transformation effects for Joe Dante’s The Howling. Not a penny went to waste on the screen as all manner of grotesque, gruesome, blood-spraying, tentacle-sprouting monstrosities will emerge with an inhuman scream and crawl toward us when the “imitation” is caught by the paranoid group of researchers.

It’s scary enough not knowing who is who anymore, but the sheer dread of knowing that someone will eventually be revealed as the creature and that a new, horrifying manifestation of the creature will explode from the person and make an attempt to escape is almost unbearably suspenseful.

Kurt Russell, in his third collaboration with Carpenter, is a peculiar hero, as most of his are in John’s films. The “reluctant” hero, who has initiative forced upon him in dire circumstances. He’s terrified, as terrified as anyone else here – but he maintains his cool, and isn’t too clumsy with a flame-thrower either. The odds against him are worse. Alien aside, he’s got a camp full of people he can’t entirely trust, and certainly don’t have a good reason to trust him either. Couple that up with the blizzard that’s effectively snowed them in with the creature, and the situation is positively claustrophobic. Russell is fantastic here, and the role has gone on to become one of his most celebrated and revered – certainly not to discredit the performances by everyone else. There isn’t a person here who doesn’t effectively project their fear or paranoia about him or anyone around them. It all culminates in one of the classic ambiguous final shots, not letting us off the hook for a second, even as the end credits roll.

The Thing is a landmark film in the world of practical effects, and continues to triumph over computer generated creatures to this very day with its horrifying details and otherworldly designs. Carpenter also proved here that even with a cadre of talented special effects teams behind his film, that he was still as effective as ever in bringing true terror to audiences, whether the scares are as subtle as Halloween or The Fog, or not. Effects films like this are as “in your face” as they get, but few generate the true, overwhelming sense of terror and dread that this film does. It remains a true horror and sci-fi classic – and certainly the scariest extraterrestrial film I’ve ever seen, rivaling even Ridley Scott’s Alien. It bears such an aggressive and relentless rolling thunder of pure terror, that aside from maybe James Cameron’s 1986 sequel Aliens, I haven’t seen or experienced anything like it since.

C: Kurt Russell, Wilford Brimley, Keith David, Donald Moffat, David Clennon. D: John Carpenter. Sub genre: Aliens. Time: 109 minutes. Ratio: (2.35:1) Widescreen. Rated R: Strong creature violence and disturbing imagery, strong language, drug content and gore.

The Best Digital Bang For Your Hard-Earned Buck:

First up is an Audio Commentary with director John Carpenter and star Kurt Russell. A Carpenter commentary is always a blast – add to that Kurt Russell, who always delivers some great anecdotes about the production, and you’ve got yet another great Carpenter/Russell commentary. Further evidence? Check out the commentaries for Escape From New York and Big Trouble in Little China.

Next is an awesome 82-Minute Documentary called “The Thing: Terror Takes Shape” that chronicles everything about the production – from inception to completion and even a look back at the film’s meager success upon release and how it’s become a classic through home video. What’s great about this is that it covers everything, but pays extra special care in detailing the special effects by Rob Bottin. Let’s face it – the performances, writing and direction are top notch, but it’s the grisly creature effects that will resonate you, if they haven’t already. Lots of good stuff here, and it compliments the commentary nicely.

There’s also some rough Behind the Scenes footage, which includes a couple of Stop-Motion effects sequences that weren’t used in the film. Clearly they were cut because the stop-motion doesn’t jive with everything else, but it was cool to see anyway.

We also have a series of Outtakes, which is funny because they’re not “outtakes” at all, but rather Deleted or Unused scenes. No goof-ups, line-flubs or practical jokes, so don’t go in expecting a chuckle.

Image galleries containing storyboards, concept art, and promotional material line out several of the film’s galleries, including the film’s premiere with horror hostess Elvira, which is cool.

A theatrical trailer and some production notes round off this Collector’s edition, which should contain more than a few hours to digest. As a die-hard fan of the film, this wasn’t just a “must-own”. It’s a crown jewel in my collection.

Sequels: Though it’s been largely written off as a remake (for it’s similarities, and less because of the title), 2011’s The Thing was a prequel that chronicled the creature’s discovery in Antarctica, and how it subsequently attacked the Norwegian camp we see briefly in Carpenter’s film. It all leads up to Carpenter’s film rather cleverly.

Fans of the film might also be interested in a 2002 video game that was produced by Konami and Universal Interactive that takes place several weeks after the events of this film, as a search and rescue team are sent into the outpost to find out why communication has been severed. Though it’s no film, the story continues the film’s mythology, answers a few unanswered questions and contains a great detail of continuity.

Remakes: Again, the 2011 prequel is not a remake, and this film has not been remade in any capacity.

Incoming search terms:

• photo the thing 2011 creature original
• the thing 1982 blu ray review
• thing 1982 creature

(2010)

By Jason Marsiglia

Out of 4

A Serbian Film has brave, unflinching and dynamite performances by its cast – particularly, its lead, Srdjan Todorovic. It’s expertly directed, with a foreboding, almost nauseating, brown tint and bathed in blackness and shadows during its seedier moments. It’s special effects are quite effective – bloody, gruesome, uncompromising.

I can respect all of that about A Serbian Film, but don’t ask me to call any of this entertaining, or easy to watch. Frankly, if you’re the slightest bit unsure as to whether to proceed with the movie after having read what you’ve read about it, or heard what you’ve heard about it, then I’d strongly advise going with your gut and looking for something else to watch.

For those of you who cannot be dissuaded, let this review serve as a primer, and don’t say I didn’t warn you.

A Serbian Film focuses on Milos, a retired porn star who has quit the biz and settled down with a beautiful wife and his very young son. He’s content with his retirement, disenchanted with the “jollies” his former profession entailed, but he misses the money it paid out – especially now, when things are so tight. As if by some twisted design of fate, an old co-worker tells Milos of a new porn production starting in a few days. He’s uninterested, until she discloses that the pay will be substantial enough that it should take care of even his son’s life-long finances. And the porn in question is supposedly something more sophisticated than the typical shoot. The director is looking to make something “art house” with a meaning, a purpose, and he respects Milos work to such a degree that he’s willing to pay the astronomical amount to get him (and his below-the-belt “star”) involved.

Here’s the catch – the script is confidential, and in order to ensure a natural performance, Milos will not be privy to anything that happens, keeping his reactions genuine. His job is simply to show up, do as he’s told, and collect his paycheck when the shoot is over.

From here, the film goes dark – inkwell dark.

Milos is asked to perform sexual acts that will entail him beating his female co-stars viciously, and working around some clearly underage extras. He’s repulsed by the production and quits. The director becomes frustrated and simply tells Milos that he’s missing the “big picture” here. This porno is supposed to be a “real life” allegory for their corrupt Serbian government – how they start to figuratively “rape” you from the second you’re born. To further convince Milos, the director shows him a horrifying clip from the film, in which the very literal act is performed.

Yes, folks – this film goes there.

It’s at this point that most people will decide to shut the film off, having justifiably decided that movies that are willing to push this kind of boundary just aren’t worth it. And good for you – because it doesn’t get any better, I can promise you that.

Milos is disgusted beyond all reason (we can thank God for his rationality and principals in this film, where no one else seems to have any), and runs horrified from the insane director’s set. At this point, Milos awakens three days later, beaten and bloody, with no recollection of the previous day’s events. He returns to the set to find everyone dead and a series of tapes left behind from when the cameras were still rolling. To uncover the mystery of the time period he missed and find his family (who have gone missing, which should tell you plenty), Milos must watch the horrifying series of tapes, and in essence, watch his life crumble into despair with each passing reel. The things that we (and Milos) witness are some truly shocking and nauseating acts of violence and sexual depravity, orchestrated by director Srdjan Spasojevic in a manner that ultimately pummels you viciously with one disgusting atrocity after another.

In its own way, the skillful direction and brilliant performance by Srdjan Todorovic transcend the material. Todorovic seems like a real guy – porn was just a job to him, something lifeless and empty. He plays the part detached at first, but his love for his family is very real, and when their own lives become entangled in this sick web, his utter anguish is powerful, visceral stuff and in lesser hands, probably wouldn’t have been as effective. This man has Oscar-chop talent, and it’s frustrating to know that this film will likely pigeonhole him in ways that can ruin an otherwise promising career. Maybe it won’t, who knows? But his performance is the film’s true saving grace and the reason for my star rating being as comparatively high as it is, to what my true feelings for the film really are.

I have to admit, I kind of admire the performances, the production value, the linear direction and its brutal special effects. The rest, which is merely the story and shock value, I’m afraid is less impressive. It may have all the earmarks of a professional production, but make no mistake, I don’t particularly like films designed for the sole purpose of trying to make me flinch – which to me, is the only reason A Serbian Film exists. Well, I didn’t flinch. I didn’t cringe, I didn’t look away in disgust – though I whole-heartedly understand that many will do just that. But by film’s end, the ugly, ultra violent and over-sexed thriller that I had settled into ultimately failed to impress me overall, and you can do with that what you will. I’m not implying that I sat through what’s been called one of the most depraved and disgusting horror films ever made, “and all I got was this lousy T-shirt”. No, the film was meant to repel and anger you, and I was certainly repelled and angered – I guess it succeeded that much.

But as each fit of lurid and disgusting brutality crossed the screen – and likewise, crossed several lines – I found myself seeing all of this become ludicrous. Sure, just about everything in the film is beyond the pale, testing the limits of decency and tolerance. But after a while, it all becomes increasingly silly – culminating in a finale you should probably see coming if you look at the set-up, and an act of violence involving an eye socket that will either have you vomiting into your popcorn, or laughing at its audacity. It’s one of those movies that starts off trying to make a point, shocking you into paying attention, and then going way beyond knowing when to quit. A good portion of viewers will be sickened wall-to-wall, understandably. But those of us with an iron gut will suddenly see the exact moments where a filmmaker’s original intentions spin wildly out of control, and cheap shock value becomes the end result of mis-guided focus.

For instance, Spasojevic has defended the film – much like the insane porn director within the film – as an allegory for life in Serbia. Bullshit. Sorry, I’m not buying it. Don’t get me wrong, Serbia is a country rife with its share of atrocities and chaos. But the whole “my film’s ridiculously offensive acts of rape and violence is supposed to reflect my view on corrupt government” angle is the oldest cop-out in the Horror Filmmaker’s Handbook. It’s the equivalent of  “my dog ate my homework”, and is used liberally by shock filmmakers when their movie gets pummelled by critics for its content. I guarantee that if the amount of notoriety and federal investigation into whether the film breaks any laws of decency in cinema weren’t reported, the film wouldn’t have any more buzz than Hostel or Wolf Creek. People will talk, sure – word of mouth is a powerful thing. But A Serbian Film is hardly the “end-all-be-all” of horror, or torture cinema.

There are shocking and revolting films out there, particularly by Argentinean director Gaspar Noe, like his Irreversible and I Stand Alone, that are unflinching and brutal examples of damaged people, and horrifying acts of violence that will resonate with an unprepared viewer far longer than this will. Another good example is Ruggero Deodato’s infamous 1980 shocker Cannibal Holocaust, that had a lot to say about how media exploits other countries, or tragedy. You watch these films and the focus and intent is far clearer. They’re hard to watch, but by the end of the movie, you’ve reached a point of clarity, and even an understanding for these people, and why they did the horrible things they’ve done. Or why a director would choose to show something in such an uncompromising way.

A Serbian Film doesn’t end that way. I didn’t get that feeling of morale or clarity that comes with the titles I mentioned above, that this film seems to want to emulate to a certain political degree. No, instead, the film ends with a cynical opening for a sequel, and a promise to further violate its victims beyond their trauma – hell, beyond their death. And where’s the message in that?

C: Srdjan Todorovic, Sergej Trifunovic, Jelena Gavrilovic, Lena Bogdanovic, Katarina Zutic. D: Srdjan Spasojevic. Sub genre: Torture/Thriller. Time: 104 minutes. Ratio: (2.40:1) Widescreen. Unrated: Intense, sadistic and brutal violence, including depraved acts of sexual activity and torture, graphic nudity, drug use, strong language and gore.

The Best Digital Bang For Your Hard-Earned Buck:

Neither the DVD or Blu-Ray contain any special features whatsoever.

Sequels: None, but it’s open for one…

Remakes: None. And I’d be surprised if anyone had the balls…

Incoming search terms:

• a serbian film
• a serbian film special effects
• movie sesual women star collection
• serbian film t shirt

Sources claim that with Michael C. Hall’s contract ending after this season, Showtime and Hall’s camp cannot agree on a new salary during contract negotiations (a difference of $4 million), effectively halting them for the time being.

It’s been said that the initial plan was to sign Hall up for two more seasons of “Dexter”, but now, Showtime is claiming they hope to get him signed on for just ONE more season, provided everyone can agree on terms.

People from Showtime seem confident that an agreement will be reached, but to what end? We’ll continue to keep you posted as news comes in.

By Jason Marsiglia

Incoming search terms:

• when does dexter return
• will there be a seventh season of dexter
• when does the 7th season of dexter come out on dvd
• when will dexter return
• when does the seventh season of Dexter come out on DVD
• when does the sixth season of dexter come out on dvd