GRIZZLY PARK (2008) d. Tom Skull

Reviewed by Rick Trottier

The concept of Man vs. Nature has long been a fathomless source for novels, films and art and despite the inexorable expansion of technology, the image of humankind battling the forces of the wilderness continues to be potent. Perhaps, as the grasp of science becomes tighter upon man and his dependence on gadgetry becomes greater, our ability to deal with animals in the wild, one on one, becomes that much more pathetic. Since man has little natural weaponry at his disposal when you take away his toys and put him out in the forest, it is likely that the idea of defending oneself against lions and tigers and bears, Oh My, continues to be such a deep well from which to draw. There has been a resurgence of “maneater” type films over the last few years, most of them aping the horror sub-genre that proliferated in the 1960s and 70s and most not really being up to the task. GRIZZLY PARK works hard to be a quality addition to that long and illustrious line of films and has a degree of success in the process.

GRIZZLY PARK is the story of eight youthful miscreants who receive public service assignments for their misdemeanor crimes. Sent out to a remote California park in mid-autumn, they are to pick up trash, camp, hike, and soul search for a week under the guidance of the Department of Corrections and the Park Service. Unrepentant attitudes, disrespectful actions and personal disaffection steadily grow in the youngsters even as they struggle against the resistless tide of challenges that nature begins to throw at them. Before long, mischievous malefactors are running for their lives as the minions of Mother Earth teach them a lesson in reverence.

Like most independent film efforts, there is usually a lack of funds that dictates the levels of achievement a movie can attain when it comes to the story, the camera work, the acting, the music and the final outcome. Like its much older predecessor, THE FOREST (1981), GRIZZLY PARK may not have started with much cash, but some good choices help to make this an effective if not outstanding film. One of the best elements of GRIZZLY PARK is the outdoor photography, which could have been used in any National Geographic or Animal Planet feature. Filmed on location in Tennessee and Virginia state parks, the autumnally tinted hues of the wistfully rugged landscape, shot with care and an overarching respect for nature, are simply incredible. Even if you don’t like horror films, an overpowering pull to walk the scarlet-carpeted glades of the Appalachians in October will overwhelm any viewer after a few vistas slide across the screen. There is no shakey-cam stupidity at any time in this film and the few scenes that are set at night are well lit and easy to comprehend. In today’s world of miserable music video-inspired film drek, the directors of photography and the camera men of GRIZZLY PARK must be lauded profusely. It was a pleasure to sit down and watch a movie that really looked good.

The story of GRIZZLY PARK is not as strong as the photography and it does have its problems, but it does have its strengths too. The general premise of taking a group of self-absorbed, spoiled, uncaring, 18-24 year old pricks out in the forest on work-detail and letting them see and deal with something bigger, better, older and wiser than themselves is always and will always be marvelous. It reminded me strongly of the moment in ROOTS when Maya Angelou’s character castigates Levar Burton by saying, “Do you know that you do not KNOW everything, can not DO everything and that Allah is still greater than yourself?” These human turds get their own variety of that speech delivered by skunks, wolves, bears and camp fires as each part in the drama unfolds. Taking a page from THE BREAKFAST CLUB, as the journey deeper into the forest continues, we reach inside the kids and see why they are there and whether they are learning anything from their challenge. Unfortunately, this is where the story has its faults. The entire point of THE BREAKFAST CLUB was to explore the inner workings of the teens and to get them to interact. In GRIZZLY PARK, the stories of the troublemakers must split time with the story of the twin terrors of a slasher on the loose and the killer grizzly stalking the trails. Add to that already overloaded plate, the reality of trying to tell the story of eight pains-in-the-asses and a forest service ranger who really has the starring role and you’ve got a landscape painting with a few too many trees and not enough water and sky. In one of the interview segments in the extras menu, one of the cast members refers to the characters as being deep. If only that were really the case, GRIZZLY PARK might have been an even better film. Sadly, in a 90 minute film with so many different tales to tell, none of the characters were deep enough, nor was their interplay complex enough to really develop conflict as intense as it needed to be during the dramatic points of the story.

What does work in this story, and I’m not sure how this turned out so, is that the first third of the film depends on a mix of the slasher elements and blends it with the introduction to the scoundrels. As the trek gets underway, gentle undertones of humor are woven in even as the pace of the story remains patient and only selected dollops of action are interspersed with the beautiful landscape imagery. Over the last third of the film, the pace of the film intensifies very rapidly even as the focus shifts to more of a gory horror comedy with a character twist. Somehow, this works, for I was not bored by the gentle pace of the first two-thirds of the film and I got some really good laughs out of the demise of the jerks in the end. One of the unanticipated traits of the screenplay was that some of the death scenes were surprisingly restrained, while others were intensely graphic, and this was randomly mixed in the last acts. The twists at the end, while not terribly well hidden were enjoyable none-the-less and since they were well tied to foreshadowing in the first third of the film, they created a degree of symmetry. One quality of human nature that never seems to alter is our need for order in our lives and our tales.

Much like THE FOREST (1981), GRIZZLY PARK is also dependent on a mix of mostly very inexperienced and untried actors for its success. As with any independent film where the cast is primarily rookies, there is some woodenness at times and some overacting too, but the efforts are sincere and some of the gaffs and resultant groans from the audience may be as much the fault of an inexperienced director. Despite the fact that I still don’t like vile characters being created for the sole purpose of knocking them down like ducks in a shooting gallery, in this case it was somewhat successful. Possibly, this is was because Ranger Bob (Glenn Morshower) and Bebe (Emily Foxler) weren’t unlikable pustules. Their pleasantly simple but sweet characters are like life preservers that one can hold onto as the waves of unpleasantness wash over the viewers from all the other misery-machines. Mr. Morshower is the one veteran in a starring role and he plays the part of the board stiff and ruler straight park ranger to perfection. Rance Howard makes a very brief appearance, but it is nice to see a familiar face there as well. Emily Foxler steals the show with her impressive performance as the bubble-headed and beautifully busty Bebe. Between her earnestness, her doe eyes and innocent giggles, and her alluring figure decked out in all manner of attention-grabbing garments, Miss Foxler teams with Glenn Morshower to give the best performances of the film. Shedrack Anderson (Ty) and Jelynn Rodriguez (KiKi) also put in unexpectedly good efforts as thoroughly distasteful characters, and had the story just focused on them, Bebe and possibly one other youngster, perhaps the end product wouldn’t have felt so diluted.

GRIZZLY PARK has a surprising extras menu that includes three short interview/behind the scenes segments, “What is Grizzly Park”, “Filming a Real Bear” and “You Reap What You Sow”. The first featurette looks at the film premise, the second examines the use of real animals in the filming and the third analyzes the underlying theme. While each of these featurettes is under three minutes, any interviews with the cast and crew are always a satisfying excursion. In all three, you get to hear their thoughts, feelings and experiences and see moments on the set and during the filming. There is a very short behind the scenes clip called “Brody Stand In”, where one of the few scenes with a man in a bear suit in provided. Most of the rest of the grizzly scenes were shot with Brody, a live, 1300 pound ursine handled by Jeff Watson, who also played “Butch”. There is an audio commentary with director/writer Tom Skull and producer Belle Avery. Finally there is the film trailer and a set of Allumination Filmworks preview trailers. Like Allumination’s offering, THE OTHER SIDE, that I previously reviewed, part of my good will towards GRIZZLY PARK is seeing the effort put forth to include a few worthwhile extras. It is never a bad idea and always engenders a little warmth.

GRIZZLY PARK is not a laugh ride, neither is it a thrill-a-minute, nor is it a blood tide that washes everything away in torrents of crimson. It is a film that tries very hard to succeed with some excellent photography, a story that has the right idea and a mostly young cast of “up and comers” who give it the “old college try”. It would be interesting to see what a few more years of experience, a little more money just as wisely spent and some stronger screenwriting efforts could kindle. When I can say that I don’t hate a film and can find some praiseworthy components, that is almost remarkable. Just as the scalawags in GRIZZLY PARK get their “just desserts”, I hope that the film makers of this enjoyable little flick get the chance to do something like this again and take it to another level of quality.

www.alluminationfilmworks.com/
www.grizzlypark.com/

CONFESSIONS OF A YOUNG AMERICAN HOUSEWIFE (1974) d. Joseph W. Sarno

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

DR. JEKYLL and MR. HYDE (2008) d. Paolo Barzman

Reviewed by Rick Trottier

It always seems that every few years, someone feels the urge to remake one of the classic thrillers of yesteryear. Most commonly, it is FRANKENSTEIN or DRACULA that see remakes, but just about all of the old horror classics have been retold, retooled or retread. DR. JEKYLL and MR. HYDE is a tale that has seen more than half a dozen visitations on the Big Screen and even more in video form, made for television movies or even TV show adaptations. It is a compelling tale about the war within between the light and dark side of our souls. While Robert Louis Stevenson’s story may never really get old, the manner in which film makers present the tale is beginning to tire no matter how hard they try to update the tale, blend it with modern sensibilities and fashions or decorate it with current technology and trappings. The 2008 version of the Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde yarn, starring Dougray Scott has some redeeming characteristics, but in the end it does not really take the myth in a new direction nor add another chapter to the canon.

DR. JEKYLL and MR. HYDE is the tale of eminent physician Dr. Henry Jekyll, whose excursions into experimental biology have loosed a malevolent force on the city of Boston by the name of Edward Hyde. Dr. Jekyll soon becomes aware of evidence that suggests that he and Mr. Hyde may be the same person. Dr. Jekyll enlists the aid of an old friend, Gabe Utterson played by screen veteran Tom Skerritt, and Utterson calls in a favor from a young lawyer, Claire Wheaton, played by Krista Bridges. Miss Wheaton begins a nightmarish journey into the darkest corners of the soul to uncover the truth about the murders committed by Mr. Hyde, and whether Dr. Jekyll is truly innocent or guilty.

DR. JEKYLL and MR. HYDE is a made-for-TV film to be broadcast on ION on May 17, but after brief reflection, you would never think it was a TV Movie. Its greatest strength is its slick, attractive appearance, very creative lighting schemes and engaging camera work. During the day, scenes shift from handsome city vistas made to look like Boston, mixed with actual exterior scenes shot in Boston, all of which are well composed and brightly lit. The night time exterior and interior scenes are even more compelling, often monochromatically lit with red, blue, green, violet or even silver gels. Add to that already exotic imagery, scenes that are carefully shaded and shadowed so as to mix moodiness with the afore-mentioned eerie colors and the atmospheric stage is set. There are some wonderfully chosen interior sets like a dramatic spiral staircase and some exterior alleys that drip with a sense of menace, all of which make DR. JEKYLL and MR. HYDE visually stunning at times. While this film is no KILL BABY, KILL or SUSPIRIA, there are times when it feels like the spirit of Mario Bava has been invoked or a nod is made to Dario Argento.

The other strength of this film is Dougray Scott. Playing any duel role is very difficult, and while Mr. Scott has a tendency to deliver somewhat understated performances, he works very hard to craft characters that are convincing. Mr. Scott’s Dr. Jekyll begins as stoic but tormented, and patiently descends into a maelstrom of emotional agony ending at suicidal resolve. Conversely, Scott’s Mr. Hyde is a blend of insouciant lethality and suavely sadistic indifference. While both portrayals are done with the hand holding down the throttle and Mr. Scott never quite explodes from the chains he carefully wraps around his performances, his are the best efforts in the film.

Despite these considerable strengths, most of DR. JEKYLL and MR. HYDE left me wondering when the film was really going to get rolling. It is likely that there are two reasons for this discrepancy between the DR. JEKYLL and MR. HYDE that worked and that which didn’t. The movie starts off as a subtle mix of medical thriller with horror undertones and stays that way for a while. After some time, the story genre shifts to a crime drama with the potential for romantic/horror traces. Over the last one-third of the film, it became a courtroom/legal drama and then it tried to slip that noose with a surprise horror ending. Not quite knowing what kind of story it wants to be is always a problem for any film, and this is no exception. In addition, the film starts off in the middle of Dr. Jekyll’s problems, is a bit disjointed as it tries to run in a non-linear vein, but by the end, the film goes back to a linear pattern and takes on some problems with predictability. Some of this is no doubt due to the well-traveled ground of a classic tale, but some of the predictability stems from a screenplay that just had its problems. Without a story that really fired my passions, I felt unengaged at best and sometimes even a little bored.

On top of story struggles, the other character portrayals were uninspired and terribly nondescript. Tom Skerritt mumbles his way through his part. While never a ball of fire ala Steve Railsback, whose performances are always enough to lift a person from a prone position, Mr. Skerritt seemed minimally interested in the character he was playing. Krista Bridges’ character of Claire Wheaton felt trivial at the start, shifted to unsympathetic, stayed fairly bland for the balance of the film and it was only in the denouement, as if she felt like she had better come out of the gate at last that some energy seemed to animate her face and spirit. Then there is Mrs. Poole played by Danette MacKay. Her character was probably intended to be dark, icy and ominous, but just like Beth Grant’s portrayal of Mrs. Thatcher in THE HOUSE OF USHER, the effect was the be mechanical at best, at worst she was no more lively than a marble column. At times, the silent and menacing character can be a valuable film commodity, but you have to cast someone who can radiate a sense of threat through their eyes and their movements. Danette MacKay just adds another layer of woodenness to a cast that already acted like they spent too much time in a lumber room.

Finally, it is not often that I find a score/soundtrack that does not fit a film, but this one was a quandary. For one, much of the early part of the score sounded much like it had been written for an introspective science fiction film, for it had a nouveau, ambient quality that felt as modern as the cell phones and medical equipment in DR. JEKYLL and MR. HYDE looked. It is very likely that this modernist musical accompaniment was meant to assist in the updating of this old tale to contemporary times. It didn’t work; rather it was distracting because it felt like it should have been part of SPACE 1999 or some other talky, reflective SF story. Only when the narrative shifted to the courtroom did the score settle into a style that fit the dramatic nature of those scenes. As an experiment, I firmly believe that Dr. Jekyll would have approved of the bold attempt, but as we’ve seen so many times before, Dr. Jekyll’s experiments did not turn out too well, and the musical mutiny in DR. JEKYLL and MR. HYDE fails too.

The extras menu on DR. JEKYLL and MR. HYDE is extremely thin but it has sixteen minute interview with Dougray Scott called “A Man of Many Faces”. It is certainly an interesting interview with a thoughtful man who cares about his craft and has a surprisingly interesting list of film credits. Dougray Scott is not a household name and many people probably remember him as the man who could have been Wolverine in X-MEN. His interview for DR. JEKYLL and MR. HYDE clearly shows him to be an intelligent and fair spoken actor.

TV Movies do not usually impress anyone with their visuals, but can often have starring performances by experienced character actors that are smile-inducing and the stories are often tight, clean and straight-forward. DR. JEKYLL and MR. HYDE is exactly the opposite. If you are looking for a film that will delight the eyes, this has what you want. Just don’t expect too much from the story and most of the cast because that is not where the focus went. It’s too bad actually. You don’t get many films that look this good today and had the rest of the production been up to the task, this could have been a real winner.

www.geniusproducts.com
www.rhitv.com

WRESTLEMANIAC (2006) d. Jesse Baget

Reviewed by Rick Trottier

When making a movie, pandering to your audience is not always a bad idea. If a film maker knows the tastes of the viewers, giving them what they want makes sense. The science fiction film maker is most likely to be guaranteed a degree of success if he includes starships, interstellar battles, ray guns and creepy aliens. The directors and producers of a romantic comedy will get the girls and couples in the seats if they make sure the film moves from one dreamy location to another, mixed with charming interior shots and lots of close-ups of starry-eyed lovers looking at each other. When Jesse Baget, the writer, producer and director of WRESTLEMANIAC put his project together, he wisely utilized some seemingly surefire ideas. However, when all you do is paint by the numbers and don’t consider the other elements of your movie, it won’t be quite the success you hoped for.

WRESTLEMANIAC (aka EL MASCARADO MASSACRE) is the story of a group of “associates” led by Alfonse and Steve, who are driving through the Mexican desert looking for a location to shoot some amateur porn. Joining their escapade are the luscious Dallas and Debbie, the stoner Jimbo and perpetually drunk Daisy. As it becomes obvious that the porn team has lost its way, a brief stop at an apparently abandoned gas station for a “nature break” leads to the group to hear the story of the ghost town Sange de Dios from a broken-down hermit. As the group tries to find its way back to the freeway, Steve tells them the story of why Sangre de Dios is not truly a ghost town and the legendary wrestler who was sent into exile there. Ignoring the warnings of the hermit, Alfonse and Steve take their group into the ghost town, where it seems that all the terrifying elements of the legend of “El Mascarado” are true.

One would think that building a story around a killer wrestler, setting it in a creepy Mexican ghost town and putting two supremely hot, scantily clad beauties in harm’s way would be a slam dunk formula for a film aimed at people who would find such fare enjoyable. In some cases, the formula does work. As a youngster growing up watching Bruno Sammartino and Chief Jay Strongbow on UHF Saturday morning wrestling, the lure of a wrestling horror film is unmistakable. The setting of “Sangre de Dios” does look old, abandoned, unpleasant and somehow unholy. The characters of Dallas and Debbie, played by Leyla Milani (aka Leyla Razzari) and Margaret Scarborough, are some absolutely wonderful eye candy. Even the inclusion of the venerable Irwin Keyes as “The Stranger” helps to add an air of legitimacy to this film. There are some very fun moments of wrestling humor, lore and even some “squared-circle” action. The camera men unquestionably knew what they had at their dispense when it came to the ladies and they were certainly shot lovingly and even lecherously, which isn’t a bad thing. There is even an eclectic soundtrack/score that mixes Mexicali strains, Rock & Roll and some classic-sounding horror incidental music. If it sounds like this film works for you, it very well might. There is no doubt that Jesse Baget started off with an Ace or two in his hand. When it came around for his turn to draw, he picked up a few worthless cards and ended up with a very mixed hand.

WRESTLEMANIAC has several problems with it, most notably the character of Alfonse, played by Adam Huss. Alfonse is such an irritating, moronic, worthless piece of dung that he rivals Dana Carvery’s character of “the Turtle Man” in MASTER OF DISGUISE as the most infuriating character of the last ten years. If it was Adam Huss’s choice to play the character that way so that he would be such a prick that his demise would be enjoyable, then Adam Huss is an underrated actor with great potential. Be that as it may, creating an asinine character just to be the fodder for destruction at the hands of a slayer STILL doesn’t work. While I must admit that watching the Alfonse character get hurled around the derelict church was very satisfying and I could have watched another five minutes of such brutality, it doesn’t make the film better or the story stronger. By the time Alfonse’s greasy aura has been erased from the film, the damage was done.

While the camera work in this film was better than I had hoped for, fully expecting a plague of “shaky-cam” locusts to descend, the direction of the night time lighting left a lot to be desired. While it was daytime, everything looked pretty good and there were some night time scenes that were effectively shot and lit, particularly the stalking scenes of Dallas by El Mascarado in the bus and the old diner. When you’ve got beauties like Miss Milani and Miss Scarborough jiggling down scabrous hallways, you want to be able to see those delightful curves and coppery skin lit effectively. What made the Alfonse-hurling scenes enjoyable was I COULD SEE THEM. That wasn’t always the case for the rest of the night time segments. In fact, there was a scene when Steve and Debbie ran into what would later be seen as El Mascarado’s sanctum, but upon entering the fully darkened chamber Debbie says “I can’t see anything”. I wanted to grasp her hand and whisper supportively, “That’s alright, neither can I.” As I have said before, someone needs to establish a seminar where all film makers are taught the difference between establishing moodiness using shadow and just making things too dark.

The extras menu of WRESTLEMANIAC is thin and not terribly illuminating. There is a five and a half minute featurette called “Wrestling the Maniac: Behind the Scenes of Wrestlemaniac”. Since it is set to heavy metal and has precious few comments by the crew and casts, it plays like a music video and is about as educational. There were a few “behind the scenes” clips/shots that were entertaining. There is an audio commentary with producer/writer/director Jesse Baget, director of photography Tabbert Fiiler and actor Adam Huss and a selection of trailers. While this seems like a lean set of goodies, and it is, I am not sure that more would have been better unless there was a massive photo gallery of glamour shots of the actresses included. The strength of this dvd, if strength it can be called, is in its prurient appeal of violence and skin.

WRESTLEMANIAC is certainly not the worst horror film I have ever watched, neither is it the goriest, nor the sleaziest or the silliest. It has a somewhat original premise, plays what few cards it has fairly effectively and as a result, it may very well appeal to a slice of the viewing population. That is probably what Mr. Baget had in mind and if that is what he was after, it may be said that he succeeded. In the end, there weren’t enough laughs to call it a “horror-comedy” and there weren’t enough scares to call it a “suspenseful” film. It used some of the tried and true conventions of the genre and was a film I didn’t hate. I suppose that could be construed as “high marks” in today’s world of mediocrity and misery.

www.anchorbayentertainment.com
wrestlemaniac-themovie.com/index.html

THE FOREST (1981) d. Don Jones

Reviewed by Rick Trottier

We are always trying to get everything to fit into nice, neat little categories so that generalizations can be applied. That way, anything we discuss or analyze is easier to understand. Whether it is an historian, film critic, cultural trend analyst or sportscaster, it is easier to define an idea if it fits clear parameters. Sometimes though, generalizing is counterproductive and it is better to see that misfits or hybrids are what they are. For example, people are always trying to say, “The 60s were this,” or “The 70s were that”, and in one feel swoop a decade is generalized. Here is an example of how troublesome that approach is. After closer scrutiny, one can see that 1970 and 1971 were just as tumultuous and psychedelic years as 1968 and 1969, but it is easier to call all of the 1970s, “the 70s”. The transitional years of 1978-1981 were a lot like that too, and whenever a creative endeavor is born during an intermediary phase like those years, it will inherit elements of both “eras”, making it something that is harder to oversimplify. THE FOREST, written, directed and produced by Don Jones, goes even farther than being a film made during that blurred change of decades, its fascinating patchwork of genres, music, ideals and artistic styles help make it an “American Chop-Suey” so quirky and eclectic that it is very easy to look past the weaknesses and enjoy this very interesting “cult” film.

THE FOREST is the story of Steve and Charlie and their wives Teddi and Sharon, who decide to rendezvous at a favorite camping spot after some backpacking, as both a getaway from the pressures of the daily grind and their troubled marriages. Little does the foursome know, there are strange and terrible things waiting for them in the forest and before they realize it, they’ve stepped into a brutal fight for their lives. Each camper is pushed to their limits and some fall low in the test, but one of the four receives assistance from the most unlikely source imaginable before they take a final turn on the wheel of life.

In one of his interview segments, Don Jones talks about how little money he had to make this film, and while there are moments in THE FOREST where his financial constraints show, if that is all you see, you’re missing “the forest for the trees”. First and foremost, one of Mr. Jones’ best decisions was to alleviate set costs and shoot his film outside in Sequoia National Park. The advantages of his choice are many, not the least of which is that THE FOREST is as lovely and glorious an outdoor film as anything shot by The Sierra Club. Like any genre, horror films get stuck in ruts from which there is sometimes no escape and settings are one of the worst. If it isn’t set in a spooky house, it is a cemetery, or a factory, or a hospital/asylum and while all of these have been used superbly, staying with the tried and true can be dull. Most of THE FOREST is shot in the day time, creating a vivid contrast between the azure sky, the sparkling water, the verdant leaves, the vermillion blood and the gleam of a steel blade. When it is night, there is often the rich glow of firelight to bathe the shadows and the rocks with fitful flickers of flames. The sylvan beauty of the exterior location of THE FOREST lends it a distinctly 70s feel, especially when the luxuriant outdoor imagery is occasionally set to quasi-orchestral scores.

Don Jones also talks about wanting to do things “a little different” with his story and as a result, he pens a screenplay that combines ideas from mainstream television, ghost stories, slasher films, cannibal tales and revenge dramas. The end product is an unpredictable, sometimes bizarre, and occasionally jarring but indescribably enjoyable film that is no PSYCHO, but is A LOT better than the balance of the horror films from that time. Starting off with a classic and well shot “slasher prologue” juxtaposed with a “battle of the sexes” introductory premise that would have fit right into any of the later Brady Bunch episodes sounds a little incompatible, but it is part of the decade-melding charm. From there, the blending of iconic storylines continues as backpacking trip, emotional drama and slasher film continue to mix metaphors from the 70s and the 80s. The real left turn comes when the horror hermit of THE FOREST has his story become one tied to cannibalism, ghosts of the departed and revenge for the wrongs perpetrated against him. If this sounds like an impossible task to intermingle all of these story ideas and genres together, it probably was, but that is also what makes any “end of the decade” era special too as trends and styles shift and change. While the setting gives the film a decidedly 70s feel and the story is an inconceivable amalgamation of the 70s and 80s, it is the music that is incorruptibly 1980s.

Beyond of a few scenes where somewhat older “orchestral” selections were added, most of the incidental music is an eclectic mix of synthesizer tracks designed to add specific emotional punctuations and develop mood. Added in for even more dramatic flare were four sound track songs by Richard Hieronymus that are so very typical of the AOR (album oriented rock) that would dominate the 80s as the decade progressed. When watching THE FOREST, it takes a few minutes to realize that the music is very much “ahead of the curve” and that while it probably didn’t initiate the trends to come, so much of the music of THE FOREST was an example of the kind of soundtrack people would be whistling after watching favorite TV shows of the 1980s or blockbuster films of that decade. After watching SO MANY films of the 50s, 60s and 70s, I was just as powerfully effected by the atypical score of THE FOREST as I was its peculiar admixture of story elements.

The one great weakness of the film was that except for Gary Kent (as Michael Brody) who played “John”, all of the other “actors" and “actresses” of THE FOREST were absolute rookies or non-professionals. Their lack of experience and/or talent was evident throughout the movie, but there are two saving graces to their unimpressive performances. One grace is that it is very obvious how hard the players tried to do a good job and their honesty and sincerity is palpable. In addition, since they were not “professionals” and didn’t change the dialogue to fit their “interpretations”, the cultural identity of the screenplay remains intact. Steve and Charlie’s characters start out as archetypal sexist, male chauvinists, dating them clearly to the 1970s, but as the film progresses and their “emotional sides” are drawn forth in their concerns for their wives and each other, as Steve’s tears gush forth and Steve’s red headband is tied around his brow with puissant flair, the men’s iconography shifts unsubtly into the 80s. Even the women are not immune to the decade-bending power of the screenplay as they are alternately the “put up of shut up” feminists, the helpless and frightened women at their core and the caring but lethal toughies when needed; all archetypes of both the 70s and the 80s. Even though Don Jones lamented his lack of cash, by not being able to hire seasoned thespians, he avoided their influence on his creative brainchild and as a result, THE FOREST remains a testament to the amazing metamorphosis that was the end of the 70s and the beginning of the 80s.

The extras menu of THE FOREST seems like a fairly thin set of offerings until you dig beneath the surface and just like the film, there is more than meets the eye. Two commentary tracks can be enjoyed, and they are worth your time. The cast and crew and interview segment is short, poorly shot and with inconsistent sound, but it is also very interesting. There is a “real” stills gallery of photographs taken on set and behind the scenes. Considering that most of the actors of THE FOREST worked very little or never again, these are valuable bits of history. The Code Red stable of trailers is also a hell of a lot of fun, being a jumble of delightfully sleazy horror and exploitation trailers from the 70s and 80s. After meandering through the extras on THE FOREST, you come out of that experience with an even deeper appreciation for the film and the times.

To attain cult status as a film, you have to have something that sets you apart. Most of the time, it is trend-setting camera work, or a mind-blowing story, or landmark acting, or some trait that leaves an indelible impression. THE FOREST is that glorious type of oddity that doesn’t quite suit the molds, round holes or generalizations that critics and historians want everything to fit. That is what makes it special; it can’t be accommodated in all those nice little round holes. What is does fit is pleasantly into a whole run of genre-types and into two very different decades. As a result, THE FOREST is both a fun horror film and a look back at a time when America was changing faster than we ever knew.

www.codereddvd.com/
www.bcieclipse.com/

APRIL FOOLS DAY (2008)d. The Butcher Brothers

Reviewed by Simon Oakland

I know what some of you are thinking. "Ugh. Another remake?"

Yes, indeedy. Another remake. And why not? They're all the rage nowadays. And as you can see, now that most all of the major horror classics have been redone in the past ten years, absolutely everything is up for grabs, no matter how banal. It's gotten so bad that virtually every "new" movie that comes out today is yet another inferior crap remake, and personally speaking they've all begun blending together in my brain. Point of fact: even though I was told time and again that I'd be reviewing APRIL FOOLS DAY, and even though I had looked at the case itself both when it was first given to me and right before I pushed "play", I still had to laugh when the movie started, for up until then I kept mistakenly referring to it in my head as PROM NIGHT!

But I guess thinking back, that was a form of denial. APRIL FOOLS DAY? Ah, crap. Growing up back in the 80s, I was a HUGE fan of slasher movies, but APRIL FOOLS DAY is the one film in the genre I've never been able to stomach. What's the point of watching a slasher movie where everyone dies off camera? And once you figure out the gimmick (and most people will figure it out pretty quickly) there's still at least an hour left for you to suffer through. Perhaps the worst part of the experience for me was getting the impression that the filmmakers honestly thought they were being creative geniuses or something. But whatever. If studios are bound and determined come hell and highwater to remake every secondary and tertiary title in the horror catalog, then they may as well do APRIL FOOLS DAY. At least it isn't one of the "classics" by any stretch of the imagination. I guess when it comes down to it that has always been my complaint about remakes: they usually stick to only the classics like PSYCHO or HALLOWEEN that can't really be improved, and 99% of the time only succeed in making them worse. So to that end I should be thankful that they did APRIL FOOLS DAY and not PHANTASM. With a property like AFD, how could they make it any worse?

Quick answer: They couldn't. This modern remake is way better. But let's keep that in perspective, shall we? Just because it's better still doesn't mean it's very good. The premise that I hated with the original is still present here, and features the typical "hot looking" hip young cast that populates most Hollywood films nowadays. AFD is strictly geared for the teenybopper jet-set: a niche group I was never a part of, even when I was the age they're marketing to. The cover boasts it as being "unrated", but let's face facts: with the possible exception of crude language there is nothing on hand that warrants a rating harsher than PG-13. More likely, seeing as how it's a direct-to-video release they never bothered to submit it to the MPAA to begin with.

Synopsis: A bunch of Barbie and Kens get together for an April Fools Day shindig and pull a prank on a skank and she snuffs it real bad. Flash forward a year and 5 of the most obnoxious people who attended the previous year's shindig are targeted for revenge and intense snuffage.

As far as plotlines go that one is pretty well worn.

Starring (among others) Scout Taylor-Compton (Laurie Strode in Rob Zombie's HALLOWEEN).

However much APRIL FOOLS DAY is so not my cup of tea, I must give credit where credit is due. The movie is well made, with absolutely none of that "Shaky-cam" edited for the Attention Deficit crowd nonsense that plagues most modern horror movies. Thank you Butcher Brothers! At least it was watchable from start to finish.

Sony Pictures releases APRIL FOOLS DAY direct to video with no extras save for previews of 12 other Sony horror titles.

www.sonypictures.com

THE BEAST IN SPACE (1980) d. Alfonso Brescia

Reviewed by Rick Trottier

Despite being a genre that can provide a hearty serving of highly intellectual fare or possibly a mind-altering experience akin to nouvelle cuisine, science fiction can also be the truest of fluff. Films like FORBIDDEN PLANET and 2001: A SPACE ODDYSEY can challenge your mind and push your soul onto new planes of existence, while films like LIFEFORCE or PLANET OF THE VAMPIRES can just be a hell of a lot of fun. Then there are films like THE BEAST IN SPACE, which takes science fiction to the very edge of its genre boundaries and mixes it with other popular trends of its time. Starring the late, great sex film icon Sirpa Lane and Spaghetti Western regular Claudio Undari (as Robert Hundar), THE BEAST IN SPACE is the creative child of Alfonso Brescia, the man who brought the world THREE FANTASTIC SUPERMEN, COSMO 2000 and many other science fiction, fantasy and action “gems”. While not a tour de force or a new direction in its class, THE BEAST IN SPACE is also not your average “space saga”.

THE BEAST IN SPACE is the story of Space Captain Larry Madison and his crew of space soldiers who are sent to the planet Lorigon to obtain a fabulous metal called Antalium. This rare element has extraordinary amounts of energy locked within its matrix, but Lorigon is an “unknown” world about which strange stories have been told. Accompanying Capt. Madison on the voyage is his lover, Lt. Sondra Richardson, who has been having disturbing dreams and waking fantasies about Lorigon and the denizens therein. Once on Lorigon, Capt. Madison’s crew struggles to maintain control of their minds and emotions as a result of the supercomputer Zocor, absolute ruler of Lorigon, protector of the Antalium and a sleaze-ball of a machine to boot. Before long, Capt. Madison’s team must battle hypnotic lusts, unending carnal delights, golden page-boy robots and a supercomputer bent on lascivious lechery before they can escape with their own “golden fleece”.

THE BEAST IN SPACE is an almost textbook example of a “good bad movie”. From the opening scenes in a cantina that looks like a mix of the disco influences of BUCK ROGERS IN THE 25th CENTURY mixed with the vibrant sexuality of any number of the later EMMANUELLE films, to the “talky” sci-fi story segments that try to marry elements of SPACE: 1999 with sex scenes typical of the “free love” 1970s, THE BEAST IN SPACE has it all. The general visual effects are primitive by today’s standards and aren’t really all that impressive when compared to its contemporaries, but they are worth a chuckle. What is actually more enjoyable is how the story is written around the lack of costly special effects and other visual imagery is used to compensate. For example, once on the planet Lorigon, the interior and exterior scenery constantly shifts between dark, underground caverns, misty and ethereal groves and glades, and sumptuous, exotic rooms appointed to look as if they were designed for a bacchanal. Coupled with the fact that three of Capt. Madison’s crew are shapely female space lieutenants dressed in skin tight uniforms or just as often out of their uniforms and engaging in energetic intercourse with their male crew members, THE BEAST IN SPACE does its level best to keep your mind off the weak story and even weaker science fiction visual elements, and like “the shell game” tries hard to keep you looking in another direction.

When scored just on the “appearance card”, THE BEAST IN SPACE does pretty well. It is colorful and atmospheric with a blend of older psychedelic characteristics and newer 1980s techno influences. The modern and abstract synthesizer score and incidental music adds a marvelously cheesy and simultaneously dance club appeal to the visuals. It is easy to get caught up in the fact that the story is so thin that large segments of the movie are either semi-pointless dialogue, equally pointless “suspense scenes” and supremely pointless soft-core sex, but that is part of this film’s charm. THE BEAST IN SPACE is an exercise in pandering to viewers who really could care less if the science fiction is engrossing or if the action scenes are exciting. This is all about slick packaging. It really isn’t meant to be taken as serious science fiction, and anyone who goes into THE BEAST IN SPACE expecting anything more is a loon. This film is carrying a torch started years before and that would continue well into the 1980s with films like SPACEHUNTER and ATOR. Ludicrous science fiction/fantasy was just as common as high-brow SF, maybe more so and seeing it for the cotton candy entertainment it was, and appreciating it on that level makes you a wiser and more tolerant film lover.

THE BEAST IN SPACE has a very thin but still enjoyable extras menu. There is a 17 minute “interview” featurette Venantino Venantini, who plays the “Han Solo” character of the film. Part of the featurette is a look at an art exhibit where some of Venantini’s paintings were hung and where Barabara Bouchet and Franco Nero could be seen hobnobbing with other European auteurs. Venantini’s reminiscences of his acting past and his experiences in Italian and American cinema are not mind-altering, but they are engaging if you are interested in a deeper look into the life of an actor from a time that has gone by.

THE BEAST IN SPACE is not the wackiest, nor the sexiest example of Euro-exploitation cinema, but it is fun. It is the kind of film where a good round of fruit and cheese supported by a nice sampling of good red and white wines might be a fine first course before watching the film. Putting yourself in a somewhat hedonistic frame of mind with good food and drink and then flirtatious conversation with attractive members of the opposite sex would be an outstanding method of preparing the spirit for an odd type of dessert, for that is what THE BEAST IN SPACE is, a final, sugary, appealing but not very nutritious course. As anyone will tell you, there is nothing wrong with gently partaking in dessert once in a while, as long as you don’t expect too much.

www.severin-films.com