Baryonyx

Dawn of the Dead Review

Hello, Baryonyxaholics. I’ve written before about being a horror fan from Pittsburgh- that this city’s history manages to make us a different breed from splatterpunks the worldwide. I’m not putting you down if you’re from Kansas or something (and to be fair, you have your own low budget traditions there) but being from this city is sort of like hitting the jackpot as a horror fan. Every major city has a low budget heritage; we just happened to get the best of them.

So today we’re looking at Dawn of the Dead. This isn’t the 2004 “fast zombies” Ving Rhames vehicle that, on paper, sounds like the best movie ever made, but the 1978 original. And even to say ‘original’ is sort of a weird term, because it’s a sequel to the 1968 Night of the Living Dead, also by George Romero and concerning much of the same geographical area. That said, if you were in Italy (of course) during this time period you would be under the impression that this is a standalone movie, since over there it was released as Zombi which then spurted off its own line of sequels. That’s life in spaghetti splatter, kids.

1970s. Look at that shirt. Even hipsters wouldn’t touch that today.

So despite being made a decade later and having fashion and themes that embody the 1970s, Dawn begins immediately after Night of the Living Dead- it might be minutes, days, or weeks after the outbreak has begun. My intuition is that it’s probably a week or so after the dead have returned to life. The dead are all kinds of pissed off, walking around and biting people because fuck em. The main problem seems to be that people can’t stop arguing enough to come up with a solution. Given this backdrop, a man (Steven) and his girlfriend (Francine) decide to hotwire a helicopter and get out of dodge, inviting their friend Roger who, for whatever reason, feels compelled to invite his friend Peter. Roger and Peter are SWAT team members in what I believe is Philadelphia, so they’ll be useful to have around.

As they take off to head west, they observe rednecks having a hunting party for zombies below them. (Maybe it’s the Allegheny mountains in me, but I never saw the problem with that). They begin to realize that the situation is out of control, and that the outbreak is everywhere; their next move is to land on a shopping mall (“What is it?!” one asks, alarmed at the sight of it) and to stop for supplies. But maybe they have a good thing going there in the mall…

Ah. Themes.

Before I talk about the deeper meanings in the move to stop at a mall, let me assure anyone who has never been to the mall in question (Monroeville Mall) that I wouldn’t stop there today in the event of a zombie apocalypse. Consumers won’t stop there during a typical day, either, which is why the building is going under and is mostly unrecognizable from 1978. What a mall symbolizes to me in 2013 is a lot different than what it meant in 1978, too; while it seems like a lot of malls today are failing or fading, in 1978 the mall was a one-stop consumer heaven. And it’s this idea of stuff, and the ability to own so much of it in one place, that makes the mall appealing as a post-apocalyptic playground.

But the zombies (“They’re us” quips Peter) keep returning to the mall. Why?

“Something important in their life” is suggested by Roger, but I would point to Peter’s opinion as a better read on the situation. As advertisements periodically play to the now non-existent mall shoppers, we might gain a sense that the real zombies are indeed us- the continual drive to own more and more in the pursuit of happiness. Don’t feel alarmed or ashamed if you see yourself in that picture, because it is culturally recommended and even completely mandatory to a successful capitalist economy. There’s nothing wrong with owning stuff. There’s nothing wrong with wanting more. But are you willing to die for a bunch of televisions that don’t have any purpose anymore? Don’t answer; you won’t need to know until the zombie apocalypse.

Until then, we can all be one of these guys.

And while so much gets written on the deeper meanings and themes behind Dawn, stylistically it’s just as appealing. The blood used is bright red, looking as much like candy as actual blood. It looks, you know, nothing like real blood, but for the comic book / action genre this movie fits into, it’s perfect. Heads explode, guns are fired, and even children zombies aren’t spared. And so this film, too, went unrated just as Night of the Living Dead did, but I often wonder why. Wouldn’t it have been easier to get the theme across without massive head explosions? Couldn’t this film be cut down to an R? Maybe, but there’s something lost to this movie without the gore; maybe the film cuts it close to action-adventure, but unless you can really see just about every incidental character get offed in a horrible way, I don’t think you can appreciate the depth of the shit our heroes are in. If you’re not much of a gorehound, you’ll be turning your head away quite often. I guess for me it’s more about trying to figure out what Tom Savini and the other effects artists did to make the trick so convincing.

It’s been said that Dawn of the Dead is the most imitated zombie film of all time. I’ll agree with that statement, even if the Italians shockingly went in a different direction from the Americans. While Dawn of the Dead was the movie that made sure that most American zombie films would stay within familiar territory to us- the mall, our homes, and lately strip clubs- the Italians would actually often move back to the Caribbean or other exotic far off islands, seemingly more interested in the Haitian roots than George Romero’s vision. And hey, whenever they did stay home, it was in Italy anyway.

It’s not much of a closing statement, buttake it for what it’s worth. Dawn of the Deadis often called the best zombie movie of all time. It’s not my favorite, but the living dead were never highlighted in such fluorescent colors as they were here. You watch the movie, but how you feel afterward might just be determined by how you watched it- and I guess it’s ultimately about whether you’re a zombie or not.

Cannibals (White Cannibal Queen) Review

They all look sort of… sad, don’t they?

You’ll forgive me for not including a trailer; it was impossible to find one that I could guarantee was safe for work. Work, school, travel, leisure; whatever the circumstances, I can’t imagine watching Cannibals and standing up at the end in any mood that doesn’t include “perplexed” as a descriptor. You would imagine that by 1980, there would be a movie simply called Cannibals in order to reach the lowest common denominator of grindhouse viewers, but on the contrary, this was the first one to utilize that title- and possibly not the last, as we shall see.

What we can definitively say about Cannibals was that watching it is actually a tremendously enjoyable experience. Hold on to your butts- I’m not going to tell you it’s good, because it sure as shit is the worst cannibal movie I’ve ever seen. That said, the way the movie “works” is an amazing oxymoronic process so exhilaratingly bad that you half expect the celluloid to simply fall off the reel at any given point. Yes, this is a cannibal effort that feels primarily Iberian in origin, and is directed by- at last! - Jesus Franco!

Papa Shango???

The movie begins on a boat, somewhere, where a man (who has stupidly brought his family along) is talking to the ship’s captain about cannibals in the area. Listen closely for the most insurmountably horrible southern accent in the history of existence itself coming from said captain. By the by, this captain is familiar if you’ve seen Cannibal Terror- this is the main baddie, in another Euro-cannibal romp! Alas, he lasts like 17 seconds and gets offed, because if you talk about cannibals, they come and get you, like Candlejack. You know, that chara

Okay, joke’s over. Google him if you don’t get it.

Anyway, the cannibals, all of whom look like they’re from a bad Kiss cover band, get his wife because they do. This is where the movie begins to show its unique version of crapping on art. As the cannibals start eating her, the picture goes grayscale, the scene goes into slow motion, reverb drowns out anything else, and chewing noises are basically all that happens for the next eternity. If it’s not actually an eternity, you’ll have to forgive me, but it sure seems that way. Now, here’s the kicker- every gore scene for the rest of the movie will have the slowmo/reverb effect! The grayscale, though? Well, that’ll never happen again, because I guess they didn’t like it, or it was an accident, or something. We may never know.

As if that weren’t goofy enough, after the cannibals abduct the daughter and cut off the lead character’s arm (either Jerry or Jeremy, or maybe even both- I can’t tell if it was intentional, bad dubbing, or just hard to understand), Jerry escapes into the jungle and is picked up by some hunters. Next thing you know, he’s in the hospital, but apparently something like 20 years has passed- we’re never explicitly told this, though.

Oh, and when the cannibals find his daughter, they say (in English) “White Goddess.” Guess these asshats have been listening to Umberto Lenzi, but anyway, that’s the direction her role is taking from here on out.

She needs less face paint, so you can tell she’s white- everyone else needs more, so you’re not sure that they are.

So, eventually, Jerry (who has apparently forgotten everything) sees a girl that looks like his daughter on the street and then remembers everything, so he gets an expedition together to go find his daughter, who has been worshiped and taken care of by a society her entire life and apparently needs rescued. Some capitalists join him, but they act more like everyone in The Great Gatsby than anyone I’ve ever met. Typically, you find rich people more sinister than this; these people are just taking pictures and laughing foppishly and stuff.

So they go into the jungle to find the tribe of cannibals, and somehow the chief knows this is happening, so he gives a rousing Braveheart speech to his tribe about killing all white people, while his white bride stands next to him. So the rich people and our hero go into the bush, and I guess you can already tell how this one is going to go. There’s some attacks, a lot of tramping through the jungle, and a few shots of “native” people dancing. Nudity, too. Obviously.

“The original Euroshocker.” Yeah, I felt like I had been given one of those.

One of the great things about writing about this film so far is that I haven’t even had to work hard to make jokes, because the storyline is such a riot that I basically just have to describe it! And indeed, as funny as it sounds, it looks even better. I can’t definitively prove it to you, but I am about 95% sure that this film uses the same cannibals as Cannibal Terror! I had been warned before that it uses much of the same sets, and it might, but the sets consist primarily of “a hut” so the effect isn’t noticeable. But, again, the cannibals- all white Europeans, might I add- look oddly familiar to me. I’ve been through a lot in this genre, and I’ve seen things I wish I hadn’t, but never in a million years did I expect to recognize tribesmen! Unless Me Me Lai counts.

The other great thing is that, while there is no animal violence (and thank Cthulhu for that), the film tries to fake it anyway. There’s a scene where a rattlesnake (I don’t know) appears, and sits coiled up, rattling its tail and whatever it is it did in the documentary footage they pulled it from. Anyway, they fire a gun in the direction the animal is supposed to be (it wasn’t ever there!) and cut to the documentary again- where the snake’s rattle slows down, but gives no indication that it’s dead- they may have played it in reverse for all I know. Heaven alone knows why they felt this was necessary, but I’m glad it was here.

Because, you know, I’ve spent hours upon hours watching these damn cannibal things, and the whole time I think I was waiting for a stinker like this to appear. Zombie Lake might get the hype, but as fantastically inept as it is, there’s something enthusiastic about the madness in Cannibals that qualifies it as potentially the most unintentionally hilarious movie I’ve ever seen. Starring the worst dubbing known to man, trying to take some absurd arthouse approach to gore, and- well, I don’t know. Cannibals needs to be seen to be believed; there’s something about this movie (and perhaps most Jesus Franco flicks) that makes your mind feel numb and on fire at the same time. Happy Halloween.

Sinister

You’d think “Sinistar” would have a horror movie adaptation. It would be totally awesome. It doesn’t, though, so instead, “Sinister.”

One evening recently I trekked to my local movie theater (about three minutes walk from my house!) and sat down to a matinee showing of Sininster, which had come out a scant four days earlier. Four days earlier; five people in the movie. Ladies and gentlemen, Sinister! I had low expectations coming in for the following reasons:

a) A favorite horror tumblr of mine had panned it and suggested that the movie “had made them hate horror”

b) Climate reasons; horror movie in October sort of suggests that “we are trying to get people who are in the halloween spirit, and that’s all”

c) The one segment of my friends who did seem to like it weren’t exactly horror buffs.

But I sat down, waited through the previews (another Texas Chainsaw reboot!) and saw the opening title sequence. At the bottom of the production company’s logo it said, proudly:

“A Lionsgate Company”

Damn it! They got me again!

If you adapted Spy Hunter, YOU COULD DO THIS

So I groaned and watched the movie. And, despite the warning that this was, indeed, somehow associated with Lionsgate, I would go so far as to say that the film isn’t all bad. Ultimately, I think it’s what you make of it; if you’re expecting a well thought out, psychological piece of horror with a good story, you will walk away disappointed. However, at least if you see it in the theater, you will walk away shaken, too. This feels in a lot of ways like a throwback to William Castle (a stretch, but stay with me) in that this film was designed to be watched in a movie theater, and that in that particular environment, it will scare the shit out of you. That said, it’s an enormous pile of jump scares, and that’s it. There is an actual concept here, and it’s not bad, but it’s also ignored in favor of making you jump.

The movie follows Ethan Hawke (don’t ask me what his name was, I sure as hell don’t remember), playing a true crime novelist, along with his family and two children, investigating a grisly murder- four people, hung to death in the backyard. Of the home he just bought. Asshole.

Upon arriving at the home, though, he finds a box of films in the attic. As he views them, he discovers they are actually a set of terrible ritual killings, and that a demon that apparently is sometimes referred to as Mr. Boogie could be behind it.

Now, you tell me. Do you watch any of these?

From here on out, it’s apparent that this is a Lionsgate film, alright. Ethan inexplicably never turns on the lights when he’s investigating for demons (one power failure being the exception). The movie is, at times, essentially an Apple commercial, with product placement being stupidly prevalent. You can literally set your watch by the jump scares. And so on, and so on. This all said, the most mindblowing thing is that I would bet good money on the fact that the five short, grainy (and they have to be grainy, duh) super 8 films were conceptualized, and then a story was built around them. It’s like watching 5 effective Youtube horror movies being strung together like an anthology.

So when the film does try to rely on the story behind the jumps, it falters a little. This thing’s got a bland, disposable identity, alright. This is the sort of thing that wouldn’t have bothered me seven or eight years ago, but you’re listening to a splatterpunk who thinks about things like “having a family some day” or “building a career.” At this point in my horror watching life, I’m… dare I say? mature enough to want a film to have a unique identity. And while the William Castle comparison was easy earlier on, this is one place where it doesn’t even begin to compare to the old Castle films. Whenever this one isn’t making you jump, it’s not making you do anything at all. And that’s a major problem.

And the monster. Oh, man, is it clear that this bad boy was inspired by Jigsaw from the Saw franchise. Or Jigsaw’s puppet thing- that might be more accurate. Anyway, they are going to have him stick his face in the camera at the same time as a string explosion or piano crash as often as possible, and it will get old. As if that wasn’t enough, they gave the monster a symbol- I guess they have to do that, right? - only the sonofabitch looks like a vagina.

Look, I get it. Baryonyx reaches. BUT LOOK AT IT! THAT SYMBOL IS A VAGINA! How scary can you be if you’re the female reproductive organ??? Unless this movie was made to scare 15 year old boys who think they will never see one. Come to think of it, it probably was.

Vaginas aside, this movie was built to do jump scares, and music is just as important as visuals in this regard. And let me give a slow clap to the music in this film, which was honestly as unsettling as any I’ve ever heard. While I have to admit I wasn’t a fan of the massive crashes, the music during the home movies was perfect- things that wouldn’t keep you up at night were suddenly made terrorizing. It’s a huge shame that they squandered this sort of a resource. They had something here- fantastic music, a nice demon plot, and the found footage style. So why did they take the easy way out with the jump scares?

I’ll propose two reasons. The first is that, honestly, the demon doesn’t hold up if you see him for more than a second. I guess in that regard they really did the right thing in continuously having him jump in front of the camera for a split second, because if you google image search him the illusion will start to slowly fall apart. I’ve taken some pains not to show him in this review, because… well, maybe you ought to see him for yourself, right?

Also not holding up: Ethan Hawke’s facial expressions

The second reason is that, honestly? One of the main messages of Baryonyx is that we can’t separate a film from its purpose, especially in horror. And with Sinister, that purpose is clear to me- it’s meant to scare the shit out of you as cheaply as possible for 110 minutes and then send you on your way. Maybe it is a little unsettling- for someone as well-versed in theology as I am, demon films always get me a little- but you know what? This isn’t meant to be anything more than The House on Haunted Hill was in 1959. This is here to make you jump, and after it’s over, you go home and brag to your friends about seeing it. Maybe it’s not the right film for early-mid-20s Baryonyx, but it damn sure would have been if I were still 17. And for all how easy it is to tear this film apart and compare it to vaginas- I’ve certainly torn it apart in the last few paragraphs- it does what it set out to do. And I guess it’d be wrong to fault it for that, even if you wouldn’t catch me within 50 yards of the DVD. See it in the theater or don’t see it at all, because outside of its natural element, I’m not sure this one has what it takes to survive.

Baryonyx Edit: By the way, WHY WAS THIS MOVIE NAMED “SINISTER?”

Blood Harvest

No trailer- but this gets it across.

I’ve waxed (but mostly waned) poetic about the joys of being born and raised where George Romero made his famous zombie movies. I get to feel a connection to each one of those movies that most people don’t get to just by recognizing the locations and some of the local in-jokes sprinkled in. It’s an honor and a privilege.

That said, I’ve spent some of my adult life in Wisconsin. As a Sconnie, you don’t get the connection with George Romero, but never fear, Badger fans! You get your very own homegrown horror director- Bill Rebane! If the name sounds familiar to you, that’s because this is probably the third time he’s been brought up- see The Demons of Ludlow and The Game. That’s not because of any great affinity for the man- instead, it just so happens that his movies are, you know, terrible, and as such get mentioned here pretty frequently. I guess I can see why zombie movies are in your blood back in the Alleghenies and cheese is in your blood in Wisconsin.

Of course, this is where the ante gets upped.

Now, Rebane had some trouble getting any decent actors (probably for want of money) for almost his entire career. Never fear, though- this is the movie where that all changed! See for yourself! Look at the famous guy playing the clown!

Oh God, you don’t recognize him, do you?

Don’t worry. You’re not really supposed to, and people like Baryonyx who know the Misfits catalog back and forth really shouldn’t. Still, go and Spotify Tiny Tim. I’ll wait.

Yeah, that’s the guy Rebane got to star in this movie. Tiny Tim was a well known cult-folk (maybe even outsider?) music star in the 60s that kept touring until he had a heart attack or two onstage in the 90s and died. In 1987, though, he was in Wisconsin, acting in Blood Harvest, playing a demented young man. And honestly? I think a lot of people would tell you that Tiny Tim couldn’t act, but I don’t think that’s the case. He strikes me more as being in the Vincent Price class of guys that don’t have much range, but can nail one particular character. Tim does his role justice. I guess that’s a compliment, but I don’t know that I’d ask him to do much more. Watch this movie and then tell me you wouldn’t pay to see him try Hamlet, though.

Baryonyx Teaches Juxtaposition

There’s as much of a plot as in most of Rebane’s movies, I guess. That’s not a compliment. College student Jill Robinson comes home from college and finds her hometown being crapped on by Ronald Reagan. Okay, maybe not, but times are tough anyway, and her father works for the bank so it stands to reason that her family is unpopular at the moment. Her ex-boyfriend Gary is around, and still her friend, despite the fact that his parents were murdered and shortly thereafter the bank took possession of the farm he grew up on. Gary has a brother that’s a few bricks shy of a load, Merv (played by Tiny Tim), who spends most of his time in clown makeup calling himself “The Marvelous Mervo.” When people start disappearing around Jill, and someone creeping around in the night, the question seems obvious- is Merv to blame? Or is the other, cripplingly obvious possibility the solution?

You know, I just watched this movie, and I’m only about 80% sure I know what happened to Jill’s parents. Maybe it was stated and I was zoning a little- I could go back and tell you, but isn’t it more telling that I didn’t even catch it? When Gary and Jill are on screen, the movie is about one tenth as interesting as when Merv is in a scene. Say what you want about his acting style- and Tiny Tim is definitely over the top as an actor- but the man surely had charisma to spare. It’s no surprise that he managed to make a name for himself as a musician- he simply has to be seen to believed. His monologues are ridiculous, but I promise, when he’s on screen you will watch. Considering Jill can’t get your attention unless she’s in a nude scene- and this movie is packed with them- he’s easily the biggest asset this film has.

“Friday the 13th Territory”

As the story develops and it gets further from plausibility and deeper into “abject stupidity” and the nude scenes make less and less sense, the film is actually saved from veering into strictly hardcore territory by Tiny Tim! But later in the film, he’s noticeably absent, and one wonders- did Rebane not trust in his ability? Why wasn’t he featured more?

You know the best part? The description on Youtube (where it seems to be legally streaming) describes the film as a “taut drama.” There’s no real sense of drama, and even the best parts of this film- the overacting, frantic performance by Tiny Tim, or the… shit that’s it. Anyway, it’s not taut.

Cheer up, Mervo. It could be worse.

So in the end, you have a film that badly wants to be a bad, bad, softcore horror film that’s almost held into place by sheer force of charisma. I say almost- it’s softcore, one of those weird movies that feels burdened by nudity instead of helped by it in any sense, filled with meaningless sex scenes and bad acting. It’s not a good movie. By the way, the actress who played Jill was never in another movie, so search me if you’re wondering why she decided to give the performance she did. But if nothing else, it’s a curiosity to see Tiny Tim in a bad slasher movie, particularly in a role that fights to buoy the film for longer than it should have been buoyed. And you know what? That alone makes it interesting, and that puts it head and shoulders above most other Rebane films.

Monkey Shines

Watch this on mute. I dare you. It’s like a bad art film. Or a good art film.

When you think of George Romero, your mind automatically goes to the creation- and I do mean, literal, creation- of the modern zombie myth. The whole “dead people eating flesh” thing was pretty much his doing, so if you’re a horror fan, you either have a lot to thank him for (some incredible, timeless movies) or a lot to hate him for (most zombie films made in the past 10 years or so). In fact, we so strongly associate him with the zombie film that it’s easy to forget that he’s made quite a few other horror films. He gave a good try at reinventing the vampire movie with Martin, made a passable art-slasher with Bruiser, and adapted a short story into a full length, animal-psychological flick Monkey Shines, today’s experiment in fear.

You could be forgiven for thinking this movie is actually a Child’s Play clone by looking at the cover, which features the toy monkey shown below. I can see why you’d go that route, as far as the mainstream is concerned, but all you had to do to get me on the boat was to say “Hey, killer monkey.” Look, I was dumb enough to watch Blood Monkey, so there was no way I’d turn down the chance to watch a Romero made monkey movie. One that was filmed largely in the neighborhoods I went to college and adjacent to where I went to high school in? Pass the kool-aid.

No toy monkey in this one, but I’d watch this movie too.

So the premise in this one is pretty simple on the surface- man gets into accident, becomes a paraplegic, and after having some trouble adjusting is given a trained monkey to help accomplish tasks for him. Now, this monkey has had brain injections (?) given to her, so she eventually begins to act out the unconscious, evil, primal desires of her owner, like usually happens in this sort of experiment. And maybe there’s a change taking place in him, too…

Wow. I don’t think I ever get a synopsis in that easily. The plot is basic, but no one- no one- makes movies where every character is flawed or a piece of shit like Romero does. This doesn’t make the characters more engaging or, you know, easier to watch snuff it, but it does bring the same sense of claustrophobia the man specializes in to this movie. He actually does throw in a ‘perfect’ character in the form of the female lead, but for the most part, if a character is in this movie they’re sort of an asshole. I guess that extends to the monkey, but I’m not sure how much agency you can give it. Who ever heard of an asshole monkey?

Oh, right.

The film actually begins with a disclaimer about “no traumatic experiences actually occurred to the monkey” which is damn relieving, because otherwise I would have been pretty convinced I’d just seen some traumatic shit. Not, you know, Cannibal Holocaust or anything, but nothing fun to watch either. I’m actually pretty sure the monkey is the best actor, although no one stands out as atrocious. That’s another pretty cool thing about Romero movies- you’ve never heard of the actors (except for Land of the Dead, and look how that turned out) and they always seem to do okay. The astute (read: obsessive) horror movie fan will note that Christine Forrest shows up- she’s in maybe half a dozen of Romero’s movies, but it’s pretty hard to turn down your wife when she auditions.

The movie plays with the limitations of the paraplegic well, and with good reason. Can you imagine anything scarier than being unable to really move your body in the face of an enemy? When things occasionally happen that can’t be solved by a jerk of the neck, the real frustration and helplessness sets in. That’s pretty cool, and it’s a nice touch, and it’s the last good thing I’m gonna say, because the final verdict revolves around the most awkward sex scene, ever.

Scream for your life, monkey!

You know, you might be a paraplegic, but you still have a shot at love if you’re a good person with a kind heart. Even if that means filming a sex scene with an attractive blonde and… wait for it..

An audience of cheering monkeys.

No, really! This happens in a real movie! There’s like fifteen of the things cheering the couple on, as only monkeys can, while you sit there and watch in complete disbelief. Look, I thought the hope and unconditional love shown between the couple would have been enough, but apparently not. No, we need monkeys to really get the seriousness of the scene across! Bring ‘em out!

I don’t know. These monkeys weren’t even injected with brain potion. It’s just how monkeys act, I guess. The ones that were, by the way? At one point they stage a fricking revolt, which is either a class consciousness suggestion or just monkeys revolting. Either one kicks ass, and like they always say, if there’s a movie where a monkey kills shit, it’s gonna be okay to watch.

White Zombie Review

You know, I could have just embedded the entire movie- this one’s free in the public domain.

The story of White Zombie and, more tellingly, why I’m reviewing during the month of Halloween is really a tale of why the public domain is the best thing horror nerds have going. When this film came out in 1932 (Dracula was in 1931), it was criticized and given poor reviews for- wait for it- an “over the top” story! I haven’t been to 1932, but I think when we invent time travel, someone’s going to need to go back there with a copy of Nightmare on Elm Street and see what happens. Anyway, though, the film was panned, despite making a good profit, and for the next 50 years or so that was it, as far as I can tell.

Cue the 1980s. The film fell into the public domain (as an independent picture, this isn’t surprising) and suddenly anyone could sell the film on VHS and Betamax as a home video. With a name like Bela Lugosi attached, it attracted a built-in audience and, by 2012, is considered a classic of the genre. If you think about it, that’s really an incredible story- and yet it’s probably the fifth or sixth best latter-day success story of the genre (we’ll go with Nosferatu as the best).

Lurid. This was a pre-Hays Code film, but nothing too bad happens here.

So, with all that talk about a rags-to-riches reputation, it is worth noting that White Zombie became a film that everyone who watches a lot of horror has seen not because of its quality but because of how readily available it is. As a result, it isn’t hard to imagine that the film is imperfect and, most relevantly, no substitute for Legosi’s earlier triumphs in Dracula.

The plot concerns an engaged young couple that has moved to Haiti for business and plans to be wed that very night. Of course, the wealthy white landowner that offers his estate for the wedding has designs on the bride to be, and conferences with Bela Lugosi (as- I shit you not- “Murder” Legendre) and conspires to make her a zombie so she can be his bride. After the plot is hatched and put into action, the audience remembers that there weren’t any sad endings until at least the late 60s, and as such the question is how the damsel-in-distress will be saved, not if. By the way, pinch me if there’s something over the top about that plot. What did people in 1932 do for fun?

Now, before we get any further, we should really spend some time disambiguating the term “zombie.”

In 1932, seeing Lugosi in a cup was more common than waitresses.

You see, back before George Romero changed the game, zombies weren’t flesh eaters. Instead, the zombies were actually sympathetic, controlled, “living-dead” in the sense that they were alive but under such extreme sedation they might as well not be, doing their master’s will. You could say that the flesheating wasn’t really the important part- the real magic in this transition was the democratization of the zombie terror from the Master to the masses. So while White Zombie is sometimes called the first zombie movie… it’s an entirely different breed of zombie movie. It’d be like calling a wolf the first dog. Or something.

It’s also worth pointing out the other big gripe aside from “realism” back in the day was the quality of the acting, often described as poor. This is actually spot on, even today. Now, admittedly, I couldn’t exactly understand what Bela Lugosi or this one random witch doctor said for any of their lines, but the real problem is the lead male. For the latter part of the movie, I honestly couldn’t tell if he was under a spell, sick, tired, or really drunk. If there are any Baryonyxaholics out there that want to watch this and figure it out for me, I’d be grateful- I’m pretty sure the witch doctor said what was going on, but again, I couldn’t tell what he was saying. He has some high pitched accent that makes it impossible to tell.

Other than that, I imagine some people will be turned off by the performances turned in by Bela Lugosi and lead actress and future attempted murderer (no, really!) Madge Bellamy. Look, no one’s ever going to say Lugosi was the best actor going, but he can do one thing well- stare. And in this movie, he stares like a motherfucker.

I think the real issue comes with Madge having to answer back with a subservient, drugged form of staring. Now, she does dopey and straight ahead really well, but, like, compare these two:

You can see it’s clearly a no-contest. 1932 was Bela’s prime, and look, no one was outstaring this man during the early half of the decade. I estimate he spends 20 minutes of screen time staring directly at the camera, too, so you’ll have plenty of time to be enthralled with it. Maybe that was considered over the top in 1932. Maybe it was even considered really scary. I don’t know- I only know that whenever someone time travels back to 1932 to show them Freddy Krueger, make sure to bring Madge back with you- I think reality TV would suit the living shit out of her.

The House at the End of the Street Review

Hey, you know what would have made this movie better? If it were this short.

After seeing The Cabin in the Woods, Baryonyx was definitely feeling high on horror movies. Look, when lowly Lionsgate is making good movies, anything is possible, right? So on a Sunday when my football team had a bye week, I watched an early game and then headed to the local movie theater to see the only flick running under a genre of “horror,” The House at the End of the Street. As I entered (and long before previews started), I texted my sister who watches, you know, real movies. She’d heard of this one, pointing out that Jennifer Lawrence, the star of the flick, had been in The Hunger Games, which I hadn’t actually seen.

So this must have been a mainstream horror film! I sat down (eagerly, even) for the flick, reasoning that at the least, this would have polish and money behind it and the name brand actress. How bad could it be?

Like pissing off Mr. Larson. That bad.

Before I get into the “everything that goes wrong with the movie,” I do want to mention a few caveats. First, this is not hardcore splattercandy; this is a horror-lite movie that wears its PG-13 rating proudly and is obviously going for the high school audience that the film’s characters embody. Even more than that, this is a film that I would suspect is geared toward high school girls; while it’s easy to just point to Jennifer Lawrence and leave it at that, there are essentially no male characters aside from Ryan, who is a “college boy,” an archetypical teen girl fantasy, and isn’t exactly who the audience is meant to be identifying with, for reasons that become clear later on. You cheer for Jennifer Lawrence’s Elissa and her mother, Sarah, played by personal favorite Elizabeth Shue from The Karate Kid!

Sarah, recently divorced, moves with Elissa to a small town in a house that “we can only afford because” of the high profile matricide that occurred next door. The quotes are necessary because, well, Sarah is a fucking doctor and the ex-husband was a rock musician. If these are the people who are struggling, we really better fucking vote for Obama. Anyway, it turns out there’s still a young man (Ryan) in the house next door, and that maybe Carrie Ann, the murdering daughter, isn’t as dead as we think she is…

And a heroine who spends more time in a white tank top than Me Me Lai spent naked.

So that’s a serviceable plot on its own, right? Well, unfortunately, this film really feels a need to keep the high school plot lines in play here. In this movie, Elissa escapes date rape, makes a new best friend who breaks into her house and no one cares (you left the front door open! lol!), prepares to play a battle of the bands after being cyber stalked and subsequently joining a band (“I googled you, you were in a band in Chicago” [wtf? does this happen today?]), witnesses a random car trashing of an outcast (?) and of course gains a college boyfriend. I’ve been the college boyfriend, I’ve been through a rich private high school where I was the poor kid, and I’ve played shows in punk bands. None of this shit really happens in high school; if you’re not there yet, don’t read Baryonyx, it’s bad for you. If you’re in high school, don’t wait for this to happen, it doesn’t until college, and by then it’s no big deal. If you’ve graduated high school, do you miss Swat Kats, too?

There’s an especially uncomfortable mother-to-friend scene where the mom discusses how “Elissa tries to fix people, and sees them as projects, and picks the wrong man” and all this other shit that might exist in 17 year old girls the world over. Okay. But did it need to happen while cutting between Elissa and her friend talking about “parents are so totally lame” back and forth? There’s some sort of message here, that “parents just care about you, little kids” but the blatant nature of that message made me feel alternatingly bad for the teens who can’t pick this shit apart because they didn’t study English for four years, and suspicious that all the junk food movies I saw in my salad days were peppered with this crap, too.

#teamwhitetanktop

This drags down the middle of the movie too low for it to ever reasonably recover, although I accept that part of this may be my age and existence outside of the target demographic. It’s a shame, too, because when the final act of the film begins, it really is a fine rendition of the genre it ends up going down- I’d say which, but it’s actually sort of a curveball, and a well executed one, too. In particular, there’s a version  of the old “pitch black screen, audio only” trope that I love so much, and the only source of light when it happens is a faulty flashlight; it’s a truly awesome, lightly scary moment, and it’s indicative of the polish that really is on this film, for better or (as the high school angle proves) for worse.

Honestly, I’d have liked to see the re-emergence of Carrie Ann instead of the rabbit hole the film sends us through, but no real complaints with the film. It wasn’t worth the 8 dollars or so I put into it, but it is what it is- and, most likely, what it is is simply a film not aimed toward Baryonyx.

Oh, and it features a Penn State Sweatshirt Cameo.

Yes, believe it or not, there’s a plot element that revolves around a Penn State sweatshirt. Now, it’s not worth investigating if the director or someone has some sort of connection and that this was some veiled show of solidarity, but as a lifelong fan of Pitt who hated Joe Paterno a decade before it was cool, I was honestly sort of… well, sore about the whole thing. “They pull the biggest scandal in the history of higher education, and we cure polio, and they still star in all the movies.” Penn State sucks. Yes, I’m bitter. Leave me alone about it.

Cabin in the Woods Review

Some spoilers here and HUNDREDS in the review. Do not read this if you haven’t seen the movie.

When you read any review, you kind of have to accept spoilers that come with it- it’s just part of the gamble you take by reading about a movie instead of just watching it. With Cabin in the Woods, though, it’s impossible to really dig into the film without discussing pretty major plot points. I say this as both a warning and a plea- see the movie, and then let Baryonyx talk about it. Okay? Okay.

So if you’re at this point, I imagine you’ve seen Cabin in the Woods, the talk of the horror world recently, a film praised for its innovative approach to essentially a very old idea. And when I say old, keep in mind that I cut my baby teeth in horror back in the good old days when slashers hadn’t been around for two decades yet. Since then, my knees have gotten (frighteningly) bad, my vision has gone the way of the dodo, and something that seemed old when I was young is now essentially ancient. So it seems due that someone turned the conventions of the slasher around and shook them up a little, right?

Not so fast. You’ll remember that New Nightmare was the first movie that toyed with bringing slashers into the real world, followed closely by (and from the same Wes Craven) Scream, which brought the rules of the genre into the audience’s vision like never before. Remember, in Scream it’s discussed on camera that the characters follow the same archetypes in the slasher genre, especially focusing on the immunity- or at least focus- on the virginal character. It was a movie that, somewhere in the depths of my personal files, I have 4000 words written about it, just in case I ever write a book. Really. It was that important, but if you’ve seen Cabin in the Woods, maybe some of the above was familiar.

Pictured: Archetypes.

So let me get this out of the way very early: A lot of ‘the point’ of Cabin in the Woods- a tongue in cheek ‘state of the union’ for horror (especially slasher) conventions- is not new. That’s not a bad thing. You can’t go from praising the use of conventions and the twisting of old ideas straight into lampooning a new take on an old concept. In fact, let me say this right now too: Cabin in the Woods is very, very, good, especially in the first two acts.

The film’s underlying concept starts out as an unfocused suggestion but slowly sharpens as the film goes on. Put simply, the idea is this: once a year, the slasher archetypes of jock, slut, brain, fool, and virgin/good girl are brought together and killed off for the appeasement of sleeping, Lovecraftian elder gods. Most of the countries in the world get together to do it in their own way, using what we think of as horror conventions in order to keep the sleeping gods sleeping. I like to think of it as a mega high stakes game of “Don’t Wake Daddy.”

The film really succeeds when it plays into the government-god-appeasers angle; when it cuts away from the action to show the government guys (played by Eric from Billy Madison and Dale’s Dad from Step Brothers) pulling the strings on the action. While I think this interaction is probably the really cool part for a lot of people, I think what’s going on in the horror story is actually just as good. It’s got your standard cast of characters performing your standard actions in your standard setting, but the fact that this film was made by Lions Gate, the biggest purveyor of mainstream horror shittiness, really takes it up a notch.

I wasn’t sure if Lions Gate knew or even cared, but this film has no chance of succeeding with Universal or MGM or even Full Moon releasing it- the self-parody would become an attack, which is entirely the wrong mood for this film. (Wouldn’t you know it- it was originally shot by MGM but bought up by Lions Gate. That’s serendipity.) The truth is, the main story is pretty much a straight parody of every film Lions Gate has put out in years. That self awareness- this plays and feels exactly like a Lions Gate film should- really makes the film so much more effective than it has any reason being. It doesn’t feel like a horror parody stuffed into a big picture story- it feels like a Lions Gate film being cranked out by two men that have done it a dozen times- which, by the way, is pretty much how Lions Gate films work.

So while most attention on the film has been given to the ending, the way the first two acts feel is perhaps the most important aspect in the film’s success, especially considering- wait for it- I think the last act was botched pretty badly.

Shocked?

Just before the film’s setting changes from the woods to the laboratory, something ingenious happens. We learn definitively that the horror archetypes need to die for the very survival of mankind itself. Maybe not everyone has this reaction, but I quickly turned from rooting for the kids in the woods to rooting against them. After all, we want them to die, right? If they don’t, it’s our neck. It’s so rare for this kind of switch in priorities to happen in a film- I was impressed, and thrilled when the brainiac got offed. And just minutes ago, I was rooting for these people!

Then, I thought something else amazing was happening. The setting shifts back to the lab, and we’re told that the virgin doesn’t need to die- actually, she can live. The ritual is complete as is. So, once again, we can root for her. I was floored that this second switch was, again, going to work! I hoped that she would beat the last zombie, make it into the lab, and suddenly we can root for her to win against the other good guys.

Now, maybe “what I wanted to happen” is stupid reasoning, but consider what actually happened: it turns out the fool is still alive, and the two of them make it into the lab, unleash tons of monsters, and- the whole time- we want the fool to die for humanity’s sake. So, we’re rooting against the people we’re supposed to be identifying with. That isn’t just stupid, it’s the worst possible understanding of film psychology, isn’t it? Remember, the fool’s survival is temporary and means our death. I was hoping some monster would take a shot at him the whole time!

WHY ARE WE ROOTING FOR THESE GUYS?!?

So, as I’m writing this, I’m still shocked that this didn’t come up during the writing or production of the film. For a movie that’s so effective it draws you in and manages to switch around your allegiances, the concept that it could pull something so boneheaded in the final act is, as a splatterpunk, honestly upsetting. Especially with Sigourney Weaver on the set- couldn’t we have taken inspiration from Aliens instead? You know, the virgin comes back for revenge for her friends, unleashes a horde of monsters, and watches- and survives- as a legion of horror villains takes out an installation?

The only downside I can see to this is that you’d have to slightly rework Sigourney’s role- but that’s it. She could, I don’t know, explain what happened to the heroine. Maybe the heroine kills her. And there’s this- it gives the added bonus of not realizing “that guy is way too built to be a stoner” every five seconds or so. If your opinion is that the elder gods had to be awoken so you could see a CGI hand for 5 seconds, I’m going to calmly state that we will never, ever, be able to agree on this movie and we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

I get it. It’s a wildly unpopular opinion, but the worst part of this film is the final act. Coming from someone who saw every episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer and gained a lot of respect for Joss Whedon’s attention to detail, the fact that I was rooting against the “good guys” for the last act was so jarring that it was hard to enjoy from any angle but nostalgic. This all said, Cabin in the Woods stands as the obvious choice for “best Lions Gate movie ever” and, hopefully, a turning point for horror in general- it’s flawed but visionary, and unlike anything I’ve seen in a long, long time.

The Haunting Review

Oh, he made West Side Story? Great.

This is essentially the ghost movie measuring stick. No movie has ever done it quite so well as The Haunting, and considering the 1999 remake and the utter dearth of decent ghost movies recently, I don’t see much hope of anyone doing it better any time soon. Tasked with making a movie with invisible antagonists, the William Castle-esque conventions of “let’s just have some shit move” are eschewed and replaced wholesale by camera tricks, a truly creepy setting, and perhaps the best use of audio as a monster of itself ever. I tipped my hand early in saying that this film is a masterpiece, but if you choose to stop reading now, I can only hope it’s because you’ve decided to purchase the movie instead.

You’re standing on my neck / la la la la la

You might call a review of The Haunting on this site as something akin to finding diamonds in shit. It’s often cited as the critical darling for concepts such as “less is more” and an old friend you’re familiar with, that “the audience imagines things worse than the screen can show.” Well, it’s Baryonyx’s assertion that these claims are bunk; just because The Haunting doesn’t show you the ghosts doesn’t mean it’s asking you to imagine the bloody carcasses they might look like! Indeed, it seems to me that we’re not meant to see the ghosts because that’s just not how they operate within the film’s mythology. When some of the iconic scenes occur (poundings on walls, doors breathing, chalk writing appearing) I never once imagined a ghost on the other side, or with a piece of chalk, because frankly it would be ludicrous. So that’s why you don’t see ghosts, and the movie is better for it, unless you have some sort of hankering to see one punching a door. I don’t think there are any visible specters in this film, though I’m convinced of the invisible type.

As far as the “less is more” half of our critc-bashing goes: there’s a lot you can say about The Haunting’s method of garnering scares, but you can’t call it minimalist unless you’re deaf. There are *less* (not nonexistant, as is sometimes claimed) visual shock scenes in this movie than you might expect, but that doesn’t mean we’re sitting around in suspense waiting for something to happen. Turn this movie up; it’s loud, an aural assault where things go bump in the night, a lot, and it seems to me that putting audio in your face instead of visual monsters is a fantastic way to do the horror scare game when you’ve got invisible ghosts. It doesn’t qualify as less, though, because both serve the same function and operate the same way.

When you’re a Jet / You make advances by touching shoulders

The plot of the film is simple, but effective. An anthropologist (John) whose interests lie primarily in ghosts arranges an expedition to Hill House, a haunted bad-luck charm that you need to see to believe. It’s massive, with sort of “off” geometry, and a history of madness and death to boot. He chooses a team of psychics, who end up only being two women- Eleanore and Theodora. Also joining the fun is the future owner (by inheritance) of Hill House, Luke. I don’t like blowing my reputation, but you’ll recognize him if you’ve ever seen West Side Story, and that’s probably the most distracting thing about the film. But, hey, when you’re a Jet, you stay a Jet.

There’s a lot more to this film that I honestly am not sure I should spoil, but the ghosts focus most of their attention on Eleanore, who seems to place most of her respective attention on John. John’s married, though, and when his wife comes to visit the house, I suspect a little bit of resentment from Eleanore might have a hand in her behavior. And while Eleanore isn’t exactly the most likable character, she’s certainly sympathetic- a hard enough task to pull off done admirably well.

“It’s a nice statue, Doc. Do you think the Sharks will steal it?”

The last thing I want to discuss is this film’s remake, but I figure it’s worth a mention. In 1999 (the same year House on Haunted Hill was remade… hmm…), Owen Wilson, Liam Neeson, and Catherine Zeta-Jones decided to ruin film once and for all and took a stab at it with their version of The Haunting. Now, look, I understand that it wasn’t all their fault, but I have to question how any fan of the original could have read the script for the remake and thought “this seems like a good idea. I want to be in this.” I don’t know. I guess if you ever wanted to see something to make you regret thinking things like “Owen Wilson is okay” or “Qui-Gon Jin was Liam Neeson’s worst role” it might be worth a watch, but otherwise, let’s pretend it doesn’t exist.

One last warning for the bravest of you: this is not the same type of film as most of the popcorn-swilling monster flicks we’ve been looking at lately. This film clocks in just shy of 2 intense hours and definitely qualifies as legitimately scary to this day. It is not, however, the “scariest movie of all time” which is a label that is sometimes passed onto it. We can blame that particularly dumbfounding idea on the “don’t show the monster!” agenda, which is sort of like the “gay agenda” except with a chance of being real.

“If the ghosts say guns… I SAY GUNS.”

The Killer Shrews Review

The cruelest man killers ever filmed? Shrews.

Baryonyx watched The Killer Shrews on a Friday night. Let’s let that sink in real fast. Since becoming an adult, a lot of changes have occurred in my life- straight edge, cat, etc.- but nothing could prepare me for the shame and frustration that began to build up in my body as I realized that, on a Friday night, I had just watched a movie about shrews.

Excuses began to flow. “You’re not a loser!” I thought quickly. “You have a date tomorrow! She seems cute!” A beat. “But what if she asks what I did last night?” Let it be a lesson to you, Baryonyxaholics. You can build and plan for a better future, but you can’t change the past- especially if your past involves The Killer Shrews.

I watched this. I watched it with my own eyes.

The thing about this movie is that, even before we start to talk about its plot, we have to reiterate that the monster is a bunch of shrews. Shrews. Not wolves. Not mummies or zombies. Not bears. Shrews. I can’t imagine that, even in 1959, we were out of monster concepts to the point that it was considered worth having a budget for a movie about shrews! And yes, these are mutant shrews, as they had to be, but it’s still confusing at the least and fascinating at it’s best. You may know that there’s a How Did This Get Made? podcast, which is pretty funny but typically discusses movies where anyone could see why the movie got made. But shrews? You’re telling me that’s not a little more puzzling than Judge Dredd?

Okay, so about that plot. An island inhabited my scientists working on a problem to solve the future overpopulation problem is paid a visit by a supply boat. While the boat has the ordered supplies, a hurricane is on the horizon and so the captain, Thorne Sherman (we just don’t name characters like this anymore) is forced to spend the night, along with the scientists and the beautiful daughter of the lead doctor, Ann. Unfortunately, it seems the scientists have accidentally bred a race of giant killer shrews that are slowly beginning to starve- which means it’s about time for them to start attacking any food source they can…

So if it seems shitty, don’t worry, it is. The question of how exactly breeding shrews is going to help overpopulation down the road is “answered” pretty early on. You see, if our metabolisms were slower, and we were smaller, we would live for three times as long and consume less resources. Now, you tell me- less resources used or not, how is living longer going to solve overpopulation?

Oh, right. It doesn’t give a fuck.

So, before long, the Shrews begin to attack and get into the building, where another, uh, interesting twist is revealed- the shrews are venomous. Venomous, giant shrews! On an island! They became venomous when a scientist tried to poison them with bait. Amazingly, not only did none of the shrews die from this, every last one must have gotten a bite, because they’re all so full of venom that they make Mr. Yuck turn blue. Why does it work this way? I don’t know, because I’m not a biologist. But… let’s at least mark this one down somewhere between “suspect” and “I think I saw it in Pokemon once.”

How does one escape venomous shrews? Well, I guess there are a few schools of thought. First, if you’re a minority, you sure as hell don’t escape them, because the first two people to kick the bucket are the film’s only Black and Latino men. From there… well, this might seem kind of hard to believe, and Spoilers ahoy! but…

…they construct a crudely fashioned tank.

This really happens!

Now, I know what you’re thinking, looking at that picture. “What could those animals playing the shrews really be?” Or, at least, that was my roommate’s question. I’m not sure, but looking them over, it looks like they got some dogs and taped a bunch of shit to them. They certainly move sort of like dogs, so that’s my guess and I’m sticking to it.

The more I think about it, the more this “overpopulation” angle makes sense. You know, making all people smaller and live longer isn’t going to solve the problem, but you know what will? An army of unstoppable poison shrews! In a lot of ways, I feel like this movie missed a golden opportunity by not pursuing that angle! Maybe the “scientist is actually evil with ulterior motives!” angle is played out, but has there ever been a better evil scheme than “creating a herd of ravenously hungry poison shrews?” You’d pay to see that, right? Yeah, you’re nodding. Me too. Alas, no one is accused of playing God in this movie, and all giant shrews are assumed incidental. I wonder if anyone even gets charged with a crime?

By the way, you know what animal they should have used instead of dogs?

*Audience groans*

I don’t want to give the impression that this movie isn’t worthwhile at all, because in all honesty, it works as a fun little romp (and comedic gold) as long as you don’t take it too seriously. It’s also the directorial debut of Ray Kellogg, who would simultaneously (they just don’t do that anymore, either) make The Giant Gila Monster. I guess you could say his niche was “animals no one should make a movie about.” He also shot much of the footage in the Nuremberg trials, so if that’s something you’ve watched you might be inadvertently familiar with him.

Lastly, if you ever wanted to think to yourself “This movie is like The Alamo, but with shrews” then this just might be the movie for you. Short, fun, fantastically inept and illogical, plus a couple of great laugh out loud scenes. I’ve had worse.