The TCM Underground Review

THE WICKER MAN

2009-12-07T10:58:00.026-05:00

FINALLY!!!!! Not only is this the first of my suggestions that they've shown, it's also one of my favorite movies of all time! It's TOTALLY unique. It effortlessly transmutes between genres. It defies classification. It is masterfully crafted. There is no dull or wasted moment. It has awesome music. It has awesome boobs. It has CHRISTOPHER LEE, (who dug it so much he did it pro bono,) It explores the themes and ideas that I am most interested in. Now, I have so much to say about this movie, and I can't do it without spoiling the ending. The first time I saw it, I didn't see the ending coming, and it will so increase your film viewing experience if you can see it this way. So, I beg you, if you haven't seen it, please stop reading now. First off, I don't see it as a "horror" movie. My wife, however, does. The conversation went something like this:

"How is that a horror movie?"
"You didn't think it was horrifying when they were burning that poor man alive?"
"He was a DICK!"

Her interpretation was that he was a good, innocent person who was needlessly killed. My interpretation was that before seeing the film, one would be appalled by the idea of human sacrifice, but by the end, one would think, "Hmm. They may be on to something here." Observe how they cleverly killed two birds with one stone: they appeased the gods, and got rid of someone the world is better off without. I say this because Howie is every CONSERVATIVE AUTHORITARIAN. She thought he was "just trying to find that little girl", but look at his character. From the moment he arrives on the island, he rudely and arrogantly imposes his will and pushes people around. She interpreted this as his dedication to finding Rowan. I thought it was meant to illustrate that he was by nature a bully, and looking for the girl was just an excuse for him to bullyrag people. If he had gone about his business in a kind, respectful manner, I would have thought differently of him. He's the sort of person who thinks his opinions are the ONLY correct opinions, and anyone with different beliefs is "mad." This is why Lord Summerisle tells him he played "king for a day", and also why he wound up playing the fool. This narrow-minded hubristic intolerance is the worst sort of foolishness, it is because of these sorts of people that we have wars. And come on, how foolish is it to turn down the advances of naked dancing Britt Ekland? To unquestioningly cling to a set of beliefs that tell you everything natural and pleasurable is wrong, and require you to wait until you're dead to be happy? I, for one, prefer to hold sacred all the joy and beauty that surrounds and sustains us in this world. We also get a glimpse into his own religious life. He stands solemnly in a Church, boringly droning for a crowd of statue-still boring drones. Just a question: would you rather be sitting there listening to him, or frolicking naked in the sunshine? Just a question, but I know which I would pick, and where I would feel the divine presence.

Yes, I am through and through a Pagan, but that doesn't mean I'm literally in favor of human sacrifice. (I may be and anarchist, but I'm also a pacifist. Come on-it's just a movie!) Besides, most historians now doubt that the Celts really practiced it, mainly because the only accounts of it or evidence for it come from their enemies. Specifically, the Romans, who were the last people who had any business calling anyone else's treatment of human beings "barbaric". The direct successor of the Roman Empire, the Roman Catholic Church, is far from blameless in the sphere of human atrocities. How many "witches" were burnt at the stake? How many "heretics" were tortured by the Inquisition? And this took place up until the Renaissance! Does the idea of burning a guy alive seem so extraordinary and savage now? It was also long assumed that the Druids used Stonehenge for human sacrifice, solely because there is a reddish stain on one of the stones. It has since been determined to have been caused by naturally occurring minerals in the rock. (Besides, how could a blood stain last after thousands of years of being rained on??) It is now generally accepted that if the Celts did practice human sacrifice, it was during very ancient times, when most of the world's cultures were doing it, including the ancient Hebrews. Remember, in the Bible, God tells Abraham to sacrifice his son, and Abe doesn't seem to think that's a very unusual request. I was recently listening to a Native American friend talk about the old days, when the people made blood sacrifices. Then the Great Spirit told them all he wanted was an offering of tobacco. The idea is, nobody gets something for nothing. And, for whatever you take, you must put something back. Does our culture practice this? Would we be better off if we did?

My point is, because most of the world's population no longer practices indigenous nature worship, we are now experiencing the greatest mass extinction on Earth since the extinction of the dinosaurs. I do not believe that this was the intention of the early Christians, and certainly not of Jesus, but a side effect of the forced mass-conversion. When Europe was being converted, eventually on penalty of death, every belief from the Old Ways was labelled "wrong". Among them were the ideas that every living thing is worthy of respect, and that we are all connected and dependent upon one another in a great web of life. People were then free to exploit Nature as they pleased. The eventual result was industrialization. Industrialization made lots of people really, really rich. There is NO WAY of being industrialized without doing some damage to the planet. Any attack on industrialization is a threat to their money. It is in their best interests to suppress environmental ideas. Now, how can some people say environmentalists "care more about trees than people"? It is precisely because we care about people that we want to save the planet's biodiversity! How will people survive without healthy food and clean air and water? What they really mean is "environmentalists care more about trees than people who want to get really, really rich at the expense of every other living thing on the planet", and to that I concur.

So, that is why I share the beliefs of the inhabitants of Summerisle. And not just nature worship. Sex in public? Why not? Everyone likes sex, (It's the one's who DON'T that you have to worry about...) so why do we have to pretend we don't? And should it be discussed openly with children? Well, is it better that it be treated as something "dirty" and "sinful"? Is it better that they learn about it from porn, or worse yet child molesters? Sex is a very big part of being human, and it's when kids don't understand what's happening when their perfectly natural and healthy hormones kick in that they get into trouble. Often, many people have sexual issues their entire lives these days. This is because they have been taught that something every cell in their body is exhorted to do is wrong. This sets up feelings of shame, guilt, and self-loathing, which makes the person meek, neurotic, and easy to control, which is exactly what the Catholic Church had in mind. I know that teenage pregnancy, extra-marital affairs, etc. can cause a lot of problems for people. But these are problems of our modern society that a more open approach to sex can only help!

To the Pagan, by contrast, sex is another joyful blessing and proof that we are meant to enjoy ourselves in this world. PAGAN.
The word is still capable of sending chills down the spines of some people. To me, it's one of the most beautiful words in the world. It's only used once in the movie. Edward Woodward delivers it so brilliantly, Howie practically chokes on it. He invokes it with such disdain, it's the cruelest thing he can think of to call Lord Summerisle. The equally brilliant Christopher Lee reacts as if he's been honored. The word has been so demonized, and is still largely misunderstood by the majority of mainstream society. It is generally believed to mean a belief in many gods as opposed to one, but what most people don't realize is that these religions DO believe in a supreme universal spirit, and the "many gods" are aspects or manifestations of it. The Catholic Church has historically conveniently overlooked this fact. The role of the "gods" is analogous to that of the Judeo-Christian saints and angels. A more accurate term is Animism, which is that favored by modern anthropologists. It means a belief system in which everything in nature is believed to have life and a spirit. Now, if you believe something has a spirit, you are far less likely to wantonly destroy it, and are therefore far less likely to have an environmental catastrophe.

Yes, I was happy to see Howie go. I was cheering on the islanders. But not because he was a Christian, because he was THE MAN. The oppressive, repressive, intolerant, ignorant, inflexible hand of authority. The sort of person who has dedicated his life to telling other people what to do, and to make sure no one has any fun. One thing that makes this movie so fascinating, (and so disturbing to some people,) is that for once, the roles are reversed. "The hunted leading the hunter", as Lord Summerisle says. This was 1973. For the past few years everyone had been watching footage of cops bashing hippies, students, blacks, and just plain ordinary folks who didn't agree with the war. NOW the free thinkers were bashing the cop. After centuries of Christians burning "witches", now the Christian was going to the barbeque. How you react to this probably says a lot about the sort of person you are.

Another fascinating aspect of the movie is the way the islanders react to Howie. They aren't afraid of him. Even the children! They are neither afraid, intimidated, nor impressed. They play tricks on him and giggle. Why? Because their parents raised them that way! They were raised to be joyful, confident, and unashamed of who and what they are. They know their parents love them and will take care of them, and the adults know Lord Summerisle loves and will take care of them. Imagine it. A truly free society, united by a benevolent leader, who genuinely cares for his people's health, happiness, and well being. A society not afraid to stand together against that which seeks to oppress them. A society that sees oppression for what it really is, just a small-minded, cruel little fool. Think it's impossible? Well, it works on the small scale. In 1973 the counter-culture had fully bloomed, and its ideas and ideals were creeping and seeping into mainstream society. A lot of people were seriously concerned about the end of western imperial society as they knew it, and a lot of people truly believed that they were the last generation who would know the weight of the yoke of western imperialism.

So why didn't it happen? Well, it seems most people want to be told what to do, in one way or another. That said, wouldn't it be better if they were told what to do by someone like Lord Summerisle, who could guide the people in a SUSTAINABLE lifestyle? You're going to be hearing that word a lot in the near future, and you're going to have to accept the fact that unless we change our way of life there will simply be nothing left of us. Solar, wind, nuclear and all the other "alternatives" are not without their own consequences. There are people living on Pacific island who have been farming the same fields for 9000 years! BUT... they don't have TV, they don't have Dunkin' Donuts, they don't have cell phones... I think you see what I'm getting at. If not, don't worry about it, go back to sleep. What they do have is all of their basic needs provided for, and a simple, healthy, fulfilling life. These people have long been perceived as backward, ignorant, inferior, and in need of "civilization". I now ask you, you have one group of people who have been living in harmony with the world for 9000 years. You have another who have practically destroyed it in 200. Who has something to learn from whom?

So, do I expect the majority of the world's people to abandon the word's major religions? Of course not. If I did, I would be no better than Howie, and this whole article would be a huge hypocrisy. Howie winds up as the fool because he lacks tolerance, compassion, and respect. We must extend this to others even if they don't show it to us. (Umm...didn't Jesus say something about that?...) But, it is my most sincere belief that unless some sort of reverence, or at least respect, for nature and non-human living things is incorporated into the ethos of the majority, there is little hope for us. Modern science has shown us that as far as we know, this tiny speck in the incomprehensible vastness of space is the only place where LIFE can exist, and what are we doing? We're breaking it. If humans need religion, and they need authority, and it seems they do, the Animist belief systems evolved to allow us to live harmoniously and SUSTAINABLY with the world around us. I'm not trying to convert anyone, I'm not going to knock on your door with Pagan pamphlets, I'm just putting some ideas out there. A story from modern times may help to illustrate my point:

Remember that tsunami that struck the Indian Ocean a few years ago? The one that killed 230,000 people? Well, the indigenous islanders in the area survived quite unscathed. All except one tribe. This tribe was singular for another reason, it was the only one which had converted to Christianity. The beliefs and mythology of the traditional tribes contained the warning signs they needed to realize what was going to happen and head for high ground. When the missionaries converted the Christian tribe, they told them these belief and mythologies were wrong. They convinced them to abandon them in favor of the myths of some Semitic desert shepherds from 5000 years ago, which have been altered and edited for centuries to suit political whims. I have already stated the result. I'm not saying this to gloat over the deaths of these people, or to bash the Christian religion. I just think there is a very powerful and important message there. A culture's indigenous beliefs have evolved over eons to allow the culture to function in harmony with its environment. Because most people no longer practice their indigenous belief system, as an unintended consequence of conversion to "modern" religion, we are completely out of harmony with our planet, and are destroying it, which will eventually destroy us. And, once upon a time, Europe had its own indigenous beliefs, too. The people of Summerisle (and me,) think it's a good idea to revive them.

Which brings us back to what this was supposed to be, a movie review. Anyway, I really liked the movie.

And so, if we do survive, ages and ages hence, when Christianity is but a footnote in the history books, mankind will still need warmth, and we will still need to eat. And therefore, there will still be a God of the Sun, and a Goddess of the Orchards.

As a footnote, I feel I should mention the recent Nicolas Cage "remake." It is now considered an example of modern "so bad it's good" ridiculousness. I have seen it, and it is truly ridiculous. It has none of the good qualities of the original, and the always awful Nicolas Cage's performance is a tour-de-force of crap. Now, my secret shame is that I have a strange connection to this movie. My wife knew the director Neil LaBute when he was but a young student. She was a fan of the original movie, and she (or one of her friends, she can't remember exactly,) introduced it to him. The rest is history.

MUMMY'S BOYS

2009-12-02T08:26:00.004-05:00

I had never heard of "Wheeler and Woolsey", and now I can see why. Apparently, in the 30s, while The Three Stooges were making some of the greatest comedy ever known to man, these guys were churning out low-budget "comedies" for RKO. One of them (honestly, I couldn't be bothered to find out which is which,) plays the Moe/Groucho role, complete with glasses, cigar, and mop of black hair. The other one is Larry/Curly/Harpo. I feel blasphemous for having mentioned these fourth-rate hacks in the same sentences as those gods without inserting the phrase "are not worthy of smelling the flatulence of." The comedy is ABYSMALLY low, not low as in "in poor taste," low as in RETARDED. The sort of thing that maybe a four year old would laugh at. People falling down, or getting squirted with water. One of them can't remember what two plus two is. SERIOUSLY. This is what they're trying to pass off as comedy. It's not the sort of "bad" that you can have fun laughing at, it's not a quaint amusing relic from another time, it's just pathetic. I am fully aware that comedic tastes change very quickly and there can be wide generation gaps in this area, (if you don't believe me, watch Napoleon Dynamite with your parents,) but COME ON! The Three Stooges were working at the same time, and they have NEVER gone out of style! Same with the early cartoons from this period. One interesting note, that glamourous blonde bombshell is none other than Barbara Pepper, who you may know as the original Mrs. Ziffel from Green Acres! In fact, being reminded of Green Acres was the only moment of enjoyment in the half hour or so that I was able to endure this! Of historical interest, there is a black guy playing a stereotypical simpleton servant, a reminder of the racism still prevalent at this time. And one positive opinion: I love the poster! Nobody cartoons like that anymore! I have no idea if these guys have a fan base nowadays, and I don't feel like investing the time researching it. Maybe people who are really into the culture of the 30s will appreciate it on levels I can't. Sorry if you missed it, kids, it doesn't seem to be available on video.

THE CURSE OF THE MUMMY'S TOMB

2009-12-01T08:46:00.004-05:00

It's a Hammer film! That means it has that very cool distinctive "look", and a bit more gore than you get from American films of the same period. That's why I sat through the whole thing, and gave it two aliens. Unfortunately, it's not a good Hammer film. It has no interesting actors, (i.e. no Christopher Lee.) The story is totally lame and predictable, boring and uninspired. I don't usually like to give spoilers, but I think you'll thank me for this one, if you don't want to know stop reading now. Here it is: A bunch of archaeologists open a mummy's tomb and he comes to life and starts killing them. WOAH!! Who saw that coming?? In an attempt at a unique twist, one of them turns out to be the mummy's immortal brother, who is curiously of European descent. As with many films of the period, many of the "Egyptians" appear to be European, some in greasy brown makeup. And the flashbacks to ancient Egypt look like a bargain Ten Commandments. Other than that, there's no "so bad it's good" appeal, and no freaky, unique elements. It's just a dumb, cliche horror film from the 60s. Unless you're really a fan of Hammer films, or mummy movies, I would say you can safely skip this one and rest assured that you haven't missed anything.

THE ROBOT VS. THE AZTEC MUMMY

2009-11-30T15:14:00.005-05:00

What could be worse than a micro-budgeted 50s sci-fi movie? How about a micro-budgeted 50s sci-fi movie from Mexico! Yes, Mexico, a land whose popular entertainment is known for a tasteful, sophisticated dignity, decided to show the world what it could do with sci-fi. They blended it with their own history, and so we learned that the Aztecs sang opera in their rituals. Seriously, this movie seems to have been written by a six year old boy, making it up as he went along, trying to jam in everything he thought was cool. My favorite part: The mummy is fighting the bad guys in a laboratory, (they have laboratories in Mexico?) and he throws one of them into a "pit of rattlers" (which were CLEARLY not rattlesnakes, but various large constrictors,) which happens to be handy. This demonstrates that the mummy, far from being a mindless killing machine, prefers to dispatch of his enemies with a flair for the dramatic reminiscent of a James Bond villain. Then the bad guy miraculously escapes unharmed. Those of us who enjoy the agony of watching these movies will be sufficiently entertained by the ineptitude of our friends south of the border. The movie is an agonizing failure in every possible way. The plot is mostly incomprehensible, not helped by the fact that most of it is told in flashbacks with narration. It seems the majority of this movie is made from pieces of the first two episodes of the trilogy. If I had to find one redeeming quality, I guess the mummy looks pretty cool. For added fun (and watchability), watch the Mystery Science Theater version. That's what I did. Yeah, I didn't endure it in its pure, unholy form. I'm a wuss.

GREASER'S PALACE

2009-11-24T10:54:00.008-05:00

In the early 70s, the Jesus story was being reinterpreted in such successful films as Jesus Christ, Superstar and Godspell. It seems Robert Downey Sr. decided to give the world his version too. The result may not have been as successful (or as good) as the aforementioned hits, but by god, it was stranger. His Jesus is an aimless wanderer, a stranger in a strange land, who arrives in the old west by parachute. I LOVE the anachronism. It works. Unfortunately, there isn't much else that works. There's an AWFUL lot of footage of people just walking through the desert. I don't know if he's trying to say we're all wanderers in a wasteland or something, but ok, whatever, once or twice would've been enough. The Christ metaphor is sometimes obvious, sometimes not. Some elements are recognizable, for instance I guess "Greaser" is meant to be Caesar, here represented as a brute who owns a saloon or something in the middle of nowhere, where he enjoys watching his daughter strip. (There's very little dialogue and it's pretty hard to follow the plot, so I may not be quite right on some things.) I don't know what else, if anything, is supposed to match up with what. I don't know what the deal is with the Native Americans, or the guy in the sheet, or why he included toilet humor, but I sure liked it! I think he was intending to get the gist of the story of Jesus, rather than simply retell it in a different setting. And, in some respect, I think he succeeded. Take when Jesse does his boogie-woogie song and dance at the saloon. At first, you may think it's just in there as a bit of silly anachronism. Note the response of the crowd. They stare blankly, stupefied. Also note the appearance of the crowd. They have long, dirty hair and beards. They barely speak. They are little better than neanderthals. When do they respond? When Jesse makes his hands bleed. Horrible violence! Now there's something they can understand! He had given them something happy and beautiful, and completely ahead of its time, yet this is what they respond to. So what did we learn? Jesus' message, which is the same as that of any other religion, (life would be a lot better for all of us if we'd make some effort to get along with each other) is STILL ahead of its time and beyond the ken of most humans. Then the ending of the movie made NO sense to me, it seemed to be thrown together with no rhyme or reason. Downey occasionally comes really close to making a profound art film, but ultimately it fails for me. So why did I give it such a high rating? Because it's WEIRD, SURREAL, and TRIPPY, and I LIKED it! I'm not quite sure why, despite the tedium, but I think this is a movie the student of bizarreness should see. It's a true unique vision. I imagine it was "condemned" by the Catholic Church.

PUTNEY SWOPE

2009-11-24T09:57:00.005-05:00

A 1969 film which is oddly appropriate for our times. A black guy suddenly and unexpectedly finds himself in charge of a large corporation. This is a true indy film, with all the advantages and disadvantages that go along with that. On the plus side, it's totally unique. It looks fantastic. It illustrates a unique point of view unabashedly. And you couldn't ask for a better movie poster! If that poster doesn't make you want to watch the movie, go away. On the minus side, "art" is very difficult to make, and I don't think Robert Downey Sr. was up to the task. It gets slow and strange, (not in a good way,) and there's a lot of unnecessary stuff that just doesn't make sense. Sometimes his points are clear, sometimes it doesn't look like even he knows what he wants to say. And, the lead actor's voice is very obviously dubbed, by Downey himself. He doesn't even sound like a black guy, he sounds like a mobster or something. I guess he liked the way the guy looked, but not how he sounded. This is EXTREMELY distracting. But, it's worth putting up with because this movie has a very cool premise. It's about everything that was going on in the late 60s, "The Man's" worst nightmare. I'm not just talking about black people organizing and taking over, I'm talking about the free thinkers, hippies, and anarchists taking over. The people who value personal integrity and inner peace over money taking over. The next generation rejecting the evil empire of their forbearers. The whole capitalist system being ripped wide open, picked up and body-slammed into the dust. The Great and Powerful Oz revealed to be an old man pulling levers behind a curtain. I LOVE the line "I'm not gonna rock the boat, I'm gonna SINK it!" Yes, this is what was supposed to happen, but alas, to use the movie's metaphor, black people, being only people, and thus fatally flawed, made just as big a mess of things as the white people had. And in real life, things did change, (but not nearly enough for my hippie tastes...) Also of interest are the parody commercials, a few years before Saturday Night Live. I found them really funny, they mark a very early step toward the type of humor I grew up with, satire, shock, and absurdism. The ending made absolutely no sense to me. I have no idea what was supposed to have happened. So, despite it's flaws, I definitely recommend this movie as an example of true "underground" film, and a good counterculture film at that. Now, if only Barack were able to rock the boat, but it seems like it's too big, and its immensity can only cause it to sink with all hands...

SWAMP THING

2009-11-05T08:48:00.004-05:00

Based on the occasionally popular "serious" comic book, and directed by Wes Craven, I was thinking it might be good. Alas, it was just another goofy rubber suit monster movie. It is a strange phenomenon that a monster can look so cool drawn in a comic book, yet laugh-out-loud ridiculous walking around on the big screen. Wes, what went wrong? Were you trying to experiment with a different style? Did you think you had "matured" past those fantastic, unique, disturbing horror films Last House on the Left and The Hills Have Eyes? Did you want to make a lame, cliche movie? At least you came to your senses, got back to what you do best and gave us A Nightmare on Elm Street. Really, this movie is a slab of pure B-movie cheese. The character was created in 1971, in the horror comics, a direct extension of the classic mid-century low-budget sci-fi. Even the concept is staggeringly simple and overdone--a scientist has an accident and turns into a monster. Sound familiar? I think poor Wes was trying to make it into a lot more than it is. Particularly pathetic are the attempts at eliciting pathos. For some reason, the angst of a drawing of a monster strikes a cord in the adolescent male psyche, (maybe it has something to do with the fact that that's when we're beginning to develop adult emotions, but we can't quite handle them yet, and coming from a familiar childhood medium, what is essentially an advanced cartoon character, makes them more relatable to us?) but an actor in a rubber suit attempting to convey it is just plain silly. The overused stock music doesn't help, either. You also get an over-acting villain of indeterminate European ethnicity. Hilights include an excellent WTF? moment, as a mutated dwarf creature leaps onto a table, (I was waiting for him to start the "One of us" chant...) and a very silly monster battle. And don't forget the real stars of this movie, Adrienne Barbeau's boobs! In fact, they are so important that one of them is fatally wounded, and Swamp thing has to revive it by laying his hand on it! Apparently a remake is in the works. I wonder if they will attempt a "serious" adaptation. If so, they will not have learned, and it will be silly.

ZAAT

2009-11-02T09:39:00.006-05:00

A "creature feature" from very close to the bottom of the fish tank, the sort of algae-sucking, micro-budgeted true indy horror film that hurts so good. I, like most people outside of the town where it was filmed, first saw it on MST3K, where it was know as The Blood Waters of Dr. Z. It is apparently know by several titles, only one of which make much sense. "Zaat" is supposed to be a chemical formula, but it seems that although writer/director/producer Don Barton had probably seen a chemical formula, he had no idea how to read one. And the doctor's name is Kurt Leopold, nowhere does a "Z" appear in his name. It is also known as Hydra, (a multi-headed dragon-like monster from Greek mythology,) and Attack of the Swamp Monster. Although admittedly a tad cliche, this at least honestly informs the viewer of what he can expect. The first fifteen minutes also inform the viewer of what he can expect, the world's least attractive scientist fiddles about his lab. If you make it through the first fifteen minutes, (and if you do, you're a champ,) you will be treated to just what you've been waiting for, he disrobes! PAYOFF!!! He then lowers himself into a large tank by means of an elaborate pulley system. Why he didn't just jump in is beyond my meager comprehension. We learn he has transformed himself into a fish monster for the purpose of "conquering the universe." Yep, the whole universe. All 93 billion (observable) light years of it, and presumably the rest, infinite or not. Why he chose to take on the characteristics of fish, animals not capable of inter-stellar travel, (nor even impervious to bullets...) in order to accomplish this is not clear. He sets out toward his lofty goals by first killing the people who had insulted or otherwise annoyed him in the past. So, about 50 percent of the movie is just the monster walking around, (although set to cool, eerie music.) This is a habit so common of these amateur directors, they just feel the need to show you every single step a character takes to get from point A to point B! I think this is a major reason these movies are just un-watchable to most people, I have no idea why some of us find enduring them "fun." Either you get it or you don't. It is doubly amusing to torment someone who doesn't. They often think you think it's a good movie. Another 40 percent is close-up footage of marine life. The remaining 10 percent contains a little dialogue, the most memorable of which for me was a black scientist completely nonplussed by a redneck sheriff repeatedly addressing him as "Boy." There is also a performance of Christian folk rock. How it relates to the monster is not clear to me, but it is a pleasant interlude nonetheless. We are also treated to a little 70s gratuitous undressing, and an attractive female this time! We learn the zaat formula only mutates the male human, the female form is left unaltered. She will, however, feel a strong desire to walk into the ocean. I don't usually like to include spoilers, but without revealing too much, his plans of universal conquest fall flat when he fails to conquer even a single small Florida town. But, all is not lost, the ending is left open...

LORD LOVE A DUCK

2009-11-02T09:01:00.004-05:00

Another product of the sixties starring Tuesday Weld, it's trying really hard to be a good movie, but it ain't. It is odd, however, it jumps abruptly from parody, to social commentary, to black comedy, to slapstick, to downright tragedy. While this effort to defy genre is admirable, it ultimately fails. Blame should first fall upon Roddy "Cornelius" McDowell, playing a rebellious anti-hero, a free-thinking intellectual who defeats the forces of inept college administration and thuggish jocks with his wits. (This was 1966. The seeds of the cultural revolution were just starting to germinate.) We're supposed to like him, but his over-acting and forced intellectual blather is just annoying. Also watch for Harvey Korman, who is not as funny as he thinks he is, (And every time I see him all I can think of is The Star Wars Holiday Special... Now THERE'S something TCM Underground should show!) And Ruth Gordon, who is actually funny. (You should have studied her, Harvey. Sometimes less is more.) In fact, she's the best part of the movie, possibly it's one saving grace. Ok, to be fair, the "drive-in church" did get a hearty chuckle out of me. It also satirized the "beach party" movies, an ultra-kitchie fad which was dying at the time. At least someone realized how stupid they were, but hell, those stupid movies are still inexplicably fun to watch. So, this movie is a time capsule of the mid-sixties, it's trying to make some points, and it's prophetic of things to come. So why didn't I like it? It's just badly done. It was directed by George Axelrod, (heh heh..) who was primarily a screenwriter, with such successful films as Breakfast at Tiffany's to his credit. Maybe he should have stuck to writing, because he's got some interesting ideas going on here, but he seems to be over his head pulling them off as a director.

PRETTY POISON

2009-10-29T10:04:00.006-04:00

It's a shame Anthony Perkins was typecast, he was a good actor, but after Psycho it seems all anyone asked of him was "Do Norman Bates!" He manages to play a slightly different psycho in this one, but you just can't help but see Norman. His costar is the impossibly cute Tuesday Weld. Those who remembered her from Dobie Gillis, (which was a good show!) were undoubtedly shocked to see her playing this type of role. Remember, although it's a pretty tame movie by today's standards, in 1968 it was still shocking to see a cute girl do things like that! Also note how Freudian ideas were starting to be accepted by mainstream culture. We get to see why Tuesday's nuts, look at her mother! A generation or two back, she would've just been a "bad seed," a parent couldn't possibly be to blame for her child's behavior! According to her Wikipedia page, she's distantly related to Perkins! That certainly puts a new twist on things! I bet they didn't know that when they were filming those love scenes! (Would YOU make out with someone you were related to, even distantly?) EEW! Well, if you go back far enough, we're all related anyway...Am I using too many exclaimation points?! So this is a good movie, not particularly bizarre or shocking, (unless you count the distant incest,) but fans of its stars and fans of the late 60s will like it. It's also a precursor of the more violent, shocking films to come.

TERRORVISION

2009-10-29T09:23:00.004-04:00

By the 80s, the kids who grew up watching the low-budget sci-fi films of the 50s were old enough to make their own movies. Some made Star Wars and Close Encounters, someone named "Ted Nicolaou" made this. It's one awful movie, but in its defense it's consciously awful. It's actually pretty fun, it's a tribute to and parody of the genre. It's also a parody of the 80s, no one really wore their hair that big and colorful, kids. The idea of parents telling their daughter she can't use the hot tub because they're "swinging tonight" also explores the adult self-indulgence of the "me decade," or else Ted had some really bizarre fantasies...The movie is deliberately and proudly in the gutter, which I find refreshing. The atrocious acting also adds to its appeal. Ted was clearly a scholar of the classics, watch for clips from the legendary Robot Monster and former TCM Underground feature The Giant Claw. He also pays tribute to the old tv movie hosts, overnight companions of many a lonely teenage boy. If you "get it", and take it for what it is, you will have fun watching this movie.

VIDEODROME

2009-10-29T08:46:00.005-04:00

NOW THAT'S MORE LIKE IT! After a seemingly endless stream of mediocrity, they finally give us a bizarre, unique film about a man with a vagina on his stomach. So why does this rate high on the cult scale? For one thing, it's complicated. The vast herds of middle America, when presented with a movie like this, will uncomfortably grimace "I don't get it..." and go back to their reassuring "Dancing with the Stars" and donuts. This is a movie that challenges you to make sense of what's happening, or at least accept that you don't have to understand everything you're seeing, but that's ok because it's cool. (And isn't that life...) It also features the great Debbie Harry, a very talented and attractive person at the height of her popularity, who certainly didn't have to show her boobs in a movie, but she DID! How cool is that?!?! The movie also brings up some interesting and disturbing points. There's the frightening fascination of stumbling upon some dark, dangerous underworld, the all-too human attraction to violence, and the hypnotic power of TV. Not to mention the reality-warping powers of recorded media, VCRs were still a new phenomenon to the general public in 1983. And the idea of living in a dream world that you can learn to manipulate is explored almost two decades before The Matrix. Also look for the gory special effects that would make Cronenberg's remake of The Fly legendary. (Normally I HATE remakes, but that one gets it RIGHT.) Another cult feature is one incredibly, unforgettably annoying character that makes you cringe every time he appears, in this case it's Peter Dvorsky as smack-worthy geek "Harlan". But, possibly my favorite thing about this movie, is the way it starts off seeming like a fairly straightforward story in our world, but slowly gets more and more surreal until you don't know what's going on. I love stories like that! This is a very difficult thing to pull off, and this one does it perfectly. More like this please!

THE WILD PARTY

2009-10-09T12:04:00.002-04:00

This is an excellent example of film noire. I liked it, but for me film noir isn't bizarre or unique enough to be cult. I know a lot of people really dig it, to the point of cult-like obsession, so that makes it cult for them, but this is my website and I say not quite. Another thing that makes it interesting is that it stars a young Anthony Quinn, who does an excellent job playing a pathetically endearing goon. I know a lot of people are also into seeing movies with big stars early in their career, like they're "collecting" Anthony Quinn movies and they want to get the complete set, so that's sort of cult, but I never really got that hobby unless said star is in a particularly embarrassing or wildly diverging film. (See Roscoe "Gordon from Sesame Street" Ormond in Willy Dynamite, for example.) Anthony has no reason to be embarrassed by this role, it's a cool movie and he does a good job. Noir fans should check it out, but don't expect anything too wacky.

PSYCHO

2009-09-14T09:05:00.007-04:00

Once again, TCM Underground has shown a movie that is well known and largely considered good by the mainstream. We all know a film can be cult because it's so bad, but can a film be cult because it's so good? I think so, at least in this case. Hitchcock was just as interested in sex, violence, and suffering as the B-movie makers we usually see here. He was just, well, a genius. Most people like Hitch, but some people like him a lot, so that makes him a cult figure. (Sort of.) So why is Hitch considered an eccentric genius, while last week's featured director, William Castle, is a chuckle-inducing footnote? Well, for one thing, Psycho is scored with tense, creepy violin music, as opposed to I Saw What You Did's goofy pop. But beyond that, there is no wasted moment in a Hitchcock film. Just the simple act of buying a car is thick with tension and eerieness. You are never bored waiting for the next murder. And, Hitch is a true artist with the camera. Every scene is visually composed beautifully. The average person may not consciously be aware of this, but it does make a difference. (If you don't believe me, watch a Herschell Gordon Lewis film. See how the people are all off center, and you see way too much of the wall?) Psycho has several cult factors. For one thing, it's one of the greatest horror films of all time, so it gets much respect from horror fans. For another, it includes several gratuitous underwear scenes. (Still a shocking rarity in 1960 outside of the grindhouses.) A departure for Hitch at the height of his career, shot in low-budget black and white, it almost looks like it could be an AIP movie. A far cry from his technicolor epics like The Man Who Knew Too Much and North By Northwest, it harkens back to the classic Universal horror films. And, no one can deny it is the prototype for the "modern" horror film, long before Wes Craven created a charismatic villain, or Shyamalan wrote a twist ending. So, as a horror film it's top notch, as a film in general it's top notch, but, on a cult scale, I didn't give it the top rating because it's just not obscure or bizarre enough. If I have one complaint, I always felt that the psychiatrist explaining Norman to us at the end was drawn out and superfluous. It seems like something the studio insisted on being tacked on to give the audience a sense of closure. I think Hitch respected our intelligence enough to let us draw our own conclusions about what was going on in Norman's head. Or, he wanted us to go through life with the knowledge that there were psychos out there for no apparent reason...I've heard there were a few sequels, and a remake, (WHY???) made without Hitch. (He was conveniently dead.) I have not seen them. I do not plan on it.

I SAW WHAT YOU DID

2009-09-09T10:05:00.013-04:00

A film by William Castle, a minor cult figure who wanted to be the love child of Alfred Hitchcock and P. T. Barnum. Unfortunately, genius in the realms of filmmaking and freak promotion is bestowed sparingly, and Castle is remembered as a wacky B-movie director who came up with a bunch of ridiculous gimmicks to promote his mediocre films. He cared more about making money than making art, and was such a pain in the asses of theaters that some eventually refused to show his films. I mean, would you want to go through the trouble of rigging a stupid inflatable skeleton to fly over the audience, getting one of your employees to work it, then cleaning up the mess when the audience throws things at it? Just for the revenue from one stupid B-movie? Well, old Bill thought you would. (Though I must admit, the buzzers under the seats for The Tingler is deservedly legendary.) Anyway, the gimmick for this one was supposed to be seatbelts installed in some seats, (WHOA!) but stories conflict as to why it didn't happen. Maybe the money men convinced Bill to come to his senses, or maybe Joan Crawford refused to be associated with such nonsense. Maybe Bill figured Joan, late in her career, when she was an old man, was gimmick enough. If so he was right. She was a good actress, and she brought the class and grace of Hollywood's golden age to this piece of drive-in fodder. The scene where she attacks Libby is particularly disturbing, we might have gotten a look at what her kids experienced...So why did she do it? How did a former top star wind up working for a bottom director? Again, reports are sketchy - maybe her ego wouldn't let her fade away gracefully, maybe she drank all her money and had to go back to work...One cannot help but think of poor Bela Lugosi and Ed Wood...Well, Bill actually managed to pull of a pretty descent movie with this one. He does fashion an interesting story and a genuine feeling of suspense! BUT, his Hitchcock envy is BLATANT when he gives us a reversed shower murder scene, (come on!) and his trademark implausibility prevents us from really taking it seriously. The murderer leaves his crime scene right there for Joan to discover? A phone call from a "business associate" in the middle of the night doesn't arouse suspicion? And my favorite, Joan knows this guy killed his wife, and she believes he's having a fling with a teenage girl, and she finds him so irresistible she blackmails him into marrying her? (COME ON!) A nonchalant attitude toward murder seems to be recurrent in Castle's work. The goofy teeny-bopper music that punctuates the film is also a bit maladroit, or it can add to the creepiness depending on how you look at it. But hey, all these little maladroitities only add to the fun of quite a fun viewing experience.

DIE, MONSTER, DIE!

2009-08-03T08:34:00.007-04:00

A Boris Karloff classic from the end of his long and illustrious career, at least he lived long enough to see himself become a legend, unlike his poor eternal analog Bela Lugosi. And he is a well deserved legend at that, at 77 he still had it. This is a cool British Horror film, loosely based on a story by Lovecraft. The cinematography is spectacular, particularly the shots of the mist-shrouded English countryside, you would think Merlin could materialize any minute. There's also the huge old mansion, that the eccentric British aristocrats in these movies apparently never leave. Speaking of eccentric, this bizarre family of freaks has somehow produced an attractive, sunny-dispositioned, well-adjusted daughter, who seems quite oblivious to their peculiarity, not unlike The Munsters. Of note is the blood curdling scream that pierces the air at dinner, and goes largely ignored. Anyway, the fun (if cliche) plot takes an unexpected turn into sci-fi, creating a sci-occult-fi concoction most pleasing to the B-movie freak. And, the primitive special effects and over-used stock music make it chuckle-worthy ridiculous at times. Any B-movie freak should also enjoy watching Karloff the Uncanny, (even though I'm more of a Lugosi man myself.) At the end of the film you'll be treated to one more look at the lumber that made him famous, though he was suffering from arthritis at the time and the lumberer is wearing a mask, so I suspect it was a stunt man.

VENUS IN FURS

2009-07-20T08:32:00.008-04:00

This is one schizophrenic movie. One minute you're watching a sexy murder, then you're abruptly cut to a carnival in Brazil. (They abruptly cut to that carnival a lot, to the point that it becomes a bit silly.) A monster that could only have been spawned in the sixties, it's part horror, part sexploitation, part first-person narrated detective story, part abstract psychedelic trip, and with a few (pretty good) musical numbers thrown in. Now, I enjoy all these things, but in this case the trip induces not consciousness expansion, but confusion. The plot is almost impossible to follow, which is fine for a psychedelic movie, but this one is trying to give you a plot. Trying and failing to be all things, it's just not cohesive. The acting is bad and the characters are one-dimensional and not at all interesting, with the possible exception of Barbara McNair as the singer, who, for reasons I can't fathom, is totally infatuated with James Darren's clod of a leading man. It's an ambitious attempt to pull off a psychedelic genre-defying movie, and it only works if the film is somehow compelling. The sixties were all about pushing boundaries, sometimes it worked, sometimes it didn't. But hey, it's still a weird, unique movie, I suggest it could be enjoyed if you don't try to make sense of the story. On the plus side it's got some cool artsy-fartsy cinematography, lots of gratuitous nudity, the always vampiric and thoroughly German Klaus Kinski apparently playing a Turk, sex scenes that push the envelope even by today's standards, a funky and fairly catchy theme song, and some very Freudian shots of minarets.

MAFIOSO

2009-06-22T08:22:00.006-04:00

This is a foreign film, (very foreign, in fact,) Italian, to be specific. It's also subtitled, which I HATE, and the subtitles are in white, so any time there's something light in the background you can't see them. But, I was surprised that I rather enjoyed this exotic little movie. It's filmed with a European artistic eye, showcasing the beauty of glorious black and white. It's the story of an average, if overly responsible and enthusiastic Sicilian guy who finds himself recruited to do a "little job" for the Mob. The comedy is subtle, inducing chuckles at most, but the film has a fun, snappy rhythm that keeps it interesting. The artsy-fartsy tedium of some foreign films is absent. It also successfully transitions from light-hearted family fun to dark noir-esque suspense without missing a beat. Unlike American noir films, the Mafia and their blazing guns are not the main focus, they are merely the undercurrent lurking in the shadows of the idyllic Mediterranean village. I have no idea if this is more like how they actually operate, but it seems more real. As I am not much of a fan of Mob movies, especially the modern ones, I found this refreshing. I also have no idea if this is an accurate depiction of Sicilian culture, but at times it seems like a travel show, which is pleasant enough. So, if you are a Mob movie fan and would like to see something different, (and possibly more accurate,) or if you would like to broaden your horizons and see a European film that is not torturous, so you can brag about being cultured and sophisticated, or if you would like to visit Sicily, or if you need to learn how to wax your mustache, this movie is worth checking out.

BLAST OF SILENCE

2009-06-01T08:42:00.004-04:00

I like film noir. But, for reasons I can't explain, noir films made after the genre's heyday in the 40's just don't "feel" right to me. This one was made in 1961. Maybe times had changed enough in twenty years and the horrors of the Great Depression and WWII were far enough removed from the national psyche that filmmakers and actors weren't tapping into despair and misery like they used to. Maybe the post-war bliss made them soft, and the Cultural Revolution hadn't turned everything inside out yet. Anyway, it's a pretty cool little movie about a hit man, and the adventures of the sordid characters who inhabit the underworld. The opening is great, the process of being born into a dystopian world, where your first experience is a brutal smack, is narrated over a black screen with a pinprick of light. We soon learn we are passing not through a birth canal, but through a train tunnel into the cold, naked city. This is the sort of opening that lets you know you're in for something cool. Unfortunately, for me, the movie didn't live up to it's opening. I liked the gritty, realistic, low-budget, non-Hollywood style. Maybe I'm just not a big fan of the gangster genre. Probably because, unlike many suburban white males, I harbor no fantasies about being this kind of person. Still, I found it entertaining enough, gangster fans, and film noir fans without my peculiar hang-up, will definitely dig it. I was happy with the ending, I would've lost all respect for the movie if it ended the other way.

ONE WHOLE YEAR OF WACKINESS

2009-05-29T11:16:00.002-04:00

So, it's been a whole year since I started this nonsense, here are a few fun facts:

Movies reviewed: 118 (I know I missed a few)
5 aliens: 7
4 aliens: 48
3 aliens: 37
2 aliens: 19
1 alien: 7

Countries visitors have come from: 19
US States visitors have come from: 29 (and DC)
Money earned from Google AdSense: $0.29
Best search query that lead people mistakenly here: "escort girl in ct"

ALICE'S RESTAURANT

2009-05-11T08:28:00.008-04:00

A classic counter-culture film, based on a classic counter-culture song. Unfortunately, even an eighteen minute song needs a bit of padding to be expanded into a full-length movie. So, we get the whole back story which led up to the famous (and true) incident with the garbage and subsequent "massacree", and not all of it is particularly interesting. (I could've done without the motorcycle race, for instance.) But, as a lover of all things counter-culture, I still dug it. Despite a bit of superfluity, I loved it for it's style and themes. It seems to document whatever was going on in Arlo's life at the time, and needless to say, the folk music soundtrack is top-notch. The events of the song form the centerpiece of the movie, but I felt like the point got a little buried in there, like we're too distracted with the other characters and their stories. Perhaps an eighteen minute song is the better medium for Arlo to make his point, and what a point it is. Every bit as valid and important as it was forty years ago, the absurdity that the hand full of maniacs (on "our side" and "theirs") have the right to force people to risk life, limb and sanity to expand their power-base. It's every bit as tragically hilarious now that the army actually in real life decided that Arlo wasn't "moral" enough and hadn't "rehabilitated himself" to the point where he could go off to Vietnam and commit the sort of atrocities that normally horrify the public into stupefaction in the name of capitalism. The atrocities in Vietnam, the first "televised war," were projected right into the living rooms of America, which did a lot to alter the old "we're the good guys, they're the bad guys" attitudes. Artists, singers, and free thinkers like Arlo did a lot to change these attitudes, too. I was disappointed that his advise to prospective draftees was not included in the film, to gleefully sing the song at your physical, in the hopes that you would be taken for either insane or homosexual. I was also disappointed that kids today aren't exposed to this movie, or the song. Where are the folk singers now, when there are still people in this country who believe the wars in the Middle East have anything to do with "enduring freedom"? But then I realized, it's been forty years, and those damn hippy kids are now old enough to be the dominant force in our culture. They raised the people who are now young adults, and most young adults today understand what the government is really all about. And, despite a shortage of troops, THERE IS NO DRAFT! Even the previous administration knew that if they tried that, this country would EXPLODE! So, SUCCESS! The fire Arlo lit is still burning, and spreading. Who can say how many people were touched by his message, and woke up. How far will it spread? Can we wake up everyone? What would happen then, the next time the maniacs who run one side of the imaginary line decide to pick a fight with the maniacs who run the other side? They'd have no one to go fight for them. They'd try to force people to do it, but how would they? The only way they can enforce their will is through the army, what if there was no army? They'd just be a handful of maniacs screaming at each other over an imaginary line. Maybe they'd actually go fight themselves, and kill each other off. Ahh, to dream...If one thing can be said for the establishment, William ("Officer Obie") Obanhein played himself in the film. This shows that, despite being "The Man", he was a fun guy with a sense of humor.

BLOWUP

2009-05-04T09:47:00.004-04:00

A total dud. One of the few that they've shown, but a total, vapid dud. My wife said at first she was moderately interested in the women's hair and clothing styles, but it faded quickly. I suppose it was innovative in 1966 to have your leading man be a jerk, and I think we're supposed to admire him regardless, but I sure didn't. I also suppose brief partial nudity was shocking, but this is that sort of movie where ABSOLUTELY NOTHING HAPPENS and it's supposed to be "art." How many times do we have to see what it looks like when someone takes a picture? Do we need to see EVERY step a guy takes as he walks from point A to point B? TCM's description was: "A photographer discovers a murder in the background of a candid photo." OK, I assumed that would happen within the first five minutes of the movie. Oh no, the movie builds to that, taking a looooooooooooong time to establish that this guy is an asshole photographer, and taunting us with the expectation of a pay-off, or at least SOMETHING happening! Even the three-way naked wrestling match is not just compensation for enduring the tedium. (I CAN'T BELIEVE I JUST TYPED THAT! BUT IT'S TRUE!!) As for a big pay-off at the end, don't ask me. I just couldn't take it. I bailed. I do not regret it. I suppose it could be viewed as an example presenting the 60's "mod" style, but the same effect could have been accomplished through the use of still pictures. Moving pictures are generally utilized when a story is to be told, or at least when someone wishes to convey some sort of movement, or the progression in time of events that people may find interesting. I believe still photography was the filmmakers' true medium, as evidenced by the fact that the movie poster is pretty good. It does, however, claim to advertise "the best film of 1966." Need I remind you that this is the same year that blessed us with Rat Pfink a Boo Boo AND Manos: The Hands of Fate, both of which i enjoyed IMMENSELY more.

EVIL DEAD 2: DEAD BY DAWN

2009-05-04T08:48:00.009-04:00

It's a blend of horror and comedy that actually works! How often does a movie that blends ANY genres actually work?! It's also proof that they didn't stop making cool, wacky low-budget horror films in the 70's. I doubt it would've worked if not for the great BRUCE CAMPBELL!!! Who else could have pulled off the old "being attacked by your own hand" bit so well? There are so many totally unique, off the wall bits in this movie, I'm not going to record them all, I don't want to ruin it for you. I will say they show off the sadly fading arts of makeup, animatronics, and stop-motion animation, all of which CG is just now beginning to catch up with. Sam Raimi masterfully takes us on a thrill ride, wasting NO time (unlike certain movies TCM showed after this one...) before poor Ash has to lop off his girlfriend's head with a shovel. He shows what a director who cares about his art, and wants to make movies that genuinely entertain us can do. Don't expect much plot, it's basically just a haunted house movie, but it's got a style all its own. The fast cuts, the dramatic perspective, the anguished close-ups, it looks like a comic book! Specifically, it looks like the great old EC horror comics. It has their tone of extreme violence, all-in-good-fun too. It's so refreshing that someone gets that a premise as goofy as the dead coming back to life and attacking the living should be treated this way. (Not that it can't work when played straight...) Sam kept his same style and sense of fun when he hit it big in Hollywood, and he gave us TWO great Spider-man movies. The reason 3 was sub-par was that the big-shots convinced him to add characters and sub-plots that he didn't want to. This is what's so astounding about Hollywood, the guy gave them two great movies that everyone loved AND made them a ton of money, yet they still think they know better than him. Non-creative people are mystified by and fearful of creative people, and resentful and envious of them because they could ever do what they do, and they NEED them to make money. Oh well, according to Orson Welles it was always like that.

LET THE GOOD TIMES ROLL

2009-04-28T08:47:00.005-04:00

Essentially a concert movie, which is great if you like the music, but horrific if you don't. In this case the music is 50's Rock 'n Roll, which I don't despise, but don't particularly like. Honestly, I wasn't looking forward to this one, but I actually really liked it. Rather than a simple recording of a concert, it's a nostalgic look back at the 50's from 1973, presenting just how much things had changed in a couple of decades. What really makes it are the interspersed film clips and photos that illustrate the times. I wish I was hip enough to identify them all, but you'll have fun trying to yourself. The hi-light for me was The Day the Earth Stood Still. No narration, no script, the music, performers, and images speak for themselves. Particularly amusing are the clips of crusty old squares pontificating on the evils of this new devil music and the corruption of the young, if only they had any idea what was coming in the 60's...In 1973, what had seemed outrageous and scandalous in the 50's now seemed quaint and innocent. Only briefly touched upon is the fact that a lot of these crusty old white squares didn't like the idea of their white kids looking up in admiration at these black people, and jumping around in wanton pagan ecstasy actually enjoying themselves! The heathens! Anyway, every one of these performers blows the roof off the dump, oh, how gone are the days when popular entertainers had to be fantastically talented...Funny how the music is so intrinsically a sign of those times, yet its quality and appeal is timeless...But alas, it's time had passed, the world had heard The Beatles, and there was no going back. I'm more of a 60's fan myself, but for those 50's-philes this is a fun tribute to a unique and fascinating period.

TCM IS A BUNCH OF GUTLESS COWARDS

2009-04-15T10:30:00.022-04:00

On the TCM Underground schedule, which is posted well in advance on their website, it was long stated that we would be treated to a showing of a film entitled Massacre at Central High. Naturally, I was intrigued. Yet, as the scheduled date approached, the movie mysteriously vanished from the schedule without explanation. If you're like me, you'd want to know why. Well, I looked it up, and apparently it involves a massacre at a high school. Moreover, those massacred are bullies who have pushed the wrong kid just a little too far. I quickly deduced that the reason the movie was pulled is that precisely this happened a few years back in a little town called Columbine. I assume TCM voluntarily chose not to show the film, (ON THE ADVICE OF THEIR ATTORNEYS,) rather than risk a backlash which could have resulted in financial repercussions.

The first outrage is that these days attorneys have this kind of power to restrict our freedoms. So the movie wasn't on, no big deal? Think about it, we just lost our freedom to watch this film. That's one freedom gone. Nobody will even notice, or remember. But, how often does this happen? How many freedoms are whittled away with "nobody noticing?" How soon before we have none left? This is exactly how free societies evolve into oppressed ones, gradually, little by little, one little "no big deal" freedom at a time.

The blame falls first on the sickeningly greedy attorneys who have made this sort of litigation commonplace, and the corrupt judges and brain-dead juries who allow it to happen. This could be one of the contributing factors of the downfall of our society. I truly believe that future generations will look back on this absurd, backward, destructive aspect of our society with the same disgust that we now view the medieval witch hunts and the Spanish Inquisition.

Obviously those who would feel most strongly that the film should not be shown are those most affected by the tragedy, the parents of the victims. These are also those whose emotions are capitalized upon by the attorneys. They alleviate their distraught clients with the creation of a scapegoat. Ozzy Osbourne never caused anyone to commit suicide, Beavis and Butthead did not cause a kid to play with fire. The attorneys know it is far easier, (AND MORE PROFITABLE,) to convince the grieving parents that they did. This also frees the parents from examining their own failure at raising their children. It is the parent's responsibility to raise a child the be emotionally healthy enough so he doesn't want to die, and to teach a small child not to play with fire, and to supervise him if he's too young (or disobedient) to understand. (I know that there are some kids who, despite the best parenting in the world, are still unstable due to chemical imbalances. Now that I've pissed off the lawyers, I may as well have a go at the doctors. As an aside, there is new, STRONG evidence that some chemical imbalances can be treated with simple nutrition, a fact the American Medical Association and the pharmaceutical industry don't want you to know.)

Clearly, the Columbine parents wouldn't enjoy seeing a film depicting what their child, who THEY raised to be a bully, may have done to those unstable kids that pushed them over the edge. Why? I think the movie could be a great tool of education. How many "experts" spent how much money trying to determine why it happened? Adults have forgotten (or chose to forget) how pervasive bullying is throughout all of school. It may be intrinsic to human nature. Will not showing a film about it make it go away? Those who choose to bury their heads in the sand and convince themselves that their ignoring of the issue will make it disappear win out over those who would honestly and strongly acknowledge, address, and attempt to deal with it. Maybe if some of those Columbine bullies had seen this film, they may have thought twice about picking on those "different" kids. (I know some kids who never bothered anyone were also killed at Columbine. Of course I sympathize with their families.)

TCM may also be afraid that the movie could lead to "copycat" incidents. This is of course ridiculous, someone is either unstable or they aren't. If someone is unstable enough to cause a massacre, they're going to do it wether they saw it in a movie or not. It's true, someone may have seen this and said "Hey, that looks like a good idea," but anyone capable of that sort of thing could be sparked by anything to act on their impulses. They could just want to impress Jodie Foster! Some bastard lawyer could make the case that TCM is somehow responsible for this unstable person's actions, and the result is that we, the vast majority of humanity who would never massacre anybody, are deprived of our freedom. How many millions of people have seen how many millions of acts of violence on film and have never once had the urge to replicate them? For this argument to have any validity, the majority of people who view acts of violence in movies would have to feel compelled to repeat them.

Whoever made the call at TCM is also not without blame. They decided it was much easier to just not show the damn movie than face the POSSIBILITY of repercussions. I would've respected them if they had shown the move, then if anyone complained, stood their ground and asserted their right to free speech, and to broadcast whatever they want. IF SOMEONE DOESN'T WANT TO WATCH IT, THEY DON'T HAVE TO! BUT, WHAT RIGHT DO THEY HAVE TO PREVENT OTHERS WHO WANT TO FROM WATCHING IT?! TCM is supposed to be devoted to preserving and presenting the ART of film. Showing this film would have made an honorable statement that ALL art should be made available to those who wish to view it. (Don't think I'm not thankful and impressed they've shown films the likes of Blood Feast and The World's Greatest Sinner, but I'm not letting them slide on this one.) The censorship of art is one of the favorite techniques of fascists for taking over. It's something the Founding Fathers were well aware of and tried their best to insure would never happen in America, by means of an obscure, little-remembered document entitled the "Bill of Rights" or something.

So, what does it all mean? It means I'm pissed that the state of our society today is such that I can't watch what looks like a really cool, subversive, unique movie with something profound to say from the heart of the nihilistic horror boom of the 70's, in a country where I'm supposed to be able to watch whatever I want, and future generations will probably not be able to watch anything remotely seditious, challenging, or intellectually stimulating, and no one cares, because lawyers and executives are greedy pigs. No one has the right to prevent anyone from watching what they want to, just as no one has the right to force someone to watch something they don't want to. The maniacs who wish to devote their lives to telling other people what they can and can't do now have the ability to do this, due to unscrupulous lawyers who have figured out how to capitalize on it, and intimidated executives who would rather sacrifice their (AND OUR) freedom than actually show some backbone and STAND FOR SOMETHING and risk financially bad consequences. This also adds to my growing disappointment over the deteriorating quality of TCM Underground. (I actually have a new favorite thing on TV, Deadliest Warrior on Spike. Last night they showed what would happen if a Viking fought a Samurai. It may well be THE coolest thing EVER.)

Honestly, if anyone from TCM reads this, and there is some other reason the film was pulled, just let me know and I will promptly retract all statements and publish a full apology. It would've been nice if we had been given an explanation.

If you want to spend the money for the DVD, here you go, but it seems to be pretty rare, so if you want it get it soon.

THE LEGEND OF HELL HOUSE

2009-03-30T09:20:00.008-04:00

It's a British horror film, which means it's refined, stylish, beautiful, and sloooooooow. Released shortly after The Exorcist, rather than claim to be based on "true events," a (probably hastily added) disclaimer at the beginning assures us that the events depicted COULD POSSIBLY EXIST!!! Hooray, that means NOTHING!!! It's even harder to take seriously when most of the phenomena in question has long since been proven to be Victorian camera trickery. But still, it's worth checking out for fans of gothic horror in the old style. It's slightly more intense than such films of a decade earlier, one can see we are on the threshold of the golden age of 70's horror. Unfortunately, at times you may find yourself lulled off to sleep, waiting for something to happen. When it does happen it's pretty cool, the ghost is always an unseen, furniture tossing presence. It gets a little silly as it moves from bad parapsychology into bad science, and they try to beat the ghost using some goofy machine that was probably part of an old 50's sci-fi set. Then it gets very silly as Roddy ("Cornelius") McDowall defeats him by childishly resorting to taunting him about his physical attributes. Overall, it was entertaining, but mediocre on the cult scale. I've been quite disappointed by the string of mediocrity TCM has given us lately. If you had tuned to IFC while TCM was airing this, you could've been watching The Texas Chainsaw Massacre!

NIGHTMARE HONEYMOON

2009-03-17T09:34:00.005-04:00

It starts out like a soap opera, but hang in there, it gets good. More a psychological thriller than a horror film, as the title would imply. It does manage to thrill, the plot is good enough to keep you interested. It could almost be a Hitchcock film, if the talent was up to par. It's one of those "it could happen to you in an instant, what would you do?" stories like The Man Who Knew Too Much. But, the pacing is off, and the end drags out for too long, and the hero is uninspiring and underdeveloped, it ultimately comes off as an amateur B-movie. The 70's were the golden age of this crap, this is one of many that were churned out. Still, if you dig this stuff it's an interesting forgotten little movie with some very dark subject matter that's worth seeing once. It would be interesting to see what Hitchcock would do with this story.

SHACK OUT ON 101

2009-03-17T08:52:00.006-04:00

I like film noir. I also like diners, the Cold War, and Lee Marvin. So, I was looking forward to this one. All of the above are well represented, and it's a bad movie with strange elements. For me, it's more of a "strange" than a "fun" cult film. It's basically an utter failure of a film on all levels that happens to feature a legendary actor early in his career. The plot is almost incomprehensible and rather far fetched, (A communist spy is masquerading as a short order cook,) and there are some bizarre visuals, (Lee and his pal each put an end of a towel in their mouths and punch each other in the stomach for fun,) this is a particularly strange product of the paranoia bred in the McCarthy era, when ANYONE could be a commie, and EVERY American had a duty to keep an eye on his neighbors. I prefer the horror and sci-fi films where the red menace is symbolized by aliens, giant insects, and the like. You may get a kick out of seeing Lee as a strapping young lad, of course he steals the show. He's well on his way to being one of the best bad guys in film history. Here he makes the most of of playing a guy called "Slob." (How great is that?) Apart form an oddly displaced scene of two shirtless men lifting weights and admiring one another's physiques, it's got no more sex, violence, or adult subject matter than your average noir film of the period. The "humor" can be a bit grating at times. The dialogue is awful and strange, as is the slang. Have you ever heard "tomato" (or "tomatah") used as slang for a girl anywhere else? I wonder how Lee and veteran Keenan Wynn said their lines with straight faces. They are also directed very badly, I couldn't tell if these people were meant to be a bunch of friends who playfully rib each other or if they generally despised each other and could snap at any moment. They change moods so quickly and frequently you'd think they were all menstruating. It left me with a feeling of vague puzzlement, I wasn't quite sure what I had just experienced. It did grow on me the second time I watched it. I was less confused and more amused, knowing what (and what not) to expect, but not quite enough to give it another alien.

SWEET JESUS, PREACHER MAN

2009-03-12T08:15:00.004-04:00

This one's a bit more in line with typical blaxploitation than Willie Dynamite. The opening's great, almost immediately we are treated to some very creative and graphic violence. Unfortunately, the movie quickly fizzles and meanders aimlessly, it's nowhere near on par with the greats of the genre like Coffy. The premise is awesome, a hit man goes under cover as a minister, kicking ass all the way. (One thinks of the Clint Eastwood film Pale Rider...) We also get that great blaxploitation staple, the white racist jerk for him to beat up on! There are some great quotes, ("This is HONKEY food!") and some spectacular afros. Worth watching if you're a fan of the genre, but it gets kind of complicated and hard to follow, exploitation films should NOT attempt to be plot driven. I don't want to give the impression it's boring, it earns points for a wonderfully gratuitous (and lengthy) strip scene. Also of note, it features Marla Gibbs, who played sassy, Billy D. Williams obsessed maid "Florence" to George and Weezie Jefferson. (She's not the stripper.)

WILLIE DYNAMITE

2009-03-09T09:15:00.008-04:00

"Mommy, why is Gordon smacking the lady?" This is what you would hear if you were a bad parent and played this movie during your preschooler's Sesame Street time. This fairly unremarkable blaxploitation romp is noteworthy for the bizarre fact that the titular character is portrayed by Roscoe Orman, best known for playing the lovable positive black role-model "Gordon" we all grew up with. I guess in 1974 he was a struggling young actor taking any work that came along, and couldn't bet that this experimental new educational kid's show stuff would last. To his and Sesame Street's credit, as of 2009, he's still Gordon. If he weren't, this movie would probably be forgotten, it's pretty light on the sex and violence by exploitation standards. For blaxploitation fans, it has all the staples, the pimp suits, pimpmobile, and quotable pimp dialogue are all represented. Toward the end it attempts to elicit pathos, and almost becomes a legitimate drama. It ultimately falls flat, due to bad over-acting, implausibility, and the fact that it's trying to be too many different things, not fully committing to anything. But who cares? Blaxploitation is supposed to be wacky fun, which this movie is. Check out the scenes showing the post-apocalyptic wasteland New York was in the 70's. The fact that most of it isn't like that anymore has got to be due in some small part to the far-sighted efforts of Sesame Street. Good for you, Gordon!

EDDIE AND THE CRUISERS

2009-02-03T09:17:00.009-05:00

"You know what this movie is? Mawkish." So spake my girlfriend, who talks real good. I didn't know the word, so for the benefit of us ignoramuses: "Sentimental in a feeble or sickly way; having a faint sickly flavor." Perfect. There is nothing faintly respectable or interesting about this movie. It does NOT have "so bad it's good" charm, this is the sort of movie you scowl at, then turn your back and walk away shaking your head. It is NOT goofy fun to laugh at, it is PAINFUL. It wants SO MUCH to be intriguing and nostalgic, and fails SO thoroughly. It lacks the intrigue of your average Hardy Boys mystery. It is less a movie than a midlife crisis, filmmaker Martin Davidson's midlife crisis, making a crappy movie about nitwits having midlife crises, apparently for nitwits having midlife crises. The concept for the film rests on the character of Eddie, meant to be a legend the caliber of Elvis, a visionary the caliber of John Lennon, and a tortured artiste the caliber of Jim Morrison. Michael Paré lacks the charisma to portray an artist the caliber of Donny Osmond. Add to this over-acting, bad acting, bad dialogue, and rife mawkishness, and the whole thing tumbles like a house of cards. Some of the faux-Springsteen music John Cafferty wrote for the movie went on to popular success, but this is the kind of music listened to by jocks, played in supermarkets, and considered acceptable by parents to listen to with their kids in the car. There is no need for this kind of music. There is also no need for this kind of movie. If you can make it, toward the end it starts to turn into an episode of Scooby Doo. If you are a glutton for mawk and make it to the very end, the movie throws one more BRUTAL cheap shot at you. It feels like you've just endured a savage beating, you're curled up on the ground reeling, then WHAM! This merciless movie nails you right in the prairie oysters. And then they made a sequel.

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THE FABULOUS STAINS

2009-02-02T10:21:00.004-05:00

At first, one might think this is just another cheesy 80's teen movie, along the lines of the magnificently painful Legend of Billie Jean. One would be mistaken, this movie's actually pretty good! Diane Lane is a good actress, and even at 15 she had the talent to pull off a kid with insight beyond her years without seeming corny. She carries this movie, it's really about her coming of age. With virtuoso gen-x cynicism, she sees right through the inadequacy of the dysfunctional adults and their society, even spurning the transcendent philosophy of her Rastafarian manager. Even with her insight, alas, she lacks the wisdom that only comes with years. This is why the movie works, it seems real, a very difficult feat for this genre. We grow up with her as she learns the ugly truths about fads, capitalism, that great flock of sheep known as "the public", and the popular entertainment business. The movie is also cool because punk (REAL punk) is timelessly cool, and it features actual musicians from actual bands The Sex Pistols, The Clash, and The Tubes. At the end we are treated to a simulation of a music video from this time, MTV's early days, when it actually WAS cool and edgy. Of particular interest is how The Stains are starkly contrasted with The Andrews Sisters, the blindly patriotic female faces of popular music just two short generations ago.

VIVA LAS VEGAS

2009-01-26T10:28:00.006-05:00

I don't like Elvis. Amongst my other dislikes are gambling and car racing. So, the only way I got through this AWFUL movie is that I like 60's pop culture. Elvis is such an icon that it's a sublime act of goofiness to watch an Elvis movie. This is so blatantly a quick, cheap hack job to slap together a vehicle to establish Elvis and Ann as teen idols, and relieve those teens of as much money as possible before they grow out of it. Remember, this was a relatively new phenomenon at the time. While this form of entertainment is still going strong, this is old enough that it's nostalgic. The movie doesn't really have anything to do with Las Vegas, beyond what may as well be stock footage and a few fun facts about the Hoover dam. It could've taken place anywhere singing waiters race cars. It is the movie's total shallowness and stupidity, as well as its "time capsule" appeal, that give it its minimal watchability. (And Ann's convulsing, if you happen to be a heterosexual male.) The attempts at comedy are painful, I can't imagine there was ever a time when someone getting sprayed with champagne was considered hilarious. It's also interesting to watch Elvis in his prime with the hindsight we have now. The legend says he and Ann had an affair after this movie. She went on to a long and successful career, with a couple of Oscar nominations. We all know what happened to him.

He did, however, give us THE most hilarious photograph ever taken:

THE SWINGER

2009-01-26T09:48:00.004-05:00

Ann-Margret is one of those old-fashioned stars who did it all, acted, sang, danced...In her case, the dancing was her strong point. I find it VERY irritating that she uses a hyphenated name, I am annoyed to be typing it. Her name is Ann-Margret Olsson, her character in this film uses that last name, why couldn't she in real life? This one-name business is a TERRIBLE habit of celebrities, but I guess the ugly truth is that when you look like that you can do what you want. Naturally, this movie's most obvious appeal comes from staring at her for 81 minutes. Beyond that, this movie may mark the actual fulcrum of the cultural revolution. In 1966, Kennedy had already been shot, The Beatles were already gods, and "the scene" was starting in San Francisco. This movie is, interestingly, a hybrid of the light-hearted comedies of the old order and the freewheeling filth of the sexual revolution. It never ventures into downright "dirtiness", but it walks the line, well within the range of "naughtiness" that would have been totally unacceptable a half-decade earlier. We also get a few groovy Richard Lester-esque techniques. The intro song is a shining example of 60's pop art. It even plays with a little surrealism and absurdism, three years before Monty Python. The humor, however, falls totally flat for me. The story is not interesting or entertaining, or weird. Best viewed as a historical example of all things groovy.

THE UNHOLY THREE (TALKIE VERSION)

2009-01-19T11:17:00.009-05:00

Midget night continues as we are treated to Lon Chaney's last film and only talkie, the remake of The Unholy Three. I liked it better that the original, although silent films have a charm and style all their own, let's face it, it's MUCH easier to follow a talkie. Seeing both versions of this script really illustrated just how big a revolution sound was in the movies, and how amazed the audience must have been. Chaney is one of the greatest actors of all time, as fascinating as it is to watch him pantomime in the silents, here we see he is more than capable of performing with his voice(s). It's actually kind of strange to see him speak. Harry Earles will always be best remembered for Freaks, but he really shines in this one. He really hams it up and shows how evil he can be. The poor guy had genuine talent, it's a shame he couldn't seem to get cast as anything other than a midget pretending to be a baby. The script from the original remains largely intact, as bizarre as ever, although slightly fleshed out. Unfortunately, Tod Browning did not direct this one, so his unique eerie style is missing. It just looks like a typical crime drama from the period. The remake also uses a guy in a gorilla costume rather than a real chimp and trick photography. The real chimp was much more effective. The ending is eerily prophetic and unintentionally sad, Lon waves goodbye as his train fades into the distance. He would die seven weeks after the film was released, at only 47 and with plenty of success undoubtedly in store for him. There's never been another like him, and now we're stuck with the likes of Nicolas Cage.

THE TERROR OF TINY TOWN

2009-01-19T10:06:00.008-05:00

There are certain films whose reputations precede them, I was really looking forward to this one. I must say I was a little disappointed, the title is very misleading. It sounds like a horror film, but there is no "terror" to speak of beyond the typical evil cowboy melodrama. I guess they figured it needed an exploitative title. This is one of those rare and precious films that is remarkable simply for the fact that it exists. In a time when the term "midget" is considered by some to be offensive, (like practically every other term for describing a person,) it is a refreshing breath of politically incorrect air to see a film boasting an "ALL MIDGET CAST!" Mind you these people are "midgets", as opposed to "dwarfs", indicating they are smaller than average with proportionate bodies and a child-like appearance. In case you're wondering why you don't see so many midgets anymore, (who isn't?) their condition is caused by a growth hormone deficiency which is now treatable. Dwarfs, on the other hand, have a genetic condition called achondroplasia, which results in short limbs and a disproportionate body. It is not treatable. So, here we are with an all midget cast. What makes the movie truly bizarre is that there is absolutely NO acknowledgement that they are a town of midgets, and NO explanation of why there is a town of midgets! This is simply a dumb cliche western script performed entirely by midgets! In fact, as we see no normal sized people at all, the total effect of their being midgets would be lost, if not for the fact that everything in the town is (inexplicably) too big for them. Everything but their horses, but they do keep one full-sized horse around, apparently just for shoeing purposes. As for the scrip, it's pretty boring and lame, it wouldn't even be worth watching if performed by average sized people. And most of the midget actors are pretty bad, (it's almost as if they said, "They can't act? Who cares, they're MIDGETS!") But, this is the sort of cult film that induces its euphoric glee by allowing you to say, "I spent 62 minutes of my precious little time on earth watching an EXTREMELY kooky movie." It's also a wonderful relic from long, long ago before political correctness was invented to destroy all the fun in the universe. Would modern people with growth abnormalities be offended at being billed as "Jed Buell's Midgets" as if they were property? Or, although their characters had names in the movie, being objectified in the credits by such descriptions as "The Hero, The Villain, The Girl..." Probably, but I think the people in this film were glad to have work during the Depression, and were just having fun making a goofy movie. I think they understood the dangers of taking oneself (or anything else) too seriously.

THE OLD DARK HOUSE

2009-01-16T15:50:00.004-05:00

Wow, they don't make them like this anymore! What a truly unique and wacky black comedy! From way back in 1932, before movie cliches were the norm...Here we get old veteran British actors contrasted with the last of the flappers. There are few thing more amusing and unsettling than old people hooting and cavorting maniacally. It's like a live action cartoon! Karloff gets top billing, but he actually has a minor role in the film. It seems to me the marketing material was quickly altered on the heels of his smash success in Frankenstein. He's nowhere near as compelling here as a deranged bearded butler, and they still haven't realized that people may enjoy him speaking. I like Charles Laughton, and here we get to see his wacky side. Sadly, we won't get much more of it as his career goes on. It turns out we're lucky to have seen this film, it was considered lost until a copy was discovered in the vault in 1968. Highly recommended for fans of gothic horror and early talkies, the phrase "have a potato" will never sound the same again.

THE AMITYVILLE HORROR

2009-01-16T15:23:00.006-05:00

A classic modern horror film, like Poltergeist, maybe a little too classic to be a cult film. Despite being produced by AIP, it's a bit too mainstream and well-known for cult status. It's a good movie, albeit a typical haunted house story. What set this one apart, however, like The Exorcist, (on whose coattails it solidly rode,) is that this one was (allegedly) absolutely TRUE! Yes, even in the modern, cynical 70's, when science could explain just about anything and every inch of the earth had been explored and mapped, YOUR HOUSE COULD STILL BE HAUNTED! Your Dad, even if he looked like a burly Kenny Loggins, could become A POSSESSED AXE-WIELDING MANIAC! I think the appeal of these "true" horror movies comes from modern man's longing for mystery and the unexplained. Witness the current popularity of "ghost hunting" tv shows. It also seems to play on the fears any homeowner knows about the costs of maintaining a house. You clean the stains off the walls, then the toilet starts bleeding black sludge. You fix the toilet, then the kids get sick (or possessed?)...Is this the TRUE horror of suburbia? Anyhoo, Nowadays just about everything about this story has been either debunked or proven to be exaggerated, the Lutzes didn't seem too traumatized to enjoy their newfound fame. Personally, if there was black sludge in my basement I would suspect a problem with the plumbing well ahead of a portal to hell. The house is still there, the subsequent owners have reported nothing unusual. It's still a fun horror film, and some of the reactions are over the top enough to induce laughter. I particularly enjoy the scene where the nun vomits, that's something you don't see every day. I suggest rewinding and watching it repeatedly, the noise she makes becomes increasingly hilarious. The increasingly low-budget sequels, however, descend deep into "so bad it's good" territory.

RIP RAY DENNIS STECKLER

2009-01-16T09:47:00.008-05:00

I was just going to use this site to review the TCM Underground films, but for this post I'm breaking the format. On January 7, 2009, the world got a little less incredibly strange. Ray Dennis Steckler, one of the Old Masters of low budget indy film, passed on to the great rockabilly beach party in the sky. The Incredibly Strange Creatures has a strange hold over me, it seems I like it more every time I see it. It has a unique vibe, an aura, that puts me in a state of nirvana-like hypnosis like when I listen to Sgt. Pepper. This surreal otherworldliness could have only come from the 60's. And there are few things that equal the joy of watching some poor unsuspecting dupe experience Rat Pfink a Boo Boo with no foreknowledge! That movie seems to have the power to break down psychological barriers and expand consciousness to cosmic levels. How long did it take you to get that music out of your head? I was a little disappointed (and amused) to learn that he was a bad sport about his film being MSTed. Perhaps he took offense to being compared to an Australopithecus and an Easter Island statue, (both of which are true.) Or maybe he didn't care for his wife being compared to a man, (which is somewhat true.) Also, he seemed to be under the impression that he was making "good" movies! He was an artist with a true vision, and he got it produced for all the world to see, HIS way, and on HIS terms. That is a treat we get to experience all too rarely. I also think it's really cool that he tends to die dramatically in all his films. Life will now be a little better paced, and a little more intelligible, yet a little less oily, and a little less mixed-up.

My sister says TCM should do a tribute to him. I agree.

"The WORLD'S my college."

SONNY BOY

2009-01-09T15:37:00.006-05:00

This is the movie Pulp Fiction SHOULD have been. This is the kind of bizarreness, depravity, and style that Quentin Tarantino is but a pale imitation of. Unique cinema in every sense of the word, horrific subject matter is presented with spectacular cinematography and pretty folk music. Brad Dourif is great as (what else) a maniac, but in this one he's a different kind of maniac. The show is, however, unquestionably stolen by David Carradine, who may or may not be glad that very few people have seen this movie. I'm an old Kung Fu fan, and he'll always be Kwai Chang to me. When he looks at Slue and says he won't let him hurt the baby, he looks just like he did when Kwai Chang was about to kick somebody's ass, just in drag. Awesome. Slue is established very early on as a totally despicable hulking brute, at the end you actually feel sorry for him. These obscure gems remind us of what the medium is capable in the hands of a mad genius, probably with serious Freudian issues. Mainstream directors wish they had this kind of vision! If you think you like Tarantino, see this. THIS is subversive cinema, not a fan trying to emulate subversive cinema.

POLTERGEIST

2009-01-05T10:54:00.006-05:00

Usually, TCM Underground pairs its movies logically. A common director, a common actor, a similar theme. So, when they show the ultra-obscure, absurdly bad, nano-budgeted Blood Freak, they pair it with the very well known, highly influential, acclaimed, macro-budgeted Poltergeist? I looked for some connection, I could find none, other than they both contain the letters "l", "o", "r", and "e" in their titles. The only thing I can think of is that they chose it as a polar opposite, the other end of the horror film spectrum. Ok...my thoughts on Poltergeist. It's a very well known, highly influential, acclaimed, macro-budgeted mainstream horror film. It's a very good movie. But...TCM Underground is supposed to be about cult film! The bizarre! The obscure! The refreshingly unique! Stupid crap! While horror fans surely dig it, Poltergeist just doesn't fit that bill. Everyone has seen it. Most people will agree that it's a good movie. If you showed Blood Freak or The Incredibly Strange Creatures to any middle American slob would they like it? Dammit, this is our secret club! We search under forgotten rocks and scrape the bottoms of filthy barrels for the truly unique viewing experience. The likes of Speilberg have no place here. But, I couldn't give this movie a bad rating, it's still fun to watch, and it makes a very unsettling point about American Suburbia. We have reached unparalleled material luxury and comfort, but at the expense of our spiritual well-being. We have lost all respect for all other beings, living and dead, and it could come back to haunt us. (I don't buy into that "curse" crap, though.)

BLOOD FREAK

2009-01-03T00:34:00.005-05:00

......
......
......

(That was stunned silence.)

"Stunned" may not be the word. On to the thesaurus...astounded, amazed, astonished, dumbfounded, stupefied, staggered, shocked, taken aback, flabbergasted, bowled over. Put them all together and you may approach the effect this movie has on a reasonably healthy human psyche. There is "so bad it's good", there is bizarreness, there is exploitation, and then there is this. The brainchild of Brad Grintner, best known for "nudie cutie" flicks, here he delves into horror exploitation, kingdom of the great Herschell Gordon Lewis. He is clearly working in the style of Lewis, he even names his leading man after him. It reminds me of the way an artist will sometimes do a painting inspired by or derived from a work by an old master, and credit him in the title, such as "...after Monet." I would love to write something like "Grintner makes Herschell Gordon Lewis look like Hitchcock," but alas, I cannot. The work of the novice is on par with that of the master. In fact, in some areas he may exceed him, (like DaVinci did,) such as the use of non-actors, as distinct from bad actors, and rather peculiar looking ones at that. And, the way with grand egoism he interrupts the movie to explain to us what we should be getting from it, share a few of his philosophies, and show off his cheesy 70's faux wood paneling, all in poorly framed glory. Now, I propose, there is NO WAY HE INTENDED FOR THIS FILM TO BE TAKEN AS SERIOUS HORROR! I can understand lacks of talent and budget, but there is NO FING WAY ANYONE could come up with something so ludicrous and not expect people to laugh at it!!! I suspect he was in on the joke from the beginning, this is a parody of an HGL exploitation film!!! I believe those coughs he lets out while preaching the dangers of polluting the body, all along sucking down cancer sticks, are FAKE!!! Give the guy SOME credit, the fact that one lacks the capitol and/or talent to make successful motion pictures does not preclude him from being a student of irony. I usually try to avoid spoilers, but think about it, who would not laugh at a movie whose point is, that if you take drugs, you could wind up with THE HEAD OF A TURKEY, AND AN INSATIABLE THIRST FOR BLOOD, (like a turkey.) How could Grintner not have seen how hilarious that is? I sincerely think he got the last laugh.

ESCORT GIRL

2008-12-24T12:09:00.007-05:00

Another 30's exploitation film paired with The Road to Ruin, this one is much more fun. It's got that fast paced, in your face sex and violence that our filthy animal natures crave! While the acting is bad, it's over the top enough to make it fun. And while The Road to Ruin had an extremely cliche and bland exploitation plot, this one is much more thought out, there's a lot more going on as we eagerly watch the tragedy unfold. I get a kick out of the way Wheeler Oakman (I was curious as to wether or no that was his real name. Turns out it's Vivian Eichelberger.) delivers his lines. What would you do if you heard someone talk like that in real life? We also get a vintage burlesque strip scene! While considered the lowest form of dross at the time, enough time has passed that it is now "nostalgia." In a few decades, it will be "art."

THE ROAD TO RUIN

2008-12-24T11:52:00.004-05:00

30's exploitation is very fun. I get a kick out of seeing how people got their kicks during the Depression. This one, to me, is not a shining example of the genre. It's actually fairly typical, we follow an innocent, all-American girl as she experiences every vice the all-American establishment looked down on. We see her start with drinking and dancing, and graduate up to pre-marital sex and skinny-dipping. It's corny and goofy, but not nearly so much as the great Reefer Madness, this film lacks artistry. It's very wooden and stiff, and the bad acting hurts instead of helps. Consequently, it lacks the screwiness that makes these films so fun. Its hi-lights include actual nudity, and an EXTREMELY creepy doctor.

HORROR HOUSE

2008-12-18T08:15:00.004-05:00

Also known by the equally hollow title The Haunted House of Horror, this is one hollow movie. It is not fun. It is not scary. It is not groovy. It's not even "so bad it's good." Although ninety-nine percent of it is valueless, I gave it two alien heads, indicating that it is not totally nugatory. First, it features Frankie Avalon, trying to maintain relevance after the beach party movie bubble burst. It is funny to watch him attempting to be taken seriously, when in fact he lacks the thespian skills to convey anything deeper than "beach blanket bingo." Second, the first hour or so is SO tedious you'll be at your limit and ready to bail out, then BANG! You're Pearl Harbored with a murder scene straight out of a grindhouse splatter film! WHOA! (Then it gets totally pointless and tedious again.) If you manage to stick it out, it gets cool again at the end, for a couple of minutes. If Frankie was trying to reinvent himself, this could've done it, but unfortunately I doubt many people have ever made it to the end of this movie to see his big scene. If you're feeling masochistic, (or fast-forward,) you can TRULY see him as you've never seen him before. So, if you want to sit through 85 minutes of crap for five minutes of coolness, it's your call.

TOWER OF EVIL

2008-12-15T09:18:00.006-05:00

It's a British mystery, a splatter film, and a nudie cutie all rolled into one. Needless to say, it deserves cult status. It's so hybridized you may forget what kind of movie you're watching, it seems to have been Frankensteined together from spare parts. You're enjoying a lovely naked girl, then that naked girl is drenched in blood and wielding a knife, which is quite unsettling, (unless you are VERY weird.) The non-sequential story telling is very cool, and the look and feel of the film work very well. It's British, after all, so it's a step above your average exploitation film. There is some effort made to intrigue your human brain while cramming in sex and violence to satisfy your filthy animal urges. The plot ends up a bit cliche, though, it's the old "secret demented relative" bit found in such films as The Dunwich Horror. But, we do get one of the BEST demented relatives in film history. His confused grunts are delightful.

THE KNACK...AND HOW TO GET IT

2008-12-11T08:27:00.006-05:00

From Richard Lester, director of A Hard Day's Night and Help, comes this groovy snapshot of 60's Britain. The cinematography is consummate, the film glows with style. The cool jazzy soundtrack adds to its timeless hipness. Lester also uses a lot of "outside the box" unexpected touches, like subtitles and quick cuts, to add to the free-wheeling, anything goes, youth is king attitude. Three people pushing a bed through the streets becomes oddly beautiful, and the disapproving looks from the old folks and their ubiquitous judgmental voice-overs serve to make them look absolutely ridiculous, which is exactly the point. The mood of the cultural revolution is sufficiently communicated. But, for all this expertly polished flash, the movie for me was like a delicious candy shell...with nothing inside. There's no core, no substance holding the thing together. The comedy got a few chuckles out of me. Michael (the future Phantom of the Opera) Crawford is moderately irritating, but not nearly so much as his counterpart in the similarly themed Here We Go 'Round the Mulberry Bush. (This film is VASTLY superior to that one.) Rita Tushingham is quite charming in a pixieish sort of way. It becomes very surreal at the lion-taming scene. Not one of my favorites, but as a lover of all things 60's it was well worth a viewing.

ALL NIGHT LONG

2008-12-08T09:18:00.008-05:00

It's been said there are only a handful of stories to tell, and Shakespeare already did them all. This is a modern retelling of Othello, and it proves why these stories are timeless. Human beings haven't changed a bit in 400 years, and Shakespeare was working from earlier sources anyway. An inter-racial couple was just as shocking in 1962 as 1603. Remember, the Jim Crow laws were still in effect in the South! What really sets this film apart is the music, fantastic jazz! Even now it seems too hip for us groundlings! Iago is considered by many to be the real star of the play, he is undoubtably one of the best villains in history. He's just as fun as a jealous pothead drummer. It's also cool because it looks like film noir. So, does the high culture of the literature of the greatest writer in the history of the English language coupled with America's greatest contribution to music belong on TCM Underground, which only two weeks ago showed Monster A Go-Go? Shakespeare knew what the unwashed masses wanted. His plays are full of sex, torment, and violence. Can he be considered the father of exploitation? Will Herschell Gordon Lewis be considered high art in 400 years?

BEAT STREET

2008-12-08T08:45:00.005-05:00

This is one of those "time capsule" movies that was made to cash in on a current fad, in this case the "hip hop" movement in early 80's NYC. It may seem cheesy and dated now, but I remember when this was the very height of cool. It's never a scene I was interested in, though. I still can't understand why a style of "music" which does not require the ability to sing, play an instrument, or write original music has survived this long. But for the fans, I can understand why this film has cult status, as it showcases their founding fathers and the roots of the movement. There's not a whole lot to the movie, it's mostly a string of performances, interspersed with shots of people walking down the street. There are also a few AGONIZINGLY cliche After-School Special plots. These, combined with atrocious acting meant to elicit pathos, and a few ultra-cheesy 80's pop numbers, give it a mild "so bad it's good" flavor, which is why I was able to sit through it. To be fair, the break dancing is pretty cool to watch. I used to know a guy who grew up in the Bronx and was part of this scene at the time, he said back then it was about going to a party and having a good time, now it's about beating women and shooting people. This movie does have that fun party atmosphere. The actress who played the mom is the second Oracle from The Matrix.

THE HARDER THEY COME

2008-12-01T08:58:00.006-05:00

First, I have to say this review may be a bit skewed due to the fact that I could barely understand the dialogue in this movie. I got maybe every third or fourth word. Seriously, it needs subtitles. Anyway, what I saw was pretty good. Of course the music is good, that's what put this film on the map. I'm not the biggest reggae fan in the world, it all tends to sound the same to me. It's like they only have one song, it's a good song, but all they do is change the words a little. The music in this movie shows more variety. The title song is EXTREMELY catchy. Be warned, it will be in your head for days. The story holds up, it's a cool little drama about life in impoverished Jamaica and one talented but indigent guy's efforts to get by. It has some gratuitous sex and violence for us lovers of exploitation, but its appeal doesn't solely rest on that. It's the timeless story of the guy starting at the bottom of the ladder and his efforts to climb, whilst being kicked by those on the higher rungs all along. The oppressed everywhere will relate to it. The theme is best illustrated by the words he emblazons around the city when cops are hunting him down, "I WAS HERE."

THE GIANT SPIDER INVASION

2008-11-26T09:48:00.007-05:00

This is a very fun 50's monster movie that somehow got made in 1975. Because of that, not only do we get all the goofy fun of the 50's, but also the gratuitous eroticism of the 70's! Do not, however, expect that special effects will have improved, at least not in Wisconsin. Paired with fellow Mystery Science Theatre 3000 classic Monster A Go-Go, they both are totally watchable even without the riffing. This movie is notable for its delightfully disgusting hillbillies. Watch for lead hillbilly Dan's idiosyncratic leg lifting method of getting into a chair, particularly stomach-churning when in his long underwear. And, just when you thought a guy couldn't possibly be any ickier, we meet his cousin! Lest you think the film relies totally on stereotypes, the scientist is pretty icky himself. Of course everyone laughs at poor typecast Alan (The Skipper) Hale reduced to this, but his dreadful one-liners will quickly eliminate any sense of pity. It even has an angry redneck lynch mob! You genuinely get the feeling that a bunch of friends and a town in Wisconsin had a blast making this movie. It comes through, you will have a blast watching it. I wonder if Stephen Hawking knows his research into black holes was put to this use?

MONSTER A GO-GO

2008-11-25T15:55:00.009-05:00

This is NOT a film for noobs. If you are trying to get a friend into the ultra-hip hobby of bad movie watching, and he is at all reluctant, DO NOT start with this one. He will probably think you played a mean trick on him, or else you are an idiot. (If he gets it, make him your new best friend and show him Manos: The Hands of Fate.) Anyway, this is a gem from the great Herschell Gordon Lewis, but don't worry, you can show it to the kids. (If you HATE them.) Herschell was apparently taking a break from the grindhouse scene to get in with the drive-in crowd, and he deduced that they enjoy:

A) Monsters, and
B) Go-go.

So, he got himself a monster, which is briefly seen in the film, and shot a scene that could possibly be considered go-go dancing. Mission accomplished. (Who needs a plot?) I will now explain the Herschell Gordon Lewis method of filmmaking.

Problem:
You need to film two people having a conversation.
Solution:
A) Position actors, or at least people who can speak, facing each other in a room.
B) Position camera so that the people are somewhere near the center of the camera's field of vision.
C) Roll camera as the people speak.
D) Repeat as necessary.

The result is something so ASTONISHINGLY bad, it renders the mind incapable of conscious thought. You simply become mesmerized, entranced, released from the confines of logic and reason, adrift in the ether of uncanniness. This film is so incomprehensible it becomes abstract. And, like abstract art, most people don't get it at first. That's why I said it's only for seasoned professionals, or those already established as goofballs. Remember, with abstract art, the interpretation is left to the VIEWER, simply take it in and acknowledge what your psyche is experiencing. If you do make it to the end, you will be treated to possibly the greatest wtf? ending in film history. You could gather all the greatest philosophers in human history, and they would unravel the meaning of life to everyone's satisfaction before they figured out the ending to this film. It's good that some things are beyond human comprehension.

THE HAUNTING

2008-11-25T15:00:00.008-05:00

A classic and well-regarded horror film. It's based on a novel, and it feels like a novel. In other words, it's talky and plot-driven, relying on story and the actors' performances to deliver the horror, which they do. Without a drop of blood or glimpse of a monster, it manages to set a terrifying mood. This is a horror movie from Masterpiece Theatre, the polar opposite of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. You should be a well-rounded individual and enjoy both! But, as far as cult status goes, although it's good, it's not particularly bizarre or offbeat. Russ (High School Confidential) Tamblyn plays a PRODIGIOUSLY annoying "cool" young guy. You will want him to get possessed every time he speaks. This film was paired with Suspiria, and I noticed the similarity of their posters. Both use the "less is more" theme, but look at how much better The Haunting's is! And Suspiria is a much more aesthetically conscious movie! Shame on you, Italians! (To be fair, the poster was probably designed in the US for a US release and none of the filmmakers had any say in what it looked like.)

SUSPIRIA

2008-11-24T09:45:00.008-05:00

A great movie from Italy, and it's not about the Mafia or boxing! The Italians produced some of the greatest artists in history, and this film is their worthy successor. Every frame is a masterpiece. We are immediately taken with the intense saturated color, such a change of pace for a horror film, no chiaroscuro lighting with barely glimpsed monsters flashing in and out of the shadows, and it is SO effective! This glaring intensity of color can only be achieved by Technicolor, the process which gave us The Wizard of Oz and Gone with the wind. But rather than evoke the mood of spectacular fantasy or intense drama, here it is used to create a surreal nightmare! Beyond the color, watch how the bizarre geometric patterns of the school's architecture are used in composing the scenes. And with the angelic young girls who populate the school, like delicate porcelain dolls, we are immersed in beauty. But this is a horror film, and all this classical European beauty is harshly contrasted with gore and violence that would make Herschell Gordon Lewis proud! That's exactly the sort of turpitude that makes a film like this stand out, and earns it cult status! The eerie music, courtesy of "The Goblins", adds to the atmosphere. If actual goblins made music, this is what it would sound like. One problem is the bad dubbing, you may find it distracting. And, although the last twelve minutes are indeed brilliantly terrifying, the lead villain is dispatched a bit too easily for my taste. Also, with all this artistry going on, what's up with the crappy movie poster? But, for atmospheric horror with a little splatter thrown in, it's tough to beat this one.

PSYCH-OUT

2008-11-24T08:50:00.004-05:00

Another groovy time capsule of the consciousness revolution, this one actually has quite a bit of substance to it. First off, it features a young pony-tailed Jack Nicholson, and the charisma that will make him an icon is already well in place. The music is also pretty good, (except of course when Jack badly pretends to play a bad cover of Purple Haze. It's also a well structured and interesting story, and the characters are not one-dimensional cliches. Rather than an idealization or blanket condemnation of the movement, it shows that these kids, although their hearts may have been in the right place, had not risen above the conflicts and human frailties they despised in the older generations and so desperately believed they could evolve beyond. It's much more grounded in reality than such exploitative fare as The Love-Ins. It's also interesting that it explores why all these young people turned on, tuned in, and dropped out of the society their parents had built. Now, these kids are the builders of society, and their revolution will not be fully understood until it is viewed in hindsight by the historians of the future. Fascinating! One downer is that the trip scenes come off as kind of goofy, you may find yourself giggling. I really liked Bruce Dern's mysterious character, the blatantly Christ-like "Seeker". Is the story of Jesus really any more than a guy who went around preaching "Make love not war" and a bunch of dumbasses wanted to beat him up for it?

THE TRIP

2008-11-21T08:44:00.009-05:00

Two years before Easy Rider was nominated for three Oscars, our pal and B-movie god Roger Corman collaborated with Peter Fonda, Dennis Hopper and Jack Nicholson and turned on and tuned in to the psychedelic revolution. The result was The Trip, a spectacular and aptly named elucidation of the LSD experience. There is not much of a plot, the film is very aptly named, it wastes no time getting to Peter's trip. He enters a psychedelically painted mansion, probably based on Timothy Leary's "Millbrook" compound in upstate New York, and Bruce Dern takes on Leary's role as "trip-sitter." The main body of the film is a celebration of the sights and sounds of the grooviest time in recent history, and it ends when he comes out of it, which is fine with me. This is my favorite time period, and I find the shift that society went through endlessly fascinating. Those not so inclined, or squares, may not get it, though. But then, they never will... Just like Otto Preminger did for Skidoo, Roger, ever the true artise, actually took acid himself! You gotta respect that! Mostly known for his low budget yet entertaining horror films, this one shows he's got some real talent. Some of the external shots in nature are beautiful, in fact the movie is gorgeous. At times it feels like a real surrealist film. It's hard to do that without it coming off as totally goofy! Despite the preachy warning the studio tacked on to the beginning to cover their asses, and the (also tacked on) final shot, which implies his mind "cracks", this is a remarkably unbiased presentation of the all too little understood effects of hallucinogens, showing the highs and the lows, the beauty and the terror. Part of the theory of psychedelic therapy is that we need to face those terrors, it brings up the demons lurking deep in our subconscious that keep us from growth and enlightenment. While you're getting enlightened, watch for fun cameos from LBJ and a couple of Ringwraiths!

TWO THOUSAND MANIACS!

2008-11-03T11:48:00.008-05:00

Herschell Gordon Lewis took a break from exploitation cinema to produce this serious, scholarly documentary on the culture of the southern United States. Seriously, this is an EXTREMELY disturbing movie because this is EXACTLY what I think the Yankee hatin', minority hatin', intellectual hatin', Creationism teachin', Republican votin' South is really like. If you think I'm kidding, remember that the Stars and Bars is STILL proudly flown on the grounds of the South Carolina capitol. Not only is Herschell a pioneer of the splatter film, he is also a pioneer of the always fun HILLBILLY HORROR FILM! It really makes you wonder if it could happen to you, and what you would do if you found yourself in that situation... I liked this film better than Blood Feast because there's some rather creative and twistedly funny stuff going on here. The ending (actually, there are about four endings in this film,) is something you'd expect from M. Knight Shyamalan. I wonder if he was inspired by Herschell and is not admitting it now? This is a very fun movie to watch, I wonder if those degenerates who frequented the grindhouses were on to something. Not only were they places to participate in malfeasant activity, they were places to see some TRULY unique movies, and some pretty good folk music.

BLOOD FEAST

2008-11-03T10:48:00.015-05:00

Perfect for Halloween, we got a double feature of obscure grindhouse gore from the master of the genre, HERSCHELL GORDON LEWIS! As inept as Ed Wood, as bizarre as Ray Dennis Steckler, as low-budget as Roger Corman, THIS is CRAP! No longer do we have to creep into seedy, filthy theaters to view his work in the company of seedy, filthy degenerates. Could he have ever imagined that his films would be shown on national TV, on a network dedicated to presenting the finest of the art of cinema? In the comfort of our own homes we can revel in some of the trashiest dreck to ever be committed to celluloid. And Blood Feast is dreck among dreck. It is magnificent in its unabashed use of VERY graphic gore, and hilarious in its attempt at working that gore into a "plot." The dialogue in the non-gore scenes is ridiculous, helped by the paltry attempts at historical accuracy, all of which fall apart at the simple fact that Ishtar, the goddess of our pal the blue haired cannibal, is BABYLONIAN, NOT EGYPTIAN! The usual B-movie jocularly bad acting is also ubiquitous. I also found it droll that the hero actually recapped the dopey plot, just in case we didn't follow it. This movie is essential for all cult film freaks, because it is a groundbreaking moment in cinema, the first "splatter film!" The fake blood actually looks pretty good, not like the bright orange stuff you see in some old films. I also dig the strange, eerie music, (courtesy of Herschell himself.) This movie is a rush, Herschell is telling us, "It's ok, you don't have to be ashamed of the fact that you're a seedy, filthy degenerate who gets a kick out of seeing what it would look like if someone got their leg chopped off." And he gives us lots of long, slow panning shots to take it all in.

200 MOTELS

2008-10-31T11:25:00.005-04:00

Well, I'm not much of a fan of Frank Zappa's music, but I do admire him as a wacky, creative guy. This movie is his slightly interesting attempt at psychedelic filmmaking. It's absurdism and surrealism are reminiscent of Monty Python, but nowhere near as good. There is some SERIOUSLY bad acting by the Mothers of Invention and their groupies. As I said, I don't really care for the music, and the skits in between were mostly pointless, (not in a good way.) For me, the best parts were the animated sequence and the topless girl sequence. It's always nice to see Ringo, too. It has every psychedelic effect in the book, so it's probably good to watch under the influence of something, or if you just feel like looking at something bizarre for an hour and a half.

THE WORLD'S GREATEST SINNER

2008-10-27T09:00:00.009-04:00

This is a truly unique and bizarre film, especially for 1962! It's extra cool because it's STILL ahead of its time. This is not a movie made to keep the kids occupied for an hour and a half. This is an examination of the very nature of cults, religion, politics, and rock 'n roll, and it cleverly makes you wonder if they're all the same thing. Timothy Carey is questioning the human condition, and his relationship to whatever "god" means to him, in ways reminiscent of The Seventh Seal. Alas, he is no Bergman, so the film never loses its amateur character, but for our purposes that's fine, even an improvement! his performance is totally over the top, but it wouldn't have worked any other way. He is blessedly not a "Hollywood insider," and so is not corrupted by mainstream commercial filmmaking. This is the unfiltered vision of a man with something to say, which is a rare and wonderful thing to behold. It is so offbeat and different, I think it's art! He unabashedly shatters all that is American and wholesome, eerily foretelling the cultural revolution that would soon be underway. He has everything the post-war man is supposed to value, a house in the suburbs, a wife and kids, a job in insurance, and even a gardener, and he has the audacity to say "THIS SUCKS!" It all begins so nobly, as he realizes that capitalism is inherently wrong, and heroically takes a stand against it. The rest of the movie is him losing his mind. It gives a glimpse of what might be going on in the heads of those raving maniacs blathering on street corners and the religion channel. It will never be a popular movie, because it deals with issues most people simply don't want to think about. Most people should be wearing those armbands, emblazoned with "F" for follower, blindly devoted to whatever religious leader, politician, or rock star that bellows what they want to hear. This movie reminds us that the Great and Powerful Oz is just an old man behind a curtain pulling levers. We cult film fans, however, can handle such unsettling honesty. Look carefully at the (creatively displayed) credits, and you will see the name of a young Raymond Steckler, before he was an incredibly strange creature or a mixed-up zombie. Now there's a man you can get behind!

THE GIANT CLAW

2008-09-29T11:10:00.014-04:00

A shining example of a 50's sci-fi B-movie, with all the usual chuckle inducers. This one's most striking feature is its monster, even by the standards of the genre this one is HILARIOUS! My girlfriend once again said it perfectly, "It looks like a Muppet." And that's not meant to be a compliment, (who doesn't love the Muppets?) This is a Muppet of a severely deformed turkey, (with teeth,) with very limited motion and very poor puppeteering. And they try so hard to make it scary! You will laugh every time it appears on screen. We also get some great cold war paranoia, (what would we do if they figured out how to trick radar?!) and one of my favorite habits of these movies, the gross misinterpretation of science! I guess the people who made these things just took cool atomic-age concepts like RADAR and ANTIMATTER, did minimal research, and made a movie around them. This one hilariously tries to redeem itself by giving us a bit of actually accurate information about antimatter. But... it doesn't explain why, if the bird is enclosed in an antimatter shield, and, as we learned, when matter and antimatter come into contact they annihilate, releasing energy, when matter is launched at the bird's antimatter shield in the form of fighter plane weaponry, why the resulting explosion is not far larger than if the bird was shot with missiles without being surrounded by antimatter? And furthermore, why does the antimatter shield not detonate on contact with the matter constituting the air in the earth's atmosphere? God, I love this stuff! Interestingly, the study of antimatter is one of the purposes of the Large Hadron Collider. It is not yet understood why, if equal amounts of matter and antimatter were created at the big bang, there is so much more matter than antimatter in the universe now. Where did all the antimatter go? Now, if I was a scientist at the LHC, I would announce that I had discovered that the antimatter went to a "god-forsaken antimatter galaxy" to create shields for giant birds. Then I would show clips of this movie to illustrate my theory. By the way, I giggled every time they referred to the bird as a kakanya.

HIGH SCHOOL CONFIDENTIAL

2008-09-15T10:01:00.010-04:00

Exploitation! Sweet, glorious 50's exploitation! In the tradition of Reefer Madness, but the misinformation had been toned down a bit in the intervening twenty years. At least in this one they admit that pot is less dangerous than heroin. This movie is an absolute blast. The forced slang alone will have you in stitches. Russ Tamblyn, at a youthful 24, could pass for a teenager. John Drew Barrymore, however, at 26, may as well be 40. Barrymore is clearly meant to be imitating Elvis, then you have Mamie Van Doren made up like Marilyn Monroe, and Jackie Coogan sort of reminds me of Don Rickles, and...the ACTUAL Jerry Lee Lewis! Also, watch for small roles by Lyle (Plan 9) Talbot and Michael ("Pa") Landon. The music in this film is priceless. It also has a lot of brilliant quotes, "I thought she was just a weed head like me!" Of course it ends with the obligatory moral preaching, in which the kids have learned to limit their smoking to harmless, wholesome tobacco. It's everything we love these movies for!

HERE WE GO ROUND THE MULBERRY BUSH

2008-09-15T09:16:00.012-04:00

It's an irritating, un-funny movie about an irritating, un-funny kid who can't figure out why he can't get laid. We are expected to identify with and root for him, I just wanted to beat him with a stick, him and his horse-faced "playboy" buddy. Maybe I would've identified with him if I had been a kid in swingin' sixties Britain, (which must've been fun,) but I found the movie tedious and the pathetic attempts at "cute" humor grating. And don't think I don't like British humor, I think Monty Python and Mr. Bean are the funniest things ever! There are a few creative things going on, like the trippy dream/fantasy sequences, which were the best part of the movie. And, I was quite taken aback when he was having a chat in the bathroom with his brother, while his brother was taking a bath, and then Dad joins the party! I guess that's the way they do it in England... Despite the theme song being by Traffic, it's pretty awful. I did make it through to the end, however, and there IS a payoff. Our hero learns a little bit about relationships, but I never developed sympathy for him, as the movie wore on I just wanted to hit him harder. I suppose it's an interesting time capsule of an exciting era for those who were there, but I have no desire to see it again and wouldn't recommend it.

ROLLER BOOGIE

2008-09-08T08:48:00.008-04:00

Why do we do it to ourselves? Why do we spend hours of our precious little time on Earth in self-inflicted torture? Watching this movie is like eating hot peppers, excruciatingly painful, yet somehow fun, and I keep coming back for more. It is a relic from one of the most ridiculous periods in the history of male fasion, when all that mattered was poofy hair, little shorts, and roller skating. VERY little shorts, omnipresent little shorts, that will have you giggling and cringing for the entire length of the film. (Yes, I wore those little shorts at this time period, but as I was a small child I feel that it was acceptable.) In this universe, everyone rollerskates constantly, obstacles for skating tricks are kept set up at all times, and roller skating is apparantly an Olympic event. (One would think it was paid for by a roller skate manufacturor or something...) If it has one saving grace, I guess there's some good roller skating in it (?) if you're the sort of person who enjoys that sort of thing. Still, this is a staggeringly bad, predictable, cliche movie, if the deplorable attempts at humor don't break you, the deplorable attempts at pathos might. What nearly got me, (and I should've seen it coming from miles away,) was when BOBBY HAS TO USE HIS POWERS OF ROLLER SKATING TO ESCAPE THE BAD GUYS. OOF!! It feels like a punch in the gut! My epigrammatic girlfriend suggested that the review should consits of a single word, "Pew."

THE APPLE

2008-09-01T21:19:00.006-04:00

This rare, bizarre, obscure piece of ordure deserves a place among the often compiled lists of the worst movies ever made. Yet, it is never mentioned. Why? As my girlfriend put it, "There are some movies that shouldn't be talked about." I think the premise is that a record company rules the world or something. How or why is not clear. With most bad movies, there is some element which can be described as "not that bad." Not here. This STUNNINGLY bad film lacks even a single saving grace. Plot? Incomprehensible. Acting? Hilariously abysmal. Music? Ridiculous. Not even the goofy charm of Plan 9 or The Incredibly Strange Creatures. It smacks of great pretension on the part of the filmmakers, and complete ignorance of their astounding incompetence. I think these cretins were attempting to make a point! Is it a jilted artiste's scathing depiction of the realities of the music industry? An Orwellian warning about the dangers of corporate fascism? A thinly veiled and poorly executed religious allegory? Something scraped off the sidewalk after being expelled from a homeless man's gullet? You be the judge, if you dare. If you make it to the end, (and if you do, congratulations, you are a true bad film epicure) you will be treated to an INCREDIBLE wtf? moment involving a flying car. I think that EVERY movie should end with Mr. Tubbs flying in and saving the good guys.

ABSOLUTE BEGINNERS

2008-07-23T08:29:00.005-04:00

The best thing about it is the music. There's also some slick, creative camera work and pretty lighting. This is a musical, and one that's long on flash and short on substance, like that pointless Judy Garland crap from the 30s, but with violence and better music. Apparantly, someone thought that the MTV generation would like a movie in the style preferred by their grandparents' generation about what it was like when their parents' generation was young. Ok. It's not my thing, not that I mind a musical, but I still expect some plot and character development. Whatever story is going on here is disjointed and hard to follow, and it shifts gears abruptly and often. And I just can't take that West Side Story knife fighting interspersed with ballet twirls seriously, so it's good for a laugh. I have no idea what was going on in London in the late 50s, so I can't comment on its historical accuracy.

YOR, THE HUNTER FROM THE FUTURE

2008-06-30T09:38:00.008-04:00

Wow. Just when you thought you'd seen it all, they throw a bad scantily-clad caveman movie interbred with a bad Star-Wars rip-off at you. A lot of B-movie fans like to say "If this movie had a big budget, good special effects, and top actors it would be a great movie." Not this one. This is one of those rare gems that fails in every possible way. It's not tedious, torturous badness, it's that fun, goofy badness that we love. It's the type of movie that you can't believe exists. It just makes me glad that there are humans out there who concieve of this stuff and somehow get it made. Includes a cool made-up dinosaur, part triceratops, part stegosaurus, and the teeth of a carnivore! Also includes lovely examples of cro-magnon make up and permed hair. The theme song is the icing on the cake. All lovers of "so bad it's good" cinema will enjoy it. One bit of advice to filmmakers: you may not want to reveal one of your movie's surprise plot points in the title.

UNDERWORLD USA

2008-06-27T18:47:00.003-04:00

I like film noir. The filthy alleys, the gut-wrenching turmoil, the off-camera deaths...This bit of gangster angst, however, was not made in film noir's heyday of the 30's and 40's, but in the post-war, pre-Beatles bliss of 1961. Odd. It's a perfect recreation of a film from that era, the music, costumes, and camera work are indistinguishable. It has a solid, fairly complicated plot, but for me it didn't really stand out. Nothing special or bizarre, except for the creepy baby dolls. Quite a good example of film noir, not such a good example of cult film. I liked it, but it's not in the same category as Attack of the Crab Monsters and such.

MACHINE GUN MCCAIN

2008-06-25T08:28:00.005-04:00

I'm not really a fan of gangster movies. I didn't see much in this one to warrant cult status, it's a decent but fairly typical gangster movie. John Cassavetes is good as a fairly typical gangster, but Peter Falk steals the show. And then there's Britt Ekland...mmmmmm...Britt Ekland...Swedish accent intact, playing the very Swedish character "Irene Tucker." (If you really want to see her at her best, see the original Wicker Man.) Anyway, there are some cool "tough guy" lines for all those suburban American males who like these movies because they enjoy fantasizing about being this type of guy. There are also many close-ups of strange looking men, which some may find unsettling. Overall it wasn't really my thing, I like 'em much more bizarre if I'm going to call them cult. If you're in the mafia cult, you'll probably dig it. I had a minor wtf? moment at the song at the closing credits.

FRENZY

2008-06-17T11:58:00.012-04:00

A Hitchcock movie on TCM Underground? Does one of the most universally acclaimed directors of the twentieth century belong with the likes of Roger Coreman and Ed Wood? Absolutely! Why, you ask? Think subject matter. Imagine these premises for films: A guy goes nuts and absorbs his mother's persona into his mind, and occasionally dresses like her and kills someone. Birds organize and start attacking people for no apparent reason. See what I mean? Hitchcock was just as warped as the rest of them, he was just, well, better at it. He was an artiste of the first order who loved to explore weird, alarming crap, just like the aforementioned kooks. He was just so good that his films appealed to the mainstream audience. What could Ed Wood have done with an A-list cast and a major studio budget? North By Northwest, but Cary Grant is a transvestite? Unfortunately, we'll never know. But we do have this movie, Hitchcock late in his career, when the code was eliminated and censorship relaxed. Hitchcock unleashed, with all the graphic sex, violence, and perversion we love, that he probably wanted to show in his films since the 40's. It's like a grindhouse explitation film done by a master filmmaker. He proves that he's still the master, no one has ever done suspense so well. He also manages to get in subtle and dark humor, and it only helps the film. He keeps you riveted with an intricate plot, and shocks you and creeps you out as well as he ever did. Essential viewing for fans of exploitation, it gives us a glimps of what someone with those sensibilities could do with the budget (and the talent...) Hitchcock fans will also like it, it shows what he could do without uptight no-fun people muzzling him. And, I knew I recognized the guy who played the asshole bar manager, He gives a hilarious performance in a hilarious episode of Fawlty Towers, The Hotel Inspectors!

THE MYSTERIOUS ISLAND

2008-06-13T09:14:00.002-04:00

This one is your lesson in film history. You will see early examples of the sci-fi effects that would be staples of the genre until the advent of computers. You will see miniatures, goofy suits, rather cool fish men, and a poor baby alligator with a lot of appliances glued to it. It's also right on the cusp of the sound era, so it's oddly part silent, part talkie. It's interesting because it's SO old, we can look back on the scientific speculations of the time and chuckle smugly at them. It must have amazed them in 1929, best viewed as an interesting relic from another era, like something on display in a museum.

WICKED, WICKED

2008-06-13T09:08:00.005-04:00

Just when you thought you'd seen it all, along comes a unique (and successful!) re-invention of the way movies should be. First off, it's from Richard L. Bare, director of GREEN ACRES! You can't blink, and you won't get bored. The two separate screens are used in various creative ways, not just to show two different characters' points of view, but sometimes memories, often humorously contradicting the character who is narrating. It's just plain fun to see what's going on in someone's head. But, while it's long on atmosphere, it's short on plot. It's a fairly typical murder mystery, clearly inspired by Psycho. I thought they let us in on who the psycho is way too early on. It is interesting that it explores why he became a psycho, this poor schmuck has every traumatizing childhood event in the DSM thrown at him. There's some cool gore, and creepy organ music is used to set the mood, and if you listen carefully you'll hear the tune played in the opening of the classic Browning/Lugosi Dracula. Definitely worth seeing as a unique viewing experience. I'm surprised more movies weren't made using DUO-VISION! It doesn't seem to be available on DVD, what a bummer!

RAW MEAT

2008-06-13T09:00:00.002-04:00

For me, all British films, even ones about cannibalism, have an element of class. These movies are a nice change of pace. This is a great example of a British horror film with a unique and entertaining premise. My only problem is that they let us in on what's going on too early. The beginning has the feel of an "it could happen to you" mystery thriller. I would rather have waited and pieced it together with Donald Pleasance, who, by the way, has a lot of funny quips as an eccentric detective. They also drop the story line of the perverted politician rather abruptly. For Christopher Lee cultists, he has a fun and creepy cameo. Very cool example of disturbing, inventive horror from the land of Shakespeare and Monty Python.

SUGAR HILL

2008-06-13T08:54:00.004-04:00

Every once in a while, a low budget horror film comes along that gets it perfect. Sugar Hill is that film. It takes a supernatural concept, voodoo, and uses it perfectly. There is nothing unnecessary in this movie. It's not trying to be anything it's not. It's just trying to give you a damn good time watching zombies kill mobsters. And the zombies look awesome. With just a little makeup, cobwebs, reflective eye pieces, and talent you can create monsters as good (or better) than any modern hollywood can come up with with all their computers and marketers. When Don Pedro Colley first appears as Baron Samedi, his over-acting is ridiculous, but when he pops up as different characters later he's really funny. The ending is a bit anti-climatic though. After all the henchmen are killed off in creative and entertaining ways, the head bad guy's death is pretty lame. A very fun movie, everything a horror film should be. Yes, that is George Jefferson's mother as Mama Maitresse.

THE FEARLESS VAMPIRE KILLERS

2008-06-13T08:25:00.006-04:00

I really wanted to like this one, I know a lot of people do. There are some things that are very good about it, mainly the aesthetics. The snowy landscape is very beautiful and evokes a mood. The characters are very interesting to look at, I don't know where they found these people, some of them look like gnome lawn ornaments. The music is very good. The sets and costumes are very cool, in particular the baroque vampire's ball. The problem for me is making it that far before the movie lulls me off to sleep. It's supposed to be a horror/comedy, but for me the horror is minor and cliche, and the comedy is almost non-existant. I get maybe a couple of chuckles at most. Ferdy Mayne plays a good aristocratic vampire, but it's STILL an inferior derivitive of Lugosi. One thing I respect about it is that it ends on a downer, Polanski seemed to like to do that...

COUNT YORGA, VAMPIRE

2008-06-04T11:29:00.003-04:00

It's trying to be a new, updated, modern vampire film, and it ultimately fails. It's trying to be legitimate and believable, but, when you have a count move into your town, and he goes around in a cape, and people start turning up with their necks bitten, no one believes the Van Helsing character that he's a vampire? The Van Helsing character is supposed to be an educated, modern doctor. And we're supposed to accept that his first opinion is "vampire"? That may have worked for the superstitious victorian age, but this movie is supposed to take place in the hip 1970's! So this is where it falls apart for me, it's trying to use both horror film logic and real world logic, and it just doesn't work. It's practically word for word the Dracula story, just with people in modern clothing. Robert Quarry is pretty good as a sophisticated, intellectual vampire, but he's no Bela Lugosi. There is also some cool horror imagery, the scene with the cat in particular. It can be fun if you like a typical vampire movie, just don't take it as seriously as it wants you to.

THE COCAINE FIENDS

2008-06-04T11:28:00.009-04:00

Another 30's drugsploitation film, this one lacks the hilarious inaccuracies of Reefer Madness, if fact, it's a little too accurate. It's downright depressing! These drug dealers are seriously evil people. Oddly, the movie goes from very dark to bizarrely goofy, like when a "singing waiter" performs a song of his own composition, the title of which I will not attempt to transcribe. Still fun to watch as en example of bizarre cinema. I didn't see the twist ending coming, and I though it was actually pretty good. A chilling exhortation on the dangers of "making whoopie."

MARIHUANA

2008-06-04T11:28:00.007-04:00

While quite inferior to the great Reefer Madness, its less-known cousin is still good for a laugh. Not nearly as non-stop hilarious, it's actually much more accurate. It doesn't bother making outlandish claims about the insanity-inducing effects of marijuana, it just follows with perverse pleasure the fall to ruin of a nice girl who gets hooked. It lacks Reefer Madness' goofy charm, and at times it gets down right depressing. It does, however, include a fun surprise not often seen in 30's films, nudity! It gets kind of slow and boring, and you should see the twist ending coming from a mile away. Although not depicted in the film, according to the poster, in the 30's marijuana was apparently injected.

REEFER MADNESS

2008-06-04T11:27:00.003-04:00

A classic among classics, this is often near the top of lists of what a cult film is, and with good reason. EVERYTHING ABOUT THIS MOVIE IS FUNNY! From start to finish, you will laugh yourself insane along with Ralph. Everyone points out the glaring misinformation, such as that marijuana, a tropical plant, grows wild in every state in the union. And it's obvious that no one connected to this film every saw anyone use marijuana, or they just thought that frantic piano playing would be better in an exploitation film than sitting on the couch staring at the wall. I also get a kick out of the family so nauseatingly wholesome they make the Cleavers look like the Osbournes, with ninety year old parents of a six year old, and a teenage son in his thirties. This film does not provide only the usual giggles and chuckles of most "so bad it's good" cinema, I laugh like hell every time I hear the principal relate, with utmost seriousness, the story of the young man on marijuana who murdered his entire family with an axe. As if any pothead would have the motivation to even get up and go find an axe! The car accident and suicide are also particularly hilarious. There's no end to it, like I said. You would be hard pressed to find a comedy movie half this funny. Essential viewing for the fan of unique and unusual cinema. I personally don't like watching the colorized version, the weird colors are too distracting. The commentary by Mike Nelson (of MST3K, as if you didn't know) is great, though.

SCREAM BLACULA SCREAM

2008-06-04T11:26:00.006-04:00

After being disappointed by Blacula, I was dreading its sequel, assuming it would be even worse. But, I was pleasantly surprised, in that most rare feat of cinema, the sequel is better than the original. First off, I thought the idea of using a voodoo ritual to resurrect a vampire was a cool new innovation. And, the script is much better, William Marshall is given more opportunity to show what he can do. You couldn't have picked a better Blacula. The minor characters are more interesting too, and it has PAM GRIER! She automatically makes anything cooler. You don't need the first Blacula to enjoy this one, and I recommend you skip it and cut straight to this one. It's still not great, though. While the voodoo is a nice touch, it does have a lot of formulaic vampire movie cliches.

BLACULA

2008-06-04T11:24:00.003-04:00

The title alone makes this one cult, but it's a pretty bad movie, and not in a good way. First off, it's a waste of William Marshall, (the King of Cartoons himself!) who's a good actor with a lot of presence. This bit of perfect casting is the only thing that works in this mess. I felt so bad for him, delivering such stupid dialogue with such power. It's not even as good as a typical vampire movie, it's boring, cliche, predictable, and the vampire attacks inspire more laughter than fear. Also, Blacula sprouts odd patches of hair on his face when in attack mode, perhaps he's part werewolf? It's neither a solid horror movie nor a fun goof.

DELINQUENT DAUGHTERS

2008-06-04T11:23:00.003-04:00

A fun exploitation film from the 40's, with all the usual giggle-inducers. Bad acting, outrageous plot, gratuitous sex and violence, corny morals, and 30 year old teenagers. It's not a shining example of the genre, it gets slow in points, but still good for a laugh.

THE TINGLER

2008-06-04T11:21:00.004-04:00

A rubber centipede lives on your spine and feeds on your fear, if it gets too strong it crushes your spine, and screaming is the only way to kill it. (Or something.) Sound like your kind of movie? You're in the right place. The premise is only the tip of the implausibility iceberg. Vincent Price's character is not established as a particularly mad scientist, yet he has no problem tormenting an innocent deaf old woman to death, only to prove his wild theory! The woman's husband also has very little problem with Price performing an impromptu autopsy on her, with him in attendance! (He was clearly not particularly bothered by her untimely death.) It even has one of my favorite movie elements, the acid trip! Even without a joy buzzer under your seat, this is a very fun movie. You just have to imagine the planted young woman fainting at the appropriate moment. I wonder how many people actually bought it? It's a bad but entertaining movie, with a lot of goofy crap thrown in. That's what cult is all about!

13 GHOSTS

2008-06-04T11:20:00.003-04:00

This is a fairly strange movie, at times it uses horror imagery, at times it seems like a cute kid's movie. It's still a fairly fun watch, but I don't think it will appeal to true horror fans, it's just too tame. The best part is Margaret Hamilton.

THE BROTHERHOOD OF SATAN

2008-06-04T11:18:00.003-04:00

One of the modern Satanic cult films to come out of the Rosemary's Baby school. This is a fun one, I love a movie that creates and maintains a creepy atmosphere. Children, old people, and stuffed animals are all used to creepy effect. For added fun when viewing this film with a friend, excuse yourself to use the facilities. While out of sight of your unsuspecting viewing partner, set up a doll or stuffed animal in such a way that it appears to be moving toward him/her. By the time the movie's over, they will have forgotten you got up, and when they head out to relieve themselves they will encounter their own creepy possessed toy. Hilarity will ensue.

BLOOD ON SATAN'S CLAW

2008-06-04T11:17:00.003-04:00

Very cool British horror film. I like a good period piece, and nobody does it like the British. Lots of eerie imagery and beautiful shots of the English countryside. It also includes a creepy cult of children, preceding Children of the Corn by a decade. Their teenage priestess is a very attractive Linda Hayden.(A religion led by an attractive young female? It must be Satanism!) The end is pretty anti-climatic, though. Apparently the immortal embodiment of all evil is vulnerable to ordinary weaponry, and quite incapable of defending himself against a portly old man.

PENITENTIARY

2008-06-04T11:16:00.004-04:00

The fight scenes were pretty exciting, and there were some interesting characters, but this one really didn't do it for me. It wasn't wild or different enough for me to consider it cult. One thing I did like was that it wasn't just "good" black prisoners vs. "evil" white guards, the characters were treated as individuals, with good and bad on both sides. It's more grounded in reality than typical blaxploitation if that's your thing.

EMMA MAE

2008-06-04T11:14:00.006-04:00

Not really blaxploitation, this is more of a "slice of life" drama. Fanaka is interested in movies about real life. Unfortunately, for me anyway, real life is kind of boring. I can appreciate the story of an everyday girl who is wronged finding her courage and rising to the occasion, but I would rather see Pam Grier turn into a superhero and start blowing off heads. I'll take fun over plausibility, at least in a cult movie. Maybe I would relate to it better if i was an urban black youth in the 70's, but I was a suburban white toddler in the 70's, and I'm afraid it's lost on me. I know the Amazon link says "Black Sister's Revenge," but it's the same movie under a different title. I guess they wanted something more exploitative.

ATTACK OF THE PUPPET PEOPLE

2008-06-04T11:14:00.005-04:00

One of the many low-budget sci-fi films of the 50's. This one is better made than many, and it has a descent, interesting plot, as well as an amusingly creepy mad scientist. It's one of many of these films made on the premise of people either shrinking or enlarging. It's still interesting to watch how they achieved the special effects with the limited technology of the time. It doesn't really stand out, though, and it's not weird enough to get a high cult rating.

NIGHT OF THE LEPUS

2008-06-04T11:10:00.003-04:00

The classic Monty Python and the Holy Grail makes use of the idea of a rabbit as a threat to great comedic effect. The reason for this is obvious, there is nothing inherently frightening about a rabbit. Apparently, William F. Claxton disagreed. The result is a classic of bad cinema. In fact, it's so bad it truly hurts. In a rare feat, this movie fails in every possible way. It's extra funny because they really seem like they feel that they're making a good movie. It does have its charms interspersed amongst the tedium and stupidity. I giggled every time those bunnies rampaged through the model town in slow motion, to the sounds of bats screeching (or something). It would seem that someone was on the ball, hence there are no killer rabbits on the poster. Or, was this done INTENTIONALLY, to save the surprise of their great new innovation in horror? "Just show the eyes! Everyone will wonder what the monster is! And then, BANG! RABBITS!" One shudders to think. This one is for the true masochist. Don't say I didn't warn you.

RAT PFINK A BOO BOO

2008-06-04T11:09:00.004-04:00

This is a movie that all of humanity should be thankful for the existence of. This movie shows that Ray Dennis Stecker had courage, vision, and a true love of fun that no other filmmaker can match. He said "this is my movie and this is how I want it to be!" and the universe is a better place for it. Be warned, it drags. In fact, 70% of the movie is just people walking down the street. That's why it only got four aliens. I wrestled with this one, but to get five a movie must be flawless from start to finish, and have that special something. This one has that special something like no other. I'm not even going to tell you what it is. If you don't want to spoil it for yourself, don't look it up. If you've seen it, you know what I mean. Now, don't ruin it! I will now instruct you in the proper way to show this movie to someone. Tell them "You HAVE to see this movie!" If they're a true cult film fan, this is all it will take. (If they're not, find new friends.) They'll probably dig the groovy opening titles, and be puzzled by the name. They'll probably ask you what it means. DON'T REVEAL ANYTHING! They might dig the rockabilly music numbers. (Why is Steckler not hailed as a pioneer of music video?) They will soon get bored. Just keep telling them to hang in there, it will all be worth it. They will point out it's stupidity. They will wonder why, when his girlfriend is kidnapped, Lonny Lord goes and sits with her gardener and sings a song. Then, the payoff happens! Enjoy their reaction. I did exactly this to my girlfriend, and she just kept screaming "WHAT IS GOING ON?!" I did it to my friend Neil, and he said it was "A religious experience." Thank you, Stecker, thank you.

THE INCREDIBLY STRANGE CREATURES WHO STOPPED LIVING AND BECAME MIXED-UP ZOMBIES!!?

2008-06-04T11:08:00.007-04:00

I know a lot of people don't like this movie. I happen to love it. For one thing, I love carnivals. This movie perfectly captures the seedy, vaguely eerie aura that carnivals took on after their heyday. All of Steckler's movies have a cool "vibe", they really feel like a bunch of pals got together to make a movie. I know it has no plot. I know the musical numbers are totally unnecessary and boring filler. I know Jerry is not an incredibly strange creature who becomes a mixed-up zombie, he is a moderately strange guy who becomes a hypnotized guy with facial scarring due to having acid or something thrown in his face, but THAT'S THE POINT! I love his unintelligible little foreign buddy with the pompadour, and the equally unintelligible fortune teller who looks like she uses lard as facial cream. I love the trippy hypnosis scenes. And of course, I love the Steckler trademark frolicking on the beach. I particularly love the opening credits, so simple, and effective... And who wouldn't love Ortega? Stecker is a true indy-film visionary in the spirit of Ed Wood, he'll never make anything the mainstream considers "good", but dammit, he made his movies his way, to hell with critics and marketers! He wanted to capture what it feels like to be a young guy in the 60's exploring the surreal, exhilarating American creation known as the carnival, and he did just that. And what about the final scene, poor hypnotized, zombified Jerry, hounded by the cops, floundering in the pounding surf. Was he making a statement about the human condition? Are we brainwashed casualties, caught between the indifference of nature and the intolerance of society? Or was it just cheap to film on the beach?

Note: When I first posted this movie, I gave it four aliens. That was because of the tedious, awful musical interludes. However, when TCM showed it again, I found myself looking forward to them! I've seen the MST3K version of this movie a million times, and yet I couldn't wait to see it again. I guess it's earned a special place in my heart, so I elevated it to five aliens. Does it deserve to be in the same category as Plan 9 and Freaks? For me, at least!

THE KIDS ARE ALRIGHT

2008-06-04T11:07:00.004-04:00

In order to like this movie, obviously you have to like The Who. You have to really like The Who. I like The Who well enough, but not enough to watch a whole movie about them. I know they're legends, I know they're innovators, I know they're one of the best live acts ever, I know Keith Moon is dead, but I just don't like them enough to stay interested for 101 minutes. If they're your favorite band, I imagine this is your favorite movie. For the rest of us, although it's amusing, and the music is good, it's not a great movie. One good thing about it, it harkens back to a time when rock stars were ROCK STARS. I recently saw before a movie in the theater a full music video by one of today's bands, (I can't remember the name, they're all the same anyway,) that was encouraging impressionable young men to join the army. Can you imagine The Who (or the Beatles, or Zeppelin, or Ozzy...) doing something like that?

WILD, WILD PLANET

2008-06-04T11:06:00.001-04:00

Another very bizarre piece of 60's sci-fi. This one is trying to be a sophisticated, intelligent film, but it just comes off as goofy and weird. At points it is truly creepy. (I'm a computo-doll...I'm a computo-doll...) A lot of fodder for people who like to giggle at kooky stuff that they expect you to take seriously (like me.) The plot is confusing and it gets boring at times, I don't recommend trying to make sense of it. A final thought, I thought it was very nice of the good guys to only shoot the bad guys with their laser pistols in the center of their chests, where they had their fire-proof padding. A psychedelic slice of the 60's, all fans of grooviness will dig it.

BARBARELLA

2008-06-04T11:05:00.003-04:00

This movie could have only happened in the 60's. It's a true, wonderfully dated icon of the era. Jane Fonda was in her prime, and they knew how to display it. This movie just oozes bizarreness. It is so psychedelic, if you take a drug test shortly after watching it you may fail. One thing about it that I particularly admire is, unlike in most science fiction films, the future does not look like a slightly shinier version of whichever decade the film was made in. Barbarella's future looks like nothing you''ve ever seen before. Shag carpeting covering the entire interior of a spaceship? Where have you seen that before? (or since?) The look of the movie is truly inspired, and the gratuitous sex is wonderful. This one came from the mind of a true mad genius. Don't try to make sense of what's going on, though. Just sit back and enjoy the trip.

ROLLERBALL

2008-06-04T11:04:00.003-04:00

Another violent-sport-in-a-dystopian-future movie, but I didn't like this one at all. It's a fairly solid premise, and the scenes of the game being played are moderately exciting, but the story was not interesting at all. I don't even know how it ends. Every time I thought it was over there was more, and I was so bored I got pissed, turned it off, and felt like I just wasted two hours. I think the problem may be that it has none of the fun of Death Race. They actually expect us to take this crap seriously! It's one saving grace may be that the idea of huge corporations controlling every aspect of our lives was oddly prophetic...

DEATH RACE 2000

2008-06-04T11:03:00.003-04:00

I love dystopian future movies. This one has a premise that's tough to beat. I laughed like hell every time someone got run over. It never gets old! Most of the dialogue is pretty stupid, though, and this is not David Carradine's best work. Stallone is ridiculous. After you watch it, you may find yourself calculating point values as you drive around town. A very fun movie that should be shown at family gatherings and church functions.

THE LOVE-INS

2008-06-04T11:02:00.012-04:00

Sort of a Reefer Madness of LSD, more anti-Timothy Leary exploitative propaganda. It's also a groovy time capsule of the scene in San Francisco, when everyone had flowers in their hair, through the eyes of the square establishment. The attempts at humor are truly painful, the unintentional humor is hilarious. It has its share of misinformation and exaggeration, but not as much as Reefer Madness. One thing they got right is that there really were pigs hanging around capitalizing on the scene. One problem is that they had to scrape the bottom of the barrel of 60s music. Still a lot of fun to watch. Includes an EXCELLENT Alice in Wonderland trip scene. (Best part of the movie!) It's also funny to watch how older filmmakers of the era just didn't get it, but were more than willing to capitalize on it. It's very blatant in its exploitation of Leary, messiah to the young, most dangerous man in the world to the old, with often hilarious results. Turn on, tune in, and drop out a window.

SKIDOO

2008-06-04T11:02:00.011-04:00

Apparently, in 1968, 62 year old Otto Preminger wanted to make a movie about the youth counter-culture. So, in true out-of-touch old man style, he cast it with top actors from his generation. The result is one of those rare "Oh my god I can't believe I'm watching this" gems. ANYONE WHO CONSIDERS THEMSELF A CULT FILM FAN NEEDS TO SEE A MOVIE IN WHICH JACKIE GLEASON HAS AN ACID TRIP. The movie is totally disjointed, it's neither a hip protest film from the 60's nor a light-hearted screwball comedy from the 30's, but the point is hidden in there. Gleason's character is a murderous mobster, but when he takes acid, guided by an experienced trip-sitter, the doors of perception are opened, he gains a little enlightenment, and he doesn't want to kill people anymore. This was the reason LSD was developed, and the way Timothy Leary said it should be used. If everyone could experience this consciousness expansion, we would all see that violence and war are pointless, and we would all live in peace and harmony and float off on a raft in Hare Krishna robes like Groucho. Preminger tried, he really tried. He could've bridged the generation gap and brought about world peace. Unfortunately, both generations just ended up laughing at him. Carol Channing's song is an extra "What the hell?!" moment at the end, but there are a few lyrics in there that sum up what it's really all about. If you've ever wanted to see her in her underwear, this is your lucky movie. Fans will enjoy playing "spot the Batman villains", and, Richard (Eegah!) Kiel!

THE FAST AND THE FURIOUS

2008-06-04T11:01:00.003-04:00

The only reason this one got a second alien head is that it actually managed to keep me just interested enough to stick it out and see the ending. It was a boring, stupid B movie. I don't see what qualifies it as cult. I guess it appeals to people who like NASCAR. I do not understand this "mind"set at all. I see cars driving around every day. I don't find it the least bit entertaining. I certainly wouldn't want to spend my spare time watching it, especially without the meager plot this movie supplied. But then, my parents aren't related. It's still bound to be better than the recent Vin Diesel movie of the same name.