My Bloody Valentine (1981)

It seems every holiday has a slasher flick dedicated to it. “Halloween”, “April Fool’s Day”, “Black Christmas”, “Friday the 13th” (does that count as a holiday?) and heck, even Valentine’s Day got its due with “My Bloody Valentine”. Churned out when the slasher craze was really starting to hit high gear, “My Bloody Valentine” follows your standard 80s slasher formula to the letter, borrowing elements from the likes of “Silent Night, Deadly Night”, “Prom Night” and, really, anything else that was made ten minutes before it. For what it is, though, “My Bloody Valentine” is a pretty harmless addition to the genre and not the worst way to kill an evening.

Twenty years ago, on Valentine’s Day, a miner named Harry Warden (Peter Cowper) was buried alive. He was rescued, but not before the isolation drove him insane. Naturally, he went on a bloody rampage before being sent to a nuthouse. Now, twenty years later, the people of the small town of Valentine's Bluff are ready to celebrate their favorite holiday again. Unfortunately, the murdering Miner appears to have returned, carving the hearts out of his victims and leaving them in candy boxes with ominous messages, and the only thing more horrifying than his murders is his poetry.

You know, it really shocked me when, earlier this year, they decided to remake such a forgettable and borderline obscure flick as “My Bloody Valentine”. I guess its proof enough that Hollywood really is out of ideas if they have to resort to rehashing something as relatively unknown and creatively bankrupt as this.

Perhaps that’s a tad harsh, but don’t kid yourself; “My Bloody Valentine” really does run the gamut of every slasher cliché known to man. To the film’s credit, it executes them fairly well and the Miner does have a certain visual appeal that’s, I dunno, at least better than villains like that ski mask-wearing dork from “Prom Night”. Never-the-less, really, don’t expect anything particularly original from this genre offering.

So far as kills go, well, the MPAA was rather notoriously ruthless to the film; cutting up to three solid minutes of violence before issuing it an R-rating. An uncut version of the film was finally made available in 2009 as a cross-promotion with the remake, but doesn’t offer as much as you’d think. The deaths are still as mundane as ever, as is all the gore. There are a few decent moments, such as the scene in which a guy gets his face boiled off in a pot of hot dog water, but even that was done better in “Halloween II”.

If the film succeeds at anything, it’s accurately depicting life in the most rural armpit town in America. Fashion is thirty years behind the curve, educational aspirations extend no further than digging holes in the town mine, everyone knows how to play the harmonica, parties are totally lame and there isn’t a single minority in sight. I guess if I lived in such a dead end place, I’d go crazy and kill everyone, too. The climax of the movie was filmed in the actual Sydney Mines in Nova Scotia, Canada, so the setting at least feels genuine. To give Director George Mihalka a little credit, he made the mines look exceptionally creepy and maze-like.

I’m going to go ahead and ruin the ending of the movie for you because, Christ, I really don’t care and neither should you. Anyway, at the very end, it is revealed that Harry Warden died in a madhouse five years ago and the killings are being perpetrated by none other than Axel (Neil Affleck), a guy we thought was normal. Turns out he saw Harry Warden murder his Dad twenty years ago, went crazy and decided to become the new murdering Miner. Forgoing the fact that this reveal is nigh-identical to the one from “Prom Night”, it just doesn’t make any sense, at least where the editing of the film is concerned. Where Axel is seen paling around with his friends and where the Miner is seen killing drunks simply don’t match-up, unless Axel has Clark Kent-level wardrobe-changing abilities. And the ending, where Axel can be seen running down the mine, falling just short of screaming “See you in the sequel”…ugh.

Oh, and don’t skip the credits! Otherwise you might miss the rousing folk ballad that summarizes all the plot points from the movie. Jesus. I guess it’s better than the late 80s and early 90s, where every movie had a rap song doing the same thing, but better only by a microscopic margin.

“My Bloody Valentine” is about as harmless and forgettable as a slasher film can get. It’s amusing, I suppose, if you haven’t seen any of the other movies its identical to, but incredibly boring if you have. If you can get it on DVD for $5 bucks from Wal-Mart like I did, then yeah, go for it. Otherwise, don’t bother.

Grade: D+ (as in, “Damn, but the stray dogs in that town are vicious”.)

Vampire Hunter D: Bloodlust (2000)

Grab yourself a drink, because I’ve got a lot to say about “Vampire Hunter D: Bloodlust”. If you’ve read my review for the first “Vampire Hunter D” film, you’ll know that I love it for all its cheesy, nostalgic value, but don’t consider it a genuinely good movie. “Bloodlust” is quite the opposite. It’s one of the greatest vampire films I’ve ever seen; so incredibly epic in scope and perfectly executed. If you refuse to take a horror film seriously just because it’s a “cartoon”, then by god, are you seriously depriving yourself of something magnificent.

The vampire Noble Meier Link (John Rafter Lee) has supposedly “kidnapped” a beautiful girl named Charlotte (Wendee Lee). Her family has enlisted the services of the enigmatic vampire hunter known as D (Andrew Philpot) to bring her back alive. But just to keep him on his toes, they’ve also hired the ruthless Marcus clan, who intend to get the bounty for themselves. Both D and the Marcuses will have to deal with Meier Link’s bodyguards, a trio of freaks from the village of the Barbarois, who will fight to the death to ensure that their master reaches his destination. For D, he may find a source of unexpected aid from Leila (Pamela Segall), a member of the Marcus clan.

“Bloodlust” is something else. When I first saw the film, it was on a bootleg tape I rented from a bootleg tape dealer, then copied onto a tape of my own. Surprisingly, for a Japanese flick, the English language audio track was recorded first (and, subsequently, the lipsync is animated to it), but that didn’t keep the shitty tape from having Japanese and Chinese subtitles covering half the screen. And yet, through all the foreign letters and VCR static, the flick blew me right the Hell away. Then, when it was finally released on DVD (I swear, that felt like one Hell of a wait), I found it hard to put into words how amazing the film was.

The animation for “Bloodlust” was provided by one of my all-time favorite Japanese studios: Madhouse. They’ve given us such glorious pieces of art as “Perfect Blue”, “Ninja Scroll” and HBO’s “Spawn” series. They have a reputation for delivering the best in horror, atmosphere and well, mind-blowing visual quality. Directing the flick is one of Japan’s most celebrated animation directors: Yoshiaki Kawajiri. The name may not ring a bell, but if you’re an animation enthusiast, then I’m sure you’ve seen some of his work: “Wicked City”, “Ninja Scroll”, “Highlander: The Search for Vengeance” or…um…“The Fantastic Adventures of Unico”…? Kawajiri has a fast, furious and gut-wrenchingly violent style. But while folks praise him most often for his downright brutal and highly detailed action sequences, the man also has an eye for dynamic and epic shots and setups, giving his films a breathtaking sense of scope.

I mentioned earlier that the English language version of the film was actually the original version, despite it being Japanese-produced. Odd, certainly, but I’m not one of those annoying anime nerds (“otakus”…whatever) who automatically turns my nose up at the very thought of watching a Japanese cartoon in English. Perhaps fifteen years ago the English dubs of Japanese cartoons were uniformly terrible, but those days are long over. In the case of “Bloodlust”, the English language cast is excellent, sporting a number of actors known most prominently for dubbing Japanese productions (Wendee Lee), as well as a few actors you wouldn’t expect to find in such a project (John Di Maggio).

Andrew Philpot is, in my honest opinion, a step up from D’s last English voice actor, Michael McConnohie. McConnohie wasn’t bad, but he tended to play the stoic D with a tad too much energy and emotion. Philpot gives him personality while maintaining his rather dull demeanor. If there was one step down from the cast of the 80s film, I’d have to say it was Michael McShane as D’s wise-cracking left hand. While Kirk Thornton had a sarcastic, eerie voice, Michael McShane gives him a grumpy old man vibe. At times, he can tend to talk too much and border on the obnoxious (the scene with the sand mantas being especially infuriating), though he isn’t all bad. He works for the character and still delivers several amusing quips here and there.

The film is based on the third “Vampire Hunter D” novel by Hideyuki Kikuchi, “Demon Deathchase”. I’ve had the pleasure of reading the novel for myself and it is very, very good. Thus far, I’ve read the first three novels in the series and enjoyed them all; I’d highly recommend them to any fan of horror-fantasy literature. That aside, the novel and the film differ in a multitude of ways, though I find that I can’t decide which I prefer. The scenes exclusive to the book are awesome, but likewise, the scenes exclusive to the film are equally awesome.

To touch upon a few of the alterations, in the book, the Marcus brothers are far, far more sinister a clan. Leila is their sister, not their teammate, and they keep her in-line with some good ole fashioned incestuous rape. Even Grove, the bed-ridden invalid gets his freak on with her. It’s…pretty nasty, but makes their inevitable deaths all the sweeter (in the case of Borgoff, the eldest brother, he gets eaten alive by ants then has his half-eaten corpse possessed by a reanimating parasite). Whole subplots are dropped, such as two of the Barbarois bodyguards, Caroline and Mashira, plotting to double cross Meier Link. In regards to them, they also have their powers altered for the transition to film. In the book, Caroline was a dhampir like D, though she had the ability to turn machines and flora into her monstrous servants by sucking their “lifeblood” (gasoline or sap), where-as in the movie she had the power to merge with metal and wood and control it with deadly precision. Mashira received the most drastic change, I felt. In the movie, he was an honorable werewolf with a giant snout on his tummy. In the book, he was a parasite of the same species as D’s left hand (and is the one that possesses the half-eaten corpse of Borgoff).

The entire ending with Carmilla is completely fabricated for the film, with her character being nowhere in the book. I actually liked the addition of Carmilla, as she added some extra oomph to the conclusion, which felt like it was missing something in the book. One scene I would have loved to have seen in the film involved Caroline taking control of a giant robotic arm and attacking D with it. The entire sequence was so cool in the book, I can only imagine how the folks at Madhouse might have brought it to life on screen. On the other hand, one absolutely amazing scene from the film that wasn’t in the book, the entire sequence on the bridge, was quite possibly the highlight of the entire flick. So there.

Anyhow, both versions tell the same essential plot with the same characters, but in two very different ways. I can’t say one is better than the other, since they’re both so good. If you liked the movie, then you’d be doing yourself a favor by reading the book. It most certainly isn’t a retread of the events of the movie and you’ll find yourself being very surprised by how the events unfold.

I warned you that I had a lot to say about this movie, and for Heaven’s sake, I don’t feel like I’ve even covered the half of it. I haven’t even gotten to Marco D’Ambrosio’s haunting score and I’ve only touched upon the sheer number of heart-pounding, eye-popping moments (the entire opening, with the crosses wilting like flowers in Meier Link’s presence, for instance). But I can only ramble on for so long. The nice thing about “Bloodlust” is that you don’t have to see the first film or read any of the novels to get what’s going on. It’s a beautiful, epic story and one of the best vampire movies I’ve ever seen.

Grade: A+ (as in, “And in the book, D’s left hand gobbles Mashira up. Trust me, it’s awesome”.)

Zodiac (2007)

If the 20th century gave us anything, it was serial killers by the droves. Many of the mass-murdering maniacs of the real world would inspire movies and documentaries (such as Ed Gein, who inspired “Psycho” and “Silence of the Lambs”), but few were as intense, complex, long-lasting and all around fascinating as the Zodiac murders from the early 1970s. The Zodiac murders inspired their own movies and books (such as “Dirty Harry”), but there had never been a truly well-done retelling of the events behind the scenes until now. The film “Zodiac” is a marvelous and dark look at the investigation behind the Zodiac case in all its frustrating, soul-crushing, heart-stopping glory. It’s been a long time since a murder-mystery film has latched onto my attention and sucked me in from start to finish like “Zodiac” did.

In 1969, after the murder of a young woman, the San Francisco Chronicle began receiving threatening letters from the culprit, a serial killer calling himself “the Zodiac”. Enclosed with each letter was a bizarre cipher which presumably hinted at the Zodiac’s motives or state of mind. The Chronicle’s cartoonist, Robert Graysmith (Jake Gyllenhaal), is quite talented at puzzles and proceeds to decipher the Zodiac’s code. As the murders and letters continue, Inspectors David Toschi (Mark Ruffalo) and William Armstrong (Anthony Edwards) become mired in the bizarre and frustrating effort to find the killer’s identity and bring him to justice. The search seems futile as years pass and results thin out to nothing, yet as more time goes by, more clues surface...and the identity of the Zodiac may be just within reach.

First let me say, the trailers for this film stunk. The first half of the theatrical trailer presented the film as a run-of-the-mill slasher flick, while the second half made it look like it’s some sort of dark comedy. Pay no attention to those trailers; they were pieced together by imbeciles at Warner’s marketing department.

No, “Zodiac” is more than just a horror movie and is certainly not a laugh-out-loud comedy. It’s a mystery-suspense flick which pits the audience on the side of the journalists and detectives struggling to identify the Zodiac. As the movie progresses you get caught up in their search; you get just as frustrated when leads don’t work out, just as angry when evidence comes up short and just as disappointed when all the suspicions prove incorrect as the characters in this film.

The movie takes you back in time and throws you into the maelstrom of news as it happens. For those of you who lived through the Zodiac insanity when it actually happened, this is as close as you’ll get to reliving it. The movie progresses chronologically, so there’s no skipping back and forth. As a result of this, the players are presented with what feels like uneven amounts of screentime. For example, at the beginning of the Zodiac case, the main character of the film, Graysmith, feels more like a back-up character supporting the Chronicle’s star reporter, Paul Avery (Robert Downey Jr.). Then, when the Zodiac killings really fire up, the movie focuses a great deal of time on the two inspectors, leaving Graysmith and Avery with hardly any screentime at all due to their actual irrelevance during this period of time. Then, when the investigation seems to end, Graysmith takes on the starring role and reawakens the case while Avery slips away into obscurity. Although this does seem rather uneven, it maintains the reality of the ordeal and doesn’t pad out the film with fluff involving certain characters who did nothing of note for a few years. Every minute of this movie is important and director David Fincher doesn’t waste any of the audience’s time. I had to piss for the last hour of the flick but was too fascinated with the story to risk getting up for a second.

The acting and direction of the film leave little to complain about. There’s no over-bearing star power to detract from the story and the atmosphere is quite spooky (major kudos on “the basement scene”). It’s a period piece and 1970s San Francisco is brought to life especially well. Even the Paramount opening credit is the vintage 1970s version. I suppose the only kind of “off” choice of casting was John Carroll Lynch as suspect Arthur Leigh Allen. He was fine in the movie but every time I see that guy all I can think about is the Drew Carey Show where he played a cross-dresser. But that’s probably just me and likely won’t distract anyone else in the audience.

“Zodiac” is without question one of the best suspense-thrillers I've come across, just about in league with flicks like "Se7en".

Grade: A (as in, "Although, casting a crossdresser to play the main Zodiac suspect did succeed in making him even creepier".)

Son of Dracula (1943)

Universal’s sequels to “Dracula” generally aren’t very good. Their first attempt, “Dracula’s Daughter”, was a dull mess with few redeeming qualities outside of all the gratuitous lesbian subtext. Their last installments, “House of Frankenstein” and “House of Dracula”, are pretty much reviled by all. However, amidst their slew of subpar sequels, Universal managed to produce one that was genuinely excellent and the only one I ever recommend anybody check out: “Son of Dracula”.

Katherine Caldwell (Louise Allbritton) is the wealthy daughter of an American plantation owner and an all-around good girl...save for one major flaw: she’s tremendously morbid. This leads her to invite the Romanian nobleman, Count Alucard (Lon Chaney Jr.) to her plantation. As mysterious deaths begin to occur, Count Alucard gradually woos Katherine into his thrall, much to the chagrin of her fiancé, Frank (Robert Paige). Unbeknownst to everyone, Count Alucard is really the son of Count Dracula (are they all morons or something?) and he intends to start his evil anew in the American south. Poor Frank finds himself caught between Alucard’s fury and Katherine’s own greedy schemes. Meanwhile, Dr. Brewster (Frank Craven) and Professor Lazlo (J. Edward Bromberg) are out to rescue Frank from his dilemma, killing whatever vampires they can get their hands on.

If there’s one thing folks tend to praise “Son of Dracula” for, it’s the special effects. If you remember the original “Dracula”, all of the Count’s various transformations were done just off screen, often with characters watching and narrating what was going on. “Son of Dracula” leaves nothing to the imagination, showing Alucards transformations into bats and mist in all their glory. Though primitive by modern standards, the transformation effects are very impressive for their day and work surprisingly well (the puppet bats on strings, not so much). Director Robert Siodmak seems intent on making “Son of Dracula” the antithesis to “Dracula’s Daughter”, which was very light on action and effects, making it a dull experience. If “Son of Dracula” succeeds at anything, it’s that it is a pretty exciting picture.

The story is full of a number of twists and turns, trying its level best from coming across as a standard cut and dry horror picture. While Alucard lets his schemes unfold, Katherine has her own machinations going on. She leads Alucard on in order to obtain his supernatural powers, intending to double-cross him and turn Frank so they can be together for eternity. A nice turn-around on the usual cliché of vampires seducing and manipulating women, and an angle I hadn’t entirely expected. Meanwhile, we’d presume Frank to be the noble, lionhearted protagonist of the picture, but he really isn’t. Once he gets caught between Alucard and Katherine, he goes crazy trying to comprehend all the supernatural madness around him. The heroes of the story are Dr. Brewster and Professor Lazlo, two rather elderly guys.

Director Siodmak employs some great sets and atmosphere in addition to his use of special effects. Dark Oaks, the plantation where Alucard sets up shop, lives up to its name as a dark and haunting mansion. Alucard forgoes storing his coffin in the usual crypt or dungeon area and instead hides it away in a gloomy, creepy swamp. This makes for a fantastic scene where Alucard rises from his coffin that’s floating amidst the murk, then proceeds to hover over the water towards Katherine. Siodmak provides some other excellent surprises, such as a great moment where Frank attempts to gun down Alucard, only to have the bullets pass through him and strike Katherine, who was standing behind him.

If there’s anything that really detracts from the film, I’m afraid it would have to be Lon Chaney Jr.’s performance as Count Alucard. Alucard is supposed to be fresh from Romania, but actors simply don’t get much more American than Chaney, who can’t pull off a foreign look or accent no matter how hard he tries (and all he really does is grow a moustache, honestly). Additionally, the flick can’t seem to decide just who Alucard is supposed to be. Brewster and Lazlo briefly mention that he might be a descendent of Count Dracula, but characters later proceed to refer to him as Dracula-himself. For what it’s worth, I’ll just presume the title was correct and that he’s the Count’s son.

“Son of Dracula” is the only Universal Studios “Dracula” sequel I enjoy, and to be honest, I almost like it more than their original offering, iconic as it may be. It’s shot very well, with some excellent special effects, a surprising story and some real eerie organ music by Hans J. Salter. It’s the only one I recommend checking out, and you’ll be glad you did.

Grade: A (as in, “Alucard would go on to become a popular part of Dracula canon, though I recognize him mostly from Konami’s Castlevania games”.)