The House on Sorority Row had this mystic status for me because it was often referenced by others as a mainstay of the slasher sub-genre, yet I had not seen it. It deserves its cachet, as it is certainly one of the frontrunners in its group, but I think the conceit was used more than the concept in most of the similar films that followed (Slumber Party Massacre, et.al.). The House on Sorority Row has little nudity and one sex scene, both early-on in the movie, but literally every other slasher trope is present.
HSR brings all of it, from the overly-wrought childhood psychology to the domineering, old woman authority figure, to a medical conspiracy plot that would have been at-home in any Devil Flick. This is a good film to watch to learn the Horror Movie "Rules" before they became cliches. It also brings the requisite gore one expects from the Slasher, though it lacks a handful or two of boobs.
Don't we all, though?
A lot of these progenitors of the form were actually shot as Scooby and the Gang-type mysteries; the gore was added later to appeal to current market trends. Most of the archetypes for the slasher involve the overwrought childhood psychology angle, and HSR is no exception, but this one -- like The Silent Scream -- is far more invested in its plot than its characters or special effects, and just barely misses its mark because of that. It appears a lot of these early slashers were similarly retooled before release, which explains why a lot of them could have been pretty good, but... weren't.
The Gothic angle is steep in The House on Sorority Row -- which makes perfect sense and is actually fairly well-executed -- so steep that, once you think about it, the gore sticks-out as an obvious afterthought, though I don't remember thinking that the first time through. You get the feeling that something is not "clicking," but it isn't that obvious. This is one slasher flick that could truly be argued to have been hurt by the gore, but I don't want to be in that argument.
The kills are pretty effective and the reveal works well, and The House on Sorority Row has a pretty kick-ass ending, so even though it's uneven, it deserves its place as one of the "forgotten" slasher classics.
© C Harris Lynn, 2010
A rambling melange of pop-culture.
Thursday, October 07, 2010
On Demonic Toys - A Review
Demonic Toys is another example of the late-80s stylized horror trope, as well as the action-horror sub-genre. 1989 was the age of Hunter, Die Hard, and Lethal Weapon, and the tail-end of a decade of Stephen King and slashers-- we knew The Cat Trick and the double fake-out, and we expected our horror heroines to, as well. This savvy lead into the cynical 90s, which sought to turn all these staples on their heads -- make them ex-TREME, man -- and Demonic Toys is a solid step in that direction.
The 1980s were a banner time for both action movies and the teen slasher, and while all horror films could arguably be considered "action," the two genres hold a lot of similarities past the surface -- both focus on survivors, and revenge is generally tied into the whole package, as well. But let's not give the entertainment industry more credit than it deserves; both action and horror had made a lot of movies and a lot of money throughout the 1980s, and when they both stopped making as much, someone put them together to wring-out that last little drop.
The action/horror flick works so well that it has become a sub-genre in itself, and there were plenty of good examples before Demonic Toys, which plays as what it almost certainly was: An ambitious cable channel project. Demonic Toys was the action cookie-cutter for its semi-popular, titular sub-genre and, for all its shortcomings, is fun enough at times for you to overlook its cynicism and "extreme" attitude. It isn't a bad movie, and the leads are actually pretty likable... in a movie of mostly unlikable people.
Demonic Toys pulls out literally every theme in the playbook. Satanic forces controlling toys? Check. Slacker antihero? Check. Forced to work with a conservative paragon of the force who Does Things Her Way But Gets Results? Double-check. For all it adds to the mythos, a lot of the exposition could have been glossed-over, but the movie winks at the audience somewhat coyly, and the creators obviously have reverence for the field.
There are far better examples of the sub-genre, but Demonic Toys falls neatly into the '80's Action/Horror category, though it too "faithfully" combines four or five, different elements. While obviously low-budget, Demonic Toys succeeds well enough that it leaves no aftertaste, but you should watch Dolls and Child's Play to see how the story goes.
© C Harris Lynn, 2010
The 1980s were a banner time for both action movies and the teen slasher, and while all horror films could arguably be considered "action," the two genres hold a lot of similarities past the surface -- both focus on survivors, and revenge is generally tied into the whole package, as well. But let's not give the entertainment industry more credit than it deserves; both action and horror had made a lot of movies and a lot of money throughout the 1980s, and when they both stopped making as much, someone put them together to wring-out that last little drop.
The action/horror flick works so well that it has become a sub-genre in itself, and there were plenty of good examples before Demonic Toys, which plays as what it almost certainly was: An ambitious cable channel project. Demonic Toys was the action cookie-cutter for its semi-popular, titular sub-genre and, for all its shortcomings, is fun enough at times for you to overlook its cynicism and "extreme" attitude. It isn't a bad movie, and the leads are actually pretty likable... in a movie of mostly unlikable people.
Demonic Toys pulls out literally every theme in the playbook. Satanic forces controlling toys? Check. Slacker antihero? Check. Forced to work with a conservative paragon of the force who Does Things Her Way But Gets Results? Double-check. For all it adds to the mythos, a lot of the exposition could have been glossed-over, but the movie winks at the audience somewhat coyly, and the creators obviously have reverence for the field.
There are far better examples of the sub-genre, but Demonic Toys falls neatly into the '80's Action/Horror category, though it too "faithfully" combines four or five, different elements. While obviously low-budget, Demonic Toys succeeds well enough that it leaves no aftertaste, but you should watch Dolls and Child's Play to see how the story goes.
© C Harris Lynn, 2010
Wednesday, October 06, 2010
Real Quick
Sorry guys, but something is wrong with my stomach. I thought it was something I'd eaten over the weekend, but it still hasn't cleared-up. I've been treating it traditionally (OTC medicines), but this is going on the fifth day here and it still isn't feeling much better. I'm going to give it at least one more day before I go to the doctor's. I apologize, but I really thought I'd be feeling better by now!
© C Harris Lynn, 2010
© C Harris Lynn, 2010
Tuesday, October 05, 2010
Monday, October 04, 2010
On Scarecrows - A Review
For as hard as the anonymous Interwebz people are on so many things, Scarecrows is not one of them, and that's a damn shame. If you think, "For my money's worth, I could have rented a worse flick," I suppose I could get behind that, but if you're thinking, "I still got had," then I agree.
Scarecrows is a bit better, and worse, than your typical scarecrow movie, but I haven't seen a whole lot of them. The bad thing about Scarecrows is that it fails at all, as it is a good story. The script is hit and miss, the acting is really bad, and it was obviously padded to meet its 120-minute mark, but Scarecrows showcases what the money was spent on in these 1980's-era films: The Creature(s)/SFX, and that counts. I think younger generations are rating it higher than it deserves simply because it succeeds on that level -- because it does -- and they are so used to completely unrealistic CGI effects.
The SFX are fantastic, and on full-display throughout the entirety of the movie, but the acting is so bad, the story so padded, that Scarecrows can't help but come apart at the seams. HA! At a full half-hour shorter, it would have been far more powerful, but not without those great special effects. Scarecrows may have needed the padding to fill a cable pay-channel timeslot to afford the special-effects, which depend as heavily on wardrobe and lighting as make-up -- the "CGI" of its day.
That may be a play on a play from the movie itself: Luminaries like Rick Baker and Tom Savini were at the top of their form in those days, and Scarecrows shows a fair amount of gore, make-up, and SFX, despite the demonic forces what are the titular scarecrows being masked. It is an effective show of an overall effects department, as opposed to the cheap, garish tricks they throw at today's audiences. These are those same tricks in full regale -- not pared down to their loudest, and most scientifically, psychologically, or artistically "effective."
Scarecrows has a little substance, and it throws a lot of style at the screen, but by 1988, this was a bloated Tales from the Crypt episode without the acting chops. Its clever script and concept is stretched so thin that it comes apart at the seams. HAHA, CUZ... I mean, they're scarecrows.
© C Harris Lynn, 2010
Scarecrows is a bit better, and worse, than your typical scarecrow movie, but I haven't seen a whole lot of them. The bad thing about Scarecrows is that it fails at all, as it is a good story. The script is hit and miss, the acting is really bad, and it was obviously padded to meet its 120-minute mark, but Scarecrows showcases what the money was spent on in these 1980's-era films: The Creature(s)/SFX, and that counts. I think younger generations are rating it higher than it deserves simply because it succeeds on that level -- because it does -- and they are so used to completely unrealistic CGI effects.
The SFX are fantastic, and on full-display throughout the entirety of the movie, but the acting is so bad, the story so padded, that Scarecrows can't help but come apart at the seams. HA! At a full half-hour shorter, it would have been far more powerful, but not without those great special effects. Scarecrows may have needed the padding to fill a cable pay-channel timeslot to afford the special-effects, which depend as heavily on wardrobe and lighting as make-up -- the "CGI" of its day.
That may be a play on a play from the movie itself: Luminaries like Rick Baker and Tom Savini were at the top of their form in those days, and Scarecrows shows a fair amount of gore, make-up, and SFX, despite the demonic forces what are the titular scarecrows being masked. It is an effective show of an overall effects department, as opposed to the cheap, garish tricks they throw at today's audiences. These are those same tricks in full regale -- not pared down to their loudest, and most scientifically, psychologically, or artistically "effective."
Scarecrows has a little substance, and it throws a lot of style at the screen, but by 1988, this was a bloated Tales from the Crypt episode without the acting chops. Its clever script and concept is stretched so thin that it comes apart at the seams. HAHA, CUZ... I mean, they're scarecrows.
© C Harris Lynn, 2010
Friday, October 01, 2010
On the Death of a Clown
The comedy world suffered two truly great losses in a short time with the passing of both Robert Schimmel and Greg Giraldo, and although we rarely get too maudlin around here -- dull, yes, angry, sure -- these deaths seemed to have affected a lot of people, and I'm one of them.
I'm not a stand-up comedian, I never met either man, but I can't say I don't have a connection to both: They both made me laugh... really hard, quite often. And that counts for a hell of a lot. I think that is specifically why their deaths have affected so many people as strongly as they have: Because a little laughter is worth so much these days.
If I had to rate the two, I'd say Schimmel was more of a personal favorite, but I don't say that to be ugly -- I say that because there was less of an outpouring of emotion for him, and I think that's only because he was less well-known. Robert Schimmel's act was raunchier than Giraldo's, generally speaking, so he got fewer televised engagements.
But while neither comedian's act was exactly ready for primetime (network, anyway), Last Comic Standing featured both, and Schimmel actually appeared on Friends back in its first season -- something I'd forgotten until his death. Another thing I didn't know was that both were frequent guests on The Howard Stern Show. Like most of the rest of the world, I haven't listened to much of Howard Stern since he went to pay-radio; I don't dislike the guy or anything, I just don't find him interesting enough that I'd pay to hear him. Giraldo and Schimmel, on quite the other hand... I definitely would have shelled-out 99¢ an episode to hear either of them, and probably will.
But it wasn't just Robert Schimmel's lack of exposure that failed to rouse the general public's mourning, it was his onstage character -- the downtrodden "loser" whose bawdy act centered as much on his family as his sex life. Greg Giraldo was the good-looking, angry, everyman (who actually studied law at Harvard!) -- a throwback to the rebellious, rock n roll comedians of the late-70s and early-80s... too many of whom also went too early. He seemed to have it all, and the fact that the details surrounding his death have yet to emerge make "dealing with it" all the more complex.
So, let's deal with it:
A lot of people have been repeating, "With prescription drugs, it's rarely an accidental overdose," and that's horseshit; those people should stop saying it. First of all, it doesn't soften the blow; only finely-cut Vitamin C or baby laxative does that. Secondly, that's not true. Drugs like Xanax, Oxycontin, even the somewhat "safe" Hydrocodone, can all result in overdose, especially when mixed with alcohol. Giraldo was a recovering alcoholic, so his kidneys and/or liver may already have been worn to the point where... Just stop saying stupid, thoughtless things like that.
Also, as Marc Maron protested, Greg Giraldo was not just an "insult comedian." In fact, he was ever only an insult comedian on the Comedy Central Roasts; like Schimmel, his stand-up act was far more personal and personally-based. Robin Quivers even said she heard newscasters calling him Greg H-iraldo (as in talk-show host, Geraldo), but that could h-ust be more of the PC horseshit that clogs all of "entertainment" these days, and that's all "The News" is, anyway. You don't have to write it to read it, folks; few can.
Regardless, while it's all made for a few headlines and watercooler talk, try to keep in mind that these were real people, both of whom have children. Not in that phony, "Greg H-iraldo" way, but in the same way you think of that toothless crackwhore you picked-up the other night who cost you $300 and $20 cuz she robbed you at knifepoint. And was a man. They, and their real friends and families, are the only ones who are truly "dealing" with anything. In fact, Robert Schimmel's teenage daughter was in the vehicle with him the night of his car wreck, and she survived. If you remember being 19, just imagine how hard that must be for her.
You're just getting older.
It's hard when anyone you idolize or respect, even if you never knew them directly, dies. But then, it's hard when anyone you idolize or respect simply "loses" that special touch, or quality, they once had -- dulled by age, years of alcohol or drugs, or just the bitter reality of everyday life -- and though the world is certainly a slightly less humorous place for their passing, these men were but that: men.
All men die. Eventually.
© C Harris Lynn, 2010
I'm not a stand-up comedian, I never met either man, but I can't say I don't have a connection to both: They both made me laugh... really hard, quite often. And that counts for a hell of a lot. I think that is specifically why their deaths have affected so many people as strongly as they have: Because a little laughter is worth so much these days.
If I had to rate the two, I'd say Schimmel was more of a personal favorite, but I don't say that to be ugly -- I say that because there was less of an outpouring of emotion for him, and I think that's only because he was less well-known. Robert Schimmel's act was raunchier than Giraldo's, generally speaking, so he got fewer televised engagements.
But while neither comedian's act was exactly ready for primetime (network, anyway), Last Comic Standing featured both, and Schimmel actually appeared on Friends back in its first season -- something I'd forgotten until his death. Another thing I didn't know was that both were frequent guests on The Howard Stern Show. Like most of the rest of the world, I haven't listened to much of Howard Stern since he went to pay-radio; I don't dislike the guy or anything, I just don't find him interesting enough that I'd pay to hear him. Giraldo and Schimmel, on quite the other hand... I definitely would have shelled-out 99¢ an episode to hear either of them, and probably will.
But it wasn't just Robert Schimmel's lack of exposure that failed to rouse the general public's mourning, it was his onstage character -- the downtrodden "loser" whose bawdy act centered as much on his family as his sex life. Greg Giraldo was the good-looking, angry, everyman (who actually studied law at Harvard!) -- a throwback to the rebellious, rock n roll comedians of the late-70s and early-80s... too many of whom also went too early. He seemed to have it all, and the fact that the details surrounding his death have yet to emerge make "dealing with it" all the more complex.
So, let's deal with it:
A lot of people have been repeating, "With prescription drugs, it's rarely an accidental overdose," and that's horseshit; those people should stop saying it. First of all, it doesn't soften the blow; only finely-cut Vitamin C or baby laxative does that. Secondly, that's not true. Drugs like Xanax, Oxycontin, even the somewhat "safe" Hydrocodone, can all result in overdose, especially when mixed with alcohol. Giraldo was a recovering alcoholic, so his kidneys and/or liver may already have been worn to the point where... Just stop saying stupid, thoughtless things like that.
Also, as Marc Maron protested, Greg Giraldo was not just an "insult comedian." In fact, he was ever only an insult comedian on the Comedy Central Roasts; like Schimmel, his stand-up act was far more personal and personally-based. Robin Quivers even said she heard newscasters calling him Greg H-iraldo (as in talk-show host, Geraldo), but that could h-ust be more of the PC horseshit that clogs all of "entertainment" these days, and that's all "The News" is, anyway. You don't have to write it to read it, folks; few can.
Regardless, while it's all made for a few headlines and watercooler talk, try to keep in mind that these were real people, both of whom have children. Not in that phony, "Greg H-iraldo" way, but in the same way you think of that toothless crackwhore you picked-up the other night who cost you $300 and $20 cuz she robbed you at knifepoint. And was a man. They, and their real friends and families, are the only ones who are truly "dealing" with anything. In fact, Robert Schimmel's teenage daughter was in the vehicle with him the night of his car wreck, and she survived. If you remember being 19, just imagine how hard that must be for her.
You're just getting older.
It's hard when anyone you idolize or respect, even if you never knew them directly, dies. But then, it's hard when anyone you idolize or respect simply "loses" that special touch, or quality, they once had -- dulled by age, years of alcohol or drugs, or just the bitter reality of everyday life -- and though the world is certainly a slightly less humorous place for their passing, these men were but that: men.
All men die. Eventually.
© C Harris Lynn, 2010
On The Silent Scream - A Review
I should be forgiven for calling The Silent Scream a "girly" slasher flick, because I actually mean that in a good way, not a misogynistic way. And also because only fatgirls and lesbians use the word "misogynistic," and you are neither. Right? Ri-ight. Hey, forgive me and we'll move right the hell on...
Released in 1980, The Silent Scream was filmed in the late-1970s but considered unwatchable, so massive rewrites and reshoots had to be undertaken -- yes, the movie industry actually did such things in those days (it is not some charming myth we old people created). The boy, Mason, is actually watching a screening of discarded shoots when he is in his room, enjoying TV. I saw the streaming version, not the DVD, so I did not get to hear the director's commentary or interview, but IMdB and elsewhere explain enough of the story for me to gather the gist of things: The original had at least one rape scene (reportedly the footage Mason is watching in the scene which shows the TV's picture), as well as more consensual sex, and was a bit gorier.
Still, The Silent Scream isn't without its charm. The body count is low, the blood is mostly spatter (not splatter), and there's still one good sex scene. But more than all that, The Silent Scream has just what I said: Charm. It owes a lot to earlier films, such as Psycho (to which it is often compared and director, Denny Harris, even admitted to being influenced by in an interview he gave shortly before his 2007 death), but it makes a lot of what it has.
The rewrites and reshoots explain the sometimes disparate pacing, but Harris does a fine job of both evoking and capturing the mood and tension, where there is any. The Silent Scream is slow-paced and plot-heavy, but if Halloween hadn't beaten it to screens, The Silent Scream would likely be remembered as a fair slasher. As it is, it better falls into the category of "psychological thriller," although The Silent Scream is really a somewhat mawkish melodrama.
Or a girly movie; one for the girls.
© C Harris Lynn, 2010
Released in 1980, The Silent Scream was filmed in the late-1970s but considered unwatchable, so massive rewrites and reshoots had to be undertaken -- yes, the movie industry actually did such things in those days (it is not some charming myth we old people created). The boy, Mason, is actually watching a screening of discarded shoots when he is in his room, enjoying TV. I saw the streaming version, not the DVD, so I did not get to hear the director's commentary or interview, but IMdB and elsewhere explain enough of the story for me to gather the gist of things: The original had at least one rape scene (reportedly the footage Mason is watching in the scene which shows the TV's picture), as well as more consensual sex, and was a bit gorier.
Still, The Silent Scream isn't without its charm. The body count is low, the blood is mostly spatter (not splatter), and there's still one good sex scene. But more than all that, The Silent Scream has just what I said: Charm. It owes a lot to earlier films, such as Psycho (to which it is often compared and director, Denny Harris, even admitted to being influenced by in an interview he gave shortly before his 2007 death), but it makes a lot of what it has.
The rewrites and reshoots explain the sometimes disparate pacing, but Harris does a fine job of both evoking and capturing the mood and tension, where there is any. The Silent Scream is slow-paced and plot-heavy, but if Halloween hadn't beaten it to screens, The Silent Scream would likely be remembered as a fair slasher. As it is, it better falls into the category of "psychological thriller," although The Silent Scream is really a somewhat mawkish melodrama.
Or a girly movie; one for the girls.
© C Harris Lynn, 2010
The Art of Todd McFarlane: The Devil's in the Details
Berkeley, CA - 30 September 2010 - When you're writing your holiday wish list, don't forget to include THE ART OF TODD McFARLANE: THE DEVIL'S IN THE DETAILS -- Todd McFarlane's first-ever art book!This oversized hardcover showcases for the first time Todd McFarlane's unique art style, which forever changed the landscape of comic book art when he burst onto the scene in the 1980s. THE ART OF TODD McFARLANE features art from original comic art boards; rare, never-before-seen sketches; and images from McFarlane's work on Batman, Spider-Man, and the Hulk (amongst many others), as well as McFarlane's own top-selling creation, SPAWN. The book also includes selected commentary by the artist himself.
"This book is 20 years in the making and follows my decades of trying to learn this craft of drawing and comics," relates McFarlane. "I'm hoping this book will be an inspiration to young artists, not so much from my advanced pages, but from the raw, undeveloped drawing I entered the industry with. It took me quite a few years to go from adequate to someone who wasn't afraid of where the next job would come from. I'm hoping this art book shows the evolution of my style, and will be a positive message to those that have aspirations to be in this industry. I also hope it will be entertaining to those who have followed my career, seeing that I didn't come out of the shoot fully-formed, artistically."
THE ART OF TODD McFARLANE: THE DEVIL'S IN THE DETAILS, a 300-page, full-color, oversized hardcover for $64.99 (OCT100465), will be in stores December 1, 2010. The regular edition will be limited to 5,000 copies, while the signed and numbered edition, which retails for $100 (OCT100466), will be limited to only 300 copies. Don't miss your chance to get the perfect gift, whether for a loved one or for yourself!
© C Harris Lynn, 2010
Starz Tests TV in the Digital Age with The Resistance
Conceived as a Web series, Starz Media is using a host of media outlets to test the strength of the new, animated show, The Resistance, including Hulu, YouTube, iTunes, Amazon -- even SyFy's AniMonday! On October 4th, all of the webisodes will be shown back-to-back, including behind-the-scenes material, for a solid hour of TV programming, meant to gauge viewer interest in extending the series.
99% of the human population has fallen prey to a virus only Syrus Primoris' suppressant can fight and, with that, the brilliant chemist has seized control of the world. But one force opposes Primoris and seeks another cure. The Resistance is produced by Sam Raimi's Ghost House Pictures, with whom Starz worked on Spartacus: Blood and Sand.
© C Harris Lynn, 2010
99% of the human population has fallen prey to a virus only Syrus Primoris' suppressant can fight and, with that, the brilliant chemist has seized control of the world. But one force opposes Primoris and seeks another cure. The Resistance is produced by Sam Raimi's Ghost House Pictures, with whom Starz worked on Spartacus: Blood and Sand.
© C Harris Lynn, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)