Tetsuo: The Iron Man

Film: Tetsuo: The Iron Man (1989)
Dir: Shinya Tsukamoto
Rating: ***1/2 out of 5 stars

Here is a little stream of consciousness to describe my thought processes while watching Tetsuo:

Okay, this looks interesting. Black and white. Japanese. Very artsy. Metal. Steam. More metal. I'm detecting a pattern. Wait, what is he...holy fuck, OUCH! Ow, ow, ow. I hope that was sterile. Why on earth did....oh god, oh god, maggots! Ugh. Okay, better now. More metal. More steam. These are kickass title credits. What the...ew, blood pimple. Nasty. Who's this chick now? 'the fuck? Octopus hand?! I'm confused. Metal. Did he just get punched from one side of town to the other? Only in Japan. What's happening? Who's the black dude? Something's happening to the main guy. More metal. Is that a pipe? Random sex. Even more random Asian lady with a vaccum hose penis. Um, he's naked - this can't end well. Okay, new chick. Whoa, did his dick just turn into a...? Yep. Metal metal metal. Get out of there! Blood blood blood. There's that black guy again. I'm still confused. Metal everywhere. Mild steam. Epic robot fight - this is way better than Transformers.

In a nutshell - it's bizarre; it's confusing; it's basically Japan's answer to Eraserhead. The plot is simply this: a man starts turning into a cyborg after a hit-and-run accident with a metal fetishist. Make sense? Who knows. I enjoyed the movie, and will probably watch it again. If nothing else, it is very unique. The cinematography is WILD. Tsukamoto goes crazy with the camera, dipping it all over the place. I accidently watched the first twenty minutes of this film on 2x zoom and had no idea because the visuals are so bold and erratic.

The script does not offer much, but let's face it, Tetsuo is all about the crazy visuals. You are in for dizzying camerwork and envelope-pushing gore. What else would you expect from the Japanese? I like the film's soundtrack, which is largely comprised of mechanical noises - like a much creepier version of "Stomp." In the lead role, Tomorowo Taguchi is great, as are his female co-stars Kei Fujiwara, and Nobu Kanaoka, who make for scary, sexy monsters.

If I had to summarize this film in less than 5 words, I would say: Japanese industrial cybertronic eye-fuck. It clocks in at only 67 minutes, but that's a full hour assault on your senses. If you watch Asian horror, see this. (Real Asian horror, not that ghost story bullshit). If you are a fan of Davids Lynch or Cronenberg, see this. If the idea of merging flesh and metal turns you on, definitely see this. It is not for everybody, but for a select group of sickos out there, Tetsuo is exactly what you're looking for.

**If you enjoy Tetsuo: The Iron Man, be sure to check out its modern counterpart - a fun homage film called Electric Dragon 80,000V, which I reviewed here.

Read More

My Most Anticipated Horror Movies

I wrote an article on up-and-coming horror films I'm excited about for JohnnyVengeance.com - be sure to check it out :)

http://johnnyvengeance.net/2009/06/heather-shares-her-most-anticipated-horror-films/

And be sure to check out the rest of his site - it's a great source for movie news and more!

Read More

Who Can Kill A Child?

Film: Who Can Kill A Child? -aka- Quién puede matar a un niño? (1976)
Dir: Narciso Ibáñez Serrador
Rating: **** out of 5 stars



The idea of children as villains is hardly new to me, after films like Children of the Corn, Village of the Damned, The Omen, Eden Lake, and a certain French film that I won't name to spare the twist. But Who Can Kill A Child? has got to be one of the best ones I've ever seen. It moves a little slow and is sprinkled with 70s cheese, but at its core it is twisted and unique.

English couple Tom and Evelyn take a vacation to a remote Spanish island in search of peace and quiet. When they arrive, the town seems deserted and only children are seen. While looking for assistance, they witness a little girl beat an old man to death. Before long, they realize something is very wrong with this island and its young inhabitants. They try to flee, but the kids won't let them. If they are to survive, Tom and Evelyn must do the unthinkable - well, you know.

The concept is a great one and full of moral conflict. I imagine it was pretty ground-breaking at the time, too. Especially since these children are not aliens, or monsters, or possessed - they are simply evil little fuckers. They seem to kill without reason or remorse. They kill their own parents, who were powerless to stop them because, afterall, who can kill a child? Let alone your own child? Personally, I think I'd have no problem mowing a kid down if he was trying to kill me. But I can certainly appreciate the ethical conflict, especially for Evelyn, who not only has two children back home but is carrying a baby inside her.

Some scenes in this are downright shocking - even 30 years later - but it did not feel cheap or sensationalized. I LOVE the piñata scene and the tiny, adorable child with a handgun, smiling as he points it at Evelyn's head. This is sick shit but it feels totally real and totally relevant. It makes you question your own morals.

I feared the ending would let me down, but it delivers. It manages to be fucked-up without being a total downer (I'm looking at you, Eden Lake!). The only downside to Who Can Kill a Child? is its slow pacing, especially the beginning. There is at least 30-40 minutes before anything tense happens. And the opening credits are a bit unnecessary, showing 8 minutes of real war footage, particularly dead children. I see where the filmmakers were going with it, but it was overkill (no pun intended).

The whole movie reminded me a lot of the original Wicker Man, both thematically and visually. Both are must-sees, especially if you like a film that is scary and unsettling but also well-told and emotionally satisfying.

Read More

Man Bites Dog

Film: Man Bites Dog - aka - C'est arrivé près de chez vous (1992)
Dir: Rémy Belvaux, André Bonzel, Benoît Poelvoorde
Rating: ** out of 5 stars



Man Bites Dog has a certain reputation. If the cover art of a man shooting a baby point-blank in the face wasn't indication enough, the movie is known for being fucked up. And while that scene on the cover never actually occurs, the film is indeed pretty disturbing. Needless to say, I was drawn to it for that reason. Unfortunately, most of the movie is boring and without substance. I like the general concept and how it is executed so realistically, but in the end, it all felt pointless.

The film is a fake documentary following a serial killer named Benoît (Ben, for short). He shows the film crew how he attacks random mailmen, kills and robs old ladies, and other horrific acts. It is obvious he enjoys his "work" - he jokes throughout and will go out for drinks after a murder. He takes pride in killing victims in unique ways and encourages the film crew to partake. Eventually, they do get very involved and start to really enjoy it, as well.

If you didn't know better, you might not know this documentary is fake because it is shot so realistically. Even the lead "actors" are the real directors and use their actual names in the film. The murder scenes are also pretty realistic. Man Bites Dog touches on a very interesting topic - society's fascination with voyeurism and violence. However, it never seemed to reach an actual point and instead comes across like cheap shock schlock.

One scene in particular is very disturbing, where a woman is raped (and ultimately killed) while her husband watches at gunpoint. For me, this scene felt completely unnecessary. Don't get me wrong, I don't have a weak stomach. One of my favorite films of all time is A Clockwork Orange, so I can handle violent rape scenes. The difference between that film and Man Bites Dog is the former had a moral pay-off. Kubrick made me watch these horrific scenes of violence, but it had a purpose and I felt like I got something in return emotionally. In this film, however, the rape is superfluous and does nothing for the story. So I just feel angry for having been made to watch it.

Another one of the film's biggest flaws is its lead subject - Ben. The story would have been more effective if he was a genuinely likable character. The filmmakers were clearly trying to make him charismatic so that the viewer would feel ethically conflicted for liking him. But in reality, Ben is a racist, vulgar, insulting, thieving, raping asshole. These traits makes the killing part less shocking and I never felt that moral ambiguity. Furthermore, his dickish behavior makes it less believable that the film crew would get so swept up in "the fun" of his antics.

This movie has often been called a black comedy, but it is only occasionally funny. I was largely bored by the slow pacing and redundant kill after kill after boring kill. It felt 60 minutes too long, and thus probably would've made for a decent short film. I can appreciate what the filmmakers were going for, but unfortunately they did not quite achieve it.

Read More

Zombie Night

Film: Zombie Night (2003)
Dir: David J. Francis
Rating: * out of 5 stars



Everything is wrong about this movie - script, acting, FX, cinematography - everything. But I gave it 1 star because it made me laugh. A lot. It probably wasn't intentional, but this was the hardest I have laughed in a while.

This mess of a movie is supposed to take place post-nuclear war, with the world overrun by zombies and only a small number of human survivors. They only real plot of the film is these characters moving from one refuge to another, and they meet some asshole who wants revenge after being expelled from the group.

Beyond that, there is no story. It is a meandering mess full of plot holes and terrible dialogue. Characters in this say and do the absurd, unrealistic things you can think of. Needless to say, the production value is piss poor. It looks like something I made in my backyard with a home video camera. There are cars on freeways in the background despite the setting being a war-ravaged wasteland. The FX are pretty lame, save for one shotgun-blast-to-a-zombie-leg that not only makes me laugh hysterically but looks pretty good, actually.

Now for the very worst of it (or best, depending on your mood) - the acting. This is priceless. Not a single person in this rises above laughably bad. Honestly, it's so hilariously awful that I almost want to recommend it. If you like bad movies, this is a must-see. If you are morbidly curious and don't want to sit through the whole thing, just watch this instead:

Read More

Session 9

Film: Session 9 (2001)
Dir: Brad Anderson
Rating: ***** out of 5 stars

It pains me that there are so few horror movies like Session 9. I guess modern movie audiences don't have the patience for slow-boiling tension. This movie is one of the scariest I have ever seen, and yet it draws upon atmosphere and suggestion rather than jump scares or gore.

The film takes place in a run-down asylum with a violent past. An asbestos abatement crew are brought in to clean the place up. Their foreman Gordon (Peter Mullan) is a working-class guy with a new baby and a lot on his mind. His best friend Phil (David Caruso) is along to help, but constantly fighting with Hank (Josh Lucas), who is dating his ex-wife. As the days drag on, tensions rise among the men and mysterious occurances in the asylum become more frequent. Unbeknownst to the others, Mike (Stephen Gevedon) has been sneaking into the hospital at night to listen to old recordings of a schizophrenic patient's therapy sessions. As the tapes approach the ninth and final session, dark truths begin to reveal themselves.

Spooky old buildings - especially those once inhabited by the violently insane - really creep me out. You just know they are full of crazy, pissed-off ghosts! But Session 9 isn't really a ghost movie - it's as much a ghost movie as Kubrick's The Shining. In other words, there are creepy apparitions, but they derive from the damaged psyche. Or do they? Everything in the film has a clinical/psychological basis, and yet it does hint at supernatural influence. I love that the movie approaches the subject from both angles and leaves the viewer to decide what is really going on.

Session 9 achieves tension and terror with hardly any effort. For starters, the title alone builds incredible suspense. As Mike plays sessions 1, 2, 3, you just know something CRAZY is going to occur at 9. Each new tape reveals something increasingly more dark than the last, and I was constantly on edge wondering what was coming. Furthermore, the setting is spooky, as is Brad Anderson's unnervingly calm cinematography. There are no ghostly children here - just dark hallways, isolation, and implications of shocking violence. There is also spooky voice-over thanks to multiple personalities on the session tapes - very, VERY creepy. Try to get "Simon"'s voice out of your head after watching this movie.

Finally, I want to mention the actors, who are all great. Especially Scottish thesp Peter Mullan, whose performace as Gordon is sympathetic and haunting. And Caruso keeps his hamminess to a minimum (minus one hilarious shot you have probably seen as a .gif file online). I think Session 9's only fault would be a few superfluous details and points left unexplained. But overall, this is an amazing, unique horror film that haunts you long after it's over.

Read More

Street Trash

Film: Street Trash (1987)
Dir: Jim Muro
Rating: **** out of 5 stars



Pay no attention to that Tommy Vance quote on the poster - it is wildly inaccurate and just plain stupid. However, Street Trash is an awesome movie full of tasteless hilarity, quirky characters, and gooey gore. A better comparison would be: Bad Taste meets The Toxic Avenger on the set of They Live. In other words - fantastic.

The film is about a community of derelicts living in and around a NYC junkyard. When the local liquor store starts selling a mysterious booze called Tenefly Viper for $1, a slew of homeless winos are found dead - or more specifically, melted. Aside from that, there is very little plot. We follow the daily hijinx of Fred and his brother Kevin, who get into a mess of trouble with the Viper, the local mafia, the police, and Bronson, a ruthless Vietnam vet who rules the junkyard.

Street Trash isn't exactly known for having an intelligent or even cohesive plot. But it does have a range of hilarious characters, outrageous scenes and quotables, and some surprisingly awesome melt FX. Seriously, Jennifer Aspinall and Mike Lackey (who also plays Fred) did an amazing job with the special makeup effects. I was impressed from the infamous toilet scene and it only got better thereafter. You really must see this movie to believe it.

I fear that director Jim Muro (now J. Michael Muro) is ashamed of this film, and he has not directed since but is a very successful stedicam operator. It's a real shame because he did a great job with this one, as did writer Roy Frumkes. I was pleasantly surprised at how much Evil Dead influence appeared in this too - from the Sam-o-Cam shots to the choice of making the hobos' blood every color except red. Again, it's a shame Muro didn't embrace directing - he might have been another Raimi.

A lot of people compare this to Troma films, but honestly, I think it's way superior. It never felt like shock-for-the-sake-of-shock, or cheap, dirty humor. Oh, it's trashy (look at the title) but it's fantastic and so, so funny. This movie definitely stole a place in my heart among cult classics like Re-Animator and Bad Taste.

**PS - I don't usually mention DVD features in these reviews, but if you see and enjoy Street Trash, you MUST check out "The Meltdown Memoirs" on the two-disc set. It is a lengthy documentary about the making of the film and has interviews with everyone in the cast, and most of the crew - including Bryan Singer, who was a production assistant on the film. Of course, Muro does not appear. It is very comprehensive and a must-see for fans of the film.

Read More