Twins of Evil

What timing! Karl has just posted his review of the second Karnstein Trilogy film, Lust for a Vampire, and here's my review of the final installment, Twins of Evil! It's almost like we planned this, man!

Until someone proves me wrong, this movie should be noted for offering the wimpiest portrayal of a vampire ever. Count Karnstein's character starts off on the right foot but just when you think he's about ready to summon up the forces of hell and make blood soup out of the local Quaker Oats Posse, he instead cowers behind a castle door in the best unintentionally comic horror pose I've seen to date.
As a vampire, Karnstein gets an F. Sesame Street's Count von Count is scarier.

Peter Cushing did a great job and stole the show during an unexpected decapitation scene. I didn't really appreciate seeing him cast in the same trilogy as a completely different character, though... and his costume was way too distracting.

Can you believe I haven't mentioned the Collinson Twins yet? You get one scene, containing several clips that will require you to become rather friendly with your DVD's pause button in order to fully appreciate them. It was a far cry from what I expected after the Vampire Lovers and what I have read about Lust for a Vampire. I can only hope that there's a more skintastic unedited version out there somewhere.

And if you think I wouldn't mind only seeing one identical twin get topless (they're both the same, right?) then you don't know me very well. Bad move, Hammer.

This film gets a .5 for all of the five Jeff categories except "Boos", which received a zero. It scored on laughs ("spews") only because of sufficient unintentional comedy (e.g. cushing in bad clothes, a burnt-at-the-stake scene around every corner, a laughable count with a mute bodyguard who plays charades, etc.) I let the decap scene carry the "Ewww" and the one scene of a gorgeous twin's twins carry the "boobs". Borrow or rent, but I wouldn't buy.

Lust for a Vampire (1971)

Stop! Hammer Time! This is the second movie in the Karnstein Trilogy. This one is the tale of a prophesied return of a creepy vampire family at their castle on the edge of town. The castle just happens to be right next to an all-girl finishing school. Some lauded author visiting the town hears about the prophesy, and more importantly gets an eyeful of the student bodies next to the castle and schmoozes his way into a teaching position at the school. Long prophesy short, the Karnsteins show up again and snack on the local students/teachers/etc. The author/teacher falls in lust with the daughter of the Karnsteins, who is attending the school. Eventually the townsfolk get their dander up and burn the castle.

This movie was full of the Hammer style: extreme close up of peoples eyes, melodramatic overacting, and tomato soup blood effects. There was enough nudity sprinkled throughout to keep me from falling asleep, but it was a little too talky. And the hinted at woman on woman element was in there as well, but limited. I expected a little more from a horror movie with a girls finishing school in it. Count Karnstein, who posed as an Austrian doctor was pretty inadvertently funny giving the answer “Heart Attack” in a low monotone whenever he performed an examination of any of the bite- marked victims to determine cause of death. Given who made this movie and when it was made, I spose this warrants 2 and a half Georges.

Nude for Satan (1974)

Whisky Tango Foxtrot. That is what you will be saying to yourself, or out loud as I did when I watched this movie. This weird little Italian film is packed to the gills with WTF moments. And during some of the slow dialoggy parts it tries to blow your mind with psychobabble and metaphysical nonsense.

It starts with a doctor driving around the Italian countryside at night looking for a particular residence and getting totally lost. He almost hits a pedestrian, or what he thinks is a pedestrian and skids off the road. Shortly after that a woman driving another car along the same stretch has a similar one car pileup. The doctor witnesses this, and seeing that she is unconscious, heads off to look for help, even though he is a doctor. He finds some weird castle, and takes a self guided tour of the place, which seems to be partially occupied by some Victorian S&M Nudist association. On his tour he meets a doppelganger of the female motorist. The doppelganger thinks he is someone else and they proceed to get it on, sorta.

Then the female motorist regains consciousness and wanders off and finds the freaky castle, where she meets some weird dude and then another dude who is the doppelganger of the doctor. They do not get it on. Eventually everyone becomes aware of their doubles and they re-pair off. Then their host, the weird dude who is not a doppelganger, has some nekkid ladies come out and dance and his creepy butler laughs maniacally a lot. I guess he is supposed to be Satan, or maybe just a distant weirdo cousin of Satan.

The ending is the only thing that makes the whole middle crazy/psychedelic/bad camera effect portion make sense, or at least excuses it. Of note: the worst spider prop/effect I have ever seen. Also of note: this film gets a Golden Treehorn, 100% of the female cast gets naked; Rita Calderoni even takes it off for both roles she plays.

Horror in the News

The Museum of the Moving Image in NYC is hosting the "IT'S ONLY A MOVIE: HORROR FILMS FROM THE 1970s AND TODAY" Festival. It looks pretty interesting, and we've already reviewed some of the movies they're showing, but some we haven't.

The Vampire Lovers

This is a personal favorite of mine. Not only are there some lovely scenes involving Ingrid Pitt and Madeline Smith but it also has that classic Hammer atmosphere and production quality. This is one of those films you welcome on a hung-over Sunday morning with an oversized cup of coffee. Far from being an edge-of-your-seat roller-coaster ride of gore and mayhem (it feels more like a serialized drama) it is nevertheless a cool flick that you can chill to. It puts the "class" in Classic Horror. Unfortunately it is currently out of print so you'll have to come over to my place to see it (and my copy is a DVD transfer I made from my original VHS cassette.) Either that or pay for a copy on the resale market (they're out there, of course.)

Technically, this film rates low using the Jeff method of film rating (although it gets 1 whole point for boobage.) It's not scary unless you're afraid of lesbians. It gets some unintentional laughs ("A big cat!") and from what I've read the eroticism in this film was something new for Hammer at the time. That gets us up to 2 points. I'm awarding it another point for being such a classy production with a cool little vampire mythos of its own. This is actually part one of what is called the "Karnstein Trilogy." Part Two ("Lust for a Vampire") can be found new for about $10. Part Three ("Twins of Evil") is a bit more pricey. If you can hang with Region 2 PAL, grab the $20.00 copy from Xploited Cinema. While you're there, check out the gazillion other cool titles they stock.

Oh, and another cool thing about this flick is that you can show it to your wife even if she's not a big horror fan. Luckily mine is and she dug it as much as I did. Perhaps Maude will post her take on it.

WHAT ABOUT THE OTHER HORROR FEST?

Hey! You know, it's great and all that "8 Films To Die For" is making a return this year. But what about the Masters of Horror? I say we're sorely neglecting the series, here on DOH! (Dude, don't you just love the initials? D'oh!)

Except for one review from The Jesus, I don't think any of us here have mentioned this great series. And, it is coming back for a third season this October. It'd be one thing if we were just attempting to review the classics, or standout movies. But I don't think we're that picky, do you?

Now. I know Jeff and I have seen Imprint, Cigarette Burns, Dreams in the Witch House, Jenifer, Sick Girl, and Pick Me Up. And The Jesus has at least seen Imprint. That's 6 potential reviews from me and Jeff, and leaves 20 films for us to see (and however many more for the rest of us). Let's get on it! I'd much rather watch and review these movies than turds like Unrest. You heard me! That movie was a turd! A total TUUUUURRRRDDDDDDDDDD!!!!!! You know what that makes the director? A turd merchant! HA!

Sorry, Jeff, for the lack of linkage or reviews in this post. I'm just stopping in to briefly complain and insult movies. A troll-by, if you will:)

The Fog (1980)

This movie sucked.

If I relied solely upon my own scale, this thing would get a -0.5. At the very best a zero. Here's a short list of what's wrong with this film:

• It's not scary. If you were between the ages of nine and ten and snuck a viewing of this on HBO- then maybe.


• Twelve minutes in and credits are still popping up on the screen.


• Needlessly long scenes try to draw us into the environment and characters, which really pays off when we realize those opening credits have literally inserted themselves into the heads of the characters such that when they try to reason all their minds can come up with is "Carpenter... Carpenter... Carpenter..."


• The most interesting aspect of the film (the curse) is never explained, and the carnage (if you can call it that) wrought by it is no where near memorable enough to justify the lame ass ending.


• Adrienne Barbeau and Jamie Lee Curtis in the same movie in the eighties and neither one takes their top off? Are you fucking kidding me? How about that busty mayor's assistant? She's a no-name actress. Surely she's taking it off. No!?!? How about some topless fog, John? Can I get that? Fuck!

Were Rob Bottin's special effects good? Of course they were. And the cinematography in general was just grand. I realized this when a succession of about 20 perfectly composed shots of Antonio Bay were thrown at me to drive that home. And the acting was passable. Fine. But I don't care how you slice and dice it. It sucked.

You can't tell me you watched this film and wanted to grab your friends so they could see it. You can't tell me it "got into your head" or that you spontaneously vomited sharks the next time fog rolled into your town. I really don't give a rat's ass what you say... no wait... I DO give a rat's ass. A mouse's anyhow. I'm giving John Carpenter's "The Fog" a big fat George's Ass.

"Death of Horror"... Yeah Right

The Dudes of Horror usually keep their opinions to their own site. Usually. But sometimes we step outside of our crypts and post on less reputable sites, like the one at EW: Guy at EW Tries to Jerk Us Around

The offending article was actually posted in the New York Times (links to it are provided on the EW page.)

For those who are interested, my original reply is below in unedited form. Comments are welcome.

---

What should have been posted here:

Frankly, I think this article is alarmist for the sake of getting more genre fans off their butts and into theater seats. Someone at Lionsgate is probably thanking their buddy Josh at EW for making sure there's a better turnout for the next round of movies later in the year. And let's not forget that Lionsgate is involved with the "8 Films To Die For" festival which is going to have another go at it this year.

Theatrical releases are much more important to studio execs than they are to horror fans. The fact of the matter is that there are more films available for you to watch on DVD than you'll ever have time for. How many "grindhouse" genre films have you seen with major releases in the past ten years? Zero. Alright, one- if you include the recent "Death Proof." Meanwhile, fans of grindhouse cinema have been treated to a steady diet of films on DVD- even from the major retail outlets.

The studios know there is a "built-in" audience for horror. Until blood stops pumping in the veins of our thrill-seeking youth, films at least marketed as horror will continue to pad the bottom lines of those studio budgets. That's what I feel this article is truly trying to gauge: dear horror fan, which two of the thousands of relevant screenplays should we run with for next year to ensure that more of you bite?

If horror films were banned from theaters tomorrow, it'd be the best thing in the world for fans. They'd be forced to either explore more of the "back catalogue" of the genre and/or take matters into their own hands by producing fresh movies with fresh ideas.

Either way you look at it horror isn't going anywhere, people.

The House on the Edge of the Park (1980)

This is pure exploitation with just the thinnest of plotlines to bookend the movie. As Davis Hess said in the extras, it is in the style of Grand Guignol, an over the top style found in a lot of Italian films from the 70’s/80’s.

David Hess plays another sociopath, similar to what he did in The Last House on the Left (1972). He does a good job at having no redeemable qualities. He and his semi-Forrest Gump friend invite themselves to an upper crusty “get together” and proceed to hold the house hostage while they do as they please. Weapon of choice? A straight razor. The main protagonist of the movie looks like a dapper (well, dapper for the late 70’s) version of Cillian Murphy. Watch it and see if you don’t agree.

To match the thinness of the plot, this movie was filmed with a shoestring budget. The gore effects are simple and often laughable, the most egregious being the razor slash effects. Most of the time it looks like he is drawing on them in red crayon. However, this movie does score high points for its females-in-movie to females-who-get-naked-in-movie ratio. 100%. You heard me right. In the extras, Hess even claimed/implied that his “love” scene was the real deal.
3 Georges

Hostel - Jeff's Take

Well, The Jesus allowed me to do this. She asked "Why not have dueling reviews?" So what the hell. I agree. Screw adding reviews as comments. (The Dudes of Horror can be fickle folk.) The Jesus says we can have every review as its own post. I agree. The Jesus says "Hostel" rates two-and-a-half to three Georges. I disagree...

...but not vehemently. I watched "Hostel" for the first time on my flight back from Colorado just following the "8 Films to Die For" horror film festival. Donny and I watched it on my PSP. That is, until I fell asleep. I finally got back to it this past week. And fell asleep again. FINALLY I finished watching the damn thing this morning. After a brief period of self-reflection regarding whether or not I have narcolepsy, I finally subjected the film to my increasingly tried-and-true George Formula. This was my original assessment:

Boobs: 2
Boo: 0
Ewww: 1
New: .5
Spew: .5

If you add it all up, "Hostel" strolls around Jeff Land with 4 Georges in his posse. "What?" I exclaimed to myself. "Four Georges? This can't be right!"

So I began reevaluating the components of my score. There were plenty of breasts bared in this film. Top notch breasts belonging to many different women whose names all end in "kova." Certainly above average. Gratuitous, even. I could shave off half a point, but no more. But certainly this film deserved at least a 1.5 for creeping people out, right?

And so it went with the other categories. For every half a point I could shave off of one, I could argue that another should be raised half a point. There was no escaping that "Hostel" had four pieces of George screaming in its dungeon.

So why did I feel like it didn't deserve the rating? I was halfway into figuring that out when I fell asleep again. And then it came to me in a dream. A dream about the hype of this film and the shameless name-dropping of a certain executive producer. The inference made by the marketeers that we were in for a brutal display of horrific events. Events which would scar our minds and forevermore cause us to shit blood whenever someone spoke with a German accent.

When I woke up from the hype, I knew why this movie rated so well. "Hostel" gets a high rating because it manages to do nothing new; instead, it does some of the best things rather well. The sum of this is that we get something that is effectively new: a torture flick with redeeming qualities. Whether you love or loathe the main characters you can recognize them as believable archetypes and suspend your disbelief enough to be genuinely fearful of sleeping with strange women near Bratislava. Especially if you're a frat boy and your parents named you "Paxton". The unsuspecting-victims-run-into-the-wrong-people story complication finds its 5,000th reincarnation here, but is presented with a good pace, a fresh location, and bountiful breasts. The acting is solid, especially for the genre. Rick Hoffman was excellent in a scene that was as tense as it was darkly amusing.

There's even a cameo by Takashi Miike.

All things considered, I have to say that this is probably the epitome of a four on the Georgian Scale for me. It's likable, memorable, and worthy of recommendation... but there's something missing that keeps it from being a horror classic.

Hostel

First, I’ve got to say I was a little disappointed. I’m not sure what I was expecting, and frankly throughout the first 45 minutes, I was kind of hoping these assholes were going to die, and if at all, horribly. I didn’t mind so much that they were misogynists, it was the “ugly American” aspects. Then again, frat boys will be frat boys.

Secondly, it wasn’t as graphic as I expected. 90% of the “squeamishness” if you will, took place off camera. Yeah, a guy got his leg taken off with a chainsaw, although if he followed basic safety procedures and took the time to wipe up the blood from taking Paxton fingers off with said chainsaw, he’d still be alive and Paxton wouldn’t be. Safety first boys (which is what I said aloud to myself after chuckling). Ah, the folly of man.

All in all, I found it a bit contrived and hyped. That’s not to say I’m not looking forward to seeing Dawn Wiener being horribly murdered. I did laugh at “Edward Saladhands,” and “You registered as the King of Swing" and "Remember that guy with the thing on his lip..." Oh yeah, do you think that the “meat” in Mr. Saladhand’s salad was human flesh (tastes of chicken…)? Frankly, this picture of Eli Roth disturbed me more (not safe for anyone, anywhere or at anytime)!

As far as the Georgian scale – 2.5 – 3.0 George’s. It had the elements, bewbs, some Sapphic potential, lots o’blood, and a bit of ridiculousness, let's just say, I'm glad I didn't spend $9.00.

Jeff – I lied. It’s not a review of Slither; it’s a review of From Dusk till Dawn

God, I love this movie. In fact, I’ve been known to stumble around drunk, trying to figure out if I’ve got the movie or the extras in the DVD player, while the unsuspecting suitor whom I’ve dragged back to lair is waiting for me to make good on my earlier promises, watches me try to figure it all out (it usually takes me switching the disks around at least twice). Anyway, it’s on my Island 100 (like you could pick just 10) AND it’s playing on Starz almost as much as Pirates of the Caribbean right now!

There’s so much good stuff in this flick, I mean in the first 30 minutes you get a Molotov cocktail with toilet paper, a guy bandaging his hand with duct tape (you really can use that stuff for anything!) big Kahuna burgers and the Wolf driving around in a RV. Then the fun really begins!

I mean how many people can claim that they went to the Baskin Robbins of strip joints on their family vacation – they’ve got 32 flavors of pussy, and Salma dancing with a snake (drool). Things quickly go bad for our friends as the strippers turn into really ugly looking vampires, Tom Savini (like you don’t know who he is) looking cranky as ever, and Fred Williamson show up to kick some ass.

Spoiler: pretty much everyone dies, except our Seth & Kate (you’ve got to have a potential love interest) and then Seth utters the best line of the movie:

“Did they look like psychos? Is that what they looked like? They were vampires. Psychos do not explode when sunlight hits them, I don't give a fuck how crazy they are!”

Personally, I give it 4 Georges. Others I’m sure will disagree.

Two Henpecked Reviews: The Hamiltons and Unrest

I tells ya, sometimes it's tough to be a cool wife.

I mean, what would have happened if lo, many moons ago, I had lied to Jeff when the subject of horror movies came up? "Ew, no, scary movies freak me out! I'd rather do my hair and watch Survivor..." Simper, giggle!

Would I be here today shouldering a big guilt trip from the husband over me slacking on the horror blog? Because somehow I think in the normal world, guys don't get pissed if their wives don't get all Siskel and Ebert (or Ebert and Roper for you young ones) after watching body parts flying around for two hours. Then again in the normal world, men probably also expect their wives to dress better than me and my Aqua Teen Hunger Force XXL T-shirt. So I guess it evens out.

The truth is, I'm pretty shallow with my horror viewing. I don't come away afterwards with a deep need to discuss the film. I'm like a guy in a relationship that way. Was the movie good? Sure. Could I tell you what it was about in more than five words? Probably not. Horror movies, for the most part, are not made by directors expecting to contribute to Cinema (with a captial "C"). It's a fast buck, a quickie, a bag of doritos. You eat the doritos, toss out the bag, let out a thunderburp, and then forget they ever existed. And that's pretty much how I treat a horror movie. It's how I enable myself to continue enjoying them, pretty much. I don't WANT expectations - thus, I don't have to feel disappointed later.

There's the odd exception, of course. There are some movies that, in my opinion, should exist behind a wall of glass, they're that untouchable. The Exorcist, The Shining, and The Omen are some obvious favorites. Newer ones like the Dawn of the Dead remake, A Tale of Two Sisters, and The Grudge (the Sam Raimi version, not the original....so yeah, I'm not a purist) were solid gems that delivered the goods with style. These are films that leave you guessing and tense in your chair...possibly with a fringe benefit of getting yourself so creeped out that you leave every light in the house on...just, you know, because you like it that way. Not like you're scared or anything. Those are movies that get me talking, man.

But the vast majority of horror movies? Crunch, toss, burp, forget.

So....that's my overly long winded way of saying: Jeff, forgive me for the lack of reviews. And forgive me for the short reviews I'm about to deliver. Stop looking at me like that! I'll do my best, I swear!

Love, Maude

_________________________________________________

WARNING!!! MASSIVE SPOILERS BELOW!!!








THE HAMILTONS (Originally part of the "8 Films to Die For" Horrorfest that started off the blog)
Life's a bitch when you're the oldest child in a family of flesh-eaters and you're expected to take over as parent after Mom and Dad die. You've got social workers to fool, a shit job to pay the bills, twins Wendell and Darlene who are just a little too psycho to keep a low profile, Francis the Wonderwhiner a.k.a. "I am a typical 15 year old boy, I hate everyone, watch me be arty and morose with my camera", and a basement pet that must be fed. One wonders why David doesn't just say "You know what? Kiss my middle finger, assholes. I'm taking off for the Big City, where I've got my pick of gay boys to suck blood from. Hell, I could go to a Marilyn Manson show and be mobbed by Hot Topic freaks begging me to take a bite out of their asses. Later, losers!"

Vampires are a favorite of mine, and I give this movie kudos for approaching the topic from a fresh angle. There's no mystique, no crosses or capes - just a family of kids trying to keep their shit together, squabbling with each other, but who pull together in the end. Awww. So what if they like to bathe in blood?

All actors are solid "slightly above average for a B movie" material. Good, fresh angle on the story. A fair job on blood - nothing extreme or impressive, but not horribly laughable. No real sex or nudity other than a quick boob shot. I'm still a little fuzzy on the rating system. Are we judging based on components - as in, this movie scored on plot and acting, so I give it two Georges? Or based on the George guide, which would be 3 Georges, or, "I'd watch it again"? Eh. Three Georges. I liked it enough.




And now for....



UNREST

I have to curb my instinct to go with a quick negative review. Right off the bat I took a dislike to the main character, who has this Britney Spears psycho-ditz vibe going. The dialogue is bad - you can tell the writers were going for natural banter, but whether due to uninspired writing or bad acting, it comes off like a high school drama team in the middle of a painful acting exercise. The soundtrack, a jungle-boogie version of Carmina Burana, got annoying after the first hour, it was used so extensively and loudly. The romance between the leads is just cringeworthy - there's that natural banter attempt again, yet here it comes across more like porn dialogue without the tits and ass. And the plot? What could have been an interesting look at the spirit world and what the dead think of their treatment post-mortem, becomes a confusing film that focuses too much on shitty dialogue and too many frikkin' dead bodies, finds itself short on time, and has to finish explaining the plot in one big WTF!?! rush that thunders, jungle-boogie style, towards its final, retarded denoument.

There were some good gross-out moments, I will give it that. One good laugh at the beginning of the movie. And I appreciated the attempt at suspenseful camera shots. I initially gave it only 1 George rating, though. Gross corpse shots just don't carry the rest of the movie.

After consulting with Jeff, who was a bit taken aback at me awarding the first George's Ass - to a film he liked, no less - I'm reconsidering my final rating. As far as I was concerned, I didn't give it 0 Georges, so it could have been worse, right? But I didn't realize that 1 George was George's Ass, as in, "This movie sucked ass!" It wasn't THAT bad. But...I wouldn't see it again, and I hesitate to even imagine recommending it as a rental. You'd have to be a pretty voracious horror movie fan to get this low in the bottom of the barrel. Still and all...how about a rating of 1.5 Georges, or George's Ass and a Half? After all, this movie was pretty half-assed.

Bug (2007)

Hmmm, how did I feel about this movie? Meh. I see what it was meant to do, but it didn’t get there for me. It was meant to draw the viewer into this psychological descent of several main characters, horrifying the viewer with their deepening madness and ultimate self destruction. But it ended up being sort of laughable, because we are never given cause to care much about the characters. They were never given enough depth/background/humanity/whatever for me to care. Due to that, and the extent of the crazy theories and lines like: “I AM THE QUEEN BUG MOTHER!,” (a few people were openly guffawing at this point in the theatre) the ending comes abruptly leaving one feeling unfulfilled by this movie’s potential.

It did have potential. I will give it that. A nice little claustrophobic setting: the squalid end unit of The Rustic Motel. (given there were only two scenes that occur outside this place, one can see how it was originally a stage play). However, the movie is chock full of unresolved threads and semi-red herrings that just end up frustrating the viewer. And how could they afford all that fricken’ aluminum foil?

There were some nice disturbing scenes and images, one involving a little self dentristry that I think surpasses the scenes in The Marathon Man easily. Also in the saving graces column are some skin shots of Ms. Judd.

Ultimately? Meh. 2 Georges.