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.