Recently in Gore Category

O.k., let's get real, here. You're a gore/horror/b movie fan and you see the box cover and decide to give this one a shot. I know if you make that decision, you are, by definition, a fan of one or all of those genres/sub-genres because if you weren't, the cover alone might turn your stomach.

So, we know we're looking at this one through the eyes of someone who knows these types of movies, not someone looking to compare it to Schindler's List or Raging Bull.

So, how does it do when measured against the appropriate standard?

Well, o,k.

Just, o.k., you might ask?

Yup.

Look, nothing new or original here, not that that's a necessity, but it sure helps if you don't have compelling characters or a story. Sadly, Gnaw does not.Now, make no mistake. It certainly tries, but there is just not enough of a back story or believable scenes to get us to be truly attached to any of the characters.

So, is this a complete dud, you might ask? Well, no, not even close. Like I said, when judging this movie by the proper standard, one thing you have to say is that we have more than enough gore to satisfy all but the ceritifable among us. Tongue extraction with pliers, acid thrown on the face, stabbings galore, not to mention the good old cannibal angle, complete with the obligatory ring in the soup and hair in the meat pie scenes.

Its just that, well, some of the scenarios are so silly and some of the formulaic stuff falls so flat, I can't see this one really jazzing up anyone unless they haven't seen this type of flick before, and are truly impressed by the "five young friends out in the middle of nowhere running into psychos/serial killers/cannibals" angle. And, like I said, if you are new to that well worn theme, you probably have made a conscious decision to avoid them, in which case you won't give Gnaw a second glance. 

I mean, what is the effect of putting the main killer in some kind of animal mask, when we see him without the mask-including during some of the kills- for most of the flick? The use of constant shots of the actors eating as well as shots of, presumably, good meat along with the cannibal theme and gore scenes was overdone, in my opinion. Warning: if you're only a casual eater of meat, viewing this film might push firmly into the vegetarian camp.

So, you probably know that I didn't think a whole lot of this British take on that well known slice of Americana: the cannibalistic gore flick. But, like I said, some who would consider this movie just want gore and to be grossed out a little and that it delivers.

Nothing more.       

Directed by Dennis Iliadis. Starring: Tony Goldwyn, Monica Potter, Garrett Dilahunt, Riki Lindhome, Sara Paxton, Martha MacIsaac, Michael Bowen. Horror/Gore/Suspense/Remake. Synopsis: A gang led by an escaped convicts abducts two girl, brutalizing both and happen to end up staying at the home of the parents of one of the victims, who take out their revenge when they realize who their guests really are.

The Last House On The Left, in its original 1972 version, is one of the seminal movies of the wonderful movie- making decade that was the '70s, in my humble opinion. So, in this era of remakes, it only made sense that we would see this story updated to the particular way of life we experience now in the early 21st century, which is both very similar to 35 years ago...yet wildly different. Those of you of a certain age know exactly what I mean.

The basic premise is still the same, for those of you familiar with the original story: a group of ruthless young thugs, led by one who has just been illegally freed from the chains of the law, abduct and brutalize two young women in all manner of ways. After this, they find themselves in need of shelter while on the lam in a heavy rainstorm and happen upon a nice couple who have a comfy, warm house. Its just that the couple happen to be.....that's right, the parents of one of their victims. When they find out who their guest really are and what they've done, well, as you might guess, there is hell to pay.

Now, lets get something out of the way early. There are two kinds of people who will watch this flick: 1) those who have seen the original movie 2) those who haven't. I know what you're thinking: "Of course, doofus, you can say that about every remake ever made, tell us something we don't know!"

Point well taken.

I mention it, with full knowledge that it will do nothing for the image my already suspect intelligence,  only because I think the lines of who really likes the flick versus those who don't will be drawn starkly along the lines of who has seen the original and who hasn't. Again, that is often the case with remakes, but I think it is especially true in the case of this one.

So, you might ask, did you see the '72 original?

Yes, I did.

Well, did you like the original?

Oh, yeah.

O.k., so, let's cut to the chase. Did you like the 2009 version?!?

Not particularly.

Now, understand what I mean. The newer version is not a bad flick, in fact, its pretty good. Gore fans will be satisfied if not ecstatic at what they see (head stuck in a microwave, yes!!!) and, as we all know, who doesn't love to see a little justifiable revenge. The acting is good, as you might expect with the parents, Tony Goldwyn (Nixon, The Pelican Brief) and Monica Potter (Saw)  as well as the rest of the cast, especially Dillahunt as crazy ringleader Krug, Lindhome as sexy/psycho Sadie, and Sara Paxton as the victimized daughter.

My issue is, knowing the original, this one just didn't measure up as much. And, part of me thinks its because it couldn't. Look, seeing the original is one thing, but if you either saw it during the 70s or have vivid memories of that time period, you understand that there was in that flick an element of shock and "Wow, I've never seen that before!", that you're not going to get telling basically the same tale in the 2000s. And, the original Last House, in my view, went further than this one with less (e.g. budget, FXs, etc.).

Look, not to be a spoiler for those who haven't seen either, but the original has some unforgettable lines & scenes in spite of its low budget campy feel...just to give you an idea, what do you think about lines like "Piss your pants!" and dialogue exhangle like "Oh, poor little guy". "He's not little, you just scared him". That's right, those lines refer to just what you think they do in your nasty little minds and its wonderful.

Rightly or wrongly, I'm judging the current version by that standard and its not as good in spite of superior acting, FX, and cinematography...the more I think of it, maybe its because of those superior things that the remake is not as good.

So, now for the 64 thousand dollar question: is it worth seeing? Of course it is. Just because I wasn't blown away shouldn't mean anything, what the hell do I know anyway? I have a feeling those of you who did not like or did not see the original will like this just fine. I can't look at this flick from that point of view, so I won't try to. You'll just have to watch it yourselves and make up your own minds.

Which is likely what you were going to do anyway, no matter what I said.   

Directed by Eli Roth.Starring Jay Hernandez, Derek Richardson, Eython Gudjaunson, Jan Vlasak, Barbara Nadeljakova. Action/Gore.   

Synopsis: Three graduate students traveling through Europe in search of the good times of sex and drugs, are lured to a Slovakian hostel where they meet beautiful women, but are unknowingly the objects of an underground human hunting business whose clients subject them to torture and mutilation.

First, lets get the two most obvious things out of the way: 1) despite what you might see on the DVD cover, previews, or what you may have heard about this film, Quentin Tarantino does not direct it or have anything discernible to do with the style of the movie 2) this is a film that people are either going to like or despise, there isn't much room for a middle ground in a movie where the ample nudity, sex, and drug use isn't even close to being the most memorable part(s) of the film.

Hostel "treats" us to mindless, graphic, unspeakable violence in spades. What am I talking about? Well, consider scenes of torture that include burning the face of a restrained victim to the point where the eyeball is, literally, hanging out of the socket, a victim who is tortured by having his Achilles heels severed (and then being told, "You are free to go"),  seeing a hole drilled in a living being's torso with a power drill, and the image of one of the torturers slipping on the spattered blood of one of his victims, which, unfortunately for him, makes him lose control of the chain saw he has in his hands, falling to the blood stained floor and the saw, a minute ago his best friend, cutting through his own leg until its severed. Other than that (I'm not going to mention the decapitation,  appendage severing(s), suicide-by-train-with-blood deluged-passengers, and hit-run-backup-hit-run-again) , its pretty standard stuff. 

As with many recent "horror" movies, we have the "spooky kid" syndrome, although in this movie it is a gang of humorless pre-teens that engage in luring victims and cap it off by stoning two of their previous benefactors to death...for their beloved bubble gum. If you have not seen the picture, no, I'm not making that up.

To me, the interesting point of discussion about a film like this is why and what? Why was it made, why will people enjoy it, and what was the point? I can't say much about the story itself, its not well developed and I, for one, have to admit that I didn't care for the three main characters during the relatively slow first 15 minutes of the movie. Their hedonistic longing for the sins of the flesh, so to speak, was a little over the top, reminding me of the Porky's   movies of the early 80's. There really isn't any plot development or mystery going on, other than the viewer asking himself/herself, "What the hell is this all about?"

Well, we don't really know and the movie does not really tell us. Suspending our disbelief a little (o.k. a lot), which is what we movie fans have to do to enjoy most pictures, its still a little hard to get around the idea that a human torture and murder facility, operated for profit, could work with the complicity of so many people, local police included. Hey, those of us old enough may still be disposed to believe anything could happen in an old Soviet Bloc country, but c'mon. There is no supernatural or unique evil in this, no grand scheme of revenge or psychosis. Just otherwise ordinary people who happen to be willing to pay big money for the pleasure of murdering, torturing, and/or mutilating their victims, who are lured by a cacophony of co-conspirators.

The main sirens for our three unfortunate protagonists are Barbara Nadljakova and Jana Kalerakova, who doff their clothes less than two seconds into their first scene and keep them off for most of the next 20 minutes or so. Delicious eye candy for us lascivious males, to be sure, but both actresses bring some substance to their evil roles, especially Ms. Nadeljakova, the brunette beauty who is so good in her role that you want to sin with her from the first minute you see her, and your cheering when she meets her end in a shocking spurt of gratuitous violence by the one surviving protagonist (Jay Hernandez) That's saying something.

Jan Vlasak is deliciously evil and contemptible as the main villain, although it seems that he is the only one through most of the film, at the end we find out that he was just another customer of "Elite Hunting", a middle aged respectable Dutch businessman who looks like your uncle Johann, but deals with his lifelong shame of failing to be certified as a surgeon by dismembering people while they are still alive.

Derek Richardson does the finest pure acting of the movie, his pleas for mercy while being tortured at the hands of Vlasak will get to the coldest fish in the sea. Also notable is Rick Hoffman's brief turn as the American client who, kind of, explains things to us through his crude conversation with Jay Hernandez. He is so wicked that you only need about 30 seconds of his 3 minutes of screen time to really, really hate him. 

Directed by Gregory Dark. Starring Glen Jacobs, Christina Vidal, Steven Vidler, Luke Pegler, Samantha Noble, Penny McNamee. Horror. Synopsis: A giant and particularly sadistic serial killer long thought to b e dead resurfaces in a planned ambush of a group of young work release prisoners who are guarded by the surviving officer who almost killed him.

Well, you have to be realistic in your expectations when you select a movie that is produced by the W.W.E. And I did. Now, I have nothing against big time wrestling, I can't say I'm a huge fan....actually not a fan at all. But, even if I were, I'm sure I would be skeptical as to the cinematic potential of a wrestling organization. To be fair, I'm not sure how much I would expect out of Dreamworks if they forayed into big time wrestling.

Having said that, I would say that anyone who goes into this movie with a serious expectation that this might be a really good movie is the same kind of person who tunes into Presidential debates really seeking straight answers from the candidates on the important issues. Now, I'm not saying that there are not those among us who will enjoy this flick. What I am saying is that this movie is basically an attempt to give a star from W.W.E. some exposure on the big screen and cover the shameless marketing of an asset in plenty of blood and gore.

And, they did that. Glen Jacobs a/k/a "Kane" plays Jacob Goodnight, a giant man who is a sadistic serial killer, which isn't redundant because this guy could turn the stomach of your run of the mill serial killer in a heartbeat.  He removes the eyes of the victims, sometimes before they are deceased, just to give you an idea.

The story heats up from the opening credits, when two cops track down a serial killer they later learn to be Goodnight, they find him in a home with a deceased victim and one survivor, who is very unfortunate in that he has already removed her eyes. Jake takes out one of the cops, but the other one (Steven Vidler Salem's Lot) gets off a couple of rounds, one hitting the bad guy in the head...yet he gets away anyway. Seriously.

Resilient guy, obviously. In this scene we are introduced to a song that will play over and over in the background of the film...and probably drive you crazy, though in fairness to the filmmakers, that is probably the intent, it kind of goes with the back story.

Anyway, our hero cop loses a hand and, in a flash, its years down the road and he is basically chaperoning a coed group of youthful work release offenders who are going to clean up a run down hotel for the weekend as part of their payment of the debt to society. And, guess who lurks behind the walls of this sleazy, repugnant hotel?

Look, the premise of this one and its back story are very unrealistic...the tried and true formula of isolating a group of nubile teenagers (played, of course, by 20 & 30 something actors) has made way too much money at the box office and rentals to disregard, but in this age of cell phones, blackberrys, etc., the idea of a group of people being totally cut off from the rest of society in the middle of downtown L.A. is kind of stretching it. And its not like we have the most ingenious villain here.

But, I doth protest too much, 'cuz the whole point of this one is to set up as many gruesome kills for the imposing star of the flick as possible. And, on that basis, mission accomplished. Fans of gore and Kane will no doubt love this one and, honestly, that is who it was made for. Nothing wrong with that. And, I'm not above loving a gorefest, but there has to be some element of true horror or a good story to really hook me. See No Evil doesn't hook me. Am I sorry I invested the time to watch it? No. Do I expect that this one will stick in the old consciousness for years? No. Would I watch it again if were the best flick on the tube. No, tune into ESPN or the History Channel...or something else.

That's my call.

Directed by Michael Feifer. Starring Priscilla Barnes, Kane Hodder, Michael Berryman, Adrienne Frantz, Timothy Oman, Shawn Hoffman, Amy Lyndon. Horror/Drama/Gore/True Crime. Synopsis: Film based loosely on the real life serial killer Ed Gein, who killed, skinned, and cannibalized his victims in rural Wisconsin in the 1940's and '50's.

Its long been said that truth is stranger than fiction. In a lot of cases, such as the movie Ed Gein, truth is also a whole lot more interesting than fiction, too. Or at least, fiction based "loosely" on a true story.

Look, this is not a bad effort, not a bad effort at all. And the flick does not deserve placement in the "Duds" category, but, as much as I would like to, I can't really encourage anyone (not that any of you listen to me anyway...no hard feelings, I don't listen to myself most of the time) to pick up this flick. Good effort, nice intentions, some good actors, fertile story line. Just didn't work.

For those who are not familiar with the story of Ed Gein, he was one of the most vicious, if not prolific, serial killers in U.S. history, coming at a time before the term "serial killer" was in vogue. Over 50 when he was caught in 1957, Gein was a lifelong resident of north central Wisconsin who has an alcoholic father and a domineering mother who probably started him down the path to ruin with her talk about the evils of sex and alleged acts of humiliating her son (one story has it that she poured scalding water on his genitals after catching him engaged in self exploration as a child) Gein was a grave robber, cannibal, and also cut the skins off of his victims, mostly middle aged women) and had some skin suits in his filthy residence. He was tried for only two murders but was thought to have killed many more, including the murder of the mother of one of the deputies in the local sheriff's office.  He was found not guilty by reason of insanity and spent the rest of his life in a mental institution, dying in 1984. His story was part of the inspiration for such horror films as Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Psycho, and the "Buffalo Bill" character in Silence of the Lambs.  

Obviously, there is a lot to work with in this real life horror story. Unfortunately, Ed Gein falls flat because the story is, well, boring. The plot line is spread too thin among the ensemble cast, when the title character himself-or at least some focus on his motivation or morbid life style. Instead, Feifer focuses too much on the deputies involved but does not engage us or make them interesting enough for us.

Kane Hodder (Friday the 13th)  does a good job in his character, but that is part of the problem. This large, physically imposing actor is the opposite of the short, effeminate acting Gein. And, a picture of the real Gein during the opening credits doesn't help in this aspect as you can tell that the real butcher was not physically imposing at all, which adds to his madness and intrigue as well as helps explains how he was probably able to lure his victims to his remote home.

Michael Berryman (The Hills Have Eyes)  makes a brief appearance as Gein's brother, and Priscilla Barnes (The Devil's Rejects) is good but under utilized in her role as the mother of the deputy who falls victim to Gein. There is enough blood to satisfy fans of gore.

One other pet peeve: this film is set in northern Wisconsin in the 1950's, so why does almost the entire cast speak in southern accents and dialect (e.g. "y'all, "honey child")? I'm not trying to be too picky, but these are two distinct regions of the country-both of which I've spent time in-and the sounds are much different. I'm not saying there could not have been a transplanted southerner or two in this rural Wisconsin town, but almost everyone? If Feifer's next film is set in north central Georgia, will the cast be speaking with long "Os", hard consonants, and saying "eh" a lot? Or is it just the "Hollywood" assumption that all rural people everywhere all sound the same?

It's clear from the director's commentary that there was only basic familiarity with the real story by the cast and Feifer. Maybe that is not important to some viewers, but, to me, the whole reason to make a real life story into a movie is that it is interesting or important, so if you don't try to stay true to the real details, what's the point? Unless what you come up with in your "artistic license" product is compelling.

So, I can't recommend it, but if you do give it a chance, keep your expectations kind of low, which just might help you enjoy it more than I did.