Very Scary Productions - Thoughts For The Month Archives 2005

Jeff Kirkendall: The original LONDON AFTER MIDNIGHT is a 1927 Lon Chaney vampire film. Besides the title are there any similarities between that film and yours?

Bruce G. Hallenbeck: The 1927 LONDON AFTER MIDNIGHT is actually a faux vampire film; the vampires

in fact were revealed to be actors trying to trick a killer into confessing. It was remade in 1935, also by the

original director Tod Browning, as MARK OF THE VAMPIRE with Bela Lugosi. Our version has nothing to

do with either film. In fact, the name "London" in our film is the name of the lead character, paranormal

investigator David London. The 2005 LONDON AFTER MIDNIGHT is an action/adventure/horror movie with

large doses of humor that combines elements of such pop culture classics as THE AVENGERS (the 1960s

TV version), THE X-FILES and the writings of H.P. Lovecraft. I thought the title was a fun play on words, and

since the original LONDON AFTER MIDNIGHT seems to be a hopelessly lost film, it seemed to me that it

would be nice if there was a movie with that title that people could actually see.

JK: I know your script went through several revisions and the characters were developed over time.

Please talk about this.

BGH: Actually, the character name David London came into my head when I was twelve years old, when

I was under the influence of the James Bond craze and the TV series THE MAN FROM UNCLE. At that

time, he was a secret agent, but about 14 years later, I reworked the concept as a TV pilot called LONDON

AFTER MIDNIGHT. I wrote it with British television in mind, and sent it off to a company called Tyburn

Productions, based at Pinewood Studios in England. Much to my surprise, they expressed interest in it,

and when I went there in 1979, I was given the grand tour of the studio and was told that they wanted to film

it. Unfortunately, the financing fell through and it was never filmed. But I thought it was a great idea for a

series, and I rewrote the script in the late 90s as the first of a series of feature films. I also think it would

make a terrific comic book, and that may come too. In any case, over the years, I added the character

of Holly Gemini, London's other half, and the two of them were off and running in their fight against evil

Lovecraftian demons.

JK: Filming began in 1997 and went on for approximately two years. Please discuss the shoot and talk a bit about the cast and crew and the challenges involved in making the movie.

BGH: Filming initially went very smoothly; my friend Joe Bagnardi was the Director of Photography, and

I had just bought the camera--a pro Panasonic video camera--from Gary Secor, who plays one of the cultists

in the film. But you could say the production was cursed; David Louis, who played David London, was

diagnosed with cancer about midway through the shoot, and large portions of the script had to be rewritten

around his absences for chemotherapy treatments and so on. David was a real trouper, though, and insisted

on doing as many scenes as his health would allow. Another actor, who shall remain nameless, dropped out

due to personal reasons, which caused more delays. Filming was finally completed in 1999, but additional

footage was shot in early 2004. So it's a movie that was years in the making!

JK: You utilized many interesting, scenic locations in the movie. Talk about some of these locations.

BGH: We filmed LONDON AFTER MIDNIGHT entirely in upstate New York. Some of the exteriors are of

historic homes such as Lindenwald, the birthplace of the eighth U.S. President Martin Van Buren. We also

used the Van Alen House as the exterior of the home of Dr. Perkins, who was played by David Baker.

The Van Alen House figured in the story THE LEGEND OF SLEEPY HOLLOW by Martin Van Buren as the

home of the character Katrina Van Tassel. In addition, we filmed in Chatham Rural Cemetery, which we also

utilized in BLOOD OF THE WEREWOLF (2001). It's a nice Gothic graveyard, very picturesque. One of our

best locations was The Crooked Lake House, a restaurant/hotel in Averill Park, New York that was a big

nightclub in the 30s and 40s where movie stars and gangsters hung out. It's supposed to be haunted, and

I wouldn't be surprised. It reminds me of the hotel in THE SHINING.

JK: LONDON AFTER MIDNIGHT was shot on video on a very low budget. How did it compare to your

previous films VAMPYRE and FANGS in terms of the shooting process?

BGH: LAM was shot on video, whereas VAMPYRE and FANGS were shot on 16mm, so the process

was a bit different. You can set up shots a lot faster on video, so that was a big plus. But I think one thing

videomakers sometimes forget is that you still need to light the image properly. Fortunately, we had an

excellent lighting kit on LAM courtesy of Gary Secor, and Bagnardi utilized it to its fullest extent, along with

my assistant director Peter Hanson. They both have very good eyes. So I think that LAM, despite the fact

that it was shot on analog half-inch video, has a comparable look to my 16mm films.

JK: The latter part of the movie features some eye-catching visual effects. Talk about those and how they complement the on-set makeup effects.

BGH: The latter part of the film is where the Lovecraftian stuff comes in; Holly, who is beautifully played by

Prudence Theriault, causes London to vanish as he's about to be sacrificed to Shub-Niggurath, the Black

Goat of the Wood with a Thousand Young. He disappears into thin air as he's tied to a tree. Then the demon

appears in a flash of fire and smoke. The on-set makeup was done by my wife, Rosa, who plays the demon.

Colin Lovelock, a friend of mine who works at the local ABC affiliate, did the special video effects, as well as

the opening titles to the film. They blend in well with the physical make-up and costumes that Rosa designed.

JK: There was a long gap between when principal photography was completed and when I began editing the movie in 2003. Why did the movie sit on the shelf for so long?

BGH: Believe me, it wasn't intentional. In 1999, when we completed principal photography, we had planned

to edit the film utilizing the talents of Joe and Dan Masucci, two brothers who were also making films locally

at the time. They had an excellent computer system and were very eager to edit the film. They did, in fact,

edit two and a half minutes of it--and their computer crashed, losing all the footage that had been done.

Rosa and I pieced together the initial two and a half minutes and gained the interest of Kevin Lindenmuth,

who by that time had asked me to write and direct one of the stories in his anthology BLOOD OF THE

WEREWOLF. It looked like Kevin was going to do post-production, but he had to bow out due to other

commitments. He suggested I contact another filmmaker, which I did, and he was set to edit the movie.

But his price was out of our league. So we looked around and looked around--and Jeff Kirkendall came

to the rescue! And the rest is history.

JK: Affordable digital video technology came into prominence in the late 1990s. How has this technology

changed the way movies are or can be made?

BGH: Well, on a large scale, you just have to look at 1999's THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT, a digital movie

that was dirt cheap to make and grossed millions. The technology has opened the floodgates to those who

could never before have afforded to make a feature film. It's certainly made it far easier for those of us who

are working with little or no money to get a film completed without having to bring in outside investors. What

would have cost thousands on 16mm now costs mere hundreds on video. It's a godsend.

JK: Even though it has only recently been completed, LONDON AFTER MIDNIGHT was mentioned in a

book that came out several years ago called THE INDEPENDENT FILM EXPERIENCE: INTERVIEWS

WITH PRODUCERS AND DIRECTORS. How did that come about?

BGH: That book was written by Kevin Lindenmuth during the time when he had hoped to complete LAM

himself. It was good PR for both of us at the time, and I was very pleased to be a part of it.

JK: Of the movies you've worked on as writer, director, producer or actor, which are your favorites?

BGH: When you're working at this level, there are always things you wish you could have done differently.

I feel that VAMPYRE is a heavily compromised film; the distributors insisted that we put certain elements

into it that really didn't belong there. But there are moments of lyrical beauty in it, thanks to Tony Panetta's

camerawork and some of the other elements. FANGS, in some respects, is closest to my original vision,

because it was written for Veronica Carlson and she delivered the lines exactly the way I'd hoped she

would. I like the director's cut of DR. JEKYKLL AND MISTRESS HYDE, a movie I wrote for E.I. Independent

Cinema; unfortunately, that version will probably never be released. And I'm very excited about

THE DROWNED, a movie that my company, Pagan Productions, just filmed late last year. That has

tremendous potential, I think.

JK: Which of your projects to date would you say have been most successful--either artistically or financially?

BGH: Artistically, probably either VAMPYRE or FANGS. Financially, definitely BLOOD OF THE

WEREWOLF, which made back over three times its production costs and was released all over the world.

JK: What movies have influenced you and do you have any favorite filmmakers?

BGH: That's a loaded question. So many influences: Hammer's HORROR OF DRACULA, AIP's Poe

movies, the old Universal horrors, the James Bond film ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE, and on

and on. Favorite filmmakers: Terence Fisher, Orson Welles, Roger Corman, Ken Russell, Sergio Leone,

Tim Burton, Steven Spielberg, Alfred Hitchcock, Akira Kurosawa--the list is endless!

JK: What kinds of projects would you like to work on in the future?

BGH: I'd like to do different kinds of fantasy. Realism holds no interest for me--no serious kitchen sink

dramas. But next time around, I might do a romantic fantasy, something along the lines of SOMEWHERE IN

TIME. Or maybe a crazy comedy ala Monty Python. Who knows? Life has some strange twists and turns...

JK: Is there anything you'd like to add?

BGH: I just want to say that I'm eternally grateful to all the people who have helped me put my movies

together, from the actors to the camera and lighting people, to the post-production folks. And to my wife,

who is now Vice-President of Pagan Productions. Without all of you, these films could never have been

completed.

* For those not familiar with Misty Mundae, she is an actress who has starred in a long list of films for

New Jersey-based production company E.I. Independent Cinema. A good majority of these films have

been adult-oriented action, horror and comedy movies that fall under the company label Seduction Cinema.

In addition to Dr. Jekyll And Mistress Hyde and Mummy Raider, some other Misty Mundae films

include Playmate Of The Apes, An Erotic Vampire In Paris and Erotic Survivor, just to name a few.

** Independent filmmaker Joe Bagnardi directed both Shadow Tracker: Vampire Hunter

and The Edge Of Reality, as well as one of three segments of the werewolf anthology film

Blood Of The Werewolf.

For more information on The Edge Of Reality and London After Midnight see Other Projects Page 1.

To view the trailers for both films see the Movie Trailers page.

To view movie posters for The Edge Of Reality and London After Midnight see Other Projects Page 1.

And for information on my appearances in The Edge Of Reality and London After Midnight, see the

Acting Credits page.

SUBJECT: Movie Recommendation - "Very Bad Things" - A bloody good little black comedy.

I recently sat down for a repeat viewing of the 1998 black comedy Very Bad Things -- a movie I originally saw

at my local multiplex at the time of its theatrical release. After that first viewing I remember walking out of the theater being a bit shocked at just how nasty and graphic the film was. While I wouldn't put it into the category of an extreme gore film, the movie does feature an abundance of violence and blood, wrapped up in the form of a hilarious satire. Featuring (surprisingly enough) a cast of name actors, this movie is wickedly entertaining from start to finish.

The story centers on a young man named Kyle Fisher (Jon Favreau from Swingers) who's about to be married to an attractive young woman named Laura Garrity (Cameron Diaz). We see Kyle and one of his friends all dressed up and nervously waiting for the wedding to unfold when the movie opens. Before that happens however, we flashback to a few days earlier and watch as Kyle and several of his buddies take a road trip to

Las Vegas for a wild bachelor party. What follows is a manically but stylishly-filmed hotel room scene which shows the five guys letting loose and going crazy with alcohol, drugs and a stripper. Unfortunately for this happy group the party comes to an abrupt end when a coked-up Michael (Jeremy Piven, playing one of two constantly squabbling brothers) takes the stripper into a huge bathroom for sex and accidentally drives the young lady's head into a towel rack, killing her instantly. At this point several of the guys think the thing to do would be to call the police, explain it was an accident, and hope for the best. However their friend Robert Boyd (Christian Slater) has other ideas. He quickly takes charge of the panic-stricken group and explains that calling the police is only one option. You see, Boyd is a "take charge of your life" kind of guy. He explains that since he hired the stripper directly (not through any agency), nobody knows she was coming to the hotel. Therefore he reasons their best course of action would be to clean up the place and dispose of the body. After a heated debate and vote, they decide to do it. However a badly-timed visit from a hotel security guard complicates their plans and produces a second corpse after Boyd kills the guy with a corkscrew. Following this the guys saw the bodies into pieces, clean up the blood-drenched room, bury these unfortunate people out in the desert, and vow never to speak of it again. The remainder of the movie follows the men as each unravels in his own way, leading to paranoia, extreme reactions, exaggerated behavior, and a large body count.

This movie worked for me for several reasons. First, while the events described above would probably be viewed as morbid in another film, here they are played, for the most part effectively, as sick humor. The violence and cruelty on display in this movie would be tough to watch if it weren't for this addictive humor. I found myself laughing hysterically at much of the satire, while at the same time being shocked at the depths of depravity these characters went to in order to try and bury their secret. While the bachelor party sequence is undoubtedly the most manic scene, the entire film has a frenzied energy running through it that is due in part to the solid writing and story and in part to the excellent performances from the cast. All the guys with the exception of Boyd are really what you might call Average Joes, each with their own particular and distinct character quarks. However it is evident that they are under intense pressures and demands in their everyday suburban lives. For example, Kyle is constantly being asked to handle all the wedding details by his demanding future wife. The others all

have demanding families, jobs or money worries as well. The murder of the stripper and the security guard

starts a chain reaction of events that push these men to the edge. Only Boyd seems immune to the stress because of his embracing of the principles of self-fulfillment and assertiveness training. But then again he also proves to be a vicious psychopath.

The actors all do an excellent job here, especially Christian Slater and Cameron Diaz. Although Jon Favreau

is essentially the lead as the story centers on him, his bachelor party and impending marriage, it is really the manipulative, focused and heartless Boyd who drives the proceedings after the first death. Christian Slater delivers a compelling performance that admittedly reminded me quite a bit of his portrayal of teen psychopath Jason Dean in the classic black comedy Heathers. As in that movie, he plays a dynamic yet dangerous personality type. However the characters in these two movies have distinctly different motivations (and life situations), and here Slater does a good job portraying someone obviously well-disciplined in the practices of self-motivation, but lacking any moral conscience whatsoever.

Laura Garrity as played by Cameron Diaz is another unlikable character, but for different reasons. She is a whining and manipulative woman who could best be described as every groom's worst nightmare. She is also the other dominant personality in the picture. Although Diaz plays a smaller supporting role due to the fact that much of the movie focuses on the events of the Vegas trip, she's very effective and made me cringe every time she was on screen. Laura continuously asks her soon-to-be-husband if he loves her, and her sole purpose for existence seems to be to "walk down that aisle come hell or high water". She's so consumed with the wedding that she often looks mesmerized when speaking to Kyle. Diaz goes just far enough with the character to make her unforgettable, but stops short of being a caricature. This is a very impressive accomplishment indeed. Ironically enough, Laura proves to be just as vicious as Boyd when it comes to the prospect of something (or someone) jeopardizing her wedding plans.

On the whole Peter Berg's Very Bad Things is a wild, sometimes uncomfortable, but often funny ride. The characters display sick, degenerate and repulsive behavior and make a terrible situation worse every step of

the way. Surprisingly however, this chain of events still manages to feel very believable right through to the unexpected ending. Being a big fan of horror movies, it's probably easier for me to watch a movie like this than

it would be for someone who has more mainstream sensibilities. Put another way, if you're looking for a feel-good, lighthearted, laugh-a-minute comedy, this is not the movie to watch. As the tagline proclaims, "They've been bad. Very bad." This couldn't be truer.

SUBJECT: Movie Recommendation - "Donnie Darko: The Director's Cut"

This month I’ve decided to once again take a look back at a film that many may have missed when it was first released. Like Very Bad Things (see my March 2005 TFTM column above), the 2001 movie Donnie Darko was a film which came and went very quickly at multiplexes across the country. However, after gaining a respectable cult following on home video, the movie was re-released briefly to theaters in late 2004 in a 20-minute longer version titled Donnie Darko: The Director’s Cut. Having become a big fan of the film after viewing it on the small screen, I was very excited to see a new, extended version in all its theatrical glory.

Donnie Darko is a difficult film to categorize or summarize. The title character (played by Jake Gyllenhaal) is

a troubled teenager living in an upper-middle class suburban neighborhood in 1988. Like most young men his age, Donnie has to deal with the many challenges associated with this uncertain time of life, including peer pressure, girls, and parental-son relationships. While this may sound like familiar territory, perhaps calling to mind films from the 1980’s about teen angst, isolation and awkward relationships, such as The Breakfast Club and Sixteen Candles, the film also contains elements that fall squarely outside of the universe presented in those movies. You see, besides dealing with the aforementioned trials and tribulations of everyday life, Donnie experiences prophetic visions of the impending end of the world. And if this weren’t enough, he also has dream-like conversations about this very subject with a 6-foot tall rabbit named Frank. For those not familiar with the movie, you read that correctly. He talks to a giant rabbit named Frank.

There are several reasons why I find this movie so compelling. First and foremost is because of the uniqueness and style present in the picture. While it may seem hard to imagine teen angst, giant rabbits, and an end of the world apocalypse fitting seamlessly together in the same film, these disparate elements do just that in Donnie Darko. For example, in one scene the viewer is treated to a wave of 80’s nostalgia with an extended tracking shot that follows many different kids in their daily activities as they move through Donnie’s high school. The camera rolls along smoothly with the Tears For Fears song Head Over Heals, but at certain points the film motion abruptly changes speeds in one of the many visual stylistic touches interspersed throughout the movie.

In another moment we’re watching Donnie standing outside on a dreamlike suburban landscape conversing with the very science fiction-looking Frank, who speaks in a deep and ominous voice. Donnie’s world of bright, leafy suburban neighborhoods has a dark underside which we see through his eyes as he converses with Frank. The extended version of the film expands on this palpable sense of dread as we’re shown shots of a clock counting down to what will supposedly be the end of the world. I was engaged by the familiar story of an adolescent trying to come to terms with the world around him, and I was at the same time intrigued by the unconventional apocalyptic and science-fiction elements present in the film.

A second reason why this film is so effective has to do with lead actor Jake Gyllenhaal, who is good here not only because of his acting abilities, but also due to his unique look, and, in particular, his distinctive eyes. In the more familiar territory, namely scenes of him in class or talking with his peers, his deep, expressive eyes convey the sense of isolation and confusion his character has. Conversely, when we see him sleepwalking and talking

to Frank, his intense eyes give him an edge and sense of danger which adds to the already creepy atmosphere. It seems as if Donnie could snap at any moment, in any way. This is manifested towards the end of the film as Donnie commits some destructive acts under the motivation/guidance of Frank.

Another plus for Donnie Darko is the fact that it doesn’t offer up any neat and tidy answers. In fact after seeing

it twice now there are many things I still don’t understand. For example the movie begins with a cataclysmic event, as a jet engine falls from a plane and crashes through the roof of Donnie’s house. This opening definitely connects to the end of the film, but how it relates to the giant rabbit and his apocalyptic prediction is not entirely clear. While it’s tempting to say that much of what we see could be manifested by Donnie’s warped mind, this answer is questionable at best when one really begins to analyze the movie. And given that American movies often lean towards wrapping up loose ends neatly,

this can be a little unsettling.

Additionally I’d like to briefly point out that this film also contains some very comedic scenes. For example Drew Barrymore, who served as an executive producer and played a supporting role as one of Donnie’s teachers, provides a funny moment when she recommends that a new student pick a seat next to the cutest boy in class. And Patrick Swayze is also very funny as an over-the-top self-help guru. And finally, more humor is provided by Donnie’s little sister when she performs at school with her dance group called Sparkle Motion, accompanied by the Duran Duran song Notorious. These are just some of the standout moments in the comedy department.

As noted earlier, this is a very hard movie to categorize or summarize. While my above observations may have spotlighted some (but definitely not all) of the unique elements in the film, they probably don’t give an adequate or precise overall picture. That’s because the movie is simply too difficult to put into words. In fact when someone asks what Donnie Darko is about, the best answer might be not to describe the film at all, but to just tell the person to go see it.

SUBJECT: Criticizing the Critics - A discussion on “Indie” Cinema, Underground Cinema and

"The Democratization of Filmmaking".

Recently a weekly newspaper in my area ran an article consisting of a series of “not quite indefensible” viewpoints on various topics ranging from the legitimacy of golf as a sport to the quality of the Lord Of The

Rings movies. I believe the article was the type of piece that was meant to get readers riled up or at least

get a reaction. While I wait patiently for the inevitable page of incensed response letters in an upcoming issue,

I’ll take this opportunity to share a few thoughts of my own on this newspaper column which suggested that "there’s no reason to care about indie cinema".

The writer of this particular column begins by talking about the claims of what one might call the digital filmmaking revolution. To paraphrase, he states that people who believe in this revolution say that the rise of low-cost, high-quality digital video cameras and computer (non-linear) editing software will create an era of new cutting-edge independent cinema unlike what has been seen in the past. He then goes on to rebuff the idea by saying that this development is hardly a good thing, because for a small amount of money anyone with some basic camera and computer skills can call themselves a filmmaker and create video for their website that is only suitable for viewing by close friends or family, if that. The article concludes by talking about how capitalism is useful for filtering out material like this and how moviegoers have supported the current incarnation of Hollywood by turning out in record numbers for mindless Hollywood “event” movies, while at the same time providing the

big studios with the motivation to establish “indie” divisions.

In regards to the first point about digital video producers being nothing more than glorified hobbyists, suffice

it to say this is really insulting to independents that put ample thought, time, energy and planning into every production. While it’s true that someone who can aim a camera and load video onto a web server can call themselves a filmmaker, a large number of the new breed of independent digital filmmakers stand high above that mark. Making movies using low-cost digital video is an art form just like making movies using high-cost film equipment is an art form. The basic steps in production are always the same no matter what type of equipment is being used. Creativity, planning and skill are needed at any level of filmmaking. What is being attacked in the article is the quality level of these digital video productions. Having viewed many no-budget productions I can say that there are some I wouldn’t consider to be much above the level of an amateur home video. However, as stated above, a good number of independent filmmakers have produced works that far exceed that quality level. Whether one is talking about no-budget cinema or Hollywood filmmaking, there is going to be the good and the bad. As I mentioned in a previous column, technical factors such as proper lighting and sound recording are crucial and usually make the difference between a professional-looking and an amateurish-looking production. These are skills that separate the serious independent filmmaker from the amateur. Good lighting for example can take away that dull home video look we all know so well. Creativity and originality are other skills that factor into this equation.

The question as to whether or not anyone besides friends and family would want to sit through a low-cost digital video production can be easily answered by a quick scan of the internet. The fact of the matter is that the independent, or as I like to call it underground, film scene is a big deal nowadays.* Today there are numerous websites devoted to this new breed of independent cinema ranging from individual filmmaker sites to independent production companies to movie review sites. In the Upstate New York area alone there are several filmmakers who have become well-established and who have produced movies seen by large numbers of people at live screenings, on the internet, and on video and DVD as a result of successful distribution deals. There are also well-known worldwide success stories such as the independent features The Blair Witch Project and, more importantly, The Last Broadcast just to name a couple. I won’t devote the rest of the column to examining these movies, because they have been written about in-depth elsewhere. However the reason I call The Last Broadcast more important is because I believe it represents an example of the true possibilities and potential of the digital video format for low/no-budget independent filmmakers. While The Blair Witch Project was arguably something of a fluke in the sense that it was a technically amateurish production that succeeded almost entirely because of a creative marketing concept on the part of the filmmakers, The Last Broadcast was a technically solid digital video movie that succeeded on the merits of the production alone.** And while most people have heard about how much money The Blair Witch Project made at the box office in relation to the production costs of the film, it’s a lesser reported fact that The Last Broadcast was made for the even smaller sum of somewhere under $1000.*** What is significant here is that this is a good example of the amount of money that can be spent by an inventive and cost-conscious digital video producer in the production of a solid movie. The Last Broadcast went on to score a lucrative distribution deal with major video retailer Hollywood Video, proving that people can and do want to see such productions. I predict that more movies like this will become commonplace as time goes on.

Finally I’d like to take a moment to mention once again what I call “The Democratization of Filmmaking”. **** Simply stated, I believe that filmmaking should be as democratic as anything else in our society. While I’m a big fan of Hollywood movies and couldn’t imagine a world without them, I do believe that there is enough of a market to allow low/no-budget filmmakers to prosper as well. I don’t believe that capitalism does, or should, act as a filter in the way alluded to in the above-mentioned newspaper article.

SUBJECT: Movie Review - "House of Wax (2005)" - Better than one might expect.

I know I’ve mentioned in previous columns how I’m not generally a big fan of remakes of classic horror films, and how I’m hoping to get away from reviewing them, but it seems like there is just no end in sight to the trend. The latest title to hit the big screen in 2005 is House of Wax, a remake of the 1953 Vincent Price film. In this new version a group of teenagers driving to a football game decide to pull off the road and spend the night camping out in the middle of nowhere. Overnight they are rudely disturbed by an ominous truck with blinding headlights. The unseen driver stays long enough to unnerve everyone before disappearing into the forest. Soon after this the group finds out one of their cars needs a new belt before it will run again, so a couple of the teens get a ride to the nearest service station with a very redneck-type local man. They then arrive at a mostly abandoned town which has a very impressive wax museum at its center. Following this is when the carnage begins. The movie stars Elisha Cuthbert, Chad Michael Murray, Brian Van Holt and Paris Hilton.

First, for those familiar with the classic Vincent Price film, it’s quite obvious even from a short plot summary that this new film bears little resemblance to the original except for the wax museum setting. From the trailer the picture looked to me like another teen slasher story and I have to admit that I really wasn’t expecting much walking into the movie theater. However I’m happy to say that while the movie was certainly not perfect, it was quite a bit better than one would imagine.

Throughout at least the first half-hour this film really doesn’t work. A group of stereotypical characters are placed in the very familiar horror movie scenario of driving through the middle of nowhere only to stop and be terrorized by some unseen menacing figure(s).* We have the standard attractive young people bickering over this and that and generally being portrayed in the way one familiar with these films might expect them to be. From the outset one young girl is given the most attention and is obviously destined to be the Final Girl in the picture, while her disagreeable brother is either intended to turn into a hero, or meet a quick and gruesome end. The rest of the group isn’t spotlighted very much except for in a couple sex scenes, and one can probably guess their fate from the outset. Additionally, one character is constantly filming everyone with a video camera, and this view is used quite a bit early on in the film. These Blair Witch-style footage shots really don’t add anything to the proceedings, and in fact I found them quite annoying, leading me to think I was in for a long night.

Fortunately the second half of the film improves dramatically. When we get to the impressive looking wax museum in the middle of town things get exciting. There is a lot of nice detail in the wax figures and the whole atmosphere of the place is downright creepy, immediately bringing to mind the Vincent Price classic of the same name. Things get even creepier when we find out that the wax figures in the museum aren’t the only things made of wax, and that a man and his separated Siamese twin run the town. These brothers are well-portrayed, especially the mysterious and brutal Vincent, and their back-story is interesting enough.**

There are also many intense moments in this latter half of the film highlighted by some fairly gruesome and creative deaths scenes. For example I thought it was clever how the film featured a fairly elaborate wax-centered demise for one character, while offing others with vicious Friday the 13th-style slayings. Paris Hilton’s well-publicized final scene was a standout in this latter category. Gore hounds should not be disappointed here, just as I wasn’t disappointed by the impressive, action-packed ending. Add to this the overall decent performances by the lead heroines and villains, and the 2005 House of Wax becomes worth watching despite a rough start.

* As I said at the start, the 2005 House of Wax is better than one would expect. Often times however I was too strongly reminded of other films I’ve seen. For example, besides the truck with the blinding headlights mentioned earlier, the police at the end of the movie offer us a very Texas Chainsaw Massacre-type explanation for what has previously taken place.

** The use of the name Vincent for one of the Siamese twin brothers was a nice touch in paying tribute to the 1953 Vincent Price classic.

SUBJECT: New Projects, New Beginnings (2005)

Production begins on the independent feature "Shadow Tracker: Resurrection".

As regular readers may have noticed, the first line in the title of this column is the same as the title of my July 2003 TFTM column. This is because two years later I’m fortunate enough to once again be involved in new projects. * In July 2003 I was beginning work directing the comedy Of Theatre & Bikinis, and now I’d like to

talk about my experiences to date working on the vampire feature Shadow Tracker: Resurrection.

Shadow Tracker: Resurrection is the long-in-the-works sequel to the independent vampire epic Shadow Tracker: Vampire Hunter. Like the first movie, this one is being written & directed by my friend filmmaker Joe Bagnardi, and being produced in Upstate New York. I’m working in various capacities behind the scenes, and I’m also scheduled to edit the picture when production is completed. I’m especially pleased to be a part of this movie because of my fondness for the first one. You see, Shadow Tracker: Vampire Hunter provided me with one of my first film acting gigs. In the movie I had a bit part (no pun intended) as a graveyard vampire who attacks Ron Rausch’s title vampire hunter character. This wasn’t too long after I began auditioning for movie roles, and I was actually the first one to try-out for the film. Even though it was a small part, I remember how exciting the shoot was. The scene was shot in an area graveyard and involved some cool makeup effects. It was a true independent horror movie experience. We even got temporarily locked in the place afterwards because we stayed too long past closing time! That scene was a good introduction to the world of low-budget horror and action movies, and I remember the biggest thrill for me being when the movie was premiered in my area (and then subsequently released on home video). Seeing yourself in a movie for the first time is definitely a once-in-

a-lifetime experience. Now, ten years since production began on the first film, the second is underway. And I feel privileged to have been asked to be a part of the creative team behind this sequel.

** We began production on Shadow Tracker: Resurrection on the same calendar date that filming of the original began on back in 1995. As of this writing we’ve filmed for a few weekends, and so far I’ve had the pleasure of working with returning original cast members Ron Rausch and Voni Powell, as well as good friend Ed Dimmer, who was a producer on the first film. ***Another friend we worked with is actor Dan Bailey, who previously appeared in the independent features Blood Of The Werewolf and The Edge Of Reality. Everybody is doing a great job, and it’s cool to see some familiar characters come to life again before our eyes. It should continue to be exciting as more returning cast members begin filming along with the numerous new

cast members coming on board. To date we’ve shot mostly dialog scenes using a tripod, which to me almost feels like a warm-up for the numerous action sequences to come. In fact I’d say exciting action scenes were a big strength of the first movie, so it should be interesting to see how things turn out this time around. Joe shot the first movie on Super 8 film over the course of about two years, while the planned production period for this digital video movie is approximately six months. Oh how times change. I believe fans of the original will enjoy this film. Shadow Tracker: Resurrection has many elements that capture the same spirit as its predecessor, while still being its own entity. **** Keep watching the site for more information and updates on the movie in the months ahead.

SUBJECT: Movie Recommendation - "George A. Romero’s Land Of The Dead"

After a long absence the zombie movie master returns with a solid new entry in the series.

It’s been twenty years since the last installment in filmmaker George A. Romero’s zombie saga. His 1985 film Day of the Dead portrayed a world virtually wiped out by the zombie infestation. In that movie a small group of scientists and military personnel holed up in an underground bunker worked side by side in a tense and volatile relationship as they tried to understand and combat the zombie epidemic. Now in 2005 we are finally seeing the next evolution of the story, in the form of Land of the Dead. Here we learn that there are indeed many more humans left alive, and that they are basically divided into two groups. The remaining affluent and powerful people live in a walled and heavily fortified utopian city lead by a guy named Kaufman (Dennis Hopper), while the rest of the population lives in slum areas outside the city. Beyond the outer walls of this area is where the zombies reside, and where they are evolving. Land of the Dead also stars Simon Baker, John Leguizamo and Asia Argento.

George A. Romero’s fourth zombie epic reminded me a bit of Day of the Dead because of all the gunplay and military presence, while the luxury accommodations of the rich people brought to mind the shopping mall in Dawn of the Dead. The gung-ho attitude of some of the military personnel (especially John Leguizamo’s character) also reminded me of the bikers in that movie. Additionally, George Romero once again portrays

many of the humans in a very unflattering light. Kaufman and his cohorts are rich opportunists who have managed to effectively keep the class structure intact even in the wake of the zombie epidemic. The military personnel they’ve hired string up the zombies and use them for target practice, while in the slum areas zombies are put in cages and provide the means for gambling. This all tends to make the zombies appear sympathetic, especially when a mechanic zombie called Big Daddy slowly begins to sense things around him and starts leading the other zombies on a march toward the city. The walking dead are like a persecuted group rebelling against an evil regime. In fact I’ll say I was routing for Big Daddy and his cheerleader sidekick more and more

as the film progressed.

This was a solid movie from start to finish and there are some key reasons why. First, the story is interesting

and seems like a natural evolution from the events in the previous movies. * The action involving Cholo (John Leguizamo’s character) and his attempt to use an armored vehicle called Dead Reckoning to blackmail Kaufman and force his way into the upper class nicely complements the zombie march toward the skyscrapers and gives the movie more depth and complexity. **Also the performances are all first-rate, especially Simon Baker in the role of Riley, the films main protagonist, and Leguizamo as the tough-talking Cholo. Additionally, it’s always nice to see Asia Argento onscreen, even though admittedly her role here as a prostitute turned freedom fighter is pretty standard fare.

A second thing I liked about the film was the zombie makeup and gore effects. The zombie makeup was all very well done and added nicely to the characterization of several of the main zombies. As with all George Romero zombie movies, this one doesn’t skimp on gore either. In fact I was surprised how much he was able to get onscreen in this picture. Gore hounds should not be disappointed, as the carnage gets heavy during the zombie march toward the skyscrapers. There were also some very memorable shots during this march, particularly one where we see the zombies lined up at the edge of the pier looking down at the water and across to the city beyond. A bit later we see them slowly emerging one by one from the water in some shots that reminded me of the classic cult film Carnival of Souls.

SUBJECT: Movie Review - "The Devil’s Rejects"

A look at the extreme, violent sequel to "House of 1000 Corpses"

Caution: This review contains some plot details and spoilers.

In 2003 rocker Rob Zombie made his directorial film debut with the extreme shocker House of 1000 Corpses, which told the tale of the ruthless Firefly family and their deranged, murderous escapades. Now, two years later, he continues the story with the equally violent sequel The Devil’s Rejects.

The Devil’s Rejects picks up shortly after the events from House of 1000 Corpses and finds the Firefly family under siege in their own home by the Texas State Police. This intense standoff starts the film with a bang and introduces us to a ruthless sheriff (played with relish by William Forsythe) bent on not only capturing the Firefly clan, but also exacting bloody revenge on them. It turns out his brother was one of their victims (in the first film), and now he sees himself as doing God’s work in eliminating them. After Otis and Baby Firefly escape and join Captain Spaulding, the remainder of the film follows them as they leave a trail of bloody bodies in their wake while being pursued by the authorities. Along the way the trio takes refuge with Captain Spaulding's half-brother (Ken Foree), who offers them shelter for a while.

One thing that really jumped out at me in this movie was the interesting casting. * In my House of 1000

Corpses review I criticized the film for being too similar to The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and noted that having Bill Moseley (from The Texas Chainsaw Massacre Part 2) in the cast added to this feeling. However on the other hand having cult stars like Mosely and Sid Haig in lead roles, rather than the usual Hollywood A-list types, was a fresh change of pace. Here many diverse talents are added to the ensemble cast. ** This film features appearances by Priscilla Barnes, Diamond Dallas Page, Ken Foree, P.J. Soles, Deborah Van Valkenburg and Michael Berryman, among others. That’s quite a list in my book, and I have to admit I was surprised to say the least as these people appeared one after another throughout the course of the movie. Granted this might not be noticed by the more casual film viewer, but to a horror and cult film fan like me it was definitely interesting. At the very least it should help in the next Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon game I take part in.

Another thing I liked about the film is the fact that the supernatural elements from House of 1000 Corpses were eliminated. Here there is no mention of local legend Dr. Satan, which to me was a real weak point in the first movie. The tale of the Firefly family seems to work better as a killers-on-the-road movie than as a supernatural creature story. Also all the weird, surrealistic images that Rob Zombie used in the first movie were not present this time around. As mentioned in my House of 1000 Corpses review, I didn’t think much of that really worked well.

What I didn’t like about The Devil’s Rejects was how predictable it often was. For example it’s immediately apparent most of the people Otis and Baby take hostage are doomed, even though the film presents sequences that are meant to be suspenseful and make the audience believe they have a chance of escape. As crazy as the killers supposedly are, they’re always one step ahead of their victims and really just methodically playing with these hapless people. In fact the killers seem almost invincible and superhuman. This one-sidedness is most on display in a scene where Otis is hit over the head with a large chunk of wood by one of his potential victims, yet manages not to be affected by it. For me this didn’t seem plausible, and while I realize that other types of killers (such as supernatural stalkers) are also portrayed as invincible, I believe here it takes away from the suspense. The film treats many of the characters like dead meat from start to finish, and after awhile this just becomes monotonous and boring.

Given the above observations I would say this movie was better than its predecessor. The unevenness that House of 1000 Corpses suffered from was replaced by a more skilled and refined directorial hand, which is something I commend Mr. Zombie for. At the same time Rob was still able to get his extreme, uncompromising vision to the big screen intact, which I also applaud. And while there have been movies made about families of psychos going on killing sprees, The Devil’s Rejects didn’t strike me as being a retread of any particular movie, which was one of my biggest criticisms of his first film. However despite all this I still can’t recommend

the movie simply because overall I really didn’t enjoy it very much (despite the cameos). As was true with House of 1000 Corpses, as crazy as the psychos were they really didn’t have much substance. The actors were once again simply chewing the scenery in a series of elaborately designed set pieces. *** And while the film presented moments that were intended to humanize the Firefly family and create sympathy for them, these sequences seemed incredibly shallow and were obscured by the endless carnage throughout the film. Basically The Devil’s Rejects amounts to a couple hours of pointless random acts of violence. My House of 1000 Corpses review concluded with a recommendation that fright fans check the film out and decide for themselves whether it was a new masterpiece in horror cinema or just a series of disturbing sequences not amounting to much. That recommendation also applies to The Devil’s Rejects.