Return To Sleepaway Camp

Okay. So after years of waiting, Return To Sleepaway Camp was finally released on DVD. So was the wait worth it? I would say definitely YES. Being that the movie was pushed back for so long I began to question the turnout, but never dismissed it. Also, usually the few times when sequels have been made for movies that are over 20 years old, they turn out to be botched efforts trying to adjust to modern horror standards and abandoning the qualities that made the original so special. However, with original writer/director Robert Hiltzik, Return To Sleepaway Camp is rooted in 80s horror tradition and stays true to the style of the original. It is sick, perverted, gory and what some would consider morally offensive. What’s not to love? Return To Sleepaway Camp is a direct sequel to the original 1983 classic, disregarding parts 2 and 3. Aside from returning characters being older, the movie seems like it could have come out the year after the original. One notable difference is the amount of comedy in the new Sleepaway Camp. In the original, the kids were just cruel. Now the torment, while still cruel, is done in a way where it's amusing and sometimes downright hilarious. There are no Judy's here. No mega bitches you love to hate. Actually, the tormentors I thought were quite likeable. That has a lot to do with the kid on the receiving end of the abuse. Alan is not a likeable character at all. You will not be feeling sorry for him. He is a whiny, annoying, filthy, over dramatic ass and doesn't garner much sympathy. As a matter of fact, he's as much a dick as anyone else if not more so, but you’ll still get a kick out of him and his child-like antics. Like the original, the death scenes are a highlight, but there seems to be too few of them. After the second kill there is a long gap with no gore and there were a lot of nasty campers that could have been dispatched. Some of the kills were reminiscent of the earlier movies including Artie's death from part 1 and Bobby's from part 3. Another is kind of like a combination of Brooke from part 2 and Peter from part 3. The return of the original characters gives the movie a feeling of home. They have no problem stepping back in the shoes of these characters and making them feel like the same people, but 25 years later. After having one of the best twists ever in motion picture history with the original, it's to be expected that this movie would try just as hard. It was kind of obvious what would happen, but it still kicked ass. Also, in the tradition of Sleepaway Camp, this one is full of tons of quotable lines. The special features on the dvd are awesome, but I would have loved a commentary. Seriously, who wouldn't? Yes, it feels good to be back at camp. - neil a

Special Features:
Behind The Scenes
Interviews
Photo Gallery
Return To Sleepaway Camp Song By Goat And Friends

Posted by neil at 08:54 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

Feeding the Masses

At a recent convention, I picked up Feeding the Masses for five bucks. Besides the price it had one major appeal: it was a zombie film, whose title reminded me of Jonathan Swift's brilliantly biting satirical essay, "A Modest Proposal." Looking at the box, I saw that Trent Haaga had scripted the film. At the same convention I'd also bought Lloyd Kaufman's nonfiction book Make Your Own Damn Movie, without knowing Haaga had co-written it, or that he was a product of the Troma school. Forearmed with this knowledge, I watched Feeding the Masses expecting it to be an outrageously crude, yet enjoyably over the top piece of exploitation madness. Unfortunately, Haaga aims for much higher ground here, and fails.

The movie starts off in a studio, as a cooking show is being filmed. Enter cameraman Torch as he does combat with his producer, Fran. The Lazarus virus has befallen the city of Pawtucket, Rhode Island (the actual filming location), turning its residents into zombies; Torch thinks the cynosure of everyone's attention should be the end of days, instead of mundane efforts. But Torch destroys all credibility when he: a) comes onto a waitress in the next scene, b) spends a full scene getting high, and c) attacks a hippie zombie so he can rob the walking corpse of his pot. Other characters include a soldier whose pursuit of the reporter he's been assigned to protect leads him to a snuff club, where he vigorously masturbates; the reporter, who's more concerned with face time and career aspirations than the end of the world; the production assistant, a self-proclaimed "wuss;" and a shadowy government official with a thick Boston accent. Unfortunately, each is a product of the Generic Stereotype Generator. Had the characterizations been individualized and fleshed out, perhaps it would've made the film's satire sharper. And the satire is where the problems begin.

Satire is probably the hardest style in which to write. To be effective, it must be cunning, biting when the audience least expects it. When it hits, it must be honed and pointed. The more outrageous its suggestion, the more logical the writer must make it appear to be. In "A Modest Proposal," Swift waits nearly halfway through his essay before he springs his trap; his argument for fixing starvation in Ireland has a bizarre yet pointed rationale to it, even at its most demented. Haaga, on the other hand, starts his film off with a close up of a blade slicing meat. The knife is sharp; the suggestion couldn't be more blunt. Nor could any of the subjects the film scrutinizes. Though I enjoy the double meaning of the word "feed" (serve food, live news feed), everything else in this film is too broad. Restraint and subtlety in acting and scripting could've honed Haaga's argument. Instead, the cartoonish performances and dialogue detract from it.

As for the subjects of the satire, they've been done to death, and even they are too obtusely drawn: The media is manipulative, and the government is the enemy. I understand that social commentary always comments on contemporary events, but I didn't really need this film to tell me these things; turning on the news or picking up the paper would do the same, and more persuasively. I have to give Feeding the Masses credit for one thing, though. It addresses many of the same concepts that George Romero attacked in Diary of the Dead, another failed commentary on the misuse of the media, years before Romero touched on these.

Further hurting the film are several bits of media spread throughout, that stretch credibility to the breaking point. Am I really supposed to believe that a government-produced video, meant to allay the public's fears in the media age, would have the look and tone of a 1950s family sitcom? Would any protesting organization, marching on a government building, really allow a picket sign that read, "STOP the endless SLAUGHT?" Does anybody reading this review buy into a militia in Rhode Island?

And then there's the vehicle for the satire, the zombies themselves. Their makeup is inconsistent and generally unconvincing; mostly, they look like people in white face. There are some decent gore effects, but these attacks are so generic, they could take place in any of a hundred other movies. So many zombie films get lazy when it comes to the kills, and this is one more.

For a low budget film, Feeding the Masses is stocked with extras. First up, Shock-o-Rama provides a commentary track with director Richard Griffin and Torch himself, Billy Garberina. This thing is loaded with ridiculous praise; everybody's great, and everyone loves everyone. I cannot stand tracks like this. The only good thing to come from it is how the two address some of the cheats of low budget filming. There's also a 30 minute documentary, in which just about everyone but lead actress Rachel Morris talks. There's plenty more happy talk, even when a homeless psycho tries to steal the camera. It repeats many of the stories from the commentary, and does little to hold interest.

Shock-o-Rama also presents the theatrical trailers for this and seven other films. "A Year of Shocks" is a four minute commercial boasting about the company. Two short films also populate the disc. "Voltagen" and "Hypostatic Union" run about 13 minutes combined. They're trashy little throwaway pieces made by Duane Graves and Justin Meeks. Each is available with commentary, a sure sign that the company takes great pride in its product. If only these shorts or the feature itself had deserved such a luxurious treatment.

Trent Haaga started off as a scribe for Lloyd Kaufman, and with Feeding the Masses, he wants to write a film like George Romero. Sadly, he is neither as outrageous as Troma's godfather, or as pointed a social critic as the godfather of the modern zombie. Had he veered more sharply toward either Tromaville or Pittsburgh, this film may have succeeded. As it stands, it's just another zombie movie, one that may be worth five bucks, but not much more.

--Phil Fasso

Posted by fasso at 08:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Cat's Eye

Two years after the success of Cujo, director Lewis Teague returned to Stephen King country, but with a much different movie. With King himself writing the script, Dino De Laurentiis producing, and E.T. child star Drew Barrymore acting, Teague set out to direct a trio of stories. King would base two of them on short stories from his Night Shift collection, and write one fresh for the film, connecting the three with a cat. The results are uneven and not really scary, but as a whole, the film is moderately enjoyable.

The film begins with an extreme close up of a cat's eye. The camera follows the cat as a rabid St. Bernard chases it across a street, where it almost gets hit by an old red Plymouth Fury. Ending up on a truck, the cat leads the audience into the first story, "Quitters, Inc." The singular best element of the movie is the performance of James Woods as a man trying to quit smoking. When he arrives at Quitters, Inc., he realizes too late that the company has a unique method to make sure its clientele stays off the butts. The cat then leads us to "The Ledge," in which a tennis bum makes a unique wager with a man whose wife he has stolen. In the final tale, the cat arrives home in Wilmington, Delaware to save little Drew from a demonic troll in the wall.

Of the three, "Quitters, Inc." is by far the best. Woods brings an intensity to the role, and a remarkable sense of humor. For anyone who's ever tried to break a habit, it's easy to sympathize with him and his jangled nerves. Unfortunately, in converting the story to the script, King changes many small elements that make it a little less charming than it was in print; especially painful is the omission of an issue with the billing for the procedure, which was the best part of the story.

Anyone who's seen Creepshow, another anthology movie that King scripted, will recognize several similarities between "The Ledge" and that film's "Something to Tide You Over." Their plots and characters are almost exactly the same: a young man having an affair with the young wife of an older rich man; the rich man's plans for revenge; the ironic twist that turns the table on him. In fact, lead actor Robert Hayes shared scenes with Creepshow's Leslie Nielsen. in Airplane. Fortunately, the story itself doesn't suffer. Robert Hayes is great as Johnny Norris, the young lover on a ledge; as his foil, Kenneth McMillan (a veteran of King's miniseries Salem's Lot) balances himself off nicely. There are some nice gags along the way, and some creative camera work.

The last story, "The General," is by far the weakest of the bunch. I prefer supernatural horror with monsters to more earthbound horror, and this is the only one of the three with an unworldly presence, but I can't buy into it. The troll in the wall is not even remotely scary; even with the wooden acting (the cat is the best thespian in the segment) and uneven tone, the episode might have succeeded if the monster weren't so silly looking. Even when it menaces a sleeping Barrymore with a knife, its appearance destroys any credibility or sense of tension. Though the first two segments had been moderately enjoyable, the movie goes out with a whimper.

The DVD doesn't fully whimper out in the special features, though. The theatrical trailer misguides horror fans by playing the film off as being much scarier than it is (it's only rated PG-13). The other extra of note is a commentary by Teague. He gives some background on the film, including tidbits on shooting in Wilmington, and how the shortened prologue confused many audience members on Barrymore's connection to the cat. He also addresses all the not so subtle references to Stephen King's other works (as I did a little more subtly in my synopsis). Most interesting is his discussion of "The Ledge," where he chats about the used of miniature sets and forced perspective to give the illusion of a character on a high rise's ledge. Much like the film, the commentary is moderately entertaining, but Teague leaves way too many dead spots, and repeats himself frequently. He might've done better if accompanied by a moderator. As it stands, it falls flat far too often.

I doubt Cat's Eye will ever be any horror fan's favorite movie, or for that matter, favorite Stephen King adaptation. It's uneven and falters with the last tale, but it is decently entertaining. And it does sport two fine performances, one by James Woods and one by a cat.

--Phil Fasso

Posted by fasso at 08:42 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Blacula

The blaxploitation cinema of the 1970s was a great trend. Empowering blacks by turning them into action heroes who spouted colorful, quotable lines and battled the oppressive white Establishment, these films were exploitation at its best. So it was only natural that the trend would eventually cross over with film's longest running exploitation genre, horror. The result was Blacula, a Sam Arkoff- American International Pictures film with a very dark sense of humor and some even darker scares.

From its very opening scene, Blacula balances blaxploitation and horror perfectly. When a racist Count Dracula invites Prince Mamuwalde and his princess Luva to his castle, the couple falls into the master vampire's trap. Dracula bites Mamuwalde and leaves Luva with him to die in the mortuary. With its dark lighting and creepy music, the scene functions as a perfect setup for a vampire flick. But there's a whole other layer here: an Eastern European white man, the "master," has enslaved the black man (here with the vampire's bite) and left his beauty to rot. Metaphorically, it's brilliant.

After an eye catching credit sequence, where an animated black bat follows a spot of blood that turns into a woman, the film flashes forward to contemporary times. Two gay antique dealers buy a number of Dracula's possessions, coffin included, and transport them from Transylvania to Los Angeles. When one of them cuts his arm, Blacula's bloodlust wakes him, and sets him loose on the streets. There, he finds a modern day woman who is the exact image of his Luva. As Blacula's victims breed more victims, a black coroner and a white cop team up and try to stop the master vampire.

The plot is nothing new to horror fans. In fact, the whole movie could've ended up just another generic monster flick, but for one thing: the performance of William Marshall as Blacula. Marshall was a classically trained Shakespearean actor with a deep bass voice; he portrays the vampire as regal, eloquent and dignified. Even though he's forever destined to be a bloodsucker, Blacula never forgets that he's also a prince. Marshall is equally effective when Blacula's on the hunt; with the minimalist addition of some extra facial hair and fangs, he transforms the character into a chilling beast that is the dark side of his noble prince. The character's another example of how blaxploitation flicks' leads were all about black empowerment: the well spoken man of political power who also knows how to kick ass. In the hands of a lesser actor, this character may have failed, but Marshall plays him perfectly.

Blacula establishes a tone that every horror fan should appreciate. Its use of music is both creepy and contemporary. Locations such as the graveyard and morgue stand out as typical horror venues, but Blacula also preys on the street, so nobody's safe. Slow motion attacks throw the audience off balance. The acting is appropriate for a vampire flick, except for Vonetta McGee as Tina, the modern day incarnation of Luva; her performance is more wooden than a stake. The vampires look a little silly, with blue painted faces and foot long fangs. It's a minor issue, though, because after all, this is an exploitation flick. Less acceptable is the film's latent homophobia; constant gay cracks made toward the two antique dealers are an embarrassment in these more open times.

The film reminds the audience frequently that it's blaxploitation. The loud fashion sense and colorful dialogue are right out of the Shaft school of filmmaking. My favorite line is when Prince Mamuwalde tells his nemesis at a night club that he's into the "black arts." The night club also provides us with several funky songs from The Hues Corporation (of course it does; it's an AIP film).

Because this is a minor effort in the cycle, MGM only provides a theatrical trailer on the disc. It's a good trailer, but anyone who appreciates the film will want more.

Of course, the only way anyone would appreciate Blacula is if he's a fan of this cycle of movies. Fortunately for me, my inner black male has loved the blaxploitation films from a very early age. Shaft and Black Caesar are among my guilty pleasures, and I own every film that Pam Grier made during the cycle. Because I'm also a horror fan, Blacula falls right in among my blaxploitation favorites. Bottom line: If you shun the masterpieces of Richard Roundtree and Fred "Hammer" Williamson, avoid Blacula. But if you're down with those brothers, Blacula is a great late night flick.

--Phil Fasso

Posted by fasso at 08:31 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)