Poe-17

The best pig movie is, of course, Razorback. This one is a different pig movie. Think B-Movie expectations and you've got a winner. Crazy at times, opens up in weird directions and gets really loopy. It is entertainment for scary/horror/adventure folks. That's what a movie like this is supposed to do. It does it. Comes with laughs up front and hidden. A good time if your snoot isn't pointed upward. I appreciate it. There is a smear of styles blended in a cool and engaging way. The rednecky thing is stereotyped but works. The Fearsome Bugger is only on screen for the last five minutes of the film but the story is not about "Death Walks On Four Legs", it's about ... we'll, just watch it. If you're wallering around in this neighborhood this is probably the kind of movie you're looking for.

The works of Howard Phillip Lovecraft continue to thwart film makers. His tales, written in the early 1900's are, invariably, updated to present day and forced to mix with today's fads, trends and "movie absorbing mind set". For the most part, they don't work, like this shot at the trophy. Anything by good Ol' H.P. should be a period piece like Jackson's "King Kong"...unless you are extremely brilliant. The makers of "Chill", while sincere, failed to create the magic to move "Cool Air" (which this movie is based upon) from short-story written in 1926 to a contemporary story. No fault, no foul ... a near impossible thing to do. Lovecraft excruciatingly cultivated sinister and dark atmosphere with climactic punctuations of visual action, almost the opposite of current films that are visually heavy to create the deep and dark unease (something they seldom do because ... perhaps ... they are running a formula in reverse?) ... Dan O'Bannon nearly nailed it with "The Resurrected" from Lovecraft's "The Case of Charles Dexter Ward". Unfortunately, this attempt to bring "Cool Air" to the screen is a lousy shot at a Lovecraft adaptation and can't stand on its own as a horror film. Kudos for the effort but ... way big miss.

Television has, occasionally, left a worthy mark in our world. Mostly it's what's hot, faddish, trendish and popular at the moment. As years roll by the last "hot" is forgotten and bulldozed over by the current "hot" that pops up in our verbiage until the next "hot thing" takes over. Nothing lasts.

This western (it wasn't a western, it just used the western setting for it's pallet, a wise choice) dug into the human condition and unleashed a series of morality plays that retain the power to "thunk our noggins" today.

Yes, there's over-pumps to make a point and - yeah Paladin must be a couple hundred years old to have done everything he's done but he is, in a quiet way, one of the original superheroes (would make a great graphic novel.

The series addressed issues decades ahead of its time.

It was about the black, the white and the gray. And the unpopular ideas.

Suggestive, challenging, heroic, humbling and holds its weight today.

We could use Paladins today.

Good stuff. Damned good stuff.

This isn't a movie about bikers, it's a movie about biker movies. Those made from mid-60s to mid-70s. Exploitation movies from that era are what drives Quentin Tarantino's directorial/acting/producing efforts and has rewarded cinema lovers with some really cool stuff. On this outing QT included a buddy of those films, Larry Bishop, who directs and plays the lead and was around and in the movies this movie pays homage to. So director, star is a veteran. This a film that will appeal strongly to those who watched those films at a drive in, or those film buffs who gravitate to that era. It distills the clichés and story lines and essence of those films, upgrades them to modern cinema (including exposed flesh and language not common 30 years back) and packs together a tale that beginning-meets-end if you hang around for the finale. Mostly, it's just fun if you (as above) either saw these films at the drive-in while fondling with your date or are a fan of the era. Larry Bishop is the star; David Carradine has a few aside scenes using his fame as support for the effort, Dennis Hopper gets in deeper and taps his "biker film" roots and the whole thing just rolls together for the appreciative. Boss bikes, bitchin' babes (check the special features for the supporting female input)and all kinds of booty. And then ... Michael Madsen. David C's cool and Dennis Hopper's cool from the past is currently in the possession of Michael Madsen. No matter what he's in. In this film he plays "Gent", a tuxedo wearing biker. A tuxedo wearing biker. His idea. And ... as only he can, he makes it work and actually steals the show. The head honcho, Pistelero (played by Larry Bishop) is, by name, tied to a handgun but it is Gent who rules the road. In a scene where three of our anti-heroes burst into a trailer where five or six of the opposition are sequestered, Gent goes in first ... fires a succession of shots and has everyone inside down before Pistelero steps inside. Gent apologizes "My finger stuck". With artistic eye over ego, Bishop lets Madsen steal and it's a better film for it. Nice clichéd wrap, romanticism intact, conflicts resolved in the last scenes and a well placed "finger" before the credits roll. Good road music, too. If you were there or have gone there ... don't miss. Everyone else probably can't find the "connect". But that's okay. This film was aimed at a target audience. I hope you're one of them.

Definite Spoilers ... but I'm not going to tell you what spoils ... Simple set up ... college crowd tosses a party of stereotypical sort; drugs, sex and all the other goodies including the social dynamics and modern shenanigans that include video (yes, it has a "Blair Witchy" feel so if that one didn't connect with you, neither will this one - but, if it did ...). Add booze, the other chemicals and a few hours for the recipe to come to a boil and we get to "the incident". Tale unfolds with interviews with those who were there, interlaced with snippets of video taken at the time. All sides of who-did-what are visited; everything leading to the split second of real creep. This is a way cheapo film with thinkers at the helm and damned fine performances turned in by almost everyone (none of whom we know). It builds, one well executed step at a time, to a consensual sexual encounter between Jenna Matheson and a dude that slowly seems to become a consensual encounter for a threesome. Then things tilt sideways and slide into the really, really wrong. Now she's dead, now she's not, she's dead again, now she's not and ... a creepy, low key but gut punching "Boo!" Well written, well developed, well executed. It's competition are the loud, blood splattered, in your face terror-films. It's power is in a film maker's ability to to orchestrate an entire film around a few seconds of "Oh !!!!". Jenna leaving the "scene" with dropped and floor-angle camera catching her exit (and the tiny detail of underwear) was masterpiece level film making. Way less nasty than you think it will be but more nasty from a direction you don't expect. And then there's that "Boo".

Okay ... SPOILERS I don't think any of the spoilers will "spoil" the film but ...

If you don't like westerns ... don't watch. If you don't like revenge movies ... don't watch. The Thibodaux Massacre actually happened. This movie was inspired by that, which means, the film bears no relationship with truth.

Civil War hero re-encounters the slavery issue after the war, intervenes and things go horribly wrong. Horribly. Loses all in the most intense meaning of the word. Way stereotypical sent-to-prison-for-the-wrong-reasons sets it up for escape and revenge (see title).

Mr. Braeden in the title role. My wife is a fan of his soap. I am not. But because of my wife's addiction, I am "by osmosis" exposed to the community. Mr. Braeden has never impressed me except as a writer/illustrator-flyfisher-movie freak (in that order)I have always loved his face. His face and his "main expression" are perfect for this film.

If I wanted to sketch a face and expression that says: "I'm ten times more deadly than you think I am and you underestimate me"; I'd do his face. And ... that's about it for Eric. But he does it so well and that's what his character needs in this film.

This isn't an "time quirk" martial arts film or a typical "revenge hero" film. Reese Paxton (Eric Braeden) is human. He isn't physically superior. He isn't about walking into impossible situations and kicking tail (ala Chuck, Arnold, Jean Claude, etc.); he's about orchestrating his moments. He wasn't a warrior, he was an assassin.

It's cliché riddled, for sure, and there is a soap opera-ish element to the whole tale; even the love of a golden-hearted whore.

But you know what? I love films that reach for something ... even if they miss. I guess I enjoy their "lunge" with them.

Some of the racial stuff is scary (because it thrives into today's undercurrent) and there's a line referring to "What bad can happen when good people do nothing" that is slap-your-face relevant in today's headlines. No, this film didn't address that. A coincidence.

Best line ... "Where is Reese Preston?" And then, from off scene "I'm right here".

Missed the mark ... but only by a little bit.

I'd like to give this a higher score but you've got to allow for pristine excellence. MPB doesn't have that but it noses around in that area.

As you've read in other comments, the phone booth (until 2000) was real, the tales told in the movie are fictional. The very real phone booth inspired someone (you can look it up) to weave tales around a very unique phone booth.

The concept is something someone should have made up but took a niche of reality to jump start things. It would have been such a triumph for someone to cobble this together from scratch. But so much of fiction uses the hodgepodge of fact for a launching pad. No foul. It's how things work.

In the movie, it's one lady (suspiciously wise, lady) who calls the MPB ... and, occasionally, someone is there to answer it. When that happens, the ability of humans to be confessional with a disembodied voice (versus face to face with people we know)kicks in and the stories that create the film unfold.

It's a wonderful format and allows an experimental exploration of cinema on several levels.

It's just plain enjoyable and fascinating because it tinkers with something that exists in our world and something that tinkers with what we wish, might, possibly, perhaps, could exist in our world.

In reality, once the phone number for the MPB was out; everyone would be calling it, trying to connect with someone at that lone outpost and reduce its "special-ness" and "unique-ness" to lowest levels of mediocrity.

That's what we do. Something very special and unique shows up and we leap upon it, shred it, commercialize it, suck it dry of any meaning and slap it on t-shirts and bumper stickers, thump our chests and go looking for the next significant thing we can reduce to nothingness with our rampant and relentless egos.

This film takes a pause with a very special something that really existed and wonders what would happen if the honest human element got hold of it.

And a collection of stories come together.

When it's over, you might find yourself thinking about all the other things that could happen if we had a phone booth in the middle of nowhere that would ring at random times and have a disembodied entity on the other end that could help us find our way through whatever dilemma enveloped our lives at the moment.

Wouldn't you love something like that? I would.

I don't have the answers. I'd like to knock words with someone who might.

Nice foundation for a different kind of film. Fortunately; it's called "Mojave Phone Booth".

Worth your time.

This is a good movie. But then again, it always was. It is a very good update of a movie titled "Colossus:The Forbin Project". Throw in a couple of nowadays twists, upgrade the special effects ... it was worth doing but the habit of mining the past for "new" films is getting ... well ... "old".

Don't get me wrong, this one worked out well. But unlike Jackson's "King Kong" which was less remake than a bow to legend, "Eagle Eye" was a straight reworking of something that was done very well before. It had no mythology to expand, no hinted at themes to develop. It was simply an update. More cyber-ific.

Not a bad thing. Like I said ... good movie.

But "original" would be really nice. Even an original take on an older theme or idea.

While "jazzing" up the old can produce some worthy cinema (like "Eagle Eye"), given the cost of theater tickets and all; can't we have some original stuff from well heeled producers like S.S.?

See it. It's good.

As it always was.

Cannibalism and gore with a story ... not. They just didn't get it. Horror has been here before. They brought nothing new. Would have been a whopper a decade back but now is just a rehash already been done. I'm sure they saw their venture as daring and innovative but only because they didn't do their homework. Unless you've only been visiting Disney, there's nothing to shock you here. All plot elements have been explored as far back as the late 60s. That seems to be the mantra nowadays. It's easy to say "There's nothing new to be done" and then something like "The Dark Knight" rolls through and you realize it's about pushing the envelope and creative juice and back in the day when little bitty films (like "Night of the Living Dead") hurled themselves against the mainstream. They originate off the chart, not repeating the already done. Different world, I guess,but aren't there film makers stirring and concocting things outside the box? And how in the world do films that do nothing get the financing? Skip it.

Something you would see on "Discovery" or "National Geographic" if it actually happened. Just this way. I think that's what they were after but this is Herzog so ... who knows? If you need straight narrative like any recent Hollywood offering (not a "knock" ... I "need" "King Kong", "The Dark Knight", etc...) this one might not be something you want to corral.

Self parody and an intentional realistic encounter with a legend.

So good.

Delicious.

Herzog!

A nearly impossible to describe film. Start with the premise; an eight foot mutant sheep. That's the Godmonster. Or is it? This was, in 1973, an eco-movie. Just like the monsters created from nuclear discards in the 50's, this one is - somewhere - about the consequences of the neglect of ecological responsibility. Kinda. Sorta. Yeah.

What it is, today, is one of those "you've got to be kidding me" films that any true aficionado of distant horror and related cinema just has to have in their inventory. It will rest alongside of "Blood Freak", the other discarded horror-whatever film made a year earlier.

You've got to see the "Godmonster" to believe it. The "creativity" of the special effects department (probably numbering one or less)is unbelievable.

The "town" may be the only thing more weird and crazy than the Godmonster.

I write a lot and I tried to imagine being a writer on this project and ... went simple giddy.

"Make them all pay!!!".

It lost its political message, lost its punch and failed to make its point but it coughed up a hell of a title and carved an obscure niche in cinematic history.

Kudos to anything called "The Godmonster of Indian Flats".

Plus ... "Something Weird Video" always does all that cool "other" stuff as extras.

Ever been raped by a Sasquatch? Need to control flies? What about an escaped carnival Geek chasing a stripper? It's all here; from a mutant eight foot sheep to nasty rats.

This is lowbrow entertainment, folks, of the very best sort.

Smile.

I haven't seen the comic tale this is based on and I would have by-passed this DVD except for the title. I'm old school where "The Horror of ..." and "The Terror of ..." and similar titles dominated these kinds of movies. Understand I didn't expect anything but it was a buck at Redbox and I couldn't resist that title.

This review is after a second viewing. A second viewing.

Not a great movie but one of those embarrassing favorites.

This film just goes haywire and runs off the map and all over the place and, if you're bent just right, is dark and disturbing hilarious.

Trace Adkins is the devil and when you first see him he's urinating in a field and his urine hits the ground and emits plumes of steam. He's a lightweight bookend for the story that follows.

That was my first hint this might be "something different".

It is.

It might not be something "different enough" for you but it never failed to entertain ... something I demand.

Trailer tramp lady has reason to eliminate everyone in the trailer park, Devil gives her a way, trailer park denizens become zombie-kind-of-things and, years later, a group of youthful Christian-Campers (don't you love it?) make their way to the park.

Everything you can imagine, and some you won't, ensues.

Trace provides one bookend and a quote from Norma, before she becomes a mass murderer, provides another.

But the movie isn't about tidy details.

It's about the jolly horror romp in between.

It is a jolly horror romp.

Hee Haw!

MNS has been bludgeoned to death because he didn't repeat "The Sixth Sense" with his career. That seminal film had the "twist" that most of us saw coming and righteously enjoyed nonetheless. But it branded movie-goers' expectations from this director. "Unbreakable", which lacked the "twist" of TSS, again telegraphed this director's intentions of illuminating the "between the lines". "Signs" alerted everyone that he was seriously not focusing "the same ol same". An alien invasion with only trace-aliens? Who would'a thought? By the time "Signs" came along, it was clear MNS was looking at things through a new lens. "The Village" nailed it. Critics talked about the "twist" (still demanding a 'twist ending')as disappointing. "The Village" wasn't about a "twist ending". "The Village" was a love story. About the courage of love, told "out of kilter" And then what should we expect from "The Happening"? Quite naturally, it is a story between the lines. Told from a perspective that's easier and easier to fear ... we're not in control of things like we think we are. Nature might hold a surprise or two. I don't like to make comparisons like this but MNS has, from the first, called up those "Twilight Zone" kind of visions. Invites us to "look at things ... this way". He's done it again. Dismiss it. Knock it. But if you're honest ... it's hard to ignore the film's metaphor. We live in strange times and strange things can and do happen. Why are the honeybees disappearing? ... they really are, you know. It's called Colony Collapse Disorder. You can look it up. It's scarier than the movie. Or part of the movie. That's how MNS works. Much decent.

Like most reviews, this is a so-so, good-enough-without-leaping-into-collections-all-over-the-globe date film (unless you're an M.M. fanatic). The five stars stand as my humble opinion. However ... I tell all my fellow macho-buds to buy this film for their wives. She'll love ya' for it and think it's a real "sensitive" thing you've just done. What you get is a ten star opening sequence. Yeah, I know it's the "guy hook" for the film but they absolutely positively and hilariously nailed it. Every guy will relate to Murphy's Law squared (most ladies, too). Of course, you'll have to sit through the rest of the movie. Fortunately, it isn't that hard to do, it isn't a bad film. But even if it was, that opening sequence is worth it.

The Law of the Conservation of Energy. That law basically states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be "messed with". We can change it and rearrange it but we can't make more of it or delete any of it. This film takes great artistic license with that law and plays with it (the scientifically bent need not register the "errors", they are well understood and such complaints need to note the reference to "artistic license" above). If you imagine something, you give it energy. If you half imagine it and then change your mind and dump the idea ... observing the Law of the first sentence ... that which you half created doesn't magically vanish. It has energy, it has reality, it exists ... but not enough to post in our daily reality. So where does it go? It's (by the rules enacted in this film)... "re-cycled". I kept thinking, while watching this mesmerizing film, that question belonging to the modern phone-call world ... "where is "hold"? Where do things we create, when we no longer need them, go? They have energy, tangible presence and interact with our world until they've lost our interest. Do they just ... go away? Not according to the Law of the Conservation of Energy. According to that law, they have to become ... something. That "something" is the hub of "Re-Cycle". It wisely centers on a writer who bleeds her life into her work. Maximum giving energy to thoughts and ideas. She eventually has to confront all those entities and ideas she created and summarily dumped when she was through with them, condemning them to a wasteland waiting to be re-cycled ... energy cannot be created or destroyed ... only changed. It finally becomes a morality tale, too personal to have to fiddle with political correctness. Beginning ties to end ... nicely. There are a lot of "What the (bleep) was that?" scenes I'm certain additional viewings will help (which I intend to have). For me, a knockout. But I want to leave you with a phrase ... just something to think about ... "embryo rich vaginal tunnel". Light you up? It did me.

This one isn't a "I've seen", this is an "I own".

The film forgot what it was addressing. The original was a minor classic, knew the land it trod and remembered it. This one didn't. It seems the first was written by adults that remember some of those "subjectives" when they were teenagers. This one seems to be written by teenagers who were never adults; or at least, forgot that point of view.

Rotten in the extreme.

Same story but told by new and un-original "really cool new takes" that are about as lame as they come.

Somebody somewhere in the works here absolutely and positively wasn't paying attention.

Could have been really cool. Probably shouldn't have been messed with.

This is a mix-mosh of what-those-who-don't-understand-what-is-cool think cool is.

Cool music, cool noise, cool stuff, unless they are cool-ly presented ... aren't cool.

DOA movie.

Why, oh why, did they have to ruin this?

Mulligan Stew ... back in the bad old days, toward the end of the week, the cook goes to the fridge an drags out all the leftovers ... they are the beginning ingredients of "Mulligan Stew". It's an old "hobo dish" (whatever that is) made up of what you have. So it is that "Doomsday" came into existence. There's an embedded game in the movie ... see how many references to previous films you can find as the movie plays out. Sometimes this kind of homage, frequently, makes the grade as a trivia event but gets sloppy as movie. "Doomsday" doesn't, it lights up the screen, in a Tim Burton-ish dark way for the first reels, and can stand alone and proud as its own film. There are 207 entries so this one will never be read but all the previous film references apply: "Escape From New York", "Road Warrior", "28 Days", as well as Romero's Zombie films (in a scene played out in "Doomsday" but spoken in "Escape From New York" - "Somebody had him for lunch"). That may not be an exact quote but it's real close. There's also snippets of "Resident Evil", some "Blade Runner" thematics and I was reminded of a scene or two from "Brotherhood of the Wolf". Like I said, the embedded game is to find all the referenced movies in the film. Sometimes it's just a line, a scene (slithering tongue),sometimes it's plot. "V for Vendetta" seems to seep into things, as well. A movie like this could bomb so easy. Not a bomb. If you're grindhouse material, this is a film for you and you know who you are. We are. Me. Us. Loved it without apology. It knows what it is and who it's addressing. Solid gold delivery on that account. I liked it a lot.

"He'll know where to find me".

This isn't a bad film, just (probably) shouldn't have called upon the Frankenstein mythology in it's title. Various and numerous films and tales have approached the "bring the dead back to life" idea. "Frankenstein" doesn't own the franchise on this. Call the work ... oh, I don't know, ... Re-Animator or something. It isn't a great film, possibly earning "good" by the grace of the "we-love-horror" crowd. Some nice "re-animating" scenes. It never aspired to "mind shattering" and shouldn't be faulted for not achieving that. Dropping the name-dropping "Frankenstein" and just calling it "Reborn" would have worked just fine. And would have been more honest. Still, with all its faults, and bows to some killer scenes (and some forced ones), it isn't a horrible movie. It just doesn't belong in the Frankenstein lineage. Nice watch.

It's disturbing ... yes, some scenes were.

Okay, that's about it. It wasn't visionary ... unless revisiting the 60s and 70s is visionary. It wasn't unique unless films similar to "Dogma" aren't counted. It was only thought provoking if you haven't paid attention to the last few decades of cinema.

But I liked it in the same way I like really good leftovers.

When the "Where's the remote" scene kicked I was jerked to memories of films by the Beatles and the Monkey's where such scenes were new and "mind bending".

Maybe for a new audience, I dunno.

Nothing new, nothing exploratory.

I know it's supposed to be some kind of vision of America's fascination with violence (that's what I've heard) but it's a vision from the outside, not the inside ... therefore a stereotype. An imagining.

A lot like American film makers trying to make Asian horror.

They don't get it and fail in the attempts ...

I love diversity but when the diverse start copying each other ... the beautifully diverse gets homogenized into something that isn't either.

I suppose it's about money. Asian horror is hot.

Why not German films teaching America about its fascination with violence? Naw ... make your films, your way.

We cinema buffs will dine according to our appetites.

That's how it works.

Enjoyable film. Nothing new.

Big bugger movie that pulls the "big bugger" stuff off well. Good plot, nice and rewarding story. But none of that matters.

This movie runs on dialog and timing. The stars are not Bill Pullman and Bridget Fonda, though they officiate their status admirably.

The star is the dialog, with everyone, but nothing in the movie can compete with the "verbal boxing" between Oliver Platt and Brendan Gleeson.

Their reluctantly evolving mutual respect is brilliant and hilarious. Side splitting hilarious.

Betty White is a brilliant aside.

All the asides meld and fuse in genius combination.

The tale is mediocre but right on for this kind of film but the whole is raised to a worship-able level via the dialog and beautiful plot-tension between characters.

There should have been some kind of Oscar for Platt and Gleeson's roles.

"Best retorts or something ...". They make the movie.

Good action. Scary at times.

Comedy relief rules.

Love the movie.

Here lie SPOILERS ... that can't detract from the creep. But they're here.

Like many of the reviewers (10 pages for this little bitty film ... should tell the readers something!), it was my original viewing, early seventies, that tattooed this cinematic puppy on my horror loving heart.

My take on the premise ... we have one fresh-from-the-rubber-room lady who probably shouldn't have her walking papers yet (and why oh why was she in there in the first place?) whose husband feels she should have the quiet and solitude of a New England, back-country-farm ambiance for a zero-stress re-entry into the real world ... uh ... wait a minute. He wants to grow apples, escape the "urban blight", so ... is it his concern for his wife's brain-state or his Old MacDonald yearnings that drives him to seek the simple life? (there's this tag-along "buddy"; but this was the 70s and they're making the trip in a black hearse with the grave-stone-rubbing Jessica riding in the back with an also-black coffin-ish case for her husband's cello - yeah, honest.) When they get to the farmhouse (serendipitously shrouded in fog when the film crew got there - see trivia) they find a fetching(?) redheaded and nomadic young lady has taken residence because she thought the place was abandoned (perfectly acceptable plot element in the 70s) who presents the first big dose of creep by summoning up an "expression" for the camera. She's Emily.

You know she isn't "right" from the start. You just don't know how she is "wrong".

For certain, everyone knows Jessica went over the edge back there somewhere. What no one knows is if she made it back or not. The person most confused about this is Jessica herself. We hear her thoughts brawling over this. We watch her friends worrying about it. We wonder with her, and them, what is real and what is Jessica's wacko past creeping into the present.

Is "The Girl" (the ever and always fetching Gretchen Corbett - sorry, she's always flipped my switches by simply showing up) real, Jessica's imagination or a phantasm? Who is Emily and what does she want? Why does she look so much like the lady in an ancient photograph (is photography old enough to have an "ancient")?.

Why is everyone in the tiny town wearing bandages around their necks or arms, or bearing ugly scars. Are all the town's secrets really circling and swarming around Jessica, closing in? Did you just hear the word "vampire" (no, don't confuse this usage with something like the mythology in a film like "Underworld" where the rules are clear)? The slowly creeping-creeps continue to swarm Jessica, a descent into her private and claustrophobic horrors (that we're fed only pieces of) until they literally pin her to her bed in a scene that is nasty-subtle and a short jaunt from the end of the film, which is also its beginning.

Zora Lampert is Jessica and it had to be her or someone very like her. She nailed the teetering on the razor thin division between the insane and the real-that-should-be-insane. Note her too-constant smile and also her decisions and acts that will make more sense to women than they do men.

Mariclare Costello imbues "Emily" with all the understated but so effective "creeps", somehow, with what screen time she has, and her eyes, and her timing, and the music ...

And Gretchen Corbett is ... well, Gretchen Corbett, mute, bandaged neck, modest night clothes, running around grave yards, weaving in and out of reality and imagination and looking very fetching while she does.

This minor gem will probably matter mostly to those who saw it during the 70s when it left it's indelible mark from that perspective . But I'm certain there are those who can find the ability to "see it honest". You know who you are.

My wife got this Paramount DVD release for me for father's day (excellent release but with not any, no, extras). She hadn't heard of it but wanted to see it. We watched it together. I told her it would probably seem corny to her and that it was buried in the 70s.

That was just about her sentiments. What I expected. What I didn't expect was for it to "creep" me again after all these years. I mean, I have "Cannibal Holocaust" in my collection, I have extremes of extreme, yet this little PG-13 film is one of my best "creepers". Thirty years later, it made me shudder again.

Wow.

Oh, yeah ... the ending. Back in the early seventies all my buddies and friends were much ado about the ending. That was back when endings were neat and tidy and ... well ... ended things.

So, what happened to Jessica? Yeah, it's somewhat open ended but I've always felt the following when the ending question came up ... please refer to film's title.

End of spoilers.

Spoilers Abound ... maybe. An in-between film. What horror lovers watch between really good horror films. This isn't a horror film. It's a slasher film. And a religious cult-ish film. And a redneck-murderous-bumpkin film with a twist that - whoops!- took a clumsy plot turn regarding said rednecks and wasted a potential. It's got "babies in bottles" with a kinda-neat take that ... kinda goes somewhere but doesn't. Nearly does ... as the rest of the film "nearly does". Couple goes hiking in the backwoods and runs into ... really bad ugly. Problem is the "really bad ugly" isn't new or fresh or treated in a new way. Nonetheless, this is acceptable fodder for the gap we must endure between really good dark films. Borrows from "Deliverance", "Saw", "The Hills Have Eyes", "Wrong Turn" and any film in history that touches on Christianity bent into a "Wrong Turn". Ain't bad, just not good. But it is comfortable for the faithful. But there's that ending. Cliché squared. For the best viewing, stop playing when the cell phone gets enough bars to ring through. When "one year later" appears, eject the disc. You won't, of course, and you'll be treated to a sweet music sequence that announces, in a final blip, "it ain't over" that violates physics, biology and common sense. Maybe the ending was meant as parody. There's actually a lot of giggles in the film if you're bent in the right direction. Perhaps creators meant to salute films from which this film extracted meat. I think I like it that way ... that they intended their work here to be a run through the "already been there". And twisted a little. Not a horror charm but an adequate "while we're waiting". Nice flick.

No, he didn't upstage the horror-corner-turning "Night of the Living Dead" (will never happen), but he still did something remarkable. This is for all intents and purposes, an "upgrade" of NOLD. The "upgrade" absorbs the "technology gap" between that magnificent original and this. For those who are thinking "Blair Witch" version of NOLD that is sooooo... wrong.

George is, in truth, a master of horror. Way too clever and inventive to reduce himself copying. He invents. And he invents best when he doesn't have a financial industry backing him (Land of the Dead). He's best bare bones and facing impossible funding and time.

The DVD "extras" pretty much tells he knows that about himself.

He blended traditional screen tale-telling with the DVD tale by mixing multiple cameras and giving the film a lady who edits all the available video, from their own cameras, and all the world, into a a film called "The Death of Death".

She even notes she has added music for effect. To scare us. Because we should be scared.

The seemingly asinine entry into the film plays itself out as prophesy by the end.

Romero neatly does several of these knitting parts together as the film progresses ... nuances of a master.

Once again; bite your nails horror, undertow humor and a pallet of sometimes-not-so-quiet social observations and comments.

Can you say "wow!".

Reviewers of this French offering frequently comment about how there's nothing new here. If you've seen this or that then you won't be treated to the "never seen before". Okay, I agree. We're approaching a century of cinema, folks. Like Chefs with the same cupboards with the same spices and cooking methods turning out very different dishes ... it's about the recipe. Everything's been done before. The "never seen before" is a tall task. Think about it. Take a few minutes and come up with something "never seen before". Yeah, they're out there but very, very rare. More likely, to post with a "different" film, you're going to have to use ingredients common to movie goers and genre aficionados and deliver them in a different recipe. All film makers are in the same boat here and with the welcome explosion of independent film makers, similar movies are bound to be made. Some will be better than others regarding similar subjects. Anyone believing films like SAW or Hostel were breaking ground simply aren't familiar with cinema history. FX doesn't count here because technology advances and can make the "had to be implied" of yesteryear an "in your face" today. Not always a good thing. But it can be. The "skin peeling" scenes in the early 30s "The Black Cat" are going to be hard to beat, FX or not. Torture is old in cinema. Seems we've all been warped for a long time. All of cinema, except for the very cutting edge, is repeating and revisiting earlier themes. "Frontier(s)" revisits in a peculiar and interesting way ... if you're bent in this direction. It's a period piece, it has the TCM butcher, the family patriarch (played so well that I wanted to kill him - he had the look and nailed the heinous arrogance of a human monster), all kinds of uncomfortable sub tones, drippy bloody stuff, realistic butchery, cult-ish sickness, really weird ladies, gratuitous pigs, dead nipples ... the list goes on and on. Fess up, you wouldn't be here if you weren't warped a little. Relax, you're among friends. Scores high on the "icky" meter. But that's why we watch these things, right? This one has some intelligence behind it. And some real "whoa..." moments. Watch.

This is just a good movie. (No intended SPOILERS! but they may follow) Yeah, it can be looked at as a collage of other similar films (Free Willy, King Kong, Mighty Joe Young and even a semi-recent television series - Surface)and that it is. But this is familiar and beloved ground. Not a negative. I'll welcome another installment in this vein anytime. Love 'em. We all return to the genres we love knowing we're, with rare exception, not turning over any new stones. If there is a new stone here, and there is, it is in the animation. Nope, it ain't perfect but "Great Ooogly Moogly" they did get close! It takes very little suspension of disbelief to "buy" Crusoe. Great job to all involved. Kudos, extra kudos. With the "piggy back ride" aside (and removing it would destroy this film), this family film doesn't dumb down. The sub-plots don't feel contrived, all the actors and actresses nail their characters. Even if they are all so very familiar. It just works. It's fun. It accomplishes its purpose. Without breaking ground all involved delivered a worthy film, a collector's DVD for sure. Still ... I yearn for a definitive "Loch Ness" tale. This one isn't it and never intended itself to be. For definitive to date ... you'll have to go to Werner Herzog's (he produced, starred and co-wrote - with Zak Penn who also directed)"Incident at Loch Ness". "Incident" however, didn't have to play it's hand. It didn't have to give whatever the creature of Loch Ness is or isn't, a face. That film took a different concept to run with. "Water Horse" picked its path, from a novel by Dick King-Smith (and a Robert Jacobs screenplay), and did a really good thing. Jay Russell, director, pulled it all together, found the people and the muse to do what is so necessary to take something like this from idea to cinema ... he found the magic. And shared it with us. Cool.