13 Tzameti (2005)

Director: Gela Babluani
Writer(s): Babluani
Starring: George Babluani, Aurelien Recoing, Pascal Bongard, and Fred Ulysse

Most movies are better the less you know about them going in. But the catch to that is often times the trailer already shows you more than you need to know; it’s almost as if the trailer is sabotaging its own reason for being. At the same time, though, how will you know if a movie’s for you if you don’t at least do a little bit of research?

13 Tzameti takes the whole “less is better” notion one step further—if you know anything at all about it before you go in, it will lose some impact. True to form, its own trailer—which admittedly does do a good job of accurately portraying the intensity of the actual movie, something trailers rarely do these days—reveals too much. It’s a slippery slope, I suppose, because without marketing, all you would have is an incredibly shocking movie that no one watches, and what good is that?

On the other hand, to know the main theme of 13 Tzameti is to at least partially deprive yourself of a mysterious journey. Now I’m not here to pretend that it will ruin the entire experience for you, because this is still an intense, often utterly effective film. But if you can somehow find a way to ignore everything ever written about it—including this very review--and just go in to a showing as blind and oblivious as possible, then that will help to give the film even more depth, as you slowly learn everything as the main character learns it. That would make everything even more shocking and worthwhile in the long run.

However, for those that want the typical experience—to research it and “feel it out” to see if it might be right for them—I will still offer a spoiler-free introduction to the film. Sebastian is an immigrant who works construction jobs to support his poor family. He takes a roofing job from Jean-Francois Godon, only to overhear Godon telling an associate that he is not sure how he will pay Sebastian his advance, much less the whole sum.

The situation gets even murkier when he takes an overdose of morphine and passes away—his widow informs Sebastian that she can’t pay him, and wants work on the roof halted immediately. He then overhears her talking to a family friend about a mysterious job that Godon accepted close to his death, and the instructions, as well as a train ticket, are contained in an envelope at the house. Feeling (correctly) he has been taken advantage of, he takes the envelope and hopes that it will lead him to enough quick cash to cover the amount he is owed.

Before long, and after jumping through several hoops, he ends up at a secluded house in the middle of a forest. The people there immediately know that he’s not who he claims to be, but that doesn’t stop them from using him as a pawn in a mysterious event. It all leads up to an ending that, given the rest of the film’s cynical tone, should shock no one, although it does add yet another layer of bleakness to a film that certainly wasn’t bereft of that to begin with.

Whether or not you “like” 13 Tzameti will pretty much hinge on what you feel of the entire second act; to me, it really made it feel like a one-trick pony. Its underlying theme—how far would people go to “get rich quick”—almost functions as the most basic of all “social commentary” “statements”, so it doesn’t really have much to say beyond what you can already tell from the surface. In other words, it’s not really complex enough to warrant any kind of replay factor; I can’t imagine anyone missing anything the first time.

That being said, the film’s brilliant use of black and white photography really makes this film “pop” in a way that simply wouldn’t have been possible in color. Even though the film is surprisingly saturated in light (I would have expected some of the darker scenes to feature more shadows, but that isn’t the case), this aesthetic really carries the film farther than it probably should go, and is the main reason for the overall score. There is also an undeniable intensity, at least for the first time you watch it, so expect certain scenes to stay with you for a while. However, I must admit that rewatching it wasn’t nearly as tense, and actually eroded away part of the sharp tension that I remembered.

Note that the same director, Gela Babluani, also remade this film a couple of years later—in color, no less, and with a semi-all star Hollywood cast (including 50 Cent…lol)—to absolutely abysmal reviews. And just like that, a potentially solid career in film came to an abrupt end. Hopefully he will rebound in the future, because, despite all the unevenness, 13 Tzameti certainly proves that he has some talent to burn.

RECAP: A second viewing shows that you really don’t have a need to watch 13 Tzameti more than once, but man is that first watch a doozy. This is an often intense, bleak picture, that builds up to a violent, but not entirely unforeseen, ending. It does feel a little one-note, with its main statement (how far would people go to “get rich quick”) pretty amateurish and overplayed already, and the first and third acts relatively boring by comparison. The black and white cinematography is inspired, and gives the film a certain draw that would not have been possible in color. If you want a good movie that you won’t want to watch (and shouldn’t) more than once, this should be your ticket.

RATING: 7/10

TRAILER

Perversions of Science, S1 E9: Ultimate Weapon

Starring:

Heather Lagenkamp as Lou Ann Solomon

Mitchell Whitfield as Matt Solomon

Paolo Seganti as Mike Calderone

Kim Myers as Selena

Jennifer Darling as Lou's Mother
Maria Cina as Tess
Steve Kahan as Lou's Father

Maureen Teefy as Chrome

Written by: Gilbert Adler and Jeannette Lewis, based on the "Weird Science" comic books, by William M. Gaines

Directed by: Dean Lopata

Well after one of the best episodes of the series, it seems we're back to the muddled, uneven mess of a show that has plagued a majority of the episodes up through this point. But, at the very least, “Ultimate Weapon” is an entertaining, sometimes-clever failure, so much so that not even a cringe-inducing finale can cancel out all of what it has to offer.

Lou Ann Solomon believes she is under attack by aliens. Apparently, this is nothing new; after having an episode in the middle of the night, her husband claims he's had enough of her nonsense, wishes they had never married, and leaves the house. Apparently, still during the same night (I think?), she goes out with friends at a local bar. Why does it seem like every television show lead has two friends, of the same sex, who are willing to drop whatever it is they're doing to hang out with their best friend at any given time? And why is it that all “girl's nights” have to end up with the women all getting drunk and gossiping about hot guys? It's one thing if we're talking about singles, but here we have a married gal, whose friends are ready to hook her up with someone for the night, simply because she and her husband got into a little fight. Okay...

Well now two powder-white aliens show up to the bar, with specific instructions to basically knock her up in order to create a combined species. Now, there's no way the ugly, sexless creatures are going to get laid like this, so of course they have the ability to morph into anyone within a moment's notice. This causes some potential marital problems for Lou Ann, when her and her friends wish her old flame Mike Calderone was there...and lo and behold, there “he” is. Only, it's not him...it's the alien that morphed into him. Then, the real Lou Ann invites the alien Mike Calderone home, while the second alien mimics Lou Ann, waiting for her friends to return from the bar with a drink. Alien Lou Ann ends up getting so hammered, her friends have no other choice but to cut her off and take her home. Am I making any sense whatsoever so far? Bare with me, because this does get a little tricky...

Once home, real Lou Ann tries resisting the robotic urges of Mike Calderone (she can't hear his neck creak like metal everytime he turns his head?), who we learn she broke up with after hearing rumors of his homosexuality, and then walking in on him in a dorm room hugging another man. Alien Mike swears that he is straight, and the two are about to embark on a passionate journey of love and sexuality...until Lou Ann's parents decide to make an unannounced visit.

Why is it that parents in television shows always think it's okay to just enter a house without knocking? No one ever acts this way in real life, yet it's a staple of every sitcom ever made. And of course, the two of them are bringing luggage...they're going to be spending the night for an unspecified reason. Panicking, Lou Ann begs Mike to hide, but alien Mike just turns into alien Matt (her husband), confusing her and her parents. Meanwhile, Lou Ann's friends bring alien Lou Ann home, and when they see her parents are over, decide to sneak her upstairs because she is so drunk. They do this by making her parent's car alarm go off, using the ensuing confusion to get her up into her own bed.

From here we can kind of gather what's going on, at least in its most basic form: Real Matt will come home with alien Matt, and Lou Ann will have to figure out which one is which. But there is one awkward, unbelievable twist that I'm going to have to reveal, so if you don't want the episode ruined, then please stop reading right here: The two aliens have sex with each other. That's right, alien Matt ends up going upstairs to find drunk and sleeping alien Lou Ann, at which point they proceed to have loud, frivolous sex that alerts everyone in the house to their location—and eventually, their real identities. Come on now...shouldn't two aliens with an ability to morph into anything somehow be able to differentiate their alien bodies with that of those they are impersonating? Maybe we can give a pass to alien Lou Ann because she was technically drunk (we'll assume that alcohol has the same effect on aliens as it does on us), but alien Matt should have certainly been able to tell.  Still, it's at least slightly humorous if not entirely believable, even within the confines of this particular episode.

For the final “twist”, the one alien ends up impregnating the other one, and the episode ends with the two of them getting married on their own planet. What a crock of shit.

But like I said, despite its common setup and terrible ending, this one at least had some imagination behind it. Yes, the parents and friends showing up is textbook plot device, but by adding in clones of a couple of characters, it gives it an added layer of complexity—and occasional humor—to the proceedings (i.e. having a character walk right behind the person they are cloning, with neither of them noticing). It all adds up to one of the more straight-up entertaining episodes of the entire series, despite a significant number of flaws. Like the way characters clearly start coming and going simply to further the plot, with no logic behind their actions. For example, Lou Ann's parents say they're spending the night initially right when they show up unannounced, then claim they're “leaving for a show” not five minutes later, then come back because they've forgotten something just in time to catch real Matt in a lewd, and misconstrued, situation. In another bit, one of Lou Ann's friends demands Lou Ann give her a ride home out of nowhere, not at all caught off guard by the fact they drove (alien) Lou Ann home themselves because she was so plastered. I get there's some creative licensing involved with just about all science fiction stories, but within the confines of a twenty-minute show, you would think it could have been a little tighter.

Any way you add it up, though, this is an above-average episode, at least as far as this series is concerned. It has a couple moments that made me chuckle, and manages to keep viewer's on their toes by tossing a constant barrage of increasingly unbelievable moments at them with rapid-fire imprecision. And what is a television show if it's not entertaining?

EPISODE RATING: 5.5/10

FULL EPISODE

Excision (2012)

Director: Richard Bates Jr.
Writer(s): Bates Jr.
Starring: AnnaLynne McCord, Roger Bart, Ariel Winter, and Traci Lords

A movie like Excision probably never would have interested me at all were it not for my wife, whom I was reminded of just from reading a brief plot outline. She has a rather bizarre fascination with blood and surgeries, and has watched many different kinds that are readily available online. Her ideal job would be working in a trauma unit somewhere, something she has always wanted to do, and she even tried shadowing a coroner on a couple of occasions. Additionally, she has borrowed a number of anatomy books from the library, going so far as to taking notes as if she were in school. I suppose this isn’t really all that weird in and of itself—I mean, people who have a want for those kinds of things are necessary to save lives—but it does take a rather alerting turn when I show her a small cut, or a bleeding wound that I have, and see her eyes light up with excitement. I swear that if I stumbled into the house, bleeding from multiple stab wounds, I would make her day (slightly exaggerating if my injuries were life-threatening; not stretching the truth at all if I fully recovered).

So then you may understand why I felt like I knew Pauline, the protagonist of writer/director Richard Bates Jr.’s off-the-wall surgical-horror film, right off the bat. Thankfully for me, though, Pauline is so mentally unstable that she makes my wife look like a gleaming picture of sanity; her idea of a wet dream involves cutting people open, or ripping out their tongues, and for no reason. It should come as no surprise that she, too, wants to be a surgeon, and frequently fantasizes about performing surgeries on a variety of people, most of whom don’t seem to need it.

There really isn’t a whole lot of plot to speak of—it seems pretty evident, at least to me, Mr. Bates, Jr. had an ending in mind (one that slowly reveals itself to be pretty obvious from the outset), and then just kind of waffled his way into getting there. It also follows a theme of repetition, one that can occasionally wear out its welcome (it’s generally something like: school scene/horrific surreal surgery scene/home scene/surgery scene/etc.) This sounds like a line from a bad review, but it’s not: thankfully, Excision seems to be smart enough to realize when it might be losing its audience, so my attention never wandered for long, before something else grabbed it and sucked me back in. It also doesn’t hurt that it never takes itself seriously, which means that there are plenty of genuinely funny moments peppered throughout.

As seems to be a trend these days (or maybe it always has been?), Pauline’s demented behavior is presented under the guise of a “coming of age” film. Pauline, who clearly is an outcast (though it’s somewhat refreshingly by choice, and she wears it like a proud badge of honor), uses her imagination largely to help navigate her life, in which she balances an indifference to school, with a domineering mother that watches over, and immediately grades, her every move. It may not be the least bit original, but it at least blends its themes well, and even shoots for genuine emotional responses out of its audience; it’s a tough enough balance blending horror and comedy, so the fact that it successfully manages all three is a rather impressive feat.

As you are probably well aware, one of the marks of any good movie rests on the strength of its acting, and that’s another category where Excision excels above similar genre fare: all of the principle cast deliver solid performances. AnnaLynne McCord is perfectly weird as Pauline, the shy wannabe surgeon who doesn’t even seem to have the talent or the drive to make it that far. Traci Lords is also surprisingly strong as Pauline’s controlling mother; the two of them combine to form an amazing final shot that overcomes the obviousness of the material to deliver something truly chilling. The rest of the cast is made up almost entirely of people that you have seen before: There’s Roger Bart, as Pauline’s father (who I recognized from an excellent episode of the excellent comedy “It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia”); John Waters, as a priest; Ariel Winter, who my wife recognized from the hit sit-com “Modern Family”; even Marlee Matlin, the one woman who made a career out of being deaf, shows up in a small, yet funny, role as a school guidance counselor.

Part of the reason I was a little hesitant to watch this is because, although critics seemed to enjoy it, user ratings were relatively low. I have to say that many of those such reviews probably have a lot to do with the marketing, which paints this as much more of a “surgical horror” movie than it actually is. Even the one-line synopsis on Shudder (the monthly subscription service where I caught it) seems to allude that poor Pauline is pushed to the brink of her sanity by fellow classmates, which would seem to insinuate that she eventually gets her bloody revenge by practicing her “craft” on them. But don’t go in prepared for any kind of body count, because in actuality the film is much more reserved than that; the focus is more on Pauline and her relationship with those around her, especially her younger sister who is suffering from cystic fibrosis. Now that’s not to say that Excision is completely bloodless—there’s actually quite a bit of the crimson stuff—but all but one of these scenes exist solely in Pauline’s confused mind, which might not sate the curiosity of those expecting a slasher film.

Instead, it plays like a character study of a confused girl as she struggles to understand her place in the world. It’s certainly not the kind of film that’s for everyone, but there’s probably a good chance that you’ll recognize enough of yourself in Pauline to enjoy the ride. However, I would hope that most of what you share with her is manifested more in either her physical appearance (she always has acne and apparently refuses to shower), or her awkwardness, and less in the way she, you know, gets off from fantasizing about bloodshed, torture, and killing.

RECAP: Even if you heed my advice and ignore most of the marketing (some of which would lead you to believe this is more a straight-up horror movie than it actually is), and even if you manage to go in with an open mind, Excision still might not be a film for you. It has a repetitive story structure that makes it seem to drag on in certain spots, and within the realm of a regular narrative, the ending can be seen coming from a mile away. These are all things that I’ve harped on many times in negative reviews, but Excision manages to overcome these flaws with sharp acting, some genuinely funny moments, enough disturbing material to satisfy those with an affinity for the red stuff, and a final scene that overpowers its predictability with a chilling, completely unexpected finish. It’s part “coming of age” film and part horror picture, a combination that has been done many times before. But Excision pulls off the combination with gusto, delivering a film that was much different than I was anticipating, and much better than I thought it had any right to be.

RATING: 7.5/10

TRAILER

Perversions of Science, S1, E8: Snap Ending

Starring:

Jennifer Hetrick as The Captain

Kathleen Wilhoite as Paula

Sean Astin as Taylor

Wil Wheaton as Bryan

Deborah Carlisle as The Computer (voice)

Maureen Teefy as Chrome

Written by: Kevin Rock, based on the "Weird Science" comic books, by William M. Gaines

Directed by: Sean Astin

It has been roughly three months since I last viewed an episode of “Perversions of Science”, and much like the series I reviewed before this one (“Cop Rock”) part of the delay is simply because it's a terrible show. With “Perversions”, I at least knew that beforehand, having watched a few episodes when I was a youngster, but I didn't remember just how bad it was...the writing lacks subtlety, while each episode's budget appears to be the same price it'll cost you to get a candy bar out of a shopping mall vending machine. These are the main reasons it was a deserving failure back in its day; today it's probably gotten even worse.

“Snap Ending”, however, bucks that trend. This is completely unexpected, considering it is also the shortest episode yet (subtracting the long credits sequence, and “Chrome” introduction and wrap-ups, it clocks in around a mere twenty minutes), giving it even less time for plot and character development. But it makes wise use of that time by thrusting us into a situation where such things aren't necessary—an emergency situation aboard a spaceship.

Taylor (Sean Astin, who also directed the episode) is an astronaut stuck, quite literally, in a malfunctioning airlock door; it's opening and shutting on his “umbilical cord”, the long cable that delivers his oxygen to him. Each time the heavy, metallic door shuts, it shreds the cord even more, meaning it's only a matter of time until it is destroyed, and he will not be able to breathe. To make matters worse, the arm of his spacesuit is also caught on a random hook inside the ship—if that gets ripped, he also faces a sure death.

The other crew respond to the emergency: They consist of a woman known only as The Captain (Jennifer Hetrick), Paula (Kathleen Wilhoite; the second time I've seen her in something in just as many days (she was also in "Cop Rock")), and Bryan (Wil Wheaton). After a bit of panic, Bryan makes the rash decision to try to override the airlock chamber with oxygen, which would give Taylor a way to breathe. But time is limited, and when the override system fails, that spells the end for poor Taylor, whose head explodes inside his mask (always a favorite way for filmmakers to kill off astronauts).

After a bit of bickering (Paula wants to know why Bryan was unable to override the system, while Bryan sees this as an accusation), the trio faces an even more alarming problem: the ship's warning system kicks in, informing them there is a virus on board. If the virus is not contained within twenty minutes, the spaceship will self-destruct. The Captain tries putting the whole ship on lockdown, which would essentially quarantine the remaining crew in the flight deck until the ship can land, but that request is overridden by the on-board software...which means the threat is right in there with them.

More accusations spread. Didn't Taylor have a virus, and wasn't Paula sleeping with him? Paula insists all he had was the flu, but no medical report was filled out for it. Bryan has a gun, ready to deal with any situation so that he can get out alive. Paula does that stupid thing people do only in movies, and tells him he doesn't have the guts to kill her. From there, tension spreads until he has killed both of his fellow crewmembers, sending their bodies out of the airlock, which now seems to work all of a sudden. But when that fails to fix the problem, he's faced with the idea that he's the one containing the virus...

As with all the episodes in this series, there is a final “twist” to the ending, something that we've pretty much come to expect, but it's one of the better ones in the series, and fairly believable within the context of the story. After the big reveal, there are a couple of terrible computer-generated space effects at the end, but not even they are bad enough to dismantle what the rest of the show is able to accomplish. The introduction is legitimately intense, with the crewmembers racing against time to save a nervous Taylor, while the effects (until the end, anyway) are better than usual, and wisely kept to a bare minimum. This is exactly what the show needed more of to succeed: a solid story that could be told quickly and as cheaply as possible.

Unfortunately, that was a concept lost on everyone at the time.

EPISODE RATING: 7/10

FULL EPISODE

Perversions of Science, S1, E7: Panic

Starring:

Jason Lee as Spaceman Bob

Jamie Kennedy as Spaceman John

Laraine Newman as Becky

Edie McClurg as The Farmer's Wife

Harvey Korman as The Farmer

Chris Sarandon as Carson Walls

Bryce Ingman as Bed Sheet Ghost
Tracy Middendorf as Cheerleader
Steve Monroe as Gorilla
Kira Reed Lorsch as Vampiress
Maureen Teefy as Chrome

Written by: Andrew Kevin Walker, based on the "Weird Science" comic books, by William M. Gaines

Directed by: Tobe Hooper

“Panic”, directed by Tobe Hooper, starts off as one of the better episodes in the series: for the first few minutes, I was completely enthralled. It even had me thinking, at least for a little while, that this one would be restrained enough to actually deliver on all that it had promised. But I forgot that it wouldn’t be an episode of “Perversions of Science” if we weren’t constantly blasted in the head with an ever-increasing barrage of ridiculous ideas. It has the feeling of writers who were planning on an hour-long show, then learned they had to truncate their idea down to just thirty minutes at the last minute; no twist has time to settle before we’re hit with another one, until what was actually a very solid idea ends up essentially committing suicide.

Carson Walls (a rather lame take-off on Orson Welles) is a radio broadcaster who is furiously working on his new dramatic masterpiece. Entitled “Invasion of the Martians”, he is certain that this radio play is really going to resonate with listeners, and history tells us that he is right. This, of course, is a take-off on Welles’ own real-life adaptation of “War of the Worlds”, which was based off of the 1898 novel by H.G. Wells. Reports of the time have mentioned that the radio broadcast, which was mostly made up of a series of simulated news bulletins, caused real-life panic the day it aired; since then, this notion has been largely refuted, simply because the show had such a small listenership.

We are now introduced to John (Jamie Kennedy…yes, THAT Jamie Kennedy), and Bob (Jason Lee…yes, THAT Jason Lee), two roommates who are throwing a Halloween party later that night. Bob is excited because he found the perfect costume for the both of them: they will be going as aliens. I’ll admit, I thought at this point that I had everything figured out: the newscast would convince everyone, including their fellow partygoers, that aliens were among them, and they’d freak out on John and Bob, thinking they were actually aliens. But you can put that idea to rest, because it's not even close to how it pans out.

Soon it’s nighttime, and all of the partiers have arrived; there are around ten of them total. As expected, the radio broadcast kicks in, and specifically mentions that a bizarre spacecraft has crash-landed in a field in Newark, New Jersey, which of course happens to be just a few short miles from John and Bob’s house. A few more interruptions take place, and the college kids get more and more frightened. These scenes were actually very well done, and while it’s almost impossible to imagine any form of media having the same effect on people today, it shows just how truly believable it could have been back then.

But then at the height of the tension, John disappears into the kitchen, and when he returns….the entire episode starts a baffling, quick descent downhill. Even if I told you what happened next, that John and Bob were actually aliens, and they off everyone at their own party, believing that their own race had landed on Earth and started their takeover, I wouldn’t even be revealing anything about the ending. I’ll admit, as dumb as this idea was to me at first, it slowly started to make sense to me, and I kind of grew to like it: we know what kind of effect this radio drama had on real-life people, so I figured this was just a twist, showing us how real aliens might have reacted to the same radio play.

Then we get yet another twist. This one I will not reveal, but it just once again proves why “Perversions of Science” was such a bad, undercooked show, and it‘s a reason I mentioned earlier: it never believed in words like “subtle”, or “restraint”. Many of the episodes were born of interesting ideas, and thus, actually had solid foundations on which to build fascinating, effective shows. But they seemed to be more interested in blowing an effects budget that wasn’t even there, instead of developing their ideas into something more practical and interesting. This is exactly the case here: it blows two legitimately fresh, solid ideas in favor of an in-your-face finish that insists on being as pointless and “out there” as possible. Trust me, I typically enjoy things that are way outside of the norm, but not when it feels so forced or contrived; here, like with a lot of previous episodes, it just feels like an aimless shitshow.

Another big problem I’m starting to have is that, although it seems like this series wants to push the envelope, every episode is almost unbearably tame. For example, there is a body count of somewhere around ten in this episode, which is by far the highest of any episode to date, yet none of the deaths are even remotely graphic; the only blood that I recall is mouth-blood from a corpse. Even the sex that has appeared in previous episodes is bland; aside from some rather strong language, there’s not much that would have prevented these from airing on network television, even back in 1997. That’s probably another big reason that this show failed to connect with audiences, who were paying a premium to see it.

Ultimately, this was one of the more promising installments of this series, but it’s almost completely squandered by a needlessly over-the-top finale that wallows in stupidity--I went from being completely enthralled to disengaged and depressed over the span of a mere ten minutes. It just feels like it’s trying to bite off way more than it can chew, and that is no doubt a big reason as to why it was canceled in such a short amount of time. That, and Chrome’s double-entendres get really old after a short amount of time to anyone that’s not twelve or sexually-repressed; in other words, she’s no Cryptkeeper, and this is coming from someone who hasn’t really seen any episodes of “Tales from the Crypt”.

EPISODE RATING: 4.5/10

FULL EPISODE

Ms. 45 (1981)

Director: Abel Ferrara
Writer(s): Nicholas St. John
Starring: Zoe Lund, Bogey, Albert Sinkys, and Darlene Stuto

VHS cover art courtesy of Retro-Daze

Hollywood is rife with stories of actors being consumed by the excess of a glamorous lifestyle, but very few are as genuinely heartbreaking as the story of Zoe Tamerlis, the beautiful lead actress of Abel Ferrara’s cult revenge thriller Ms. 45, who was only 17 years old at the time of filming. Three years later, she followed up her debut with an even bigger role in journeyman director Larry Cohen’s Special Effects, in which she played two leading parts. Even though she wanted to branch out from the shadow of Ferrara, determined to carve her own career path rather than merely latch on to his success, she returned to help him pen Bad Lieutenant, the infamous film that arguably put him on the map for good (after his normal writer, Nicholas St. John, refused to write it because of his devout Catholic beliefs). In between those last two projects, she married Robert Lund in 1986, a relationship that would technically last for the next thirteen years (though they were separated in 1997, neither filed for divorce).

If things sound like they were going well for her, they weren’t: she was a heroin addict. Now that’s nothing new in and of itself, but what makes her story so harrowing was her dedication to the drug: she was not just addicted to it, but came to believe it harnessed a power within her that otherwise could not be accessed. She went so far as to become an outspoken advocate of the drug, never once seeming to realize—or rather, maybe completely disregarding—the danger that her addiction was putting her in. She continued to write, finding inspiration from other junkies who met premature ends, such as model Gia Carangi, noted as one of the first “supermodels”, who spiraled into drug addiction before dying of AIDS at the age of 26; Lund was commissioned to write a screenplay based on Gia’s life, which would remain unfinished.

After separation from her husband in 1997, she moved to Paris, France, with a new boyfriend, only to succumb to heart and lung failure, exacerbated by her constant drug use, in April of 1999. Drug-related deaths are always sad, because many of them feel so preventable: if only people could have reached out to them, or made them see the error of their ways, we wouldn’t have been robbed of such talent so soon. What makes Lund's story so depressing is that her life felt like a linear story, one that was marching to an unavoidable, foregone conclusion. I cannot find any stories on how friends and family, specifically her husband, reacted to her heroin addiction—did they try to get her to quit, or did they just turn a blind eye and hope for the best?—but so strong was her faith in the illicit drug that none of that information even seems to matter. The limits of her talents (prior to becoming a writer, she was a brilliant composer/musician) would end there, never to be explored.

In Ms. 45, she plays Thana, a mute woman who is raped twice in the same day on her way home from work: once in a back alley (this rapist is played by Abel Ferrara), and then again at home, after unwittingly walking in on a burglar in the process of scouting out her home. She kills her second attacker in the act, by beating him to death with a tire iron, then becomes drawn to his gun, a Colt .45, which she takes with her wherever she goes. During the process of attempting to hide the body (she cuts the limbs off, puts each one in individual trash bags, then disperses them at random points throughout the city over the span of several days), she begins a transformation from timid seamstress, to full-on murderer of men.

To be fair, Ferrara’s New York paints every male as a leering, psychosexual predator, and gives her many chances to utilize her new weapon. Men catcall Thana (and her friends) at every turn, they follow her to give her back the bags that she's intentionally dropping, they proposition her for sex, and the list goes on and on. Sickened by their actions, and slowly going insane from her previous abuse, she kills her attackers with a lessening amount of hesitation, and in the process, becomes a kind of feminist superhero, ridding the streets of misogynistic trash one bullet at a time. At first, she seems to do it out of necessity (the first man she shoots is running at her and screaming, so when paired up with her recent traumas, it’s easy to believe she feels she is doing it out of self-defense), but soon she is encouraging men to approach her, wearing dresses and layering on the make-up, and taking an active part in luring them to their deaths.

Since she cannot speak, and doesn’t seem to have anyone close enough that she can confide in, she keeps her emotions bottled up inside, which eventually leads to a drop in her work quality. She assures her boss that it will get better, but it doesn’t; in what feels like a last-ditch effort to save her job, she agrees to go to an office-wide Halloween party with her boss, which leads to a violent but effective slow-motion finale where she completely snaps, and all the male partygoers become fair game.

Ms. 45 was critically reviled at the time of its release, largely dismissed by uncaring critics as irredeemable exploitation trash, but there’s plenty here that elevate it beyond the sleazy archetypes of that subgenre. Exhibit A is Lund's performance as Thana: removing her ability to speak gives her with a lot less to do, but she still manages to pull off a strong, and sometimes even emotionally-charged, performance. The sounds of her occasional (and barely audible) whimpers during the second assault are gut-wrenching, while the lingering scenes of her curling up after each of her assaults gives her all-too-human qualities that approach a realism missing from most exploitation films. Her facial expressions as she continues to deflect co-workers’ concerns also brilliantly convey a woman that is hiding much more pain than anyone should have to repress; this may not completely justify her transition into “avenging angel”, but it certainly gives us a good reason to understand it.

The film’s biggest misstep is the inclusion of Mrs. Nasone, the landlady of Thana’s apartment building who is always meddling in her affairs. The problem is, her intrusions are unconvincing and clearly serve only as a thin way to advance the plot. For example, in one meeting, Thana heads out of her apartment with a paper bag (that does happen to contain human remains, but that’s beside the point), and, without any provocation whatsoever, Mrs. Nasone aggressively inquires about what’s in the bag. In another, she inexplicably enters Thana’s apartment without any form of consent, leading her dog, Phil, to act suspicious around the bathtub and fridge. Her character might have been included for comedic effect, but she actually manages to be way more infuriating than humorous.

The film’s low budget is also an occasional hindrance, with a few bad performances and some weak special effects. The writing also seems to lose focus, such as a fairly early scene in which Thana sees someone reading a paper talking about one of her murders, but as the body count grows, and as she starts killing more and more people in public with a loud gun, there’s very little mention of her in the media. Likewise, there’s really no mention of police, until a couple make an appearance toward the end, after Mrs. Nasone calls them to report something weird that she saw after essentially breaking into Thana’s apartment. If the police and/or media aspects weren’t going to be fleshed out, why even include them at all? Completely removing them could have given the film an even stronger feeling of anarchy, while heightening the revenge fantasy components.

The climactic Halloween sequence, with its nightmarish, slow-motion soundtrack, ends things on a positive note. This is due, in no small part, to the finale of the scene, which shows a loyalty among Thana and her female “allies” that manages to be strangely, powerfully potent.

As feminism seems to be an ever-growing movement these days, with women continuing to be pushed around and playing second fiddle to their white male counterparts, it’s no wonder that this film has slowly earned a loyal cult fanbase. I would suspect such a following will only increase over the years; though it’s directed by a man, it still maintains a unique, empowering female viewpoint while also avoiding many of the sleazier aspects of typical “exploitation” films; the end result is a flawed, but ultimately gripping, revenge film that will sadly remain relevant far into the future.

RECAP: It’s flawed, and its low-budget sometimes does it no favors, but Ms. 45 is a gripping feminist revenge thriller that manages to avoid the usual trappings (and the general sleaziness) of similar exploitation films. Zoe Tamerlis/Lund is good as the mute seamstress Thana, who is raped twice in one day and begins a rather speedy descent into a man-hating feminist superhero, offing any man who makes a pass at her with a Colt .45 handgun. There isn’t much plot to speak of, and the whole formula does get a little old, with men approaching Thana (or, later, her enticing them to do so) and then her just as quickly dispatching them, but it works rather brilliantly as a feminist fantasy. Finale at a Halloween party ends everything on a brilliant note. Not surprisingly, it was reviled upon release, but is finally starting to get the attention it deserves; definitely worth a watch.

RATING: 7/10 

TRAILER

In a Glass Cage (1986)

Director: Agusti Villaronga
Writer(s): Villaronga
Starring: Gunter Meisner, David Sust, Marisa Paredes, and Gisele Echevarria

Depending upon which angle you approach In a Glass Cage from on the Internet, you may find two very disparate plot descriptions: one makes it sound like a psychological thriller, while the other makes it sound like a revenge flick. Please, please do not go into this thinking that it has anything at all to do with revenge, or you will be severely disappointed (and, quite possibly, baffled and enraged). On the other hand, even if you adapt to the mindset that it's a psychological thriller, you might still be quite disappointed. Truth be told, this is just about as difficult a film to categorize as it is to watch: there are many different elements contained herein, but its apt refusal to stick to any one identity makes for both an interesting viewing experience, and an ironic footnote to its own story.

It is becoming increasingly rare for a movie to capture my attention simply based on its storyline, but In a Glass Cage is one of them that did. Klaus (Gunter Meisner) was a Nazi “doctor” during the Holocaust, who “specialized” in torturing and killing children through heinous medical experiments. Flash forward to the present, where it becomes apparent that old habits do indeed die hard: when we first see him he is taking photographs of a young adult male, hands bound by rope, and dangling from a dank basement ceiling. The youngster looks as if he is dead. But lo and behold, his eyes slowly start to open, which seems to give Klaus some excitement as he trades his camera for a piece of wood, which he uses to deliver the fatal blow.

But years of abusing and murdering children seems to come with a steep psychological price, no matter how much you enjoy it: racked with a sudden and intense guilt over his latest crime, Klaus climbs to the roof of his extravagant house and jumps to his death. Or so he was hoping. In a classic case of karma, the leap doesn't kill him, but instead confines him to an iron lung, an old piece of outdated hospital machinery that pumps air into the patient's lungs. This renders him unable to move, as any separation from the machine will prevent him from being able to breathe.

In the large mansion in which he is permanently confined, he lives with his crusty wife, and main caregiver, Griselda, and young daughter, Rena. A maid stops by three times a week to help the family take care of Klaus, but it's not enough: Griselda is at her wit's end spending every waking hour looking after her incapacitated husband, and decides to hire a nurse. The nurse, hired under suspicious conditions, is Angelo, a young man who may not even be a nurse at all. Griselda has huge reservations about the boy, but Klaus insists that he be the one hired, without even so much as an interview.

It goes without saying that Angelo and Klaus have some kind of history together—that much is evident from the beginning—but the true depths of their “relationship” slowly begin to come out little by little, as the film goes in some unexpected directions. As I alluded to earlier, what would seem to be just a simple, clever, psychological tale of vengeance, turns out to have no revenge in mind at all; it quickly becomes a chilling tale of idolatry that becomes too much even for a man who made a career out of carrying out cruel experiments on children.

In a Glass Cage is frequently noted as one of the most disturbing films of all time, and while I think that title is quite a bit of a stretch (it was nowhere near as grotesque as Salo), it is undeniably unnerving, with several sequences guaranteed to make all but the most hardened pedophiles squirm in their seats. What's most impressive about this, something in stark contrast to the dozens of other “most disturbing” films that consistently popularize such lists, is just how little of anything is actually shown on screen: There is very little blood, there is no actual child nudity (save for the opening scene, where the actor is clearly, at the very least, an older teenager), and there are no graphic sex scenes. A majority of the upsetting scenes are actually spoken, as Angelo reads excerpts from Klaus' old diary, which details the most “memorable” of his old crimes.

Upon immediate retrospection, it might appear as if the decision to leave out explicit scenes wasn't so much a directorial decision as much as it was a legal one—no film could show the scenes hinted at here without being slapped with lawsuits ranging from obscenity, to child pornography. But director Agusti Villaronga, who has parlayed this, his first feature-length film, into a three-decade career, also shows considerable restraint and skill, along with a natural ability to build tension (there is an excellent stalk-and-kill scene that blends realism with some giallo-style exaggerations). He also proves adept at gleaning sadness from the dark material, which in the hands of a lesser director, could have easily come off as merely exploitative. It never feels that way here, as the violence and sexuality, as off-putting as it is, is surrounded by an actual story that requires such tragic details.

Unfortunately, the story isn't always obvious, and the ending gradually starts to go off the deep end. I gather that was the point, and it maintained my interest, but it finishes on a rather baffling note with no closure. I am all for ambiguity in movies, but this is the kind of film that demands a complete finish, especially since all the event's of the first-half are grounded in reality and maintain a logical narrative flow. Its sudden transformation into an almost dreamlike narrative, while admittedly fascinating, lost me a little bit; I just didn't feel like the two parts gelled together all that well to form a complete whole.

What we're left with, however, is a powerful film with a muddled message, but one that's recommended viewing for “alternative” horror fans. It focuses its energy on psychological terror, rather than in your face gore, and that's what makes it such a harrowing film, with moments of truly agonizing intensity. It's uneven in places, but the good definitely outweighs the bad in this case.

Although, the more I think about it, the revenge angle could have been expanded upon and probably yielded an even better film...

RATING: 7/10

TRAILER

Perversions of Science S1, E6: Planely Possible

Starring:

George Newburn as Walter

Vincent Schiavelli as Scientist

Joyce Brothers as Therapist Bethany Wolf

Elizabeth Berkley as Ruth

Nicole DeLaina as Gwen

Trayne Thomas as Homeless Man

Michael Wiseman as Barman

Written by: Peter Atkins, based on the "Weird Science" comic books, by William M. Gaines

Directed by: Russell Mulcahy

“Planely Possible” is one of the rare “Perversions of Science” episodes, at least up to this point, that is actually based around an idea that is entirely fascinating: Elizabeth Berkley (yes, that one) plays Ruth, and as the episode begins, she exits her bedroom after hearing something crash in the living room. She thinks it is her husband, Walter, so she walks into the living room, repeating his name over and over and over again, only to find a broken item on the floor. She bends down to pick it up, unaware that a burglar stands behind her; by the time she realizes this, it’s too late, as he shoots her dead.

We are now in “modern times” with Dr. Joyce Brothers (no joke) as Therapist Bethany Wolfe. She explains, to Walter, that he must learn to let it go in due time, because there is no going back to the past. Of course, he goes through the usual motions of mourning--wondering why he wasn’t the one killed instead, wishing she were still alive--but the therapist seems to have no time for crazy ideas like that. She assures him that he will eventually learn to move on, and maybe even find someone to replace Ruth.

On the way home, he stops at a local diner, where, of course, a scientist is preaching to a small, gathered crowd about the possibilities of alternate realities (I guess nearly-empty restaurants are how scientists of the future get the word out about their latest creations). Some in the crowd seem dismissive of what he‘s saying, including the bartender, but he refuses to do anything about it because his crowds bring in a little extra business.

At first, Walter isn’t interested in all these theories. But the more he overhears, the more interested he becomes. Is there a chance that he can see his wife again? The scientist seems to infer this is a possibility, hinting that there are multiple strands of realities running parallel at any given time, meaning things that happen on one plane might never have happened at all in an alternate universe. He also mentions that he has created a device capable of allowing people to explore the different realms. It’s a lot to try to grasp, but it makes for a rather fascinating idea.

The scientist tells his followers that he has to leave, and heads out into the rain. Walter tracks him down, and asks if the scientist thinks his invention can allow him to see his wife again. Not surprisingly, the scientist is hesitant, as his creation hasn’t been thoroughly tested, but when he sees just how desperate Walter is, he knows he has a willing subject. Before you know it, Walter is in a glass tube, while the scientist explains things to him: He will only be able to see his wife, but will not be able to contact her. And in the off chance he messes with the alternate realm, it will have dire consequences for all planes of existence. I think the more I reveal, the more and more obvious things are starting to look.

Only, they’re not really obvious, because each plane provides us with some unexpected behaviors. In the first (don’t worry, I won’t ruin them all, but will instead describe a couple of the more obvious ones so you can get an idea of where this episode is headed), Walter discovers that he is now a fat, white-trash alcoholic, who abuses Ruth. Refusing to accept this, he breaks out of his chamber, tosses his obese alter-ego into a furnace, and promises his lovely wife that things will be okay…only to discover that it’s Ruth who isn’t who she appears to be.

Desperate to escape, he is unable to contact the scientist, who appears in a hologram to inform him that he is running through several alternate realities. And so the rest of the episode goes, with Walter suddenly jumping from one possibility to the other. The whole feel honestly has quite a bit in common with the quick-cuts of “Dream of Doom”, this show’s first episode--the only difference is that “Planely Possible” relies pretty heavily on special effects at a couple parts. And as we have learned, any time that happens, this show tends to falter.

Surprisingly, a couple of the effects are pretty good, but others are the same disastrous early CGI that we have seen in several of the previous stories. It’s pretty clear that the budget was so low in this show that they probably lacked the resources to pull the effects off practically, but I can almost guarantee the rushed nature of this show is a clear reason it failed to find an audience and was canceled so quickly. Even for its day these effects were hokey, and time has certainly not been kind to them.

I won’t reveal any specifics from here, but I wasn’t really all that into this episode, which many have stated is the best (or one of the best) of the entire series. I sadly have to agree with that assessment, up to this point, simply for the reason that, with the exception of the first one, all of them have been really lackluster. I kept expecting some kind of logical twist, or some kind of revelatory conclusion that would bring it all home, and instead it just kind of kept going farther and farther out into space (figuratively), leading to an entirely unsatisfactory conclusion.

Again, I have to say that it’s one of the better eps we’ve seen so far, and the level of talent they are attracting hasn’t wavered, with Elizabeth Berkley giving an unexpectedly solid performance as Ruth, and George Newburn decent as the grieving widow. Its struggles just continue to be with everything else--the main set (a basement) is boring and sparse, and while some of the “upstairs” sets are more palatable, nothing in this episode would qualify as outstanding (besides maybe the idea).

Just chalk this up as yet another failure in the “Perversions of Science” pantheon, though you can at least call it an interesting one.

EPISODE RATING: 5/10

FULL EPISODE

Splinter (2008)

Director: Toby Wilkins
Writer(s): Ian Shorr, Kai Berry
Starring: Shea Whigham, Jill Wagner, Paolo Costanzo, and Charles Baker

There’s a new, rather nonsensical kind of monster on the loose in Toby Wilkins' Splinter, an interesting, grotesque low-budget creature feature. Despite the clearly-evident budget constraints, the film delivers some ooey-gooey effects, and some occasional gore, but when there’s nothing splattering all over the screen, its downfalls are painfully evident.

Jill Wagner plays the oddly-named Polly Watt. I honestly can’t believe that is her—I remember her from the television show “Wipeout!”, thought she was super adorable, and somehow didn’t even recognize her here at all, until I did some post-movie research. She looks like she’s aged a few years within the span of a few months, as both the first season of "Wipeout!" and this film were released in the same year. Anyway, Polly is dating the ultra-nerdy and reserved Seth Belzer, played by Paulo Costanzo (whose popularity also comes from a television show, in this case “Royal Pains”), and as the film opens, they are celebrating an anniversary by going camping, a favorite event for characters trapped in horror films.

Right here we have both the story of my wife and I, and one of Splinter’s only non-monster related semi-original ideas: Instead of the woman complaining all the time, it’s Seth who has no interest in camping, and would rather just spend the night at the hotel. Later, he gets chastised because he can’t change a flat tire, and has to have Polly do it. Those situations both sum me up, and pretty much to a “T”. But this isn’t about me, so these are stories for another day…

And actually, I have just lied. The movie does not open directly with the camping conundrum, but with opening credits; interspersed with these is a lone gas station attendant, on a lonely stretch of road, munching on some chips. He hears a noise in the grass behind him, goes to investigate, and then is attacked by something. NOW it's time to focus on the camping couple; this scene is mentioned out of necessity because it gets brought up later on.

Seth gets his wish when, literally ten seconds into trying, the tent snaps. Reluctantly, Polly agrees to spend the night at a hotel—and this is when they run into trouble. And trouble goes by the name of Dennis Farell, a known ex-con who’s planning on running away to Mexico with his girlfriend Lacey. Seems that they’re having some car troubles and need a reliable ride, so they carjack the poor duo. This leads to a flat tire, via running over roadkill…but what kind of animal, perhaps short of a porcupine (this animal appears furry) could puncture a tire? I have a feeling this is where the title comes into play!

After fixing the tire (and having a run-in with the supposedly-dead critter), they hit the open road once more…only to have the car start to overheat. Can anything go right for this poor carjacker/hostage situation? By now, of course, it is nighttime, and of all the places they could run into, of course it’s the gas station from the beginning of the movie.

Splinter does make the most of very limited locations, as well. At least three-quarters of the movie takes place entirely inside a gas station, while the remaining time is spent on a long, winding road. With very little money apparently spent on location scouting and travel expenditures, that means the majority of the film's budget presumably went toward the film’s nasty effects work.

I have to say some of these sequences filled me with glee; firstly, because all of the effects are done practically, which is to say there are no computer-generated scenes. Even for low budget films, this is becoming more and more of a rarity this day and age. Secondly, some of them recall the disgusting, over-the-top stuff seen on unrated versions of films I grew up with, like the Brian Yuzna-directed Return of the Living Dead 3. Now, just like those older films, not all of the effects in Splinter are great—and there’s an understandable, but still relatively annoying propensity to simply shake the camera a whole bunch during attack scenes, presumably to cover for budgetary-related shortcomings in the effects work—but there are enough good ones to cancel out most of the bad.

My biggest gripe with the whole situation isn’t that there’s no explanation of what the creatures are, or where they came from (a point that I didn’t even realize until after the movie was over), but simply that there doesn’t appear to be any real logic to their characteristics. I mean, I get that the splinters are the key to passing on their disease, but what’s the point of them constantly breaking their own arms and legs while moving, besides giving the sound designer ample opportunity to add in cringe-inducing audio snippets? And what are their limits? Normally I am all for not having every snippet of information spoonfed to us, but rather than a few rules that seem consistent, most if it has the feeling that it was made up on the spot.

Besides the completely formulaic plot (complete with a cheesy-as-hell substory involving Dennis Farell’s hilariously stupid plan for something to do when he gets out of jail), the acting is inconsistent, with the two leads lacking any form of chemistry, and Paulo Costanzo’s Seth generally flat. But this is also a low-budget B-movie that sometimes excels in other areas, so I'm partially forgiving of this fault.  In other words, don’t go in expecting great things, and you should have a good time.

RECAP: If you have a fondness for low-budget flicks, as I do, Splinter is a pretty good example of what filmmakers can do these days with a limited budget. The acting is pretty hit-or-miss, save for Shea Whigham’s excellent Dennis Farrel, and the chemistry of the two leads is pretty nonexistent, but when the movie is focused on grossing out the audience, it generally manages to come alive. Worth a watch, just don’t go in expecting anything great.

RATING: 6/10

TRAILER