Showing posts with label Bill Moseley. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bill Moseley. Show all posts

November 7, 2023

Army of Darkness.

Review #2141: Army of Darkness.

Cast: 
Bruce Campbell (Ash Williams / "Evil Ash"), Embeth Davidtz (Sheila), Marcus Gilbert (Lord Arthur), Ian Abercrombie (Wise Man), Richard Grove (Duke Henry the Red), Timothy Patrick Quill (Blacksmith), Michael Earl Reid (Gold Tooth), Bridget Fonda (Linda), Bill Moseley (Deadite captain), Patricia Tallman (Possessed witch), and Ted Raimi (Cowardly warrior/Second supportive villager/Anthony, the S-Mart clerk/Skeleton voices) Directed by Sam Raimi (#611 - Spider-Man, #1296 - The Evil Dead, #1483 - Evil Dead II, #1495 - Darkman, #1695 - Spider-Man 2, and #1779 - Spider-Man 3, and #1840 - Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness)

Review: 
Sure, it is easy to say that the third film of a series just can't compare to the first two films. And you would be right in a variety of those scenarios, even with something as curious as the Evil Dead series, which retained the same director in Sam Raimi and lead presence in Bruce Campbell for each of them that had a sense of evolution from film to film. The gory mayhem of the original film (1981) that was shot for a low budget in a cabin in Tennessee, combined with the efforts of producer Irvin Shapiro, resulted in a cult classic. Six years later, Evil Dead II, basically a "re-quel", came under the hands of Dino De Laurentiis to a cult hit that may or may not be better than the previous film within its comedy-horror aspects. Now, in 1992, here we have a medieval-themed film that actually was proposed and rejected for the second film due to cost. There were various influences that came into the script as done by Sam and Ivan Raimi, such as A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court and Jason and the Argonauts. The film was made in a deal that saw De Laurentiis fund the film while Universal Pictures serve as distributor.  This is the kind of film that somehow has more than two versions: the original theatrical cut runs at 81 minutes (those studio yokels actually thought they could get a cut for PG-13 and failed anyway), while Raimi's preferred version, with the original intended ending, runs at 96. Other versions were done to go with International audiences and television viewers that each went 88 minutes. The four-disc Blu-ray I purchased included three of these versions, but I went with the director's cut for the sole reason that edits are no fun. A "re-imagining" feature of the series that shared the name of the original came out in 2013 before a continuation series of the third film came out with Ash vs. Evil Dead in 2015.

Sure, it's easy to say that the first two films shine more than this one when it comes to horror. But so what? I actually found this one to be a pretty good movie on its own goal of injecting action comedy into the mix to make a distinct venture that is quite entertaining. We are talking about a film following the lead of the last one in a lead character who had a chainsaw for a right hand, nothing surprises me here. Why would I be mad that the film goes in its own direction with Ash when it is evident the filmmakers want to go this way? (okay, maybe the theatrical cut might not have been coherently focused but screw the editor). This is basically the Return of the Jedi of the series, are you surprised by this? Of course, it's such a funny time with this oddball lead character that has to run the gamut of growth as a hero even when confronting the horrors of being stuck in the Dark Ages (with Deadites and other odd things, no less). When it comes to quips and goofy humor, I think Campbell handles it with good gusto that is interesting for those who like some slapstick humor. The lines of parody and spectacle are enjoyable in his hands because, well, that is what I am here for, particularly with the little Ashes sequence. Having to do cues and fight beings that would be added in as stop motion is no small feat. The other actors play it mostly to form (you've got some Deadite goofiness, of course), but again, the films are lifted mostly with Campbell up there first. If one is to go out with a bang, going out with stop motion and gusto is ideal. Personally, I'm fine with either ending of the film (after checking the obvious choice of the director's cut, I looked over the other disc for a moment). You either get a darkly amusing punchline or a heroically amusing punchline, it really is up to you. As a whole, the last two Evil Dead films are like sides of the same coin in horror misery that would've made it hard for any follow-up to top, but Army of Darkness, now with the passage of time and the availability of a director's cut, proves that even a third-best effort can still be a really good time anyway.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.
This ends Halloween The Week After, Year Five. Over the course of October 1 to today, a grand total of 48 horror films (and one other exception) were covered by Movie Night. It only seemed funny to close November 7th the same way that I ended the first of the Week Afters with an Evil Dead film, much in the same way that a Ring film has been there the last three years. There were a handful of films that just missed the cut for timing or other reasons, such as: I Know What You Did Last Summer, The Return of the Vampire, Trog, The Old Dark House (1963), Color Out of Space, The Student of Prague (1926), The Monster, Quartermass 2, Frankenstein 1970, Misery, Beau is Afraid, The Fog, The Fly II, you get the idea. Next year probably won't be all-out like this year, but one never knows where the Month of Horror takes you. Now then, onto other things.

November 5, 2023

Night of the Living Dead (1990).

Review #2138: Night of the Living Dead.

Cast: 
Tony Todd (Ben), Patricia Tallman (Barbara Todd), Tom Towles (Harry Cooper), McKee Anderson (Helen Cooper), William Butler (Tom Bitner), Katie Finneran (Judy Rose Larson), Bill Moseley (Johnny Todd), Heather Mazur (Sarah Cooper), and Russell Streiner (Sheriff McClelland) Directed by Tom Savini.

Review: 
If you remember, George A. Romero and John Russo wrote a film called Night of the Living Dead in 1968. Russo was the one who came up with the idea to make a narrative about a runaway that sees aliens harvesting corpses for food in a cemetery that Romero combined with ideas of a flesh-eating ghoul and some stuff "inspired" by Richard Matheson's book I Am Legend (1954). When the original intended title of "Night of the Flesh Eaters" was changed to what you see today, the copyright notice was accidentally removed. The Dead series went two ways: Romero did his first follow-up with Dawn of the Dead in 1978 while Russo wrote a novel called Return of the Living Dead in the late 1970s that got turned into its own film in 1985. Anyway, Romero wanted to make a remake of the film in part because of the worry that someone else might do one first because of the lack of copyrights and such; a five-year battle had been spent in lawsuits with Continental Releasing that saw them get the rights but little money because the company had gone out of business. The fact that he was approached by Menahem Golan of the 21st Century Film Corporation made it all too easy, and he is credited as the sole screenplay writer (as based on the 1968 film by Romero and Russo) alongside executive producer while Russo served as a producer with original producer Russell Streiner. The film was the first (and so far, only) theatrical effort by Tom Savini, who had thought about being the one for effects work for this film but was instead drawn to serve as director (his previous experience in that field was episodes of Tales from the Darkside). Calling it an apparent nightmare where the producers only let less than half of his ideas come through (combined with cuts made to avoid an X rating), the result was a minor flop with audiences. Nine years after the release of this film, Russo came up with his own revised version of the 1968 film and called it the "30th Anniversary Edition" that saw a handful of new scenes to try and give a "more modern pace." 

The movie follows the original for a good deal of its beats, whether that involves the opening sequence of the cemetery that leads to a character dying at the hands of falling onto a gravestone, the confrontation in trying to get a car running with a fiery end, and a character being "another one for the fire." There are a handful of differences, with probably the easiest being the fact that the character of Barbara is given something to actually do in this one after the graveyard sequence. Granted, there were interpretations that called the original some sort of subversive film within 1960s society. Sure. I think that is people just trying to dance around just not saying "oh look, zombie film, what a fun one". The splatter film had its innovators, and Romero is right there at the forefront that made it great exploitation. The remake doesn't exactly improve on anything done, but I was fine with the overall result because its familiarity works to the advantage of being something I like to see rather than just loud noise. Todd asserts a confident presence just as much as one had seen with Duane Jones twenty years prior, even if the conflict between him and Towles is probably more hotheaded than before to moderate results. Tallman fares better because there is more reason portrayed here (look, if you want catatonic, Judith O'Dea did exactly what was to do back then) that gets to go through the wringer with weary timing that gets to handle the climax with useful results. The effects were meant to not be overblown in gore (so as to respect the original), which basically means one gets stuff that was inspired by such events like an autopsy or death camp footage that works about on the level one would hope for 1990. The 88-minute runtime is slightly shorter than the original film that may or may not be as cynical as the original depending on how you interpret the ones who stand in the presence of hunting the undead that didn't get killed in the first days. As a whole, it stands firmly in the middle: it doesn't do anything great with this familiar material, but as a remake that managed to be moderately entertaining (and a cash grab attempt for Romero and company), one can't go wrong here with a decent time here.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.
Next: Sisters.

November 7, 2022

3 from Hell.

Review #1920: 3 from Hell.

Cast: 
Sheri Moon Zombie (Vera-Ellen 'Baby' Firefly), Bill Moseley (Otis B. Driftwood), Sid Haig (Captain Spaulding), Richard Brake (Winslow Foxworth 'Foxy' Coltrane), Jeff Daniel Phillips (Warden Virgil Dallas Harper), Danny Trejo (Rondo), Dee Wallace (Greta), Daniel Roebuck (Morris Green), Pancho Moler (Sebastian), Steven Michael Quezada (Diego), Jackie S. Garcia (Princesa), Bill Oberst Jr. (Tony Commando), Lucinda Jenney (Nebraska), Austin Stoker (Earl Gibson), Emilio Rivera ('Aquarius'), and Clint Howard (Mr. Baggy Britches) Written and Directed by Rob Zombie (#743 - Halloween (2007), #1590 - House of 1000 Corpses, #1751 - Halloween II (2009), and #1756 - The Devil's Rejects)

Review: 
If you remember, Rob Zombie had directed two features involving a family of deranged weirdo killers in House of 1000 Corpses (2003) and The Devil's Rejects (2005). The 2003 movie is certainly a mixed bag if there ever was one, liked by folks who probably dug a musician and horror fan like Zombie making a pastiche of things he liked growing up. Sheri Moon Zombie, Bill Moseley, and Sid Haig made a quality trio, albeit on a small scale due to the variety of folks that were in that film. But I dug that movie as an average little ride of drive-in ghoulishness. The Devil's Rejects was a pretty good movie to those who admired the deranged sensibility that came from a trio of actors that were allowed to breathe a bit more with a couple of notable lines and sequences. It was even more of a drive-in movie, but it does so with such blood-soaked enthusiasm. The ending is a pretty good one when it comes to just going nuts with finding a way to run into oblivion. So yes, 14 years later, here is another Zombie film involving a killer trio, with this being the third of the "Firefly" trilogy. Sid Haig was meant to return alongside Zombie and Moseley for a big role. However, Haig was recovering from surgery that had him lose a considerable amount of weight that would make Zombie have to modify his plans. As such, he has one little scene in the beginning before he is given a sendoff; his one scene is nice, at least. Sadly, Haig died a couple of days after the release of this film at the age of 80. As such, it is Richard Brake who is the new part of the trio of Zombie and Mosley. The film had a special three-night showing in September 2019 before release on home video. This was the 7th feature film from Zombie, with his previous effort having been 31 (2016), a movie he has compared to the aforementioned Rejects film.

I would say that this movie is decent enough to justify being made, which I suppose means that Zombie has managed to make a movie that will be hit-or-miss depending on one's patience for his habits as a filmmaker in trying to aim for the drive-in throwback with his personal favorites of music and actors to go along with a few familiar story beats. It does repeat a few things from the previous feature, for better or worse, which means that one will find that Zombie's comfort zone lies within seeing the nature of chaos in a weary world where killers are more fun than folks interested in revenge or in authority (i.e., if one is big on Zombie, the chaos comes off as renewed rather than repetitive). Of course, the opening sequence is a key distinction, touching upon the family as akin to the Manson family with its public curiosity. Eh, only the explanation to how the trio survived a cadre of bullets is probably the only interest (personally, if the trio responded to the praise with mayhem, it might've been a darkly amusing payoff) before the movie gets a grip and pulls its location of Mexico. For 115 minutes, it also is a bit of a tight demand for some audiences, but I did end up finding it an appropriately grisly time that shows the main three in comfortable chemistry to appreciate. S. Zombie proves effective in showing the growing delusion of the character without needing to rely on hammy tricks, and since we have seen here in two previous films, the lingering characteristics that jump from film to film make it all the more captivating in mayhem. Moseley is just as effective in his marked servitude in the work of the devil that has charm just as before without copying every little schtick moment from before. Brake does just fine here, managing to hold his own in terms of charisma (you know, for a killer) that blends right in with the others that doesn't aim for a Haig impersonation while making for useful chemistry between him and Moseley in film sibling form. The others are merely just puppets for the trio to play around with, such as Phillips being held in captive terror or a mild adversary with Rivera or a wide progression of one-shot wonders (Howard playing a clown, Danny Trejo having the bare minimum to do, a smarmy Edson), you get the idea. It works to a point, although it probably makes the overall climax just a mild display of drive-in horror enjoyment. 

As a whole, it is firmly in the middle in quality when compared to the other two films, which means that those who like it and those who don't like it have equally compelling cases if asked by a curious horror fan what seems best to watch on a late night. I veer on the side of support, as long as one liked what they saw before. Regardless of if this is the final one of these films or if we see Zombie do further films involving drive-in horror ambitions, you will have some sort of curiosity with this film in the long run.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Well, here is the end of another month (and one week) of horror. 28 films (and one redux) that ran the gauntlet of the 20th and 21st century. I hope you folks enjoyed the largest effort of Movie Night's 12th season for concentrated writing about horror. Suggestions are always welcome as we move on to other films, and it is almost time for another Thanksgiving celebration, if you know what I mean.

October 27, 2022

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2.

Review #1909: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2.

Cast: 
Dennis Hopper (Lt. Boude "Lefty" Enright), Caroline Williams (Vanita "Stretch" Brock), Jim Siedow (Cook), Bill Moseley (Chop-Top), Bill Johnson (Leatherface), Ken Evert (Grandpa), Harlan Jorand (Patrolman), Kirk Sisco (Detective), and James N. Harrell (Cut-Rite Manager) Directed by Tobe Hooper (#348 - Poltergeist and #1297 - The Texas Chain Saw Massacre)

Review: 
"It's crazy as hell. It's a film that's just loony. But at least I got a chance to make a comedy—a very grim comedy—that is receiving an acknowledgement for its stylization. In the past four or five years, it's being seen for the first time."

The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974) probably should not have become a franchise, since writers Kim Henkel and Tobe Hooper wanted to make a film involving "moral schizophrenia". In fact, Motel Hell (1980) was actually made as an imitator of the film from screenwriters that liked the 1974 film. But, here we are, talking about a sequel film made twelve years after the original. Tobe Hooper originally intended to just produce the film, but budgetary issues led to him stepping in to direct. You may remember him as the director of this film and Poltergeist (1982), after all. The film was written by L. M. Kit Carson, albeit one that was different from the intended approaches that Hooper thought of. Kim Henkel and Hooper wanted to do a film that made fun of Motel Hell with a town full of cannibals, which would have been named Beyond the Valley of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and Hooper wanted to amplify the dark comedy that he felt was not recognized in the original film. Yes, you could call him an early example of wanting to give the audience something they didn't expect. Carson, along with Hooper served as a producer, but most will focus their attention on Menahem Golan and Yoram Globus as producers. The Cannon Group, Inc (as headlined by Golan and Globus) loved to specialize in a variety of "B-movies", such as action or ninja movies. This was the third film that Hooper did with Cannon after Lifeforce (1985) and Invaders from Mars (1986), and only this film ended up making its money back with audiences (of course, none of them were exactly critical hits, but hey, there are morons who believe that Hooper didn't really direct Poltergeist all on his own, so things happen). Every subsequent Chainsaw film tried skirting around the end of the second film: Leatherface: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre III (1990) was cut down to fit for R-rated audiences while The Next Generation (1995) had Henkel as director/writer and little success. A remake was done in 2003 that was followed by a 2006 prequel before Texas Chainsaw 3D (2013) tried to act as a direct sequel to the first one. Leatherface (2017) was a new prequel to the series...and then comes Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2022), a title stupid enough to only fit a movie that tries to act as a sequel to the original that ignores all the other ones that fittingly premiered on a lesser platform like Netflix. Bottom line: never make a franchise, especially when this film goes the way of Halloween II (1981) in killing its main character before bullshit (read: money) seeps through.

The film was given an X rating by the Motion Picture Association, but Cannon responded to that by simply releasing it unrated (a smart idea, considering how hypocritical the MPA can be about ratings). I can see where Hooper felt that making a grim comedy would be a good idea to counteract what he felt was in his original feature. Hell, the poster of the film mimics The Breakfast Club (1985). In fact, I thought the movie was pretty decent for what it set out to do, serving as a gonzo experiment on how much patience an audience can have with a sequel that doesn't care about expectations beyond having weirdo laughs and a few grisly effects (as done by Tom Savini). Besides, a sequel aiming to do something different beyond just repeating the gore can work out well, provided that one doesn't veer into fan-fiction territory. So yes, a movie that feels queasy and punch-drunk at times is probably the most interesting idea to make rather than try to catch up with the levels of gore already covered in the 12-year gap between 1974 and 1986; besides, with Cannon's specific requirements in budget, the last 20 days of production was as frantic as the original film had been. Movies got gorier by that time, so why not make light of it with a moderate level of gore that goes hand in hand with the terror in loud and weirdness. Truly, a decade away hasn't made Hooper feel any less amused at the absurdity of how things are with handling gore. We've gone from isolated horror to celebrity horror, because now the folks being killed are being turned into chili and the family went from living in a farmhouse to an abandoned carnival ground that seems quite elaborate. 

If you can believe it, Williams got the role by screaming down a hallway and pulling the chairs out in front of the director when auditioning (since she saw others enter with a docile mood). She does quite well when it comes to reacting the excess in depravity. Anyone who can handle a scene with Leatherface wanting to show his chainsaw prowess (making this almost a love story) without turning it into parody is clearly on the right path. Consider the contrasts among the other members of the quartet: Dennis Hopper stated this was (at one time) the worst film he was ever in, while Bill Moseley considered it one of his favorite roles. Of course, Moseley was cast because of his participation in a parody short ("The Texas Chainsaw Manicure") that Hooper saw and liked. With Hopper, maybe the fact that he was trying to stay sober (18 months at the time of productions) alongside being in better movies released in that year (you know, Hoosiers, Blue Velvet...) helps to color that perception, and he changed his mind when he did Super Mario Bros. (1993) when it comes to regrets. Siedow was the only actor to return from the original film, reprising his role as "The Cook". These two films are what he is most known for as an actor, as he only acted in four other films/TV productions, and the 2nd Chainsaw movie was actually his final film role. The funny thing is that each do really well in the selling the varying madcap levels of madness required. I admire how Hooper handles the second half when it comes to self-righteous delusion, whether that involves him starting with a little sequence of chainsaw-shopping. Moseley's performance either reminds one of schtick or enjoyable madcap fun - I find him belonging to the latter category, one who oozes through every moment with the right sense of deranged timing. Siedow is just as off-putting as he was in the original in terms of patriarchal ooze, one with a fuzzy chemistry with his on-screen kin that is quite watchable, particularly since he gets to play a chili genius and an offbeat family man at the same time. Leatherface is just the plucky weirdo in the middle, saying his gibberish (and one line of focus) that I suppose will make one forget that Gunnar Hansen isn't playing the role. 

As a whole, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 is not as enjoyable as the original film, because it obviously is hard to top a classic with grisly execution. It does have a bit of rough pacing at 101 minutes, and the stakes are probably a bit lower when it comes to the overall result, which makes for a movie that works best when not taken seriously. However, I did find myself entirely comfortable with Hooper wanting to do what he felt was best - loony. It embraces the madness with fun rather than run away from things. Far from a bait-and-switch movie, it belongs in the same category with future films such as Evil Dead II (1987) and Gremlins 2: The New Batch (1990) in off-the-wall enjoyment in horror sequels that make this an interesting guilty pleasure for those who are curious about horror.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

November 7, 2021

The Devil's Rejects.

Review #1756: The Devil's Rejects.

Cast: 
Sid Haig (Captain Spaulding), Bill Moseley (Otis), Sheri Moon Zombie (Baby), William Forsythe (Sheriff Wydell), Ken Foree (Charlie Altamont), Matthew McGrory (Tiny), Leslie Easterbrook (Mother Firefly), Geoffrey Lewis (Roy Sullivan), Priscilla Barnes (Gloria Sullivan), Dave Sheridan (Officer Ray Dobson), Kate Norby (Wendy Banjo), Lew Temple (Adam Banjo), Danny Trejo (Rondo), and Diamond Dallas Page (Billy Ray Snapper) Written and Directed by Rob Zombie (#743 - Halloween (2007), #1590 - House of 1000 Corpses, #1751 - Halloween II (2009))

Review: 
I will give credit to Rob Zombie in one aspect. Anybody who can generate enough interest to get a bunch of folks interested in making horror movies with familiar faces and premises that border on halfcocked and half-original for over two decades certainly merits curiosity. At least this time around one will not be able to see the film as just some sort of offbeat take on horror films like The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974), if only because Zombie has decided to take inspiration from other features that range from Bonnie and Clyde (1967) to Badlands (1973). The art of the grotesque has taken its talents to the road, you might say. Technically speaking, it is superior to House of 1000 Corpses (2003), even though the only thing those film have in common is Haig-Moseley-Zombie as the main focus (i.e. no weirdo travelers or even the use of Karen Black, who apparently demanded too much money to return to the role now played by Easterbrook). Experienced horror folks will be right at home with a film like this, one that rolls with brutal swings without having many hitches in its step. Zombie has a knack for making the detestable come off as curious, which I suppose helps when trying to do a psuedo-70s movie (I say this since one really does have to put on a few blinders again when trying to buy this as 1978), complete with a selection of songs that differ from the earlier approach of having Zombie doing his own music (which is fair on its own, but sometimes you need old-time music).

What can I say? If you deliver a fine time with people worth caring about or creepy scenarios with a useful payoff, you have the formula for what a good amount of folks want in horror, and this movie manages to accomplish that in spades by improving on what had been done before from Zombie (and the films he dabbles in cribbing from) that proves gruesome and curious at the same time. It makes for an interesting 107-minute run-time, that much is for sure. If you like seeing Sid Haig in a demented role that inspires a few dark chuckles, you will certainly get what you want here; the best scene might be when he is "borrowing" a car and he asks a kid why they aren't too fond of clowns....so he lets him go and tells him he better have a good reason when he comes back (or...oh hell, you know). Moseley follows along with a terrific role of brutal effectiveness, one that can equally serves as the mark of a devil's servant along with dutiful straight man to this cadre of eccentrics, who can go from bloody events to wanting ice cream in a few minutes. S. Zombie certainly has improved on the wicked allure from two years prior with an added sense of menace that means there is no weak link among the main folks when it comes to unbalanced tools unlike anybody you've seen before. Think about it: we are following some very violent folks for most of its run-time, and yet the folks we are watching are fairly interesting in those moments spent together that muddles the line of what you might usually see from films in the genre, particularly when contrasted with the other side of the coin in the pursuer and the one being pursued. Forsythe (told to base his character as a combination of Lee Marvin and Robert Shaw) certainly homes in the right sense of demented rigidity that makes him a worthy piece to the proceedings, a tool of obsession that has a few moments to let out worthy enjoyment, particularly with the setup for the climax. Foree does pretty well in amusing relief, resonating well when paired with Haig for a few interesting lines together, while the others in the supporting cast are fair for what is needed. Honestly, while I appreciate the build to the climax when it comes to throwing the depravity on its head, I think it nearly stumbles with its resolution (remember that it wasn't exactly just three folks in the last one...), but I do think the final shot will likely resolve that doubt for the most part. If you are squeamish when it comes to certain kinds of horror, it won't prove much for your fancy, but I am sure you know where you want to see in your horror movies anyway. The next film in the series (called the "Firefly trilogy" by some folks) would not happen until 3 from Hell (2019), but at least one knows that The Devil's Rejects has managed to fare well as when it comes to the curiosity of this being the most interesting work that Zombie accomplished in his first few years as a director in executing depraved sequences with useful timing and folks to hold it all up.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.
Well, here is the end of another month (and one week) of horror. 27 films that ran the gauntlet of the 20th and 21st century. I hope you folks enjoyed the largest effort of Movie Night's near eleven-year history for concentrated writing about horror; sure, there will be a handful of horror-ish movies covered in the next few months, but suggestions are always welcome. 

November 7, 2020

House of 1000 Corpses.

Review #1590: House of 1000 Corpses.

Cast: 
Sid Haig (Captain Spaulding), Bill Moseley (Otis), Sheri Moon Zombie (Baby), Karen Black (Mother Firefly), Chris Hardwick (Jerry Goldsmith), Erin Daniels (Denise Willis), Jennifer Jostyn (Mary Knowles), Rainn Wilson (Bill Hudley), Walton Goggins (Steve Naish), Tom Towles (Deputy George Wydell), Matthew McGrory (Tiny), Robert Allen Mukes (Rufus), Dennis Fimple (Grandpa Hugo), Harrison Young (Don Willis), William Bassett (Sheriff Frank Huston), Irwin Keyes (Ravelli), and Michael J. Pollard (Stucky) Written and Directed by Rob Zombie (#743 - Halloween (2007))

Review: 
"The first film I directed, which people seems to love, is just a calamitous mess. Well, when it came out it seemed like everyone hated it. Now everyone acts like it’s beloved in some way. All I see is flaw, upon flaw, upon flaw… upon flaw.”

Sure, there have been quite a few directors that came across film after having made a name for themselves with another form of media. But how many were musician-turned-directors? Rob Zombie (born Robert Cummings) is one such director. He grew up with an three-pronged fantasy of being like Alice Cooper, Steven Spielberg and Stan Lee, having grown up with an interest in horror as a young child, noting the boom of horror in the late 1960s with media that ranged from The Munsters to magazines like Famous Monsters, although other favorites later included Dawn of the Dead (1978) and Westerns. The Massachusetts native attended both the Pratt Institute and the Parsons School of Design for a time before coming up with the idea for what became the band White Zombie in 1985, which he co-founded with Sean Yseult. Alongside others in the band, they contributed four albums over the next thirteen years, eventually finding recognition for their heavy metal sound, with Zombie directing the music videos. His first album after going solo was influenced by classic horror films (complete with some songs having samples and quotes from his favorites) while also doing work for various media (including animation for Beavis and Butt-Head Do America in 1996). He expressed an interest in directing in 1997, with an actual plan to have him write and direct a sequel to The Crow (set in 2037, I kid you not) before it was shelved. He worked with Universal Studios in designing a haunted maze attraction in 1999, and it was its success that led to them wanting to work with him on a film (thought of on the spot while designing another attraction), which he started directing in 2000. The resulting film did not please Universal, who shelved it in fears of receiving a NC-17 rating due to its violence (an Adults Only rating, as if Universal decided releasing a violent horror film was suddenly too much) before Lionsgate Films eventually signed on to release it, with this serving as the first of so far seven theatrical films directed and written by Zombie.

One can see the influence of films such as The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974) and Spider Baby (1968) while also seeing the drive-in qualities that make a gritty and weird experience. Is it for everyone? You best believe it isn't for everyone, because for some it will feel tedious even at 89 minutes for where it wants to go in the art of the grotesque, a film that seems constricted by its influences to be anything more original. On the other hand, there are arguments to be made in favor of Zombie and his direction (alongside co-contribution to the music with Scott Humphrey) when it comes to his mix of horror and dark humor with ghoulish charm, which is why it has proved to have a cult following (alongside two sequels released in 2005 and 2019). I can firmly state that while it may not be exactly as well-developed as something like say Motel Hell (1980), I found enjoyment with its vision of macabre thrill and a fairly consistent cast to make it a worthwhile effort. I found it to be pretty enjoyable, in the sense that it made a madhouse worth investing time to look into without being driven senseless into gore without something to go along with it, even if it isn't exactly the most subtle horror film (its setting of the 1970s is believable to those who want to pretend it looks like that era). To start off, one goes with the first focus-point in Haig, the actor-turned-hypnotherapist-turned actor again (going from blaxploitation and heavy roles to horror). He mainly has three scenes to highlight, but he sure makes them ones to enjoy in ghoulish curiosity, amusing but effective in keeping you on your toes (he, alongside Moseley and S.Zombie, would feature in both sequels). Mosley (best known for his role in The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 (1986) alongside other cult horror films) proves just as fiendish in grabbing attention to creep on one's shoulders, demented but useful to what is needed from him. S.Zombie (a dance choreographer and fashion designer that has featured in each of her husband's films) does fine with providing wicked allure for what is needed here, wrapped in terror just like the others that holds well with other fellow familiar actors in horror, such as the case with Black (long noted for work in independent films alongside horror fare), soothing but just as out there with the other members of family creeps (one that seems reminiscent of the Mansion family, what with Zombie inspired by recordings of them for the rants presented here). The other side of the action is the doomed travelers, which is mostly amusing to think back to the faces that eventually found prominence beyond horror, which involves Wilson, eventual star of The Office (2005) and Hardwick, comedian and podcast host (if one is into that sort of thing...no comment). They, alongside Daniels and Jostyn are just fine, in a room temperature kind of charm. I mean, we're watching a haunted ride of ghoulish people that murder people, the least one can do is make sure we aren't taken out of the experience with some jarring seriousness or bland set-ups for body counts. In that sense, I found it to be just enough to win out in the end, despite my reservations about its unwieldy consistency, which may seem like an excuse for Zombie to show off with references or in its weird cuts to those who desire more. It is exactly the kind of weird drive-in charm that makes Zombie an interesting face in horror cinema, one with a passion for the genre that yearns to creep its viewers out to their enjoyment (whether squeamish or not). It's a love it or hate it kind of movie - and I'm just fine with what it is.

Well, it's November 7th. I'm glad to have reached just as many films done in the week following Halloween as it was for the year before with five, and I hope you enjoyed Halloween: The Week After Part II. You can always throw suggestions in for horror films to be done any time of the year, but it is fun to make time for ones to really highlight in the month of fear alongside my personal extension week - enjoy the fun. There may or may not be another themed week coming up before the year ends, so stay tuned.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.