Fifth Anniversary Post: The Cabinet of Caligari (1962)

I say this alot, but it bears repeating: I really need a hobby!

It's roughly that time of the year again that I celebrate another gone by on the site.  I'm kind of vague with dates like that.  I'm sure that will cause lots of fun 'discussions' if and when I ever get married.  'Honey, our Anniversary is on the 8th and...it's the 16th, so I'm close.'  So what will we talk about today?  In previous years, I've discussed time-traveling warriors, confusing Remakes, compared two films and even dared to do a 1313 film!  So, in summary, there is no theme whatsoever.  Let's keep that up by reviewing an obscure Remake (kind of) of a film classic...whose real remake I've already talked about.  The film- The Cabinet of Caligari.  They excised the word 'Doctor' from the Title, though I have no idea why.  There is a 'Dr. Caligari' in the film, so go figure!  The big name attached to this film is Robert Bloch- the writer of Pyscho (the book)- here right after his biggest claim to fame.  I have a joke or two related to his work here, don't worry.  Fun Fact: Bloch is a Credited Writer on many films, including MST3K fare The Deadly Bees.  He also worked on films like Strait-Jacket, The House That Dripped Blood and a few others.  They're not all winners, you know.  The film is about a young(ish) lady who ends up at a mysterious House and is not allowed to leave!  Can she escape this mansion and Caligari?  Will the deranged residents help her?  Will I be the only one who draws parallels between this film and The Eagles' song 'Hotel California?'  To find out, read on...

A woman's car breaks down and she goes to use the phone at a nearby Mansion.  Even for 1962, this had to have been a creaky premise right?

The caretaker- Dr. Caligari- says that she cannot leave because she needs treatment.  Treatment?  She just needed to use the phone.

It's like the reverse of one of those Mormons that shows up at your door.  Instead of you letting him in, he lets YOU in and YOU then can't leave!

She can check out any time she likes, but she can ne-ver leave!

Too subtle?

At least the Guests/Patients are friendly.  Wasn't he Lucy's Neighbor Fred?

Dr. Caligari insists that she needs treatment.  Said treatments lead her to see freaky imagery lying the heads of people in bassinets and a man baking babies!

That seems weird, provided that you have never seen the kitchen at a Golden Corral!

She continues to struggle and try to leave.  She finds that there are dogs watching the perimeter.

Just for the record: if this turns into Stuff Stephanie in the Incinerator, I'm leaving!

Our heroine finds one kindred spirit in a man who is willing to help her get away.  He really wants to help her, in fact, because...

He's actually Dr. Caligari!  Holy Plot Twist, Batman!

As it turns out, she's actually a Patient in his care.  The mean, bearded version was just her subconscious labeling him as a Villain since it was resisting the Therapy.

Just like The Wizard of Oz, everyone she saw in her fantasy world were from her real world.  On the plus side, she's finally cured.  The End.

Do all Classics hold up?  Not all of them, but this one is pretty good.  I will say no bad words about Robert Bloch's Writing.  I think it is actually illegal, but I would have to look that up.  The Story is pretty simple on paper, while obviously holding a deeper meaning in the end.  The movie doesn't do a whole lot that is all that new, but none of it is bad.  It's all good, so I can't complain.  You do have to bear in mind that the film was made 52 years ago, so it was far less cliche back then.  The film is a bit creaky- as mentioned above- in some ways.  Depending on your point of view, this can be a good thing or a bad thing.  Some of you love the Classics and don't like the changes that have been made.  Some of you have only watched films made in the last 20 years and think that black-and-white films are a relic of the past.  Regardless of your point of view, the film is a decent successor to the original 1920 Classic.  As of this Writing, I still prefer the Original film.  Will that change?  Maybe.  For fans of the Classics, give this one a look.  For the rest of you, I give a more measured recommendation.  In closing, leave it to Robert Bloch to put a woman in the bathroom somehow...

Next up, I reluctantly do my remaining Project Terrible film.  It is all angsty and shit, so I'm sure to love it.  Stay tuned...

4th Anniversary Review: 1313- Hercules Unbound

The first question is obvious- why are you doing this?  Why would I possibly review a 1313 movie, let alone of my own free will.  Well, it's a complicated answer.  For one, my goal is always to find something that I wouldn't think of doing.  Case in point: I have a Bollywood Sci-Fi film arriving today.  Why not?  Second, the goal is also to show that I can handle everything.  After years of shit movies like Hobgoblins 2, Ghoulies IV and Amityville 8, I've established a reputation of shying away from nothing.  However, the 1313 films have been infesting Netflix for a couple of years and I've always avoided them.  Another thing to note is that 1313 films have been all over Project Terrible, just not by me.  That's not counting their predecessors like other David DeCoteau films- poor Maynard.  So, before anyone has considered punishing me with my own weapon, I'm doing it myself.  I'm just twisted that way, I guess.  So what is 1313: Hercules Unbound! about?  It's about shirtless guys posing, pretending to sword fight and more posing with the loosest of loose plots.  To give you an idea of how shallow this film, it clocks in at 70 minutes- with Credits!  It's really the worst Hercules film ever- shock of all shocks.  That leads me to the final reason that I picked the film (and why I picked it over 1313: Black Widow): Lou Ferrigno.  He's not in this piece of shit (obviously!), but his son is.  Yes, Lou Ferrigno Jr aka Louis Ferrigno is here.  He's not playing Hercules like his dad did in two epically-awesome '80's films though.  More on him later.  To see how nobody can torture you like you, read on...

You want to make the film tolerable (without Fast Forward)?  Take a shot every time they throw up this static picture accompanied by over-dramatic music.  You can trade it out with the other shot of RUINS of Greece or...

 ...the freaking sky!  This sky pulls triple-duty, however, as it is a filler segue shot, the shot used for when Zeus talks (just this- no other effect) and when Hera (sounding more doped up than Carey Fisher) talks.

Half of the time, this is just a segue shot, which confused the hell out of me.  I kept waiting for Zeus or Hera to dump exposition...but nothing happened.  Ugh.

The so-called plot involves Hercules going to a training camp and being a complete dick.  Aphrodite- aka the only chick in this film- is assigned to protect him...so she sends him to a training camp full of people, one of whom poisons him.

"Quick- I need to hide you from the assassins.  Let's go to Ford's Theater!"

So yeah, I watched this movie, but fast-forwarded through all of the scenes that were just the guys posing and/or running.  This is just a glimpse of what I glossed over.  Enjoy, some people in my audience.

Weird aside: this guy does Capoeira moves in his routine?  Looks neat, but YOU ARE FROM ANCIENT GREECE!  Douche.

So, get this, Aphrodite is charged with protecting Hercules (or Heracles if you know shit about history).  To that end, she makes a potion to make him less conceited (no, really).  This is immediately dosed with poison by a villain.

You were born from the sea foam created by Uranus' severed balls..of fail.

 Hercules is poisoned by a toxin that makes him lose his strength.  It won't kill him...apparently.  He learns about humility and decides to fight the villain- who has University of Texas tattoos- to the death.

After the world's worst sword fight- seriously!-, the villain dies and all is well.  Hera just kind of gives up, since she ran out of Xanax.

Wait- this is only 59 minutes.  We need to hit 70 minutes somehow!  

 Quick- more posing!  That will fill out the run-time.  Hurray!  The End.

So that was...not a movie.  Yeah, this doesn't really qualify for a number of reasons.  For all the jokes that we on the Internet make about Twilight constantly ripping off Taylor Lautner's shirt to appeal to 'the ladies,' they don't waste five minutes with him and the other Werewolves posing.  As I type that, I actually wonder why that didn't happen.  Regardless, it does happen in this film.  Actually, it would be more accurate to say that 'a little story happens during this posing' instead.  Seriously, I fast-forwarded through all of the posing footage- I'm not that crazy- and basically watched a 25-minute 'film.'  If you take out the padding shots of the RUINS of Greece, it's a bit less still.  Seriously, why so shots of RUINS of Greece in a film that's totally set there.  By 'set there,' I mean 'shot at the same L.A. Beach House that every 1313 film is shot at,' of course.  They really don't do much to disguise this either, as they show a Palm Tree wrapped in Christmas lights (see below) in a number of shots.  I guess DeCoteau and the D.P. were just too distracted by man-abs to actually check for continuity.  You want to know what the worst part is?  I watched this due to Lou Ferrigno Jr. being in it?  Who does he play?  THE VOICE OF ZEUS!  So yeah, I kind of screwed myself here.  If this review taught you anything, it's that I make very poor life choices.  Hurray?

Next up, a film that missed the cut back in Old vs. New Week.  It's the end of the World as we know it...so a bunch of teenagers have sex.  Stay tuned...

3 Year Anniversary: 976 Evil vs. 976 Evil II

Let's mix things up a bit, shall we?  Thanks to the random shake-up over at Netflix HQ, a whole bunch of random films are suddenly in my Queue for the first time in years.  One of those films was 976 Evil, the Directorial debut of Robert Englund.  Lo and behold, this gave me a pretense to finally watch 976 Evil II, a film that has been haunting my Instant Queue for months.  Which one would I review though?  Was either one of them important enough to suffice?  I know- I'll do them both.  It's important to look at these together, since the latter is not made by Englund.  No, the sequel comes to us courtesy of Jim Wynorski, the man behind such classics as Deathstalker II, The Return of Swamp Thing and Cleavagefield.  Yes, that is a real movie.  Which one of these films is better though?  Is the original superior or does the sequel up the ante in all of the right ways?  To find out more, read on...won't you?...

Let's start with the big match-up: the Monster.  While the true evil in the film is Satan or whoever is running the phone service, he/she/it works through these guys...

Not to take anything away from the monstrous Dean from II, the original Monster wins this one.  He has back-story, even if it is silly.  His descent into evil- while oddly-paced- is actually believable.  The other one- he's just kind of crazy.

Next up, a comparison between two of the random kills.  It all boils down to spiders vs remote-control car work...

The scene in the first movie is interesting, but a bit confusing.  Our villain turns to magic abruptly and does some spell with spiders...before the woman dies of a heart attack.  In II, he controls the Attorney's car and causes her to crash into a power station.  It loses on logic, but wins on silliness!

How is the actual baddy of the film though?  The Monster is neat and all, but he's only part of the equation.  Who's the real villain...

To 976 Evil's credit, they do somewhat address this by way of having Robert Picardo running the phone.  In the sequel, it's...well, a phone.  They never show the real villain.  In fact, we only hear him a few times.  Cop out!

Let's wrap up this comparison with the movies themselves and their own wrap-up scenes...

The original film has a silly, but interesting finale.  The evil kid opens a portal to Hell itself!  Ultimately, he falls into his own portal, apparently closing it in the process.  In contrast, 976 Evil II has an astral projection blow up a truck with a bomb...before it gets tossed off of a cliff.  It's very anti-climactic, kind of like this.  The End.

*****

Which one is the winner?  Not surprisingly, it's the original.  Let's get the good points out of the way for both films first.  The original film has some good effects, mostly in relation to the make-up work.  Some of the optical effects are not that good though- see the finale.  I liked the overall plot, even if the pacing was a bit off.  The second film has some cheeky humor and is chock full of ridiculous moments.  One such moment involves all of the random objects in the Dean's house coming to life and attacking our hero.  Another crazy moment involves our heroine's friend being sucked into the TV and being attacked by the zombies from Night of the Living Dead.  No, really.  Now on to the bad stuff.  976 Evil II is full of weird, random moments that make no sense.  The two scenes mentioned before are great examples.  This is just typical for Wynorski though.  Another thing is that the movie has some really-dated optical effects, often looking worse than in the original film.  It just comes off as being weird, random and full of silliness.  It also has an abrupt and dark ending, unexpected in a film like this.  The bottom line: watch both movies.  You'll find different reasons to like them both, but the original is just better in every way.  Stinger face-off...

Next up, another After Dark film.  This one involves a plot similar to House of Fears, but is not nearly as interesting.  Stay tuned...

Two Years of Mondo Bizarro: The Asylum's Freakshow (2007)

After two years, this is what I get!  One of my favorite films from the 1930s is Tod Browning's Freaks.  The man was on top of the world.  He had just made Dracula for Universal and was given the green-light to do whatever he wanted.  He chose Freaks.  The movie was looked upon badly by many people and was banned in the UK for 30 years!  For a long time, people said 'nobody could ever remake Freaks today!'  That was taken as a challenge in 2007 by a little company known as The Asylum.  Yes, those guys.  They made a film called Freakshow, which claims to have been banned in 43 countries.  Does anyone believe that this film was even released in 43 counties- let alone 3?!?  The plot is basically the same as the first one, save for a few minor tweaks.  By the way, there are no pinheads or bearded ladies here.  I guess one dwarf and a guy with no legs will suffice.  You know that it's going to hurt, so let's just step right in and see the...

So what has changed in this version?
* A group of thugs now work at the circus and concoct a plan to rob the owner, not the dwarf.
* The strongman is not bad in this one.
* There's a corrupt and weak-willed Sheriff character here that serves no purpose.
* The dwarf is not a major character here.  His actual character is not really here, to be honest.

* The new plot of the women seducing the owner is bogged down with a bunch of minor sub-plots, including some woman who feels threatened by her.  It goes nowhere.
* The dinner scene is the same, only not nearly as effective and missing the famous phrase.

* The real tipping point involves a pair of thugs killing a little girl who spots them in the act of a crime.
* All of the guys meet bloody- barely-shown- deaths.  However, that is in contrast to...
* The famous 'Revenge Ending' is maintained, but all of the torture is shown.  In a nearly blood-less film, the finale involves a very-long torture scene!
* Instead of turning her into a 'chicken lady,' they just cut off all of her skin and make her...um, a mummy, I guess.

After over seventy years, things have gotten moldy!  The plot of this movie is mostly the same, but too many changes were put in that ruin it.  I love Freaks, but this is hardly the same film.  The whole 'normal humans are the real freaks' idea is maintained, but handled in such a bad way.  The criminals add nothing and their presence feels forced.  It's like when people suddenly try to explain the reason zombies rise from the grave in a Night of the Living Dead remake.  Oh right- they did that...twice (Night of the Living Dead: 30th Anniversary and Night of the Living Dead 3-D)!  Everything that made the movie interesting is either taken out (the presence of real circus performers) or done in such a way as to make it seem very-forced.  "A pair of corrupt people- too subtle.  A whole gang of them- much better!"  If you want to watch Freaks remade in some way, maybe Freakmaker is better.  I haven't seen it, but it's hard to imagine that it's worse than this uneven, (quite frankly) boring film.

Next up, The Asylum strikes again with a movie whose title sounds goofy as all hell.  Since they hate logic, this film is treated 100% seriously!  Stay tuned...

*By the way, if you're waiting for my review of Shakma- don't hold your breath.  The movie just too 'eh' for me and this was more interesting*

Blockbuster Anniversary Trash: The 9/11 Commission Report (The Asylum's)

Yes, they went there.  I usually don't talk about stuff like this, but when I was reminded that this movie existed, I had to talk about it.  Part of your understanding here has to be based on a reminder: The Asylum make bad movies.  Some of them are better than they should be (e.g. I Am Omega) or have enjoyable actors in them (e.g. Transmorphers: Fall of Man), but most of them suck!  They've tried to turn their reputation into that of a company that makes kitschy films like Mega-Shark vs. Giant Octopus or Titanic 2 (yes, really), but they mostly make dull and/or painful films like Death Racers or Tokyo/Monster.  The biggest thing about them is that they make movies to capitalize off of upcoming *presumed to be* hit films.  This is amusing at times, but also leads to stuff like this.  Back in 2006, Oliver Stone wanted to make a memorial film about the tragedy that took place on 9/11/01.  Personally, I saw it as a bit tacky, but he was going in with a good heart.  The same could be said for the people behind United 93- another film I found to be tacky.  The Asylum's film is a cheap attempt to knock-off a film that arguably exploits a national tragedy- it's doubly-despicable!  So yeah, this is going to end well.  Get out your FICA Warrant for my review of...

This film is really just a series of random scenes of people talking.  What are they talking about, you ask?  Well, a man signs up for flight school and says cryptic things.  Nobody questions this until later, but it's not really all that notable.  A government agent talks cryptically about some operation.  An agent gets hired by that giant-nosed chick from Monster/Tokyo.  They talk about a government operation to kill Osama Bin Laden...while walking down a busy street in London.  How was this operation compromised again?!?  By the way, if you actually see this, count all the extras that nearly look right into the camera here.  Plus, check out the bit where a guy starts to walk in front of the camera and they suddenly change camera angles.  Seriously?

So yeah, we get more talking and, well, more talking.  They say things that could be interesting- like a woman explaining how killing Bin Laden is a viable option- but kill it with bad delivery and severely-muted acting.  I actually read a review from a British paper that talked about this containing 'The Asylum's best actors'- that's sad.  The big thing to note from the latter half of the movie is a very direct bias against 'Liberals.'  The FBI Agent wants to arrest the man taking flight classes, but those damn ACLU guys 'put a stop to that.'  My favorite part is where the random guy from Tokyo/Monster that helped the sisters outside and died off-camera plays a 'Democrat' who throws his authority in the Republican guy's face.  Yeah, remember all the authority they had in the year 2000 after Republicans took the White House & still controlled Congress.  Could you at least lie in a way that's feasible, guys?

By the way, I'm sure you're wondering- do they go there?  Here's the most they actually have the guts to do...

This movie is terrible!  It's pure, political exploitation that makes no damn sense.  The whole thing is hinged upon you believing their view of history.  It just doesn't synch up with, oh, reality!  On top of all that, the movie is just dull.  They pack a little action into the ending bit, I guess, but it's far too late.  This movie about political intrigue and the 'build-up' to the most tragic terrorist event in United States history is boring!  How can you do that?  The worst case scenario is that you play fast and loose with history (already done) in order to make action scenes occur.  Yeah, they don't do that.  If you think that the West Wing is too exciting for you, then this is your movie.  Unlike that show, the writing is terrible and just puts you to sleep.  This movie is just pointless and terrible.  How many 'terribles' are required for an Asylum film?  Just to cover my bases: terrible.

Next up, I celebrate 9/12 with a man more insane and dangerous than Glenn Beck.  Will his rally end the same way that his did?  Stay tuned...

One Year Anniversary!: Time Barbarians

After one full year and 559 posts, what else can I cover?  A lot, actually, but that's not the point.  To celebrate this once-a-year event, I need a film that symbolizes everything that Mondo Bizarro is about.  I need a weird movie- one whose plot is bizarre.  I need a funny movie- one whose production values are equal to that of a school play.  I need an obscure movie- something that most people would not even bother trying to track down.  Then it hit me: Time Barbarians!  This obscure little film from 1992 stars a former American Gladiator as a warrior who seeks vengeance wherever it takes him- even to the future!  Do I even need to say any more?  I mean, the movie is practically a rip-off of Beastmaster 2- a movie that was pretty bad to begin with.  Break out your Deloreans for my review of...

The film begins with pretty much zero explanation.  We have some woods, a muscular guy and a different muscular guy in a mask.  The latter is supposed to be crazy- as evidenced by his constant laughing.  Well, it's either that or he's the long-lost son of the crazy boat captain from Frankenstein Island.  The two of them fight and boy is it...average at best.  They sword fight like men who just learned it for the movie and toss it some halfhearted judo moves to 'spice things up.'  Guys, when your fight choreography is something me and my friends could pull off for our failed movie (Highlander: Heritage), you should feel bad.  The good, bulky guy wins and takes the man's mask.  While walking back, he sees a pretty woman in a two-piece lady barbarian outfit and decides to stalk her.  After about five minutes of this, they fight and he knocks her down...only to take off his mask and reveal that it was his wife.  That's weirder foreplay than the couple who fake UFC-fought as foreplay in 2001 Maniacs.  I have to stop and mention the use of dry ice here which is rampant.  The shit is all over these woods for some reason & are actually seen more often than lens flares in the recent Star Trek films!  Our hero is the King of a small tribe of villager who seem to number about twenty people strong.  Geez, even I have more followers than that!  All is not well, however, as an evil villain named Mandrak lurks in the shadows.  When our hero and his friend go off to hunt, he attacks a group of woman at the river- two of which are randomly topless.  They kill all of them save for the Queen, who gets captured.

Right before the end of the fight, our hero feels a shard pain with that of his wife.  Why?  Good question.  He says that he has to help her and runs back home.  While he does this, our heroine is raped (they show nothing) and killed by the villain after she spits on him.  Yes, taunt the man with a knife to your throat, honey!  He leaves and our hero arrives the next morning.  Despite being wounded during the day, the other woman lives long enough to tell him what happened and die instantly.  She also gives them the cut-off hand of the villain, which proves useful later.  At the Queen's funeral, he vows to never rest until he kills Mandrak.  After a nice rest, he goes out the next morning to see the only wizard in the county.  He has to see her, you see, because the wife lost the magical amulet that apparently protects its wearer and their people.  In case you were wondering, she did not stop to put it on for the fight.  While they are out, a group of people attack him and his companion.  This is revenge for that pointless sword fight in the beginning.  Outnumbered, the man's companion is killed and he is captured.  That night, the wizard appears before our tied up hero and she is pissed.  She explains that she held the amulet for centuries- despite a story earlier about it being in his family since his grandfather- and that she will curse his tribe if he does not return it.  She sets him free after her speech and gives him a sword that allows him to travel forward in time to catch our villain.  Well, it worked in Darkest Knight 3!

In the present day...of 1992, a lady reporter (played by the same actress who played the Queen) is attacked during the taping of a story about rampant gang violence.  Thanks for the subtle irony, movie!  Our hero pops out of...well, nothing and saves the day.  All of this is caught on tape by the lady's cameraman who pines after the lady.  Yeah, good luck with that, now that Malibu is in town.  Faster than you can say 'steroids,' he beds the woman due to her similarity to his dead Queen.  His heroics make the news and alert his two time-strewn enemies to his presence.  Since these guys are complete wusses, their first act is to buy guns from a man who foolishly sells loaded weapons to people he does not know.  Guess what happens to him?  The villains attack the station owner and shoot him in the head, although he lives long enough to warn the cameraman who shows up too late to help...again.  They show up at her apartment and get their asses kicked until they shoot the hero in the shoulder.  Don't worry- he gets better.  Before they can kill him, he pulls out his film-edit/magical sword, but they kidnap the woman.  He leaves his henchman behind, however, who feels when he learns that our muscular hero can block bullets with a broadsword!  They figure out where the bad guy is due to some matchsticks in his pocket- sigh.  At his base, the villain shoots at our hero, who does  the same trick again.  After a short fight, the man is killed and our hero returns to his past.  The End.

Yeah, this movie is not good.  It's a low-budget action movie with bad acting, bad writing and a silly premise.  On top of that, the whole time-travel aspect really only takes place in the third act.  At least Beastmaster 2 got to the point a little bit quicker!  Our star- Deron McBee- never broke out of the action movie mold he was placed in.  The reason for this is obvious when you watch the movie.  On the plus side, he did get roles in both Anna-Nicole Smith's Skyscraper and Mortal Kombat: Annihilation.  Our villains, on the other hand, are no match for the hero.  Hell, they barely manage to take out the barbarian women!  The whole thing is very anti-climactic and could have served a dozen or so people to serve as fodder.  Our villain barely has enough henchmen to help him move into a small apartment, let alone rule a kingdom.  This movie is stupid and worthy of its obscurity.  That said- if you like stupid films, this is pretty fun to laugh at.

Up next, an obscure horror film about a creepy hotel, a German festival and Barbara Bach.  It's...something.  Stay tuned...