Blood Feast Inc. ‘zine

Posted on October 23, 2013 by deadthyme

Blood Feast Inc is both a music and horror movie ‘zine (tho this particular issue seems to have more music stuff in it). The music is (at least in this issue) mostly metal and industrial, and tho there are a bunch of reviews scattered throughout the issue, it focuses on several longer music reviews rather than a whole bunch of shorter ones (like most ‘zines). It also has several horror movie reviews, and this issue features interviews with make-up artist Julie Cimperman, as well as the bands SKREW, DEAD WORLD, MERCYFUL FATE, CHEMLAB, and DISINCARNATE. There’s also news, a page of weird facts, and articles on the ‘concerned parent’ phenomonon, Conrad Veidt, and collecting monster models. All in all a nice little ‘zine. Look at some pages here:

From Beyond the Grave

Posted on October 21, 2013 by deadthyme

the VHS cover is a bit more sensational than the movie itself

It’s strange what can draw a person to a movie, or repulse them as well. Take this movie, for example. Put out by Amicus, who did a lot of anthology movies around the late ’60s and early ’70s (such as Dr. Terror’s House of Horrors and Tales From the Crypt), it was directed by their in-house director Kevin Connor (At the Earth’s Core, Motel Hell; tho this was his first movie for them) in workmanlike fashion without much style or flair, but enough talent to develop an entertaining movie. What puts it over the top and makes it more enjoyable is the performances. They lift this movie away from being a silly, mediocre early ’70s British horror quickie (of which there are plenty) and turn it into, well, maybe not quite a classic, but an enjoyable watch.

As mentioned above, it’s an anthology, featuring 4 stories (plus a wrap around story to tie them all together). It details what happens to several dishonest customers who come into an antique shop named Temptations Ltd, which is run by Peter Cushing, looking rather haggard and older than he really was (his wife had passed away just a year or two before filming, which was very hard on him), but charming and gentlemanly as ever (Cushing brings something extra to most any role he played, but he seemed almost born to play this role- he is perfect in it). His performance anchors the film, but it’s complimented by several of Britain’s finest actors.

In the first story, the always reliable David Warner fast-talks him into selling a valuable mirror very cheaply, which turns out to hold the spirit of a dangerous being who demands to be fed… with blood This story is hampered by not having enough time to breathe and create suspense, and a pace that’s way too fast. It’s probably the weakest story of the bunch, and even Warner can’t really save it from being a bit bland.

The second segment is probably the best one, in which a worm of a man stuck in a loveless marriage with a shrew (played by Diana Dors, who was also in Theatre of Blood with Vincent Price) befriends a down on his luck ex-military man (a nicely restrained Donald Pleasance) selling matches on the street corner. He steals a medal from Temptations Ltd to impress the ex-serviceman, who invites him over for tea, and to meet his daughter (played by his real life daughter Angela Pleasance). Things are not as they seem, tho, and everyone gets what’s coming to them.

The third story is a comedy, and a showcase for the entertainingly hammy talents of Margaret Leighton, a British theatre actress who never did much on screen. She plays an eccentric medium who spies a homocidal (and invisible) imp attached to the shoulder of a man who just came from ripping off Temptations Ltd for a silver snuff box, and tries to help him get rid of it.

The last tale, like the first one, suffers from being too short and being hurried along at too fast of a pace, and involves young couple who buy an antique door that sometimes opens a doorway into another world.

The storylines themselves are rather hokey and pedestrian, but the acting is outstanding. You end up liking a lot of these characters (or disliking some of them, as they are played to be unlikable), and wanting to see them interact with each other more. The set dressing and production values are also very nice, and provide a great atmosphere for the stories. Unlike rivals Hammer, Amicus didn’t soak their movies in gore and blood much, and this one is no exception- the violence and bloodletting is rather tame, and the overall feel of the whole thing is actually very quaint and charming. I find the old time urban British setting to be a nice place to visit on screen, which makes the whole thing even more appealing.

So, to sum it all up, From Beyond the Grave is not a masterpiece, but is a nice little charming horror anthology that would go good on a cold October night with hot chocolate and peanut butter crackers (or whatever your snack of choice might be).

Chain Saw Confidential: How We Made the World’s Most Notorious Horror Movie

Posted on October 17, 2013 by deadthyme

What can you say about the Texas Chain Saw Massacre (the 1974 original) that hasn’t already been said? It’s been studied, broken down, copied, and intellectualized to death, and the general consensus among both horror fans and art fans is that it is one of the most important films in movie history.

Despite it’s legacy being watered down by a slew of sequels and remakes of dubious quality (let’s be honest- most of them outright sucked), it’s still one of the only horror movies inducted in the Museum of Modern Art in New York and began at least 3 or 4 horror movie trends in the United States (group of teenagers being preyed on by killers, crazy homicidal rednecks, a killer who wears a scary mask, and the final girl trope). So it’s fans already know a lot of the stories and rumors surrounding it- about the horrible conditions it was filmed under (including incredible heat and dangerous stuntwork that injured several of the actors and crew), the grueling 27 hour dinner scene shoot, the real carcasses and roadkill that made up (and stunk up) the set dressing, and all the financial troubles and Mafia double-dealing it underwent after it was released. A lot of the actors refused to talk about it for years because of the pain they went through and the lack of financial compensation they received. Many of them are still angry about it (I incensed Ed Neal (who played the Hitchhiker) at a convention one year asking about it, and he became more and more angry and agitated as he tried to explain it (the “moving decimal point”, as he calls it, wherein the more fingers that are in the pie, the farther the decimal point moves to the left in the amount of money him and the other cast members receive). To say there were a lot of hard feelings would be an understatement.
There was a story a few years ago in the convention circuit that Tobe Hooper (the director of the movie) was terrified of Gunnar Hansen, who played Leatherface (the main killer) and that anytime both of them were booked to do the same convention, Tobe would cancel. He also would not do the commentary for the Texas Chain Saw Massacre dvd at the same time as Gunnar without someone else there because he was afraid to be alone with him. Now, that same Gunnar Hansen has written a book detailing his experiences making The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, and it’s a fascinating read.

After paraphrasing Herman Melville, he begins at the beginning of his involvement with the movie, and tells how he got the part of Leatherface and the things he did to prepare for it. He describes most of the key scenes in order and gives little asides and tidbits of information about them. His writing style is very to-the-point and matter of fact, and he discusses and debunks (and verifies) a lot of rumors and myths that have been told and believed about the movie and the making of it for years. It’s all told from his point of view, however he did interviews with all of the surviving principle cast and crew (except for Tobe Hooper, which lends more weight to the thought that there is some bad blood between them. He does not, however, speak ill of Tobe (for the most part) and does quote an interview done with him from 2008 for thoughts from his side of the story) and has quotes from them, as well as several members of the horror community such as Stuart Gordon, John Landis, and Doug Bradley (who all have thoughts on the legacy of the Texas Chain Saw Massacre). He also talks about how the film was received, the reviews both good and bad (“a vile little piece of sick crap”), and goes into details about the distributing fiasco and Mafia dealings (and manages to not sound too bitter about the whole situation).

He dedicates a few chapters at the end to various thoughts on horror, the horror movie, how the Texas Chain Saw Massacre fits into the horror movie history, and censorship (which will probably be preaching to the converted, with most of the likely readership of this book). Most Chain Saw fans probably already know a lot of these stories, but it’s good to have them verified by someone who was there and all in one place, so that when someone tells you they were in prison with the guy that Leatherface was based on you can tell them they’re full of shit and have this book to prove it (since he was barely loosely based on Ed Gein, and most of the story was totally made up).

This is a great book to read for anyone interested in horror movies, or even just indie/ guerrilla filmmaking. At just 234 pages (including 16 pages of photos), it’s a fast read as well. Definitely recommended.

Machete Kills

Posted on October 15, 2013 by deadthyme

Last week, in my review of Argento’s Dracula 3D, I wrote: “For me, there are 3 basic levels that I can enjoy a movie on. The first level is how good it is. The acting, story, cinematography, direction, and originality of it. Is it clever? Charming? Interesting? Does it have anything to say? Some movies knock several of these out of the ball park, and those are great movies.
If it fails the first level, then we drop down to the second level- does it have at least one or two of the above things done well enough that it makes up for lacking in the others? There’s a lot of fairly bad movies that can at least craft a good atmosphere, or have a clever twist, or good comic timing; something cool about it.
Failing the above two levels, the last one is if it’s at least entertaining in some way. Is it fun? Over the top? Charismatic? Does it pack a ton of crazy shit in it to make up for the bad story and acting? Or is it at least so bad it’s ridiculous, and therefore fun to laugh at?”.
Machete Kills is totally a 100% perfect example of the third level. It has everything (except subtlety and realism)- more beheadings and machete kills than any Friday the 13th, crazy, over the top violence and characters, tough ass chics, a wild sense of humor, disembowelments, death by helicopter blade, boob guns, a laser that when you’re shot by it turns you inside out, gratuitous everything, someone getting shot about every 45 seconds, and Tom Savini. So tho it’s not exactly a well put together cinematic cultural treasure, it’s entertaining and fun.

It did T E R R I B L E at the box office, but I recommend it. I saw it at a bargain matinee, and I didn’t feel like I wasted my money. You just have to have a good sense of humor and be in the mood for an over-the-top fun goofy violent grindhouse movie.

The story is about Machete Cortez, who fights evil, corruption, and the Mexican drug cartels every chance he gets. When a terrorist with a nuclear bomb aims it at the White House, the President (Charlie Sheen) calls him up to go kill the terrorists. He runs into trouble when the terrorist turns out to have a split personality (one good and one bad personality) and wires the bomb into a heart monitor that will send it off to the White House if his heart rate stops. They also have to deal with a gang of heavily armed angry prostitutes and am assassin named El Camelion who can change his appearance almost to a supernatural degree (played by Waltor Goggins (from Predators and Django Unchained), Cuba Gooding, Jr, and Lady Gaga), before they finally meet the nefarious mind who masterminded the whole thing.

You can’t take this movie seriously, of course. It’s along the lines of absolutely awesome movies like The Toxic Avenger and Street Trash, only a lot cleaner (and with more money and cgi, so not as cool). It’s unbelievable and over the top and funny, and I enjoyed it (I liked it better than the first Machete, or director Robert Rodriguez’s grindhouse tribute he did with Quentin Tarantino Grindhouse, which I liked ok (mostly for the stuff before and between the movies). It could have used a little more substance, instead of blowing from one zany action piece to another (just a nice moment here and there for it to all sink in), and was a little preachy in a couple of places (but not too bad or unwarranted), but entertaining enough for the likes of me.

It’s too bad it did so bad at the box office with all the crap out there that should be doing worse, but you know what they say. There’s no accounting for taste…

October Horror Reviewzine-A-Thon 1 (feat Psycho Video, City Morgue, & Lifestyles of the Bodily Dismembered)

Posted on October 14, 2013 by deadthyme

What do people want to do in October? Most people I know get ready for Halloween, in many different ways. Personally, I like to watch more horror movies than usual, and listen to spooky music and look at Halloween areas in stores, post creepy art, stuff like that. I believe most people agree on the watching horror movies bit, at least (more horror movies are released and consumed this time of year than any other). But the question is, what movies do you want to watch? For every good horror movie, there are tons of bad and mediocre ones. Why go into it uninformed when so many people passionate about their horror (as well as gore/ sleaze/ trash/ exploitation films) love to tell about them?

The next question is where do you want to read about them? Who’s opinion do you trust? There are hundreds of blogs and websites dedicated to reviewing and discussing these kinds of movies, but for real passion, you need to go back to the days of underground ‘zine publishing, when you had to really make an effort to find a good off-the-beaten-path movie. Making a blog is easy- the people putting out these ‘zines had to take a lot of time and money to get their love of horror and exploitation movies out to a viewing public. So to help you find some good movies to rent this Halloween, I’m going to present 3 old relics of the underground reviewzine publishing era.

At PMT, we usually focus on ‘zines that have more in them than just reviews (interviews and thoughtful articles, filmographys and things like that). But there were also movie reviewzines around back then, that were 99% nothing but movie reviews without all the articles and claptrap to get in the way of telling you how much a movie ruled or sucked. Movie reviewzines were incredibly prevalent in the late ’80s/ early ’90s, and I have a ton of them. Most of them were pretty mediocre, without much style or knowledge put into them. Most of them also reviewed all the same movies. The best you could hope for was one that had at least a couple of reviews of movies you hadn’t seen or heard of and could seek out.
Some, however, worked hard to write interesting reviews and had writers and editors with colorful personalities who you enjoyed reading. Usually these were also put out fairly often, and were smaller and cheaper (around a dollar each or even free). Many of these went on to become well known in the underground film ‘zine scene, and transformed into more than mere reviewzines. Titles such as Gore Gazette, Stink, and Psychotronic Video (all of which started out local in NYC, being given away free or cheap in the Times Square area, where they showed a lot of these movies) got their start as thin (sometimes one page) reviewzines. You got to know the writers and it was more like a (possibly drunk) friend telling you their take on whatever movies were being reviewed that month.

This month, to help you guys choose your movies to watch for October, I’m going to pick a bunch of reviewzines of varying degrees of temperment and literary competency from my big box of them at random, and put them up on PMT so you, the reader, will have plenty of reviews from the bygone trashy era to peruse at your leisure. I don’t know where these writers are now, but their reviews live on from beyond the trash heap to inform and inspire.

The first one we’re going to focus on is one of the better ones- Psycho Video vol. 1, #5. Most of the reviews were long and involved, but still written from a non-academic (and non-pretentious sounding) angle. The staff all had a great sense of humor (notice their reaction to getting slagged pretty hard in the great (and sorely missed) Film Threat magazine in this issue), and this ‘zine had a lot more reviews of movies I had not seen or heard of than most of the reviewzines out at the time (I still haven’t seen a lot of the movies reviewed in this issue).
Above average. Here’s some pages:

____________________________________________________________________

This next one is far more typical of your average reviewzine- Lifestyles of the Bodily Dismembered (nice name, tho). The reviews are amateurishly written, and very little attempt at literacy or trivia dropping or even spelling and punctuation has been made. The main difference between this one and other reviewzines are the band interviews. The movies reviewed are fairly typical but there are a few lesser known ones in there. I believe it was mostly distributed in the St Paul, Minn area. It features several longer, more in depth reviews of movies they liked, and a whole bunch of short, blurb type reviews that don’t waste your time for movies they weren’t as impressed with.

____________________________________________________________________

Lastly, we have City Morgue #5, a mean spirited and nasty little reviewzine from Michigan. Most ‘zines I have more than one issue of, but I only have this one single issue of City Morgue, so I can’t comment on how it evolved. I can say that the editor comes off as a bit of a sexist/ racist cretin (which is probably why I only got one issue), trying to sound gruff and anti-P.C. (aping people like Rick Sullivan and especially Nick the Yak (he even says Nick’s line he used to use all the time “It’s your money!”)) but coming off as pretty pathetic. Most of the movies reviewed (with a couple of exceptions) are the same ones most everyone reviewed around that time. Here’s a few pages for your perusal:

__________________________________________________________________

Hopefully you read some reviews and found some new movies to watch (or avoid) for the Halloween season. Or at the least, got to see some more exhibits in the history of post modern trashaeology preserved in all their harsh, misspelled, imperfect and borderline racist (at times) glory…

Reptilicus (1961)

Posted on October 13, 2013 by deadthyme

Recently, I found myself in the mood to watch a giant monster movie, but not one that I had seen in recent memory. That left out most of the Godzilla and Toho films; most of the Asian monster movies in general. It also left out the Beast From 20,000 Fathoms, King Kong, and most any American made one as well (and let’s not forget the British Gorgo, which just got reissued on blu ray several months ago). Then I remembered when I was a kid liking an old creature feature named Reptilicus. I couldn’t remember much about it, so I did a little searching and found it pretty easily.

Unfortunately, my childhood memories had failed me, as the best thing about Reptilicus was it’s name. Reptilicus himself is not a bad looking monster, kind of resembling Toho’s Manda (but more snake-like), with tiny little legs and wings that he never uses (well, in the U.S. version anyway- more on that later). Rather than using stop-motion animation or a man in a suit (like most monster movies of the time), Reptilicus was a marionette. His body is usually hidden behind trees or houses, and he raises himself up and sways back and forth while spitting out toxic green goo (very badly dubbed onto the film) and getting shot by stock footage tanks and soldiers.

The first quarter of the movie is very talky and pretty slow moving (and contains some groan-inducing attempts at comedy mostly involving a goofy security guard (played by popular Danish comedian Dirch Passer)).

A group of miners dig up a frozen but bleeding tail from a prehistoric monster, which scientists quickly confiscate and begin to study. When the tail (accidently) gets thawed out, it starts regenerating and quickly becomes Reptilicus, who begins making his way across Denmark causing destruction and gooey green death. An uncharismatic and annoyingly overacting general co-ordinates mostly useless attacks against him until someone accidently says something that gives him an idea on how to take Reptilicus down involving ‘a gallon of drugs'(?).

filmed in glorious Schlock-o-rama!

When I was a kid I didn’t realize how Danish it was. There were actually 2 versions of the movie made, with 2 different directors but using the same script and monster (kind of like the 2 versions of the 1931 Dracula, except with Reptilicus they used almost all the same actors as well). The Danish version was in Danish and had a different actress playing one role, and the American version was in English and produced by schlockmasters A.I.P.. The two versions were slightly different- the Danish version had more character subplots, and Reptilicus could fly (for some reason, A.I.P. cut the flying scene out, even tho it looked about as good as anything else in the movie. Those interested can watch it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmurhZ0VE5I ). The American version added (badly) the green slime he shoots out of his mouth, and a scene where he eats a man (that is animated quite humorously, reminding me a little of the monster eating the man in the Cave of Death in Monty Python and the Holy Grail).

Obviously the intent was to make a rip off of Beast From 20,000 Fathoms, however this movie does not have the charm, talent, or money that one did, so it’s been regulated to the schlock bin of monster movie history, where it belongs. Watch it only after watching most of the much better movies I mentioned above.

Imaginator ‘zine #3

Posted on October 10, 2013 by deadthyme

This embrionic issue of Imaginator came out 15 years ago this month. The ‘zine went on to become a glossy, full color magazine with tons of articles and interviews, but this earlier issue was mostly filled with reviews, which were invaluable at that time (when there was no internet to look up movies on or found out about new or obscure ones). There were a lot of old horror and exploitation ‘zines that were nothing but reviews, but Imaginator put some articles in as well- ones on castration in movies, Godzilla in comics, several top ten lists from fellow ‘zine editors (including Gore Gazette’s Rick Sullivan), ‘zine reviews, and reader letters.

Here’s some pages for you to check out:

Argento’s Dracula 3D

Posted on October 7, 2013 by deadthyme

Before I watched this, I was wondering two things: 1) is it as bad as it looks (in the trailor) and as advanced word is saying; and 2) if it is that bad, will it at least be entertaining?

For me, there are 3 basic levels that I can enjoy a movie on. The first level is how good it is. The acting, story, cinematography, direction, and originality of it. Is it clever? Charming? Interesting? Does it have anything to say? Some movies knock several of these out of the ball park, and those are great movies.
If it fails the first level, then we drop down to the second level- does it have at least one or two of the above things done well enough that it makes up for lacking in the others? There’s a lot of fairly bad movies that can at least craft a good atmosphere, or have a clever twist, or good comic timing; something cool about it.
Failing the above two levels, the last one is if it’s at least entertaining in some way. Is it fun? Over the top? Charismatic? Does it pack a ton of crazy shit in it to make up for the bad story and acting? Or is it at least so bad it’s ridiculous, and therefore fun to laugh at?

I don’t think that Dario Argento has any movies that fall into the first catagory, but he has a lot that fall into the second one. Even on his best movies, you can’t really question the story or think about things too much, you just have to go where his stories take you, and enjoy the ride. Sometimes he is capable of making you want to do this, but several of his movies fall apart and are as big of a dopey mess as most of Rob Zombie’s oeuvre (tho a lot more of Argento’s fall into the third catagory- they’re silly and you can’t take them seriously, but unlike Zombie, Argento can take you on that ride and go over the top, which makes you want to go on the ride and not question or overthink things because it would ruin the fun).

So Dracula 3D definitely had the potential to be an entertaining and gory over the top ride (and the trailor certainly made it look like it might be- not good but a lot of fun). The cast that I recognized (Asia Argento and Rutger Hauer (who was in the schlocky and over the top Hobo With a Shotgun, which was great)) have both been in a lot of good movies, and as I mentioned before, Argento can pull off an entertaining, fun (and weird) ride.

Unfortunately, it’s not as fun as the trailor made it seem; but it’s also not as bad as people are saying. There are parts of it that are fun, and gory and over the top. But too few. It’s like a mash-up of Stoker’s original novel, his Dracula’s Guest story, and Dracula Has Risen From The Grave with bits of Coppola’s Dracula, Fearless Vampire Killers, and all the other Hammer Dracula films mixed in for good measure (it seems to be particularly influenced by Hammer). It does manage to create a good atmosphere at times (he’s brought back his Susperia director of photography Luciano Tovoli, who does a great job filming shadow and light and setting a mood), and the period set pieces and costumes are good (once again kind of a Hammer feel to them with the inn and village).

There’s a decent amount of blood and violence, and it moves along at a fast pace. That’s the good stuff. On the other hand, it’s quite silly in places. The CGI is barely passable to terrible. Most of the actors overact to a high degree, and the score, tho actually really cool and kind of creepy in a couple of places, is jarring, cheesy, and distracting most of the time (it actually sounds like a cross between the Fearless Vampire Killers score (good) and some really cheesy ’50s sci-fi alien invasion movie (bad)- I believe he might have actually copped some of the score to Tim Burton’s Mars Attacks for some of it). The 3D is pretty much unnoticeable- I forgot it was even in 3D (except when I had to pay more). Worst of all, it looks like a film anyone could have made (other than Argento’s obsession with insects- did you know Dracula could turn into a giant praying mantis, or a bunch of flies, or evidently most any bug he wants? Where’s Jennifer Connelly when you need her?).

It’s not very stylized. The story is slightly changed from the original story of Dracula, but it follows all the beats pretty closely, and doesn’t really have much to offer in the way of style and originality (he should have remade the classic tale as a giallo with Dracula as a black gloved serial killer. Play to your strengths).

Argento just turned 73 years old, and I’m glad he’s doing more than sitting in a rest home molesting nurses. I also am definitely not against a schlocky version of Dracula, but it needed more style and more blood and guts and charisma to compete with the true schlocky classics. Too bad (tho it did still entertain me more than Francis Ford Coppola’s Dracula)..

Godvomit ‘zine #3

Posted on October 4, 2013 by deadthyme

Here is the third issue of Godvomit ‘zine. A couple of notes before you look at it:

1) A couple of pages are a little bit messed up, because it came out in early ’92 (over 20 years ago), so things like this happen. This issue isn’t too bad.

2) I put out this issue (well, all of the Godvomits) in the early ’90s. This was before we had Lollapalooza, MINISTRY, the BUTTHOLE SURFERS, NARILYN MANSON, or even NIRVANA out on the radio and television- if you weren’t alive at that time, you don’t understand how repressed everything was. Anything ugly, dark, even mildly offensive, “controversial”, or in bad taste was terribly looked down upon, and pushed to the side, ignored or censored. The religious right ruled everything. One of the things that I was trying to accomplish with this ‘zine was to offend these people- I thought everyone was too oversensitive, and that you shouldn’t ignore or hide the ugliness in the world. So I filled the ‘zine with ugly, offensive, upsetting, dark, disturbing things- I always said “Those who get offended easily should be offended more often, so they get desensitized to it”. I was trying to do this- desensitize people to offensive things as well as piss off the religious right and the people trying to censor everything. So it’s more than just an underground music magazine. It’s a direct attack on censorship and good taste.
Nowadays, things are different- the sickos won. Things are a lot more loose and free and it’s not as necessary to overload the world with dark and depraved shit. You can find crazy underground movies and music easily on youtube, and artists are always pushing the envelope farther (although the ridiculous hubbub over Miley Cyrus’ rather tame shenanigans kind of makes me question this a little- maybe we are going back toward the more repressed era?).
Anyway, it kinda goes without saying that kids probably shouldn’t look at this (well, their parents probably shouldn’t, anyway. The kids have probably watched and laughed at Two Girls One Cup 20 times by now). Stay sick…

Frankenstein’s Army (2013)

Posted on October 3, 2013 by deadthyme

A group of Soviet military misfits become lost in Germany near the end of the second world war. Tho they’ve lost communications with the Red Army, they pick up a distress call from another group of fellow Soviets, and track it to a small town. Along the way they begin to find bodies that are not normal- German soldier’s with strange bone growths and other modifications.

When they get to the town, they discover that it is mostly deserted, but occupied by a madman and his hideous creations- men stitched with machinery to make war creatures for the final battle raging across Europe.

I liked this movie quite a bit, however there are two caveats to my joy in it (and one that might be a deal breaker to some people). Let’s get the big one out of the way- this is a first person found footage type of film, and furthermore it’s supposed to take place in World War II, so if you don’t like the found footage style of filming, or cannot suspend your disbelief enough to accept that the means to make a found footage film in those days is possible, you probably won’t get into the movie. Tho the found footage trend has become tiresome, there are enough good movies out there that use that format to not make me disregard completely every movie that is released in that style. And tho I’d like to see Frankenstein’s Army filmed in a straight filmmaking style, this actually works pretty well.

The second caveat is that it starts out a bit underwhelming with a fairly slow build up and characters that are (mostly) unlikable and hard to sympathize with, as well as trying to film war scenes on an obviously threadbare budget,

But all of that ceases to matter much when it gets good (about 35 minutes in). After they reach the village and the shit starts hitting the fan, I found myself quite enjoying the steampunk-esque monsters (with great, unique designs and all practical FX) and mad scientist descendent of the original Dr. Frankenstein (played brilliantly by Karel Roden (who I only know from a few Guillermo del Toro movies)).

I’ve always liked stories where a group comes across the carnage left by (or left of) a previous group, and has to piece together what happened to them. This one has this in spades- not only do they have to figure out what happened to the Soviet group who sent out the distress call, they also have to figure out what happened to most of the townspeople, and the rest of their own group (once they get separated). It’s cool seeing people who were previously friendly return as monsters.

I guess the only other quibble I’d have is that it turns very first person shooter video game looking near the end, when the cameraman is exploring the doctor’s base. Running down hallways and around corners until he come across a monster, who inevitably throws it’s arms up and howls and starts chasing him. But I still quite enjoyed this overall, and the make up and designs are outstanding. I guess I’m just a sucker for a good monster and creepy set dressing (and practical/ non-CGI effects).

It just came out on DVD (I don’t think it ever went to any theaters), so it shouldn’t cost much to check out. It’s definitely worth a look.

Post Modern Trashaeology

excavations in non-pop culture