Cronos

Cronos

1993

Directed by Guillermo del Toro

This is the first feature film of Mexican director Guillermo del Toro's so-far uneven career. On the one hand, he directed the superb dark fantasy/historical drama Pan's Labyrinth, and I heard that the similarly-themed The Devil's Backbone was also quite good. On the other, he was responsible for the terrible Hellboy II: The Golden Army (don't believe the hype, people, it was a complete travesty) and its middling predecessor, as well as such mediocre fare as Mimic and Blade II. A special-effects whiz and so-called "visionary" filmmaker, del Toro has scored a ton of fans with his unique brand of fantastical faeries and beasts, and some creepier fare as well. But personally, I feel that the content of his films struggles to keep up with their visual inventiveness. I think that being pegged as a visionary has set up the expectation that he will continue to wow audiences with special effects, but the brilliance of Pan's Labyrinth suggests that he can do so much better than, say, completely burying the beloved Hellboy comic series beneath a goofy storyline whose sole purpose is to serve as a vehicle for a series of goofy goblins, ogres, elementals and faeries of his own devising. I mean, he didn't even make any attempt whatsoever to stay true even to the basic tone and style of Hellboy!

But this isn't a review of Hellboy. On to Cronos. What can I say about this one? I'll start by noting that I was rather disappointed. I was expecting a dark horror fantasy, but Cronos is just plain silly. Sure, it starts off well, with an aging antiques dealer named Jesus Gris coming across an ancient device that grants immortality to its posessor. The only thing is, it turns you into a vampire, more or less. Not at first, to be sure. The story is typically Faustian; the Cronos device begins by making Jesus feel younger and more vigorous. He quickly becomes reliant upon the device. It's an old story and its been told better elsewhere. His young daughter tries to stop him from using the device, but it's too late. The other plotline involves a rich but terminally ill, crusty old bastard, a cartoonish Claudio Brook as De la Guardia. For obvious reasons he wants the Cronos device for himself, and he elects his thuggish, plastic-surgery-obsessed nephew Angel to "acquire" it from Mr. Gris. Ron Perlman is bafflingly cast as Angel. His performance is atypically ridiculous - I really don't know what to make of it. At one point, he even affects the old evil "muwahahahahaha!!!" laugh; I have no idea if it's supposed to be a parody or not. Every scene with him in it is rendered absurd by his cheesy performance. I don't say this lightly because I normally like Ron Perlman!

For what appears to be a horror film, Cronos is damnably slow. It plays out more like an amateurish moral allegory. The story is boring and frequently ludicrous. Really, the only interesting thing going on is del Toro's visual flair, on display even at this early stage in his career. The Cronos device itself looks pretty cool, especially shots of the various mechanical goings-on inside. There's also a pretty amusing scene where Jesus rises from the grave. Makeup effects are decent if not amazing. Basically, you can see the groundwork that would eventually lead to much better and more entertaining movies.

Even if you're a del Toro fan, damn you, I wouldn't really recommend Cronos. It's not awful, but it's terribly blase. All I have to say to you, Mr. del Toro, is you had better not fuck with The Hobbit! I'm watching you!! It does not need any "improvements" from you. If I see a single creature that you made up yourself, I'm going to hunt you down, man! Am I allowed to say that? I'm not really going to hunt you down, Guillermo... just... cool your jets. I know you can't help yourself. You're thinking, "oh come on... Tolkien wouldn't mind if I insert just one no-face monster with eyes where they're not supposed to be..." But no, just no. Don't do it. People are gonne be really angry. They're going to give you the Evil Eye and you're gonna have to burn a weirdo special rock on your stove all the time to ward off the bad vibes. Okay, okay, I'm done.

4.3

NOTE: Cronos bears no relation whatsoever to the detail of Francisco Goya's similarly-titled painting, above; but it's way cooler than anything you're going to see in the movie.

The Brood

The Brood

1979

Directed by David Cronenberg

David Cronenberg is one of Canada's few auteurs. With a solid output of creepy and very unconventional horror, sci-fi, and dramas, Cronenberg should really be more popular than he is. I guess he just sort of falls somewhere in between conventional genre fans and a rather squeamish mainstream audience that can't seem to warm up to his work.

The Brood is a flawed but mostly excellent thinking man's psychological horror film. Reading the description on the back of the box, you might think you know what to expect from it, but that's not really the case. This was one of Cronenberg's earliest films, obviously he was working on a smaller budget than later classics like The Fly. Otherwise, many of his hallmarks are here - a sharp, intelligent script, creepy and sometimes repulsive special effects, visceral scenes of violence. The only thing that mars the movie is somewhat limited acting performances; Cronenberg is usually able to draw the best out of his cast (Jeff Goldblum at his insane best in The Fly, Jeremy Irons' creepy, layered performance as twin gynecologists in Dead Ringers), but there is a lack of depth in the cast of The Brood.

The Brood is probably the closest Cronenberg got to directing a straight horror flick, with a deceptively simple plot. Dr. Hal Raglan (a glowering Oliver Reed) is a pioneer in the field of "psychoplasmics," a parapsychotherapeutic method involving drawing out patients' anger in metaphysical manifestations. He would seem like a quack except that what seems metaphysical actually turns out to be rather more physical. Manifesting itself as cancerous growth and skin affliction in some patients, psychoplasmics definitely redefines expressing one's inner rage. One of Dr. Raglan's patients is the disturbed Nola Carveth, unfortunately over-played by Samantha Eggar. When things start happening to people related to her, her separated husband Frank starts to investigate further, in the interest of protecting their daughter Candice - unexplained bruises start to appear on her, but Frank thinks it has something to do with his crazy-as-a-loon wife.

Cronenberg launches into a series of grisly and bizarro murders, perpetrated by... well, I won't ruin any surprises, I'll just say that they're creepy. Things just get weird from this point on. It's like he took a standard slasher concept and set it slightly askew. As Frank delves into psychoplasmics, he finds more pronounced versions of the manifestations of anger and self-loathing in the patients he meets. The film has a sort of minimalist production which fits the overall mood, but it carries over into Art Hindle's performance as Frank. He seems improbably credulous of the many shocking developments, including the brutal killings of relatives, police investigations, freaky creatures, injury to his daughter. In his situation, I would be flipping out. Still, considering most horror movie acting in the seventies, I guess I can't really complain much. These lapses were somewhat lessened by a few excellent performances from the supporting cast. Gary McKeehan is good as disturbed patient Mike Trellan, and Robert Silverman is just great as the wry and off-kilter Jan Hartog.

More unsettling than outright scary, you'll still probably jump more than once during The Brood. It can be easily appreciated as a straight horror film, but the themes it explores venture into the allegorical as well. This is probably the best thing about Cronenberg's work; uncompromising intelligence along with excellent special effects and engaging stories. Plus the odd scene or two that might make you want to hurl. He has been able to bring legitimacy to the horror genre like no other filmmaker I can think of. Hopefully the success of Eastern Promises and the superb A History of Violence prompts moviegoers to explore his sorely underrated earlier work.

7.5

Fantastic Mr. Fox

Fantastic Mr. Fox

2009
Directed by Wes Anderson

I've been highly anticipating Wes Anderson's screen adaptation of Roald Dahl's Fantastic Mr. Fox ever since I saw the first preview several months ago. Not only was it not a disappointment, it verily surpassed expectations.

Mr. Fox is something of a gentleman thief, stealing chickens from nearby farms with his wife, until they get busted. After having a child, Mrs. Fox forces her husband to leave his criminal past behind him and to seek legal employment. But the incorrigible Mr. Fox misses his old life of derring-do and falls off the wagon, with the help of his vacant and reluctant landlord. But he messes with the wrong farmers, and they aim to strike back with a vengeance.

I never read the book, unfortunately, but this movie has Anderson's fingerprints all over it. I read that it was originally supposed to be co-directed by The Nightmare Before Christmas animator Henry Selick, but he was tied up with Coraline. This left Anderson to his own devices. About the only thing I was worried about was that he might lay a big hipster boot-print on the face of Dahl's own comedic sensibilities - but apparently Anderson is a big Roald Dahl fan, and it seems to me that he didn't want to mess too much with a good thing. The result is that all the best elements of Anderson's wry, clever comedic touch are infused into an already hilarious story. I remember seeing Anderson's The Life Aquatic With Steve Zissou with my girlfriend, and we were frequently the only people laughing in a packed theatre. His frequently deadpan writing style and love of awkward moments definitely seems to alienate mainstream audiences, but I think that I can safely say that there is nothing alienating about Mr. Fox.


Another thing I've come to expect from and love about Anderson's work is his great attention to detail. Set design, wardrobe, lighting, even colour coordination are always hallmarks in his films, making them eminently watchable even when nothing much is happening. Having more or less free reign on Mr. Fox certainly seems to have brought out the best; I've never seen stop-motion animation quite like it. Used to the rougher style of Ray Harryhausen, the otherworldy stylings of Henry Selick, or the cartoonish "Wallace and Grommit" (all excellent in their own way), I was surprised at how organic everything looked in Mr. Fox. From the models for Mr. Fox and his cohorts, to the fabrics and other materials for the clothing and set pieces, everything looks great and surprisingly legit as well - tiny utensils, room decorations, paintings, furniture, carpets, floral arrangements, even some pretty hilarious "bandit hats".

The voice-acting is tops. George Clooney plays the dashing Mr. Fox with egomaniacal vigour. The supporting cast including Meryl Streep, Willem Dafoe, Jason Schwartzman, Bill Murray, Michael Gambon - I could go on - are excellent. The dialogue is often quite low-key and dignified, a comedic device Anderson employs in much of his work, but equal kudos to the cast for not overdoing things. It is, after all, a story about a gentleman fox; over-the-top emoting a la Jim Carrey would not suit this material.

So. Mr. Fox is probably not a loyal transcription of Dahl's original story. Some serious daddy issues, goofy existentialism, yoga, a knife-wielding rat - I kinda doubt this was all in the book. Some people want nothing less than complete faithfulness in a movie adaptation. I don't really see the point; why bother to watch the film then, if you have the book and they're both the same? For my money, I was totally satisfied. More than. Don't believe the naysayers. This is not a beloved children's story being ruined by hipster posteuring. It's a wildly successful meeting of two talented humourists, and a brilliant film by any standard. And yet... somehow I get the feeling that the box-office will not be kind to Fantastic Mr. Fox. It's a cussing shame.

9.7

Medieval Comedy Double Feature: The Princess Bride / Monty Python and the Holy Grail

This is a fake double-feature because I actually watched them separately, but I don't feel like making two posts, and they're kind of related.

The Princess Bride
1987
Directed by Rob Reiner

This is a really well-liked movie, apparently. Lots of people love it and it's even rated within the top 250 on IMDB. It's written by William Goldman, who wrote the screenplay for Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, and directed by Reiner, the writer of This is Spinal Tap. Andre the Giant is in it. Clearly, The Princess Bride has a lot going for it. Mostly everybody is familiar with it, but my girlfriend and I hadn't seen it, so I picked it up and we gave it a spin.


My first impression was that it wasn't as funny as I had been led to believe. Sure, it had its moments, but it's more of a charming fairytale with amusing moments than a straight spoof or a comedy. After I got over that, I found that there was a lot to like about The Princess Bride. To begin with, the cast is stellar and extremely well-chosen. Cary Elwes plays Westley, a poor farm-hand who falls in love with Buttercup, charmingly played by Robin Wright. In spite of their economic differences, they plan to marry; but Westley is said to be killed by pirates and Buttercup is selected to marry the pompous Prince Humperdinck (a detestable Chris Sarandon.) But Westley is not dead; in fact, he's taken on the job of the Dread Pirate Roberts, and he returns to reclaim his lost love. This is made difficult, as Buttercup is kidnapped by three mercenaries (the excellent trio of Andre the Giant as the soft-spoken Fezzik, a swashbuckling Mandy Patinkin as gentleman Spaniard Inigo Montoya, and a hilarious Wallace Shawn as the nefarious mastermind Vizzini.) Westley battles through a plethora of dangers, ranging from torture and fencing to partial paralysis and "rodents of unusual size."

Elwes is perfect as the daring Westley, and he has real chemistry with Wright. Patinkin is a standout as Inigo, a gentleman swordfighter trying to find his father's murderer; he adds some real pathos to the film, and his final confrontation with his sworn enemy (a dastardly Christopher Guest) has unexpected results. Patinkin and Andre the Giant make a surprisingly good comic duo - their rhyming scenes are awesome. Shawn steals a few scenes, especially one where he has to guess which cup Westley has poisoned in a contest of wits. The only weird thing is that the whole film is narrated as a fairytale novel by a grandfather (Peter Falk) to his grandson (Fred Savage.) Savage's interjections are sometimes off-putting and disrupt the flow of the story.




The movie chugs along amiably, tongue in cheek. There aren't a lot of surprises, as it is a fairly simple story; it would actually be rather dull if it weren't for the humorous tone and likeable characters. The Princess Bride is a typical happy-ending story, almost like an old Disney animated film brought to life. But Westley, Inigo, and Fezzik are all so gentlemanly and polite, even in the heat of battle, the movie takes on a refined quality.

For a straightforward fairytale film with relatively few complications, The Princess Bride is probably better than any other that springs to mind. Does this make it a great movie? I would say no. It's likeable and surely has a lot of character, but it could be funnier. I said earlier that it is amiable, but I'm almost tempted to say "merely amiable." It's hard to ask of anything more from The Princess Bride, but while it may be classy, it falls a little bit short of classic.

7.6


Monty Python and the Holy Grail
1975
Directed by Terry Gilliam and Terry Jones

After years of pioneering absurd and nonsensical humour in their show "Monty Python's Flying Circus", the Python gang (John Cleese, Terry Jones, Michael Palin, Graham Chapman, Eric Idle and animator Terry Gilliam) took on the medieval fantasy genre with what is surely one of the funniest films ever made. But will you enjoy this anglo humour if you aren't white? I have no idea. Mostly every non-white person I know who has seen anything Monty Python uniformly detests it. Why is that? And while I'm at it, what's with white people and cheese?

Cheese and racial considerations aside, the Pythons really outdid themselves with The Holy Grail. Irreverent, witty, metatheatrical, extremely silly, baffling and sometimes just plain stupid, it's truly a work of inspired lunacy. From the faux opening credits with ridiculous fake Norwegian subtitles focusing mainly on moose-training, to its abrupt and preposterous ending and exit music, there is hardly a single moment when you should not be laughing your ass off. You know you're off to a good start when, instead of riding a real horse, King Arthur (Chapman) pantomimes by skipping along while his servant follows behind, banging two halves of a coconut together. They find themselves accosted by two castle-dwellers who proceed to have a debate about how likely it would be for a coconut to be brought to England by a migratory swallow.

The rest of the film follows in a similar manner, sending up many of the legendary figures of Arthurian legend, as well as spoofing a great deal of medieval material. From anachronistically politically autonomous peasants to the fearsome Knights Who Say NI!, a sorceror named Tim to a song-and-dance number featuring preposterous Camelot rhymes (my favourite is "I have to push the pram a lot," sung in lovely baritone), and of course the greatest barrage of insults ever heard from a Frenchman, The Holy Grail is completely insane. Who would expect any less?

The Python crew clearly saw an incredibly low budget as not an obstacle, but an opportunity for more humour. The coconuts, to begin with - genius. And Gilliam's fantastic animated interludes standing in for potentially expensive action scenes are not only funny in and of themselves, but also for the fact that they are supposed to stand in for what would be a climactic scene in any blockbuster. In fact, there's only one scene that is painfully unfunny, featuring a bevy of amorous damsels and a reluctant Sir Galahad; the scene even features dialogue about how crappy it is - I think the Pythons just left if in there to fuck with you.

I don't know what else I can say about The Holy Grail and the Monty Python gang in general to win over the unimpressed; to this day my dad can't stand them, he just doesn't get the humour. My mom and I practically piss ourselves every time we watch them, on the other hand. Just watch it if you haven't seen it yet, I guess. There's never been a better medieval comedy; in fact, not many comedies at all can rival it. The Holy Grail, like the Pythons, was way ahead of its time. It also features my favourite summation of medieval life, both hilarious and surprisingly erudite: "He must be the King," says one peasant, watching Arthur go by. "How do you know?" asks the other one. "He's not covered in shit!" May you be covered in shit if you don't like this movie.

9.7

Dragonslayer

Dragonslayer
1981
Directed by Matthew Robbins

I like fantasy movies from back in the day. I think Conan the Barbarian and Legend kick ass. Yeah, the writing is sorta cheesy, the acting is not so great, the stories are kinda gay and even fairly formulaic. Now I watch Dragonslayer, which follows a pretty old formula as well. I just wrote a scathing review of Blown Away and bitched about how it followed standard thriller formula. So why am I about to tell you about how Dragonslayer was a pretty decent film when it had the same problem as Blown Away? Well, for one thing, thrillers are pretty much based around tension and the surprise factor. How can you be surprised or tense when you feel like you've watched the movie a hundred times before? But fantasy as a genre is based mostly on archetypes. In real life, good vs. evil quickly becomes complicated the more you look into it. We live in a world of grey, where nothing is certain. How can we have heroes in such a world? There is nothing absolute to fight for. Everybody has valid motivations. Things are not easily categorized. One of the main functions of the fantasy genre is to create or resurrect a mythical past in which archetypes and principles still exist and stand for something. A dragon, for instance, kills because it is its nature; there is no more motivation required. Therefore a hero must be opposed to this evil, for the sake of life itself. Within this milieu, a great number of other archetypes exist which are in reality the very essential form of all things within our own world, without the complicating factors of moral ambiguity. In a world where moral parameters are clearly defined, taking a stand means a lot more than it does in our skewed and unclear contemporary existence. My point being that fantasy films and literature seem to repeat themselves endlessly, and yet it is this very orthodoxy that gives them that elusive quality of universality.

Dragonslayer is pretty much your typical sword and sorcery flick, except that it isn't quite. There's the standard story of an evil dragon who terrorizes the countryside, and a hero who is summoned to vanquish it. There is a brave young apprentice who uses magical artifacts to help to achieve this. There is a corrupt king and there are virgins to sacrifice to the dragon. These are all things I've seen before. But there is a sort of weirdness to Dragonslayer that is a bit hard to explain. Things don't always work out quite the way you would expect. The old wizard recruited at first to kill the dragon predictably dies before his task is complete; as usual, his job falls to his inexperienced apprentice, a common enough plot. But the old wizard may still have a trick up his sleeve from beyond the grave. A spoiled princess turns out to be braver than expected. The existence of evil, as in Legend, is at least partially attributable to the magical forces of good. The ending, then, carries a bit of a sour note, and a bitter one, although not unsatisfying.

The odd note carries over into the acting performances as well. Everybody seems a little weird. The venerable Ralph Richardson is good as the aging wizard Ulrich. He draws a little more humanity out of the character than is typical for this sort of role, musing on his past life and the nature of good and evil. Peter MacNichol is sort of goofy as Ulrich's apprentice Galen, who takes up the task of dragonslaying with surprising carelessness, and yet somehow seems to fit the story anyway; instead of a brave and bold hero, more of a foolhardy and delusional one. Caitlin Clarke is not particularly good but not bad either as Valerian, a virgin disguised as a man to avoid sacrifice to the dragon. Oh yeah, I wanted to talk about that. Why do mythical beasts love virgin sacrifices? I mean, why do they care? Furthermore, wouldn't an extremely powerful beast who loves nothing better than to burn people to a crisp just rampage about all the time, instead of making a deal with the locals for a yearly sacrifice? Who managed that treaty anyway? Does somebody speak dragon?

Of course, one of the main attractions in a movie like Dragonslayer is the dragon itself, which is awesome. At first it looks a little cheesy when it's flying around the countryside, but the scene in the dragon's lair looks great; I don't know how they did the effects, but it really looks like they built a giant dragon. It's probably one of the best scenes I've ever seen in a fantasy film; it just looks legit. Speaking of legit, the whole film summons up a nice dark ages vibe. From the costumes to the set design, Dragonslayer looks like the real deal. Even the cinematography is pretty good, with nice, austere highlands and moors creating a rugged and suitably foreboding medieval Ireland.

Things are a little uneven, sure. You don't really get connected to the characters very much; but then again, Dragonslayer manages to not overdramatize everything as well. Most characters seem to accept fate without much fuss. It might just be a lack of acting acumen, but the absence of extreme emotionality creates an interesting tone for the film. It's sort of refreshing after such weepy (no offense Peter Jackson) epics as The Lord of the Rings trilogy.

It's hard to say what rating to give Dragonslayer. It doesn't really blow you away, and it's a bit odd at times, but there's definitely something about it. The thing is, I can't really tell if its restrained and definitively un-showy manner is the result of a low budget or deliberate. In either case, I think the effects benefit from it, giving the movie a more realistic quality. Perhaps unintentionally original, overall a solid effort. Directors of recent fantasy fare such as Beowulf and The Lord of the Rings might take a few lessons from it. In fact, I think it reminded me most of the rather crude Beowulf and Grendel, the decidedly low-key (and sorely underrated) predecessor to the CG-happy 3-D Beowulf mentioned above. Expecting flashy production and exciting battles, people seem to fail to understand what, exactly, myth and fantasy are about.

7.3

Blown Away

Blown Away

1994

Directed by Stephen Hopkins

One of my co-workers brought this in because he thought I would like to see it. Nope.

Jeff Bridges is a bomb squad dude with a history of Irish anti-British terrorism. He's put that all behind him and is newly married when, surprise, his old mentor breaks free from prison and starts killing off his colleagues as part of an elaborate revenge plot. Now let's see, who would be a good guy to get to play a slightly insane Irish terrorist? Oh yeah, Tommy Lee Jones... not! Jones is pretty fucking ridiculous with his silly Irish accent and his hammy villain routine. You get the feeling that somebody should draw a pointy moustache on him. Bridges dials in a routine performance with lots of scenes where he runs towards somebody who just got blown up screaming "NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!" The only decent actor here is The Forest Whitaker as a Bridges' cocky rookie replacement; it's a pretty archetypal role, but he brings some character to the role which is sorely missing from the rest of the film.

I could tell exactly what was going to happen throughout the entire movie before it occurred. Really typical thriller crap, written from a template. This can be used for any thriller you can think of: 1) Opening scene where crazy villain escapes improbably from prison. 2) Happy times on the homefront as hero and girlfriend/ mandatory cute kid are intro'd. 3) First conflict situation unrelated to villain, introducing hero and his dangerous and thankless job. 3a) preferably add in some flashbacks to a tragic past related to said job. 4) Happy times wedding proposal and marriage, quitting the dangerous job and leaving tragic past behind him.

5) BUT! Villain strikes and hero is drawn back into job to take on his old mentor. 5a) Plucky rookie takes over job, preferably gets upbraided by hero and has a beef. 6) Dramatic scenes where people are being killed in unlikely masterminded ways. 6a) Don't forget to have hero run towards the wreckage and go NOOO!

7) Hero must save rookie from villain, cementing their bond. 7a) Meanwhile villain visits hero's family; tension! 8) Death of close friend causing hero to go apeshit and hunt down villain. 9) Climax in villain's lair or some sort of arena. 9a) Villain has upper hand but wow, rookie to the rescue, who saw that one coming? 10) Victory! Except no, there is one last pitfall designed by the villain. 10a) Second climax where hero succeeds in daring rescue of family members. 11) All is well and characters may walk off into the distance.

This is the format for literally every mediocre thriller I've ever seen and so I really can't watch these sorts of movies anymore. Blown Away gets zero points for creativity. I also detract points for its annoying use of cultural stereotypes. Not all Irish people drink Guinness, watch the boxing, wear a tam, dance a jig at a wedding, etc. Also, pretty gay to throw in a U2 song during a climactic scene. Also, not all black funerals feature holy rollers singing amazing grace soulfully. Also, not all Spanish-speaking men are womanizers. There were more instances, but I don't really feel like trying to remember them.

So yeah, even though it wasn't absolutely terrible, its utter mediocrity makes me want to give it an even lower rating than a horrible movie. Star power could not save this piece of crap.

3.8

Double Feature of Horrors: Brain Damage and The Toxic Avenger

Got some new movies in the mail, so I watched a couple of trashy horror classics with my old pal Corey. It's difficult to rate movies that are intentionally ridiculous and have such a love em or hate em appeal. There's an automatic fan base for these things, and mostly everybody else probably wouldn't care for them. Well, I tried.

Brain Damage
1988
Directed by Frank Henenlotter

I have an enduring love of trashy, campy movies, particularly of the horror variety. Directed by Frank Henenlotter of Basket Case fame (unfortunately have not seen that one), Brain Damage has enough camp, trash, and brain-eating to go around, so I was sold on it pretty quickly.

Brian (Rick Hearst, who somehow went on to star in "The Bold and the Beautiful") wakes up one evening to find his neck covered in blood, and proceeds to have trippy and enjoyable hallucinations. Turns out a weird worm-like creature named Aylmer which injects people with a hallucinogenic substance has turned up, and he wants to help Brian have a real good time. All he wants are some nice human brains to munch on. Brian goes around tripping out and Aylmer devours lots of brains, but Brian doesn't seem to remember what happened after the fact. When he finally clues in, he's already addicted to Aylmer's "juice."

Brain Damage belongs to an older variety of horror film, riding the last wave of extreme gore and ridiculousness that probably had its culmination in Peter Jackson's Dead Alive in 1990. Things just haven't been the same since, with spooks and creepiness replacing good old gory lunacy like this. Not to say that's necessarily a bad thing, but I miss films like Brain Damage: weird, original, funny, disgusting, and yeah, a little uneven too. There is really no such thing as character development, the acting is pretty hammy, and some of the violence is in pretty dismal taste - but in a film like this, those are actually good things. It's not trying to change your life, it's not trying to be a masterpiece. It's just... a lot of fun.

Negatives? Sure. The pacing is a little odd, there's some scenes that feel pointless or dragged out. But overall we enjoyed this movie. The effects for Aylmer were pretty good, and his voice... well, you just have to hear it for yourself. Hearst is actually not too bad, for a C-lister in a low-budget horror pic. The violence is gruesome, ridiculous, and funny - there are a few things you've probably never seen in a movie before, nor will you anymore, considering the contemporary market. The bottom line is, if you're a fan of old-school horror, this is going to seem like gold to you. For everyone else, well, it's a movie about a talking, brain-eating, hallucinogenic worm; if you think that sounds stupid and juvenile, avoid this film.

6.7


The Toxic Avenger
1984
Directed by Lloyd Kaufman

Corey and I were in stitches for much of this movie. I'm actually surprised I haven't seen it yet, as it undoubtably deserves its cult status. I thought Brain Damage was pretty trashy, but The Toxic Avenger has it beat by a long shot!

It's really more of a comedy than a horror film. The first (I think) feature produced by the legendary independent Troma Productions, Toxic Avenger blends Mad Magazine farce, old-school brutality and gore, a sort of crude Swamp Thing comic-book hero plotline, over-the-top crappy acting, and social justice into a completely outrageous and baffling whole. It's no surprise to me now that they've made it into a musical in recent times - for a movie this insane, it's really not a stretch to imagine it put to music.

The story revolves around the nerdy janitor Melvin, who is turned into a huge, beastly mutant after a toxic chemical accident. He inherits a sudden drive to eliminate evil and goes around the corrupt city of Tromaville mashing a variety of criminals. The effects are ridiculous, but somehow effectively vile. In fact, the whole film is basically vile. If that's what you're into, then pretty much everything you usually want to see in a horror film (but don't) can be found right here. There's enough amputation, running over of children, head-crushing, and yes, even granny-punching to keep any 13-year-old boy or underdeveloped adult male (hi!) smiling for weeks. But wait, there's even a love story between Toxie and a blind bombshell. Total wish fulfillment for every nerd who never got his due. But for a guy who brutally murders people for a hobby, Toxie is a real sweetheart to regular folk, and he wins Tromaville over with his "good works."

Toxic Avenger is super-low budget. The effects are laughable. I won't even discuss the "acting." Even the writing is frequently stupid - some of the jokes are just terrible. But in such quantity, you won't really care if some of the humour falls flat. What this movie has going for it is that it uses all of these negatives to its advantage. Knowing that it was stupid, atrocious, in poor taste, etc., Kaufman clearly decided to go for the gold. Always tongue-in-cheek, it's actually a great send-up of more serious horror fare. Not everybody will find running down a kid on a bike for "points" funny, but it's pretty hard to be seriously offended by anything in a movie so obviously excessive.

Some people have pegged Toxic Avenger as a "so bad it's good" movie. Those people are wrong, because that term really refers to movies that failed so miserably at being good that they went right past sad and unwatchable to being unintentionally funny. The earnest but completely talentless Ed Wood falls into this category. But there is no way that Kaufman and friends set out to make a passable movie here. Toxie is meant to be bad, and it totally revels in it. It turned out exactly the way it was intended to turn out - love it or hate it, it is the definition of a cult classic.

7.9