Ravenous (1999)

 You are what you eat.

This has long been due and awaited by a select* few, and tonight I am ready once again: Whilst wallowing in footnotes of a scientific nature and working my pretty ass off about topics no single remotely sane and especially 'normal'** person is interested in, I needed to occupy my creative multitasking with some visual input in order to actually concentrate on being a frelling out-of-work penniless genius who is being thought of as a weird, nerdy retard. Pardon my French. So the search for DVDs working on this glorious excuse for a laptop*** led to 'not-really-anything-working-besides-for-a-handful-that-I-have-already-watched-extensively' - as a result, thinning out the collection to what is available on one backup drive. This is a sore topic for me, as most of my DVDs are not working anymore, and most of my backups are A)**** on non-working peripheral drives, or B) dead internal drives in inaccessible impossible casings. Add C) non-accessible drives in dead motherboards and D) non-working broken DVDs as your personal level of Schadenfreude demands. It's easily possible to add E) non-working DVD-player to that - but as of recently, I can say 'thank you' to Maynard of horrormoviediary.net, who volunteered to send me a working external DVD-player. Thank you.

Still, the final solution in this case having been the handful of movies of which I have several backups - having been blessed with technological paranoia from an early involvement with it on -, I chose Ravenous to be the movie of the... day? Weekend? Don't know, don't care, but what counts is that Ravenous is one of those movies I can actually watch, so there we go - praise Dame Necessity.

First of all:
Robert J. Carlyle. OMG. Robert J. Carlyle.
Your hostess has to admit to going all fan-girl-y over that Scottish guy. His characters are always memorable - Colqhoun / Colonel Ives in this wonderful movie, the father in 28 Weeks Later (Hallêlu:-Fresnadillo/Boyle!), Dr. Rush in SGU (only thing saving that series, besides for the distinctly Farscape-esque touch of the story and the ship Destiny... srsly), .... and most recently, effing Rumplestiltskin in faerytale-smooch-drama-series Once Upon A Time (again, only saving grace of that thing - I do see a pattern here).

So. Ravenous. *toothy grin*

This is the story of a young man of the American military, Captain John Boyd (Guy Pearce), who has been sent to Fort Spencer, located in what has to count as pretty much the remotest areas of the Sierra Nevadas, for a reason made very clear at the very start of the narrative; there, he encounters a very archaic concept coming to life, threatening all - an archaic concept made manifest as a ravenous hunger... for human flesh.

(cue in cheering, applause and enthusiastic hooting of the doubtlessly huge crowd here for effect)

Captain John Boyd is a coward at heart. He managed to take an enemy post in a battle once (ah, yes: The movie is set during the time of the Mexican-American war - complete with in-period garb, which of course impressed me positively A LOT, being the historical-accuracy-nerd that I am), but that was under ...special circumstances. That was ...different. *grins toothily*
You see, he let himself be captured by the enemy (= evil Mexicans in this case) by 'playing dead' - he could not bear witnessing the deaths of all his men, and so he thought it would be a good idea to fake being dead. Wise choice indeed, considering that he found himself on a wagon loaded with the corpses of his fellow soldiers, buried underneath them. Getting their, ehm, inside-stuff into his mouth. Heh.

When a mysterious stranger who calls himself Colqhoun arrives at Ford Spencer shortly after Boyd has, our soldier does not know yet that his life will change completely under the influence of the remnants of his own past and the needs of the present. A horror movie with engaging and truly memorable, well-crafted characters! [rasping-hissing-guttural-reptilian noises] Happy squeal.

Without going too much into the background-end of movie-narratives, Ravenous manages to make every single character in this movie into a well-defined semiotic entity - stereotyped just enough to provide a starting point, but crafted into veritable personalities from quite early on (well... needs to be from quite early on, as some people kind of die. No, not peacefully, rest assured). There is simply no possibility to mistake one character for another, as it so often happens with modern horror flicks; in case you don't know what I mean, think back to the last movie you watched involving some person killing teenagers and/or young adults appearing in friend-circle-sized groups, maybe even one in which this happens outdoors, preferrably in some woodland area. If you should suddenly find yourself thinking about, I don't know, Friday the 13th or any other slasher movie from the past decades in which you find yourself mixing up the victims because they are simply flesh to be killed off, then you got the point I was trying to make. However - this movie. Oh my gods. This movie. Oh my gods.***** The characters are awesome. All of them.

Witness:

• The Stoner: Private Cleaves, an awesome performance by David Arquette. David Arquette! I really had not expected that.
• The Native (I - Stoner): George, convincingly played by Joseph Running Fox. The scene which touches upon catholicism is BRILLIANT.
• The Native (II - Female): Sheila Tousey plays Martha, sister to George the Stoner. Silent, tough.
• The Bookish Boss: Colonel Hart - Jeffrey Jones! His performance in this flick is just all-around nifteh. Like, seriously.
• The Aryan Übersoldier: Private Reich (lol), hilariously played by Neil McDonough. You can feel the aryan hardcore-ness emanating from the screen. Well played, Mr. McDonough, well played.
• The Religious Shy Nutter: Private Toffler, charmingly played by Jeremy Davies.
• The Alcoholic Doctor: Knox, portrayed by Stephen Spinella. Convincing. *nods* Convincing and funny, actually - but in this movie, the 'funny' (or should I make that 'amusing'?) kind of comes with the territory... which I fully approve of.
• The Naive Coward: Captain John Boyd, our very own lead.

...as I said. No single fucking way to confuse these characters with one another - visuals and voice are particular to each person. This is a good thing. Whilst I dislike the overuse of stereotyping in general, I welcome it as a device for storytelling - and let's face it, movies are narratives, therefore the rules of storytelling apply in a kind of way. Mhkay? Mhkay.

All of the characters are loveable in their own way, and you will no doubt have your favourite (and one you like the least...) - mine is, as readers familiar with my rantings and ...delicate distinctions on decadence, death and dismemberment as well as desiccating husks of dead things might already have guessed, the cannibalistic character, as played by - remember the elegies at the beginning of this review? x-actly - ROBERT CARLYLE (*swoons*). No one, I swear, no one plays the calculating wendigo beyond human behavioural patterns - and yet using these to his advantage by impersonating them to those who still suffer from them - like him: The original nightmare from which the variety of anthropomorphic monsters we have in our world's myths, sagas, stories, tales and bedtime whispers have spawned, the original dread to which all these pay witness.


It's one of us. 
  

As for anthropomorphic monsters of movie-land - I don't know how my esteemed readers feel about this, but I personally think that there's something archaic about a human eating another human. Satisfying. Basic. Or maybe it's that 'non-monstrous-looking people doing monstrous things to one another'-theme I have going on (-- my favourite topos, really)... anyways!

[I did want to add in some deeply philosophical stuff about why the stuff witnessed in this movie can be classified as cannibalism, followed by a deeply philosophical view on why most of the stuff can't be cannibalism for purely semantic reasons; let's just state that cannibalism would be the eating of one's own kind (as Cannibal Flesh Riot! taught us so well)... and the change from human to wendigo seems to be pretty straight and without any turns back to the olden road of not eating people. There, long philosophical point made.]


When looking at the atmospheric pictures Ravenous provides the viewer with, you have to figure in the soundtrack to delve into the whole movie-experience. I'd recommend a relaxing intoxicant of your personal choice if I ever did such things or would, indeed, even assume in my child-like naiveté that this would be something people would or could do without repercussion from the righteous, just and holy Law(s) [insert the Law(s) appropriate for your geographical area, religious persuasion, social stratum, education, gender, musical taste, movie preference, political persuasion(s), favourite drink, age range and relationship to cats here] for such a heinous act of malice, evil and brooding terror.
*nods sagely*

...feel free to crack open a cold one, though.

Enjoy *grins*

So... Soundtrack. Damon Albarn and Michael Nyman truly are AMAZING composers. I was a bit disoriented the first time I heard Nyman being mentioned on the cultural radio channel over here - Ö1 for those of you who keep track******, but quickly connected the name with this movie. Seriously - the man is brilliant. Together, these two men are more than brilliant. Ravenous' soundtrack is exactly the sound you'd like to have running whilst merrily hunting down your human prey, preferrably in the mountainous and wood-covered ranges of something with only thin air left. Tenderness******* and all that.

Pacing: Comes with the soundtrack - or rather, the existence of this brilliant musical accompaniment to the narrative told here proves that the pacing is here - and it is indeed. It runs. It floats. It's natural. Sometimes, it speeds up a bit to let us cherish the rest of the story as well instead of dwelling too long on one point (as I would be wont to do, just so that you unnecessarily are aware of that); it generally can be said that the movement is fluid and follows from what has already happened how (and how fast). Natural pacing. It's rare to see that in a movie - especially in a movie about cannibalism!

By the way: Why is it that when a woman produces and directs a movie that is witty, gory, entertaining and full of suspense throughout gets called weird, but when guys do the same thing, no one says that? Oh, wait. 21st century, I nearly forgot.


Anyways! I am not writing as much and as lengthily as I would actually want to (...there's A LOT of stuff about this movie in my brain that wants to jump out at unsuspecting strangers, trust me...); this is due to me sitting here in front of the craptop, trying to go through my list of movie-reviews I have jotted down under the heading of 'to write' in order to do at least a bit of stuff that is actually really important to the world at large******** instead of just sitting around and worrying about stuff bothering me. So I ask you to forgive me this insanely short review of a movie that would deserve 30+ screens of analysis and love and hugs and kisses and kinky sex.


Hence: This movie is going to be one of the best you've ever watched, unless you seriously dislike character development, in-period-garb for actors, great and difficile acting, wonderful stereotypes used as they should be used, cognizant pacing, a beautiful soundtrack that makes you want to hunt people********* and twists and turns most people cannot foresee. I enjoy this movie immensely, whenever I have the chance to watch it. Some day, I shall make this review longer and more tedious and awesome to read...

11 / 10 holes in the ground. Like... holes. In the ground.

* Read: mad and obsessive.

** CSICON: Committee for Surrealist Investigation of Claims of the Normal: 'Finnegan's paper began with the electrifying sentence, "The average Canadian has one testicle, just like Adolph Hitler -- or, more precisely, the average Canadian has 0.96 testicles, an even sadder plight than Hitler's, if the average Anything actually existed." He then went on to demonstrate that the normal or average human lives in substandard housing in Asia, has 1.04 vaginas, cannot read or write, suffers from malnutrition and never heard of Silken Thomas Fitzgerald or Brian Boru. "The normal," he concluded "consists of a null set which nobody and nothing really fits."' 

*** Destrøyer øv t3k-N0-10gY

**** I officially and psychologically hate yellow. Hence the colour. Now delve into your Schadenfreude! 

***** Eh? Eh? EH?

****** Yes. I listen to Ö1 and love horror movies, nothing wrong with those two usually mutually exclusive things being combined into one happy package in me. :D

******* Possibly not the tenderness most people are thinking of when hearing or reading that word. Just to make this clear: There is no cuddling involved. 

******** The snark comes from realising that nothing I do is actually really important to the world at large. 

********* I don't know about you guys, but I feel like doing a Ravenous impromptu-show whenever I hear the soundtrack... *grins*

Tucker & Dale vs. Evil (2010)

Sheesh. A person turns their back onto modern horror in order to descend into madness for a career in stuff no one's interested in besides for the occasional madman or creep, only to return and see that they fucking missed a lot of cool stuff in the two years they were busy. Jeez. Give a body some rest.

Then again, I distinctly remember seeing the DVDs in a friend's preferred video store, thinking something along the lines of "this is so not going to be funny". And now, roughly 2 years later, I can come here and say 'dude, I was wrong. SO WRONG', because this, ladies and gentlemen, ghosts and ghouls, zombeasts and vamplings, is frelling hilarious. And I mean HILARIOUS.

So... let's start with WEST VIRGINIAAAAAAAA!!! Not just the home of my favourite band Blitzkid - who are going to finally split up after this tour, and damn, I shall have to run amok if I cannot manage to get to their final gig in Köln on Halloween - but also the trusty location where all horror movie nerds from around the world* know to find the evil woods that house, well, hillbillies. Murderous hillbillies. Madness, murder, slaughter, violence, death! Not necessarily in this order, though.

So yeah, the second we move into West Virginia, we know we're in for... well. A ride. I would totally offer you screenshots of the West Virginia woods scene in Tucker & Dale vs Evil and drag up my old West Virginia woods screen from Wrong Turn now, but alas, this laptop is not able to do that.

Our two heroes are Tucker and Dale. Tucker (Alan Tudyk) is one of the nifteh guys from Firefly in case you think you remember that face; in this movie, the eponymous Tucker is one of two 'hillbillies' on their way to their vacation in their dilapidated cabin in the woods; he is a simple yet philosophically skilled man who understands the truths of the world as it presents itself to us (and, according to Dale, also quite the man with the ladies, which I feel compelled to believe him). Dale - played by Tyler Labine - is the sweet-natured, slightly bigger guy. To be honest, I felt eerily reminded of Cannibal Flesh Riot! and the comedic trope of the tall, thin, clever guy teamed up with the beer-belly, bigger, less clever guy; the slight Cannibal Flesh Riot! - feeling probably comes from the fact that both movies subvert the trope successfully.

Tucker & Dale vs Evil is something that will probably be funny to most people, but only hilariously funny to those of us who have watched a few too many horror flicks. Every single stereotype is there, magnificently enhanced by the movie's joy to take the genre-specifics that all make us groan and just run with them; there's no need to pretend that the victims are not picked out for our viewing pleasure, that what happens is actually happening due to circumstances and not because it's what happens in horror flicks, that people get hilariously killed in extremely funny ways not because this is a horror flick but because this is, you know, serious business.

Generally speaking, this movie did everything right.

I particularly want to praise how writer** and director Eli Craig made it really easy for the viewer to see the two sides of the story - the hapless Dale and the a-bit-less-hapless Tucker (reminding at least me not just a little of his Firefly-character Wash) with all the weird stuff that happens around them, seriously confused by what they experience: perfectly contrasted with the young college people (I freely assume they are being young college people as actors of that age and dressed like that in such movies are always college people) and their preconceptions about what kind of people Tucker and Dale might possibly be.

As someone who is fascinated with the differences that make up each of our realities due to inferring that the world is the way we see it, I find this movie to be simply AWESOME - funny and awesome. It is hilarious, but at the same time, I could easily make a comparison between our college youths and Nazi Germany - but alas, I will refrain from doing that***.

The faithful horror fan will enjoy the scenes presented in Tucker & Dale vs Evil so much more than a non-horror viewer - although I have to admit I do not think too many people without at least a slight penchant for horror would watch it. Then again, I have no idea what normal people who are not into horror actually watch...

Old horror movie key-scenes and tropes have been used in such a fucking ingenious way that I feel it would be unfair to rob you of them by talking about them. Let's just say that the scenes are nearly flawless.

Oh, and I want to state that the free use of beer is awesome in this movie. Beer is an important part of civilisation, and these two proud men know it. Tucker and Dale are on the case!

Seriously though: Serious message (do not assume that people are what you think they are just because of their looks and your preconceived notions of stereotypes), hilarious flick. Along with the fun, the brain-stuff, the subtle social undertones we also get some really heart-warming scenes about friendship and acceptance (and cute romance). As I said, in my opinion, this has pretty much everything and has been done very, very, very very well. :D

The acting is pretty solid throughout - our two male leads and the female lead (Katrina Bowden as Allison) are obvious in this regard, but the college kids are also... more believable than their non-funny-horror-flick-with-hillbillies-counterparts on which they have been modelled. Then again, overacting such a part is way easier than trying to act believably - I mean come on. Would you be able to act in a believable way if you were to be cannon fodder for a woods-slasher-movie? I know I probably wouldn't.

The dialogue, too, is one of the most hilarious things ever, especially if you're watching this with the horror stereotypes we all know and love in mind. To be honest: Writing a review for this is a bit weird for me because I am giggling most of the time if not laughing out loud due to the hilarity of it all.

Hence:

Highly recommended to everyone!

9.5 / 10 creepy college kids hurling themselves to their premature death ("...Grab a leg!")

* Including females with hardly any idea about the geography of the world today who are nonetheless still able to split hairs about how much distance can be calculated to be lying between two ancient sites that have been ancient and dead for more than 4,000 years, obviously.

** Together with Morgan Jurgenson.

*** Take the superstitions the college kids have towards our friendly heroes and how that enrages them to act further and further, drowning down the spiral of pointless violence, under the aegis of a leader, and simply compare mentally with how the Germans and Austrians had these weird superstitions towards the Jewish people and how that enraged them to act further and further, drowning down the spiral of pointless violence under the aegis of a Führer... damn, I did it! ><

Fright Night (1985)

Tom Holland! I simply love the guy - we share a thing for historical stuff.

So... fond memories are washing over me. Verily.

It's actually been ages since I watched this movie for the last time - I don't even remember how long it was. I have to admit that I am much more fond of the second movie in the franchise (amongst other things because of that one having been one of the first non-Hammer vampire flicks I watched and actually enjoyed - yes, I saw Fright Night after Fright Night II, blame the TV stations back then), I still like this movie a lot. There's something fundamentally different between old-fashioned, awesome, cool and fun horror flicks and those that come out these days. Compare Fright Night with, I don't know, some random nameless vampire flick of the last decade. Nah, make that two decades and exclude Francis Ford Coppola's Dracula and... uhm... okay, let's count Interview With the Vampire as a horror movie for a second (*cries inside*). Also, it speaks to us children of the 80s' night and horror afficionados.

I mean, seriously: Who can not emphasize with this movie's plot? 'Random men carrying a coffin at night' understandably intrigues Charlie Brewster (as portrayed by William Ragsdale), young male of the movie - I would be intrigued as well. Coffins. Night. Possibly vampires or other fiendish creatures dwelling in darkness or something similar.

And damn, it's - of course! - 80s' flair all around: The clothes (by all Gods and Monsters, how on earth could people have actually worn these things?!) - terrifying as ever. The cars - full of win and awesome. Heck, even maths for school looks more interesting and fun than the one I had to do in these modern nights. I mean, yes: Who expected something different from a movie from '85? It's awesome, in an 80s kind of way. However, it also holds its share of "IT'S THE 80s!!!"-terror - you will doubtlessly see what I mean when (if) you should decide to watch this flick. Which you should. Especially because that is an excuse to watch David Tennant shirtless in the remake. But I digress.

So: Plot.

Charlie Brewster is something akin to what we'd term a geek these days. He has a very... 80s looking girlfriend with whom he doesn't have teh_sexxx, he watches 'Fright Night' religiously. So much for characterisation. Oh, yes: Fright Night. It's a TV-show with a presenter who presents horror movies. Like Elvira, only different. His name is Peter Vincent, by the way. I hope to hear at least some Hammer-horror fans howl with laughter now, otherwise I am seriously disappointed. I mean, especially if you look at the getup the character employs to play the character of Peter Vincent you should be shaken with recognition.

*raises her right eyebrow expectantly*

Anyways.

Charlie notices during one nice evening he spends with his girlfriend Amy, watching 'Fright Night', that the new neighbour moving in next door has a fucking coffin being moved into the house ...remember the beginning of this review? Here you are). His attention is instantly captured, and he focuses onto that - one may guess it also is caused by a bit of nervous behaviour, as Amy offered him the possibility to have a go at sexuality in the proper sense with her. Under the sheets. And OMG, the guy actually starts spying on the coffin-carrying people moving into the neighbour's house instead of ravaging her. Dude. I can so understand that... and at the same time not. Call me torn. I'm like Jekyll and Hyde in that regard.

Anyways, he comes to the conclusion that the neighbour is a vampire. A fucking vampire. So naturally, he feels threatened and tries to kill the abomination - to which said abomination, a quite cultured, suave and stereotypically gay-looking guy, in those 80s aesthetics with their focus on men, takes a bit of an exception. With Charlie trying to kill the vampire, enlisting the help of his girl, his best friend Evil Ed, and even 'Fright Night''s Peter Vincent, Fearless Vampire Killer (heh), and the vampire in turn trying to wreak havoc upon the life of the Brewster, we're in for a very 80s-like ride. From the 80s. With 80s vampires. w00t!

So much for the plot.

So it really is no wonder that teh_sex is not coming along as we would expect in the exalted year of 2012 with non-kinkster-kitten Amy running around in human form, and it really is no wonder either that our horror-fan is busy with avidly spying on the new neighbour when not watching 'Fright Night' on TV (I am sure most of us can emphasise. About the TV-show, I mean... *coughs and hides goggles and selection of air-borne poisons*).

It's not that he's bi-curious or anything: It's that the Brewster suspects him (the neighbour) to be some kind of night-creature - and alas, he is completely right. The vampire next door may look incredibly gay to viewers from this day and age, but A) he is apparently not gay (although I suspect that living through centuries, millennia even, would lead to a person appreciating the sexual fun one can have with all kinds of people, not limited in one's choice to one gender), B) vampires are usually a bit sexually ambiguous in the mind's eye of the public. Well, vampires of the Twilight-persuasion aside - I cannot for the life of me imagine these... 'characters' to be sexually adventurous. Matrimony, for fuck's sake. Anyways: Nearly forgot C): He's Chris Sarandon.

Anyways.

Charlie's ideas about his neighbour being a vampire don't go over too well - neither with the local police officer, who starts to think that the Brewster is an unhinged teen (an assessment with which he is not entirely off the mark), nor with his girl (who thinks he is kind of weird), or the vampire (who definitely notices that ...incident).

A commendable appearance that annoys the ever living shit out of me every time I watch this movie is the one by Stephen Geoffreys who plays the Brewster's friend Evil Ed (or 'Evil' for short). He advises Charlie on the details of vampire lore - crosses, garlic, sunlight, not being able to enter unless asked to do so by the owner; all the basics that we know and cherish.

However, things advance with the speed we're used to from the Bloodsucking Evils of Darkness: Before Charlie can come up with a plan what to do about the vampire infesting his neighbourhood, the suave guy has already established a firm footing in the area (geographically as well as interpersonally).

The movie is very strong when it comes to establishing a creepy atmosphere - then again, the terrible sound (80s. what else...) that cues in whenever the vampire appears is... messing with my joy a little bit; however, things like these have to be accepted when watching a movie from 1985. Being pissed off at the movie because it actually works as a historical document would be stupid - especially when identifying as a horror movie addict and a historian. So I'll just stand by my assessment that modern viewers might possibly be turned off if they are not open minded in that regard... and do not have a particular tolerance for the different kinds of societal stratification throughout the past decades... *whistles*

Things do not go well when it comes to Charlie's plans concerning the vampire. He learns that the vampire learned about his interest in him; the vampire's attempt to kill Charlie fails - being forestalled by the mother, and as most of us know, mothers are indeed a terrible, unpredictable force of nature that should be banished by all means -, but the young man is scared of the supernatural invading his life and the potential threat of being killed by a vampire. He decides on the most natural course of action: He tries to attempt contacting The Great Vampire Killer, Peter Vincent played convincingly by Roddy McDowall.

This does not go as planned. No wonder, even the Great Vampire Killer does not believe a ranting teen talking about vampires out to kill him, thrashing cars etc.; speaking of that idea, there is a hilarious scene when Charlie confronts Mr. Vincent about vampire flicks being less trendy than slashers. I had to laugh, considering especially today's situation. 

The reactions of the people remaining 'normal', in the world without vampires, are quite believable. No one actually believes Charlie (with a very moving scene about belief and love), but they're supportive nonetheless. Well... 'supportive'. As Evil and Amy figure out, Charlie is so obsessed with killing the vampire that he'll actually go through with it against all sanity or laws against trying to drive a stake through the heart of your creepy neighbour; so they decide to ask Mr. Peter Vincent for help: He may be able to cure the poor bloke of his 'vampiric' delusions by faking his (Vincent's) vampire-expert-sk1llZ in order to assure the poor deluded (?) boy that his neighbour is not a blood drinking monstrosity of the primordial night.

It is hilarious (and, interesting enough, also moving to a degree in a weird way). Charlie's despair to be believed and taken seriously, Vincent's attempts at stopping his delusions, the vampire eating apples (of all things!) and falling for Charlie's girl - at times, the scenes seem like straight out of Stoker's Dracula.

Effectively, we have two conceptions of reality clashing with one another: World without vampires, world with vampires. Both are real (respectively) - the world with vampires in the way that Charlie's reality has changed forever due to the incursion of these creatures into the otherwise normal world, coupled with the fact that the rest of the world does not really believe in vampires roaming the world; coupled with the normal consensus reality we all agree u

This does not go as planned. No wonder, even the Great Vampire Killer does not believe a ranting teen talking about vampires out to kill him, thrashing cars etc.; speaking of that idea, there is a hilarious scene when Charlie confronts Mr. Vincent about vampire flicks being less trendy than slashers. I had to laugh, considering especially today's situation. 

The reactions of the people remaining 'normal', in the world without vampires, are quite believable. No one actually believes Charlie (with a very moving scene about belief and love), but they're supportive nonetheless. Well... 'supportive'. As Evil and Amy figure out, Charlie is so obsessed with killing the vampire that he'll actually go through with it against all sanity or laws against trying to drive a stake through the heart of your creepy neighbour; so they decide to ask Mr. Peter Vincent for help: He may be able to cure the poor bloke of his 'vampiric' delusions by faking his (Vincent's) vampire-expert-sk1llZ in order to assure the poor deluded (?) boy that his neighbour is not a blood drinking monstrosity of the primordial night.

It is hilarious (and, interesting enough, also moving to a degree in a weird way). Charlie's despair to be believed and taken seriously, Vincent's attempts at stopping his delusions, the vampire eating apples (of all things!) and falling for Charlie's girl - at times, the scenes seem like straight out of Stoker's Dracula.

Effectively, we have two conceptions of reality clashing with one another: World without vampires, world with vampires. Both are real (respectively) - the world with vampires in the way that Charlie's reality has changed forever due to the incursion of these creatures into the otherwise normal world, coupled with the fact that the rest of the world does not really believe in vampires roaming the world; coupled with the normal consensus reality we all agree upon that there are no bloodsucking creatures of the night, this kind of clashes. In an interesting way.

The deception to cure Charlie of his delusions actually goes wrong (in a way) when Peter Vincent realises that the vampire does not have a reflection. This kickstarts what I like to call the movie proper. Fright Night has quite a

pon that there are no bloodsucking creatures of the night, this kind of clashes. In an interesting way.

The deception to cure Charlie of his delusions actually goes wrong (in a way) when Peter Vincent realises that the vampire does not have a reflection. This kickstarts what I like to call the movie proper. Fright Night has quite a setup that establishes itself before they start to delve into the ...'actual' movie. This may sound as if I was complaining, and I want to clarify that I'm not. I thoroughly enjoy this kind of stuff.

Note to self: Maybe it's my dislike for whining guitars singing their way through unnecessary solos that makes the vampire scenes in this movie so 'meh' for me; I am nearly 100% sure that it is the music associated with the appearance of a bloodsucker doing vampiric things that causes my not-really-there-appreciation for Sarandon as the vampire. Or possibly the 80s look.

Who the hell knows.

As for the vampires - this is not a movie that will make females swoon for the undead: Our main vampire looks... well, gay (I mean this as an insult, but not against homosexual people. thank you for your understanding) when in human form and like a mishappen werewolf when in vampire form; Evil as a vampire has the most ridiculous teeth ever (they look cool, though); Amy looks okay (until she goes into full-blown vampire-mode, as noted before), but then again: Females undergoing vampirisation always seem to become better looking, more elegant and filled with grace; unless their teeth are out, though - that makes for awesome horrifying, a bit ridiculous but still exceptional vampire-monster depictions. But yeah, there's no 'Edward'-type here who may enchant and ensnare the hormonally challenged twats so happy with and about vampires ever since the tragedy that is Twilight struck - although there is indeed vampiric seduction in this movie. Granted, it's not really possible to have a traditional vampire movie and concept without the erotic intruding onto the horror, as vampires have come to be associated with sexuality and eroticism ever since Bram Stoker insisted on writing his seminal Dracula.; and ever since Bela Lugosi donned the black cape as the public vampire #1, eros and thanatos have been closely intertwined when it comes to vampires on screen.  Cue in terrible 80s music with a howling/whining guitar, an erotic scene involving what I can only assume to be a minor, biting-made-for-screen, and lo and behold - voilá!, we got us a veritable Dracula-moment here (as there seem to be quite a few nods to that seminal work in general).

Speaking of Evil as a vampire - he becomes even more annoying after his transformation. However, this movie shines when it comes to animatronics. I am not the biggest fan of CGI, to be honest - maybe that is something unnatural these days, but still: Good old-fashioned animatronics are waaaaay better and cooler and more awesome than CGI. The scene during which Evil switches to wolf-form followed by the drawn-out transformation back is amazing and really manages to perk up my interest every time I see it. I have this fondness for wolf-man-transformations, I admit it freely.

Oh, something to remember: In this movie, some creatures melt when staked. Melt. It's like, I don't know, watching something in which Brian Yuzna has been involved: Green, vile liquid, melting flesh - I stand in awe. Couldn't even remember that scene.Reminds me of Re-Animator.

Okay.

Ends on a happy note - which of course means that the monster is being killed and no one who has been infected with monstrousness remains a monster. Yay. Woohoo.

Nonetheless: Solid flick.

On to the remake.

7/10 lithe creatures of the night transformed into grinning, ridiculously funny vampire-monsters

Staplerfahrer Klaus (2000)

I don't know what to say... hilarious.



Klaus, now one of 37,000 qualified people in Germany who can call themselves fork-lift drivers, experiences his first day at work. It's an educational movie. For people who, you know, learn how to drive forklifts. A friend of mine actually had to watch it during his course.




Klaus is a very careless forklift driver. He is responsible for one supposed death by falling, one zombie-sort-of-thing by knife-to-brain, one loss of two hands,


one separation of torso and legs, one impaled colleague, one severed head (his own), another impaled person, one severed arm with chainsaw and one cutting in half of an injured guy. All that by virtue of fork-lift driving.

Nifty little movie if you're bored and have 9 minutes to kill.






6/10 for the sheer hilarity and the tongue-in-cheek humour

Severance (2006)

I decided to add a new tag for the movies I watch (and sometimes, force myself to watch): "Europe". It is interesting to see and/or read what American movie fans think of European horror flicks and how they talk about the landscape etc. in their reviews - seeing as I am from Europe, I can't find anything particularly enchanting about our landscapes, and the oh-so mysterious countries full of wild, untamed nature and foreign people are pretty much my neighbours or where I grew up... so, naturally, I have a bit of a different take on movies set in Europe.

Apparently, this opinion of Europe as some sort of mysterious continent filled with cruel wonders is not just limited to USAnians - also the British appear to suffer from it (just consider the fact that they call people like me "Europeans", disregarding the small fact that their island is actually part of this mysterious Europe). As I noticed it for the first time tonight whilst watching Severance, I decided to give this tag a try. Maybe it will catch on - and maybe we can infer some interesting statistical data about the amount of horror movies set in Europe vs. those set in the US of A. Or maybe not, who knows.

Anyways... Severance. If I had been the person to choose a tagline, it wouldn't have been "Another bloody office outing." Nah, I would have come up with something far wittier and more interesting: "Escorts - they save lives. YOUR lives." Because it's true. It's also infinitely more cool and awesome, but alas, I have to live with the fact that my brilliance sometimes goes unnoticed.

On a sidenote: I turn off my phone whilst watching a movie. FYI. In case any of you were wondering.

Severance is not too original when it comes to the story. Seriously, I like the movie, but I can't bring myself to call its plot "original". I mean, consider the following:

A group of people get stranded in the woods and land in a more or less abandoned, old house and soon start to get killed off by, well, someone.

Hardly sounds like something the writer would win a Pulitzer for, mh?

However... the cast, the dialogues and the whole setup just make this boring premise into a highly entertaining and amusing movie. And I'm not easily amused by so-called horror comedies. Unless I am totally drunk or otherwise under the influence, or if a movie just serves me horror-inside jokes. Considering that I was dreadfully sober whilst watching Severance and couldn't detect any in-jokes that only hardened horror fanatics would ever manage to understand, I dare say that the movie does a good job on the humour front. Maybe it's that dry, totally black British humour thing. I admit it, I have a certain fondness for British humour (hence my tendency to suddenly quote Monty Python's during conversations, often to the chagrin of my less movie-addicted discussion partners - try referencing Life of Brian in theology classes at the catholic institute...).

What makes this movie funny? First of all, the dialogues. They're really good. Situational comedy, delivered in that dry and utterly bleak way... gods, I had to laugh out loud on several occasions. Unlike Planet Terror, in which the comedy is conscious and witty as well but nonetheless is constructed to be funny, Severance manages to deliver the comedy in a natural, fluent way. I once again stand by my assessment that only the British can do that.



[after they heard a bear roar]
Richard: "There are no bears in Hungary. Unless we've crossed the border into Romania, in which case there ARE bears. If we're in Serbia, then... I don't know."
Harris: "That's really interesting, Richard. Tell me something: are bears required to stop at borders? Is there some sort of, I don't know, passport control for bears?"



...I absolutely broke down with laughter when I saw the bear crossing in the background one or two scenes later. Apparently, bears can sneak through international borders (I'm from Austria, after our latest disaster involving a bear, I should know... gods, the bear-problem... cunningly used by our idiotic government to distract my even more idiotic fellow Austrians from the huge economical problem... other countries at least instigate pointless wars to make their disastrous economy appear insignificant, we just hunt one single fucking random bear and order bear-killing specialists from Finland... *facepalm*).

So... dialogues. It's really hard to reproduce them for your enjoyment, because a) I didn't feel like stopping the movie every time something made me laugh, and b) you wouldn't really get it without the pictures anyways. As I mentioned above - situational comedy. So, those of you who have no problem with a little violence in your black comedies (and I assume you don't, seeing that you are reading this very blog of mine) - go and get this movie via your preferred means. I can wholeheartedly recommend it.

Besides being a deeply black comedy, Severance also has some very macabre moments. Our stoner-protagonist (played by Danny Dyer) has to relieve himself in the woods, and we get treated to a shot of him pissing into the open mouth of a female corpse buried under dried leaves etc. Call me sick if you want, but I found it amusing - until it sunk in how macabre this actually is. No offense to those of you who get their rocks off by giving female corpses golden showers, of course. I still respect you.

I didn't manage to grab the actual piss. Sorry, guys.

Another thing that makes the plot enjoyable is that, although the premise is the classical basis for any slasher movie or cheap gorefest of the past years, the elements differ in certain important aspects:

First of all, our protagonists aren't a bunch of lousy teenagers or young adults who want to get drunk, doped up and engage in a little decadence and debauchery (the evil Ds of horror movies), and neither are they a happy family or group of bestest friends ever. They are just people who happen to work for the same company - Palisade Defense, a company that manifactures and distributes weapons. Surprisingly enough, that's actually important to the plot of the second and third act.

Speaking of the plot and the second and third act... we get a rather unexpected twist - one that I for once didn't see coming at all. I approve of unexpected twists, as long as they aren't fucking with my actual enjoyment of the movie in question and are completely unnecessary and/or uncalled for. This twist was neither of those things - it made for a very good surprise and packed the film's last act with action that we wouldn't have gotten otherwise.

One other thing that impressed me was the soundtrack. It totally fits, I like it, and it actually enhances the movie. It's not one of those soundtracks that I desperately have to hunt down so that I can enjoy it whilst sitting in the tram on my way to university (like the Re-Animator soundtrack, with which I am desperately in love - which reminds me, I should do a review of the Re-Animator movies...), but it's solid, well done and sounds good. Just what I want a soundtrack to be. There's never any moment where you'd just wish that the damned music should just freaking stop (I'm sorry to say it, but John Carpenter's Halloween is one of those cases for me...).

Also, the pictures and the whole composition of the movie has a special flair to it. It enhances the humour already inherent in the dialogues by a mile. It's hard to explain without taking a multitude of screenshots, and I'm really not in the mood to do that right now... all I can say is that you should just see for yourself. It's never over the top, and always stays within the realm of the realistic... but those little things just make Severance much more satisfying on an optical level.

The acting is also solid through and through. Everyone involved in this flick does a great job. Granted, I seem to watch a bunch of actually good movies for once, so when I say that I thoroughly enjoyed the acting, it doesn't seem to mean a lot to you guys, because I have yet to put a review of a truly abysmal movie up (what can I say, I was lucky in the last months... but never fear, I am now in possession of 38 Godzilla movies, so I'll soon have something to complain about... although... does Narok count?), but considering the movies I have watched before having had the idea of putting this blog up, I am still surprised when I get to see good acting in a horror movie. Even if it is more of a black comedy than a real horror movie.

Speaking of horror... gore: Sparingly used, but beautiful. I know, I know, those of you who know me personally (I guess that most of my readers consist of people who only read this because they know me... go figure) are aware of the fact that a simple kitchen knife on display in a store can make me gleefully happy, and that shots of people holding a hunting knife in a threatening way make me even more happy... but seriously. There's only a little gore, only a little blood... but I liked what I saw. Well done. Also, it mixes bizarre, macabre humour with the gory goodness, and I like that. Yes, I know, I like everything that involves gore and blood. Still. I have seen terrible gore, and Severance, whilst not something that satisfies the gorehound in me, manages to deliver nice stuff. Could have been more, but that's just me. I guess that more of the sanguinary stuff could actually have been detrimental to the movie as a whole. There, that's probably the first time that I ever said those words (or rather, wrote them down).

Something that needs to be mentioned is the camerawork, especially the use of perspective. I wouldn't call it perfect, but it's close to perfect. Just like the soundtrack and the whole setup does, it truly enhances the movie.

Now, after rattling about how good Severance is... why don't I give it the full score? Simple... or rather, not really as simple as I'd like to. The body count, whilst nice and high enough to make me happy, just isn't graphic enough for me. If you burn someone alive in your movie, do it onscreen. Alex Aja has shown how to do it properly. The gore could have been more visceral - I want to be able to literally smell the blood emanating from my screen. Whilst more gore could have been detrimental to the movie, I would have liked to see the one that actually was depicted in a more detailed way.
Also, some of the scenes were just a tad too unrealistic for me. Don't get me wrong, unrealistic scenes don't bother me in the least - I watch horror movies religiously, I am the last person to complain about unrealistic scenes. However, if your whole movie is very realistic and apparently made to be like that, then you might want to consider using unrealistic setups.
Sometimes, I wasn't entirely clear about the motivation of the characters as well. I won't give any spoilers, but you'll know what I mean when you see it.

And then there's death by editing. I do not like death by editing.

My biggest problem with the movie is that I don't understand the motivation of the killer(s). I just can't understand it. I am quite aware of the stuff that went on in Eastern Europe (hell, I live right next to that particular area of the world), and I can understand a lot of things that make people kill. I couldn't wrap my head around the so-called motivation (which is poorly explained anyways) we are given in Severance.



However - we get treated to nearly naked escorts and nurses. NAUGHTY nurses. Who prove that TF is right when stating that black-and-white-contrasts look really good on women.

Can we please have more of that?

And the title of the movie only makes sense at the end of it. It was delightful.

8/10 accidentally destroyed airplanes in the fight against terror

Planet Terror (2007)

Wooooot! That's how I want my movies on days like this: Fast, furious, funny.

First of all, let me say that I want to see Machete actually being made. I'm a big fan of Danny Trejo anyways, and something as ridiculously over the top as Machete ("...brought to you by your friends at the Weinstein company!") would be exactly my kind of movie. But alas, I shall be content with the trailer... and Planet Terror.

Oh man... what a crazy, awesome movie. Let me see if I can sum up the plot for you: A biomechanical gas (DC2, also known as "Project Terror") has escaped from a military base and is turning the inhabitants of a Texan town into zombies. A go-go dancer, her gunslinger-y former lover, a BBQ chef ("Best in Texas!"), a female doctor who is wickedly cool with needles and a bunch of other survivors try to... well, survive and kill zombies. By shooting them, running them over, using a helicopter on them (I am particularly fond of any movie that features helicopters used as a weapon against the walking dead) etc. It's also sort-of post-apocalyptic (or at least it becomes like that through the course of the movie), and what we always knew to be the only possible solution to the Taliban problem is confirmed: The only man who can defeat Osama Bin Laden is Bruce Willis. Yes, you read that correctly. Bruce Willis. Admit it, you all knew it all along.


Which brings me to something I love very much: Cool actors starring in cool movies. We get Tom Savini (as the hilarious Deputy Tolo), Bruce Willis (the slightly villainous Muldoon, full of win and awesome as was to be expected), Michael Parks in his role as Texas Ranger Earl McGraw, Quentin Tarantino as a rapist with a melting zombified penis... gods, I admire this movie.

There's one word to describe this movie: Awesome. A wild and hilariously funny combination of From Dusk Till Dawn, Pulp Fiction and... well, Robert Rodriguez' other movies, just with wonderfully over-the-top gore. Which is top notch, by the way.



Did I mention that the dialogues are witty and at times absolutely brilliant? I had to chuckle throughout the whole movie, and sometimes I was howling with laughter.

Abby: "I also want your balls..."
Guy: "... but I really am quite attached to them..."

...followed by the most vicious looking pair of scissors which is intended to cut off the testicles of the intended victim.

Or when El Wray (Freddy Rodriguez) wants to save his girl, Cherry (aforementioned go-go dancer) during the outbreak of the zombie apocalypse, he is held at the police station.

Sheriff Hague: "Where the hell are you going?!"
El Wray: "I'm going to get Cherry!"
Sheriff Hague: "Fine, but we're taking my car - "
...at which point, his car explodes.
Sheriff Hague: [looking back at Wray] "...I'm riding with you."



Sheriff Hague: "Don't shoot yourselves. Don't shoot each other. And especially... don't shoot me."

Generally, Planet Terror delivers loads of disgusting gore. Take this lovely tongue for example:



Black abscess tongue. All abscesses should be drained, period. They also squirt around goo...


And I SO want that. Carrying around needles under your skirt... awesomeness. Which also reminds me of the fact that we get treated to a lot of good looking, pretty females running around in high heels and short skirts. I approve of that. Verily.

(I know that the "verily" above isn't exactly perfect style, but I just felt like typing something that expresses the feeling of joy that this movie brings me. I am positively rejoicing, and I don't know about you, but I feel that a heart-felt "verily" enhances the act of rejoicing significantly. Verily. *nods*)

Besides being the ultimate movie for my hobby of spotting Tom Savini (AND Bruce Willis AND Michael Parks AND Quentin Tarantino...), Planet Terror also references quite a bunch of other movies. From Dusk Till Dawn is quite obvious... Other than that, Pulp Fiction, Desperado, Kill Bill, Zombie Flesh Eaters (aka Zombi 2), From Beyond ("I am going to eat your brain and gain your knowledge!"... and man, just LOOK at Dr. Dakota Block (HAH!)...), Women in Cages, Terminator, Killdozer, The Thing, Escape From New York... it's fun to spot the references, trust me. Heck, if I am not mistaken, I even detect a Lord of the Rings reference.

The camerawork is outstanding, the pictures magnificent. Rodriguez obviously knows what he is doing (it would be a shame if he didn't), and he proves with this part of the Grindhouse feature that he is one of the best filmmakers out there.


Planet Terror is being made into a truly joyful movie through the small details that are present everywhere - from the actors, to the references of other movies, to the dialogues, to the camerawork, to the wit and conscious cleverness present in literally everything from the script to the way the script is executed on a purely technical level. The acting is brilliant (I can't detect one single instance of bad acting, or even just mediocre acting... then again, this IS a Robert Rodriguez movie we are talking about), the soundtrack is awesome (I need that on CD, seriously), the gore pretty and quite merciless at times... sheesh, is there anything bad in this movie? Not really, no.



Gritty, dark, sarcastically funny and one hell of a crazy ride. I fully approve.

9.5/10 attempts to find Deputy Tolo's severed finger again... followed by the quest for the ring.

Teeth (2007)

I want to start this review with a small anecdote.

In my 7th semester at university, I attended a class about ethnolinguistics. You see, I like ethnolinguistics. I read a few books about it, and when I saw that a class was being offered, I instantly thought "why, this will be awesome!".

What did I get? An old idiot talking about the Matako-tribe and that every single culture in the whole world has a vagina dentata myth.

Being a person who loves mythology, I was a bit weirded out. I like to think that I know a lot of myths from a lot of cultures... and, funnily enough, I know of no single vagina dentata myth. Of course, I had heard about the vagina dentata before - from psychology classes, frankly. I learned about one myth about it (a Matako myth, funnily enough); I am more familiar with the psychological background of it. So, this movie automatically fails in my book when the heroine states that sooooo many cultures have a vagina detata myth. I somehow seem to have overlooked them... IF the movie's assumption is correct. Which it isn't.

On to the movie.

First of all - what is the big deal about virginity? I just don't get it. Maybe it's because I'm a depraved individual who likes sex and isn't married... maybe it is because I think that whole "virginity is a gift from GOD!"-thing is absolutely stupid. Probably my fault.

Oh, I forgot. A short synopsis is needed for those of you who haven't heard about the movie yet:
Dawn is a nice, innocent, pure young lady. I can't stress the "pure" aspect enough. She is a virgin, talks about virginity being a gift from god (that YHVH guy), is pure and intends to stay that way until she marries. Because when you're married, having sex is okay as opposed to sex out of wedlock. *nods gravely*
She lives with her parents and her stepbrother, who is mean and evil and wants to do the nasty with her. There is some sort of subplot (?) there about Dawn's mother being sick, but I had the impression that it was just crammed in by the writers to... I don't know. It is essentially pointless.

Ah, screw it.

"Teeth" is a movie about a girl whose crotch has shark-like teeth and is able to cut of male genitalia when inserted. There you go, that's all the synopsis and plot you need in order to understand this movie.

Also, I want to add that the dumb blonde who we are supposed to sympathise with (Dawn) is a terrible motivational speaker. She just sucks at it. Terribly. I don't know who had the idea that this creature should be portrayed as a really good speaker, but there are some problems with that: She sucks at it (yes, I want to reiterate this point to drive it home). So either I am used to higher standards, or maybe Mitchell Lichtenstein just doesn't know how to write good speeches, or maybe American virginity-freaks are just dumb enough to be impressed by very little (no insult intended to those American virginity-freaks who read this - I respect your beliefs and your faith and think you are awesomely strong-willed not to have sex. I wouldn't be able to do that, so kudos to you. Don't tell your deity to eat me. Please?)... but the whole "talking about virginity"-thing had me dumbfounded. I wondered when someone would finally drag her off the stage... so the whole "you're really good!"-reaction from EVERYONE was a tad unexpected. Alas, judge for yourself.

The mood of this movie is a sickeningly happy one - virginity apparently does that to people, and to the world around them. So, until the virginity and assorted purity lasts, we are bombarded with "happyful".



Because virginity spreads happyful.

(Yes, I know that this word doesn't exist. But the Palmolive company apparently thought differently, and because I find it hilarious, I am using it repeatedly. Maybe I will be the one to kickstart a new trend - the trend of happyful and joy. So please, use the word and revel in the fact that some companies are too stupid to hire someone who can speak English. Or maybe they thought native German speakers can't speak English and won't notice the mistake... anyways, "happyful" still is an awesome word. Say it out loud. "Happyful". See? Now smile and say it again. "Happyful". It is ridiculously funny... but that might just be my skewed sense of humour. In case you don't find the term funny... well, then I can't help you. Only evil people who go to basement cat do not find joy in happyful. I apologise for this tangent, we now go back to our regularly scheduled movie review.)

At this point, I should probably say something about the "deep symbolism" of the movie.
The movie starts out with threateningly, dark nuclear facility looming over the wonderful, pleasant landscape. They look very phallic.
This movie has phallic images in... well, quite a lot of scenes. It also has a lot of yonic imagery. It is pretty obvious if you watch this... this... thing... movie.
There are nuclear powerplants (with dark and evil smoke), trees, caves, holes... more caves... actually, it's just one cave. It's the cave where "people go to... you know". Heck, these teens seem to be afraid of the term "sex" or ANYTHING that has to do with it. Before staring at aforementioned cave in terror, they are going to the movies. And they impose it on themselves not to watch anything with sexual insinuations in it.

"Even the PG-13 is going to have heavy making out..."
(the group of faithful, blessed virgins is standing in front of the cinema and tries to find out which movie they can watch without defiling their purity)

...excuse me?
Being from the magical land far, far away from the USA - a place sometimes called Oirope - I suffer from a condition called "Oiropeanism". It basically means that I don't understand a lot of the thought processes of the people from the Empire of Good. So... are there really people who don't even WATCH anything sex-related because it might lead to impure thoughts? It is hard for me to believe that. And I grew up in a catholic village with about 1000 inhabitants (I routinely add at this point that half of them were cows), a population density of 32/km², lots of churches and lots of god-fearing christians who insisted on occasionally trying to stone me. I am used to christianity being weird. But that whole purity thing...
...it's not true, is it? Please tell me there are no real teenagers like that.

Anyways.

"Teeth" is also one of the few movies I have ever seen in which the stereotypes are so painful that it, well, hurts. Take the evil stepbrother, for example:



He has tattoos, wears combat boots, has a lot of posters on the walls of his room, smokes cigarettes, smokes weed, listens to metal. I bet the fiend even drinks alcohol. If there ever was a stereotype... The very second you hear some death metal booming through the walls, you know that evil has found a way to infiltrate the pure world full of happyful that Dawn inhabits as a virgin.

But even pure virgins something like to touch themselves. You know how it is. Now, I have read quite extensively about sexual paraphilias, fetishes, you name it. My parents had a sex-store in the basement of the music-store they ran when I was a child. I practically grew up next to vibrators, handcuffs and a healthy appreciation of sexuality. And guitars. Gods, thinking about it... that might explain partly why I turned out the way I did. Anyways, right next to my bed, I have a really awesome book by Magnus Hirschfeld about deviant sex, and Krafft-Ebing's "Psychopathia Sexualis". Trust me when I say I am no stranger to weird stuff.

I was not prepared for what I had to see, though.

Dawn masturbates to the thought of getting married.

Read that again.

It is a positively creepy scene. Especially since the shots are really pretty and artistic... *shivers* However, I have to congratulate Mitchell Lichtenstein: You, good sir, managed to invent a new paraphilia. I salute you. Would that be matrimoniophilia? Nuptiaephilia? Iugophilia? Whatever fancy name we choose, it is positively creepy. Says the person who writes short stories involving necrophilia. Either something is very wrong with me, or with masturbating to the thought of getting married. I personally prefer the latter.

To be concise for once: Dawn + iugophilia/matrimoniophilia/nuptiaephilia = DO NOT WANT!



Anyways, what has been seen cannot be unseen, so I have to live with that. If any of you are turned on by the thought of getting married, and I mean "turned on and touching yourself in naughty places"-turned on, then by all means, watch that movie. If you aren't... try to pay no attention to the scene. Trust me, it's better for your soul.

Our pure virgin then decides that she can't EVER meet the guy whom she imagined in a tuxedo again (he is a fellow "purity is so awesome!"-member, although he is only a virgin in the eyes of the lord (YHVH), for he knows the dangers that sex poses firsthand... he's been there, man...). Shortly after that decision, she calls him to go swimming with her. Near the cave. Where people go to... you know. Do the nasty.
So they meet, go swimming, fool around, kiss, touch... and then she is all like "purity!" as she swims away... into the cave.

I could say a lot about the cave now. The cave is not only the vulva, it is also the womb and the birth channel, through which we all are born into this world of happyful (or not, depending on your personal social setting and genetic predisposition and upbringing and general environment etc. etc. pp.). It is a gray area of change - passing through the birth channel, out of the womb, marks a liminal state. And we all know that liminal states have always been important and powerful in our psyche (I personally blame a lack of ritualised liminal states and transitions - the classical rite de passage - for a lot of our today's youth's problems, and I include myself in that).
The cave here thus represents the transition of one state to another.

Dawn enters the cave as a pure, innocent virgin, undefiled and... well, pure. As pure as it gets.
Tobey enters the cave as a young man with healthy sexual desires. Hell, he hasn't even jacked off since Easter (definitely a special way to celebrate the coming of the Easter Bunny... O_o)! He enters as a healthy young man with a penis.

You can see where this is going, right? Transitions...

I want to make something clear here: Dawn is not behaving very "pure" in this scene. She doesn't send out mixed signals. She sends out very clear signals. And those signals scream "I want to have sex with you!". I am a woman, I know how we are. I mean, look at the body language employed by Dawn, resp. the actress playing her (Jess Weixler, who does a great job in this movie). She is cockteasing the guy royally. Look at her smiles. She wants him. Clearly. EVERYTHING in that scene points towards it. She wants teh sex. I have watched this movie three times now - the first time just to know what to expect, the second time to pay proper attention to it and to write a coherent review, and the third time with female friends to see if my opinions are convergent with the female population or not. They apparently are. So - me and three other women agree that she is teasing her dear Tobey and really wants to see how much of a member of the purity club he is. Pun intended.

And we all came to the same conclusion: If you want to keep your virginity intact, don't fool around with guys like that.

What follows is the most unbelievable characterisation of a male teenager/young adult ever. In short: Tobey is overcome with lust at the touch of Dawn's nubile young body against his ("don't fool around with guys if you want to keep your virginity intact..."), gets rid of his pants, and sticks his member into her vagina. She is opposed to this happening... and we hear a wet, crunching sound. Followed by Tobey shrieking like a girl.

The transition has been made: Dawn is no longer pure and innocent and a virgin. She world's shortest rape made sure about that. On the other hand, Tobey has been robbed of his manliness. In a very literal way. Witness exhibit A: Chomped-off penis, by virtue of vagina dentata.




Now, this scene seems to be a controversial one. Is it rape? Well, in a way, yes. She didn't want him to insert stick A into slot B, so it was against her will. She struggled a bit. Followed by 5 seconds of rape. Now whether you classify this as rape or not depends on your personal definition of rape and your personal experiences. I am not sure on the whole issue. Also, this is a bit of a loaded topic for me, so let's just say that I agree that he stuck his member into her against her wishes at that moment, but that she WAS cockteasing him the entire time before, kissed him, let him touch her etc. But maybe my brain just works differently.

I also want to add that the scene is not gory in the least. I expected blood gushing everywhere, screams of pain, stumbling around, graphic depictions of dismembered guys (Hah! Do you see what I did there?!). What we get is... well. Not a lot. I expected more from a self-styled horror movie. But maybe it's a horror movie for guys only?

It might be time for me to draw your attention to the only creepy scene in the movie: Dawn, the day after her 5 seconds rape and loss of her purity, has to hold one of those brilliant speeches of hers about purity. She can't do it because she is still traumatised from what happened.
And man, the audience of christian purity-freak-teens was creepy. Hissing and chanting stuff about satan and the garden of eden and the snake... weird. Totally weird.

Dawn decides to visit a gynecologist - to see if anything is wrong down there with her. Her problem is that she picked the wrong gynecologist. See, this is one of the reasons why I tell young girls to have their first visit to a gyn either with a parent or, even easier, choosing a female one.
The second she replies to the question whether that is her first visit to a gynecologist with "yes", you can see the expression on the guy's face. It says "ooh, innocent, fresh meat that doesn't know what is okay and what not".
Long story short: He starts fisting her. To test for "flexibility".

Of course, her toothed vulva takes care of that problem by severing 4 fingers of the good doctor. Retaliation can be a bitch. Or a cunt, in this specific case.

The whole scene becomes freakin' hilarious when the doctor is down on the floor, staring at his bleeding hand and yelling "VAGINA DENTATA!" over and over again whilst our heroine flees the scene of her... well. Her crotch cutting off a pervert's fingers.

At this point, I want to point out the similarity between the teeth-imagery present in the movie and the phallic imagery. The cave where people go to... you know... has been described by Jared of Head Injury Theater as "a warm, wet cave that, much like the main character, seems to have teeth". My first impression was that the toothy things can also represent penises aggressively penetrating into the cave. I think it's one of those many-layered images - penis, tooth... Also, the vagina dentata is pretty much the stereotypical inversion of male sexuality, if only in a slightly weird way: The male penis penetrates, "cuts" through the hymen when defloration occurs. Dawn's defloration happens the same way - she loses a gift that she valued. At the same time, she does more or less the same to poor Tobey by cutting (biting?) off his penis. It is an act of penetration - her vagoo's teeth sink themselves into his fragile penis and destroy it, changing him forever. I am not going to make a comment about the hypothetical third gender in Mesopotamia now.

Well, back to our movie.
Dawn, hysterical and close to a nervous breakdown after this incident, seeks out Ryan, a guy who wants to fuck her and made a bet to do so with one of his friends. She goes to him to cry and whine about having a vagina dentata. Of course, he doesn't believe her.

For some reason, she takes a bath at his place, and gets some psychopharmacy to calm her down. I don't know what pills he gave her, but damn, they must be good stuff. If any of you know what it was, tell me. I have Xanax and Diazepam to trade ;)

Anyways, she gets out of the bath, is high from the pills, and comes into a room full of candles... romantic stuff. Ryan, her saviour and provider of baths, gets her in the mood, starts fondling her when she more or less passes out... and then she wakes up.

"Do you want me to stop?"
She smiles at him and says "no".

That, my dear readers, is not date rape. It looks like consensual sex to me. He asked before he inserted you-know-what into you-know-what, and she said it was fine. And lo and behold, he doesn't get mutilated by the vagina dentata.

Not yet.

We find Dawn in the bathroom, looking at her nude body. This is one of the reasons why I'd personally say that this movie isn't about female empowerment. She needs to get raped before she develops character and strength (not to mention a man-member-eating vagina) - that's not female empowerment. In my opinion, this movie is about coming to grips with one's own body and one's sexual urges. Sex IS a weapon. It is so in today's society, and it has always been. In this specific case, it really is a weapon in the truest sense of the word.

Dawn, being okay with her body and her sexuality, promptly jumps onto Ryan before leaving to get some more fun. That's where things get awkward.

Guys: Don't tell a girl you're fucking and who seems to be happy with you that you made a bet to get her into bed. Some of us don't react too kindly to that. And pray that those who don't react kindly to something like that aren't a mutation with shark teeth in their crotch.

Let's just say that Ryan is not exactly virile after that confession anymore.


Dawn leaves the bleeding Ryan, pissed off that she was just game for him. Although I have to say he appeared to actually like her... but alas. We can be weird. Women, I mean. We employ Fuzzy Logic, after all.

The movie ends with Dawn learning that her mother has died, and that her stepbrother didn't do anything to help poor old mom. And you know what that means.

It means war.
War by crotch.

It is a weird movie. Honestly, I don't really know what to make of it. It certainly isn't the kind of horror movie I am used to - frankly, I am reluctant to classify it as horror. It's not a comedy either. It's not a feminist movie either, at least as far as I am concerned (and I am armed with a whole semester of gender studies - granted, gender studies about Ancient Mesopotamia, but hey, I at least learnt the basics). It is not a movie about female empowerment, because the only empowerment, if that word has to be used, happens after rape and being treated like a sex object, not a human being.

I still stand by my opinion: It's about accepting your own body and your sexual desires. It also is about being used, and a young girl learning to cope with that.
With a penis-dismembering vagina.

Weird on so many levels...

4/10 crunchy sounds before a dismembered penis (I did it again! Hah!) drops out of a toothy vagina.