Bleeders aka Hemoglobin (1997)

Ah... H.P. Lovecraft.

I admit it, I am easy to please in some regards. Movies based on stories by HPL are one such thing. No matter how abysmally bad it is, I will see it and to some degree enjoy it. Bleeders aka Hemoglobin is based on the story "The Lurking Fear"... and indeed, it's not entirely off the mark.




The movie explains to us that there was a Dutch countess, Eva van Dam, who was of such a narcissistic nature that she only wished to make love to herself. Failing to be able to do that, she settled for the closest other thing: Her twin brother. And so, a love-story, fairy-tale and horrific dystopia began, lasting for hundreds of years...

Hemoglobin wants us to say hello to our main protagonist: John Strauss (as played by Roy Dupuis). He is pale, has lips that are a little bit too red, his eyes are of two different colours, he can't stand the sun for too long, he can't eat most foods, is always tired during the day, suffers from spontaneous nosebleeds and seizures as well as cramps, spasms and blackouts. It's clear from the beginning that he's not a healthy man.




Thing is, John Strauss is suffering from something that appears to be an incredibly rare genetic disease. John and his wife are traveling to an island from which John's ancestors possibly came from. There, they find some Dr. Marlowe (Rutger Hauer!)... and Dr. Marlowe doesn't come as the bearer of good news. Whilst he is examining the strange young man, the inhabitants of the island are exhuming coffins in the local burial ground - something there seems to be wrong with the ground, and they want to preserve the dead.

John and his wife (can't bother to look up the name right now) get a room at the local hotel. John has it bad - he can't stomach food, and even the mild light of dusk is too bright for his eyes. Walking around, they (well, mostly she) ask about the Strauss family - but to no avail. The people in this village aren't really willing to talk to people from outside the island.

[Insert sub-plot about necklace and burial and grave-robbery here]

Whilst John is falling asleep, his wife is visiting Dr. Marlowe, asking him if he thinks that what John has is hereditary. Dr. Marlowe mentions the Van Dams and their inbreeding habits - and shows her one of the Van Dam children.

Yes, that's formaldehyde.

Meanwhile, John is having flashbacks to... something. Somewhen. Disturbing images.

And he's hungry...

...it's night outside. And the gravedigger's daughter is out. Out in the graveyard...

It's a bit hard to type with that buzzing rhythm pulsing uncomfortably in my right side, so please bear with me. They travel to the Van Dam estate - it is empty now, as the last Van Dams died in a fire 75 years ago. An old woman is supposed to live up there, a nurse who might know more about John's disease.

Meanwhile, Dr. Marlowe is trying to make sense of John's test results, as he gets interrupted - by someone carrying the mauled body of a ...humanoid creature with him. Examining it further, the good Doctor ascertains that it appears to be human, but a hermaphrodite - a fully functional hermaphrodite, capable of replicating with itself.

Cut to John Strauss. He and his wife are surprised by an old woman who seems to recognise John. Further identification ensues, and the old woman tells him that he was the only surviving member of the Van Dam family, saved from the fire. When the talk turns to the desires and Cravings he feels, and he admit that he suffers from them but does not know what they are about, the old woman retreats fearfully, threatening both him and his wife and driving them away. Reluctantly, they leave.




In the meantime, we get one (1) child dragged into the ground through a hole.

Returning in fury, John demands of the old woman to know the truth - she couldn't have saved him from the fire because he wasn't 75 years old. It was his right to know the truth.

...and she shows him...

And the truth is... not all of the Van Dams are dead.

As a storm approaches mercilessly, the small island slowly descends into terror. John is sick and hardly able to move on his own; dark rain is cutting into the people's faces, thunder deafens human ears... and somewhere, something is crawling. Eating. Breeding. Feeding.




Dr. Marlowe discovers a group of... humanoids. Things. Mutated monstrosities of centuries of inbreeding... deformities feeding on corpses. It's the remaining family members of the Van Dams... apparently, they had been tunnelling underneath the cemetery for centuries since they disappeared from the eye of the public, feeding on corpses for generations - necrophagia and anthropophagia in general (but mostly necrophagia). Them lucky ghouls*.

Formulating an answer to John's problem in his mind, Marlowe talks to him and his wife, leaving a jar. With a Van Dam embryo in it. For John to feed on it.




After devouring the fetus, John is filled with vigour, life and power.

Then some other stuff happens. It involves a lot of screaming, hysterical people, deformed monstrosities, light, darkness, psychological terror, ...

...and then my favourite scene EVER.

EVER.

And no, I won't tell you about it (actually, it's two scenes, but what the heck).

Bleeders aka Hemoglobin is a very atmospheric movie; a friend of mine called it "dreamy", and I think that's a word that can be employed with a good conscience when talking about this movie. It has a dream-like quality - much more so than the short story "The Lurking Fear" upon which this movie was loosely based.

If you like Lovecraftian inbreeding stories, then you should enjoy Bleeders a lot. And if you like slightly weird, character-centered movies, you should give it a go as well. I would recommend it to the vampires-crowd, but Hemoglobin isn't pretty and shiny enough for that. And I'm perfectly fine with that. Ghouls have rights, too**.

Rutger Hauer's performance is not as great as it could have been, but then again, I compare each of his performances with The Hitcher... so he naturally pales in comparison to his old self. Roy Dupuis has some really fine moments in the second act of the movie - when the film starts, I sometimes wanted to bitchslap him for being artificial, but during the second act, everything he did became fluent and natural. I now wonder if I haven't been a bit too harsh, for maybe the artificiality of the character of John Strauss is not just an accident of bad acting but an intended characterisation of the persona being incorporated.




9/10 whole new sets of senses...

*You might be wondering why I classify this as a ghoul movie, but considering my personal definition of a ghoul, it fits.

**If I ever should find myself leader of a political party, that will be my motto.

The Brood (1979)

Finally. I've finally managed to watch The Brood - as you might have cunningly guessed, seeing as this is a review of the movie by yours truly (aka me, myself and the beast within*).

Let me preface this by stating that I am a big fan of David Cronenberg. Besides for Stuart Gordon and, more recently, Rob Zombie as well as Alexandre Aja and Eli Roth, he's one of the few directors/writers/producers whom I really like a lot. This also includes going to unimaginable lengths to see his movies - even though, sometimes, it may take me years to find a copy of the movies in question. Such was the case with The Brood... and after I had managed to actually find this movie last year, it of course took me more than six months to actually get around to watching it. And I have no real excuse, besides for "I have more than 1000 (one thousand) movies, I get lost sometimes"...

Just seeing this on my screen makes me happy...

David Cronenberg. A man who is as fascinated by the topic of change and transformation than I am by liminal states of transformation. If you can see the similarities (no worries, they are easy to spot even for dimwitted readers, although I severely doubt that any of my readers fall into that category), you should understand why I love the guy and his work, behind the camera as well as in front of it.




But, enough of me going all fangirl over Cronenberg and on to the movie at hand.

I doubt that many people who read these mental meanderings (and at times, rants) have never heard of the movie, but I'll sum the plot up nonetheless:

Nola Carveth is a woman who, for reasons lying in her childhood, needs to undergo an intense psychotherapy. Having had to deal with an abusive mother and a father who was too weak to defend the girl Nola against her mother, she is all screwed up in the head. Now, that is more or less the situation of a good percentage of the world's adult population... so what makes this psychotherapy different to others?

Say hello to "psychoplasmics".

"Psychoplasmics" is a new brand of psychotherapy, as developed by Dr. Hal Raglan (Oliver Reed). The catch is that, during this form of therapy, the patient's body transforms - basically, it works like psychosomatics. Your body transforms in order to fit your mind.

Dr. Hal Raglan, psychotherapist extraordinaire...

A man who has been suffering all his life under an abusive father, abusive stepfather and lack of an understanding father figure develops disfiguring welts, and another man developed lymphatic cancer, apparently due to his intense self-hatred (good thing I'm not doing anything like that... having a weird psychotherapy, I mean...). Now, you'd think that people would be wary of something like that - I certainly wouldn't start therapy if I had to consider that there is a distinct possibility of my body going even more haywire than it already does... but alas, it was the 70s, and things were different back then.

For example, people were allowed to smoke.

Now, the thing that makes Nola different is... well. Her physical changes are a bit more ...drastic than those of other patients of the esteemed Dr. Hal Raglan.




She doesn't just show psychosomatic symptoms or more drastic physical changes, like cancer running wild through her system. No... in her case, she gives birth (if that word can be used) parthenogenetically to the titular Brood - deformed, creepy children which are telepathically linked to her subconscious. And they are attacking those who want to destroy her dreams of a happy life with her child, Candice, and her not-so-loving husband Frank.




The Brood is indeed the shape of Nola's rage... and that rage is directed against those who in any way threaten her and her dreams.

I have to admit that the script (also written by Cronenberg) is not exactly one of the most complicated ones - the movie plays out predictably, and there is no element of surprise to the kills and their order. If you are in any way familiar with horror movies, you'll sit right in front of your screen, nodding to yourself as the Brood kills its way through the people responsible for Nola's problems - and problems she has... verily so**.




There isn't that much to give away in The Brood, but nonetheless, it is a very engaging movie. Not one second did I feel any sort of boredom - which you might not have inferred from my complaint about the predictable script. This is where Cronenberg truly shines - he can take a story, give you hints how it will play out and and he will play all of it out, without any surprising twists, or big and unexpected turns of events or scares. What he does is running along with how the story is supposed to play out, showing us just enough to confirm our suspicions... and yet, it's new, engaging, interesting and at times gritty to watch.




The Brood is spectacularly low on the gory end of things - although we get four kills, all of them the same modus operandi, they are not particularly bloody and violent (then again, that might be my skewed perception of violence - I imagine being bludgeoned to death to be quite a painful and violent experience, but no matter how much I know that, the scenes just didn't register on my violence-radar). However, that doesn't matter at all - and I am a gorehound at heart.




No, what The Brood manages to do is to let us glimpse into the terror of change. Yes, recently, throughout the past years, the subgenre of body horror has risen to new heights, and Cronenberg was particularly absent from the movies that have mercilessly shown us the first-person or third-person perspective of involuntary transformation - but still, he is the undisputed master of venereal horror.




Camera and light are not exactly what I'd call great pieces of art, but they're not bad, either. Above average, yet never so obvious that they'd take away from the story that unfolds before the eyes of the viewer. And I cannot stress enough that this story is a captivating one, although we pretty much know how things are going to turn out. Although I am in no means a filmmaker, and although my contacts with the world of movie-making have only been minimal, I think I can still state confidently in my position as a writer*** that there is an art to making the already known and expected seem more than just interesting - to make that which everyone already expects into a captivating story that unfolds and doesn't lose its psychological grip.




This movie is more than just entertaining - and if you're in any way like me, you'll probably enjoy the movie just as I did.

7.5/10 mothers licking their newborn baby clean...



*A friendly nod goes to the BZFOS here.

**As I already mentioned in another review of mine (can't remember which, though), the word "verily" can be used in a great way to add emphasis to a sentence, as well as killing any sort of idiotic question as to the validity of the statement made in said sentence. But here I just use it for stylistic reasons... and, admittedly, a bit of emphasis. I just needed it.

***Yes. Indeed. I write. Now stop laughing and scroll down!

The Plague (2006)

First of all: No, Clive Barker didn't really have anything to do with this movie. It's not Hellraiser, or Midnight Meat Train, or Nightbreed. So if you're like me and are expecting cool stuff when you read the words "Clive Barker" - don't bother to watch this movie. It's not bad, but it's not good either. It's... just there.

Second: If you're a gorehound and expect something nifty - don't.

A short synopsis: One day, at exactly the same moment, all children all over the world under the age of 9 become catatonic. Well, most of the time. Twice per day, they suffer from violent tetraspasms (I don't know if this word is just a German word or not, because apparently, my dictionary doesn't know of its existence, nor does Wikipedia, but damn it, I have been diagnosed with it and want to use the term now in order to show off how infinitely cool I am), aka twitching and flailing of the limbs. Also, you only see the white of their eyes... hell yeah.
The children remain in this state for 10 years; all the children born in those 10 years are born comatose. I personally envision a beautiful, silent world with that premise, but maybe that's just me and my natural distaste for children. Children are creepy, loud, annoying little buggers, and I could do without them.

Maybe its this intrinsic distaste I personally have that did not exactly make this movie a success on the creepy-scale in my eyes. The thought of all children becoming catatonic is more interesting than creepy to me. The thought of babies being born in a coma is something I think of as awesome and cool. Maybe people who like children, or are parents, would see this film in a different light, so anyone out there who reads this and actually has some sort of positive relationship with kids: Watch it and tell me if it's just me and my personal perception of the cute little futures of humanity (*shivers in terror*) or the movie. I vote for the latter, but then again, that's just me.

People in the movie say that the children are "shut off from the world". Well, being catatonic doesn't necessarily mean that you don't notice what is going on around you, so I'd be rather careful with statements like that - especially in the light of what happens 10 years after the children suddenly went away...

Long story short: They wake up and start killing adults. Being an adult myself, I find the thought of being hunted by a group of children unnerving. Not in the "damn, what a creepy thought"-way, but in the "holy crap, that would be the most annoying thing ever"-way. I don't know if it was intended to come across as such, though. But just imagine it: Four 6 year old kids and one 15 year old sister are following you with the intent to kill you. Terrifying, isn't it? You can kick the smaller ones, and there sure as hell is something handy around to deliver a good blow to the taller one's head.
Then again, maybe it's that whole "I don't like children, so the thought of having to fight my way through hordes of kids is actually entertaining and something I'd volunteer to as long as I get a weapon in order to inflict proper damage"-thing I have going on. Somewhere, there is someone to whom the thought of kicking a child, or shooting it in its head, is a disgusting, terrifying one that would induce slight nausea (I mean come on, the little buggers are sooooooo cute...). I apologise to those people that I actually find it hilariously funny to see kids getting hit with stuff. Unfortunately, there is not enough damage done to the little "we just got up and want to kill you all"-flowers. Damn it, little Timmy woke up slightly angry (or whatever generic children's name you want to choose to mock the movie's terrifying premise).

The movie has its moments, though. At one point, we see the comatose children/teenagers. They are clothed in poor, ill-fitting clothes, each of them lying on a flat, simple "bed" - rows and rows of them, filling a highschool gymnasium. They are stacked, denied even the most basic things such as proper care and a blanket to cover them. It's at this point that you realise that things aren't exactly perfect, and that the whole world is probably dealing with this problem in the same way. Society doesn't know how to deal with the comatose kids, so they just ...put them away - a well-known, centuries old tradition. Have a problem with people you don't know how to deal with? Put them away. It doesn't solve the problem, true, but at least you don't have to face what you don't understand.
Considering this, I'd be in the mood for some killing as well after waking up. The problem is: The movie is incoherent when it comes to its premise of "you reap what you sow" (I fucking had to read a synopsis of "The Grapes of Wrath", a book that is often eluded to in the movie and has strong ties with it. I don't like North American "literature", so I want to state here officially that I go through hardships and pain like none of you can understand for a review that no one is going to read of a movie like "The Plague"... *sighs*). If the kids are angry at the world and how they got treated - why does Eric (one of those lovely little buggers) kill his father who spent ten freaking years doing nothing but caring lovingly for him? I don't get it. Seriously.

Looking at my notes, I see that I made some about the characters in this movie, but trust me when I say that they are really not important. This movie could have been done with any other combination of characters - it's not about them and how they cope with the situation of being hunted by mobs of angry, weird children, it's about the idea and premise behind the movie. Problem is, it fails to convincingly deliver said idea/premise. I still can't really figure out what the thing was about. And no, I am not going to torture myself by watching it again - it would just be boring, and I wouldn't pay any attention to it anymore.

Another thing I have a slight problem with is the following:

What the hell is this plague? What caused it? Why? What happened to the children? Why did they develop a hive mind? Why do they kill people? Why do they apparently commit random acts of violence with some adults they kill, and only snap the neck of another one? What is it with "every time they kill someone, they put their hands onto their eyes and take their soul"?! Why do they mutilate that one woman in the bathroom? Is that in any way helping with the soul-thing, or was the killer-kid just a particularly psychotic one? Why do they run around like zombies? WHAT THE HELL HAPPENED?!

*takes a deep breath*

There you go, that's what I have a slight problem with.

I would love to say that the phrase "Teenage Zombies" never made so much sense, but... they're not zombies. They're not dead. Or undead, for that matter, although directly after they wake up, the movie changes into a zombie survival horror flick for a short while. I liked that part, although it was severely lacking in the gore department (I am willing to forgive that, though, as this movie was apparently destined to be broadcast on TV, so I understand that they don't want to show the doubtlessly educated and civilised people making up the audience terrible things like intestines, blood or brains). Still nice little episode, though. Trapped with something akin to teenage zombies in a highschool at night! I have to admit it, I found that part nifty.

At this point I want to add one thing: Producers and directors of movies - please, please, PLEASE. If you show a close-up of someone shooting up someone with morphine, do some research. I was confused. Why did the supposed nurse hold the syringe in a nearly 70° angle? Why did she ram the needle all the way into the arm? I know, it is one of those cool props you filmmakers have, but seriously. If you want to be realistic, please inform yourself how to properly instruct the actress to, well, play someone who knows how to actually do something like using a syringe. The way you showed it, she cleanly shot the morphine directly into the muscle after ramming it through the vein, for whatever reason there might be. Special American Nurse trick? It's especially weird if you know how fucking painful it is when a needle goes through the lower wall of the vein. Trust me on that - years of experience with hospitals and incompetent nurses and doctors have made sure that I know. So, please: Use your props in a more realistic way.

Anyways, it's a confused movie. Intellectual and philosophical "horror" (with very little horror being actually present), a plot that I am not quite sure if it deserves the name... confused. I'm sure that the idea it wants to convey is something worth pondering, but the movie just failed to actually convey the idea. I mean, I'm still a bit "WTF?!" now... which is not a sign of me having totally understood the plot. Maybe I'm just dumb, but I severely doubt that (Sartre couldn't beat me, so a movie like The Plague will hardly succeed where French Existentialism failed...).

But it's not a "bad" movie. As I said at the beginning of this review... it's just there. Nothing more, nothing less.

A neutral 5/10 for... nothing in particular.