Review: Dreamaniac

This review originally appeared at filmarcade.net

I got called out on something a while back that I never ever thought would be an issue. I was told, if you can believe this, that I’m “too positive” in my reviews. Apparently there are those out there, mainly other film critics, who feel that to be a critic you have to be overly, well…critical. I swear, I think some people start writing reviews just so they can tear movies to shreds. Maybe they’re right. Maybe I do make excuses for bad movies and go out of my way to accentuate the positive. The thing is, I love horror movies. I love ‘em. There’s something to dig about all of them. I guess the fact that I like far more flicks than I don’t like makes me less qualified. I guess to properly write about movies, I have to be a Roger Ebert style pompous windbag. Well, those of you who think I’m not hard enough on crappy horror flicks, you’re in luck, because today I’m reviewing Dreamaniac, a flick that’s just plain awful, and I’m calling a spade a spade; or in this case a turd a turd.

Here’s the synopsis…”In the sleep-stirring tradition of PHANTASM and A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET, DREAMANIAC introduces Lily, a deadly leading lady who makes Freddy look like a bargain basement boogieman. Adam is a heavy metal rocker and part time Satanist. When Lily enters his dreams, he uses black magic to summon her into reality. Too late, Adam learns that Lily is a succubus, a demon seductress who makes love to men and murders them – though not necessarily in that order. When she crashes Adam’s sister’s sorority bash, the blood flows and the body count rises. But Adam, entranced by her power, soon faces a tough decision. Will he break free to save his sister and her girlfriend – or will he experience the ultimate sensation of loving Lily…?”

What the hell happened here? That’s a pretty good concept, but man is it wasted. A lot is made on the cover and the synopsis of the “dream” aspect, but there’s really only one dream sequence in the entire movie, and that’s the first minute and a half. This is a little more accurate…”A naked guy walks down a hall, embraces a skinny, blood covered naked girl, screams, and wakes up. Later, he uses a couple of black candles and a library book to summon a Succubus, who bites him on the dangly bits. He lets his sister use his house to throw a party for her irritating sorority sisters and some ridiculously cliché guys. They proceed to try to get laid, eat hash brownies, snort coke, and occasionally get stabbed. Adam has joined forces with the Succubus, and it’s up to Pat, his girlfriend, to stop him.” Doesn’t sound too bad, huh? Well, it is. This movie is boring as hell. Nothing much happens except for a poor excuse for bad 7 or 8 person party footage and a LOT of talking. The tedium continues until what might be the longest, most uneventful fully clothed catfight in cinema history, followed by possibly the most idiotic, out of left field, “well that just ruins everything” twist ending you’ve ever seen. M. Night Slapnuts does twists better than this. The Village had a better twist ending than this. The Village! Yeah, it’s that dumb.

The acting? Well, it’s almost uniformly horrible. Adam broods hilariously, and the rest of the cast fight losing battles to give a little bit of life to their one note characters. There’s the man-stealing bitch, the dumb jock, the amiable slut, the bad boy, the “skinny tie and sunglasses at night” guy, etc. Particularly bad is the rich valley girl Rosie, played by Lisa Emery. Like, very rarely has, like, a more, like, totally mondo annoying character been, like, put on, like, screen, like. Sylvia Summers, who plays Lily, has absolutely no sense of menace to her at all. She’s not exactly giving Freddy a run for his money as the back of the box suggests. You know that girl at the party that acts half slutty and half crazy so people will pay attention to her? Yeah, that’s what she strikes me as. The one exception to the less than stellar cast is Ashlyn Gere, who gives a pretty good performance as Pat, Adam’s girlfriend. She would end up, after a certain very successful augmentation, becoming a porn star and giving even better, um, “performances.”

The story and acting aren’t why we watch these old “shot on video” forgotten gems though, now is it? Hell no, we’re here for the gratuitous nudity and gore. Let’s start with the nudity. It does have gratuitous nudity, but not the usual 80’s slasher flick fare. If you’re one of those people who laments that horror movies objectify women, enjoy this one, ‘cause the boys are on display this time. There is one short shot of some unspectacular boobs, and a whole heaping helping of bare man ass. Nearly every male actor ends up naked or in his tighty whiteys with the camera gazing lovingly at his crotch. Since David DeCoteau, one of the more outspoken gay horror legends, directed this it makes a lot of sense that the beefcake would far outweigh the cheesecake. Not my cup of tea, but if you’re into it, there’s plenty here for you. As far as the gore goes, it’s mostly of the “knife stabs into something off-screen and blood squirts into the frame” variety. There’s a decent amount of the red stuff, but none of the stabbings are at all convincing. There are two good moments involving a drill going through a hand and a head that will catch your eye. When they go in for the close-ups though, it looks like different film stock. Considering how high quality those shots were, I have a feeling they were lifted from another movie.

This flick does have the nostalgia factor going for it. Those looking for some serious 80’s, here’s some serious 80’s. It really doesn’t get any more 80’s than this actually. The outfits, the character archetypes, the music, the “not yet ironic” Def Leppard shirt, everything! This flick might as well be titled “Generic 80’s Direct to Video Horror Flick #17.” There’s a certain tenuous charm to terrible 80’s horror. This flick has a scant smattering of that charm. There is one pretty funny scene where Adam’s sister finds her boyfriend in bed with the bitchy slut of the group, and promptly pukes on them. Let’s see, going down the checklist here, drill, puke, nostalgia…yep, that’s about all the good stuff.

This is another one from Full Moon’s Grindhouse collection. The transfer is the same quality as it was on VHS. I have no problem with 80’s crap movies looking like 80’s crap movies, but the sticklers for pristine picture quality will want to pull their hair out over this one. This collection has some real winners in it, like Zombiethon, Filmgore, and Necropolis, but Dreamaniac is definitely one of the misses. I really wanted to like this one too, because I dig a lot of DeCoteau’s other flicks. Hell, I consider myself a connoisseur of bad movies, and it took me two sittings to get through this one. Pretty much the only things that keep it from being completely unwatchable are the 80’s nostalgia and the unintentional humor. I’m gonna be generous and give this one half a severed thumb up. Nathan says only check it out if you’re desperate.

Interview: Dear God No! director James Bickert Part 2

Here's the second part of my interview with James Bickert, the director of Dear God No! (REVIEW) If you missed part one, CHECK IT OUT HERE. What are you thinking? Why the hell would you start reading part 2 first? Come on now. I swear, sometimes I wonder about you people...

SOC: All of the actors looked pretty comfortable on those bikes. Were they bikers turned actors or actors turned bikers?

JB: They were dirtbags turned bikers. They were mainly musicians. A lot of us had experience with motorcycles just because we’re goofballs who grow up in trailer parks and drink a lot of beer and hang out at drive-ins. Jett actually dressed like Evel Knievel and jumped a bunch of flaming bags of popcorn at one of the Drive-Invasion’s (get info about that event here). We did get lied to by one of our actors who said he knew how to ride a motorcycle and hadn’t ever ridden one. He learned that day, and luckily we had insurance and he didn’t kill himself or anybody. The one guy who had the most experience was the only guy who dropped a bike.

SOC: I’ve been involved in shooting a rape scene and sometimes it’s hard to get the actors and actresses to give you the intensity necessary to make it believable. Was the rape scene in Dear God No hard to shoot in that respect?

JB: No, the only way that thing was really hard to shoot was that we were exhausted. That was our longest shooting day. I think we shot for 20 hours. That was a brutal day. The whole point of us shooting 20 hours that day was that we didn’t want to go back to that set, so we just had to get it done that night. By the time we were shooting that we were all loopy as hell, and I think that added a lot to it. It was kinda like the stories from Texas Chainsaw Massacre and the dinner scene where they were all going nuts because it was such a long day and it was hot and they could smell the pet crematorium next door. So the actress started thinking they were really going to kill her. We just wanted to get the f**k out of there at that point. I think the women were like “Yeah, rape me, please, do anything, just say wrap!”

SOC: One of the times I laughed hardest in the film was at the Corman’s Malt Liquor. Are there more of those type of homages that viewers will catch on subsequent viewings?

JB: Yeah. I’m a graphic designer, so I filled the film full of little subtle things like that. In the Larry’s office scene there are these boxes that say R.A. Meyer Bra Company like they’re stock left over from one of Russ Meyer’s films or something. The bait store had a ton. There were cans of Jess Franc-O’s on the shelf. (He told me about quite a few more, but it just wouldn’t be any fun if we gave them all away now would it?)

SOC: After you finished shooting, you took to Kickstarter to raise your completion funds. How did that work out for you and would you recommend it to other indy filmmakers?

JB: Yeah I would. It worked out great, we raised it really quick. It kinda slowed us down because we raised the money in, like, 10 days and then we had to wait 45 days to get the money because of that. We could have gone into transferring the film into digital a lot faster if we could have known we’d get that kind of response.

SOC: The poster is amazing. That’s another thing that’s becoming a lost art in the movie industry. How important is a good poster?

JB: It’s very important. We did a trailer and got a huge boost across the internet, but when we got Thomas Hodge to do that poster and that thing got released, man, the whole thing just went ape shit. It went f**king nuts. It’s ridiculous when you look at modern movie posters. One thing I don’t get that I noticed they started doing about the mid 90’s is they’ll have a photograph of, say, four actors, but their names won’t be in the order of their faces. They’re in some weird order. What the hell is that all about? You understand this, what lured us in and got our money was VHS boxes and the old one-sheets that were geared towards drive-ins and grindhouses. It’s like David Friedman said, “Sell the sizzle, not the steak.” Well, we’re trying to give you the sizzle and the steak. We need to give you the sizzle with the poster so you’ll eat our steak. Yeah I think it’s a lost art and I think that’s a shame. I mean, even the McGinnis James Bond posters that were so amazing. Now they’d just rather have some pretty boy up there pointing a gun in a photograph. Man, f**k photography and I’m a photography major. I collect movie posters. I’ve got a huge collection. I really like a lot of Belgian movie posters. They would have their own artists in Belgium doing these posters, and they wouldn’t be based on the American artwork. The same with some of the Italian Localinas. If you see some of the Polish ones they’re f**king insane. They look like some US ad campaign for recycling or something from the 70’s if someone dropped a bunch of acid. I love it. I’m a huge fan, especially the AIP stuff. It’s a big part of a film. It’s huge.

SOC: Now that the movie is done and out how happy are you with the finished product?

JB: I’m ecstatic. I think we pulled off something really terrific and I have no complaints about it. It came out perfect. It’s just what I wanted and the response has been great. The people I’ve been working with are fantastic. I just want to make more, and we’re going to.

SOC: In the past few years grindhouse/drive-in/exploitation films have had a big resurgence in popularity. Why do you think they’re becoming so popular again?

JB: Because Hollywood’s remaking everything and they don’t have any ideas. They’re just redoing the same things. There’s also this thing where everything is getting so hi def that they’re losing some basic elements of what drew people to movies to begin with. Old movies, especially from that late 60’s and early 70’s era, they had it. I go to movies to see what I can’t see on TV.

SOC: What is the difference between a grindhouse movie and a drive-in movie?

JB: With a grindhouse movie you look over your shoulder, you wear a raincoat, you go and jack off, and you slink away. With a drive-in movie you take a bunch of buddies and your girls and a cooler full of beer. You get drunk as hell, you raise hell, and you have a good time. The only way a drive-in movie can fail is by being boring. I’ve learned a lot from bad movies, but I don’t learn anything from boring movies.

SOC: Other than almost burning down the drive-in, because I already told that one, give us a good story from the shooting of the movie.

JB: The day with the squibs was the most fun on set. You would squib all of these extras up, they’d go off, and they’d all start clapping. Unfortunately because of how long it was taking to film they were waiting in the rain outside of the bar because at first the girls didn’t want to be naked in front of strangers. Then we started giving them booze, and they were all like “Alright! Let all the extras in!” I didn’t want the extras to get drunk and rowdy. The way I curbed that was that I made all of those Corman’s Beers. They were all Yuengling Light, but we left them all out in the sun. They were all hot as f**k. So I said “free beer”, it was out on all of the tables, but this shit was so hot you couldn’t drink it. You couldn’t get it down. So I knew they would be manageable. I’ve been on a film set where they gave free beer away, and it got way out of control. But anyway, they would get squibbed up and they would all go off and it didn’t matter, everyone was so happy.

SOC: When will the movie be available on DVD?

JB: I’m hoping the beginning of the year. We’re making screeners and adding all of the special features. I don’t want anyone coming back to me and saying “Well, it’s going to take this much money to put it together” when I can do that shit myself. Then I’ll have a total package to go on blu-ray or DVD. We’ve gotten a ton of offers. First I want to see if we have any big American interest, but if we get somebody really big then they’re probably going to want the foreign territories, but I’m going to try to talk them out of it. I finally got an entertainment lawyer. I learned my lesson after the debacle with that other company.

SOC: You’re getting ready to start hitting festivals. Where can people see the movie?

JB: Arizona, Las Vegas, Ottawa, Mobile Alabama, that’s what we’ve got cooking so far. Toronto, come on! What’s wrong with you? You know you want it!

SOC: What’s your next project going to be?

JB: What I want to do is the sequel to this because this was so much damn fun. I’ve got a bunch lined up that I want to do after this. I was thinking that this would be the end of it, but I had so much fun doing this. I know how to make a sequel that will totally freak people out. I want it to progress a people of years in style too. I want to progress in style up to maybe the early 80’s; have it progressing in production value and music and everything. Like you’re watching a chain of sequels that start in 1973 and make their way to 1985 or something. I’ve got so many scripts written and so many ideas. One thing I’m dying to do is a women in prison film. They’re an obsession of mine. (To see how much of an obsession, check out his site bigbustout.com)

SOC: Do you have any last words for the readers?

JB: Stay tuned for Frankenstein Created Bikers. For this one I want to go Naschy on it, and I want to go a little Philippino on it too.

Interview: Dear God No! director James Bickert Part 1

This is actually the second interview I’ve conducted with James Bickert, the director of the new bikers vs. Bigfoot Drive-in classic Dear God No. If you missed it, you can read my review HERE. The first time I talked to him was at the after party following the world premiere at the Plaza Theater. It was a great interview. I now believe that copious amounts of alcohol should be involved in every interview I do. The only problem was that apparently we were too close to a speaker or something, because when I tried to play it back it sounded like Charlie Brown’s teacher interviewing herself. So we met again back at The Star Bar in Little 5 Points, during the day this time, to try it again. As the evening progressed and more alcohol was imbibed, we were joined by Richard Davis, who was responsible for the film’s outstanding score, along with Brian Malone and Dusty Booze, who both performed on the soundtrack. We talked about VHS collecting, obscure drive-in movies, Gene Simmons playing a transvestite, James’ animosity over being screwed over by a generally loved genre icon, George Carlin, why we hate guys named Todd, Kitten Natividad’s legendary endowments, Filipino movies (he has a Vic Diaz tattoo!) and anything else remotely related to exploitation flicks you can imagine. These guys love this stuff just as much as I do. I’m not transcribing the whole afternoon, however, as I wasn’t recording it on the grounds that I didn’t want any incriminating evidence. Without further ado, however, here’s part one of my interview with James Bickert.

SOC: For those not familiar with the flick, tell us about Dear God No.

JB: Well, it’s not an homage, it’s a lost drive-in movie.

SOC: Where did the inspiration for the story come from?

JB: Well, it came from having a daughter for the first time. There’s this underlying theme of selfishness and whether I should make my wife happy or be a complete selfish bastard, and a lot of it is all the fears that come with this newfound responsibility of fatherhood. But, there are other inspirations, which are everything I love as an exploitation fan, the biker genre especially. I like the obscure stuff. I mean Wild Angels was definitely an influence, but more the stuff that happened at the tail end of the biker heyday where they would just merge stuff together like Werewolves on Wheels. I love when a genre is about to die and they just mix in a bunch of stuff. Then there are also influences from the drive in, like I Drink Your Blood, there’s a lot of that in there. Then there’s a Canadian film which I’m just in love with which goes by, well, one of the names is Last House on the Left 2, but it’s also called Death Weekend and House by the Lake. It stars Don Stroud, who I just think is the ultimate badass. The aspect of a bunch of degenerates getting into a situation that easily gets out of control and beyond what they’re expecting was influenced by that. Then there’s some high falootin’ elements with the lead actress which would be more like Kate Chopin's The Awakening. She’s named after that. There’s also influence from Gustave Flaubert’s Madame Bovary, and that whole turn of the century literature with women trying to find their place and it keeps getting worse and worse for them, that kind of thing. Yeah, there’s a shit load of elements that go into the themes, but the main thing is just a beer drinking movie that’s fun. I love drive –in movies and I love discovering a new film that me and my buddies can sit there and drink beer and laugh to. But it’s got to have those elements every 5 or 10 minutes where your jaw’s agape, or you’re hooting and screaming. That was basically the blueprint, it had to have more to it, but keep being what it is, which is nothing but a good f**king time and be respectful to the genre. I love the genre. I’m not in it to make money; I’m in it to be a part of the genre. That’s ultimately my goal is not to get rich, but to get to keep making stuff that I’d want to see.

SOC: The film was shot on 16mm and you used 70’s era technology. Why did you decide to go that route and what challenges came with it?

JB: Well, I don’t think there were that many challenges. We didn’t have a video monitor so that eliminated anybody saying “Oh, that didn’t look too good” or “You need to change that shot,” so that solves that problem right away and saves a hell of a lot of time. Because we didn’t know what we were going to end up with, we could shoot as fast and furious as we wanted. There was really no technical stuff except for loading the camera.

SOC: How important was the authenticity of making the flick seem like it actually came from the 70’s?

JB: That was everything. The one thing I stewed over for the longest time is the scene at the drive in. It shows at the bottom the FM channel you could dial in to get the radio frequency. They didn’t have that until the 80’s, it was all AM until, like, 1983. I sat there and beat myself up and I could have fixed it in after effects, but it would have taken me a f**king week with all of the motion tracking. So, hopefully that will slide. That’s the only thing I can think of where somebody might say “That movie IS NOT from the 70’s.”

SOC: What were some of the extreme lengths you went to with your attention to detail to ensure the period accuracy?

JB: One of the most extreme was in the scene where Jet pops open a beer. We actually got a 70’s PBR can that a beer can collector had opened from the bottom, washed it out as best we could, filled it with beer, and duct taped the bottom so he could pull the pull tab even though you can’t even tell it’s a pull tab on screen. As Jet said it was very “tinny” tasting, and it was the only beer the poor bastard was allowed to have.

SOC: Of course in the first interview, for that question you mentioned…

JB: BUSH! Totally. I couldn’t believe (name withheld just to be safe) had that unshaved bush. She actually asked my wife if she should shave it and my wife said “hell no!” No body had Hitler moustaches in the 70’s. I kinda miss big bush. It was like a headrest. It was some place you could just nod off for a while and fight your way back through the forest and keep going. (Note: At this point a long, hilarious conversation about why the EPA should have an advocacy group to protect the crab louse’s natural habitat ensued.)

SOC: Speaking of that, one thing Dear God No has that is sadly lacking in most movies these days is gratuitous nudity. Why do you think today’s filmmakers shy away from it?

JB: It’s a bigger taboo than you think. I don’t know why puritan values have struck such a chord, but apparently they have. Yeah, that’s really sadly missing. There are a lot of Something Weird elements, and a lot of Russ Meyer, and a lot of Orgy of the Dead in it. When I’m drinking and watching shit outdoors, my go-to’s are Mondo Topless and Orgy of the Dead, and I can sit there and watch Something Weird trailers from dusk ‘til dawn. There are parts of Dear God No where yeah, I know the nudity goes on too long. I even had somebody tell me about a rough cut “You know, the nudity is going on a little too long” and I purposefully added more nudity because that’s what I want to see. You throw shaking hips and tits onscreen with damn tassels, and I’m mesmerized. Jess Franco knew it. Hell, that’s three fourths of his running time.

SOC: The film was all shot locally in Atlanta area. What are some of the locations that local readers might recognize?

JB: We shot around Dick’s Creek, which is great trout fishing.

SOC: The strip club scene was the Tucker Saloon, right?

JB: Yes. There was a whole big thing going in there that got overblown where we were told that we had to meet with a biker in order to film there. I got the impression that it was one of the Outlaws or something like that, some guy named Mad Dog. It was this whole big deal. So we go to meet with Mad Dog to get permission to shoot there and this guy is the biggest sweetheart you ever met. We’re buying him PBR’s and I dunno, I guess he just wanted to hang out. We ended up putting him in the movie and shooting him, so that was pretty cool. There are stickers in there that say “Outlaws Territory” and John Collins, who is in the movie, was in a chapter of the Hells Angels like, 10 years ago and he got all paranoid. I told him “Dude, you shouldn’t be worried about the Outlaws, my first night in that place I saw a UPS man in a UPS uniform beat the shit out of a guy. Be afraid of UPS.”

SOC: You’ve said that you wanted the film to have a “Georgia flavor.” What do you think making it here adds to the flick?

JB: A lot. It’s like all of these regional drive-in movies made where they would load the prints in the trunk of their car, go to the theater, screen them, grab them off the projector, throw them back in the trunk and get the hell out of dodge before the crowd rioted on them. Most biker flicks always have this LA flavor to them with custom choppers, scenes at the beach, the music; everything is so California. The ones that don’t are some of my favorites, like Werewolves on Wheels and Northville Cemetery Massacre, which was shot in Michigan. Man, it has the authentic flavor of Michigan. A lot of people have compared this (Dear God No) to it, and I think that’s right on because those were rat bikes and rat guys doing the extreme thing. It didn’t have any good looking Peter Fonda or anything like that. Georgia didn’t have a biker movie. Texas does, Michigan does, Florida does, but we don’t. I think it’s about time we got one.

Come back tomorrow to read the second half of the interview, and be sure to check out the Official Dear God No! Website.

Review: Dear God No!

A couple of weeks ago, in my review of the killer flick Dead Hooker in a Trunk, I talked about how the thing missing from a lot of the “grindhouse/drive-in/exploitation” throwbacks coming out lately is authenticity. I’m talking about authenticity in look and spirit. I’m talking about movies that understand that those flicks are about more than digitally added grain. Hobo With a Shotgun came close, but it still looked too much like a throwback instead of the genuine article. Dead Hooker in a Trunk didn’t go for the vintage look, but it had the spirit nailed down. Well folks, over the weekend I attended the world premiere of a flick that successfully captures both. It has the look. In fact, it was shot on film with vintage cameras. Does it have the feel? Well, when you see a biker step over an empty PBR box to kick a dead nun into the bushes within the first two minutes, I’d say it’s safe to say that you’re in for a wild ride. You want grindhouse/drive-in authenticity? I’ve got your authenticity right here. The film I speak of is director James Bickert’s bikers vs. Bigfoot opus Dear God, No!

The premiere was a blast. In a bit of William Castle style showmanship, actors from the film were handing out authentic locks of Bigfoot’s hair, skull rings (“…perfect for impressing the scooter trash at your next outlaw biker meet or gang rape”), and these certificates…

Click on the pic so you can read it. It's worth it. Then, as we walked in, something in the theater caught fire and they were handing out posters and apologizing for the smoke. Now that’s how you kick off a premiere! By the way, that poster, featuring art by Hobo with a Shotgun poster artist Tom Hodge, is bad ass. The crowd was raucous and ready to go. Only in a crowd like this will a proud papa stand up, point, and yell “That’s my boy, the fruit of my loins” while said child pisses himself onscreen. These are my kinda people.

Dear God No follows The Impalers, a violent, bloodthirsty, rape and murder crazed outlaw biker gang, or as they are described in the trailer “the 1% of the 1%ers.” Following a shootout at a strip club (where the dancers wear Nixon masks) resulting in one of their own taking a bullet, they decide that it’s time to lay low for a while. After encountering a local couple at a gas station, they track them to the cabin of Dr. Marco, a scientist who is researching Bigfoot. As the Impalers terrorize Dr. Marco, his daughter, and his two guests, the horrifying secret of what lurks in the woods, and what’s locked in the basement, threatens to destroy them all. Madness and mayhem ensues.

First off, the film looks great. I can actually call this one a film in the true sense of the word too as it was shot in 16mm. This is why it looks so much like the 70’s drive-in classics it pays homage to. Other films can shoot digitally and add grain, lines, and fake film defects, but nothing actually looks like film but film. Period. End of story. I have always been a big proponent of the idea that analog always looks much better than digital. There are those who swear that music always sounds best on vinyl. I feel the same way about movies. Film has a warmth, a texture, and a look that digital just can’t replicate. The problem is, it’s much more convenient and a whole hell of a lot cheaper to shoot digitally. It’s just not cost effective for most low budget films to be shot on film. I got different estimates of the film’s actual budget from the director and one of the stars/special effects guys, and was sworn to secrecy by both, but either way, the fact that they got this movie shot on the budget they had is mindblowing. What this low budget, on-film shooting led to was not just a return to the shooting medium of those 70’s classics, but the shooting method as well. What I heard from almost everyone involved was that almost everything was shot only once. One take and move on. This is the way those classic drive-in and grindhouse flicks were shot. The film has a great, unpolished honesty that could only come from shooting the movie cheap and fast, just like in the good old days. It also has some great, unique shots that it would have taken other productions untold takes and ridiculous amounts of time to pull off.

As far as the actual content, it definitely has the “anything goes” philosophy of the Russ Meyer, Herschel Gordon Lewis, Al Adamson, Roger Corman era. Watch for a great Corman reference in the film by the way. Bickert described his film as “imagine early John Waters directing a movie for AIP.” I will say that I don’t think I’ve ever seen a movie from the original drive-in era that went quite this far. I’ll try not to give anything away, but we get the repeated crotch kicking of a dead nun, multiple decapitations, lesbian incest rape, Nazis, tampon shots, children being murdered, coke-line swastikas, and anything else you can imagine. If you are at all squeamish or offendable, just say Dear God No to this one. If depraved weirdness and blood-soaked mayhem is your thing, prepare to experience cinematic nirvana. It also features more of that other beloved 70’s hallmark, gratuitous nudity, than I’ve seen in any movie in years. Yes, that includes Piranha 3d. 31 breasts in all. Kinda makes you proud to be an American, don’t it. The abundant gore is all done practically and it all looks great. It is so refreshing to see old school squibs in the shootout scene instead of the CGI blood splatter that’s so prevalent in recent horror flicks. The soundtrack is excellent, sounding like something that could have easily been released in 1976. They went all out making sure every last detail was period accurate.

While this is a flick that will appeal to the horror crowd, it’s not strictly a horror flick. It’s a biker flick with horror elements, like Werewolves on Wheels or Northville Cemetery Massacre. It starts off like a marauding biker flick. Then they invade the cabin and terrorize the inhabitants. At this point it reminded me of a flick called Fight for your Life, only without the racial overtones. Maybe a better-known example would be House on the Edge of the Park with five David Hesses. Anyway, it then shifts into a combination of monster movie, splatter flick, and acid trip cinema. It is a mashup of many different exploitation subgenres, and they all blend together into a potent and insanely enjoyable cocktail. The film has a wicked sense of humor throughout, but about halfway there is a seismic shift in tone. The rape scene that occurs is intense. I don’t want to give anything away, so I’ll just say that there are some complex juxtapositions going on and just when you think they can’t go any farther, they do. Then it’s right back to the tone of the first half, which is great. It makes that one scene stand out. Serious kudos are due to the actresses in this sequence. What’s impressive though, is that the movie, despite its excesses, works on different levels. It actually does have a heart. They may be buried under a lot of blood and guts, but if you pay attention there are some emotional concepts at play.

I really only have one issue with the flick. During the opening credits sequence of the Impalers riding, they continually play to the camera; looking into it, yelling at it, flipping it off, and making faces directly into the lens. None of the characters was supposed to “be” the camera. I don’t get what the point of breaking the fourth wall like that at the beginning of the film if you’re not going to call back to it later. It just didn’t make sense to me. If that is the only thing a nitpicker like me can complain about in your flick, you’ve certainly done something right.

At the after party, James Bickert told me a great story. There’s a scene in the film involving an exploding van at a drive in. After being told not to include flour in the charge, the man in charge of the stunt did just that. The result was an explosion that was much larger than expected that nearly set the entire drive-in (Starlight Six in Atlanta) on fire. While everyone was freaking out and trying to put the fire out, he saw all of the burning kudzu and decided to take the opportunity to shoot some footage of an actor walking in front of the flames that ended up being used in the film. If that’s not the epitome of DIY, guerrilla, “fly by the seat of your pants” filmmaking, I don’t know what is.

Dear God No is violent, bloody, sleazy, offensive, and in incredibly bad taste…and I wouldn’t want it any other way. It’s a breakneck ride to hell and back that’s got cult classic written all over it. Plus, it’s a homegrown Georgia production with Atlanta talent, and I’m all about that. The filmmakers expect it to be available on DVD in early 2012. Until then it’s on the festival circuit. Be sure to check out their website HERE to find out when it’s going to be playing near you. Those of you who miss down and dirty, pull no punches, sick fun flicks; rejoice, they’re back! This one comes with my highest possible recommendation. Is there any way in hell you should miss this flick? Dear God No! Two severed thumbs up. Nathan says check it out.

Review: Dead Hooker in a Trunk

Ok, before I review this movie, which is damn good by the way, I have to rant for a minute first. It’s a tried and true rule in horror cinema, and cinema in general, that if someone stumbles upon a profitable idea, it will be taken, copied endlessly, ridden hard and hung up wet, done to death, and run into the ground. Currently, mainstream, big budget studio horror is riding the tail end (hopefully) of the remake and 3D waves. In indy horror, neo-grindhouse and exploitation flicks are currently all the rage. At least two thirds of the trailers I’ve seen for low budget, independent “genre” films in the last year have featured either fake film aging or an old school “coming attractions” screen. Tarantino and Rodriguez’s Grindhouse may have been a box office disappointment, but it sure was influential. Actually, maybe a better word would be imitated. Fake age drives me nuts. I think it’s ridiculous to buy brand new t-shirts made to look like you’ve been wearing them for 20 years. You have to earn that vintage look. I feel the same way about the fake film aging. It’s just dumb. It was fine in Grindhouse, because it was unique. That hadn’t been done before. Now everyone and their mothers are making crappy slasher or “exploitation” flicks, artificially aging the digital footage, and calling it a “throwback.” It can occasionally work as a nod to the genre's heritage, but a little goes a long way folks! Lines, grain, lost reel gags, and that sort of gimmickry is not what draws us to these films. The best neo-grindhouse movie since, well, Grindhouse was Hobo with a Shotgun, and it had none of that. What makes this subgenre special is its spirit. The ideal that nothing is off limits, anyone with an idea can make a movie, and being as outrageous and potentially offensive as possible is the name of the game. It’s the manic energy, DIY aesthetic, and “up yours” to conventional standards of cinema that made these movies special in the 70’s and 80’s, and it’s what makes the good flicks of this new wave exciting. Which brings me to the flick at hand; Dead Hooker in a Trunk. Dead Hooker in a Trunk doesn’t employ the fake aging, but it is more spiritually akin to the exploitation movies it is inspired by than most I’ve seen.

Badass and Junkie, two friends, wake up after a wild night. Geek, Badasses sister, asks for a ride to pick up her friend Goody Two Shoes from his church youth group. It just so happens that they were on their way to score some drugs anyway, so they agree. When the four meet up, they make a discovery. I’ll give you one guess what it is. That’s right, there’s a dead hooker in the trunk of their car! You sure are smart. Anyway, what the hell are you supposed to do with a dead hooker in your trunk and no idea how she got there? Apparently you spend the rest of the flick careening through a madcap series of misadventures that seem like a “Pulp Fiction-esque” fever dream. All I’ll say is that it involves chainsaw dismemberment, drug dealers, a cowboy pimp, a serial killer, eyeball extraction, necrophilia, bestiality, power drill torture, tied up cops, and God driving a taxi.

Dead Hooker in a Trunk is the brainchild of Jen & Sylvia Soska, identical twins who, in addition to playing Geek and Badass respectively, wrote and directed the flick. The passion they have for films like this and the fun everyone was having making it is evident. It definitely epitomized the DIY school of filmmaking. They have been tight lipped about what the actual budget was, but in an interview on the Altered Realities podcast they said that you couldn’t buy a used car for what they spent on the flick. For a film this low budget, it looks great. The action scenes and gore are amazingly well done, and it has a definite visual flair. Everyone puts in a good performance. The four central performers in particular have a great onscreen chemistry and, in a rarity for movies these days, actual character arcs. The story is very creative and unpredictable. It moves along at a breakneck pace that keeps you constantly anticipating just what kind of outrageousness and weirdness they are going to throw your way next. The final line of the film is both a perfect coda to the ride you’ve just been on and a laugh out loud inside joke for lovers of this type of flick. In other words, this movie is just a whole hell of a lot of fun.

One other thing that deserves particular mention is that title. How could you not want to see a movie called Dead Hooker in a Trunk? That was a brilliant move on the part of the Soska sisters. It’s memorable, intriguing, attention grabbing, and makes it stand out from the glut of direct to DVD indie horror product. Plus, I’m a big fan of the whole “naming your movie after what’s in it” trend. Dead Hooker in a Trunk, Hobo With a Shotgun, Ticked-off Trannies With Knives; you know exactly what you’re in for with those. I wish more mainstream flicks would follow suit. I would love to walk up to the box office window this fall and say “One adult ticket for ‘Fish, Blood, and Tits’ please” instead of Pirhana 3DD. I would also love to see a marquee advertising “Sparkly Pretty Boy Vampires” or “M. Night Shamalan Presents: Obvious Yet Nonsensical Plot Twist.”

Anyone who regularly reads the blog and has seen the movie already knows what my one quibble with it is; the almost non stop jumping, shaking, bobbing camera. In this case, however, I’m going to be a little more forgiving than usual. That’s because in this flick it actually seems more like a stylistic choice than a crutch. The Soskas do actually have a grasp of the concept of shot composition. In a lot of those shaky shots it seemed like the camera was moving within a larger frame that had been carefully constructed. While it’s not a stylistic choice I like, I can dig what they were trying to do to an extent. Despite the wildly unsteady shooting, the violence and action is still fully visible for ample time and allowed to play out naturally, so it doesn’t feel so much like a cheat. The action sequences were also well choreographed, something you rarely see in conjunction with third person shaky cam. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not letting them off the hook for using a filming method that’s become trite and ridiculously overused, but with DHIAT is seems like they wanted to use it because for some odd reason they dig it, rather than used it because they needed it to cover up deficiencies.

Dead Hooker in a Trunk is the kind of flick that deserves and somewhat requires repeated viewings. You almost have to experience it again to catch everything it sends flying at you. I personally had a blast watching it. Sure, the story doesn’t make strictly logical sense, but it isn’t supposed to. That’s part of the fun. The sound is a little rough in spots, but come on, you have to forgive that kind of nitpick when people deliver a movie this good for the pittance they had to work with. It’s far more enjoyable than movies I’ve seen lately with 1000 times the budget. The problem with horror right now is that every movie either takes itself way more seriously than it needs to or is just regurgitating a tired formula. This flick does neither. Not only do I recommend this flick highly, but I welcome the Soska sisters as exciting new artists on the horror scene. I will be greatly looking forward to American Mary, their next project, and everything after. One and a half severed thumbs up just because, despite what I said, I can’t in good conscience give a perfect score to a flick with that much shaky cam. Sorry ladies. Nathan vehemently says check it out!

Review: Ticked-off Trannies with Knives

I’ve been debating for a couple of days as to whether or not I should review Ticked-off Trannies with Knives. I have no problem writing about what goes on onscreen in any flick. That’s what the site is all about. The problem is that this flick is pretty controversial in certain circles and communities. You know me, I’m slightly opinionated. Lets be honest, I’m a bit of a loudmouth. Hell, everyone’s entitled to my opinion. I don’t shy away from controversy either. I’ve already gotten a couple of angry complaint emails about things I’ve said on the blog. The issue of censorship is a hot button with the ol’ Son of Celluloid, so I know that there is absolutely no way I can bring myself to review this flick without weighing in on the protests. I know that I might even piss some people off or alienate readers, but what the hell? That's how I roll. Here goes nothin’.

First, let’s talk about the movie itself. It’s a throwback to the 70’s grindhouse “rape/revenge” exploitation films. Bubbles is raped and beaten up by Boner. It seems Boner didn’t know Bubbles was a tranny until past “the point of no return” and he’s none too happy. He and his two buddies track Bubbles and her transgender cohorts and attempt to finish the job. They succeed in killing two out of the five in the group. When Bubbles wakes up from a coma, the three remaining chicks decide that it’s time for a little good old fashioned payback. It’s a simple, familiar story.

Lets start with the good. Rachel Slurr, played by notable drag performer William Belli, is pretty funny. She’s the “dumb, offensive, but loyal” friend. All of the best lines in the flick belong to her. If you took Jason Mewes as Jay, put him in drag, gave him no lines about drugs but even more lines about dick, and dialed down the “funny” a bit, you’d have Rachel Slurr. Krystal Summers as Bubbles and Tom Zembrob as Boner were great. Krystal was surprisingly adept for a first time actress. She had the perfect balance of vulnerable and tough required to be a believable heroine a revenge flick. Tom Zembrob was menacing and creepy. Imagine a redneck version of David Hess from any of the Last House movies (on the Left, at the Edge of the Park, etc.) and you’ve got the picture. Not only are they good on their own, but their chemistry is great. When these two are on screen together, magic happens. They are in the same scene for roughly 50 minutes out of the film’s hour and a half running time. It’s a good thing too, because the other half of the film is damn near unwatchable.

I get that this was a throwback grindhouse flick, but this movie overdid it. It had more obnoxious fake grain, burned film, screen lines, and “reel missing” gags than Machete, Planet Terror, and Deathproof combined. Take a lesson from Hobo with a Shotgun folks, you can make a movie look like it’s from that period without the garish fake patina. Another thing it stole from Deathproof is that for the first twenty minutes, nothing happens except for the main characters talking. In that movie, it was annoying. In this movie, it’s unbearable. The dialog, which sounds half scripted and half improvised, consists of catty queens sniping at each other for what seems like forever. Not exactly my idea of entertaining. If you are one of those “flaming automatically equals funny” people, you might dig it. To me, it was just monotonous.

After that we get the scene in the warehouse where the attack happens. Like I said earlier, Boner is great, but his two stereotypical Mexican henchmen are very one note. I know they didn’t need to be much more than they were, and they served their purpose, but giving them some semblance of a character would have been nice. This scene is entertaining though, and the blood-matted hair stuck to the bat was a beautiful touch. It’s one of the Bubbles/Boner scenes I was talking about earlier. The fight choreography could have used a lot of work, especially the scenes involving Pinky La’Trimm, which is an issue later too, but even that can’t kill these good scenes.

Then Bubbles wakes up in the hospital, and the next 20 minutes are mind blowingly bad. We get a way too long charades bit (why is there canned food beside her hospital bed anyway?), a way too long “speech impediment on the phone” gag, and a 10 minute scene devoted to stretching the already thin joke that the doctor’s name is Phil Latio and the nurse is Connie Lingus. Get it? They drug a joke out until it was way beyond funny any more so many times that I was wondering if the Family Guy writers had a hand in it. I expected a 5 minute Conway Twitty song at any moment. The only thing remotely interesting in this middle section of the movie, the girls kung fu training, was cut out with a “missing reel” gag. Basically, they were trying to go for the feel of an early John Waters film, but the script doesn’t have the wit and the actors aren’t outrageous enough to pull off Desperate Living or Female Trouble. Sorry ladies.

The final part takes place as the three remaining gals get their revenge. The only real issue I have with this section is that with all of the stabbings and throat slittings, there’s very little blood. Wounds that should be gushing merely trickle. Half of the stabs and cuts don’t even bleed at all. You don’t have to go over the top with it if you don’t want to, but at least make it realistic. It’s a shame too, because aside from the lack of blood, the effects were done very well. This is another Bubbles and Boner scene though, with Rachel thrown in for good measure, so I dug it.

Now that we’ve gone over the flick itself, on to the controversy. GLAAD and various other transgender activist groups have been protesting the movie, even demanding that it be withdrawn from last year’s Tribeca film festival. In addition to taking offense to the word “Tranny,” they claim that it makes light of real violent hate crimes against transgender people. They also claim that it is an unrealistic representation of the lives of transgender females. They actually tried to shut down screenings of the film throughout last year. Before I share my thoughts, let me say that I think discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity is ridiculous. As I like to say, what you like to lick doesn’t matter to me. Neither does what gender you want to dress and identify as. I couldn’t give less of a damn about that stuff, and I don’t judge based on it. That isn’t the issue here at all.

My thoughts on the subject are as follows: CHILL OUT AND GET OVER YOURSELVES! It’s a movie. I’m not going to go into how much I think the whole “political correctness” thing has gotten insanely out of hand, as this isn’t the time or the place, so whether or not they should have used the actual word “Tranny” I’m not going to address. What I will talk about is how ludicrous it is to get so butt-hurt over a movie like this. Then again, considering some of the dialog and action in the flick, butt-hurt might not be the best choice of words. Anyway, it’s an exploitation flick people. The whole point of a movie in this genre is that nothing is sacred, everyone is fair game, and bad taste is the norm. It’s not supposed to be a realistic portrayal of the transgender community, and it’s not supposed to have a heavy handed anti hate crime message. Did you really expect it to? Were these folks really dumb enough to expect a movie with a title like “Ticked-off Trannies with Knives” to be a message flick like Boys Don’t Cry or Milk? Come on folks. No, the violence isn’t realistic. You know why? Because the victims get their revenge! That’s not the norm in real life, and I would think that errs on the side of trans-powerment. Yes, it is a word. I think. This movie is an idiotic thing to get offended over. What offends me is that a group like GLADD that is all about tolerance and rights turns to the age old tactic of censorship as it’s method of attacking a perceived threat. Awful hypocritical of you there guys. For someone who claims to support equal rights for everyone, when you take offense to something, you guys sure seem ready to try to fight against their right to be seen and heard. Censorship is never the answer. My whole point is, it’s a movie. As Krystal Summers herself said “It is not a documentary, but a work of fiction and a revenge fantasy.” I’m not against GLADD as an organization, but trying to shut down movie screenings because you’re offended really sticks in my craw. Unbunch your panties, quit trying to ban things, and calm the hell down.

I know what you’re saying. I’m a straight, white, middle class male. What business do I have speaking on any issue facing a minority? I knew you would, so I got a second opinion. I want to introduce you all to Tina. Say hi Tina. You can follow her at this link. Tell her Nathan sent ya. Anyway, Tina is one of my best friends. She is also one of the blog’s biggest supporters, constantly pimping it all over the place. Furthermore, Tina is a transgender gal herself, so I figured she would be perfect to weigh in on the controversy. According to her, the term Tranny is viewed as offensive by some, but not all, and she doesn’t find it offensive personally. When I asked her if she found the violence in the flick offensive, she said “As far as people within the LGBT community complaining about the use of violence in the film...kind of ridiculous in my opinion. Trans women deal with violence or the threat thereof on an almost constant basis. We shouldn't run away from showing that on film. You have to take the film for what it is, a blaxsploitation-esque "I Spit on Your Grave" with 5 Trans women instead of 1 genetic female.” My thoughts exactly. She did, however, say “I do find the fact that they didn't fill all the trans roles with trans actresses offensive though. There are plenty out there that would have loved to do it.” I can see her point, but as far as casting goes, I would have given it to the best performer regardless of whether they were trans or not. Then again, as Tina says “A queen is never going to accurately portray a trans woman.” I do agree with that. I had a hard time confirming the “status” of the actresses, but at most 3 were actual trans, and they all seemed way more “drag queen” than “transgender woman.” I see both sides of that argument, but at least we agree that getting upset over violence in an exploitation flick is ridiculous.

All of the controversy aside, the movie is very uneven. When Ticked-off Trannies with Knives is good, it’s damn good; but when it’s bad, it’s horrid. The scene of the initial attack and the revenge scene are definitely effective. They’re a lot of fun too. Here’s my suggestion, watch the opening scene to get familiar with the characters. Then go make a sandwich or something, and come back 20 minutes in when the warehouse scene starts. When you see the hospital, go make a drink or let the dog out or do anything else but watch this movie for the next 20 minutes. Then, when you see Bubbles at home in her bathrobe, watch the rest from there. Trust me, it’s an enjoyable movie and well worth seeing if you watch it that way. It’s an endurance test if you watch it straight through. It’s half of a good movie, so I’ll give it one severed thumb up. Nathan says check it out.