Review: The Orphan Killer

If you have the twin addictions of horror and facebook, of which I am guilty on both charges, then you’ve most likely seen an indie flick called The Orphan Killer making its presence known. Filmmaker Matt Farnsworth and crew have set up a public figure profile for Marcus Miller, his slasher character, and boy is he active. With so much social networking going on, it’s a wonder that he has time to kill anybody. They’ve been making some pretty audacious statements about the movie, hailing it as a “tour de force,” touting tweets calling it the best slasher picture of all time, and dubbing Marcus the “newest horror icon.” Does the flick live up to that kind of hype? I wouldn’t say that, but it is quite the enjoyable ride and one of the best slasher flicks I’ve seen in a while.

Marcus and his sister Audrey witness their parents’ murder during a robbery when they are very young. Marcus vows revenge, dons a mask, and becomes Batma... wait... nevermind. That was someone else. Marcus does indeed don a mask, but I’m getting ahead of myself. The two are sent to an orphanage. His parents’ murder obviously affected Marcus in ways it didn’t affect Audrey, as is obvious when he snaps one night and beats a boy to death with a baseball bat. After this the Nuns who run the orphanage beat and abuse the boy, keeping him in isolation and forcing him to wear a mask to signify that he is a “monster.” Audrey ends up getting adopted, leaving Marcus behind. Now Audrey, all grown up, is a teacher at the church/school/orphanage, and Marcus decides that it’s time to make her suffer for abandoning him all those years ago.

The film is really two types of horror in one. The first half is an old school “stalk and slash” flick. After Marcus peruses Audrey and kills anyone who stands in his way for the first half, the film makes an abrupt tonal shift. Once Audrey is captured and drug off to Marcus’ lair, it becomes a torture/survival flick. Those who still insist on throwing around the trite, meaningless throwaway phrase “torture porn” will probably decry it as such. I thought both halves were well done and well paced. There is a significant shift in Marcus’ character also, which is a little less seamless than the shift in story style. After spending the first half of the film grunting, growling, knocking over furniture, and generally being maniacal, all of a sudden with Audrey in his clutches he becomes eloquent, measured, and calculating. The change is out of nowhere, but it isn’t so jarring that it negatively affects the movie.

This flick has a lot of things going for it. It’s obviously low budget, but manages not to look low budget. The production values are very high, and the film looks very good. It has a great, unique, gritty look to it, but it definitely does not look cheap. I asked Matt Farnsworth what the actual budget was on facebook, but he hasn’t responded as of the time of this review. I really dig the mask itself. It’s blank but not featureless. It gives the killer a little personality. I personally love the use of religious motifs and iconography throughout the proceedings. One of the main things that sets this movie ahead of the pack is that the acting is head and shoulders above the usual indie horror fare. In fact, aside from a couple of performances that aren’t really bad, just kind of wooden (you’ll know ‘em when you see ‘em) the acting is really quite good. The standout is definitely Diane Foster as Audrey. She makes a great victim and an even better “final girl.” There are many scenes in which she really shows her chops, but one in particular stood out to me. When Marcus has her tied up, he disappears out of the frame for about a minute. The shot is a close up on Foster’s face. We don’t see, nor do we even know, what Marcus is doing to her, but the agony in her expression and her performance in that one scene tells us everything we need to know. It is a moment of brilliance, and big kudos go out to her. Plus, this chick has one hell of a scream. David Backus is good as Marcus. Playing a masked killer is hard, because the physicality of the character has to be expressive enough to make up for the lack of facial expressions. It’s easy to buy Backus as not a typical stoic undead killing machine style slasher (Myers, Voorhees), but a relentless psychotic human slasher. The supporting cast, as I said, does a good job as well.

This is first and foremost a slasher flick though, and I am well aware that these movies aren’t generally judged on the quality of their acting. Horror fans come into movies like this looking for one thing in particular, the red stuff. Let me assure you folks, the violence in this movie is meaty indeed. We have a machete through the face, various stabbings, limbs hacked off, and all kinds of other gory goodness. One thing I particularly liked was the fact that Marcus uses barbed wire as one of his weapons of choice. Barbed wire has a huge variety of creative potential deadly uses, and I’ve always felt that it was grossly underutilized as a slaughter tool in horror cinema. In fact, in a few months you’ll be hearing me talk a lot about barbed wire weapons. That’s all I’ll say about that for now. Anyway, gore hounds will find a lot to love about The Orphan Killer. Unfortunately, talking about the gore also brings me to one major issue I had with the flick.

Whenever the time comes for some on screen bloodletting, the shooting style changes abruptly. During the kill sequences, we get my pet peeve modern horror cliché, a bouncy camera and frenetic editing. I know, I know, I sound like a broken record, but I will continue to scream it from the hilltops until directors and cinematographers realize that shaking cameras and frantic split second editing do not add drama. Atmosphere, acting, plot, score, and interesting shots can. Relying on those overused, cheap techniques is just lazy filmmaking. It’s a damn shame that the makers of this film did that for two reasons. First, in the scenes where this abhorrent shooting method isn’t used, they show a great knack for the kind of fluid, dynamic, visually interesting camera movement that I think is quickly becoming a lost art. These scenes show a lot of style in the camera work, and I really wish the whole film had been done that way. There are a lot of really great shots on display here, and while they are refreshing, they make the “28 Days Later” style crap stand out that much more. I won’t even get into the “strobe light “fight scene, but it’s the epitome of what I’m talking about. The other reason people sometimes use that style is to hide weaknesses in the special effects department. That was absolutely not necessary in this flick. The gore is very well done, and could have definitely stood up to more prolonged views of the carnage. The film would have benefited from it. There were quite a few instances where I was annoyed that a really well executed gory set-piece was onscreen, but the ultra short, shaky shots wouldn’t let me get a good look at it. The fact that the film obviously didn’t have to resort to cheap tricks makes it similar to getting in a fight with someone who you know is about to beat the hell out of you, and they kick you in the nuts. Why? They’re strong enough to get the job done the right way, so why would they resort to taking shortcuts? I feel much the same way about this flick in regards to the shaky cam and hyper-kinetic cutting of the violent scenes.

My only other issues come from the story itself. First, I wanted more backstory. There is a huge gap there. The last time we see Marcus in flashback, he is (I would guess) a teenager, mask on, being sedated after killing an orderly. Then, all of a sudden, some girls are oh-so-conveniently finding his mask laying around in “the old part of the building” and he’s a full grown adult running free. What happened in the ensuing time? Was he moved when he grew up? What happened in the “killing spree” that’s alluded to? How did he lose his mask? How did he escape? Where the hell did he escape from? He tells Audrey that “Jesus showed me a way out of my room last night.” Talk about your vague explanations! It would have been nice, especially considering how well his early backstory was handled, to fill in these gaps and make the character make a little more sense. Either leave him mysterious with no back story, or tell us everything. The gap there is a little much to ask the audience to jump. Maybe they were thinking that they’d save the rest of his history for the sequel, which they left the ending wide open for.

My other two story issues stem from the final scene. Up to this point Marcus has been very meticulous and competent, but in this scene he does something that is mind-blowingly stupid with his weapon that almost leads to his demise. His slashing resume looks great, but if I were hiring psycho killers, this one bonehead move might have cost him the job. Also, the thing that finally does take him down is telegraphed badly. You can see it coming a mile away and almost pinpoint the second that it’s going to happen.

Random Thought #1: Does anyone in a horror movie ever take any reading material to the bathroom with them besides a porn mag? Is that a horror movie thing, or am I the only one that doesn’t look at porn while taking a dump?

Random Thought #2: Smacking someone in the face repeatedly with a monkey wrench just might be my favorite way of waking up an unconscious person that I’ve ever seen.

Random Thought #3: Any movie that includes a Nun giving head is cool in my book.

Overall, The Orphan Killer is a truly enjoyable indie slasher flick and there is enough awesome offered up to more than counteract the flaws. In this day of either mindless underground gorefests or sanitized teenybopper horror, too often you have to decide if you want to watch a movie with quality filmmaking or one with balls. With this flick, you don’t have to choose. As writer and director,  Farnsworth shows some flashes of real talent here, and since this is his first horror flick, I’ll be watching his evolution as a filmmaker with great interest. The only thing that really mars this film I hope will come in time, when Farnsworth realizes that his film is good enough that he doesn’t have to resort to the cheap, unimaginative bobble head shooting and rapid fire editing that The Orphan Killer unfortunately does. It may not be the landmark film it purports to be, but it is a fun flick and well worth watching. One and a half severed thumbs up. Nathan says check it out.

The 5 Greatest Horror Movie Mash-ups You'll Never See.

Remember how excited you were when you found out that Freddy vs. Jason was finally going to become a reality? I was too. Hell, everyone was. In the wake of that flick, rumors were flying about what team ups and battles we would see next. Pinhead was rumored to figure into Freddy vs Jason. Michael Myers, Leatherface, Chucky, Candyman, and all of the other great slashers were supposedly about to duke it out. Ash was even going to be thrown into the mix. A lot of these pairings did happen in comic books, where character crossovers are common. On the silver screen, however, the idea just fizzled and never came to fruition, which sucks. Bad. I was looking forward to it. I think there could have been a modern equivalent of those great old Universal “House of…” movies where they just threw all of the monsters into one flick.What  a huge missed opportunity!  That could have been a really fun era of horror history. Alas, as is usually the case, arguments over who owned the rights to what and who would make what share of the profits superseded what the fans wanted to see. While Hollywood may have missed the boat on the whole monster mash up idea, I have a few ideas of my own. What do you think? Would you pay to see these?

Evil Dead / Phantasm

Ash and Reggie Bannister are two men who have looked into the eyes of undead, demonic, otherworldly terrors and survived. Two average Joe’s forced to become warriors. Two… well, two heroes who take almost as much ass kicking as they dish out. They make quite the mighty chainsaw swinging, evil blasting, catchphrase spewing team. They’re going to have to, because a new enemy threatens our realm. The Tall Man has gained control of the Necronomicon and unlocked its secrets. He now wields the full power of the deadite legions. Not only is he turning the entire population of small towns into deformed evil Jawa things, but now they’re possessed, powerful, deformed evil Jawa things. Honestly, for this one, the plot doesn’t really matter at all. Ash and Reggie versus the Tall Man is about all you have to say. Plus, the look on Bruce Campbell’s face when Reggie introduces Ash to the four-barreled boomstick would be worth the price of admission by itself.

Hellraiser / Pumpkinhead

Ashley’s husband was the final victim of Skinner, a vicious serial killer, before he was apprehended. During the trial, with the press hounding her for interviews and Skinner hinting at “unfinished business,” Ashley decides to retreat to her mother’s house in rural Louisiana. When Skinner is acquitted on a technicality, Ashley is both outraged at the miscarriage of justice and afraid for her life. Her mother informs her that while the court couldn’t give her justice, she knows someone who can. She takes Ashley to an old woman who lives back in the bayou, who helps Ashley call forth Pumpkinhead to avenge her husband. Meanwhile, Skinner has discovered her whereabouts and is en route to Louisiana to finish what he started. He brings his “toys,” mainly the sharp ones, as well as a puzzle box he stole from an occultist he killed. He opens the box and, as the Cenobites are about to tear his soul apart, Pumpkinhead bursts into the room intent on tearing his target apart. Of course, neither is willing to cede their kill to the other. A battle between the demonic forces ensues and Skinner escapes. With Skinner racing towards Ashley with murder on his mind, and Pumpkinhead and the Cenobites hot on his trail, who will reach their victim first? There will be suffering, but whose?

Motel Hell / Texas Chainsaw Massacre

With the authorities sniffing a little too close, Farmer Vincent and Ida decide to relocate. Settling in Texas, they set up shop, once again making their famous meat products. One day Drayton Sawyer stops in and decides to try out Farmer Vincent’s Fritters. He recognizes that secret ingredient. He’d know that taste anywhere; it’s the same kind of meat he’s been using for his award winning chili. The two cannibal families forge an uneasy business partnership, with Drayton selling Vincent’s famous jerky from his chuck wagon and Vincent selling delicious Sawyer barbecue at his store. All is well until a van load of vacationers breaks down while passing through the area. Both families go after them, and it looks like there’s just not enough meat to share. There’s only room for one cooking dynasty in these parts. The truce is off and the fight is on. It all comes down to Vincent, complete with his pig head mask, and Leatherface in a chainsaw duel. Only one can claim this territory for their particular brand of culinary mayhem.

Reanimator / Bride of Frankenstein

Dr. Pretorius has tried and tried to cajole, threaten, and seduce Henry Frankenstein into returning to his experiments with giving new life to the dead. Unfortunately, it seems that after that unpleasant business with his monster, Henry refuses to take up the scalpel again. Pretorius decides to turn his attention to another promising student from his days at the University, a young upstart named Herbert West. He is delighted to find that Herbert shares his dark curiosities without all those pesky ethics that Frankenstein has suddenly developed. When his new accomplice shows Pretorius his latest project, a mysterious compound he calls his “re-agent,” it looks like the old lightning method is suddenly obsolete. Together, they set off to explore the limits of life and death. Can the two egotistical medical necromancers co-exist? More importantly, what monstrosities will this mad scientist dream team unleash upon the earth?

Human Centipede / Basket Case

Duane and Belial were conjoined twins. They were separated against their will when they were 12 or, as their parents put it, “that deformity was removed from Duane.” Belial was thought to have died, but Duane saved him and now carries his small, monstrously deformed, homicidal brother around in a whicker basket. Together they’ve set off on a mission to kill everyone involved in the separation. They’ve traveled wherever they had to, taking out parents, orderlies, and nurses. They tracked two of the three doctors involved to New York City. At the “urging” of Belial, the two assistant surgeons reveal that the final, head surgeon in charge retired and now resides in Europe. The boys head off to Germany to get revenge on the doctor who presided over their separation; a doctor who was famous for separating conjoined twins. In fact, Duane and Belial’s case brought him fame and fortune. He is none other than Dr. Heiter. The good doctor, having conquered the art of separation, is now interested in joining together. When Duane and Belial confront him, he sees a perfect chance to test his new procedure. He convinces them that if they spare his life, he will right the wrong by reversing the process and rejoining them. They agree and Heiter operates. When the boys wake up, however, they realize that this wasn’t exactly the reunion that they had in mind.

Interview: Nerd of the Living Dead director Stu Dodge Part 2.

Here's the second half of my chat with Stu Dodge, director of the irreverent, outrageous new zom-edy Nerd of the Living Dead. Check out the film's facebook page here for all of the updates you could ever want, plus a ton of cool behind the scenes "making of" pics. Thanks, by the way, to the 57th Fighter Group for being so cool and giving us the run of the place to do the interview. No, they didn't pay me for the plugs, although I certainly wouldn't argue with some free food. With that said, lets get to the interview...

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

SD: I am very pleased with the picture. It came out like I thought it would come out, but I didn’t realize going into the picture how much work it was going to be. I probably need to step away from it for a month or so and then watch it and I’ll probably have a better answer. I’m not going to say I’m sick of seeing the footage, but I’ve seen this footage 10, 12, 14 hours a day for the last six months, so my perspective is skewed. When I watch it with someone else and they chuckle or are visibly enjoying something, it lets me realize I’ve got something fun and interesting there. Of course, like any producer or director, if we had more money or more time… how do I put this, there are very few things I would change unless I had a lot more resources. For what we had, I’m very pleased with what we were able to do and I’m very pleased with the performances I got out of everybody.

SOC: What have the initial reactions and reviews been like?

SD: They’ve been overwhelmingly supportive and positive. The words people have been using are “entertaining” and “unique,” which I like. The criticisms are what I expected, a sound level or film grain might not match up exactly here or there, but the process of making them even barely similar was impossible, so making it match 95% of the time, I’m very proud of that.

SOC: Currently zombies, or ghouls as they’re called in both Night and Nerd, are enjoying a big surge in popularity. Why do you think that is?

SD: Because people are so damn sick of vampires. I’m not a big fan of the new vampires. I think that’s run its course. It had a good few years run. I think zombies and ghouls are more interesting certainly to me, and I think most people, because they’re the average Joe, all f**ked up. There’s something timeless about that.

SOC: Why do you think zombies lend themselves well to comedy?

SD: Because in most cases the ghouls don’t have any real personality, I think you can pretty much do whatever you want with them and people don’t get offended. We didn’t necessarily do that in Nerd, but I think that’s a true statement. They’re devoid of their personality and their person, so they’re basically walking meat, and directors and writers feel free to do anything with them without worrying about offending anybody.

SOC: We have a couple of questions from the readers. Tyler Judd wants to know when Dawn of the Nerd will come out.

SD: It’s funny that you mention that because I just googled “Dawn of the Nerd” today, and there is a Dawn of the Nerd that has made its presence known on youtube. It’s not a full feature, but that takes the possibility of using that name out of my world. Tell Tyler that’s a very clever idea but somebody beat him to it.

SOC: Nerdy McBrant asks “What conditioner does that fool use?”

SD: That fool I suppose would be Elvin, the main character, so I’d say Brill Cream. A little dab will do ya.

SOC: Speaking of Elvin, there’s a long tradition of nerds in movies. Where would you place him on a list of all time great cinematic nerds?

SD: If he weren’t so damn tough at times I’d put him at the top. It’s been pointed out in reviews that there’s a little bit of toughness to him that kind of negates “biggest nerd of all time.” At certain points in the movie it looks like he might be able to kick some butt, and that usually isn’t…well, George McFly did that too, didn’t he? He can’t sit up there with the top five because he’s a little too strong willed.

SOC: Do you have any plans to do a similar thing with public domain movies again?

SD: In the middle of editing I was saying to myself “I will never do anything like this again” just because it was too much work. But, as I get away from that, I start thinking “where’s that science fiction picture that’s public domain? We could shoot that all on stage, and that means no exteriors in the cold.”

SOC: On Nerd’s facebook page, you teased a big announcement coming. Do you want to say anything in regards to that?

SD: No. Everyone will have to keep checking Son of Celluloid and the Nerd of the Living Dead facebook page to see what that announcement is, but it’s a big one. Let’s just say I’ve got something in the works that I can’t talk about yet.

SOC: Fair enough. Tell the readers where they can get a copy of Nerd of the Living Dead.

SD: It’s available on DVD on Amazon and it will be available in the next few weeks on Amazon for download to rent or own. We also have it available from a company called flickrocket as a flux DVD, which is basically a quicktime movie with DVD functionality. With that platform you can download just the movie just to watch or one with menus for burning. There are about five different options there. It’s also available from Egg Up. The neat thing about them is that in the “egg” along with the movie itself, you can open and read the script, you can print the poster, there’s a lot of interesting extras stuffed in this digital “egg.” That’s right now, there’s more coming up. Hopefully Netflix, hopefully hulu, hopefully voodoo, hopefully Blockbuster Online, these are all platforms that I’ve got things in the works with.

SOC: Well, thank you for joining us. Do you have any last words you want to leave the readers with?

SD: Get out there and see this and please let me know what you think of this picture. Again, besides being a narrative story front to back and a hybrid picture, since it’s derived from both Night of the Living Dead and this new scripted work, I want to know what you think about it because it’s really an experiment. I really want to get people’s feedback because, like I said, with the special announcement and the next project, a lot of it depends on the feedback from you guys that see the picture.

So there you go folks. Check out the movie. You've got plenty of options. There are links to Amazon, Createspace, and Flux DVD Video on Demand from FlixRocket on this page. The Egg Up download, which is the best picture quality you can get, is here. Also, stay tuned and keep your eyes peeled, as, if you're good little freaks, I just might be giving away a copy in the near future. Now get out there and support indie horror (and horror comedy)!

Interview: Nerd of the Living Dead director Stu Dodge Part 1.

Greetings freaks. Over the weekend I had a chance to sit down at a great restaurant called The 57^th Fighter Group (check them out here) and talk to Stu Dodge (that's him surrounded by the ghouls), director of the new zom-edy Nerd of the Living Dead. He had a lot of interesting things to say about this unique project. Check out part one of the interview…

SOC: So, tell us about Nerd of the Living Dead.

SD: Nerd of the Living Dead is the most recent picture from myself and Big Pickle Media Group. I’ll go ahead and dismiss any rumors about Big Pickle Media Group having anything to do with the size of anyone’s pickle. “Big Pickle” is what they call my fiance’s over sized basset hound. So it’s based on a dog, not based on, you know...

SOC: So it’s not a porn company?

SD: No, not a porno. So, back to the picture. Nerd of the Living Dead is an 86 minute independent feature film, a zombie comedy, with about 49% of its running time made up of the original Night of the Living Dead, which is of course a public domain property because of the loss of the copyright when it was first released, bla bla bla… you probably know that whole story. It’s kind of experimental in nature because of the hybridization of old footage and new footage shot to match it where we’re actually playing off of the original actors, dialogue, and actions.

SOC: Where did you first get the inspiration for working with Night of the Living Dead as a component of the movie.

SD: I was looking at a screenplay I wrote called Redbush, and I was thinking “how am I going to do this” because it’s going to be expensive. It includes beach scenes and stuff that I really shouldn’t have written in because it means money, but I did anyway. It was getting into winter too, so it would be another half year before we could shoot it. As I was pondering that I got a facebook post from a friend suggesting that I listen to a 70s metal band called Leaf Hound. I watched the youtube video and, me being a metal fan, I loved it. So I horked it off of the web like everyone does, and I’m enjoying it still, sorry Leaf Hound guys. It got me thinking “This is copyright infringement on this song, but I bet there are old metal songs that are in public domain.” So I did a little bit of research, and decided to research public domain movies as well. Maybe I could get some establishing shots for Redbush out of a public domain movie, you know, get a little production value and save some time and money. As I was sifting through these public domain sites I downloaded a couple of movies, one was “The Brain from Mars” or something like that, and I happened upon Night of the Living Dead. I didn’t know at the time that it was public domain. I had heard some stories but I thought that had been settled. (Writer’s note: If you’re not familiar with the whole NOTLD copyright debacle, Dimension Extreme’s release of the flick has a great documentary called “One for the Fire” that goes into it in detail. Or just google it. Whatever.) So I said “this is a fantastic feature with a lot of history and a lot of fans.” When I downloaded it, put it in my editing system, and started playing with it and dissecting it, I realized that I could wrap in a couple of new characters if I moved a couple of the characters out of the way, so that’s what I did. I blew it up to match the resolution that my camera shoots, cut it into pieces, and removed some of the slower parts. This left me with basically a “Swiss cheese” version. That took about three months, then I took another three months developing a screenplay based on filling in those blanks with the stuff that we shot and playing off those original characters.

SOC: How hard was it to match the new footage to the original footage?

SD: It wasn’t hard but it was time consuming. Getting it to a format that would match the camera I have just as far as resolution goes was a time consuming deal. You know, this is a 1968 film shot 24 frames (per second) on black and white stock. The version that I downloaded from archive.org is about as clean as you’re going to get, but I was blowing it up so there were some concerns, but it did blow up beautifully. Then on set we had to shoot in black and white. Some people ask why we didn’t shoot in color and desaturate it, but I found out that it was a lot cleaner to shoot black and white in hi-def. Then you’ve got crisp new black and white and old, dirty, scratchy, kinda fuzzy film look, so I used an aged film filter. I had to play with the footage and try to match the same jiggle and shake, the amount of dirt, the amount of scratches, the amount of blurriness, and the tone as well. I had to color match the black and white. It involved a lot of testing. It gets so technical it gets boring, but yeah, I spent 1300 or 1400 hundred hours just in rendering time.

SOC: Horror fans can be fiercely loyal and protective of their favorite flicks as we can see with the backlash to some of the remakes. There are few movies held more sacred than Night of the Living Dead. Did you have any fears that people would feel like you shouldn’t be “f**king with a classic?”

SD: Absolutely, and it would be everybody’s right to feel like I was f**king with a classic, though I don’t feel like I was. Maybe I’m wrong about this, and maybe it’s big headed of me, but I sorta feel like we were giving it new life. The original is a wonderful film, and it was very frightening to people in ’68, but now the effects aren’t as frightening since everyone’s been exposed to vastly heavier gore over the last couple of decades and it’s got a very slow pace. We weren’t poking fun at the picture. The approach to it was to give new life to an old picture, and who am I to do that? So yeah, I expect some backlash. Hopefully the people who see it for what it is will understand. It’s more of an homage to the picture rather than just a straight satire or rip off. I spent so much time and tried to delicately intertwine the two to turn this strictly horror picture into a comedic, faster paced, more 21^st century…kinda seems like any way I say that sounds big headed, huh? I completely understand if people say you shouldn’t mess with that classic. I’ve certainly heard from people who are very serious about the picture that I shouldn’t.

SOC: Do you want to mention who got pissed at you?

SD: Do you think I should?

SOC: Sure, go for it.

SD: I did try to do it in a respectful manner. I thought I should let those involved with the original picture know about this before the word gets out because they may either be pissed or they may be of the mind that it might be something fun to see. So I did get in touch through facebook with John Russo, who co wrote the original with George Romero. He also wrote Return of the Living Dead, which I certainly told him was one of my favorites and a brilliant movie. I contacted him and introduced myself and the picture. I said that we’d created this hybrid picture that was part new footage, part Night of the Living Dead but done in a light hearted, send up kind of way. I asked if he’d like a copy, and he essentially told me what to do with my copy and had no interest in hearing anything more about Nerd at all, which I totally understand from his viewpoint. Still though, huge respect for the man.

SOC: Speaking of co-writers, Nerd is co-written with Roy Wooley (who I know as the makeup wizard of Netherworld Haunted House). How did you end up working with him and how involved was he in the actual shooting?

SD: Roy and I did a picture a long time ago called Cheerleader Autopsy. He was the effects coordinator. I can’t remember where we first met, we were probably drinking at the time. We became friends and I knew he was skilled with special effects makeup, so we got him involved. He was only involved in the gags on Cheerleader. On Nerd, we had a smaller crew, and we needed an effects person on set every day, so Roy ended up being the effects guy, the first assistant director, and sort of a co-gaffer. He was very involved throughout the picture. When I had that Swiss cheese version I would bounce ideas off of Roy and he came up with a lot of key plot points.

SOC: Tell me about your casting process.

SD: Getting back to Roy, of course you’re a Netherwold person, and he’s a Netherworld person and when I first mentioned the concept to him, he immediately said “Sam.” Sam, of course, is Sam Ronick (another Netherworld person), who plays Elvin McBrant, the main character. He just knew that Sam would be the right look for Elvin. We talked to Sam and he was willing. Then we needed some other talent so we held a casting call at this very restaurant, the 57^th Fighter Group (PLUG), who were nice enough to give us a banquet room. We found most of the rest of the cast from that. We picked up a lot of people through Roy’s work at Netherworld. When the call went out for ghouls, Roy’s friends, yourself included, were very willing and eager to get involved, and I’m glad they did, because the ghoul days of shooting were the most fun days of the whole picture. The Netherworld folks have experience with the genre, and they’re actors themselves, so using them as ghouls just made sense.

SOC: If you look at the imdb pages, only one cast member, Samantha Falk, has any other movie credits. What are the advantages and drawbacks of working with a “rookie cast?”

SD: The advantage is that in most cases they’re very eager to do whatever is asked of them. Not that anything terribly bad was asked of them, but we did have to shoot in the cold a lot and in some rather uncomfortable situations. The drawback is that, besides the ghouls, most of the cast that were hired that didn’t have experience, so there’s more than one or two takes with those folks. That’s inherent with people that haven’t been exposed to working in front of the camera. Overall, the way I see it is that you get a freshness from people who haven’t had a lot of experience. They’re fresh, they’re fun, and they’re willing.

SOC: For those who haven’t done any film work but have acted in other venues like haunts or on stage, how do you think that translates into film acting?

SD: Every bit of experience is great, whether they did stage work or haunts. The willingness to do zany things in front of the public certainly seemed to help my ghouls have very little fear of the camera and be willing to do things other people would think are silly. The main thing people can learn from stage acting is blocking, the motion of your body in and around the set. When you retake a scene from a different angle, it’s miserably hard on the editor if the blocking isn’t the same. If they don’t raise their arm the same way or raise a glass to the same level, it can make a lot of it unusable, though that’s the director’s fault too. Any experience is positive as long as they don’t have too much experience and get to be a pain in the ass.

SOC: How much of the dialog was scripted and how much was improvised?

SD: About 98% was scripted because we had to match the original dialog and footage. It was important when shooting our talent that they kept their eyelines where they needed to keep them and they delivered the lines almost exactly as scripted because a lot of times simple casual words were absolutely necessary to tie in to what the original Night of the Living Dead characters were saying. There is a little bit of ad libbing, like “suck my balls” on the part of Sam Ronick. He came up with that in lieu of saying “f**k me” or some other similar profanity.

SOC: Any interesting or funny stories from the shoot?

SD: We had a whole house full of ghouls in full makeup and bloody clothing and so on. It got to be lunch time, and we ordered a couple of pizzas. When the pizza guy came, all of the ghouls rushed out the front door into the parking lot and surrounded the guy. He was maybe in his 50’s, maybe not a great grasp of the language...he was very surprised, but he eventually smiled and laughed. Of course, when you have a bunch of people in makeup, especially ghoul makeup, almost anything they do that’s normal is funny. Whether it’s getting a cup of coffee or coming out of the bathroom or whatever, it just makes it a lot of fun.

Intrigued, aren’t you. Sounds like your kind of flick, huh? Well, you can check out the website here, follow the flick on facebook here, and come back tomorrow for part two of the interview, which will include all the info you need about how to get your grubby little hands on a copy. You know you want it, after all, it features a certain horror blogger you all know and love; this guy…

Review: Black Death

The year is 1348. The Black Plague is ravaging Europe. Above the stench of death and the cries of the mourning rise voices demanding answers from the church. The church, feeling their grip on the populace slipping more with every decimated town and hamlet, decides that witchcraft and devilry must be afoot. They mobilize the fiercest warriors under god’s banner to discover the truth. We follow these warriors as they trek through perilous territory. When they arrive at their destination the warriors, played by Ron Pearlman and Nicholas Cage…wait a minute. This isn’t Season of the Witch, this is Black Death. Sorry, I got confused there for a minute. I kid, I kid. Despite their similar premises, they are worlds apart. Season of the Witch sucked despite a few significant strong points. Black Death does the opposite, and is a very good movie despite a couple of serious flaws.

In Black Death, Osmund, a young monk, sends the woman he is in love with away from the disease riddled city. She says she will wait for him, but only for a short time. While he struggles with whether or not leaving the monastery to meet her would be abandoning his obligation to god, Ulrich, a soldier under the church’s command, arrives at the monastery. There are rumors of a village that is untouched by the plague. This, of course, is evidence of witches and necromancers, so he has been sent by the church to get to the bottom of it. He needs a guide through the treacherous swamp and forest. Osmund sees this as his sign, and joins Ulrich. They meet up with Ulrich’s merry band of killers, torturers, and mercenaries. Edmund soon learns that they aren’t just investigating this town, but a little good ‘ol fashioned inquisition fun is in store. Despite losing a few men along the way, they arrive at the mysteriously healthy village. Here they find…well…I’m going to stop there. If I tell you much more it will get into spoiler territory.

This movie was not at all what I was expecting. While the journey to the non-diseased village was taking place, I was expecting it to turn into Mark of the Devil or Conqueror Worm once they got there. Instead, it went in a direction more akin to The Whicker Man. Maybe I’ve just seen one too many inquisition flicks, but when I see devices out of Torquemada’s toy box, I think I know what I’m in for. In a complete reversal of the Monty Python skit, I DID expect the inquisition, and it didn’t show up. Instead it went off in a very different, yet equally intriguing direction. Kudos to this flick for throwing me a curve ball. I like it when a movie can do that. Being unpredictable without resorting to something stupid coming out of far left field is a rarity these days.

The biggest strength of this movie is definitely the acting, which is exceptional. Sean Bean (Lord of the Rings, The Hitcher, Silent Hill) as Ulrich is great. It may just be the facial and vocal resemblance, but when Bean grows out the beard and does the “tough guy swagger” thing, he reminds me a lot of the wrestler Triple H. You know, if Trips could act at all. What Trips, you can act? I’ve got two words for ya; Blade Trinity. Anyway, Sean Bean plays the character with a sense that quite a bit about him is left unspoken and it’s better left that way. He’s devout but matter-of-factly violent. Few actors I know of can brood like Bean. Eddie Redmayne is excellent as Osmund. I was worried at first that he was following the Twilight “play emotionally tortured by just not acting at all” technique. He proved later that he can emote very well. It’s nice to see young actors actually acting. That’s how you do inner conflict. Robert Pattinson, pay attention. The rest of their group is also quite entertaining. Andy Nyman (Severance) as the torturer who enjoys his job just a little bit too much, John Lynch as his second in command, and Johnny Harris as the cold blooded killer of the group are particularly enjoyable. The only one of the group that didn’t do it for me was Emun Elliot as a useless emo looking knight. Where does one even get black eyeliner in plague ravaged Middle Ages Europe anyway? I can see how they needed him in the movie towards the end, but they didn’t do a damn thing with the character for the first hour of the flick. Carice van Houten deserves mention for her turn as the leader of the village also.

It has more going for it than the skillful acting, though. The production values were also excellent. The sets, locations, and costumes evoked the feel of a grimy, gritty, hazy pestilence riddled land beautifully. The final twist involving Edmund and the witch is brilliantly executed. On a personal level, one thing I liked about this movie is the ambiguity of who the good guys are. There really aren’t any. Some people have decried having no one to identify with or the film’s so called “heavy handed theological idealism.” I disagree strongly. It does, in the end, come down to Christians against Pagans. I was worried about which side the film would take. Would the righteous Pagans prevail against the tyrannical Christians? Would the violent forces of the church crush the evil Pagans? Would it be a story of good prevailing or martyrdom? I love the fact that it’s neither. I don’t want to give anything away, but no one escapes the flick unscathed. Who prevails is debatable. It also appeals to my anti-religious side that both religions are portrayed in similar lights. In this movie, everyone is religious, everyone is barbaric, and no one is completely right. Religion breeds bloodshed, pure and simple. I enjoyed that.

I really only have two problems with this movie. The first is the violence. I’ve seen other reviewers talk about the film’s “graphic, brutal violence” and “torture scenes that must be seen to be believed.” Either these folks saw a drastically different cut of the film than I did, or they don’t watch many horror flicks. They must not be nearly as jaded to onscreen mayhem as you and I are. Yes, it is a violent movie and yes, there is blood, but I definitely wouldn’t call it graphic. Most of the throat slittings, stabbings, and other medieval combat kills take place just out of frame. Even the “horse scene” that got so much press features a limb removal shot so quickly and in silhouette that it has minimal impact. This is essentially a movie about the savagery that desperation and differences in dogma (try saying that five times fast) brings out in people. Making the violence more graphic would have made this point pack much more of a wallop.

My other issue is something I complain about a lot, the shaking handheld camera. You all know that I think shaky-cam is only acceptable in “found footage” movies, but it feels especially out of place in a period piece with sumptuous scenery and a semi-epic feel like this. Most of the time, filmmakers primarily use this pathetic technique in action sequences under the misconception that it makes the audience “feel the action” more. Actually, it just makes me feel like I’ve got Parkinsons. In Black Death, it is used not only during the action, but in establishing shots, any moving shot, and even dialog scenes. DIALOG SCENES for the love of god! As I’ve said about other flicks, it looks like it was shot by a bobble head doll. Give it a rest!

It appears that English director Christopher Smith is a name to pay attention to. Early in his career, he’s already showing some impressive chops. Triangle was pretty good, and I really dug Severance. I haven’t seen Creep but I’ve heard good things. He may be one to watch in the future. Black Death was a very good flick overall. Both of my quibbles (subdued violence and shaky cam) were more weak stylistic choices than actual errors. He certainly coaxed some great performances out of the cast and maintained a great, tense, grim, foreboding atmosphere throughout. The film looked great too, when they managed to fold the damn camera steady. Black Death gets two severed thumbs up. Nathan 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.