Cinema de Bizarre Review of the Week: Eyeball (1975)

Directed by Umberto Lenzi

Starring Martine Brochard ("Paulette Stone"), John Richardson ("Mark Burton"), Ines Pellegrini ("Naiba Campbell"), and Andrés Mejuto ("Inspector Tuleda")

Country: Italy, Spain

EYEBALL (original title: Gatti rossi in un labirinto di vetro, which translates to "Red Cats in a Glass Maze") is an Italian slasher directed by Umberto Lenzi - a prolific exploitation filmmaker who was all over the place in terms of the genres he tackled: Eurocrime, Gialli, American Slashers, Cannibal films, "Macaroni Combat", etc. In EYEBALL, a group of tourists en route to Barcelona are dropping dead one-by-one at the hands of a mysterious red-gloved killer who keeps the eyeballs of the victims as trophies. The frustrated Inspector Tuleda, who's on the verge of retirement, eventually comes into the picture and tries to pin down a suspect, but someone else usually ends up getting killed just as he seems to be making progress in his investigation.

There are a number of elements that separate EYEBALL from the rest of its brethren and make it a somewhat unique Giallo. For one, the appearance of the killer is very much in the spirit of the traditional Giallo (gloves, coat, knife, obscured face), but the red aesthetic is far cry from the usual all-black look, which was the stock appearance of killers in most Gialli from a variety of filmmakers for a number of years. Secondly, the setting and the large group of characters make the film stand out. There are a few characters who would be considered leads and play a more important part in the overall story than everyone else, but at times it borders on being an ensemble piece. Whereas a lot of the more well-known Gialli focused primarily on a couple of characters, EYEBALL throws a whole bunch of them into the mix. The incorporation of so many characters could potentially pose a problem, but it's handled well here, and if anything it adds to the mystery element of the film by giving the viewer more suspects to choose from.

Visually, EYEBALL isn't on the same level as some of the more stylish Gialli from directors like Dario Argento and Sergio Martino, but it's not to say that it's a bland film or visually-unpleasant by any means. EYEBALL is shot really well, and there's occasionally a sense of urgency to how the movie is filmed, with certain shots - be it extreme close-ups or wide shots - that compliment the tone of particular scenes and the mental and emotional state of whatever character is being focused on at the time. And, again, the color red comes into play at many points in the film, which results in an interesting visual theme. It should also be said that the Bruno Nicolai score is quite good, but it fails in creating an ominous mood and would have probably been better suited in a Eurocrime film.

When it comes to the tropes and conventions of Gialli that fans of the genre look for, EYEBALL delivers the goods: boobs, blood, blades, mystery, and a decent amount of style. Story-wise, however, it's pretty standard for reasons that I needn't necessarily get into, and it's honestly boring at times. To be fair, though, the police procedural element is handled really well despite simply being there to move the story along. Inspector Tuleda's "I'm too old for this shit" mentality is justified, and there's also a bit of clashing when it comes to his methods of investigation and the more new-school methods that are practiced by his son and fellow Inspector, who's following in his footsteps. When it's all said and done, there's even a touching scene involving the two that adds depth to their characters.

As usual with Gialli and murder mysteries in general, you can expect red herrings. I obviously won't even allude as to who the killer is, but I will say that there's some good misdirection in this film as far as raising suspicion and, theoretically, keeping the viewer guessing. With one character in particular, the film brilliantly plays with our misconceptions and assumptions of certain people (and by "our" I mean the general viewer) in a way that I haven't seen in much Gialli, if any. As far as the characters, they're a fun enough group of people with a few stereotypes thrown in for good measure (the bickering lipstick lesbian couple, the handsome lead, the playful character who never takes anything seriously). As a whole, EYEBALL is watchable and has a few moments here and there where it shines, but it's certainly not essential Gialli.

Make or Break: There isn't really a great "Make" scene to speak of in the film, but at the same time there isn't anything that breaks the film for me either. I could go with the kill scenes that were sprinkled throughout, but instead I'll go with a scene that reminds me why I love Italian genre cinema in general. There's a mass interrogation scene where the lead Inspector is questioning everyone immediately following the death of one of the members of the tour group. One of the women in the group, when questioned by the Inspector, claims that the killer resembled "a big, crimson cat." A CAT. The look on the Inspector's face and his reaction to such a ridiculous claim is hilarious. Also, someone yells out "Murderess!" and another character blatantly lies to the Inspector in a way that comes across as unintentionally comedic. Only in Italian exploitation cinema will you find such ludicrous dialogue spoken with seriousness by idiotic characters.


MVT: Like another CdB Pick of the Week, THE GIRL IN ROOM 2A, I'm gonna go with the look of the killer. Ultimately, it's the interesting appearance of the killer that makes EYEBALL stand out more than anything. It's not a complicated or elaborate look by any means, but for a killer in a Gialli to be wearing such a bright primary color is noteworthy, in that the red really pops during the nighttime scenes. While it does look cool, it doesn't change the fact that it's also a dumb and inconvenient choice of disguise for a killer. The brightness of the red obviously makes you easy to spot (especially at night). Plus, the killer has what appears to be the hood of their red raincoat pulled entirely over their face, which means they obviously can't see shit and it's probably hard to breathe.

Score: 6/10

The Disc: The version of EYEBALL that Cinema de Bizarre carries is a DVD rip presented in a letterboxed widescreen print, meaning that you don't lose any of the picture and that the original aspect 2.35 ratio is intact, but it's not adjusted for widescreen televisions. In any event, the print looks decent, albeit not very crisp and obviously in need of remastering. Very watchable, though. The nighttime scenes are dark, but a good portion of the film is either filmed during the day or in doors, and what few nighttime scenes there are aren't pitch-black to the point where you can't make out what's going on. There aren't any issues with the sound either, as the dialogue is clear and audible throughout, but obviously not surround-sound material. English language only (dubbing), no subtitles available. The running time is approximately 90 minutes, falling - according to IMDB - around nine or ten minutes short of the Italian version.

Links:
Cinema de Bizarre
EYEBALL on Cinema de Bizarre

Be sure to use the promo code GENTLEMEN for 10% off your orders!

REVENGE OF THE TRAILER - EPISODE 1

NEW FEATURE ON THE GGTMC BLOG - REVENGE OF THE TRAILER.  In this first video episode, Shock Cinema magazine contributor and the host of The Mondo Film Podcast, Justin Bozung provides a quick commentary insight into the production of the inventive 1961 comedy co-written, directed and starring Jerry Lewis, The Ladies Man.

The Ladies Man, as one of the greatest comedies of the 1960's, would provide big inspiration for the likes of Wes Anderson, in particular on The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou (2004) and on Francis Ford Coppola's One From The Heart (1982).

A surreal fantasy filled to the brim with episodic slapstick, The Ladies Man is a comedy masterpiece. The film is unlike any other comedy produced in the era.  Lewis ambitiously gives us an incredible open faced doll house set (the most expensive set constructed in the era), and with his continual breaking of the fourth wall aesthetic, he manages to transcend the definition of audience and their relationship with film. 

While many associate the name, Jerry Lewis solely with his charity work for the Muscular Dystrophy Association, Lewis is one of the greatest filmmakers of his generation. Lewis invented the now industry standard video asst. in 1956, he was the first to introduce the Nagra sound recorder to the United States film industry and his genius and truly inventive work is the final footprint on film of the almost now forgotten comic tradition of Laurel & Hardy, Charlie Chaplin, Harry Langdon and Buster Keaton.

MVT:  The last minute fantasy dance sequence with now legendary Hollywood choreographer Sylvia Lewis set to the big band sound of Harry James and his orchestra. True to form, this sequence is definitive of Lewis, and is the highlight of the film.  His directorial output from 1960-1965 features lush and unforgettable colors, brilliant cinematography, and the pathos, honesty and sincerity as pattern contained in the work makes his films stand out from everything produced in the Hollywood studio system in the era.

Make Or Break:  The script.   Lewis and his co-screenwriter, Bill Richmond would be the last great comedy writing team in film history, and the visual gags in this film are completely genius and surreal.  Richmond would move on, post Lewis to be the featured or head writer for such incredible television series as The Carol Burnett Show, Welcome Back Kotter, and Three's Company.  You can see the similarity between characters Jack Tripper on Three's Company and Herbert H. Heebert in The Ladies Man or in the character Lewis plays, Stanley Belt, in the 1964 film, The Patsy.  It's all in the writing, and the film's Lewis made without Richmond behind the typewriter certainly suffer.

The Incredible Hulk Returns (1988)

Since my good friend Thor called into the latest feedback episode, I decided it was only fitting to review a movie he was involved in. It’s neither the 2011 adaptation of “Thor” or 2012’s “The Avengers”. It’s not a film where he’s the main star (or even one of the main selling points). He plays the sidekick role. His partner is The Incredible Hulk.

The two superhero heavyweights team up for the Hulk’s big return to television. It acted as a backdoor for a “Thor” television series that never got off the ground. This version of Thor differed drastically from that of the comics. He’s sent to Earth for the same reason, that being a lesson in humility. Outside of the costume design, that’s where the comparisons stop.

In this incarnation, he is controlled by Donald Blake (Steve Levitt), a scientist who discovered Thor’s hammer in a cave. When he hoisted it in the air, he awakened the God of Thunder. To summon him at will, he wields the hammer and shouts, “Odin!”. Despite his smaller stature, he can rule Thor by making him cave to his demands. He’s respectable about this, but still lets it get to his head.



The two join Dr. Bruce Banner (Bill Bixby), who has faked his own death and taken up the identity of Bruce Banyan. You think he could have came up with a better handle for the sake of secrecy. He’s just finished work on a machine that can reverse the gamma rays from his body. Therefore, no more Hulk and no more Lou Ferrigno.

Nobody came to see Bruce Banner officially eliminate the Hulk from within himself. Bixby does an excellent job of almost wanting that to happen, as you feel sorrow for his plight. He’s a man with a monster living inside of him that he can never get rid of. This prevents him from having a serious relationship, which he’s trying to establish with Maggie Shaw (Lee Purcell).

Donald Blake interrupts him before he can finish the task and introduces him to Thor. Thor gets a little testy with Banner, accidentally shoving him into an electrical outlet. This sparks a rage in Banner (pun intended), unleashing the Incredible Hulk. A battle between the two giants ensues in a medical lab. They toss each other around, knocking over tables and high-tech equipment. They eventually crash out of a window, where Blake decides it’s a good time to send Thor back into hibernation.



The two eventually team up to wage war with a crime organization whose sole purpose is steal the gamma ray machine and… you know, it’s never quite clear what their goal is. I would assume to make money off of it. I’m just not sure where they could sell this piece of equipment. Do pawn shops deal in the arts of scientific technology?

This aspect of the story doesn’t really matter. The bad guys (one of which is played by Charles Napier) are simply there to be clobbered and demolished by Hulk and Thor. They’re as underdeveloped as a Bonnie Tyler music video. Director Nicholas Corea doesn’t care about them, so why should the audience?

It’s not a major slight against the film. The majority of the television series was that way. Since this is a television movie meant to not only revive the series, yet also start a new one in “Thor”, you come to expect this type of mishmash directing. The story, characters and villains are never truly developed. The only one that is would be Bruce Banner’s plight as The Incredible Hulk. When not focusing on that, it’s smashy smashy time. For that, it serves it’s purpose.



MVT: Bill Bixby as Bruce Banner. Just like in the television series, he gives the character raw emotion and a reason for the audience to care. The fact that I almost didn’t want to see Lou Ferrigno dipped in green paint because of Bruce’s emotional angst is a true testament to Bixby’s skills.

Make or Break: The fight between Hulk and Thor in the laboratory. Up until then, we only got fleeting glimpses of the action. It was here where Nicholas Corea set the tone of the film and assured we were in for some lighthearted superhero fare.

Final Rating: 6.25/10

Thor The Conqueror (1983)

Okay, I admit it. I used to play Dungeons & Dragons. I used to be addicted to the twenty-sided die. Well, actually, I used to be addicted to the idea of Dungeons & Dragons. I had the manuals and all the tangential supplies. What I didn't really have were any friends who were interested in playing (I know, boo hoo). There was some toe-dipping from time to time, but by and large, I was the only person I knew (or knew well enough) who was interested in this type of game. Consequently, I would collect roleplaying games, create characters for them, and then do absolutely squat with them. Eventually, I broke the habit, and I just don't think I could get into LARPing today, so that whole facet of my childhood is now nothing more than some odd (and oddly entertaining) memories. Memories the Sword and Sorcery subgenre were hand-crafted to goose. Sometimes it doesn't work that way, though. 

After traipsing ceaselessly across the mountains of...some area (pause for laughter...), Gant The Annihilator (Angelo Ragusa), his unnamed wife (unless I missed it, and this is somewhat telling), and Etna (Christopher Holm) the sorcerer arrive just where they need to be-a forest clearing. After Gant's wife humps off behind a tree to give birth alone, the dyspeptic band is ambushed by Gnut (Raf Baldassarre, credited as Raf Falcone) and his primitive Baseball Furies/Kiss Army. Thor's parents are killed, but Thor and Etna escape. Years pass, and Etna has raised Thor (Bruno Minniti, credited as Conrad Nichols) to be a boorish mouth breather (and warrior). Thor kills a pack of cannibals and essentially rapes one of their captives (as Etna watches creepily), and he's all set to start his big quest. If Thor is to be "the greatest chief of all time," he must find his father's old sword (which transformed into a snake and slithered off during the prologue). Let me tell you of the days of high adventure (well, not quite).

Thor The Conqueror (aka Beastmaster 2, aka Thor Il Conquistatore) is an entry in the oeuvre of Tonino Ricci (aka Anthony Richmond), and like so many epics of Italian cinema, it owes its existence to a much better film. I won't ruin it by telling you which movie that is, but I have faith that you can guess it (hint: it's not Beastmaster). But let's start at the beginning. Barbarian characters rarely (if ever) have happy origins. They do not come from loving homes, and their parents rarely survive the film's opening scenes. As an example of the callousness of the world the characters inhabit as well as a reason why the fullgrown antihero (they seldom fit the mold of traditional hero) is as hard and badass as he is, the character's pre-developmental derivation is as important to who he is as any events in his quest or choices he makes while on it. The protagonist is, for all intents and purposes, born in blood (but aren't we all?), and his life will be centered on its shedding.

Barbaric characters also usually come with a prophecy of some type already attached. They are preordained to greatness. Thor is no different. He is destined to be a leader. To say the least, this is difficult to believe when the first time you see him as an adult, he's tearing into a raw fish he's just caught. This is not the behavior of regality (maybe my standards are high). Nonetheless, Etna seems pretty damn sure this Lamas-ian bulk is The One. The question that occurred to me is why should we bother with a film at all if our main character is destined to come out on top? If the prediction was to be less specific, say, not mention who would be the greatest, or state that the titular person will be the greatest IF he can conquer his mightiest foe and complete a series of arduous tasks, the uncertainty (but come on, not really) of his triumph would provide some aleatory tension, but this is almost never the case. Yet we continue to watch, and characters like Thor have been popular for centuries. 

Let's be clear about this, though. Thor is not a nice character (not that he needs to be one). He is not even a likeable character. But for this movie, he's the only one we have. Thor rapes two women, the second of which, Ina (Queen of the Virgin Warriors, played by Maria Romano), follows Thor around like a lapdog subsequently and pulls his fat out of the fire. Thor takes another virgin bride later in the film (basically making him a bigamist, kind of), and his mentor Etna is no box of chocolates, either. The mage states flat out that the "female is stupid," and commands Thor, "don't treat the woman so gently." In fact, the level of misogyny in this film is distressingly high. Naturally, the world these characters live in is phallocentric, but even in other films of its ilk, women are not treated so barbarically (sorry) as they are herein, and even if they are, they usually display some vestige of backbone. Ina comes close in the film's back half to the extent she proposes a plan to Thor, and he pays attention, but she's little more than a baby factory for the conquering male.

Thor's life is surrounded by magic, but he himself cannot be a magical being nor partake in magic as anything other than a tool, a means to an end. Actually, his type of character typically abhors magic and those who practice it. Magic's inability to be gripped like a weapon makes it untrustworthy. And magic appears to have the same attitude towards Thor. It seemingly attacks him (through its acolytes) whenever the opportunity strikes, as if the world of magic fears Thor's completion of his quest. Etna tells Thor rather bluntly that he did not teach him magic so that Thor has no reason to abandon and/or kill him. Despite this, Thor must find his father's magic sword, and later he will rely heavily on magic to both save him from a crisis and complete his journey. He hates and fears what he needs. It's an interesting dichotomy, but its investigation remains incomplete in this film.

As an abhorrent character, Thor excels. Nevertheless, his title says it all. He is a conqueror, and his job is to conquer. He conquers his foes. He conquers the magical world. He conquers nature. He conquers women. He conquers other men. It's an intriguing way to rationalize Thor's odious nature, but like so much else in the film, it remains completely unexplored. 

There is no urgency to the film's narrative at all, and every scene feels almost arbitrary. There is no central villain to provide escalating obstacles for the protagonist. At least not until the end, and even then, the finale feels offhand and dismissive. There is just an endless series of clearings in a forest where some villains attack Thor (and the men all astonishingly wear the same helmets, though they remain completely unlinked overtly by the film's story), he kills them, and he moves on to the next clearing. It's a structure heavily reminiscent of early video games (and even some current ones, I'm sure). However, unlike a video game, the viewer of Thor The Conqueror does not get to participate in (nor does one take any real satisfaction from) Thor's victories. The best way I can describe the film is like mile markers. You see them, they pass by, they are all inherently different, but they really only say the same thing for as long as the trip takes.

MVT: The action in the film is plentiful and (if nothing else) energetically acted out. Ricci even keeps the frame opened up and resists fast cutting, so the viewer can always tell what's going on and where. The problem is they all seem like the same fight, and they quickly get old.

Make Or Break: The prologue sequence is long and drawn out, and all it does is sets the viewer up for the lack of creativity coming down the pike.

Score: 4.5/10

**Like this review?  Share it with a friend.  Hate it?  Share it with an enemy.**

Episode #180: Domo Aura-gato Mr. Arrebato

Welcome to another episode of the GGtMC!!!

This week we bring you our episode sponsored by diabolikdvd.com and we have much to discuss...we cover The Aura (2005) directed by Fabien Bielinsky and Arrebato (1980) directed by Ivan Zulueta. We talk about these films and many other diversions....quite an interesting little show.

Thanks again to the great folks over at Diabolik DVD!!!

Head over and BUY!!!

Direct download: DAMrARM.mp3

Emails to midnitecinema@gmail.com

Voicemails to 206-666-5207

Adios!!!

Cinema de Bizarre Review of the Week: The Girl in Room 2A (1974)

Directed by William Rose

Starring Daniela Giordano ("Margaret Bradley"), Raf Vallone ("Mr. Dreese"), John Scanlon ("Jack Whitman"), and Angelo Infanti ("Frank Grant")

Country: Italy

Directed by William Rose (not a pseudonym believe it or not!), THE GIRL IN ROOM 2A is an Italian horror film or a Giallo depending on who you ask, in which young women are abducted by members of a cult and brutally murdered.

Just released from jail for a crime that she claims to have been wrongfully accused of, Margaret Bradley (Daniela Giordano) gets a new start in an unfamiliar town and moves into a spare room in what appears to be a Bed and Breakfast ran by the eccentric Mrs. Grant. It's established very early on that Margaret is either losing her mind or traumatized when she wakes up screaming in the middle of the night and has hallucinations of being in a jail cell. On top of that, a mysterious figure in a red mask briefly makes its presence known. Whatever the case, she's clearly troubled, and nyone familiar with Italian genre cinema of the horror and thriller varieties knows that it's a toss up as to whether this aspect of her character will be further explored or not, as tying up loose ends and explaining certain things was not a strong suit of Italian genre filmmakers at the time.

THE GIRL IN ROOM 2A opens with a sloppily-edited establishing sequence where a woman is quickly plucked from the streets by a group of men and taken to a room in an undisclosed location, where she's subsequently stripped, chained, and tortured. As the woman screams, a spear emerges from a hole in the wall and pokes at her like a steel cock through a Glory Hole. You'd think a creative manner of torture would be imminent, but then someone just unchains her and throws her up against the spear protruding from the wall. Next thing you know, she's fully dressed and being thrown off a cliff. One of the assailants and the apparent supervisor of the torture is the same masked man that our lead character Margaret would go on to see in her bedroom in the midst of a waking nightmare.

In a rather sudden manner, Margaret is approached by a handsome stranger who sneakily asks her to meet him somewhere. Turns out this stranger, Jack (John Scanlon), is the brother of the unfortunate young woman who met an abrupt end at the beginning of the film. Basically, Jack spends the rest of the movie trying to solve the mystery of his sister's death with the help of Margaret, who may be next on the killer's "to do" list for whatever reason. Meanwhile, members of the aforementioned cult are slowly introduced. It's obvious that these cult members not only have delusions of punishing sinners and initiating a "war between good and evil", but that they're connected to the death of Jack's sister. The film makes no secrets about this as the cult is introduced pretty early in the film, but the identity of the masked person is never revealed, which is one of the few elements that propels the mystery angle. The masked killer could be someone close to either one of the two protagonists, and there's always a lingering threat in regards to Margaret's safety throughout the film.

THE GIRL IN ROOM 2A, for the most part, plays out like a Giallo, but only if the lead characters were chasing a killer that didn't exist. Obviously the killer in this film does exist, but this person operates completely outside the radar of the police with a team of people that go out of their way to make the deaths look like accidents. In a way, Jack and Margaret are chasing a ghost, which ties into the film's psychological element. As I already alluded to, the cult in the film have a religious slant, and there are moments where the cult seems to be a distorted reflection of the Catholic church; the religious commentary - if you can even call it that - is lazily explored, but there's more than enough for the viewer to chew on and get something out of it that goes deeper than the horror movie presented at face value.

THE GIRL IN ROOM 2A sounds promising, but unfortunately it doesn't have any particularly strong areas. The film falls somewhere in the middle when it comes to pretty much every aspect, from execution to entertainment value. One of the things that kinda kills this movie is the English dubbing, which is very monotonous; the actors may be doing a great job, but you'd never know it because of how they're dubbed. Another negative aspect of the film is the editing, which I briefly mentioned earlier. Whether or not the version I watched was cut, I have no idea, but there are scenes in the film that don't necessarily warrant any frames removed in regards to censoring, but the manner in which those scenes are cut together suggest that either the film was butchered at some point, or that whoever was responsible for editing the film did a piss-poor job; if I had to guess, I'd go with the latter. In general, THE GIRL IN ROOM 2A is a mess for a plethora of reasons, but mildly enjoyable, somewhat refreshing in comparison to its horror and Giallo brethren at the time, and it has a fair amount of gore and European beauties like Rosalba Neri and Karin Schubert in supporting roles.

Make or Break: There were a number of things that broke the movie for me, namely Daniela Giordano's body double for her nude scene (which is odd considering she's done quite a few nude scenes before and after this), but I'll go with the overall sloppiness of the plot. As I said before, THE GIRL IN ROOM 2A had a lot of promise and there wasn't much in the way of keeping it from becoming a decent little Giallo-horror film, but for whatever reason the ball was dropped somewhere. The film raises so much questions and speculation in regards to the plot and the characters, but the answers range from non-existent to underwhelming.


MVT: It would be easy to go with lead actress Daniela Giordano since she's one of my favorite Italian actresses of the 70's, and also because she wasn't really utilized and given leading roles as much as the more familiar faces like Edwige Fenech and Barbara Bouchet for example. I've always admired her because of the projects she picked and because she's simply a good actress, and with this film it's nice to see her in a lead role. However, I'm gonna go with the overall look of the killer as the "Most Valuable Thing": the red mask, the cape, the boots. One of the highlights of the film for me was seeing the killer being chased through a field in broad daylight, which was unintentionally comedic to say the least.

Score: 5.25/10

The Disc: The disc available from Cinema de Bizarre features a full-screen print of a VHS rip, which is understandable since the film was pretty much only available on VHS for a number of years. The film's Italian language track is gone in favor of English dubbing, with no subtitles available. As you can tell by the screenshots above, it looks decent for what it is, and there were only about a handful of scenes that were too dark to see what was going on because of the aged print and the lack of lighting during some of the outdoor nighttime scenes. Overall, not bad; watchable and the sound is fine.

Links:
Cinema de Bizarre
THE GIRL IN ROOM 2A on Cinema de Bizarre

Be sure to use the promo code GENTLEMEN for 10% off your orders!

Deadhead Miles (1972)

Vernon Zimmerman’s film, “Deadhead Miles”, isn’t a biopic on ShowShow’s Miles. The title refers to the number of miles one needs to drive from the point of unloading a truck to the point where a new load is ready for pickup. Suffering from these dreadful miles is Cooper (Alan Arkin), a zany truck driver who does just about anything he can to stay awake and keep himself entertained.

He picks up a hitchhiker (Paul Benedict), despite his hatred of them. Anything to pass the time. The two spend the trip stealing food, breaking glass bottles on road signs and bumping into a wide assortment of people. One man, who goes by the name Johnny Mesquitero (Bruce Bennett), fixes Cooper’s truck while he’s out getting supplies. When the hitchhiker informs him of this gentleman’s generous assistance, Cooper informs him he died six years ago. It’s hard to tell whether this is true or false due to Cooper’s antics.



Alan Arkin is a hoot as Cooper. He’s energetic, lively and highly unpredictable. He never comes across as a malicious or deceitful man. Just one out to have some fun. He gives the police a run for their money quite a few times. He convinces one of them he’s a returning veteran of Vietnam to sweet talk his way out of a ticket. He bolts from a pair of cops after they ask him to unload his truck. He does so and hightails it when they leave for a brief moment. To cap it all off, he convinces a group of cops he’s being chased by a murderer to keep them as far away as possible from him.

The script, written by Terrence Malick (yes, the Terrence Malick), is low on story development, but high on gags. It’s more of an observation on a crazed trucker’s job than it is a story. Instead of having a beginning, middle and end, it follows a route A to route B style of storytelling. Malick handles this with a tight grip, throwing in the hitchhiker to keep things interesting.



Vernon Zimmerman handles the thin plot to the best of his ability. His aimless direction can be a burden at times. He makes up for this with expeditious pacing. With the action moving fast, he’s able to bypass any slow moments that show the lulls in the script. This is a wise decision that keeps the film on track.

As I expected, the film doesn’t lead to a satisfactory ending. It’s a fine ending, don’t get me wrong. It’s just not worthy of the build given to it. This is a trend amongst “day in the life” films. The only exception I can think of off the top of my head is “Clerks”. Even that is arguable.


“Deadhead Miles” met a very limited release in 1972. It took over a decade for it to see the light of day on cable, where it faded off into obscurity. It’s never been released on home video. Thanks to Netflix, it’s available to stream instantly. That’s a blessing, as it’s a breezy watch.



MVT: Alan Arkin. His hyperkinetic performance is a joy to watch and never runs out of steam. He doesn’t go full-on crazy. He restrains himself and releases his wild side in spurts. This not only benefits the character, but the film as well. It keeps you on your toes.

Make or Break: The pacing. Keeping the film moving at a speedy pace helps in keeping the viewer’s attention. Since there’s not much of a story to work with, it keeps the film afloat.

Final Score: 7.25/10

Yeti-Giant Of The Twentieth Century (1977)

The Minnesota Iceman entered the public consciousness (or at least the public consciousness of Minnesota) in 1968.  Owned and exhibited by Frank Hansen, the display consisted of a block of ice containing a hirsute hominid creature (Missing Link?  Bigfoot?  Sean Connery?) posed almost as if sculpted by Michelangelo.  Hansen traveled around, and (like the greatest hucksters) gave contradictory information about the Iceman and its authenticity (much like Barnum's Fiji Mermaid, a "genuine fake").  At that time, it was scrutinized and determined to be an actual creature.  Shortly thereafter, it vanished.  Hansen displayed another Iceman later, but it differed in just enough ways from the original and, in according to all reports, was definitely manufactured by human hands.  So, was it obviously fake to cover up something about the original?  Was the original a hoax (as many have stated) to begin with?  And why did no one ever thaw it out to have a proper look at it in the first place?  The mind boggles.  You decide.

Morgan Hunnicut (Edoardo Faieta, billed as Eddie Faye), owner (funny enough) of Hunnicut Enterprises, travels into the wilds via helicopter (see my review of The Big Alligator River to see my thoughts on helicopters in Italian fantasy cinema) to get his buddy, Dr. Waterman/Wassermann (John Stacy), to examine a giant his mute nephew, Herbie (Jim Sullivan), found in a block of ice in Northern Canada.  On the scene are Hunnicut's niece, Jane (as in "Me Tarzan...," played by Antonella Interlenghi, billed as Phoenix Grant), and his henchman, Cliff (Tony Kendall).  Needless to say, as soon as the Yeti (Mimmo Craig, billed as Mimmo Crao, and looking like a cross between Bionic Bigfoot and Rikki Rockett) is thawed out, hilarity ensues...I mean...carnage ensues.

Gianfranco Parolini's (the man who gave us Sabata) Yeti-Giant Of The Twentieth Century (aka Ice Man aka Yeti-Il Gigante Del 20. Secolo) is one of a string of cash-ins on Dino De Laurentiis's 1976 King Kong (which, coincidentally, was originally planned to be a giant "missing-link type" rather than a giant primate).  Like South Korea's A*P*E, Shaw Brothers' Mighty Peking Man, and America's The Mighty Gorga (okay, that one was earlier than 1976, but still...) it follows the same basic plot.  A giant beast is found by modern man, dragged into civilization, becomes curiously (and somewhat inappropriately) attracted to a human woman, breaks out of captivity, and is usually (but not always) destroyed.  The creature is always primitive, but here the Yeti is actually from (by the stunningly accurate scientific method Dr. Waterman employs) a million years in the past.  Not only does this make the Yeti a fish out of water, but a being out of time (a la Captain America, Trog, of Joe Bauers).

It would be bad enough to be ripped from your home and put on display, but to find yourself suddenly in a new, strange world where no other being you're familiar with even exists anymore is a veritable treasure trove of cinematic pathos just begging to be mined.  The filmmakers do touch on this, but they don't do anything other than touch.  The Yeti (sort of) adopts Jane and Herbie as a surrogate family, interestingly both employing and avoiding the bestiality angle inherent in just about every other iteration of this tale.  He even goes so far as to comb Jane's hair with a giant skeleton from a brobdingnagian fish he has just finished devouring (yes, really).

Speaking of cinematic madness, Yeti... is loaded with it (and the filmmakers were probably loaded when they made this...that's not fair...they were probably just high).  Waterman's team thaws the Yeti out with flamethrowers.  The Yeti chokes a thug between his toes.  The monster even gets his own theme song, sung by The Yetians.  The Yeti Mania that follows his unveiling is an intriguing opportunity to comment on the transience of fads and the pervasiveness of consumerism in the modern world, only absolutely nothing is done with it.  and it's the little, insane touches like those above which distinguish the film at all from any of its ilk.  But only just.

On a technical and narrative level, this film is pretty bad.  The matte shots with the Yeti invariably have the different elements' lighting mismatched.  The eyelines are rarely correct.  The Yeti appears almost to have been chroma keyed into some shots.  His height changes every time you see him.  Sometimes he simply seems to have been overlaid on a random shot just to have him show up with no sense of depth or perspective at all.  the story itself hits the big beats it needs to hit, but there's so much skipped, ignored, or just flat out dismissed, you rarely have any orientation as to what is actually going on other than in very broad strokes.

And then there's Parolini's dependence on closeups and his nigh-total eschewal of establishing/master shots.  The film's action is blocked as if it were being shot inside a refrigerator box.  Add to that the transitional and continuity issues, and one really has to wonder how this thing got made at all.  With that in mind, Mr. Craig's portrayal consists entirely of broad, mugging expressions, the shots of which both start and end with bug-eyed incoherence (and the winner of this week's BEM Award) and rarely match the feel or emotion of any of the shots with which they are juxtaposed.

Eventually, then, one has to ask, just what is it about giants that fascinates us (and let's be honest, the fact that this monster is a Yeti is utterly arbitrary)?  Behemoths have played prominently in mythology and literature the world over for centuries.  In cinema, there have been unique creatures (Godzilla and his brethren) as well as augmented versions of garden variety beasties (Them!, Night Of The Lepus, etcetera), right alongside genuine historical leviathans (generally dinosaurs, though arguably Godzilla fits into this category as well).  Their titanic stature is both awe- and fear-inspiring.  They literally appear to scrape the heavens with the crowns of their heads.  Like seeing a mushroom cloud go up in the not-far-enough-off distance, you know you should be running, but there's some horrific beauty, some vague notion of reverence for the onrushing destruction that keeps you rooted to the spot.  Yet, rather dissatisfyingly, Yeti-Giant Of The Twentieth Century will only really have you shifting from cheek to cheek in that all-too-familiar dance of listlessness that the staunchest among us continually endure while sifting through oyster shit searching for those rare pearls.

MVT:  The Yeti is the only reason anyone would or should ever watch this.  That he's so mishandled and unimaginatively used is disenchanting.

Make Or Break:  The first shots we see in the film are from stock footage of glaciers crumbling.  A lot of them.  Rule of thumb: if the filmmakers pad out (and padding is different from stretching, just so we're all on the same page) the very opening of the film, that scene or sequence which is supposed to hook the audience's attention and help immerse them in the filmic experience, the rest of the movie will more likely than not be just as shitty and annoying.  Your mileage may vary.

Score:  4.5/10  

Episode #179: Red Scorpion

Welcome to another episode of the GGtMC!!!

This week we are working with one of our sponsors, boulevardmovies.com, and bringing you a review of the Arrow Blu Ray release of Red Scorpion (1988) directed by Joseph Zito and starring Dolph Lundgren. We want to thank Boulevard Movies as always for supporting the show and giving you guys an episode that really went off the rails at points....trust me gang, this epsiode gets a tad wacky....

We also cover a great deal of feedback from our listeners over the last few months, it's always great to hear from all of you and please keep the feedback coming!!!

Direct download: Red_ScorpionRM.mp3

Emails to midnitecinema@gmail.com

Voicemails to 206-666-5207

Adios!!!!

Humanoids From the Deep (1980)

With the release of “Corman’s World”, I wanted to honor Roger Corman by reviewing one of his films. As he’s arguably more famous for his producing, I decided to cover one of his produced movies, as opposed to directed. I chose a film that signifies his status as the schlockmeister. It’s a cheesy and sleazy ditty directed by Barbara Peeters and Jimmy T. Murakami (who went uncredited) called “Humanoids From the Deep” (a.k.a. “Monster”).

The small fishing village of Noyo is struck by a strange case of murders. All of the town’s dogs are slain and people are going missing. Dr. Susan Drake (Ann Turkel) believes the attacks are from amphibian creatures. The markings left certainly indicate that. The townsfolks, such as Jim Hill (Doug McClure) and Hank Slattery (Vic Morrow), believe otherwise. It’s not until the fishy creatures descend upon their town that they truly believe.

The fish creatures, humanoids from the deep, are done in the classical rubber suit costume. The film’s costume and effects designers were on top of their game this time out. They splattered the costumes with oozy green slime and scaly skin. Their mouths have a lockjaw type set of teeth and their eyes are huge and bulging. It’s everything you’d want from a B-movie monster.



The way they attack their prey is radical, to say the least. They take the women captive and rape them in hopes of reproducing. How a fish and a human reproduce is beyond me. Considering this is a film about giant fish monsters that rape people, I’ll go with it. I swear Dr. Drake even mentioned that they’ll eventually start raping the men. I guess they were saving that for the sequel.

The downtime between the humanoid attacks can be both entertaining and grating. I enjoyed the actors in their roles, most notably Vic Morrow as Hank Slattery. They do their best with the pithy dialogue, which includes many wild accusations of one another. How and why someone would kill the town’s dogs overnight without being noticed is questionable.



Despite being eye roll worthy, the citizen’s suspicions of one another does lead to an awesome sequence where they all engage in a brawl outside of a fire hall. It starts out as a clash between two men and devolves into the whole male populace duking it out. I got a hearty laugh out of the horny teenager who opened his window to investigate, only to eat a knuckle sandwich for his troubles.

“Humanoids From the Deep” is no different than any other creature feature. It’s gory, slimey and at times obvious. What sets it apart is it’s fast pacing, good performances and stellar creature design. There are also some nifty explosions that surprisingly don’t feel tacked on. At eighty minutes, the film never overstays it’s welcome. It’s a perfect rainy day film!



MVT: The creature design. The gooey look and humungous size is a delectable treat. Maybe not the best wording, but you catch my drift.

Make or Break: The finale set at the festival. Watching as the humanoids run afoul of the town set to the backdrop of ferris wheels and cotton candy machines is quite glorious. It embraces the tone built by the film and keeps thing fun and interesting.

Final Score: 7/10

Flesh Gordon (1974)

Strange sex rays have been bombarding the Earth, causing groups of people to erupt in spontaneous orgies. The leaders and scientists of the world, including Professor Gordon (John Hoyt), are baffled. Meanwhile, the professor's son and all-around great hockey player, Flesh (Jason Williams), is flying back home (on the only airplane I've ever seen with rattan chairs for seats). In flight, Flesh meets cute with Dale Ardor (Suzanne Fields), but before the two can get to know each other, another sex ray hits the plane. Flesh and Dale barely escape with their lives, but they meet up with famous (or infamous) paranoid scientist, Dr. Flexi Jerkoff (Joseph Hudgins), who has discovered where the rays are coming from (the planet Porno). The trio makes off (or out) for the planet in Jerkoff's penis-shaped spaceship. After being forced to crash land on Porno, Flesh, Dale, and Jerkoff partake in a series of adventures in their quest to defeat the evil Wang the Perverted (William Hunt).

Pornography carries different connotations in different contexts. To some, it's something as simple as the baring of the human body in all its glory. To others, it's the graphic depiction of sexual intercourse. To still others, explicit violence and gore is considered pornographic. There are even those who find pornography in the use of words alone (just ask Lenny Bruce or "Penthouse Forums"). In the obscenity case surrounding the film, The Lovers, Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart famously stated, "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hardcore pornography"], and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that." Slightly less famously, Jello Biafra, when detailing his obscenity trial for including H.R. Giger's Work 219: Landscape XX (aka Penis Landscape) with his band Dead Kennedys' album "Frankenchrist," described the "prurient interest" (the crux of the case against him) as (and I'm paraphrasing here), "if you look at it, and it makes you wanna whack off." Much less famously (unless you're a dork like me) but more amusingly, the cover of issue sixteen of Betty And Me shows Archie Andrews carting off casual sweetheart, Betty at the local water hole. In response to her question, "Archie, did you have any trouble rescuing me?" his reply is, "I sure did, Betty! I had to beat off three other guys!"  Naturally, there are three bruised up rivals in the water behind him, but if all you did was hear that line, would you consider that pornographic? Maybe. Maybe not. 

Taking a cue from Mr. Biafra, then, should porn appeal to more than the prurient interest? I'm sure pornography has been with us in some form or another going all the way back to the time of cave paintings. By that same token, the genre has straddled (wow, the double entendres on this are unavoidable) both sides of this query. Like cinema's beginning, when Eadweard Muybridge discovered flicker fusion while trying to answer the question of whether or not all four of a horse's hooves leave the ground while galloping (incidentally, they do), porn has been both plotless and plot-centric. 

Short loops simply depicting folks doing "the nasty" have existed alongside more involved productions (along the lines of "what the butler saw" style narratives) for years before graduating into full-blown features. And yet, even a porno with the most well-developed and verisimilitudinous of plots and three-dimensional characters is still a porno. The sex scenes are integral to their existence (and for the sake of our discussion here, we'll only consider the "sexual congress" angle of pornography), and while they can be enjoyed by themselves (appealing to the most base of desires as they do), having a contextual framework around these scenes can provide not only an additional level of enjoyment but also partially legitimates their production in the eyes of filmmakers and viewers alike (though not necessarily in the eyes of those predisposed to disliking them in the first place). The above question regarding appeal, then, becomes answerable only when framed by the individual viewer's perspective. But that doesn't mean that you can't like it both ways.

As a production, Flesh Gordon is not much to write home about. The 16mm cinematography is alternately blurry or just plain ugly. The compositions consist of establishing shots and medium to medium close-up shots. The camera is primarily static. That said, the visual and special effects (most notably some nice, low budget stop motion work by David Allen and Jim Danforth, here pseudonymously credited as Mij Htrofnad, as well as some early-ish work by Rick Baker) are, for the most part, thoughtful and effective. The shots involving effects all seem (at least to my jaundiced eye) to have not only a stronger sense of composition but also a predilection to actually move the camera. Really, they are one of the film's strongest assets, and they deliver.

Inevitably, then, how does this little opus stack up on a pornographic level? Can it even be called pornography? Yes, I think it can. It goes further in terms of not only amounts of skin shown but how they're shown than other sex comedies. Is there penetration? None is graphically on display, though if you look carefully at the extras in the background of Wang's throne room, there's some genuine nookie going on, as well as some definite handies being applied to definitely turgid members. In fact, the only scene that is treated stylistically like hardcore porn is the love scene between Flesh and Amora (Mycle Brandy) (complete with funky, wahwah pedal guitar licks but without onscreen intromission). My understanding (and I find this very easy to believe) is that live-action co-directors, Howard Ziehm and Michael Benveniste, did film hardcore sex scenes, but they were edited out of the film. My guess would be because porn was considered in many areas to be a criminal enterprise for the majority of the Seventies, and the filmmakers wanted to (understandably) avoid prosecution. It would be interesting to re-look at the film if this material ever resurfaced. Further, the actors are not particularly attractive (as was the norm for the time in this type of affair), but everyone seems to be having a real ball (ahem). 

And this is the film's other saving grace. The film and filmmaker's attitude is one of reverence and playful satire for the works that inspired it. This is stated outright in an opening text scroll extolling the pulp serials of the Thirties and Forties, from Captain Marvel to (the original) Flash Gordon. The film is a romp, "in the spirit of burlesque." Throw in some broad (and some subtle), bawdy humor, some death traps that you have no idea how our heroes will get out of but still know to a certainty they will (just like in the infamous cliffhangers of yore which invariably resulted in a cheat of some form or another), some naked people rolling around and groping each other, and you get a film that, technically, is only worthwhile on an effects lover's level, yet still exudes a mischievous sense of adventure that makes the whole thing go down (ahem, again) a pleasant enough treat.

MVT: The overall sense of delight makes up for the majority of the film's deficiencies. If it wasn't for this mien, the film wouldn't be overly appealing to anyone other than special effects devotees, I think. Still, this would make a hell of a party movie.

Make Or Break: The Make is the airplane scene. Everything to enjoy about the film is contained herein. You have some okay effects, some action and adventure, a mildly fun-looking orgy, and that pervasive sense of amusement that holds the whole affair together.

Score: 6.75/10

**Like this review?  Share it with a friend.  Hate it?  Share it with an enemy.**

Episode #178: Blindman Straits

Welcome to a hot and heavy and fast recording of the GGtMC!!!

Sammy and Will were under the crunch this week due to scheduling issues but somehow (even to our own amazement) able to crank out an episode of the show....I am still short of breath. You get all the goodness in a GGtMC packed hour, don't worry gang this show will not become our standard we just had to haul ass for this one.

The Gents cover Blindman (1971) directed by Ferdinando Baldi and Florida Straits (1987) directed by Mike Hodges...we had much to say about one and not much to say about another...can you guess which one?

Direct download: Blindman_Straits.mp3

Emails to midnitecinema@gmail.com

Voicemails to 206-666-5207

Adios!!!

DVD/Blu-Ray Picks Of The Week - 4/3/12

Chad's pick: TODD AND THE BOOK OF PURE EVIL (Region 1, DVD; Paradox)
One of my favorite recent discoveries was stumbling upon Todd and The Book of Pure Evil. Simply put, this TV series is a blast. Imagine Evil Dead meets Shaun of Dead set in high school, and there you go. Constantly hilarious, and featuring practical F/X work (Man in Rubber Suit galore!!!). The show is criminally underseen, at least here in the States, since it airs on a channel (FearNet) that few cable providers offer. You can pick up Season 1 in the U.S. now, and if like me you can't wait months on end for the Season 2 release then cherry pick across the border!

Links:
Amazon US (Instant Video)
Amazon Canada (DVD)

[REC3]: Genesis (SXSW 2012)

Directed by: Paco Plaza

Written by:Paco Plaza & Luiso Berdejo

Starring: Leticia Dolera, Diego Martin

It might very well improve your viewing experience to pretend that this film is not entitled [REC³].

As it is, [REC³]: Genesis follows the zombie outbreak to a wedding reception as partygoers-turned-flesh eaters rapidly turn the proceedings into a bloodbath. Amidst the carnage, newlyweds Clara (Leticia Dolera) and Koldo (Diego Martin) are separated and must hack their way through undead friends and loved ones to reunite.

Yeah, not exactly what one expects as a description for the third installment in the [REC] series (and that's without mentioning the format switch). A little underwhelming, perhaps? Not very rousing, I agree. So, let's try redacting the title and running the description back one time.

[REC³]: Genesis follows the zombie outbreak to a wedding reception as partygoers-turned-flesh eaters rapidly turn the proceedings into a bloodbath. Amidst the carnage, newlyweds Clara (Leticia Dolera) and Koldo (Diego Martin) are separated and must hack their way through undead friends and loved ones to reunite.

Sounds better, doesn't it? At least, a little bit? Point is, redact the title, ignore it, maybe swap it for something else -- Dead Wedding, Till Undeath Do Us Part, Zombie Honeymoon (oh, wait...) whatever -- it just plays better casting that title aside. For better or worse, [REC³] is brand identification, and this film is not indicative of that established label. That said, I'm unsure if it's fair of me to hold it against the finished product for not delivering on what I think the film should be. Perhaps, I've saddled the picture with unfair expectations. Although, I doubt I'll be alone in that department.

While I'm staunchly not in favor of the found footage genre, I greatly appreciated and enjoyed the first two [REC] movies. In fact, I prefer [REC²] despite the re-treading nature as the film offered a fresh perspective and a killer conclusion that promised something grander ahead for the next film. Unfortunately, [REC³] fails to live up to that promise. It does not go bigger. It does not expand on the mythology. It doesn't really answer some of the more pertinent questions. And what's most frustrating, based on the production value displayed, it certainly appears that the filmmakers had the budget to do all those things with this feature.

Now, if you can sever ties to the [REC] franchise, there's ample to enjoy. The director, Paco Plaza, severs those ties early on and aggressively by visual means. The film's first stanza is presented as a found footage wedding video, setting up the characters and dropping the cues of the forthcoming infection. Frankly, it's the least interesting section of the film, and I welcomed the abrupt shift to a standardly shot film as the handheld shaky cam disappeared. The switch happens suddenly as Koldo rips the camera away from the videographer, smashes it against the floor and toebashes the lens until we cut to the red recording dot on a black screen. This red dot slowly fades then dies, and the found footage look dies along with it. When the film fades back in, we pickup right after the camera-bashing except now all is lensed in a cinematic scope. This rough transition symbolizes the change in direction, signifying that this will be a very different [REC] movie visually, narratively and tonally.

One of those stark differences is the tone. Gone is the straight-ahead bleak scarefest typical of the previous installments. In it's place is more of a horror-comedy hybrid that emphasizes sensationalized gore. Before you'd see a character yanked off screen screaming in agony only to return as a blood-drenched deadhead whereas now you'll see that character mobbed and bloodily chewed asunder. Or previously you'd see someone cower, hide and scramble for cover as opposed to the latest approach that sees our groom goofily dawn knightly armor to protect himself as he searches the reception hall. Putting expectations to the side, it all works quite well and makes for a lot of fun.

Technically speaking, Plaza deserves credit for excelling at making a traditional horror film. Whether it was his intention or not, Plaza certainly proves that his talent isn't relegated to the found footage stylings. [REC³] is beautifully shot, rich and vibrant. After the format switch, I anticipated that Plaza might struggle blocking action scenes, reflexively falling back to a handheld camera operator documenting the events with way better image quality. Fortunately, Plaza's action direction is strong in places, if not spectacular, and always solid. If anything the direction lingers a bit long, at times, on the attacks and gore in sort of the opposite end of the spectrum from the "peek-a-boo" found footage approach. In regard to the horror effects, Plaza doesn't shy from putting the gore on display, and does so with largely practical applications rather than CGI over-reliance. And while I've been critical in the way expectations were defied, I still must credit Plaza for attempting to divert the [REC] formula in so many phases and bravely jettisoning the safety of found footage.

If you're familiar with this franchise, you know that Plaza co-directed the prior films with James Balaguero yet helmed this one alone. Apparently, the pair opted to split up in order to finish off the franchise so each could craft their own final entry to complete the trilogy. Thus, it seems as though we'll have the unique situation where we have four films comprising a single trilogy by swapping out one or the other on the backend. Even with this line of thinking, Balaguero's film will carry sequential numbering, tentatively titled [REC⁴]: Apocalypse.

Make or Break scene - The high point of [REC³] occurs in a tunnel/corridor where Clara has the opportunity to escape clear and free, but instead she makes a stand; she opts to turn around and fight through a zombie horde, vowing not to leave without her husband. This scene succeeds on multiple levels. For one, you believe Leticia Dolera's conviction and unrelenting love, never doubting for a second that she would march through infected monsters. And second, she doesn't march through them empty-handed, but rather with chainsaw-in-hand and sexily tearing her gown to skirt length for better zombie-killing technique. Also, as corny as it may sound, Clara bellows that this is her day -- the bride's day -- and no one's going to ruin it as she cuts her undead assailants to bits, working to wonderful comedic effect. And if anyone tries to steal her special day, as the cool action unfolds, she'll feed them a roaring chainsaw blade. Literally.

MVT - For many of the reasons listed above, Leticia Dolera as Clara is the most valuable thing about the film. I love the ferocity with which she conveys her determination in finding Koldo. At the same time, she's able to portray a very heartfelt emotional performance, especially in creating that necessary chemistry with Koldo. Her performance is so well developed that it enhances Diego Martin's work as Koldo, making you understand why he, likewise, refuses to vacate the premises without his wife.

Score - 7/10