DVD Review: The Funhouse

As a kid there were some VHS cover boxes on the shelf at the video store that just always really creeped me out. One of those creatively marketed titles was Tobe Hooper’s 1981 thriller The Funhouse.

While it goes well beyond cliché to say that clowns are generally creepy, the clown on the cover of this title cannot and should not be described in any other way—he’s scary as hell. So you can imagine my surprise when, some twenty years after this film first caught my eye, I finally sat down to watch the thing and there wasn’t a single damn clown in the entire movie! What I found instead was a slow burn thriller that actually pays off quite nicely—if you’re able to stick it out for the nearly 50 minutes it takes before the movie’s first kill.

Capitalizing off of the success of his underground hit The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, director Tobe Hooper crafted this film’s story very much in the same mold. Where it differed greatly was in the film’s execution (pardon the pun), which undoubtedly left fans of Massacre wondering when the other bloody shoe was going to drop.

The set-up is a simple yet effective genre staple: four pot-smoking teens looking for some excitement at a traveling carnival that stopped in their town. One of the incorrigibly horny guys has the great idea that they should hide in the funhouse and stay over when all the carnies have called it a night. Amazingly, the others agree and, just like that, we have a horror movie.

Once inside, the teens witness a murder at the hands of one especially demented Carnie (who is essentially a carbon-copy of Chainsaw’s Leatherface.) The rest of the night (and the film) is spent with the teens, as they attempt to escape the creepy killer and his equaly deranged father. The teens are, of course, picked off one by one before the break of dawn.

There is no denying that The Funhouse is a slow film, even compared to other 80’s horror. You can tell that Tobe Hooper really took his time with this one. If you look closely, you can tell that he did put great care into the film—the cinematography is tight, the creature effects are solid and there are a few legitimately impressive long-take crane shots. He even managed to slip in an homage to both Halloween and Psycho, as well as some gratuitous nudity—all in the opening 5 minutes!

And, for what it’s worth, Tobe Hooper turned down a film that was offered to him by Steven Spielberg in order to make The Funhouse. The film he turned down? E.T.

Ouch.

Overall, the film was a satisfying little thriller, with some decent scares and is definitely worth a look if you enjoy 80’s horror.

Score: 3 out of 5

(ALSO: Word on the street is that Eli Roth has been tapped for a remake. Could be interesting...)

The problem(s) with "The Office"

"The Office" is one of two shows that I make sure to see every single week. The other one is "Lost." And while narrative wormholes and unanswered questions are an integral part of the latter, I don't think it was an intended part of "The Office." Yet there are many questions that need be answered:

1.) If the whole show is based upon the idea of a film crew following the daily life of an American office, that's fine. But this device seems to have faded away, and the cameras have now become an omnipresent, sometimes invisible witness to the daily dramas in the office. Unless, that is, the camera can be used for comedic value. Which is it? Is there a documentary crew, or no? And this brings me to my next point...

2.) Are we supposed to feel like personal friends of Jim and Pam? Because the show has begun to lean heavily on awkward glances, and deadpan stares from both of them. It's like some sort of "Lady in the Lake", first person complicity that is lacking in the other 90% of the show. Jim and Pam are never the butt of the joke and, on this show, that makes them boring. And speaking of...

3.) Jim and Pam. Honestly-- how arrogant and annoying can two characters be? Once they got together as a couple, that storyline was finished. Their only function thee days is to look at the cameras (and us, the viewers) with a look of, "Can you believe this...?" And it's old. Really old.

4.) Michael Scott is way, way, WAY too over the top.

Sometimes.

Which is what I find so annoying. Ricky Gervais' "David Brent" was a jerk, and a heel,  but deep down he had a sympathetic core. Michael Scott seems to just be a human manifestation of Homer Simpson, at some points going so far off the stupidity charts that it ruins an entire episode (such as when he drove into a lake because the GPS told him to turn.) Are we to believe that he is so unbelievably stupid, that simple functions of basic intelligence are too much for him? But then, there are moments of clarity for the character, where you do see a glimmer of humanity, and you think, "Hmm...?"But those scenes are so few and far between, I've become convinced that they happen accidentally.

4.) The Angela/Dwight affair ruined those two characters. First off, Angela-- of course she was an  annoying, teetotaling bitch, but the affair made her something worse in my eyes-- a cheater. And the man she cuckolded, Andy, is one of the only genuinely likable characters on the show. When do Angela and Dwight get their comeuppance? Where is the payoff to the affair? And Dwight-- Well, that's another thing...

5.) Dwight, Dwight, Dwight... you know, it was sort of unfair, because I came into the series immediately convinced that Rainn Wilson would merely attempt to do the impossible-- to top Mackenzie Crook's "Gareth" from the BBC "Office".  And, to his credit, he has done enough to differentiate the character, and has come up with some genuinely funny moments. However, he too often falls back on the hacky, over-used Dwight bits-- you know, over-emphasizing words for comedic effect, being awed by ninjas and karate and all that Will Ferrell-ish, Man-Boy stuff that has been old for a few years now. It's old, too easy and smacks of laziness.

6.) Problems with other "Office" denizens:

a.) Kevin-- someone told him that talking slowly, and over-emphasizing words in comic gold. Someone was wrong.

b.) Meredith-- The whole drunken whore thing strikes me as less funny, and more sad and annoying.

c.) Stanley-- the man has never made me laugh. He's just a grumpy old prick.

d.) Ryan-- His character has gone through a complete transformation from when he first started. They should have let him go when the whole arrest thing happened. His story-line is dead.

So, after all of that, I still want to say I like the show. I mean, it's possible to like a show and still be cognizant of it's problems. When the show is on-- it can be really good! But it seems that Ricky Gervais may have been on to something by only having 2 seasons (plus the Special) of the original series. Did it leave me wishing for a third season? Yes. But I think he knew that there was only so much you could do with the concept. A lesson that the American version may end up learning the hard way. If, by the hard way, I mean by making millions upon millions of dollars, I suppose.

Nothing like running a good show into the ground. What do you think?

Check it Out: "Mulholland Falls" (1996)

Tonight, while flipping through cable channels, I came across the film "Mulholland Falls." Initially, I had it confused with David Lynch's "Mulholland Drive," but when I realized that I was actually able to follow the story, and it had a cohesive plot, I realized my mistake. Zing.

I'd never seen the film, which is surprising, because I'm a huge fan of the films that clearly influenced it-- the noir films of the 40's and 50's. It stars Nick Nolte (when he was younger, slightly more sane) as a Detective on L.A.'s  famous "hat squad" police force. As one would expect, there's a murder, a mystery, a conspiracy, and even some radioactive material thrown in for good measure.

I ended up watching, and thoroughly enjoying, the entire film. I could go into a lot of reasons why you should check it out, like the great cast (Nolte, Malkovich, Chazz Palminteri, Jennifer Connelly, et al) and the many very cool fedoras, but I'd rather just refer you to one line that comes about 3/4 of the way through the film.  Nolte's hard ass Detective delivers it to a Federal Agent who's been horning in on his case. It comes right after Nolte's mopped the floor with him.

"This is L.A. This is my town. Out here, you're a trespasser. Out here I could pick you up, burn your house, fuck your wife and kill your dog. And the only thing that would protect you is if I can't find you-- and I already found you."

If that doesn't make you want to see this flick (as well as talk like that in every day life) your machismo must be at an all time low.

If you get a chance, give this one a look for sure.

Review: Midnight Meat Train

 These days it seems like certain films achieve a "cult" status before they've even earned a legitimate fan-base. I'm thinking of films such as "Donnie Darko", "Hedwig and the Angry Inch" and "Hatchet." I'm not saying they're not good films-- but they seem to bestow the cult status upon themselves before audiences have a chance to decide for themselves. Or, in the case of "Midnight Meat Train", before audiences even get to see the film.

The film is an adaptation of a short story by horror legend Clive Barker. And I think therein lies the problem. Sometimes a story is written in short form because that is simply the correct format for it. This seems to be the case with "Midnight Meat Train"-- there simply wasn't enough, uh, meat to fill out the story.

The plot is simple enough-- a late night train, usually only inhabited by one or two commuters, has become the slaughter-ground for a silent maniac (Vinnie Jones) whose weapon of choice is a brutally blunt meat tenderizer. Oh, and some meat sure gets tenderized, believe me. In fact, the gore factor is probably the saving grace of this film for many horror fans. It's a pretty graphic flick. But in this reviewers opinion, the filmmakers fell victim to the trap of using CG gore and blood effects all too often. I would like to think that most true horror fans would rather have a good film that may have a few questionable practical effects, rather than a mediocre film that uses shiny digital blood for most of it's real money-shots. But, we live in the digital age, and I guess digital gore is going to be increasingly prevalent in the genre-- let's just hope it improves... soon. As far as the story itself... it was okay. The main character is a photographer, which has now become a tired cliche in horror films. When the silent killer inadvertently becomes the subject of the photographer's work, he's drawn into trying to discover exactly what's going on in the late night train the man takes every night.

Now, without treading into spoiler territory, I'll just say that the ending of the film was somewhat rushed, and a bit vague for my liking. I don't need everything laid out for me, but I do want a reasonable amount of time devoted to ending a film in a satisfying way.

Overall, the film was a disappointment. Was that because of the months and months of waiting for it's release? Probably. Had I never heard of the film, and just picked it up on DVD, I may have had a different reaction. But that's not how it happened. If you're looking for something creepy that you haven't seen this Halloween, this movie may do the trick. But I do believe I'm justified in telling most horror fans out there-- don't believe the hype.

(P.S.-- The film is now available to watch on FearNet for free! Even I can't argue with that price.)

My rating: 2 out of 5

Essential DVD: "Grand Illusion"

Criterion has always been known for releasing some of the finest, and most well preserved films available on DVD. In fact, their name alone pretty much ensures that you've got a quality film, and the best possible print you're likely to find. And if you've ever wanted to get into classic film, but didn't know where to start, they've now made it rather easy for you with their  five film "Essential Art House" collection. This set caters almost specifically to film fans who may otherwise be reticent to jump into classic films. They are hand picked to ease you into a world of truly wonderful film that isn't exactly widely discussed in the mainstream.

The set includes Jean Cocteau's "Beauty and the Beast", Akira Kurosawa's "Rashomon", Roman Polanski's "Knife in the Water", William Golding's "Lord of the Flies", Ingmar Bergman's "Wild Strawberries", and Jean Renoir's "The Grand Illusion."

Boy, don't you feel more like a film snob just reading those names? I know I do. But I digress...

My personal choice as to where to start is with Jean Renoir's "Grand Illusion." The synopsis according to TCM is as follows:

"During 1st WW, two French officers are captured. Captain De Boeldieu is an aristocrat while Lieutenant Marechal was a mechanic in civilian life. They meet other prisoners from various backgrounds, as Rosenthal, son of wealthy Jewish bankers. They are separated from Rosenthal before managing to escape. A few months later, they meet again in a fortress commanded by the aristocrat Van Rauffenstein. De Boeldieu strikes up a friendship with him but Marechal and Rosenthal still want to escape..."

Okay, so it's not the most captivating synopsis, but it's a fantastic film nonetheless. It's also usually, unfortunately, left of off most lists of the best war films of all time. Tsk Tsk.

The full set is available, at quite a low price, at Amazon and even more reasonably priced from the Criterion Store. And if you're really on a budget, the films are available separately for about $15 each. Not a bad price to buy you some culture and bona fide film-nerd street cred.