"BELOVED FILMS FOR COUPLES AND EX-LOVERS"

---

RYAN LIES’
• • VALENTINE’S DAY MOVIE • •
RECOMMENDATIONS
Films Reviewed By: Ryan Lies

February’s here and that means Valentine’s Day is upon us once again. As Jim Carrey puts it in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind: “A holiday invented by greeting card companies to make people feel like crap.” And I pretty much couldn’t agree more.

Now, before you go thinking that this is gonna be some sort of cynical, malicious diatribe about the ugly side of love, I should tell you that I’m actually here just to talk about movies. Because that’s what I do.

And if you read my reviews here at No-Fi, you know that I generally like movies with blood, naked girls, guys in ape suits, guns, trolls, minimal production values and healthy heapings of bad taste. I don’t usually deal with “romantic” fare. However, it’s confession time. I’m actually quite a sucker for a good love story, believe it or not. A lot of people, for instance, are surprised when they find out that two of my top 10 favorite movies of all time are Breakfast at Tiffany’s and Moulin Rouge. (Go ahead, laugh it up, fuzzballs.)

So I figured I’d take a bit of a break from the zombies, mummies, tentacles and chainsaw hookers (what some of my friends like to call “bloody boobie movies”) and share with you readers my personal favorite romantic movies. Don’t worry, though, because once that’s done, I have a whole slew of anti-romantic movies I’m going to recommend, too, for those of you, like me, that are going to be spending Valentine’s 2005 alone with your DVD player, a 24 pack of Labatt’s and a stack of Blue Underground goodies.

First off, some ideas for the happy folks who get to do more than sulk this year …

I mentioned already that I’m nuts about Breakfast at Tiffany’s. I just LOVE this movie to death. Audrey Hepburn, quite simply, is the most adorable woman who ever lived. But the movie just steals my heart because of its simplicity of spirit. Same with Moulin Rouge. It’s sappy, melodramatic (and some say annoying) but I get caught up in it every time I watch it. In fact, I’ll admit it, I’m a man … it’s one of the few movies that makes me cry. It might not have a happy ending as romantic pictures are SUPPOSED to have, but that makes it all the more enchanting and moving. In a similar vein, I think Lost in Translation is terribly romantic BECAUSE the love remains unconsummated. Same with The Remains of the Day.

Love stories I guess work best when they tell simple stories about one person falling in love with another person, and usually struggling to maintain their relationship with that person through some sort of hardship (be it personal, financial, health-wise, or whatever). And I’m risking an assload of derision here by admitting this, but a lot of times, the sappier the love story the more I tend to get caught up in it. So yeah, I liked Pretty In Pink, Sleepless in Seattle, Can’t Hardly Wait, Great Expectations, Jerry Maguire and Keeping the Faith.

No one makes intelligent romantic comedies like Woody Allen. I am a huge Allen fan and I think his romantic comedies and dramas are some of the more honest and hilarious ever written. Mainly his earlier ones; while I like his newer films, they don’t hold a candle to his seminal films from the 70s and 80s.

Annie Hall is the favorite amongst most moviegoers, but I personally love Hannah and Her Sisters. I’m always surprised about how romantic and unabashedly life-affirming this movie is, despite its sometimes grim subject matter and its characters’ confused immorality. Hannah is one of those movies I always tell people they HAVE to see before they die.

Allen’s breed of romantic comedy/drama have spawned their own kind of subgenre: the intellectual, neurotic romance film. And here’s where John Cusack comes in. Try High Fidelity, …Say Anything, Gross Pointe Blank or Better Off Dead. On a similar note, you could also try When Harry Met Sally, Notting Hill, Sideways, or Kicking and Screaming, an underrated personal favorite of mine.

Like your love stories with a supernatural or fantasy twist? I say you can’t do any better than Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon; Bram Stoker’s Dracula; Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (the only movie, in my opinion, that has ever truly captured on film what it’s like being IN a dream); or The Princess Bride.

What about the darker, kinkier side of love? Call me sick, I think Natural Born Killers is a great date movie. But maybe that’s a little extreme for your taste. If so, try Tromeo and Juliet, Wild at Heart or Crash, which is the only truly romantic film David Cronenberg has ever made, and probably ever WILL make. Sure it’s demented, but damn if it ain’t hot! If all of that’s a little too much for you, but you still want a LITTLE kinky … then go for Secretary or The Piano.

And that’s about it for that. If you’re like me and you want absolutely NOTHING to do with that lovey dovey shit this time of year and you’re planning on spending the next few weeks listening to Nine Inch Nails, PJ Harvey or Joy Division over and over again then the following list is for you. Fasten those scowls, my friends, and let’s get bitter …

First off, there’s My Bloody Valentine. ‘Nuff said. It’s a minor slasher classic, at least in my eyes. If you hate holiday, then celebrate by watching a crazed miner chop people up and rip out their hearts. Why not? (On a side note, beer makes this one REALLY good.)

On a more “normal” plane there are some pretty good “fuck love” or “love sucks” movies that won’t put you in a better mood, but will at least offer some commiseration. Chasing Amy is the be-all end-all flick about ruining a relationship with insecurity and jealousy. Some say it ends well enough, all things considered, but I sure didn’t think it was a very happy ending. Closer is a recent example. Miserable people doing miserable things to each other, all in the name of love. Clive Owen and Julia Roberts have some of the best “kiss off” dialogue EVER in this movie.

Like older movies? Try The Picture of Dorian Gray, the one with Angela Lansbury and Hurd Hatfield in it (I’ve never seen any other versions of it, so I can’t vouch for their quality.) Evil, spiteful and classy. This movie actually cheered me up after a particularly rough breakup about ten years ago.

Want to revel in just how duplicitous, putrid and icky love can be? Then you need to watch Love Object, M. Butterfly, The Brood, Last Exit to Brooklyn or Nekromantic. Just try to get through these without feeling a bit dirty (actually, Nekromantic will pretty much make you feel like you just reserved your own front row seat in Hell.)

Maybe you’re looking to blow off some steam, you know, vicariously unleash your demons through someone else’s fictional, evil deeds. It’s ok, we’ve all been there. Some of us can’t control these impulses, and then they end doing something asinine that throws them in jail. But most of us just grit our teeth, plot the grisly deaths of those that have dumped us or cheated on us, and then we drink too much, puke, pass out, and walk around the next feeling ashamed and grouchy. Sometimes a good, angry or bitter CD can help (Downward Spiral, Tori Amos’s “Precious Things, NWA’s “A Bitch Iz A Bitch” are a couple personal faves).

One time, after a rather depressing, soul-crushing break-up, I sought solace in The Shining, Stanley Kubrick’s controversial, soulless Stephen King adaptation. The Shining is the cinematic equivalent of an Eminem album. Keep in mind, people, only in the movies is running around with axe in a frozen hedge-maze “cool;” in real life it’s deranged and stupid. And while we’re dispensing the caveats here I might as well state for the record that I realize this might be misconstrued as “misogynistic.” I’m simply talking about anger here, ok. Not sexism. I have known a couple of different women who had similar movies that helped them deal with anger towards their exes. One liked to watch Thelma and Louise and the other liked to watch Ms. 45 when they got pissed at the men in their lives. So this isn’t just a “guy” thing. At least not in my experience.

And in closing, maybe you just feel like making yourself sick at the whole notion of human interaction and human feeling altogether. Maybe you want to take a ride into the darkest heart of insanity, depression, frailty and vileness. If you want to go bed this Valentine’s Day wondering why you should even walk out your front door ever again, then here’s a list of goodies that are sure to put you off from either sex, love, basic social interaction or life in general for at least a week or two:

I, Zombie: the Chronicles of Pain is as nihilistic as movies get. I Spit on Your Grave will diminish even their heartiest of sex drive. Aftermath (a Spanish film about a morgue attendant alone in a room with a fresh corpse; you do the math) will stick in your head for YEARS afterwards, whether you want it to or not. And you won’t. Ilsa: She-Wolf of the SS is another flick that guarantees you a nice hot place when you shuffle off that mortal coil of yours. John Waters’ Desperate Living, Pink Flamingos or Multiple Maniacs might turn you off from pretty much EVERYTHING fun in life. And Dancer in the Dark and Requiem for a Dream will just make you want to die. If none of those do the trick, try a triple feature of Schindler’s List, The Passion of the Christ and Midnight Cowboy. Try getting out of bed the next morning after THAT one.

And last, but not least, when all else fails and you want that one movie guaranteed to make you think that maybe JUST MAYBE being single MIGHT be the best way to go from here on out, pop in Eraserhead. My brother Josh and I actually created a twelve-step program for people after they’ve seen it. Not only will you never want to get involved in another relationship ever again, you definitely won’t even DREAM of ever having kids. Eraserhead just might be THE MOST effective form of birth-control. Planned Parenthood should pass copies of it out instead of prescriptions for Ortho Cyclen and condoms.

And there you have it. The yin and the yang of Valentine’s Day movie offerings, all with the Ryan Lies stamp of approval. Whatever your taste, whatever your mood, there’s probably something in all of this that will work for you.

So, either way, enjoy!

MEET STARMAN, THE COSMIC SUPERHERO FROM THE EMERALD PLANET!

I must admit I had, for some reason or another, never heard of the Japanese superhero Starman until I came across this DVD. One look at the goofy costumes on the cover and I had to buy it. And now, I can officially say that I am a fan!

Played by Ken Utsui, Starman is a smirking, cocksure, indestructible kung-fu super hero who isn’t afraid to bust a cap in a bad guy’s ass. He hails from the Emerald Planet, a place of Utopic harmony, where the beings who call the place home have taken it upon themselves to police the universe. They have built a special watch that allows Starman to fly from planet to planet (and, apparently, allow him and anyone he happens to be carrying the ability breathe in space).

In Attack From Space Starman must fly to planet Earth to stop a malevolent race of intergalactic Fascists from conquering the universe. Right away I was sold when I saw the costumes that the High Council of the Emerald Planet were wearing. Perhaps a cross between Teletubbies, Pokemon and cheap K-mart Halloween costume would best describe these sweet outfits. The sets are straight out of old Star Trek episodes, and the FX look as though they cost a nickel (for both movies combined, that is.)


Seriously, right away all I could think to myself is If this isn’t awesome, I don’t know what is.

I wondered, also, if George Lucas might not have been inspired by these flicks, because at one point, the bad dudes force Starman to tackle the Death Star, a giant fiery asteroid (or something) that they somehow control (I think.) This scene leads to the films best line: “He has no choice but to risk the flames of the Death Star.”

The movie gets a bit slow in the middle, but not detrimentally so. Once the action heats up again, you’ll be more than willing to forgive. As the film speeds towards its exciting climax, you get treated to one of the chintziest gun battles ever filmed, not to mention one of the longest, most sloppily-edited and choreographed movie fight sequences period! Look for the dummies on strings as Starman whips bodies through the air. Stellar crap, my friends, stellar crap.
The second movie, Evil Brain From Outer Space was the more entertaining of the two, and slightly more bonkers. This time the action remains earthbound, as Starman once again journeys from the Emerald Planet to save the earth from an evil race of aliens who want to conquer the universe (why these aliens choose earth to start from every time is beyond me.) Their leader’s brain is lost in a suitcase somewhere, but no matter, they have their “multiplying mutants” to help spread terror over the terrestrial populace (or at least in Japan.)

Along the way, we get to watch one of the oldest looking little kid actors I think I’ve ever seen (she kinds creeped me out, actually) and more of that wonderfully awful editing and choreography. Yes! At one point, a bad guy threatens Starman by brandishing a metal tube and saying “If you try to stop me, I will throw this nuclear grenade.” Nothing much happens when he DOES throw it, but it’s the thought the counts. However, my favorite line by far is “This is no real doctor. This is a Zimarian mutant.”

While these movies aren’t nearly as great as Ultraman movies, or the Godzilla movies, for that matter, they are still great, pointless, stupid fun.

And Something Weird’s DVD is top notch cheese rolled into a bountiful package. Not only do we get the two zany Starman flicks, we also get a short, educational film put out by the Denver Dairy Council, called My Milkman Joe. Hear we see a freaky, intergalactic puppet named Mr. Half-Pint help a neighborhood milkman deliver a presentation to a class of elementary kids on the intricacies of milk processing and delivery. We learn that the cow is “nature’s first food factory.” (And how! I say.) This short is actually ALMOST better than the two Starman movies. It’s certainly wackier.

After that there’s a anime short called Prince Planet which I just couldn’t get into. And then there are a bunch of truly strange trailers, my favorite of which is called Super Stooges Versus the Wonder Women, a movie I absolutely MUST find someday.

Where Something Weird finds all this stuff, who knows. I don’t even want to know. As long as they keep putting it out.

I don’t watch a huge amount of television because there isn’t a lot being offered to me. Things have been pretty bleak lately. I had high hopes for the post super-bowl premier of American Dad, from the creator of Family Guy, but the watered down cliché writing lacked any of the humor I was expecting. Right now, I am enjoying the second season of Carnivale (even more than the first) and I guiltily enjoyed watching Showtime’s Huff. Not a lot in the way of humor. I usually enjoy The Daily Show, but don’t watch it religiously. Most evenings, I am left to turn to my DVD collection or book library for solace and entertainment. My Strangers With Candy DVD set gets frequent play, especially when I have the opportunity to introduce the show to a friend not familiar with the canceled television show. Strangers With Candy was one of the best things to happen to television in the past 20 years. Admittedly, I am a huge fan. I bought the DVD’s on their release dates and am geeky enough to listen and watch all the extras. So, I had some expectations set for this film when I had a chance to see it at the Sundance Film Festival.

Regrettably, I think the less familiar you are with the show; the more you might enjoy the movie. As the film progressed I experienced an odd feeling, a lot like the night back in middle-school when I had rented and first saw Evil Dead and Evil Dead II. The film isn’t exactly a prequel; it is more of a retelling. Like the translation of a book. Just as Bruce Campbell reprises his role from the original Evil Dead for the remake, most of the lead cast returns from the television series to be in the Strangers film. Luckily, there are some fresh changes to the film version of the SWC universe and it is always a treat for me to see my favorite cast members at their peek: Steven Colbert (Mr. Noblet), Amy Sedaris (Jerri Blank) and Gregory Hollimon (Principal Blackman), all at the top of their game. Sadly, many of the jokes and even exact lines were lifted directly from the series and regurgitated into the film version.

The movie starts out by giving us a montage recap of Jerri’s prison life prior to her release. After her release from prison, Jerri, 47 years old, decides to go back to her life prior to adopting her junkie-whore life-style. She attempts to pick up from where she “left off”: as a high school freshman living at home. This time, “doing all the wrong things the right way.” Unfortunately, her homecoming is met with the news that her mother is dead and her father has remarried a shrew before falling into a coma. Now, Jerri lives with her evil step mother and stepbrother (and Stew, the meat man) across the street from Flat Pointe High School. Jerri concocts a plan to excel in school in order to make her father proud enough to awake from his coma. Under the distracted eye of Mr. Noblet, the science teacher using the bible for a text book, Jerri finds inspiration to join the science fair team. She hopes winning the science fair might impress her father into consciousness. Unfortunately for Jerri and her team, Principal Blackman’s gambling has motivated him to ensure Flat Point wins the science fair by hiring a ringer to head up one of Flat Point High’s opposing science teams. Maybe with the help of the Asians and Indians, Jerri can win the science fair. Of course, she needs to get some nookie along the way and try to avoid old temptations. Most the sub-plot elements are more or less from the series. Oh yeah there are some odd cameos: Ian Holm, Matthew Broderick, Sarah Jessica Parker, Justin Theroux, Philip Seymour Hoffman and I might have missed others.

Despite the rehashing of old material, I enjoyed the film. It had some pacing problems but it had some very solid laughs. The audience I was with seemed to love it. It was crass and offensive, like the show, but it could have been pushed further for this film version. Like the series, the film reflects a creepy and demented after-school-special feel that I love. The film manages to be a bit darker in tone and actual aesthetic than the show ever was. The movie version of the school looks like it should be haunted.

To me, at its core, the show was always about a bunch of characters that are flawlessly self-absorbed and hold no importance for one another. Except for Jerri, who, despite her selfishness, desperately wants to “fit in” and find acceptance with those around her. The film manages to keep that core value of self-absorption from the show and that is what makes it work.

Although I enjoyed the film, the series was much more fun.

If you aren’t too familiar with the show, I recommend waiting to see the movie, then watch the Strangers with Candy Seasons 1-3 DVD’s.

The film was picked up for distribution by Warner Brothers’ Independent films division and should be released this Fall, just when the new season of shows begin on television.

If you know me you know that when it comes to the vampire subgenre I can usually take it or leave it. There are quite a few bloodsucker flicks I truly enjoy (Vampires, Blade, Bram Stoker’s Dracula), some I think are quite brilliant (Blade 2, Nosferatu the Vampyre) and some that I think are just corny fun (Queen of the Damned, The Lost Boys). Most others fall in the cracks somewhere and are pretty much forgotten once I eject the DVD (or at the very least, once I file my review for them.)

Vlad showed some promise, at least in the trailer and the press materials accompanying the DVD. Nothing that truly got me pumped, but there seemed to be enough going on that I thought I might have a pretty decent 90 minutes or so with the flick.

Thus, I ended up wanting to like Vlad a lot more than I actually did. And it’s difficult to really isolate the exact moment when the movie went sour for me. But somewhere around the time the titular vampire showed up the movie began to sag. And as it progressed, it completely lost me before the climax even unfurled.

The first half of the movie is genuinely interesting: A group of researchers are recruited by the mysterious dean of a Bucharest university (Brad Dourif) to enter the dark, eldritch Romanian wilderness to seek out information on the life of the infamous, and legendary Prince Vlad.

One of the researchers happens to hold in her possession a necklace that once belonged to the prince, which she intends to return to its rightful resting place. Of course, the nefarious dean really wants that necklace and will stop at nothing to get it. Eventually, Prince Vlad manifests himself, eager to get his hands on the hottie with his necklace, as does the spirit (?) of his long dead “true love.”

Here’s where things just get messy. What begins as an interesting supernatural adventure story devolves into a haphazard, uninspired jumble. I was totally digging the story and the likable characters (hell, even Billy Zane was kinda interesting), but once the actual object of their quest showed up and started wrecking havoc on their lives, it just got confusing and … well, boring, to be honest.

It’s nothing we haven’t seen before in a multitude of other vampire flicks (and which Francis Coppola pretty much sealed the crypt on in Bram Stoker’s Dracula), and Vlad is such an insipid, clichéd character, not to mention a bit overplayed by Francesco Quinn (I was more afraid that he was gonna chew the scenery rather than any of the characters’ necks), to care much about him. And let’s face it, in these movies, even though the head vampire is usually an inherently damned (and thus bitter) fella, it’s still important to relate to the guy. No luck here. He just doesn’t have any depth to him, and here that becomes the movie’s fatal flaw. (Although, for the sake of ballast, let me say that he’s nowhere NEAR as awful as that dude in Van Helsing.)

The cinematography and locations are superb, and occasionally sublime, considering the low budget they were working with. I even liked the score by Christopher Field. And I truly enjoyed a lot of the performances here. Usually these movies are stocked with generic college stereotypes (the stoner, the horny guy, the sexy bookworm, whatever) but these characters were actually interesting. There’s a scene before things get all hokey where they are sitting around a campfire smoking weed and getting to know each other that was very well acted, a genuine sense of warmth emanating from the cast.

I think director Sellers shows a lot of promise for future productions. And I’m sure that some of Vlad’s weaknesses can be blamed budgetary constraints. There was definitely a good movie in here somewhere, it just didn’t make it to the screen. He needs better material to work with. This story of the vampire pining for his long lost love has been done to death and even if he wants to delve back into the vampire subgenre (which I’ve heard he does) then I say go for something against the grain. There are still good stories to be told with these classic creatures; original, trailblazing stories even. And maybe next time out, if Sellers gets his hands on a truly brilliant idea, I think we could be in store for something much more succulent and moving than this film turned out to be.

So I’m keeping my eyes on future endeavors from Sellers and co. I’m not a big vampire fan, but I’m always interested in good, supernatural storytelling, of any kind. I think they’ve got it in ‘em. Better luck next time.

People often cite Ed Wood’s flicks as being the “worst movies ever made.” And if not those, then it’s Manos: The Hands of Fate, or The Beast of Yucca Flats, or something of that ilk. Inept, hardly-watchable films all (well, actually, I don’t think Ed Wood’s movies are all that bad, really. I mean, say what you want, but they are entertaining as hell. Tell me you didn’t have a grin on your face the whole time you were watching Bride of the Monster.) But nothing, and mean nothing comes even close to being as ineffectual, as stinky bad, and as utterly useless as this patchwork mess known as Attack of the Mayan Mummy (aka The Mummy Strikes, aka Putrid, Steaming Pile of Crap Passing As a Monster Movie.)

First off, a little anecdote: I borrowed this video tape from a friend after taking one look at the cover that Acme Video slapped on the box. Next to the dramatic words RISING FROM THE GRAVE TO RECLAIM HIS THRONE! sat the stupidest looking mummy I had ever seen. I thought, Well, jeez if that thing is “the Mayan mummy” then I have to watch this! I mean, seriously, look at that thing. Wouldn’t you feel compelled to watch the movie, just for the chance to see actors trying to feign terror while being “attacked” by that thing? B-movies have long claimed a mélange of famously negligible “monsters” (check out It Conquered the World or One Million AC/DC or even Van Helsing), and most of the time these ridiculous creatures are part of the fun.

However, the mummy on the box is NOT in the movie. Just so you know. Hopefully by telling you that, I’ve deterred you from watching the movie. But if you want to continue, then I have a bit of “history:”

Back in the heyday of exploitation movies, distributors eager for a buck, and not wanting to do much work to get it, would often buy foreign B-movies and re-edit them, throw in new footage, and repackage it as a new movie. Sometimes the results were sublimely awful, as in the case of one of my personal favorites, Horror of the Blood Monsters (aka Vampire-Men of the Lost Planet), which was composed of three different movies: a space adventure film, a caveman movie, and a Mexican vampire film. But more often than not, the results were purely imbecilic, and ultimately insulting to the audiences.

Attack of the Mayan Mummy is one of the latter. “Director” Jerry Warren purchased the rights to a popular Mexican horror film called The Aztec Mummy and took about 20 minutes or so from it and then went and filmed some new footage and then threw it all together to make what amounts to, in my opinion, the worst goddamn movie I’ve ever seen. And I’ve seen a lot. I even hated this more than I hated House of the Dead. And that’s saying something, cuz that movie made me want to kill innocent animals.

There’s about four minutes of actual mummy stuff in this flick. The rest of it is a whole lotta people talking. The first ten minutes is two guys sitting at a desk, talking. The next ten minutes, two guys sitting in a living room, talking. Then there’s another scene of people talking. Then a scene at a lecture, where we don’t actually hear the characters talking, but instead are treated to a narrator telling us what the people in the scene are saying. Figure that one out. And then there’s a scene in a lab. Then some kooky Aztec Mummy ceremonial stuff. And then more talking. And then it gets “exciting” cuz they actually get to where they’ve talked about going for 50 minutes. Then there’s some mummy footage. The mummy gets captured, but we don’t get to see it. That’s right, you guessed it: someone in the next scene tells us it was captured. And then they talk about it. Then it escapes. And then a car runs it down, killing it. However, as per the “aesthetic” of the movie, we don’t see that happen. We just get two guys sitting at a desk talking about it happening.

The footage Jerry Warren shot to wrap around the mummy footage is poorly lit, poorly staged, and ludicrously over-scripted. Literally, the entire plot of the movie is discussed by people sitting in rooms, or narrated by those same people. A few minutes of kinda cool mummy and laboratory stuff is all we get in the way of action. It sucks. It blows. This movie eats shit.

What a contemptible waste of time. I hope somewhere in the afterlife, Angel Di Stefani, the actor who played the Aztec Mummy, is bitch-slapping Jerry Warren.

Fiend Without a Face has long been one of my absolute favorite 50’s SF movies. In fact, I can honestly say I loved this flick long before I ever even saw it, due to a picture of the brain-creatures that I saw in a magazine in my early teens. I loved those damn brain-creatures so much that there was no way any movie that featured them in it could be bad. And my assumptions proved correct.

While I watched it a few times back in the day (ten, twelve years ago that is) I had actually not seen it in quite some time, so when I heard it was finally coming out on DVD, I flipped out. Perfect chance to revisit an old friend. Then I found out it was going to be released through The Criterion Collection and I just about exploded. Criterion was going to release Fiend Without a Face? God bless ‘em, but … why? I mean, I know that around the same time they released a super sweet edition of The Blob, but I figured that was about as insane as they were going to get as far as releasing old B-movies went.

Whatever the reason, Criterion did it. As if I didn’t have enough reasons to love them in the first place. So I finally tracked down a place in my hometown that had a copy of this, but of course, as is usually the case with me, it took me forever and a day to actually get around to watching it.

Fiend Without a Face tells the story of a small country town beset by a series of gruesome murders, wherein the victims have their brains and spinal chords sucked out. Only thing is, the killers, whatever they are, are invisible. The ever paranoid townsfolk blame the nearby Army base and “radiation.” The Army is quite sure they have nothing to do with it and heads up an investigation into the situation. What they discover is quite terrifying and … well … kick ass! Turns out some local scientist is siphoning radiation from the Army base and using it in his telekinesis experiments. And in doing so, he accidentally creates a race of “mental vampires,” forged from his own unconscious mind! (Kind of like the Id Monster in Forbidden Planet, another totally awesome 50’s SF flick with similar ideas.)

Does it still hold up, then? Boy oh boy, fuckin’ A does it ever! This movie is a gem all around. And Criterion’s DVD looks absolutely amazing. Better than it has any right to look, really. The black & white movie is simply gorgeous! Yet, despite the digital makeover, it still looks and feels and sounds like it should, like a low-budget B-movie. Sometimes when these old movies get cleaned up, they really show how limited their means of production really were. But not in this case. However, my bias may be showing here, cuz I pretty much always thought this movie was perfect for what it was anyway.

It’s those brain-creatures, man! Mushy looking brains, with twitchy antennae, trailing slithering spinal chords, flying through the air, latching onto the necks of their victims, sucking at their nervous systems! The person who conceived and created these cerebral beasties is a damn genius. They spend most of the movie invisible, their presence marked only by eerie crunching noises. Director Crabtree builds the suspense extremely well, given his limitations, and when he finally chooses to reveal the monsters, he does so perfectly. On screen for just enough time so as to not to inundate, but plenty of time to leave a lasting impression. These are my favorite monsters from this era of SF filmmaking. They SHOULD put any surviving models of these guys in the Smithsonian.

The climax of Fiend (which uses the “trapped and barricaded in a farmhouse” idea that I love so much, and was later mined to perfection by Romero in Night of the Living Dead) is balls out cool. The creatures attack, guns blaze, girls scream. And it’s pretty damn gory, too, I might add. Whenever one of the fiends is shot, the brain explodes in a bloody mess, gurgling and sputtering. Totally wicked.

Sure, the dialogue can be dumb at times, the science is sketchy at best, and the acting isn’t always much to behold, but I can’t even bring myself to worry about that. The movie is a blast, from start to finish, the blemishes far outweighed by the sheer force of late-night monster-cool the rest of the film exerts.

Criterion’s DVD isn’t exactly laden with extras, and some might find this a turn off, considering its hefty price tag (which is somewhere over 35 bucks.) There is an audio commentary by executive producer Richard Gordon, along with genre writer Tom Weaver and a nifty illustrated essay on the history of British horror/SF filmmaking. There’s also a collection of trailers from other Gordon films. For me, though, there is no question that it is worth every penny.

If you love these kinds of movies as I do, then this is one for the archives. In fact, I may just want a copy of this movie buried with me when I pass on someday … just in case those Egyptians were right and you do get to take it all with you.

(Ryan Lies is a No-Fi Staffwriter and has a face too.)

---

TROLL
starring Michael Moriarty, Noah Hathaway, Sonny Bono, directed by John Carl Buechler, Color, , 1986
TROLL 2
starring Michael Stephenson, George Hardy, Margo Prey, directed by Claudio Fragasso, Color, , 1991
Double Feature DVD Distributed by MGM
DVD Reviewed By: Ryan Lies

First off, yay to MGM for putting these out on a double DVD (they also did the same for a bunch of other flicks like Missing in Action 2 & 3 and Ghoulies 1 & 2). However, I personally feel that both of these movies deserve their own Special Edition DVDs. I would like to start a petition one day to give to Anchor Bay and tell them to get on that.

Troll has long been a personal favorite of mine. As a kid, I loved it, no questions asked. It had magic, monsters and a kid as the hero. How could I not love it? Upon watching it recently, I can still see what the kid in me loved. However, I can also see that it’s pretty hokey. But that’s part of its charm.

Harry Potter, Sr. (Michael Moriarty) moves his family into an apartment complex that also happens to be the home of an evil Troll that is trying to turn the entire world into a big garden. It can turn people into big green pods by poking them with its ring. Eventually, Moriarty’s son, Harry Potter, Jr., uncovers this nefarious plot and teams up with a witch living in the building to put a stop to the terror once and for all. (Did J. K. Rowling ever see this movie? I mean, a kid named Harry Potter, getting involved in magic …? One has to wonder, doesn’t one?)

Along the way we are treated to Sonny Bono as a swinger, crazy cheap optical effects that are supposed to be “magic,” a mushroom that sings, Moriarty making a complete fool out of himself while singing and air-guitaring to “Summertime Blues,” and a truly odd musical interlude featuring a bunch of puppets. And this Charles Band production boasts a great cast, besides Moriarty and Bono, including June Lockhart, Noah Hathaway (Boxey from “Battlestar Galactica”), Julia Louis-Dreyfus, her real-life husband Brad Hall, and Phil (Willow, Ghoulies 2) Fondacaro, simply one of the greatest actors ever. His is actually one of the most thoughtful and nuanced performances in the movie, playing a little person who seems to have given up on his will to live, but not on his kindness to others. The dude’s just a damn great actor.

But anyway, Troll is a treat. Not perfect by any means, but still a lot of fun.

Whereas Troll is a flawed yet competent and amusing fantasy pic, its in-title-only sequel is an exercise in absurd stupidity. The fact that this movie exists flat out astonishes me. Its level of badness actually borders on the surreal.

Troll 2 has nothing to do with the original, and on top of that, it has nothing to do with trolls period. The creatures in it are called goblins throughout the entire movie. And the eccentricity only increases from there.

The story deals with a suburban family who decides to swap their house for awhile with a family that lives in the small town of Nilbog. Joshua is scared to move because his dead grandfather warns him that evil awaits. Once they arrive in the town, the neighbors treat them very strangely and Joshua discovers the true horrors that await them (in case you missed it, check out the name of the town in a mirror.) Eventually the family realizes that an evil, vegetarian witch and her flock want them for supper. Through the use of her amazing “Stonehenge Magic-stone” she disguises her goblin minions and turns unsuspecting humans into plants (so they won’t have to eat human meat, ok? Now it makes sense, right?). Eventually Joshua devises a plan with help from his dead gramps, and believe it or not, the future of mankind rests on a double-bologna sandwich. And the power of love. Really, it does.

Yeah, I know, you’re thinking WOW. And I’m just scraping the surface here, folks. This movie has innumerable strange sights and sounds in store for you. For starters it just may the have the worst acting ever captured in a motion picture, especially Joshua’s mom, dad and sister. God, are they terrible. Watch the daughter (Connie McFarland), particularly, as I think she’s the worst. She even has a scene where she dances to cheesy faux-New Wave music in her room (making the best scene of its kind since the Pseudo Echo robot-dance in Friday the 13th V: A New Beginning.) And the chick who plays the witch chews so much scenery she chokes on it, but keeps on going. I can’t believe this actress can actually live with herself after this. I’d be so embarrassed that I’d probably eat Drano.

There is a weird subplot involving the daughter’s boyfriend. Seems her parents don’t like the guy too much because he “spends too much time with his friends.” And even the daughter isn’t so sure, proffering him an ultimatum: “It’s either me or them.” And the dude just can’t seem to leave his friends behind. When the family relents invites him to join them in Nilbog, as long as he comes alone, he doesn’t show up on time, and then rushes in an RV to meet them, with his friends along. The homoerotic/homophobic undertones to this whole subplot are so heavy that it’s laughable.

And I better not neglect to mention the best use of the song “Row Row Row Your Boat” since Captain Kirk and Bones tried to teach Spock how to sing it in Star Trek V).

Anyway, I could go on. There’s so much to love and laugh at in this movie (God, wait until you see the “popcorn” scene!), and for anyone who can appreciate and love really, really bad movies like Queen Kong, Godmonster of Indian Flats, The Worm Eaters or Petey Wheatstraw: the Devil’s Son-In-Law, then this is one of those stinky cinematic treasures that you find only once in a great while and savor for a lifetime.

I can’t think of a better excuse to spend $9 than this MGM goodie. Until Anchor Bay (or whoever, I don’t care) gets off their butts and gives these flicks the special treatment they deserve (man, I think a Troll 2 director’s and actors’ commentary would be priceless), then this will be good enough.