Tuesday, September 30, 2008

Grizzly Park

Welcome back Sporefans. No doubt you've come looking for another review of one of the worst movies ever made, and I shall not disappoint! This week we have a terrible title of terror, Grizzly Park! This movie was so terrible that I could hardly bear to watch it.

...

Yeah, that sucked.













Some of you might be familiar with a comedian who has some issues with bears; making them his most threatening threat to Americans and their way of life. Unless you are this comedian or share his ursine-o-phobia you will not be scared by this movie. Not even a little. Typical reactions to this movie include "Yup, that's a bear all right." and "God I can't believe I'm watching See No Evil without Kane in it." Granted, the bear is an improvement, but that's not saying much. To put it metaphorically, its like having a metal spike shoved through your gut and saying "Man I'm glad that didn't hit me in the penis! THAT would have sucked."

Lets take a brief look at some of the plot to Grizzly Park, shall we? Eight troubled teens are sent on a camping trip in woods with a guy named Ranger Bob (played by Glenn Morshower). For some reason they are all eaten by bears. That's pretty much the whole movie. Sure, there's this serial killer in the beginning, be he gets eaten by bears pretty early in. The movie gets formulaic from the beginning and stays that way for most of the movie.










It's... uh... Ketchup. Yeah. That's it. Catsup. I mean Ketchup, Ketchup! Damn!


For example... in the beginning of the movie Ranger Bob stresses the fact that all the campers should stick together. Therefore, it is inevitable that some campers should wander off. Kiki (played by Jelynn Rodriguez) and Ty (played by Shedrack Anderson III... who names their kid Shedrack?) decide to put their faith in modern technology and rely on a GPS system rather than Ranger Bob's advice. During their trek into the wilderness they have a lot of free time to talk, and so they confess their crimes to each other. Kiki confesses that she was poisoning her mother to keep her sick and was caught trying to steal more poison. Ty reveals that he robbed social security checks from the elderly and sold their drugs to kids. Then Ty is caught in a wolf trap. Kiki is then eaten by a wolf and the bear finishes off Ty.

There are several things wrong here. First, by revealing their crimes the teens demonstrate to the audience that they are "evil" and it becomes apparent that they are about to be killed. While some foreshadowing is recommended, it would behoove writer/director Tom Skull to not spell out so clearly the inevitable fate of these two delinquents. For example, before the two teens split off from the group, Ranger Bob mentions that there are wolf traps on the alternate path. You know, the path that Ty and Kiki eventually wind up taking due to their infallible logic and reasoning skills. There is no suspense in this plot, just a resounding feeling of inevitable death by unbelievable stupidity.










"So, like, I have to put a tourniquet on it, right? That's what you do, right? When a guy gets caught in a wolf trap? You put a tourniquet on their neck, right? To stop the head bleeding?"


Even more ridiculous is that after the inevitable event transpires two equally unbelievable consequences occur. First, Ranger Bob makes no attempt to look for the missing teens. I will grant that Ranger Bob did state that he would not go after anyone if they wandered off; but the chances of that actually happening in this situation are pretty slim. There's only so much a signed waiver will cover, and abandoning campers is probably not on there.

Secondly, none of the other campers mention the missing teens for a fairly long time. In fact, the only mention of the missing teens happens in passing; as if someone pointed out to Tom Skull that there was a problem in his screenplay and he fixed it with a two extra lines of dialogue and an extra scene where Ranger Bob finds the bodies. This is pretty much a glowing example of Skull's shoddy writing which is the only constant element in the movie.










Perhaps Ranger Bob was... distracted.


Lets demonstrate how a good writer handles a mistake. Earlier in this review I stated "For some reason they are all eaten by bears," when I made a reference to the eight troubled teens. This was countered by the fact that I mentioned that Kiki is eaten by wolves. There are three alternatives to choose from when deciding how to handle this gaffe.

First there's the bad way or, the Tom Skull way. I could simply go back and say, "most of the teens were killed by bears, except the ones that were killed by wolves". This is also not an acceptable correction to make when you have time for revision, such as when you are writing the screenplay to a movie. These are things that should be corrected before you start shooting the film. Its a mistake you can also correct before you post a movie review, unless you plan to leave the mistake in the review on purpose to demonstrate a point. Like I'm doing.

Also, you can not state after the fact that you left shoddy writing in your movie to prove a point that was not addressed in the movie. Sorry Tom, you don't get to cover your shame by saying it was intentional and artistic. You've got to declare that during the movie (or review of said movie) for it to count.

The second method for dealing with gaffes of this type is to get them before you publish. This is both the accepted method of correction, and very boring. I much prefer the third method.










Guy in a bear suit. Kwality entertainment.


The third option is to play up the gaffe as if it were planned. For example, I could make the argument that wolves are nothing more than small, agile bears. These "Speed Bears" are just as dangerous as their giant brethren; as they not only possess the same sharp claws and deadly fangs, but they also run in packs and work cooperatively. Just what the world needs, deadly packs of speed bears! You think Grizzly bears are bad news? Well wait until a dozen or so of these new speed bears mauls you to death! You'll just wish it were a Grizzly!

The point isn't that the third method is more correct than the second method, just that its more entertaining. Instead of trying to cover up your mistake you make it part of the story. Of course, you also have to have the chutzpah to try and make everyone change their world view to match your own. I think that there's even a comedian who does a similar sort of thing on some television show or something. But in order to pull of such a feat, you have to have a narcissistic ego the size of Michigan, nerves wrought from iron and resolve as solid as granite. You hear me world?

ACCEPT WHAT I HAVE SET FORTH HERE AND MAKE IT THE NEW TRUTH!!!

... Ahem.


However, even when we omit Tom Skull's gaffe about the lack of explanation regarding the concern for the lost campers being eaten by speed bears, I should point out that this movie does continue to suck. Skull's script and direction lead me to believe that I was watching high school theater rather than a minor release movie. It was impossible to determine whether all of the actors were told to behave as if they were on stage in front of their parents, or it was just the best they could do.

Given the consistency of the style however, I think that Tom Skull is mostly to blame for this tepid film. Still, as this is his first film there is always the possibility that he will learn from his mistakes and that his next venture into cinema will have benefited from this excursion into suckville. Unfortunately, I think that it is much more likely that Tom Skull will be eaten by speed bears when compared to the almost insurmountable odds of him learning anything about making movies.

Tom, please don't make any more movies. Put the camera down and stop hurting people.

Seriously.


Anyway, for those who are interested, here's the trailer. Just in case you want some torture.





Anyway, watch out for speed bears. They're the real threat.

Friday, September 12, 2008

Blood of Dracula

Greetings Sporefans. I know that its been some time since the last post, but I needed some time to recover from the horrible beating I took at the hands of the Baltimore chapter of the Sisters of Mercy.

This week we'll be reviewing the 1957 classic, the Blood of Dracula. Like most horror movies from the 1950's, Blood of Dracula is about fear and social issues. Sure, there's blood, and there's a sort-of vampire, but what this movie is really about is lesbians. Or more precisely, how people fear lesbians.













Let me say that again. This movie is about lesbians. And fear.

The starts by depicting a troubled teen, Nancy Perkins (played by Sandra Harrison), who is being driven to the Sherwood School for Girls by her father (played by Thomas Browne Henry) and the woman he married six weeks after his wife passed away (played by Jean Dean). Was it not Hamlet who said "the funeral baked meats, did coldly furnish forth the marriage tables..." (Hamlet Act 1, Scene 2). There was no scene where Mr. Perkins proposed to his new wife over the coffin of the late Mrs. Perkins, as it would have made the movie run a little long. Also, by 1957 morals and standards, it would have been considered ever so slightly scandalous.

But enough about the old codger and his sexy new wife. This isn't their story! This is the story of a teenage girl, sent away to a boarding school miles from home who is exposed to strange new things. Like an all girl campus, female chemistry teachers, and hypnosis. Also vampirism, but that comes later and is also mostly a metaphor.

While enrolled in the Sherwood School for girls, Ms. Nancy Perkins makes the acquaintance of the chemistry teacher Ms. Branding (Louise Lewis) and her lovely assistant Myra (Gail Ganley), who do "all sorts of experiments". Ms. Branding claims that her work will never be taken seriously in the academic world because it is dominated by men; and claims that they will destroy the world with their reckless experiments before they would ever accept her work. Ms. Branding is experimenting with the limitless power of the mind through hypnosis, and is experimenting fairly recklessly in her own right, just without all the physics and isotopes and atomic bombs.

After all, isn't it much safer to experiment with an ancient Carpathian amulet than it is to experiment with physics? What could possibly go wrong?

Oh, right. Vampires.










Myra and Nancy enjoy some breakfast tea together before they jump into bed... er, I mean, go to class.


Now I should mention that the scene where Nancy and Ms. Branding have their first meeting is a pivotal scene in this movie. The dialogue is dripping with subtext which creates a metaphor for Ms. Branding's experiments with girls. Don't believe me? Then read it for your self. The following is actual dialogue from Blood of Dracula.


Ms. Branding: ...Whatever you do should be done under guidance.

Nancy: But who's?

Ms. Branding: I'll tell you that too.

Nancy: Soon?

Ms. Branding: Perhaps soon.

Ms. Branding checks Nancy's hand injury

Nancy: It still hurts.

Ms. Branding: Well now I'll take the pain away. But I'll need your cooperation.

Nancy: What do you want me to do?

Ms. Branding: First I want you to answer a question.

Nancy: All right.

Ms. Branding: Nancy, do you trust me?

Nancy: I think so. I hardly trust anyone except... well Glenn, that's my boyfriend. And of course I did trust my mother. But you? Nancy smiles I think so.

Ms. Branding: I'm glad. Because if you didn't, I couldn't help you at all. And because you do, I naturally trust you. In other words, what happens in this room must not go beyond this room.

Nancy: You can depend on me. What do you want me to do?

Ms. Branding: I'll tell you.


At this point Ms. Branding closes the blinds, whips out her amulet and hypnotizes Nancy. She spends the rest of the movie making Nancy do stuff. You know. Stuff. That she does. Think about it. Also, there's that whole line about how Nancy trusts her boyfriend and her mother, and naturally trusts Ms. Branding as she takes on aspects of both roles.

Boy, this movie is sure is messed up!










You want me to do WHAT Ms. Branding?


During the rest of the movie, Nancy starts to get "urges". First she feels sick when some boys come over to play music and dance with the girls. Later she turns into a vampire and attacks one of her housemates. In fact, the only time that Nancy ever attacks a man in the movie its because she was caught while drinking the blood of another girl. It becomes clear that Nancy only craves the blood of other girls.










And remember dear, this is our secret.


As the movie wraps up, Nancy gets a visit from Glenn, the boyfriend. When Glenn tries to talk to Nancy in the car, she feels odd and leaves him there. She searches out for Ms. Branding and propells the movie into its climax. The movie, not the girls. Pervert!










Eddie Munster called. He wants his hair back.


Of course, you can't have a 1950's horror movie with a subtext about social issues that scare the majority without some cathartic ending. Nancy turns on Ms. Branding in a fit of rage and attacks her. Ms. Branding, no longer able to control Nancy, grapples with her in the lab until they knock over some chemicals and both of them die. I have to admit, I've never seen a vampire destroyed by chemical fumes before, but it does fulfill the requirement that Ms. Branding gets killed by her own experiments. Ah hubris, thy home is in science. With Branding and Nancy both dead, the threat of spreading lesbianism to the other girls is extinguished and good ol' 1950's values reign supreme.

If you have the time, I strongly suggest watching The Blood of Dracula. This movie is a shining example of 1950's horror and really, really funny to boot. Granted, its not funny on purpose, but you'll laugh all the same. Why not check it out? Here's the theatrical preview for Blood of Dracula!