Dumping
garbage on the
side of the
information
super highway
since July 2002

Main
Updates
North Coast News
Interviews
Articles
Albums
Movies
Shows
Pictures
Letters
Archives
Guestbook
Contact Us
Staff
Links

 

 

 

Bloodsucking Redneck Vampires

Dawn of the Dead Ultimate Edition

Coffee and Cigarettes

Exorcist:  The Beginning

Bloodsucking Redneck Vampires’ (2004, Sub Rosa)

Directed by Joe Sherlock 

This is a fairly entertaining horror comedy shot with a fair degree of technical competence.  Catherine (Felecia Pandolfi), a female vampire, is on the run from a modern day Van Helsing.  She takes up residence in the redneck-riddled town of Backwash, where she decides to turn the residents into an army of the undead to protect her from the vampire hunter.  Arriving in town at about the same time is Jean Claude Les Eaux (Scott Shanks), a gay French interior designer.  He’s been hired to re-do a back room for the Poisser (pronounced pisser) family, who are pretty much your standard hillbilly stereotypes – big and stupid junior (Rob Merickel), sexy and stupid daughter Eva (Lindacy A. Hope) and genial and stupid Ma (Carrie Davis).  Pa’s around the house somewhere, too, but doesn’t make an appearance until the end of the movie.  There’s also a height challenged cousin named Cletus (Bill Bradford) who gets the best lines and turns in the best performance. 

Most of the gags are cheap and involve flatulence, boobs, midgets, extremely obese people, homosexuals and, of course, rednecks.  The acting is pretty dreadful, but that’s okay for a movie like this.  In fact, it adds to the humor.  Violence and gore are pretty minimal, but there’s a fair amount of nudity, including some of the biggest breasts you’d never (and yes, I do mean never) want to see.  The main problem this movie has is that it’s way too long at 108 minutes.  It’s like the director didn’t want to lose a single shot, so we’re treated to numerous scenes that go on long after they’ve made their point.  While a more tightly edited version still wouldn’t be any kind of classic, it would be a much more entertaining movie.  I’d still recommend this for fans of dumb humor, but be advised you may be reaching for the fast forward button quite a bit. (Bob Ignizio)

Coffee and Cigarettes’ (MGM, 2004)

Directed by Jim Jarmusch 

This is a fun little series of vignettes involving people sitting at tables in various locations drinking coffee (or in a couple cases, tea) and smoking cigarettes while talking.  It’s shot in black and white, which is really the only way to shoot a movie that involves as much smoke as this one does.  Sounds boring, but it isn’t, at least if you enjoy good conversation.  My favorite segments were Iggy Pop and Tom Waits talking about how, once you’ve quit smoking, you can have a cigarette because you’ve quit and Alfred Molina telling fellow actor --- that, after doing genealogical research, he’s discovered the two are related.  And of course, the segment with Bill Murray trying to lay low as a waiter and being recognized by RZA and GZA of the Wu Tang Clan.  But even the segments that didn’t interest me at much at first wind up working well in the overall arc of the film, as the themes come full circle by the end.   

Don’t let my talk of themes scare you off.  This is certainly an “art” movie, but not a pretentious one.  Granted, the multiplex crowd that only cares about action and “story” probably won’t care for this movie, but if you like seeing little slices of life, well written dialogue, and naturalistic humor this is a very rewarding film.  It’s also a love letter to the twin vices of its title, and will likely make an interesting time capsule a few years from now when smoking anywhere in public will be a thing of the past.  So brew yourself up a pot of hot joe, get yourself a pack of Lucky’s, and sit back and enjoy this film.  (Bob Ignizio)

Dawn of the Dead: Ultimate Edition’ (1978, Anchor Bay)

Directed by George Romero 

George Romero’s ‘Dawn of the Dead’ has seen numerous incarnations on home video, but this one truly lives up to its billing as the “ultimate” version.  The four disc set includes the U.S. theatrical cut, the international cut supervised by producer Dario Argento and released as ‘Zombi’, and the extended Cannes film festival cut that has in the past been erroneously referred to as the “director’s cut” (Romero’s preferred version is actually the U.S. theatrical cut).  But now you, the consumer, get to decide which version you like best.   

In addition to the three versions of the film, disc four includes two documentaries.  Roy Frumkes ‘Document of the Dead’ (missing a few scenes that dealt with the sequel to this film, ‘Day of the Dead’), and a newly made production feature with plenty of recent interviews with cast and crew.  Scattered throughout the four discs are also a wealth of other bonus materials including trailers, TV spots, photo galleries, and Easter eggs containing interviews that didn’t make the final cut of the new documentary.  But wait, there’s still more.  Each version of the film has its own commentary.  Romero, his wife and assistant director Christine, and special effects artist Tom Savini talk over the U.S. theatrical cut, actors Ken Foree, Scott Reininger, Gaylen Ross, and David Emgee offer up a jovial talk on the international cut, and producer Richard Rubenstein still manages to offer some unique information on the Cannes version.   

So are three versions of this film really necessary?  Believe it or not, yes.  Each version has its own tone, and its own set of strengths and weaknesses.  The differences between the U.S. and international versions are especially notable.  Romero’s version plays up his themes of mass consumerism and includes much more humor.  The international version goes more for a straight up action/horror approach.  Each version is also scored differently and includes scenes not in any other version.  Some lines are even spoken by different actors in different cuts.  My only complaint is that some of the photo galleries didn’t work on my DVD player.  Don’t even think about renting this, go out and buy it.  Unlike the recent remake, which was okay but ultimately forgettable, this is a movie you’ll watch again and again if you’re a true horror fan.  (Bob Ignizio)

Exorcist: The Beginning’ (2004, Theatrical Release)

Directed by Renny Harlin 

A long time ago, this guy named Renny Harlin directed a movie called ‘Prison’.  It was about a dead prisoner returning to seek vengeance, since he was wrongly executed.  This movie was a fantastic late 80's gore fest.  It has moderately interesting characters and some impressive special effects.  The plot was mostly cliché, but it was put to film with a feisty energy that made is much better than a lot of similarly themed horror movies that came out at that time.  Harlin’s ‘Die Hard 2’ came after that.  Everything since then has been bomb after bomb, letdown after letdown.  Movies like ‘Cutthroat Island’, ‘Long Kiss Good Night’, ‘Driven’, etc., with Harlin seemingly never living up the talent that his earlier feature had promised. So it comes as no surprise that his version of an Exorcist prequel is junk of the worst kind.  It should also be stated that Paul Schrader directed this film first, but was fired after he would not add things (at the studios insistence) to his finished product.  So Renny Harlin took over.  Minimal footage from the Schrader filmed version is used.   

The plot follows Father Merrin through his earlier years, to East Africa, where we see how he loses his faith and later on, regains it.  I guess a prequel to the "scariest movie ever" (not in my opinion) should have been scary, right?  That is not the case.  Most of the scares here are generic, lifted from any random slasher movie, and are of the "character jumps into frame" variety.  Stellen Skarsgard is good here, excellent in fact.  He has long been a supporting actor and here he shows he is perfectly capable of carrying a film.  It is just a shame that this was not a good film he was given.  And once again, the biggest downfall of this movie was the use of CGI.  Way too much CGI.  And not even good CGI, but rather CGI of the distracting and annoying type.  So distracting to the point where a scene would play out and the effect would look completely out of place in the scene.  And the real life make up effects that are here are just as bad.   

Don't get me wrong, I wanted this to be great as much as the next guy.  I wanted to go and see a great scary horror movie, the kind you remember for years and want to see over and over again.  That's what I hope for.  But instead, we get another movie that replaces real scares with cheap CGI and horror gimmicks.  I was very disappointed and I gladly file this right behind ‘Alien Versus Predator’ as another disastrous movie that had such great potential.  (Edward Black)