Bulletproof (1988)

Full disclosure: I had never seen or heard of Bulletproof (1988) until I stumbled upon a collection of the best/worst movie insults of all time.  This caught my attention:

That's right, Gary Busey, perched in the rafters of a warehouse, called Danny Trejo a "butthorn."  Needless to say, that placed Bulletproof on the top of my to-do list.  But is it really worth it to track down this virtually unknown late-80s action movie, just to hear Gary Busey say "butthorn"?

Yes.  A thousand times, yes!  The glory of Bulletproof is not merely that single line, but 93 minutes of ridiculous action movie silliness that is blissfully unaware of how incredibly, laughably stupid it is.  You might worry that an entire movie's worth of enjoyment cannot come with just one "butthorn" comment.  You're wrong, but just to put your mind at ease, I'll let you in on a secret: it's not just the one comment.

So what is Bulletproof about, aside from butthorns?  It's the story of "Bulletproof" McBain (Gary Busey), a reckless cop who is also a semi-retired secret ops agent because of course he is.  The film opens with him on a stakeout with his older partner (Thalmus Rasulala), who implies that he is too old for this shit.  They're on the lookout for a potential illegal arms deal, and the first hint that the deal is going down comes from a limousine and an ice cream truck that drive into an abandoned warehouse.

Don't try to justify that logic.  You will hurt yourself.

Instead of calling for back-up, McBain decides to sneak into the warehouse and handle things on his own.  And by "sneak," I of course mean "take absolutely no cover in the rafters of the building."  A firefight ensues, one that features a lot of bad guys shooting automatic weapons and not hitting anything.  On the bright side, McBain kills someone every time he fires his revolver.  Over the next few minutes, the following things happen:

• McBain avoids being inured by a rocket launcher that was fired at him from across a room.
• "I think we blew him up!"  "You don't blow up a dude like McBain!"
• A car chase involving an ice cream truck filled with weapons instead of ice cream.
• Multiple 360° spins during the car chase.
• The longest grenade fuse (or whatever determines when grenades explode) ever caught on film.
• McBain's boss arriving at the crime scene, looking around and saying "Well, I guess you had to be there," before secretly complimenting McBain on his work.

Keep in mind that this is just the opening sequence, designed to give the audience subtle hints that McBain is awesomely bad-ass.  After a hard night's work, McBain comes home to rest, but instead finds his attractive quasi-girlfriend/hump buddy waiting for him.

"I'll be Ernie, if you'll be Bert.  Oh, rubber ducky, I'm awfully fond of you...sexually!"

You know what makes this scene great?  Well, yes, the gratuitous nudity.  But it's more than that.  Hump buddy's explanation for why she's there is, essentially, because she's crazy and wants to share that craziness with McBain's penis.  Also, I have to point out a few things in that picture.  How many candles, bubbles and flowers do you think "Bulletproof" McBain keeps in his bathroom?  That's right, none.  So this crazy woman A) made a copy of McBain's house key to get in B) brought in at least a bag's worth of her stuff to feminize his bathroom and C) anticipated waiting a while for him and brought her rubber ducky with.  Oh, and apparently McBain's bathroom has rooms inside it; while Sexy McCrazy is sudsing up, McBain goes to the next room so he can use the sink and mirror to pull out a bullet he caught in the shoulder that night.

Perhaps "Bullet Magnet" would have been a better title

Why am I going into such detail with this plot?  Because this particular plot has absolutely nothing to do with the bulk of the movie.  After an opening like this, I expected a Lethal Weapon knock-off, especially with the old, cranky black partner who loves to remind McBain that his ass is, in fact, black.  That is the beauty of Bulletproof.  Just when you think the movie is going to play it safe and predictable, it decides to make absolutely no sense.  At this point, it becomes an international spy story.  The US government has a super tank, code-named Thunderblast, which is ridiculously powerful.  Like, it's probably worth two, or maybe three tanks.  The government then makes the deliberate choice to allow the Thunderbolt to be captured by terrorists, as part of a larger master plan.  They make sure that McBain's former girlfriend (Darlanne Fluegel) was on the mission, to serve as bait.  So, what's the master plan?  The government wants McBain to recover the stolen tank...that they purposely allowed the terrorists to steal.  So...hmm.  That's a toughie, a point that the script wisely chooses to not address.  What about the terrorists?  Who is McBain fighting?  Cubans.  Nicaraguans.  Arabs.  Russians.  You know, the groups that typically work together and decide to invade America through Mexico, powered by a single tank.  My god, the 80s were hilarious.

I love that the Russian has to wear a fur hat in the Mexican desert so we know where he is from

How is the acting in Bulletproof?   Predictably ridiculous.  Gary Busey leads the way, and I found myself enjoying his over-the-top performance.  It isn't actually good, but it was fun to watch.  Some actors would look terrible in a role that required them to spout horrendous dialogue and be a complete asshole to any character they don't kill first.  Not Busey.  He was as believable in this role as anybody could be.

And yes, the urge you feel to punch his teeth in is perfectly normal

The rest of the cast is far less interesting and entertaining.  Honestly, I don't know why they bothered with any non-Busey scenes in this movie.  Of the good guy supporting cast, L.Q. Jones and Darlanne Fluegel were probably the most noteworthy, although that isn't saying much.  The cast of villains had a few unexpected surprises, though.  William Smith, who was born to play direct-to-video villains in the 80s, plays the evil Russian (oddly, he is credited as "Bill Smith"), and makes sure that there is no question about his character's poorly accented nationality.  Even better than Smith's Yakov Smirnoff impression was Henry Silva.  Silva frequently acted in bad movies and, for some reason, he was often chosen to portray some other ethnicity.  In Bulletproof (1988), he plays an Arabic terrorist with (I guess) Communist leanings and a penchant for rape and murder.  Thank goodness that's not racist at all.

"Nice costume.  The beret really sells the whole 'Arabic terrorist' thing"

One of the funnier things about Bulletproof is the fact that there are two great action movie bad guys in the cast, but they play bit parts.  Danny Trejo and Cary-Hiroyuki Tagawa (who was left uncredited for some reason) were both just starting out in Hollywood, and this was the best work they could get. 

Steve Carver's direction is not too bad, from a technical standpoint.  I mean, sure, he edited out the explanation of why the US government wanted McBain to single-handedly attack terrorists on foreign soil.  And yes, he was responsible for some of the most unintentionally funny flashback scenes I have ever seen.  My favorite was the one where McBain's lying in bed, shirtless, cuddling with his saxophone, and then he flashes back to the time when he wooed his girlfriend by playing the sax on the beach --- and the soundtrack to his dream was clearly not what he was playing on the beach.

Boy, I certainly am convinced that Busey can play the saxophone

But I'm getting off the subject.  Steve Carver put as much stupid action as he could fit into Bulletproof.  One of the more obvious examples of that comes from the scene where the bad guys repeatedly fail to follow through on their threat to find out, once and for all, just how bulletproof McBain is.  I don't know why, but these terrorists, who are happy to kill any supporting character without provocation, treat the murder of McBain and his ex-girlfriend like a seven-year-old treats cleaning his room.  They're totally going to do it, just...not right now.  So, here's the setup.  McBain is tired and helpless, tied to a gigantic wooden spool.

Yes, you heard that right.  A spool.

The bad guys are (finally) going to execute him.  How does he escape?  Well, a grenade blows up and sends his spool rolling down the hillside.

That is absolutely Gary Busey.  I recognize that shirt.

The villains, who are numerous and have cars and trucks, can't seem to track the giant spool down, and McBain escapes.  Does that blow your mind?  It blew mine.

What makes Bulletproof more than just a bad movie is the incomprehensible script.  This story was written by the team that brought us Hollywood Chainsaw Hookers, but doesn't make quite as much sense.  This movie doesn't feel like something written by completely sane adults.  It's more like the fever ramblings of a six-year-old, doped up on Nyquil.  What else can explain the fact that Gary Busey is more deadly with a revolver than with a tank (that, for some reason, has cubicle chairs and a coffee maker)?

And why would anybody go to the trouble of giving McBain such ridiculous obstacles and then waste precious time showing McBain trying to figure out the tank's control system?  Reality left this movie before the first butthorn sounded, so this late development was bewildering.  Do you want some more examples of the writing excellence on display in Bulletproof?  Of course you do.

• The password to let McBain know who to team up with in Mexico, on his quest to recapture the Thunderblast, is...wait for it..."Thunderblast."
• Actual comeback, part 1: "Yeah...your FACE!"
• Actual comeback, part 2: the Arabic terrorist is told to go "fuck his camel."
• The Russians recognize McBain by his nickname, "Bulletproof."
• After it's all over, McBain has to drive the tank back to America, though the border patrol.  And they just look confused.

There's a lot more than that, but I don't want to spoil everything.  I would totally buy enough copies of Bulletproof to give to all of my friends, but the only DVD pressing of it is truly awful.  It's in 4:3 aspect ratio and looks like it was recorded directly from a VHS tape.  That wouldn't be a deal-breaker, but the damn thing is still fetching $14-$50 on Amazon.

"What the hell, butthorns?  You know this is worth $5, MAX!"

As a legitimate movie, Bulletproof is not very good, but it is filled with action and is makes sense, if you are incapable of coherent thought.

From the completely unreasonable perspective of Lefty Gold, Bulletproof is so hilariously bad that I watched it twice, back-to-back, before returning the rental.  If you're in the mood for stupid, I cannot recommend this any higher.

Halloween (2007) (Unrated)

What better way to kick off an entire month of horror reviews than with part of a classic franchise?  Well, I suppose starting at the beginning of that franchise, but I already did that.  Howzabout the reboot?  I've actually really wanted to see Rob Zombie's take on Halloween for a while now, but never did because...well, most reboots suck.  Hard.  Still, of all the horror directors of the last decade, Zombie was probably the best choice to fix Halloween as a property.  Because, let's admit it, that shit got broke.  Zombie had experience making movies about soulless killers, he clearly respected older horror movies, and his movies aren't torture porn.  They're just...stabby.  So, yeah, I was excited when I rented Halloween (2007).  That excitement was tempered a bit, though, by the biggest Michael Myers fans I know, my cousins-in-laws; I remember asking them how the movie was, and I just got sighs and snorts of disgust.  But really, how bad can this reboot be when you compare it to Halloween: Resurrection? 

It could be adorable!

 

Halloween (2007) can be broken into two parts.  The first part is the origin of Michael Myers, and the second part takes place about fifteen years later, and is about Laurie Strode.  In part one, we meet Michael Myers (Daeg Faerch), a soft-looking chubby kid with hair down to his shoulders.  Honestly, he looks like an unattractive girl.

Lil' Michael, with an even less attractive woman

Mike has a history of wearing masks when he's out of school.  Not cool masks, like Corey Feldman made in Friday the 13th: The Final Chapter --- we're talking little-kid-costume masks, like the ones made of cheap plastic with a rubber band around the back of your head.  We get a look at his life and his tendencies; when he eventually decides to put on a mask and murder several people (including his older sister), it's not that big of a shock, because he's obviously messed up.

Rob Zombie obviously wants to remake Killer Klowns From Outer Space next

Most of the hallmarks of serial killers are present in Lil' Mike's life.  He tortures and kills small animals.  He gets bullied at school.  He doesn't have a good family life; his older sister treats him like the plague and his mom's boyfriend is just a generally nasty sumbitch.  His mother, Deborah (Sheri Moon Zombie), cares about him, but is forced to be a largely absentee parent because she has to support her entire family by stripping.

It's only fair, since Rob Zombie supports Sheri Moon Zombie's acting career by casting her

When the fateful day arrives (SPOILER ALERT: it's in the title) and Michael goes on a prepubescent killing spree, he is apprehended by the police and sent to a mental institution.  There, we see Michael under the care of Dr. Loomis (Malcolm McDowell); we see and hear snippets of treatment and medical opinions, as Michael spirals further and further away from being a normal child and closer to a full-time psychopath.

He was always a very promising part-timer

After 38 minutes of Lil' Mike, the film finally jumps forward fifteen years to modern times.  Michael Myers (Tyler Mane) has not spoken during all that time and spends his days in the mental institute making awful papier-mâché masks and getting far larger and stronger than it would seem possible for a mask aficionado. 

Who let Michael listen to Slipknot?  And take steroids?

Michael eventually breaks out of the mental ward and returns to his childhood home, where he hid the mask he wore when he went on his adorable murder spree.  While there, he catches a glimpse of Laurie Strode (Scout Taylor-Compton) on her way to school.  From that moment forward, Michael seems obsessed with Laurie and is more than willing to share his love of sharp objects with anyone who gets in his way.

Especially dainty brunettes

The acting in Halloween (2007) isn't bad, especially for a horror movie and especially for a horror remake.  Daeg Faerch was shockingly good as a young Michael Myers.  He looked like a wuss, but things got creepy fast whenever he showed off his "dead-eye" gaze.  Sheri Moon Zombie gave her best performance to date as Michael's mother; she was good, but that is also comparing it to her annoying previous roles.  I also liked Malcolm McDowell as Dr. Loomis.  He isn't as demanding and abrasive as Donald Pleasence was in the original Halloween (1978).  Instead, he showed a lot of compassion and emotional investment in Michael's progression, which actually made him feel like a credible doctor.  I also liked the raw physicality of Tyler Mane as the adult Michael.  The character would have been effective if played by a normal-sized man, but Mane's huge build and body language made the mere sight of him frightening.

Which one would you be scared of?

Scout Taylor-Compton was decent as Laurie, but playing the Girl Who Lived is rarely a role that makes an actor look good.  Her friends, played by Danielle Harris and Kristina Klebe, were fairly inoffensive; Harris did a good job being a victim and Klebe balanced an obnoxious character with full-frontal nudity.  The rest of the cast is (not surprisingly, given the popularity of the original film) jam-packed with recognizable actors.  William Forsythe was good as a complete bastard of a father figure, Lew Temple was repulsive as a rapist security guard, and there was a small bit of the ol' Sid Haig-special (which is just another way of saying Haig is always gross).  As for actors that were not in The Devil's Rejects, Clint Howard and Mickey Dolenz had to be the most bewildering casting choices in the movie.  Udo Kier also has a cameo, but at least he seemed a little creepy.  Rounding out the cast, Danny Trejo was a kindly guard who may have given Michael the wrong advice, former Spy Kid Daryl Sabara was solid as a jerk bully, and Brad Dourif was adequate as the town sheriff.  When the film was finished, I was surprised at how competent the acting was.  I wasn't impressed by anyone but Daeg Faerch, but I didn't laugh at or hate any of the actors for their work, which is quite a feat in a slasher pic.

Rob Zombie wrote the screenplay for this Halloween remake and directed it.  As far as direction goes, I thought Zombie played it pretty safe with his style.  If you don't like a grainy look to your slasher movie, then you would have been irritated by the less-than-gorgeous shots and occasionally too-dark-to-see sequences.  I didn't really mind, but I know that bothers some folks.  Zombie worked well with his cast, getting performances that matched their characters surprisingly well.  I genuinely dislike his use of slow-motion and freeze frames, but they were used sparingly here.  As far as the script goes, I thought Zombie did a great job turning this movie into something different than just a remake.  The focus on Michael's childhood was definitely the most unique and interesting thing this movie had to offer.  I liked some of the smaller nods to the original movie (like the thick-rimmed glasses on a boyfriend) and I loved the added value the story gave to Myers' iconic mask.

Yeah, that's the one

The violence in this remake was definitely grislier than in the original Halloween.  Part of that has to do with the fact that five people were murdered by a child, sure, but this was not a film that flinched from violence.  This isn't a splatter-gore movie, though.  It's just intense.  The scene with Danielle Harris laying at the bottom of the stairs was particularly gruesome, and her character actually lives!  The kills were not particularly creative (this franchise has never made that a priority), but Tyler Mane's strength made the violence seem much more realistic; his portrayal made this the most intimidating Michael Myers since the original film.  There were also a lot of dead bodies in this film; I counted nineteen on-screen deaths, with several more implied off-screen.  When you crunch the numbers, Halloween (2007) seems like it should be a winner.  It has full-frontal nudity, a lot of kills, and solid violence.

This one didn't even happen on-camera, and it still looks good!

And yet, Halloween (2007) isn't a very satisfying movie.  Franchise purists probably point to the extensive origin sequence as the biggest flaw, since that is the primary story difference between this and the original.  That's not the problem, though.  Others may point to how closely the rest of the plot followed that of the original movie, which stripped the film of any suspense.  That's not it , either.  The rest might complain about the shallow pop psychology stereotypes present in the script, but that's still just a minor issue.  There are two problems that handicap this technically impressive effort: 1) awful characters and 2) focus.

Rob Zombie, as a writer, has never written a likable character for the audience to identify with.  As a horror fan, I imagine that he (like so many of us) prefers the monster over the victims.  The problem with identifying with the killer, though, is that you rarely make frightening movies when you understand and care about the villain; you might be able to make a disturbing film, but that familiarity makes suspense and genuine scares nearly impossible.  With Halloween (2007), we meet a wide array of characters and at least a quarter of the dialogue comes from awful, repulsive characters (and keep in mind that adult Michael doesn't speak).  Are we supposed to be horrified by the deaths of these terrible people?  In several cases, their deaths are at least understandable (William Forsythe, for example) and perhaps even justifiable (Lew Temple's idiot rapist).  Granted, the scale of Michael's violence prevents (most of) the audience from truly identifying with him, but the added insights into his childhood makes it clear that he is the most sympathetic character in the story.  And that's a problem.

Who am I supposed to be rooting for, again?  The quiet one, or the whiny one?

The other problem with Halloween (2007) is the story's focus.  It's not enough that the supposedly normal characters are abrasive and cruel ---the origin story makes Michael's evolution almost tragic.  In and of itself, that's not a bad thing; the greatest villains are the ones who have understandable motives.  That origin story shifts the focus of the movie, though.  As I noted in my plot summary, the origin of Michael Myers focuses on young Michael.  For the rest of the film, the story is ostensibly about Laurie Strode; we follow her life and see how Michael hunts her down, as well as seemingly anyone she knows.  However, the film is still following Michael at this point; we are trying to figure out why it was so important for him to leave the mental home and come back to scenic Haddonfield, Illinois.  This shift in focus is the main difference between Halloween (2007) and Halloween (1978).  In the original, there is little attention paid to how Michael spends his time and absolutely no explanation for Michael's actions; Laurie doesn't know why she is being hunted, and neither does the audience, which is why it is so scary.  In this remake, we have an incomplete understanding of Michael's motives, and that means that we are following him a lot more often and have some clues as to why he is doing what he is doing.  Remember the suspense and terror from the original movie?  That's been replaced by grim fascination in the remake.

Although this picture is, admittedly, pretty fascinating

Individually, the shift in focus and the unsympathetic characters would not sink a slasher movie.  When you combine the two, though, they create a vortex of audience indifference and boredom, and that makes for a sucky experience.  It's too bad, really.  There are some great moments in this movie, but the tone was all wrong for the story being told.  When Rob Zombie was focusing on the new elements that he created, the movie had promise, but when he conformed to the plot of the original film, this remake became almost a grind to get through.  Would it have been better for Zombie to depart from the original even further than he had?  Probably, although the story is what makes the original such a classic.  Zombie should have just scrapped the whole "reboot" idea and just made this into a study of an all-new psychopathic killer.  Halloween (2007) isn't an awful movie, but it is definitely disappointing because it has the potential to be great.

Check out this promotional poster for the movie.  It highlights the best parts of the movie, which in turn shows how for the focus has shifted from that of the original.  Still, it's a pretty sweet poster.

From Dusk Till Dawn

After a month of horror movies, I have come to the realization that there are not a lot of great vampire movies out there.  The premise is sound, but many vamp flicks just fall short of the mark, whether from budgetary reasons, stylistic choices, or simply bad writing.  I have seen From Dusk Till Dawn before, but it has been a few years since I watched it last.  This movie obviously had a budget, since legendary special effects master Tom Savini wouldn't be seen acting in a film without cool effects.  The writing is handled by Quentin Tarantino, back when his dialogue was ridiculous and overly entertaining.  As for the style, it is directed by Robert Rodriguez, features monstrous vampires, over-the-top action, and has a good part of the story take place at a strip club.  Right off the bat, you know that this isn't going to have the subtle moodiness of Interview With the Vampire.

Not the first, but certainly not the last clue

From Dusk Till Dawn opens with the notorious Gecko brothers, Seth (George Clooney) and Richie (Quentin Tarantino), on the run from Texas Marshals on their way to the border.  Richard broke Seth out of police custody, and the pair had left a trail of corpses in their wake ever since.  This is partly because they are a couple of no-nonsense villains, but also because Richie is a bit of a psychopath and manufactures reasons to kill. 

They look like brothers, right?

Thanks to Richie's habit of murdering people, it has become harder and harder for the pair to maintain a low profile.  They need to sneak across the border, but how can they do it without being caught?  As luck would have it, a disillusioned preacher, Jacob (Harvey Keitel), is taking his kids on a road trip in the aftermath of their mother's death.  Their motor home catches the attention of Seth as it pulls into his motel parking lot, and suddenly, the Geckos are forcing Jacob to drive them into Mexico.

So...where are all the vampires?  Hold on, they're coming.  Once in Mexico, the crew arrives at the place where Seth is supposed to meet his contact; by morning, Seth and Richie will be on their way to their safety zone and Jacob will be free to take his two kids back home.  The meeting place happens to be a strip club named the Titty Twister, which caters to bikers and truckers.  The place is open from dusk until dawn, so it's the perfect spot for a fugitive to spend a few hours unwinding.  Except everyone in the Titty Twister happens to be a vampire.  Oops.  The best laid plans...

This scene makes me laugh every time

For being a ridiculous vampire movie, the acting is surprisingly solid in From Dusk Till Dawn.  This was George Clooney's first starring film role since he became famous in ER, so it's kind of interesting seeing this as his first step toward super-stardom.  And he is very good here; he delivers Tarantino's dialogue naturally and fits the sleaziness of his character quite well.  His role isn't perfect --- he's on the run and wears a leather vest, of all things, to blend in? --- but he is able to be a bad guy and a fairly charismatic character at the same time.

Even if he has douchebag tattoos

Quentin Tarantino isn't anywhere near as likable, but his character isn't supposed to be.  While I dislike QT as an actor, I will admit that his style fits the abrasive nature of his character perfectly.

Side note: I hate Tarantino's face

Harvey Keitel is pretty good as Jacob, but I think he is awfully stiff given the shitty day he is having; at first, I thought the awkwardness was pretty natural for a hostage, but he never unclenches.  Juliette Lewis plays his teenage daughter, and I guess she was fine.  She's a little awkward, and her screams are kind of annoying, but it was a tough role to be likable in.  Ernest Liu plays her brother and manages to be less charismatic than Lewis.  Seriously, what a dull character.  There are a lot of noteworthy actors in the rest of the cast, but most of them have far less screen time as supporting actors.  Cheech Marin played three different characters for no real reason; he was kind of funny as a vampire and later, as a crook, but his first appearance as a border patrol cop was surprisingly bland.  Salma Hayek writhed around as a stripper --- named Satanico Pandemonium --- who doesn't take her top off, dances with a snake, and lets Richie suck on her toes as she pours booze down her leg.  There isn't any substance to her character, and the toe and snake things kind of gross me out, but it's hard to criticize Hayek's portrayal of a lusty babe.

Nope.  No problems here.

Frequent Rodriguez collaborator Danny Trejo makes a brief appearance as a tough guy vampire, which adds a whole new layer of depth to his acting oeuvre.  Fred Williamson also gets to play a bad-ass, which is about the only thing he has ever done in his life.  Tom Savini didn't get much dialogue, which speaks to how little Tarantino trusted him to act, but he kicked a lot of vampire ass, which is plenty good enough for me.  There are also some noteworthy bit parts in the film; Kelly Preston is a news reporter, John Saxon is an interviewed FBI agent, Michael Parks introduces his Texas Marshal character for the first time (he pops up again in Kill Bill and the Grindhouse double feature), and John Hawkes delivers the most vintage Tarantino dialogue in the whole film as a liquor store clerk.  And to think, I was impressed by the cast of Interview With the Vampire!

Since this is a vampire movie, it is important to take a quick look at the creatures.  This time around, they are normal-looking people who transform into hideous monsters.

Danny Trejo, before transforming

Post-transformation, the creatures sometimes resemble their human selves, but not always.  The are super-strong, but their bodies are mushy, so blunt force attacks are effective against them.  They are vulnerable to sunlight, crosses, holy water, and wooden stakes, although you can just opt to punch holes in them, too.  Pretty standard stuff, but you never know what the rules are going to be in a vampire movie.

I really enjoyed the special effects in From Dusk Till Dawn.  They don't really come up much in the first half of the film, but once people start vamping out, there is a ton of very cool makeup and practical effects in every scene.

That also means that there is a good amount of gore in this movie.  Hearts get pulled out, heads get melted, and there is an absolute ton of blood.  Honestly, there isn't much more you can ask for in an action/horror vampire story.

Unfortunately, this isn't just an action/horror vampire story.  In fact, the first half has very little action or horror at all.  It's a crime yarn that makes a left turn and winds up in the unfamiliar territory of the supernatural action/horror sub-genre.  I'm not complaining, mind you; both halves are very entertaining.  However, the shift in tone, pacing, and style makes this feel like two separate films.  I knew that going into this viewing, but the effect was still jarring.  The first half feels like it could have been taken from leftover Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction scraps (I mean that in a good way), except for the fact that the most likable character (Seth) is obviously a complete bastard, instead of the usual cool-guy-that-does-bad-things type Tarantino usually creates.  The second half doesn't play to Tarantino's strengths, as there is very little dialogue, and even less of it is clever.  The action scenes are staged well, though, and Robert Rodriguez is able to keep the film entertaining, even as is shifts its focus.

He kicks ass for the lord

I'm not saying that From Dusk Till Dawn is a bad movie, but it is far from the best work of either Rodriguez or Tarantino.   Objectively, this movie lacks solid pacing and focus.  The writing is uneven, and the acting takes a back seat to the effects in the second half.  It's fun, but a little empty.  Of course, this film was never meant to be a critical darling.  It feels less like a cool story that the filmmakers really wanted to tell and more like a couple of friends having a blast, making the type of movie that would have blown their minds as teenagers.  In that, they are successful.  This is silly, cheeky, gory, and absolutely ridiculous, which makes it very entertaining, warts and all.

Predators

When I learned that Robert Rodriguez was making a new Predator movie, I was pretty excited.  Rodriguez is a guy that knows how to make an amusing action movie that doesn't take itself too seriously (Desperado, From Dusk Till Dawn, Sin City, etc.), and I think that is exactly what this franchise needs.  Sure, the original Predator was awesome, but let's not look at it with rose-colored glasses; the movie is essentially a live-action G.I. Joe sci-fi flick, drenched in steroids.  Predator 2 wasn't great, and neither were the Alien vs. Predator movies.  Sure, why not make another Predator?  The past twenty years has only dropped expectations for the series, so there's almost no risk and I trust Rodriguez.  What's that?  Rodriguez is only producing this movie, handing over the director's chair to Nimrod Antal?  Oh.  I don't know how I feel about that.

Okay, imagine that you wake up and you are falling.  Not off your bed, but out of an airplane.  What do you do?  Soil yourself?  Well, that's a given.  Don't worry, your parachute will open without your help.  If your next move is to prepare to shoot anything you see, welcome to Predators.  That's pretty much how the film starts, with several people landing confused in a jungle, armed to the teeth.  Royce (Adrien Brody) is a mercenary, Isabelle (Alice Braga) is a sniper, Cuchillo (Danny Trejo) is a Mexican drug cartel enforcer, Nikolai (Oleg Taktarov) is a Russian soldier, Hanzo (Louis Ozawa Changchien) is Yakuza, and Mombasa (Mahershalhashbaz Ali) is an African death dealer.  Heavy hitters, each and every one of them.  There is also Stans (Walton Goggins), a death row inmate with a fondness for cocaine and rape.  And there's Edwin (Topher Grace), a doctor.  If you have "one of these things is not like the other" in your head, you're not alone.  What are the chances that Edwin has a secret?

Opting for strength in numbers in an unfamiliar jungle, an uneasy truce is formed between these hardened killers (and Edwin) and they head to high ground, trying to learn their location.  The initial signs are bad; from personal experience, they acknowledge that they are not in Asia or Africa, which basically leaves the Amazon as the sole likely possibility.  But the sun doesn't seem to be moving and the wind is coming from all directions, neither of which makes any sense.  Oh, but wait...they get to high ground, see a bunch of suns and moons and realize that they are probably not in the Amazon, or even Earth.  That's when the hunt begins.  First, we get some Predadogs (Predator + dogs) chasing the group.

YOU let it lick your face.

These ugly, horned, lion-sized things take a beating and most of the group's ammunition; after the group has killed a few, the Predadogs are called back with the sound of a horn.  Royce realizes that the group is being hunted and decides to hunt the hunters; they follow the Predadog tracks back to the Predator base camp, where they find hundreds of hunting trophies, including many human skulls.  They also find a Predator tied up to a post, presumably for punishment of some kind; this is their first look at the enemy.  Here's a quick rundown on Predators for the uninitiated.  They have:

• dreadlocks, which seems an odd choice for an entire species
• a mouth that looks suspiciously like a female body part, but with pincers
• laser-targeted energy cannons
• cool masks that are often customized with bones and other morbid stuff
• large, retractable knives located in their body armor
• cloaking technology, for near-invisibility
• a fondness for hunting dangerous animals

A little later, they learn even more about the Predators when they encounter Noland (Laurence Fishburne), a man who has survived on Planet Predator alone for quite some time.  After that, it's basically a hunt or be hunted scenario, as the group tries to kill their way to freedom and maybe a way off the planet.

This movie is an interesting blend of stupid and cool.  On the one hand, "Killers From Around the Globe" is a pretty lame theme for the characters, but the cast is varied in appearance and acting skills, so it actually works decently well.  And I was impressed by the order in which the characters died; it was not the typical "least famous dies first" routine.  The title alludes to many things, including the fairly obvious (there is more than one Predator in this movie) and an homage (Predators is what Aliens was to Alien --- or it wants to be, anyway).  The title also refers to the humans, because they are all killers; that last one made me roll my eyes when I heard it mentioned in the movie, but at least its not too pretentious.  We get to see a few different types of Predators in this film, which is an interesting and untapped concept.  We also get Predadogs, which are significantly less cool. 

The acting is about what you would expect from a cast chosen (at least partially) by ethnicity.  Most of the actors have bit parts with little dialogue and no character development.  That's fine.  Movies like this need cannon fodder.  That left the bulk of the acting to Adrien Brody, who did a pretty good job bulking up for the role.  He was a pretty good solider, even if his character was clearly designed to have the illusion of depth --- "Ooh, he quoted Hemmingway!  There's more to this character than we thought!"  Alice Braga was fine as the mandatory conscience of the group, but it was a thankless role and was a little annoying.  Topher Grace's character was obviously designed to have a not-too-subtle secret, but he was still pretty entertaining, especially in the lulls between action scenes.  SPOILER: Okay, so Topher is a serial killer.  Couldn't they have thrown in a red herring, like he's a mercy-killing battlefield doctor, or an abortionist, or something?  Any explanation for his presence on Planet Predator would have been appreciated.  Laurence Fishburne and Walton Goggins also add some spice as clearly unstable people.

Overall, this isn't a bad time.  Nimrod Antal does a solid job directing, even if the plot is occasionally ludicrous and predictable.  The Predators get fleshed out a little more as characters and we see some more of their technology, which is not as interesting as it sounds.  This is definitely the best-acted film in the series (aside from Jesse Ventura in the original), too.  It doesn't quite succeed in matching the awesomeness of the original.  The filmmakers made a big deal about the "s" in the title, and frequently pointed out how James Cameron's Aliens was a very different, but equally awesome, movie than Ridley Scott's Alien.  These guys missed the point of that comparison, though; Alien is a suspense/horror movie, while Aliens is a flat-out action movie.  They are different genres, not just different movies.  Predator is possibly the most testosterone-infused movie ever made, and Predators is a slightly smarter, less muscular version of that.  It's not bad.  It's just playing the same game as the superior original, which makes it somewhat predictable.  That said, I think the door is left open to a truly awesome sequel, so I suppose this film served its purpose of reinvigorating this franchise.

The Devil's Rejects

The Devil's Rejects is a mathematical anomaly.  The film is a direct sequel to House of 1000 Corpses, which is one of my Most Hated Movies, and is a sequel that is better than its predecessor.  That's unusual, but not unheard of.  What is unusual is just how much better it is.  In my own conservative estimate, The Devil's Rejects is at least thirty bajillion times better than House of 1000 Corpses.  I know, riiiight?  And I proved it with math!

You might have noticed that I call this a "direct" sequel.  That means that the events in this film have definite and explicit ties to those in the previous movie.  Does this mean that you need to see House of 1000 Corpses to understand or appreciate this movie?  ABSOLUTELY NOT.  Do not, under any circumstances, watch House of 1000 Corpses, unless you want to not enjoy six hours of your life; it might only be an hour and a half long, but you'll spend close to five hours scrubbing your eyes raw in the shower.  All you need to know about the evil Firefly family is explained in this movie.  Trust me.

The movie begins with the Firefly family in their home (of 1000 corpses), sleeping in after a night of killing, skinning, raping, or whatever they do at night.  Unfortunately for them, Sheriff Wydell (William Forsythe) is leading a bunch of state troopers to their house (of 1000 corpses) with a Search and Destroy order.  The troopers attack, the family fights back, and all of a sudden the house has more than a thousand corpses in it.  One family member --- this is more of a Manson family than a blood family, mind you --- is captured, a few die, and two escape.  Well, two escape and Tiny (Matthew McGrory, the giant from Big Fish) happened to be wandering through the woods with a body, so he misses the whole ordeal.  The two escaping members are Otis (Bill Moseley), a frightening and hairy creep, and Baby (Sheri Moon Zombie), a psychotic but busty blonde with an annoying voice.  They meet up with Baby's father, Captain Spaulding (Sig Haig).  The Captain is a loud, fat man in clown make-up, who runs a oddities tourist trap.  Together, the three remaining Firefly family members attempt to avoid getting caught by the police.  On the way to their hideout, these three opt to torture and murder a family-style country band (which included Brian Posehn) as a time-wasting activity.  Their hideout is actually a brothel run by an old friend of Spaulding, Charlie (Ken Foree).  While they were on the run, Sheriff Wydell learned from his captive that the Fireflys had killed his brother; he decides to go around the law, and hires two bounty hunters (Diamond Dallas Paige and Danny Trejo) to help him hunt, capture, and torture the remaining Fireflys to death.  I would like to tell you that Charlie's place is a secure womb of safety for the Fireflys, but bad things happen to bad people, too, sometimes.

Writer/director/rock star Rob Zombie did not impress me with his first attempt (the prequel) in any way, shape or form.  This movie, while vile, angry and somewhat gory is actually surprisingly entertaining.  The script, which could be described as an F-bomb minefield, gives the characters some decently smart dialogue.  Some of it is funny, some of it is just angry or mean, but I thought it fit the characters well.  The characters are all unsympathetic, but that's okay --- this isn't the kind of horror movie where you root for the bad guys.  Otis, Baby, and Captain Spaulding are all terrible people, and you're hoping that they get what's coming to them.  There are many points where one of the innocent victims of the Firefly family could conceivably escape or overpower their tormentors, but these situations are handled so brutally that you have to admit it...these villains might be bad, but they're really good at it.

Rob Zombie also deserves a special kudos for the best use of Lynyrd Skynyrd's "Freebird" in any movie.  Ever.

The acting is a little overwhelming at times, especially from Otis and Baby, but it generally fits the tone of the movie.  They are all horrible, dirty characters, and the world they live in is a horrible, dirty place.  Bill Moseley, in particular, was especially vile as Otis, the male lead and the man who mentions the title in his dialogue.  Sheri Moon Zombie, Rob's wife, was one of the worst things about House of 1000 Corpses, but she's pretty tolerable here.  She's nothing great, mind you, but seeing an attractive person being so evil makes her actions seem so much worse.  Veteran horror movie actor Sid Haig rounds out the titular characters; he's always been a B-movie actor, but never tries to be anything else.  He delivers his lines well and is pretty disgusting to look at, so I think he performs above and beyond the call of duty.  William Forsythe isn't a great actor, either, but this is the best role I've seen him in; he plays a skeevy guy so often that having him play a vigilante cop is interesting and yet a logical extension for him.  The rest of the cast might be noteworthy, but they have little screen time and less development.  Still, it was nice to see P.J. Soles pop up as a prostitute, Ken Foree (from the original Dawn of the Dead) as the brothel owner, former pro wrestler Diamond Dallas Page as a thug, and Danny Trejo as a tough Hispanic guy (way to try something new, Danny).

I think what makes this movie effective is that it takes place out in the open.  Instead of some stupid teenagers that are having sex and abusing drugs wandering in the woods, the victims in this movie are seemingly nice people.  The film doesn't focus on these characters too much, since it is not their story, but it is rare to see a Good Samaritan getting shot in the face in any movie, even a horror flick.  I think the notion that, at a moment's notice, a normal group of people could be getting ready for a road trip, minding their own business, and the next moment be living and dying at the whims of psychopaths is a frightening thought.

This is, in my opinion, one of the best horror films ever.  It is dark, disgusting, and horrifying.  It is also sincere, which makes some of it kind of funny.  The acting is excellent (for a horror movie), if only because there are no terribly designed characters that take you out of the moment, forcing you to acknowledge that there is no such thing as a razor-fingered dream monster and that you're watching a dumb slasher flick.  This manages to avoid the trappings of other villain-focused horror movies by giving the bad guys some serious (and seriously painful) obstacles to overcome; even though the Fireflys are big and bad, this movie never becomes a snuff film for their victims.  This is not a movie for casual horror fans.  If you get nightmares easily, you should avoid it.  If you watch the scary parts with your hands over your eyes, don't bother taking them off during this movie.  This is a film for the discerning horror fan.  It might not have the widespread appeal of Halloween, the rawness of the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre, or the art of The Shining, but this is the meanest and strangely unembellished horror movie in years.