UP ALL NIGHT 

an Amicus Bros. Production

If she only listened to the boy when he told her there was something under the bed... and in the closet, she may still be alive.

Bad Ronald sez What the French Toast!

Don't know if you've seen CouchCutter's “F*ck You” – An Open Letter To The Horror Community -- but it's worth a read.  Even though the article (written by David Anthony) is flawed and spins around on itself, it's worth the time for the fact that it's opened the discussion on supporting independent horror.

With a title like that, I read on with great anticipation.  What I found in this FU message reminded me of a failed tape mix I once made.  Several years ago, a couple friends of mine were swapping some good ol' Country & Western mixes, and I culled together 90 minutes of Honky Tonk'n classics and Bluegrass ditties and hillbilly hi-jinx.  For the cassette sleeve I designed a cover that bore the image of Johnny Cash righteously stabbing his middle finger up to the camera.  I just liked the image.  I'm a huge Cash fan, so it caught my eye.  Only problem was, one of my tape-mix friends called bullshit on me. Rightfully so, I had to admit.  You see, I didn't have any songs, really, that were outright angry or nasty.  Sure, there were some pissy drunks, musing abut their wandering ways and wanton women and broken tractors.  My latest garage sale stash of LPs were mostly the classic cowboy stuff, and there weren't no anger in 'em.  My clever design turned out to be fairly unclever and failed to deliver a kick-ass mix appropriate to the angry Cash title design.  My bad.

I had the same bullshit response to Anthony's rant as my friend had to my cassette cover.

A fuck you you shall get

Basically, what the article said was the "horror community" needs to start supporting indie horror movies.  That if "we" make films like the remakes of Evil Dead and Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Halloween big successes, then why can't "we" make smaller films like Father's Day successful.  He blames the "horror community" for the fact that the filmmakers of small genre films like Dear God No! or Father's Day can't whip out films as easily as their Hollywood big wig counterparts. "There’s not enough money there for investors to get involved," writes Anthony. "And we are where the money comes from. We, as an audience, as a horror community are the *root* of the problem."  Not so much a "fuck you" as it is a tongue-lashing from dad.

He adds that "we" are responsible for the well being of the independent filmmaker, and that "we" should assure them a career, and that have failed them: "People have bills, cars, kids, mortgages, and all this other shit in-between that costs money. And as much as you appreciate their films, your appreciation is not paying their bills."  I guess "we've" been spanked.

I don't know, I was expecting something a lot more scathing and angry from a piece titled "F*ck You...". Something that would get my head nodding and fists a-clenching, like I was listening to a good vitriolic jam slam by The Who or Suicidal Tendencies or some shit like that.

My first major problem with the CouchCutter rant is the flagrant use of "we," as if the "horror community" is really such a unified or even defined thing. It's not so much the idea that all people who happen to share an interest are grouped together in a general category that bugs me.  Rather, it's the assumption that because they share a similar interest that they -- we -- all then are suppose to share the same opinions, or drives, or perceptions or bias.  Yes, we all like horror.  But none of us like all horror.  I prefer the smaller independent horror films from America. I really like foreign horror, from Great Britain, Argentina, France, Hong Kong -- even Canada (Soska Sisters, eh!).  However, I can't tell you the last time I went to a theater to see a horror film from a major studio.  But, that's me.  Some others -- Anthony includes himself in this bunch -- don't really dig the inde horror flicks.  "We" are never gonna agree on everything.  Some really dig big splashy horror, while others go the low key chills path.  Hey, agreeing on everything hasn't worked for the Democrats nor Republicans -- why would we assume it would work for horror fans?

You mean, there's more?

My other major disagreement is that the "horror community" is to blame for the failures, or lack of successes, of indie horror films.  First of all, the definition of success, in Anthony's article, is not clearly defined. The remake of A Nightmare on Elm Street is labeled a success because it tripled its $35 million budget, but Human Centipede is a failure because, even though it had lots of press, it made (by his numbers) only less than $3 million.  Comparatively, Nightmare is the one percenter, while HC is on welfare. I'm not sure of Anthony's idea of what makes a successful indie horror movie, but seeing that HC made that $3 mil (I'm thinking it's likely made much more on VOD alone, but I haven't been able to scare up those numbers) then it's doubled its less than $1.5 million budget AND generated a (terrible) sequel.  Seems the horror community did good by it, and made it a success.

The mistake would be to compare apples and nectarines (again, I'm not positive what Anthony's stand is, so I'm generalizing).  Hollywood movies can make $100 million, but still be considered a loser, if'n it don't match their $150 million budget.  However, an indie can make $5 million and be crazy successful, because the budget was much much lower.  With that said, any horror movie that generates a box office of $10s of millions -- that movie moves beyond the support of the "horror community" and got loads of help from the mainstream audience.  Rob Zombie's Halloween remake doubled its $15 million budget on the opening weekend, and then took in another $50 million overall.  It would be nice to think that there were that many horror fans.  But truth be told, the majority of those ticket buyers were the general public.  Teens, most likely, who like thrills and action, whether they be in a comic chase, and spy roughhouse, or horror.  Sure, lots of horror fans were filling those seats, as well.  But I'd never go as far as to say that the "horror community" made that film a success.  I WOULD go as far as to say that the "horror community" made the original Halloween the continued, cult success that it is now.

The successful indie horror movie is not going to appear as the success stories we're all used to seeing: Saw, Paranormal Activity, The Blair Witch Project. These flicks are phenomenons, the extraordinary... at least today they are. There was a time when independently produced films were distributed by major studios on a regular basis.  That's how we got Halloween, Friday the 13th and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (and countless other indie horror gems).  These movies literally toured the Country, generating word of mouth, and building anticipation over months. Today's model of distribution is much different, with the majors relying heavily on open weekend box office.  They want instant results, so they're not going to snatch up many indie horror flicks, unless they're uniqueness can assure them a big weekend take.  Gauging the success of an indie produced and distributed horror flick by the Hollywood distribution model standard only sets us up for disappointment.  Why compare the two?  If a small budget film recoups its budget, and makes enough to pay the cast and crew properly, then it's a success.  Period.  There, we've put food on the table.

The last major problem I have with CouchCutter's FU is that a lot of blame goes on the filmmakers themselves.  If they want to make this their living, then, just like any other job they've ever held, performance matters.  Make a good film, that people want to see, and then make sure they see it.  Work!  The notion that the "community" just ought to support the filmmakers, because we're a "community" is bogus.  I'll do my share by seeking out and watching the movies I like or want, and avoiding the ones I don't think are worth my time.  But, I am in no way obligated to ensure that the indie horror filmmakers have shoes on their feet.  That's their bag.

Cripes! Will this lecture ever end?

Luckily, today filmmakers have new avenues to follow.  There's the festival route, which helps build that great word of mouth for films like Martha Marcy May Marlene, The Woman, V/H/S, The Innkeepers.  There's also Netflix and RedBox, and the likes, and Video on Demand.  There's Amazon, YouTube, Vimeo.  The market is now open, and ready for business!  Self distribution has become so much easier than back in the day, when the actual film had to be carted around city to city (anyone who complains about how hard it is to have to Twitter/FaceBook/Pintrest/blog/Flickr about their movie should read up on pioneers like William Castle or Roger Corman and the likes, to see how it's really done).  It takes work!  Even established celebs have to pound the cyberpavement -- look to Kevin Smith or Louis CK.  With every celeb who has a go of it, there are a thousand worthy non-celebs who're busting their asses too, trying to get their work seen.  Last year I checked off My Name is A by Anonymous as the Best Movie You Haven't Seen Yet of 2011.  Amazing film!  You still haven't seen it in 2012, though.  Luckily, due to director Shane Ryan's hard work, you'll get to see it soon on DVD and possibly VOD.  Also, check out what Nick Hagen is doing to get the movie he's made of his successful YouTube hit The Haunting of Sunshine Girl.  The webseries has logged over 10 million views, and has over twenty thousand subscribers, but do you think he could just waltz into a distributors office and secure a deal?  Not so fast!  He's doing it the ol' fashioned way, by busting his knuckles and banging on laptop screens across the world, creating good buzz.  Will it work for him and Sunshine?  We'll see soon, when the film is self distributed online and on DVD on December 21.  


Look, I agree with Anthony on the idea that independent horror should be supported more (I'll ditto that credo for indie movies in general). Why not?  Most every Hollywood trend we've had comes straight from an indie movie: Blue Velvet, Apocalypse Now, Blair Witch Project, Star Wars, Pulp Fiction, Saw, Clerks, Paranormal Activity...  Films like these, made outside the major studio world, actually drove the major studios to rethink their model... and then proceed to embarrass themselves with countless copycat clunkers. I agree heartily that we support indie horror, because I love indie horror.  I love the rough amateurishness of backyard cinema, the testing of limits with caught on tape thrills, the quietness of a limited budget.  It all makes for good experimentation.  This is where the real success lies, in the experiments, the finding of new techniques.  The clever mind will figure out ways to reach beyond the limitations, and that's when the breakthroughs happen.  Only in indie filmmaking do you find such successes.

So, yes!  Support indie filmmaking -- especially indie horror.This is the one thing I can agree with CouchCutter on.  If there is such thing as a "horror community" then get off your asses and start taking horror seriously. 

Yay! It's over!!

And as far as the "Fuck You" to the "community" -- hell, I think they deserve it.  But not in ways CouchCutter described.  Cripes, there's loads more things to dump on them for. How about fans who personally attack filmmakers whom they don't like, as if it's their right to disregard them as a human, just because you didn't like their casting choices.  How about for slamming other fans of other movies you don't like?  So what, they like vampires that sparkle!  You like movies with no solid storyline -- big whoop!  How about those twerps who laughed their way through a Linda Blair head spin, during the re-release, but now copycat the stairway spider crawl on their own Windows Moviemaker masterpiece?  How about bully blogging?  How about lame ass petitions?  How's about we all just watch a horror movie that we like and shut our faces and eat some popcorn?

Wait... that wasn't nice.

And one last thing, let's differentiate between indie horror and amateur horror. Independent filmmakers like Ti West, or Adam Wingard, or Tom Six -- and even more low budget directors like James Bickert or the Soska Twins -- these guys are clearly serious about their craft.  You may not like all their stuff, but they're working hard to create and distribute. Then there's a load of others who bang out a movie that pretty much emulates every other movie that they like, and call themselves indie filmmakers.  Their stuff is poorly shot, badly written and self gratifying. These are the filmmakers who ruin it for the others.  They ruin it by abusing the term indie, to push their self absorbed rip-offs on the fans, and they make it harder for working filmmakers to get respect for their work.  Fuck you to them...

Support indie filmmaking.

Lancelot LINKS: snubdom's review of classic TV movie Bad Ronald

I came across a link to Rick Tremble's website of wild, trippy illustrated movie reviews -- and other stuff -- snubdom. It's a funhouse full of subversive movie reviews, music, comix and other shit.  I parked myself down in the review archives for a couple few, I was having such a blast!  And, while reading my way through, I came across this review -- Bad Ronald! 

Undoubtedly, one of my all-time favorite TV Movies of the Week.  Scared the cripes outa me as a kid, and still puts the willies in me when I see it now.  It's not your traditional horror fare -- more a suspense thriller -- so it's not full of big frights or leaping cats.  What got to me was the brilliant perforance by Scott Jacoby as Ronald.  When he finally takes that turn into insanity, he is simply a big creepy creepster.

So sacred this movie is, to me, that I have not yet done a review of it, myself.  I figured I'd ask Rick if I could post his unique review here.  He said I could.  And I thank him greatly.  Enjoy!

I’ll tell you this much, Mr. Miller enjoyed the chance to once again watch a PYT prancing around in clinging high waist jeans, a plaid blouse and rockin’ a feathered Farrah hair-do. It brought me back to my days (the 70s, that is).

I was hoping to catch a glimpse of some leg warmers and a pair of lady workboots, too, but no luck this time.

Can't be too picky...

80s fashion isn’t the only retro-action going on in Dark Sky’s much anticipated THE HOUSE OF THE DEVIL. Writer/director Ti West (previous of the THE ROOST) not only modeled his film after the pre-HALLOWEEN/FRIDAY THE 13^TH era of 70s horror, but he also physically placed the story in the early 1980s, before the modern age of communications – you know, back when you used to have to let the phone ring a dozen times before anyone would answer. No cell phones, no Internet, no texts messaging, and barely even an answering machine could be had. What’s a girl to do when she’s stranded in a creepy old house out in the middle of nowhere? Why, snoop around, from room to room, until you find trouble!

After committing to renting an apartment she can’t afford, Samantha (played by relative newcomer Jocelin Donahue) finds a babysitting job posted on a job board outside her dorm. When she arrives at the creepy old house on the outskirts of town, she questions her good luck. Her paranoia is fueled once she meets the people inside: the insanely tall and quiet Mr. Ulman (played by the insanely tall and quiet Tom Noonan – the original Hannibal Lector from MANHUNTER), and his wife (cult icon Mary Waronov). It isn’t enough that they’ve lured Samantha out there under false pretenses – it’s not a baby she’s being asked to sit for, but an elderly mother locked away upstairs – or that the well-weathered Mrs. Ulman tries to seduce her, but there have been reports on the radio of weird goings on around the area. But none of that is cause for concern after Samantha is offered a couple hundred bucks for the job. Bad idea!

Up to this point West keeps the pacing admirably old school. He expresses his appreciation for Polanski’s genre films, and he’s attempted to model his own after ROSEMARY’S BABY and REPULSION. But the pacing of those tap more into the inner turmoil of the characters, whereas HOUSE rather adeptly reflects the pacing of many of the other suspense flicks from the era. Films like PLAY MISTY FOR ME , or TV movies like BAD RONALD and THE SCREAMING WOMAN that would offset the approaching nastiness by grounding the first act in real world minutia, instead of pouring on the gloomy foreshadowing .

It gets fairly tedious in the middle act. The characters, though well played, never develop beyond their archetypes, and, let’s face it, the fear of murderous cults and Satanic slayings may have added to the audiences unease back in the days of the Manson Family and Son of Sam, but it doesn’t really work up much but nostalgic spookiness for todays audience. Fear not horror fans (and gore fans, you get the payoff you deserve in thecrazy, bloody climax.

It’s a treat to see a film that isn’t afraid to be just plain creepy. There’s none of the not-so-clever twists or any over analysis of stuff that doesn’t need analyzing. THE HOUSE OF THE DEVIL is great late-night viewing, just like you used to enjoy.

And check out the great 70s style zooms and freeze frames in the HOUSE trailer! This flick is sure to be a treat for all fans of retro horror.

Don't Check In To Horror Hospital -- It'll Kill You!

Dark Sky and MPI have announced that they're bring back a cult favorite.

From Dark Sky:

AN OVER-THE-TOP CULT CLASSIC RETURNS IN REMASTERED FORM,
LOOKING BETTER – AND BLOODIER – THAN EVER

HORROR HOSPITAL

Fright-Flick Favorite Michael Gough Is at His Most Sinister in Antony Balch’s Wild Feast of Sex and Gore, Hitting DVD from Dark Sky Films on June 15, 2010

“One of the greatest – if not the greatest – horror films ever made in the UK.”

– British Horror Films

 “[Twists] the conventional elements of the horror movie to a new level of grotesquerie.” 

– Time Out Film Guide

New York, NY (April 12, 2010) – Before he played the mild-mannered butler Alfred in Tim Burton’s “Batman” movies, Michael Gough was an icon of horror, appearing in such classics as “Berserk,” “Trog” and “Horrors of the Black Museum.” But none of his roles can compare to his performance as sadistic and deranged Dr. Christian Storm in HORROR HOSPITAL. Director Antony Balch’s legendary 1973 shocker has now been restored to its uncensored glory and will be released on DVD by genre masters Dark Sky Films, via MPI Media Group, on June 15, 2010. The disc, carrying an SRP of $19.98, includes a new feature-length commentary.

As with many British fright flicks of the ’70s, HORROR HOSPITAL pours humor, sex and abundant nudity into the macabre mix, but Anthony Balch (“Secrets of Sex”) amps up the action to eye-popping levels. Exhausted young rock singer Jason (Robin Askwith, “Confessions of a Window Cleaner,” “Let’s Get Laid”) decides to visit a rural retreat for some rest and rejuvenating treatment. Along the way, Jason meets Judy (Vanessa Shaw), a pretty girl who is also traveling to the “health hotel,” where her aunt is the matron. But when the new couple arrives for their relaxing vacation, they instead become trapped in a nightmare of wandering psychotic patients, cheeky dwarves, decapitations, lethal luxury sedans and a diabolical plan to create a slave army of lobotomized teenage zombies – all at the hands of the domineering Aunt Harris (Ellen Pollock) and her husband, the skull-drilling Dr. Storm.

Skip Martin (“Vampire Circus”) and Dennis Price (“Theater of Blood”) co-star in this bloody/campy cult favorite, now transferred in HD from the original 35mm camera negative and featuring a revealing new commentary with producer Richard Gordon (“Fiend Without a Face”), moderated by Tom Weaver. The DVD also includes an extensive still gallery which features selects from the personal library of Mr. Gordon, as well as rare lobby cards from Germany

Dark Sky Films’ DVD features the rare uncut, uncensored version of HORROR HOSPITAL and presents the film in its original widescreen aspect ratio, enhanced for 16x9 TVs.

About Dark Sky Films

Dark Sky Films is dedicated to the discovery, preservation and production of new and classic horror, sci-fi and cult films from around the world. Based in Chicago, Dark Sky Films is a wholly owned subsidiary of The MPI Media Group -- one of the largest independent entertainment companies producing and distributing a compelling slate of the world’s most respected cinema, documentaries, performances and television programs.

About MPI Media Group

The MPI Media Group is a leading producer, distributor and licensor of films, home entertainment, historical footage and more. Founded in 1976, Chicago-based MPI Media Group remains one of the largest independent entertainment companies producing and distributing a compelling slate of the world’s most respected cinema, documentaries, performances and television programs. MPI’s wholly owned subsidiaries include MPI Home Entertainment, Dark Sky Films, and the WPA Film Library. www.mpimediagroup.com