Lost Voyage (2001)

I'm having a Lance Henriksen period right now, Living La Lance Vita you could say. A while ago I got Henriksen's autobiography, Not Bad For a Human (of course signed by him) and yesterday I donated 100 bucks to Michael Worth's project Bring Me The Head Of Lance Henriksen, starring Tim Thomerson (and Lance of course) and deals with the subject of ageism in Hollywood. I doubt those 100 bucks was needed, because the funding was already there and the movie is shot an is now in post-production. But I wanted to support the project and get myself a unique special edition DVD as thanks.

There was a period when Henriksen made a lot of movies. He still makes tons of them of course, that's his trademark, but once upon a time he worked a lot in Eastern Europe, mostly in Romania. I think Lost Voyage is shot there (actually not, it was shot in LA - but I'll pretend I didn't read that!) and it's therefore one of his "jetlag-movies", as he call them himself. Quick and dirty and no time to get over the jetlag!

Judd Nelson is Aaron Roberts, a scientist specialized in the unknown. His main hobby is the Bermuda Triangle, where his parents disappeared without a trace many years ago. Suddenly the ship, The Corona Queen, appears again and a speculative TV-show lead by the enthusiastic Dana Elway (Janet Gunn) convinces him to join her and the team for a first visit to the boat. They get help from the grumpy owner of the shipping company who owned the lost boat, David Shaw (Lance Henriksen). Well on the boat something is of course very wrong, and soon they get killed one by one by supernatural forces!

This could be one of the cheapest movies I've seen with Lance. Maybe not as cheap as Dying God, but it's so cheap I had a hard time getting involved in the story from the beginning. The cinematography is flat and direction is TV-like and far from something out of the ordinary. But maybe it's because of the actors or the tight little script, this movie actually is quite good. I first thought this was a rip-off on Ghost Ship, but that movie came the year after and I would even say that this is the better of those two movies. Ghost Ship has a big budget and more violence, but also feels automatic and more a product of a concept than an honest try to make something scary.

It would to be pushing it to say that Lost Voyage is scary, but it's still an effective ghost story and if you can live with the cheapest digital effects ever you could enjoy this movie a lot. It's produced by UFO and Philip J. Roth, which always means a cheap look and flat storytelling, but most of their productions is very entertaining and have interesting ideas. Here we have very simple CGI-ghosts, but it works surprisingly fine and the final scenes looks excellent and dramatic.

I love when movies made with a small budget tries to look big and expensive, because then they at least try to make something special and never falls in the trap of not believing in themselves. Lost Voyage and it's actors believe in what they're doing and that's easy to see.

A nice little TV-movie, recommended.

The Human Factor (1975)

Forget all the bad words you heard about The Human Factor. Ok. Are they forgotten now? Wiped out? Gone? Finito? Good, because this is a movie that surprised me big time. This is the second time I started to watch it, the first time I managed to survive a half hour or so before I gave up. It happens sometime when I was prepared for something completely different. So what the hell did I expect? I have no idea. Sure, it's shot in Italy, but that doesn't mean it would be action-packed from start to finish. It was a directed by a director, Edward Dmytryk, at the end of his career and with George Kennedy in the lead. Well, that beginning surely fooled me, because it's what the common man call a build-up. A slow one, but still a build-up...

George Kennedy is John Kinsdale, an American computer engineer who lives in Italy together with his family. One night he comes home and finds the police and media outside his house, his family has been brutally executed! The police tells him they will do their best to catch the killers, but he can't let go of it and start using databases (which he can access at his work, a military facility) all over the world to try to find something that can lead him to the guilty criminals. But he doesn't stop there, but also takes on a fake identity and befriends other parts of the investigative team. Soon he has that lead, and goes after for revenge...

The Human Factor starts of slow, and slow in a gritty realistic way. There's no beautiful sets or fancy camera movements, just Kennedy living his life in Naples together with his family and the grief after the killings. There's talking and talking... and it was a mistake to give up the first time. This is one of those movies that uses the build-up to make us really get to know John Kinsdale and after that half hour we're with him in his hunt. I'm not kidding when I say that it gets surprisingly thrilling during the way, especially when John thinks he has located the next family to be killed - forces himself into their house and threatens them with a gun, just to make them understand that someone else will try to kill them.

If The Human Factor was made today, Jason Statham would have played John Kinsdale and be an expert in MMA. That would have made the movie so much boring, because Kinsdale in Kennedy's performace is just an ordinary, unfit bloke and a receding hairline and a high blood pressure. He's the average joe with a gun and an anger that I've seldom seen in a movie. He goes from being just an obsessed computer nerd to a violent, violent man using his length and weight (Kennedy is a very big guy!) taking down the terrorists one by one.

The action is quite low until the last half hour when the shit finally hits the fan. It's impressive stuff, good stunts and bloody. The fight between Kennedy and one of the terrorist in an backyard is excellent, but that's nothing compared to the finale when he alone takes down every terrorists who has taken over a supermarket! Bloody squibs-deluxe!

In the end The Human Factor becomes a very satisfying revenge-movie which clearly never makes Kinsdale either a hero or a victim. He's just an angry man.

The DVD from Dark Sky offers a very fine interview with the man himself, The Kennedy Factor, and he seems to be a very fine gentleman, very human and intelligent. He tells about his life and also a little bit about WW2, where he was a soldier. He's someone who finally doesn't try to romanticize war. He says how it is: "War is something that kills young people, and it's aweful". Thanks George, you're the best.

Creepshow 2 (1987)

I would like to defend Creepshow 2, defend as strong as many hated it once upon a time in movie history. Well, no. I haven't seen much hate for C2 (that would have been the title it was released in 2011), but many agree that it's very uneven and that the only really good episode is The Raft. I would say that in some parts Creepshow 2 is a stronger movie than the first movie, which is a masterpiece in anthology movies and one of George A. Romero's finest mainstream-gifts to the world. His movie has a five stories in total and two of them are super-strong: The Crate and They're Creeping Up on You! The others are good, but even a classic as Something to Tide You Over feels a bit forced not just that convincing. That's my opinion folks, I don't wanna hurt any feelings here. Father's Day is a bit to uneven have pacing problems and The Lonesome Death of Jordy Verrill is a bit to long and just plain silly (but I admit I think King does a fine job in the title role). But still, a magnificent movie.

Creepshow 2 only has three stories which I thought as a kid was a bit too few. I wanted more, but these three are also the most well-written in this short-lived series. I have one complain, and that is that the revenge-part of Old Chief Wood'nhead flies by way to fast. The wooden native American is a fantastic creature and stunningly well-made, and kinda scary also. The murders triggers more emotions and the script isn't dealing with them correctly. We, as the audience, wants a better, longer and more brutal revenge. Now it's over in a couple of minutes and that's it.

But the comes The Raft, based on another excellent short story by Stephen King. This is probably one of the best adaptations so far of one of King's short stories and the biggest difference compared with the written piece is the ending - which is a lot more effective in the movie version, more visual and a fun shock for the audience. I love the original ending, but it would have been a boring ending to a great episode.

One of the most hated episodes is the last one, The Hitchhiker, and I can't understand why! Here we have a very bloody, fun and action-packed story with a ghost/zombie/something that just refuses to die. I always loved this story and part of that is the fantastic acting by Lois Chiles who's mostly alone against the desperate hiker, killing him one time after another. She's a cool presence and carries her part with perfection. So even Tom Wright, who plays the very unlucky hiker - even if he's more unrecognizable for each time we see him.

Michael Gornick carries the Creepshow-flag with the same sense of quality as Romero, but with that premise that he had more story to work with in each episode. The first movie was a bit too long for me, but part 2 clocks in around ninety minutes and that's perfect. I hope we someday will see a real (well, Tom Savini still claims Tales from the Dark Side: The Movie is the real part 3) sequel or reboot, because King has way to many short stories that needs a treatment with a bigger budget and not drawn out to feature length movies.

Dolls (1987)

I think most of you can agree on that Stuart Gordon is one of the best genre directors from the US, and he’s career is filled with excellent, macabre movies - often with a nice twist of black comedy. One of the movies that was on my not-seen list until tonight was the Charles Band production Dolls, produced by Brian Yuzna. A fine trio of interesting filmmakers where Gordon easily stands out as the best and smartest of the bunch. When Band nowadays just writes “DUDE!!!!” on his blog and Yuzna travels the world to find new money to spend on his flops, Gordon still has integrity and continues to make smart movies for a smart audience.

A family on vacation is trapped by a violent storm and is forced to seek shelter in a big mansion far out on the countryside. In the house lives an elderly couple where the husband is a famous toymaker, specialized in dolls of all kinds. Within a couple of minutes a chubby nerdy guy and two punk girls arrives, also for shelter. But the little daughter of the family notices something she calls elves, but of course no one believes her. During the night one of the punk girls goes for a treasure hunt in the house, trying to find something to steal, but ends up being brutally attacked by something small... and very violent. And soon they are all in danger!

Holy mother of Fuck! How could I miss this movie for so many years? Yeah, probably because it was kinda hard to find in Sweden and it took a long while for a good DVD to show up. But here it is, from the people at MGM. What I really think is very cool with this one is that it mixes the black comedy of Gordon with the typical atmospheric production values of Empire Pictures. This is such a cool and visual movie with tons and tons of cool scenes and probably the freakiest dolls ever portrayed on the screen. I mean, come on! Dolly Dearest, Puppet Master, Child’s Play - they’re nothing compared to these little fuckers! What we have here is a clever mix of animatronics (I guess made by John Carl Buechler) and the classy stop-motion by the late Dave Allen.

Being almost a fairy tale, it also takes the genre to another level with adding a good amount of violence, blood and gore - just like a really good fairy tale, and it’s often very well done and have a great impact on us, the viewers. But Dolls is first of all another proof of the genius of Stuart Gordon who tells the story flawlessly even if the dialogue comes out quite stiff sometime. But the script is overall very good, filled with politically incorrect details and the best vision of a child’s imagination I’ve seen, I’m talking about the bizarre teddybear-monster in the beginning. That’s a truer description of the imagination than everything Disney Schmisney cooks up for their next movie to sell at McDonalds.

If I was a father this would be the first “real” and more graphic horror movie I would show my kid. After the Universal classics and the original Godzilla of course!

Sometimes They Come Back... for More (1998)

I remember reading an interview with Stephen King once in which the journalist asked what he thought about the sequels being made to movies based on his books and King replied that he didn’t care because his story won’t disappear because of that. I like that opinion, and it just shows how King sees his books and novellas as something very different than then books. They live two different lives. And I don’t buy that he says yes to sequel after sequel just because of the money, he’s so damn rich he don’t need anything more. Remember this is the man who allows directors to make films of his short stories without having to pay for it, as long as they aren’t used in any commercial way. Fair enough I would say.

It was ages since I saw Sometimes They Come Back and I have no memories of the first sequel, so to be honest I have no idea if Sometimes They Come Back for More is connected in any way with the original short story or the first two movies. What makes this movie extra interesting is that it uses a 100 % safe way to make a horror movie worth watching: snow. And that in combination with occultism and Satan and his friends, this becomes a nice little movie with a tight script and a nice location. It’s basically about Captain Sam Cage (Clayton Rohner) going to Antarctica together with his colleague Major Callie O'Grady (Chase Masterson) to investigate what’s going on out on a secret mining base. When they arrive they find two survivors and a couple of dead bodies, and no one can explain what’s happen. Soon they discover that one of the scientists has found something deep under the base, something very hot… and satanic!

As a low-budget version of The Thing but with demons and Satan instead of an alien organism this is a decent little movie with a script that uses the claustrophobic location better than a lot of other movies in the same genre (I’m looking at you, Deep Freeze). And don’t we all love movies that a are shot in narrow corridors with fake snow blowing outside the windows? Yes we do, and it’s very rarely I get disappointed with locations like this. I also like the very pulpy storyline, mixing an arctic setting with pentagrams and satanic rituals. It’s like a vintage pulp novel come to life!

Clayton Rohner is also very competent hero and a good actor. He’s not a stranger in horror movies and Tibro Takacs 1989 mini-masterpiece I, Madman and 1997’s monster romp The Relic are both worth watching. In a smaller part, but important, we find Damian Chapa, a good actor who’s slumming in the worst basement-bargain homemade movies nowadays. A pity, because he’s good! In this movie he’s a good baddie with a nice set of black contact lenses.

A good little DTV-flick that’s better than its reputation.

Children of the Corn: The Gathering (1996)

I guess it won’t come as a surprise that I have a fondness for DTV and “meaningless” sequels to movies that wasn’t popular in the first place. But I see sequels, especially in the direct to home video market to be a very fine for of exploitation. Very pure, often a lot better than the originals because the often boost the violence and lowers the drama. Good old entertainment without an illusion of being anything else. When it comes to the Children of the Corn franchise I always loathed the first movie – mostly for the lack of gore and just being way to boring. The sequels are much more fun, and Children of the Corn: The Gathering is probably the best of the bunch when it comes to ambitions.

Naomi Watts (of all people!) plays a young doctor, Grace, who just returned to her hometown to take care of some family business, mostly her mentally unstable mother June (Karen Black) and her very young sister. But our favourite demon/devil is growing again and takes the shape of a young preacher boy who possesses all the other children in the town with his evil. Soon they are starting to kill their parents and it’s up to Grace to stop them!

What’s interesting here is that they actually tried to build a story, create characters to care and root for. You won’t see it in the short text above, but compared to the other movies this is a lot better. The build-up with the children acting sick, having convulsions and getting high fever is a good detail and feels a lot scarier than them just starting to act weird one day. Here everyone think they’re fine for a moment and calms down – and then the little critters attack fast and bloody!

It’s still the third sequel to a movie no one liked anyway, with a good amount of blood and gore and – believe it or not – tension. Naomi is one of the reasons the movie works so well, because she really create someone we care about. She’s a good actress and always been, and its fun to see how she can raise the quality so much by just doing her job.

The other actors are doing great to, especially Karen Black as the mother. Like almost all the other Corn-sequels this has a character actor in a minor role (the following movies have David Carradine, Fred Williamson, Michael Ironside and Billy Drago) and Karen really gives all what she got here. She didn’t have to, but she’s excellent in the part and it’s a pity she has to bite the dust without a good final scene against Naomi.

The gore is creative and graphic, from scythes through heads, decapitations, impalings, chopped of fingers, a man cut in half and so on. It’s well-made kills and gives a good story some spice. There’s really not that much to say about The Gathering, but it’s clearly the best and most successful of the sequels and it outshines the boring original movie (the SyFy version, from 2009, of the Stephen King’s original novella is a lot better by the way, skip the original and watch the TV-version instead!).

So Naomi, if you read this (come on, I’m sure you Google yourself sometime – I do!), don’t be shamed of this little horror movie. You did you best and it shows, good for you!

Hellraiser: Hellworld (2005)

I once read that Lance Henriksen never accept roles as child molesters, rapists and just any kind of acting in slasher movies. Probably a very wise decision for him, because it kept him going for many years now and he’s probably gonna act until he falls down dead (which I forbid, he can never leave us!). That’s why it’s a mystery that he accepted the role of the mystery host in Hellraiser: Hellworld. At a first glance it’s a Hellraiser-movie, but it’s just slasher in disguise. Probably the most hated (until the next one of course, Revelations) sequel in the Hellraiser-series and shot back-to-back with the interesting but very uneven Deader, also from 2005. I can agree it’s a weak movie, but if you forget what it’s meant to be and see it as a silly slasher it works.

Two years ago Adam (Stelian Urian) burned himself to death in the basement after getting to involved in the fictional Hellraiser internet-game (internet was VERY dangerous in the movies once) and now his friends are getting back into their old “drug” with participating in a Hellraiser-themed party, hosted by Lance Henriksen: Hellworld. Yes, this is one of those sequels that look at the franchise from the outside (like Wes Craven’s New Nightmare for example). Soon things are starting to get very strange in the old Leviathan house, and one by one our hero’s is getting killed in violent ways!

OK, look at it from a distance and it kinda works. The story and the twist is absurd and silly and shouldn’t work, and it would have probably worked better as a pure slasher outside the Hellraiser-realm. It also has a twist which I hate and I loath every stupid fuck that uses this idea to seem smart (I’m looking at you… NO, sorry. I won’t name any other similar movie, just so you can be disappointed by yourself). Why it works a little bit better here is because it’s a Hellraiser movie, which make it seem more logic… kinda.

Because like with Deader and Hellseeker, director Rick Bota makes a very fine job spicing up rewritten scripts and adds a lot of atmosphere and some nasty violence to DTV-sequels that never would have gotten the same treatment if they belonged to another franchise. Hellworld is the weakest because the story is the weakest. It’s shallow and belongs entirely to the beautiful location, the excellent effects by Gary J. Tunnicliffe and the presence of Lance Henriksen. As you might now, I LOVE Lance, and I watch everything he’s in. He can have a tendency, especially during later years, to look a bit bored – or maybe just too used to doing lowbudget horror films. In Hellworld he’s better than in other similar projects, and seems to have fun scaring the kids and saying silly lines. Or maybe it was just a nice vacation to Romania that made him in a good movie, I don’t know. His best scene is actually the last one, where he can do a more realistic and – it looks like – do some improvisation on the set.

I know you all hate Hellworld, and I can agree it’s no super-movie. But watch it as a slasher with a little bit of Pinhead tossed in and it’s quite fun. And it looks good at least, which is better than nothing!