How do you feel about the Tremors franchise and its future?

I think it's usually fun to watch. A lot of that fun is thanks to Michael Gross' character, Burt Gummer. Burt's a man obsessed with weapons and survival. He started out as a side character in the original 1990 movie and was the main character by the third movie. Gross is the only actor to have appeared in every entry to the franchise.

Like many I'm sure, I thought the franchise was finished after 2004's Tremors 4: The Legend Begins. There were rumors of other sequels for a long time, but none of them ever got past the planning stages. Then in 2015, we finally got Tremors 5: Bloodlines and now there's a part six slated for next year as well as the pilot for a second TV show!

Unfortunately, it sounds like Michael Gross might not be a part of the new show in favor of Kevin Bacon. So far, there's been no mention of Gross' involvement and they're supposedly ignoring anything after the first movie anyway. I wish they weren't ignoring the follow-ups, but we all know how much Hollywood loves rebooting shit.

Even if the new Tremors TV show snubs Michael/Burt, I still hope it's good. It's going to be on Syfy, just like the first show, a channel I've been avoiding for a long time. However, they seem to be trying to finally get their act together. Keep hearing good things about their show Channel Zero, to the point of where I'm interested in watching.

Long live Burt Gummer!

Your Desert Island Band

In Green Room, they discussed who they'd listen to forever if they were stuck on a desert island. Some of our protagonists picked punk stuff, but good old Anton Yelchin picked one that'll I'll agree with, 100%. I'm talking about Creedence Clearwater Revival. They have so many hits, and I never get bored with them.

What artists do you never tire of? I've been listening to The Rolling Stones, Creedence, Alice Cooper, Led Zeppelin, and so many other of the same bands I listened to a decade ago, because they all got it right.

I'm a classic rock guy, if you can't tell. I hate new music, cuz it's dumb and not instrumentally-oriented, and it just misses the point, I think. But what do I know? I gave up listening to new stuff a while ago. I still try to write music, but not so much lately. My thing now is writing shitty stories about delinquents fighting imaginary monsters, but this old-timey music will always have a place in my heart. I guess that kind of thing only gets worse the more nostalgic you get, huh?

What movies did you buy or watch this week (11-5)

Just one for me this week - Slaughter High (Blu-ray)

Udo Vs. Joe: Volume 2



Now, Vampires is just something I cannot get tired of. Even today, after the most recent wave with the Twilight series, and the True Blood for us grown ups. I could still go for some sweet, Vampire action. However, the days of beautiful, atmospheric, and creepy Vampire epics are long gone. Movies like Vampyres (1974), and just about every Jean Rollin film of the 70's. That's what it's all about. Not necessarily lezbo-Vamps, but the atmosphere and eerie tone that has been felt seldomly in Vampire Horror since this period. Today, we're going to take a look at one of the best from the golden era. Well, at least one of the most entertaining. Yes. It's time to explore the second half of Paul Morrissey's Horror double feature. This is Andy Warhol's Dracula!

Still in Italy, and just days after production completed on Flesh For Frankenstein, the Morrissey/Warhol gang gets started on their Vampire movie. An old school, Gothic production with the trashiness and a little of the dark humor from the previous film. Yet, this one is heavier on the dark than it is on the humor. Possibly the most mean-spirited adaptation to date, as well as the most nudity and sex-filled. Once again, high-art meets trash, and the result is once again something quite special, but really, really odd at the same time.

As fortune would have it, we get yet another pairing of Udo Kier and the fabulous Arno Juerging, whose performance is every bit as eccentric as one would expect. It seems like a bit of a reversal of roles , when looking back on their interactions from Frankenstein. This time around, Arno is more or less in charge. Dracula's servant is more hands on than he would probably prefer, because Count Dracula is not doing well. Fresh out of virgin blood for some time, Dracula is aging and withering away pretty fast, and it's up to Anton to think of something quick before he's out of a job. Anton suggests they take a road trip to Italy to find a nice, Catholic family with virgin daughters they may want to give away. This plan, however, does not involve Dracula's sister, who is in the same shape he is. With seemingly no relunctance, Anton and the count stuff her in a coffin and skip town, on a quest for virgin blood.

So, no virgins in Transylvania, I take it. why not just kidnap a child? Anyway, after arriving in Italy, Anton asks around about local Religious families, and is soon pointed in the direction of the broke ass Di Fiore family, who have four daughters. One of them has to be a virgin, right? Well, two of them spend most of their time fucking the asshole servant, Mario, played by Joe Dallesandro. Joe, once again, gets all the poon he can handle, and they're certainly grateful for it. The parents are of course oblivious to all of this, and when approached by Anton, they jump at the chance at gaining a rich in-law, and agree to let them have their pick of virgins to take back to Romania forever.

So, the Di Fiore parents aren't too bright. The father may or may not even be sane, and at least two of the daughters are whores. One is an old maid and the others one is 14. Dracula interviews the two unclean girls, offering them a chance to marry him. As long as they're virgins, that is. As they lie through their teeth, they both are attacked and partially drained. Dracula doesn't get far as his body rejects the unclean blood of whores. So close, yet so far...

As Mario takes occasional breaks from pulverizing the Di Fiore daughters' vaginas, he starts to suspect that something might not be right about this Count Dracula character, as well as that little Anton fuck who is just making everything far more awkward than it needs to be. The parents are too oblivious and money hungry to notice what's going on, but Mario aims to figure this guy out. Not so much out of loyalty to his employers, or the desire to hold on to both of his fuck toys. Mario just really hates rich people. Throughout the movie, he goes on several rants about the rich and how he can't wait until they all get what's coming to them. and while he is the most noble character, technically the hero of the movie, Mario is actually quite abusive to his two friends, slapping them around or raping them when they get mouthy. And in passing, he also makes it quite clear that he'll stick it to the 14 year old if he gets the chance. Actually, that may not be such a bad idea from her perspective, as Dracula is now more desperate than ever for some virgin blood.

Speaking of people who have no problem raping kids, Roman Polanski, of all people, graces us with his presence in a random cameo where he almost beats Anton's ass. Once again, Arno Juerging is my favorite part of all of this. No longer the timid little weirdo from Flesh For Frankenstein, Arno shows he's no one trick pony, as he portrays a more high strung weirdo, who seems positively uncomfortable in his own skin. Joe Dallesandro surprises me, this time. With even more dialogue to work with, he actually says it all like he means it. Maybe he snuck in a acting lesson or two between shootings? Or maybe he just wasn't high, this time. Personally, I liked all these people better in Flesh For Frankenstein, but that mostly goes for Udo Kier. Udo is more desperate and sickly, this time. A bit prissy for some reason, too. Udo just doesn't command attention like he did in the previous film, and isn't really the deviant freak from before. He just wants to not die. And what's up with the VIRGIN blood? Why is that a thing? And why is he out in the sunlight? Of all movies, you'd think this one would get it right. I'm a total Frankenstein guy when it comes to this double feature, but this is still my all-time favorite Dracula film, which is worth every bit of cult status it has. Too bad this didn't lead to a trilogy. Andy Warhol's Jekyll And Hyde has such a nice ring to it! 8/10



#Review

The problem with Friday The 13th Part 7: The New Blood

We can all agree that the Jason costume and make up in this movie is probably the best or amongst the best in the series.

The final fight between Jason and Tina is fantastic. Whilst Kane Hodder's presence as Jason is also great.

The thing is, everything before Jason and Tina fighting is really bad, when I rewatch the movie I feel like i'm watching a true dud of the series. Apart from one or two kills like the sleeping bag or the nudey girl in the lake that copies the opening of Jaws, it's only the above mentioned elements that save it by the end.

What do others think of this movie?

Hulk, Smash!

I have to work a lot this week, because Thor: Ragnarok is out. Like most Marvel movies, I'm sure it'll be plenty of fun, but I don't see why I have to come in early just so people can see this movie at 8-something in the morning. 🙄

I blame Disney! Yeah, they're pulling the strings these days! The same shit is going to be worse when Star Wars comes out. People will be camping out to see that one, because they're super nerds.

I honestly don't care enough for Star Wars to see it immediately. Hell, I adore Blade Runner, and yet I've made ZERO effort to see part 2! Why are some people super nerds?

On a side note, I hate the Hulk! Like Superman, he's overpowered as shit. He's so overpowered, he's invincible. What's there to worry about if your hero can't die? You can't hurt him, except in the "Old Man Logan" comic, where he eats Wolverine, then hours later, after regenerating inside of hulk's gut, he TEARS hulk apart from the inside out, and finally kills the demented old, incestuous Bruce Banner.

How does the nature of Haddonfield change, from film to film?

I can't be the only one here who has been bugged by this, over the years.

I have always been struck by how Haddonfield changes back and forth between being a suburb and a rural community. Does anybody here have any cool thoughts on this? Like, in the first movie, the town is definitely a suburb. The sheriff even says "Do you know what Haddonfield is, doc? Families, children, lined up in rows up and down these streets." That, my friends, is a suburb. Jamie Lee, especially, comes across as a very suburban chick... the other characters, less so, but still, somewhat.

Then parts two and three are different, for different reasons.

Parts four and five were apparently shot in Utah, and it all seems much, much, much more rural. There are lots of shots of fields of crops, and also, just what some of the characters are like. Their dialog is like small town people, or rural farm people. I don't know if the actors and actresses had personally spent much time far away from cities, but their lines just seem very rural to me. Then, of course, various scenes in and around barns, and the vigilantes at the end of part four that they were able to scrounge up in just a few minutes... I mean, come on.

Then, in part six, I always thought they kind of split the difference. Haddonfield seems somewhere in the middle, between rural and suburb. Also, apparently it is a college town, with some kind of community college or junior college. The college students might have been supposed to be a little older than traditional college students... early to mid 20's?? I'm not sure. Marianne Hagan's character had a son who was not a toddler.... Anyway, different scenes strike me in different ways, rural versus suburban. The way that dickhead (Mr. Strode) dresses seems like he's got some kind of a white collar job, so that sort of implies suburb.

By the way, it is interesting how Halloween 6 prefigured Scream, in a lot of ways. That Halloween festival had a very Scream-like feel to it. Just the way they talked about Michael Myers, and horror... it also prefigured Halloween 8 (Resurrection) at least in the sense of that local access TV show. It was similar to what Busta Rhymes had going on, in Resurrection.

Anyone have anything to say about any of this? Agree, disagree, call me a mindless bastard and storm off pissed as all hell? Whatever, it's all good.

All these things are more mixed up in today's world, in some ways, but I don't think they were as mixed up in the 70's, 80's, and 90's.

The Ghoul (2016) a Lynchian nightmare




Gareth Tunley's directorial debut, The Ghoul, is slow burning dark psychological thriller examining depression and mental illness. And occult black magic. And a detective hunting down a killer. Or maybe it's none of these things, having just seen the movie I'm not entirely sure.

A homicide detective (a fantastic turn by Tom Meten) goes undercover as a psychiatrist's patient to track a potential killer. Then, very slowly, thing begins to unravel, reality blurs, twists and loops around creating chaos and confusion until... It's one of those films where knowing as little as possible going in vastly improves the viewing experience, and if you like strange slow mindbending stuff then this is for you.
https://horrorpediadotcom.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/paulkaye-in-the-ghoul-2016.jpg?w=539&h=229



A great lead performance is backed up by solid support from Alice Lowe & Geoffrey McGivern and a oddly compelling cameo from Paul Kaye. The cinematography is both claustraphobic and sweeping, switching from single room to Lost Highway style driving shots, all the while accompanied by an unsettling string score. Fans of Lynch, Wheatley and dark surreal mindfucks in general should enjoy.

Friday The 13th Part 5 - Unsung gem of the series?

It's pretty clear the series hit a stride with Parts 3 and 4, then 6 and 7. These feel like the films that set up and use the Jason archetype that the series is best known for.

So why is part 5 generally considered an odd one out in that run?

Is it merely the Jason copycat angle?

Personally I find it up to par with the other Friday sequels in that era, I may even prefer it to Part 4 and 7.

Ethel's son on the motorbike, what was going on in that scene? Freakin' hilarious.

Birdemic, and the so-bad-its-amazing type movies

Watching this movie again, it's all kinds of awesome. The acting, plot, and effects are just awful. They're always trying to homage great, classic old movies, yet the movie itself is atrocious. You can tell that everyone involved in this movie has a screw or two loose.

Gotta love it! Do you think the director honestly tried to make a legit film, or is he bullshitting with us? Tommy Wiseau with "The Room" is a similar situation. Was he for real, and did he put he best effort into that movie? Did Andrew Jordan and Barry J. Gillis try to make a real movie with "Things"? How many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie pop? The world may never know...