Big Update

Okay, so here's what's happening in no particular order:

1) I have a day job for this first time since last March. Steady paycheck good, decreased writing time bad. I have to make what little time I do have count even more, and screenplays come before blogs. And having said that, the way things run, I'll probably be updating twice as much as before.

2) I've back-burnered "Artifact" for the time being. After doing three straight horror gigs, I was afraid of burning out. It's no big deal, I was planning a couple of comedies for this year anyway. I just bumped up the timetable. I will get back to "Artifact," though, as I have some fun stuff in mind for it. And about those aforementioned comedies...

3) The one I'm working on now has a working title of "Heart Attack at 30," and the synopsis is thus:

Days after her 30th birthday, up-and-coming writer Rachel Wagner goes to the hospital for unexplained chest and back pains, where she learns she's had a massive heart attack. After a  stent-implant she goes back home, a small town in Ohio, where her mother and twin sister help her cope with the new direction her life has taken.

Yes, it is a comedy. Yes, it is a chick flick. No, it is not going to be a particularly dark comedy, though it may have its moments. No, it is not like anything I've ever written before, which is a big part of why I'm writing it.

I do need to do some big, jumbo, monster-sized research, because I want this to be as realistic as possible. You see, I'm really, really irritated by 'disease-of-the-week' movies that treat medical conditions like props. The vast majority of the time they're just not interested in whatever condition they're using beyond story-beats or plot-points or cheap melodrama. I think it's far more interesting -and honest- to get into what would normally be considered mundane details. The day-to-day stuff. And I think that's where a lot of the humor is going to come from. Just a feeling.

I only have the first act on paper right now. I'm still I'll probably be writing more about the writing of this one than any of the horror pieces (refer to bullet-point 1). Maybe because horror is a lot more natural for me than this. I don't know. Stay tuned.

And finally...

4) Remember "Mythos?" The semi-sequel to "The Shadow Over Innsmouth" which was a finalist in the H.P. Lovecraft Film Festival this past September? That "Mythos?"

Well, this past November, on a whim, I submitted it to Joe Bob Briggs Productions. He's a drive-in kind of a guy, I'm a drive-in kind of a guy, and it's a drive-in kind of a script. And someone at J.B.B. Productions agrees because it's under consideration for production. They have to crunch the numbers, consider the budget, consider the locations, but yeah, they're at least thinking about it, which is farther than I've ever gotten before, film production-wise.

I don't expect to hear anything back until at least summer. And that's okay. I'm a lot more patient than I used to be. Again, stay tuned.

And that's about it right now. I'll try to throw up a review or two over the next few days. I dunno. Depends on what free time I have.

Till then.

Review - Who Slew Auntie Roo?

WHO SLEW AUNTIE ROO? (1971)
The plot: Kindly widow kidnaps an orphan girl who reminds her of her dead daughter, while the girl's brother tries to rescue her and steal the widow's jewels. From the director of Devil Dog: The Hound of Hell. Merry Christmas!
The poop: Here's another buried gem from the vaults of American International Pictures. From the opening moments, where Shelley Winters holds the mummified remains of her daughter in an immaculately maintained playroom, you know you're in for twisted nonsense of the first order.

All you really need to know is that Winters plays Auntie Roo, a rich widow who yearly hosts Christmas for local orphans. One of  the new orphans, Katy, reminds Roo of her dead daughter, and Roo decides to keep Katy, who she locks in the playroom from the opening. Katy's big brother, Christopher, sneaks back to rescue her and maybe pinch some jewelry from Auntie Roo, as a nest-egg for himself and his sister. Then it gets weird.

But it's a low-key weird, aside from Shelley Winters, who ham-bones the hell out of this thing. The motif is "Hansel and Gretel," and the movie plays it up one side and down the other. I'll keep spoilers out of it, but once you watch it, see if you can figure out if Christopher; A) is a vicious little bastard, or B) he actually believes the story he feeds Katy.
Deal-breakers: Not really any likable characters. I'd say the orphan girl, Katy, comes the closest, but she really isn't terribly bright.

I suppose some could accuse the movie of being a bit slow, but that's the name of the game in the "crazy old lady" sub-genre, to which this firmly belongs.
The up-side: Does any movie, set on Christmas, that features a little mummified girl need any further up-sides?
Makes a great double-bill with: Any of the "crazy old lady" movies that were made in the wake of Whatever Happened to Baby Jane. I'd go for Lady in a Cage or Hush, Hush, Sweet Charlotte, or even Dear Dead Delilah if you want to slum it up a bit. Or maybe pair it off with The Other for a "boys are jerks" double-feature.

Other stuff: I caught this, along with The Other, on Nite Owl Theatre's Double-Chiller Friday, and was probably about five or six years too young to see either one of them. Oh well. Shit happens.

Review - Silent Night, Deadly Night

SILENT NIGHT, DEADLY NIGHT (1984)
The plot: A kid watches a robber dressed as Santa kill his mom and dad, gets beat up by a nun in an orphanage, becomes a toy store Santa, goes nuts, impales Linnea Quigley on deer antlers. Based on the Charles Dickens classic.
The poop: This is one troublesome pup, let me tell you. I'm of two minds on this film, really. On one hand, as a parent, my copy of SNDN goes on one of the tippity-top shelves, far away from little hands. So I easily understand the apocalyptic backlash SNDN provoked upon its original release, and I'm actually sympathetic toward those who stood out in the cold to picket and protest it's release.

But on the other hand, this is a textbook, pitch-perfect example of an exploitation film, right down to the ad campaign, which is what triggered the protests in the first place. You have the exploitable hook (killer Santa), button-pushing transgressions  (cops shooting multiple Santa's, abusive nun,  killer Santa giving a very special present to a good little girl, etc.) and nudity (hi Linnea Quigley!). From an exploitation movie standpoint, there is very little SNDN doesn't have.

And that ad campaign! It really was quite genius, in an exploitation sort of way. Show the TV-ads for maybe a week, clearly showcasing the maniac Santa, during family-friendly prime-time, and let the outraged parents of America give you an extra couple weeks of free advertising due to news coverage of the pickets and protests. And to think this came out of a major studio, Tri-Star (owned by Columbia Pictures, then owned by Coca-Cola). Of course, the Coca-Cola shareholders didn't go along and pulled the picture from release.

All well and good, you say, but how was the play, Mrs. Lincoln? Well, SNDN is pretty dreadful from a quality standpoint, even from an exploitation movie standpoint. Most of the acting is distractingly bad. The direction is haphazard and lazy. The sets are cheap, including the rattiest excuse for a toy store I've ever seen outside of a flea market. The Christmas songs (all recorded especially for this movie -none of that crappy public domain junk) are bizarre at best, headache-inducing at worst. And whenever legitimately transgressive subject matter is introduced, it's rendered null and void by everything I've just listed, and probably more.

So, needless to say, I'm vastly and consistently entertained by SNDN. It's a train-wreck, yes indeed, but it's such a stupid and consistently goofy train-wreck that it's impossible to take seriously. The incompetence on display makes even the most offensive moments seem silly. I can't explain it and I won't apologize for it, but I have a serious sweet-tooth for junk like this.
Deal-breakers: Yeah, I don't think I really need to spell it out for you any more than I already have.

The up-side: Ditto.
Makes a great double-bill with: Booze.

Other stuff: Everyone relax, I don't plan on even telling my daughter this film exists, much less letting her watch it before she's twenty-five.

Update

My laptop died, but I have a temporary PC to use until such time as I can get another laptop.

I've decided to back-burner the killer mummy script. Coming off three horror scripts in a row, I was getting dangerously close to burning out on the genre. I've decided to go back to comedy, or in this case comedy-drama. More details to follow.

I'll have a review up later today, with another one or two up before Christmas.

And that's about it for right now.

So here's the thing... I threw my back out last weekend, and today's the first day all week I've been able to comfortably sit in order to write. And on top of that, finances decree that I watch my 4-year old daughter at least most of the week. Which would be fine, except she does not like it when I write, which she makes very, very clear.

Which leaves me with very little writing time. Which makes me prioritize what gets written. And I know having a blog is supposed to help get my writing out there, but I just do not have the time to regularly post on this thing. If it comes down to writing a blog post or working on a story or screenplay, there ain't no competition.

If I get the (office) job for which I interviewed the week before last, I will ironically have more free time to write because of the work schedule and because we'll be able to afford babysitting all week.

So that's what's going on. Today I plan to proof-read the short story I just finished, go through 'Mythos' one last time before I submit it to Joe Bob Briggs' production company, and go back to working on 'Artifact.'

Review- Wolfen

WOLFEN (1981)

The plot:  Urban renewal threaten the feeding grounds of a race of super intelligent -and possibly supernatural- wolves living in the slums of New York, and they ain't havin' it.

The poop: 1981 was the year of the werewolf picture, and in addition to 'Wolfen,' we had 'An American Werewolf in London,' 'The Howling,' and Larry Cohen's 'Full Moon High.' But no one remembers 'Full Moon High,' at least until Michael J. Fox was in it's half-assed remake. Well... no. No one remembered it after that, either.

In any case, 'Wolfen' was the only 1981 werewolf offering that played it completely straight. Sure, there's some gallows humor here and there, but compared to the other werewolf pictures that year, it was the only one that didn't openly rely on humor to get the job done. Not that there's anything wrong with humor in horror in general, or anything specifically wrong with the humor in the other 1981 werewolf pictures. 

So, yeah, 'Wolfen' is a pretty serious movie. It's also a pretty respectful movie. It respects wolves and their place in the world. It respects Native Americans and their traditions, and the idea that magic exists in the word, whether or not you see or even believe in it.

Deal-breakers: The main Native American character is not played by a Native American, but on the other hand he's played by Edward James Olmos. And he's naked in one scene. Which probably should be a separate Deal-Breaker.

I don't think this is a particularly lefty movie, but I lean that direction anyway, so maybe I'm missing something. But, again, on the other hand this is a movie about wolves who eat the homeless, so how lefty could it really be?

The up-side: Fantastic performances all around. No a single weak-link in the bunch.

This is the first werewolf picture that goes out of it's way to separate genuine wolf behavior from all the myths and misconceptions.

Makes a great double-bill with: The other werewolf pictures of 1981, which would actually be a triple-bill. A quadruple-bill if you count 'Full Moon High.'

Other stuff: The studios releasing 'Wolfen' -Warner Bros.and Orion- were disappointed that the finished product wasn't a straight-forward exploitation picture. They recut it, and recut it and recut it again, and none of the recut versions came close to what they wanted either. So what did they finally release? Basically the same version that director Michael Wadleigh handed in originally.

Still sorta bombed, though. At least compared to 'The Howling' and 'American Werewolf.' 

Review- Count Yorga, Vampire

COUNT YORGA, VAMPIRE (1970)

The plot: Centuries old vampire in modern-day (1970) Los Angeles. Hijinks ensue.
 
The poop: This is some brutal shit. It's not especially gory, mind you, it was released as a 'GP,' which became 'PG' later in the seventies -though not without issues. It was sent back to the MPAA six times, who requested cuts to the violence, nudity and even the sound effects in order to secure that important 'GP.' No, it's brutal because Count Yorga is one of the few cinema vampires of the seventies that seemed to be a genuine threat.

Keep something in mind here. Since roughly 1958, when Hammer's 'Horror of Dracula' was released, the vampire film was generally filmed as a gothic period piece. Which is great, stylistically, but keeps the audience at arm's length. Because of that distancing, the vampires created by Hammer Films rarely felt like much of a threat, even Dracula. Of course, it didn't help that, except for 'Horror of Dracula,' Hammer never gave Christopher Lee a Dracula script worthy of his abilities, but I suppose that's neither here nor there.

But there is no such distancing in 'Count Yorga, Vampire.' The world in the film is the world of 1970, complete with all the cynicism and jaded attitudes that go with it. So when Yorga gets down to business and does what vampires are wont to do, it feels more authentic and visceral, and when this movie's version of The Fearless Vampire Hunters go up against Yorga at the end... well, let's keep this spoiler-free and say that the movie ends exactly as it should end.

Deal-breakers: Kinda dated, though not nearly as dated as 'Blacula.' Still, though, you do get a mini-bus and a doctor smoking in his office, so there you go.

The up-side: Robert Quarry owns as Yorga. Flat out. As excellent as William Marshall was as Blacula -and he was excellent- I personally prefer Quarry as Yorga. He's an intelligent predator who uses the relative sophistication of the modern era in his favor. You genuinely believe he's been smart and crafty enough to have survived all this time.

Time for some Roger Perry love. He plays the aforementioned smoking doctor, who serves as the Van Helsing analog. He's fantastic, especially as he gradually figures out how utterly out-classed he is by Yorga. 

As I mentioned before, this movie has a vicious streak. It does not play nice. When horror fans reminisce about horror films from the seventies, this is part of the reason why. Not necessarily this movie, per say, but that willingness to get down and dirty. 

Makes a great double-bill with: The sequel, 'Return of Count Yorga,' of course. Also, 1973's 'The Deathmaster,' which has Robert Quarry as sort of a vampire-guru who takes over a hippie commune. Not as good -or as bad- as it sounds.

Other stuff: This was originally intended as a soft core porn flick. The original title was 'The Loves of Count Iorga, Vampire,' which is the title on the MGM DVD.