Machete Kills (2013)

Back in 2007, Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez joined forces to pay homage to the gratuitous sex and violence of the grindhouse era of cinema in their double feature theatrical release Grindhouse, combining Rodriquez's Planet Terror and Tarantino's Death Proof. At the time, several fake trailers for non-existent exploitation flicks were produced, to enhance the grindhouse experience of the double feature. One of them, Robert Rodriguez's Machete, starring Danny Trejo as the titular Mexican ex-fed, eventually blossomed into a feature film that was released in 2010. It was spectacularly gratuitous. And in 2013, it got a sequel - Machete Kills.

Machete Kills is every bit as bombastic as Machete was. Danny Trejo returns, with another star-studded ensemble cast. Particularly noteworthy were Mel Gibson's appearance as a tech CEO/cultleader, and Lady Gaga (among others) as a shapeshifting bounty hunter. Charlie Sheen (billed as Carlos Estevez) stars as the President of the United States, and Demian Bichir plays one of the film's most charismatic characters, a Mexican crimelord-turned-revolutionary. As for Machete himself, if this wasn't the case already, his international reputation, fighting prowess, and survivability is growing to superhero levels.

The stakes are high in this installment of the Machete series, with a threat that eventually escalates to the level of nuclear holocaust, giving the film the feeling of a gratuitous Mexican version of a James Bond flick. The sexual innuendo is blatant (if never very explicit), the violence as gore-tastic and over-the-top as ever (I loved the molecular blaster), and the straight-faced humor heavy. In fact, what might have begun as an ode to the grindhouse days seems to be evolving into something of a tongue-in-cheek parody (making comparisons to Austin Powers more and more applicable).

But it is a loving and playful parody. And nowhere is this more obvious than in the film's unselfconscious treatment of its own advertising potential. Since Machete began life as a trailer, it doesn't seem so out of place that Machete Kills plays up a new trailer to its own as-yet-unproduced sequel (which, I'll be honest, if I didn't see it listed as "in production" on IMDb, I would have thought was just a joke) Machete Kills Again... In Space! - which obviously parodies both Star Wars and Jason X (featuring that other popular violent marauder who loves to wield a machete). If you think that's taking even over-the-top to an over the top level, I'd be inclined to agree. But you have to admit, Danny Trejo wielding a light-machete is an image too hilarious not to take advantage of!

Django Unchained (2012)

So I borrowed a friend's DVD and finally got to watch Django Unchained, which came out at the end of last year. It's basically Quentin Tarantino doing a blaxploitation western (southern?). It's very much in the recent vein (of which Tarantino is a leading proponent, along with Robert Rodriguez - see Planet Terror, Death Proof, Machete, etc.) of homages to the classic era of grindhouse cinema. Also, in the same way that Kill Bill was Tarantino's take on the martial arts flick, this movie in some ways recalls the genre of "spaghetti" (Italian) western films, of which it draws much inspiration (the original "Django" - which spawned innumerable unofficial sequels - was one such film).

Django Unchained is a bit of a slow burner, with a runtime approaching three hours. But it's infected with Quentin Tarantino's signature style of humor and social commentary, which keeps you immersed, until it builds to its satisfying climax, which is unashamedly awash in Tarantino's typical brand of ultraviolence.

It's not only fun and exciting, but also racially rewarding, as although the film is populated largely with racist characters (the story takes place two years before the civil war), vengeance is ultimately exacted upon the racist characters by the badass black hero - Django himself - and there exists at least one black villain and at least one white hero, to avoid over-generalizing racial stereotypes.

As for the premise (for those of you who are curious as to what this movie is actually about), the story follows a German immigrant (the quirky and polite Dr. King Schultz, played by Christoph Waltz) who is employed in the U.S. as a bounty hunter. He tracks down and frees a slave by the name of Django (an intimidating Jamie Foxx) to help him I.D. one of his targets, and the two become unlikely but amiable partners.

Eventually, in search of Django's wife, the pair come up against a sadistically enterprising plantation owner (Leonardo DiCaprio's Monsieur Candie), aided by his head house slave (an idiosyncratic performance by Samuel L. Jackson). Our heroes concoct a dangerous ruse that involves feigning an interest in Mandingo-fighting (think cock-fighting but with human beings), and march right into the belly of the beast: a plantation deceptively named Candie Land.

The resulting suspense and inevitable standoff is nothing short of cinematic fireworks, and I recommend you see it for yourself.

Maniac (1980)

I read in Entertainment Weekly about a horror movie starring Elijah Wood that's coming out, and when I heard that it was a remake of an older movie - one with cult status, and something of a reputation for its brutality - I (of course) decided to track it down.

Maniac is the title of that movie, and it's fantastic. It's definitely got a real "exploitation" feel to it, the way it follows the serial killer around, instead of building up sympathy for the victims and keeping the killer a mystery, the way you're "supposed" to do it.

The effects are pretty good for its time (Tom Savini stars in a cameo role), and where there might be limitations, the stark thrust of the narrative, and the characterization of this brutal killer make up for it - so much so that even I was pretty startled by some of the scenes (which is totally a good thing).

And while the explanation for the killer's mania is ultimately not that consequential (typical abusive mother sob story), the character's emotional state fuels the amoral pathos that gives the story its unsettling edge - and eventually leads it into some wonderfully surreal territory that makes for an unforgettable ending. The movie's reputation is well-deserved.

I can't imagine the remake doing it justice - although the sky's the limit on gore effects these days, modern society doesn't seem to have the guts to stomach a morally ambiguous story anymore - and anyway the synopsis makes it sound like another boring drama rather than a horrifying character study - but I can't know for sure until I've seen it.

A Serbian Film (2010)

I didn't go looking for this film, but when it was pointed out to me, I knew I had to see it. I'm drawn to controversy. And I'm interested in the way that cultures depict the extremes of human civilization. Not purely for entertainment value, though there may be some of that too, but for the intellectual fascination it provides. We talk about normality all the time, but the way we talk about the monsters and demons and specters among us is what really tells us who we are.

A quick look at the plot synopsis reveals that this movie is about a retired porn star who takes one last job for an art film that turns out to actually be a snuff film, allegedly involving elements of necrophilia and pedophilia. But the most shocking thing (and considering the plot keywords, that's saying a lot) is that it's actually a good movie! Judging from its description, I thought it was going to be trash, but I figured it was worth seeing to find out what, if anything, it had to say about the extremes of human nature, and because the idea of a film revolving around a porn star happens to interest me.

But get this: it's a good story. The characters are believable, and are acted well. And while a large portion of the movie depends on shock & gore, even that part maintains a sense of mystery - putting the pieces together, leaving you wondering just where it will all end. And before we get to that part, the suspense is palpable. From reading the description, you know you're in for a wild ride, but it starts out slow. You get the sense of, "I don't know what's going to happen, but it could be anything", and that's really creepy in a movie. When you don't know just how far the director is willing to go, there's a sense of uncertainty, and a lack of control. With most films, you can expect a certain level of intensity. Other films surprise you with something you hadn't anticipated. With a film like this, you know it's going to get rough, but you can only imagine what's in store.

The characterization of the porn star is very respectable, which earns points in my book. He's not stigmatized by what he does (not by the people close to him at least), his wife isn't jealous, and he has an honest but considerate approach towards his young son's questions about his work. The art director, who turns out to be undeniably insane, starts out rather reasonable, with some great insights about art, and how pornography can be lifted to an art form. (It's too bad he has such little concern, or rather, such intense enthusiasm, for the suffering of others). And the porn star's reactions to the shady art director's offer are very believable. He's suspicious, but he needs the money. He proceeds cautiously, and when things get too sketchy, he tries to back out. Unfortunately for him, he's already in too deep.

My favorite part of the film is the first couple days of the shoot for the art film. The major stipulation of the deal is that the porn star is to know nothing about the shoot - he must simply show up, follow instructions, and do his porn star best. So there's a whole lot of mystery. What will he be asked to do, and how will he react to it? Since the character has been humanized, you can empathize with him, and you know his reactions will be humane and likely on par with yours. The first day, they start shooting at an orphanage. Instantly, you feel uneasy. What are they doing there, of all places? There are a couple of women - a nurse, and a mother - plus a young girl. You feel concern at where the narrative is headed. Things get more and more uncomfortable. The suspense here is intense. Then the shit hits the fan and all hell breaks loose.

With all the suspense and the hype (yes, one person saying "this looks intense" counts as hype to me), I was wondering if the film would deliver the horror in the end, and I must say, it most certainly did. Very psychologically damaging, above all the gore and violent sex. And a very depressing ending. I do not know much about Serbia, but I've read that this film is something of an allegorical tale about its history. Something about its people being forced to do heinous things, and treated in kind. I knew nothing of this while watching the film, and still enjoyed the film immensely. Knowing this after the fact increases my appreciation for the film - that there is symbolism and meaning behind it, that there is a point for the extreme nature of it.

I cannot recommend this film to just anyone, simply for its graphic nature, which I know not everyone will be able to stomach. But neither would I advise nobody to see it (which in my case only attracts my curiosity), as I have seen others do. You must be able to get over the extreme nature of the film - specifically, the graphic sexual violence (and make no mistake, the sexual perversion in this film - a topic I have quite a bit of interest in - has little to do with anything other than brutal sadism, both physically and psychologically). But if you can, this is a very competent piece of film-making. Among other exploitation and shock-gorror flicks, this is a film of quality that stands out.

Kids (1995)

Note: This review was originally posted on a message board forum. I am reposting it here for archival purposes. It has been backdated to the date of its original posting.

Having just watched Kids, I honestly can't decide if it's an exploitation film, or one of those cautionary tales they show you in Health class. Perhaps it's both. It's definitely an "AIDS scare" type of story, from the '90s. It's filmed in a rather voyeuristic fashion, following a day in the life of one particular teen, whose hobby just happens to be deflowering virgins, and he just happens to be HIV positive. Can't you just feel the drama unfolding, already? Kids depicts a rather depressing picture of urban youth, where the kids indulge in just about every sin your parents and teachers ever warned you about. But the most disturbing thing is, not the eight year olds smoking pot, the twelve year olds having sex, nor the fifteen year olds engaging in an E-influenced orgy, the teen gang beating an outsider to a bloody pulp, nor even the drunken rape, but the fact that, as sick as all of this is, it didn't feel to me so exaggerated that I didn't believe it could be real.

The characters are, with perhaps one or two exceptions, very unlikable (which I think is the point), and certainly not the kind of people I'd ever hang out with. However, I found the "fly on the wall" perspective and the "pseudo-documentary" style quite interesting, as I have some voyeuristic tendencies myself, but, while I found the film to be relatively enjoyable, I wouldn't be surprised if somebody else (particularly of more delicate sensibilities) were to consider it "trash". Because really, that's more or less the subject of the film.

Autopsy (2008)

Note: This review is part of my coverage of Horrorfest III.

Autopsy

Simply put, Autopsy was amazing. Pretty fucking incredible. No deep morals or any of that shit, just hardcore FUN! This was an exploitation film, and it had style. I saw in the credits that Dario Argento was given special thanks, and in retrospect, I can totally see the influence there. This film just has style in spades. And oh my god, it is so over the top!

So what's it about? A group of young coeds are heading home after partying it up at Mardi Gras in New Orleans (told in innovative fashion through a wild selection of snapshots during the opening credits) only to crash their car out in the middle of nowhere. Luckily, there's a hospital nearby, but unluckily, it's not your normal kind of facility. It's actually being run by an insane doctor and his few sadistic assistants, who are working on some bizarre and gruesome cure for the doctor's wife's cancer. Unfortunately for the coeds, they don't find this out until much too late. They enter the hospital hoping to get patched up after their accident, only to get split up one by one, and end up brutally murdered, with their organs harvested (though not necessarily in that order >;).

Lots of gore in this movie, I'm not gonna lie. But there's so much style in its over-the-topness that you can't help being just as shocked and amazed as you are disgusted by some of these scenes (well, I was, at least). My favorite part was when the naked guy jumps on top of the one girl and tears his torso open and starts ripping his organs out on top of her. Good god, you can't make this stuff up! There's some humor in there, definitely, like when the one guy asks the doctor if he's gonna be okay, and just before putting him under, the doctor says "I don't think so".

This film is just fantastic. I don't think I've had this much fun at a horror movie since I saw the Grindhouse throwback by Rodriguez and Tarantino a couple springs ago. Go see Autopsy!

Satan's Slave (1976) & Terror (1978)

Note: This review was originally posted on Bridge To Better Days. I am reposting it here for archival purposes. It has been backdated to the date of its original posting.

To get me in the mood for Horrorfest, I fired up the Exploitation Cinema double-shot I picked up at Best Buy recently. I didn't even notice that it was "Exploitation Cinema" and not "Welcome to the Grindhouse" until after I watched the movies and was putting the disc back in the case. But the format is exactly the same, complete with trailers and intermission. Speaking of the trailers, I saw two that really looked interesting - Nightmare, and Beyond the Door, which look like (in loose terms) X-rated versions of Nightmare on Elm Street and Rosemary's Baby, respectively. Those are definitely titles I'd like to check out if they're available.

Satan's Slave (1976)

The first title in this double feature is another witch-cult movie (the classic British kind, that is) - I say "another" because it's structurally similar to Virgin Witch, which I've seen before. I'm sensing a cultural difference here, as "backwoods family" films in America tend to deal with in-bred cannibals living on farms, whereas the same in the British film scene tend to deal with wealthy witch cults that live in nice mansions out in the country. Between the two, the cannibals might be a little scarier, but the witches are almost certainly sexier.

And saying that, there are a number of great scenes in Satan's Slave that involve Satanic rituals and naked women. The plot is your typical "city girl gets caught up in a country coven's secret plans" story, this time with the high priest desiring to resurrect a powerful witch (who was burned at the stake) by making a special sacrifice. The good scenes are good, but I'm afraid that overall, the film tends to drag. And the ending is kind of ambiguous, but it's bombastic, and really, you're not watching an exploitation film for the intricate plot details, right?

Terror (1978)

I felt that this title raised itself above "average" exploitation fare and was actually quite good. Here's the setup: a witch is burned at the stake (yes, another witch story), but casts a curse on the family that condemned her. It's present day, and the family's ancestors (and various innocent strangers that happen to get entangled in the plot) start dying off in gruesome ways as the ghost of the witch seeks revenge.

Instead of a flashback to tell the pre-story with the witch's original burning and cursing, this part is actually told in the form of a film-within-a-film created by the main character, who happens to be a film director (in the story) - and right at the beginning of the story, before you know it's just a film. I thought that was quite a clever and effective device.

The rest of the film is full of scares, as well as a decent share of raunch - between the club the girls work at, and the soft porn being filmed in the director's studio. All in all it makes for an entertaining time as you watch the witch take out each of her victims in, as the box says, "brutally inventive fashion".

And now let me mention one of the things that's so great about exploitation films. In a mainstream film similar to Terror, by the end of the movie, the witch's curse would probably either be left ambiguous or discounted entirely, and at least one member of the cursed family would make it through the ordeal alive, right? But here, since it's an exploitation film, that witch gets the job done, and you get to watch in satisfaction as she unambiguously kills off the last ancestor of the family that burned her alive, and there the film ends. No consolation. No resolution. Welcome to the grindhouse, baby. Similarly, in Satan's Slave, you expect the innocent girl to eventually make it out of the mess she finds herself in the middle of. No such luck. Satan's gonna have his slave, and there ain't nothin' you can do about it. Ah, exploitation is good.