The People Under the Stairs (1991)

Tagline: In every neighborhood there is one house that adults whisper about and children cross the street to avoid. Now Wes Craven, creator of A Nightmare on Elm Street, takes you inside…

Curiosity: Edgar Wright said it was good.

Plot: Fool (Brandon Adams, The Mighty Ducks) is sick of The Man (Everett McGill) holding down his people. Spurred on by his sister’s friend Leroy (Ving Rhames), the two decide to break into his house and steal enough money to pay for his mother’s much needed operation. But it turns out The Man is one freaky deaky dude, as Fool and Leroy uncover a house filled with traps, dead ends… and incestuous cannibals.

Also this represents the Reagan Administration.

Thoughts: The People Under the Stairs is a weird, weird movie. It’s hilariously dated, saturated in its early ’90s-ness by hip-hop, acid-washed jeans, and nauseatingly bright shirts. But here’s the thing: All of these slick signifiers actually boost the film’s surreal elements. The idea of a kid getting trapped in a house with cannibals is already strange; the outfits just up the ante.

People’s horror elements intrigue me. It came out after the crackdown on gore, so it’s surprisingly light on blood save for one scene. But this just makes Craven drive the characters towards a higher level of insanity. The Man and The Woman (Wendy Robie), who are never named, spend a lot of time screaming, dressing up in leather gimp outfits, and just generally acting crazed. While some aspects of the movie feel underdeveloped (the title characters don’t really factor in that much), The People Under the Stairs is still a bizarre romp. What’s truly bizarre about it is that it came out well before the Fritzl case, in which a man actually did keep his daughter and several of his incest-born children locked underground. Like I said, it’s a weird, weird movie.

Reflection: While I’m a little cool to the Reagan symbolism, I did enjoy the trickle down economics of the ending.

Cannibal Holocaust (1980)

Tagline: The most controversial movie ever made.

Curiosity: Did you not see the tagline? I’ve wanted to see this movie since I was like 14.

Plot: Cannibal Holocaust is essentially split into two segments. When a documentary crew disappears in South America, an anthropologist named Harold Monroe (Robert Kerman) goes in search of them. After bonding with a tribe and participating in one of their cannibalistic ceremonies, he is able to retrieve their film reels. The second half of the film consists of Monroe watching the footage to learn what happened [SPOILER ALERT: Shit got real.]

Thoughts: While I don’t think I could have ever liked this movie, I’m definitely too old to watch it now. Ostensibly, Cannibal Holocaust is supposed to be a commentary on society or some shit. But it’s really just an Italian cannibal exploitation flick, so that whole “who’s really civilized?” angle doesn’t make up for the copious amount of rape ‘n’ animal torture scenes. I’m an animal activist and a RAINN supporter. I don’t need to watch monkeys get their faces chopped off.

Sure, there’s a critical part of me that has to admit that this film is genuinely shocking. I felt nauseous during several scenes. But it never scared nor entertained me, nor did it provoke critical thought. As a social commentary, Cannibal Holocaust is pretty piss-poor. Reading about the film’s production made me even sicker. The director and producer cut a lot of corners to get the film made on the cheap, so they abused extras without giving them proper compensation. They slaughtered seven animals over the course of filming. At least the rape scenes weren’t real.

As an American, I believe in freedom of speech. But I recognize that that freedom still has limits. The classic example is shouting fire in a crowded theater and causing damage. But as far as films go, I know that I have things that offend me, just like everyone else. While I consider myself a fan of, say, the Hostel films, I still have to draw a line somewhere to indicate what I consider to be appropriate and inappropriate for a movie. Cannibal Holocaust is that line.

Reflection: Man, I like monkeys.

The Perfect Host (2011)

Tagline: Dinner parties are a dying art.

Curiosity: David Hyde Pierce gets all types of American Psycho.

Plot: When his getaway after a bank robbery goes awry, John (Clayne Crawford) has to find a place to hideout, and fast. He settles for tricking Warwick (Pierce) into thinking he’s a friend of a friend. Warwick is getting ready to host a dinner party, but John’s lies about getting mugged are too heartbreaking for him to ignore. But when John threatens to kill him, Warwick lets loose his innermost demons. And shit.

Thoughts: For the first 60 minutes, The Perfect Host is really good. Even though you know from the advertising that Pierce is going to trap Crawford’s character, there’s still an energy that comes with watching them play cat and mouse. And when Pierce does finally go into full-on crazy mode, he gives an incredible performance. He pantomimes through scene after scene as he talks to people who aren’t there. He betrays no hint of irony as he fully commits to acting alongside hallucinations. He nails it in scene after scene, even approaching camp during a dance revue before culminating in the creepiest sex scene I’ve seen in a long time. Pierce is flawless, while Crawford gradually switches the audience’s feelings towards his character, gradually giving him sympathetic qualities that lend the film some ground to stand on. It’s a thankless straight man role, but Crawford holds his own.

But after that 60-minute mark, The Perfect Host just about falls apart. It pulls out too many twists in its final 30 minutes, and each one feels like a mistake or a missed opportunity. The wheels start coming off at a rapid clip as it morphs from a horror film to a standard cop drama, with each twist feeling increasingly belabored. While I can respect writer/director Nick Tomnay’s decision to go for something out of the ordinary here, the ending belongs to a different movie altogether. I would not have minded having a more traditional ending, even if it would have been more predictable. As is, the film can be broken up into three 30-minutes: 1) When John is in control, 2) When Warwick is in control, and 3) When twists start piling up like a car wreck.

Reflection: Pierce is as creepy here as he is funny in Wet Hot American Summer, even though the characters are only removed by a few degrees.

From Dusk till Dawn (1996)

Tagline: One night is all that stands between them and freedom. But it’s going to be one hell of a night.

Curiosity: Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez made a vampire/gangster mash-up movie.

Plot: After Richie (Tarantino) busts his brother Seth (George Clooney) out of prison, the two hightail it to Mexico. They leave a trail of destruction along the way before picking up some hostages (a religious family played by Harvey Keitel, Ernest Liu, and Kalifornia’s Juliette Lewis). They plan to hide out for a night at a roadside strip bar, but then vampires show up randomly and start causing hijinx.

Thoughts: One of the things that caught me by surprise when revisiting From Dusk till Dawn was how Tarantino and Rodriguez’s careers have progressed. While he would revisit B-movies on Death Proof, Tarantino also elevated his beloved low culture genres to high art status with flicks like Kill Bill and Inglourious Basterds. Aside from forays into children’s entertainment, Rodriguez keeps making genre trash. Hilarious genre trash, mind you, but I have yet to truly love one of his movies like I did Kill Bill.

The same could be said for From Dusk till Dawn. There’s a lot of great talent involved, and Clooney, Keitel, and Lewis all give great performances. But the movie never quite sizzles. In fact, peaks early with its opening scene, in which the brothers hold up a liquor store. It’s intense, but also cheeky in its way. The downside to this is that the film never recaptures that tension, although Keitel does his best to bring the story some gravitas.

Still, it’s a fun goof of a vampire slick. B-movie icons Fred Williamson (Inglorious Bastards) and Tom Savini (Dawn of the Dead) show up for a bit and give the film some much needed silliness. The special effects are cool in some scenes, appropriately tacky in others. Dusk isn’t the best movie for any of the creative forces involved, but it’s still a joy to watch them all work together.

Reflection: There’s just something about watching Tom Savini rock a leather jacket that makes sense, man.

Rubber (2010)

Tagline: Are you TIRED of the expected?

Curiosity: A rubber tire with psychokinetic powers blows up people’s heads.

Plot: A rubber tire with psychokinetic powers blows up people’s heads… sort of.

Thoughts: One of the problems I’ve encountered with contemporary horror movies is that they’re too self-aware. They use humor to make up for, say, poor budgets or a hooky story. Humor can be a good defense mechanism on the schoolyard, but it sucks the joy out of filmmaking. Rubber, unfortunately, suffers from trying too hard to be meta/ironic.

I’m not against horror comedies. I love the Evil Dead trilogy as much as the next dork. The Monster Squad and Shaun of the Dead are two of my favorite movies of all time. But if you’re going to do a commentary on horror films, you better have something to say. Monster Squad examined finer, sillier points of monster movies (“WOLFMAN’S GOT NARDS!”). Shaun of the Dead goofed on George A. Romero’s zombie rules while still following them. Rubber tries to poke fun at the idea of schlocky horror movies with stupid monsters, in this case with a tire.

For the first 25 minutes or so, Rubber feels like an update of every terrible ’50s monster movie. It even has one of a disclaimer for the opening scene. But the film quickly disappears up its own meta-asshole. Writer/director Quentin Dupieux uses a chorus to comment on the movie’s action, but they overwhelm the movie. The story becomes more about shutting up the chorus than it is about a murderous tire. It’s a novel idea at first, as the chorus pokes fun at the movie’s ludicrous elements. But it becomes more about telling than it is showing. Watching Rubber is like attending a screening for a cult horror movie and just watching the audience instead. And that’s no fun at all.

Reflection: Oh shit, it’s Fat Neil from Community!

Black Dog (1998)

Tagline: The only way to stay safe to stay moving.

Curiosity: Patrick Swayze (Dirty Dancing! Road House! Next of Kin?) and Meat Loaf fight each other… with trucks!

Plot: Jack Crews (The Swayze) was once the best truck driver in all the world. He drove stuff from Point A to Point B, even if the stuff was nuclear weapons or whatever. He was good at what he did. But then he killed a guy because he is also a terrible, terrible driver and lost his license. He even did jail time despite being an A-OK guy otherwise.

Once he gets out of prison, though, Crews realizes his family is about to lose their house. Crews can’t go back to “the city,” what with “the gangs” and “the drugs” and “the rap music.” In comes Cutler (Graham Beckel) with an offer too good to be honest: Deliver a load of stuff, no questions asked, for a whole lot of money. Oh sure, the load might be toilets. But inside those toilets ain’t poop, it’s guns, pal.

Er’rybody wants these guns. Cutler’s buyer wants to sell them on the streets. Cutler’s henchman Red (Meat Loaf) wants to steal them for his own gains. And you best believe the FBI and ATF, spearheaded by bickering agents Charles Dutton (Alien 3, Legion… this guy is better than most of his movies deserve, really) and Stephen Toblowsky want those guns.

What’s a Swayze to do but keep on truckin’?

Thoughts: I think writers William Mickelberry and Dan Vining had an idea for a movie about truckers caught in a gun smuggling ring. That’s a decent idea for an action movie. I think they even researched it pretty thoroughly, as Black Dog explains tons of details about the trucker life, like weigh stations and lingo. Then I think they realized their movie was still boring, so they added a ton of other bullshit to spice it up.

Black Dog is a solid actioner, but it never ups the stakes enough. Oh it tries and tries to pile stuff on (Red won’t die! Cutler has Swayze’s wife and child!), but it never quite hits that perfect percentage of dramatic tension and human interest. It also ends like three times before it really ends. Considering it’s only 89 minutes long, the story really is threadbare despite being overstuffed with additions like the idea of a ghostly black dog that haunts greedy truckers.

I find the black dog concept to be superfluous to the film. It’s supposed to give Swayze’s character something to struggle against but, honestly, he’s already trying to save his house and, later in the film, his family. Dude’s got enough on his plate. At first I thought it was a bullshit addition, then I found out the black dog is actually a British myth, not an American one, and I just laughed.

Black Dog has some cool driving sequences. It’s also got my man Swayze being a hardass. But so much of the movie could have been cut, from Red’s random Bible quotes to Randy Travis’ character Earl entirely (Sorry Randy Travis).

Reflection: You still my boy, Swayze.