Let Sleeping Corpses Lie (1974)

Title: Let Sleeping Corpses Lie (1974) a.k.a. The Living Dead at the Manchester Morgue

Director: Jorge Grau

Starring: Ray Lovelock, Cristina Galbo, Arthur Kennedy

Review:

I’m on a life long quest to see every important zombie movie ever made, and so far, I thought I had pretty much seen all the “important ones”. Boy was I wrong! The film I will be reviewing today, Let Sleeping Corpses Lie should be considered amongst one of the most important and influential zombie movies ever made. It is so damn underrated! Let Sleeping Corpses Lie was made by Spanish filmmaker Jorge Grau. The film was released and distributed under many different titles. Here is a list of all its different titles just so you have an idea:

Let Sleeping Corpses Lie  

Don’t Open the Window
The Living Dead at the Manchester Morgue
No Profanar el Sueno de los Muertos
Do not Speak Ill of the Dead
Breakfast at the Manchester Morgue
The Living Dead
Zombie 3
Invasion of the Zombies
The Revenge of the Living Dead II
The Living Dead Massacre

One of this films many posters, this one is for Germany

  

When a film is released internationally, the titles often times change, this is a common practice. But I think this is one of the films with the most alternate titles! In reality, the films name is “No Profanar el Sueno de los Muertos” which literally translates to: Don’t Profane the Sleep of the Dead. I know this cause I’m fluent in Spanish. After all, it is my native tongue! So anyhows, I think the title that comes closest to that is definitely Let Sleeping Corpses Die.

  

  

The story is about this young English art collector who is going on a trip to sell these statues to an art dealer on another town. So he takes his motorcycle and off he goes. At one point he stops to gas up and while he goes to get something to drink, a young lady who is also stopping for gas runs over his motorcycle by mistake! So what does he do? He leaves his bike there and has her take him to his destination. Realizing she was responsible for destroying his only means for transportation, she agrees, but asks him to take her to her sisters house first. Unfortunately for them, she forgets the way to her sisters house and they end up in the middle of nowhere! The guy gets out to ask for directions. While walking around, he sees these farmer/scientists experimenting with these new machines that use sound waves to kill ants and insects that might be dangerous to their crops. Unfortunately, these machines not only kills insects, they also bring the dead back to life!

  

  

Seriously folks; this film is one of the most underrated zombie films ever! It should be hailed as one of the best zombie films ever made. Its true, director Jorge Grau was asked by the films producer to do a film along the lines of George Romero’s Night of the Living Dead (“This is like Night of the Living Dead, but in color!”) and for all intents and purposes Id say that he succeeded. But the film does go its own way and it has its own style. Its even gorier then the film that it’s trying to emulate. Night of the Living Dead (1968) is a zombie film, but it’s not all that graphic or gory except for some key sequences of solid flesh eating. But in contrast, once Let Sleeping Corpses Lie turns up its juice, it turns into one hell of a gory flick! The thing about this movie is that it slowly builds up to the zombies, it takes a while before we actually get to see some zombie mayhem, but once the film opens its gory doors, its an onslaught of gory zombie madness. So you need to be a bit patient before zombies show up, but to be honest, the film is so beautifully shot, I didn’t mind this at all.

  

  

Jorge Graus direction and cinematography is one of the things that makes it special. Something that foreign films benefit from are these beautiful locations they can shoot in. Parts of this film were shot in Italy, Spain and England. As a result, we get these beautiful shots of mountain sides, city landscapes and nature that makes the film naturally beautiful without the need to resort to sets or special effects. They shot in a real cemetery in a historical English graveyard! The cemetery scenes were amazing, unfortunately Grau and his film crew where asked to leave the cemetery because some people thought they were treating the cemetery disrespectfully, which is really ironic when you see the films title! The opening sequence of the film is a beautiful montage of city scenes, where we get to see society indulging in pollution and over population. We see a decaying city, garbage on the streets, car exhaust, and a lady streaking through traffic for no reason whatsoever. I guess it’s a way of showing societies excesses, and the way we abuse the environment, because that’s really one of the films themes. But what I loved about that opening sequence is how beautifully shot it is. It shows beauty in ugliness. Then in contrast, the main character drives around his motorcycle through these amazing natural vistas that just made the film that much more beautiful.

  

Interesting then how all that beauty suddenly comes in clashing with the second half of the film which concerns itself with the living dead and so much gore! Once we get past all the set up and the getting to know the characters part of the film, we go to what we came here to see: some dead people coming back to life! The thing about this movie is that its not about hundreds and hundreds of zombies coming back to life. On this film, the machines only bring back to life about three zombies, and this in turn start to wake others up. This gives the movie its unique touch: zombies can bring other zombies back to life by smothering them with the blood of humans. So the blood can also bring the dead back to life. But the few zombies we do get to see are more then enough of a threat, cause they are vicious flesh eaters and represent a deadly threat to our protagonist who not only run from the living dead, but from the police as well. The police have not seen a zombie yet, so they think that all the murders are being committed by the two young protagonists. The police choose to believe that these kids are Satan worshippers and that this is why there are so many profaned graves and murders.

  

  

The film touches upon many themes, but not too deeply. The social commentary does not take over the film. The film puts these themes on the table for your consideration, but doesn’t overtly linger on them. For example, the main character is an art collector/seller who is carrying these statues with him to sell them to an art collector across town. When the police discover he has these statues with him, they ignorantly accuse him of being a Satanist. Another issue addressed here is how often times the government (in this case the police) wrongly accuses people for things they never did, and they have to pay for it. They get all the facts wrong and come to conclusions simply on assumptions. The movie also addresses the issue of generation gaps. Older characters in the film hate the young simply because they dress differently. In one scene the cop (who is made out to be a villain through out the whole film) sees the young protagonist and accuses him of dressing like a homosexual spewing lines like: “You’re all the same the lot of you, with your long hair and faggot clothes. Drugs, sex and every sort of filth!” Come on, the guy just likes to dress in style! In this way the film criticizes the one sided old fashioned mentality, that doesn’t want to allow new things to come and change the old. Add to that the films environmentalist message, and we got ourselves a zombie movie with some social criticism in its subtext.

  

One look at this film and you will immediately see just how many other films it has influenced. The zombies on this film all have blood shot red eyes, extremely similar to the red eyes seen in Danny Boyles 28 Days Later (2002). I’m sure Fulci’s Zombie (1979) was influenced by this one as well! And for all its gut munching glory Romero’s Dawn of the Dead (1978) and Day of the Dead (1985) truly do owe a lot to this particular film which did it all waaaay before Romero ever did in Dawn and Day. You thought that zombie baby in Zack Snyder's Dawn of the Dead (2004) was original? That’s because you had not seen this film! So my friends, what we got in our hands with Let Sleeping Corpses Lie is a truly influential zombie film that is extremely underrated! I got sucked into this movie right away number one because of the beautiful way it was shot and number two because once things get going, the events turn really grizzly! A zombie film that needs more attention, so if you’re a zombie head like me; do yourself a favor and check this one out!

 
Rating: 5 out of 5
 

The Wolfman (2010)

Title: The Wolfman (2010)

Director: Joe Johnston

Cast: Benicio del Toro, Anthony Hopkins, Geraldine Chaplin, Hugo Weaving, Emily Blunt

Review:

Every once in a while Universal Studios will want to update one of their classics and usually when they do, they make sure that their classics are handled in the proper fashion they deserve. After all, they are classics. This careful remaking of their classics has led to some truly great films in the hands of some great directors like Francis Ford Coppola’s Bram Stokers Dracula (1992) and Kenneth Branagh’s Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein (1994). Two great “classy” remakes for two of Universal Studios most iconic monsters. Then came Stephen Sommers The Mummy (1999) which enjoyed huge box office success as well. But what of  The Wolfman? Why was it not remade during that wave of remakes that occurred during the 90’s? Truth is most movie studios are afraid of werewolf movies. With the rare exception (like An American Werewolf in London) werewolf movies aren’t that big at the box office. Still, somebody in Universal Studios decided the time was nigh for a remake of  The Wolfman, the classic horror film that was released in 1941 with Lon Chaney Jr. as the titular character. So, how did it turn out?

On this one, Lawrence Talbot (Benicio del Toro) is a renowned theater actor that returns home due to his brothers death at the hands of a wild animal. He wants to further investigate what happened to his brother, because as it stands, it’s not quite clear exactly how he died. So, Lawrence decides to visit the area where his brother’s body was found and starts asking questions. Too bad for him that a werewolf is on the prowl and savagely attacks him that night! Now he is infected with the curse and will soon turn into a werewolf himself! Will he be able to contain the beast within? Will the town’s people allow him to continue living?

So that’s the basic premise of the film. If you saw the original, then you should know how this one goes, but I will tell you this; this remake has some interesting twists and turns that I was not expecting. It’s a remake alright, but like any good remake, it goes in a different direction so as to not show us the same exact film we already saw before and that’s what I loved about this one! It complicates things even further. It’s not just a story about a guy who gets bitten by a werewolf and starts killing people. There’s drama here! There’s conflict that doesn’t just come from the battle between man and his animal side there is more to this film then that. I won’t go into it though because I don’t want to spoil the fun, but this movie is far more complex then its 1941 counterpart. What we have here is quite possibly one of the best werewolf movies ever made! I am not exxagerating when i say this, The Wolfman is at the top of the list as far as werewolf movies go in my book. It covers everything that a good werewolf movie should have, the story of a common man who is suddenly confronted with the prospect of turning into a savage killing machine when the full moon comes out. We see the mans struggle with his inner beast and we see him struggle with the consequences of his actions. It has the right ambiance and atmosphere, it has the perfect tone. As a werewolf movie, it left this horror fan extremely satasfied!

Since this is one of Universal Studio’s most important horror films (along with Dracula, Frankenstein and The Mummy) this film was obviously treated with extra special care. By that I mean that you can see the money on the screen. You can see those 85 million dollars they spent on art direction and special effects. This isn’t one of those movies where the film is said to have cost more then 100 million to make and you don’t see them on the screen. This film had lavish production values and sets. It makes the film that much more believable and that much more enjoyable to watch. The mansion in which Lawrence and his father live in is one spooky joint! Gigantic stairways, huge windows, dark lonely hallways, lots of taxidermy on the walls, animal horns, the place was extremely spooky looking. There are a couple of scenes that take place inside of an insane asylum, great set there as well! I really enjoyed the fact that this film is the quintessential classic horror film with all the elements required to make it classic. The atmosphere for example (much like its 1941 counterpart) is non stop! The fog doesn’t seem to stop rolling, the dead woods, the wolf howls, the full moons, the clouds, the spooky mansion, it’s all here! Then there is the muisc done by non other then the great Danny Elfman! I cant believe they actually had a problem with his score at one point. The guys music on this movie was pitch perfect. And its constant. In that way, this movie reminded me of horror films of old where music seems to dominate the whole film. They really made sure that this film felt like a horror film.

Aside from being influenced by Universal’s own 1941 version of  The Wolfman, I picked up influences from various other werewolf movies like for example John Landis’s An American Werewolf in London (1981). There’s this chaotic scene in which the werewolf is set loose on the city streets, which was similar in tone and pace to that same chaotic sequence in An American Werewolf in London in wich the werewolf goes on a killing spree on the streets of London. There was another scene in which Lawrence Talbot walks into a Tavern and all the towns people begin to talk about the werewolf, which was similar to the same scene in An American Werewolf in London when the two American kids walk into the “Slaughtered Lamb” and the locals fill them in on the whole werewolf myth. But then again, that same scene stems from older horror films, like the Hammer films. In a Hammer film, the good guys always walk into a tavern in which everyone is scared of the monster. Similar scenes on this new version of  The Wolfman reminded me of that.

The Werewolf transformations do not dissapoint!

And what about the werewolf transformations? The transformations were something that I’m sure a lot of horror fans are worried about. They are always a key sequence in any good werewolf film and should always blow the audience away. A lot of us keep thinking of how awful the marriage of CGI and werewolf transformations can be (scenes of Wes Craven’s Cursed (2005) come to mind) so with this new movie there was always that question of “will they get it right?” Well, I’m happy to inform you guys that yes, they did get it right. They successfully used the blend of CGI animation and actual make up effects work to convincingly bring the wolfman to life. Make up effects legend Rick Baker was the man involved in doing the make up effects work. As some of you may know, he handled the legendary werewolf transformations in An American Werewolf in London. Before this remake, there was no film that ever topped that transformation sequence. It’s always held the top spot as one of the best transformation sequences ever on any film. Well, I just saw The Wolfman, and I think that transformation sequence might just have found a contender! The transformation sequence are fantastic! The detail on these transformations is astounding, you can see the bones stretching, the skin stretching, the teeth emerging from the gums; astounding stuff! Beautiful marriage of computer effects and make up work. The film does not disappoint on this aspect, in fact, to be honest, this movie didn’t disappoint on any aspect as far as I’m concerned.

Joe Johnston is not one of those directors which has a distinctive style. His films are not instantly recognizable. Usually, Johnston’s films are fun, lighthearted and fall into the PG or PG-13 category; examples of this are Johnston’s Honey! I Shrunk the Kids (1989) and The Rocketeer (1991). To me Johnston is the go to guy for making a Hollywood film that plays by the rules, plays it safe. No artsy fartsy risky business here. He is the kind of director who will direct a film, tell the story, and follow the rules set by the studio. He is not what I would call a trouble maker of a director. This guy plays ball with the studio execs and makes the movie they want to see. And for The Wolfman, which is a film Universal Studios obviously cares much about, Joe Johnston was a good choice. At first I didn’t think it was a good choice at all, I thought someone edgier would have been more appropriate. But this movie proved me wrong! Plus, when we consider that Brett Ratner could have ended up directing this film, well, we should just start counting our blessing shouldnt we? Johnston’s visual effects background was perfect for this kind of fx heavy film. That, plus this wolfman movie has its werewolf balls firmly in place! Or nards as “Horace” from the Monster Squad would say.

This movie does not disappoint when it comes to graphic depictions of gore and violence! Thankfully, this film is a hard “R” which means it doesn’t pussy out on the gore. And it’s true, the film does not hold out on us in this aspect. When the wolfman appears, heads do role! And so do arms and limbs and anything else you can imagine. The wolfman on this movie is very violent, very much the murderous killing machine he is supposed to be. Thanks to the advancement on visual effects, we are able to follow the wolfman as he jumps from rooftop to rooftop, we follow him on his bloody killing spree. And it does get incredibly bloody! So be ready for that! Johnston does show some style in a choice nightmare sequence that I loved, be on the look out for that. So Johnston as a director handled his chores well, giving us a film that gives us the classic Universal horror film we and the studio were expecting but with just enough of an edge to keep things interesting.

As a final note, the cast was superb. As is expected of an important Universal production like this one, the cast is filled with 'class A' oscar nominated actors. Benicio del Toro has always been solid for me (21 Grams anyone?) and on this one he exceeds. He isn’t your typical good looking Hollywood model. His got this roughness to him, which of course was perfect for this role. Anthony Hopkins excels. He is the actor that studios go to when they want to give their films a bit of class, and this film is definitely a classy horror film. His character is one of the most interesting ones in the film playing the role of the guy who knows all about “the curse”. Kind of like the Van Helsing character in the Dracula movies, but with a twist. Hugo Weaving plays a smart and direct cop; his performance was one of the most enjoyable ones in the film as well. And finally, Emily Blunt has her moment to shine somewhere around the films last frames. Everyone did a commendable job, no complaints here.

In conclusion, this film does not disappoint in the least! In fact, the film excelled my expectations! The pacing is perfect, there is not a dull moment in sight, something exciting is happening all the time. The film has that classy horror film vibe to it, it’s got excellent make up effects, performances, and Joe Johnston did a great job directing it. It is a film that I’m sure will not disappoint horror fans in any sense of the word. It treats the classic film with respect, while taking things on a completely different route! Without a doubt in my mind, an excellent remake, and one of the best werewolf films I have seen.

Rating: 5 out of 5

Witchfinder General (1968)

Title: Witchfinder General (1968) a.k.a. The Conqueror Worm

Director: Michael Reeves

Stars: Vincent Price

Review:

Michael Reeves, the director of Witchfinder General was a director that started making films at a very young age. He directed four films in his life time before he died of a drug overdose a couple of months after Witchfinder General was completed. Reeves was a very driven person and could think of nothing else that he wanted to do except direct films. His repertoire included Castle of the Living Dead (1964) with Christopher Lee, Revenge of the Blood Beast (1966) with Barbara Steele, The Sorcerers (1967) with Boris Karloff and finally, Witchfinder General (1968) with Vincent Price. But it was Witchfinder General that got him noticed because of the violence portrayed in the picture, which was considered excessive at the time. The film was coproduced by Tigon Pictures and American International Pictures. Upon its release on the U.S. the title was changed to The Conqueror Worm, in order to capitalize on the success of Roger Corman’s Poe Cycle of films. They did this even though the film has nothing to do with Poe.

Witchfinder General takes place in the 17 century, right smack in the middle of the English Civil War. During this time, there was chaos in the land and the time was ripe for devious characters to take advantage of people. The church would send out its inquisitors to hunt down, torture and eventually kill any unbelievers, sorcerers, witches or anyone who followed any other religion other then Christianity. We follow a lawyer called Mathew Hopkins who appointed himself grand inquisitor. He would go around towns slaughtering people in the name of Jesus. Interesting part is that nor the Church nor Parliament ever appointed him as anything; he simply went around doing this on his own. It is hinted on this picture that he did it out of personal pleasure (the guy enjoyed killing what can I say?) and not because he had any interests in ridding the world of paganism. But on one of these murdering sprees he rapes a soldiers girlfriend (and kills her father!) so soon after the soldier goes on a hunt for the witchfinder himself, to avenge the death of his fiancé.

This film is considered by some to be one of the greatest horror movies ever made. It appeared in Total Film magazines best horror films ever made list. It was 15th on that list! Many critics agree (though many don’t as well) that this is a great horror film. With all the polarization going on with this film, I was eagerly awaiting the moment in which I would finally get to watch it. I will admit that the film does have a great look to it, it does have some beautiful shots of the English country side, it has Vincent Price in it, and it does have some violence in it, but I wouldn’t go and say that this is one of the best horror films ever. I personally found it to be a bit slow.

There are a couple of things that make this one noteworthy though. Number one, the films themes. There are a lot of films that deal with the abuse and death brought upon by the church, but the theme is always shocking to me no matter how many times its been depicted on film. I personally always find these historical events to be so nausea inducing. To try and force people into believing in something like Christianity (which at times preaches brotherly love and compassion) by using horrible methods of torture. What’s really great about this movie is that it points a finger at these events, and maybe this is why some people consider this film to be an important one. But to me that’s really not enough. Just because a film shines a light on a dark chapter of humanity does not make it a good film. In order to do that, the film has to be well written, acted and shot.

Another thing that makes this one noteworthy is that Vincent Price, who normally tends to over act in his films and hams things up on repeated films, is actually very evil on this movie. Michael Reeves didn’t want Vincent Price for this role; he really wanted Donald Pleasance for it. I think the reason for this was because Reeves wanted his witchfinder character to be menacing and not funny like Price often portrayed his characters. When you watch a Vincent Price film; you kind of get the vibe that he is having fun with the whole thing. You can see him trying to be funny with his performance. He would say his lines as if he was reading poetry in a theater play or something. Michael Reeves didn’t want that on this film. Reeves wanted to shoot a film with a somber evil tone to it. Not the campy type of film that AIP was producing at the time. So, Reeves molded Price’s performance on Witchfinder General to his liking. He would stop Price if he was doing his funny routine and would actually tell Price “don’t do that!” Supposedly, they never really got along during the shoot of this film, but in some strange way, this on set tension between director and actor helped produce Vincent Price’s most serious performance. So if you are looking for Vincent Prices hammy acting, you won’t find it here. It’s not only toned down, I would say Price’s hammy acting is non existent on Witchfinder General.

The film got a lot of heat upon its initial release because of its graphic violence. Back in 1968, people apparently didn’t have much resistance towards violence, because they really burnt this one at the stake for its depictions of torture and murder. You might watch this movie today and will probably think that the film needs more graphic violence and gore, but back in the 60s the violence quotient of this film was considered high. Personally, I didn’t think this movie was that violent. The methods of torture portrayed in the film are not the worst they could have chosen to show. There is one scene in which a character gets chopped to death with an axe, apparently this is supposed to be the most amazingly violent moment of the film, but to me it was such a disappointment, it wasn’t very well executed if you ask me, and you can tell the person isn’t really getting chopped up with the axe! The actor seems to be slightly tapping Price with the axe. The film has a rape sequence, but not graphic at all. So this movie isn’t really all that when it comes to violence as reviews and write ups of this movie might make you believe. Maybe at the time of its release it was considered shocking and graphic by people, but it cannot be qualified as such today. Not after the avalanche of torture porn films (like SAW) that we have been submitted to during the last decade.

And finally, my big issue with this movie is the pacing. It’s so dang SLOOOOOW! It drags and drags and drags! We go from one guy riding on a horse through the country something happens, then they get on the horse again and ride through the country side. Then, more shots of dudes riding horses! The thing with the horses bored me to tears. I also think that the violence sequences could have been handled more effectively, with a bit more intensity to them. Though I will say that the last sequence, where they are torturing a girl was effective. For its UK release, the censor boards actually got the screaming on this film edited down because it was so extensive!

Michael Reeves was set to direct The Oblong Box for American International, but that never happened due to Reeves death at the tender age of 25. Great things were expected from him as a film director, but we will never find out, since in my opinion he was half way through his growth as a filmmaker, he never really got a chance to fully mature into full blown cinematic genius. At least he left this film (considered his masterpiece by many) and influenced countless others that came after like Mark of the Devil (1970), and even Ken Russell’s The Devils (1971). And it even helped usher in a new cycle of Poe films like The Oblong Box (1969) and Murders in the Rue Morgue (1971). Also, Cry of the Banshee (1970) which was another American International Pictures production was essentially a rehash of this films storyline, with Vincent Price playing the witchfinder once again, pitting him against a coven of witches.

Finally, this film might interest some people as a historical film, as a form of exposing dark events in history, but as a horror movie or even as a film, I didn’t find it all that entertaining. It might have beautiful cinematography and a stern and more menacing then ever Price, but it was too slow paced and had way too many scenes of people riding horses from here to there.

Rating: 2 out of 5

Surrogates (2009)

Title: Surrogates (2009)

Director: Jonathan Mostow

Stars: Bruce Willis, Radha Mitchell, James Cromwell, Ving Rhames

Review:

The only extras included on the Surrogates DVD are a commentary from director Jonathan Mostow (Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines) and a music video by a band called Breaking Benjamin. The song is called “I will not Bow”. Immediately upon watching this music video I knew who this movie was made for. Teenagers. Teenage boys to be precise. I got nothing against teenagers (I was one too at some point!) what Im actually worried about is the type of shitty films that are being made for them! So anyways, I decided to watch part of the music video, just to see what kids are listening to nowadays. The song is so vomit inducing I stopped half way (sorry if I insulted any Breaking Benjamin fans) but watching this video helped me understand the main reason why this movie sucks so much. I mean it’s as if the filmmakers thought “this movie is for teenagers, we don’t have to explain things a lot, don’t take things too seriously!” You could almost feel the filmmakers not caring much for what they were making. You could almost hear them say “this is just a PG-13 sci-fi movie, lets hurry this thing along!”

The premise of this movie is that everybody has a cyborg that does everything for them. People don’t even bother to go out of their homes because the cyborg will do it for them. People have to connect to the cyborg at home while the cyborg goes out into the world and lives their life for them. This has its pros and cons. Pros are you don’t have to go out and risk anything. You don’t catch deceases; you can do dangerous things and not be afraid of dying. You can go out and get crazy without worrying about any negative repercussions. The downside? You’re not living your life. Your real body stays at home, it doesn’t get any exercise, and basically, you stop wanting to really live. You become so dependant of the machine that you become ashamed of your humanity and want to be the cyborg all the time. They market the surrogate experience as being “like real life…only better!”

Interesting premise for a movie no? Yeah, I thought so too. Unfortunately, it is executed in the worst way possible. I’m a huge science fiction nut, don’t know if you guys have noticed it, but I like to really watch science fiction movies. I love how society can be explored through them. And to some extent, this movie does explore a part of our society. It speaks about our dependency on technology, about our loss of humanity. And that’s all fine and dandy (and not all together new) but damn it, why did the movie have to be so bad? One of the major horrors of this movie, is its atrocious script. It never really dwells on anything too long. Its like a child with attention deficit disorder. It shows quick little snippets of information that we are supposed to take for granted just because a character said it. Explain something quickly, move on to the next thing.

Case in point? The leader of the “Human Coalition”. The character that Ving Rhames plays in the film. This is a very important character because it represents the counter point to the way things are. It’s the character that has to stand up for what is right. He has to stand up for the humans. How do we grasp that he is rebellious? That he hates machines? Well, there is this one five second scene where he is sitting in some sort of radio station thing. He grabs the microphone and says: “Look at yourselves. Unplug from your chairs get up and look at the mirror. What you see is how God made you. We’re not meant to experience the world through a machine!” and then he has to stop talking because the government has discovered him. I mean, is this how we “flesh out” a character in this movie? Is this how we know what this guy feels? Ving Rhames appears only about three times in the film. Briefly. We never really get to know him as a character, we only get to know his functionality. This is the leader of the rebels, that’s all you need to know. Pfft. And this is supposed to be the leader of the humans! The characters in this movie are about as superficial as the cyborgs that the film is criticizing. Not much attention was paid to characters and situations. This is as simple a script as they come. Some plot points are simply explained away in a sentence, and we are supposed to take them for granted. As a result, you know exactly where the film is headed, and the film is over before you can blink.

Another thing that bothered me a lot about this movie was that it had an epic storyline that was delivered in such a small scale. I don’t know if this has to do with the economy and with studios tightening their budgets, but this films storyline implied world wide repercussions, yet the film chooses to show only what happens in a small city street. (SPOILERS AHEAD) Like there’s this scene where all the surrogates are deactivated and I thought to myself “okay, this is where the shits really going to hit the fan, were going to see how this is going to affect the whole world” I mean, think about it. If everyone uses their cyborgs to live, that means that even people flying planes are using surrogates. This means that doctors performing operations are using surrogates. I was expecting to see the shutting off of the Surrogates to be a spectacular part of this film. Sadly, repercussions of this world affecting event is reduced to seeing a couple of small scale car crashes on one small city street. (END OF SPOILERS) This just showed me that this film was epic in scale, but not epic in execution. I felt cheated. That’s the best way to describe it. I felt that if I had seen this film in theaters, I would have felt like they stole my money.

The whole idea of robots doing everything for us and us loosing our humanity has been done before in way better films then this one. And since I think you shouldn’t even bother watching Surrogates, I have compiled a list of better films that address the same themes, only better. So take notes, for you will have yourself a far better time watching the following films then you ever will watching Surrogates.

Artificial Intelligence A.I. (2001) - Steven Spielberg’s A.I. Artificial Intelligence, now there’s a movie big in scale that explores these same themes in detail, not as if it was reading the cliff notes. Cause that’s what I felt like Surrogate’s script was like. As if I was reading the cliff notes for a much better film. A.I. is one of Spielberg’s masterpieces with excellent special effects, performances and it explores the whole aspect of artificial intelligence taking over our lives in much detail.

I, Robot (2004) – This film comes to us from Alex Proyas (Dark City, The Crow) and though I would never go as far as saying that its one of his best films (actually its one of his most commercial ones) its still better film then Surrogates. Its kind of like a murder mystery about the first “murder” committed by a robot. Will Smith investigates. Not awesome, not great, but a hell of a lot better then Surrogates.

Strange Days (1999) On Kathryn Bigelows Strange Days people also start preferring to live experiences through technological means rather then through real life. It also has a “leader of the revolution” that is being hunted down. The future in this film is not as squeaky clean as the one depicted in Surrogates. This is a grimy city on the verge of chaos. The film takes place on New Years Eve 1999, all the chaos and “end of the world” mentality that people had during the last year of the old millennium is executed very well thanks to Kathryn Bigelows excellent direction.

Brainstorm (1983) – This film stars Christopher Walken wanting to live in a virtual reality world. This film plays with a lot of the same themes as in Strange Days, actually Im sure this is the film that inspired Bigelow’s film. But this one gets a bit more philosophical with its implications. The characters on this movie have found a way to record human experiences, and once you put the magic helmet on, you can re-experience the whole thing. But what happens when the government wants to get a hold of it? And what happens when you record someones death? Can we see what happens after death?

So as you can see, when compared to these other movies, Surrogates treats its themes in a simple, child like matter. As if spoon feeding the audience, but with fast food instead of a nutritious meal.

I did like certain aspects of the film though. I mean, I liked the premise; I just didn’t like how they chose to execute it. I did enjoy the whole thing with everyone being a robot. I mean, lets face it. Sometimes when you go out into the world and see “the masses” humanity going about their business, you can’t help but think that we are all programmed in our own way. I actually love this theme of humans relying too much on technology; again, I just didn’t enjoy how they pulled it off on this particular film. But some of the visuals were cool, like these moment when Bruce Willis gets on a train and everyone on it is obviously a surrogate with their blank eyes and their plastic looking skin. I liked the idea behind the weapon that disables the surrogates. Unfortunately, this movie needed to think bigger, needed to explore its themes in a more elaborate way. Even this films action sequences are lackluster! There’s this chase sequence that involves a helicopter crashing into the ground. A great idea, if only the helicopter didn’t look so CGI!

Oh well, I’ve gone on long enough about how bad this movie is. It’s been quite a while since Id seen such a terrible movie. I mean, I guess every generation has its fare share of bad science fiction films. I remember when I was a kid (this was during the 80s) we got movies like Spacehunter: Adventures in the Forbidden Zone (1983) or Ice Pirates (1984). They might not have been great films, but at least those teenage oriented sci-fi films were fun to watch. Watching a film like Surrogates is just painful.

Rating: 1 ½ out of 5

Twice Told Tales (1963)

Title: Twice Told Tales (1963)

Director: Sidney Salkow

Stars: Vincent Price, Sebastian Cabot, Beverly Garland

Review:

American International Pictures made many anthology movies in the 60s, some of which I have reviewed on this blog already. They were phenomenal successes during those days because they captured that feeling you got from reading one of those old EC comics that were so popular during the 50s and 60s. But this anthology film thing wasn’t an idea exclusive to the folks at American International. United Artist decided they would take a stab at this whole anthology thing business, since it was making so much money at the box office. But they couldn’t do movies based on Poe, because Roger Corman was already doing that. So they decided to go with Nathaniel Hawthorne and adapt some of his stories for the silver screen. How was United Artist’s attempt at making a Roger Corman style anthology flick?

As is expected in an anthology film, it is divided into various tales. On this particular film we have three different stories. I will be reviewing each story separately, since I guess it is a more appropriate manner of reviewing an anthology film.

The first of the stories is entitled Dr. Heidegger’s Experiment and it’s about a man named Sebastian who is celebrating his 79th birthday. So he invites his old friend Alex (Vincent Price) to reminisce about the good old days when they were strapping young lads. At one point Sebastian begins to talk about his fiancé, the one who died the day before they were to be married. You see, Sebastian is a man who never remarried, because the love he had for his fiancé was so strong. His love for her is so strong, that he has her buried in a mausoleum right next to his house! On this particularly stormy night, a lightning bolt has just struck the mausoleum! The door is opened! Could something be amiss? They both decide to visit the old crypt and find Sebastian’s fiancé’s body is completely untouched by the ravages of time! She has not decomposed a bit! Together, Sebastian and Alex are about to discover the mysteries to eternal life! Or are they?

Out of the three stories in this film, this is the one that better captures that feeling from Corman’s Poe films. It takes place in an old mansion next to the sea, there’s a fierce lightning storm outside, and the mansion is filled with old paintings of people who are long gone. There’s an old crypt, a corpse and a morbid tale ensues. Out of the three, I definitely think this is the best one. Too bad the first one is the best one; because that only means that the film goes a bit downhill after this one is through. They kind of like made this first story the spookiest, the coolest, so they can grab you and give you a quick jolt of spooky satisfaction before forcing upon you the two other lackluster stories. But Dr. Heidegger’s Experiment is a fun ride, actually, I think this story might have been the one that inspired Robert Zemecki’s to make Death Becomes Her (1988). The similarities between Death Becomes Her and this little story are astounding! An Elixir of life! A love triangle! Lover’s coming back to life! The Elixir has its downside! I think you will agree with me once you see it.

The second story is entitled Rapaccini’s Daughter and it’s about this old man named Giacomo Rapaccini (Vincent Price). He is a fervent Christian who doesn’t want his daughter to fall into “sin”, so what does he do? He creates a special potion that turns her skin deadly to human touch! In this way, no one will dare touch her and in this way Rapaccini ensures that his daughter doesn’t fall into the shameful sin of fornication or whatever. This becomes a problem for Rapaccini’s Daughter because she cannot kiss or hug anyone! It becomes an even bigger problem when this young guy constantly tries to win her affections, and she falls for him. Will she ever get to be with her loved one? Will her afflicted state ever change or will she remain untouched by human hands for ever?

This story is the least horror oriented of the three. It has some sci-fi elements though. The whole thing with Rapaccini coming up with this concoction that renders his daughters skin untouchable. Things get kind of funny because whenever the girl touches anything, it turns purple and dies! The special potion comes from this weird purple plant that Rapaccini has in his garden, and if anyone touches the plant, they turn purple and die as well! There’s this funny scene where a gerbil turns purple. This story plays out more like Romeo and Juliet than Tales from the Crypt.

Finally, we have House of the Seven Gables, which isn’t actually based on a short story but on a novel of Nathaniel Hawthorne’s. Story is about a family that lives in a haunted house. You see, many years ago, this home use to belong to the Moll family, but they lost the house in a bad deal to the Pyncheon family. Now, the ghost wants revenge!

The film was translated on to comic book form by DELL comics

This story is a ghost story, but it’s delivered in such a cheesy fashion. I really didn’t like this story either. But basically, these two families are fighting over this ancient house, and the rightful owner, who is dead, is pissed off about it. The story does try to end things in a big way by having a scene where the house is literally ripping itself apart and blood is coming out of the walls, the cracks and the ceiling. And a huge earthquake rips the whole house apart. I guess they must have gone through a lot to get that done back in those days, but its still doesn’t save the story from being so-so. On top of that, the ending is so cheesy! A flying skeleton hand flies out and tries to kill Vincent Price! What a rip off! Is this your big finale? A cheap looking skeleton hand? I was so disappointed by this, and was even more surprised to see that this big let down of a sequence actually appears on the films poster. Argh!

In conclusion, this was United Artist’s attempt to do what American International Films was doing so well, but sadly, they failed miserably. I’m sorry to say that Twice Told Tales was a huge let down. I guess that just proves that it’s who’s behind the cameras that matters. And neither Roger Corman nor Mario Bava where involved here. Twice Told Tales was just a badly made imitation of something that AIP was doing right. What did United Artist and director Sidney Salkow think, that just because they borrowed Vincent Price that would automatically make everything alright? Guess what? It didn’t. This isn’t a horrible film, theres some fun to be had here, thanks to Vincent Price. But with the exception of the first story, this one is a step down from what Corman was offering us with his Poe Cycle of films.

Rating: 2 out of 5