Muffy-5

I picked up the DVD for "Motel Hell," and -- after getting a few good laughs out of it -- decided to watch the double-feature as well. I expected a cheap, gratuitous exploitation film with no redeeming features. What I got was a surprisingly subdued, well-made, and well-acted film that -- strangely -- had a lot of heart and compassion in it. And it's funny too, but in a down-to-earth manner. You could almost view this as an homage to Ed Gein, as opposed to an expose.

I also got a kick out of the crime reporter who kept on popping up in the scenes, waxing eloquent about "Ezra's" horrible habits, while Ezra himself sits next to the reporter, going about his business.

"Deranged" is a very strange movie, but not in an over-the-top way. It's strange with everyday life: the family who tells Ezra to stop kidding around when he repeatedly talks about committing the well-publicized crimes in the area, the old guy in the bar who talks trash about the state of his withered sex organs, and -- best of all -- the woman who uses her dead husband to seduce Ezra. Speaking of which, this lead to my favourite line in the film, as Ezra describes this woman to his mummified mother: "You were right, momma, she sure is fat! And I like that. But it would be scary to get stuck in all that fat. Real scary. I'd better take something along to protect myself."

As uneven as this movie is, it's got a strange oddball charm, as though the people involved felt they were creating a cross between an enduring work of art and a true-life crime story, but threw in a healthy dose of gore in order to make it more interesting. I'm glad I watched it, and would gladly see it again.

Yup, I'm a fan of the 70's horror genre. I rented the 1000 Corpses DVD knowing full well that it was paying homage to those films (particularly "Texas Chainsaw Massacre"), that it was an edited version of the movie, and that reviews of the film were -- at best -- mixed.

Well, my review is mixed too. Let me say, first, what I like about this film:

It's exuberant. It's cheerful, in a sicko sort of way. It's got all the relentless screaming and running and twisty passages that take me back to my childhood. It's creative and quirky and funny at times. Sid Haig is perfect as Captain Spaulding, the good ol' boy clown with a bad attitude. Karen Black was tailor-made for Madame Firefly's hicky, twisted, over-sexed but not-entirely-there routine. And I've got to say, Tiny, Doctor Satan and The Professor are inspired, horrific inventions that I won't be forgetting anytime soon.

This movie grabs some of the more memborable parts of Texas Chainsaw Massacre: a quirky group of teens who aren't particularly likeable, an inbred family who hunts humans and which operates on a mysterious, mythological logic that makes no sense to their victims. You've also got a female character who is singled out and tormented for a long time as she runs from one bizarre set to another.

But the problem is, this film didn't bother enough with character development. The TCM teens were notable because they seemed REAL, while the 1000 Corpses teens are caricatures (the slacker, the uptight one, the bitchy girlfriend, the nice girlfriend). Sure, they have interesting quirks, but they're barely integrated into the film.

The same goes for the actual family. While the TCM families all had a coherance to them, you really can't see how Otis, Tiny, Baby and the rest all relate to each-other. What's more, Baby is a terrible actress. Her oft-repeated laugh sent shivers down my spine, not because it was creepy, but because it sounded weak and forced and was always put in the forefront of the scenes. Granted, her "Boop-Boop-A-Doo" routine was great, but she simply cannot play a crazy person. Her rabbit fairy-tale speech is the most embarassing thing I've ever seen on film. Hey Rob, enough with the girlfriend/wife-in-a-major-role stuff, it's bad.

Bill Mosely flounders as well, strangely enough, considering he excelled as "Chop Top" in TCM 2. Here he seems tired and always one step behind his lines, as though he doesn't know what they mean. Otis is a poor Chop Top impersonation...sort of Chop Top with a bad cold, 20 years later.

Stick with the movie. The final 20 minutes -- while seemingly disconnected from the rest of the film -- are disturbing, if not actually frightening. I'm willing to give Rob Zombie the benefit of the doubt, that maybe this film suffered from a vicious editing job, and that a Director's Cut will redeem it in the future. I can see this becoming a cult phenomenon, and though it's desperately trying to be one I think it still deserves it: a lot of inspiration went into this movie, and it's just weird enough to pull it off. Some of the time.

And if you're watching the extras on the DVD, be sure to check out the Tiny Stump jokes. This is what I like about this movie: people seemed to be having fun, even when the material was bad.

I first saw "Day of the Locust" because I thought Karen Black was keen. I liked the film, but I can't say I understood its point at the time. What's with the faceless people, Sutherland's hands, and the angry dwarf? Sounds like David Lynch to me, especially in light of "Mulholland Drive" and its scathing, unsympathetic view of Hollywood (it even has a cowboy!)

I finally got around to reading the Nathanael West novel -- which is absolutely brilliant -- and decided to watch the film again. And I need to say that, as much as I still appreciate and enjoy the movie, it really missed the boat, trying to cram bits and pieces of ideas from the novel (the strange, artificial relationship between Faye and her father, the barely-restrained violence of those who "come to Hollywood to die," the anachronistic and cold facade of Hollywood and the people in charge of it), meanwhile stuffing in some 70's ideas, reflecting back on the beginnings of WWII (which wasn't an issue in the book at all), and -- strangely enough -- adding warmth and humanity to characters whose sole characteristic (in the novel) was that they had NO warmth or humanity whatsoever.

And that's the weird thing about this movie. I remember, when I first saw it, I was amazed at how unlikeable all the characters were. After reading the book, however, I can say that the characters in the movie are FAR TOO likeable to support any of the book's themes. This is most notable when it comes to Faye's little breakdowns, letting the viewer know that she's really a good person who wants to be loved, turning her into a VICTIM of the star system. But the point of the book -- as I gathered, anyway -- was that these people aren't victims at all. They're greedy people who victimize each-other, and usually in sloppy, stupid ways ("Jeepers, Creepers!") Faye isn't capable of an unaffected tender moment, all she can do is pretend. The same goes for her father: even his moments of genuine sickness and pain are filtered through his never-ending vaudeville routine.

Homer Simpson, as well, is portrayed (in the film) as a sort of unfortunate lump, and a bible-thumper to boot, taken advantage of by Faye. But that destroys one of the great levels of nastiness in the novel: Homer is just as much as an opportunist as Faye, and he deserves everything he gets. Why is he being so generous, letting her stay with him and hold cock-fights in his garage? Because he's a pathetic, incapable human being who barely has a human feature to him: he's just a collection of nervous ticks. He lusts after her, and he seems to delight in his thwarted lust. He's got less going for him than that lizard on the cactus, eating flies.

The film suffers from an attempt to make the characters likeable, almost without exception. The only person who escapes this "Hollywood-ization" of the book is Adore, the horrible child star whose fate nobody who has seen the movie (or read the book) will ever forget. Jeez!

If you find yourself watching this movie and "just not getting it," do yourself a favour and read the book. It won't make the movie any clearer, but you can at least view the movie as a clear-cut example of the sort of thing the book was pointing out and railing against, way back in 1939 when this idea was still a novel one: Hollywood films are manipulative and full of fakery, and so are humans in general, and people in general are also ghoulish and horrible, and no amount of eyelash-fluttering or smooth tango-dancing will disguise that. You might be the owner of a big studio and have an inflatable dead horse in your pool, but you still can't relate to your wife, and the only thing left in your life is pathetic thrill-seeking (cock-fights, cheesy stag flicks).

(Incidentally, I'm amazed at how many quirky things ended up in the screenplay that WEREN'T part of the book! Kudos to the scriptwriter for that at least!)