Silver Screen Werewolves

Can you name all the movies?

Then you're smarter than me. Heck, I've never even seen Waxwork. I know... I suck. Fixing that soon. I didn't see Howling Reborn either, but I'm proud of that. 7 was bad enough without them trying to melt my soul in sparkly-vampire-are-you-fuckin-idiots-really-trying-to-ripoff-Twilight trash.

Kinda surprising how many of these you forget about. This isn't all of them either. Know of any I'm missing? I'll keep updating this with more. I love seeing them all side by side.

So glad 99% of these are practical makeup. The CG ones are embarrassing, and they've only gotten worse with age. Actually, I take that back. The Van Helsing one always looked like shit.

My favorite would have to be An American Werewolf in London.

The Fly Deleted Scene

Joe Bob Briggs and TNT's never-should've-been-canceled-how-stupid-are-those-fuckin-idiots MonsterVision is how I first heard about this. It sounded like the coolest thing in the world at the time, and I kept hoping one day I'd be able to see it. Thanks to that awesome two-disc collector's edition that was released on DVD (with a very long and incredible making of documentary), my wish finally came true. Now if only we could get the steamroller crushing a kid's head scene from Maximum Overdrive, I could rest in peace.

Give Me More Dexter

 Just watched the season 7 trailer. I usually avoid stuff like that to steer clear of spoilers especially with TV shows, but I couldn't help it. Sadly, I read this season is going to continue the much-loathed inappropriate feelings crap from the end of last year (biologically, they share the same father: Harry had an affair with Dexter's mom). Really not a fan of that, but I love the show. Maybe they'll find a way to salvage that... I don't know. Either way though, I'll be watching. Anyway, here are some interviews with Michael C. Hall about meeting fans, doing a little "research" in NYC, etc.

Fear on Film Roundtable with John Carpenter, David Cronenberg, and John Landis

See them discuss three horror masterpieces: The Thing, The Fly, and An American Werewolf in London.

Something for Joe Bob Briggs Fans

Damn, I miss MonsterVision.


And here's some vintage Job Bob for you.

Review: Unforgiven (1992)

When you first see Will Munny, he isn't the kind of man you expect, both from Eastwood's past famous roles and your typical western. The opening and closing bookends emphasize this further by highlighting Munny's reputation ("a known thief and murderer, a man of notoriously vicious and intemperate disposition") versus the obviously different person his wife knew. Indeed the first time we meet him he's falling down in some mud trying desperately to round up some hogs. Quite the opposite of a badass, and the arrogant Schofield Kid is quick to point this out.

It's brilliant the way these characters are developed. Munny instantly becomes sympathetic because you see him as a father working hard to provide for his kids but failing miserably. It becomes a running gag how Munny can't even get on his horse without a ton of trouble. Very few movies can take a character you laugh at and turn him into such a fierce fearless man you wouldn't dare chuckle around him, but Unforgiven does that flawlessly. Right from the start, it's building him up as a three-dimensional protagonist with different sides to him.

What's equally as incredible is developing Little Bill as a real person too. At first, you might think Little Bill's sense of justice is warped since the assault on the prostitute doesn't get a punishment befitting the crime, but even if you think Little Bill is too lax here, the reasoning behind his decision is a noble one: he's trying to avoid further bloodshed. The first confrontation between Little Bill and English Bob again plays with the dichotomy of appearance versus reality by making Little Bill seem quite ruthless in his savage attack on an unarmed man. You learn later though how English Bob is a liar, boasting of heroic acts when he did nothing of the sort, and again, Little Bill is trying to prevent lawlessness and murder in his town. But you see another side to Little Bill when you find out how truly awful he is at building a house. This humanizes him. The way this script handles its characters is just extraordinary.

One of my favorite moments is after the Schofield Kid takes his first life and realizes he isn't like Will. It's such a clear contrast that really distinguishes both characters. You realize the Schofield Kid was all talk. Having actually murdered someone, he's disgusted and haunted by it. It shows you how ugly violence really is.

I don't know what it is about Morgan Freeman, but he automatically comes across as sympathetic just because of the way he looks. He never seems like a bad man, and of course, he isn't in this movie even if he did some terrible things in his past like Will. But Ned is really so crucial to the narrative of this film. He has a chance to kill one of the cowboys, but he can't do it. So he's innocent, and thus, it makes perfect sense from a storytelling perspective that he's the one Little Bill tortures and kills. It's a great twist of irony, and it puts you in the protagonist's shoes. You want Little Bill to pay. It doesn't matter who Munny was before. "That's right. I've killed women and children. I've killed just about everything that walks or crawls at one point or another, and I'm here to kill you Little Bill for what you did to Ned." It's such an amazing scene lifted up to such colossal heights by every beat that came before it.

And I love the use of thunder and rain in this film. It really helps establish the atmosphere and the tension especially in the climax. Such a simple thing can go a long way when used right.

Here's something sad and disturbing. Even a masterpiece like this can get shit reviews. Just check out this link on IMDb:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0105695/reviews?filter=hate

People complain the dialogue is poor, the acting is "horrible," the movie is boring, Eastwood is too old, etc. Someone even has the audacity to call it "one of the worst westerns around." You've got to be fuckin kidding me. How unfortunate is it that no matter how great of a movie you make, some people are always going to shit on it.

New Predator Drawings

I used to draw all the time as a kid. One of my elementary teachers told everyone to draw a clown, but I hated clowns so I drew a Predator choking a clown. The teacher liked it so much she put it up on the wall in the hallway. Here are some new sketches.

A Foreign Filmmakers' Guide to Hollywood

Want to know why Hollywood is so fuckin awful? Why
The Ring Two turned out to be an utter piece of trash? It's not Hideo Nakata's fault. Sadly, you'll probably never get to see this in the US, and I'm sure there's a reason for that. This documentary pretty much shows how Nakata got screwed over again and again while trying to make his debut US film. The Japanese filmmaker directed the original Ringu as well as its Japanese sequel and several other films like Dark Water. Obviously, he's talented so what happened? Why did the sequel to the American remake end up as such a disaster? Here's a clue: Walter Parkes, producer of both the American remake and its sequel. This guy seemingly praises Nakata while it's revealed that he undercut him on almost every decision, questioning Nakata simply to cover his own ass in case the movie bombed. Welcome to Hollywood where every jackass with a title tosses out words like "franchise" and begins every sentence with "we" in order to absolve themselves of any personal responsibility. It's pretty sad actually. Nakata got the script for filming just 11 weeks before they were going to start shooting. What's wrong with that picture? You set a date to start filming before you have a director? The guy who is supposed to steer the ship has no clue about where he's going or why until a couple months before? And the guy with actual directing and storytelling experience gets no input on the script? You better believe Ridley Scott and Steven Spielberg, the two examples of "sovereign state directors" Parkes mentions, get input on the script and develop it years before shooting.

One thing consistently pops up watching this documentary, and it's the realization that it's a miracle we get any good movies out of such a broken ridiculous system. Nakata has tons of experience yet he is considered "a first-time American director" by Parkes who hasn't directed a single film in his life (sorry pal, one 55-min documentary seen by no one doesn't count). Nakata is just thought of as a "risk" by Parkes. A big-headed producer like Parkes who really wants to direct and thinks he knows everything is more of a risk than anything.

Take it from Nakata. Hollywood fuckin sucks.

The most revealing moment is when Nakata brings up how Parkes called him in to reshoot an exterior shot of a house. That's right. The producer told the director to reshoot something. Why? Because Parkes didn't like the location. Something he should've mentioned five million years ago when they scouted locations. Parkes even says the shot was stylistically well done and atmospheric and "everything you wanted" yet obviously, it wasn't what Parkes wanted. Parkes complained the farm house looked too "ordinary." Was he expecting a bat cave? Who the fuck is the director here? Nakata even says he was paralyzed. Why? Because he just got stabbed in the back. Parkes admits he may have been overreacting since the shot is in the movie and "it's fine." The way he tries to sleaze his way out of any wrong doing is quite extraordinary by claiming Nakata just wasn't used to having all the Hollywood tools at his disposal so Parkes wanted him to take advantage of that. Bullshit.

You also find out Parkes kept telling Nakata to move the camera to which Nakata responded, "We are moving the camera when necessary. But if it's not necessary, why should we move the camera all the time?" You see this a ton in Hollywood films. The camera is always moving for no fuckin reason, and it's stupid. It's because the filmmakers lack the confidence to know what they're doing is working, and they think moving the camera all the time is what big budget movies do. It's shockingly retarded. Shut the fuck up and let Nakata direct.

You also get more of an understanding of how people in Hollywood talk just by watching the types in this documentary. Julien Thuan says how he really loved the style of Ringu and then that he saw Chaos afterwards. What does he specifically say about Chaos? Pay attention to this: he had a "real appreciation for Chaos," but then he goes on about Ringu and Dark Water aka he didn't like Chaos. But of course, he's not going to come out and say that. Hell no. Honesty? What's that? Good ole Hollywood where stab you in the back is the modus operandi. Fantastic.

Hideo Nakata directing in shitville Hollywood.

Even Roy Lee, an executive producer on The Ring Two and someone who was clearly on Nakata's side, calls the development process a "very painful, tedious long process" that becomes a "mind-numbing affair of everyone trying to put their input." As if that wasn't bad enough, he explains you also have to deal with the corporate level of the studio and trying to make the product appeal as much as possible to the masses wherein often the filmmaker's message gets diluted. So no wonder so many films get compromised and transformed into a hideous abomination of their former selves. Lee is one of the few people in this documentary besides the great Hans Zimmer who talks like a normal honest person.

Joe Menosky is another, and his comments are also revealing about the cluster fuck that is Hollywood. Prompted by Nakata who questions why they so often change writers for no good reason (let that sink in for a bit), Menosky, a screenwriter himself with many credits, tells how a new writer represents progress to studio execs and how that is "institutionalized behavior." Who the hell would ever want to go to Hollywood? It's all too clear the only way you could make something good is if you have the power and the freedom to do what you want but even then you'd have to deal with producers and studio execs. Plus, you could still screw it up yourself. It's just unbelievable how fucked up things are out there.

Menosky also goes on to reveal how projects are usually sold without a script so money is spent without anyone knowing what the hell they're doing. Excellent. That makes sense. Michele Weisler, another honest voice, explains how studios are basically run on fear. Studio execs' fear that they're going to lose their jobs if they haven't gotten a ton of movies made (quality be damned), and the studios are no longer run by filmmakers like they used to be. Now, it's just a bunch of corporations so it's all about the bottom line.

The man who brought us Ringu deserves some respect.

This documentary is also fantastic just in the way Nakata describes the extreme differences between the Japanese system of making films and Hollywood. In Japan, everyone follows the director, and they don't question him. Nakata also wisely points out the flaw of that system: blindly following someone can prevent the amazing spark that can only come out of intense creative collaboration where cast and crew can give their input to make something better. It's pretty obvious which system is better for filmmakers though. In Hollywood, somebody with no experience whatsoever is often in a position of power, and they will screw with the writer or director just to flex their muscles.

The crazy thing about all the stuff in this documentary is it's all for a sequel to a very successful horror film. Imagine the pain you have to go through to get something original made. Jonathan Liebesman, the director of Darkness Falls and Rings among plenty of others, chimes in on how "studios have a tendency to make you feel insecure about what you're doing sometimes, and so you'll find yourself shooting a lot of coverage just to cover yourself without really focusing on what you want to do." Just think about that for a while.

The title of this documentary doesn't do it justice. This isn't just a foreign filmmakers' guide to Hollywood. It's anybody's guide to how truly fucked up Hollywood is and why you have to do everything you can to avoid it like the plague.

Hollywood, on behalf of Hideo Nakata, go fuck yourself.

John Carpenter's The Thing Deleted Scenes and Alternate Ending

Just found this. I had read about this alternate ending before, which was supposedly used in some TV versions. I'd still like to see the MacReady blood test ending, but I'm sure that'll never get out, and it's not like it'd be riveting to watch anyway. The deleted Burke cocoon scene in Aliens should've been a lot of fun to see, but it was just disappointing and awkward (Reiser's performance in it was terrible). Of course, that makes sense since Cameron didn't put it in the Special Edition. Still, it's interesting to see new footage. Feels almost like a glimpse into dimension X.

The Expendables 2 TV Spot

This better be rated R with a ton of squibs and practical blood FX.

Alien Magazine Covers

Alien and Aliens: the perfect combo. I love them. I bought pretty much anything with their logo. I even love the Kenner toys. Yes, they suck. I mean they are ridiculously awful (Bishop has a giant fuckin gattling gun! did they watch the movie?!?! he gives back the pistol Vasquez tries to hand him), but I still love 'em. Anyway, in honor of that, feast your eyes on these:

Badass Creature: Pumpkinhead

I always loved going to VHS stores and roaming around the aisles, looking at all the covers. Pumpkinhead was always one of my favorites. The design of the creature is outstanding, and I just found this UK VHS cover I had never seen before.


And here's my shitacular drawing of him.

Is Avatar really Dances with Wolves in space?

Even Cameron himself has said as much in response to critics trying to use this against the film (and this was clearly a conscious decision as proved by the Native American dreamcatcher in Selfridge's office). Since everyone has pointed out how much the two are alike, let's look at how they are different:

1) Jake is a paraplegic. You don't often see tentpole sci-fi blockbusters where the lead is stuck in a wheel chair. True, there's a way out of this for him, and Cameron is repeating his own work on Dark Angel, but still, he deserves some credit.

2) The very title Avatar highlights a key story distinction and something we haven't really seen before in live action: transferring one's consciousness into an alien body.

3) The planet Pandora with its unique wildlife, landscape, and bioluminescence. Yes, there are horse-type creatures, but there are also many, many others that are completely original.

4) Sigourney Weaver's character Grace is not in Dances with Wolves. Neither is Norm or Trudy (she would've been the equivalent to a Union soldier defecting to help Lt. Dunbar). Most importantly, there is no Colonel Quaritch. Considering how crucial he is to the narrative of Avatar (main antagonist, present from beginning to end and my favorite character), this is a pivotal point.

5) The ending is not the same at all. Dances with Wolves is rather anti-climatic and depressing. Avatar is anything but, and it has like 30 min of amazing, extremely-well-choreographed action.

These are just some of the major differences, but there are a ton more. Obviously, Avatar is not simply Dances with Wolves in space. That is a rather crude unfair assessment. Rewatch them both back-to-back to see what I mean. I really liked Avatar, and I'm anxious to see what Cameron does with the sequel. If there's one person who understands how to make a good sequel, it's him.

But it's interesting to look at what Cameron and Ridley Scott are doing right now. Cameron has gone more toward PG-13 love story epics (Titanic, Avatar) while Scott is still going hard R with a return to his Alien roots in Prometheus (plus, he gave us Gladiator, Black Hawk Down, American Gangster, etc.). Both have now embraced 3D and are working with pretty monumental budgets. I would argue both are still at the top of their game although I wish Cameron would go back to R-rated fare (you can't beat Aliens, Terminator, T2). I know the rating doesn't necessarily dictate quality, but if you compare Aliens and Avatar side by side, there is a distinct contrast compounded by the gritty nature of the former with its harsh language, gruesome on-screen deaths (plenty of the red stuff), and nightmarish xenomorphs. People still die in Avatar, but their face isn't getting melted off by acid. Ah, the good ole days...

Why The Thing Prequel Sucks

This is how painful it is to watch this piece of shit.

1. The mystery of Carpenter's infamous opening has been replaced by a typical boring "We found something so let's investigate even if it came from a spaceship and looks like a monster that will more than likely devour us." The film doesn't start in medias res to shake things up, which might be a good idea if your audience already knows what you're doing. Instead the prequel has a predictable and cliche setup with no hook to keep us interested. Simply discovering the UFO from the first film DOES NOT WORK especially when the people who find it are trapped in such a way they could never get back to their camp (seriously, their snowcat was stuck hundreds of feet down an ice chasm with a ten story drop to a metal ship). Carpenter could've had his movie begin just like this one, but he opted to do something smart and interesting instead.

2. The audience is ahead of the movie before it even starts. We already know what's coming, and it's clear the filmmakers are treading the same territory without trying something new. MacReady was a helicopter pilot so you do the same exact thing with the new male hero? How thrilling. If Cameron had opted to do another haunted house in space film like Ridley Scott, do you think Aliens would've been so damn good?

3. The creature itself has apparently gone full retard. It breaks out of the ice in front of two witnesses and alerts everyone to its presence. This completely contradicts everything about it that was established in Carpenter's film.

The one universal truth of bad horror films: morons deserve to die.

4. You get the ridiculous "I hear a noise so let me go die a total idiot" moment. Never seen that before...

5. Right after the creature claims its first onscreen victim in front of another witness that it leaves alive, it STAYS in the same spot so everyone can run over to shoot it and burn it. How fucking stupid is this thing? It's outside. It can run and hide anywhere. It never even tries to attack the people who are killing it. There is a scene like this in Carpenter's version except it did actually try to fight back as well as flee but then the creature was in a confined space so it couldn't escape so easily (it was also busy absorbing a lot of dogs). But here's a thought: STOP RIPPING OFF THE SAME FUCKIN SCENES AND MAKING THEM SHITTIER.

6. CG breath. When Carpenter made his film, it was actually cold since they shot on a glacier, and even when they did some shots later on sound stages, they made sure it was nearly freezing on the set. It makes a big difference both to the performances of the actors and the audience watching.

7. Same exact dissection scene. Why is this a bad idea? We've seen it before, and you're not going to top it especially not when you have the asshole in charge tell the pretty girl to help pry open the monster's stomach. If she is supposed to be smart, why would she touch that thing?

8. There's a dog guy just like in Carpenter's except you groan seeing him, because it's all too clear this is a poor imitation of an all-time classic horror movie.

You spent millions of dollars on this? WTF?

9. Use practical effects! USE PRACTICAL FUCKING EFFECTS! Then your monster won't look like an awful video game graphic. The face splitting effect on the helicopter looked HORRIBLE.

10. The sets look like sets, and they're overlit. Shadows are incredibly important in horror films... did you even see Carpenter's?

11. Don't show obvious CGI when someone looks through a microscope. I'm sure this is a shocker but let us see what cells actually look like when you use a microscope then you could digitally manipulate real footage so it doesn't look like fake shit or get real footage of a virus attacking cells! You have millions of dollars for fuck's sake! This isn't rocket science!

12. When the score isn't copying Morricone's, it sucks. Probably any music was doomed to fail here. You can't compete with Ennio Morricone. The best thing would've been to use very little music since it kills tension anyway and then when appropriate, use Morricone.

Who the fuck is this guy? I watched the movie, and I still don't know. Beard man #5.

13. Carpenter's film had distinct character actors with unique traits for them to play so each one stood out on his own and became memorable. They seemed like real people with a lot of contrast between them. In this prequel, you don't know who the hell most of the people are. They all blend together, and you couldn't care less about them. There's almost zero character development. You can really appreciate the genius of what Carpenter did when you look at this. There are still a lot of characters in his film but you remember them. They're not just faces with anyone-could've-said-this lines. In Carpenter's remake, you also got a sense of what it was like to be up at the Antarctic for so long. You saw them rewatching old VHS tapes, how fucking boring it was, the fact MacReady drank a lot while playing computer chess with a "cheating bitch," etc. Aside from one early joke (which is dialogue that doesn't show anything), it doesn't seem like being up there is much of a pain at all. You could tell the opposite was true just by the look on the faces of Carpenter's actors.

14. Mary Elizabeth Winstead (she really doesn't have much of a character except we know her occupation) gives the same speech MacReady gives right after they do the same exact thing... burning bodies outside in the snow. You can't just copy Carpenter's story beats. That will never fucking work, and you're constantly reminding us how much better Carpenter's version was. Think about T2. Is that the same story as the first? No, you have two Terminators racing to Sarah's son where the bad guy from the first film becomes the hero and then you have a boy becoming friends with a machine. Connor herself is different. It's not recycling the same shit.

15. Why would all these guys follow Mary Elizabeth Winstead? They've been up there a long time so I find it hard to believe no one tries to hit on her or make advances or anything. She is a very beautiful girl too, which just makes it even more unrealistic. No one questions her being in charge. They all just magically stand around and listen to her during MacReady's speech. This is supposed to be in the 80s too, and she's a foreigner up there at the Norwegian camp.

Watch out! That cartoon is going to eat you!

16. I like the idea of the creature not being able to copy inorganic material, but as far as black fillings and things, it could copy the color and shape if not the exact material because otherwise it would have to make something new in place of the other (ie white teeth where there were black fillings). Carpenter's blood test scene was a million times better and part of that is the lack of music during the scene, which increased the tension. One thing I did appreciate is the creature didn't reveal itself for no reason, which makes you question the test (the fact it hides so well here though and not when it first erupts out of the ice just underlines the shitactular quality of that earlier scene and the fact they didn't put much thought into it). And of course, I like the fact you realize the test ultimately failed, but then you see a shit ton of awful CGI to negate that positive.

17. When the MacReady-like character (I don't even know this prequel character's name) desperately needs to use his flamethrower, the exact same thing happens as in Carpenter's version where the weapon malfunctions. It's pretty much the same scene too right after testing each other. What the fuck is the point? Your time is better spent rewatching Carpenter's masterpiece.

18. The part on top of the Alien ship is just stupid. Amazingly stupid. It looks fake as hell. Terrible backgrounds. Laughable CGI. Plus, Mary Elizabeth Winstead (Kate I guess) falls how many stories and lands on a metal floor yet she gets up without even appearing to be banged up at all. Don't think during this movie or you might just think, "Wow, what a piece of shit." The scenes inside are just as bad.

What the fuck is that? Did someone's computer just have a stroke? Is the Alien ship playing tetris?

19. By setting up the opening of Carpenter's film, the prequel's ending ruins the other's mystery. Before you never knew why they were chasing a dog and trying to kill it. If anyone watches this shitty prequel before Carpenter's movie, they'll know why, and that proves just how big of a mistake this fuckin prequel was.

UPDATE: Most of the FX were actually practical, but they were painted over and replaced with shitty CGI. You can see ADI Studio's excellent practical FX below:

Review: Cyber Tracker (1995)

Wow... talk about shit. Never heard of this? Neither had I. Trust me. That's a good thing. Combine The Terminator and Robocop but throw in an awful cheap-ass look, ridiculously atrocious dialogue, seppuku-worthy acting, and a coma-inducing story. The cyborg in the opening scene actually wears a black leather jacket just like Arnold in T2. Even the music copies the iconic theme. But nothing beats, “You are to be executed… now.” See the “now” there is important, because you don’t want the criminal to be confused on when you’re going to execute him (please please be considerate machines). And you’ve got to add some shitty CGI too so a gun can morph out of the robot’s thigh. That’s so much cooler than Robowhatever. You need a green scanning mode too (red would be too obvious). Badass. Don’t forget to change the manbot’s voice so he sounds like a synthesizer crying for help. That always works.

I like the one crook telling the other, “That thing is hot man. That’s the piece I used to cap that old man.” That is some damn good storytelling there. Tell. Never show. And be sure to use the word “cap” when you tell. “man” is also a good way to make the bad guy hip. If you were worried they couldn’t maintain this level of quality all the way through, rest easy. They don’t disappoint.

In the next scene, some guy actually yells, “Computers killed my brother!” Amazing. They should’ve had another lady yell, “Computers killed my cat!” But the brother guy really sells his line. He has an expression on his face like somebody just crushed his crayons. It's priceless. Never trust dem compooturs.

When the female scientist leader whoever-she-is finds out all the members of the resistance team were killed, she turns away slightly and quietly says, "No." It's like she just screwed up spelling her name. Shucks... all dead. Hmm... I wonder what's for lunch? Bet you didn't know scientists wear white lab coats.

Guess what happens when a van flips over a car? It immediately bursts into a 10-story fireball. Awesome. Next time though make the fireball morph into Godzilla. Amateurs.