Take 4: Thicker Than Water

The Pitch: Was looking through my queue for things that fell naturally together to form a group of four DVDs. One of the first that sprang forth was the fact that I had several films with the word "blood" in the title. Now, you'd think these would all be horror movies...but they aren't. Read on.

---------------------------------

Blood and Black Lace (1964)

What's the Story?: It's a dark and stormy night in Rome, and those gathered at a haute couture fashion house are preparing for the next day's fashion show. As she walks through the rain to the mansion that houses the boutique, a lone fashion model is attacked by a faceless cloaked figure. Word of the brutal murder reaches those in the fashion house, and suspicion begins to mount as everyone tries to figure out who the guilty party is. Was it the model's boyfriend? One of her roommates? A jealous co-worker? Well, at least the suspect pool starts to narrow as the killer strikes again...and again...but what's his/her motive?

IMDB Plot Keywords: Giallo; Beautiful Woman; Blood; Drowning

Familiar Faces: This is an Italian film, directed by ground-breaking director Mario Bava, so not many familiar faces. It's not to say that there aren't any American faces in this (Cameron Mitchell, of Death of a Salesman and Carousel, is one of the main stars), but you're just not likely to recognize any of them.

How Much Blood, Exactly?: It's not at all gruesome, to be honest. What little blood is seen looks so unlike blood (it's kind of a day-glo red), that it's not the least bit disturbing. From what I've seen of Italian cinema in the '60s, this isn't at all unusual. So, definitely not a horror film...mark this one up as a thriller. Or, as the Italians call it, giallo...Italian for "yellow," and named after the color of mystery/crime pulp novels in Italy at that time.

Curt's Take - Worth Considering: I was very, very surprised by this, having had bad luck with the "Italian thriller" import before. This was a surprisingly engaging "whodunnit," that drew me in from the artistic stylings of the opening credit sequence, which did a great job of serving up the cast of characters we were about to encounter. Kind of Hitchcockian in nature, there were a lot of just very smartly written scenes. One, for example, features a diary that plays a somewhat prominent role in the film. It's discovered among the deceased's belongings, in the center of the main staging area of the fashion house...and EVERYONE in the room seems very interested in it. What does it contain? About who? The kicker is that the diary is in plain sight, in the center of the room...and none of the seventeen people interested in it can just go up and take it, because everyone else is watching it out of the corner of their eye. Very clever. There's also a scene where two characters conspire to give each other alibis for the time of the murder. After an elaborate set-up, they tell the investigating cop how they were together through 10pm (the time in question)...only to have the bomb dropped on them that there was another murder an hour later that they now have no supporting story for. All in all, it was a fun mystery to watch (although a little cheesy and confusing at times), and was a great precursor to movies like Scream, that keep the audience guessing the identity of the murderer until the end of the film.

---------------------------------

Blood Simple (1984)

IMDB Plot Keywords: Film Noir; Stabbing; Violence; Psychopath

What's the Story?: Texas bar-owner, Marty, suspects that his wife, Abby, is seeing another man...and the private investigator finds this out to be true. Marty isn't as ready to hear this news as he thought he might be, and proceeds to hire the private investigator to kill Ray, the man (and bar employee) who is sleeping with Abby. This is just the start of a twisting and turning series of assumptions, miscommunications and other confusing events that leads to...well...I really can't tell you without spoiling the movie.

Familiar Faces: This is one of Frances McDormand's first films (you'd know her from Fargo, most likely), and she definitely went out to become the biggest star of the four main characters. There's also Dan Hedaya, who plays Marty, who also played Carla's ex-husband Nick on Cheers. M. Emmet Walsh plays the private detective hired by Marty, and has had small roles in My Best Friend's Wedding, Romeo + Juliet, and Wild Wild West. Finally, there's John Getz...I actually don't recognize him from anything, but I felt bad leaving just him out. Playing Ray in this film, he's also had several guest roles in lots of different television shows (according to IMDB).

How Much Blood, Exactly?: This is definitely a thriller, not a horror movie. That having been said, though, it is a bit violent, and while it hasn't reached Reservoir Dogs levels of blood, there are plenty of cringeworthy moments of violence.

Curt's Take - Must See: I wasn't expecting a whole lot from this early '80s thriller, but I also didn't realize going into it that it was the first film done by the Coen brothers (who have gone on to make such films as The Big Lebowski, Fargo and Raising Arizona). That having been said, I was sucked right into this one. Until I saw the "keywords" that this is filed under on the IMDB, it didn't hit me that this was a modern-day film noir...but it had the twists, turns, and double-crosses of that classic genre. And the great thing about the way this modern film noir was shot, is that we, the viewers, are pretty much always one-step ahead of the characters...not so far ahead that the movie become predictable, but just enough that we can see the pit the characters are digging themselves in, and we sit there wondering "Geez...how are they going to get out the situation they are creating for themselves?" I don't want to say too much about the plot, because it's very cleverly orchestrated...just do yourself a favor and see this film (and close your eyes during the more violent parts).

---------------------------------
Bloody Movie (1987)

What's the Story?: Okay, bear with me. So, there's this mansion in the hills that was owned by 1920s silent film star, Lance Hayward...who has been either in seclusion or missing for decades. The funds that have been keeping his home up and running have been depleted, and it was just announced that the house is about to be purchased by a corporation that plans on tearing it down. Several people, both those involved in the sale of the property and curious townsfolk, decide to visit the property to check it out before its demolition...only to be confronted one-by-one by the ghost (but is it a ghost?) of Hayward, dressed as roles from his most famous movies, killing the trespassers in ways reminiscent of his films.

IMDB Plot Keywords: Independent Film (and...that's all...not many folks are searching for this film)

Familiar Faces: I was going to say nobody...but I almost forgot that Alan Hale, Jr. has a small cameo as a security guard. You know him as "The Skipper" from Gilligan's Island. Getting him must have blown the entire budget for this film, because if there'd been any money left over, I'm guessing they would have spent it on...I don't know...something else. Not a film. Sadly, upon further investigation, I discovered that one of the producers of this also produced Dude, Where's My Car? And that, folks, says it all.

How Much Blood, Exactly?: Over the top. Buckets. This is a campy, bad, cheesy, bad, terrible, bad horror movie. And it's not even scary. Which means that it doesn't matter how unrealistic the scene is, it can be made BETTER by putting in more gushing red liquid. Yeah...THAT'S where the money went...not toward landing "The Skipper," but in purchasing gallons and gallons...and gallons...of vaguely reddish liquid. Sad, really.

Curt's Take - Run in Fear: First, off, this film was originally called Terror Night. So if you're avoiding my advice, you might need to track it down under that name. But please...for the sake of all that is holy...do not go near this film. Did you ever catch USA: Up All Night on the USA Network, back in the late '80s and early '90s? It was on Saturday nights, was hosted by Gilbert Gottfried, and featured a different terrible movie each weekend (calling them B-Movies insults B-Movies everywhere). Movies like Sorority Babes in the Slimeball Bowl-o-Rama (an actual movie, I kid you not). This is the kind of film that would be featured alongside that. I actually had to break out the alcohol to make it through this train wreck (I managed to polish off a bottle of sake)...it only seemed fair, if the characters on-screen can be drinking, I sure as hell get to. Sadly, being buzzed while sitting through this didn't help a whole lot.

---------------------------------
Bloody Reunion (2006)

IMDB Plot Keywords: None (guess nobody is seeking this one out)

What's the Story?: Schoolteacher Mrs. Park isn't feeling well, and may not have long to live. One of her former elementary school students, who has been helping take care of her, decides that inviting several other students to Mrs. Park's estate for the weekend might help ease her pain. Well...turns out the kindly (and slightly forgetful in her old age) Mrs. Park wasn't all that nice to each of these students back in the day, and each has a MAJOR grudge against her and blames her for their lack of progress in life. But who is in more danger...Mrs. Park, or each of these seven former students?

Familiar Faces: Absolutely none. Unless you're a fan of Korean cinema. Even then I couldn't tell you which ones were the Korean Brad Pitt or Julia Roberts.

How Much Blood, Exactly?: Wow...this is the one true horror films in the bunch. And those overseas filmmakers sure do know how to make the most of their visual effects. If you don't like slasher films, definitely, definitely, definitely stay away from this one. To illustrate, one character is bound to a chair with his head tilted back and mouth forced open, has a handful of small, tiny X-Acto Knife blades poured into his gaping mouth, and then has a kettle of hot water poured in. I had to look away...it was pretty bad.

Curt's Take - Worth Considering: First off, I can't remember if this ended up in my queue because I needed another "Blood" movie in this review, or if Netflix had recommended it based on other movies I'd been watching (I don't think I saw a preview of it, and then added it). Secondly, this is a Korean film, with no dubbing, only Korean audio and English subtitles (which don't seem to always paing an accurate picture of what is really being said). The first half of the movie was a bit slow and confusing...but once it picked up, it did so with rapid and violent force. It almost would have ended up a Not a Priority for me, but the ending (I thought) was so clever and twisted, that I sat there watching it unfold with my mouth wide open in surprise (once I actually understood what was going on). So, if you run across this, check it out...but be warned...the title is an understatement.

Take 4: By the Numbers

The Premise: Sure, all these movies have numbers in their titles. More importantly, though, I had to see two of them damn quick because their sequels are (or will soon be) in theaters.

------------------------------------------------

28 Days Later (2002)

What's Your Number?: The "28" in 28 Days Later signifies the number of days Sandra Bullock spends in rehab...wait...no...that's 28 Days (my bad, wrong movie). Actually, the "28" in 28 Days Later signifies the number of days after a deadly viral outbreak that our hero, Jim, wakes up from a coma. He stumbles out of his abandoned hospital to find himself in a deserted London, with newspaper headlines screaming "Evacuation!" Jim teams up with the few survivors he stumbles across, fighting to escape London and the infected, bloodlust-filled victims of the viral plague...but where will they escape to and what will they find there? The title also as a second significance, pointing to what happens happens 28 days after the first 28 days, but I'll keep that under my hat for now.

Familiar Faces: Being a British film, there weren't a whole lot of folks I recognized here...the exception being Cillian Murphy. He hasn't been in a lot of mainstream things over here in the U.S., but he did play Scarecrow in Batman Begins and was the creepy antagonist (opposite hero Rachel McAdams) in Wes Craven's Red Eye.

IMDB Plot Keywords: Soft Drink; Zombie; Credit Card; London; Vomiting

Random Facts: The filmmakers had the co-operation of councils and help from the police to clear streets (and a motorway) to help give London that nice, abandoned look and feel, but only for short periods...which would have been useless if not for the flexibility and speed provided by digital video cameras which were used to shoot the entire film.

And I Quote: Jim: "Do you know I was thinking?" Selena: "You were thinking that you'll never hear another piece of original music ever again. You'll never read a book that hasn't already been written or see a film that hasn't already been shot." Jim: "Um, that's what you were thinking."

Curt's Take - Worth Considering: This was damn close to getting a Must See rating, but I'm taking into consideration that it's quite graphic at some points, and that might turn a good chunk of folks away. This, however, was an interesting take on your classic zombie film. While the rage-filled victims of the viral infection aren't ever formally referred to as undead or zombies, they share all the same characteristics of your classic Night of the Living Dead creatures. If you're bitten by one, or get its blood in you somehow, you turn into one...and there's no known cure. The main difference here is that infection takes place in about ten or twenty seconds...so no more of the "was my buddy bitten or wasn't he" debates (you'll find out pretty damn quick). Also...those who are infected can move fast. They're sprinters...so bring your track shoes. Having said all of this, the plight of our heroes against the infected isn't really the main focus of the film. It's really more about how a group of survivors tries to adjust to a world where the normal rules you live by are thrown out the window. How do you get food? Get gasoline? Sleep? It's interesting watching the protagonists adjust to living in a mostly abandoned United Kingdom, and how ingenuity can get you through a lot.

------------------------------------------------
Stalag 17 (1953)

What's Your Number?: Here, the "17" refers to one of the many "stalags" (or prison camps) in World War II Germany that housed thousands of prisoners-of-war. So, yes, there is also a Stalag 15, Stalag 9, etc. This film focuses on the airmen housed in one of the barracks of Stalag 17. Early in the film, a couple of prisoners try to escape, but are stopped by German guards who seemed to know exactly what their plans were. Several other coincidental occurrences lead the prisoners to believe that there is a spy working within their barracks, feeding information to the Germans. Most of the POW's suspect Sergeant J.J. Sefton, largely because he trades cigarettes and other "black market" items with the guards in exchange for favors, but Sefton has his own suspicions, and sets out to clear his name and bring down the traitor.

Familiar Faces: Although the movie is pretty old, there are still several folks here you might recognize. William Holden (of such films as Sunset Boulevard and The Bridge on the River Kwai) stars as Sefton, while a young Peter Graves (of the old and new Mission: Impossible television series, as well as the Airplane! movies) has a major role as one of Sefton's co-prisoners.

IMDB Plot Keywords: Short Wave Radio; Telescope; Distillery; Combat Fatigue; Ocarina

Random Facts: The movie was shot in sequence (i.e., the scenes were filmed in the same order they're shown), so many of the actors did not know who the "spy" in their barracks was until the very end of the film, when the "unmasking" scene is shot.

And I Quote: [Opening narration] Cookie: "I don't know about you, but it always makes me sore when I see those war pictures...all about flying leathernecks and submarine patrols and frogmen and guerillas in the Philippines. What gets me is that there never w-was a movie about POWs...about prisoners of war. Now, my name is Clarence Harvey Cook: they call me Cookie. I was shot down over Magdeborg, Germany, back in '43; that's why I stammer a little once in a while, 'specially when I get excited. I spent two and a half years in Stalag 17. 'Stalag' is the German word for prison camp, and number 17 was somewhere on the Danube. There were about 40,000 POW's there, if you bothered to count the Russians, and the Poles, and the Czechs. In our compound there were about 630 of us, all American airmen: radio operators, gunners, and engineers. All sergeants. Now you put 630 sergeants together and, oh mother, you've got yourself a situation. There was more fireworks shooting off around that joint...take for instance the story about the spy we had in our barracks..."

Curt's Take - Must See: James, one of my co-workers, recommended this film to me a couple years back as one of several William Holden films I must check out. Having seen a couple other Holden flicks, I was expecting this to be a ratger serious film. I was very surprised, though, that this was much more of a comedy, with brief bursts of drama, than the other way around. For example, I loved the scene where the POW's run out, all excited, to see the new female Russian prisoners that arrived at the barracks next-door...and it's a bunch of frumpy women in large coats, who don't look at all amused. But coming so close on the heels of World War Two, Stalag 17 was one of the first films ever to tackle the topic of POW's (it was based on a play written by a couple prisoners-of-war, one of whom has a small part in the movie). And although the language and acting in the film is a little dated, you have to consider how ground-breaking and topical it was at the time of its release. After just ten minutes of watching, I was completely sucked in. In short, if you haven't seen this, you should...it's a classic.

------------------------------------------------
Fantastic Four (2005)

What's Your Number?: Um...that would be "four," which is the number of superheroes that get created when a space station gets hit by an odd space storm, exposing the quartet to DNA-altering radiation. You've got Reed Richards (aka Mr. Fantastic), forward-thinking scientist, who can go all stretchy; Susan Storm (aka The Invisible Girl), researcher, who (in addition to becoming invisible), can create powerful force fields; Johnny Storm (aka The Human Torch), Susan's brother and part-time underwear model, who can engulf himself in flames and fly; and Ben Grimm (aka The Thing), who turned into an orange rock-like creature and is extremely strong. There was a fifth person on the space station...it's owner, Victor Von Doom. He got powers, too, but turned all evil and power-hungry, which is good since the Four need an enemy to fight.

Familiar Faces: Quite a few, including Jessica Alba (Sin City), Chris Evans (Not Another Teen Movie), Michael Chiklis (TV's The Shield), and Julian McMahon (TV's Nip/Tuck). The only one of the main stars I didn't recognize was Ioan Gruffudd, who played Mr. Fantastic. He's Welsh, and hasn't been in a whole lot...

IMDB Plot Keyboards: Nose Bleed; Brooklyn Bridge; Heroine; No Opening Credits; Invisible Woman

Random Facts: The folks who were cast weren't necessarily the first picks for their roles. George Clooney and Brendan Fraser were considered for the part of Mr. Fantastic; Julia Stiles and Rachel McAdams for The Invisible Girl; Paul Walker for the part of Johnny Storm; James Gandolfini for the role of The Thing; and Tim Robbins...as Dr. Doom.

And I Quote: Ben Grimm:[complaining about Johnny] "That underwear model washed out at NASA for bringing two Victoria's Secret wannabes into a flight simulator." Reed Richards: "Youthful high spirits." Ben Grimm: "They crashed it into a wall."

Curt's Take - Worth Considering: The acting and writing is very cheesy at times, but (like a lot of superhero films) it's still a fun little flick to sit down and enjoy with a tub of popcorn. Fun special effects, decent action sequences, etc. Not a lot of time spent on drama, it spends more time on getting to the next nifty fight or effect. This film got terrible box office reviews, and I think I might have been disappointed had I paid to see it in a theater, too...nothing stellar, but an entertaining way to lose yourself for a couple hours.

------------------------------------------------
2009 Lost Memories (2002)

What's Your Number?: 2009 refers to the year in which our story takes place...so not that far down the road. Set in Seoul, Korea, we see that history is a little different than what we remember it to be. It all traces back to an assassination attempt back in 1909. In our normal timeline, the attempt succeeded...but in this alt-history film, Japan entered World War II on the side of the United States, and the target of the atomic bomb was Berlin, not Hiroshima. In addition, Korea has become a territory now occupied by Japan. The story follows a Korean member of the Japanese Bureau of Investigations, who becomes wrapped up in investigating a group of freedom fighters who are striving to release Korea from the oppressive rule of Japan. Add in a mysterious artifact, a possible conspiracy between the police force and a major corporation and the possibility of time travel, and you have one strange film on your hands.

Familiar Faces: Not a Seoul...er...soul. See what I did there? Ha.

IMDB Plot Keywords: Exploding Car; Shot to Death; Escapism; Gun; Propaganda

Random Facts: As disenchanted as I was with this, it did win the South Korean Grand Bell Award for Best New Director, Best Sound Effects, Best Supporting Actor, and Best Visual Effects (I have to strongly disagree on that last count...)

And I Quote: Group of Children Walking to School: "Mama duck...quack! Quack! Mama duck...quack! Quack!" (Okay, there were few quotable lines here...the subtitles were very rough translations)

Curt's Take: Don't Bother - I don't remember at all how this ended up in my rental list. I think I saw its trailer during another film, and something about it intrigued me. Hrm. Anyway, it was over two hours long, poorly subtitled (but still preferable to the dubbing) and just didn't really "hook" me at any point. I though the whole premise of an alternate historical timeline was interesting...but when time travel comes into the picture (over an hour and a half into the film), that actually ruined it a little for me. Otherwise, it might have been a good action film (plenty of gunfight scenes that are well choreographed). I can see how this film would have been different had it been made in the United States. Time travel probably would have been brought up a lot sooner, and that possibility would have been explored much more deeply. As it was, it took me four tries to make it through this, and even then I was looking at the countdown timer I had set up on the VCR, watching the minutes descend until the closing credit sequence.