Hey interpals--can we talk for a minute? Cos I've got a problem. A really frustrating one that I think I need to talk about, in an "I'm paying this therapist by the hour so bitch better earn her keep" sort of way.
It's like this...
A while back, I watched two particular independently-produced horror films. It's pretty clear to me that the filmmakers have a great deal of love for the genre and plenty of blood, sweat and tears went into making these films a reality. But they're just plain not all that terribly good. And I feel guilty slamming them because there are redeeming moments in both films (well, one more than the other, but we'll get to that) as well as one character who--quite frankly--deserves a WAY BETTER motion picture vehicle for his awesomeness.

CRINGE at the cavalcade of caucasian graffiti!
OK, sure--it's part of the recovery process that I name the films out loud. I'm talking about
"Evilution" and "Basement Jack," both of which were written and in-part-produced by Brian Patrick O'Toole. Let me begin by saying that I think it's rad that someone can come up with a concept, pull together the money to finance the production of said concept, and then go out and promote his final product in a passionate manner. I... just sometimes... well, I wish the final products were something I could embrace like a fabric-softener mascot and recommend to all my pals.

YAWN at the roving hordes of messy extras!
Alas, such is not the case here.

"Evilution," plainly put, is un-good. Un-good in a way that makes me a little embarrassed. It's a zombie-outbreak story set in a low-income urban high-rise that was scripted by someone who has clearly never lived in a low-income urban setting and whose vision of said is informed by a combination of early-1980s sit-coms and a Beastie Boys video. I'm just going to stop my review here and say that there is a desperate need for some kind of permits if a filmmaker wants to create A) a story set in a low-income urban setting or B) a zombie movie. Permits for A can be earned ONLY if the writer demonstrates some sort of firsthand knowledge of the setting (having watched "Boyz in the Hood" does not count) and there are actually NO PERMITS issued for B. The project is forced to languish in bureaucratic limbo until the filmmaker gives up and substitutes... oh, I dunno, ANYTHING in the place of zombies in his or her story.

"Basement Jack" fares better in my estimation, mainly due to the fact that, while it is still partially set in the same low-income urban high-rise, there are no wacky gang members and one can mostly forget that the movie is supposed to be partially set in a low-income urban high-rise. It also has zero zombies, instead playing to the old chestnut of the indestructible psycho killer, whose Hot Topic buckley wardrobe you can usually almost ignore.
I'm being harsh--let me reel myself in as I've been giving myself too much snark-lead. "Basement Jack" is a fun (if fluffy) stalk-and-slash in the familiar 1980s mold, but in place of A Group Of Teens Out Of Their Respective Elements, there's a good cop and a plucky female trying to convince their community that there is a killer on the loose, and both of these folks do a creditable job in their roles. Lynn Lowry is on hand via flashbacks as the abusive mom who sends our psycho killer (the titular Jack) over the edge into a life of hacking slashery.
I know--you're still not seeing a need for the kind of internal conflict I'm grappling with. That's why I need to talk this out, and baby, my hour ain't up yet.
There's a gleaming, shining beacon of excellence in both these movies--a character so excellent that I'm kind of pissed at myself for not having imagined him. A character I would like to pound many beers with, who possibly in some ways resembles the kinds of guys I used to date, only way, WAY cooler and who would never, EVER cry when he was pulled over for speeding.

That character, Damen und Herren, is THE MANAGER. As portrayed by Nathan Bexton, THE MANAGER is a nattily-attired gent with a creepy wit who functions as the superintendent of the low-income high-rise that figures so prominently in these films. In a touch I will confess is rather nifty, said building is named The Necropolitan (I would pay extra to live in a building named thusly). What makes THE MANAGER so fucktastically awesome, you ask? Let's discuss!

- OUTFITS. OK, f'reals--did the same costume designer who created the Juggalo-esque serial killer ALSO create THE MANAGER's costumes? Cos he's WAY better dressed. I'm going to assume (whether it's true or not) that this is a subtle commentary on goffick fashion, or perhaps the eternal struggle between the Big Pants Brigade and the Vampyyyyres.
- EYEBROW ARCHING. We've discussed the importance of a good eyebrow-arch to a proper screen villain, and THE MANAGER knows how to arch an eyebrow with the best of them, amping up his sinister appeal. Studies have shown that, mathematically speaking, forty percent of Vincent Price's appeal rested in his fierce eyebrow-arching abilities.
- GEEKY COLLECTING TAKEN TO ELEVEN. THE MANAGER has his own private collection of ghoulish relics, including weapons used in crimes, occult ephemera and poisons. Classier still, these items are showcased in old-school glass-fronted cabinets. I'm actually turning a most unbecoming shade of green due to envy right now.

This super-est of supers, with his say-something facial hair, penchant for pocketwatches, and museum of macabre artifacts, deserves his own film. Allegedly, there is a third film in the works from the folks who brought us "Evilution" and "Basement Jack" that will feature THE MANAGER in a prominent role. And yes--I will be in line to see it when it's released, due to the triumph of hope (and perhaps masochism) over reason.


10 comments:
I've had enough people tell me that I *am* the Manager that I should probably give these movies at least a cursory look.
Jack, YOU ARE THE MANAGER. This is a *true* statement of fact. I guess that's why I took it so personally that the movies weren't better, cos you have earned a far finer cinematic vehicle than these.
Maybe these first two films are just intended to build up your antici...pation to a fever pitch before the aesthetic glory of my own feature film is deployed upon the hungry masses?
Post-script: I feel the need to state publicly that I have never cried when pulled over by law enforcement personnel. But I will pound beers with Teh Tenebrous at her earliest convenience.
Word verification: "Bencympo," Natty Bumpo's less talented, and largely forgotten, little brother.
Haven't seen either film, but generally seaking, I think it shouldn't matter how much effort someone put into them if the films are commercially distributed and customers are expected to pay as much for them as they would for any other Hollywood (or non Hollywood) picture.
Same goes for the review - if you sent someone a screener, you should be able to expect a fair review, but you can't expect preferential treatment and I reckon that a cool filmmaker wouldn't have a problem with a bad review as long as it is a fair one (in the end, at least someone bothered to write about his work).
I have a Theory on these sorts of films, and I call it the "I Know A Guy" theory. Said theory goes like this: guy watches horror movies, decides he'd like to make a horror movie, doesn't really understand what makes horror movies work so indiscriminately imitates things he's seen in other horror movies, and at some point in the process someone he knows says "Y'know, I Know A Guy who would be an awesome dude to put in a horror movie". Said guy actually brings his own costumes and props and probably does a rewrite on his own dialogue because, well, he really IS an awesome dude to put in a horror movie. I'm not saying for sure that's the case here, but if it is the film has no redeeming value, because if Knowing A Guy was enough to make a movie worth seeing the Hollywood incest system would actually work, and hopefully being upfront about the poopitudinousness of said film will help A Guy to think "Y'know, I should actually make an effort to be in a film that isn't so horrible next time". Let's hope!
I still think there's a couple of takes on zombies that could do with further exploration, though having them become le parkour experts is probably not the way to go.
I always think Nathan Bexton has been seriously underused (in many respects). I'll probably check the films out just for his performance.
Incidentally, am I the only one who thinks necropolitan sounds like a gothic ice-cream flavour?
I am pitching your movie right now, Jack: "It's like Tobe Hooper's 'Funhouse' meets "Gangs of New York' with all the class and style you'd expect from 'Salon Kitty.'" I can FEEL the money pouring in now...
Anon, I have difficulty in grading films across a "good to bad" continuum--hence the lack of stars/thumbs/icons to mark my reviews here. Thing with both these flicks is they weren't outright *dismissable*, and part of that was due to the effort and vision (however sometimes-misguided) of the filmmakers in this case. So in this special case, I think the care taken in making and promoting the movies is worth mentioning. But yes--in general, I'm inclined to agree that once a film is released as a commercial venture, "E for Effort" is not a particularly useful measure of watchability.
DB, I suspect your theory just may hold water here!
Dreaded, I'm definitely eager to see Mr. Bexton featured in more genre films. He was a bright beacon in these two flicks, and went a long way to keeping me watching through the end when there were several times during "Evilution" where I was tempted to hide under the couch due to overwhelming embarrassment on behalf of the rest of the participants. And yes--necropolitan could be a delicious chocolate sundae confection topped off by cotton-candy cobwebs and little marshmallow bats. Yum!
Kudos for supporting indie film making, but that doesn't mean you have to LOVE every indie film that comes along. Yes, it takes skill to put together a movie, but if it was required to praise anyone with the skill to go about organizing a movie, then every blockbuster Hollywood producer should be treated as a god. Which do you think was harder to put together - a $50,000 low budget flick using your cell phone or Michael Bay's latest big budget toy movie? I'd say the latter, and I don't see any reviews of Transformers that start with "Good job to Mr. Bay for being able to get this movie off the ground..."
A crap movie is just that - crap. Indie or not.
Dear Kate,
I love your review-both for it's honesty and for being clear about why you felt the way you did after watching the films. And what makes it relevant is that I directed Basement Jack (yeah, that's me with the long hair and shades talking to Nathan between takes). When you choose to make a film and throw it out there you really have to be willing to listen and respect where people are coming from when they choose to take the time to write about the experience. Good and Bad.
I love your comments about Nathan-he truly is a special snowflake and is worthy of center stage and of your praise to say the least.
I'm happy that you found some of Basement Jack entertaining, it was and excellent experience for me.
Best to you and your audience.
Michael Shelton
Director, Basement Jack
Chris Conlee here, director of Evilution. Like Michael, I'd like to thank you for the coverage of our movies. Sorry you didn't find more to enjoy about Evilution, but Nathan is a wonder and definitely deserves all the attention he can get. Here's hoping for a long and fruitful career for him. Regarding Evilution -- it's definitely been interesting to see the full spectrum of reviews: ranging from, this is one of the best zombie flicks in recent years, to this is absolutely the WORST film PERIOD in years! Makes you realize that everybody sees things from their own perspective and no matter who you are or what movie you make, you're not going to please everybody. But, it was a great experience nonetheless, and I'm looking forward to doing more movies in the future. Continued success with your blog.
Post a Comment