Slasher Video’s collaboration with Olive Films has certainly been interesting. After releasing a Blu-ray of Satan’s Blade and reissuing the pre-Olive Films Slasher Video catalog on DVD, they have released DVDs and Blu-rays of films that were transferred from rough video masters. It’s great to have releases of Deadly Prey, Killer Workout, Mankillers, Shock ‘Em Dead, and Victims! in print but there’s absolutely no reason to produce a Blu-ray of these or any other films from a 1″ tape master. Bucking this trend, their latest release is DVD-only: Dracula in Vegas is a 1999 shot-on-video horror/comedy from Nick Millard, whose 1980s films Death Nurse 1 & 2 and Cemetery Sisters were also previously released by Slasher Video.
Max (Maximillian Grabinger) is a youngish vampire from Transylvania who wants to study at Harvard or Yale, but when the University of Nevada Las Vegas accepts him his father (Sam Gartner) orders him to go there instead. Max wants to take his studies seriously, but Dad thinks Max should focus on the bustling nightlife and all the nubile showgirls. Max’s mom (Flora Myers) is terrified that Max is going to get AIDS because American girls are all loose, and insists he find himself a nice 14-year-old who isn’t diseased. Max arrives in Las Vegas and buckles down on his studies, much to his parents’ dismay. He also befriends a gravedigger at the cemetery where he hangs out and gets a part-time job there, and before long he meets a nice girl. Christine (April Leigh) is in his literature class and is only slightly weirded out when Max takes her to a picnic in the same cemetery. But once Max’s parents arrive in Vegas for a visit and really put the pressure on, will Max cave to their demands? Or is his mysterious double Igor (also Grabinger) correct in thinking Max is doomed by his love for Christine?
This plot synopsis makes Dracula in Vegas sound much more coherent than it actually is. Like Millard’s other films released by Slasher Video, this one was shot on video and whatever surviving materials were not in great shape. The picture is bright and clear for the most part, but there are a few scenes where the audio drops out entirely for a while and some of the shots have more tape noise than others. Unsurprisingly, Millard sneaks some footage from one of his 70s erotic films in here as well when Max visits his porn director uncle. However, it does not include several minutes of footage from either Satan’s Black Wedding or Criminally Insane, so that’s a relief. It looks and sounds like a home video, which is exactly what it should look and sound like, so the audiovisual presentation is as good as it could possibly be.
The film itself is intermittently amusing, even sometimes on purpose. The bite of a vampire in this world is highly sexual, so Max’s victims start off by shrieking in pain before transitioning to moans of pleasure. Part of his parents’ disappointment in Max is that he has a reputation to uphold as a vampire: a virile, romantic creature of the night. Apparently a large part of the film is shot “day for night,” although this is not clear until very near the end, and while Max is clearly visible in his room’s mirror when he first arrives at the dorm there are some gags later where he can’t see his reflection. The cast mostly consists of people who only ever did this one movie or who made appearances in some of Millard’s other work, so their performances are about what one would expect knowing that fact. The blood is thick and garish 70s-style “Kensington gore,” and all the vampire teeth are plastic fangs. Millard claims in the commentary on this release that the film cost $150,000 to produce, but if that’s true one has to wonder where exactly all that money went, because it sure as hell doesn’t look like much of any of it made it onto the screen.
Thankfully the film never takes itself seriously at all, which lends it a sort of handmade charm. If you’re already familiar with Millard’s oeuvre, you know whether or not you need or want a copy of Dracula in Vegas in your collection. And if you’re looking for a good place to jump into his work for some reason, this is as good a place to start as any. Kudos to Slasher Video for saving another SOV horror obscurity from disappearing into the mists of time, and for not trying to sell it on Blu-ray!
Dracula Sucks (1978)
Originally published on Daily Grindhouse 9 October 2014
The big event movie packed with movie stars had its heyday in the 60s and 70s, and for the most part seems to have gone the way of the dinosaur (other than maybe Movie 43, I suppose). The adult film industry was not immune to the promise of big box office coming from a cast of recognizable faces in one film, as evidenced by the existence of Dracula Sucks. Directed by Phillip Marshak (maybe best known to cult film fans as one of the directors of Night Train to Terror), Dracula Sucks brings together several of the biggest adult film stars of the 1970s for a goofy take on the familiar story of Dracula. The result is… unexpected.
Irene Renfield (Pat Manning) brings her son Richard (Richard Bulk) to a mental institution for treatment of recurring nightmares involving his father. The hospital is run by Dr. Arthur Seward (John Leslie) and his sister Sybil (Kay Parker), and Seward hopes his visitor Dr. Van Helsing (Reggie Nalder) might be able to help Renfield. Also working at the hospital are doctors Peter Bradley (Mike Ranger) and John Stoker (John Holmes), and for some reason also hanging out all the time are Jonathan Harker (Paul Thomas), his fiancée Mina (Annette Haven), and her best friend Lucy Webster (Serena). Renfield somehow manages to escape from his room one night and wakes Count Dracula (Jamie Gillis) and his vampire brides.
Things more or less stick to the traditional “Dracula” story: Dracula seduces and kills Lucy (on the toilet, rudely enough), then begins to wear down virginal Mina’s defenses by appearing to her in “dreams.” Renfield yells and laughs a lot from his cell, but does little else. Frustrated Jonathan Harker has sex with one of the hospital nurses (Seka, in her feature film debut) while Van Helsing seems more interested in prescribing enemas to all the patients than in figuring out how to stop the vampire plague that is threatening to overrun the hospital. Eventually Dracula manages to seduce Mina into joining him as Van Helsing and Harker mount their final attack on the vampire. Will they save Mina, or will she be doomed to wander the earth as a lost soul?
Honestly, the question isn’t that important. Dracula Sucks is far too silly to be overly concerned with its characters’ fate. There’s a lot of sex, obviously, but there’s even more awkward humor shoehorned in wherever it will fit. Dubbed-in dialogue is the source of most of the “jokes” in the film, which mostly are on the level of adding “You schmuck” to the end of lines of dialogue or playing Renfield’s incredibly annoying laugh at inappropriate times. The editing of the film is very confusing, and a lot of the footage that one would assume would be in the sex scenes is missing, presumably to give more time to the “comedy” portions of the film. This is a serious miscalculation, given that there are almost no laughs to be had throughout the entire running time of the film. The blood effects are also pretty inept, so there’s not much in the way of scares, either.
All that said, Dracula Sucks looks great. With the exception of a few segments with water damage, the film itself looks very professional (cameras and lenses were provided for the film by Panavision). Vinegar Syndrome presents two different cuts of the film among a legion that have existed over the years: Dracula Sucks (which includes all the murders and most of the sex scenes, running 95 minutes) and Lust at First Bite (which includes almost none of the murders and much more sex footage, running 75 minutes). The Lust at First Bite cut of the film actually plays better for the most part, with scenes shown in different order that makes more sense and less of the painful “comedy” that pads out so much of the Dracula Sucks cut. It even includes at least one entire sex scene that is not in Dracula Sucks at all, and is arguably a better version of the same idea.
Vinegar Syndrome’s 2-DVD set of Dracula Sucks lives up to their high standards of presentation. In addition to the two full-length cuts of the film, the first disc includes a fun, lively commentary with actor and co-writer Bill Margold in conversation with Vinegar Syndrome’s Joe Rubin. Much like the recent Bill Lustig release from Distribpix, the set is almost worth the purchase f
or Margold’s commentary track alone. There is also a featurette titled “Return to Castle Hill” in which Margold and producer Darryl Marshak drive back to the castle where the film was shot (or attempt to, anyway), the film’s original theatrical trailer (which oddly features no hint that the film is a hardcore porn!) and a slideshow of German promotional art for the film. Dracula Sucks is an interesting relic of a particular moment in adult film history, and well worth a look for fans of the era and the members of its cast, as well as for Dracula completists.
Drag Me to Hell (2009)
Originally published on Film Monthly 30 May 2009
To say that Sam Raimi’s Drag Me to Hell is one of the most anticipated films of the summer would not be an understatement– Raimi has a loyal army of hardcore fans who have stuck with him from his Evil Dead days all the way up to Spider-Man 3. When he announced he would be returning to the genre in which he established himself, even fans put off by his big-studio successes started to get excited. It’s only natural that hopes were high for Drag Me to Hell, considering it’s Raimi’s first straight horror film in over 15 years. Perhaps, then, it’s only natural that the final product is such a disappointment.
Alison Lohman stars as Christine Brown, a former farm girl and a loan officer at a bank where an Assistant Manager position has recently opened. She wants the job for various reasons, not least to help prove herself to her boyfriend Clay’s (Justin Long) difficult mother. When her boss Mr. Jacks (David Paymer) hints that recent hire Stu (Reggie Lee) is up for the promotion because he can make “tough decisions,” Alison decides to take action. This happens at the worst possible time: Christine is approached by Mrs. Ganush (Lorna Raver) about getting an extension on her home loan. Mrs. Ganush has had two extensions already, and Christine makes the “tough decision” to refuse her request. After causing a scene in the bank and attacking Christine, Mrs. Ganush puts a curse on her. Christine has three days to figure out how to stop the demon Lamia from claiming her soul forever.
The first problem with the film is that the story is, frankly, not that interesting. Christine is smart, sweet, and cute, but she’s not really a compelling central character. Lohman does an admirable job of soldiering through Raimi’s physically demanding punishments– she gets more gross junk poured into her mouth in this movie than many actresses have to deal with in their entire career– but Christine never feels like much more than a punching bag for the ongoing demonic hijinks. The rest of the cast is pretty much left on their own to hang around and react to whatever weird stuff is going on at the time, although Dileep Rao brings unexpected gravity to his character of Ram Jas, a psychic who gets mixed up in Christine’s predicament.
Raimi’s early horror films were so successful, in part, due to great practical effects and (no getting around it) Bruce Campbell’s terrific slapstick sensibilities. Here, Raimi mixes practical effects with CG, but it’s a mistake. The practical effects, which are mostly fantastic and disgusting, only serve to underscore how weak the CG is in comparison. There’s only one real “Looney Tunes” moment in the entire movie, and it’s ruined by an awful CG punch line. This points out another problem: the film, for the most part, takes itself far too seriously for something that’s supposed to be goofy fun. There are a few laughs, but most of the time when a scene goes for a gross-out joke it feels forced, like Raimi felt obligated to throw more stuff in Alison Lohman’s mouth in the hopes of getting a reaction.
I think the real audience for Drag Me to Hell is budding horror fans. The film’s (surprising) PG-13 rating makes it easy for younger audiences to get in, and if I was a kid who had never seen the Evil Dead movies, Drag Me to Hell would probably blow my mind. It’s a great “gateway movie” for anyone interested in Sam Raimi’s non-comic-book-related films, and seen with a big audience it’s probably a blast (literally– you might want to wear hearing protection). On its own, though, Drag Me to Hell seems less like a return to the Raimi’s horror roots than a somewhat anticlimactic victory lap from a director who has honestly worked his way up from humble beginnings to a hugely successful mainstream career.
Dressed to Kill (1980)
Originally published on Film Monthly 6 September 2011
Brian De Palma’s Dressed to Kill is hitting Blu-ray on 6 September 2011. This classic thriller was previously released on DVD back in 2001, and the new disc carries over much of the same special features as that release, although the Blu-ray only includes the unrated cut of the film (the DVD had both R-rated and unrated versions). But aside from improved video and audio presentation, is Dressed to Kill worth revisiting after 30 years? De Palma’s hit psycho-thriller has been unquestionably influential, but does it still hold up today?
Kate Miller (Angie Dickinson) is a frustrated housewife who feels she is drifting away from her husband, who ignores her sexual needs. She confesses her frustrations to her therapist, Dr. Elliott (Michael Caine), and after a session in which she propositions him she meets a man in an art museum and has an anonymous fling with dire consequences. She crosses paths with prostitute Liz Blake (Nancy Allen), who becomes entangled in a murder investigation with Kate’s son Peter (Keith Gordon). Together, they try to discover the identity of a vicious murderer who appears to be a blonde woman in dark sunglasses who attacks with a straight razor.
Meanwhile, Dr. Elliott has problems of his own. A former patient called “Bobbi” who left Elliott’s care when he refused to endorse Bobbi’s sex change surgery has stolen a straight razor from Elliott’s office and is leaving menacing messages on his answering machine. Elliott attempts to track down Bobbi on his own while Liz and Peter get closer to the truth under a looming deadline from Detective Marino (Dennis Franz): if Liz doesn’t deliver the blonde in 48 hours, she’s going to be booked for murder.
Dressed to Kill, typical of much of De Palma’s films, is packed with references to Hitchcock films (most notably Psycho). However, unlike the cool, controlling hand of Hitchcock, Dressed to Kill seems constantly on the verge of collapsing into outright hysterics. De Palma rarely gives the audience a chance to breathe between tense scenes often punctuated by graphic violence. Stylistically, Dressed to Kill found De Palma near the top of his game, including a fantastic segment in the art museum with a constantly gliding camera, effective use of split screen and interesting rack focus shots, and an unsettling, surreal sequence in an insane asylum.
Discussing much of the film’s attitudes toward sexuality is bound to give away too much for anyone who hasn’t seen the film, but it is worth noting that Dressed to Kill does have a somewhat problematic view of female sexuality. Kate, sexually unfulfilled by her husband, is punished for seeking fulfillment elsewhere, and the only other major female character in the film is a prostitute. Both women have scenes where they attempt to seduce Dr. Elliott and both of them are condemned for their open sexuality without respect to any degree of difference– in this world, there is precious little difference between the lonely housewife and the career prostitute. Additionally, Dressed to Kill replicates the lengthy “psychological” explanation for its killer’s motives from Psycho in a way that modern audiences may find tiresome at best and offensive at worst.
Despite its somewhat antiquated attitudes toward sexuality, Dressed to Kill is a slick, stylish thriller that is basically an exploitation film elevated by its excellent technical aspects to the level of a classic. De Palma’s style is strong enough to smooth over any minor story problems and most major complaints about the story’s slasher-film take on sexuality. Compared to some of De Palma’s other works (Sisters and Body Double come immediately to mind), Dressed to Kill seems almost a model of restraint, making it one of the most accessible of his films from the period of the late 70s to early 80s, which is likely why it is a more widely-acknowledged classic than some of his more idiosyncratic films.
Short version: if you haven’t seen it, Dressed to Kill is worth a look, and if you have, it’s probably worth upgrading to the new disc for the improved presentation.
The Ec
ho Game (2009)
Originally published on Film Monthly 26 September 2011
Many low-budget horror films try to compensate for their lack of flashy special effects and general production value by using an overly complicated storyline, but most of the time this leads to a much bigger problem: boredom and confusion. The Echo Game, on the other hand, is a low-budget horror film with hints of a complicated mythology and unexpected ties between different characters, but takes a different approach. First-time writer/director Brian Feeney zips through the action at a pace that guarantees confusion but happily sidesteps boredom.
April Reilly (Alisha Seaton) and Casey Lin (Jeannie Bolet) are a married couple raising an adopted daughter, Sarah (Melissa Lee), and living in California. One day the police come to ask April some questions about her former lover Rachel (Angela Landis). April believes that Rachel drowned ten years earlier, but the police have information that she has been squatting in an abandoned apartment recently and has gone missing again. April’s day gets weirder when a mysterious woman visits her at work to ask if April knows where Rachel is but refuses to give April her name.
Her name is Yelena Markova (Liliya Czarina), and she returns home to face the same menacing group that attacked Rachel in the film’s opening sequence: powerful psychic Dr. Anne Cassavettes (Judy Clement) and her henchmen. April receives a letter from Rachel the next day and the chase is on. Cassavettes tracks down the happy family but Sarah manages to escape thanks to her seemingly imaginary friend. Taken to a hospital, everyone thinks Sarah is hallucinating, but as the truth behind Sarah and Dr. Cassavettes is revealed, everyone is in danger of being pulled into Cassavettes’s devious plot.
The Echo Game runs just over 75 minutes, and leaves a lot of questions unanswered and plot holes gaping. However, it’s so briskly paced that mostly that doesn’t matter– this is a low-budget horror movie, after all, and writer/director Feeney knows how to deliver what the audience expects. The practical effects are decent, and Feeney knows when to slow down and, say, take time for the gruesome murder of a mostly-nude woman for some cheap thrills before the film is put back on the rails to speed through the rest of the story. There are better ways to spend 75 minutes, but there are also certainly much worse ways. In the wasteland of direct-to-disc low-budget horror, The Echo Game is a nimble, unpretentious action/horror film that delivers the goods and gets out of your way, and that is a rare find.
The Unrepentant Cinephile Page 22
