Tuesday, October 20, 2009

"Orphan"...Dworphan


This is just gonna be a quick note. This is something that has been bothering me the last week and a half. I went to go see "Orphan" last Sunday night. I went with Allen and neither of us had exactly high expectations. We went just deciding to go to a movie. It was either that or "G-Force" and as much as I like guinea pigs, I'm not sure I could sit through a movie with strictly them as the cast. I know the guy from "The Hangover" is in it too (I know his name, but don't know if I can pull off spelling his last name without looking it up and I'm too lazy to do that right now) but I'm not convinced of it's quality because of him being in it.

When Allen and I saw this movie, we didn't really know how to take it. There were parts that were truly horrific (an 11 year old beating a nun to death with a hammer for one), there were parts that were truly funny, both intentionally and not. It was a well done mixed bag. (Mind you, this is a positive thing.) I really enjoyed every minute of this movie and that's not a hyperbole, I really did. It was a pretty simple concept done pretty well. The one problem that I do have with the movie is the fact that it didn't seem like the director had the confidence in his own style to just allow the scares to happen naturally. He was like one of those people that tries to tell al joke, fails and then is still nudging you endearingly, trying to get you to laugh. I know this type of person because I am this type of person.

But I digress. I am not going to ruin the ending to this movie because it is a really good twist. It makes sense, it's not forced and it pretty much comes out of nowhere. But comes out of nowhere in a nice way, not in a "Knowing" kinda way where it's like "Earth's fucked, here come the aliens that for some reason have an active interest in continuing the human race". Oh yeah, spoiler alert. The ending to "Orphan" is legitimate and surprising.

Now, this is my problem. This movie isn't exactly critic friendly. Roger Ebert gave it three and a half stars but it seems like lately Ebert has been giving anything that has the smallest semblance of skill attached to it four stars (a.k.a. "Knowing". Even though the ending sucked, it was a well done movie, I'll admit that. It just seems like the writer of the script wrote himself into a corner and was like, "Yes, aliens. Deus ex machina to the max!"). But here's the thing, some critics were actually saying that the movie's ending was obvious. To which I say to all these critics "You're all liars."

These critics want to make it seem like they're smarter than the average bear in saying that they "predicted" the ending. There is no possible way that one could do this without having some knowledge of the movie beforehand. If you go into the movie with a clean slate, you're not gonna be able to predict the ending. I'm sorry, you're not. And this is not a challenge (even though it may sound like one). This is just plain and simple facts like the sky being blue and the grass being green. Unless you know the writer, director or any of the people involved with this movie you will not be able to predict the ending.

This is just proof that most critics are dicks. And kinda me too. I'm bitching on my Facebook Note page hoping that someone reads this and is like, "Yes, go brother." As my father once said, "Opinions are like assholes and everyone's got one." The only reason these critics are even saying they predicted it is to make it seem as though the movie is worse than it actually is. The movie is a lot better than you would expect. It actually earns the star rating Ebert gave it.

As far as I'm concerned, "Orphan" is one of the better movies of the summer. It's certainly better than "Funny People", "Terminator: Salvation" and really even "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen". So for anyone that's interested in going to see a two hour, fun, funny and scary horror movie, go see "Orphan". At the very least, you get to see Vera Farmiga.

You Know the Drill


"The Dentist" was one of those movies that I always walked past at Red's Video. A cheap horror movie which hoped that people would rent it just off of the interesting cover art. On the front of the box it shows a person with their mouth wide open with surgical gloves working on their teeth. Teeth are a sensitive subject for a lot of people. I'm more of an eyes guy. If I see someone getting their eyes screwed around with, I'm out. It bothers me a lot.

I found this at the local Big Lots. I thought, "What the hell. It's only three bucks. What could go wrong?" I thought that it wouldn't be that big of a deal. That three dollars could have bought me any number of things. Could have bought me twelve fake mustaches. Or something. I thought the movie would have been a fun, jokey horror movie. Instead, it was just a weird hybrid.

The movie centers around (you guessed it) a dentist, played by Corbin Bernsen. You may know him from "L.A. Law" or even "Kiss Kiss Bang Bang". Maybe not "L.A. Law" if you're reading this unless you're in your thirties or forties. As the dentist, he realizes that his hot wife is banging the pool guy. Oh yeah and he's a neat freak. He thinks that everything is decaying. He's insane. Not the best guy you want to work on your teeth.

The whole plot of the movie seems to center around the dentist exactly revenge on his adulteress wife. Too bad he didn't take care of her like that girl in "Cannibal Holocaust". That would have ended the adultery right quick. Instead, he goes about it in a passive aggressive way. He invites her out to this newly renovated part of the building of the dentistry which is sorta like an opera house. He then straps her down and yanks out every one of her teeth.

So, you'd think the movie's over. Just like I did.

Forty-four minutes, twenty-three seconds in.

I check the back of the box. Approximate running time: 93 minutes.

Wait, wait, wait. What the fuck. This movie isn't even half over yet? He already exacted his revenge on his wife. His wife is taken care of. Toothless, but taken care of.

He ends up using her as bait to kill the pool guy, nixing all fantasy build up of me wanting to be a pool boy in Southern California. My luck, I'd be the dentist's pool guy and get hacked to death, easily the best kill in the movie. Granted, it's standard with a knife. There are few frills but the way that it's shot makes up for a lot of it.

Then the dentist goes back to his office to finish up his day at work. He drills gratuitously into people's teeth, hallucinates frequently and kinda molests this one girl. Well, no, not kinda. He does. He has to hide her pantyhose. By the way, the girl who he molests has an agent played by Mark Ruffalo of "Zodiac" and "You Can Count On Me" fame. He gets to punch the dentist because he finds out about the molestation. But hey, you can't really blame the dentist. It's the girl's fault she looks like his wife, right?

So because what should have been the main plot for the entire movie (the exacting of revenge on his wife) gets taken care of so quickly, the rest of the movie meanders and tries finding a final girl. And they do find one, but she's like sixteen and wearing a short skirt and white stockings. She only really wants her braces off and then the dentist takes out a gun.

The main problem with this movie is what I was mentioning before. It should have either been funnier or scarier. The director (Brian Yuzna) is not talented enough to pull a Peter Jackson or a Sam Raimi, trying to juggle the two. As a result, the movie is a major mixed bag. It could have been so ridiculously over the top that it would have been a hell of a lot more entertaining. Or it could have been scarier and taken itself a little more seriously. But instead, we got this weird combination. Like putting pineapple on a pizza...it just doesn't make sense.

Now, even though I didn't particularly like this movie, I am seeking out the second one. Mainly because the tag line is "Brace yourself!" With this being my only real reason for seeing this movie, it might give me the same amount of disappointment that this one did. But, who knows? Maybe "The Dentist II" will be a surprise.

A diamond in the rough, if you will.

Or it could just be the piece of coal it looks like.

Monday, October 19, 2009

"Shock" and Awe


There have been quite a few times that I've gone over "Shock Waves" in my collection and really wanted to watch it. The blurb on the front explained that this movie was "The best of the Nazi zombie movies!" Now, what took me by surprise with this was the fact that there was actually a subgenre of film that was that specific. I mean, really, how could you go wrong? You have a zombie, you make them a Nazi and you have a pretty entertaining movie, right?

Right?

Well, that's what I thought. No one's ever accused me of being discriminate with my movie buying. I, most of the time, will buy any movie that catches my eye. Sometimes, I'll actually go for a movie that looks absolutely terrible. I don't know what it is that attracts me to these types of movies and I never have. I used to have pretty decent taste in movies. Some people might say that watching crap rounds out my taste.

You could liken it to a regular person. Most regular people don't just eat meat or Reese's Peanut Butter Cups; they eat both. Making them more well-rounded. Or just plain round. Point being, variety is the spice of life. If you constantly watch good movies, then you'll never really be able to experience the highs and lows. If you watch a piece of shit, the good movies seem even better...as if they were graded on a curve.

While "Shock Waves" is not a total piece of shit, it's as slow as those Nazi zombies. Granted, it's pretty creepy, but there are only so many shots of white haired, goggle wearing zombies in SS uniforms coming out of the water before you become numb to them. Now that I think of it...

The movie doesn't really make a lot of sense. The Nazis in question are not really zombies. They're undead like a cursed mummy. Zombies, in my book, have an insatiable taste for flesh and blood. Sometimes brains. The Nazis in this just kill. Silently too. The whole backstory to the movie is that during World War II, Hitler trained a particular set of Nazis to be able to withstand death or something like that. Different troops were given different abilities. These particular Nazis are particularly adept at breathing underwater. Why Hitler would assume that breathing underwater would be a skill to be honed is beyond me. Maybe they could attack submarines or Allied schools of fish, who the hell knows.

It just doesn't make a hell of a lot of sense. I mean, granted, it's a horror movie from the 70s so it doesn't really need to have a "Chinatown" plot, but still, it's basically a ship full of people get stranded on an island and killed off one by one by the Nazis.

That's another thing. These Nazis wear goggles. When the protagonists decide to fight back, they go immediately for the goggles which just happens to kill the Nazis. Or re-kill them. I don't fucking know. The point being, why does this kill the Nazis? Do they have a sunlight aversion? If so, don't you think that secluding yourself on an island off the coast of Florida might not be the best place to hole up? I guess the same "not thinking" argument could be said about the aliens from "Signs", but at least that had some kind of subtext to it.

The director and co-writer, Ken Wiederhorn, went on to direct "Eyes of a Stranger", "Meatballs Part II", "Return of the Living Dead Part II" and "King Frat" which incidentally has one of the catchiest trailers I've ever seen. Wiederhorn does know how to film creepy scenes. What he does not know is pacing. While the movie is 85 minutes long, it seems like it could easily be around two to two and a half hours. And you'd think with John Carradine and Peter Cushing that the movie would have been a little bit better than it was. Turns out after some research, it was found out that the two of them filmed their scenes in four days and were paid $5,000 a piece for their roles. Can't really say that Carradine made the best choices past 1960, but Cushing doesn't really have an excuse. The very next year he was in "Star Wars"

In short, "Shock Waves" is an interesting movie, fun for what it is, but it seems longer than it should. And it can't really be considered a Nazi zombie movie because they're more undead Nazis. I know it's splitting hairs, but when you think about it, it's kind of a rip off. It's sorta like watching "Friday the 13th Part V: A New Beginning" and expecting Jason because it's a "Friday the 13th" movie. But then it just turns out to be some lame EMT who's fat, loudmouth son got hacked up for overreacting to a rejected candy bar. Literally, the guy got killed because he pissed off some guy cutting wood and he offered the guy a candy bar, putting it right where the guy was cutting and then acts surprised when the candy bar gets cut in half.

Sorry, tangent.

Anyway...

Check the movie out if you get the chance. Don't go out looking for it unless you gotta see every movie that involves the word zombie. If that's how you want to go about it, put this one at the bottom of your list.

Right above Uwe Boll's "House of the Dead".

The Last Two Houses to Your Left



I was a bit hesitant to see this movie when I first heard about it. This is a remake of a movie that was a remake itself. Now, I’ve never seen “The Virgin Spring” and feel like an idiot because I haven’t. So, the only film that I really can reference with this movie is the Wes Craven version from the 1970s. That movie was extremely hard to get through. It’s not exactly well-made, but it’s extremely effective. Wes Craven was still getting his wits about him with this movie and when you think about it, a lot of his films that he’s both written AND directed seem to shoot for goals that he constantly misses. Think “The Hills Have Eyes” and “Shocker”. ”A Nightmare on Elm Street” may be the best of the bunch that he wrote himself, but that benefited from being an extremely original idea. If you go back and watch the original and try forgetting the rest of them, you’d be better off, save the third and seventh (also written by Craven).

By now, I’m sure most people know the plot of “The Last House on the Left”. Two girls go out partying in town, get themselves caught. They end up being brutally raped and then eventually murdered. The killers/rapists then take refuge in the parents of one of the victim’s house and the parents take revenge. It’s a simple plot, but inherently it is deliberately supposed to incite some kind of anger. With the Craven version, it was just in your face violent. I think I was a little young to see it when I did and I knew that after I had seen it, I wouldn’t be different. The thing about that movie is that it portrays police as bumbling idiots, showing them making dumb mistakes that cost the victims their lives set to “Deliverance” style banjo music. It just doesn’t fit. Oh yeah, and at the end, the mother bites the penis off of one of the assailants. Not the most pleasant movie.

Not really saying that the remake is that much better. What’s weird is I kinda liked the remake. In an age where all the classic horror movies are being remade and screwed up, this was one of the exceptions. The night I saw it was at the drive-in where a movie like this really should be seen. It was the third movie, preceded by “A Haunting in Connecticut” and the remake of “Friday the 13th”. ”A Haunting in Connecticut” sucked like you probably think it would. I fell asleep at the drive-in. I remember being really comfortable during the movie which is exactly why the movie didn’t work. A horror movie should not lull someone to sleep, especially if they’re the only one in a car in the middle of a field.

The remake of “Friday the 13th” is another story that I will explain in a different blog. I found a new appreciation for it once I bought it on Blu-Ray. Again, as I said, I will explain later.

So, I was kinda worried. I’m not exactly pushing my way to the front of the line to see a couple of girls get raped and brutally killed at the hands of scumbags. But watching the movie, I realized something: this is pretty well made. Because of this revelation, I think it dilutes the power of what happens. The thing about the original is that is was so gritty that it almost seemed real. Granted, the blood was pink and the acting was terrible, but that was part of it, part of the experience.

With the remake, we get the embezzler from “Ghost” and Julia Robert’s sister as the parents. With credits like that, you wouldn’t think they were that good, but I am happy to say that the acting (all around) was really good. It made it to seem like more of a Greek tragedy. The actors were the parents and the scumbags and the victims.

Now, I know I seem like I’m contradicting myself, saying they both seem real but not at the same time. The remake has a gloss on it. The shot compositions as well as the angles seem planned. In the original, they did not. Not at all. And that enhanced the realism.

I’m not saying either of the movies are better than one or the other, but I will say this; with the original, it seemed like it was part of the experience. You were there with everyone and you wanted those bastards to get what they had coming to them. In the remake, you get the same feeling, but it’s more of an audience type of movie, the type where the people in the audience jump up and start cheering at the screen to “kill that motherfucker”.

My sister, when we were watching it earlier, seemed to almost laugh when one of the guys got his hand caught in a garbage disposal and then got a hammer claw in the back of his head. When I said something to her afterwards about it, she said she didn’t realize she was laughing. Actually, she flat out denied it. This is what the filmmakers wanted. They wanted people involved. They don’t call it a “revenge fantasy” for no reason.

A Movie With No Redeeming Values


About a month ago, I was in Rochester with a few of my friends. Mike had moved up there during the summer and myself and two others went up to visit, shop and just hang out. Part of the trip was to go to a huge ass FYE. Understand that if you live in the Oswego area, no FYE's really compare to the massiveness that is the FYE in Eastview Mall, located in Rochester. When I first walked in there, I was in awe.

But, then again, I have no life.

Anyway. I didn't go up there with many expectations. It was the weekend before Christmas and I had shopping to do, but shopping for your sister and mom with three guys either seems gay or out of place. You choose.

As part of the ritual of buying DVDs with these three it becomes something of a competition. God help me, it's a competition. As much as the other three will deny, deep down we all know that's what it is.

I was leafing through the Horror movie section, seeing if I could find anything of any interest. While I really needed to get something for my dad while I was there, I had a feeling I wouldn't find anything for a reasonable price. FYE is notorious for overpricing their DVDs. As a matter of fact, most of their HD or Blu Ray DVDs run almost fifty dollars.

To my left, I see Mike with a stack of movies in his hand. Most of the time (and we both do this) we'll find movies we find interesting and hold them. Sometimes a few turns into a stack and stacks turn into quests to find shopping carts. Mike showed me what I thought to be something special, something that hit me a little harder than it should have.

It was a box of British horror films. I know, a lot of you are saying, "Great, who gives a shit? What are they, all written by Agatha Christie and Jane Austen?" For those of you who do not recognize one or both of those names, you need not read any further. The box set was priced at 49.99. Not bad for four movies.

Mike then points out the price on them on the shelf. 17.99. In the box set were three movies that didn't interest me that much. But the fourth was something I believed necessitated a pedestal.

It's called "Inseminoid". In the FYE that night, there was a copy of it on it's own that cost 49.99 on it's own. Mike knew that and there wasn't another copy of the set. I was defeated.

Or was I?

We ventured to the used section which they were still in the process of setting up. There wasn't all that much there that was whetting my appetite so to speak. I just was a bit sad. Mike had "Inseminoid" and I didn't. For a good price too. I pulled out my phone to try to see if I could get it for cheaper online, but I had no signal and therefore no Wi-Fi.

After a few minutes, maybe even ten, Allen calls my name. I turn to see what he wants and he's holding another copy of the boxset in his hand. Apparently someone stashed it in the used section. Either that or threw it away in horror with no regard where it landed. Same price so I decided to buy it.

Now, this box set has been hanging out in my house for a while. I opened it, but didn't watch any of the movies inside. I figured I would have to set aside time to watch them. They seemed like special occasion movies or just something I could watch some random night after one in the morning.

I got bored earlier today and decided to pop "Inseminoid" in. Now, when you look at the box, you think this movie is gonna kick ass. I'm sorry, but it's not often you see a thick, six foot (guesstimating) monster over a naked girl's body on a futuristic surgical table. Anybody, I don't care who you are or what your movie watching habits are, you'd at least pick up the movie and look at the back.

The plot sounds like it's a rip off of "Alien". People go to a deserted planet, get attacked/killed, whatever.

But, the movie was about a bunch of British people, some guys with close to no hair, some girls with no bras and a lot of white T-shirts on the space craft, that go on the planet and get terrorized by this alien you don't see a lot of.

Here's a problem I have: the monster kills some people, makes others go crazy so they can go kill other people. For instance, this lady and a black guy are walking around the planet (where it's allegedly 85 degrees below even though the planet has two orbiting suns). The black guy gets killed. Ripped apart actually. Because, if you watch enough horror movies, you should know that the black guy in the movie is about as fucked as the asshole in the red shirt on Star Trek. That is, unless, you're watching "Tales from the Hood". The monster then turns his attention to the woman and pulls her breathing tube.

Now, in most movies, you pull some dumb fucker's breathing tube out when they're walking a planet surface, their eyes bug out like the end of "Total Recall". But, not this movie. The girl just faints. Next thing we're treated to (and yes, I do mean treated) is a "Rosemary's Baby" type sequence where the alien stands over the naked girl, similar to what was shown on the DVD cover.

Around this point, I was trying to figure out the origin of the title "Inseminoid". I broke it down. In my head, "In...sem...in..." It clicks. Inseminate. This is a creature that inseminates.

Wait.

Me, an English major that constantly corrects people's English and how they speak and I didn't pick up on this until it was too late.

The really stupid looking alien spreads the woman's legs and proceeds to put a tube between them. What is going through the tube looks something like a vomit/pickled egg mixture. Least, I hope it was a tube. Unless the monster has a translucent penis. Anyway, the lady screams, the camera goes around and around and she goes back to the ship.

Now, this might have been kind of interesting, but the movie was so damn slow. I couldn't stay awake at all. Maybe it was because I was tired. But, I woke up at different intervals during the movie. Inseminated lady becomes two months pregnant overnight and no one thinks it odd, twin aliens, carnage and loud casting call.

I'm pretty sure watching the movie that way makes more sense.

Now, I know I'm giving this movie a bad rep, especially with the title of the blog, but I am going to give it another chance. It may have been terrible and hard to watch, even sleep inducing, but there's something about that DVD cover. How the monster looks, the art on the DVD.

Either the movie had a fantastic advertising representative or the movie has legitimately good bad parts in it.

I guess they can't all be winners. I was hoping for a "Cheerleader Camp"/"Mountaintop Motel Massacre" type movie. The type I'd see at Red's when I'd go down there by myself on rainy Saturday afternoons as a kid.

The next movie I'm looking for is "Blood Diner". I've heard a lot of good things about it. Anyone that might have it and wants to part with it (although from what I've heard, you'd have to be crazy to think that way), let me know.

For the time being however, gaze at the glory that is the "Inseminoid" DVD box. There's gotta be some good in the movie, I just have to find it. It may take a while and I may have to take up cocaine to keep me up through the night, but whatever it is I must do to find it will become my mission.

Bloody Pom-Poms: The Legend of "Cheerleader Camp"


You can never really review a movie like this. Well, you can review it, but you can't really critique it. Critiquing is something more to the like of what my friend Mike does. His critiques read professionally with a point. A person would really be close to unable to figure out the in depth themes of "Cheerleader Camp". If anyone could, Mike could. I'm just going to talk about it for about a page or two and see what comes of it. Who knows, it might have a point after all.

"Cheerleader Camp" is somewhat of a question mark when it comes to the history of the making of it. As stated on the inside booklet of the DVD states the company that was going to produce it went bankrupt right before it was to be released, leaving it on the shelf, the filmmakers not knowing what to do with it.

Their first thoughts were that they'd have to release it on video. The market for direct to video back in the late 80s was high. I wouldn't exactly say that the quality was that high back then, but now, it's gone downhill. You can't really find a gem like "Cheerleader Camp" at Blockbuster nowadays. Most of the time when you go there and see a new Steven Segal or Wesley Snipes action movie with Linda Fiorentino as the lead actress, you know it's direct to video. Most of the horror is shot on digital and looks crappy with no sort of talent attached to it whatsoever.

Because it was released on video and the filmmakers needed to change the title of it. "Cheerleader Camp" had an inherently porn-like title to it, so they changed it to something more to the point. "Bloody Pom-Poms" was released on video in early 1988.

The plot, if it's even really that necessary to divulge, concerns a cheerleading troupe that goes to a secluded in the woods camp. Each of the girls is vowing to be crowned Queen at this camp. Some sort of competition takes place towards the end of the movie, the main characters practice for it for half the film. The other half is all the killings, nudity and jealousy (not necessarily in that order). It's like "Saved by the Bell" if Kelly Kapowski got garden shears in the back of her head.

Alison (Betsy Russell) is the main girl. She is haunted by these strange nightmares where mascots circle around her and the ends of her pom-poms become lethal instruments. Her boyfriend is the irrepressible Leif Garrett because if I ever were going to cast a male cheerleader in a horror movie, the first name that springs to mind as a casting choice is Leif Garrett. Rounding out the cast is Lucinda Dickey, Lorie Griffin, Travis McKenna, Teri Weigel and Rebecca Ferratti.

Most of the cast members were either Playboy or Penthouse centerfolds at one-time or another. Teri Weigel went on to doing hardcore porno and is still doing pretty well in the whole "Hot Mom" genre. She plays Alison's direct rival, Pam. At one point, she takes off her top whilst sunbathing in front of her competition as Queen. It makes a little sense, but not enough to get into. Eventually, Leif Garrett's (Brent) character (if you want to call it that) becomes bored with Alison and begins to look elsewhere.

Alison has a dream where Brent and Pam are having sex and being cheered on by a bunch of mascots, chanting, "Do it, do it. Now, now." Pretty disturbing. Alison then begins to chant along with it all.

But, of all the cheesy, crazy scenes, there's one that just defies explanation. After Alison has one of her insane dreams, it cuts immediately to Brent and Timmy rapping. Again, Brent is Leif Garrett. Timmy is this 6'3", obese man with sunglasses. Throughout the movie, he's taping the sheriff and the head coach having sex along with all the nude sunbathing. Of course, when he tapes the nude sunbathing, he's wearing a costume as a grandmother. When caught, he tries to continue the ruse with the people that he's been with the entire film. It'd be like me dressing up as the same thing in front of people that I've known and am living with. Maybe I should try it and see if my parents fall for it.

Maybe not...

The other problem I have with Timmy's costume is why in God's name would he think that a grandmother would be hanging around a cheerleading camp? What in that huge melon of his would make him believe this is a good disguise? Maybe he climbed into a Delorean to the year 2000 and watched "The Master of Disguise."

Maybe not...

He may as well just have dressed up as an old school burglar. You know, the type you would have seen in "The Perils of Pauline" with the Dustin Hoffman "Hook" mustache and completely black attire.

But, I digress. I went off on a bit of a tangent there. It's just in any movie, the fat guy is always the idiot. The one that's the horniest, or stupidest. He's always the -est of the group, whatever you want to put in front of that -est is up to you, but he's that.

Where was I? What was I talking about before the stupid, fat guy Grandmother disguise? Let me scroll up. Oh yeah, the rap.

The movie literally cuts from Alison looking at herself in the mirror with blood running down her face to this rap. It's Leif Garrett and the guy that doesn't know how to come up with disguises very well, rapping about their teammates. Because the two guys are both cheerleaders too. They don't do much. They're just there so the entire movie isn't just girls, as interesting as that might be. The rap is amazing. Unfortunately, there's not a YouTube video to embed in this besides a review explaining the movie. I guess you'll just have to shell out the 9.99 with tax to buy it. Or, ask me nicely to borrow it.

It goes on for about a minute and a half, but for those ninety seconds seem to stretch longer than that. Like, you're reveling in the enjoyment of the movie. What it must have been like (or could have been like) to see this movie in the theatre. Would it have gained an audience or done better on video, I guess we'll never know. At one point, the gardener (or second in command it was never made clear) is watching the girls dance to the rap. He inexplicably has some kind of a seizure and sprays himself with the sprinkler he's trying to fix, getting himself soaked.

It really is something people need to see before they die.

Or, you know, it could be the last thing you see when you die. Like "The Ring", except a lot scarier.

The other point of pride I have with this movie is the garden shear scene. Mind you, on the DVD, the scene title is "Sheer Terror". Something else I'm quite proud of. Once things get going in the movie, people start dying. Most don't have a lot of gore added to them except this one. Pam, after being a tease with Brent, walks through the woods by herself. Calling for Brent, she doesn't hear person behind her. Without any warning, the person shoves the garden shears through the back of her head, coming out of her mouth. She falls to the ground. Dead.

The movie pushes you to believe that Alison is the killer because she's the one with all the dreams, including the one about her killing Pam with her pom-poms. Don't ask. The movie ends on a high note. You can see the twist coming miles away. But, when it happens, it's handled well. Again, something I'm not going to reveal, more something you need to see on your own.

The movie can really be summed up to be something you can watch at midnight with a couple of friends and laugh over. The film is well enough made and cared about by the filmmakers that you can say they knew most of what was going on with it. What kind of reaction they'd get from some of the dialogue. It plays as more of a comedy. You just can't take it seriously.

Watching it a few nights ago, it made me feel like I was back in Red's Video. Red's, for those of you who don't know, is a cheap video store that was two blocks away from my house. They had different branches in Palermo and Fulton as well. They have all since shut down. Couldn't compete with the Blockbuster and Hollywood Videos of the world.

As a kid when I'd go down to Red's without my parents, I'd look through the horror movies. The section they wouldn't want me in. Well, besides the porn section secluded by saloon doors. That's when everything was VHS. DVD wasn't even a thought for most people. These movies filled the shelves. I'd read as many of the boxes I could, not being able to fully comprehend what the movie could show. The biggest dose of graphic violence that I had gotten as a child was the heart ripping scene from "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom". What could movies like "Cheerleader Camp" and "Bad Taste" hold in store for me?

I've discussed this with Mike before. The attraction to the larger than normal boxes. He told me of a similar experience he had with Movies Plus, another out of business video store in Oswego. How he and his friend would come into Oswego and pick out a few of the big box movies and watch them.

"Cheerleader Camp" is one of those movies. It makes me feel nostalgic. Makes me feel like I've made progression. The same way I feel playing NES games on my Wii.

It's a good feeling.

But, I should be on my way. Being that I'm slightly overweight, I should probably go get my grandmother disguise on and video tape some unknowing girls sunbathing. I just need to find something to apply the fake mole.

Any takers?