Review CLX - The Maxx

Review 160
The Maxx (1995)

I've been meaning to write another review, but I always seem to get caught up in something with school. Soon exams will come and summer will return once again. Can't wait! But for now, let's talk about Sam Kieth and Bill Messner-Loebs' The Maxx. A classic MTV-aired series back in the mid-nineties, the show is an adaptation of the comic series created by Sam Kieth back in 1993 continuing until 1998. Now, while I have the comics somewhere on my hard drive, I never got around to reading them. However, I have a reason for this apart from having no time - I didn't grow up watching The Maxx, my boyfriend did. I watched it, what, four years ago about with him, and the meaning flew right over my head. I downloaded the comics as a means to further understand the series (something I will explain after), but when I started reading, my mind was just not there. So I stopped maybe one issue in (there are thirty-five issues)? However, armed with more (basic) psychology knowledge and a greater understanding of symbolism in film, not to mention a sudden hit of nostalgia, I decided to conquer The Maxx once again.

The Maxx (voiced by Michael Haley) is a giant, purple, masked vigilante who switches between reality where he protects a freelance social worker, Julie Winters (voiced by Glynnis Talken), and the Outback, a completely sub-conscious place where he protects the Jungle Queen. Throughout his attempts of protection, serial rapist and murderer Mr. Gone (Barry Stigler) prowls the night after new victims, focusing on his fixation with Julie and her ties to The Maxx.

I think it's important to note straight off the bat that The Maxx is not exactly clear in all it wants to say sometimes. This is partly because the series does not really explain the origins of the characters considering the origin stories started in the comic series after issue eleven, where the television series stopped. So, instead, we get an episode in the middle where Mr. Gone explains the problems of the characters to a doctor, but to us as well. Now, while I did appreciate the extra help, it does piss me off that Mr. Gone reveals a trauma Julie went through in college all nonchalant when it was NEVER BROUGHT UP PREVIOUSLY. And while The Maxx loses his mask at one point, leading Julie to say things had changed, it's never revealed to the audience what he looks like, or what happened. What the hell? I mean, I understand you're following the comics and all, but if some origin was given already in the comics during the release of the series, maybe you should include that! Maybe you can be like Akira or other animated films based on a series of comics/anime which are released before the end is completed and instead provide a different ending. I get not putting anything, but seriously, The Maxx does not provide a lot, leaving you confused and wondering what was real, what was not, who was who, who was what.

Okay, breathe... Now that we have that out of the way, we can discuss the series itself. So the series depicts loneliness, seclusion, Freudian psychology, sexual assault and rape, abandonment, suicide - the right stuff for a first date. The Freudian psychology in The Maxx is, well, maximised, so I'd brush up at least on the understanding of the id, ego, and superego should you have no idea about it since, as the show itself says, "this isn't psychology 101". That - at least, to me - is the extent of the psychology used, which does make me sad considering Freud was a psychopathic idiot, but you know, I don't know what else I'd expect from a Western approach to psychology in an art form. This seems like I'm insulting the creator and show, but in reality, I think they do present the ideas accurately, though using Freudian psychology is probably the easiest psychology they could have gone for... Wow, this is coming off as very catty, so let's restart. The idea of recessing to a more primitive time in your life is another Freudian idea used, but it works well with the series. It helps you understand this jump back to the sub-conscious world, while not acknowledging your concerns. I can't say it's my cup of tea because Freud, but for a college presentation, I think The Maxx would be great for an analysis.

Apart from the Freudian connections, The Maxx takes its turn in discussing feminist propaganda, but looking at both sides. Again, I can't say I was a big fan. The series is very obviously trying to show us the sexism that exists in the world, either through dialogue, or through the actions of our characters. However, it takes on this strong-woman-who-don't-need-no-man ideal of a female most of the time in order to show that women are strong and can take care of themselves. While I do not deny that women are capable of living on their own and all, it's again low-brow and just annoying. I don't care for all this shitty feminist crap, and hearing it in The Maxx made me sad. But - and this is a big but - Julie Winters, given her rape and near-murder - will come out and claim this feminist stuff is crap, at least later in the series. The thing is, given her earlier monologues, I'm not really sure if this is giving another perspective, or showing that her rape made her very bitter and led her to reject these "important" notions of feminism. I don't know, man, and frankly, I don't care. While rape and sexual assault make you aware of your femininity (assuming this happened to a woman) and break down these walls of positive feminism that you built around yourself (at least, this is what I believe), I think that should have been a bigger focus than the arguments over feminism. I know Sara's mom (Sara being the teenage character who comes later) represents this hippy movement about women empowerment, whereas Julie is the modern feminist (second- versus third-wave feminism?), leading to a lot of fights, but I was just waiting for them to move on. But I guess if you're going to discuss rape and sexual assault, you need to discuss feminism. I mean, I'm not saying everything that was said was bad - I mean, rapists will target the skanky and the modestly-dressed - it's true that it doesn't make a difference, but dressing like a whore doesn't exactly help out your situation with getting a certain type of attention. Okay, let's tl;dr this: bottom line, I didn't care for the feminist drivel - I would have preferred sticking to the personal conflicts and mentality changes associated with rape and sexual assault. Feminism will be made a focus in this discussion, but how about you show how feminism is crap?

While I bashed the hell out of The Maxx, I still liked what it did. The changing animation was pertinent to the ideas being conveyed, and for that, it deserves all the stars. And any time feminism was not being explicitly stated, I did enjoy what they did. I hate Freud, and while it was obvious what they were doing, the emotions of the characters were great. I feel like nostalgia keeps me blinded from actually completely hating it, but what can I say? The animation really was great, and it did depict character interactions quite nicely, with a bit of blood and guts.

The Maxx is not complex by any stretch, but if you're looking for an idea of Freudian psychology and an interesting examination of female characters, then give it a watch. I wasn't into the feminist propaganda, and the Freudian psychology was not my interest, but the interesting animation and relationships (and nostalgia) kept me watching. Give it a watch - love it or hate it, it'll have you thinking.

Review CLIX - Paris, Texas

Review 159
Paris, Texas (1984)

Welcome to the month of March! Guys, we're three months into 2017 - that's insane. I remember rolling in the new year, and now we're approaching spring (though the cold temperatures here seem to contradict that). Since it's a Friday evening and I worked today, I figured I'd snuggle up with some nice tea, listen to a poppy rock track, and write a review. The film is Wim Wenders' Paris, Texas starring Harry Dean Stanton, Dean Stockwell, Aurore Clément, Nastassja Kinski, and Hunter Carson. I remember trying to watch Der Himmel über Berlin, or Wings of Desire in English, by Wim Wenders, and I couldn't get into it, but since that film had gotten such high praise, I never forgot the name. I feel like Solaris has prepared for any super long, winding films... Enough of this tangent, let's continue with this review!

Travis Henderson (Harry Dean Stanton) is found wandering through the desert, refusing to speak a word to the doctor who finds him. His brother, Walt (Dean Stockwell), is quickly contacted and picks him up after thinking he was dead over his disappearance four years prior. Returning to Walt's house, Travis is re-united with his son, Hunter, who is now seven years old. However, his wife, who also vanished, leaving Hunter in the care of Walt and his wife (Aurore Clément), is Travis' one desire. With a hint to go by, Travis heads out to find his ex-wife, and Hunter, the mother who left him.

Paris, Texas hits hard - I'm warning you now - but it's pretty grand, at least toward the end. But let's start small. I'll try not to ruin too much of the film, but I can't guarantee I won't give some stuff away, so if you want to go in with a clean slate, read this review later.

Our protagonist, Travis, is a lost soul. At first, I gotta say, I wasn't digging him at all. The whole "not talking" thing got old pretty quickly to me, and I was worried we'd have to deal with a whole film of silence from this guy, but thankfully, Walt gets him to talk maybe twenty minutes in. Then we slowly get a development in his character, which turns out to be pretty depressing. His relationship with his son is strained - obviously - but thankfully, through a heartfelt scene of walking, the two come to an understanding and bond. And it only gets stronger from there. As for other characters, well, Walt does his job - can't say I got much attachment from him. And his wife, Anne, was so touchy-feely with Travis that I was sure Hunter was going to be the illegitimate son of Anne and Travis; however, my boyfriend would only comment that she was "freeeench". That leaves us Jane, but I don't want to talk about her too much since she's at the end. Suffice to say, her character is equally as depressing as Travis.

As for Hunter, well, here I have some beef. There are little scenes which are very endearing, but Wim Wenders liked to project through this character a bit. It's something you find pretty often in films. One example would be Clerks which had Dante and Randolf speaking monologues so cut and paste and unnatural between two people, it was insane. Otherwise, I didn't finish the film, but Vanilla Sky seems to suffer this with Penélope Cruz's character as well, speaking very intellectually to the point it just sounds unnatural. Now, kids are observant and all, but when he would discuss Travis with Anne, claiming all this "ceci n'est pas une pipe", it just sounded too heavy-handed, especially from a seven-year-old. It's too much of a "what's that? Is that the script?" moment. It just ruins the film for me, even if it's proving a good message through it. It makes it seem more like a lecture than a movie, you know?

However, I still liked the movie. One reason is because of its message on multiculturalism and American pride. I seem to be on a roll with these movies, eh? Anyway, just pay attention to the narrative about Paris, Texas (yes, it's a place), and Travis speaking of how his father wanted to make his mom a big "star" from France. It's not shoving it down, but it nonetheless shows how you should be proud of where you come from, regardless of its fanciness, or lack thereof. The other reason is that "final" monologue and beautiful cinematography which just ties everything together. When Wim Wenders does it right, he does it very right.

I guess that's all I have to say about Paris, Texas. It's a bit slow at the beginning, it starts improving in the middle, and it comes full-throttle at the end. I'd give it a watch, but be ready for some pretty depressing moments, especially at the end. Happ- err, sad viewing?

Review CLVIII - Rolling Thunder

Review 158
Rolling Thunder (1977)

Hey guys! Long time no see... I am dead sure I wrote a review for Re-Animator, but apparently I deleted it - or it somehow was deleted. So I'll dedicate this little space to Stuart Gordon's Re-Animator and From Beyond, both starring Jeffrey Combs (he is just great) and Barbara Crampton (her character's stupidity and good looks are what get the film going). They're great films, absolutely hilarious, and both deserve a little spot in your memory.

Today, though, we're going to discuss a more serious film, John Flynn's Rolling Thunder, starring William Devane and Tommy Lee Jones (damn, he was young!). We'll dive straight into this review since I have some work to get done, but I wanted to make sure I had a review in for February.

Major Charles Rane (William Devane) of the US Air Force and Sergeant Johnny Vohden (Tommy Lee Jones) of the US Army are finally returning home after being kept as prisoners of war (POWs) for seven years in Vietnam during their service. Upon returning home, Charles finds out his wife believed he was dead and is engaged to another man - with the hopes of marrying him after a divorce is settled. His son doesn't remember him, feeling closer to his mom's fiancé than to him. His town gives him meaningless gifts, including a box of silver dollars for each day he was a prisoner of war. The only element of his life keeping him together is the promise that he will not lose his son. However, when a burglary leads him to lose his hand and his wife and son dead, Charles will stop at nothing to destroy the men who killed his son.

Guys, I loved this movie. After a couple of attempts at watching some revenge films which just lacked proper revenge (Blue Ruin and The Shooting being the two), Rolling Thunder completely delivered. Let's see why in depth.

The characters in this movie are just great, with great acting. Everything sets up to bring our protagonist to the end of his rope when he returns, but he somehow keeps going. You see the reality that he comes back nearly dead inside after going through such traumatic events in war from an enemy, how all the gifts and recognitions he receives from San Antonio, Texas are completely wasted on him. However, his son is his one will to live. He doesn't hate on Cliff, played by Lawrason Driscoll, for taking his wife from him, but the moment Cliff attempts to buddy-up with his son, he's ready to pounce. I love how the characters don't bullshit on this. Cliff speaks to Charles about the matter, his wife is open to him about what happened the day he returns, his son feels awkward around him, but nonetheless, sees him as his father. However, when the bandits come to steal the silver coins he had received as a gift and shoot his son and wife, you don't get the full glance at his anger until later, and it's done in a clever way with cigarettes (you'll understand once you watch the movie). William Devane plays a great man suffering inside as a post-war veteran, with Lisa Richards as the wife and Jordan Gerler as the son playing their parts well. I also loved the character Linda Forchet, played by Linda Haynes, who is an admirer from afar of the major, but I'll let you watch the film to enjoy her character.

Otherwise, with great characters, we have great plot. As I mentioned briefly, the "no-bullshit" of hiding what is happening from Charles is great. In Brothers, for example, the whole climax comes when Tobey Maguire's character comes back from war after being held as a POW, not knowing that his wife thought he was dead and proceeded to sleep with his brother, played by Jake Gyllenhaal. Everything is a secret until one of his daughters basically calls him shit compared to his brother, leading Tobey Maguire to go insane. It's very Hollywood-ish and bright lights with all the lying and deception until they finally tell him and smashes the house. This doesn't happen in Rolling Thunder. Everyone is straight-forward with what is happening, except Charles keeps his secrets hidden until it blows. I like that. While I liked Brothers when I saw it (when it came out, so take that with a grain of salt since things have changed since then), I didn't like Tobey Maguire's character and I thought the overall ending was crap. It just didn't fit and was way too Hollywood. Rolling Thunder does it closer to home - you really feel the characters. Apart from that, the film just goes about the revenge in an interesting manner, with failed love and... Okay, I'll stop here. I don't want to ruin the rest of the film since that's when everything gets juicy (this is also why I haven't talked about the burglars very much). Just take my word for it that it's pretty good - and yes, Tommy Lee Jones' character does make a (rather important) appearance again.

The reflection of post-Vietnam war America in Rolling Thunder is just great. The examination of the culture of America and the self of Americans are also prominent in the film, something I really appreciated and are what will really make this film last with me. I'd be down to give it another watch in fact, to really let things set in - though granted, I'm writing this review at least two weeks after watching it, so I remember more the feelings than I do the little details. Still, that's what lasts, isn't it?

Rolling Thunder really is a great film. It's heart-wrenching and hard to swallow, but the characters, plot, and revenge just make it one film you shouldn't skip. By the way, if you still aren't convinced, Paul Schrader, one of the writers of the screenplay for Rolling Thunder, also wrote the screenplay for Taxi Driver and Raging Bull. That's what we're getting into guys. Have a good night!

Review CLVII - The Boondock Saints

Review 157
The Boondock Saints (1999)

Happy new year everyone! I wonder when it gets too late to say that. I mean, we're over a week into it already. Since I had (almost) a week off from work, I spent my time going out and relaxing before school started again. It's just a great time all around (please find the sarcasm in my voice). But I digress - we're here to review a film, no? Today we're gonna review Troy Duffy's The Boondock Saints starring Sean Patrick Flanery, Norman Reedus, Willem Dafoe, and David Della Rocco. I mean, I've watched The Boondocks, so I might as well go with the saints of the boondocks, right? ... Yeah, that was a piss-poor joke. On to the review!

After Connor (Sean Patrick Flanery) and Murphy MacManus (Norman Reedus) kill two Russian mobsters in self-defense after a Saint Patrick's brawl, they're hailed as heroes. Soon they take their violent antics to the street to become the unknown vigilantes Boston has always wanted. Meanwhile, FBI Agent Paul Smecker (Willem Dafoe) is on the case to figure out who these new killers are, all while Italian errand boy for the mafia Rocco (David Della Rocco) tries to stay alive.

In Poultrygeist, Ron Jeremy's cameo appearance showed just how shit the film was going to be, but thankfully The Boondock Saints is not bad. It's not a masterpiece by any means, but I had a great amount of fun out of this one. The Boondock Saints keeps it going with a crazed FBI agent along with the funny trio. It's like Death Wish without the strong message and Charles Bronson (I also recommend this movie if you haven't seen it).

I'm not sure I have much else to say about this one, guys. It's quirky, it's funny, but it's got the vigilante, Catholic drive. I really liked the acting from Sean Patrick Flanery and Norman Reedus, and David Della Rocco definitely gave me a good laugh as Rocco. But damn, Willem Dafoe definitely steals the show. I really loved his character and the acting. If all gay men were portrayed like this, I'd be fine with it. His glazed eyes as he relives a crime scene is just great. Sigh... Honestly, I'd re-watch the film just for him. That's not to say the vigilante trio didn't do a great job - they had pretty comical bits themselves - but in my eyes, Willem Dafoe really had me captivated.

So how about the vigilante theme? Death Wish really presented this fantastically, and I remember discussing with my boyfriend about the prominent theme. Having gone through the judicial system personally, as well as having been a true crime fanatic, I think we can all agree that justice isn't always served. Not to mention the regulations put in place in some countries (including mine) which limits self-defensive options, making it impossible to fend for yourself if ever you're in a less-than-ideal situation. Then you have cases where people are condemned for self-defense - I mean, really. In Death Wish, the crime takes place in New York where firearm ownership is extremely difficult. Is it any wonder the city is ridden with crime? Yeah, I'm weighing into the right to bare arms, second amendment of the United States of America. And yes, as a person living outside of the country, and in a country where firearms in the general public are feared upon, I think you should be able to defend yourself with a weapon, including a firearm. Seriously, if I'm packing heat, I don't think people are going to mess with me. People shouldn't be stupid, but if you're in the firearm community, I'm gonna assume that generally you aren't trying to blow yourself up, so you'll follow regulations. Now, obviously the USA is not the only one packing, but since it's such a big debate there, I thought I'd way in.

So how do I feel about vigilantism? One hundred percent there. That's why the second amendment exists in the first place - so the government listens to you, not the other way around. I'm not saying I'd go out and kill a man tomorrow, but let's fight smartly, shall we? Can we agree that some of the people in this film are complete scum? Can we agree that the court is not always going to benefit the right? It's not black and white, no issue is, but we can agree that judgements will be served, however your faith takes it.

Whew, that was a lot of opinionated dribble. Let's wrap this up. The Boondock Saints is a very fun film, filled with violent craziness. Willem Dafoe is awesome. I recommend it whole-heartedly. Have a good night!

Review CLVI - The Plague Dogs

Review 156
The Plague Dogs (1982)

Christmas came and went and we're heading toward the new year. It's already 2017, guys. That's crazy. 2016 was a stress-induced, depressing personal journey that I'd rather never relive, but some great things came out this year, so it wasn't a complete waste at least. All I can say is people will try to bring you down, but if you persist in your conquest, you'll make it. May you move forward in your endeavours.

With that said, with the passing of Richard Adams on December 24th, I couldn't not say a word. I didn't follow his work explicitly, but I loved his novel, Watership Down. I also reviewed the movie adaptation, so I figured that I'd review The Plague Dogs, based on his novel of the same name, and directed by Martin Rosen, the same director of Watership Down. With the familiar voice of John Hurt, Christopher Benjamin, and James Bolam. Now, I never read the original source material, so I'm reviewing the film purely on itself. Take that as you will.

Rowf (Christopher Benjamin) and Snitter (John Hurt) are two dogs living in a animal-testing facility, who can only dream of freedom. However, a chance at liberty brings the dogs the new high, until the media catches wind of the whole escape, claiming the dogs may be rabid and carrying the plague.

Guys, if you thought Watership Down was depressing, The Plague Dogs is worse. It was a hard film to watch, especially as a dog lover and animal enthusiast who had worked in an animal lab (almost contradictory, right?). Now, before I continue with this review, I want to be clear: I am not against animal testing one hundred percent. If ever I take a medication, I am fully aware that it was tested on an animal at some point, and if that medication could save my life, I wouldn't deny it or condone it for its animal testing. We live in a world dominated by hierarchy whether we like it or not - in the wild, it's kill or be killed. The same applies to the human race. So for practical purposes, like medication testing (which, honestly, is sometimes experimented on people to an extent), I do not disagree with animal testing.

Now that we have that out of the way - because this isn't a black and white issue in the least - I am against animal testing which serves no purpose. Regulations have been imputed since the making of this movie and Richard Adams' novel, but at the time, it's true - animal testing was kept more of a secret. Animals were tested for the sake of testing with no real valuable data obtained (like shocking a puppy for no other reason than to conclude that "it would hurt", for example). Even if valuable data is obtained, if an animal suffers longer than necessary, than again, I am against it. Now, The Plague Dogs takes on a more global message, but again, recall the stance of animal testing at the time. Watching Rowf's massive phobia of water and seeing Snitter's panic attacks just broke my heart. And honestly, the film doesn't mess around at all - just as in Watership Down, the violence is real. There's one scene in particular with a gun that just scarred me for life (you'll know which one it is) - yeah, I admit I'm a pansy. And just this dogs running away just breaks my heart... But I'm sorry, that's my emotional reaction. I watched this film maybe a year ago, and it still affects me. But I'm a big softy, so take it as you will. The Tod (James Bolam), the fox character, also gives you the feels as he tries to help these hopeless dogs.

The film itself, along with a less certain ending, The Plague Dogs really hits hard. But the animation has that low-budgetness of Watership Down. It's fine, and honestly, thinking back on the film, I remember the story nonetheless. Still, I could see myself reading the book to delve deeper into the story, which really was the highlight of this thing.

If you're an animal lover, The Plague Dogs will be hard to watch. It shows the harshness of the world and the cruel world animals can face, particularly before particular bills were put in place to help out our fellow companions. Really, I can only give you an animal lover perspective, so if you don't care for animals at all, what can I say? I don't know how much you'll enjoy the film. I think it's a worth, but prepare the tissue box - at least, I know I definitely needed it.

With that said, thank you Richard Adams for your charming-yet-hard-hitting stories of animals. From rabbits to dogs, you showed us imaginative escapes from a different view. Rest in peace.

Review CLV - Wall Street

Review 155
Wall Street (1987)

Hey guys, it's been a while. After nearly dying due to school, I'm on my winter break, scrambling for free time in between working and getting all those underlying chores completed. Anyway, let's get on with today's review on Oliver Stone's Wall Street, starring Charlie Sheen, Michael Douglas, Martin Sheen, and Daryl Hannah. It was not exactly what I wanted to watch, but my boyfriend pointed out that it was a "classic" in a sense, so we should check it out. I can't say I could disagree with him, so we decided to check out Wall Street, despite Oliver Stone's shall we say inaccurate political views.

Bud Fox (Charlie Sheen) is a stockbroker, desperately trying to work under Gordon Gekko (Michael Douglas), a multi-billionaire playing on Wall Street with great success. After providing inside information about where his father (Martin Sheen) works, Gekko decides to help Bud Fox, who, in his eyes, is an expendable nobody ready to put himself on the line to make it big.

Wall Street has potential. While I accept capitalism as a means in society, philosophically, it falls. The film definitely addresses this, as well as showing that an honest man's work can bring greater joy than the corrupt billionaire with all the money in the world (sounds real commie, eh?). If your aspirations include becoming rich, there's nothing wrong with that, but I also believe that if you lose yourself in getting rich, especially in a let's-make-a-quick-buck kind of way, there's a problem. If, as Bud Fox's dad explains, you start judging a man by the size of his wallet, you're entering capitalism as a philosophy, and it will not provide true happiness, shall we say. Bud Fox's dad works hard for his money, Gekko does not. This is where we see a problem. So Wall Street has a nice little message.

But, and it's a big but: I can't say I liked the acting from our main protagonists, apart from Michael Douglas. Charlie Sheen seemed so straight and bland all the time, except when he visited his dad, whereby the emotional scene was nice, but super rushed (blaming editors and director for that one). Otherwise, I felt like there wasn't much going on whenever he opened his mouth, except that he would deliver lines to keep the plot moving forward. I think Oliver Stone said he was going for this style from him, but I didn't like it. I thought it was a poor choice - I like animated acting, not bored-out-of-their-minds acting. However, the animated acting from Bud Fox's friend there, played by John C. McGinley was so exaggerated... I don't know, honestly.

But by far the worst acting is from Daryl Hannah. She won a Razzie for her acting, and honestly, it is piss-poor. Not to mention her character doesn't seem like the type who would be going after rich men - she studied some shitty liberal shit, and she's not even hot, so why Gekko would have gone for her is beyond me. Every time she spoke, and anytime I saw her shitty choice in contemporary art crap, I was gagging. Why Oliver Stone would have picked her is beyond me - an absolutely lousy choice. I mean, she was fine in Blade Runner, but I guess her placement in this role was bad - or maybe Oliver Stone can't direct actors and actresses for shit.

Overall, Wall Street is a nice little film, criticising the self-made millionaires who made themselves through stocks, not through hard-work, and taking capitalism as a way of life. However, the acting falls short in a film. The humor thrown in from Bud Fox's boss was lame in my opinion as well, but whatever. Basically, the movie is a cute one-watcher which doesn't really stand up to the test of time. Check it out if you're interested, but if you're not, skip it - you aren't missing much.

Review CLIV - Triple Halloween Feature

Review 154
Triple Halloween Feature

Halloween 2016 has creeped up on us slowly but surely, and while I am sitting at home, feeling incredibly sick, I nonetheless have some reviews for you. Yes, I made an effort to watch some more Halloween movies before the time was up, so today, I present you with a triple Halloween Feature! Get ready to scream, cry, and laugh for this Halloween edition.

--

Grabbers (2012)

Lisa Nolan (Ruth Bradley), a high-achieving Garda employee, comes to a remote, Irish village off the coast to baby-sit drunk colleague Ciarán O'Shea (Richard Coyle) while his boss is away for two weeks. Tension is high until the local drunk (Lalor Roddy) discovers an alien which, according to British marine biologist, Dr. Adam Smith (Russell Tovey), survives on blood and water. Now the team must help save the town in a journey filled with blood, guts, and lots and lots of alcohol.

I fell on Grabbers from John Wright and Kevin Lehane completely accidentally when I thought the title suited my boyfriend perfectly well. And it actually turned out to be quite a ride! Released the same year as The Cabin in the Woods, the CGI is better and not over-used. It is also way better in plot and silly scariness. I also absolutely loved the characters and mourned those who were lost - how often can you say that about a horror movie? Although that might be more of a North American thing - we watch to see people killed. But anyway, let me tell you that, if you're looking for a pretty funny monster movie, check out Grabbers. I think maybe the love plot fell a bit short (I don't get how our main two love interests actually end up getting it on), but I was still happy with it in the end. Not fancy, but definitely a gem in its own right, check out Grabbers this Halloween season - or any season for that matter!

---

Doghouse (2009)

A group of friends, out to cheer up their recently-divorced friend (Stephen Graham), accidentally wind up in a remote village instead of a party centre. It turns out they get more than they expected when the town turns out to be zombie central, where only women are infected.

I watched Jake West and Dan Schaffer's Doghouse around the time it came back after a recommendation from my sister's boyfriend and remembered liking it, and somehow in this day-and-age of political correctness and SJWs, it seemed more appropriate than ever. Once again, this is a funny one, but it definitely exploits the blood-and-guts of typical zombie movies. If you haven't seen it and you're into zombie movies, check it out - you'll like it. Not to mention the underlying themes of oppressed men in this modern society is pretty accurate - though my boyfriend said it would probably convince more men of MGTOW than anything else. I definitely don't encourage it, but I think Doghouse is right in that you still need to be your own person and that a woman shouldn't mold you to what they want you to be. Regardless of its meaning, you should still check out this movie for its funny situations and awesome gorefest. Let's shake things up this Halloween, shan't we?

---

Theatre of Blood (1973)

A well-renowed Shakespearean actor, Edward Lionheart (Vincent Price), is neglected at an Actor's Choice Award for his lack of diversity, sending him to suicide. However, suddenly the critiques who denied him his award are being murdered in the fashion of Shakespeare, sending the suspicion that perhaps Lionheart is alive after all.

A la The Abominable Dr. Phibes, Vincent Price's takes revenge once again on those he feels have robbed him. And it continues to be as cheesy and funny. Honestly, Theatre of Blood starts off with murder, and, if you knew nothing of the plot, you'd be left in the dark. Explanations only rise as the film continues, which definitely differs from the usual way of story-telling, but the initial confusion wears off as Theatre of Blood continues. I'm pretty sure the movie wasn't taking itself too seriously, but man, it is still as funny, especially with the gang of killer hobos and the windshield-wiper fluid that makes an appearance toward the end (watch the movie, you'll understand). Nonetheless, while you'll get a chuckle out of the film, the deaths are pretty neat and horrific, even if it is kind of cheaply slapped together at times. But it is from 1973, so I won't raise hell on that. This one is kind of different given the different day-and-age of the other two films reviewed, but if you're into classics and don't mind a little Shakespearean acting, you should definitely give Theatre of Blood a watch. Vincent Price was known for his horror stunts, and this one was do not disappoint.

--

And so our triple feature comes to an end. I hope Halloween hasn't already passed where you are, but even if it has, how about some films for All Saints' Day, eh? Until then, happy Halloween and be sure to not overfill on candy! Cue creepy music!