Mudd's Movies

Deathsport (1978)                        rating: 7/10 for sheer goofiness

dir: Roger “the corman” Corman

Synopsis: In the post apocalyptic future, people ride motorcycles, because wouldn’t you? Public transit in california being what it is…..

David “NOT A CHINAMAN” Carradine stars in Deathsport, by roger corman, not to be confused with Deathrace 2000, also by Corman, also starring Carradine. They are distinct in many ways, but I am still utterly confused as to why it was necessary to make both. Carradine plays a ranger, a tolkeinesque noble warrior savage with mystic powers and very little clothing. He wanders the (quite arable) wasteland, rides a horse, and wears a loincloth/cape combo of his own volition. He is captured by an evil ruler and his minions and is to participate in futuristic gladiator combat. His enemies are the elite fighting force of the ruler, basically just dudes on Yamahas with some aluminum attached for effect, but called death machines for some reason. Carradine’s love interest is Claudia Jennings, who is also a ranger, and also HATES CLOTHING. When Carradine and co are captured and soon escape, its up to chief henchman Richard lynch to find and kill them. Luckily he has a twisted sense of honour, and is only really interested in duelling. One assumes it is some gay thing. No judgement here, it must be boring in the future.

Obviously stoned Carradine spends much of the time jumping around in aerial shots, presenting his crotch to the camera and wielding a plexiglass sword. Lost of people are zapped by lasers. There is some kind of agrarian utopia theme but I wasn’t paying attention.

At the end, long after the evil ruler has been killed, Carradine and Lynch duel, but only once it is established that there is no point beyond Lynch’s lust for tokenistic ritual and some kind of completionist fetish. Lynch is beheaded, which is good for him because he has one of those faces.

Features: alleged pot, alcohol and cocaine use among its stars during filming makes for a wacky time, and there are numerous gratuitous nude scenes with hapless psychedelic slave girls. Lots of driving around californian hills on motorbikes, because its the future. Directors’ trademark: Naked women dying for no reason other than to further the idea that the antagonist, and by extension any potential audience, are evil.

why I watched it: the reasons (if indeed they need stating) are carradine, corman, and the word death. Plus a wicked cover illustration which clearly predates any production. (also director’s trademark)

why you should watch it: Better this than doing hard drugs and taking to a life of crime. But one could foreseeably do both, I suppose.

the bad: acting, plot, most SFX, pretty much everything that establishes the premise is pure cheese. Incoherent dialogue and seemingly random chain of events ending in a credit sequence.

the good: Carradine is utterly believable as a loner with no appreciable concept of human civilization. Plus he totally gets into all the jumping around.

the Kindred (1987)                                    rating: 6/10

dir: Stephen carpenter (no relation), Jeffrey obrow (also no relation)

Synopsis: stuff in jars, in creepy basements are BAD. except jam preserves.

John Hollis (best known for dying in the first scene of Manhunter, I guess) is a research scientist whos dying mother reveals a dark, hidden secret, including potentially a previously unknown brother, and worse, a relationship with rod steiger. Hollis and his doofy friends, expertly cast as death fodder in a horror movie, all travel to his mother’s run down cabin where they try to piece together her research into …. I dunno…. animal hybridization, or something. Rod steiger plays a standard mad scientist trope who has a basement of monstrosities and pays thugs to cause accidents and bring him bodies. You know, the standard deal. Once at the cabin, they meet anthony, the mysterious brother, who is actually less of a brother, and more of a freakishly non-human sea creature with tentacles and rapid growth and of course, blood lust. Steiger uses attractive english honey pot Amanda Pays to convince Hollis to … hand over all material related to mad science to him. Evil mutant anthony begins his mad but largely ineffective rampage, causing roughly as much death as one would expect with a rusted crapshack like that. Those who died could have very well suffered the same fate from rotten floorboards or rusty nails. Amanda Pays tried to seduce Hollis who refreshingly doesn’t bite, which is good because she’s actually a half fish person. Dodged a bullet there.

Of the friends, one of them has an amusing bit with a cigarette craving that plays a predictable part in the conclusion, but it’s well worth it as it helps create the illusion that the gang are anything more than potential monster victims, which is the usual approach for this type of movie. Things end predictably, as they should with all monster flicks, in a ball of fire with lots of squealing monsters, and the hiss, crackle and pop of searing flesh. Steiger buys it, like I had to tell you that. Truly, a cautionary tale against poorly conceptualized theory-less rural genetics research.

Features: hot tentacle action, somewhat believable science props, grungy cabin feel.

why I watched it. Amanda pays. 100%. Rod Steiger was a nice addition, but superfluous icing on the cake.

why you should watch it: at the very least to see where and how more recent horror films have gone wrong. Eschewing practical SFX in favor of CGI and having pretty but shallow disposable victims is all the rage nowadays, nice to know it wasn’t always the case.

the bad: not overly exciting, scary, or compelling, I didn't root for the good guys, the bad guys, or the monster.

the good: good SFX, great use of monster prop in jars. makes compelling argument both for and against creating evil hybrid killing monsters. Amanda Pays, of Max Headroom fame.

Innocent Blood (1992)                                rating: 7.5/10

Dir: John Landis

Synposis: Vampire vs the mob, in Pittsburgh for some reason.

Anne Parillaud, of Nikita fame, plays a sexy, clothes-averse vampire who (while respectfully narrating) takes care to only eat bad people. (already, I’m sold) She decides to feast on gangsters, starting with higher ups in the Italian mafia (go ooooon....).  Further bad decisions ensue. Anthony Lapaglia is an undercover cop embedded in the mob, and for some reason, the male lead. The cast features other sadly typecast actors who later became intractably cemented in mafia roles. Maybe they are all actually mafia with slight acting hobby fetishes. Robert Loggia plays the local don who seems like he would be too cholesteroley for a serious vampire meal but who knows. Vampire Anne attempts to eat apparent mobster Lapaglia before giving him a pass for some reason, which is good because he's actually a good guy, and will be required later on. When she fails to eat and kill Loggia, he turns, and once he figures out the score, begins to turn all his underbosses into newly immortal made men. This leaves unlikely duo Lapaglia and Parrillaud to clean up the mess despite him being on the run and her being french. Other italian stereotypes include david proval, Chazz palminteri, Tony sirico, and Don Rickles, who is inexplicably still alive at the time of this writing. ( wait, lemme check. YEP!) There are sex scenes, one liners, excellent death scenes and a pretty good conclusion featuring a hubristic death by Loggia who thinks that just because he’s a vampire, is immune to gasoline and bullets to head. Raises interesting questions about the dangers of vampire mafia, and whether or not there should be a special task force preventing this. Kim coats appears, playing the same character he always does. Frank Oz appears as a pathologist, which seems sick considering where his hands go the rest of the time. One hopes he washes them thoroughly, before he touches the dead bodies.

features: impressive list of brief horror cameos including Dario Argento, Forrest Ackerman, Tom Savini, and Sam Raimi. Linnea Quigley appears clothed, thus defeating the entire point. (this is wildly sexist, I know, but come on, it’s Linnea Quigley. She would agree.)

why I watched it: Saw landis interviewed with John Carpenter and Cronenberg, and wondered why he was considered in the same league. Not disappointed. Also just watched blues brothers, and I see now how both films complement each other.

Why you should watch it: Good horror, solid plot, a fun, lighthearted take on organised crime.

the bad: Lapaglia as a leading man confused me, but who am I to argue? A minor quibble.

the good: Anne Parrillaud with short hair. BOOM. Some impressive SFX. The only known modern depiction of Pittsburgh, for obvious reasons.

Class of 1999 (1990)                                               rating: 5.1/10

dir: Mark Lester

Synopsis: in the near future (oops), teachers are killer robots for some really stupid reason.

SUPER DUMB. A concept only someone traumatized by high school even more than me could come up with. Stacy Keach, evil military contractor,  has an ALBINO CYBER MULLET/RAT-TAIL, and also wears a lab coat at one point. the plot is Robocop meets dangerous minds, but not as cool as it sounds. At one point the phrase ONE MILLION MEGABYTES is used. Malcolm McDowell plays an semi-evil principal, as if by rote. When the robotic ex-military teachers turn evil and run amok, for some reason stacy keach is like "EXCELLENT", and “ALL IS GOING ACCORDING TO PLAN”. Ooh and it's that creepy kid from near dark! luckily he dies.

Seattle has become so gang ridden that there's an escape from New York style free fire zone in the middle of it because of the evils of public schools. Featuring super low rent mad max scenes of suburban street combat, employing garbage in place of actual futuristic set dressing. I cannot speak to the accuracy of this movie as I graduated in 1996. This would make an excellent tourism board film for seatle. I would totally go. This movie firmly reinforces the military industrial prison education cybernetics complex tropes that we have all come to know. Pam Grier plays an android who says "aint", thus setting back the androids lib movement decades.

This film feels like peanuts or muppet babies, or any other piece about kids where sensible, well meaning adults are strangely absent. I feel it could have been partially salvaged if every single element had been replaced with a completely different element and made into a totally different movie about cyborgs. Possibly set in space, underwater, or the midwest.

This movie is an excellent example of a film whos illustrated poster is not only WAAAY better than the piece itself, but by far the only good element about it. see: most roger corman films.

positive note: modified cars are always cool, and excellent use of explosions. SFX are post terminator but pre-terminator 2.  

side note: Ever notice how cyborgs and human form androids only start making servo and hydraulic noises once their skin has been burned off? weird, eh?

Features: catharsis for anyone who wished they could destroy their high school, fun, multi-racial new-age gangs with military hardware and bitchin rides. STILL probably less embarrassing than catholic school.

why I watched it: cool poster with half shredded cyborg face on cover. what else?

why you should watch it: I am kind of drawing a blank

the bad: completely lame depiction of lame losers in their lame highschool, acting lame.

the good: decent, hardworking, otherwise respectable cast of bad guys, including patrick kilpatrick, who has the perfect name.

summary: is an over-the-top extra silly concept even for people accustomed to the genre. I mean I hated school as much as the next guy, but I never elevated the experience to life and death trauma, even in my biased memories.

addendum: NO EXPLANATION IS GIVEN AS TO WHY STACY KEACH HAS CREEPY WHITE EYES. maybe he was an alien?

Pumpkinhead (1988)                            rating: 6.5/10

Dir: stan winston

Synopsis: Hillbillysploitation with a monster chaser.

When kids up to no good cause the death of an adorable but CLEARLY doomed kid, a heartbroken Lance Henriksen summons a monster to fix em guuuuud.

A revenge tale in the styx of a nameless state where a tragic accident leads to the implementation of an unwieldy revenge-minded special effect. A demon, possibly of Giger influence, wreaks havoc on the countryside but luckily no likeable people fall victim to it.

Henriksen plays a presumably somewhat inbred rural hick, using all his own items to accessorize the character. When his kid is accidentally killed he goes to an old witch in the woods for help, evidently feeling that local law enforcement would be no help. Maybe the witch WAS local law enforcement. A bunch of obnoxious preppy city kids play people who die off sequentially in a refreshingly straightforward way. I think one of their names might have been Chad. Or Derek. They show no interesting or remarkable attributes and few redeeming features so their deaths are completely irrelevant except to provide hum drum entertainment to pumpkin head, who is the hero I think. Works well as a cautionary fairy tale complete with crazy old hag in woods with mystic power, well meaning but ill fated redneck urchin straight outta springfield,  with certain plot mechanism similar to gremlins. "NO! dont do the thing! no wait, here, do the thing." Proves that lance henriksen is a poor shot, even when shooting self, and that no good can come from going to a cabin off the beaten path. Or motocross.  shortlisted for the top ten list of  "I told you what would happen" movies, along with pet cemetery and every other movie featuring a cabin in the woods, such as cabin in the woods.

Pumpkinhead himself kinda phones it in, half heartedly going about his business as though he has somewhere else to be, and maybe would prefer to be home with his family. His shots are well done, but occupy the same kind of technique and space as the alien from alien, minus the steam and pipes. He kills people in novel ways, like an invigorated Vorhees or latter day Freddy, but the bodycount is low, and one suspects that he probably doesn't normally get out of bed for less than a dozen corpses.

Features: Always cool Lance Henriksen, in all his wirey, veiny glory. Some old trucks, I guess.

why I watched it: was curious about pumpkinhead. does he have a pumpkin for a head? turns out, no, he does not.

Why you should watch it: if you are a Lance Henriksen completionist, or a fan of stan winston’s SFX work.

the bad: mostly boring 2D characters, nothing really interesting happens, despite promising build up. lots of filthy hill people.

the good: decent SFX, cool monster, some creepy set pieces, some pretty gnarly hag action.

also: lots of filthy hill people.

Candyman (1992)                                    rating: 7/10

DIr: Bernard Rose

synopsis: If you say candyman 5 times while looking in a mirror, he appears and kills you.

how did this urban myth start? it seems to claim every witness, while also being quite verifiable.

Tony Todd plays candyman, a long dead son of a wealthy black man, persecuted because of his freakishly long arm, which only when partially sawn off becomes reasonable sized.

Virginia Madsen plays a post grad in an entirely nebulous field doing research on either inner city ghettos or urban myths, I think. A fascinating look at Chicago projects and the chilling effects of evil supernatural entities on poverty. Tony Todd is a complex character with a tragic backstory and I have no idea what his motivations are or why he does anything. Mistrust of mirrors, or self hatred over his ill fitting college nickname? Perhaps there is some pragmatic reason for becoming a murderous instrument of fear, serving as a warning and example to others, maybe, but for some reason he wants to terrify virginia… because destiny I think? But possibly also cursed real estate, or perhaps just ironic revenge for exploiting the underclass for the purpose of academia and fame.

Candy plays a role in this, but far less than you’d expect. One of the few horror films to be adapted entirely from a nursery rhyme.

Also bees, which were part of a practical effect, which the lead actress was allergic to, conveniently. Tony Todd has a prosthetic hook in place of a hand, which you gotta have because otherwise he'd just be a scary black guy, and that's racist. I still have no idea what tony Todd wanted, except maybe to have Virginia as an undead killer bride, which I can understand. I mean, ditto. She also looks remarkably like a young Dana Scully, so extra points. Her husband is played by john Connor's foster father, who once again drops the ball and ignores his family duties while being stabbed repeatedly. This feels right.

Features: cool overhead shots of chicago, pre-”the wire” depictions of project life, Tony Todd’s smooth voice. ALSO a chilling portent to urban condo dwellers who fear that their real estate may simply be ghettos with better amenities. Guest starring Middle class white guilt as the primary foil.

why I watched it: It was on my list of horror to-do. Also Tony Todd. Perhaps I was hungry.

why you should watch it: solid horror with a nice, soft, predictable twist. Not too taxing on the imagination.

the bad: Not enough candyman, or candy for that matter. feels like it needs more exposition. Or a candyman sex scene where he uses the hook to <NO>    I guess thats uncool.

the good: Virginia Madsen is believable, compelling, attractive and ultimately scary. OOH and Ted Raimi, I forgot about him. Does he die in a gruesome way? FIND OUT!

Maniac Cop (1988)                                    rating: 5.75/10

Dir: William Lustig

synopsis: slasher film that seems completely unnecessary in the post ferguson world. How to make cops scarier, I guessssss? You know what, no.

An unlikely story about a maniac cop who kills innocent people. Just kidding. But seriously that's what the plot is. Disgraced former cop pulls a darkman, minus the masks, and kills people randomly because maybe he was brain damaged? but maybe he just likes it. Also, because he was repeatedly stabbed in jail, he is now immune to bullets. SCIENCE.

Robert z'dar plays matt Cordell and spends the entire movie NOT focusing on the most horrific aspect of the film, his own jaw and facial structure. Bruce Campbell uses method acting to assume the role of a philandering police officer, thus completely convincing us that he's not an actor. Laurene Landon plays the tough but attainable cop girlfriend who bruce cheats on his wife with and immediately gets the wife killed by cordell, reinforcing a weird kind of morality.  Tom Atkins plays the Im-too-old-for-this cop who inexplicably is good at his job and cares.

Great stunt work, may the stuntmen rest in peace. LA stands in for many NYC shots, but fails as it just looks like jersey for some reason. Open ended, paving way for string of sequels, which will ALSO be seen by zero people. Feels somewhat more authentic as the movie is parsed with many unattractive actors. Feels like a hertz/kaufman film, by way of sam Raimi. Sgt Kabukiman could have walked onto the set and not affected the authenticity one iota.

One expects to see ted raimi in the background, no doubt complaining.

    Less of a monster film and more of a cautionary tale about how we make all those who are different into monsters. I mean yeah he killed people but it seemed like he was just trying to express himself through violence and knife art.

This movie is designed to make the one or two remaining people out there who still trusted the cops feel like fools. It also has a strong anti-corruption moral vibe but im not sure what purpose that serves. Apart from accurately depicting all elected politicians as scum….

Features: Bruce campbell is basically the only feature. If they had a single money shot of cordell’s face, on the other hand… Somewhat lacking in substantial returns. Needs more gimmicks, perhaps. Is the twist that he’s a cop who dresses like a cop, or is the twist that he’s hideously ugly?

BONUS FEATURE: at one point Z’dar hides behind some drapes, revealing only his shoes at the bottom, in a mechanism often used by Chekhov.

why I watched it: the equivalent of a dare, to myself

why you should watch it: If you like horror films but are turned off by the supernatural aspect and have seen everything else. I mean EVERYTHING.

the bad: not quite as ambitious as you would have liked it to be, or as graphic. Few people actually die, and there is little in the way of climactic build up.

the good: not quite as bad as it could have been either. solid acting, even with bruce doing his  honey-glazed ham thing. fair-to-Good cast. A good PSA to raise awareness about the plight of horribly disfigured cops, trapped in a world they never made, who only want to be loved and to kill.

Best Defence  (1984)                                rating: 5/10

dir: Willard Huyck

synopsis: what happens when you suck as an engineer, except not as fun

The story of the convoluted development of the X10 tank, manufactured by the USA and delivered to Kuwait just in time to be used in a fictional war. Irony is an unintentional theme of his movie, ironically. One third of a mediocre movie crafted from two separate sixths of a movie, braided together in a jumbled, Nolanesque way to showcase the finest in racist, sexist, misogyny that the eighties has to offer. NNNNNEAR equal opportunity offender,(white privilege still exists)  taking time to single out the faults in both western, south/central american, and middle eastern culture. OH and women.  Presciently predicted the Iraq war and it's potential for comedy, while showing the lighter side of the military industrial complex and corporate espionage. Eddie Murphy proves to be the single funniest thing in Kuwait, with a camel briefly shown in background being the second funniest thing.

Dudley Moore is a (non-drunk?) engineer who can’t fix his front door, and he is unable to finish a lucrative government contract for same reason. In a bar he meets an engineer (played by tom noonan)  who is miraculously working on the exact same (also flawed) mechanical component for his firm, and being pursued by a KGB funded heavy intent on stealing his schematics. Moore is slipped the plans and hi-jinx almost ensue. Moore  spends much of movie trying to cheat on his wife, refreshingly, instead of doing work.  In the end, suddenly, moral principle prevails, and he admits he stole the plans, and corrects a fault in the design just before its slated to be used in a demonstration in the field. Maybe its morality, or maybe it's just egomaniacal engineer's pride. Murphy plays a hapless tank captain set to demo the tank, which sucks so bad even its joysticks can’t stay glued on. Attempts to provide levity by belittling his Arab tank mates for being themselves in their native country. David Rasche, as always, plays himself except in a cheaper suit. Noonan appears briefly and to everyone's dismay kills NO ONE. Director W Huyck (howard the duck) makes a film without shame or self awareness, and his name is onomatopoeia for the sound he makes while speaking, one imagines.

This movie always appears as though it is about to crystalize into something more coherent, impactful, or funny, but never does.

Features: two comic staples of the eighties, wallowing in their respective shames. more embarrassing for eddie than the transvestite thing, more embarrassing for dudley than dying. Frank, if not boring, depiction of military incompetence which during the bush years would’ve gotten you jailed or worse.

why I watched it: it had a tank on the cover. I have a problem. I admit this freely.

why you should watch it: if you want to revisit how bad movies were before the age of rampant political correctness. You know what? take my word for it and give it a pass.

the bad: unfunny, cringeworthy, depiction of despicable people treated as protags, awful fashion, naive whitewashing of american arms dealing, everyone is an idiot. The kind of movie which should have ended with a massive doomsday explosion, Strangelove style, and been far improved for it.

the good: even with bad material, Murphy still has killer delivery, and as a corpse he would still have charisma. Lots of swearing.I can’t stay mad at him.

Soldiers of Fortune  (2012)                                  rating:  4/10

dir: Maxim Korostyshevsky

synopsis: dumb dumb dumb. Mercenaries, I guess? Frankly I forget.

First Time Director Maxim does his magazine namesake proud by providing us with plenty of action, no substance, and a tired drunkards’ idea of modern “stylishness”.

Christian Slater plays a discharged special forces vet who is forced to take a job giving a “real-life” combat experience to a team of millionaire jet setters on a remote Island in the Ukraine. Things go predictably wrong for some reason, as the company that hired him neglected to factor in the corrupt warlord living on the other side of the island with his private army, or rather just assumed he wouldn’t attack them. Good cast, stupid, stupid plot.

Slater winces a lot. James Cromwell plays someone old. Colm Meaney plays a bad guy. Dominic Monaghan plays a spoiled rich video kid. Sean Bean plays himself. Ving Rhames has a gun with an extra barrel on top for no reason. Freddie Rodriguez plays the guy who dies early on. Good example of how to make a bad movie about war without getting too hung up on realism or accuracy. The best scene in the movie is Slater and Rodriguez slowly walking away from a taliban village, and casually tossing a grenade behind them for no reason, which explodes with the force of a daisy cutter, and presumably kills everyone in the village. That was the end of the first scene. It went downhill from there.

Features:  Neo-douche-core quick-cut explosion style montage credits, and Verhoven style fake media, used without irony.

Why I watched it: Ving Rhames had a big gun on the cover, and I wanted to know what kind it was. Turned out it was just a tacti-cool PKM with an MG42 barrel on top, with an M16 briefcase handle on top of that for good measure.

Why you should watch it: Because you hate yourself and are willing to put up with an abysmal movie just because Sean Bean survives in the end.

the Bad:  Contrived, nonsense plot, film school dropout effects, heavy use of stock sounds and explosions.

the Good: Its nice that Slater is still working, and good to see him in kneepads again. Keep it up, Chris! You gleam the cube!

In this space I will review movies at semi-regular intervals.

These movies will largely be either old, obscure, cult, or simply trash.

I am open to suggestions but I make no promises.

These reviews are for the purpose of increasing one’s esoteric knowledge of film and are intended to make actual viewing of them unnecessary. They are given arbitrary ratings and I retain the right to retroactively re-rate movies if I find my scale has become problematic or incongruous.

I will try to release new reviews on a twice weekly basis, but reserve the right to fall behind whenever I choose or get lazy.

Apologies to Gene Roddenberry for gross appropriation of his fictional character in the form of Harry Mudd.