Latest Blog Posts

by Bill Gibron

13 Apr 2009


There’s a concerning discussion going on at one of the websites I write for (not this one, another), which has me thinking about the role of the writer in post-millennial media. Not the fiction scribe who is locked in some literary retreat somewhere, desperately trying to fashion a third act out of the personal memories of his time in boarding school and the girl that got away. Nor are we discussing the still viable journalist, the newspaper (or site) scribe whose job it is to get the facts straight and the story right - though part of what he or she does will apply. No, what needs to be differentiated in today’s messageboard morass is what readers want, what purists expect, and how someone who doesn’t really care about either can survive within such weak geek conceits.

The issue at hand seems to center on what information needs to be included in a DVD review. If you look at such pieces within PopMatters, you will see very little technical discussion and a lot of critical thinking. There’s no kibitzing over aspect ratio, additional content, or picture quality. For us (and I speak more for myself than the rest of the staff), the purpose behind a DVD review is to give the film/TV show/band/music/material in question another, more in-depth look. We are not out to guide consumers on when and how they should spend their limited cash. Now, let’s look at a site like DVD Beaver. Almost exclusively, their reviews run under 200 words - and most of the time, it’s nothing more than a plot overview followed by a “good/bad” certification. Where Beaver earns its bacon, however, is in the audio/video bottom line. They post images, list scientific breakdowns, and try to do as many compare/contrasts of differing versions as possible.

So on the one hand you have a readership that clearly could care less if the latest release of Clive Barker’s Hellraiser is nothing more than the 20th Anniversary Edition spiffed up with a plastic Lament Configuration collector’s box. Then there are those who want such an assessment to go beyond the movie and discuss each and every item that makes up the disc content proper. I call this the difference between being a “reporter” and being a “critic”. Again, I am not necessarily referring to the correspondent who sits on the sidelines of world events and attempts to make sense of it all. In this case, ‘report’ should perhaps be followed by the word “book”. It seems like, more and more, 21st century audiences want a basic, barebones, by the…you know, breakdown of everything, including the most minor or unimportant minutia.

And they have a point. With discs running between $10 and $30, and their Blu-ray counterparts costing even more, informed decisions are necessary before heading over to the nearest brick and mortar. This is especially true with genre titles. Sam Raimi’s Army of Darkness and George Romero’s Dawn of the Dead have been released (and rereleased) so many times, in so many different ways, that it’s almost impossible to keep track of them all without a website devoted to the various format permutations. But how much is too much, meaning, how far does someone who writes for a living have to go to appease this particular arena. In my case, Fox sent a Screener DVD of The Day the Earth Stood Still (2008), and I always mention in my reviews that I do not have final product, and therefore cannot accurately comment on final tech specs. In most cases that’s enough. But apparently, such a sentiment is confusing for those outside the craft.

The main comment coming from readers has been “So what is on the various versions of the title? All the extras you mention? Some? None?”, and I am forced to write back with the simple sentiment - I don’t know. True, Fox released single, two disc and three disc versions of the title, but all I have is a screener. After that, if the questioner wishes to pursue the exchange, I usually get a response with something like “Well, a Google search will clear things up.” Oh really. Let’s dissect this suggestion for a moment, shall we. In essence, what the reader is requiring is this - that I, the person with nothing more than a prerelease copy of a film in my hand, should head out onto the World Wide Web, find someone else’s review or overview of the movie, and then copy/rely on/steal from them. For the audience, this may seem practical. For myself and other writers, it’s called plagiarism.

Now I’m not suggesting that the reader wants me to literally repeat the text I find while digging around the ‘Net, but he or she certainly wants me to use the work of others for my own benefit. Instead of offering up my own experiences and takes, I am to draw consensus from the rest of the community and then call it my own. Again, remember the suggestion - don’t rely on what you have in your own hand. Hit Google, get more information, and then report that. In actuality, it’s nothing novel to individuals in traditional media. News organizations frequently lift content from elsewhere, except in their case, they ascribe all attributes and footnote the fudge out of their sources. It’s standard operating procedure. But with the online writer more or less lost in a Wild West wilderness of rights and wrongs, what constitutes “research” and what constitutes theft.

It’s not surprising that within a realm of file sharing, bit torrents, and other forms of information misappropriation that this would be the suggestion. Bloggers frequently post content that they did not “originate” and yet call it their own, while some websites keep on critics who literally rob their reviews from other writers, merely changing the names Dragnet style to protect the less than innocent. In some ways, this is all connected to the ever-changing face of letters. On the one hand, there are reporters, people who simply regurgitate the most elemental of information and leave it at that. Then there are the critics, individuals who try to put such data into a kind of analytical perspective. They may not mention every fact, but they do try for a balance between both. And then there is the writer, someone who can be a bit of both, none of either, or a surreal smash-up of truth teller, sage, and spoiled sport.

I consider myself to be part of the last category. I am not in this to give you the A/V breakdown on the latest format releases. I do offer such insights, but I will not go out of my way to make sure that every single DVD I tackle gets the suggested Google once over. Have I ever used the online source as a means of solidifying a position on a disc? Yes. Have I ever borrowed or “believed” anything another writer has said to bolster my own opinions? Never! I consider myself a writer first and foremost. If I can’t get my point across creatively, maybe it doesn’t need to be made. That won’t make the people who pester me relentlessly about my lack of “completeness” happy, but frankly, that’s not the point. Differing approaches does not lessen the value of each and it also doesn’t make any one more “valid” than another. The next time you’re unhappy with the tech specs someone offers you in a DVD review, practice what you preach - do a Google search. That should solve your problem, right? Right.

by Bill Gibron

13 Apr 2009


It’s become the most contentious scene in a film loaded with controversial content. It’s more argued over than the sequence where doped up mall cops beat several defiant teenage skate rats with their own boards, or when our hero shoots up, or when his mother passes out in a drunken stupor, or when an overweight deviant runs full frontal and completely buck naked through a suburban store outlet. Still, when all is said and done, the single most scandalous moment in Jody Hill’s mean-spirited masterwork Observe and Report has to be the date (and eventual rape?) between Anna Faris’ ditzy make-up counter clerk Brandi and Seth Rogen’s bi-polar mall security guard, Ronnie Barnhardt.

The set-up is as follows: after months of literally stalking the poor cosmetics gal, Ronnie finally gets Brandi to agree to a date. It’s a haphazard arrangement, one the little lady clearly forgets. After spending several hours on her front lawn, Ronnie finally sees a completely drunk and rather rumpled Brandi exit an SUV filled with men. As she waves them off, she’s shocked that he is waiting for her. Still, a date’s a date, and the two head off to a wild night of shots, shots, and more shots. In between, Ronnie tries his best to woo the scatterbrained little Miss, but she’s not even interested. When he pulls out a pill bottle filled with mood-altering prescriptions, Brandi immediately demands some. A few more slugs of tequila and a couple dozen tablets, and she’s semi-comatose.

Cut to the next sequence, and both are stumbling out into the night. Brandi vomits a little, and Ronnie picks her up and eventually takes her into her house. Another cut, and our hero is humping the holy Hell out of his seemingly unconscious date. Brandi is indeed unresponsive - that is, until Ronnie stops, clearly having second thoughts about screwing someone who’s so non-responsive. Immediately, Brandi screams out, demanding that her partner continue with what he was doing. Punchline complete, we move onto the next sequence. Brandi and Ronnie eventually talk to each other, but the subject of a supposed sexual assault never comes up.

Now there are two ways to look at this seminal scene. The first is rather perfunctory. Ronnie, seeing an opportunity, took advantage of the situation and literally raped Brandi. She was so out of it that she didn’t know what she was doing - curse-laden response or not. On the other hand, there is a sentiment circulating among moviegoers and film critics that this young woman represents something other than your typical comedy chanteuse. She’s clearly loose in both her virtues and morals, taking any opportunity to lure males into her web of wanton needs (as we see later on with a certain police detective). It’s part of her identity, something she flaunts over and over again in the film.

So on the one side is the argument, complete valid and wholly defendable, that Faris’s character is so inebriated, so overloaded with drugs and alcohol, that there is no way she could have ever given consent. Even the moment when she wakes up in mid-coitus and screams “who said stop mother*cker” is not meant to be a kind of tacit agreement. Nothing she did before, during, or after the incident excuses Ronnie’s behavior, and when the deed is done, it is a crime and reprehensible in its nature. Nothing in the film, not the tone or the style of humor should excuse such behavior. Even in a narrative which turns perversion into a literal “running” gag, the abuse of women is never, ever acceptable, funny, or fodder for cinematic satire.

On the other side of the fence is the feeling that, within the context of the movie as a whole, as part of Hill’s insular universe of full on fetid freaks and disturbing geeks, Ronnie’s actions are simply par for the course. He is seizing on an opportunity that he clearly feels he’s entitled to, and would not be banging away on Brandi unless she somehow indicated it was all right. Ronnie is not really a bad guy. Instead, he’s psychotic within a standard medical definition and while reduced to delusions, he rarely if ever acts on them. Until he goes on an all out drug binge with buddy Dennis he doesn’t indulge in his many make-believe daydreams. So why would the situation with Brandi be any different - especially when we see that there is some manner of remorse or reassessment on his part. 

So which is it? Rape, or the reality of dating circa 2009? As with anything Hill has to say, the meaning is not clear. Feminists have the right to be angry, especially when a mainstream Hollywood movie offers such a backward vision of male/female fornication. But is Observe and Report really saying anything new? In this Girls Gone Wild dynamic of brazen openness and complete lack of shame, should a drunken slut bear any of the blame? It’s not a question of that horrid old excuse “she had it coming.” It’s more of a mirror on where society has sunk since women were empowered to ‘take back the night.’ Clearly, had Hill meant the scene to be something akin to pure sexual assault, Brandi would have been treated like a piece of dead meat. Ronnie would have ridden her relentlessly and relished in the act without a single moment of regret. The next day, our chunky hero would have walked into the department store, smirk on his face, and winked at the woman as she cluelessly stared back.

Of course, arguing over Brandi’s semi-consciousness and automated permission may not mitigate the truth. But one has to deal with those illustrations as well. Is the fact that the character is seen carousing with several men prior to the date important? Is her desire to get liquored and doped up indicative of anything other than wanting to have a good time? Should we care that she let’s Ronnie take her home and into her house? And does the interruption and shouted sentiment really mean anything? Remember, the “it’s only a movie” defense does not apply with people poised to push their agenda. Heck, PETA is even asking the two decades old Pet Shop Boys to change their name to something less offensive to animals. Feminists clearly want this to be an example of Tinsel Town going way too far for something supposedly funny - and they may have a point.

Yet it’s not fair to make Brandi out to be completely innocent. Hers is a troubling public persona that should be condemned as well. Granted, one should never vilify the victim for the sake of the criminal, but what about everything else that makes up this girl’s personality? Her less than virginal approach to life? Her uncontrolled binge drinking? Her slutty skanky whore-ness? Again, just because you’ve slept with hundreds of men doesn’t mean you have the right to be raped. But does it also excuse a complete and utter lack of basic morality and human civility? Audiences are happy when Ronnie ends up with shy coffee girl Nell, someone who he’s built up a narrative-long relationship of openness and trust. When Brandi tries to get back in his good graces, Ronnie gives her a public kiss-off that centers on her sleeping around. 

It’s all so complicated, and yet so crystal clear. Neither character is a saint, since that’s the way Hill creates his comedy. Both are equally flawed and have issues that should concern anyone on the outside looking in. Of course, via penetration, Ronnie becomes the aggressor and therefore the wrongdoer, while poor innocent Brandi can imbibe and indulge all she wants, and because she doesn’t shout “fuck me” before the smash cut, we assume she is being raped. Looking at the scene objectively, it’s clear we have a problem. But through the subjective eyes of both the world within Observe and Report and the society we exist in today, it’s hard to cement such hard and fast facts. Maybe this was Jody Hill’s intention after all. At least people are talking about his film, and in these days of mass marketing hoopla, any discussion is good for business. Or is it?

by Bill Gibron

11 Apr 2009


To paraphrase a famous quote by one Homer J. Simpson, family is the cause of, and the solution for, all of life’s problems. Issues between parent and child, sibling and sibling, adults and children more or less rule and ruin our sense of self. One day, we’re happy go lucky. The next, we’re dealing with psychological trauma so deep seeded and scaring that it feels like it came directly from the darkest recesses of the womb. As a result, the problems between relatives and crazed kinfolk have sparked dozens of artistic sentiments, from sad songs and symphonies to comic/tragic motion pictures. As part of their seventh outing as humor independents, the gang at Cinematic Titanic have tapped into the bizarre Asian awkwardness of Blood of the Vampires. And as a subtext to their spoofing, the always plentiful wit centers around issues that run thicker than one’s own vein vermouth.

During a luxuriant party for neighbors and friends Don Enrique Escodero is taken ill. On his almost-death bed, he warns his two children, son Eduardo and daughter Leonore, that his will mandates the burning of the family home to the ground. Why? Well, you see, dad has a little secret that he intends to take to his grave. Apparently, the kid’s mother didn’t die as previously stated. No, she fell victim to a crazy curse which only affects the females of the clan. In fact, Don Enrique has the matriarch hidden in a secret basement crypt, living in a coffin. That’s right - Mom’s a vampire and Leonore is apparently destined to become one as well. As the two children try to appease the demands of their specific boy/girl friends, their mother gets loose and starts sucking on the citizenry. Before long, Eduardo and his honey are “infected”, and they intend to turn Lenore as well. Luckily, her main man Daniel is there to help, even from beyond the grave.

Like most movies made in a foreign land while relying on elements wholly Western and unnatural to their culture, Blood of the Vampires (a Philippine production meant to mimic early 20th century Mexico - no, really) is one mixed-up mess. From its hate crime like depiction of subservient slaves (nothing more than actors greased up with very bad - and very obvious - black face) to the weird folklore fashion vampirism is introduced (there’s no main ghoul, just a traditional ‘curse’ that seems to function whenever and however it wants to), director Gerardo de Leon and his capable cast think they’re making a standard cinematic melodrama. There’s so much hand wringing over who will and can get married, so much personal palpitation over the notion of Mom living like an animal in the basement that we hardly get any horror. Instead, there’s confrontation and conflict, but no creeps.

Perhaps the oddest aspect of the film is not the various side characters running around with fake fangs in their mouth. Nor is it the incredibly icky sequence where son Eduardo actually lets his Mammy sink her psycho teeth into his neck (incest never seemed so disgusting and unsavory). No, the real brain burner here is the prevalent, one could say overwhelming use of black face and racially insensitive make-up on various extras. Somehow, this movie got it into its thick little skull that turning all the servants into Al Jolson (sans Southern fried accent) was a brilliant bit of period piece recreation. Of course, how dressing actors up like chocolate covered versions of their Asian selves recalls Mexico 100 years ago is anyone’s guess. Still, Blood of the Vampires indulges in such ethnic slander openly and willfully. All needle incisors aside, it’s the film’s most unconscionable calculation.

Family and faux Africans therefore become the main focus for the always hilarious CT tribe. As with past installments in the DVD only series, we continue to get introductory material that explains away some of the concept’s premise. Clearly, Joel Hodgson, Trace Beaulieu, Frank Conniff, J. Elvis Weinstein, and Mary Jo Pehl are part of some giant experiment to give children of the future riffed versions of every film ever made. Of course, while digital copies of the Godfather trilogy metaphysically merge and spoil in storage chambers (a classic opening gag), our heroes have to tolerate incredibly crappy films like Vampires. Elsewhere, the single “stop-gap” sketch features Weinstein brings out a bottle of booze - and Conniff breaking his 22 year old AA vows. In between is the classic comedy stylings that made Mystery Science and its various offshoots so gosh darn popular.

Indeed, the best thing about Cinematic Titanic, outside the abundant laughs, is the feeling of familiarity and the accomplishment that comes with skill. All of these performers are so expert in their craft, so freewheeling with their wit, that they can turn anything into a joke. And since much of this humor here centers on familial dysfunction, parent/child peculiarities, pre-marital strife and old world ritual, along with abundant hate crimes, there’s no lack of material for these masters. Indeed, one of the downsides to the Cinematic Titanic collection is that, outside of major studio support or distribution, self-financing and releasing equates with limited additional content. Here, a new feature (“Extras”) is actually nothing more than a collection of trailers that one can already access online. In addition, smaller budgets mean less room for sketches. Perhaps one day we will actually get to see the actual inside of the gang’s underground think tank.

Until then, as long as Hodgson and his pals have access to material and an outlet for it, Cinematic Titanic should do more than survive - it should thrive. Purists who pounce whenever one of their prized schlock sensations is giving the in-theater shaft should really just shut up. Sure, this may be the one and only time film fans see your fabled foreign neckbiters film starring overly tanned Philippinos playing superstitious Hispanics, but when the results are as reprehensible as Blood of the Vampires, your passion is definitely misplaced (this is, after all, a movie that lets the famous monsters walk around in the daylight and see themselves in the mirror). It’s very similar to the kind of uproar one experiences when family goes fetid for the sake of individual angst or anxiety. Such biological links indeed create both benefits and detriments. In the case of Cinematic Titanic, however, they’re nothing but fodder for genius. 

by Bill Gibron

9 Apr 2009


It’s safe to say that, somewhere down the line, Jody Hill is going to make a truly f*cked-up masterpiece. He’s going to drop all the idiosyncrasies and preplanned insularity, dig deep into his feverish and often fetid imagination, dump the angst-ridden Apatow shtick and come away with something truly remarkable. You can sense it in the work he’s done so far - the mean-spirited satire of The Foot Fist Way, the equally ugly honesty of Eastbound and Down. Now comes his latest big screen screed, the wickedly weird mall cop craziness known as Observe and Report. Starring funny business flavor of the month Seth Rogen and dealing once again with an isolated individual struggling to make a statement in a world that only wants reassurances, Hill definitely has his hands full. This time around, however, audiences may not be ready for the eerily familiar juggling act.

All his life, Ronnie Barnhardt has wanted to be part of law enforcement. His dream is to become a police officer and carry a gun. Unfortunately, he is stuck as head of security for a local mall, and while he takes his job very seriously, the rest of the employees think he’s a joke. When a flasher starts stalking women at the facility, including Ronnie’s dream babe make—up counter girl Brandi, the mentally unbalanced rent-a-cop vows to solve the case. In doing so, he hopes this prissy party gal will become his regular Saturday night thing. Of course, he will have to get around actual lawman Detective Harrison, a severe lack of clues, and his own inept sense of self to apprehend the pervert. To add to his frustration, Ronnie finally takes the necessary steps to enter the police academy. While physically capable, his current psychological “deficiencies” might make this a one way street as well.

It’s not Hill’s fault that Kevin James stole his thunder. Indeed, the stand-up turned pseudo-star could not have anticipated that Paul Blart: Mall Cop would be one of 2009’s surprise hits (hackneyed and horrible as it is). Indeed, as audiences exit Observe and Report, many will probably wonder why Rogen and company choose to ride the coattails of said slapstick slice of family farce - especially with such an antisocial take on the material. The truth, of course, is that both films found their way to market without direct correlation of competition from the other. In addition, Hill was hacking away at this screenplay long before James was jumping up and down like an overstuffed burrito in a ball pit. Still, the similarity in subject matter (and the eventual acceptance of Blart‘s mindless mediocrity) means that Observe and Report has absolutely no chance at the box office. By the end of April, it will be listed as one of the Spring’s bigger disappointments.

And that’s too bad. Clearly this film is not for everyone. It doesn’t reach across commercial boundaries to try and embrace the demographic or be everything to everyone…and fail. Instead, Hill is like a stubborn old man, sitting on his motion picture front porch and chasing away all but the more adventurous from his aesthetic lawn. Let’s face it - anyone who uses a naked fatso running full frontal throughout the finale (in slow motion, nonetheless) is tweaking the tenets of modern audience attention spans. He’s challenging those who expect warm and fuzzy with material tepid and frazzled. Rogen is not the cuddly teddy geek he’s portrayed in numerous films. Instead, his Ronnie is a bi-polar problem with a penchant for inappropriate comments, obsessive-compulsive fantasizing, and a real love of weaponry. The minute we watch Rogen shooting targets with a massive handgun, we can guess where this contextual characteristic is going to eventually reveal itself.

There are a lot of hidden agendas in Observe and Report, from a fey Hispanic co-worker who might not be completely honest, to a police detective who’d rather screw around with Ronnie than actually solve the case. There is a classic, curse-laden crossfire between Rogen and a kiosk worker that proves that the F-bomb is still the most versatile of all putdown, and we do enjoy the drunken directness of Ronnie’s mother. Her combination of inebriated insights and off the wall warmth are almost magical. Indeed, one of the best things about Hill’s particular brand of humor is that it’s based wholly on people - problem, hate, and pain filled individuals, but human beings nonetheless. He doesn’t go for the gross out, unless it’s part of someone’s personality, nor does he dim the sentimentality to keep the anarchy alive.

This doesn’t mean that everything works in Observer and Report. Two important players - Ray Liotta’s sarcastic investigating officer and Michael Pena’s lisping security guard are significantly underused and ambiguously formulated. When each one reveals their true nature, it’s less of a surprise and more like a sudden, senseless shock. The same can be said for Faris’ fried make-up clerk. Ditz can only take you so far, and this otherwise capable actress is reduced to playing potted and prone to date-rape like sex. Hill also has a hard time keeping things straight. In one scene, Ronnie is so fascinatingly adept at fighting that he beats down a bevy of street toughs. But in a last act confrontation with the cops, he gets a few good licks in before having his clock cleaned.

And yet, when placed alongside the current crop of gutless comedies, films which manufacture funny stuff out of grade school level quips and uncomfortable physical crudeness (isn’t that right, Pink Panther 2?), Observe and Report is like Conan (the Barbarian, not the late night talk show host). It’s not afraid to take chances, to push envelopes, and explore elements that usually don’t make it into a satire or spoof. With a cast that, for the most part, fits perfectly into Hill’s humor ideals and a story that serves the basic needs of the underdog hero formula, a good time should be had by all. But don’t underestimate that dreaded Blart effect. Word of mouth will doom the eventual bottom line, but that doesn’t take away from what Hill has accomplished. One day, he’ll create his classic. Until then, we’ll have to put up with above-average efforts like Observe and Report. It’s very good. We’ll have to wait until Hill achieves ‘great’.

by Bill Gibron

9 Apr 2009


Times are tough for true independent films. Just ask Troma. The leading purveyor of outside the mainstream art has just had one of its best years. They released the theatrical masterwork Poultrygeist: Night of the Chicken Dead back in October to massive critical acclaim, and soon thereafter, restarted their definitive DVD distribution of new and unusual off the radar titles. Still, according to the longstanding icon of all things iconic, all is not well within the world of maverick directors and iconoclastic producers. Just ask Evan Husney, the company’s co-director of video releases. “Studios, mainstream and independent, need to stop worrying about films solely as a ‘product’ and realize that there are still people out there who enjoy seeing a good film,” he said recently in an interview on the subject of independent film. His assessment on the genre in general? “It’s pretty grim.”

After a year which saw the Troma go from almost afterthought to continuing vanguard of a truly dying breed, Husney thinks he knows the cause of the current chaos. “There are and always will be filmmakers producing unique, groundbreaking work,” he says. “However, the distribution vehicle for such work is pathetic.” He elaborates: “Studios are not taking enough risks breaking or developing new artists with new ideas. Film buyers and retailers believe there isn’t any appeal for such alternative product - and that’s B.S.!” Husney experienced this first hand while attending last year’s American Film Market. “I was astonished to find that the current output of most of the indie studios seems as much of a contrived product as that of the mainstream,” he concludes. “If I see another trailer for an indie film with handwritten credits, I’m going to kill myself.”

Hunsey continues: “Most of the independent films featured in the marketplace co-star Michael Madsen as ‘Bob’, ‘Joe’ or ‘Ace’ (take a look at his IMDb for laugh). Other common findings are a tons of Saw imitation posters, children’s films with a CG talking dog, films with phony Cassavetes aesthetics, or somehow a combination of all three co-starring Michael Madsen.” And don’t try to argue for a lack of viable examples. “There were some great indie films last year which were a breath of fresh air,” he adds, “films like Wendy and Lucy, Shotgun Stories, and Let the Right One In. At a grassroots level, these films proved to be successful both critically and financially.”

“Something needs to change, and it’s not the filmmakers, it’s the studios,” and as Husney points out, Troma has persevered to remain at the forefront of truly untarnished individual art. “I really hope as digital distribution grows,” he offers, “it will open more avenues for new talented artists to get their work seen!” One of the ways his company continues this good fight is via the freshly minted Tromasterpiece Collection. As Husney explains, “the ultimate goal for the (label) is to take older Troma catalog titles and give them new life to find a much deserved, broader consumer awareness outside of our customer base.” As a close collaboration between the company, founders Lloyd Kaufman and Michael Herz and the creative element involved in each, Husney points out that, “fans have been really appreciative of the ‘Tromasterpiece Collection’. We’ve received nothing but praise on the (recent) Redneck Zombies Tromasterpiece DVD, and we owe a lot of it to Pericles Lewnes and Edward Bishop for putting together most of the bonus material.”

Indeed, upcoming titles in the series will follow the same path. According to Husney, the next classic up for reconsideration will be the slasher favorite, The Last Horror Film. It stars Joe Spinell in, what the company refers to as” his most unnerving, perverse performance since his unforgettable starring role in William Lustig’s Maniac.”  The film also reunites Spinell with another Maniac-¬alum; Hammer horror film and Bond-girl babe Caroline Munro. Husney adds that “The Last Horror Film DVD will include the uncut version of the film, which has never been released in America on video and was only available on the pre-certification UK VHS tape released over 25 years ago.”

Fans can also look forward to a wealth of bonus features including a brand new featurette, My Best Maniac which features Spinell’s closest friend, Luke Walter, a brand new audio commentary with Walter, a new interview with Maniac director William Lustig, Buddy G Giovinazzo’s (Combat Shock) short film Mr. Robbie aka Maniac 2 which features Spinell in one of his last performances before his untimely death, original and new trailers, and much more.

After that, Troma will tackle one of its most unusual and satisfying foreign films. “Later in the year we will be releasing the highly anticipated Director’s Cut of Philippe Mora’s Australian bushranger classic Mad Dog Morgan,” says Husney. “The film will be presented with a new beautifully restored, uncut, anamorphic widescreen transfer loaded with new and vintage bonus material.” Mora’s Outlaw masterpiece stars Dennis Hopper in, what the company considers, “his greatest performance of the 1970s next to The American Friend.”

“The Tromasterpiece Collection will also expand with a new anniversary edition of Troma’s War,” Husney points out, which will feature new cast and crew interviews, including a career-spanning featurette on the life and times of Troma’s most famous action hero Joe Fleishaker. In addition, future titles up for consideration include the hilarious the pre-Toxic Avenger ensemble sex comedy, The First Turn-On, Spanish horror classic The Hanging Woman starring Paul Naschy, and Lech Kowalski’s harrowing Story of a Junkie (a true underground masterwork).

But perhaps the most anticipated title of the year is also one of Troma’s most controversial and complex. “Combat Shock has remained hidden in the underground video universe for more than 25 years,” Husney points out, “and has now fully ripened to disgust, revolt and depress a new generation of indie film viewers.” The 1986 thriller about a returning war vet and the troubles he faces readjusting to civilian life is, according to the company, “more relevant today than it did during its initial theatrical release.” Husney explains.  As usual, fans and first timers can expect a great deal of depth from the upcoming digital package.

Combat Shock: 2-Disc Never-Before-Seen Director’s Cut will include the heavily sought-after pre-Troma cut entitled American Nightmares which is somehow more delightfully repulsive and grim than the Combat Shock cut (which will also be included in the set for comparison).” That’s not all, of course. The most exciting special feature in the set is Post-Traumatic, an American Nightmare, which Husney describes as “a new featurette which contains interviews with filmmaker Buddy Giovinazzo contemporaries lending their praise, critical analyzes, and also examining themes of other nihilistic films of the 1980s.”

And the wealth of added content continues. Present in said featurette are such famous genre names as John McNaughton (Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer), William Lustig (Maniac), Jorg Buttgereit (Necromantik), Jim Van Bebber (Deadbeat at Dawn, The Manson Family), Roy Frumkes (Street Trash), Mitch Davis (Fantasia Film Festival), Joe Kane (The Phantom at the Movies), Rick Sullivan (The Gore Gazette – his first interview in 20 years!), David Gregory (Severin Films), and the star of Combat Shock, in his first sitdown ever…Rick Giovinazzo.

According to Husney, the set will also include, “an audio commentary with Buddy and Jorg Buttgereit, an all new interview with Buddy conducted by Lloyd Kaufman, Buddy’s rarely-seen short film starring Joe Spinell titled Mr. Robbie aka Maniac 2, a look at the locations from Combat Shock as they appear today, original press and photo galleries, new liner notes by Steve Puchalski of Shock Cinema, and other highly anticipated material.”

Last but not least, perhaps the most important DVD collection the company will release this year is not an actual film. Coinciding with founder Lloyd Kaufman’s latest must-own tome, Direct Your Own Damn Movie (published by Focal Press), Husney indicates that “Troma Team Video will be releasing a four-disc DVD box set (of the same name), which will include a newly produced, feature-length documentary with interviews from Stan Lee, Trey Parker, Eli Roth, James Gunn, William Lustig, Stuart Gordon, Penelope Spheeris, Mick Garris, Monte Hellman, Ernest Dickerson, and many more.”

The main feature is a documentary, offering “a step-by-step breakdown of operating outside the studio system as well as a guide to script-writing, pre-production, casting, managing sets, post-production, and the secrets of selling your own dam movie,” says Hunsey. The box set also features six hours of bonus material, including documentary featurettes, extended interviews, music videos, and much more!

“We would love to reissue more forgotten Troma gems from the toxic basement,” Husney indicates, considering how successful DVD updates of titles like Getting Lucky have been. They also plan on putting out the long delayed box set of Giuseppe Andrews films. In addition, the company will continue to seek out and resurrect unusual offerings from around the world, as they did with such new post-millennial classics as Bloospit, Cyxork 7, and The Seduction of Dr. Fugazzi. With the limited edition three disc set of Poultrygeist already sold out (Husney adds, “we have hatched the final batch. What ever is on the shelves at your local retailer is all that’s left. Get them while they’re hot!”) it seems like true individual art still has substantial support. Even in these tough economic times, Troma abides. “We have base audience that loves us no matter what,” Husney explains, “and thanks to them, the lights are still on. They are loyal and for good reason.”  Good reason, indeed. 

 

//Mixed media
//Blogs

'Fire Emblem Heroes' Is a Bad Crossover

// Moving Pixels

"Fire Emblem Heroes desperately and shamelessly wants to monetize our love for these characters, yet it has no idea why we came to love them in the first place.

READ the article