Check out Part
1 of my coverage here!
SEED
Written and Directed by Uwe Boll
SEED marks Dr. Uwe Boll’s first non-video game inspired film since 2003’s HEART OF AMERICA – and that’s just about the only commendable thing I can say about it. I say “just about” because Boll actually manages a few scenes that aren’t totally piss-poor, something I’ve never seen him do – but we’ll get to those in a bit.
As you may know by now, SEED opens with a laughable “Warning” about the upcoming footage of disgusting animal cruelty. This is meant to make a “statement about humanity.” Yeah, okay. The only statement being made is that Boll is desperate to provoke a reaction other than unintentional laughter. He also does something similar when he uses the agonizing sound of a baby supposedly starving to death. (Well done Uwe, you’ve made me miserable.) Once the unpleasant opening is over, the movie settles into the extremely unimaginative story of Max Seed (Will Sanderson), a serial killer responsible for 666 murders who awaits execution on death row (was 666 Seed’s target number, or did the police just happen to capture him at a really ironic time?). During the confusingly structured first act, we cut between Seed in jail, and a flashback showing the night he was arrested at his serial-killer hut. This is the lone atmospheric sequence – in fact, it’s so damned atmospheric, we can hardly see what’s going on (maybe THAT’S why it’s the best thing in the movie).
At least visually, it must be said that SEED is probably Boll’s best effort (of the films I’ve seen of his). It’s not as distinctly amateurish as HOUSE OF THE DEAD or ALONE IN THE DARK, and Boll is way more competent at short bursts of horror-violence than the prolonged action scenes of his previous films. Plus there’s a memorably nasty scene with a hatchet and a computer generated head that is sure to win over some of the haters – for the duration of the scene anyway. But the Boll we all know and… um, know, rears his head more often than not. Anything resembling realistic dialogue will never, ever be heard in one of his movies, his actors still look as if they’re performing in a student film, and Boll’s concept of things like “structure” and “pacing” are unparalleled in their ridiculousness. (Why must we watch a guy walk the entire length to and from his car..?) It also doesn’t help that the grotesque and abrupt ending was telephoned in from “what the f*ck?!” world – but I guess they fund most of Uwe’s pictures.
Boll has said that this vicious and ugly film is his natural response to the nonstop critical and fanboy asskicking he takes whenever he coughs up another turd. If THIS is what’s really going on in the guy’s head – we should stop laughing at him and find him some help. 2/10
2000 MANIACS
Written and Directed by Herschell Gordon Lewis
How do you review a movie like 2000 MANIACS? It’s practically review-proof as far as I’m concerned. Then again, I just happen to dig schlocky early 60s gorefests about rednecks happily terrorizing square Northerners with axes and giant boulders. (It’s a small sub-genre, I’ll admit.)
Herschell Gordon Lewis’ silly and ahead-of-its-time splatstick comedy (it’s simply going too far to call this one a “horror movie”) can give itself credit for being inspirational to directors like John Waters, Eli Roth, Sam Raimi, and Tim Sullivan, who himself directed a sequel/remake a few years back entitled 2001 MANIACS (an inferior movie, by the way). Its queasy combination of light-hearted tomfoolery and macabre violence is easily recognizable nowadays, probably not so much in the early 60s. Hell, even Roger Corman seems sophisticated compared to Mr. H.G. Lewis.
The simple setup finds three couples stumbling upon “Pleasant Valley,” a dusty old town inhabited solely by cheerful Southern folk who just happen to be commencing a centennial celebration. Unfortunately for these poor Yanks, the locals idea of fun involves gruesome torture and murder.
While that sounds like it would fit in nicely with the usual latter-day “torture porn” entries, 2000 MANIACS is meant to be a hoot, not a grueling experience. This effect is accomplished fairly well, because it’s the “Aw Shucks, ma’am” Southerners who keep you entertained, not the bland protagonists who moronically walk into every trap set for them (I particularly like the “barrel roll”). There’s certainly some, shall we say, weak performances (a bundle of 2x4s would be preferable to some of the lead actors), and the make-up effects are antiquated – but the whole affair is such bloody fun that your resistance will be ripped apart like a douchebag tied to four horses galloping in opposite directions. 6/10 (Note: the rating tries to delicately balance the entertainment value and the actual production value.)
HERSCHELL GORDON LEWIS
After the film was over, Festival Director Michael Hein introduced a jolly, animated, 80-year old Herschell Gordon Lewis, who was more than eager to field questions from people at least 40 years younger than him who got as big a kick out of his splatter film as the audiences who first witnessed the positively crazy film must have when it first came out (well, the people who weren’t disgusted by it).
Wasting no time, Lewis simply launched right into the story of the “splatter” revolution basically created by him back in 1963.
When we made the first one, which was BLOOD FEAST, we weren’t sure if anyone would ever play it, and if they played it, we weren’t sure if anyone would ever see it. Once we saw the results of what I call our “handywork,” we decided to make a better one, which is what 2000 MANIACS turned out to be. It wasn’t quite so primitive as BLOOD FEAST. 2000 MANIACS did achieve what we were after, which was to show the world of- not just of motion picture production, but of motion picture exhibition – that movies of this type could show in conventional theaters, before conventional audiences – considering they were over the age of, lets say, six (everyone laughs) – and people would see them and not walk out totally disgusted. That’s why it’s my favorite movie.
What was the initial reaction to this movie, critically and audience-wise?
Well, we never got two thumbs up, but we often got two middle fingers up! (everyone laughs) We never made a critic’s picture. I’m sort of an apostate in that regard, because people who make movies for critics, aren’t necessarily making them for entertainment value. I look at a lot of contemporary splatter films, and I feel like they are more in love with the idea of an effect, rather than having someone in the audience being somewhat involved with the plot, or having them say what we always hoped they would say, which is “Hey, the people who made this movie had a good time making it, and I’m having a good time watching it.”
Audiences were split – people who were under the age of, lets say 45, thought it was a hoot. People over the age of 55 thought we should by lynched. Because what we were doing was setting a different kind of standard. At the time, before we had the motion picture ratings which are themselves somewhat skewed, every community had its own censor board. So here we come with a kind of picture they’d never seen before. Yes there’s legislation against obscenity, there’s not one four letter word in these movies. There’s all kinds of legislation against nudity, there’s not one nude frame in these movies. Gore, they’d never heard of… We were in fact outlaws in the business for some time, until we were rescued by things like video cassette, DVDs, and people said, “How long’s this been going on?”
What do you think of the remakes and/or sequels of your films, like THE WIZARD OF GORE and 2001 MANIACS?
You’re asking the wrong guy. That’s like asking you, about someone who’s marrying your daughter, “What do you think of this guy?” It’s not mine to comment on, it’s not the kind of movie I would make. I haven’t seen 2001 MANIACS or the new version of THE WIZARD OF GORE. I have no comment on anyone else’s product, certainly they’re a lot slicker than anything I’ve ever made – is that in fact a criteria of effectiveness in motion pictures?
Did you ever imagine when you were making 2000 MANIACS that 25-30 years down the line there would be a sequel, made by somebody else?
Absolutely not! If I had known they were going to have this kind of attention, I would have made better pictures. It’s hard to judge the future, it’s hard to judge the present for that matter.
Were all the scenes where the audience laughed meant to be funny, or…
Well it was camp! Yes, it was meant to take the pressure off. In BLOOD FEAST I didn’t do that. In BLOOD FEAST we had this kettle drum that went bong! bong! bong! – I wanted the audience to be tipped off that something horrible was going to happen so they could turn their heads away. By the time we came to this one, I didn’t have that fear at all. I thought “let them enjoy it, or not enjoy it.” Yes, they laughed.
At the end of the light-hearted Q+A, the mood got positively giddy when Michael Hein asked Lewis if he wouldn’t mind doing a sing-a-long with the crowd to the tune of “The South’s Gonna rise Again,” the anthem of 2000 MANIACS. Naturally, Lewis was only too happy to oblige and for the next 3 minutes sang the lyrics perfectly (naturally – he wrote them), with the audience accompanying him with a frequent “YeeeeHaaa!” It was the perfect way to close out an enjoyably wacky evening.
To be honest, I haven’t even touched the tip of Mr. Lewis’ performance that night, but there were just too many tales and tangents that weren’t relevant to the film in question. All I can say is if you ever have a chance to meet the man, take it! And if you’d like to share a few stories or ask some questions, about him or the festival in general, shoot me an email at ericwalkuski@joblo.com. Thanks for reading guys!