This movie blows. And I mean that it in a bad way. I watched it so you don’t have to waste your time on it, I guess.

It starts out promising but just gets more muddled as it goes along. The more serious Carrey gets, the less I believe it. He was great in The Cable Guy, but this movie blows. There’s too many unexplained coincidences. Like, why does his wife buy THIS book out of all the ones in the used bookshop? Does the whole “23″ thing really contribute to the plot? Not really. Is Jim Carrey typecast forever as a funny guy? Probably. Does this movie blow?

OK- what’s with the tattoo anyway? He had it in the past (when he was a badass) but it’s gone now? How do you get rid of a tattoo that covers your entire upper back and then forget about it? Finding holes in the plot of this movie is like looking for salt water at the beach.

Let’s see what other critics say:

“mind-numbingly silly” - The Guardian
“largely a failure” - James Berardinelli
“ridiculously inept” - LA Times
“thick wad of improbabilities in this junk impossible to swallow” - Rolling Stone
Movies don’t get much more dunderheaded… load of mind-bendy bushwa… 230 or so loose ends… absurdly implausible conclusion… dorky psychobabble lines - Salon.com

This movie stars Vincent Price, was directed by Michael Reeves, and came out in 1968.

This movie is based on a real-life English witchfinder named Matthew Hopkins. He rode around the English countryside during the time of the civil wars (the British ones) finding witches and hanging them. He was unpleasant. So unpleasant that this classic horror film was made about him. Starring Vincent Price as him, no less.Even in his day there were folks that thought that maybe he was a fake, that maybe there were really no witches, that maybe he was just doing it because it was fun. Not only that, he was paid well. Seems people would just accuse folks that they were tired of, and besides the hangings (and burnings and trials) were great public entertainment. They had no movies in those days, no radio or TV even. So he writes a rebuttal to those folks, his answers to their doubts, which you can actually find at Project Gutenberg. It starts off with a bang-up quote, and reads like a horror story, except it’s the real deal:

Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. EXOD. 22.18.

Michael Reeves is the Jimi Hendrix of British film. He makes a classic movie (in ‘68, no less) and then dies young of a drug overdose straight away.

There’s a lot of horse riding. One guy says in the documentary that this is a Western except it’s in the British countryside, which must be a reference to all the galloping around. Not only that, there’s the crowd watching the public hanging. It’s a violent flick in a Peckinpah-ish way. Peckinpah made violent movies at around the same time, causing the same stir. Violence like this hadn’t been shown in film before- this film was censored in the United Kingdom. It’s the graphic depiction of violence that gives the movie a modern edge, even though it was filmed over thirty years ago.

A s regards my last post about accents, there’s the Vincent Price addendum. Vincent Price is the only American actor that can star in a film full of Brits and get away with it. He’s at his creepy best here. His accent isn’t British, but it’s not American either. It’s just the way Vincent talks, all slimy-like. Co-starring is Ian Oglivy, who I’d never heard of but from the DVD documentary I learned was close friends with the director. (Usually I can take or leave DVD documentaries, but this one was interesting.) Oglivy plays a “coronet” in Oliver’s Army. Cromwell is portrayed eating dinner in one scene. I’m interested in the British Civil War, and plan to see Crowmwell.

Oglivy had the presence of mind to live through the ’60’s without dying of a drug overdose, and according to IMDB was in one episode of Baywatch in 1999, one episode of Babylon 5 in 1998, and one episode of Dharma & Greg in 2000. I was never able to sit through an entire episode of Dharma & Greg, although I tried once. I don’t know which is worse- to have died in the ’60’s of a drug overdose, or to have lived to be in one episode of Dharma & Greg. Oglivy needs a new agent.

Night Junkies- a surprisingly good vampire film. I really wasn’t expecting much, but it was an interesting take on the old vampire trope. It had Burroughsian elements, what with all the references to addiction. Also, I’m a sucker for British movies. I’m a Guy Ritchie fan, so I like anything that takes place in London and I like hearing all the various British accents. There are some funny memorable scenes, especially the one in which the bald guy says, “You’re a fart, and I want you out of my ass.” His entire disquisition on farts is funny, like when he refers to Pythagoras as “that Greek muppet”. I was saddened to see him killed off after that scene, as he was perhaps the best part of the movie.

Unfortunately, I think the lead of this movie was supposed to have an American accent, and if there’s anything less believable than a Brit trying to do an American accent, I don’t know what it is. Look, British directors, I luv ya. But take it from me, if you have an American character, HIRE AN AMERICAN ACTOR for Pete’s sake. Don’t trust a Brit to do an American accent. Sure it might sound believable to you, but it won’t sound believable to me. The same goes in reverse, of course. Don’t hire an American to do a British accent- although this is more likely to pass muster with American audiences, since we really don’t know Brit accents that well. The most egregious example of this was Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves with Kevin Costner. I could barely sit through it. Nominated for an Oscar? Lordy. Costner doesn’t even try to do a British accent, yet he’s the only one on the set without one. He’s playing the quintessential Brit, with an American accent. Give me a break, or my money back, or whatever.

Anyway, a minor quibble with Night Junkies, an otherwise entertaining film and an interesting updating of a tired genre. However, since I’m a New Mexican ex-pat, I admit I liked John Carpenter’s Vampires with James Woods, if for no other reason than it was shot in New Mexico. For me, the choice of location is paramount; the location is often the lead in the film. I thought the shots of the New Mexican landscape made John Carpenter’s Vampires a good film from what otherwise would’ve been mediocre.

Oh yeah, one more thing about Night Junkies. It’s England’s answer to Near Dark. Favorite line from Near Dark: “Those people back there- they wasn’t normal. Normal folks- they don’t spit out bullets when you shoot ‘em. No sir!”

Total Film’s Top 50 Horror. Reproduced here without blurbs because you can’t copyright a list!

1 THE TEXAS CHAIN SAW MASSACRE 1974
2 HALLOWEEN 1978
3 SUSPIRIA 1977
4 DAWN OF THE DEAD 1978
5 THE SHINING 1980
6 PSYCHO 1960
7 THE WICKER MAN 1973
8 ROSEMARY’S BABY 1968
9 DON’T LOOK NOW 1973
10 CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST 1980
11 THE THING 1982
12 CARRIE 1976
13 THE EXORCIST 1973
14 THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT 1999
15 WITCHFINDER GENERAL 1968
16 THE HAUNTING 1963
17 THE EVIL DEAD 1981
18 PEEPING TOM 1960
19 ALIEN 1979
20 BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN 1935
21 NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD 1968
22 CURSE OF THE CAT PEOPLE 1944
23 SWITCHBLADE ROMANCE 2003
24 A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET 1984
25 AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON 1981
26 NIGHT OF THE DEMON 1957
27 HENRY: PORTRAIT OF A SERIAL KILLER 1986
28 BAY OF BLOOD 1971
29 AUDITION 1999
30 SHIVERS 1975
31 THE INNOCENTS 1961
32 THE DEVIL RIDES OUT 1968
33 LES DIABOLIQUES 1955
34 DEAD RINGERS 1988
35 INFERNO 1980
36 MARTIN 1977
37 THE HOWLING 1981
38 VAMPYR 1932
39 CANDYMAN 1992
40 THE PLAGUE OF THE ZOMBIES 1966
41 SCREAM 1996
42 TARGETS 1968
43 THE SECT 1991
44 THE DESCENT 2005
45 BRAINDEAD 1992
46 HOUR OF THE WOLF 1968
47 ERASERHEAD 1977
48 NEKROMANTIK 1987
49 THE BEYOND 1981
50 HELLRAISER 1987