Change Your Image
PJKeening
Reviews
Slaughter High (1986)
I worked harder on this comment than they did making this movie.
The movie opens with a flashback to Doddsville County High School on April Fool's Day. A group of students play a prank on class nerd Marty. When they are punished for playing said prank, they follow up with a bigger prank which (par for the course in slasher films involving pranks on class nerds) goes ridiculously awry leaving Marty simultaneously burned by fire and disfigured by acid for the sake of being thorough. Fast forward five years, where we find members of the student body gathering at the now abandoned high school for their five year class reunion. We find out that it is no coincidence that everyone at the reunion belonged to the clique of pranksters from the flashback scene, as all of the attendees are being stalked and killed by a mysterious, jester mask-clad murderer in increasingly complicated and mind-numbingly ludicrous fashions. It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to solve the mystery of the killer's identity, as it is revealed to be none other than a scarred Marty who has seemingly been using his nerd rage and high intellect to bend the laws of physics and engineering in order to rig the school for his revenge scenario. The film takes a turn for the bizarre as Marty finishes exacting his revenge on his former tormentors, only to be haunted by their ghosts. Marty is finally pushed fully over the edge and takes his own life. Finally, the film explodes in a crescendo of disjointed weirdness as the whole revenge scenario is revealed to be a dream in the first place as Marty wakes up in a hospital bed, breaks free of his restraints, stabs a nurse, and finally disfigures his own face.
The script is tired and suffers from a terminal case of horror movie logic. The only originality comes from the mind-numbingly convoluted ways that the victims are dispatched. The absurd it-was-all-a-dream ending feels tacked on. It's almost as if someone pointed out the disjointed nature of the film and the writer decided then and there that it was a dream.
Technically speaking, the film is atrocious. Some scenes were filmed so dark that I had to pause the film and play with the color on my television. The acting is sub-par, even for slasher films. I can't help but think that casting was a part of the problem as all of the actors look at least five years older than the characters they portray, which makes the flashback scene even more unintentionally laughable. Their lack of commitment to the movie is made obvious as half of them can't bother to keep their accents straight through the movie.
All of this being said, if you like bad horror movies, you might like this one, too. It isn't the worst film of the genre, but it's far from the best.
Foolproof (2003)
This is an amazing Canadian film, which is like saying, "That was my favorite trip to the dentist."
A typical Canadian movie either goes through great lengths to disguise its Canadian heritage, or is a pretentious art film that concerns a turn-of-the-century Saskatchewan woman dealing with the slow, agonizing death of her husband from some kind of poorly-defined illness by painting portraits of moose corpses. Foolproof is different, though. The plot revolves around three friends that play a game called "Foolproof". The game involves staking out places containing things of value, and planning heists without being detected. The difference between being a "Foolproof" player and an actual criminal is that a "Foolproof" player doesn't actually act out the robberies. They recreate the various locks, alarms, and other security devices at their homes and challenge each other to defeat them. Unfortunately, an actual criminal learns of their game, steals one of their plans, and successfully pulls off the heist. He then blackmails the three players into planning and actually enacting a robbery of $20 million in bearer bonds from a high-security building that puts their skills to the test. The film is technically sound and contains many staples of the heist film sub-genre. Ryan Reynolds (Smokin' Aces, Blade: Trinity) turns in an unusually irritating performance as protagonist Kevin Kraft. In fairness to Mr. Reynolds, the screenplay may be to blame for this, giving him dialog and situations that force him to act clueless, bumbling, and a sarcastic early on while only the later scenes paint him in a more likable manner. This could be an attempt at character development, but I could not help but think that I would have enjoyed the character more in the hands of a more capable actor. The script clearly calls for a Peter Sellars type. Unfortunately, this is beyond the performance turned in by Reynolds, who I normally enjoy thoroughly. On the other hand, David Suchet (Poirot) does an excellent job as the heavy, Leo "The Touch" Gillette. His character is far more subtle than the over-the-top Kevin Kraft. Suchet steals the picture with his sinister performance. In the hands of a less capable actor, the role could be lost to a minimal, almost passive performance. David Suchet oozes pure, unadulterated callousness and is truly a delight in every scene. Rounding out the cast, we have fellow "Foolproof"-ers Kristin Booth (Salem Witch Trials) and Joris Jarsky (Salem Witch Trials), who get lost in the shuffle as they are given very little to do outside of Booth being a girl and Jarsky owning a junky car. I feel that the fault lies with the script in that case. What the film lacks in three-dimensional characters, it makes up for with excellent pacing and enjoyable heists. I especially enjoyed the opening scene's nod to Brian DePalma with the split-screen simultaneously showing Kevin going through the robbery motions at home on one side, while Kevin pulling the imaginary heist is seen on the other. While it is true that the film is uneven, it is definitely worth checking out.