Review: Welcome to Hell

Text © Richard Gary / Indie Horror Films, 2019
Images from the Internet

Welcome to Hell

Directed by Tony Newton (bookends and collection), Michael Agular,
James Cullen Bressack, Brad Bruce, Colin Clarke, Henrik Bjerregaard Clausen,
Jeff Kacmarynski, Sam Mason-Bell
Vestra Pictures / Wild Eye Releasing / MVD Entertainment
92 minutes, 2018
www.wildeyereleasing.com
www.mvdb2b.com

Sure, anthology films can be hit and/or miss, but that’s part of their charm. Don’t like this story? Next! Usually, there’s a thread or bookends that ties them all together, sometimes loosely, others not at all. In some cases, the collection is designed to be created for the thread, and in some of those situations, the stories may even overlap. Other sets are put together independently, with the director of the thread being the one to gather them, much like a collection of short stories with an annotated prologue. This particular one from the UK is the latter, taking films from the international level and assembling them.

The bookends here are of a couple who receive a mysterious VHS tape through the mail slot, and watch these tales of hopefully terror. Yeah, it’s a well-worn trope, especially after Ringu (and its various sequels and versions made in other countries – and they are lots), but it’s fine because it’s just the bits tying things together, usually with a “surprise” at the end. In this case these bookends are inconsequential and probably could have been left out, honestly. The meat is in the shorts (get yer mind outta da gutter), which are separated only by VHS “noise.” All the better for it.

The first story is Michael Agular’s “After Hours” from 2016, starring the great Bill Oberst, Jr., one of the most naturalistic genre actors around. He never disappoints. Here is plays a police detective out to solve a late-night (hence the title) mysterious murder in a religious charity thrift store. Of course, the religious (Christian) theme ties in with the title of this collection. The ending is quick, so pay attention. Personally, I don’t think the short achieved its goal to scare because not enough information is given about what (a) happened to the employee, (b) the guy in the hoodie, and (c) well, the ending (not going to give it or any other spoilers).

Next up is Colin Clarke’s 2015 “Slit,” from Ecuador, though the extremely minimal dialog is dubbed into English. We meet two women who, apparently, have just met each other, and decided to continue their – err – conversation at home undressed. The film is beautifully shot with Dario Argento-ish bright primary colors, and for a long time we see mostly partial faces (lips kissing, close-up of eyes), but not the whole cara at once. With some quick editing (but not dizzying) the hot pulse of the moment is cinematically translated. Into their life comes someone with some sharpies (hence the title), as well as coming into our view is some (primary?) red herrings. This short was nicely done.

Following is James Cullen Bressack’s 2013 “Family Time.” In shades of To Die For (1995) with a special and sick twist, Susan (Calico Cooper, daughter of Alice) welcomes us to her nightmare mentality as she manipulates her teenage son to do something terrible. So far, this is the most uncomfortable piece, and just the idea alone of it as than anything that happens onscreen. The question is, as we see, how far she will go to manipulate those that she professes to love to destroy those she hates. And the ending is quite satisfying in a really creepy, organic way that’s bound to make you say eww. Nice blood SFX along the way.

So, it makes sense that next up continues the family theme of sorts with Jeff Kacmarynski’s 2014 “Dead Therapy.” While it’s easy to pick up the clues of what is going to happen, this is still a pretty fun and original story about a 12-step style support group of the survivors of a two-week Zombie outbreak. A new member joins and we get to hear the horrific stories of all these stalwart and damaged people who had to do soul-crushing deeds of survival and are now all PTSD-laden. While predictable in some ways, it is worth the watch.

Following is the brief 8:21 Danish short (in English) by Henrik Bjerregaard Clausen, 2016’s “Lucid.” Shown as a dream sequence, this is a really interesting nugget of deep psychological schizophrenia of a depressed man. It felt like under 5 minutes because it was so absorbing. The visual image look is like VHS warm and fuzzy, but the story is anything but those two things.

Many times the best of the group either leads to entice the viewer until the end, or it is put at the end as a showcase. In this case, Brad Bruce’s 2015 “Maternal Instincts” ends the series with a bang. Scream Queen Felissa Rose (if you don’t know who she is, look her up) plays a mysterious woman who is picked up in a bar by some tall-but-not-too-smart egocentric gangster lout, and gets over-drugged by this asshole in a subtle commentary about date rape culture. But, of course, you know things aren’t what they appear, and there will be hell to pay. It’s a smart piece, and again, on some level you can see what will come, though the method is held to the end in a very satisfying way. Some of the acting is a bit clunky here and there, but the story holds well.

As a set, this is a nice combination of various genres, from the psychological to the slasher to a couple of creature features. It’s well rounded, the stories are all intriguing in one form or another, and with the exception of the bookends, they are just the right amount of attention grabbers. I didn’t skip over anything, which I rarely do anyway, but with a short, it’s actually more tempting than a feature. Not here: it’s watchable straight through.

Extras are a bunch of fun Wild Eye Releasing trailers, including this one.

 

Would a Zombie by Any Other Name Smell as Meat?…

Text (c) Richard Gary, 2012 / Indie Horror Films Blog

Images from the Internet

As with many others, I am a fan of the whole zombie genre, which seems to have picked up steam again over the past few years. But I am having terminology issues.

Growing up, pre-Night of the Living Dead (1968) [NOTLD], zombies were a whole different breed. They were slow and lumbering, undead, and usually Haitian. While there were horror films based on the characters, such as Bela Lugosi’s White Zombie (1932), mostly they were used as comedic fodder, as was with Bob Hope’s The Ghost Breakers (1940, infamous for the Willie Best line, “Feets, don’t fail me now!”). Of course, as most zombies were black, since they originated in the voodoo culture of Hispaniola, they were seen as derogatory and existed to be made fun of in a white colonialist stereotyping Hollywood way. Just the double-entendre title of the Bowery Boys’ Spooks Run Wild (1941) alone is an indication of that.

Early zombie

Even as late as the mid-1960s, zombies kept their kitsch appeal and were mainly used in comedies, such as in Ray Steckler’s ridiculously bad (in a good way) cult classic musical, The Incredibly Strange Creatures That Stopped Living and Became Mixed Up Zombies (1964), or, as they called a re-release when it played a midnight show at a Brooklyn theater where I worked during the mid-‘70s, Teenage Psycho Meets Bloody Mary.

Of course, NOTLD was a paradigm shifter, changing the image of clumsy voodoo servants and mindless murderers who followed the orders of their masters into clumsy flesh eaters free roaming the countryside (and malls, natch). This became the standard for years, through the likes of Children Shouldn’t Play with Dead Things (1973) and Return of the Living Dead (1985; including sequels).  While just a bit more limber in these later films, a sheriff from NOTLD said it best with “Yeah, they're dead. They're all messed up.”

However, once again things took an evolutionary leap with the Brit flick, 28 Days Later... (2002; not to be confused with Sandra Bullock’s 2000 mind-numbing-zombie-like-inducing 28 Days). In this flick, a virus turns people into violent and swift flesh eaters… but they’re still alive! This story is almost copied in another, more recent British release, The Devil’s Playground (2010), which actually inspired this column.

Slow zombies

Films like 28 Days Later... ignited a familiar question asked of horror fans recently, “Do you favour slow zombies or fast zombies?” An example of this is the documentary, The Walking Dead Girls! In fact, if you search the Web with this question, you will get many links on the topic. But I have an issue with this. First, let me admit that I like the viral running around fast eating people films; in some ways they are more exciting, though sometimes the editing and shaky camera used by seemingly everyone who does a story like this can be annoying, even if it doesn’t produce motion sickness. At least with a slow creature (or horde, as sometimes happens), you get to see the people get ripped to pieces (a nod to Tom Savini here), rather than a quick shot in edits, often in shadows or the corner of the frame for shock value. Give me a full-on, non-CGI appliance so we can to see some action, rather than shake it (apologies to the Flamin’ Groovies).

Essentially, the definition of a zombie, as is stated in part by Wikipedia, is “an animated corpse brought back to life…” In other words, from the voodoo to the flesh eating kind, a zombie is basically the dead arisen. However, in the later, faster versions, the attackers are not dead, merely infected, making them – er – hungry. We need a different word for this situation.

Fast zombies

My idea is to call them ghouls. Yeah, it’s an antiquated term that brings up memories of the likes of Eerie and Creepy comic magazines from the ‘60s and ‘70s mostly (where they seemed to be always in conflict with vampires, but I digress…). Again, Wikipedia describes ghouls, in part, as “…consuming human flesh, often classified as but not necessarily undead…Ghouls are perceived to be unintelligent and are primarily driven by their instinct to feed.”  Where my idea of using this definition falls short, is that in literature ghouls usually feast on dead flesh, while our infected humans (and zombies, apparently) prefer their tidbits still squirming.

Surely we can come up with a term that can differentiate between the classic risen dead chompers and those living foodies fond of animated flesh, or at least yet uninfected. 

Certainly, I don’t have all the answers. “Cannibals” seem to fall short as well, because in culture, with many of them it’s a matter of choice. Living people infected by a disease that makes them need to feed (there’s a tee-shirt slogan for ya) is not a option. “Biters” seems too mild, and “Flesheaters,” while a great band, also doesn’t give enough information.

The term zombies will always bring ‘em in to the theaters, or the television screen in the case of The Walking Dead series, so the odds that the appellation of zombie (or its alternative of zombi) is here to stay. Follow the fan base and surely the wallet will follow.

And look, no mention of braaaaains. Oh…never mind.