JOHN CARPENTER'S GHOSTS OF MARS

GHOSTS OF MARS is a great John Carpenter film.  I say that in protest to the many critics who truly love the director's previous work but can't seem to love this film as well.  The critics are not entirely wrong.  GHOSTS has its problems but the movie is strong with Carpenter's style.  The story is familiar territory with a small group of protagonists grossly outnumbered and surrounded by a vicious army of killers.  The only difference is that this time instead of the setting taking place on Earth we are transported to Mars in the future.  It is an action/sci-fi/western film with a good dose of supernatural horror mixed in for good measure.  Carpenter can't go wrong with that combination and in my humble opinion he delivers.

GHOSTS is a story about a few cops and local survivors who find themselves trapped in a police station on an small outpost town on Mars surrounded by an army of people who have become possessed by the ghosts of the ancient alien race that once ruled the land.  Back from the dead these ghosts want to retake the planet from the now occupying humans.

Visually everything works together to create a futuristic world that maintains traces of our past.  Carpenter's camera picks up every moody detail presented on screen.  The costuming is elaborate whether it be the police uniforms, civilian attire or the tribal mutilation make-up effects.  The sets look authentic.  Despite being about ghost aliens the movie feels down to Earth.  Imagine if this movie was made today.  Half the people, props and sets would be cartooned in with computers.  Remember how fake everything looked in ESCAPE FROM L.A?  That mistake is not repeated here.  The realism of the world helps us get more involved with the story and less distracted with visual hiccups.

Actionwise GHOSTS kicks a lot of butt.  This is an R rated film for sure with blood and severed limbs strung about when necessary.  People have a tendency to lose their heads in this one.  Things get pretty exciting when the ancient warriors in their new meat suits storm the police station.  The survivors band together and organize a tactical defensive to keep the native alien race at bay just enough to find a way to survive.  It is nice to be able to tell what is going on in the action scenes.  That is always my biggest complaint for modern action films with the shaky camera work and heavy use of quick edits.

I only have one complaint about the film and that involves the leader of the alien ghost people, Big Daddy Mars.  He looks like a total badass.  He is big, looks like Marylin Manson from Hell and definitely an imposing figure.  But he doesn't do much besides scream and get caught on fire.  He never really does anything to strike fear into the audience.  I think that is because the character isn't given enough screen time.  We already know where he comes from and what they are but his character is no different than the other possessed people that surround him.  He just looks more badass but doesn't do anything to stand out.  At least he isn't C.G.I.'d over and made a cartoon like they did to that one orc in THE HOBBIT 2.  Nowadays they would do that so Big Daddy Mars can jump around and do crazy acrobatics and stuff to be more thrilling to the kiddies that watch these movies.

I take that back I have another complaint to make about GHOSTS.  I don't like the fact that when you kill a possessed guy the ghost leaves and is free to roam about and posses anyone they want.  This does two things that are bad.  It creates a big plot hole because why are all the survivors not possessed when they kill hundreds of ghost people?  You would figure the newly freed spirits would just float into the prison and possess them all.  Also it makes the idea of shooting the bad guys a bad one because that releases the ghosts.  That kind of ruins the action element of GHOSTS because every time a ghost person goes down you wonder why the survivor who shot them didn't just become immediately possessed after.

I think why people who grew up loving Carpenter do not like this film so much is because they fall into the same trap that older critics did when Carpenter films first came out.  They don't get his style and focus too much on what could be a too simple story for them.  Maybe they want his stories to have some political statement like so many other horror films out there.  John Carpenter is a storyteller and that is what he wants to do.  Tell stories.  You can pull out some political or social statement out of GHOSTS OF MARS if you want but that is not his intention.  Hopefully like the old critics of the past those who do not like this film now will eventually come back to it and appreciate it a little more.  I think that will be easier to do since nowadays films similar to this one are so C.G.I. heavy that it is hard to take anything happening on the screen seriously.

GHOSTS OF MARS is one of the few JC movies I got to see on the big screen.  Despite some flaws I had a blast watching it.  I hope in time others will find this one to be as enjoyable as I did when I first watched it.  Great soundtrack too.

Jason

JOHN CARPENTER'S VAMPIRES

JOHN CARPENTER'S VAMPIRES is a mixed bag.  It has one of the best representations of vampirism put to screen and an extremely strong out going lead in James Wood's character.  But the story or lack there of and a rushed finale really hurt the film.  Yet despite having some major issues this is one of my favorite John Carpenter films simply because I like the basic concept.  What Carpenter has created is THE WILD BUNCH vs. a bunch of vampires.  I love that idea.

James Woods is a vampire hunter whose team is wiped out by a single vampire.  Discovering this vampire is looking for a black cross that can make it possible for vampires to walk in the light James goes after the vampire to stop him.  There is a little more to it but we all know the story with movies like this.  You don't need me to type it out for you.  It always has to be about saving the world.

The execution of the story is a little weak.  It seems like the writers didn't know which direction to take the story so we the audience find ourselves watching people talk in hotel room for a good chunk of the film's running time.  I never timed it so maybe they aren't in there too long but it sure does feel like it.  The plot of getting the black cross and stopping vampires from walking in the daylight is mentioned at least three times throughout the film adding nothing but redundancy to the plot.  The end itself is a rush job with little in the way of action and conflict.  Apparently they ran out of money which is sad because this film could have used a more violent and elaborate ending.  Instead we get this weird montage of vampires running into an old prison to avoid sunlight with some priest and one of the Baldwins shooting at them with worthless guns.  Big whoop.  They might as well have used harsh language to fight off the vampires by that point.  The result would have been the same.

VAMPIRES is unique though for it's use of the sun.  Vampires do not like the sun but so much of the film takes place in the open sunlight.  Most vampire movies take place at night unless they are really low budget.  Besides the fact that the movie takes place in the geographic west having most of the movie take place during the day adds to the Western movie formula.  Everything shot through a red filter helps with the dry arid desert look as well.  You got these Gothic looking vampires strutting their stuff in the wild west which you don't see too much in vampire movies.

These vampires kill to kill not just to drink blood.  In fact I am not sure if there is much blood drinking in this movie.  They are killing machines as John Carpenter puts it.  These baddies seek power and the cross is going to help them get it.  I particularly like how the vampires ignite and explode in the sun.  If you notice our vampire hunters have a tendency to overkill them.  They stake them, burn the corpses in the sun and then take their heads.  I think they do that because like in the book, VAMPIRE$, they are discovering what will and what won't kill them.  They make sure these vampires have no chance of coming back.  I always liked that concept.  Usually someone has all the answers on how to deal with the undead.  I think it is a little more realistic and exciting if nobody knows for sure.

The gadgets, weapons and outfits our vampire hunters were wearing at the beginning of the film are super cool.  These costume dressings are the kind of badass style we want to see more of.  The vampire hunters themselves would have made the movie better if the writers hadn't killed them all off ten minutes into the film.  Our "Wild Bunch" sadly do not last long.  These guys live the fast  lifestyle.  They know they can die at anytime so they live it up the best they can drinking, smoking and tearing up hotel rooms to impress their whores.  I would have liked the movie to explore that aspect instead of giving us a film with the standard save the world and revenge dead parents plot.  There was definitely a missed opportunity here.  Still James Woods is enough to keep the film interesting.

Maybe VAMPIRES isn't the best in John Carpenter's career but it struck a cord with me with some of it's concepts.  I recommend it but this is one of those movies that has a lot to forgive.  This is one of those rare occasions where I wouldn't mind seeing a remake but with the same director.  Read the book there is a great movie you can make out of that.


Jason

JOHN CARPENTER'S THE WARD: It's Good! Too bad it takes place in THE WARD!

John Carpenter's THE WARD is a return to true form for one of my favorite directors.  The movie is really good.  Even with the absence of the traditional John Carpenter keyboard music that he is second best known for THE WARD can't help but feel like a genuine piece from the master.  The direction, the characters, the acting all perfect.  After the wonky PRO-LIFE I was afraid we had lost our beloved director forever.  Unlike other older directors (Romero, Lucas, Spielberg) who were great back in the day but now seem to have a hard time incorporating new technology with their film style, Carpenter manages to use the modern FX without his film looking artificial and all CGIy.  The ghost in the film looks like a ghost and not a freakin cartoon.  The movie looks like it takes place in the 1960s and not just a bunch of people dressed like they are from the 1960s standing in front of a green screen with digital 1960s backgrounds digitally inserted in the back.  You would think that with all this praise that I would pardon the film's biggest flaw and go on with my "la-de-da" life but I can't.  I just can't.  After all these years of being a giant jerkola I can't bring myself to ignore my biggest complaint of the film which is..........?????

Out of all the places to set a horror movie why, oh, why does it have to take place in an insane asylum?  First off there are a billion-million-gazillion horror movies that take place in asylums.  None of them are good.  At least John didn't call it THE ASYLUM.  It is the most uncreative place to set your horror movie.  Syringes, hospital beds, arm straps, electro therapy, doctors, nurses, flickering hallway lights, straitjackets pills and more pills are all common things you see in these films.  And all of them are cliched and boring.  Watching these films are about as thrilling as actually sitting in a hospital waiting room with no WEEKLY READER to pass the time with.  Those images don't scare anymore.  They leave no impact.  How many times do we need to see red blood splattered across white walls or sheets?  So clever.

What kind of story happens in a horror movie that takes place in a psyche ward?  Basically there are two kinds.  One is that the threat is real.  The second is that everything that is happening is only happening in the main character's head and we don't find out until the end with a bunch of psychological mumbo jumbo bull hockey.  Those of us who watch a lot of horror movies know this and we can see the ending coming from a mile away giving us little surprise.  One simple sentence nonchalantly uttered from a secondary character is all that is needed to reveal too early the twist.  THE WARD is no different but I will say this.  At least THE WARD doesn't draw the twist ending in crayon for all to see during the opening credits of the gosh darn movie! *cough-IDENTITY-cough*

You can tell that Carpenter put some time and thought in to making THE WARD.  There really isn't anything in the film to complain about.  He is back and I can't wait for his next movie.  My problem is the familiarity with everything I was seeing.  I got the weird "I'm watching SUCKER PUNCH again" vibe.  That's an awful feeling, folks.  One that I never want to feel again.  Maybe if SUCKER PUNCH hadn't metaphorically kicked me in my metaphoric balls I would have enjoyed THE WARD more.  Who knows?  And, yes, ladies I have real balls to go along with my metaphoric balls too.

Jason

JOHN CARPENTER'S PRO-LIFE is Prolifically PRO-DONKULUS.

How?  That is all I am asking.  How is it that you can make CIGARETTE BURNS which is one of the greatest horror movies ever made and then go on and make this unwanted abortion?  Yeah, I know I went for the most obvious insult when describing a film that has abortion stuff in it.  So what?  I'm not a real writer, folks.  Who said I was clever?  I can barely put my pants on in the morning.

PRO-LIFE is Carpenter's second mini feature in the somewhat just okay horror anthology series MASTERS OF HORROR.  Judging by the episode I saw I would have to say the answer to my question is laziness.  I know these guys have short deadlines and it probably takes a long time to make practical monster effects but still it makes you wonder when you compare the quality of the two JC episodes.  CIGARETTE BURNS looks like it was directed by the master himself John Carpenter.  PRO-LIFE looks as if the immature, ruins everything hack Uwe Boll machine gunned his way on set with many casualties and forced everyone to make a horrible episode and put JC's name on it.  There is a stark contrast is all I am saying.

The movie starts off with a young girl seeking refuge in an abortion clinic (In the middle of nowhere? Really?) from her overly religious father.  She wants an abortion because she knows she has a lobster growing inside her.  She says that God wants her to have the abortion and the doctors are all like "okay, freak" but they don't say that out loud because that would be rude.  Ron Pearlman is the dad and he is one of only two good things about this movie.  He believes the voice of God is talking to him.  This propels him to go all out to "protect the baby".  With his three sons they storm the abortion clinic trying to save his daughter from getting the abortion.  The story is a neat concept but the execution is lazy.  It is like Carpenter got too use to sitting in chairs on the sets of the remakes of his work just to "extend his hand to accept check".  Where is the passion?

The look of the film is flat.  Yes, it is a t.v. show but these are not the usual kind of episodes you see on your magical moving picture box.  These are mini movies by the horror greats.  Their style and unique approach to horror is suppose to be showcased in every episode.  Watching CIGARETTE BURNS I could tell that Carpenter directed it.  It has that "Carpenter-esque" feel to it.  Its hard to explain.  Most of you know what I am saying.  Either you love film or you like the TRANSFORMERS movies, is all I am saying.  There really isn't much to look at in PRO-LIFE.  The sets are hallways, waiting rooms, a parking lot, offices and surgical rooms.  Its not that inspiring.  How would you like to watch a horror movie about waiting in an abortion clinic?

The acting overall is weak sauce.  Yes, the two leads are good, Pearlman is excellent, but I get that "Here comes the local community actors" vibe from everyone else.  I don't think Carpenter spent too much time with the secondary characters especially the angry dad character.  He is an angry dad so he is angry all the time.  He is just a stereotype.  He is not a real person.  He, his daughter and wife along with the clinic patrons and Pearlman's sons drown out all the good actors.  Most of them have no purpose.  Almost all of their deaths are off screen.  In fact I am not sure if some of them even died.  Did the mother and daughter die outside trying to escape?  Did the two women in the surgery room die after the demon arose from the floor?  There is also this weird screen misdirection at one point where the first son is shot in the neck by the head doctor.  Pearlman's son is dying.  He is not dead but instead of trying to save his son's life he just holds him and kisses him as if he were dead while blood gushes (very fakey like I might add) from his wounded neck.  GET THE KID A FREAKIN BAND-AIDE FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!  It's a weird moment.

Speaking of weird.  How embarrassingly bad is it to see Ron Pearlman with a doctor's leg over his shoulder as if he were banging the doctor missionary style over a desk?  The doctor is a dude by the way.  Why did they think that this would be a good scene?  PRO-LIFE tries to up the ante with the gore and unpleasantness by having the doctor's crotch cut open and a vacuum shoved up his taint to suck out his insides as if he were being aborted.  This scene along with the gorier moments like the burning afterbirth and head blastings all feel forced on the audience.  None of it feels like it is produced naturally from the development of the story.  Here is a bunch of gore and gross stuff because this is a horror movie and horror movies have gore and gross stuff in them.

The ending is over way too quick.  The scene where Pearlman comes face to face with the demon should have been a memorable and deeply traumatic scene.  After murdering all those people it is revealed that the voice he was following was not from God but from a demon.  Pearlman looks sad for a moment and then the demon approaches and then the scene cuts away leaving the audience to assume that Pearlman was killed.  We don't even get to see Pearlman die!  This is the most important scene in the film and it is barely leaves an impression.  More time should have been spent building up to this moment.  Pearlman's reaction should have been more towards extreme despair like Luke Skywalker in EMPIRE STRIKES BACK when he learns that Vader is his father.  I will say that the second thing I like about PRO-LIFE is the demon itself.  What a great creature design.  Its big and it looks real.  The baby looked like crap.  It's crab legs with a doll's head on it.  Big whoop.  All it did was make me not want to eat at Long John Silvers anymore.

PRO-LIFE tries to teach us that those who kill in the name of God are doing the devil's work.  It's a great message but none will hear it because they are distracted by the lazy special effects, the lazy dialogue, the lazy cinematography and the lazy direction that permeates the entire run time of this movie.  Where is the haunting or at least entertaining John Carpenter musical score?  PRO-LIFE doesn't feel like a Carpenter film and that is why I don't like it.  All the elements are gone even when they are there.  I guess the concept for PRO-LIFE  was ASSAULT ON PRECINCT 13 meets THE THING but it barely comes across like that.  Everyone seems to hate on  GHOSTS OF MARS but to me that is one of his good ones.  The reason being is that you can clearly tell that it was directed by John Carpenter himself.  It has the Carpenter score.  It has the Carpenter cinematography.  It has memorable characters played by great and greatly underrated actors.  Despite it's flaws it is still good because of his style.  PRO-LIFE is BODY BAGS terrible.  That's right.  I just compared it to BODY BAGS.  Now what the flip was the deal with that movie!?!  I guess they all can't be good.  Maybe like all of his films I just need some time to appreciate PRO-LIFE.  Maybe in twenty years I will join the ranks of all those critics that crapped all over Carpenter's early work back in the olden days only to later hail it all as classic.  Of course probably in twenty years I will be dead.  That's a weird thing to think about.


Jason

IN THE MOUTH OF MADNESS: Best Horror Movie Ending Ever!?!

When is a movie not really a movie?  When its called JOHN CARPENTER'S IN THE MOUTH OF MADNESS.  This is one of his greatest films.  As usual it is overlooked by many in the horror community even by Carpenter's own fans.  I admit it.  I only wanted to see this film because he directed it.  But honestly I didn't think the movie was going to be special.  I was wrong.  I am pretty much just going to talk about the ending so if you haven't seen this movie PLEASE STOP READING NOW!  Trust me.  This is a film you want to watch in complete ignorance.  Watch the movie.  Contemplate everything you just watched.  When it sinks in as to what you just watched it will blow your mind.  Wait maybe you shouldn't.  The whole point to IN THE MOUTH OF MADNESS is to not watch IN THE MOUTH OF MADNESS. 

So yeah,  IN THE MOUTH OF MADNESS starts off just like any normal movie.  You have opening credits set to awesome rock music.  We are introduced to characters and a story develops.  Nothing strange about that, right?  Sam Neil plays John Trent.  He is a freelance insurance investigator.  No one holds his leash.  He is his own Han Solo.  A publishing company hires him to find Sutter Cane their most prized author.  Sutter Cane writes extremely popular horror novels that sell out all over the world and have caused people to go crazy.  He has gone missing while writing his latest book IN THE MOUTH OF MADNESS.  Trent figures out that Sutter Cane is hiding in a town not on the map called Hobbs End.  Along with the book publisher's editor Linda Styles played by Julie Carmen the two set off on a road trip to find him.  Just like most movies there is a little tiny bit of a spark between the two.  At least Trent thinks so.  Every movie has to have a love interest, right?

After a couple of strange occurrences the two magically find Hobbs End.  There they discover that the Sutter Cane's stories are coming to life.  The two witness events from his books take place right before their eyes.  Trent can't accept what he is seeing as real because monsters and crazy stuff doesn't happen in reality.  True that, but he isn't living in reality.  Its at this point where IN THE MOUTH OF MADNESS stops being a real movie.  Something else is happening.  A great revelation is occuring and Trent can't see it.  After finding Sutter Cane and understanding that his new book will turn everyone who reads it into monsters, Trent spends whats left of the movie trying to stop the book from being published.  He doesn't understand what is going on.  He burns the book and goes back to the publisher only to discover that he has already been there months before and hand delivered the book which has just been published.  Unable to stop the madness from spreading because Sutter Cane has become some kind of god Trent goes out and axes some guy who just bought the book.  Trent ends up in an asylum.

So the world goes to hell and the dark forces release Trent from the asylum.  With nothing better to do he goes to a still functioning movie theater that is playing the movie version of IN THE MOUTH OF MADNESS.  This is the best part.  He sees himself on the big screen and everything he has just been through from the very start of the credits.  That means the story that turns people into monsters is the very same story that we the audience have been watching this whole time.  Anyone who watches this movie will turn into monsters.  Well maybe not really but it is kind of cool how fiction almost seems to become reality.  Trent realizes that he is not a person but a character in a story.  He doesn't live in reality so monsters and crazy crap can happen.  This isn't a real movie but merely a device to change the world into monsters.

This is a great creature feature.  This isn't a movie you have seen before.  There are quite a few monsters in this movie even though they are rarely glimpsed.  Obviously H.P. Lovecraft was a heavy inspiration on their design.  They look real.  Even the story and buildings of Hobbs End could have come from the imagination of Lovecraft.  Could you imagine this movie being made today.  You would probably have a bunch of cartoons jumping around rooftop to rooftop not being very realistic or scary.  All the suspense would be lost.  The first time I saw IN THE MOUTH OF MADNESS I was a little bored with it.  It was a little too weird for me and I was about to throw it into the NAKED LUNCH nonsense category of horror.  There is a lot of weird crap in this movie.  But after seeing the ending I was shocked at how cool and original this movie was.  Despite how weird the movie is it does make sense.  You probably will never see another movie like this again.  But that is just because you turned into a squid-faced monster and ate the neighbor's cat, ya freak.

Jason

JOHN CARPENTER'S CIGARETTE BURNS

I know everyone in the world will disagree with me on this statement but Cigarette Burns is one of the greatest horror pieces ever made.  I would put it in my top five favorite horror movies ever.  Its only a hour long but it is incredibly imaginative and despite being a straight faced horror film it contains a under lying sense of humor.

Norman Reedus from Boondock Saints fame plays an acquirer of rare films who is sent by a crazy millionaire to find a film that has an extremely dangerous reputation.  Wherever the film plays everyone who watches it dies.  (Insert joke about Brokeback Mountain here.)  Udo Kier plays the millionaire who wants the film.  Its called THE END OF THE WORLD.  Its a french film and they call it by its french title which sounds way better but I am not looking it up and spelling it out.  Its too long and too hard to do.  Sorry, but they don't call me "lazy good for nuthin" for nuthin.  The film is supposedly lost forever.  Udo is obsessed with the film.  He never saw it but he has props from the film.  In his office he has the poster and these strange life sized angel wings that hang on the wall in his office.  To me this is his greatest role.  He is only in this film for like maybe a total of seven minutes but he is magnificent as a sophisticated gentleman with a eccentric cruel streak that peaks out when he takes Norman into what I believe is a hidden room where he keeps his most valuable prop from the film.  You see a strange being standing in chains on a rotating table.  You realize that it is an angel with it's wing cut off.  The same wings hanging in the Udo's office.  Apparently Udo likes to tease the angel even throwing a piece of ice at it from his drink when he talks to it.  The angel knows the film is still out there.  Unfazed by all the weirdness Norman sets out to find it.

Cigarette Burns is a creature feature.  THE END OF THE WORLD is the monster and it wants to be seen again.  It must be seen again.  It leads Norman on his journey to be found.  When an obstacle gets in his way a cigarette burn shows on the screen and the problem disappears which is especially helpful when you find yourself the star in some crazy European snuff film.  By the way a cigarette burn is what they call the black hole that appears on the screen in the theater during a movie that lets the projectionist know when its time to change the reel.  I thought I would just throw that important tidbit of information out anywhere instead of at the beginning of this essay where it belongs. 

Now there is a whole subplot about Norman's dead wife and his strained relationship with her father but I don't want to talk about that.  What I want to talk about is the unintentional meaning I get from Cigarette Burns.  I get the feeling this movie is about the power and danger of imagery.  In Cigarette Burns it is the image of an angel being tortured on film that plays metaphor for some of today's extreme horror movies.  Horror makers seem to want to out due the next guy in the "F'ed up" department.  They linger on the atrocious moments of horror believing it's the sick out factor that makes a film scary or stand out. Too many movies do this and they are no longer remembered because Texas Chainsaw Massacre did it thirty years ago and did it better. Story takes a backseat to long projected scenes of rape and torture.  The movies become no longer fun to watch but just unpleasant experiences.  See Feast 2 or Martyrs for examples.....No, wait! Don't!  Is this what Carpenter or the writers were trying to say?  There is a scene where a torture porn is being filmed.  I don't think so but that's how I saw this movie.  It's my own personal interpretation.  See it for yourselves and draw your own conclusions. 

The best thing about this movie is it's humor.  I'm not talking about clever one liners or comical situations.  Carpenter grew up on 1950's sci-fi.  Most of those films had aliens that were kept in the dark until the very end.  Those movies built up the expectations of what the monsters looked like but all too often they never lived up to the hype.  You would be watching some movie about people getting their faces sucked off by some unseen tentacled monster.  For two hours you would wait excited but dreading the moment the alien is revealed.  Finally at the climax a giant potato with lobster claws and a blond wig would emerge from the dark and you would have to laugh.  This is what you were so afraid of?  Well the same thing happens in Cigarette Burns.  There is no way in Heck-ola that Carpenter can show a film so scary that it could cause people to go insane.  He knows that.  So he builds THE END OF THE WORLD up through out the story.  You have to see it.  You don't know if you can handle it but you watch until the very end.  What Carpenter does is he shoots a bunch of crazy images of people screaming and clawing with red skies and stupid stuff everywhere and throws that up on to the screen at the end.  THE END OF THE WORLD looks like a bad pretentious student film from France.  When you think about it, its hilarious.  You better think about it or else.

Cigarette Burns is an episode from the Showtime series Masters of Horror.  Each episode is a stand alone mini horror movie directed by the legends of horror.  Most of them aren't very good.  Cigarette Burns is the best one but oddly enough in season two Carpenter makes the worst one titled Pro-life.  It had potential for being great but the movie looks rushed and unfinished with terrible acting and a unimpressive ending.  How is that possible?  They can't all be great I guess.

Cigarette Burn is great though.  If you love it tell your friends.  If you hate it tell your enemies.  At least there are no scenes of people tied to chairs screaming over and over again "No! Stop, please!  Why are you doing this?"  for thirty freakin minutes.  I'm looking at you Texas Chainsaw Massacre.  Oh, wait there is but that one doesn't count.


Jason