Is there food?

[](http://www.istherefood.com/wp- content/uploads/incident.jpg)Some horror directors seem to become associated with a particular writer’s work during their careers. Maybe they feel a certain affinity with an author, or understand and admire their work to such a degree that they are compelled to bring it to the screen. Two good examples of this are Stuart Gordon’s fascination with the works of H.P. Lovecraft and Mick Garris’ various adaptations of Stephen King material.

I’d like to add another pair to that list, if I may: Don Coscarelli and Joe R. Lansdale. OK, I’ll admit that Incident On and Off a Mountain Road is only the second of Coscarelli’s Lansdale projects, but he continues to demonstrate a marvellous appreciation of the source material. Here Coscarelli expands and refines the original short story into an excellent 60 minutes of horror. Just as with Bubba Ho-tep, Coscarelli appears to be completely comfortable when adapting Lansdale and the end result is a polished, effective piece of work by any standard.

On paper, Don Coscarelli’s offering to the Masters of Horror could sound a little cliched - A woman crashes her car on a dark night, and is stalked through the woods by a twisted serial killer - but Incident has two significant elements which serve to elevate it beyond tired cliche. The first of these is the slick inter-cutting of present day action with flashback sequences, which depict the heart-warming “girl meets boy, boy turns out to be survivalist, boy trains girl” tale of central character Ellen’s marriage. The second is almost certainly the most significant: The serial killer isn’t really important.

[](http://www.istherefood.com /wp-content/uploads/Masters_of_Horror_Incident_0.jpg)Which is almost a shame. Moonface (it’s never made clear if there’s any Enid Blyton connection) is a brilliantly designed antagonist, with just as much iconic potential as Jason or Freddy. Despite what must have been a great temptation, Incident doesn’t concern itself with a backstory for Moonface, and resists the urge to turn him into some kind of anti-hero. John DeSantis is (literally) hugely impressive as the character, and performs everything asked of him with a convincing amount of menace.

[](http://www.istherefood.com /wp-content/uploads/Masters_of_Horror_Incident_1.jpg)The first half of the film is essentially one long chase sequence, in which Ellen sets traps for Moonface and tries to evade capture. Inevitably, our pale-faced friend imprisons her in his spooky cabin alongside Buddy, played by Coscarelli stalwart Angus Scrimm. Even though Buddy exists largely as a force of exposition Scrimm turns in such a wonderfully entertaining performance that he never feels tacked on. The character is so different to his Tall Man persona that, for fans of the Phantasm series, his presence here is worth the price of admission alone.

[](http://www.istherefood.com /wp-content/uploads/Masters_of_Horror_Incident_2.jpg)It’s while she’s held captive that Ellen (and therefore, of course, the viewer) witnesses the film’s most horrific sequence; a gloriously staged feast of optical-horror that will have all but the most battle hardened gore-hound squirming in discomfort. Fans of Fulci’s fascination with the eyes will not be disappointed here as the scene is very reminiscent of his work. Light and sound are both used to great effect to produce what could prove to be one of the series most memorable sequences. As with many of the most effective horror set pieces - The Texas Chainsaw Massacre’s meat hook scene immediately springs to mind - it’s often what’s left to the viewer’s imagination that’s most disturbing.

The film’s transitions between Ellen’s past life and present situation are implemented with superb timing, and reveal an equally compelling story. Bree Turner is rarely off screen, but is always convincing. She moves brilliantly, managing to convincingly portray her character’s athleticism and survival skills. And she isn’t exactly difficult to look at. Considering her status as a relative unknown it’s impressive that she authoritatively carries the film to its conclusion, and I can’t help but think that we’ll see more of her.

Ethan Embry plays Ellen’s survivalist husband Bruce in a similarly convincing fashion. Despite the character’s transition from loveable hubby to something entirely less pleasant, Embry is never wide of the mark. There’s an intensity about the performance that, as with Turner, is far more authoritative than you’d expect based on his past work.

Incident’s greatest success is it’s ability to wrong-foot the viewer, and play with their preconceptions. Throughout, you’re never entirely sure where it’s going, and the relevance of the flashbacks, Moonface, and Buddy aren’t immediately apparent. Coscarelli proves here that he’s able to convincingly produce action sequences, and I’d like to see him create more like this. It’s always amazed me that he’s as (relatively) little known as he is; the recently rumoured big-budget Phantasm revival would likely have made him significantly better known, but this may well have come at the cost of some of his creativity and individuality. Perhaps it’s for the better that it’s not going to happen then.

Maybe one day we’ll see a Coscarelli directed adaptation of the great Lansdale novel The Drive-In? In fact, why haven’t we had more Lansdale adaptations in general? Perhaps I should just settle for the upcoming Bubba Nosferatu? Be that as it may, Incident is truly a showcase for the talents of three masters of horror: Joe Lansdale, Angus Scrimm, and Don Coscarelli.

DVD:

Incident On And Off A Mountain Road is presented in a 1.77:1 aspect ratio, and features Dolby Digital 5.1 and Dolby Surround 2.0.

The picture quality throughout is sharp and detailed. A significant amount of the film takes place at night, or in darkness, and this presents no problems for the transfer; it doesn’t lack detail when it’s present, there are no artifacts or other issues. Given that Incident was made for TV (albeit in the spirit of full blown cinema productions) it’s hard to complain.

The audio is similarly impressive considering Incident’s small screen origin. The 5.1 audio track makes good use of the surrounds for atmosphere: Thunder and environmental noise are convincingly pumped out of the rears, and while the sub gets a modest amount of attention from the thunder, there’s nothing here that’s going to take your house down. For the most part, the action takes place firmly in the front speakers. That said, the 5.1 track is well worth having for the film’s previously mentioned “most horrific sequence”; Moonface’s eerie siren fills the room nicely if you’ve got the right equipment.

Extras:

Commentaries:

Lansdale & Coscarelli:

The inclusion of the Lansdale/Coscarelli commentary is a really nice touch. Lansdale’s sing-song Texan accent is a pleasure to listen to, and the two share an enthusiasm and appear to have a good relationship. Coscarelli acts more as an interviewer for Lansdale; occasionally prompting him to talk about the origin of the story. The track as a whole provides a nice insight into Lansdale’s writing process, and topics range from Ozzie Davies and Bubba Ho- tep, to survivalists, and tales of the Incident audition sessions. Lansdale very concisely describes the exact opposite of the Ellen character with the phrase “Root tripper”; a character who exists solely to trip over roots until the killer gets them. Memorable nuggets like this are the key to a good commentary.

Romano & Coscarelli:

After such an entertaining commentary as Lansdale’s, this track starts off a little slowly. DVD Producer Perry Martin hosts a session featuring co-writer Stephen Romano, and Don Coscarelli. The whole thing feels slightly less organic than the previous track, and there are occasional overlaps. That said, things pick up towards the middle, and this track does, nonetheless, provide a good insight into the creation of the screenplay and Coscarelli’s job as director. It’s nice to hear Romano acknowledging his homage to Fulci too - I had wondered if this was a deliberate move since first seeing Incident.

Featurettes:

Predators and Prey - This is a great look at Coscarelli’s perhaps suprising history. He tells of his love of the Universal classics, Invaders from Mars, and surprisingly 2001. From Jim The World’s Greatest, to Phantasm, to Incident, this short featurette covers some similar ground to the commentary tracks. It’s worth noting that P&P does include a couple of very mild spoilers for future episodes.

Working With A Master - Coscarelli - Angus Scrimm (Phantasm), Reggie Bannister (Phantasm), Marc Singer (Beast Master), Joe Landsdale, and Bree Turner discuss working with Don Coscarelli. For fans, this is a must see.

John De Santis interview - A short interview with the man behind Moonface. DeSantis mapped out a mindset and origin for the character, and goes into suprising depth. There are also details on his particularly shiny teeth.

Ethan Embry interview - This one’s a bit poor. There’s more clips of Incident than actual footage from the Embry interview, and Embrey doesn’t actually say anything terribly interesting.

Behind The Scenes - A montage of set building and filming.

Several trailers for other episodes of the series.

Easter Egg 1 - Cabin Set design - This can be accessed by selecting the Masters Of Horror logo on the extras menu (push to the right).

Easter Egg 2 - Roadside Cafe - This can be accessed by selecting the Masters Of Horror logo on the audio menu (push to the right). This home video features some really nice behind the scenes footage, to the extent that it’s actually a better document than the actual Behind the Scenes feature. There’s more Lansdale footage, and more making of and behind the scenes footage.

DVD-ROM Features - Screensaver (a reasonable pretty slideshow type screensaver for Mac and PC)

The shooting script in PDF format (a nice extra for fans - but I can’t help but think that the inclusion of the original short story would have been better)

First things first - and this isn’t the point of this post - I’m not really looking forward to the Day Of The Dead remake. Why bother? Yes, I said the same thing about Dawn remake, and I really like that. And the Night remake is a really good zombie movie too - but why keep remaking Romero’s movies? Why not just make some new zombie movies, instead of having to try to cash in?

Anyway - the point. Rotten Tomatoes have posted a slice of news regarding the remake, in which it’s revealed that there will be fast, and slow zombies. Oooh, nobody ever thought of doing that one before - maybe this will be a great remake after all? Feel my sarcasm, zombie fans.

And that’s still not the point of this post. The point is that Rotten Tomatoes have confirmed that the remake will still “portray the character Bud”. Who? You know, Bud: ““There is a Bud character. It’s developed a little differently though but it’s definitely that character of the good zombie is in the film.â€?

Now, for a start, that sentence doesn’t even make sense. And for another thing: IT’S BUB, for Christ’s sake. So, we can assume one of two things from this post: a) The Day remake commits a terrible, terrible sin by renaming the Bub character to Bud - which assumes that you can overlook the even worse sin of including Bub in the remake at all; it’s not going to top the previous performance, is it? - or b) Rotten Tomatoes don’t know what they’re talking about…

[](http://www.istherefood.com /wp-content/uploads/casino_royale_ver3.jpg)As the saying goes: “they don’t make them like they used to”. And while that’s a line as cliched as the Bond franchise has itself become, it’s quite often true. That’s not to say that “they” aren’t trying; franchise re-imaginings and revivals seem to be all the rage these days, particularly with the superhero fraternity. There’s the sense of a conscious effort being made to recapture past glories.

It doesn’t always work; it’s difficult to describe Superman Returns as capturing the true spirit of its origin, and most attempts at rebooting horror franchises just go horribly wrong. So the prospect of giving Bond a fresh new outlook evoked mixed feelings in me. It could have gone so terribly wrong, but it gives me great pleasure to say that Casino Royale gets things right. Mostly.

The plot revolves around Le Chiffre, banker to terrorists the world over. In order to bring him down, causing financial distress throughout the world’s terror organisations, Bond must enter a high stakes card game at the titular Casino Royale. This central element is bookended by the usual Bond set pieces and exposition.

[](http://www.istherefood.com /wp-content/uploads/casino_royale_girls.jpg) The “usual Bond” set pieces? Isn’t this new Bond? It’s not accurate to say that the Bond franchise has had a lick of paint; a more accurate description would be that it sports something of a distressed look. Things feel somewhat darker and more dangerous than the series has felt in recent times. There’s an undercurrent of tension running through most of the proceedings, even if the scenery and women look as delightful as ever; this is still very much a Bond movie. At times, it feels like the early days, eons - if you’ll pardon the pun - from Moore’s raised eyebrow, and Brosnan’s recent high-tech shenanigans.

There’s been much talk of dispensing with the gadgets - there’s no Q in this movie - and making Bond more serious. If anyone had any fears over whether Bond’s latest outing would remain faithful to its cinematic origins, worry not - fans should find much to like here. From the outset, it’s apparent that this is still the James we all know and love. The insane set pieces, occasional wisecrack, and love for the ladies remain. And yet there’s a seriousness, an intensity, to this new Bond that only serves to enhance the character.

For the record: I never doubted Daniel Craig. His casting always made sense to me - rather him than Clive Owen - and I was curious to see what he’d do with the character. It’s thanks to Daniel Craig then, that this film is as good as it is. He has the cold blue eyes of a killer, a physique that suggests he’d actually be capable of the violence he portrays, and moves with a riveting combination of style and menace. Craig is not only a convincing Bond, he’s a compelling one.

What’s more, there’s genuine chemistry between Eva Green’s Vesper Lynd and Craig’s Bond. The pair look great together, and their initial banter effectively establishes and binds their relationship - something that’s key to the success of the film. There’s a moment about half way through the film that finds Bond comforting Lynd after an ordeal. It’s performed with such skill by both actors that it’s one of the film’s more memorable images.

It’s a shame then, that there’s some mildly clunky dialogue during the couple’s later, romantic moments. It doesn’t ruin the film, but it has a detrimental effect on something that’s already the film’s biggest problem: pacing.

The fist half of _Casino _is fast paced, high octane, high tension stuff; the initial, free-running inspired chase sequence is one of the best on-foot chases I’ve seen in recent times. But as the action shifts to the card game, things start to slow down a little. It still works; director Martin Campbell does a good job of keeping the tension up throughout the game, but from the halfway mark the film’s pace drops. It’s not fair to say it drags, but maintaining its pace through its 140 minute duration - the longest Bond film ever - isn’t one of its achievements.

Elements of exposition don’t help either - Giancarlo Giannini’s character at times seems to exist solely to explain what’s happening in the card game, and it’s unnecessary. Another contributor to the pacing problem is the unavoidable fact that the film’s final set piece isn’t something particularly exciting. Again, it’s well executed, but it’s something audiences have seen before. Certain plot developments don’t help either, but I won’t spoil anything here. Suffice to say that the pay-off doesn’t feel as satisfying as perhaps it should.

Pacing may be the film’s biggest problem, but it’s a long way from ruining it. Thanks to Campbell’s direction, Green, Dench - returning as M, and the only real link to the Brosnan era, Mads Mikkelsen’s impressively menacing portrayal of Le Shiffre, and Craig’s brilliance, Casino Royale still ranks as a great film. Perhaps more importantly, it ranks as a great **Bond **film - and that’s what’s important.

I’m not going to say Daniel Craig is the best Bond ever just yet - I’ll give him another film before making a call on that one. For now, I’ll go so far as to say he’s as good as Connery. Given time, he might surpass Connery’s work, and I look forward to finding out.

Yes, it’s true - my Dad has now started his own blog. With a soupcon of help - and nagging - from yours truly, naturally.

So, point your browsers at The Devil’s Manor.

First off, he’s pointed that high powered perception at Casino Royale.

Welcome to the world of blogging, Dad :)

I noticed on Coming Soon that John Carpenter’s The Thing is going to be remade.

This makes me very angry. It seems that, systematically, every film I love is being remade. The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Dawn Of The Dead, The Hitcher, Near Dark, Black Christmas, The Wild Bunch (although that one’s gone quiet), and the list goes on. Nothing is sacred. If there’s money to be made, there’s no limit to what a studio will have re_made_.

Image a modern day remake of The Thing. I’ll give you a minute. Sit back, close your eyes, and try to visualise how this film would look if it were made today. Are you seeing what I’m seeing? Scores of terrible CGI monster effects, pretty, marketable stars that are incapable of conveying any emotion beyond confused, and a score that lacks any of the ominous tension of the original.

It shouldn’t be allowed. The producers claim to see this as “a companion piece” to Carpenter’s original. Why not just make a straight sequel - pick things up after Keith David and Kurt Russell have been left in the snow? Just film the Dark Horse comic from a few years ago. No; none of this is good enough - someone clearly thinks that the world needs another remake/reboot/revisualisation.

And yes, I know Carpenter’s original was a remake. So, surely logic dictates that, if Carpenter’s remake is as phenomenal as it is, then another remake could be just as phenomenal? Even more awesome than the film upon which it’s based? I think not.

Of course, there’s no director attached yet. No cast, no plot, no effects team. There might soon be an announcement that KNB will be doing the effects, there’ll be no CGI used on the film at any time, and that Neil Marshall is going to direct it. Or Christopher Smith. Or Carpenter himself.

They might say that Russell is coming back. That a fleet of magnificent actors will be taking part, in an effort to recreate the magnificent cast used by Carpenter. At which point, I might say “actually, this Thing - pun intended - might not be that bad after all”.

But I won’t. The prospect of a remake of the Thing upsets me more than the TCM remakes, the Dawn remake, and the Black Christmas remake combined. It’s a film I love; something I am genuinely in awe of every time I see it. Admittedly, I’m probably a John Carpenter fanboy - I’ve even defended Ghosts Of Mars in my time - but surely I’m not alone in holding The Thing in such high regard?

Bloody Disgusting - which neatly sums up my thoughts on this - are reporting that Poltergeist is to be remade. If that wasn’t bad enough, In the shot for shot style that served Psycho so well. Repeat after me: what…is…the…point?

And good old Fango have an published interview with Bob Clark in which he talks about Black Christmas, in which he mentions the aforementioned Psycho remake. While he’s pleased that the upcoming Black Christmas remake isn’t a direct copy, it does sound like Morgan and Wong have totally missed the point of the original. And I can’t help but get the impression that Clark sounds somewhat disappointed with the result.

I’m pleased to say the RTM release of Vista installs and runs without any problem on the Mac Mini. Glass was enabled on first boot, my network connection was up and running immediately, and the system itself seems to be very snappy. I can’t comment on sound or Media Center performance yet - I only finished installing at about 1am - but I’ll try that later.

For the curious, here’s the Windows Experience Index stats:

• Processor: 4.6 (Dual Core 1.66)

• Ram: 4.5 (1gb)

• Graphics: 3.4 (Intel integrated)

• Gaming: 3

• HDD: 4.4 (stock hard drive)

So a WEI of 3 thanks to the gaming performance, but very reasonable scores for everything else.

Interestingly, in order to fix a Bootcamp problem I had to reinstall OS X. Performing back to back installations of OS X, followed by Vista was an interesting experience. Vista certainly seems to install in a shorter amount of time than OS X.

There’s more to come on both Vista on the Mac Mini, and the future of my little Apple machine.