DVD Review: Zombeavers

Zombeavers is a completely enjoyable horror comedy about a group of college-age kids who go to a cabin for the weekend and are attacked by undead beavers. It sounds ridiculous, I know, and it is. But it’s a whole hell of a lot of fun. The film creates just the right tone, where the comedy is actually funny without being stupid, and the horror is actually scary. Zombeavers also includes nods to several other horror films.

It opens with a close-up of the sign on the side of a truck: “Mamaroneck Medical Research Facility – Medical Waste Pickup, Transplant & Environmentally Friendly Disposal.” The conversation between the two workers in the truck had me laughing within seconds. By the way, they’re played by Bill Burr and John Mayer (yes, John Mayer). The driver mentions that he once dated a man: “It was like one of the easiest weeks of my life, other than sex. That was brutal.” When they hit a deer, one of the containers goes flying off the back of the truck and lands in a river by the side of the road. Uh-oh. The sense of fun is further established in the opening credits sequence, as animated beavers and other items appear over the live action footage of the container making its way downstream to a beaver dam, where it then springs a leak. The title Zombeavers drips blood like the title of The Rocky Horror Picture Show, further indication of the film’s sense of play.

Three sorority sisters, Jenn (Lexi Atkins), Mary (Rachel Melvin) and Zoe (Cortney Palm), are driving to the cabin. They’ve agreed (well, sort of agreed) to having no boys and no text messages all weekend. Jenn’s boyfriend, Sam, has cheated on her, and so they’ve decided the weekend will be all about her. The cabin is, of course, right near the beaver dam. They also run into a hunter named Smyth (played by Rex Linn, whom you’ll recognize from Cliffhanger, Cutthroat Island, and many other films). And it’s not long before the boyfriends show up, causing some tension for Jenn.

When Jenn goes to take a shower, she finds one of the zombeavers already in there. She runs out, screaming, crying, leading Buck (Peter Gilroy) to tell her, “Jenn, you are a really ugly crier.” The line surprised me and made me burst out laughing. The Buck character reminds me of some of Matthew Lillard’s work. The zombeaver takes a lot of whacks with a baseball bat before it finally dies. But is it really dead? Or undead? It’s not long before more beavers attack. And these are smart beavers. They cut the phone lines to the house first.

The dialogue, for the most part, is surprisingly good. And there are lots of funny lines. Like this from Sam (Hutch Dano): “Listen, we cannot turn against each other right now. That is exactly what the beavers would want.” And the thing is, the movie is also truly frightening, with plenty of gore. It really hits that perfect blend of horror and comedy. And it certainly helps that the performances are all good, something I don’t necessarily expect from a horror comedy.

There are also some nice little touches, such as a teenage boy having a cap that says “#1 Dad.” And Phyllis Katz is bloody wonderful as the neighbor (“My daughter is a real piece of work, and not that attractive”). There is a great little nod to Jaws 2 when Jenn shows Sam photographic evidence of his cheating on her, and he responds, “What is that, seaweed?” And the shot where Jenn tells the others to get out of the water will remind you of that famous shot of Chief Brody from Jaws. There are also some elements of Night Of The Living Dead and Piranha. But this film is certainly not a spoof.

I could do without the blooper reel at the end. It would be better suited as a special feature on the DVD. But that’s really the only thing that didn’t work for me. And I totally dig the song during the closing credits, with lines like, “Say goodbye to your golden retriever/Zombeavers.”

Special Features

The DVD has quite a lot of special features, including a commentary track by director Jordan Rubin, who is joined by several cast and crew members throughout, including producer Evan Astrowsky, who produced Eli Roth’s Cabin Fever. There is a wonderful anecdote early on about the results of losing one of the props. Cortney Palm, Lexi Atkins, Rachel Melvin all join Jordan at the same time. Rex Linn talks about his audition tape. And there is some interesting talk about the beaver puppets.

The special features also include a deleted scene, which is actually an extended sequence about the bad music playing during the drive up to the cabin. And we’re treated to bits of the auditions of all six of the main cast, mixed with the footage of the scenes as completed in the film. In addition to the main six, we also see Rex Lynn’s audition, which interestingly is done outside.

Behind The Cameos is a bit with Stephen Merchant talking with Bill Burr and John Mayer about the film, including the differences between Zombeavers and Sharknado. Building A Beaver is a demonstration of the beaver models. Man Becomes Monster is a short (one minute) bit on making a face mold. There are also some behind-the-scenes footage and still photos, storyboard examples, and three trailers.

Zombeavers was directed by Jordan Rubin, and is scheduled to be released on DVD and Blu-ray on May 19, 2015.

Film Review: Our Man In Tehran

Our Man In Tehran is a fascinating documentary about the hostage situation in Iran in 1979, and specifically about the plan to get the six people who had escaped the embassy out of that country. It features interviews with many of the key players, including hostages, those who were in hiding, and the folks who created and executed the plan to get them out.

The film opens with a quote from Kenneth Taylor, former Canadian Ambassador to Iran: “In November 1979, we watched helplessly as the US Embassy in Tehran was seized, and American diplomats held hostage. The world was in shock. It shouldn’t have been. This was the culmination of events that had been building for years.” Kenneth Taylor, of course, is the man President Jimmy Carter referred to when he said, “He was our man in Tehran,” and the film, in part, focuses on his tale. But for those of us who perhaps don’t remember the events as well as we should, this documentary gives us plenty of the backstory to help put the hostage situation into perspective.

The film takes us back to the early 1970s, when the oil crisis made what was once a poor country a rather rich country, and deals with the growing rift between those committed to the faith and the more westernized Iranians. There is quite a bit of old footage, including an interview with Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi from October 1975, in which he talks about the possibility of the CIA being active in Iran. The Nixon administration wanted to create Iran as the policeman for the Middle East, and Henry Kissinger wrote a memo to the Defense Department, urging them to sell the Shah anything he wanted short of a nuclear weapon. Iran was the one country that the U.S. sold F-14s to. But the poor in that country felt that education and food might be a bit more important. There is lots of footage of the revolution, leading to the Shah exiting his country, and to the return of Ayatollah Khomeini.

Interestingly, some of the journalists on the plane with Khomeini are interviewed in this film. Canadian journalist Carole Jerome says, regarding the Shah’s being allowed into the U.S. for cancer treatment, “That was what triggered the hostage seizure.” We see footage of the demonstration that led to the hostage seizures. More than fifty US diplomats were taken hostage. However, a small group was able to escape from one of the other buildings. And the film really focuses on that small group, and those who sheltered them and then helped them finally leave the country. The main focus is on the plan to get those six people out, not on the revolution or those taken hostage or on Khomeini. The various ideas for getting them out are so interesting, and the plan they eventually put into effect is fascinating (and is the subject of Ben Affleck’s 2012 film Argo). There are interviews with Joe Schlesinger, Roger Lucy, William Daugherty, Tony Mendez, Zena Sheardown, Patricia Taylor, Bob Anders, Kathleen Stafford, Gary Sick, and even Joe Clark, the Prime Minister of Canada at the time.

This film had me in its grip from the very opening. If it has any failing at all, and I’m not sure it has, it’s that it left me wanting even more information. I wanted to know more about the original coup, how the Shah took power. And I wanted to know how long the Shah was in the United States, about his cancer treatments. But of course those things are a bit outside the scope of the film’s main thrust.

Our Man In Tehran was directed by Drew Taylor and Larry Weinstein, and inspired by the book Our Man In Tehran by Robert Wright. It opens in New York on May 15, 2015, and is distributed through First Run Features.

DVD Review: Drink Me

Drink Me is a suspense film about a gay couple who takes in a lodger after one of them loses his job. It stars Darren Munn as Andy, Emmett Friel as James and Chris Ellis Stanton as Sebastian, the man who comes to stay with them.

The film opens with this line across the screen: “He who is thirsty dreams he is drinking.” Though not attributed on screen, this is a reference to a biblical passage from the book of Isaiah. The first image then is a row of red telephone booths, at a slightly odd angle, with a man approaching. He wears a red hoodie to match the booths, the screen dominated by that bright color. One phone rings. The man steps inside the booth to answer, and someone grabs him from behind. It seems impossible, but it turns out to be a nightmare, so it’s all right. Then during the opening credits sequence, we see two men showering together. These opening shots really tell you what you’re in for. If you enjoy lots of dream sequences, odd camera angles and male nudity, then you’ll love this film. Otherwise, probably not.

Andy and James are celebrating their anniversary in their new house, and James proposes marriage. So apparently the anniversary they are celebrating is something other than a wedding anniversary. But Andy reveals that he lost his job the previous day, that his whole department is being let go, and so they can’t afford a wedding. Andy continues to have nightmares, and in each of them he is wearing his red hoodie. Meanwhile there are shots of a man in a grey hoodie jogging and then walking at night, while some eerie music plays.

James has a job, though we never see what it is he does. Mostly what we see him do (when he’s not having sex with Andy) is jog in the woods. Some of the dialogue about James’ work seems a bit awkward, not giving the impression that these two have been together for any real length of time. It just doesn’t feel familiar enough. But it quickly leads to them fooling around anyway. A lot of stuff leads to them fooling around. Anyway, James wants to talk about their budget, and he suggests taking in a lodger until Andy gets a new job. Enter Sebastian. When introduced, Sebastian is asked by James if he wants a drink, and Andy tells him, “He said he wasn’t thirsty.” So right away we associate thirst with this new, strange character. Sebastian says he works the night shift, and is evasive about what exactly it is he does, and though he’s creepy, the guys almost immediately invite him to live with them.

There are more nightmares, in which Andy wears his red hoodie, and both James and Sebastian wear grey hoodies. And in the morning Andy discovers Sebastian’s dirty laundry, which Sebastian had conveniently and very oddly left on the kitchen counter, a bloody hoodie on top. Who puts his dirty laundry on the kitchen counter? Weird vampire-like lodgers, that’s who. Well, Andy gets nervous and clutches a conveniently placed butcher knife, cutting himself in the process. Sebastian kisses the cut, and apparently that eases Andy’s mind for he doesn’t mention the bloody sweatshirt.

Andy, now in a red T-shirt, follows another guy who is also in a red shirt. And there is more red in every frame – in the storefronts, the brick homes and so on. But Andy is not wearing a hoodie, so is this not a dream? He follows the guy all the way home, which seems like something you might do in a dream. And the guy is either amazingly unaware, or aware but interested. Meanwhile James comes home to find Sebastian waiting for him with one glass of wine, which he offers to James. “There’s plenty more where that came from,” he says. So not a limited edition wine, then.

Anyway, if Andy has his red hoodie on, it’s a dream. If he has his red T-shirt on, it’s a dream-like state, but seems to actually be happening. And if he’s in his blue bathrobe, it means he’s in his normal, unemployed state. But what does it mean when he leaves home wearing shorts but returns wearing pants? By the way, why doesn’t Andy just apply for a new job? At one point, a friend calls to offer him a job interview for a receptionist position at a hotel, and it seems he puts all his hope into that one job prospect. But why didn’t he ask his previous employer for recommendations and contacts in his field, whatever that might be? Why is a lodger the rational choice for these two? Back to Andy’s wardrobe: Later in the film he dreams of himself in his blue bathrobe, breaking the pattern. And at one point he wakes from a dream and puts on his red hoodie. So the switch signifies that his dreams have become reality, and his reality has shifted to dream.

And at one point there is a bunny mask. Why? Why not? This film is more about atmosphere and mood than substance, and includes plenty of male nudity, including a scene of a nude man caressing a tree for some reason. It’s more about odd camera angles than interesting dialogue or character development. But the atmosphere is quite effective at times. You can get sucked into the mood of the thing and forget that nothing has really happened.

By the way, with eight minutes left in the film, James asks about Andy’s job interview, and immediately we learn that Andy didn’t go to the interview. But who cares at this point?

Special Features

The DVD includes an audio commentary track by writer/director Daniel Mansfield and actor Darren Munn. Early on, Daniel says, “There was this famous first draft which no one has seen.” How can it be famous if no one has seen it? No idea. He mentions that his favorite vampire movie is The Hunger, which is also my favorite. He talks about other influences on this film. Daniel also says, “If it doesn’t make sense, that’s all right because in life things don’t make sense.” Well, okay then.

The Making Of Drink Me is an eight-minute featurette with bits of interviews with Darren Munn, Emmett Friel and Chris Ellis Stanton, as well as footage from the film. Yes, even this behind-the-scenes featurette has plenty of male nudity, but very little on the actual making of the movie. Chris Ellis Stanton says, “By the end of it, you piece it all together and suddenly everything makes sense.” Really? No.

The special features also include an interview with writer/director Daniel Mansfield, who says the movie was filmed in one week. This interview is approximately seven and a half minutes. The film’s trailer is also included.

Drink Me was released on DVD on April 14, 2015 through TLA Releasing.

DVD Review: Victori: The Truth Just Can’t Be One Thing

Victori: The Truth Just Can’t Be One Thing is a documentary film about artist Victor Victori’s attempts, with the help of his wife and his son, to move away from portraits and gain recognition for his original work. Victori is an established and respected portrait painter whose work includes portraits of Donald Trump and political figures. His mural of the United States presidents is part of the White House collection. But his passion lies with his own style which he called multiplism.

The film focuses on interviews with Victor, his wife Maria and his son Edward, even allowing them to introduce themselves at the beginning. Victor was born in South Korea, and resides in New Jersey. His wife, Maria, was born in New York. She talks about how before meeting Victori, she was a buyer for a chain of clothing stores and then took an evening art class. She is adorable when talking about how Victori hired her. Victori’s son Edward considers himself an art consultant, working exclusively with his father. His educational background is business and finance, and prior to helping his father, he worked in a bank. He says he’s “really trying to sell this idea of multiplism as a new type of art, a new style, a new school, a new movement.”

Victori defines multiplism as “The painting of a portraiture in time, a period of time.” The film shows us many examples, and these are interesting works. Edward describes multiplism as “A series of different connected faces that show different parts of someone’s personality.” It is an attempt to capture a person’s emotional life, and Edward mentions how this work developed from his father’s work with portraits.

The son comes across as fairly dry, even unemotional, particularly in comparison with his parents, who are more passionate. That is interesting, because Edward is dedicating his time to publicizing and promoting his father’s art. You’d think his passion and enthusiasm for the work would be heard in every sentence he uttered. But what he seems most focused on is the prices of the prints and art he plans on displaying at a New York art exposition. He refers to his father’s paintings as “his product.”

The idea of fame is discussed by all three interview subjects, and what is interesting is their different perspectives regarding Victori’s work. Victori at one point does admit that he believes all of his work will be quite valuable someday after his death. Edward wants his father’s work to be appreciated while his father is still alive.

Because art critics and such are not interviewed, this documentary is really about the family more than about Victori’s place in the art world, and I believe therein lies its strength. What’s interesting is how the family views Victori’s place in the art world. Maria is convinced that Victori will one day be in the history books as one of the greatest painters. While that might sound a bit delusional, you have to keep in mind that Victori is far from unknown in the art world. And there’s nothing wrong with being famous as a portrait artist. Is his original work more interesting? Of course. Will he be known for it? I guess we’ll wait and see. But it’s great that his family believes so strongly in him. And it’s even better that Victori is happy with what he’s doing.

And partway through the film the family begins getting ready for an art exhibition. I love Edward’s reaction to seeing some of the works of other artists and suddenly being more worried about having his father’s work stand out. It’s the moment you become more emotionally involved in his quest.

There are some brief interviews with other exhibitors at the exposition, and those provide some of the film’s cutest moments. These include a father talking about collecting his daughter’s work for over forty years and deciding it was time for the public to see it – drawing an interesting connection to the Victori family’s quest. However, those being interviewed are not identified, which is an odd oversight. There is one man speaking about the art industry, and he seems to be coming from a point of expertise. But who is he?

There are a few other moments of sloppy filmmaking, with the shadow of a crew member seen during an interview with Edward, and later the boom microphone entering frame a couple of times during another interview. And there is an odd moment when Victori doesn’t understand the filmmaker’s question. The director keeps asking the question in pretty much the same way, a question about what influenced Victori in his work. Why include that? And some of the footage in which Edward is on the phone trying to guide his mother to the location of the exposition is unnecessary. But most of this film is interesting. And the art itself is especially fascinating.

Victori: The Truth Just Can’t Be One Thing was directed by Michael Melamedoff, and was released on DVD on March 3, 2015 through Garden Thieves Pictures. The DVD contains no special features.