Problem: negative
=++++=
Answer: Shiner, directed by Christian Calson, centers around three "couples" and their relationships with obsession and violence. Pretty good start as far as I'm concerned. Interesting. The couples break down into a heterosexual couple, two heterosexual male friends and a straight guy being "harmlessly" stalked by a gay man.

The "het" couple really don't have much of a role in the film. There are some scenes that show how they like to be aggressive when having sex or playing around with each other, but seem to have no real purpose since the are so marginalized. My assumption is that they represent a more day to day illustration of how sex/violence are integrated in a couples life. The couple aren't very aggressive and it's not even shot in any kind of erotic way. As characters, they don't add much to the theme or plot.

The two male friends make up the bulk of the plot. They engage in some gay bashing of sorts by convincing a homosexual man to have sex with them in an alley. This escalates into violence. And the violence changes them. It becomes a means of sexual gratification. And their need for violence t release grows as the film progresses. The main problem I had is the violence is not convincing. Never once does it seem that any of the characters is in any real danger. It just doesn't work. Given that the whole theme of the film is about the characters' relationships with violence, this is a major problem. Unfortunately, the make-up doesn't help either. Sometimes, it's okay, other times it is very bad. In one scene, I really wondered why one of the characters had rouge smeared on his face. Confusing.

The more interesting pair of the characters is the "stalker couple." Here Calson seemed to have more to say and was able to develop a more coherent storyline. Perhaps it is because the characters seem to develop more and have resolution at the end. Shiner may well have been much better if it had stuck with these two.

I appreciate that Calson wanted to achieve a lot with this film. It is admirable. Most low budget flicks don't aspire to much. I don't think Calson achieved want he was aiming for. Myself, I found nothing particularly controversial or unsettling. Shiner was unconvincing. This doesn't mean, however, that the director can't achieve something with his next film.

He seems to have something to say.

Problem: positive
=++++=
Answer: One of the better Vance films succeeds more on interesting plot and artful direction by none other than Michael Curtiz. This time around a generally hated financier is found dead - shot in the head - in his locked and bolted bedroom on the upper floor. Philo Vance, hearing of the situation while about to set off for Italy, decides to end his vacation and try to solve what he thinks is a murder and what everyone else is considering a suicide. William Powell is as affable a Philo Vance as you will find. He never seems to press and is always very smooth in what he says and does. Powell is aided by a host of very talented actors - some first-rate character actors and actresses like Mary Astor as a niece that hated her uncle, Ralph Morgan as the dead man's secretary, Paul Cavanaugh as a rival dog fancier, Arthur Hohl as a mysterious butler, Helen Vinson as the next door kept blonde, and two really good performances by James Lee as the Chinese cook and portly Eugene Palette as a wise-cracking police detective. Add into the mix a wonderfully comedic turn by Etienne Girardot as a public coroner always missing his meal. It is this depth of suspects and a story that has many plots twists and turns that make The Kennel Murder Case a fast-moving, fun mystery.

Problem: positive
=++++=
Answer:
"Slaughter High" is, perhaps, the most underrated slasher flick of the 1980s. It is one of the few films in the genre that is enthralling throughout. That being said, it also relies heavily on the standard slasher formula: A group of young men and women get killed one by one gruesomely until the final showdown.

The reason why "Slaughter High" stands above most movies in its genre is that it goes more over-the-top. Marty, the killer, has good reason to hold a grudge against his former classmates. They electrocuted him as he stood naked in a girl's locker room shower, jabbed at his crotch with a javelin, and, to top it off, rigged his science lab experiment so it could disfigure him.

So, the victims in this movie are about as unlikeable as you get. When they reunite years later -- at a high school reunion put on by Marty himself -- you realize they haven't matured all that much. They're a bunch of sociopaths.

It is mind-boggling why they would not wonder why they were the only ones to show up to the reunion, which, by the way, is held at a school that has since fell into disrepair. And who would think it's a good idea to drink beer and liquor found in the abandoned building in a room that happens to have their old lockers -- as well as Marty's -- on display? There are many leaps of faith the viewer needs to take to enjoy this film. The ending makes little or no sense. And the screenwriters have a strange understanding of how April Fool's Day works: The movie claims that pranks are no longer allowed after noon.

In all, the movie is one of the best examples of the slasher genre, despite all of its flaws. It is hard to understand why it hasn't yet found its way to DVD, when so many other run-of-the-mill slasher flicks are graced with special editions.