Post by armagecko on Nov 13, 2003 16:41:01 GMT -5
Any other low-budga-philes catch this flick?
Anyone who has picked up a trade mag in the last four months has heard of this low-budget Don Coscarelli (Phantasm) project. Based on a Bram Stoker Award-nominated short-story by cult author Joe R. Lansdale, the movie tells the "true" story of how Elvis Presley survived his own "death" and now resides in an old folk's home with a man who believes he's John F. Kennedy. When other elderly residents start dying at an alarming rate, the King and the ex-Pres figure out the cause: an evil mummy's spirit is sucking their life force and gaining power. So, the over-the-hill dynamic duo set out to stop him. Sound funny? It's supposed to.
That's the rundown. Of course, the real story is the cast. Bruce Campbell plays the King and Ossie Davis (in case you don't know - he's black) plays JFK.
For those of you who could care less about plot, this is the movie for you! Unless you like gore, and then you'll be disappointed. But, if you like Bruce, you're gonna love it! The acting is, by far, the best part. Who could possibly make a better Elvis than Campbell? Even an 80-year old Elvis. Campbell's got some scenes where he ponders the effects of age on the male anatomy that are hilarious. Davis is solid, as usual, and smarter than the real Kennedy ever was.
However, the problems are numerous. If I remember correctly, the movie was shot for less than a million dollars, and, boy, can you ever tell. The set consists of the retirement home and the yard outside. There are less than ten actors in the cast. The special effects for the mummy and his scarab beetle friends are surprisingly simple. Why am I harping on the lack of production quality in a low-budget movie? Well, usually when we make sacrifices in some areas of production, it's because we want others to stand out. Such as, "Yeah, the sets were simple, but did you see that blood-spurting finale!" In Bubba Ho-Tep, the only aspect that really stood out was Bruce Campbell. Maybe Coscarelli spent so much on Campbell that he had little left. Yet, I somehow doubt that Ol' Ash is raking in the dough. I think Coscarelli wanted the movie to be more surreal comedy than horror, per se. The only problem is - it isn't really THAT funny. It has it's moments, but usually it seems to try too hard. As Owen Gleiberman from Entertainment Weekly says, "Coscarelli...is trying to will a cult movie into existence - which, of course, never works." Timothy Knight from Reel.com says the movie is, "A one-joke horror-comedy that rarely capitalizes on its wacky premise." I think both of these opinions are on target, which means that Coscarelli, who also shares writing credits on the film, should have left the writing to someone else. And as far as directing is concerned, I didn't see any attempt to be anything better than a B-movie. The film might as well have been directed by Allen Smithee (Do I need to elaborate?)
Maybe I'm being a bit too hard on the film. I will admit that I didn't hate it. It was a different type of movie. It was at times sentimental, funny, cheezy, stylish, stupid, clever, insightful, and brain-dead. So, what does that make it? Your typical low-budget horror-comedy, I guess. Maybe it wasn't so different after all...
Anyone who has picked up a trade mag in the last four months has heard of this low-budget Don Coscarelli (Phantasm) project. Based on a Bram Stoker Award-nominated short-story by cult author Joe R. Lansdale, the movie tells the "true" story of how Elvis Presley survived his own "death" and now resides in an old folk's home with a man who believes he's John F. Kennedy. When other elderly residents start dying at an alarming rate, the King and the ex-Pres figure out the cause: an evil mummy's spirit is sucking their life force and gaining power. So, the over-the-hill dynamic duo set out to stop him. Sound funny? It's supposed to.
That's the rundown. Of course, the real story is the cast. Bruce Campbell plays the King and Ossie Davis (in case you don't know - he's black) plays JFK.
For those of you who could care less about plot, this is the movie for you! Unless you like gore, and then you'll be disappointed. But, if you like Bruce, you're gonna love it! The acting is, by far, the best part. Who could possibly make a better Elvis than Campbell? Even an 80-year old Elvis. Campbell's got some scenes where he ponders the effects of age on the male anatomy that are hilarious. Davis is solid, as usual, and smarter than the real Kennedy ever was.
However, the problems are numerous. If I remember correctly, the movie was shot for less than a million dollars, and, boy, can you ever tell. The set consists of the retirement home and the yard outside. There are less than ten actors in the cast. The special effects for the mummy and his scarab beetle friends are surprisingly simple. Why am I harping on the lack of production quality in a low-budget movie? Well, usually when we make sacrifices in some areas of production, it's because we want others to stand out. Such as, "Yeah, the sets were simple, but did you see that blood-spurting finale!" In Bubba Ho-Tep, the only aspect that really stood out was Bruce Campbell. Maybe Coscarelli spent so much on Campbell that he had little left. Yet, I somehow doubt that Ol' Ash is raking in the dough. I think Coscarelli wanted the movie to be more surreal comedy than horror, per se. The only problem is - it isn't really THAT funny. It has it's moments, but usually it seems to try too hard. As Owen Gleiberman from Entertainment Weekly says, "Coscarelli...is trying to will a cult movie into existence - which, of course, never works." Timothy Knight from Reel.com says the movie is, "A one-joke horror-comedy that rarely capitalizes on its wacky premise." I think both of these opinions are on target, which means that Coscarelli, who also shares writing credits on the film, should have left the writing to someone else. And as far as directing is concerned, I didn't see any attempt to be anything better than a B-movie. The film might as well have been directed by Allen Smithee (Do I need to elaborate?)
Maybe I'm being a bit too hard on the film. I will admit that I didn't hate it. It was a different type of movie. It was at times sentimental, funny, cheezy, stylish, stupid, clever, insightful, and brain-dead. So, what does that make it? Your typical low-budget horror-comedy, I guess. Maybe it wasn't so different after all...
