Stuart Gordon burst onto the scene in 1985 with Re-Animator, one of the most creative zombie films ever made. A film that is as funny as it is disgusting, with great creative twists that forever changed how filmmakers mixed horror with comedy. 23 years later that film remains his high-point, but that doesn't mean he isn't a filmmaker worth note, in fact, just the opposite. For the last two decades he's made quite a few fun horror films including, From Beyond, Dolls, and Dagon.

With his last three films he's hit a new creative stride, moving away from pure horror, into more dramatic work, but still with a deep dark side and a wicked sense of humor. It started with King of the Ants, a film about a young lad getting a viscous introduction to the world of professional killing. (I was lucky enough to interview him when he premiered the film at SIFF.) It continued with Edmund, starring William H. Macy as an average-Joe, who flips a switch and begins to enjoy his life with a new homicidal tinge. Stuck is the third film in which Gordon explores a ordinary people thrust into a dark world, and it may be the best of the bunch.

Mena Survari plays Brandi, a nurse in an old-folks home, whose life is so mundane that a promotion to shift-manager a very big deal. Stephen Rea is Thomas, a guy really down on his luck, he has one of those days where he loses everything; job, house and all his possessions. He's forced to sleep in the park, where he meets a helpful homeless man, who starts to show him the ropes of life on the street. After a night of celebrating for Brandi, and Thomas getting kicked off his park bench bed, they meet in the most violent way possible. Brandi, drunk and distracted by her cell-phone, runs down Thomas. He's thrown into her windshield, broken, bleeding and knocked out. Brandi, fearing the consequences of her actions, drives home with Thomas' half-dead body lying on her hood. She gets home and leaves him and the car in her garage. From here the film is a twisted little piece of genius and by the end you'll be rooting for some sickening actions.

Gordon expertly plays these characters so you're not quite sure what to think of them. At first Brandi seems like the hero of the film, but by the end she is quite clearly the villain. The things she does will disgust and shock you. Poor Thomas goes from a hard to love loser to a quiet action-hero bent on survival. Both performances are neatly crafted, nothing in the film rings false, as horrible things happen because, to and all around them. This is not a film for the faint-of-heart. Once Thomas is Stuck, the film jumps into a maniac gear that is at once hard to watch, but you also can't tear your eyes away. After this film, I have hope that Gordon may yet create a film that outdoes Re-Animator. - Grade: B+

Being way behind on my reviews, thought I'd catch up on a bunch of movies I watched over the last couple months, while I was out of commission doing a couple of big editing projects. Trying to think up a fun quick way to write a bunch of reviews, I thought of doing them Haiku style. Probably not the most original of ideas, and may turn out to be much harder than I imagined, as I haven't written any haiku's since I was high school. Let's see how this goes.

In 1983 Francis Ford Coppola directed two films based on S.E. Hinton novels. Everybody seems to remember The Outsiders, 25 years later it's considered a minor classic. "Stay golden Ponyboy." But I don't think I've ever heard anyone mention Rumble Fish, and after seeing it for the first time, I'm incredibly surprised it isn't better remembered.

I think what everybody remembers about The Outsiders is the incredible cast, featuring very early performances by C. Thomas Howell, Tom Cruise, Patrick Swayze, Matt Dillon, Rob Lowe, Ralph Macchio, Diane Lane and a few more recognizable faces in there. But the cast for Rumble Fish is nearly as impressive, with an all-star cast, including Mickey Rourke, Nicholas Cage, Lawrence Fishburn, Dennis Hopper, Chris Penn, with Matt Dillon and Diane Lane, being the only repeats from The Outsiders. Both films are expertly crafted, top notch filmmaking by Coppola and his crew.

Where they differ is in the style and execution. The Outsiders is very straight-forward, made in a classic style of filmmaking. While Rumble Fish is very avant-garde. The entire film is shot is stark black & white, with the only touches of colors showing up in the Siamese Fighting Fish the boys admire, and briefly in one key scene towards the end. Shadows are extremely prevelant throughout the film, they often fortell who's coming and what's going to happen. Clouds sped up by stop-motion often drift by in the background. The fight scenes are choreographed more like dances, than anything resembling a gang fight. The score is like nothing I've ever heard before, it's almost like somebody playing chimes with a pair of metal spoons. And those offbeat choices are probably why the film isn't as well remembered.

While I was reading the book a month back, the film I was directing in my head, was similar to the way that The Outsiders was made. It would have been easy for Coppola to do the same thing a second time around. But being a filmmaker that's never played by the rules, that would have been boring for him. I went in expecting that same style, so I was jarred by what I was seeing, it took me at least 15 minutes to adjust to this very different style of filmmaking. So I can imagine that when these films came out six months of each other in 1983, that audiences were thrown for a serious loop. And it shows in the box office numbers from the time, The Outsiders made over 25 million, a tidy sum for that time, while Rumble Fish made around 2 million.

Rusty James, played nicely by Matt Dillon, is a young ruffian, who wants nothing more than to be like his big brother Motorcycle Boy. He hangs around with his low class friends, gets into fights, cheats his girlfriend, gets suspended from school, is basically up to no good. But it's nothing like the good old days, when his brother ran the gangs and ruled the streets. Rusty James talks endlessly about becoming the great leader his brother once was, but he doesn't have the smarts or charisma to do so. When his brother comes back from a trip to California, he follows him around like a lost puppy, wishing and hoping for his idol to bring him into the big time. But Motorcyle Boy has changed, he's done with those days. He's endlessly talented at anything he puts his mind to, but nothing in life interests him. As the story progesses, we learn more about why these kids are the way they are, they don't tell us everything, leaving a lot to read between the lines.

Rumble Fish is a film that deserves to be better remembered. While not as easily accessible as The Outsiders, I think it is the more interesting film of the two. If you appreciate B&W photography, this film is a must see. Coppola uses a lot of techniques from the classic film noir days, with gorgeous lighting and compositions for nearly every shot in the film. The look has a purpose, it shows us how the color blind Motorcylce Boy sees the world. It's a wonderful character study of these two lost boys, a story that speaks to any age or time. There are great performances from a batch of burgeoning young actors, some who went on to become the biggest names in the business. The film might be considered a little strange for those weened on Hollywood blockbusters, but there is a lot here worth seeing. Rumble Fish is a true work of art. - Grade: B+

After two months away from writing real reviews, I'm trying to make a comeback, but I'm not even sure where to start. I'm typing this, just to get my fingers moving, it seems once I do that, things start to flow. I was at Blockbuster, with a free movie coupon that I had to use by the end of the day. I had no idea what to rent, so I headed to the horror section, my favorite genre. Having seen about 90% of them, the only films I hadn't being all the straight-to-video stuff, which is a total crap-shoot. On a rare occasion, I'll find some hidden gem, most other times they're a total mess. But I've come up with a fairly good system for cases like these, start looking for Film Festival award winners. These are often films that are overlooked by most, but were good enough to get somebody-in-the-know's attention. That's how I ran across Lucky. On the cover, it says winner of the New York City Horror Film Festival, Best Film Award; since nothing else jumped out at me, this apparently was my film for the night.

Almost immediately the film gave me a good laugh, at the conclusion of the intro, when the title Lucky appears, a subtitle pops up saying Based on a True Story. Right away I knew that this was a film that had a sense of humor about itself. Because really, how can you take a film about a murderous dog seriously? The film concerns Millard Mudd (great name), a cartoon writer, who's seen better days. He has a serious drinking problem, for the first act of the film, there isn't a moment where he is without a can of beer in his hands. The cans are so prevalent, they're almost a character on to themselves. They're everywhere, they're so thick you can't see Millard's rug, and there is constantly the noise of them being stepped on. It proves to be a nice detail, to give the film some more depth.

Despite the film having an obviously very low budget, you can tell the filmmakers put a lot of thought and effort into it. Those small attention to detail things always give me a better feeling about a film. Often when a film has a huge budget, these thoughts go out the window, as they concentrate on making the biggest digital explosions possible. While I'd rather focus on the little things that make the character's tick. And boy do we learn how Millard ticks, almost too much. The first ten minutes is non-stop voice over, a free flowing inner monologue, that gets a bit annoying when he starts thinking about nonsensical matters. What finally stops it, is Millard hitting a little dog with his car, on the way back from a beer run.

He takes the dog in, tries to nurse it back to health, but it gives into its injuries and Millard is forced to bury the dog in his backyard. Immediately the dog pops back to life, and starts talking to him like a 70's blaxplotation character. The dog's mouth doesn't move, it's all done telepathically. So not only do we hear Millard's non-stop thoughts, but now we hear the dog's as well. When the script-courier character appears and she actually moves her lips to talk, it's almost refreshing.

At first Millard is happy to have some company. Then he's made even happier when the dog starts to give him wonderful new ideas for cartoon screenplays. Suddenly his writers-block is gone and he's producing the best work of his life. All thanks to this undead, telepathic dog that may or may not be a reality. Millard is turning his life around, he cleans up his house, puts on some clean clothes, and meets a girl while taking his dog for a walk. ( This is the scene I'm not sure where reality begins and ends.) Everything is very good for a while, until his dog starts to demand blood in payment for his services. Millard goes off the deep end, the red stuff starts to flow, and you don't know who'll come out alive.

Lucky is a well made little horror-comedy. Despite being shot on video, it has a good look to it, they keep the camera moving and shoot it from unique angles; the frantic editing gives you a good sense of the chaos going on in Millard's head. Millard is played well by Michael Emanuel, shlubby, but likable. The dog's talking gets a little annoying, he mostly just stares straight ahead, there isn't much interaction between the two characters. I would have liked the film to be a little bloodier, feature a few more deaths, but what's there is done well. Millard's voice over gets overused, but it's mostly well written. I particularly liked the opening line, "Ever have one of those lifetimes?" This definitely isn't a film for your average film viewer, you have to be open something completely different than the norm. - Grade: B