Axed (2012)

axed00

 

I had seen this title in stores several times but was turned off by the cartoony cover art.  Eventually, I stumbled across it on NetFlix and decided to give a chance because 1) the cover, though still cartoony, at least lacked the Fangoria banner which makes it look even more cartoonier, and 2) free streaming!

I’m glad I did as this turned out to be a lot of fun, and I can easily recommend it.

 

It starts off with a title card that is completely unnecessary in retrospect.  It seems to be setting us up for a dystopian tale like Escape From New York or Soylent Green.

axed01In fact, dude (or should I say bloke since it turns out he is British) loses his job — that’s all that matters.  Just an aside — how is dystopian not in spell-check?  Hunger Games has been out for 6 years.

Director Ryan Lee Driscoll gets things moving immediately.  After a quick breakfast where the father Kurt goes Santini on the kids, berating his son for not being manly enough and his daughter for dressing like a tramp – they’re off!  Kurt seems to loosen up as drives the family out for a nice day in the country.

pick07After some car trouble, he leads them to a nearby farmhouse.  If you look closely, there is a pickaxe leaning against the wall.  And remember the principle of Chekhov’s Pickaxe – if there is a pickaxe in the first scene, by the end, it must be buried in someone’s skull (translations vary on this interpretation).

Once inside, Dad turns out to be positively chirpy.  Clearly this can’t last.  At times, he sounds a lot like John Cleese doing his Basil Fawlty slow-burn.  He then commences his breakdown which I will try to keep somewhat spoiler free.

Secrets are revealed, blood is drawn, fortunes are reversed, yada-yada.  Opportunities to put an end to Dad’s shenanigans are repeatedly squandered, another character shows up against all odds.  Standard horror movie fare.

But it is constantly entertaining, and moves along at a good pace.  It’s just – I can’t stop thinking about that bloody (well, not yet) pickaxe.

Much later, Driscoll pulls off a nice bit of business as Dad is in full meltdown mode (and never sounding more like John Cleese), strangling Mom.  Daughter Megan is in the bathroom, and hears screams.  She tries to get out, but Dad has rigged up a rope system that prevents the door from opening.  The cutting between the ropes on the door versus the necktie Dad is using to strangle Mom is Hitchcockian in its execution.

 

Son Jay finally grows a pair, and runs to get the pickaxe.

 

 

 

But wait – no, he has run past the pickaxe, into the house to get a regular axe.  Dude, your mother is dying – there’s a gardening weapon of individual destruction RIGHT THERE!  You passed it twice!

pick12I could nitpick a few other things:  A spare cellphone?  Who was that blue-sleeved man?  When Jay returns with chopped wood, it has clearly been sawed, not chopped.  The lighting in the woods is freakishly spotty.  I just can’t figure out what is going on with the lawn mower – do mowers not have wheels in England?  Are they hover mowers?  And I have hats with propellers bigger than that blade.  But none of that matters – it is a fun ride and well worth your time.

Post-Post Leftovers:

  • I was ready to mock Jay for his grip on the axe – choking way up, and probably looking pretty girly to his old man.  But as I thought about it, an axe is a pretty unwieldy weapon in a hostage situation.  Any dwarf with a dream can flail away while being attacked by a horde of Orcs.  But when your Dad is strangling your Mom, the wide swing is just asking for trouble.
  • That weird lighting prompted me to look up phases of the moon.  This moon had an illuminated right half, known as a 1st Quarter.  Half & half, so why is it called a Quarter?
  • No, the pickaxe was never used.  Suck it, Chekov.

Finally, I just noticed the license.  That is not going to help his innocent plea against premeditated murder.

Ryan Lee Driscoll is clearly an ax-man

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Alfred Hitchcock Presents – The Baby Sitter (S1E32)

ahbabysitter00Alfred Hitchcock Presents seems to have been almost completely, but unfairly, overshadowed by The Twilight Zone.  I think I will always prefer TZ, but AHP was an impressive body of work, and deserves more recognition.

First of all, look at the sheer numbers – AHP (followed by The Alfred Hitchcock Hour) ran for 10 years, and produced more than twice as many episodes as TZ.  And this was back in the days when a season could run up to 39 episodes.  Granted, Hitchcock was not scripting almost a third of his series like Rod Serling, but he did appear on screen in every episode and directed 18 of them.  Plus, had a day-job.

Having watched much of the first season pre-blog, I am starting here with Episode 1-32 The Baby Sitter.  Two things struck me almost immediately in this episode. First, I don’t know how to spell baby sitter.  I would have thought it was one word, but Dictionary.com does not even list it as a noun; neither does Merriam Webster;  my Kindle’s dictionary grudgingly calls it a derivative, but clearly is not happy about it.  Next week on Grammar-Talk: Can you have 2 semi-colons in one sentence (and is there such a thing as an Oxford semi-colon?)?  Second, there is no intro by Hitchcock – a rarity as far as I can tell.ahbabysitter03

Lottie Slocum is a widow who works as a baby sitter, despite being overqualified to the tune of 40 years (suffice it to say, no websites are being devoted to her).  She is played by Thelma Ritter who, 2 years before, had been the comic relief in Hitchcock’s Rear Window (not Raymond Burr, as you might have expected).

The story opens with her being questioned by a detective as she is one of the last people to have seen Clara Nash alive.  The detective is clearly frustrated that Lottie seems to be carefully doling out info, relishing the attention gained from from her role in this tragedy.  Said role being that she babysat for the victim’s son – she is not a witness, not a suspect, didn’t narrowly escape the murderer, wasn’t caught wearing the victim’s jewelry, etc.  Yeah, she saw the victim, but she wasn’t Abraham Zapruder.

Lottie’s even less attractive friend Blanche (Mary Wickes) shows up apparently for the sole purpose of cruelly mocking Lottie’s crush on the late Clara’s husband, soon suspecting that Lottie killed Clara out of jealousy.

Lottie gets a visit from DeMario, the man Clara was cheating on her husband with.  A tough guy with dark features, I assume he was intended to be one of them menacing eye-talians.  IMDb says the actor Michael Ansara was born in Syria.  But I’m not sure anyone in 1956 knew what an Assyrian was as Catch-22 wouldn’t be published for another 5 years.  BTW, he went on to play Kang in Star Trek and married Barbara Eden, so he was a hero to American males of all ages even if we didn’t know his name.

DeMario serves a dual purpose.  He credibly proclaims his innocence, and Lottie does not seem to suspect him.  So, when he warns Lottie not to further embellish her stories, it forcefully emphasizes the fact that she is a nut whose attention-whoring could do some real damage to an innocent man.  Secondly, his fling with Clara gives at least 2 people a motive for Clara’s murder.  OK, innocent of murder, but not a good egg.

Lottie writes a love letter to Mr. Nash – ya know, the guy whose wife was just murdered – prompting a flashback.

ahbabysitter01

Actual Closed-Caption

And this unfortunate bit of closed-captioning.

I’ll leave the context to your imagination.

Jeez, it only took one blog post to descend to this level.

Still in the flashback, Lottie is at the Nash home with Mr. Nash when DeMario brings Clara back home after a date.  Hunh?  Bizarrely, Mr. Nash calmly goes to hide in the bedroom, and Lottie seems to think this is a reasonable reaction for a husband.  It doesn’t seem to be fear of DeMario – Lottie writes, “It was nice of you not to want to be present when she came in with that boyfriend of hers.”  Hunh?  Mr. Nash does not seem to have a full name in the episode.  Might I suggest Tobias Fünke Nash.

Back in the present, Mr. Nash shows up.  Lottie reveals that she had promised to protect him, by omitting certain facts, such as whether he was there the night of the murder.  He burns the letter, then kills Lottie.  Not a moment too soon, although I would have burned the letter second.

Not positive about this, but despite a fair amount of screen time, I’m not sure Mr. Nash spoke a single word.

Comeuppance: In Hitchcock’s epilogue, he assures the audience that Mr. Nash got his due as he was killed by a train.

Sadly, not a great episode to start with if my thesis is that the show is under-appreciated.