► APRIL 01, 2010 - Monika DeLeeuw-Taylor - MicroFilmmaker.com
Massacrator review - BEST IN SHOW APRIL 2010
What do Elvis, the Terminator, and multiple decapitations have in common? Not much really, except for Massacrator.
Massacrator is essentially a silent movie, but a very uncharacteristic one. It is shot in the unique style of Grindhouse - an American style of film named after the now-defunct burlesque theatres on 42nd street in New York City, characterized by excessive sex, violence, and generally outlandish subject matter. (Many of you may be familiar with Robert Rodriguez and Quentin Tarantino’s homage to this style in their Grindhouse double feature in 2008.)
The film opens with the main antagonist appearing in the style of the Terminator - in a flash of light, crouched down, and in his birthday suit. Noticing a young man and his motorcycle nearby, the antagonist promptly takes the kid's head off with one blow of his fist, takes his clothes - including the Bauhaus t-shirt - and rides away on the bike. He arrives at his intended target's apartment - a young woman - and proceeds to chase her both through the apartment, down the street, and into a cemetery. In the cemetery, the ghost of both Elvis and his motorcycle are resurrected to engage in battle with the Massacrator.
Warning - Spoilers Ahead!
Though Grindhouse films usually end in a sadly tragic or ironic way, there is a little bit of campiness underlying this film - mainly due to the character of Elvis - and I was hoping that the King would be victorious. Sadly, he and the young heroine ended up with their respective headless bodies on the floor. At one point in the battle, Elvis plugs in his guitar and almost destroys the Massacrator via music and massive speakers. The Massacrator also shoved his head into a television set, which was perhaps an homage to the real Elvis shooting his set. (However, I hoped for a showdown involving a fried peanut butter and banana sandwich cooked up at the last second by the heroine and given to Elvis to use as a weapon or a burst of strength in the manner of Popeye.)
With the style and effects of this film, I was surprised to learn that there were no computer effects added. The opening title of the film, which looked amazing, was of soldering lead being melted in a frying pan and played in reverse. The decapitation of all three victims was put together with creative editing and traditional special effects. Even the Massacrator's point-of-view shots—which were tinted red, but included great graphic novel-esque images rather than the typical computerized lettering—were animated photographs with transparencies laid over them.
CGI is a great tool, but far too often every other technique gets thrown out the door in favor of this 'quick fix.' The best example of this is the Star Wars movies. For the first trilogy, George Lucas used every creative trick in the book; for the blowing up the Death Star in Episode IV, he bought tons of plastic battleship kits and stuffed all the pieces together with little explosives. He ran the camera back and forth, blowing up little bits as he went to create those low tracking shots over the surface of the Death Star - even today that effect looks good. And even though Episodes I-III look technically better (at least, at times!), the fact that he threw out all that creativity in favor of a computer is a bit disheartening, which is why it’s a relief to see a filmmaker bucking that trend.
Visual Look
Grindhouse films are often shot in a poor quality style - whether intentional or not. Massacrator was no exception as it was shot on actual film stock, which gives the opportunity to scratch and otherwise destroy the footage in a way that is very difficult to accurately duplicated with digital. (Although Robert Rodriguez did his best to do so with Magic Bullet MisFire in Planet Terror.) The footage was sped up and seemed to create multiple jump cuts, which greatly matched the frantic mood of the chase and fight sequences.
This type of shooting, when used effectively, can also be beneficial in that it is often enhanced by techniques that would normally be considered bad filmmaking. In one shot, the camera appeared to have been either mounted on the motorcycle or held by its operator as it looked down at the handlebars as the bike moved. This type of shot would have been horribly shaky without any type of professional and expensive rig, but it really doesn't matter with this movie. The only downside to this particular style is that the more sensitive might be a bit dizzy or nauseous by the constant shaking and jerking.
The effects involving Elvis and his motorcycle rising from the grave looked great - I don't know how it was done, but there must have been a lot of creative thought put into that sequence. Elvis himself had all the moves down great, but he really didn't look like the King at all. Also, he and his bike were not affected by being dead for several decades. Given the mystique surrounding Elvis, that isn't strictly necessary, but a bit of 'Zombie Elvis' effect might hide the fact that the actor doesn't look like him at all.
Use of Audio
When one thinks 'Silent Film,' actors like Charlie Chaplin, Buster Keaton, and even Mel Brooks usually spring to mind, as does black-and-white title cards and campy saloon-esque piano music. But, strictly speaking, this movie does fit the criteria as there is no dialogue, only a music bed.
As with the visual style, a lack of dialogue make for a much easier shoot, as audio can be very tricky with digital, let alone film. The music, rather than being the typical silent film fare, is a great intense rock piece. There are no lyrics, but it fits the movie perfectly.