THE GUYVER (1991)

Because the early ‘90s were still in the technological copper age, I had very little access to the infant Internet. Living in a small town, I had little exposure to anime hounds and had seen little more than Akira at this point in my life, thus had little point of reference for the culture of crazy cartoons. I’d somehow managed to avoid The Mighty Morphin’ Power Rangers all of this time, had never been much of a Godzilla fan (and knew not of kaiju at this point in my cultural education) and had only dim memories of Speed Racer or Ultraman. So when The Guyver was put before me, I only gave a damn because it had Brian Yuzna’s name stamped on it. He’d produced Re-Animator and directed the slightly less-interesting Bride of Re-Animator, not to mention the daffy and slimy Society, so I was eager for this new little eye-ball feast.

Without knowing its origins, I was mildy amused by the story of a kung-fu student named Sean (Jack Armstrong), smitten with a young Japanese girl who accidentally winds up symbiotically joined at the neck with a “Guyver Unit”—a biomechanical suit of armor that encases his body and ramps up his kung-fu skills, enabling to fight the likes of Michael Berryman and Jimmy J.J. Walker who transform into bizarrely mutated monsters themselves. Oh, and it also had Mark Hamill in it (incorrectly—misleadingly—evilly—shown as the Guyver on the DVD box art), and David Gale, who played the evil severed head of Dr. Hill in Re-Animator. And did I mention that “Herbert West” himself, Jeffrey Combs pops up in the end, playing “Dr. East”? I’m sure I did. Anyway, it was a kung-fu monster movie with awesomely-goofy designs by effects guy Screaming Mad George, so I was more than satisfied with the results, even though the story about aliens and their “Zoanoids” didn’t make much sense.

Now that I’m older, wiser, and more educated in the Guyver’s history as first manga (Japanese comic books to those of you reading this review in 1991) then anime, watching the movie again I have to admit…it still doesn’t make much sense. But it’s fun and doesn’t have too many slow spots so I still give it a pass, nostalgic sap that I am.

In all seriousness, The Guyver is not that great a movie and you’ll enjoy it much more if you have a fondness for Yuzna’s chaotic ‘80s horror comedies, not to mention a soft spot for the wonderful Michael Berryman ("Everything's better with Berryman!"). And at least a tolerance for Jimmy Walker, who turns into a gremlin by way of Ralph Bakshi and raps… too often. I’m told that if you are a fan of the manga or anime, this movie exists solely to piss you off and probably kicks you when you’re not looking. Having had only minor exposure to the anime series, I can’t say that the live action movie is an improvement or a detriment.

I can say that the follow-up, Guyver: Dark Hero, also directed by Steve Wang, was much better received by anime fans than the first. Part of this has to do with the absence of Yuzna’s comedy as well as the absence of Jack Armstrong (in fact, in Dark Hero, Sean is played by David Hayter, screenwriter of X-Men and X2), and sticks a little closer to the original storyline. To my uneducated eyes, Dark Hero seemed even more like the Power Rangers and the monsters were more kaiju than Screaming Mad George’s. So I didn’t care for it. Leave it to me to dislike something superior.

But when all is said and done, The Guyver is little more than what it sets out to be: guy in a slick H.R. Geiger outfit goes head-to-head with B-movie actors playing monsters. It doesn’t promise to be anything else. Sometimes the action works, sometimes it doesn’t. For my money, there’s nothing funnier than the yak-headed monster in the lab coat and tie near the end. But, again, that’s just me.

For some reason, after rewatching it recently, I realized that I have been misremembering its gore quotient all these years. I’m so used to Yuzna-produced movies dripping with the red stuff I was actually surprised at how tame the action was in Guyver. Of course, it was released theatrically with a PG-13 rating, so that should have played some role in my memory. However, I do recall watching it on a bootleg video a few months before its release, so perhaps it was gorier before the final release. Alas, that video tape has been lost to the winds of time so I can’t go back to confirm or deny. I just remember monster brains.

Now, if this train-wreck of a review has you interested to check The Guyver out for yourself, it’s readily available on DVD. I would recommend you get Dark Hero as well so you can compare the two. I’m told one is better than the other, but you can’t go by me. Obviously.

Movie Outlaw: THE ABSENCE OF LIGHT (2006)

[In the interest of full disclosure, because of the nature of the independent film business, writer/director Patrick Desmond and musician/star Rich Conant are friends of ours. They have both worked on past films of ours, we've gotten drunk with them, etc. Before you cry nepotism, however, I will state that this review was written before said friendship/support group was formed. That being said, however, this is my goddamn blog and I'll plug whoever the hell I want to.]

A world-weary killer-for-hire going by the name “Puritan” (Richard Conant) swears, as so many do, that his next job will be his last. However, this famous last words “last job” turns out to be more than he expected—more than anyone could have expected. A pair of corporations—Division 8 and “The Plague”—are at war over a devious piece of sophisticated software dubbed “Devour”. It seems that “Devour” will give the user the ability to rewrite any code… including DNA. Suddenly, our jaded anti-hero finds himself in the middle of a situation he can’t possibly comprehend and if he isn’t careful, he’ll be contributing to the eradication of the human race.

A star-studded The Absence of Light is, without a doubt, one of the most ambitious independent movies I’ve seen in a long time. The convoluted and complicated plot requires multiple viewings and asks that the audience pay close attention in order to follow what is going on and what is (and is not) being said. Despite the numerous action set-pieces, this isn’t a “whiz-bang” little action sf/horror thing whipped up in the filmmakers’ back yards. A lot of thought and purpose went into the crafting of this movie.

While the majority of the celebrities were filmed at various fan conventions over the course of a year, every star serves a purpose in Patrick Desmond’s complicated narrative and seems to be giving each respective role his or her all. The presence of so many well-known actors may actually be distracting on the first watch—it’s tempting to sit and go ‘hey, there’s Tony Todd! Take a drink!’ without absorbing the reason he’s there. Hence the need for at least a second viewing, which might be asking too much of the average man-cave slug, sad to say.)

That the pros (including Toms Savini and Sullivan, David Hess, Caroline Munro, Michael Berryman, Robyn Griggs and multiple others) are top-notch actually goes without saying. The nicest surprise is that Conant more than holds his own and manages to avoid playing Puritan as a cliché. His seasoned hit man is actually quite amiable as well as three-dimensional—particularly in scenes where his actions make him a tough person to like. Savini, too, seems to be having a terrific time, giving a fun, relaxed performance in a role quite different from what his fans might be expecting. Effects man-turned-actor Tom Sullivan is, I’m not ashamed to say, delightful as a quirky scientist and Berryman plays a straightforward businessman (more or less) and not a demented freak, which should be awesome news to Berryman fans.

While the casual viewer might be quick to point out the hotel rooms serving as many of the sets, this is actually in service of the corporation ideal as well, the sterility of the compositions making perfect sense. It’s obvious that Desmond and company worked their collective asses off crafting this movie and avoiding the obvious “audience-pleasing” pitfalls of graphic gore and nudity. They were out to create something new, to please their own artistic sensibilities. Whether or not the end result is successful is, ultimately, up to the viewer and the opinions are likely to differ radically from one person to the other.

All that said, after three viewings, I’m still hard-pressed to say exactly what the hell it’s all about. Some of this confusion could be chalked up to the fact that I’ve seen multiple incarnations of the movie (Desmond re-edited the film at least three times that I’m aware of). It’s story can’t be summed up in a single sentence but it takes chances that Hollywood would never dream of (no clear heroes or villains, a Hitchcockian morass of a plot) and that might very well be the reason it took as long as it did to find a legitimate distributor, despite its who’s-who cast roster. It won’t be to every viewer’s taste. But if you’re looking to catch something thought-provoking—even head-scratching at times—that presents some interesting ideas then this movie is for you. And is, perhaps, in a league all its own.