Since the original 1985 version of Fright Night has been one of my favorite horror movies since I was in elementary school, I was nervous about the 2011 remake, despite a solid cast (Anton Yelchin, Colin Farrell, David Tennant, Toni Collette) and a script from former Buffy scribe Marti Noxon. But as I mentioned in my list of horror remakes that justified their own existence, it managed to be just as enjoyable as the original.
The 2011 shares the same general plot as the original: high schooler Charley Brewster discovers that his neighbor Jerry is a vampire. Charley tries to enlist help from entertainer/occult expert Peter Vincent, but Vincent turns out to have feet of clay. Vampire Jerry turns Charley's friend "Evil" Ed and sends him after Charley, and then abducts Charley's girlfriend in order to turn her into his bride, forcing Charley to confront Jerry in his own lair.
But within this plot, the filmmakers made numerous tweaks to keep it from feeling like a rehash. Perhaps the most significant was the reimagining of Peter Vincent from an over the hill horror show host who doesn't really believe in what he's selling into a David Blaine-esque Las Vegas stage magician with a massive collection of occult items; in the remake, Vincent isn't so much a charlatan as he is a coward, albeit with good reason. The remake also propels the plot forward more quickly than the original did, having "Evil" and Charley be more proactive in their hunt, and Jerry much less patient in maintaining his charade. All of these changes help bring them film into the 21st Century; it feels very much like a modern film, and not an 80s throwback. Throw in some witty dialogue and some well constructed action scenes, and you have a remake that pays homage to the original but still manages to blaze its own trail. I loved the 2011 Fright Night both times I've watched it, and would recommend it readily to anyone with a taste for a fun and funny vampire action flick.
Showing posts with label Movies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Movies. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 30, 2012
Sunday, October 21, 2012
Countdown to Halloween Day 21 -- Should Have Just Re-watched "Popcorn" : A Review of "Midnight Matinee"
Midnight Matinee is a 1989 slasher flick set in a small town
in British Columbia where a horror movie festival two years prior had
ended on its first night due to a murder in the theater. Now, the
theater is holding another horror film festival to help promote a new
horror film starring a local actor, and the murders are starting up
again.
Going in to this film, I was slightly optimistic; a horror movie set in a movie theater showing horror films has a lot of promise (see: Popcorn). Unfortunately, the handful of times the film manages to take advantage of its setting are not enough to redeem the rest of the film which is guilty of the crime of being boring. The characters were largely obnoxious, off-putting, or bland, and much of their behavior lack any logical basis. Now, as this is a slasher film, the latter part isn't necessarily a deal-breaker, but with only a handful of murders spread throughout the film, it needed more engaging connective tissue between them. Sadly, the only thing this film has going for it is bit parts for Don S. Davis (General Hammon of Stargate: SG-1) and William B. Davis (The Cigarette Smoking Man of The X-Files), and the novelty of watching their younger selves paled pretty quickly.
Midnight Matinee is neither well-done, nor bad enough to be entertaining; it's just a bland time-suck.
Going in to this film, I was slightly optimistic; a horror movie set in a movie theater showing horror films has a lot of promise (see: Popcorn). Unfortunately, the handful of times the film manages to take advantage of its setting are not enough to redeem the rest of the film which is guilty of the crime of being boring. The characters were largely obnoxious, off-putting, or bland, and much of their behavior lack any logical basis. Now, as this is a slasher film, the latter part isn't necessarily a deal-breaker, but with only a handful of murders spread throughout the film, it needed more engaging connective tissue between them. Sadly, the only thing this film has going for it is bit parts for Don S. Davis (General Hammon of Stargate: SG-1) and William B. Davis (The Cigarette Smoking Man of The X-Files), and the novelty of watching their younger selves paled pretty quickly.
Midnight Matinee is neither well-done, nor bad enough to be entertaining; it's just a bland time-suck.
Saturday, October 20, 2012
Countdown to Halloween Day 20 -- "Dissidents" is the new "Zed-word" : a Review of "Juan of the Dead"
A Spanish-Cuban collaboration, Juan of the Dead is a zom-com about a gang of low level crooks in Cuba who see their country's zombie infestation as a business opportunity, becoming zombie slayers with the motto "We'll kill your family for you." They are slightly hampered by the fact that they have no idea what zombies are -- the Cuban government insists that they are "dissidents" being corrupted by America, and an early scene derives its comedy from Juan and company trying to slay a zombified neighbor like a vampire or exorcise it like a demon before hitting on the whole "blow to the head" trick -- but soon they are making a killing, so to speak. Unfortunately, the enterprise begins to take its toll on the crew, and they begin to wonder if staying in a zombie-infested Havana is the best idea.
Despite my general zombie burnout, I was pleasantly entertained by this film. Some of that I ascribe to the setting, which allowed for some political commentary, but largely I think the film works because Juan and his partners are not the typical horror movie characters; they're not fighting for survival, they're fighting for a quick buck, and are not ashamed to fake altruism to do it. The film allows them to maintain their selfish and largely amoral actions for the bulk of the film while still somehow making one character's noble sacrifice at the end feel earned. They are a pretty unlikely looking bunch of action heroes, but that makes the battle scenes even more entertaining.
Only the slightly negative side, the humor is often a little on the crude side, and there are a couple of scenes where the character lose all common sense for no other reason than to further the plot. And when an "American" shows up, his English is so heavily accented that I was wishing that he was subtitled as well. These weren't game breakers, but they were enough of a distraction to keep me from fully investing in the film.
Juan of the Dead isn't going to rank up there with my favorite zom-coms, but it's definitely worth a watch for fans of the genre.
Despite my general zombie burnout, I was pleasantly entertained by this film. Some of that I ascribe to the setting, which allowed for some political commentary, but largely I think the film works because Juan and his partners are not the typical horror movie characters; they're not fighting for survival, they're fighting for a quick buck, and are not ashamed to fake altruism to do it. The film allows them to maintain their selfish and largely amoral actions for the bulk of the film while still somehow making one character's noble sacrifice at the end feel earned. They are a pretty unlikely looking bunch of action heroes, but that makes the battle scenes even more entertaining.
Only the slightly negative side, the humor is often a little on the crude side, and there are a couple of scenes where the character lose all common sense for no other reason than to further the plot. And when an "American" shows up, his English is so heavily accented that I was wishing that he was subtitled as well. These weren't game breakers, but they were enough of a distraction to keep me from fully investing in the film.
Juan of the Dead isn't going to rank up there with my favorite zom-coms, but it's definitely worth a watch for fans of the genre.
Friday, October 19, 2012
Countdown to Halloween Day 19 -- Horrific, Maybe, but Horror ?: Areview of "Excision"
The blurbs for the recent film Excision paint it as a horror film about a morbid little girl obsessed with dissecting roadkill. And while that description is partly true, I feel that the blurb doesn't really capture the spirit of this odd little film.
The protagonists of the film is the morbid Pauline, a socially awkward girl whose parents not only don't understand her, but are often actively hostile towards her while heaping love upon her younger sister who is suffering from cystic fibrosis. Pauline escapes into sexual fantasies of a morbid (and often necrophiliac) nature. Scorned and rejected by everyone around her except her younger sister, Pauline begins to act out in increasingly disturbing ways.
For the majority of the film, Excision plays more as a dark comedy then as horror. As a matter fact, outside of some brief disturbing fantasy sequences, the only real moment of horror happens in the last 10 minutes of the film. I don't want to quibble about the movie's genre label; there have been many horror films which have not featured any true horror until the last reel. However, there is usually a sense of slowly building tension in such films that is largely absent from Excision; if I hadn't known it was being sold as a horror film, the finale would have been doubly shocking due to its escalation of Pauline's mental issues.
That being said, I enjoyed this film quite a lot, even if it wasn't quite what I was expecting. AnnaLynne McCord did a great job making the character of Pauline both engaging and offputting, and I'm curious to see some of her other roles for comparison's sake. And, for film I've never heard of before it popped up on my Netflix "new releases" page, it had quite an interesting cast, including Marly Matlin, Traci Lords, Roger Bart, Malcolm McDowell, Ray Wise, John Waters, and Ariel "Alex from Modern Family" Winter as the younger sister. I appreciated the films dark humor, even as I kept waiting for it to blossom into something worse.
Excision is not film I would feel comfortable recommending to too many people due to its offbeat feel and disturbing imagery, but if you have a taste for the dark and twisty, you might give it a try.
The protagonists of the film is the morbid Pauline, a socially awkward girl whose parents not only don't understand her, but are often actively hostile towards her while heaping love upon her younger sister who is suffering from cystic fibrosis. Pauline escapes into sexual fantasies of a morbid (and often necrophiliac) nature. Scorned and rejected by everyone around her except her younger sister, Pauline begins to act out in increasingly disturbing ways.
For the majority of the film, Excision plays more as a dark comedy then as horror. As a matter fact, outside of some brief disturbing fantasy sequences, the only real moment of horror happens in the last 10 minutes of the film. I don't want to quibble about the movie's genre label; there have been many horror films which have not featured any true horror until the last reel. However, there is usually a sense of slowly building tension in such films that is largely absent from Excision; if I hadn't known it was being sold as a horror film, the finale would have been doubly shocking due to its escalation of Pauline's mental issues.
That being said, I enjoyed this film quite a lot, even if it wasn't quite what I was expecting. AnnaLynne McCord did a great job making the character of Pauline both engaging and offputting, and I'm curious to see some of her other roles for comparison's sake. And, for film I've never heard of before it popped up on my Netflix "new releases" page, it had quite an interesting cast, including Marly Matlin, Traci Lords, Roger Bart, Malcolm McDowell, Ray Wise, John Waters, and Ariel "Alex from Modern Family" Winter as the younger sister. I appreciated the films dark humor, even as I kept waiting for it to blossom into something worse.
Excision is not film I would feel comfortable recommending to too many people due to its offbeat feel and disturbing imagery, but if you have a taste for the dark and twisty, you might give it a try.
Tuesday, October 16, 2012
Countdown to Halloween Day 16 -- From Scary to Slapstick : A Review of "Evil Dead" and "Evil Dead 2"
In preparation for (I hope) seeing Evil Dead: The Musical in a couple of weeks, I decided to re-watch the first two Evil Dead films back to back.
The original Evil Dead tells the story of a group of 5 college friends whose weekend in a cabin in the woods goes bad when they play a recording they find which contains a summoning ritual. One by one, the kids are attacked and possessed by evil forces, until only Ash (Bruce Campbell) remains.
The sequel, Evil Dead 2, is actually more of a reboot than a sequel. This time around, Ash and his girlfriend Linda are alone when they travel to the cabin and play the recording; soon the cabin is also visited by the daughter of the man on the recording, her boyfriend, and a couple of hicks who helped them find their way to the cabin. Once again, the forces of evil attack and possess the group one by one.
Although there is a sizable difference between the plot of the two films, the thing that stands out most is the vast change in tone. Evil Dead is a straight-up horror film with some funny moments, while Evil Dead 2 skews to the comedy side of the spectrum, featuring over-the-top comedy and slapstick. The move towards slapstick would become even more pronounced with the third film, Army of Darkness.
I was impressed with how well the first Evil Dead holds up, especially considering its low budget. The scenes with possessed Linda giggling maniacally still manage to creep me out, and the angry molesting trees sequence still disturbs me. On the whole, I tend to prefer the first film; while I'm a self-professed lover of horror-comedies, I'm also a self-professed loather of slapstick. Evil Dead 2 is able to walk that fine line between what I'll enjoy and what I won't for the most part, but its swiftly shifting tones and reliance on physical comedy make it harder for me to get into. At the same time, the scenes with Ash losing his grip on sanity are well executed, and the sequence introducing the chainsaw hand is pure gold.
The original Evil Dead tells the story of a group of 5 college friends whose weekend in a cabin in the woods goes bad when they play a recording they find which contains a summoning ritual. One by one, the kids are attacked and possessed by evil forces, until only Ash (Bruce Campbell) remains.
The sequel, Evil Dead 2, is actually more of a reboot than a sequel. This time around, Ash and his girlfriend Linda are alone when they travel to the cabin and play the recording; soon the cabin is also visited by the daughter of the man on the recording, her boyfriend, and a couple of hicks who helped them find their way to the cabin. Once again, the forces of evil attack and possess the group one by one.
Although there is a sizable difference between the plot of the two films, the thing that stands out most is the vast change in tone. Evil Dead is a straight-up horror film with some funny moments, while Evil Dead 2 skews to the comedy side of the spectrum, featuring over-the-top comedy and slapstick. The move towards slapstick would become even more pronounced with the third film, Army of Darkness.
I was impressed with how well the first Evil Dead holds up, especially considering its low budget. The scenes with possessed Linda giggling maniacally still manage to creep me out, and the angry molesting trees sequence still disturbs me. On the whole, I tend to prefer the first film; while I'm a self-professed lover of horror-comedies, I'm also a self-professed loather of slapstick. Evil Dead 2 is able to walk that fine line between what I'll enjoy and what I won't for the most part, but its swiftly shifting tones and reliance on physical comedy make it harder for me to get into. At the same time, the scenes with Ash losing his grip on sanity are well executed, and the sequence introducing the chainsaw hand is pure gold.
Saturday, October 13, 2012
Countdown to Halloween Day 13 -- Give the Audience What It Wants, Dagnabit! : a Review of "Jersey Shore Shark Attack"
As someone who enjoys The MST3K Effect of "so bad they're good" movies, I'm always up to watch one of the SyFy Original Movies, a brand that screams crazy plots, sub-par acting, and wildly inconsistent visual effects. Granted, I tend to enjoy their giant-mega-super-mutant-[insert animal here]-asaurus films more than their freaky natural disaster or plague of killer animals pics, but when I saw the title Jersey Shore Shark Attack, I was struck with a morbid curiosity about just how Jersey Shore it would be. Turns out the answer is: too much.
Jersey Shore Shark Attack isn't just a generic shark attack film set on the Jersey Shore; no, it's a full blown Jersey Shore parody, with characters sporting names like Nookie and The Complication, that just happens to have a mass of killer sharks thrown in for good measure. And that was almost the death knell for my enjoyment of the film. After all, for The MST3K Effect to fully work, there has to be a general lack of self-awarenes apparent in the film; once you realize the filmmakers are fully in on the joke, then you start to judge the film by how well they're exploiting this awareness. It's a fine line to walk, making a bad film and winking at the audience to let them know that you know it's bad, because, on some level, it makes the audience wonder why if you're smart enough to know it's bad, you keep on doing it.
Not that I think the creators of Jersey Shore Shark Attack demonstrate all that much self-awareness, mind you; but, the fact that it is a parody featuring caricatures of people who already come of like caricatures means we're suddenly out of the realm of regular B-grade horror films, and into some weird hybrid that can't decide what it wants to be. And since one of the things that will almost always ruin a movie for me is an inconsistency of tone, I found this a hard one to make it through.
But make it through I did, holding on to one single hope the entire time: that I would get to see one of the sharks devour one of the main characters. After all, who among us hasn't yearned for the catharsis of watching the cast of the Jersey Shore mauled by wild animals? Sadly, the answer is apparently "the filmmakers," as not a single one of the direct Jersey Shore parody characters gets so much as nipped by any of the sharks. In the end, I think it was that refusal to pay off the implied catharsis of watching Nookie and The Complication torn to bits that sunk the film totally for me.
Jersey Shore Shark Attack isn't just a generic shark attack film set on the Jersey Shore; no, it's a full blown Jersey Shore parody, with characters sporting names like Nookie and The Complication, that just happens to have a mass of killer sharks thrown in for good measure. And that was almost the death knell for my enjoyment of the film. After all, for The MST3K Effect to fully work, there has to be a general lack of self-awarenes apparent in the film; once you realize the filmmakers are fully in on the joke, then you start to judge the film by how well they're exploiting this awareness. It's a fine line to walk, making a bad film and winking at the audience to let them know that you know it's bad, because, on some level, it makes the audience wonder why if you're smart enough to know it's bad, you keep on doing it.
Not that I think the creators of Jersey Shore Shark Attack demonstrate all that much self-awareness, mind you; but, the fact that it is a parody featuring caricatures of people who already come of like caricatures means we're suddenly out of the realm of regular B-grade horror films, and into some weird hybrid that can't decide what it wants to be. And since one of the things that will almost always ruin a movie for me is an inconsistency of tone, I found this a hard one to make it through.
But make it through I did, holding on to one single hope the entire time: that I would get to see one of the sharks devour one of the main characters. After all, who among us hasn't yearned for the catharsis of watching the cast of the Jersey Shore mauled by wild animals? Sadly, the answer is apparently "the filmmakers," as not a single one of the direct Jersey Shore parody characters gets so much as nipped by any of the sharks. In the end, I think it was that refusal to pay off the implied catharsis of watching Nookie and The Complication torn to bits that sunk the film totally for me.
Friday, October 12, 2012
Countdown to Halloween Day 12 -- Surrealist Screams: A Review of Lucio Fulci's "The Beyond"
Lucio Fulci's 1981 horror film The Beyond is the second of his unofficial "Gates of Hell" trilogy, each of which depicts one of the 7 gates of Hell being opened, allowing evil to walk the earth. I wasn't a big fan of the first installment, City of the Dead, but since The Beyond is often cited as one of Fulci's best films, I decided to give it a try.
The plot, such as it is, revolves around a dilapidated New Orleans' hotel which sits atop one of the aforementioned hell-gates. A young woman's attempts to reopen the hotel accidentally reopens the gate, and soon there's a stream of random deaths whose causes range from animal attacks to zombie hoards. Throw in some spooky blind girls, a disappearing/reappearing book of prophecy, enough creatively gruesome deaths to keep the gore-hounds happy, and one heck of a "Wait, what?" finale, and you have an entertaining, if disjointed, film.
Normally in an overdubbed film I'd write such disjointedness off as bad translation or poor editing, but there's something about the way The Beyond moves from one gruesome set-piece to another that drew me in and made me want to do some research on it. Sure enough, the surreal, disconnected plot was all part of Fulci's design; in fact, he wanted it to be even more dreamlike and disjointed, but his studio made him rein it in somewhat.
The movie's biggest strength for me was the quality of the death scenes, which boasted some truly impressive prosthetic effects. The fake animals, however, were a pretty steep drop off in quality, making it harder to stay in the moment during those scenes . . . well, the dog attack scene, anyway. The spider sequence, which combined real and fake tarantulas, managed to be one of the more disturbing things I've seen, due to both the mechanics of the death and the unbearably long amount of time Fulci lets his cameras dwell on it. I'm still not sure if the lingering shots of the spiders was a positive or negative for me, but I can guarantee it's a scene that will stick with me.
The plot, such as it is, revolves around a dilapidated New Orleans' hotel which sits atop one of the aforementioned hell-gates. A young woman's attempts to reopen the hotel accidentally reopens the gate, and soon there's a stream of random deaths whose causes range from animal attacks to zombie hoards. Throw in some spooky blind girls, a disappearing/reappearing book of prophecy, enough creatively gruesome deaths to keep the gore-hounds happy, and one heck of a "Wait, what?" finale, and you have an entertaining, if disjointed, film.
Normally in an overdubbed film I'd write such disjointedness off as bad translation or poor editing, but there's something about the way The Beyond moves from one gruesome set-piece to another that drew me in and made me want to do some research on it. Sure enough, the surreal, disconnected plot was all part of Fulci's design; in fact, he wanted it to be even more dreamlike and disjointed, but his studio made him rein it in somewhat.
The movie's biggest strength for me was the quality of the death scenes, which boasted some truly impressive prosthetic effects. The fake animals, however, were a pretty steep drop off in quality, making it harder to stay in the moment during those scenes . . . well, the dog attack scene, anyway. The spider sequence, which combined real and fake tarantulas, managed to be one of the more disturbing things I've seen, due to both the mechanics of the death and the unbearably long amount of time Fulci lets his cameras dwell on it. I'm still not sure if the lingering shots of the spiders was a positive or negative for me, but I can guarantee it's a scene that will stick with me.
Thursday, October 11, 2012
Countdown to Halloween Day 11 -- Johnny Drama, Alien Hunter: A Review of "The Blob"
If you saw my list of 10 horror movie remakes that justify their own existence, then you know that I only included the 1988 remake of The Blob with the caveat that I hadn't seen it in a couple of decades. And so, much like with Waxwork, I decided to revisit the film to see how it held up. The answer is it's a bit of a mixed bag.
To start with, the dialogue and plot are often ham-handed; it's bad enough when it's just focused on the local yokels, but once it gets to the eeeeeeeeeeeeeevil government scientist making his eeeeeeeeeeeeeevil speech about the expendability of said yokels it was really hard for me to curtail my eye rolling. On the other hand, the movie shows a great willingness to kill off characters that you might not expect, including a fake-out protagonist and a little kid, which helps to keep the viewer off-balance.
The true strength of the film is the same thing that has made it stick in my mind for all these years: the creature effects. Where the original Blob was just a slowly shambling mound of goo, the 80s version is much more predatory and adaptive, shooting out tendrils, climbing ceilings, crushing evil government men with gross looking pseudopods -- this is a Blob that can't be avoided by a brisk walk away. And not only is it more active, it's also much creepier, from its organic, veined appearance to the multiple examples of partially digested victims being viewed through the creature's translucent skin. While the sub-par green screen moments do feel a little Z-grade, the bulk of the practical effects are inventive and well-done.
As a bonus, watching the film nearly 25 years after it was made allows for a lot of "Hey, isn't that . . .?" moments. There's just something incredibly fun for me about watching 80s-rocker-haired Johnny Drama getting into an argument with mustachioed-and-still-mostly-fully-haired-Deputy "Rocket" Romano, while Sheriff Dale-from-Walking-Dead tries to referee.
Although The Blob may suffer from clunky dialogue and a "did we really need that?" conspiracy plot, the creepiness and horror of the creature itself validates my initial assessment that the remake justified its own existence.
To start with, the dialogue and plot are often ham-handed; it's bad enough when it's just focused on the local yokels, but once it gets to the eeeeeeeeeeeeeevil government scientist making his eeeeeeeeeeeeeevil speech about the expendability of said yokels it was really hard for me to curtail my eye rolling. On the other hand, the movie shows a great willingness to kill off characters that you might not expect, including a fake-out protagonist and a little kid, which helps to keep the viewer off-balance.
The true strength of the film is the same thing that has made it stick in my mind for all these years: the creature effects. Where the original Blob was just a slowly shambling mound of goo, the 80s version is much more predatory and adaptive, shooting out tendrils, climbing ceilings, crushing evil government men with gross looking pseudopods -- this is a Blob that can't be avoided by a brisk walk away. And not only is it more active, it's also much creepier, from its organic, veined appearance to the multiple examples of partially digested victims being viewed through the creature's translucent skin. While the sub-par green screen moments do feel a little Z-grade, the bulk of the practical effects are inventive and well-done.
As a bonus, watching the film nearly 25 years after it was made allows for a lot of "Hey, isn't that . . .?" moments. There's just something incredibly fun for me about watching 80s-rocker-haired Johnny Drama getting into an argument with mustachioed-and-still-mostly-fully-haired-Deputy "Rocket" Romano, while Sheriff Dale-from-Walking-Dead tries to referee.
Although The Blob may suffer from clunky dialogue and a "did we really need that?" conspiracy plot, the creepiness and horror of the creature itself validates my initial assessment that the remake justified its own existence.
Wednesday, October 10, 2012
Countdown to Halloween Day 10 -- Taking a Walk on the Dead Side: A Review of "AAAH! Zombies!!"
AAAH! Zombies!! (also released as Wasting Away) is a zombie comedy -- a mash-up which I've seen referenced as both "zom-com" and "zomedy" -- follows a group of friends who accidentally ingest some toxic goo which causes them to become zombies; the twist is, they don't realize it, still seeing themselves as normal, and everyone else around them messed up. The film swaps back and forth between the full-color POV of the zombified friends, who can't understand why everyone around them is suddenly moving at super-speeds,talking in gibberish, and attacking them for no reason; and the black-and-white POV of the uninfected humans, who of course see them as the slow-moving, moaning precursors of the zombie apocalypse.
The humor of the film lies largely in the incongruity between how the zombies see themselves, and how they appear to the rest of the world, but also finds ways to play off of zombie tropes in a fun way. While not as clever or well made as the pinnacles of zomedy -- Shaun of the Dead and Zombieland -- I found the film's unique take on the zombie story to be highly entertaining, and would recommend it to zom-com fans everywhere.
For those curious about it, the movie is currently available to watch for free on Hulu
The humor of the film lies largely in the incongruity between how the zombies see themselves, and how they appear to the rest of the world, but also finds ways to play off of zombie tropes in a fun way. While not as clever or well made as the pinnacles of zomedy -- Shaun of the Dead and Zombieland -- I found the film's unique take on the zombie story to be highly entertaining, and would recommend it to zom-com fans everywhere.
For those curious about it, the movie is currently available to watch for free on Hulu
Tuesday, October 9, 2012
Countdown to Halloween Day 9 -- I Prefer the Southern Accent: a Review of "The Barrens"
The Barrens stars Stephen Moyer (a.k.a. Bill from True Blood) as Richard Vineyard, a man whose trip with his family to scatter his father's ashes in the Pine Barrens where they used to go camping turns into a nightmare. As the weekend progresses, he sickens, which leads to violent mood swings and hallucinations. Soon, he is convinced that he and his family are being hunted by The Jersey Devil; as they stumble across mutilated animals and fellow campers go missing, the question arises: is it the Jersey Devil, or is it him?
In terms of horror, this one was a bit of a slow boil; that's not necessarily a bad thing, as long as the slow build manages to draw you in. And while I appreciated the way the evidence of violence gradually ramped up, I have to say that the concurrent ramping up of Vineyard's unbalanced state was more off-putting to me than anything else; not even Moyer's natural British accent could make his tirades enjoyable to listen to. Between his fevered behavior and his teenage daughters teenager behavior, I found myself having a hard time caring about what was going to happen to them.
On the plus side, the staging of the origin of the Jersey Devil was well done, and the design of the creature itself was better than I had expected; unfortunately, those both counted for a very small percentage of the film.
In the end, while this isn't one I would feel compelled to warn anyone away from, neither could I recommend it; it's just sort of there.
In terms of horror, this one was a bit of a slow boil; that's not necessarily a bad thing, as long as the slow build manages to draw you in. And while I appreciated the way the evidence of violence gradually ramped up, I have to say that the concurrent ramping up of Vineyard's unbalanced state was more off-putting to me than anything else; not even Moyer's natural British accent could make his tirades enjoyable to listen to. Between his fevered behavior and his teenage daughters teenager behavior, I found myself having a hard time caring about what was going to happen to them.
On the plus side, the staging of the origin of the Jersey Devil was well done, and the design of the creature itself was better than I had expected; unfortunately, those both counted for a very small percentage of the film.
In the end, while this isn't one I would feel compelled to warn anyone away from, neither could I recommend it; it's just sort of there.
Friday, October 5, 2012
Countdown to Halloween Day 5 -- Silent Call: A Review of "The Call of Cthulhu" (2005)
Andrew Leman's 2005 short film The Call of Cthulhu is a fairly faithful adaptation of H.P. Lovecraft's 1928 short story about a man who is driven to the brink of madness while investigating the depraved Cult of Cthulhu and the Old Ones they worship. The most interesting thing about the movie is Leman's decision to film it as if it were made contemporaneously with the story, so that Call is actually a silent film -- a fact that the Netflix blurb neglected to mention.
While initially put off by the discovery when I first tried to watch the film -- it's much harder to multitask when you have to pay so much attention to the screen -- once I settled in and gave it my full attention, I realized just how well suited the format was for the story. Some of Lovecraft's more purple prose might have sounded strained if spoken aloud, but felt perfectly in place being flashed on screen as intertitles. Similarly, the stylized minimalist sets (reminiscent of The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari) used for the dream sequences and the city of R'lyeh perfectly captured the surreal and inhuman quality of each. My only quibble would be with the stop-motion animation of Cthulhu itself, which felt less like a product of the silent film era, and more a reject from a Gumby short; the film would have been much better off keeping the creature in shadow, since the end result only diluted the atmosphere the rest of the film managed to conjure.
I would recommend this movie to fans of Lovecraft or silent films; most anyone else could probably skip it an not worry about having missed much.
While initially put off by the discovery when I first tried to watch the film -- it's much harder to multitask when you have to pay so much attention to the screen -- once I settled in and gave it my full attention, I realized just how well suited the format was for the story. Some of Lovecraft's more purple prose might have sounded strained if spoken aloud, but felt perfectly in place being flashed on screen as intertitles. Similarly, the stylized minimalist sets (reminiscent of The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari) used for the dream sequences and the city of R'lyeh perfectly captured the surreal and inhuman quality of each. My only quibble would be with the stop-motion animation of Cthulhu itself, which felt less like a product of the silent film era, and more a reject from a Gumby short; the film would have been much better off keeping the creature in shadow, since the end result only diluted the atmosphere the rest of the film managed to conjure.
I would recommend this movie to fans of Lovecraft or silent films; most anyone else could probably skip it an not worry about having missed much.
Thursday, October 4, 2012
Countdown to Halloween Day 4 -- Watch This Movie! : a Spoiler-Free Review of "The Cabin in the Woods"
I have made no secret of my love of the works of Joss Whedon: Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Angel, Firefly, Dr. Horrible's Sing-along Blog, The Avengers, and, yes, even Dollhouse once it found its footing. Yes, he has his quirks, and no, his style is not for everyone, but there are only a handful of writers out there whose name in the credits guarantees I will see a film, and Joss is one of them. Which is what made the two year delay in releasing The Cabin in the Woods so frustrating; knowing that somewhere out there was sitting an honest-to-goodness Horror movie co-written and produced by Joss, and that it might not ever get a release due to studio problems killed my inner fanboy a bit. So when it was announced that Lionsgate had bought the rights to distribute the film and it was actually going to get a full theatrical release, my inner fanboy did a dance of joy*.
Of course, after years of anticipation, there was always the fear that perhaps I had built the movie up too much in my mind, and that the weight of my expectations was going to drag down my enjoyment.
Instead, it was better than I had imagined.
Since a lot of my enjoyment of the film came from the surprises along the way, I don't want to get into to much detail of the plot. At its core, it's the story of five college friends who go on a weekend retreat to the titular location, where they unwittingly awaken something evil; at the same time, from the very first scene the audience has been let in on the fact that there's more to this evil than meets the eye.
At this point, I would like to refer you back to my opening "I love all things Joss" disclaimer; if you are not a fan of what he does, then more than likely this movie isn't going to work for you. As both Joss and the director Drew Goddard (who also co-wrote) state in the DVD commentary, much of what makes this film work is its tone, which manages to balance horror and humor in a very Whedony way; if that tone doesn't resonate with you, then the film itself won't click for you either.
That being said, I implore any horror fans out there who haven't seen this movie yet to go out and rent it; I'll be back later in the month to give a more detailed, spoiler-laden review.
*For those not in the know, the joy dancing Numfar there was played by Joss himself
Of course, after years of anticipation, there was always the fear that perhaps I had built the movie up too much in my mind, and that the weight of my expectations was going to drag down my enjoyment.
Instead, it was better than I had imagined.
Since a lot of my enjoyment of the film came from the surprises along the way, I don't want to get into to much detail of the plot. At its core, it's the story of five college friends who go on a weekend retreat to the titular location, where they unwittingly awaken something evil; at the same time, from the very first scene the audience has been let in on the fact that there's more to this evil than meets the eye.
At this point, I would like to refer you back to my opening "I love all things Joss" disclaimer; if you are not a fan of what he does, then more than likely this movie isn't going to work for you. As both Joss and the director Drew Goddard (who also co-wrote) state in the DVD commentary, much of what makes this film work is its tone, which manages to balance horror and humor in a very Whedony way; if that tone doesn't resonate with you, then the film itself won't click for you either.
That being said, I implore any horror fans out there who haven't seen this movie yet to go out and rent it; I'll be back later in the month to give a more detailed, spoiler-laden review.
*For those not in the know, the joy dancing Numfar there was played by Joss himself
Monday, October 1, 2012
Countdown to Halloween Day 1 -- Double Feature Review
Welcome to the first of my Countdown to Halloween themed reviews. To kick us off, you're getting two review in one.
Recently, while indulging one of my semi-regular horror movie binges via Netflix Watch Instantly, I stumbled across an 80s horror movie that I had rather fond memories of from my youth, but which I hadn't seen in ages. Feeling a mixture of nostalgia and curiosity, I decided to re-watch the film to see if it (and later, its sequel) lived up to my happy recollections.
The plot of Waxwork centers around a mysterious wax museum which has opened up in the middle of a residential neighborhood. When a group of high school friends receive an invitation to a special midnight sneak peek, they find themselves the victims of sinister magic which entraps them within the wax tableaux starring famous figures of evil; everything from wolfmen and zombies to Jack the Ripper and the Marquis de Sade. Each tableau serves as a mystic portal to the world of the featured villain, which means that the film gets to serve up a variety of settings and creatures to keep the plot moving and hold the audience's interest.
With Waxwork, you have one of those quintessential 80s horror/comedy mixes, a la Fright Night, Night of the Creeps, House, etc. And although few would argue that Waxwork truly ranks up with the aforementioned films in terms of quality, I found that it managed to maintain the balance between the horror and comedy more often than not. The cast of protagonists, lead by Zach Galligan of Gremlins fame, manages to be fun and relatable, and while the final battle between the forces of good and evil threatened to swerve into slapstick, it managed to stay just grounded enough to keep me from losing my patience.
Unfortunately, its sequel, Waxwork II: Lost in Time did not.
Picking up directly where the previous film ended, the surviving heroine is followed home by the sole surviving creature from the destroyed wax museum. When the creature kills her alcoholic father, the heroine is arrested for the murder. Since nobody will believe her story, she and her fellow survivor from the first movie go on a quest for proof. Sadly, the quest is powered more by impulsiveness than logic, and the two find themselves bouncing through time portal after time portal, which leads to horror movie parody after horror movie parody.
It's here that the sequel lost me. While the first film did play around slightly with the styles of the different worlds visited through the wax tableaux, each world was still grounded enough to create a sense of danger. But with Lost in Time, the worlds visited are often played more as an excuse for over-the-top gags. Instead of letting the humor service the story, the humor overpowered the story; the climax of the Haunting of Hill House parody sequence was especially egregious in that respect. The balance that existed in the first film was sadly missing in the follow-up, and the change in tone poisoned the film for me.
This isn't to say that Lost in Time was a bad film, per se; even with the tone skewing more towards slapstick than in the first movie, there are still some nice and entertaining set pieces sprinkled throughout. But by the time the movie was through, its open ending made it feel more like a backdoor pilot for a fantasy-adventure series than a horror flick.
Recently, while indulging one of my semi-regular horror movie binges via Netflix Watch Instantly, I stumbled across an 80s horror movie that I had rather fond memories of from my youth, but which I hadn't seen in ages. Feeling a mixture of nostalgia and curiosity, I decided to re-watch the film to see if it (and later, its sequel) lived up to my happy recollections.
The plot of Waxwork centers around a mysterious wax museum which has opened up in the middle of a residential neighborhood. When a group of high school friends receive an invitation to a special midnight sneak peek, they find themselves the victims of sinister magic which entraps them within the wax tableaux starring famous figures of evil; everything from wolfmen and zombies to Jack the Ripper and the Marquis de Sade. Each tableau serves as a mystic portal to the world of the featured villain, which means that the film gets to serve up a variety of settings and creatures to keep the plot moving and hold the audience's interest.
With Waxwork, you have one of those quintessential 80s horror/comedy mixes, a la Fright Night, Night of the Creeps, House, etc. And although few would argue that Waxwork truly ranks up with the aforementioned films in terms of quality, I found that it managed to maintain the balance between the horror and comedy more often than not. The cast of protagonists, lead by Zach Galligan of Gremlins fame, manages to be fun and relatable, and while the final battle between the forces of good and evil threatened to swerve into slapstick, it managed to stay just grounded enough to keep me from losing my patience.
Unfortunately, its sequel, Waxwork II: Lost in Time did not.
Picking up directly where the previous film ended, the surviving heroine is followed home by the sole surviving creature from the destroyed wax museum. When the creature kills her alcoholic father, the heroine is arrested for the murder. Since nobody will believe her story, she and her fellow survivor from the first movie go on a quest for proof. Sadly, the quest is powered more by impulsiveness than logic, and the two find themselves bouncing through time portal after time portal, which leads to horror movie parody after horror movie parody.
It's here that the sequel lost me. While the first film did play around slightly with the styles of the different worlds visited through the wax tableaux, each world was still grounded enough to create a sense of danger. But with Lost in Time, the worlds visited are often played more as an excuse for over-the-top gags. Instead of letting the humor service the story, the humor overpowered the story; the climax of the Haunting of Hill House parody sequence was especially egregious in that respect. The balance that existed in the first film was sadly missing in the follow-up, and the change in tone poisoned the film for me.
This isn't to say that Lost in Time was a bad film, per se; even with the tone skewing more towards slapstick than in the first movie, there are still some nice and entertaining set pieces sprinkled throughout. But by the time the movie was through, its open ending made it feel more like a backdoor pilot for a fantasy-adventure series than a horror flick.
Friday, October 15, 2010
Unfulfilled Promises: a review of "Bryan Loves You"
Bryan Loves You is a low-budget horror flick about a town run by a cult that worships a dead child named Bryan. Let me start off my thoughts by sharing the following text I sent to TopGun minutes after putting the disc into the player: "If the quality of the trailers on this DVD are any indication, I'm getting ready to watch one heck of a crappy movie." Now, as you well know, when it comes to horror films, being crappy isn't necessarily a deal-breaker for me -- unfortunately, this was both crappy and boring. It started off promisingly enough by having the inimitable Tony Todd introduce the film's "found footage" conceit, wherein he cautions the audience about the strong nature of the film they're about to see, going so far as to warn that those with heart conditions should not watch and that audience members should consult an usher to learn the location of their nearest exit.
Far be it from me to criticize someone for engaging in a bit of hyperbole, but really, if you're going to start your movie with a speech about how horrifying your film is, shouldn't you try to create something that is only separated from a broadcast TV-movie by its foul language? I've seen scarier things on episodes of Buffy, for crying out loud. Heck, last season's Grey's Anatomy affected me more than this limp excuse for horror.
To be fair, the intro by Tony Todd wasn't the only hint of promise, as the first 30 minutes of so of the film showed brief flashes of creepiness embodied by a dead-eyed Bryan follower loitering in the streets, classroom filled with teens donning Bryan masks before reciting the (slightly modified) pledge of allegiance, and the animalistic reactions of sweet-faced young girl to meeting a non-believer. But the film jettisons these interesting moments and instead devotes an exceedingly large portion of its running time to the bland lead who meets a bland anti-Bryan revolutionary before being put away into a bland mental hospital. Although on the plus side, the mental hospital did give me a brief moment of enjoyment thanks to the bland lead's crazy karate-kicking roommate -- wish I knew how much of the comedy generated there was intentional.
But a handful of briefly enjoyable sequences does not an enjoyable movie make, and in the final analysis, I couldn't recommend this to even the most devoted MST3Kers.
Far be it from me to criticize someone for engaging in a bit of hyperbole, but really, if you're going to start your movie with a speech about how horrifying your film is, shouldn't you try to create something that is only separated from a broadcast TV-movie by its foul language? I've seen scarier things on episodes of Buffy, for crying out loud. Heck, last season's Grey's Anatomy affected me more than this limp excuse for horror.
To be fair, the intro by Tony Todd wasn't the only hint of promise, as the first 30 minutes of so of the film showed brief flashes of creepiness embodied by a dead-eyed Bryan follower loitering in the streets, classroom filled with teens donning Bryan masks before reciting the (slightly modified) pledge of allegiance, and the animalistic reactions of sweet-faced young girl to meeting a non-believer. But the film jettisons these interesting moments and instead devotes an exceedingly large portion of its running time to the bland lead who meets a bland anti-Bryan revolutionary before being put away into a bland mental hospital. Although on the plus side, the mental hospital did give me a brief moment of enjoyment thanks to the bland lead's crazy karate-kicking roommate -- wish I knew how much of the comedy generated there was intentional.
But a handful of briefly enjoyable sequences does not an enjoyable movie make, and in the final analysis, I couldn't recommend this to even the most devoted MST3Kers.
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Creepier in Concept: thoughts on "The Human Centipede (First Sequence)"
Ever since it was first announced, Tom Six's horror film The Human Centipede has generated a lot of buzz, both as fodder for jokes and as nightmare fuel. I know when I first heard the concept, my reaction was "Well, there's one movie I'll never see."
Ladies and gentlemen, never doubt the compelling power of morbid curiosity.
For those of you unfamiliar with the film, the concept is simple: a doctor renowned for his ability to separate conjoined twins becomes obsessed with the idea of going the opposite direction, kidnapping people and surgically attaching them to each other, um, how to put this delicately . . . mouth to derriere. As someone who has a low tolerance for scatological sequences, I was afraid that watching the movie would lead to a constant triggering of my gag reflex. However, I finally decided to brave it after reading some reviews and comments which suggested it wasn't as graphic as I'd imagined. So, I decided to brave it.
What was my verdict? Well, let me start by sharing the following text I sent to TopGun: "20 minutes into Human Centipede and I'm doubting anything in it can be as horrifying as the lead girls' acting . . ." By the time the movie was over I hadn't really changed my opinion -- some truly, truly horrendous performances out of those two actresses. Meanwhile, the actual horror sequences weren't all that horrific -- or at least, no worse than most slasher films out there these days. There was only one scene that got to me, and it wasn't graphic at all, relying mostly on my imagination, for which I am eternally grateful. I think that's a key factor in people's "Gee, that wasn't so bad" reactions to the film: the concept itself caused people to conjure all sorts of horrifying situations in their head, so that when they were confronted with a relatively low key on-screen portrayal, it was nowhere near as disturbing. Which is not to say that this film is for the squeamish: there's still plenty of blood, and a couple of gross-out scenes. But on the whole, the movie doesn't quite deliver the degree of disturbance I had expected.
That being said, I don't want to give the impression that I think the film was a failure, as there were some aspects that kept me intrigued. Most important was the mad scientist character, whose creepy and deranged behavior propelled the bulk of the film, and his interactions with the post-operative centipede were darkly humorous. In addition, the big escape attempt sequence at the end had me tense and squirming, so the director was obviously doing something right.
In the end, I'd say it was a flawed, but interesting, film, but one which I wouldn't recommend to anyone without a strong stomach and an appreciation of the macabre.
Ladies and gentlemen, never doubt the compelling power of morbid curiosity.
For those of you unfamiliar with the film, the concept is simple: a doctor renowned for his ability to separate conjoined twins becomes obsessed with the idea of going the opposite direction, kidnapping people and surgically attaching them to each other, um, how to put this delicately . . . mouth to derriere. As someone who has a low tolerance for scatological sequences, I was afraid that watching the movie would lead to a constant triggering of my gag reflex. However, I finally decided to brave it after reading some reviews and comments which suggested it wasn't as graphic as I'd imagined. So, I decided to brave it.
What was my verdict? Well, let me start by sharing the following text I sent to TopGun: "20 minutes into Human Centipede and I'm doubting anything in it can be as horrifying as the lead girls' acting . . ." By the time the movie was over I hadn't really changed my opinion -- some truly, truly horrendous performances out of those two actresses. Meanwhile, the actual horror sequences weren't all that horrific -- or at least, no worse than most slasher films out there these days. There was only one scene that got to me, and it wasn't graphic at all, relying mostly on my imagination, for which I am eternally grateful. I think that's a key factor in people's "Gee, that wasn't so bad" reactions to the film: the concept itself caused people to conjure all sorts of horrifying situations in their head, so that when they were confronted with a relatively low key on-screen portrayal, it was nowhere near as disturbing. Which is not to say that this film is for the squeamish: there's still plenty of blood, and a couple of gross-out scenes. But on the whole, the movie doesn't quite deliver the degree of disturbance I had expected.
That being said, I don't want to give the impression that I think the film was a failure, as there were some aspects that kept me intrigued. Most important was the mad scientist character, whose creepy and deranged behavior propelled the bulk of the film, and his interactions with the post-operative centipede were darkly humorous. In addition, the big escape attempt sequence at the end had me tense and squirming, so the director was obviously doing something right.
In the end, I'd say it was a flawed, but interesting, film, but one which I wouldn't recommend to anyone without a strong stomach and an appreciation of the macabre.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)