The Devil's Rejects...2005...107 minutes...unrated...starring Sid Haig, Bill Moseley, Sheri Moon Zombie, and William Forsythe...written and directed by Rob Zombie
Wonder what ever happened to the Firefly clan, that group of strange and sadistic psychopaths from "House of 1000 Corpses"? Well, if you do, this is the movie that will tell you. If you're expecting the over-the-top strangeness of the first movie, you're not going to find it here. Don't get me wrong, this movie has its own brand of viciousness and odd humor mixed in, but the film takes a strange turn in the middle of itself....
Yes, normally I would describe the movie and then give my thoughts on it. Not this one, though. All I really have to ask is: Really, Rob? Really?
I give it one giggly psycho blond out of 5...and a warning: not for the squeamish...or for anyone who needs time. Far as I can see, this movie is a waste of it.
Sunday, September 4, 2011
Friday, June 17, 2011
The Tomb (Ligeia)
The Tomb...2009...89 minutes...rated R...starring Wes Bentley, Kaitlyn Doubleday, Sofya Skya, Cary-Hiroyuki Tagawa (also Eric Roberts and Michael Madsen)...written by John Shirley, based off of Edgar Allen Poe's "Ligeia"...directed by Michael Staininger
Some people seriously need to learn to quit while they're ahead. Let's take Jonathan Merrick for example: here's a man who has a good thing going at the university as a scholar and writer, has a lovely wife named Rowena, and a good shot of having a wonderful life. However, Jonathan finds himself under the spell of the bewitching Ligeia...you know, one of those raven-haired goth types. She really fits the Gothic stereotypes: she has a large manor, dresses in black, hangs in the club scene, drinks absinthe, has a strange and possibly magical mirror, and is conducting occult research to defeat death...itself...before she dies of some strange wasting illness. This involves some necromancy and binding of other souls to her will...but wehn love strikes, Jonathan learns to overlook these things. Okay, so he drinks himself to mindlessness and regrets the choices he's made. With Ligeia's death, you'd think Jonathan's problems would be over. Too bad her research paid off....
This selection was part of the 2009 Frightfest collection, and honestly isn't terrible. It's not exactly unique or hard to predict, but I'm kinder with reinterpretations of older material and you don't get much older in horror than Mr. Poe himself. I was a little surprised to see the collection of familiar faces listed above in the acting credits...and Michael Madsen's presence as Rowena's father makes me ask a meta-movie question: if your father-in-law was Michael Madsen, would you be divorcing your wife after having a fling with a college student? Not me...I'd be afraid I'd get the Tarantino treatment, if you will. Past that, though, the film goes through its chops pretty well and delivers fairly...if not exceptionally. Some people might find it moody and slowish...I'll point again at one word: Poe.
All this said, I do have another question to ask: how come all movies with necromancy eventually come down to the "Where's the evil spirit inhabiting" shell game? Find the dark soul, win a chance to live a little longer. I'm thinking there's got to be a way to shake this idea up...if I have any brilliant ideas, I'll write them up.
I give this selection 2.5 occult-sigil-laden-soul-extracting-and fetishy-looking mouth devices out of 5. (Admittedly, I'd love to have this prop.)
Some people seriously need to learn to quit while they're ahead. Let's take Jonathan Merrick for example: here's a man who has a good thing going at the university as a scholar and writer, has a lovely wife named Rowena, and a good shot of having a wonderful life. However, Jonathan finds himself under the spell of the bewitching Ligeia...you know, one of those raven-haired goth types. She really fits the Gothic stereotypes: she has a large manor, dresses in black, hangs in the club scene, drinks absinthe, has a strange and possibly magical mirror, and is conducting occult research to defeat death...itself...before she dies of some strange wasting illness. This involves some necromancy and binding of other souls to her will...but wehn love strikes, Jonathan learns to overlook these things. Okay, so he drinks himself to mindlessness and regrets the choices he's made. With Ligeia's death, you'd think Jonathan's problems would be over. Too bad her research paid off....
This selection was part of the 2009 Frightfest collection, and honestly isn't terrible. It's not exactly unique or hard to predict, but I'm kinder with reinterpretations of older material and you don't get much older in horror than Mr. Poe himself. I was a little surprised to see the collection of familiar faces listed above in the acting credits...and Michael Madsen's presence as Rowena's father makes me ask a meta-movie question: if your father-in-law was Michael Madsen, would you be divorcing your wife after having a fling with a college student? Not me...I'd be afraid I'd get the Tarantino treatment, if you will. Past that, though, the film goes through its chops pretty well and delivers fairly...if not exceptionally. Some people might find it moody and slowish...I'll point again at one word: Poe.
All this said, I do have another question to ask: how come all movies with necromancy eventually come down to the "Where's the evil spirit inhabiting" shell game? Find the dark soul, win a chance to live a little longer. I'm thinking there's got to be a way to shake this idea up...if I have any brilliant ideas, I'll write them up.
I give this selection 2.5 occult-sigil-laden-soul-extracting-and fetishy-looking mouth devices out of 5. (Admittedly, I'd love to have this prop.)
Thursday, June 16, 2011
Atom Age Vampire (Seddok, l'irede di Satana)
Atom Age Vampire...1960...105 minutes...unrated...starring Alberto Lupo, Susanne Loret, Sergio Fantoni, and Franca Parisi...written by Piero Monviso...directed by Anton Giulio Majano.
It's not a good day to be a stripper in Italy. Jeanette has been disfigured in a car accident, and has been brought to Professor Albert Levin for a cure by his love-bound assistant Monique Riviere. The cure involves injections with certain glands plus the mysterious Serum 28 and is effective...temporarily. Our doctor, of course, has become quite infatuated with Jeanette and is determined to make this cure permanent...even if it means injecting himkself with an earlier form of the cure (Serum 25), becoming a monster every so often, and killing other women to do it. Too bad Jeanette still has the hots for her boyfriend...who is hot on her trail.
You got to love those nutty Italians, who've shown that with enough time and effort, they can make a B-movie horror flick as bad as some of the ones we've put out here. The plot is...well...all over the place, the acting seems off even knowing that it's been translated into English, and the doctor's transformation is both odd and rather unnecessary to the film's overall story. Somehow, the doctor is supposed to be a vampire for the atomic age...but "I want to extract your neck glands" just isn't as terrifying. Besides, apparently a big dog can keep the mad doctor away...even if he's in his monstrous form.
This film isn't one that you'll feel bad missing. I won't scold you for not seeing it, even under the pretense that watching this movie will build up your horror movie "vocabulary". Bad in any language is still bad, and this one's not bad enough to be good...although it has a certain hokey fun to it.
I'll give this one 1.5 pairs of gardening shears out of 5.
It's not a good day to be a stripper in Italy. Jeanette has been disfigured in a car accident, and has been brought to Professor Albert Levin for a cure by his love-bound assistant Monique Riviere. The cure involves injections with certain glands plus the mysterious Serum 28 and is effective...temporarily. Our doctor, of course, has become quite infatuated with Jeanette and is determined to make this cure permanent...even if it means injecting himkself with an earlier form of the cure (Serum 25), becoming a monster every so often, and killing other women to do it. Too bad Jeanette still has the hots for her boyfriend...who is hot on her trail.
You got to love those nutty Italians, who've shown that with enough time and effort, they can make a B-movie horror flick as bad as some of the ones we've put out here. The plot is...well...all over the place, the acting seems off even knowing that it's been translated into English, and the doctor's transformation is both odd and rather unnecessary to the film's overall story. Somehow, the doctor is supposed to be a vampire for the atomic age...but "I want to extract your neck glands" just isn't as terrifying. Besides, apparently a big dog can keep the mad doctor away...even if he's in his monstrous form.
This film isn't one that you'll feel bad missing. I won't scold you for not seeing it, even under the pretense that watching this movie will build up your horror movie "vocabulary". Bad in any language is still bad, and this one's not bad enough to be good...although it has a certain hokey fun to it.
I'll give this one 1.5 pairs of gardening shears out of 5.
NAMR: On Blogging, Quotas, and Just Writing
So, I set this blog up with a pretty impossible goal in mind, which was to try and write up 500 horror movie reviews in a year's time. Impossible is actually not the right word, but I knew it would be a challenge...mostly because I've always had issues with focus when it comes down to personal projects. So, while I've had jags here and there, it's pretty safe to say that my initial goal is not going to be made. However, here's where the cliche works in...because to all cliches there is a certain element of truth.
The cliche is this one: that along the way I discovered something...which is true. I tried to set the whole thing aside after my run of entries in April...just figured I wouldn't go back to it...though even then I knew I didn't want to send what I had worked on to data heaven either. So I kept it...and every once in a while I would watch something and think about writing an entry. It didn't really dawn on me until last night what was happening.
I was missing writing up entries.
Now, I'll be the first to grant that these little blurbs are not likely to be changing the world anytime soon, or that the writing in them is anything superior. But it's something I've found I've enjoyed doing, just here and there when I have the chance. I think I missed that joy in focusing too much on a certain number, and while I still admit that I need discipline in my writing, I've got to find a way of doing regular work without sucking out all the life involved in it.
This rambling is a long way of saying that I'll be doing more entries, though I'm not going to hit that 500 mark by Halloween, I'm almost positive. I'm actually not sure that's a bad thing if I keep up the writing...which is just what I plan to do.
Hope your summer is going well, I think mine is already off to a good start.
The cliche is this one: that along the way I discovered something...which is true. I tried to set the whole thing aside after my run of entries in April...just figured I wouldn't go back to it...though even then I knew I didn't want to send what I had worked on to data heaven either. So I kept it...and every once in a while I would watch something and think about writing an entry. It didn't really dawn on me until last night what was happening.
I was missing writing up entries.
Now, I'll be the first to grant that these little blurbs are not likely to be changing the world anytime soon, or that the writing in them is anything superior. But it's something I've found I've enjoyed doing, just here and there when I have the chance. I think I missed that joy in focusing too much on a certain number, and while I still admit that I need discipline in my writing, I've got to find a way of doing regular work without sucking out all the life involved in it.
This rambling is a long way of saying that I'll be doing more entries, though I'm not going to hit that 500 mark by Halloween, I'm almost positive. I'm actually not sure that's a bad thing if I keep up the writing...which is just what I plan to do.
Hope your summer is going well, I think mine is already off to a good start.
Friday, April 29, 2011
Ghosts of Mars
Ghosts of Mars...2001...98 minutes...rated R...starring Natasha Henstridge, Ice Cube, Jason Statham, and Pam Grier...written by John Carpenter and Larry Sulkis...directed by John Carpenter
So, we have a group of Martian law-enforcement types sent to a mining town to pick up the dangerous criminal, Desolation Williams. Mars is a matriarchal society, though that really doesn't factor into things all that much as the team discovers that the mining town is deserted. Eventually the group comes to realize that it's not the criminal that's behind all the terrible goings-on, but that instead the ghosts of Martians are inhabiting people and turning them into metal-gouged babbling psychopaths...you know, proto-Reavers.
Like many John Carpenter films, this one has a few things going for it and things that never quite gets explained. The whole matriarchy thing is a prime example...why did Mars become a matriarchy, and how does it change anything? Still, for what it is, which is a sci-fi horror movie made on a rather small budget...it's not bad. It's a hard movie for me to take seriously though, especially when the Martian leader has one of the best monologues in the script. (This, by the way, is a long moment of seeing this big and rather scary-looking individual yelling nothing but gibberish. Possibly authentic Martian Gibberish, but unintelligible sounds nonetheless.) Considering the ending, I'm not really sure you're supposed to take this movie all that seriously.
For all that is and isn't, "Ghosts of Mars"is definitely a Carpenter creation, complete with his additions to the soundtrack. There's a bit of a cast here, including a younger Jason Statham and sci-fi veteran Joanna Cassidy, so if for nothing else the movie can be seen just to see some early or at least off-beat performances by people you may like to watch. It's just an -odd- movie, and considering that it's a Carpenter film, that's saying something.
I give Ghosts of Mars 2 throwing blades out of 5.
So, we have a group of Martian law-enforcement types sent to a mining town to pick up the dangerous criminal, Desolation Williams. Mars is a matriarchal society, though that really doesn't factor into things all that much as the team discovers that the mining town is deserted. Eventually the group comes to realize that it's not the criminal that's behind all the terrible goings-on, but that instead the ghosts of Martians are inhabiting people and turning them into metal-gouged babbling psychopaths...you know, proto-Reavers.
Like many John Carpenter films, this one has a few things going for it and things that never quite gets explained. The whole matriarchy thing is a prime example...why did Mars become a matriarchy, and how does it change anything? Still, for what it is, which is a sci-fi horror movie made on a rather small budget...it's not bad. It's a hard movie for me to take seriously though, especially when the Martian leader has one of the best monologues in the script. (This, by the way, is a long moment of seeing this big and rather scary-looking individual yelling nothing but gibberish. Possibly authentic Martian Gibberish, but unintelligible sounds nonetheless.) Considering the ending, I'm not really sure you're supposed to take this movie all that seriously.
For all that is and isn't, "Ghosts of Mars"is definitely a Carpenter creation, complete with his additions to the soundtrack. There's a bit of a cast here, including a younger Jason Statham and sci-fi veteran Joanna Cassidy, so if for nothing else the movie can be seen just to see some early or at least off-beat performances by people you may like to watch. It's just an -odd- movie, and considering that it's a Carpenter film, that's saying something.
I give Ghosts of Mars 2 throwing blades out of 5.
The Fly II
The Fly II...1989...105 minutes...rated R...starring Eric Stoltz, Daphne Zuniga, Lee Richardson, and John Getz...written by Mick Garris, Jim and Ken Wheat, and Frank Darabont...directed by Chris Walas
So, at the end of the last film, Veronica was in a family way after her very interesting (in the Chinese sense of the word) encounter with Seth Brundle. Well, her delivery was a bit hard, and poor Veronica passes away giving birth to her son Martin. Martin is adopted by Bartok, the company owner who had invested in Seth Brundle and his telepods so as to have something for all their time and trouble. Martin is an extremely fast grower and fast learner...a genius just like his father. Bartok is thrilled, because the telepods are still...problematic. Of course, Martin is also like his father in more ways than one...and while the day of his metamorphosis hasn't occurred, everyone knows it's on its way.
If the synopsis sounds a little involved and complicated, well, so is the movie. Honestly, while the screenplay is chock full of ideas (and yes, I use phrases like "chock full". Deal.) about what would happen after the events of Cronenberg's film, I never got the sense that there was an overarcing theme to the movie. You have a bunch of ideas and not a real firm sense of what kind of movie "The Fly II" wants to be. There's a romance, there's intrigue, there's lots of gross fly effects...what there isn't is a lot of focus. Sadly, here's where the sequel falls short of the original.
In the original movie, you have a small cast focusing on the story of one man's horrific journey caused by his intellectual recklessness. Here, you have a larger number of people dealing with the aftereffects of the first story...which is probably more realistic in some sense but certainly not as tight as the Cronenberg film. Yes, this movie is to a large extent Martin's attempt to find his own place in the world, and about the price to regain his humanity...though in some ways he never had humanity, so I think more should have been played on those themes. But that's me. It's still a good effort, and obviously had more effort put into it than many sequels.
I give "The Fly II" 2.5 telepod-reshaped dogs out of 5.
So, at the end of the last film, Veronica was in a family way after her very interesting (in the Chinese sense of the word) encounter with Seth Brundle. Well, her delivery was a bit hard, and poor Veronica passes away giving birth to her son Martin. Martin is adopted by Bartok, the company owner who had invested in Seth Brundle and his telepods so as to have something for all their time and trouble. Martin is an extremely fast grower and fast learner...a genius just like his father. Bartok is thrilled, because the telepods are still...problematic. Of course, Martin is also like his father in more ways than one...and while the day of his metamorphosis hasn't occurred, everyone knows it's on its way.
If the synopsis sounds a little involved and complicated, well, so is the movie. Honestly, while the screenplay is chock full of ideas (and yes, I use phrases like "chock full". Deal.) about what would happen after the events of Cronenberg's film, I never got the sense that there was an overarcing theme to the movie. You have a bunch of ideas and not a real firm sense of what kind of movie "The Fly II" wants to be. There's a romance, there's intrigue, there's lots of gross fly effects...what there isn't is a lot of focus. Sadly, here's where the sequel falls short of the original.
In the original movie, you have a small cast focusing on the story of one man's horrific journey caused by his intellectual recklessness. Here, you have a larger number of people dealing with the aftereffects of the first story...which is probably more realistic in some sense but certainly not as tight as the Cronenberg film. Yes, this movie is to a large extent Martin's attempt to find his own place in the world, and about the price to regain his humanity...though in some ways he never had humanity, so I think more should have been played on those themes. But that's me. It's still a good effort, and obviously had more effort put into it than many sequels.
I give "The Fly II" 2.5 telepod-reshaped dogs out of 5.
Monday, April 25, 2011
The Fly (1986)
The Fly...1986...96 minutes...rated R...starring Jeff Goldblum, Geena Davis, and John Getz...written by Charles Edward Pogue and David Cronenberg, based off the short story by George Langelaan...directed by David Cronenberg
Seth Brundle has something to show the world, and he hopes that his growing relationship with journalist Veronica Quaife will help him spread the news of his discovery. Seth has discovered the secret of teleporting matter, and while the scientific community in general and Veronica's editor and past ex-, Stathis Borans, tend to think of him as a quack, he's sure he's correct. So certain that he himself is the guinea pig for human transportation. Too bad Seth didn't work in a secure, sanitary environment...otherwise that fly wouldn't have entered the telepod with him. Nothing bad could come from that, right?
I remember when I first saw this film many, many years ago that I thought it was one of the grossest films ever made. Well, sitting here in 2011, I still think this movie is decidedly gruesome, but I give it credit for being gross along the lines that it set up in its premise, and while it's shocking, it does progress inexorably down the path that we know it's going to go. Also, having seen other Cronenberg films, the effects are in some ways toned down and kept controlled. Is it still disturbing? I believe so, but it's a focused sort of disturbance.
Of course, what makes the film more disturbing is that unlike many films ("The Devil's Tomb" being a primary example) I did feel invested in the character of Seth Brundle. So watching him go into his metamorphosis both repels me and makes me feel sorry for him. This is a brilliant man paying the price for his recklessness, but he's not a villain...just someone who has an overriding need to prove himself. It's what he becomes that is monstrous, but is also tragic. Of course, Goldblum's performance is played against well by Geena Davis, through whose eyes we come to see our protagonist.
So definitely check this film out for its writing, and even its effects, which may be dated but are still quite striking. If for nothing else, watch it for that tightness...allowed to be excessive only in places that would follow its setup. Or just watch it for the goo; there's plenty.
I give this movie 3.5 Brundlefly instructional eating videos out of 5.
Seth Brundle has something to show the world, and he hopes that his growing relationship with journalist Veronica Quaife will help him spread the news of his discovery. Seth has discovered the secret of teleporting matter, and while the scientific community in general and Veronica's editor and past ex-, Stathis Borans, tend to think of him as a quack, he's sure he's correct. So certain that he himself is the guinea pig for human transportation. Too bad Seth didn't work in a secure, sanitary environment...otherwise that fly wouldn't have entered the telepod with him. Nothing bad could come from that, right?
I remember when I first saw this film many, many years ago that I thought it was one of the grossest films ever made. Well, sitting here in 2011, I still think this movie is decidedly gruesome, but I give it credit for being gross along the lines that it set up in its premise, and while it's shocking, it does progress inexorably down the path that we know it's going to go. Also, having seen other Cronenberg films, the effects are in some ways toned down and kept controlled. Is it still disturbing? I believe so, but it's a focused sort of disturbance.
Of course, what makes the film more disturbing is that unlike many films ("The Devil's Tomb" being a primary example) I did feel invested in the character of Seth Brundle. So watching him go into his metamorphosis both repels me and makes me feel sorry for him. This is a brilliant man paying the price for his recklessness, but he's not a villain...just someone who has an overriding need to prove himself. It's what he becomes that is monstrous, but is also tragic. Of course, Goldblum's performance is played against well by Geena Davis, through whose eyes we come to see our protagonist.
So definitely check this film out for its writing, and even its effects, which may be dated but are still quite striking. If for nothing else, watch it for that tightness...allowed to be excessive only in places that would follow its setup. Or just watch it for the goo; there's plenty.
I give this movie 3.5 Brundlefly instructional eating videos out of 5.
The Devil's Tomb
The Devil's Tomb...2009...90 minutes...rated R...starring Cuba Gooding Jr, Ron Perlman, Valerie Cruz, and Henry Rollins...written by Keith Kjornes...directed by Jason Connery.
So, we have a crack mercenary team sent into an underground lab that's located somewhere in the Middle East. Their mission is to extract a scientist who's been working on something and who hasn't reported in for some time. Of course, said team is rife with personal issues...it's a good thing there isn't an evil presence deep within the base that can delve into their hearts and minds and eventually take them over by entering through their weak points. Oh, wait, there is? Oops. And why is there a priest in this lab? What possible link to religion could the hidden secret have? Do we really care?
My answer to the last question was "Well, maybe at the start of the movie." Still, while this selection has a surprising cast of people you'll recognize from other shows and movies, it's not exactly exciting material. Mostly Cuba looks dour and serious as things follow the inevitable progression from tough to bad to worse, but of course the mission must go on, no matter what oddness occurs. Eventually I'm going to see one of these movies where a group will encounter some preternatural hazard and say "Not in my contract, we are out of here." It'll be a short but refreshing watch.
I understand the whole idea of the movie was watching these people being placed on the breaking point, but I didn't feel invested enough into this team to really care what nastiness was being done to them. The core idea of the secret wasn't bad, but I'm not sure it was handled rightly to get the full effect out of it. And seriously, if you're going to have Zack Ward in a horror movie, why do you miss the chance to give him glowing yellow eyes? (I swear to God, he should have had yellow eyes...and if you don't get this joke, look at imdb.com and be enlightened.) It's always enjoyable to watch Ron Perlman, but given what he had to work with, there's only so much the man could do.
Not good enough to be good but not bad enough to be good, either. Bleh. I give this movie 2 crazy preachers out of 5.
So, we have a crack mercenary team sent into an underground lab that's located somewhere in the Middle East. Their mission is to extract a scientist who's been working on something and who hasn't reported in for some time. Of course, said team is rife with personal issues...it's a good thing there isn't an evil presence deep within the base that can delve into their hearts and minds and eventually take them over by entering through their weak points. Oh, wait, there is? Oops. And why is there a priest in this lab? What possible link to religion could the hidden secret have? Do we really care?
My answer to the last question was "Well, maybe at the start of the movie." Still, while this selection has a surprising cast of people you'll recognize from other shows and movies, it's not exactly exciting material. Mostly Cuba looks dour and serious as things follow the inevitable progression from tough to bad to worse, but of course the mission must go on, no matter what oddness occurs. Eventually I'm going to see one of these movies where a group will encounter some preternatural hazard and say "Not in my contract, we are out of here." It'll be a short but refreshing watch.
I understand the whole idea of the movie was watching these people being placed on the breaking point, but I didn't feel invested enough into this team to really care what nastiness was being done to them. The core idea of the secret wasn't bad, but I'm not sure it was handled rightly to get the full effect out of it. And seriously, if you're going to have Zack Ward in a horror movie, why do you miss the chance to give him glowing yellow eyes? (I swear to God, he should have had yellow eyes...and if you don't get this joke, look at imdb.com and be enlightened.) It's always enjoyable to watch Ron Perlman, but given what he had to work with, there's only so much the man could do.
Not good enough to be good but not bad enough to be good, either. Bleh. I give this movie 2 crazy preachers out of 5.
Thursday, April 21, 2011
Bram Stoker's Dracula
Bram Stoker's Dracula...1992...128 minutes...rated R...starring Gary Oldman, Winona Ryder, anthiny Hopkins, and Keanu Reeves...written by James V. Hart, based off the novel _Dracula_ by Bram Stoker...directed by Francis Ford Coppola
I shall do here what I did for the version of Frankenstein that I reviewed a few posts ago, and spare you any weird synopsis. It's Dracula...well, mostly Dracula but still recognizable as such...and if you don't know Dracula, I may have to weep yet again. I weep enough for young adults whose exposure to vampires started with the "Twilight" novels...yeah, it's kind of a cheap shot but I'll admit I'm getting weary of the supernatural romance thing.
Still, that's another post. Anyways....
I'll admit that my main problem with this movie is not the whole Dracula/Mina romance at all, nor with any of the performances that the actors give. Yes, that includes the much-maligned Keanu Reeves as Jonathan Harker...which may not be great but is nowhere near the foulness of accent that Val Kilmer perpetrates in "The Ghost and The Darkness". (Ye gods.) It certainly has little to do with the various effects and transformations that the movie has: in fact, the rat transformation moment still strikes me as very well done. No, my problem is with the title.
This isn't really *Bram Stoker's* Dracula...which honestly isn't a bad decision. A movie that tried to be closer to the book would be much less interesting to the average movie viewer. I like to think of it as the "Behind The Letters" version of Bram Stoker's Dracula, a la VH1...more sex, more intrigue, and certainly a stranger Van Helsing than previously shown in other movies. Mind you, some moments are right out of the book; the image of Dracula crawling lizard-like down the castle wall is an example. It's a big, glossy production that tries to breathe more of a modern sense into a rather dry piece of literature...as has several other pieces of fiction that have worked with this material and taken a similar bent.
Unlike the "Mary Shelley's Frankenstein", I think people will feel more for the characters...people love romances, and this movie helped create the supernatural romance movement. (Ironic that I can like this selection, but there's still some monster to Dracula here.) It's certainly worth a look if you've somehow missed it along the way. If for nothing else, you can see Tom Waits as Renfield, which is an inspired choice.
I give this version of Dracula 3.5 scary carriage drivers out of 5.
I shall do here what I did for the version of Frankenstein that I reviewed a few posts ago, and spare you any weird synopsis. It's Dracula...well, mostly Dracula but still recognizable as such...and if you don't know Dracula, I may have to weep yet again. I weep enough for young adults whose exposure to vampires started with the "Twilight" novels...yeah, it's kind of a cheap shot but I'll admit I'm getting weary of the supernatural romance thing.
Still, that's another post. Anyways....
I'll admit that my main problem with this movie is not the whole Dracula/Mina romance at all, nor with any of the performances that the actors give. Yes, that includes the much-maligned Keanu Reeves as Jonathan Harker...which may not be great but is nowhere near the foulness of accent that Val Kilmer perpetrates in "The Ghost and The Darkness". (Ye gods.) It certainly has little to do with the various effects and transformations that the movie has: in fact, the rat transformation moment still strikes me as very well done. No, my problem is with the title.
This isn't really *Bram Stoker's* Dracula...which honestly isn't a bad decision. A movie that tried to be closer to the book would be much less interesting to the average movie viewer. I like to think of it as the "Behind The Letters" version of Bram Stoker's Dracula, a la VH1...more sex, more intrigue, and certainly a stranger Van Helsing than previously shown in other movies. Mind you, some moments are right out of the book; the image of Dracula crawling lizard-like down the castle wall is an example. It's a big, glossy production that tries to breathe more of a modern sense into a rather dry piece of literature...as has several other pieces of fiction that have worked with this material and taken a similar bent.
Unlike the "Mary Shelley's Frankenstein", I think people will feel more for the characters...people love romances, and this movie helped create the supernatural romance movement. (Ironic that I can like this selection, but there's still some monster to Dracula here.) It's certainly worth a look if you've somehow missed it along the way. If for nothing else, you can see Tom Waits as Renfield, which is an inspired choice.
I give this version of Dracula 3.5 scary carriage drivers out of 5.
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
13 Ghosts
13 Ghosts...1960...85 minutes...starring Charles Herbert, Jo Morrow, Martin Milner, and Margaret Hamilton...written by Robb White...directed by William Castle
When you're on your last dollar, and your furniture is being repossessed, you might take some extraordinary steps to make sure your family has a roof over its head. You'd certainly take any opportunity to find shelter...and that's just what Cyrus Zorba does when he finds out that his rich but eccentric uncle has passed away. Cyrus has inherited a grand mansion, and the collection of ghosts that Dr. Zorba had collected. The now-deceased Zorba used a pair of special glasses to see the earthbound spirits, and he himself is now one of the dead souls that roam the halls. What other strange secrets lie inside the mansion? Will Cyrus's family live long enough to find out?
Here we have another Castle/White collaboration, and not surprisingly, another gimmick was used to help market the film. This time, certain movie shots were in a complete blue screen...and the ghost effects were colored red. Now the gimmick was you would look through either blue or red lenses, depending on whether or not you believed in ghosts. (One heightened the specters on the screen, one faded them out.) Castle called the effect "Illusion-O"...not quite a 3D effect as you might imagine. Castle makes an appearance at the start of this film as he did in "The Tingler" to explain how things work.
The movie itself isn't exactly exciting on its own, so I can understand why some extra "pizazz" was thrown in. Still, like most of the films that this creative team put out, the movie has its moments. One of the running gags in the movie is that Buck, the young child of the Zorba family, keeps calling the maid a witch...appropriate since she's played by Margaret Hamilton, who is of course the Wicked Witch of the West in "The Wizard of Oz". In the last scene of the film, she grabs a broom and gives the camera a knowing look.
Still, the ghosts are mostly caricature figures of ghosts...and the story is just, well, yawn. Some of the performances are worth watching, and if you like seeing some of the earlier horror movies, you'll probably find this one not entirely horrible. Are there better movies, even in this period, out there? No doubt. But in this genre, believe me, there are worse as well.
I give 13 Ghosts 2 well-timed blasts of cold air out of 5.
When you're on your last dollar, and your furniture is being repossessed, you might take some extraordinary steps to make sure your family has a roof over its head. You'd certainly take any opportunity to find shelter...and that's just what Cyrus Zorba does when he finds out that his rich but eccentric uncle has passed away. Cyrus has inherited a grand mansion, and the collection of ghosts that Dr. Zorba had collected. The now-deceased Zorba used a pair of special glasses to see the earthbound spirits, and he himself is now one of the dead souls that roam the halls. What other strange secrets lie inside the mansion? Will Cyrus's family live long enough to find out?
Here we have another Castle/White collaboration, and not surprisingly, another gimmick was used to help market the film. This time, certain movie shots were in a complete blue screen...and the ghost effects were colored red. Now the gimmick was you would look through either blue or red lenses, depending on whether or not you believed in ghosts. (One heightened the specters on the screen, one faded them out.) Castle called the effect "Illusion-O"...not quite a 3D effect as you might imagine. Castle makes an appearance at the start of this film as he did in "The Tingler" to explain how things work.
The movie itself isn't exactly exciting on its own, so I can understand why some extra "pizazz" was thrown in. Still, like most of the films that this creative team put out, the movie has its moments. One of the running gags in the movie is that Buck, the young child of the Zorba family, keeps calling the maid a witch...appropriate since she's played by Margaret Hamilton, who is of course the Wicked Witch of the West in "The Wizard of Oz". In the last scene of the film, she grabs a broom and gives the camera a knowing look.
Still, the ghosts are mostly caricature figures of ghosts...and the story is just, well, yawn. Some of the performances are worth watching, and if you like seeing some of the earlier horror movies, you'll probably find this one not entirely horrible. Are there better movies, even in this period, out there? No doubt. But in this genre, believe me, there are worse as well.
I give 13 Ghosts 2 well-timed blasts of cold air out of 5.
The Tingler
The Tingler...1959...82 minutes...starring Vincent Price, Judith Evelyn, Philip Coolidge, and Patricia Cutts...written by Robb White...directed by William Castle
Pathologist Warren Chapin is studying fear...or rather the cause of fear. Is there something...some creature...that lives within us, a creature that grows on fear? By screaming, a person expresses his or hear fear and thus represses this creature's growth. These are the ideas that the good doctor is considering when he meets Mr. and Mrs. Higgins, a couple who run the local movie theater. Mrs. Higgins is deaf and mute...and by being unable to scream, the "Tingler" inside her would be fully grown and incredibly strong if she was afraid enough. Mad science, anyone?
"The Tingler" was brought to us by the same team who did the original "House on Haunted Hill", and this film is something to know about even if you don't watch it. When this movie came out, William Castle had a device he called the Percepto attached to certain seats in movie theaters, simulating the sensation of the Tingler creature and hopefully encouraging people to scream. Ringers were also put into certain audiences to scream at appropriate points and build the tension. Said gimmicks may or may not have helped the movie, but certainly they created some notable movie history.
The movie is pure schlock. It's enjoyable schlock if you like watching Vincent Price in his element...and watching his character inject himself with LSD to induce fear is priceless. It's also amusing to note that in a mostly black and white movie, certain scenes have blood in crimson red. The plot is laughable (a parasite that flees from screaming? Really?), the creature is an obvious prop, and the performances are, well, average. But still, I just can't completely hate a movie with the heartfelt line "Scream! Scream for your lives!"
"The Tingler" gets 2 electrocuted corpses out of 5.
Pathologist Warren Chapin is studying fear...or rather the cause of fear. Is there something...some creature...that lives within us, a creature that grows on fear? By screaming, a person expresses his or hear fear and thus represses this creature's growth. These are the ideas that the good doctor is considering when he meets Mr. and Mrs. Higgins, a couple who run the local movie theater. Mrs. Higgins is deaf and mute...and by being unable to scream, the "Tingler" inside her would be fully grown and incredibly strong if she was afraid enough. Mad science, anyone?
"The Tingler" was brought to us by the same team who did the original "House on Haunted Hill", and this film is something to know about even if you don't watch it. When this movie came out, William Castle had a device he called the Percepto attached to certain seats in movie theaters, simulating the sensation of the Tingler creature and hopefully encouraging people to scream. Ringers were also put into certain audiences to scream at appropriate points and build the tension. Said gimmicks may or may not have helped the movie, but certainly they created some notable movie history.
The movie is pure schlock. It's enjoyable schlock if you like watching Vincent Price in his element...and watching his character inject himself with LSD to induce fear is priceless. It's also amusing to note that in a mostly black and white movie, certain scenes have blood in crimson red. The plot is laughable (a parasite that flees from screaming? Really?), the creature is an obvious prop, and the performances are, well, average. But still, I just can't completely hate a movie with the heartfelt line "Scream! Scream for your lives!"
"The Tingler" gets 2 electrocuted corpses out of 5.
Torture Garden
Torture Garden...1967...93 minutes...starring Jack Palance, Burgess Meredith, Beverly Adams, and Peter Cushing...written by Robert Bloch...directed by Freddie Francis
Be careful if you go to the sideshow...you may end up finding Dr. Diablo's Torture Garden. It's not the regular show displaying horrible ways to die that you have to be careful about...no, it's the special show he holds afterwards for a select few. If you've got the nerve, you may end up learning some hard truths that could save your life. But to do so, you must be willing to look in the Shears of Atropos and learn what fate has waiting.
After "Mary's Shelly's Frankenstein", I was set up to go into "Bram Stoker's Dracula" but FearNet is showing some older films that I couldn't bear to miss. The first of these selections is "Torture Garden", which is a segmented film following the stories that Diablo...played by Burgess Meredith...reveals to the people he attracts to the "special show". Each person's fate is, of course, a setup for a tale ending in supernatural nastiness: stories involving a witch in the form of a cat, a haunted piano, the faces behind Hollywood immortality, and a man who has collected Poe.
The stories are a bit cheesy and certainly dated, but still enjoyable as they're written by the man who gave us that classic of the screen, "Psycho". I think the Poe story at the end is the best segment, and that's partially due to the presence of Hammer horror veteran Peter Cushing. The movie is a wonderful exemplar of the segmented films that I was talking about in the review of "Creepshow", and while it certainly has its flaws, such as its obviously limited budget, I have to admit that I found "Torture Garden" amusing and enjoyable. I have a fondness for movies like this, so I may be a bit skewed: you've been warned.
I give "Torture Garden" 2.5 threads out of 5.
Be careful if you go to the sideshow...you may end up finding Dr. Diablo's Torture Garden. It's not the regular show displaying horrible ways to die that you have to be careful about...no, it's the special show he holds afterwards for a select few. If you've got the nerve, you may end up learning some hard truths that could save your life. But to do so, you must be willing to look in the Shears of Atropos and learn what fate has waiting.
After "Mary's Shelly's Frankenstein", I was set up to go into "Bram Stoker's Dracula" but FearNet is showing some older films that I couldn't bear to miss. The first of these selections is "Torture Garden", which is a segmented film following the stories that Diablo...played by Burgess Meredith...reveals to the people he attracts to the "special show". Each person's fate is, of course, a setup for a tale ending in supernatural nastiness: stories involving a witch in the form of a cat, a haunted piano, the faces behind Hollywood immortality, and a man who has collected Poe.
The stories are a bit cheesy and certainly dated, but still enjoyable as they're written by the man who gave us that classic of the screen, "Psycho". I think the Poe story at the end is the best segment, and that's partially due to the presence of Hammer horror veteran Peter Cushing. The movie is a wonderful exemplar of the segmented films that I was talking about in the review of "Creepshow", and while it certainly has its flaws, such as its obviously limited budget, I have to admit that I found "Torture Garden" amusing and enjoyable. I have a fondness for movies like this, so I may be a bit skewed: you've been warned.
I give "Torture Garden" 2.5 threads out of 5.
Friday, April 15, 2011
Mary Shelley's Frankenstein
Mary Shelley's Frankenstein...1994...123 minutes...rated R...starring Kenneth Branagh, Robert De Niro, Helena Bonham Carter, and Tom Hulce...written by Steph Lady and Frank Darabont, based off the novel by Mary Shelley...directed by Kenneth Branagh
Fearless Blog Readers, forgive me for presuming too much, but this is Frankenstein. Do I need to summarize Frankenstein? Mad scientist tries to bring life back to the dead, partially succeeds, is tormented by his abandoned creation, and loses everything to his hubris...sound familiar? Please say it sounds familiar, and don't tell me if it isn't. I might weep.
As adaptations of novels go, this selection is quite good...and under Branagh's direction, viewers really do get a sense of Frankenstein's mad rise and fall, forsaking everything else in pursuit of his ambition and then understanding all too well the consequences of his actions. It's also effective in portraying the period in which it's set in, which makes it a bigger film in terms of scale and production. Most of the performances are very good, although I'm not completely sure that Branagh pulls off some of the sheer intensity that I would imagine Dr. Frnakenstein to have.
The pivotal performance, of course, is De Niro's "Adam"...and I think that his portrayal of the monster is what makes the film both good in one way but lacking in another. With both the script and the acting, Adam isn't a mentally slow creature...he is both a fully thinking and feeling being, one that has been exposed in the majority tothe worst that mankind has to offer. This is a creation whose maker abandoned it, and who had to learn on his own without having companionship: such a being is likely doomed to make the choices that this creature does. Still, here's where the disconnect begins.
I've always remembered feeling very sorry for the early movie Frankenstein. This less articulate version seemed less in control of itself, but at heart I guess I always felt that this was a creature capable of gentleness if given half a chance. Of course, the monster is never given that chance and ends up getting destroyed by humanity in its worst state. De Niro's Adam, on the other hand, seems very capable of making different decisions...the ability is there...but doesn't, and while I can intellectually understand why he does what he does, I don't feel for him as much. Is this truer to the novel? Certainly. However, I do think that this emotional linkage is one of the strengths the early black and white Frankenstein film had that the Branagh film sacrifices, and I'm unsure if it was a worthwhile trade.
But don't let me dissuade you from seeing this version..in fact, I hope that you do see it. In some ways, it's both a fresher and older look at what has becomes a monster movie icon, and the talent and effort put into the making of the film is first rate. I honestly do believe that this movie bears the proper name for it..."Bram Stoker's Dracula", on the other hand...well, we'll get there.
I give this movie 3.5 ice floes out of 5.
Fearless Blog Readers, forgive me for presuming too much, but this is Frankenstein. Do I need to summarize Frankenstein? Mad scientist tries to bring life back to the dead, partially succeeds, is tormented by his abandoned creation, and loses everything to his hubris...sound familiar? Please say it sounds familiar, and don't tell me if it isn't. I might weep.
As adaptations of novels go, this selection is quite good...and under Branagh's direction, viewers really do get a sense of Frankenstein's mad rise and fall, forsaking everything else in pursuit of his ambition and then understanding all too well the consequences of his actions. It's also effective in portraying the period in which it's set in, which makes it a bigger film in terms of scale and production. Most of the performances are very good, although I'm not completely sure that Branagh pulls off some of the sheer intensity that I would imagine Dr. Frnakenstein to have.
The pivotal performance, of course, is De Niro's "Adam"...and I think that his portrayal of the monster is what makes the film both good in one way but lacking in another. With both the script and the acting, Adam isn't a mentally slow creature...he is both a fully thinking and feeling being, one that has been exposed in the majority tothe worst that mankind has to offer. This is a creation whose maker abandoned it, and who had to learn on his own without having companionship: such a being is likely doomed to make the choices that this creature does. Still, here's where the disconnect begins.
I've always remembered feeling very sorry for the early movie Frankenstein. This less articulate version seemed less in control of itself, but at heart I guess I always felt that this was a creature capable of gentleness if given half a chance. Of course, the monster is never given that chance and ends up getting destroyed by humanity in its worst state. De Niro's Adam, on the other hand, seems very capable of making different decisions...the ability is there...but doesn't, and while I can intellectually understand why he does what he does, I don't feel for him as much. Is this truer to the novel? Certainly. However, I do think that this emotional linkage is one of the strengths the early black and white Frankenstein film had that the Branagh film sacrifices, and I'm unsure if it was a worthwhile trade.
But don't let me dissuade you from seeing this version..in fact, I hope that you do see it. In some ways, it's both a fresher and older look at what has becomes a monster movie icon, and the talent and effort put into the making of the film is first rate. I honestly do believe that this movie bears the proper name for it..."Bram Stoker's Dracula", on the other hand...well, we'll get there.
I give this movie 3.5 ice floes out of 5.
Drag MeTo Hell
Drag Me To Hell...2009...99 minutes...rated PG-13...starring Alison Lohman, Justin Long, Lorna Raver, Dileep Rao, and David Paymer...written by Sam and Ivan Raimi...directed by Sam Raimi
What's an up-and-coming bank executive to do? Loan officer Christine Brown is trying to get a lock on an assistant manager position, as well as make sure her relationship with Clay Dalton is solid as well. How can she show she has the right stuff for the job and get ahead of the other applicant? It's time not to be so nice, and tighten up on giving out loans...even to the old Gypsy woman wanting to keep her house. After all, what could the old crone do? Certainly not summon an evil spirit called a lamia to torment Christine and drag her into the depths of Hell itself in three days time. Except of course that Mrs. Ganush can...and she does. NOW what's Christine going to do?
"Drag Me To Hell" is Sam Raimi's most recent foray into the horror genre, and the movie has much of the same pacing that made the last two Evil Dead movies so unique. With Raimi, the difference between comedy and horror is slight...and seems to have more to do with timing then anything else. Well, timing and an unflinching camera when it comes to showing things you might not expect in a typical horror film. For example, there's a scene where Mrs. Ganush is waiting for Christine inside her car...and the ensuing struggle is both hard to watch and occasionally funny. I'll admit that the laughter may be because as a viewer, I'm just not sure how else to react.
I think that my biggest problem with the movie is that the main character isn't the most sympathetic protagonist I've come across. Now, if I were seriously being stalked by a malefic presence, I'd be the first to admit that I would indeed take some drastic steps to shake said spirit off my trail. All animal lovers should take note that Christine takes some VERY drastic steps...and at least as far as my wife (who loves animals and mostly tolerates the bulk of humanity) was concerned, those steps were much too much. Still, some of the moments in the movie are first rate in terms of both dark humor and chills as well, and I recommend that if you start this movie, you see it through to the very end...which is a bit of a surprise if you're not paying attention.
There's nothing horribly original in this movie, but the execution is what makes a Raimi film the experience it is. If you liked Evil Dead 2 and Army of Darkness, you will probably enjoy this movie...but to be honest, for some reason I was expecting more and just didn't quite get it. I'm not even sure what I was looking for, but whatever it was, I felt its absence.
I give Drag Me To Hell 3 floating handkerchiefs out of 5.
What's an up-and-coming bank executive to do? Loan officer Christine Brown is trying to get a lock on an assistant manager position, as well as make sure her relationship with Clay Dalton is solid as well. How can she show she has the right stuff for the job and get ahead of the other applicant? It's time not to be so nice, and tighten up on giving out loans...even to the old Gypsy woman wanting to keep her house. After all, what could the old crone do? Certainly not summon an evil spirit called a lamia to torment Christine and drag her into the depths of Hell itself in three days time. Except of course that Mrs. Ganush can...and she does. NOW what's Christine going to do?
"Drag Me To Hell" is Sam Raimi's most recent foray into the horror genre, and the movie has much of the same pacing that made the last two Evil Dead movies so unique. With Raimi, the difference between comedy and horror is slight...and seems to have more to do with timing then anything else. Well, timing and an unflinching camera when it comes to showing things you might not expect in a typical horror film. For example, there's a scene where Mrs. Ganush is waiting for Christine inside her car...and the ensuing struggle is both hard to watch and occasionally funny. I'll admit that the laughter may be because as a viewer, I'm just not sure how else to react.
I think that my biggest problem with the movie is that the main character isn't the most sympathetic protagonist I've come across. Now, if I were seriously being stalked by a malefic presence, I'd be the first to admit that I would indeed take some drastic steps to shake said spirit off my trail. All animal lovers should take note that Christine takes some VERY drastic steps...and at least as far as my wife (who loves animals and mostly tolerates the bulk of humanity) was concerned, those steps were much too much. Still, some of the moments in the movie are first rate in terms of both dark humor and chills as well, and I recommend that if you start this movie, you see it through to the very end...which is a bit of a surprise if you're not paying attention.
There's nothing horribly original in this movie, but the execution is what makes a Raimi film the experience it is. If you liked Evil Dead 2 and Army of Darkness, you will probably enjoy this movie...but to be honest, for some reason I was expecting more and just didn't quite get it. I'm not even sure what I was looking for, but whatever it was, I felt its absence.
I give Drag Me To Hell 3 floating handkerchiefs out of 5.
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Species
Species...1995...108 minutes...rated R...starring Michael Madsen, Natasha Henstridge, Marg Helgenberger, Forest Whitaker, Ben Kingsley, and Alfred Molina...written by Dennis Feldman...directed by Roger Donaldson
Now, there are some bad ideas and then there are some bad ideas. In 1993, SETI receives a transmission that contains two different things (if I recall correctly). One is technical data for a super-efficient source of power, obviously proving the good intentions of the beings broadcasting it. The other is a very unique DNA sequence and instructions on how to splice it with our DNA. So of course, someone in the government thinks it's an excellent thing to go ahead with this genetic experiment. (Bad idea) They create Sil, a female human-alien hybrid...but then decide that this was a bad idea and try to kill her. Sil, of course, has other ideas and escapes from the base she was created and housed at. A team is assembled to track her down, while Sil starts maturing at a frightening rate and gets her own goal in mind: reproduction.
I have mixed feelings when it comes to this movie. It does have several things going for it. One, look at the above cast...for those people like myself who love to increase their movie trivia about which stars have appeared in what movies, "Species"" is a gem. (The wife and I call this knowledge imdb-fu.) As well, the creature design is done by the infamous H.R. Giger...I've heard that the Sil design was the original Alien design, but I'm not sure if that's true. Regardless, Natasha Henstridge goes from attractive blond to tentacle-breasted alien horror in a matter of seconds. (You read that right.) The mix of sexuality and carnage hits in some uncomfortable places, at least in the male psyche.
Still, it has some really odd moments as well. Forest Whitaker's character is empathic to a psychic degree, and it's thrown out there to be accepted without any real explanation. Also, the team comes up with the idea to reproduce the alien DNA by itself...which is an excellent idea, but then begs the question: why did no one consider this idea before? You'd think a project of this magnitude would get some better forward-thinkers. The idea that Sil was chosen to be female because people thought she'd be more docile is truly laughable, but at least this is pointed out by Marg Helgenberger's character. Lastly of course is the ending, which is true horror schlock at its finest.
The level of blood and violence in the movie gets intense at times, and this gore may either work for you or against you, depending on your tolerance for such things. For that matter, this entire movie is much the same way: it may work for you or totally not...I'd say it really depends on the frame of mind you bring to the movie.
I'll give "Species" 2.5 leftover cocoon-things out of 5.
Now, there are some bad ideas and then there are some bad ideas. In 1993, SETI receives a transmission that contains two different things (if I recall correctly). One is technical data for a super-efficient source of power, obviously proving the good intentions of the beings broadcasting it. The other is a very unique DNA sequence and instructions on how to splice it with our DNA. So of course, someone in the government thinks it's an excellent thing to go ahead with this genetic experiment. (Bad idea) They create Sil, a female human-alien hybrid...but then decide that this was a bad idea and try to kill her. Sil, of course, has other ideas and escapes from the base she was created and housed at. A team is assembled to track her down, while Sil starts maturing at a frightening rate and gets her own goal in mind: reproduction.
I have mixed feelings when it comes to this movie. It does have several things going for it. One, look at the above cast...for those people like myself who love to increase their movie trivia about which stars have appeared in what movies, "Species"" is a gem. (The wife and I call this knowledge imdb-fu.) As well, the creature design is done by the infamous H.R. Giger...I've heard that the Sil design was the original Alien design, but I'm not sure if that's true. Regardless, Natasha Henstridge goes from attractive blond to tentacle-breasted alien horror in a matter of seconds. (You read that right.) The mix of sexuality and carnage hits in some uncomfortable places, at least in the male psyche.
Still, it has some really odd moments as well. Forest Whitaker's character is empathic to a psychic degree, and it's thrown out there to be accepted without any real explanation. Also, the team comes up with the idea to reproduce the alien DNA by itself...which is an excellent idea, but then begs the question: why did no one consider this idea before? You'd think a project of this magnitude would get some better forward-thinkers. The idea that Sil was chosen to be female because people thought she'd be more docile is truly laughable, but at least this is pointed out by Marg Helgenberger's character. Lastly of course is the ending, which is true horror schlock at its finest.
The level of blood and violence in the movie gets intense at times, and this gore may either work for you or against you, depending on your tolerance for such things. For that matter, this entire movie is much the same way: it may work for you or totally not...I'd say it really depends on the frame of mind you bring to the movie.
I'll give "Species" 2.5 leftover cocoon-things out of 5.
Alien
Alien...1979...117 minutes...rated R...starring Tom Skerritt, Sigourney Weaver, John Hurt, and Ian Holm...written by Dan O'Bannon and Ronald Shusett...directed by Ridley Scott
I'd be surprised if people don't know this one, but anyways: the crew of the Weyland-Yutani commercial towing vehicle Nostromo are awakened from suspension early by the ship's computer in response to intercepting a signal of unknown origin. According to company contracts, the crew must try to find the source of the signal or risk losing their shares of the profit, so the 7 members take part of the ship down to investigate. Part of the crew heads out onto the surface and discover a crashed alien spaceship. Warrant officer Ripley (Sigourney Weaver) manages to figure out that the signal is not a distress call as originally thought but is instead a warning, but is deterred by the science officer from joining her companions. One of the three on the explorer team discovers a chamber filled with what looks like eggs...and gets far too close of an encounter with an alien life form. Hauling crew member Kane (and attached alien) back to the ship...and getting past quarantine with help by the science officer, the remaining crew blast off and get back to the rest of the ship left in orbit. Eventually the creature dies and Kane seems to recover. Everything's fine, right? Right?
So not right.
Now, you can argue that this movie is much closer to actual sci-fi then either of the previous selections I've brought up for genre blend movies, and I actually wouldn't argue that case. Certainly the writing is tighter and presents fewer glaring errors in the science to a layman like myself... except possibly in xenobiology, but I'm willing to suspend my disbelief. Still, small number of people in a group...limited space in which to move around and very limited options of leaving the ship...mysterious thing lurking in the dark corridors and air shafts...yeah, I'd say that Alien has several horror elements to it, and I don't feel the least bit bad in regarding it as a horror movie.
If you disagree, I suggest you watch the dinner sequence after Kane recovers from having an alien on his face. There's a reason that this segment is listed as one of the scariest movie moments, and even with repeated viewings it doesn't get old. Part of that comes from the excellent reactions of the actors...and no, they weren't really warned as to what was coming so I'm not sure you could call it acting. Pure science fiction doesn't tend to have such moments thrown into the mix like that.
Certainly the design of the alien itself is a source of nightmare. "Alien" introduced much of the world to the artistic imagination of H.R.Giger, and that imagination has produced several very interesting and disturbing pieces of art. Personally, the extra set of jaws in place of a tongue has always disturbed me...as well as just the overall look of the thing. I'll share something embarrassing: when the movie had come out, some company had actually produced an action figure of the creature. I didn't even want the miniature thing in the house; because while my conscious mind at that age knew very well that it was just a hunk of plastic...but I could imagine that thing scuttling around the house at night all too easily. No thanks.
Is it a good movie? Indeed. There's excellent casting, tight writing, a good pace of action, and some very disturbing creature effects played at just the right moments. Do I recommend it? Highly. This movie is one that launched an entire franchise, though each of the sequels has its own feel to it. The first is the scariest and in many ways the tightest of all of them.
I give this one 4 crashed spaceships out of 5.
I'd be surprised if people don't know this one, but anyways: the crew of the Weyland-Yutani commercial towing vehicle Nostromo are awakened from suspension early by the ship's computer in response to intercepting a signal of unknown origin. According to company contracts, the crew must try to find the source of the signal or risk losing their shares of the profit, so the 7 members take part of the ship down to investigate. Part of the crew heads out onto the surface and discover a crashed alien spaceship. Warrant officer Ripley (Sigourney Weaver) manages to figure out that the signal is not a distress call as originally thought but is instead a warning, but is deterred by the science officer from joining her companions. One of the three on the explorer team discovers a chamber filled with what looks like eggs...and gets far too close of an encounter with an alien life form. Hauling crew member Kane (and attached alien) back to the ship...and getting past quarantine with help by the science officer, the remaining crew blast off and get back to the rest of the ship left in orbit. Eventually the creature dies and Kane seems to recover. Everything's fine, right? Right?
So not right.
Now, you can argue that this movie is much closer to actual sci-fi then either of the previous selections I've brought up for genre blend movies, and I actually wouldn't argue that case. Certainly the writing is tighter and presents fewer glaring errors in the science to a layman like myself... except possibly in xenobiology, but I'm willing to suspend my disbelief. Still, small number of people in a group...limited space in which to move around and very limited options of leaving the ship...mysterious thing lurking in the dark corridors and air shafts...yeah, I'd say that Alien has several horror elements to it, and I don't feel the least bit bad in regarding it as a horror movie.
If you disagree, I suggest you watch the dinner sequence after Kane recovers from having an alien on his face. There's a reason that this segment is listed as one of the scariest movie moments, and even with repeated viewings it doesn't get old. Part of that comes from the excellent reactions of the actors...and no, they weren't really warned as to what was coming so I'm not sure you could call it acting. Pure science fiction doesn't tend to have such moments thrown into the mix like that.
Certainly the design of the alien itself is a source of nightmare. "Alien" introduced much of the world to the artistic imagination of H.R.Giger, and that imagination has produced several very interesting and disturbing pieces of art. Personally, the extra set of jaws in place of a tongue has always disturbed me...as well as just the overall look of the thing. I'll share something embarrassing: when the movie had come out, some company had actually produced an action figure of the creature. I didn't even want the miniature thing in the house; because while my conscious mind at that age knew very well that it was just a hunk of plastic...but I could imagine that thing scuttling around the house at night all too easily. No thanks.
Is it a good movie? Indeed. There's excellent casting, tight writing, a good pace of action, and some very disturbing creature effects played at just the right moments. Do I recommend it? Highly. This movie is one that launched an entire franchise, though each of the sequels has its own feel to it. The first is the scariest and in many ways the tightest of all of them.
I give this one 4 crashed spaceships out of 5.
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Jason X
Jason X...2001...96 minutes...rated R...starring Kane Hodder, Lexa Doig, Lisa Ryder, and Peter Mensah...written by Todd Farmer (based on characters created by Victor Miller)...directed by James Isaac
Normally I would write up a synopsis of the movie in this spot, but honestly...even though it's the last of the films (as far as I know) before the franchise got the reboot, there's not much to say if you're familiar with any of the films. If not...well, I'm quite sure how that's possible, but: it's the future (2455), and explorers discover two cryogenically frozen bodies exploring the Crystal Lake Research Facility. One, of course, is Jason Voorhees, who was being used by the military as a research subject to find out how this misshapen hulk can be virtually immortal. (Regeneration would be a handy trick for the military.) Of course, the monstrous killer revives and starts his old tricks in a new setting: a spaceship.
I decided to use "Event Horizon" as a launching point for reviewing horror/sci-fi blends...and this piece was one of the first, though definitely not one of the best, that came to mind. It's depiction of the future is cynically amusing, because even though it's four centuries into the future, and there are such things as androids, full holographic VR, and spaceships people still haven't learned how to act in a crisis situation. Also, the concept of "unkillable" is apparently just as inconceivable. Sadly enough, the future doesn't have phasers or other beam weapons either. Admittedly, with this crew, I wouldn't trust them with high grade weaponry...honestly, I'm not sure how this motley gang of students and soldiers got cleared to be in a spaceship anyways.
So, don't expect any brilliance to shine through in the script...still, there are some reasons to see this. One is some of the cast...Lisa Ryder is a staple in many sci-fi shows, best known to me for her work as Tracy Vetter in Forever Knight. Peter Mensah is another one to spot in an early role before his better known role of Oenomaus/Doctore in the Starz Spartacus series. (He was also the Horse Clan Leader in Avatar.) The cameo by David Cronenberg doesn't hurt either. The redesign of Jason Voorhees into a futuristic version of himself isn't bad either, though it comes much too late in the movie to be a real draw. I actually think the best moment of the film has to do with a holographic distraction that some of the crew come up with to buy time to escape...I've never seen a girl in a sleeping bag used as a bludgeoning weapon before.
If you're looking for some grisly diversion that has a certain amount of humor in it, Jason X isn't a bad way to go. Just don't spend real money on it. Jason X gets 2 gun-slinging androids out of 5.
Normally I would write up a synopsis of the movie in this spot, but honestly...even though it's the last of the films (as far as I know) before the franchise got the reboot, there's not much to say if you're familiar with any of the films. If not...well, I'm quite sure how that's possible, but: it's the future (2455), and explorers discover two cryogenically frozen bodies exploring the Crystal Lake Research Facility. One, of course, is Jason Voorhees, who was being used by the military as a research subject to find out how this misshapen hulk can be virtually immortal. (Regeneration would be a handy trick for the military.) Of course, the monstrous killer revives and starts his old tricks in a new setting: a spaceship.
I decided to use "Event Horizon" as a launching point for reviewing horror/sci-fi blends...and this piece was one of the first, though definitely not one of the best, that came to mind. It's depiction of the future is cynically amusing, because even though it's four centuries into the future, and there are such things as androids, full holographic VR, and spaceships people still haven't learned how to act in a crisis situation. Also, the concept of "unkillable" is apparently just as inconceivable. Sadly enough, the future doesn't have phasers or other beam weapons either. Admittedly, with this crew, I wouldn't trust them with high grade weaponry...honestly, I'm not sure how this motley gang of students and soldiers got cleared to be in a spaceship anyways.
So, don't expect any brilliance to shine through in the script...still, there are some reasons to see this. One is some of the cast...Lisa Ryder is a staple in many sci-fi shows, best known to me for her work as Tracy Vetter in Forever Knight. Peter Mensah is another one to spot in an early role before his better known role of Oenomaus/Doctore in the Starz Spartacus series. (He was also the Horse Clan Leader in Avatar.) The cameo by David Cronenberg doesn't hurt either. The redesign of Jason Voorhees into a futuristic version of himself isn't bad either, though it comes much too late in the movie to be a real draw. I actually think the best moment of the film has to do with a holographic distraction that some of the crew come up with to buy time to escape...I've never seen a girl in a sleeping bag used as a bludgeoning weapon before.
If you're looking for some grisly diversion that has a certain amount of humor in it, Jason X isn't a bad way to go. Just don't spend real money on it. Jason X gets 2 gun-slinging androids out of 5.
Monday, April 11, 2011
Frailty
Frailty...2001...100 minutes...rated R...starring Bill Paxton, Matthew McConaughey, Powers Boothe, and Matt O'Leary...written by Brent Hanley...directed by Bill Paxton
Fenton Meiks has come to the FBI, telling Agent Wesley Doyle that he believes his brother Adam to be a murderer that the press has come to call The God's Hand Killer, after some notes that Adam has left at the crime scenes. What follows is a tale of how a middle American family in the late 70s came to be involved in a strange life of belief and murder, with Fenton trying to make the FBI agent understand what happened to Adam and how he could commit these crimes. But is Fenton all that he seems?
As I have been writing these little bits on various horror movies, I've been hit fairly hard with how subjective a thing horror is. What scares one person might make another person sneer, or laugh. Certainly a lot of movies that are out are also...or only... seen as disgusting, tasteless, offensive, and occasionally a waste of time and money. Still, my opinion on the genre is that part of its function for the viewer is to poke at those things that unsettle us; to hold up a dark mirror to our selves and our society and reveal those things that make us uncomfortable. Certainly gore and depictions of pain are uncomfortable, and often movies work simply on that physical level. I think that hitting on mental and emotional levels is a harder thing to accomplish, and again may only affect certain viewers, but those levels are sometimes more effective.
So what does all this musing have to do with "Frailty"? Simply put, the movie aims at an interesting but inflammatory spot in the cultural psyche...that line where faith becomes psychosis, and the level of trust a person can have in another when that person is Other-directed, as it were. We get a situation presented where the fundamentals of the main character's world are being tested...how far he's willing to go in the name of faith and love, and that point where he's supposed to stop and say "Wait, we've gone too far". But if that's an uncomfortable situation for a movie viewer, then the end of the movie goes right over the edge of reason.
I find this goal to be a lofty target, but I'm not sure the movie executed its intent that well. Some of the details are a bit distracting...I mean, I guess you might put your first name on your axe to mark it as your property, but if I see an axe with "Otis" on it my first thought is to wonder who names an axe. Also, I found some of the plot twists to either be telegraphed or a little overly contrived. By this statement, I'm really thinking of the ending...part of me just can't buy it. I'll admit that maybe I just don't want to buy into the ending, that it goes too far except as maybe a conceptual exercise. Still, I'll admit that in some ways it goes straight to the heart of the matter: the true question many of us would have about people we consider crazy or over the edge.
If "interesting" characterizations of faith overly disturb or offend you, I'd give this one a pass. On the other hand, if you want to see Matthew McConaughey at some of his crazy best, then be sure to give this selection a look. Frailty gets 2.5 pairs of special gloves out of 5. (yes, that would be 5 gloves, but not a 5 rating)
Amendment: I don't like changing ratings that I've given...even if I think I may have been too hard or too soft on a film. But I have had some time to consider this review, and I really do think I was low on this rating. McConaughey and Paxton both give solid performances, and despite the fact that I still have a few reservations on the subject matter, this film has proven to be solid over time. So let's give this selection 3 gloves out of 5 instead. The inability to change one's mind could be considered evidence that I might not have one. Dated 07/15/17
Fenton Meiks has come to the FBI, telling Agent Wesley Doyle that he believes his brother Adam to be a murderer that the press has come to call The God's Hand Killer, after some notes that Adam has left at the crime scenes. What follows is a tale of how a middle American family in the late 70s came to be involved in a strange life of belief and murder, with Fenton trying to make the FBI agent understand what happened to Adam and how he could commit these crimes. But is Fenton all that he seems?
As I have been writing these little bits on various horror movies, I've been hit fairly hard with how subjective a thing horror is. What scares one person might make another person sneer, or laugh. Certainly a lot of movies that are out are also...or only... seen as disgusting, tasteless, offensive, and occasionally a waste of time and money. Still, my opinion on the genre is that part of its function for the viewer is to poke at those things that unsettle us; to hold up a dark mirror to our selves and our society and reveal those things that make us uncomfortable. Certainly gore and depictions of pain are uncomfortable, and often movies work simply on that physical level. I think that hitting on mental and emotional levels is a harder thing to accomplish, and again may only affect certain viewers, but those levels are sometimes more effective.
So what does all this musing have to do with "Frailty"? Simply put, the movie aims at an interesting but inflammatory spot in the cultural psyche...that line where faith becomes psychosis, and the level of trust a person can have in another when that person is Other-directed, as it were. We get a situation presented where the fundamentals of the main character's world are being tested...how far he's willing to go in the name of faith and love, and that point where he's supposed to stop and say "Wait, we've gone too far". But if that's an uncomfortable situation for a movie viewer, then the end of the movie goes right over the edge of reason.
I find this goal to be a lofty target, but I'm not sure the movie executed its intent that well. Some of the details are a bit distracting...I mean, I guess you might put your first name on your axe to mark it as your property, but if I see an axe with "Otis" on it my first thought is to wonder who names an axe. Also, I found some of the plot twists to either be telegraphed or a little overly contrived. By this statement, I'm really thinking of the ending...part of me just can't buy it. I'll admit that maybe I just don't want to buy into the ending, that it goes too far except as maybe a conceptual exercise. Still, I'll admit that in some ways it goes straight to the heart of the matter: the true question many of us would have about people we consider crazy or over the edge.
If "interesting" characterizations of faith overly disturb or offend you, I'd give this one a pass. On the other hand, if you want to see Matthew McConaughey at some of his crazy best, then be sure to give this selection a look. Frailty gets 2.5 pairs of special gloves out of 5. (yes, that would be 5 gloves, but not a 5 rating)
Amendment: I don't like changing ratings that I've given...even if I think I may have been too hard or too soft on a film. But I have had some time to consider this review, and I really do think I was low on this rating. McConaughey and Paxton both give solid performances, and despite the fact that I still have a few reservations on the subject matter, this film has proven to be solid over time. So let's give this selection 3 gloves out of 5 instead. The inability to change one's mind could be considered evidence that I might not have one. Dated 07/15/17
Event Horizon
Event Horizon...1997...96 minutes...rated R...starring Lawrence Fishburne, Sam Neill, Kathleen Quinlan, and Jason Isaacs...written by Philip Eisner...directed by Paul W. S. Anderson
It's the year 2047 and the "Lewis and Clark", a rescue starship, has been pulled off some needed leave to go on a classified mission. The mission turns out to be something that none of the rescue crew expect...the "Event Horizon" has been missing for 7 years, but a signal from it has been detected on the outer edge of the solar system. The mission is to find out what happened to both the missing ship and its crew...and accompanying the rescue team is the creator of the ship itself. As surprising as the return of the missing starship is, the mysteries that the ship holds within its massive structure are darker and deadlier than what the people of the "Lewis and Clark" could ever expect.
Another exercise in genre fusions, "Event Horizon" hit me in a couple of places that I wasn't expecting. Now to be fair, the first time that I watched this movie, I was alone in the movie theater at an afternoon matinee showing. As usual, the AC was cranked up...and it was quite chilly inside the dark auditorium. I found it to be an effective reinforcement of the cold abyss of space. Plus, the movie has kind of a theme with eyes...and anything to do with eyes in a horror movie just hits me in a visceral place.
Again, I know that people who can't stand their streams mixed will not like this movie...and that will include die-hard science fiction folk because the science in this movie is -hardly- what I would call pure. I don't have a problem with this state of affairs, but for some I understand that there's too much suspension of disbelief. Also I will say that there are several rapid-picture sequences that can make some people's eyes rather unhappy, so be warned.
So why do I like it? For one, look at the cast. Many of the primary players are people who I could watch read the phone book, so of course I would enjoy seeing them perform with each other. (As an aside, I do like the fact that this is the first time I remember seeing the actor soon to be better known for his role of Lucius Malfoy*.) More to the point, though, is the thought that science is not the salvation of mankind, but instead may open doors to things better left undisturbed...and if Sam Neill's character isn't a good example of the mad scientist, then I don't know what would be. But overall, "Event Horizon" is a reinvention of the haunted house...or the ghost ship, if you prefer...and it's good to see a classic brought back to life in an interesting fashion.
I give Event Horizon 3.5 floating orbs of blood out of 5.
Amendment: This is the second and last change of the day, but as I have given a little more to Frailty, I feel compelled to take away from this one. I like this film, I really do, but it's a bit on the porcine side with some of the ham you can find within. Personally, this will always be a fun movie for me to watch, but compared to others at the 3.5 rating...I don't think this one measures up so well. So let's go to 3 floating pools of blood instead. Okay, enough revision. Dated 7/15/17
*You must ignore any other name that may have been here previously...obviously there are disadvantages to writing late at night. (Sheesh!)
It's the year 2047 and the "Lewis and Clark", a rescue starship, has been pulled off some needed leave to go on a classified mission. The mission turns out to be something that none of the rescue crew expect...the "Event Horizon" has been missing for 7 years, but a signal from it has been detected on the outer edge of the solar system. The mission is to find out what happened to both the missing ship and its crew...and accompanying the rescue team is the creator of the ship itself. As surprising as the return of the missing starship is, the mysteries that the ship holds within its massive structure are darker and deadlier than what the people of the "Lewis and Clark" could ever expect.
Another exercise in genre fusions, "Event Horizon" hit me in a couple of places that I wasn't expecting. Now to be fair, the first time that I watched this movie, I was alone in the movie theater at an afternoon matinee showing. As usual, the AC was cranked up...and it was quite chilly inside the dark auditorium. I found it to be an effective reinforcement of the cold abyss of space. Plus, the movie has kind of a theme with eyes...and anything to do with eyes in a horror movie just hits me in a visceral place.
Again, I know that people who can't stand their streams mixed will not like this movie...and that will include die-hard science fiction folk because the science in this movie is -hardly- what I would call pure. I don't have a problem with this state of affairs, but for some I understand that there's too much suspension of disbelief. Also I will say that there are several rapid-picture sequences that can make some people's eyes rather unhappy, so be warned.
So why do I like it? For one, look at the cast. Many of the primary players are people who I could watch read the phone book, so of course I would enjoy seeing them perform with each other. (As an aside, I do like the fact that this is the first time I remember seeing the actor soon to be better known for his role of Lucius Malfoy*.) More to the point, though, is the thought that science is not the salvation of mankind, but instead may open doors to things better left undisturbed...and if Sam Neill's character isn't a good example of the mad scientist, then I don't know what would be. But overall, "Event Horizon" is a reinvention of the haunted house...or the ghost ship, if you prefer...and it's good to see a classic brought back to life in an interesting fashion.
I give Event Horizon 3.5 floating orbs of blood out of 5.
Amendment: This is the second and last change of the day, but as I have given a little more to Frailty, I feel compelled to take away from this one. I like this film, I really do, but it's a bit on the porcine side with some of the ham you can find within. Personally, this will always be a fun movie for me to watch, but compared to others at the 3.5 rating...I don't think this one measures up so well. So let's go to 3 floating pools of blood instead. Okay, enough revision. Dated 7/15/17
*You must ignore any other name that may have been here previously...obviously there are disadvantages to writing late at night. (Sheesh!)
Sunday, April 10, 2011
Cast A Deadly Spell
Cast A Deadly Spell...1991...96 minutes...rated R...starring Fred Ward, Julianne Moore, David Warner, and Clancy Brown...written by Joseph Dougherty...directed by Martin Campbell
"Cast A Deadly Spell" was a made-for-HBO movie that placed the noir-style detective story inside of a horror universe, specifically a Lovecraftian universe. The setting is 1948 Los Angeles, and everyone uses magic. Kids cast curses on cars as a form of juvenile vandalism, actual gremlins crawl inside cars and other devices, and the new thing in the construction industry is having zombies as the new labor force. The only exception to the general rule is Detective Harry "Phil" Lovecraft, who maintains a no-magic usage policy in a world growing heady with the use of mystical energy. This "peculiarity" attracts the attention of the rich Amos Hackshaw, who hires Lovecraft to track down a stolen book...the Necronomicon.
Honestly, finding a copy of this movie to watch can be a pain and a half; but I submit to you, fearless blog reader, that this is a treasure to find and view. I will say that this selection is not a movie to take too seriously... in-jokes about horror movies in general abound, and the fusion of these two genres is...well...quirky, I'll admit it. (A reference to the previous entry: Curse of the Demon is what prompted this selection.) Also, the effects aren't the sort that will have serious horror veterans cringing at all. Still, the casting is ideal and the story moves along at a brisk pace. I actually think that the combination worked fairly well, and certainly "Cast..." is a distinct and unique creation...something that can be lacking in a genre that has been argued as being repetitive.
But find it, watch it...it's not that long of a movie and will not leave indelible scars in the psyche, unless you are the type who simply cannot stand mixing your peanut butter and your chocolate.
I give Cast A Deadly Spell 3 dogpuke ties out of 5.
"Cast A Deadly Spell" was a made-for-HBO movie that placed the noir-style detective story inside of a horror universe, specifically a Lovecraftian universe. The setting is 1948 Los Angeles, and everyone uses magic. Kids cast curses on cars as a form of juvenile vandalism, actual gremlins crawl inside cars and other devices, and the new thing in the construction industry is having zombies as the new labor force. The only exception to the general rule is Detective Harry "Phil" Lovecraft, who maintains a no-magic usage policy in a world growing heady with the use of mystical energy. This "peculiarity" attracts the attention of the rich Amos Hackshaw, who hires Lovecraft to track down a stolen book...the Necronomicon.
Honestly, finding a copy of this movie to watch can be a pain and a half; but I submit to you, fearless blog reader, that this is a treasure to find and view. I will say that this selection is not a movie to take too seriously... in-jokes about horror movies in general abound, and the fusion of these two genres is...well...quirky, I'll admit it. (A reference to the previous entry: Curse of the Demon is what prompted this selection.) Also, the effects aren't the sort that will have serious horror veterans cringing at all. Still, the casting is ideal and the story moves along at a brisk pace. I actually think that the combination worked fairly well, and certainly "Cast..." is a distinct and unique creation...something that can be lacking in a genre that has been argued as being repetitive.
But find it, watch it...it's not that long of a movie and will not leave indelible scars in the psyche, unless you are the type who simply cannot stand mixing your peanut butter and your chocolate.
I give Cast A Deadly Spell 3 dogpuke ties out of 5.
Friday, April 8, 2011
Curse of the Demon
Curse of the Demon...1957...95 minutes...starring Dana Andrews, Peggy Cummins, Niall MacGinnis, and Athene Sayler...written by Charles Bennett, Hal E. Chester, and Cy Endfield...directed by Jacques Tourneur
Dr. John Holden has headed to a London psychological symposium to debunk cult leader Julian Karswell, stressing the power of the rational mind to see through Karswell's supposed supernatural powers. Holden meets the niece of an associate, Professor Henry Harrington, and Holden and Joanna find themselves working together not only to expose Karswell but to understand the mysterious circumstances surrounding Professor Harrington's death. Karswell passed a parchment to the older Harrington with mystic runes inscribed upon it, runes that are supposed to attract a demon to slay the holder of the parchment...and now the same fate is to befall Dr. Holden. Is there dark magic at work, or is Karswell simply an expert at manipulating the minds of those around him?
I will make no bones that I find this an excellent movie, although I do constantly wish that the studio had let Tourneur have his way and not insist upon having a monster in the film. I believe that it's fairly obvious that these sequences aren't a smooth fit, and the insertion really takes away from the whole debate: supernatural or psychological? I think it would have been a much better movie if the viewer could fit his/her own ideas on to what really happened by the end of the movie.
Even so, there are some sequences in the movie that are cinematic gold. The one that always comes to mind is Karswell at his estate, dressed like a clown and having just performed stage magic, summoning up a storm out of nowhere. Of course, Holden is having none of it, thinking the magician is simply an expert of prediction and timing. Overall, it's a tight story, and in a time when we have reality shows like Ghost Hunters on the air, I submit that it's primary conflict holds up as relevant.
And yes, the sample dialogue at the start of Kate Bush's "Hounds Of Love" is pulled from this movie.
I give this movie 4 slippery slips of paper out of 5.
Dr. John Holden has headed to a London psychological symposium to debunk cult leader Julian Karswell, stressing the power of the rational mind to see through Karswell's supposed supernatural powers. Holden meets the niece of an associate, Professor Henry Harrington, and Holden and Joanna find themselves working together not only to expose Karswell but to understand the mysterious circumstances surrounding Professor Harrington's death. Karswell passed a parchment to the older Harrington with mystic runes inscribed upon it, runes that are supposed to attract a demon to slay the holder of the parchment...and now the same fate is to befall Dr. Holden. Is there dark magic at work, or is Karswell simply an expert at manipulating the minds of those around him?
I will make no bones that I find this an excellent movie, although I do constantly wish that the studio had let Tourneur have his way and not insist upon having a monster in the film. I believe that it's fairly obvious that these sequences aren't a smooth fit, and the insertion really takes away from the whole debate: supernatural or psychological? I think it would have been a much better movie if the viewer could fit his/her own ideas on to what really happened by the end of the movie.
Even so, there are some sequences in the movie that are cinematic gold. The one that always comes to mind is Karswell at his estate, dressed like a clown and having just performed stage magic, summoning up a storm out of nowhere. Of course, Holden is having none of it, thinking the magician is simply an expert of prediction and timing. Overall, it's a tight story, and in a time when we have reality shows like Ghost Hunters on the air, I submit that it's primary conflict holds up as relevant.
And yes, the sample dialogue at the start of Kate Bush's "Hounds Of Love" is pulled from this movie.
I give this movie 4 slippery slips of paper out of 5.
Grace
Grace...2009...85 minutes...R...starring Jordan Ladd, Stephen Parker, Gabrielle Rose, and Samantha Ferris...written and directed by Paul Solet
Michael and Madeleine Matheson are expecting a baby. It's a bit of a stressful time, because Madeline has been pregnant twice before and neither time ended well. Madeline is also bumping heads with her mother-in-law, who of course knows better and is certainly against Madeline's idea of a midwife. (Apparently the midwife and Madeleine had something going back in the day, too, but that's neither here nor there.) The midwife, Patricia, earns her trust with the family by stopping an unnecessary inducement, but fate is not kind for the Mathesons as they get into a car wreck soon after. The baby's expected to be stillborn, but Madeline's baby comes to life. Thus, Grace is born. And Grace needs to feed.
"Grace" as a movie is certainly an uncomfortable business, especially if you're male, or a parent, or if the idea of undead babies sounds like a thinly veiled form of tacky humor. The movie is certainly not played for any laughs, and I wasn't sure if I was going to be able to make it through this one. Fortunately, it's disturbing without being overly graphic...the last scene being the exception to this rule...though admittedly it's violent at places. Certainly it's an exploration through the medium of horror of how far someone will go for their child, no matter what the circumstances.
I'll also admit that as a guy, I was maybe a bit more squeamish at certain scenes than a female might be. The birthing scene was tragic, but also just plain "itchy" in places for me. The cast in the movie is largely female, and I kind of felt that the movie was aimed more for women than for men...though I think if you're a parent, you'll find it effective. Enjoyable is another matter altogether, but I'll admit it's been a while where I've been genuinely bothered by what I'm watching. I think that horror should disturb if it's well done, playing upon those fears we harbor in our hearts and the dark portions of our minds.
Or you may just find the whole concept tacky and tasteless. I'm alternating between the two...and so while I won't recommend the movie, I'm going to give it a good rating because it obviously hit somewhere effective for me. All this said...*full body shudder*
I give it 3 hovering flies out of 5.
Michael and Madeleine Matheson are expecting a baby. It's a bit of a stressful time, because Madeline has been pregnant twice before and neither time ended well. Madeline is also bumping heads with her mother-in-law, who of course knows better and is certainly against Madeline's idea of a midwife. (Apparently the midwife and Madeleine had something going back in the day, too, but that's neither here nor there.) The midwife, Patricia, earns her trust with the family by stopping an unnecessary inducement, but fate is not kind for the Mathesons as they get into a car wreck soon after. The baby's expected to be stillborn, but Madeline's baby comes to life. Thus, Grace is born. And Grace needs to feed.
"Grace" as a movie is certainly an uncomfortable business, especially if you're male, or a parent, or if the idea of undead babies sounds like a thinly veiled form of tacky humor. The movie is certainly not played for any laughs, and I wasn't sure if I was going to be able to make it through this one. Fortunately, it's disturbing without being overly graphic...the last scene being the exception to this rule...though admittedly it's violent at places. Certainly it's an exploration through the medium of horror of how far someone will go for their child, no matter what the circumstances.
I'll also admit that as a guy, I was maybe a bit more squeamish at certain scenes than a female might be. The birthing scene was tragic, but also just plain "itchy" in places for me. The cast in the movie is largely female, and I kind of felt that the movie was aimed more for women than for men...though I think if you're a parent, you'll find it effective. Enjoyable is another matter altogether, but I'll admit it's been a while where I've been genuinely bothered by what I'm watching. I think that horror should disturb if it's well done, playing upon those fears we harbor in our hearts and the dark portions of our minds.
Or you may just find the whole concept tacky and tasteless. I'm alternating between the two...and so while I won't recommend the movie, I'm going to give it a good rating because it obviously hit somewhere effective for me. All this said...*full body shudder*
I give it 3 hovering flies out of 5.
Thursday, April 7, 2011
The Haunting of Molly Hartley
The Haunting of Molly Hartley...2008...82 minutes...PG-13...starring Haley Bennett, Jake Weber, Chace Crawford and Shanna Collins...written by John Travis and Rebecca Sonnenshine...directed by Mickey Liddell
Molly Hartley has had it rough. She's had to move to a new school and try to start her life over after her mom...well, after her mother tried to stab her with a pair of scissors. No one would be surprised that Molly's having a little stress in her bid to readjust and move on with her life...especially as her 18th birthday comes up. Yeah, Molly has her share of demons...the question is whether or not they're metaphorical.
I found this selection to be a bland offering; not particularly good but really not bad in any way as well. In the horror genre, this kind of tastelessness can be the kiss of death. Even bad films can develop a following, especially if they hit that "so bad it's good" point for viewers. But this movie just kind of sits there...no performances stand out for me but none are really terrible or hammy...okay, the school counselor borders on hammy but that's about it. The writing is decent but not exactly scintillating...and the movie looks like what a teen angst horror-ish movie would be expected to be. It's tofu.
That said, there are a couple of things that the movie brings up that I'd like to hit on while we're here. One, religious fervor is one of those things that apparently unnerves people. Maybe this is a movie heritage left to us from "Carrie"...her mother being a sterling portrait of faith gone too far. Maybe it's just a reflection of our society's rational instincts butting heads with the irrationality of faith: where is the line between conviction and craziness? I do find it interesting that in some movies, it's the religious nuts that know what's really going on...which to me only complicates the issue. (Call of Cthulhu roleplayers might be familiar with the idea of the insane insight...seems like what we have going on here.)
Second, I'm not sure if this cinematic selection plays more to the idea that growing up is a loss of innocence or to the parental fear of children becoming the wrong sort of adults when they grow up. Certainly things do not end well for either of Molly's parents in the movie...although honestly, if you make a shaitan's bargain, these sorts of things end up happening. Mostly, I realized that the lack of control a parent must feel when a child does indeed become an adult has to be terrifying, and I expect there's a lot of worry over what sort of person the once-child will become. (Can you tell I am -not- a parent?)
Overall, these are but interesting tangents to a so-so film. I give this one 2.5 scissors out of 5.
Molly Hartley has had it rough. She's had to move to a new school and try to start her life over after her mom...well, after her mother tried to stab her with a pair of scissors. No one would be surprised that Molly's having a little stress in her bid to readjust and move on with her life...especially as her 18th birthday comes up. Yeah, Molly has her share of demons...the question is whether or not they're metaphorical.
I found this selection to be a bland offering; not particularly good but really not bad in any way as well. In the horror genre, this kind of tastelessness can be the kiss of death. Even bad films can develop a following, especially if they hit that "so bad it's good" point for viewers. But this movie just kind of sits there...no performances stand out for me but none are really terrible or hammy...okay, the school counselor borders on hammy but that's about it. The writing is decent but not exactly scintillating...and the movie looks like what a teen angst horror-ish movie would be expected to be. It's tofu.
That said, there are a couple of things that the movie brings up that I'd like to hit on while we're here. One, religious fervor is one of those things that apparently unnerves people. Maybe this is a movie heritage left to us from "Carrie"...her mother being a sterling portrait of faith gone too far. Maybe it's just a reflection of our society's rational instincts butting heads with the irrationality of faith: where is the line between conviction and craziness? I do find it interesting that in some movies, it's the religious nuts that know what's really going on...which to me only complicates the issue. (Call of Cthulhu roleplayers might be familiar with the idea of the insane insight...seems like what we have going on here.)
Second, I'm not sure if this cinematic selection plays more to the idea that growing up is a loss of innocence or to the parental fear of children becoming the wrong sort of adults when they grow up. Certainly things do not end well for either of Molly's parents in the movie...although honestly, if you make a shaitan's bargain, these sorts of things end up happening. Mostly, I realized that the lack of control a parent must feel when a child does indeed become an adult has to be terrifying, and I expect there's a lot of worry over what sort of person the once-child will become. (Can you tell I am -not- a parent?)
Overall, these are but interesting tangents to a so-so film. I give this one 2.5 scissors out of 5.
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Creepshow
Creepshow...1982...120 minutes...rated R...starring (in various segments) Hal Holbrook, Adrienne Barbeau, Leslie Nielsen, and Ed Harris...written by Stephen King...directed by George Romero
This movie is a throwback to segmented horror films as well as an homage to horror magazines like "Creepy" and "Eerie" which were popular in what seems like an age ago. These comics were also the bane of good parenting as they depicted all sorts of supernatural foulness like corpses rising from the grave, strange creatures, and people getting their just desserts, usually in horrible ways and with the most wonderful sound depictions thrown in.
Honestly, I expect this movie to be an acquired taste. The segmented horror film has mostly gone the way of the dodo, and largely for good reason. One of the last ones I remember seeing was the fourth Hellraiser movie, which went this route with the history of the puzzle box and the LeMarchand family. Usually the movies would end up being uneven, with people having their favorite segments and occasionally having a piece that was just plain painful to sit through. Still, this type of movie had its day...and with the various stories one could find in a horror magazine, it was a natural fit.
Still, the movie has (for me anyways) some wonderful moments. "The Lonesome Death of Jordy Verrill" is amusing to watch as Stephen King plays a farm yokel who meets your typical bad end. Adrienne Barbeau and Hal Holbrook are always good performers to watch, no matter what material they're given. Leslie Nielsen is rather sinister in his piece,which is atypical of the comedies he's known for. Of course, I would be remiss is I didn't point out the superb dancing skills of Ed Harris as well.
I find it a fun movie largely because my dad had a huge stack of the first issues of "Creepy" magazine, and I remember reading them when I would visit him. Horror was one of the few ways we connected, which sounds bad...and certainly it wasn't good, but time has managed to soften much of the bad parts of our relationship since his passing more than 10 years ago now. So my rating does reflect some sentimentality, be warned. Maybe not a lot though...
I give this film 2.5 floating specters out of 5.
This movie is a throwback to segmented horror films as well as an homage to horror magazines like "Creepy" and "Eerie" which were popular in what seems like an age ago. These comics were also the bane of good parenting as they depicted all sorts of supernatural foulness like corpses rising from the grave, strange creatures, and people getting their just desserts, usually in horrible ways and with the most wonderful sound depictions thrown in.
Honestly, I expect this movie to be an acquired taste. The segmented horror film has mostly gone the way of the dodo, and largely for good reason. One of the last ones I remember seeing was the fourth Hellraiser movie, which went this route with the history of the puzzle box and the LeMarchand family. Usually the movies would end up being uneven, with people having their favorite segments and occasionally having a piece that was just plain painful to sit through. Still, this type of movie had its day...and with the various stories one could find in a horror magazine, it was a natural fit.
Still, the movie has (for me anyways) some wonderful moments. "The Lonesome Death of Jordy Verrill" is amusing to watch as Stephen King plays a farm yokel who meets your typical bad end. Adrienne Barbeau and Hal Holbrook are always good performers to watch, no matter what material they're given. Leslie Nielsen is rather sinister in his piece,which is atypical of the comedies he's known for. Of course, I would be remiss is I didn't point out the superb dancing skills of Ed Harris as well.
I find it a fun movie largely because my dad had a huge stack of the first issues of "Creepy" magazine, and I remember reading them when I would visit him. Horror was one of the few ways we connected, which sounds bad...and certainly it wasn't good, but time has managed to soften much of the bad parts of our relationship since his passing more than 10 years ago now. So my rating does reflect some sentimentality, be warned. Maybe not a lot though...
I give this film 2.5 floating specters out of 5.
Saturday, March 5, 2011
Jennifer's Body
Jennifer's Body...2009...102 minutes...rated R...starring Amanda Seyfried, Megan Fox, Johnny Simmons, and Adam Brody...written by Diablo Cody...directed by Karyn Kusama
Needy and Jennifer are BFF's that have known each other since they were small, and nothing could ever get in the way of their friendship. That is, until they decide to go out to a local watering hole in Devil's Kettle to see an up-and-coming indy band by the name of Low Shoulder. Jennifer hooks up with the band after the bar burns down, and has a night she never expected. After that, she's a little different...an "eating people" kind of different. The boys in the town are becoming appetizers, and Jennifer's new attitude is causing a serious strain on the two girls' friendship. What will Needy have to do...especially when her boyfriend starts looking like lunch?
Sometimes the fusion of comedy and horror works brilliantly, and sometimes you just get an odd flavor of movie. This movie for me stayed more around the "tangeloberry" end of that spectrum...despite all the jokes you can make about Megan Fox being a maneater, that this film simply revealed what Michael Bay already knew, etc etc. Still, if your preference runs toward quirky, "Jennifer's Body" has much that it can offer you. J.K. Simmonds has a smalll part as a local teacher with a hook for a hand who is just...odd, but amusingly so. Lance Henricksen also has a small cameo, which was a welcome sight.
Amusing as it can be in moments, the movie felt forced in places, and I never quite figured out if it was to be completely satirical or have moments where we were actually supposed to feel for these oddball teens and their demonic problem. I also didn't quite understand how or why Needy and Jennifer were as "linked" as they were in moments, besides the obvious childhood connection. Was it deliberate on Jennifer's part, was it because they were "blood sisters", or was it just something that the writer just couldn't be bothered to explain? Ditto with all the native wildlife being drawn in on some scenes...I've seen plenty of movies and read my share of occult books and that still left me scratching my head a bit.
The movie's bumpy and uneven, but I also know that you can find worse things to kill off an evening with. Don't spend money or anything on this one, but if it comes up on cable, you might want to give it a look. I'll give this film 2.5 bowie knives out of 5.
Needy and Jennifer are BFF's that have known each other since they were small, and nothing could ever get in the way of their friendship. That is, until they decide to go out to a local watering hole in Devil's Kettle to see an up-and-coming indy band by the name of Low Shoulder. Jennifer hooks up with the band after the bar burns down, and has a night she never expected. After that, she's a little different...an "eating people" kind of different. The boys in the town are becoming appetizers, and Jennifer's new attitude is causing a serious strain on the two girls' friendship. What will Needy have to do...especially when her boyfriend starts looking like lunch?
Sometimes the fusion of comedy and horror works brilliantly, and sometimes you just get an odd flavor of movie. This movie for me stayed more around the "tangeloberry" end of that spectrum...despite all the jokes you can make about Megan Fox being a maneater, that this film simply revealed what Michael Bay already knew, etc etc. Still, if your preference runs toward quirky, "Jennifer's Body" has much that it can offer you. J.K. Simmonds has a smalll part as a local teacher with a hook for a hand who is just...odd, but amusingly so. Lance Henricksen also has a small cameo, which was a welcome sight.
Amusing as it can be in moments, the movie felt forced in places, and I never quite figured out if it was to be completely satirical or have moments where we were actually supposed to feel for these oddball teens and their demonic problem. I also didn't quite understand how or why Needy and Jennifer were as "linked" as they were in moments, besides the obvious childhood connection. Was it deliberate on Jennifer's part, was it because they were "blood sisters", or was it just something that the writer just couldn't be bothered to explain? Ditto with all the native wildlife being drawn in on some scenes...I've seen plenty of movies and read my share of occult books and that still left me scratching my head a bit.
The movie's bumpy and uneven, but I also know that you can find worse things to kill off an evening with. Don't spend money or anything on this one, but if it comes up on cable, you might want to give it a look. I'll give this film 2.5 bowie knives out of 5.
Thursday, March 3, 2011
The Lost Boys
The Lost Boys...1987...97 minutes...R...starring Jason Patric, Corey Haim, Dianne Wiest, Keifer Sutherland, Jami Gertz, and Corey Feldman...written by Janice Fischer, James Jeremias, and Jeffrey Boam...directed by Joel Schumacher
Meet Michael and Sam, two displaced brothers who have relocated to Santa Carla with their mom and have moved in with Grandpa. It's bad enough trying to settle in to a new home in the best of circumstances; it's much worse when your new town is reputedly the murder capital of the world. It's also much worse when one of the most attractive girls in town hangs with a gang of biker punks...and they all turn out to be vampires. It's not long before Michael comes down with a case of semi-vampirism, leaving Sam to recruit two local teens...the Fearless Frog Brothers...to help fight off Michael's new friends, and maybe even Michael himself.
"The Lost Boys" is a seminal 80s vampire movie, still eminently quotable to this day. It's got a notable cast, quirky dialogue, wonderful characters, and enough gloss to shine the grubbiest of floors. (Well, it's Joel Schumacher, what did you expect?) Unlike a lot of Dracula movies and various 70s films with vampires, this movie is where we really start seeing younger, sexier bloodsucking fiends. Tuxedos and opera coats are traded in for leather jackets and trenchcoats, while the vampire hunters aren't doctors or scientists but offbeat comic geeks instead. Make no mistake, if you're wondering how we got to vampire romance novels saturating the book market and shows like "True Blood" holding popular shares of ratings, movies like "The Lost Boys" are at the heart of it...(yes, Anne Rice gets her share of the blame/glory as well, but I'm discussing movies here.)
While there's a good share of gore and goo (vampires don't die neatly in this movie), there's not a whole lot of actual scares in this movie...it's vampire heavy but horror light, if you will. I think this also has much tom do with the appeal of this movie; it's a vampire movie for people wouldn't normally watch horror.
Still, as I've said before, something entertaining is worth its weight in appeal. I give this one 4 holy water squirt-guns out of 5.
Meet Michael and Sam, two displaced brothers who have relocated to Santa Carla with their mom and have moved in with Grandpa. It's bad enough trying to settle in to a new home in the best of circumstances; it's much worse when your new town is reputedly the murder capital of the world. It's also much worse when one of the most attractive girls in town hangs with a gang of biker punks...and they all turn out to be vampires. It's not long before Michael comes down with a case of semi-vampirism, leaving Sam to recruit two local teens...the Fearless Frog Brothers...to help fight off Michael's new friends, and maybe even Michael himself.
"The Lost Boys" is a seminal 80s vampire movie, still eminently quotable to this day. It's got a notable cast, quirky dialogue, wonderful characters, and enough gloss to shine the grubbiest of floors. (Well, it's Joel Schumacher, what did you expect?) Unlike a lot of Dracula movies and various 70s films with vampires, this movie is where we really start seeing younger, sexier bloodsucking fiends. Tuxedos and opera coats are traded in for leather jackets and trenchcoats, while the vampire hunters aren't doctors or scientists but offbeat comic geeks instead. Make no mistake, if you're wondering how we got to vampire romance novels saturating the book market and shows like "True Blood" holding popular shares of ratings, movies like "The Lost Boys" are at the heart of it...(yes, Anne Rice gets her share of the blame/glory as well, but I'm discussing movies here.)
While there's a good share of gore and goo (vampires don't die neatly in this movie), there's not a whole lot of actual scares in this movie...it's vampire heavy but horror light, if you will. I think this also has much tom do with the appeal of this movie; it's a vampire movie for people wouldn't normally watch horror.
Still, as I've said before, something entertaining is worth its weight in appeal. I give this one 4 holy water squirt-guns out of 5.
Fright Night
Fright Night...1985...106 minutes....rated R...starring William Ragsdale, Chris Sarandon, Amanda Bearse, and Roddy McDowell...written and directed by Tom Holland
Poor Charley Brewster, he thought he had it bad just trying to get into his girlfriend's pants. Life takes a serious turn for the worse when a vampire and his (ghoul? housebuddy? whatever) move into the house next door. Of course, no one believes him...not the school horror geek, not his girlfriend, certainly not the police, and not even the host of the late night horror movie show, Mr. Peter Vincent (Vampire Slayer! Or at least in the movies he was in.) How is Charlie going to survive the wrath of his undead neighbor?
Okay, this may not be the best movie ever, but it is one that is near and dear to my heart. Partially I find it so because it's out of my teenage years, partially because I think that Roddy McDowell is at his best here as a washed-up actor trying to help Charlie find his bearings (after being paid, of course). I'm also fond of the whole "Evil Ed" character as well. It's a charming, fairly tight, entertaining movie...and I think we should respect the films that make us feel good, technically perfect or not.
I'm not such a big fan of Amanda Bearse...though it's amusing to remember that she was here before she was on "Married With Children". I had a hard time believing that a vampire would find her appealing, even if she resembled someone he once knew. The makeup effects are what they were for movies at the time, and if some of them seem cheesy, at least they work with the concept of parodying old vampire films. That said, when Amy inevitably turns vampiric, there's a shot where her mouth is split incredibly wide open that I still find a touch unsettling.
Something to note is the vampire himself. He's not calling himself something archaic like Vlad or Yorga, but by the perfectly acceptable name of Jerry Dandridge. He dresses like a yuppie, has wonderful but not formal manners, and there's a touch of the devilish rogue about him. We know he has some sort of history, but he's perfectly comfortable in the modern age of the 80s as opposed to living in a moldering old castle. Vampirism seems less like a terrible curse, though there's still evil in it...the trend of making vampires more mainstream has begun right here in this movie,but will get a big push later in Schumacher's "The Lost Boys".
I give this one 3.5 chewed apples out of 5...and who knew vampires ate apples?
Poor Charley Brewster, he thought he had it bad just trying to get into his girlfriend's pants. Life takes a serious turn for the worse when a vampire and his (ghoul? housebuddy? whatever) move into the house next door. Of course, no one believes him...not the school horror geek, not his girlfriend, certainly not the police, and not even the host of the late night horror movie show, Mr. Peter Vincent (Vampire Slayer! Or at least in the movies he was in.) How is Charlie going to survive the wrath of his undead neighbor?
Okay, this may not be the best movie ever, but it is one that is near and dear to my heart. Partially I find it so because it's out of my teenage years, partially because I think that Roddy McDowell is at his best here as a washed-up actor trying to help Charlie find his bearings (after being paid, of course). I'm also fond of the whole "Evil Ed" character as well. It's a charming, fairly tight, entertaining movie...and I think we should respect the films that make us feel good, technically perfect or not.
I'm not such a big fan of Amanda Bearse...though it's amusing to remember that she was here before she was on "Married With Children". I had a hard time believing that a vampire would find her appealing, even if she resembled someone he once knew. The makeup effects are what they were for movies at the time, and if some of them seem cheesy, at least they work with the concept of parodying old vampire films. That said, when Amy inevitably turns vampiric, there's a shot where her mouth is split incredibly wide open that I still find a touch unsettling.
Something to note is the vampire himself. He's not calling himself something archaic like Vlad or Yorga, but by the perfectly acceptable name of Jerry Dandridge. He dresses like a yuppie, has wonderful but not formal manners, and there's a touch of the devilish rogue about him. We know he has some sort of history, but he's perfectly comfortable in the modern age of the 80s as opposed to living in a moldering old castle. Vampirism seems less like a terrible curse, though there's still evil in it...the trend of making vampires more mainstream has begun right here in this movie,but will get a big push later in Schumacher's "The Lost Boys".
I give this one 3.5 chewed apples out of 5...and who knew vampires ate apples?
Monday, February 28, 2011
The Thing (1982)
The Thing...1982...109 minutes...rated R...starring Kurt Russell, Wilford Brimley, Keith David, and Richard Dysart...written by Bill Lancaster...directed by John Carpenter
Apparently, Norwegians hate dogs! Or so a team of Americans stationed in the Antarctic wilds would believe, when a helicopter from a "neighboring" station shows up with people using guns and grenades to try and obliterate an innocent-looking husky. Of course, these guys are crazy, aren't they? What could have possibly caused such a rampage? Such is the mystery that we as viewers are led into within the first few minutes of this John Carpenter remake of the 1951 movie "The Thing From Another World".
If you're expecting a calm, possibly staid movie remake...perhaps something reminiscent of the new "The Day The Earth Stood Still"...this is not the movie for you. If instead you are looking for something with gory, pre-CGI creature effects, plenty of action, and lots of paranoia-induced tension "The Thing" may be something for you. Since it's a Carpenter creation, the soundtrack is one that will hit the mood well. (especially as done by Ennio Morricone)
There are some things that may or may not suit you; Kurt Russell is the lead, which is no surprise for Carpernter fans but which may not be a turn-on for everyone. Also, you get to see Mr. Diabetes himself, Wilford Brimley, emote a lot as he tries to look either concerned, grim, or just driven over the edge. It's not exactly what I would call a pretty sight. I watched this movie on cable not long after it had it come out, on vacation no less, and as a teen I thought this was one of the grossest things I had ever seen. (The effects are just over the top, which I found...and still find...a selling point.) Perhaps a modern audience would be a bit more jaded, but I will say that even now this is not a movie for the faint-hearted. And like any Carpenter piece, you'll either find this brilliant, unfinished and perhaps underpolished, or both.
As a Carpenter fan, I give it 3 torn pair of long johns out of 5.
Apparently, Norwegians hate dogs! Or so a team of Americans stationed in the Antarctic wilds would believe, when a helicopter from a "neighboring" station shows up with people using guns and grenades to try and obliterate an innocent-looking husky. Of course, these guys are crazy, aren't they? What could have possibly caused such a rampage? Such is the mystery that we as viewers are led into within the first few minutes of this John Carpenter remake of the 1951 movie "The Thing From Another World".
If you're expecting a calm, possibly staid movie remake...perhaps something reminiscent of the new "The Day The Earth Stood Still"...this is not the movie for you. If instead you are looking for something with gory, pre-CGI creature effects, plenty of action, and lots of paranoia-induced tension "The Thing" may be something for you. Since it's a Carpenter creation, the soundtrack is one that will hit the mood well. (especially as done by Ennio Morricone)
There are some things that may or may not suit you; Kurt Russell is the lead, which is no surprise for Carpernter fans but which may not be a turn-on for everyone. Also, you get to see Mr. Diabetes himself, Wilford Brimley, emote a lot as he tries to look either concerned, grim, or just driven over the edge. It's not exactly what I would call a pretty sight. I watched this movie on cable not long after it had it come out, on vacation no less, and as a teen I thought this was one of the grossest things I had ever seen. (The effects are just over the top, which I found...and still find...a selling point.) Perhaps a modern audience would be a bit more jaded, but I will say that even now this is not a movie for the faint-hearted. And like any Carpenter piece, you'll either find this brilliant, unfinished and perhaps underpolished, or both.
As a Carpenter fan, I give it 3 torn pair of long johns out of 5.
An American Haunting
An American Haunting...2005...83 minutes...unrated...starring Donald Sutherland, Sissy Spacek, James D'Arcy, and Rachel Hurd-Wood...written and directed by Courtney Solomon, based off the novel by Brent Monahan.
Set in Red River, TN, the movie has a story-within-a-story framework, where a modern young girl is having horrible nightmares, and has managed to recover an old doll as well as some family letters from the attic. Her mother starts reading the letters and is led into the main tale of her ancestors: the Bell family. They have found themselves afflicted with an evil spirit after another townsperson...reputed to be a witch...curses the family for being financially wronged. The spirit focuses on the daughter of John Bell, Betsy, and the tale follows the family and others drawn in to help protect the teenage girl from the wrathful entity.
I'll get to the gist of what bothers me with this movie; and it has nothing to do with acting, cinematography, or any of the other technical aspects of the film as a film. I'll also try to be brief, but it bears some explaining. I'm not a native Tennessean; having moved down to Knoxville from western NY thirty years ago this summer. Still, having been brought up in this area as it were, I'd like to think some of the area's culture has rubbed off on me. And while most of the nation would simply consider the people in the movie fictional characters, it's based off of accounts written by the Bell family...who still have descendants in this state.
I went to school with a young woman who was part of the Bell family. I don't know how directly she was related to these particular peoples, nor were we close...just schoolmates and classmates, which is its own curious relationship. The point, however, is that the story isn't about a "faceless" family, if you can follow my gist. The ending of the movie makes an interesting allegation...I can't say with any authority if it's true or not, and honestly it doesn't make a difference in my mind. If it is, then to my mind the movie is spreading a family's dirty laundry out to the world as entertainment...and while no one has ever accused of Hollywood of having good taste (or accused me of the same, either...with reason.) I find this horribly tacky. If the story isn't true, then the director is damaging reputations, spreading vicious gossip, and acting ...again... inappropriately, in my opinion.
[Also, for something that's supposed to be a retelling of the legend, there's a lot that's just left out. Andrew Jackson's run-in with the Bell Witch, for example...gone.]
So, as spoiler-free as possible (which I also find tacky, but in this case less so than what I just discussed), I give this movie 1.5 old moppets out of 5; for sheer bad taste.
Set in Red River, TN, the movie has a story-within-a-story framework, where a modern young girl is having horrible nightmares, and has managed to recover an old doll as well as some family letters from the attic. Her mother starts reading the letters and is led into the main tale of her ancestors: the Bell family. They have found themselves afflicted with an evil spirit after another townsperson...reputed to be a witch...curses the family for being financially wronged. The spirit focuses on the daughter of John Bell, Betsy, and the tale follows the family and others drawn in to help protect the teenage girl from the wrathful entity.
I'll get to the gist of what bothers me with this movie; and it has nothing to do with acting, cinematography, or any of the other technical aspects of the film as a film. I'll also try to be brief, but it bears some explaining. I'm not a native Tennessean; having moved down to Knoxville from western NY thirty years ago this summer. Still, having been brought up in this area as it were, I'd like to think some of the area's culture has rubbed off on me. And while most of the nation would simply consider the people in the movie fictional characters, it's based off of accounts written by the Bell family...who still have descendants in this state.
I went to school with a young woman who was part of the Bell family. I don't know how directly she was related to these particular peoples, nor were we close...just schoolmates and classmates, which is its own curious relationship. The point, however, is that the story isn't about a "faceless" family, if you can follow my gist. The ending of the movie makes an interesting allegation...I can't say with any authority if it's true or not, and honestly it doesn't make a difference in my mind. If it is, then to my mind the movie is spreading a family's dirty laundry out to the world as entertainment...and while no one has ever accused of Hollywood of having good taste (or accused me of the same, either...with reason.) I find this horribly tacky. If the story isn't true, then the director is damaging reputations, spreading vicious gossip, and acting ...again... inappropriately, in my opinion.
[Also, for something that's supposed to be a retelling of the legend, there's a lot that's just left out. Andrew Jackson's run-in with the Bell Witch, for example...gone.]
So, as spoiler-free as possible (which I also find tacky, but in this case less so than what I just discussed), I give this movie 1.5 old moppets out of 5; for sheer bad taste.
Saturday, February 19, 2011
Are You Scared 2
AreYou Scared 2...2009...95(ish) minutes...R...starring Tristan Wright, Chad Guerrero, Kathy Gardiner, Andrea Monier and Tony Todd...written and directed by Russell Appling and John Lands
Two guys and their female companions are a web-cache tracking team, where they track down hidden stockpiles of stuff others have hid and posted on the web. They log their exploits on the Internet as Team DNA and are on their way to being the world record holders of this variant of hide-and-seek. Needless to say, their last hunt turns into a BIT more than they bargained for.
How do I describe this movie? When I saw the title, and wondered to myself that the original title would inspire a sequel, my initial answer was "Yes.I'm scared. Scared anyone would make a franchise out of such manure". But in my wildest dreams, I could never have imagined the depths of inadequacy that this straight-to-video release would take me to.
I have found the Eleusinian Mysteries of the bad horror movie, and allow me to explain this statement. I can tell you (and I do...yeah, verily, I surely do) that this movie is bad. I can say that this is positively one of the worst pieces of crap I have wasted an hour and a half of my life on. But saying these things cannot convey to you the sheer experience of this tripe...only by watching it (and please, please don't) can you truly KNOW how bad the genre can sink to. My only question is: Why, Tony Todd, why? Did you really need the small amount of money that these people could get you -that- badly?
If you're curious, this story has nothing to do with the original. They left the original open for more, but that wouldn't have been bad enough. I'm not even sure I can point to any one thing that makes this thing so terrible; it's the perfect storm of terrible vectors that create a tsunami of tragic filmmaking. I could make better. I think I did when I was 8 or so making short movies with my action figures.
Now let me explain my rating. I give it 1/2 of a briefcase out of 5...only because deep in my soul I have the terrible knowledge that if I give this thing the zero that it truly deserves, I will somehow stumble onto something worse. I'm not sure that's possible, but by acknowledging the slimmest of possibilities, I hope to stave off a fate worse than having a 100 Cthulhu Mythos score. If you'll excuse me, I need to gargle with some Lovecraft.
Blech, uck, and barf!
Two guys and their female companions are a web-cache tracking team, where they track down hidden stockpiles of stuff others have hid and posted on the web. They log their exploits on the Internet as Team DNA and are on their way to being the world record holders of this variant of hide-and-seek. Needless to say, their last hunt turns into a BIT more than they bargained for.
How do I describe this movie? When I saw the title, and wondered to myself that the original title would inspire a sequel, my initial answer was "Yes.I'm scared. Scared anyone would make a franchise out of such manure". But in my wildest dreams, I could never have imagined the depths of inadequacy that this straight-to-video release would take me to.
I have found the Eleusinian Mysteries of the bad horror movie, and allow me to explain this statement. I can tell you (and I do...yeah, verily, I surely do) that this movie is bad. I can say that this is positively one of the worst pieces of crap I have wasted an hour and a half of my life on. But saying these things cannot convey to you the sheer experience of this tripe...only by watching it (and please, please don't) can you truly KNOW how bad the genre can sink to. My only question is: Why, Tony Todd, why? Did you really need the small amount of money that these people could get you -that- badly?
If you're curious, this story has nothing to do with the original. They left the original open for more, but that wouldn't have been bad enough. I'm not even sure I can point to any one thing that makes this thing so terrible; it's the perfect storm of terrible vectors that create a tsunami of tragic filmmaking. I could make better. I think I did when I was 8 or so making short movies with my action figures.
Now let me explain my rating. I give it 1/2 of a briefcase out of 5...only because deep in my soul I have the terrible knowledge that if I give this thing the zero that it truly deserves, I will somehow stumble onto something worse. I'm not sure that's possible, but by acknowledging the slimmest of possibilities, I hope to stave off a fate worse than having a 100 Cthulhu Mythos score. If you'll excuse me, I need to gargle with some Lovecraft.
Blech, uck, and barf!
Friday, February 18, 2011
My Bloody Valentine
My Bloody Valentine...1981...90 minutes...rated R...starring Paul Kelman, Lori Hallier, Neil Affleck, and Keith Knight...written by Stephen A. Miller and John Beaird...directed by George Mihalka
Valentine Bluffs, up in Nova Scotia, has a bit of a history. Twenty years ago, there was a Valentine's Day party going on while 7 men were still down in the mines that are the town industry. 2 of them were supervisors, both eager to get to the party. Forgetting to check the methane levels, the supervisors left...and an explosion sealed the other men in. Only one survived: Harry Warden. Harry was never quite the same again, and went on a murder spree the next year, serving up the hearts of the two supervisors and vowing to kill again if anyone ever celebrated Valentine's Day again. Of course, there couldn't be any danger in holding a party 20 years after that horrible day, could there?
Here's a hacker film from the golden age of slashers, and while it has all the horrible cliches and pitfalls of a film made in this period, there are some moments of gold both in sheer grisliness and in humor that make this one worth a rewatching. That's not me saying that the movie is -good-, per se... but it's enjoyable if you know what you're getting into. Admittedly, there's something fetishy-freaky about a killer who runs around in a gas mask, and the opening murder sequence (beautiful girl about to make time with a guy who doesn't want to take his mask off deep in the mines) sets the tone of the hour and half to follow.
Without spoiling the movie too much more for the five people who may have missed this the first time around, the movie's lead is one of the few people outside of Fred from the Scooby-Doo cartoons who is working the whole scarf/ascot/whattheheckever look. There's a few false scares, a few wonderful monologues by crazy town elders, a system of mental health care that is positively criminal in its record-keeping, and lots of gore that was shocking in its day but nothing that would make a modern "Saw" audience flinch...too much.Let's not forget a minecar fight sequence that has to be seen to be believed. *dry sarcasm* With luck, I'll get to see the 2009 version and compare the differences.
Personally, the threat of a serial killer spree would be enough for me to completely cancel Valentine's Day...but then I was never a big fan. 2.5 pickaxes out of 5.
Valentine Bluffs, up in Nova Scotia, has a bit of a history. Twenty years ago, there was a Valentine's Day party going on while 7 men were still down in the mines that are the town industry. 2 of them were supervisors, both eager to get to the party. Forgetting to check the methane levels, the supervisors left...and an explosion sealed the other men in. Only one survived: Harry Warden. Harry was never quite the same again, and went on a murder spree the next year, serving up the hearts of the two supervisors and vowing to kill again if anyone ever celebrated Valentine's Day again. Of course, there couldn't be any danger in holding a party 20 years after that horrible day, could there?
Here's a hacker film from the golden age of slashers, and while it has all the horrible cliches and pitfalls of a film made in this period, there are some moments of gold both in sheer grisliness and in humor that make this one worth a rewatching. That's not me saying that the movie is -good-, per se... but it's enjoyable if you know what you're getting into. Admittedly, there's something fetishy-freaky about a killer who runs around in a gas mask, and the opening murder sequence (beautiful girl about to make time with a guy who doesn't want to take his mask off deep in the mines) sets the tone of the hour and half to follow.
Without spoiling the movie too much more for the five people who may have missed this the first time around, the movie's lead is one of the few people outside of Fred from the Scooby-Doo cartoons who is working the whole scarf/ascot/whattheheckever look. There's a few false scares, a few wonderful monologues by crazy town elders, a system of mental health care that is positively criminal in its record-keeping, and lots of gore that was shocking in its day but nothing that would make a modern "Saw" audience flinch...too much.Let's not forget a minecar fight sequence that has to be seen to be believed. *dry sarcasm* With luck, I'll get to see the 2009 version and compare the differences.
Personally, the threat of a serial killer spree would be enough for me to completely cancel Valentine's Day...but then I was never a big fan. 2.5 pickaxes out of 5.
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
The Wolfman (2010)
The Wolfman...2010...103 minutes...rated R...starring Benicio Del Toro, Emily Blunt, Anthony Hopkins and Hugo Weaving...written by Andrew Kevin Walker and David Self...directed by Joe Johnston
Lawrence Talbot, famous stage actor, returns to his ancestral home of Talbot Hall upon hearing the tragic news of his brother's demise. At the urging of his brother's widow, he hunts for the beast or madman that killed his sibling, only to be injured by the beast personally. The wounding passes on the curse of the Wolfman, and now Lawrence Talbot finds the beast within himself as well as out in the wilds of Blackmoor and the city streets of London.
I'll admit that I was excited when I'd heard that they had redone this movie...every once in a while I do think that the classics need to be retold, with hopefully a bit of new life breathed into the story. when I saw the cast and crew invoilved with this release, I was even more hopeful. Now that I've seen it, I understand why the film didn't have as long of a run as I would have wanted for it to.
Let's talk about the pros first. I will say that cinematically, this is a beautiful movie. As a period piece, it's got a wonderful look to it, and of course, the CGI effects on the transformation are all that could be asked for. There's a scene where Lawrence is hunting the creature in the misty moors and finds himself inside a ring of standing stones that I found simply gorgeous. Another plus is indeed the cast that got brought into the movie; though this cast marks where the film starts taking its fatal flaw.
For a movie with such people like Del Toro and Hopkins, I just expected to -care- more about Lawrence Talbot, and the movie itself. Instead I found myself bored and distracted at times. Part of it is in the dialogue; I think that Hopkins (as the elder Talbot) gets most of the best written lines in the script. Part of it is that some of thee writing which could have been interesting never gets followed through. Hugo weaving's character is a Scotland Yard inspector who worked on the Ripper case; so much more could have been done with that, but after saying it, that thread just gets left.
Most of it, though, rests on Del Toro. Unlike the Larry Talbot of before, the only emotion I got out of this "renowned thespian" (character and actor) is exhaustion. He's as wooden and dry as I've ever seen an actor, and while the character of Talbot is certainly one that is haunted, especially when it comes to his family, where is the passion that made this man such a known performer? Why should we care about this guy, in short? It's a question the movie fails to answer, and sadly not the only one either. The main action in the film comes from the very violent werewolf attacks, which are made all the more striking due to the lack of energy from Talbot as a man, but the savagery really doesn't make you feel any more concerned for the guy's fate either.
I would recommend this movie as either a discount movie or as a cable selection, but I can't endorse any serious money being spent on this one. It's nice to look at, but doesn't really leave you with anything, except maybe a senseof disappointment as it did me. I give it 2.5 icy asylum dips out of 5.
Lawrence Talbot, famous stage actor, returns to his ancestral home of Talbot Hall upon hearing the tragic news of his brother's demise. At the urging of his brother's widow, he hunts for the beast or madman that killed his sibling, only to be injured by the beast personally. The wounding passes on the curse of the Wolfman, and now Lawrence Talbot finds the beast within himself as well as out in the wilds of Blackmoor and the city streets of London.
I'll admit that I was excited when I'd heard that they had redone this movie...every once in a while I do think that the classics need to be retold, with hopefully a bit of new life breathed into the story. when I saw the cast and crew invoilved with this release, I was even more hopeful. Now that I've seen it, I understand why the film didn't have as long of a run as I would have wanted for it to.
Let's talk about the pros first. I will say that cinematically, this is a beautiful movie. As a period piece, it's got a wonderful look to it, and of course, the CGI effects on the transformation are all that could be asked for. There's a scene where Lawrence is hunting the creature in the misty moors and finds himself inside a ring of standing stones that I found simply gorgeous. Another plus is indeed the cast that got brought into the movie; though this cast marks where the film starts taking its fatal flaw.
For a movie with such people like Del Toro and Hopkins, I just expected to -care- more about Lawrence Talbot, and the movie itself. Instead I found myself bored and distracted at times. Part of it is in the dialogue; I think that Hopkins (as the elder Talbot) gets most of the best written lines in the script. Part of it is that some of thee writing which could have been interesting never gets followed through. Hugo weaving's character is a Scotland Yard inspector who worked on the Ripper case; so much more could have been done with that, but after saying it, that thread just gets left.
Most of it, though, rests on Del Toro. Unlike the Larry Talbot of before, the only emotion I got out of this "renowned thespian" (character and actor) is exhaustion. He's as wooden and dry as I've ever seen an actor, and while the character of Talbot is certainly one that is haunted, especially when it comes to his family, where is the passion that made this man such a known performer? Why should we care about this guy, in short? It's a question the movie fails to answer, and sadly not the only one either. The main action in the film comes from the very violent werewolf attacks, which are made all the more striking due to the lack of energy from Talbot as a man, but the savagery really doesn't make you feel any more concerned for the guy's fate either.
I would recommend this movie as either a discount movie or as a cable selection, but I can't endorse any serious money being spent on this one. It's nice to look at, but doesn't really leave you with anything, except maybe a senseof disappointment as it did me. I give it 2.5 icy asylum dips out of 5.
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Are You Scared?
Are You Scared?....2006...79 minutes...rated R...starring Alethea Kutscher, Erin Consalvi, Brad Ashten, and Carlee Avers...written and directed by Andy Hurst.
Six young adults wake up in an abandoned factory/warehouse and find themselves contestants in a reality show entitled "Are You Scared?" The show is far too real, and apparently the idea of privacy wavers, liability forms, and safety for the contestants has gone right out the window. These things apparently don't matter when the man behind the game is a twisted psychopath...go figure.
This was a straight-to-video release that I found on FearNet, and the obvious note here is that this flick is obviously a low-rent Saw. Two police detectives are running around trying to track down the crazy man...and so far I've seen no revelation as to why the pyscho is indeed a psycho.(I'm writing as I watch.) The contestants are supposed to be facing their deepest fears, but unlike the Saw franchise I don't think there's any hope of redemption or even survival for the poor saps who got mysteriously abducted. Also, in Saw, the killer was indeed fiendishly clever...I don't think this guy quite measures up.
On a side note, I must be getting older: I'm watching one particular scene that isn't scaring me as much as making me go "ewwwww" and wondering if it was really necessary. I never used to worry about excess gore in my scary movies. Of course, applying the word "scary" to this piece of schlock would be highly inappropriate. Who would have thought I would have considered things like writing quality, tone, etc?
Second side note: as much as I say that a movie (like this one) doesn't even rate being called tripe, I would so act in one of these movies. I wouldn't even need pay, although I'd prefer some sort of recompense. Matching my currrent pay would do for me...and would surely be below scale.
Ah, the twist has arrived. *yawn* Am I scared? Not even vaguely.
I give this movie 1 drill-on-a-track out of 5.
Six young adults wake up in an abandoned factory/warehouse and find themselves contestants in a reality show entitled "Are You Scared?" The show is far too real, and apparently the idea of privacy wavers, liability forms, and safety for the contestants has gone right out the window. These things apparently don't matter when the man behind the game is a twisted psychopath...go figure.
This was a straight-to-video release that I found on FearNet, and the obvious note here is that this flick is obviously a low-rent Saw. Two police detectives are running around trying to track down the crazy man...and so far I've seen no revelation as to why the pyscho is indeed a psycho.(I'm writing as I watch.) The contestants are supposed to be facing their deepest fears, but unlike the Saw franchise I don't think there's any hope of redemption or even survival for the poor saps who got mysteriously abducted. Also, in Saw, the killer was indeed fiendishly clever...I don't think this guy quite measures up.
On a side note, I must be getting older: I'm watching one particular scene that isn't scaring me as much as making me go "ewwwww" and wondering if it was really necessary. I never used to worry about excess gore in my scary movies. Of course, applying the word "scary" to this piece of schlock would be highly inappropriate. Who would have thought I would have considered things like writing quality, tone, etc?
Second side note: as much as I say that a movie (like this one) doesn't even rate being called tripe, I would so act in one of these movies. I wouldn't even need pay, although I'd prefer some sort of recompense. Matching my currrent pay would do for me...and would surely be below scale.
Ah, the twist has arrived. *yawn* Am I scared? Not even vaguely.
I give this movie 1 drill-on-a-track out of 5.
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
NAMR: A Long, Long Way To Go
19 reviews down, 481 to go. This is the number of reviews I need to write within the space of 260ish days, if I hope to make my goal. It's not impossible, though I'm well versed in knowing that the odds are long indeed. But hey, nothing good was ever easy.
I have not begun to write! Or fight...or whatever the quote is. ;-)
Okay, what's on Fearnet?
I have not begun to write! Or fight...or whatever the quote is. ;-)
Okay, what's on Fearnet?
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
Exorcist III
Exorcist III...1990...110 minutes...R...starring George C. Scott, Jason Miller, Brad Dourif, and Ed Flanders...written for the screen and directed by William Peter Blatty
"I dream of a rose...and of falling down a long flight of stairs...."
Based off of Blatty's own book _Legion_, Exorcist III follows Detective Kinderman as he explores a series of gruesome murders that have haunting echoes from his past. The signature on the killings matches that of a serial killer who died 15 years ago, and as Kinderman follows the leads on the case, he uncovers a dark and almost impossible mystery. The murder is tied into another incident from the past that he was privy to as well, a matter of a certain exorcism....
Since Blatty was heavily involved in this movie, I consider this movie the true sequel to the Exorcist as opposed to Exorcist II: The Heretic...apologies to Linda Blair and Richard Burton, who did their best there. (I may get to that movie at some point, we'll see.) The movie is a fairly faithful adaptation of Blatty's book, although the ending does differ. I read from imdb.com that this incongruity was based on the studios wanting an exorcism in their Exorcist movie. (which does kinda follow, but go figure.) In fact, what detracts from the overall creepiness of the movie is that there are places where you can tell that it was deliberately given some moments to make it more of a big movie.
The first, and most obvious, of these decisions was the involvement of Jason Miller. Not that I disagree in general with having him in the movie, but the Gemini Killer personality that inhabits Karras's body was originally just supposed to be played by Brad Dourif...instead the movie hops bewteen Miller and Dourif in a way that's confusing...especially since the Gemini is predominant in most of the scenes. However, since Jason Miller was in the first Exorcst, I expect that his involvement was partially there to help tie the two movies together.
Second, there are a LOT of orchestrated "audience jump" moments...people popping up suddenly in hopes to startle the viewers. It's awell-known gimmick, and while it's to be expected I found it to be getting a bit old. Mind you, there's one orchestrated moment involving a nurse moving through a hospital hallway which is blocked and executed wonderfully and still gets me even when I know when the scare is coming. Such moments are few, though...I prefer moments they have where a statue in a church looks one way under the normal light but gets hideously warped when the light goes out.
The writing is still a strength in the movie, especially in some of the dialogue, but some things didn't translate well from the first movie. Kinderman talks about how close he was to Father Karras, but in the first movie the two characters share little screen time together and the relationship seems like a stretch. The recut version of The Exorcist helps explain the Kinderman/Dyer relationship much better, though. What I do find interesting is that one of my favorite lines from the novel _The Exorcist_ got transposed into this movie: A possessed Karras tells Father Sunshine, "This time you're going to lose."... something that the demon was supposed to say to Father Merrin in the original.
Overall, the movie isn't nearly as effective as the original but it's a decent movie by itself...it certainly shines in comparison to other of the movies in the Exorcist franchise. Plus, there's a lovely cameo of Samuel L. Jackson early in his career...though his voice must have been dubbed over. As long as you're not expecting "The Exorcist" itself, I think you'll find this movie enjoyable.
I give it 3 autopsy shears out of 5.
"I dream of a rose...and of falling down a long flight of stairs...."
Based off of Blatty's own book _Legion_, Exorcist III follows Detective Kinderman as he explores a series of gruesome murders that have haunting echoes from his past. The signature on the killings matches that of a serial killer who died 15 years ago, and as Kinderman follows the leads on the case, he uncovers a dark and almost impossible mystery. The murder is tied into another incident from the past that he was privy to as well, a matter of a certain exorcism....
Since Blatty was heavily involved in this movie, I consider this movie the true sequel to the Exorcist as opposed to Exorcist II: The Heretic...apologies to Linda Blair and Richard Burton, who did their best there. (I may get to that movie at some point, we'll see.) The movie is a fairly faithful adaptation of Blatty's book, although the ending does differ. I read from imdb.com that this incongruity was based on the studios wanting an exorcism in their Exorcist movie. (which does kinda follow, but go figure.) In fact, what detracts from the overall creepiness of the movie is that there are places where you can tell that it was deliberately given some moments to make it more of a big movie.
The first, and most obvious, of these decisions was the involvement of Jason Miller. Not that I disagree in general with having him in the movie, but the Gemini Killer personality that inhabits Karras's body was originally just supposed to be played by Brad Dourif...instead the movie hops bewteen Miller and Dourif in a way that's confusing...especially since the Gemini is predominant in most of the scenes. However, since Jason Miller was in the first Exorcst, I expect that his involvement was partially there to help tie the two movies together.
Second, there are a LOT of orchestrated "audience jump" moments...people popping up suddenly in hopes to startle the viewers. It's awell-known gimmick, and while it's to be expected I found it to be getting a bit old. Mind you, there's one orchestrated moment involving a nurse moving through a hospital hallway which is blocked and executed wonderfully and still gets me even when I know when the scare is coming. Such moments are few, though...I prefer moments they have where a statue in a church looks one way under the normal light but gets hideously warped when the light goes out.
The writing is still a strength in the movie, especially in some of the dialogue, but some things didn't translate well from the first movie. Kinderman talks about how close he was to Father Karras, but in the first movie the two characters share little screen time together and the relationship seems like a stretch. The recut version of The Exorcist helps explain the Kinderman/Dyer relationship much better, though. What I do find interesting is that one of my favorite lines from the novel _The Exorcist_ got transposed into this movie: A possessed Karras tells Father Sunshine, "This time you're going to lose."... something that the demon was supposed to say to Father Merrin in the original.
Overall, the movie isn't nearly as effective as the original but it's a decent movie by itself...it certainly shines in comparison to other of the movies in the Exorcist franchise. Plus, there's a lovely cameo of Samuel L. Jackson early in his career...though his voice must have been dubbed over. As long as you're not expecting "The Exorcist" itself, I think you'll find this movie enjoyable.
I give it 3 autopsy shears out of 5.
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
The Exorcist (The Version You've Never Seen)
The Exorcist (recut)...1973 original, 2000 version release...132 minutes...R...starring Ellen Burstyn, Max Von Sydow, Jason Miller, Lee J. Cobb and Linda Blair...written by William Peter Blatty...directed by William Friedkin
I think most people know this charming little story, which demonstrates why no one should ever play with a ouija board EVER. An actress gets to witness the transformation of her young daughter from average kid to demonically possessed creature, while a priest struggling with his faith is thrust into a spiritual battle that he has a hard time believing is even possible, and a second priest is brought back to a conflict with an old enemy that nearly killed him some 12 years ago. (*whew*) The movie is based on a best-selling novel written by William Peter Blatty, and was recut with additional footage and some digital manipulation to help tie pieces of the story together.
Let me say this statement up front: I consider this film to be a classic and a benchmark in terms of horror films. I'm not the only one, of course. The film made a box-office sensation when it was released, and is still listed on the top of various lists for best horror movies to this day. So what makes it work? Like any great movie, it's a combination of various factors.
One, the performances given by the cast are rock-solid. Even watching it now, I still find myself understanding and believing the struggles that Father Karras is going through. I buy that Regan is a normal, if possibly spoiled kid before things inevitably spiral downward. It's a clear switch between normal Regan and the thing possessing her. While the whole history of Father Merrin's previous exorcism is lightly touched on, the fear he has when he finds the ancient amulet in the Iraq dig and has his premonition is clearly visible.
Two, the writing and dialogue is sharp and mostly tight in terms of story. The original version's Iraq segment is the exception to this statement; the linkage between the Pazuzu statue and the events in Washington wasn't clear...and even though some digital imagery helps in the recut, there's a case to be made that it's still not exactly crystalline why these events are linked. (That said, I am always amused by a line Kinderman says about keeping the windows closed...drafts being a magic carpet for diseases...since Pazuzu is a demon of the Southwest wind in Assyrian/Babylonian mythology) Okay, exception noted...the rest of the story has great dialogue and moves at a steady pace.
Three, minimal soundtrack. It's one of the things that I had noted when I'd first watched the movie; that you weren't flooded over with mood music all through the movie...no buildup like is typical in a lot of horror movies. I'm not sure I can explain why, but the lack of background music makes the whole thing more effective. Again, there's a notable exception: Mike Oldfield's "Tubular Bells", which is now inexorably tied to this movie. Even so, the music occupies only the briefest of moments on the screen.
Most of all, though, I think that what really makes this movie is its depiction of the rational impacted by the irrational...which I think is at the core of all supernatural horror. I'm not sure I've seen a better movie showing what happens when modern, rational, and intelligent people find themselves in a situation that they can't explain, can't understand, and have no real tools to deal with. The medical sequences (which get to me, mostly because I have a nasty fear of hospitals and needles) are the best example of this conflict...Regan goes through all sorts of painful medical tests and her doctors find nothing physically wrong, of course. I think it hits on the basic fear that life will always have unknowable and uncontrollable aspects, no matter how much we learn or try to exert control on the world.
Anyways, watch this movie if you haven't. (and why haven't you?) Like it, don't like it, whatever...but if you're interested at all in the genre and haven't seen this movie, you're missing a foundation block of discussion. If nothing else, see what sacred the bejeezus out of audiences in the early 70s. No time to be anything less than bold, I give this movie 5 ancient statues out of 5.
I think most people know this charming little story, which demonstrates why no one should ever play with a ouija board EVER. An actress gets to witness the transformation of her young daughter from average kid to demonically possessed creature, while a priest struggling with his faith is thrust into a spiritual battle that he has a hard time believing is even possible, and a second priest is brought back to a conflict with an old enemy that nearly killed him some 12 years ago. (*whew*) The movie is based on a best-selling novel written by William Peter Blatty, and was recut with additional footage and some digital manipulation to help tie pieces of the story together.
Let me say this statement up front: I consider this film to be a classic and a benchmark in terms of horror films. I'm not the only one, of course. The film made a box-office sensation when it was released, and is still listed on the top of various lists for best horror movies to this day. So what makes it work? Like any great movie, it's a combination of various factors.
One, the performances given by the cast are rock-solid. Even watching it now, I still find myself understanding and believing the struggles that Father Karras is going through. I buy that Regan is a normal, if possibly spoiled kid before things inevitably spiral downward. It's a clear switch between normal Regan and the thing possessing her. While the whole history of Father Merrin's previous exorcism is lightly touched on, the fear he has when he finds the ancient amulet in the Iraq dig and has his premonition is clearly visible.
Two, the writing and dialogue is sharp and mostly tight in terms of story. The original version's Iraq segment is the exception to this statement; the linkage between the Pazuzu statue and the events in Washington wasn't clear...and even though some digital imagery helps in the recut, there's a case to be made that it's still not exactly crystalline why these events are linked. (That said, I am always amused by a line Kinderman says about keeping the windows closed...drafts being a magic carpet for diseases...since Pazuzu is a demon of the Southwest wind in Assyrian/Babylonian mythology) Okay, exception noted...the rest of the story has great dialogue and moves at a steady pace.
Three, minimal soundtrack. It's one of the things that I had noted when I'd first watched the movie; that you weren't flooded over with mood music all through the movie...no buildup like is typical in a lot of horror movies. I'm not sure I can explain why, but the lack of background music makes the whole thing more effective. Again, there's a notable exception: Mike Oldfield's "Tubular Bells", which is now inexorably tied to this movie. Even so, the music occupies only the briefest of moments on the screen.
Most of all, though, I think that what really makes this movie is its depiction of the rational impacted by the irrational...which I think is at the core of all supernatural horror. I'm not sure I've seen a better movie showing what happens when modern, rational, and intelligent people find themselves in a situation that they can't explain, can't understand, and have no real tools to deal with. The medical sequences (which get to me, mostly because I have a nasty fear of hospitals and needles) are the best example of this conflict...Regan goes through all sorts of painful medical tests and her doctors find nothing physically wrong, of course. I think it hits on the basic fear that life will always have unknowable and uncontrollable aspects, no matter how much we learn or try to exert control on the world.
Anyways, watch this movie if you haven't. (and why haven't you?) Like it, don't like it, whatever...but if you're interested at all in the genre and haven't seen this movie, you're missing a foundation block of discussion. If nothing else, see what sacred the bejeezus out of audiences in the early 70s. No time to be anything less than bold, I give this movie 5 ancient statues out of 5.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)