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.
Friday, April 29, 2011
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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)