Halloween
My favorite moment in Halloween isn't a death scene (though "can't I get your ghost, Bob?" is pretty great), it's not a scare, it's not even a line of dialogue, it's the spectacular grin that Loomis gives after he scares the kids off the porch of the Myers house. Donald Pleasence just looks so perfectly pleased and thoroughly full of himself at that moment that it gives me a similar grin every single time.
I can't even tell you how many times I've seen this movie (or how many times I've bought it thanks to a seemingly infinite number of "special edition" releases on various formats) but man, it still works. It's so good I even forgive it the ultimate movie sin of killing a dog on screen (RIP Lester).
From the spare, frightening score to that horrifyingly blank Shatner mask, everything still works. The fact that the focus is on tension rather than gore certainly helps, but it's still a staggering achievement for a movie to still feel tense after countless viewings.
This was my first time watching the new 35th anniversary blu-ray and it's absolutely stunning, easily the best I've ever seen the movie look, maybe the best it's ever looked. It's far from a flawless movie, there's plenty of camera shadows, a puff of Carpenter's cigarette smoke from offscreen, lots of lush greenery for Illinois in the fall, California plates on all the cars, etc....but none of that matters at all. The movie casts a spell and it's exquisitely paced, practically tightening around the audience until we can barely breathe.
Thanks to everyone who's been following my Scary Movie Month ramblings. I've enjoyed writing them and chatting with a bunch of people about all the scary movies I've been watching. 16 of the 31 movies were new-to-me, which is a happy accident and exactly the balance I was hoping for. The only thing I love more than horror movies is discovering new horror movies to love, and I can already tell that a few of those 16 will be entering my rotation. Hell, I already can't wait to watch Dead & Buried again. Of course I don't confine my horror watching to only Scary Movie Month, but 11 months is still gonna be an awfully long wait until next Scary Movie Month.
Maybe I'll watch Halloween II tomorrow so the wait won't seem quite so long. Then Halloween III the next day. Then....
Thursday, October 31, 2013
Wednesday, October 30, 2013
Scary Movie Month, Day 30
The Slumber Party Massacre
Rita Mae Brown is the author of a series of "cozy" mystery novels featuring a sleuthing cat named Mrs. Murphy. Her credited co-author on the series is her own cat, Sneaky Pie Brown. There are, to date, 21 novels in the Mrs. Murphy series which means that somebody must be reading the things. The reason I bring this up is because it thoroughly fascinates me that the writer of the detecting cat novels popular with grandmas nationwide is the same person who wrote this movie, a thoroughly sleazy and gratuitous wallow in depravity.
I mean "wallow in depravity" in the nicest respect, by the way. The movie follows a group of 30-year-old teenage girls who have a beer-and-pot-fueled slumber party and are (of course) stalked by an escaped lunatic with a phallic power drill. Brown originally wrote the movie as a parody of the then-current slasher craze, but producer Roger Corman (who else?) decided to take her screenplay and have it shot as a straightforward slasher flick. It's still mostly funny, you certainly won't find much (if anything) in the way of tension or scares but there's plenty of gore and nudity to keep the audience captivated for the scant 77 minute runtime.
I like the tone of the movie. While it's not the comedy it was originally envisioned as, it's still got a pleasantly subversive streak running through it along with an infectious sense of fun. There are two sequels (natch) and I'm looking forward to checking those out soon, I hope they're as odd and fun as this one. It's notable that all three movies in the series were written and directed by women (different women each time, too) which is an extreme rarity in any genre, much less one so often dismissed as misogynistic as horror. It's a refreshing change in theory, but in practice it only seems to inform us that women can write and direct sleazy exploitation just as well as men.
Rita Mae Brown is the author of a series of "cozy" mystery novels featuring a sleuthing cat named Mrs. Murphy. Her credited co-author on the series is her own cat, Sneaky Pie Brown. There are, to date, 21 novels in the Mrs. Murphy series which means that somebody must be reading the things. The reason I bring this up is because it thoroughly fascinates me that the writer of the detecting cat novels popular with grandmas nationwide is the same person who wrote this movie, a thoroughly sleazy and gratuitous wallow in depravity.
I mean "wallow in depravity" in the nicest respect, by the way. The movie follows a group of 30-year-old teenage girls who have a beer-and-pot-fueled slumber party and are (of course) stalked by an escaped lunatic with a phallic power drill. Brown originally wrote the movie as a parody of the then-current slasher craze, but producer Roger Corman (who else?) decided to take her screenplay and have it shot as a straightforward slasher flick. It's still mostly funny, you certainly won't find much (if anything) in the way of tension or scares but there's plenty of gore and nudity to keep the audience captivated for the scant 77 minute runtime.
I like the tone of the movie. While it's not the comedy it was originally envisioned as, it's still got a pleasantly subversive streak running through it along with an infectious sense of fun. There are two sequels (natch) and I'm looking forward to checking those out soon, I hope they're as odd and fun as this one. It's notable that all three movies in the series were written and directed by women (different women each time, too) which is an extreme rarity in any genre, much less one so often dismissed as misogynistic as horror. It's a refreshing change in theory, but in practice it only seems to inform us that women can write and direct sleazy exploitation just as well as men.
Tuesday, October 29, 2013
Scary Movie Month, Day 29
Munster, Go Home!
Boy oh boy, technicolor does not do the Munsters any favors. The sickly blue-green hue of all their faces (other than Marilyn, of course) is ugly and off-putting to the point where I considered turning down the color on my TV but I eventually decided to watch it as it was intended. It's refreshing to enjoy their antics without that horrendously grating laugh track, though, so I guess it's a somewhat worthwhile trade.
For their only theatrical foray, the Munsters head overseas to jolly old England when Herman is notified that he's Lord of Munster Hall. Once there they of course run afoul of scheming relatives (including the great Terry-Thomas, always a treat to watch) and wind up having to clear the family name in a drag race (don't ask).
Fred Gwynne has always been my favorite of the main cast (and the "Car 54, Where Are You?" joke was worth watching the whole movie for) but I've read that he had had enough of playing Herman due to the uncomfortable make-up and costumes. He was forever identified with Herman Munster and it's a shame, he was so great in so many other roles ("Sometimes dead is bettah") but never really seemed to get his due. The rest of the family is fine, though it's a new Marilyn for some reason.
Despite the exotic location it all plays out as an extended episode of the sitcom, especially considering it recycles quite a few jokes from the run of the series. It's funny (and Herman's race car, Dragula, is kind of the best) but it's a trifle, and it's easy to see why the Munsters didn't find new life on the big screen after the series ended.
Boy oh boy, technicolor does not do the Munsters any favors. The sickly blue-green hue of all their faces (other than Marilyn, of course) is ugly and off-putting to the point where I considered turning down the color on my TV but I eventually decided to watch it as it was intended. It's refreshing to enjoy their antics without that horrendously grating laugh track, though, so I guess it's a somewhat worthwhile trade.
For their only theatrical foray, the Munsters head overseas to jolly old England when Herman is notified that he's Lord of Munster Hall. Once there they of course run afoul of scheming relatives (including the great Terry-Thomas, always a treat to watch) and wind up having to clear the family name in a drag race (don't ask).
Fred Gwynne has always been my favorite of the main cast (and the "Car 54, Where Are You?" joke was worth watching the whole movie for) but I've read that he had had enough of playing Herman due to the uncomfortable make-up and costumes. He was forever identified with Herman Munster and it's a shame, he was so great in so many other roles ("Sometimes dead is bettah") but never really seemed to get his due. The rest of the family is fine, though it's a new Marilyn for some reason.
Despite the exotic location it all plays out as an extended episode of the sitcom, especially considering it recycles quite a few jokes from the run of the series. It's funny (and Herman's race car, Dragula, is kind of the best) but it's a trifle, and it's easy to see why the Munsters didn't find new life on the big screen after the series ended.
Monday, October 28, 2013
Scary Movie Month, Day 28
The Dark Half
George A. Romero adapting a Stephen King novel starring Academy Award winner Timothy Hutton, and the movie seems to have been all but forgotten. That seems unfair to me, but then again I'm an unabashed fan of all three principals.
Hutton stars as Thad Beaumont, an upper-class, intellectual writer who has been making a living secretly churning out violent pulp novels under the name George Stark. After a blackmailer threatens to expose him, Beaumont decides to go public and "kill" Stark. As it happens, that high-toned son of a bitch Stark doesn't want to go and the people who helped Beaumont "kill" him start to die for real. Has Beaumont cracked and started killing or has Stark somehow entered the real world?
The movie makes it clear what's going on pretty early on after playing it coy for a short while, and Hutton is great as both the buttoned-down Beaumont and his leather-clad, pompadoured, razor-slinging alter ego. There are plenty of terrific supporting performances too, from the likes of Amy Madigan, Michael Rooker, and Julie Harris, among others.
The Dark Half was the last novel King wrote before going completely sober, and the theme of dual identities certainly fits that but neither the book nor the movie get preachy or hit you over the head with any sort of message. In both cases, they're out to scare you first and make you consider duality later on, preferably with all the lights on.
George A. Romero adapting a Stephen King novel starring Academy Award winner Timothy Hutton, and the movie seems to have been all but forgotten. That seems unfair to me, but then again I'm an unabashed fan of all three principals.
Hutton stars as Thad Beaumont, an upper-class, intellectual writer who has been making a living secretly churning out violent pulp novels under the name George Stark. After a blackmailer threatens to expose him, Beaumont decides to go public and "kill" Stark. As it happens, that high-toned son of a bitch Stark doesn't want to go and the people who helped Beaumont "kill" him start to die for real. Has Beaumont cracked and started killing or has Stark somehow entered the real world?
The movie makes it clear what's going on pretty early on after playing it coy for a short while, and Hutton is great as both the buttoned-down Beaumont and his leather-clad, pompadoured, razor-slinging alter ego. There are plenty of terrific supporting performances too, from the likes of Amy Madigan, Michael Rooker, and Julie Harris, among others.
The Dark Half was the last novel King wrote before going completely sober, and the theme of dual identities certainly fits that but neither the book nor the movie get preachy or hit you over the head with any sort of message. In both cases, they're out to scare you first and make you consider duality later on, preferably with all the lights on.
Sunday, October 27, 2013
Scary Movie Month, Day 27
Evil Dead 2
I don't know who it was that came up with the term "splatstick" to describe Sam Raimi's particular brand of mayhem, but it feels like the perfect fit. Even now over 25 years after its release Evil Dead 2 still feels energetic and fresh, and it's so unafraid to go over the top that it leaves the top many miles below itself somewhere in the first reel.
I tend to forget just how much of this movie is "The Bruce Campbell Show"...he spends a surprising amount of screentime completely alone, dealing with the diabolical forces released by the Book of the Dead. The fact that he manages to be as sympathetic as he is while going batshit crazy (and making a huge mess of that cabin) is a testament to how strong a presence Campbell is and how much fun he made Ash as a character despite the fact that we're two movies in and still know nothing about him other than his name, his resilience in the face of almost certain death, and his proclivity for antiquated expressions of satisfaction. Oh, and he has very little luck dating women who don't become possessed by ancient demons and try to swallow his soul. He's 0 for 2 on that count thus far.
There are 3 movies in the Evil Dead series (plus a remake that left me cold) and for my money, this is the best of the bunch. I enjoy all 3, but this one finds just the right balance between horror and comedy, and while its commitment to total insanity never wavers, it doesn't become numbing like so many other movies that try to attempt relentlessness do. It's an incredibly difficult balancing act, and Raimi makes it look as easy and effortless as cutting off your own demon-possessed hand with a chainsaw. I mean that as the highest possible compliment.
I don't know who it was that came up with the term "splatstick" to describe Sam Raimi's particular brand of mayhem, but it feels like the perfect fit. Even now over 25 years after its release Evil Dead 2 still feels energetic and fresh, and it's so unafraid to go over the top that it leaves the top many miles below itself somewhere in the first reel.
I tend to forget just how much of this movie is "The Bruce Campbell Show"...he spends a surprising amount of screentime completely alone, dealing with the diabolical forces released by the Book of the Dead. The fact that he manages to be as sympathetic as he is while going batshit crazy (and making a huge mess of that cabin) is a testament to how strong a presence Campbell is and how much fun he made Ash as a character despite the fact that we're two movies in and still know nothing about him other than his name, his resilience in the face of almost certain death, and his proclivity for antiquated expressions of satisfaction. Oh, and he has very little luck dating women who don't become possessed by ancient demons and try to swallow his soul. He's 0 for 2 on that count thus far.
There are 3 movies in the Evil Dead series (plus a remake that left me cold) and for my money, this is the best of the bunch. I enjoy all 3, but this one finds just the right balance between horror and comedy, and while its commitment to total insanity never wavers, it doesn't become numbing like so many other movies that try to attempt relentlessness do. It's an incredibly difficult balancing act, and Raimi makes it look as easy and effortless as cutting off your own demon-possessed hand with a chainsaw. I mean that as the highest possible compliment.
Saturday, October 26, 2013
Scary Movie Month, Day 26
Carrie (2013)
Earlier this week on the always excellent F This Movie! podcast, the equally always excellent Adam Riske referred to this movie as "X-Men Origins: Carrie" and he's absolutely right. When shit goes down at the prom (spoiler?) Carrie floats around and poses like she's a silver wig and bad toad joke away from being Halle Berry in the X-Men movies. As they said in the podcast, this time around Carrie has much greater control over her telekinetic powers than she did in the original movie (or in Stephen King's novel, for that matter) and frankly that's a decision that thoroughly deflates the movie.
I don't think that remaking Carrie is a bad idea. I think there's a lot that the story of Carrie can say about our current culture of viral videos, bullying, and school violence. This version, with a screenplay credited to Larry Cohen and Roberto Aguirre-Sacasa (who adapted King's epic novel The Stand for a 35-part Marvel comics series) touches on those things, but they're only so much window dressing on an otherwise slavish adaptation of Brian De Palma's version of Carrie.
King wrote a novella called Apt Pupil, another story of a high school outcast (though a more purposefully malevolent one than Carrie White) that culminates in an event of tremendous, tragic violence. When Apt Pupil was adapted for the movies, the ending was significantly altered, removing the violence while staying somewhat true to the nihilistic tone of the original story. When King was asked how he felt about the change, he said he was glad for it because if they had kept the ending from the novella it would have been "the wrong kind of movie". This adaptation of Carrie borders on being the wrong the kind of movie. By making Carrie more of an aggressor and less of a victim it feels uncomfortably close to a movie about a school shooting that tries to get the audience on the side of the shooter.
It's not all bad, Chloe Grace Moretz is decent in the lead (I wonder if some of the poses she takes as she wreaks havoc are her own choices or those of director Kimberly Pierce) and the unfortunately named Ansel Elgort stands out as the kind-hearted Tommy Ross. Most of the other performances range from decent to forgettable, the only one who registers at outright bad, unfortunately, is Julianne Moore as Margaret White, Carrie's domineering mother. While it's good that she's not aping Piper Laurie's Academy Award-nominated performance from the original she just never manages to bring Margaret to life in any way, she never feels like anything more than a fictional character.
It's not a terrible movie by any means, but by that same token it's a movie that really has no reason to exist. While they're not all gonna laugh at it, it's a disappointment at best.
Earlier this week on the always excellent F This Movie! podcast, the equally always excellent Adam Riske referred to this movie as "X-Men Origins: Carrie" and he's absolutely right. When shit goes down at the prom (spoiler?) Carrie floats around and poses like she's a silver wig and bad toad joke away from being Halle Berry in the X-Men movies. As they said in the podcast, this time around Carrie has much greater control over her telekinetic powers than she did in the original movie (or in Stephen King's novel, for that matter) and frankly that's a decision that thoroughly deflates the movie.
I don't think that remaking Carrie is a bad idea. I think there's a lot that the story of Carrie can say about our current culture of viral videos, bullying, and school violence. This version, with a screenplay credited to Larry Cohen and Roberto Aguirre-Sacasa (who adapted King's epic novel The Stand for a 35-part Marvel comics series) touches on those things, but they're only so much window dressing on an otherwise slavish adaptation of Brian De Palma's version of Carrie.
King wrote a novella called Apt Pupil, another story of a high school outcast (though a more purposefully malevolent one than Carrie White) that culminates in an event of tremendous, tragic violence. When Apt Pupil was adapted for the movies, the ending was significantly altered, removing the violence while staying somewhat true to the nihilistic tone of the original story. When King was asked how he felt about the change, he said he was glad for it because if they had kept the ending from the novella it would have been "the wrong kind of movie". This adaptation of Carrie borders on being the wrong the kind of movie. By making Carrie more of an aggressor and less of a victim it feels uncomfortably close to a movie about a school shooting that tries to get the audience on the side of the shooter.
It's not all bad, Chloe Grace Moretz is decent in the lead (I wonder if some of the poses she takes as she wreaks havoc are her own choices or those of director Kimberly Pierce) and the unfortunately named Ansel Elgort stands out as the kind-hearted Tommy Ross. Most of the other performances range from decent to forgettable, the only one who registers at outright bad, unfortunately, is Julianne Moore as Margaret White, Carrie's domineering mother. While it's good that she's not aping Piper Laurie's Academy Award-nominated performance from the original she just never manages to bring Margaret to life in any way, she never feels like anything more than a fictional character.
It's not a terrible movie by any means, but by that same token it's a movie that really has no reason to exist. While they're not all gonna laugh at it, it's a disappointment at best.
Friday, October 25, 2013
Scary Movie Month, Day 25
Scream
It seems that at some point over the last few years Scream has developed a reputation as a straight-up comedy. Sure, it's got a genuine sense of humor and I could see how a generation weaned on Family Guy would mistake references for comedy, but it's still a damn solid horror movie. Just because a movie is smart enough to know how to use humor doesn't make it a comedy.
Scream was released a couple of days before my birthday in 1996, and as a horror junkie who goes to the movies on his birthday every year I was very glad to have a new Wes Craven movie during a season typically reserved for broad family comedies and award-bait dramas. I went to see it with fairly low expectations due mainly to the fact that Craven's previous feature was the aimless and unscary/unfunny horror/comedy Vampire In Brooklyn. It turned out to be one of my very best birthday movies.
As you may recall, Scream opens with Drew Barrymore popping some Jiffy Pop and receiving a strange phone call, leading to a harrowing 13 minute sequence that is absolutely terrifying. The ads and posters for the movie touted Barrymore as the star, and the sequence ended on a true shock that leads you into the body of the movie off-balance. It's a bravura sequence that shows you right off the bat that even though it has a sense of humor this movie means business when it comes to scaring the crap out of you.
Another great thing about Scream is that on top of it being a genuinely scary horror movie and a successfully funny tweaking of genre conventions (it's funny without being jokey, by the way, an important distinction) it's also a whodunit, and a clever one at that. The reveal is surprising (at least it was for me) and even better than that, it holds up to scrutiny on subsequent viewings. The movie doesn't cheat by having the killer revealed to be somebody we don't even know (fuck you, Friday the 13th) and there are clues and beats throughout that support the reveal.
The sequels are much broader and lean more toward comedy. Scream 2, released less than a year later, is surprisingly good and has quite a few surprises up it's sleeves. Scream 3 is an overlong episode of Scooby Doo, much too jokey and self-aware to ever be scary and in my opinion is the weakest entry in the series. Scream 4 isn't much better than 3, but it tries and I believe it has a few moments that work though they're few and far between. It's rumored that Craven and co. are working on turning it into a weekly TV series. I can't imagine that working, but I'd be lying if I said I wasn't curious to check it out.
Dilution of the brand notwithstanding, Scream holds up. Scary, funny, filled with memorable moments, quotable dialogue, and a likable cast all turning in solid performances. The killer is fond of asking his/her prey if they like scary movies. If more scary movies were like Scream, the answer would always be yes.
It seems that at some point over the last few years Scream has developed a reputation as a straight-up comedy. Sure, it's got a genuine sense of humor and I could see how a generation weaned on Family Guy would mistake references for comedy, but it's still a damn solid horror movie. Just because a movie is smart enough to know how to use humor doesn't make it a comedy.
Scream was released a couple of days before my birthday in 1996, and as a horror junkie who goes to the movies on his birthday every year I was very glad to have a new Wes Craven movie during a season typically reserved for broad family comedies and award-bait dramas. I went to see it with fairly low expectations due mainly to the fact that Craven's previous feature was the aimless and unscary/unfunny horror/comedy Vampire In Brooklyn. It turned out to be one of my very best birthday movies.
As you may recall, Scream opens with Drew Barrymore popping some Jiffy Pop and receiving a strange phone call, leading to a harrowing 13 minute sequence that is absolutely terrifying. The ads and posters for the movie touted Barrymore as the star, and the sequence ended on a true shock that leads you into the body of the movie off-balance. It's a bravura sequence that shows you right off the bat that even though it has a sense of humor this movie means business when it comes to scaring the crap out of you.
Another great thing about Scream is that on top of it being a genuinely scary horror movie and a successfully funny tweaking of genre conventions (it's funny without being jokey, by the way, an important distinction) it's also a whodunit, and a clever one at that. The reveal is surprising (at least it was for me) and even better than that, it holds up to scrutiny on subsequent viewings. The movie doesn't cheat by having the killer revealed to be somebody we don't even know (fuck you, Friday the 13th) and there are clues and beats throughout that support the reveal.
The sequels are much broader and lean more toward comedy. Scream 2, released less than a year later, is surprisingly good and has quite a few surprises up it's sleeves. Scream 3 is an overlong episode of Scooby Doo, much too jokey and self-aware to ever be scary and in my opinion is the weakest entry in the series. Scream 4 isn't much better than 3, but it tries and I believe it has a few moments that work though they're few and far between. It's rumored that Craven and co. are working on turning it into a weekly TV series. I can't imagine that working, but I'd be lying if I said I wasn't curious to check it out.
Dilution of the brand notwithstanding, Scream holds up. Scary, funny, filled with memorable moments, quotable dialogue, and a likable cast all turning in solid performances. The killer is fond of asking his/her prey if they like scary movies. If more scary movies were like Scream, the answer would always be yes.
Thursday, October 24, 2013
Scary Movie Month, Day 24
Night of the Living Dead (Rifftrax style)
I enjoy these Rifftrax screenings (for the uninitiated: 3 of the stars of Mystery Science Theater 3000 provide live comedic commentary over the movie) but it's generally best if the movies being showcased are bad. To make fun of a movie like Birdemic or Plan 9 From Outer Space can be entertaining, but to mock a movie as good as Night of the Living Dead (or their last target, Starship Troopers, a movie that knows exactly what it is) is a fairly fruitless endeavor. Sure, I laughed (they are a funny gaggle of dudes), but it mostly left me cold.
What's great about George A. Romero's Night of the Living Dead is that it manages to retain its power 45 years after it was released, even with a comic commentary going on over the soundtrack. It's still a smart, scary movie that puts most others in the overly-crowded zombie sub-genre to shame. I go back and forth between this one and Romero's follow-up, Dawn of the Dead, the one I prefer is usually the one I've seen most recently.
Night is a stark, cynical masterpiece that also happens to feature one of the best (if bleakest) endings of all time. It's not surprising that once this particular screening reached that ending it was difficult for the Rifftrax performers to keep things light. The live audience that they were performing in front of was mostly silent for the last few minutes, their only sound an audible gasp as a particular moment (trying to keep this as spoiler-free as possible despite the age of the movie) unfolded. Turning that ending into comic fodder is nigh impossible, though they tried their best to make it funny. Their next show in a couple of months is going to be Santa Claus Conquers the Martians, that should be more the right speed for a Rifftrax event.
I enjoy these Rifftrax screenings (for the uninitiated: 3 of the stars of Mystery Science Theater 3000 provide live comedic commentary over the movie) but it's generally best if the movies being showcased are bad. To make fun of a movie like Birdemic or Plan 9 From Outer Space can be entertaining, but to mock a movie as good as Night of the Living Dead (or their last target, Starship Troopers, a movie that knows exactly what it is) is a fairly fruitless endeavor. Sure, I laughed (they are a funny gaggle of dudes), but it mostly left me cold.
What's great about George A. Romero's Night of the Living Dead is that it manages to retain its power 45 years after it was released, even with a comic commentary going on over the soundtrack. It's still a smart, scary movie that puts most others in the overly-crowded zombie sub-genre to shame. I go back and forth between this one and Romero's follow-up, Dawn of the Dead, the one I prefer is usually the one I've seen most recently.
Night is a stark, cynical masterpiece that also happens to feature one of the best (if bleakest) endings of all time. It's not surprising that once this particular screening reached that ending it was difficult for the Rifftrax performers to keep things light. The live audience that they were performing in front of was mostly silent for the last few minutes, their only sound an audible gasp as a particular moment (trying to keep this as spoiler-free as possible despite the age of the movie) unfolded. Turning that ending into comic fodder is nigh impossible, though they tried their best to make it funny. Their next show in a couple of months is going to be Santa Claus Conquers the Martians, that should be more the right speed for a Rifftrax event.
Wednesday, October 23, 2013
Scary Movie Month, Day 23
The Invisible Man
I don't want to start this out on a combative note, but if you don't think that Claude Rains is the BEST, then you probably don't know the meaning of the word "best". He's a commanding presence from the moment he steps on screen, and he holds your attention even when there's nothing on that screen but his voice.
In the opening scene, he arrives at a rooming house wearing a long coat, a slouch hat, gloves, goggles and swathed in bandages. As rumors rumble among the guests about what his condition may be he locks himself in his room to work on...something science-y. He wants to be left alone but of course house matron Una O'Connor (she is as shrill as Rains is menacing) has other ideas and soon he's showing them exactly what his condition is. The trick photography is a marvel of the era, and to be perfectly frank it still astounds. It certainly beats the hell out of the liquidly cartoonish CGI effects found in modern invisible man movies like the Hollow Man pictures.
Rains gets to relish being all kinds of evil as the movie goes on, and he's captivating despite the fact that you never see his face (at least not until the final scene. Uh, 80-year-old spoiler, I guess). In my favorite moment, he's detailing his plans of murder and mayhem to a colleague: "We'll begin with a reign of terror, a few murders here and there, murders of great men, murders of little men, just to show we make no distinction". That line kills me, thankfully not literally.
Annoying autobiographical aside: when I was 11, I went trick-or-treating dressed as the invisible man (under a puffy coat and winter hat, because parents). I was all wrapped up in bandages and sunglasses, and spent most of Halloween explaining to people that no, I wasn't a mummy. Mummies don't wear shades, dammit.
I don't want to start this out on a combative note, but if you don't think that Claude Rains is the BEST, then you probably don't know the meaning of the word "best". He's a commanding presence from the moment he steps on screen, and he holds your attention even when there's nothing on that screen but his voice.
In the opening scene, he arrives at a rooming house wearing a long coat, a slouch hat, gloves, goggles and swathed in bandages. As rumors rumble among the guests about what his condition may be he locks himself in his room to work on...something science-y. He wants to be left alone but of course house matron Una O'Connor (she is as shrill as Rains is menacing) has other ideas and soon he's showing them exactly what his condition is. The trick photography is a marvel of the era, and to be perfectly frank it still astounds. It certainly beats the hell out of the liquidly cartoonish CGI effects found in modern invisible man movies like the Hollow Man pictures.
Rains gets to relish being all kinds of evil as the movie goes on, and he's captivating despite the fact that you never see his face (at least not until the final scene. Uh, 80-year-old spoiler, I guess). In my favorite moment, he's detailing his plans of murder and mayhem to a colleague: "We'll begin with a reign of terror, a few murders here and there, murders of great men, murders of little men, just to show we make no distinction". That line kills me, thankfully not literally.
Annoying autobiographical aside: when I was 11, I went trick-or-treating dressed as the invisible man (under a puffy coat and winter hat, because parents). I was all wrapped up in bandages and sunglasses, and spent most of Halloween explaining to people that no, I wasn't a mummy. Mummies don't wear shades, dammit.
Tuesday, October 22, 2013
Scary Movie Month, Day 22
Silver Bullet
Sometimes movies are over the top in exactly the way you want them to be, and that was the case tonight. Based on Stephen King's novella "Cycle of the Werewolf" with a screenplay by King himself (before he kicked controlled substances, clearly), Silver Bullet finds a werewolf murdering a whole bunch of people in the small town of Tarker's Mills. The population of Tarker's Mills drops rather substantially over the course of the movie, in fact.
Our hero is Marty (Cory Haim), a young boy in a bitchin' motorcycle-infused wheelchair. His uncle Red (human breathalyzer redline Gary Busey) aids him in the fight against the lupine threat even though he doesn't believe the werewolf story. The movie is packed with great character actors like Everett McGill, Terry O'Quinn, Bill Smitrovich, and Lawrence Fucking Tierney. Sadly Tierney only gets a few lines, but he does get to brandish a baseball bat with THE PEACE MAKER emblazoned on it and now I want to watch a whole movie only about him putting that bat to use.
Most of the characters are so cartoonish that they threaten to cross the line into parody (in the case of the drunk dude with the shotgun that line may actually be a few solid steps behind him) but in truth that only ups the entertainment value. I won't reveal who the werewolf is (oh yeah, it's a whodunit) but the reveal is fun and it's always a good time to watch that particular actor chew scenery (and in this case, chew a few supporting players).
While it won't join the likes of Stand By Me, Misery, The Shining, The Shawshank Redemption, or The Mist on the list of successful King adaptations it's a very fun watch if you're in the right mood. It's a breezy 90 minutes, and there's plenty of carnage to suit all your rampaging monster movie needs.
Sometimes movies are over the top in exactly the way you want them to be, and that was the case tonight. Based on Stephen King's novella "Cycle of the Werewolf" with a screenplay by King himself (before he kicked controlled substances, clearly), Silver Bullet finds a werewolf murdering a whole bunch of people in the small town of Tarker's Mills. The population of Tarker's Mills drops rather substantially over the course of the movie, in fact.
Our hero is Marty (Cory Haim), a young boy in a bitchin' motorcycle-infused wheelchair. His uncle Red (human breathalyzer redline Gary Busey) aids him in the fight against the lupine threat even though he doesn't believe the werewolf story. The movie is packed with great character actors like Everett McGill, Terry O'Quinn, Bill Smitrovich, and Lawrence Fucking Tierney. Sadly Tierney only gets a few lines, but he does get to brandish a baseball bat with THE PEACE MAKER emblazoned on it and now I want to watch a whole movie only about him putting that bat to use.
Most of the characters are so cartoonish that they threaten to cross the line into parody (in the case of the drunk dude with the shotgun that line may actually be a few solid steps behind him) but in truth that only ups the entertainment value. I won't reveal who the werewolf is (oh yeah, it's a whodunit) but the reveal is fun and it's always a good time to watch that particular actor chew scenery (and in this case, chew a few supporting players).
While it won't join the likes of Stand By Me, Misery, The Shining, The Shawshank Redemption, or The Mist on the list of successful King adaptations it's a very fun watch if you're in the right mood. It's a breezy 90 minutes, and there's plenty of carnage to suit all your rampaging monster movie needs.
Monday, October 21, 2013
Scary Movie Month, Day 21
Eyes Without A Face
By far the prettiest movie I've watched this month, but let's not pretend that there's not also some startlingly gruesome imagery here, particularly for the time (that being 1960, by the way). This French production concerns a doctor who is developing a face-transplant surgery in order to help his daughter who has been horribly disfigured in a car accident. When I say developing, of course I mean abducting women and surgically removing their faces.
The black and white photography is gorgeous (and I gotta say, the transfer on the new Criterion blu-ray is stunningly crystal clear). The movie is deliberately paced (read: a tad slow) but the images border on hypnotic. It reminded me of one of my favorites, Carnival of Souls, and anything that brings that to mind has got to be high quality.
Souls came out in 1962, the same year that Eyes was released in the US (under the misleadingly awful title The Horror Chamber of Doctor Faustus) so I'm relatively certain Eyes couldn't have influenced Herk Harvey's masterwork but it feels like they're of a piece with each other. Perhaps it's just the influence of the era but they both have an ethereal dream-like quality that makes them stand out among the other movies of the time. Or perhaps it's simply my desire to use the name "Herk" as often as possible. Either way, Eyes Without A Face is absolutely worth seeking out. It's disturbing, hypnotic, and filled with imagery you won't soon forget. I have a feeling I'll be seeing some of those images in my nightmares later tonight, in fact.
By far the prettiest movie I've watched this month, but let's not pretend that there's not also some startlingly gruesome imagery here, particularly for the time (that being 1960, by the way). This French production concerns a doctor who is developing a face-transplant surgery in order to help his daughter who has been horribly disfigured in a car accident. When I say developing, of course I mean abducting women and surgically removing their faces.
The black and white photography is gorgeous (and I gotta say, the transfer on the new Criterion blu-ray is stunningly crystal clear). The movie is deliberately paced (read: a tad slow) but the images border on hypnotic. It reminded me of one of my favorites, Carnival of Souls, and anything that brings that to mind has got to be high quality.
Souls came out in 1962, the same year that Eyes was released in the US (under the misleadingly awful title The Horror Chamber of Doctor Faustus) so I'm relatively certain Eyes couldn't have influenced Herk Harvey's masterwork but it feels like they're of a piece with each other. Perhaps it's just the influence of the era but they both have an ethereal dream-like quality that makes them stand out among the other movies of the time. Or perhaps it's simply my desire to use the name "Herk" as often as possible. Either way, Eyes Without A Face is absolutely worth seeking out. It's disturbing, hypnotic, and filled with imagery you won't soon forget. I have a feeling I'll be seeing some of those images in my nightmares later tonight, in fact.
Sunday, October 20, 2013
Scary Movie Month, Day 20
Texas Chainsaw 3D (in 2D)
Oh, Texas Chainsaw series you scamp, let's take a look at the path that led us here. The original was a groundbreaking work of art, a terrifyingly visceral classic. The second is an over-the-top dark comedy that most people hate but most people are wrong because it's a blast (I actually prefer it to the first. I know the first is technically better, but I'd rather watch the second any time). The third is somewhere in between, but mostly a drag. The fourth is an absolute garbage movie, just a total mess. The too-slick remake works as a jump-scare machine but not much else, and the ill-conceived prequel to that was as forgettable as a movie centered around chainsaw murder could possibly be. So that's six movies of varying quality, and now we have a seventh, purportedly a direct sequel to the original masterpiece.
A direct sequel that takes place...um...some time after the first one. The timeframe is not terribly clear. Anyway, our main character is Heather, a young lady who finds out that she's a long-lost member of the infamous Sawyer clan so she heads to Texas with a group of friends to claim the Sawyer home. Nobody told her about the murderous cannibal in the basement, but what are you gonna do?
It takes a turn during the last half hour that might have been interesting if we knew anything at all about Heather but there's nothing there. Her boyfriend is having an affair with another girl on the trip with them, but nothing ever comes of that, either. It's a detail with no meaning, it does nothing to build any of the characters and is never mentioned after the killing starts so what was it there for other than to give us a shot of Tania Raymonde in her underwear? All the characters are no more than empty vessels, nothing more than meat for the various saws, hooks, hatchets, and grinders to saw, hook, hatchet and grind. I want to appreciate what they were going for by the end, but boy they sure don't make it easy. What could have been something fun and different is tedious, dull, and empty. It's also full of laughably bad CGI so there's something to react to, at least.
Oh, Texas Chainsaw series you scamp, let's take a look at the path that led us here. The original was a groundbreaking work of art, a terrifyingly visceral classic. The second is an over-the-top dark comedy that most people hate but most people are wrong because it's a blast (I actually prefer it to the first. I know the first is technically better, but I'd rather watch the second any time). The third is somewhere in between, but mostly a drag. The fourth is an absolute garbage movie, just a total mess. The too-slick remake works as a jump-scare machine but not much else, and the ill-conceived prequel to that was as forgettable as a movie centered around chainsaw murder could possibly be. So that's six movies of varying quality, and now we have a seventh, purportedly a direct sequel to the original masterpiece.
A direct sequel that takes place...um...some time after the first one. The timeframe is not terribly clear. Anyway, our main character is Heather, a young lady who finds out that she's a long-lost member of the infamous Sawyer clan so she heads to Texas with a group of friends to claim the Sawyer home. Nobody told her about the murderous cannibal in the basement, but what are you gonna do?
It takes a turn during the last half hour that might have been interesting if we knew anything at all about Heather but there's nothing there. Her boyfriend is having an affair with another girl on the trip with them, but nothing ever comes of that, either. It's a detail with no meaning, it does nothing to build any of the characters and is never mentioned after the killing starts so what was it there for other than to give us a shot of Tania Raymonde in her underwear? All the characters are no more than empty vessels, nothing more than meat for the various saws, hooks, hatchets, and grinders to saw, hook, hatchet and grind. I want to appreciate what they were going for by the end, but boy they sure don't make it easy. What could have been something fun and different is tedious, dull, and empty. It's also full of laughably bad CGI so there's something to react to, at least.
Saturday, October 19, 2013
Scary Movie Month, Day 19
Dead & Buried
Part Carpenteresque visceral horror, part Bodysnatchers-style paranoid thriller, Dead & Buried is the best surprise of Scary Movie Month so far. The story follows the Sheriff of Potter's Bluff, a small New England town with a secret. I'm a sucker for Bodysnatchers, Stepford Wives, Faculties...basically any "something ain't right in this small town" story, and this was a great one. It seems that people who die in Potter's Bluff tend to have trouble staying dead. This may be an issue once census season comes around.
I won't say more about the plot because part of the fun, as it is with most movies of this ilk, is the inexorable sense of dread that builds as the characters (and by extension the audience) learn more about what's really going on.
I really liked James Farentino in the lead. He's got just the right everyman kind of quality for a part like this, but he has enough of an air of authority that you don't doubt his effectiveness as a Sheriff, even as circumstances spiral further and further out of his control. Jack Albertson, in one of his last roles, is (and I don't bestow this title lightly) a hoot as the town's big-band loving, sharp-dressed undertaker. It's an odd feeling to get a broad smile across your face every time the undertaker shows up, but there you have it.
I've been aware of this movie only in passing until now, so I really had no idea what to expect. Hearing Patrick and JB of the always excellent podcast F This Movie! extolling the virtues of it earlier this week I went to Barnes & Noble and snagged a copy of the blu-ray. I don't often blind-buy, but I trust their taste and I'm very glad for it. I loved the movie, and the disc is packed with extras (3 commentary tracks!) so I'm looking forward to sinking my proverbial teeth into them. A really fun movie that otherwise might have passed me by, so thanks Patrick & JB!
Part Carpenteresque visceral horror, part Bodysnatchers-style paranoid thriller, Dead & Buried is the best surprise of Scary Movie Month so far. The story follows the Sheriff of Potter's Bluff, a small New England town with a secret. I'm a sucker for Bodysnatchers, Stepford Wives, Faculties...basically any "something ain't right in this small town" story, and this was a great one. It seems that people who die in Potter's Bluff tend to have trouble staying dead. This may be an issue once census season comes around.
I won't say more about the plot because part of the fun, as it is with most movies of this ilk, is the inexorable sense of dread that builds as the characters (and by extension the audience) learn more about what's really going on.
I really liked James Farentino in the lead. He's got just the right everyman kind of quality for a part like this, but he has enough of an air of authority that you don't doubt his effectiveness as a Sheriff, even as circumstances spiral further and further out of his control. Jack Albertson, in one of his last roles, is (and I don't bestow this title lightly) a hoot as the town's big-band loving, sharp-dressed undertaker. It's an odd feeling to get a broad smile across your face every time the undertaker shows up, but there you have it.
I've been aware of this movie only in passing until now, so I really had no idea what to expect. Hearing Patrick and JB of the always excellent podcast F This Movie! extolling the virtues of it earlier this week I went to Barnes & Noble and snagged a copy of the blu-ray. I don't often blind-buy, but I trust their taste and I'm very glad for it. I loved the movie, and the disc is packed with extras (3 commentary tracks!) so I'm looking forward to sinking my proverbial teeth into them. A really fun movie that otherwise might have passed me by, so thanks Patrick & JB!
Friday, October 18, 2013
Scary Movie Month, Day 18
Popcorn
The tagline for this is "Buy A Bag, Go Home In A Box". I just love that.
In all honesty, not only is Popcorn not a great movie, it's not even a particularly good one. That being said, I have a deep affection for it and I think it's a lot of fun. The tone is all over the place and many of the performances are fairly lousy, but it's a movie that tries to be different and I'd always rather see a movie strive for a goal it can't quite reach than one that's content to just be more of the same.
The story concerns a group of high school students (median age around 30) who put on an all-night horror movie marathon at a local theater. Naturally, this leads to them being systematically murdered by a crazed lunatic, because of course they are. Said lunatic can manufacture masks on the spot that allow him to look like people he's just killed so that he can blend in, because of course he can. He can also sound just like them, (say it with me now) because of course he can. There's also some nonsense about a filmmaker who murdered his family when his film was screened years before, and our lead character (Jill Schoelen, always foxy) may or may not be his daughter. It's needlessly convoluted, but it's almost charming in its aimlessness and as I said before it's nice to see it try to be something fresh.
There are a few particularly fun performances by dependable genre vets Tony Roberts, Ray Walston, and Dee Wallace Stone, but the kids at the center of the movie are mostly flat & unmemorable. Tom Villard is a lively, eccentric exception. It's a shame he died so young (at 40, three years after the release of Popcorn), he's fun to watch and makes lots of interesting choices that make even his clunky expository dialogue come to life. I'd love to have had a chance to see what his career might have become.
I don't know that I could truly recommend the movie, but if you manage to find yourself on its crazed wavelength there's a lot to like. The movies-within-the-movie (those being shown at the all-night horror show) are affectionate spoofs of William Castle style gimmicky horror movies. Matinee did it better, but there are clever touches here too. Popcorn is a movie that wears its influences on it's sleeve and tries to do them proud. It may not always succeed, but it puts forth a sincere effort and sometimes that's enough.
The tagline for this is "Buy A Bag, Go Home In A Box". I just love that.
In all honesty, not only is Popcorn not a great movie, it's not even a particularly good one. That being said, I have a deep affection for it and I think it's a lot of fun. The tone is all over the place and many of the performances are fairly lousy, but it's a movie that tries to be different and I'd always rather see a movie strive for a goal it can't quite reach than one that's content to just be more of the same.
The story concerns a group of high school students (median age around 30) who put on an all-night horror movie marathon at a local theater. Naturally, this leads to them being systematically murdered by a crazed lunatic, because of course they are. Said lunatic can manufacture masks on the spot that allow him to look like people he's just killed so that he can blend in, because of course he can. He can also sound just like them, (say it with me now) because of course he can. There's also some nonsense about a filmmaker who murdered his family when his film was screened years before, and our lead character (Jill Schoelen, always foxy) may or may not be his daughter. It's needlessly convoluted, but it's almost charming in its aimlessness and as I said before it's nice to see it try to be something fresh.
There are a few particularly fun performances by dependable genre vets Tony Roberts, Ray Walston, and Dee Wallace Stone, but the kids at the center of the movie are mostly flat & unmemorable. Tom Villard is a lively, eccentric exception. It's a shame he died so young (at 40, three years after the release of Popcorn), he's fun to watch and makes lots of interesting choices that make even his clunky expository dialogue come to life. I'd love to have had a chance to see what his career might have become.
I don't know that I could truly recommend the movie, but if you manage to find yourself on its crazed wavelength there's a lot to like. The movies-within-the-movie (those being shown at the all-night horror show) are affectionate spoofs of William Castle style gimmicky horror movies. Matinee did it better, but there are clever touches here too. Popcorn is a movie that wears its influences on it's sleeve and tries to do them proud. It may not always succeed, but it puts forth a sincere effort and sometimes that's enough.
Thursday, October 17, 2013
Scary Movie Month, Day 17
Maniac (2012)
I'm torn. This is a movie that does what it set out to do very well. The problem is that what it set out to do is make the viewer feel intensely uncomfortable. From a technical standpoint it's very solid, an audacious remake that's truly far superior to the original (not too difficult a task as William Lustig's original is off-putting, ugly, and irredeemably sleazy). That being said, I don't think I ever want to see it again.
The story centers on Frank (Elijah Wood), a man who makes a living (somehow) restoring mannequins (sadly, Meschach Taylor doesn't cameo). Frank also murders and scalps women, a pastime that at least saves him money on wigs for the mannequins, I would assume.
What makes the remake audacious is that almost all of it (minus maybe three or four shots in the entire movie) is seen from Frank's point of view. While that may seem needlessly gimmicky, it turns out to be genuinely unsettling. While it can get a bit repetitive (stalk, kill, scalp, lather, rinse, repeat) it's still a powerful way to let the audience experience Frank's mental state. I feel deeply nauseous as I write this, and I assure you I mean that as a compliment to the filmmakers.
Because it's entirely shot from Frank's POV he tends to look at his reflection an awful lot, but for the most part director Franck Khalfoun stages those moments in a way that allows them to seem organic. There's a great little Easter egg of a moment where Frank's reflection in a car door mimics the poster art for the original Maniac, which had one of the best horror posters of all time (I WARNED YOU NOT TO GO OUT TONIGHT).
Also of note is the score, credited to someone who apparently goes only by the name Rob. It's very John Carpenter-y, all moody synths. The choice to set one scene to "Goodbye Horses", made famous by Ted Levine's tuck-n-prance in Silence of the Lambs, seems a bit too on-the-nose for this movie, but other than that the music was stellar and the tone of the movie was consistently grim.
All things considered, I'm glad I saw it. It's well directed (the first murder legit made me jump in my seat), well acted, and deeply disturbing. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go scrub my brain with steel wool.
I'm torn. This is a movie that does what it set out to do very well. The problem is that what it set out to do is make the viewer feel intensely uncomfortable. From a technical standpoint it's very solid, an audacious remake that's truly far superior to the original (not too difficult a task as William Lustig's original is off-putting, ugly, and irredeemably sleazy). That being said, I don't think I ever want to see it again.
The story centers on Frank (Elijah Wood), a man who makes a living (somehow) restoring mannequins (sadly, Meschach Taylor doesn't cameo). Frank also murders and scalps women, a pastime that at least saves him money on wigs for the mannequins, I would assume.
What makes the remake audacious is that almost all of it (minus maybe three or four shots in the entire movie) is seen from Frank's point of view. While that may seem needlessly gimmicky, it turns out to be genuinely unsettling. While it can get a bit repetitive (stalk, kill, scalp, lather, rinse, repeat) it's still a powerful way to let the audience experience Frank's mental state. I feel deeply nauseous as I write this, and I assure you I mean that as a compliment to the filmmakers.
Because it's entirely shot from Frank's POV he tends to look at his reflection an awful lot, but for the most part director Franck Khalfoun stages those moments in a way that allows them to seem organic. There's a great little Easter egg of a moment where Frank's reflection in a car door mimics the poster art for the original Maniac, which had one of the best horror posters of all time (I WARNED YOU NOT TO GO OUT TONIGHT).
Also of note is the score, credited to someone who apparently goes only by the name Rob. It's very John Carpenter-y, all moody synths. The choice to set one scene to "Goodbye Horses", made famous by Ted Levine's tuck-n-prance in Silence of the Lambs, seems a bit too on-the-nose for this movie, but other than that the music was stellar and the tone of the movie was consistently grim.
All things considered, I'm glad I saw it. It's well directed (the first murder legit made me jump in my seat), well acted, and deeply disturbing. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go scrub my brain with steel wool.
Wednesday, October 16, 2013
Scary Movie Month, Day 16
The Black Waters Of Echo's Pond
A group of people play an ancient board game that makes them reveal their innermost secrets (don't ask) and that causes them to start murdering each other (for reals, don't ask). Also there's a weird goat-creature that keeps appearing (what part of "don't ask" are you having trouble with?) for no discernible reason.
My buddy Fabian describes it as "Jumanji, but horror" and he's not wrong except that Jumanji was easily 100x more tolerable than this shitpile (and I didn't like Jumanji). Danielle Harris and Robert Patrick do their best to elevate the material, but many of the performances surrounding them are so bad that there's simply no salvaging them (I'm looking at you, Avellan twins).
Not only are the aforementioned performances distractingly bad, the movie itself is so amateurishly shot that it borders on laughable. Everyone is in close-up almost all the time, and as the characters are wafer-thin to begin with it becomes nigh impossible to discern who's with who, who's talking about who (whom? I never remember the rules for that. I should look it up, it's probably more entertaining than this movie), etc. The only bright spot in that is the fact that by about 20 minutes in I just didn't care anymore.
I would wonder how they knew how to play the ancient board game, but wondering that only causes me to keep thinking about this movie and why should I put more thought into it than the people who made it? I like the concept of "Jumanji, but horror" and I think there could really be something there. This ain't it, though.
A group of people play an ancient board game that makes them reveal their innermost secrets (don't ask) and that causes them to start murdering each other (for reals, don't ask). Also there's a weird goat-creature that keeps appearing (what part of "don't ask" are you having trouble with?) for no discernible reason.
My buddy Fabian describes it as "Jumanji, but horror" and he's not wrong except that Jumanji was easily 100x more tolerable than this shitpile (and I didn't like Jumanji). Danielle Harris and Robert Patrick do their best to elevate the material, but many of the performances surrounding them are so bad that there's simply no salvaging them (I'm looking at you, Avellan twins).
Not only are the aforementioned performances distractingly bad, the movie itself is so amateurishly shot that it borders on laughable. Everyone is in close-up almost all the time, and as the characters are wafer-thin to begin with it becomes nigh impossible to discern who's with who, who's talking about who (whom? I never remember the rules for that. I should look it up, it's probably more entertaining than this movie), etc. The only bright spot in that is the fact that by about 20 minutes in I just didn't care anymore.
I would wonder how they knew how to play the ancient board game, but wondering that only causes me to keep thinking about this movie and why should I put more thought into it than the people who made it? I like the concept of "Jumanji, but horror" and I think there could really be something there. This ain't it, though.
Tuesday, October 15, 2013
Scary Movie Month, Day 15
Dracula (1931)
What's even left to say about this movie? There's a reason it became the iconic portrayal of Bram Stoker's Count and hasn't left the public consciousness in over 80 years.
Great as Bela Lugosi is in the title role (and he is!) my favorite performance is Dwight Frye as the maniacal Renfield. He's just so fantastically unhinged that it almost seems like the movie can't contain him, like his madness is bound to ooze off the screen and into your life. The crazier he gets the more fun he is to watch and hoo boy does he get crazy.
The movie is a bit stagy and creaky, but that's to be expected and adds to the charm. Lugosi's suave menace is captivating even when he's not doing the whole hypnotic stare thing. Also, it's only a little more than an hour long so you've really got no reason not to visit Castle Dracula at some point this Halloween season. You don't even have to bring any wine, he never drinks it.
What's even left to say about this movie? There's a reason it became the iconic portrayal of Bram Stoker's Count and hasn't left the public consciousness in over 80 years.
Great as Bela Lugosi is in the title role (and he is!) my favorite performance is Dwight Frye as the maniacal Renfield. He's just so fantastically unhinged that it almost seems like the movie can't contain him, like his madness is bound to ooze off the screen and into your life. The crazier he gets the more fun he is to watch and hoo boy does he get crazy.
The movie is a bit stagy and creaky, but that's to be expected and adds to the charm. Lugosi's suave menace is captivating even when he's not doing the whole hypnotic stare thing. Also, it's only a little more than an hour long so you've really got no reason not to visit Castle Dracula at some point this Halloween season. You don't even have to bring any wine, he never drinks it.
Monday, October 14, 2013
Scary Movie Month, Day 14
The Blob (1988)
One of only a handful of remakes that gets it right (The Thing '82, Invasion of the Bodysnatchers '78 and The Fly '86 being the standard bearers for remakes done right). This reimagining (are you as sick of that term as I am?) of the 1958 classic is gory, smart, and scary.
The main difference (other than the horrifically goopy updated special effects, some of which are fairly lousy in their own right but most of which are still satisfyingly squishy) is that (spoiler, by the way) the blob is no longer a menace from outer space but a biochemically engineered weapon of mass blobbage. Making it a government experiment was a masterstroke, giving it a plausibility the 50's blob never had.
Another thing this Blob has going for it is a few genuine surprises regarding who survives and who ends up becoming a helping of Purina Blob Chow. There are real shocks scattered around the movie, upping the intensity factor and adding to the fun.
Kevin Dillon and Shawnee Smith are very appealing leads, and the movie is stuffed with top-notch character actors like Jeffrey DeMunn, Art LaFleur, Paul McCrane, and Jack Nance. Improv comedy legend Del Close appears as well, making him the only person I know of to be in two Blob movies since he also has a brief role in the atrocious sequel to the original, Beware! The Blob!
This movie is flat-out great. It's still scary, it's lots of fun, and I hope Scream Factory gets a hold of it and gives it the special edition blu-ray it richly deserves. The current DVD has no special features other than a creepy, graphic trailer that gives away quite a few deaths. I'd love to hear a commentary from Frank Darabont and/or Chuck Russell and see some footage of Tony Gardner's effects team at work. Oh, well. Even with a bare-bones disc, it's still a big pile of slimy, gooey fun.
One of only a handful of remakes that gets it right (The Thing '82, Invasion of the Bodysnatchers '78 and The Fly '86 being the standard bearers for remakes done right). This reimagining (are you as sick of that term as I am?) of the 1958 classic is gory, smart, and scary.
The main difference (other than the horrifically goopy updated special effects, some of which are fairly lousy in their own right but most of which are still satisfyingly squishy) is that (spoiler, by the way) the blob is no longer a menace from outer space but a biochemically engineered weapon of mass blobbage. Making it a government experiment was a masterstroke, giving it a plausibility the 50's blob never had.
Another thing this Blob has going for it is a few genuine surprises regarding who survives and who ends up becoming a helping of Purina Blob Chow. There are real shocks scattered around the movie, upping the intensity factor and adding to the fun.
Kevin Dillon and Shawnee Smith are very appealing leads, and the movie is stuffed with top-notch character actors like Jeffrey DeMunn, Art LaFleur, Paul McCrane, and Jack Nance. Improv comedy legend Del Close appears as well, making him the only person I know of to be in two Blob movies since he also has a brief role in the atrocious sequel to the original, Beware! The Blob!
This movie is flat-out great. It's still scary, it's lots of fun, and I hope Scream Factory gets a hold of it and gives it the special edition blu-ray it richly deserves. The current DVD has no special features other than a creepy, graphic trailer that gives away quite a few deaths. I'd love to hear a commentary from Frank Darabont and/or Chuck Russell and see some footage of Tony Gardner's effects team at work. Oh, well. Even with a bare-bones disc, it's still a big pile of slimy, gooey fun.
Sunday, October 13, 2013
Scary Movie Month, Day 13
Jason X
Ahhhhhh...that's more like it. Sure, it's not a scary movie, but it's a damn fun one that deserves more love.
Jason Voorhees, the hockey-masked murder enthusiast of the Friday the 13th series is cryogenically frozen after his latest spree and is thawed on a spaceship about 400 years in the future. Sound ridiculous? I haven't even gotten to the part where his head is blown up and he's regenerated as a terminator-esque Uber-Jason...hey, where are you going?
I know, it's nuts, but the movie finds just the right tone and plays everything with enough of a wink that you never feel like it doesn't know exactly what movie it is. Screenwriter Todd Farmer has built his career on movies that have their tongues firmly planted in their cheeks, and he always manages to deliver a fun ride.
The movie gets a lot of flack for being so different but it's way more entertaining than many others in the series. I finished it about half an hour ago and I already kind of want to watch it again...that's a sign of a fun movie. Time to fire up the commentary track...
Ahhhhhh...that's more like it. Sure, it's not a scary movie, but it's a damn fun one that deserves more love.
Jason Voorhees, the hockey-masked murder enthusiast of the Friday the 13th series is cryogenically frozen after his latest spree and is thawed on a spaceship about 400 years in the future. Sound ridiculous? I haven't even gotten to the part where his head is blown up and he's regenerated as a terminator-esque Uber-Jason...hey, where are you going?
I know, it's nuts, but the movie finds just the right tone and plays everything with enough of a wink that you never feel like it doesn't know exactly what movie it is. Screenwriter Todd Farmer has built his career on movies that have their tongues firmly planted in their cheeks, and he always manages to deliver a fun ride.
The movie gets a lot of flack for being so different but it's way more entertaining than many others in the series. I finished it about half an hour ago and I already kind of want to watch it again...that's a sign of a fun movie. Time to fire up the commentary track...
Saturday, October 12, 2013
Scary Movie Month, Day 12
Cornered!
Remember yesterday when I said I couldn't imagine sitting through a worse movie than 976-EVIL? What a difference a day makes.
Obnoxious characters, awful dialogue, and a pathetically predictable "reveal" make this one of the worst slashers I've had the misfortune to see. There's simply no imagination or ingenuity on display. When I was a kid, my friend Stu & I would make horror movies on his camcorder all the time. Those were less amateur than this mess.
The story follows a group of terrible people locked in a convenience store overnight with a slasher. The worst thing about these people is how slowly they're killed off, even though the movie is only 80-something minutes long. I've never rooted for a killer to murder absolutely everybody before, and I'm a lifelong slasher devotee. I can't think of a single movie with less likable protagonists, even Sleepaway Camp. The extent of their characterization is that the fat guy is constantly eating donuts, because that's all fat guys ever do, right? That's the sort of thing that passes for characterization in this movie, and it's still worse than you're thinking it must be.
It's rare that I have occasion to utter the sentence "Steve Guttenberg should fire his agent," but there you have it. I have tremendous affection for low-budget independent horror, but Cornered! shows that just because you have the tools to put a movie together doesn't mean you have the talent. Or a movie, for that matter.
Friday, October 11, 2013
Scary Movie Month, Day 11
976-EVIL
I sincerely hope that this is as low as Scary Month Goes because I can't imagine sitting through something worse than this. This isn't "so bad it's good" it's "so bad it's embarrassing".
The story (such as it is) follows a teen named Hoax (no, really. According to this movie Hoax is a name that has been given to a human person) as he uses a demonic 976 "Horrorscope" number to avenge himself on bullies and such. As played by future gay porn icon Stephen Geoffreys, Hoax goes from unlikable to somehow less likable over the course of the movie. Geoffreys' shrillness worked very well for the role of Evil Ed in the great Fright Night, but here it's just too much to make it possible to sympathize with Hoax.
There are no good performances in the movie, but Geoffreys isn't even the worst. That dubious honor goes to Academy Award winner Sandy Dennis in one of her last movies. She goes so far over the top as Hoax's religious zealot mother that she practically has to tunnel back up from the bottom of the screen. I'd say it's a performance that has to be seen to be believed, but I don't think anybody should have to see this.
It was directed by Robert Englund, who rose to fame playing Freddy Krueger. The direction is uninspired at best, leaving us with a 90 minute horror movie without a single scare. Englund has only directed one other movie (unseen by me), a comedy called Killer Pad, released about 20 years after 976-EVIL. The fact that he hasn't directed more is not a surprise.
There is some good news here. The fact that the plot is centered around a 976 number means we should be spared a remake, as 976 numbers no longer exist. Thank God for progress, I guess.
I sincerely hope that this is as low as Scary Month Goes because I can't imagine sitting through something worse than this. This isn't "so bad it's good" it's "so bad it's embarrassing".
The story (such as it is) follows a teen named Hoax (no, really. According to this movie Hoax is a name that has been given to a human person) as he uses a demonic 976 "Horrorscope" number to avenge himself on bullies and such. As played by future gay porn icon Stephen Geoffreys, Hoax goes from unlikable to somehow less likable over the course of the movie. Geoffreys' shrillness worked very well for the role of Evil Ed in the great Fright Night, but here it's just too much to make it possible to sympathize with Hoax.
There are no good performances in the movie, but Geoffreys isn't even the worst. That dubious honor goes to Academy Award winner Sandy Dennis in one of her last movies. She goes so far over the top as Hoax's religious zealot mother that she practically has to tunnel back up from the bottom of the screen. I'd say it's a performance that has to be seen to be believed, but I don't think anybody should have to see this.
It was directed by Robert Englund, who rose to fame playing Freddy Krueger. The direction is uninspired at best, leaving us with a 90 minute horror movie without a single scare. Englund has only directed one other movie (unseen by me), a comedy called Killer Pad, released about 20 years after 976-EVIL. The fact that he hasn't directed more is not a surprise.
There is some good news here. The fact that the plot is centered around a 976 number means we should be spared a remake, as 976 numbers no longer exist. Thank God for progress, I guess.
Thursday, October 10, 2013
The Blob (1958)
A 30-year-old teenager and his 30-year-old teen girlfriend encounter a Jell-O™ space monster that eats several upstanding citizens and generally wreaks havoc upon their small town.
One of the best creature-features of the 50's, from the insanely catchy theme song (credited to The Five Blobs) to the question mark that caps off "THE END?" it's pure fun through and through. In the interest of full disclosure, I should mention that this movie scared me to death when I first saw it (on broadcast tv) when I was 7 or 8. I had blobmares for years. I was 12 when Chuck Russell's remake hit theaters and the posters alone were enough to rekindle the blobmares I thought I had finally put behind me. Those memories are reignited every time I see either movie, and this is the first time I've gotten to see this one on blu-ray. The transfer is fantastic and it's hard to believe I watched it so many times on EP mode VHS over the years...today was practically like watching it for the first time. Hope I don't get more blobmares...
There's something so staggeringly horrifying about a concept like The Blob that it amazes me there have only been 3 blob movies in the history of film. An unstoppable ooze that can't be reasoned with or spoken to, it exists only to consume and as it consumes it grows bigger and redder with the blood of its victims...that is some primally scary shit. The 50's trappings of the original may seem a bit silly in hindsight, but the creature itself is still scary and the movie still plays really well. At a brisk 82 minutes it doesn't overstay its welcome and keeps the chills coming at a reasonably steady pace.
Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go downstairs to my kitchen and throw away all my Jell-O™. Better safe than sorry...
A 30-year-old teenager and his 30-year-old teen girlfriend encounter a Jell-O™ space monster that eats several upstanding citizens and generally wreaks havoc upon their small town.
One of the best creature-features of the 50's, from the insanely catchy theme song (credited to The Five Blobs) to the question mark that caps off "THE END?" it's pure fun through and through. In the interest of full disclosure, I should mention that this movie scared me to death when I first saw it (on broadcast tv) when I was 7 or 8. I had blobmares for years. I was 12 when Chuck Russell's remake hit theaters and the posters alone were enough to rekindle the blobmares I thought I had finally put behind me. Those memories are reignited every time I see either movie, and this is the first time I've gotten to see this one on blu-ray. The transfer is fantastic and it's hard to believe I watched it so many times on EP mode VHS over the years...today was practically like watching it for the first time. Hope I don't get more blobmares...
There's something so staggeringly horrifying about a concept like The Blob that it amazes me there have only been 3 blob movies in the history of film. An unstoppable ooze that can't be reasoned with or spoken to, it exists only to consume and as it consumes it grows bigger and redder with the blood of its victims...that is some primally scary shit. The 50's trappings of the original may seem a bit silly in hindsight, but the creature itself is still scary and the movie still plays really well. At a brisk 82 minutes it doesn't overstay its welcome and keeps the chills coming at a reasonably steady pace.
Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go downstairs to my kitchen and throw away all my Jell-O™. Better safe than sorry...
Wednesday, October 9, 2013
Scary Movie Month, Day 9
The Thing (2011)
There's a question that I've heard Patrick Bromley pose a few times on F This Movie! that was going through my head through most of this premaquel to John Carpenter's 1982 The Thing. The question is simple: who is this movie for? The answer in this case is also fairly simple: nobody.
It's positioned as a prequel to Carpenter's classic, but it covers all the same beats which makes it play as more of a remake. I don't know who was clamoring to hear the story of what happened to the Norwegian researchers before MacReady and his crew showed up, but if they're out there all they got was a bland carbon copy of the '82 version. If there are people who just want to see what the '82 version would look like with digital effects in the place of Rob Bottin's spectacular practical effects I guess they've got their movie, but to what end? It doesn't bring anything new to the table, and only leaves us wondering why bother telling us we're going to get an untold story and then just giving us a remake?
Carpenter's film was a remake to begin with, of 1951's The Thing From Another World, but it was smart in that it separated itself enough from the original to justify its existence. I can think of no justification for this. If you really want to know how the ax ended up in the wall, I guess this movie is for you. Maybe if you're out there you can let me know what difference knowing that makes, and if the answers found here are in any way satisfying.
There's a question that I've heard Patrick Bromley pose a few times on F This Movie! that was going through my head through most of this premaquel to John Carpenter's 1982 The Thing. The question is simple: who is this movie for? The answer in this case is also fairly simple: nobody.
It's positioned as a prequel to Carpenter's classic, but it covers all the same beats which makes it play as more of a remake. I don't know who was clamoring to hear the story of what happened to the Norwegian researchers before MacReady and his crew showed up, but if they're out there all they got was a bland carbon copy of the '82 version. If there are people who just want to see what the '82 version would look like with digital effects in the place of Rob Bottin's spectacular practical effects I guess they've got their movie, but to what end? It doesn't bring anything new to the table, and only leaves us wondering why bother telling us we're going to get an untold story and then just giving us a remake?
Carpenter's film was a remake to begin with, of 1951's The Thing From Another World, but it was smart in that it separated itself enough from the original to justify its existence. I can think of no justification for this. If you really want to know how the ax ended up in the wall, I guess this movie is for you. Maybe if you're out there you can let me know what difference knowing that makes, and if the answers found here are in any way satisfying.
Tuesday, October 8, 2013
Scary Movie Month, Day 8
Curse of Chucky
Perhaps it's just a case of low expectations, but I thought this latest entry in the Child's Play franchise (the sixth, for those keeping score) was a blast.
Lots of franchises will point at a late entry and say that it's where they wanted to go back to basics to make their killer scary again. The shocking thing is, the killer doll franchise that devolved into straight-up comedy in the 4th and 5th entries is one of the few series that managed to do exactly that, and even more astoundingly they did it without ignoring the ones that came before. This is also the first Chucky movie to debut direct to video, so the fact that it's watchable at all is a major feat, the fact that it's as good as it is is practically miraculous.
Series creator Don Mancini (he wrote or co-wrote all six movies, this is the second one he directed) truly brings things back to basics, keeping Chucky mostly offscreen for a good portion of the movie and concentrating on suspense (though gorehounds needn't worry, when the kills come they're suitably gruesome). There's a scene involving a poisoned bowl of chili that manages to create real tension, something we haven't seen in a Child's Play movie since the first one.
The basic plot finds Chucky menacing a wealthy family in a large house, and it's set up almost like a haunted house movie, only the audience knows that the threat is real. Mancini does an admirable job showcasing the geography of the house so we always know where the characters are in relation to one another, and manages a few decent jolts along the way. Brad Dourif is fun, as always, as the voice of Chucky and his daughter Fiona Dourif is a standout in the lead role. The movie gets pretty crazy as it builds toward the conclusion, and it feels like Mancini is having lots of fun with the world he helped create.
Fans of the series (and I don't know who else would be watching this, honestly) should be sure to stick around after the credits. There's a stinger that makes absolutely no narrative sense, but should still leave you with a smile on your face.
Perhaps it's just a case of low expectations, but I thought this latest entry in the Child's Play franchise (the sixth, for those keeping score) was a blast.
Lots of franchises will point at a late entry and say that it's where they wanted to go back to basics to make their killer scary again. The shocking thing is, the killer doll franchise that devolved into straight-up comedy in the 4th and 5th entries is one of the few series that managed to do exactly that, and even more astoundingly they did it without ignoring the ones that came before. This is also the first Chucky movie to debut direct to video, so the fact that it's watchable at all is a major feat, the fact that it's as good as it is is practically miraculous.
Series creator Don Mancini (he wrote or co-wrote all six movies, this is the second one he directed) truly brings things back to basics, keeping Chucky mostly offscreen for a good portion of the movie and concentrating on suspense (though gorehounds needn't worry, when the kills come they're suitably gruesome). There's a scene involving a poisoned bowl of chili that manages to create real tension, something we haven't seen in a Child's Play movie since the first one.
The basic plot finds Chucky menacing a wealthy family in a large house, and it's set up almost like a haunted house movie, only the audience knows that the threat is real. Mancini does an admirable job showcasing the geography of the house so we always know where the characters are in relation to one another, and manages a few decent jolts along the way. Brad Dourif is fun, as always, as the voice of Chucky and his daughter Fiona Dourif is a standout in the lead role. The movie gets pretty crazy as it builds toward the conclusion, and it feels like Mancini is having lots of fun with the world he helped create.
Fans of the series (and I don't know who else would be watching this, honestly) should be sure to stick around after the credits. There's a stinger that makes absolutely no narrative sense, but should still leave you with a smile on your face.
Monday, October 7, 2013
Scary Movie Month, Day 7
Trilogy of Terror
You know how nobody ever talks about the first two stories in this movie and they only focus on the final story where Karen Black is menaced by a Zuni fetish doll? There's a reason for that. The first two stories (also starring Black, she plays 4 different characters throughout the movie) aren't bad, but there's really nothing that makes them stand out. The one with the Zuni fetish doll, on the other hand, is pretty great and very different from the other two.
All three stories are by the late Richard Matheson (the first two adapted by William F. Nolan, the third by Matheson himself) and all three play like Twilight Zone episodes (a show for which Matheson wrote many of the best episodes). Each one has a final twist, but where the first two aren't terribly surprising or scary the third story ends with an image that may well haunt your dreams.
Black is great, and seems to be having fun getting to play so many disparate characters. The third story is based on a fairly goofy conceit (person vs doll doesn't seem like the most difficult of struggles for the person, but it's kept horror filmmakers in business for many years) but its relentless pace and Black's committed performance elevate it to something special. The other two stories are much more low-key, but she gets to vamp it up a little in each which keeps them entertaining. There's no framing story so you can watch it in bite-size pieces like the tasty Halloween treat it is.
You know how nobody ever talks about the first two stories in this movie and they only focus on the final story where Karen Black is menaced by a Zuni fetish doll? There's a reason for that. The first two stories (also starring Black, she plays 4 different characters throughout the movie) aren't bad, but there's really nothing that makes them stand out. The one with the Zuni fetish doll, on the other hand, is pretty great and very different from the other two.
All three stories are by the late Richard Matheson (the first two adapted by William F. Nolan, the third by Matheson himself) and all three play like Twilight Zone episodes (a show for which Matheson wrote many of the best episodes). Each one has a final twist, but where the first two aren't terribly surprising or scary the third story ends with an image that may well haunt your dreams.
Black is great, and seems to be having fun getting to play so many disparate characters. The third story is based on a fairly goofy conceit (person vs doll doesn't seem like the most difficult of struggles for the person, but it's kept horror filmmakers in business for many years) but its relentless pace and Black's committed performance elevate it to something special. The other two stories are much more low-key, but she gets to vamp it up a little in each which keeps them entertaining. There's no framing story so you can watch it in bite-size pieces like the tasty Halloween treat it is.
Sunday, October 6, 2013
Scary Movie Month, Day 6
Pumpkinhead
Lance Henriksen is Ed, whose young son is killed accidentally by a group of dirtbiking teens so he goes to a local witchy woman and conjures up a vengeance demon, like you do. Paring the story down to just those essentials doesn't do the movie justice, however, as it has more on its mind than you might expect.
Vengeance takes a toll, as Ed learns rather too quickly here. He's clearly regretting his decision to conjure a murdermonster as soon as it starts killing people. While I'm impressed with the movie's take on the morality of the situation, it also seems like it may have been a bit more effective if Ed had enjoyed his vengeance for a moment before he realized what it made him into. By having him immediately regret it there's nowhere to take his character, he just kind of hangs out as the rest of the (mostly innocent) teens are ripped to pieces. It's not a dealbreaker, and it's certainly a more thoughtful movie than you might expect. Henriksen is great in the lead, which is nice since he so rarely gets to play sympathetic.
The creature design is excellent (because Stan Winston), especially as the movie goes on and Lance and the creature start to take on each other's attributes. Lots of moody blue and orange lighting heightens the unreality of it all but also helps to give it a distinctive look. I liked it quite a bit, I just wish I felt more of an emotional connection to anybody, either Ed or the kids. I did learn not to conjure any demons, so there's that I suppose.
Lance Henriksen is Ed, whose young son is killed accidentally by a group of dirtbiking teens so he goes to a local witchy woman and conjures up a vengeance demon, like you do. Paring the story down to just those essentials doesn't do the movie justice, however, as it has more on its mind than you might expect.
Vengeance takes a toll, as Ed learns rather too quickly here. He's clearly regretting his decision to conjure a murdermonster as soon as it starts killing people. While I'm impressed with the movie's take on the morality of the situation, it also seems like it may have been a bit more effective if Ed had enjoyed his vengeance for a moment before he realized what it made him into. By having him immediately regret it there's nowhere to take his character, he just kind of hangs out as the rest of the (mostly innocent) teens are ripped to pieces. It's not a dealbreaker, and it's certainly a more thoughtful movie than you might expect. Henriksen is great in the lead, which is nice since he so rarely gets to play sympathetic.
The creature design is excellent (because Stan Winston), especially as the movie goes on and Lance and the creature start to take on each other's attributes. Lots of moody blue and orange lighting heightens the unreality of it all but also helps to give it a distinctive look. I liked it quite a bit, I just wish I felt more of an emotional connection to anybody, either Ed or the kids. I did learn not to conjure any demons, so there's that I suppose.
Saturday, October 5, 2013
Scary Movie Month, Day 5
John Carpenter's Prince of Darkness
I don't know why this one isn't more well-known. Maybe it's just that the biggest name in the cast is Donald Pleasence, but it's a pretty great little movie and deserves more love.
The story centers on a group of grad students researching odd goings-on in an abandoned church. Turns out there's a big ol' jar of Satan goo in the basement which causes all Hell to break loose. The tension mounts nicely as the movie goes on, and while it's gorier than the majority of Carpenter's work it doesn't feel gratuitous.
Adding to the atmosphere is the great electronic score by Carpenter and Alan Howarth, one of their best. The movie as a whole finds a terrific balance by remaining unnerving and unsettling throughout without ever becoming grim or oppressive. It's all a little silly, but it plays it straight while managing not to veer into unintentional comedy. Definitely worth a look.
I don't know why this one isn't more well-known. Maybe it's just that the biggest name in the cast is Donald Pleasence, but it's a pretty great little movie and deserves more love.
The story centers on a group of grad students researching odd goings-on in an abandoned church. Turns out there's a big ol' jar of Satan goo in the basement which causes all Hell to break loose. The tension mounts nicely as the movie goes on, and while it's gorier than the majority of Carpenter's work it doesn't feel gratuitous.
Adding to the atmosphere is the great electronic score by Carpenter and Alan Howarth, one of their best. The movie as a whole finds a terrific balance by remaining unnerving and unsettling throughout without ever becoming grim or oppressive. It's all a little silly, but it plays it straight while managing not to veer into unintentional comedy. Definitely worth a look.
Friday, October 4, 2013
Scary Movie Month, Day 4
Dead Silence
When I announced today's choice on Twitter, a few people said "I really wanted to like that one, but it just didn't work for me." I totally get that, mainly because I feel the same way.
After a nicely atmospheric opening (love the choice to use the 1930's Universal logo) things quickly get mired in a mess of clunky exposition and odd character quirks. I liked Detective MarkyMarksBrother (Donnie Mark?) despite that his character was seemingly defined by the fact that he was constantly shaving. No exaggeration, every one of his scenes includes him pulling an electric razor out of his pocket and shaving his chin. Why? Because characterization, I guess? When presented with a killer ventriloquist's dummy movie, your first thought upon finishing it shouldn't be "what brand of razor was he using and why doesn't he just switch because he's clearly not getting the close shave he desires."
There aren't many scares but the ending is aaaaaaalmost batshit crazy enough to warrant a recommendation. I won't spoil anything, but there is a revelation during the climax that is certainly something I've never seen in a movie before. If only the whole movie had been as gleefully silly as that scene it might have been a minor gem. As it stands, it's a misfire. Not bad, but not worth going out of your way to see.
When I announced today's choice on Twitter, a few people said "I really wanted to like that one, but it just didn't work for me." I totally get that, mainly because I feel the same way.
After a nicely atmospheric opening (love the choice to use the 1930's Universal logo) things quickly get mired in a mess of clunky exposition and odd character quirks. I liked Detective MarkyMarksBrother (Donnie Mark?) despite that his character was seemingly defined by the fact that he was constantly shaving. No exaggeration, every one of his scenes includes him pulling an electric razor out of his pocket and shaving his chin. Why? Because characterization, I guess? When presented with a killer ventriloquist's dummy movie, your first thought upon finishing it shouldn't be "what brand of razor was he using and why doesn't he just switch because he's clearly not getting the close shave he desires."
There aren't many scares but the ending is aaaaaaalmost batshit crazy enough to warrant a recommendation. I won't spoil anything, but there is a revelation during the climax that is certainly something I've never seen in a movie before. If only the whole movie had been as gleefully silly as that scene it might have been a minor gem. As it stands, it's a misfire. Not bad, but not worth going out of your way to see.
Thursday, October 3, 2013
Scary Movie Month, Day 3
Wes Craven's New Nightmare
You know that thing when people say a movie is ahead of its time (™ & © Heather Wixson)? This is the kind of movie they're talking about. While it's not completely successful, this meta exercise in terror really does have a fresh, exciting idea at its core, an idea that I would love to see other franchises tackle as well.
It seems Hollywood has had enough of cranking out Nightmare On Elm Street movies, and when they stop it awakens something evil that torments Heather Langenkamp (star of the original and third Nightmare) and her family. I really love the concept and the way Craven blends the "real" world with the movie world. The last act is a bit problematic for me as it devolves into more of a typical Nightmare movie, but even in that it's still head and shoulders above most of the other entries in the series. Also, while I understand the need to separate the "real" Freddy from the movie Freddy, I'm not a huge fan of Nightmare veteran David Miller's make-up in this one. I like the muted color palette (goofy green hat aside) and even the robo-claw but the overall look is very plastic-y and overdesigned so it makes it difficult to buy Freddy as a real-world threat. Those are just nitpicks, really. It's a clever movie that's definitely worth a look, especially for fans who grew tired of "funny" Freddy.
I wish more franchises would take chances like this and think outside the bun when they're on their seventh entry or so, but alas this made about $30 in theaters ($7 of them mine, I'm proud to say) so it was not to be. Too bad.
You know that thing when people say a movie is ahead of its time (™ & © Heather Wixson)? This is the kind of movie they're talking about. While it's not completely successful, this meta exercise in terror really does have a fresh, exciting idea at its core, an idea that I would love to see other franchises tackle as well.
It seems Hollywood has had enough of cranking out Nightmare On Elm Street movies, and when they stop it awakens something evil that torments Heather Langenkamp (star of the original and third Nightmare) and her family. I really love the concept and the way Craven blends the "real" world with the movie world. The last act is a bit problematic for me as it devolves into more of a typical Nightmare movie, but even in that it's still head and shoulders above most of the other entries in the series. Also, while I understand the need to separate the "real" Freddy from the movie Freddy, I'm not a huge fan of Nightmare veteran David Miller's make-up in this one. I like the muted color palette (goofy green hat aside) and even the robo-claw but the overall look is very plastic-y and overdesigned so it makes it difficult to buy Freddy as a real-world threat. Those are just nitpicks, really. It's a clever movie that's definitely worth a look, especially for fans who grew tired of "funny" Freddy.
I wish more franchises would take chances like this and think outside the bun when they're on their seventh entry or so, but alas this made about $30 in theaters ($7 of them mine, I'm proud to say) so it was not to be. Too bad.
Wednesday, October 2, 2013
Scary Movie Month, Day 2
Witchboard
Reasonably entertaining hokum in which Tawny Kitaen (giving pretty much the performance you expect from her) is tormented by an evil spirit she encounters through a ouija board. She disappears for a surprisingly long stretch as our heroes Hunky Boyfriend and Captain FluffyMullet go hunting for answers, none of which are terribly satisfying.
That being said, there's some fun to be had here. There's an all-too-brief encounter with a valley girl medium, a bit of silliness the movie could have used more of. There are moments when it seems to know what movie it is, followed by moments where it takes itself too seriously. It's entertaining when it embraces how dopey it all is, though.
I'd be remiss not to point out that the climax features one of the absolute best/worst bad-effects sequences I've ever seen, tracking a character falling through a window. Possibly a worse effect than the Barbie doll through the window at the end of the original Nightmare On Elm Street, kind of worth watching the movie just to get that moment.
Reasonably entertaining hokum in which Tawny Kitaen (giving pretty much the performance you expect from her) is tormented by an evil spirit she encounters through a ouija board. She disappears for a surprisingly long stretch as our heroes Hunky Boyfriend and Captain FluffyMullet go hunting for answers, none of which are terribly satisfying.
That being said, there's some fun to be had here. There's an all-too-brief encounter with a valley girl medium, a bit of silliness the movie could have used more of. There are moments when it seems to know what movie it is, followed by moments where it takes itself too seriously. It's entertaining when it embraces how dopey it all is, though.
I'd be remiss not to point out that the climax features one of the absolute best/worst bad-effects sequences I've ever seen, tracking a character falling through a window. Possibly a worse effect than the Barbie doll through the window at the end of the original Nightmare On Elm Street, kind of worth watching the movie just to get that moment.
Tuesday, October 1, 2013
Scary Movie Month Day 1
Halloween: Resurrection
It's unfair to say that Busta Rhymes gives the worst performance in this movie, because he may well give the worst performance in the entire Halloween series. The dialogue is awful to begin with ("Michael Myers ain't no sound bite!") but not one word out of Busta's mouth at any point in the movie sounds like anything any human being would ever actually say, and even if they would they'd certainly say it more convincingly.
Just because Busta's the worst thing about the movie doesn't mean the rest of it isn't excruciatingly awful too, though. With terrible pacing, no sense of scope (just how big is the Myers house, exactly?), and a busload of shaky-cam bullshit, it's no surprise that this was the last Halloween before the powers that be decided to reboot. Problematic as Rob Zombie's rebootquels are, at least they're interesting and feel like the work of somebody with a vision. This plays like it was written by a focus group: "Kids are into rap and kung fu and reality tv and also the internet is a thing so let's put those in there, who gives a shit if it makes any goddamn sense!"
I thought the series had reached its nadir with the execrable sixth entry (The Curse of Michael Myers), but at least that had a touch of Halloween atmosphere, this one can't even manage that. Pure garbage from top to bottom.
Oh, and a note to whoever came up with "Dangertainment" as the title of the internet show the movie is centered around: you are the worst, and I hate you.
It's unfair to say that Busta Rhymes gives the worst performance in this movie, because he may well give the worst performance in the entire Halloween series. The dialogue is awful to begin with ("Michael Myers ain't no sound bite!") but not one word out of Busta's mouth at any point in the movie sounds like anything any human being would ever actually say, and even if they would they'd certainly say it more convincingly.
Just because Busta's the worst thing about the movie doesn't mean the rest of it isn't excruciatingly awful too, though. With terrible pacing, no sense of scope (just how big is the Myers house, exactly?), and a busload of shaky-cam bullshit, it's no surprise that this was the last Halloween before the powers that be decided to reboot. Problematic as Rob Zombie's rebootquels are, at least they're interesting and feel like the work of somebody with a vision. This plays like it was written by a focus group: "Kids are into rap and kung fu and reality tv and also the internet is a thing so let's put those in there, who gives a shit if it makes any goddamn sense!"
I thought the series had reached its nadir with the execrable sixth entry (The Curse of Michael Myers), but at least that had a touch of Halloween atmosphere, this one can't even manage that. Pure garbage from top to bottom.
Oh, and a note to whoever came up with "Dangertainment" as the title of the internet show the movie is centered around: you are the worst, and I hate you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)