Josh: I just love Scary Movie Month. I've been a horror junkie most of my life, and the devotion to horror movies this time of year, especially within our beloved F This Movie! community, is simply the best thing. I thought it might be nice for us to just talk about horror a bit. How we got into it, what attracts us to it, what we look for in it, that sort of thing.
I'll start with a bit of history for me. Stephen King's It hit paperback when I was 11 years old. I was in a small-town bookstore called The Bookworm with my mom and she bought it for me because I was captivated by the cover and she was always happy to encourage me to read more. The cover showed a tiny paper boat floating toward a sewer grate, and a scaly green clawed hand reaching out of the grate. I was too young for the book and while my mother recognized that, she also knew I was a pack rat and would hold onto the book until I was ready for it.
Cut to less than a month later. My father and my brother were arguing about something, I have no idea what. I only know the yelling was loud and I didn't want any part of it. I went into my room, closed the door and looked for a distraction, any distraction. There on my shelf sat this brick of a book, over 1,000 pages and with that same image of the clawed hand and paper boat on the spine. Desperate to tune out the tension in the house, I plucked it off the shelf and began to read.
The story opens with little Georgie Denbrough, a kid a bit younger than I was at the time but not by very much, folding that little paper boat on the cover. In order for the boat to float, he had to coat the bottom with paraffin wax. Unfortunately, the paraffin was in the basement, and Georgie was afraid to go down to the basement.
At this point, I was already hooked. We were living in New York at the time, and we had a big water heater in the laundry room in our basement. It was loud and had some ancient-looking cobwebby brickwork behind it and I was always scared to go near it. I was amazed that Georgie was so similar to me, I had never encountered a character in a book that had the same fears I did before.
Georgie was afraid to go down the steps into his basement and I was afraid to go with him, but we had to go down there. We needed that wax. So down we went, Georgie Denbrough and I. We went and we both got scared that a scaly green clawed hand was going to reach for us from the darkness, but we charged down those steps, grabbed the wax, and hauled ass back upstairs. We did it. We got the wax, and there was nothing in the basement to be afraid of.
I kept reading, feeling triumphant about braving those basement stairs along with Georgie, and I had forgotten all about the argument going on outside my door. Georgie went outside to sail his boat along the gutter, and a page or so later the world came crashing down. His boat slipped into a sewer grate and when he went to retrieve it, there was something waiting for him behind the grate. Something with scaly green clawed hands. Something with teeth.
That something killed little Georgie Denbrough.
Mere moments after his triumph over his fear of the basement, our triumph dammit, Georgie was dead. Gone. Literally ripped apart. I cried. Boy, did I cry. I was devastated, horrified, sad, and scared out of my mind. I put the book in a drawer, I couldn't look at that cover anymore, and I sobbed and shook with anger and fear. I knew it was coming, after all it was right there on the cover, but I never imagined that Georgie wouldn't survive it. Georgie was just a kid, like me. Kids don't die in books. They just don't. There are rules.
Stephen King broke the rules.
It was years before I went back to that book. I was in high school when I finally read the whole thing, but as long as I live I'll never forget the way it felt reading those first few pages. That was my introduction to horror, to real horror, to that helpless, terrified chill in your bones that real horror gives you. I had been scared of things before (to this day my parents make fun of my blobmares and fear of Jaws) but nothing has ever matched the sheer terror of braving Georgie Denbrough's basement steps only to lose him to the very creature he was so afraid of.
The thing is, as scared as I was after Georgie died, I was also amazed at how completely absorbed in the story I had been. Everything around me fell away, there were no arguments, there was no anger, all of that stuff was going on someplace else. I was in Derry, with Georgie Denbrough. Nothing had ever enveloped me so completely before, and as scared as I was, I was also hooked on that feeling. I had found a new home, odd as that must seem considering the circumstances.
Gabby, was there anything like that for you? Any one book or movie or what have you that got you hooked on horror?
Gabby: I love that story Josh. I wish I had one solid thing that I could point to, but really it was a collection of things. I have mentioned in the comments section on F This Movie a few times my affinity with witches. Even when I was a little girl I loved the Meg and Mog books and wanted to be Meg. I was always obsessed with The Wizard of Oz (that hasn't changed) and fascinated by The Witches (1990). When I was a bit older I got hooked on Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Charmed. I think fantasy and horror are at least cousins and I soaked up the world of monsters and vampires as well and wanted more. When you're a certain age (is this just girls?) horror is the coolest things ever. Watching a horror movie is THE activity at a slumber party. I remember when it was my turn and I picked The Others, I was so happy to see the reactions of those around me. It spooked them, my choice worked! I watched Blair Witch Project at one and remember being scared out of my wits thinking it was real, even though I still enjoyed that feeling. Despite one traumatic experience with The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974), which was watching it when I was 11, I loved the world of horror. Still just the idea of the 74' Texas Chainsaw terrifies me, I don't know if I will ever be brave enough to re-watch it. I remember the first time I watched Silence of the Lambs (1991). I was so intoxicated by it. Every detail mattered to me. I was watching it over and over. My dad thought I was so weird. Who the hell watches a movie like that so many times? I did! I was that kind of person all along really.
Do you have any horror movies that you have watched so many times yet you still love getting absorbed in it?
Also do you have any movies that you find essential to Scary Movie Month?
Josh: It's not just girls, I think most kids go through that phase where horror is the coolest thing ever, some of us are just lucky enough to never grow out of that. I think it particularly appeals to kids because it's something that's so often forbidden, and there ain't no fruit sweeter than forbidden fruit. Also, I've never heard of Meg and Mog. Tell me more.
As for movies I still love getting absorbed in, absolutely. In fact, a few months ago I did the unthinkable. I took a DVD off my shelf, I put it in the player, I turned out all the lights, and I (gasp! shriek! other noises of terror!) turned off my phone. I know, right? I turned off my phone as if I was at the movies and I watched a movie on my couch in the dark with no distractions.
That movie was The Shining, and despite the fact that I've seen it multiple times (including once in a theater on 35mm for a Halloween night screening) it completely cast a spell over me. It probably helps that it's a movie so dependent on atmosphere, but it was like seeing it for the first time. I got just as lost in the Overlook as the Torrances and it was glorious.
There are only two movies I find essential for Scary Movie Month and they're Halloween (Carpenter, not Zombie, and I don't like that we live in a world where that qualifier is required) and Halloween III. Other than those, I tend to mix it up. This year my goal has been one new-to-me scary movie every day and so far I've been reaching my goal (I'm writing this on 10/19, on the schedule for today is the brand new director's cut of Clive Barker's Nightbreed, new enough to count). Also, every year since 1996 I've at some point in October listened to or watched Oingo Boingo's farewell concert, recorded on Halloween night in 1995. They were my favorite band growing up and that concert always helps me get into the seasonal mood, especially now that I live in a state where the leaves don't change and the air never cools.
Are there any movies or books or pieces of music that you find essential to Scary Movie Month? I know this year you've taken tons of new-to-you movies out of the library, have there been any that you feel may become Scary Movie Month essentials, or any that really stood out to you as something special?
Gabby: Meg and Mog are a series of books for small children, with large print and lots of pictures. Meg is a witch, Mog is her cat and she has a pet owl... named Owl. They were such fun. I remember one ends with Meg turning her witch friends into mice, flying off, cackling that she would turn them back next Halloween! What a fun way to get young kids into the world of Horror. There are episodes of the animated TV show available on youtube I believe. Wow that screening of The Shining sounds fantastic. I'd love to see that in the cinema.
A Scary Movie Month essential for me is at least one Universal horror. It would be like birthdays with no cake for me!
I think I need to get into horror fiction a bit more. I love a bit of Poe and have read Bram Stoker's Dracula quite a few times. I think the Harry Potter series is another good way of getting the young into scary worlds. Despite it not actually being horror, there are many scary moments within that leaving you wanting more. With music I saw collections of CDs with mixes of different Halloween type songs yesterday. I really want to get one and put it on my Ipod. I think it would be great fun to be able to listen to these every year. One song that I have to play is 'I Put a Spell on you' from Hocus Pocus. I loved that when I was a child (what a surprise) but not in the way most children did. I actually rooted for the witches, which is a bit odd. I loved them. I thought they were hilarious and full of life, particularly Bette Midler. They have some infectious giggly lines that still make me laugh when I re-watch it.
I have been watching quite a bit this year! Christine was new to me and I really enjoyed that one. I think the way Carpenter took on that subject was very well thought through. It was asked on F This Movie what scares you most in Horror and I answered it was the transforming of the soul. A loss of humanity to something that we can all fall into; like greed, obsession or vanity. Christine was Arnold Cunningham loosing his humanity through obsession, which worked on me. I think my favourite that I have rented from either repeat viewings or new ones is The Masque of the Red Death (1964). It is a great example of the distortion of the soul movie. It is filled with intelligence and falls into madness. I tweeted out that it is such a beautiful messed up ballet, a dance into hell. I was surprised the most by Hellraiser, I think that has some really interesting elements to it (another lust and obsession brings a downfall movie). From Netflix my favourite so far has been House of the Devil (thanks Adam Riske), which has really stood out to me as special. That sets up atmosphere so well. One that did it too well was Three... Extremes (2004). It was just terrifying, atmospheric to the point where it made me incredibly uncomfortable. I almost couldn't sit through that one!
What are your highlights so far and have you been scared yet?
Josh: "Birthdays with no cake"...love it! Also, let me jump on the Adam Riske train for a brief moment (wait, what?), I'm so glad you dug House of the Devil because that movie is fantastic. Easily one of the best recent horror movies.
I'm shocked that one of my highlights so far was Big Ass Spider! which is a movie I had never even considered watching before I heard Mike Mendez on Killer POV. Bad Dreams and Creep were also highlights so far, but there's been some pretty rough stuff this month too. Honestly, I even enjoy the bad stuff to an extent because it's still fun to discuss it and wading through the crap sometimes makes the good stuff shine that much brighter.
Nothing I've watched has been particularly scary so far (EDIT: since I wrote this I watched Barry Levinson's The Bay which legitimately scared the hell out of me), but I think that might be my own fault as I haven't really chosen movies that looked scary so much as I picked ones that looked fun or I had heard good things about.
I think you're absolutely right about Harry Potter. Something doesn't have to be horror to be horrific. Hell, two of the scariest things in my childhood were the boat scene in Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory and, of course, Large Marge. There are elements of horror in so much of our entertainment. I mean, have you seen Pinocchio lately? Because seriously, holy shit. SCARY.
What about movies that haven't really worked for you? Have you had any major disappointments so far this month?
Gabby: The worst thing I watched was Maximum Overdrive, which was made instantly better by F This Movie's commentary track of the film! The original 13 Ghosts turned out to be a real stinker, it did have a certain charm that I can't seem to explain, but it has cupboard cut outs for character. I just think they needed a Vincent Price or something and it would have made it SO much better. The Fearless Vampire Killers I wanted so much much more out of. I am not sure why but I got my hopes up. I was disappointed by that one. The rest though I have really enjoyed.
l
It is like you say, even if it has been a mixed bag, I can find a lot of things to like in most of the movies I have seen, which is part of the reason why Scary Movie Month is so fun. Everyone at F This Movie tries to find something interesting to say and it just feels like a great and positive place to have discussions about the movies you are watching. So in that spirit I will say that I saw The Wasp Woman on Full Moon Streaming. It is was a typical Corman in many ways. But something about it struck me. I can't call it a brilliant movie. I would say it is good and entertaining with some interesting themes, but has some obvious flaws. However, when I was going to sleep, I had this image of me slowly turning into the wasp woman. This no budget B flick worked on me. I was so happy about that and maybe it is weird, but heck that's what Scary Movie Month is about!
Have you got anything planned for Halloween?
Josh: I like the original 13 Ghosts! I even like a lot about the remake, but I recognize that it's not very good. Totally agree about Fearless Vampire Killers, the title is great but the movie not so much.
As I write this, Halloween has just passed. Mine was uneventful: horror movies, scary music, and alarmingly few trick-or-treaters, unfortunately. I have so much candy left over that to step into my house is to risk second-hand diabetes.
We should wrap this up, but I want to know what your Halloween was like. I'm sad to see this time of year go by, but I'm already looking forward to next year. I love the focus on scary movies (and books and music and everything else that goes bump on our shelves) all month, and you and the F This Movie! community at large have made it so much better. Scary Movie Month has always been my favorite, but sharing it with all the other F Heads has multiplied that a thousandfold.
Gabby: I had a lot of fun. Thursday 30th I arranged a little night for my younger brother and sister. We carved a pumpkin (Bellatrix the Third) and then they got a surprise. I numbered four doors upstairs. Behind each door was a different plate of treats and a bunch of clothes I could make some kind of costume out of quickly (like a shawl). When I was ready, I called out 'Come up if you dare!' So they came up to the first door and knocked. I open the door as Mrs Witch (from a British children's TV show called Ben and Holly). The rule was after I closed the door they had to go back downstairs until I called them back up. Mrs Witch gave them Boiled frog (chocolates shaped like a frogs) and Eye of Newt (Jelly Beans). The rest were Gruesome Gail the Ghost, Dracula's daughter and Professor Snape (I do a mean Professor Snape impression, so ANY excuse). Then we wrapped things up by watching The Witches, which is one of my favourite Halloweeny type movies from my childhood (shocker). I think I had just as much fun as they did! On Halloween, I spent the night chatting with my friend and we watched Addams Family Values. It was so great seeing so many people in my neighbourhood dressed up this year. And as is tradition in England the fireworks have already started up, celebrating bonfire night as long as possible (still one of the weirdest holidays ever in my opinion)!
I agree, the F this Movie Community, and the people who work there, are just the best. #ScaryMovieMonth forever!
Josh: At some point before the Grim Reaper shows up at my door I'm going to need to hear that Professor Snape impression. By Grabthar's hammer, I must!
Thanks for taking the time to chat about Scary Movie Month with me, Gabby. I'm glad you had as much fun with it as I did...here's to another year of murder, mayhem, and movies!
Sunday, November 2, 2014
Friday, October 31, 2014
Scary Movie Month 2014, Day 31
The Old Dark House/Satan's Little Helper/Halloween III: Season of the Witch
Now that Halloween is here to bring Scary Movie Month to a close, I figured I might as well go all out. Every day this month I've watched a new-to-me movie, so today it's two of those plus a perennial Halloween favorite.
I started with The Old Dark House because it ain't Halloween without a bit of Karloff and because Horror-Hound Hollywood Heath Holland recommended it earlier this month. It was great, and I have no idea why people seem to have forgotten it. It's gothic horror with the same light touch that director James Whale brought to The Bride of Frankenstein. Also, this was the first Hollywood film of Charles Laughton, who would go on to direct one of my favorite movies of all time, The Night of the Hunter (another great Scary Movie Month choice if you haven't seen it).
It leans more toward comedy than horror, but the gloomy atmosphere lends itself nicely to the Halloween season. Elspeth Dudgeon (a woman) is particularly memorable as the 100+ year old patriarch of the crazed family living in the titular house. There's no mistaking her for a man, but her performance somehow works anyway and it is, as they say, a hoot.
On to Satan's Little Helper. I had to watch it because Adam Riske said some things that made me curious. He said that it's not better than John Carpenter's Halloween, but he'd sooner rewatch it than Halloween. Those are strong words, and while I absolutely understand the concept of respecting or even loving a movie without necessarily wanting to revisit it, my brain still cannot process what he said.
That being said, this isn't a bad movie! I'm not sure if "amiable" is the right word for a movie about a small child befriending a serial killer and becoming his unwitting accomplice, but that's what this movie is. It's an unabashedly goofy little movie that never takes itself too seriously and it's a fun watch. It's all very cheap and silly (and it appears to have been shot with a cell phone) but that's part of the charm. Also, it was a nice surprise to see a cameo from Lisa G of The Howard Stern Show (era).
While I really enjoyed it, there were a lot of things that didn't work, the most egregious of which was the old horror movie trope where somebody kills a masked person only to pull off the mask to find a completely different person than they expected underneath. This happens multiple times in this movie to the same character, to the point where you're left wondering if they have a learning disability. Problems aside, it's still a fun & entertaining movie, even if I can't imagine anyone on the planet choosing to watch it over Halloween. Sorry, Adam!
Finally, we have Halloween III: Season of the Witch, a movie I watch every year on Halloween. It's a movie made by an insane person, possibly a team made up of nothing but insane people, and I love every batshit crazy second of it. It's had a terrible reputation for years because the plot has no connection to the plot of the first two Halloweens, but it's by far my favorite of the sequels (I also like Halloween 4 a lot and I appreciate what H20 was trying to do, but that's pretty much it for the rest of the series). This is a movie unafraid to commit to a crazy premise and that goes a long way with me. If you haven't seen it, forget about the number in the title, it's completely standalone. Watch it and bask in the glory of Tom Atkins' mustache facing off against a diabolical mask-maker and his robot minions who are plotting to wreak havoc on Halloween night with lasers made out of pieces of Stonehenge. No, really.
All in all, it's been a great Scary Movie Month, even with all the crappy movies I sat through. I'm still glad to have the opportunity to see so many new horror movies and chat about them with everyone over at F This Movie! and on Twitter. I appreciate everyone who's read these (especially those who have offered feedback) and I hope everyone's having a safe and fun Halloween! Don't forget to be in front of your TV at 9pm for the big giveaway. Put your mask on and listen for the Silver Shamrock jingle. Happy happy Halloween!
Now that Halloween is here to bring Scary Movie Month to a close, I figured I might as well go all out. Every day this month I've watched a new-to-me movie, so today it's two of those plus a perennial Halloween favorite.
I started with The Old Dark House because it ain't Halloween without a bit of Karloff and because Horror-Hound Hollywood Heath Holland recommended it earlier this month. It was great, and I have no idea why people seem to have forgotten it. It's gothic horror with the same light touch that director James Whale brought to The Bride of Frankenstein. Also, this was the first Hollywood film of Charles Laughton, who would go on to direct one of my favorite movies of all time, The Night of the Hunter (another great Scary Movie Month choice if you haven't seen it).
It leans more toward comedy than horror, but the gloomy atmosphere lends itself nicely to the Halloween season. Elspeth Dudgeon (a woman) is particularly memorable as the 100+ year old patriarch of the crazed family living in the titular house. There's no mistaking her for a man, but her performance somehow works anyway and it is, as they say, a hoot.
On to Satan's Little Helper. I had to watch it because Adam Riske said some things that made me curious. He said that it's not better than John Carpenter's Halloween, but he'd sooner rewatch it than Halloween. Those are strong words, and while I absolutely understand the concept of respecting or even loving a movie without necessarily wanting to revisit it, my brain still cannot process what he said.
That being said, this isn't a bad movie! I'm not sure if "amiable" is the right word for a movie about a small child befriending a serial killer and becoming his unwitting accomplice, but that's what this movie is. It's an unabashedly goofy little movie that never takes itself too seriously and it's a fun watch. It's all very cheap and silly (and it appears to have been shot with a cell phone) but that's part of the charm. Also, it was a nice surprise to see a cameo from Lisa G of The Howard Stern Show (era).
While I really enjoyed it, there were a lot of things that didn't work, the most egregious of which was the old horror movie trope where somebody kills a masked person only to pull off the mask to find a completely different person than they expected underneath. This happens multiple times in this movie to the same character, to the point where you're left wondering if they have a learning disability. Problems aside, it's still a fun & entertaining movie, even if I can't imagine anyone on the planet choosing to watch it over Halloween. Sorry, Adam!
Finally, we have Halloween III: Season of the Witch, a movie I watch every year on Halloween. It's a movie made by an insane person, possibly a team made up of nothing but insane people, and I love every batshit crazy second of it. It's had a terrible reputation for years because the plot has no connection to the plot of the first two Halloweens, but it's by far my favorite of the sequels (I also like Halloween 4 a lot and I appreciate what H20 was trying to do, but that's pretty much it for the rest of the series). This is a movie unafraid to commit to a crazy premise and that goes a long way with me. If you haven't seen it, forget about the number in the title, it's completely standalone. Watch it and bask in the glory of Tom Atkins' mustache facing off against a diabolical mask-maker and his robot minions who are plotting to wreak havoc on Halloween night with lasers made out of pieces of Stonehenge. No, really.
All in all, it's been a great Scary Movie Month, even with all the crappy movies I sat through. I'm still glad to have the opportunity to see so many new horror movies and chat about them with everyone over at F This Movie! and on Twitter. I appreciate everyone who's read these (especially those who have offered feedback) and I hope everyone's having a safe and fun Halloween! Don't forget to be in front of your TV at 9pm for the big giveaway. Put your mask on and listen for the Silver Shamrock jingle. Happy happy Halloween!
Thursday, October 30, 2014
Scary Movie Month 2014, Day 30
All Hallows' Eve
On Halloween night, two kids and their babysitter sit down to watch an unlabeled VHS tape that was dropped into one of the kids' trick-or-treat bags. This scary videotape, according to shots of the TV while they're watching it, is in anamorphic widescreen so rock on, forward-thinking VHS company!
The tape is our framing device for an anthology consisting of three stories and a wraparound, but I'm using the word story as loosely as possible. There's no real story to any of them, just a collection of nightmarish images that are just as hollow as a pumpkin on Halloween night. Those images can be scary, but truthfully this isn't even a movie that's interested in being scary, it just wants to be as "fucked up" as possible, which is frankly boring to me.
Horror movies tend to (falsely, for the most part) have a reputation of misogyny. That reputation is earned by movies like this in which women exist only to be raped, mutilated, terrorized, and murdered. I defy anyone watching this movie to tell me anything at all about the women in each segment. You can't, because they have zero defining characteristics beyond physical appearance. They're beyond thinly sketched, they're anorexically sketched (I may have made that word up, but you get the idea). That's not to say the male characters are any more fleshed-out (they're not) but the movie revels in violence against women in a way that's leering and ugly. Then again, leering and ugly seems to be this movie'a mission statement, for better or worse. Mostly for worse.
On Halloween night, two kids and their babysitter sit down to watch an unlabeled VHS tape that was dropped into one of the kids' trick-or-treat bags. This scary videotape, according to shots of the TV while they're watching it, is in anamorphic widescreen so rock on, forward-thinking VHS company!
The tape is our framing device for an anthology consisting of three stories and a wraparound, but I'm using the word story as loosely as possible. There's no real story to any of them, just a collection of nightmarish images that are just as hollow as a pumpkin on Halloween night. Those images can be scary, but truthfully this isn't even a movie that's interested in being scary, it just wants to be as "fucked up" as possible, which is frankly boring to me.
Horror movies tend to (falsely, for the most part) have a reputation of misogyny. That reputation is earned by movies like this in which women exist only to be raped, mutilated, terrorized, and murdered. I defy anyone watching this movie to tell me anything at all about the women in each segment. You can't, because they have zero defining characteristics beyond physical appearance. They're beyond thinly sketched, they're anorexically sketched (I may have made that word up, but you get the idea). That's not to say the male characters are any more fleshed-out (they're not) but the movie revels in violence against women in a way that's leering and ugly. Then again, leering and ugly seems to be this movie'a mission statement, for better or worse. Mostly for worse.
Wednesday, October 29, 2014
Scary Movie Month 2014, Day 29
The Bay
Finally toward the end of it all, Scary Movie Month earns its name. I've watched good, bad, fun, silly, smart, and stupid movies this month, but this was the first that was legitimately, deeply scary. It's found footage (one of the reasons I avoided it until now) but the gimmick works much better here than in most found footage movies, and since the footage comes from multiple sources (news footage, surveillance cams, Skype, vlogs, etc.) the majority of it is not the nausea-inducing shaky-cam that plagues so many found footage movies.
There's something in the polluted waters of the Chesapeake Bay, something deadly. Thousands of dead fish have floated to the surface, and now people are getting sick and dying, quickly and messily. The story is being told by a survivor, along with the conceit that a Julian Assange-type has uncovered and assembled the footage we're seeing to show what really happened despite governmental cover-ups.
Everything is very immediate thanks to it being found footage, which manages to increase the horror of the situation. As we see doctors and the CDC scurrying around trying to figure out what's going on, the sense of impending doom is palpable and legitimately frightening, not dissimilar to Soderbergh's Contagion only much scarier. The ending is a bit abrupt, but the movie is tremendously fast-paced and the scares build throughout. There are even a few solid jump scares on top of the terror that's already building, so there's something for horror fans of all tastes.
The environmental message is of course a bit heavy-handed, but the movie never comes across as preachy. I imagine if, say, Richard Donner had directed it it could've drowned in its obvious politics, but the focus here is on scaring the shit out of you, which it does extremely well. I don't scare easy (at least not when it comes to movies), but this is the real deal. Terrifying.
Finally toward the end of it all, Scary Movie Month earns its name. I've watched good, bad, fun, silly, smart, and stupid movies this month, but this was the first that was legitimately, deeply scary. It's found footage (one of the reasons I avoided it until now) but the gimmick works much better here than in most found footage movies, and since the footage comes from multiple sources (news footage, surveillance cams, Skype, vlogs, etc.) the majority of it is not the nausea-inducing shaky-cam that plagues so many found footage movies.
There's something in the polluted waters of the Chesapeake Bay, something deadly. Thousands of dead fish have floated to the surface, and now people are getting sick and dying, quickly and messily. The story is being told by a survivor, along with the conceit that a Julian Assange-type has uncovered and assembled the footage we're seeing to show what really happened despite governmental cover-ups.
Everything is very immediate thanks to it being found footage, which manages to increase the horror of the situation. As we see doctors and the CDC scurrying around trying to figure out what's going on, the sense of impending doom is palpable and legitimately frightening, not dissimilar to Soderbergh's Contagion only much scarier. The ending is a bit abrupt, but the movie is tremendously fast-paced and the scares build throughout. There are even a few solid jump scares on top of the terror that's already building, so there's something for horror fans of all tastes.
The environmental message is of course a bit heavy-handed, but the movie never comes across as preachy. I imagine if, say, Richard Donner had directed it it could've drowned in its obvious politics, but the focus here is on scaring the shit out of you, which it does extremely well. I don't scare easy (at least not when it comes to movies), but this is the real deal. Terrifying.
Tuesday, October 28, 2014
Scary Movie Month 2014, Day 28
The Beast Within
So apparently supernatural rapists are a running theme this month. I didn't plan that and can't say I'm too fond of it, yet here we are.
We open on just-married Ronny Cox and Bibi Besch driving through the woods. Their car breaks down (because movies) and Cox goes to get help, leaving Besch to get raped by a creature in the woods. Cut to 17 years later and their son Michael is exhibiting strange behavior and alarmingly bad dental hygiene. I bet he never even sent the rape-creature a Father's Day card.
It's an oddly structured movie in that it's not a mystery, we know Michael is half-Carol Marcus and half-rapey-woods-monster from the beginning, but the movie sort of treats it like a mystery, as if that might be someone else tearing people's throats out in full close-up. There is a sort-of-reveal toward the end (along with one of the better decapitations I've seen in a movie, so it's got that going for it I guess) but it's deflated by how unsympathetic Michael is to begin with. He's already a part-time monster when we meet him, so we never really get a chance to know who he is outside of that.
The movie is notorious for a transformation scene in the climax, and it's impressively goopy but also very rubbery. While they use similar techniques to the famous transformation in An American Werewolf in London, it's nowhere near as effective and looks nowhere near as good.
It's not a terrible movie, but it's not a particularly good one either. As much as I love the commitment to 80s goopiness, the similarly-themed 50s classic I Was A Teenage Werewolf is still a more consistent and more interesting (and more fun!) watch. Better letter-jacket-attired-monster in that one, too.
So apparently supernatural rapists are a running theme this month. I didn't plan that and can't say I'm too fond of it, yet here we are.
We open on just-married Ronny Cox and Bibi Besch driving through the woods. Their car breaks down (because movies) and Cox goes to get help, leaving Besch to get raped by a creature in the woods. Cut to 17 years later and their son Michael is exhibiting strange behavior and alarmingly bad dental hygiene. I bet he never even sent the rape-creature a Father's Day card.
It's an oddly structured movie in that it's not a mystery, we know Michael is half-Carol Marcus and half-rapey-woods-monster from the beginning, but the movie sort of treats it like a mystery, as if that might be someone else tearing people's throats out in full close-up. There is a sort-of-reveal toward the end (along with one of the better decapitations I've seen in a movie, so it's got that going for it I guess) but it's deflated by how unsympathetic Michael is to begin with. He's already a part-time monster when we meet him, so we never really get a chance to know who he is outside of that.
The movie is notorious for a transformation scene in the climax, and it's impressively goopy but also very rubbery. While they use similar techniques to the famous transformation in An American Werewolf in London, it's nowhere near as effective and looks nowhere near as good.
It's not a terrible movie, but it's not a particularly good one either. As much as I love the commitment to 80s goopiness, the similarly-themed 50s classic I Was A Teenage Werewolf is still a more consistent and more interesting (and more fun!) watch. Better letter-jacket-attired-monster in that one, too.
Monday, October 27, 2014
Scary Movie Month 2014, Day 27
The Battery
Well, it took 27 days of swimming through Andy Dufresne's sewage-choked escape route to get here, but I've finally found this year's Dead & Buried, i.e. the one movie that stands head and shoulders above everything else I saw throughout Scary Movie Month. This is a truly great movie.
Zombies have been overdone to the point where I find myself actively avoiding anything featuring them. I love Romero's original Dead trilogy (yes, even Day, sometimes especially Day) and have affection for a few others like Return of the Living Dead, The Serpent & the Rainbow and Dead Heat (sue me, it's fun), but the amount of terrible zombie movies out there far outweighs the good ones. A lot of people I respect adore The Walking Dead but I tapped out two seasons ago, I found it to be an ugly and repetitive mess like so many other zombie stories (including Romero's later work, unfortunately). When looking for something new to watch, zombie movies are typically going to be toward the bottom of the list.
All that being said, The Battery is terrific, and a refreshing change of pace from the typical zombie fare. The story follows two ex-ballplayers who have managed to survive the first wave of the zombie apocalypse and are now traveling across New England, thrown together more by necessity than friendship. That's not to say there's no camaraderie between them (it could get grating if all they did was bicker like the Blair Witch kids, for example) but there's a tension between them that's always simmering beneath the surface. Both lead performances are strong, they each have moments where they could come off as completely unlikable but they somehow never do, even when making decisions that are not necessarily heroic.
There's a particularly audacious scene late in the movie, a single take that runs somewhere around 10 minutes that is so well staged that I didn't even realize I was holding my breath until I let it out before almost passing out. It was a moment so rare in movies, one where I realized I genuinely had no idea where the movie was going that took a situation I've seen in countless movies and made it feel completely fresh. That alone would have made this movie a win for me, but I found it genuinely engaging from beginning to end and giving me a zombie movie I've never seen before. I'm impressed, and I'm excited about whatever writer-director-star Jeremy Gardner does next.
Well, it took 27 days of swimming through Andy Dufresne's sewage-choked escape route to get here, but I've finally found this year's Dead & Buried, i.e. the one movie that stands head and shoulders above everything else I saw throughout Scary Movie Month. This is a truly great movie.
Zombies have been overdone to the point where I find myself actively avoiding anything featuring them. I love Romero's original Dead trilogy (yes, even Day, sometimes especially Day) and have affection for a few others like Return of the Living Dead, The Serpent & the Rainbow and Dead Heat (sue me, it's fun), but the amount of terrible zombie movies out there far outweighs the good ones. A lot of people I respect adore The Walking Dead but I tapped out two seasons ago, I found it to be an ugly and repetitive mess like so many other zombie stories (including Romero's later work, unfortunately). When looking for something new to watch, zombie movies are typically going to be toward the bottom of the list.
All that being said, The Battery is terrific, and a refreshing change of pace from the typical zombie fare. The story follows two ex-ballplayers who have managed to survive the first wave of the zombie apocalypse and are now traveling across New England, thrown together more by necessity than friendship. That's not to say there's no camaraderie between them (it could get grating if all they did was bicker like the Blair Witch kids, for example) but there's a tension between them that's always simmering beneath the surface. Both lead performances are strong, they each have moments where they could come off as completely unlikable but they somehow never do, even when making decisions that are not necessarily heroic.
There's a particularly audacious scene late in the movie, a single take that runs somewhere around 10 minutes that is so well staged that I didn't even realize I was holding my breath until I let it out before almost passing out. It was a moment so rare in movies, one where I realized I genuinely had no idea where the movie was going that took a situation I've seen in countless movies and made it feel completely fresh. That alone would have made this movie a win for me, but I found it genuinely engaging from beginning to end and giving me a zombie movie I've never seen before. I'm impressed, and I'm excited about whatever writer-director-star Jeremy Gardner does next.
Sunday, October 26, 2014
Scary Movie Month 2014, Day 26
The Entity
Director Sidney J. Furie, who gave us the godawful Superman IV: The Quest For Peace and the #HeavyAction classic The Taking of Beverly Hills dips his toes into the well-populated waters of supernatural horror and creates, well, a Sidney J. Furie movie. On that note, I owe Paul Verhoeven a letter of apology. I thought Hollow Man was the sleaziest possible take on The Invisible Man, but Furie has proven me very, very wrong.
Here Furie presents a supposedly true story. When the poster says "based on a true story" and the credits say "based on a novel by" it seems like a contradiction. Novels are fiction, and of course fiction can be based on truth but still...pick a lane, movie. Considering Barbara Hershey is raped by a ghost in the first five minutes, I'm gonna go ahead and consider this a work of fiction. Such is my bias when it comes to ghosts, rapey or otherwise. The ghost keeps raping her throughout the movie ad nauseum, including once in front of her children which is the most vile thing I've seen on screen all month (and I remind you I sat through ABCs of Death 2 this month).
In between all the ghost-raping there's Ron Silver and Alex Rocco taking this all too seriously. Maybe they think they're making The Exorcist, but they're not even making Exorcist II: The Heretic. Congratulations, Sidney. You managed to make a movie I like less than Superman IV.
Also, bonus points for having one of the worst scores I've ever heard, each "haunting" is accompanied by an electric pounding that sounds like a migraine set to music.
Director Sidney J. Furie, who gave us the godawful Superman IV: The Quest For Peace and the #HeavyAction classic The Taking of Beverly Hills dips his toes into the well-populated waters of supernatural horror and creates, well, a Sidney J. Furie movie. On that note, I owe Paul Verhoeven a letter of apology. I thought Hollow Man was the sleaziest possible take on The Invisible Man, but Furie has proven me very, very wrong.
Here Furie presents a supposedly true story. When the poster says "based on a true story" and the credits say "based on a novel by" it seems like a contradiction. Novels are fiction, and of course fiction can be based on truth but still...pick a lane, movie. Considering Barbara Hershey is raped by a ghost in the first five minutes, I'm gonna go ahead and consider this a work of fiction. Such is my bias when it comes to ghosts, rapey or otherwise. The ghost keeps raping her throughout the movie ad nauseum, including once in front of her children which is the most vile thing I've seen on screen all month (and I remind you I sat through ABCs of Death 2 this month).
In between all the ghost-raping there's Ron Silver and Alex Rocco taking this all too seriously. Maybe they think they're making The Exorcist, but they're not even making Exorcist II: The Heretic. Congratulations, Sidney. You managed to make a movie I like less than Superman IV.
Also, bonus points for having one of the worst scores I've ever heard, each "haunting" is accompanied by an electric pounding that sounds like a migraine set to music.
Saturday, October 25, 2014
Scary Movie Month 2014, Day 25
Chopping Mall
Sorry to steal Patrick Bromley's thing here, but while I was warned that this one was awful, it wasn't. It was...fine. Those who are familiar with Patrick know precisely the tone of frustration mixed with resignation with which that "fine" should be said.
For an 80s movie directed by Jim Wynorski and featuring teens being hunted through a mall by laser-equipped killer robots, it still manages to feel utterly generic. Cameos by the likes of Paul Bartel, Mary Woronov, and Dick Miller are always welcome, but they don't do the movie any favors in the "I haven't seen this before" department.
The characters are the thinnest of cardboard, not even the sturdy corrugated stuff. I've already forgotten all their names, and I finished watching it maybe 10 minutes before I wrote this sentence. Still, it's not actively bad and there are a few fun moments (one very cheap head-explosion in particular made me laugh out loud) but it's not good either, and certainly not worthy of either great title (apparently "Chopping Mall" was the title once it hit video, the original title was the more generic but also more apt "Killbots"). Lastly, I've said it before and I'll say it again: stop wasting Gerrit Graham, movies! He's the best, and one scene ain't enough to enjoy it.
Sorry to steal Patrick Bromley's thing here, but while I was warned that this one was awful, it wasn't. It was...fine. Those who are familiar with Patrick know precisely the tone of frustration mixed with resignation with which that "fine" should be said.
For an 80s movie directed by Jim Wynorski and featuring teens being hunted through a mall by laser-equipped killer robots, it still manages to feel utterly generic. Cameos by the likes of Paul Bartel, Mary Woronov, and Dick Miller are always welcome, but they don't do the movie any favors in the "I haven't seen this before" department.
The characters are the thinnest of cardboard, not even the sturdy corrugated stuff. I've already forgotten all their names, and I finished watching it maybe 10 minutes before I wrote this sentence. Still, it's not actively bad and there are a few fun moments (one very cheap head-explosion in particular made me laugh out loud) but it's not good either, and certainly not worthy of either great title (apparently "Chopping Mall" was the title once it hit video, the original title was the more generic but also more apt "Killbots"). Lastly, I've said it before and I'll say it again: stop wasting Gerrit Graham, movies! He's the best, and one scene ain't enough to enjoy it.
Friday, October 24, 2014
Scary Movie Month 2014, Day 24
V/H/S: Viral
Well, that was underwhelming.
The third entry in the found-footage anthology series is the weakest by a pretty wide margin, which is saying something considering the first two are already not very good. Outside of Gareth Huw Evans & Timo Tjahjanto's excellent "Safe Haven" segment from V/H/S/2 nothing in any of these movies has been particularly scary or satisfying, and this may be the least satisfying entry of all.
This is (thankfully) the shortest of the series, featuring only 3 stories plus the required awful wraparound (waiter, this food is terrible. And such small portions!). The middle story, from time/interdimensional-travel fetishist Nacho Vigalondo is challenging in a good way at first, but quickly devolves into a mess of aliens, infidelity (sorta), and monster genitalia. That said, the brutal note that the story ends on feels earned, making it the only moderately satisfying story in the movie.
The other stories, one about a rogue magician and the other about the most obnoxious skate punks ever committed to film facing off against a Mexican death cult, are more straightforward than Vigalondo's, but neither are terribly compelling. When you find yourself rooting for personality-free Mexican murderskeletons to violently kill the "heroes" of a story, that's probably not a sign of quality work.
As for the wraparound, it's overstuffed and nonsensical almost to the point of parody. Except for one wince-inducing moment involving bare feet on gravel there isn't anything effective in the wraparound. It seems to think that it's making some sort of statement about viral videos and the quest for "fame" surrounding them, but like the rest of the movie it simply has nothing worthwhile to say.
Apparently a fourth story was shot but removed from the film at the last minute. I can't even imagine a story that would be deemed a bad fit for an anthology that already stinks, but I can't deny my curiosity. I still think a found-footage anthology can be done well, even if it hasn't yet (and this entry does away with the found-VHS conceit of the first two almost entirely) so I'm certain I'll still watch it if and when V/H/S/4 comes along. I'm already dreading it, but I'll watch it.
Well, that was underwhelming.
The third entry in the found-footage anthology series is the weakest by a pretty wide margin, which is saying something considering the first two are already not very good. Outside of Gareth Huw Evans & Timo Tjahjanto's excellent "Safe Haven" segment from V/H/S/2 nothing in any of these movies has been particularly scary or satisfying, and this may be the least satisfying entry of all.
This is (thankfully) the shortest of the series, featuring only 3 stories plus the required awful wraparound (waiter, this food is terrible. And such small portions!). The middle story, from time/interdimensional-travel fetishist Nacho Vigalondo is challenging in a good way at first, but quickly devolves into a mess of aliens, infidelity (sorta), and monster genitalia. That said, the brutal note that the story ends on feels earned, making it the only moderately satisfying story in the movie.
The other stories, one about a rogue magician and the other about the most obnoxious skate punks ever committed to film facing off against a Mexican death cult, are more straightforward than Vigalondo's, but neither are terribly compelling. When you find yourself rooting for personality-free Mexican murderskeletons to violently kill the "heroes" of a story, that's probably not a sign of quality work.
As for the wraparound, it's overstuffed and nonsensical almost to the point of parody. Except for one wince-inducing moment involving bare feet on gravel there isn't anything effective in the wraparound. It seems to think that it's making some sort of statement about viral videos and the quest for "fame" surrounding them, but like the rest of the movie it simply has nothing worthwhile to say.
Apparently a fourth story was shot but removed from the film at the last minute. I can't even imagine a story that would be deemed a bad fit for an anthology that already stinks, but I can't deny my curiosity. I still think a found-footage anthology can be done well, even if it hasn't yet (and this entry does away with the found-VHS conceit of the first two almost entirely) so I'm certain I'll still watch it if and when V/H/S/4 comes along. I'm already dreading it, but I'll watch it.
Thursday, October 23, 2014
Scary Movie Month 2014, Day 23
Look What's Happened to Rosemary's Baby
Nothing good, that's what.
I briefly considered writing nothing but "fuck you, movie" but I'm afraid that if I were to do that then the two people who read my blog might actually consider watching this monstrosity to see what provoked that reaction, so this is less of a review and more of a warning. Don't watch this movie. It's not entertainingly bad, it's just depressingly bad.
Remember when Tommy Lee Jones won the Oscar for The Fugitive and everybody on the planet loved him for 10 minutes and then he starred in the sequel U.S. Marshals and he learned the hard way that he was no longer America's sweetheart? Well he had it much, much easier than poor Ruth Gordon, reprising her Oscar-winning role of Minnie Castevet here. This was a made-for-TV sequel that completely squanders any goodwill generated by love of the original. It's clumsy, ugly, pointless, and dumber than the proverbial bag of hammers. Gordon is completely wasted, as are Ray Milland, Broderick Crawford, Patty Duke, and a host of other people that you'd think would've had better agents.
The only person who comes out of this relatively unscathed is Stephen McHattie, who plays Adrian, son of Rosemary (side note: Ira Levin, who wrote the novel Rosemary's Baby also penned a sequel of his own many years after this called Son of Rosemary, and it's just as execrable as this. Maybe some things just don't need sequels, eh?). McHattie has a certain lizardy presence that you'd expect from the son of Satan, but he rarely gets an opportunity to exhibit it.
There's an ill-conceived musical number (no, really) toward the third act that is clearly trying to be shocking but just comes off as unbearably silly. It's all just a nonsensical mess that never even manages to cross the line into interesting-bad. This is the worst movie I've seen so far this month by a wide margin. In fact, it's the worst movie I've seen so far this year. Shameful, and rightfully forgotten.
Nothing good, that's what.
I briefly considered writing nothing but "fuck you, movie" but I'm afraid that if I were to do that then the two people who read my blog might actually consider watching this monstrosity to see what provoked that reaction, so this is less of a review and more of a warning. Don't watch this movie. It's not entertainingly bad, it's just depressingly bad.
Remember when Tommy Lee Jones won the Oscar for The Fugitive and everybody on the planet loved him for 10 minutes and then he starred in the sequel U.S. Marshals and he learned the hard way that he was no longer America's sweetheart? Well he had it much, much easier than poor Ruth Gordon, reprising her Oscar-winning role of Minnie Castevet here. This was a made-for-TV sequel that completely squanders any goodwill generated by love of the original. It's clumsy, ugly, pointless, and dumber than the proverbial bag of hammers. Gordon is completely wasted, as are Ray Milland, Broderick Crawford, Patty Duke, and a host of other people that you'd think would've had better agents.
The only person who comes out of this relatively unscathed is Stephen McHattie, who plays Adrian, son of Rosemary (side note: Ira Levin, who wrote the novel Rosemary's Baby also penned a sequel of his own many years after this called Son of Rosemary, and it's just as execrable as this. Maybe some things just don't need sequels, eh?). McHattie has a certain lizardy presence that you'd expect from the son of Satan, but he rarely gets an opportunity to exhibit it.
There's an ill-conceived musical number (no, really) toward the third act that is clearly trying to be shocking but just comes off as unbearably silly. It's all just a nonsensical mess that never even manages to cross the line into interesting-bad. This is the worst movie I've seen so far this month by a wide margin. In fact, it's the worst movie I've seen so far this year. Shameful, and rightfully forgotten.
Wednesday, October 22, 2014
Scary Movie Month 2014, Day 22
Detention
Is "overcaffeinated" a term that can apply to movies? Because that's how this one felt. I enjoyed it for the most part, but every frame buzzes with crazy energy that is frankly exhausting by the end. Stylistically it's sort of the love child of Scott Pilgrim vs the World and the Crank movies, which is an odd energy to apply to a slasher/sci-fi/comedy pastiche. At the very least, I certainly haven't seen anything else quite like it, even though it wears its influences proudly on its sleeve.
Devin Faraci at Badass Digest described it as "a movie that jumps from idea to idea with the speed of a teen clicking browser tabs" and I can't think of a better way to distill the style of this movie into a single sentence. As exhausting as it was (and it was!) the more I think about the movie the more I kinda love it.
Shanley Caswell is a revelation in the lead. I only know her from The Conjuring, but she juggles what on paper should be conflicting tones and still remains warm, human, funny, and surprisingly relatable. It would be so easy to go over the top cartoony with her part, but she never does. All the performances are pitched just enough south of over the top that it keeps the movie from devolving into camp. Even Dane Cook is good, and how often do you get to say that? Maybe he was meant to be a character actor, Mr. Brooks is a great movie too.
I've never seen Torque, director Joseph Kahn's debut feature, but I'll definitely be seeking it out after Scary Movie Month. I'm still sort of shocked how consistently funny and engaging this was. It could have been a headache-inducing case of overwhelming style (I'm looking at you, Speed Racer) but it never gets to a point where it feels like a chore. Kahn is sprinting ahead and trusting the audience to keep up, and that kind of audacity deserves recognition regardless of how you feel about the (very very divisive) final product. I'm already excited to watch it again.
Is "overcaffeinated" a term that can apply to movies? Because that's how this one felt. I enjoyed it for the most part, but every frame buzzes with crazy energy that is frankly exhausting by the end. Stylistically it's sort of the love child of Scott Pilgrim vs the World and the Crank movies, which is an odd energy to apply to a slasher/sci-fi/comedy pastiche. At the very least, I certainly haven't seen anything else quite like it, even though it wears its influences proudly on its sleeve.
Devin Faraci at Badass Digest described it as "a movie that jumps from idea to idea with the speed of a teen clicking browser tabs" and I can't think of a better way to distill the style of this movie into a single sentence. As exhausting as it was (and it was!) the more I think about the movie the more I kinda love it.
Shanley Caswell is a revelation in the lead. I only know her from The Conjuring, but she juggles what on paper should be conflicting tones and still remains warm, human, funny, and surprisingly relatable. It would be so easy to go over the top cartoony with her part, but she never does. All the performances are pitched just enough south of over the top that it keeps the movie from devolving into camp. Even Dane Cook is good, and how often do you get to say that? Maybe he was meant to be a character actor, Mr. Brooks is a great movie too.
I've never seen Torque, director Joseph Kahn's debut feature, but I'll definitely be seeking it out after Scary Movie Month. I'm still sort of shocked how consistently funny and engaging this was. It could have been a headache-inducing case of overwhelming style (I'm looking at you, Speed Racer) but it never gets to a point where it feels like a chore. Kahn is sprinting ahead and trusting the audience to keep up, and that kind of audacity deserves recognition regardless of how you feel about the (very very divisive) final product. I'm already excited to watch it again.
Tuesday, October 21, 2014
Scary Movie Month 2014, Day 21
The Mutilator
This is an odd case in that it's both completely by-the-numbers and also thoroughly batshit. A group of 35-year-old kids spend "Fall Break" (because that's a thing?) at an abandoned beach condo and are systematically murdered by a lunatic with a great deal of sharp objects at his disposal.
It's a pretty standard stalk-and-slash for the most part, but has enough of an offbeat vibe that it's pretty entertaining. It opens and closes with a goofy, incongruous pop song (called Fall Break because, as previously established, that is totally a thing that exists) and features a handful of surprisingly grisly kills. There's a scene involving an oversize fish hook that legitimately made me wince, and the moment that the villain is dispatched is so crazy that it has to be seen to be believed. The flashback that sets the events in motion is also somewhere on the border between tasteless and hilarious.
The characters are fairly standard, but I couldn't help but like the practical joker of the group (played by Earth 2 Steve Lawrence, I believe). There's a scene early on where he tries to con a convenience store clerk into giving him 10% off a six-pack of beer that's just dopey enough to cross the line into charming. I have a soft spot for this character type, though. I blame my childhood hero Larry Zerner.
This is an odd case in that it's both completely by-the-numbers and also thoroughly batshit. A group of 35-year-old kids spend "Fall Break" (because that's a thing?) at an abandoned beach condo and are systematically murdered by a lunatic with a great deal of sharp objects at his disposal.
It's a pretty standard stalk-and-slash for the most part, but has enough of an offbeat vibe that it's pretty entertaining. It opens and closes with a goofy, incongruous pop song (called Fall Break because, as previously established, that is totally a thing that exists) and features a handful of surprisingly grisly kills. There's a scene involving an oversize fish hook that legitimately made me wince, and the moment that the villain is dispatched is so crazy that it has to be seen to be believed. The flashback that sets the events in motion is also somewhere on the border between tasteless and hilarious.
The characters are fairly standard, but I couldn't help but like the practical joker of the group (played by Earth 2 Steve Lawrence, I believe). There's a scene early on where he tries to con a convenience store clerk into giving him 10% off a six-pack of beer that's just dopey enough to cross the line into charming. I have a soft spot for this character type, though. I blame my childhood hero Larry Zerner.
Monday, October 20, 2014
Scary Movie Month 2014, Day 20
Boy Eats Girl
That worked much better than it had any right to. It's the age-old tale: boy meets girl, boy loses girl, boy dies in a bizarre drunken accident, boy is resurrected by his well-meaning mother, boy craves the taste of human flesh. You know how it goes. As zombie comedies go it's certainly no Shaun of the Dead, but it's also not Warm Bodies so let's chalk that up as a win, shall we?
This Irish production is full of charming, funny performances (and Samantha Mumba is a stone fox on top of being charming and funny) and for a movie about ravenous zombies the humor is nicely low-key, at least until things go all Grand Guignol in the last act. About that last act, it's filled to the brim with silly, fun, PRACTICAL splatter. This is the rare movie made in the 2000s with no discernible CGI, which makes me love it that much more. If I hadn't already been in its corner, that last act would have firmly put me there. It doesn't quite reach Re-Animator or Dead Alive heights of delirium in the final act, but it still has quite a bit of fun squickiness up its decaying sleeve.
At a brisk 80 minutes, not only does it not overstay its welcome, it actually suffers a bit from being too short. Once Nathan (the boy of the title) accidentally kills himself, the resurrection takes place immediately over a montage so there's about a minute between him dead and him sitting at the kitchen table, there's not much room for any of it to sink in. That's a fairly minor quibble, though, as the abbreviated running time helps the movie stay funny and not get too sidetracked with anything resembling actual human emotion. That may sound like a slam, but it's not. Sometimes a silly little lark like this is exactly what you need in the middle of Scary Movie Month, and it fit the bill nicely.
That worked much better than it had any right to. It's the age-old tale: boy meets girl, boy loses girl, boy dies in a bizarre drunken accident, boy is resurrected by his well-meaning mother, boy craves the taste of human flesh. You know how it goes. As zombie comedies go it's certainly no Shaun of the Dead, but it's also not Warm Bodies so let's chalk that up as a win, shall we?
This Irish production is full of charming, funny performances (and Samantha Mumba is a stone fox on top of being charming and funny) and for a movie about ravenous zombies the humor is nicely low-key, at least until things go all Grand Guignol in the last act. About that last act, it's filled to the brim with silly, fun, PRACTICAL splatter. This is the rare movie made in the 2000s with no discernible CGI, which makes me love it that much more. If I hadn't already been in its corner, that last act would have firmly put me there. It doesn't quite reach Re-Animator or Dead Alive heights of delirium in the final act, but it still has quite a bit of fun squickiness up its decaying sleeve.
At a brisk 80 minutes, not only does it not overstay its welcome, it actually suffers a bit from being too short. Once Nathan (the boy of the title) accidentally kills himself, the resurrection takes place immediately over a montage so there's about a minute between him dead and him sitting at the kitchen table, there's not much room for any of it to sink in. That's a fairly minor quibble, though, as the abbreviated running time helps the movie stay funny and not get too sidetracked with anything resembling actual human emotion. That may sound like a slam, but it's not. Sometimes a silly little lark like this is exactly what you need in the middle of Scary Movie Month, and it fit the bill nicely.
Sunday, October 19, 2014
Scary Movie Month 2014, Day 19
Nightbreed (director's cut)
I like to think that there's a parallel universe somewhere where David Cronenberg has a career like Sydney Pollack where he's not only an in-demand and commercially successful director, but also a beloved and dependable character actor. He's so much fun to watch on screen that I really wish he'd act more, and I believe that Nightbreed is the movie in which he has the most screen time. He doesn't have a whole lot more to do in this cut than he does in the theatrical, but his Decker is still my favorite thing about either version.
In truth, despite the claim of 40 minutes of all-new footage, the two versions of the movie don't play out terribly differently. Having watched the two cuts of Halloween 6 earlier this month, those played like almost completely different movies from each other. Here the movies are pretty much the same, only with a few more monsters running around in the longer cut.
The most major changes happen in the final act, though I won't go into detail so as not to spoil it. I will say that I'm a bit bummed to lose the final shot of the theatrical cut, as it's one of my favorite closing shots from any movie. The new ending is still good, just very different. There are other changes scattered about here and there, notably a sinister phone call from Decker and a terrible musical number (no, really) with a badly dubbed Anne Bobby (it's actually her own voice, but her lip movements are distractingly separate from her words) early on.
Both cuts are a mess, but they're equally fun to watch. I may actually prefer the theatrical, but that's probably only because I've lived with it for almost 25 years now. Also, they removed the country-fried cover of Oingo Boingo's "Skin" from the movie and from the end credits. What the hell, movie?
I've always enjoyed the theatrical cut despite it not actually being very good. It's a movie that loves monsters, and I love the way it revels in monsters just as much as the golden age of Universal Pictures. The monsters are the heroes, and that goes a long way with lifelong horror fans. That love is still front and center in the director's cut, and the wildly imaginative practical effects are (even when bad, which some are) so full of creativity and spirit that you want the cut to be even longer because you want to spend more time wandering around Midian, the city of monsters at the heart of the movie. I've been a monster kid my whole life, and Nightbreed is one of those movies that showed me I wasn't alone.
Technically speaking, the disc is absolutely phenomenal. Editor Andrew Furtado deserves every award they can throw at him for editing the new footage in seamlessly, if you didn't know in advance that you were watching an alternate cut you'd never know it. It looks beautiful, and is packed with informative and interesting special features, including an enthusiastic commentary track with Clive Barker himself. One thing I learned that I still can't quite wrap my head around: raving monster Peloquin is played by Oliver Parker, who went on a mere 5 years later to direct my favorite version of Othello, the one with Laurence Fishburne, Irene Jacob and Kenneth Branagh. Crazy talk.
I like to think that there's a parallel universe somewhere where David Cronenberg has a career like Sydney Pollack where he's not only an in-demand and commercially successful director, but also a beloved and dependable character actor. He's so much fun to watch on screen that I really wish he'd act more, and I believe that Nightbreed is the movie in which he has the most screen time. He doesn't have a whole lot more to do in this cut than he does in the theatrical, but his Decker is still my favorite thing about either version.
In truth, despite the claim of 40 minutes of all-new footage, the two versions of the movie don't play out terribly differently. Having watched the two cuts of Halloween 6 earlier this month, those played like almost completely different movies from each other. Here the movies are pretty much the same, only with a few more monsters running around in the longer cut.
The most major changes happen in the final act, though I won't go into detail so as not to spoil it. I will say that I'm a bit bummed to lose the final shot of the theatrical cut, as it's one of my favorite closing shots from any movie. The new ending is still good, just very different. There are other changes scattered about here and there, notably a sinister phone call from Decker and a terrible musical number (no, really) with a badly dubbed Anne Bobby (it's actually her own voice, but her lip movements are distractingly separate from her words) early on.
Both cuts are a mess, but they're equally fun to watch. I may actually prefer the theatrical, but that's probably only because I've lived with it for almost 25 years now. Also, they removed the country-fried cover of Oingo Boingo's "Skin" from the movie and from the end credits. What the hell, movie?
I've always enjoyed the theatrical cut despite it not actually being very good. It's a movie that loves monsters, and I love the way it revels in monsters just as much as the golden age of Universal Pictures. The monsters are the heroes, and that goes a long way with lifelong horror fans. That love is still front and center in the director's cut, and the wildly imaginative practical effects are (even when bad, which some are) so full of creativity and spirit that you want the cut to be even longer because you want to spend more time wandering around Midian, the city of monsters at the heart of the movie. I've been a monster kid my whole life, and Nightbreed is one of those movies that showed me I wasn't alone.
Technically speaking, the disc is absolutely phenomenal. Editor Andrew Furtado deserves every award they can throw at him for editing the new footage in seamlessly, if you didn't know in advance that you were watching an alternate cut you'd never know it. It looks beautiful, and is packed with informative and interesting special features, including an enthusiastic commentary track with Clive Barker himself. One thing I learned that I still can't quite wrap my head around: raving monster Peloquin is played by Oliver Parker, who went on a mere 5 years later to direct my favorite version of Othello, the one with Laurence Fishburne, Irene Jacob and Kenneth Branagh. Crazy talk.
Saturday, October 18, 2014
Scary Movie Month 2014, Day 18
Necronomicon
More importantly than anything else, this completes the Alien Nation hat trick because Gary Graham is in one scene as an abusive boyfriend. I'm sure everyone at the local chapter of the Tenctonese labor union is very excited about this.
Onto the movie itself, it's pretty fun. It's an anthology of three Lovecraft-inspired stories (not exactly straight adaptations, but close) with a framing story centered around Lovecraft himself, played by an excellent Jeffrey Combs. Combs is so good that it made me want to see him in an actual Lovecraft biopic rather than just in the wraparound segments of a low-budget horror anthology.
The stories are pretty solid, and being Lovecraft they're full of all the darkness, gore, and squishy fish-monsters that you'd expect. There are also some strong performances from the likes of Bruce Payne (the villain in Passenger 57 who didn't bet on black), Richard Lynch, and David Warner.
Some of the effects are distractingly cheap, but each of the three stories has at least one standout moment of either memorable gore or extreme creepiness. The movie as a whole actually has a surprisingly consistent tone and allows for moments that are darkly humorous without descending into full-on camp, which can be pretty easy to do when your movie is stuffed to the gills (I'm so, so sorry) with Lovecraftian ocean creatures. While the movie is smart enough not to take itself too seriously, it never resorts to jokiness or anything that betrays the horrific tone. The stories don't overstay their welcome, and they're woven together in a way that feels cohesive which is all too rare in horror anthologies. It's no Amicus production, but it's a solidly old-school horror anthology in that vein. Cthulhu would be proud.
More importantly than anything else, this completes the Alien Nation hat trick because Gary Graham is in one scene as an abusive boyfriend. I'm sure everyone at the local chapter of the Tenctonese labor union is very excited about this.
Onto the movie itself, it's pretty fun. It's an anthology of three Lovecraft-inspired stories (not exactly straight adaptations, but close) with a framing story centered around Lovecraft himself, played by an excellent Jeffrey Combs. Combs is so good that it made me want to see him in an actual Lovecraft biopic rather than just in the wraparound segments of a low-budget horror anthology.
The stories are pretty solid, and being Lovecraft they're full of all the darkness, gore, and squishy fish-monsters that you'd expect. There are also some strong performances from the likes of Bruce Payne (the villain in Passenger 57 who didn't bet on black), Richard Lynch, and David Warner.
Some of the effects are distractingly cheap, but each of the three stories has at least one standout moment of either memorable gore or extreme creepiness. The movie as a whole actually has a surprisingly consistent tone and allows for moments that are darkly humorous without descending into full-on camp, which can be pretty easy to do when your movie is stuffed to the gills (I'm so, so sorry) with Lovecraftian ocean creatures. While the movie is smart enough not to take itself too seriously, it never resorts to jokiness or anything that betrays the horrific tone. The stories don't overstay their welcome, and they're woven together in a way that feels cohesive which is all too rare in horror anthologies. It's no Amicus production, but it's a solidly old-school horror anthology in that vein. Cthulhu would be proud.
Friday, October 17, 2014
Scary Movie Month 2014, Day 17
The Final Terror
I'm kind of torn on this one. On one hand, I'm incredibly grateful to Scream Factory for finding a way to assemble a cut of a movie cobbled together from various collector's prints which had until now never been released on home video. On the other hand, the movie is not very good.
A group of forest rangers are out camping in the woods, so as you might expect there is someone waiting in the woods to cut them into bite-size pieces. The setting is actually used fairly well (when you can see what's going on...the night scenes are DARK) and there are a few genuinely tense moments, but the movie mostly left me cold.
I think the main thing that didn't work for me was the characters. I appreciate that they were older than the intended victims in most slasher movies tend to be, I just found them to be mostly unlikable. A lot of their interplay came across as fairly obnoxious, so I wasn't rooting for them the way the movie seemed to be hoping I would.
It was directed by Andrew Davis, who would go on to make The Fugitive and Under Siege, and who was also smart enough to turn down the offer to direct the sequels to either of those. There are a few flashes of his talent, especially as the movie goes completely batshit in its final act. The last 15 minutes or so may actually be worth sitting through the whole thing. Then again, who doesn't want to see Adrian Zmed menaced by a knife-wielding maniac? He kind of deserves it just for Grease 2.
I'm kind of torn on this one. On one hand, I'm incredibly grateful to Scream Factory for finding a way to assemble a cut of a movie cobbled together from various collector's prints which had until now never been released on home video. On the other hand, the movie is not very good.
A group of forest rangers are out camping in the woods, so as you might expect there is someone waiting in the woods to cut them into bite-size pieces. The setting is actually used fairly well (when you can see what's going on...the night scenes are DARK) and there are a few genuinely tense moments, but the movie mostly left me cold.
I think the main thing that didn't work for me was the characters. I appreciate that they were older than the intended victims in most slasher movies tend to be, I just found them to be mostly unlikable. A lot of their interplay came across as fairly obnoxious, so I wasn't rooting for them the way the movie seemed to be hoping I would.
It was directed by Andrew Davis, who would go on to make The Fugitive and Under Siege, and who was also smart enough to turn down the offer to direct the sequels to either of those. There are a few flashes of his talent, especially as the movie goes completely batshit in its final act. The last 15 minutes or so may actually be worth sitting through the whole thing. Then again, who doesn't want to see Adrian Zmed menaced by a knife-wielding maniac? He kind of deserves it just for Grease 2.
Thursday, October 16, 2014
Scary Movie Month 2014, Day 16
Invaders From Mars (1986)
Allegedly cocaine-fueled Tobe Hooper is the best of all possible Tobe Hoopers. This, while a far cry from CokeTobe's best work, is still a pretty fun take on 50's alien invasion movies.
Terrible kid actor Hunter Carson (I was warned about his performance but not nearly enough, he was truly awful. Also, it should be noted that he runs exactly like Steven Seagal, which is never not hilarious) is David, our hero. This is problematic, because within minutes we're rooting for aliens to eat him.
Anyway, David stumbles upon an alien conspiracy to take over his neighborhood, which leads to a great deal of slimy goings on about town. Karen Black (Hunter's real-life mom, sadly) is the school nurse and also the only person who believes David that they're in deep slime. Things are a bit more fun in the first half, once they head into the alien's lair the movie starts to drag a bit and never quite recovers, but there's still plenty of silly fun to be had.
My favorite CokeTobe movie (and favorite Hooper movie in general, probably) is Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2, and that movie has a crazy cartoon energy that he's never matched since, even in a movie like this that's just as cartoonish only actually meant for kids so it can wear those influences right on its sleeve. While it's missing that crazed anarchic spirit, it still revels in a very specific sort of artificiality that I really enjoy. Sets that look like sets, actors going just a notch too high over the top, rubber-suited aliens...if these are things that make you smile, you're gonna find a lot to love here. Also, Eric Pierpoint with hair, making him the second Alien Nation alumni I've encountered this month (the lovely Teri Treas, also with hair, was in The Nest). Hopefully Gary Graham will turn up in something soon so I can get the hat trick.
Allegedly cocaine-fueled Tobe Hooper is the best of all possible Tobe Hoopers. This, while a far cry from CokeTobe's best work, is still a pretty fun take on 50's alien invasion movies.
Terrible kid actor Hunter Carson (I was warned about his performance but not nearly enough, he was truly awful. Also, it should be noted that he runs exactly like Steven Seagal, which is never not hilarious) is David, our hero. This is problematic, because within minutes we're rooting for aliens to eat him.
Anyway, David stumbles upon an alien conspiracy to take over his neighborhood, which leads to a great deal of slimy goings on about town. Karen Black (Hunter's real-life mom, sadly) is the school nurse and also the only person who believes David that they're in deep slime. Things are a bit more fun in the first half, once they head into the alien's lair the movie starts to drag a bit and never quite recovers, but there's still plenty of silly fun to be had.
My favorite CokeTobe movie (and favorite Hooper movie in general, probably) is Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2, and that movie has a crazy cartoon energy that he's never matched since, even in a movie like this that's just as cartoonish only actually meant for kids so it can wear those influences right on its sleeve. While it's missing that crazed anarchic spirit, it still revels in a very specific sort of artificiality that I really enjoy. Sets that look like sets, actors going just a notch too high over the top, rubber-suited aliens...if these are things that make you smile, you're gonna find a lot to love here. Also, Eric Pierpoint with hair, making him the second Alien Nation alumni I've encountered this month (the lovely Teri Treas, also with hair, was in The Nest). Hopefully Gary Graham will turn up in something soon so I can get the hat trick.
Wednesday, October 15, 2014
Scary Movie Month 2014, Day 15
Big Ass Spider!
I am absolutely terrified of spiders. The movie Arachnophobia, a PG-13 affair marketed as a "Thrill-omedy" (!) has probably given me more sleepless nights than any horror movie in history. So, when I first saw posters & such for a movie called Big Ass Spider! two thoughts went through my head: great title, and no fucking way will I ever watch that. Cut to last night, when I listened to an episode of the great Killer POV podcast that featured Mike Mendez, the director of Big Ass Spider! He was funny, enthusiastic, and convinced me to give his movie a try. Spoiler: I'm SO glad I did.
There are movies that pop up on the SyFy Channel every few weeks, you know the type: Sharktopus, Mega Piranha, RoboCroc vs DynaHamster or whatever. The thing they all have in common is that they're uniformly awful. They try so hard to be campy that they just become boring and lifeless, they don't understand that you can't manufacture camp. I cannot stress enough that this is NOT one of those movies, it's a blast from start to finish and it's fun without ever becoming just another generic monster-movie-of-the-week.
I'd go into detail about the plot, but it's all right there in that glorious title. Greg Grunberg (who, for the record, is fantastic and knows exactly what movie he's in) is an exterminator who loves his job, but not in a mean-spirited or sadistic way, he's just a guy who's good at what he does, and what he does is combat spiders. Good thing, because there happens to be a big ass one in town that requires attention.
The movie is fast-paced, consistently funny, and even has moments of genuine suspense. The supporting cast is great (a shame Ray Wise and Lin Shaye never got to share a scene, they were terrific together in Dead End) and the comedy comes from character which is so rarely the case in movies like this. It's never outwardly jokey (ok, maybe a little) but it's solidly funny throughout (and at 80 minutes, it never wears out its welcome). The effects are mostly poor CGI, but as an inveterate arachnophobe I was somewhat glad for that, since the cartoony nature of some of the effects kept my heart from exploding while watching it. Had it been too realistic, I might have been writing this from the back of an ambulance.
This is easily my favorite discovery of the month thus far, and I'm glad I finally gave it a chance. I never thought I'd say this, but I sincerely hope there are more Big Ass Spider!s in my future, and at the very least I'm fully on board for whatever Mike Mendez has up all eight sleeves next.
I am absolutely terrified of spiders. The movie Arachnophobia, a PG-13 affair marketed as a "Thrill-omedy" (!) has probably given me more sleepless nights than any horror movie in history. So, when I first saw posters & such for a movie called Big Ass Spider! two thoughts went through my head: great title, and no fucking way will I ever watch that. Cut to last night, when I listened to an episode of the great Killer POV podcast that featured Mike Mendez, the director of Big Ass Spider! He was funny, enthusiastic, and convinced me to give his movie a try. Spoiler: I'm SO glad I did.
There are movies that pop up on the SyFy Channel every few weeks, you know the type: Sharktopus, Mega Piranha, RoboCroc vs DynaHamster or whatever. The thing they all have in common is that they're uniformly awful. They try so hard to be campy that they just become boring and lifeless, they don't understand that you can't manufacture camp. I cannot stress enough that this is NOT one of those movies, it's a blast from start to finish and it's fun without ever becoming just another generic monster-movie-of-the-week.
I'd go into detail about the plot, but it's all right there in that glorious title. Greg Grunberg (who, for the record, is fantastic and knows exactly what movie he's in) is an exterminator who loves his job, but not in a mean-spirited or sadistic way, he's just a guy who's good at what he does, and what he does is combat spiders. Good thing, because there happens to be a big ass one in town that requires attention.
The movie is fast-paced, consistently funny, and even has moments of genuine suspense. The supporting cast is great (a shame Ray Wise and Lin Shaye never got to share a scene, they were terrific together in Dead End) and the comedy comes from character which is so rarely the case in movies like this. It's never outwardly jokey (ok, maybe a little) but it's solidly funny throughout (and at 80 minutes, it never wears out its welcome). The effects are mostly poor CGI, but as an inveterate arachnophobe I was somewhat glad for that, since the cartoony nature of some of the effects kept my heart from exploding while watching it. Had it been too realistic, I might have been writing this from the back of an ambulance.
This is easily my favorite discovery of the month thus far, and I'm glad I finally gave it a chance. I never thought I'd say this, but I sincerely hope there are more Big Ass Spider!s in my future, and at the very least I'm fully on board for whatever Mike Mendez has up all eight sleeves next.
Tuesday, October 14, 2014
Scary Movie Month 2014, Day 14
Creep
Now that's more like it. The lovely Franka Potente is locked in the deserted London Underground with a deformed, murderous mutant gentleman and a handful of other potential victims. The movie makes very effective use of the barren Underground and empty trains, there's some honest-to-god horror happening here and it's refreshing after the run of lazy garbage movies that I've been subjecting myself to lately.
Also refreshing is that the movie isn't afraid to allow Potente's character, Kate, to be kind of unlikable. She's not horrible or anything, but she's also not a clichéd heroine with a heart of gold, and she feels more real because of it. Even the final shot (lifted from The Graduate, of all places) feels earned, not phony. That's not to say there aren't any clichés, the story is nothing new and the Saw-like cinematography & lighting leaves a bit to be desired (everything is bathed in sickly greens, yellows, and blues which gets old pretty fast, just because something is unpleasant to look at doesn't necessarily make it scarier). Also, there's a sequence where a guy high on cocaine tries to rape Kate that is frankly unnecessary. The guy was already an asshole, to make him a potential rapist to get the viewer to hate him more is lazy and obnoxious. Be smarter, movie. Trust that we already see the guy as a potential threat without having him menacingly reach for his fly and push Kate into a corner.
Those faults are forgivable, though, because the movie has some terrifically creepy atmosphere and a brisk pace that helps the 85 minute running time breeze by. There are also some pretty nauseating moments, and I mean that in the best way possible. It's all very grim, but not oppressive, which can be a dealbreaker for movies like this. It's much more effective than the premise and generic title suggest, and generally the sort of movie that makes an undertaking like watching a new-to-me horror movie every day of October worthwhile.
Also, have I mentioned Franka Potente? Because DAMN. Franka Potente. Just sayin'.
Now that's more like it. The lovely Franka Potente is locked in the deserted London Underground with a deformed, murderous mutant gentleman and a handful of other potential victims. The movie makes very effective use of the barren Underground and empty trains, there's some honest-to-god horror happening here and it's refreshing after the run of lazy garbage movies that I've been subjecting myself to lately.
Also refreshing is that the movie isn't afraid to allow Potente's character, Kate, to be kind of unlikable. She's not horrible or anything, but she's also not a clichéd heroine with a heart of gold, and she feels more real because of it. Even the final shot (lifted from The Graduate, of all places) feels earned, not phony. That's not to say there aren't any clichés, the story is nothing new and the Saw-like cinematography & lighting leaves a bit to be desired (everything is bathed in sickly greens, yellows, and blues which gets old pretty fast, just because something is unpleasant to look at doesn't necessarily make it scarier). Also, there's a sequence where a guy high on cocaine tries to rape Kate that is frankly unnecessary. The guy was already an asshole, to make him a potential rapist to get the viewer to hate him more is lazy and obnoxious. Be smarter, movie. Trust that we already see the guy as a potential threat without having him menacingly reach for his fly and push Kate into a corner.
Those faults are forgivable, though, because the movie has some terrifically creepy atmosphere and a brisk pace that helps the 85 minute running time breeze by. There are also some pretty nauseating moments, and I mean that in the best way possible. It's all very grim, but not oppressive, which can be a dealbreaker for movies like this. It's much more effective than the premise and generic title suggest, and generally the sort of movie that makes an undertaking like watching a new-to-me horror movie every day of October worthwhile.
Also, have I mentioned Franka Potente? Because DAMN. Franka Potente. Just sayin'.
Monday, October 13, 2014
Scary Movie Month 2014, Day 13
Pet Sematary Two
What a waste of a good Kurgan.
If someone murdered and buried Pet Sematary and it came back wrong...it would still be better than this. There are a few things working against it from the beginning: Edward Furlong, lack of Stephen King source material (or support, he insisted his name not be used), Edward Furlong, a terrible script, and Edward Furlong.
An unspecified amount of time has passed since Gage Creed got all "no fair" on the asses of everyone in his general area, and wouldn't you know it people are messing with that Micmac burial ground again where the ground is sour and things that you bury don't stay dead. As in the original, it starts with pets and then escalates to people, only these are not people that we care about like the Creeds or Jud Crandall, these are Edward Furlong people and Anthony Edwards in a weird turtleneck people, so we're pretty much rooting for mostly-dead Clancy Brown to murder everyone, including the screenwriter.
If you've seen the first Pet Sematary, you've probably been having nightmares about the terrifying Zelda ever since. She's one of the most frightening images in any movie, and though she has very little to do with the story itself she's memorable because she's awful in all of the right ways. There is absolutely nothing in this movie anywhere near as frightening or memorable as Zelda, much less anything else in the first movie. It's a lukewarm retread with absolutely no discernible personality and nothing that works on its own merits.
If there's any one bright spot, it's Clancy Brown as a dickhead sheriff turned undead dickhead sheriff. He's clearly having a good time and he's fun to watch, and to the movie's credit there's a scene in which he causes a car crash that is actually well-staged and moderately effective. So that's one minute that works and around a hundred minutes that don't. Not a very good average, that.
It's shocking to know that this was directed by Mary Lambert, who also directed the first Sematary. The original is so assured and so deeply frightening that I can't even believe such a lazy, uninspired sequel had the same person calling the shots. If only she had learned the lesson of the first movie that sometimes dead is better. Not every movie is meant to be a franchise.
What a waste of a good Kurgan.
If someone murdered and buried Pet Sematary and it came back wrong...it would still be better than this. There are a few things working against it from the beginning: Edward Furlong, lack of Stephen King source material (or support, he insisted his name not be used), Edward Furlong, a terrible script, and Edward Furlong.
An unspecified amount of time has passed since Gage Creed got all "no fair" on the asses of everyone in his general area, and wouldn't you know it people are messing with that Micmac burial ground again where the ground is sour and things that you bury don't stay dead. As in the original, it starts with pets and then escalates to people, only these are not people that we care about like the Creeds or Jud Crandall, these are Edward Furlong people and Anthony Edwards in a weird turtleneck people, so we're pretty much rooting for mostly-dead Clancy Brown to murder everyone, including the screenwriter.
If you've seen the first Pet Sematary, you've probably been having nightmares about the terrifying Zelda ever since. She's one of the most frightening images in any movie, and though she has very little to do with the story itself she's memorable because she's awful in all of the right ways. There is absolutely nothing in this movie anywhere near as frightening or memorable as Zelda, much less anything else in the first movie. It's a lukewarm retread with absolutely no discernible personality and nothing that works on its own merits.
If there's any one bright spot, it's Clancy Brown as a dickhead sheriff turned undead dickhead sheriff. He's clearly having a good time and he's fun to watch, and to the movie's credit there's a scene in which he causes a car crash that is actually well-staged and moderately effective. So that's one minute that works and around a hundred minutes that don't. Not a very good average, that.
It's shocking to know that this was directed by Mary Lambert, who also directed the first Sematary. The original is so assured and so deeply frightening that I can't even believe such a lazy, uninspired sequel had the same person calling the shots. If only she had learned the lesson of the first movie that sometimes dead is better. Not every movie is meant to be a franchise.
Sunday, October 12, 2014
Scary Movie Month 2014, Day 12
Tales From the Crypt Presents Ritual
There are some things in life that I just can't abide, and this movie commits one of the worst of those sins: a criminal waste of Tim Curry. He's the "comic relief" here (a term possibly never used more loosely) and he seems as bored as anyone watching this shit.
Ritual was meant to be the third in an ongoing series of Tales From the Crypt movies. The first, Demon Knight, is a fun, funny, nasty, kinetic, endlessly rewatchable monster mash. The second, Bordello of Blood, leans way too hard toward comedy (and an assumption that the Venn diagram of "horror fan" and "Dennis Miller fan" has a much greater overlap than it actually does) and completely tanked in theaters. It flopped so hard, in fact, that this movie was purchased by Miramax and had all connections to Crypt removed for international theatrical release. Eventually they added the Crypt stuff back in and dumped the movie (deservedly so) direct to DVD in the US.
The movie opens with a horrifically cheap Crypt Keeper intro, the puppet seemingly purchased from a second-rate Halloween store and still voiced by a probably embarrassed John Kassir, who deserves better than this. We then cut to the movie proper, an ineptly-staged, self-serious remake of Val Lewton's infinitely better (and almost 40 minutes shorter) I Walked With A Zombie. Everything is flatly lit and unimaginatively staged, and while there are a few very welcome practical effects that stand out, there's also some terrible, cartoony CGI which only serves to make the whole thing feel like a SyFy Channel production.
Unlike one would expect from Tales From the Crypt, this movie has no sense of humor or fun. Say what you will about Bordello of Blood (it's not good) but at least it knew how silly it all was. I'll take that smug goofiness over po-faced dullness any day of the week. I Walked With A Zombie is readily available on DVD, by itself and as part of an excellent career-spanning Val Lewton box set. Do yourself a favor and track that down instead, you'll have a better time, I promise.
There are some things in life that I just can't abide, and this movie commits one of the worst of those sins: a criminal waste of Tim Curry. He's the "comic relief" here (a term possibly never used more loosely) and he seems as bored as anyone watching this shit.
Ritual was meant to be the third in an ongoing series of Tales From the Crypt movies. The first, Demon Knight, is a fun, funny, nasty, kinetic, endlessly rewatchable monster mash. The second, Bordello of Blood, leans way too hard toward comedy (and an assumption that the Venn diagram of "horror fan" and "Dennis Miller fan" has a much greater overlap than it actually does) and completely tanked in theaters. It flopped so hard, in fact, that this movie was purchased by Miramax and had all connections to Crypt removed for international theatrical release. Eventually they added the Crypt stuff back in and dumped the movie (deservedly so) direct to DVD in the US.
The movie opens with a horrifically cheap Crypt Keeper intro, the puppet seemingly purchased from a second-rate Halloween store and still voiced by a probably embarrassed John Kassir, who deserves better than this. We then cut to the movie proper, an ineptly-staged, self-serious remake of Val Lewton's infinitely better (and almost 40 minutes shorter) I Walked With A Zombie. Everything is flatly lit and unimaginatively staged, and while there are a few very welcome practical effects that stand out, there's also some terrible, cartoony CGI which only serves to make the whole thing feel like a SyFy Channel production.
Unlike one would expect from Tales From the Crypt, this movie has no sense of humor or fun. Say what you will about Bordello of Blood (it's not good) but at least it knew how silly it all was. I'll take that smug goofiness over po-faced dullness any day of the week. I Walked With A Zombie is readily available on DVD, by itself and as part of an excellent career-spanning Val Lewton box set. Do yourself a favor and track that down instead, you'll have a better time, I promise.
Saturday, October 11, 2014
Scary Movie Month 2014, Day 11
The Phantom of the Opera (1943)
Now I remember why it's been over 20 years since I've seen this one: I don't really like it. Easily my least favorite of the golden age of Universal Monsters, it's a case of way too much opera and way too little Phantom.
The lush technicolor looks gorgeous on the blu-ray, but it just doesn't feel like a horror movie, especially taken alongside masterpieces like Dracula & Frankenstein. Claude Rains is great (as always) as the Phantom, but he's offscreen so often that instead of building tension it just leaves the viewer feeling bored waiting for him to return and inject a little life into the movie. The reveal of his deformity, what should be an iconic and terrifying moment, lays there inert on the screen, much like any other "big" moment in this version it's missing an element of true horror or pathos or anything to make it memorable.
It's difficult not to compare this to other versions, and it doesn't hold a candle to Lon Chaney's take from 1925, a movie that still holds the power to shock and horrify. If I'm being embarrassingly honest, I even prefer the Dwight H. Little joint from 1989 with Robert Englund and (dreamy sigh) Jill Schoelen. It's crazy, but at least it's FUN crazy, this version is, sadly, a drag.
Now I remember why it's been over 20 years since I've seen this one: I don't really like it. Easily my least favorite of the golden age of Universal Monsters, it's a case of way too much opera and way too little Phantom.
The lush technicolor looks gorgeous on the blu-ray, but it just doesn't feel like a horror movie, especially taken alongside masterpieces like Dracula & Frankenstein. Claude Rains is great (as always) as the Phantom, but he's offscreen so often that instead of building tension it just leaves the viewer feeling bored waiting for him to return and inject a little life into the movie. The reveal of his deformity, what should be an iconic and terrifying moment, lays there inert on the screen, much like any other "big" moment in this version it's missing an element of true horror or pathos or anything to make it memorable.
It's difficult not to compare this to other versions, and it doesn't hold a candle to Lon Chaney's take from 1925, a movie that still holds the power to shock and horrify. If I'm being embarrassingly honest, I even prefer the Dwight H. Little joint from 1989 with Robert Englund and (dreamy sigh) Jill Schoelen. It's crazy, but at least it's FUN crazy, this version is, sadly, a drag.
Friday, October 10, 2014
Scary Movie Month 2014, Day 10
Death Spa
Appropriately batshit movie about a computer-controlled, murderous health club. Surprisingly, it took almost six minutes to get to the first full-frontal nude shot, which seems positively lethargic for a movie called Death Spa. Also, it was cowritten by a guy named Mitch Paradise, so now you all know my chosen porn name.
It's a bit shocking that this came out as late as 1989 because it feels firmly rooted in the Miami Vice-inspired neon aesthetic of the mid-80's. It's all brightly-colored spandex, over-the-top gore, new wave music, and did I mention the brightly-colored spandex?
As for the movie itself, the title pretty much says it all. A spa run by computer goes haywire (because things like the bolts on a diving board and the tiles in a shower are run by computer, isn't that how things work?) and starts causing people to be maimed and/or killed. Also a guy gets eaten by a two-foot-long fish because why not. Of course there's more to it than a simple computer malfunction, but I won't spoil the gleeful batshittery to come. The movie goes completely insane in the final act, and it's all the better for it.
Everyone in the cast commits to the nonsense and it makes for a pretty fun watch overall. I wish Ken Foree had a bit more to do since he's a goddamn national treasure, but any Foree is good Foree. Also, as a Star Trek fan I'd be remiss if I didn't mention this was the final film performance of Merritt Butrick, who played Kirk's son in Treks II & III. His performance is unfortunately rooted in the gay panic not uncommon in movies of the era (era) but he's still fun to watch.
I imagine this would work well as a party movie, just something to have on in the background during a Halloween party. You can watch pretty much any random 5-10 minutes of it and enjoy pretty much everything it has to offer. I don't mean that as a dig, for the record. It's exactly what you're looking for if you're into movies with titles like Death Spa.
Appropriately batshit movie about a computer-controlled, murderous health club. Surprisingly, it took almost six minutes to get to the first full-frontal nude shot, which seems positively lethargic for a movie called Death Spa. Also, it was cowritten by a guy named Mitch Paradise, so now you all know my chosen porn name.
It's a bit shocking that this came out as late as 1989 because it feels firmly rooted in the Miami Vice-inspired neon aesthetic of the mid-80's. It's all brightly-colored spandex, over-the-top gore, new wave music, and did I mention the brightly-colored spandex?
As for the movie itself, the title pretty much says it all. A spa run by computer goes haywire (because things like the bolts on a diving board and the tiles in a shower are run by computer, isn't that how things work?) and starts causing people to be maimed and/or killed. Also a guy gets eaten by a two-foot-long fish because why not. Of course there's more to it than a simple computer malfunction, but I won't spoil the gleeful batshittery to come. The movie goes completely insane in the final act, and it's all the better for it.
Everyone in the cast commits to the nonsense and it makes for a pretty fun watch overall. I wish Ken Foree had a bit more to do since he's a goddamn national treasure, but any Foree is good Foree. Also, as a Star Trek fan I'd be remiss if I didn't mention this was the final film performance of Merritt Butrick, who played Kirk's son in Treks II & III. His performance is unfortunately rooted in the gay panic not uncommon in movies of the era (era) but he's still fun to watch.
I imagine this would work well as a party movie, just something to have on in the background during a Halloween party. You can watch pretty much any random 5-10 minutes of it and enjoy pretty much everything it has to offer. I don't mean that as a dig, for the record. It's exactly what you're looking for if you're into movies with titles like Death Spa.
Thursday, October 9, 2014
Scary Movie Month 2014, Day 9
The ABCs of Death 2
Yuck. That's the one thing all 26 shorts in this anthology have in common, they all have at least a moment designed to make the viewer say yuck. The basic premise is the same as the first movie, 26 filmmakers (or filmmaking teams) are each given a letter of the alphabet and tasked with making a short film about death based on that letter.
The shorts here are mostly bad (though in fairness, not as bad as the worst of the first movie in the series) but there are a few bright spots, particularly A, S, W, and Z (especially S, a cleverly constructed piece that was easily my favorite in the movie). Also, I admit I laughed out loud at the last line of M, and as affectedly gonzo as Y was there was something about it that worked, unlike the godawful surrealist Japanese Z from part 1.
I realize that that last paragraph reads like an equation, but I'm being purposefully vague only because one of the few pleasures of the movie is trying to figure out what word the short is building to, as the name of each short isn't revealed until the end of it, usually causing it to act almost as a punchline.
One thing to be wary of, these movies are most assuredly not for the weak of stomach. As each one is building to a death, they can get pretty insanely gory. I don't mind gore when it has a purpose (the first movie's X was one of my favorite shorts in it and I had to look away from the screen momentarily during it) but a lot of it here just comes across as a lazy attempt to shock.
Despite the few good shorts, this was as frustrating and overall disappointing as the original. As with any anthology, your mileage may vary regarding which shorts you like or don't like, but I can't imagine anybody walking away from the movie feeling completely satisfied.
Yuck. That's the one thing all 26 shorts in this anthology have in common, they all have at least a moment designed to make the viewer say yuck. The basic premise is the same as the first movie, 26 filmmakers (or filmmaking teams) are each given a letter of the alphabet and tasked with making a short film about death based on that letter.
The shorts here are mostly bad (though in fairness, not as bad as the worst of the first movie in the series) but there are a few bright spots, particularly A, S, W, and Z (especially S, a cleverly constructed piece that was easily my favorite in the movie). Also, I admit I laughed out loud at the last line of M, and as affectedly gonzo as Y was there was something about it that worked, unlike the godawful surrealist Japanese Z from part 1.
I realize that that last paragraph reads like an equation, but I'm being purposefully vague only because one of the few pleasures of the movie is trying to figure out what word the short is building to, as the name of each short isn't revealed until the end of it, usually causing it to act almost as a punchline.
One thing to be wary of, these movies are most assuredly not for the weak of stomach. As each one is building to a death, they can get pretty insanely gory. I don't mind gore when it has a purpose (the first movie's X was one of my favorite shorts in it and I had to look away from the screen momentarily during it) but a lot of it here just comes across as a lazy attempt to shock.
Despite the few good shorts, this was as frustrating and overall disappointing as the original. As with any anthology, your mileage may vary regarding which shorts you like or don't like, but I can't imagine anybody walking away from the movie feeling completely satisfied.
Wednesday, October 8, 2014
Scary Movie Month 2014, Day 8
The Monkey's Paw (2013)
"It'll give you what you ask for, but not the way you want it." That's a direct quote from the movie and a pretty decent synopsis as well. As anyone familiar with the story (read: everyone on the planet) knows, every wish brings with it a big pile of bloody consequences. Sure it's a story that's been done to death (and then wished back to soulless life) but this made-for-TV movie is a pretty solid take on it.
Remember a few days ago when I was knocking Stephen Lang for being lousy in A Good Marriage? He's forgiven, because he's kind of a hoot here. He's a friend of Blandy McBland, our main character, who is accidentally killed and then wished back to life courtesy of the shriveled appendage of the title. Not surprisingly, he returns as a soulless murder enthusiast and only Blanderson Blankface can stop him. He's clearly having fun running around New Orleans (side note for exactly one reader: thanks for the geography lesson, Nicky :-*) stabbing the holy hell out of everyone he encounters. It's a fun performance, and the movie suffers a bit whenever he's offscreen (particularly toward the middle) but for the most part it's a fun watch.
The lead, C.J. Thomason is (as I might have mentioned) a bit on the bland side, but Lang is so much fun to watch that it doesn't sink the movie. The great Charles S. Dutton plays a cop investigating the murders, and he's a welcome presence in any movie even when he doesn't have a whole lot to do, which is unfortunately the case here.
All things considered it's a slick, above-average TV movie. The story is solid and well-told, it has a wickedly humorous streak running through it, and there was even a moment that made me jump, which is all too rare these days. Also, it was written by Blue Ruin star Macon Blair which made me want to watch that again, so that's gotta be another point in its corner.
"It'll give you what you ask for, but not the way you want it." That's a direct quote from the movie and a pretty decent synopsis as well. As anyone familiar with the story (read: everyone on the planet) knows, every wish brings with it a big pile of bloody consequences. Sure it's a story that's been done to death (and then wished back to soulless life) but this made-for-TV movie is a pretty solid take on it.
Remember a few days ago when I was knocking Stephen Lang for being lousy in A Good Marriage? He's forgiven, because he's kind of a hoot here. He's a friend of Blandy McBland, our main character, who is accidentally killed and then wished back to life courtesy of the shriveled appendage of the title. Not surprisingly, he returns as a soulless murder enthusiast and only Blanderson Blankface can stop him. He's clearly having fun running around New Orleans (side note for exactly one reader: thanks for the geography lesson, Nicky :-*) stabbing the holy hell out of everyone he encounters. It's a fun performance, and the movie suffers a bit whenever he's offscreen (particularly toward the middle) but for the most part it's a fun watch.
The lead, C.J. Thomason is (as I might have mentioned) a bit on the bland side, but Lang is so much fun to watch that it doesn't sink the movie. The great Charles S. Dutton plays a cop investigating the murders, and he's a welcome presence in any movie even when he doesn't have a whole lot to do, which is unfortunately the case here.
All things considered it's a slick, above-average TV movie. The story is solid and well-told, it has a wickedly humorous streak running through it, and there was even a moment that made me jump, which is all too rare these days. Also, it was written by Blue Ruin star Macon Blair which made me want to watch that again, so that's gotta be another point in its corner.
Tuesday, October 7, 2014
Scary Movie Month 2014, Day 7
Bad Dreams
This was a pleasant surprise. Stop me if you've heard this one before: Jennifer Rubin is in a psych ward, she's having dreams of a psychopath who was killed in a fire, and all around her other inmates of the ward are dying mysteriously in what appears to be a rash of suicides. The fact that that exact sentence can also be used to describe A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors (released one year prior to this) is exactly what kept me away from this one for so long, I figured it was just a cheap knockoff of the Nightmare movies. I was wrong, and I'm happy to be so.
Rubin is the lone survivor of a Jonestown-like cult led by the ubercreepy yet somehow still compassionate Richard Lynch. Lynch is pretty great, as scary a presence as he is you can still see how people would fall under his sway. Rubin is less great, but she's fine. She's beautiful (and bad, for you Taryn fans) but she's also kind of blank. I would love to have seen someone with a bit more experience at the center here, someone who could really convey the pain, delusion, and ultimate inner strength that the role calls for. The other people in the ward tend to lean toward the cartoonish, but Dean Cameron and E.G. Daily each get a couple of moments that elevate the rest of it. There's also able support by Bruce Abbott and Harris Yulin, and Charles Fleischer makes a great impression in his one scene, as he often does.
While there isn't much in the way of real scares, there's still a lot of disturbing imagery and a few gruesome moments that make it a worthwhile watch for horror fans. The ultimate resolution is actually quite satisfying and reasonably well thought out. Maybe it's just a case of lowered expectations but I really enjoyed this one quite a bit. The central premise (and terrible poster) don't do it any favors in the originality department, but it's not just a cookie-cutter "pretty girl menaced by undead monster" movie, and it's surprisingly solid.
This was a pleasant surprise. Stop me if you've heard this one before: Jennifer Rubin is in a psych ward, she's having dreams of a psychopath who was killed in a fire, and all around her other inmates of the ward are dying mysteriously in what appears to be a rash of suicides. The fact that that exact sentence can also be used to describe A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors (released one year prior to this) is exactly what kept me away from this one for so long, I figured it was just a cheap knockoff of the Nightmare movies. I was wrong, and I'm happy to be so.
Rubin is the lone survivor of a Jonestown-like cult led by the ubercreepy yet somehow still compassionate Richard Lynch. Lynch is pretty great, as scary a presence as he is you can still see how people would fall under his sway. Rubin is less great, but she's fine. She's beautiful (and bad, for you Taryn fans) but she's also kind of blank. I would love to have seen someone with a bit more experience at the center here, someone who could really convey the pain, delusion, and ultimate inner strength that the role calls for. The other people in the ward tend to lean toward the cartoonish, but Dean Cameron and E.G. Daily each get a couple of moments that elevate the rest of it. There's also able support by Bruce Abbott and Harris Yulin, and Charles Fleischer makes a great impression in his one scene, as he often does.
While there isn't much in the way of real scares, there's still a lot of disturbing imagery and a few gruesome moments that make it a worthwhile watch for horror fans. The ultimate resolution is actually quite satisfying and reasonably well thought out. Maybe it's just a case of lowered expectations but I really enjoyed this one quite a bit. The central premise (and terrible poster) don't do it any favors in the originality department, but it's not just a cookie-cutter "pretty girl menaced by undead monster" movie, and it's surprisingly solid.
Monday, October 6, 2014
Scary Movie Month 2014, Day 6
Final Exam
I'm kinda torn on this one. On one hand, it's a pretty typical slasher movie minus any memorable setpieces or kills. On the other hand, I respect that they were trying to do something a little bit different with a formula that was already growing tired, even by 1981.
Lanier College is in finals week, and to add to that stress there's a shadowy figure with an Anton Chigurh haircut prowling the campus with a butcher knife and an urge to kill. Eventually. Like most slasher movies, we open with a kill, but then there's about an hour without any bloodshed (outside of a "harmless prank" that if attempted today would easily result in a campus lockdown and a stack of real dead bodies all on its own. My, how times have changed).
The movie is a weird hybrid of frat comedy and slasher movie, and not only does it do a poor job of balancing those things, it's not particularly good at either one. The frat stuff isn't funny, and the slasher stuff isn't scary or suspenseful. There's not even any mystery, the killer is unmasked and (SPOILERS) his identity and/or motive are never discussed. Dude just hates finals and mom jeans, I guess. To be fair, I actually like the choice to make the murders unmotivated, there's sort of a realism in that that ups the creep factor, it just doesn't make for a terribly entertaining movie.
Most of the violence is kept offscreen, and frankly the movie suffers for it. It's not like the audience for these things has an insatiable bloodlust, but we do expect some memorable kills if you're not gonna bother giving us any suspense. I appreciate the choice of the filmmakers to show less onscreen bloodshed, but they don't balance that choice by giving us characters to care about or a mystery to solve, it's just a lot of waiting around for things to get all stabby again.
It's disappointing, but still a far cry from the worst the genre has to offer. I feel like if it had a setpiece toward the middle like the raft sequence from The Burning it would be much more fondly remembered.
I'm kinda torn on this one. On one hand, it's a pretty typical slasher movie minus any memorable setpieces or kills. On the other hand, I respect that they were trying to do something a little bit different with a formula that was already growing tired, even by 1981.
Lanier College is in finals week, and to add to that stress there's a shadowy figure with an Anton Chigurh haircut prowling the campus with a butcher knife and an urge to kill. Eventually. Like most slasher movies, we open with a kill, but then there's about an hour without any bloodshed (outside of a "harmless prank" that if attempted today would easily result in a campus lockdown and a stack of real dead bodies all on its own. My, how times have changed).
The movie is a weird hybrid of frat comedy and slasher movie, and not only does it do a poor job of balancing those things, it's not particularly good at either one. The frat stuff isn't funny, and the slasher stuff isn't scary or suspenseful. There's not even any mystery, the killer is unmasked and (SPOILERS) his identity and/or motive are never discussed. Dude just hates finals and mom jeans, I guess. To be fair, I actually like the choice to make the murders unmotivated, there's sort of a realism in that that ups the creep factor, it just doesn't make for a terribly entertaining movie.
Most of the violence is kept offscreen, and frankly the movie suffers for it. It's not like the audience for these things has an insatiable bloodlust, but we do expect some memorable kills if you're not gonna bother giving us any suspense. I appreciate the choice of the filmmakers to show less onscreen bloodshed, but they don't balance that choice by giving us characters to care about or a mystery to solve, it's just a lot of waiting around for things to get all stabby again.
It's disappointing, but still a far cry from the worst the genre has to offer. I feel like if it had a setpiece toward the middle like the raft sequence from The Burning it would be much more fondly remembered.
Sunday, October 5, 2014
Scary Movie Month 2014, Day 5
Stephen King's A Good Marriage
Well, poop. I'm a big fan of Big Steve, and this is the first time he's adapted his work (for film, not tv) in 25 years (the last time was Pet Sematary). It was not worth the wait.
A Good Marriage was a novella from Full Dark, No Stars. It was less than 100 pages and there was just plain not enough there to sustain a full-length feature. Also, so much of the story is dependent on Joan Allen's character's inner monologue that it's impossible to translate the stuff that really works to the screen.
Allen plays a woman who accidentally stumbles (quite literally) onto evidence that her husband (Anthony LaPaglia) is a notorious serial killer. It's inspired by the real life case of Dennis Rader, better known as the B.T.K. killer, who was a devoted family man who also had a habit of torturing and murdering women and children. There was a movie made about Rader, not a very good one but better than this, that starred Kane Hodder in the lead and he was very effective as a family man with a horrifying secret. As scary as Hodder is, there was a gentleness to his performance that is surprisingly absent from LaPaglia's here. LaPaglia goes straight for menacing, and it takes away from the story, it only serves to make you wonder why she didn't recognize that he was a psychopath in the first place. Also, there are two or three too many "it was a dream" shock moments that don't shock at all, thanks to Peter Askin's flat, uninspired direction.
Lastly, Stephen Lang plays a retired detective on LaPaglia's trail and he's an actor who fascinates me because he has exactly two modes, very good (Manhunter, Tombstone, Crime Story) and very, very bad (Avatar, this) with absolutely no in between. He's fairly terrible here, all quirks and mannerisms, making his character into a terminally-ill Columbo caricature that feels completely inauthentic.
There's a good story in here, but not every story is meant to be a movie. I hate to say it, especially with King's direct involvement, but this is about as uninvolving and inessential as thrillers get. For King completists only.
Well, poop. I'm a big fan of Big Steve, and this is the first time he's adapted his work (for film, not tv) in 25 years (the last time was Pet Sematary). It was not worth the wait.
A Good Marriage was a novella from Full Dark, No Stars. It was less than 100 pages and there was just plain not enough there to sustain a full-length feature. Also, so much of the story is dependent on Joan Allen's character's inner monologue that it's impossible to translate the stuff that really works to the screen.
Allen plays a woman who accidentally stumbles (quite literally) onto evidence that her husband (Anthony LaPaglia) is a notorious serial killer. It's inspired by the real life case of Dennis Rader, better known as the B.T.K. killer, who was a devoted family man who also had a habit of torturing and murdering women and children. There was a movie made about Rader, not a very good one but better than this, that starred Kane Hodder in the lead and he was very effective as a family man with a horrifying secret. As scary as Hodder is, there was a gentleness to his performance that is surprisingly absent from LaPaglia's here. LaPaglia goes straight for menacing, and it takes away from the story, it only serves to make you wonder why she didn't recognize that he was a psychopath in the first place. Also, there are two or three too many "it was a dream" shock moments that don't shock at all, thanks to Peter Askin's flat, uninspired direction.
Lastly, Stephen Lang plays a retired detective on LaPaglia's trail and he's an actor who fascinates me because he has exactly two modes, very good (Manhunter, Tombstone, Crime Story) and very, very bad (Avatar, this) with absolutely no in between. He's fairly terrible here, all quirks and mannerisms, making his character into a terminally-ill Columbo caricature that feels completely inauthentic.
There's a good story in here, but not every story is meant to be a movie. I hate to say it, especially with King's direct involvement, but this is about as uninvolving and inessential as thrillers get. For King completists only.
Saturday, October 4, 2014
Scary Movie Month 2014, Day 4
The Nest
Note to self: next year, if the holiday again falls during Scary Movie Month, maybe watch the carnivorous-cockroach movie BEFORE the Yom Kippur fast, that way I won't have an appetite anyway.
The last story in Creepshow, "They're Creeping Up On You," has always given me what scientists call the heebie-jeebies. It's about a Howard Hughes-like germophobe trapped in his sterile home with a whole lot of cockroaches. It thoroughly creeps me out, but thankfully it's only 20 minutes or so long. The Nest, on the other hand, is a solid 90ish minutes of man-eating (and dog-and-cat-eating, animal lovers beware) mutant cockroaches rampaging all over a quiet seaside town.
Not only do these flesh-feasting insects infest the town, they also take on the characteristics of those they eat, leading to some truly grotesque animal- and human-sized monsters. The effects are hit and miss, but for the most part they work well. There are some genuinely sickening images here that I won't soon forget. All in all, I'm sort of surprised this one doesn't have a better reputation (maybe it has a better one than I'm aware of, I never heard of it until Scream Factory released it). It's fast-paced, gory, and more effective than you might expect. It won't change your life, but it's a fun, nasty little creature-feature. Grab a can of Raid and enjoy.
Note to self: next year, if the holiday again falls during Scary Movie Month, maybe watch the carnivorous-cockroach movie BEFORE the Yom Kippur fast, that way I won't have an appetite anyway.
The last story in Creepshow, "They're Creeping Up On You," has always given me what scientists call the heebie-jeebies. It's about a Howard Hughes-like germophobe trapped in his sterile home with a whole lot of cockroaches. It thoroughly creeps me out, but thankfully it's only 20 minutes or so long. The Nest, on the other hand, is a solid 90ish minutes of man-eating (and dog-and-cat-eating, animal lovers beware) mutant cockroaches rampaging all over a quiet seaside town.
Not only do these flesh-feasting insects infest the town, they also take on the characteristics of those they eat, leading to some truly grotesque animal- and human-sized monsters. The effects are hit and miss, but for the most part they work well. There are some genuinely sickening images here that I won't soon forget. All in all, I'm sort of surprised this one doesn't have a better reputation (maybe it has a better one than I'm aware of, I never heard of it until Scream Factory released it). It's fast-paced, gory, and more effective than you might expect. It won't change your life, but it's a fun, nasty little creature-feature. Grab a can of Raid and enjoy.
Friday, October 3, 2014
Scary Movie Month 2014, Day 3
The Video Dead
A hokey premise (a tv acts as a gateway for murderous zombies), a cast full of terrible amateurs, some inspired gore gags and an admittedly phenomenal poster all add up to a pretty crappy movie with a few (very few) standout moments.
Everything is very inconsistent, from the tone (I think it's going for intentional laughs at times, but I can't be too sure) to the makeup (there are a few genuinely disturbing-looking ghouls, and then there's one who looks like David Bowie coated with a thick layer of Colgate Total).
The one thing that is consistent: the performances are uniformly awful. There's more than one victim who appears to be laughing as they're meeting their demise, one can only assume that second takes were not an option. Also, the guy playing the "Quint" (his name was Joshua in this one, but all the phony-tough monster-hunter characters in these movies are always just trying to be Robert Shaw) was apparently hired through Rent-A-Joe-Don-Baker. I believe he was the economy model.
While yesterday's movie, TerrorVision, had a similar premise, it was stuffed with imagination, color, life, and even a touch of satire. The Video Dead reaches for nothing of the sort. You would think television = zombies could lead to something satirical or witty (even if it was hacky & obvious like in the John Herzfeld joint 15 Minutes) or even (heaven forbid) scary, but this movie isn't interested in any of that. The tv might as well have been any given doorway, the movie does nothing with the premise.
Side note: the only name I recognized in the credits was one of the zombies who was played by Anthony Ferrante, a former makeup guy who is now best known as the director of both goddamn Sharknado movies. I assume this is precisely where he honed those chops.
A hokey premise (a tv acts as a gateway for murderous zombies), a cast full of terrible amateurs, some inspired gore gags and an admittedly phenomenal poster all add up to a pretty crappy movie with a few (very few) standout moments.
Everything is very inconsistent, from the tone (I think it's going for intentional laughs at times, but I can't be too sure) to the makeup (there are a few genuinely disturbing-looking ghouls, and then there's one who looks like David Bowie coated with a thick layer of Colgate Total).
The one thing that is consistent: the performances are uniformly awful. There's more than one victim who appears to be laughing as they're meeting their demise, one can only assume that second takes were not an option. Also, the guy playing the "Quint" (his name was Joshua in this one, but all the phony-tough monster-hunter characters in these movies are always just trying to be Robert Shaw) was apparently hired through Rent-A-Joe-Don-Baker. I believe he was the economy model.
While yesterday's movie, TerrorVision, had a similar premise, it was stuffed with imagination, color, life, and even a touch of satire. The Video Dead reaches for nothing of the sort. You would think television = zombies could lead to something satirical or witty (even if it was hacky & obvious like in the John Herzfeld joint 15 Minutes) or even (heaven forbid) scary, but this movie isn't interested in any of that. The tv might as well have been any given doorway, the movie does nothing with the premise.
Side note: the only name I recognized in the credits was one of the zombies who was played by Anthony Ferrante, a former makeup guy who is now best known as the director of both goddamn Sharknado movies. I assume this is precisely where he honed those chops.
Thursday, October 2, 2014
Scary Movie Month 2014, Day 2
TerrorVision
First things first, why isn't People magazine's "Sexiest Man Alive" not a title that Clooney, McConaughey, Cruise, etc. have to try to wrestle away from Gerrit Graham every single year? He seems to be the clear choice.
Anyway, he's a blast here along with Mary Woronov as a couple stuck somewhere between 70s swingers and 80s yuppies. He buys a newfangled satellite TV which of course is a teleportation device for slimy, drippy, rubbery, spectacularly practical aliens.
This is something that could only have come from the 80s, a candy-colored, purposefully artificial slime factory that has the tone of a kid's movie despite being R rated (though it would easily be PG-13 today, except maybe for the cartoonishly pornographic artwork on the walls). It's all very silly, but it's also very fun, a total sugar rush that isn't like anything else out there.
First things first, why isn't People magazine's "Sexiest Man Alive" not a title that Clooney, McConaughey, Cruise, etc. have to try to wrestle away from Gerrit Graham every single year? He seems to be the clear choice.
Anyway, he's a blast here along with Mary Woronov as a couple stuck somewhere between 70s swingers and 80s yuppies. He buys a newfangled satellite TV which of course is a teleportation device for slimy, drippy, rubbery, spectacularly practical aliens.
This is something that could only have come from the 80s, a candy-colored, purposefully artificial slime factory that has the tone of a kid's movie despite being R rated (though it would easily be PG-13 today, except maybe for the cartoonishly pornographic artwork on the walls). It's all very silly, but it's also very fun, a total sugar rush that isn't like anything else out there.
Wednesday, October 1, 2014
Scary Movie Month 2014, Day 1
Halloween 6: The Curse of Michael Myers (Producer's Cut)
In 1995, I saw Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers (sans the 6 in the title of this new cut) on opening day. A lifelong fan of the series, I was excited for a new trip to Haddonfield, my first in a theater. 88 minutes later I was crushed, because it was one of the worst movies I've ever seen, no hyperbole. It was ugly, stupid, and seemingly assembled by an editor who was blind, incompetent, and possibly incontinent. Over the next 19 years, I heard stories of an alternate cut, available via blurry convention floor bootlegs, that was supposed to rectify so many problems with the theatrical cut.
Now that Scream Factory and Anchor Bay have teamed up to offer the fabled producer's cut on a beautiful, comprehensive blu-ray, I have finally had the opportunity to see the changes for myself.
Eh.
There's more Donald Pleasence (always welcome) and less gore (also welcome, not because I'm not fond of the red stuff but because the Halloween series was built on suspense, not gore), but there's also more awful dialogue about Druids and runes and stellar cartography and oh look at that I just fell asleep in mid-sentence.
No matter which cut you watch (they're both on the blu-ray), the movie is still a big bowl of fuck you. No suspense, no fun, just piles and piles of exposition, a handful of unbearably broad performances, and multiple stab wounds.
Not a great start to Scary Movie Month, but I'm still glad I finally got to see it, it truly is fascinating how a movie can be reshaped in the editing room. My goal this year is to watch a new-to-me movie every day of October, so stay tuned, fans of me failing miserably at things!
In 1995, I saw Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers (sans the 6 in the title of this new cut) on opening day. A lifelong fan of the series, I was excited for a new trip to Haddonfield, my first in a theater. 88 minutes later I was crushed, because it was one of the worst movies I've ever seen, no hyperbole. It was ugly, stupid, and seemingly assembled by an editor who was blind, incompetent, and possibly incontinent. Over the next 19 years, I heard stories of an alternate cut, available via blurry convention floor bootlegs, that was supposed to rectify so many problems with the theatrical cut.
Now that Scream Factory and Anchor Bay have teamed up to offer the fabled producer's cut on a beautiful, comprehensive blu-ray, I have finally had the opportunity to see the changes for myself.
Eh.
There's more Donald Pleasence (always welcome) and less gore (also welcome, not because I'm not fond of the red stuff but because the Halloween series was built on suspense, not gore), but there's also more awful dialogue about Druids and runes and stellar cartography and oh look at that I just fell asleep in mid-sentence.
No matter which cut you watch (they're both on the blu-ray), the movie is still a big bowl of fuck you. No suspense, no fun, just piles and piles of exposition, a handful of unbearably broad performances, and multiple stab wounds.
Not a great start to Scary Movie Month, but I'm still glad I finally got to see it, it truly is fascinating how a movie can be reshaped in the editing room. My goal this year is to watch a new-to-me movie every day of October, so stay tuned, fans of me failing miserably at things!
Thursday, August 14, 2014
The Fisher King (HEAVY SPOILERS)
Josh: I'm angry. I know I shouldn't be, I know that depression is a vicious monster and something that cannot necessarily be tempered or controlled. That being said I see these thousands of pictures of Robin Williams' smiling face flooding the internet today and I get so fucking angry at him that I want to scream until my throat is raw and bleeding. While intellectually I completely understand that depression is not a choice and it can insidiously lead people to believe that suicide is their only way out I still can't seem to stop myself from wanting to blame him for leaving us.
Months ago, Gabby and I decided to write a column on what our friends at F This Movie call exploding heart movies, movies that fill you with such passion and joy that it overwhelms you. I had chosen to write about The Fisher King and The Majestic, but I hope Frank Darabont forgives me for pushing The Majestic aside for the moment because I need to talk about The Fisher King right now. Life got in the way of putting the column together, I started a new job with a more demanding schedule than I had before and I could never quite get the bat off my shoulder when it came time to step up and start writing. Last night, I got punched in the heart by the news of Robin Williams' suicide and Gabby and I spoke about how we've both been haunted by images of The Fisher King since.
The Fisher King is a fable, a story of love and hope and friendship conquering everything else in their way. It's not for all tastes (I believe F This Movie's Patrick referred to it as "too squishy" which is absolutely valid) but it's not even just a movie to me. It's magic. I cry every time I watch it, not from sadness, but from the pure joy it makes me feel. SO MUCH of that joy comes from the performance of Robin Williams as Parry, a homeless "knight" on a quest. There's that expression about wearing one's heart on their sleeve, Williams' performance is all one big, open, beating heart. Parry is a man who went through an impossible tragedy and came out the other side seemingly damaged beyond repair, but his quest is one of healing first and foremost. Williams' performance is, for my money, the best he ever gave. Funny, noble, vulnerable, fearless, and achingly, heartwrenchingly sad. Who knew how real a place that performance came from before today? So many images from it have been floating through my head today, mostly of the Red Knight, a delusion that tortures Parry, chasing him through the city, relentlessly hounding him so he can't find peace even when things start going his way.
Gabby, what images have been haunting you?
Gabby: So many bits from this movie keep coming to me I am finding it hard just to pick one. I know I have to re-watch it but this experience will be heartbreaking. This movie is something I find truly moving and in light of recent events it just got even more so. I will go then to the scene where the film gets its title. The tale of the Fisher King, Parry tells Jack. A story of a King who loses all faith in those around him and even himself, 'He couldn't love, or feel loved. He was sick with experience. He began to die'. The thing that saves him from his pain is a fool who reaches for a cup to quench the King's thirst and hands him the holy grail, which the King was mourning the loss of. This story is used throughout the film but especially when Jack fights to get what Parry thinks is the grail, when he is catatonic. The grail becomes a symbol in this moment for how much Jack has come to care about Parry, and how he is truly sorry for what he has done. The love Jack shares for Parry in this moment I think is what manages to wake him up. Parry feels comfortable with sharing the grief of losing his wife. His demons when shared are not chasing him and crippling him, the way they are when the Red Knight turns up.
Unfortunately Robin Williams didn't find that soothing drink in real life. He felt the same as the King, he felt the life and love for it fall away. There is a shot just before the Red Knight turns up after his first date with Lydia. There is a crane shot that makes him seem so small. It comes closer to him as he seems to be wriggling in pain and then he seems so fearful when that knight shows up, and so are we. The hope has gone when this knight is there. Even though it seems Parry has schizophrenia, he has a similar battle to Depression in the fact that events of the past are affecting his present day life, which are pulling him down into a scary and dark place that seems impossible to get out of. Robin lost his battle with that Knight. And we can all feel sad or even mad. It is understandable. But I think the most important thing is to keep spreading awareness about Depression and mental health issues. So that we can handle these illnesses better as a society. It is so tragic for someone to die of anything. But when it is suicide I think it makes us feel how desperate and awful he must have felt to do that. It took Parry to be at breaking point for Jack to take him to get the right help. We can't let it get this far. We have to start learning and being better towards people who have it. No more bullshit about 'Perk up' or 'What have you got to be so sad about when there's starving children in the world?' This has to stop. Parry's pain is real. And so was Robin's.
One scene that I haven't mentioned yet is the ending where Jack sees how much life has to offer him now as he is surrounded by things he loves and he is able to feel hope. What are your feelings on that moment?
Josh: Before we take on the end, I just want to back up to what you said a bit before that about "perk up" and such. Someone (and I wish I could remember who it was) tweeted something along the lines of "asking someone suffering from depression 'what are you so depressed about?' is akin to asking 'what are you so diabetic about?'" and I think that's a perfect encapsulation of what so many people don't understand about depression.
As for that ending, right now I'm angry about it. I'm angry about it because for the last 23 years it has filled me with hope and now that hope feels like a lie. I'm angry because I love Jack and Parry, I love them like people who have been part of my life for 23 years, and right now I feel betrayed by them, betrayed by that ending. There are so many parallels to be drawn between Parry as a character and Robin Williams as a man that I'm finding it difficult to separate them right now. I'm certain that's unfair of me, but I can't help it. The wound is too fresh, I feel like I'm bleeding all over my keyboard just thinking about it.
I don't know that I have much more I can say about it at the moment. I want to feel that hope again, I want to feel that immeasurable joy that this masterpiece has always brought me (along with the light dusting of melancholy that coats every frame) but I don't know when I'll be ready to face it again. I hate that I feel that way, normally when I celebrity I love dies I'll watch a movie of theirs to celebrate their life but I tried to listen to Robin Williams' A Night at the Met last night and all it made me feel was anger and pain. I can't even fathom facing Parry again. I don't know how.
Gabby: I can understand what you are feeling. It is such a complex issue. Of course though, the hope that Parry gets in the final moments of the film I see as even more beautiful now. It makes me well up just thinking about it. The happiness and the joy he feels in that moment lets him feel a relief from all the pain he has been through. But it doesn't mean that it has disappeared. We have ups and downs and bumps along the way. Some people unfortunately have worse lows than others. It doesn't mean however that the way they saw the world for the entirety of their lives is the same as the way they saw it in the end. Parry likes New York in June, and I bet Robin appreciated it as many times as he felt hollow and empty to it. For some reason my mind has travelled back to when I was lucky enough to sit in on a lecture with Al Alvarez. He was very close to Sylvia Plath. He talked about his feelings about her suicide and his feelings of anger and hurt. He also had a complex frustration towards her husband Ted Hughes. He talked though of her life, and her ability to see the beauty in the world around her as well as her fierce intelligence and empathy for others. She appreciated the small things in nature as well as the larger moments in life. Her life was full of laughter as well as tears. I think that gave me a lot of perspective on my feeling towards so many people who I admire who killed themselves. Even though it is tragic they were so desperate towards the end of the lives, it doesn't make their road to that any less colourful. It is so desperately sad and grey at the end of their lives but Robin was so loved by many people. Those who met him speak of what a brilliant, loyal and special person he was. He loved and laughed and even though he couldn't pull through like Parry could, maybe he can live on with that hopeful lighter ending he was given through films such as singing 'I love New York in June' surrounded by people he loves.
Josh: I hope you're right. Dear god, I hope you're right.
Gabby: The film has been strongly influenced by Disney’s Pinocchio. Jack even holds a Pinocchio doll. The film has the same fairy tale parallels, such as mixing that sense of wonder and hope with some scary and vulnerable moments for the protagonists that help them learn morally valuable lessons along the way. I think that sense of Pinocchio’s journey can also be seen in Jack’s. He learns the value of others and the world around him beyond himself and his own ego. He becomes a real boy, the pure of heart, thanks to finding connections, friends and things that he believes in that allow him to be redeemed of his previous attitudes and behaviours to the world around him. Some of the strongest elements of the film are the themes of redemption and friendship. Can you comment on how you feel about Jack at the beginning of the film and his slow journey to letting other people in?
Josh: It's weird how perspective changes as you get older. It was Jack's journey that I was focused on when I first saw the movie. He was based quite a bit on Howard Stern (era) and hearing about that was what drew me to the movie in the first place. I was a huge fan of Stern in 1991 (still am) and knowing that Jack was partially a representation of him made me curious. I love the "Jack Lucas Show" Jack that we meet at the beginning, I felt almost immediately in tune with his sensibility, and as the film progressed and he "became a real boy" as you so eloquently put it I was completely invested in that journey, I wanted to see him grow. I was glad to see him grow. As I've gotten older, I find my focus shifting more toward Parry and his pursuit of peace and forgiveness. Even though Jack is the more down-to-earth of the two, Parry strikes me as much more real these days.
Gabby: I also love Anne and Lydia. There are shades to them that stop them from being just stock characters that so many female characters are in Hollywood movies. To wrap up I wanted to quickly go back to what we were saying about Depression. It is simple really, if people could stop being sick they would. That illness is horrible and hard as well as chemical. The film shows this so well. If we ignore the pain and pretend it's not there like Parry tries to do it will catch up with us. If we try and bury it we can end up shutting the world out, like Jack at the beginning, as we feel so misunderstood by those around us. The best option is try, as Jack does at the end, to be supportive and understanding. Just listen and try not to judge. I feel that is another thing which makes this movie special. There is no judgement towards the characters. It just feels like it is embracing the characters and that is so important for mental health issues in our culture. Embracing others and trying to understand them rather than making them feel worse. I hope we get more of it in the future.
Josh: I thoroughly agree, I also agree about Anne & Lydia, especially Lydia. It would have been so easy for her to be unlikable but Amanda Plummer finds a humanity in her that is truly lovely. Thank you for suggesting we do this, Gabby. It's been cathartic. Hopefully soon the pain will fade and we'll be singing that everything's coming up videos.
Months ago, Gabby and I decided to write a column on what our friends at F This Movie call exploding heart movies, movies that fill you with such passion and joy that it overwhelms you. I had chosen to write about The Fisher King and The Majestic, but I hope Frank Darabont forgives me for pushing The Majestic aside for the moment because I need to talk about The Fisher King right now. Life got in the way of putting the column together, I started a new job with a more demanding schedule than I had before and I could never quite get the bat off my shoulder when it came time to step up and start writing. Last night, I got punched in the heart by the news of Robin Williams' suicide and Gabby and I spoke about how we've both been haunted by images of The Fisher King since.
The Fisher King is a fable, a story of love and hope and friendship conquering everything else in their way. It's not for all tastes (I believe F This Movie's Patrick referred to it as "too squishy" which is absolutely valid) but it's not even just a movie to me. It's magic. I cry every time I watch it, not from sadness, but from the pure joy it makes me feel. SO MUCH of that joy comes from the performance of Robin Williams as Parry, a homeless "knight" on a quest. There's that expression about wearing one's heart on their sleeve, Williams' performance is all one big, open, beating heart. Parry is a man who went through an impossible tragedy and came out the other side seemingly damaged beyond repair, but his quest is one of healing first and foremost. Williams' performance is, for my money, the best he ever gave. Funny, noble, vulnerable, fearless, and achingly, heartwrenchingly sad. Who knew how real a place that performance came from before today? So many images from it have been floating through my head today, mostly of the Red Knight, a delusion that tortures Parry, chasing him through the city, relentlessly hounding him so he can't find peace even when things start going his way.
Gabby, what images have been haunting you?
Gabby: So many bits from this movie keep coming to me I am finding it hard just to pick one. I know I have to re-watch it but this experience will be heartbreaking. This movie is something I find truly moving and in light of recent events it just got even more so. I will go then to the scene where the film gets its title. The tale of the Fisher King, Parry tells Jack. A story of a King who loses all faith in those around him and even himself, 'He couldn't love, or feel loved. He was sick with experience. He began to die'. The thing that saves him from his pain is a fool who reaches for a cup to quench the King's thirst and hands him the holy grail, which the King was mourning the loss of. This story is used throughout the film but especially when Jack fights to get what Parry thinks is the grail, when he is catatonic. The grail becomes a symbol in this moment for how much Jack has come to care about Parry, and how he is truly sorry for what he has done. The love Jack shares for Parry in this moment I think is what manages to wake him up. Parry feels comfortable with sharing the grief of losing his wife. His demons when shared are not chasing him and crippling him, the way they are when the Red Knight turns up.
Unfortunately Robin Williams didn't find that soothing drink in real life. He felt the same as the King, he felt the life and love for it fall away. There is a shot just before the Red Knight turns up after his first date with Lydia. There is a crane shot that makes him seem so small. It comes closer to him as he seems to be wriggling in pain and then he seems so fearful when that knight shows up, and so are we. The hope has gone when this knight is there. Even though it seems Parry has schizophrenia, he has a similar battle to Depression in the fact that events of the past are affecting his present day life, which are pulling him down into a scary and dark place that seems impossible to get out of. Robin lost his battle with that Knight. And we can all feel sad or even mad. It is understandable. But I think the most important thing is to keep spreading awareness about Depression and mental health issues. So that we can handle these illnesses better as a society. It is so tragic for someone to die of anything. But when it is suicide I think it makes us feel how desperate and awful he must have felt to do that. It took Parry to be at breaking point for Jack to take him to get the right help. We can't let it get this far. We have to start learning and being better towards people who have it. No more bullshit about 'Perk up' or 'What have you got to be so sad about when there's starving children in the world?' This has to stop. Parry's pain is real. And so was Robin's.
One scene that I haven't mentioned yet is the ending where Jack sees how much life has to offer him now as he is surrounded by things he loves and he is able to feel hope. What are your feelings on that moment?
Josh: Before we take on the end, I just want to back up to what you said a bit before that about "perk up" and such. Someone (and I wish I could remember who it was) tweeted something along the lines of "asking someone suffering from depression 'what are you so depressed about?' is akin to asking 'what are you so diabetic about?'" and I think that's a perfect encapsulation of what so many people don't understand about depression.
As for that ending, right now I'm angry about it. I'm angry about it because for the last 23 years it has filled me with hope and now that hope feels like a lie. I'm angry because I love Jack and Parry, I love them like people who have been part of my life for 23 years, and right now I feel betrayed by them, betrayed by that ending. There are so many parallels to be drawn between Parry as a character and Robin Williams as a man that I'm finding it difficult to separate them right now. I'm certain that's unfair of me, but I can't help it. The wound is too fresh, I feel like I'm bleeding all over my keyboard just thinking about it.
I don't know that I have much more I can say about it at the moment. I want to feel that hope again, I want to feel that immeasurable joy that this masterpiece has always brought me (along with the light dusting of melancholy that coats every frame) but I don't know when I'll be ready to face it again. I hate that I feel that way, normally when I celebrity I love dies I'll watch a movie of theirs to celebrate their life but I tried to listen to Robin Williams' A Night at the Met last night and all it made me feel was anger and pain. I can't even fathom facing Parry again. I don't know how.
Gabby: I can understand what you are feeling. It is such a complex issue. Of course though, the hope that Parry gets in the final moments of the film I see as even more beautiful now. It makes me well up just thinking about it. The happiness and the joy he feels in that moment lets him feel a relief from all the pain he has been through. But it doesn't mean that it has disappeared. We have ups and downs and bumps along the way. Some people unfortunately have worse lows than others. It doesn't mean however that the way they saw the world for the entirety of their lives is the same as the way they saw it in the end. Parry likes New York in June, and I bet Robin appreciated it as many times as he felt hollow and empty to it. For some reason my mind has travelled back to when I was lucky enough to sit in on a lecture with Al Alvarez. He was very close to Sylvia Plath. He talked about his feelings about her suicide and his feelings of anger and hurt. He also had a complex frustration towards her husband Ted Hughes. He talked though of her life, and her ability to see the beauty in the world around her as well as her fierce intelligence and empathy for others. She appreciated the small things in nature as well as the larger moments in life. Her life was full of laughter as well as tears. I think that gave me a lot of perspective on my feeling towards so many people who I admire who killed themselves. Even though it is tragic they were so desperate towards the end of the lives, it doesn't make their road to that any less colourful. It is so desperately sad and grey at the end of their lives but Robin was so loved by many people. Those who met him speak of what a brilliant, loyal and special person he was. He loved and laughed and even though he couldn't pull through like Parry could, maybe he can live on with that hopeful lighter ending he was given through films such as singing 'I love New York in June' surrounded by people he loves.
Josh: I hope you're right. Dear god, I hope you're right.
Gabby: The film has been strongly influenced by Disney’s Pinocchio. Jack even holds a Pinocchio doll. The film has the same fairy tale parallels, such as mixing that sense of wonder and hope with some scary and vulnerable moments for the protagonists that help them learn morally valuable lessons along the way. I think that sense of Pinocchio’s journey can also be seen in Jack’s. He learns the value of others and the world around him beyond himself and his own ego. He becomes a real boy, the pure of heart, thanks to finding connections, friends and things that he believes in that allow him to be redeemed of his previous attitudes and behaviours to the world around him. Some of the strongest elements of the film are the themes of redemption and friendship. Can you comment on how you feel about Jack at the beginning of the film and his slow journey to letting other people in?
Josh: It's weird how perspective changes as you get older. It was Jack's journey that I was focused on when I first saw the movie. He was based quite a bit on Howard Stern (era) and hearing about that was what drew me to the movie in the first place. I was a huge fan of Stern in 1991 (still am) and knowing that Jack was partially a representation of him made me curious. I love the "Jack Lucas Show" Jack that we meet at the beginning, I felt almost immediately in tune with his sensibility, and as the film progressed and he "became a real boy" as you so eloquently put it I was completely invested in that journey, I wanted to see him grow. I was glad to see him grow. As I've gotten older, I find my focus shifting more toward Parry and his pursuit of peace and forgiveness. Even though Jack is the more down-to-earth of the two, Parry strikes me as much more real these days.
Gabby: I also love Anne and Lydia. There are shades to them that stop them from being just stock characters that so many female characters are in Hollywood movies. To wrap up I wanted to quickly go back to what we were saying about Depression. It is simple really, if people could stop being sick they would. That illness is horrible and hard as well as chemical. The film shows this so well. If we ignore the pain and pretend it's not there like Parry tries to do it will catch up with us. If we try and bury it we can end up shutting the world out, like Jack at the beginning, as we feel so misunderstood by those around us. The best option is try, as Jack does at the end, to be supportive and understanding. Just listen and try not to judge. I feel that is another thing which makes this movie special. There is no judgement towards the characters. It just feels like it is embracing the characters and that is so important for mental health issues in our culture. Embracing others and trying to understand them rather than making them feel worse. I hope we get more of it in the future.
Josh: I thoroughly agree, I also agree about Anne & Lydia, especially Lydia. It would have been so easy for her to be unlikable but Amanda Plummer finds a humanity in her that is truly lovely. Thank you for suggesting we do this, Gabby. It's been cathartic. Hopefully soon the pain will fade and we'll be singing that everything's coming up videos.
Sunday, March 9, 2014
There's A Snake In Our Boots!
Gabby: Josh and I take to twitter for the second time as we dive into the world of Pixar to discuss Toy Story 3. Since we talked about a British movie last time, representing my side of the pond and well selected by Josh, I thought it would be interesting to switch sides and pick a modern American classic. Toy Story 3 offers so much to chew over it seemed like an exciting prospect. As we marveled at the level of detail and the quality of the animation, we were also struck by the themes that are at the heart of the series.
Josh, do you think of Woody as a representative for some of these themes such as loyalty and friendship?
Josh: I think all the characters represent those themes, I don't think there's anyone (at least in the main group of toys) who isn't fiercely loyal. Even Mr. Potato Head, snarky as he is, is devoted to Andy and to the other toys. Part of what I love about this series is that even though it has so much heart, it's not afraid to look at how difficult it can be to wear your heart on your sleeve and need others the way all of the toys need each other. Almost everything that happens in all 3 movies is driven by the desire for loyalty and friendship and no matter how dark things get (and hoo boy, do they get dark!) it's that very same loyalty and friendship that saves the day.
Let's talk a bit about our history with these movies, I was 19 or 20 when the first was released, so by my math I believe that means you were...let's just say closer to the age of the intended audience. For me, I was at an age where childhood toys had (for the most part) been gone for some time, did you see the first Toy Story when it was released? If so, do you remember how you felt about it then?
Gabby: I was just a bit too young for the first Toy Story when it came out (I was five, sorry Josh) and I remember being terrified of Sid and having nightmares of those toys coming to get me. But I also remember that I was a child who was very happy to believe that her toys were real, so this movie was so great to me as it tapped into that wish. I think the tone of the movie does hold a lot of hope for imagination, which really connected with me. The movie that really sold me on Toy Story was the second one. I completely fell in love with the characters, particularly Jessie. I had it on video and started memorising Jessie's lines of dialogue and of course started to sing a long in that heartbreaking 'When she loved me' scene. I still have a huge affection for her, she is what I wanted to be I think: ballsy, brave, no nonsense with huge amounts of energy and perseverance. In the third film she is such an essential element of that group and I think Joan Cusack was perfect casting. It was through DVD I began to realise how great the first movie is as well. When I saw the third movie at the cinema I felt like these movies were a big part of my childhood and it was very emotional for me by the end. I think the audience felt exactly the same way, even though we were all different ages I could feel everyone around me crying as well. Did you get to see the third film at the cinema?
I think you're right about all of the toys showing friendship and loyalty. They work so well as a team. In the third film though, the other toys lose faith in Andy, whilst still very loyal to each other. This is understandable as they have been in affect abandoned by him, which brings me onto asking about the fear of abandonment and isolation that runs throughout the series, how do you think this fear relates to childhood fears?
Josh: I wish it ONLY related to childhood fears! I don't know if that fear of abandonment and isolation ever really fades, I think it just moves around from parents to kids to spouses/significant others. During the movie we were talking about the deep well of sadness that all 3 of these draw from, and it fascinates me that they balance joy and melancholy as well as they do.
You were 5? Bear with me a moment, I have to go die of old age. Ok, I'm back, but now I'm a ghost. You can tell because Ray Parker, Jr. ain't afraid of me. Anyway, I was lucky enough to see all 3 in the cinema (a British term, but I love the sound of it so I'm keeping it). I saw the first two when they were first released, and then again in a triple-feature post-converted to (pointless) 3D on opening day of the third. The 3D added nothing (except to the ticket price) but it was a treat to see them all in a row in a crowded theater. The scene you mentioned, Jessie's song, makes me cry every time and there I was, a man in his mid-thirties in a theater full of kids, crying like I had just lost my own favorite toy. I can only imagine how it must have felt to grow up with these characters.
I remember after seeing 2 for the first time being shocked that they stuck the landing so well. I thought they couldn't possibly follow up the original well, I had braced myself for the soulless cash-in that kids movie sequels tend to be. When the third was on its way I thought there couldn't be any way that they could keep up that level of quality, but Pixar proved me wrong again. I love all 3 movies, and that's incredibly rare, especially for a series designed for kids. Obviously you have a similar affection for these movies, did the quality of each successive entry take you by surprise as well? Also, would you welcome a fourth chapter or would that make you apprehensive?
Gabby: Soon you'll be speaking like a true Brit Josh, a ghost Brit that is. These movies do hold such a fantastic balance of wonder and pain, sometimes seen within the same beat. That is notoriously hard to pull off and they do it so often throughout the series. Even on this viewing of Toy Story 3 the tears were flowing. We were drawing parallels with the the relationship the toys have with their owners and a child's relationship to their parents, which makes the fear of abandonment and isolation really resonate with us as viewers. You mentioned this in relation to the absence of Andy's dad could you elaborate on that a bit?
I am amazed by the quality of this series, they seemed to top themselves with each film. Not only in terms of animation but also the ability to shift tone and mix genre influences. Take the opening sequences at the start of each film, by the time we come to the third one it is like its own crazy sci-fi western with elements of comedy and still has the dimensional lovable characters at the core of the story. Those opening sequences actually give me faith in the Toy Story franchise outside of these three movies. If they were going to continue the series I do have faith it would be something special as I think they hold these films particularly close to their hearts, especially considering as the first one was also their first full length feature. Toy Story of Terror is a good example that they still have a hold on these characters and boy do they know how to build suspense! As I mentioned the opening sequence of Toy Story 3, I wanted to ask you what do you think is so special about it? Is that it captures the mix of tones we have been discussing as well as being a celebration of imagination? Or is that it really excites us for what we have in store for the rest of the film?
Josh: To answer your question about Andy's dad first, I just find it curious that a series of movies that deals so strongly in themes of abandonment and loyalty has as far as I can remember never mentioned Andy's father, even in passing. I'm not saying it means the father must have abandoned the family, it's just curious and I wonder if it was a conscious choice by the filmmakers (especially for such finely detailed movies) or if it was just a way to streamline the movies by dropping what may have been seen as an extraneous character.
As for those fabulous opening sequences, I look at those almost like the opening of the James Bond movies, big fun action beats that grab the audience's attention and tell you a lot about the characters without necessarily being tied to the overall plot of the movie. I also think you're spot-on about describing those sequences as a celebration of imagination, I love the way they (if you'll pardon the bad pun) toy with genre convention.
It's probably about time to wrap this up so I want to ask you one final question. As toys get more and more sophisticated, do you think kids might have trouble identifying with what they may see as old-fashioned toys the way that we can identify with them, or do you think there's a certain timelessness to these movies that will let them carry on, as they're fond of saying, to infinity and beyond?
Gabby: I agree, the movies are too finely detailed to assume anything other than that the absence of Andy's dad was a clear choice. I think children will always love toys. No matter gadgets we have children will always want something to actually handle and cuddle. I think actually playing with them and holding them makes it more real than a playstation game when you're a certain age. Maybe children are growing up quicker in modern society but that doesn't mean they aren't ever young. I also think these movies are timeless for all the reasons we have been discussing. Those themes, the way the film expertly handles the mix of tone and genres as well as those incredibly lovable characters. All of these things assure the series a place in the hearts of many children to come.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)