Faces Of Death (2026)

APRIL 6, 2026

GENRE: SERIAL KILLER, TECHNOLOGY
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (PREMIERE SCREENING)

Lots of movies feel dated due to changing attitudes, or focusing on technology that was almost outdated by the time the movie came out, let alone decades later (The Net is a real laugh riot now). But the original Faces of Death is an unusual example in that it’s dated simply because its “appeal” (for lack of a better word) has since been outpaced by our everyday life. Sure, in 1978 and for the first few years of VHS supremacy, the idea of watching an alleged snuff film carried a certain taboo thrill, but now we get people live streaming their murders and/or suicides, sometimes seeing these things without even looking for them thanks to autoplay and “suggested” reels on social media.

So on one hand, on paper it’s the exact kind of movie that should be remade, because the original almost feels pointless now (that it’s a somewhat boring movie is another benefit; I DARE someone to come out and say that they’re “violating my childhood!” or whatever). On the other hand, how can this new Faces of Death possibly compete with what we see on any given day when scrolling through Twitter?

The relatively genius answer from the team of Daniel Goldhaber and Isa Mazzei is to take things into a meta direction. Our hero Margot (Barbie Ferreira) works at some kind of TikTok-like social media channel as a content moderator, occasionally flagging things that are too extreme while allowing pretty much most others to get through. (In what I assume is a joke about America’s puritan ways, she is fine with pretty much every violent video she comes across, but when she sees a clip of a woman demonstrating how to put a condom on by using a banana, she flags it as “sexually graphic.”) One day she sees a clip of a man being executed in the electric chair and is somewhat unsure if it’s real or not, tentatively allowing it to go through. Then the next day, she sees another one that’s seemingly even MORE realistic, and starts getting concerned.

Eventually she breaks a work rule and reposts one of the clips on Reddit, asking the forum if they think it’s real or not, and someone points out that it "looks like a scene in Faces of Death." She can’t find it on streaming (A+ joke that was probably true when the movie was shot three years ago; it's on Roku and Amazon now) but luckily her roommate has a VHS copy and she checks it out, coming to the conclusion that YES these videos are legitimately snuff films and the culprit is intentionally restaging scenes from the original movie. But the movie is actually a two-hander, because rather than treat this as some kind of 8MM-style mystery, we spend half our runtime with the actual killer, played by Dacre Montgomery (Billy (RIP) from Stranger Things). He’s a tech whiz who can find someone’s location in seconds and goes after pseudo-celebrities (an influencer, a TV news host, etc) as the unwilling actors in his recreations, and naturally gets alarmed when Margot figures out what he’s up to and posts about it, tries to get the cops to help, etc.

I know that’s more of a summary than I usually bother with here, but I want to make sure it’s clear that unlike the original, this is a traditional thriller with suspense and cat and mouse sequences and all that good stuff, not a series of random clips like the original. Some might cry foul that making what essentially amounts to a modern-day, tech driven Seven-type thriller is a waste of the branding (no one will “dare” you to watch this, in other words), but as I have zero affinity for the IP I just took it as a perfectly decent serial killer thriller with a few good jokes at the expense of influencer culture. The movie could have been titled anything (it was shot under the title Home Movies) and just used the original film as a point of reference in the same way that Scream used Halloween or Prom Night or whatever.

Another smart move was to have the killer drug and kidnap his victims to bring them back to his home / “studio” for his recreations (which are otherwise populated with mannequins , a creepy visual). This allows Margot a chance to save some of them as he gets everything ready for the next video, giving the movie more suspense than it might have if it was just a series of straightforward killings. At one point he DOES kill someone instantly and it was actually a bit of a shock, as so far he hadn’t been so direct and it stood to reason that he wouldn’t bother anyone that wasn’t going to be the star of one of his clips.

Don’t get me wrong, it’s not some minor masterpiece or anything. It gets a bit draggy at times despite a mere 95 min runtime, and there’s a brief turn from Charlie XCX that exists only for the producers to say that Charlie XCX is in the movie, which is the sort of thing that tends to annoy me (especially given the occasional flab in the runtime; both of her scenes could be deleted entirely without a single effect on the rest of the movie). And there’s a tragic backstory for Margot that rings false; she herself was inadvertently in a viral video in which her “co-star” was killed, but is mocked in public for it as if she was the “Boom Goes the Dynamite” guy or something. And when we learn this bit of history, her actions at her job make less sense to me - you’d think she’d be flagging pretty much everything as too graphic, instead of being so lenient on other violent images.

But again, the original isn’t something I hold dear, and I was worried a modern one would attempt to “top” it in some way, so using it as a springboard for something a little more involving (if not particularly groundbreaking) was a relief. I should also note that I had a little bit of personal attachment to the concept that I wouldn’t have gotten if I just watched the movie on streaming or even a day later. As I was walking from the parking garage to the theater, I saw a police car barreling down the street and suddenly swerve into a gas station where I had just been walking not 15 seconds before. The cops got out of the car, guns drawn, screaming at someone to get down, as two other officers (also guns drawn) made their way around the building from the other side to join them.

I couldn’t see the suspect from where I was now standing, but I’d be lying if I said I didn’t wonder if I should pull out my cell phone and start filming in case they ended up opening fire (from my position, they’d have to be wildly terrible shots for me to be in any danger from them OR whoever they were about to arrest. Luckily, the suspect surrendered without a shot fired and I just continued on my way to the theater, but it was that very “dare you to watch” kind of thing that drove interest in the original, and (not a spoiler, it’s in the trailer) gave the killer his motive in this new take. I was almost part of the problem!

(Alas, as is almost always the case, I can’t find anything online about the incident. If someone savvier than me wants to look, it was at about 615pm on Monday, April 6, at the VP Racing Fuels gas station at Hollywood & Highland.)

So, I dunno. YMMV. A friend said it was the worst movie he’s seen in over a decade, so clearly it’s not a universal crowd pleaser. And even though I enjoyed it, I can’t say for sure I’d ever watch it again, though I’d probably check out a commentary if offered (the filmmakers were there for Q&A and were worth listening to; they also made CAM, if you liked that one). But for a movie that’s been on the shelf for almost three years and was (technically) a remake of a film I considered a complete waste of my time, that it was even watchable is kind of a minor miracle. That it held my attention and made me chuckle a few times at the expense of influencers (I also liked the score a lot, reminded me of Rob’s for Maniac) is a win, in my book.

What say you?

Tweet

PLEASE, GO ON...

Dangerous Animals (2025)

MAY 27, 2025

GENRE: PREDATOR, SERIAL KILLER
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (ADVANCED SCREENING)

With Jaws turning 50 this year, we’re gonna see a lot of shark related stuff; some tied to the film (there’s another documentary on the way!) while others will just be coasting on its success and popularity. Given the fickle nature of moviemaking and distribution, it’s almost impossible to believe that Sean Byrne and writer Nick Lepard knew that Dangerous Animals would end up being released almost 50 years to the day after Jaws’ debut, but I’m sure they’re relieved that they made one crucial choice along the way which will help avoid strict comparisons: this isn’t really a killer shark movie.

"But there's a shark on the poster and in the trailer!" you are saying, right? Yes, there are sharks in the movie and yes, at least one character is bitten by one. But the real menace of the film is a serial killer, Tucker, played by Jai Courtney. He runs a little service that takes people out on his boat and then lets them descend into the water in a shark cage so they can get some up close and personal time with the big fish. But I guess he’s already gotten enough Yelp reviews, because after they have their fun and they get back on board he cuts them up a bit to lure sharks over (less stinky than standard chum, I assume) and then tosses them into the water while videotaping the ensuing carnage.

But as he points out at a crucial moment in the film, the sharks are just doing what they do. This isn’t Jaws or any of its countless knockoffs; maybe it’s because it’s also an Australian movie but I honestly thought about Wolf Creek more than Amity Island as the film unfolded. Indeed, at one point the sharks actually ignore an easy victim Tucker has lowered into the water, as if to make sure the audience is fully aware that these animals aren’t inherently evil the way so many “killer shark” movies make them out to be (or else the title might be Evil Animals). Most die-hard Jaws fans probably know by now that Peter Benchley regretted his role in turning sharks into some kind of menace in our minds and spent the last few years of his life working on preservation and education about them, but it's rare to see a movie that makes the same point.

As for Tucker? He is indeed evil, and I’m happy to say Courtney is absolutely terrific in the role. Like most moviegoers, I didn’t care much for his early appearances in things like Die Hard 5 and Terminator Genisys (that they were also bad movies anyway didn’t help), finding him to be a rather bland presence. “Why do they keep pushing this guy on us?” I thought every time he popped up in something. But then he turned out to be one of the bright spots in Suicide Squad, and now with this it’s seemingly confirmed: this man is born to play wackos and bad guys, not action heroes. Don’t get me wrong, the film’s two heroes (Hassie Harrison as Zephyr and Josh Heuston as Moses) are also quite good and their chemistry is pretty charming. But this is Courtney’s show through and through; the type of showcase that had me momentarily wondering why I ever used to roll my eyes when I saw his name. He’s dialed up to 11 more often than not and is clearly just having FUN playing this role, and the movie actually loses energy sometimes when he’s been off screen for a while. If you told me ten years ago, walking out of that awful Terminator movie, that someday I'd be saying "I wish that movie had even more Jai Courtney!", I would have thought you were insane! And then you could have told me who would be elected President twice and I'd be like "Nope, the Jai thing is still harder to believe."

Back to the heroes – they’re no slouches, either. They have a rather inspired meetcute (Moses sees Zephyr stealing some ice cream and tells her he will report her to the store clerk unless she helps him get his car started) and hit it off rather (OK, fine) swimmingly, but as she is a commitmentphobe she bails on him (while he preps a breakfast for her! Heartbreaking!) and goes off to surf on her own, which is how she ends up running afoul of Tucker. So Moses spends a chunk of the movie just trying to find her, and while his biggest clue is a rather large leap in ultimately correct guesswork on his part, I forgave this bit of contrivance because it just meant they'd be reunited that much quicker. Honestly, while we're all here for the sharks and Jai, I wouldn't have minded watching a whole movie about these two figuring their stuff out to give love a chance!

This of course helps the back half immediately, because (again, with Wolf Creek on my mind) at no point was I convinced either of them would definitely survive the ordeal. There are no other major characters in the movie (the closest is an associate of Tucker's, and we aren't sure if he is aware of the murders which also adds a bit of suspense to the proceedings), so it really comes down to "OK, one of them will probably bite it, but WHICH one?" with the added bonus of not wanting either of them to die because I want them to get married someday, dammit! Lepard's script really nails that balance of racing through their meeting/falling for each other so we can get to the exciting stuff but not to the extent that I can't believe Moses is bothering to go through all this for someone he just met.

Also, the shark stuff looks good. Again, since this isn't a movie where they are the main threat, there's not a lot of traditional shark action, but at least it doesn't look like crap when it's time for them to make their mark. And the runtime is a tight 90 or so (bless you all, in the wake of the painfully long new Mission Impossible), with almost no real lulls to it (unless you hate LOVE, you monsters). Byrne knows what he's doing; it might not be the triumph that Loved Ones was, but it certainly proves he was no one hit wonder, and hopefully it won't take another decade for him to get another movie made (after Devil's Candy, which was decent but not exactly a must-see). And I'm glad IFC is giving it a decent push for its theatrical run, because it's the sort of big screen thriller we don't get to see often enough these days, and my man (yes, I'm calling him "my man" now, that's how good he is in it!*) Jai deserves to have a mass audience give him an apology.

What say you?

*OK he also sang along to Meat Loaf at the after-party, in a bar where they foolishly allow people like me to control the jukebox. He coulda won me over even if I just got out of Die Hard 5 with that move.

Tweet

PLEASE, GO ON...

Longlegs (2024)

JULY 14, 2024

GENRE: SERIAL KILLER
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (REGULAR SCREENING)

If you were to scroll down a few posts, you'd see that this was actually my second viewing of Longlegs, but my first review of it. That's because last time I saw it just a few hours after hearing a friend had died suddenly, and what I hoped would be a distraction turned out to... not work like that. So it was interesting watching it "again" tonight, with scenes that I had watched only six weeks ago feel totally new to me, to the point that I even forgot what was going to happen next a few times. It sucks that I was never able to give this movie a totally clean viewing experience, as obviously its surprises didn't work as well this time around even though I was in the right headspace for it now, but I can at least say that this was the first one of Osgood Perkins' movies I enjoyed.

Indeed I just finally got around to watching I Am The Pretty Thing That Lives In The House, his second film and, per the public record, his least loved (of his four, it's the only one with a "rotten" rating). Ordinarily the idea of Ruth Wilson, who I shamelessly swoon over, walking around a house and being in pretty much every frame of a film should be an easy sell for me, but my indifference toward Blackcoat's Daughter and Gretel & Hansel (coupled with it being a Netflix original, which nine times out of ten means it's designed for background viewing at best) had me shrugging it off until now. It was only because I was suffering another bout of insomnia that I decided to give it a chance. To its credit, it took over an hour for it to beat my sleep issues, but by that point I had already realized that it was, well, indeed an Osgood Perkins movie.

Which is to say that he has a strange knack of making a movie feel unsettling without anything actually happening. The long cuts, sound design, and off-kilter performances he gets from his actors all work in tandem to give a nearly unparalleled feeling of dread in his movies, and it's a laudable trait. Unfortunately, at least for me, after a while that feeling wears off, leaving only what is, you know, actually HAPPENING in the movie to sustain it, but in his films so far, there isn't much happening at all. Pretty Thing dove deep into this approach; outside of a few flashbacks to a murdered previous occupant of said house, the most exciting thing in the entire movie is a phone being yanked out of Wilson's hand by some invisible force.

And if you're a fan of his, fear not: Longlegs doesn't exactly do a 180 on this style. It's still pretty slow paced and has lots of scenes of people just sort of sitting there looking at something. But the active serial killer plot, and of course the performance from Nicolas Cage as the title character, gives this movie some juice that his other films lacked. It's like yeah, you still might be a little restless at times, but at least there are exciting payoffs here, something the others mostly lacked (though I admit I should watch Blackcoat's Daughter again; my lone viewing left me so annoyed by the casting "cheat" that I kind of forgot the rest in retrospect).

Of course, a big part of the movie's appeal (and what helped it land a record breaking opening weekend for its distributor) is how cryptic and spoiler-free the marketing has been thus far, so I don't want to get too far into details. I will say for those who haven't even seen a trailer and just want to know the basic plot that it's about a young FBI agent named Harker (Maika Monroe) who has a knack for solving puzzles and making connections that have escaped her fellow agants, and is thus put on the case of Longlegs, a serial killer who is somehow convincing fathers to murder their entire families and then themselves, all without ever setting foot into the home where it happened. How is he doing it?

Well since he's played by Nicolas Cage, one might assume he's just using whatever voodoo magic the actor himself has apparently taken advantage of; it's insane to me to remember that at his '90s peak (the Leaving Las Vegas/Rock/Face-Off era) he was barely into his 30s, when most of his contemporaries were pushing or already in their 40s. And he still looks great at 60! Not HERE, exactly, since his makeup as the character leaves him almost unrecognizable at times, but if you've seen him on any promotional appearances or even in newer movies where he's not altering his appearance (Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent, for example) you'd never guess he was approaching retirement age.

Naturally, eventually you do find out Longlegs' secret, and for me this is where the movie lost me a little. Again I don't want to spoil things, but the explanations and reveals are both handed over along with a bit too much coincidence and what feels like reverse-engineered plotting for my tastes, and I couldn't help but feel a tinge of disappointment at how "small" it was. Then again, since Perkins' other movies left a lot of things ambiguous, I guess a bad explanation is better than none? There are still some questions at the end (vague allusion to a spoiler: for those who have seen it - why does the person behind the other person in that final shot not seem too concerned by what is happening? Are they ______ too?).

This misstep was not enough to derail the movie as a whole, mind you. Just more a "I could have joined the chorus of people saying this movie is amazing" if the ending knocked me flat instead of petering out. Until that point, it worked like gangbusters, with the right amount of slow burn dread and startling moments to satisfy even a well seasoned horror fan. The smash cut to the opening title alone is an all timer scare moment, and there are a few others that work almost just as well. And Cage does his thing a few times, but it actually not only works, but is legit terrifying - if someone makes a meme of any of his louder moments, then they're simply being jerks, as this isn't a "Not the bees!" kind of situation in the slightest. I don't know why people are always quick to knock the actor for dialing it up to 11 when the movie calls for it (he doesn't always; please watch Pig if you haven't already, as well as Dream Scenario - both of which deserved nominations), because even when it's a little weird at least he's DOING SOMETHING, which is far more preferable to the Chris Pratts of the world who show up to play Chris Pratt.

The rest of the cast is also quite good. I was delighted to see Blair Underwood in a meaty theatrical role; he's been a television powerhouse for almost as long as I can remember (my mom loved LA Law, so I watched it too) but I couldn't even remember the last time he was in a "multiplex" movie. According to IMDb it was one of the Madea ones all the way back in 2006, so good on Perkins and his casting team for an inspired choice; he's essentially playing the Scott Glenn role to Monroe's Jodie Foster. And as a charter member of the Urban Legend fan club, I was equally happy to see Alicia Witt as Monroe's mom, even if I probably never would have recognized her if the cast list didn't tell me to look for her. With her long gray hair and frail voice (her character is a reclusive hoarder) there's just no way I would have said "Oh that's Natalie, the world's worst college roommate."

Oh and the credits roll from top to bottom! Off-kilter all the way to the end. Of course Seven did this too, which probably won't help comparisons (though it's definitely far more Lambs-influenced), but still, a weird touch I always appreciate. And the soundtrack is great, with one of the score cues evoking "Dies Irae" (i.e. the main theme in The Shining) and T.Rex songs balancing it out. Plus the creepiest rendition of "Happy Birthday" ever uttered. Speaking of birthdays, the one clue the FBI has (not a spoiler, we learn this almost immediately) is that all of the victims have daughters who were born on the 14th, so I was tickled that the timing worked out for me to get my 2nd but really 1st viewing in on my usual Sunday night trip to the movies, which was indeed the 14th. And my sister's birthday is on a 14th (if you've seen the movie: January 14th, specifically! Gah!), so that added a little to my investment as well.

Now, by now I'm sure you've heard that this is "the scariest movie ever made!" and things like that. Well I'm here to tell you that: this has never done any horror movie any favors, because it's only gonna lead to hardcore fans complaining it isn't scary. And everyone has different metrics for these things; some folks think Annabelle: Creation is a masterpiece of terror whereas I found it damn near interminable. The abstract marketing was great, but pushing those kind of quotes just sets expectations too high. Maybe you WILL find it the scariest movie you've ever seen, maybe you'll find it even less scary than I did. But I can say that it does offer plenty of unsettling moments and scenes (Kiernan Shipka is barely recognizable in a cameo as someone with a connection to Longlegs, and the scene really reminded me of that one survivor interview from Poughkeepsie Tapes), plus a few good jolts. But it's very much a movie you need to be on the same wavelength with, or else you'll just be bored. I may have liked it more than Perkins' previous films, but again, it's not that he's really changing things up. He's just finding a better balance between his brand of peculiar type of "slow burn" and a more conventional thriller.

I was actually surprised to see that the movie got a C+ Cinemascore. While it seems low and would mean absolute death for a big tentpole (even the hated Whedon version of Justice League got a B+), that's actually not much lower than the average horror movie and higher than Immaculate got, and to me that was a more commercial movie. Hell, the original Saw got a C+! Unlike Rotten Tomatoes and the like, I actually put some stock into Cinemascore because it's the reaction of an excited opening night crowd of paying audiences, so even if I disagree, a low score means it's a polarizing, "weird" kind of movie. It outgrossed Perkins' last movie (Gretel) in two days and "overperformed", which means that tracking and all that stuff had it coming in at a certain number, but it actually ended up selling MORE tickets than expected. That only happens when people are recommending it, and that's a good thing for any movie in this day and age, let alone a kooky genre one. So I'm glad people are digging it, is what I'm saying, and I hope Perkins continues to follow his bliss (especially now that he's found a way to tap into the essential BC audience!) as regardless of how I feel about his filmography as a whole, he, like Jordan Peele and Jane Schoenbrun, has a signature stamp that's sadly missing from too many genre filmmakers these days. So here's hoping for more filmmakers like them, and for Perkins to do more like this.

What say you?

Tweet

PLEASE, GO ON...

Spiral: From The Book of Saw (2021)

MAY 12, 2021

GENRE: SERIAL KILLER, THRILLER
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (IMAX SCREENING)

I'm just gonna get it out of the way first since it's the main question people have had since day one: NO, you do not need to have seen or even have any real awareness of the previous movies to follow/enjoy Spiral: From The Book of Saw. If you've seen the trailer you've also seen the entirety of the film's connections to the previous storyline, i.e. they mention it as a possibility ("A Jigsaw copycat?") for the new threat the (all new) characters are facing, and that's about it. Unlike Jigsaw, which tried to appeal to newcomers and die-hard fans and ultimately pleased few on either side, this one quickly moves on from the tenuous connection and does its own thing, often to its own benefit - though it's occasionally hampered by being "Saw 9" to some extent.

Let's start with what works, since there's more of that. As you probably know, the movie was delayed for a year due to covid, but it feels weirdly timely due to its plot about holding corrupt cops accountable for their crimes. The new killer is targeting dirty cops, and keeping in line with his would-be predecessor, the traps he puts them in have some connection to their actions; in the first one, a cop who lies on the stand to ensure convictions is forced to rip out his own tongue in order to escape with his life, and another who shot an innocent person has his trigger finger (and the other nine) ripped off. Given the protests and "defund the police" type movements that have occurred in the past year (i.e. long after the film was shot), the movie oddly feels "of the moment" and yet simultaneously restrained. With Chris Rock as the hero (a cop himself, but presented as the only non-corrupt one on the force) there will certainly be a sizable Black audience who will cheer for these asshole cops getting their just deserts, but may also wonder why the movie didn't dig deeper unless they too are aware of the film's long delay.

(So let's make it a huge hit, ensuring a Spiral 2 that CAN take the last year into consideration!)

But even in that regard, it's the rare film in the series in which just about every death is one you can feel is justified. With Jigsaw and his accomplices often going after drug addicts and the like (not to mention complete innocents, like Bobby's wife in Saw 3D), it's nice to never have that "OK, did they really deserve this?" kind of moment and just focus on the mystery and Rock's attempts to put it all together without being able to trust any of his fellow officers. His backstory (which, surprise, has a connection to the killings!) is that he "ratted" on a cop who shot an innocent person, which began a chain of events that ultimately left him hated by all the other cops and his Chief of Police father (Sam Jackson, and yes he says his most famous profanity*) losing his job. How and why this all has to do with the present day killings is of course what the movie reveals in due time, so I won't get into that, only to say that it's an interesting way to keep the series' love of flashbacks intact without having to worry about causing any plot holes or inconsistencies with previous entries.

As for Rock (who also came up with the story! He's a legit fan of the franchise!), he is certainly a more believable cop than he was in Lethal Weapon 4 all those years ago, and luckily for him the man has aged well, looking much younger than his actual age of 54 at the time of production. They use this to slightly ridiculous effect at one point, setting a flashback ten years prior (so he'd be 44) by giving him a backwards baseball cap like he was a "kid", but one can assume his character is only supposed to be around 40 (he almost has to be playing younger, since Jackson is only 17 years older than him in reality). And he brings a new idea to the series: humor! Not dark humor, which has crept in from time to time, but actual, Chris Rock-ian humor, sprinkled lightly from time to time just to offer a bit of levity in the early going (for those who may be scoffing, I'll ease your mind by letting you know it's all confined to the first half hour). There's one line to Jackson (concerning a mall) that had me full on cackling, and once I adjusted to it in the early scenes (Rock's first appearance, where he's working undercover as a thief, comes off as a standup monologue) I have to say it worked well.

And again, we're talking about what is technically "Part 1" of a series, so there's no reason to complain "jokes don't belong here" or whatever. Sure, it would be very distracting to have this stuff in Saw VI, but that's not what this is, and it helps establish early on that this is indeed a new thing. I'd liken it to Phase 1 Marvel stuff, where we understood it was all the same world but allowed a. different tones and b. an acceptance of the minimal crossover material. By now, sure, it's weird that Sam and Bucky are the only ones who are tackling a giant terrorist threat in New York (where the hell is Spider-Man, at the very least?), but back then, before they all knew each other, no one thought much of their lack of interconnectedness. Same deal here; not only is it a decade later, but it's an all new set of characters (and a new season! The others always felt "cold" in their minimal outdoor scenes but this takes place during a heat wave) and so the tonal shift is never an issue.

Also, for I think the first time in the series, the real world is specifically established, with references to Forrest Gump and New Jack City (from Rock's own character; didn't he think it was weird he looked just like Pookie?). Characters even discuss things like UberEats and sleep training, which is a foreign concept to the series as these people have never displayed much in the way of normal human activities we can all identify with. It's still unclear where "Metro City" is, though, so they haven't gone completely off the reservoir, but in a weird way it helps us forget about the possibility of Hoffman or Amanda popping up or something, allowing this "new" world to really come to life on its own terms without the weight of eight other films on its shoulders. So much that I can even forgive "Jigsaw didn't target cops", - because he certainly did! - but to suggest otherwise would require them to get too far into mythology, so I will allow this bit of inconsistency for the sake of a cleaner story now.

However, there is one thing that misses the mark revolving the reveal of the movie's villain; I won't outright spoil their identity, but you might want to skip the next TWO paragraphs if you want a cleaner experience.

For those who are still here, even though it's not a traditional sequel, it is still sticking to the basic formula of a Saw movie, and in that respect it doesn't really have any twists, which wouldn't even be a big deal if not for the fact that it's painfully easy to spot who the culprit is. Without being hampered by the established timeline, I was really hoping I could get that giddy "OH S**T!" kind of feeling when I realized what was happening, if I ever figured it out at all before it was spelled out, but I never even got close to that sort of thing here. In fact it was so obvious to me who the killer was that I started expecting/hoping that it was a misdirect, and I even chuckled to myself at one point, because that kind of "you think you see the twist but you don't" move was pulled off quite well in... er, Spiral, the 2007 thriller (where you might start thinking a character is actually all in someone's head because she never talks to anyone else in the movie, only for the twist to be that nope, she was real, and now she is dead). Y'all stole the name but not their clever idea?

(STILL SPOILER-Y!) A friend of mine noted after that maybe after Saw IV's twist, which people had a hard time really following - and may have resulted in the series' declining box office fortunes - the producers may be weary about anything too clever. Saw V didn't even really HAVE a twist, and while Saw VI did, it was a pretty insular one (the bit about William's "family"). The Final Chapter/3D's big twist was Cary Elwes/Gordon's return, but that was spoiled in publicity and the film itself by having him appear in earlier scenes of no consequence, which should have told any viewer that he was going to be revealed as a sidekick (because otherwise why would he come back at all?), and Jigsaw's "half of it was a flashback" concept was also pretty easy to suss out. And while all that is justifiable in some way or other, it seems to me that with an all new story/characters they could at least come up with something as good as "Jigsaw was on the floor the whole time" in the original. But alas, when the guy who I thought was the killer 15 minutes into the movie was revealed to be the killer, I just kind of sighed that it was indeed as simple as I suspected. To be clear, I didn't mind the character being the villain, and his motive is on point (ain't no one gonna feel he's in the wrong, honestly), but felt the way the mystery itself was structured was a bit too obvious. A little subterfuge would have been welcome, basically.

But otherwise, I found myself engaged with the concept and the gradual filling in of the backstory, which we get in pieces along the way and also allows Sam Jackson to sport a mustache in the older scenes to make him look younger. Sam's not in the movie as much as you might hope (I guessed a while back that it was probably four scenes; I was only one off), but it's rare to see him in this sort of thing and he aquits himself nicely. As for the traps, they're not as overly elaborate as you may have come to expect, but they're in line with the simpler ones of the original, and don't rely on too much self mutilation (no "pound of flesh" types); one only required a hard bite down on something to escape death, which, while painful, at least would allow the victim to quickly get it over with, unlike digging out their own eye to get a key or whatever. Charlie Clouser's score is a fine mix of old and new (though using "Hello Zepp" should be illegal without a better twist!) and while I missed his (practical!) transitions, Darren Bousman reigns in some of his flashier sensibilities to match the "back to basics" tone and story. It's even in widescreen to help distinguish it from his three previous films, along with a new color pallette and more exterior scenes than the norm - it's one of his best films as a director, not just within this franchise. It's even kind of scary in a few moments; the old films didn't really have time for scares after a while with so much plot to handle, but here there's a couple of legit jumps.

Long story short, it's hard and even a bit unfair to compare to the Saw films in general - I can certainly say it's the best since Saw VI (though I know that isn't exactly a high bar to clear), but it also feels like comparing a singer's solo album to his band's entire discography. So let's not focus on that, and instead consider how successful it is in terms of trying to restart the series in a way that newcomers can enjoy - and to my eyes, it's a winner. Let's put it this way: if it was its own thing entirely, sans its quick references to John Kramer, my review would basically be "It's a solid thriller slightly hampered by a mystery that's too easy to solve and some surface similarities to those old Saw movies." And for what it's worth, there have certainly been a number of whodunit slashers where I could guess the killer ahead of time and it didn't take away my enjoyment, so it's really only the Saw branding here that made me feel a little let down by that element. So basically, the less you know and care about this franchise, the more likely you are to enjoy Spiral, but fans of the series should, at the very least, feel satisfied with what they have come up with as a way to revive it in a way that doesn't mess with what came before. With varying degrees, we all win!

What say you?

*The movie also has one direct Pulp Fiction easter egg (can't really miss it, but keep an eye on the door to the cold case room) and one other possible one that ultimately has Jackson saying "Ezekiel". Not sure if someone is just kissing Sam's ass or they wanted to pay tribute to chronologically challenged films of yore, but it struck me as a little weird.

Tweet

PLEASE, GO ON...

FTP: Skinner (1993)

APRIL 22, 2020

GENRE: SERIAL KILLER
SOURCE: BLU-RAY (OWN COLLECTION)

Sometimes I watch the bonus features even when I don't like the movie, because I'm a. curious if the people who made it aren't thrilled with it either, and/or b. wanting to make sure that I don't get anything wrong in my review, like accuse it of being a ripoff of something. In Skinner's case, it was more the former - the disc came out 25 years after the movie was originally released, and wasn't from the original distributor, so there's no reason for anyone to hold back on its issues (leaden pacing, repetitive plotting, etc). But it turns out it became a solid example of the latter, because I spent half the movie thinking it was made to cash in on Silence of the Lambs only to discover the script predated it.

Alas, that doesn't make the movie any better, and the writer even notes that the film (which he intended to direct itself, but took an offer when it came and was essentially shut out of its production entirely) only has one real change from his original script, which maybe he shouldn't have noted since the script is pretty lousy. It's akin to Maniac or Henry in that it's not much more than a series of kills intercut with the murderer's home life, but it lacks the chilling intensity of Henry and the... well, I don't love Maniac either, so I guess there's not much difference in general, but doesn't help Skinner feel any fresher or novel. Even the "old LA" vibe is muted since there's so little of it to be seen (they shot it rather quickly in only a few key spots in the downtown/Echo Park area), whereas Maniac gave the vintage (read: grimy) New York a nice showcase in some of its major scenes.

Incidentally, the two films share another common trait: they're most notable for the FX work. Maniac was famously one of Tom Savini's iconic showcases, and here the low budget didn't stop them from using KNB, already a huge name in the genre. The on-screen violence is somewhat limited to throat slashings and other "basics" like that, but the post-murder skinning sequences are appropriately disgusting and wince-worthy, and the burn makeup on Traci Lords (as a survivor of Skinner's, and yes that is his name, Dennis Skinner) is quite good as well, though it's hidden behind her hair for most of the run time while we get more looks at her slightly less effective arm/leg burns. Still, as a showcase for what these guys could do at their peak with a presumably much smaller budget than they were afforded for say, Jason Goes To Hell or Army of Darkness (all three were released the same year), it's got plenty of merit on that alone.

And it's nice to see Ted Raimi taking lead actor duties for a change, instead of playing second fiddle to Bruce Campbell or someone. Unfortunately, he comes off as a total creepy nut in the scenes where he's trying to be normal, and whether it was intentional or not (he's a good actor, after all) it makes the other characters, particularly Ricki Lake as his landlord/possible love interest, come off as a bit moronic. To go back to Maniac, even Joe Spinell (an actor who could never play a random nice guy) managed to seem less of a psycho in his scenes with Caroline Munro, but Ted never really pulls that off here.

Worse, the one scene where he can really cut loose is unfortunately very misguided, and it's (not too coincidentally) the one scene that the writer says he had nothing to do with. In the sequence, Skinner kills a black coworker who annoyed him, and then wears his skin to chase another victim, which might be uncomfortable enough (kinda sorta blackface-y?) but the murderer also uses a "Fat Albert" kind of voice as he runs around in the guy's skin, making it incredibly far from "woke" as they might say nowadays. It's kind of the only truly memorable scene in the movie, but for all the wrong reasons (in his interview, Raimi seems embarrassed by it but has fond feelings toward the rest of the film and its production).

The other good thing about the bonus features is that it explains a bit why the movie was kind of lost for a while - the original owner died, and then other company got the rights in an auction of his estate but had no idea where the elements were. Co-editor Jeremy Kasten talks about hunting down pieces of the film from various labs and storage facilities, working out deals to get the stuff (one apparently told him he could have what they had for 500 bucks if he paid in cash that day) and piece it together without much of a road map to figure out what went there. As I listened to him recount his journey, I couldn't help but think that I'd rather watch a documentary about all of this than the finished product. Oh well.

What say you?

Tweet

PLEASE, GO ON...

10 To Midnight (1983)

JANUARY 21, 2019

GENRE: SERIAL KILLER, THRILLER
SOURCE: BLU-RAY (OWN COLLECTION)

Back in 2010, I had planned to make 10 To Midnight my movie for the day via a midnight screening at the New Bev, but the film (or projector itself? Can't remember) broke and I didn't get to see how it ended. It wasn't available to rent at the time (and I had already started trying to pare my collection down), so I had to wait until another screening happened, but when it did something came up and I couldn't make it at all. So now it's been so long that I couldn't even really remember the part I had seen or where I left off; watching via the new Scream Factory blu-ray was pretty much like seeing the film for the first time. Incidentally, I also revisited Predators this week for my BMD column; it was 2010 where I had my one viewing of that film and that too jogged almost no memories. Long story short, it seems my memory only goes back (at most) eight or nine years now, so maybe I can just start re-reviewing all the movies here since I won't remember any of them.

Anyway, this is a delightfully odd little movie. It's from Golan and Globus, and was somewhat hastily made after the success of Death Wish II prompted the Cannon gents to stay in the Charles Bronson business, but what they made wasn't exactly a "Charles Bronson movie". But if you're an astute movie viewer you can probably tell that just from watching the trailer, as they use the same shot of him firing his gun like six times because it's the only shot he fires in the entire film. See, there's only one bad guy in the plot, and he obviously can't be killed until the very end, so there's not much opportunity for Paul Kersey-esque action beats, and instead Bronson just spends most of the movie bickering with his partner and - in the second half - taunting the killer in order to get him to screw up.

Why does he need to do that, you ask? Well I'll tell you - it's because the killer is too damn good at covering his tracks, but since Bronson is blessed with Bronsonian skills, he just KNOWS the guy is the killer but lacks the hard evidence needed to put him away. So he plants some, but screws up because of all the things he could have done, he opts to douse some of the victim's blood on the killer's clothes - which couldn't possibly be legit because our guy strips to his birthday suit when he commits his crimes. Actor Gene Davis should have won a bravest actor of the year award for sure, because while they usually obscure his junk we can tell perfectly well that he's running around in the woods, around the sets, and even on city streets with the thing dangling around where it could be easily mangled if he tripped or zigged when he should have zagged. So anyway, Bronson has to admit he planted the evidence, and gets fired while the guy goes free.

So for the rest of the movie we watch these two guys antagonize each other - Bronson follows him around to make sure he doesn't do anything, and in turn the killer calls him up and leaves vague threats. Caught in the middle are Bronson's daughter (the incredibly charming Lisa Eilbacher) and his younger partner, McCann (Andrew Stevens) who is also involved with the daughter but keeps blowing her off for reasons I can't quite follow. The film's a bit long for its type, running over an hour and forty minutes when 85 would have done just fine, but it rarely bores and switches gears so many times it's hard to even notice. It's a procedural! It's a serial killer thriller! It's a courtroom drama! It's a buddy cop movie! Hell if they spent a little more time on it it could even count as a character study, since Eilbacher's character has a rocky relationship with her dad on account of his commitment to policework, yet pursues Stevens' character hard, possibly working through some daddy issues.

Alas, we don't get much time with that sort of thing, because director J. Lee Thompson is happy to cut back to Davis doing his thing. He's got a pretty great alibi for the opening kill sequence - he goes to a movie, makes his presence known to a pair of girls, talks to the box office clerk, etc. before sneaking out of the bathroom window and killing a woman. He then returns to the movie (the Aero theater in Santa Monica, to be exact) and again bugs the same girls, so when he is inevitably brought in for questioning, they are located and confirm that he was at the movies during the time of the murder. But after that we rarely see that much cunning - he does something similar with a hooker in the film's final reel, but naturally Bronson's on to him by then so he doesn't get a chance to put the alibi to use, and in between he's mostly just making creepy phone calls (with a bad Mexican accent for "good" measure) and going about his day, where he seems to be the only male employee in an office full of women who rightfully hate him.

In other words, the actual plot/narrative thrust kind of meanders and isn't particularly interesting, but all the weird little details make the movie a blast. You get Bronson angrily presenting a sex toy for men (called an "Acu-suck" - use your imagination), Bronson mocking a guy for being a virgin (actually that's the same scene), Bryan Cranston's brother as a goofy party attendee, Carmen "Reverend Sayer" Filpi as the world's least effective hotel clerk, and - if you're a Los Angeles resident or aficionado - lots and lots of vintage scenery, including the reveal that the Aero hasn't really changed much in 35 years even though the area around it is nearly unrecognizable. Ditto the LA Courthouse, which I recognized instantly despite not having been there for ten years (for jury duty, don't get too excited). Less fun but still interesting - it pretty much boils down to a guy killing women because they won't go out with him, which is still a huge (bigger?) problem today, and unfortunately in the real world we don't have Charles Bronson risking their career to keep these clowns off the street. Some old movies have a weird charm because we see things that aren't really an issue anymore; it's a bummer this can't join that crowd.

Scream's Blu-ray comes with a few interviews and a pair of commentaries. One has a guy I can't stand so I skipped that one, but the other, by Paul Talbott (author of two books on Bronson) is chock full of fun info about the film's production and stars, including the reveal - one I could have guessed myself - that the film's opening scene with Bronson was not intended to be the film's opener, but moved up because the producers were afraid that audiences wouldn't like having to wait a whole ten minutes to see Bronson. So the film opens with this dull scene of him typing out a report, then cuts to a murder, then we get a traditional introduction to the actor when he comes to investigate. It's a bit of a dry listen since Talbott is by himself and reading from notes, so it can be a bit hard to stay focused on, but he goes all out - noting car models, street locations, the wardrobe selections, the whole nine yards. He also offers script passages of scenes that didn't make it for one reason or another, so it's a highly recommended listen if you're a fan. Stevens' interview is also pretty fun; he relates a great anecdote about getting the notoriously quiet Bronson to open up and shoot the breeze with him, clearly (rightfully) proud of his accomplishment.

So it's a pretty nice release for the sort of movie that fans would be happy to just finally be able to own on high def, which is the sort of thing Scream Factory excels at. I'm still on the fence about keeping it, however; it's a fun movie but not one I'm likely to watch over and over, since most of its charm stems from the out of nowhere wacky moments as opposed to its compelling characters or crafty narrative. In fact, I suspect the film's reputation is largely due to how the audience gets sent out of the theater; I won't spoil the particulars, but I will say I'll never forgive myself for missing out on that rescheduled screening and losing out on the chance to watch it unfold with a crowd. I laughed and cheered by myself *at home*, so with the energy of the crowd I might have started crowd surfing or something, it was just that great. Even if the rest of the movie was junk it'd be worth watching for that moment alone, so enjoy!

What say you?

Tweet

PLEASE, GO ON...

Hellraiser: Judgment (2018)

FEBRUARY 16, 2018

GENRE: RELIGIOUS, SUPERNATURAL
SOURCE: BLU-RAY (OWN COLLECTION)

Of all the major horror franchises that came along (or at least had their biggest showcase) in the 1980's, Hellraiser was the one I never particularly got into the way I did for the others. I was late to the party in even seeing them; I think I was in high school before I watched the first three, only watching them once or twice before the release of Hellraiser: Bloodline, which was the only one I saw theatrically until Revelations in 2011. And most of the others I only bothered to watch for HMAD entries, having heard nothing good about any of them (and then, adding more negative reviews to their coffers), so now that I'm only updating sporadically I probably wouldn't have exactly rushed to watch the tenth film, Hellraiser: Judgment if not for two things. One is that I was offered a copy, so I could save myself a rental fee or blind buy down the road, and - more importantly - the other is that I heard from a number of people that it was a surprisingly decent entry, not quite hitting the highs of its theatrical releases, but certainly a step up from its DTV brethren.

And they're right! I mean, I wouldn't exactly refer to it as a "good" movie, but it's the only one of the DTV films (and I'm including Revelations in that group, despite its one-week limited release) that feels like a legit addition to the mythology that was established in the first four films. Even the one where Kirsty showed back up didn't really feel like a new chapter in an ongoing story (however loosely it was depicted), but a gimmick used to lure in folks who might be disinterested, like how Marvel (unnecessarily!) threw in Falcon and a setup for Civil War to entice people into seeing Ant-Man. But here, the scenes with Pinhead and some of his fellow Cenobites/demons/angels/whatever almost feel like they could have come from Clive Barker's imagination, and it's a shame the entire movie couldn't revolve around them as these sequences (which make up maybe 25% of the 80 minute film) are clearly where all the budget went, and now that I've seen it for myself, obviously the reason for the film's better-than-average reviews (it's actually got a higher Rotten Tomatoes score than Hellbound as of this writing, insanely enough).

Alas, that other 75% focuses on a trio of cops investigating a Seven-y serial killer who is killing people according to the Ten Commandments, even though "Thou Shall Not Kill" is one of them, the hypocrite. Maybe if we ever really saw him in action and/or the film gave us a few red herrings as to his identity this material would be more enjoyable (if still cliche; how many Biblically minded killers have we seen over the past 20 years or so?), but we mostly only see aftermath. The MO for these scenes is as follows: the detectives arrive on a scene to look at a dead body or some other kind of tableau, talk about this or that clue, then retreat to their wood-paneled office that looks suspiciously like one you might find in a used car lot or construction site. The murder sites are fine, but their office and some of the other sets are so phony looking (again, probably because all the money went into the Pinhead scenes) that it was hard to care much about their (and only their, as no other cops are seen in the film, despite the fact that this killer has seemingly earned a citywide manhunt) investigation into this vaguely defined, rarely seen killer.

It also lacks much in the way of surprises after its first (and best) ten minutes. In the opening scene we see Pinhead lamenting (heh) the advance of technology, and how he is becoming obsolete as people can just go to the internet to have their desires fulfilled instead of going to him (kind of like how we don't really need travel agents anymore when we can just head to Expedia), and I loved that concept. Unfortunately not too much is done with it, but at least it leads into the introduction of The Auditor, who looks like a Cenobite version of Claude Rains as the Invisible Man. His job is to interview would-be victims about their crimes and type them out on a typically monstrous typewriter, at which point the pages will be consumed by the Assessor (played by John Gulager!). He then pukes the results into a funnel where a trio of naked women with their faces ripped off scoop up the gross mixture in their hands and pass judgment. Why they go through all this trouble, I don't know, but I like the idea of them having their own pointless bureaucratic process for what they do.

But then our protagonist Sean (Damon Carney, who I dubbed "Michael Fauxbender" due to his mild resemblance to the actor and that their boring serial killer plot reminded me of the woeful Snowman) follows a couple of clues and ends up in the house, where we see the process again, too soon after the first and more or less spoiling the film's mystery before the halfway point. His "audit" is largely unheard by us, but the lengthy results cause the Assessor to choke during his consumption, and whatever he did has gotten the OK from the higher-ups, who instruct the Auditor to let Sean go. At this point the film starts to resemble one of the later episodes of Supernatural, with angels and demons arguing over jurisdiction and the like, but since it was at least moving away from the serial killer plot I was happy to watch it even if it was largely a repeat of a sequence we just saw 25 minutes or so ago.

In fact, if I had to guess, this sequence (or the earlier one) was added to get Pinhead and the other creations into the movie more. Since 2000's Inferno, the common complaint about these films (besides just kinda sucking in general) is that Pinhead isn't in them enough, even though that's the one thing that they share with the original (where he isn't even named Pinhead yet, but "Lead Cenobite"), so I'm sure there was a push to find a way to include him in more sequences (hilariously, at one point during the serial killer investigation they briefly cut to him spinning a Lament as he sat around waiting, as if to remind us that he was there). And unlike the more expensive Doug Bradley, new actor Paul Taylor (thankfully replacing the guy who played him in Revelations) was probably easier to pay for more days of work, so the reasons to limit his appearance were presumably based more on narrative than money. And Taylor is actually pretty good in the role; his physique is similar to Bradley's, which helps, and he's got a similar enough voice that it's easy enough to accept the transition. Whereas the last guy felt like seeing a kid in a costume, Taylor is someone who could conceivably continue playing the character for future installments and be accepted by the fans, not unlike the initial hesitance/eventual championing of every new James Bond or Batman (remember when everyone cried about Ben Affleck being cast? Some of the same people are now upset he might not come back for more).

Speaking of winning fans over, the makers cast Heather Langenkamp in the film and touted her involvement back when the film was first going into production in 2016, but if you're planning to see it for her, I'd advise against it, as her role can barely even be considered a cameo. She plays the landlord of one of the victims, and her on-screen time is limited to just two shots (one from behind!) as she walks down a flight of stairs, mutters a few things about the tenant, and opens a door. It's the kind of role that would usually be filled by Central Casting and perhaps not even meet the director until the day of shooting, yet she is given fourth billing for this nothing appearance. I'm not even joking when I say that an extra standing behind one of the cops as they wait in line for coffee is actually on-screen more than Ms. Langenkamp, and it's pretty lame of them to use her name/our affinity for "Nancy" to sucker in a few folks who might otherwise have no interest in another (or even their first). I was thinking she'd show up in one of the deleted scenes, but that's not the case. There are only two, and one is just an extension of the opening with the Auditor (played by writer/director Gary Tunnicliffe himself), letting things go on a bit longer but otherwise offering nothing of note. The other is more substantial, showing Sean and the other detective (Egerton, played by Alexandra Harris) talking about God while in a church, which clues us more into Sean's motives and gives Egerton a bit more to do than just ask for or deliver exposition (per Tunnicliffe, she wasn't even in the original story concept, but added at the producers' request, which helps explain why she's fairly extraneous in the narrative). With the the movie being so short I can't say it needed to lose scenes for pacing, but I doubt anyone will watch it and think it should have been in the movie, either. There's also a gag reel which provided some minimal amusement.

Tunnicliffe and his crew should be proud of what they've done here. It's no secret that this film (and the last one) were made quick and cheap by Dimension in order to hang on to their rights to the series (the contracts require them to make a movie within a certain amount of time; failure to do so for the Halloween series is why it ended up at Blumhouse), but he clearly wants to restore the series to its former highs instead of just playing studio lapdog and putting in the bare minimum that they require. The effects are practical, the designs are solid, and the scripts (yes, even Revelations') are far more interesting than the previous entries, where they were rewriting unrelated spec scripts to include Pinhead, which would be fine if the series was more anthological from the start, but there was this cool world opening up (particularly in the 2nd and 4th films) that got unceremoniously dropped when the series went DTV. Even if the results are imperfect, the attempt to get things back on track is admirable, and I hope that Dimension's money woes clear up somehow or (far more likely) the series is handed over to a studio that might realize the potential and give Tunnicliffe (or his replacement, if that was the case) the money to live up to the standards the series set in its initial entries. Until then, at least we have, for the first time since 1996, an entry that is actually worth watching (uneven as it may be), though I should stress that it might take suffering through the likes of Hellworld to really appreciate it.

What say you?

Tweet

PLEASE, GO ON...

Jigsaw (2017)

OCTOBER 25, 2017

GENRE: SERIAL KILLER, SURVIVAL
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (PREMIERE SCREENING)

Not for nothing, but when I asked anyone who'd listen (OK, let's be honest: I just complained on Twitter) to make another Saw movie, I thought it was understood that I wanted one that resolved Hoffman's fate, showed how Gordon would carry on the legacy, etc. Indeed, the original title for Jigsaw was "Saw: Legacy", which seemed to point in that general direction, though I knew it would likely be more accessible to new fans given the seven year gap since the last one (in fact, the time between the original Saw and its "Final Chapter" was less than the time in between it and this next installment). A blend of easy to follow continuity payoffs and a standalone story would seem to be the best way to go if they wanted to revive the series while also satisfying the fans who wanted it in the first place, right? Alas, they leaned very heavily toward the "standalone" part of the formula, offering a decent enough entry with regards to "A bunch of people in traps get killed while the cops solve a mystery" sort of stuff, but a crushing disappointment when it comes to how it fits in the overall story.

Note that I will be getting into spoilers later in the review, but for now I'm only going to talk about the basic plot. I'll warn you again when the real spoiler-y stuff comes up.

As we all learned in the trailer, a new game has seemingly started, and it all points to being the work of Jigsaw. But they tell us he's been dead for ten years, and everyone has modern cell phones and such, so we're dealing with a present day story as opposed to one that picks up right where the last one left off, which has always been the series' forte. We're also dealing with an entirely new cast of characters - the first time since the original Saw that every single person on-screen was a stranger to us, as opposed to a returning favorite or ongoing sub-villain like Amanda or Hoffman. Again, I knew it wouldn't be super continuity-heavy, but I was legitimately stunned at how disconnected everything was from the ongoing saga, to the extent that when they actually do mention another character (Jill, to be exact) I felt like cheering. Not keeping up with the later entries or having an iron-clad memory of their revelations is one thing - this movie doesn't require you to have seen any of the films at all, even the original. As long as you understand the basic idea (a guy named John "Jigsaw" Kramer places flawed/bad people in death traps and tasks them with earning back the life they've wasted) you're as caught up as you need to be; even the mention of Jill won't confuse anyone - the entire reference is something like "Jill Tuck - you know, Jigsaw's wife? Her family owns this place."

"This place", by the way, is a farm that is housing the current game. It's part of what is actually one of my favorite things about the movie - it's the most visually distinct entry in the series, as it has a number of exterior scenes (always a rarity in these films; some of them never step outside at all), and rarely lets its characters wander around grimy dungeons. The barn setting also allows for different kinds of weapons/tools for the traps - such as two characters who are trapped in a silo that is rapidly filling up with grain, and then things like hoes and metal rakes are dropped on them for good measure. It's also got one of the more nerve-wracking traps in the series: a sort of razor sharp spiral that our victim is being lowered through in order to get the key to his escape, forcing him to refrain from the slightest bit of shifting or else he'd get sliced apart. All this stuff works well; it's very reminiscent of Saw V (their first trap is so similar looking that I thought it might end up being a point of some sort), but the new setting and less hateful characters make it an easier sell. And they're not as self-serving, either - when one person figures out how to bypass the first trap (with shockingly little harm required), she runs around trying to help the others succeed as well, rather than just leave them to rot as some of her trapped predecessors might have done in the past.

As for the other plot, we are introduced to a cop named Halloran (Callum Keith Rennie), a sort of "breaks the rules to get the job done" kind of guy not unlike Erik Matthews, who gets involved early on and shortly thereafter is alerted to a body that seems to be the first victim of the game that's under way inside the barn. The thing is, the body that has evidence on it suggesting that John Kramer is the killer - but he's dead (right?), so Halloran starts trying to figure out who the real killer is. For reasons that escape me, he instantly zeroes in on Logan, the coroner who inspected the body - I assume the thinking was that Logan lied/faked evidence to pin it on Kramer in order to cover his tracks, but that's never actually suggested aloud. Halloran just instantly suspects the guy and his partner Eleanor (Hannah Emily Anderson), with her being under suspicion because it turns out she's a fan of Jigsaw's work. It's one of those things that inorganically happens in movies, where they just need to get to that point and they skip over any meaningful logical path to get there. Anyway, the movie more or less unfolds like all the others, cutting back and forth between the cop-driven mystery and the game that's slowly but surely killing off the cast members, building toward the point where they converge and we get a twist.

If you grew weary of the series' increasingly complicated mythology, and/or bailed before the "final" entry, but enjoyed the general idea, then you're the ideal mark for this particular installment. It's basically a greatest hits album in movie form, taking ideas from the other entries (I, II, and V mostly) and offering them up in rapid succession to maximize the audience's potential for enjoyment. But like a greatest hits album, it lacks the soul that makes that band's actual albums so essential - the movie doesn't really offer anything we haven't seen before on a narrative level. Sure, the "There's blood under the fingernails that matches John Kramer" kind of stuff is interesting, as we've never really seen how this world moved on from Jigsaw as an ongoing threat (as Hoffman and co. kept his games running without pause), but who could possibly believe that Kramer really might be alive? Saw IV's opening was seemingly designed to beat us over the head with the idea that he was definitely not faking his death, so barring some sort of supernatural hooey (or worse, a twin brother) we know it's not that simple and that someone is pulling the strings in his name.

This is where the film's insistence on being a coherent entry point for newcomers sort of handicaps it, as the film only has so many suspects and we can't count on any of our old pals to be involved. I was hoping for something along the lines of Curse of Chucky, where it seemed like a soft reboot for a while only to reveal its ties at the top of the third act, allowing the likes of Hoffman or Gordon to enter the picture (given the film's secretive shoot and the fact that we were the first audience to see it as they didn't do public test screenings, anything was possible), but after a while it became clear that they really did not want to risk alienating anyone by requiring them to... uh, be Saw fans. And if you know how these movies work, you can probably figure out what's really going on long before it's spelled out, and even if you don't it likely won't really shock you when they do. In the earlier entries, I was almost never able to get ahead of the characters, but here I just kept waiting for them to get on with what I already suspected (and then confirmed, albeit in a slightly different manner at least). I mean, it's not the film was bad or poorly made or anything, but after seven years, I just feel they could have come up with something better than this. It's just too safe.

And now we're gonna get into spoilers, so back out now if you don't want the twist ruined for you! You've already gotten more than you need to know to decide if you want to check the film or not, so the rest of the review is specifically for those who are just curious, or have already seen the film and want my take on it!

I'm warning you!!!

OK now that it's just us, let's talk about how the twist not only makes zero sense in the context of the film, but also how the big reveal bites off more than it can chew with regards to the series. At a certain point near the end of the farm-set game, with only two players left, a Pigman enters the scene and fiddles with some shit, then takes off the mask/hood to reveal... John Kramer! Alive and well, and giving the audience reason to let out a big cheer. Again, this is not a supernaturally based series, and even they can't be so dumb as to pull some twin brother shit (they almost seem to be trying to get us to think that, with the minor reveal that John has a nephew), so anyone with a good sense of these things would probably understand right away that this game has been set in the past, seemingly even before the one we saw in Saw II (with Tobin Bell having naturally aged nearly ten years since, it's hard to tell based on his appearance where in the timeline it might be, which was usually how we could more or less place the flashback scenes in the overall chronology). But wait, how can Halloran and Logan be finding their bodies in the present day (established beyond a shadow of a doubt) if this game is at least ten years old? Wouldn't the corpses be pretty rotted out by now?

Turns out, the corpses that are being found in the present day are just more or less freshly killed "stunt doubles" for the original victims in the barn. When the bodies are found, they're all mangled up, so the viewer doesn't notice anything is different and goes along with it just fine. But here's the problem: no one is monitoring the game, and therefore no one involved with finding/inspecting these bodies has any idea of what the original victims looked like (as those original bodies are still just collecting maggots and dust in the barn). So it's basically a cheat for no other reason than to trick the audience, whereas the best twists in the other films always made sense for our characters as well. The closest exception would be Saw IV's reveal that it was taking place at the same time as III, but that wasn't something that any character would have a reason to comment on, and best as I can recall there was never an attempt to make us really believe otherwise - it was just a "hiding in plain sight" thing that didn't really have much of a bearing on anything. When the characters are setting complicated plans in motion for no other reason than to trick the folks on the other side of the fourth wall, I can't help but bristle a bit (another example would be The Village, where the characters inexplicably didn't have medicine on hand for their children, despite the fact that they would have no reason to believe medicine wasn't a thing that existed "yet"), and I expect better out of these movies.

Anyway, by now we know that Logan is yet another one of Jigsaw's apprentices, and has been engineering all this stuff in the present to ensnare Halloran the dirty cop (they really blew it by killing off the series' longtime coroner in Saw 3D - if HE turned out to be one of Jigsaw's guys, it have been a fun little ret-con, plus given the film a much-needed tie to the others). Even if you ignore the idea that Jigsaw had yet another person helping him out (he apparently helped to create the first bear trap, if I'm following one climactic scene properly), there's still the question of what exactly he's been doing all this time. We've seen Gordon, Amanda, or Hoffman setting up pretty much every other trap in the series thanks to the various flashbacks along the way, so what exactly Logan brought to the tabel is a mystery, as is why he apparently waited ten years to spring into action and take down this cop that he had a vendetta against. Yes, I know Jigsaw II: Saw IX can answer these things, but that's a bit presumptuous for an attempted revival of a series that only stopped in the first place because of dwindling grosses. If you're going to rewrite history once again, you gotta shine a light NOW on how some of it changed what we already knew, while leaving a few things left open for the next film. This might be part of the problem with having an entirely new creative team (this is the first time in the series that neither Leigh Whannell nor Dunstan/Melton had any involvement with the script), because those guys could plant things in one movie to answer later, knowing how it would work, but that's not an option here. Hell they don't even answer the questions we still had (i.e. is Hoffman alive?), let alone find a way to successfully meld their own reveals with the others.

The word I keep coming back to is "lackluster". It's not a bad movie, really - I just can't see anyone being excited by it, fan or not. Besides the spiral slicer the new traps aren't really all that memorable, the twist is equally obvious and overly complicated (Logan explaining the dummy bodies is possibly the clunkiest exposition this series has ever offered), and I just spent too much of the movie thinking "is this it?". Not the entire time, mind you; I got real excited when the (really kick-ass!) new version of the main theme kicked in (Charlie Clouser joins editor Kevin Greutert as pretty much the only holdovers from the other films, besides the producing team), and it was fun to be back in this world for a while. But once the novelty of "Yay! A new SAW!" wore off, I found myself less and less invested in the film's storyline, ultimately just kind of waiting for it the obvious twist out of the way in optimistic hope that there would be another that was more worthy of the series and more satisfying to the hardcore fans that live for the silly ret-cons. Alas, that better twist never came; the movie ends exactly like Saw V (albeit with a new tagline) and sitting through the whole end credits will only tell you what its MPAA registration number is. As a revival attempt, it's as safe as you might expect - but this is a series that lived by its surprises and ability to trick its fans, so when it fails to do that, what's the point of it even being a Saw?

What say you?

P.S. Despite the ads having a more playful vibe, the film isn't really any more "fun" than the others, and one of the victims' backstory involves rolling over on a newborn in the same bed and suffocating it, which might be the most upsetting thing in the entire series. Just fair warning in case you thought this might be less grim than the others.

Tweet

PLEASE, GO ON...

Blu-Ray Review: The Town That Dreaded Sundown

MAY 22, 2013

GENRE: SERIAL KILLER
SOURCE: BLU-RAY (OWN COLLECTION)

It's a (very minor) shame Rolling Thunder doesn't hit shelves until next week, because it would have been really weird/cool to see it come out the same day as The Town That Dreaded Sundown (both from Shout Factory), as I saw the films together back in 2007 at the New Beverly as part of a festival Quentin had programmed to celebrate the release of Grindhouse. As both films were long sought after DVD titles (neither of them ever hit legitimate release on the format), it's a testament to both the service that Shout (and their Scream Factory sub-label) is performing for film fans, as well as their impeccable taste in titles (QT loves The Burning too, for what it's worth).

Of this week's Scream Factory releases, Sundown would be my pick if you could only afford one. Even Burning's biggest fans have to admit that there isn't much there that they couldn't see in other camp slashers, but there's nothing quite like Charles B. Pierce's account of the still unsolved murders that plagued the town of Texarkana in the late 1940s. If I had to narrow it down, I'd describe it as a feature length Unsolved Mysteries recreation, thanks to the frequent, grave narration and largely truthful recreations of the murders - basically everything except Robert Stack's trenchcoat and the prompt to call 1-800-876-5353. But Pierce clearly wanted to make something a little more exploitative for the drive-in audience, and thus stages the murders like bonafide slasher scenes, embellishing when necessary (sorry folks; the killer never used a trombone to kill anyone - though a saxophone was taken from one victim) and actually making them pretty effective setpieces.

See, the first attack doesn't actually kill either victim, and thus unless you've seen the trailer (which explains each attack and its outcome), it's not a foregone conclusion that anyone will die. So while it follows the pattern of many serial killer films and doesn't introduce any victim until they're about to be attacked (as opposed to a slasher, where we know everyone more often than not), they ARE quite suspenseful; the final one in particular, with the killer stalking none other than Dawn "Mary Ann" Wells, is a terrific nailbiter (and even a pretty solid bloodspray effect - keep in mind this predates any major slasher save the rather bloodless Black Christmas), and the trombone sequence, while not surprisingly made up, is still pretty effectively unnerving. There are four major attacks in the film, plus a (completely fictional) chase at the end to give the movie SOME sort of climax - it's a fine balance between the facts and typical entertainment.

However, Pierce can't be satisfied with this, and also tosses in some very jarring attempts at humor, mostly centered around a dimwitted deputy that seems to all but prove that he saw Black Christmas, as "Sparkplug" is a completely fictional character that is almost exactly like Sergeant Nash in that film. The character in Christmas worked; not only was there humor to be found elsewhere (the house mother, the Santa at the party, etc), but it wasn't a true story - it's one thing to add some theatrics to the kill scenes, but it's another to treat the events as a joke. When Sparkplug drives his car with the other two cops (played by Ben Johnson and Andrew Prine) into a swamp during a chase with a potential suspect for the murderer, it's just plain awkward. Oh, and he's played by Pierce himself, which just makes it feel self-serving on top of everything else.

Thus, I am guessing Sparkplug won't be around in the upcoming remake, though maybe NONE of these people will - early word suggests it's a meta-remake/sequel hybrid, with a young girl being targeted by a killer during an annual viewing of the movie itself? And trying to solve the original murders at the same time? It sounds a bit too up its own ass for my tastes, BUT it's not like they don't have precedent of sorts - THIS movie ends with the killer attending a screening of a movie based on the murders (also called The Town That Dreaded Sundown), after all. So it'll be like a Stab/Scream thing, I guess? Ryan Murphy is producing, and while I've hated that guy's work throughout his career, I did find myself quite charmed by the first season of American Horror Story (haven't seen the 2nd season yet), so maybe he can pull off something admirable here. I think we can safely assume that the real Phantom Killer will never be "caught" - the murders were in 1947 and he was said to be 30-40 years old, which means if he's still alive he won't be for long (best case scenario - he's 96 years old right now), but maybe some digging or a forthcoming relative can shed some light on the topic - new movies tend to bring folks out of the woodwork.

Shout made a good call when it came time to record their standard commentary track - rather than get Prine or someone to talk over the whole film (Pierce himself passed away a few years ago), they have gotten an expert on the case to fill in some details and updates. His name is Jim Presley, and he grew up in the area and seems to be the world's biggest expert on it (there's a new book on the case - which seems to be the first - and he is mentioned frequently by the author), so he's loaded with great info and even a few updates (one guy has a theory that the Phantom was also the Zodiac killer - the two cases ARE fairly similar, for what it's worth). The moderator doesn't add much, and by his own admission this isn't Presley's kind of movie, so if you don't have much interest in the case and just want to know about the movie itself, stick with the three new interviews. Prine, Wells, and DP James Roberson all offer up the standard Red Shirt interviews where they talk about each other in succession and then offer their final thoughts while plopped in front of a green-screen and equipped with a lav mic that no one tried to hide - maybe it's because I'm watching a dozen of these a month, but can they break up their template a bit? Anyway, of the three Prine's is by far the most entertaining, as he recounts getting drunk with Johnson and having to shoot the climax while very hung over ("I'm told we had a wonderful time the night before!"), and even explains how he wrote the ending himself because Pierce's script didn't really have one. Roberson also tells a cute story about how the woman who became his wife told him how much the film scared her when they met, and Wells talks of her unsuccessful attempt to talk to the woman she was portraying. I kind of miss when they'd combine all this stuff into one longer retrospective piece (like Halloween II and III), but at least it's easier to find the time for them in 5-10 min segments I guess. A text essay about the real case and film's legacy is also included.

You also get a DVD copy of The Evictors, which if memory serves is the best possible way to sell it - for free inside the case of a superior film. Though my buddy Dick says it's one of his favorite horror films, so maybe I should give it another look. No extras on that one, but you also get a DVD of all the Sundown material (and the movie, duh), so it's a pretty nice package for a movie that was inexplicably ignored during DVD's 10 year reign as the superior home viewing format (though it was worth the wait - the transfer is from an occasionally battered print but it looks phenomenal otherwise). It's a shame Pierce never got to offer his thoughts in detail on it (Johnson's been dead since before DVD even existed, and many of the people involved with the case - such as the person Prine played - were already dead when they made the movie in 1976). I'd be curious to read the book (it just came out last week - why the sudden fascination with this case?), and yay - since I don't do this every day anymore I'll actually have time to do so!

What say you?

Tweet

PLEASE, GO ON...