Stormhouse (2011)

OCTOBER 22, 2011

GENRE: GHOST
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (FESTIVAL SCREENING)

Sometimes you can just tell a movie is "off" almost right off the bat. There's nothing wrong with a slow burn movie - some of the best horror movies don't open with a bang of any sort (Psycho and Blair Witch come to mind), and Stormhouse actually "gets going" quicker than those films. But within 5 minutes of the film's running time, I knew this one just wasn't going to work, and possibly derail Screamfest's otherwise above average strong lineup - this was the first and only stinker of the fest.

Before I go further I do want to point out that while I try to avoid negative reviews of movies that have not been picked up as of yet, I had no other options for today; Rites of Spring and Cassadaga were made by friends of mine, and Innkeepers has already been reviewed (Rabies I had to skip due to another engagement). Also, with fellow ghost movie Paranormal 3 scaring up the biggest opening for a horror movie ever, I'm sure it will have no problem landing a deal even with a negative review on a very below the radar blog, as studios will be wanting to jump on the bandwagon with anything they can promote as being similar.

In fact it also has some "found footage" appeal, with a number of scary moments occurring on surveillance camera, though for the most part it's shot like a regular movie, albeit one without a decent lighting budget. Part of the problem with the movie anyway is the lack of strong characterization for the assorted folks inside the military base in which the entire movie takes place, making it difficult to tell some of them apart. But making things worse is the Hyams-esque lighting; the closest thing to a male hero in the film doesn't get a well lit close-up until his 4th or 5th scene!

Keeping the audience further at bay is the movie's terrible sound mixing, rendering many lines incomprehensible (joke during the movie: "Putting the 'mumble' in mumblecore!"), or just plain laughable. Midway through the movie some important Major type guy shows up, but his lines all sound like they were recorded inside a bathroom stall (with the recorder on the other side of the door), giving his scenes - which are supposed to be tense - a hilariously hallucinatory feel. I assume they redubbed the actor and just didn't do it right? Either way - there's no way to save the movie as a whole without major reshoots/re-edits, but they can at least improve the sound mix for their next screening.

Unfortunately it would still be Stormhouse, the poorly paced, laughably stupid at times ghost movie that boils down to a haunted basketball "angrily" bouncing around. At its core is a decent idea (with a minor twist at the end that would have been awesome if there was any reason to care about what led up to it), concerning a "captured" ghost that seeks to break free of its "cell" by methodically turning the people in the base against each other while doing typical ghost shit like making all of the objects in a room fly around, Poltergeist-style. But it's like the script goes out of its way to be silly, completely deflating any tension the movie might have had.

Screenwriter Jason Arnopp is best known for writing Doctor Who radio dramas and such (not the actual TV show, best as I can tell), and thus some of that show's comical surrealism finds its way into the movie, but unfortunately only during the 3rd act, where even a comedic horror film usually starts getting serious. Had it been a bit silly from the start, maybe it would work, but when the first hour or so is just generic/boring ghost movie stuff and then all of a sudden there's a basketball menacingly making its way toward one of our heroes, it's just obnoxious.

The script also has too many idiotic and unbelievable moments, even by horror movie standards. At one point a thumbprint is needed to open an elevator door, so they obtain it from the now-dead high level character by seemingly just ripping it from his hand (maybe they had a knife; the actual act occurs just below the camera's range). One character turns traitor, trapping the others in another room and then when he calls the elevator he just tosses the thumb on the floor. Fine, but when the girl gets free and run up to the elevator, she looks on the floor EXACTLY where he threw it down, as if tossing a "key" aside after it was used once was typical behavior. Also (spoiler!) the haunted basketball gets out of the base and over the heavy fence surrounding the place, only to be INSTANTLY taken away by a group of kids who were apparently just running around in the woods near the military base that's supposed to be in the middle of nowhere. As my friend pointed out, it's like the kids had some sort of radar that alerted them to a free basketball lying around nearby.

Again, had the entire movie operated under this sort of random/silly MO, then maybe this wouldn't be a big deal - but instead it feels like the writer got bored with his own script, said "aw, fuck it..." and went all out with whatever came to his head for the rest. In fact the movie often gets deadly serious - the "interrogation" of a suspected terrorist (the movie takes place in 2002, halfway between 9/11 and the start of the Iraq war), making the other stuff seem even more ill-advised. You can't have 9/11 allusions in a movie with a haunted fucking basketball!

And it's a shame because some of the creep out moments (mostly in the first act) actually work well, mostly because they are of the subtle variety and thus don't require too much acting prowess from our largely inadequate cast, with Katherine Flynn being particularly obnoxious with her overly happy demeanor, smiling and giggling at pretty much everything she says or sees (her expression upon seeing the ugly, isolated base is akin to someone seeing the Grand Canyon for the first time). The only one who managed to have any sort of memorable personality was Martin Delaney as Brandon (per the IMDb, I could have sworn he was named "Simon" in th emovie), who plays the typically droll/sarcastic communications officer who spends most of his screentime watching stuff on the monitors and making comments about it; in a way he's sort of the audience surrogate, watching something and then more or less complaining how dull it is.

Oh well. No festival is without a runt in the litter, so at least Screamfest's came on the last day (the schedule seemed to be front-loaded with the best movies, in fact). I'm sure there will be an audience for it, and even though they botch it on nearly every level, the ghost/military hybrid is unique enough to warrant some appreciation, as does the fact that they seem to be aping Event Horizon's set design at times. Plus, it DOES ultimately turn into a haunted basketball movie, which in many ways I applaud; the real problem is the interminable part of the movie that comes first.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Paranormal Activity 3 (2011)

OCTOBER 21, 2011

GENRE: HAUNTED HOUSE, MOCKUMENTARY
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (REGULAR SCREENING)

They used my quotes for like 2 years as they worked to get the first film into theaters, but didn’t even invite me to a press screening of Paranormal Activity 3 – way to pay it forward or whatever, Paramount! But seeing this sort of movie is more entertaining with a crowd of people who want to be there, not lame critics and other industry types. I may be a bit numb to the scares at this point, but the crowd was not, and there was a huge reaction to nearly every scare in the movie (hell even the trailer for The Devil Inside caused some shrieks), which added to my enjoyment.

Indeed, only two of the scares made me jump this time around, which is much less than either of the previous films. It made me wish that the lesser Paranormal Activity 2 didn’t exist, because I feel that this film, which has a better story and characters than the 2nd, would have also been a lot scarier for me if I hadn’t already seen a lot of these sort of scares in two previous entries. For example, there’s a cool kitchen scare late in the movie that SHOULD have made me jump like everyone else, but instead I was too prepared for it, since it was obviously an attempt to replicate what was one of the best scares in the 2nd movie.

And one of those two good jolts was actually a fake scare, something that the first film never really resorted to that I can recall. There are actually a few of them here, and while that one is a fun BOO! moment, it’s still a bit of a shame that they had to go to that well because so many scares were “used up” in the dull 2nd film. But what it lacked in successful jump scares (to me) it made up for more tension in the story, which takes place in 1988 and thus manages to largely avoid the inherent prequel problem (spoiler: the adult stars of the previous entries do not die as children) by putting the mother, stepfather, and his business partner in danger far more often than the children. As these characters haven’t been mentioned much/at all, there IS some suspense as to whether or not they live, particularly the Joel Moore-esque partner, who has to babysit Katie at one point and thus becomes the center potential victim of a pretty tense sequence. Ditto an actual babysitter (a hot blonde, of course), who gets to star in a sequence that is seemingly inspired by Halloween.

See, one of my biggest problems with PA2 was that it took place so close to the events of the first film, it pretty much ensured that none of the characters would meet any serious harm, or else it wouldn’t have worked, a major event wouldn't have gone unmentioned. It's the inherent problem with prequels - you're shackled to telling a story that has to believably lead up to the one that's already there. But here, with 20 years’ time gone by and the fact that by now we know that Katie and Kristy apparently suffer from amnesia or PTSD, it doesn’t suffer from that same handicap. I mean, who remembers their dad’s buddy after 20 years? On that note, we STILL haven’t seen the fire that was mentioned in the first movie, so I guess PA4 will be yet another prequel.

The story is much more interesting this time around. Don’t get me wrong, it’s not some complicated Saw-style plot, but we do get some answers about the origin of the ghost/demon/whatever, and the use of cameras actually makes more sense – the stepfather is a wedding videographer, so he would have a couple of cameras and a huge supply of tapes at his disposal. And there are fewer hand held scenes; the three cameras are in their default places for at least 2/3 of the movie, and at no point does someone get scared and then run back for a camera (well maybe the end sequence, but it’s the climax and it’s awesome, so I’ll forgive it). But that doesn’t mean they are stationary – in the film’s most ingenious idea, he puts one on the base of an oscillating fan, allowing it to pan back and forth between the living room and kitchen on its own. As you can imagine, these shots provide the film’s most hectic “scan your eyes around looking for stuff” moments, because you KNOW they wouldn’t bother doing it unless they planned to purposely screw with the audience by panning away from potential action.

Also, Henry Joost and Ariel Schulman (who made Catfish, a movie I wanted to see until Community spoiled it for me) don’t waste as much time as Tod Williams in the 2nd film (no pool filters here!). We don’t see every night, just the ones where something of note happens, and there are very few scenes that deflate on nothing rather than build toward a scare (probably why there are so many fake ones). I wish they were a little more faithful to the period technology limitations though – not only is the image quite sharp (and widescreen) for what is supposed to be a VHS camcorder, but it seems they could have built in some of the format’s shortcomings for scares. For example, I remember trying to shoot stuff with my dad’s camcorder in low light and producing a largely black image, yet our guy does it here all the time and we can always see exactly what is happening. I don’t know if Paramount vetoed the idea or if they just didn’t care, but it feels like a missed opportunity.

Otherwise the period setting is fairly convincing; a Teddy Ruxpin doll makes a few appearances (at one point the camera is dropped in front of him, giving us full frame Ruxpin for a few seconds – it’s possibly the most unnerving shot in the movie), and I almost cheered at the cereal box with the “Monster Footprints” prize inside – I totally had a set or two of those! The technology they show/use is accurate (god, those giant box shaped projection TVs are not missed), and at one point the characters argue about Back To The Future’s slightly misleading title (“It should be Back To The Present”), which I liked because it was a movie from 1985, not 1988. It drives me nuts when I see a period movie where everything mentioned/shown is from that SPECIFIC year, as if people didn’t still discuss movies or songs from a couple years before on a regular basis. It means nothing in the grand scheme of things, but it shows that even though the movie was rushed (they only started shooting in June) they were still putting some real thought into it.

But like I said, we still haven’t seen the fire, so they’re obviously saving stuff for future entries. At this point I wish they’d stop going back in time; it worked here but how much further back can they go next time and retain the suspense? And how will they come up with yet another excuse for the video footage? Perhaps it’s time to make a true sequel to the original movie. Indeed, whenever the movie got a bit slow I couldn’t help but wonder if they made the right call by trying to create a mythology out of what was a very simple story in the first movie. The series isn’t called “Katie” – it has a very vague title that could have been applied to an anthology series of films about folks dealing with ghosts (and cameras). The Final Destination series has done pretty well for itself by focusing on entirely different people each time out (a necessity since they’re all dead); there’s no reason why they couldn’t have made the same gamble here, with a far less risky financial investment (this one only cost 5 mil – it made more than that just at midnight last night). But now it’s too late; like Halloween III found out in 1982, once you establish the “star” of a series, you’re stuck with him/her/it. Besides, this one opens up new questions anyway, so a 4th film would HAVE to follow up on it or else the fans will be out for blood. Kind of a bummer; I know they took Saw’s place at the box office – now it seems they’re going to take away its “Horror’s Most Serialized Franchise” title too.

Again, if the 2nd film didn’t exist I’d be even more impressed with this one. It improves on most levels and has a fantastic climax with a fun (and unexpected) reveal. But there’s only so many times I can see folks being dragged across the floor by an unseen force before it loses its luster, and the increasingly dense storyline threatens to distract from the very thing that made the original work so well for me – a simple, “this could be me” feeling. When I sit down for 4, it will be to get the new story parts – at this point I don’t think subsequent entries will be able to really scare me like the first one did.

What say you?

P.S. A good chunk of the footage in the trailer is not in the movie, and at least three credited actors in the end credits do not even appear. Just a heads up; I'm not suggesting you wait for DVD, since the crowd experience adds so much of the fun, but it should be noted all the same in case you were really looking forward to any of those scenes with context.

PLEASE, GO ON...

Enter Nowhere (2011)

OCTOBER 20, 2011

GENRE: HORROR?, THRILLER
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (FESTIVAL SCREENING)

First off, congrats to the Enter Nowhere team – it has been picked up by Lionsgate, making it one of the few Screamfest entries that have firm distribution plans for the US (or at least, that we know of). Secondly – please don’t try to market this as a horror movie. While there’s some tension and a minor somewhat supernatural twist, it really falls closer to science fiction/Twilight Zone-y territory; I just have this fear of a trailer showing people in the woods running and screaming (our hero even brandishes an ax at one point, cut the right way into a trailer and it’s a shot from a slasher!), and then as a result people rent/buy it expecting Wrong Turn 5 and get angry that it’s a blood free “What if?” tale of sorts.

Of course I can’t explain in detail why I feel this way, since the movie’s not out yet and won’t be for a while (if they just picked it up it’ll be several months at least), and even with HMAD’s loose policy on spoilers that wouldn’t be fair or helpful to anyone. So I’ll just stick with the first act, even though ironically that’s the stuff that feels the most like a horror movie.

Basically we have a survival tale of sorts, as three folks end up in this tiny shack in the woods during a particularly cold winter. One had a car crash, another ran out of gas, and the third… well we’re not sure how she ended up there. There’s no food, very little water, and seemingly no way of contacting the outside world. Worse, it appears they are not alone, as gunshots can be heard every now and then. How everyone got there and what their life was like prior to this predicament provides the bulk of the film’s second act, and I will stop there, only to say my initial guess as to what was happening was not only wrong, but far less interesting.

What works about the film is that it totally commits to its potentially silly idea. No one questions it or tries to get ahead of the audience by pointing out a possible plot hole, something that only works in a movie like End Of Days where taking it serious would be detrimental (hence lines like “Midnight? Is that Eastern time?”). You either go with it or you don’t, and as I’ve said a million times, I will always go with a kooky idea as long as I never get the feeling that the director is laughing at us. And any movie that uses Pac-Man as an example to explain part of its plot is automatically worth some respect (though the second callback to it was a bit unnecessary/laughable).

Also, it’s not a particularly action-packed movie (we don’t even see the various automobile issues that got them there), but that just means we spend more time with our characters and learning to like them as they bond, which makes investing into their plight during the hectic third act a much easier task. Sara Paxton’s character is abrasive at first, but quickly drops her guard and becomes close with Katherine Waterston (a very warm presence), who instantly bonded with Scott Eastwood as Tom, who is the most proactive of the group and does his dad proud – he’s got a nice Chris Evans-esque thing going on (or perhaps a Sam Worthington with some actual charisma).

It also has one of the best Halloween references I’ve ever heard in a movie, and it ties into a very clever aspect of the script that makes you rethink certain things about the characters. When all of the answers are in place, what seemed like a character’s quirky character tic actually has a far more “normal” explanation, and it would be fun to go back and watch the movie again knowing its secrets – something that Lionsgate must appreciate in today’s marketplace. It’s not disposable! You might want to watch it more than once, so buying is a conceivable option!

Looks great, sounds great, etc. Screamfest has come a long way in both its selection and its presentation over the years; I remember seeing movies that seemed to be screened off highly compressed CD-Rs a few years back, not to mention amateur productions that made me wonder if the filmmakers were aware of how to turn on a light, but that is not the case anymore. Just about every feature film I’ve seen this year looked just as good/professional as anything you can find at the multiplex right now, and Enter Nowhere was no exception. Even the CGI near the end (can’t even say WHAT without spoiling, though I guess “an explosion” is vague enough for one of its examples) isn’t too bad, and for once I can’t really fault them for not going with practical, given their nature.

Hopefully once the movie gets released (I assume they will go straight to DVD with it; Paxton is the film’s only name and “the star of Shark Night” isn’t exactly a great marketing hook) some of you folks will come back and leave comments and I can follow up without being so vague. You might even wonder why I bothered; the esteemed Simon Barrett figured out a chunk of the twist rather early, so perhaps I’m just dumb (I thought he was joking, in fact). It’ll be a fun movie to talk about, and that is of course what HMAD was designed for in the first place. And you guys will hopefully not go into it expecting a full blown horror movie, so you might even enjoy it even more!

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Ghoulies (1985)

OCTOBER 19, 2011

GENRE: POSSESSION, SUPERNATURAL
SOURCE: STREAMING (NETFLIX INSTANT)

Despite being warned by everyone I’ve ever met that Ghoulies wasn’t “as good” as the second film, which I didn’t like at all, I watched it anyway, because I needed something on Netflix instant that I could watch at work and thus save my night off from Screamfest (the only movie showing was Livid) to saving the good people of Gotham once again in Arkham City. So for all its faults, thank you, Ghoulies, for being PG-13 and short, thus making you an ideal “at work” viewing.

Also, I think I might have to disagree with the others: I actually liked this one slightly more. Perhaps it’s because my expectations were so insanely low, but with random breakdancing sequences, a freeze frame ending with a guy making a funny face as Ghoulies appear behind him, and Mariska Hargitay, making her feature debut in a performance she probably doesn’t talk about all that much. In fact a lot of folks in the movie are familiar; Ralph Seymour from Fletch pops up as one of the main couple’s pals, as does Jack Nance as the good wizard. And Copeland from Police Academy! Not bad for a Charles Band production.

Hilariously, I had forgotten that Band was involved with these movies, and had to clap myself on the back (or cry in shame) when the movie opened on a cheesy wizard rambling on and on. “Oh, is this a Charles Band movie?” I instantly thought, a few minutes before a credit confirmed it. I don’t know why he is so obsessed with wizards and sorcery in his little monster movies, but it’s somewhat amusing that the mere sight of a guy in a terrible costume was enough to inform me who I was dealing with here. On that note, it’s equally amusing that there’s a post on the movie’s IMDb page explaining that the production had to shut down because of financial issues and most of them didn’t come back once it resumed. Good to know Band was always shady with the dough!

Anyway, even with those aforementioned improvements, it’s still a lousy movie and suffers from the same problem that the second one did – not enough Ghoulie action. Obviously those things are more complicated and likely more expensive than scenes of humans, but it doesn’t make it any less interesting. Primer didn’t have any money to do big FX for its time travel story – the movie is still awesome. So instead of little monsters running around, we just get some asshole who is possessed by the spirit of some old wizard, and his equally annoying friends not really noticing much is wrong. Finally everyone comes over for a dinner party and things pick up a bit, as the Ghoulies wreak minor havoc and folks get hurt (almost no one dies in this movie). And the FX are pretty good, but is that really worth noting when they appear so infrequently? If this was all the FX team had to do and they were bad, it would be unforgivable.

Odder still, they’re barely responsible for any of the action. You’d think that by saving their appearance for the 3rd act that they’d go all out, but instead we get one attack by a clown doll of some sort (with a Ghoulie inside it), a couple of dwarfs, and even a full grown woman with a giant tongue, who turns out to be the real (hey wait a minute, did Dream Warriors actually rip this movie off?). Said villain is actually our hero’s father, who tries to kiss his son for some reason I wasn’t interested in exploring. Even when it seems like they’re about to do something cool, they don’t – there’s a scene where everyone has gathered for a dinner party, and the Ghoulies are actually SITTING ON THE TABLE, but no one notices them, because they all have sunglasses on (whatever).

It’s worth noting that this is Band’s first tiny creatures movie, paving the way for Puppet Master and Demonic Toys and all that other nonsense. It was also the first Empire movie, I believe (Re-Animator came out later that same year) – way to make a big splash on your first release! The IMDb lists a 35 million gross for this thing, which has to be inaccurate since the movie doesn’t even show up on the far more reliable Boxofficemojo. I should note that IMDb lists a Saturday for its release date, so my guess is that any theatrical run was quite limited and quite brief (and if it made 35 million it would have been in the top 25 grossing films of the year, topping Fright Night, Nightmare on Elm Street 2, and even Teen Wolf!).

Even if it was one screen, I can’t imagine sitting through a movie this dull in a first run theater. Even with the “Ghoulie in toilet” ad campaign (a throwaway moment in the film that was shot after they came up with the poster), I am baffled how they could have produced a trailer that would inspire anyone to go check it out over movies like Mission In Action II or The Sure Thing, both of which opened on March 1st (assuming the IMDb listed March 2nd date was just a typo). “Hey, that wizard in the 9 dollar cape looks awesome!”

Actually, you know what, Ghoulies II IS better. At least that one offered the death of Bill Butler.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Urban Explorer (2011)

OCTOBER 18, 2011

GENRE: SURVIVAL
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (FESTIVAL SCREENING)

As I seemingly had a psychological need that makes me go out of my way to look for ways to stick my foot in my mouth, I agreed to do a Q&A for the movie Urban Explorer after its late (10:30) screening at Screamfest. You all know I fall asleep all the time watching movies, but just a few hours before I had posted an article on Badass Digest about lame, thoughtless Q&A questions, and thus I might have ended up asking some myself if I fell asleep and didn’t have anything else to go with.

Luckily I managed to stay awake! I know, I’m as shocked as you. Even with a technical snafu resulting in us watching about 5 minutes of the movie over again (a perfect excuse to “rest my eyes”), I never once dozed, thanks in part to the film’s quite successful emphasis on suspense and exploring its unique setting over the sort of generic chase/kill scenes that you know will come eventually (and even those are pretty good). The title refers to an activity in which thrill-seekers go under the grounds of Germany and explore its vast tunnel system that houses (amongst other things) Nazi bunkers where experiments were conducted, plus shooting galleries, giant murals, and even a room with a piano that ties into some of Hitler’s more batshit plans involving outer space.

As you can expect, our group of five college-age youths run into trouble; one is hurt, the group splits in order to send for help while others tend to the wounded… and then things get worse. There’s nothing too surprising about the chain of events if you’ve seen movies like The Descent (or Raw Meat/Creep, given the tunnel setting), but that doesn’t make it any less valid a survival thriller. For starters, the group is quite likable – one guy does something that you will probably cause some groans early on, but ultimately he becomes the only one not directly responsible for the bad things that happen. He speaks German, he fights back when necessary, etc – in other words, he’s not a schmuck who goes out of his way to make the situation worse for the group, like some of his fictional peers.

Speaking of the German, inadvertently adding to the experience was the aforementioned snafu – the subtitles wouldn’t work. They stopped the movie trying to correct it after a quick scene went by sans subs, but then a lengthy section of the film (involving the film’s villain) played almost entirely in German, still without the subs. For the most part it wasn’t really an issue – while some of the specifics were obviously left unknown to the audience, we could get the jist of what was going on just from the tone of voice, body language, and occasional “sum up” lines (in English) from the hero who could understand German to his girlfriend, who could not. Kudos to director Andy Fetscher and the actors for being skilled enough to allow the conversation to register even though we couldn’t really understand a single word – believe me, I’ve seen foreign films where this sort of issue would leave us completely in the dark.

And for the most part it sort of added to the film’s overall emphasis on the fear of the unknown and such. Be it a line of German or a confusing path of tunnels, our heroes spend most of the film being unsure of what is happening around them, so by removing this device, the audience could feel some of that unease. Not that it was necessary, mind you - as with The Descent, the film would work even without a tangible villain, since the claustrophobic setting (and the fact that they get hopelessly lost within it) was scary enough for a movie.

In fact, it actually has one up on The Descent in one respect – the location offers a lot of variety. Submerged pathways, bunkers, fully functioning emergency stations, pipe/ladder filled passages, the actual subway tunnel… the layout may never be clear (intentionally so, I assume), you can tell one room from the next, unlike Descent where it was mostly just the same sort of caverns with stalagmites everywhere. Minor light sources also provide a variety of lighting schemes – green hallways, red rooms, etc. It’s definitely one of the more visually interesting films of this type, and that is because Fetscher and his crew got the most out of the numerous “sets” at their disposal.

And he did so at the expense of his own safety and criminal record! He and a crew member spent a night in jail for one trespassing incident, and an encounter with a local almost resulted in stabbings on another night. Due to the film’s Nazi back-story and other factors, he received no help from the German film offices and had to film the movie entirely “guerilla style”, which is admirable (if not too bright – unless you’re making a documentary about the government killing innocent people or something, I can’t really see the point in risking jail time to make a movie). They also really were 60 feet underground in locations that couldn’t fit more than a handful of crew members (he estimated that 10 was the max he ever had at once), so it should be mentioned/lauded that they found a group of actors who were not only game for the potential danger of shooting the film, but that they found ones that were good as well. Two of the girls take off to get help at the halfway point and thus never get as much to do as the others, but they’re all believable and distinct enough (after Wrong Turn 4 borderline confused me at times with its vaguely similar characters, this was much appreciated), and again – likable. Without getting too spoiler-y, this IS a German movie after all, and thus the downbeat turn of events wasn’t exactly unexpected, but I was still a bit sad to see certain characters get taken out.

Despite the fact that Fetscher is “hated” by the German film folks, the movie opens there this weekend, and has been picked up in other territories while it continues its festival run in order to hopefully secure others (including the US). The days of movies like The Descent and High Tension landing wide theatrical releases in the States are long gone (even the perfectly accessible and fun Attack The Block couldn’t get much of a release with a few names involved), so I doubt its US release will be impressive when it gets one, which is a shame as the widescreen visuals are well suited for the big screen. Hopefully IFC or Magnolia will pick it up as at least they will put it in a few cinemas in the bigger markets, unlike Lionsgate who only buys movies like this in order to dump them onto DVD with no fanfare. On the other hand, it is left open for a sequel, so maybe that will make it more enticing. Either way, it’s a damn shame how the current theatrical market is looking, especially for stuff like this, where it’s merely a solid movie and not a HOLY SHIT THIS IS THE BEST FUCKING MOVIE EVER MADE! type attention-grabber. Christ, I saw High Tension at the multiplex inside a mall and that was only 6-7 years ago!

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Wrong Turn 4: Bloody Beginnings (2011)

OCTOBER 17, 2011

GENRE: MUTANT, SURVIVAL
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (FESTIVAL SCREENING)

With expectations firmly below sea level and non-too-enticing advance word from friends who had gotten screeners, I had little reason to go see Wrong Turn 4: Bloody Beginnings; in fact the only reason I went is to preserve a “record” that will impress absolutely no one. However, I don’t regret going for a second; the movie is pretty bad, but it’s that exact right kind of bad that made it a hoot to watch with a few pals and a full crowd of the type of over-excited goons who come to free screenings like this.

Actually it starts almost legitimately good, back in the 1970s, when our hero mutants are still children and locked up in a sanatorium (the movie actually explains the difference between a sanatorium and a sanitarium. I actually learned something from Wrong Turn 4). Their fellow inmates are a bunch of other dudes who could probably lead their own horror movies, and for a while I thought it was going to be an Alone in The Dark/Don't Look In The Basement scenario. But after a new nurse accidentally lets one of them grab her barrette through the bars on his cell, they pick their cell lock and all get loose, running rampant and killing the head doctor in a Saw-esque barbed wire trap that pulls his hands and feet apart in delightfully gory (and practical!) fashion, while the other inmates just sort of goof off and enjoy their freedom. So far, so good.

Then we meet our idiotic teens, of which there are too many (ten!), and things look grim again, as they’re all obnoxious and horny and largely interchangeable (points for offering a lesbian pair though, skewing the male/female ratio a bit to make it slightly less confusing who’s who). The snowbound setting is a nice change of scenery, and by taking place in 2003 we can have all three of the (adult) mutants again, but they do a lousy job on the makeup – they look nothing like their counterparts from the first film, even though they are set only a few months apart. They also seem remarkably stupid, getting lost instantly and then seeing the abandoned sanatorium in the background, resulting in the following exchange:

Idiot #1: “What is that?”
Idiot #2: “I think it’s a building!”

However, once the killers show up (thankfully not TOO long of a wait) it improves considerably, even if for not the reasons writer/director Declan O’Brien intended. All of a sudden our protagonists become master strategists, coming up with complicated plans instantaneously, and even weirder – they work! These schmucks, who couldn’t even positively identify a building an hour ago, are able to lure all three mutants into a cell and lock them up. They’re also adamant about sticking together more often than not, which is a nice little touch, except for one guy that they inexplicably leave on the floor covered in the blood of his girlfriend, whose death was more or less his fault. The dialogue even improves a touch; the “porterhouse steak” line got the best non-kill response in the entire movie.

Then the movie enters total batshit lunacy territory, with the kids taking votes on whether or not to go save an injured friend, stabbing the ever loving shit out of one that they assume is one of the mutants, and momentarily breaking the “we stay together!” rule when one drops a crowbar or something and insists on going back (alone) to get it, defending her decision by pointing out “It’s a really good weapon, we need it!” (they’re in the giant heavy branch-filled woods at this point, I should note). Not two minutes ever went by without me howling and applauding at something that I probably wasn’t supposed to be laughing at. It’s hard to get a read on Mr. O’Brien, I should note that this is the first of his three films that I’ve seen that he wrote himself, so perhaps his dull and unfunny (intentionally or not) previous films could have been saved if he wrote their scripts himself? He also delivered the exact same speech to the crowd that he did before WT3, so there’s no telling if he had a different approach this time around or just made an entertaining movie on accident.

He’s also improved with his kills, opting for practical more often than not. And that’s a relief, because his approach to CGI remains as awful as ever. You know when you look at a bright light for a while and then shut your eyes and see this amorphous blob in the middle of your blacked-out vision? That’s what the blood “spray” looks like during what should have been the movie’s best kill, involving a snowmobile. Bad CGI mars the film’s final kill as well, though at least in that case it’s so wonderfully ridiculous I was too busy laughing and applauding to mind much. I will never understand why they would put their best looking effects up front and make the final couple so bad – I guess they figure by then you’re either on board with the movie or not so it doesn’t matter?

If I had any serious critique, it would be that I wish they used the snow setting more. They get to the ‘building’ pretty early on and don’t go back outside until the final 10 minutes, which just seems like a waste of a fun setting (our guys ARE survivalist mutants, after all). Especially when the plotting inside is painfully repetitive; one male character goes off to look at something and then returns to the others, no exaggeration, FIVE TIMES in a row. Sometimes he brings a few others along to “explore”, but it still feels like the movie is caught in some sort of loop. They also take time to point out that the idiots parked their cars in a tow zone, but it has no bearing on anything since their lack of cars isn’t a problem (they’re lost and the sanatorium is shown to be quite far from where they parked anyway). It feels like a remnant from an earlier draft or something. Dammit, I demand tighter plotting from my Wrong Turn sequels!

So yeah, it’s a bad movie, but the good kind of bad. That I was sober and still having this much fun laughing at the nonsense flashing by on the screen is quite telling, I think. If I was watching alone I probably would have hated it, but I’m quite sure this is an improvement on every level from the 3rd, as after all I saw both in the same exact setting (a free Screamfest screening). Still not up to the legitimately good levels of the first 2, but all I can ask from one of these things is that I am entertained on SOME level for most of its runtime, and that it kills a bunch of idiots in satisfying manners (if you recall, the awful CGI on EVERY kill in WT3 ruined any chance of them being worth applauding). I believe it hits DVD next week – invite a bunch of friends over and have a good time!

What say you?

*I have now seen all FOUR Wrong Turn movies in theatrical screenings. I have to be one of the very few who can make this claim. Please ensure it is included on my tombstone.

PLEASE, GO ON...

Exit Humanity (2011)

OCTOBER 16, 2011

GENRE: ZOMBIE
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (FESTIVAL SCREENING)

I guess I just like somber horror movies. Like Stake Land, Exit Humanity spends a good chunk of its runtime on our characters moodily making their way through life as they constantly battle undead creatures (plus a few evil humans), wordlessly and grimly staring around at the fallen world around them, looking for that tiny glimmer of hope. Oh and the score is all strings, that always helps. It’s not a perfect film, but John Geddes solo debut (he co-directed an earlier film called Scarce) is the sort of zombie movie I wish I saw more often: character based, not too concerned with creative ways of killing the roamers, and… uh, in the Civil War.

OK that last one I don’t need to see too often, but I really dug the setting, set a few years after the war concluded (but still lingering in everyone’s mind, with Bill Moseley’s antagonist character seemingly having not gotten the memo that the South had fallen), during a cold Tennessee winter. I’ve been saying for years that not enough horror movies are set in the snow, and while it doesn’t really factor in the plot in any meaningful way, the melting snow and cold gray skies add immensely to the overall feeling of a “dead” world.

Also the setting allows for everyone to have a beard. There’s a weird stigma around beards in modern movies – they’re used to show characters who have let themselves go, or are villains. You never see a Bruce or Sly action movie where they have a nicely groomed beard (indeed, Bruce (playing himself) having a beard was a damn PLOT POINT in the otherwise forgettable What Just Happened?), and my buddy Joe is currently clean shaven because he was advised not to have one for his TV show. LAME. Beards are awesome, period. Between this and The Thing, maybe we can start restoring order.

Back on point, I also liked that the movie had a sort of tragic journey built into its narrative, something that you don’t often see in a zombie movie (in which our hero is usually just trying to escape to some promised safe area). Hero Mark Gibson loses his son early on, and thus commits to fulfilling the boy’s promise to be taken to a waterfall that Gibson had come across during the war and had turned into his metaphorical “happy place” (my words, not theirs). Along the way he encounters the rest of the cast, but it’s essentially a one man show for its first 30 minutes or so, which I also dug.

Unfortunately he has to “share the screen” with Brian Cox as an omnipresent narrator; a descendant of Young’s who is reading the journal that he made about the zombie outbreak. I never care much for narration in the middle of a movie anyway (bookends are fine), but his is painfully on the nose at times and frequently disruptive, as he seemingly butts in every 10 minutes with nonsense that didn’t really need to be said, as if Geddes didn’t trust the stuff he shot to convey the message. It’s almost as bad as in that one Twilight sequel (New Moon?) where they show Bella looking out the window as the seasons change but they also put on-screen depicting the months going by, as if Jack O’Lanterns and Christmas trees weren’t enough to clue us in. It’s 2 hour zombie movie with like 20 zombies – dumb people aren’t going to get this far into it! Just assume the folks watching it are smart enough to understand that our hero doesn’t want to kill a zombie unless they pose a direct threat to him, and then you don’t need the disembodied voice of Hannibal “Lecktor” to tell us as much.

I also wasn’t too crazy about the animated sequences that would often depict far more exciting action than the film offered (if you want a bunch of cool zombie killing bits, do not watch this movie). I don’t know if they were planned scenes that were deemed too complicated to film (one travels along with a bullet being fired from a gun and then going to slo-mo to see the zombie’s reflection in its metal surface before impacting its head), or just a way to break up the movie some, but either way, as with the narration, they are used far too often and aren’t really necessary. The animation itself is great, but it seems like stuff best used for a prologue or to recreate key scenes from the film during the end credits (not unlike Fright Night 3D), not as frequent breaks in the narrative.

One animated bit that I did love, however, was an explanation of other zombie outbreaks over the years. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a zombie movie where the problem was addressed as a recurring thing, like a virus or plague that was wiped out and somehow came back. I liked it because of something that I brought up a while ago, that I was sick of zombie movies where the heroes don’t know how to kill zombies, because at this point they have been a big enough part of culture that the average Joe should know (like vampires – everyone knows crosses and garlic, they don’t need to figure it out in the movie). So this sort of thing helps my case – this is a world where zombies are not only threatening humanity now, but have in the past and will again in the future (that’s where Cox comes in). Love it!

Some digital blood aside (boo-urns!), the movie was technically flawless, and provided some wonderful scope imagery (the rare shots of direct orange sunlight were particularly wonderful and well placed). Acting was great across the board as well, though Gibson’s pained howls early on were a bit Tom Jane in The Mist-y (read: almost laughable). Moseley in particular was quite good, saving his few angry outbursts for when they’d count the most and playing it straight otherwise. Dee Wallace also has a nice turn as a local suspected witch who cures one of our heroes’ wounds, though they stay with her a bit too long – I think I would have liked the movie even more if it was more like an "Odyssey" style journey (or Cold Mountain, to be more exact), with Gibson meeting folks along the way as he heads toward his destination; I almost forgot about the ashes subplot for a while because it seemed he did too.

Still, apart from the narration, the other issues were minor and didn’t detract from the movie as a whole, and with so many zombie movies of late leaning toward more high concept ideas (zombies at a prom! Zombies that sing!), it was nice to see one that take them seriously again, and since Romero wasn’t that successful with his attempt at a zombie western, it was good to see that it could be done well with the right resources and talent behind it.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

DeadHeads (2011)

OCTOBER 16, 2011

GENRE: COMEDIC, ZOMBIE
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (FESTIVAL SCREENING)

Hey remember one review ago when I was championing Exit Humanity for taking zombies seriously for a change? Now I’m going to do the same for DeadHeads, which is a full blown zombie comedy – there are barely even any other zombies in it besides our two heroes, who retain their intelligence and ability to speak even though the few others they encounter (and their trusty sidekick Cheese) are typical moaning/drooling dolts. In lieu of zombie action, it’s the sweet and quite funny tale of a guy seeking to tell his girlfriend how he feels about her and give her the engagement ring he had in his pocket prior to being killed.

The backstory is that these zombies are the result of yet another military experiment, and since our guys are the most successful test subjects, the agents want them back. So it becomes a road/chase movie, with our heroes heading back to Michigan to meet up with the girl, all the while evading a trio of hardasses that are hellbent on capturing them. It’s very much in the spirit of 80s teen comedies (if the Brent character was a girl it would almost feel like A Sure Thing), right down to one of the military guys being an alpha male macho douchebag that William Zabka would have played if the movie HAD been made in the 80s, and the hero having to prove to his girlfriend’s dad that he is worthy of her hand.

But it’s funny as hell. The random asides, Brent’s slightly stoner-esque but endlessly enthusiastic nature, and even the slapstick-y elements involving their deteriorating zombie state play great – the audience was laughing at all the right spots, with very few clunkers. The script is also careful with its movie references; this is in “our world” so they have the Transformers movies and such (I think I even caught a Cast Away reference), and even go see Evil Dead at one point, but it never becomes too winky or even strained – they naturally feel like the sort of things an obvious slacker type like Brent would watch and reference once he found himself in the situation (as I might).

As the hero Mike, Michael McKiddy is quite charming and makes an impression even though Brent (Ross Kidder) gets most of the funny lines. It goes on a bit long, but when Mike finally meets up with his girlfriend and delivers a little speech (while in a ridiculous mascot costume, posing as another classmate at a reunion so he can hide his zombie status), you can really feel for the guy. The movie doesn’t have them eating anyone, or even killing their attackers despite numerous chances to do so, so zombie or not, it’s quite easy to accept them as true heroes, not “well they’re zombies but they can’t help eating people” characters such as Bub or whatever.

Also, since one of my few issues with Exit Humanity was that the “bury the ashes” quest was seemingly forgotten for a while, I liked that it kept moving, never letting us forget why we were on this journey. I forget/missed where the journey began, but it takes a few days to get to Michigan, thanks to a few setbacks (mostly the constant threat of the military). They are aided by a guy named Chuck who doesn’t seem to notice/care that they’re zombies, and he (oddly enough) has his own ashes quest to complete that provides a nice little subplot as well as a motivator for Mike, as Chuck’s sadness over the loss of his beloved makes him further realize the importance of love and all that corny shit that wouldn’t work if you didn’t like the characters. Not Shakespeare, but its more than you can usually expect in a zombie film (that I saw two zombie modern movies in a row with characters I cared about is just sort of mind-blowing. Kudos, Screamfest!).

I just wish the finale wasn’t so extended. Everything is about him getting back to the girl, and he does that at the reunion, but then the military guys cause a problem, they get taken away, then another plot twist and they’re back on the road, seeking to meet her at a second location. I think everything could have gone down at the reunion with no jump in time and it would have worked just as well if not better, as it makes the second scene a bit anticlimactic. Also, on the outtake reel we see a better resolution to a goofy subplot about one character’s “detachable” body part than was presented in the film itself, which is a bit odd. Put that stuff back in!

According to the post-film Q&A, the film has secured distribution in most major territories, but not the US. This doesn’t surprise me – it’s an original, crowd-pleasing horror movie. The US distributors only want remakes and sequels, or movies that can shock and awe. That Serbian Film or Human Centipede 2 may have better theatrical releases in the US than this movie is just plain depressing. But by this point I’m sick of trying to convince you guys to show more support for the original horror movies that come around, because no one apparently listens, so I’ll just say that I wish Brett and Drew Pierce luck on their attempt to secure an acceptable release for their charming and very fun movie. I will also suggest maybe they throw a “2” at the end of the title to increase their chances in a marketplace that seemingly punishes those who dare to make a movie that won’t already have a built in awareness.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Crawl (2011)

OCTOBER 15, 2011

GENRE: THRILLER
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (FESTIVAL SCREENING)

Not every movie has to be rewatchable in order to be considered good/great. There’s nothing wrong with seeing a film and loving it but not having the desire to see it again, especially when they are built around suspense, toying with the audience’s expectations of what will happen next. Crawl is one such film; for 90 minutes I was pretty captivated by the on-screen action, having no idea where the story might go next, and that is the movie’s best asset. There’s no complicated story to piece together or “highlight” scenes to revisit on their own like, say, the Michael vs Laurie showdown in H20 (skipping the mostly interminable hour before it), but for that initial, in the dark viewing, it works like gangbusters.

As such, I’ll have to keep this one vague (read: short! Everyone wins!), because spoiling too much would be extremely detrimental, and I advise you to go in as blind as possible when the opportunity to check it out comes your way. I will say that it sort of transplants an Anton Chigurh-esque character into a home invasion thriller, and leave it at that in terms of story.

As that nameless character, George Shevtsov is one of those actors that will make you wonder why he hasn’t been in the spotlight sooner (he’s been around for over 20 years), managing to make the guy likable even though he barely speaks and is a cold blooded murderer. His kindly face and hilarious fixation on his appearance (bleeding from a car crash, he stops to put his hat back on) are hilariously at odds with his behavior, and his methodical, two-steps ahead actions when he needs to spring into action are wholly impressive (after watching Sector 7 again last night, maybe I can just appreciate a villain that’s not a total klutz – that goddamn monster gets tripped up more than Ghostface).

On the other side of the movie’s “war” is Georgina Haig as Marilyn Burns (cute), playing the sort of character who you instantly love and know she will kick all sorts of ass when required. The movie’s nearly real-time approach doesn’t give her too much in terms of backstory, but what little we do learn is enough to know she is worth caring about, and even though the movie doesn’t get into it too much, you will really feel the tragedy at the center of the film due to the fact that she doesn’t deserve it. And the lack of cynicism is much appreciated (SPOILER AHEAD – sorry, gotta write something here); she knows her boyfriend “needs to talk” and thus assumes he is going to propose – a lesser film would twist the knife a bit by having her go through an ordeal and then discover he actually planned to break up with her or something, but as we learn early on, her assumption was correct.

Of course the movie could be a shot of a log on the road for all I care, as long as it still had the terrific Herrmann-esque score by Christopher Gordon. How good was this score? I sat in the theater like an idiot tapping it out on my legs during the end credits, that’s how good. And it’s even more impressive when you consider that the eerie QUIET of the film is its other strength, with several nailbiter bits milked for every second of potential suspense and often set to the sounds of absolutely nothing. There’s a wonderful bit with our two leads on opposite sides of a door, waiting for the other to make the slightest sound and give their position away – masterful stuff. I don’t often compare anything to Halloween in a positive way, but the two films have filmmakers that are clearly relishing in their power over the audience, stretching the tension of a moment as long as possible before releasing in satisfying ways.

If the film has one flaw, it’s a silly, pace-breaking scene where Haig’s boss engages in some sexually charged spanking of one of the other employees who apparently owes him money. The film as a whole has a Coen-esque vibe to it (in addition to Chigurh, Blood Simple seems to have been on their mind, and a minor subplot about a stolen gun wouldn’t feel out of place in Fargo), but this bit just doesn’t really fit with the rest of the movie and doesn’t really further the plot along any. I guess it provides the film with another explanation for its title while offering some sort of visual dichotomy between the Stranger and the lowlife boss, but I don’t think it was necessary – we already knew the guy was a dickhead, and the girl getting spanked never appears again in the movie anyway, so there’s no need to further explore her character.

Still, one misstep in an otherwise solid thriller is hardly damnable, even if the film was from a veteran. And thus it’s almost unfair to point it out for a first time filmmaker (Paul China) who has delivered something this assured. Hell, according to the IMDb he doesn’t even have as much as a short under his belt, so to come out of the woodwork with something that works this well is nothing short of incredible. Even Carpenter had to goof around with Dark Star before finding his footing with Assault on Precinct 13, and the Coens worked in various fields (Joel was an editor on Evil Dead, for example) before Blood Simple. China has hit a homerun in his first at-bat, and I eagerly await to see what he does next.

Now, someone get me that soundtrack!

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

The Walking Dead 2.1: "What Lies Ahead"

OCTOBER 14, 2011

GENRE: TELEVISION, ZOMBIE
SOURCE: DVD (SCREENER)

Few could argue that The Walking Dead’s first season was inconsistent; when it was good it was great, and when it was off you might start wondering why you even watched the show in the first place. And with the behind the scenes drama surrounding the show as of late, there was some fear that the show might run itself into the ground faster than you can say Heroes. Well, if "What Lies Ahead", which serves as the season premiere of Season 2. is any indication, we don’t need to worry about a damn thing – if anything, it’s better than ever.

As much as I loved the pilot, there was a minor thing holding it back – it was running a bit close to the comic. The beats taken from the source, while well executed, didn’t feel organic with the new stuff, as if they weren’t sure how far they should stray before returning to familiar ground. But it seems they’ve finally nailed the balance, as the season opener does recreate elements from the comic (I won’t spoil which) but truly makes them its own – when a certain character is wounded, it’s not because it happened in issue whatever of the book and that’s where they should be in the show’s timeline, it’s because it perfectly follows the increasingly dire situation that the episode revolves around.

The premiere picks up more or less where the 1st season finale left off, with everyone driving out of the city, hoping to find a safer refuge. It’s not long before there’s a hiccup – the highway is blocked with cars that were either abandoned or stalled out when their owners died (the logic of this scenario never makes sense to me, but as it is a part of every post-apocalyptic tale ever, I just have to deal with it). Everyone unloads out of the RV or car they are traveling in and gets to work clearing the road and finding supplies – it’s merely an inconvenience at first. But then (spoilers!) zombies show up. A lot of them.

What follows is one of the most intense sequences in the show’s history, possibly THE most. Our group is scattered up and down the highway, and not everyone is aware of the looming danger (zombies may be slow, but they’re not deaf – shouting “WALKERS!” isn’t an option). Also, not all of our characters have made it into the main title credits yet (welcome, Norman Reedus!), which ramps up the tension when two such characters are put in extreme danger. The script wisely gets Rick out of danger early on (he’s the first to see them) and instead focuses on “not so safe” folks like T-Bone and Sophia, plus an attack on one main caster that is no less intense thanks to the close quarter location (the RV’s bathroom) and their complete lack of defensive weapons. It’s a terrific sequence, and while it might seem a bit like they’re blowing their wad putting the big zombie setpiece in the first act, it’s actually a masterstroke when you think about it.

Because as a result of this swarm, one character is separated from the group, and then it becomes a zombie-lite but still intense search and rescue mission, allowing those who tune in for zombie carnage to be consistently engaged (particularly during an impromptu “autopsy” sequence) while also strengthening the characters. Rather than present a fun but ultimately pointless bit where our heroes silently kill anonymous zombies in a sequence made entirely in the editing room, nearly all of the characters get to engage in a little personal drama, all centered around this event. One wants to leave the group, another feels they are responsible, another feels it might be a waste of time, etc. It took 7 episodes, but they have seemingly finally found a way to blend the dramatic beats with zombie action in a way that can satisfy fans of both areas at once.

The dialogue has also improved. I cringed at a few lines here and there (Laurie Holden’s Andrea actually bemoans the “madness of the world” or some melodramatic nonsense along those lines), but most of it sounds natural, particularly a mini-speech that Lori delivers to most of the group, defending Rick’s un-asked for position as leader. Dale also gets a nice bit with T-Bone, explaining how he’s sick of the “needs of the many vs the needs of the few” argument. Darryl (Reedus) still feels a bit one-note (does he even remember his brother?), but I assume now that he has been added to the main cast that they will be giving him more to do as the season progresses. And pay close attention to Rick’s opening lines for a slightly meta joke about Dr. Jenner – good to know they’re listening to us.

Obviously this is just one episode, and while it is a great one, that doesn’t mean next week’s will follow suit – this show has been defined by its uncanny ability to lose its own momentum. But I think the time off and fan responses haven’t been in vain; even if next week’s isn’t AS good, it’s obvious that they’ve found their footing and gained some confidence with their storytelling, and even if they never make another episode as good as this again, I am willing to bet that the worst is behind them.

What say you?

P.S. This means nothing to almost no one, but I want to applaud and give props to AMC’s publicity for doing the watermark on the show in a very unobtrusive way that did not annoy me but also clearly makes perfect sense on their end in terms of using it to catch anyone that uploaded it to the internet. I won’t explain further because I’m sure no one cares, but if anyone from AMC publicity reads this, know that it’s much appreciated to this watermark hating grump. Cheers!

PLEASE, GO ON...

The Thing (2011)

OCTOBER 14, 2011

GENRE: ALIEN, MONSTER
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (REGULAR SCREENING)

I really wish I liked The Thing more, because I have been hoping for a resurgence of monster movies, and thus I could wish this one box office success (would also be good for the genre as a whole, what with just about every horror movie this year tanking). But alas, if this was a hit, future monster movies would be more or less ripping this one off, and even on my daily diet I don’t think I could endure too many of these in my lifetime.

The most offensive thing about the movie is that it actually has no story of note. I guess it’s good that we are spared lengthy passages of exposition that explain where the monster came from and why it’s doing what it’s doing, as those things tend to be terrible. The problem is that there’s no way to discern what the monster wants from its actions in the film, as it changes its MO from scene to scene without rhyme or reason. At one point our heroine (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) points out that if the Thing managed to escape the base it would kill millions of people. OK, well if that’s its plan, why the hell did it “thing out” and cause the helicopter TAKING IT TO THE MAINLAND to crash? It literally had a free and clear ride out of the desolate Antarctic wasteland, and it chose to destroy it.

OK, so maybe it just wants to kill? If so, why does it then go into shapeshifting mode, hiding amongst the Norwegian/American mix of scientists? In its native form, it’s a giant monster that can’t be easily killed – it seems like it could wipe out everyone in the base in about 5 minutes if it wanted to. But instead it assimilates one of the humans, resulting in a brief period of paranoia with everyone accusing the other of being the Thing (the line “We can’t trust him!” or some variant thereof is repeated with alarming frequency). Why it would be subtle now after crashing a damn helicopter is beyond my ability to understand things, but whatever, paranoia stuff is always awes-

WAIT! Then it switches gears again, once again revealing itself and (spoiler) wiping out like half of the cast in a single sequence. Now we’re back in regular monster movie mode, so I guess the Thing just got bored or something. But now it doesn’t matter, because none of the movie really makes sense after this point, with the Thing (sigh) once again assimilating a human and driving to its alien ship, apparently with the intent to leave. So our heroes drive after it to stop it, even though for all they know it just wanted to fly home since the humans were all too stupid to bother with anyway. I won’t spoil how things turn out, but I assure you, every decision screenwriter Eric Heisserer (assuming he wrote it; I know better than to assume the only credited writer actually wrote what we’re seeing on-screen) makes from this point is the exact wrong one. It’s a film that just gets worse as it goes; I was actually enjoying it for the first half hour or so but once that chopper crash occurred it began an endless downward spiral, ending on a moment that literally made me yell "WHAT?".

Another major issue is that none of the characters stick out for reasons that involve the script. You can pick out Ms. Winstead for the obvious reason (there is another female but she's just as anonymous as the other guys), and a few others because you might recognize them from a TV show or something (Mr Eko!), but otherwise they all blended together; mostly just a bunch of bearded Norwegian dudes whose functions are interchangeable. Can’t even remember any of their names; I think there’s a Lars but I wouldn’t be able to pick him out of a lineup. The only minor exception is Eric Christian Olson as Winstead’s boyfriend (or ex? They have a history at any rate), who scores a few good lines that sound more like improv than scripted bits (if they were scripted I apologize).

One is in the “test” scene, which starts off great but falls apart. The Thing cannot assimilate inorganic matter (fanfic idea: The Thing vs T-1000 with his “knives, and stabbing weapons”), so Winstead figures out that all you have to do is look at someone’s mouth and check if they have fillings to know whether or not they are human. Which is fine, but as Olson points out, “You're going to kill me because I floss?”. And then like 3 others don’t have fillings either, leaving four question marks. But rather than come up with a new plan, someone who is an accused Thing breaks back into the base, all hell breaks loose, and we never know which of the four were Things to begin with and which got turned in the off-screen chaos. I’m pretty sure you could remove the shapeshifting element from the movie entirely and it would barely affect the narrative.

As for the FX, they’re not too bad in the first hour or so. Director Matthijs van Heijningen Jr. wisely used practical FX (courtesy of Tom Woodruff Jr. and Alec Gillis) for the most part, but they seemingly all have minor but still distracting CG enhancements. The little facehugger type things look great, as do the occasional “botched assimilation” visuals, but when the Thing goes full out at the end (with one character’s face) as it rampages around the ship, it looks like something out of the Mummy movies, and the compositing of the two heroes running from the creature rampaging under the floorboards of the spaceship (huh?) is Syfy level amateur hour stuff. This wasn’t a particularly huge budgeted film, but any big studio film should have better looking visuals than this – especially for the climax of the film. A lame movie can be somewhat saved with a rousing climax – having it the other way around is just inexcusable.

Don’t get me wrong – its otherwise a perfectly made film on a technical level, and again, the first act is quite solid (loved the opening scene in fact). But when I have to cease thinking about the already thin plot in order to remain entertained, I just get angry. Dumb spectacle can be fine every now and then, but they set up something a little more interesting early on, only to abandon it. If you want to make a big monster running around movie, fine - but stick to it, don't occasionally make it look like its smarter than its prey just to break up the monotony. And I never enjoy seeing a good cast wasted in interchangeable roles – I should walk out of this kind of movie wanting action figures of particular characters, not consulting the IMDb to try to remember who was who. Plus, said spectacle doesn’t even look that great when it matters most, so it doesn’t even really work on that level anyway.

What say you?

P.S. Forgot to mention, it’s also a tone-deaf remake of a perfect John Carpenter movie.

PLEASE, GO ON...

Root Of Evil (2003)

OCTOBER 13, 2011

GENRE: ASIAN, SUPERNATURAL
SOURCE: DVD (OWN COLLECTION)

Good or bad, I always respect a movie that I can’t tell where it’s going after the first 15 minutes. I don’t mean like, “I didn’t guess who the killer was”, I mean I wasn’t even sure what genre it would be. Root Of Evil (formerly Acacia) starts off a lot like Orphan, and even seems to be heading into similar killer kid territory (yay!) but switches gears midway through and becomes more of a tragic supernatural/ghost-type story, which might be a “lesser” genre in my eyes (look, I like seeing kids kill people) but was no less compelling.

See, that’s what can happen when you base a horror film around characters, not a particular subgenre. This isn’t so much a ghost movie as it is about a couple dealing with what is obviously an unhappy marriage, and how the things they do to repair it only end up making it worse. If you strip away any supernatural/horror elements, you’re still left with that rather sad story; maybe not as interesting a tale, but there would be SOMETHING there to latch on to. Take the killer out of a slasher movie and what are you left with, 99% of the time? Nothing. A bunch of kids hanging out in the woods and then going home, I guess.

Also, because it’s not really a killer kid movie, we are allowed to see the stuff those films often leave ambiguous for its first half. Not too long after the kid (who seems troubled from the start, using dead bugs in his artwork for starters) arrives at their home, he destroys one of the mother’s hand-knit… things (I couldn’t tell if it was a clothing item in progress or some piece of art). When a fire breaks out in the tool shed, he admits that it was him without any resistance, and when they have a baby of their own he tries to suffocate it. All of this in the first 40 minutes, and again, it’s not a killer kid movie! From a “body count” point of view, it’s a very slow movie, but it certainly doesn’t lack in exciting visuals.

Even better – it’s coherent! It’s a family-based Korean horror film from 2003, same as Tale Of Two Sisters (which it was compared to on its IMDb page), and I was so baffled by that one I couldn’t even manage to write a review. But here, while some elements are left a bit vague, I never felt totally in the dark with what was happening, and those vague moments seemed intentionally designed to spark discussion, as opposed to just being merely confusing. Writer/director Ki-hyeong Park - you're one of the good ones!

That said, it still has a couple of “Whaaaa?” moments, such as when the entire house gets covered in red string, a terrifically weird/creepy visual but one that I can’t logically comprehend. And like Lake Mungo, it seems that the screenwriter couldn’t make up his mind over whether or not the movie had supernatural elements; we see flashbacks that more or less explain everything in a real world way, but then a final shot goes back into supernatural territory. Some of the camerawork also annoyed me; at one point it feels like you’re watching a found footage movie as a lengthy scene goes by without any cuts and the camera constantly whipping around to focus on the most important character of that moment. I get the idea of jarring camerawork to simulate the uneasiness of the situation and such, but when it so closely emulates another type of movie it just takes me out of it entirely.

Also, the mother was obnoxiously slow to react to things. When she sees the kid tearing apart her yarn thing, she just stands there for a few moments before finally walking over to him and putting a stop to it. Likewise, when the fire catches her eye, she not only watches it for a few seconds from her 2nd floor window, she also stops to put on a pair of shoes when she finally decides to run outside and attempt to extinguish it. Since we ultimately side more with her than the father, these moments make it hard to take her seriously, as she comes off as somewhat pathetic.

Still, minor issues in an otherwise fully solid horror film. As I’ve said before, when I nitpick its only because the movie is good enough to care about the things that are a little off. If Mary Winstead delayed too long to react to the damn Thing ripping a guy’s chest apart, I wouldn’t notice – I’d still be steaming about giant plot holes or the fact that this supposed prequel felt a lot more like a remake (right down to the flamethrower malfunctioning in the break room). Plus I have a thing for horror movies that are kind of sad, something that our Asian filmmakers excel at. When I was watching Hell Night at the New Bev I started pondering the exterior reality of the film, how much of a bummer it was that these kids were all dead when they were pretty likable – but I had to go way outside the box and overthink it to reach that point. In this (and other K-horrors, such as Whispering Corridors), the tragic fallout over the loss of a loved one is actually part of the plot.

If I didn’t already like the movie, my tune would have improved, maybe even changed after watching the interview with the director, where he starts off by saying that he likes horror films. Yay! After that Barilli guy the other day, this was a relief. Not that it can’t be done, but I think the number of good horror movies that are made by directors who don’t care for the genre is a very small one. Even if they want to lean toward the more dramatic side of the story, it is essential that a filmmaker respects the craft behind a good horror film and knows what makes them work. Otherwise, you end up with Perfume Of The Lady In Black, where a bunch of cannibals show up out of nowhere in the last 30 seconds because the filmmaker doesn’t think horror movies need to make sense anyway.

Said interview is probably the best feature; the 3 behind the scenes featurettes are pretty bland (and needlessly separated – they’re all the same sort of fly on the wall look at the film’s production), and the interview with the actors is a bit too dry for my tastes (the actress comes off as quite snobby, actually). I also enjoyed the commentary by Park, actor Jin-geun Kim, and one of the producers (name escapes me), though if you aren’t interested in the technical aspect of filmmaking I wouldn’t recommend it; they discuss things like cranes and dolly tracks at length, and even detail the process of digital grading at one point. However, they also provide a little context for the adoption process in Korea (tougher than ours in the US), and like the Italians, aren’t afraid to be candid over what they feel is a poor acting choice or bad effect. But most importantly, they joke around with one another and bust balls every now and then (particularly at the producer, who apparently had to maintain the fake grass on set in addition to his more legitimate functions). As the interviews and behind the scenes material on most Asian horror that I’ve seen is quite serious in tone, it’s nice to hear them having a little fun. Also, thank you Palisades Tartan for including subtitles for the commentary – I’ve actually come across Region 1 titles with foreign language commentaries sans any way for the typical Region 1 user to make use of them. It makes up for the lack of a dub track for the film itself, though luckily it’s not a very dialogue heavy movie so I was able to focus on the main part of the frame most of the time.

If you can’t stand slower paced horror movies, I wouldn’t recommend this one – it wouldn’t change your mind the way something like Session 9 might. But if you are a fan of those and/or of Asian fare, this is highly recommended. More accessible than Two Sisters but far from a generic ghost movie, it’s the sort of offbeat entry I wish I could stumble across more often. Plus, any movie where a little kid claims that his mom is a tree is automatically a winner.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...