Nightmare Factory (2011)

OCTOBER 20, 2012

GENRE: DOCUMENTARY
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (SCREAMFEST)

There's a point in Nightmare Factory where the participants speak about the glory days of makeup FX guys like Tom Savini, Rob Bottin, Rick Baker, etc, and how they were sort of the attraction for a lot of moviegoers, the way people will flock to a movie that has Will Smith or directed by Spielberg. And they're talking about the early 80s, but for me, I remember the first time I did that was for From Dusk Till Dawn, which is fitting since the doc is primarily about the KNB EFX group that supplied that film's creatures and gore.

Now, obviously I was interested because of Tarantino as well, but I remember poring over the pre-release "Fangoria" about the film, marveling at all the crazy designs that they were discussing (and showing!), thinking that this would be the Citizen Kane of horror movies. And while it didn't quite unseat Halloween or The Thing or whatever for me, I certainly wasn't disappointed, and to this day I have always taken slightly more interest in a horror flick that boasts their (now Oscar-winning) FX work.

Thus, I was excited about a feature documentary about the team, though it skews heavily toward Greg Nicotero (the "N" of KNB), with relatively minimal participation from Howard Berger and none at all from co-founder Robert Kurtzman, who left the group a while back. According to the movie, he just wanted to get out of the business and return home to Ohio, which is odd because he left and began directing his own movies and continues to do occasional makeup work. It's not a slight on the film - Nicotero seems to be the one who is most likely to go buy a ticket for the latest slasher sequel, and is the one who goes on set to work the FX while Berger is in the shop and thus seemingly has closer relationships with some of the filmmakers who appear in the doc (Frank Darabont, Tarantino, John Carpenter, etc), but it does add to one of the film's issues - it's all over the place.

Early on, we meet Nicotero's family; his son is into similar fare (but his favorite movie is Transformers 2!), he plays Frisbee with his daughter, etc. But after this early scene, which seems to suggest the doc will be a movie about how this man balances a normal family life with a career that mostly involves blowing fake heads apart, the family disappears until the end (Berger's family, seen in a giant portrait behind him, never appears at all). Similarly, the changing landscape of the business (digital, people not giving them enough time to create something worthy) is given lots of attention, but doesn't seem to be an actual problem - KNB is just as prolific now, and there's no one really above them, so there's a lack of drama to their job field too. And that's a common thing throughout the movie; Elijah Wood appears early on to discuss forming a company with Nicotero, but it's never mentioned again, despite being positioned in the sequencing as if it was something that would be a major story thread.

But what it lacks in focus and a strong through-line, it makes up for in a fairly jaw-dropping visual resume of just how much these guys have been responsible for over the years. Even if you discount pretty much every Darabont, Tarantino, Rodriguez, and Eli Roth film, you have their work on Tremors sequels, Evil Dead 2/3, Pumpkinhead 2, Jason Goes To Hell... not to mention non horror projects like Dances With Wolves and Narnia (and, not mentioned in the film, but Wahlberg's cock for Boogie Nights!). Even if you mute the film you can probably entertain yourself with the sheer number of creatures and puppets you see throughout its 90 minutes, plus a ton of terrific zombie bits (mostly from Walking Dead) and a few "normal" kills.

They also dive into how much effort they put into their creations. At one point, Tarantino was going to swallow his dislike of digital FX to do the big crash in Death Proof, because there was "no way" he'd be able to pull what he had in mind practically. Nicotero and his team worked tirelessly to figure it out, utilizing his own expertise in the field as well as his background in human biology (he was in med school for three years, took time off to work on Day of the Dead and never went back) to create that fantastic bit. There's also a hilarious little anecdote where he calls on his doctor father to explain how an eyeball would react when its owner's head was squished with a vice (in Casino), rather than just do whatever looked cool.

But the funniest bit comes from Carpenter, who explains that FX guys are the biggest divas in show business, and then we hear both sides of a story from Ghosts Of Mars where Carpenter put a camera down in a place where Nicotero thought that the "ghosts" wouldn't be seen too well and thus were dressed with masks and such just to fill out space (i.e. not meant for the closeup camera action that they were going to get). So he pointed it out to Carpenter, who was like "No one but you will notice!". It's a funny little bit where neither side is painted as being in the wrong (who can be mad at Carpenter?) capped off when the Master, true to form, takes another drag off his cigarette.

And that's the thing about the movie - any one scene is great and entertaining, even moving at times (Nicotero showing his son a little book of monsters that he drew as a child, for example), but it only touches on (or glosses over) many elements that deserve their own complete film. That, and the odd depiction of Kurtzman's post KNB career, gave me some reservations, though not enough to keep me from enjoying it. Maybe it will inspire someone to put the three of them (and their collaborators) together for an oral history book - with tons of photos it could be the best coffee table book ever for a horror fan.

What say you?

Tweet

PLEASE, GO ON...

Paranormal Activity 4 (2012)

OCTOBER 19, 2012

GENRE: GHOST, MOCKUMENTARY
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (REGULAR SCREENING)

I was one of the first to champion the original Paranormal Activity; my review was up before the film even had an IMDb page, and the filmmakers used quotes from that review (without asking me) for two years until the film got a release date, at which point my thoughts were replaced by bigger critics. Yet, I've never been invited to a single press screening of any of its sequels, which is why I once again found myself in a regular audience for Paranormal Activity 4, where jaded critics are replaced by chatty teenagers. Maybe I should just wait for DVD from now on for this series.

The series is distributed by Paramount, who were also behind the Star Trek films, which became infamous for having a tradition of the even numbered movies being great and the odd numbered ones being... well, the ones that make those even ones look even better. It seems like this has been balanced with the PA series, as the first and third films are its best, with PA2 and this one being very underwhelming in my opinion. And since it's based around a thin concept and a particular novelty, I'm not sure that they can pull off a "good" PA5, as even PA3 suffered a bit from franchise fatigue.

To its credit, this is actually the first proper sequel in the series; PA2 was mostly a prequel about Katie's previously unseen sister and her family experiencing similar events about a month before the first film took place, with a "present day" epilogue showing ghost Katie killing them all and taking their infant son, Hunter. PA3 ignored all that for a story about the two of them as children, but now we're finally in the present day - after a recap of 1/2's events, we flash forward to 2011, where Katie and the now grown child live in Nevada. However, the focus is on a new, unconnected family that live across the street from them, and who get involved when Hunter keeps wandering over to their backyard to play in their treehouse.

From there it's the same old shit; the family's teenaged daughter is fond of filming everything she does, and after seeing 1-2 freaky things, she enlists her boyfriend to set up 3-4 Macbooks with webcams to record all day, provided no one thinks to close the damn things. They also set up what I think is a real camera (hard to tell; no one ever uses it or even notices its there, so it couldn't be a giant Macbook, right? But how does it record all day? Shit, I'm putting more thought into these movies than the filmmakers again) in the living room, and that one is used for the film's only real creative touch. Apparently, the Xbox Kinect sets off infra-red signals that register as little dots of light when filmed with a camera on night-vision (which turns off and on on the camera at will!), so when the lights go on we see this Matrix-y view of the room, and if someone walks into frame we can see the little dots shift around a bit. It's a typical element of this series; something is set up and we see how it "works", and then an hour into the goddamn movie they finally pay it off, as someone walks downstairs, followed by a ghost who ONLY appears via the shifting dots of light. Ooooh. It's actually creepier when we see the family's son Wyatt (who is Hunter's age, in fact - more on that in a bit) playing some sort of Kinect Boxing game against the ghost, and I couldn't help but wonder if it would have actually been a better use of the game system to see an on-screen Xbox Avatar moving around when "no one" was in the room, perhaps making "beating a guy to death" motions or something. Why not, it's not like the product placement is going unnoticed anyway - go all out!

But that's the only new idea. The 2nd film introduced the idea of multiple stationary cameras, and the 3rd had the awesome oscillating fan-cam... this one has green dots. At one point we see a Roomba, which I thought was foreshadowing the idea of setting a camera on the little guy and having a robot cameraman film all night, but alas. I guess the Skype/laptop thing is new, but when we're actually looking at it as the viewer, it doesn't look any different than a regular camera (maybe blurrier), and the girl's omnipresent phone-cam still shoots half the movie anyway. I'd say a full 15 minutes of the (not very long) movie consist of her using her phone to shoot her boyfriend's reaction (or vice versa) as they watch the previous night's footage. They do milk the idea for one scare - someone is using Skype and thus close enough to the camera to obscure anything that might pop in behind them, and that is exactly what happens (though, like the green dots, by the time it does you've already seen 5-6 false buildups to such a moment).

In short, it's status quo, but without any ambition or novelty to it. It's as if the filmmakers (same guys who did PA3) forgot that they not only have three full films of this stuff to live up to/top, but also the 587 other found footage movies that have come along since the first PA blew up in 2009. I mean, I don't expect to be scared too much at these things anymore (two good jolts), but even the crowd didn't seem to be too impressed, laughing more than screaming at the scares and not reacting at all to the "Night #_" title cards. I remember in the others, people would murmur and mutter "Oh no...." when those cards came up, but here there was nothing. To be fair, it wasn't a very packed house (I went at 5:30, hardly a "prime" showing), so maybe some of the energy was diffused, but apparently the film only got a "C" Cinemascore, which doesn't bode well.

It also frustratingly expands the mythology once again without answering any questions. It's interesting that they are following the Saw model with the yearly releases, but going about it in the opposite way; each Saw entry tied elements together from previous films while hinting at bigger threads to come - it was a fine give/take relationship with the audience that would keep us coming back. But here, they don't even try to resolve anything - we get a half-assed explanation for why a young male is needed, but nothing about the cult at the end of PA3 (is that even them at that one key moment?), or why Katie can appear as a normal (more attractive than ever, in fact) woman to the hero family, or why Toby can seemingly haunt the neighbors when Katie isn't even around.

But the most obnoxious subplot is the midway suggestion (SPOILER!) that Hunter is not the kid with Katie, but Wyatt. We learn that Wyatt was adopted, but otherwise there isn't even the slightest bit of explanation of how this could work. So Katie kidnapped Hunter, gave him up for adoption where he was taken in by this family, and then she kidnapped another kid and just happened to move across the street from them? What the hell sense does that make, even for a horror movie? Again, it's another example of the writers of this series just pulling shit out of nowhere, and then likely not bothering to explain it in the next one. The cult stuff worked because it was creepy as hell and came at the very end of the film ("Oh cool, the next one will be about the cult!"), but there's nothing creepy about Katie being an indecisive kidnapper, and it's just obnoxious to set up the possibility at the halfway point without following through in the finale.

Then again, perhaps it WAS explained and it got cut. As always, the trailer had footage we didn't see in the movie, but there are noticeable jumps in the film itself. The family cat makes its first appearance when it runs through the frame quite a ways into the movie, where it's so fast I wasn't sure if it was a cat or a dog - and he then disappears for the film's third act. Why set up a cat and not use it for a scare? The parents are having marital issues that are never explained/resolved, Alex seemingly has no life outside of her home (for someone who films everything she does, why no footage of school, hanging out with her friends, etc?), and despite making a big deal out of recording everything, after a while they don't even bother checking the tapes, or else Alex would be pretty terrified at, say, footage of the night the ghost lifted her above her bed while she slept. There's also a bit where a character is being dragged around by Toby, and then there's a cut to them running around outside, still filming, and asking for help. How did she get free? Did the ghost let them go?

See, when you have this much indifference to simple things like character and plot, it makes it even harder to get into the series' reason for existing: scaring people. Sure, the occasional jump scares work, but there's no inherent creepiness, no building sense of dread or anything that would make you think twice about being alone in your house that night. And that's because screenwriter Christopher Landon and filmmakers Henry Joost and Ariel Schulman don't give us a single reason to care about any of these people (are the parents even named on-screen?), and present a plot that relies heavily on theoretical ideas for next October. Worse, the movies are so cheap to make (the entire series combined cost less than the opening weekend of any of them) that Paramount has no reason to try harder next time; if those budgets stay in check they can pretty much go forever banking entirely on people like me who just go see any horror movie that's playing (unlike the Saw films, which got more expensive as they went on because the filmmakers actually gave a shit about doing something new - and also had an actual story that eventually ran out of room). My advice, if they want it - aim at making PA5 a finale (or at least, one that COULD be) and take a page from Lovely Molly, where the "found footage" aesthetic is mixed with traditional filmmaking. If there's one studio in the world that knows how to keep a franchise going after its finale, it's Paramount (Friday the 13th The Final Chapter, anyone?) - so it sure would be swell if they let their audience dictate if they even WANT another one by rewarding our patronage with an actual movie next time.

What say you?

P.S. If you stay after the credits (not a big commitment, they're only like 2 minutes long) you will see a teaser for a Latino-themed spinoff that they are planning. Hopefully the finished film will A. have the subtitles this teaser lacked and B. be better than this thing.

Tweet

PLEASE, GO ON...

Screamfest: Short Blocks 3 and 4

OCTOBER 19, 2012

GENRE: SHORT
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (SCREAMFEST)

I didn't do a dedicated shorts post for last year's Screamfest, because quite frankly very few of them were worth discussing in detail - and the two best ones I saw I had already seen elsewhere. But they came roaring back this year; the first two blocks were pretty good and then tonight's 3rd and 4th blocks were just incredible - I was legit blown away by several of them, and I at least enjoyed something about ALL of them - not a single outright stinker. And thus for the first time ever, I don't need to highlight the ones I liked and ignore the others - what follows are my thoughts on all THIRTEEN shorts that played Friday night!

Fade Into You
One of the few shorts of the night that didn't have a giant crew that could have pulled off a feature, this was an impressive, darkly "romantic" tale of an unhinged individual who hasn't gotten over his ex (and since she's played by Danielle Harris, who can blame him?) and thus stalks her and her new boyfriend, played by AJ Bowen. Harris admirably pulls off finding that schlub attractive, and the scope image nicely fits its Halloween-ish scare scenes. Good stuff courtesy of actor turned director Michael Rosenbaum, who was seemingly dipping his toe into the water before diving into feature work (a comedy called Old Days that is now in post-production).

Eaglewalk
Oh man. OH MAN! I loved every second of this love letter to "Summer Camp" horror films of the early 80s, like The Burning, Friday the 13th, and Madman. The killer is a giant ape man, and I swear, if director Rob Himebaugh wanted to claim the film was an actual unearthed relic from 1982, it'd be pretty difficult to spot the "proof" that it wasn't. Supposedly a feature is in the works; I cannot possibly be more excited, and I pray Himebaugh and co. get everything they need to do it justice.

HENRi
Not really horror, this is a sci-fi story with heart; think Wall-E fused with a sad amnesia tale and you'd be on the right track. A terrific score and not one but TWO Black Christmas actors (Margot Kidder and Keir Dullea, though the latter is more likely there to play up the film's 2001 influence) are just icing on the cake, and the robot (a terrific, seamless blend of practical and CGI) is one I'd run out and buy an action figure (or model) of in an instant, if they merchandised independent short films, that is.

Incident on Highway 73
A very creepy, inventive piece about a couple who take a scenic route through the desert and end up breaking down. But it's not the usual thing; the car seems to be the victim of an EMP-type phenomenon in the area, one that also crippled a minivan nearby. But where is the family that it belonged to? And what's with that mass of clouds and lightning a few miles away? I won't answer it... because I don't really know, nor does it matter. This is ambiguity done right, and I want to give HUGE props to the director and his FX guys for the amazing sequence with a character holding on to their seatbelt in order to keep from being sucked away by (SOMETHING).

Suckablood (click to see the full version!)
This was the filmed version of a delightfully twisted nursery rhyme, featuring incredible creature FX and a terrific location enhanced by Sin City style CGI. Also, narrator Ben Tillett has one of the best voices ever - I'd listen to him reading the phone book.

The Captured Bird
Visually wonderful, this was probably the weakest of the lot, as the story was paper-thin and not particularly compelling. Thankfully, it was short; perhaps it could be better utilized as the "story" part of a music video? Still, when the weakest entry is still worth a look, you know you're watching a damn fine collection of work.

Other
A single character tale of a guy looking to cure himself of cancer, this one reminded me of Survivor Type in that it went on a bit long but was saved by the actor's performance and the incredible makeup work on his final stages of "treatment". Weird final shot though - I liked it because it was serious, then they throw this nutty nonsense in... make up your mind!

PostHuman
I actually saw this one at Fantastic Fest, and I still think it's too damn short and clearly exists to raise interest in future installments, but it was fun to watch again - the animation of the dude being ripped apart is extraordinary. Hopefully the PostHuman world will expand sooner than later.

Vicki
There are fewer weirder ideas for a short than a parody/homage to John Carpenter's Christine (with a touch of Drive), but that's what Vicki is. There's no Dennis character, but the guy playing "Arnie" is amazing, with his ridiculous outfits and colorful headphones, and the bullies may seem ridiculous to a newcomer, but they pretty much act exactly like the actual characters from the film. I have no idea what possessed them to do it, but I fully endorse their decision. Now do Maximum Overdrive!

Root of the Problem
Anyone who hates the dentist (most people) will be amused/terrified in equal measure by this Twilight Zone-y account of what REALLY goes on when you get knocked out for a root canal. The makeup effect (I won't spoil its nature) is truly impressive, and the coloring/set design reminded me of Bioshock in a way.

Killer Kart
YES!!! Much like Eaglewalk, this piece from director J. Feeney had me grinning like an idiot the entire time. The title explains it all - there's a killer shopping cart menacing the night staff of a grocery store, and it's played mostly straight, which of course makes it funnier. The explanation is one of the funniest things I've ever heard, and the final sight gag left me wanting more. Also like Eaglewalk, this was a student short - can't wait to see where they go from here.

The Other Side
A few minutes into this, I had the passing thought that the house they were using reminded me of the house in High Tension. I didn't think much of it until the residents of the house were attacked, and the protagonist - a visiting female - got on a truck in an attempt to rescue one of them. At this point I was actually kind of concerned, and then sure enough, the short has the exact same twist as Aja's film. Unlike Vicki (which acknowledged Carpenter, King, etc in its credits), there is no mention of Aja or anyone else in the film to let us know that this is an intentional homage, yet the similarities are far too numerous for it to be coincidence. So I just don't get it, I guess? It's well made, the fake killer has a terrific design, and it stars the wonderful Jennie Jacques (from Truth Or Die), and if you haven't SEEN High Tension it will play great, but I struggle to think of a good reason to put all this talent and effort to waste, copying a well-known film so closely.

Vadim
I didn't know what to make of this one at first, which had a couple moving into an old apartment with a weird box nailed to the floor. But once I got what was happening, I really got into it, and started wondering why no one had done it before. Bonus points for one of the best "strain your eyes" background scares in ages!

Again, kudos to all of the filmmakers for making such great stuff, and Screamfest for putting it all together in a way that flowed wonderfully - scary films, fun/gory pieces, even some sad stories... a perfect roller coaster sequence. And if you know of another of these shorts that are available online, please let me know - I'd be happy to link it up (I looked for a few others, but Suckablood was the only one I found). However, in Eaglewalk's case, I think you're better off watching it with a crowd of like-minded folks, just to add to that old-school feeling where a new horror film would be packed with excited fans. Congrats to all of the filmmakers - I look forward to ALL of your future endeavors!

What say you?

Tweet

PLEASE, GO ON...

Wrong Turn 5 (2012)

OCTOBER 18, 2012

GENRE: MUTANT, SURVIVAL
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (SCREAMFEST)

I was pleasantly surprised to discover that Wrong Turn 4 was a pretty fun entry, since it was from Declan O'Brien, the same guy who made the abysmal Wrong Turn 3. And thus, I was somewhat hopeful for Wrong Turn 5, since O'Brien was back and maybe now he knew how to go about it. But alas, it's just as bad as (possibly worse than) WT3, so now I'm at a total loss - my only explanation is that 3 and 5 (the bad ones) were shot in Bulgaria, whereas the other, GOOD ones were made in Canada. Score one for our Northern brothers!

But I still think perhaps Mr. O'Brien just tapped into something on WT4 that he tried to recreate here without understanding what it is we liked about it. It wasn't so much that the deaths were elaborate and over the top - the movie actually had some genuine (accidental?) suspense and a good setting, and the kids were likable enough to care about their fate but not so much that we wouldn't laugh a bit when they died. Here, he opts for something horribly mean-spirited, where the nice people are killed most viciously, and the traps are so elaborate that it becomes ridiculous (even for a horror movie) that they're going to all of this trouble. For example, they grab two of the guys in the group in the middle of "town" (more on that later), but rather than just kill them there, they for some reason drive them out to the local school's soccer field, buries one of them up to his head, and chops his head off with a snow plow. Even Jigsaw would be wondering why they went through all of that, even if we somehow believed that a trio of mute mutant rednecks would have that much patience and brainpower to pull it off. Plus, they're cannibals - why would they bury their food?

And it's just VILE. When the nicest girl of the group is killed early on, it's fine - it works as a nice sort of Psycho-ish twist because she seems like the most likely Final Girl. But when another girl gets her eyes poked out and then Doug Bradley (as the brothers' caretaker - the familial relation, or where the hell he came from, is never explained) threatens to rape her, and then seemingly will get his wish at the film's conclusion, it's the furthest thing from the fun or funny tone that O'Brien was seemingly going for. Oh, and another character has to blow their own head off with a rigged shotgun in order to avoid being immolated to death. Yeah, real knee-slapping stuff.

Oh, and everyone is a complete idiot. The kids, fine - they're a group of assholes going to a "Burning Man" type festival (albeit one that only lasts a few hours, apparently), so we know right off the bat that they're not the best decision makers (or math prodigies - "Four tickets at 90 bucks a pop, that's 260 bucks..."). But the local police are just as stupid; one cop sees three armed mutants running for him and he just says "What the hell?" instead of drawing his weapon, and the sheriff makes carefully thought out plans like giving shotguns to the town drunk and a kid who was taken in for carrying drugs and assaulting someone, utilizing a ham radio to ask a kid in New Hampshire to call the state police, etc. And there are only 3 of them, I guess (the other one is too busy banging some girl in his car at the festival), because despite this huge festival going on, no one thought to hire extra security, bring in cops from the next town, etc.

Then again, the festival doesn't seem to exist anyway. We see people walking the streets and news reporters early on, but when night falls and the action focuses on the police station, it becomes a ghost town - we can't even hear the festival, let alone see it, despite the fact that it was established to be pretty much on the same block. Also, the town set is one of the worst I've seen; you know those tram tours at Universal Studios where they show you the sets for old west towns or whatever, and they look fake in the daylight without movie coloring and appropriate actors nearby? Well this movie looks faker than that, somehow. Hell, they could have green-screened disproportionate still images of a town behind the actors and it wouldn't look as cheesy. The accents don't help the movie's complete lack of authenticity, either - it's supposedly West Virginia but everyone sounds like a European trying REALLY HARD to hide the fact that they're not, which makes the painfully stupid dialogue sound even worse.

The plot also has zero drive. Hilariously they seemingly took my suggestion from my review of WT3, opting for an Assault on Precinct 13 type story where a bunch of folks are assembled at the police station as the mutants attempt to free one of their own (Bradley). But they sure drag their heels doing it; despite having weapons and brute strength (and even more intelligence, it seems), they never really try to get into the station - they will drive nearby and kill someone that comes out, but then they'll take off again. In fact, they never really enter the building at all; Bradley more or less frees himself, probably because he got sick of laughing and saying "My boys will come for me" every five minutes, which is pretty much the extent of his role.

Of course, beloved genre icon status aside, we're here to see the three mutant brothers, not a guy in a jail cell, so that's fine. After all, the reason that this and 4 are prequels is because most of the mutants were dead, so this was a way to get them back into the series without resurrecting them, Jason Lives style. But they don't do shit! Three Finger gets his usual amount of screentime, but One Eye and Saw Tooth spend most of the movie just sort of lumbering around nearby, if at all - they seem to disappear a lot. Then again maybe that's for the best, since the makeup job is atrocious. There's a bit of irony to the festival subplot; people are wearing "hillbilly" masks as part of the "Mountain Man" celebration, and honestly the kids pulling pranks don't really look much different than the film's should-be scary villains. And (spoiler) not a single one of them is killed or even injured, so the ending, which is already unpleasant, takes on an extra bit of ickiness. Since Bradley isn't around in the first film, they could have at least killed him off and led this one up right to the beginning of WT1 (with the two random rock climbers), but no, it hints at a Wrong Turn 6 that continues this story, instead of pretending it never happened.

There are a few inspired moments that keep it from being a complete failure, I should note. I loved the way that the title is delivered; "Wrong Turn" appears on screen and then a disembodied hand sticks out its "5" fingers - it's the wittiest thing in the entire movie. There's a pair of pretty good car crashes that seemingly ate up half the movie's budget, and even though it was nihilistic on all levels, at least it wasn't easy to pick the order that the characters die, offering moments of minor surprise. But they don't stick; no one is missed when they're gone, and I wouldn't be surprised if some of it was unintentional - maybe an actor only SEEMED like they would be killed quickly because there was no way that an actor that incompetent would be hired for a major role. Good tune over the end credits, too. So there you go, out of an 89 minute movie, there's about 47 seconds that I was enjoying myself.

Since they're seemingly locked into a certain setup for the next one, I hope they at least ditch O'Brien and hire someone who understands the difference between joyful meanspiritedness (think Silent Night Deadly Night) and just plain contempt for the audience. I know I had the "Bulgaria vs Canada" theory, but come on - the supporting actors and grips aren't responsible for such a hateful script. They can certainly find a director that doesn't try to make jokes about his own movie during a very sparsely attended free screening. Real classy guy!

What say you?

Tweet

PLEASE, GO ON...

Thale (2012)

OCTOBER 17, 2012

GENRE: MONSTER
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (SCREAMFEST)

It was an oddly low-key affair for this year's centerpiece film at Screamfest; while the slot is usually taken by an anticipated film (House of the Devil was the selection in 2009) or something from a Screamfest vet, like last year's Livid (Inside being one of the biggest hits of the 2007 incarnation). But Thale is a Norwegian film from an absent director who was dipping into horror territory for the first time, and attendance was smaller than the movies on Monday and Tuesday nights. Bummer.

Also, their loss, because it was a fine (if imperfect) film that continued a tradition of this year's fest - mostly unique, not very commercial concepts that minimized the sort of imagery you'd probably expect from a "horror movie festival". Not counting shorts, I haven't seen a single zombie the entire time, and the only masked killer was in The Collection, which I believe was shown out of competition anyway. Folks always ask me what movies I'm looking forward to at a particular festival, and then look at me cross-eyed when I say I have no idea - I go in blind as often as possible; sometimes not even remembering the name of the movie I'm about to see. I just GO.

And that probably worked in my favor, because the trailer for Thale plays up the suspense and "monster" stuff, and thus I might have been disappointed to see that it's actually pretty tame; like Resolution, the core of the film is about the friendship between the two male leads, who work together at the "No Shit" cleaning service, mopping up crime scenes and the like. Each man has something they are trying to hide from the other, and while it's understated, the monster and her presence inadvertently helps them get past their issues with their personal lives, and seemingly strengthens their friendship as well. Aww, nice monster.

I shouldn't call her a monster, actually. The eponymous Thale is a human-looking being from a race of woodland creatures that prefer to live on their own and seem pretty harmless unless threatened. Of course, being a genre film, they ARE threatened, by some hazmat-wearing scientist jerks, but that's not until the 3rd act of this not very long movie. At 75 minutes, certain elements don't really have the time to gel, and this would certainly be one of them - they're like the villainous version of those commandos that show up out of nowhere at the end of Jurassic Park III and save the day so the movie can end five minutes later. And that's not the only thing that felt abrupt about the conclusion; it seems like there should have been another scene between our three primary characters, or at least some attempt at closure, but alas.

But I guess that's par for the course with slow burn films - the payoff tends to be abrupt, as if the filmmaker ran out of patience (not unlike, incidentally, House of the Devil). It takes a while for our guys to come across Thale, and a lot of the time in between that and the finale is spent listening to tapes, trying their cell phones, talking about what the other is hiding from them, etc. In some ways it reminded me a bit of The Devil's Rock (two guys find a female creature that may have been contained for their own good), but that film made up for its contained nature and limited action by having the two men at odds with each other. This almost has no real conflict at all until the hazmat guys show up, so if you're not interested in their characters or just hearing the story of who/what Thale is, this won't be the movie for you.

And that's something that bugs me about a certain type of alleged horror fans - they never seem to care about the characters. Sure, the popularity of Friday the 13th sequels and the like probably groomed them into thinking that we're not SUPPOSED to, but that's what sub-genres are for. I know I'll read comments and IMDb posts for this film that say it's too slow and "nothing happens", and that's because they won't be looking at it through the perspective of these two guys encountering something that makes them re-evaluate their lives. They'll just want to see Thale killing folks or whatever, not realizing that if they want a movie that cynical they can just re-watch whatever monster movie they wish. It's like bitching that your salad doesn't taste like a McDonald's hamburger - just eat another goddamn McDonald's hamburger then! Thus, my advice for anyone going in is to look at it more of a character drama than a horror flick, and let it pull you in that way.

What say you?

Tweet

PLEASE, GO ON...

Resolution (2012)

OCTOBER 16, 2012

GENRE: THRILLER, WEIRD
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (SCREAMFEST)

If science really cared about us, they'd give ticket-buying moviegoers a one time, short expiration dated code to plug into our computer when we got home so we could watch the movie again. It would be a godsend for folks like me who "have" to write about the movies they see after a single viewing, and thus run the risk of sounding stupid when it's a challenging film like Resolution - I have questions that might have been answered in the movie under a different context. I mean, I love to see movies that encourage (but fall short of "require") a second viewing, but the key word there is "see". Not "write".

And this is doubly an issue for a festival film, because even if I understood every frame I'd be afraid to discuss it in detail, because I don't want to spoil anything for people who can't even see it yet. Why couldn't these guys have just made a stupid zombie movie like everyone else? Thus, forgive the vagueness of the review - hopefully it'll get picked up and released soon so I can get that second viewing and we can start talking about its puzzles in detail.

What I CAN discuss without any reservation is how terrific the two lead actors are, and how great their chemistry is; if you told me that they were lifelong friends, I'd believe it. Peter Cilella is Mike, a family man who decides to spend a week attempting to force his estranged best friend Chris (Vinny Curran) out of his meth habit, after attempts at convincing him to go to rehab are unsuccessful. So Chris is chained to the wall and given water and food (and the occasional beer), while Mike starts to explore the surroundings and the mysteries (or "stories") that it contains. He finds mysterious old photos, creepy 16mm films, the occasional weirdo cult member... basically every time he wanders out of the cabin, he encounters yet another "story", and then comes back to talk about it with Chris while continually monitoring his condition.

It's an unusual scenario for a film, but their chemistry makes it work like gangbusters, to the extent that you gotta wonder why you haven't seen it more often. One of the directors said he had heard the film described as "Lovecraftian Mumblecore", but I think of it more like True West meets The Shining - whatever plot elements come into play, it never strays far from its dramatic core about two guys at a crossroads in their lives, one being high and mighty, trying to convince the other to change his ways without ever considering that the guy might be perfectly happy the way he is. Even at the end (no spoilers), they're still just chatting about their lives and the role the other plays in it - it's actually quite endearing. And according to the post movie Q&A, the "mumblecore" description is misleading - the actors didn't stray from the script at all, they're just that good at acting natural (and the writers are apparently that good at writing dialogue that FEELS that way).

The threats are also varied, which helps keep the audience on edge as you're never sure exactly what is posing the danger to our heroes. Mike is seemingly being led on a trail (at one point an old library book is left for him at their door, he returns it to its home and discovers a new batch of photos), but is it someone trying to help, or lead him further into danger? Then there's a couple of crackheads who think Chris stole from them, and the owners of the cabin (Chris is a squatter), a creepy girl who taps on the window in the middle of the night... it might sound (and occasionally feel) like they're just throwing everything but the kitchen sink into the movie just to be random, but there's a rhyme and reason for it all, one that I can't talk about just yet, though I will say that it might make for a fun double feature with (swipe at your own risk!) Cabin In The Woods, as both are commenting on and embracing similar elements of the genre.

If I'm understanding correctly, Tribeca has theatrical rights to the film, and IMDb has it as a 2013 release, which is fine - perhaps it can play a few more festivals between now and then and increase its buzz. Since the horror elements are so minimal it can probably get into "normal" festivals easily (the ones that wouldn't touch, say, Eddie The Sleepwalking Cannibal), and I'm actually kind of shocked it didn't play at Fantastic Fest as it would be a fine fit for that fest's more unique, "alt" programming. And then THIS would have been my second viewing! Stupid Fantastic Fest!

What say you?

Tweet

PLEASE, GO ON...

Eddie: The Sleepwalking Cannibal (2012)

OCTOBER 15, 2012

GENRE: CANNIBAL, COMEDIC, HERO KILLER
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (SCREAMFEST)

With a title like Eddie The Sleepwalking Cannibal, I was expecting a full blown comedic splatter fest along the lines of Dead Alive or something, albeit with a cannibal in lieu of zombies. But to my surprise (and the movie's benefit), it was actually a pretty low-key affair, keeping the comedy limited to dry dialogue and the occasional sight gag while telling a more character driven tale of an artist with a most unfortunate handicap - he can only be inspired in the face of tragedy.

When the film begins, our hero Lars hasn't painted in years, and has taken a job as a teacher at a remote, drastically underfunded art school. There he meets Eddie, a mute, mentally challenged man who just sort of hangs out at the school making fingerpaints, something they allow since his only living relative is a primary donor to the school. But when she dies, Lars agrees to take him in, despite the caveat that he sometimes sleepwalks and kills animals in the process. Lars quickly sees this as a way of getting rid of his neighbor's noisy dog, but there's a slight hiccup - Eddie kills/eats the owner as well. At first he's horrified, but then Lars realizes he's suddenly gotten his creative spark again, and quickly produces a piece that sells for a pretty penny, which he donates to the school.

So basically we have a Bucket of Blood type scenario, except in this case the struggling artist isn't the one doing the killing. Using meat on a string and other tricks, Lars just guides Eddie to the location of a "deserving" victim (some assholes who picked on Eddie, a drunken driver, etc) and lets him do his thing, with the results inspiring yet another piece. Obviously, things spiral out of control before long, as Lars becomes obsessed with producing more work and manipulating Eddie to uncomfortable degrees. The friendship between the two is one of the film's key assets, and it's pretty damn heartbreaking when Lars, needing Eddie to feel stressed and upset, starts mocking him and telling him that he's a loser and that no one else wanted to deal with him. Both actors are terrific, with Thure Lindhardt (who looks like Paul Bettany fused with Simon Pegg) perfectly toeing that line between being a terrible monster and a sympathetic protagonist, and Dylan Smith making a fully realized character without ever getting to speak. I've said before, it's rare that you can watch a horror film (especially one with a goofy title) and walk away impressed with an acting performance; that this film offers two is just extraordinary.

It also offers up a pair of Pontypool actors, which helped to remind me that I STILL haven't read that movie's source novel (I bought it the week after I saw the movie, three years ago!). Stephen McHattie pops up in a couple of scenes as Lars' agent, a complete asshole who seemingly encourages the deviant behavior required to produce the artwork (which we never see, by the way). And the lovely Georgina Reilly plays Lars' colleague and would-be love interest, and gets plenty of screentime here (her Pontypool role was too brief, as I recall). In fact the whole cast is solid; I loved the sheriff, who is immediately suspicious of Lars (they have an amazing exchange regarding a deer that Lars accidentally hits - part of it is in the trailer below), and the school's principal was a delight as well. And even though we never see him, the radio DJ might be my favorite character of the year, though I'll let you find out why when you see the movie

Director/co-writer Boris Rodriguez also wisely keeps the cannibalism to a minimum. Since we're supposed to sympathize with these guys to some degree, it would be pretty hard if we were constantly seeing Eddie murder innocent people (or even seeing the resulting artwork), so everything is suggested or partially obscured until the final reel. But he makes it count that way, and I was legit surprised at the amount of blood a particular character is covered in by the end of the film - you really get a sense of how dangerous things have gotten and why they need to stop. The humor is still there (and I like how his inspiration sort of dries out while he's trying to paint - it's basically treated like impotence), but the stakes are real - the escalation from "Eh, he had it coming" type kills (like the dentist in Little Shop Of Horrors) to "OK these guys are terrible people" is handled perfectly both on the script level and in the direction - not bad for a guy making his first theatrical feature.

It was preceded by Smush, a short film from the guys behind DeadHeads, a great zombie comedy that premiered at last year's Screamfest. A prequel focusing on the character we know as Cheese, it was a fine pair with the film, as both focused on monsters we kind of love (and both had extended audio based gags playing over the end credits, oddly enough), and didn't shy away from practical gore (yay!). It also reaffirmed that there is still potential in the crowded zom-com field, so kudos to the Pierce brothers for pulling that off - hopefully they'll have another feature soon (not necessarily a zombie film - I'd love to see their approach to a monster flick though).

According to the IMDb (...), the film has been picked up by Music Box for US theatrical play, which is great as they've handled tricky stuff before (they did the US releases of the original Girl With The Dragon Tattoo movies) and actually DO put their acquisitions into theaters, unlike certain other studios that may or may not rhyme with Schimension, or Brian's Hate. Obviously it won't be in the multiplexes, but I'm happy it will find its way into genre fans' hands soon. A highlight of the fest so far.

What say you?

Tweet

PLEASE, GO ON...

Curtains (1983)

OCTOBER 14, 2012

GENRE: SLASHER
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (REVIVAL SCREENING)

According to the schedule, Curtains was supposed to start at 11:30, but that didn't happen, so I was able to use it for today's (Sunday) movie - which turned out to be a huge relief since the features at Screamfest (where I'd be spending the OTHER part of my entire day) weren't really horror. Plus it's a golden age slasher, and one of the unwritten goals for the site was to get all of those babies reviewed - sadly it probably won't happen since so many are unavailable on decent formats.

Anyway, Curtains is a title I've been hearing over and over for the past 20 years, but never got around to seeing it - hell I've never even seen a COPY of it. None of my video stores ever had it growing up (unless they were put in the drama section - more on that later), and the only DVD release was a VHS transfer from Echo Bridge. And hell, I only just learned about that or else I would have bit the bullet and watched it that way even though I know it'd look like shit. So hurrah for not keeping tabs on it! I got to see it for the first time in glorious 35mm at my favorite theater.

Sadly, it wasn't worth the "wait". While not without merit, it's a slow, SLOW sorta-slasher that borders on melodrama a bit too often for my tastes. The plot concerns a group of actresses vying for a part in the new project from Stryker (John Vernon), who I guess is like a cross between a genius like Kubrick and a sex god like Warren Beatty. It's kind of awesome seeing John Vernon bed a couple different women in the movie, because he's not exactly who I'd picture if I was just reading the script. And he's a total dick about it, too - at one point an actress he had previously wooed opens a door and sees him in bed with one of the others, and he just gives her this icy look like "You lose, sweetie. Tough shit." It's awesome.

And yet he's probably the most normal, sympathetic guy in the movie. The only other male characters are seen briefly, but long enough to wonder what the hell their deal is. We meet a pervert kid, a mute Michael Wincott (why cast Wincott and not give him anything to say?), and a guy who is the worst rape roleplayer ever, as we see him stalking her from the window and around her apartment for what seems like a full ten minutes before making his move. Now, if he was committed throughout the deed, it'd be one thing, but even though he's doing all this stalking stuff that she can't even see, he "breaks character" like 12 seconds after pouncing on her, which kind of defeats the purpose, I think (she's encouraging it for an acting exercise, for the record - seems like he's doing more acting though?). Oh, and Maury Chaykin as the world's most stereotypical gay/bullshitting agent - I kind of want to see an alternate version of this movie where all of the male characters meet up and discuss how ridiculous they are (while evading a killer, of course).

Now, there's nothing wrong with a movie that favors the women when it comes to screentime, but despite spending all this time with them, they're a bit interchangeable - I guess since they're all up for the same role they WOULD be physically similar, but even their personalities sort of blend together. The main character even comments that they all look alike, which would be more amusing if the script didn't spend so much time on her when the movie isn't really about her after the first act. When the film begins, our heroine pretends to be crazy so that she can be committed and research how real mental patients act for the role, but it starts to get to her, so Vernon leaves her there and assembles the other actresses to take her place. Understandably angry, she escapes, but poses no threat and just sort of hangs out with the other actresses at the remote lodge where everyone has gathered. The best thing they could have done is kept her on the sidelines as a potential suspect, but she's in it so much and says overly silly cryptic things too often, so you know she can't possibly be the killer - it'd be like seriously suspecting Ralph the local nut as the murderer in Friday the 13th. A Psycho-style twist where she died halfway through would have worked too, now that I think of it. Basically, there's a couple ways to do this right, but they did it wrong.

Luckily, it has some terrific slasher setpieces, such as the famous ice skating one and the final chase, which is creepy enough (it takes place around dolls and mannequins, plus corpses dressed to look as such) to forgive the fact that it runs a bit long and should have had the killer's reveal a bit earlier. In a whodunit slasher, I think it's best to have the Final Girl be chased for a bit, then have the reveal, and then a second (shorter) chase. But here, by the time the killer reveals herself the movie is basically over, and it ends without explaining a major element (unless I just missed something; spoiler ahead!). The killer reveals herself, kills someone... and then we see her in an institution, talking to some other patients. Thus, I couldn't tell if the entire movie was in her head, or if she was caught/committed for her crimes. If the latter - why did they skip it? And if the former - why is her delusion so poorly paced?

I also liked the killer's mask, which was probably just bought off a rack somewhere, but it worked - sort of an old crone thing, and it fit the actor poorly, giving it an extra bit of creepiness. The doll stuff also works quite well, even if its connection to the actual plot is never explained - apparently the movie was partially shot, sat on a shelf for a while, and then completed/partially reshot, so there's probably some stuff from the original version that didn't quite fit into the new one but they didn't bother to edit it out. So we have a slasher movie about a crazy actress killing the competition where the scariest bit is a character's dream about finding a child-like doll that proceeds to "attack" her.

But things like that add to the movie's peculiar charm, where the whole thing feels a bit off and dream-like - some of it probably unintentional due to the behind the scenes trouble. And even though there's a lot of talk and not a lot of stalk, the numerous "acting" scenes are fun on their own; I particularly liked when we appeared to be watching a would-be lesbian encounter, only for Vernon to suddenly start yelling at one of them for not behaving enough like a man (I also like that he'd have actresses competing for the same role act as partners in a scene; what is the incentive for the one playing the other role to do well?). The early mental institution scenes are also a delight, particularly the old lady with a habit of tickling folks.

Someday Shout Factory or one of those outfits will get a hold of this one, and I'll pick it up and amuse myself with the bonus features (any movie with this many actresses must have some great, catty stories about the production) while others discover it for the first time. But unless you want the other movies in the set (it's only available in a 4pack, it seems), I wouldn't recommend Echo Bridge's full-frame, likely washed out transfer though - the movie is just OK and thus not worth the eye-strain. You can wait for something better; in fact, next year is the 30th anniversary...

What say you?

Tweet

PLEASE, GO ON...

Frankenweenie (2012)

OCTOBER 13, 2012

GENRE: ANIMATED, MAD SCIENTIST, MONSTER
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (REGULAR SCREENING)

You know I'm too busy when I can't find the time for a HMAD-ready wide theatrical release until its 2nd weekend, but with Shriekfest and a work week that had me on the late shift (why don't theaters open at 9 am?), I just couldn't get to Frankenweenie until now. And honestly, I might have waited longer (I haven't seen Argo yet - seeing a late period Tim Burton movie before the new film from one of my heroes* is not sitting well with me), but the market for stop-motion horror movies for kids apparently dried up with Paranorman, and I suspect that Sparky's adventures in reanimation won't be around in too many theaters by the time I have a free weekend or weeknight again.

And that's a shame, because I think it's just as good as Paranorman, and in some ways better. While that film hit closer to home for me (as the horror loving kid from New England without a lot of friends growing up), the story was uneven (adios ghosts, hello zombies; adios zombies, hello random little sad girl!) and - I know this is a weird thing to "complain" about, but bear with me - the animation was a bit TOO clean; at times it looked more like CGI animated toons instead of traditional stop-motion puppets running across its lavish sets. Frankenweenie doesn't have that problem - it's got quite a few of the little "glitches" (displaced grass around characters feet, for example) that I actually really love to see in stop motion - it somehow *proves* that its a difficult, time-consuming process that requires hands-on manipulation to work (as opposed to a computer doing what you tell it to once the design is out of the way).

See, as I've mentioned before, I used to make little stop-motion pieces for various school projects and such, and grew to really love the process and truly admire the work that goes into professional pieces like this. So when I see that little smudged fingerprint on a puppet's chest, it actually warms me a little - being taken out of the movie for a second is worth the reassurance that in this day and age of lazy filmmaking, there are still some ass-busters out there who will do things the "old" way in order to sell the overall tone and feel of their concepts; a far cry from say, Michael Mann, using the world's shittiest digital technology to tell a story that took place in 1930.

Plus it started with one of the character's own stop-motion home movies, which was just awesome as it showed the difference between a kid doing it for a hobby and what happens when a big team of experts are behind the magic (it's the same process, basically - they're moving stuff a bit and shooting one frame at a time, same as the kid in the movie). It kind of reminded me of Team America, starting on a puppet show before panning out to reveal... a puppet show. But way to win me over right off the bat, as we see little mistakes in his movie (props falling over, the occasional hand) that sent me back to 1995 or so, trying to make my Odysseus (some generic wrestling figure) enter the cave (shoebox) of Polyphemus (a lump of play-dough).

Except the star of this movie is Sparky (né Frankenweenie), playing a heroic dinosaur who saves this makeshift city from a rampaging pterodactyl. And since I knew the plot of the movie, I actually started crying, not two minutes after it began. The animation and design for Sparky is just incredible, and seeing the little mutt happily running around in the movie (and then after, cheerfully following hero Victor around as he prepared to make his next film) just wrecked me, because I knew he wouldn't be around long since the plot revolved around his death and reanimation. It's like in ARMAGEDDON, when Bruce promises Liv Tyler that he'll come back - it's fine the first time, but now when I watch it I get all sad because I know he doesn't. The actual death is handled well (even if they twist the knife a bit by letting him safely cross the street only to get hit by a car on the way back), and while some of the kids in the crowd were successfully killing the tension by asking stupid questions at full volume, I think if they could handle the old lady in Up, or Bambi's mom in Bambi (which gets a shoutout for this very reason, I suspect), they should be fine.

Especially since, obviously, Sparky is brought back in a Frankenstein-esque experiment, inspired by Victor's new science teacher, who gives the most ridiculous/hilarious explanation of lightning ever uttered on-screen or off. The number of scars and body parts that keep falling off suggest that the car really did a number on the poor guy, but he's just as silly and playful as he was when he was alive, which should help alleviate any trauma among the kiddies. But I wouldn't show this to a kid who actually lost his own pet; not only will it give the wrong idea, but the ending (SPOILER) doesn't quite teach us about the consequences of playing God the way its namesake text does. Obviously it makes for a happier ending so we're not soaking our 3D glasses in tears all over again, but still, I think ol' Sparky should have wagged his tail goodbye and let young Victor actually grieve instead of doing what we mournful pet owners can't. I guess it hammers home the film's pro-science slant (the teacher gives a great speech about how we wouldn't be here if not for people experimenting the way Victor does), but come on. Big difference between discovering a way to prevent diseases and stitching together a dog and bringing him back to life to avoid learning about death.

Otherwise, no complaints at all. The black and white style is perfect, as there are a number of references to classic horror (Bride of Frankenstein, Hunchback, Invisible Man, etc) and thus feels just right when Victor's pulling off his experiment, charmingly put together out of household items and makeshift "equipment" - it's one of the best "It's alive!" scenes since the original, I think. And his fellow classmates - all weirdos - are given distinct personalities and designs, which works out perfectly as they are somewhat sidelined for a while and then gradually weeded back into the plot as they catch on to Victor's secret and begin raising their own pets from the grave. Naturally, things don't go as well as they did with Sparky, so the third act is just a treasure trove of monster action as the pets mutate and attack the town during their annual parade.

And the villains have just as much variety as the kids - there's a Gremlins-esque batch of mutant sea monkeys, a cat/bat hybrid , a mummy hamster named Colossus, and the giant turtle taking the place of Gamera. I was actually impressed by the amount of carnage - even factoring in the difficulty of such scale with stop-motion, I just wasn't expecting it to get this crazy. Naturally, things end with an angry torch-wielding mob and our monsters battling at a burning windmill, which is the best kind of reference - I was giggling like a fool, but the kids in the crowd who have never seen a Frankenstein film won't even notice that they're "missing" a joke. Hell even some of the more blatant references still worked on the youngsters - one kid who couldn't have been more than 4 or 5 laughed hysterically when a dog got zapped and was left with a Bride of Frankenstein 'do - there's no way he was laughing at the homage, he just found it to be a funny sight.

It's also a fine return to form for Burton, who has mostly disappointed since... well, Ed Wood, his last black and white film. Maybe color's not his thing (the only one in between I've really liked is Sweeney Todd, which was practically black and white save for the blood and that one fantasy scene), and it's interesting that like Ed Wood, the film is about a relationship between best friends, one of whom appears in the other one's movies. And the town of New Holland is very much like the North Hollywood/Burbank locales that Burton used in that film (he grew up in Burbank and has drawn from it in a number of his films), so the two would make a fine double feature someday. And it's certainly better than Corpse Bride, which was just dull and in no way lived up to Nightmare Before Christmas (which it was aiming for, unlike this which is a more traditional (song-free) tale that just happens to use the format). Needless to say, the (native) 3D is also better than his last foray, which remains the low point for conversions.

The film's middling box office is a bummer, but not too surprising - Burton killed a lot of his goodwill on Alice and Dark Shadows, the black and white look is probably a turn off for many, and again, Paranorman probably stole a lot of its thunder. It's a shame that his best work as a director in ages is going unnoticed by the masses, but then again, so did Ed Wood. Hopefully this won't scare him back into adaptation territory, but if so, at least we know he's still got some of that old spark in him somewhere.

What say you?

*Affleck came out of Boston to star in ARMAGEDDON and become a respected filmmaker. I came out of Boston to tweet about ARMAGEDDON and watch Puppet Master movies. Obviously, he's someone I look up to and would pattern myself after if I had a shred of his talent. Hell, dude even grows a better beard than me.

Tweet

PLEASE, GO ON...

Puppet Master: The Legacy (2003)

OCTOBER 12, 2012

GENRE: PUPPET
SOURCE: DVD (OWN COLLECTION)

Charles Band was clearly just trolling when he opted to name this movie Puppet Master: The Legacy, as it's another entry that serves only to tarnish the "legacy" of his premiere franchise. Basically a clip show with about 20-25 minutes of new footage, the only reason the movie seems to exist is to sort out the chronology for... someone. Newcomers, I guess? Fans who had gotten confused thanks to all of the flashback entries like III and Retro? I honestly have no idea. Maybe Band had two actors and an extra day with a set and figured he could make something out of it. Come to think of it, that's actually probably EXACTLY what it was.

Depressingly enough, it's actually the most entertaining entry since PM4, as it shows the best scene from each movie and thus technically has more puppet action than any of the others. The new scenes involve a badass spy of some sort demanding the secret formula from the new Puppet Master, who turns out is the grown up version of Eric (the kid from PM3), and he tells the stories of the other movies (in crazily specific detail!) just to kill time, I guess. Seriously, I have no idea why he thinks she needs to hear about Rich and his computer program, or the full performance of Toulon's "Divine Comedy" play from Retro. Though at least in the former's case we get some closure - she explains that she found him and the other survivors from PM5 and killed them so she could obtain Toulon's diary. So that's the other thing the movie provides - it fills in some of the narrative holes that occur every time a sequel just does its own thing instead of picking up where the last one left off.

If only it were better assembled! I can forgive the rather random clip selection, but not the fact that Band doesn't even fade or use color desaturation to show us the difference between present day (new footage) and flashback (old). Hell even the sound just awkwardly cuts out in between, as if they had just put the clips in as placeholders for an actual editing process that they never bothered to complete. It also lacks an end credit sequence; the film ends abruptly enough as is (Eric fires a shot at Blade/the camera, and it fades to white), but instead of traditional credits, we just get a message thanking the cast and crew who helped to make the franchise such a success. My guess? Band didn't want to try to figure out how to appropriately credit the people who actually shot/acted in 2/3s of the movie (and he certainly didn't pay them), so this was a workaround. And of all the kill scenes in the second film, did they really have to use the one where you can see a guy's hand grabbing at a lamp prop to keep it from breaking?

I had to laugh at one of the flashbacks though, because it was the only way to deflate some of the pressure that was building in my brain on its way to exploding. While the flashback to old Toulon telling the story from Retro is fine, I literally had to pause the movie and digest a similar example. Either because they wanted to save time or they were just being lazier than usual, when they get to Puppet Master 4, it's not actually from 4 but from Puppet Master 5's own flashback of 4. So now I'm sitting here, watching someone from Puppet Master 8 tell the story of someone from Puppet Master 5 tell the story of Puppet Master 4. And some of you ask me why I'm quitting next year! It's times like this I feel like Dumbledore at the end of the 6th Harry Potter, begging to stop having to drink that liquid while Harry (you guys) forces him to keep going...

I was also kind of charmed by how convoluted the mythology of this series is, as well as how they try to give it a continuity but screw it up more often than not. Like, at the end of Retro, Toulon is asked where his other puppets went, and he says it's a story for another time, as if to prove to the audience that yes, this continuity issue didn't go unnoticed... but they never have gotten around to explaining where they went. Likewise, they never tried to explain Leech Woman's reappearance, or where Six Shooter was in the first couple films, etc. It's like it has a GENERAL mythology - Toulon got the power in the early 20th century, was hunted by Nazis during WWII which is when he created many of them, they were trapped in a hotel for a while, set free... a story told across several films and out of order to boot. But they botch the specifics, which is how, for example, Toulon kills himself in 1939 in one movie but is alive and well in 1941 in another.

And of course, if you're watching these movies the day they come out and not memorizing the dates and character lineups, it probably works fine, or at least with a fluid timeline not unlike that of long-running comic books. But when they're showing the highlights to tell the whole story in 70 minutes, all these mistakes are apparent (though they DO kind of fix the discrepancy about the year of Toulon's suicide). It's also jarring to see different actors inhabit the roles, like when Guy Rolfe turns into William Hickey for a minute. In other words, there might be some series that lend themselves nicely to a full length recap, but this probably isn't one of the best.

What say you?

Tweet

PLEASE, GO ON...

Smiley (2012)

OCTOBER 11, 2012

GENRE: SLASHER, TECHNOLOGY
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (REGULAR SCREENING)

It seems every year, perhaps not coincidentally in the Halloween pre-season of September or October, we get a horror film that barely even deserved to be made, let alone given a fairly decent theatrical release. In 2010 it was Chain Letter, last year gave us Creature, and now we have Smiley, which actually reminded me of Chain Letter in a lot of ways, right down to a bit role from Keith David as a cop. But his role is so limited (two scenes, neither of which requires him to even get up from his desk) that it shouldn't even count.

No, the real similarity is that both films involve a cyber-based slasher, and I think this is the final proof we need that this scenario is never going to work. It's not as laughably dated as Chain Letter - this was just shot last year, so we can forgive the filmmakers for thinking that people would still be using Chat Roulette (they call it something else in the movie, but it's the exact same thing except that the characters don't run into nearly as many guys jerking off as you do in reality), but it WILL date poorly; even if the movie was worth watching now, it certainly wouldn't be in five years. That's the problem with modern horror movies - they use "current" technology too much. Used to be that only a clothing style or maybe the soundtrack choices would date a film - now it's the tech that the characters use in every scene, and we as a society are so plugged into it, it's a lot easier to detect when something is either dated or rings false.

And boy oh boy does this one ring false. Even the basic premise is ludicrous - a serial killer who will appear behind the person you're chatting with if you type, I shit you not, "I did it for the lulz" three times. Now, if he's supernatural, like Candyman, then fine - he can teleport wherever the hell he needs to go. But the script keeps him self-contained, and weirder, our stable of would-be victims are a group from a 4chan message board that all happen to go to the same school or at least live nearby, so they can meet up for parties every other night (and yet no one knows anyone's real name or where they live). The movie had a perfect opportunity to have a good excuse for why no one had the ability to simply go check on the supposed victims by spreading them around the country, and yet they choose to strain credibility even further by having them all live within walking distance of one another. Can you imagine if you were in an AOL chatroom in 1998 about Dawson's Creek or whatever and finding out that all of the members were in your hometown? It's roughly that stupid.

Worse, the main character is a complete n00b when it comes to computers and internet traditions, so she needs everything explained to her (us); her roommate goes on and on about memes and "Chocolate Rain" and what not, and our heroine, the person we're supposed to believe in and want to see succeed, spends half of the movie looking confused. There's also a puzzling bit where she pauses to look at a car, as if she had seen it before and it was a sign of trouble, but it's never explained. Honestly, I spent half the movie just trying to get the slightest hold on the person I should be caring about the most.

Another boneheaded decision is to center a major part of the film over our heroine not being sure (more confusion!) if Smiley is really killing folks or if it's just an internet prank. I'm not sure why I see this April Fool's-ian scenario so often - no matter what the outcome is, it prevents the movie from ever being too exciting, because they have to make sure either answer could work. Can't exactly show people being decapitated if it all turns out to be a joke, nor can our heroine even find a dead body until the finale or else she'd have something to give the cops so they know she's not crazy. So what does writer/director Michael Gallagher do to make up for it? Dream sequences! Lots and lots of dream sequences, including the ever popular dream within a dream sequence! That's a great way to win over the horror fans who are already probably pissed about all the off-screen deaths and completely inane plot that requires people to speak like LOLcats every 5 seconds, right? Indeed, the film will apparently have a PG-13 version for this theatrical release (which seems limited to AMC theaters), and it won't take much effort to get it there from this R one (basically, a few F bombs and maybe one brief throat slit).

Oh, and there are a plethora of classroom scenes. Just about every horror movie where the characters still go to school has a scene where the teacher will be talking about a story with coincidental parallels to the movie's plot, and while I usually roll my eyes a bit, they're harmless and occasionally fun (like Scream 2's discussion on the merit of sequels - or the lack thereof). Well, Smiley may be the first film where it almost seems like the slasher scenes are just foreshadowing devices for a movie about an ethics class, as we see at least three classroom scenes plus a few after class discussions between our heroine and the teacher, played by a twitchy Roger Bart (the best thing about the movie, easily). And you'd THINK that all of this would pay off, given the heroine's ethical dilemma about possibly causing someone's death, but nah - the film's final twist and explanation for Smiley's omnipresence negates any of that.

And to be fair, this explanation ALSO covers most of the plot holes that have piled up, but that doesn't make up for the fact that the movie had to be put on a short leash the entire time in order for it to work. A good twist enhances a movie that was already enjoyable - a BAD twist is one that attempts to justify the reason that the movie has sucked up until that point. Then it gives us not one but TWO setups for a sequel (though one is after the credits), because everyone involved with this movie clearly hates us.

Ultimately, it's only a few little random bits that keep this thing from being tossed in the Crap bin, not counting Bart who almost seems to be playing the role of a bored teacher as himself, a good actor who can't believe he's stuck in such a stupid movie. One is the character of Zane, who is a scumbag that believes the best stories strike a balance between "the strange and the retarded" (MORE meta commentary on the film itself!), and carries out a cinematic first: a scene where a guy is simultaneously trying to date rape a girl (it's not shown but it's implied that he gave her a roofie) while also delivering panicked exposition about a murderer who may be after them both. And he's part of a trio of characters who break into an out of nowhere mockery of The Truman Show, which I found quite charming as it's pretty much the last movie I figured would be referenced in this stupid thing (then again, the "Chocolate Rain" shoutout threw me for a loop. I'm surprised they didn't just go all out and name a character Leroy Jenkins).

I also didn't expect some guy to start shouting as the credits began to roll, encouraging us to stay in our seats as he brought out the director and four of the actors who played minor characters in the film (one of whom I couldn't even place). After thanking us for coming, he asked if we had any questions, all of which were kind of dumb like "Do you plan on Smiley 2?", though I did like the guy who asked "How long ago did you shoot the film?". It seemed most of the (very few) people in the crowd knew these folks, and the theater didn't bother turning off the ads that run in between movies, so it was all very awkward and kind of depressing, since there were almost as many people from the movie as there were in the audience. We were then encouraged to help promote the film - if this review counts as promotion, glad I could help!

Long story short, if you're in need of a scary movie this weekend, Sinister should be the one you give your hard-earned money to. This is the sort of thing that would be on the lower end of the quality spectrum for another installment of After Dark Horrorfest, and while I usually champion this sort of independent release, there just isn't much here worth defending. I appreciate the attempt at a sort of morality tale about how the stupid shit people do on the internet can have real world consequences, but it's buried underneath half-baked subplots (her mom's suicide comes to mind), obnoxious dream sequences, and an ending that is the equivalent of, well, internet trolling.

What say you?

Tweet

PLEASE, GO ON...