The Clinic (2010)

OCTOBER 10, 2010

GENRE: SURVIVAL
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (SCREAMFEST)

Just when I thought I’d had enough of “let’s tie a woman up and do stuff to her” movies, along comes The Clinic, which gives the sub-genre a breath of fresh air, thanks to a unique scenario, a decent twist, and way above average technical and acting qualities. I’m actually kind of bummed that I opted for a goddamn Blu-ray screening of Texas Chain Saw Massacre at Frightfest over this film, which was showing at the same time (on the smaller screen). Stupid BC!

Along with Inside and Grace, maybe I just have a thing for mothers dealing with some truly horrible pregnancy issues? The titular clinic is a place where mothers that are near birth are given c-sections (not by choice) and then set loose. Some want to band together to find their babies, others just want to escape by any means necessary. Why the babies were taken, and why the mothers weren’t just killed, becomes clear in the film’s final moments, and while it’s not too surprising, it is pretty damn unique, and more than makes up for some of the film’s weak spots, such as the generic opening, with a couple stopping at some out of the way place run by weirdos, only for their situation to turn grim before the night is through.

However, since the film is set in 1979, I can’t question why the characters haven’t seen the 560 million horror movies that start out this way, because many of them didn’t exist yet. And the period also keeps the movie from having the standard “no signal” cell phone scene, or explaining away other modern elements that ruin the plotting of horror movies – I’m actually surprised we don’t see more period horror films because of this.

There are two minor twists after the big revelation though, and they require perhaps a bit too much of your suspension to be disbelieved. The first isn’t too bad – it’s telegraphed earlier in the film at least, and it fits with the “geography” of the story (trying not to spoil). The other is a bit ridiculous though, as our protagonist visits a grave at the exact right time to see someone else that’s important to the story. Maybe if the graveyard keeper saw her at the grave and had made a comment like “Oh, do you know (so-and-so)?” it would be a bit easier to swallow, but I’m just not a big fan of coincidences in movies to begin with, and two in a row irked me.

Another minor gripe is that it takes our formerly pregnant ladies a bit too long to make sense of the Roman numerals on their hospital gowns. Granted, if it’s 1979 they haven’t gotten to the Friday the 13th series yet, and Rocky was only at II, but still, even if they didn’t know the exact number “translation”, they still shouldn’t have taken half the movie to figure out “We’re not the first women they’ve taken”. No shit! Also, the number seems a bit high, in the 600s or something. I know Australia is a hotbed of criminal activity (and flies – I was consistently tickled by the fact that flies were constantly landing on characters’ faces throughout the film), but if 600+ women had disappeared in a particular area over a period of maybe 30 years, shouldn’t someone have noticed by now? I would have backed the number down to about 200, tops.

It’s a shame actor Andy Whitfield is currently battling cancer (I look forward to his full recovery!), because in a perfect world he would not only be healthy, but also be getting the roles Sam Worthington gets. They have a similar shape and look, but the difference is, Whitfield is actually interesting to watch, and capable of making a compelling character. He doesn’t get much to do, since the focus is primarily on the mother (the equally impressive Tabrett Bethell), but he gets a number of good moments. Sometimes in a structure like this, you’ll be enjoying the A plot too much to want to cut to the B plot (think Saw V, or any Saw depending on your like/dislike of the guy being tested), and this could have been no exception if not for the fact that Whitfield makes for an enjoyable man on a mission.

The movie also has one of the best “Oh shit...” scares in recent memory. You know the type, where someone will walk into a room and realize that the knife or other object that they just laid down is now missing, or like in Halloween when Annie’s car door is suddenly unlocked and it takes her a moment to realize it. Here, it’s a little counter that ticks off whenever someone goes through a door. One of our non-heroine mothers walks through and sees that the door is now at 001. She looks around a bit, finds nothing, heads toward the exit, and sees that it now reads 002. OH SHIT.... It’s an awesome moment that I just spoiled for everyone.

My last two notes say “Walken” and “Music”. Walken refers to the fact that the clinic’s handicapped janitor sounds like Christopher Walken. And I always write “music” when I like the music, but I don’t know why, because there’s not much to say about it. I liked the music. That’s it.

The film has already been released in Australia (or at least, has a distributor to do so), but not in the States as of yet, which is a shame (and somewhat surprising, given the success of Spartacus). Hopefully that will be rectified soon. In the meantime, ask yourself this – between this and Lost, do fictional Australian women ever have nice, uncomplicated pregnancies?

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Death And Cremation (2010)

OCTOBER 10, 2010

GENRE: COMEDIC, SERIAL KILLER
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (SCREAMFEST)

I try not to use “It’s ___ meets ___” in reviews, but this one came from the director, and was so perfect, I feel I should repeat it. Following the screening of Death And Cremation, director Justin Steele said “it’s Karate Kid meets Dexter”, and I couldn’t agree more - it really is a perfect way to describe not only the plot but also the tone of the film, which is a (darkly) comic tale of a master teaching the student, like Karate Kid, but also of a murderer (like Next Karate Kid. No wait, I mean Dexter) who you side with. And since the killer is played by the great Brad Dourif, it works almost flawlessly.

Dourif is one of those guys who unfortunately too often has small roles in great stuff (the LOTR movies, or the voice of Chucky) or big roles in bad stuff (Spontaneous Combustion). So I was thrilled to see him with a great role in a movie that was actually good. He’s got a way of delivering lines and reactionary glances that kills me, and he even makes some of the kill scenes kind of funny with his expressions and demeanor. The closing line alone (which would require too much effort to contextualize) is worth the price of admission, and I’m not sure if it would be nearly as effective if it came out of the mouth of Christopher Walken or Nic Cage or whoever else they go to for these sort of roles before him (it’s a shame he’s not a big enough draw to get this a big theatrical release, though a limited run could be doable).

And he kills jerks! But whereas Dexter goes after actual criminals, Stan’s targets include snobby teens and people who steal parking spots at the mall. Some might have trouble with the idea that this serial killer is essentially the movie’s hero, but I mean, seriously, how can you side with the asshole who stole a parking spot? He also has a fondness for crossword puzzles, and seems to have a bit of OCD (the opening scene, where he seems to be trying to prove that if he makes a phone call and gets put on hold, he can take the trash out, come back inside, and still be on hold). And he does so without Dexter’s annoying voice-over.

His student is played by Jeremy Sumpter, who is a good actor but not quite the best fit for a goth-y introvert (maybe it’s just because he’s too good on Friday Night Lights, where his character was thrust into the world of football by his demanding father, and subsequently got a big head about it and turned into an asshole). But at least it wasn’t Thomas Dekker playing his umpteenth young rebel, and I gradually came around to him in the role. That’s the problem of knowing an actor from TV – you see them every week as one person, it’s a bit harder to accept them as someone else, whereas a movie actor, who you probably only see 1-2x a year tops (in new films I mean) doesn’t have that weekly familiarity attached.

The kills are also fairly gory, which I wasn’t expecting. They’re all pretty similar in execution (Dourif sneaks up behind someone, hits them with large object), but the amount of red stuff never stopped surprising. And why aren’t more people killed with bowling balls in movies? It’s the perfect murder weapon, if you think about it – it comes with holes for your fingers, unlike most giant heavy objects, and when you’re done you wipe off the blood and put it back in rotation at the alley, getting lots of other folks’ prints on it.

And through it all, there’s some surprising heart to the film. Sumpter’s mom is dealing with losing her husband, Sumpter is bullied at school, Dourif is clearly lonely... despite their questionable behavior, it’s quite sweet when the two of them start to bond, and how Dourif quickly gets revenge on the bully after Sumpter comes back with a bloody face (it’s worth noting that he takes a bigger risk with the bully than usual, killing him in his own home in broad daylight). So let me do my own comparison – it’s “My Bodyguard meets Relentless”. OK, theirs was better.

Hopefully the film will find distribution sooner rather than later. It’s now been a year since The Revenant, which I quite enjoyed and has yet to be picked up. Now, it could be a case of the director holding out for better offers, which is unfortunate because the market is terrible for these sort of movies right now. My advice – take the best offer you get right now – even if you lose money, you’ll have a great movie out there and be able to have an easier time getting financing for your next one (or even better, being hired outright).

Wait, I have crippling debt and am driving around a deathtrap because I can’t afford to get a new car or even fix the one I have – why would anyone listen to me on financial matters?!? Well, just take my word on the movie – it’s pretty damn good.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

YellowBrickRoad (2010)

OCTOBER 9, 2010

GENRE: PSYCHOLOGICAL
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (SCREAMFEST)

For all its problems, I will defend YellowBrickRoad against any haters, because despite several Wizard of Oz references, no one ever said “We’re not in Kansas anymore” (or any paraphrasing of it), which is one of those over-used clichés that makes me want to kill screenwriters. Of course, it might have been said during the period where I stepped out to blow my nose, but let’s give them the benefit of the doubt.

Owing a huge debt to Blair Witch Project, the movie is pretty good for its first hour or so, as we meet our group, learn about their goal, and watch them slowly crack up as they walk the titular path in hopes of discovering why the entire populace of the town (Friar, New Hampshire, which does not exist in real life) disappeared along the trail in 1940. It’s a straight-forward narrative (though there are occasional POV shots from a video camera), but the “based on a true story” thing, the fact that they get hopelessly lost in the woods, the psychological terror, strange sounds... it’s all very much Blair Witch-y, just from a different perspective.

But while that film had an ending that might have just disappointed some (i.e. we never know what made Heather fall), this one just goes completely off the rails, ending on what I assume is just a hallucination in the mind of the main character, the obsessed truth-seeker who looks like Dane Cook. I didn’t care if we got all the answers, but I sure as hell wanted to at least know what was going on at the end. And it certainly would have been nice to have some wrap-up text – “their bodies were never found”, or whatever. If you’re going to do the whole “This is based on a true story” thing, you have to stay committed to that idea. Instead, our main character finds himself in some sort of metaphysical movie theater, confused out of his mind. And then bang, roll credits. WTF?

And it’s a shame, because with a good ending this could have been a minor gem. I liked most of the characters, and screenwriter/directors Jesse Holland and Andy Mitton effectively gave them all different ways of going nuts – one reverts to an almost child-like state, one basically gets high, another goes batshit insane and tears his sister’s leg off... but all from the same external cause (the endless music that they hear as they get closer to their goal, plus basic panic as they get further lost/low on supplies).

I also enjoyed the medic of the group’s manner of keeping track of their mental state, by asking them basic questions every morning (“What is your full name?” “Speak in gibberish until I say stop”, etc). They could have done a bit more with it, the one big turning point moment is when one of them has trouble saying the alphabet backwards, which, for a lot of folks under normal circumstances, isn’t easy (I, however, can do it flawlessly!). The “gibberish” question could have had a cooler payoff, I think. But it’s still a good running “gag” of sorts, and is one of the better uses of the “character in movie is making a movie” premise.

If they go back and make a better ending (or even just cut the movie theater crap out entirely – there’s a shot of the hero crawling towards his goal – it would have been much more effective to let him crawl out of frame and end it there), I could see this being a cult favorite of sorts. It’s been a while since there has been a Blair Witch style movie (style plot-wise, not how it was made – we’ve had too many of those, actually), and I was in the mood for one. The unknown actors are pretty good, the story is interesting, and it has minor doses of unexpected humor (their reactions to a broken GPS are pretty hilarious). And again, it has a guy tearing someone’s leg off. So, worth a look.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Outcast (2010)

OCTOBER 9, 2010

GENRE: SUPERNATURAL
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (SCREAMFEST)

Someone compared the film We Are What We Are to Let The Right One In, but I think Outcast is an even closer “cousin”, as it shares the tone (as We Are... did) but also plot similarities, in that it’s about the romance between two lonely kids living in a crappy apartment building, despite the fact that one of them is a monster. Oddly, had I opted for Outcast (on the Discovery screen) at Frightfest, instead of the quiz, I would have seen the two films back to back for an even better vantage to compare.

Anyway, it’s a bit slow but it’s a unique-ish take on the doomed romance horror movie. For starters, the Van Helsing type who is tracking the monster/kid down is actually his father. Furthermore, he uses Celtic magic to track, with spells that can let blood drops point the way to his target, magic tattoos giving him strength, etc. Not the usual pissed off badass, in other words. Also, the mother is no prize either, so when the two begin to fight, you’re not really sure which one to root for. Oh, and she uses magic too, though it doesn’t seem as effective – there’s a scene where she activates these things on the wall that I thought were to take away his powers, but he’s still pretty strong, and apart from some increased yelling, it doesn’t seem to affect him at all.

Another thing I liked was how sparingly the used the monster. It could have almost been a mystery, with us not knowing who it was, but instead they tell more or less tell you and then you have to wait for most of the movie to see it fully. Thus, there aren’t a lot of kills in the movie, but there IS a lot of time spent developing all of the characters, making the final reel, with everyone coming together in a tragic way, a bit more resonant than these sort of things usually manage.

There is one character sort of left out of the climax though – the heartless mother of the kid’s girlfriend. Her other child is mentally disabled, and basically neglects him (the girlfriend is the one taking care of him), and I was hoping to see her get killed, quite frankly. Dogs and handicapped folks are my Achilles heel in movies – anyone who mistreats either (and this movie comes to close to doing both!) deserves a horrible death (if it’s that type of movie), as far as I’m concerned. But after her son is accused of a murder (not sure if I just missed something or they intentionally left it vague, but does he kill the bully, or the monster?), she is taken away by the police in hysterics and never seen again.

I was distracted by the names: Fergal, Petronella, Cathal, Jitta... are these common in Ireland? When a “Liam” popped up I actually cheered a little. Speaking of my American ignorance, some of the accents are bit hard to penetrate, leaving some of the earlier scenes, before I had a good grasp on the story, a bit hard to follow. Since I highly doubt this will see any sort of significant theatrical release in the US, I would advise the use of the (hopefully included) subtitles.

So if you dug Let The Right One In, you should find much to enjoy here. It’s not as good, obviously, but it’s an effective slow-burner with a unique magic flavor (far more effectively used than Warlock, at any rate) and some good performances (James Nesbitt as Cathal (the “Van Helsing”) in particular is terrific) to enjoy as well. Oh, and a creepy mother-son relationship that borders on Norman Bates ickiness at times. Good stuff.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

New Beverly All Nighter

OCTOBER 9, 2010

GENRE: MOVIES!
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (REVIVAL SCREENINGS)

With Screamfest demanding my attention, the fact that I slept through the bulk of the last 2 movies, I figured I’d just review the New Beverly All Nighter as a whole, instead of five full reviews (two of the movies I’ve already seen/reviewed) in addition to everything else. Maybe if I find some time I’ll do a full review of Trick Or Treat since that one’s been requested a few times. Otherwise, you take what I give you, dammit!

TENEBRAE
A terrific way to kick off the night, since it’s one of Argento’s most accessible films and rarely gets screened. A “draw”, if you will. Last time I saw it was at home by myself, so it was great to see with a crowd, making treasured moments like Saxon demonstrating his hat’s “power” all the more amusing. And it had been long enough for me to forget who the killer was, so that was a nice little bonus. The print was pretty close to perfect too.

GATES OF HELL/CITY OF THE LIVING DEAD
We go from one of Argento’s most coherent movies to one of Fulci’s least. I’ve seen the movie 3-4 times now and I still have no idea what the hell is going on through most of it (and if anyone can explain the final shot, you sir/madam are some sort of sage wizard). Knowing that paying attention wouldn’t be much use, I spent a good part of the screening watching others, who I knew hadn’t seen the film, react to its more memorable moments, such as the infamous car vomit scene and the death of John Morghen/Giovanni Lombardo Radice. Speaking of this treasure, why was I the only one to cheer his name at the top of the film? You people make me sick!

Also, I want a Christopher George marathon.

THE EVIL
If I was doing reviews for each film, this one just made the “deadline” for a Saturday movie, starting just moments before midnight. It’s a pretty lousy movie, but it made for a good “break” if you needed one, since no one wants to miss the secret movie (which was next). Andrew Prine keeps it from being a total loss, but it’s pretty slow paced, and everyone that’s not Prine or Richard Crenna is pretty forgettable. I do sort of like the fact that the movie is essentially about Crenna and his wife inviting a bunch of people to the haunted house they just bought to help them get it cleaned up, and then being the only ones to make it out alive. Assholes.

TRICK OR TREAT
The secret movie was met with thunderous applause, as it’s an oft-requested title and the type of thing Phil would probably show at a midnight show anyway (though it was more like 2 am by now). I think it’s pretty clear that Wes Craven saw this one before writing Shocker – the killer’s fondness for electricity, the 80s metal soundtrack, the unintentional cheese... it would make a pretty terrific double feature, no doubt. And you gotta love Ozzy’s cameo as a preacher, decrying metal lyrics while sporting slicked back hair and a nice cheap suit. If not for his unmistakable voice, you probably wouldn’t even recognize him. I was also delighted by the fact that Doug Savant, best known as the homosexual Matt on Melrose Place and/or the Mr. Mom-y Tom on Desperate Housewives, playing a bully cut straight from William Zabka cloth. Nice to see him be the alpha male for once.

My only minor gripe with the movie is that the hero didn’t enjoy his power for a bit before realizing it was wrong. They seem to be going down the Christine route, with the nerd turning into a power-hungry jerk, but he more or less regains his conscience within a few minutes. I also don’t get why he destroyed so many of his awesome posters after hearing his hard rock hero had died in a fire – why take it out on Kiss or Motley Crue? And why didn’t he notice his best buddy, a DJ named Nuke, was a dead ringer for Kiss’ Gene Simmons?

THE GIANT CLAW
How was this movie never on MST3k? It’s tailor made for the show – it’s only 72 minutes long, so they wouldn’t have to edit it in order to fit it in, and it features a terrible puppet on strings as its monster. It’s also loaded with wall to wall bad dialogue, such as “You keep your shirt on, I’ll go put my pants on”, or just plain odd ditties like “That makes me chief cook and bottle washer in a one-man bird watching society!” (HUH?). And you can make a drinking game out of every time someone says “Battleship”, if you want to die of alcohol poisoning after two reels. Speaking of reels – even though this movie is from 1957 and thus the oldest one they showed of the night, it was actually one of the best preserved prints. Weird.

BREEDERS
I slept through most of this one, but it seemed to be little more than a series of sequences in which a woman we don’t or barely know disrobes (regardless of the situation, one does it after putting a pot on the stove) and is then raped by an alien. In between these are scenes of a cop and a man-hating lady doctor trying to find the pattern and stop the madness. I assume they succeeded, I woke up from the applause when the credits began to roll. Not on DVD, so I guess I blew my chance to see this one.

THE OUTING
I slept through a lot of this one too, but not as much as Breeders. Here we have a group of kids trapped in a museum getting killed by a genie. Well, eventually. I was awake for a while but I fell asleep right when the kills were about to begin (some robbers got killed in the opening scene, but this part of the reel was damaged/lost, so it just cuts from when the genie is about to start causing some shit to when the cops are investigating the crime scene). I did stay awake long enough to hear some out of nowhere racism, and see that our heroine and her dad had a strained (and borderline creepy) relationship, which I’m sure was resolved by the end (or he died). We also almost got a shot of his balls when he sat down with a loose fitting robe and hiked one leg over the other. Oh, and cinema’s worst ever stunt double during one of the many scenes in which the school bully harassed one of our protagonists, the excess of which resulted in my falling asleep before anything good happened. But from what I saw it wasn’t too bad in that cheesy 80s/midnight movie kind of way. At least, so my half sleep deprived/half still sort of sleeping mind thought.

There were also a couple of cartoons and a lot of great trailers, plus a raffle with prizes such as a Freddy Krueger yo-yo and a VHS copy of Silent Night Deadly Night. And it was fun seeing the men get separated from the boys (or women from girls) – the place was 100% capacity at the start, but dwindled with each film, and was about only half full (if that) by the end. Some folks claim to have never even dozed off, which I find damn impressive (I am jealous). It takes a true love of movies to sit through the whole thing, even if falling asleep off and on, so everyone there at the end is forever in my cool book. I just wish the pizza options were better – I really don’t like Papa John’s or Domino’s. If a Little Caesar’s or Pizza Hut opens in the area, you bet your sweet bippie I’ll be a happy lad.

Onward to next year!

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

My Soul To Take (2010)

OCTOBER 8, 2010

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

At one point during My Soul To Take, I leaned over to the esteemed Simon Barrett and said “I just want to understand ONE line of dialogue in this movie”. It’s in English, and the surround mix is perfectly professional, but no one in this movie sounds like a human being. It’s sort of like The Room, where you get the impression that the writer has never actually conversed with another person before, except in this case we know perfectly well that he has, because the writer is Wes Craven himself.

Mr. Craven is, undoubtedly, smarter than anyone that was in the theater at the time (he carries a masters degree in philosophy and a bachelor’s degree in psychology), but he’s also pushing 70, which is perhaps not the ideal age to be writing for 16 year olds. Much of the first act has them involved in confusing “high school mafia” antics, where one of the girls declares it “Fang Time” and locks off the girl’s bathroom to discuss whether “3s and 8s” were properly administered. Seriously, I had no idea what the hell any of our protagonists were talking about for a good 60% of the movie. It reminded me of the poorly translated Hong Kong movies that they show at the New Bev every now and then, with replies sounding in no way like a natural response to what was just said (which, more often than not, didn’t make such sense to begin with). Or they just offer baffling advice like “If things get too hot, turn on the prayer conditioning.” Even Diablo Cody would be scratching her head at this stuff.

And when they’re not speaking some foreign language that simulates English, they’re spouting paragraphs of exposition, much of it completely worthless. A character that is about to die spends at least 90 seconds just describing the process of how he got there, as if it mattered to anyone. The villain and hero explain to each other how they were able to get everything accomplished in a small amount of time. “I put the knife in the sink while you were downstairs getting a glass of water!” One of the "Riverton Seven" (our main characters) explains the backstory of the Riverton Ripper to one of the other seven, as if he didn’t know the story yet. And so on. It’s the rare film that I wish just had a scene of someone looking up information at the library or on the internet, so it would keep the characters quiet for a few minutes.

And it’s a shame, because that’s probably the reason why everyone is currently hating on the movie. If you can look past it (just sort of let their dialogue be background noise; assume it’s just kids being kids and that the particulars don’t really matter), you will be rewarded with one of the more original concepts for a horror movie in quite some time. The press synopsis and such will probably tell you that the soul The Riverton Ripper has been transferred to one of 7 kids, and they are trying to figure out who as they begin getting picked off one by one. But it’s actually more complicated and interesting than that. Nor is it clearly explained; it takes some brainwork (and possibly a second viewing) for everything to become clear. I won’t give it away, but I’ll nudge in you in the right direction by asking you to consider two plot points: the manner in which Harris Yulin’s character dies (not a spoiler, it occurs in the first 5 minutes), and the defining characteristic of one of the Riverton Seven.

It also has its fair share of batshit “WTF” moments, such as when our hero, nicknamed “Bug”, and his best friend give a class report on the California Condor, complete with the friend dressed as a Condor and spraying fake puke all over the place. They’re also all prone to random violent outbursts, the highlight of which has to be when Bug’s older sister suddenly beats the ever loving shit out of him. Then they both smash some childhood possessions to smithereens. Even the end credits are a delight – we get a rather poorly animated condor flying around some artwork, followed by storyboards (in 3D!) for the film running on the sides, including boards for scenes that aren’t even in the movie. You all know me, I love this sort of out of nowhere nonsense. And the odd violence helps break up the rather puzzling lack of kill scenes – one of the 7 dies early on (the one in the trailer), another basically dies off-screen, and the other 3 die almost simultaneously. A couple other deaths occur off-screen as well, most likely to preserve the mystery.

However, the biggest surprise was probably the 3D conversion – it’s probably the best convert I’ve seen. It does make the film darker, and there are a few instances where characters appear to be further apart from each other than they should be, but otherwise it’s pretty solid. I noticed none of the strange artifacting and blurry “halos” that crippled Piranha’s presentation, and Craven’s rather laid-back camerawork is a good fit for the limitations of the process – there isn’t a lot of fast movement and complicated tracking shots are pretty rare as well. If you move your glasses up (off) and down (on) during certain shots, you can really see how much depth and separation has been added (as well as how much darker the glasses are making the image). I’m not saying you should definitely pay the extra dough for it if you have the choice, but if it’s your only option, it’s luckily not the end of the world. It’s a shame whoever did the conversion here didn’t do it for Piranha though – if this is what they can achieve for something not intended for 3D presentation, imagine what they could have done with something that WAS.

I also laud Craven’s choice (assuming it was his) to cast his film with new/unrecognizable actors (Frank Grillo as a cop is pretty much the only one you might be familiar with). I can’t say for certain that I’ve seen any of the kids before, which, apart from Bug, makes it much less obvious who will be around for the long run, who “couldn’t” be the killer, etc. The movie benefits from having a cast that will be on a level playing field for 99.9% of the audience, plus it’s just nice to see a studio horror film that’s not populated by Gossip Girl folk for a change. That said, I want to see Zena Grey more often (I later realized I HAVE - she was one of the cast who came along with Wes to the HMAD Shocker screening last year, which means I like her even more).

Apparently, 50 pages were re-shot, and the original ending was more straightforward. I’m not going to say that the film doesn’t seem like it was tinkered with (some of those giant exposition chunks are likely the result of removing scenes that SHOWED these things), but it’s too interesting and out there to be considered a total misfire. With a dialogue polish (OK, overhaul) and a restructured 3rd act that didn’t all take place in a not-very-interesting house, this could have been a triumphant return for Craven. Instead it’s one of his most curious efforts, one that demands a look but not necessarily any acclaim. As with the climax of Shocker, and some of the plot elements of New Nightmare, he’s got some really interesting and unique ideas, but they don’t always translate to film clearly. As I’ve been saying to friends – if Tommy Wiseau and Chris Nolan collaborated on a slasher movie, it might end up something like My Soul To Take. Love it or hate it, I think we can all agree – it’s certainly not as generic as many of us initially feared.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Case 39 (2009)

OCTOBER 7, 2010

GENRE: KILLER KID, SUPERNATURAL
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (REGULAR SCREENING)

Long delayed movies are usually disasters, but I don’t think Case 39 was deserving of its fate, because it’s pretty decent. Sure, the average movie-goer probably doesn’t know that it was delayed (though a noticeably younger “Bree” from Eclipse (Jodelle Ferland) might arouse suspicion), but those who follow such things stayed away in droves – I was mocked for going by many peers and friends. But their loss – they didn’t get to see a little kid beat his parents to death with a tire iron today.

As anyone who reads the site regularly has probably figured out by now, I have a soft spot for killer kid movies, which I was actually convinced that this WASN’T. The trailer suggests that the girl is merely a victim of a demon or something that is following her around, but that stuff has all been edited from the film. Gotta hand it to Paramount – it takes balls to say “Hey, let’s just say the little girl is evil instead of chalking it up to possession or whatever.” So I was pleasantly surprised when it became clear that they weren’t going to suddenly turn the girl into a victim with Renee Zellweger protecting her from some 3rd party. Good editing call! Though, I wouldn't mind seeing that version when it comes to DVD, just for curiosity's sake.

Speaking of Zellweger, she’s really the only thing that kept me from really digging the movie (well, that and some ill-conceived “nightmare” type scenes that seem leftover from the original version). I have never found her appealing in any way, but she does fit certain roles nicely (such as Jerry Maguire). But she’s out of her element here – I never once bought her as a fed up social worker. There’s a scene where she gets fed up with a mother that is abusing her kid and threatens to beat her herself, and it should be a great moment, but it falls flat because Zellweger hasn’t been able to convince us she’s even annoyed with the woman, let alone angry enough to have an outburst. Someone like Rachel McAdams or Elizabeth Banks could have brought a little more to the table. Both also have experience working with Bradley Cooper, so they might have had better chemistry with him – they seem more like brother and sister than casual lovers.

Cooper gets the movie’s two best scenes, albeit for different reasons. His death scene (not spoiling anything, it’s in the trailer) is hilarious, giving Wicker Man a run for its money in bee-related ridiculousness. It should be kind of creepy/icky that bees are flying out of his ears (and eventually his other facial orifices), but Cooper’s lack of natural reaction just makes it silly. He digs one out and then he’s just sort of like “That was weird.” I’m sorry, but if a goddamn hornet was suddenly buried in my ear canal, I’d be like “WHAT IN THE HOLY NAME OF FUCK IS HAPPENING?” and running for the hills. He just keeps standing around in his bathroom, more annoyed than shocked.

The other one though is genuinely hilarious, albeit in a sort of meta way. He’s talking to the little girl, who has just started showing her true nature. And he’s putting her through this psych test, and she suddenly tells him that she finds him “facile”. He’s taken aback by it, and presses further, at which point she calls him “smug”. Since those are both criticisms aimed at Cooper the actor, it’s wonderfully fun to hear it coming from an evil child. All 11 of us in the audience laughed heartily. This is followed by one of the creepier moments in the movie, when Ferland begins asking “Why Emily?” over and over, eventually turning it into one long word (“whyemilywhyemilywhyemily”). Ferland is probably the best actor in the movie, actually.

Scare-wise, it’s a lot lighter on jump scares than I expected (and one, involving a dog, actually gave me a bit of a jolt. AND it has a payoff later in the movie, making it even more impressive). I chalk this up to the otherwise puzzling R rating – there’s very little violence in the film and only one F bomb that I can recall; I think a PG-13 could have been given with minimal cutting, if any. But it seems the film is aimed more at adults, hence the lack of pointless “Boo!” moments and a pace that in no way suggests the re-editing. Sometimes with these things, it’s easy to see where they cut out all of the “boring” parts to provide a jam-packed (but incoherent) scare-a-thon, but it’s actually rather deliberately paced – Ferland doesn’t start acting creepy for about 45 minutes or so. And scenes like the ones with her parents (now in a mental institution) would have been gone instantly if this was a Dimension release. Kudos to Paramount and co. for keeping the film relatively intact and coherent. If I hadn’t seen the trailer, I never would have suspected that the film was reworked in any significant way (though there does seem to be a dropped subplot about another girl in Ferland’s therapy group).

Also the score sounds a bit like the Twin Peaks theme at times. So there’s something.

Look, Case 39 is not going to change cinema, and probably wouldn’t make anyone’s list of the all time best killer kid movies. But it’s a competent and enjoyable horror flick, and it’s a shame that it took damn near four years for it to see the light of day in the States (it was released in some other countries a while ago). Sure, it could be better, but it deserved better too. I liked it, is what I’m saying.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Tentacles (1977)

OCTOBER 6, 2010

GENRE: MONSTER, PREDATOR
SOURCE: NETFLIX (INSTANT VIEW)

Before you read any further, scroll down and press play on the first Youtube clip. Then scroll back up and continue reading about Tentacles. If you’re still reading when the music stops, simply press play again. Because this music is amazing, and I think it should be playing at all times of the day. It occurs during one of the more bafflingly edited scenes in the movie, which is saying quite a bit, because this is one gonzo Jaws ripoff (I should probably note that it’s a co-Italian production, which explains most if not all of the “huh?” moments).

So in this scene, the giant octopus is about to attack a bunch of folks who are racing their sailboats. As this amazing music plays, we see a confusing sequence of people falling off boats, people on the beach laughing and having a good time, and a mother (Shelley Winters!) frantically trying to get a hold of her kid (who looks young enough to be her grandson but whatever), who is one of the racers. One could watch the scene and assume everyone drowned, especially when they show a wide shot of a bunch of overturned boats and no other movement, but it seems they all live, returning to shore moments later.

Another somewhat confusing scene, sadly, is the climax. Hero Bo Hopkins convinces some dolphins (and I mean convinces – he talks to them for a while, pouring his heart out – if you weren’t watching the scene and just listening to his words, you could be forgiven for thinking it was a guy asking his girlfriend to take him back) to help him kill the octopus (“Help me kill the octopus” is the actual line), and they do! But you can’t really tell what’s going on, it’s just a bunch of close-ups of an octopus and a dolphin and things thrashing around, with occasional shots of the human heroes (hard to tell which one’s which) trying to get away. I mean, I understand what is happening – the dolphins are tearing the octopus to pieces (!) – but it’s difficult to get a bearing on anything; your mind just sort of fills in the information based on context.

But it’s all part of the charm that is Tentacles. The aforementioned boat race is of course, this movie’s “4th of July” – we learn about it in the first two minutes of the movie, just in case we weren’t sure that this was a Jaws ripoff (and one of the first, I might add). To its credit, they don’t really do a lot of “close the beaches!” (well, “cancel the boat race!”) stuff, but it’s the same sort of feel, and other scenes borrow directly from Jaws as well, including an attack that is exactly like the sequence where Robert Shaw dies, with the fish smashing the back of the boat, causing its prey to slide down into the water and to their death. But there are a number of unique attacks too – I particularly liked the one where a girl sees what looks like a rogue wave heading toward her (spoiler – it’s the octopus), which smashes the boat and kills them all. This is followed by an odd, “touching” moment where we get this long, very wide (but slowly tracking in) shot of folks on the beach watching the bodies get recovered, as if this was the aftermath of a terrorist attack or something. They’re not even important characters!

These folks are some of the many Italians who appear in the movie despite there being no explanation for why they have seemingly all migrated to California. It’s a little distracting, and it seems some of them are dubbed, but again: charming. One guy is a big fatso with surprisingly decent swimming abilities, and of course the women are all beautiful; it’s just funny seeing them in the same movie with heavyweights like Winters and John Huston (plus Henry Fonda in a small role). And they certainly make the most out of Winters’ time, giving her several of completely useless scenes, like when she discusses the process of filling out the registration form to get the kids in the race.

Unsurprisingly, the kills aren’t exactly eye-catching. They get a little better as they go (the first one we really “see” is just a guy swimming into an ink cloud), but none are particularly memorable. I mean, Bruce never worked but we still saw Robert Shaw in his mouth – we never get that sort of explicitness here. And don’t say “It’s PG, of course not!” – Jaws was PG too.

Oddly, when I wrote down my note about the soundtrack, I wrote “Tarantino” next to it. I was referring to the fact that the music I posted (which better still be on!) sounded like something he might use at random in one of his movies. Oddly enough, he DID use some of this film’s score (albeit not that particular piece) in Death Proof, according to the typically borderline illiterate gibberish on the IMDb board. It’s been nearly four years since I saw that movie, so I can’t remember if it’s true or where it was used if so. But I don’t doubt their claims – anyone know for sure?

So it’s a little slow and not as viscerally satisfying as I expected from an Italian Jaws ripoff (from the guy who replaced Cameron on Piranha II no less!), but it’s definitely a delight and worth a look for fans of the sub-genre. And it’s on Netflix instant, which means a sadly increasing number of you will get to watch it in your preferred format.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

The Rig (2010)

OCTOBER 5, 2010

GENRE: MONSTER
SOURCE: DVD (OWN COLLECTION)

I was pretty hopeful for The Rig due to its first few minutes. We got a nice tip of the hat to (the name “Weyland” appeared on a video screen) and the first scene was a POV shot of a submersible, which climaxed with it uncovering the monster. So far so good – acknowledging the AlienAlien influence and getting the monster out right away! But it’s all downhill from there, and becomes one of the lamest of its type that I’ve seen in quite some time.

Where do I begin? Let’s start with the camera, which is barely above the level of professional quality that you can get at Best Buy. And every review of the camera says “not good for low light shooting”. Well, the entire movie takes place in the bowels of an oil rig. Not a lot of lamps and windows down there. As a result, most of the action scenes are completely incoherent, because it’s too dark to see what’s going on. And it just looks like shit even in the above ground or well-lit “office” type scenes. Based on the image presented here, this is not a camera that should be used for anything beyond your kid’s dance recital. That or the film’s DP has no idea what he’s doing.

Another problem is that the monster sucks. Not only is it a generic Giger wannabe (well, Giger crossed with Greedo), but it’s never scary or threatening. The kill scenes often make no sense either – it just appears behind someone without any clear indication of how it got into the room (in one ridiculous instance, it appears to sneak up on a guy who is in a room with only one door – that he is facing). And every single kill is the same – someone goes “Aaah!”, we get a quick shot of a monster arm or something (it’s too dark to ever quite tell), and then someone throws some blood on the wall. I don’t think there’s ever a single moment in the entire movie where it appears to have any sort of purpose whatsoever. The Alien wanted to impregnate folks – what does this one want to accomplish? Just killing? If so, then it’s just a slasher movie, and thus you need to offer some cool kill scenes and/or some basic suspense/stalking.

The pacing is also awkward. The movie basically ends around the 75 minute mark, but then it just keeps going, bringing back two characters we’ve basically forgotten about, pulling a Scream 2 and miraculously resurrecting a character that should be dead (except unlike Dewey, no one will be overjoyed to see him survive), and killing the monster again in a less impressive way. And since the entire movie is just people running down corridors and occasionally dying while others look panicked from a control room or something, there’s no real structure or rising action to speak of. It could have ended 20 minutes sooner or two hours later – it just plods along until everyone that dies is dead, not when a “story” is resolved or anything.

However, its most horrendous crime is shamelessly ripping off Armageddon. We have a guy running an oil rig, who brought his daughter up on it after the mother left. So now she works there, and is secretly dating one of the guys on his crew. And this particular guy is a risk-taker, and doesn’t see eye to eye with his boss/potential father-in-law, who is livid when he finds out that they are seeing each other. Any of this sound familiar? I guess I should be happy that they saw Armageddon, but they do not acknowledge the swipes on their commentary, and there are just too many for it to be coincidental. The key difference is, since this is a low budget horror movie, the big name star (William Forsythe) dies in the first act instead of at the end of the movie. So yeah, false advertising as well – he’s top billed for MAYBE 10 minutes of screentime.

Unsurprisingly, the commentary is largely pointless. They spend an insane amount of time discussing the score and sound design, and not nearly enough time explaining why all of their kill scenes are exactly the same, or why they felt they had to copy plot points from the greatest asteroid movie of all time. Hilariously, they do reveal that the opening scene (the one I liked) was a reshoot after people complained that they never explained where the monster came from (which they only do TECHNICALLY – it came from the water), so I guess there’s a version of this movie that makes even less sense. They also discuss other reshoots, and having to do some of them without having all of the cast, which explains some of the awkward structure but not why it’s such a mess on a technical level as well. And yeah, the score is good for this sort of thing (it makes great use of Beethoven’s 7th), but why not have a bonus feature devoted to the composer and orchestra? Why bore us on a commentary? The making of is also worthless, as it’s just 8-9 minutes of random behind the scenes footage sans any interviews or narration (my guess is that they couldn’t get anyone to talk positively about the film with a straight face). It does offer the only clear shot of the monster on the entire disc so, so there’s something.

Not sure why Anchor Bay are the ones releasing this. The over-promoting of a barely there star, the misleading box cover (it shows a monster mouth that’s about the size of the rig itself), the crappy digital camerawork... this screams “Lionsgate”, in my opinion. And does this mean there will be re-releases of The Rig every year (they alluded to deleted scenes from the original version), like all the other Anchor Bay titles? Christ I hope not.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Suck (2009)

OCTOBER 4, 2010

GENRE: COMEDIC, VAMPIRE
SOURCE: DVD (OWN COLLECTION)

I usually enjoy a good laid back horror comedy, and Suck definitely fit the bill. It’s not very ambitious (or, the budget kept it from being so), but it’s charming, fast paced, and most importantly, centered on an actual story, instead of a series of sight gags. Transylmania and Vampires Suck might have burned people off from the idea of a horror comedy involving vampires, but hopefully they’ll give Suck a chance. Besides, Dave Foley is in it.

One thing I like about the movie is that it doesn’t waste any time. Our hero’s girl is turned into a vampire pretty much in the first scene, before we really get to know any of them or how they relate to each other. It could have been annoying, but it fits the movie’s laid back approach, and there are a number of really good laughs in the first few minutes to help you ease into it. The songs are pretty catchy as well, though there aren’t as many of them as I had expected; there are two in the first few minutes but only about another 4-5 for the rest of the movie (performed songs, I mean – there are about 30 in the background or on the soundtrack for our benefit).

It also doesn’t skimp on the carnage. I didn’t particularly care for the ramped up strobe-o-vision way that the vampires fed on folks, but there are a number of killings, plus as the movie proceeds the entire band gets turned. You also have Moby (!) as the singer of a band that encourages people to throw raw meat around, so there’s blood from that too (and I love the idea of Moby, the world’s biggest vegan, playing a guy demanding folks to throw raw beef at him). The sight gag of Hugo, the band’s “Renfield”, repeatedly getting covered in blood after cleaning up a mess never stopped being funny to me.

Another funny running gag involved the band (or an individual from it) unknowingly recreating an album cover. Abbey Road is the obvious one, but the others are a bit more obscure (and better implemented into the story – Abbey Road’s is shoehorned in). There are also a few stop motion shots of the band traveling through mountainous roads or whatever. Not only was it really good stop-motion, but it also reminded me of Spice World, which is fine. That movie was better than it had any right to be (and featured the best Meat Loaf cameo ever).

Speak of which, how the hell is Meat Loaf not in this movie? You have Alice Cooper, Moby, Henry Rollins... seems right up Loaf’s alley. He should have been Dimitri (the villain). Malcolm McDowell also pops up as “Eddie Van Helsig” (heh), and he is a delight, though he sadly doesn’t get to sing. They do, however, use footage from his 1973 film O Lucky Man for a flashback, which is very cool. I’m surprised this sort of thing isn’t done more often. Way better than dying their hair a darker color (or putting on a wig) or something, because their face is still old. Never works.

My only real complaint is that it gets a bit less humorous in its 3rd act, as they need to give our hero (Rob Stefaniuk, who also wrote and directed) a bit of an arc, which means things get serious every now and then. This is hardly an issue unique to this film, but the laid back humor had led me to believe this wouldn’t be the case; I figured it would have more of a Seinfeld-ian “who cares/nothing changes” denouement with regards to its characters. The action part of the climax is a bit abrupt as well – our master villain doesn’t really do anything, and then he gets dispatched rather quickly.

I also didn’t get Alice’s joke about the drummer in the final scene. Anyone have an explanation? They didn’t clarify it on the commentary, but that’s not much of a surprise since a lot of it is silent as they watch the movie, or admonishing one another for being silent while they watched the movie. Some of the usual ground is covered, but I didn’t really learn much. The making of is much better, as it features interviews with just about everyone, and they discuss both the making of the film and rock music in general (Alice in particular offers some good insight about why rock movies don’t usually work). A music video for the film’s best song (IMO) is also included, as is the trailer.

Suck is ultimately a benefactor of low expectations. If you go in with the belief you’re about to be blown away, you’ll probably hate it. But I expected it to, ahem, suck, like every other vampire comedy and found that the humor was largely spot on (at least for my sensibilities), the music was enjoyable, and the cast was colorful and pitch perfect. A top notch “little” movie.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Solitary (2010)

OCTOBER 3, 2010

GENRE: PSYCHOLOGICAL
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (SHRIEKFEST)

I enjoyed Solitary, but I wish I didn’t watch Fugue yesterday, because they are very similar movies. I believe the FDA would recommend a period of no less than 16 weeks in between viewing the films, with many zombie/slasher/monster movies in between. Both films are about attractive women who live in West LA homes that are menaced by something involving their husbands. But there’s more - both are having pregnancy issues, both have sisters that look nothing like them coming over to help with their issues, and both films involve balding minority guys that may be able to help our heroines get rid of their ghost type problems. And both take place almost entirely in the character’s house.

But that’s where the differences start, because Solitary is actually about a woman with extreme agoraphobia, meaning she’s afraid of open spaces and thus cannot leave her house for more than 20 seconds without having a panic attack. And unlike Fugue, it’s not really played for scares too much – every now and then we get this random POV shot as she tries to get back into her house or something, but otherwise it’s more of a dramatic thriller. Amber Jaeger is terrific in her first lead role, and like Fugue’s heroine, she’s pretty much in every single shot of the movie, which is a remarkable undertaking for any actor, let alone one in their first lead in a feature.

It also reminded me a bit of Premonition (the Sandra Bullock one), in that it’s ultimately a sort of sad movie about someone letting go of their spouse (when are they going to do one from the guy’s point of view? We have feelings too, dammit!). They sort of cheat us in the way that things are presented, but I don’t think it’s spoiling much to say that a major traumatic event was the cause of her agoraphobia. They tip some things off a bit unnecessarily and awkwardly (the locked room is introduced way too early), and some things are never satisfyingly explained (what’s with the extreme closeup on her computer – which we’ve never seen otherwise – telling us she has a new email?), but overall it works, and you’ll go home and give your spouse an extra big hug.

One thing that’s odd about the movie that kept distracting me was the fact that nearly all of the supporting characters have accents. I can buy it for her husband – she says she met him on a travel assignment (she’s a photographer), but why the cop? Or even her sister? I get that on an indie you don’t have the widest selection of actors, but come on, this is LA. Unless it was a deliberate choice that’s supposed to make us feel a bit “off”, in which case, great choice!

However, they really shouldn’t have started the movie off by killing the family bird, because that’s just going to remind us of Poltergeist. You never want to risk directly reminding folks of one of the all time great haunted house movies, especially when horror fans are likely to be a bit disappointed by the fact that this is barely a horror movie when all is said and done. The ending also drags a bit – we get like three “She understands what is happening and is ready to overcome it” scenes in a row, each with yet another obstacle she needs to overcome. You’re keeping me from tacos, people!

The other movies I saw today are From A Place Of Darkness and Ashes. Darkness may be one of the worst movies I’ve seen at a film festival, so let’s not waste any time on that (I will point out it was copyrighted in 2007 and is already available on Netflix and Amazon, so I’m sort of puzzled why it showed at all). Ashes, however, was a quite good, mostly original take on the zombie/infected movie, with a doctor trying to cure AIDS becoming a victim of a virus that turns you into a rager (like the 28 Days Later folks). It’s deliberately paced (read: slow) and very focused on character, which makes the ending, when all hell breaks loose, all the more tragic. Brian Krause plays the doctor, and he is terrific, and first time director Elias Matar made the most of his tiny budget, not to mention is a post production genius – the movie looks great and is flawlessly edited, yet they just shot it a few months ago! The film rightfully won best feature at Shriekfest, by the way. I would write a full review but as I am swamped and didn’t take notes, I am opting for this. Sorry about that. Note – I am 99% positive it was shot in the same hospital where they shot the show Scrubs. I miss that show. Well, I miss that show from the period it was great (Seasons 1-5 or so).

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Fugue (2010)

OCTOBER 2, 2010

GENRE: GHOST (or) PSYCHOLOGICAL
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (SHRIEKFEST)

I was very nervous about attending Shriekfest this year. Not that I had made any enemies there (as far as I know), or anything like that, but it was the first time I had taken my car out of the Valley in almost a month, since my mechanic told me that the bushings and other things keeping the tires on the damn thing were all worn out and close to breaking, which means a good pothole hit could result in me in a very dead car on the side of the road, missing a movie for the day. Also, he believes my transmission is nearing the end of its life, so going uphill (in traffic, which means switching gears a few times in the process) is something I try to avoid. Luckily my route was pothole free, and the transmission didn’t seem to mind the exercise. But I hope the makers of Fugue and the other 3 films I saw appreciate I risked my car to see their movie, dammit!*

Fugue comes from Barbara Stepansky, the same director as Hurt, which I saw (and quite liked) at last year’s Shriekfest. It’s not as successful, but it’s still a solid little psychological chiller, with good performances all around and an ending that reminded me a bit of Inside. And hey, I’m always happy to be reminded of Inside.

But it also reminded me of a couple other movies, and so it falls into that category of movies that work best on those who haven’t seen a million movies, since there are a few tell-tale signs of a twist ending right from the start, things that a movie “novice” might not give much thought to. For example, our heroine, Charlotte, has a band-aid on her forehead, but we don’t know why until much later. However, just the fact that it’s there got me thinking along the lines of “This is all in her head” or something. That’s NOT the answer, mind you, but it still got my noggin working overtime to catch other clues instead of just relaxing and enjoying the story. No one in a movie has a band-aid unless it’s a major plot point (or it’s Pulp Fiction).

However, it’s quite successful in balancing the “is she crazy or is this really happening” approach, which is always appreciated. Without giving too much away, our heroine is hearing strange noises, seeing things in the backyard, and her neighbors are treating her very oddly, and the movie is basically about her trying to understand why. A final shot sort of negates what we are supposed to believe was the ultimate answer, for some reason, but otherwise everything is wrapped up nicely and without cheating.

The only sort of unexplored area is her husband’s relationship with her sister (Julie Mond). They are abrasive to each other in front of Charlotte, but several of the things she finds out seem to be the result of a decision that they made together. So basically I started thinking that they were having an affair, but nothing ever comes of it. Since the entire movie is from Charlotte’s point of view (actress Abigail Mittel is in pretty much every shot of the film), we are left with the say-so of others to get information, which can be a bit tricky when much of the film is based on falsehoods.

Speaking of the point of view, the movie reminded me (not in a bad way) of the Jeff Daniels chiller Chasing Sleep, as both involve married professors having an affair with a student and the tragic/scary consequences of that. However that movie was from the professor’s point of view, whereas this one would be the student. It’s a testament to the cast and Matt Harry’s script that these folks are all likable, because at the film’s core is the tale of a guy running around on his troubled wife with one of his students (who knows about the marriage and doesn’t seem to care). Buncha jerks!

Two of the other three movies I saw weren’t as good, and they were both about the same goddamn thing (aliens killing people in isolated houses). One of them, Grey Skies, took forever to get going and then contained all of the action in a 10-15 minute burst, and had an incredibly unsatisfying ending (though I seem to be in the minority there; it won the audience choice award for the festival). The other, The Awakened, was a bit better, because it had more action and less annoying characters, but it also made the odd choice of starting the movie at the end, so we then spend the entire action portion of the film knowing who makes it out of the house. And there was no narrative point to this that I could see, so it was a huge misstep on their part. The other movie, Transfer, wasn’t even remotely horror, but it was a pretty good (if also anticlimactic) tale of two old folks getting new bodies thanks to some new technology. So kind of like Clonus mixed with The Surrogates, but with the action replaced by a lot of shots of people looking at what is now their own body in wonder.

I’d also like to point out that I found a good place to eat for future Shriekfests. It’s this little Mexican place about a block and a half east on Melrose. Very cheap and quite good. My biggest problem with the festival is its rather out of the way spot and lack of food options (not to mention very brief breaks between films, making going off to get food means you miss a movie), so I’m glad I found this. That way I can see all the films and still eat tacos, which is pretty much all I ever want to do anyway.

What say you?

*My car still took damage though – someone whacked my mirror and left it dangling. My duct tape surgery was largely unsuccessful. However, midgets that try to attack from next to the rear left door won’t be able to catch me off guard, because that’s where the mirror is pointing.

PLEASE, GO ON...

Chain Letter (2010)

OCTOBER 1, 2010

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

It's really stupid to make a movie about current technology, because it will be outdated by the time it's released even under the best circumstances. So for Chain Letter, it's double or even triply stupid, because it's been on the shelf for 3 years, and the whole movie hinges on people whose addiction to the "newest technology" gets them killed. You know, things like Myspace.

It's also sort of funny that the movie is opening against The Social Network, which details the creation of Facebook, which isn't even mentioned in this movie. Nor are iPhones or Twitter, or any other number of actual new technologies that should be playing a part in Chain Letter's "hip" world. Instead, we have a movie that takes place in the "multimedia capital of the world" or something like that (not a joke) but few people even have smartphones. Seriously; there's a scene where a girl and her brother fight over using his computer because hers froze while she was sending an email - this is something one would do from their phone nowadays.

But even without all of the laughably out of date technologies, the movie would still be a pile of horseshit. Screenwriters Michael J. Pagan (who also appears in the film, and there's a joke in there that you'd need to see the movie to appreciate) and Deon Taylor (who also directed) have put together one of the most insultingly stupid scripts in recent memory, with several worthless characters (Betsy Russell, why are you in this movie?), gaping plot holes (it's an awesome kill, but why would people with a two car garage park both of their cars outside and backed into their driveway?), and people acting creepy for no reason just to throw us off track, even though there's no real twist to the movie at all (which I actually sort of like, it's just that the movie still sucks). You also have scenes like Keith David inspecting chains in random farms to see if they match the one found at a crime scene. I never realized chains were sort of like fingerprints or snowflakes and that no two were the same.

And the dialogue! No one expects Mamet or even Sorkin, but yikes. Take this more or less verbatim exchange between Charles Fleischer and David:

Fleischer: These people, they hate technology!
David: But why? What about all of the good things technology has given us?
Fleischer: Doesn't matter - they hate it!

This is pretty much all we get for a motive for Chain Man, too. There's supposedly a cult of these anti-technology folks, but if so I must have slept through their scenes. And the IMDb had to have missed them too, because their cast list is incredibly accurate, including such memorable characters as "Punk hair w / trench coat stares down Nikki Reed", as well as a character played by Bai Ling, who does not appear in the film. Now, I will assume that over the 3 years from the time the film was shot to when it was finally released, that it had some editing and tinkering to try to save it, and I think we can all agree that removing Bai Ling from something is always a good idea, but it's not enough to give the film a pass, because we still have the atrocious dialogue and laughably clueless approach to the technology the film is built around. Christ, at one point, the Cody Kasch character is playing World of Warcraft and is mocking his PvP opponent, claiming he is "stealing all of your experience points". Um, no. That's not how it works.

It also commits the cardinal sin of slasher movies by showing the best kill in the first few minutes (though to be fair, we don't see the outcome until the film's ending - it's sort of a wraparound). As I mentioned, the kill only works if you take it with some massive grains of salt, but it's still pretty sweet - Chain Man wraps up a girl with duct-tape and then chains one leg to her mom's car and the other to her dad's. So when the two leave for work simultaneously (OK), they will pull her apart when they start to drive in opposite directions. Sweet! Even with all the idiotic contrivances behind it, it's still a cheer-worthy visual. But then the other 80 or so minutes occur and ruin all the good will it earned. Plus it's actually the ending of the movie, which is pretty anticlimactic.

And yet this thing landed on over 400 screens. So for those keeping score, Trick R Treat and Inside went straight to video, but this movie actually had a wider opening than Let The Right One In or Midnight Meat Train. Thankfully, the gamble didn't work - my theater had 6 other people, 4 of whom walked out two scenes in, leading me to assume that they were just killing time before Hatchet II, which started ten minutes later. And I had bought a ticket for Hatchet II myself, so its possible that there were only two tickets sold for this Friday night screening of a "new" movie. I know I'm always saying to support original and independent horror, and technically this was the most qualified of the four horror films opening this weekend (Case 39 - studio, Let Me In - remake, and even Hatchet II - sequel), but ultimately, we should just be supporting GOOD horror movies, and Chain Letter is about the furthest thing from one.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...