Horror Movie A Day

The Boy (2016)

JANUARY 22, 2016

GENRE: PUPPET, THRILLER
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (REGULAR SCREENING)

If this was 2007, my review of The Boy would include another genre tagging and I'd be gushing about how it pays homage to ______, which I wouldn't have expected given that I had sat down for a creepy killer doll movie (yes, a doll, not a puppet - I just never bothered making two separate tags and I'm not gonna start now). But over the years I got more and more reserved when it came to spoilers, almost to the point of being one of those annoying spoilerphobes that yell at you on Twitter for saying something like "Kylo Ren is the bad guy in Star Wars". I will ALLUDE to the film's later reveals, but not say anything specific that might tip you off, though just to be safe I hope you just wait until you see the movie before reading. Unless you want to know if you SHOULD see it, and in that case - yes, you should.

"But isn't it from the director of The Devil Inside and Stay Alive," you may ask? Yes, and I didn't know that until I saw his name (William Brent Bell) in the credits. But I was a minor defender of those films (neither are great, but nowhere near as bad as their reputations), and this is much better at any rate. Of course, I'm a sucker for creepy doll movies, and since I was so disappointed by The Forest I was just happy to see a movie with less interest in jolting the audience every five minutes with a fake scare. Not that it lacks them - this IS a PG-13 January horror movie after all, so by law there must be at least two (2) nightmare scenes and every character must be introduced to the heroine (Lauren Cohan) by inadvertently scaring her, but Bell keeps them to an acceptable minimum. Plus, he kind of has no choice but to include some, because the nature of the film restricts him from using the doll much.

If you paid attention to the trailer, you'd notice that the doll never moves, and there's a good reason for that. This isn't Child's Play - the question of the movie is whether or not the doll IS alive as its "parents" think, and you take the journey with Cohan, meaning you find out the answer only when she does. The parents go on vacation early on, leaving her alone with Brahms (the doll's name, and also the name of their son, who died in a mysterious fire), and obviously if the thing got up and told her to make it breakfast (one of the tasks she is asked to perform, much to her confusion) on that first day, she'd hightail it out of there and there would be no movie. So she has to think they're crazy at first, and then as strange things start happening she (we) has (have) to wonder if maybe the parents aren't so crazy after all. Bell knows that if he shows the doll as much as blink, he is locked into that answer (otherwise he'd be cheating) and so you have to be patient - you know the truth when you need to, which is to say, the movie's 3rd act.

As you might expect from that description, this means that there isn't a lot of action in the movie, so some might even call it "boring". I'll admit, I think the pace could have been tightened here and there, but when you consider the bigger picture, it all fits. Cohan has to spend a reasonable amount of time assuming her employers are crazy - if she thinks Brahms is really alive after the first strange noise or "Didn't I leave him in the other room?" type moment, we lose sympathy for our heroine. Like any sane human, it takes her a while to start considering that maybe the doll is in fact alive, so Bell and writer Stacey Menear have to rely on the audience's intelligence (risky move nowadays) to accept that the movie isn't particularly exciting. They also run the risk of making her kind of unlikable in a way - if you believe that Brahms is alive and harmless, then you start thinking about how the poor little guy is sitting there with a blanket over his head for hours on end, and being ignored even longer. Eventually/obviously she does start suspecting that Brahms is alive, and then she has to convince the only other major character - Malcolm, the delivery man played by Rupert Evans from The Canal. This casting amused me, because in that movie he was the one trying to convince someone that he wasn't crazy when explaining something that sounded insane, so now he gets to be on the other side of the conversation. Charming actor, that guy - hope to see him in more hero roles soon.

But it's mostly Cohan's show - she's in every scene (except for one, I'll get to that in a bit) and carries the movie easily. Naturally, she has a tragic backstory, though it's not just some random shit - it actually informs her journey with Brahms. Turns out her abusive ex (the one she's running off to England to escape) hit her a bit too hard one night and caused her to miscarry, so when she learns the couple's own sad history, that they lost the real Brahms and have seemingly avoided dealing with it by treating a doll as if he was their still-living son, she starts sympathizing with their plight. It's rare that a modern horror movie going out on 2000+ screens can be considered a character piece, but that's exactly what The Boy is - it's about this woman coming to grips with the fact that she was denied a chance at motherhood. At a certain point, you should stop caring about whether or not Brahms is real and be more focused on whether or not she will be able to fully recover from her loss, making the horror element kind of a bonus in a strange way. It's not much longer after this reveal that the answers start coming, and so that's where I'll stop discussing the matter.

However I do have to go back to that one scene I mentioned. The entire movie is Cohan's POV, to the extent that even when she's talking to her friend (sister?) back home we don't cut away just to give the movie a change of scenery. Malcolm comes and goes with groceries but they never show him in town, loading his car up or anything - the furthest away from her that they get is when she's trapped in the attic and Malcolm is outside knocking on the door. So I'm baffled that Bell opted to not only break this rule to go hundreds of miles away to show something the parents are doing while on their holiday, but does so about 40 minutes before that information is necessary to us in any way. Not only does it cancel out the possibility that they never actually left and are the ones moving Brahms into different rooms or whatever, but it also severely lessens the impact for when Cohan discovers what they did (via a letter that they send), right near the end of the movie. It's obvious that the script went out of its way to make sure we were never ahead of Cohan's character at any point, so for the life of me I can't understand the thought process behind this glaring exception. I mean, sure, they could show the scene when she finds the letter, because at that point we know all the secrets, but why so long before?

The other complaint I have isn't about the movie, but about some people who are accusing it of ripping off ______. The title would give it away, I can only say it's a recent film, not from the US, that people (including me) really liked. Anyway, they're wrong - there's a similar plot element, yes, but in one that element describes the antagonist and in the other it concerns the hero, so those naysayers are already grasping at straws. Add that to the fact that this element has been used in dozens of movies and that ______ didn't come out in the US (save a few festival appearances) until this one was already in production and I'd say that it's likely just a coincidence, and if you watched the two of them back to back you'd see very different movies that happen to share a similar plot device in their 3rd act. That said, I am confident Menear was definitely paying tribute to the _______ title I mentioned in the first paragraph (a sequel, I'll hint at that much), but anyone who would knock the movie for that is a fool. If anything it's all the more reason to champion it.

(If you're reading this review before seeing the movie, I hope realizing all these things I'm talking about during your viewing doesn't get too distracting!)

Long story short, if you're patient and not the kind of person who gets unreasonably angry when their expectations are not met (i.e. the sort of person who still can't get past the lack of Michael Myers in Halloween III to realize it's an awesome movie), then you should really enjoy this one. My audience mostly turned on it (the guy behind me was basically MST3king it, but he seemed unbalanced so I just rolled my eyes instead of telling him to shut the fuck up) but others that I trust (and who were NOT defenders of Bell's earlier films) have also given it their blessing, and I think lots of folks will be pleasantly surprised if they give it a fair chance. And if not, well, you should at least admit it's better than The Forest (which, oddly enough, also has a Bear McCreary score and stars an actress best known for her role on a trendy cable show), as far as this month's horror options go.

What say you?

P.S. This week's Collins' Crypt piece at Birth.Movies.Death will have the spoiler since it'll be part of a longer article about Bell's output, if you absolutely must know what it is and inexplicably only want to hear it from me.

PLEASE, GO ON...

Martyrs (2015)

JANUARY 20, 2016

GENRE: CULT, SURVIVAL
SOURCE: STREAMING (ONLINE SCREENER)

I am cursed from seeing Martyrs at Screamfest. In 2008 the original was one of the only movies for the entire festival that I missed (I had to get to the New Beverly for something, probably Phil's all-nighter), and in 2015 I ended up sleeping through half of the remake, which is why I didn't review it even though it was one of the fest's high profile screenings. So once again I had to settle for watching it at home (with the windows closed this time!), finally putting together those random chunks of the movie that I saw in a way that a. made sense and b. weren't getting gummed up with my memories of the first film. See, when I say I slept through half, it wasn't like, the LAST half or a big chunk of the middle - I'd fall asleep for 10 minutes, see 10-15, fall asleep for another few minutes, stay awake for a bit, fall asleep for 20 minutes... you get the idea.

(SPOILERS AHEAD!)

Now, if this was a new movie, it'd render the viewing experience completely incoherent, but as it was a remake, I was just sort of filling in the blanks ("Oh right, the monster thing was in her head") and more or less getting it. I mean, if you fall asleep just before Marion gets into the shower in Gus Van Sant's Psycho, it's not like you won't know where she went if you wake up thirty minutes later. However, this remake took my favorite approach for these things, which is to start off more or less identical and then take a turn somewhere. So by the end, I was having a lot of trouble with my "fill in" process, because I was using elements that were no longer in play and mixing up the two lead characters, and that's because of the film's biggest change - Lucy doesn't die at the end of the first act. Long story short, by the end I knew I had to give this movie a total rewatch, and make sure I was actually seeing things in the right context instead of some (admittedly kind of appealingly funky) blend of what I was seeing, what I had seen seven years earlier, and what I was possibly just dreaming in between.

Of course, all anyone cares about knowing is whether or not this remake is "pointless" or whatever other derogatory term you might want to throw at such fare, and in that case no it is not. There will be some backlash, I'm sure, but the movie gambles with some big changes and for the most part they pay off. Most importantly is that it's an easier film to watch, and I know some might say that it SHOULDN'T be, but we already have the nearly unbearable version of this story. Pascal Laugier directed it in 2008 and it's available from Amazon and other fine retailers. The whole point of a remake, at least to me, is to either fix a story that got broken the first time around, or just try it a different way whether it worked fine or not. It's like a Choose Your Own Adventure book - you pick your options and see how things turn out, and then you flip back to page 1 and try some other things. Maybe it'll be a better experience, maybe not - the point is that you TRY (unlike Gus Van Sant).

So Lucy (Troian Bellisario) lives this time, and it's she, not Anna (Bailey Noble), that goes through the torture during the 3rd act, albeit nowhere near as excessive as in the original. There are some truly unsettling moments, of course, but as the director hilariously said at the screening, he wanted people to be able to actually see it this time (alluding to the original, which was either cut heavily or banned outright in several countries). I don't think there's anything wrong with the idea of telling a story in a way that will make it more digestible for a larger audience, and since the horror genre isn't exactly drowning in inventive narratives or multi-dimensional villains, I'm all for a way that can allow more people to see this particular story. As you might have guessed, none of that stuff changed - the title has the same meaning, the girls are still being tortured for the same reason, etc. It just has some different ways of going about it, one that allows a little more character development for Anna (as she now gets to do something besides scream and get beaten for the film's final half hour or so) and some other little tweaks that I won't divulge here.

Plus I liked how it worked for newcomers and old fans. People who had never seen the original won't be surprised to see Lucy survive, but the film manages to replicate the original's sense of confusion during its first act or so, when you're not sure who your heroes are, how the things you're seeing are connected, etc. The pieces fall into place when they need to, so I assure you that if you're confused at first - it's intentional, and it pays off. And this goes for those who have seen the original, as they're likely to feel ahead of what's going on at first and lulled into a sense of security, only for Lucy's survival to kick off a new chain of events that they might NOT fully grasp until they're supposed to. This sounded like one of the least necessary remakes in history when it was first announced (a long time ago, and with Last Exorcism director Daniel Stamm attached - he's no longer involved), so it's ironic that in the grand tradition of horror remakes (and in particular the ones from last 10 years or so) it's actually a lot closer to the "THIS is how you do it!" end of the spectrum (with We Are What We Are and The Crazies) than the "You fucked it up!" area occupied by Halloween and pretty much every post-Grudge Asian horror remake.

That said, there are two decisions I wasn't crazy about in October and haven't really warmed to here. One is an audience-relief kind of moment near the end that is a bit of a groaner (though, without spoiling things, I can say that it's softened by the action another character takes just before it, which is more in line with the point). The other is that while Anna is the one we're with the whole time (and the one that the lady explains their purpose to), she doesn't really put through anything, making her kind of a bystander in the narrative. Lucy survives and gets put through the ringer again, but (perhaps to keep the violence level down) we barely get back to her once she's recaptured, staying with Anna as she avoids the torture folk (I wish they had a cult name or something to refer to them!), rescues another victim, etc. It feels like we're watching the B-plot of the story during the 3rd act, making it lack a real anchor to the proceedings. Not that I want to see Anna get tortured (or anyone else), but I couldn't help but think, rather than have both of them survive, if they killed Anna off halfway and made it all Lucy's story, the new filmmakers would earn their points for changing things (albeit not as much) but retaining the strong grip on the audience that the original had. Laugier made us experience Anna's awful plight - here they let her off and background the one going through the real suffering. It's not a crippling flaw, but it'll certainly give the kneejerk remake haters something that will be hard to argue with should I ever have to defend the movie in a debate.

But it all comes back to the story itself, which I find just as fascinating now as I did when I saw the original (which, if you recall, I also felt had some issues). What really could have ruined things is letting us know what the girl (Lucy or Anna) was whispering at the end, and they don't make that mistake - we are still allowed to draw our own conclusions as to what she saw. For those who haven't seen the original, this would be the rare instance where I recommend starting with the remake, because you will get to experience this unique and thought-provoking tale in a manner that's not as difficult to watch. If you feel it's too tame, you can always go back and watch Laugier's take, which, ultimately, is probably the superior film if I'm being honest. That said, it's not like Halloween or Nightmare on Elm Street where the difference between the two films is night and day, and considering all that was stacked against it (director switch, kind of a dumped release, a relatively quickie remake that was probably largely inspired by the language change than any real narrative necessity), I think it deserves some measure of respect, and certainly a watch. After all, it's not like Martyrs is the sort of movie you watch over and over - if it's been 6-7 years since you gave it a look, go with this one! Even if you hate every scripting decision, it has a terrific score by Evan Goldman. I WILL win that debate should it ever come up, dammit.

What say you?

P.S. The writer is Mark L. Smith, who also co-wrote The Revenant. I find it amusing that if you look at his resume and see a Martyrs remake and a Leonardo DiCaprio movie that will probably (sigh) win Best Picture, you'd think Martyrs would be the one that was ultimately buried by pointlessness and an excess of torture inflicted on its protagonist. Nope! It's the one stealing all of Hateful Eight's rightful audience!

PLEASE, GO ON...

Sharknado 3: Oh Hell No! (2015)

JANUARY 15, 2016

GENRE: COMEDIC, MONSTER
SOURCE: STREAMING (ONLINE SCREENER)

It's been a long damn time since I've watched a sequel to a movie I hadn't seen, let alone a part 3, but I was forced to watch Sharknado 3: Oh Hell No! for one of my freelance jobs, ending not only that OCD-driven streak, but also ending my successful avoidance of this series. That's right, I have never seen a frame of the first two Sharknado films, because they just seemed like the sort of thing I would hate (bad movies on purpose) and as they were all released post-HMAD's daily grind, I had even less of an interest. Did seeing part 3 change my mind and convince me to go back and watch them? No, but I'll say this much: I was wrong, at least for this one, as I didn't hate the movie.

Before watching I joked about not being able to follow its complicated narrative without having seen the first two movies, so I was kind of amused that I WAS a bit confused when it started, as Ian Ziering (I know enough to know he's the hero of these things) was running in a panic right off the bat, and I had no idea why. However the Wiki synopsis I read for Sharknado 2 didn't suggest any sort of cliffhanger ending, so I dunno, maybe they just wanted it to be more exciting than showing him walking. Anyway early on he gets a medal from President Mark Cuban for his shark-killing heroics, and then a sharknado strikes the White House and things start all over again. I'll give it credit - it doesn't make you wait long for action, ever - the damn things appear every few minutes and wreak lots of bloody havoc. None of the FX are any good, but clearly quantity over quality was the MO here, so I can't fault them for it - I've seen enough Syfy/Asylum movies that only had a few FX and they still sucked anyway, so why not stuff as many in as possible? It's not like the sharks will look better if the FX guys had fewer shots to deal with on what I'm sure is a minimal budget.

And I assume a hefty chunk of that budget went to casting, as the movie is jam-packed with cameos, some even somewhat impressive - Ann Coulter? George RR Martin? Others were just plain wacky, like Jackie Collins in what was probably her last time on camera, and Michele Bachmann in her first ever narrative movie appearance. The Wiki has even more listed, such as Steve Guttenberg's character from Lavalantula (Ziering appears in that one; they share a universe I guess), and also says that the appearance by a pre-scandal Jared Fogle was cut, though he was in the version I watched (yay?). Maybe some of them appeared for free just to join the fun, but still, just roping everyone in and increasing the catering/transportation budgets to accommodate them probably put a dent in the couple million Syfy threw at this thing.

Luckily, Syfy is owned by Universal, and from that they were able to secure some (free?) production value, shooting a big chunk of the movie at Universal Studios in Orlando. They didn't get to show much of the park in terms of the licensed characters (sorry, no sharks devouring Minions), but you can't help but laugh at a shark eating someone posing for a photo with Jaws in front of the familiar lagoon they have set up. Plus it's a welcome respite from the usual shitty Asylum sets - the NASA control room (yep, they go into space eventually, and yes, sharknadoes attack there too) in particular is laughable, looking more like the control tower to one of those tiny regional airports where you take people for scenic tours. I also couldn't help but be amused that the film's plot actually helped dictate another Asylum production tradition: ugly lighting. With sharks constantly swarming overhead, it makes sense that it always looks cloudy and grey throughout the movie, so kudos on that one, fellas.

It's also got just enough cutesy in-jokes to warrant some of my respect. They throw in a few Jaws references, of course (Sugar Ray's Mark McGrath plays Martin Brody, as he apparently did in the previous film, and also a slightly more inspired "General Gottleib"), but there's also a Universal tour guide named Babs (and yes, "Ask for Babs" comes up) which I can't help but appreciate. GRRM is killed (spoiler) sitting next to someone in a wedding dress, and Ziering's 90210 license plate (as does the one from Jaws) makes an appearance. It's even got some legitimately funny lines, like when they're trying to explain to an army guy what's going on and someone says "Bio meteorology is not really an exact science yet." And somehow, the Today Show hosts (all of them, I think) talking about sharknadoes with the same everyday gravitas as they might an earthquake never stopped being funny to me. Basically, there's just enough genuine wit and "We're just having fun" attitude to keep me from getting annoyed.

It does wear thin though. If this didn't have to be a Syfy premiere (i.e. 88-90 minutes to make two hours with commercials), I suspect it would be 70 minutes long at most. The space stuff feels like a 4th act (it really should have climaxed at Universal, since so much of the movie is devoted to Ziering trying to get there and save his family) and, like all Syfy movies, there are too many "OK let's just cut somewhere at random and show anonymous people getting killed" sequences of no concern to the plot. Jared's is one such scene, in fact, so it was probably easy enough to cut for Syfy though I haven't the slightest idea of why they'd put it back in now that, if anything, we know even WORSE things about him than we did when the movie premiered in late July (the worse allegations didn't surface until August, if memory serves). For the first half hour I was thinking "I've been too hard on these things, this is actually fun!" but by the time it ended I was getting pretty sick of seeing digital sharks and random extras being digitally eaten or covered in digital gore.

But there IS an energy to it, which is more than I can say for most Asylum or Syfy stuff that I've seen. If you recall, most of the other Asylum movies that got attention (like the Mega Shark vs Giant Octopus one) were actually terribly boring movies that only had enough action for the trailer, but this, if anything, could almost use a little LESS carnage so it doesn't wear out its welcome (maybe commercial breaks would help?). With all of the attention (read: Twitter hashtags) that the first two got, I'm sure they were given a little more money to put this together, and if so they used it wisely - I can't imagine there's a single movie in their history that offers this many names, this many locations (the story takes them from Washington, to Florida, to outer space), or this much production value - there are two big scenes set on roller coasters! It's like a real movie!

Just not a very good one. I mean, it's pointless to critique the screenplay or acting, because this is a machine that exists for people on social media to band together and live-tweet it, so I don't really care that it's not a winner in those regards - it'd be like complaining that the latest Paul Blart movie didn't have any really exciting action sequences. But again, it gets too repetitive, and this is to someone who hasn't already seen the other two movies, which I can only assume are more or less the same (I understand the first one wasn't as cameo driven, however). To a series fan (?) this might be a case of enough is enough, but they have a 4th one coming (and, sure enough, are using Twitter to decide if Tara Reid's character will survive the encounter that ends this one on a cliffhanger), so I guess we will see if the joke has grown stale or not. Either way, if I'm forced to watch that one too, at least I'll know that there's a good chance I won't hate it. More than I can say about a possible new Paranormal Activity or Hellraiser.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Contracted: Phase 2 (2015)

JANUARY 11, 2016

GENRE: ZOMBIE
SOURCE: BLU-RAY (OWN COLLECTION)

There aren't a lot of zombie sequels, and of the few, they generally follow an unwritten rule that there shouldn't be any strong continuity between them, if at all. Likely because of the game backdrop, the Resident Evil series is an exception, and Re-Animator sort of counts (I never really think of them as zombie movies, more mad scientist movies). But otherwise, they're always stand-alone: none of Romero's movies are connected in any meaningful way, The Dead 2 was basically a remake in a different country, the ROTLD's didn't have much to do with each other (4 and 5 were connected, if memory serves, but not even the film's owner wants anything to do with those), etc. Contracted: Phase 2 bucks that trend, however, as it not only picks up the second the first left off, but actually requires you to see the first in order to make sense out of a couple of its plot points (including the setup for a 3rd film). Even more surprising, it does this with a different creative team, making its rare approach something of a minor miracle in the horror genre - a new filmmaking team with some respect for what came before?

Of course, whether or not the movie is GOOD is a different matter. The first Contracted wasn't a masterpiece by any means, but it was an interesting approach to a zombie movie - what if, instead of having the outbreak happen in the first 10 minutes (or already ongoing, as many modern ones do), we just follow patient zero? The heroine got what she thought was an STD early on and proceeded to spend the movie degenerating in the usual ways (discolored eyes, veiny skin, hair and teeth falling out, etc), but it wasn't clear until the very end that she was becoming a traditional, human-flesh eating zombie (see the movie Thanatomorphose for the non-zombie version of a similar scenario). You would think that a sequel would have the outbreak further along and give us some traditional undead action, but (probably for budgetary reasons) they opted to more or less do the same thing, showing the slow transformation of Riley, one of the original's minor characters who was stupid enough to have sex with the protagonist when she was all but ready to eat him.

It's always a gamble to see a supporting character take the lead in a sequel, and it largely works here, even if there isn't an element of surprise. Riley was the sort of character you expect to die horribly in the first movie because he's nice and sweet, the type of person who has no place in dark horror movies, so the fact that he survived at all was already a surprise - I wouldn't have expected him to take main protagonist duties in a followup. Riley's lovesick angle is dropped (in fact, a new character pines for him and he barely shows interest) and we meet his sister and his best buddy, who happens to be a doctor, but it's not all new faces. Three other characters from the original return, but only one of them is given a proper reintroduction. That would be "BJ", the guy who gave the girl in the first one the disease when he date raped her, and is up to his old tricks in this one - we see him injecting a hooker with something, proving his infections are in purpose. BJ is played by actor Morgan Peter Brown this time instead of Simon Barrett (who, if memory serves, was barely seen in the original, making it a fairly seamless recasting), and the role is bulked up considerably - we hear his silly "I will end the world" MO and he even gets to shoot up some cops at the hospital during the climax.

The other two returns are treated as a surprise of sorts, for the hardcore Contracted fans I guess - they just show up and we have to know who they are. I don't know how many people will be watching if they haven't seen "Phase 1", but if such a person exists I assume they will quickly understand why zombie movies usually don't bother with a continuing storyline. I'm not sure anyone really cares about what BJ and [REDACTED] are up to, because that wasn't the appeal of the first film or even the bulk of the followup. BJ's scenes here are fine, but they ultimately just build up more mystery instead of settling it, trusting that we will see Phase 3 for the answers to questions we didn't exactly have when we sat down. Don't force our investment, movie!

But watching Riley's journey is still a decent enough premise for a sequel, especially when it's only like 70 minutes or so without credits (and two stingers). One interesting thing is that he actually contacts the police about BJ instead of doing all of the investigating on his own, allowing him to try to go on with his life. So he goes to work (where another infected person shows up), goes on a date, etc. And in one inspired bit, he goes to a wake for the girl who got killed in the first movie, where he has to endure her awful hipster friends, including one who sings a painful (read: hilarious) song about her with lyrics like "Alice, come drink from my chalice..."). There are other little bits of humor like that sprinkled throughout the movie, which I wouldn't go so far as to say it SAVES it, but certainly keeps it squarely in "perfectly fine" timekilling entertainment.

As for the gore gags, they're similarly OK. Riley doesn't get AS decrepit as the original girl, but there's a pretty horrifying blood pissing scene to make the guys squeamish, plus a nice bit where he confronts his love interest about her own symptoms, and a would-be hero, thinking Riley is bothering her, intervenes and pays the price. The makeup work on their skin/eyes/lips/etc is quite good, though it seems like it takes longer for Riley's symptoms to really get bad, so we don't get into really gross stuff for quite a while (except for the blood piss, but that's always been a particularly tough one for me to watch). The movie offers a few more infected parties (four, I think?) but they're used for quick jolts of action, not so much for deteriorating body horror that the first one excelled at. I wish there was a look at the makeup FX process in the bonus features, but alas we only get two: a trailer and an extended trailer, and if you think I bothered to watch both to note the differences, you sir/madam have never had a child or a crippling video game habit that demanded your free time.

Overall, I give them credit for trying something different for a zombie sequel (and with Marvel, the Fasts, etc, you can't really blame anyone for embracing continuity), but when it ultimately feels like an extended setup for a 3rd movie, I can't help but feel kind of annoyed. Maybe if Phase 3 (if it ever exists) is a knockout, I'll be more forgiving, the way I softened on Saw V when the next one proved to be such a fine return to form, but that's a big IF. Die-hard fans of the original, if they can get past the fact that it's not from writer/director Eric England (who doesn't seem to be too thrilled about this one's existence, if his Twitter is any indication), will enjoy seeing the supporting cast take the spotlight, and sequelphiles can add it to the admirable world of "picks up the second the last one ended" followups (joining Halloween II, the Hatchet sequels, etc), but as its own entity, it falls short of being a success. Watchable, sure, but I can't imagine a scenario where I'd ever want to watch it again.

What say you?

P.S. If the new director's name sounds familiar to you, it's because it's the same Josh Forbes who made some headlines last year when he launched a (successful!) crowdfunded campaign to buy his ticket for the MTV Video Awards, where he was nominated for his Walk The Moon video. MTV, apparently, doesn't give nominees a ticket unless they're famous (and thus wouldn't bother to go as they'd probably have something better to do with their time). He lost to Fall Out Boy, for the record.

PLEASE, GO ON...

Over Your Dead Body (2014)

JANUARY 6, 2016

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

If there's one gaping hole in my modern horror knowledge, it's the work of Takashi Miike. I have only seen a pitiful two of his horror films*, and one of them is One Missed Call, which is probably the equivalent of using Always as half of your experience with the films of Steven Spielberg. The other is Audition, and from what I understand, this new film, Over Your Dead Body (Japanese: Kuime, and not to be confused with Over Her Dead Body, the movie that took three of the most charming people in the world and make us hate them), is more in line with that 1999 classic than the majority of his other work - however when I say "classic" I'm not speaking for myself, as I didn't really like it all that much, which (along with One Missed Call) is a big reason of why I haven't bothered seeing anything else, despite people saying "See Ichi the Killer!" or whatever every time I mention my lack of enthusiasm for the filmmaker.

Incidentally, what other of his work I HAVE seen is smaller form - his Three Extremes segment and his Masters of Horror episode, both of which I've enjoyed more than his films. And that impression kept coming back during Body, because it was very drawn out, though I am pretty sure that's part of the point. The film concerns a production of Kaidan (a Kabuki traditional play) and how its narrative begins to blend with the real lives of its actors, and I suspect Miike wanted to mirror that feeling for the audience. Like the actors who forget that what they're saying is fiction, I found myself getting so drawn into Kaidan's narrative during the long rehearsal scenes that I'd forget that it was technically just the flavor to the "real" tale being told (it'd be like if you were more into Fargo's Bruce Campbell-starring soap opera than Fargo).

And that's actually kind of helpful, because I do not know the Kaidan story very well. I saw Nakata's 2007 film version of it, but couldn't make much sense of it and also it was almost seven years ago, so that was no help. Miike gives you enough of the story to get the gist of it, but it didn't help much in the 3rd act, when pretty much all lines separating the play from reality are dropped - I had very little idea what was going on. Plus sometimes the actors are in their costumes but not in character, and it was hard to tell which - and again, that may be the point, but in this case I think you'd need to know Kaidan inside and out to suss out those subtleties properly. Or at least read a thorough synopsis beforehand, which I did not do because I didn't know any better. Let this be my gift to you!

All that said, I still enjoyed the movie, more or less. For starters it's GORGEOUS; the play's rotating stage is a marvel of production design and Miike shoots the hell out of it, but gives the outside/at home scenes plenty of visual appeal as well (that fish tank!). A lot of the Japanese films I see (or, SAW - I haven't seen too many since quitting the daily aspect of the site) are shot with cheap video cameras, but this looks wonderful and I'm glad I saw it on Blu-ray to do its visuals justice. The occasional FX were pretty good as well, and I loved how Miike teased us with repeated shots/closeups of a giant metal plate that you knew would decapitate someone eventually (it's part of a construction site that the protagonists have to pass by on the way to work every day), with a payoff that is definitely worth the wait.

I mentioned Audition earlier, and for good reason - fans of that film's tendency to offer out of nowhere WTF moments will be satisfied here, though one of the best such moments is spoiled by the trailer (don't watch it beforehand! It's kind of a lame trailer anyway but showing off its best scare moment sans context really stings). It's also got one of the all-time great "I know she's doing something I won't like but I don't know what it is yet" sequences, where we see a character throw a lot of metal objects into a big pot, which made me think she was setting up a microwave explosion. Then she filled the pot with water and boiled all of the instruments, and I thought she was planning to torture her jerk boyfriend and wanted options, but... well, it's not long after that where her intentions become clear, and I assure you it's far more horrifying than the rather benign stuff I had considered. I always like these sequences, where the pieces of some terrible plan are slowly falling into place and you can usually be assured that you're not fucked in the head enough to get too far ahead of the filmmaker (I mean, if you knew what she was up to the second she started banging her kitchen utensils around - why aren't YOU making movies for me to watch and review?).

But also like Audition, I think it's best to go in not knowing it's a horror movie. He doesn't wait as long to tip that hand (at least, as far as my memory of Audition can attest) but it's again treated as an out of nowhere development - nothing before that moment screams or even really hints "genre film!" (the first closeup of that metal sheet occurs early on, but I've seen dramas where road hazards are telegraphed in a similar manner). It would make those shocking developments play better, I think, if you (like its characters) just think you're in a story about lonely/broken people trying to have fulfilling relationships while putting on a production of an equally tragic play. As to why I opted to make it my first entry in the "revived" Horror Movie A Day, I have no idea (well, I do - it was on top of the pile of unwatched movies I have that I'm supposed to review).

Overall, I liked it more than Audition, which I know isn't saying much (that said, I should give that one another chance - my review seems harsher than I feel about the movie in my memory), but it falls into that same category of movies that are a bit too slow for my liking when you consider the payoff. When a slow pace culminates in a terrific finale to make it worth the wait, I'm a happy viewer - but this doesn't QUITE hit that mark for me. It comes close, enough to justify my viewing (and again, it's a terrific looking film), but not enough to keep the disc or speed up my laughably slow attempts to see more of Miike's work.

What say you?

*I've also seen Gozu, and I stand by my claim that it isn't a horror movie.

PLEASE, GO ON...

Merry Christmas! (Shitter's Full)

Hey folks! I swear I'm not dead! I'm just very very busy as of late. We had some cutbacks at my day job which has dramatically increased how much I have to do (yes, this is what made me quit doing the site every day in the first place - now it's worse!), and it's not only wiped my free time but also my brain. It takes me 6-7 hours to write my Collins' Crypt articles now (often over a period of 2-3 days) because I'm so exhausted and end up spending chunks of time rewriting it because it didn't make any sense. So, along with the lack of any new horror releases that would inspire me (Krampus being the obvious exception), it's been quieter than I'd like.

You may also wonder why you can't make up for it by reading the HMAD book that was promised by Christmas. Well, that one's out of my hands - I was maybe a bit late in delivering my draft to the editor, but she had to do a ton of other, more pressing work (a lot of it related to that space movie you're probably sitting in a theater waiting for as you read this) that left her unable to give it the time it'd require to have it out by now. So it won't be out until February (I hope!), and I apologize for that as well, though believe me no one is more disappointed or frustrated by the delay than me. I just hope you guys are still interested by the time it sees the light of day.

Now for good news! If I have to inject myself with Red Bull to do it so be it - starting in 2016 I will be updating at LEAST once a week, no exceptions. I realize that almost all of the reviews I posted this year were of theatrical or festival releases, and that will change - I'll go back to reviewing DTV junk, random indies, older stuff, etc. Obviously part of that is to make sure the site is still active enough to remind you about the book, but also I need the practice - I'm getting rusty when it comes to reviewing (something I don't really do for Crypts, which are more essay-driven). I actually almost met this quota for 2015 (50 reviews for 52 weeks), but they were erratic - a lot in October, as always, but then only two since. I want a bit more consistency; I might even try to always post them on the same day each week so that I can be sure to stay on top of it and also give you guys something to look forward to every ____ (leaning toward Thursday). This was always the plan once I finished the book (at least, my part of it), but the work layoffs derailed it and it's only just now starting to stabilize again. I COULD start now but a. the movie I picked to start was so bad I couldn't finish it and b. I figure I might as well wait until the New Year since a lot of folks are probably out of work for the rest of the year and office drones are my bread and butter. Plus January has a few horror releases that I would have reviewed anyway so that'll be a good way to get my butt in gear before I start settling for anonymous junk.

So enjoy your holiday, and don't forget me just yet - 2016 will be the most "active" the site's been since I stopped the daily part of it!

PLEASE, GO ON...

Krampus (2015)

NOVEMBER 12, 2015

GENRE: HOLIDAY, SUPERNATURAL
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (PRESS SCREENING)

I don't know what it is about making mean-spirited Christmas movies that just gets me all giddy; when I think about my favorite holiday films, with the exception of Die Hard they all have a mean streak: Gremlins, both Black Christmases, Silent Night Deadly Night, Scrooged... and now Krampus can join that lineup, blending Christmas Vacation's family dynamic with Gremlins' sense of "family friendly" horror. In fact, much like Gremlins was one of the films that inspired the creation of the PG-13 rating, Krampus might be the one that finally gets the MPAA to create something in between PG-13 and R. If you thought Gremlins' "Santa Claus in the chimney" story was dark... yikes. But again, that sort of thing just speaks to my sensibilities, and I was legitimately CACKLING throughout most of the movie.

Director Michael Dougherty (working from a script he wrote with Zach Shields and Todd Casey) paces the film incredibly well, giving us time to know the 11 people who will be terrorized by the title character and his minions in the film's second half. Our hero family is led by Adam Scott and Toni Collette, who seem to be well off but unhappy, with Scott's mom living with them while raising a standard bratty teenaged girl and a pre-teen son who still believes in Santa. David Koechner fills the Cousin Eddie role as the gun-loving husband of Allison Tolman's character (Tolman and Collette are sisters), and they even throw a bit of a nod to the original Vacation by springing a bitchy aunt on them as a "surprise". Plus they have four of their own kids (including a baby), setting up a big group of characters you assume will be totally safe for this PG-13 movie.

Nope.

Without spoiling who, let's just say that there is shockingly a sufficient body count offered in the movie, something I was not expecting at all. I mean, the bitchy Aunt is a given and MAYBE Scott's elderly mother, but I couldn't see anyone else being picked off. Indeed, early on the daughter goes to see her boyfriend, and the veteran horror viewer in me thought "Oh, the boyfriend can provide the bloodshed so we can get our fix without actually seeing a family get decimated on Christmas" (ditto for a delivery man), but (spoiler!) the boyfriend is apparently dead before the girl even gets there, and it's pretty obvious that she joins him soon thereafter. It's pretty rare to off any of a family unit in one of these things - I mean, if you think about Gremlins, none of the Peltzers end up dead, you know? That's not the case here.

And while you might think that might come off as pretty grim, it's not the case. Even with my stupid dad gene making me oversensitive to this sort of stuff in horror (even watching the Friday the 13th movies last week, I started thinking about how sad Rob and Sandra's parents must be to lose both their children in one week), I never got bummed out by any of the carnage. The humor certainly helped - Adam Scott is, as always, effortlessly hilarious, earning one of the biggest laughs with a mere sigh, and Koechner has got the dimwitted asshole routine down to a science by now. And I've been totally smitten with Allison Tolman since Fargo, so it delighted me that she scored what might have been my favorite non-horror related laugh with a passive aggressive snipe at her sister's fondness for fancy food. And the aunt is played by veteran scene-stealer Conchata Ferrell, so you know she's got some good lines in there. In other words, even if Krampus and co. hadn't shown up, I would have been enjoying this Ref-like look at a family who hates each other but is forced to try to get along for Christmas.

But alas, a goat monster, killer gingerbread men, and one freakishly terrifying Jack in the Box all show up and wreak havoc on the joint. The FX are pretty astonishing for the most part, with Dougherty employing a healthy blend of practical and CGI to bring his various creatures to life. Given that the title monster would have been enough I was happily surprised to see all of the others, giving the film a more madcap, (again) Gremlins-y flair at times - while also using Krampus sparingly, making his moments count instead of (over)using him as a lone boogeyman. Turns out one of the people in the house has crossed paths with him before (a flashback that plays out in an animated sequence - so good), and their little reunion serves as the bulk of his stuff, while everyone else battles the more insane, Evil Dead 2-esque assortment of things coming to life (the payoff for a bit about Collette getting Mom's Christmas tree angel instead of Tolman is perfect).

In fact, even with the harsh stuff, it's actually a pretty good gateway horror movie for kids. It might give them a few nightmares (seriously, that Jack in the Box is goddamn disturbing), but unlike Gremlins they don't come down hard on the "No Santa" thing (in fact it kind of reinforces the idea that he exists in a roundabout way), and the young son will give them a peer to take the journey with, something Gremlins didn't really have (Corey Feldman got phased out of the movie so he doesn't count). There's an F bomb, but no gore or anything, and (goes without saying since the only characters are a family unit) no sex stuff, so it's also a better option than Christmas Vacation or Scrooged ("Can't even SEE the nipple!"). Not saying it's a better MOVIE than those, but if your 7 or 8 year old is curious I think it's pretty much an OK choice if you know when to block their ears.

However, the pacing can get a bit wonky, particularly when everyone leaves the house. I won't get into what happens there, but Dougherty rushes through some things and then drags out the aftermath, with one of our heroes very slowly trying to save one of the others from some Krampus-y ritual. I don't know if staying in the house would have fixed the issue, but since it starts almost as soon as they walk out the front door I have to assume it's at least partially to blame - holing up in the film's primary location for the big climax is always preferable to going off into an anonymous exterior, in my opinion. Especially when the house is big and kind of under utilized - we only see one of what has to be at least four bedrooms, there's probably a basement and/or a garage that could have been used for a setpiece, etc. In fact it kind of looks like the Home Alone house from the outside, and I couldn't help but think of how I could probably draw a decent map of that film's setting from memory, but am still unsure as to how this house all fit together. Is this a crippling problem? No, not at all - but the best part of the movie is when there are like three different fights going on at once throughout different parts of the house, so I can't help but wish they spread out even more instead of spending most of the movie huddle together in the living room.

Otherwise, this worked like gangbusters for me. I was won over instantly, with an opening sequence showing a typical Black Friday-esque mob trampling each other, beating each other up, and then bitterly waiting in line (set to the tune of "It's The Most Wonderful Time Of The Year" - and yes I know this is basically copied from Jingle All The Way but it's too funny an idea to waste on a middling Arnold comedy from the 90s), but the real meat of the movie delighted me just as much for the most part. The ending was ultimately satisfying (be patient! I know you'll groan about something but it works out, I promise), the creature work is terrific, and the cast was game for everything Dougherty threw them. It might not unseat your current favorite Christmas horror movie like his Trick 'r Treat did for Halloween for some (not for me, of course, though I'll be first to admit he invoked the spirit of the holiday much more successfully than Carpenter did), but it'll find its way into your rotation for sure. Counting down until I can show Will...

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Scouts Guide To The Zombie Apocalypse (2015)

NOVEMBER 8, 2015

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

I noticed far more writing credits on Scouts Guide To The Zombie Apocalypse than the shooting script seemingly would have required, which means I'd have to do research to find out which of them was responsible for the thing that kept me from really liking the movie. Most of it actually really works well, with an endearing trio of best friends at its center and a sweet, if slightly cliched, subplot about how one of them isn't "growing up" as fast as the other two and how they handle their eroding bond, all set against a zombie outbreak that has seemingly wiped out most of their town. Alas, someone thought it'd be a good idea to work an American Pie-esque series of raunchy encounters and subplots into the mix, and it all but kills the movie's potential every time it rears its ugly head.

Since the heroes are 15 or 16, this would make for a pretty good early entry zombie for your budding horror fan if not for all the sexual hijinks. It's one thing for a Friday the 13th-type boob shot before Jason kills the fornicating teens, but one of the three guys talks about sex non-stop, there's a trip to a strip club (yes, an undead stripper does a routine, more on that soon), and in the weirdest moment, a female zombie snags her top on something and exposes her breasts, at which point the horny guy fondles them. Well, tied for weirdest; later on an old lady zombie (Cloris Leachman!) tries to eat his ass but her dentures are out so he doesn't get infected or anything - we just get a visual of an Oscar winner slurping away in dangerous proximity to a teenager's asshole. It's gross and unfunny, and doesn't jive at all with the kid-friendly plot about doing what's right, standing by your pals, etc. It also primes the movie too much for what is its only good gag - a kid is falling out of a window and grabs hold of what he/we think is a zombie's bathrobe belt, only to discover that it's actually the guy's dick. With all the boobs and raunchiness you know a dick gag is coming, and it deflates some of the gag's impact - imagine how funny and shocking it'd be in an otherwise chaste movie? It'd still go against the otherwise PG-13 tone (the violence is no more harsh than what's allowed on Walking Dead), but at least the payoff would be worth it.

That said, I did appreciate that the fat kid of the group wasn't the butt of fat jokes the whole time. He has a toilet moment (someone had to), but otherwise they don't really bother with lame gags - even during the aforementioned window scene (they're jumping out the window onto a well-placed trampoline to bounce to safety), you'd half-expect some dumb Kevin James-y gag where he crashes through the trampoline or can't bounce high or whatever, but he clears it just fine. His dedication to the scout group is also refreshingly not played for laughs; his friends are getting a bit too old to be earning merit badges or whatever, but they clearly still have some affinity for it (and plenty more for him), so he's not painted or treated as a dork or a loser or anything like that. In vague exposition that I assume was truncated, we learn that his father died two years ago, so scouting with his two best pals (and their scout leader, played by David Koechner in a rare non-asshole role) is how he keeps the sadness at bay - and the friends respect that. This could have easily turned into a mockfest both about scouting and the "weird kid" that sticks with it after puberty, but at least one of the writers was smart enough to know that the comedy can stem from genuine character interplay and situations, not by making fun of everything.

As for the zombie stuff, it's fine. They explain it away with some accident at a science lab (the janitor, played by Workaholics' Blake Anderson, snoops around and unleashes it) and it takes a while to really get going, but there's an interesting element to it that I haven't seen much: they retain basic (VERY basic) functions of their pre-zombie life. I mentioned the stripper, and then they encounter a weird homeless guy with an affinity for Britney Spears who, despite being undead, recognizes "Baby One More Time". And sure enough, when they go to a police station for help, a zombie cop does what a normal cop would do - he fires his gun repeatedly at the people he's supposed to be protecting. The filmmakers also split the difference for the whole "fast or slow" thing - they just kinda briskly walk, which I found amusing, and on that note despite being a zombie comedy they don't drown in Romero references (save for the hero being named Ben, but with that as the only one it might just be a coincidence). There's a shoutout to Haddonfield for some reason, but otherwise the biggest reference is probably a Die Hard spoof (it's during the cock scene, which I admit is part of why I was won over by it - the kid falls just like Hans, with the now dismembered cock in place of Holly's watch). I don't know why so many zombie comedies seem to be knee-deep in references to other movies, but it's nice to see an exception.

Oh, and zombies are a thing they know about, which I always love. It's settled in about two seconds; a zombie approaches, someone says "Is that a... no, it can't be!" (or something along those lines), and then it's shot in the chest and survives. Then it's shot in the head and dies, and the shooter says "See? Zombie." and that's that. I've been saying for years that we're long past the time where anyone should be in the dark as to what a zombie is, so I'm glad we're finally getting to that place. This also informs how they make their weapons, in a sequence that thankfully doesn't do the Evil Dead thing with a bunch of quick-cut zooms as the trio gears up for battle. The boy scouts angle is actually kind of underplayed in the film; they're out on a camp trip, but they leave the woods pretty quickly and apart from their badge-covered shirts, the whole concept barely applies until it's time to make makeshift weapons at the hardware store. Closeups of their various badges (archery, engineering, etc) are mixed with them making appropriate weapons, presumably using the knowledge that they've gained over years of scouting. And the weapons are effective - one makes a pneumatic airgun thing (like a cannon used to fire promo shirts) with doorknob ammo that can put a hole through several zombie heads with one shot, and another modifies a weed-whacker. It's always bugged me that in zombie movies, even after the "only to the head" rule has been applied you still see people shooting at chests, so I liked that they actually make weapons that are specifically to take out the heads. And there's even a fun payoff where the one lifer scout has been trying to earn his fire-making badge, and of course finally gets it right to save the day - like the nudity, it seems like these multiple writing teams were all making different movies, and I wish I could see the one that keeps the scouting angle front and center throughout, as I found it quite charming.

So the movie is sloppy, basically. It's not terrible; I was enjoying myself and was impressed with the main kid (Tye Sheridan), but they might as well have color coded the images to match the obviously rewritten (and rewritten again) script. And I couldn't help but think that the best audience for this movie wouldn't even notice things like that, but at the same time, the sex gags (one girl is literally eaten out, I should mention) would be too much for the 9 or 10 year olds the rest of the movie would be perfect for. It's sort of like Deadly Friend in that regard, where I am seriously unsure who the target audience was for this thing. Older horror fans who miss Stifler and the rest of the Pie guys? Has to be a tiny grouping, even tinier than the film's terrible box office would suggest. I was actually surprised that there were like 15 other people in the theater with me, considering that the film was "enjoying" a record-setting terrible weekend - I figured I might even have a private screening. No one seemed super into it, but there was only one walk out, so I guess the rest all felt the same as me: it's an OK movie that was the victim of people making bad, ill-fitting decisions on what kind of movie it should be.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Stung (2015)

NOVEMBER 2, 2015

GENRE: MONSTER
SOURCE: BLU-RAY (OWN COLLECTION)

I've said on numerous occasions that a full scale monster movie revival is long overdue, but as long as we get a movie like Stung every now and then, I guess I can make peace with the lack of a glut of such things - quality over quantity, in other words. Stung isn't exactly the Jaws of killer wasp movies (actually, it might be by default, but you know what I mean), but it does more right than wrong, offers a fun Lance Henriksen turn, and gives you two lead characters that are likable and worth rooting for, in an era where having just one seems to be too herculean a task for many modern filmmakers. To me, that's a win, even if the movie isn't really doing anything particularly new.

Let's go back to Lance for a second. Certainly he's taken a number of paychecks over the years, including in other killer bug movies like In The Spider's Web, so his presence doesn't exactly guarantee confidence (beyond "at least Lance's scenes were good", of course). But I was delighted to see that this is the rare movie that actually has him lightening up, even cracking jokes once or twice - he's not the usual hardass authority figure or shady human villain, he's just a small town mayor who rolls his eyes at the sort of crap he's forced to do as mayor. It's the sort of role you could see someone like Bruce Davison or John Heard playing, which isn't often the case for Lance's characters. He also lasts quite a while; it's not spoiling anything to say he dies, but again, we've all seen a number of these movies where he's only in it for like 5-10 minutes, but here it's actually one of the fuller roles I've seen him have in a long time*. His reaction to the wasp outbreak is incredible, too - he just glares at them as if it was a normal annoyance, then grabs his drink and calmly makes his way to safety while everyone panics around him. It's pretty much how I expect the actual Lance Henriksen would react to zombies or whatever might kill us all someday.

But the real heroes are played by Matt O'Leary (Sorority Row represent!) and Jessica Cook, as a pair of caterers for the party where all the shit goes down. O'Leary is pretty great in the role; he's introduced as a sort of slacker/klutz type, but proves to be capable when the wasps attack, earning the respect of his boss (Cook) and Lance in equal measure. Cook is also quite charming, and I like that they seem to save each others lives in equal measures (she might even have one up on him), instead of having one be the alpha dog. I don't want to see him rescue her over and over, but I suspect I'd be just as annoyed/bored if they were trying to "play against expectations" by having her constantly saving his life and be the real alpha - both have flaws and both are equally heroic, and it works perfectly.

Less perfect is the script's lack of patience - I talk a lot about these three because they're all the movie gives us within 15 minutes or so of the wasp outbreak. Sure, you expect a good chunk of the anonymous/minor cast to eat it so we can focus on 6-8 people, but screenwriter Adam Aresty only gives us about 5 minutes or so of that group before 3 of them are killed within seconds of each other, giving the rest of the movie not much to work with when it comes to attacks and kill scenes. Sure, the quick deaths come as a shock when they occur - but at what cost? Suspense gets deflated quite a bit after all this, especially when you know Lance will die too. I liked the movie, but I suspect I'd REALLY like it if there were more characters to bounce off each other throughout the 2nd and part of the 3rd act. I mean, you know who is gonna make it to the credits right off the bat, but that's no excuse for wiping out everyone else so quickly.

At least the kills look good, at times great. Alas, CGI wasps are employed on the regular, but they DO have a practical one to use when possible, and it works pretty great, plus makes the CGI ones easier to forgive. The computer wasps don't even look that bad, to be honest, but it's the fact that they were at least using a flesh and fake-blood one when they could that really won me over. And there are some smaller ones that are practical, at least when squished - they produce this flytrap-esque gluey substance that must have been torture on the actors, and it looks fantastic. Plus there are some surprisingly gory kills, including an eyeball bit that Fulci would applaud. The wasps also kind of nest inside their human victims, so there are some fun bits where legs or the head come bursting out of a dummy corpse - good stuff.

Scream Factory/IFC's Blu-ray has some solid extras, though I would advise skipping the production blogs as they were designed for the web and probably far less obnoxious if viewed once a week instead of all at once. Plus they repeat a lot of the info (and even some footage) on the more typical making of, so just watch that for your behind the scenes fix. And definitely listen to the commentary with Aresty, director Benni Diez, and producer Benjamin Munz as they point out some of the film's minor glitches (such as the very European looking truck that the heroes drive in this New York-set, Germany-shot film), heap praise on the actors, and generally give off a fun vibe that matches the film's. Everyone clearly had their heart in the right place, making it easy to forgive the pacing snafu. It might occasionally feel like a glorified Syfy Original Movie, but really - if those things were even half as good as this on the regular, then "Syfy Original Movie" wouldn't be something we used as a putdown.

What say you?

*Weirdly enough, a few days later I saw another one that had more Lance than expected - but unfortunately it was Harbinger Down, which wasn't a very good movie. That said, at least Lance's scenes were good.

PLEASE, GO ON...

Kristy (2014)

OCTOBER 29, 2015

GENRE: SLASHER, SURVIVAL
SOURCE: STREAMING (SCREENER)

Well, it's finally here. Nearly three years after Kristy was shot, and after several release dates that came and went (plus a couple of other titles, including Random and Satanic), the film was finally released as a Lifetime Original Movie, which is like the saddest fate one could imagine for a would-be theatrical release (doesn't even get the dignity of going DTV!) Given that the movie was already too late to the party, cashing in on The Strangers nearly five years after that film became a big hit, I had long since given up hope that I'd be able to watch the movie in a movie theater, but I still thought it would at least get something more respectable than this. However, going in I wasn't too sad about its fate - after all, a good home invasion type movie would probably play just as well (maybe even a bit better) at home, right?

Unfortunately, that ties into the main problem with the film - our heroine Justine (Haley Bennett) isn't confined anywhere for more than a few minutes. When I heard the basic plot (a girl staying at her college alone on Thanksgiving gets tormented by hooded killers) I assumed it was a tiny school and/or she'd be stuck in her dorm building for the bulk of the film - which would be a fine setting for some taut suspense. But the script always has her on the run, using the entire (and quite large) campus for its unmemorable setpieces, making the entire film feel like the climactic chase scene from a slasher like Friday the 13th than a "home invasion" type. Not only does this get us thinking about the logic more than we should (a campus that obviously has a large student body and she's the ONLY ONE staying behind for Thanksgiving? It was pretty common at my school and we were like 1/4th its size), but it gets mighty repetitive. We know she won't die anytime soon since there's no one else in the movie of note (more on that soon), unlike The Strangers where they COULD kill Liv Tyler or Scott Speedman at some point because there would still be the other one to carry us to the end of the movie, so watching her outrun and occasionally off one of her tormentors loses its novelty value before the halfway point.

The script also beats us over the head with an early chunk of the film that runs through every single thing about Justine that we will need to know about later. She can swim! She knows how to make an explosive! She can use a bat! Etc. And she even has a foreshadow-y English class for good measure, because screenwriter Anthony Jaswinski apparently cannot let one horror movie cliche go unchecked. He also hates the idea of confining his heroine in what's supposed to be a confined thriller, so she leaves the campus entirely to buy some basic snacks, instead of just having there be a school store for her to use (again, my school had this, and we didn't have in-dorm security guards, a big gate with another guard, etc). H20 came to mind more than once, and even that campus felt more inescapable than this one and being stuck in H20 wasn't even a plot point. Later on her boyfriend, who had left to be with his family, just drives back on campus, and again I had to wonder why no one else was doing this on the regular. Maybe they thought a big campus would be more cinematic, but all it did was seemingly betray the point of this brand of horror and help make it a bad movie.

As for the killers themselves, they're fine. They're part of a thinly developed group of Satan worshipers who murder girls they dub "Kristy" (some sort of Christ connection - why not guys named Chris?) and post videos of said murders to a website. Whatever. They're led by Ashley Greene, who is unrecognizable (boo) and the only one who gets any sort of identity, but their final showdown lacks any real interaction - it's rushed and anticlimactic, to say the least. Their first encounter, at the gas station where Justine is buying her ice cream and Mountain Dew (yep, a college campus that doesn't have a vending machine with cold soda, I guess), has way more oomph to it, and I have to assume that they originally had something bigger planned and just didn't do it (or cut it). In fact most of the film's best scenes occur early on, with the best one oddly being the most extraneous, when she runs to the groundskeeper's shack and gets him killed.

I know that sounds spoiler-y, but that's how the movie plays out - she runs around, finds someone, they are killed, and she runs again. You could cut any such sequence out and it wouldn't affect the plot at all, but this one sticks out in particular because the groundskeeper (James Ransone) had only been introduced in a quick, otherwise pointless shot early on when we're learning all about her awesome swimming and science skills. Why the groundskeeper knows her name is beyond me, but I suspect the whole sequence was a late addition to pad the runtime a bit. Also, there's so much fog in the scene it almost feels like she ran into another dimension, but whatever - it's a fun little sequence that has the killers working together for a change (a lot of the stalking scenes are solo - you almost never see two of them at once after their initial attack). The pool scene was OK too, with Bennett using her breath-holding skills, but again - she's the only person in the movie that's alive/not a killer, and the runtime isn't at feature length yet, so there's not a lot of suspense regarding what will happen next.

Going back to what I said about the movie feeling like a feature length slasher showdown - the key to those scenes isn't the part where the killer's chasing Laurie Strode, Alice, etc - it's when she starts fighting back and using her head. The fact that we know that she'll succeed doesn't matter - she and the movie itself have earned this scenario. This movie doesn't have any of that other stuff - it's just that chase, never ending and without a single fresh idea. I guess I can give it a few points for being completely dialogue free for long stretches, but that's hardly enough to make up for its abrasive genericness. Perhaps director Olly Blackburn didn't want to be confined again (his previous film was Donkey Punch, set almost entirely on a party boat); if that was the case maybe they should have hired someone else to direct. On a conceptual level, this movie COULD work, but it doesn't.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Bone Tomahawk (2015)

OCTOBER 25, 2015

GENRE: CANNIBAL
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (REGULAR SCREENING)

The past seven or eight years haven't been fun for us Kurt Russell fans, since he's barely worked at all (a pair of little seen indies is pretty much it since Grindhouse), but 2015 has proven to more than make up for it. He got to be one of the best parts of the last Furious movie (which grossed a billion dollars! A Kurt Russell movie made a billion dollars!!!), and he's got The Hateful Eight on the way - which should, if nothing else, be a more satisfying Tarantino entry than their last collaboration. And in the meantime, we have Bone Tomahawk, which for reasons I'll never understand became one of those obnoxious "Day and date" releases where a few screens will show it starting on the same day it's available on VOD, which will of course be how most people see it. Luckily I live near one of those select theaters, so I got to see it on the big screen where it belongs.

And I saw it with a crowd, of sorts. All of these Image releases play in the exact same spot - Screen #5 at the AMC Burbank 8, which is located inside of a shopping mall. I see a lot of these screenings because that's where a lot of Nic Cage and Bruce Willis movies end up nowadays, and as lifelong devotees to both actors I go see these things even though I know they'll probably just make me sad. These screenings tend to be nearly empty (just a few weeks ago I had the entire room to myself with a Cage thing called Pay The Ghost), but for this movie it was probably about a quarter full. Sure, that's disastrous for a big budget movie on an Imax screen or something, but again, this is a movie that's available (for less) at home on VOD, and it was also past the mall's closing time on Sunday night, so we all had to put effort into even getting into the damn place, let alone buying a ticket. People actually wanted to see this movie, dammit - why couldn't they have at least given it a REAL limited release (i.e. a few hundred screens as opposed to a few dozen)?

Needless to say, the crowd seemed to be happy. It was almost weird hearing big bouts of laughter after a good line in this same room that I usually am free to fart out loud because no one else is in there to mind, but not as weird as the fact that this cannibal western was actually pretty funny. The plot is about four men who ride off into dangerous territory to rescue one's wife from a tribe of cannibalistic cave dwellers, which doesn't exactly suggest lots of guffaws, but since the cannibal stuff is mostly confined to the 3rd act, writer/director S. Craig Zahler made the wise decision to keep us engaged by giving his leads a lot of fun banter - but never so much that it becomes a comedy. And it's the GOOD kind of funny, in that it all stems from the characters and how they interact - nothing in the movie is PLAYED for laughs, it's just naturally funny at times.

These moments are usually courtesy of the great Richard Jenkins, who would probably earn an Oscar nomination for his work here if the movie was big enough for the voters to notice it. He's the deputy of Russell's sheriff, and he's just perfect in every scene; he's not "dumb" or even "dim", but just kind of aloof I guess, the sort of guy who forgets to eat because he's so focused on doing his job and not letting his (younger) boss down. And Russell plays off him perfectly; you instantly believe that these two have been working together for years and are totally in sync with each others' pros and cons. When Russell has to remind him to blow on his hot soup before he takes a sip, you get the impression it's something he's probably had to do a million times - and more importantly, it's something that he does so lovingly, not out of annoyance. And they both have to sigh their way through their time with Patrick Wilson, the man whose wife they're attempting to rescue. Wilson has broken his leg in an unrelated incident before they set off, so he slows them down but is determined to go along and help retrieve his wife.

Slightly less bro-ish with them is Matthew Fox, as a somewhat bigoted and fully vain hunter who joins them on their quest because he wants to kill some cannibals (he also says he feels responsible since he's the one who involved the woman in the first place and inadvertently put her in harm's way). He thinks he's smarter, faster, and just plain BETTER than the others, and in some occasions he proves himself correct, but while he's a bit of a jerk he's not an antagonist in any way - it's just how he is, and he harbors no ill-will toward them (and of course, saves their lives once or twice). Fox has had some disturbing personal drama in the past few years that has probably made him less enticing in Hollywood, but there's no denying he's a solid actor when given the right role, and someone rightfully pointed out on Twitter the other night that this is the perfect use for him; he's always kind of an unlikable hero.

There are a few other actors you'll know in the movie, but they aren't around long enough to make much of a mark. And that's not really a spoiler; there are a few casualties during the film's two (brief) horror scenes prior to the 3rd act, but the rest of the townsfolk just stay behind and are never seen again. It's kind of weird that recognizable actors like Michael Paré and Kathryn Morris have such brief and thankless roles, as if they signed on for meatier (if still small) roles and saw some of their biggest moments excised. I don't even think Paré even gets a closeup - that's not a cameo, that's a known actor inexplicably playing a background role. Russell's introduction also feels trimmed, so if I had to guess I would assume that there was a lengthier first act at one point and it was cut down to get the guys on the road faster (and in turn, get to the cannibal stuff faster). It doesn't hurt the movie really (and it's still long, 2+ hours), but it's distracting in its own way - you never want to get the impression that you're watching something that's been trimmed, even if it's for the greater good.

And while it may take "too long" to get to the action for some (I didn't mind it, though I was also warned ahead of time not to expect wall to wall action), it's certainly worth the wait. Zahler is quite fond of springing violent acts on us out of nowhere instead of building up to them - it's just as much of a shock to us when someone loses their hand as it is to the guy who just lost it. And the cannibals don't hold back, splitting one character in two starting from the groin (yes, you see junk), seemingly trying to cook another from the inside (by jamming a hot item inside a giant cut on his stomach), etc. Even the surviving characters take a good beating, so while there isn't a lot of violence, what there is is sufficiently/surprisingly gruesome. Let's be clear - this is a western with some horror in it, not the other way around, but if you're patient Zahler and co. will reward the gorehounds who heard "Kurt Russell vs. Cannibals" and had visions of some John Carpenter-y creature fest.

Speaking of Carpenter, Zahler must be a fan - not only did he cast Russell (and shoot widescreen!) but he also composed the music, including a wonderful old timey theme song called "Four Doomed Men Ride Out" that plays over the end credits. Only two others sat in the theater with me to appreciate it, which is a shame - I lobby hard for the return of movie theme songs, and I was shocked that this had one as most of the ones that do tend to be slashers (My Bloody Valentine) or just plain goofy movies (Killer Klowns). But it fit the movie as a whole, in that it was a nice surprise and satisfied nearly all of my particular cravings. Kurt Russell! A horror western! Solid characters in a genre film! No dad stuff to upset me! And it finally rewarded me for all of the times I sighed my way into the Burbank 8 for another movie starring one of my heroes, something that Cage and Willis kind of deserve at this point for making so many bad movies, but Russell certainly does not. It's a shame that so man of you won't get to see it theatrically, but it's a bigger shame that we've gotten to the point that movies like this are deemed undeserving of a shot while Paranormal Activity 6 gets 1,500 screens. Oh well. At least Quentin will give mainstream audiences the chance to see Russell's glorious bushy beard in a few months, even if I doubt there are any cannibals trying to eat it in that one.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

The Boy (2016)

Martyrs (2015)

Sharknado 3: Oh Hell No! (2015)

Contracted: Phase 2 (2015)

Over Your Dead Body (2014)

Merry Christmas! (Shitter's Full)

Krampus (2015)

Scouts Guide To The Zombie Apocalypse (2015)

Stung (2015)

Kristy (2014)

Bone Tomahawk (2015)

Movie & TV Show Preview Widget

My New Book Is Available NOW!

Search Old Reviews! (50% success rate)

Older Movies

Horror Movie A Day Info

Twitter Updates

Followers

Buy Stuff!

Labels