Tuesday, October 7, 2008
I think even people who hate slasher movies would have to admit that, though they may hate this one too, it's pretty well done. I mean, it's not particularly scary, but there's so much cool stuff going on with the art design and the visual style, far above and beyond what these movies usually provide, you gotta love it. Definitely one of the best slashers of this decade.
The movie is worth it for the big finale alone, where the whole house of wax melts along with everything inside, but the rest of it is pretty good too. I think it succeeds at doing what a lot of nu-slashers try and fail to do: balance a creepy/disturbing tone while keeping the movie fun. With some of the ones I've caught more recently (Wrong Turn 2, Severance, Frontier(s)), the horror and the humor/fun seem to be completely at odds with each other, and as a result neither element really works. It's like they try to stitch together Re-Animator with Last House on the Left or something.
Also, Shenan and I named our band after a scene from this movie: Shenan Hahn and the Peril of a Wax Staircase.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
The Man Who Laughs
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Tricked! I had been let to believe that this was an old silent horror movie, and it seems to start that way, but then it turns into more of a melodrama with some adventure thrown in. I guess it was a decent movie, but I was kind of in the mindset for something else. Drat.
Invasion of the Body Snatchers
Monday, October 6, 2008
The 70's version, my favorite, although I didn't see the Nicole Kidman version. This movie scared the living shit out of me when I was a kid, and it's still pretty eerie now. I must be particularly susceptible to paranoia-driven horror films, considering how effective I find this one, and some of the other versions, and The Thing. This would be a bad movie to watch while high.
So they called the (pretty good) version from the 90's Body Snatchers, and the (supposedly awful) new version was just called The Invasion. What will they call it if they make another one in a decade or two? What's left? "Of The"?
The Bridges at Toko-Ri
Monday, October 6, 2008
After my grandfather's funeral a few weeks back, we went back to his and Ginger's house, and Ginger let everyone go through his old stuff and see if there was anything we wanted to take. Naturally, I took a look through his movie collection, and picked out The Bridge On the River Kwai, and also noticed this one, another movie starring William Holden with the word "bridge" in the title. Andy told me he had watched it with grandpa last time he visited, and that it was good, so I figured I'd take it and watch in honor of the old guy.
I thought that this would be a ripoff of Kwai, but it turns out this one came first, the titles are just a coincidence I guess. And it was a pretty good one, entertaining but surprisingly thoughtful, with the awesomeness of Holden clearly on display. But it was also, somewhat unintentionally, poignant for me, watching it with my grandfather in mind. He was a Navy man, and it's about the Navy, so I must imagine that something about this one resonated with him; he must have felt this one got it right. It's about a Navy pilot, and the conflict he feels between his duty to his country, and his desire to make it home alive to see his wife and kids. I think I always took grandpa's service for granted, like, hey, that's cool, he did that. But maybe in some way this gave me a better sense of how it all fit into his life, that perhaps his emotions about his service were more nuanced than I realized, if he liked this movie so much. I mean, the guy didn't own a lot of movies, so I have to guess that this one was somehow special to him.
Or maybe he bought it by mistake thinking it was The Bridge on the River Kwai, I don't know.
After my grandfather's funeral a few weeks back, we went back to his and Ginger's house, and Ginger let everyone go through his old stuff and see if there was anything we wanted to take. Naturally, I took a look through his movie collection, and picked out The Bridge On the River Kwai, and also noticed this one, another movie starring William Holden with the word "bridge" in the title. Andy told me he had watched it with grandpa last time he visited, and that it was good, so I figured I'd take it and watch in honor of the old guy.
I thought that this would be a ripoff of Kwai, but it turns out this one came first, the titles are just a coincidence I guess. And it was a pretty good one, entertaining but surprisingly thoughtful, with the awesomeness of Holden clearly on display. But it was also, somewhat unintentionally, poignant for me, watching it with my grandfather in mind. He was a Navy man, and it's about the Navy, so I must imagine that something about this one resonated with him; he must have felt this one got it right. It's about a Navy pilot, and the conflict he feels between his duty to his country, and his desire to make it home alive to see his wife and kids. I think I always took grandpa's service for granted, like, hey, that's cool, he did that. But maybe in some way this gave me a better sense of how it all fit into his life, that perhaps his emotions about his service were more nuanced than I realized, if he liked this movie so much. I mean, the guy didn't own a lot of movies, so I have to guess that this one was somehow special to him.
Or maybe he bought it by mistake thinking it was The Bridge on the River Kwai, I don't know.
Black Sabbath
Sunday, October 5, 2008
Obviously, I'm gonna include some italian horror films and giallos in YVIAHMMAOIHTNQ, that's a given, I love that shit. Which is why it was so surprising on Saturday when I popped on the awesome sounding giallo The House With Laughing Windows and couldn't even finish watching it, it was so fucking boring. It lacked style, violence and nudity, and nothing happened for an hour. I don't know, maybe it gets great during the final third, but I didn't care enough to find out. And shit, that almost never happens to me.
But I feel like I made up for that a little bit by watching Mario Bava's Black Sabbath, which was surprisingly good. I say surprisingly, because within the past few years I saw Bava's 5 Dolls for An August Moon and Twitch of the Death Nerve, and they were both unbelievably awful and boring (I actually finished watching them, though). After that I wrote him off for a while, but I kept reading good things about Bava. I'm thinking now that maybe I just happened to watch two of his worst films first... last year I caught Blood and Black Lace and it wasn't half bad, and Black Sabbath was downright good.
I think you call this an anthology or omnibus; it's 3 short horror stories put together to make one movie, and they are all pretty good, although stories 2 and 3 never top the first one, which is straight up giallo and I would imagine an influence on the work of my favorite, Dario Argento. None of them are truly scary, but some suspense is generated, and a lot of the entertainment comes more from the style.
Okay, so good job Bava, I think I might watch Shock or something this month too.
Obviously, I'm gonna include some italian horror films and giallos in YVIAHMMAOIHTNQ, that's a given, I love that shit. Which is why it was so surprising on Saturday when I popped on the awesome sounding giallo The House With Laughing Windows and couldn't even finish watching it, it was so fucking boring. It lacked style, violence and nudity, and nothing happened for an hour. I don't know, maybe it gets great during the final third, but I didn't care enough to find out. And shit, that almost never happens to me.
But I feel like I made up for that a little bit by watching Mario Bava's Black Sabbath, which was surprisingly good. I say surprisingly, because within the past few years I saw Bava's 5 Dolls for An August Moon and Twitch of the Death Nerve, and they were both unbelievably awful and boring (I actually finished watching them, though). After that I wrote him off for a while, but I kept reading good things about Bava. I'm thinking now that maybe I just happened to watch two of his worst films first... last year I caught Blood and Black Lace and it wasn't half bad, and Black Sabbath was downright good.
I think you call this an anthology or omnibus; it's 3 short horror stories put together to make one movie, and they are all pretty good, although stories 2 and 3 never top the first one, which is straight up giallo and I would imagine an influence on the work of my favorite, Dario Argento. None of them are truly scary, but some suspense is generated, and a lot of the entertainment comes more from the style.
Okay, so good job Bava, I think I might watch Shock or something this month too.
Monday, October 6, 2008
An American Crime
Sunday, October 5, 2008
This was a real interesting one to watch, because it was based on the same true story as The Girl Next Door, about a particularly horrific case of child abuse. That one was sort of the exploitation/horror movie version, and this is sort of the A-list, artsy version.
Well, I have to give it to American Crime in terms of acting and cinematography. The cast includes Catherine Keener, Ellen Page and James Franco, so obviously it's strong on that front, and it has an effective aesthetic quality that the flatly shot Girl Next Door lacked. But, in all honesty, the two movies came closer to a tie for me. Maybe Girl Next Door was less factual and more exploitative, but it was also more effectively disturbing, at least in part due to it's willingness to wallow in the ugly details. An American Crime is a classier movie, but it holds a lot back. Since I can't see much of a point to this story except to be disturbing, that's a clear disadvantage. AAC creeps you out a bit. GND gets under your skin.
So maybe what I'm saying is that this was a better made film, but the other one was more effective. Both, to me, didn't seem to have much of a point or insight on the material, they were more a sad, shocked look at a very ugly story. Since their perspectives are similar, I can only comment that one was better in a technical sense, and one was better in a gut-reaction sense.
This was a real interesting one to watch, because it was based on the same true story as The Girl Next Door, about a particularly horrific case of child abuse. That one was sort of the exploitation/horror movie version, and this is sort of the A-list, artsy version.
Well, I have to give it to American Crime in terms of acting and cinematography. The cast includes Catherine Keener, Ellen Page and James Franco, so obviously it's strong on that front, and it has an effective aesthetic quality that the flatly shot Girl Next Door lacked. But, in all honesty, the two movies came closer to a tie for me. Maybe Girl Next Door was less factual and more exploitative, but it was also more effectively disturbing, at least in part due to it's willingness to wallow in the ugly details. An American Crime is a classier movie, but it holds a lot back. Since I can't see much of a point to this story except to be disturbing, that's a clear disadvantage. AAC creeps you out a bit. GND gets under your skin.
So maybe what I'm saying is that this was a better made film, but the other one was more effective. Both, to me, didn't seem to have much of a point or insight on the material, they were more a sad, shocked look at a very ugly story. Since their perspectives are similar, I can only comment that one was better in a technical sense, and one was better in a gut-reaction sense.
Religulous
Sunday, October 5, 2008
I can't believe how freaking long it's been since I went to the movies. I don't know what the hell is going on. It's like everything coming out either looked bad or got shitty reviews.
This is essentially a Michael Moore-style movie about religion instead of politics: it's one-sided, unfair, self-important, prone to digression... but also pretty funny and entertaining in places. I must admit, although I object to parts of this film, I laughed enough that I had a good time.
Of course, not being particularly religious myself, my beliefs never get attacked during the movie. That makes it a little easier to enjoy.
Most of my complaints about Religulous are similar to my complaints about Borat, which had the same director. It places itself in an unassailable position and then doesn't give its (easy) targets a fair chance. It's like Funny Games: the rules are set so that the targets can't possibly win and the filmmakers can't possibly lose. I agree with most of Bill Maher's opinions in the film, but it would have been nice if he actually gave his subjects a chance instead of constantly cutting them off and then editing the interviews in such a way that makes himself look good. He even walks out on one interview, and I can't understand the point of leaving it in the film except to show what a great, moral guy Maher is.
Then, the movie gets way too serious in the finale and overestimates its own importance (again, shades of Michael Moore here). He goes on a long rant at the end of the movie that is deadly serious, and I kept waiting for the other shoe to drop and for them to slip in one last punchline, but it never happens. Apparently they really want their message to be taken seriously, but I'd argue that they score more points with humor than they do with preaching.
I can't believe how freaking long it's been since I went to the movies. I don't know what the hell is going on. It's like everything coming out either looked bad or got shitty reviews.
This is essentially a Michael Moore-style movie about religion instead of politics: it's one-sided, unfair, self-important, prone to digression... but also pretty funny and entertaining in places. I must admit, although I object to parts of this film, I laughed enough that I had a good time.
Of course, not being particularly religious myself, my beliefs never get attacked during the movie. That makes it a little easier to enjoy.
Most of my complaints about Religulous are similar to my complaints about Borat, which had the same director. It places itself in an unassailable position and then doesn't give its (easy) targets a fair chance. It's like Funny Games: the rules are set so that the targets can't possibly win and the filmmakers can't possibly lose. I agree with most of Bill Maher's opinions in the film, but it would have been nice if he actually gave his subjects a chance instead of constantly cutting them off and then editing the interviews in such a way that makes himself look good. He even walks out on one interview, and I can't understand the point of leaving it in the film except to show what a great, moral guy Maher is.
Then, the movie gets way too serious in the finale and overestimates its own importance (again, shades of Michael Moore here). He goes on a long rant at the end of the movie that is deadly serious, and I kept waiting for the other shoe to drop and for them to slip in one last punchline, but it never happens. Apparently they really want their message to be taken seriously, but I'd argue that they score more points with humor than they do with preaching.
Piranha
Saturday, October 4, 2008
I shouldn't say too much here, as I was pretty wasted when I watched this and my memory is a little hazy. But I do remember enjoying this silly rip-off/parody of Jaws, especially the part where all the little kids get attacked by piranha. You don't see that shit every day. Also, I should note that I like Joe Dante, and even though this didn't seem like his best work, it was still fun. Also, Paul Bartel was in it and he's funny.
I shouldn't say too much here, as I was pretty wasted when I watched this and my memory is a little hazy. But I do remember enjoying this silly rip-off/parody of Jaws, especially the part where all the little kids get attacked by piranha. You don't see that shit every day. Also, I should note that I like Joe Dante, and even though this didn't seem like his best work, it was still fun. Also, Paul Bartel was in it and he's funny.
Rogue
Saturday, October 4, 2008
This is a spin-off of X-Men, finally allowing Anna Paquin some time in the spotlight... no, wait, that's not right. This is a movie about a giant fucking crocodile.
Greg Mclean's last movie was Wolf Creek, which I thought was flawed but effectively tense and unnerving, and showed a lot of potential. So I was looking forward to Rogue quite a bit. The first 2/3rds of it is pretty damn good. Mclean is, I'm guessing, working with a larger budget and as a result the visuals really come through. Much of the first 30 minutes or so consists of gorgeous shots of nature, establishing the environment in which the characters are placed. Mclean builds up a little suspense as it goes a long, and piles one complication after another to make the characters seem really screwed. This leads to some memorable sequences, such as when the characters try to shimmy across a rope line, with the crocodile waiting somewhere below.
It kind of fell apart for me a bit at the end, though. Some of that has to do with the crocodile. Mclean does a great job in the early part of keeping the thing mysterious, only giving quick glimpses of it, scary stuff. So when you finally see it late in the film, it looks like... a big crocodile, exactly what you were expecting. And since, the more clearly you see it, the more clearly it looks like a special effect, a lot of the tension drains. I would have been happier if he never showed it.
But even worse is the final fight with the crocodile. The movie wasn't exactly realistic, but this really stretches credibility. The main character has to take the croc on at the end, and the silliness of the idea coupled with the not-quite-convincing special effects makes for a cartoonish finale. I guess it was still a little fun too watch, but that's a let down when the rest of the movie was more tense and exciting.
Still, I think Mclean shows some chops here again, and although he hasn't knocked one out of the park yet, I'm convinced he will eventually.
This is a spin-off of X-Men, finally allowing Anna Paquin some time in the spotlight... no, wait, that's not right. This is a movie about a giant fucking crocodile.
Greg Mclean's last movie was Wolf Creek, which I thought was flawed but effectively tense and unnerving, and showed a lot of potential. So I was looking forward to Rogue quite a bit. The first 2/3rds of it is pretty damn good. Mclean is, I'm guessing, working with a larger budget and as a result the visuals really come through. Much of the first 30 minutes or so consists of gorgeous shots of nature, establishing the environment in which the characters are placed. Mclean builds up a little suspense as it goes a long, and piles one complication after another to make the characters seem really screwed. This leads to some memorable sequences, such as when the characters try to shimmy across a rope line, with the crocodile waiting somewhere below.
It kind of fell apart for me a bit at the end, though. Some of that has to do with the crocodile. Mclean does a great job in the early part of keeping the thing mysterious, only giving quick glimpses of it, scary stuff. So when you finally see it late in the film, it looks like... a big crocodile, exactly what you were expecting. And since, the more clearly you see it, the more clearly it looks like a special effect, a lot of the tension drains. I would have been happier if he never showed it.
But even worse is the final fight with the crocodile. The movie wasn't exactly realistic, but this really stretches credibility. The main character has to take the croc on at the end, and the silliness of the idea coupled with the not-quite-convincing special effects makes for a cartoonish finale. I guess it was still a little fun too watch, but that's a let down when the rest of the movie was more tense and exciting.
Still, I think Mclean shows some chops here again, and although he hasn't knocked one out of the park yet, I'm convinced he will eventually.
Tales From the Crypt Presents: Demon Knight
Saturday, October 4, 2008
My buddy Ryan vouched for this one for years, but it always looked pretty shitty to me. I don't think I liked it nearly as much as Ryan does, but it was a lot better than I expected. It sort of feels like an early version of From Dusk Til Dawn, only not as good. Or maybe like a later version of Demons, only not as good. But it's a similarly energectic and fun special effects driven horror movie about a bunch of people holed in a small location, being attacked by monsters trying to get in. Worth a look if you like this stuff.
My buddy Ryan vouched for this one for years, but it always looked pretty shitty to me. I don't think I liked it nearly as much as Ryan does, but it was a lot better than I expected. It sort of feels like an early version of From Dusk Til Dawn, only not as good. Or maybe like a later version of Demons, only not as good. But it's a similarly energectic and fun special effects driven horror movie about a bunch of people holed in a small location, being attacked by monsters trying to get in. Worth a look if you like this stuff.
Prom Night
Friday, October 3, 2008
Okay, so just to confirm: "Your Vice is a Horror Movie Marathon and Only I Have the Netflix Queue" is the official title for this month's glut of horror movies.
I'm not even sure if it's worth taking the time to tear down Prom Night, but I guess I'll do it any way. Firstly, it's a remake of one of the lesser major 80's slasher movies, a few notches below My Bloody Valentine, although it's heritage is more or less incidental because they threw out everything about the original movie except it's title and location. It's a PG-13 slasher movie, which means it's about teenagers who don't fuck or even say "fuck," and a killer who manages to stab a lot of people to death without drawing much blood. Actually, I watched the unrated version, but you could have fooled me, this was about as un-graphic as these things come.
It's a polished, reasonably budgeted studio release, which means everything is shot really well: it's colorful, well lit, glossy, slick, etc etc. Problem is, for all the technical competence, it seems like it was made by people who don't know anything about horror movies. The worst, and I've noticed this in a few modern mainstream horror movies, is the editing. See, to effectively build suspense, sometimes you need to let things play out a bit. Let a creepy moment hang in the air for a second. But the editing here is so relentless that no mood is established, and the rhythm is way too fast. It's just cut cut cut cut nonstop, with no room to breathe. And if I had to guess, I would say it's because no one gave a shit about making this a good movie, they just wanted it to be fast paced enough to occupy the ADD preteens that comprise its audience.
(Which, by the way, is all bullshit. This year's The Strangers made just as much money as this shit did, and it was a violent, R rated horror movie that actually tried to build a mood and generate suspense, and was actually willing to hold a shot for more than 2 seconds).
Of course, the shitty screenplay doesn't help. I'm not even going to bitch about the paper thin, generic, indistinguishable, not particularly likable characters, because that's been a staple of the genre for years. This is a pretty egregious example, since it's PG-13-ified and so the 2D characters can't even have a personality trait like "slut" or "foul mouthed", but that's okay. I can tolerate that in a slasher movie. I won't complain about the 2 detective characters who take up a lot of screen time, and must be 2 of the least competent cops in film history, since like 10 people get murdered right under their noses and they don't even notice until it's way too late. At least they were played by Stringer Bell and Ziggy from The Wire, so they are unintentionally interesting. And horror movies have a history of stupid cops.
What I will complain about is the lazy-ass plot. Apparently, everything interesting about this story took place before the actual events of the movie. The killer is a former high school teacher who is for some reason obsessed with the main character. Years ago, he killed her entire family and was locked away, so now he breaks out of the looney bin to come get her, coincidentally on prom night. Am I wrong in thinking that this would be a much more interesting movie if it was set back when he was still a teacher, and he was growing obsessed with his student? That would provide all sorts of opportunities to build suspense and create a creepy vibe. Instead it's just an arbitrary back story that doesn't add anything to the plot. They don't give the killer much personality, so they really could have explained his presence any way they felt like. The original Prom Night is a shitty movie, but at least there's a mystery over the killer's identity and motive, which gives the illusion of drama. Here, there really isn't much story except that there's a guy at the prom killing people.
Alright, I think that's enough explanation. This is without a doubt one of the worst horror movies I've seen in a good long while, and it's not even accidentally funny like an Uwe Boll movie.
Okay, so just to confirm: "Your Vice is a Horror Movie Marathon and Only I Have the Netflix Queue" is the official title for this month's glut of horror movies.
I'm not even sure if it's worth taking the time to tear down Prom Night, but I guess I'll do it any way. Firstly, it's a remake of one of the lesser major 80's slasher movies, a few notches below My Bloody Valentine, although it's heritage is more or less incidental because they threw out everything about the original movie except it's title and location. It's a PG-13 slasher movie, which means it's about teenagers who don't fuck or even say "fuck," and a killer who manages to stab a lot of people to death without drawing much blood. Actually, I watched the unrated version, but you could have fooled me, this was about as un-graphic as these things come.
It's a polished, reasonably budgeted studio release, which means everything is shot really well: it's colorful, well lit, glossy, slick, etc etc. Problem is, for all the technical competence, it seems like it was made by people who don't know anything about horror movies. The worst, and I've noticed this in a few modern mainstream horror movies, is the editing. See, to effectively build suspense, sometimes you need to let things play out a bit. Let a creepy moment hang in the air for a second. But the editing here is so relentless that no mood is established, and the rhythm is way too fast. It's just cut cut cut cut nonstop, with no room to breathe. And if I had to guess, I would say it's because no one gave a shit about making this a good movie, they just wanted it to be fast paced enough to occupy the ADD preteens that comprise its audience.
(Which, by the way, is all bullshit. This year's The Strangers made just as much money as this shit did, and it was a violent, R rated horror movie that actually tried to build a mood and generate suspense, and was actually willing to hold a shot for more than 2 seconds).
Of course, the shitty screenplay doesn't help. I'm not even going to bitch about the paper thin, generic, indistinguishable, not particularly likable characters, because that's been a staple of the genre for years. This is a pretty egregious example, since it's PG-13-ified and so the 2D characters can't even have a personality trait like "slut" or "foul mouthed", but that's okay. I can tolerate that in a slasher movie. I won't complain about the 2 detective characters who take up a lot of screen time, and must be 2 of the least competent cops in film history, since like 10 people get murdered right under their noses and they don't even notice until it's way too late. At least they were played by Stringer Bell and Ziggy from The Wire, so they are unintentionally interesting. And horror movies have a history of stupid cops.
What I will complain about is the lazy-ass plot. Apparently, everything interesting about this story took place before the actual events of the movie. The killer is a former high school teacher who is for some reason obsessed with the main character. Years ago, he killed her entire family and was locked away, so now he breaks out of the looney bin to come get her, coincidentally on prom night. Am I wrong in thinking that this would be a much more interesting movie if it was set back when he was still a teacher, and he was growing obsessed with his student? That would provide all sorts of opportunities to build suspense and create a creepy vibe. Instead it's just an arbitrary back story that doesn't add anything to the plot. They don't give the killer much personality, so they really could have explained his presence any way they felt like. The original Prom Night is a shitty movie, but at least there's a mystery over the killer's identity and motive, which gives the illusion of drama. Here, there really isn't much story except that there's a guy at the prom killing people.
Alright, I think that's enough explanation. This is without a doubt one of the worst horror movies I've seen in a good long while, and it's not even accidentally funny like an Uwe Boll movie.
Friday, October 3, 2008
Joy Ride
Thursday, October 2, 2008
This is one of my absolute favorite horror movies of this decade, and it was good watching it again after maybe about 4 years or so. For me at least, it's in the upper ranks of suspenseful movies. The movie starts off more fun, sets up some likable characters, and then steadily builds tension right up through the nail-biting climax.
People give Paul Walker a lot of shit. I don't think he's a great actor, but he has a likable and earnest screen prescence, and that along with his chemistry with Steve Zahn goes a long way toward making this story work. You like these characters, therefore you give a shit about what happens to them. Good job Paul, although Zahn does steal the movie from you.
Director John Dahl is great at ratcheting up the tension, using all sorts of different tricks. I like the scene early on where the characters hear some weird noises in the hotel room next door, and it's too quiet to understand but sounds vaugely ominous. And of course there is the ending, which is a bit DePalma-esque in the way slowly but surely all the shit seems about to hit their respective fans at the same time.
I'm guessing from his visual style here, and from his movies The Last Seduction and Red Rock West that Dahl is a noir fan. In fact, some of the stuff he does here with the lighting and shadows is pretty cool, and makes me wonder if it would work in black and white, sort of like what they did with The Mist. I'd like it at least if someone made a good b&w horror movie in this day and age.
This is one of my absolute favorite horror movies of this decade, and it was good watching it again after maybe about 4 years or so. For me at least, it's in the upper ranks of suspenseful movies. The movie starts off more fun, sets up some likable characters, and then steadily builds tension right up through the nail-biting climax.
People give Paul Walker a lot of shit. I don't think he's a great actor, but he has a likable and earnest screen prescence, and that along with his chemistry with Steve Zahn goes a long way toward making this story work. You like these characters, therefore you give a shit about what happens to them. Good job Paul, although Zahn does steal the movie from you.
Director John Dahl is great at ratcheting up the tension, using all sorts of different tricks. I like the scene early on where the characters hear some weird noises in the hotel room next door, and it's too quiet to understand but sounds vaugely ominous. And of course there is the ending, which is a bit DePalma-esque in the way slowly but surely all the shit seems about to hit their respective fans at the same time.
I'm guessing from his visual style here, and from his movies The Last Seduction and Red Rock West that Dahl is a noir fan. In fact, some of the stuff he does here with the lighting and shadows is pretty cool, and makes me wonder if it would work in black and white, sort of like what they did with The Mist. I'd like it at least if someone made a good b&w horror movie in this day and age.
Wendigo
Thursday, October 2, 2008
If I can say one thing for Wendigo, the acting is pretty strong. The cast includes Patricia Clarkson and that kid who played Dewey on Malcolm in the Middle, and everyone has a nice, unforced naturalism that goes a long way to helping us accept them as real people. That's a pretty good foundation to build a horror movie on, especially since it doesn't happen enough in the genre, but sadly not much else about the movies works. The director gets way showy with the editing, which can be cool but doesn't make the movie any scarier. The story meanders too much, and the stuff that finally does happen isn't very interesting, and the low budget sinks a few of the major special effects. The writer/director certainly displays some talent, particularly with the characters he writes and the performances he gets, but it doesn't add up to anything.
If I can say one thing for Wendigo, the acting is pretty strong. The cast includes Patricia Clarkson and that kid who played Dewey on Malcolm in the Middle, and everyone has a nice, unforced naturalism that goes a long way to helping us accept them as real people. That's a pretty good foundation to build a horror movie on, especially since it doesn't happen enough in the genre, but sadly not much else about the movies works. The director gets way showy with the editing, which can be cool but doesn't make the movie any scarier. The story meanders too much, and the stuff that finally does happen isn't very interesting, and the low budget sinks a few of the major special effects. The writer/director certainly displays some talent, particularly with the characters he writes and the performances he gets, but it doesn't add up to anything.
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Vampyre
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Just to show you that I am not completely abandoning my kommittments this month, here's an early 1930's European horror movie.
Well, Nosferatu it ain't, but there was some good stuff here. The first 20 minutes or so was pretty cool, where this dude is wandering around seeing all sorts of weird shit, like shadows coming from nowhere and reflections of people who aren't there. And the last 15 minutes were good too. But the middle half hour is dire... nothing happens, it's an early sound film so there's barely any dialogue, and there are long passages where the main character reads from a book and the text appears on the screen for a minute or two and you just read instead of watch a movie. It was getting pretty late, and although I didn't fall asleep, I came close a few times.
The Little Girl Who Lives Down The Lane
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Okay bitches, it's October and you know what that means: I'm going to watch a shitload of horror movies. I know I already usually watch an assload of them, but I am upgrading this month to a shitload. Shitload > assload. I'm trying to think of a catchy name for it. I thought up Shocktober Fest but then I realized that I only thought of it because it already exists and is taken. So let me know if you think of anything.
This one is from the 70's, it's a little strange, and it stars a young Jodie Foster as a girl who gets a bag full of black wool.... no, wait. That's not right. She plays a girl who's lives alone in her house after her father's death, and tries to keep it a secret from the outside world. Some of the townspeople are starting to become suspicious, including a pedophile who begins stalking her. Also, she has some corpses stashed in her basement, although that's just a misunderstanding.
Like I said, it's a weird one, but also a pretty good one. It feels a bit like Wait Until Dark meets Home Alone. Most of it takes place in the living room of the girl's house, so it also feels a bit like a stage play at times, with lots of entrances and exits from the supporting characters. It's not exactly a believable story, but it holds your interest and I thought only really crossed the line one time with a bit involving a character, a teenager, wearing heavy prosthetics to pretend to be an old man. That strained credibility a bit too much for me, but otherwise this was an engrossing and somewhat suspenseful story, with a lot of strong performances. It's a unique mix of coming of age comedy/drama and horror/thriller, by turns charming and creepy. Definitely a good way to start the month.
Okay bitches, it's October and you know what that means: I'm going to watch a shitload of horror movies. I know I already usually watch an assload of them, but I am upgrading this month to a shitload. Shitload > assload. I'm trying to think of a catchy name for it. I thought up Shocktober Fest but then I realized that I only thought of it because it already exists and is taken. So let me know if you think of anything.
This one is from the 70's, it's a little strange, and it stars a young Jodie Foster as a girl who gets a bag full of black wool.... no, wait. That's not right. She plays a girl who's lives alone in her house after her father's death, and tries to keep it a secret from the outside world. Some of the townspeople are starting to become suspicious, including a pedophile who begins stalking her. Also, she has some corpses stashed in her basement, although that's just a misunderstanding.
Like I said, it's a weird one, but also a pretty good one. It feels a bit like Wait Until Dark meets Home Alone. Most of it takes place in the living room of the girl's house, so it also feels a bit like a stage play at times, with lots of entrances and exits from the supporting characters. It's not exactly a believable story, but it holds your interest and I thought only really crossed the line one time with a bit involving a character, a teenager, wearing heavy prosthetics to pretend to be an old man. That strained credibility a bit too much for me, but otherwise this was an engrossing and somewhat suspenseful story, with a lot of strong performances. It's a unique mix of coming of age comedy/drama and horror/thriller, by turns charming and creepy. Definitely a good way to start the month.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)