HALLOWEEN NIGHT
I don't think I need to explain why this was the last movie I watched in October.
I watched 71 movies this October, how nuts is that? 59 of them were horror movies. I'm going to go ahead and declare "Your Vice is a Horror Movie Marathon and Only I Have the Netflix Queue" as a resounding success. Go me.
This now brings us into November, which will be the final month of regular posting. My first post was for November 26, 2007 when I watched the unrated cut of Live Free or Die Hard. On the 26th this year, I will stop posting every day, as I'll have a full year of data to look over. Looks like my average is going to be approx. 1 1/2 movies per day.
After that, I hope to continue posting from time to time, only instead of posting whenever I watch a movie, i'll just post if I have something to say. This has been a cool experiment for me, but I have to say, I've gotten fucking sick of posting all the time, and usually not having much to say. It's gotten to be more of a chore lately, so I won't miss it.
Friday, October 31, 2008
Trailer Park of Terror
HALLOWEEN NIGHT
If you're like me, then you probably just rolled your eyes when you read the title. I mean, it sounds terrible, right? I thought so, but then I read a positive review of it on the Onion's AV Club, and thought I would give it a shot.
This is definitely in that genre I'm starting to think of as "nu-horror," mid-range budgeted horror movies that try to combine Re-Animator style over-the-top gory funness with Last House on the Left style disturbing viciousness. Mostly, I've thought these movies, like Wrong Turn 2 and Severence have been failures, but this may be the best one I've seen so far. I'm not sure if I can exactly give it the thumbs up, but at least the silly stuff didn't negate the disturbing stuff, and vice versa. I think the problem here is that there are several effective scenes, but it doesn't all work as a whole.
If you're like me, then you probably just rolled your eyes when you read the title. I mean, it sounds terrible, right? I thought so, but then I read a positive review of it on the Onion's AV Club, and thought I would give it a shot.
This is definitely in that genre I'm starting to think of as "nu-horror," mid-range budgeted horror movies that try to combine Re-Animator style over-the-top gory funness with Last House on the Left style disturbing viciousness. Mostly, I've thought these movies, like Wrong Turn 2 and Severence have been failures, but this may be the best one I've seen so far. I'm not sure if I can exactly give it the thumbs up, but at least the silly stuff didn't negate the disturbing stuff, and vice versa. I think the problem here is that there are several effective scenes, but it doesn't all work as a whole.
Tourist Trap
HALLOWEEN NIGHT
I used to see this box in the video store and thought it looked like one of those no-budget, camcorder horror movies that are unwatchable. The box was just that shitty looking. But it turns out my impression was wrong, this is a lost minor classic from the 70's that I will highly recommend to anyone who likes these kinds of movies.
It's basically a spin on House of Wax's story, with some weirdo who lives in the middle of nowhere and abducts people, kills them and makes them into mannequins. Also he likes to dress up as mannequin versions of his victims and treat his mannequins like they are real people (some of them seem to be alive) and at one point keeps shouting "little girl!" while chasing one of his victims around.
I don't care what any Andrew McCarthy movies lead you to believe in the 80's; mannequins are fucking creepy as shit and are not to be trusted. There are a lot of scary as fuck mannequins in this movie, and other creepy shit like people being smothered to death by wet plaster, and at least one weird twist that has to be seen to believe. But there's also some really strange dark humor that pops up now and again, usually involving the killer talking to his mannequins.
It's a bit in the Texas Chainsaw Massacre vein of oddball low budget horror movies from the 70's, and it's just so weird and creepy that I think it's a must-see for fans of this stuff.
I used to see this box in the video store and thought it looked like one of those no-budget, camcorder horror movies that are unwatchable. The box was just that shitty looking. But it turns out my impression was wrong, this is a lost minor classic from the 70's that I will highly recommend to anyone who likes these kinds of movies.
It's basically a spin on House of Wax's story, with some weirdo who lives in the middle of nowhere and abducts people, kills them and makes them into mannequins. Also he likes to dress up as mannequin versions of his victims and treat his mannequins like they are real people (some of them seem to be alive) and at one point keeps shouting "little girl!" while chasing one of his victims around.
I don't care what any Andrew McCarthy movies lead you to believe in the 80's; mannequins are fucking creepy as shit and are not to be trusted. There are a lot of scary as fuck mannequins in this movie, and other creepy shit like people being smothered to death by wet plaster, and at least one weird twist that has to be seen to believe. But there's also some really strange dark humor that pops up now and again, usually involving the killer talking to his mannequins.
It's a bit in the Texas Chainsaw Massacre vein of oddball low budget horror movies from the 70's, and it's just so weird and creepy that I think it's a must-see for fans of this stuff.
Return to Horror High
HALLOWEEN NIGHT
Here we have the final push for YVIAHMMAOIHTNQ, a marathon of four movies on Halloween night, climaxing with the original Halloween because, well, I mean that should be pretty obvious.
I'll give this movie a little credit for being ahead of its time. It sorta did what Scream did, only ten years earlier, in that it tries to satirize slasher movies in a self-referential way while being a genuine slasher film at the same time. It doesn't do it very well, and unlike Scream it's just not a good movie, but at least it was doing something different for the time.
The main problem is that it's just not very funny or clever, but it ceaselessly tries to be. The plot spins around and around, there are constant movie-within-a-movie sequences and it-was-all-just-a-dream fakeouts, it tries to point out its own cliches, etc, while still trying to have some genuinely creepy and suspenseful moments. But since it's all so lightweight and tongue-in-cheek, you just don't really give a shit about what's happening.
Scream was a well-directed slasher film that subverted the genre by having jaded characters who had seen all the horror movies and knew all the cliches. Return to Horror High is a competently but unremarkably directed film where the filmmakers are jaded, not the characters, and maybe feel superior to the material.
Here we have the final push for YVIAHMMAOIHTNQ, a marathon of four movies on Halloween night, climaxing with the original Halloween because, well, I mean that should be pretty obvious.
I'll give this movie a little credit for being ahead of its time. It sorta did what Scream did, only ten years earlier, in that it tries to satirize slasher movies in a self-referential way while being a genuine slasher film at the same time. It doesn't do it very well, and unlike Scream it's just not a good movie, but at least it was doing something different for the time.
The main problem is that it's just not very funny or clever, but it ceaselessly tries to be. The plot spins around and around, there are constant movie-within-a-movie sequences and it-was-all-just-a-dream fakeouts, it tries to point out its own cliches, etc, while still trying to have some genuinely creepy and suspenseful moments. But since it's all so lightweight and tongue-in-cheek, you just don't really give a shit about what's happening.
Scream was a well-directed slasher film that subverted the genre by having jaded characters who had seen all the horror movies and knew all the cliches. Return to Horror High is a competently but unremarkably directed film where the filmmakers are jaded, not the characters, and maybe feel superior to the material.
The Phantom of the Opera
Thursday, October 31, 2008
No, I didn't accidenally post this twice, I did a double feature of Phantom of the Operas. This is a version from the late 80's that tries to tell the Phantom story more in the style of the Nightmare on Elm Street films. So it's fitting that they cast Freddy Krueger as the Phantom.
It started off well enough. It looked like it had a decent budget, good cinematography, good special effects, and an okay cast for one of these movies. There's a cool bit where the phantom sews a bunch of fake latex skin to his face and puts on makeup to look normal. But mostly the movie is mediocre and uninvolving, with a stupid "it was all a dream... or was it?!" ending that makes no sense and drags on forever.
I will give special recognition for achievement in bad dialogue in one scene. Some dude is telling the owner of the opera house about the legend of the phantom, and he lets loose this pearl: "I don't believe in phantoms or legends, Mr. Dutton, but I do believe in facts. And the fact is, this man - -this creature - -is still alive. Still alive, and living under your opera. " Uh, I'm pretty sure that means you do believe in phantoms and legends, moron.
No, I didn't accidenally post this twice, I did a double feature of Phantom of the Operas. This is a version from the late 80's that tries to tell the Phantom story more in the style of the Nightmare on Elm Street films. So it's fitting that they cast Freddy Krueger as the Phantom.
It started off well enough. It looked like it had a decent budget, good cinematography, good special effects, and an okay cast for one of these movies. There's a cool bit where the phantom sews a bunch of fake latex skin to his face and puts on makeup to look normal. But mostly the movie is mediocre and uninvolving, with a stupid "it was all a dream... or was it?!" ending that makes no sense and drags on forever.
I will give special recognition for achievement in bad dialogue in one scene. Some dude is telling the owner of the opera house about the legend of the phantom, and he lets loose this pearl: "I don't believe in phantoms or legends, Mr. Dutton, but I do believe in facts. And the fact is, this man - -this creature - -is still alive. Still alive, and living under your opera. " Uh, I'm pretty sure that means you do believe in phantoms and legends, moron.
The Phantom of the Opera
Thursday, October 30, 2008
The Dario Argento version, which I had always avoided because I never heard anything besides terrible things about it. Is it his worst movie? Quite possibly. Is it worth seeing? Maybe, if you're an Argento fan. I can't call this a good movie at all, but I can say that it's got some fucking shit that rivals, and in places surpasses, the craziness of Argento's Phenomena.
Like the fact that the Phantom is raised by psychic rats, who give him psychic mind powers. And I think in one part they even suggest that he might get sexual with the rats. Then there's the part when the Phantom fantasizes about a bunch of naked men with ratheads caught in a giant rat trap. Or the part where some dwarf rides around on a giant rat catching machine and gets decapitated.
I'm not going to lie and pretend that this is at all a good movie. I'm just going to say that it has its moments.
The Dario Argento version, which I had always avoided because I never heard anything besides terrible things about it. Is it his worst movie? Quite possibly. Is it worth seeing? Maybe, if you're an Argento fan. I can't call this a good movie at all, but I can say that it's got some fucking shit that rivals, and in places surpasses, the craziness of Argento's Phenomena.
Like the fact that the Phantom is raised by psychic rats, who give him psychic mind powers. And I think in one part they even suggest that he might get sexual with the rats. Then there's the part when the Phantom fantasizes about a bunch of naked men with ratheads caught in a giant rat trap. Or the part where some dwarf rides around on a giant rat catching machine and gets decapitated.
I'm not going to lie and pretend that this is at all a good movie. I'm just going to say that it has its moments.
Red
Thursday, October 30, 2008
I mentioned this movie before, because it was originally directed by Lucky McKee, but then production was shut down and he either left or was fired, and when it started back up another director took over. Both are listed as director in the credits, so it's really hard to say how much of this movie is McKee's, what he shot, how close this came to his plan for the film, etc. I can't really compare it to his body of work, or make any statements about how he's progressing.
I can, however, say that this is a top-notch slow-burn-style thriller marred slightly by a weaker final act. It's about an aging widower who one day while minding his own business is confronted by a group of teenagers. One of the kids, a total creep, kills the man's beloved dog Red, for no good reason. Later, the man tracks the kids down and tells their families what happened, hoping for an apology and for the kids to be disciplined. Instead, the rich asshole father of two of the kids brushes him off, and buries any investigations into the matter to keep his kids from getting in trouble. This leads to a back and forth that builds slowly but inevitably to violence and tragedy.
It's clear from early on that this story is going to end in violence, but the last 20 minutes or so start to feel a too heightened and over done. The build up is tense and involving, and the acting is great across, especially from Brian Cox in the lead, so it's a shame that the last chunk of the movie (while still well done) stretches too much credibility. Then, strangely, the final scene of the movie is a inappropriately upbeat, bordering on corny. I cared about this character enough that I was glad the movie had a (somewhat) happy ending, but the music starts swelling and there's even a little puppy dog, it feels more like some Lifetime movie or some shit.
I mentioned this movie before, because it was originally directed by Lucky McKee, but then production was shut down and he either left or was fired, and when it started back up another director took over. Both are listed as director in the credits, so it's really hard to say how much of this movie is McKee's, what he shot, how close this came to his plan for the film, etc. I can't really compare it to his body of work, or make any statements about how he's progressing.
I can, however, say that this is a top-notch slow-burn-style thriller marred slightly by a weaker final act. It's about an aging widower who one day while minding his own business is confronted by a group of teenagers. One of the kids, a total creep, kills the man's beloved dog Red, for no good reason. Later, the man tracks the kids down and tells their families what happened, hoping for an apology and for the kids to be disciplined. Instead, the rich asshole father of two of the kids brushes him off, and buries any investigations into the matter to keep his kids from getting in trouble. This leads to a back and forth that builds slowly but inevitably to violence and tragedy.
It's clear from early on that this story is going to end in violence, but the last 20 minutes or so start to feel a too heightened and over done. The build up is tense and involving, and the acting is great across, especially from Brian Cox in the lead, so it's a shame that the last chunk of the movie (while still well done) stretches too much credibility. Then, strangely, the final scene of the movie is a inappropriately upbeat, bordering on corny. I cared about this character enough that I was glad the movie had a (somewhat) happy ending, but the music starts swelling and there's even a little puppy dog, it feels more like some Lifetime movie or some shit.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
The Pit and the Pendulum
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Cloverfield suffered because I had just recently watched Quarantine and it looked worse in comparison. On the flip side of that, I think I enjoyed Stuart Gordon's The Pit and the Pendulum a little bit more because I had just sat through Seed. Gordon pairs broad satire (of religious extremism and corrupt public figures) with scenes of torture and degradation. The combo is a little off-putting and cancels itself out at times... even in the span of a single scene, it's like some actors are in a comedy and the others in a harrowing drama. It undercuts itself.
Despite that, the film still works because Gordon knows how to build a moment, and he certainly knows how to disturb. There's a scene where a character gets their tongue cut out that's way more squirm-inducing and effective than anything in Seed, and they don't even graphically show it.
Cloverfield suffered because I had just recently watched Quarantine and it looked worse in comparison. On the flip side of that, I think I enjoyed Stuart Gordon's The Pit and the Pendulum a little bit more because I had just sat through Seed. Gordon pairs broad satire (of religious extremism and corrupt public figures) with scenes of torture and degradation. The combo is a little off-putting and cancels itself out at times... even in the span of a single scene, it's like some actors are in a comedy and the others in a harrowing drama. It undercuts itself.
Despite that, the film still works because Gordon knows how to build a moment, and he certainly knows how to disturb. There's a scene where a character gets their tongue cut out that's way more squirm-inducing and effective than anything in Seed, and they don't even graphically show it.
Seed
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
I knew I had to cram in at least one Uwe Boll movie for YVIAHMMAOIHTNQ. In his heyday, no one, not even Ed Wood, made more hilariously bad genre films than Boll. House of the Dead, Heart of America and Blackwoods are three of the all-time achievements in so bad it's good filmmaking.
Problem is, Boll isn't in his prime any more, and in some ways he's improved as a filmmaker, which means his movies are worse/less watchable. Lately, his movies are shitty in a boring and unremarkable way, instead of achieving the unique accidental hilarity of House of the Dead. I thought we might have had a chance here for a classic, as this is Boll's take on the torture porn genre. Instead, outside of some occasional laughs, it's a bore.
Boll was trying to make a genuinely disturbing horror film, and from that standpoint, Seed is a miserable failure. The main problem is that it wants to be a bleak, graphic and unsettling horror film, but it has a ridiculous story with a ridiculous villain. The killer (actually named "Seed," which is lame) is just a Jason knockoff, a big dude in a mask who performs impossible feats of strength, like pushing a man so hard that his head squeezes between two jail bars and is crushed. The movie can't reconcile silly, over-the-top Jason X nonsense like that with it's serious tone. So, the violence works on neither level. It's too overblown to be disturbing, yet the tone of the film is too somber for the violence to be fun. It's lose-lose.
And man, does he try to work in the bleakest ending possible, but it's too stupid to take seriously. The main character is somehow locked in the killer's house, and he sees on a TV screen that the killer has abducted his wife and daughter. Seed wants him to kill himself to spare his family. He won't, so Seed kills the wife. The cop relents and shoots himself in the head. The movie ends with Seed locking the little girl in the room with her dead dad, where he will presumably leave her to starve and die like his other victims.
I don't get it either. Did the cop really think that Seed would just let her go? Couldn't he have tried to pretend shooting himself? Or tried to break out of the room? Or anything else besides killing himself and leaving his daughter in the clutches of a serial killer. I'm sympathetic to characters in horror movies making mistakes, but this one just defies all sense.
I knew I had to cram in at least one Uwe Boll movie for YVIAHMMAOIHTNQ. In his heyday, no one, not even Ed Wood, made more hilariously bad genre films than Boll. House of the Dead, Heart of America and Blackwoods are three of the all-time achievements in so bad it's good filmmaking.
Problem is, Boll isn't in his prime any more, and in some ways he's improved as a filmmaker, which means his movies are worse/less watchable. Lately, his movies are shitty in a boring and unremarkable way, instead of achieving the unique accidental hilarity of House of the Dead. I thought we might have had a chance here for a classic, as this is Boll's take on the torture porn genre. Instead, outside of some occasional laughs, it's a bore.
Boll was trying to make a genuinely disturbing horror film, and from that standpoint, Seed is a miserable failure. The main problem is that it wants to be a bleak, graphic and unsettling horror film, but it has a ridiculous story with a ridiculous villain. The killer (actually named "Seed," which is lame) is just a Jason knockoff, a big dude in a mask who performs impossible feats of strength, like pushing a man so hard that his head squeezes between two jail bars and is crushed. The movie can't reconcile silly, over-the-top Jason X nonsense like that with it's serious tone. So, the violence works on neither level. It's too overblown to be disturbing, yet the tone of the film is too somber for the violence to be fun. It's lose-lose.
And man, does he try to work in the bleakest ending possible, but it's too stupid to take seriously. The main character is somehow locked in the killer's house, and he sees on a TV screen that the killer has abducted his wife and daughter. Seed wants him to kill himself to spare his family. He won't, so Seed kills the wife. The cop relents and shoots himself in the head. The movie ends with Seed locking the little girl in the room with her dead dad, where he will presumably leave her to starve and die like his other victims.
I don't get it either. Did the cop really think that Seed would just let her go? Couldn't he have tried to pretend shooting himself? Or tried to break out of the room? Or anything else besides killing himself and leaving his daughter in the clutches of a serial killer. I'm sympathetic to characters in horror movies making mistakes, but this one just defies all sense.
The Red Queen Kills Seven Times
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Like you could resist that title either. This is, all around, a pretty unremarkable giallo. It has all the staples of the genre, but not enough of a sense of style, or energy, or how to build suspense. Of course, for me, even a below average giallo like this one is at least watchable.
Like you could resist that title either. This is, all around, a pretty unremarkable giallo. It has all the staples of the genre, but not enough of a sense of style, or energy, or how to build suspense. Of course, for me, even a below average giallo like this one is at least watchable.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Uncle Sam
Tuesday, October 29, 2008
So this is about a solider that comes back from the dead, dresses up as Uncle Sam, and goes around killing people in various America-themed ways, like impaling a dude on a flag. And what's even better is that the tone of the movie is serious, like it's actually trying to be scary and make some sort of statement about America and its foreign policy.
There's fun to be had, but given this premise and treatment, it should have been more awesome than it is. It's too boring, with not enough happening for long periods of time. The ridiculous, awful slasher-gimmick coupled with the straight-faced tone could have lead to a classic, instead it's a disappointment with a few memorable moments.
I will give a shout out to the ending, which is an (I think accidental) homage to the ending of City of the Living Dead. It's clear that they shot a happy ending but that at some point in post production they decided that horror movies can't have happy endings. So they have this happy scene of the main character kid and his mom, but then for no reason creepy music cues up on the soundtrack, and it goes into slo-mo for a few seconds and then freeze frames on the kid smiling. Then suddenly the picture appears to shatter, for no god damned reason. Fucking awesome.
So this is about a solider that comes back from the dead, dresses up as Uncle Sam, and goes around killing people in various America-themed ways, like impaling a dude on a flag. And what's even better is that the tone of the movie is serious, like it's actually trying to be scary and make some sort of statement about America and its foreign policy.
There's fun to be had, but given this premise and treatment, it should have been more awesome than it is. It's too boring, with not enough happening for long periods of time. The ridiculous, awful slasher-gimmick coupled with the straight-faced tone could have lead to a classic, instead it's a disappointment with a few memorable moments.
I will give a shout out to the ending, which is an (I think accidental) homage to the ending of City of the Living Dead. It's clear that they shot a happy ending but that at some point in post production they decided that horror movies can't have happy endings. So they have this happy scene of the main character kid and his mom, but then for no reason creepy music cues up on the soundtrack, and it goes into slo-mo for a few seconds and then freeze frames on the kid smiling. Then suddenly the picture appears to shatter, for no god damned reason. Fucking awesome.
Day of the Dead
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
This is not the original Day of the Dead, nor is it that inexplicable "sequel" Day of the Dead 2: Contagium. This is the remake of original, which I guess also kind of makes it a sequel to the remake of Dawn of the Dead. It's got the fast zombies like that movie did, and they both star Ving Rhames, although he plays a different role in each. So maybe they just want you to think that this is a sequel.
Romero's original Day of the Dead is (much like his recent Diary of the Dead) one of his worst movies, made somewhat entertaining by Romero's flair for zombie action and graphic violence. This remake, by a guy who did some of the Friday the 13th movies, is I guess in someways more competent and more watchable than Romero's film, but it's so ho-hum in all respects that there is nothing that sticks out about it. I guess I wasn't bored, but I don't think there was a single standout scene or idea in the whole thing. It's the very definition of mediocre. Romero's film sucked, but it at least showed ambition and vision.
So we got the fast zombies here (seems unavoidable post-28 Days Later) and I'm not really a fan of them to begin with, but here they're handled especially poorly. The director uses this awful effect, I don't know if the footage is sped up or if they are under-cranking it or whatever, but they move in this artificially fast manner, and do weird impossible shit like jumping ten feet in the air and climbing on ceilings. I think they're trying to convey a manic energy in these scenes, but it just looks retarded.
As a remake, it doesn't have much to do with the original. There are zombies, and soldiers, and a guy name Rhoads, and a zombie that takes orders, so they at least saw the original. But otherwise it's just a generic zombie movie with a stock cast of (unlikable) characters, it's violent without having any memorable special effects, and it's competently but ineffectively shot and staged. The final result feels more like a Sci-Fi channel original movie than something you'd actually pay to see (oops)... in fact, it feels like it could be one of those lame Return of the Living Dead sequels Sci-Fi showed a few years back. And now that I think about it, that's the perfect criticism for this movie: it's like an average made for TV movie.
This is not the original Day of the Dead, nor is it that inexplicable "sequel" Day of the Dead 2: Contagium. This is the remake of original, which I guess also kind of makes it a sequel to the remake of Dawn of the Dead. It's got the fast zombies like that movie did, and they both star Ving Rhames, although he plays a different role in each. So maybe they just want you to think that this is a sequel.
Romero's original Day of the Dead is (much like his recent Diary of the Dead) one of his worst movies, made somewhat entertaining by Romero's flair for zombie action and graphic violence. This remake, by a guy who did some of the Friday the 13th movies, is I guess in someways more competent and more watchable than Romero's film, but it's so ho-hum in all respects that there is nothing that sticks out about it. I guess I wasn't bored, but I don't think there was a single standout scene or idea in the whole thing. It's the very definition of mediocre. Romero's film sucked, but it at least showed ambition and vision.
So we got the fast zombies here (seems unavoidable post-28 Days Later) and I'm not really a fan of them to begin with, but here they're handled especially poorly. The director uses this awful effect, I don't know if the footage is sped up or if they are under-cranking it or whatever, but they move in this artificially fast manner, and do weird impossible shit like jumping ten feet in the air and climbing on ceilings. I think they're trying to convey a manic energy in these scenes, but it just looks retarded.
As a remake, it doesn't have much to do with the original. There are zombies, and soldiers, and a guy name Rhoads, and a zombie that takes orders, so they at least saw the original. But otherwise it's just a generic zombie movie with a stock cast of (unlikable) characters, it's violent without having any memorable special effects, and it's competently but ineffectively shot and staged. The final result feels more like a Sci-Fi channel original movie than something you'd actually pay to see (oops)... in fact, it feels like it could be one of those lame Return of the Living Dead sequels Sci-Fi showed a few years back. And now that I think about it, that's the perfect criticism for this movie: it's like an average made for TV movie.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Cloverfield
Monday, October 27, 2008
Since I liked Quarantine a lot more than I was expecting, I decided it was time to be all benevolent and shit and give Cloverfield a shot. It seemed to fit a similar pattern, where I thought the trailers made it look like ass and I hate the stupid faux-documentary gimmick, but then it got good reviews and whatnot. So I gave it a spin.
And it actually turns out that it was kind of a mistake to have watched this so soon after seeing Quarantine, because it just helped to underline some of Cloverfield's major flaws. Most notably, Cloverfield felt really false and stagey to me, and when you're pretending to be comprised of actual footage from someone's video camera, that's fatal.
Some of it has to do with the scope of the movie. It's about a giant Godzilla-thing destroying a city, that also sheds from it's skin giant Starship Trooper-looking bugs that go around biting people. This means there are many large set pieces, with lots of special effects. And unfortunately, the movie doesn't do a very good job of integrating the actors with the effects. I'm not against CG as a rule, but it looked unconvincing here. I had trouble suspending disbelief.
Moreso, though, I think the feeling of stagey-ness comes from the writing and acting and the, um, staging. (Shit, I couldn't end that sentence without getting redundant.) Too much of the dialogue didn't ring true, and the actors, while adequate, felt like they were performing and didn't strike me as natural. And even more than that, a lot of the filmmaking felt staged rather than on-the-fly (which it's pretending to be). There are a lot of moments where things seemed perfectly framed to catch the important bits of action, or to teasingly show parts of the monster.
There's also this little gimmick where every now and then the video cuts out and cuts to a video of something else that was recorded on the same tape. Essentially, it's a way to ironically show footage of the characters during happier times. It's an okay idea, but the placement of cuts is obvious, especially in the beginning where one of the characters wonders if they are recording over his tape, and at that very moment it cuts to the older footage of his. I don't know if I'm explaining that well, but it's distractingly phony.
Quarantine was far from realistic. It could even be accused of some of these same flaws, but it did a better job of masking them. It keeps it's action confined to a small area, doesn't add any extraneous plot details, keeps the character motivations straightforward, and does a better job of looking like it was shot spontaneously, while still skillfully manipulating the audience.
Cloverfield might have played better on the big screen, with surround sound and a receptive audience feeding off its energy. Maybe I could have been more immersed, more convinced by the special effects, more willing to submit to the spectacle. Instead, on my little TV, it felt phony, and the style created too much aesthetic distance (or maybe cognitive dissonance?). I didn't hate it, and there were a handful of neat moments, but it didn't engage me at any point. I don't get the hype.
Since I liked Quarantine a lot more than I was expecting, I decided it was time to be all benevolent and shit and give Cloverfield a shot. It seemed to fit a similar pattern, where I thought the trailers made it look like ass and I hate the stupid faux-documentary gimmick, but then it got good reviews and whatnot. So I gave it a spin.
And it actually turns out that it was kind of a mistake to have watched this so soon after seeing Quarantine, because it just helped to underline some of Cloverfield's major flaws. Most notably, Cloverfield felt really false and stagey to me, and when you're pretending to be comprised of actual footage from someone's video camera, that's fatal.
Some of it has to do with the scope of the movie. It's about a giant Godzilla-thing destroying a city, that also sheds from it's skin giant Starship Trooper-looking bugs that go around biting people. This means there are many large set pieces, with lots of special effects. And unfortunately, the movie doesn't do a very good job of integrating the actors with the effects. I'm not against CG as a rule, but it looked unconvincing here. I had trouble suspending disbelief.
Moreso, though, I think the feeling of stagey-ness comes from the writing and acting and the, um, staging. (Shit, I couldn't end that sentence without getting redundant.) Too much of the dialogue didn't ring true, and the actors, while adequate, felt like they were performing and didn't strike me as natural. And even more than that, a lot of the filmmaking felt staged rather than on-the-fly (which it's pretending to be). There are a lot of moments where things seemed perfectly framed to catch the important bits of action, or to teasingly show parts of the monster.
There's also this little gimmick where every now and then the video cuts out and cuts to a video of something else that was recorded on the same tape. Essentially, it's a way to ironically show footage of the characters during happier times. It's an okay idea, but the placement of cuts is obvious, especially in the beginning where one of the characters wonders if they are recording over his tape, and at that very moment it cuts to the older footage of his. I don't know if I'm explaining that well, but it's distractingly phony.
Quarantine was far from realistic. It could even be accused of some of these same flaws, but it did a better job of masking them. It keeps it's action confined to a small area, doesn't add any extraneous plot details, keeps the character motivations straightforward, and does a better job of looking like it was shot spontaneously, while still skillfully manipulating the audience.
Cloverfield might have played better on the big screen, with surround sound and a receptive audience feeding off its energy. Maybe I could have been more immersed, more convinced by the special effects, more willing to submit to the spectacle. Instead, on my little TV, it felt phony, and the style created too much aesthetic distance (or maybe cognitive dissonance?). I didn't hate it, and there were a handful of neat moments, but it didn't engage me at any point. I don't get the hype.
Murder Rock: Dancing Death
Monday, October 27, 2008
An open letter to my brother Andy:
Hey Andy, have you seen this one yet? It's one of Fulci's mid-80's efforts. You and I have both plowed through the ass-end of his filmography, including Aenigma, Demonia, Voices From the Beyond and Sweet House of Horrors, so if you haven't seen this one, you probably should. However, if you still need convincing, here is a list of reasons of why you should see Murder Rock:
1) It is an attempt to cash in on the 80's dance movie craze, but it's still a horror movie. So what I'm saying is that Fulci made a giallo in the style of Flashdance.
2) The opening credits show a bunch of people (who I don't think are characters in the movie) breakdancing to some 80's music. When the credits end, they are immediately followed by another dance sequence. It's like a good 6 minutes of screen time before there's any dialogue and people stop dancing.
3) There are several dance sequences in the film, and they are pretty much all extraneous.
4) Remember the classic song "Head Over Meels" from Fulci's Aenigma? Well, Murder Rock's entire soundtrack consists of crap like that.
5) Garetta Garetta, the black chick from Demons and Rats: Night of Terror has a supporting role.
6) There are several dramatic speeches made by characters, and the movie seems to take them pretty seriously.
7) There is a lot of nudity for a Fulci film, although most of it is of dead chicks. So we're talking Torso territory here, although no lesbians.
8) The killer chloroforms women so they pass out, then sticks some weird ceremonial needle through their heart.
9) I don't know if he had a decent budget or what, but this is, from a technical standpoint, one of Fulci's best shot, best lit, best edited, best constructed films. It doesn't have his normally foggy, soft-focus nightmarish feel, it's more of a classic giallo.
10) Despite that, it still has a lot of accidental comedy.
So there you go, 10 reasons why you should consider seeing this one if you get a chance. I wouldn't bump it to the top of your queue or go out of your way to see it, but if you like this kind of crap (and I know you do) then it's worth your time.
An open letter to my brother Andy:
Hey Andy, have you seen this one yet? It's one of Fulci's mid-80's efforts. You and I have both plowed through the ass-end of his filmography, including Aenigma, Demonia, Voices From the Beyond and Sweet House of Horrors, so if you haven't seen this one, you probably should. However, if you still need convincing, here is a list of reasons of why you should see Murder Rock:
1) It is an attempt to cash in on the 80's dance movie craze, but it's still a horror movie. So what I'm saying is that Fulci made a giallo in the style of Flashdance.
2) The opening credits show a bunch of people (who I don't think are characters in the movie) breakdancing to some 80's music. When the credits end, they are immediately followed by another dance sequence. It's like a good 6 minutes of screen time before there's any dialogue and people stop dancing.
3) There are several dance sequences in the film, and they are pretty much all extraneous.
4) Remember the classic song "Head Over Meels" from Fulci's Aenigma? Well, Murder Rock's entire soundtrack consists of crap like that.
5) Garetta Garetta, the black chick from Demons and Rats: Night of Terror has a supporting role.
6) There are several dramatic speeches made by characters, and the movie seems to take them pretty seriously.
7) There is a lot of nudity for a Fulci film, although most of it is of dead chicks. So we're talking Torso territory here, although no lesbians.
8) The killer chloroforms women so they pass out, then sticks some weird ceremonial needle through their heart.
9) I don't know if he had a decent budget or what, but this is, from a technical standpoint, one of Fulci's best shot, best lit, best edited, best constructed films. It doesn't have his normally foggy, soft-focus nightmarish feel, it's more of a classic giallo.
10) Despite that, it still has a lot of accidental comedy.
So there you go, 10 reasons why you should consider seeing this one if you get a chance. I wouldn't bump it to the top of your queue or go out of your way to see it, but if you like this kind of crap (and I know you do) then it's worth your time.
Dracula
Monday, October 27, 2008
Another notable gap in my horror lexicon finally mended, the Tod Browning/Bela Lugosi Dracula, probably the most iconic version of the tale. What took me so long to see this beloved classic? I dunno, it's a little shameful that I just now saw it. I guess I was too busy watching all the Slumber Party Massacre movies when I was younger.
This has a lot of the great, creepy, shadowy black and white cinematography that I love, so I enjoyed it for that, but if I'm being honest here, the story and acting was not so hot. Some of that's just personal taste... I really don't enjoy this style of hammy, theatrical overacting that you find in some of these old movies (although Lugosi is better at it than the other actors). But I think that some story and structural problems are evident, too. Especially the ending. They find Dracula in his coffin, then Harker finds his girlfriend. Dracula is staked by Van Helsing offscreen (all we hear is a noise in the distance) then Harker and his girl just sort of walk off and it cuts to THE END. Talk about an anti-climax.
Another notable gap in my horror lexicon finally mended, the Tod Browning/Bela Lugosi Dracula, probably the most iconic version of the tale. What took me so long to see this beloved classic? I dunno, it's a little shameful that I just now saw it. I guess I was too busy watching all the Slumber Party Massacre movies when I was younger.
This has a lot of the great, creepy, shadowy black and white cinematography that I love, so I enjoyed it for that, but if I'm being honest here, the story and acting was not so hot. Some of that's just personal taste... I really don't enjoy this style of hammy, theatrical overacting that you find in some of these old movies (although Lugosi is better at it than the other actors). But I think that some story and structural problems are evident, too. Especially the ending. They find Dracula in his coffin, then Harker finds his girlfriend. Dracula is staked by Van Helsing offscreen (all we hear is a noise in the distance) then Harker and his girl just sort of walk off and it cuts to THE END. Talk about an anti-climax.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)