Another week down, and still the movies keep getting screened.
As usual, if you follow my exploits on Facebook, you might notice a discrepancy regarding the grades. This is because the Facebook grade is graded in a vacuum, and is largely based on initial reaction. By the time I sit down and write these reviews, I might have had a change of heart here and there.
First of all, it's very nice to have watched so many different films by different directors this week. Not that Wes Craven wasn't a decent filmmaker, but three of his films back to back - especially New Nightmare and Scream, which may as well been the same film for all their meta musings - isn't really in keeping with the MMMMM's dog's breakfast of films.
Remember my grading system?
A =
Excellent, a must see
B = Very
good, I’d watch it again
C = Worth
Seeing
D = Maybe
don’t bother
F =
Worthless
+ = Superior
for this grade
- = Just barely
makes it into this grade
As usual, MY REVIEWS CONTAIN SPOILERS. Not all of them, and not necessarily the biggest of spoilers, but I do not pull punches in terms of content. You've been warned...
Ghosts of Mars (John Carpenter) - D
A small mining colony on Mars has gone silent. A squad of
Martian Police officers, including Lieutenant Melanie Ballard, our protagonist,
is sent to retrieve ultra-dangerous criminal Desolation Williams (played by
eternal badass Ice Cube), who, rumor has it, strung up a bunch of decapitated
colonists for everyone to see. Immediately upon arriving at the colony, things
are amiss. Hardly any colonists can be found, and those who are aren't talking.
When Sergeant Jericho Butler, played by pre-action star Jason Statham, finds
the Police commander's head impaled on a spike, and witnesses a crowd of
colonists being whipped into a frenzy by what appears to be an actual Martian,
the Mars Police lock themselves in the jail, and prepare for a siege. Turns
out, Earth colonists unleashed a red mist while digging - Ghosts of the Martian
race, we are told - that travel on wind currents, possess Earthlings, and drive
them into a rage that can only be sated by slaughtering invaders and destroying
buildings.
Ghosts of Mars is a triple genre hybrid, featuring Action,
Sci-fi and Horror elements. Friends of mine touted it as a zombie movie, but
strictly speaking, that's not true. The self-mutilated Earthlings that are
possessed by the ghosts look more like orcs from Peter Jackson's Lord of the
Rings franchise. It is Sci-Fi first, concerning itself with its universe. And
explaining small details of how life on Mars came about. Next it is an action
movie, more concerned about padding the body count, and playing heavy metal
exactly when it needs to. Horror takes a back seat to these other elements,
meaning while horrific things certainly happen (oh man, the commander got
decapitated!), often this is immediately diffused by violence (30 of them, 2 of
us? I like those odds). As sarcastically mentioned, the music is unbelievably
heavy metal. While I may not be the biggest fan of that kind of music, it
definitely supports an action film more than a horror movie, and when those
guitars start wailing, any suspense immediately vanishes, and guns start
blazing. Even when characters die, it goes so fast you might miss it. In one
scene towards the end, I looked away from the screen for literally 30 seconds,
and when I looked back up, three characters had died. One character that had
been with us since the start - arguably the most main character besides
Ballard, Butler and Desolation - gets her head cut off during the final action
scene, and the movie barely lets you register it.
All that said, it’s a well thought out concept (as
mentioned, they don't skimp on details of technology), and the possessed
colonists are pretty grim to look at. The ghost-cam effect (which shows the
Audience who's getting possessed) gets kind of tired before too long (this was
clearly a signature camera technique for the film - it is done no less than 10 times).
But, really, had this movie focused more on characters, and featured less
ball-numbing battle scenes, it might have been far more decent. No one (except
maybe Natasha Henstridge, who plays Lt.
Ballard, can be a little difficult to watch act at times) puts in a bad
performance in the film. With a different treatment, it might have been better,
but for what it is, there are probably better flicks to spend your time on.
The Tenant (Roman Polanski) - B
Mr. Trelkovsky (played by director Polanski) is looking for an apartment, but it's Paris
in the 70s, and its not going well. The film opens on Trelkovsky approaching a
landlord about a room he heard was available. The previous tenant, as it turns
out, committed suicide by throwing herself out the window. Trelkovsky becomes
somewhat obsessed with the previous tenant, a girl named Simone. First he
visits her in the hospital just before she dies (in the process meeting Shelly,
a good friend of Simone's and Trelkovsky's eventual love interest), but then
after she dies, Trelkovsky sees her in his building, and then takes to dressing
up like her in private. To make matters worse, everyone in his apartment
complex seems to be conspiring against him. His neighbors show very quickly
that they do not tolerate loud noise or parties, and at one point, Trelkovsky
believes one of them attempts to choke him. This leads Tartofsky to the
conclusion that the building's residents forced Simone to her end, and he fears
soon they will turn on him.
It's a bit of a mind fuck, this one. Trelkovsky is the sole
point of view of the audience, and so you're perfectly willing to believe him,
despite his paranoia truly getting out of hand. But somewhere along the way,
probably in the third act of the film, when he betrays the surprisingly
supportive Shelly, you realize that Trelkovsky is in the wrong. His neighbors
may be stingy, old fuddyduddies, but there is no conspiracy. Trelkovsky has
lost his mind. However, in the final scene, Trelkovsky is lying in a hospital
bed and sees himself and Shelly standing over him, just meeting for the first
time like they did when he visited Simone on her deathbed, implies that Trelkovsky
was Simone all along, living some kind of existential loop like in Groundhog
Day, or reliving the horrors of 'her' final days in dying breath.
Either way, the Tenant is a bleak picture. Considered the
final part of Polanski's unofficial Apartment trilogy (along with Repulsion and
Rosemary's Baby), the Tenant features a dark soundtrack, very moody setting and
tone, and doesn't answer anything for its viewers. Much of it is left up for
you to interpret. It was definitely a unique, thought-provoking film. While it
may not be entirely fair to hold this film up against proper entries into the
genre, the nightmare existence of Trelkovsky is deeply troubling and
unsettling. Nothing is going to pop out to frighten you, it’s not that kind of
horror.
Sinister (Scott Derrickson) - D+
Ellison Oswalt, a down on his luck true crime author, has
moved his wife and two children into a new home. What he hasn't told them is
that their new home was also the former residence of the victims depicted in
his new novel. After a brief brush with local law enforcement, who flat out
tell him that they don't want to help him (turns out he smeared the police
concerned in his later novels), Oswalt goes up to his attic, and immediately
uncovers a bunch of homemade snuff movies on hi 8 film, including the death of
the subjects of his new novel. Then a bunch of spooky shit starts happening.
There's a demon. He causes children to murder their families. It starts
obviously interfering in Oswalt’s life. His family tries to flee the obvious
ending that only Oswalt knows is coming, but it's not the kind of demon you
can run from. And, in the end, exactly what you knew from the start was going
to happen does, and one of Oswalt’s children gets possessed.
I know that's far more sarcastic than I usually am with my
synopsis of the film, but that's because I'm kind of pissed off at Sinister. It
actually is a pretty effective thriller, with a very strong premise. Watching
the films Oswalt finds along with him is suitably uncomfortable (excellent use
of found footage style, though the film pulls punches for gore). The trouble
is, without any good reason other than it was scripted to happen, all of a
sudden, Oswalt hears a noise in his
house, walks around in the dark for a bit. A jump scare of some kind will play
out, and then it will switch gears back to another morning in the life of
Ellison Oswalt. I'm not complaining about the jump scares exactly - modern
American horror from major studios thinks that jump scares and torture porn are
the only viable modes for horror these days - it's that they break up what was
otherwise a very compelling movie. Oswalt's investigation is what we're
interested in, not where their demon is going to pop out next. The film itself
even ends with the most predictable face in the camera & sudden music sting
I've ever seen - and I've seen a lot of them. If you're going to set a tone
like Sinister does for 80% of the movie, why not stay the course, and keep building
your film on that excellent foundation? Why do you have to cram about six
useless scenes in?
I'll bet money was involved.
Despite this backlash, I cannot deny that a lot of Sinister
is well done. Everyone turns in a pretty good performance, and the camera is
well-handled. This is what saves it from being a total lost cause. The film has
a very confusing soundtrack, featuring a lot of odd vocals, that has been
edited just right to underline the atmosphere. But, so appalling is the use of
overt scares in what is otherwise a subtle film, that I'm left to grade it so
lowly. It feels cheap to suddenly drive your film in a more crowd-pleasing
direction.
A New Zealand documentary film crew has gained exclusive
rights to interview and live with a group of four vampires, who share a flat.
Deacon, the youngest vampire at 168 years old, is kind of a slob that has
shirked his flat duties for years. Viago, an old world Victorian dandy that
moved to New Zealand for love, is the group's neat freak. Then there's
Vladislav (aka Vladislav the Poker), who is from Medieval times. He's something
of a tragic figure that has been jilted romantically, and as a result is now a
shadow of his former self. Finally there's the abominable-looking Petyr, who is
supposedly over 8,000 years old, lives in the basement, and is responsible for
turning at least Deacon (though I suppose the implication is that he turned all
three). Things get even more crowded when, a few months after filming has
started, Petyr has turned a new member into their group: the loud-mouthed Nick.
Nick himself is kind of a tool, but his best friend Gary is a real swell guy,
and the group is glad to have him. The film culminates in the group attending
the Unholy Masquerade, a yearly gathering of all of the local supernaturals,
and a walk home following that all of the vampires are sure to remember.
What We Do in the Shadows is a marvelous take on
mockumentary film making. Though the style persists through the whole film,
there are times you can forget entirely that it's not just a narrative. The
entire thing is filled with subtle jokes to its audience, often in the form of
gags based on vampire mythology. Other supernatural stuff also gets a nod in
this film, including werewolves, vampire hunters and zombies. And all of it
handled with love and respect. A charming touch for you horror fans is that the
four vampires originally living in the flat seem to be a reference to famous
vampires through the years (Petyr is Count Orlok from Nosferatu, Vladislav is
Dracula [particularly the young Gary Oldman version from Bram Stoker's Dracula], Viago is likely a reference to Anne Rice's An Interview With the Vampire characters, and
Deacon escapes me - maybe Twilight?).
The format and brand of humor could lead itself to being
very dry, but I found it to be well paced so that the laughs continued to hit
throughout the film. There are dark moments as well (one of the camera men
doesn't make it...), so our funny bloodsuckers can't be called squeamish. This
is another entry into horror parody arena of recent years that I would consider
to be a shining example. What We Do in the Shadows is worth a watch, no matter
who you are. I know many of us feel burned out on vampires lately, but if
someone tells you this one's different, I'd be inclined to agree with them.
Like its predecessor, The ABCs of Death 2 is a 26 Short Film
anthology. Each director got assigned a letter of the alphabet, and had to make
a short film that featured someone dying due to a topic of their choosing that
starts with the letter they were assigned. The shorts fall everywhere from silly,
to gruesome, to chilling, to bizarre. Directors from all over the world
contributed to this project, many languages are spoken and several different
formats are used. Due to the nature of this film, it would take forever to
summarize each piece, so I'm just going to proceed with my analysis.
As you may recall, the first film got a B+ rating from me
last year. The sequel has only garnered a C. Personally, I found this
installment to be a little more all over the place, and was less in a horror
vein. This doesn't necessarily net it the drop in grade by itself. Where the
first film featured a lot more dialogue, this one had far more entries in which
there was no dialogue at all (I'd guess about 1/4 of the content was this way). While this technique
certainly breaks down language barriers, and allows for a broader audience
consumption, I found myself missing the spoken word. I'm also not sure that the
directors were all notable genre people (Julian Barrett, whom I like a great
deal, directed B, for example. As far as I know, though, he's never directed
anything horror). It feels like they went for more dark humor this time around.
This isn't to say there's no gore or unsettling moments to be found, it just
felt softer overall. I suppose you could chalk this up to the notion that, having
seen the first, the concept is subject to diminishing returns. However, I truly
believe that, unlike other anthology franchises, the ABCs of Death series could
potentially stay fresh forever, so long as there's new blood to be had.
Nevertheless, I was less enthused by this outing.
The ABCs of Death 2 is still a very well
done piece, full of talented artists and memorable films. Like the first, this
film is not for the faint of heart - there may be more laughs in this one, but
the gory ones will still turn your stomach. And, its worth noting that while I
preferred the first, the general consensus seems to be that the sequel is the
favored of the two.
This time around my favorites were: A, B, I, K, M, O and W.
At a remote station at the North Pole, a science team, along
with some good old boys from the air force, have made the find of a century!
Trapped in the ice near the base is a fully preserved UFO. After a failed
attempt to unearth the craft with thermite, the group manages to salvage a lone
alien life form, itself encased in ice. Once interned on the base, it isn't
long before the Thing gets free, and starts killing first dogs, then people in
order to amass blood for reproduction (the creature is vegetable based and can
only develop seeds in plasma, the scientists discover). Ultimately, after the
scientists fail to deter the military from acting against the alien, the brave
Earthlings lead the Thing into an electrical trap, and destroy it but good.
Captain Patrick Hendry and his boys don’t suffer a single casualty, but Earth
was definitely under threat.
Being a fanatical supporter of John Carpenter's 1982 remake,
I'd hesitated to watch this one. Remakes tend to be outshone by their
predecessors in this modern age of cinema. While The Thing From Another World
has a lot in common with its remake, the differences are staggering. In this
version, we have a far less threatening creature. Not only does it only manage
to kill a mere two humans, being large, strong and impervious to bullets
appears to be the extent of its powers. Therefore, there is no major plotline
about sussing out who was and who wasn't an alien (something that is at least
2/3s of the Thing 82). In fact, by and large, The Thing From Another World is a
pretty standard 1950s science fiction outing. You can't even call it a horror
film, really. The only human deaths are off camera, and most of the monster
stuff doesn't even occur until the last third of the movie. In fact, much like
Ghosts of Mars, this one was more about its science than almost anything else.
A lot of time is devoted getting the characters (and therefore the audience) to
understand how a vegetative life form works, and how such a thing could be possible.
The air force team saves the day with typical, cold-war era America efficiency.
Their plans are formulated quickly, and work very well (when some poindexter
scientist doesn't get in the way). This adds some boredom into the proceedings,
but not enough to spoil the film entirely.
While your military and science personnel are represented, a
curious amount of time is spent on the character of Mr. Scott, a balding,
bespectacled 'newspaper man' that joins up with Captain Hendry in Alaska,
before arriving at the base. Scott is definitely a comic relief character that
constantly grumps about his inability to report on alien contact to the world
(after the monster is dealt with, Scott finally gets to report to some media
bigwigs about what's been going on. The entire speech he gives is dripping with
ham). Scott is with the soldiers pretty much every step of the way, determined
to try to get a photo of the Thing. The character of Nikki is another
interesting one. An assistant to the head of research, she has an ongoing fling
with Hendry that involves some light
bondage play. She too tends to add mirth to the otherwise dry monster movie. In
fact, the scenes between Captain Hendry, Scott and Nikki could be very silly
indeed. In one scene towards the end, I could have sworn the trio fully
improvised their dialogue. This all gave The Thing From Another World a sense
of humor that I wasn't expecting to find. The whole thing is pretty polished,
for 1950s b-movie. This picture is entertaining, witty and not without a
certain charm. Still, it is probably too tame for those who crave the darkness
of the classic remake.
Life After Beth (Jeff Baena) - C+
Zack's girlfriend Beth has recently died by snakebite. After
the funeral, Zack respectfully pays a visit to Beth's parents, and strikes up a
friendship with her father, Maury. The couple are very open and warm to Zack,
who's own family are somewhat detached and uncaring about his problems. Zack
continues to try and befriend Maury, but suddenly cannot get in touch with him.
When Zack pays a visit to the house, he discovers Beth has returned and is very
much alive. She displays some odd behavior (there's always a test the next day
she's worried about, even though it's summer), but Zack is overjoyed to have
her back. While Zack and Maury struggle over whether or not they should tell
Beth that she's been dead, Zack also notices other members of the community have
been reappearing, and when Beth starts exhibiting actual Romero-style zombie behavior,
it isn't long before the entire community is beset by the walking dead.
The film is a lot more subtle than I make it out to be. The
rise of zombies in the community is not only slow, but also comical. Many of
the would-be scares in the film (which, admittedly are few and far between -
it's more of an indie romantic comedy than something concerned with scares) are
often comedic gags (a favorite of mine is while Zack is trying to find out how
to stop the zombies, he has a conversation with a man through a hotel room
door. The music and Zack's sudden reaction to someone creeping up on him is a
cue that violence is coming, but instead, a zombie woman - naked as the day she
was born - asks him if this place used to be a car wash). The film also takes
the time to establish the rules of its undead, something you wouldn't expect it
to do. It even has a nod to humans being the actual monsters, as evidenced by
their violent response to what is otherwise a fairly peaceful zombie
infestation.
Some of the performances are quite good (John C Reilly and
Molly Shannon are excellent as Beth's parents), and the writing is sharp. Some
of the camera work (especially at the start of the film) looks a little
amateurish, but, even that doesn't stop Life After Beth from being a worthwhile
movie. It isn't quite as laugh out loud as What We Do in the Shadows, but it's
definitely quality horror comedy.
------
And that's that. This week, I'm starting my Christopher Lee mini-festival (starting with Horror Hotel today, and A Taste of Fear and the Gorgon on Monday and Tuesday). I believe next week will be my week of Asian films, but there's still a lot of fright to come!
No comments:
Post a Comment