Not being a huge fan of ‘the big three’ creatures of horror, werewolves, vampires, zombies, I did at least enjoy this film. The story is simple; there is nothing at all unpredictable about the plot. And it all develops quickly, perhaps too quickly, which comes off as clunky in parts. The special effects were decent, but since I’m simply not all that awed by special effects in horror movies, I felt the transformation scenes were the least interesting aspect of the movie. Yeah, yeah, develop that wolfish snout already, I’m getting bored…
Another weakness I thought is the theme of the ‘old ways’ vs. the Colony’s attempt to ‘tame’ the werewolf instinct toward violence wasn’t fully explored. Could of been a deeper, more resonating film, but instead they went for the cotton candy, please the masses approach. Was rather surprised to see John Sayles in the screenplay credits– but a writing gig is a writing gig I suppose. This movie didn’t wow me like a horror cult classic should, but I liked it nevertheless. The tongue-in-cheek ending and the constant wolf references gave it a self-referential charm as well. Dee Wallace was cute and captivating throughout. 2.5 stars.
Saturday, November 19, 2011
Basket Case (1982)
Honestly, off the top of my head I can’t think of a better way to spend 35, 000 1982 US dollars. Making an intentionally bad movie, with stop-action animation and a really ridiculous monster called Belial and some of the worst acting ever put on screen. I can see Frank Henenlotter actually saying to his actors, ‘You performed that scene too well… try to make it shittier.’
But, having said that, the film has a certain charm to it. And I think a lot of it has to do with the director simply having way too much fun, not taking ANYTHING AT ALL in the film too seriously, and lampooning New Yorkers, doctors, ghetto hotel dwellers, receptionists, everyone. A kind of admirable laziness runs throughout the dialogue, as if the director knew all too well a line was atrocious, but left it in there anyway, just to mess with people. A mindless, fun 90 minutes. 3 stars.
But, having said that, the film has a certain charm to it. And I think a lot of it has to do with the director simply having way too much fun, not taking ANYTHING AT ALL in the film too seriously, and lampooning New Yorkers, doctors, ghetto hotel dwellers, receptionists, everyone. A kind of admirable laziness runs throughout the dialogue, as if the director knew all too well a line was atrocious, but left it in there anyway, just to mess with people. A mindless, fun 90 minutes. 3 stars.
The Wicker Man
This has been called the ‘Citizen Kane’ of horror films, and I can’t argue with that. Since I first watched it maybe ten years ago, it has remained at the very top of my short list of all-time favorite Horror movies. And after watching it again recently, its power, strangeness, and novelty still hold. Written by the screenwriter who also wrote, ‘Sleuth’, that ingenious and complex exercise in cruel mind games, Anthony Shaffer delivers here a somewhat less complex game-like script, but vastly more cruel. It is, in my opinion, one of the cruelest films ever made, at least by a major studio. Edward Woodward’s excellent performance as Sgt. Howie only heightens this aspect. You can literally feel his spirit deflate on screen at the end when he finally realizes he’s the hunted, and not the hunter, that he really is, as it turns out, The Fool. That he is not only to be sacrificed to the cult’s sun god inside that abominable Wicker Man, but has been mind-fucked for the sheer fun of it by them as well. Almost every move Sgt. Howie makes has been calculated ahead of time by the sinister and playful pagan cult. He is a dead seal in a game of ‘seal toss’ for a pod of Killer Whales.
Beautifully directed, masterfully scored– it really is one of the oddest musicals in cinema history, complete with catchy Celtic tunes– and intelligently written all equal: one disturbing but also quite fun horror film.
Be sure to check out the extras on the Anchor Bay release. The background information on the film is pretty interesting stuff. Apparently Edward Woodward actually had goat urine rain down on him in his scene inside the Wicker Man. A fun fact.
Beautifully directed, masterfully scored– it really is one of the oddest musicals in cinema history, complete with catchy Celtic tunes– and intelligently written all equal: one disturbing but also quite fun horror film.
Be sure to check out the extras on the Anchor Bay release. The background information on the film is pretty interesting stuff. Apparently Edward Woodward actually had goat urine rain down on him in his scene inside the Wicker Man. A fun fact.
Friday, September 10, 2010
Victimology 1
It's not the murder itself that bothers me so much, but the fact they got so little value out of it. A weeks worth of cigarettes and beer maybe, at best? Did they even enjoy it? If someone murders me I hope they at least get supreme and lasting pleasure out of it.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Silent Scream
This came out in 1980, in the 'second wave' of American slasher films, along with Friday the 13th, Prom Night, Terror Train, etc. Silent Scream stars Rebecca Balding (damn cute in this one, eyecandylicious) who was on the tv sitcom Soap I believe. And she does a pretty decent acting job here as well.
The movie is worth a watch for the really pretty interesting backstory of the Engels family, but is otherwise cliche-ridden, with empty-brained college students, cheesy music (some of it outright stolen from Psycho) and lame sexploits with poor dialogue. There is nothing artistically stand-out about this one, but it's one saving grace is the storyline about Victoria Engels (played rather well by Barbara Steele) and her 'brother' and mother. The movie is set on the Calfornia coast in a creepy mansion (a boarding house for college students).
There are a few good and predictable scares, and a sinister secret passage way and room in the mansion that works well. The homicide investigation subplot is dumb and rather shoddily thrown in to break the tension. The two cops are boring and useless. The main and only highlight is Barbara Steele's character, and I'll only say this if you decide to watch it (it's on Netflix instant play): she never utters a word.
Not the best, and certainly not the worst, slasher film ever made.
The movie is worth a watch for the really pretty interesting backstory of the Engels family, but is otherwise cliche-ridden, with empty-brained college students, cheesy music (some of it outright stolen from Psycho) and lame sexploits with poor dialogue. There is nothing artistically stand-out about this one, but it's one saving grace is the storyline about Victoria Engels (played rather well by Barbara Steele) and her 'brother' and mother. The movie is set on the Calfornia coast in a creepy mansion (a boarding house for college students).
There are a few good and predictable scares, and a sinister secret passage way and room in the mansion that works well. The homicide investigation subplot is dumb and rather shoddily thrown in to break the tension. The two cops are boring and useless. The main and only highlight is Barbara Steele's character, and I'll only say this if you decide to watch it (it's on Netflix instant play): she never utters a word.
Not the best, and certainly not the worst, slasher film ever made.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Frontiers
This film's strength ended up being it's major weakness: it's unflinching violence. At some indefinable point, well into the second half, the plot went from intriguing, fun and somewhat horrifying, to stale and predictable and cheesy in about as much time as it takes to snap an Achille's heel with a pair of giant forceps.
It basically became a version of "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" set in the French countryside, although about ten times bloodier. But the movie is not all bad, most of the acting is top-notch and there are several great chase scenes between the young thieves and the weird Nazi clan. Unfortunately the last twenty minutes were just plain predictable and seemed to rely on the old horror/revenge/gore film paradox, whereby we are supposed to believe what is happening in the film with the strictest of logic but at the same time everything that transpires seems cartoonish and full of logic holes. Somehow, just somehow, we just have to believe that our "heroine" will make it through, no matter what the odds. Schwarzenegger would be proud.
And the last five or ten minutes were just intolerable, with the blood and muck drenched heroine shaking and barely able to walk from shock (kudos for attempting to get that close to reality), after being beaten severely by a rifle butt and the hands of several very well-built men, yet still somehow, miraculously,survives that and a fierce gun battle against two women, with one even packing a machine-gun. All for the sake of what? To end their movie on the most over-used cliche in film history? "The good guy must prevail." Although they did tack on a swell little irony with her getting caught by the police at a roadblock. A little too late to save the film for me.
Enjoyed the set up, was mildly intrigued by the weird Nazi clan, and was totally let down by the ending. All the hinting at the malformed children in the mine shaft ended up being a total let down as well. What could have been a very interesting plot device, similar to what was used in a far better film, End of the Line, was all lost here for a bland and painfully rhapsodic revenge trope.
It basically became a version of "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" set in the French countryside, although about ten times bloodier. But the movie is not all bad, most of the acting is top-notch and there are several great chase scenes between the young thieves and the weird Nazi clan. Unfortunately the last twenty minutes were just plain predictable and seemed to rely on the old horror/revenge/gore film paradox, whereby we are supposed to believe what is happening in the film with the strictest of logic but at the same time everything that transpires seems cartoonish and full of logic holes. Somehow, just somehow, we just have to believe that our "heroine" will make it through, no matter what the odds. Schwarzenegger would be proud.
And the last five or ten minutes were just intolerable, with the blood and muck drenched heroine shaking and barely able to walk from shock (kudos for attempting to get that close to reality), after being beaten severely by a rifle butt and the hands of several very well-built men, yet still somehow, miraculously,survives that and a fierce gun battle against two women, with one even packing a machine-gun. All for the sake of what? To end their movie on the most over-used cliche in film history? "The good guy must prevail." Although they did tack on a swell little irony with her getting caught by the police at a roadblock. A little too late to save the film for me.
Enjoyed the set up, was mildly intrigued by the weird Nazi clan, and was totally let down by the ending. All the hinting at the malformed children in the mine shaft ended up being a total let down as well. What could have been a very interesting plot device, similar to what was used in a far better film, End of the Line, was all lost here for a bland and painfully rhapsodic revenge trope.
Saturday, March 6, 2010
Thoughts on the film, Antichrist
Interesting that they dedicated the film to Tarkovsky, I thought of his films immediately when first watching. Ultimately, this movie ends leaving me with more questions unanswered than answered, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. The use of the slow-motion scenes, and the surreal dissolves are absolutely brilliant. But was Gainsbourg's character a witch all along? Or perhaps just simply insane. You simply can't explain away the events in a linear and non-abstract Sherlock Holmes kind of way. There are too many scenes containing outright supernatural or magical events. Was Dafoe's character the Antichrist? And it took these occassionally incoherent, and brutal events to transpire before he could fully realize it? I may be missing a backstory, I've simply not researched the movie at all.
The first hour of the movie is beautiful filmmaking. I wouldn't describe anything here as "tabloid sensationalism," as someone critical of the film suggested. It is very raw, powerful and real emotion, grief. Interspersed are the surreal and unnerving scenes that make you at once cringe and want to know more. The unusual camera work doesnt seem contrived or unduly egocentric to me at all. I think it really enhances the overall bleak and emotional raw mood of this movie.. An argument could be made that the director perhaps owes a bit too much to Tarkovsky or Bergman, but I don't think so. I think he rather beautifully crafts his unusual shots, the plain amazing and beautiful ultra-slow motion scenes especially. nd they're not just there for show. He intricately places these. Some of the wildly spinning shots of the forest are also quite disturbing.
In the second half is where things get a bit fuzzier, while at the same time acutely more hideous and violent. This is some of the most cringing, bold and never before seen violence in Horror film history. It isn't at all artful, as say the violence in Dario Argento's films. And there isn't a whole lot of it, but what's there is pretty brutal. And the fact that there really isnt much of it, makes what's there even more darkly poignant. We see a woman cut off her clitoris with a pair of scissors. We see the woman jerk off her husband and cumming blood. It's pretty sinister. I absolutely don't see it in the realm of so called "goreporn" whatsoever. Whether she is falling under the spell of "Satan's Church" or just going insane, her acts of violence actually fit perfectly, in that they seem bizarrely random, with little or no meaning. Random, bizarre acts of violence perpetrated by those with severe mental illness very much mirror her acts as well, using items within reach. I honestly didn't find any of the scenes of violence or sex gratuitious. The theme of sex is very prominent as well in the movie, and could be further explored.
Yet there are a number of pesky problems in the plot. The last half, and ending of the movie relies too much on impressionistic hintings rather than actual exposition of a plot. Is there a plot? I havent researched the possibility of a backstory here that I may be not aware of.
So, overall, I have to say, I'm impressed with this movie. There were some truly disturbing scenes for me. Any mad woman with scissors in her hands, always raises a hair on my neck. That one scene with the mutilated fox actually speaking, saying something like, "Chaos Reigns", was a tad corny, and I laughed my ass off. The director probably could of left that scene out.
My only complaint is, does any of it make any real sense? But this movie has a lingering quality and will certainly make me think longer about certain themes in it. The rational vs irrational/dream mind, the "evil" qualities of nature, the beautiful transforming into the hideous. The artifical chapters in the movie, to make it like a dark fairy tale, really don't do the movie any justice. There are really only two parts, the first half, and the second. The beautiful and the hideous. And the epilogue, which is either release, or recognition (if in fact Dafoe's character is the Antichrist).
Well, that's all I can blabber about this movie right now..
The first hour of the movie is beautiful filmmaking. I wouldn't describe anything here as "tabloid sensationalism," as someone critical of the film suggested. It is very raw, powerful and real emotion, grief. Interspersed are the surreal and unnerving scenes that make you at once cringe and want to know more. The unusual camera work doesnt seem contrived or unduly egocentric to me at all. I think it really enhances the overall bleak and emotional raw mood of this movie.. An argument could be made that the director perhaps owes a bit too much to Tarkovsky or Bergman, but I don't think so. I think he rather beautifully crafts his unusual shots, the plain amazing and beautiful ultra-slow motion scenes especially. nd they're not just there for show. He intricately places these. Some of the wildly spinning shots of the forest are also quite disturbing.
In the second half is where things get a bit fuzzier, while at the same time acutely more hideous and violent. This is some of the most cringing, bold and never before seen violence in Horror film history. It isn't at all artful, as say the violence in Dario Argento's films. And there isn't a whole lot of it, but what's there is pretty brutal. And the fact that there really isnt much of it, makes what's there even more darkly poignant. We see a woman cut off her clitoris with a pair of scissors. We see the woman jerk off her husband and cumming blood. It's pretty sinister. I absolutely don't see it in the realm of so called "goreporn" whatsoever. Whether she is falling under the spell of "Satan's Church" or just going insane, her acts of violence actually fit perfectly, in that they seem bizarrely random, with little or no meaning. Random, bizarre acts of violence perpetrated by those with severe mental illness very much mirror her acts as well, using items within reach. I honestly didn't find any of the scenes of violence or sex gratuitious. The theme of sex is very prominent as well in the movie, and could be further explored.
Yet there are a number of pesky problems in the plot. The last half, and ending of the movie relies too much on impressionistic hintings rather than actual exposition of a plot. Is there a plot? I havent researched the possibility of a backstory here that I may be not aware of.
So, overall, I have to say, I'm impressed with this movie. There were some truly disturbing scenes for me. Any mad woman with scissors in her hands, always raises a hair on my neck. That one scene with the mutilated fox actually speaking, saying something like, "Chaos Reigns", was a tad corny, and I laughed my ass off. The director probably could of left that scene out.
My only complaint is, does any of it make any real sense? But this movie has a lingering quality and will certainly make me think longer about certain themes in it. The rational vs irrational/dream mind, the "evil" qualities of nature, the beautiful transforming into the hideous. The artifical chapters in the movie, to make it like a dark fairy tale, really don't do the movie any justice. There are really only two parts, the first half, and the second. The beautiful and the hideous. And the epilogue, which is either release, or recognition (if in fact Dafoe's character is the Antichrist).
Well, that's all I can blabber about this movie right now..
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)