Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
War of the Worlds (2005)
Ray gets more than he bargained for when his ex drops off the kids at his apartment while she goes out of town. Alien tri-pod machines are rising up from under ground, where they have apparently been hiding for thousands of years, and are now laying waste to all of human kind.
Ray and the kids join droves of others who are running for their lives while all available military force is thrown at the merciless invaders. Nothing seems to be able to stop the alien force as it smashes everything in its path and obliterates all humans that it encounters.
Spielberg's remake loses the religious motif, the Cold War "patriotism", and some of the campier aspects of the storyline from the original. In fact, very little of the original films story is in tact here at all. On the other hand, some aspects, like the alien tripods, are actually closer to the original story than the 1953 film was. Plus there's modern special effects which are far more realistic than those in the original movie.
But at the same time, while there is no ambiguity about what Earth and its inhabitants are facing, the same sense of apocalyptic despair is not achieved here as in the original. Some of the more subtle and effective imagery is now replaced with non-stop straight forward action and violence. Plus there's Tom Cruise, who doubtfully understood that he was acting in a work of fiction rather than a documentary. I wonder when he plans to finance adaptations of some of L. Ron's books.
At any rate, this version of War of the Worlds is an entertaining, visually stimulating film that is worth 116 minutes, even if not on par with the original in every respect.
3 nut bar survivalists out of 5
Rated PG-13 for frightening sequences of sci-fi violence and disturbing images.
The War of the Worlds (1953)
In 1938 Orson Welles narrated a special edition of the radio drama programme Mercury Theatre on the Air titled War of the Worlds. The programme was presented in news bulletin format and caused near mass panic as a result of the belief of many listeners that what they were hearing was a real news broadcast.
In 1953 War of the Worlds was adapted to motion picture format complete with Technicolour and became a science fiction classic which must have stunned many viewers at the time.
War of the Worlds is your standard alien invasion story. When mysterious canisters begin to drop from the sky, Dr. Clayton Forrester, and other scientists, are called in to investigate. But very quickly it becomes clear that these are no mere asteroids. In fact, they contain fearsome alien space crafts with impenetrable force fields and lasers which can reduce a human being to ash in a second.
Their intention, the destruction of humanity, is almost immediately evident. No military force on the planet can stop them. Even the atom bomb has no effect. Soon survivors are running for their lives and human civilization seems doomed. But an unexpected weakness may yet put a stop from the aliens' destructive rampage and save humankind from extinction.
War of the Worlds has all the hallmarks of cheesy 50's sci-fi, but it is still pretty visually stimulating despite its old fashioned effects. One gets a real sense of the apocalyptic situation faced by the characters as the alien crafts cruise down the burning and crumbling streets reducing their prey to ash and vapour.
The film does contain the mandatory "patriotic" national chauvinism on behalf of the United States, which is of course the last country left standing and the one with responsibility for saving humanity. Of course, in this case it doesn't actually succeed... mother nature does, and in a very abrupt fashion too. But I'll say no more lest I spoil it.
There is also a really goofy religious component to the film as well and at the end it felt like the insinuation was that the alien defeat was a gift from God, despite the scientific explanation being provided. Of course, if there were a God who created the universe why would s/he necessarily be partisan to one or another species of beings? But I digress. The other side of the argument is that the religious imagery, especially the vaporization of the Pastor, helps to lend the film its atmosphere of hopelessness. Indeed, that is quite true.
Of course the film was remade in 2005 starring Tom Cruise. The two films are wildly different, but that's for a coming review of the remake. In any case, the original film is an entertaining and worthwhile watch.
3.5 death rays out of 5
Unrated: contains violence, frightening scenes.
Thursday, August 25, 2011
Vampyr (1932)
Soon the man is dead, and the package turns out to be a book detailing the legend of the Vampyr. Then one of the daughters of the lord of the castle dies of what appears to be anaemia. Allan begins to suspect that something dark, supernatural, and sinister is at play. It may be advisable to relocate to a new vacation spot.
Vampyr is a fantastic and surreal fantasy-horror film by German director Carl Theodor Dreyer. The film was actually completed in 1931, but was shelved until 1932 and thus released after the far more famous American film Dracula staring Bela Lugosi. Today Vampyr is largely forgotten, while Dracula will be remembered for eternity as one of the classics of horror cinema.
But in fact, Vampyr very much deserves to be remembered. The film features wonderful cinematography; complex, gliding camera work and unusual angles all of which must have come at considerable difficulty given the primitive camera equipment of the time. The films spooky, Gothic imagery create a perfect horror film atmosphere.
The film is largely silent in terms of dialogue, but was actually Dreyer's first sound film and does include a very interesting, effective musical score. Naturally the film is in German with subtitles. These aspects, plus the lack of a clearly linear plot make Vampyr a little difficult to follow for some. In fact, as the film progresses rather than moving toward a clear finish, it becomes increasingly baffling. Still, none of this overtakes the fact that Vampyr is a brilliant and beautiful, if under-rated and little-known piece of horror film history.
4 stakes out of 5
Unrated: contains potentially frightening imagery.
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
The Wolfman (2010)
Lawrence Talbot returns from America to his home town of Blackmoor, Scotland, in the wake of his brothers horrible death. He vows to find the man or beast who killed his brother, who seems to have been mauled to death by something both powerful and vicious much in the way that his mother had been when he was a child.
Soon he finds the creature, which he believes to be a werewolf, and is bitten in the encounter. As the death count mounts, locals start forming a posse to hunt and destroy the killer and Lawrence finds himself in the middle of a bizarre and life threatening dynamic which will reveal the truth about the deaths of his mother and brother.
This 2010 remake of the horror classic The Wolf Man follows largely the same plot as the original although the story line is fleshed out with additional twists and layers while still keeping most aspects of the original story.
It even moves forward without removing what theoretically would be its most controversial aspect (but doesn't seem to be); namely that of its depiction of the Roma, or gypsies. At the same time, this film seems to depict the racism towards the Roma people as a characteristic of the characters themselves given the time and place in which the film is set, whereas in the original it came off very much as the same racist stereotypes were being presented as simple fact to some extent.
The film was largely panned by critics despite its reasonable acting and effects as well as its excellent cast which includes Benicio Del Toro, Anthony Hopkins, and Emily Blunt. Admittedly, I initially had difficulty with reconciling the fact that Del Toro is not Che Guevara and was going to turn into a wolf and eat people.
This new film steps up the violence in comparison to the 1941 original and, unsurprisingly, is much more graphic. But this is largely still an old style monster flick in new style trappings, not a gore fest or a total re-creation. The Wolfman is a reasonable remake of the iconic monster movie that largely popularized the werewolf in film.
3.5 silver bullets out of 5
Rated R for bloody horror violence and gore
Monday, August 22, 2011
The Wolf Man (1941)
Larry Talbot, a man of science, returns from America to his family's home in Wales after the tragic death of his brother. He becomes enchanted with Jenny Williams, a beautiful young woman who lives in the village. The two of them visit a gypsy camp where Larry has his fortune read by a man by the name of Bela, who suddenly and urgently pleads with him to flee the camp as quickly as he can.
As Larry travels home through the camp he sees a young woman being attacked by a wolf and intervenes. He kills the wolf, but is bitten in the effort. Thus begins a spat of violent murders which seem to be the work of a large animal. Larry soon begins to realize that he has become the victim of a horrible curse from which there seems to be no escape.
While The Wolf Man is unlikely to terrify the modern horror fan, or pretty much anyone else, it is fantastic in terms of writing, atmosphere, and even acting... for its time. It stars two of the biggest names in horror of the day; Lon Chaney Jr. and Bela Lugosi.
Of course it has the limitations of 1941 film making. It also includes the limitations of 1941 society. This was an age where open racism was unfortunately considered completely acceptable in mainstream film making. In the case of The Wolf Man, it appears in the form of racist stereotypes regarding Roma peoples (gypsies).
Still, it is undeniable that The Wolf Man is a classic of horror cinema and a must see. Many werewolf films would follow, and in 2010 The Wolf Man was finally remade in a flashy, high-budget Holly Wood movie starring Benicio Del Torro, Anthony Hopkins, and Emily Blunt.
But as with other classics such as King Kong, or Night of the Living Dead, no remake however excellent or poor can overshadow the importance played by the original in horror film history.
4 pentagrams out of 5
Rated PG: contains mild violence.
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
Blood Beach (1980)
Former lovers and old friends Harry and Catherine are reunited by the search for Catherine's missing mother. Soon more people are attacked or disappear, apparently having been sucked into the sand without a trace. It's all taking place along a strip of shore line which comes to be known as Blood Beach.
Local police are baffled. Who, or what, could be committing these crimes? What has happened to the disappeared victims? Convinced that the creature must be under ground, the search moves to the underground basement of a demolished building where Harry and Catherine used to play as kids. Soon they discover the creature that is responsible, but it is not so easily disposed of.
Blood Beach is not a badly done movie, but it does have some shortfalls. At about an hour into the film, police captain Pearson states that there have been over 60 reported sightings of the monster. Must be nice, the viewer hasn't seen it yet.
At an hour and eighteen minutes in to the film, a new reporter concludes his report with "Still we watch, and wait". True, still the viewer is watching... and waiting... to actually see this alleged monster.
Well, we do eventually get to see it. For about one minute. For a monster movie, it is a little short on monsters. One could argue that it is focused on the mystery aspect of the story. But let's face it, everyone knows right from the start that we are dealing with a monster that lives underground. So it isn't as much a mystery as a waiting game. Count how many times one of the characters expresses their frustration that they don't know who or what could be committing these murders. It's a lot.
On the other hand, I thought the movie was well written. The dialogue is entertaining and the characters are enjoyable. Personal favourite? Definitely the Chicago cop played by Burt Young. He tells pretty much everyone to fuck off in one way or another at least once, suggests that a street vendor start up a greasy spoon union, and over-zealously blows the monster to smithereens with a big shit eating grin on his face. He and Pearson (John Saxon) also tell off a right wing city councillor for her funding cut proposals at one point as well. But I digress.
Ten years later another film was released with a similar premise; Tremors. The difference was that in that movie the monsters were not confined to one little area, they were visible and active many times throughout the film, and there was a lot more action, gore, scares, and a lot less waiting for stuff to happen. It's possible that Tremors borrowed some ideas from this film, but it was a lot more successful and two sequels followed it. In 2010 another film, Mongolian Death Worms, took a similar approach again. Still, this earlier film is worth a look.
3 good reasons not to go nude at the beach out of 5
Rated R: contains violence, sexual content, language.
Tuesday, August 9, 2011
The Gorgon (1964)
Residents of a village in early 20th century Europe are dying mysteriously and in a very strange manner. The local authorities are trying to cover up the occurrences, but to some of the village residents it is becoming clear that a Gorgon (think Medusa) by the name of Megaera is haunting the area during the full moon. Anyone who looks upon her face will turn to stone.
Professor Karl Meister (Christopher Lee) is called in from Leipzig after a visitor to the area is turned to stone. Now he has to get to the bottom of this strange series of events while evading the meddling of Dr. Namaroff (Peter Cushing) and local police.
First lets do away with complaints about the make up and special effects. It was the early 1960's and yes, this film shows its age in viewing. The acting does as well, it is the classic over-the-top acting style that was common in films until recent decades. At the same time, The Gorgon is actually quite accomplished visually for its time in terms of scenery, sets, and the atmosphere that the film makers managed to produce. There's an attention to detail here that is noticeable. In this sense, it outdoes many of its counterparts of the time including many of the other Hammer Horror films.
The modern horror movie viewer is unlikely to be terrified by anything in this film. Nor is there anything grisly, provocative, or scandalous to be seen here. The film is unrated due to its age, but would likely come out as PG or PG-13. Still, if you are in the mood for some old-fashioned B-movie fun, you could do much worse than The Gorgon.
3 pointy hats out of 5
Unrated: contains violence.
Monday, August 8, 2011
Decoys 2 (2007)
College students Sam Compton reluctantly joins a group of friends in a contest to see who can sleep with the most women on campus by the end of the semester. What they don't know is that there are a lot of new students on campus this year and they are out of this world... literally.
Actually they are lizard women with tentacle-like sex organs which they hide in their bellybuttons. They are looking for male humans to incubate their young inside. The problem is that they are allergic to heat and when they have relations their body temperatures drop well below freezing and their mates tend to turn into popsicles.
Only one man, Luke Callahan, knows the truth, having survived the decoys first attack a few years earlier. Now he is on a mission to stop these buxom blonde man killers before every male on campus is either impregnated or dead.
Decoys wasn't a great film in the first place. So naturally, a sequel was required. This second Decoys instalment is not like most sequels. Most sequels are much worse than the original. This is equally bad.
As his obnoxious frat-douche friends begin drawing up the plans for their contest to see how many "babes" they can "nail", Sam warns that if they find out... women on campus might be offended. You think? He joins in anyhow though, and soon his friends are dying right left and centre. If the contest didn't offend all the woman on campus, the premise of this movie might offend all the ones who watch it.
But moving right along... the fact is that nothing new happens here. The monsters are the same as in the previous movie, every single attack is basically exactly the same. And if it was only a little bit interesting the first time around, then it isn't very interesting by the end. If anything, I think this movie might be better than the first one in the sense that it is a little more action oriented.
The acting is mostly pretty bad, the characters are mostly pretty irritating, and as some layers of detail are added to the nefarious alien plot it becomes even sillier sounding. Yes, we get a full on detailed explanation of everything from Kim Poirier, the aliens leader, just so that the viewer can grasp all the complexities of the film. Sheesh.
1.5 big keyboards out of 5
Rated R for some sexual content including nudity
Sunday, August 7, 2011
Feast 3: The Happy Finish (2009)
Luckily for them they are rescued by a mysterious self-styled prophet called Short Bus Guy, who seems to have the ability to control the creatures. Their journey then leads them to a karate expert by the name of Jean-Claude Seagal, and to the discovery that the monsters originate from a place called the hive. They decide to band together and attempt to find and destroy the hive and cut off the monster infestation at its source.
Feast 3 is the third, final, and definitely the worst instalment of the Feast films. Where the first two films succeeded in keeping the viewers interest, even if through spurious means, this third instalment is dull and ludicrous.
The characters in the earlier films were flat, stereotyped, and ridiculous. They still are, but now new characters are introduced which frankly are campy in a way that crosses the line into hard to watch. The monsters are still the same, but its the third movie and the same creatures chasing around a bunch of stupid characters spewing the same inane dialogue has become old by this point.
Actually Feast 3 feels toned down, particularly compared to its immediate predecessor. In all honesty, for this kind of movie to work it would have needed to outdo the first sequel but it falls short and becomes increasingly a caricature.
I would not call the finish particularly happy. The last few scenes wrap up the series in an abrupt and suitably senseless manner that at least helps to reassure the viewer that they have done their time and the Feast trilogy is complete. Giant robot... what the fuck?
0.5 biker zombies out of 5
Rated R for pervasive strong horror violence and gore, disturbing images, language throughout, and nudity
Feast 2: Sloppy Seconds (2008)
The bartender, having been presumed dead of a heart attack at the end of Feast, turns out to be alive and is picked up by an all-woman biker gang. The bikers are out for revenge after one of their ilk, Harley Mom, was used as bait by survivors of the monster attack at the bar in the original film.
The bartender leads them in to town in search of the one survivor who was involved in the crime. But instead of finding the culprit, they find that the monsters have multiplied and have spread into town, killing most of the population.
They meet an assortment of survivors including a pair of little people wrestler, a car salesman, his wife, her boyfriend, and others. One can imagine the group dynamic. Now they have to work together to survive the monsters and avoid killing each other in the process.
Feast 2 has no particular cinematic value in terms of cinematography, plot, dialogue, acting, or message. What it offers something is an hour and a half of a world where nothing is sacred.
We've got profuse violence and nasty gore (though not particularly realistic), people getting covered in all manner of monster goo, a particularly troubling scene of a baby being killed and eaten, people being flung across roof tops by catapults, you name it. That's not to mention abundant nudity. In fact, the film makers actually managed to write in an excuse to have two brain meltingly beautiful female characters spend the final half hour or so of the film topless.
There's plenty of action, gore and cheese to go around which is what helps to keep interest because there is little in the way of frightening scenes, or suspense. The goal here seems to simply be to shock and in that respect this 97 minutes of pure exploitation and objectification is probably very successful. In other respects, not so much.
1.5 baby dinners out of 5
Rated R for pervasive horror violence and gore, disturbing images, crude sexuality, nudity, language and brief drug use
Saturday, August 6, 2011
Feast (2005)
A hodgepodge of bar patrons including such unlikely allies as a soldier, some red necks, a sex trade worker, and a motivational speaker, are forced to work together to survive when their watering hole is beset by a family of ravenous monsters.
One might say that Feast has a weak plot. But to do so would be to misleadingly suggest that Feast actually has a plot. Indeed, within the first fifteen minutes you have been briefly introduced to all the characters, and they have been developed about as deeply as they ever will be... which is pretty much not at all. It's already too late for all that because the monsters have arrived and it's an action-packed gross out fest from here on. Plus a significant number of the characters are already dead by now.
It's a monster movie. Henry Rollins is in it. It managed to spawn two sequels. How bad can it be, one might inquire? It's not that the film is awful per se, just be aware of what you are getting in to.
As noted, the plot is non-existent, the characters are flat, and none of them are particularly likeable in the least. But there is a tone of action, really cool looking monsters, and some pretty nasty happenings like when one particularly obnoxious character has his eye ripped out, or when one of the characters ends up having her face humped by one of the monsters. It turns out that for some reason these creatures are not only hungry, but also horny. In another instance a monsters penis is amputated... but this does not stop it from continuing to attempt to attack people. Pretty gross.
Rollins is probably the most entertaining character as a motivational speaker trying to apply his trade to the situation at hand. At one point he gives an impassioned speech which on its own is hilarious given the context, but it only fucked up by poor writing when it is immediately followed by another character crudely replying "are you gay?". All this after he has his pants ripped off in a monster attack and is forced to spend the rest of the film in pink jogging pants. The characters may be obnoxious and unlike-able, but somehow it makes them feel kind of realistic... even if nothing else in this movie is.
Ultimately there isn't much to Feast, but it still comes out sort of fun to watch... the way a monster movie should be. I'm not holding my breath on the quality of the sequels though.
2.5 bashed out monster teeth out of 5
Rated R for pervasive strong creature violence and gore, language, some sexuality and drug content
Friday, August 5, 2011
Disturbia (2007)
Kale Brecht witnesses the untimely death of his father in a horrible car accident and becomes increasingly withdrawn and troubled. When he punches out his Spanish teacher he is placed under house arrest.
In order to escape boredom, Kale turns to spying on his neighbours from his bedroom window. He becomes convinced that his neighbour Mr. Turner is a serial killer, so he enlists his friend Ronnie and his love interest Ashley to help him investigate.
While Disturbia involves a serial killer, it is no slasher flick. In fact, you never really see anyone getting killed. Instead it is a slick Hollywood mystery-thriller. There's just a few problems.
The first one is that it is a blatant rip off of Alfred Hitchcock's thriller Rear Window, which came 53 years earlier and had the exact same plot. The next problem is that there is no actual mystery here because it is pretty plain to see who did it and what he did right from the start.
There was obviously a budget here and the quality of the film shows that. The acting is also good. But the film runs for 105 minutes and frankly becomes plain dull at times. The film-makers clearly tried to spice up this unoriginal, sluggish, and mystery-less mystery film with lots of scenes of Ashley (Sarah Roemer) in skimpy attire.
Sex sells, but it doesn't save a movie with little else to offer. Neither does the somewhat gory ending, which feels somewhat disconnected from the rest of the film as the villain suddenly turns from a cold and calculating serial killer to a totally irrational mad man and we finally get a little bit of action. Too little, too late.
1 pit of bodies out of 5
Rated PG-13 for sequences of terror and violence, and some sensuality
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
Darkness Falls (2003)
There was once an old lady who would pay local children a gold coin for a tooth. Her odd habit slid by until one day a fire left her horribly burnt, and unable to go out in the light. Accused of witchcraft, the woman was hanged. But her tormented spirit took the form of an evil tooth fairy which continues today to visit the homes of young children and collect their teeth at night. There's a catch. If you see her, she kills you.
Unfortunately a young lad by the name of Kyle just couldn't help himself and decided to sneak a peek. Twelve years later, Kyle is all grown up having survived the terrifying events of that fateful night. Now he is out to put a stop to the nasty tooth fairy who continues to haunt, and occasionally kill, local children.
Darkness Falls is one of those kind of big budget B movies, but unfortunately its budget doesn't necessarily translate into a great movie. It does contain a few good startles, but these are few in number and largely stored at the start of the film. From there things move towards lots of action and little suspense or horror. Let's face it... the movie is rated PG-13. Considering it was made in 2003, it's clear that the aim was making big bucks, not scaring our pants off.
To tell the tooth, the evil fairy villain is not particularly convincingly done... not to mention being a little on the goofy side as a concept. The film ultimately reaches its straight forward, unsurprising climax leaving little room for wholly unnecessary sequel. In this case, it's a good thing.
2 wiggly teeth out of 5
Rated PG-13 for terror and horror images, and brief language
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)