Aug 6, 2014
Haunted mirrors with evil spirits can be very creepy, as can watching someone break down into mental illness and violence. If presented in a simple, straightforward way, it’s effective, but some of the great disturbing moments of “Oculus” get muddied up in whiplash-causing cuts between past and present in rapid succession. It’s hard to stay in the moment when you’re trying to figure what the hell is going on.
Now that I think about it, “Insidious 2” also falls into the same trap of mixing past and present and confusing viewers, or least some of us. Dear filmmakers, this does not create suspense. I kept finding myself getting frustrated with the inability to just get a straightforward timeline and story of what was going on. It’s almost as if some films don’t have enough confidence to just rely on their story without the gimmicks of intercutting between past and present to try to make the story more complex.
Sometimes simple is better. Sometimes simple is actually great.
There’s no shortage of scary moments in this movie, particularly the mirror effect of the eyes. Although it did strike me as being very similar to that first “Salem’s Lot” movie with David Soul, where the vampires had that same glint in their eye. add to that , having mommy dearest chained up like a dog in the bedroom because she’s losing her mind, and you’ve got some pretty damn scary stuff, indeed.
But then if you mix in some plot holes — which to be fair, almost any horror movie has to some extent — you start to water-down the fear factor and that, combined with confusing elements takes you out of the story while you’re lagging behind asking yourself basic questions. Why didn’t the mirror effect the kids when they were younger like it affected mom and dad? Why did it wait till the present to have an effect on them? Why did it seem to create the need for violence in mom and dad, but just cause confusion about time and place for the kids in the present?
I’m still so perplexed by what the plot was that I can barely put the confusion I felt into words. I just know that if I was in a cartoon, there would have been a big “WTF?” floating over my head for most of the second half of the movie.
Also, recognize the difference between foreshadowing and giving away your ending. Now I admit, as someone who has dabbled in creative writing, I’m pretty good at seeing foreshadowing that other people miss. But this movie went way beyond foreshadowing, completely giving away the ending to me. I won’t say exactly how in case you actually haven’t seen this movie yet, but it doesn’t take a genius to see where one of the main character’s fate lies.
There are a lot of great positive things I can say about the film in terms of atmosphere, mood, creepiness, but when all is said and done, I just feel like I’m caught up in one big creepy ball of confusion. And that’s not a satisfying ending, even for a gal who hates happy endings like me.
Oct 17, 2013
If you have vampires or you have Italian giallo legend Darío Argento, you know you’re going to have blood. And if you if you have both together, and you know you’re going to have a lot of blood. Normally, we would also presume that with a master like Argento at the helm, a movie would be stylish and well-done, if somewhat gory.
Normally.
I’m a huge fan of Argento, and all his beautifully bloody past work, especially his classic “Suspiria.” It’s hard to dispute how creepy and how well done that film is, although I’m sure there are a few people out there that have panned it. I’m sure Argento is sick of everyone telling them how great that film was, and wants to hear how good “Dracula: 3-D” is. And I would really love to say that, as well.
However… I find myself in the very difficult position of having to say bad things about the work of someone who I’ve admired for a long time in the horror film industry. I keep trying to tell myself that Argento’s latest film, “Dracula: 3D,” is trying to be cleverly campy and have fun with the old-fashioned horror films. I’m trying to tell myself that, but it’s just not working.
I just don’t know how else to say it… I did not like this movie at all.
Even trying to interpret it in a campy way, the acting was just so bad. And, oh God help us, the CGI is probably the worst CGI I have ever seen, especially the praying mantis. Speaking of which, can someone please explain to me the whole praying mantis thing? Okay, I know Dracula can shape shift into other things besides bats or wolves, and I’m okay with that, but what the fuck are we doing with the praying mantis transformation, and a really bad one at that?
Seriously.
Also, let’s talk about the sets. I just kept looking at the styling and the props and it felt like the whole thing came from a Goodwill or dumpster diving. It all looked cheap and tacky and not in a kitsch, hip way.
I love Argento… I love the work his daughter Asia has done… I love Rutger Hauer… but I just can’t love this movie. If you want to have fun with the old-style of movies, take a look at Francis Ford Coppola’s “Bram Stoker’s Dracula.” That’s how you do it.
I still love you Darío, but I have to tell movie fans you’d be better off to watch Coppola’s “Dracula” and “Suspiria” instead of this. I’m sorry, but it’s true. If that seems harsh, read some other reviews and you’ll see I’m being much kinder than most.
Please don’t ever make me be mean to you again, Dario. Please.
Related articles
Aug 28, 2013
Renny Harlin’s latest film, “Devil’s Pass,” has a lot going for it. It’s based on the true story of a 1959 expedition of hikers in the Ural Mountains of Russia were found dead under mysterious circumstances: They were found outside their tents in various states of undress, with injuries including ripped out tongues and crushed bones… without any sign of external injury. And one with a massive dose of radiation. In the middle of nowhere.
Named after the expedition leader, the mystery was dubbed the Dyatlov’s Pass incident.
I first saw this story about the real expedition on some H2 documentary and had thought it would make a killer story, so thanks Harlin for beating me to it. In this film, Harlin sets it up around a crew of five filmmakers and their outdoorsmen guides retracing the steps of the original nine who died, to try to get to the root of what really happened on that mountain. And there are a lot of good things in this movie, but a couple that rubbed me wrong.
First, it’s a “found footage” film, which is so overdone now that I groan a little every time I see a new trailer with shaky, night vision camera. Second, the premise involves an overly ambitious female filmmaker pushing the group to stay and take risks even when things seem to be going very, very wrong, and creating conflicts with other group members.
Sound familiar? Can you say “Blair Witch Project” in the mountains of Russia? I know there’s no such thing as an original idea, but the obvious parallels kept bugging me. I also noted some resemblance to the creatures in “Quarantine,” but it wasn’t so bad I couldn’t live with it.
But despite that (and a few less than stellar turns at directing in his past), Harlin knows how to spin and how to film a good story, and the cast of low profile actors adds to the believability.
Which brings me to the most important question of any horror film…. is it scary? Without giving too many spoilers away, yes, the film is very effective and scary at times, which makes me wish even more that Harlin had just gone for a straight narrative film instead of all the clunky “let me set the camera down in a way it can film us to keep the story going” moments.
Dear Hollywood directors: Just shoot a damn movie already, without “found footage” gimmicks. It’s so over. Dead. Done. Kaput. Move on.
“Devil’s Pass” is worth watching despite the gimmick, and here’s a hint if you go see it, with a bit of a spoiler, so don’t read on if you hate that kind of thing:
Be sure to pay attention to what’s going on in the background when they are filming. Just saying.
Jul 27, 2013
Horror has always been popular to some extent, but the last couple of weeks, it proved once again how it can crush the box office with the surprise success of James Wan’s latest, “The Conjuring.” It also proved you don’t need gratuitous gore, violence, nudity or things jumping out and shouting “Boo!” at you to create a creepy atmosphere and an air of fear. In fact, the scariest moments are the most subtle, rather than the “Boo!” moments so common today in the genre.
The film revolves around a true paranormal case investigated by Ed and Lorraine Warren, the latter being most known as the psychic portrayed in “The Amityville Horror.” Yes, she’s real, and not only can you see her frequently on the TV series “Paranormal State,” but she has a cameo as one of the guests at a paranormal lecture in the movie. (The little old lady in the front.)
Anyway, she’s portrayed in this film by Vera Farmiga, and her husband Ed by Patrick Wilson. The Warrens took on a case in 1971 involving a Long Island family named Carolyn and Roger Parren (Lili Taylor and Ron Livingston) and their five daughters (Shanley Caswell, Hayley McFarland, Joey King, Mackenzie Foy, and Kyla Deaver.)
Already, you have to give kudos to Wan on casting (Is there anyone who doesn’t still love Taylor in “Say Anything? Rhetorical question.)
So the Warrens apparently investigated this house and supposedly never released info on this case till now because it was so scary… even scarier than the allegations in “The Amityville Horror.” Yeah, smells a little fishy to me, too, but it’s a horror film, let’s just roll with it.
The film opens with a documentary style interview with some young women where we learn the backstory of the infamous doll “Annabelle” from the Warren’s collection of paranormal artifacts. This doll actually exists in the Warren’s collection and they swear that thing is pure evil, although it isn’t directly involved in the Parren’s story. We also see them lecturing about the paranormal work they do as a sort of parallel story while the Parrens move in and slowly discover their dream house is not the kind of dream they were looking for.
Without giving away major spoilers, the film relies on creating a sense of dread at mostly unseen and barely glimpsed horror, particularly at first. This is a case where it works, because Wan also understands the use of elements like the blindfolded game to make his subjects more vulnerable, creating a greater sense of horror in the viewer when the subject can’t see what we can. Or a single lit match in the total darkness, tapping into one of our most primordial fears.
As the film progresses, he shows more, until the climax with a scene of possession, which actually, seemed far less scary to me than the rest of the movie. I also wondered at the use of the sheet over the head… was there supposed to be some point of that, or just trying to save some special effects makeup cash? It was puzzling enough to distract me during that segment of the film.
But then, going off on a tangent with a question like that may just be a hazard of the profession.
That Wan — who also directed “Saw” and “Insidious” — created another quality horror film should be no surprise. That it has ruled the box office in the midst of summer and upstaged the likes of Johnny Depp in “The Lone Ranger”… that’s mighty impressive.
Does it live up to the hype? Well, that would be hard to do given how it’s been hailed as the Second Coming of Horror, but whether you think it does or doesn’t will depend mostly on how easily you scare, and how good you are at blocking out douchebags in the theater who want to add their laugh track to this and any horror film. But it’s rock solid horror, and has a great chance of being seen as a classic horror story in the long run, and will be another worthy addition to any horror collection when it comes out on DVD.
Learn more about what it was like working on the movie later this week when I post my exclusive interview with Shanley Caswell , who dishes on the surprise success of the movie and real vs CGI horror. Meanwhile, check out the interview I did with her a little over a year ago, when she was starting to work on a little film called “The Warren Files” at the time.
Jul 12, 2013
It’s raining sharks, hallelujah it’s raining sharks in “Sharknado.”
Is this Tara Reid’s comeback?
Syfy loves to do original movies, which I never seem to catch, but when I saw the movie trailer for Thursday’s “Sharknado,” I knew this was must-see-TV. Indeed, quite possibly the movie I had been waiting for all my life. And I wasn’t disappointed.
If you’re reading that and thinking, “Hey, that looks sort of like a cross between ‘shark’ and ‘tornado,'” why, yes, you’d be right. And yes, it really follows the premise of a tornado full of sharks terrorizing LA.
Abandon logic, all ye who read on.
I don’t want to spoil such an epic tale of humanity and the triumph of good over evil, as they will repeat this a million times, but let me fill you in a bit on what you missed. First, Ian Ziering, and the hallmark of any fine film, Tara Reid. Yeah, I know, let that powerhouse of acting talent sink in… you are so kicking yourself right now for missing it based on that alone, aren’t you?
But oh yes, there’s more: Biblical references, chainsaws and sharks, a Ferris wheel of death, and the worst CGI you’ll ever see, which was worth the price of admission alone. Which, of course, was zip. Bring it on, Syfy!
So, not to spoil it too much, here’s a list of things I learned about making a cool movie for Syfy of my own. And, indeed, life itself. The mandatory elements:
- Include some kind of smarmy bad guy in the opening, even if it is about a natural disaster and he has nothing to do with it.
- Give animals powers they never had before, like flying when they normally swim.
- Girls in bikinis. You gotta have girls in bikinis or you lose the entire male audience.
- Scan TMZ for casting ideas.
- Find a guy that sort of reminds you of Gerard Butler, except older, uglier and has a day rate under $300.
- Keep plenty of barstools around to use as weapons, and when you leave the bar, take the stool with you, just in case. It also make a poignant symbol of your sacrifice for the greater good.
- Ferris wheels look fun, but they can crush a building like a twig.
- Make sure to include such Jungian archetypes as The Dirty Old Man, The Bitchy Ex-Wife, The Ungrateful Emo Daughter, and the Douchebag Step Dad Who is Probably Banging Your Ungrateful Emo Daughter.
- Sharks can burst through your windows, but you can crush them with a crappy IKEA bookcase.
- Why is all the traffic in the background moving at normal speeds?
- If filming in Hollywood, include at least one character who came there to be an actor, and kill him just when it looks like he’s safe. Golly, your audience will never see that coming.
- If you live in a tornado zone, stock up on bombs for the next tornado season. And watch this movie as a reference.
- If you make a movie with sharks, you must make a gratuitous “Jaws” reference somewhere, preferably something along the lines of “I think we’re going to need a bigger [INSERT NAME OF TRANSPORTATION HERE.]”
- Make some reference to the Bible, like the whole Jonah-in-the-belly-of-the-whale thing, but put your own twist on it. Preferably involving power tools. Jesus wept, indeed.
Many answered questions remain though, like just how many sharks can a tornado hold? How can they hold more sharks that the ocean itself holds? Oh, how I’m tormented with such existential questions. If only Nietzsche were still alive to explain it all to us.
Dear Syfy executives — though I dare not hope I am worthy, I anxiously await your call to Hollywood to be a screenwriter for Syfy. I’m your number one fan.
Behold, the trailer for a work of art like no other, “Sharknado.”
Apr 20, 2013
Guillermo del Toro has written, directed and produced some beautiful dark fantasy films such as “Pan’s Labyrinth” and comic-based movies such as “Blade II” and “Hellboy,” but his most recent producer project, “Mama,” is straight up horror movie. The film, which premiered Friday, eviscerated the competition at the box office to kick off the weekend, with a $10 million opening day. It also happened to be the second week topping the box office for star Jessica Chastain, who reigned supreme in earnings last weekend with her Oscar-nominated performance in “Zero Dark Thirty.” Not to mention that whole Golden Globes Award last week for Best Actress.
What a showoff that one is, don’t you think?
And she’s at it again with her performance as a brunette, garage-band bassist turned guardian angel in “Mama.” The film centers on two little girls who are abandoned in a cabin in the wild after a family tragedy, and have to survive on their own a few years.
Well… almost on their own. Enter the aforementioned “Mama.” And this is one bad mother.
Mama adopts the two orphan girls and doesn’t take too kindly when their uncle’s search team finds them, and takes them off to a psychiatric institute. And while the older girl seems to be adapting back to civilization, the younger one… not so much.
They eventually go home with their uncle Lucas (Nikolaj Coster-Waldau) and his other half, Annabel (Chastain) creating some friction in their formerly childless relationship. But they don’t come home alone, as Mama tags along, which creates a bit of another problem, such as Mama coming through the walls to play with the little girls when Chastain isn’t looking or hiding in the closet. And that rather nasty bit when Mama decides to push Lucas down the stairs to dispatch him to the hospital for awhile.
Someone did not learn to share or play nice with others in school.
Then Chastain incurs Mama’s wrath when she starts winning over the eldest daughter, and things start to really go downhill from there. Likewise, the relationship between the two sisters becomes strained when they begin to polarize into different camps of “Team Annabel” and “Team Mama.”
“Mama” has some genuinely creepy moments, and of course, those moments that’ll make you jump out of your seat a little. Hey, it’s mandatory for horror film to go for the quick scares. But there is certainly an artistry in the more subtle moments of the film, as well, with a dare-I-say-it “tearjerker” ending?
Hey, there’s no crying in horror movies — that’s just not right. But it is, for this movie anyway.
And that’s the quality that separates this film from many horror films, unfortunately. Most lack a real grasp of the human element, and real emotion, but instead, go for cheap “jump-out-and-go-BOO” thrills. Thankfully, “Mama” bucks that bad trend. Of course, it doesn’t hurt when have top-rate acting with the likes of an Academy Award nominee, and a great cast to fill out the rest of the roles. (It’s amazing the job Isabelle Nélisse does playing a feral six year-old that’s just too far gone to bring back from the wild.) But, sure enough, early reviews of the movie focus mostly on Chastain and are already hailing her performance, deservedly so.
But the primary critique of the film would be the CGI animation of the main character, which is not a very good example of the art, to say the least. And as any horror aficionado knows, there will be audience members who laugh inappropriately during horror movies under any circumstances, and bad CGI just encourages them and gives them an excuse.
But bad horror film etiquette is a whole other topic… don’t even get me started on that.
It’s particularly ironic about the bad CGI as producer del Toro began his career as a makeup artist, and this film screams for a more organic monster, made in real life with makeup. It begs for a monster with as much substance — and humanity — as its actors.
In that regard, “Mama” falls short. But it’s still a whole lot better than the usual horror fare.
Related articles
