Aug 15, 2014
It’s so hard to find — and presumably make– a good werewolf movie. It’s certainly one of the most complex creatures to create realistically, with a varying rate of success in the past and present. For instance, you have the classic “American Werewolf in London” where the werewolf effects were done the old-fashioned way with animatronics, with a very good result, at least for it’s time. But looking back at it now, it’s obviously dated in the special effects department and with our 21st-century eyes, we see how unrealistic it is. On the other hand, you have the full-blown CGI werewolves like those in the “Underworld” series, where the CGI can pass in those fast-paced sequences where we can’t look at it too close, but under any kind of close scrutiny of pure CGI, any realism crumbles.
Enter one of the latest installments of the werewolf genre in “Wer.”
This film shows a third option, combining special-effects makeup with motion special-effects and a real-life disease to create a more realistic Wolfman for the modern day. In “Wer,” the filmmakers linked becoming a werewolf to the very real disease of porphyria, and kept their beasts in a primary manlike state. Hey, I love the hairy beasts just as much as anybody, but I have to say this approach was refreshing. And when done well, it was very creepy.
(Spoilers ahead.)
The premise of the film opens with the brutal murders of American tourists in France. If you’re starting to think of “An American Werewolf in Paris,” you’re going down the wrong track. The film delves into the murder investigation as the primary suspect is about to be put on trial, defended by an American expatriate lawyer named Kate Moore (A J Cook). With her support team of Eric Sarin (Vik Sahay) and Gavin Flemyng (Simon Quarterman), Kate is determined to defend the brutish, hairy man accused of the crimes, and is convinced of his innocence. In fact, she is convinced that local investigator Klaus Pistor (Sebastian Roche) is part of a local conspiracy to take over his family homestead for a profitable development proposal.
As often happens in horror films, those with the best of intentions have a way of unleashing hell on everyone, and unfortunately for the locals, that’s no exception in this film. What does that this film apart from other werewolf movies is the convincing way they presented porphyria as a plausible explanation for the condition, although some of their science is fictional, to put it mildly. In other words, you cannot get poorer for it by being bitten by someone who hasn’t, just for the record. But just go with it for the movie’s sake. Hey, it’s fiction.
The use of special-effects with the way characters move has become a bit of a cliché, but it’s pretty effective in this film. Quite honestly, the appearance of the werewolf in this movie when he wasn’t attacking wasn’t that frightening to me. The jerky, seizure-like movements definitely enhanced the fear as did the gore. And make no mistake, there are some very gruesome moments in this movie. On the other hand, the second werewolf that comes along creates an appearance that is quite chilling. And kudos to the actor portraying that role, who I won’t name here for spoiler purposes. As he shaved his head and body during his transformation — creating an interesting opposite to the Talan (Brian Scott O’Connor) character — I felt that was the most chilling moment of the movie.
The performances are fine, and director William Brent Bell redeemed himself from the awful ending of “The Devil Inside,” his last turn at the helm of the horror film. There are some irritating plot missteps, such as the previously mentioned scientific flaws, and some stretches of the imagination. That’s local police would allow an attorney and her team on site while they were doing a manhunt, plus the old cliché of their idealistic lawyer insisting that her clients, who has been accused of horrific violent crimes be taken out of his handcuffs while she speaks with him. Pretty far-fetched to believe either of these situations would actually happen. But overall, “Wer” Is an unusual and refreshing take on the werewolf mythology if you’re up for trying something a little bit different.
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.
Dec 23, 2013
I love cheesy horror as much as anybody, especially when you tie into something held sacred by so many, like Christmas. Usually, these films are done with the sort of sly wink from the filmmaker to acknowledge that it’s all meant to be silly fun. Unfortunately, I don’t really get that feeling with this Christmas horror film, “Christmas Evil.” And there is good silly and bad silly.
I’m afraid this falls into the latter.
I just want to grab the filmmaker and say, “Oh, honey. What were you thinking?” First of all, the whole “I Saw Mommy Kissing Santa Claus” reference is nowhere near enough to traumatize a child, turning them into a psychotic adult. Not getting that. Then the whole scene where the deranged little boy decides to break a snow globe and cut himself is really confusing. Is that supposed to be interpreted as trying to slash wrists? It seems like he just cut his hand, which makes no sense whatsoever.
When the movie fast forwards to the adult psycho, I’ve seen many critics talk about the good performance of a man descending into madness. Oh PUH-lease. It was just silly. Bad silly. Not even so-silly-it’s-funny. The things that supposedly make him finally snap are so trivial that you can’t possibly believe even a psycho would be set off by them. And if so, he should have gone off the deep end a long time ago. I mean, a guy fooling you into covering his shift? A couple of fancy New Yorkers teasing you a little bit about your Santa suit?
Embracing the nonsense yields a few favorite moments: a group of New Yorkers turning into a torch-carrying mob, literally, and a guy falling over an embankment in the snow and you can see the rug underneath the fake snow moving with him. That was definitely an Ed Wood moment, may he rest in peace. And then that last scene with the van doing a “Thelma and Louise” leap and then an “E.T” flying across the moonlit sky… Sweet baby Jesus. That is a hot mess.
This is definitely one you watch after a lot of alcohol, or whatever substance of choice, because that’s the only thing that will make this entertaining. Especially if you get the special double feature edition packaged with “Silent Night, Bloody Night” that is set up movie theater style with the opening concession stand pitches as well as vintage cartoons of Casper and Popeye.
Don’t say you weren’t warned. Go rent or buy “Black Christmas” instead. Or the super size bottle of your favorite adult beverage.
Sep 20, 2013
The new face of little girls gone bad? See the new trailer for the film “Dark Touch.”
Independent filmmakers + moody horror = creepy, innovative films courtesy of IFC midnight.
Their latest release, “Dark Touch,” opens in theaters September 27, as well as being available on video on demand, SundanceNow and iTunes. The film was an official selection at the Tribeca Film Festival and was directed by French filmmaker Marina De Van, whose previous film credits include “In My Skin.”
In “Dark Touch,” 11-year-old Neve lives in a remote Irish town, and finds herself as the sole survivor of a family massacre that kills her parents and younger brother. The police want to blame it on homicidal vandals. They ignore the young girl’s insistence that is something much darker that killed her family. Something about the house itself.
The trailer also reveals the girl claims that bad things happen when she cries. This looks like it could be a younger, darker version of the popular book and movie “Carrie,” but where “Carrie” played on teen angst at being the outsider, this film looks like it’s going more for supernatural horror in the form of a little girl whose tears can kill.
Or at least that’s what it looks like to me. What do you think?
Aug 17, 2013
I have to confess I’m a bit embarrassed I didn’t start this weekly series with Michael Jackson’s “Thriller,” the benchmark in horror-themed videos. Hey, it’s been a long time, you know? But this mini-movie stands the test of time due to great production, scary makeup and of course, the voice of Vincent Price, may he rest in peace.
I was going to say it was groundbreaking for its time, but actually, it’s pretty damn good by today’s standards. Am I the only who watches this and wants to see a parody by the cast of “The Walking Dead?” They could call it “The Dancing Dead.”
I always wondered… why does everyone stand there and watch someone make the full werewolf transformation before they run? The second you start growing your ears or sprouting claws out of your fingers… my ass is outta there!
