As Above, So Below (2014)

Très français!

GENERAL INFO:
Director:  John Erick Dowdle
Studios:  Universal Pictures, Legendary Pictures
Starring:  Perdita Weeks, Ben Feldman, Edwin Hodge, François Civil
Tagline:  The only way out is down.
MPAA Rating:  R
Genre:  horror, terror, thriller, drama, psychological thriller, found footage, gateway to hell, ghosts, underground
Scare score:  B
Rating:  B/B-

Plot overview:  In modern-day Paris, urban explorer/ [al]chemist/ college professor/ double-PhDed/ possible daughter of Indiana Jones/ still hot and normal Scarlet Marlowe (Weeks) is set on continuing in her and her late father's quest to find the legendary philosopher's stone.  Followed by cameraman Benji (Hodge) and quirky love interest George (Feldman), Scarlet is guided by the savvy Papillon (Civil) and his two friends deep into the catacombs below Paris.  However, all of the team's research and experience couldn't prepare them for what awaits them below.

True story: I just watched this movie in an entirely empty movie theater.  While I had hoped that it would add to my experience, I quickly found that As Above, So Below was not the scariest movie to sit through by myself.

Written (in part) and directed by horror regular John Erick Dowdle, this movie certainly has a touch of Quarantine to it.  I mainly attribute that to the found footage take on the film as well as the dark figures lurking in an even darker background, illuminated only by choppy camera light.  As far as the upside-down, reversed world perspective of the movie goes, we of course also think of the opening sequence of Devil, which Dowdle also directed.

As soon as the movie started, I let out an almost audible groan when I realized that, naturally, this movie was going to be found footage.  I rather hate found footage movies; there is something cheesy and ironically unrealistic to this approach that tries so desperately to make things seem realistic.  In many ways, found footage is a feeble attempt to scare the audience solely through visual input instead of through plot and creativity, which in my book carry more integrity.  Then again, I am always welcome to new or different ways of filming and editing.  Unfortunately found footage will never overcome its stereotypes from Blair Witch.  Vomit bags are recommended.

Even so, As Above, So Below begins with an intriguing and loud opening sequence of events that introduces us to our protagonist and how she is willing to put her life on the line for her work/ life passion of exploration and civil/urban archeology.  I did find acting to be pretty labored throughout the whole beginning of the movie, well into when the team actually enters the catacombs, about 45/50 minutes into the film.  This movie really toys with the audience's capacities for suspense and thrills, surprising us when we don't expect it to and then letting us down when we want more.

The scares in this movie are many and varied.  There is a general sense of dread (but is it ever confirmed?) and an undeniable similarity to The Descent.  Otherwise, the twists and turns of the catacombs and caves below Paris, paired with the rapidly-moving and changing footage from the characters' cameras force the viewer into an uncertain and claustrophobic atmosphere; our own sort of purgatory filled with excitement and terror as we never know what lies around each corner.  That being said, let me mention that the set of this film seems fantastic and vast.  The first real scare of the movie catches us off guard about 40 or 45 minutes in, and from that point on we are frequently bombarded with visual and psychological scares (will the team die down there? what was that face in the water? etcetera) that serve to either confuse or intrigue us until we are left with perhaps more questions than there are answers.

*SPOILER ALERT*

This movie covers a large amount of literary and historical themes, ranging from alchemy to religious and satanic symbolism, and then ultimately focusing on redemption (which is also heavily tied into alchemy once again).  That being said, what was perhaps presented as a found footage, gateway to hell-esque film suddenly becomes something that tries to dig deeper, much as the catacombs do below the streets of Paris.  Horror and supernatural elements set aside, this is a movie that deals with character forgiveness and judgement, with the survivors eventually seeking retribution (or not) for past 'crimes' that have haunted them until the present.  Such a transformation from sinfulness to redemption is much akin to the general themes of alchemy and related followings such as Freemasonry, and it is one of the most basic themes in literature since the times of Aristotle.

The first time I heard this movie title when I saw a trailer a few months ago, my mind immediately went to "on Earth as it is in heaven," and perhaps yours did too if you say your prayers every night.  That being said, I was expecting much more of a gateway to hell style movie than what As Above, So Below presents us.  From the beginning, small hints of what's to come are dropped and then gone again in the blink of an eye.  While still in Iran, Scarlet clearly sees a spectral apparition of her father, hanging on his noose.  This comes back a lot later on, but then are we led to believe that Scarlet herself is unstable?  There are questionable visions and scares placed in the movie well before our cast of characters enters what we are told is an evil part of the catacombs.  Who, then, is seeing what?  Can we trust any of our characters, and to what point?  Why are there "normal" people in these closed-off sections of the catacombs performing what is either a satanic ritual or the world's most secretive choir practice?  Special shout out to Olivia Csiky Trnka, who, with her piercing, wide-set eyes was certainly one of the scariest aspects of the movie.  Is La Taupe (Cosme Castro) alive or dead, and if he is alive how does he move so quickly or appear in places that he previously was not?  Who or what is the hooded and maybe masked phantom lurking in the darkness of the caves?  What is its purpose?  Why is a man nicknamed 'Butterfly' when he explores caves for a living?  Why?

One issue I definitely had with this movie was its failure to deliver.  Whenever a horror movie starts throwing tons and tons of shallow red herrings at us, I find myself going into a sort of scary sensory overload.  As Above, So Below often presents us with some very scary images that ultimately mean nothing after their brief screen time.  I thought that the hooded, masked character towards the end was extremely scary, but nothing came of it.  The 'dead' knight/ Nicolas Flamel, Miss Trnka and her haunting eyes, the boy in the water - all of these piqued our interests yet very few were explained inside of the plot.  What were those bodies that burst forth from the stone, and why were they there?  This to me is a horror movie trying too hard with a hat full of cheap scares.  At the end of the day, are our characters really in hell, or just some strange parallel reality where they must account for their sins or regrets in the past?  Even if this is the case, why is it happening, and why in the catacombs of Paris?  As Above, So Below sets up many exciting plot angles and story lines, but in the end, it only delivers on a few.

Final critique:  If you think you would enjoy a crossover of Harry Potter, Indiana Jones, and The Descent, this is the movie for you.  Even seeing this movie totally alone in a dark theater couldn't make it much scarier, regardless of the countless, futile scares the creative team threw in for fun.  This was not a bad movie, but sometimes the only thing worse than a flat out bad horror movie is one that promises us real terror and then fails to deliver.

August Review

Well this will be short...

For your consideration:

1.  Friday the 13th Part VII: The New Blood (1988): B-

Look out for more horror coming your way in September!  Happy Labor Day, folks.

Friday the 13th Part VII: The New Blood (1988)

GENERAL INFO:
Director:  John Carl Buechler
Studios:  Paramount Pictures
Starring:  Lar Park-Lincoln, Kevin Spirtas, Terry Kiser, Susan Blu, Kane Hodder
Tagline:  Jason is back, but this time someone's waiting!
MPAA Rating:  R
Genre:  horror, terror, thriller, slasher, stalker, serial killer, psychopath, masked murderer, teen
Scare score:  D/ D+
Rating:  B-

Plot overview:  Sometime after the events of the previous film, Tina Shepard (Park-Lincoln) returns with her mother (Blu) and Dr. Crews (Kiser) to Camp Crystal Lake, where her father died ten years earlier.  Still blaming herself for her father's death, Tina is haunted by bad memories while the conceited Dr. Crews attempts to exploit her peaking emotions to study signs of telekinesis.  On top of the pressure from her doctor, Tina is half befriended and half mocked by the rowdy group of teenagers staying next door.  Not to mention, a strange masked figure has risen from the lake.

Let me start by pointing out that the Friday the 13th movies really do believe in girl power.  Just look at the movie poster here.  Not that Jason ever, ever discriminates when it comes to choosing his victims, which are many (I recently saw a chart of body counts in horror franchises and our boy Jason is #1) - but still, horror movies are generally very giving when it comes to the 'final girl.'  Friday the 13th Part VII throws us a huge curve when we are introduced to Tina Shepard, aka the second coming of Carrie, only with a cool, '80s flare and a loving mother.  Speaking of which, special shout out to the mysterious Susan Blu for portraying such a cool (although somewhat clueless) mom.  Seriously about girl power though: Spousal abuse?  BAM Tina kills dad.  Creepy therapist trying to exploit your psychic powers?  BAM shut him down and run him out of the house.  Jerky girls next door picking on you for being a basket case (we've seen similar concepts with Tommy Jarvis)?  BAM Jason gets them anyway.  Tina is absolutely a rival for Jason; he seems afraid of her, aware of her more so than he is of anyone else.  One even wonders if she's too strong for Jason.

Actually it's interesting that this is the second main character we've had after Tommy Jarvis to have dealt with mental health issues.  Both Tina and Tommy had traumatic experiences as children (as Jason himself must have), and then later in their teenage/ young adult life, society continues to mock them for it, as seen specifically by queen bee Melissa (Susan Jennifer Sullivan) in this installment.  Not only does this affect both protagonists in terms of dealing with a 'boy who cried wolf'-type scenario, but they themselves have to question their own sanity and ability.

Concerning Tina's knack for telekinesis, this whole plot choice leads to a supernaturally gifted protagonist to combat what is now a 100% supernatural antagonist.  In earlier films, Jason/ his mother are (more or less) human.  It isn't until Part VI that Jason is sort of, you know, brought back from the dead, so it's no great mystery that in this film he is all-out zombie.  This becomes especially apparent later in the movie.  Watch it and you'll know what I mean.

I generally enjoyed this movie and was really torn about the score.  I almost went lower until I remembered that while watching it, I was fairly entertained and enjoyed the new teenage bait, the creative kills (I LOVED the sleeping bag/ tree one), and the never-ending body count.  As far as Friday the 13th movies go, I did feel that this one followed the normal recipe, but the psychic powers of our leading lady of course change things.

Acting is very mixed all across the charts.  Most people play up their roles too dramatically in a largely '80s fashion, but considering the ironically light-hearted feeling of the movie, it's not a big deal.  This is the first of four Friday the 13th movies to take on the talented Kane Hodder in the role of Jason.  Mr. Hodder is in the middle of a lengthy and accomplished career of acting and stunt work; some of his credits include Wishmaster, Se7en, and even Waxwork in the same year as this installment.

*SPOILER ALERT*

Speaking of Jason, I think the single most surprising event of this movie was when our killer is unmasked.  What in the world was that creature beneath?  Who knew that coming back from the dead (perhaps two or three times) and spending some time underwater could result in you looking like that?  Perhaps more creative than frightening, I suppose we can attribute this work to director John Carl Buechler who has led a well-known career in the realm of special effects and makeup.

Final critique:  Within the world of Friday the 13th, Part VII: The New Blood manages to surprise us with some new and crazy ideas, while still remaining true to the feeling of the franchise (naughty teens = fresh meat, things popping out of the lake when we least (most) expect it... etc).  I certainly enjoyed the film, but that comes by taking it with a grain of salt and kind of expecting what you're going to get from virtually almost any other film in the series.  If you're looking to start getting into the world of Jason and Camp Crystal Lake, start at the very beginning and work your way through.  If you ignore my advice and go with lucky number seven anyway, prepare yourself for an eerily campy world of '80s teenagers, parties, and of course the dark shadow lurking outside the cabin.

July Review

Well folks, July was a pretty crazy month with moving back across the Atlantic and catching up with family and friends.  Sorry for the hiatus, but the Horror Blog's summer vacation is officially over.  Back to bringing you more scary stuff!

Special shout out to having been able to join the Horror Bloggers Guild.  If you yourself blog or are interested, check them out!

Onto the review.

For your consideration:

1.  Secuestrados/ Kidnapped (2010): A-
2.  The Fog (2005): B+
3.  House (20080: D/ D-

Hope everybody has been enjoying their summers and filling their free time with some horror.

Stay scary

The Fog (2005)

GENERAL INFO:
Director:  Rupert Wainwright
Studios:  Revolutions Studios
Starring:  Tom Welling, Maggie Grace, Selma Blair; ft. Rade Šerbedžija
Tagline:  From the makers of "Halloween"; Their PAST Has Come Back to HAUNT Them
MPAA Rating:  PG-13
Genre:  horror, terror, thriller, ghost, haunting, supernatural, curse
Scare score:  B-
Rating:  B+

Plot overview:  Just as the residents of Antonio Island prepare to celebrate the town's 134th anniversary, a heavy fog comes in from the sea, carrying within in artifacts and terror from the island's secret past.

I'm going to go against the tide here and boldly declare that I did, in fact, enjoy this movie.  Weird to think that it's coming up on 9 years since this film's release, and this is the first time I've seen it.  Nor have I seen John Carpenter's original version from 1980, although I now plan on it.  In fact, this summer I'm planning on having a marathon of watching either the original or remake of films that I've already reviewed.  Keep your eyes peeled!

Back to The Fog.  I didn't know what exactly to expect from this movie, and was frankly surprised to see such famous faces.  Given three huge personalities from 2005 - namely Tom Welling and Selma Blair - I figured the movie would either be really good or really bad.  Funnily enough, it fell into neither extreme, although online reviews may disagree (and go towards the negative).  I enjoy horror movies with big names on the bill, and I enjoy a sense of drama and plot that early-through-mid-2000s horror usually presents us with (think Darkness Falls).  This film gave us both of those things: faces we recognized paired with beautiful shots of Oregonian (read Canadian) landscape, water, islands, lighthouses, carefree young people on boats- and ghosts lurking around every corner.

The plot was a bit confusing for me at first; I wasn't sure if I missed some sort of introduction, or if the sequences taking place 134 year prior to the film's events were just scattered throughout.  First question: the town was celebrating the 134th anniversary and not the 135th, right?  Why in the world would they celebrate that?  Just to make the film's events take place in 2005?  Then why choose 1871?  I was extremely confused by this detail.  Anyway, we quickly become accustomed to seeing shadows lurking around, with a randomly burnt dog at one point.  For a long while, this film could have gone anywhere.  I was not expecting it to be so centered around actual ghosts, but perhaps rather some monster in the fog.  I guess I was confusing it with The Mist the whole time.  I mean the titles are just so different.  Silly me.

Acting is what we expect.  That is to say, not bad, but pretty standard for our young handsome faces of famous actors in 2005.  In fact, I was overall pretty impressed; the acting is good enough to move the plot along without any problems.  Tom Welling is pretty typical as our protagonist Nick: good looking, innocent, and kind-hearted.  Maggie Grace is a beautiful, lovable, eager-to-get-out-of-the-small-town Elizabeth (adventure she will get!).  One of my personal faves Selma Blair graces us with her dark wittiness as the sensual radio DJ and responsible mother Stevie.  In a smaller but still important role of William Blake, we have the familiar face of Rade Šerbedžija.  All do a good job, if not limited by the standard tropes of horror - dumb scares, near-death situations, nervous shouts of "I don't want to calm down!"  All typical, but still well done.

Scare-wise, most internet reviews will tell you that this is one of the least scariest films of all time, that it shouldn't even be under the horror genre, that it's creators and re-creators are spineless cowards that should be burned at the stake, etc.  Horror Buff disagrees.  I'm sitting here on a sunny day with lots of noise coming in from your average Tuesday happenings around town, and I was still surprised by several of the film's moments.  Yes, plenty of suspense that never actually scares us here.  And also yes, some of the scenes that were maybe intended to be scary become rather dumb, or merely interesting as we watch special effects surprise us and kill off cast members.  Still, John Carpenter is not your average over-the-top screams-gore-and-body count kind of guy, even if the Halloween franchise was perverted into that.  Carpenter, as far as I'm concerned, has always loved a good storyline behind his movies, drawing especially from a more old-fashioned interpretation of horrors and thrillers.

*SPOILER ALERT*

The real question as this film moves along (with well-placed action, scares, and events) is: do we buy it?  Sure, there is this dense curtain of fog moving in, drawing some victims in and leaving some treasures out, and that causes plenty of suspense for a good part of the movie.  What is inside?  What was that phantom pirate-esque ship like something out of Scooby Doo?  Are there sea monsters, aliens, or something else?  Once we piece an obviously-presented background together, we realize that the threat is, in fact, vengeful ghosts.  Who doesn't love a ghost, especially one with pretty darn unpleasant leprosy?  History buffs are sure to enjoy a ghost tale regarding the westward expansion of America.  Thus presented with a colorful backstory and even more colorful (well-done) ghosts, is the audience happy?

If you're expecting a ghost story filled with thrills and violence, this isn't the film for you.  Revenge is handled more subtly in this movie, give or take one or two flaming corpses and a ghostly garbage disposal.  That isn't to say that the movie isn't enjoyable, which I think it was.  Sure, it's all very supernatural, but so many horror movies are.  If you let yourself accept this plot and storyline, I really think The Fog is not a bad watch.

Special effects, especially those of the fog and then of the ghosts themselves, were done very well.  That's a huge plus for the movie, which comes to depend so heavily on them.  I don't think we're even used to seeing ghosts have so much action-packed screen time.  This film would have suffered an even worse reputation had it not been for these great effects.

My biggest thing was the ending of the movie.  Like, what was that?  I guess along with the "blood for blood," generations-long-revenge of the film, we have to accept we're in the realm of reincarnation as well.  Was Elizabeth - herself a scion of one of the town's four founders and traitors against Blake's people - always a living version of Blake's uncomfortably young bride?  Or did the upcoming events of horror and revenge somehow spirit her away into a historical plot?  That kiss at the end was both shocking and gross, but what happened next was even more unexpected, at least for me.  Even though we should of course realize during the flashbacks that Elizabeth has an uncanny resemblance to Mrs. Blake, I for one was not expecting her to so suddenly become a part of Blake's ghostly crew.

Final critique:  This movie does not deserve the horrible reputation is has.  Another reason why you can't always trust Rotten Tomatoes.  Myself living in a very foggy region, this film presents a colorful plot, heavy with background as well as historical and present-day small-town drama that makes up plenty of plot for what scares might be lacking.  Decent acting, fun plot, and an easy watch for those who scare easily (although there are some disturbing images).  All in all, not a bad watch.

100th Movie Review

Say it ain't so.  While Horror Buff tried to plan the Horror Blog's 100th movie review with pomp, circumstance, and fear, it seems that I miscounted, and that my review of House was, in fact, the monumental one-oh-oh.

I wish I had picked a scarier, more well known, or just plain better movie for the event, but what's done is done.  I'm looking forward to a summer of horror blockbusters to spend my nonexistent money on.  Hope that everybody had a fun and safe holiday weekend, and thanks for reading.

Stay scary

House (2008)

GENERAL INFO:
Director:  Robby Henson
Studios:  Lions Gate Entertainment, Namesake Entertainment
Starring:  Reynaldo Rosales, Heidi Dippold, Julie Ann Emery, J.P. Davis, Michael Madsen
Tagline:  The only way out... is in./  The Guilty Cannot Hide.
MPAA Rating:  R
Genre:  horror, terror, thriller, supernatural, masked murderer, psychopath, stalker, ghost, surprise ending
Scare score:  C
Rating:  D/D-

     

Plot overview:  After sustaining a flat tire on the backroads of rural Alabama, quarreling couple Jack (Rosales) and Stephanie (Dippold) make their way to a run-down Victorian inn.  Inside they find another couple, attractive Leslie (Emery) and hot-shot Randy (Temple), as well as the Wayside Inn's creepy owners, strict Betty (Leslie Easterbrook), eerie son Pete (Lew Temple), and rough caretaker Stewart (Bill Moseley).  The couples then find out that they have somehow attracted a masked killer called Tin Man (Madsen) who has come to punish them for their sins.  Thus begins a nightmarish series of haunting events that challenge their sinful reality.

I've seen bits and pieces of this movie on TV over the years, but I think this was the first time I actually forced myself to sit through it.  This movie has absolutely so much going on that sometimes it's hard to understand/ keep track of what's going on.  Pretty early on we should realize that there are supernatural things going on here; never could we really guess to what extent this spiritual, purgatorial experience would go.

Acting stinks.  It stinks.  That is, at least, for the first say 3/5 and final 1/5 of the movie.  There were some parts when I wasn't poking my eyes out with frustration.  Rosales is pretty brutal all around; lots of demanding close-ups, slow reaction shots: things that are hard to deliver on.  Dippold (what a name) redeems herself a few times, but is nothing super special.  Poor Alana Bale is thrown into the confusing and too-important role of Susan, a good ghost trapped in the house, making the young actress seem poorly trained.  The roles in this movie are just so bizarre and oddly written/ conceived that I can't blame actors for being awkward.  Concerning the creepy inn owners, I do like Leslie Easterbrook a lot; the audience hates her immediately after her first cruel lines.  Lew Temple as Pete is creepy (if stereotypical) enough, and very experienced veteran horror actor Bill Moseley is positively evil as Stewart.  I also loved to hate Michael Madsen in his multifaceted role.

*SPOILER ALERT*

The plot is pretty wild in this movie.  People stuck out in the boondocks of the south is not original but always enticing nevertheless.  As soon as the caretakers show up, we should already feel overloaded with horror stereotypes since they are being unmercifully shoved down our throats.  Creepy, strict hosts with uber-religious opinions, a somewhat deformed son lurking around like something out of Scary Movie 2.  Things certainly do get interesting when the so-called Tin Man shows up, wielding a flashlight and shotgun and a creepy, Leatherface-esque mask.  I honestly did like the idea of Tin Man a lot, and felt that the movie could have been a lot scarier had it only focused on him as well as the house's nightmarish memory chambers that haunts the four victims.

The second that the movie starts piling on satanic symbolism, devil worshiping, maze-like chambers everywhere (like one of Freddy's nightmare worlds), things get out of hand.  Even the individual memory/ nightmare sequences are pretty darn confusing and leave the audience to guess at or invent the characters' backstories.

Aside from the confusing nature of this movie, I thought it did deliver a few scares.  I guess I enjoyed the different types of horror in this movie: interpersonal drama, lingering psychological trauma, utter confusion, and of course a masked murderer chasing everybody and demanding a dead body before dawn.  Horrible memories supernaturally reliving themselves to haunt characters is certainly not new in the horror genre, but House handled this with cool effects (Stephanie on thin ice) and dark, disturbing backstories (Leslie dressed up and forced to eat pies).  Random bouts of terror from all over do help this movie to stay somewhat interesting, as otherwise we watch characters run around and around this hellish maze.

The end of the movie will probably split audiences.  I guess I sort of accepted it and then enjoyed the piece as a whole.  The original novel was written by two Christian authors, which gives more sense and even meaning to the test that the film's characters are put through, yadda yadda yadda.

Final critique:  This movie tries fitting too much plot and action from the original book (I assume), and the result is a sometimes scary but otherwise confusing bundle of mess.  Lots of characters running around, chasing or being chased, with plenty of unconvincing acting and plot that forces the audiences to real think about just what is going on here.  Not a high score in my book, but not a total waste of time either.

Secuestrados / Kidnapped (2010)

My second Spanish language film review following El espinazo del diablo.

GENERAL INFO:
Director:  Miguel Ángel Vivas
Studios:  Vaca Films, La Fabrique 2, Blur Producciones, Filmax
Starring:  Fernando Cayo, Manuela Vellés, Ana Wagener, Guillermo Barrientos, Martijn Kuiper, Dritan Biba
Tagline:  Hogar Dulce Hogar (Home Sweet Home); Take Your Last Breath
MPAA Rating:  Unrated
Genre:  foreign film, Spanish language, horror, terror, thriller, drama, family drama, psychological thriller, home invasion, robbers, kidnapping, torture
Scare score:  C+/ B-
Rating:  A-

Plot overview:  On their first night in their new home, a well-off Spanish family falls victim to a dastardly home invasion.

The plot makes the movie sound easy enough, right?  That's because it is; Secuestrados (meaning "kidnapped") is a straightforward movie that explores the brutality of a violent robbery along with the physical and emotional repercussions of victims and burglars alike - all the while forcing the viewer to participate.  By far, the best thing about this movie is its simplicity: simple, beautiful cinematography; honest acting that the audience can empathize with; and a clean-cut plot that via its voyeuristic nature forces the viewer to partake in the savage happenings, throwing us coldly into the bleak universe of the film.  This universe, as we come to realize, is our own meaningless reality.

If we are willing to assume that we do live in such a cold world (Vivas and the producers wished to stress the reality behind the film's violence), then the terror of the film takes its grip.  Who doesn't love taking the seemingly safe and ideal suburbs and turning them into a sadistic playground for psychological and physical torture (think The People Under the Stairs or even The Strangers)?  The suburbs can be scary, too.  That is the lesson that husband Jaime (Cayo), wife Marta (Wagener), and teenage daughter Isa (Vellés) learn when they move into an upper-middle class suburb of Madrid.  Hoping to escape the stress of the city and bond more as a family, the fairly normal and innocent trio could never imagine what awaits them on their first night.

A father, mother, and child rendered helpless upon the violent intrusion of several foreigners.  The similarity to Funny Games is unmistakable, and I would be a bad blogger if I didn't mention or recommend the latter to you.  Aside from the small difference (there are only two intruders in Funny Games while there are three in Secuestrados, this Spanish film shows the robbers' intent to be monetary while there truly seems to be no reason in the Austrian film, and lastly, Funny Games is much more sadistic), these two films are very much alike in their nihilistic portrayal of home invasion.  Like so many horror movies, the intruders themselves - billed only as Young Thief/ "assailant" in Spanish (Barrientos), Strong Thief (Kuiper), and Head Thief (Biba) - have their own struggles.  Strong Thief is off his rocker, high on cocaine and sexually violent.  Young Thief shows more than a touch of morality and repentance once things start to go awry, and Head Thief is dealt his fair share of unexpected mishaps.  The plot only wavers from a straightforward robbery when we - I mean the family, robbers, and audience alike - are surprised by (un)expected houseguests as well as small measures of resistance taken by the family.  To be totally honest, the film might even border on boring if it weren't for these small variations and complications, not to mention the gripping cinematography and the convincing acting.

I was in love with the way this movie was filmed.  The camera work was masterful; consisting only of 12 long shots leading us around the sprawling house and streets of the neighborhood.  The camera is at times passive and objective, and then suddenly very personal and mobile; not once are we distant from the action or drama.  Whether the shot is up-close to the terror or reactions (beating, crying, bleeding) or spanning in and out of rooms of the house, we as viewers are forced to take an active part in both the savagery and resulting suffering.  The long shots are thrilling; I must say it is a welcome break from the constant cuts and flashing shots of fast-paced horror movies today.

This filming method is only enhanced by the truly wonderful job of the performers.  In the beginning of the film, we have a typical family.  Suit and tie, client call taking father, stressed and detail oriented mother, and rebellious angsty daughter.  Then we have the antagonists who are equally as strong, although given less room to perform.  The worst actor in the film is boyfriend César (Xoel Yáñez), who regrettably gets a decent amount of screen time sniveling and pleading when nothing's even happened yet.  Super static.  As the film progresses, the family delivers so beautifully the agony and fear that you would expect a traumatizing experience such as the one portrayed in the movie to cause.  Perhaps most impressive is the young Manuela Vallés, who plays the terrified and shocked Isa so heart-wrenchingly.  By the end of the film, this was the performance that struck me most.

*SPOILER ALERT*

I think that most of all I enjoyed how realistic the film was.  No, I have never been on either side of a robbery, home invasion, or anything of the sort, but I imagine that a particularly well-planned and violent one would go something like the one in the movie.  The scariest part of the entire movie was when they first break in through the window; I had been waiting for it to happen (so many shots of big glass windows), but when it did it certainly got a reaction from me.  Then I loved how they just began to smash everything, ripping pictures out of frames, taking things without value - in home robberies, invasion of privacy is the cause of true terror.  I was so happy that father Jaime and even mother Marta kept their heads while young Isa began to shake and cry from the get-go; I can't stand a film where everybody goes paranoid and cowardly from the start.  I also enjoyed the dissension between the thieves.  Sure, we've seen that a million times before, but I thought it was realistic.  There was a good balance in the film regarding the violence, equal parts physical and psychological, and not overboard on the sexual (although with some disregard for my cardinal rules).

My problems with the movie were few.  Primarily, I didn't understand the beginning.  Throughout the movie it had me wondering if that was in fact Jaime, or otherwise how this man tied into the plot.  No answer was given, which led me to the conclusion that it was just meant to show that the home invasion had happened before and will happen again, pointlessly, a la The Strangers.  Secondly, it's obvious from the beginning that the movers are going to turn into the robbers.  Still, if our Young Thief was the mover who took the box into Isa's room and the golf clubs into Jaime's study, what happened to the scar on his forehead that Isa asked him about?  Am I wrong in thinking that this was the same man?  Lastly, and this is me being nit-picky but hey, the main events of the film seem to forget that this is their first night in the house.  In the afternoon, we have a house filled floor to ceiling with boxes and clutter; how is it that by the evening every thing has been put in its place?  We're taking little-to-no boxes, stocked kitchen, beds made, even the bathroom drawers organized and the downstairs storage room neatly-kept.  This is 100% unrealistic.  I love the first night idea, especially the misfortune of Isa still being at home before escaping to her party, but nobody on this earth can unpack their stuff and furnish their entire home in a few hours.  It just isn't happening.

Otherwise, I guess I should mention my feelings about whether or not this is truly a horror movie.  Yes, there is horror, more due to the terror of the home invasion and the resulting abuse.  Really this is a psychological thriller that is paired with violence and some gore.  The home invasion idea, more akin to Panic Room, The Strangers, or Funny Games.  The movie isn't so much "scary" as it is unsettling and then shocking.  As I mentioned, the scariest moment was the big *bump* when the first thief breaks through the window.  Later, the violence is disturbing (a broken arm, a gunshot), and on top of that we are surprised (my jaw dropped) by the sudden gore the film gives us.  That scene was truly gross.  Otherwise, the nihilistic, dark approach to the film's commentary regarding violence in our society leaves us feeling sad and upset, contemplating what terror awaits us outside (or even inside) our own homes.

Final critique:  It's been a while since I've had so much to say about a movie.  Secuestrados, while not the scariest movie out there, should be hailed for the mark it will leave upon us after sitting through its purposefully-purposefulless (get it?) violence, brutality, terror, and smattering of gore.  Some of the reviews out there will tell you that this is the best film ever made, but that's just not true. This is a spectacularly filmed, wonderfully acted, and surprising powerful movie that I would recommend to anyone looking for some small scares but otherwise a lasting sense of depression and meaninglessness.  Not recommended for newbies or those who aren't able to handle a little (but strong) gore.  Honestly a really enjoyable film; I would recommend listening in the original Spanish and finding subtitles if you need them, although I did watch a few minutes of the dubbed version and it seemed well done.

June Review

Lots of pickings this month... all right, so I was jet setting around Europe.  This summer I'll be back home, bored, and hopefully watching many horror movies!

For your consideration:

1.  Dracula (1931): A-
2.  Aliens (1986): B
3.  Leprechaun (1993): D+

Aliens (1986)

Not to be confused with Alien, although it is the sequel.

GENERAL INFO:
Director:  James Cameron
Studios:  20th Century Fox
Starring:  Sigourney Weaver; ft. Bill Paxton, Jenette Goldstein, Lance Henriksen, Mark Rolston
Tagline:  This time it's war.
MPAA Rating:  R
Genre:  horror, terror, action, thriller, science fiction, drama, suspense, alien, monster
Scare score:  C-
Rating:  B

Plot overview:  Following the events of the first film, Ellen Ripley (Weaver) awakens from her stasis after fifty-seven years.  Having expected to only sleep for several weeks, Ripley finds the world, or indeed, the universe around her to be quite changed, with the happenings aboard the Nostromo called into questioning and her reputation smeared as she is stripped of her space piloting license.  To add insult to injury, Ripley also learns that the planet where they first found the Alien eggs is now a terraforming colony under Weyland-Yutani Corporation.  Desperate to prevent more deaths at the hands or claws of the monstrous Aliens, Ripley agrees to return to LV-426, where the organization has lost contact with the terraforming colony.  Will Ripley and a team of Marines be enough to stop a potential Alien outbreak?

Super short entry here.  Watched this movie immediately after I watched Alien, so it's been a while.  In my book, this is much more of an action movie, filled with a sort of Vietnam-in-space feel plus a premature '90s sense of style and humor, all of which dulls the sense of terror.  Sure there is plenty of suspense plus a few jumpy moments (it's the Alien franchise, after all), but the movie is not especially frightening.  Even the C- might be too high of a rating.

Our cast of characters is highly entertaining here, filled with some of James Cameron's favorites, making this movie even an outer space prequel to Titanic or a more hostile Avatar.  Aside from Miss Weaver (so much love), my personal favorite was Bill Paxton as private Hudson.  He is the original bro in his tough-talking, rough-acting, curse-loving, gun-happy role; equal parts action and comedy.  Feminists rejoice in the Saturn Award-winning performance of Jenette Goldstein as private Vasquez, but other activists may frown upon the casting the white actress in the role of a powerful and gun happy Hispanic Marine.

The interesting thing about this movie is its further exploration of the Alien universe, providing us with more explanation about the Xenomorphs, how their race works, and if the Corporation has any influence in their breeding and fate.  There is most certainly sinister commentary here regarding corporatism and capitalism, which monetary gain held over human safety.  Among other societal critiques, Alien also touches on sexuality, rape, gender roles, and politics in general.  Racy!

Sitting here a month after watching the film, my honest opinion is that there are memorable special effects and memorable characters, but no scares come to mind.  The trip to another world with futuristic technology is always fun for those who love a touch of sci-fi in horror, but otherwise, aside from some suspenseful chase scenes and a good battle or two, the first film boasts a more true sense of terror.

Final critique:  In a long line of horror and sci-fi hits, Aliens simply remains overshadowed by the film that started it all.  Filled with action, cursing, gun violence, and good special effects, this film is certainly not the scariest in the bunch.  Definitely entertaining with some creative Alien nests, cocoons, and beasts themselves, but not too frightening overall.

Leprechaun (1993)

Hey Horror fans, sorry for the horror hiatus.  I've been traveling a lot this month, and the horror movies I did watch I just haven't blogged about.  Allow me to squeeze in a few short and shallow reviews before the month is out.

GENERAL INFO:
Director:  Mark Jones
Studios:  Trimark Pictures
Starring:  Warwick Davis, Jennifer Aniston (I know), Ken Olandt, Robert Hy Gorman, Mark Holton
Tagline:  Your luck just ran out.
MPAA Rating:  R
Genre:  horror, terror, fantasy, comedy, monster, folklore
Scare score:  D-
Rating:  D+

Plot overview:  After tricking a leprechaun (Davis) out of his gold, old Dan O'Grady (Shay Duffin) thinks his luck has changed.  Little does he know that the malicious leprechaun has followed him back to his small home in California, stopping at nothing to get his gold back.  After a deadly bout with the wicked creature, O'Grady locks the leprechaun in a crate in the basement, keeping it at bay with a four leaf clover, the leprechaun's bane.  Months later, J.D. Reding (John Sanderford) and his spoiled LA daughter Tory (Aniston) move into the abandoned O'Grady house, unaware of the evil trapped in the basement.

At the end of the day, this movie is what it is.  Any horror movie based around a small creature that speaks in (FORCED) singsong rhymes, mixing too much "comedy" with otherwise frightening circumstances is definitely not a favorite movie of mine.  Nor could you expect something like this to do too well at the box office, although Leprechaun has incredibly spawned a rather large franchise, including Leprechaun: Origins, set to release this August.  Admittedly, I'll still be at the theater.

One thing this movie does well (besides the fact that it locked down Jennifer Aniston as its star) is that it entertains.  Yes, it's stupid, colorful, and childish, but I surprised myself when I was able to sit through the whole thing without any problems.  That doesn't mean I'm going to give the movie a good rating even though I'm usually pretty lenient anyway.

Acting is better than what you might expect it to be like.  A young Aniston, only one year before her Friends debut, is fresh if superficial, cast as the typical teenager Tory who would rather surround herself with the riches of Rodeo Drive but instead learns to kick some Irish butt in order to charm hunky handyman Nathan (Olandt).  Olandt is your typical hunky good guy, shadowed around by mischievous kid brother Alex (Hy Gorman) and big bodied and small brained Ozzie (Holton) - think Lennie Small from Of Mice and Men.  Ozzie is dumb and slow and entirely responsible for the film's major dilemma first when he brushes aside the four leaf clover, unknowingly freeing the leprechaun, and then again when he accidentally swallows one of the leprechaun's gold pieces.  The implied scatological conundrum turns what would otherwise be a story a of a leprechaun reclaiming his gold into a feature film.  Thanks for nothing, Ozzie.

Otherwise, the movie follows its course of events, somewhat reminiscent of a cat-and-mouse game between the magical leprechaun and the frightened young adults.  As much as the leprechaun himself may be one of the more bizarre and frustrating characters in the horror genre, Warwick Davis absolutely commends a big nod as he makes this unique creature totally his own.  I'm a big fan of Davis and his many and varied roles throughout film.  Not surprisingly, he plays the rhyming, murderous leprechaun in his own fun and original way.

Final review:  We've all heard of or at least seen some reference to the Leprechaun movies, and I shudder to say it's the type of film people think of when they try to belittle the horror genre.  Still, this first film sees the evil leprechaun long before he goes to space, or "2" the hood, or to any of the many direct-to-video sequels.  Regardless, this film entertains, and why not give it a watch around St. Patrick's Day?  Jennifer Aniston should be reason enough.

Dracula (1931)

GENERAL INFO:
Director:  Tod Browning, Karl Freund
Studios:  Universal Pictures
Starring:  Bela Lugosi, Dwight Frye, Helen Chandler, David Manners, Edward Van Sloan
Tagline:  The story of the strangest passion the world has ever known!
MPAA Rating:  Unrated/ Approved/ PG
Genre:  horror, terror, thriller, monster, vampire, classic, Universal Horror, black and white
Scare score:  D-
Rating:  A-

Plot overview:  After purchasing property in London, the bizarre yet charming vampire Count Dracula (Lugosi) begins to target the young and beautiful socialite Mina (Chandler).

We're starting off June with an all time classic, one of the true forefathers of the horror genre: Dracula.  For it is this film, along with its 1931 companion Frankenstein, that truly founded American cinema's love for monster movies.  Although quite similar in plot and filming to its predecessor, the technically illegal Nosferatu, it is this 1931 film version of Bram Stoker's 1897 novel that has truly defined the character of Count Dracula to modern audiences, with Legosi's portrayal the crowning jewel of vampire depictions to date.

If you've read the Horror Blog before, you'll know my feelings for Universal Horror movies: unabashed love and admiration.  If I could go back in time, I would love to witness these early days of Hollywood's golden era.  But alas, here I am 90 years later, and the best I can do is blog about it.  With that out on the table, you'll also know that Horror Buff is well aware that Universal Horror, while bringing us important and wonderful plots, costumes, and characters, is no longer reputable for the actual scare factors, which, compared to our contemporary horror movies, could be described as inexistent.  That being said, if you're looking for scary movies that will make you jump in your seat, Dracula, like its friends The Wolf Man, The Invisible Man, Creature from the Black Lagoon, and The Mummy, among others, are not the movies to turn to.

If you are familiar with Bram Stoker's novel, or with other film versions of Dracula, you will perhaps recognize a rehash of characters and plots taken from the original work and rearranged into movie format.  Take, for example, the character of Renfield (portrayed by Dwight Frye, a recurring actor in Universal Horror), who has in this film version replaced the role of John Harker as Dracula's solicitor.  In fact, Mr. Frye plays an extremely similar role in this movie as he does in Frankenstein as Fritz, Henry Frankenstein's assistant, a crazed, dedicated servant.  Then the actual character of John Harker (Manners) takes on more of a pretty boy role, not unlike Manners' role in The Mummy.  

While Frye's acting in this movie calls for over-the-top eccentricity, he often makes himself creepier than even the title character.   Our leading lady Helen Chandler was not a favorite of mine, often delivering lines with an ingenue's melodrama yet with a lack of true feeling.  She becomes, however, more interesting towards the end of the film as she suffers from the undead infirmity that the Count curses her with.  Drawing heavily from the silent film era, there are some magnificent shots with her eyes and facial expressions.  Universal Horror veteran Edward Van Sloan is present yet again in the typical role of an elderly and knowledgable doctor or supernatural professional (Frankenstein, The Mummy), here depicting monster's bane Van Helsing.  

For good reason, the star of the film is Bela Lugosi himself as Count Dracula.  Due to his native roots in Transylvania, Mr. Lugosi brings the dramatic flare of a foreign and irregular accent into the character, often permitting his dialogue alone to make us uncomfortable.  I specifically enjoy that he is not disguised nor caked in makeup; his look in the film is quite natural and quite his own.  Not a bad looking guy, Lugosi's Dracula perfectly fits the head honcho of all vampires reputation as devilishly charming, using his regal and exotic flare (and demonic mind control capabilities) to charm women before snacking on them.  Like many other horror fans out there, I agree that Lugosi is untouchable in this early portrayal of Dracula, having left an iconic and cultural mark that has not been and cannot be easily surpassed.  

I was surprised by the cinematography of this movie, finding some shots to seem pretty modern and much more thought-out compared to contemporary Universal Horror films.  One of my favorite scenes was when the newly-escaped Renfield is on all fours, crawling towards the recently-fainted maid (Moon Carroll?  Unsure of the credits).  As he approaches her, moving like a wild beast closing in on its prey, the camera simultaneously pans down, making the audience feel like it is their own impending doom as well as the maid's.  Also, I surprisingly did not dislike the countless shots that focused on Dracula's hypnotic eyes - scenes much akin to the popular shots of a transformed Lon Chaney, Jr. running around the woods in The Wolf Man.  They are still spooky in their own way.

My main problems with this movie would simply be that it, like many others, is too old to be truly scary today.  The movie is enjoyable, but it took me three nights to get through because I kept falling asleep.  I realize that's my own fault as well, but it simply wasn't captivating to a sleepy Horror Buff.  Furthermore, the poor, poor editing of this movie prevents it from reaching its full potential.  There are countless cut shots, jumps in the plot line, and odd sequences that we realize we can attribute to poor editing and poor censorship, leaving almost a careless feel about the whole product.  Really a shame, and even frustrating at times.  (Examples: Renfield suddenly appearing a crazed slave to Dracula, leaving us unsure if its even the same character and if not where this new guy came from; Renfield somehow knowing who Mina is, and no one seeming to care when he says creepy things about her, etc).

Fun facts:  May 26th was the 117th anniversary of the publication of Bram Stoker's Gothic novel.  This movie adaption was released in the US on Valentine's Day in 1931!  Talk about romantic.

Final critique:  This is a good movie.  It is not a scary movie, but it is a good movie that really brings us back to the horror and monster movies of yore.  Given Dracula's lasting impact on the entire horror industry, it's only right that we watch and revere this movie, especially its titular star Bela Lugosi.  A sort of classic around Halloween time, I would recommend this movie to horror newbies and horror veterans alike, as well as to those who frighten easily because this movie will not be too much for you to see.  While boring and very old feeling at times, this is an interesting and entertaining movie that maintains its mark in the horror genre.  

May Review

Horror summer blockbusters are just around the corner!

For your consideration:

1.  Alien (1979): A-
2.  Friday the 13th Part VI: Jason Lives (1986): A-
3.  Frankenstein (1931): B+
4.  Grave Encounters (2011): B
5.  The Wolfman (2010): B-
6.  Friday the 13th Part V: A New Beginning (1985): C-