For your consideration:
1. Awakening (2011): A
2. Insidious: Chapter 2 (2013): A-
3. The Possession (2012): B+
4. An American Haunting (2005): D
Monday, September 30, 2013
Monday, September 16, 2013
Insidious: Chapter 2 (2013)
At this point, I have learned how the word "insidious" applies to the plots of both movies.
GENERAL INFO:
Director: James Wan
Studios: IM Global, Entertainment One, Blumhouse Productions
Starring: Patrick Wilson, Rose Byrne, Steve Coulter, Leigh Whannell, Angus Sampson, Barbara Hershey, Lin Shaye
Tagline: "It Will Take What You Love Most"
MPAA Rating: PG-13
Genre: horror, terror, thriller, drama, haunting, ghost, possession, family drama, sequel
Scare score: B
Rating: A-
Plot overview: After the terrifying events of the first film, the Lambert family has moved into husband/ father Josh's (Wilson) childhood home. When the haunting still does not stop, distrust grows strong between Josh and his wife Renai (Byrne), and tensions continue mounting. With paranormal investigator Elise (Shaye) now dead following the events of the first movie, Renai and Lorraine (Hershey), Josh's mother, reach out to Carl (Coulter), a fellow medium and old friend of Elise. Together, the family, Carl, and a team of paranormal investigators - Specs (Whannell) and Tucker (Sampson) - must return to the family's past in order to save its future, traveling through time, space, and The Further in order to do so.
Aptly released on Friday the 13th, we have here the long-awaited sequel to 2011's landmark Insidious. Wan and Whannell have teamed up again to bring us this film, which picks up directly where the first movie left off. In fact, as a warning to all viewers, if you have not seen/ do not have any previous knowledge of the first film, that's a much better place to start than this one. You will most likely not understand any of this movie unless you see Insidious first.
That being said, I was pleasantly surprised with just how much of the first movie is included in this film. They are very much like two puzzle pieces, with the first one perhaps being written/ shot to set up many sequences of this sequel. This second one, however, does largely switch from a haunting theme focusing on external terrors to a domestic drama where much of the horror as been internalized. I said this in my entry on Insidious last fall, and now I can confirm that this movie is very much focused on the family aspect of the Lambert's, with husband and wife now becoming estranged, Dalton (Ty Simpkins) is wide awake, baby Kali (Brynn and Madison Bowie) is growing up, and they have all moved in with grandma Lorraine. Quick side note as far as the family is concerned: how cute is the other (non-astral-projecting) son Foster (Andrew Astor)? That kid couldn't be cuter, and he is a talented child actor. Way to go, kid. Anywho, there was much less of a barrage of ghosts this time around, and instead we had a huge spike in physical confrontations, domestic violence, and also in dumb humor. To draw in from fan favorites, in this second film there is much less Poltergeist while allusions to The Shining (daddy problems) and Psycho (mommy problems) become impossible to miss. The perfect family is deconstructed through various generations, torn apart by loss, separation, and distrust; gender and identity roles become confused, the father is not always the hero and the mother is not always the victim with children saving parents and vice-versa.
What the Insidious movies certainly do right is the soundtrack (Joseph Bishara) and look. Like yeah I guess the whole eerie violin and strings bit has been done before (Psycho), but it evolves here and the creative team was just not afraid to have that shrill sound up high and then bang the piano way down low. This creates my favorite "boom" moments, starting with the title sequence of the movie; when they flash that big, red "INSIDIOUS" across the screen there's something truly ominous albeit campy about it.
*SPOILER ALERT*
Where as in the first film the action is centered around the Lambert family and Dalton's coma, this film is split up into multiple, simultaneous story lines with various acts of their own. These can be described as: physical Josh's situation with him first trying to keep the voices out of his head and later with his attack upon his family; spiritual Josh's situation being first trapped in The Further and then venturing through it (and space and time) to save himself and his family; Specs and Tucker's life post-Elise and their eventual teaming up with Carl; and finally Renai's predicament, her work with Lorraine and Carl, and her protection of her children.
The first big split comes during the exposition after the introduction to the Lambert's current situation when we are suddenly switched to the light-hearted nature of the bumbling comic duo. On account of Specs being played by screenwriter Leigh Whannell, I couldn't help but dislike some of this stupid humor, which wasn't quite '80s corniness but rather a flat, modern humor. I can't help but picture Whannell sitting there writing and picturing these stupid jokes, typical of a cliche dumb duo (although both characters are intelligent investigators), and then in reality for audiences we have these two guys who are now 200% more important than they were in the first film, and their strange jokes merely provide an uncertain interlay between scarier sequences. Admittedly, I did laugh at the "ninja, bear" bit, and I liked both characters very much. In general, I was not crazy about Whannell's script, which felt very fake and unnatural to me throughout.
At times the splits made the film more confusing; I wasn't sure if a ghost was about to slap Renai unconscious or if Tucker was going to spill jelly doughnut on his shirt or hurt his testicles. Am I worried about cross-dressing ghosts in The Further or about physical Josh screaming in the mirror and pulling out teeth? One thing this divided script certainly did was break up the movie into lighter and darker parts, making it seem less scary in general, less serious, and certainly nowhere near as chock-full-of-thrills as the first installment. Splitting up the movie this way also let many supporting actors step out of their shells and shine a bit more on screen such as our investigating duo, the children, Lorraine, and our new friend Carl.
In general I was surprised about the role of Renai. In my post on the first film I comment on how she is depicted because while she is certainly strong, intelligent, and relentless in the protection of her family, she is a victim of her family and household situation. We can assume that she is a stay-at-home mom by choice, which allows her to write music (when not being plagued by demons) which we can assume is her passion. (How the family is getting enough money for all these great houses on Josh's teacher salary is beyond me). Still, during the events of these movies (and even in peacetime) we can see her being stuck at home taking care of kids or doing domestic work. Even the movie poster here shows her actively protecting her family with a domestic weapon, and the engagement ring is still flaunted. She is by no means passive when it comes to helping Dalton in the first film and protecting all of the children in this one, but in both movies our main protagonist and then main antagonist, respectively, are played by Patrick Wilson. Renai is a crucial, strong, and easy-to-like character with a strange balance of shock/ naiveté and just enough mother's/wife's intuition. Also, she is wise from the ending of the first movie to the entity inside of her husband. In this movie I was honestly very, very surprised at the amount of physical abuse she takes whether it's at the hand of a malicious spirit or her husband, be it a slap to the face or a teapot chucked at her head (my mouth dropped at that point). It felt almost wrong to me to see so much realistic, domestic violence in this movie. I mean we're talking about the writer of Saw so I guess it's no surprise- but at the same time in most horror movies we see supernatural, over-the-top gory violence that seems so unreal to us it becomes less realistically scary. Instead here we see very real, terrible man-on-woman violence. The distressed spirit possessing Josh doesn't even distinguish here between children and adults, making us fear for the safety of the baby and the children just as much if not more than the lives of Lorraine and Renai. In this movie, Renai is ignored, isolated, haunted, hit, choked, and then beaten savagely before locking herself in the basement with her children, left to do nothing more than await her fate. While the fate of the family is in the hands of the existential Josh, and while he must right the spiritual and physical wrongs (with some help), the role of Renai still feels too "victim-y" for me, and I would like to read a feminist review of the film, which in of itself is certainly heavy on psychosexual abuse and material.
The big star here is Patrick Wilson (who always reminds me of Will Arnett so it's hard for me to take him seriously) in a role that juxtaposes him from his hero status in the first film. With creepy makeup and annoying smiles, physical Josh is easy to hate in this sequel. The ending of the first movie tips us off that Josh perhaps hasn't returned from The Further, the realm which I believe the creative team really thinks is their trump card here. I wasn't entirely on that bandwagon after the first movie, but I was so happy to see how the sequel utilized and even interpreted The Further, making it a timeless, spaceless place where entities are both anonymous and personal; a place of memory and forgotten pasts; a place where darkness consumes light. Was the first film written with the events of the second film in mind? Or did the team here just really put together the right amount of overlay, lapsing chronology and terror together? I really loved all of the allusions to the first movie: the terrible banging on the front door, that alarm system going off, the long-haired fiend stalking the house - and now all of it has an explanation. I could have done without Elise's "So that's what that was all about" moment, but I think she's the cutest thing (as I assume many viewers do as well; a Tangina Barrons type that we feel safe around and want to trust) so she is forgiven for Whannell's script. Another question I do have about the time-traveling Further sequence is when spiritual Josh returns to young Josh during his first meeting with Elise, why is it that the Bride in Black "lives" in the basement? Does every home happen to have a red door leading to The Further, visible to only astral projectors? Just wondering if there was any significance there.
Where as in the first movie I thought the sequences in The Further were over the top and even unnecessary, filling up time with suspense and no scares and then cartooning the red demon, I thought The Further really evolved in the sequel: what can't you do when the laws of physics and time no longer apply? We saw some great visual stuff (the whole movie I thought was tastefully well done in an unsettling way; from the red stained-glass window of the house to the crowded, dark, Victorian rooms to Elise's cluttered reading room in the basement- beautiful and creepy stuff) with great colors, imagery, family issues, distressed souls, torture chambers... the list goes on. Luckily the creepy rocking horses and dollhouses and bodies covered in sheets all applied to the plot this time without the need for mannequin, '50s families and other unnecessary frights. Was that drawing young Parker (Tyler Griffin) makes (and is reprimanded for) also drawn by Wan using his left hand? Looked like the same artist as Dalton's work in the first movie.
I really enjoyed the investigation into the Bride in Black as well as the entire subplot involved there. I know that the whole forced cross-dressing bit received some laughs from my audience, but I do think it was a creepy and intriguing area to explore considering the psychological condition of old Parker (Tom Fitzpatrick) who I thought was very creepy. Honestly I think it was great that this freaky old woman turned out to be a man; fun fact: she was played by a male actor in the first film as well. For me, the abduction and killing of all these young girls in the past (great neighborhood) was really eerie; it employed a further sense of suburban terror. It was also interesting in comparison that this film focused on two ghosts/ one ghost and one possession rather than the first movie's virtual carnival of souls. The concept of this possession causing Josh's body to decay was pretty foul, and we enjoyed the strange, Norman Bates-like internal struggle of old Parker inside of Josh. So many layers of fun.
The last thing really to comment on is the last scene of the movie. Our dream team (minus Carl?) now seems to be doing regular cases with the spirit of Elise helping ward off malicious, insidious spirits from living humans. I didn't love her shocked "Oh my God" face with nothing visual on our mere human end- did I miss something, maybe? Was it a really scary demon only Elise could see? Because there are rumors that you could heard that red demon making noises (and was he really that hard to defeat the first time around? Loser.), but I didn't hear anything. Just seemed like a very big, very obvious set up to a part three that might not happen, and that most likely won't be centered around the Lambert family.
Final critique: I enjoyed this movie, and I think calling it "Chapter 2" is only appropriate as it is a direct continuation of the first film. This installment would be very difficult to fully understand without seeing the first one, so go have a back-to-back horror movie night! There are certainly less scares this time around, but there is more suspense built up in the plot and more (too much) physical violence between characters. What's interesting to me is that where as in the first film the plot was more focused and the scares were random at time, in this movie the scares are more concentrated but the plot itself is more scattered into the various stories. I thought the look and feel of this movie was great while the script and acting was on the poor side. I would still love to see it again should anybody like to spot me $11 for another movie ticket. Overall, a pretty fulfilling continuation of the events of the first movie.
GENERAL INFO:
Director: James Wan
Studios: IM Global, Entertainment One, Blumhouse Productions
Starring: Patrick Wilson, Rose Byrne, Steve Coulter, Leigh Whannell, Angus Sampson, Barbara Hershey, Lin Shaye
Tagline: "It Will Take What You Love Most"
MPAA Rating: PG-13
Genre: horror, terror, thriller, drama, haunting, ghost, possession, family drama, sequel
Scare score: B
Rating: A-
Plot overview: After the terrifying events of the first film, the Lambert family has moved into husband/ father Josh's (Wilson) childhood home. When the haunting still does not stop, distrust grows strong between Josh and his wife Renai (Byrne), and tensions continue mounting. With paranormal investigator Elise (Shaye) now dead following the events of the first movie, Renai and Lorraine (Hershey), Josh's mother, reach out to Carl (Coulter), a fellow medium and old friend of Elise. Together, the family, Carl, and a team of paranormal investigators - Specs (Whannell) and Tucker (Sampson) - must return to the family's past in order to save its future, traveling through time, space, and The Further in order to do so.
Aptly released on Friday the 13th, we have here the long-awaited sequel to 2011's landmark Insidious. Wan and Whannell have teamed up again to bring us this film, which picks up directly where the first movie left off. In fact, as a warning to all viewers, if you have not seen/ do not have any previous knowledge of the first film, that's a much better place to start than this one. You will most likely not understand any of this movie unless you see Insidious first.
That being said, I was pleasantly surprised with just how much of the first movie is included in this film. They are very much like two puzzle pieces, with the first one perhaps being written/ shot to set up many sequences of this sequel. This second one, however, does largely switch from a haunting theme focusing on external terrors to a domestic drama where much of the horror as been internalized. I said this in my entry on Insidious last fall, and now I can confirm that this movie is very much focused on the family aspect of the Lambert's, with husband and wife now becoming estranged, Dalton (Ty Simpkins) is wide awake, baby Kali (Brynn and Madison Bowie) is growing up, and they have all moved in with grandma Lorraine. Quick side note as far as the family is concerned: how cute is the other (non-astral-projecting) son Foster (Andrew Astor)? That kid couldn't be cuter, and he is a talented child actor. Way to go, kid. Anywho, there was much less of a barrage of ghosts this time around, and instead we had a huge spike in physical confrontations, domestic violence, and also in dumb humor. To draw in from fan favorites, in this second film there is much less Poltergeist while allusions to The Shining (daddy problems) and Psycho (mommy problems) become impossible to miss. The perfect family is deconstructed through various generations, torn apart by loss, separation, and distrust; gender and identity roles become confused, the father is not always the hero and the mother is not always the victim with children saving parents and vice-versa.
What the Insidious movies certainly do right is the soundtrack (Joseph Bishara) and look. Like yeah I guess the whole eerie violin and strings bit has been done before (Psycho), but it evolves here and the creative team was just not afraid to have that shrill sound up high and then bang the piano way down low. This creates my favorite "boom" moments, starting with the title sequence of the movie; when they flash that big, red "INSIDIOUS" across the screen there's something truly ominous albeit campy about it.
*SPOILER ALERT*
Where as in the first film the action is centered around the Lambert family and Dalton's coma, this film is split up into multiple, simultaneous story lines with various acts of their own. These can be described as: physical Josh's situation with him first trying to keep the voices out of his head and later with his attack upon his family; spiritual Josh's situation being first trapped in The Further and then venturing through it (and space and time) to save himself and his family; Specs and Tucker's life post-Elise and their eventual teaming up with Carl; and finally Renai's predicament, her work with Lorraine and Carl, and her protection of her children.
The first big split comes during the exposition after the introduction to the Lambert's current situation when we are suddenly switched to the light-hearted nature of the bumbling comic duo. On account of Specs being played by screenwriter Leigh Whannell, I couldn't help but dislike some of this stupid humor, which wasn't quite '80s corniness but rather a flat, modern humor. I can't help but picture Whannell sitting there writing and picturing these stupid jokes, typical of a cliche dumb duo (although both characters are intelligent investigators), and then in reality for audiences we have these two guys who are now 200% more important than they were in the first film, and their strange jokes merely provide an uncertain interlay between scarier sequences. Admittedly, I did laugh at the "ninja, bear" bit, and I liked both characters very much. In general, I was not crazy about Whannell's script, which felt very fake and unnatural to me throughout.
At times the splits made the film more confusing; I wasn't sure if a ghost was about to slap Renai unconscious or if Tucker was going to spill jelly doughnut on his shirt or hurt his testicles. Am I worried about cross-dressing ghosts in The Further or about physical Josh screaming in the mirror and pulling out teeth? One thing this divided script certainly did was break up the movie into lighter and darker parts, making it seem less scary in general, less serious, and certainly nowhere near as chock-full-of-thrills as the first installment. Splitting up the movie this way also let many supporting actors step out of their shells and shine a bit more on screen such as our investigating duo, the children, Lorraine, and our new friend Carl.
In general I was surprised about the role of Renai. In my post on the first film I comment on how she is depicted because while she is certainly strong, intelligent, and relentless in the protection of her family, she is a victim of her family and household situation. We can assume that she is a stay-at-home mom by choice, which allows her to write music (when not being plagued by demons) which we can assume is her passion. (How the family is getting enough money for all these great houses on Josh's teacher salary is beyond me). Still, during the events of these movies (and even in peacetime) we can see her being stuck at home taking care of kids or doing domestic work. Even the movie poster here shows her actively protecting her family with a domestic weapon, and the engagement ring is still flaunted. She is by no means passive when it comes to helping Dalton in the first film and protecting all of the children in this one, but in both movies our main protagonist and then main antagonist, respectively, are played by Patrick Wilson. Renai is a crucial, strong, and easy-to-like character with a strange balance of shock/ naiveté and just enough mother's/wife's intuition. Also, she is wise from the ending of the first movie to the entity inside of her husband. In this movie I was honestly very, very surprised at the amount of physical abuse she takes whether it's at the hand of a malicious spirit or her husband, be it a slap to the face or a teapot chucked at her head (my mouth dropped at that point). It felt almost wrong to me to see so much realistic, domestic violence in this movie. I mean we're talking about the writer of Saw so I guess it's no surprise- but at the same time in most horror movies we see supernatural, over-the-top gory violence that seems so unreal to us it becomes less realistically scary. Instead here we see very real, terrible man-on-woman violence. The distressed spirit possessing Josh doesn't even distinguish here between children and adults, making us fear for the safety of the baby and the children just as much if not more than the lives of Lorraine and Renai. In this movie, Renai is ignored, isolated, haunted, hit, choked, and then beaten savagely before locking herself in the basement with her children, left to do nothing more than await her fate. While the fate of the family is in the hands of the existential Josh, and while he must right the spiritual and physical wrongs (with some help), the role of Renai still feels too "victim-y" for me, and I would like to read a feminist review of the film, which in of itself is certainly heavy on psychosexual abuse and material.
The big star here is Patrick Wilson (who always reminds me of Will Arnett so it's hard for me to take him seriously) in a role that juxtaposes him from his hero status in the first film. With creepy makeup and annoying smiles, physical Josh is easy to hate in this sequel. The ending of the first movie tips us off that Josh perhaps hasn't returned from The Further, the realm which I believe the creative team really thinks is their trump card here. I wasn't entirely on that bandwagon after the first movie, but I was so happy to see how the sequel utilized and even interpreted The Further, making it a timeless, spaceless place where entities are both anonymous and personal; a place of memory and forgotten pasts; a place where darkness consumes light. Was the first film written with the events of the second film in mind? Or did the team here just really put together the right amount of overlay, lapsing chronology and terror together? I really loved all of the allusions to the first movie: the terrible banging on the front door, that alarm system going off, the long-haired fiend stalking the house - and now all of it has an explanation. I could have done without Elise's "So that's what that was all about" moment, but I think she's the cutest thing (as I assume many viewers do as well; a Tangina Barrons type that we feel safe around and want to trust) so she is forgiven for Whannell's script. Another question I do have about the time-traveling Further sequence is when spiritual Josh returns to young Josh during his first meeting with Elise, why is it that the Bride in Black "lives" in the basement? Does every home happen to have a red door leading to The Further, visible to only astral projectors? Just wondering if there was any significance there.
Where as in the first movie I thought the sequences in The Further were over the top and even unnecessary, filling up time with suspense and no scares and then cartooning the red demon, I thought The Further really evolved in the sequel: what can't you do when the laws of physics and time no longer apply? We saw some great visual stuff (the whole movie I thought was tastefully well done in an unsettling way; from the red stained-glass window of the house to the crowded, dark, Victorian rooms to Elise's cluttered reading room in the basement- beautiful and creepy stuff) with great colors, imagery, family issues, distressed souls, torture chambers... the list goes on. Luckily the creepy rocking horses and dollhouses and bodies covered in sheets all applied to the plot this time without the need for mannequin, '50s families and other unnecessary frights. Was that drawing young Parker (Tyler Griffin) makes (and is reprimanded for) also drawn by Wan using his left hand? Looked like the same artist as Dalton's work in the first movie.
I really enjoyed the investigation into the Bride in Black as well as the entire subplot involved there. I know that the whole forced cross-dressing bit received some laughs from my audience, but I do think it was a creepy and intriguing area to explore considering the psychological condition of old Parker (Tom Fitzpatrick) who I thought was very creepy. Honestly I think it was great that this freaky old woman turned out to be a man; fun fact: she was played by a male actor in the first film as well. For me, the abduction and killing of all these young girls in the past (great neighborhood) was really eerie; it employed a further sense of suburban terror. It was also interesting in comparison that this film focused on two ghosts/ one ghost and one possession rather than the first movie's virtual carnival of souls. The concept of this possession causing Josh's body to decay was pretty foul, and we enjoyed the strange, Norman Bates-like internal struggle of old Parker inside of Josh. So many layers of fun.
The last thing really to comment on is the last scene of the movie. Our dream team (minus Carl?) now seems to be doing regular cases with the spirit of Elise helping ward off malicious, insidious spirits from living humans. I didn't love her shocked "Oh my God" face with nothing visual on our mere human end- did I miss something, maybe? Was it a really scary demon only Elise could see? Because there are rumors that you could heard that red demon making noises (and was he really that hard to defeat the first time around? Loser.), but I didn't hear anything. Just seemed like a very big, very obvious set up to a part three that might not happen, and that most likely won't be centered around the Lambert family.
Final critique: I enjoyed this movie, and I think calling it "Chapter 2" is only appropriate as it is a direct continuation of the first film. This installment would be very difficult to fully understand without seeing the first one, so go have a back-to-back horror movie night! There are certainly less scares this time around, but there is more suspense built up in the plot and more (too much) physical violence between characters. What's interesting to me is that where as in the first film the plot was more focused and the scares were random at time, in this movie the scares are more concentrated but the plot itself is more scattered into the various stories. I thought the look and feel of this movie was great while the script and acting was on the poor side. I would still love to see it again should anybody like to spot me $11 for another movie ticket. Overall, a pretty fulfilling continuation of the events of the first movie.
Wednesday, September 11, 2013
The Horror Blog Turns 1
One year and fifty-four movies ago, our fearfathers brought forth on this internet, a new blog, conceived in Terror, and dedicated to the proposition that all horror movies are not created equal...
§
Hey Horror Fans,
A year ago today I set out on a new cyber adventure, hoping to put all the time I spend/waste watching horror movies to good use. All my life I have loved horror movies because even though they can be (and usually are) so weird, I love getting my heart rate up and taking the chance that something might actually scare me or gross me out; (un)fortunately, this doesn't happen very often. Fear is a strange emotion in our world that many nameless souls might experience every day of their short lives, where as others will never know the true meaning of what terror is. I personally am afraid of nothing more than ill health or unhappiness falling upon my friends and family, but I have to admit that after taking on this blog I keep more of an eye out for psychotic stalkers and malicious ghosts. It's easy here in the northeast to get caught up in our busy day-to-day lives, experiencing stress from work, pleasure from free time, excitement during the workday, relaxation at night; yet all the strange and many in-between moments fall into a silent, emotionless drone that is our modern life. Perhaps fear, then, is an older emotion; a shaking, empty feeling that many of us are lucky enough not to have to feel should we allow ourselves to remain confident and brave. I am one of these people, but I guess that through horror movies I enjoy seeking the chance to actually get scared, to feel more alive and to question our capabilities as humans. Then again, sometimes it's nice to just laugh at a dumb plot about hydro-sensitive aliens or pea soup-filled possessions, all of which are, of course, based on a true story.
That being said, thanks for visiting the Horror Blog once, or thanks for visiting whenever it suits your fancy. I truly appreciate being able to document my thoughts on these horror movies and knowing that other people are actually reading (or accidentally visiting the page) from time to time. Obviously horror movies aren't for everyone, and many times they are the neglected children of Hollywood. Hopefully you have found this blog if you are one of the few who is able to appreciate the subtle scares and stupidities that make up our beloved genre of film.
Over the course of this next year I will try to blog more often, although I guess my average of about an entry a week isn't as bad as I thought it was. Until then,
Stay scary,
-Horror Buff
An American Haunting (2005)
GENERAL INFO:
Director: Courtney Solomon
Studios: Allan Zeman Productions, Midsummer Films, Remstar Productions
Starring: Rachel Hurd-Wood, Donald Sutherland, Sissy Spacek
Tagline: Possessions Knows No Bounds
MPAA Rating: PG-13
Genre: horror, terror, thriller, drama, haunting, possession, surprise ending
Scare score: D+
Rating: D
Plot overview: In present day Tennessee, a mother wakes her daughter from a nightmare, and then gets to reading a long note written by an ancestor. Back in the early 1800s, the respectable John Bell (Sutherland) loses his good reputation after being accused of breaking church law by means of usury against his scornful neighbor, the supposed witch Kate Batts (Gaye Brown). Kate then warns Bell to enjoy the health and happiness of his family, specifically his daughter Betsy (Hurd-Wood), while they still can. Shortly thereafter a series of strange noises, moving objects, and other poltergeist-like behavior begin to both the Bell family. Worse yet, Betsy begins suffering from night terrors and unexplainable, evil forces in the night, causing her to lose sleep. As the situation grows worse, mother Lucy Bell (Spacek) and even the schoolteacher Richard Powell (James D'Arcy) try finding logical reasons to the happenings until they can only accept that this haunting has been brought on by some curse. But is Kate Batts behind the terrible plague, or are sinners simply being brought to justice?
I was really rooting for this movie, but at the end it just didn't deliver. While watching, I even realized that I had seen this movie or at least parts of it years ago on TV or something; not too memorable I guess. Not much to say here, but here we go:
The whole movie is set up to appear to be a haunting coming from a curse placed upon the Bell family by the bitter neighbor who is also a witch. There is some fun American superstition and history built in here - leave it to slaves to know details of how curses work I guess... - but I also found myself questioning some of the activities and items shown to be around in 1817 or whatever year this movie takes place. What might draw a viewer to this movie is that good, wholesome, frontier setting. The costumes and sets were interesting, but then the whole period issue really starting affecting the movie in my book. I think what perhaps most prevents this movie from being scary is the fact that the characters in their bonnets and cravats become almost too cartoonish to really allow any terror to set in. I liked Sissy Spacek as the mother, but everyone else was too weird, too ridiculous, even. At times, it truly felt as though even the actors weren't buying it. I was especially bugged by Sutherland, and I can't tell you why- other than the fact that his hair was really bizarre and if that was a wig/ supposed to be a wig it made him look over the top. The speech and dialogue became awkward sometimes even when they weren't trying to imitate 19th-century speech/ not doing a good job imitating 19th-century speech. I kept wanting to be scared, but it was impossible with these kooky settlers running around.
I'm torn about how the ghost/ spirit/ (nothing) was portrayed as we were so often set behind its eyes and allowed to see the happenings in black and white. Part of me says "okay this is cool" where as the rest (and maybe majority) of me is like "stop trying to do cool effects and focus on actually making the scary scenes scary." Every incident started becoming the same; I fell asleep at one point and couldn't tell which sequences I had seen and which ones I had not. How many times can we sit through Betsy's sheets being pulled off, her arms and legs being held to the bed, whispering getting louder, then Betsy being pulled into the air and slapped around, which some tell-tale blood on her nightgown at the end? Do we ever even seen any sort of spirit or is it always invisible - and then if they've wasted all this time with some 'spirit,' the surprise resolution of the haunting (which I admit I sort of liked) still remains almost frustrating, because what was real and what was not and how did supernatural things occur if everything only came from a suppressed, psychic source?
I really felt that the filmmakers here wanted to get some sort of message across, but in order to do so a lot of the actual happenings of the film were ignored or left unresolved. This film also relied heavily on horror motifs, repeating images, returning scares that keep us questioning 'why?' without really explaining anything until the end. The whole, "You brought this upon yourself" bit was good though; I enjoy movies where we are re-shown scenes from a different and revealing angle.
Final critique: This film isn't very scary although it is filled with plenty of confusing and loud haunting sequences. The plot can be interesting if you pay enough attention to follow, and the resolution (and ending) do add a kick to an otherwise droll film (droll but with a lot of action... it's confusing). I guess more so than actually scaring some viewers, the loud and 'violent' haunting scenes might sort of frighten you, if you can understand the difference, or at the very least make you uncomfortable. I wouldn't really recommend this film, but it's not bad to leave on in the background if you're having a half-hearted scary movie night.
Director: Courtney Solomon
Studios: Allan Zeman Productions, Midsummer Films, Remstar Productions
Starring: Rachel Hurd-Wood, Donald Sutherland, Sissy Spacek
Tagline: Possessions Knows No Bounds
MPAA Rating: PG-13
Genre: horror, terror, thriller, drama, haunting, possession, surprise ending
Scare score: D+
Rating: D
Plot overview: In present day Tennessee, a mother wakes her daughter from a nightmare, and then gets to reading a long note written by an ancestor. Back in the early 1800s, the respectable John Bell (Sutherland) loses his good reputation after being accused of breaking church law by means of usury against his scornful neighbor, the supposed witch Kate Batts (Gaye Brown). Kate then warns Bell to enjoy the health and happiness of his family, specifically his daughter Betsy (Hurd-Wood), while they still can. Shortly thereafter a series of strange noises, moving objects, and other poltergeist-like behavior begin to both the Bell family. Worse yet, Betsy begins suffering from night terrors and unexplainable, evil forces in the night, causing her to lose sleep. As the situation grows worse, mother Lucy Bell (Spacek) and even the schoolteacher Richard Powell (James D'Arcy) try finding logical reasons to the happenings until they can only accept that this haunting has been brought on by some curse. But is Kate Batts behind the terrible plague, or are sinners simply being brought to justice?
I was really rooting for this movie, but at the end it just didn't deliver. While watching, I even realized that I had seen this movie or at least parts of it years ago on TV or something; not too memorable I guess. Not much to say here, but here we go:
The whole movie is set up to appear to be a haunting coming from a curse placed upon the Bell family by the bitter neighbor who is also a witch. There is some fun American superstition and history built in here - leave it to slaves to know details of how curses work I guess... - but I also found myself questioning some of the activities and items shown to be around in 1817 or whatever year this movie takes place. What might draw a viewer to this movie is that good, wholesome, frontier setting. The costumes and sets were interesting, but then the whole period issue really starting affecting the movie in my book. I think what perhaps most prevents this movie from being scary is the fact that the characters in their bonnets and cravats become almost too cartoonish to really allow any terror to set in. I liked Sissy Spacek as the mother, but everyone else was too weird, too ridiculous, even. At times, it truly felt as though even the actors weren't buying it. I was especially bugged by Sutherland, and I can't tell you why- other than the fact that his hair was really bizarre and if that was a wig/ supposed to be a wig it made him look over the top. The speech and dialogue became awkward sometimes even when they weren't trying to imitate 19th-century speech/ not doing a good job imitating 19th-century speech. I kept wanting to be scared, but it was impossible with these kooky settlers running around.
I'm torn about how the ghost/ spirit/ (nothing) was portrayed as we were so often set behind its eyes and allowed to see the happenings in black and white. Part of me says "okay this is cool" where as the rest (and maybe majority) of me is like "stop trying to do cool effects and focus on actually making the scary scenes scary." Every incident started becoming the same; I fell asleep at one point and couldn't tell which sequences I had seen and which ones I had not. How many times can we sit through Betsy's sheets being pulled off, her arms and legs being held to the bed, whispering getting louder, then Betsy being pulled into the air and slapped around, which some tell-tale blood on her nightgown at the end? Do we ever even seen any sort of spirit or is it always invisible - and then if they've wasted all this time with some 'spirit,' the surprise resolution of the haunting (which I admit I sort of liked) still remains almost frustrating, because what was real and what was not and how did supernatural things occur if everything only came from a suppressed, psychic source?
I really felt that the filmmakers here wanted to get some sort of message across, but in order to do so a lot of the actual happenings of the film were ignored or left unresolved. This film also relied heavily on horror motifs, repeating images, returning scares that keep us questioning 'why?' without really explaining anything until the end. The whole, "You brought this upon yourself" bit was good though; I enjoy movies where we are re-shown scenes from a different and revealing angle.
Final critique: This film isn't very scary although it is filled with plenty of confusing and loud haunting sequences. The plot can be interesting if you pay enough attention to follow, and the resolution (and ending) do add a kick to an otherwise droll film (droll but with a lot of action... it's confusing). I guess more so than actually scaring some viewers, the loud and 'violent' haunting scenes might sort of frighten you, if you can understand the difference, or at the very least make you uncomfortable. I wouldn't really recommend this film, but it's not bad to leave on in the background if you're having a half-hearted scary movie night.
Thursday, September 5, 2013
The Possession (2012)
GENERAL INFO:
Director: Ole Bornedal
Studios: Ghost House Pictures, North Box Productions
Starring: Natasha Calis, Jeffrey Dean Morgan, Madison Davenport, Kyra Sedgwick
Tagline: Fear the Demon that Doesn't Fear God.
MPAA Rating: PG-13
Genre: horror, thriller, family drama, possession, exorcism, religious occult
Scare score: B
Rating: B+
Plot overview: After buying a strange, antique wooden box from a yard sale, young Emily Brenek (Calis) begins to become obsessed with the item. As her health, mood, and personality all begin to alter, her recently divorced parents - father Clyde (Morgan) and mother Stephanie (Sedgwick) - grow more concerned although only Clyde realizes that Em's problems might stem from the mysterious box. After investigating into Jewish folklore, Clyde learns that the box was inhabited by a dybbuk that is now taking over his daughter.
Just in time for the high holidays, I stumbled upon this good picture late last night. Although I know I've seen bits and pieces of it (or otherwise psychically predicted the fork scene), I had never seen the entire movie. Let's start at the very beginning:
"Based on a true story." The 5 words I hate most at the beginning of any horror movie. The poster proudly displays it, and the opening credits of the movie boast it, too. The length filmmakers will go through today to say that their movie is based on a true story is really astounding, but I guess it must be worth it in the market. As far as my research tells me, the "true story" behind The Possession is that the 'dybbuk box' actually exists, has been bought or sold on ebay on at least one occasion, and is now hidden in a secret place because the it gave the various owners nightmares. Now I'm not going to lie, it's pretty cool that this box exists - a major plus for the movie was this beautiful prop; I especially loved the size and detail. BUT the fact of the matter is that there never was an Emily, nor a Clyde, nor a Tzadok (Matisyahu). Looks like I just debunked that dybbuk.
*SPOILER ALERT*
Truth or fantasy aside, I enjoyed the plot once it finally developed. What we have here is a tale of divorce and how the children are reacting to it. While the older Hannah (Davenport) has already learned to suck it up and cope with the fact that mommy and daddy aren't friends anymore, Em is still naive and remains hopeful that somehow they will get back together. Which brings about my theory: the family simply experienced a group hallucination while Emily faked everything in order to mend her broken family - and it worked.
But what I really thought this movie had going for it was the Jewish folklore instead of our typical, washed up Christian possession - and I mean that. If you've read this blog before you know that Horror Buff pretty much hates all religious possession/ exorcism movies because they are overkill and rarely bring us any new creative or intellectual material. That being said, I walked into this movie as a skeptic, even though I knew the co-producer here was the versatile Sam Raimi. From the get go we know that this box is haunted somehow by something, and we realize the victim will be Em (especially when she wears that ring that no one ever mentions and it turns her hand green... like okay Dumbledore). What we don't expect is that all of the sudden it's not just your average ghost and not even your average demon but a dybbuk - and not just any dybbuk but our dear friend Abyzou, the childbirth demon AND a female (girl power!) I mean yeah, we've seen dybbuks in I think in The Unborn so this isn't an entirely new concept in modern horror, but it's still a different one which makes way for new plot and a different kind of exorcism.
The acting was fine in this movie. I didn't think Morgan was really anything special even though there's tons of good stuff written about him online. He never bothered me and I rather liked him, but in the scene where he pleads to that Jewish council asking them for help I thought he did a really poor job. Calis was a real pleasure to watch in this demanding role, and I enjoyed her being sweet, normal Em just as much as I did her screaming, angry possessed side. Davenport in the role of the older, no BS sister Hannah was really talented, and I enjoyed her performance quite a bit. Together, the girls made convincing sisters. Then again I don't have a sister, so what do I know?
As far as the haunting/ possession goes, that's where most of this movie's thrills come from. We have a smorgasbord of creepy happenings like the terrible bugs, the fingers in the back of the throat (ah!), and the eyes rolling backwards or sideways or any which way that was pretty nasty on several occasions. Seems to me like all these spooks would freak out your general audience.
Final critique: I'm making this a short entry because Horror Buff needs a nap. Again, the best thing this movie has going for it is the whole Jewish mysticism bit; for once it isn't satan, it's my dybbuk in a box! The scares are plentiful and diverse with good effects, which would definitely freak out your typical alone-at-home-in-the-dark viewer. So go check out this film, which isn't so much "based on a true story" as it is "based on a true box."
Director: Ole Bornedal
Studios: Ghost House Pictures, North Box Productions
Starring: Natasha Calis, Jeffrey Dean Morgan, Madison Davenport, Kyra Sedgwick
Tagline: Fear the Demon that Doesn't Fear God.
MPAA Rating: PG-13
Genre: horror, thriller, family drama, possession, exorcism, religious occult
Scare score: B
Rating: B+
Plot overview: After buying a strange, antique wooden box from a yard sale, young Emily Brenek (Calis) begins to become obsessed with the item. As her health, mood, and personality all begin to alter, her recently divorced parents - father Clyde (Morgan) and mother Stephanie (Sedgwick) - grow more concerned although only Clyde realizes that Em's problems might stem from the mysterious box. After investigating into Jewish folklore, Clyde learns that the box was inhabited by a dybbuk that is now taking over his daughter.
Just in time for the high holidays, I stumbled upon this good picture late last night. Although I know I've seen bits and pieces of it (or otherwise psychically predicted the fork scene), I had never seen the entire movie. Let's start at the very beginning:
"Based on a true story." The 5 words I hate most at the beginning of any horror movie. The poster proudly displays it, and the opening credits of the movie boast it, too. The length filmmakers will go through today to say that their movie is based on a true story is really astounding, but I guess it must be worth it in the market. As far as my research tells me, the "true story" behind The Possession is that the 'dybbuk box' actually exists, has been bought or sold on ebay on at least one occasion, and is now hidden in a secret place because the it gave the various owners nightmares. Now I'm not going to lie, it's pretty cool that this box exists - a major plus for the movie was this beautiful prop; I especially loved the size and detail. BUT the fact of the matter is that there never was an Emily, nor a Clyde, nor a Tzadok (Matisyahu). Looks like I just debunked that dybbuk.
*SPOILER ALERT*
Truth or fantasy aside, I enjoyed the plot once it finally developed. What we have here is a tale of divorce and how the children are reacting to it. While the older Hannah (Davenport) has already learned to suck it up and cope with the fact that mommy and daddy aren't friends anymore, Em is still naive and remains hopeful that somehow they will get back together. Which brings about my theory: the family simply experienced a group hallucination while Emily faked everything in order to mend her broken family - and it worked.
But what I really thought this movie had going for it was the Jewish folklore instead of our typical, washed up Christian possession - and I mean that. If you've read this blog before you know that Horror Buff pretty much hates all religious possession/ exorcism movies because they are overkill and rarely bring us any new creative or intellectual material. That being said, I walked into this movie as a skeptic, even though I knew the co-producer here was the versatile Sam Raimi. From the get go we know that this box is haunted somehow by something, and we realize the victim will be Em (especially when she wears that ring that no one ever mentions and it turns her hand green... like okay Dumbledore). What we don't expect is that all of the sudden it's not just your average ghost and not even your average demon but a dybbuk - and not just any dybbuk but our dear friend Abyzou, the childbirth demon AND a female (girl power!) I mean yeah, we've seen dybbuks in I think in The Unborn so this isn't an entirely new concept in modern horror, but it's still a different one which makes way for new plot and a different kind of exorcism.
The acting was fine in this movie. I didn't think Morgan was really anything special even though there's tons of good stuff written about him online. He never bothered me and I rather liked him, but in the scene where he pleads to that Jewish council asking them for help I thought he did a really poor job. Calis was a real pleasure to watch in this demanding role, and I enjoyed her being sweet, normal Em just as much as I did her screaming, angry possessed side. Davenport in the role of the older, no BS sister Hannah was really talented, and I enjoyed her performance quite a bit. Together, the girls made convincing sisters. Then again I don't have a sister, so what do I know?
As far as the haunting/ possession goes, that's where most of this movie's thrills come from. We have a smorgasbord of creepy happenings like the terrible bugs, the fingers in the back of the throat (ah!), and the eyes rolling backwards or sideways or any which way that was pretty nasty on several occasions. Seems to me like all these spooks would freak out your general audience.
Final critique: I'm making this a short entry because Horror Buff needs a nap. Again, the best thing this movie has going for it is the whole Jewish mysticism bit; for once it isn't satan, it's my dybbuk in a box! The scares are plentiful and diverse with good effects, which would definitely freak out your typical alone-at-home-in-the-dark viewer. So go check out this film, which isn't so much "based on a true story" as it is "based on a true box."
Wednesday, September 4, 2013
The Awakening (2011)
GENERAL INFO:
Director: Nick Murphy
Studios: BBC Films, StudioCanal UK, Creative Scotland
Starring: Rebecca Hall, Isaac Hempstead Wright, Imelda Staunton, Dominic West
Tagline: All the Children Are Gone... Except One.
MPAA Rating: R
Genre: foreign film, horror, thriller, drama, ghost, surprise ending
Scare score: B-
Rating: A
Plot overview: In this classic English ghost tale, Florence Cathcart (Hall) is a paranormal investigator who has dedicated her professional life to disproving hoaxes and supernatural cons following the terrible loss of WWI. After being called to a Rookford boarding school to investigate the death of one student and the possible haunting of another, Florence's logic will be tested as her emotions and memories are challenged by the living and the dead.
I thought this film was so great, but as you know by now I am a sucker for ghost stories. This is a lovely period piece, basically your classic English ghost tale (which I am a huge fan of), so in my book it was a recipe for success from the beginning. I have to admit I wasn't blown away by the film, and a few times it had me worried that it was taking some odd or bad turn, but it certainly kept me on the edge of my seat (er, bed) right up until the open (and confusing?) ending.
The setting, indoor and outdoor shots, and cinematography are all beautiful. The Manderston House was a beautiful backdrop to this ghost story, and the aftermath of WWI was a somber setting - I liked at the beginning when it was called "a time for ghosts." The entire film had a sort of pale, green lighting, like being underwater or just in the grey English countryside, so wouldn't you know that worked perfectly with the plot. The interior shots were really great; the furniture and details really beautiful, the tools used by Florence intriguing and spooky, and all the chase scenes through dark, twisting hallways and tunnels made the film more suspenseful.
The characters were really great, too, like characters in a story you might read instead of just a movie you're watching. I was surprised to see the talented Miss Staunton in the role of Maud, the school matron/ housekeeper I was suspicious about from the beginning. It drove me wild the entire film as I couldn't place where I knew the young and really talented Hempstead Wright as Tom - after the film I was reminded that he is, of course, Bran Stark in Game of Thrones. I'm sure we'll see more of him. I like Rebecca Hall a lot, and I thought she made for a nice character, although her acting job wasn't the greatest thing I've ever seen. She was, however, certainly appropriate.
The best thing about this film aside from the setting was that the plot kept twisting and turning, even if it was with extra/ unnecessary plot just to throw us off. Ever since I was little I couldn't really enjoy a horror movie because from the first scene I was already solving who was the killer and how and why, which horror movies almost aways make easily apparent for anybody used to your typical plot. (One problem with the horror movie industry, I suppose, is that we've seen all this stuff before so what is new and what really grabs our attention? Today, unfortunately, movie makers - and audiences - have turned to that gore-porn to keep them satisfied. I'm much happier with a good plot.) Well as hard as I tried, I overlooked a lot of hints that this movie was - or was not - throwing at us. To be honest I wasn't paying tons of attention to the film what with dinner and my family about, so I think that if I had watched it in the dark and alone without distractions it would have ranked a higher scare score.
Of course as with any ghost movie we're expecting some sort of plot twist. I was hoping this wasn't going to pull a The Others (these two movies are like siblings - PS I was supposed to blog about The Others a few months back... sorry), but I really wasn't sure who was going to be dead or alive or sane or crazy or what. We knew Florence's opinions and logic were going to be tested - we've seen the whole non-believer deal before - but I wasn't ultimately expecting what was revealed to have happened. It really made for a cool twist ending and a cool plot in general. This movie played with the blurred lines between the living and the dead, and who is capable of what, and I truly enjoyed that.
Again I admit the ending had me confused, which I'm sure was on purpose as a few things are left open, and I know my opinion although I'm not even 100% I believe in it! Understandably I'm being confusing, so you'll have to watch the movie for yourself to decide.
Final critique: I highly, highly recommend this film. It is enjoyable, and there is so much more to it than jumps and screams, therefore making it a horror film that more general audiences could appreciate. This is a great gateway film for those viewers who find most horror movies too scary as there is some great suspense but only a few truly scary moments; otherwise there is a lovely English ghost story making up the rest of the plot. A real gem that I'm glad to have stumbled upon!
Director: Nick Murphy
Studios: BBC Films, StudioCanal UK, Creative Scotland
Starring: Rebecca Hall, Isaac Hempstead Wright, Imelda Staunton, Dominic West
Tagline: All the Children Are Gone... Except One.
MPAA Rating: R
Genre: foreign film, horror, thriller, drama, ghost, surprise ending
Scare score: B-
Rating: A
Plot overview: In this classic English ghost tale, Florence Cathcart (Hall) is a paranormal investigator who has dedicated her professional life to disproving hoaxes and supernatural cons following the terrible loss of WWI. After being called to a Rookford boarding school to investigate the death of one student and the possible haunting of another, Florence's logic will be tested as her emotions and memories are challenged by the living and the dead.
I thought this film was so great, but as you know by now I am a sucker for ghost stories. This is a lovely period piece, basically your classic English ghost tale (which I am a huge fan of), so in my book it was a recipe for success from the beginning. I have to admit I wasn't blown away by the film, and a few times it had me worried that it was taking some odd or bad turn, but it certainly kept me on the edge of my seat (er, bed) right up until the open (and confusing?) ending.
The setting, indoor and outdoor shots, and cinematography are all beautiful. The Manderston House was a beautiful backdrop to this ghost story, and the aftermath of WWI was a somber setting - I liked at the beginning when it was called "a time for ghosts." The entire film had a sort of pale, green lighting, like being underwater or just in the grey English countryside, so wouldn't you know that worked perfectly with the plot. The interior shots were really great; the furniture and details really beautiful, the tools used by Florence intriguing and spooky, and all the chase scenes through dark, twisting hallways and tunnels made the film more suspenseful.
The characters were really great, too, like characters in a story you might read instead of just a movie you're watching. I was surprised to see the talented Miss Staunton in the role of Maud, the school matron/ housekeeper I was suspicious about from the beginning. It drove me wild the entire film as I couldn't place where I knew the young and really talented Hempstead Wright as Tom - after the film I was reminded that he is, of course, Bran Stark in Game of Thrones. I'm sure we'll see more of him. I like Rebecca Hall a lot, and I thought she made for a nice character, although her acting job wasn't the greatest thing I've ever seen. She was, however, certainly appropriate.
The best thing about this film aside from the setting was that the plot kept twisting and turning, even if it was with extra/ unnecessary plot just to throw us off. Ever since I was little I couldn't really enjoy a horror movie because from the first scene I was already solving who was the killer and how and why, which horror movies almost aways make easily apparent for anybody used to your typical plot. (One problem with the horror movie industry, I suppose, is that we've seen all this stuff before so what is new and what really grabs our attention? Today, unfortunately, movie makers - and audiences - have turned to that gore-porn to keep them satisfied. I'm much happier with a good plot.) Well as hard as I tried, I overlooked a lot of hints that this movie was - or was not - throwing at us. To be honest I wasn't paying tons of attention to the film what with dinner and my family about, so I think that if I had watched it in the dark and alone without distractions it would have ranked a higher scare score.
Of course as with any ghost movie we're expecting some sort of plot twist. I was hoping this wasn't going to pull a The Others (these two movies are like siblings - PS I was supposed to blog about The Others a few months back... sorry), but I really wasn't sure who was going to be dead or alive or sane or crazy or what. We knew Florence's opinions and logic were going to be tested - we've seen the whole non-believer deal before - but I wasn't ultimately expecting what was revealed to have happened. It really made for a cool twist ending and a cool plot in general. This movie played with the blurred lines between the living and the dead, and who is capable of what, and I truly enjoyed that.
Again I admit the ending had me confused, which I'm sure was on purpose as a few things are left open, and I know my opinion although I'm not even 100% I believe in it! Understandably I'm being confusing, so you'll have to watch the movie for yourself to decide.
Final critique: I highly, highly recommend this film. It is enjoyable, and there is so much more to it than jumps and screams, therefore making it a horror film that more general audiences could appreciate. This is a great gateway film for those viewers who find most horror movies too scary as there is some great suspense but only a few truly scary moments; otherwise there is a lovely English ghost story making up the rest of the plot. A real gem that I'm glad to have stumbled upon!
Saturday, August 31, 2013
August Review
For your consideration:
1. Wishmaster (1997): A
2. Human Centipede (First Sequence) (2010): A-
3. Funny Games (1997): A-
4. Waxwork (1988): B+
5. The Exorcism of Emily Rose (2005): C-
6. Wishmaster 4: The Prophecy Fulfilled (2002): D+
7. Wishmaster 3: Beyond the Gates of Hell (2001): D-
8. Victim (2010): D-
9. Wishmaster 2: Evil Never Dies (1999): F
1. Wishmaster (1997): A
2. Human Centipede (First Sequence) (2010): A-
3. Funny Games (1997): A-
4. Waxwork (1988): B+
5. The Exorcism of Emily Rose (2005): C-
6. Wishmaster 4: The Prophecy Fulfilled (2002): D+
7. Wishmaster 3: Beyond the Gates of Hell (2001): D-
8. Victim (2010): D-
9. Wishmaster 2: Evil Never Dies (1999): F
Thursday, August 29, 2013
Wishmaster 4: The Prophecy Fulfilled (2002)
GENERAL INFO:
Director: Chris Angel
Studios: Overseas Film Group, Artisan Entertainment
Starring: Tara Spencer-Nairn, Michael Trucco, John Novak, Jason Thompson
Tagline: Leave No Soul Unturned
MPAA Rating: R
Genre: horror, thriller, folklore, religious occult
Scare score: F
Rating: D+
Plot overview: In the final installment of the Wishmaster movies, the djinn (Novak) has returned yet again to unleash his race unto the human world. Roused from the stone by Lisa (Spencer-Nairn), the djinn takes the human form of his first victim, Lisa's lawyer Steven (Trucco), in order to gain her trust. This time, Lisa makes all three of her wishes, but when love comes into the picture, the djinn will have a harder time than he expected to fulfill the evil prophecy.
Now that this movie is over, only this blog post is keeping me from bed. At this point I don't know why they bothered with a fourth straight-to-video movie, but I did read it was filmed only a week after the previous film. Two bad birds with one stone I guess.
*SPOILER ALERT*
I didn't dislike this movie actually. It's nothing special, but unlike the third film I found the plot much more compelling. Based on the title alone I figured that the 'awaker' would make her three wishes this time, and I was hoping we would see some other djinn (which we did! a little monster peanut gallery tucked away in the flame, but hey). The cool part was the third wish itself. I really liked the whole love bit which then put the power of the fulfillment of the third wish in the hands (or heart) of Lisa herself because of her free will. The plot thickens!
The djinn costume didn't seem as bad in this movie, but he certainly seemed softer as a character. Certainly he didn't try as ruthlessly to collect three wishes from the person who woke him up, and he didn't lose his patience until the very end. Deaths were less creative and gore wasn't as plentiful as in other films.
Final critique: Now that I'm done with the series I hope it doesn't affect my fondness for the first installment. This wasn't an awful film but it was cheesy and the general audience certainly wouldn't like it. Like the last film, I wouldn't really recommend this unless you are simply trying to complete the Wishmaster movie marathon.
The first one was good so I got hopeful. Just goes to show you, be careful what you wish for.
Director: Chris Angel
Studios: Overseas Film Group, Artisan Entertainment
Starring: Tara Spencer-Nairn, Michael Trucco, John Novak, Jason Thompson
Tagline: Leave No Soul Unturned
MPAA Rating: R
Genre: horror, thriller, folklore, religious occult
Scare score: F
Rating: D+
Now that this movie is over, only this blog post is keeping me from bed. At this point I don't know why they bothered with a fourth straight-to-video movie, but I did read it was filmed only a week after the previous film. Two bad birds with one stone I guess.
*SPOILER ALERT*
I didn't dislike this movie actually. It's nothing special, but unlike the third film I found the plot much more compelling. Based on the title alone I figured that the 'awaker' would make her three wishes this time, and I was hoping we would see some other djinn (which we did! a little monster peanut gallery tucked away in the flame, but hey). The cool part was the third wish itself. I really liked the whole love bit which then put the power of the fulfillment of the third wish in the hands (or heart) of Lisa herself because of her free will. The plot thickens!
The djinn costume didn't seem as bad in this movie, but he certainly seemed softer as a character. Certainly he didn't try as ruthlessly to collect three wishes from the person who woke him up, and he didn't lose his patience until the very end. Deaths were less creative and gore wasn't as plentiful as in other films.
Final critique: Now that I'm done with the series I hope it doesn't affect my fondness for the first installment. This wasn't an awful film but it was cheesy and the general audience certainly wouldn't like it. Like the last film, I wouldn't really recommend this unless you are simply trying to complete the Wishmaster movie marathon.
The first one was good so I got hopeful. Just goes to show you, be careful what you wish for.
Wednesday, August 28, 2013
Wishmaster 3: Beyond the Gates of Hell (2001)
GENERAL INFO:
Director: Chris Angel
Studios: Overseas FilmGroup, Artisan Entertainment
Starring: A.J. Cook, Jason Connery, Tobias Mehler, John Novak
Tagline: Three Wishes, One Nightmare
MPAA Rating: R
Genre: horror, thriller, folklore, religious occult, college
Scare score: D-
Rating: D-
Plot overview: The wishmaster (Novak) is back again, this time awoken by the wholehearted college student Diana Collins (Cook). In his pursuit for Diana's wishes and therefore the freedom of his evil race, the djinn takes the form of Professor Barash (Connery) in order to track down his victims without drawing attention. This time, however, the djinn must battle powerful forces of good, but who is the only one that can try and stop him?
I didn't hate this movie as much as the second one, but I suppose that by this point my expectations had already been lowered. This time around we have a totally different djinn, be that plot or the poor change of makeup and lack of continuity. In fact, we don't actually see the djinn in his true, bad-costumed self, but rather in the Professor's body the entire time (gee that must help with the budget), not that Connery was anything special (letting his dad down just like Diana in her childhood car accident...oops too soon for her traumatic childhood which causes her trust issues now? Excuse me while I puke... but actually, Horror Buff has a stomach bug at the moment).
Here we have your typical college movie: the group of friends (50% guys, 50% girls), as usual two couples each with a unique personality. Diana is our virgin of course, with the kindhearted but frustrated boyfriend, a girl best friend who is sexually active and a little crazy, and her sex-driven boyfriend. We've never seen anything like that before... Each classroom scene is filled with literary allusions that just so happen to relate to our plot, and during killing sprees the rest of the school is off partying. Cliche cliche cliche.
I read a theory online that this is supposed to be a totally different djinn than the previous films, which I like an accept due to a lack of continuity regarding the fire opal and the djinn himself. He acts totally different yet again, acting as more of the devil himself than merely one demon, and this time around he is able to hurt people even when they don't necessarily wish it.
This movie takes a weird turn when Diana wishes that the spirit of St. Michael - who takes the bodily form of Diana's dedicated boyfriend Greg (Mehler) - to come help stop the wishmaster. That's new for me! Of course not even the archangel is a cure-all, and Diana must take on the djinn pretty much by herself in a final rooftop battle *yawn*.
The best thing about this movie is A.J. Cook because Criminal Minds is my jam. The gore is also pretty decent and I think there was a death scene I liked but honestly I can't remember anymore, so I guess it couldn't have been too great. Come to think of it, one girl wishes to lose weight and as you might imagine, things get pretty gruesome.
Final critique: This movie wasn't awful but there's no need to ever watch it unless you're just really into djinn or otherwise stuck in a movie marathon like I am. The Wishmaster series continues to go downhill in this installment which depends heavily on sex-driven college kids and a bad, corny script to get us through eighty-nine minutes of cliches - well, except for the whole archangel bit. Still it had a few scares and some gore, so at least it kept things entertaining.
Director: Chris Angel
Studios: Overseas FilmGroup, Artisan Entertainment
Starring: A.J. Cook, Jason Connery, Tobias Mehler, John Novak
Tagline: Three Wishes, One Nightmare
MPAA Rating: R
Genre: horror, thriller, folklore, religious occult, college
Scare score: D-
Rating: D-
Plot overview: The wishmaster (Novak) is back again, this time awoken by the wholehearted college student Diana Collins (Cook). In his pursuit for Diana's wishes and therefore the freedom of his evil race, the djinn takes the form of Professor Barash (Connery) in order to track down his victims without drawing attention. This time, however, the djinn must battle powerful forces of good, but who is the only one that can try and stop him?
I didn't hate this movie as much as the second one, but I suppose that by this point my expectations had already been lowered. This time around we have a totally different djinn, be that plot or the poor change of makeup and lack of continuity. In fact, we don't actually see the djinn in his true, bad-costumed self, but rather in the Professor's body the entire time (gee that must help with the budget), not that Connery was anything special (letting his dad down just like Diana in her childhood car accident...oops too soon for her traumatic childhood which causes her trust issues now? Excuse me while I puke... but actually, Horror Buff has a stomach bug at the moment).
Here we have your typical college movie: the group of friends (50% guys, 50% girls), as usual two couples each with a unique personality. Diana is our virgin of course, with the kindhearted but frustrated boyfriend, a girl best friend who is sexually active and a little crazy, and her sex-driven boyfriend. We've never seen anything like that before... Each classroom scene is filled with literary allusions that just so happen to relate to our plot, and during killing sprees the rest of the school is off partying. Cliche cliche cliche.
I read a theory online that this is supposed to be a totally different djinn than the previous films, which I like an accept due to a lack of continuity regarding the fire opal and the djinn himself. He acts totally different yet again, acting as more of the devil himself than merely one demon, and this time around he is able to hurt people even when they don't necessarily wish it.
This movie takes a weird turn when Diana wishes that the spirit of St. Michael - who takes the bodily form of Diana's dedicated boyfriend Greg (Mehler) - to come help stop the wishmaster. That's new for me! Of course not even the archangel is a cure-all, and Diana must take on the djinn pretty much by herself in a final rooftop battle *yawn*.
The best thing about this movie is A.J. Cook because Criminal Minds is my jam. The gore is also pretty decent and I think there was a death scene I liked but honestly I can't remember anymore, so I guess it couldn't have been too great. Come to think of it, one girl wishes to lose weight and as you might imagine, things get pretty gruesome.
Final critique: This movie wasn't awful but there's no need to ever watch it unless you're just really into djinn or otherwise stuck in a movie marathon like I am. The Wishmaster series continues to go downhill in this installment which depends heavily on sex-driven college kids and a bad, corny script to get us through eighty-nine minutes of cliches - well, except for the whole archangel bit. Still it had a few scares and some gore, so at least it kept things entertaining.
Wishmaster 2: Evil Never Dies (1999)
GENERAL INFO:
Director: Jack Sholder
Studios: Artisan Entertainment
Starring: Andrew Divoff, Holly Fields, Paul Johansson
Tagline: Evil Has Been Summoned... Again!
MPAA Rating: R
Genre: horror, thriller, folklore, religious occult
Scare score: F
Rating: F
Plot overview: After being summoned back into the human world by an unsuspecting thief Morgana (Fields), the djinn (Divoff) continues his mission to fulfill the prophecy to bring about an apocalypse at the hands of his race. Morgana turns to her ex-flame-turned-priest Gregory (Johansson) to stop the evil genie from collecting 1,000 souls and bringing the rest of the djinn into the world.
This movie was awful and I wasn't even going to blog about it except that there is a Wishmaster marathon on TV (literally be careful what you wish for...) so I figured why not?
This is a made-for-TV movie and it certainly feels like it, if not an episode of Are You Afraid of the Dark? which I would prefer to have watched. The script is bad, the acting is bad, the plot is bad, and worst of all it makes a lot of the errors that I thought the first movie neatly avoided. It furthermore opens up too many plot holes that a viewer can't easily ignore.
For example, this movie draws in some dumb comedy that can so easily ruin a horror movie. In the beginning of the movie, a cop yells at the djinn "Freeze!" First of all this is a command, not a wish, and second of all it is directed at the djinn to do to himself. Although the djinn never listens to anyone else's command without specifying that they wish something of him, he manages to freeze this cop, and then declares "He needed to chill out," a line straight out of Schwarzenegger's mouth in Batman & Robin from two years earlier.
In fact, Divoff, his character, and even his M.O. were almost totally changed in this movie. I hated Divoff so so so much. He was creepy and irritating, and reminded me of some nerdy pricks that I met in college. Whereas in the first movie the djinn spoke as though he were, in fact, coming out of the neo-Persian empire well before the Early Middle Ages, in this movie Divoff was a slick, quick-speaking, modern business man... with a really annoying, self-satisfied, Jack Torrance grin stuck on his face. The whole plot involves so much sex which is typical of horror movies of this caliber, from the nude art-stricken walls of Morgana's apartment to her nightly lack of pajamas to her love for Gregory. Furthermore, the movie takes this wild, religious turn (Jesus imagery? stigmata? really and why?) with Morgana becoming some pure-of-heart virgin with some apparent tie to the prophecy because of her orthodox religion or because she awakened the djinn - we're never really sure.
Something annoying about this movie is that you can almost tell that the writers (and Divoff) think the whole thing is so clever. I guess they were following the lighter, more comical standards of horror movies from the time, but it gives no credit to the film. The whole casino thing was embarrassing, strange, and over the top. It doesn't even begin to touch the opening or ending sequence in the first film.
Final critique: Oh well, now I'm stuck in the middle of a 4-installment series that will probably only get worse. This is the kind of movie that gives the horror genre a bad rep, so while I wouldn't recommend it I guess I'd say it's still not the worst horror movie I've seen and at no point did I want to stop watching it. I guess give it a try if you're looking for something dopey; there is some gore so if you're not into that, it's only a win-win if you stay away.
Director: Jack Sholder
Studios: Artisan Entertainment
Starring: Andrew Divoff, Holly Fields, Paul Johansson
Tagline: Evil Has Been Summoned... Again!
MPAA Rating: R
Genre: horror, thriller, folklore, religious occult
Scare score: F
Rating: F
Plot overview: After being summoned back into the human world by an unsuspecting thief Morgana (Fields), the djinn (Divoff) continues his mission to fulfill the prophecy to bring about an apocalypse at the hands of his race. Morgana turns to her ex-flame-turned-priest Gregory (Johansson) to stop the evil genie from collecting 1,000 souls and bringing the rest of the djinn into the world.
This movie was awful and I wasn't even going to blog about it except that there is a Wishmaster marathon on TV (literally be careful what you wish for...) so I figured why not?
This is a made-for-TV movie and it certainly feels like it, if not an episode of Are You Afraid of the Dark? which I would prefer to have watched. The script is bad, the acting is bad, the plot is bad, and worst of all it makes a lot of the errors that I thought the first movie neatly avoided. It furthermore opens up too many plot holes that a viewer can't easily ignore.
For example, this movie draws in some dumb comedy that can so easily ruin a horror movie. In the beginning of the movie, a cop yells at the djinn "Freeze!" First of all this is a command, not a wish, and second of all it is directed at the djinn to do to himself. Although the djinn never listens to anyone else's command without specifying that they wish something of him, he manages to freeze this cop, and then declares "He needed to chill out," a line straight out of Schwarzenegger's mouth in Batman & Robin from two years earlier.
In fact, Divoff, his character, and even his M.O. were almost totally changed in this movie. I hated Divoff so so so much. He was creepy and irritating, and reminded me of some nerdy pricks that I met in college. Whereas in the first movie the djinn spoke as though he were, in fact, coming out of the neo-Persian empire well before the Early Middle Ages, in this movie Divoff was a slick, quick-speaking, modern business man... with a really annoying, self-satisfied, Jack Torrance grin stuck on his face. The whole plot involves so much sex which is typical of horror movies of this caliber, from the nude art-stricken walls of Morgana's apartment to her nightly lack of pajamas to her love for Gregory. Furthermore, the movie takes this wild, religious turn (Jesus imagery? stigmata? really and why?) with Morgana becoming some pure-of-heart virgin with some apparent tie to the prophecy because of her orthodox religion or because she awakened the djinn - we're never really sure.
Something annoying about this movie is that you can almost tell that the writers (and Divoff) think the whole thing is so clever. I guess they were following the lighter, more comical standards of horror movies from the time, but it gives no credit to the film. The whole casino thing was embarrassing, strange, and over the top. It doesn't even begin to touch the opening or ending sequence in the first film.
Final critique: Oh well, now I'm stuck in the middle of a 4-installment series that will probably only get worse. This is the kind of movie that gives the horror genre a bad rep, so while I wouldn't recommend it I guess I'd say it's still not the worst horror movie I've seen and at no point did I want to stop watching it. I guess give it a try if you're looking for something dopey; there is some gore so if you're not into that, it's only a win-win if you stay away.
Wishmaster (1997)
GENERAL INFO:
Director: Robert Kurtzman
Studios: Pierre David, Image Organization
Starring: Tammy Lauren, Andrew Divoff, Robert Englund
Tagline: Be Careful What You Wish For.
MPAA Rating: R
Genre: horror, supernatural thriller, folklore, religious occult
Scare score: C-
Rating: A-
Plot overview: After centuries of being trapped inside the magical fire opal, an evil djinn (Divoff) is finally released into "present day" Los Angeles by an unsuspecting Alexandra (Lauren). Ultimately, the evil entity must track Alexandra down in order to grant her three wishes which will release the rest of the destructive race of the djinn from their realm between worlds. Along the way, however, he collects the souls of other victims slowly and painfully by tricking them into asking for a wish. The fate of the world lies in Alex's hands as she plays the djinn's terrible game, hoping to outsmart him before making her third and final wish.
While laying here sick in bed, I came across Wishmaster 3 on TV and realized that I had never seen any of these movies aside from their VHS cases on the shelves of Blockbuster back in my youth. So with all the time in the world ahead of me, I flipped off the TV and went straight to the internet.
I, uh, really liked this movie. I'm a sucker for big movie plots and romance and cool sets and costumes, so the opening sequence in Persia alone had me hooked. The first thing that strikes you about this movie aside from the sort of mystical plot (which, aside from the whole wishing bit, I found to be pretty closely related to what I had learned about jinn—ghosts of sorts that linger between worlds but often interfere with humans in playful or malevolent ways—in a class I took on Islam in college) was the gore. There is plenty of fun, colorful gore in this movie that reminded me a lot of '80s horror (after all, Wes Craven's name is attached to this first film in the Wishmaster series), a mix of Hellraiser with perhaps some Nightmare on Elm Street. We're talking fun, explosive, makeup-heavy bodies with skeletons breaking out and goo pouring from every orifice, the type of gore that makes you smile but still feel just the slightest bit queasy. I thought the gore was so creative and the costumes and makeup were excellent, specifically in the opening scene in Persia and Beaumont's (Englund) party towards the end of the film. I hope this film got some recognition for that.
The whole plot is just plain fun. The djinn/ genie himself is such an evil jerk we have to hate him. In his natural form is he is kind of scary, although I found his look to be a little too Star Wars meets Jeepers Creepers. Actually, adults with acne scars really freak me out, so I thought that the Nathaniel Demerest human form was even more creepy. I think the best thing they did with this djinn was keep him serious and not let him make any one liners like we see so often in the Leprechaun movies or even in Nightmare on Elm Street (sorry, Freddy). Keeping this genie meanie (I had to) allowed him to actually be a smart, formidable enemy.
Alexandra is a cool, likable leading lady with a sort of '90s girl power about her; we find her somewhere in between the hopeless, clueless, sexy horror movie girls from the '80s and the hopeless, clueless, sexy horror movie girls from the '00s. This girl is all about brain but with looks to boot; thankfully she is never exploited for her femininity, as overall this film stays away from the sex card. Her only fault is that she loves her family and friends, and almost throws away the well-being of the world to save their lives. So selfish! (Just kidding, it's a really tight situation.)
Hey there Robert Englund! Isn't he so evil looking even with no makeup on and while playing a perfectly ambivalent character? This movie has a few familiar faces that we love to see in our growing horror family, such as Tony Todd (Candyman himself!) who I love and Jenny O'Hara from Devil who has a great face and I wouldn't be surprised if we saw her in more movies in the future.
*SPOILER ALERT*
I guess my biggest issue with this film is that I thought the resolution brought up some pretty big plot holes. We've all seen Disney's Aladdin, and more importantly we've all seen Kazaam (coincidence that Wishmaster came out only a year later? I think not) so we know the yesses and nos regarding genies: they can't bring people back from the dead, they can't make people fall in love, and you can't wish for more wishes. Like duh this is so sophomoric why am I even reviewing it, right? Well Alex tries making the evil djinn kill himself, and she gets a bit too literal by saying "blow your brains out," and not to our surprise we find that the djinn cannot commit suicide/ die because he is older than time yadda yadda yadda. At the final climax of the film, however, Alex simply wishes one specific detail (omg because she studied newspapers!! so smart!!) that takes everyone back in time, preventing the djinn from being unleashed from the stone in the first place (for now). Okay... so there were a million other wishes that would have had the same positive result? What if I wished the djinn back into the stone? What if I wished he never was created? What if I wished he wasn't evil? What if I wished him powerless? What if I just politely asked him to stop? The third and final wish and the subsequent 'defeat' of Mr. Genie becomes a bit anti-climactic, and tons of plot holes are opened up. Oh well, at least we have room for a sequel now.
Favorite scene: Hands down, following Alex's second wish when she is returned safely back to her apartment (what a waste of a wish) and the djinn is leaving a message on her answering machine (classic 1997). In the middle of his threatening message, she picks up the phone and yells a forced "F*** you!" Oh snap girl you just shut that djinn djownn!
Final critique: I can see why people wouldn't like this movie. It can be borderline cheesy at times even though it avoids humor which so many horror movies of the '80s and '90s tended to include in some way. My response would be that this movie falls under the horror genre but not under terror. While the djinn is evil, he's a colorful '90s evil. This isn't a dark thriller that instills terror in our hearts by any means, but if you accept that this is a fun horror film, you will be thrilled by the plot and the plentiful gore. I recommend this movie for anybody looking for a fun, light horror with a few scares, but if you can't handle gore (even though it's not realistic), this isn't the movie for you.
Also, is The Horror Blog complete now since I referenced Kazaam? I think that's how life works.
Director: Robert Kurtzman
Studios: Pierre David, Image Organization
Starring: Tammy Lauren, Andrew Divoff, Robert Englund
Tagline: Be Careful What You Wish For.
MPAA Rating: R
Genre: horror, supernatural thriller, folklore, religious occult
Scare score: C-
Rating: A-
Plot overview: After centuries of being trapped inside the magical fire opal, an evil djinn (Divoff) is finally released into "present day" Los Angeles by an unsuspecting Alexandra (Lauren). Ultimately, the evil entity must track Alexandra down in order to grant her three wishes which will release the rest of the destructive race of the djinn from their realm between worlds. Along the way, however, he collects the souls of other victims slowly and painfully by tricking them into asking for a wish. The fate of the world lies in Alex's hands as she plays the djinn's terrible game, hoping to outsmart him before making her third and final wish.
While laying here sick in bed, I came across Wishmaster 3 on TV and realized that I had never seen any of these movies aside from their VHS cases on the shelves of Blockbuster back in my youth. So with all the time in the world ahead of me, I flipped off the TV and went straight to the internet.
I, uh, really liked this movie. I'm a sucker for big movie plots and romance and cool sets and costumes, so the opening sequence in Persia alone had me hooked. The first thing that strikes you about this movie aside from the sort of mystical plot (which, aside from the whole wishing bit, I found to be pretty closely related to what I had learned about jinn—ghosts of sorts that linger between worlds but often interfere with humans in playful or malevolent ways—in a class I took on Islam in college) was the gore. There is plenty of fun, colorful gore in this movie that reminded me a lot of '80s horror (after all, Wes Craven's name is attached to this first film in the Wishmaster series), a mix of Hellraiser with perhaps some Nightmare on Elm Street. We're talking fun, explosive, makeup-heavy bodies with skeletons breaking out and goo pouring from every orifice, the type of gore that makes you smile but still feel just the slightest bit queasy. I thought the gore was so creative and the costumes and makeup were excellent, specifically in the opening scene in Persia and Beaumont's (Englund) party towards the end of the film. I hope this film got some recognition for that.
The whole plot is just plain fun. The djinn/ genie himself is such an evil jerk we have to hate him. In his natural form is he is kind of scary, although I found his look to be a little too Star Wars meets Jeepers Creepers. Actually, adults with acne scars really freak me out, so I thought that the Nathaniel Demerest human form was even more creepy. I think the best thing they did with this djinn was keep him serious and not let him make any one liners like we see so often in the Leprechaun movies or even in Nightmare on Elm Street (sorry, Freddy). Keeping this genie meanie (I had to) allowed him to actually be a smart, formidable enemy.
Alexandra is a cool, likable leading lady with a sort of '90s girl power about her; we find her somewhere in between the hopeless, clueless, sexy horror movie girls from the '80s and the hopeless, clueless, sexy horror movie girls from the '00s. This girl is all about brain but with looks to boot; thankfully she is never exploited for her femininity, as overall this film stays away from the sex card. Her only fault is that she loves her family and friends, and almost throws away the well-being of the world to save their lives. So selfish! (Just kidding, it's a really tight situation.)
Hey there Robert Englund! Isn't he so evil looking even with no makeup on and while playing a perfectly ambivalent character? This movie has a few familiar faces that we love to see in our growing horror family, such as Tony Todd (Candyman himself!) who I love and Jenny O'Hara from Devil who has a great face and I wouldn't be surprised if we saw her in more movies in the future.
*SPOILER ALERT*
I guess my biggest issue with this film is that I thought the resolution brought up some pretty big plot holes. We've all seen Disney's Aladdin, and more importantly we've all seen Kazaam (coincidence that Wishmaster came out only a year later? I think not) so we know the yesses and nos regarding genies: they can't bring people back from the dead, they can't make people fall in love, and you can't wish for more wishes. Like duh this is so sophomoric why am I even reviewing it, right? Well Alex tries making the evil djinn kill himself, and she gets a bit too literal by saying "blow your brains out," and not to our surprise we find that the djinn cannot commit suicide/ die because he is older than time yadda yadda yadda. At the final climax of the film, however, Alex simply wishes one specific detail (omg because she studied newspapers!! so smart!!) that takes everyone back in time, preventing the djinn from being unleashed from the stone in the first place (for now). Okay... so there were a million other wishes that would have had the same positive result? What if I wished the djinn back into the stone? What if I wished he never was created? What if I wished he wasn't evil? What if I wished him powerless? What if I just politely asked him to stop? The third and final wish and the subsequent 'defeat' of Mr. Genie becomes a bit anti-climactic, and tons of plot holes are opened up. Oh well, at least we have room for a sequel now.
Favorite scene: Hands down, following Alex's second wish when she is returned safely back to her apartment (what a waste of a wish) and the djinn is leaving a message on her answering machine (classic 1997). In the middle of his threatening message, she picks up the phone and yells a forced "F*** you!" Oh snap girl you just shut that djinn djownn!
Final critique: I can see why people wouldn't like this movie. It can be borderline cheesy at times even though it avoids humor which so many horror movies of the '80s and '90s tended to include in some way. My response would be that this movie falls under the horror genre but not under terror. While the djinn is evil, he's a colorful '90s evil. This isn't a dark thriller that instills terror in our hearts by any means, but if you accept that this is a fun horror film, you will be thrilled by the plot and the plentiful gore. I recommend this movie for anybody looking for a fun, light horror with a few scares, but if you can't handle gore (even though it's not realistic), this isn't the movie for you.
Also, is The Horror Blog complete now since I referenced Kazaam? I think that's how life works.
Tuesday, August 27, 2013
The Exorcism of Emily Rose (2005)
GENERAL INFO:
Director: Scott Derrickson
Studios: Lakeshore Entertainment, Firm Films
Starring: Laura Linney, Tom Wilkinson, Jennifer Carpenter
Tagline: What Happened to Emily?
MPAA Rating: PG-13
Genre: drama, thriller, exorcism, possession, religious occult, courtroom
Scare score: F+
Rating: C-
Plot overview: Following the attempted exorcism performed on the now deceased 19-year-old Emily Rose (Carpenter) by Father Richard Moore (Wilkinson), the priest finds himself on trial for negligent homicide. Assigned to his defense is the self-declared agnostic, career-driven Erin Bruner (Linney), who makes it her job to prove that a darker, spiritual realm exists, not only to the jury, but to herself as well.
I don't really like this movie, so I'm not going to write much about it. It's one of those "based on a true story" jobs that has virtually nothing to offer us, and in my book (or blog) it shouldn't even be considered a horror movie. I'm over exorcisms. I don't really like exorcism movies because they're all the same, and this one proves no different as it brings nothing new to the genre except perhaps that it is actually more of an Inherit the Wind than The Exorcism (which looking at the poster it so desperately markets itself to be), with the 'scary' parts only retold in flashbacks.
I saw this for the first time in about 2006, and I didn't like it then especially because I was surrounded by people who thought it was terrifying. Even recently I heard someone consider this movie scary. Like, what? The fact is this movie is not scary minus perhaps a few good moments as Emily begins experiencing demonic forces (or not) surrounding her at college. Hence the F+ rather than an absolute failure.
It gets real old real fast that it is constantly raining in this movie, and that the movie itself is so dark (making it very difficult to watch in the daytime). This film is filled to the brim with pathetic fallacy and exorcism cliches in general.
Luckily Linney is a great, fun actress who just keeps her cool throughout the film and her character's self journey. Father Moore is a nice guy but pretty blah in general, the character of Emily bugs me in her creepy, wallpaper-patterned dresses and drab Kansas turn of the century, Puritanical look. I don't like the way the the prosecutor Ethan Thomas (Campbell Scott) speaks, or the way he fails to act during most of the film. I did, however, think the exorcism scene was fun to watch and interesting with its various references to the Bible and history.
Final critique: This is a boring movie. It isn't scary unless you get scared by the slightest things, which take place only during about 5 minutes of the movie. I don't really recommend this film if you're looking for a horror movie, although the religious supernatural courtroom plot does become pretty compelling as the main plot of the film. Boom, roasted.
Director: Scott Derrickson
Studios: Lakeshore Entertainment, Firm Films
Starring: Laura Linney, Tom Wilkinson, Jennifer Carpenter
Tagline: What Happened to Emily?
MPAA Rating: PG-13
Genre: drama, thriller, exorcism, possession, religious occult, courtroom
Scare score: F+
Rating: C-
Plot overview: Following the attempted exorcism performed on the now deceased 19-year-old Emily Rose (Carpenter) by Father Richard Moore (Wilkinson), the priest finds himself on trial for negligent homicide. Assigned to his defense is the self-declared agnostic, career-driven Erin Bruner (Linney), who makes it her job to prove that a darker, spiritual realm exists, not only to the jury, but to herself as well.
I don't really like this movie, so I'm not going to write much about it. It's one of those "based on a true story" jobs that has virtually nothing to offer us, and in my book (or blog) it shouldn't even be considered a horror movie. I'm over exorcisms. I don't really like exorcism movies because they're all the same, and this one proves no different as it brings nothing new to the genre except perhaps that it is actually more of an Inherit the Wind than The Exorcism (which looking at the poster it so desperately markets itself to be), with the 'scary' parts only retold in flashbacks.
I saw this for the first time in about 2006, and I didn't like it then especially because I was surrounded by people who thought it was terrifying. Even recently I heard someone consider this movie scary. Like, what? The fact is this movie is not scary minus perhaps a few good moments as Emily begins experiencing demonic forces (or not) surrounding her at college. Hence the F+ rather than an absolute failure.
It gets real old real fast that it is constantly raining in this movie, and that the movie itself is so dark (making it very difficult to watch in the daytime). This film is filled to the brim with pathetic fallacy and exorcism cliches in general.
Luckily Linney is a great, fun actress who just keeps her cool throughout the film and her character's self journey. Father Moore is a nice guy but pretty blah in general, the character of Emily bugs me in her creepy, wallpaper-patterned dresses and drab Kansas turn of the century, Puritanical look. I don't like the way the the prosecutor Ethan Thomas (Campbell Scott) speaks, or the way he fails to act during most of the film. I did, however, think the exorcism scene was fun to watch and interesting with its various references to the Bible and history.
Final critique: This is a boring movie. It isn't scary unless you get scared by the slightest things, which take place only during about 5 minutes of the movie. I don't really recommend this film if you're looking for a horror movie, although the religious supernatural courtroom plot does become pretty compelling as the main plot of the film. Boom, roasted.
Tuesday, August 20, 2013
Funny Games (1997)
GENERAL INFO:
Director: Michael Haneke
Studios: Filmfonds Wien, Wega Film, Österreichischer Rundfunk
Starring: Arno Frisch, Susanne Lothar, Ulrich Mühe, Stefan Clapczynski, Frank Giering
Tagline: Ein Alptraum ("A Nightmare")
MPAA Rating: Unrated
Genre: foreign film, German language, horror, thriller, psychological thriller, suspense, drama
Scare score: D+
Rating: A-
Plot overview: Wealthy German family Georg (Mühe), Anna (Lothar), and son Georgie (Clapczynski) arrive at their lake house for a relaxing vacation. While still unpacking, the odd Peter (Giering) shows up at the door asking to borrow eggs for the neighbors, which he clumsily breaks two separate times. When his eloquent friend Paul (Frisch) shows up, the unpleasantness begins and they break Georg's leg with a golf club. With the husband out of commission, the family submits for a night full of more terror than they could ever have imagined.
The entire time I watched this movie I was just thinking about how great a shot-for-shot, verbatim English remake would be. After finishing, I was glad to hear that that already happened in 2007, so I will have to check that out some time soon.
This film was bizarre; it certainly kept me attentively watching throughout its entirety, but it was never really too scary. In fact, I read that Haneke didn't intend for this to really be a 'horror' film, which it certainly isn't if you limit your definition of horror films to slashers and monsters. The best way I could describe this to a more mainstream horror audience would be that it does everything right that The Strangers does wrong. Basically, our two antagonists (but are they really antagonists?) show up at a nice house to torture an unsuspecting family simply because they can. Perhaps this film makes the torture even sicker than the sheer violence of The Strangers because Peter and Paul's acts are carried out always in game form. Some of the worst psychological torture came for me in moments such as when the men play a German version of eeny meeny miny moe (a la Elephant) in order to chose a victim, or when Anna is told to play along in order to chose her husband's fate. Each member of the family at various times is falsely given the power to determine how another family member will be harmed, thus straining one's own conscience as well as the family relations.
Perhaps more than family, this is a movie about a woman. Lothar shines as a believable wife and mother (perhaps the former more than the latter) from basic tasks such as cooking then later on as a protector and even as a tragic hero. In fact, unlike women in most horror movies, Anna is never a victim of her womanhood (in the scene where she is made to strip, the environment - though certainly hostile - remains polite under the manners of the psychopaths, and her body is only complimented and neither touched nor violated aside from taking away her privacy). While Georg's manhood is taken away after his leg is broken, and while Georgie's innocence is lost throughout the ordeal, Anna is our hero - strong and able to attempt escape - but she always remains a mother and wife although she suffers for it. The filming and script make her the most important member of the family for us, and from the beginning of Peter and Paul's reign of terror we find ourselves rooting for Anna to triumph - a fact which Paul is aware of and calls us out for.
The most unique aspect of this film for me was Paul's character, his breaking of the fourth wall, and his god-like control over the events of the movie. Although a negative force in the film (assuming we root for the wholesome family, their lives, and their values), Paul becomes the lead player drifting in and out of our reality as viewers and the fictional reality within the movie. Paul and Peter's conversation at the end of the film is a commentary on the events of the film itself, and Paul - aware that he can break the fourth wall as he pleases - even makes the statement about fictional realities or dimensions being real and actual merely because they do exist, by definition, albeit within some realm of fiction. Some of the most chilling moments of the movie for me were when Paul would turn around and look through the camera directly at us. I thought it was funny when he would talk about how the movie was progressing, what we wanted and expected as viewers, and what would be good action and suspense within the events of the film.
*SPOILER ALERT*
One of the strangest things for me was after Anna successfully grabbed the gun and killed Peter. That made sense to me; it was what we expected (maybe) because it's how most horror movies go, a sudden turn around so that our heroine can break free. When Paul pulled that stunt with the remote I knew that it was hopeless and that the family was really doomed. (Well actually, I already knew how this ended because I read about the final scenes before watching. Womp womp)
I thought Paul and Peter were so perfect, so psychotic, so creepy. Their dialogue made their characters so excellent to me, and that's what I wanted most to be replicated in the English-language version of this film. I most liked how well-spoken Paul was, and how he kept teasing Peter for his weight. The scene when Paul keeps talking about Peter's background - with the story constantly changing - was really eerie. Also, the fact that they kept wanting to eat and play games during their stay at the household further showed the 'ennui' they claimed to be suffering from, and as I've stated in previous entries, the worst kind of terror is a realistic terror that happens simply because it can.
We have to appreciate the commentary this film makes on violence - pure and pointless violence - which is always appropriate considering the amount of terrible shootings, killings, and fights we hear about in our world today. The cruel and blasé happenings in this film, and the possibility of them happening in real life, push Funny Games into the horror genre in my book.
Final critique: A lot of people would find this film disturbing, which I can only assume Haneke wanted to happen after watching. It isn't a scary film, per se, rather what happens in the film and the lack of any motive thereof is what becomes scary for us, the viewers, no longer safe in our reality that Paul is able to penetrate and even perhaps control as this film breaks away from most horror movie archetypes, going so far as to break two of my cardinal rules in an anticlimactic, unimportant way. Funny Games, then, becomes not only a horror movie, but an interesting look into a terrible nightmare void of reason that will have us questioning what we would do in a situation where our rights as humans and love as a family are tested and stripped slowly away.
Director: Michael Haneke
Studios: Filmfonds Wien, Wega Film, Österreichischer Rundfunk
Starring: Arno Frisch, Susanne Lothar, Ulrich Mühe, Stefan Clapczynski, Frank Giering
Tagline: Ein Alptraum ("A Nightmare")
MPAA Rating: Unrated
Genre: foreign film, German language, horror, thriller, psychological thriller, suspense, drama
Scare score: D+
Rating: A-
Plot overview: Wealthy German family Georg (Mühe), Anna (Lothar), and son Georgie (Clapczynski) arrive at their lake house for a relaxing vacation. While still unpacking, the odd Peter (Giering) shows up at the door asking to borrow eggs for the neighbors, which he clumsily breaks two separate times. When his eloquent friend Paul (Frisch) shows up, the unpleasantness begins and they break Georg's leg with a golf club. With the husband out of commission, the family submits for a night full of more terror than they could ever have imagined.
The entire time I watched this movie I was just thinking about how great a shot-for-shot, verbatim English remake would be. After finishing, I was glad to hear that that already happened in 2007, so I will have to check that out some time soon.
This film was bizarre; it certainly kept me attentively watching throughout its entirety, but it was never really too scary. In fact, I read that Haneke didn't intend for this to really be a 'horror' film, which it certainly isn't if you limit your definition of horror films to slashers and monsters. The best way I could describe this to a more mainstream horror audience would be that it does everything right that The Strangers does wrong. Basically, our two antagonists (but are they really antagonists?) show up at a nice house to torture an unsuspecting family simply because they can. Perhaps this film makes the torture even sicker than the sheer violence of The Strangers because Peter and Paul's acts are carried out always in game form. Some of the worst psychological torture came for me in moments such as when the men play a German version of eeny meeny miny moe (a la Elephant) in order to chose a victim, or when Anna is told to play along in order to chose her husband's fate. Each member of the family at various times is falsely given the power to determine how another family member will be harmed, thus straining one's own conscience as well as the family relations.
Perhaps more than family, this is a movie about a woman. Lothar shines as a believable wife and mother (perhaps the former more than the latter) from basic tasks such as cooking then later on as a protector and even as a tragic hero. In fact, unlike women in most horror movies, Anna is never a victim of her womanhood (in the scene where she is made to strip, the environment - though certainly hostile - remains polite under the manners of the psychopaths, and her body is only complimented and neither touched nor violated aside from taking away her privacy). While Georg's manhood is taken away after his leg is broken, and while Georgie's innocence is lost throughout the ordeal, Anna is our hero - strong and able to attempt escape - but she always remains a mother and wife although she suffers for it. The filming and script make her the most important member of the family for us, and from the beginning of Peter and Paul's reign of terror we find ourselves rooting for Anna to triumph - a fact which Paul is aware of and calls us out for.
The most unique aspect of this film for me was Paul's character, his breaking of the fourth wall, and his god-like control over the events of the movie. Although a negative force in the film (assuming we root for the wholesome family, their lives, and their values), Paul becomes the lead player drifting in and out of our reality as viewers and the fictional reality within the movie. Paul and Peter's conversation at the end of the film is a commentary on the events of the film itself, and Paul - aware that he can break the fourth wall as he pleases - even makes the statement about fictional realities or dimensions being real and actual merely because they do exist, by definition, albeit within some realm of fiction. Some of the most chilling moments of the movie for me were when Paul would turn around and look through the camera directly at us. I thought it was funny when he would talk about how the movie was progressing, what we wanted and expected as viewers, and what would be good action and suspense within the events of the film.
*SPOILER ALERT*
One of the strangest things for me was after Anna successfully grabbed the gun and killed Peter. That made sense to me; it was what we expected (maybe) because it's how most horror movies go, a sudden turn around so that our heroine can break free. When Paul pulled that stunt with the remote I knew that it was hopeless and that the family was really doomed. (Well actually, I already knew how this ended because I read about the final scenes before watching. Womp womp)
I thought Paul and Peter were so perfect, so psychotic, so creepy. Their dialogue made their characters so excellent to me, and that's what I wanted most to be replicated in the English-language version of this film. I most liked how well-spoken Paul was, and how he kept teasing Peter for his weight. The scene when Paul keeps talking about Peter's background - with the story constantly changing - was really eerie. Also, the fact that they kept wanting to eat and play games during their stay at the household further showed the 'ennui' they claimed to be suffering from, and as I've stated in previous entries, the worst kind of terror is a realistic terror that happens simply because it can.
We have to appreciate the commentary this film makes on violence - pure and pointless violence - which is always appropriate considering the amount of terrible shootings, killings, and fights we hear about in our world today. The cruel and blasé happenings in this film, and the possibility of them happening in real life, push Funny Games into the horror genre in my book.
Final critique: A lot of people would find this film disturbing, which I can only assume Haneke wanted to happen after watching. It isn't a scary film, per se, rather what happens in the film and the lack of any motive thereof is what becomes scary for us, the viewers, no longer safe in our reality that Paul is able to penetrate and even perhaps control as this film breaks away from most horror movie archetypes, going so far as to break two of my cardinal rules in an anticlimactic, unimportant way. Funny Games, then, becomes not only a horror movie, but an interesting look into a terrible nightmare void of reason that will have us questioning what we would do in a situation where our rights as humans and love as a family are tested and stripped slowly away.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)