Welcome to day 30 of 31 Days of Fright here at Road To The Movies! In today's episode, Gabe closes out the month with...
30 DAYS OF NIGHT
2007
Rated R
Vampires are not romantic.
Look, it’s not like I don’t get it. The whole concept of the vampire is very sexual in nature, what with the exchange of bodily fluids and all the neck-play involved. Obviously there is just naturally going to be a certain level of sexuality involved in any vampire story, but quite frankly, I’m sick to death of sexy vampires. Vampirism isn’t sexy, it’s just sexual. Personally, I blame Bella Lugosi for the confusion.
Count Dracula – at least as imagined by Tod Browning, via Mr. Lugosi – was a seducer. Seduction is sexy. It can even be romantic. I get that. The problem is that, at its core, the act of vampirism isn’t romance, it’s rape. It isn’t the wooing of a consenting partner into a mutual act, it’s taking by force and leaving the victim as a shell of what they once were. It isn’t civilized and seductive, its brutal and animalic.
That’s what I like about the vampires in 30 Days of Night. They are ugly and brutal and merciless. They’re cunning, but cunning isn’t a mark of humanity, it’s the mark of a predator. The creatures that descend upon Barrow, Alaska in David Slade’s adaptation of the Steve Niles/Ben Templesmith comic are anything but sexy, which is exactly how it should be.
The story – for those of you who don’t already know – is that a group of vampires arrives in Barrow, Alaska just in time for the month-long darkness that leaves the town essentially cut off from the rest of the world. The vampires are preceded by a Stranger (Ben Foster) who sneaks around town destroying anything that could be used to communicate with the outside world – cell phones, sled dogs, helicopters, you get the idea – in preparation for the invasion. I won’t give away any plot points beyond that, except to say that what follows is a full fledged blood-bath of Biblical proportions, and that only a small handful of the town’s residents survives to drive the story – and the conflict – forward.
I’ve heard from some that this movie isn’t faithful enough to the comic series, and I can’t really argue, as I’ve never read it. If you have read it and you’re the type of person who demands absolute loyalty to a movie’s source material, I guess you might be disappointed. Personally, I’ve always said that every story should be judged solely on its own merit, and not upon how it compares to what came before or what comes after. I really don’t care how faithful it is to the comic series. This movie is scary, intriguing, engaging, and – most of all – still as gripping as ever after the fifth viewing. If that doesn’t sound like your cup of tea, by all means, feel free to give it a pass.
I’m not saying the movie is without its flaws. There’s a certain level of illogic underlying the whole thing. I won’t get into specifics, as it might spoil certain plot points, but it should suffice to say that the motives and actions of certain characters don’t always make the most sense. Still, even having had the logical flaws pointed out to me, I just can’t bring myself to give a crap about them once the story gets rolling. Perhaps I have an overactive suspension-of-disbelief muscle, but the whole thing still works fine for me.
So there you have it. As I said in my Nosferatu review (CLICK HERE for that), vampires were my first horror love. The vampire sub-genre as a whole has been pretty disappointing in recent years, but vampires are a resilient species, and I don’t believe we’ve yet seen the last good story they have to offer. In fact, if movies like 30 Days of Night are any indicator, I think they've still got some delightful tricks up their sleeves. Am I being overly optimistic? Maybe, but what can I say? I guess I’m a romantic.
8/10
-GABE
Thanks for riding along! Be sure to click on the banner below to check out our YouTube channel, where you can watch our videos, "like" them, subscribe to the channel, leave a comment or a question, or even suggest a movie for future review. You can also check us out on Facebook (CLICK HERE) and Twitter (CLICK HERE). And don't forget to check back every day in October for a new installment in our 31 Days of Fright!
Showing posts with label 31 Days of Fright. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 31 Days of Fright. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 30, 2012
Monday, October 29, 2012
31 days of Fright, Day 29: The Omen
Welcome to day 29 of 31 Days of Fright here at Road To The Movies! In today's episode, something frightening happened to Jonathan, he thought about it, and it turns out it was...
THE OMEN
1976
Rated R
I was rather stuck on what movie to review for today. Hundreds of movies were rocking around in my brain, begging to be chosen, when suddenly, Gabe mentioned that neither of us had done a review of an antichrist movie. So why not go with quite possibly the scariest one: The (original) Omen. It’s been about 9 years or so since I’ve seen this movie (although I have seen the remake quite recently) and even today it’s easy to remember why this film scared me half to death. It really is genuinely that scary. It could just be nostalgia talking, but this movie takes me back to my childish self, before I became so jaded and calloused, and that’s saying something.
It all starts with the newborn son of a couple dying shortly after being born. The husband is convinced by a priest to substitute the child with a baby born recently whose mother died right after she had him. He agrees without telling his wife, because he’s worried that she’d lose her mind if she found out. They happily decide to name the child Damien. And then shit gets weird (to say the least).
A lot of people today have either seen the original, the remake, or read the books, so many of you know what happens next. But, for the sake of people who haven’t experienced the grisly glory that is The Omen, I’ll stop there with my description. There are too many surprises and out-of-nowhere violence to go any further. And really, that’s one of the things that make this movie great. It’s creepy on two levels. There’s an almost timid, yet horribly unnerving, creepiness about Damien and the way he looks and talks (or doesn’t) and moves, and then there’s the in-your-face gore and mayhem throughout the movie (and trust me, there’s a lot of it). They balance so well, you have to give props to the director for pulling it off. It really isn’t easy to make a good horror movie that doesn’t feel one-note, because so many people stick to a set structure. This movie re-wrote said structure.
And it doesn’t stop there. The acting in this movie is superb, but I did have a few problems with how overly expository the dialogue was, but that’s a problem with the time period, not the writer (see my Exorcist review for more on this by CLICKING HERE). Also, they had the writer of the novel write the screenplay. I have no way to express how much I love when this happens. A lot of authors usually don’t write their own screenplays simply because scripts are an entirely different style of storytelling than books. There’s almost no room for description in a screenplay, and everything has to move a lot faster, and mostly through dialogue. There have been several flubs from authors who really just didn’t know how to adapt their own work, but in this case, it worked marvelously. David Seltzer (the author of both the book and the film) really kept to the story he wanted to tell in both formats, and it comes though extremely well. The music only adds to this. It’s ominous and creepy, yet strangely happy and upbeat at certain parts. It almost contradicts itself, but that really makes the viewer more aware of the terror right in front of them.
If you’re sick of the same-old and the mundane, I highly suggest giving this movie a try. It’s genuinely creepy and a really fun ride. It’s hard to find someone who has seen this movie and really didn’t like it, and it’s actually scary, much unlike all these crazy Japanese remakes and PG-13 horror made specifically to pander to middle-school kids. But if you’re curious, watch it for yourself and see, it scared me (and still does) and it’s a wonderfully made film, for you film buffs out there. So remember, “If something frightening happens to you today, think about it. It may be... The Omen”
9.5/10
-JONATHAN
Thanks for riding along! Be sure to click on the banner below to check out our YouTube channel, where you can watch our videos, "like" them, subscribe to the channel, leave a comment or a question, or even suggest a movie for future review. You can also check us out on Facebook (CLICK HERE) and Twitter (CLICK HERE). And don't forget to check back every day in October for a new installment in our 31 Days of Fright!
THE OMEN
1976
Rated R
I was rather stuck on what movie to review for today. Hundreds of movies were rocking around in my brain, begging to be chosen, when suddenly, Gabe mentioned that neither of us had done a review of an antichrist movie. So why not go with quite possibly the scariest one: The (original) Omen. It’s been about 9 years or so since I’ve seen this movie (although I have seen the remake quite recently) and even today it’s easy to remember why this film scared me half to death. It really is genuinely that scary. It could just be nostalgia talking, but this movie takes me back to my childish self, before I became so jaded and calloused, and that’s saying something.
It all starts with the newborn son of a couple dying shortly after being born. The husband is convinced by a priest to substitute the child with a baby born recently whose mother died right after she had him. He agrees without telling his wife, because he’s worried that she’d lose her mind if she found out. They happily decide to name the child Damien. And then shit gets weird (to say the least).
A lot of people today have either seen the original, the remake, or read the books, so many of you know what happens next. But, for the sake of people who haven’t experienced the grisly glory that is The Omen, I’ll stop there with my description. There are too many surprises and out-of-nowhere violence to go any further. And really, that’s one of the things that make this movie great. It’s creepy on two levels. There’s an almost timid, yet horribly unnerving, creepiness about Damien and the way he looks and talks (or doesn’t) and moves, and then there’s the in-your-face gore and mayhem throughout the movie (and trust me, there’s a lot of it). They balance so well, you have to give props to the director for pulling it off. It really isn’t easy to make a good horror movie that doesn’t feel one-note, because so many people stick to a set structure. This movie re-wrote said structure.
And it doesn’t stop there. The acting in this movie is superb, but I did have a few problems with how overly expository the dialogue was, but that’s a problem with the time period, not the writer (see my Exorcist review for more on this by CLICKING HERE). Also, they had the writer of the novel write the screenplay. I have no way to express how much I love when this happens. A lot of authors usually don’t write their own screenplays simply because scripts are an entirely different style of storytelling than books. There’s almost no room for description in a screenplay, and everything has to move a lot faster, and mostly through dialogue. There have been several flubs from authors who really just didn’t know how to adapt their own work, but in this case, it worked marvelously. David Seltzer (the author of both the book and the film) really kept to the story he wanted to tell in both formats, and it comes though extremely well. The music only adds to this. It’s ominous and creepy, yet strangely happy and upbeat at certain parts. It almost contradicts itself, but that really makes the viewer more aware of the terror right in front of them.
If you’re sick of the same-old and the mundane, I highly suggest giving this movie a try. It’s genuinely creepy and a really fun ride. It’s hard to find someone who has seen this movie and really didn’t like it, and it’s actually scary, much unlike all these crazy Japanese remakes and PG-13 horror made specifically to pander to middle-school kids. But if you’re curious, watch it for yourself and see, it scared me (and still does) and it’s a wonderfully made film, for you film buffs out there. So remember, “If something frightening happens to you today, think about it. It may be... The Omen”
9.5/10
-JONATHAN
Thanks for riding along! Be sure to click on the banner below to check out our YouTube channel, where you can watch our videos, "like" them, subscribe to the channel, leave a comment or a question, or even suggest a movie for future review. You can also check us out on Facebook (CLICK HERE) and Twitter (CLICK HERE). And don't forget to check back every day in October for a new installment in our 31 Days of Fright!
Sunday, October 28, 2012
31 Days of Fright, Day 28: Nosferatu: A Symphony of Horror
Welcome to day 28 of 31 Days of Fright here at Road To The Movies! In today's episode, Gabe unearths...
NOSFERATU: A SYMPHONY OF HORROR
1922
Not Rated
I'm not sure if I've already told you this, but vampires were my first horror love. I watched Joel Schumacher's The Lost Boys when I was eight, and fell immediately head-over-heels. In the intervening years, I have watched vampire movie after vampire movie, struggling through days and even weeks worth of some of the worst stories ever captured on film, always hopeful that just around the next bend in the aisle at the video store, the greatest vampire film of all time could be waiting for me.
Then came adulthood and the slow crumbling of all my vampiric hopes and dreams. Blade. Underworld. Twilight. Vampires may live forever, and maybe I'm just getting too old, but this new generation sucks.
But fear not, fellow vampire hunters. It turns out there is yet hope in the halls of the dead, but it's not a hope for the future. As any vampire worth his grave dust knows, hope is a thing of the past.
I've always been an unabashed lover of vampire nostalgia. The Lost Boys will forever be my own, personal blood and gold standard, but I also take great joy in finding and sharing other classics from my childhood, like Fright Night, Vampire Hunter D, The Omega Man, and Near Dark. If the recent past holds such a treasure trove of vampire goodness - and there are quite a few that I haven't even discovered yet - what if I went back further? What if I went all the way back to the foundations of vampire cinema, to the godfather of them all?
Nosferatu: A Symphony of Horror wasn't the first vampire movie ever made, but it is certainly the most immortal. When it was discovered that F.W. Murnau had basically adapted Bram Stoker's Dracula to the big screen without first securing the rights, he was ordered by the courts to destroy all known copies of the film, and - I'm sure, to the horror of film lovers everywhere - he complied. Still, rogue prints of the film survived, hiding in dark corners of the globe until the sun of copyrights set and they could emerge to claim their rightful place at the head of the bloody feast table known as Vampire Cinema.
But, I can hear you ask, is it merely the cold corpse of a movie, silently convalescing in the aged crypts of Castle Vampire, unable to contend with its leaner, lither, more terrifying offspring? Well, yes and no.
Nosferatu is definitely showing its age. At ninety, one can hardly expect the polish and sparkle (ugh) of a modern vampire movie. But is that an entirely bad thing? Yes, the cinematography is archaic to the point of being stilted and most of the movie is so over-acted that it would make Adam Sandler blush, but the real question is, Does it detract from or add to the experience? For my money, the archaic acting and cinematography only serve to draw me more deeply into the time period in which the story is set. I always find it not just slightly disconcerting when I'm watching a movie set in the nineteenth century, only to find that the characters speak like modern teenagers. Guy Ritchie's Sherlock Holmes films may have been entertaining, but I can assure you they will never get a second viewing out of me.
And there is Nosferatu's contribution to the mythology of the vampire in general to consider. Most sources seem to agree that Nosferatu is the first story in which sunlight killed a vampire. No small matter, that, as the idea now permeates vampire mythology so fully that writers and filmmakers have to set aside extra time in their stories to refute it before they can move forward with a tale in which sunlight won't kill a vampire. It's a significant addition to vampire lore, and this movie brought it to the table first.
Of course, I would be remiss in my duties as your personal film taster if I did not mention the one thing that makes Nosferatu: A Symphony of Horror truly one of the greatest moments in the history of the genre, which is the immortal performance of Max Schreck. His turn as the grotesque Count Orlock is so good - especially by the standards of that era - that there has actually been speculation - upon which 2000's Shadow of the Vampire was based - that he wasn't really an actor at all, but an actual vampire hired by director F.W. Murnau to play in the movie. It sounds absurd, but when you watch the movie and see not only the sinister quality of Schreck's performance, but the very genuine looking fear in the eyes of actor Gustav von Wangenheim - an actor who, for most of the movie, overacts with such gusto as to make Jerry Lewis look subtle - I would be surprised if you didn't find yourself at least questioning whether such a thing might not be possible.
Sadly, it's not all blood roses and funerary incense. Most of the film's original score was lost decades ago, and with the exception of the scenes during the time and immediately after Count Orlock is on the ship, the soundtrack Kino Video either found or commissioned for the movie was easily the most headache-inducing thing I've had to endure cinematically since Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter's stampede scene. It completely ruined the sinister atmosphere Murnau had worked so hard to create. I felt like I was watching a great silent horror movie while someone watched Beyond The Mind's Eye on a TV right next to me. What a way to drive a stake through the heart of one of cinema's greatest moments.
No, this isn't a horror movie that will pack teenagers into a theater and sell millions of dollars worth of tie-in merchandising. Yes, the soundtrack belongs on a tech demo video from 1993. Yes, this film is archaic and slow and overacted, but for my money, it's also more immersive than five Twilight movies, more atmospheric than four Underworld movies, and more terrifying than three Blade movies. It's old and stiff and of another time, but it's not dead. It still stalks the darkened corridors of our collective cinematic mind, it still seeks new victims to feed its dark existence, and it is still very, very dangerous.
9/10
-GABE
Thanks for riding along! Be sure to click on the banner below to check out our YouTube channel, where you can watch our videos, "like" them, subscribe to the channel, leave a comment or a question, or even suggest a movie for future review. You can also check us out on Facebook (CLICK HERE) and Twitter (CLICK HERE). And don't forget to check back every day in October for a new installment in our 31 Days of Fright!
NOSFERATU: A SYMPHONY OF HORROR
1922
Not Rated
I'm not sure if I've already told you this, but vampires were my first horror love. I watched Joel Schumacher's The Lost Boys when I was eight, and fell immediately head-over-heels. In the intervening years, I have watched vampire movie after vampire movie, struggling through days and even weeks worth of some of the worst stories ever captured on film, always hopeful that just around the next bend in the aisle at the video store, the greatest vampire film of all time could be waiting for me.
Then came adulthood and the slow crumbling of all my vampiric hopes and dreams. Blade. Underworld. Twilight. Vampires may live forever, and maybe I'm just getting too old, but this new generation sucks.
But fear not, fellow vampire hunters. It turns out there is yet hope in the halls of the dead, but it's not a hope for the future. As any vampire worth his grave dust knows, hope is a thing of the past.
I've always been an unabashed lover of vampire nostalgia. The Lost Boys will forever be my own, personal blood and gold standard, but I also take great joy in finding and sharing other classics from my childhood, like Fright Night, Vampire Hunter D, The Omega Man, and Near Dark. If the recent past holds such a treasure trove of vampire goodness - and there are quite a few that I haven't even discovered yet - what if I went back further? What if I went all the way back to the foundations of vampire cinema, to the godfather of them all?
Nosferatu: A Symphony of Horror wasn't the first vampire movie ever made, but it is certainly the most immortal. When it was discovered that F.W. Murnau had basically adapted Bram Stoker's Dracula to the big screen without first securing the rights, he was ordered by the courts to destroy all known copies of the film, and - I'm sure, to the horror of film lovers everywhere - he complied. Still, rogue prints of the film survived, hiding in dark corners of the globe until the sun of copyrights set and they could emerge to claim their rightful place at the head of the bloody feast table known as Vampire Cinema.
But, I can hear you ask, is it merely the cold corpse of a movie, silently convalescing in the aged crypts of Castle Vampire, unable to contend with its leaner, lither, more terrifying offspring? Well, yes and no.
Nosferatu is definitely showing its age. At ninety, one can hardly expect the polish and sparkle (ugh) of a modern vampire movie. But is that an entirely bad thing? Yes, the cinematography is archaic to the point of being stilted and most of the movie is so over-acted that it would make Adam Sandler blush, but the real question is, Does it detract from or add to the experience? For my money, the archaic acting and cinematography only serve to draw me more deeply into the time period in which the story is set. I always find it not just slightly disconcerting when I'm watching a movie set in the nineteenth century, only to find that the characters speak like modern teenagers. Guy Ritchie's Sherlock Holmes films may have been entertaining, but I can assure you they will never get a second viewing out of me.
And there is Nosferatu's contribution to the mythology of the vampire in general to consider. Most sources seem to agree that Nosferatu is the first story in which sunlight killed a vampire. No small matter, that, as the idea now permeates vampire mythology so fully that writers and filmmakers have to set aside extra time in their stories to refute it before they can move forward with a tale in which sunlight won't kill a vampire. It's a significant addition to vampire lore, and this movie brought it to the table first.
Of course, I would be remiss in my duties as your personal film taster if I did not mention the one thing that makes Nosferatu: A Symphony of Horror truly one of the greatest moments in the history of the genre, which is the immortal performance of Max Schreck. His turn as the grotesque Count Orlock is so good - especially by the standards of that era - that there has actually been speculation - upon which 2000's Shadow of the Vampire was based - that he wasn't really an actor at all, but an actual vampire hired by director F.W. Murnau to play in the movie. It sounds absurd, but when you watch the movie and see not only the sinister quality of Schreck's performance, but the very genuine looking fear in the eyes of actor Gustav von Wangenheim - an actor who, for most of the movie, overacts with such gusto as to make Jerry Lewis look subtle - I would be surprised if you didn't find yourself at least questioning whether such a thing might not be possible.
Sadly, it's not all blood roses and funerary incense. Most of the film's original score was lost decades ago, and with the exception of the scenes during the time and immediately after Count Orlock is on the ship, the soundtrack Kino Video either found or commissioned for the movie was easily the most headache-inducing thing I've had to endure cinematically since Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter's stampede scene. It completely ruined the sinister atmosphere Murnau had worked so hard to create. I felt like I was watching a great silent horror movie while someone watched Beyond The Mind's Eye on a TV right next to me. What a way to drive a stake through the heart of one of cinema's greatest moments.
No, this isn't a horror movie that will pack teenagers into a theater and sell millions of dollars worth of tie-in merchandising. Yes, the soundtrack belongs on a tech demo video from 1993. Yes, this film is archaic and slow and overacted, but for my money, it's also more immersive than five Twilight movies, more atmospheric than four Underworld movies, and more terrifying than three Blade movies. It's old and stiff and of another time, but it's not dead. It still stalks the darkened corridors of our collective cinematic mind, it still seeks new victims to feed its dark existence, and it is still very, very dangerous.
9/10
-GABE
Thanks for riding along! Be sure to click on the banner below to check out our YouTube channel, where you can watch our videos, "like" them, subscribe to the channel, leave a comment or a question, or even suggest a movie for future review. You can also check us out on Facebook (CLICK HERE) and Twitter (CLICK HERE). And don't forget to check back every day in October for a new installment in our 31 Days of Fright!
Saturday, October 27, 2012
31 Days of Fright, Day 27: The Exorcist
Welcome to day 27 of 31 Days of Fright here at Road To The Movies! In today's episode, Jonathan takes a trip down memory lane with...
THE EXORCIST
1973
Rated R
The first time I saw this movie, it scared the hell out of me. It was partly because of the movie itself (and the fact that I was about 12) but mostly it was the way in which I saw it. The scenario is this: I was staying at a friend’s house whose mother was notorious in our group for sleepwalking. My friend was asleep and so was his mother, and I was busy trying to navigate a Nintendo 64 game. Suddenly, the door to my friend’s mom’s room opened. She came out groggily, and I could almost immediately tell she was asleep (this sort of thing happened quite a bit). She wandered around for a few minutes, then came stumbling over to my game and suddenly shut it off. Then she promptly went back to bed. Guess what was on TV when she turned it off? That’s right, The Exorcist. I was far too scared to get up and turn it off, so I sat through the whole thing. I’ve never been the same again.
I’ve watched this film about thirty times since that first viewing, and I can see why I was so deathly afraid. I know it will never hold that same intense feeling of fright it did when I first saw it, but there are certain parts that still chill me to the bone. And now that we have the new uncut edition (which is the version I watched for this review) we have a chance to experience parts of it for the first time. That was really exciting for me. This film is sort of the genesis of my horror movie experience, and it remains a classic in the genre as well as my own life, for many reasons.
The direction is spectacular. Every scene has obviously had quite a bit of care put into it, because they all cut extremely deep. And, in my opinion, any director who can get a child to act that insane and scary deserves a ton of recognition. I also highly enjoyed the writing. While some of it seems very overly expository, it gets the story across well and conveys the horror that everyone involved is feeling. The problems with the dialogue don’t seem like problems in writing. It all feels very natural. I think the problems are with the way people spoke during that time period: a little clunkily, and with too much explanation.
Despite all its good points, there were a couple of things that didn’t really impress me, the biggest of which is how slowly the story moves. Especially in the extended cut. It crawls at a snail’s pace for quite a while, and I can see why I remember almost nothing at all about certain parts of it from when I was young. They’re easy to simply ignore. But when it picks up, it really picks up. It almost goes nowhere at all for an hour, then it goes everywhere all at once, in the best way possible. There’s really not a whole lot that takes you out of this movie that can’t be blamed on the time period rather than the filmmakers themselves.
In short, this is a near perfect horror movie, not because it is a classic and not because everybody’s heard of it, but because it’s genuinely scary and the story is truly involving. The characters are acted almost perfectly, and it’s directed with such vision that one can’t help but appreciate the care put into it. The filmmakers obviously approached this film with one goal in mind: to scare the pants off anyone who watches it. They’ve accomplished that, and still do almost forty years later.
9.5/10
-JONATHAN
Thanks for riding along! Be sure to click on the banner below to check out our YouTube channel, where you can watch our videos, "like" them, subscribe to the channel, leave a comment or a question, or even suggest a movie for future review. You can also check us out on Facebook (CLICK HERE) and Twitter (CLICK HERE). And don't forget to check back every day in October for a new installment in our 31 Days of Fright!
THE EXORCIST
1973
Rated R
The first time I saw this movie, it scared the hell out of me. It was partly because of the movie itself (and the fact that I was about 12) but mostly it was the way in which I saw it. The scenario is this: I was staying at a friend’s house whose mother was notorious in our group for sleepwalking. My friend was asleep and so was his mother, and I was busy trying to navigate a Nintendo 64 game. Suddenly, the door to my friend’s mom’s room opened. She came out groggily, and I could almost immediately tell she was asleep (this sort of thing happened quite a bit). She wandered around for a few minutes, then came stumbling over to my game and suddenly shut it off. Then she promptly went back to bed. Guess what was on TV when she turned it off? That’s right, The Exorcist. I was far too scared to get up and turn it off, so I sat through the whole thing. I’ve never been the same again.
I’ve watched this film about thirty times since that first viewing, and I can see why I was so deathly afraid. I know it will never hold that same intense feeling of fright it did when I first saw it, but there are certain parts that still chill me to the bone. And now that we have the new uncut edition (which is the version I watched for this review) we have a chance to experience parts of it for the first time. That was really exciting for me. This film is sort of the genesis of my horror movie experience, and it remains a classic in the genre as well as my own life, for many reasons.
The direction is spectacular. Every scene has obviously had quite a bit of care put into it, because they all cut extremely deep. And, in my opinion, any director who can get a child to act that insane and scary deserves a ton of recognition. I also highly enjoyed the writing. While some of it seems very overly expository, it gets the story across well and conveys the horror that everyone involved is feeling. The problems with the dialogue don’t seem like problems in writing. It all feels very natural. I think the problems are with the way people spoke during that time period: a little clunkily, and with too much explanation.
Despite all its good points, there were a couple of things that didn’t really impress me, the biggest of which is how slowly the story moves. Especially in the extended cut. It crawls at a snail’s pace for quite a while, and I can see why I remember almost nothing at all about certain parts of it from when I was young. They’re easy to simply ignore. But when it picks up, it really picks up. It almost goes nowhere at all for an hour, then it goes everywhere all at once, in the best way possible. There’s really not a whole lot that takes you out of this movie that can’t be blamed on the time period rather than the filmmakers themselves.
In short, this is a near perfect horror movie, not because it is a classic and not because everybody’s heard of it, but because it’s genuinely scary and the story is truly involving. The characters are acted almost perfectly, and it’s directed with such vision that one can’t help but appreciate the care put into it. The filmmakers obviously approached this film with one goal in mind: to scare the pants off anyone who watches it. They’ve accomplished that, and still do almost forty years later.
9.5/10
-JONATHAN
Thanks for riding along! Be sure to click on the banner below to check out our YouTube channel, where you can watch our videos, "like" them, subscribe to the channel, leave a comment or a question, or even suggest a movie for future review. You can also check us out on Facebook (CLICK HERE) and Twitter (CLICK HERE). And don't forget to check back every day in October for a new installment in our 31 Days of Fright!
Labels:
31 Days of Fright,
Catholic,
Demonic,
Exorcism,
Horror,
Jonathan,
Linda Blair,
Movie Review,
Road To The Movies,
RTM,
Supernatural,
The Exorcist,
William Friedkin,
William Peter Blatty
Friday, October 26, 2012
31 Days of Fright, Day 26: Three... Extremes
Welcome to day 26 of 31 Days of Fright here at Road To The Movies! In today's episode, Gabe checks out not one, not two, but...
THREE... EXTREMES
2004
Rated R
I don't know whether it's the lure of the ellipses or the enticement of the extreme, but after Thou Shalt Not Kill... Except and The Woman, a movie called Three... Extremes just seemed to make sense. That, and the fact that there's no way we could possibly say we've covered all the horror bases without giving due attention to that classic bastion of horror, the anthology. Oh, I know Jonathan reviewed Trick 'r Treat (Read that review HERE), but that was less an anthology than what could be termed "mosaic fiction," in that if you were to extract any one of the stories in Trick 'r Treat, the rest of the movie wouldn't make sense. What I'm talking about is a proper, traditional anthology. Horror could hardly exist without them.
From the folkloric roots of horror, to the works of every writer from Poe to King, to the controversial content of E.C. Comics and Eerie Publications, to shows like Night Gallery and Tales from the Crypt (the latter, of course, having been based on the aforementioned E.C. Comics), horror not only seems to be most at home in the shorter format, but also seems to enjoy company.
Three... Extremes is an international short-form horror anthology, featuring the work of three established icons (or, so I'm led to believe) of Asian cinema: Fruit Chan (Hong Kong), Chan-wook Park (South Korea), and Takashi Miike (Japan). Of the three directors, I am the least familiar with Fruit Chan, whom I had never heard of before watching this film. Still, I'll take the blurb-author's word that he's quite famous (at least, in Hong Kong).
This being an anthology, I'll review each segment individually, then finish with a summary of the presentation as a whole.
DUMPLINGS
As a first look at director Fruit Chan's work, Dumplings makes a solid impression. The performances are strong and he does a great job of setting the tone through imagery. The "big reveal" in this segment isn't much of a reveal at all, as it doesn't take much of a detective to deduce what the titular dumplings' secret ingredient is within the first few scenes, but as it turns out, that's really not the point of the story. More than anything, this is a morality tale that first asks the question, How far would you go to regain your youth?, and then, What would you become once you'd gone there? I don't think I'm the only one who will walk away thinking that - psychologically, at least - this segment set the bar of "extreme" quite high.
It should also be noted here that director Fruit Chan went on to direct a feature-length version of Dumplings. I'd be lying if I said I wasn't a little afraid to check it out.
CUT
Of these directors, I am the most familiar with Chan-wook Park's work, so I had high expectations here. Park doesn't disappoint, and the complex moral questions that made his Vengeance Trilogy so powerful are on full display. Park doesn't like to make things easy for either his characters or his viewers, and the question of what you would do if someone you loved was being punished for your goodness is one that will - like all of his previous works that I've seen - haunt me for quite some time.
BOX
Takashi Miike is a legend. If you look him up on IMDB, you will find that - as of this writing, at least - he has eighty-nine directorial credits in the last twenty-one years. Now, I will grant you that there's a bit of TV and video work mixed in there, but even taking that into consideration, he's unnaturally prolific. Not only that, but he has a reputation for actually being good at what he does. I speak of him by reputation because, though I know him and some of his more popular films by name, this is the first time I've actually watched something he made. I have to say that, though Chan's and Park's films certainly have their confusing elements, it's Miike who leaps fully over the edge and leaves me scratching my head at the end.
The overall direction of Box is rock solid. The performances are good, the atmosphere is creepy, and the cinematography is so artfully done that individual stills could be extracted and displayed as standalone works. Where it looses me is the story.
From the beginning, Miike is clearly keeping secrets. This is all well and good. This is horror, after all, and I don't mind knowing that something's coming, but not knowing what. It builds tension. Then, as the story unfolds, we're given bits and pieces of character and backstory, until we begin to feel like we finally understand what's going on and why. This is the point at which the director turns everything on its ear and we're left wondering, If this is where it was all going, what the hell did all that buildup mean?!? And what the hell was that weird incest scene about?!?
I have a feeling this is a cultural thing, because there's a logical process at work here that I just can't seem to wrap my brain around. As I said before, all three of these segments have bits where I have to just shrug and say to myself, Maybe you need to be Asian, but nowhere are those bits more integral to the story than in Box.
Overall, Three... Extremes seems to work pretty well as a contiguous whole. I feel that - though they may have erred in putting the most "extreme" segment first - the progression from moral horror to moral uncertainty to total, what-the-fuck uncertainty flowed pretty well and left me not only shocked and entertained, but also reflective. Much like the oh-so-sinister dumplings, though Three... Extremes is presented in bite-sized bits, there's some real meat there.
7.5/10
-GABE
Thanks for riding along! Be sure to click on the banner below to check out our YouTube channel, where you can watch our videos, "like" them, subscribe to the channel, leave a comment or a question, or even suggest a movie for future review. You can also check us out on Facebook (CLICK HERE) and Twitter (CLICK HERE). And don't forget to check back every day in October for a new installment in our 31 Days of Fright!
THREE... EXTREMES
2004
Rated R
I don't know whether it's the lure of the ellipses or the enticement of the extreme, but after Thou Shalt Not Kill... Except and The Woman, a movie called Three... Extremes just seemed to make sense. That, and the fact that there's no way we could possibly say we've covered all the horror bases without giving due attention to that classic bastion of horror, the anthology. Oh, I know Jonathan reviewed Trick 'r Treat (Read that review HERE), but that was less an anthology than what could be termed "mosaic fiction," in that if you were to extract any one of the stories in Trick 'r Treat, the rest of the movie wouldn't make sense. What I'm talking about is a proper, traditional anthology. Horror could hardly exist without them.
From the folkloric roots of horror, to the works of every writer from Poe to King, to the controversial content of E.C. Comics and Eerie Publications, to shows like Night Gallery and Tales from the Crypt (the latter, of course, having been based on the aforementioned E.C. Comics), horror not only seems to be most at home in the shorter format, but also seems to enjoy company.
Three... Extremes is an international short-form horror anthology, featuring the work of three established icons (or, so I'm led to believe) of Asian cinema: Fruit Chan (Hong Kong), Chan-wook Park (South Korea), and Takashi Miike (Japan). Of the three directors, I am the least familiar with Fruit Chan, whom I had never heard of before watching this film. Still, I'll take the blurb-author's word that he's quite famous (at least, in Hong Kong).
This being an anthology, I'll review each segment individually, then finish with a summary of the presentation as a whole.
DUMPLINGS
As a first look at director Fruit Chan's work, Dumplings makes a solid impression. The performances are strong and he does a great job of setting the tone through imagery. The "big reveal" in this segment isn't much of a reveal at all, as it doesn't take much of a detective to deduce what the titular dumplings' secret ingredient is within the first few scenes, but as it turns out, that's really not the point of the story. More than anything, this is a morality tale that first asks the question, How far would you go to regain your youth?, and then, What would you become once you'd gone there? I don't think I'm the only one who will walk away thinking that - psychologically, at least - this segment set the bar of "extreme" quite high.
It should also be noted here that director Fruit Chan went on to direct a feature-length version of Dumplings. I'd be lying if I said I wasn't a little afraid to check it out.
CUT
Of these directors, I am the most familiar with Chan-wook Park's work, so I had high expectations here. Park doesn't disappoint, and the complex moral questions that made his Vengeance Trilogy so powerful are on full display. Park doesn't like to make things easy for either his characters or his viewers, and the question of what you would do if someone you loved was being punished for your goodness is one that will - like all of his previous works that I've seen - haunt me for quite some time.
BOX
Takashi Miike is a legend. If you look him up on IMDB, you will find that - as of this writing, at least - he has eighty-nine directorial credits in the last twenty-one years. Now, I will grant you that there's a bit of TV and video work mixed in there, but even taking that into consideration, he's unnaturally prolific. Not only that, but he has a reputation for actually being good at what he does. I speak of him by reputation because, though I know him and some of his more popular films by name, this is the first time I've actually watched something he made. I have to say that, though Chan's and Park's films certainly have their confusing elements, it's Miike who leaps fully over the edge and leaves me scratching my head at the end.
The overall direction of Box is rock solid. The performances are good, the atmosphere is creepy, and the cinematography is so artfully done that individual stills could be extracted and displayed as standalone works. Where it looses me is the story.
From the beginning, Miike is clearly keeping secrets. This is all well and good. This is horror, after all, and I don't mind knowing that something's coming, but not knowing what. It builds tension. Then, as the story unfolds, we're given bits and pieces of character and backstory, until we begin to feel like we finally understand what's going on and why. This is the point at which the director turns everything on its ear and we're left wondering, If this is where it was all going, what the hell did all that buildup mean?!? And what the hell was that weird incest scene about?!?
I have a feeling this is a cultural thing, because there's a logical process at work here that I just can't seem to wrap my brain around. As I said before, all three of these segments have bits where I have to just shrug and say to myself, Maybe you need to be Asian, but nowhere are those bits more integral to the story than in Box.
Overall, Three... Extremes seems to work pretty well as a contiguous whole. I feel that - though they may have erred in putting the most "extreme" segment first - the progression from moral horror to moral uncertainty to total, what-the-fuck uncertainty flowed pretty well and left me not only shocked and entertained, but also reflective. Much like the oh-so-sinister dumplings, though Three... Extremes is presented in bite-sized bits, there's some real meat there.
7.5/10
-GABE
Thanks for riding along! Be sure to click on the banner below to check out our YouTube channel, where you can watch our videos, "like" them, subscribe to the channel, leave a comment or a question, or even suggest a movie for future review. You can also check us out on Facebook (CLICK HERE) and Twitter (CLICK HERE). And don't forget to check back every day in October for a new installment in our 31 Days of Fright!
Thursday, October 25, 2012
31 Days of Fright, Day 25: The Cabin in the Woods
Welcome to day 25 of 31 Days of Fright here at Road To The Movies! In today's episode, Jonathan gets a little stoner vindication when he visits...
THE CABIN IN THE WOODS
2012
Rated R
My first instinct here is to regurgitate information I’ve given all of you a million times before. Babble about remakes, adaptations, sequels, and the like, but I’m going to fight that urge. If any of you are faithful readers, you already know my opinion on this subject. What it all comes down to is originality. That’s really what I look for in a horror movie, considering so many of them are exactly the same. One thing I will say about this movie, it has a ridiculous abundance of that.
It follows a group of college kids going out to a lake cabin (super cliché, I know) to simply have a good time, dance, and drink. Sound familiar? Just you wait. They are almost immediately attacked by bloodthirsty monsters, as we’d all expect. But then something interesting happens. We, the viewers, are introduced to a secret society controlling every move and every action in the house. That’s where things get really messed up.
Unfortunately, though I’d like to go deeper into detail, any more would take so much away from the impact the film has. It is such a breath of fresh air in the horror genre as of late, despite its clinging desperately to stereotypes. It’s The Truman Show meets Scream, secret filmmaking paired with hilarious horror satire. These are the types of movies that truly hold my interest and force me to get lost in the illusion, and isn’t that what we’re all looking for? But I must say, amidst all the cheesy humor and cliché storyline, my favorite part was the fact that the stoner was the smartest one of the group. It’s about time, Hollywood!
There are a few things that didn’t sit well with me. That acting left something to be desired (even though sometimes it was supposed to be bad) and the storyline became really farfetched and convoluted out of nowhere. My least favorite part of this movie, however, is the last two seconds. I absolutely hated the last two seconds, and I firmly believe this film would have been improved tenfold by the exclusion of it.
But there is so much good about this film, it’s hard to hold any of that against them. From the perfectly pin-pointed stereotypical characters (acted very well in some points) to the deep layers of satire and comedy, this one is definitely one to see. I have a feeling that there will be no in-betweeners for this movie, it will be either a love or hate relationship. And that’s ok with me, I love it!
8/10
-JONATHAN
Thanks for riding along! Be sure to click on the banner below to check out our YouTube channel, where you can watch our videos, "like" them, subscribe to the channel, leave a comment or a question, or even suggest a movie for future review. You can also check us out on Facebook (CLICK HERE) and Twitter (CLICK HERE). And don't forget to check back every day in October for a new installment in our 31 Days of Fright!
THE CABIN IN THE WOODS
2012
Rated R
My first instinct here is to regurgitate information I’ve given all of you a million times before. Babble about remakes, adaptations, sequels, and the like, but I’m going to fight that urge. If any of you are faithful readers, you already know my opinion on this subject. What it all comes down to is originality. That’s really what I look for in a horror movie, considering so many of them are exactly the same. One thing I will say about this movie, it has a ridiculous abundance of that.
It follows a group of college kids going out to a lake cabin (super cliché, I know) to simply have a good time, dance, and drink. Sound familiar? Just you wait. They are almost immediately attacked by bloodthirsty monsters, as we’d all expect. But then something interesting happens. We, the viewers, are introduced to a secret society controlling every move and every action in the house. That’s where things get really messed up.
Unfortunately, though I’d like to go deeper into detail, any more would take so much away from the impact the film has. It is such a breath of fresh air in the horror genre as of late, despite its clinging desperately to stereotypes. It’s The Truman Show meets Scream, secret filmmaking paired with hilarious horror satire. These are the types of movies that truly hold my interest and force me to get lost in the illusion, and isn’t that what we’re all looking for? But I must say, amidst all the cheesy humor and cliché storyline, my favorite part was the fact that the stoner was the smartest one of the group. It’s about time, Hollywood!
There are a few things that didn’t sit well with me. That acting left something to be desired (even though sometimes it was supposed to be bad) and the storyline became really farfetched and convoluted out of nowhere. My least favorite part of this movie, however, is the last two seconds. I absolutely hated the last two seconds, and I firmly believe this film would have been improved tenfold by the exclusion of it.
But there is so much good about this film, it’s hard to hold any of that against them. From the perfectly pin-pointed stereotypical characters (acted very well in some points) to the deep layers of satire and comedy, this one is definitely one to see. I have a feeling that there will be no in-betweeners for this movie, it will be either a love or hate relationship. And that’s ok with me, I love it!
8/10
-JONATHAN
Thanks for riding along! Be sure to click on the banner below to check out our YouTube channel, where you can watch our videos, "like" them, subscribe to the channel, leave a comment or a question, or even suggest a movie for future review. You can also check us out on Facebook (CLICK HERE) and Twitter (CLICK HERE). And don't forget to check back every day in October for a new installment in our 31 Days of Fright!
Wednesday, October 24, 2012
31 Days of Fright, Day 24: The Woman
Welcome to day 24 of 31 Days of Fright here at Road To The Movies! In today's episode, Gabe goes to extremes with...
THE WOMAN
2011
Rated R
This ain't no date movie. Unless, of course, the story of a family who captures a feral woman in the wild, chains her up in their cellar, and proceeds to collectively "civilize" her sounds like a date movie. If you meet someone who thinks this does sound like a date movie, you should probably either run like hell, or marry them immediately, depending on your particular persuasion. That actually sums this movie up nicely.
I first heard of Lucky McKee's The Woman shortly after its film festival premier (the name of the festival escapes me, but it may have been Sundance), because a guy in the audience caused quite a ruckus when - just after the movie ended - he stood up in his chair and started shouting his revulsion at the movie's degradation of women. I can't argue that the women in the movie are literally treated like animals, but that's clearly not the point of the story, and I have to wonder if the whole thing wasn't just a stunt pulled by the filmmakers to garner some press for a movie that, in all likelihood, would never have made it onto most people's radars.
Don't take that to mean that I think The Woman is a bad movie. And when I say bad, I'm not referring to morality. While the pure, brutal misogyny of the male lead is clearly going to be too much for even some dedicated horror fans, I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about filmmaking. Director Lucky McKee has quite a following - albeit, of the cult variety - and not without reason. He's clearly got a vision, and though there were many aspects of the movie I didn't like, I did feel that it was effective and that its scope became clear by the end.
The Woman is a movie that deals in extremes. Extreme misogyny, extreme submissiveness, extreme abuse, extreme retribution. This is both its strength and weakness. The extremities of the situation do make sympathetic characters even more sympathetic and the ending - which you can see coming as soon as you learn the setup - that much more satisfying, but the trouble is that the extremes carry beyond the story and into the performances. There is no nuance on display here, no subtle characterization. All of the characters are cartoons, and - at least for the first half of the movie - it's quite off-putting.
My biggest hangup with this film is that I just can't picture a world in which the titular Woman could even exist. When we first meet her, though her clothing is ragged and filthy, it's clearly manufactured, and she's carrying a knife straight out of an Eddie Bauer catalogue. So she's getting her supplies from somewhere, and given her apparent nature, I'm guessing the people she's getting them from aren't surviving to tell the tale. So, if people are going missing in her neck of the woods, and if she's so lackadaisical about keeping hidden that a guy who thinks smoking while hunting is going to help him bag a deer could happen upon her and go unnoticed, why hasn't she been caught already? I know that this is a moment where I should just suspend my disbelief and accept it as a given for the sake of the story, but it bugged me the whole time I was watching.
In the end, though the setup of the movie bothered me and I felt the performances were one-dimensional, there is something to be said for a movie that can seriously disturb me at this point in my horror fandom. Lucky McKee is a talented storyteller, though I think he should look into finding actors who can do more than the hundred-yard stare to indicate inner turmoil. Though I hated elements, I didn't hate the movie as a whole, and though I did see everything coming a mile away, it still managed to shock. It ain't perfect, but it ain't bad. Just don't watch it on date night.
6.5/10
-GABE
Thanks for riding along! Be sure to click on the banner below to check out our YouTube channel, where you can watch our videos, "like" them, subscribe to the channel, leave a comment or a question, or even suggest a movie for future review. You can also check us out on Facebook (CLICK HERE) and Twitter (CLICK HERE). And don't forget to check back every day in October for a new installment in our 31 Days of Fright!
THE WOMAN
2011
Rated R
This ain't no date movie. Unless, of course, the story of a family who captures a feral woman in the wild, chains her up in their cellar, and proceeds to collectively "civilize" her sounds like a date movie. If you meet someone who thinks this does sound like a date movie, you should probably either run like hell, or marry them immediately, depending on your particular persuasion. That actually sums this movie up nicely.
I first heard of Lucky McKee's The Woman shortly after its film festival premier (the name of the festival escapes me, but it may have been Sundance), because a guy in the audience caused quite a ruckus when - just after the movie ended - he stood up in his chair and started shouting his revulsion at the movie's degradation of women. I can't argue that the women in the movie are literally treated like animals, but that's clearly not the point of the story, and I have to wonder if the whole thing wasn't just a stunt pulled by the filmmakers to garner some press for a movie that, in all likelihood, would never have made it onto most people's radars.
Don't take that to mean that I think The Woman is a bad movie. And when I say bad, I'm not referring to morality. While the pure, brutal misogyny of the male lead is clearly going to be too much for even some dedicated horror fans, I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about filmmaking. Director Lucky McKee has quite a following - albeit, of the cult variety - and not without reason. He's clearly got a vision, and though there were many aspects of the movie I didn't like, I did feel that it was effective and that its scope became clear by the end.
The Woman is a movie that deals in extremes. Extreme misogyny, extreme submissiveness, extreme abuse, extreme retribution. This is both its strength and weakness. The extremities of the situation do make sympathetic characters even more sympathetic and the ending - which you can see coming as soon as you learn the setup - that much more satisfying, but the trouble is that the extremes carry beyond the story and into the performances. There is no nuance on display here, no subtle characterization. All of the characters are cartoons, and - at least for the first half of the movie - it's quite off-putting.
My biggest hangup with this film is that I just can't picture a world in which the titular Woman could even exist. When we first meet her, though her clothing is ragged and filthy, it's clearly manufactured, and she's carrying a knife straight out of an Eddie Bauer catalogue. So she's getting her supplies from somewhere, and given her apparent nature, I'm guessing the people she's getting them from aren't surviving to tell the tale. So, if people are going missing in her neck of the woods, and if she's so lackadaisical about keeping hidden that a guy who thinks smoking while hunting is going to help him bag a deer could happen upon her and go unnoticed, why hasn't she been caught already? I know that this is a moment where I should just suspend my disbelief and accept it as a given for the sake of the story, but it bugged me the whole time I was watching.
In the end, though the setup of the movie bothered me and I felt the performances were one-dimensional, there is something to be said for a movie that can seriously disturb me at this point in my horror fandom. Lucky McKee is a talented storyteller, though I think he should look into finding actors who can do more than the hundred-yard stare to indicate inner turmoil. Though I hated elements, I didn't hate the movie as a whole, and though I did see everything coming a mile away, it still managed to shock. It ain't perfect, but it ain't bad. Just don't watch it on date night.
6.5/10
-GABE
Thanks for riding along! Be sure to click on the banner below to check out our YouTube channel, where you can watch our videos, "like" them, subscribe to the channel, leave a comment or a question, or even suggest a movie for future review. You can also check us out on Facebook (CLICK HERE) and Twitter (CLICK HERE). And don't forget to check back every day in October for a new installment in our 31 Days of Fright!
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
31 Days of Fright, Day 23: Thou Shalt Not Kill... Except
Welcome to day 23 of 31 Days of Fright here at Road To The Movies! In today's episode, Gabe takes stalking to a new level of laziness with...
THOU SHALT NOT KILL... EXCEPT
1985
Not Rated
I have a love/hate relationship with movie trailers. I’ve been burned far too many times to ever fully trust them, and I genuinely think that I should be able to sue movie studios for releasing trailers that spoil the films they’re advertising. However, if it weren’t for trailers, I might never have discovered so many of the movies I’ve come to cherish so much.
Seven years ago, a movie called The Man With The Screaming Brain was released, and I was there. I’m up for just about anything Bruce Campbell related, and he not only starred in this movie, but wrote and directed it as well. Needless to say, I didn’t need to be convinced. I bought it the day it was released.
In addition to a surprisingly good movie (surprisingly, because it was released by The SyFy Channel, back when they were The Sci-Fi Channel), I saw a trailer for a movie I had never heard of but became instantly infatuated with: Thou Shalt Not Kill... Except. The ellipses alone would have been enough to sell me on this flick, but it actually looked pretty cool, in a so-bad-it’s-good kinda way.
The movie tells the story of a wounded Vietnam vet who survives the war only to find himself at war with the deranged, murderous cult that rolls into his rural town and begins laying waste to its inhabitants - not the least of whom is his girlfriend and her father.
I went straight to my local video store (yeah, we still had one back in’05, but its days were numbered), only to find that they didn’t carry it. I checked at Hollywood Video and Blockbuster too (they stuck around a little longer, but they’re all gone now), but it was a fool’s errand. Those guys never did have a decent selection.
Eventually I stopped looking. I got Netflix not too long after that, but they didn't have a copy at the time, so Thou Shalt Not Kill... Except just sort of got forgotten in the constant shuffle of newly discovered movies.
Cut to this week. I was at the last video store in town (not a proper “video store” at all, really – one of those “entertainment megastores” with a rental section) with my Road To The Movies co-host, Jonathan, when we happened across a copy of Thou Shalt Not Kill... Except, which looked to have only recently been released on Blu-Ray. Needless to say, after a short recounting of my experience trying to find the movie, and after a quick look at the case, we had to see it.
We were not disappointed.
It was everything I’d hoped for. Violent, gory, corny, absurd, funny, schlocky, over-the-top – this movie has it all. I’m a dedicated fan of bad movies, and this is one bad movie that hits on all cylinders. The acting makes porn look like The Royal Shakespeare Theater. The shameless use of stock footage would have made Ed Wood proud. Sam Raimi’s performance as the hippy cult-leader – yes, that Sam Raimi – is so grotesque, so excessive, so hilarious that it’s worth the price of admission alone.
I don’t want to spoil the movie for you, as watching it for the first time is truly an unforgettable experience, but I will say that if you’re a fan of insanity like The Evil Dead trilogy or wonderful schlock like Troll 2, then this is the Vietnam movie you’ve been waiting for. Your best bet is to get a crowd of like-minded friends together, crack some brews, and enjoy.
I suppose could be room for debate in some people's minds as to whether or not this is a horror movie at all, but not in mine. We have characters we care about (or, at least, we're meant to care about) put in truly horrifying situations by some really horrible people who commit some extremely horrifying acts (well, acts that would be horrifying if every scene weren't so absurdly over-the-top). If this had been done seriously and had been helmed by a competent director, it would be one deeply disturbing piece of cinema. And I know that there are people who claim movies like this and movies like The Devil's Rejects or Silence of the Lambs aren't horror, but all I can think to say to someone that jaded is, If stuff like that doesn't horrify you, you should probably seek professional help immediately.
Like I said before, I love bad movies. I’m actually trying to start a local bad movie festival. This one is a prime candidate; so good at being bad that it’s downright awesome.
8/10
-GABE
Thanks for riding along! Be sure to click on the banner below to check out our YouTube channel, where you can watch our videos, "like" them, subscribe to the channel, leave a comment or a question, or even suggest a movie for future review. You can also check us out on Facebook (CLICK HERE) and Twitter (CLICK HERE). And don't forget to check back every day in October for a new installment in our 31 Days of Fright!
THOU SHALT NOT KILL... EXCEPT
1985
Not Rated
I have a love/hate relationship with movie trailers. I’ve been burned far too many times to ever fully trust them, and I genuinely think that I should be able to sue movie studios for releasing trailers that spoil the films they’re advertising. However, if it weren’t for trailers, I might never have discovered so many of the movies I’ve come to cherish so much.
Seven years ago, a movie called The Man With The Screaming Brain was released, and I was there. I’m up for just about anything Bruce Campbell related, and he not only starred in this movie, but wrote and directed it as well. Needless to say, I didn’t need to be convinced. I bought it the day it was released.
In addition to a surprisingly good movie (surprisingly, because it was released by The SyFy Channel, back when they were The Sci-Fi Channel), I saw a trailer for a movie I had never heard of but became instantly infatuated with: Thou Shalt Not Kill... Except. The ellipses alone would have been enough to sell me on this flick, but it actually looked pretty cool, in a so-bad-it’s-good kinda way.
The movie tells the story of a wounded Vietnam vet who survives the war only to find himself at war with the deranged, murderous cult that rolls into his rural town and begins laying waste to its inhabitants - not the least of whom is his girlfriend and her father.
I went straight to my local video store (yeah, we still had one back in’05, but its days were numbered), only to find that they didn’t carry it. I checked at Hollywood Video and Blockbuster too (they stuck around a little longer, but they’re all gone now), but it was a fool’s errand. Those guys never did have a decent selection.
Eventually I stopped looking. I got Netflix not too long after that, but they didn't have a copy at the time, so Thou Shalt Not Kill... Except just sort of got forgotten in the constant shuffle of newly discovered movies.
Cut to this week. I was at the last video store in town (not a proper “video store” at all, really – one of those “entertainment megastores” with a rental section) with my Road To The Movies co-host, Jonathan, when we happened across a copy of Thou Shalt Not Kill... Except, which looked to have only recently been released on Blu-Ray. Needless to say, after a short recounting of my experience trying to find the movie, and after a quick look at the case, we had to see it.
We were not disappointed.
It was everything I’d hoped for. Violent, gory, corny, absurd, funny, schlocky, over-the-top – this movie has it all. I’m a dedicated fan of bad movies, and this is one bad movie that hits on all cylinders. The acting makes porn look like The Royal Shakespeare Theater. The shameless use of stock footage would have made Ed Wood proud. Sam Raimi’s performance as the hippy cult-leader – yes, that Sam Raimi – is so grotesque, so excessive, so hilarious that it’s worth the price of admission alone.
I don’t want to spoil the movie for you, as watching it for the first time is truly an unforgettable experience, but I will say that if you’re a fan of insanity like The Evil Dead trilogy or wonderful schlock like Troll 2, then this is the Vietnam movie you’ve been waiting for. Your best bet is to get a crowd of like-minded friends together, crack some brews, and enjoy.
I suppose could be room for debate in some people's minds as to whether or not this is a horror movie at all, but not in mine. We have characters we care about (or, at least, we're meant to care about) put in truly horrifying situations by some really horrible people who commit some extremely horrifying acts (well, acts that would be horrifying if every scene weren't so absurdly over-the-top). If this had been done seriously and had been helmed by a competent director, it would be one deeply disturbing piece of cinema. And I know that there are people who claim movies like this and movies like The Devil's Rejects or Silence of the Lambs aren't horror, but all I can think to say to someone that jaded is, If stuff like that doesn't horrify you, you should probably seek professional help immediately.
Like I said before, I love bad movies. I’m actually trying to start a local bad movie festival. This one is a prime candidate; so good at being bad that it’s downright awesome.
8/10
-GABE
Thanks for riding along! Be sure to click on the banner below to check out our YouTube channel, where you can watch our videos, "like" them, subscribe to the channel, leave a comment or a question, or even suggest a movie for future review. You can also check us out on Facebook (CLICK HERE) and Twitter (CLICK HERE). And don't forget to check back every day in October for a new installment in our 31 Days of Fright!
Monday, October 22, 2012
31 Days of Fright, Day 22: Tucker & Dale vs Evil
Welcome to day 22 of 31 Days of Fright here at Road To The Movies! In today's episode, Jonathan can't find anything but good things to say about...
TUCKER & DALE VS EVIL
2010
Rated R
Let me start off by saying this movie is phenomenal. I know that’s a bold statement, and a bold way to start a review, but it really is that good. It’s your classic hillbilly horror story turned on its ear (with hilarious results). It follows the hillbillies, rather than the college campers, who happen to be two normal guys making an innocent trip to restore an old lake cabin together. Once there, they go fishing and witness one of the college kids falling off a rock and nearly drowning. They save her, but all her college buddies see is their friend getting taken away into dark territory by two weird men.
I won’t go any further into the plot, because that’s the point where things get awesome… in a BIG way. It’s hard to call this movie "horror" because it’s so damn funny, but it also takes it all the way. It’s gory, violent, funny, weird… everything I want in my horror. The story is great too, as is the (sometimes hilariously ridiculous) dialogue, which is, in my opinion, flawlessly written. The characters were absolutely off the wall and extremely cliché (in a great way) but the hillbillies were deep and sensitive. While the writing was amazing, the acting was even better. Each character was based on a specific type of person, and all the actors pulled them off perfectly. There is little room for error when making a movie that completely exposes the ridiculousness of a certain genre, and this movie did it perfectly.
This is normally where I’d talk about what I didn’t like about the movie. But, honestly, there really isn’t all that much to dislike. I won’t go too into detail because of spoilers, but the end does get a little convoluted and starts to drag, but that really fits in with the genre they’re parodying. Actually, all the things I didn’t like I also don’t like about other movies in the genre. Obviously, I don’t have much of anything but good to say about this movie. You might not want to watch it if you’re uncomfortable with blood and guts (and a lot of it) or a ton of swearing, but if you’re a horror, action, or comedy fan, this is one to watch. I would go so far as to say it’s an instant classic among horror and comedy buffs alike.
10/10
-JONATHAN
Thanks for riding along! Be sure to click on the banner below to check out our YouTube channel, where you can watch our videos, "like" them, subscribe to the channel, leave a comment or a question, or even suggest a movie for future review. You can also check us out on Facebook (CLICK HERE) and Twitter (CLICK HERE). And don't forget to check back every day in October for a new installment in our 31 Days of Fright!
TUCKER & DALE VS EVIL
2010
Rated R
Let me start off by saying this movie is phenomenal. I know that’s a bold statement, and a bold way to start a review, but it really is that good. It’s your classic hillbilly horror story turned on its ear (with hilarious results). It follows the hillbillies, rather than the college campers, who happen to be two normal guys making an innocent trip to restore an old lake cabin together. Once there, they go fishing and witness one of the college kids falling off a rock and nearly drowning. They save her, but all her college buddies see is their friend getting taken away into dark territory by two weird men.
I won’t go any further into the plot, because that’s the point where things get awesome… in a BIG way. It’s hard to call this movie "horror" because it’s so damn funny, but it also takes it all the way. It’s gory, violent, funny, weird… everything I want in my horror. The story is great too, as is the (sometimes hilariously ridiculous) dialogue, which is, in my opinion, flawlessly written. The characters were absolutely off the wall and extremely cliché (in a great way) but the hillbillies were deep and sensitive. While the writing was amazing, the acting was even better. Each character was based on a specific type of person, and all the actors pulled them off perfectly. There is little room for error when making a movie that completely exposes the ridiculousness of a certain genre, and this movie did it perfectly.
This is normally where I’d talk about what I didn’t like about the movie. But, honestly, there really isn’t all that much to dislike. I won’t go too into detail because of spoilers, but the end does get a little convoluted and starts to drag, but that really fits in with the genre they’re parodying. Actually, all the things I didn’t like I also don’t like about other movies in the genre. Obviously, I don’t have much of anything but good to say about this movie. You might not want to watch it if you’re uncomfortable with blood and guts (and a lot of it) or a ton of swearing, but if you’re a horror, action, or comedy fan, this is one to watch. I would go so far as to say it’s an instant classic among horror and comedy buffs alike.
10/10
-JONATHAN
Thanks for riding along! Be sure to click on the banner below to check out our YouTube channel, where you can watch our videos, "like" them, subscribe to the channel, leave a comment or a question, or even suggest a movie for future review. You can also check us out on Facebook (CLICK HERE) and Twitter (CLICK HERE). And don't forget to check back every day in October for a new installment in our 31 Days of Fright!
Sunday, October 21, 2012
31 Days of Fright, Day 21: Night of the Comet
Welcome to day 21 of 31 Days of Fright here at Road To The Movies! In today's episode, Gabe finds himself in the fight of his life as he struggles to describe the...
NIGHT OF THE COMET
1984
Rated PG-13
If you've stuck with me this far, you know I'm a man who seldom finds himself at a loss for words. I have something to say about damn near everything, and can usually carry on at length about even the most trivial of subjects, but as I sit here at my keyboard and consider how to articulate my feelings about the 1984 valley-girl apocalypse film Night of the Comet, I'm drawing a blank.
While I tread water and wait for my brain to throw me a lifeline, here's the setup: A comet that hasn't passed near Earth for nearly sixty-five million years (you know, back around the time the dinosaurs went extinct) is about to make an appearance, and the whole world is excited. In a plot twist only a psychic detective could predict, the comet ends up wiping out nearly everybody on Earth, leaving behind only piles of dust dressed in the latest (1984) styles. The few people smart or lucky enough to have stayed inside got a lower dose of whatever the comet was handing out, and only turn into uber-violent zombie types instead of drying into powder. The fewer still who were shielded by steel at the time (this bit comes out later) were spared entirely, and are left to deal with the psychotic freaks who didn't have the good sense to sleep inside a suit of armor. Among these lucky, lucky handful are a pair of teenage sisters who - among other things - happen to be trained from childhood in hand-to-hand combat and the use of firearms. They team up with a hispanic trucker and... But I don't want to ruin the plot for you. Let it suffice to say that an group of less-than-trustworthy scientists, a small clan of murderous stock clerks, and a disembodied disc-jockey all factor into the story at one point or another.
All right, enough stalling. I'm still not quite sure how to describe what I feel about this movie. There are some really great moments - the brief repartee between the sisters while test-firing their newly acquired submachine guns leaps to mind - and there are some really crap moments - the utterly suspenseless scene where Hector searches his mother's house, for instance - but overall, my feelings are very confused. I honestly don't know whether I love this movie, hate it, or don't care. It pulls in so many directions at the same time that I can't tell which direction I'm moving in. Maybe none at all.
This is an '80s movie, so right there I don't really know how to take it. It seems like every movie made between 1982 and 1992 was a roughly equal mix of crap and fun. I'm generalizing unfairly, of course, but I mean aside from the really big films of that era that everyone already knows about. When it comes to small, independent or low-budget movies, the '80s were a very strange time. It's obvious that everyone involved in cinema back in those days was doing a LOT of blow.
It's also an apocalypse movie, and - with very few exceptions - I love apocalypse movies. But it doesn't feel like an apocalypse movie. It feels like the apocalypse happened, but nobody in this movie noticed or cared. I think this is probably due to a lack of acting skill, but it really feels like these characters are not taking any of what's going on seriously. But is it bad acting, or is it great acting? Are the characters just that vapid? I don't know. I just don't know.
The strange shots of the red sky aftermath of the comet is a rather confusing element as well. We are treated to shot after shot of the empty city, drenched in red from whatever the comet did to the atmosphere. The problem is, the effect - while a good idea - is so damn inconsistent. All of the shots that don't show the sky are in regular light, but when we see the sky, everything is red. It's very obvious how the effect was created, but my question is, why didn't they light this movie consistently? If the sky is red and the sunlight filtering through it is red, why isn't everything red? I guess it's sort of symptomatic of how I feel about this movie as a whole. I just can't wrap my mind around it.
In the end, I feel that I liked the movie while I was watching it - I certainly never felt the desire to turn it off - but in looking back at it, I just don't know what to think. I'd like to say, If you like This Movie or That Movie then you'd love/hate Night of the Comet, but I have no freaking clue what to compare it to. A Boy and His Dog maybe? Even that feels wrong.
I guess the best I can say is that this is a movie for the curious. It's the kind of movie you should look into if you don't really know what you want to watch. Maybe it's exactly what you're looking for. Maybe it's not. And maybe, like me, you'll look back at it and say, What the hell do I even think about that?!?
5/10
-GABE
Thanks for riding along! Be sure to click on the banner below to check out our YouTube channel, where you can watch our videos, "like" them, subscribe to the channel, leave a comment or a question, or even suggest a movie for future review. You can also check us out on Facebook (CLICK HERE) and Twitter (CLICK HERE). And don't forget to check back every day in October for a new installment in our 31 Days of Fright!
NIGHT OF THE COMET
1984
Rated PG-13
If you've stuck with me this far, you know I'm a man who seldom finds himself at a loss for words. I have something to say about damn near everything, and can usually carry on at length about even the most trivial of subjects, but as I sit here at my keyboard and consider how to articulate my feelings about the 1984 valley-girl apocalypse film Night of the Comet, I'm drawing a blank.
While I tread water and wait for my brain to throw me a lifeline, here's the setup: A comet that hasn't passed near Earth for nearly sixty-five million years (you know, back around the time the dinosaurs went extinct) is about to make an appearance, and the whole world is excited. In a plot twist only a psychic detective could predict, the comet ends up wiping out nearly everybody on Earth, leaving behind only piles of dust dressed in the latest (1984) styles. The few people smart or lucky enough to have stayed inside got a lower dose of whatever the comet was handing out, and only turn into uber-violent zombie types instead of drying into powder. The fewer still who were shielded by steel at the time (this bit comes out later) were spared entirely, and are left to deal with the psychotic freaks who didn't have the good sense to sleep inside a suit of armor. Among these lucky, lucky handful are a pair of teenage sisters who - among other things - happen to be trained from childhood in hand-to-hand combat and the use of firearms. They team up with a hispanic trucker and... But I don't want to ruin the plot for you. Let it suffice to say that an group of less-than-trustworthy scientists, a small clan of murderous stock clerks, and a disembodied disc-jockey all factor into the story at one point or another.
All right, enough stalling. I'm still not quite sure how to describe what I feel about this movie. There are some really great moments - the brief repartee between the sisters while test-firing their newly acquired submachine guns leaps to mind - and there are some really crap moments - the utterly suspenseless scene where Hector searches his mother's house, for instance - but overall, my feelings are very confused. I honestly don't know whether I love this movie, hate it, or don't care. It pulls in so many directions at the same time that I can't tell which direction I'm moving in. Maybe none at all.
This is an '80s movie, so right there I don't really know how to take it. It seems like every movie made between 1982 and 1992 was a roughly equal mix of crap and fun. I'm generalizing unfairly, of course, but I mean aside from the really big films of that era that everyone already knows about. When it comes to small, independent or low-budget movies, the '80s were a very strange time. It's obvious that everyone involved in cinema back in those days was doing a LOT of blow.
It's also an apocalypse movie, and - with very few exceptions - I love apocalypse movies. But it doesn't feel like an apocalypse movie. It feels like the apocalypse happened, but nobody in this movie noticed or cared. I think this is probably due to a lack of acting skill, but it really feels like these characters are not taking any of what's going on seriously. But is it bad acting, or is it great acting? Are the characters just that vapid? I don't know. I just don't know.
The strange shots of the red sky aftermath of the comet is a rather confusing element as well. We are treated to shot after shot of the empty city, drenched in red from whatever the comet did to the atmosphere. The problem is, the effect - while a good idea - is so damn inconsistent. All of the shots that don't show the sky are in regular light, but when we see the sky, everything is red. It's very obvious how the effect was created, but my question is, why didn't they light this movie consistently? If the sky is red and the sunlight filtering through it is red, why isn't everything red? I guess it's sort of symptomatic of how I feel about this movie as a whole. I just can't wrap my mind around it.
In the end, I feel that I liked the movie while I was watching it - I certainly never felt the desire to turn it off - but in looking back at it, I just don't know what to think. I'd like to say, If you like This Movie or That Movie then you'd love/hate Night of the Comet, but I have no freaking clue what to compare it to. A Boy and His Dog maybe? Even that feels wrong.
I guess the best I can say is that this is a movie for the curious. It's the kind of movie you should look into if you don't really know what you want to watch. Maybe it's exactly what you're looking for. Maybe it's not. And maybe, like me, you'll look back at it and say, What the hell do I even think about that?!?
5/10
-GABE
Thanks for riding along! Be sure to click on the banner below to check out our YouTube channel, where you can watch our videos, "like" them, subscribe to the channel, leave a comment or a question, or even suggest a movie for future review. You can also check us out on Facebook (CLICK HERE) and Twitter (CLICK HERE). And don't forget to check back every day in October for a new installment in our 31 Days of Fright!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)