Dub Cee Reviews: The Ring (2002)

Director: Gore Verbinski

Writer:  Ehren Kruger (Screenplay), Koji Suzuki (Novel)

Ok guys, ready for this. Get the lynch mob formed. Call in the posse. Grab your pitchforks and light the torches because, I, Dub Cee liked the Ring. Yes you read that correctly, I liked the Ring.

I thought the story behind the Ring was interesting. I thought the power it held over people was interesting. Even though Frodo and Sam were just a tab bit too friendly for my taste. Golem was cool looking.

What’s with the confused look? Oh, my bad, I was thinking of the whole one Ring to rule them all. The movie called “The Ring”, which ironically enough has NOTHING to do with a Ring…sucked. Alot.

The overall story idea was kinda dumb to begin with. Basically, we have Rachel (Naomi Watts) who is a reporter researching the deaths of some teenagers and she learns of this legend. If anybody watches this video, right after they get phone call, a raspy voice says seven days. Then whamo, seven days later they are found with their heart squished inside their chest. Of course, at some point Rachel watches said tape and gets the creepy phone call. She then asks her ex-husband Noah (Martin Henderson) to take a look at it. Seems he is a techie geek type of fellow who watches the tape. He explains the tape does not have the usual markings of a recording and cannot explain how the images were made. Oh, did I mention that Rachel let the tape out so her son Aidan (David Dorfman) could watch it. Seems the only way to prevent death is to make a copy of the movie and give it to someone else and have them watch it. Then they get to die while you laugh at their demise.

Anyways, they figure out the legend to be true and learn of the legend of Samara Morgan who was the adopted daughter of Richard Morgan (Brian Cox). Turns out once Samara is in the lives of the Morgan’s things go crazy. Dead horses, images burned into the mother’s head, etc. Eventually they go all “Country Death Song” (good tune from the Violent Femmes, has nothing to do with this movie) and toss little Samara down the well. They figure she dies…seven days later. So the family figures maybe if they set things right for Samara, expose the truth, and give her a proper burial then the kilings will stop.

Now, I am all for some supernatural stuff and suspense. However, things need to be explained. Why a VHS tape, why not a DVD? Was Samara too cheap to go with the good stuff? Just exactly how did this tape get made? And if you are going in the suspense route, leave out stupid attempts at jump scares. Those take you right out of any tension you may have had and actually serve to do the opposite of what you intended.

The acting was bad all around. Naomi Watts was just boring on screen. Martin Henderson was as boring in this as he was in Smokin’ Aces. Hell, the kid was the most interesting character and even still just bleh. The lone thing I liked in this movie was the end. No, not the sarcastic “once the credits started rolling.” I mean the end of the story. It sets up with a typical ending. Mommy and Daddy back together to help raise the troubled son. That is not what you get. Instead, they must do the one thing they were trying to avoid.

Now, some might thing that was a spoiler. Honestly though, it wasn’t. It was a save. I just saved you from watching this movie. I forced myself to watch it for the second time. I had to pay a $15 late fee and get it for a two night rental. You people should be thanking me! It is based on a novel and movie titled “Ringu” from Japan but this was so bad I doubt I ever give either one a chance.

Final rating: The only thing keeping this from an “F” is the unhappy ending. Even still I only give this a “D-“. Avoid.

Guillaume de Sade Reviews: Shocker (1989)

Directed and Written by: Wes Craven

Nowadays, when someone uses the term “Shocker”, it is usually followed by a knowing smirk and recitation of the current definition…two in the pink and one in the stink!  Well not this time…this time I’m talking about the Wes Craven classic about a serial killer with a limp and a big ass knife!  Not high intellectual fare, but fucking fun as hell!

Horace Pinker is criminally overlooked in most discussions of movie maniacs.  He is the boogie man your parents thought you’d turn into by watching too much t.v.

All the classic stereotypes are here too…the loud but inspirational black guy, the virginal girlfriend and the dad that doesn’t believe his son when his son is trying to explain how he knows things he shouldn’t.  However the truly classic thing about this movie is the soundtrack.

If you’re an 80’s hair metal aficionado, such as myself, then this is a must have!  Paul Stanley, Desmond Child, Tommy Lee, Alice Cooper, Megadeth, Dangerous Toys…if anyone of those names means anything to you then you need this soundtrack in your collection.

By this point, your probably wondering when I’m going to really delve into the movie and review it.  Well, other than padding my review, I just wanted to get that other stuff out of the way and turn on the more critical side of my brain….so here goes:

“Shocker” main character Jonathan Parker is a pretty standard 80’s high school character…captain of the football team, dating the hottest girl in school and the son of the police captain.  As the plot evolves, we find out that Jonathan is somehow connected to serial killer, Horace Pinker, through his dreams.  You may remember this being a familiar Wes Craven theme from the “Nightmare on Elm Street” series.

That’s pretty much where that similarity ends.  Pinker murders the virgin, gets caught, does some voodoo in his cell…wait a sec…just have to mention during this voodoo ritual, in his jail cell, he has candles AND jumper cables…WTF kind of prison is this?!  Anyways, after the voodoo, he reveals the big movie twist…spoiler alert:

He is Jonathan Parker’s real father…dun dun dunnnnnnn.  Actually, since this is still pretty early in the movie, it’s okay with me, it’s not like it was really dragged out or played for suspense.

So where was I?  Oh yeah, the voodoo, then the movie twist, then the revelation of powers he gained thru the voodoo ritual…now he can possess bodies and when he uses a body up, he can travel through electrical lines…what a shocker!

Mitch Pileggi was by far the best thing this movie had going for it.  Wes Craven was at the beginning of a slump that wouldn’t end until Scream, so the writing for this movie definitely was not his best.  Pileggi’s over the top, sadistic portrayal of the character was only upstaged once…and that was by a 7 year old girl cursing and trying to drive a bulldozer…but that’s not really fair…kids cursing is always funny.

Well enough of my near incoherent rambling, and onto my summation…”Shocker” was a commercial failure and with good reason.  The story wasn’t great, the special effects weren’t great and with the aforementioned exception of Mitch Pileggi, most of the acting was only alright. This movie is like a bag of circus peanuts…to some it’s a delicious treat that you just can’t get enough of and to others…well they throw in their mouths just thinking about it.

– Guillaume de Sade

Chainsaw Cheerleader Reviews: It’s Alive (1974)

Directed by: Larry Cohen
Written by: Larry Cohen
Cast: John P. Ryan and Sharon Farrell
Genre: Horror, Horror Classics, Monsters

B horror movies are known for many things; terrible or laughable acting, a creative bountiful use of blood and gore, and an artfulness or campiness. Out of all these things B horror movies have one thing in common: A low or nonexistent budget. A lack of funds can doom any movie that is without a creative team behind the scenes making use of what they have. A great example of this is the movie The Evil Dead. Having been made for a mere $375,000, The Evil Dead has become a classic that we as adults will show our children and their children. Having grossed over $29,400,000 as of 2006, this little gem has made more money in its lifetime without the help of a major film company than most bloated box office movies that has been released this summer. The Evil Dead is just one of many examples of what can be done when working with creativity. One movie, far less known than The Evil Dead, is It’s Alive.

It’s Alive embraces what little it has and draws from the imaginative mind of its director, Larry Cohen. The film opens with blackness only to have around thirty flash lights appear. These lights trace back and forth or up and down, giving the impression that a large group of people are desperately searching for something. Mr. Cohen shot this sequence in his basement. Having set up ladders of different heights, he and a friend climbed upon them while turning on the flash lights in the dark on different stages of the ladder. Mr. Cohen then placed several of these shots upon each other in order to give the impression that a number of different people were present and not only two men. This display of artistic thought is found throughout It’s Alive. While certainly not The Evil Dead or earning a The Evil Dead sized revenue, It’s Alive has reached cult classic status that many modern films will never reach. Yes, It’s Alive was backed by Warner Bros. but when you are forced to shoot scenes of your movie in your basement, ask a friend to write music for the film, and cast your friends as characters in that very movie one comes to a clear understanding that the film company that you are working for could care less about you. We should remember that this is the same company that produced the movie Catwoman. It is apparent that their decision making skills have from time to time suffered greatly.

It is not only Mr. Cohan’s imagination that makes this film enjoyable, it is the incredible acting skills of the lead stars. John Ryan and Sharon Farrell play the expectant parents. Seen as a strong but ordinary couple, this man and woman bring a mutant child into the world. Fanged and hungry, the baby begins a killing spree. While a mutant baby killing grown adults seems farfetched, this film is more about how the parents deal with their lose of a normal child and manage to care for the mutant that is their son. The majority of the film focuses on the actions and reactions of the parents. Mr. Ryan plays the father role well. He brings the character from this strong, put together man to a father who realizes this abomination is his son. He smoothly transitions between the two roles and is believable when he realizes he cares about the mutant baby. Sharon Farrell plays a strong woman while still emotionally falling apart. Mrs. Farrell is not the average woman one might see in a horror movie. She does not play the victim or the helpless creature that must rely on a man to save her. While completely devastated by the fact that she gave birth to a monster she has learned to love him as her husband shouts that the child must be destroyed.

While time has not been kind to It’s Alive, the film raises a question that is vital still to this day. The mutation which caused the child to become a monster is revealed to be caused by environmental contaminants. It is odd when one realizes that a horror movie produced during the 1970’s, a time of great excess, would be looking into the future for the sake of the next generation. A horror movie with a message. Who knew?

It’s Alive receives 3 mutant babies out of 5

Tigris Rose reviews: The Frighteners (1996)

The Frighteners (1996)
Director: Peter Jackson
Writers: Fran Walsh & Peter Jackson

This movie has a lot of ups and downs for the classic movie lover of horror. All the makings of a really great horror movie, but at the same time there was so much camp and crappy 90’s CGI that well it didn’t quite hit the thresh hold of scary.

The story line jumps around a bit, especially towards the beginning when they are trying to explain a phenomenon of murders in a small town of Fairwater. Chronologically the story starts in the 60’s when a orderly John Bartlett kills 12 people in cold blood from in a hospital. Bartlett would be executed by the chair for the murders, but his girlfriend would go to jail, to be released later in the care of her mother.

Jump into the future about 40 years and you come to Micheal J. Fox, who plays Frank Bannister a grieving widow, con-artist. After the death of his wife, he gained the ability to see ghosts. Bannister with the help of three misfit ghosts, Stewart a geeky hypochondriac, Cryus a funky black man from the age of disco, and The Judge an old falling apart at the bones specter from the old west, they con people as Bannister is a confidence ghostbuster.

Skip around a bit with the deaths of 28 people. At first seems like a heart attack, but after the autopsy they find out their hearts have been crushed. Bannister being his own gateway to the other realm sees these ectoplasm numbers etched in the foreheads from a “Death” like shadow that has been killing innocents by crushing the hearts of the murdered victims. Bannister tries to solve what this new shadow of death is doing before the law catches up with him and before others get murdered.

Anyway, I won’t give away anymore, you will just have to find out how the movie ends and get through the twists of this weird Ghostbusters meets, Steven King, in Ted Bundy package. The movie has a lot of camp especially from the three ghosts that live and work with Bannister. They have a lot of one liners and do what most specters do when stuck in the middle of heaven and hell and that is complain… a lot!

One terribly funny scene is the Sargent in the graveyard. You first meet him after the death of the lady doctors husband as Bannister helps the husband’s spirit come to grips with the fact he’s dead. But the Sargent just drills Bannister for coming into his yard treating ghosts like he does. The scene which is awful yet, distastefully amusing is that in the process of getting the dead husband to his funeral the Sargent stops Bannister and just drills him with disgust. The Sargent then displays a cycle of transformations in order to subdue Bannister and knocks him on his ass. The morphing is kind of cool for the 90’s however the campiness of this scene just begs to be laughed at.

Then there is FBI agent Milton Dammers is a Hitler looking, crazy, catatonic, paranoid personality is the weirdest occult conspiracy theorist ever. Dammers is the FBI’s leading investigator in the cases dealing with the weird. You find out in the movie that his first assignment was being a part of Charles Manson’s family as a sex slave. He goes on about being a part of rituals and rites that your pastor wouldn’t approve of. But his theories are lacking in fact or results as he tries to confront Bannister, blaming him for the 28 murders, and even the death of Bannister’s own wife. Who was the first murder in 1990 after the release of Bartlett’s girlfriend from jail. Thankfully the agent gets his in the end, despite not crossing completely over.

As you follow the story you see the 90’s CGI, infancy compare to what we have now, which is funny because of who directs this movie. Although when you watch the Return of the King and watch the scene where Aragon travels into the mountain to retain the aid of the ghosts the CGI in the specters of both movies aren’t that different. Its the morphing and the movements that kill you. One terrible scene in particular is when the two murderers end up in the tunnel of light, and Bannister and his specter friends from heaven watch it turn into as Cryus says “The Express Bus to Hell,” god was that awful. CGI thankfully has came a long way since 1996. Thankfully so has Peter Jackson’s directing. ((All Hail the King of Middle Earth!!!))

I love this movie, however, I really don’t know why. Nostalgia for Michael J. Fox. Love of ghost folklore stories. Glutton for punishment, I will never know. This is definably in a “B MOVIE” category because Michael J. Fox is the only “star” in the whole thing. Sure there are actors you recognize like the Ghost Sargent, the cop, the doctor and a few others. But lets face it Michael J. Fox is the big name on the marquee for this one. Plus it was a $30,000,000 budgeted movie and only grossed $16,000,000. OUCH!

Blog rating I have to give the movie a C-. Mostly for the campiness, the terrible CGI, and the fact it was a great story but didn’t quite hit the complete mark on thriller/horror. Personally I love this movie, I love campy, love the story, so I also have to rate it as a “B” for guilty pleasure sake.

Tick Reviews: The Zombie Diaries (2006)

It’s not always easy to be a horror movie fan. It’s downright painful at times to have horror be your genre of choice. We have to sift through a shitload of chaff  to find the wheat that is often few and far between. Sure, you find a lot of enjoyable bad films. You set your standards low and you learn to say things like “That was awful, but it had some great kills!” or “You have to love a movie about a monster that is half kitten and half mosquito.” It’s just part of the job. So, when you run across a film that’s actually great, especially one that catches you completely off guard, it’s a truly wonderful moment that makes it all worth it. So, you take the chance, logic be damned.

There are so many strikes against this movie going in, that it’s a wonder I even saw it. The god awful, uncreative, on the nose title being one. The terrible DVD artwork that was obviously too epic for this film’s budget was another warning sign. The over enthusiastic pull quotes declaring it “The Greatest Zombie Movie Ever!” confirmed this was actually tripe. I knew this was going to be a waste of my time, but as a devoted, masochistic horror fan, I got the damn thing anyway.

To make matters worse, the film decides to combine two of the most overused subject of the past decade – zombies and the “found film.” The Cinéma-vérité style has been nearly run into the ground since Blair Witch, and most of the time it’s not been done very well. Thrown on top of the starting to get tired zombie sub-genre and it’s cliche, seen it a million times synopsis, the film had already dug itself a pit that it couldn’t hope to get out of. It was almost difficult to press the play button.

So…..have I heaped enough scorn of this thing yet? Get the idea that this is sub SyFy level cinema? Well, here’s the funny thing. Remember that surprising film that catches you off guard and makes the nights of crap all worthwhile? The Zombie Diaries is one of those films.

I know. I almost don’t believe me either. Yet, by the time the last frame of the film had gone to black and credits began to roll, I sat in stunned silence. The film wasn’t some enjoyably fun romp without a brain. It was genuinely good. It was a film that wasn’t trying to coast on flashy gore and jump scares in order to get a passing grade. This was made by film makers that wanted to make something truly memorable. More importantly, it had gotten under my skin. A true achievement for a jaded Horror vet.

The Zombie Diaries isn’t looking to reinvent the wheel. It’s not even trying to put on some fancy rims. It’s as bare bones on basic plot as you get and nothing you haven’t heard before. It opens in London as a strange global pandemic has finally reached the shores on England. It’s not long before the zombie apocalypse is in full gear and the story shifts to the non-infected as they try to survive.

What is different, is how the story plays out. It’s told in non-linear fashion as it follows three different groups of survivors roaming throughout the English countryside trying to avoid the zombie horde and stay alive. Each group is filming their struggles as they go, bringing a different perspective from both their personalities and their situations. While one group may be relatable and struggling, another may be unlikable and thriving. The different viewpoints do a lot to keep things interesting.

What’s also nice, and is a strength that more genre film makers should have picked up over the years, is that although this is a zombie film, zombies aren’t the main focus. This isn’t action packed or slathered in gore. It has those moments and when they’re on screen, they count. The film is character driven and full of quieter moments and tense preludes. It’s about the dread of knowing what is down the road or around the corner. It’s about putting yourself in the characters’ shoes.

What’s remarkable is how The Zombie Diaries does these things with such a bare bones structure. There isn’t much character detail. You won’t remember more than a couple of character’s names once the film has ended, yet you’ll remember each and every character themselves. There isn’t much exposition and no great plot point that anyone was trying to achieve, but the story is almost powerful in and of itself. Every bit of this works, but it is challenging. It’s not casual viewing. It’s not a party movie. The film demands you pay attention or, at the very least, the impact will be lost. At worst, you won’t be able to truly follow what’s going on.

It’s also nice to see a writer/director understand how to use the “found film” style of Cinéma-vérité. It’s become a gimmick like 3-D, or worse a substitute for storytelling,  in the wrong hands and many a film has been torpedoed by it’s clumsy application. Here, it’s a rock star. It looks like actual amateur footage shot on actual amateur equipment, unlike the over glossed and too perfect “footage” in films like Cloverfield. The distortion and night vision are used when appropriate as are the edits. More importantly, it fits the story instead of feeling like an excuse for making a film. Film makers Michael Bartlett and Kevin Gates get this important tidbit and it shows.

Bartlett and Gates also understand that Cinéma-vérité/found film sub-genre was created for a reason. It’s original use is to mask a budget. Mask a budget. NOT take the place of film fundamentals. It’s there to help cover up a small effects budget. Yet, the zombie effects and (mainly) the gore effects are very well done. The acting feels very natural. There are no recognizable names in this and it’s a good bet that some of these actors aren’t even professional, yet no one drags the film down when they’re on-screen. They’re professional enough to feel like natural reactions, yet amateur enough to not come across as performing. The Cinéma-vérité style does enhance this in most cases.

All these things, by themselves, would add up to a decent viewing experience, but don’t add up to the sum of their parts. It’s the various strong moments in this film that set it apart. This isn’t a jokey film. It’s not full of winking nods to its forefathers. It operates on the seeming notion that no other zombie film has existed before. It’s bleak and outright cold at times. There are moments that are genuinely frightening and others that are absolutely disturbing in its documentary style matter of factness. Bartlett and Gates are obviously trying to touch a nerve with many scenes and they almost always connect on their swings. It’s not often that film makers feel subtle as they are obviously swinging for the fence.

Reviewing the film with anymore depth becomes sort of dicey. I’m always a firm believer that the less you know about most films the better and that goes for this film in spades. I also don’t want to oversell it and I fear that I already have. I’ve viewed the film only once with an almost premandated loathing. I have no idea how it would hold up under expectations or repeat viewings. I just know that it is, at the very least, worth your time if you even kinda, sorta consider yourself a horror fan. The Zombie Diaries is the proverbial diamond in the rough and I look forward to what the film makers do next.

8 out of 10

Chainsaw Cheerleader Reviews: Shock Waves (1977)

Directed by: Ken Wiederhorn
Written by: Ken Wiederhorn and John Kent Harrison

There is a beauty to 1970’s horror movies that is not reflected in those of this era. Whether it be the ground breaking special effects that did not require CGI, the gritty texture that the camera brought to the film, blood soaked nudity, and wild unkempt pubic hair that reminds one of an untamed wilderness. It is 1970’s horror that set aside most regard for the limits of tastefulness. It is because of this directors were given a freedom to do with their films that was not allowed in earlier years. This freedom changed the course of the movie monster. A family tree grew with its founding members being Dracula, Frankenstein, the Mummy, and the Wolfman. The branches bled far scarier boogeymen, like that of the zombie. With the use of the zombie sub-genres  grew.  The most interesting of these sub-genres has been the birth of the Nazi zombie film. Nothing can be more frightening then the realization that one of the world’s greatest real life horrors cannot die. It has risen from the dead to attack once again.

One such Nazi zombie movie that has reached a cult status in the underground of horror films is Shock Waves. The premise of this film surrounds a group of tourists who have rented a boat to take them out into the waters of Florida. The boat shipwrecks amongst the rocky shore of a deserted island. The group searches for life on the island but merely finds the ruins of an old hotel. The transition from the boat to the hotel takes 30 painful minutes. All that the viewer learns within that 30 minutes is that the tourists do not like the boat’s crew. This does not define the plot of this film in any way and is completely unnecessary . The viewer cares not about these characters and shortly after watching them argue you begin to pray that the zombies kill them as soon as possible. When one watches a zombie film they watch it for the zombies and not the poor character development that Shock Waves presents.

It is only after this that the tourists find that they are not alone and that an old man has been living in the shadows of the ruins of the hotel. It isn’t until members of the group start disappearing, only to be found dead that they ask the old man about the island. The old man’s explanation is hard to take seriously. He goes on to tell the group that during World War II  Adolf Hitler and his high command ordered their scientists to create  a top-secret race of zombie Storm Troopers.  These zombie soldiers went missing before the end of the war and have not been seen until…you guessed it…until the tourists had arrived. Hidden for years, the zombies have laid dormant within a German submarine that somehow has also run aground on the same very island.

Despite the awful acting, a lack of gore, and nonexistent nudity, Shock Waves has one bright spot. One beautifully awesome bright spot. This bright spot being that the Nazi zombies attack from underwater. It is a wondrous thing to watch a Nazi zombie march along the ocean floor. Unfazed by the fact that they are under water, the actors who played these very zombies do so unflinching. But despite this greatness it does not warrant a viewing. Had I known how poor this film was going to be I would have simply gone to YouTube and watched the underwater scene on that website.

The one thing that makes me want to run screaming away from this film is how boring it is. Had the Nazi zombies been introduced sooner and had the movie shown the actual act of killing the tourists I may have been more interested in watching this. Take this as a warning. Please do not bother with this film. It is 85 minutes of your life you will never get back. I highly recommend Outpost or Dead Snow as an alternative.

Shock Waves receives 1 underwater zombie out of 5.

REVIEW: The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo

 

I avoided this movie for a long time. See, I got burned back in the day by The Girl With The Pearl Earring. I went to that movie thinking it was The Girl With The Pearl Necklace and about 5 minutes in, realizing my error, vowed to never again see a movie that began it’s title with “The Girl” unless it was called “The Girl With Two Guns And A Knife Who Shoots A Lot Of Jerkoffs In The Face”. I broke my own rule though, bought into the hype and finally sat down to watch it.

 

The “Girl” of the title is Lisbeth Salander, an ex-con, computer hacker who now works as a researcher. She is hired by a Martin Vanger to investigate Mikael Blomkvist, a high profile journalist who was recently disgraced and sentenced to a prison sentence for libel. She compiles her report unbeknownst to Blomkvist and through digging into his life, gains a level of respect for him. After getting the nod from Lisbeth that Blomkvist is an all right cat, Vanger hires Blomkvist to investigate his family’s oldest secret. His favorite niece Harriet disappeared 40 years ago off of an isolated island and is believed dead. Answers have eluded him all these years and to get peace of mind, Vanger wants Blomkvist to do his own investigation and see if he can wrap it all up.

 

What follows is a deliberately paced film. Blomkvist begins retracing Harriet’s steps and putting together his list of suspects from within the Vanger family. When he stumbles upon an encoded diary entry that stumps him, Lisbeth reveals herself to help him crack it. From there on, they work together unravelling the mystery and eventually fuck. It’s like Pelican Brief, but good.

 

I have to mention Pelican Brief because this film is based on an internationally, best-selling novel. The writing is Dan Brown/John Grisham-esque in the way the story presents itself. I will say the pacing is slightly more deliberate and that is one of the areas where I feel the film stumbles a bit, but also reflects the difference between American and European films. An American film studio would’ve had the director trim about 30-45 minutes out of this movie and honestly, it can be done. You’d lose some subtlety and nuance, but it’s possible. As it is now, the film clocks in at about 2-1/2 hours. Most of this is groundwork for the sequels (it’s the first of the trilogy), and what I feel is necessary character development. I personally wasn’t bothered by the length and was there all the way, but people I was watching it with started to wander off at various points. That can be done as the plot isn’t overly complex or anything that hasn’t been seen before. It’s really an old-fashioned whodunnit. A large, old family with lots of money, harboring dark secrets, a few of which are inevitable red herrings. All it’s missing is a parlor scene. It is well done though and the craftsmanship allows you to forgive the cliche. 

 

There are some definite stylistic choices that reflect it’s country of origin. You feel the isolation of both Lisbeth and Blomkvist with landscape shots of the frozen countryside of the island the film takes place on. The acting is low key as well. Nobody is an over-the-top character. Blomkvist is practially a block of wood, but it’s how the part is written and Michael Nyqvist playing the part, is able to impart emotion and emphasis with subtle expressions and gestures. Much of the hype is over Noomi Rapace as Lisbeth and it’s deserved. Lisbeth is all hard exterior. She’s had a rough life and we see events early on that happen to her that are horrifying. You understand why she is the way she is, but Rapace is also able to portray the little glimpses of vulnerability that Lisbeth lets slip now and then expertly, before snapping right back into marble. It’s a great performance and I would like to see what she does with a different character.

 

Normally I cringe when America decides to remake foreign films. It works out on rare occasions (The Ring kicks Ringu’s ass), but usually it falls flat on it’s face. There’s hope for this one. The story isn’t necessarily unique to it’s country of origin. It could just as easily be set in Alaska or the Pacific Northwest. David Fincher’s tapped to direct and they’ve cast Daniel Craig as Blomkvist, who is an upgrade over his Swedish counterpart. Rooney Mara will play Lisbeth Salander and honestly, the film will probably succeed or fail based on her performance. I’m actually looking forward to it. 

 

My Grade: A solid B 

Sabbath Reviews: Behind The Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon (2006)

Directed by: Scott Glosserman
Written by: Scott Glosserman and David J. Stieve

Comedy and horror go together like peanut butter and chocolate — fuck jelly. It’s a delicious combination when done right and it’s been around since the beginning of film, but we all know it got a big boom in the 80s. Ghostbusters, Gremlins, An American Werewolf in London, Evil Dead — the list goes on. In more recent times we’ve got Bubba Ho-Tep, Shaun of The Dead, Zombieland, and so forth. In the shuffle, one film went largely unnoticed. That film? …Well, come on people, the poster’s right up there. It’s the name of the article. Ray Charles could have seen this one coming.

Behind The Mask is done for the most part in the mockumentary style that’s been popularized, specifically amongst low-budget productions. Taking a cue from Man Bites Dog (a 1992 Belgian mockumentary which I might someday review as well), the filmmakers are a curious team led by a young woman named Taylor Gentry (Angela Goethals) and the subject is a very dangerous but strangely enigmatic man — Leslie Vernon (Nathan Baesel). Here’s the catch: Leslie Vernon is a killer akin to Jason Vorhees, Michael Myers, and Freddy Kreuger complete with his own mythos that circulates the town.

Vernon doesn’t come across as dangerous or menacing, particularly initially. He’s insightful and treats his occupation like a normal job, letting the film crew into some of the tricks of the trade. The movie tackles horror movies tropes with love and adoration for the genre while not treading into parody territory. The film is paced well through-out and as time goes by we are let into the darker side of Vernon, but the whole time we still like him. He’s fun. We know what he does, but it’s much like a best friend you adore but you know does shady things — just not in front of you. You choose to see him for the good person in front of the camera, not the gleeful killer that he is on the weekends.

The laughs and chuckles aren’t fit for the Scary Movie crowd. It’s not parody humor. The writing is witty and at times outright fucking charming, unlike my choice of words. This is one of those films that revel in their characters and the story, never becoming sluggish or losing itself to cheap laughs or thrills. You follow this movie as if it really is a documentary, getting close to the people in front and behind the cameras to the point where even the camera guy has a personality.

Of course the stars are Leslie Vernon himself and Taylor, the lead girl. The movie doesn’t ignore the important trope of the lead girl in a horror film and I can’t remember if it’s outright said initially or hinted at — but Taylor’s got her V card. Kind of a biggie in a horror movie. There’s a relationship there forming between the two main leads that makes you forget how dangerous, but pivotal the virgin girl in a horror film is. You’re having too much fun with these characters to believe there’s anything but a pleasant hearty laugh-filled ending.

The last portion of the film is spent shoving a rod up your colon for forgetting the horror portion of the movie. Without spoiling a great deal, there is a somewhat big tonal shift in the film that some people do not like while others (like myself) praise it for. It doesn’t happen without build-up and the clues are all there throughout the film, but still it happens. Maybe it’s because you enjoy the characters so much you don’t want it to happen that some people have a hard time coming to grips with it — but it does. It doesn’t go into Hostel territory or become torture porn — nothing that big. It just brings everything home and plays out the tropes it just spent a great deal of the movie bringing to your attention.

Behind The Mask exploits what everybody knows about horror movies and does it with love. Does it seek to expand upon it, or offer something completely new to the horror genre? Probably not. It doesn’t pretend to be that kind of movie though. It’s a love letter to the slasher genre … hell, we’ve got Robert Englund playing a Dr. Loomis-type character, which is just all kinds of awesome.

If you’ve had enough straight-up gore this Halloween season and want something a little more fun, I highly recommend this flick. There’s been rumors with the last update cropping up in 2009 that a sequel would be in the works, possibly subtitled The Return of Leslie Vernon. Behind The Mask was a low budget, low grossing film so there’s no proof that it will except some high hopes from the writers but I would shill the shit out of that movie if it does pop up. However, if it does, I’ll be first in line to buy the ticket (or more likely straight-to-DVD copy but I’m trying to wish ’em the best).

— Sabbath

Super Carnitas reviews Where the Wild Things Are

Where the Wild Things Are – 2009

Writer – Spike Jonze, David Eggers

Director – Spike Jonze

Based on the book Where the Wild Things Are by Maurice Sendak

I intentionally avoided this movie when it was released in theaters. I suppose it was because I absolutely expected to be disappointed. The book never really left an impression on me as a child. My fondest memory….is really disconnected from the book itself. In kindergarten, the library in my school had a huge mural of Max leading the Wild Things through the forest. Max looked proud and confident….the monsters happily marching in tow. The monsters scared me a bit. A tiny bit. Years later I read the book. I loved the way the book looked. It was different….odd…and beautiful. The story though….it was forgettable. It never stuck with me. The art and the images stayed with me forever.

Plus…the book is so short. In my mind the story was weak to begin with. I couldn’t imagine a film stretching something so thin…without tearing it. Friends who saw it told me it was great. These same friends were psyched to see it months before it was released. I wasn’t convinced.

Were it not for the glory of Netflix I may have never seen this film. I haphazardly add films to my 500 count Netflix queue..and I randomize said queue about once a month. It’s just what I do. Where the Wild Things Are purely showed up by happy accident…or fate. Whatever.

I loved this movie. Love may not even be a strong enough term. I expected nothing but cool visuals from this movie….and yet somehow it managed to kick me in the gut. I sat and watched this movie alone, in my apartment. My phone was turned off…the lights were out…i may have been a tad inebriated…but you know. This movie just floored me. When it was over…I hit stop on the remote…and I just sat there in the dark for maybe 6 or 7 minutes.

I was rattled. I can’t remember the last movie that had such an effect on me.

Where the Wild Things Are is not a kids movie. It just isn’t. And maybe the book isn’t really a kids book…I have yet to revisit it. But I would imagine that kids would be bored with this movie. It’s pace is deliberate and intentional. There is no huge payoff…or clear cut good guys and bad guys. This movie isn’t for kids….yet it was marketed as such. Another reason I put off seeing it for so long.

I’m sorry…but this movie was made for adult men. That’s not to say that women..or girls can”t appreciate Where the Wild Things Are. On some level they can. I’m sure there are guys who appreciated Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants…on some level. I’m just saying, if you’re not an adult male, it wasn’t designed for you. Just like Glenn Beck isn’t designed for smart people…yet some smart people get sucked in.

Wow…have I even started talking about the movie yet?

In my opinion…the angst and confusion that exists inside the mind of a 9 year old boy has never been captured so perfectly. Max starts off immediately feeling alienated. His sister and her friends embarrass him…then his mother makes him feel small…and unimportant. He’s sent to bed early….so he flees.

Max finds himself amongst the Wild Things. His first encounter with them finds him witnessing one of the monsters (Carol) destroying a bunch of huts….much to the dismay of his fellow monsters. Max decides to jump in and help/join Carol in the destruction. From there….the Wild Things (monsters) (demons) eventually decide to eat Max.

Max promises the Wild Things (monsters) (demons) that he has special powers. He was a King before…and he could be a King again. A King of this place. The bones and the crown in the fire pit…tell another story. But the monsters (demons) want to be contained. They want a King. So they give Max a chance.

Now here’s where the movie become something else. Max is King. As King he acts like a nine year old would be expected to act. His visions are grand and self-serving. His schemes short-sighted and ambiguous. He’s confronted with things he’s never had to deal with before. Jealousy, dependence, envy, limitations, and consequences for his actions. His every action falls short…and the monsters (demons) start to doubt him. They press him to show his special powers…and when they realize he has none….things fall apart. He eventually heads home…his mother embraces him…and who knows what happens going forward.

Here’s what kicked me in the gut. I’m no psychologist…or whatever….but this movie tapped into something in me. Something i’ve left exposed and vulnerable. I think it’s about confronting and controlling our demons. Jealousy, alcoholism, fear, hatred, ego, control issues, anger…etc. The bones in the fire pit tell us that sometimes the monsters (demons) devour us. We proclaim ourselves King…but more often than not…it’s not enough.

I love that the monsters in Where the Wild Things Are…never stop being MONSTERS. Even at their sweetest and most concerned…they never stop being monsters (demons). They are imposing, potentially evil, and scary.

Sometimes the monsters (demons) win. I feel Max spent his time learning that simple fact. What happens next is up to him. But what Max wrestles with on his journey can’t help but feel familiar. I personally still wrestle with some of these issues…daily..and it’s been a long time since I’ve been 9.

Where the Wild Things Are struck an chord in me. It really touched me. There’s no way the book can be as good as the film. If it’s even close…wow. I need to go revisit Harold and the Purple Crayon. What have I been missing?

Dub Cee Reviews: Red Eye (2005)

Directed By:  Wes Craven

Written By:  Carl Ellsworth

I really enjoyed how from the first moment this movie has you wondering just what in the hell is going on. The majority of the story takes place on the airplane with two people sitting next to each other. If not handled correctly this movie could become extremely droll. However, I felt the pacing of the story was actually quite good. The characters were interesting and well developed.
I also liked the small little clues about the situation and the characters that were decorated along the trail. For example, the fresh wound on the chest of Rachel McAdams character. The event that caused that wound is part of what defines her now. Along those lines I truly was thankful that McAdams did not portray her character as some sobbing, weak female we see so often in these style films. Instead she is trying the entire time to outwit Cillian Murphy but he is constantly just ahead of her. Finally in desperation she gets physical.
I have always liked films that allow you to put yourself into the characters position and force you think about exactly what you would do. This movie is at least somewhat plausible and thus I enjoyed it.
There are some fair gripes about this one. Particularly the lack of action. After all, the majority of the film is two people on a plane. However, I enjoyed the character interaction we get from this. Cillian Murphy is both charming as flat out creepy in the same instant and I would love to see him in more roles like this one.
Overall, I really like this film and would recommend it to most people. However, it is not a film everyone will enjoy. Thus my final rating for this movie is a C+.