So I finally got around to watching Stephen King's The Langoliers. It's been on my radar ever since my friend mentioned it in college. I think that his opinion of it was not real great, but when he showed me a picture of the terrible CGI monsters, I thought they looked awesome. At that moment, I vowed to watch it - no matter how bad it might be.
I was expecting a b-grade cheesefest, but, to my surprise, The Langoliers was actually pretty good. Not flawless, by any means, but not terrible either. It's got a fascinating concept, and it constructs an intriguing atmosphere of mystery and suspense. Ten people wake up on a commercial flight to find everyone else vanished, and then have to figure out what the hell is going on. I guess this is a spoiler, but it turns out to be some kind of temporal anomaly, involving cosmic entities that devour reality!
Awesome, right? As for the flaws, the poor CGI can't be ignored. Granted, I still think the monsters (the "Langoliers") look badass, and that almost makes up for the bad CGI. Their behavior could use a little polish, maybe, but there's a solid kernel there in their conception. The other major flaw is the runtime. It's a[nother] 3 hour long TV miniseries, and that, really, is more time than the movie needs to tell its story. As such, it drags on quite a bit. I think a feature film remake pared down to under two hours, with better creature effects and an updated cast could do wonders for this story.
Even so, it's not half as bad as its reputation, and it offers a fresh perspective on the subject of time travel, and the nature of time, that is bound to get your noggin going. It's worth a look, if you can spare the time.
Showing posts with label Stephen King. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Stephen King. Show all posts
Saturday, October 11, 2014
Thursday, September 25, 2014
Salem's Lot (1979)
September is winding down, and October is fast approaching. The days are beginning to grow shorter and cooler, and the leaves have just begun to change. You know what that means: Halloween season is upon us again!
Following my viewing of that other Stephen King adaptation over the summer, The Stand, I resolved to watch Salem's Lot, as I had heard that it was one of the better quality Stephen King adaptations in existence (directed by Tobe Hooper, whom you might remember as the director of the original Texas Chain Saw Massacre). The first thing that should be said about this movie is that it is not about the witches of Salem, as I had thought (and, actually, kinda hoped...). It's actually about vampires, in a small town in Maine called 'Salem's Lot (short for Jerusalem's Lot). And this is classic Bram Stoker's Dracula mythology we're dealing with here, with a head vampire, and ghouls floating outside people's windows at night, and stakes and holy water and everything.
The story begins with a published author returning to his home town to write his next book about a local house with a torrid past and a reputation around town for being haunted. A very suspicious antiques dealer from Europe has just moved into the house, and, as it eventually becomes clear, his conspicuously absent partner is actually a creature of the night. As his victim list grows, the townspeople become more and more panicked, until the aforementioned author takes it upon himself to stop the problem at its source.
If this film has a flaw, it's that it's very dated. And, watching it from a 21st century perspective, the plot develops pretty predictably for anyone with any familiarity with the Dracula mythos. However, it's very well put together, with clever dialogue and fleshed out characters - though at the expense of having a three hour runtime (as it was designed to be a television miniseries, though without convenient chapter breaks like The Stand had); it does tend to drag in parts.
But it constructs a pretty creepy atmosphere, and the makeup effects are excellent. The design of the head vampire obviously takes a page from Nosferatu - but to good effect; it's genuinely one of the creepiest movie vampires I've ever seen. Salem's Lot may not fare too well against modern tastes in this post-Twilight, post-Thirty Days of Night world, but if you don't mind the vintage atmosphere, and you're not bored of old-school vampire mythology yet, then you'd do well to give this movie a screening.
Following my viewing of that other Stephen King adaptation over the summer, The Stand, I resolved to watch Salem's Lot, as I had heard that it was one of the better quality Stephen King adaptations in existence (directed by Tobe Hooper, whom you might remember as the director of the original Texas Chain Saw Massacre). The first thing that should be said about this movie is that it is not about the witches of Salem, as I had thought (and, actually, kinda hoped...). It's actually about vampires, in a small town in Maine called 'Salem's Lot (short for Jerusalem's Lot). And this is classic Bram Stoker's Dracula mythology we're dealing with here, with a head vampire, and ghouls floating outside people's windows at night, and stakes and holy water and everything.
The story begins with a published author returning to his home town to write his next book about a local house with a torrid past and a reputation around town for being haunted. A very suspicious antiques dealer from Europe has just moved into the house, and, as it eventually becomes clear, his conspicuously absent partner is actually a creature of the night. As his victim list grows, the townspeople become more and more panicked, until the aforementioned author takes it upon himself to stop the problem at its source.
If this film has a flaw, it's that it's very dated. And, watching it from a 21st century perspective, the plot develops pretty predictably for anyone with any familiarity with the Dracula mythos. However, it's very well put together, with clever dialogue and fleshed out characters - though at the expense of having a three hour runtime (as it was designed to be a television miniseries, though without convenient chapter breaks like The Stand had); it does tend to drag in parts.
But it constructs a pretty creepy atmosphere, and the makeup effects are excellent. The design of the head vampire obviously takes a page from Nosferatu - but to good effect; it's genuinely one of the creepiest movie vampires I've ever seen. Salem's Lot may not fare too well against modern tastes in this post-Twilight, post-Thirty Days of Night world, but if you don't mind the vintage atmosphere, and you're not bored of old-school vampire mythology yet, then you'd do well to give this movie a screening.
Wednesday, July 30, 2014
Stephen King's The Stand (1994)
The Stand is a 1994 adaptation of a popular Stephen King novel, directed by Mick Garris (who put together the more recent Masters of Horror series), in the form of a television miniseries consisting of four 90 minute episodes. For many years I had known of The Stand (whether in book or TV format), but it wasn't until just the past couple days that I actually sat down and watched it (yay for Netflix!). Before I get into some of the finer details, let me say that my overarching impression of it was that it was not quite so grim or epic as I had anticipated (in the form of mankind's last stand during the apocalypse), but, if you take into account the inconsistent track record of adaptations of Stephen King's novels, and ground your expectations, I think it's well worth watching.
It starts with a fantastic premise. A viral outbreak in some laboratory in the U.S. releases a way-too-effective super-flu into the general population, ushering in the apocalypse-by-plague. This stage of the story is exciting, but while we've seen it in myriad iterations through the years, this is just the beginning of this particular story. Most of the human race is decimated, but a small percentage is naturally immune to the disease. So the question that's raised is, what happens to the survivors after most of the world's population is eliminated?
You could go in any number of directions at this point, and the direction Stephen King takes us involves a face-off between two very different segments of the surviving population - the good people versus the bad people. But that's not all; in true Stephen King supernatural style, there are biblical underpinnings to the face-off, when a demon shows up to take advantage of the post-apocalyptic wasteland and corral all the bad people, while God chooses a messenger to rally the nicer folk to her cause, all of which occurs largely in prophetic dreams.
So yeah, things get kinda complex, but also very black and white. However, there are some good characters, and the TV series makes use of many familiar actors, including the likes of Molly Ringwald among many others. The series is unfortunately very dated to the early-mid nineties, but I'll say that I really liked the score (presumably composed by W.G. Snuffy Walden), which consists of lots of instrumental rock parts with slide guitars that seem to suit the frequent desert locations. At the end of the day, the series has maybe a bit too much drama, and ends on too saccharine a note. And the biblical angle - while I don't resent the use of the age-old theme of good versus evil, nor the idea of a demonic villain and saintly hero - gets tiresome pretty quickly. But as a dramatic horror television miniseries, it's worth a ride.
It starts with a fantastic premise. A viral outbreak in some laboratory in the U.S. releases a way-too-effective super-flu into the general population, ushering in the apocalypse-by-plague. This stage of the story is exciting, but while we've seen it in myriad iterations through the years, this is just the beginning of this particular story. Most of the human race is decimated, but a small percentage is naturally immune to the disease. So the question that's raised is, what happens to the survivors after most of the world's population is eliminated?
You could go in any number of directions at this point, and the direction Stephen King takes us involves a face-off between two very different segments of the surviving population - the good people versus the bad people. But that's not all; in true Stephen King supernatural style, there are biblical underpinnings to the face-off, when a demon shows up to take advantage of the post-apocalyptic wasteland and corral all the bad people, while God chooses a messenger to rally the nicer folk to her cause, all of which occurs largely in prophetic dreams.
So yeah, things get kinda complex, but also very black and white. However, there are some good characters, and the TV series makes use of many familiar actors, including the likes of Molly Ringwald among many others. The series is unfortunately very dated to the early-mid nineties, but I'll say that I really liked the score (presumably composed by W.G. Snuffy Walden), which consists of lots of instrumental rock parts with slide guitars that seem to suit the frequent desert locations. At the end of the day, the series has maybe a bit too much drama, and ends on too saccharine a note. And the biblical angle - while I don't resent the use of the age-old theme of good versus evil, nor the idea of a demonic villain and saintly hero - gets tiresome pretty quickly. But as a dramatic horror television miniseries, it's worth a ride.
Saturday, October 19, 2013
Carrie (2013)
Watching Carrie (2013), it hit me that this is a very female story. From the horrors of childbirth, and the mother's mortal fear of sex, to the daughter's first period, and romantic dreams of a perfect prom. It's hard to imagine anyone not at this point being familiar with the story behind Carrie, but I suppose they must be out there. For the rest of us, it's pretty much inevitable that we're going to compare this new Carrie remake to the previous adaptation of this high school revenge fantasy turned supernatural penned by ubiquitous horror author Stephen King that was released all the way back in 1976.
However, comparisons are apt. I believe that the new director, Kimberly Peirce, may have added some unexpected flairs here or there, but altogether, Carrie (2013) doesn't have very many surprises. It's pretty much exactly the story you're expecting (and wanting to see). Therefore, its appeal must rely on how these mostly familiar scenes are shot, and how well the new actors do in their iconic roles. And from that perspective, I must say that it feels like a carefully constructed, expertly performed rendition of the story. If I may be perfectly frank, as great as the story is (it's every unpopular high school kid's ultimate revenge fantasy, with a dark twist), the original 1976 version can drag a bit.
What that version did have was Sissy Spacek in the titular role of Carrie White, the meek victim of her mother Margaret (played then by Piper Laurie)'s ultra-conservative, religiously-based psychological and physical abuse. Both actresses did a fine job in their roles, and I can say the same about this year's remake, which features Julianne Moore as the terminally sex-phobic mother, and rising starlet Chloe Grace Moretz as the eternally put-upon teenager who discovers that she has a unique and frightening power. I'll admit, it was a little hard to see Chloe in a role that demands hunched shoulders and a constantly averted gaze, when she's done so well as a person of confidence, in roles like Hit-Girl from the recent Kick-Ass 2 (and the earlier movie it sequels). But her acting chops are amazing, and she has a captivating presence on the screen.
Plus, she does eventually get her revenge. But this is a very sensitive story (probably more so than Brian De Palma's 1976 adaptation), that provides even the villains with their motivations (even if they are broken and/or unsympathetic people). Of particular note is the guilt-ridden bully-turned-would-be-savior, Sue Snell, played by the enchantingly pretty Gabriella Wilde, who adds another touching element to the story, unknowingly sending Carrie into the jaws of her more bitter rival, in an otherwise noble gesture of self-sacrificing pity. Chloe's handle on Carrie's telekinetic powers are fun to watch, and when the shit finally hits the fan, the movie provides an exciting climax that does not forget the human heart at the center of the piece.
Carrie is a story with a lot of symbolic potential. There is the battle between the religiously devout mother and her daughter with pagan powers. The conflict between the sexual aspect of human nature, and the religious directive to uphold to a rigid standard of modesty. There is the presentation of natural processes - like menstruation and childbirth - as the horrifying experiences they can be if one is not properly mentally prepared. Following on that, there's the issue of responsibility a parent, teacher, or society has for preparing a child for the changes that come with puberty, and the danger of trying prevent a child from growing up (something that far too many parents are guilty of doing). And of course, there's the symbolism made literal in Carrie, of puberty as a transformation through which a girl acquires a certain power and confidence, and how that facilitates her rebellion from (but not necessarily rejection of) her mother.
With all these concepts hanging in the air, I feel like maybe this story could be a little more than it is. To make a stronger statement. But in the end, the interpretations you make are left up to you. What it is, instead, is a pretty typical coming of age story, with plenty of drama, albeit with the fantastic addition of overbearing religious themes and supernatural powers, to provide a more imaginative and exciting movie-going experience. One that hinges on that iconic image of Carrie at the prom, target of a prank that the whole town would soon come to regret. I think that would be an awesome costume to wear on Halloween. I would totally love anybody who either went trick or treating or attended a Halloween costume party dressed as Carrie, in her prom dress, drenched in blood.
However, comparisons are apt. I believe that the new director, Kimberly Peirce, may have added some unexpected flairs here or there, but altogether, Carrie (2013) doesn't have very many surprises. It's pretty much exactly the story you're expecting (and wanting to see). Therefore, its appeal must rely on how these mostly familiar scenes are shot, and how well the new actors do in their iconic roles. And from that perspective, I must say that it feels like a carefully constructed, expertly performed rendition of the story. If I may be perfectly frank, as great as the story is (it's every unpopular high school kid's ultimate revenge fantasy, with a dark twist), the original 1976 version can drag a bit.
What that version did have was Sissy Spacek in the titular role of Carrie White, the meek victim of her mother Margaret (played then by Piper Laurie)'s ultra-conservative, religiously-based psychological and physical abuse. Both actresses did a fine job in their roles, and I can say the same about this year's remake, which features Julianne Moore as the terminally sex-phobic mother, and rising starlet Chloe Grace Moretz as the eternally put-upon teenager who discovers that she has a unique and frightening power. I'll admit, it was a little hard to see Chloe in a role that demands hunched shoulders and a constantly averted gaze, when she's done so well as a person of confidence, in roles like Hit-Girl from the recent Kick-Ass 2 (and the earlier movie it sequels). But her acting chops are amazing, and she has a captivating presence on the screen.
Plus, she does eventually get her revenge. But this is a very sensitive story (probably more so than Brian De Palma's 1976 adaptation), that provides even the villains with their motivations (even if they are broken and/or unsympathetic people). Of particular note is the guilt-ridden bully-turned-would-be-savior, Sue Snell, played by the enchantingly pretty Gabriella Wilde, who adds another touching element to the story, unknowingly sending Carrie into the jaws of her more bitter rival, in an otherwise noble gesture of self-sacrificing pity. Chloe's handle on Carrie's telekinetic powers are fun to watch, and when the shit finally hits the fan, the movie provides an exciting climax that does not forget the human heart at the center of the piece.
Carrie is a story with a lot of symbolic potential. There is the battle between the religiously devout mother and her daughter with pagan powers. The conflict between the sexual aspect of human nature, and the religious directive to uphold to a rigid standard of modesty. There is the presentation of natural processes - like menstruation and childbirth - as the horrifying experiences they can be if one is not properly mentally prepared. Following on that, there's the issue of responsibility a parent, teacher, or society has for preparing a child for the changes that come with puberty, and the danger of trying prevent a child from growing up (something that far too many parents are guilty of doing). And of course, there's the symbolism made literal in Carrie, of puberty as a transformation through which a girl acquires a certain power and confidence, and how that facilitates her rebellion from (but not necessarily rejection of) her mother.
With all these concepts hanging in the air, I feel like maybe this story could be a little more than it is. To make a stronger statement. But in the end, the interpretations you make are left up to you. What it is, instead, is a pretty typical coming of age story, with plenty of drama, albeit with the fantastic addition of overbearing religious themes and supernatural powers, to provide a more imaginative and exciting movie-going experience. One that hinges on that iconic image of Carrie at the prom, target of a prank that the whole town would soon come to regret. I think that would be an awesome costume to wear on Halloween. I would totally love anybody who either went trick or treating or attended a Halloween costume party dressed as Carrie, in her prom dress, drenched in blood.
Wednesday, October 24, 2012
Carrie (1976)
Carrie is a movie I had seen before, but so long ago, it seemed due for a reappraisal, especially in light of the new remake starring Chloe Moretz that's rumored to be in development. It's a great Stephen King story, and a classic of the horror genre. Interesting is the fact that pretty much all of the villains are female. You have Carrie, who is a sort of anti-hero, with her emerging adolescent psychic abilities, and her mom, a rabidly sex-negative religious fundamentalist, and the bullies at school who are predominantly female. There are some guys who are jerks, but they're pretty much along for the ride, the girls are the ones in charge. You'd almost be tempted to call it a feminist movie, except that few of the characters are genuinely likable.
And for a movie where the horror generates almost exclusively from sexual anxiety, the opening scene in the girls' locker room is refreshingly idyllic (at least until Carrie makes her unfortunate discovery). It may be heavily inspired by male fantasy - young girls giggling and playfully teasing one another, half-dressed or naked from just stepping out of the group shower - but I don't care, I appreciated it greatly. And the willingness of Sissy Spacek - who is just fantastic in the role of the awkward (but not unattractive) titular teen - to bare all (or most) for the role enhances my appreciation of the movie (and respect for the actress) enormously.
Carrie's psychotically religious mother is played well by Piper Laurie, although it occurred to me that she might be even more horrific if she played a more realistic portrayal of a religious lunatic. It's just a thought, but true religious fanatics may be rare (I would hope), but I could imagine a more believably devout character being just as abusive toward Carrie, especially in matters of sexual education, given our culture's great shame on that topic.
One strike against the film that I have is the too-heavy reliance on the shrieking sound effect that was famously utilized in Psycho. It's a good device, but too much of it just draws your attention to it. And it dates the film a bit, although that's not the only detail that contributes to that. Still, the climactic scene where Carrie explodes at the prom is just such an iconic and almost archetypal (in totally relatable fashion) expression of high school bully revenge fantasy, that despite the dating, it is oh so satisfying to watch. Still, even though I'm usually wary of remakes, I think this is one movie that could do well to be updated for a modern audience, provided it's in good hands. Though perhaps my appreciation for Chloe Moretz as an actress (I love her fearlessness in the face of doing horror roles) is influencing that opinion. ;-)
And for a movie where the horror generates almost exclusively from sexual anxiety, the opening scene in the girls' locker room is refreshingly idyllic (at least until Carrie makes her unfortunate discovery). It may be heavily inspired by male fantasy - young girls giggling and playfully teasing one another, half-dressed or naked from just stepping out of the group shower - but I don't care, I appreciated it greatly. And the willingness of Sissy Spacek - who is just fantastic in the role of the awkward (but not unattractive) titular teen - to bare all (or most) for the role enhances my appreciation of the movie (and respect for the actress) enormously.
Carrie's psychotically religious mother is played well by Piper Laurie, although it occurred to me that she might be even more horrific if she played a more realistic portrayal of a religious lunatic. It's just a thought, but true religious fanatics may be rare (I would hope), but I could imagine a more believably devout character being just as abusive toward Carrie, especially in matters of sexual education, given our culture's great shame on that topic.
One strike against the film that I have is the too-heavy reliance on the shrieking sound effect that was famously utilized in Psycho. It's a good device, but too much of it just draws your attention to it. And it dates the film a bit, although that's not the only detail that contributes to that. Still, the climactic scene where Carrie explodes at the prom is just such an iconic and almost archetypal (in totally relatable fashion) expression of high school bully revenge fantasy, that despite the dating, it is oh so satisfying to watch. Still, even though I'm usually wary of remakes, I think this is one movie that could do well to be updated for a modern audience, provided it's in good hands. Though perhaps my appreciation for Chloe Moretz as an actress (I love her fearlessness in the face of doing horror roles) is influencing that opinion. ;-)
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
AMC's Fearfest (2008)
Note: This collection of mini-reviews was originally posted on Bridge To Better Days. I am reposting it here for archival purposes. It has been backdated to the date of its original posting.
This year's Monsterfest on AMC is shorter (if memory serves), with a worse lineup (where's my Hellraiser?!), and renamed to Fearfest. What's the tradeoff? We get a celebrity host in the form of Rob Zombie. Which is kinda neat, but I'd rather have more and better movies. Still, it's a whole week of horror titles, and there's bound to be something good in there. Following are some notes about some of the movies I've watched in the past week - mostly the ones I haven't seen before (though not exclusively).
A Nightmare on Elm Street 2 (1985) - The first Nightmare on Elm Street movie is undeniably one of the great classics of the horror genre. This sequel, though unsurprisingly, doesn't hold a candle to the first installment. One thing it does have going for it, though, is the kickass rock music - which sounds great despite being very 80's.
Motel Hell (1980) - This movie was so great. The perfect combination of comedy and horror. It was funny without making fun of itself, and without killing the creepiness of the plot. The innocent motorcycle accident victim girl was very alluring throughout, and Farmer Vincent was delightfully demented. The climax involving a pig's head mask and a chainsaw duel was just totally outstanding. Two thumbs up.
Constantine (2005) - This is one I saw back in college a number of years ago. Really more of an action film featuring [supernatural] horror elements rather than a horror film, but entertaining just the same. I think I understood it a bit better this time through.
Panic Room (2002) - And this one's actually a thriller, not a horror. Jodie Foster and her daughter (her movie daughter, that is) hold out against three robbers looking to steal a fortune hidden in their house. Pretty tense, and overall an entertaining movie. Forest Whitaker plays very well the part of a bad guy who has enough morals to make you feel bad for him when things don't work out in the end. I liked it.
Pet Sematary Two (1992) - For once, a sequel that's actually pretty decent. Maybe even as good as the first. The Pet Sematary movies are so sick in that they play on that fear of children losing their pets, and then pervert it by adding a creepy zombie twist. Good stuff, though. I found the fat kid to be pretty easy to sympathize with, and the bully was just a real jackass. He totally has it coming when he gets done in later in the story...
House on Haunted Hill (1999) - Entertaining, and actually manages to sit outside the realm of crappy "no soul" remakes. This one claims to be "faithful" to the original, and while it's totally respectful to the original, and in no way "unfaithful", I just don't know if "faithful" is a word I'd use, since it adds this whole totally supernatural element to the story. Anyway, I love that the one actor totally pulls off the "Vincent Price" persona. It gives the film a whole 'nother layer of authenticity. Anyway, it's a fun ride, and who can say no to Ali Larter? Not I.
Return to House on Haunted Hill (2007) - Crap. Pure, utter crap. I couldn't even watch it. It's just got that whole sleazy, modern direct-to-video feel, meaning a crappy plot, with really crappy actors. Don't bother. (Still better than Pinata: Survival Island, though...)
Bordello of Blood (1996) - Taken for what it is (a Tales From The Crypt movie - and thus, not to be taken seriously), this was a rather entertaining flick about a vampire whorehouse hidden in the basement of a mortuary. Dennis Miller absolutely sells this movie, in the role of a witty private investigator. His quips are without a doubt the main feature (intended or not). By the way, watching another "tale from the crypt" reminds me how much I absolutely despise The Crypt Keeper. It's not just that his puns are absolutely terrible (which, let's face it, is true of most puns), or that you can see them coming from a mile away, but the way in which he hams them up so much just completely kills whatever impact they might otherwise have had... and his laugh is just so damn obnoxious! Moving on...
Jeepers Creepers (2001) - Wow, the first act of this movie is outstanding (by the way, note to Quentin Tarantino: the beginning scene in this movie is how casual chit-chat in a horror movie should be done). If only the rest of it stood up, this would be one of my favorites, but unfortunately the movie sort of descends into mediocre supernatural horror by the 1/3 mark or so. And that's ironic, because I usually say that I prefer a good supernatural monster flick to another run of the mill serial killer story. But this movie starts out as a really good serial killer movie, then drops to the level of a run-of-the-mill devil-on-the-loose story. Still worth seeing, though.
An American Werewolf in London (1981) - A classic of the werewolf subgenre, and, from what I can tell, frequently compared to The Howling, which I saw last year. I have to say, I much prefer the werewolves in The Howling - the ones in An American Werewolf look too much like bears, actually. But, the whole part in the moors, and the Slaughtered Lamb pub, is totally atmospheric and creepy. And the rest of the movie is pretty entertaining. I think I like The Howling better overall, but they're both good lycanthrope classics.
The Dark Half (1993) - Interestingly, a Stephen King novel adapted and directed by George Romero, about a writer (whodathunkit?) whose dark and gritty alter-ego literally comes to life. It's an entertaining story very well-executed, with lots of suspense and mystery, but as far as being strictly scary, I wouldn't necessarily call it a straight horror. The flocking sparrows did seem to channel The Birds just a little bit, though.
Jason Goes To Hell: The Final Friday (1993) - Mediocre at best. Too much plot, and not enough horny teenagers. Jason just isn't as intimidating hopping from one body to another. It was an interesting surprise to see the mysterious informant "X" from The X-Files (Deepthroat's replacement) playing the part of a bounty hunter who inexplicably knows all the details behind Jason's secret supernatural origin. What the hell was Freddy Krueger doing at the very end there? Was that supposed to be a setup for Freddy vs. Jason? That was weird.
Willard (2003) - A captivating story about a timid man who is driven mad by his jackass of a boss, and seeks revenge after befriending a host of rats he finds in his basement. But not all of the rats are so willing to follow the man's orders. Excellent acting by Crispin Glover in the lead role. Pretty darn good for a movie about rats.
Christine (1983) - Another Stephen King story, about a geek who buys a junk car (named Christine) and then turns into a cool cat practically overnight. Trouble is, the car is possessed, and a pretty jealous lover. Yeah, it sounds kinda silly, but this was actually a very good movie. And hey, it was directed by John Carpenter. I love how Christine always plays these old 50's-style rock n roll songs (she was "born" in 1957), and then the last line in the movie, by one of the survivors, is... "god I hate rock n roll". In most situations, I'd be annoyed by a line like that. But here, it just works.
This year's Monsterfest on AMC is shorter (if memory serves), with a worse lineup (where's my Hellraiser?!), and renamed to Fearfest. What's the tradeoff? We get a celebrity host in the form of Rob Zombie. Which is kinda neat, but I'd rather have more and better movies. Still, it's a whole week of horror titles, and there's bound to be something good in there. Following are some notes about some of the movies I've watched in the past week - mostly the ones I haven't seen before (though not exclusively).
A Nightmare on Elm Street 2 (1985) - The first Nightmare on Elm Street movie is undeniably one of the great classics of the horror genre. This sequel, though unsurprisingly, doesn't hold a candle to the first installment. One thing it does have going for it, though, is the kickass rock music - which sounds great despite being very 80's.
Motel Hell (1980) - This movie was so great. The perfect combination of comedy and horror. It was funny without making fun of itself, and without killing the creepiness of the plot. The innocent motorcycle accident victim girl was very alluring throughout, and Farmer Vincent was delightfully demented. The climax involving a pig's head mask and a chainsaw duel was just totally outstanding. Two thumbs up.
Constantine (2005) - This is one I saw back in college a number of years ago. Really more of an action film featuring [supernatural] horror elements rather than a horror film, but entertaining just the same. I think I understood it a bit better this time through.
Panic Room (2002) - And this one's actually a thriller, not a horror. Jodie Foster and her daughter (her movie daughter, that is) hold out against three robbers looking to steal a fortune hidden in their house. Pretty tense, and overall an entertaining movie. Forest Whitaker plays very well the part of a bad guy who has enough morals to make you feel bad for him when things don't work out in the end. I liked it.
Pet Sematary Two (1992) - For once, a sequel that's actually pretty decent. Maybe even as good as the first. The Pet Sematary movies are so sick in that they play on that fear of children losing their pets, and then pervert it by adding a creepy zombie twist. Good stuff, though. I found the fat kid to be pretty easy to sympathize with, and the bully was just a real jackass. He totally has it coming when he gets done in later in the story...
House on Haunted Hill (1999) - Entertaining, and actually manages to sit outside the realm of crappy "no soul" remakes. This one claims to be "faithful" to the original, and while it's totally respectful to the original, and in no way "unfaithful", I just don't know if "faithful" is a word I'd use, since it adds this whole totally supernatural element to the story. Anyway, I love that the one actor totally pulls off the "Vincent Price" persona. It gives the film a whole 'nother layer of authenticity. Anyway, it's a fun ride, and who can say no to Ali Larter? Not I.
Return to House on Haunted Hill (2007) - Crap. Pure, utter crap. I couldn't even watch it. It's just got that whole sleazy, modern direct-to-video feel, meaning a crappy plot, with really crappy actors. Don't bother. (Still better than Pinata: Survival Island, though...)
Bordello of Blood (1996) - Taken for what it is (a Tales From The Crypt movie - and thus, not to be taken seriously), this was a rather entertaining flick about a vampire whorehouse hidden in the basement of a mortuary. Dennis Miller absolutely sells this movie, in the role of a witty private investigator. His quips are without a doubt the main feature (intended or not). By the way, watching another "tale from the crypt" reminds me how much I absolutely despise The Crypt Keeper. It's not just that his puns are absolutely terrible (which, let's face it, is true of most puns), or that you can see them coming from a mile away, but the way in which he hams them up so much just completely kills whatever impact they might otherwise have had... and his laugh is just so damn obnoxious! Moving on...
Jeepers Creepers (2001) - Wow, the first act of this movie is outstanding (by the way, note to Quentin Tarantino: the beginning scene in this movie is how casual chit-chat in a horror movie should be done). If only the rest of it stood up, this would be one of my favorites, but unfortunately the movie sort of descends into mediocre supernatural horror by the 1/3 mark or so. And that's ironic, because I usually say that I prefer a good supernatural monster flick to another run of the mill serial killer story. But this movie starts out as a really good serial killer movie, then drops to the level of a run-of-the-mill devil-on-the-loose story. Still worth seeing, though.
An American Werewolf in London (1981) - A classic of the werewolf subgenre, and, from what I can tell, frequently compared to The Howling, which I saw last year. I have to say, I much prefer the werewolves in The Howling - the ones in An American Werewolf look too much like bears, actually. But, the whole part in the moors, and the Slaughtered Lamb pub, is totally atmospheric and creepy. And the rest of the movie is pretty entertaining. I think I like The Howling better overall, but they're both good lycanthrope classics.
The Dark Half (1993) - Interestingly, a Stephen King novel adapted and directed by George Romero, about a writer (whodathunkit?) whose dark and gritty alter-ego literally comes to life. It's an entertaining story very well-executed, with lots of suspense and mystery, but as far as being strictly scary, I wouldn't necessarily call it a straight horror. The flocking sparrows did seem to channel The Birds just a little bit, though.
Jason Goes To Hell: The Final Friday (1993) - Mediocre at best. Too much plot, and not enough horny teenagers. Jason just isn't as intimidating hopping from one body to another. It was an interesting surprise to see the mysterious informant "X" from The X-Files (Deepthroat's replacement) playing the part of a bounty hunter who inexplicably knows all the details behind Jason's secret supernatural origin. What the hell was Freddy Krueger doing at the very end there? Was that supposed to be a setup for Freddy vs. Jason? That was weird.
Willard (2003) - A captivating story about a timid man who is driven mad by his jackass of a boss, and seeks revenge after befriending a host of rats he finds in his basement. But not all of the rats are so willing to follow the man's orders. Excellent acting by Crispin Glover in the lead role. Pretty darn good for a movie about rats.
Christine (1983) - Another Stephen King story, about a geek who buys a junk car (named Christine) and then turns into a cool cat practically overnight. Trouble is, the car is possessed, and a pretty jealous lover. Yeah, it sounds kinda silly, but this was actually a very good movie. And hey, it was directed by John Carpenter. I love how Christine always plays these old 50's-style rock n roll songs (she was "born" in 1957), and then the last line in the movie, by one of the survivors, is... "god I hate rock n roll". In most situations, I'd be annoyed by a line like that. But here, it just works.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)