Leave The World Behind (2023)

Julia Roberts and Ethan Hawke join Mahershala Ali (with a cameo by Kevin Bacon) in a beach vacation rental to square off against the apparent end of the world, when a cyberterrorist attack that targets navigation systems and hamstrings communications grinds the country to a (literal) screeching halt.

With a bit of a quirky style, and a small but memorable supporting cast, I found this movie to be very enjoyable. Even, surprisingly, a little bit funny - as I have a wry sense of humor. With themes that are very topical to the current state of our country, it definitely gets your imagination running.

Some have complained about the ending, but I thought it was perfect. (You hear me, people - perfect! If you changed a single thing about that ending, it would disrupt the narrative and thematic cohesion of the story. Which is why you don't let amateurs write scripts). If you like apocalyptic cinema, I give it a solid recommendation.

Colonia (2015)

Colonia (a.k.a. The Colony) starts out like a Chilean The Dreamers - starring the ever-effervescent Emma Watson and Daniel Brühl as globetrotting political activists and young lovers named Lena and, er, Daniel - complete with a rock and roll soundtrack (making excellent use of both Janis Joplin and Santana). But when things turn bad, and the local fascists start clamping down on revolutionaries, the movie veers into Midnight Express territory, based (in this case) on the true story of Colonia Dignidad. Lena joins an ultra-conservative religious cult which harbors facilities for the torture of political criminals in the hopes of rescuing Daniel. But once you go in, it's not easy to get out. Michael Nyqvist creates a chilling portrayal of the cultleader Paul Schäfer (not to be confused with the bandleader of the CBS orchestra), a spiritual guru intoxicated by his own ego, poignantly demonstrating the irony of a "holy man" who is nevertheless a textbook demonstration of cruelty and corruption. (Begging the question - at least in my mind - of how long we have to continue pointing out the ties between misogyny and despotism before people begin to realize that fighting and shaming our basic sexual natures (but especially that of women) is not the path to divinity). Anyway, it's a tense and suspenseful movie; I recommend it - and not just because it stars Emma Watson, either. ;-p

They Look Like People (2015)

They Look Like People is a moody, psychological thriller that riffs on a familiar premise - the idea that people are being replaced by some kind of alien or demonic body snatchers, and that a war for the human race is being waged in secret, that only a few chosen warriors are aware of. But don't expect an invasion epic - this is a very personal, claustrophobic film about people, not monsters, that explores the possibility of the more plausible cause of such a phenomenon - namely, insanity. It's a small, character-driven film, with few sets, and fewer characters, that begins when an anxiety-prone neurotic shows up and crashes at the apartment of an old, career-minded friend. What follows is a test of the man's sanity, in a slow and unsettling production, with a few genuinely terrifying sequences, that ultimately demonstrates how severe mental illness could, conceivably, cause an otherwise good person to be capable of committing atrocious acts. It's a wonder to me that this film has gotten some negative reviews, but it goes to show how much people's tastes vary. This is not a "boo!" scary, comfort-your-girlfriend kind of horror flick, but the sort that takes the time to subtly explore one man's waking nightmare, and in the process crawl up and nestle underneath your skin. In other words, a true horror film.

Final Girl (2015)

Probably due in part to the film's marketing strategy (for better or worse - I was pleasantly surprised, but I imagine that other moviegoers with less sophisticated palates could have been disappointed), I was fearing that this movie would be another cheap slasher with a well-intended but ultimately ineffective attempt to circumvent the usual clichés - as was the case with All The Boys Love Mandy Lane. On the contrary, this movie turned out to be more of an artsy, atmospheric thriller. It's a clever take on the genre, more akin to stories you see about orphaned little girls turned deadly assassins - such as the anime classic Kite, or the more recent Violet & Daisy, Hanna, or even Hit Girl. On that note, Abigail Breslin (who's grown quite a bit since she was Little Miss Sunshine) is enchanting, but then so is everything in this movie. It was also a pleasure to see Wes Bentley again, whom I recognize from recent seasons of American Horror Story. The plot of this moody film - final girl gets revenge against a group of well-dressed, smooth talking lady killers - plays out pretty much how you expect it to, but what makes it so fascinating to watch is its stylistic ambiance (like a modern day Suspiria), and exploration of its characters' fears. At times it's almost like watching a dream. I recommend it highly.

"Most people's biggest fears are on the surface - waiting to pop out."

The Neon Demon (2016)

I like to view this movie as Elle Fanning's version of her sister Dakota's The Runaways - a mature film coming on the cusp of her (hopeful) transformation from precocious child star to serious adult actress ("adult star" doesn't quite sound right), that is daring, edgy, and not a little bit sexy. Other movies in this vein include Emma Watson's The Bling Ring, and Spring Breakers - all featuring young women getting up to no good. This movie, however, steers more towards horror than any of those others, drawing parallels to the similarly introspective Black Swan, and, in hindsight, very appropriate comparisons to Dario Argento's Suspiria. The latter is evident in this film's stylistic idiosyncrasies. Working from a clever (if at times subtly written) script, writer/director Nicholas Winding Refn (whose name alone suggests that you've wandered down the rabbit hole) utilizes a confident command of his actors, as well as a swirling mixture of light, colors, and sound (including a very effective use of silence at all the right moments), to create a surreal cinematic experience that is profound and unsettling.

I have always thought that Elle was a bit "artsier" than her sister, and this choice of role bears that out. Compared to some of the other things I've seen her in over the last few years, this movie is much better than the quirky Twixt, and her role is far more central than it was when she took up the coveted mantle of a Disney Princess (Aurora) in Maleficent, a movie that insisted on shoving the princess aside in order to tell the villain's story. Here, in The Neon Demon, Elle is not only the lead, but the shining star around which the world seems to turn. Perfectly cast as a young, impossibly pretty girl named Jesse, who arrives in L.A. to try her hand at a modeling career, she must quickly learn to navigate the attentions of a protective boyfriend, a predatory landlord (Keanu Reeves, having a blast in what amounts to a minor role), and a pretentious fashion designer, while befriending a hypersensual makeup artist (Jena Malone) and her critical, self-absorbed modeling friends.

I have to admit, I was a little bit worried that this film would devolve into another dime-a-dozen cautionary tale about the clichéd dangers of the soulless modelling industry, but I was pleasantly surprised to find that it is instead an intelligent rumination on the power of Beauty (with a capital 'b'), and its effects on both those who have it, and those who want it. Case in point: there is a scene that seems to be setting itself up as a stereotypical case of model abuse, but turns out instead to be a poignant demonstration of the artistic process, whereby a creepy photographer is presented a ridiculous makeup job, surveys the canvas, and finds just the right way to turn it into a sublime work of art (that's professional genius right there). It's a brilliant scene that is marred only by the actress' conspicuous shyness about nudity, arguably managing to undermine the point it's trying to make - that concepts like "art" and "beauty" are primal, and do not subscribe to society's taboos (explaining how "pervy" photographers with talent can keep getting work).

Regardless, Jesse finds out that, rather than another lost angel on the road to ruin, she is a rare diamond in the rough, with an unparalleled, natural beauty that causes heads to turn everywhere she goes (did I mention that Elle was perfectly cast? :p) - and she is transformed by this intoxicating revelation. What, then, is the "Neon Demon" of the title? Is it the false lure of the power and prestige that the fashion industry uses to deceive and exploit the innocent? Or the girl who knows she is pretty, and understands the power she has because of it? I can't say for sure. Yet, I think this film does an excellent job of demonstrating that the girls we describe as "dangerous" because they are beautiful - the heartbreakers who can wrap men around their little fingers - are actually in a unique position of vulnerability, because, as beacons of desire, they will inevitably attract every predator on the block. I think that, if anything, the Neon Demon is a metaphor for envy, and the disgusting lengths to which it leads us in our quest to become the things we desire.

The X-Files - S6:E18 "Milagro"

[ S6:E17 "Trevor" <<< Season 6 >>> S6:E19 "The Unnatural" ]

I'll say it right out - this episode is a rare treat. With a story by John Shiban & Frank Spotnitz, and teleplay by Chris Carter, it's a love letter to the art form of writing. It's also a dark and serious episode, but one of the more intense and artistic ones - less the formulaic monster-of-the-weeks that once made up the bread-and-butter of this show, and more the rare stand-out episodes that demonstrate what this show could accomplish in its finest hours. Honestly, I don't think I've seen an episode this affecting since season 4's Paper Hearts, and I'd even rate it on a level with Beyond The Sea. Frankly, I'm astounded to find an episode of this quality in the sixth season, but delighted to learn that the series still has it in it to churn out such a one as this. The writing is fantastic, but they really scored with the casting, as well - guest star John Hawkes is very charismatic, able to tell volumes without even saying a word. It hearkens back to a time when a good actor could single-handedly make a freak-of-the-week interesting independent of the cool factor of whatever supernatural powers he might have.

Truly, it's fascinating to see someone so overcome with passion - even if it's what causes them to do horrible things, it's still a spectacle to watch. This is how you write interesting villains - you don't even have to justify what they do, you just have to make it interesting, make it feel compelling. It took me halfway through the episode to figure out what was going on, but the mystery is part of the allure. Is this a story about a writer living out the fantasy inside his twisted mind? (I recall an offhand comment on that subject in the episode Irresistible). Taking up residence in the apartment next to Mulder's, is he writing a story using details pilfered from an as-yet unsolved case, or is he in fact the serial killer in question, the manuscript for his latest novel serving as an unlikely confession to his crimes?

There is a question, at times, of whether there is any paranormal activity at all in this episode, and it's also one of those rare episodes where Scully is more of a believer, and Mulder more of a skeptic than usual. Although it's not what I would describe as a "Scully religious episode", the subject of her faith is touched on, but only subtly (and thus very tastefully, for once). Mulder does suggest "psychic surgery" at one point, but it sounds even more ridiculous than his usual wacky theories. The crimes involve the extraction of the victims' hearts, prompting this episode's joining with Terms of Endearment as episodes from this season with truly striking and memorable visual effects. When the writer starts getting into the heads of our characters (particularly Scully), it plays on the viewer's awareness of the artifice of fiction, as if to insert the writers into their story, allowing their characters to interact with them (in a very understated and not cheesy way, less tongue-in-cheek than Darin Morgan starring in Small Potatoes in order to make jokes at Mulder's expense - to his face). This is a fantastic episode - the kind that deserves to just be watched, and not simply read about.

Memorable quotes:

Mulder: This could be the perfect crime.
Scully: Well, crime is only as perfect as the man or the mind that commits it. Even if it were perfect, even if he made not one mistake, there's still his motive. You find his motive, and you find the murderer.

Mulder: I'm sure many a person's had their heart broken out here, but not quite like this.

Mulder: You're a writer. Anything I'd know?
Padgett: I don't think so. ...You're an FBI agent. Working on anything interesting?
Mulder: A murder case.
Padgett (snarky): Anything I'd know?
Mulder (coy): Possibly.

(I may be spoiling this exchange by writing it down, because much of its effect is produced by the actors' command of their lines).

Scully: Loneliness is a choice.
Padgett: So how 'bout a cup of coffee?

Padgett: Motive is never easy. Sometimes it occurs to one only later.

Padgett: By their nature, words are imprecise, and layered with meaning - the signs of things, not the things themselves. It's difficult to say who's in charge.

Mulder: No one can predict human behavior. No one can tell you what another person's gonna do.
Scully: But isn't that what you do, Mulder, as a behavioral profiler? You imagine the killer's mind so well, that you know what they're gonna do next.

(Here's a hint, Scully - phrase it in supernatural terms, and maybe Mulder will be more likely to believe you).

Padgett: But I have love in my heart.
The Stranger: Yes - as a thief has riches, a usurer money, you have it. But man's only power - only true power - is to destroy it.

The Devil's Advocate (1997)

In a comment I recently posted on this blog, I recalled a glancing childhood encounter I had with the movie The Devil's Advocate. Then I saw it was available on Netflix, so I decided to give it a watch. I'd be surprised if I were alone in this, but when I was a kid, I had the habit of periodically checking the TV Guide to see if any salacious movies were playing on late night television that I could stay up and watch in secret. You know, the sort of things your parents don't want you to see. I was primarily on the lookout for titles containing sexual content (although exceedingly rare - in spite of what moralists claim about modern media and popular culture). I don't know if I thought a movie about the devil would be more likely to contain perverted material (not an unjustified assumption, as it turns out), or if I was simply seduced by the thought of settling in for a macabre tale about the darker side of human imagination.

At any rate, I was disappointed to find out that The Devil's Advocate is less a story about the denizens of hell, than it is about a corrupt law firm (Wolfram & Hart, anyone?) in New York City. It does, however, touch upon the darkness that resides in the hearts of some men, and there is a character that is supposed to be the devil, albeit in human form. I guess I was spoiled by my fearful reverence for the movie Legend, with Tim Curry decked out in red body paint, glowing contacts, and horns bigger than his head. I get the feeling a lot of people consider that traditional interpretation of the devil to be kind of cheesy (and as one who has dabbled in paganism, I should be more concerned that its genesis came from the jealous desecration of a previous, non-Christian god), but hell, I'm a sucker for it.

And anyway, though it might not be the movie I wanted it to be, The Devil's Advocate is actually still really good. Keanu Reeves stars as Kevin Lomax, a hotshot small-town lawyer transposed into the big city, who has a crisis of conscience when he's asked to defend an accused murderer. It's one thing to write a character that's a brilliant lawyer who's never lost a case, but this movie does an excellent job of convincingly demonstrating his talents, and his ability to put the best possible spin on the worst case scenario, for the sake of his clients. The symbolic interpretation of "the devil's advocate" as a criminal defense attorney - a person who attempts to defend, for professional purposes, individuals accused of wrongdoing - while not the kind of literal devil's advocate I wanted to see, is a very clever appropriation of the phrase.

Of course, the whole concept of a fair trial, and the right of accused persons to a proper defense in court, is the foundation of our very justice system. And lawyers who defend avowed criminals are not defending evil so much as they are defending the very principle of justice itself. But at the same time, you have to consider that some (if not many) of these people really are guilty. And while it's only fair to give people the benefit of the doubt - that's what "innocent until proven guilty" is all about - what do you do if you're convinced that your client really is guilty, and deserves to be punished? Do you favor your professional reputation, or your moral conscience? That's the question Kevin Lomax struggles with in this movie, but his position is muddied significantly by his own vanity. And that's where the devil steps in.

Al Pacino plays John Milton, head of a vastly successful international law firm, who, upon hearing of Kevin Lomax's undefeated reputation, practically throws money at him to get him to work at his firm. But there's more to John Milton than meets the eye. Al Pacino plays a very understated, but still very convincing interpretation of the devil. Again, it's a different type of devil than I wanted to see, but it's still a very compelling one. He's not some evil monster that attacks people, rather he is the seducer, who delights in watching man be corrupted by his own base desires. The entire last half hour of the movie is dedicated to a thrilling verbal confrontation - a battle of wills, as it were - in which John Milton insults God and convincingly describes himself as a humanist. It's so effective that, by the end, you're thinking that he can only be wrong because he's the devil, not because you can find any flaw in any of his arguments, or fault any of what he stands for.

Jeffrey Jones and Craig T. Nelson both also star, as does Charlize Theron, as Kevin Lomax's wife. But if I had to be honest, her whole character arc of going crazy because her husband is a workaholic feels overwrought and saturated with sexist stereotypes of the irrational, over-emotional woman whose life and sanity depend on her ability to make a baby. It forms the weak leg of the tripod in this movie. Another stereotype that this movie panders to is the one that characterizes any sex offender that (to quote Nabokov) "hankers for some throbbing, sweet-moaning, physical but not necessarily coital relation with a girl-child" as a soulless monster without conscience, and, more specifically, a murderer just waiting to paradoxically strike out against the target of his affections. This is prime evidence of the confusion between sex and violence. I mean, if you can understand the rationalization for this behavior - "I like you, you make me feel good, so I'm going to kill you" - then you're a better psychologist than I. But it plays into the devil's argument that "evil" is just a man who chooses to indulge his instincts, and it's a small hiccup in an otherwise very good movie.

The X-Files - S6:E2 "Drive"

[ S6:E1 "The Beginning" <<< Season 6 >>> S6:E3 "Triangle" ]

I was surprised the first few times, but by now I've noticed that it seems to be a pattern for The X-Files to front-load their seasons with notable episodes. Breaking Bad fans will not fail to note that this episode marks what I presume to be the birth of the creative partnership between writer Vince Gilligan and actor Bryan Cranston. It opens rather unusually, with news footage of a car chase that sets the stage for the episode. Coupled with the desert highway landscapes - the majority of the episode takes place in Nevada, and ends on the Pacific coast - this really feels like a different show than the one that was filmed in Vancouver. It's still The X-Files, though. The unlucky victims in this episode seem to have come down with a rather deadly case of tinnitus, and the only thing that soothes it is driving real fast. It's like Vince Gilligan thought to himself, "what if in Speed, the bomb wasn't on the vehicle, but inside someone's head?"

What's more, Scully harbors a suspicion that it may be communicable, like a disease. Outbreak scenarios are always rife with potential for a good thrill 'n' chill. One spooky scene where Scully examines ground zero, trying to put together a profile on the pathogen, just screams Michael Crichton's The Andromeda Strain. And there's also a feeling of F. Emasculata, with Scully hanging back to study the disease, while Mulder's out on the front lines dealing with it. Dangerous or not, you can't deny it's more exciting than the domestic terrorism detail Mulder and Scully have been assigned to. When Mulder sees the news footage on TV, you can tell that, like in Detour, he wants nothing more than to be working that case, instead of the mundane job he's been tasked with. It really goes to show that, whatever their feelings about Mulder's crazy "theories" are, they're totally wasting his talents by keeping him from the work he's passionate about.

On that note, we get a better introduction to Mulder and Scully's new Assistant Director, Kersh (James Pickens, Jr.) here, whom we only saw briefly in the last episode. There was a time when Skinner could (more or less convincingly) play the bad guy - even as recently as season 4, although by then you already had confidence that even if Skinner did bad things, he'd be doing them for the right reasons. So, with the Smoking Man either retired or doting on his presumed heir for the past year, there'd been a hole in the form of a direct, bureaucratic obstacle opening up which Kersh fills nicely. And whereas Skinner wears his emotions on his sleeve - delivering all his lines through gritted teeth, even as he has his agents' best interests at heart - Kersh has this unsettling way of speaking. It's a sort of quiet disdain, like when the principal calls you into his office, but instead of yelling at you, he chastises you in a calm, controlled voice. Like, rather than being upset by your misbehavior, he's almost pleased, because he relishes the opportunity to punish you.

Memorable quotes:

Crump: Drive.

Mulder: You stop moving, you die? I think I saw this movie.

Mulder: We'll figure this out.
Crump: Better figure quick. We're runnin' outta west.

Kersh: Don't misunderstand me, Agent. I don't care if you and your partner saved a school bus full of doe-eyed urchins on their way to Sunday bible camp. You no longer investigate X-Files - you are done. And the sooner you and Mulder come to recognize that, the better for both of you.

The X-Files - S5:E18 "The Pine Bluff Variant"

[ S5:E17 "All Souls" <<< Season 5 >>> S5:E19 "Folie a Deux" ]

The spiritual successor to F. Emasculata, The Pine Bluff Variant is a hard-boiled conspiracy thriller in which everyone is double-crossing everyone else and (for once in this series this is actually true) you don't know who you can trust. The CIA coordinates an operation with the FBI to take down a terrorist militia (recalling shades of Unrequited) bent on unleashing a lethal bio weapon - a gruesome flesh-eating disease - on the unsuspecting public. But Mulder is apparently helping them to evade capture. Has he become so disillusioned with the U.S. government that he'd resort to aiding and abetting terrorists? Or has he been compromised, like he was in Kitsunegari? Is it a deep cover operation? Unfortunately, the tension is mitigated considerably by the fact that you know Mulder's not really going to be killed in this episode, but it's still very thrilling to watch. A couple of familiar faces show up - Daniel von Bargen (who played Kruger on Seinfeld) as one of the terrorist leaders, and Sam Anderson (who was quite memorable as the evil lawyer Holland Manners on Buffy's spin-off series Angel) as one of the top government operatives. Apart from the medical engineering, and a bank heist where the robbers wear Halloween masks, this is one of those rare episodes that doesn't really have a sci-fi/fantasy component - but government conspiracy abounds. It may not feel like a traditional X-Files episode, but it's a very good hour of television.

Memorable quotes:

August Bremer: I'd like some popcorn, please.
Usherette: Do you want large, extra large, or jumbo large?
August Bremer: Could I get some fresh popcorn, please? The sign says, "fresh popcorn".
Usherette: This is fresh popcorn...
August Bremer: No, fresh fresh - hot.

Mulder: I believe in your ideals, and your goals. The only reason I tolerate your methods is because the government's is worse.
Jacob Steven Haley: Wow, what a ringing endorsement.

Jacob Steven Haley: A war is going on, Agent Mulder. Either you're on the right side, or the wrong.

Skinner: What happened to your hand?
Mulder: Terrorist lie detector.
Leamus: Well, did you pass?
Mulder: Well, I must have - I'm still here.

August Bremer: You're a believer?
Mulder: I have my beliefs.
August Bremer: You willing to die for them?
Mulder: I'd prefer it didn't come to that.

Leamus: What do you hope to accomplish, Agent Mulder, as a whistle-blower? To mobilize a civil rights action? To bring down the federal government? To do the very work that that group you were a part of is so bent on doing? What do you want? Laws against those men, or laws protecting them?
Mulder: I want people to know the truth.
Leamus: Well, sometimes our job is to protect those people from knowing it.

The X-Files - S3:E23 "Wetwired"

[ S3:E22 "Quagmire" <<< Season 3 >>> S3:E24 "Talitha Cumi" ]

This is a unique sort of episode. Just when I was starting to think that The X-Files was settling in to a rather more strict demarcation between the monster-of-the-week and the mythology episodes than it's had in the first two seasons (thus making my "one cigarette" rating obsolete), we are given Avatar. And now this. It doesn't feel like a traditional mythology episode - as in F. Emasculata, the emphasis is on conspiracy rather than extraterrestrials - and yet many of the major recurring mythology characters are assembled here (including Mrs. Scully!). (Also, the Smoking Man is referred to directly in this episode for the second time as "Cancer Man"). Plus, like late season 2's Soft Light, it gives us some sorely needed development of the character X (albeit precious little), who has been largely and conspicuously absent for the majority of this season. I fear, however, that, much like in Sleepless, the final scene is but an ominous set-up for something that is about to befall (more on that when it happens).

In this episode, Mulder and Scully investigate the case of a man who appears to be insane, after killing several people he thought were someone else. They find a treasure trove of taped news programs in the perpetrator's house, linking his crimes to reports on a particularly heinous war criminal. Scully suspects a homicidal reaction to violent impulses in the media (though as a skeptical scientist, she should really know better), but Mulder's doubts lead him to search for a less natural stimulus that could trigger such an outburst. Similar cases begin to turn up, and Mulder witnesses a strange device being installed in the telephone poles near the unlikely killers' homes. The Lone Gunmen identify it as a kind of sophisticated transmitter of mind-control signals. Its effects induce paranoid visions in Scully that lend a surreal - almost Lynchian - feel to the proceedings. She goes off the wire, like Mulder did in Anasazi, resulting in a tragic shock and tense standoff. I'm surprised I didn't have a better recollection of this episode, as it's quite good.

Memorable quotes:

Source: This area's always been known for its criminal element.
Mulder: Especially when Congress is in session.

Scully: Recent studies have linked violence on television to violent behavior.
Mulder: Yeah, but those studies are based on the assumption that Americans are just empty vessels ready to be filled with any idea or image that's fed to them - like a bunch of Pavlov dogs - and go out and act on it.
Scully: But they believe that the causal connections are there, Mulder.
Mulder: Studies have also shown causal connections between cow flatulence and the depletion of the ozone layer. What you're talking about is pseudo-science used to make political book.

Scully: I saw things, and I heard things, and...it was just like the world was turned upside-down. Everybody was out to get me.
Mulder: Now you know how I feel most of the time.

Mulder: Why kill them if you wanted me to expose them?
X: Those were always my orders, Agent Mulder. I was just hoping you'd get to them first.
...
Mulder: Where will they stop?
X: That's where you failed, Agent Mulder.
Mulder: Don't lay this off on me, you sneaky son of a bitch. You pulled me into this situation because you didn't have the courage to reveal the truth yourself.

(This is an excellent example of the way X works. He's not gone so soft as to compromise the brutality of his own work for the enemy (whatever Deep Throat may have been responsible for, we never witnessed him murdering somebody in cold blood). He just leaves it all up to Mulder to make things right. And yet he still suffers the consequences).

Terminator Marathon

In anticipation of going to see the new Terminator movie in theaters (since I'd heard good things about it from a close friend), I decided to go back and rewatch the first two Terminator movies, as well as the third and the fourth that I had never seen before. Here are my thoughts on each of the movies:

The Terminator (1984)

It's easy to write The Terminator off as a brainless Hollywood blockbuster (mainly due to the success and reputation of its sequel, which often - and unfairly in my opinion - eclipses its predecessor), but I view it as one of the pinnacle examples of a brilliant sci-fi premise executed flawlessly. A cyborg assassin (Arnold Schwarzenegger, perfectly cast in a role that facilitated his transformation from an award-winning bodybuilder to a movie star) is sent from a future ravaged by nuclear war, where (much like in the Matrix), machines have enslaved and all but exterminated mankind. The Terminator's single-minded goal is to assassinate the leader of the human resistance - before he is ever born, by targeting his mother, Sarah Connor (Linda Hamilton).

And so, without any concern for propriety or maintaining a low profile, the Terminator begins its rampage through Los Angeles, like an indestructible bulldozer, recklessly killing anyone and destroying anything that gets between him and his target. Sarah Connor's only protection is a human resistance fighter sent back from the future like the Terminator - a man named Kyle Reese (Michael Biehn, who, along with Lance Henriksen who plays a small role in this movie, also appears in director James Cameron's sequel to Alien), whose journey to the past initiates one of the great mindfucks of a time paradox in cinematic history - predating Back To The Future by a year! The Terminator's relentless pursuit of his target is thrilling to watch, and builds to a terrifying climax when the killing machine's true form is revealed. I unhesitatingly rate it one of the masterpieces of the science fiction genre.

Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991)

The Terminator was a pretty neatly-wrapped narrative (as time loops tend to be), but whenever the unavoidably inconsistent logic of time travel is involved, there is always room for retconning. So Terminator 2 starts by introducing a second Terminator sent back in time, this time to target John Connor himself (Edward Furlong) before the war (dubbed "Judgment Day"), while he was still a child. Linda Hamilton returns as the boy's mother, Sarah Connor, and Arnold Schwarzenegger reprises his role as the Terminator - with a significant twist: this time, he's been programmed to protect John Connor, against an even more powerful killing machine: Robert Patrick's T-1000.

This movie is a lot more self-conscious than The Terminator was (for better or worse, depending on your perspective). Arnold's entrance is no less badass, but this time it conspicuously strives to be "cool", whereas the first one was just terrifying. And while it's a clever way to put a twist on the story, I just don't like turning the unstoppable killer from the first movie into one of the good guys. Here, you have the Terminator learning to smile and crack jokes (and minimize human casualties); and while I'm sure having one as your personal bodyguard fulfills every 13 year old boy's fantasy, the Terminator is just not as awesome when it's reduced to fulfilling the role of a pet, or a toy.

On the other side of the ring, you have this new villain who I think works out better in theory than in practice. Robert Patrick is sinister-looking enough, but he doesn't make as intimidating a villain as Mr. Olympia (Arnold) did. The idea of liquid metal is undoubtedly cool, but the effects just don't impress me as much as a cyborg with a creepy-looking robotic endoskeleton. In summary, The Terminator was a desperate struggle to survive in the face of overwhelming odds, whereas Terminator 2 is a face-off between two juggernauts - and the movie feels different as a result. Personally, I prefer the tension and the despair of the former to the action and spectacle of the latter.

Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines (2003)

With James Cameron no longer at the helm, and over a decade since the last entry, Terminator 3 is bound to feel like a departure from the previous titles in the series. Nevertheless, it picks up right where Terminator 2 left off, and utilizes a similar formula (arguably rendering it obsolete - especially considering that it's not as good - except for the fact that it retcons T2's resolution, making another sequel about the war-torn future possible). Although, like the original, T2's ending was pretty conclusive - Sarah and John Connor trashed Cyberdyne Systems' headquarters (the company that produced the AI that precipitated Judgment Day), thereby changing the future and averting the apocalypse - in T3, a young adult John Connor (Nick Stahl) is living in constant fear that fate will, sooner or later, find another way to manifest itself. And sure enough, it does.

Enter the new T-X (Kristanna Loken) - a female Terminatrix. She's a highly advanced model, taking on the best of the first two Terminators - a robotic endoskeleton underneath a layer of liquid metal - with added firepower and the ability to control other machines. This all sounds awesome, but I think it's gotten to the level of being a little ridiculous. (On that note, explosions are cool because fire, but I don't really need to see an entire city block demolished for no good reason - that's not entertainment for me). I don't want to be sexist - because women can be legitimately terrifying - but Kristanna Loken just isn't as intimidating as an award-winning bodybuilder can be. I feel like both she and Robert Patrick in T2 were trying too hard to imitate Arnold's emotionless, deadpan expressions that were so genuine in the original. It's a shame that they insisted on turning Arnold's Terminator into a sympathetic good guy - they should have just kept him as the villain.

Speaking of Arnold Schwarzenegger, he returns in this movie in a role very similar to the last. His entrance is even more humorous this time, when he enters a ladies' bar and steals the clothes off of a male stripper (I am not joking). No explanation is given as to how the Terminators make it to the past, two movies after we were told that the time travel device had been busted after Kyle Reese and the first Terminator went through. Plot consistency is tricky to begin with where time travel is involved, but the more they tack on to the story, the messier it gets. If repeated time travel is an option (via a repaired or second machine, for example), then questions arise, such as, why send the T-X (or even the T-1000) to kill an informed John Connor rather than an inexperienced Sarah Connor, as was the target the first time? And why not send a bunch of Terminators instead of just one? You can tell the series has gone from "I have a great story to tell!" to "what kind of story can we tell to keep this franchise going?"

Terminator Salvation (2009)

You could be forgiven for thinking that, twenty-five years after the first film, there wouldn't be any new ground left to tread in a Terminator movie, but you would be wrong. Apart from a few glimpses into the memories of Kyle Reese (played in this movie by Anton Yelchin), the story of the future resistance hadn't really been told. And I'm not sure that it could have been told until we'd seen the experiences (that span the second and third movies) that make up John Connor (Christian Bale, this time around)'s youth, and inform his prescient knowledge of the key to winning the war. That, and we also had to develop the special effects necessary to tell the story first.

An interesting thing about the Terminator movies, if you examine them, is that, despite it being a story involving time travel, that spans the years 1984 to 2029, each one takes place predominantly in chronological order. From before John Connor's birth, to his childhood, to the moments preceding Judgment Day, and now finally we move forward into the future to explore man's resistance against the machines. Terminator Salvation ditches the stale formula the series had latched onto, which is probably for the best. It is, therefore, an unpredictable movie, that doesn't feel like a classic Terminator - although it has lots of respect for the movies that preceded it - and it is a good movie nonetheless.

It is, however, a bleak and visually desaturated movie. But I like that it tries to do its own thing, instead of struggling to capture lightning in a bottle all over again. Arnold Schwarzenegger's absence isn't even that painful, since the Terminators have little need to disguise themselves as humans in the future - and they look as terrifying as ever here! Also, this movie provides an intriguing and far more effective example of a sympathetic rogue Terminator (portrayed by Sam Worthington) than we've ever seen before. It builds to a shockingly clever and exciting climax, that respectfully pays homage to its predecessors, with all new, updated special effects. As a total package, it's not as brilliant or flawless as the original Terminator, but I think I liked it better than the fan-favored Terminator 2.

The Birds (1963)

The great thing about an Alfred Hitchcock movie is that you can really get lost in its story. That's a function of good writing - intriguing characters and clever dialogue. Unlike a lot of cheap horror films (especially creature features), The Birds is not simply a one trick pony. I was concerned that the movie's novelty - killer birds - wouldn't be able to carry the whole film, but it doesn't have to. And that's good, because its runtime is a robust two hours. But already fifteen minutes in, there hasn't been any threat from the birds yet, and I'm engrossed in the romantic mystery unfolding between a San Francisco socialite (Tippi Hedren) and a coy lawyer (Rod Taylor) who lives in a nearby bay town.

Therefore, when the birds do finally start to attack, we actually care about the characters - they're not just nameless victims caught up in the storm. But making the audience sympathize with the characters in a movie isn't as simple as giving them a back story, or watching them emote (actually, there isn't a lot of either here). It's an art, really, and I'm sure there's a lot of subjectivity involved, but the key, I think, is creating people that are relatable, and putting them in intriguing situations, so that the audience will be invested, and want to find out what happens. In a poorly written movie, you won't care that this woman gets these love birds to the strange man she doesn't know, because the story doesn't engage you. But one thing Hitchcock is a master of is creating mystery and suspense - he leaves out just enough information to keep you wondering, and wanting to find out more.

On the other hand, the argument could be made that all the non-bird related story development takes away from the horror premise of the movie. This could be seen as another example of Hitchcock's bait-and-switch technique - which was evident in Vertigo, and especially in Psycho - but here it doesn't feel so much like clever misdirection as padding to fill out the time. Maybe it's because going into The Birds, you pretty much already know exactly what to expect.

In any case, once all hell breaks loose, the movie switches focus nearly completely. However, it has some issues with pacing, and it still begins to drag as we move from one bird-escaping scene to the next. Individually, though, they're pretty remarkable for their time - Hitchcock must have had an exceptional bird wrangler. The attic scene is particularly horrifying, and must surely have been groundbreaking in its brutality at the time.

The bird attacks are suitably frenzied, but the quiet moments between are chilling in a different sort of way. My favorite scene is the one at the school, as the crows slowly gather on the jungle gym behind the unsuspecting lead (a textbook example of Hitchcock's approach to suspense), until the playground is just swarming with them, waiting to attack. You could cut the tension in that scene with a knife! Not even children are spared in this film.

Towards the end of the movie, the main protagonists hole themselves up in their house, after boarding up the bars and windows, in a sequence that seems eerily foreshadowing of Night of the Living Dead. But despite all the effort that must have gone in to making the birds seem intimidating, there's a limit to how scary you can make a flock of seagulls look, and the effects in some of the scenes are still not entirely convincing. Atmospherically, it's creepy, but it just doesn't have the visceral impact of walking, flesh-eating corpses.

And then we come to the ending, which is pretty open. There's no explanation for the bird attacks, no great resolution. You can argue whether this is an effective approach or not - personally, it left me kind of wanting - but it's certainly in line with Hitchcock's tendency toward abrupt, not entirely satisfying endings. He's a master of developing suspense, not resolving story lines. Which, in a way, kind of reflects my overall impression of the famed director.

Alfred Hitchcock was highly talented, no doubt, and deserves his reputation. But his films are not flawless, nor without peer. They are good enough to be appreciated by cinema buffs even today, but they are rather dated to their era. For all their influence and innovation, filmmaking has advanced by leaps and bounds since Hitchcock's time. And much like how Citizen Kane is revered as a cinematic masterpiece, but is hard for modern audiences to relate to, Alfred Hitchcock's greatest adversary is the unrelenting passage of time (for which we can hardly hold him responsible). So I will gladly rate him as one of the greatest and defining directors in history (particularly in the suspense/thriller/mystery/horror genres), even though his films are not likely to list among my top favorites.

North By Northwest (1959)

Of the three Alfred Hitchcock movies I've watched in the last couple of weeks, North By Northwest is the most conventional, in a Hollywood blockbuster sense (from a 1950s point of view). This is not necessarily a bad thing, as it means that it is more readily accessible and relatively action-packed (I mean, hell, there's even an explosion!) compared to Rear Window and Vertigo.

Cary Grant stars as Roger Thornhill, an advertising executive in New York City, who is unexpectedly abducted and escorted to a wealthy estate where a suspicious man by the name of Vandamm (played by James Mason) - or is it Townsend? - seems perfectly convinced that Thornhill is a secret agent working against his criminal interests. This unfortunate instance of mistaken identity instantly plunges Thornhill (like an unwitting James Bond) into the middle of an undercover operation involving international espionage, resulting in an extended chase across a portion of the American landscape.

The movie thrives on suspense and mystery, but also action, and not a few clever and daring scenes that are positively thrilling (such as the shocking United Nations setup, the iconic crop duster chase, Thornhill's ingenious and hilarious extrication from an auction house, and a climax set on the face of Mount Rushmore - though the latter drags on a bit, spectacular though it is). The movie slows down a bit when it switches gears to develop an off-the-cuff romance (the love interest played by Eva Marie Saint), but even then the danger is never very far off.

North By Northwest is another long movie, clocking in at just over two hours and fifteen minutes, but it has enough humor and thrills to make the time spent watching it sufficiently enjoyable. As I mentioned, it's more accessible than some of Hitchcock's more "specialized" films, but though it's relatively conventional in comparison, and is no less dated than any other films now over half a century old, it is nonetheless a solid demonstration of intelligent, technically proficient, and entertaining filmmaking, worthy of being called a classic.

Vertigo (1958)

James Stewart (who also starred in Rear Window) returns as a police detective who feels compelled to retire after discovering (in a spectacular twilight chase scene over the rooftops of San Francisco that opens the movie) that he suffers from an acute fear of heights. He is goaded into taking one last assignment, however, to tail an old friend's wife (a haunting, haunted Kim Novak), whose husband believes she has been possessed by the ghost of an old ancestor.

Alfred Hitchcock employs his usual creativity as a filmmaker (limited though the technical effects of the time may have been) to bring to life the theme of acrophobia (fear of heights). But though the movie does involve the main character's battle to overcome his fear of heights, it is less the harrowing gauntlet of acrophobic challenges that it could have been, and more a personal study of one man's romantic obsession with a woman, and what it does to him. In that sense, the fear of falling may be related to falling in love, but as this is a Hitchcock film, it's no budding romance, but a neurotic, spiraling plunge into the depths of madness.

The apparent climax to the film seems to come not 3/4 of the way through the movie, followed by a shocking twist that changes the direction of the movie (a technique Hitchcock would perfect in Psycho). Some viewers have criticized the too early placement of a scene that resolves the movie's mystery, but this actually reveals Hitchcock's intention not to tell a conventional murder mystery (instead favoring suspense over surprise), but to focus on the heady effects of obsessive romance on the film's two leads. The denouement following this revelation, however, tends to make the movie feel a bit overlong (with a run time that exceeds the two hour mark), and, like Rear Window, ultimately reaches a conclusion that is startlingly abrupt (if applaudingly stylistic).

Hitchcock's grasp of suspense, characterization, and dialogue is masterful as ever, but he is not without flaw. Vertigo is not an immediately accessible movie, and does not feel altogether satisfying when viewed straight (which probably accounts for its initial panning), although its retroactive reputation as Hitchcock's greatest masterpiece is a testament to the film's intimate personality and ability to inspire obsession in viewers not unlike that the protagonist in the story feels (no less than Martin Scorsese expresses admiration for the film in one of the DVD's bonus features). My own opinion is that this is probably not Hitchcock's best film, and definitely not the greatest movie ever made (not by a long shot), but it demonstrates a talented director's creative attempt at flouting the rules of genre convention, and for that, it earns my respect.

Rear Window (1954)

Right from out of the gate, Rear Window effectively taps in to the audience's voyeuristic impulse. The basic outline of the plot - a journalistic photographer (James Stewart) housebound with a broken leg, bored from six weeks of nothing to do but sit in front of the window - unfolds via a telephone conversation almost in the background, as the camera pans over a fascinating tableau of apartment windows.

The viewer can't help but become absorbed in the curious details of these anonymous people's lives, each one suggesting a different personality, a different lifestyle. The protagonist's simultaneous boredom - and ambivalent fascination - with each of these windows into other people's lives immediately becomes the viewer's. And this is in just the first ten minutes of the movie.

For a time, the protagonist's obsession with voyeurism raises some alarm with his on-call nurse (Thelma Ritter), and glamorous girlfriend (Grace Kelly). But when a few suspicious details linked to a traveling salesman (Raymond Burr) living across the courtyard begin adding up to a picture that looks an awful lot like murder, the desire to look, to pry, to figure out what's going on is downright infectious - the ethics of privacy be damned (much to the chagrin of a skeptical detective played by Wendell Corey).

The movie builds to a fairly tense climax (for its time), even if it takes its merry time getting there. At just barely under two hours, it's pretty long for a movie from the 1950s. However, the characters are likable, even in their imperfections, and their interactions (at times even humorous) are a joy to watch. The ultimate conclusion suits the movie's "murder mystery" atmosphere, although I was hoping for one final plot twist (a la The Simpsons' parody "Bart of Darkness").

But instead of a warning about the ethical concerns of intrusive voyeurism, and how easy it is to jump to conclusions - which could easily become preachy - what we have here is a harrowing glimpse of the horror that occasionally lies just under the surface of everyday life. And that is, perhaps, more suitably frightening. Rear Window is a fantastic movie for its time, and though it has aged a bit in the half century plus since its release, it nevertheless remains compelling, and director Alfred Hitchcock's dedication to the theme of voyeurism is carried through by the filming style in a uniquely effective way.

Sound of My Voice (2011)

I had no idea what to expect from this movie when I hit play, and it turned out that I was totally unprepared for it. Although I can't imagine anything that could prepare you for it. My best guess was that it was a horror. It was thoroughly unsettling, but to call it a "horror" doesn't quite do it justice. It is a piece of art. And, like the best and most effective horrors, instead of violence, it relies on mystery, to keep the viewer guessing. Right from the start, it succeeds in creating that truly terrifying atmosphere where you feel like you can't trust the director, and you don't know where the movie is going to end up, and you just don't feel safe.

On its own, this is a devastating technique, but it fits perfectly with the theme of the movie - a documentarian couple's undercover infiltration of a cult centered around an impossibly beautiful woman who claims to be from the future (a startlingly effective Brit Marling). Filmed mainly from the perspective of the infiltrators (but not in the first person, a la found footage), you feel intrinsically vulnerable, because you honestly don't know what the cult is capable of. Even when it fails to do anything obviously evil, you still can't trust it, especially when you see the effects it has on its members. Yet, at the same time, it is strangely captivating, and you're never quite sure what's true and what's a lie. Without relying on any disbelief-suspending tricks, you witness how this cult manages to seduce people (audience included), even as it fails to provide hard evidence to prove its unbelievable claims. It's devastating. And a haunting piece of cinema.

Hanna (2011)

Hanna is a stylistic tour de force, with fantastic cinematography. A stunning Saoirse Ronan stars as the titular character - a girl raised by an ex-special operative (Eric Bana) in the Arctic wilderness to be a superhuman assassin. She's been training all her life to get revenge on the government agent that killed her mother (a chilling Cate Blanchett), and her coming of age means stepping out into a world she's a complete stranger to, in order to complete her mission.

The serious tone is tempered with some humorous and endearing scenes of social awkwardness on account of Hanna's upbringing, particularly those involving a likable family of tourists (centered around a hilarious Jessica Barden as a sassy teen). I could stare at the lovely Saoirse Ronan for hours, but the whole movie is filmed in gorgeous stylism, with some beautiful landscapes (from desert to winter wonderland). The plot's pretty straightforward, although there are some mild twists along the way, but this is a movie you watch for the journey, not the destination. It's cinema as art, and it's pure fun to watch.

The Prophecy (1995)

The Prophecy is a fun little suspense thriller with biblical themes. The plot involves a prophecy about a dark soul - in the host of a human - that will turn the tides in the second war of angels (the first being the one that resulted in the casting of Lucifer out of Heaven; this one motivated by jealousy for God's favoritism towards humans). One could be forgiven for making comparisons to Constantine, but this movie involves less hell and demons. Although Lucifer does make an appearance (in a compelling portrayal by Viggo Mortensen), the emphasis is on the ambiguous morality of the angel Gabriel (an ever-theatrical Christopher Walken), his adversary Simon (a charismatic Eric Stoltz), and the humans who get in the way (an ex-priest police detective, a small town school teacher, and an innocent little girl). The story is not airtight, and the religious morals (particularly re: faith) that dominate the conclusion fall somewhat short, but otherwise this is a very good movie.

Right At Your Door (2006)

I read a little about Right At Your Door when it came out several years ago, and it's been on my watchlist ever since, though I only just now got around to watching it. As the poster describes, it's an "apocalyptic thriller" that unfolds like a disaster movie, but narrowly focused on one man's experiences at his house on the outskirts of Los Angeles in the wake of a terrorist attack that unleashes clouds of toxic ash on the city and surrounding areas. "Harrowing" is a pretty good adjective for this movie. It definitely plays into fears of a post-9/11 America, and while adopting all the cues of an epidemic movie, it manages to distinguish itself and stay fresh in its approach and perspective.

It's a very tense movie that evolves naturally, and had my heart beating rapidly, especially at the start when the shit first hits the fan, and again at the shocking climax when things come to a head. It has a few slow moments in between, but there's nothing wrong with that, as the ordeal does involve sitting things out while the officials get their asses in gear and decide how to deal with the calamity. There are some human moments in there, too - as to be expected - some of which raise some difficult questions about what you would do in such a terrible situation. But it's the horror of the premise, effectively executed, that makes this ride more than worth its while. I count it one of the better horror movies of the 21st century.

Masters of Horror: Season One (2005)

Masters of Horror is a series of one-hour short films that ran on Showtime, directed by many of the seminal horror directors of our time. The idea originated from a series of cordial dinner outings shared by a group of directors (many of which are represented in this series) spearheaded by Mick Garris. The project is unique in that it gives each director a clean slate to work from, to produce a short film in ten days, with practically nonexistent interference from any studios or higher-ups, to be run on television. I have just finished watching the first season, so I will review each of the episodes below. It may be worth noting that I did not watch the episodes in the order that they aired, but rather in the apparently random order they came in my box set.

Title: Jenifer
Director: Dario Argento
You might remember his film...Suspiria (1977)

Premise: Steven Weber stars in a screenplay he wrote based on a short comic about a man's unhealthy obsession with a feral creature that possesses the body of a beautiful woman, coupled with a monstrous face.

Opinion: I suppose I was expecting something a little more "colorful" from Dario Argento, but Jenifer left me feeling kind of lukewarm. It's a good story, and I really like that it approaches the topic of sex and sexual obsession, but the story really isn't that deep, and you can pretty much see where it's going after the first five minutes. Still, it is an interesting premise, although I'm not convinced that the male libido is so strong that a man would protect a carnivorous monster just because she's got a great rack, unless there's something supernatural at work. Dario brings his Italian sensibilities to the picture, which means he's not squeamish about the marriage of sex and violence like so many Americans are, although the result is that he was one of the only directors on the project who had to make a few cuts to his picture. In spite of the theme and the unflinching gore, I found this episode struggling to lift itself above "TV anthology horror" quality.

Title: Cigarette Burns
Director: John Carpenter
You might remember his film...Halloween (1978)

Premise: Norman Reedus (Daryl on The Walking Dead) stars as a cinephile and rare film finder hired to track down an obscure French film (La Fin Absolue du Monde, "The Absolute End of the World") which is rumored to have the power to whip everyone who watches it up into a mad frenzy of ultraviolence.

Opinion: I was genuinely impressed with this episode, which kept my attention glued to the screen throughout. Credit goes to the actors and director, of course, but also to the story, which, as an artist keenly attentive to issues of censorship and the power of art over people's lives, I found to be utterly fascinating. I agree with the director that the idea of a film being a weapon that induces violence is cockamamie, but as a fantasy it thrills the mind, and this episode explores under what fictional consequences might such a thing actually be possible. It is, in a Cartesian sense, a horrible vision of the natural progression of the idea that art moves people. Furthermore, it plays on the excitement every film buff experiences when in search of rare and infamous films.



Title: Pick Me Up
Director: Larry Cohen
You might remember his film...It's Alive (1974)

Premise: Two very different but equally charismatic serial killers match wits against one another when they both encounter a bus full of travelers broken down by the side of the road in the middle of nowhere.

Opinion: I wasn't familiar with Larry Cohen going into this episode so I didn't know what to expect, but it turned out to be really excellent. The two killers - one a hitchhiker and the other a trucker (named Walker and Wheeler) - are both really captivating on screen, and despite being villains, become your favorite characters. I suppose that means this episode isn't all that scary, as you're never particularly rooting for their victims, but it is lots of fun. You get to see their two different approaches to the trade, and how they clash when they both set eyes on the same prey. Very much recommended.


Title: Incident On And Off A Mountain Road
Director: Don Coscarelli
You might remember his film...Phantasm (1979)

Premise: A woman tries to escape a mutant serial killer in the mountains after a car accident, while thinking back on her relationship with the man who taught her the survival skills she'll need to stay alive.

Opinion: A fairly straightforward premise proves to be a rather clever and interesting juxtaposition of storylines, chronicling the lead actress' evolving relationship with a survivalist, and how those experiences have given her the knowledge and confidence to face her life-threatening chase through the woods with strength and ingenuity. For once, we get a heroine who is not helpless - even if some of her MacGyver-meets-The-Goonies antics (challenge: build a tripwire slingshot with a stick, a pocket knife, a pair of panties, and a length of skirt, and do it in the dark, before that deformed homicidal psycho catches up to you!) at times stretch the audience's credulity - that ultimately leads to a fresh and original ending. The balance of suspense and comfort between the two interposed storylines is handled exceptionally well. If this episode did not engage me quite as enthusiastically as Pick Me Up or Cigarette Burns, in the end it proves itself to be a worthy addition to the Masters of Horror series.


Title: Homecoming
Director: Joe Dante
You might remember his film...The Howling (1981)

Premise: The dead rise - but it's not brains, it's suffrage they want in this political satire condemning the Bush administration's unpopular war in Iraq.

Opinion: One of the great things about Masters of Horror is that - especially in conjunction with the DVD special features - it places an emphasis on the director, giving him more of a character and a personality than you might get by just watching movies through the years. Joe Dante was an unfamiliar name to me, but in addition to working on the Roger Corman-spearheaded Jaws knock-off Piranha, he also directed one of my favorite werewolf movies - the classic The Howling - as well as Gremlins, which, despite its comedic approach, gave me nightmares when I watched it as a child. Even though politics isn't really my thing, I respect Joe Dante for having the guts to tell a story with such a blatant political agenda. And despite it's - what some may call 'preachiness' - it's pretty entertaining, too. Although the premise's requirement that the zombies be sympathetic and not frightening characters detracts from its horror value, it does on the other hand present a refreshingly original (if irretrievably dated to the Bush administration) take in what has become an oversaturated subgenre of horror.


Title: Chocolate
Director: Mick Garris
You might remember his film...Stephen King's The Stand (1994)

Premise: The mastermind behind Masters of Horror Mick Garris writes and directs this psychological horror about a man who develops a psychic connection with a woman and is able to experience her feelings and sensations from the inside out.

Opinion: When I started watching Masters of Horror, the main question that hung on my mind was, knowing TV's reputation compared to film, could these master filmmakers manage to create a series whose quality exceeded that which one would expect from a TV anthology show? And so far, the evidence has been pointing overwhelmingly to "yes". Chocolate, despite being more of a psychological thriller than a straight horror, is no exception. In fact, it manages to conjure one of the creepier and more believable middle-of-the-night intruder-in-the-house scenes I can recall seeing. The premise is pretty interesting, and invokes a good bit of mystery, if it is a fairly arbitrary device to provide most of the piece's horror. Still, the character and his experiences are fascinating, and this story does include some sex and nudity. So, it's definitely no waste of an hour.


Title: Dreams In The Witch-House
Director: Stuart Gordon
You might remember his film...Re-Animator (1985)

Premise: In this adaptation of an H.P. Lovecraft story, a graduate student rents a room in an old house that is haunted by a witch hiding out in an alternate dimension who seduces victims into committing heinous deeds.

Opinion: I don't know whether to credit H.P. Lovecraft for the story - and his uniquely effective approach to horror - or Stuart Gordon (who has directed several other H.P. Lovecraft story adaptations in the past), but this episode of Masters of Horror was excellent. The crossing of these two minds is, perhaps, a match made in hell, as Gordon's approach to horror is equally impressive. He doesn't believe there is such a thing as "going too far", and he thinks the most effective horror stories are those where the creator breaks the rules, so you don't know what to expect (an opinion with which I wholeheartedly agree). In this story, the life of an innocent baby is in jeopardy, a witch takes advantage of string theory (for real!) to manipulate space and time, and her familiar - a rat with a human face - crawls around creeping people out. Plus we get a glimpse of the Necronomicon! Leave it to Lovecraft to get the creative juices flowing: I feel inspired to finally get around to reading his stories, as well as checking out some of Stuart Gordon's other films.


Title: Dance of the Dead
Director: Tobe Hooper
You might remember his film...Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974)

Premise: Robert Englund (the original Freddy Krueger) stars in this adaptation of a Richard Matheson story as the MC of a gothic night club in a war-torn, post-apocalyptic, urban wasteland.

Opinion: Jessica Lowndes is illuminating as the last piece of innocence in a land ravaged by chemical warfare, even as she is seduced and corrupted by a group of punk thugs. This story is a dark and energetic look at an apocalyptic world where everyone has lost something, and few have the luxury to cling onto any sense of decency or morality. It's a pretty good story, but I unfortunately have to count the erratic cinematography against it. I know Tobe Hooper (who also directed Steven Spielberg's Poltergeist) has good reasons for making that stylistic decision - and it does put you into the zero-to-sixty mindspace of these characters - but it really detracted from my enjoyment of the episode with the constant camera movement and double, triple, quadruple images. A more judicious use of that device might have proved less annoying, but at least, the quality of the material underneath that filter was very good.


Title: Deer Woman
Director: John Landis
You might remember his film...An American Werewolf in London (1981)

Premise: A Native American legend about a half-woman, half-deer seductress comes to life in this tale of a jaded police officer's hunt for redemption.

Opinion: As to be expected from the man who directed Animal House and The Blues Brothers, John Landis mixes some humor into his episode of Masters of Horror. But, I'm happy to say, it's an intelligent and straight-faced humor, that doesn't undermine the horror of the piece. In fact, I like what he said in the interview special feature about trying to approach [both comedy and] horror with realism - not in terms of the supernatural themes, but in terms of the character's reactions to what's going on; that also has the effect of making them both more likable and more relatable. In this case, the characters recognize the absurdity of the concept of a deer woman seducing and then murdering men, but they're forced to accept the premise by the evidence that appears before them, while the mythical killer's own credibility and dangerousness is not reduced by its statistical and scientific improbability. The result is a pretty fun, if silly, story - and in truth, horror isn't always about being scary, it's about having a good time, too.


Title: The Fair Haired Child
Director: William Malone
You might remember his film...House On Haunted Hill (1999)

Premise: A schoolgirl is abducted by a distraught couple to feed a monster they summoned in a Satanic ritual to bring back their drowned son.

Opinion: To be honest, this was the first episode in a while that I felt was struggling to lift itself above TV anthology quality (in spite of that premise). However, the monster was very creepy - thanks to an effective design and the director's unsettling use of camera tricks. It looked and felt almost like something that could have escaped from The SCP Foundation. There is also a surreal element to this episode, sometimes bordering on the absurd. It wasn't bad, at all, but the basement ordeal drags a bit, and the ending, while twisty, just has too much of a happy-positive feeling. The bad guys aren't supposed to get their comeuppance, and the good guys aren't supposed to live happily ever after - as rarely happens in real life - that's part of what makes a good horror so unsettling.


Title: Sick Girl
Director: Lucky McKee
You might remember his film...May (2002)

Premise: A quirky entomologist enters a sweet romance with an erratic artist, which is disturbed by an aggressive monster bug that impregnates humans.

Opinion: The odds are against Lucky McKee. He's one of the newest and least experienced directors called on to the Masters of Horror project, his episode's story - about a parasitic bug - could easily fall into TV anthology territory, and his episode is as much romantic comedy as it is horror. And yet, he manages to churn out one of the more entertaining episodes in this series. He decides to make the protagonist female, thus allowing himself the opportunity to tell a somewhat more unusual story of an endearing lesbian romance. And the actress opposite the lead is none other than Erin Brown a.k.a. Misty Mundae - my favorite softcore porn actress! I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw her in this role, and she was perfect for it! The constant presence of the bugs that the lead is so enamored with maintains a creepiness factor throughout the story, even before the real horror erupts - and when it does, it's suitably devastating. I'm really impressed with what this unfamiliar director has done with his opportunity to join the Masters of Horror, and I'm intrigued by the other directing projects he's done so far.


Title: Haeckel's Tale
Director: John McNaughton
You might remember his film...Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer (1986)

Premise: In this period piece adapted from a Clive Barker story, a man in mourning seeks the aid of a necromancer to bring back his deceased wife, and learns of the horror of love that transcends death.

Opinion: I was very excited to see Clive Barker's name attached to an episode of Masters of Horror, as he is an excellent writer, who writes disturbing and original stories. And John McNaughton succeeds at bringing this story to life, without shying away from the disturbing element of sexual perversity that flavors many of Barker's stories (not least of which includes the sadomasochistic overtones in Hellraiser). In this case, we have what I can enthusiastically report is the most erotic zombie sex scene I have ever seen, thanks in no small part to the casting of Leela Savasta who, as an art model, is not only comfortable with nudity, but possesses a flawless physical beauty. Other horror contained in this episode includes some re-animated dogs, which have that same excellently creepy feel as the dog in The Fly II which I love to fear so much. Additionally, the story is structured in a way - not unfamiliar in Clive Barker's stories - that it doesn't quite go in the predictable and cliched direction you might expect, instead ending up somewhere disturbing on a wholly novel level. Excellently done.


Title: Imprint
Director: Takashi Miike
You might remember his film...Audition (1999)

Premise: An American visits a notorious brothel in Meiji era Japan in search of his lost love. But the story he extracts from a prostitute gets increasingly disturbing the closer he comes to the truth.

Opinion: I had been looking forward to seeing Takashi Miike's episode of Masters of Horror ever since I started watching the series, after he impressed me with the deeply disturbing Audition years ago. Here, he does not disappoint. Imprint is easily the most unsettling episode in this series, which has the crucial distinction of being the only episode that Showtime wouldn't air. The setting of a seedy Meiji era brothel is intriguing, and the story just gets darker and darker as the protagonist plunges down the rabbit hole, delving into the past of one of the prostitutes - beautiful, in spite of her disfigured face - and her cohabitation with the woman he loved. The torture scene is brutally uncomfortable, in that uniquely subtle Japanese way, which distinguishes itself from the more aggressive American approach. I'm very happy that the Masters of Horror made a point to include a director to represent Asian horror in their series, and I couldn't be happier with their choice of Takashi Miike. If there is one complaint I have against this episode, it's that the actors' thick Japanese accents are at times hard to understand. I would just as soon have watched the episode in Japanese with English subtitles, but I understand this episode was filmed with an American audience distinctly in mind.

In conclusion, I can say that I am very impressed with the first season of Masters of Horror. It exceeded my modest expectations of a television anthology series, and lived up to its promise given the level of talent involved. Most importantly, I had a lot of fun watching these short films, and learning more about the directors behind the camera. Doing so has repeatedly sparked my inspiration, and led me to seek out many of the other titles several of these directors have previously worked on. I look forward to getting an opportunity at some point in the future to see the second season of Masters of Horror, and I urge all dedicated horror fans to give this series a look!