The more David Lynch films I watch, the better I am at understanding what he's after - although that doesn't mean I actually understand him or his films. And the more Lynchian discussions I view, the better I know his fanbase, who, as much as I hate to be critical, do seem to lean toward the pretentious side. I like art for art's sake as much as anyone, but a lot of these Lynch fans are of a mind that Lynch films are puzzles that people have to figure out for themselves, and that only through a lot of brainwork can one come to a relative level of understanding (although nobody ever truly understands Lynch's intentions - probably, in my opinion, because even Lynch doesn't know what they are - fans explain away his dodgy explanations for his films as not wanting to explain himself, but I don't know, maybe it's because he really can't). I mean, really, it reaches a level at times, that it feels like the Lynch fanbase is some gnostic sect, guarding the 'secret knowledge' that would unlock the true meaning of his films.
But it's not as if I don't think David Lynch is a genius - he is. Even if just because he has the guts to tell a different kind of story than we usually hear, and the vision to pull it off. But what I like about him is the art of his craft, not so much the storytelling, which is confusing and disjointed. I think the reason Lynch films frustrate me as much as they fascinate me, is because they don't adhere to the regular rules of the world. Lynch's films are more like dreams than anything else, and therefore they adhere to dream logic - which isn't really logic at all, and that's why it frustrates your logical waking mind.
Like, one element that came up in discussions of both Mulholland Dr. and Lost Highway, was the motif of a character dreaming, or fantasizing, and the idea that there are triggers in your mind that are trying to wake you up. And those triggers manifest as entities in your dream. Particular characters, sometimes. Or situations that remind you that what you're dreaming is not real, and threaten to pull you back to the uncomfortable reality your mind is trying to escape from. I think that's a fascinating motif. I love it. It's just, when you watch a Lynch film, you don't get an explanation beforehand - like, "this is a dream and here is the dream logic", it just sort of happens and plays out, and maybe you can make a little sense of it afterward by discussing it with other people. Which, incidentally, is very much like what dreams are.
So, yeah, Lynch is a genius when it comes to creating films that feel like dreams, and more so than his storytelling ability, I love him for his ability to create an eerie atmosphere of dread and mystery. Lost Highway is a confusing (surprise!) story about some guy who becomes some other guy. The first part of the story is absolutely compelling, and would make for the first act of a really fantastic horror film. A couple is haunted by some kind of unseen intruder who videotapes himself walking through their house at night, and then leaves the tape on their doorstep for them to find and watch and freak out about in the morning. And then, later, this one guy meets this weirdo at a party, who looks like some kind of vampire or something, and he does this creepy trick where he tells the guy he's inside his house right then, even as he's standing there at the party talking to him, and tells him to call himself up at home, so he can talk to the guy he's standing in front of at the party who's also somehow simultaneously at the phone in his house. Real trippy shit.
But then, the story takes a left turn, and the one guy somehow magically turns into another guy, and it descends more and more into dream logic. There's plenty of great scenes - and good music, too, and even, oddly, a cameo by Marilyn Manson - but as far as the overarching story goes it's like, "I want to find out more about that other guy", and, "what the hell's going on now?" But there's this mob boss type character, and there's this fantastic scene where he scares the shit out of some road rage driver for tailgating him. It's great. And there's this subplot about a mafia-run porno ring, which may or may not be in the business of creating snuff films, but it doesn't really delve into that subplot enough to satisfy my curiosity.
It's worth watching if you're already a Lynch fan, but for everyone else, I think Mulholland Dr. is a better place to introduce yourself to the unsettling mind of David Lynch.
Thursday, November 15, 2012
Wednesday, November 14, 2012
Eyes Wide Shut (1999)
I didn't really know what to expect from Eyes Wide Shut, but it was one of those movies on my periphery that I had marked as "should check out" but "not in any hurry". However, it came up in a discussion about Mulholland Dr. that I recently watched, so I decided to give it a watch. Also partly because it was directed by Stanley Kubrick. Lots of film buffs rate Stanley Kubrick as one of the greatest directors of all time, but I personally consider him to be overrated, since of his films that I've seen, I've been generally underwhelmed. I think his adaptation of Lolita flopped, and pales in comparison to Adrian Lyne's later version. The Shining is a good horror movie, but would I rate it a masterpiece? I don't know. 2001: A Space Odyssey is a truly inspired piece of science fiction - but as a movie, it just drags on and lacks coherence. And A Clockwork Orange - well, I liked it, but it's not one of the best movies I've ever seen.
So anyway, I heard that this movie was directed by Stanley Kubrick, and I was intrigued by the reference to David Lynch, since I can appreciate Lynch's sensibilities, so I figured I'd give this movie a watch and see if it improves my opinion of Stanley Kubrick as a director. Well, the verdict is that this was a good movie - but it hasn't really changed my opinion of Stanley Kubrick. After all, I don't think he's a bad director, I just don't think he's the best director of all time. But there's other movies of his I have yet to watch, and who knows, my opinion might change in the future. After all, I was underwhelmed by Jimi Hendrix the first time I heard him on the radio!
As for this movie, Eyes Wide Shut, you might call it something of an erotic thriller, but it's really more of a dreamy exploration of psychosexual themes. It stars Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman - and let me tell you, Nicole Kidman is gorgeous in this movie. And she's not afraid to get a little naked, which earns instant points of respect in my book. Plus, she's gorgeous. Did I say that?
The movie explores various sexual concepts, largely surrounding the theme of fidelity. Like, within the context of marriage. I'll be honest, as a sexual progressive, this couple's concerns were a little unsympathetic to me. I mean, like, it's clear that neither one of them actually cheated on the other. So is it really that devastating to learn that your spouse has sexual fantasies and desires for other people? The thing that's special about committed relationships isn't that people impossibly reign in their sexual interest in other people, but that they refrain from acting on that interest. The vows aren't about "I will never look at another man/woman", but "I will never pursue another man/woman". And that's assuming the couple is into monogamy, which is popular, but as a pro-polyamory type of person, I just don't see it as that big of a deal.
Anyway, it didn't destroy my appreciation for the movie, it just lessened my sympathy for the characters' struggles. The way the movie turns out, after a Christmas party in which both partner has eyes for others, the wife later divulges the fact that there was this one time when she totally had the hots for some naval officer. And Tom Cruise's character breaks down, leaves the house, and basically goes on a hunt for some woman to cheat on his wife with. Although he has a hard time actually going through with it. But his journey, and the people he meets, and the trouble he gets into, is where the film gets really interesting.
And the pinnacle of that is this wild party he sneaks into which is ostensibly attended by some wealthy and/or renowned luminaries, but it's all secretive because everyone wears masks. But they perform this sexual ritual, and they have impossibly beautiful women - albeit hookers and drug addicts and the like - who roam around naked among the cloaked and hooded men, and there's all this sex going on throughout this mansion, right in front of everyone else, and it's every bit as surreal as it is erotic.
And really, the movie's worth it for the erotic themes alone - between Nicole Kidman's beauty, and the women Tom Cruise runs into, and this bizarre sex cult party. But the surreal, dreamy aspect is a nice touch to it. I'd definitely rate it as a good film, and recommend it to anyone who thinks it sounds intriguing.
So anyway, I heard that this movie was directed by Stanley Kubrick, and I was intrigued by the reference to David Lynch, since I can appreciate Lynch's sensibilities, so I figured I'd give this movie a watch and see if it improves my opinion of Stanley Kubrick as a director. Well, the verdict is that this was a good movie - but it hasn't really changed my opinion of Stanley Kubrick. After all, I don't think he's a bad director, I just don't think he's the best director of all time. But there's other movies of his I have yet to watch, and who knows, my opinion might change in the future. After all, I was underwhelmed by Jimi Hendrix the first time I heard him on the radio!
As for this movie, Eyes Wide Shut, you might call it something of an erotic thriller, but it's really more of a dreamy exploration of psychosexual themes. It stars Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman - and let me tell you, Nicole Kidman is gorgeous in this movie. And she's not afraid to get a little naked, which earns instant points of respect in my book. Plus, she's gorgeous. Did I say that?
The movie explores various sexual concepts, largely surrounding the theme of fidelity. Like, within the context of marriage. I'll be honest, as a sexual progressive, this couple's concerns were a little unsympathetic to me. I mean, like, it's clear that neither one of them actually cheated on the other. So is it really that devastating to learn that your spouse has sexual fantasies and desires for other people? The thing that's special about committed relationships isn't that people impossibly reign in their sexual interest in other people, but that they refrain from acting on that interest. The vows aren't about "I will never look at another man/woman", but "I will never pursue another man/woman". And that's assuming the couple is into monogamy, which is popular, but as a pro-polyamory type of person, I just don't see it as that big of a deal.
Anyway, it didn't destroy my appreciation for the movie, it just lessened my sympathy for the characters' struggles. The way the movie turns out, after a Christmas party in which both partner has eyes for others, the wife later divulges the fact that there was this one time when she totally had the hots for some naval officer. And Tom Cruise's character breaks down, leaves the house, and basically goes on a hunt for some woman to cheat on his wife with. Although he has a hard time actually going through with it. But his journey, and the people he meets, and the trouble he gets into, is where the film gets really interesting.
And the pinnacle of that is this wild party he sneaks into which is ostensibly attended by some wealthy and/or renowned luminaries, but it's all secretive because everyone wears masks. But they perform this sexual ritual, and they have impossibly beautiful women - albeit hookers and drug addicts and the like - who roam around naked among the cloaked and hooded men, and there's all this sex going on throughout this mansion, right in front of everyone else, and it's every bit as surreal as it is erotic.
And really, the movie's worth it for the erotic themes alone - between Nicole Kidman's beauty, and the women Tom Cruise runs into, and this bizarre sex cult party. But the surreal, dreamy aspect is a nice touch to it. I'd definitely rate it as a good film, and recommend it to anyone who thinks it sounds intriguing.
Mulholland Dr. (2001)
I'll be damned if this movie makes any sense at all (although it helps to know that it was a failed-TV-pilot-turned-one-off-film, and this analysis makes me think twice), but you know what? I didn't even mind, because David Lynch has such a talent for creating an atmosphere of mystery and uneasiness. This is true art, and while it makes you think, you don't so much want to put the pieces together as you revel in the feelings that it can evoke in you.
Also, Lynch has an uncanny knack for faces, and he creates such intriguing characters. There's even some real eroticism in this movie, like you so rarely see, between the two female leads - the one of which, Naomi Watts, is, in my opinion, stunning in this role.
I wonder if maybe David Lynch would be better suited to creating shorter pieces (his movies seem frequently to exceed the two hour mark), since he's masterful at creating atmosphere, but his stories rarely seem to tie themselves together in the long run (at least not without extended analysis).
For example, the scene in this movie where the man at the diner is talking about a frightening dream he had. One of the most amazingly unsettling scenes in a movie I've ever seen, and I think it would be just as effective out of context of the rest of the movie - in fact, its connection to the rest of the plot is tenuous at best (or at least not obvious).
And the scene where Bettie goes to audition for the soap role - it's unreal. I'm not even sure what the hell that blue box is, or what the film set has to do with anything - although The Cowboy character was fascinating, and intimidating in his own way.
But as I said, I didn't even care that I couldn't fit all the pieces together, because it was the experience of it, the feelings of uncertainty that David Lynch evokes in you, that make it so captivating. And the music is not only perfectly suited to the mood of the piece, but it's fantastic in its own right.
I very much recommend this movie, even more than the other two Lynch pieces I've seen - Blue Velvet, which wasn't quite as effective for me as this one, and Eraserhead, which was very effective, but perhaps too out there for general audiences.
Also, Lynch has an uncanny knack for faces, and he creates such intriguing characters. There's even some real eroticism in this movie, like you so rarely see, between the two female leads - the one of which, Naomi Watts, is, in my opinion, stunning in this role.
I wonder if maybe David Lynch would be better suited to creating shorter pieces (his movies seem frequently to exceed the two hour mark), since he's masterful at creating atmosphere, but his stories rarely seem to tie themselves together in the long run (at least not without extended analysis).
For example, the scene in this movie where the man at the diner is talking about a frightening dream he had. One of the most amazingly unsettling scenes in a movie I've ever seen, and I think it would be just as effective out of context of the rest of the movie - in fact, its connection to the rest of the plot is tenuous at best (or at least not obvious).
And the scene where Bettie goes to audition for the soap role - it's unreal. I'm not even sure what the hell that blue box is, or what the film set has to do with anything - although The Cowboy character was fascinating, and intimidating in his own way.
But as I said, I didn't even care that I couldn't fit all the pieces together, because it was the experience of it, the feelings of uncertainty that David Lynch evokes in you, that make it so captivating. And the music is not only perfectly suited to the mood of the piece, but it's fantastic in its own right.
I very much recommend this movie, even more than the other two Lynch pieces I've seen - Blue Velvet, which wasn't quite as effective for me as this one, and Eraserhead, which was very effective, but perhaps too out there for general audiences.
Monday, November 5, 2012
Movies I watched this Halloween (2012)
...excepting the ones I've already properly reviewed, of course.
Drag Me To Hell (2011)
When Drag Me To Hell came out in 2011, I filed it in the back of my mind as a potential title to watch, because I love to see the theme of hell in movies (not even just horror movies). I think hell is a fascinating concept, and I love to see different people's interpretations of it. And I thought the premise of this movie was going to be some person who gets dragged down to hell. Which, essentially is what it is, except that the movie is all about this girl being cursed and trying to fight her fate, and not what happens to her after she (huge spoiler) fails to lift the curse and gets dragged down to hell, literally in the last moments of the film (although we see nothing lower than ground level). So, huge disappointment in that respect. As for what the movie actually is, I should have known that coming from Sam Raimi - the man responsible for the slapstick hijinks of the Evil Dead trilogy - I wouldn't like the style. It gets pretty ridiculous at some parts, to the point that I consider it a waste of time. Alison Lohman is beautiful in the lead role, but it's not even worth it to watch just for her performance.
Zombieland (2009)
I had no expectations of loving Zombieland, given that it's more of a horror comedy, and is frequently mentioned in the same breath as Shaun of the Dead, another zombie title hailed as a modern masterpiece by people who don't typically watch horror (hence their ability to appreciate horror comedy). But I was willing to give Shaun of the Dead a watch, and people kept coming to me praising Zombieland, asking if I'd seen it, and it stars both a really hot-looking Emma Stone as well as Abigail Breslin (who was in the fantastic Little Miss Sunshine), so I gave it a watch. It's actually pretty good. The style of the movie is way too light-hearted for me - someone who prefers dark, serious movies - but I can see why a lot of people like it.
Rosemary's Baby (1968)
Rosemary's Baby is a masterpiece of suspense horror directed by Roman Polanski. It gets talked about a lot (for good reason), and I recall seeing at least some scenes from it on TV in the past, but I don't think I'd ever actually sat down and watched the whole thing before, so I made a point to do that this Halloween. It's a fantastic movie, with a fantastic premise - a devil worshipping cult tricks (very cleverly) a young woman into bearing the son of Lucifer. Mia Farrow is sensational in the lead role, as a vulnerable and attractive young mother-to-be. And mad props for actually including the scene where she's raped by the devil - and, better yet, actually including some nudity! Awesome. This is a well-deserved classic horror film and I highly recommend it.
The Omen (1976)
Continuing in the 'devil child' vein, I decided to follow Rosemary's Baby up with The Omen. I remember when the remake came out in 2006 (on the date 6/6/6), though I didn't watch it. But ever since then I've been aware of the original movie from 1976 as a horror classic, and this year I decided to watch it. It's actually very good. There's some mystery and some suspense, and a good bit of horror in the classic, chilling (rather than shocking) vein. And the one scene with the priest and the infernal storm is just awesome. And the dogs manage to actually be intimidating. And the graveyard scene is unforgettable. Great movie, in spite of its age.
The Bad Seed (1956)
This is a movie based off of a stage play about the sweetest little girl you've ever met, who turns out to be a cold-blooded killer. As it is based off a stage play, there is a heavy emphasis on character, and character interaction - which I find to be pretty fascinating (one of my favorite films of all time - Bug - was also adapted from a stage play). Patty McCormack plays the part of the bad seed magnificently, perfectly mixing her innocent charm with a hauntingly believable childlike malice. For a film that's over fifty years old, I rate it very highly and recommend it enthusiastically.
Wilderness Survival For Girls (2004)
This was a fascinating twist of the usual premise in slasher films where a group of young adults head up to a cabin in the woods and get bumped off by some psychotic killer. This time around, it's not so straightforward. Three girls head up to their cabin in the woods, and a suspicious stranger shows up, who claims to have been squatting in their cabin. But the girls have the upper hand, and tie him up in a chair at gunpoint. They wonder if he's the same guy that killed two girls several years ago and was never caught, but they have no hard evidence. The power shifts balance a few times, and the movie addresses the question of what sort of treatment of the stranger is justified by these girls. One the one hand, they're girls, and he's a full grown man. On the other, it's three against one. He might be dangerous, but then, they have no proof. It's an excellent dilemma, with some feminist undertones.
The Gate (1987)
Pretty terrifying for a children's movie. In fact, I'm pretty sure I saw this as a child, but all I remember from it is a scene with the eye in the palm, and the feeling that it was a very, very scary movie. As an adult, okay, it's not that terrifying, but it's still a really good movie. I miss the days when they made movies for kids that were actually good and not cheap schlock to placate the whiny runts. And the fx - I assume it's claymation - are really pretty good. I mean, like, you can tell they're not real, but they're infinitely more effective than shoddy CGI. And the creature design - especially the big daddy (which recalled for me the excellent monster design in Howard The Duck) - was fantastic, not ridiculous like a lot of today's monsters. And my favorite part of all (aside from the cute teenage sister) was the fact that the movie didn't shy away from being epic. This is sort of a spoiler, but most movies would build up to the end of the world and stop short. This movie doesn't pull any punches. Bravo.
The Mothman Prophecies (2002)
The Mothman Prophecies is a movie that constructs a really creepy atmosphere. It's more of a mystery thriller than a straight-up horror, but I thought it was scary in its own way. Unfortunately, the cryptid angle leaves a little to be desired, but what you get in place of that is a very fascinating premise about prognostication and determinism, with some very haunting scenes. It's also a very sad, sad story. But I definitely get a feel from it that it could totally have been an extended episode of The X-Files - it's just missing Mulder and Scully...
Candyman (1992)
Candyman is a movie that I've been meaning to watch ever since I read Clive Barker's Books of Blood. Clive Barker is a horror writer who is the mastermind behind Hellraiser, and the story that the movie Candyman is based on was in the Books of Blood I read. The movie, I'm sure, expands and modifies the story to a full feature-length format, but I think Clive Barker was involved in its production, and anyway, the result is pretty good. In the story, Candyman is something of an urban legend - he's a real, supernatural villain, but he derives power from the beliefs of those he frightens. And the movie is the story of one woman's journey to discover the truth behind the myth, and the subsequent horrors she is then confronted with. It's pretty good.
Red State (2011)
After the debacle that was Drag Me To Hell, I could be forgiven for skipping over Red State, being that I'm not generally a fan of Kevin Smith's other forays into cinema, however popular they are. But, I had heard that this - horror - movie was actually pretty good, so I wanted to give it a watch. It was worth it. It is ostensibly the story of a fundamentalist religious group (obviously inspired by the Westboro Baptist Church, which was in the news for picketing the funeral of a gay man beaten to death), and the ungodly horrors they get up to in their private church, which involve online entrapment schemes and very criminal 'neutralization' of perverts. Anyway, this is kind of a spoiler, but the movie takes a left turn midway through and introduces the government by turning the situation into something very much like the Waco Massacre. The result is actually very fascinating in my opinion (although others seem frustrated by the lack of thematic focus). In the end, I think the movie provides a good opportunity to criticize the errors of both religion and government, with only the perverts really making out well in the end (at least image-wise). But, that could be my bias, since I am a pervert (and proud). Anyway, it was a really fascinating movie, and I do recommend it. And, as most people who have seen it agree, Michael Parks does a hauntingly captivating job in the role of the crazy, bigoted preacher man.
Alone With Her (2006)
Alone With Her is pretty much your typical crazy stalker story, although it cleverly uses the 'found footage' angle to its advantage so that we get to see the story unfold entirely from the point of view of the stalker's cameras. Which, gives it a kind of creepy feeling because it's almost like you're participating in the stalker's crimes. People will naturally criticize the voyeuristic element, but especially from the perspective of cinema, which is an inherently voyeuristic medium (and that's why we love it!), it's only natural to be curious. It's when the stalker uses voyeurism as a method to criminally invade another person's privacy, and then take advantage of that inside perspective to exercise unknowing control over that person's life, in a futile attempt to construct a scripted scenario that's doomed from the start, that it becomes creepy. Anyway, it's certainly a unique perspective, even if on a somewhat cliched narrative.
Megan Is Missing (2011)
Megan Is Missing purportedly claims to be an open warning about what can happen to teens who meet strangers on the internet, loosely based on any number of real life abduction cases (but no one in particular). But rather than a preventive education piece, it's climax is so horrifying as to make it a startlingly effective horror film instead. That's not to say that it's actually a good film, by cinematic standards - for one thing, the acting is terribly shoddy, as the majority of the characters try way too hard (or not hard enough) to behave like caricatures of either way-too-slutty or self-pitying teens. But the film takes the found footage technique to its logical conclusion by documenting via webcam and mobile phone what it is teens get up to when parents aren't around, and then marrying that with footage taken by the killer after one or more of those teens is abducted. Where this film succeeds is in going farther and being bolder than any movie before it (that I know of), in an attempt to document the true horror of what goes on in those most terrible of cases - the very thing most people instinctively desire to turn away from. The last 22 minutes of this movie is, in fact, so effective, that I describe it as pure nightmare fuel, and one of the most disturbing cinema experiences of my life - and I've seen both Irreversible, and Salò, or the 120 Days of Sodom. Really, it's a shame the movie is so terribly acted, because as a horror it's terrifyingly effective. But, I can't really recommend it to anyone, because it's just that bone-chilling, and merely thinking about it scares me - me!
Little Sweetheart (1989)
This is not actually a horror movie but more of a crime drama, but it features a character that is very much a "bad seed", not unlike in the movie of that title. She's nine years old, and played by a very charismatic, though unknown (like this whole movie, apparently), Cassie Barasch. She gets up to all sorts of misdeeds with her reluctant friend and cohort, including spying on a couple that just moved in nearby who are on the run after committing insurance fraud. Little Thelma (that's the girl's character's name) ends up blackmailing them for shopping money, and things just go downhill from there. It's a really fun movie, and the leading character's natural penchant for criminal mischievousness is fascinating to watch. It's a seemingly unheard of movie, but I recommend it highly.
Texas Killing Fields (2011)
Texas Killing Fields is a heavily atmospheric little number with an excellent swampy soundtrack. It's a bit of a crime suspense thriller, and the story was a little hard to follow, but I honestly didn't even mind, because the characters' motivations were pretty easy to suss out - and, I'll be honest, I really go for a movie that can construct a good atmosphere. Plus, Chloe Moretz stars in a supporting role, and she always lights up the screen, even when she's playing (as she frequently does) a downtrodden child with a lot of things to be depressed about, but nevertheless with a good head on her shoulders, and the ability to somehow maintain a fragment of her innocence through it all. I don't think this movie got much acclaim when it came out (I wasn't able to get around to seeing it, though I wanted to), but I liked it.
Drag Me To Hell (2011)
When Drag Me To Hell came out in 2011, I filed it in the back of my mind as a potential title to watch, because I love to see the theme of hell in movies (not even just horror movies). I think hell is a fascinating concept, and I love to see different people's interpretations of it. And I thought the premise of this movie was going to be some person who gets dragged down to hell. Which, essentially is what it is, except that the movie is all about this girl being cursed and trying to fight her fate, and not what happens to her after she (huge spoiler) fails to lift the curse and gets dragged down to hell, literally in the last moments of the film (although we see nothing lower than ground level). So, huge disappointment in that respect. As for what the movie actually is, I should have known that coming from Sam Raimi - the man responsible for the slapstick hijinks of the Evil Dead trilogy - I wouldn't like the style. It gets pretty ridiculous at some parts, to the point that I consider it a waste of time. Alison Lohman is beautiful in the lead role, but it's not even worth it to watch just for her performance.
Zombieland (2009)
I had no expectations of loving Zombieland, given that it's more of a horror comedy, and is frequently mentioned in the same breath as Shaun of the Dead, another zombie title hailed as a modern masterpiece by people who don't typically watch horror (hence their ability to appreciate horror comedy). But I was willing to give Shaun of the Dead a watch, and people kept coming to me praising Zombieland, asking if I'd seen it, and it stars both a really hot-looking Emma Stone as well as Abigail Breslin (who was in the fantastic Little Miss Sunshine), so I gave it a watch. It's actually pretty good. The style of the movie is way too light-hearted for me - someone who prefers dark, serious movies - but I can see why a lot of people like it.
Rosemary's Baby (1968)
Rosemary's Baby is a masterpiece of suspense horror directed by Roman Polanski. It gets talked about a lot (for good reason), and I recall seeing at least some scenes from it on TV in the past, but I don't think I'd ever actually sat down and watched the whole thing before, so I made a point to do that this Halloween. It's a fantastic movie, with a fantastic premise - a devil worshipping cult tricks (very cleverly) a young woman into bearing the son of Lucifer. Mia Farrow is sensational in the lead role, as a vulnerable and attractive young mother-to-be. And mad props for actually including the scene where she's raped by the devil - and, better yet, actually including some nudity! Awesome. This is a well-deserved classic horror film and I highly recommend it.
The Omen (1976)
Continuing in the 'devil child' vein, I decided to follow Rosemary's Baby up with The Omen. I remember when the remake came out in 2006 (on the date 6/6/6), though I didn't watch it. But ever since then I've been aware of the original movie from 1976 as a horror classic, and this year I decided to watch it. It's actually very good. There's some mystery and some suspense, and a good bit of horror in the classic, chilling (rather than shocking) vein. And the one scene with the priest and the infernal storm is just awesome. And the dogs manage to actually be intimidating. And the graveyard scene is unforgettable. Great movie, in spite of its age.
The Bad Seed (1956)
This is a movie based off of a stage play about the sweetest little girl you've ever met, who turns out to be a cold-blooded killer. As it is based off a stage play, there is a heavy emphasis on character, and character interaction - which I find to be pretty fascinating (one of my favorite films of all time - Bug - was also adapted from a stage play). Patty McCormack plays the part of the bad seed magnificently, perfectly mixing her innocent charm with a hauntingly believable childlike malice. For a film that's over fifty years old, I rate it very highly and recommend it enthusiastically.
Wilderness Survival For Girls (2004)
This was a fascinating twist of the usual premise in slasher films where a group of young adults head up to a cabin in the woods and get bumped off by some psychotic killer. This time around, it's not so straightforward. Three girls head up to their cabin in the woods, and a suspicious stranger shows up, who claims to have been squatting in their cabin. But the girls have the upper hand, and tie him up in a chair at gunpoint. They wonder if he's the same guy that killed two girls several years ago and was never caught, but they have no hard evidence. The power shifts balance a few times, and the movie addresses the question of what sort of treatment of the stranger is justified by these girls. One the one hand, they're girls, and he's a full grown man. On the other, it's three against one. He might be dangerous, but then, they have no proof. It's an excellent dilemma, with some feminist undertones.
The Gate (1987)
Pretty terrifying for a children's movie. In fact, I'm pretty sure I saw this as a child, but all I remember from it is a scene with the eye in the palm, and the feeling that it was a very, very scary movie. As an adult, okay, it's not that terrifying, but it's still a really good movie. I miss the days when they made movies for kids that were actually good and not cheap schlock to placate the whiny runts. And the fx - I assume it's claymation - are really pretty good. I mean, like, you can tell they're not real, but they're infinitely more effective than shoddy CGI. And the creature design - especially the big daddy (which recalled for me the excellent monster design in Howard The Duck) - was fantastic, not ridiculous like a lot of today's monsters. And my favorite part of all (aside from the cute teenage sister) was the fact that the movie didn't shy away from being epic. This is sort of a spoiler, but most movies would build up to the end of the world and stop short. This movie doesn't pull any punches. Bravo.
The Mothman Prophecies (2002)
The Mothman Prophecies is a movie that constructs a really creepy atmosphere. It's more of a mystery thriller than a straight-up horror, but I thought it was scary in its own way. Unfortunately, the cryptid angle leaves a little to be desired, but what you get in place of that is a very fascinating premise about prognostication and determinism, with some very haunting scenes. It's also a very sad, sad story. But I definitely get a feel from it that it could totally have been an extended episode of The X-Files - it's just missing Mulder and Scully...
Candyman (1992)
Candyman is a movie that I've been meaning to watch ever since I read Clive Barker's Books of Blood. Clive Barker is a horror writer who is the mastermind behind Hellraiser, and the story that the movie Candyman is based on was in the Books of Blood I read. The movie, I'm sure, expands and modifies the story to a full feature-length format, but I think Clive Barker was involved in its production, and anyway, the result is pretty good. In the story, Candyman is something of an urban legend - he's a real, supernatural villain, but he derives power from the beliefs of those he frightens. And the movie is the story of one woman's journey to discover the truth behind the myth, and the subsequent horrors she is then confronted with. It's pretty good.
Red State (2011)
After the debacle that was Drag Me To Hell, I could be forgiven for skipping over Red State, being that I'm not generally a fan of Kevin Smith's other forays into cinema, however popular they are. But, I had heard that this - horror - movie was actually pretty good, so I wanted to give it a watch. It was worth it. It is ostensibly the story of a fundamentalist religious group (obviously inspired by the Westboro Baptist Church, which was in the news for picketing the funeral of a gay man beaten to death), and the ungodly horrors they get up to in their private church, which involve online entrapment schemes and very criminal 'neutralization' of perverts. Anyway, this is kind of a spoiler, but the movie takes a left turn midway through and introduces the government by turning the situation into something very much like the Waco Massacre. The result is actually very fascinating in my opinion (although others seem frustrated by the lack of thematic focus). In the end, I think the movie provides a good opportunity to criticize the errors of both religion and government, with only the perverts really making out well in the end (at least image-wise). But, that could be my bias, since I am a pervert (and proud). Anyway, it was a really fascinating movie, and I do recommend it. And, as most people who have seen it agree, Michael Parks does a hauntingly captivating job in the role of the crazy, bigoted preacher man.
Alone With Her (2006)
Alone With Her is pretty much your typical crazy stalker story, although it cleverly uses the 'found footage' angle to its advantage so that we get to see the story unfold entirely from the point of view of the stalker's cameras. Which, gives it a kind of creepy feeling because it's almost like you're participating in the stalker's crimes. People will naturally criticize the voyeuristic element, but especially from the perspective of cinema, which is an inherently voyeuristic medium (and that's why we love it!), it's only natural to be curious. It's when the stalker uses voyeurism as a method to criminally invade another person's privacy, and then take advantage of that inside perspective to exercise unknowing control over that person's life, in a futile attempt to construct a scripted scenario that's doomed from the start, that it becomes creepy. Anyway, it's certainly a unique perspective, even if on a somewhat cliched narrative.
Megan Is Missing (2011)
Megan Is Missing purportedly claims to be an open warning about what can happen to teens who meet strangers on the internet, loosely based on any number of real life abduction cases (but no one in particular). But rather than a preventive education piece, it's climax is so horrifying as to make it a startlingly effective horror film instead. That's not to say that it's actually a good film, by cinematic standards - for one thing, the acting is terribly shoddy, as the majority of the characters try way too hard (or not hard enough) to behave like caricatures of either way-too-slutty or self-pitying teens. But the film takes the found footage technique to its logical conclusion by documenting via webcam and mobile phone what it is teens get up to when parents aren't around, and then marrying that with footage taken by the killer after one or more of those teens is abducted. Where this film succeeds is in going farther and being bolder than any movie before it (that I know of), in an attempt to document the true horror of what goes on in those most terrible of cases - the very thing most people instinctively desire to turn away from. The last 22 minutes of this movie is, in fact, so effective, that I describe it as pure nightmare fuel, and one of the most disturbing cinema experiences of my life - and I've seen both Irreversible, and Salò, or the 120 Days of Sodom. Really, it's a shame the movie is so terribly acted, because as a horror it's terrifyingly effective. But, I can't really recommend it to anyone, because it's just that bone-chilling, and merely thinking about it scares me - me!
Little Sweetheart (1989)
This is not actually a horror movie but more of a crime drama, but it features a character that is very much a "bad seed", not unlike in the movie of that title. She's nine years old, and played by a very charismatic, though unknown (like this whole movie, apparently), Cassie Barasch. She gets up to all sorts of misdeeds with her reluctant friend and cohort, including spying on a couple that just moved in nearby who are on the run after committing insurance fraud. Little Thelma (that's the girl's character's name) ends up blackmailing them for shopping money, and things just go downhill from there. It's a really fun movie, and the leading character's natural penchant for criminal mischievousness is fascinating to watch. It's a seemingly unheard of movie, but I recommend it highly.
Texas Killing Fields (2011)
Texas Killing Fields is a heavily atmospheric little number with an excellent swampy soundtrack. It's a bit of a crime suspense thriller, and the story was a little hard to follow, but I honestly didn't even mind, because the characters' motivations were pretty easy to suss out - and, I'll be honest, I really go for a movie that can construct a good atmosphere. Plus, Chloe Moretz stars in a supporting role, and she always lights up the screen, even when she's playing (as she frequently does) a downtrodden child with a lot of things to be depressed about, but nevertheless with a good head on her shoulders, and the ability to somehow maintain a fragment of her innocence through it all. I don't think this movie got much acclaim when it came out (I wasn't able to get around to seeing it, though I wanted to), but I liked it.
Tuesday, October 30, 2012
[Rec] 2 (2009)
Warning: this review contains spoilers.
I rewatched [Rec] in anticipation of viewing the sequel, and I was reminded of just how good that movie is. It's terrifying, intelligent, and really action-packed - I was surprised it clocks in at under an hour and a half because it doesn't feel that short. But I guess time slows down when you're trapped in a horrific situation and you just can't get out.
So then I watched the sequel, and I have to say, [Rec] is just so brilliant that it's impossible not to be interested in its sequel when the setup of the first movie is as brilliant as it is. But, standing on its own, the quality of [Rec] 2 drops considerably from the first movie. It's terrifying enough, sure, and there is a lot of action - maybe even more than in the first one. But as a movie, it's just not as intelligent.
I mean, it's like they grabbed the script from a fanfic site. The elements in this movie are "cool", but the premise takes a huge drop in believability. I mean, one of the smartest parts of the first [Rec] was the explanation for the disease - that it was a contagious variation of the condition known among the superstitious as demonic possession, created by accident while trying to find an antidote for the disease.
The brilliance there is that the film is still rooted in reality - and actually provides a compelling and original scientific explanation for demonic possession. In [Rec] 2, which picks up immediately after the events of [Rec], instead of a health advisor, they send a priest in to the quarantined building (albeit disguised as a health advisor). Now, yeah, that's a really cool premise - priest goes in to kick some demonic ass with his magic prayers and crucifixes - but it's a fantasy premise. The moment he sticks that crucifix on the door and the infected trapped inside backs off ("singlehandedly proving Christianity", as an IMDb user puts it), the story loses its plausibility.
Not to say that the filmmakers are wrong for taking the story in this direction - who's to say that there was much more of a story to tell while keeping it pinned to reality - but the result is a much less unique and standout film. Actually, it feels a lot more like a video game (especially with the SWAT team's FPS-like perspective), which even the first [Rec] was obviously inspired by, but this one seems to draw too heavily on.
And there are other problems with it, as well. The characters are less likable, and one thing I've discovered is that, realistic or not (and I couldn't say which is more likely), people freaking out completely and yelling at each other isn't a whole lot of fun to watch in a movie. Yeah, it creates good tension in a heightened moment, but if they just keep going at it constantly, it wears you down, and you start wanting to tell them to just shut the fuck up, cool down, and stop shouting.
And then you have these stupid kids which are a total brainless cliche - hell, I'll admit the idea of what goes on in [Rec] is fascinating, but what kind of an idiot would I have to be to walk through the sewers to sneak in to a building under government quarantine? And then of course they change their minds and start crying only after it's too late.
The girl was actually smart, and knew it was a bad idea - I think they put her in so the audience could sympathize - but when she was about to walk away, not giving in to peer pressure, suddenly the camera skips ahead and she's following them through the sewers. Yeah, I don't know what to say, but that just totally smacks of the writers going, "I don't know how the fuck we're going to get this character to follow these guys so let's just skip over that part and force it to happen..."
[Rec] 2 also opens up the story a little bit by featuring more than one camera. I thought that was interesting, and provided some variety to the story (and helped to introduce new characters and new angles), although I think the one-camera perspective of [Rec] definitely works in its favor. Of course, after the first camera dies, when the second is just about to run out of batteries, and there, camgirl from the first [Rec] shows up out of nowhere, holding on to her camera like some holy grail - it just felt so incredibly fabricated, it's one of those details that really detracts from the realism.
Like the infected victims this time around. Again, it's actually cool that they behave more like demonic possessees as we know them, but again it detracts from their realism. Another of the things I really liked about [Rec] was how realistically the 'monsters' were treated - almost like you could believe they were just humans possessed of a hysterical aggression. Here, they're crawling on the ceiling and spitting in priests' faces.
And do I even need to mention the ridiculous 'magic' that changes the structure of physical reality depending on whether light is shining on it or not? Or how a person literally wasted away to skin and bones could wield a hammer? Or how the frightened reporter from the first movie becomes an action hero in this one? Or this movie's explanation for that change, which involves a giant worm passed orally, which apparently is the source of demonic possession, with telekinetic powers to influence other bodies infected by the virus (why is the virus even necessary if the demon has supernatural powers)? And oh god, the rocket attack...
No, no, I'll leave all of that stuff alone...
I rewatched [Rec] in anticipation of viewing the sequel, and I was reminded of just how good that movie is. It's terrifying, intelligent, and really action-packed - I was surprised it clocks in at under an hour and a half because it doesn't feel that short. But I guess time slows down when you're trapped in a horrific situation and you just can't get out.
So then I watched the sequel, and I have to say, [Rec] is just so brilliant that it's impossible not to be interested in its sequel when the setup of the first movie is as brilliant as it is. But, standing on its own, the quality of [Rec] 2 drops considerably from the first movie. It's terrifying enough, sure, and there is a lot of action - maybe even more than in the first one. But as a movie, it's just not as intelligent.
I mean, it's like they grabbed the script from a fanfic site. The elements in this movie are "cool", but the premise takes a huge drop in believability. I mean, one of the smartest parts of the first [Rec] was the explanation for the disease - that it was a contagious variation of the condition known among the superstitious as demonic possession, created by accident while trying to find an antidote for the disease.
The brilliance there is that the film is still rooted in reality - and actually provides a compelling and original scientific explanation for demonic possession. In [Rec] 2, which picks up immediately after the events of [Rec], instead of a health advisor, they send a priest in to the quarantined building (albeit disguised as a health advisor). Now, yeah, that's a really cool premise - priest goes in to kick some demonic ass with his magic prayers and crucifixes - but it's a fantasy premise. The moment he sticks that crucifix on the door and the infected trapped inside backs off ("singlehandedly proving Christianity", as an IMDb user puts it), the story loses its plausibility.
Not to say that the filmmakers are wrong for taking the story in this direction - who's to say that there was much more of a story to tell while keeping it pinned to reality - but the result is a much less unique and standout film. Actually, it feels a lot more like a video game (especially with the SWAT team's FPS-like perspective), which even the first [Rec] was obviously inspired by, but this one seems to draw too heavily on.
And there are other problems with it, as well. The characters are less likable, and one thing I've discovered is that, realistic or not (and I couldn't say which is more likely), people freaking out completely and yelling at each other isn't a whole lot of fun to watch in a movie. Yeah, it creates good tension in a heightened moment, but if they just keep going at it constantly, it wears you down, and you start wanting to tell them to just shut the fuck up, cool down, and stop shouting.
And then you have these stupid kids which are a total brainless cliche - hell, I'll admit the idea of what goes on in [Rec] is fascinating, but what kind of an idiot would I have to be to walk through the sewers to sneak in to a building under government quarantine? And then of course they change their minds and start crying only after it's too late.
The girl was actually smart, and knew it was a bad idea - I think they put her in so the audience could sympathize - but when she was about to walk away, not giving in to peer pressure, suddenly the camera skips ahead and she's following them through the sewers. Yeah, I don't know what to say, but that just totally smacks of the writers going, "I don't know how the fuck we're going to get this character to follow these guys so let's just skip over that part and force it to happen..."
[Rec] 2 also opens up the story a little bit by featuring more than one camera. I thought that was interesting, and provided some variety to the story (and helped to introduce new characters and new angles), although I think the one-camera perspective of [Rec] definitely works in its favor. Of course, after the first camera dies, when the second is just about to run out of batteries, and there, camgirl from the first [Rec] shows up out of nowhere, holding on to her camera like some holy grail - it just felt so incredibly fabricated, it's one of those details that really detracts from the realism.
Like the infected victims this time around. Again, it's actually cool that they behave more like demonic possessees as we know them, but again it detracts from their realism. Another of the things I really liked about [Rec] was how realistically the 'monsters' were treated - almost like you could believe they were just humans possessed of a hysterical aggression. Here, they're crawling on the ceiling and spitting in priests' faces.
And do I even need to mention the ridiculous 'magic' that changes the structure of physical reality depending on whether light is shining on it or not? Or how a person literally wasted away to skin and bones could wield a hammer? Or how the frightened reporter from the first movie becomes an action hero in this one? Or this movie's explanation for that change, which involves a giant worm passed orally, which apparently is the source of demonic possession, with telekinetic powers to influence other bodies infected by the virus (why is the virus even necessary if the demon has supernatural powers)? And oh god, the rocket attack...
No, no, I'll leave all of that stuff alone...
Sunday, October 28, 2012
Atrocious (2010)
Warning: this review contains spoilers. Huge spoilers.
Atrocious is one of those rare films that didn't develop in the direction I was hoping for, but instead of disappointment, spark appreciation because the direction it did develop in was very intriguing. It's a pretty standard found footage premise: kids film their exploration of the woods in search of a country legend - in this case, the "woods" is a garden maze type labyrinth (excellent idea!), and the legend is about the ghost of some girl that shows lost travelers the way home, but might be decidedly less altruistic (and less human) going by different variations of the legend.
Awesome, right? The labyrinth was an excellent choice of location for a film like this, even though I ultimately feel that they didn't use it to its full potential (which, on the other hand, leaves room for other filmmakers - even Stanley Kubrick fell short on the hedge maze in The Shining). But one thing this movie emphasizes is how a mildly confusing maze in the daytime can turn into a hellish deathtrap at night when you're in a panic.
Everything in this movie was leading toward (at least in my mind) the revelation of some kind of demonic beast in that maze - which is what I was hoping for that I didn't get. I guess the whole thing about the girl ghost was a total red herring - which makes for great realism. How often does a team go into the woods to film some supernatural encounter and actually find what they're looking for? I mean, in the real world, not in the movies? And what really happened is actually fairly plausible (certainly not common, but within the realm of extreme possibility, and certainly easier to swallow than some kind of demonic minotaur).
Now, normally, I would take the (huge spoiler!) revelation of the mother as the killer rather than any paranormal entity with great disappointment (and I am still somewhat disappointed - come on, a demonic minotaur!), but something about the way this movie is presented made me realize something. We hear about terrible stories where people go psychotic and kill their families - and certainly scenarios like that are depicted often in horror movies. But we always see it with the Hollywood sheen. With the deceit of fantasy.
But this time, presented as a found footage film (even if nobody is actually fooled into thinking it's real anymore), it's like we're actually in the shoes of the victims, getting to experience what it's like to actually have this tragedy unfold in front of you, and not a dramatized narrative told after the fact. And, it drives home the fact of just how terrifying an experience like that can be. Running around in the dark. Screaming. Having the power shut off unexpectedly. People bleeding. Finding corpses in unexpected places. (Gosh, sounds like a typical slasher setup!). And not knowing what's going on - without certainty, you could even entertain the notion that the cause is supernatural in your panic.
And yeah, I guess that sounds pretty horrifying - but after all, isn't that what we watch horror movies for? I know I do. People might complain about how modern trends (especially the found footage format) are driving horror films to their obvious conclusion - indistinguishable simulations of snuff films. But again, what is horror for? It is a fantasy - not reality - but a simulation of horrible things that occur (and many things that don't occur, thankfully) in real life. It's removed from real life - though just enough - so that we can live vicariously through them. And if you don't understand the appeal of that, then you don't get horror. That's fine, but I shudder to think of the assumptions often made about people who do.
The only thing I have left to say about Atrocious is that it's left me feeling all the more hungry for a found footage film that really does use a monster - a real monster. Has there ever been one? Trollhunter, for example, was a good movie, but the trolls were more like scary animals than horror monsters. Alien Abduction: Incident in Lake County comes close, but the aliens there are too calm, too intelligent - not beastly enough. Something like a Xenomorph, or The Thing, filmed from an iphone so that the seams are unnoticeable and it's all the more frightening would be good. Something like Carnosaur. That would be great. Or something paranormal, but with a very physical demonic manifestation. But not too human-like, as vampires and zombies are frequently depicted. Something with a tinge of the Lovecraftian perhaps. Hmm...
Atrocious is one of those rare films that didn't develop in the direction I was hoping for, but instead of disappointment, spark appreciation because the direction it did develop in was very intriguing. It's a pretty standard found footage premise: kids film their exploration of the woods in search of a country legend - in this case, the "woods" is a garden maze type labyrinth (excellent idea!), and the legend is about the ghost of some girl that shows lost travelers the way home, but might be decidedly less altruistic (and less human) going by different variations of the legend.
Awesome, right? The labyrinth was an excellent choice of location for a film like this, even though I ultimately feel that they didn't use it to its full potential (which, on the other hand, leaves room for other filmmakers - even Stanley Kubrick fell short on the hedge maze in The Shining). But one thing this movie emphasizes is how a mildly confusing maze in the daytime can turn into a hellish deathtrap at night when you're in a panic.
Everything in this movie was leading toward (at least in my mind) the revelation of some kind of demonic beast in that maze - which is what I was hoping for that I didn't get. I guess the whole thing about the girl ghost was a total red herring - which makes for great realism. How often does a team go into the woods to film some supernatural encounter and actually find what they're looking for? I mean, in the real world, not in the movies? And what really happened is actually fairly plausible (certainly not common, but within the realm of extreme possibility, and certainly easier to swallow than some kind of demonic minotaur).
Now, normally, I would take the (huge spoiler!) revelation of the mother as the killer rather than any paranormal entity with great disappointment (and I am still somewhat disappointed - come on, a demonic minotaur!), but something about the way this movie is presented made me realize something. We hear about terrible stories where people go psychotic and kill their families - and certainly scenarios like that are depicted often in horror movies. But we always see it with the Hollywood sheen. With the deceit of fantasy.
But this time, presented as a found footage film (even if nobody is actually fooled into thinking it's real anymore), it's like we're actually in the shoes of the victims, getting to experience what it's like to actually have this tragedy unfold in front of you, and not a dramatized narrative told after the fact. And, it drives home the fact of just how terrifying an experience like that can be. Running around in the dark. Screaming. Having the power shut off unexpectedly. People bleeding. Finding corpses in unexpected places. (Gosh, sounds like a typical slasher setup!). And not knowing what's going on - without certainty, you could even entertain the notion that the cause is supernatural in your panic.
And yeah, I guess that sounds pretty horrifying - but after all, isn't that what we watch horror movies for? I know I do. People might complain about how modern trends (especially the found footage format) are driving horror films to their obvious conclusion - indistinguishable simulations of snuff films. But again, what is horror for? It is a fantasy - not reality - but a simulation of horrible things that occur (and many things that don't occur, thankfully) in real life. It's removed from real life - though just enough - so that we can live vicariously through them. And if you don't understand the appeal of that, then you don't get horror. That's fine, but I shudder to think of the assumptions often made about people who do.
The only thing I have left to say about Atrocious is that it's left me feeling all the more hungry for a found footage film that really does use a monster - a real monster. Has there ever been one? Trollhunter, for example, was a good movie, but the trolls were more like scary animals than horror monsters. Alien Abduction: Incident in Lake County comes close, but the aliens there are too calm, too intelligent - not beastly enough. Something like a Xenomorph, or The Thing, filmed from an iphone so that the seams are unnoticeable and it's all the more frightening would be good. Something like Carnosaur. That would be great. Or something paranormal, but with a very physical demonic manifestation. But not too human-like, as vampires and zombies are frequently depicted. Something with a tinge of the Lovecraftian perhaps. Hmm...
The House of the Devil (2009)
Warning: this review contains spoilers.
I must be really particular about Satanism, because instead of what this film does right - and it does a lot of things right - I find myself fixating on what it does wrong. The movie has a truly fantastic premise - a girl is lured to a creepy house in the woods on the pretenses of accepting a babysitting job, only to become the focus of a Satanic ritual during a lunar eclipse. The movie has a fantastic atmosphere, the girl is realistic and likable, and the creepy old man is characterized very intriguingly.
So what does it do wrong? Well, for starters, even though I appreciate the slow, building atmosphere, it gets pretty tedious after a while. There was a point before the climax hit that the girl was taking yet another round of the house, and as she began slowly walking up the stairs again, I thought to myself, where's the fast forward button? This movie is called The House of the Devil, so you better give me some devils fast, or else you should rather have titled the movie "Creepy House in the Woods".
For a movie that does a great job of creating a realistic atmosphere, some things stood out to me, like how the girl starts getting bizarrely paranoid all of a sudden - to the point of grabbing a knife to carry around the house with her. And the fact that she got drugged after a single bite of 'tainted' pizza - what was the point of showing her noticing the strange taste and rejecting the pizza if the drug has already taken effect anyway? And if I were a Satanist on the night of a lunar eclipse, my ritual depending on the drugging of an unsuspecting girl, I wouldn't put all my bets on a plan as convoluted as a pizza delivery - what if the girl didn't decide to eat pizza? What if she didn't even like pizza? (I know, I know, all college kids love pizza...)
As the movie wore on, I was starting to fear that there wasn't going to be a payoff. Thankfully, I was wrong about that. Still, the Satanic ritual that I had been waiting for all movie long left a lot to be desired. Firstly, I could understand putting some kind of ritual dress on the sacrifice. If I were a Satanist, I'd strip her nude, but I'll make an allowance for that. But panties? What the hell good is a Satanist if he's going to be modest? That's the great thing about devil-worshippers, that's what makes them so alluring, so much naughty fun - they're not tied down to ridiculous notions of chastity and purity.
And hell, what's the deal with an impregnation ritual not involving any sex? That's one thing Roman Polanski got right. I know that God impregnates virgins without conception, but this is the freaking devil, man! The horned god loves the ole lusty act. If I were a Satanist, I'd probably throw out all the violence and icky blood play anyway - because what's fun about that? But you can bet I'd leave all the kinky sex stuff in. I mean, even take the college dorm couple at the beginning of the movie - I won't fault the film for not showing them having sex, that's not really necessary to the plot, but even afterward, they were slumped together in bed, and they both had shirts on (everything else was under the covers). Really? This is freaking college for fuck's sake!
Anyway, the part when the friend is sitting in the car and the guy comes up with the lighter and - that was an excellent scene. A real "oh shit" moment. I loved that. But then in the end, I had a hard time believing the lead girl would actually shoot herself - boy, didn't take her long to start believing all that superstition. And yet, she had to survive, because, you know, that's the cliche, after all. I don't want to make it sound like this movie missed all the beats - because it really does a lot right, and it's really pretty creepy. I just, I guess I'm bored of people using the theme of Satanism - an excellent theme for a horror movie - and particularly the specific theme of Satanic ritual abuse, and just not doing the idea justice.
I mean, we've seen enough damsels in distress, subjected to the whims of Satan and his crazy followers. When the girl broke free (you would really make her restraints that easy to escape from?), I was thinking, here we go. Girl escapes and wins the day against those crazy Satanists. For once, can't we just have a movie that shows what the Satanists do, when things go according to plan, and what the ritual is supposed to be like? Can we see it from the Satanists' point of view? Can we see why it might be tempting? You know, instead of just this insane thing that people do because they're beholden to Satan. That's the Satanic ritual abuse movie I'd really like to see.
But until someone has the guts to make that movie, this one's not all that bad.
Disclaimer: I am not a Satanist. I don't even believe in Satan. :p
I must be really particular about Satanism, because instead of what this film does right - and it does a lot of things right - I find myself fixating on what it does wrong. The movie has a truly fantastic premise - a girl is lured to a creepy house in the woods on the pretenses of accepting a babysitting job, only to become the focus of a Satanic ritual during a lunar eclipse. The movie has a fantastic atmosphere, the girl is realistic and likable, and the creepy old man is characterized very intriguingly.
So what does it do wrong? Well, for starters, even though I appreciate the slow, building atmosphere, it gets pretty tedious after a while. There was a point before the climax hit that the girl was taking yet another round of the house, and as she began slowly walking up the stairs again, I thought to myself, where's the fast forward button? This movie is called The House of the Devil, so you better give me some devils fast, or else you should rather have titled the movie "Creepy House in the Woods".
For a movie that does a great job of creating a realistic atmosphere, some things stood out to me, like how the girl starts getting bizarrely paranoid all of a sudden - to the point of grabbing a knife to carry around the house with her. And the fact that she got drugged after a single bite of 'tainted' pizza - what was the point of showing her noticing the strange taste and rejecting the pizza if the drug has already taken effect anyway? And if I were a Satanist on the night of a lunar eclipse, my ritual depending on the drugging of an unsuspecting girl, I wouldn't put all my bets on a plan as convoluted as a pizza delivery - what if the girl didn't decide to eat pizza? What if she didn't even like pizza? (I know, I know, all college kids love pizza...)
As the movie wore on, I was starting to fear that there wasn't going to be a payoff. Thankfully, I was wrong about that. Still, the Satanic ritual that I had been waiting for all movie long left a lot to be desired. Firstly, I could understand putting some kind of ritual dress on the sacrifice. If I were a Satanist, I'd strip her nude, but I'll make an allowance for that. But panties? What the hell good is a Satanist if he's going to be modest? That's the great thing about devil-worshippers, that's what makes them so alluring, so much naughty fun - they're not tied down to ridiculous notions of chastity and purity.
And hell, what's the deal with an impregnation ritual not involving any sex? That's one thing Roman Polanski got right. I know that God impregnates virgins without conception, but this is the freaking devil, man! The horned god loves the ole lusty act. If I were a Satanist, I'd probably throw out all the violence and icky blood play anyway - because what's fun about that? But you can bet I'd leave all the kinky sex stuff in. I mean, even take the college dorm couple at the beginning of the movie - I won't fault the film for not showing them having sex, that's not really necessary to the plot, but even afterward, they were slumped together in bed, and they both had shirts on (everything else was under the covers). Really? This is freaking college for fuck's sake!
Anyway, the part when the friend is sitting in the car and the guy comes up with the lighter and - that was an excellent scene. A real "oh shit" moment. I loved that. But then in the end, I had a hard time believing the lead girl would actually shoot herself - boy, didn't take her long to start believing all that superstition. And yet, she had to survive, because, you know, that's the cliche, after all. I don't want to make it sound like this movie missed all the beats - because it really does a lot right, and it's really pretty creepy. I just, I guess I'm bored of people using the theme of Satanism - an excellent theme for a horror movie - and particularly the specific theme of Satanic ritual abuse, and just not doing the idea justice.
I mean, we've seen enough damsels in distress, subjected to the whims of Satan and his crazy followers. When the girl broke free (you would really make her restraints that easy to escape from?), I was thinking, here we go. Girl escapes and wins the day against those crazy Satanists. For once, can't we just have a movie that shows what the Satanists do, when things go according to plan, and what the ritual is supposed to be like? Can we see it from the Satanists' point of view? Can we see why it might be tempting? You know, instead of just this insane thing that people do because they're beholden to Satan. That's the Satanic ritual abuse movie I'd really like to see.
But until someone has the guts to make that movie, this one's not all that bad.
Disclaimer: I am not a Satanist. I don't even believe in Satan. :p
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)