I apologize, as this one may be a little long:
I think its surprising that not a whole lot of people are aware of classic horror movies. And I'm not talking about the Universal Monster movies from the 1930s, although those are practically obscure now. I'm talking about recent classics. As much as there is a culture surrounding horror films, not a whole lot of people know what Return of the Living Dead is, or even the original Night of the Living Dead.
Maybe that's why I don't feel bad when I review "the usual suspect" horror films, the ones that always appear on top 25 lists of horror movies you need to watch before you die. I've wanted this blog to be a place where an average person could go and perhaps gain an interest in new horror movies.
With that said, I had a Halloween party the other night and for our movie, I chose to watch Return of the Living Dead. ROTLD came out in 1985, the same year Romero's Day of the Dead came out, and despite the reputation that George carries with his name alone, ROTLD knocked Romero's DAY out of the water. And it really should, its a fantastic horror film.
However, when faced with the scrutiny of modern film goers, ones who aren't massive horror film geeks like myself, how does this movie hold up? Well, I was hoping that everyone was enjoying it, but I feel like they enjoyed it for the wrong reasons. They laughed a little too much for my taste, and all at the wrong moments.
Don't get me wrong, laughter is good. The movie is a horror comedy after all. However, comedy is only half of it. The other half of it is surprisingly tense, and scary. But all in the name of fun.
When I first watched the movie I was very aware of how funny the movie was. However, it's also very horrifying. These are characters you absolutely fall in love with, and then you get to see them lose control of an already volatile situation, and as much as you want them to live, you know there is a chance that they wont make it. So as the movie goes on and things continue to get worse and worse, the movie raises the tension because of it.
I guess I can't forget to plot it out for you before I talk about it more. The movie concerns two groups: Bert, Frank, and Freddy, who work at the Uneeda Medical Supply in Louisville, Kentucky (Kentucky represent) and a group of Freddy's teenage friends who are busy trying to party hardy.. When Freddy, the new guy at the job, inquires about the scariest thing that Frank has ever seen at the Supply Warehouse, Frank shows him these strange canisters filled with Trioxin, which is a reanimating agent. The two hapless heroes accidentally unleash the toxin all over the warehouse, reviving a body that was stored in the Warehouse freezer.
Okay, relatively simple situation. There's only one dead body running around, right? Well, Frank and Freddy are scared stiff by the thing, and decide to call in their boss Bert, who tries to cover his and his company's ass for the rest of the film. The trio discover that the body cannot be killed in the usual zombie fashion of head bludgeoning, so they ship the body to Bert's friend, Ernie, who runs a mortuary/crematorium, with the intention of using Ernie's crematorium to completely burn the body.
So you're thinking to yourself, how in the hell could four guys completely mess up this situation and make everything worse? Well, when they cremate the body they aren't aware that the smoke from the fire and the ashes of the body mix to form an entire new batch of Trioxin, which in turn transforms into acid rain and rains down on the nearby cemetary, thereby reanimating the dead. Whoops.
The rest of the film concerns the two groups of characters trying to survive the onslaught of the living dead.
If you're not aware, these zombies are not your typical Romero zombies. They run, they talk, and they tackle. And they cannot die. So you can imagine how the already terrible situation has the potential to get much worse.
The reason this film works for me is that instead of being a zombie action kill movie, its a movie about a zombie siege. It directly follows Night of the Living Dead's winning formula of putting a group of different individuals into a location together and have them try to survive against an army of the living dead. So characters don't unrealistically become zombie killing badasses and they don't come out of a Juno movie.
No, instead they do their best and die trying. And as the situation gets worse, everything becomes more hopeless. THAT is tension building, because you really end up liking the four guys Bert, Ernie, Frank, and Freddy and you don't want anything to happen to them. I also love that one guy who yelled "Get in here honky!"
Naturally, the scares are supposed to eventually override the fun funny stuff, but I don't think my friends really got into it that much to allow themselves to give in to the suspense and the terror. Plus, it was made in 1985, so by modern audiences the movie is dated. However, the movie has that great 80s atmosphere that modern horror films significantly lack. My favorite shot of the entire film is during the opening credits when you see the trioxin revive the dead body for the first time, and the camera pans in as you see the body shake.
Please watch this film. I'm terribly sorry I talked about it in great length, but I don't think I've spoiled too much. Its an A+ film, and I cannot recommend it enough. Watch this film and know just how you're supposed to do a zombie comedy.
Tuesday, October 30, 2012
Friday, October 26, 2012
Blogging hiatus/Announcement/Zombie review
This is going to be a very simple post to explain my absence and the future of this blog:
1. I forgot my log in information. So...yeah. It was that simple.
2. I am still going to write to this. Tomorrow I am going to be hosting a Halloween party and the movie that I am forcing everyone to watch is Return of the Living Dead, which currently is my favorite zombie film of all time. That movie just gets so much right, but more on that later.
Right now, I want to take a brief moment to talk about Zombie. In fact, I'm going to review Zombie.
I recently got a chance to pick up a copy of Zombie from the mall on a trip to visit my extended family. Now, when I shop, I'm more of a window shopper. I always try to conserve my money, which mostly goes towards food and gas (and my gas gets eaten up really fast, as I commute to college.) So by chance whilst my fiancee and I were perusing the rows of horror films in the F.Y.E. I happened upon the Blue Underground DVD of Zombie. Needless to say, I was immediately smitten. However, when I happen upon something that I would like to purchase I tend to get somewhat of a guilty conscience. There was also a bit of confusion as to whether or not the box I was holding in my hands was a Blu-Ray edition or DVD. I'm not kidding, it wasn't giving us any indication which one it was.
But, I gave in and I bought it, and a few days later we popped it in to watch it.
Now, it wasn't my first time seeing it. I managed to watch it online a long time ago back when I had more time to fulfill my desire to watch horror films. I loved it back then, and I loved it the second time watching it as well.
The story begins with a boat that pulls into a New York harbor. The boat is abandoned, so the Coast Guard thinks. The two members investigating the boat get chewed up by a stowaway zombie, whom they don't properly deal with. The zombie disappears, and they walk away with some bites and scratches.
The boat, it turns out, belongs to the father of the main character, a girl named Anne. She becomes involved because she wants to know where her missing father is, and she entangles herself with reporter Peter West, who thinks there's an interesting story to tell with the boat.
Immediately starting the movie the average viewer will take note that a lot of the actors have been overdubbed. This kinda took me out of the movie a bit, as I wasn't used to it, but once I allowed myself to get lost in the story I eventually forgot about it. I'm not going to really go into too much detail about this movie. It's pretty famous in the horror world. Yadda yadda Lucio Fulci (props) yadda yadda special effects, yadda yadda beautiful cinematography.
The main characters' search eventually brings them to an island where the dead are mysteriously rising. Dr. Menard and a few others are investigating the phenomena, and he is Anne's connection to her missing father. But when the main characters arrive on the island, all hell breaks loose and things heat up pretty quickly.
Now, I'm afraid I'll have to go against the grain here and say that I'm totally not a fan of the zombie vs. shark thing. And no, it's not because the idea is completely silly, because I can deal with that. It's just that...the sequence goes on for far too long and its not too integral to the main story. Yadda yadda, the cinematography is impressive and beautiful, but come on, it's a film where people are being ripped apart and having their arteries severed by zombies. However, I'm not going to knock someone by saying that they can't appreciate how beautiful the cinematography is. When they aren't spending fifteen minutes pondering the scenery, this movie is gorgeous.
So what do I think of this film? I'm giving it a well deserved B. And please, if you are reading this blog and have anything you want to say, please say it. I want you to, really. I wanna hear what you think.
1. I forgot my log in information. So...yeah. It was that simple.
2. I am still going to write to this. Tomorrow I am going to be hosting a Halloween party and the movie that I am forcing everyone to watch is Return of the Living Dead, which currently is my favorite zombie film of all time. That movie just gets so much right, but more on that later.
Right now, I want to take a brief moment to talk about Zombie. In fact, I'm going to review Zombie.
I recently got a chance to pick up a copy of Zombie from the mall on a trip to visit my extended family. Now, when I shop, I'm more of a window shopper. I always try to conserve my money, which mostly goes towards food and gas (and my gas gets eaten up really fast, as I commute to college.) So by chance whilst my fiancee and I were perusing the rows of horror films in the F.Y.E. I happened upon the Blue Underground DVD of Zombie. Needless to say, I was immediately smitten. However, when I happen upon something that I would like to purchase I tend to get somewhat of a guilty conscience. There was also a bit of confusion as to whether or not the box I was holding in my hands was a Blu-Ray edition or DVD. I'm not kidding, it wasn't giving us any indication which one it was.
But, I gave in and I bought it, and a few days later we popped it in to watch it.
Now, it wasn't my first time seeing it. I managed to watch it online a long time ago back when I had more time to fulfill my desire to watch horror films. I loved it back then, and I loved it the second time watching it as well.
The story begins with a boat that pulls into a New York harbor. The boat is abandoned, so the Coast Guard thinks. The two members investigating the boat get chewed up by a stowaway zombie, whom they don't properly deal with. The zombie disappears, and they walk away with some bites and scratches.
The boat, it turns out, belongs to the father of the main character, a girl named Anne. She becomes involved because she wants to know where her missing father is, and she entangles herself with reporter Peter West, who thinks there's an interesting story to tell with the boat.
Immediately starting the movie the average viewer will take note that a lot of the actors have been overdubbed. This kinda took me out of the movie a bit, as I wasn't used to it, but once I allowed myself to get lost in the story I eventually forgot about it. I'm not going to really go into too much detail about this movie. It's pretty famous in the horror world. Yadda yadda Lucio Fulci (props) yadda yadda special effects, yadda yadda beautiful cinematography.
The main characters' search eventually brings them to an island where the dead are mysteriously rising. Dr. Menard and a few others are investigating the phenomena, and he is Anne's connection to her missing father. But when the main characters arrive on the island, all hell breaks loose and things heat up pretty quickly.
Now, I'm afraid I'll have to go against the grain here and say that I'm totally not a fan of the zombie vs. shark thing. And no, it's not because the idea is completely silly, because I can deal with that. It's just that...the sequence goes on for far too long and its not too integral to the main story. Yadda yadda, the cinematography is impressive and beautiful, but come on, it's a film where people are being ripped apart and having their arteries severed by zombies. However, I'm not going to knock someone by saying that they can't appreciate how beautiful the cinematography is. When they aren't spending fifteen minutes pondering the scenery, this movie is gorgeous.
So what do I think of this film? I'm giving it a well deserved B. And please, if you are reading this blog and have anything you want to say, please say it. I want you to, really. I wanna hear what you think.
Thursday, August 30, 2012
Why I hate modern zombie movies
As much as I adore Shaun of the Dead, I can't help but think of how much bullshit it has spawned. As far as Shaun goes, the movie was perfect. It was a Romero zombie movie that poked fun at Romero zombie movies, but not in a stupid way. As far as humor went, it was the characters and their situation and interactions that were funny (and often dramatic) instead of relying on zombie sight gags.
Unfortunately, Shaun of the Dead sparked a whole new interest in zom coms. And none have been particularly good. Zom coms (as they are called) have pretty much existed since the inception of the Romero zombie (I mean, how is Children Shouldn't Play With Dead Things not a comedy?) Back then they were done well, emphasizing comedic situations interspersed with true moments of horror.
The movie that has done this best (besides Shaun) is Return of the Living Dead. Sure, there are a few moments in the film that are completely, ridiculously silly ("Send more cops") but the movie gets the actual zombie onslaught stuff right. The best zombie films always put characters in a nearly impossible situation, and then proceed to make that situation increasingly worse. In Return, the characters find themselves trapped in a morgue that has barely any defensive capability against hordes of invincible zombies that are trying to find their way in. To make matters worse, two of their number are already dying and slowly becoming Returners themselves. Added to that is the fact that every ounce of help that seems to come their way is torn apart by the zombie horde, and as each moment passes the characters options are running out.
Theses are the zombie movies I love to watch, because it creates such a great terror and suspense in the viewer that, in my opinion, is unrivaled in the horror movie genre community. It's so satisfying to watch the characters succeed in escape (and even destroying) the zombies and its so heart-wrenching and terrifying to see them fail.
Zombie movies these days follow a different rule. Throw in some quirky characters, put them in amusing situations, and watch them turn into complete zombie killing badass machines at the end that are capable of dealing out many headshots (even while they are running) despite the fact that they've had no prior experience or practice with a gun.
Modern zombie movies are fixated on delivering zombie killing action, to the point of making their human characters into Robocop, and its so ridiculous that I can't stand watching these films. In Night of the Living Dead, our heroes struggled to even hit their targets at all because they were all people who had never previously dealt with firearms.
Where is the tension that used to come from watching a zombie movie? Why does that tension suddenly get ignored in the modern day?
What follows are several minor nitpicks regarding the depictions of zombies themselves:
I am a fan of old school slow zombies. However, I like the fast Olympic medalist zombies that have been introduced in recent times. To be fair, if the dead ever rose up out of their graves in real life, they would be running to after the effects of rigor mortis wore off (which they will). They won't be Olympic medalist fast, but they won't be tree-swaying-in-the-wind slow. However, I feel like my slow zombie palos are beginning to become ignored. I'm not asking that fast zombies go away. I'm asking for more equal representation.
Another big thing I dislike is how zombies look these days. I'm not sure how well I'll be able to articulate this thought, but...zombies now have a "look". Whenever you think of zombies, you think of that look. Compare this:
to this:
What is with with this zombie snarl face that so many extras do these days? All their zombies have that same damn look. When I think of a zombie I think of a reanimated CORPSE. Meaning whatever you're seeing is a shell that is just walking around and eating humans. I hate (and this is just my personal opinion) zombies that have very varied expressions. To me, the only expression a zombie should have is the expression they had when they died. It makes them so much creepier. A zombie snarling at me like a dog doesn't make them scary.
Zombie movies need to emphasize the fact that what we are looking at is literally a dead person. Instead of a director saying, "Act like a zombie", they should be telling them, "Act like a walking dead shell, a corpse." We need to get away from the zombie stereotype and go back to thinking of zombies as a dead body that gets up and and wanders around.
I say these things because I assume that there is such a thing as objective fear, and such things that I suggest can only improve zombies so that they can get back to that objective fear and all of us can be scared again.
Other than that, that's about all I have to say about it. I would love for anyone reading to send their thoughts.
Unfortunately, Shaun of the Dead sparked a whole new interest in zom coms. And none have been particularly good. Zom coms (as they are called) have pretty much existed since the inception of the Romero zombie (I mean, how is Children Shouldn't Play With Dead Things not a comedy?) Back then they were done well, emphasizing comedic situations interspersed with true moments of horror.
The movie that has done this best (besides Shaun) is Return of the Living Dead. Sure, there are a few moments in the film that are completely, ridiculously silly ("Send more cops") but the movie gets the actual zombie onslaught stuff right. The best zombie films always put characters in a nearly impossible situation, and then proceed to make that situation increasingly worse. In Return, the characters find themselves trapped in a morgue that has barely any defensive capability against hordes of invincible zombies that are trying to find their way in. To make matters worse, two of their number are already dying and slowly becoming Returners themselves. Added to that is the fact that every ounce of help that seems to come their way is torn apart by the zombie horde, and as each moment passes the characters options are running out.
Theses are the zombie movies I love to watch, because it creates such a great terror and suspense in the viewer that, in my opinion, is unrivaled in the horror movie genre community. It's so satisfying to watch the characters succeed in escape (and even destroying) the zombies and its so heart-wrenching and terrifying to see them fail.
Zombie movies these days follow a different rule. Throw in some quirky characters, put them in amusing situations, and watch them turn into complete zombie killing badass machines at the end that are capable of dealing out many headshots (even while they are running) despite the fact that they've had no prior experience or practice with a gun.
Modern zombie movies are fixated on delivering zombie killing action, to the point of making their human characters into Robocop, and its so ridiculous that I can't stand watching these films. In Night of the Living Dead, our heroes struggled to even hit their targets at all because they were all people who had never previously dealt with firearms.
Where is the tension that used to come from watching a zombie movie? Why does that tension suddenly get ignored in the modern day?
What follows are several minor nitpicks regarding the depictions of zombies themselves:
I am a fan of old school slow zombies. However, I like the fast Olympic medalist zombies that have been introduced in recent times. To be fair, if the dead ever rose up out of their graves in real life, they would be running to after the effects of rigor mortis wore off (which they will). They won't be Olympic medalist fast, but they won't be tree-swaying-in-the-wind slow. However, I feel like my slow zombie palos are beginning to become ignored. I'm not asking that fast zombies go away. I'm asking for more equal representation.
Another big thing I dislike is how zombies look these days. I'm not sure how well I'll be able to articulate this thought, but...zombies now have a "look". Whenever you think of zombies, you think of that look. Compare this:
to this:
What is with with this zombie snarl face that so many extras do these days? All their zombies have that same damn look. When I think of a zombie I think of a reanimated CORPSE. Meaning whatever you're seeing is a shell that is just walking around and eating humans. I hate (and this is just my personal opinion) zombies that have very varied expressions. To me, the only expression a zombie should have is the expression they had when they died. It makes them so much creepier. A zombie snarling at me like a dog doesn't make them scary.
Zombie movies need to emphasize the fact that what we are looking at is literally a dead person. Instead of a director saying, "Act like a zombie", they should be telling them, "Act like a walking dead shell, a corpse." We need to get away from the zombie stereotype and go back to thinking of zombies as a dead body that gets up and and wanders around.
I say these things because I assume that there is such a thing as objective fear, and such things that I suggest can only improve zombies so that they can get back to that objective fear and all of us can be scared again.
Other than that, that's about all I have to say about it. I would love for anyone reading to send their thoughts.
Monday, July 30, 2012
Don't Be Afraid of the Dark (2011 Remake)
I have a sort of love/hate relationship when it comes to modern supernatural horror movies. On one hand, the films are getting better when it comes to delivering atmosphere. On the other hand, how many times can you watch the same movie over and over?
This movie is in a middle ground of these kinds of films. It surprised me that the filmmakers didn't take the easy way out with its scares and set ups, but then again Guillermo had a huge hand in writing and making this movie, and he was responsible for the excellent The Devil's Backbone. Each time I thought this movie was going to do something predictable, I was surprised when that ended up not being the case.
I guess I should give a plot. A family moves into a creepy house that they are renovating for some architectural or historical society deal. The girl of the family, Sally, was given up by her mother to live with her father, who is renovating the building with his girlfriend. Soon, Sally comes across this odd heater/fire place thing in the basement of the house where she can hear voices whispering her name.
It turns out that there are strange, ancient little creatures living deep below their house in the earth that feed on children, and they've chosen Sally as their next target. Besides scaring her by their presence alone, the little monsters choose to whisper bad and hurtful words to Sally to deceive her already fragile mind. When it came to it, I found these moments more disturbing than the usual "stalk and attack" moments, and I felt you could only have those "stalk and attack" moments so many times before I stopped caring what the outcome of them was.
In terms of scariness, I was a bit let down. The beginning portions of the movie were terrifying, but as the movie went on I felt that the threat factor of these little gremlins was decreasing. Maybe it was due to their actual appearance. In the first half of the film you don't get to see much of what they look like, following the rules of Jaws where the less you see of it, the more terrifying it is.
As much as I nitpick, overall this movie was top notch, a step above films of its type that suffer from doing nothing new for its audience. The actors were all great (Guy Pearce--and here I'd been complaining that he wasn't doing much lately--Katie Holmes, Bailee Madison--great performance from someone so young) and the atmosphere was perfect, but as much as the film plays against audience expectation, it also falls into the tropes that one comes to expect from these kinds of films.
I give Don't Be Afraid of the Dark a B.
-Couple moves into house, may or may not have kids.
-emotional/mental baggage comes with being the main character.
-spooky jump scares and brief glimpses of creepy demonic things.
-creepy child drawing creepy pictures of a creepy place that acts as foreshadowing of something creepy that will creepily creep up later creep.
-one of the protagonists becomes an investigative journalist in the last half of the movie to find out what's REALLY GOING ON.
-Movie has a bittersweet ending.
This movie is in a middle ground of these kinds of films. It surprised me that the filmmakers didn't take the easy way out with its scares and set ups, but then again Guillermo had a huge hand in writing and making this movie, and he was responsible for the excellent The Devil's Backbone. Each time I thought this movie was going to do something predictable, I was surprised when that ended up not being the case.
I guess I should give a plot. A family moves into a creepy house that they are renovating for some architectural or historical society deal. The girl of the family, Sally, was given up by her mother to live with her father, who is renovating the building with his girlfriend. Soon, Sally comes across this odd heater/fire place thing in the basement of the house where she can hear voices whispering her name.
It turns out that there are strange, ancient little creatures living deep below their house in the earth that feed on children, and they've chosen Sally as their next target. Besides scaring her by their presence alone, the little monsters choose to whisper bad and hurtful words to Sally to deceive her already fragile mind. When it came to it, I found these moments more disturbing than the usual "stalk and attack" moments, and I felt you could only have those "stalk and attack" moments so many times before I stopped caring what the outcome of them was.
In terms of scariness, I was a bit let down. The beginning portions of the movie were terrifying, but as the movie went on I felt that the threat factor of these little gremlins was decreasing. Maybe it was due to their actual appearance. In the first half of the film you don't get to see much of what they look like, following the rules of Jaws where the less you see of it, the more terrifying it is.
As much as I nitpick, overall this movie was top notch, a step above films of its type that suffer from doing nothing new for its audience. The actors were all great (Guy Pearce--and here I'd been complaining that he wasn't doing much lately--Katie Holmes, Bailee Madison--great performance from someone so young) and the atmosphere was perfect, but as much as the film plays against audience expectation, it also falls into the tropes that one comes to expect from these kinds of films.
Tuesday, July 24, 2012
I Am Very Angry
In an earlier post I celebrated the fact that every Friday the 13th film was on Netflix for your viewing pleasure. Unfortunately, that's not the case. I don't remember seeing two entries on there: The New Beginning (or Part V) and Jason X.
I was anticipating The New Beginning because it's possibly the most notorious Friday the 13th movie. It has the stigma of being polarizing to F13 fans, so you either love it or you hate it. Me being extremely laid back and easy going, I have no problem liking films that other people write seething fanboy hate speech for, (i.e. The Star Wars prequels and the Special Edition Star Wars Original Trilogy, not to mention the other movie, Kingdom of the Crystal Skull) so I didn't think I would have a hard time watching this one. It apparently has the biggest body count in any of the Friday films, which is nice, but as per my review of Part IV, having more characters than you can have characterization for is a bad thing.
However, I didn't get a chance to watch this film because Netflix skips over it and goes on to Part VI, which I am not going to watch until I see Part V(if I watch it at all since I don't like the idea of Jason coming back to life). I don't want to spend money on a rental because in this stupid small ass town people abuse rental disks to the point that they are unwatchable, and I don't want to buy a movie that I haven't seen that could potentially suck. I also don't want to watch a poor quality online bootleg, so I'm kind of stuck until I can find a copy to borrow, or UNTIL NETFLIX GETS SMART AND PUTS THIS DAMN MOVIE BACK ON THERE WITH THE OTHERS. I mean, how could you just skip over a movie in a series like this? It would be like skipping The Dark Knight after watching Batman Begins, or Empire Strikes Back after watching Star Wars and going to Return of the Jedi.
That's why instead of watching The New Beginning, I reviewed Deep Red, and I ended up being completely frustrated with that piece of fuck. So now I am angry. I guess I should try to look for someone in this town who could possibly have a copy of this movie, because I don't want to wait for Netflix to get it. I'm still waiting for them to put The Living Daylights back on.
By the by, I don't do the whole Netflix-by-mail thing, so that's out of the question.
I was anticipating The New Beginning because it's possibly the most notorious Friday the 13th movie. It has the stigma of being polarizing to F13 fans, so you either love it or you hate it. Me being extremely laid back and easy going, I have no problem liking films that other people write seething fanboy hate speech for, (i.e. The Star Wars prequels and the Special Edition Star Wars Original Trilogy, not to mention the other movie, Kingdom of the Crystal Skull) so I didn't think I would have a hard time watching this one. It apparently has the biggest body count in any of the Friday films, which is nice, but as per my review of Part IV, having more characters than you can have characterization for is a bad thing.
However, I didn't get a chance to watch this film because Netflix skips over it and goes on to Part VI, which I am not going to watch until I see Part V(if I watch it at all since I don't like the idea of Jason coming back to life). I don't want to spend money on a rental because in this stupid small ass town people abuse rental disks to the point that they are unwatchable, and I don't want to buy a movie that I haven't seen that could potentially suck. I also don't want to watch a poor quality online bootleg, so I'm kind of stuck until I can find a copy to borrow, or UNTIL NETFLIX GETS SMART AND PUTS THIS DAMN MOVIE BACK ON THERE WITH THE OTHERS. I mean, how could you just skip over a movie in a series like this? It would be like skipping The Dark Knight after watching Batman Begins, or Empire Strikes Back after watching Star Wars and going to Return of the Jedi.
That's why instead of watching The New Beginning, I reviewed Deep Red, and I ended up being completely frustrated with that piece of fuck. So now I am angry. I guess I should try to look for someone in this town who could possibly have a copy of this movie, because I don't want to wait for Netflix to get it. I'm still waiting for them to put The Living Daylights back on.
By the by, I don't do the whole Netflix-by-mail thing, so that's out of the question.
Tuesday, July 17, 2012
My Issue With Deep Red (With Spoilers)
Well, this may be a knife in the back for me as far as my reviewing career goes, but this movie's plot is completely nonsensical. This is a review of the movie Deep Red, the version which appears on Netflix. Whether other versions of the film are better is not a matter of dispute, as I have no seen those versions and am only reviewing this one.
The film in question is by a very well respected horror/giallo guru, Dario Argento. The name may sound familiar to more-than-casual horror fans as the man who helped Romero finance his famous Dawn of the Dead.
Argento, however, was well known before his connection to the Zombie King, having made several well received giallo/suspense films during the early-to-mid 1970s (Bird With The Crystal Plumage, 1970; Suspiria, 1977).
To people who don't know, Giallo films are whodunit mysteries, typically made by Italian film makers, that accentuate the violence of the murders. Giallo films are very closely connected to the slasher films of the '80s, as directors of eighties slashers took inspiration from these predecessors. Deep Red is a giallo, a murder mystery whodunit slasher, and that is precisely what the film gets wrong.
Diving into the film is a mystery in and of itself. There are three versions of the film. One that is 128 minutes long that was originally released in Italy (with dubbing on some scenes incomplete) one that Argento edited himself, which was 105 minutes long, and a US version that is 98 minutes long. The 105 minute version is supposedly the director's "definitive" version, and I'm pretty sure that's the version that's on Netflix.
Before I get into an angry rant, I wanted to make something clear. Let it not be said that this film isn't beautiful. It is wonderfully shot with a good budget and it looks better than most of the '80s films that it would inspire. The set locations are beautiful as well, and the lighting is pitch perfect. The suspense the film offers is pitch perfect as well, and the combination of suspense and lighting makes things even better.
Unfortunately, the backbone of the film, it's plot, suffers from being nonsensical. The main character, Marcus, is witness to the murder of a psychic who, earlier in the night, had a vision of the murderer at her show panel. She freaks out, which upsets the murderer, and she is murdered that night. Before she's completely dead, the murderer shoves her body through the window of her apartment, and Marcus witnesses the event in the street below. Running up to help her, he enters her apartment and finds her dead corpse. However, he is struck by a strange painting he saw in her apartment which now seems to be missing. He realizes that the painting is the key to solving the murder.
Also, whilst he was exploring the apartment before the police arrive, he looks out the window and manages to catch a glimpse of the killer, and he sees his friend Carlo below. Carlo, however, is unable to identify the murderer.
However, he then forgets about pursuing any leads about the painting even when he decides to do his own off-the-record investigation. You may argue that he forgets about the painting and that one of the themes of the film is memory. However, he wont stop talking about the damn painting to the characters he interacts with. He then proceeds to spend the entire film breaking into and destroying houses and schools, without regard of getting caught by the police. He demonstrates that he has no qualms of breaking and entering a property but he chooses not to return to the apartment where the psychic was murdered to get a closer look at her paintings again, choosing only to do so at the end of the film after we've sat through a convoluted mess of clues he chooses to follow that are also completely nonsensical.
All the time he is chasing leads, the murderer is killing more people, and each kill is preceded by a creepy children's song--the murderers calling card.
This song is the first clue, and that makes perfect sense that he should follow that lead. Then he is told by one of the psyhic's friends of a book that he had read by an author that said that sometimes in haunted houses you hear children singing and that usually indicates that there was a murder in that place. Or something. So Marcus decides he wants to read that book himself. The book tells of a folk legend about a house in Rome that someone heard screaming in, but when they investigated no one was there.
Marcus then decides that the person who wrote the book must KNOW SOMETHING about the murderer, even though that's a stupid conclusion at which one could arrive. Then all of a sudden, the book's author is killed by the murderer. For the rest of the film, we are given no explanation as to how these things are connected. As a matter of fact, with each of the clues we are given no explanation as to how they go back to the murderer in question.
So Marcus pursues another lead: visiting the house from the book that he read. He gets a key to the property by some guy, and proceeds to explore the house, where he defaces a wall and discovers a weird and creepy drawing of a child holding hands with some bleeding lunatic. He decides to come back that night, where glass from the window above falls down on his head. Why he is back at the house again, I'm not sure. Whether or not this drawing is connected to the murderer, also left pretty vague. He comes back a few nights later after he realizes that in the picture of the house that he tore from the author's book there's a window missing, he proceeds to deface the outside wall of the house. He then falls off the second story, concludes that's probably a bad idea, and then enters the house to try and get in this hidden room from the other side.
So already our hero has destroyed the inside wall of the house where the creepy painting was, he's destroyed the outside wall of the house before giving up on it, and then he destroys the inside wall of the house wherein he discovers a hidden room with a dead body.
This is a huge clue. Perhaps it means the killer is highly skilled in building houses, because they managed to seal off this room pretty nicely.
No, actually, the fact that the killer had the room sealed of course, is not mentioned or brought up ever again. Add to the fact that the killer would have had to find someone to come and seal the CREEPY DEAD BODY in the room without question and without turning the killer in...le sigh. This movie's plot is a mess.
The final clue is that the daughter of the house's caretaker has taken a liking to a grotesque drawing that looks similar to the painting on the wall of the house. She reveals that she found it at her school while being punished for doing something bad. So Marcus FUCKING BREAKS INTO THE SCHOOL. Is this school abandoned? Why are these details not given to us? This guy literally has no problems breaking and entering and destroying property that is not his, and yet he doesn't have the sense to go back to the psychic's apartment to look around.
They go through the archives of the school and Marcus figures out the mystery: the child who drew the pictures is his friend Carlo (remember him from way back?) Carlo tries to kill Marcus but fails, and he escapes before the police can catch him, only for him to have the silliest death scene I've ever witnessed in a film. Whilst running away, he hits a big truck and he foot is caught on some thing that is hanging off the truck's back end. He is dragged all over the road screaming and the drivers don't notice. This goes on for literally half a minute until the truck makes a turn and he bangs his head on the side of the road, knocking him out. Finally, to add insult to injury, a speeding car runs over and crushes his head, finally killing him. Tell me that is not the dumbest thing you've ever heard. It was more dumb to witness, trust me.
So Marcus concludes that the killer is his friend Carlo, even THOUGH HE KNEW THAT CARLO WASN'T THE KILLER BECAUSE HE SAW CARLO DOWN ON THE STREET AS THE KILLER WAS WALKING AWAY. What. The FUCK. So at this point Marcus is a complete idiot. Then he has...A REVELATION! The killer couldn't have been Carlo, because of THE REASONS I MENTIONED ABOVE.
So Marcus decides to do that thing that I've wanted him to do for the entire movie that he was way too stupid to do: he finally goes back to the psychic's apartment to look around. It is only here that he realizes how dumb he was. The odd painting he saw earlier in the film wasn't a painting at all. It was a mirror, and he realizes that he's seen the killer's face.
Wow, Marcus. You probably could have figured that one out if you just went back here earlier in the fucking film, because none of the clues you were given led you to that conclusion. It was only when you went back to the apartment did you figure it out, and the clues don't fucking matter. It isn't clear why the murderer does what they do anyway. This film's plot is a fucking joke. The movie is beautifully shot and the tension and suspense are there, but when the plot revolves around a complete idiot trying to solve a crime it falls apart.
The reason I'm so irate is that when it comes to a murder mystery, a movie/story that demands audience participation, you want to make everything absolutely clear to the audience and not have things be muddled up and characters who the audience can trust will not be illogical or unreasonable in their actions, UNLESS THAT'S THE POINT OF THE STORY.
If that was the whole point of the movie, that he was too dumb to solve the crime, the film makers didn't make much of an effort to confirm that to the audience. We are left to conclude that our main character, the mystery solver, is a complete idiot and a reckless lawbreaker.
I give this film a C-. For a mystery murder, this film does a horrible job with the mystery, and that kinda ruins the entire point of the film. The plot is frustrating as fuck but the visuals, creepiness, atmosphere and what not slightly make up for it.
The film in question is by a very well respected horror/giallo guru, Dario Argento. The name may sound familiar to more-than-casual horror fans as the man who helped Romero finance his famous Dawn of the Dead.
Argento, however, was well known before his connection to the Zombie King, having made several well received giallo/suspense films during the early-to-mid 1970s (Bird With The Crystal Plumage, 1970; Suspiria, 1977).
To people who don't know, Giallo films are whodunit mysteries, typically made by Italian film makers, that accentuate the violence of the murders. Giallo films are very closely connected to the slasher films of the '80s, as directors of eighties slashers took inspiration from these predecessors. Deep Red is a giallo, a murder mystery whodunit slasher, and that is precisely what the film gets wrong.
Diving into the film is a mystery in and of itself. There are three versions of the film. One that is 128 minutes long that was originally released in Italy (with dubbing on some scenes incomplete) one that Argento edited himself, which was 105 minutes long, and a US version that is 98 minutes long. The 105 minute version is supposedly the director's "definitive" version, and I'm pretty sure that's the version that's on Netflix.
Before I get into an angry rant, I wanted to make something clear. Let it not be said that this film isn't beautiful. It is wonderfully shot with a good budget and it looks better than most of the '80s films that it would inspire. The set locations are beautiful as well, and the lighting is pitch perfect. The suspense the film offers is pitch perfect as well, and the combination of suspense and lighting makes things even better.
Also, whilst he was exploring the apartment before the police arrive, he looks out the window and manages to catch a glimpse of the killer, and he sees his friend Carlo below. Carlo, however, is unable to identify the murderer.
However, he then forgets about pursuing any leads about the painting even when he decides to do his own off-the-record investigation. You may argue that he forgets about the painting and that one of the themes of the film is memory. However, he wont stop talking about the damn painting to the characters he interacts with. He then proceeds to spend the entire film breaking into and destroying houses and schools, without regard of getting caught by the police. He demonstrates that he has no qualms of breaking and entering a property but he chooses not to return to the apartment where the psychic was murdered to get a closer look at her paintings again, choosing only to do so at the end of the film after we've sat through a convoluted mess of clues he chooses to follow that are also completely nonsensical.
All the time he is chasing leads, the murderer is killing more people, and each kill is preceded by a creepy children's song--the murderers calling card.
This song is the first clue, and that makes perfect sense that he should follow that lead. Then he is told by one of the psyhic's friends of a book that he had read by an author that said that sometimes in haunted houses you hear children singing and that usually indicates that there was a murder in that place. Or something. So Marcus decides he wants to read that book himself. The book tells of a folk legend about a house in Rome that someone heard screaming in, but when they investigated no one was there.
Marcus then decides that the person who wrote the book must KNOW SOMETHING about the murderer, even though that's a stupid conclusion at which one could arrive. Then all of a sudden, the book's author is killed by the murderer. For the rest of the film, we are given no explanation as to how these things are connected. As a matter of fact, with each of the clues we are given no explanation as to how they go back to the murderer in question.
So Marcus pursues another lead: visiting the house from the book that he read. He gets a key to the property by some guy, and proceeds to explore the house, where he defaces a wall and discovers a weird and creepy drawing of a child holding hands with some bleeding lunatic. He decides to come back that night, where glass from the window above falls down on his head. Why he is back at the house again, I'm not sure. Whether or not this drawing is connected to the murderer, also left pretty vague. He comes back a few nights later after he realizes that in the picture of the house that he tore from the author's book there's a window missing, he proceeds to deface the outside wall of the house. He then falls off the second story, concludes that's probably a bad idea, and then enters the house to try and get in this hidden room from the other side.
So already our hero has destroyed the inside wall of the house where the creepy painting was, he's destroyed the outside wall of the house before giving up on it, and then he destroys the inside wall of the house wherein he discovers a hidden room with a dead body.
No, actually, the fact that the killer had the room sealed of course, is not mentioned or brought up ever again. Add to the fact that the killer would have had to find someone to come and seal the CREEPY DEAD BODY in the room without question and without turning the killer in...le sigh. This movie's plot is a mess.
The final clue is that the daughter of the house's caretaker has taken a liking to a grotesque drawing that looks similar to the painting on the wall of the house. She reveals that she found it at her school while being punished for doing something bad. So Marcus FUCKING BREAKS INTO THE SCHOOL. Is this school abandoned? Why are these details not given to us? This guy literally has no problems breaking and entering and destroying property that is not his, and yet he doesn't have the sense to go back to the psychic's apartment to look around.
They go through the archives of the school and Marcus figures out the mystery: the child who drew the pictures is his friend Carlo (remember him from way back?) Carlo tries to kill Marcus but fails, and he escapes before the police can catch him, only for him to have the silliest death scene I've ever witnessed in a film. Whilst running away, he hits a big truck and he foot is caught on some thing that is hanging off the truck's back end. He is dragged all over the road screaming and the drivers don't notice. This goes on for literally half a minute until the truck makes a turn and he bangs his head on the side of the road, knocking him out. Finally, to add insult to injury, a speeding car runs over and crushes his head, finally killing him. Tell me that is not the dumbest thing you've ever heard. It was more dumb to witness, trust me.
So Marcus concludes that the killer is his friend Carlo, even THOUGH HE KNEW THAT CARLO WASN'T THE KILLER BECAUSE HE SAW CARLO DOWN ON THE STREET AS THE KILLER WAS WALKING AWAY. What. The FUCK. So at this point Marcus is a complete idiot. Then he has...A REVELATION! The killer couldn't have been Carlo, because of THE REASONS I MENTIONED ABOVE.
So Marcus decides to do that thing that I've wanted him to do for the entire movie that he was way too stupid to do: he finally goes back to the psychic's apartment to look around. It is only here that he realizes how dumb he was. The odd painting he saw earlier in the film wasn't a painting at all. It was a mirror, and he realizes that he's seen the killer's face.
Wow, Marcus. You probably could have figured that one out if you just went back here earlier in the fucking film, because none of the clues you were given led you to that conclusion. It was only when you went back to the apartment did you figure it out, and the clues don't fucking matter. It isn't clear why the murderer does what they do anyway. This film's plot is a fucking joke. The movie is beautifully shot and the tension and suspense are there, but when the plot revolves around a complete idiot trying to solve a crime it falls apart.
The reason I'm so irate is that when it comes to a murder mystery, a movie/story that demands audience participation, you want to make everything absolutely clear to the audience and not have things be muddled up and characters who the audience can trust will not be illogical or unreasonable in their actions, UNLESS THAT'S THE POINT OF THE STORY.
If that was the whole point of the movie, that he was too dumb to solve the crime, the film makers didn't make much of an effort to confirm that to the audience. We are left to conclude that our main character, the mystery solver, is a complete idiot and a reckless lawbreaker.
I give this film a C-. For a mystery murder, this film does a horrible job with the mystery, and that kinda ruins the entire point of the film. The plot is frustrating as fuck but the visuals, creepiness, atmosphere and what not slightly make up for it.
Monday, July 16, 2012
Friday the 13th: The Final Chapter FOR NOW Review
Get ready, it's time for:
I really dig how blogspot auto formats these pictures to the center. But I'm really not digging this poster as much as the others.
Much better. It actually has something to look at. Plus, it's the one I remember seeing all those years ago.
It would have probably been much better if I had reviewed this film immediately after watching it. Unfortunately, since I practically watched 2, 3, and 4 back to back, parts of them are bleeding into each other. That's not a mark against these films, that's just the way I watched them. They are practically one super slasher film divided into 3, anyway, so that doesn't matter much.
The film begins with a pretty excellent sequence set in the hospital, where we are immediately made aware that the forensic pathologist is having a fling with a member of his nursing staff. They like to get down and dirty in the dead room! The body of Jason, retrieved from Higgen's Haven, is brought in and he is presumed dead. However, don't just assume that you can kill a madman by poking him with a stick (that didn't actually happen, but no one has bothered to try and actually kill and finish off Jason.) Jason wakes up and kills the doctor and escapes the hospital to have one final killing spree. Until he is revived as a zombie in Part 6.
I think my surprise at how good Part 3 was really led me to be disappointed with this film. Don't get me wrong, it's still top notch. I repeat this in every review, but the studios knew that the F13 series would be a money maker, and they gave the films a decent budget, which means that the quality of these films is slightly higher than that of other standalone slasher films. Part 3, however, did everything right. It had a great atmosphere, it felt really REALLY eighties to me, the characters were fun and the kills were pretty awesome.
When it comes to Part 4, it is very apparent that the film makers are gaining awareness of the genre's tropes, and are playing them against the audience. For instance, there is one girl who the film makers tease to be the final girl, but she doesn't even make it to the end. This causes some dissonance, but I think it's also a fault of the increased body count. The film basically jumps between two parties--one of the horny teenagers we've come to expect out of these films who are literally partying, and a family who has a home on Crystal Lake property that lives nearby consisting of a mother, her daughter and her little son Tommy, who is the movie's hero. There's also a guy in the movie who is hunting Jason down to avenge the death of his sister, who Jason speared in Part 2.
There are way too many characters to keep up with and with few exceptions, they all kind of bleed into each other because they weren't given enough time to individually distinguish themselves to the audience's mind before being killed off. The only characters in this movie that are clearly identified to the audience are a girl who wants to have more attention from boys because she's envious of her friend (McSlut Special), Crispin Glover because he is having hangs up about a girl he dated, Tommy the boy who is really talented at making prosthetics, and the Sister Avenger. Crispin Glover's friend is also memorable, and he gets in just enough characterization before he is killed from behind a projector screen.
The film does have some pretty memorable kills, and that's because the great Tom Savini is back. Tom had done the effects in the original film, mind you. I think the best kill in the movie would once again have to go to someone getting his face crushed in by Jason.
One great thing about this movie is that we finally get a hero we can root for--Tommy Jarvis. Like Michael Myers and Dr. Loomis, like Sidney Prescott and (whoever is) Ghostface, Tommy is our guy for the next few movies. Even if he isn't given too much importance over the next few installments, he will forever go down in history as the one to kill Jason Voorhees, and he did it at such a young age. The kid is a Gladiator, I'm telling you.
This movie did give me a lot of good eighties vibes, but there wasn't too much showing off of the set location this time around unlike Part 3, so you never really got a good sense of your surroundings. However, how important shit like that is to the film is up for questioning. It's a great film, a great addition to the saga, but I'm still squeeing over Part 3.
I am giving Friday the 13: The Final Chapter (yeah right) a B.
I really dig how blogspot auto formats these pictures to the center. But I'm really not digging this poster as much as the others.
Much better. It actually has something to look at. Plus, it's the one I remember seeing all those years ago.
It would have probably been much better if I had reviewed this film immediately after watching it. Unfortunately, since I practically watched 2, 3, and 4 back to back, parts of them are bleeding into each other. That's not a mark against these films, that's just the way I watched them. They are practically one super slasher film divided into 3, anyway, so that doesn't matter much.
The film begins with a pretty excellent sequence set in the hospital, where we are immediately made aware that the forensic pathologist is having a fling with a member of his nursing staff. They like to get down and dirty in the dead room! The body of Jason, retrieved from Higgen's Haven, is brought in and he is presumed dead. However, don't just assume that you can kill a madman by poking him with a stick (that didn't actually happen, but no one has bothered to try and actually kill and finish off Jason.) Jason wakes up and kills the doctor and escapes the hospital to have one final killing spree. Until he is revived as a zombie in Part 6.
I think my surprise at how good Part 3 was really led me to be disappointed with this film. Don't get me wrong, it's still top notch. I repeat this in every review, but the studios knew that the F13 series would be a money maker, and they gave the films a decent budget, which means that the quality of these films is slightly higher than that of other standalone slasher films. Part 3, however, did everything right. It had a great atmosphere, it felt really REALLY eighties to me, the characters were fun and the kills were pretty awesome.
When it comes to Part 4, it is very apparent that the film makers are gaining awareness of the genre's tropes, and are playing them against the audience. For instance, there is one girl who the film makers tease to be the final girl, but she doesn't even make it to the end. This causes some dissonance, but I think it's also a fault of the increased body count. The film basically jumps between two parties--one of the horny teenagers we've come to expect out of these films who are literally partying, and a family who has a home on Crystal Lake property that lives nearby consisting of a mother, her daughter and her little son Tommy, who is the movie's hero. There's also a guy in the movie who is hunting Jason down to avenge the death of his sister, who Jason speared in Part 2.
There are way too many characters to keep up with and with few exceptions, they all kind of bleed into each other because they weren't given enough time to individually distinguish themselves to the audience's mind before being killed off. The only characters in this movie that are clearly identified to the audience are a girl who wants to have more attention from boys because she's envious of her friend (McSlut Special), Crispin Glover because he is having hangs up about a girl he dated, Tommy the boy who is really talented at making prosthetics, and the Sister Avenger. Crispin Glover's friend is also memorable, and he gets in just enough characterization before he is killed from behind a projector screen.
The film does have some pretty memorable kills, and that's because the great Tom Savini is back. Tom had done the effects in the original film, mind you. I think the best kill in the movie would once again have to go to someone getting his face crushed in by Jason.
One great thing about this movie is that we finally get a hero we can root for--Tommy Jarvis. Like Michael Myers and Dr. Loomis, like Sidney Prescott and (whoever is) Ghostface, Tommy is our guy for the next few movies. Even if he isn't given too much importance over the next few installments, he will forever go down in history as the one to kill Jason Voorhees, and he did it at such a young age. The kid is a Gladiator, I'm telling you.
This movie did give me a lot of good eighties vibes, but there wasn't too much showing off of the set location this time around unlike Part 3, so you never really got a good sense of your surroundings. However, how important shit like that is to the film is up for questioning. It's a great film, a great addition to the saga, but I'm still squeeing over Part 3.
THINGS I HATE that people do on the internet.
I absolutely hate it when someone on the internet is given criticism about their grammar, and their response is, "stfu bro its da innernette i can do watev."
This is a PISS POOR EXCUSE. I realize I may make some grammar mistakes from time to time, but if u tlk lik dis all da tym you and anyone who defends you should not get butt hurt when someone calls you out on it.
This is a PISS POOR EXCUSE. I realize I may make some grammar mistakes from time to time, but if u tlk lik dis all da tym you and anyone who defends you should not get butt hurt when someone calls you out on it.
On the 3D Craze/Friday the 13th Part 3 Review
Having the opportunity to see Parts 2, 3, and 4 back to back, it almost acts like one long movie. They each take place merely a day after each other, so everything was pretty neat and consistent with each other. This is what I really liked about Halloween 2, so it was nice to see the saga of Jason play out in that manner.
Which leads us to today's review.
Friday the 13th Part 3
Gawrsh, don't you just love these movie posters? I remember being a kid wondering through the video store while my mother was grocery shopping, and I always looked at the horror tape covers to determine what the plot of the movie was about. I also remember seeing a really nasty looking Jason on the back cover of one of them reaching in through a window, but I can't remember which one it was.
When this movie was first released, it was made to be watched in 3D. 3D, surprisingly, has been around for nearly half of the 20th century, and it seems to fade in and out of popularity. Recently, however, it has made a comeback, and this time it seems to be more than just a fad, as companies like Nintendo are making games and systems that support 3D, there are TVs that have 3D capability, its crazy.
Back then, of course, 3D was just a fun little fad. Along with Friday the 13th Part 3, Jaws was in 3D, Amityville was 3D, Captain Eo was 3D (and thanks to the death of the beloved and reviled Michael Jackson, Eo is back at Disney World.)
Now, I do believe that there is an edition of Friday part 3 released recently with the option to turn on the 3D effects, but since I was on Netflix I only got the standard version. By the by, most, if not all of the Friday the 13th films are on Netflix as we speak. You should definitely go check them out right now!
The film begins a day after the massacre around Crystal Lake in part 2. Right off the bat, this film gives off that great '80s vibe I love about these old slasher films. Kinda makes me nostalgic for my childhood for some reason.
A couple of kids are going to a summer cabin they rented out around the Crystal Lake property. Since its a day after the events of the first film, and word hasn't really gotten out yet about the madman wondering around Crystal Lake, its excusable for these kids to be completely oblivious. When they arrive at their summer cabin, the clothes come off, the drugs come out, and the guts start flying.
Once again, the characters here have just enough characterization to familiarize with them, and that's not a bad thing. In these types of films serious characterization isn't really needed, aside from the Final Girl. In this movie, the final girl, Chris, had a run in with Jason a few years before this film, frightening her away from the property. Now, however, she comes back to face her demon, literally.
Besides Chris, you have Shelly, the token prankster, yet I think he's the only prankster character in this series so far that has made me largely sympathetic for him. There are two hippies who act as chaperones to the kids who do nothing but smoke pot and make 3D popcorn, there are three bikers who literally look like extras from Michael Jackson's Beat It music video who make trouble for our young teens.
Higgen's Haven, the summer cabin property, serves as the setting for our characters American Pie-ish exploits. Most of the secondary cast are people who are trying to get laid (Maybe that's why I was confused when no one started dying in American Pie.) Higgen's Haven is a beautiful and highly atmospheric location, possibly the best of the series thus far.
The kills are fun and take advantage of the 3D effects. The most memorable in this movie is when one of the characters gets their head crushed in and one of their eyeballs pop out towards the screen. Even though it wasn't in 3D, it still made me say "Whoa" aloud when it happened.
Overall, this film was better than the second in terms of overall quality, atmosphere, and kills. It really feels like in this film, the film makers found their niche.. Unfortunately, this film also suffers the same criticism I gave the last film. Why is Jason still alive and why didn't he go look for his momma when she was still around?
I'm giving Friday the 13th Part 3 a B+. Hopefully the fun will continue in the next film.
Which leads us to today's review.
Gawrsh, don't you just love these movie posters? I remember being a kid wondering through the video store while my mother was grocery shopping, and I always looked at the horror tape covers to determine what the plot of the movie was about. I also remember seeing a really nasty looking Jason on the back cover of one of them reaching in through a window, but I can't remember which one it was.
When this movie was first released, it was made to be watched in 3D. 3D, surprisingly, has been around for nearly half of the 20th century, and it seems to fade in and out of popularity. Recently, however, it has made a comeback, and this time it seems to be more than just a fad, as companies like Nintendo are making games and systems that support 3D, there are TVs that have 3D capability, its crazy.
Back then, of course, 3D was just a fun little fad. Along with Friday the 13th Part 3, Jaws was in 3D, Amityville was 3D, Captain Eo was 3D (and thanks to the death of the beloved and reviled Michael Jackson, Eo is back at Disney World.)
Now, I do believe that there is an edition of Friday part 3 released recently with the option to turn on the 3D effects, but since I was on Netflix I only got the standard version. By the by, most, if not all of the Friday the 13th films are on Netflix as we speak. You should definitely go check them out right now!
The film begins a day after the massacre around Crystal Lake in part 2. Right off the bat, this film gives off that great '80s vibe I love about these old slasher films. Kinda makes me nostalgic for my childhood for some reason.
A couple of kids are going to a summer cabin they rented out around the Crystal Lake property. Since its a day after the events of the first film, and word hasn't really gotten out yet about the madman wondering around Crystal Lake, its excusable for these kids to be completely oblivious. When they arrive at their summer cabin, the clothes come off, the drugs come out, and the guts start flying.
Once again, the characters here have just enough characterization to familiarize with them, and that's not a bad thing. In these types of films serious characterization isn't really needed, aside from the Final Girl. In this movie, the final girl, Chris, had a run in with Jason a few years before this film, frightening her away from the property. Now, however, she comes back to face her demon, literally.
Besides Chris, you have Shelly, the token prankster, yet I think he's the only prankster character in this series so far that has made me largely sympathetic for him. There are two hippies who act as chaperones to the kids who do nothing but smoke pot and make 3D popcorn, there are three bikers who literally look like extras from Michael Jackson's Beat It music video who make trouble for our young teens.
Higgen's Haven, the summer cabin property, serves as the setting for our characters American Pie-ish exploits. Most of the secondary cast are people who are trying to get laid (Maybe that's why I was confused when no one started dying in American Pie.) Higgen's Haven is a beautiful and highly atmospheric location, possibly the best of the series thus far.
The kills are fun and take advantage of the 3D effects. The most memorable in this movie is when one of the characters gets their head crushed in and one of their eyeballs pop out towards the screen. Even though it wasn't in 3D, it still made me say "Whoa" aloud when it happened.
Overall, this film was better than the second in terms of overall quality, atmosphere, and kills. It really feels like in this film, the film makers found their niche.. Unfortunately, this film also suffers the same criticism I gave the last film. Why is Jason still alive and why didn't he go look for his momma when she was still around?
Sunday, July 15, 2012
When The Bodies Pile Up
Yes, two posts in one night. As I explained below, I have been watching the Friday the 13th films (at least 2-5) and something bothered me very much in 4.
Trish is running from Jason and she's the one who gets to discover all the dead bodies that Jason has posed up for her (as per slasher film ritual). Nothing wrong with that, that's a genre tradition. What bothers me though, is how not very well thought out this sequence is.
So Trish opens the front door and is about to run out when she discovers a dead body lying there. Instead of just stepping over the body and running up the road, she decides that the body acts like those annoying characters in RPG games that block paths from you because you haven't completed an objective. She screams at the body and turns around and runs to the back door, where Crispin Glover is suspended on clothes lines. This is more understandable, because his body is literally blocking the door. The other body is positioned on the ground where it is extremely easy to step over. So Trish decides to chuck a chair through the window and climb out, which is much more difficult than stepping over a body.
I may be looking too much into it, as the sequence lasts no less than 15 seconds. Maybe Trish is just very respectful to the dead bodies of her peers. Or maybe they mapped that sequence wrong.
Trish is running from Jason and she's the one who gets to discover all the dead bodies that Jason has posed up for her (as per slasher film ritual). Nothing wrong with that, that's a genre tradition. What bothers me though, is how not very well thought out this sequence is.
So Trish opens the front door and is about to run out when she discovers a dead body lying there. Instead of just stepping over the body and running up the road, she decides that the body acts like those annoying characters in RPG games that block paths from you because you haven't completed an objective. She screams at the body and turns around and runs to the back door, where Crispin Glover is suspended on clothes lines. This is more understandable, because his body is literally blocking the door. The other body is positioned on the ground where it is extremely easy to step over. So Trish decides to chuck a chair through the window and climb out, which is much more difficult than stepping over a body.
I may be looking too much into it, as the sequence lasts no less than 15 seconds. Maybe Trish is just very respectful to the dead bodies of her peers. Or maybe they mapped that sequence wrong.
Thoughts on Horror Coverage Sites/Friday the 13th Part 2 Review
First off, I wanted to say hello! I am quite a horror aficionado, but I like all genres of film, really, and I thought it would be nice if I shoved my opinion about films in your face like other people on the internet. Granted, since this site may probably only be for horror movie reviews, I'm going to try to refrain from doing what other horror movie review blogs/sites do and have some cheesy set up, where the ratings are pictures of bloody machetes (THIS FILM GETS 4 OUT OF 5 BLOODY MACHETES!) and they have dripping blood as scroll-locked backgrounds. With this blog I wanted to keep things simple. I found a goofy little font that I like and I'm going to use it and abuse it.
I don't want to sound like I don't like those websites for having their formats, because I freaking love them. However, just to be different (ooh, hipster) and also because I'm too lazy to fix this blog up so that it doesn't look boring (ooh, lethargic!) So, if you're coming in here to read my shit, I apologize if it's a little bland.
Anyway, on to the movie reviews! (By the way, my reviews will be spoiler filled (and by spoilers I mean I reveal the fates of characters in the film. I will never reveal details if it is important to the plot, and I will try to preserve any real secrets films have to offer the audience))
I pride myself on being very fair when it comes to movies. These days opinions on movies are very extreme. Either the film was a masterpiece of cinema or it was a turd ferguson. Especially on the internet and other media, reviews tend to be very polarizing. So rest assured, I will give a highly unbiased and fair review to the movies that find their way onto my blog.
The first is
Friday the 13th Part 2.
Yes, I'm 30+ years late on this one, but I was born in 1990, so sue me. This past Friday was Friday the 13th, and having nothing much to do I decided I was going to stop being a snob and finally watch the sequels to the wonderful Friday the 13th. I have always avoided them in the past (for reasons I will explain later). To begin with, Part 2 starts right off where the first ended with our heroine Alice, who is killed in her home by some mysterious murderer. Strange, is it Mrs. Voorhees back from the dead or is there going to be another mystery villain waiting to monologue to us at the end?
Of course, most people know where this is going. It's JASON VOORHEES, the son of Mrs. Voorhees! Sans the famous hockey mask that he will acquire in the next film, but I find bagheadedness to be equally visually intriguing. After Alice is dispatched with, we meet a whole new gang of teenagers who are setting up a summer camp near the property of Camp Crystal Lake. Oh, and its been five years since the events of the original film.
Now, I feel like people give a lot of these '80s slashers a bad rap when it comes to character development. I have never had any problems with character development in slasher films. The characters display enough of their personality for the audience to get to know what they are like, and it can't be denied that slasher film characters are fun and know how to have fun. They are three dimensional enough without having the movie focus on being a character study. Anyway, they start getting killed off by the mystery killer (who is Jason) and events pretty much transpire the same way they did in the first film.
The kills are fun and shocking, its highly atmospheric, and as far as quality goes, it's far ahead of its slasher peers (with exceptions, of course).
Now, as part of my criticisms for this movie (and the F13 franchise in general) I will spill why I have actively avoided watching these films all these years. Slasher films are notorious for their plots. This film is no different. I found myself asking why they chose to bring Jason back. Yeah, Mrs. Voorhees was dead and they wanted a sequel, but the internal logic of how he survived his drowning is extremely flawed. If he did survive his drowning, why didn't he just find his way back to camp to his mommy? Apparently she lived close by all these years because she kept sabotaging everyone's attempt to reopen Crystal Lake, and Jason has supposedly been living off the land very near the camp property, so, why wasn't he actively seeking her? Even though he was deformed (and possibly mentally handicapped) the film makers made it obvious that Jason is not a big dumb lumbering hulk. He meticulously stalks and sets traps for his prey, which requires a great deal of thinking and planning. If they had just made it some crazy psycho (a la Michael Myers before they gave him a motive in H2, or Billy from Black Christmas) the film would probably hold up better.
The first film was surprising in that it did have a really nice story going on. Summer camps are the perfect place for accidents to happen. I've been to many summer camps in the course of my life and someone always gets hurt. In the first film, an innocent boy drowns because no one is there to supervise him. Instead, the counselors in charge are off doing naughty things (or whatever) Add to the fact that Mrs. Voorhees could possible have been a little unhinged even at the beginning before his death, and the fact that she was definitely dwelling on her loss for however many odd years, that shit could drive anyone insane. The point is, the internal logic of the film was very consistent. It was a neat little murder mystery that handled the who/what/when/where of these types of films very well.
Despite this criticism, it doesn't ruin the fun of Part 2 (or any of its good sequels) one bit. Watching a slasher movie should be like going on a fun ride at an amusement park.
I'm giving Friday the 13th Part 2 a B.
For the future, my movie ratings will be rankings from A to F, like school.
I don't want to sound like I don't like those websites for having their formats, because I freaking love them. However, just to be different (ooh, hipster) and also because I'm too lazy to fix this blog up so that it doesn't look boring (ooh, lethargic!) So, if you're coming in here to read my shit, I apologize if it's a little bland.
Anyway, on to the movie reviews! (By the way, my reviews will be spoiler filled (and by spoilers I mean I reveal the fates of characters in the film. I will never reveal details if it is important to the plot, and I will try to preserve any real secrets films have to offer the audience))
I pride myself on being very fair when it comes to movies. These days opinions on movies are very extreme. Either the film was a masterpiece of cinema or it was a turd ferguson. Especially on the internet and other media, reviews tend to be very polarizing. So rest assured, I will give a highly unbiased and fair review to the movies that find their way onto my blog.
The first is
Friday the 13th Part 2.
Yes, I'm 30+ years late on this one, but I was born in 1990, so sue me. This past Friday was Friday the 13th, and having nothing much to do I decided I was going to stop being a snob and finally watch the sequels to the wonderful Friday the 13th. I have always avoided them in the past (for reasons I will explain later). To begin with, Part 2 starts right off where the first ended with our heroine Alice, who is killed in her home by some mysterious murderer. Strange, is it Mrs. Voorhees back from the dead or is there going to be another mystery villain waiting to monologue to us at the end?
Of course, most people know where this is going. It's JASON VOORHEES, the son of Mrs. Voorhees! Sans the famous hockey mask that he will acquire in the next film, but I find bagheadedness to be equally visually intriguing. After Alice is dispatched with, we meet a whole new gang of teenagers who are setting up a summer camp near the property of Camp Crystal Lake. Oh, and its been five years since the events of the original film.
Now, I feel like people give a lot of these '80s slashers a bad rap when it comes to character development. I have never had any problems with character development in slasher films. The characters display enough of their personality for the audience to get to know what they are like, and it can't be denied that slasher film characters are fun and know how to have fun. They are three dimensional enough without having the movie focus on being a character study. Anyway, they start getting killed off by the mystery killer (who is Jason) and events pretty much transpire the same way they did in the first film.
The kills are fun and shocking, its highly atmospheric, and as far as quality goes, it's far ahead of its slasher peers (with exceptions, of course).
Now, as part of my criticisms for this movie (and the F13 franchise in general) I will spill why I have actively avoided watching these films all these years. Slasher films are notorious for their plots. This film is no different. I found myself asking why they chose to bring Jason back. Yeah, Mrs. Voorhees was dead and they wanted a sequel, but the internal logic of how he survived his drowning is extremely flawed. If he did survive his drowning, why didn't he just find his way back to camp to his mommy? Apparently she lived close by all these years because she kept sabotaging everyone's attempt to reopen Crystal Lake, and Jason has supposedly been living off the land very near the camp property, so, why wasn't he actively seeking her? Even though he was deformed (and possibly mentally handicapped) the film makers made it obvious that Jason is not a big dumb lumbering hulk. He meticulously stalks and sets traps for his prey, which requires a great deal of thinking and planning. If they had just made it some crazy psycho (a la Michael Myers before they gave him a motive in H2, or Billy from Black Christmas) the film would probably hold up better.
The first film was surprising in that it did have a really nice story going on. Summer camps are the perfect place for accidents to happen. I've been to many summer camps in the course of my life and someone always gets hurt. In the first film, an innocent boy drowns because no one is there to supervise him. Instead, the counselors in charge are off doing naughty things (or whatever) Add to the fact that Mrs. Voorhees could possible have been a little unhinged even at the beginning before his death, and the fact that she was definitely dwelling on her loss for however many odd years, that shit could drive anyone insane. The point is, the internal logic of the film was very consistent. It was a neat little murder mystery that handled the who/what/when/where of these types of films very well.
Despite this criticism, it doesn't ruin the fun of Part 2 (or any of its good sequels) one bit. Watching a slasher movie should be like going on a fun ride at an amusement park.
For the future, my movie ratings will be rankings from A to F, like school.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)