- This movie should not have been PG-13. I'm not sure what kind of nightmares Christian Bale and Heath Ledger are going to give kids, but it ain't gonna be pretty.
- I think the Joker is Zizek's "sticky metaphor" for the emptiness at the center of PoMo film. He is the center/monster around which everything revolves in this movie, and he is the agent of chaos, the emptiness at the center of humanity and civilization who sees the man behind the curtain so to speak. He has no faith in plans, schemers, or authority. No truck with money or logic. He is in the moment so utterly and completely that his past is a mishmash of lies (at least in this film, though not in the graphic novels). His past doesn't matter, and he couldn't care less about his future. He lives, impulsively, moment to moment, and--as a gangster (well played by Eric Roberts) summed it up--he has no rules. His philosophy is the focus of the film and the connector for all the different story lines, characters, etc. This nothingness, this nihilistic chaos-birther is the center of the movie's plot and theme. This is the monster that Zizek's modernist filmmakers won't show, but it is the way PoMo film shows most of its characters--through the monster and persona non grata.
8.28.2008
Random Thoughts on Dark Knight (I know it's not a Horror Movie)
These are two first thoughts on Nolan's Dark Knight, so they'll be fairly rough and incomprehensible at first.
6.20.2008
Fear Itself (2008-)
From what I've seen of this show (which is only two episodes: "Family Man" and "Spooked," but I'll keep watching and reviewing) it's not going to make it to a second season. It's an interesting, fresh, and very welcome idea, but I think NBC has so emasculated the horror potential of all of these episodes that they're not really scary.
"Spooked" with Eric Roberts was pitiful. There was nothing suspenseful or scary about this episode at all, I thought. The only thing mildly freaky was the radio static from the his past misdeeds coming through on the surveillance system. That's not much to keep an hour-long show that's supposed to be scary (hence the title) moving forward.
"Family Man" was a much better outing, and the acting on this episode was quite good. However, it followed the same formula as "Spooked": set up the tension, play it out for awhile, then resolve it but with a twist in the end. It's like the wash-outs from the M. Night. Shyamalan School of Plot Twists got together and decided to write hour-long TV episodes. There's a twist at the end, but unlike most Shyamalan flicks, the twist is telegraphed for most of the show; you can see it coming a mile away. I'm inclined to think it's insulting to the TV audience, but since there seems to be no way to accomplish that (see: Deal or No Deal, America's Got Talent (just look at the judges' table on this one: it's an all-star tribute to crap) , and Nashville Star to name a few just from NBC), I guess I'd be wrong there.
"Spooked" with Eric Roberts was pitiful. There was nothing suspenseful or scary about this episode at all, I thought. The only thing mildly freaky was the radio static from the his past misdeeds coming through on the surveillance system. That's not much to keep an hour-long show that's supposed to be scary (hence the title) moving forward.
"Family Man" was a much better outing, and the acting on this episode was quite good. However, it followed the same formula as "Spooked": set up the tension, play it out for awhile, then resolve it but with a twist in the end. It's like the wash-outs from the M. Night. Shyamalan School of Plot Twists got together and decided to write hour-long TV episodes. There's a twist at the end, but unlike most Shyamalan flicks, the twist is telegraphed for most of the show; you can see it coming a mile away. I'm inclined to think it's insulting to the TV audience, but since there seems to be no way to accomplish that (see: Deal or No Deal, America's Got Talent (just look at the judges' table on this one: it's an all-star tribute to crap) , and Nashville Star to name a few just from NBC), I guess I'd be wrong there.
Ravenous (1999)
This is an interesting little film--one I had never heard of before. It's got a lot of name-brand actors in it (Guy Pearce, pre-Memento but post-L.A. Confidential; Robert Carlyle, post-Trainspotting; Jeremy Davies, post-Saving Private Ryan; John Spencer; Neal McDonough; David Arquette), but it remains relatively unknown almost a decade later. It uses the Native American belief of the wendigo (which itself drove a terrible horror movie of the same name in 2001) arising from cannibalism.
It's interesting how the dualities play into this film. Cpt. Boyd (Pearce) ate some of his fellow soldiers in order to survive the aftermath of a battle...an animalistic act that compounded his cowardice in pretending to be dead in order to survive. Then he runs into Colqhoun/Ives who is a practicing cannibal and revels in it. What we get is Boyd confronting the Uncanny Other that is his own Id--no accident that Ives and Boyd head butt each other repeatedly in the final fight scene and then end up trapped against one another in the bear trap! (This motif also shows up in lots of other movies--the Blade and Star Wars series come to mind.) The really interesting twist, however, is that the military--what one would expect to represent the Superego or Ego--is not only complicit in the Id-drive cannibalism (Major Knox and Gen. Slauson protect Ives) but it is directly involved in it (Col. Ives, Col. Hart, Cpt. Boyd, and eventually Gen. Slauson are all cannibals)!
I'm not sure what this says--or means to say--about this struggle between Self and Other. I mean when a Col. screams "All you have to do is kill! You have to kill to live!" right after lamenting the loss of his Aristotle and Plato, you know something is bad wrong. But what is it that is wrong? The Id wants you to feed on others and grow strong, and it wants you to do this at the expense of the social structure--which, of course, is what the Ego is so concerned with preserving. So why is it that this is so closely tied to the military? Why is the military--the most structured aspect of that frontier society--the context in which the Id blossoms? Is it meant to be even more ironic? If so, then why does the Ego win out in the end? Why doesn't Boyd eat Ives? Or does the Ego win? Gen. Slauson is obviously going to become a cannibal.
It's not every movie that leaves you with more questions than answers, but this one has. Perhaps this movie will demand another posting. (I'm working on the Cloverfield follow-up, but I'm also doing some research into Alien and Aliens and Zizek, so it may take awhile.)
It's interesting how the dualities play into this film. Cpt. Boyd (Pearce) ate some of his fellow soldiers in order to survive the aftermath of a battle...an animalistic act that compounded his cowardice in pretending to be dead in order to survive. Then he runs into Colqhoun/Ives who is a practicing cannibal and revels in it. What we get is Boyd confronting the Uncanny Other that is his own Id--no accident that Ives and Boyd head butt each other repeatedly in the final fight scene and then end up trapped against one another in the bear trap! (This motif also shows up in lots of other movies--the Blade and Star Wars series come to mind.) The really interesting twist, however, is that the military--what one would expect to represent the Superego or Ego--is not only complicit in the Id-drive cannibalism (Major Knox and Gen. Slauson protect Ives) but it is directly involved in it (Col. Ives, Col. Hart, Cpt. Boyd, and eventually Gen. Slauson are all cannibals)!
I'm not sure what this says--or means to say--about this struggle between Self and Other. I mean when a Col. screams "All you have to do is kill! You have to kill to live!" right after lamenting the loss of his Aristotle and Plato, you know something is bad wrong. But what is it that is wrong? The Id wants you to feed on others and grow strong, and it wants you to do this at the expense of the social structure--which, of course, is what the Ego is so concerned with preserving. So why is it that this is so closely tied to the military? Why is the military--the most structured aspect of that frontier society--the context in which the Id blossoms? Is it meant to be even more ironic? If so, then why does the Ego win out in the end? Why doesn't Boyd eat Ives? Or does the Ego win? Gen. Slauson is obviously going to become a cannibal.
It's not every movie that leaves you with more questions than answers, but this one has. Perhaps this movie will demand another posting. (I'm working on the Cloverfield follow-up, but I'm also doing some research into Alien and Aliens and Zizek, so it may take awhile.)
6.13.2008
Cloverfield (2008), Pt. 1
This post is the first of a two-part extended meditation on the movie Cloverfield. The first post is more of the regular critique and review of the movie that (sparsely) populates this site. The second entry I envision to be a more in-depth examination of the flick in the context of some of Slavoj Žižek's theories and some cultural criticism (specifically monster theory). So avoid that one if this posting is too esoteric for you.
This movie is essentially Alien combined with Godzilla with a splash of the cinematography of The Blair Witch Project. Now, that's not to say there's something inherently wrong with taking ideas from other movies and filmmakers--and it's damn sure not to say that I'm some sort of structuralist who exist only to find patterns, homages, and borrowings in movies. To put originality on a pedestal as we have since the British Romantics held sway is a mistake in my opinion. Some of the most "original" works are also known as really shitty works; there has to be a connection with the past tradition of horror movies (or poetry, or music, or whatever). People praise things like The Blair Witch Project for its bravery in not focusing on the "monster" at the center, but Alien pioneered that back in 1979. People praise the Rolling Stones and Cream for making such a radical break with rock tradition, but all they did was combine the pop-rock that people like The Beatles and The Who had been playing with the American blues tradition. Both are new because they are operating within a tradition and they are extending that tradition, but that doesn't fulfill the sort of dreamy, inspired originality that most people think of.
All that to say there were some significant borrowings from earlier movies--some better than others. For example, I liked the Escape from New York homage with the flying head of the Statue of Liberty landing on the street in pretty much the same position as it was on the movie poster from John Carpenter's 1981 flick.
Cloverfield does, however, have some idiotic horror movie clichés. The cell phone battery dying at an inopportune time is equivalent to the bad guy cutting the phone lines or the inability to get cell service (exception: the protagonist praying for bars on his cell in Stephen King's Desperation, but I've only read the book, so it might suck in the movie version). And the characters thinking that the monster is dead, but it turns out it's not and they're not safe? How surprising to see that twist! These are two of the worst offenders to my mind. Horror movie directors and writers of the world: stop it! You're not going to get anywhere riding these dead horses.
Again (like Sgt. Apone in Aliens, Sgt. Brodski in Jason X, and One in Resident Evil), we also have a Black, tough-as-nails sergeant, but it's not nearly as egregious as it was in Resident Evil if only because they didn't steal the rest of the marine squad characters. Just thought I'd point out my favorite horror movie cliché. If you count the "hammerdown" option used by the military (and lifted from Return of the Living Dead), then this thing is chock full of clichés. Maybe not as many as the 2006 version of When a Stranger Calls, but still.
What did bother me more than anything else is how it follows (for the most part...see below for an exception) the 3-act formula of horror movies. There's a giant fucking monster attacking so let's go down into the subway tunnels to escape. Hell, even the idiot-narrator Hud knows this is a bad idea: "I just can't stop thinking how scary it would be if a flaming homeless guy came out of the dark right now...I'm sorry...I'm just saying." (That actually plays really funny in the movie, but there's too damn much of it throughout--like after Beth's rescue: Beth: "What is that?" Hud: "It's a, it's a terrible thing." Beth: "What the hell was that?" Hud: "I don't know. Something else. Also terrible." He was funny, but just overdid the whole thing--to the point where I was partially relieved when he got offed.) Anyway, it was pretty obvious that the whole subway thing was a plot device to introduce the little monsters and get the group in contact with the military.
I'm still not quite sure I know why Marlena had to die; if she did need to die, why in that particular way? I have the sneaking, terrible suspicion that her death (a la Alien) is going to be the lynch pin for the sequel that is in the works right now. (WHY?!? Didn't Abrams see Book of Shadows, the Blair Witch sequel?). My first thought was that she was going to turn into a zombie or something because she was bitten--at which case I would have likely become enraged. But Marlena's death was so odd and out of character for the rest of the movie that I think it's going to have something to do with the sequel. You heard it here first...even before Harry Knowles told you (and you didn't even have to read it in ALL CAPS).
So a lot of the knocks against this flick I'd heard were about the shakey-camcorder thing--that it was at best distracting and at worst sickening. I expected to hate it because, to me, that was the absolute worst thing about The Bourne Supremacy (I mean, all that fight choreography work, and the way it came out on the screen, it could have been a scene from You Got Served run at 1.5 speed). But, miracle of miracles, I didn't mind it too much here, but I think it might have gotten to me if I'd seen it in the theater.
One of the two things I liked best about this flick, though, was the exception to the 3-act formula I referenced before. Mad props for not selling out in the end with some sort of happy ending for Rob and Beth. Mad props for resisting the Independence Day-style "we've-figured-out-its-weakness-and-now-we-can-beat-it" bullshit. It was a ballsy move to make a movie end just like life: no answers, no grand story arc, no survivors.
The other thing I loved was the level of thought put into (almost) every facet of the film. The more I think about its intricacies, the more impressed I am. There are all sorts of little things that begin to create a clearer picture of the story--but are certainly not required to understand the basic plot-points. For instance, someone posted on the "Trivia" section for this movie at IMDb that in the very last scene when the camera is filming the ocean, if you look very closely at the horizon line on the right side of the screen, you can see a far-away object fall out of the sky and hit the water. Bingo. Hud-the-man-child-idiot's theory was right, and we are to understand that the monster came from space--despite the circumstantial evidence of Rob moving to Tokyo and the monster coming out of the ocean suggesting a Godzilla-like creature from some remote island. (A scenario also suggested by the King Kong frame supposedly spliced in.) That makes for shit luck for Coney Island--and the rest of New York--but for damn fine, detail-oriented filmmaking. So in the end, it was not as bad as it could have been, but certainly not as good as advertised, either.
Up next, 9/11, monsters, and the cultural consciousness of Americans!
This movie is essentially Alien combined with Godzilla with a splash of the cinematography of The Blair Witch Project. Now, that's not to say there's something inherently wrong with taking ideas from other movies and filmmakers--and it's damn sure not to say that I'm some sort of structuralist who exist only to find patterns, homages, and borrowings in movies. To put originality on a pedestal as we have since the British Romantics held sway is a mistake in my opinion. Some of the most "original" works are also known as really shitty works; there has to be a connection with the past tradition of horror movies (or poetry, or music, or whatever). People praise things like The Blair Witch Project for its bravery in not focusing on the "monster" at the center, but Alien pioneered that back in 1979. People praise the Rolling Stones and Cream for making such a radical break with rock tradition, but all they did was combine the pop-rock that people like The Beatles and The Who had been playing with the American blues tradition. Both are new because they are operating within a tradition and they are extending that tradition, but that doesn't fulfill the sort of dreamy, inspired originality that most people think of.
All that to say there were some significant borrowings from earlier movies--some better than others. For example, I liked the Escape from New York homage with the flying head of the Statue of Liberty landing on the street in pretty much the same position as it was on the movie poster from John Carpenter's 1981 flick.
Cloverfield does, however, have some idiotic horror movie clichés. The cell phone battery dying at an inopportune time is equivalent to the bad guy cutting the phone lines or the inability to get cell service (exception: the protagonist praying for bars on his cell in Stephen King's Desperation, but I've only read the book, so it might suck in the movie version). And the characters thinking that the monster is dead, but it turns out it's not and they're not safe? How surprising to see that twist! These are two of the worst offenders to my mind. Horror movie directors and writers of the world: stop it! You're not going to get anywhere riding these dead horses.
Again (like Sgt. Apone in Aliens, Sgt. Brodski in Jason X, and One in Resident Evil), we also have a Black, tough-as-nails sergeant, but it's not nearly as egregious as it was in Resident Evil if only because they didn't steal the rest of the marine squad characters. Just thought I'd point out my favorite horror movie cliché. If you count the "hammerdown" option used by the military (and lifted from Return of the Living Dead), then this thing is chock full of clichés. Maybe not as many as the 2006 version of When a Stranger Calls, but still.
What did bother me more than anything else is how it follows (for the most part...see below for an exception) the 3-act formula of horror movies. There's a giant fucking monster attacking so let's go down into the subway tunnels to escape. Hell, even the idiot-narrator Hud knows this is a bad idea: "I just can't stop thinking how scary it would be if a flaming homeless guy came out of the dark right now...I'm sorry...I'm just saying." (That actually plays really funny in the movie, but there's too damn much of it throughout--like after Beth's rescue: Beth: "What is that?" Hud: "It's a, it's a terrible thing." Beth: "What the hell was that?" Hud: "I don't know. Something else. Also terrible." He was funny, but just overdid the whole thing--to the point where I was partially relieved when he got offed.) Anyway, it was pretty obvious that the whole subway thing was a plot device to introduce the little monsters and get the group in contact with the military.
I'm still not quite sure I know why Marlena had to die; if she did need to die, why in that particular way? I have the sneaking, terrible suspicion that her death (a la Alien) is going to be the lynch pin for the sequel that is in the works right now. (WHY?!? Didn't Abrams see Book of Shadows, the Blair Witch sequel?). My first thought was that she was going to turn into a zombie or something because she was bitten--at which case I would have likely become enraged. But Marlena's death was so odd and out of character for the rest of the movie that I think it's going to have something to do with the sequel. You heard it here first...even before Harry Knowles told you (and you didn't even have to read it in ALL CAPS).
So a lot of the knocks against this flick I'd heard were about the shakey-camcorder thing--that it was at best distracting and at worst sickening. I expected to hate it because, to me, that was the absolute worst thing about The Bourne Supremacy (I mean, all that fight choreography work, and the way it came out on the screen, it could have been a scene from You Got Served run at 1.5 speed). But, miracle of miracles, I didn't mind it too much here, but I think it might have gotten to me if I'd seen it in the theater.
One of the two things I liked best about this flick, though, was the exception to the 3-act formula I referenced before. Mad props for not selling out in the end with some sort of happy ending for Rob and Beth. Mad props for resisting the Independence Day-style "we've-figured-out-its-weakness-and-now-we-can-beat-it" bullshit. It was a ballsy move to make a movie end just like life: no answers, no grand story arc, no survivors.
The other thing I loved was the level of thought put into (almost) every facet of the film. The more I think about its intricacies, the more impressed I am. There are all sorts of little things that begin to create a clearer picture of the story--but are certainly not required to understand the basic plot-points. For instance, someone posted on the "Trivia" section for this movie at IMDb that in the very last scene when the camera is filming the ocean, if you look very closely at the horizon line on the right side of the screen, you can see a far-away object fall out of the sky and hit the water. Bingo. Hud-the-man-child-idiot's theory was right, and we are to understand that the monster came from space--despite the circumstantial evidence of Rob moving to Tokyo and the monster coming out of the ocean suggesting a Godzilla-like creature from some remote island. (A scenario also suggested by the King Kong frame supposedly spliced in.) That makes for shit luck for Coney Island--and the rest of New York--but for damn fine, detail-oriented filmmaking. So in the end, it was not as bad as it could have been, but certainly not as good as advertised, either.
Up next, 9/11, monsters, and the cultural consciousness of Americans!
12.29.2007
The Blob (1988)
This flick is worth taking a look at just to see Kevin Dillon sporting a mullet and a fuck-tha-po-lice attitude.
All in all, it’s not a bad movie, but it follows some painfully boring conventions, which robs it of any originally a re-make might have. For instance, the heroes (here, the pure beauty queen and the leather-jacket-wearing bad boy) not only have to fight the blob, but they also have to contend with The Mean Governmental Agency: in this case, the Men In White (MIW). I think these are the same sons-a-bitches who kidnapped and almost killed ET, which just goes to prove the point: don’t ever trust anyone who tries to hurt ET. Ever. Other horror movies that illustrate this convention are Piranha (good reporter and renegade woodsman) and the original Dawn of the Dead (good scientist and Black, civilian helicopter pilot). It’s interesting to note that this version of The Blob adds this aspect to the plot of the Steve McQueen 1958 version.
The acting is a little more fluid and relaxed than a lot of horror movies--especially those from the 1980s, but it’s still a far cry from realistic or engaging. Some of the story lines are ludicrous: how does a sweet little prom queen from a small town who’d never even taken a sleeping pill before this ill-fated night know how to use an M-16 set to full automatic? Answer me that and this movie makes more sense.
For 1988, the special effects aren’t half bad; there’s some ridiculously obvious green-screen effects (like Flagg running away from the blob toward the end of the movie..."look out for the green screen behind me!), but on the whole, it’s pretty good. It uses green screen technology to produce better effects than some movies made this decade using CGI (see: Piñata Island and any movie produce by the Sci-Fi Channel)! That is just sad, people.
Overall, an average movie made so by its above-average special effects.
All in all, it’s not a bad movie, but it follows some painfully boring conventions, which robs it of any originally a re-make might have. For instance, the heroes (here, the pure beauty queen and the leather-jacket-wearing bad boy) not only have to fight the blob, but they also have to contend with The Mean Governmental Agency: in this case, the Men In White (MIW). I think these are the same sons-a-bitches who kidnapped and almost killed ET, which just goes to prove the point: don’t ever trust anyone who tries to hurt ET. Ever. Other horror movies that illustrate this convention are Piranha (good reporter and renegade woodsman) and the original Dawn of the Dead (good scientist and Black, civilian helicopter pilot). It’s interesting to note that this version of The Blob adds this aspect to the plot of the Steve McQueen 1958 version.
The acting is a little more fluid and relaxed than a lot of horror movies--especially those from the 1980s, but it’s still a far cry from realistic or engaging. Some of the story lines are ludicrous: how does a sweet little prom queen from a small town who’d never even taken a sleeping pill before this ill-fated night know how to use an M-16 set to full automatic? Answer me that and this movie makes more sense.
For 1988, the special effects aren’t half bad; there’s some ridiculously obvious green-screen effects (like Flagg running away from the blob toward the end of the movie..."look out for the green screen behind me!), but on the whole, it’s pretty good. It uses green screen technology to produce better effects than some movies made this decade using CGI (see: Piñata Island and any movie produce by the Sci-Fi Channel)! That is just sad, people.
Overall, an average movie made so by its above-average special effects.
11.22.2007
Madman (1982)
"MADMAN MARZ!" "MADMAN MARZ!" "MADMAN MARZ!" This movie scared the shit out of me and my sister when we were kids. Both of us have vivid memories of scenes from this movie: she recalls Marz's boots on the hardwood floor when he kills his family. I remember the scene, shot from the upstairs window of the house, where Marz is running/shambling away full tilt. It terrified me because he's going out there somewhere (where, you don't know) and you're in the house. Suddenly you're essentially immobile, exposed, and he can move and attack from any direction without being seen. That's the best I can do to describe why it scared me. This scene, the one from Star Wars in which Luke sees the burned bodies of Owen and Peru, the evil (and hungry) tree in Poltergeist, and the beheading of Mrs. Voorhees in Friday the 13th are the four scenes from my childhood that remain burned in my brain. Those other three movies are some damn good company for Madman.
And what is impressive to me is that, some twenty years later, the film holds up and my memory of the scary scenes is actually quite close to reality. But there were some scary parts that I had forgotten. For example, it's pretty frightening when Richie sees Marz silhouetted in the tree. It makes for a damn scary shot and sets the tone for the whole movie because you never really get a good look at him. It's always momentary glimpses, silhouettes, or first-person shots from Marz’s point of view—much like Black Christmas, Friday the 13th, and Alien. Almost every time he's involved in a scene he's shadowy or only momentarily shown: in the background when T.P. leaves to find Richie, in the bushes when T.P.'s looking for Richie, chasing Ellie in the kitchen and dining room, and especially lurking in the background when Betsy's in the house. The last one was particularly well done. The scene where Dippy is killed is also pretty scary. We just see Marz for a flash and then off with Dippy's head! As scary as it is, I have to admit that I see some influence of Kirk's death scene in Texas Chainsaw Massacre.
But since this was an independent slasher flick made in the early 80s, it's going to have its share of problems. And it does. You could argue that the impetus for the entire killing spree is pretty lame. Some jackass kid taunting the legend of a madman? Sounds lame, but it's the general plotline of Candyman about a decade later, so it obviously still had some cachet then. Some of Madman's plot is unsatisfying, though. Camp for gifted students my ass! Richie should have gotten killed, the little bastard. He got everyone into this shit and he gets away with lifelong emotional scarring? Give me a break. It also relies on clichés to create one of the most ridiculous love scenes ever. I mean a hot tub? Think about it for one moment. It's totally unrealistic: making the beast with two backs in a hot tub seems like a great idea, but it's not easy, it requires an oil-based lubricant, it pretty much guarantees no one will want to use the Jacuzzi for a long time, and it's not nearly as much fun as in the movies. Combine the hot tub luvin' with the music and choreographed swimming as some sort of foreplay, and you get one exemplary 1980s love scene.
These are both nit-picky pet peeves, but perhaps the movie's two significant flaws are its acting and Marz's makeup job. As for the first area, the acting is terribly campy—poor dialog poorly delivered and just first-day acting school level performances in general. (For example, Richie wanders around with that Hardy Boys look on his face for the whole film, and Ellie screams a lot but never gets past "open eyes really wide" as an expression of fear). The other significant issue is the special effects/makeup. Since, as I noted earlier, Marz doesn't appear clearly, it's not a pervasive problem, but it does screw up two scenes. The first is when he pulls the axe out of the stump; we can tell by the way the "skin" twists and torques that it's latex makeup or a glove. The more egregious makeup sin is the supposed money shot at the end when the house catches on fire. I haven't seen a worse "scary" guy since…well, since ever.
To be fair, though, these guys were totally new to this experience, and the movie has more than enough good points to outweigh the bad. Like the truck hood beheading scene. It couldn't have been telegraphed any more or looked any faker, but I love when Ellie and either Bill or Dave (can't remember which) can't start the truck and find Stacy's head under the hood…"Well there’s your problem." Ellie, as it should have been, gets killed, but not only does she get axed in the chest by Marz, she also suffers the indignity of Betsy pulling a Dick Cheney and shooting her in the face. Perhaps my all-time favorite thing about this movie is that Betsy gets this I’m-about-to-kick-some-ass-because-I’m-the-pretty- blonde-and-I-can’t-die look, but Giannone, the director, subverts that cliché at the end. It's really too bad that more people aren't aware of this gem. It's not Friday the 13th (even though it admittedly shares a lot of elements with the franchise), and it's a shame that there apparently wasn't enough room for Jason Voorhees and Madman Marz to coexist—even though there was apparently enough room for four or five editions of the inferior Angela Baker (Sleepaway Camp).
And what is impressive to me is that, some twenty years later, the film holds up and my memory of the scary scenes is actually quite close to reality. But there were some scary parts that I had forgotten. For example, it's pretty frightening when Richie sees Marz silhouetted in the tree. It makes for a damn scary shot and sets the tone for the whole movie because you never really get a good look at him. It's always momentary glimpses, silhouettes, or first-person shots from Marz’s point of view—much like Black Christmas, Friday the 13th, and Alien. Almost every time he's involved in a scene he's shadowy or only momentarily shown: in the background when T.P. leaves to find Richie, in the bushes when T.P.'s looking for Richie, chasing Ellie in the kitchen and dining room, and especially lurking in the background when Betsy's in the house. The last one was particularly well done. The scene where Dippy is killed is also pretty scary. We just see Marz for a flash and then off with Dippy's head! As scary as it is, I have to admit that I see some influence of Kirk's death scene in Texas Chainsaw Massacre.
But since this was an independent slasher flick made in the early 80s, it's going to have its share of problems. And it does. You could argue that the impetus for the entire killing spree is pretty lame. Some jackass kid taunting the legend of a madman? Sounds lame, but it's the general plotline of Candyman about a decade later, so it obviously still had some cachet then. Some of Madman's plot is unsatisfying, though. Camp for gifted students my ass! Richie should have gotten killed, the little bastard. He got everyone into this shit and he gets away with lifelong emotional scarring? Give me a break. It also relies on clichés to create one of the most ridiculous love scenes ever. I mean a hot tub? Think about it for one moment. It's totally unrealistic: making the beast with two backs in a hot tub seems like a great idea, but it's not easy, it requires an oil-based lubricant, it pretty much guarantees no one will want to use the Jacuzzi for a long time, and it's not nearly as much fun as in the movies. Combine the hot tub luvin' with the music and choreographed swimming as some sort of foreplay, and you get one exemplary 1980s love scene.
These are both nit-picky pet peeves, but perhaps the movie's two significant flaws are its acting and Marz's makeup job. As for the first area, the acting is terribly campy—poor dialog poorly delivered and just first-day acting school level performances in general. (For example, Richie wanders around with that Hardy Boys look on his face for the whole film, and Ellie screams a lot but never gets past "open eyes really wide" as an expression of fear). The other significant issue is the special effects/makeup. Since, as I noted earlier, Marz doesn't appear clearly, it's not a pervasive problem, but it does screw up two scenes. The first is when he pulls the axe out of the stump; we can tell by the way the "skin" twists and torques that it's latex makeup or a glove. The more egregious makeup sin is the supposed money shot at the end when the house catches on fire. I haven't seen a worse "scary" guy since…well, since ever.
To be fair, though, these guys were totally new to this experience, and the movie has more than enough good points to outweigh the bad. Like the truck hood beheading scene. It couldn't have been telegraphed any more or looked any faker, but I love when Ellie and either Bill or Dave (can't remember which) can't start the truck and find Stacy's head under the hood…"Well there’s your problem." Ellie, as it should have been, gets killed, but not only does she get axed in the chest by Marz, she also suffers the indignity of Betsy pulling a Dick Cheney and shooting her in the face. Perhaps my all-time favorite thing about this movie is that Betsy gets this I’m-about-to-kick-some-ass-because-I’m-the-pretty- blonde-and-I-can’t-die look, but Giannone, the director, subverts that cliché at the end. It's really too bad that more people aren't aware of this gem. It's not Friday the 13th (even though it admittedly shares a lot of elements with the franchise), and it's a shame that there apparently wasn't enough room for Jason Voorhees and Madman Marz to coexist—even though there was apparently enough room for four or five editions of the inferior Angela Baker (Sleepaway Camp).
11.19.2007
Resident Evil (2002)
I should start this review by noting that I loathe Michelle Rodriguez as an actor. I can't believe that someone can build her career on ripping off Private Vasquez from Aliens, but Rodriquez sure as hell has (see: S.W.A.T. and Lost in addition to this movie...and don't even get me started about the piece of shit that was BloodRayne). Why, you may ask would Ripley, also a kick-ass, strong woman, be terrific and Rain not so much. The difference between Weaver playing Ripley and Rodriguez playing Rain is depth of character, which is why Ripley is believable and Rain is flat out annoying. I almost hate this movie solely because of her involvement. If it was enough to push me over the edge and make me stop watching one of the most innovative shows on TV, why wouldn’t it drive me away from Resident Evil? One reason: because I never played a series of Lost video games that had me so completely addicted that my grades starting slipping. That’s why.
So this movie—despite its numerous flaws—gets automatic points with me (sort of like putting your name on the SAT). I can see why some people (particularly people who loved the video game series) enjoy this movie, and I can see why some people (particularly hard-core gamers or horror movie fans) won’t like it. The ones who’ll love it most are non-hardcore gamers who have not seen or don't clearly remember Aliens.
Anderson's writing and direction here is incredibly derivative, and Aliens is just the most obvious example to me. The incursion team and the individual characteristics of its members is directly indebted to Cameron’s picture. Just to tick off a few of the examples: here they're sent by the Umbrella Corporation to check out a profitable facility that's gone offline, just as Aliens' Marines are sent in by The Company (Weyland-Yutani) for the exact same reason; One, the Black taskmaster, is a copy of Sergeant Apone (he was the de facto leader, not the wuss lieutenant); Rodriguez's Rain is, as I noted, Pvt. Vazquez; and Alice is Ripley, taking control after One/Apone dies. All they needed was a cyborg to complete the rip-off.
The hospital scene at the end--which, by the way, illustrates Seinfeld's law of good naked and bad naked--also seems much like the beginning of 28 Days Later, and the fact that they were released within months of each other strongly suggests some sort of influence (like the release of Dante’s Peak and Volcano, or Deep Impact and Armageddon in the same years).
Unfortunately, this movie’s flaws go far past mere hackery. The CGI and special effects are pretty sad for a film with this kind of budget. In fact, the CGI sequence of the Licker in the game Resident Evil 2 actually looks better than the special effects when the Licker kills Spence; it was definitely scarier within the context of the video game than it was within the context of the movie. With the movie, it seems they felt as if they had to hold the audience's hand and make everything really obvious. In Resident Evil 2, the only way you knew that Licker was going to be there was to have played the scene before or looked very closely at the window in a previous room to see the Licker crawl past.
This is not a good thing for a horror movie—to lose out to a video game in scariness and realism. What makes it worse is that the game was produced in like 1999 and the movie in 2004. Of course, the Silent Hill video game was scarier than the movie by far. And the effects in Resident Evil do get worse: the flames on the giant Licker being dragged behind the train by its tongue made use of some truly crap-tastic CGI effects. Know your audience! We are the kinds of dorks who look for and are turned off by things like this. So don't do it.
The thing that bothers me the most is a little detail used to flesh out the logic behind the T-virus program. I’m not usually one to point out plot holes or logical breakdowns in movies because they are horror movies and require some suspension of disbelief. But I have to make an exception here because not only does the Red Queen make reference to hair and fingernails growing after death, but the producer does too in one of the DVD featurettes. I wish they'd done even a modicum of research to find out that this is not true. Five minutes on Google would have told you that. Come on.
I know I am being really hard on this movie, and part of it is because I don't care for any of the actors. I've already hated on Rodriguez. I think Milla Jovovich is a terrible actress (I mean, have you actually seen Ultraviolet?), and she was a main draw for a lot of people and could therefore cover a multitude of sins. The best actor of the bunch, Colin Solomon, gets killed early on with all the members of the incursion team that aren't essential to the narrative arc. Too bad.
I did think there were some good points to this picture—mainly because of my experience with the games. As soon as I saw the Dobermans before the T-virus had been released, I knew there was going to be some shit going down in this joint! And the zombie dogs looked fantastic. Their scene with Alice was not very exciting, but my initial reaction was one of joy when I realized they'd be a part of the movie. Even when they stepped out and their paws made that “click-click” on the floor, I recognized the sound as that of the Licker in the video game Resident Evil 2. The allusions to the video game helped to steer my thinking and expectations—even if those expectations were sometimes disappointed. And then comes the Licker. As soon as it busts out of that metal box, you know it's going to be a problem, but unless you play the games, you have no idea what kind of problem and what it's capable of doing. Likewise with the train. A horror movie buff would know that something might happen, but the expectation of a giant "boss" attacking, and punching through the walls of the car, is something that is only going to come from experience with the game. That is what makes it a richer and more rewarding movie for me (as does the Nemesis reference at the end when they're taking Matt away).
I can completely understand and almost always agree with the negative points made about the movie, but I cannot seem to agree with the final judgment those negative comments support. It's one of those movies that, for all of its blatant and annoying faults, I can watch again and again. It must just be the gamer in me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
