Last Blog On The Left

It’s kind of hard to grasp exactly how much of a bad ass Lee Marvin really was. I wonder if the movie going public realized it back then? Just to give you an idea of hard he was here’s an example: in Robert Aldrich’s “Emperor of the North”, Lee Marvin only says one thing for the first 12 minutes of that film. He only says one thing, but it’s not even a line. He just growls at a kid, who’s trying to steal his chicken. That’s how hard Lee Marvin was, that if you’re a kid and has gotten this crazy idea in your head that you’re gonna pull off a crazy stunt like stealing his chicken, he won’t even dignify that by speaking… he’ll just growl at you.

So, Lee Marvin is almost supernaturally tough in this one, as he is in most films, so at least this movie has that going for it. It also takes place on a train, for the most part, which is kind of cool. I’m of the opinion that if you can choose to film something either on the ground or on a train, I think that in 9 times out of 10 you should go with the train. It’s a lot more interesting to watch. Hell, there doesn’t have to be that much going on and the movie will still feel like tons of stuff is happening, thanks to the naturally built in forward motion of the train.

Things always seem a lot more exciting on trains, don’t they? For example, imagine going out one night and you end up in a bar. You have a couple of drinks and meet some nice lady or a dude and you start talking. Sounds pretty good, right? Good but nothing special. Now, imagine the same thing but it’s happening on a train. Now we’re cooking. I’ll guarantee you that the lady will turn out to be some kind of Russian spy or something along those lines. Shit like that always happen on trains. Or a jewel thief. You see, in movies when someone takes the train, I’ll guarantee that they aren’t who they say they are. Ordinary folks take the car. Extraordinary people who lead extraordinary lives take the train. At least in the movies. That’s why, if a movie is set on a train, you know that it’s gonna be good. “Emperor of the North” lives up to that promise.

You see, the movie is set during the great depression in the US, and the land is full of people who are now homeless. Those people, commonly called “hobos”, are truly hated by Shack (played a leering and bug eyed Ernest Borgnine), a sadistical railway conductor who swore that no hobo will ride his train for free. Well, no-one but “A No. 1” (Lee Marvin), who is ready to put his life at stake to become a local legend – as the first person who survived the trip on Shack’s notorious train.

In case you haven’t figured it out, the best thing about the movie is the scenes between Borgnine and Marvin. It’s great to see them square off against each other and Borgnine is at his absolute craziest best here. He’s not a particularly nice guy here, which becomes clear when he calls one of the African-American train drivers “you black son of a bitch”, which in my book, is not a particularly nice thing to say to anyone. I know that this movie was shot back in the 70’s and it was a different time then but still… In case anyone is worried I can tell you that a friend of mine actually met Ernest Borgnine back in the 80’s and he did not call anyone “a son of bitch”, black nor otherwise. He was very friendly, so you can relax. It’s called acting.

It’s also pretty cool to watch these two guys run across the roof of a moving train. Marvin was 50 when they shot this and Borgnine was pushing 55, which makes it even more amazing to see them perform some of their own stunts. I mean, they weren’t exactly spring chickens.

I’m not gonna lie to you and tell you that this is one of the all time greats, ‘cuz it isn’t. In some cases it’s hopelessly dated. There’s a scene that happens about halfway through where Marvin is being chased by an officer of the law, for stealing a chicken, and it kind of plays out like something out of “The Benny Hill Show”. If you’re gonna show someone chasing another, be gentle on the ragtime soundtrack, is all I’m saying.

But this movie got me thinking. The other night I watched a more modern action extravaganza, namely “G.I. Joe: Rise of the Cobra”, which is filled with explosions, chases and pretty much everything you can think of. Yet somehow, I found this older flick infinitely more exciting. Is that what it’s come to? Am I really that old? Well, to be honest I kind of enjoyed “G.I. Joe” in all its stupidity but that movie, along with pretty much every modern action movie being made nowadays, lack something that “Emperor of the North” has: stunts!

That’s right, stunts! Remember them? Remember when they were integral to the action genre? Remember when a new James Bond movie opened and you couldn’t wait to watch that pre credit-sequence because you knew that you were gonna witness something amazing, something that no other human had pulled of prior to that movie being made? It’s been a while since you saw something like that, right?

Now, I’m not saying that “Emperor of the North” contains groundbreaking stuntwork, but there’s a nerve and excitement to the scenes of Marvin and Borgnine chasing and fighting each other on what is clearly a real life moving train. You know, that “G.I. Joe” movie I watched, it had one huge chase sequence, set in Paris, where the whole goddamn Eiffel Tower was destroyed and for the climactic finale they had people fighting each other on land, under water and in the air. You know what “Emperor of the North” has for its final showdown? A fist fight between Borgnine and Marvin.

And guess what? I can’t help but feel that that is so much cooler than any CGI-effect ever created. I’ll choose Lee Marvin over a green screen any day of the week…

By the way, when this movie was released in Sweden, it was called “The Cruel, The Strong & The Coward”. In case you haven’t figured it out: Lee Marvin’s supposed to be the strong one. At least I think so.

Until next time: take scare!

Thomas

I’m not trying to hide the fact that deep down within I am a huge nerd and into superheroes and all that shit. It’s not something that I like to flaunt around the ladies, but it’s there and always has been. That’s why when someone asks you if you wanna watch a movie that’s sort of an origin story, complete with superpowers and huge monsters and everything, you go “hell yeah!”, expecting it to be pretty good. What you don’t expect it to be is plain out awful. Because that’s what “I Am Number Four” is: awful! And guess what, it doesn’t take a genius to figure out where it all went wrong with this project. This movie plays out as if every decision the filmmakers decided to make, was the wrong one.

The first wrong decision was that they decided to accentuate the romantic aspect of the story. You see, while watching this movie I had a groundbreaking realization: if you’re gonna have to insist on having a romantic subplot in a film, how about first of all hiring some actors that are interesting to watch? That doesn’t sound like a bad idea, does it? What you don’t do is get that kid from that “Storm Breaker” movie a couple of years back, thinking that he’s matured into a decent actor by now because let me tell you: he hasn’t. Instead, get some good ones. I think it would be kind of cool to watch a movie with some good acting in it. It might just be me and my crazy ideas but I think some of you would agree with this.

Secondly, how about if the writers would, instead of writing uninteresting characters without any kind of story arc whatsoever, instead write some interesting dialogue and characters? Call me crazy, but I think this movie would be much better if that would be the case.

Oh man, I can just imagine the studio executives sitting there in a fancy office, around a huge table, snorting cocaine from each other’s money clips, while getting all excited over this piece of crap. After some serious hardcore investigation on the Internet I managed to locate a recording of the actual meeting where the decision to make this movie was made. This is a goddamn scoop, ladies and gentlemen! I’ve transcribed the whole thing for you:

Studio Executive #1: “Listen, you know what’s popular these days?”

Studio Executive #2: “You mean, besides snorting cocaine?”

Studio Executive #1: “I mean with the kids, what the kids like! Do you know?”

Studio Executive #2: “Not a clue. You see, I am a forty year old man with too much money on my hands and it’s been years since I ever talked to someone outside the movie industry. Hell, I’ve even forgotten what ordinary people look like. Do they even exist anymore?”

Studio Executive #1: “They do and they are into this thing called “Twilight”. It’s based on this series of books about teenage vampires trying to overcome the obstacles that get in the way for their love.”

Studio Executive #2: “I don’t know man, sounds pretty crappy…”

Studio Executive #1: “It is! Believe me, it is. But for some weird reason kids nowadays love it. So what we need to do is create our own version of this franchise. It’ll rake in the dough, trust me.”

Studio Executive #2: “Sounds good enough. Do we own the rights to any books like that?”

Studio Executive #1: “I’m glad you asked, because as a matter of fact we do! This one is written by Pittacus Lore-“

Studio Executive #2: “Pittacus Lore? What the hell kind of name is that? Is he gay?”

Studio Executive #1: “It’s a pseudonym for this guy Jobie Hughes and James Frey, you know the guy who wrote that autobiographical book about him being a junkie, where he went on “Oprah” and told all kinds of horrendous stories and then it turned out that none of it was true and he was just a regular Ivy League asshole?”

Studio Executive #2: “Yeah, I think I remember him. I was doing a lot of coke back then, though.” (snorts)

Studio Executive #1: “Anyway, instead of vampires, this one is about aliens with superpowers but it’s basically the same setup as “Twilight”: teenagers falling in love and fighting against evil.”

Studio Executive #2: “Is there any nudity?”

Studio Executive #1: “None. Hell, I don’t even think we see them making out, so there’s not a chance in hell that it’ll get an R-rating.”

Studio Executive #2: “Violence? Action?”

Studio Executive #1: “Pretty sparse, so we don’t have to blow our budget on huge explosions and shit like that.”

Studio Executive #2: “So basically, what we have here is a story about two kids falling in love but we’ll market it as “Twilight with superpowers” and that’ll draw the kids in?”

Studio Executive #1: “Exactly!”

Studio Executive #2: “But who’s gonna direct it?”

Studio Executive #1: “How about Michael Bay?”

Studio Executive #2: “Nope, Not enough explosions. Bay can’t work without explosions. It’s in his contract. But maybe we can get him to produce it because then the kids who like “Transformers” will see his name on the poster and they’ll figure that it’s an action-extravaganza and then they have to see it, as well.”

Studio Executive #1: “I like the way you think. But who will direct?”

Studio Executive #2: “Let’s get a director who we can trust. Someone who always deliver and makes solid, entertaining films. How about D.J. Caruso?”

Studio Executive #1: “You mean the guy who started out his career with directing TV and then moved on to movies with the excellent “The Salton Sea”, only to make the entertaining but forgettable “Disturbia” and “Eagle Eye”?”

Studio Executive #2: “That’s the guy!”

Studio Executive #1: “Ok, looks like we’re all set to go, then.”

Studio Executive #2: “This is gonna be great. I’ll make so much money that I can buy a vacation home in Colombia!” (snorts)

Studio executive #1: “And you know what the best part is? This is the first book in a proposed series of six, so if this one is a success we can keep making these pictures for years and years.”

Studio Executive #1: “Sounds awesome! Let’s greenlit this motherfucker!”

That’s how it went down. Pretty much says it all, huh? It’s a sad story. That’s why “I Am Number Four” is one of the most unnecessary movies I’ve seen in years. In some ways, “I Am Number Four” is a groundbreaking film in the way that it manages to be insanely boring, despite the fact that you have a story that deals with superheroes and huge monster dogs. That’s quite an achievement, if you ask me.

“I Am Number Four”? More like number one on my list of crappy movies I’ve seen this year.

Until next time: take scare!

Thomas

I don’t know if you’ve noticed that there’s a new movie out, about a certain comic book hero. Maybe you’re not into that kind of thing, what the hell do I know. The thing is that once in a while I like to indulge the nerd that lives inside me and if I’m gonna be honest with you, I’m an absolute sucker for comic book movies. No matter how bad they are, I can almost always find something that I enjoy about them. Ok, I wasn’t that big a fan of the “Fantastic 4”-movies, I’ll admit that. I can’t say that I was too fond of the “Ghost Rider” flick, either. But when it comes to “Batman”, “Spiderman”, “X-Men” or “Hellboy”, I’ll eat that shit up. Hell, I even enjoyed the director’s cut of “Daredevil” and Ang Lee’s “Hulk”. So you see, when I ventured down to my local movie theatre the other day to catch a screening of “Thor”, it wasn’t like I walked into it expecting some sort of Bergman-esque take on the perils of being an ancient Scandinavian god. I figured that as long as the movie was entertaining, I’d be happy.

Now, before we get going I have to say that I’m not that familiar with the mythology of Thor. It wasn’t one of my favorite comics as a kid. I always thought that he looked kinda dorky in that red cape of his, with that helmet with the tiny wings on it. Not exactly the coolest looking superhero on the block, if you know what I mean. So I didn’t quite know what to expect from this one.

The good thing about “Thor” is that it’s pretty entertaining and it’s goddamn huge! This is the kind of bombastic, enormous comic book movie that doesn’t come along too often. You know, the kind of movie that you need to see in the theatre because simply put, you can’t fit its scope onto your tiny TV screen.

One of the things that I was worried about was the fact that Kenneth Branagh directed this one and I’m all for unexpected choices when it comes to directing (I mean, look at Stanley Kubrick and “The Shining”, I bet people didn’t see that one coming) but I thought that he was a pretty weird choice when it comes to a movie like “Thor”. Granted that he directed “Hamlet” a while back and that movie was pretty damn huge in its scope, as well (that’s right, I watch the Shakespeare-adaptations, too), so I knew that he’s comfortable working with a huge canvas.

But to be honest, when he directed “Hamlet”, Branagh worked with a different screenwriter. I don’t know how familiar you are with this guy, William Shakespeare, but let me tell ya, he sure has a way with words! Good old Billy knows how to construct a sentence or two and I think he’s gonna go far some day. The thing is that apparently this Shakespeare guy wasn’t available to do an adaptation of “Thor”, so they had to get someone else, which is a shame. But luckily, this guy they got to write the script decided to treat the thing as if Billy Shakespeare had written it.

You see, Thor is a god and as you can tell from his name, he’s not from any ancient eastern religion or from India. Thor is a god of Scandinavian descent, which means he’s got blond hair, muscles and drinks a lot of mead. Sometimes he swings his hammer around, as well. But being that he is a god, that means that he’s not the kind of character that keeps things inside him. Thor is the kind of guy that shouts out his emotions and desires and declares it to everyone around him. If Thor wants to go to war, he’s gonna let you know it. The fact that he has a conniving brother, named Loki, means that we’re firmly planted in Shakespeare-territory. We’re dealing with classical themes, here. You know, the kind that the Greeks used to like to write plays about: betrayal, love and Natalie Portman. And guess what: Branagh is absolutely the right guy to tackle this kind of material.

What I really liked about the film is the fact that Branagh takes it very seriously. Hell, he even cast Anthony Hopkins in the role as Odin, Thor’s father. That alone means that you got a head start in making people buy what is essentially this pretty silly concept of ancient Scandinavian gods battling with each other. It could’ve turned out to be one of the most overblown movies of the year but Branagh manages to keep the tone right, for most of the time.

Fortunately, Branagh doesn’t take it too seriously and my favorite scenes are the ones where Thor, who’s unaware that his powers doesn’t work on planet earth, wanders into a pet shop and demands a horse with the line “I am Thor and I need a horse!” It reminded me of that youtube clip where Dennis Quaid walks into a Starbucks, with a hidden camera, and yells “Dennis Quaid is here! Dennis Quaid wants a coffe!” Funny stuff. Liam Hemsworth, who plays Thor, does a great job in these scenes where he wanders around, lost on earth.

However, I’m not too sure about the look of Asgard and Valhalla. I mean, this is the place where heroes and gods dine and dwell, right? Unfortunately, it looks like like it’s mostly made of plastic and reminded me of some discarded design from “Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace”. It’s way too clean and symmetric. I always pictured it to be dirtier and grittier. Oh well, you can’t have everything…

One thing that I can’t quite buy is the casting of Natalie Portman. I think she’s great, don’t get me wrong but if you’re gonna get someone to play the character of a nerdy scientist who lives in a trailer, never has any visitors and no relationships to speak of, please don’t hire one the most beautiful women in the world, ok? It’s just not that believable.

Another thing I found pretty weird about the casting was the fact that many of these Asgaardian gods are of different ethnicities. One of them is Asian and another one is African American. Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for ethnic diversity but I just found this weird. This is ancient Scandinavian gods we’re talking about here, for chrissakes! I kept waiting for someone with a Russian accent to show up. If you stay for the post credits sequence, Nick Shield makes his usual appearance. Now, I still can’t come to terms with the fact that they hired Samuel L. Jackson to play him. What’s wrong with David Hasselhoff, who played him in the “Nick Shield”-movie back in the 90’s. That would’ve been pretty ballsy, to give him a major role like that instead of going with a major star like Jackson.

Before I end this tirade, I gotta say this about my one beef with this movie: they chose the wrong goddamn ending! If you haven’t seen it, stop reading here, because I’m about to go into detail about how it ends, ok? When Thor destroys the rainbow bridge that leads to earth, he isolates himself in Asgard and is not able to remain on earth with Natalie Portman, so the movie basically ends with him pining for her. Why the hell didn’t they place him on earth, instead? I think that would make for a far more interesting take in the sequel, if they ever make one because let’s face it: Thor is only an interesting character when he is stranded on earth. In Asgard he’s got that Superman thing going on where he’s too powerful for his own good and that just isn’t exciting. Hell, I really wanted to see him left behind on earth and missing his home. Bad choice, Branagh!

That’s it. I’m done. Thanks for stopping by and until next time: take scare!

Thomas

The other night I watched ”Dinoshark”. Yes, it’s true, I actually watched it! The whole thing. And you know what? It’s actually better than “Sharktopus”. Now, that may not mean that much to you, but if you’re actually reading this thing you’re probably the kind of guy or gal who gets a kick out of these flicks. But honestly, is it possible for a movie called “Dinoshark” to be better than anything? Believe it or not, but it is. I know that “Sharktopus” had Eric Roberts in it, but to be honest, as much as I enjoy the guy’s work, that just made the movie a much more painful experience for me.

The key to making these made-for-cable-monster-movies fun for the viewer, is to not include any actors that has once had a successful career, like Eric Roberts. In “Sharktopus” he played a once-successful scientist (art imitating life?) and spends most of the movie on a boat, chugging down whisky at an alarming pace. I’m not sure but I kinda got the feeling that the glasses he used were filled with the real thing, and that made me kind of sad. I mean, is this what it’s come to: Eric Roberts, once upon a time the star of “Runaway Train”, now taking roles in such low grade fare as “Sharktopus”, just to cover his rent? And drowning his sorrow in booze, to top it all off. Well, that’s the reason why I walked away from “Sharktopus” with a gnawing feeling of sadness and I had my concerns that it would once again resurface, much like Shartopus itself, when I sat down to watch “Dinoshark”.

Well, it didn’t and that is mainly because the cast of this movie is a much better match than in “Sharktopus”. Granted that lead actor Eric Balfour once had a promising career when he starred in HBO:s “Six Feet Under” and the remake of “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre” but he’s not very good at what he does, is he? At least not Eric-Roberts-in-“The Pope of Greenwich Village”-good, that’s for goddamn sure! I’m willing to go as far as to say that this is probably Balfour’s best part ever. This is the kind of movies he should star in because frankly, it’s kind of hard to take him seriously in anything because of that huge chin of his. So let’s just face the brutal truth: Eric Balfour is never gonna win any Academy Awards. Sorry but that’s just the way it is, so the sooner he starts settling into starring in movies of this caliber, the better.

You see, in some ways he’s kind of the perfect actor for this kind of movie: he’s had a pretty good career, not huge in any way but he’s managed to put himself out there and is recognizable to a large part of the movie going audience, but lately it seems that the major roles have passed him by. So what do you because you gotta eat, right? You get in touch with Roger Corman, naturally. Then you’re set for life, because Roger Corman is gonna live forever and he’s gonna churn out low budget monster movies forever, as well.

Did I mention that Roger Corman has a small role in this one, as well? That’s right. That fact alone puts me in a good mood. If Roger Corman is in it, I’m gonna watch it. That’s just the kinda guy I am. The cool thing about his role in this one is that it isn’t just his usual cameo, where he comes in and winks at the audience, but an actual role. He’s actually one of the major supporting players, which deserves some respect. I’m pretty sure that Roger could’ve chosen to just do the usual cameo but in this one he really put some effort into it and did an actual part. I don’t know why, maybe Roger is particularly proud of “Dinoshark” and consider this his magnum opus, or something.

Ok, so we got an above-average cast. Is there anything else that makes this movie worthwhile? Actually, the special effects. It seems that finally they’re starting to get the hang of how they’re supposed to make these low budget monster extravaganzas without them looking like something out of an early 90’s video game. The effects in this one are actually pretty decent. You see, for one thing (and I’m guessing that good old Roger himself is responsible for this) they have an actual Dinoshark-head that they use in the close ups. I can’t begin to tell you how happy that made me. I know, I’m easy to please but in a movie like this, that really makes all the difference in the world. An actual prosthetic head is a hell of a lot more than they used in either “Mega Shark VS. Giant Octopus” or “Mega Piranha” or whatever the hell they’re called. So thank you for that, Roger!

But I don’t wanna lead you on and make you think that this movie is good, in the actual sense of the word. It’s not like it’s gonna hold up if you compare “Dinoshark” to another “real” horror flick. But it is endearing, in a weird kind of way. There’s actually some humor in it, which works. At one point, after Dinoshark has eaten an entire chopper, Balfour turns to the female lead and says, completely straight: “We’re gonna need a bigger chopper” and if you don’t appreciate a “Jaws”-reference like that, you’re out of your mind.

But I gotta say, the best thing about the entire film is the fantastic scene where the female scientist (played by Iva Hasperger) does one of her scientist-things and googles some information about Dinoshark (like any self respecting scientist would, right?). Well, she scrolls down the page and the next fact is more terrifying than the one that came before and when she finally realizes exactly how huge and dangerous a Dinoshark can become, she just stands up, takes off her shirt to reveal a bikini. I’m not sure what this scene is supposed to symbolize but if that isn’t genius filmmaking, I don’t know what is. I wonder if that’s how she reacts to everything that is horrifying: “What are you saying, I have cancer? I gotta take off my shirt”

Naturally, you’ve got your usual continuity errors and goofs that come along with this kind of movies. For instance, Iva Hasperger’s (you gotta love that name) sunglasses seem to take on a life on their own in some scenes. Either that or she’s developed a major case of David Caruso-itis because the glasses can’t seem to decide if they’re gonna stay on her face or hang by the neck of her shirt. But you know, if you can overlook that kind of shit, “Dinoshark” isn’t all that bad. I mean, it’s not like it’s “Deep Rising”, but for what it is, it’s pretty fun.

But watching this movie made me realize one thing: do I really want these movies to be this good. “Dinoshark” is almost too competent and one could argue that that takes the fun out of the experience of watching these flicks. The actors are almost too good and you don’t get the kind of stiff line reading that you had in “Mega Shark VS. Giant Octopus”, which made that movie so much fun. I’m kind of torn about this matter and I guess that if I ever grab the bull by the horns and look up a therapist, this is one of the issues that I’m gonna discuss with him, at great length.

Let’s just say that it’s not easy being a B-movie buff in today’s day and age…

Until next time: take scare!

Thomas

There are directors and then there are Auteurs. If you’re not familiar with the Auteur Theory, an Auteur is when a director’s film reflects his or hers own personal vision and when they have certain subjects that they keep returning to. Take Sam Peckinpah, for example. There’s an Auteur, if there ever was one. It doesn’t take long to figure out that you’re watching a Sam Peckinpah flick because chances are that within the first five minutes someone has been killed (in slow motion, naturally), another character are piss drunk while another contemplates what it takes to be a man. Some would argue that if you can tell that a movie is directed by a certain director, without knowing it beforehand, that makes them an Auteur. Like Roman Polanski or David Lynch, both directors with very distinct styles and recurring themes. And then we have Ti West.

I don’t know exactly how familiar you are with this guy’s work but when it comes to fresh and original voices in the horror genre, I’d say that he’s got that particular corner of the market covered. He’s done four movies so far and I’ve enjoyed every single one of them immensely. Or maybe “enjoyed” is the wrong word. You see, West’s movies aren’t the kind of movies where you sit and laugh and say to yourself “God damn, this is one entertaining, rollicking ride of a movie!” His approach to horror is more of the old school where you let the movie take your time and you get to spend a lot of time with the characters before the unpleasant stuff kicks in. This basically means that there can be quite a number of scenes in his films of people walking around, doing everyday kind of stuff. I know that a lot of people have a hard time watching this because they find it… well, boring! I can understand that and I’ll admit that in “Trigger Man”, West’s take on the hunting-trip-gone-bad-genre, he even put my patience to the test. I still appreciated the film, but its pacing is very deliberate.

This theme of characters walking around and doing nothing in particular shows up in “The House of the Devil”, as well. But something has happened here. If West used the film medium to good extent with “Trigger Man” and made splendid use of the contrasts that occurs between people walking in the woods and sudden bursts of violence, he fucking knocks it out of the park with “House of the Devil”!

West has constructed a damn near perfect horror film here, the kind you didn’t think they made anymore. It’s pretty clear that West knows and loves his 80’s style horror flicks and the movie is set in that decade, as well. But the thing is that unlike Tarantino and Rodriguez and their recent trip on the “Grindhouse”-style of filmmaking, where you scratch the film in order to make it old and so forth, West has actually managed to make a movie that feels like it was made back then. It’s a goddamn wonder to behold, in every aspect: the music, the fashion, the set design…

And that’s what I love about this movie: unlike so many filmmakers out there today, who keeps making their “own” versions of other movies in particular genres, West manages to combine his love for vintage horror and yet keep his original voice. If you’ve seen his other films, there’s no doubt that you’re watching a Ti West-movie here. And who doesn’t love an auteur, huh? Isn’t that exactly what the horror genre needs today: more original voices? Honestly, this remake business is getting a bit long in the tooth now. The latest ones, “Friday the 13^th” and “A Nightmare on Elm Street” were pretty inferior, wouldn’t you say? Imagine the money and energy that went into making them and then think about the finished product. In the “A Nightmare On Elm Street” you got something that resembled a finished film, something that were more along the lines of an outline for a movie. Christ, a guy like Ti West could’ve made fifteen awesome movies on that budget!

Technically speaking, this is a very accomplished piece of work but also when it comes to the acting. West knows how to pick actors that are absolutely perfect for the part. The movie’s lead character Samantha is played by Jocelin Donahue, and she’s perfectly cast. If you’re gonna build a movie around one single character who basically walks around an empty house for a major part of the film, it better be one sympathetic gal or else you’re gonna get bored pretty damn quick. Well, Donahue manages to capture the sweetness of the character perfectly in the film’s opening scenes and before the opening credits roll, you’re stuck rooting for her.

Now, some of you might be put off by this flick basically because whenever someone mentions it, it’s quickly followed by a statement where they say that it’s a “throwback to the 80’s”. For some of you out there, that might be a good thing but I can understand if you’re thinking: “The 80’s? Who the hell wants to watch a movie where everyone runs around with huge perms, with a synthesizer-filled soundtrack?” Believe me, I wouldn’t wanna watch that either but West treats the movie in a serious way and the movie is basically shot as if it was a period piece. We’re not talking scratched up film stock here and you can all relax, because West’s start off-point is the early 80’s, not the late. That means that the movies he’s inspired by are more along the lines of “The Fog” than “A Nightmare on Elm Street 4”. You can’t help but think of such great classics as “The Changeling” or “Burnt Offerings” prods along at its very calculated pace.

You know how some people say that the destination isn’t the important thing, it’s the road to said destination that matters? That’s basically how I feel about this movie. Although West manages to construct a completely satisfying ending, it’s not the reason I enjoyed this film so much. I’m not particularly well versed in classical music but I would say that the enjoyment I got out of this film is the same that you would get if you were into watching a talented conductor perform Beethoven’s ninth, together with the New York Philharmonics or some other outfit that knows what they’re doing: watching someone in total control of the genre they’re operating within. Because that’s what West is: a director who knows how to create suspense from basically nothing. And if that isn’t the sign of a great director, I don’t know what is…

Until next time: take scare!

Thomas

A couple of weeks back I rambled on about Wes Craven’s “My Soul To Take” and I came to the conclusion that it was an ambitious, halfway decent effort. Some of you might question my sanity because of this, but I’m used to that. Anyway, this weekend I finally got to see the Wes Craven-movie we’ve all been waiting for, “Scream 4” (or “Scre4m” as the credits call it). First of all, let’s go into some background so you can understand where I’m coming from: The first “Scream” was released when I had just turned 17. I was still in school and at the height of my teenage-dom. I’m not gonna lie to you: I thought “Scream” was fantastic! Up until that point, it was probably one of the best horror movies I had seen. I was already a fully fledged horror freak and had been so for quite some time but this movie felt really original, current and fresh. No one had really acknowledged the existence of previous horror films in that way that Craven did in that first film. Well, he did have another stab at the postmodern, self referential way of filmmaking with “Wes Craven’s New Nightmare” but that was about it.

So what we had here was a horror movie where all the characters had seen the same movies as we, the audience had, and they were well aware of the genre’s conventions. On top of that, it was hugely entertaining and Craven even managed to pack some pretty good kills in there, as well. I mean, the opening with Drew Barrymore still holds up pretty well. Then “Scream 2” came along, which I actually thought was better than the first one! It even had the guts to kill off one of the most beloved characters, in broad daylight. But by the time the third one came along, it was pretty obvious that Craven’s heart wasn’t in it. Like with all huge successes, “Scream” has been imitated to death and that self referential, hip way of making horror flicks soon became old. But I still enjoy them. I feel very nostalgic about those movies so naturally, I was gonna park my ass in the seats on opening night for the fourth installment.

First of all, I think it’s pretty spectacular that this fourth one comes along more than ten years after the third one and it still has the same director, screenwriter and cast as the first one. That alone, makes it a hell of a lot more interesting than most fourth installments in horror franchises. But you know, time has passed and there’s been a lot of water under the bridge so let’s just say that I wasn’t half as excited as when I was walking into the theatre for the second one. I was hoping that, at best, it was gonna be better than the third one because let’s face it, the third one isn’t that hot. It has Parker Posey and Lance Henriksen in it and that was about the only thing it had going for it.

So how does it hold up? Pretty good, actually. The first thing that struck was that man, Wes Craven is one uneven director. I can’t for the life of me imagine that the guy who has directed this movie, is the same guy who directed “My Soul To Take”, just a year ago. That movie felt like it was directed by someone who’s become pretty tired of the genre. Although it was obvious that it was made by someone who’s in command of the medium, it felt like an experiment in teen horror gone wrong, although slightly entertaining. “Scream 4” is a whole different ballgame. You can tell that Craven knows what he’s doing here and his confidence shows in a whole other way. Here he’s dealing with characters he knows, in a setting that he’s familiar with and that’s what’s so fun about “Scream 4”: every scene is orchestrated in such a way, that Craven manages to wring maximum tension from it. I mean, he can do this shit with his hands tied around his back and this movie is an excellent occasion for him to show off his skills when it comes to staging these scenes.

If you’ve seen the poster or trailer, you’ve seen the tagline, “New decade. New rules”, but there’s also new characters. All the old ones are back: Sidney Prescott (Neve Campbell), Gale Weathers (Courtney Cox) and Sheriff Dewey (David Arquette) but then there’s the new generation, who’ve grown up with the horror movies of the last ten years. These kids are played by Emma Roberts and Kieran Culkin. I didn’t recognize the other ones but I guess they’ve been on a bunch of TV shows that I’m not familiar with. However, their characters are very familiar with the new rules of the new decade.

And what exactly are the new rules? What has been the one, great trend of the last ten years when it comes to making horror movies? Remakes, of course! And the fact that horror movies have gotten a hell of a lot gorier, naturally. This isn’t lost upon Williamson and Craven and I gotta admit that they manage to wring some well deserved laughs from this. The whole concept of focusing on remakes, works very well within the movie. And just like the movies that “Scream 4” pokes fun at, the body count is considerably higher than in the previous films. I haven’t seen the old ones in a while but I’d say that this one is without a doubt the one with the most gore in it. So, at least the movie has that going for itself. I don’t think anyone would have been happy if it had turned out that Wes Craven’s return to the slasher genre would have turned out to be a watered down “PG13” effort.

It’s a lot of fun to get reacquainted with the old characters, as well and it’s a good thing that Craven and Williamson doesn’t try to pull a “Karate Kid 3” on us, where the movie starts off right after the second one ended but since roughly four years had passed, Ralph Macchio had mysteriously managed to gain a considerable amount of weight in what is supposed to be one single night in the movie. The fourth “Scream” does indeed take place eleven years after the third one and it’s interesting to see all the characters older, smarter and more world weary, especially Courtney Cox’s Gale Weathers. She had a tendency to be pretty annoying in the first three movies, but she’s a lot more sympathetic here. She’s had her taste of fame, but opted to marry Dewey and settle down in a small town and focus on a career as a writer. However, this choice wasn’t the right one for her and when the shit starts to hit the fan, she sees a perfect opportunity to once again become the hard hitting investigative reporter. What makes this interesting is that a lot has happened in ten years and she isn’t as familiar with the technology as she used to be and she has to recruit help from the local high school film geeks, just to get ahead. This made her a hell of a lot more sympathetic than she’s ever been and it’s almost enough to make you forget how weird Courtney Cox looks these days, with her filled lips and botoxed forehead. Almost…

I gotta admit that it’s also pretty interesting to watch the scenes with Arquette and Cox, when their characters are having marital problems. Knowing that they were going through a divorce in real life adds an extra dimension that made the whole thing interesting in a Peeping Tom-kinda way.

I gotta say that “Scream 4” manages to both have the cake and eat it, as well: it manages to make fun of horror as a genre and still function as a genuine slasher. One thing that is sadly apparent though, is the fact that the character of Ghostface and his mask, just isn’t that frightening anymore. I remember that the sight of that mask was enough to send some shivers down your spine but that sadly isn’t the case anymore. Ghostface has become your ordinary, run-of-the-mill Halloween mask and has been overexposed, which has sadly led to this.

So that’s that! I’m not saying that “Scream 4” is a masterpiece or groundbreaking movie making, in any sense of the word, but you know what? For a fourth installment in a franchise that’s been lying dormant for the past eleven years, it’s pretty damn fun and that’s about as much as you can expect. At least it’s a hell of a lot more better than “Leprechaun 4”, “Hellraiser 4” or “Jaws 4”…

Until next time: take scare!

Thomas

Let’s get one thing clear: Seth Rogen as a superhero, any kind of superhero, is about as inappropriate as me bringing a prostitute to church. He’s just not superhero material. Don’t get me wrong: I like the guy! I enjoyed “Knocked Up” and thought that “Pineapple Express” was hilarious but he’s just very, very wrong for the role as “The Green Hornet”. It works at the start of the film when Rogen is supposed to be Britt Reid, spoiled playboy-son of James Reid (Tom Wilkinson), who spends most his days and nights getting piss-ass drunk, but when Reid starts getting more and more into the crime fighting business… not quite as believable.

And that’s what’s part of the problem with “The Green Hornet”, as directed by Michel Gondry: it’s not technically a superhero movie, but it tries to be one. It’s basically a movie about this bumbling, man child who one day decides that to fight crime would be kind of cool. If you wanna watch a movie about an ordinary guy who decides to be a crime fighter, you’re better off re-watching “Kick Ass” or “Defendor”. Both those movies do a hell of a lot better job with exploring the nature of an ordinary guy trapped in extraordinary situations.

But that’s not to say that “The Green Hornet” isn’t without its own qualities. I have to admit that I did find the interplay between Rogen’s Britt Reid and Jay Chou’s Kato pretty amusing. But the thing is that too many of the scenes they have together feel like so many other Rogen/Judd Apatow movies, where they’ve just let the camera roll, the actors are improvising and sooner or later they’re bound to come up with something they can use, right? That whole approach might work when you’re doing a comedy about some stoner dude being chased around town, but when you’re working within the constraints of a superhero movie, you need to tighten things up. Although I did laugh out loud at least a couple of times, I’m not sure that it works entirely. The movie spends way too much time lingering on these scenes, where the lead characters argue back and forth, mostly about irrelevant things.

There’s also a scene that’s very similar to the one in “Pineapple Express”, where Rogen, James Franco and Danny McBride fights their way through an entire house, room by room, and demolishes everything in their way. Kato and Reid does the same thing here and I’m wondering if this is gonna become Rogen’s trademark: the obligatory fight-your-way-through-the-entire-soundstage? Well, at least we didn’t get that one in “Knocked Up”, which I think would’ve thrown the movie off its track a bit, to be honest.

At least Rogen isn’t afraid to look stupid, despite the fact that he’s supposed to play a crime fighter. The scene where he’s sporting a diaper is a good example of that. I don’t know about you but I’m not that familiar with the original TV series that this movie is based on, so basically the only thing I know about it is that Bruce Lee originally played Kato.

Now kids, I don’t know how well you know his work but this Bruce Lee guy was pretty well versed in the art of kicking ass. This means that if you get Bruce Lee to play a role in a movie, any role, that role automatically becomes the coolest character. That’s science! If Bruce Lee is in a movie, he’s gonna steal every damn scene, whether you like it or not. It’s one of the basic principles of our universe. So, if Bruce Lee played Kato in the original TV series, it’s safe to assume that the character of Kato is a hell of a lot more cooler and interesting than Britt Reid, right? Well, that rule still applies.

Rogen has a tendency to become tiresome with his constant shouting and laughing, which leaves you wondering about this Kato guy. Why the hell is this technical genius working for this guy and his father? Why doesn’t he branch out on his own? In the fight scenes he even displays some kind of weird ability to knock people down faster than the speed of light. I’m guessing that this looked cool in the theatre, since the movie was shot in 3-D, but on the TV screen it just comes across as weird. This pretty spectacular ability is never explained. Does Kato possess actual super powers? Beats the hell out of me. However, it is painfully obvious that Kato deserves his own movie and that Britt Reid, as played by Seth Rogen, is the least interesting character in the film.

Even Christophe Walz as the insecure villain is infinitely more interesting, despite the fact that he is criminally underused in the film. Besides, he carries a two barreled gun which automatically makes you cooler than any spoiled playboy out there. However, in the opening scene Walz’s character does that old trick where you blow up a building and then walks toward the camera in slow motion. We’ve all done that at one point or another, right? However, with the technology they have today with CGI and 3-D and whatnot, they can make it seem like debris is flying right past the characters. I mean really brushing up against them, which I guess looks kinda cool. However, it also creates the illusion that this kinda behavior seems pretty reckless, doesn’t it? I mean, these are experienced villains, it can’t be the first time they’ve blown up a building and then walked away from it in slow motion? One would think that if you have bomb that’s set off by a remote, like it is here, one would wait til you’ve gotten just a little bit further away until you press the trigger. For a character that’s supposed to be insecure about how other criminals perceive him, this seems pretty damn self assured, if you ask me.

I’ve really enjoyed some of Michel Gondry’s work in the past and I was sincerely hoping that he was gonna create something unique and original within the action genre with this one. It had all the advantages: a visionary director, an unexpected lead and all the technology that money could buy. That could’ve been the ingredients for an action movie classic. Turns out it wasn’t. But hey, life goes on and what doesn’t kill you make you stronger so that’s why I’m gonna look at this whole ordeal from the bright side: at least I’m still alive.

Until next time: take scare!

Thomas

Say what you will about Wes Craven but unlike so many of his peers, the guy has been pretty consistent when it comes to churning out movies. He’s kept working in times when other guys like Tobe Hooper and John Carpenter haven’t been as prolific. And say what you will but no matter how you look at it, Craven has managed to create a couple of bona fide classics. He started out with “Last House on the Left” and followed that with “The Hills Have Eyes”, which is pretty damn spectacular. Sure, he’s also the guy who also gave us “Vampire in Brooklyn” in the 90’s and while it’s pretty hard to defend that one, you can’t argue with the fact that he´s still the guy who gave the world Freddy Krueger. Besides “A Nightmare on Elm Street” and the other genuine classics that Craven has written and directed, he’s also responsible for such underrated gems as “The Serpent and the Rainbow”, “People Under the Stairs” and “Shocker”, to name a few. So no matter how you look at it, Wes Craven is one of those guys that I can’t help but love. I’ve grown up with his movies and whenever another one is released, I’m always excited. So it didn’t take a genius to figure out that I was gonna pick up a copy of his latest flick, “My Soul To Take”, his latest venture in teen-centred horror.

In the sleepy town of Riverton, legend tells of a serial killer who swore he would return to murder the seven children born the night he died. Now, 16 years later, people are disappearing again. Has the psychopath been reincarnated as one of the seven teens, or did he survive the night he was left for dead? Only one of the kids knows the answer. Adam “Bug” Heller (Max Thieriot) was supposed to die on the last night the Riverton Ripper wrecked havoc on that terrifying night. Unaware of terrifying crimes being committed to the seven children, he has been plagued by nightmares of their murders while not aware if they hold true or if he is simply imagining the images that haunt him. But if Bug hopes to save his friends from the monster that’s returned, he must face an evil that won’t rest…until it finishes the job it began the day he was born.

First of all, we gotta get this 3D-thing out of the way. Apparently, “My Soul To Take” was released in 3D but since I watched it on DVD, I don’t have an opinion on that. I only read this after actually watching the movie and I can’t remember a single scene where there was any discernible use of the 3D technology, so I’m guessing that it was the kind of 3D that they used in “Clash of the Titans”. You know, the kind that you paint in later and which everyone hates.

Unfortunately, this lack of 3D seems to have affected some of the characters, as well. Craven has made a couple of movies with teenagers in the lead and this one is by far the one where I had the most trouble connecting with the leads. One of the reasons is because they’re… well, weird. I like the idea that Craven has his characters falling prey to the inevitability of having a murderer’s soul trapped inside you and for the most part he’s playing around with the kind of characters we’ve seen a million times before but at least Craven manages to give them a slightly original spin. One of the seven kids that’s doomed is the obligatory jock that we always come across in high school movies. You know the kind: young, dumb and full of cum. In Craven’s eyes he’s not just horny, though, but seems to border on being a fully fledged rapists. We’ve also got the Christian miss goody two shoes, but in Craven’s universe she’s the local doomsday prophet and keeps spouting lines about brimstone and fire. Usually, I wouldn’t be too excited about a 70 year old guy who’s written a movie about a bunch of teenagers because let’s be honest: a 70 year old guy (which Craven is) would know as much about what it’s like being a teenager today, as I would know about the latest season of “Big Brother”. But still, Craven manages to make his characters somewhat original, which he deserves credit for.

But then there’s the dialogue. Let’s just say that he didn’t get Kevin Williamson to write it this time around. Which he probably should have because as it is now, I had a hard time actually understanding what the hell the kids were talking about. The lingo didn’t sit very well with me and at one point in particular, it’s painfully obvious that the script has been written by an elderly man. It’s when one of the characters says “Wake up and smell the Starbucks”. Maybe it’s just me but isn’t that a reference that’s about 15 years too late to actually sound cool?

I actually feel bad for wracking down this much on Craven. I really wanted to like this one but he made it kind of hard. This is that rare beast of a horror movie: the kind where you’re not actually sure what the hell is going on and you don’t care about it that much either but it still manages to be reasonably enjoyable. That’s why of all Craven’s films, the one it reminded me most of is his attempt at the werewolf genre, “Cursed”. I’m not gonna sit here and pretend like it’s a good film. In fact, it’s pretty shitty but it still has that thing going on that no matter how you look at it, it’s kind of entertaining in a braindead kind of way. I’ll admit it: I’ve actually seen “Cursed” more than once. I think I’ve seen it about three times and I suspect that I’ll be returning to “My Soul To Take” in the near future, as well.

It’s not a great film, by any stretch of the imagination, but it’s a pretty enjoyable one. Even if Craven shows some slacking off in the dialogue department, he’s still spry enough to keep it visually interesting and vital. In some weird way, this mildly successful failure bodes well for “Scream 4”.

Until next time: take scare!

Thomas

I’m not gonna lie to you and say that ”F” is a great film. That’s just not the kind of guy that I am. I try to walk the line, shoot straight and speak the truth or however the saying goes. That’s why I’m gonna come clean with you: “F” is not a great film. It is, however, a perfectly adequate piece of slasher-horror filmmaking. It’s not a straight up slasher film per se, since its protagonists are being pursued by several villains. I’m not ruining anything when I tell you that, that’s why you didn’t see any spoiler alert there. It’s also a very British film. Very British, indeed. Let me just run the story by you so we all know what we’re dealing with here:

When English teacher Mr Anderson (David Schofield) is punched in the face by a pupil to whom he has given an ‘F’ grade, his life falls to pieces. Lacking support from his superiors, who caution that the pupil’s mother is threatening to sue him for distressing her child, he turns to drink, losing his family in the process. One evening Anderson is holding back his own daughter Kate (Eliza Bennett) in detention. There are few other people in the building but as luck would have it, a gang of hooded figures moves in to stalk the corridors in search of fresh victims.

A couple of weeks back, when I defended “Valentine” I mentioned that there’s not that many slashers where you get to watch a character deal with something as depressing and realistic as alcoholism. I guess I’m gonna have to call myself on that one because here we go again and this time it’s even the lead character. I guess it’s up to the Brits to keep their tradition of kitchen sink realism alive. But don’t get me wrong: I’m not complaining here, quite the contrary. You see, David Schofield and his portrayal of Robert Anderson is easily the best thing about the film. He’s one of those kind of guys that you’ve seen in a million movies but can’t quite place it where. He’s been in everything from “Pirates of the Caribbean” to “Gladiator”, among other things, and he’s got one of those lived-in kind of faces. You know, the kind where it doesn’t take a lot of imagination on your behalf to imagine him as an alcoholic. Let’s just say that he’s not your typical Hollywood pretty boy. And guess what, he’s not a teenager, either! I know, it sounds preposterous but it’s true. What we have here is a slasher film that takes place in a high school milieu and the focus of the film is not one of the students? You’re probably thinking that I’m talking out of my ass here, but it’s absolutely true and I guess that’s one of the things that I appreciated about this film.

Robert Anderson is not a very sympathetic character, he’s definitely got his flaws but that only makes him more interesting and compelling. What we have here is an adult who’s dealing with some pretty heavy stuff: divorce, separation, alcoholism and being chased by hooded killers, to top it all off. His daughter definitely plays a major part in the film but if the focus would’ve been on her, I guess the kind of problems we’d be dealing with would be what shade her of lipstick she would choose, instead. So I guess we have to take our hats off to the producers for not being your typical Hollywood-scumbag-executives and forced writer-director Johannes Roberts to change the focus of the film.

Another thing that’s very sympathetic about this flick is its running time. It clocks in at about 75 minutes, which I appreciate. You know, I’m getting to be that age where I don’t have the stamina to sit through 2 movies a night if they’re run longer than 90 minutes. I don’t know if anyone else has noticed this but there seems to be a kind of resurgence in the horror genre where many films keep its length under the 90 minute-mark. The other week I watched the extremely bleak serial killer flick “Tony” (another British endeavor) and it too clocked in at around 75 minutes. Same thing with the monster movie “Salvage”. I really hope that this trend catches on so that England can start being proud of something else besides The Beatles because honestly, it’s time people stop obsessing about those dorks.

Something else that “F” does is that it continues the current trend in British cinema where everyone seem to be convinced that the absolute worst thing one can do is meet a teenager. Movies like “Eden Lake” and “Harry Brown” have done their best to promote the idea that British kids are monsters. I wonder what it’s like living in Britain these days and how bad things actually have gotten. The image that their cinema is sending is one of a country collapsed, ruined by Thatcher’s regime. Someday, someone will write an essay about this current trend but I’m afraid that someone isn’t me. I have bigger fish to fry, like for instance figuring out if I’m gonna switch from rum to whisky or the other way around.

So “F” is perfectly acceptable little film but it never quite takes off, unfortunately. Every now and again something really cool flashes across the screen but it’s not enough to make the film “really good”. For example, I really liked the score. You can hear more than a hint of classic John Carpenter in it, which is never a bad thing. If you’re gonna make a movie about a building under siege, you better pay your respects to the master. When the bad guys make their entrance, the score kind of takes on a children’s song-like quality, which is rather unsettling. It gave it a taste of an evil fairy tale and for some reason it reminded of Clive Barker. So the score is great, which is rather frustrating. The scenes I just mentioned shows that Johannes Roberts seem to know what he’s doing, so I guess I’ll put him down as “one to keep an eye on”.

It’s still a perfectly good way to waste an evening. And like I said: it’s short!

Until next time: take scare!

Thomas

Last week I defended ”Valentine”, a slasher movie that’s pretty much reviled by everyone on this planet. Everyone but me, that is. Well, today it’s time for another slasher but this time it’s one that I don’t have to feel guilty about defending because I am definitely one of the boys that love Mandy Lane and I am damn proud of it. Hell, I adore her! You see, “All The Boys Love Mandy Lane” is an example of a slasher movie at its absolute best.

It’s not hard to understand why everybody loves Mandy Lane, the way she’s portrayed by Amber Heard. She perfectly embodies that girl that you knew in high school, the pretty one that everybody wanted to hang out with but few were allowed to. Well, maybe you knew about her, at least. Mandy Lane is that girl and then some. Not only is she charming and insanely pretty, she’s sympathetic in a way that few high school girl manages to be. So it’s no surprise that she’s invited by a bunch of horny boys to spend a weekend at a farm. Naturally, since boys will be boys and in slasher movies this usually means that being a boy is the same as being a chauvinistic ass, they all make a bet with each other to see who will get Mandy into bed first. But being this is a slasher, naturally someone starts picking off the boys, one by one.

So far, nothing new, right? But “Mandy Lane” isn’t your typical slasher fare. I can’t for the life of me figure out why this one didn’t get a much wider release. Hell, I don’t think that it’s been released at all in the States yet, which is a crying shame. I don’t agree with everything that you Americans do (like that whole business with invading Iraq, what the hell was up with that?) and I think that there are quite a few things fundamentally wrong with your country but despite this, I still don’t wanna deprive you of the pleasure of watching “All The Boys Love Mandy Lane”. Hell, it’s your right as godfearing Americans to watch this movie! I’ll tell you why:

• “Mandy Lane” manages to surprise you every now and then, something that the majority of slasher fare out there fails at. Hell, it even reveals the identity of the killer halfway through the film and still manages to keep your interest alive. Surely, that’s gotta say something, right? That would make “All The Boys Love Mandy Lane” kind of like “Seven”´s much prettier little sister, with much less rain and more sunshine. How can you resist a movie like that?

• The violence is pretty brutal, which is always a plus in a horror movie. It’s not tortureporn-like brutal but it’s got a couple of good kills in it.

• Like I mentioned earlier, Amber Heard makes for an exceptionally good lead and let’s not underestimate that in this business. When was the last time you saw a slasherflick starring teenagers, with a lead that was sympathetic enough that you didn’t wanna kill her yourself? That doesn’t happen everyday, people.

• The movie looks absolutely amazing! It’s shot on location somewhere in Texas and I don’t think I’ve ever seen that state look this good on film.

But one of the things that I love the most about this movie is the overall feel that director Jonathan Levine and screenwriter Jacob Forman manages to infuse the movie with. I don’t know about you but I’m a sucker for horror movies that embrace the 70´s and 80´s and that’s exactly what they do here, without going overboard: the movie looks suitably retro and the way that music is used is exemplary (both the score and songs) and when the movie begins, it sort plays like a typical 80´s slasher but slowly Levine and Forman starts pulling the rug out from under your feet. “Mandy Lane” manages to become more and more sophisticated as it plays out and the fact that the makers pull this off is kind of amazing, if you ask me.

When I saw this one, I was very impressed by first time director Jonathan Levine and what he achieved with this film. I remember him saying in interviews that it was done with a pretty low budget but considering the result, imagine what the guy will be able if given a couple of million dollars to play around with. I figured that “hey, this guy is someone to keep an eye on.” Unfortunately, there is a downside to the wonder that is “Mandy Lane”. The next movie that Levine directed was the awful teenage depressed-therapist-teenage-love-story “The Wackness”, which I absolutely hated! It was pretty much celebrated all around when it was released but I had a hard time getting into the story of a depressed teenager who pays for his therapy sessions with pot. Mr Levine should have another crack at the horror genre, if you ask me.

But oh well, we’ll always have Mandy. Someone once said that she came and that she gave without taking. That’s just the kind of girl Mandy is…

Until next time: take scare!

Thomas