Last Blog On The Left

Well, ”better late than never”, right? Isn´t that what they say? Tell that to the IRS and see if they buy that argument. But I´ve finally gotten around to watching Rob Zombie´s follow up to his remake/reboot/restarting of the “Halloween” franchise. I really liked the first one. I thought it was about as good as any “Halloween” movie will ever be, after John Carpenter´s original. I appreciated the fact that Zombie peppered the movie with his white thrash aesthetics and his obscene dialogue. Also, I didn´t think that it felt like a “remake” but a genuine “re-start”. Zombie wasn´t trying to create his version of John Carpenter´s “Halloween” and that´s what made it work. He simply made his version, like he would with any movie. But then a sequel were being made, pretty quickly after the first one was released and I´ve been putting off watching it until now. I can´t tell you why I´ve done this. I love Zombie´s movies but I guess I just had a bad feeling about this one. And in some ways they turned to be right, unfortunately…

This sequel basically picks up right where the first one ended and then we´re treated to one of those “One year later” cards. So now we get to see Laurie Strode (Taylor Scout-Compton) as she is today: punked out with something that resembles dreadlocks and black torn clothes. Basically, your average teenage clothes, if it weren´t for the fact that she has giant scars everywhere. It´s pretty much the same with Annie (Danielle Harris). The two of them are living together with Annie´s dad, Sheriff Brackett (Brad Dourif). Laurie is trying to cope with the aftermath of the previous Halloween massacre by visiting a psychiatrist (Margot Kidder) and pumping herself full of various prescription drugs.

Dr. Loomis (Malcolm McDowell) has written a book chronicling the murders and Michael´s insanity and is doing a publicity tour, promoting it. Even his publicists thinks that the book is in particularly bad taste but that doesn´t stop Loomis from making a stop in Haddonfield for a photo shoot at Michael´s old house. Meanwhile, Michael Myers is making his way over the plains towards Haddonfield. He is guided by the specters of his younger self and his dead mother (Sheri Moon Zombie)…

I think that Zombie´s concept of actually watching how his characters deals with the aftermath of being part of a massacre like the girls were in the first movie, is a great one! But it doesn´t quite work… If it´s due to his lead actress, I´m not sure. Because the main problem with this movie is that in this movie, Laurie Strode is just an unsympathetic, crying, whining teenage girl. It doesn´t matter that she´s been to hell and back, it´s extremely hard to care for her in this incarnation. I had trouble caring about her in the first one because I thought that Scout-Compton was too bland an actress, which left me wishing that Zombie would´ve given the role of Laurie to Danielle Harris instead. The pattern repeats itself here, because if Scout-Compton was too bland in the first one, in this one she is downright annoying and flat out unsympathetic. I´m not sure that that was what Zombie was going for.

Which once again leaves me pining for Danielle Harris and wondering what she would´ve been able to make with the Laurie character? Unfortunately, in this one she´s sort of pushed aside and doesn´t get much to do. And that is what is wrong with this picture: she and Brad Dourif´s character are the only ones who come close to resembling anything sympathetic. Everyone else is a racist redneck, an opportunistic asshole or just stupid.

The other major mistake Zombie makes here is that he turns Dr. Loomis into this fame-hungry pop psychologist, which leaves the door open for Malcolm McDowell to start overacting like a madman. I had a real problem with this. Dr. Loomis is supposed to be the voice of reason, albeit a paranoid, insane voice of reason but still. He is not supposed to be someone who wants to take advantage of what Laurie and the others have been through but that´s unfortunately what happens here. I guess when you got McDowell playing a part it´s easy to take this route because there is something deeply unsympathetic about the guy but I could never ever see Donald Pleasence´s character behave this way.

I think it´s admirable that Zombie plays it straight here and that he actually treats death as something horrifying and scarring, because not many horror movies do that. It´s not like we get to see how the characters in the “Saw” movies cope with their day-to-day life after being trapped in one of Jigsaw´s sew-your-ass-to-your-mouth-traps, right? So kudos for that, Zombie! But this is the first time that a movie directed by Rob Zombie actually feels like it´s directed by someone who wants to be Rob Zombie.

It feels like maybe he wasn´t as inspired this time around so he just figured “I´ll throw a bunch of characters in there who says some pretty nasty thing, have them played by old B-movie veterans who no one except the most hardcore fans will recognize, and have them killed off, while I film it all on a murky film stock”…

I mean, it´s worked the other times he´s directed so why wouldn´t it now? I´m not sure but it doesn´t. I´m not saying that the movie is a failure because as far as sequels go, it´s actually pretty good, but I guess that I was just expecting more. The last time Zombie did a sequel it was with one of the best movies of this decade, “The Devil´s Rejects” but with that one he managed to create something totally new and separate from the original. With this one he sort of rehashes his usual schtick, which is a crying shame.

I gotta say that I´m not too fond of the look of this film, either. In his previous films, Zombie has managed to create sort of a timeless quality but while shooting it pretty slick. This one is much murkier, grainier and it´s kind of hard to actually see what´s going on in some scenes. I guess that the reason for this is because this is a much more ambiguous film than the first one. The whole concept of Michael interacting with the specters of his younger self and his dead mother is an interesting one but unfortunately, Zombie fails somewhat in the execution of it.

I can understand why he wants his wife, Sheri Moon Zombie, to be in all his movies and it hasn´t really bothered me in any of the previous films but in this one it felt really forced. And as much as I like her presence (I thought she did a surprisingly good job in the first “Halloween”), I´m afraid that she isn´t up to the task of playing what is essentially a ghost. Her scenes feel contrived and forced, although they possess a very haunting quality, graphically speaking. Her scenes could´ve easily have been ditched.

Also, I gotta say that I´ve enjoyed Zombie´s dialogue that seem designed to shock you (remember William Forsythe´s rants about skullfucking in the first one?) and there´s less of that in this one. However, when it does appear it kinda feels out of place. I´m talking about (SPOILER!!!) the scene at the beginning with the two coroners who talks about getting it on with one of the corpses they´re transporting. I don´t know, it just felt like it was out of place and that Zombie included it so that he could get some shock value in there.

I´m a little bit worried about Zombie´s career as a director after watching this one. He started out with “House of 1000 Corpses” which was a pretty entertaining throwback to 70´s Grindhouse cinema but he really knocked it out of the park with “The Devil´s Rejects”. When it came to remaking “Halloween”, I think he did a much better job than most directors would but it feels like he has stagnated a bit with this sequel. He´s working with the same tools as before but the movie gets pretty repetitive, after a while. We´re constantly presented to new characters who say nasty things to each other, only for Michael Myers to come barging in and break their neck or stab the hell out of them. I suspect that maybe Zombie didn´t have a shitload of ideas for this sequel.

One thing that is pretty spectacular about the film is Brad Dourif´s performance as Sheriff Garrett. Most of us are used to seeing him as the psychotic, weird character but he really is fantastic here and the scene (SPOILER!!!) where he finds Annie, is pretty painful to watch. Dourif´s sorrow and pain in this sequence is example of acting on a level that you just wouldn´t see in the latest “Final Destination” flick or the new “Saw” sequel.

Man, I can´t believe how mixed feelings I have about this movie. I think the reason why I was feeling sort of disappointed with it is because maybe I´m comparing it too much with “The Devil´s Rejects”, which I´ve come to realize that even if Zombie keeps making movies for another thirty years, he´ll never top that one and the faster I realize that, the sooner I will be able to enjoy his other films more. I guess this is an ok movie, after all. Hell, if you compare it to most of the other “Halloween” sequels, it´s a goddamn masterpiece, no doubt about that! I still like the first one better but I have this gnawing sensation that this one will grow on me. However, I will keep cursing Zombie´s name for not giving the part of Laurie Strode to Danielle Harris…

Until next time: take scare!

Thomas

It´s time to make a stand for everything that is good here in our rotten world again, friends. In this case all that happens to be good about our world is spelled John Landis and “Innocent Blood”. When this one was released back in 1992, it was pretty much universally lambasted for being a failure. Critics were disappointed, to say the least. I guess that I could understand them being that this was made by the director who made the werewolf classic “An American Werewolf in London” so when this guy was gonna tackle the vampire genre, everyone was getting a hard on just by the thought of it. Then everyone was all sad and blue when it was released because it didn´t live up to their expectations. Well, boo-fucking-hoo, I say! You see, I was around thirteen when this one was released and thought that it was fantastic. But the thing is that I hadn´t seen this movie since then, until I finally got around to ordering the German DVD (it´s the only one released in widescreen) and sat down to watch it the other night.

It´s always something of a gamble when you´re gonna re-visit one of these childhood favorites. Chances are that you´re gonna agree with everyone that kept calling you stupid as a kid because most of the times those movies you liked turn out to be pretty crappy, so you end up sitting there thinking “Christ, they were right! I must´ve been pretty stupid to like this movie, because this really blows!”

Well, in this case I had the exact opposite experience. This movie was actually better than I remember it being. And do you know why that is? Because John Landis is a genius and his take on vampirism is pretty goddamn funny, that´s why! And gory!

Marie (Anne Parillaud) is a vampire, making her rounds in a wintry Chicago. But she´s not your ordinary kind of vampire. She´s the kind that has a conscience, which means that she tries to limit her throat-sucking to the criminal denizens of her city. Everything´s hunky dory until two problems come up, she is interrupted while feeding on Sal “the shark” Macelli (Robert Loggia) and she begins to develop a relationship with Joe Gennaro (Anthony LaPaglia), the policeman who has been trying to put Sal away. Sal wakes up in the morgue very confused and very thirsty. He goes back to his old haunts and begins to create an organized crime family of vampires while Marie and her policeman lover decide to hunt him down.

Did I mention that Marie also has quite an appetite for sex? That´s right, just like all good vampires she doesn´t only crave blood. Do you hear that, “Twilight”? That´s why it´s such fun to re-visit this movie because it´s a hell of a lot more gorier than I remember it being and in the first five minutes we´ve also been treated to the wonderful sight of Anne Parillaud walking around her bedroom, in her birthday suit! We´re talking full frontal here and tell me, how can you not like a movie that opens this way?

This is one underrated film we´ve got here, friends. We all know the state of vampires these days with young girls fawning over R-Pattz or whatever the hell they call him today, which is why this movie makes me nostalgic for the vampires of yesteryear. Remember when vampires actually did some killing whenever they showed up in a movie? Hey, it sounds crazy, kids, but that´s what they did! In this one they don´t sparkle in the sunlight, oh no, sir! You see, this Marie gal can be pretty vicious when she sets her mind to it and that´s why her attacks are among the highlights of the film. They´re pretty brutal, especially by today´s standards.

And you know what else I love about John Landis´ movies? It´s because they seem designed to be one and one thing only: fun! And this one is no exception. To see Italian gangsters run around, taking big chomps out of each other´s necks is pretty hilarious. Kind of makes me wonder why the hell no one ever came up with the idea of vampire gangsters before this movie. Especially since Robert Loggia seems to be born to play this part. He really lets it rip as the mob boss. The scene where he wakes up at the morgue is particularly funny. He kind of does the same schtick here that he would later hone to perfection on David Lynch´s “Lost Highway”, when he played that gangster boss with a severe case of road rage.

And you know, since this is a John Landis movie we also get the obligatory slew of cameos from different directors and other faces familiar to horror fans. In this one we get Sam Raimi as guy who works at a meat packing plant, Dario Argento as a paramedic, Michael Ritchie as a night watchman, Linnea Quigley as a nurse, Frank Oz as a pathologist and Forrest J. Ackerman as a guy who gets his car stolen. That´s always fun with Landis´ movies: to spot the different cameos. I know, it´s nerdy, but I admit it: I wear my badge of nerdiness with pride.

But except for the cameos, it´s a pretty impressive cast: Chazz Palminteri plays Loggia´s right hand man, Don Rickles plays the mobster´s lawyer, David Proval is in there, as well as Tony Sirico who played Tony Walnuts on “The Sopranos”. It´s kind of fun to see these guys who usually show up in mob movies directed by Scorsese, send up their image in this way.

And you know, since this is a movie from 1992 we´re talking about here, do you know what the best thing about it is? No goddamn CGI! That´s right, folks! None whatsoever. I know that that sounds pretty unbelievable but that´s how they made films back then: just practical effects. This means that when the blood starts to flow, it really flows here. Landis isn´t holding back here. Imagine that they got away with this back then: a vampire comedy with an R rating? Fantastic.

It´s obvious that Landis himself is a fan boy, as well. He shows his dedication to the genre by almost always having some old horror movie showing in the background and constantly paying tribute to other films. That doesn´t mean that he´s afraid to mix it up a bit when it comes to the vampire conventions, though. The vampires in this one doesn´t need a wooden stake through the heart in order to die. Landis shows a couple of times that regular bullets will suffice more than well. They also have a reflection whenever they look in the mirror. Garlic, however, is still a problem for them. We´re also shown in one of the best scenes of the movie that sunlight still pack a punch.

I kinda appreciate this approach to making a vampire movie. I think it makes it more fun if you deviate somewhat from the standard rules and conventions. But like I said, that does not mean that you should turn the vampires in the sobbing emo kids who sparkle when they´re exposed to sunlight, ok?

So let´s just ignore the fact that Anne Parillaud may not be the best actress in the world, ok? At least not when she´s forced to speak her lines in English, which isn´t her native tongue, then she sounds a bit stilted. She was fantastic in “Nikita” but she isn´t the most charismatic vampire in this one but I´ll take her over Bella any day. But let´s ignore that and concentrate on the fact that this may be one of the last truly entertaining vampire films ever produced. So thanks for that, John Landis!

Until next time: take scare!

Thomas

Who out there amongst you doesn´t enjoy a good science fiction/horror flick? Hands up. No one? That´s what I thought. Unfortunately, a movie belonging to that genre doesn´t fall into your lap too often so we´re left to scavenge the past for the few decent entries in this subgenre because it isn´t exactly brimming over with new entries. It´s not like the vampire genre these days. That´s why you have to cherish those moment when a movie shows up, that actually seems to embrace both genres, has a decent budget and a good cast. I mean, how often does that happen these days? Hell, I think I work out more often than that.

That is why when you´re about to pop a movie like “Pandorum” into your DVD player, you´re kind of nervous. I know what most of you out there are thinking: “Wasn´t that the movie that was produced by Paul W.S. Anderson?” and yes, it is. That alone is enough to make most people run away from it in fear but let´s not forget that Anderson wrote and directed the space-horror classic “Event Horizon” and I dare you to find a movie that makes better use of the concept “haunted house in outer space”. “Event Horizon” is a severely underrated film and the trailer I saw for “Pandorum” a couple of months back made me very curious.

The movie starts out with two astronauts who awaken in a hypersleep chamber aboard a seemingly abandoned spacecraft. It´s pitch black, they are disoriented, and the only sound is a low rumble and creak from the belly of the ship. They can’t remember anything: Who are they? What is their mission? With Lt. Payton (Dennis Quaid) staying behind to guide him via radio transmitter, Cpl. Bower (Ben Foster) ventures deep into the ship and begins to uncover a terrifying reality. Slowly the spacecraft’s secrets are revealed…

Now, that´s a great set up for a horror movie in space, right? And at first the mood of the film is both tense and exciting. The scene where Foster wakes up from his hypersleep is pretty realistic, at least I would imagine so since I haven´t had that much firsthand experience from sleeping in a hyper kind of way. I mean, I have found myself in some pretty deep sleeps over the years, especially after I´ve done some drinking and it´s no picnic waking up from those but in my expert opinion I think that has more to do with the drinking than the sleeping. But anyway, it really comes across that this hypersleep-business isn´t a very pleasant experience.

The set up is pretty cool, as well: the two crew members can´t remember who or what they are because of them being in hypersleep for so long. This means that the audience is left there right alongside them, without a clue of what´s going on. Now, since both you and me have probably seen a hell of a lot more sci-fi-horror movies than these two guys, it doesn´t take long for us to figure out what the hell it is that´s going on but for a pretty good amount of the film, they actually manage to string us along and keep the audience in the dark. And when I say that they keep us in the dark, I mean that literally!

You see, this whole business with the darkness is a matter all of its own. I can understand that director Christian Alvart wants to create a certain kind of mood and it is pretty obvious that the guy´s inspiration is the first “Alien” movie and all that, but really… it´s too fucking dark! Hell, most of the time you can´t even see what´s going on. You´re not supposed to have to wear one of those night vision goggles just to keep up with what´s happening on the goddamn screen, are you? At first you kinda buy into it but after about 45 minutes of just flashlights, it gets pretty tiresome. Remember “The X-Files” and how when Mulder and Scully entered a crime scene, all they had were their two flashlights that lit up the place? Hell, it´s like watching two hours of those scenes.

“Pandorum” also takes a cue from Neil Marshall´s “The Descent” in that it does place its leads in a fair number of pretty uncomfortable scenes and the ones where Ben Foster are forced to crawl through tight ventilation shafts and whatever the hell it is, are pretty claustrophobic.

I wanna say that I really liked “Pandorum” and that I recommend it but to be honest, I´m not sure exactly how much I liked it. This movie might just be a case of me being so starved for something, anything at all, to come along in this genre that I´m not sure if I liked the movie for that reason alone. You almost feel a debt of gratitude towards Alvart and Anderson for making this movie and because not that many sci-fi-horror movies are being made these days, you´re willing to accept the fact that it may not actually be that good.

But I´m gonna take the high road here and say that I did like it. I do think that they could´ve been a bit more generous with their editing tools because it does drag on a bit every now and then, and say what you will about “Event Horizon” but at least it wasn´t boring, right?

By the way, since Dennis Quaid is in it, let´s discuss him for a while. I´m pretty fascinated with that guy´s career lately. I´ve always been a fan of his but I´m pretty surprised at the fact that the guy seems to be starring in genre movies exclusively now. That´s a pretty weird turn for his career to take, I think. In the last couple of years the guy has been in “Horsemen” (serial killer), “Legion” (angels running amuck on earth) and “G.I. Joe: Rise of the Cobra” (toy soldiers blowing shit up). It´s not like I´m complaining, I like the guy and I´d rather see him in action or horror movies than in weepy dramas but I think it´s surprising, considering the fact that during the 90´s we didn´t see him in hardly any genre movies. However, that “Legion” movie was inexcusable. Let´s not force anyone to sit through a pile of dredge like that ever again, ok? You need to get your priorities straight there, Dennis…

But back to “Pandorum”. Despite the fact that you can´t hardly see what the hell is going on in the long corridors of the ship for most of the time, I have to say that director Alvart does a pretty good job of raising the tension along with Foster moving deeper and deeper into the heart of the ship. I also like how they add the threat of mental illness into the mix. We don´t know who is showing signs of Pandorum, which is kinda like a jacked up version of cabin fever, and if there´s something that every movie that´s set in deep space needs, it´s the lurking threat of dementia. So basically, these guys know their genre and they use the conventions to maximize the tension and I think that it works.

Now, since we´re gonna round up this rambling here, there are one last thing that I have to discuss, but if you haven´t seen the damn thing here´s a SPOILER!!!-alert for you. I don´t think that it´ll come as a big surprise for you that the ship is haunted by monsters and we all love that, right? However, what I didn´t expect was that those fuckers from “Ghosts of Mars” and the crawling creeps from “The Descent” parts I & II apparently have gotten together on their spare time and managed to spawn the bastards we see in this one. Every good horror movie that´s gonna feature some sort of a monster or mutant needs a good one and I´m afraid I was a little disappointed in this one. It was just too similar to ones we´ve already seen.

But on the other hand, I did get to see a brand new science fiction-horror flick, so what the hell am I complaining about? Sometimes, that´s all you can ask from life.

Until next time: take scare!

Thomas

When you´re gonna make a sequel to a hit movie you´re obviously faced with some problems: you wanna keep it relatively similar to the first one, yet (hopefully) give the audience something fresh and new. A while back when I talked to you about “The Descent Part 2”, my main objection about that film was that the director seemed to have forgotten the fact that there´s a pretty good chance that the audience have already seen part I and that the cat is out of that so-often-mentioned bag. It doesn´t work when you try to build up the same momentum as they did in the first one, back when the audience didn´t know what to expect. So how the hell do you do it then? Well, you could do like Jaume Balagueró and Paco Plaza has done and take a cue from James Cameron´s “Aliens”. I don´t think I´m telling any tales out of school when I say that “Aliens” is widely regarded to be one of the best sequels ever, right? Because what was it that Cameron did so great with that one? He took the characters and the monster from the first one but placed them smack in the middle of a story that transformed the movie into, not a sci-fi-horror movie like the first one, but a goddamn war movie-extravaganza! Basically, more guns and more monsters! That´s the approach that Balagueró and Plaza has taken with their sequel to “[Rec]”!

What the first “[Rec]” did so spectacularly well (besides giving you an uncomfortable feeling of nausea due to the hand held cameras that refused to stay still for more than a tenth of a second) was that it built towards a climax that were genuinely chilling, and we all know that those doesn´t exactly grow on trees nowadays. It also revealed some of the back story to us, but we weren´t given the whole picture, which was a pretty clever decision on the filmmaker´s behalf. This means that they have some room to expand on the whole mythology of what the hell was going on up in that penthouse, where they kept that little girl.

And Balagueró & Plaza ain´t here to screw around… Part 2 opens 5 minutes after the end of the first one, when an official from the Department of Health along with a SWAT Team is sent into the building. It doesn´t take long until they encounter one of the infected and the government official, Dr. Owen, starts fighting off the infected by using rosaries and spouting religious mantras. Guess what? Turns out the guy is a priest sent out to get a sample from the Medeiros girl, who started the infection in the first movie.

Now, what´s so great about this movie is the fact that we all know that this building are filled with the infected, we know what they look like and all that, so Balagueró & Plaza doesn´t waste any time at all on that crap. They did that the first time around, so let´s skip that shit, ok? So, as soon as the team enters the building they are attacked from every corner and every door. But since we´ve got a SWAT Team with some pretty big guns with us this time around, it gets pretty messy. This is how they start out the movie, like an action-movie done in a shoot ´em up-like fashion. But then things start to gradually change, the longer the movie goes on. At first, this SWAT Team seems to be in control of the situation but the closer the team gets to the penthouse, we learn that there are indeed sinister forces at work here and maybe it doesn´t matter what size your gun is (according to the women of the world, that isn´t supposed to matter anyway). The movie constantly throws curveballs at you and what you were expecting isn´t what you end up getting.

For instance, about half way through the film we´re introduced to a group of teenagers who´s trying to launch an inflatable sex doll by tying it to some rockets up on a roof top. I immediately started whining: “Great, that´s exactly what this movie needs now: a bunch of stupid, annoying teenagers who tries to have sex with each other and ignores the most obvious threats…” Well, I didn´t exactly say it out loud because that would be pretty creepy if I were to sit around by myself and have conversations like that all by my lonesome, wouldn´t it? But I was thinking it, because that´s what teenagers do in horror movies, right? They always have to go into the woods when they hear a strange noise.

And guess what, this is exactly what these teenagers do, as well. Turns out that Spanish teens aren´t that different from American ones camping out at Crystal Lake. Weird, huh? Because what do these Spanish kids do when they realize that the nearby building is under quarantine? Naturally they go down into the sewers and try to get in. Frickin´ kids!

But the weird thing is that when you see this is in a Spanish movie it doesn´t feel as forced and inherently stupid as it does when you see it in an American horror movie. You kinda buy it in this one because at some level, isn´t this exactly what many teenagers would do in this situation: you see a SWAT Team going into a building, wouldn´t you want to have a peek at what´s going on in there? For some reason I found the way that these teenagers reacted to be pretty believable. And it´s these scenes with the kids that ends up containing some of the film´s strongest moments. For instance, the scene where one of them has to fire a gun towards an infected guy´s skull is probably the most harrowing in the entire movie.

But now I´m sounding like this movie is the second coming and it isn´t. It has its flaws and the greatest one is the fact that it is still handheld cameras swinging around and around and around until you feel like even Michael Bay would feel nauseous after watching this. I realize that this is the format of these movies but that doesn´t mean that I have to like it, does it? It´s just a bit too much at times.

Another thing that is lacking in this installment is the mystery and the suspense of the first one but I´ve already whined about that. Fortunately, it makes up for that with a whole bunch of action, gore, exploding heads and whatnot. I guess if you can´t find a way to recreate the suspense of the original, just go the Cameron-way and by that I don´t mean that you should populate your movie with a bunch of giant blue-looking fuckers that keeps nagging about mother nature and how we´re all connected, ok? Go with the guns instead.

The fact of the matter is that this is one frenetic movie. In fact, if you were to screen the both “[Rec]” movies back to back, I think that the second one would feel like an 80 minutes long final act. It´s like one long final action sequence and how can you not like that shit?

Apparently “[Rec] 3” is going to be released in 2011 and I could definitely go for a third serving of these infected fuckers. Maybe one of these days I´ll come around to checking out that American remake of the first one, “Quarantine”, but to be honest, I don´t think so. I think I´d rather stick with the original recipe.

Until next time: take scare!

Thomas

I remember when I was a kid and watched ”Jaws: The Revenge” (the fourth one for those of you out there who needs to brush up on your “Jaws”-knowledge) for the first time and how impressed I was. It wasn´t the fact that Oscar winner Sir Michael Caine was in it that impressed me, neither was it the fact that the filmmakers actually managed to talk the studio into making a fourth one, after the disaster that was “Jaws 3-D”. No sir, what impressed me was how smart the shark was! We´re talking Nobel Prize material here!

You see, the shark is so smart that it manages to track down Martin Brody´s son and kill him off at the start of the movie and then when his mother, Ellen Brody (played by Lorraine Gary from the first one), travels to the Caribbean to visit her other son, the shark follows her there! Isn´t that amazing? Who knew that sharks were creatures of such intelligence? Has anyone informed Sir David Attenborough of this? Is he aware of the fact that sharks can take things personal, despite the fact that that old guy told Roy Scheider in the second movie that “Sharks don´t take things personal”? Well, turned out you was wrong, old timer!

Anyway, no matter how baffled I was by this particular shark´s intelligence, that was nothing compared to the first time I sat down to watch “Orca the Killer Whale”, directed by Michael Anderson and starring Richard Harris. Jesus Christ, forget about Lassie or Babe! If there ever were an intelligent mammal, this is it. Let me give you the rundown:

Captain Nolan (Harris), becomes aware of the economical value of capturing an orca whale alive through the lecture of the biologist Rachel Bedford (Charlotte Rampling) and decides to capture one to pay the mortgage of his ship. However, the operation fails and he kills a pregnant female whale and its offspring. The male mate orca seeks revenge against Captain Nolan and his crew, jeopardizing the fishing community of the coastal town.

So, it doesn´t take a college degree to figure out that this is basically the original “Jaws” all over again. And I gotta say that even though I enjoy this film immensely, it isn´t my favorite “Jaws” rip off out there. That award has to go to “Piranha” but that´s a whole other story. One of the reasons that I do enjoy this movie as much as I do is the fact that this whale has this supernatural intelligence. It actually has a concept of vengeance. Which would make this the only vigilante movie in the history of films where the vigilante is a goddamn whale, and that alone is pretty spectacular, friends. That makes this movie one for the history books.

But I can´t say that I blame the poor whale. He´s forced to watch his wife being dragged onboard Richard Harris´ ship and see their unborn child pop out of her stomach, like the cork in a champagne bottle, at that exact point. Talk about bad timing. If that would happen to my wife, I think I´d be pretty upset, as well. So it´s only natural for him to start thinking about how to best get back at the fuckers who are responsible for this.

And let me tell ya, this whale has a pretty elaborate plan up his sleeve: at one point the whale, fueled by anger and vengeance, slams into some pipes that contains flammable oil and then continues to ram a waterfront house, causing a lantern on the table inside to ignite the oil. That´s pretty impressive, even for a whale of his mental capacity! I´m not sure that I could´ve come up with that.

If all this sounds absolutely ludicrous, it´s because it is. But somehow you buy it and it´s because the acting in this movie is well above what is usually on display in this genre. I mean, you got Richard Harris as a grumpy old sailor and Charlotte Rampling as the voice of reason, for chrissakes! That beats Stephen Baldwin in “Shark in Venice” any day of the week, if you ask me.

The great thing about this movie is the fact that it was produced by Dino De Laurentiis, so this movie is basically a low budget Italian “Jaws”-knock off, starring some name actors and shot on location in New Foundland and Labrador, Canada, but with all the attributes of Italian movies. The lip synching is a little better than usually in this one, so thanks for springing the cash for that, Dino. You also get a score by the maestro himself, Ennio Morricone, that borders on being extremely atmospheric at times and incredibly cheesy, as well. The opening sequence where you see the two whales swimming side by side has that eerie female vocalization that the Italians seem to love. I find them pretty creepy.

By the end of this fabulous flick, things take on an almost mythological vibe. You see, the whale actually lures Harris and his ship to the goddamn North Pole, where it among other things pushes a frickin´ ice berg into the boat! One might wonder how Harris would walk into a trap like that but this is all foreshadowed by a fantastic scene where Rampling goes on about what lethal and deadly killers whales are, while humans are “retarded” in comparison. Tell me about it…

Hey, did I mention that Bo Derek is in the movie? Well, she is. And I mean that as a good thing.

Even though I buy that a whale could do all these things that I´ve mentioned here, I find this movie to be somewhat lacking in scientific proof. In one scene Rampling (who, by the way, is a stunning screen presence here) delivers a lecture to a bunch of budding marine biologists and there she mentions that whales actually have bigger brains than humans. No shit, Sherlock! For pulling all that crap on Harris their brains would make Albert Einstein question his own intelligence, for chrissakes!

However, she does make one interesting claim. She plays a recording of whales communicating with each other and says that “this recording contains four million pieces of information. The bible contains two million” What the hell kind of pieces of information is she talking about? How does one measure the pieces of information in the Bible? Is this some sort of scientific measuring system that I am unfamiliar with? The movie kinda lost me there for a moment…

But man, this is a fantastic movie! Just to prove how fantastic it is, it was written by Sergio Donati and Luciano Vincenzoni, the two guys that helped Sergio Leone to co-write “For a Few Dollars More”, that´s how great is. I don´t care what kind of crap you churn out later in your career, if you had anything to do with that movie being made, you´re A-ok in my book forever.

Listen, let´s not beat around the bush any longer: do yourself a frickin´ favor and check this one out if you haven´t seen it already and if you have, you damn well need to watch it again.

Until next time: take scare!

Thomas

The other day I suffered some kind of mental breakdown because I actually sat down and tried to watch a movie called “Stan Helsing”, which is about some slacker running around in a hockey shirt and bandana and fighting such well known horror movie icons as Freddy Krueger, Jason Voorhees and shit. That movie turned out to be a big pile of stinkin´, fumin´ shit and to my big surprise Leslie Nielsen has a part in it. For some reason he wears a wig and fake breasts in it. I have no idea why. I feel sorry for Leslie Nielsen. I grew up with the guy as Frank Drebin in “The Naked Gun”-movies and the “Police Squad” TV-series but is this really what it has come to: Nielsen is 83 fucking years old and relegated to playing a transvestite or whatever the hell he´s supposed to be in a movie called “Stan Helsing”, starring the guy who was married to Reba McIntyre´s daughter on her crappy sitcom? Really? My heart bleeds for you, Leslie.

Anyway, this sad sight of Leslie Nielsen made me do two things. The first was to re-watch “Airplane!” just to remind myself how goddamn funny he was once upon a time (“I am serious and don´t call me Shirley”). The second thing was to re-watch “Van Helsing”, starring Hugh Jackman. Yes, I said “re-watch”! I have seen this movie more than once, believe it or not. Bare with me and I´ll try to explain what appeal this movie holds for me, ok?

Some movies are made for one and one reason only: to make you stuff your face with popcorn! “Van Helsing” is such a film. In fact, this movie is basically the celluloid version of popcorn: it doesn´t taste that much but it goes down without you having to chew it too much and every once in a while you get one of those annoying little corn bits stuck between your teeth. That´s “Van Helsing”! I´ll probably get crucified for saying this out loud but I actually enjoy this movie. It´s entertaining in that kind of Saturday morning-serial cartoons used to be when you were a kid. Every time I watch this movie I have to check to see if I´m not still in my pajamas I wore when I was about eight years old. Fortunately that isn´t the case because that would pretty disturbing, to put it mildly.

Now, let´s get one thing out of the way immediately: if you can´t stand CGI, you should avoid this movie. Also, if you´re looking for a “real” horror movie, this is not the movie for you. This is about as much horror as “Dracula-Dead and Loving It”, ok? Or as that fricking “Stan Helsing”-movie, for that matter.

Anyway, Hugh Jackman stars as Van Helsing, who in Stephen Sommers´world works as a monster hunter for the Vatican. Remember that albino fucker in “The Da Vinci Code”? If you cross him with James Bond then we´re sort of close to what Van Helsing is like in this movie.

Van Helsing has a trusty sidekick named Carl (played by David Wenham), travels to Transylvania to battle a whole bunch of monsters, like Dracula and his sultry brides, the Wolfman and Frankenstein.

Now, since this is a movie directed by Stephen Sommers, who´s responsible for “The Mummy”-series and the criminally underrated “Deep Rising”, Van Helsing gets able help from Anna Valerious, who has her own agenda of why she wants to kill these fuckers. The thing is that she´s played by Kate Beckinsale. She´s the girl in the latex suit from the “Underworld”-series and let´s just say that she gets quite a becoming outfit in this one, as well.

And because this is a Stephen Sommers-movies you shouldn´t expect a Hammer-style movie. Like I mentioned, in his world Van Helsing is James Bond, appears to have the same stylist as Keanu Reeves had in “The Matrix” and the Wolfman is an over-sized raging monster who´s about as far from Lon Chaney as I am to giving up drinking, ok?

I am well aware that this is the kind of movie that I should hate. I should despise it with a passion. Yet, for some strange reason, I don´t. I must´ve seen this movie about four or five times but I still can´t quite remember what happens in it. I remember parts from it and that it was entertaining enough. The thing is that I seem to conjure up memories of it actually being better and more fun than it is, so I have to re-watch it every year or so and every time I finish watching it I realize that it´s not a great movie by any means but you know, you could do a hell of a lot worse if you´re stuck with a hangover from the depths of hell on Sunday morning.

I know that that´s not a valid reason for liking a movie and usually I´m not one to say things like “What did you expect? Shakespeare?” after watching a movie like “Transformers”, ok? But I´m willing to go with that argument with this one. I admit that Stephen Sommers should´ve done more with such a great concept movie for a genuine horror movie but instead he turned it into a movie equivalent of an amusement park ride. But hey, at least he´s not Michael Bay, ok? I think it´s obvious that while watching “Van Helsing” or “The Mummy” for that matter, that Sommers do have a genuine love for these kinds of movies. He seem to have a goal with them and that is to create the most entertaining movie he can for that seven year old kid who still watches those cartoons in his pajamas on Saturday morning. I don´t think that that´s the worst goal to have when you´re making a huge blockbuster like this one.

Don´t even ask me what Michael Bay´s goal is because I have no idea. Probably to corrupt the minds of audiences and create kids with attention spans that won´t stretch longer than two seconds.

This is a loud, dumb-as-hell and cheesy movie but tell me this: how can you not like a movie where Van Helsing has a crossbow battle with flying vampire witches just moments after he´s arrived in Transylvania? You can´t. You just can´t…

I promise I will try to discuss something a little more high brow next time, ok? But for now, just check your brain at the door.

Until next time: take scare!

Thomas

Okay, I know I´m late as hell on this one but I figured why not throw my two cents worth in there? Just because I can, you know? I heard a lot of different things about this one beforehand and I wasn´t really sure what to expect but since I am a huge fan of Woody Harrelson, I figured that I was going to expect this one to be good. Turns out that for once in my life I chose the right path. Because this movie is actually a lot of fun and it´s much thanks to the Woody himself! I don´t know about you but I´ve liked the guy ever since I saw him on “Cheers” back when I was a kid. I realize that we live in a world where a goddamn ash cloud terrorizes people and we´re slowly running out of resources and all that and it´s easy to get mixed up in that but I also say this:

No matter how bad things are out there right now, the fact of the matter is that we also live in a world where Woody Harrelson are making movies pretty constantly and that, in my humble opinion, makes up for a lot of bad shit.

The fact that an actor like Harrelson keeps working makes the world just a little bit more beautiful. Think about it: in the last couple of years we´ve gotten “No Country For Old Men”, “The Grand”, “Transsiberian” and “Defendor” to name just a few. All of these movies were blessed with a dose of the wonder that is Woody.

And then we have “Zombieland”. Which you probably already have seen and if you haven´t I recommend you do it before you continue reading because I´m gonna go pretty heavy on the SPOILERS!!!, ok? But since we´re all intelligent people here, I´m gonna assume you´ve seen it but as a reminder, here´s the plot just so we´re on the same page, in case you saw one of the many other movies called “Zombieland” that´s floating around out there:

Jesse Eisenberg plays Columbus, who is basically a big wuss. You know, kind of like the roles Eisenberg usually portrays. Remember “Adventureland”? “The Squid and the Whale”? He´s basically the same whiny guy here.  But the good thing here is that when you’re afraid of being eaten by zombies, fear can keep you alive. He´s formed a set of different rules that he now lives by and it´s thanks to them that he´s managed to stay alive this long. He teams up with Tallahassee (Woody Harrelson), who is an AK-toting, zombie-slaying’ bad ass whose single determination is to get the last Twinkie on earth. As they join forces with Wichita (Emma Stone) and Little Rock (Abigail Breslin), who have also found unique ways to survive the zombie mayhem, they will have to determine which is worse: relying on each other or succumbing to the zombies.

Now, I´ve realized that one of the things that have divided the people of this planet is the everlasting discussion about whether you prefer zombies that walk or run. You know, should they stumble around like they do in Romero´s movies or should they run fast as fuck, as they do in “28 Days Later” and the remake of “Dawn of the Dead”? In case you haven´t noticed this is something that the people of the internet feel very strongly about. Many are the conflicts that have been started because of it! I´m not saying that this is a fact but if I remember correctly, running zombies appeared around the same time as those two planes crashed into the World Trade Center. I´m not sure about this, but I´ll just throw it out there and you´ll do what you will with it…

Now, I´m not gonna spoil the surprise for you by saying which kind of zombies you get in this one but I will say that the filmmakers quickly establishes how their zombies behave and it works very well.

In case you hadn´t realized this, this isn´t exactly a “horror” movie. I don´t think you´re gonna sit around biting your nails while you watch this because this is basically a comedy with zombies in it. A “zom-com” or whatever the hell they call it. I guess it might even be a “rom-zom-com” because there is a bit of romance as Eisenberg´s awkward teenage kid falls head over heels for Emma Stone´s character.

And that´s what makes this movie so great: it´s a comedy that´s genuinely entertaining, not only in the gags they stage but the dialogue is particularly entertaining as it makes room for some liberating non-PC jokes, like when one character notes that it´s good to practice your cardio if you´re gonna outrun the zombies, because “fatties go first”. Call me immature, but that kind of thing always gets a smile from me.

The key to why “Zombieland” works so well is because it sports some pretty well written characters that they managed to cast pretty well, too. Eisenberg and Harrelson make for an entertaining duo and they manage to create the kind of character that you just wanna hang out with and listen to whatever the hell they´re talking about. Because, to be honest, the story isn´t all that much. But I´m the kind of guy that is of the firm opinion that plot comes second, just as long as you have some great characters.

You know what, another movie that this one reminded me of is Richard Linklater´s last-day-in-high-school-classic “Dazed and Confuzed”. Just like that one, “Zombieland” is a funny and at the same time heartfelt coming of age-story. In “Dazed and Confuzed” you´re just dropped right into the story and pretty quickly you´re introduced to all the characters and within a second you get a sense of what this and that character´s all about. “Zombieland” works the same way: you´re dropped into the action but instead of a bunch of high school kids being hazed, it´s a bunch of zombies trying to eat our hero alive. In both movies you also kind of just drift along with the characters through the story but you never feel bored or shortchanged, as a viewer. “Zombieland” has a loose feeling to it that I really enjoyed. And yes, at times it´s a pretty touching love story that director Ruben Fleischer manages to tell.

And then there´s that cameo… by that actor… I´m sure you´ve heard about it by now but just to be safe here´s another SPOILER!!! for you persistent freaks out there. You see, a certain comedian, who has appeared in many classic comedies (I think he did one about a bunch of guys who started a company where they performed exorcisms or something) appears in this one as himself and I´m not kidding you when I say that this has got to be one of the most brilliant cameos ever! I don´t know if they wrote this part for this specific actor originally but no one else could´ve done such an insanely great job with it.

I´m just gonna come out and say it now, ok? It´s Bill Murray and as we all know, Bill Murray isn´t human like the rest of us. He´s a demigod as far as comedians go and actors in general, for that matter. And we´ve all heard the stories about him and his erratic behavior, right? Whenever you hear a celebrity talking about him on some talk show, they´re always telling some crazy shit about him pulling some stunt at a party or something like that. Remember when he got arrested in Stockholm for driving a Golf cart down the street, while intoxicated? Bill Murray just doesn´t subscribe to the normal conventions of society and that´s what makes him so brilliant. But the genius of his cameo in this one is that he plays it totally straight and that he appears to be nicest, most hospitable guy on the planet. The thought of that just makes me laugh out loud.

By the way, the best Bill Murray-anecdote I ever heard was some guy who apparently met him in an elevator at a film festival. It was just these two guys and when the doors closed, Bill Murray grabbed the other guy in a headlock and whispered “No one´s ever going to believe you…” and then got off on his floor and said goodbye.

So there you have it! I know it´s that time of the year again when the sun starts to rear its ugly face and the couples that have been in hiding all through the winter starts skipping down the street, hand in hand, and that can be a hard time for some of us. That´s why we need to laugh every now and again, people! And if you ever get that itch, this is the movie to watch, fuckers!

Sorry about that last part where I called you “fuckers”. I didn´t mean it. I meant it affectionately. It´s just that that whole paragraph before where I was rambling about how “we all need to laugh” and that crazy hippie shit felt a bit much and I had to outweigh it by throwing that in there. It won´t happen again.

Until next time: take scare!

Thomas

I have seen the future of horror and its name sure as hell isn´t Dario Argento anymore! Unfortunately, his time has finally come. I´ve officially given up on him! I never thought I´d say this but Dario Argento has lost his touch! It´s gone! You have a better chance of finding a virgin in an abortion clinic than Argento ever has of making a good movie again! That´s how bad his latest, “Giallo”, is. This is one of the most embarrassing attempts at horror I´ve seen in a long, long time. I´ve seen home movies scarier than this! Hell, I´ve even been in home movies scarier than this!

But to be perfectly honest, this doesn´t come as a surprise. Argento´s been preparing us for this ever since “The Phantom of the Opera” back in 1998. That´s when he first started showing signs of making movies that were totally devoid of anything that bore a semblance of mood or tension. In 2004 the mediocre thriller “The Card Player” was unleashed upon the world and the indifference that I started feeling when it came to Argento´s filmmaking started to rent a permanent room in my soul. It even expanded its inhabitance when the TV movie “Do You Like Hitchcock?” was released.

But then Argento pulled his cruelest trick yet. He did two episodes of the “Masters of Horror”-show and one of the episodes, “Jenifer”, was absolutely brilliant and showed signs of the old, almost sickeningly talented Argento. But as it turned out, that was just a mean trick that the bastard pulled on me: to infuse me with hope, only to pull the rug from out of under me again. Things were looking pretty good for his concluding installment in his “Witches”-trilogy, “Mother of Tears”. Just when I thought that Argento was back to his old tricks, he released his worst film yet and the expectations he had forced me to raise were reduced to rubble. “Mother of Tears” was truly awful (read my eulogy here)!

But that was nothing… absolutely nothing compared to the ludicrous, embarrassing mess that is “Giallo”! How the hell Argento ever got an Oscar winning actor like Adrian Brody to agree to star in this one is a goddamn mystery. Maybe Dario has some compromising footage of him doing the dirty deed with his daughter Asia or something like that, it´s the only thing I can think of, because nothing can explain why someone would ever wanna participate in such an utter failure!

I remember back when this movie was first announced. Fangoria and Rue Morgue Magazine were creaming their pants about how these two guys who had had nothing of theirs produced before, Jim Agnew and Sean Keller, had written this fantastic script called “Giallo”, which (surprise, surprise) were an homage to the old Italian giallos of the 70´s and in particular Argento´s. Somehow, this script made its way into the hands of Dario himself and everyone were all fired up about it. So, as fate would have it the script that these two guys had churned out were now being made by the guy they´re paying homage to. Well, good for them. Not so good for us. Because somewhere along the road the script turned to absolute shit…

Let me just give you the rundown before I launch into another rant here: Celine (Elsa Pataky), an American model, is abducted by a taxi driver in Torine, Italy while en route home to meet her sister Linda (Emmanuelle Seigner), visiting at her apartment. The next morning, Linda reports that Celine is missing – the sergeant in charge directs her to F.B.I. agent Inspector Enzo Avolfi (Adrian Brody). He’s from the Special New York City Department investigating a serial-killer that kidnaps foreigners to destroy their beauty. He fears that the same perpetrator has kidnapped Linda´s sister…

So far so good, right? You might think so at a first glance but this movie is a goddamn minefield of lapses in logic! Almost every scene has you wondering about something. For instance, that “Special New York Department” that Enzo works for? What the hell is that? I mean, I am a European so I think I would´ve heard about this kind of thing? Does the city of New York actually have special departments all over major European cities? And when they say “special” do they actually mean “mentally challenged”? Because that is how Brody´s character conducts his investigation.

Let me just run this by you and see if you find anything strange with conducting an investigation this way: let´s say you´re a detective and investigating a serial killer and you are contacted by a woman who says her sister has been kidnapped by said killer. This woman has no experience whatsoever in police work, so what would be the right thing to do? To conduct the investigation on your own with the help of your colleagues and then keep her posted if any progress occurs? Not if you´re part of the world famous “Special New York Department”, you don´t! What you do then is you include this woman in every aspect of the investigation and take her to visit different crime scenes and wander around like she owns the goddamn place! She doesn´t even show any ID to prove that she is in fact the person that she says she is. Brody´s world class detective just takes her word for it and that´s it. I wonder how he interrogates suspects:

-          So, is it true that you killed the girl? We did find you naked, hunched over her dead body, covered in her blood and laughing like a madman…

-          No.

-          Really? I guess you´re free to go then… You have a good night, Sir!

Hey, it´s not like I demand a movie to be totally realistic, ok? I don´t mind a gap here and there as long as moves the story forward but here it feels as if Argento has actually gone out of his way to make this movie as illogical as he possibly can. But what about the gore, you ask? Well, there is gore on display but what the hell does that matter when there´s not one iota of tension in the entire film? It´s as if some sort of weird repo man came on set and repossessed Argento´s talent:

“Sorry, Dario, you haven´t made your payments these last couple of years so we´re repossessing your keen eye and ability to create interesting stories… Yeah, we know that it sucks but what you´re gonna do? You just haven´t been trying hard enough”

And there´s just something weird about the casting of this movie… I mean, how the hell did Brody end up in here? Maybe he´s a lifelong Argento fan, I don´t know, but the guy can´t be happy about the result here. I do know that he is dating Elsa Pataky in real life so that´s probably how she ended up in there and Brody did work with Emmanuelle Seigner´s husband, Roman Polanski, on the “The Pianist” so I guess that it´s thanks to him that she´s in there, too. Is this movie just some kind of weird reason for Adrian Brody to hang out with his girlfriend and European friends? What the hell is going on here? This is what that goddamn New York Special Department should be looking into, how the hell they cast this fucking movie because nothing, and I mean nothing can justify anyone ever giving a role to Emmanuelle Seigner, no matter how good looking she may be, ok? It´s just sad watching her trying to convey some kind of emotion when all it does is make her look like she´s crapping her pants. By the way, look at that poster there. Doesn´t Seigner look like the spitting image of Radha Mitchell these days? When the hell did that happen?

The flair that Argento once showed in his old movies magically disappeared, like Little Richard´s wrinkles, which makes even the gore boring too watch! I mean, if you´re gonna make a movie that´s a goddamn tribute to the classic giallos of yesteryear, wouldn´t you try to make sure that you had at least one or two spectacular kills in there? Argento doesn´t even try. In one scene the killer uses a hammer. A hammer? The guy doesn´t even use a knife, for chrissakes, which is like watching “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre” and Leatherface uses a Swiss army knife to chop up his victims. If you think about it, this movie isn´t even a giallo at all! How the hell did you get that wrong, Argento?

It´s been a long time coming but now the cat´s finally out of the bag: I´ve given up on Argento! I never thought I´d say it but the guy is just going through the motions and if that´s what I wanna watch, there´s a lot less talented directors out there covering that field. You´re too good for this, Dario… You deserve a better end!

Hey, I know that we can´t expect every single movie from this guy to be a new “Suspiria”, “Deep Red” or “Inferno” but honestly, not even the most hardened Argento-apologists can justify this one. At least the guy has had a pretty good run, huh? Let´s focus on the positive things in life from now on.

Until next time: take scare!

Thomas

Every once in a while, not very often, a filmmaker comes along with a debut film that is so fantastic that while you´re watching it, you realize that there´s no way that he will ever top it: that this is the best that this guy is ever gonna be, no matter how hard he will try he won´t be able to better that initial achievement. It´s the same thing with debut albums. Oftentimes bands have had several years to write songs for their debut album and when they finally get that elusive contract they have about five years´ or more worth of songs to pick from. However, when it´s time for the second album it´s time to start writing new songs and it´s not a coincidence why everyone always refers to that as “the second, difficult album”. I mean, how the hell are you supposed to accumulate the same amount of ideas and fine tune your songs the same way in maybe a year which the first time around you spent maybe five years doing? It´s the same thing with movies! When a director gets that first break you can sometimes see him pouring everything into that movie because this may be his only shot. When the second one comes around, you kinda get the feeling that maybe he´s a little spent. This is what I feared when I finally sat down to watch “Vinyan”, written and directed by Fabrice Du Welz.

You see, Du Welz´s first movie was called “Calvaire” and it´s nothing short of a masterpiece! It´s one of the more original “horror” movies I´ve seen in the last ten years or so. The more astute readers out there might notice how I put the word “horror” in quotation marks and that´s because “Calvaire” is one of those movies that simply transcends genres: yes, it is horrific but at the same time it´s incredibly funny but not in that “Braindead”-splatter kind of way. It´s simply a very, very original movie directed by a man with a very original take on the whole genre.

And that´s why I´ve been putting off watching this movie for close to a year now: I just knew that no matter how great “Vinyan” might be, it won´t come close to the demented greatness of “Calvaire” and do I really need another disappointment in my life? I guess I do because the other day, I finally sat down to watch this one and like I suspected it wasn´t nearly as great as “Calvaire”. But it´s still a pretty great film and definitely scarier than “Calvaire”! As a matter of fact, this is one of the creepier films I´ve seen in quite a while.

Janet and Paul Belhmer (Emmanuelle Béart and Rufus Sewell) are attending a fundraiser to collect money for building schools in third world nations. Everything seems normal between them, mingling with friends and fellow entrepreneurs. When the group assembles in the living room to view a new film, shot in Burma, with protection from the Triads, the ground begins to give way. Janet is sure that a boy in the film is her son; there can be no mistake. Paul tries to comfort her through his skepticism and beliefs that their son died in that infamous tsunami in Thailand a couple of years back. Unable to shake the possibility that he may have survived, only to be sold in the Asian black market, Janet persuades Paul to go with her, no matter what the cost, and at least see if they can find him.

Now, this movie is pretty hard to define. This isn´t your usual “horror” movie, just like “Calvaire” wasn´t your usual “horror” movie either. But this one is far more disturbing. Part of the appeal when it came to Du Welz´s debut film was the fact that it was so twisted and had such a dark sense of humor about it. There is no humor in “Vinyan”. The trip that the Belhmers embark is one grim and dark fucker of a trip. I can guarantee you that you won´t be going online to search for cheap trips to Thailand after watching this one.

To give you an idea what this movie is like, I´ll say this: we´ve all seen “Apocalypse Now”, right? The scenes that sticked with me the most after watching Coppola´s masterpiece is the ones where Martin Sheen travels by boat further and further into the jungle and the mist starts getting thicker and then suddenly, the natives appear, all white painted and creepy as hell. Now, imagine a whole movie like that scene: that´s “Vinyan” for you!

I don´t know what it is but there´s just something about Asian kids painted white that gives me the creeps. But Du Welz and his editor has done a pretty spectacular job at keeping you on edge, from the first frame of film. I admire Du Welz for not going the same route and opting for the Lynchian-“Deliverance”-like riffing as in “Calvaire” but instead trying to create something that is truly horrifying and what can be more horrifying than losing your child? I don´t have any kids myself but fortunately I am equipped with a brain (some might argue that point) and a heart (even though it´s pretty dead and cold) so I don´t have any problem relating to the situation the films protagonists find themselves in. Honestly, if you lost your child and your wife/husband wanted to search for it and you knew that they would never have peace of mind until they did that, wouldn´t you help them?

Another thing that makes “Vinyan” such uncomfortable viewing is the fact that its locations are extremely beautiful, stunning as a matter of fact, but depending on the situation the couple find themselves in, they´re just as horrifying as they are beautiful. One second they´re standing on a beach with their guide, it´s a beautiful day and the sun is shining and you can hear all sorts of animals from the nearby jungle. The next second their guide has a bullet in his head and now that beach seems pretty desolate and that jungle is no place where you wanna spend the night. It´s the fact that Du Welz pulls the rug out from under the viewer like this that keeps you on edge throughout the film.

Du Welz is also one of those directors that have realized the importance of sound design. You know how David Lynch´s movies always feel eerie and scary, even though nothing particularly frightening is happening on screen? That is how this movie feels and just like with Lynch, it´s thanks to the sound design. It keeps you on edge and sometimes it´s an almost mechanical, booming noise that you can barely hear and sometimes it sounds like some sort of animal in pain. No matter what it might be, it does the trick! The opening scene alone is scary as hell and forces you to see how much your psyche and ears can endure without reaching for the remote, without much happening at all! It sure as hell sets the tone for the rest of the movie, though.

So, to conclude this diatribe of incoherent opinions I have to say that even though “Vinyan” didn´t come close to the genius of “Calvaire”, it definitely still has me interested in Du Welz as a filmmaker. Probably even more than before because if he´s able to make this kind of leap from his first to his second film, who knows what the fucker will be able to achieve with the third one? I see great things in his future.

Until next time: take scare!

Thomas

Here´s a movie that, judging from its reviews, is supposed to be so horrible that you can´t watch it without consuming some kind of heavy liquor or narcotics. Well, I can understand how a lot of people would find this movie silly and not the least frightening, but I gotta admit that I had a blast watching it. Now, for those of you out there who´ve been living in a cellar chained to the wall for the last year and are not familiar with “Jennifer´s Body” or its star Megan Fox, I´ll give you a quick rundown: “Jennifer´s Body” is written by Diablo Cody, the stripper-turned-screenwriter, who wrote “Juno” and won a bunch of awards and got stinking rich. After the success with “Juno”, she created a TV show called “United States of Tara” and when it got time to write another movie she found herself in the position of being able to do basically whatever the hell she wanted. If she would´ve called up the executives and said that “Yeah, this is Diablo Cody… That´s right, the Diablo Cody! I´m thinking about writing an all nude-musical starring nothing but mongoloid dwarves, would you be willing to bankroll that?”, I´d bet my left nut that they would´ve agreed to that.

Now, I´m just gonna come right out and say it: I thought “Juno” was a fantastic film! It was one of the better teen comedies I´ve seen in the last ten years and it was pretty obvious for anyone with at least one ear that this Diablo Cody girl had one hell of an ear for writing some snappy dialogue. Granted that it´s not the most realistic dialogue to ever grace the silver screen, but who gives a damn. I thought it was great! Hell, I even read her book about how she started stripping and enjoyed that one, as well. So if one were to call me a “Diablo Cody fan”, I wouldn´t argue with them. Unless I were in a bar, surrounded by a bunch of bikers, maybe. Maybe then it´s not the most masculine thing to admit.

But anyway, I think she´s one of the more interesting screenwriters around today and if you´ve seen “Juno”, you´d also know that she´s a horror movie fan. Ellen Page´s character has some pretty entertaining discussions about both Dario Argento and Herschell Gordon Lewis, if I remember correctly. So it´s not that surprisingly that she wants to try her hand on a horror movie (although I think my all-nude-dwarf-musical would be more interesting). Naturally, this one is set in the harsh world of High School, as well.

Needy Lesnicki (Amanda Seyfried) and Jennifer Check (Megan Fox) are best friends, though they share little in common. Needy is a nerdy reserved bookworm while Jennifer is an arrogant, conceited cheerleader who has every guy drooling after her. One night Jennifer convinces Needy to accompany her to local dive bar Melody Lane to watch a band called Low Shoulder perform. When the place is set on fire, Jennifer is abducted by the band in their van. Later she appears at Needy’s home covered in blood, throwing up a dark liquid and behaving all around weirdly…

So we´re not talking Oscar material here, ok? “Juno” did win one for best original screenplay, if I remember correctly, but there were not much chance of Cody reprising that feat with this one. And I don´t think that that ever entered into Miss Cody´s mind. This is not a movie that´s trying to be anything it isn´t, and that´s what I like about it.

However, one might argue that the movie isn´t sure exactly what it wants to be. Like I said, if you go into this expecting a “horror” movie, you might be disappointed. This one is more along the lines of a movie like “Heathers”. It´s dark yet funny but unlike “Heathers”, “Jennifer´s Body” does more than just flirt with the horror genre: it embraces it and plays around with its conventions, but it doesn´t quite succeed with creating tension or suspense. I´m not sure if that ever was the filmmaker´s goal, though.

However, one thing that director Karyn Kusama does succeed with is the portrayal of teenage girls and their so called “friendships”. I´ve always been amazed and fascinated with how teenage girls behave when they spend time with each other because it´s pretty unlike the way boys behave. I´ve always thought that girls´ friendships are more like a pair of sworn enemies who, from time to time, realize that they actually like each other. Kusama manages to convey this pretty well, amidst the bloodletting and satanic rituals that we get to witness. And to be honest, this is what I found to be the best thing about the movie: the two girls´ friendship. It´s refreshing to see an American teen movie where the cheerleader is best friends with the nerd and doesn´t exclusively spend time with other cheerleaders or jocks. These girls are at the stage in their friendship where they are friends with each other because that´s what they´ve always have been since they were kids but you get the feeling that maybe Needy´s starting to sense that they are growing apart. I don´t know what it is, but the dynamic between two persons whenever this happens is something I find fascinating and it´s interesting to see this portrayed in a movie of this kind.

But like I said, the greatest thing about this movie is the fact that it doesn´t try to apologize for being, what is essentially, a B-horror movie with a fairly shitty premise and instead plays it straight and rolls with the punches. And I still enjoy Diablo Cody´s dialogue and just like in “Juno” they´ve managed to find actors that pulls it off without sounding too forced. Hell, even Megan Fox pulls it off! Which kinda surprised me, to be honest. I mean, we´ve all seen “Transformers”, right? Those clunky CGI-robots had more life to them than she did in those movies but here she actually works as a sexy/scary high school girl. But maybe that says more about Michael Bay´s abilities than Megan Fox´s?

I can´t quite understand why this one got such bad reviews. The more I think about it, the funnier I think it is. There are a couple of scenes that particularly reminded me of “Heathers” that stands out. My favorite is the one at the funeral where the local EMO-kids gets a mouthful from a grieving mother, which kinda reminded me of the “I love my dead gay son!”-scene in “Heathers”. I also like how the band, Low Shoulder, is portrayed. They represent exactly what´s wrong with rock music today: black dressed guys with mascara who sings songs slow songs with poetic lyrics about pain and suicide; the kind of bands people with half a brain refers to as “wimps”. Adam Brody is particularly funny as the singer. I guess that he´s got firsthand experience from hanging out with bands like that from his days on “The O.C.” so he could go all Method when it became time for this role.

However, I do have one beef with “Jennifer´s Body” (well, not the body itself, that part is quite fine) and that is the fact that it falls into that old trap of having one of the leads play a nerd and how do we do that in the best way? Naturally, we hire one of the up-and-coming girls in Hollywood and then we stick a pair of glasses on her! Then everyone will immediately think that “Oh my god, can you believe how freaky she looks with those glasses?” I´m sorry to say that this isn´t the way it works and Diablo Cody should know better. Didn´t you learn anything from “She´s All That”? I am one of those guys that have a pretty strong preference when it comes to girls with glasses and I´m not afraid to say it. 9 times out of 10, stick a pair of glasses on a girl and her sex appeal is instantly elevated and it´s time that Hollywood acknowledges this! I can´t be alone in feeling this way, I know that. They´ve been doing that old glasses-on-a-beautiful-girl-routine since the 80´s, for chrissakes. I think it´s time to lay it to rest now. So this is me taking a stand for every girl in the world who wears glasses. Don´t stop! Don´t switch to contacts! Deep down, every guy appreciates that secretary look, no matter what they tell you.

Until next time: take scare!

Thomas