The Woman Review

"Hey there."

Now, I'm more of a fan of Lucky McKee's work than I would like to admit. May, while feeling utterly amateurish, had a huge amount of charm even if the pacing sometimes moved at a sloth's pace. I also feel the director has a penchant for films that resist the traditional story-arch, as neither May nor The Woman really have anything in terms of the traditional act structure, or at least clumsily so (there's a beginning, a middle, and an end, but what one would think of as a twist to carry to the next act usually... just... feels a bit at odds with traditional structure).

That's not to say that I find this a weakness-- to take things that are this far off the beaten path of tradition and to make it work and still hit the same beats as a traditional film is actually quite awe-inspiring, especially in The Woman.

The flick immediately starts with wilderness. Calm. Serene. Then, our “woman” clumsily stumbles unto the scene, played brilliantly by Pollyanna McIntosh . I cannot stress this enough-- it could not have been easy getting into the mindset of someone as detached from society (and even reality) as her character (“the woman”) plays, but Miss McIntosh plays this character with subtlety where necessary and aggression where appropriate, and even when she's speaking in a clumsy made-up language-- which brings to mind some early literature on primordial man, such as Frankenstein and works by Rousseau-- the character feels utterly believable as a woman torn from the wilderness.

After we are introduced to the woman-- and here, I cannot help but feel this is a wordplay on how macho men will call each other “the man” though this might be accidental-- we are introduced to a suburban family, seemingly normal. We first see Peggy, played by Lauren Ashley Carter , who is the typical detached teenager. She sits by a pool and is quickly hit on by a local, who, upon rejection, mutters “strumpet” as he swims away.

I thought that was delightfully unrealistic. Who says strumpet anymore? But I digress.

"Honey, get me a beer and shut the hell up."

We are then introduced to Peggy's parents, Chris and Belle (played by Sean Bridgers and Angela Bettis respectively). Chris seems normal enough, although there is just something off about him-- within just a few seconds, he feels rude but in a polite way, as if he would ask you to kindly shove a fork up your own eye for his own entertainment, but walk away before you respond, assuming you will concur with his will. Belle seems a bit cartoonish herself, the mousish but doting and loyal wife. Even though something is a bit 'off' about them, they are both immediately likeable and normal. As an audience member, we feel at home with these people. They seem normal.

As we learn, appearances can be deceiving.

Chris finds the Woman bathing topless in the river. In any other movie, this scene would feel exploitative, but as appealing as Pollyanna is, covered in the dirt and grime of her costume, this feels more like a Natural Geographic documentary than porn-- this is probably also due to her very believable and brutish performance.

In all of Lucky's films I've seen thus far, it seems the director brings you in with the normality of the characters, and then at one point just gives up making them seem normal anymore. It's as if everyone in her world is normal only by appearance, and are all closet monsters. So be it. We see this closet monster start to come out when Chris voyeuristically watches the Woman bathing. Here it might be noted that although we are watching a topless lady in a very vulnerable position, it is completely and utterly odd the way he reacts. He is very visibly aroused by the sight of her.

It is at this point that the film starts to break down from normal everyday life and begins to become an allegory. We quickly learn that Chris is a bit of a control freak. To say the least. And also a huge misogynist, to the point where his charming demeanor can no longer make him sympathetic. Drooling over a wild woman here is a metaphor for the way he treats women-- controlling them, breaking them, “civilizing” them to his will, as if that is what it means to be a woman.

The film goes into even darker territory, but to explain too much would be a bit of a spoiler. Suffice to say, his need to “civilize” this wild woman is where the proverbial feces begins to hit the fan.

Up to this point, and even beyond, all of the actors do an alright job of things. There are a few stiff moments, and the overpopulation of women is a bit noticeable-- it would have been nice to see male characters that were, for example, redeemable, which the script seems determined not to have by even making the local teachers female for the most part-- but this makes sense given the context of the film.

After all, it is a film about women. Well... a woman anyway.

"No, you shut up and get me a beer!
And go smash now."

The cinematography, while never really awe-inspiring nor breathtaking, is solid and never gets in the way. The acting, even with the few stiff moments noted above, is always interesting and nuanced, even from the otherwise stiff Angela Bettis. The visuals and makeup effects are actually superb, especially with the titular character, who absolutely looks how she is probably supposed to smell, if we are to take the comments from the characters seriously.

And, as much as the allegory of women empowerment was slightly forced, I actually felt the thought-provoking aspects of the film was more deep than the other films by the same director I have watched. Here, for every “flaw” in the allegory, one could argue that as the point of the allegory in the first place. For example, though the titular character is dangerous and volatile even to other women, one could argue that she is hostile toward any male influence and is only supportive of the female characters who either express disgust with the masculine influence or are too young to have been influenced by it.

There is, needless to say, a lot to think about and a lot that could be said about the film, and it is fun to watch a film that has such sophistication to it that it can be a source of debate, even within one audience member's reactions (I sometimes found myself hating something about the film, only to think about it further and find that even my averse reaction said something interesting about feminism as a topic of discussion).

What kept me from absolutely loving the film, however, was the atrocious soundtrack. And when I say atrocious I mean you probably have friends that can do just as good if not better out of their garage. I'm not belittling the music-- I'm sure in its own context it is interesting enough-- but just its placement in the film. I found it was absolutely jarring to hear something that could only be described as pop alternative acoustic music drumming in my ear in what are otherwise tense moments. For example, when Chris first spies on the woman, we are treated to what sounds like a comedic “love at first sight” sort of tune, and often times the film's choice of music are at such a disparity with the events on screen as to pop one out of the experience completely.

However, even after being popped out by one of those “your boyfriend doesn't treat you right” acoustic ballads making me roll my eyes (I actually believe I might have almost quoted one of the songs...) the film did a good job of pushing me back in, bringing more interesting elements into the story.

The film is not for everyone-- not by a long shot. Its pacing is all over the place-- not much happens for the first 45 minutes besides our woman being brought home and captured by Chris, and then shortly after, complication after complication seems to push us forward. This sounds like it is a mess-- and by all rights it should be-- but the film is so expertly done that this doesn't feel like the yo-yo of pacing that it might sound like.

I honestly felt riveted almost every moment, and I only say 'almost' due to a few odd timing issues and the awful sound scoring.

Overall, like Lucky's film May, I liked this film more than I was expecting. In fact, I like this film a lot more than I liked May. Lucky seems to have ironed out a few of her more annoying quirks, kept her more interesting ones, and plays with archetypes wonderfully here. Some reviews may argue that her characters here are cartoonish and one-dimensional, but I would easily counter that this makes the allegory all the more accessible. We aren't left to question what she is stating, and are free to talk about the implications of feminism brought out by this film.

98% -- only losing the 2% because whoever did the choice for sound scoring should be smacked.

Lovely Molly (Review)

I had admittedly low expectations when I brought home Lovely Molly. While the credentials of being written and directed by Eduardo Sánchez, the fellow responsible for The Blair Witch Project might seem impressive to some, in all honesty I felt Eduardo's first film a fluke of timing more than an interesting film in its own right. It did, however, spawn an interesting if-not unsatisfying habit of horror films, the “found footage” film that gave Paranormal Activity a chance to shine.

It must be noted that I absolutely despise Paranormal Activity and its sequels...

So, like I said, I went into Lovely Molly with some pretty low expectations, and I think that is exactly how I could appreciate the film as much as I could.

The film is a pretty basic setup-- Molly (played by newcomer Gretchen Lodge ) marries-- which we see in excruciating detail with her clumsy wedding video. This, I admit, made me worried from the start-- was this going to be another found-footage film? If so, how would it mark itself as original in an over-saturated market, even if it is made by the people essentially responsible for said market? Thankfully, this is just a setup, for after the wedding, we return to comfortable, cozy, traditional cinematography.

Call me a traditionalist but I just ... prefer this style very much.

At any rate, Molly and her new husband (Johnny Lewis ) proceed to christen their marriage in Molly's family home. Now, upon retrospect, after what we learn of Molly and her family, it seems a bit outrageous that she flocks to this home, but I suppose one could argue that an inherited home is cheaper than another one, and the newlyweds would want a place to... christen.

What do you mean we're out of strawberries?!

Rather predictably, things start going wrong for the couple. We learn a bit of the history of Molly's family from her sister, played by Alexandra Holden , and we learn that it wasn't a happy one. This is further hinted at when, after their new alarm system proceeds to freak out, a cop mentions that he was at the house a few times, and that it is a good thing Molly doesn't remember.

We also learn that Molly has a lovely habit of being a bit of a junkie, which as things start to go bad for her, she quickly returns to. Heroin seems like such an obviously dumb choice, both in real life and in film, and here... it's... not much of a better choice than it would be in real life.

This is where the film starts to get a bit of a mixed bag for me. While I enjoyed the ambiguity that the introduction of drugs to the traditional haunting setup brings (“is it real or is it just a trip?”) it often belittles a lot of what we see. For example, there is an early 'scare' scene in which Molly hears some admittedly VERY creepy sounds, runs up to her bedroom, and... drops the camera, which we see... show a door opening. Then closing. While the lack of any effect here could make the argument of “man that heroin is bad for you” compelling, it is, at least with this setup, a less interesting way of thinking about the events.

This element isn't completely a missed note, however. Gretchen Lodge's wonderful acting makes the instability that the drugs bring to the table a hefty one-- and we certainly worry about poor Molly's sanity the more it becomes obvious that she's forsaken the concept of being sober.

Indeed, all of the actors deliver wonderful performances. All are believable in their own special way, with the husband's delightful awkwardness to Molly's eccentricities, to the messed up sister, who is just messed up enough to feel real but not quite enough to be unsympathetic. Even the secondary actors, which are often in these type of films absolutely atrocious, deliver on all the notes they should, and not one actor feels fake ... at all. I am actually thoroughly impressed with the director's ability in this regard. Even when reacting to bumps in the night, or an unseen aggressor in a dark hallway, even in moments where the suspension of disbelief is stretched to a thin membrane, that membrane, thanks to the believable performances, never pops.

This is probably something you want to get used to...
she spends a good portion of the flick naked...
I'm not complaining, just warning!

However, there is something the film brings up which is an issue I have with modern horror. That is, notably, the lack of spectacle. There is a tiny bit of spectacle here-- we do have a traditional horror payoff-- but even that is done with almost too much subtlety, to the point where it barely registers. Where films like Insidious have no qualms about showing you what goes bump in the night, films like Paranormal Activity and its ilk tend to overemphasize the audience's imagination by slowly... calmly pulling up on... NOTHING. To a certain degree, this is an interesting phenomenon-- the lack of spectacle is certainly playing in the low-budget filmmaker's favour for one thing, but also the fact that the audiences adore it speaks to the fact that, be as cynical as you want to be, audiences are still very much interested in watching films that demand something of them, in this case, to imagine what all those eerie sounds must be.

And indeed, Lovely Molly's sound design is... absolutely perfect. Spot-on. I'm not exaggerating when I say that the first time I heard the cloven smacks against the basement floor, with the hefty breathing calling out Molly's name, a bit of goosebumps may have surfaced. It was not necessarily that the moment was truly scary-- although it managed to be, in my opinion-- but that the sounds were just so interestingly realistic.

All the creaking, groaning boards in the house didn't hurt either.

But still, I feel a little bit underwhelmed by the visual side of things. As per the cinematography, everything was shot in a very satisfying way in terms of composition and lighting-- there is even a very notable moment where Molly is hiding in the closet filming, and her husband walks in and turns on the light, making himself an odd silhouette for a moment that is almost intimidating. There are no shots that feel wrong visually, for what they are showing.

However, what they are showing is a little too much reality for my tastes. I thoroughly enjoy horror that takes me to another world, is unafraid to show me monsters.

That isn't to say that there are no interesting visuals in the film. There are. I quite liked the humming as Molly takes the camera into the basement, where we see all kinds of very strange artifacts and symbols. And there is a moment near the end-- which I shall not spoil-- in which a more traditional horror pay-off occurs, which absolutely thrilled me to be honest when I saw it. It hit at a perfect moment in the story.

For all my praise, the film wasn't perfect by any stretch-- I felt some plot twists were a little contrived and forced, especially those around the husband, and I felt the film was also oddly aggressive with its sexual imagery, which could either be a pro or a con depending on your preferences-- but for all constructive purposes, the film delivers everything it promises, even if it doesn't deliver with as much flamboyance and monstrous imagery as the horror fan might like.

I would have to give the film a 90%. In all honesty, I feel like everything the film attempts, it delivers-- even if I felt that the film should have attempted more. The characters we meet are believable and sympathetic (which is very thankful in a genre littered by cartoon characters), the chemistry with the cast is undeniable and very real (sometimes a bit uncomfortably so for those that don't like voyeurism-- again this could be a pro depending on the audience), and the bumps in the night prove very, very threatening indeed.

I still can't give it a perfect rating, because there just wasn't... enough spectacle for my tastes, which was a bit of a let-down especially since the film was not terribly shy on the sexual side. This could be a factor of budget-- the film does wear its budget on its sleeve, and I will never fault a film for its budget, especially in the horror genre-- but I would have been more interested in seeing more of the thing that was going bump in the night rather than just hearing it.

But, I must also admit, that is less a failure of the movie, and more personal preference. The lack of spectacle also, to the film's credit, makes the downward spiral of drugs more visceral, as the insane ramblings of poor Molly cannot be justified by anything she's seen, though perhaps we could forgive her knowing what she's heard.

Highly recommended-- although, on a final note, if I were rating this on a DVD level, I'd fail the special features. I feel they attempted too much to market it as another Blair Witch where what made the film interesting to me was how much it toyed with the audience, knowing they expected a found footage film and then shifting gears. This doesn't match with the tone of the film at all, and I was expecting something more along the lines of interviews with the cast and crew, insightful looks at the mythology separate from the film... pretending like the film is real with pseudo-documentaries would work for a found footage film, but this is not one, so its a bit of a mystery why the special features are what they are.

Cold Fish Review

When I first loaded Cold Fish, directed and written by Shion Sono, I was immediately excited. The film had a prominent presence in those 'year best' horror lists, which I like to stalk for interesting new horror that I haven't heard of-- which is a rarity. Having not heard of the film, I had to conclude one of two things: either the film was not worth hearing about, or was just one of those that missed my radar.

I have to say, it's definitely more that it missed my radar.

Like I said, the opening has a series of intense cuts during monotonous events. It is a style that is at once sarcastic and visually interesting-- there are no real technical brilliance in the opening, but the way it is edited is a startling juxtaposition to the material you are watching, and I thoroughly enjoy this style.

We are introduced to a small family who is obviously not content. They eat in silence, as we watch, and there is somewhat of a voyeuristic perspective, but not necessarily in any sexual way-- we feel like a fly on the wall to what a lot of families probably look like when they eat.

The father (Syamoto, played by Mitsuru Fukikoshi ) sits, eating quietly as his wife,Taeko, a beautiful lady played by Megumi Kagurazaka , sits uncomfortable next to an obviously annoyed daughter Mitsuko (Hikari Kajiwara ). Nothing much happens as we watch, until Mitsuko gets a call from her boyfriend, who she runs out to see (even before finishing her meal). The family just watches this obvious disrespect with seeming indifference-- this is obviously not unexpected behaviour from the daughter.

Then the father promptly vomits all over the place. Not... really sure why, but I guess it's an exposure of his rather sickly demeanor-- indeed, the father-figure here is quite fragile throughout most of the film. That is, until we meet the antagonist... but we're getting to that.

The father gets a disturbing call as his wife sneaks a cigarette outside of the fish-shop where he both works and lives. This was shot with wonderful ambiguity-- I really felt a chill go down my spine wondering what happened, as it was obvious the daughter was more than capable of getting into all kinds of trouble. The filmmakers knew the ambiguity played in their favour; we are left to guessing what trouble Mitsuko has gotten into as we watch her father and stepmother slowly trying to react to it.

Indeed, that's pretty much the only hint we have is that the parents are not in a rush to get to her side.

The rest of the film plays out with such subtlety. Often, we are left to our own devices as an audience member to interpret events and predict what is about to happen, and rarely is it what we expect. For example, Mitsuko was caught stealing a bunch of junk from a random store, and the manager is threatening to press charges. Then we see Mr Murata, played by a guy named Denden . And then the proverbial shizznet hits the fan.

Murata owns a competing fish-shop, and quite oddly enough, offers to take Mitsuko to give her employment in some sort of weird dormitory of wayward girls he has set up there. Although somewhat perverse, Murata at first seems eccentric enough to be believable in his goal to give wayward girls discipline and a chance of a brighter future.

But, Murata is a serial killer. And, as one can predict, this ... puts a bit of a damper on things for Syamoto. Who is also promptly offered a business proposal from Murata-- this is, of course, before Syamoto learns his secret.

You've got red on you...

To say more about the plot risks 'spoilers' (that curse of the internet), so suffice to say things become hectic. The characters involved show obvious strain from their predicaments, and the character development of our protagonist was done well, with one noteworthy exception. Without spoiling too much, at one point Syamoto begins acting not... very much like himself. One could easily argue it is the stress brought on by his predicament, and this makes sense to a certain degree but... well... you be the judge (you'll know the moment I speak of when you see it).

The film, as mentioned before, is heavily stylized. For example, we only see a title for the film about 20 minutes in, long after we've forgotten we didn't see it in the first place. Sometimes this style is a bit ambiguous-- all of the events have a bit of a timer on them, and I have not really examined whether or not the numbers brought up have any significance to the plot. But they are heavily prevalent, along with a thick, plodding sound effect that seems to warn you to start counting. Although... it is never really exposed why the audience is counting.

Oh crap we forgot the title sequence... here. BAM. Done.

Normally, this sort of loose end frustrates me, but in this film, the pacing was so carefully thought out that I forgave this as something I was perhaps not understanding correctly. “Oh, the film is just deeper than you obviously realize” is not an argument I like for things not understood-- film is communication after all-- but in this case, I honestly feel like the filmmakers did have purpose in these numbers, I just don't seem to understand it.

There are a few moments in the film like this, where, be it a cultural disparity, a translation error in my copy, or just my lack of understanding, that seem to just ... be vague for the sake of being vague. These moments are not clumsy, however, but are placed in moments where the ambiguity makes the audience think, and analyze what they are seeing. Perhaps there is even no answer to the questions the film brings up-- which certainly goes with the director's intentions of hopelessness-- but these moments are in the minority enough to not spoil the overall vibe of the film.

The film does offer a lot of gore and nudity-- in fact, the film seems to be more adamant to get interesting angles on gore than truly creative cinematography for the moments of sleaze and viscera make sense in the world we have found ourselves in.

It also doesn't hurt that some of the women are absolutely gorgeous and the gore done with gritty, vulgar realism. It is obvious the filmmakers delight in their transgressions, and this plays with awkward if not downright funny moments-- funny not in the traditional sense, but in the nervous, “I can't believe they went there” sort of way that makes the R-rated aspects more of a cartoon than sophistication.

Cold Fish is not as intelligent as some of its fans make out-- and indeed, it is hard to compare this film with something of, say, I Saw the Devil or Oldboy's calibre, but what it lacks in intelligence in terms of the plot, it more than makes up for with reserve in its pacing. Considering the aspects I've outlined above (gore, nudity etc.) the concept of “reserve” in this might seem surprising, but the pace really surprised me. I couldn't even define the moment where monotonous normalcy springboards into awkward insanity, but it happens before your eyes, and for the most part, with realism and the suspension of disbelief safe for the trip.

Thank you very much for taking my daughter so
we can finally... well... thank you!!

While the film is not strong enough to recommend to all but horror fans-- unlike I Saw the Devil which I felt was strong enough to recommend simply to anyone that likes good cinema-- this film does offer enough interesting ruminations on hopelessness, powerlessness, and the difference between monotony and danger, to be a worthy recommendation to horror fans.

So, with that in mind, I give the film an 85%-- but with the stipulation that one does need to be a horror fan, or at least a fan of transgressive cinema, to truly enjoy this flick.

The Tenant review

He's sad because the poster is more cool than the movie...

Let me start this review by stating every ounce of my soul wanted to like The Tenant, an indie flick from Reel Dreams. And to be fair, the film was not a total flop. There were some (for the budget) impressive gore effects that actually surprised me when they came up. But a horrible script, horrible pacing, and quite possibly the worst acting I have seen in ages kept this from being a recommendation for anyone other than those who just wanna give the little guy a break.

... and even then...

The film opens with a midnight delivery by Jack Rymer (played by Bill Cobbs... the only reason I know the character's name is thanks to IMDB for the record) to Dr Newman (Randy Molnar). The delivery? A bunch of heads. We get a little glimpse of the rather insipid writing-- why is Jack surprised by the delivery when he is the delivery man? That's a bit like me giving you a cheeseburger and then saying “wait, holy shit, is that a fucking cheeseburger!??”

At any rate, we learn the reason Dr Newman is buying heads is to study them. We immediately have a mixed bag of effects-- while some of the skin peeling our doctor does looks realistic enough, once we see the faces of the decapitated heads, with their stiff plasticine appearance, believability just takes a swan-dive. He pokes their eye-ball juices for... well, it isn't exactly made clear how pocking a decapitated head leads to science. We are just expected to bite down and buy that, yes, poking at dead things with needles can lead to huge medical breakthroughs in genetics.

Which... for the record, the script states later is unheard of about thirty years previous to present day. No, I'm not talking about dead-head science. I'm talking about genetics. Apparently to the writers, genetics was something that nobody had heard of thirty years ago.

Well, it's no dead head, but... I suppose it could
still be used FOR SCIENCE!!!

Who wrote this, a goddamned twelve year old?! Actually... I ... wouldn't at all be surprised.

Flash-forward about 45-minutes into the film-- yes it takes that long to establish what is going on approximately 28 years in the past-- and we have learned that the doctor's experiments were injected into his wife's growing fetus by a jealous lab assistant (credited as Ms Tinsley, played by a very stiff Sylvia Boykin-- again, I don't think her name is ever spoken out loud. Or maybe I just didn't care.) This is one of the least believable parts of the script. Ms Tinsley's character is atrocious and unnecessary, and when I say that the actress is stiff, I'm not so sure it is really her fault. The logic of the character is just wretched. First, she is jealous of the doctor's wife (that part is the extent of what I can believe) but this shortly follows by her approaching said wife (“Olivia”, another torturous character played by Georgia Chris...) to tell her, “stop stopping your husband from scientific experiments on dead heads! He's a genius!” While not an exact quotation, this is actually the logic of the confrontation. When Olivia (understandably at this point) refuses to let this crazy Ms Tinsley anywhere near her pregnant ass, the assistant promptly does what any jealous bitch would do-- injects one of her unborn twins with crazy... dead... head... juice.

For science!

Ugh. But sadly, it gets worse boys and girls!

So, after all this, Olivia gives birth ... for some reason at the mental asylum where she works with her husband. And in a glaring error of conflict of interest, her husband has been the only doctor she has seen, and is also the one delivering the babies. In a mental asylum. Because that makes fucking sense. Wouldn't you want your child to be born in the same place people probably shit themselves and throw it? I do apologize for the insensitivity, I am sure there are some truly sad and broken people in a mental asylum, but its hard to deny that it isn't exactly the best environment to be popping newborns.

OK. So, that's the first 45 minutes summarized. Oh, the babies? Yeah, one is born healthy and fine, the other everybody looks at and screams. And of course, Olivia dies from the burden of delivering... seemingly otherwise normal babies in a normal delivery. Seriously. There were no complications, both babies pop out and its like her character was just, “fuck it, this movie is too horrible, I don't want to live anymore,” and promptly dies.

I can't really say I blame her.

The doctor raises both children, and apparently tries to kill the... dead-head injected one. We see this through the eyes of the baby, as it watches from its gated cage/crib, the doctor hanging over with a teddy bear and a gun.

Cut to an exterior shot where we hear the gun go off, never knowing if he shot the monstrous baby, or committed suicide simply to avoid having to suffer through any more wretched illogical scenes.

Yeah. This is the FIRST 45 minutes. And like I said, it gets worse... after the gunshot, we cut to modern day, with a group of people we never seen thus far breaking down in a rainy road. We learn, thankfully through subtle exposition (probably the only subtle thing in the film) that this is a bus filled with deaf children, with a driver who is an ex-con named Jeff (played, surprisingly entertainingly, by J. LaRose, though still suffering through some of the most god-awful dialogue I've ever heard), a teacher of some sort (Liz, played by Aerica D'Amaro, who looks so eerily like the lady who plays Olivia I thought for a moment it was the same actress), a hearing-capable couple (Rob, played by Justin Smith, and... whatever his girlfriend's name was, whose part is too small to bother trying to dig up), and a handful of the aforementioned hearing-impaired children. After their van breaks down and the ex-con is warned not to swear (seriously, I'm not making that part up), they decide to spend the night in the most likely of places, an abandoned asylum.

Hello? Good writing, I know
you must be around
somewhere...

It also should be noted that Liz, to catch up the viewer in case they might have missed the insanity in gathering a group of vulnerable children into an asylum, tells Jeff that she has heard 'stories' of the old asylum.

Fuck it, they go there anyway, because it is either that or a rainy night in a van. So, they break in (after all, it couldn't possibly be property owned and operated by anybody, that would be too inconvenient), and after everyone walks in, the doors slam shut. For... some... reason, because that is the most obvious failsafe to any asylum, that a thick plate of steel slams shut when you break into it.

I'm sure all modern mental health institutions have such security features, active even long after the place has been abandoned. Oh, and speaking of which, it should also be noted that nobody ever really explains why the place is abandoned. It apparently just is. Because... well because it fucking is.

So, as it turns out, this asylum is occupied by the dead-head twin (tada, he wasn't killed by his doctor-father, which ... means, as you learn by the end of the film, that the doctor shot at what apparently turned out to be the cockroaches on the ground...) who kills people. Yup. And apparently this has been going on for awhile, because the group find old blood in the asylum.

The rest of the film is a chase back and forth between the halls of the asylum, which apparently either has many rooms that look alike or ... not many rooms at all. This blooper I can't really push too hard, as it is probably a function of the obvious low-budget, but sometimes it seems almost like the director had Scooby Doo in mind, with the characters running in and out of what few rooms there are, the monster chasing behind them.

And might I add that, with a few exceptions, he bursts into a room, and they all make it out safely (after a bit of struggle). Then, they wait in a room for awhile, decide it's not safe to stay, and then leave for a room to find the monster again.

It's like hot-potatoe or something. And it gets old.

After awhile of this, the film throws a few twists at you that make little to no sense. I won't spoil them here, but pretty much everything that they threw to the story besides “monster smashes room” made me scratch my head.

When the film closes, you are left feeling that what you watched was essentially two movies that didn't fit-- the story of a man of 'science' (head-poking) and his mutilated new science-baby, and the story of a group of vulnerable children trying to make it through the night in a dangerous environment. The second story is obviously the more interesting, and in all honesty, the film could have been the stronger for just saying, “you know this science prologue? Yeah. Fuck it, let's just start with the children, it doesn't make any goddamn sense.”

Even then, it wouldn't have been good per se, but would have at least had room to improve, perhaps by focusing more on the tension of the children trying to find their way through a dangerous maze, not sure of what lurks around the corner.

The 'children' by the way, respond to the monster mostly the same way one would if they stepped in something funny. They look disgusted/scared for a moment, then shrug, and move onto the next room. There is no focus on their fear, no build-up of tension as they make it from one room to the next, they just sort of... bounce back and forth, and what might be fear registers to the audience more as annoyance. You can almost hear them think to themselves, “goddamn it, is this monster ever like... going to fucking leave us alone? I just want to take a goddamn piss.”

The film has its moments; like I said, there are a few special effects that are better than they have any right to be. I did say a few, because there is also a handful that are so atrocious it makes one wonder how they crept into the final cut.

Is it so bad it's good? Not quite that either. There are moments where you chuckle to yourself (mostly during the 'dead melon as a lever for science' prologue), but for the most part, it actually just kinda hurts to watch. Especially considering the issue of children in danger never really feels as taboo as it should. I mean, some of the kids fucking die, but there is no gravity to the moments. Those alive just sort of say “oh shit” and then run.

Let me say that again, just so it registers: some of the kids die, and the film doesn't exploit the gravity of that situation, instead making sure to push through to the next beat. It is the absolute most baffling decision the filmmakers made, with the retarded genetics prologue coming in a close second.

Overall, like I said at the beginning, I wanted to like this film. Something about the obvious low-budget made me want to say, “yes, the little guy triumphs,” but no... no, he doesn't. This is a bit like watching the little guy jump unto the basketball court with gusto, only to be absolutely fucking creamed by his opponents.

And then kicked.

And then he gets up and finishes the game anyway. You have to admire him for finishing, but damn, if you got creamed that badly, just... walk away man.

Walk away.

This film gets a 20%. A portion of that is because, thankfully, some of the female actresses were easy on the eyes. Another portion is that some of the performances were alright (which is high praise in comparison to the rest of the film). Overall, though, the film is an absolute mess of plot-holes, unnecessary exposition, and frustratingly (for lack of a more tactful word) stupid concepts. Seriously... dead eye juice makes killer babies if you inject it into the fetus? And this... is supposed to be science?! At one point, a character is even told she has committed a felony BY A COP, yet in the next scene she wanders home with her groceries.

Just like this film-- breaking laws, such as those of logic and good taste, goes unpunished. And when I say 'good taste' I don't mean that they break taboos in an interesting and vulgar way-- the film would have gotten a better rating if they did so. Sadly, the writer and/or director just do not have the common sense to take some of the film's more interesting concepts-- such as a group of hearing-impaired children in a dangerous setting, how can you not feel bad for the poor kids?!-- instead focusing on things that just do NOT work.

FOR SCIENCE!

20%.

And that's being generous, I am sorry to say. I hope the filmmakers learn their lesson and their next endeavour gets more attention before being thrown into production. 

Hellbound: Hellraiser II Review

... time to play

I recently decided to rewatch Hellbound: Hellraiser II. Why Hellraiser II and not the first one, you might ask? Well, as much as I adore the world of Hellraiser as a mythology-- and am a rather large Clive Barker fanboy-- I feel the first one has some severe pacing issues that may be a function of far too straightforward cinematography, overly drawn out tension, script issues, or a combination of all three.

And I just felt like it.

The first thing I noticed, right off the bat, was that Hellraiser II had more daring cinematography than the first one. The first Hellraiser wasn't necessarily flawed in its visuals, but the composition of the cinematographer in the second film had more interesting juxtapositions.

However, this came at the cost of beginning quite literally with clips from the first film. This cheapened the effect of being in the Hellraiser world and felt more like a television recap, and in the world of feature films, this sort of technique just never works and always reeks of “hey we need to film up some time. Do we reshoot? Why? They've already told this part of the story...” -- in other words, lazy filmmaking. I find this surprising in an otherwise alright visual package. But I digress.

Another flaw in the first sequel is that it digresses from the original mythology in quite drastic ways. Upon reading up on the history of the film's production, this is often quoted as an issue with rights and actors refusing to return, causing hasty rewrites, but some of the discrepencies have nothing to do with returning actors, or even the script continuity, but rather, it seems like the filmmakers did not reference the first film very much when art direction was being constructed. An early example of this occurs when the police are investigating the house shortly after the events of the first film, and the house is completely different. Even in the flashback, we see Julia laying on the bed, her face ripped to shreds by the cenobites' hooks and chains. However, when we see the bloody mattress, it sits propped up against the wall. This literally made me scratch my head.

As stated, the film starts directly after the first one. Kirsty is in a mental institution after the police refuse to believe her story-- the detective investigating keeps on asking her to steer clear of “fairy tales”. In this environment, we meet Dr Channard, the film's antagonist. At first, he seems like an outspoken scientific and logical soul, but as the film progresses, we quickly learn that he is a bit too logical, and is devoid of almost any compassion. Except when it comes to skinless chicks. He apparently is quite aroused by them. But I am getting ahead of myself!

GET THEM OFF ME!

Dr Channard sets in motion not only the release of Julia, through the aforementioned bloody mattress, but he also unleashes hell on earth through a collection of puzzle boxes that he gives to a group of mental patients. This, apparently, in the logic of the film, cracks the walls between hell and our world, which becomes a sort of... closet to each other, the characters able to pass back and forth between the two worlds seemingly at will. Well... accidental will, for it seems they can never really expect to go from one end to the other, they just sort of accidentally fall into different rooms that are either in hell or in reality. Like a creepy Scooby Doo.

This would be frustrating if it wasn't for some of the film's strengths, which is in two very important categories: the makeup effects are gruesome and contribute strongly to the film's atmosphere. One can almost smell the rotten flesh and decay that surrounds the environments, and where the art department isn't screwing with continuity from the first film, they do well to create a dream-like environment filled with many macabre nightmares.

The second category the film does well is in its depiction of hell itself. When we finally see the other side, it is an intimidating labyrinth-- foreshadowed by Dr Channard stating that the “mind is a labyrinth” earlier on in the film. It is a maze filled with decrepit walls built from the nightmares of those that wander its hallways, from the more standard rot of the majority of the characters to the twisted, dark carnival that one character wanders into.

I think this is why the issues of continuity still do not stop this from being one of my favourite of the Hellraiser films. Logic is seen as the enemy, cold, calculating-- everything else is a sort of dreamscape, where anything can happen. We have a large, phallic thing strapping itself to a character's head as he is transformed into a cenobite; we have hallways of hell opening to rooms of naked ladies under covers whispering “I'm wet” provocatively, toying with one of the inhabitants of hell as they disappear just as they writhe in lust.

With these seemingly incoherent visuals, it seems the film is asking you less to follow a mythos and more to follow a nightmare as it unfolds in front of you, and in this way the film succeeds. Hellbound truly does feel like a nightmare, from the sexual frustrations of the phantom ladies to the fear of medicine induced by scalpels flying everywhere, and, as one cenobite proclaims, “I recommend... amputation!”

Oh my god, he didn't wash his hands after using the bathroom!

So, even though we have horrible gaps in logic, like Dr Channard randomly giving a mental patient a puzzle box as Julia watches-- if she escaped hell, wouldn't she be afraid the box will send the cenobites after her?-- the easiest of explanations takes us back into the dream-world. In the case of Julia's lack of fear, Dr Channard pleads with her, “I have to see, I have to know.” Ok then.

As always, Doug Bradley is absolutely exquisite as the Pinhead cenobite (or “lead cenobite”, as Mr Barker would rather him be credited as). He is sophisticated, calm, but utterly vicious. His deep, obviously altered voice bellows with confident maliciousness. “Ahh, the suffering. The sweet suffering!”

Although I cannot give the film a perfect score-- its gaps in logic do pop the viewer out of the experience from time to time-- the film is a wonderfully nightmarish romp through the depths of hell, and feels very much like something created from the subconscious. In this way, I can give the film 90%. However, be warned that this film is not for everyone-- only those who want to wander through a nightmare need apply!

Cronos Review

Cronos is a movie that I have adored for quite some time. One of the earliest popular films from the director Guillermo Del Toro, who would go on to direct Hellboy, Pan's Labyrinth, and The Devil's Backbone, is in good form here. Although it wears its budget on its sleeve, the film is a carefully and lovingly told tale of the burden of mortality, love, and familial bonds.

We begin the film, after a brief summary of the history of the Cronos device, with shop owner Jesus Gris (played by the humble and sophisticated Federico Luppi), who unknowingly is the owner of the device. Not much background is given as to how he came across the statue the device is hidden in, and when we finally see where it is hidden, it is highly unlikely that it was never encountered before-- but this is such a minor point that it is easily overlooked.

The reason he does go looking for the device is indirectly related to the abrasive Angel, played by the ever-delightful Ron Perlman. A hoodlum seemingly working under Angel goes pawing through the artifacts in Jesus' store. When Jesus approaches the guy (essentially because the guy Angel sends looks like an epic douchebag with sticky fingers), he essentially runs away, leaving Angel to look at the item he was thinking of stealing-- a highly improbable (due to it being huge) statue of an angel. However, the hoodlum did not leave before poking a hole through the statue's face.

Like I said, epic douchebag with sticky fingers.

At any rate, Jesus doesn't think much of this, until his grand-daughter, Aurora, gets 'attacked' by a cockroach that crawls out of the hole made by the douchebag. Aurora proceeds to flip her $hi! big time, shocking her grandfather into telling her that, perhaps-- just perhaps-- she is just pissing off the bugs (although he words it differently).

This causes Jesus to dig into the statue, where he finds the cronos device, and thus begins the downfall of poor Jesus. As it turns out, a rich old fart (Dieter de la Guardia, who leaves notes repeatedly that he is “open all night”) is after the device in order to become immortal, and has basically been scouring the world for it. By the time Angel actually brings Dieter the statue, Jesus had already taken it out and had begun playing with it (in what may be a creepy allegory for drug use). This makes Dieter flip his $h!t too, and basically goes on a rampage to get the device back.

No, that's not creepy... not at all...

In true drug-addict fashion, however, Jesus refuses to give up the device even when his grand-daughter catches him essentially getting high. Nope, it is much better to keep it for himself than to send it off to an old fart businessman.

And in the cross-fire, Jesus ends up dying. But, as we already should have surmised, this is not the end.

The rest of the film is a fairly predictable romp trying to avoid Angel's violence and keep his grand-daughter protected. Although the story, at this point, essentially stops twisting completely,the remainder becomes more an exploration of the effect his decisions have made on Jesus and those around him. The film ends on a sweet note, made all the more bittersweet by a dedication shortly afterwards.

The film, like all of the work by Guillermo del Toro, is a visual feast. The pacing is somewhat slowed by the obvious budgetary limitations, but what is there is fantastic-- a specific treat is a view of the inside of the cronos device, which is shot with absolute breathtaking detail by del Toro's frequent collaborator, cinematographer Guillermo Navarro.

Ah curses, light. F---'er.

This film harkens back to at once a more gritty, brutal vampire than perhaps our teenage girls are used to, but also a much more human one than in the godawful twit-light series. Like films such as Interview with a Vampire, the pathos of immortality is explored in torturous emotional detail, but the interesting thing from a vampire-flick perspective is del Toro's allegory of vampirism as a sort of drug-addiction, destroying all those around the 'addict'.

I thought it was, especially for the time (and even now) a novel approach to the vampire mythos that makes sense in context of the mythology-- once again, unlike the heavily modified and neutered vampire of more modern vampire films.

I give the film a 95%-- not only due to it being the first feature film by del Toro, giving it a historic significance, but on the strengths of the film itself, which offers all of the things that make del Toro a great director, though perhaps in the minutae of a lower budget.

Some Guy Who Kills People Review

I will say this, right of the bat, Some Guy Who Kills People is not for everyone. But then again, that's like saying S&M is only for a select audience-- some things are just self-explanatory. But what might surprise some people is why Some Guy Who Kills People is for a niche audience. There is a slight bit of gore, nothing over the top, so it is not the torture-porn audience that it is selling to, despite what the title might have you believe. What the film is about is social awkwardness, and it is played adeptly and expertly by Kevin Corrigan as Ken Boyd, a social misfit who just recently, as of the opening of the film, came out of the looney bin.

What follows is a fun romp through rural America with a few stereotypes (the jocks and the geeks serve a familiar role), but overall enough animated characters as to be interesting. One of the first we encounter is Sheriff Walt Fuller (played by Barry Bostwick ), who is a delightful if not exaggerated oaf. The Sheriff is decidedly dry, commenting on each of the murders with an accidental wit that is both dark and, more often than not, sincerely funny. Some of the jokes made with the Sheriff's character shouldn't be funny-- they are far too dry, and often obvious puns-- but Mr Bostwick plays the character with such loveable enthusiasm that it is hard not to chuckle as he comments with things like “well we should find his head!”

Ice Cream never looked so... awkward and murderous

One of the characters I felt missed a few beats-- not by any fault of the actor, but the script-- was the mother, played by none other than Karen Black . Once again, it isn't that the actress misses any steps, but her character is a bit too ambiguous. Is she aware of the darkness surrounding her son? Is she aware of what banging the Sheriff does for the poor guy? She is both kind of a bitch-- yelling at her son to return so she doesn't have to put up with her grand-daughter-- and kind, pushing Ken toward said grand-daughter so he doesn't end up ostracizing himself from her. I was not sure what to think of her character, as she is perhaps a bit too morally ambiguous. It's one thing, say, to have the complexity of Dexter or many of the characters from Breaking Bad, but it is another thing entirely to be both a jerk and a nice person at the same time, and it would have been nice to see her character developed with a little more complexity.

That being said, Mr Corrigan as Ken Boyd cannot be applauded enough. The awkwardness of his character drips through, and almost makes the viewer clear his throat and give the movie a few steps of personal space. For someone who is somewhat socially awkward, this character will ring so true as to make him almost immediately endearing. You really feel for the guy as every new social interaction becomes more and more difficult for him to fake his way through. A particularly affective scene involves a painting as a makeshift obstacle blocking a goodnight kiss.

Art appreciation with a touch of first date awkwardness

The same can be said for Ken's love interest, played by Lucy Davis . Her character is endearingly awkward, and all the more sweet for being infatuated by the nervous, shy, and obviously broken Ken. Although Miss Davis seems to be hit or miss with audiences-- I've heard reviews of her work that describe her as “annoying”-- I find her work here to be delightful, and the chemistry with Mr Corrigan is affective if not entertainingly painful to watch.

That is not to say that the film is perfect. This awkwardness is an overarching theme in the film, and for those not accustomed or inclined toward this type of humour, the pacing might seem broken and slow. And indeed, it would be painfully so if it wasn't for the social interactions being entertainingly awkward.

Another issue I have with the film is the obvious 'twist' at the end. It is not much of a spoiler to say that there is a red herring, and most viewers will be able to catch it right away. However, what is even less expertly handled is the result of the misdirection, which involves at least one question that cannot easily be answered (and incidentally is a tad of a spoiler alert), and that question involves a character being present shortly after the murders that should not have known, by the logic of the film, that the murders were to happen.

However, that minor blip notwithstanding, the film has a handful of very quotable moments, and the actors are wonderful in each of their respective roles. Some characters are underdeveloped, but this could have been the result of the cutting room floor, brought on by pressure to keep the running time a specific length. However, what is left is still a very strong film, one that is entertaining and as awkward as the day is... cough... long...

...

I give the film a 95%.

The Awakening Review

The Awakening, directed by Nick Murphy, was a surprise to say the least. In a genre dominated by slashers or movies that take too little risks to truly be frightening (*cough* Woman in Black cough) this film plays well with its suspense and although the pacing begins slowly, quickly rises in a satisfactory way.

The film opens with Florence (Rebecca Hall ) sitting in on a seance. The seance quickly turns eerie, with a maggot-infested bird taking centre stage as a woman begins seeing her lost daughter in a reflection.

Florence quickly reveals herself and exposes the seance for the hoax that it is. The 'psychics' are apparently aware of her scepticism, and, as they grumble away with their tail between their legs, they curse her for it. She is even further rewarded for her scepticism by a slap in the face from the very woman who was being duped.

The message, it seems, is that scepticism is a lonely existence in a sea of superstition.

Shortly after, Florence is visited by Robert Mallory (played expertly and with compassion by Dominic West) who invites her on another ghost-hunt. She is reluctant, with the only motivation for her reluctance stated to be exhaustion-- this is the first moment of a flaw I will return to later-- but when Robert manages to leave it up to her, with a note that he is aware of her background and it has influenced his decision to hire her, it is clear that she will take the case even though she does not say 'yes'.

Cut to an obligatory shot of a train with “now we've begun” music building to a crescendo, and the heart of the movie begins.

The orphanage itself is quaint and only mildly creepy, at least from the outside. Perhaps the creepiest aspect of the exterior is the children running like wild animals all around it, giving off the feeling that this isn't so much an orphanage inasmuch as a home infested with children. I am not sure if this feeling was due to my own biases with children, but it honestly felt that way at the outset, and shots of dinner halls overflowing with children do not help to shake the feeling that this place is downright infested.

We start to see segregation amongst the children, and kudos must go to the director for having performances from children that are, while understated, believable. Children are notoriously difficult to direct, and with a movie this 'infested' with them, it would have been a crippling blow to have bad performances from them, but they move about with glee, and the few tortured souls that are segregated truly feel like the poor souls we all knew (or were) growing up.

Shortly after, strange occurrences begin to sneak around the environment, until all the children but one go home. This one child, Tom (Isaac Hempstead Wright ), is creepy enough, but mixed with the caregiver Maud (played by the Harry Potter veteran vImelda Staunton) who stares down at both Tom and Florence with a creepy look of affection, the affect is uncomfortable in a subtle, evocative way.

The film builds on this discomfort expertly, moving from disturbing event to further, more abruptly supernatural occurrences. Florence, the sceptic, can no longer doubt what is going on in the orphanage. The film, at this point, follows a fairly predictable formula for the most part, although does so expertly and with care. The chemistry between Florence and Robert's characters is strong and believable, though at times a tad cheesy-- why is it that women always seem to get horny when they are at their most scared shitless? From my experience in real life, if a woman is scared, I am usually about to be punched in the shoulder more than kissed.

But I probably have no one to blame but myself for that.

At any rate, the movie follows a few plot twists that I will not spoil, suffice to say that they caused me to scratch my head a bit. Although the story is careful to avoid any huge plot-holes, the twists did open up a few cracks in the otherwise solid scripting. There was just an overall sense that some of the twists were thrown in simply... well... to twist and turn a bit from the otherwise standard fare, and the instinct, while handled somewhat carefully, seems a bit like a deus ex machina.

That being said, though, the holes are small enough not to ruin the entire experience, and one could potentially argue that the holes are filled in eventually by the script. However, for the strong sense of foreboding, the expert acting, and the general feeling of unease and discomfort, the film accomplishes seemingly everything it sets out.

Even the end scene, which again I will not spoil, leaves you on a haunting note that holds for a moment in a rather poetic/musical hold, before the credits slowly roll in like fog. All in all, an effective if not standard film that harkens back to simpler ghost stories, something somewhat abandoned by a market oversaturated with knives and otherwise humdrum ghost stories. I give the film a strong recommendation, and would rate it at a 90%.

Stay tuned for more reviews to come!

Jumping Jehosophat

It's been too long since I wrote on here, and probably quite a lot has changed since my last post. I've been busy writing like a mofo, and have a few scripts sitting on my hard-drive waiting for a good home. 

That being said, been polishing up synopses and one-pagers as well as loglines to try and have packages for every completed script. Wrap them up in a nice pretty bow and send those bitches out like orphans trying to get adopted.

I've also been collecting movie reviews (which I will most likely post here) for all the horror movies I've seen (and believe me that's a long list), so look forward to what will hopefully be a more consistent posting.  

Also... it's almost my birthday. Okay not really, but you can get me presents anyway. I mean, why not?