This night's movie was "Se7en" starring Morgan Freeman, Brad Pitt, and Kevin Spacey.
I first saw this movie several years ago at the recommendation of a friend of mine in High School. At that point I hadn't really conceived of a good movie that ran at a rather slow pace and used horrible, depraved crimes as something other than "AHA!" shocking gross-outs. Se7en presents these murders so matter-of-factly, even while its characters wretch on screen. To a degree I think the evenness of the treatment between routine police work and investigating mutilated corpses with deadly sins written in blood does the film a disservice, dramatically. On the other hand I can see it might be trying to make the point about the tediousness of work and the horrifying banality the killer sees in every day life. This was also one of the first movies I'd seen with Brad Pitt in it, and back when I originally saw it I was surprised to learn he was a very good actor.
While it's more a really tense drama with a few shockingly gross scenes than a thriller of any sort, it's still a really well done movie.
Tomorrow will have been "High Tension"
Monday, October 25, 2010
Sunday, October 17, 2010
October Horror Season 2: Day 17
Day 3 of Serial Killer week's feature presentation is "From Hell". This 2001 film was directed by the Hughes Brothers (previously known for Menace II Society and Dead Presidents) and based on the Alan Moore graphic novel.
Now, I confess I've seen this movie before, and it is one of my favorite movies. I don't know if it's Top 10, but I've always really enjoyed it. It seemed to be something that was artistic and stylish but still accessible a violent, so I felt I could enjoy it without feeling like a brute who just loves bloody movies. I think the assessment still holds up, but after repeated views and thinking about this after some slight "Film Schooling" by my better half, it's probably not as high art as I originally thought.
In fact, part of the reason I probably noticed the filming style was how heavy handed the use of angle and colored lighting was in the first act of the film. Later on, they seemed to film more using natural white light and enhancing certain elements with color. From what I understand from the DVD commentary the film was shot mostly chronologically, so it could've just been the brothers getting used to directing a movie like this, or perhaps some additional budget being allocated to allow them to film on locations instead of sound stages. Either way, after the funeral scene the quality of the lighting improves significantly. Also, while I really enjoyed the graphic novel style angles and contrasts in the early movie, I will admit that the later style feels a lot more natural while still maintaining some signatures (like the shot of Jack walking up the ladder shot from underneath the carriage).
Aside from the shaky start cinematography-wise, there really isn't much playing against this film because it's still very well directed and very well written. The cast includes Johnny Depp, Robbie Coltrane, and Ian Holm, so the acting is all very good. Even the lesser known actors and actresses playing the Masons and the Whitechapel hookers are very good. In fact, the worst casting choice was probably Heather Graham.
This almost hedges out Feast as my favorite movie of the month so far, but I still love the prodigious amount of unapologetic gore Feast pumps out. If I was trying to seem higher class than that, though, I'd put From Hell up front. Definitely see it if you haven't.
Tomorrow night was supposed to be High Tension, but due to already having the DVD and needing to catch up, we watched Se7en.
Now, I confess I've seen this movie before, and it is one of my favorite movies. I don't know if it's Top 10, but I've always really enjoyed it. It seemed to be something that was artistic and stylish but still accessible a violent, so I felt I could enjoy it without feeling like a brute who just loves bloody movies. I think the assessment still holds up, but after repeated views and thinking about this after some slight "Film Schooling" by my better half, it's probably not as high art as I originally thought.
In fact, part of the reason I probably noticed the filming style was how heavy handed the use of angle and colored lighting was in the first act of the film. Later on, they seemed to film more using natural white light and enhancing certain elements with color. From what I understand from the DVD commentary the film was shot mostly chronologically, so it could've just been the brothers getting used to directing a movie like this, or perhaps some additional budget being allocated to allow them to film on locations instead of sound stages. Either way, after the funeral scene the quality of the lighting improves significantly. Also, while I really enjoyed the graphic novel style angles and contrasts in the early movie, I will admit that the later style feels a lot more natural while still maintaining some signatures (like the shot of Jack walking up the ladder shot from underneath the carriage).
Aside from the shaky start cinematography-wise, there really isn't much playing against this film because it's still very well directed and very well written. The cast includes Johnny Depp, Robbie Coltrane, and Ian Holm, so the acting is all very good. Even the lesser known actors and actresses playing the Masons and the Whitechapel hookers are very good. In fact, the worst casting choice was probably Heather Graham.
This almost hedges out Feast as my favorite movie of the month so far, but I still love the prodigious amount of unapologetic gore Feast pumps out. If I was trying to seem higher class than that, though, I'd put From Hell up front. Definitely see it if you haven't.
Tomorrow night was supposed to be High Tension, but due to already having the DVD and needing to catch up, we watched Se7en.
Saturday, October 16, 2010
October Horror Season 2: Day 16
For serial killers day 2 we watched "Horsemen" from 2009, starring Dennis Quaid.
For a movie written by the man behind "Doom" and "The Expendables" and directed by someone who primarily does concert videos, this is surprisingly competent. Unfortunately as a good thriller it falls flat. The direction and the editing is jumpy and often confusing. The writing isn't horrible but it's not too impressive either. They seemed like they wanted to take the Pseudo-biblical overtones of "Se7en" and mix in a touching father/son reconciliation story, what they ended up with was a mess. Don't get me wrong, the movie was sick and disturbed, which helped as a payoff but it couldn't save it. There was no investment in the characters, especially not the victims since they barely even mentioned most of their names.
And the ending twist of Crying Emo kid Apocalypse was just sad.
Thorough disappointment, since "Se7en" already exists and does the same sort of thing so much better. As much as I enjoy visiting Dennis Quaidia and President Dennis Quaid, I can't recommend this either.
Stay tuned for "From Hell".
For a movie written by the man behind "Doom" and "The Expendables" and directed by someone who primarily does concert videos, this is surprisingly competent. Unfortunately as a good thriller it falls flat. The direction and the editing is jumpy and often confusing. The writing isn't horrible but it's not too impressive either. They seemed like they wanted to take the Pseudo-biblical overtones of "Se7en" and mix in a touching father/son reconciliation story, what they ended up with was a mess. Don't get me wrong, the movie was sick and disturbed, which helped as a payoff but it couldn't save it. There was no investment in the characters, especially not the victims since they barely even mentioned most of their names.
And the ending twist of Crying Emo kid Apocalypse was just sad.
Thorough disappointment, since "Se7en" already exists and does the same sort of thing so much better. As much as I enjoy visiting Dennis Quaidia and President Dennis Quaid, I can't recommend this either.
Stay tuned for "From Hell".
Friday, October 15, 2010
October Horror Season 2: Day 15
(Please note: This and the next several days will be back-dated to appear on their correct day while I play catch up. I was not able to watch for several days due to unforeseable circumstances.)
Day 15 kicks off Serious Serial Killer week with 2007's "Zodiac" which stars Robert Downey Jr and Jake Gyllenhaal among other big names. Really an A-list cast.
Directed by David Fincher the film is just about guaranteed to be incredibly well constructed. While I'm sure there's limitless possibility for film-nerding on this one, for a layman it just really didn't seem out of the ordinary. It was good, no doubt, but I couldn't really interest myself in the shots unless something was actually happening in them. With a film that clocks in at ~2.6 hours, holding attention is really important.
A good job is done here and I didn't really find myself wandering away from the movie for too long. The only thing I could really hold against it is that in certain places they did a lot of time skipping, so you'd see "2 weeks later", and then maybe 35 seconds of film, and then a fade and "3 weeks later". I'm told they did this to stay accurate to the actual time line of the case as laid out in the book, but it's really distracting when it happens so quickly. If you've ever seen the Sphere adaptation, they stuck the actual chapter names from the book as transitions between sequences and it really cut up and ruined the action.
Aside from that, Downey Jr is always a pleasure to watch, even Jake isn't bad playing the doe-eyed cartoonist. He fails a little as the serious journalist later, though.
Definitely not bad, but I wouldn't really do a recommend on this. I guess maybe since I'm too young to remember the Zodiac news coverage, if it had been my time I might be a little more interested in it.
Tomorrow serial killers week continues with "Horsemen"
Day 15 kicks off Serious Serial Killer week with 2007's "Zodiac" which stars Robert Downey Jr and Jake Gyllenhaal among other big names. Really an A-list cast.
Directed by David Fincher the film is just about guaranteed to be incredibly well constructed. While I'm sure there's limitless possibility for film-nerding on this one, for a layman it just really didn't seem out of the ordinary. It was good, no doubt, but I couldn't really interest myself in the shots unless something was actually happening in them. With a film that clocks in at ~2.6 hours, holding attention is really important.
A good job is done here and I didn't really find myself wandering away from the movie for too long. The only thing I could really hold against it is that in certain places they did a lot of time skipping, so you'd see "2 weeks later", and then maybe 35 seconds of film, and then a fade and "3 weeks later". I'm told they did this to stay accurate to the actual time line of the case as laid out in the book, but it's really distracting when it happens so quickly. If you've ever seen the Sphere adaptation, they stuck the actual chapter names from the book as transitions between sequences and it really cut up and ruined the action.
Aside from that, Downey Jr is always a pleasure to watch, even Jake isn't bad playing the doe-eyed cartoonist. He fails a little as the serious journalist later, though.
Definitely not bad, but I wouldn't really do a recommend on this. I guess maybe since I'm too young to remember the Zodiac news coverage, if it had been my time I might be a little more interested in it.
Tomorrow serial killers week continues with "Horsemen"
Thursday, October 14, 2010
October Horror Season 2: Day 14
Monsters week is over after tonight's viewing of 2005's "Feast" starring Balthazar Getty, Henry Rollins, and Jason Mewes.
I wasn't too sure what to expect here since it was a pretty random looking Netflix recommendation, but I knew things were going to turn out well about 2 minutes into the film when each character was introduced with a still frame write up that included snarky "Fun Facts" and "Life Expectancy".
The whole movie is set in a dive bar in the boonies of some undefined country where a bunch of sad losers gather more out of habit than interest. Suddenly "Hero" bursts in and warns of a monster attack, and promptly dies. He is replaced by his girlfriend, "Heroine", who's life expectancy is given as something along the lines of "Better than the last hero's, we hope." The movie is well aware all its characters are really caricatures, but instead of becoming self-parody it just refuses to care. The "So what?" swagger really carries the audience through what always turns out to be the most boring part of any "survival" monster movie: The group's internal strife as characters fight for dominance or personal escape. There's all the requisite back stabbing and accidental death you should expect, but it just slides past so smoothly. All too often it feels like movies in this genre hit a point and have to slam on the breaks so they can have some good "human" drama before resuming the pointless killing, in Feast it makes sense.
Also like Slither last night it plays itself just amusing enough by its own ridiculousness to avoid having to make jokes at its expense. However the blood and disgusting gore is turned up several points, which makes it slightly difficult to watch in parts...but how often does a movie actually make you need to turn away from the screen because it's too gross? At this point even Saw movies are so hilarious you just kindof watch them and go "Oh, well lookie here. This character needs to remove that other character's sphincter with this rusty scalpel and carry at least 12 pounds of fecal matter and intestines to this rusty bucket without spilling anything on the electrified wire before the timer runs out and the pear of anguish surgically inserted into their chest cavity expands. Yawn." (Also, Saw producers: You are not allowed to steal my idea, if this shows up in a Saw or Hostel sequence I'm coming after you.)
In short, it was so good I'm actually planning on getting the 2nd and 3rd movies to see what kind of dive the series took. Knocks Slither out as best movie of the month thus far.
Tomorrow Dramatic Serial Killer movies starts with "Zodiac".
I wasn't too sure what to expect here since it was a pretty random looking Netflix recommendation, but I knew things were going to turn out well about 2 minutes into the film when each character was introduced with a still frame write up that included snarky "Fun Facts" and "Life Expectancy".
The whole movie is set in a dive bar in the boonies of some undefined country where a bunch of sad losers gather more out of habit than interest. Suddenly "Hero" bursts in and warns of a monster attack, and promptly dies. He is replaced by his girlfriend, "Heroine", who's life expectancy is given as something along the lines of "Better than the last hero's, we hope." The movie is well aware all its characters are really caricatures, but instead of becoming self-parody it just refuses to care. The "So what?" swagger really carries the audience through what always turns out to be the most boring part of any "survival" monster movie: The group's internal strife as characters fight for dominance or personal escape. There's all the requisite back stabbing and accidental death you should expect, but it just slides past so smoothly. All too often it feels like movies in this genre hit a point and have to slam on the breaks so they can have some good "human" drama before resuming the pointless killing, in Feast it makes sense.
Also like Slither last night it plays itself just amusing enough by its own ridiculousness to avoid having to make jokes at its expense. However the blood and disgusting gore is turned up several points, which makes it slightly difficult to watch in parts...but how often does a movie actually make you need to turn away from the screen because it's too gross? At this point even Saw movies are so hilarious you just kindof watch them and go "Oh, well lookie here. This character needs to remove that other character's sphincter with this rusty scalpel and carry at least 12 pounds of fecal matter and intestines to this rusty bucket without spilling anything on the electrified wire before the timer runs out and the pear of anguish surgically inserted into their chest cavity expands. Yawn." (Also, Saw producers: You are not allowed to steal my idea, if this shows up in a Saw or Hostel sequence I'm coming after you.)
In short, it was so good I'm actually planning on getting the 2nd and 3rd movies to see what kind of dive the series took. Knocks Slither out as best movie of the month thus far.
Tomorrow Dramatic Serial Killer movies starts with "Zodiac".
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
October Horror Season 2: Day 13
On Tuesday the 13th we watched Slither starring Nathan Fillion.
Slither is part of a new batch of monster movies with the old-school "small town horror" aesthetic but modern production values, and it was a hell of a lot of fun.
It managed to maintain a certain air of light-hearted fun without actually being funny, the situation and the way everything was put together was just so weirdly amusing on its own the movie didn't feel the need to force some more jokes. Plus it was absolutely disgusting, especially at the end during the final transformation of the Grant/Alien/Monster/Zombie thing. Again, not so over-the-top like Dead Alive was. The monster was also worthy of note since they never really went so far as to define what it was, where it was from (except SPACE), what it wanted to do, or even really how it worked. So whatever they decided they needed the monster to be capable of, it suddenly was. But they didn't abuse the mechanic too much so you were never sitting there going "Oh. Yeah, of course it does THAT now too! The hell, movie?"
This is probably the best movie of the month so far since it was really fun to watch and well paced but also bloody and gross without becoming ridiculous.
Monster week ends tomorrow with Feast.
Slither is part of a new batch of monster movies with the old-school "small town horror" aesthetic but modern production values, and it was a hell of a lot of fun.
It managed to maintain a certain air of light-hearted fun without actually being funny, the situation and the way everything was put together was just so weirdly amusing on its own the movie didn't feel the need to force some more jokes. Plus it was absolutely disgusting, especially at the end during the final transformation of the Grant/Alien/Monster/Zombie thing. Again, not so over-the-top like Dead Alive was. The monster was also worthy of note since they never really went so far as to define what it was, where it was from (except SPACE), what it wanted to do, or even really how it worked. So whatever they decided they needed the monster to be capable of, it suddenly was. But they didn't abuse the mechanic too much so you were never sitting there going "Oh. Yeah, of course it does THAT now too! The hell, movie?"
This is probably the best movie of the month so far since it was really fun to watch and well paced but also bloody and gross without becoming ridiculous.
Monster week ends tomorrow with Feast.
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
October Horror Season 2: Day 12
Day 12's movie was the Wolfman (2010) starring Anthony Hopkins and Benecio Del Toro.
I didn't read many reviews of the movie, but I did see it reviewed by Escapist's resident film geek Movie Bob and he gave it a fairly lukewarm reaction. His complaints stemmed mostly from the meandering nature of the movie which had been rewritten and redirected so many times it suffered from a sort of schizophrenia.
On my watch through I couldn't really see the jumpy nature, but I did notice a few things felt a little tacked together. The first half of the movie was pretty dull, to be totally honest, I know it was trying to build some kind of tension but I couldn't stop making jokes about Hugo Weaving wandering around calling everyone in town Mr. Anderson. All of a sudden, immediately following the attack on Benecio's Lawrence Talbot, it took a sharp turn for the AWESOME. Out of nowhere there were creepy shots of some deranged kid, talking statues, jarring flashbacks, and VERY well done gore. It got bloody real fast and then sprinted across the finish line. I got a little confused about exactly what happened towards the very end when they started killing off named characters, but it didn't matter because it was still fun.
Definitely a recommend, even if the first half was a little on the snoozery side it pays off by the end.
Tomorrow: Slither.
I didn't read many reviews of the movie, but I did see it reviewed by Escapist's resident film geek Movie Bob and he gave it a fairly lukewarm reaction. His complaints stemmed mostly from the meandering nature of the movie which had been rewritten and redirected so many times it suffered from a sort of schizophrenia.
On my watch through I couldn't really see the jumpy nature, but I did notice a few things felt a little tacked together. The first half of the movie was pretty dull, to be totally honest, I know it was trying to build some kind of tension but I couldn't stop making jokes about Hugo Weaving wandering around calling everyone in town Mr. Anderson. All of a sudden, immediately following the attack on Benecio's Lawrence Talbot, it took a sharp turn for the AWESOME. Out of nowhere there were creepy shots of some deranged kid, talking statues, jarring flashbacks, and VERY well done gore. It got bloody real fast and then sprinted across the finish line. I got a little confused about exactly what happened towards the very end when they started killing off named characters, but it didn't matter because it was still fun.
Definitely a recommend, even if the first half was a little on the snoozery side it pays off by the end.
Tomorrow: Slither.
Monday, October 11, 2010
October Horror Season 2: Day 11
For monster week day 3 we watched 1997's Mimic starring Mira Sorvino and Josh Brolin.
I wasn't sure what I was getting into here. I remember seeing the preview when I was younger but didn't really think much of it, it looked like a fairly boring standard movie. I didn't realize at the time what Guillermo del Toro was capable of it.
The movie was well paced, well written with good characters, and well shot for being - by virtue of its time - dark all the time. Although, the exposition seemed a little forced at times. The creature design was nicely creepy, and well split between CGI and models. I was really, genuinely impressed with a seriously entertaining movie with good portions of creepy, action, and gross coming out of the premise "6 foot tall killer cockroaches". I might even go so far as to check out the sequels, but everything about their creatives teams are different so they might not play nearly as well.
Tomorrow it looks like we'll finally get our netflix DVD so the movie of the night will be Wolfman.
I wasn't sure what I was getting into here. I remember seeing the preview when I was younger but didn't really think much of it, it looked like a fairly boring standard movie. I didn't realize at the time what Guillermo del Toro was capable of it.
The movie was well paced, well written with good characters, and well shot for being - by virtue of its time - dark all the time. Although, the exposition seemed a little forced at times. The creature design was nicely creepy, and well split between CGI and models. I was really, genuinely impressed with a seriously entertaining movie with good portions of creepy, action, and gross coming out of the premise "6 foot tall killer cockroaches". I might even go so far as to check out the sequels, but everything about their creatives teams are different so they might not play nearly as well.
Tomorrow it looks like we'll finally get our netflix DVD so the movie of the night will be Wolfman.
Sunday, October 10, 2010
October Horror Season 2: Day 10
The Host is this year's first non-English movie, also I believe the first foreign film.
Normally I tend to shy away from foreign films, most of this is because I really like my movies to be in a language I understand...this restricts me to English language movies and French children's film for ages 0-5 years. Every so often I make an exception, last year's Dead Snow (Norwegian) was phenomenal. Although I still found having to read subtitles distracting, I couldn't help but admire the sheer size of director Tommy Wirkola's sack: Filming bloody zombie Nazis in broad daylight against a snow-covered mountain.
This year we watched The Host. It was dubbed, which removed the subtitle annoyance, although it would've been nice for the Korean text on television to have been translated. I really enjoyed the movie, mostly because the monster was beyond amazing. Released in 2006, it has better integrated CG than any American film I've seen since then. Michael Bay could take a lesson. Also, despite the monster itself not looking too scary at all it was pretty frightening when it appeared because of the way it moved. I thought this aspect was enhanced by the film's general lack of shaky cam. Again, Michael Bay could take a lesson; so could J.J. Abrams. When the thing was on the screen you were forced to pay attention to it. What hampered the movie, in my opinion were the random attempts at slap-stick comedy. It would have been better served playing completely straight faced.
All in all this is one of the better creature features I've seen, even if it did have some WTF moments and clocked a little on the long side. The death of the monster was excellently well played, although they had mentioned something towards the beginning of the movie I wish they would have delivered on. Definitely worth watching.
Tomorrow, if we get it, will be Wolfman. Otherwise, tomorrow will be Mimic.
Normally I tend to shy away from foreign films, most of this is because I really like my movies to be in a language I understand...this restricts me to English language movies and French children's film for ages 0-5 years. Every so often I make an exception, last year's Dead Snow (Norwegian) was phenomenal. Although I still found having to read subtitles distracting, I couldn't help but admire the sheer size of director Tommy Wirkola's sack: Filming bloody zombie Nazis in broad daylight against a snow-covered mountain.
This year we watched The Host. It was dubbed, which removed the subtitle annoyance, although it would've been nice for the Korean text on television to have been translated. I really enjoyed the movie, mostly because the monster was beyond amazing. Released in 2006, it has better integrated CG than any American film I've seen since then. Michael Bay could take a lesson. Also, despite the monster itself not looking too scary at all it was pretty frightening when it appeared because of the way it moved. I thought this aspect was enhanced by the film's general lack of shaky cam. Again, Michael Bay could take a lesson; so could J.J. Abrams. When the thing was on the screen you were forced to pay attention to it. What hampered the movie, in my opinion were the random attempts at slap-stick comedy. It would have been better served playing completely straight faced.
All in all this is one of the better creature features I've seen, even if it did have some WTF moments and clocked a little on the long side. The death of the monster was excellently well played, although they had mentioned something towards the beginning of the movie I wish they would have delivered on. Definitely worth watching.
Tomorrow, if we get it, will be Wolfman. Otherwise, tomorrow will be Mimic.
Saturday, October 9, 2010
October Horror Season 2: Day 9
For day 2 of Monster week we've been forced to substitute "Wolfman" with 1972's "ZaAT", as presented by Mystery Science Theater 3000.
There's not much to be said about this. While last night's bad costumes and action were reminiscent of classic Kirk-era Star Trek, this had more in common with bad 50's/60's monsters: The lumbering, emotionless, man in a bad rubberized suit. Half the time I thought the actor was literally drunk and stumbling through the set. The narration was pure corn and the plot made almost no sense. I really am thankful that scifi and horror have grown past this as genres. Also, the MST3K crew's jokes and associated skits were pretty funny as usual and definitely kept my interest over the hour and a half of ZaAT's run time.
Since there is no mail delivered on Sunday, tomorrow will be "The Host", an import from Korea.
There's not much to be said about this. While last night's bad costumes and action were reminiscent of classic Kirk-era Star Trek, this had more in common with bad 50's/60's monsters: The lumbering, emotionless, man in a bad rubberized suit. Half the time I thought the actor was literally drunk and stumbling through the set. The narration was pure corn and the plot made almost no sense. I really am thankful that scifi and horror have grown past this as genres. Also, the MST3K crew's jokes and associated skits were pretty funny as usual and definitely kept my interest over the hour and a half of ZaAT's run time.
Since there is no mail delivered on Sunday, tomorrow will be "The Host", an import from Korea.
Friday, October 8, 2010
October Horror Season 2: Day 8
Monster week begins with 1982's "Swamp Thing" directed by Wes Craven.
Now, I had watched the 1990's TV series as a child and was told this was a horror movie so I expected a campy genre piece trying to play it serious. What I got was actually a pretty good precursor to the show. What I didn't get was a horror movie.
The story was surprisingly engaging for early 80's "Science Gone Wrong" cheese, and the cheese factor was actually quit low. They didn't play too much beyond what they were able to do, and thankfully didn't even TRY to explain the science...that shit just worked. The swamp thing suit was actually pretty good, era considered; and there were very few points where the though that this was a dude in a green painted wet suit really got in the way. Arcane's post-formula form was pretty retarded looking, though. No real save there, it looked like a retarded man-bear-pig fighting swamp thing with a broadsword.
Aside from the bright 80's camp of the whole thing, there's really nothing to set it up as a bad movie, actually it's a decent old style action flick. For my money the best swamp thing is still the 1990's live action TV show. Both movies, and the series are available streaming on hulu.
Day 9's movie will be: Wolfman, unless the DVD doesn't come in time...in which case we'll watch "Zaat" with Mystery Science Theater 3000.
Now, I had watched the 1990's TV series as a child and was told this was a horror movie so I expected a campy genre piece trying to play it serious. What I got was actually a pretty good precursor to the show. What I didn't get was a horror movie.
The story was surprisingly engaging for early 80's "Science Gone Wrong" cheese, and the cheese factor was actually quit low. They didn't play too much beyond what they were able to do, and thankfully didn't even TRY to explain the science...that shit just worked. The swamp thing suit was actually pretty good, era considered; and there were very few points where the though that this was a dude in a green painted wet suit really got in the way. Arcane's post-formula form was pretty retarded looking, though. No real save there, it looked like a retarded man-bear-pig fighting swamp thing with a broadsword.
Aside from the bright 80's camp of the whole thing, there's really nothing to set it up as a bad movie, actually it's a decent old style action flick. For my money the best swamp thing is still the 1990's live action TV show. Both movies, and the series are available streaming on hulu.
Day 9's movie will be: Wolfman, unless the DVD doesn't come in time...in which case we'll watch "Zaat" with Mystery Science Theater 3000.
Thursday, October 7, 2010
October Horror Season 2: Day 7
Vampire week concludes with 1987's "The Lost Boys" starring Kiefer Sutherland and the Coreys.
I was looking forward to this one because when I was but a wee lad I took a "College For Kids" course about horror movies and monsters taught by a Professor R. Cane. It was pretty neutered by necessity, since you can't really show the full gamut of gore to a class of pre-pubescent boys; however, The Lost Boys was tame enough and apparently "classic" enough for a few scenes to make the cut. So based on my limited preview of it and the implication that it somehow inspired vampire movie lore, I was pretty excited to finally see it.
After having watched it, I do not find myself disappointed. It's not the groundbreaking film I may have thought it was when I was younger, if I had seen it then I probably would've been disappointed. I've since developed a more even perspective and had brought down my expectations, and at that level it was actually pretty good. I enjoyed watching it and thought the vampires were pretty imaginative. They actually looked like they may have played a large part in influencing the Buffy The Vampire Slayer vampires, more so the series than the movie. Also, considering that last night I watched Dracula 3000 which have vampires in coffins in space 1000 years in the future, I really enjoyed that the Lost Boys vampires didn't sleep in coffins. Actually, they had funky mutated bat feet that let them hang from the ceiling of their cave, which would've looked supremely creepy at first if it had not been for Bill S. Preston, Esquire's weird-ass mullet. The vampire action aspects were all very well done, although the kill scene at the end where blood shoots from all the plumbing in the house was beginning to remind me of Peter Jackson's Dead Alive.
The movie suffered, actually, because of its vampire hunters. The entire comic shop hunter plot was made of pure cheese but played so straight by Corey Feldman it almost hurt. The odd "Oh yeah, we probably ought to include a romance" aspects of it also brought things down. I did enjoy the fake-out twist at the end, despite living in a post-Shyamalan world. I would enjoy a version of the film with this stuff taken out and focusing purely on a divorced mother with 2 teenage sons moving to an unfamiliar town that just happens to be teeming with vampires to live with her father.
Tomorrow we begin Monster week with "Swamp Thing"
I was looking forward to this one because when I was but a wee lad I took a "College For Kids" course about horror movies and monsters taught by a Professor R. Cane. It was pretty neutered by necessity, since you can't really show the full gamut of gore to a class of pre-pubescent boys; however, The Lost Boys was tame enough and apparently "classic" enough for a few scenes to make the cut. So based on my limited preview of it and the implication that it somehow inspired vampire movie lore, I was pretty excited to finally see it.
After having watched it, I do not find myself disappointed. It's not the groundbreaking film I may have thought it was when I was younger, if I had seen it then I probably would've been disappointed. I've since developed a more even perspective and had brought down my expectations, and at that level it was actually pretty good. I enjoyed watching it and thought the vampires were pretty imaginative. They actually looked like they may have played a large part in influencing the Buffy The Vampire Slayer vampires, more so the series than the movie. Also, considering that last night I watched Dracula 3000 which have vampires in coffins in space 1000 years in the future, I really enjoyed that the Lost Boys vampires didn't sleep in coffins. Actually, they had funky mutated bat feet that let them hang from the ceiling of their cave, which would've looked supremely creepy at first if it had not been for Bill S. Preston, Esquire's weird-ass mullet. The vampire action aspects were all very well done, although the kill scene at the end where blood shoots from all the plumbing in the house was beginning to remind me of Peter Jackson's Dead Alive.
The movie suffered, actually, because of its vampire hunters. The entire comic shop hunter plot was made of pure cheese but played so straight by Corey Feldman it almost hurt. The odd "Oh yeah, we probably ought to include a romance" aspects of it also brought things down. I did enjoy the fake-out twist at the end, despite living in a post-Shyamalan world. I would enjoy a version of the film with this stuff taken out and focusing purely on a divorced mother with 2 teenage sons moving to an unfamiliar town that just happens to be teeming with vampires to live with her father.
Tomorrow we begin Monster week with "Swamp Thing"
October Horror Season 2: Day 6
For vampire week day 6, we watched Dracula 3000 starring Casper Van Dien and ...wait for it... Coolio.
You know you're in for a great movie when Coolio's on the cast. I mean, let's look at this guy's filmography for just a second: Pterodactyl, Gang Warz, China Strike Force, Shriek If You Know What I Did Last Friday the Thirteenth, The Convent (which is funny as all hell, by the way), ... OH DEAR GOD HE WAS IN BATMAN & ROBIN! Batman & Robin!!! BAT NIPPLES! BAT CREDIT CARD!!!!
Anyway, so you know if it's got Coolio, it'll be a hilariously amusing train wreck.
Moving on. The plot of Dracula 3000 is that Count Orlock somehow either escaped Earth and camped out in a planetary system that just so happened to be named the Carpathian System. That or all vampires are aliens. Anyway, planet Carpathia dies out so he hops a galactic transport ship that just so happened to be named the Demeter at Transylvania Station and books passage to Earth. Not too long into the voyage he gets hungry and starts taking out the crew, turning them all into vampires. The captain tries to blow the ship up but gets stopped by Orlock. Fast forward 50 years, the lesser vampires have turned to sand and Casper Van Dien's Abraham Van Helsing arrives on the scene to salvage the ship. I explained this so I could make the point that this is not a subtle film. Also, there is a crew member named Mina. About as subtle as a kick in the teeth.
Anyway, the movie has next to no budget and it shows. But the cinematography is decent enough that the cheap sets pull off a convincing backdrop. For what it is it's pretty well-written and well-produced, even the acting is decent enough. There's no real drama, so basic emoting is more than enough to carry the jokes. All in all, I can't think of a reason not to watch this. It's not scary, so if you're expecting a movie that's funny because it's bad this isn't it. But it is a well done spoof, not Mel Brooks caliber or anything, but obvious and funny. And compared to last night's unholy haul, a nice short breeze.
You know you're in for a great movie when Coolio's on the cast. I mean, let's look at this guy's filmography for just a second: Pterodactyl, Gang Warz, China Strike Force, Shriek If You Know What I Did Last Friday the Thirteenth, The Convent (which is funny as all hell, by the way), ... OH DEAR GOD HE WAS IN BATMAN & ROBIN! Batman & Robin!!! BAT NIPPLES! BAT CREDIT CARD!!!!
Anyway, so you know if it's got Coolio, it'll be a hilariously amusing train wreck.
Moving on. The plot of Dracula 3000 is that Count Orlock somehow either escaped Earth and camped out in a planetary system that just so happened to be named the Carpathian System. That or all vampires are aliens. Anyway, planet Carpathia dies out so he hops a galactic transport ship that just so happened to be named the Demeter at Transylvania Station and books passage to Earth. Not too long into the voyage he gets hungry and starts taking out the crew, turning them all into vampires. The captain tries to blow the ship up but gets stopped by Orlock. Fast forward 50 years, the lesser vampires have turned to sand and Casper Van Dien's Abraham Van Helsing arrives on the scene to salvage the ship. I explained this so I could make the point that this is not a subtle film. Also, there is a crew member named Mina. About as subtle as a kick in the teeth.
Anyway, the movie has next to no budget and it shows. But the cinematography is decent enough that the cheap sets pull off a convincing backdrop. For what it is it's pretty well-written and well-produced, even the acting is decent enough. There's no real drama, so basic emoting is more than enough to carry the jokes. All in all, I can't think of a reason not to watch this. It's not scary, so if you're expecting a movie that's funny because it's bad this isn't it. But it is a well done spoof, not Mel Brooks caliber or anything, but obvious and funny. And compared to last night's unholy haul, a nice short breeze.
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
October Horror Season 2: Day 5
Vampire week Day 5: 1979's 'Salem's Lot, apparently short for "Jerusalem's Lot"...which makes it lose a lot of its title appeal.
Even the trailer is really long...
Anyway, the main thing this movie has playing against it is that it's 3 freaking hours long. So is the 2004 remake. This has mostly to do with the fact that these weren't movies, but actually TV Mini series. Either way, way too long to watch in a single sitting.
Salem's Lot had a several very creepy scenes playing in its favor, it just was forced to space those out to a point where they became something wonderful and amazing when they showed up because it meant a break from the monotony of the late 70's drama. I know it has a reputation as a vampire classic but I don't see it. Usually a horror classic has something really good, but this couldn't save itself from its own pacing.
If someone were to make an "I've got shit to do with my day" fan-edit of the movie, distilling it to relevant plots and creepy vampire scenes, it would be a great 70's vampire flick. As it stands, Salem's Lot is an example of a slow burn done wrong. For reference, "Let The Right One In" is a slow burn done right.
Unfortunately I can't recommend this movie in its original form. It's worth watching if you have no problems fast-forwarding the slow bits, but to sit and view in its 3 hour entirety just doesn't pay off enough.
The next movie will be: Dracula 3000. This should be funny.
Even the trailer is really long...
Anyway, the main thing this movie has playing against it is that it's 3 freaking hours long. So is the 2004 remake. This has mostly to do with the fact that these weren't movies, but actually TV Mini series. Either way, way too long to watch in a single sitting.
Salem's Lot had a several very creepy scenes playing in its favor, it just was forced to space those out to a point where they became something wonderful and amazing when they showed up because it meant a break from the monotony of the late 70's drama. I know it has a reputation as a vampire classic but I don't see it. Usually a horror classic has something really good, but this couldn't save itself from its own pacing.
If someone were to make an "I've got shit to do with my day" fan-edit of the movie, distilling it to relevant plots and creepy vampire scenes, it would be a great 70's vampire flick. As it stands, Salem's Lot is an example of a slow burn done wrong. For reference, "Let The Right One In" is a slow burn done right.
Unfortunately I can't recommend this movie in its original form. It's worth watching if you have no problems fast-forwarding the slow bits, but to sit and view in its 3 hour entirety just doesn't pay off enough.
The next movie will be: Dracula 3000. This should be funny.
Monday, October 4, 2010
October Horror Season 2: Day 4
Tonight's film was Dracula: Dead and Loving it starring Leslie Nielsen, Mel Brooks, and Amy Yasbeck.
I think Mel Brooks is a funny man, this movie made me lawl. Also, heaving Victorian bosoms.
In all seriousness though, the best thing about Mel Brooks movies is the style and humor still hold up even after over a decade. The man knows his craft.
Tomorrow we will be watching: Salem's Lot
I think Mel Brooks is a funny man, this movie made me lawl. Also, heaving Victorian bosoms.
In all seriousness though, the best thing about Mel Brooks movies is the style and humor still hold up even after over a decade. The man knows his craft.
Tomorrow we will be watching: Salem's Lot
Sunday, October 3, 2010
October Horror Season 2: Day 3
Week 1, day 3's movie was Interview with the Vampire starring Tom Cruise and Brad Pitt.
Also appearing were Kirsten Dunst, Antonio Banderas, and Christian Slater. Needless to say this is a movie about Beautiful People, and pre-Twilight beautiful vampires can mean only one thing: Anne Rice.
The premise of the story is that Tom Cruise is Lestat and fucking LOVES being a vampire, so he makes Brad Pitt a vampire. Brad is less than thrilled with the idea of killing people to live and spends the rest of the movie whining. The whole story is actually told in flashbacks as Pitt is giving an interview to Christian Slater. Kirsten is turned by Tom after Brad feeds on her in an angsty stroll through an outbreak of the plague. She freaking loves being a vampire too, for about 30 years and then the fact she will never grow boobs gets to her and she tries to kill Tom. Angst, confusion, angst, plot twist, fire, angst, more fire, some fire, and then angst. And another plot twist.
The movie was far more entertaining the first time I saw it, since this time around I knew the major milestones and the detail they added just made it feel slow. The movie doesn't really do anything creative with vampire lore, and there isn't so much a story as a series of events. It's not really a horror movie, but look at who wrote it. It's a decently well presented drama that just happens to have vampires in it. Not really my kind of movie, but I enjoyed it well enough. The way the story is told is intriguing enough to pull you through the boring moments.
Tomorrow's movie will be: Dracula, Dead and Loving it.
This might not merit a review, since all I would be able to say is "I think Mel Brooks is a funny man, this movie made me lawl. Also, heaving Victorian bosoms."
Also appearing were Kirsten Dunst, Antonio Banderas, and Christian Slater. Needless to say this is a movie about Beautiful People, and pre-Twilight beautiful vampires can mean only one thing: Anne Rice.
The premise of the story is that Tom Cruise is Lestat and fucking LOVES being a vampire, so he makes Brad Pitt a vampire. Brad is less than thrilled with the idea of killing people to live and spends the rest of the movie whining. The whole story is actually told in flashbacks as Pitt is giving an interview to Christian Slater. Kirsten is turned by Tom after Brad feeds on her in an angsty stroll through an outbreak of the plague. She freaking loves being a vampire too, for about 30 years and then the fact she will never grow boobs gets to her and she tries to kill Tom. Angst, confusion, angst, plot twist, fire, angst, more fire, some fire, and then angst. And another plot twist.
The movie was far more entertaining the first time I saw it, since this time around I knew the major milestones and the detail they added just made it feel slow. The movie doesn't really do anything creative with vampire lore, and there isn't so much a story as a series of events. It's not really a horror movie, but look at who wrote it. It's a decently well presented drama that just happens to have vampires in it. Not really my kind of movie, but I enjoyed it well enough. The way the story is told is intriguing enough to pull you through the boring moments.
Tomorrow's movie will be: Dracula, Dead and Loving it.
This might not merit a review, since all I would be able to say is "I think Mel Brooks is a funny man, this movie made me lawl. Also, heaving Victorian bosoms."
October Horror Season 2: Day 2
Month Day 2 and Vampire week Day 2's movie is Let Me In, directed by Matt Reeves of Cloverfield fame.
Let Me In is actually a remake of the 2008 Swedish film "Let the right one in", which was itself based on the 2004 book of the same name.
The premise of Let Me In is that Abby, a vampire in the form of a 12 year old girl moves in next door to Owen, an awkward boy who is bullied constantly. They become friends, and after leaving a trail of death and blood, run off together.
It's hard to discuss Let Me In without comparing it to Let the Right One In, but I'd like to avoid that. Let Me In I think suffers from the tenants of modern American film it adopts. Namely, teal/orange digital color shifting and lens flare. I noticed the lens flare early on but not as much towards the end. The fact that everyone was freaking orange bothered me the whole time. The movie didn't shy away from gore or blood, putting it front and center without apology whenever it could sensibly get away with, which was really only 3-4 times. I really liked it. Owen and Abby were pretty creepy, but not too much that you couldn't feel sorry for them.
Overall Let Me In is far more accessible than its Swedish original. Both movies are great in their own right, and seeing Let the Right One In before Let Me In is well worth it, since where Let Me In does vary from its source material it gives a nice tip of the hat. Watching both adds a bit of depth to what is the shallower of the two. Although even alone Let Me In is very well done and picks up the action just often enough and just long enough to keep you interested in what is effectively a slow horror-drama.
Tomorrow will be "Interview with the Vampire".
Let Me In is actually a remake of the 2008 Swedish film "Let the right one in", which was itself based on the 2004 book of the same name.
The premise of Let Me In is that Abby, a vampire in the form of a 12 year old girl moves in next door to Owen, an awkward boy who is bullied constantly. They become friends, and after leaving a trail of death and blood, run off together.
It's hard to discuss Let Me In without comparing it to Let the Right One In, but I'd like to avoid that. Let Me In I think suffers from the tenants of modern American film it adopts. Namely, teal/orange digital color shifting and lens flare. I noticed the lens flare early on but not as much towards the end. The fact that everyone was freaking orange bothered me the whole time. The movie didn't shy away from gore or blood, putting it front and center without apology whenever it could sensibly get away with, which was really only 3-4 times. I really liked it. Owen and Abby were pretty creepy, but not too much that you couldn't feel sorry for them.
Overall Let Me In is far more accessible than its Swedish original. Both movies are great in their own right, and seeing Let the Right One In before Let Me In is well worth it, since where Let Me In does vary from its source material it gives a nice tip of the hat. Watching both adds a bit of depth to what is the shallower of the two. Although even alone Let Me In is very well done and picks up the action just often enough and just long enough to keep you interested in what is effectively a slow horror-drama.
Tomorrow will be "Interview with the Vampire".
Friday, October 1, 2010
October Horror Season 2: Day 1
Once again October is upon us and it is my favorite holiday season. Just as last year myself and my other will be watching one movie each day of the month, broken into 4 week long categories. These are: Vampires, Monsters, Serious serial killers, and Ghosts. As an exercise in blogging discipline I will try to include a small review for each one.
Week 1 is Vampires and movie 1 is Fright Night, the 1985 classic vampire camp flick starring Roddy MacDowel as Peter Vincent.
At first glance the camp seemed almost overwhelming, but behind it was a movie that was just smart enough to rise above itself. The special effects, while ridiculous, were quite good for the age; especially Evil's wolf->human transformation sequence. MacDowel was pretty fun to watch, as well as his obviously powdered hair. If I thought about the movie too much, I'd find finer character points to be disappointed with. However, it's really one of those rare movies that knows exactly what it is and doesn't try to portray itself above that. Really fun, definitely recommend watching it to anyone. Also, if you keep in mind that the actor who plays "Evil", eventually went on to do a lot of gay porn throughout the 1990's, a lot of the jokes are a lot funnier.
Week 1 is Vampires and movie 1 is Fright Night, the 1985 classic vampire camp flick starring Roddy MacDowel as Peter Vincent.
At first glance the camp seemed almost overwhelming, but behind it was a movie that was just smart enough to rise above itself. The special effects, while ridiculous, were quite good for the age; especially Evil's wolf->human transformation sequence. MacDowel was pretty fun to watch, as well as his obviously powdered hair. If I thought about the movie too much, I'd find finer character points to be disappointed with. However, it's really one of those rare movies that knows exactly what it is and doesn't try to portray itself above that. Really fun, definitely recommend watching it to anyone. Also, if you keep in mind that the actor who plays "Evil", eventually went on to do a lot of gay porn throughout the 1990's, a lot of the jokes are a lot funnier.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
