Die, Monster, Die! is the 2nd entry in Lovecraft week. It was released in 1965 and was directed by Daniel Haller who would also go on to direct The Dunwich Horror in 5 years. This stars Boris Karloff, Suzan Farmer, and Nick Adams.
The movie is loosely based on Lovecraft's The Colour of Outer Space, which was his attempt to create a truly alien outer space creature. However, aside from the crashing of a meteor that strangely affects life, the movie is very different. The original story is the second hand account from Ammi Pierce of what happened to the "blasted heath", an area outside Arkham where a metorite had landed years ago. The metorite was examined, but no one could explain its effect on the nearby vegetation. The media seeps globs of "Colour" that eventually drive a nearby family insane while eroding the vegetation into grey dust and tainting the water. The family goes missing one-by-one before Pierce shows up with several other men only to discover everyone is dead as the "Colour" and the metorite leave the planet. This also takes place over years.
The movie is significantly quickened, and most of the cast are inventions. Some of the family members are loosely based on their equivalents in the story, but the names are changed. They've also created a romantic plot between the Ammi-clone and a member of the family.
So while these changes are a little disheartening and detracts a lot from the Lovecraftian spirit, it's still a pretty good movie. It plays a lot like a great 50s-60s style ghost story with a mysterious secret and a figure in black stalking the woods. It was actually really fun to watch. Some of the character motivations and behaviors are a little strange in the beginning, but when cool stuff starts to happen it doesn't really matter.
As far as faith to the source material this is probably the weaker of the two, but it was actually a more entertaining movie.
Next up: The Resurrected, sometimes known as Shatterbrain.
Tuesday, October 2, 2012
October horror 2012: The Dunwich Horror (1970)
We begin H.P. Lovecraft week with The Dunwich Horror, released in the first few weeks of 1970. It was directed by Daniel Haller and starred Dean Stockwell and Sandra Dee. It also involved the Michael Fox who forced Michael J. Fox to use the J, which is kindof cool. The movie itself is an adaptation of the Lovecraft story of the same name, written by Curtis Hanson, Henry Rosenbaum, and Ronald Silkosky.
The story is only loosely based on Lovecraft's short, some of the major differences being the timeframe that it takes place during and the Nancy character. The original story unfolds over the course of several years, while the film is covered in less than a week. Also, Sandra Dee's character doesn't exist in the original at all.
The core concept, however, has remained intact. That is that Wilbur Whateley (Dean Stockwell) wants to "procure" a copy of The Necronomicon from the Miskatonic University library so that he can summon the Outer God: Yog-Sothoth, one of the Old Ones. Since this is Lovecraft week, this is going to come up a lot. The Old Ones were a race of other-dimensional beings that are coterminous with our space-time continuum. There's a lot to suggest the Old Ones were also the gods of various ancient poly-theistic religions. The mythology suggests they ruled the earth before the ages of men and are now trapped outside our universe, having been overthrown and all but destroyed by the shoggoths, a slave race of their own creation. Now that I type it out it also sounds a lot like the Goa'uld from Stargate. Moving on.
The cult imagery they use is kindof a hodge-podge of early Meso-American and Egyptian symbols, which seemed very unfocused because it was largely treated as dressing. Lovecraft is all about this sort of magic, where words and symbols have mighty power and simple drawings can drive people mad. So this seems like a missed opportunity to make the images actually symbolize something.
It's disheartening that the actual Dunwich Horror has become a B-plot in its own movie, with the mysterious entity sequestered in the Whately house being referenced visually only a handful of times and barely ever during dialog. When it eventually escapes it racks up maybe 2 casualties before straight up vanishing, presumably during the climax at the end of the movie. Its origins remain the same as the story but there is so little focus on it that it almost doesn't make sense its included at all.
In the film, everything that happens is the direct result of human action. In the story, like most of Lovecraft's cannon, humanity is just along for the ride. Wilbur is killed in the original during a pretty chance encounter, so there is no ceremony. In the film the ceremony is an easily relatable and tangible thing that Armitage has to stop in order to save the day. In the story, the thing to be stopped is an invisible monster that explodes out of the Whateley house to rampage across the countryside where it terrorizes the locales for several days before being killed by Armitage and several others from Miskatonic University. So the Horror, the evil, was not called immediately by a human in a way that killing the human would stop it. It is worth pointing out that this is one of the few Lovecraft works where a human manages to stop the monster, possibly because this is just a purely terrestrial creature with possible cosmic parentage, not an Elder God itself...or even a cult.
It's a fun movie that seems to nod strongly to Lovecraft while trying to update his pacing to something much more brisk. Although, to be totally honest they may have moved things along a bit too quickly since it feels like something is always happening which prevents anything from having weight. The summoning ceremony, which seems to have been basically invented for the movie, fits really well into the story. However, it does make the climax seem really strange, since it basically consists of Armitage and Whateley shouting gibberish at each other until Whateley spontaneously combusts and falls of a cliff. It's so early in the 70s, it really seems like it should be considered a 60s movie and the animated title sequence and cheese theme-music reinforce that. Though one of the things I found really interesting was when the composer was making the contemporary theme music go off-kilter with theremin and merging it with the generically "exotic" theme they've been using as the cult theme.
Tomorrow: Lovecraft week returns with Die, Monster, Die! also directed by Daniel Haller and based on the Lovecraft short story The Colour of Outer Space.
The story is only loosely based on Lovecraft's short, some of the major differences being the timeframe that it takes place during and the Nancy character. The original story unfolds over the course of several years, while the film is covered in less than a week. Also, Sandra Dee's character doesn't exist in the original at all.
The core concept, however, has remained intact. That is that Wilbur Whateley (Dean Stockwell) wants to "procure" a copy of The Necronomicon from the Miskatonic University library so that he can summon the Outer God: Yog-Sothoth, one of the Old Ones. Since this is Lovecraft week, this is going to come up a lot. The Old Ones were a race of other-dimensional beings that are coterminous with our space-time continuum. There's a lot to suggest the Old Ones were also the gods of various ancient poly-theistic religions. The mythology suggests they ruled the earth before the ages of men and are now trapped outside our universe, having been overthrown and all but destroyed by the shoggoths, a slave race of their own creation. Now that I type it out it also sounds a lot like the Goa'uld from Stargate. Moving on.
The cult imagery they use is kindof a hodge-podge of early Meso-American and Egyptian symbols, which seemed very unfocused because it was largely treated as dressing. Lovecraft is all about this sort of magic, where words and symbols have mighty power and simple drawings can drive people mad. So this seems like a missed opportunity to make the images actually symbolize something.
It's disheartening that the actual Dunwich Horror has become a B-plot in its own movie, with the mysterious entity sequestered in the Whately house being referenced visually only a handful of times and barely ever during dialog. When it eventually escapes it racks up maybe 2 casualties before straight up vanishing, presumably during the climax at the end of the movie. Its origins remain the same as the story but there is so little focus on it that it almost doesn't make sense its included at all.
In the film, everything that happens is the direct result of human action. In the story, like most of Lovecraft's cannon, humanity is just along for the ride. Wilbur is killed in the original during a pretty chance encounter, so there is no ceremony. In the film the ceremony is an easily relatable and tangible thing that Armitage has to stop in order to save the day. In the story, the thing to be stopped is an invisible monster that explodes out of the Whateley house to rampage across the countryside where it terrorizes the locales for several days before being killed by Armitage and several others from Miskatonic University. So the Horror, the evil, was not called immediately by a human in a way that killing the human would stop it. It is worth pointing out that this is one of the few Lovecraft works where a human manages to stop the monster, possibly because this is just a purely terrestrial creature with possible cosmic parentage, not an Elder God itself...or even a cult.
It's a fun movie that seems to nod strongly to Lovecraft while trying to update his pacing to something much more brisk. Although, to be totally honest they may have moved things along a bit too quickly since it feels like something is always happening which prevents anything from having weight. The summoning ceremony, which seems to have been basically invented for the movie, fits really well into the story. However, it does make the climax seem really strange, since it basically consists of Armitage and Whateley shouting gibberish at each other until Whateley spontaneously combusts and falls of a cliff. It's so early in the 70s, it really seems like it should be considered a 60s movie and the animated title sequence and cheese theme-music reinforce that. Though one of the things I found really interesting was when the composer was making the contemporary theme music go off-kilter with theremin and merging it with the generically "exotic" theme they've been using as the cult theme.
Tomorrow: Lovecraft week returns with Die, Monster, Die! also directed by Daniel Haller and based on the Lovecraft short story The Colour of Outer Space.
Monday, October 1, 2012
October Horror 2012 Movie List
We're back to October once again, so horror movies are back in season. And! My apartment decorations are finally appropriate again.
So we've made our list, checked it Se7en times, or 666, or whatever.
Anyway, as is tradition we've split October into 4 weeks, each with an oddly specific theme.
This year we've got:
First on the list, kicking off Lovecraft week and going up in a few hours is going to be the 1970 "The Dunwich Horror".
So we've made our list, checked it Se7en times, or 666, or whatever.
Anyway, as is tradition we've split October into 4 weeks, each with an oddly specific theme.
This year we've got:
- H.P. Lovecraft adaptations - Anything obviously Lovecraftian or directly inspired by a story by Lovecraft.
- Internet Horror - Any movie where a computer game or the internet is a major plot point.
- Anthologies - Mostly just an excuse to watch Trick 'R Treat again, also V/H/S due to Ti West's involvement.
- Stephen King adaptations - Any movie based on a story by Stephen King.
First on the list, kicking off Lovecraft week and going up in a few hours is going to be the 1970 "The Dunwich Horror".
Saturday, September 29, 2012
Horror Pre-Season: The House at the End of the Street
I'm going to be back-publishing this entry so it's chronologically near when I actually watched the movie, so that it fits into the pre-season and doesn't bloat the 28 movies in the actual October viewing list.
Hoo, boy.
House at the End of the Street is a psychological thriller directed by Mark Tonderai and starring Jennifer Lawrence, Elizabeth Shue, and Max Theiriot. It was filmed mostly in mid-2010, and originally intended for release in April 2012 before being moved to September 2012. What's interesting about that is that had it been released in April, another Jennifer Lawrence movie would have still been playing in theaters. The Hunger Games was released in March 2012 and made an absolutely absurd amount of money, also making a massive star out of the then relatively unknown Lawrence. They then enacted a 6 month advertising campaign heavily focused on letting us know Jennifer Lawrence is in this movie, also moving the thriller's release into that late-September to early-October timeframe I mentioned in The Possession's review.
It's quite clear that this movie was never intended to have such a major release, but decided to capitalize on its star's suddenly heightened profile. The major problem again is the characters don't feel real. This time I don't think it's a problem of acting, I think the writing is just poor. The things people do just doesn't make sense, their motivations are practically non-existent and the relationships absolutely don't work. A significant amount of the first act is devoted to showing off Elissa's (Lawrence) multiple artistic and devious talents and how utterly charmed her life is. Instead of the traditional new-kid difficulties settling in and problems fitting in at a new school, Elissa immediately makes friends with everyone. Getting invited to a massive drinking party with all the "popular" kids seemingly on the first day, and being invited to join a band by the second day. She plays guitar, keyboard, sings, has a popular myspace music page, looks amazing, lives in a gorgeous house and the only enemy she has is the slimy alpha male that tried to force himself on her but had the decency to stop when asked. The only tension seems to be between her and her mother, who she deliberately antagonizes presumably because of some past faults or indiscretions which are never elaborated on and just mentioned as existing in passing.
Also, I'm pretty sure there was a bit that included the phrase "trying to do this mom thing" 3 times in as many minutes. The mom also said that Elissa liked to "make projects" out of people or "fix" them and tended to "find the most damaged" person around so many times I lost count. It almost felt like lines where just copy-pasted around. To say the movie repeated itself is an understatement.
The look of the film jumps from ultra-realistic handheld camera to this repeated shot where the camera cranes from below a character up past them and then shoots them from some point above the house to this "artsy" style with psychedelic colors, POV shots, and fast cuts. It's jarring, but the worst part is that all of it fails to convey internal geography. I don't know where locations are in relation to each other, and I don't even know what houses are shaped like.
As to the plot, if you're at all familiar with the Paul_Millander plot from season 2 of the original CSI series, that's basically what's going on. There are some twists to get there but it's pretty predictable. There's also a bit of some other TV plot in there, but I can't actually remember enough specifics about it. And that's the problem, really. This is a 100 minute long movie that tried to create an effective mystery centering around a serial abductor. They've tried to include a well-characterized lead character, add a lot of psychosis to the antagonist and create a complex plot of misdirections to avoid their twists being obvious. This is something TV shows have been able to do really well recently, since they have a few episodes to do it. The movie tried to do a lot, but managed its time poorly and wound pulling out a lot of random "oh yeah...his parents also did meth!" things that came out of nowhere, didn't add much, and were sometimes inconsistent with previous scenes.
I don't know why I was expecting a lot out of this movie, but I really feel let down and the problems were so myriad and obvious I felt really bad about seeing it.
Hoo, boy.
House at the End of the Street is a psychological thriller directed by Mark Tonderai and starring Jennifer Lawrence, Elizabeth Shue, and Max Theiriot. It was filmed mostly in mid-2010, and originally intended for release in April 2012 before being moved to September 2012. What's interesting about that is that had it been released in April, another Jennifer Lawrence movie would have still been playing in theaters. The Hunger Games was released in March 2012 and made an absolutely absurd amount of money, also making a massive star out of the then relatively unknown Lawrence. They then enacted a 6 month advertising campaign heavily focused on letting us know Jennifer Lawrence is in this movie, also moving the thriller's release into that late-September to early-October timeframe I mentioned in The Possession's review.
It's quite clear that this movie was never intended to have such a major release, but decided to capitalize on its star's suddenly heightened profile. The major problem again is the characters don't feel real. This time I don't think it's a problem of acting, I think the writing is just poor. The things people do just doesn't make sense, their motivations are practically non-existent and the relationships absolutely don't work. A significant amount of the first act is devoted to showing off Elissa's (Lawrence) multiple artistic and devious talents and how utterly charmed her life is. Instead of the traditional new-kid difficulties settling in and problems fitting in at a new school, Elissa immediately makes friends with everyone. Getting invited to a massive drinking party with all the "popular" kids seemingly on the first day, and being invited to join a band by the second day. She plays guitar, keyboard, sings, has a popular myspace music page, looks amazing, lives in a gorgeous house and the only enemy she has is the slimy alpha male that tried to force himself on her but had the decency to stop when asked. The only tension seems to be between her and her mother, who she deliberately antagonizes presumably because of some past faults or indiscretions which are never elaborated on and just mentioned as existing in passing.
Also, I'm pretty sure there was a bit that included the phrase "trying to do this mom thing" 3 times in as many minutes. The mom also said that Elissa liked to "make projects" out of people or "fix" them and tended to "find the most damaged" person around so many times I lost count. It almost felt like lines where just copy-pasted around. To say the movie repeated itself is an understatement.
The look of the film jumps from ultra-realistic handheld camera to this repeated shot where the camera cranes from below a character up past them and then shoots them from some point above the house to this "artsy" style with psychedelic colors, POV shots, and fast cuts. It's jarring, but the worst part is that all of it fails to convey internal geography. I don't know where locations are in relation to each other, and I don't even know what houses are shaped like.
As to the plot, if you're at all familiar with the Paul_Millander plot from season 2 of the original CSI series, that's basically what's going on. There are some twists to get there but it's pretty predictable. There's also a bit of some other TV plot in there, but I can't actually remember enough specifics about it. And that's the problem, really. This is a 100 minute long movie that tried to create an effective mystery centering around a serial abductor. They've tried to include a well-characterized lead character, add a lot of psychosis to the antagonist and create a complex plot of misdirections to avoid their twists being obvious. This is something TV shows have been able to do really well recently, since they have a few episodes to do it. The movie tried to do a lot, but managed its time poorly and wound pulling out a lot of random "oh yeah...his parents also did meth!" things that came out of nowhere, didn't add much, and were sometimes inconsistent with previous scenes.
I don't know why I was expecting a lot out of this movie, but I really feel let down and the problems were so myriad and obvious I felt really bad about seeing it.
Monday, September 10, 2012
Horror Pre-Season: The Possession
Late August through mid-September is when studios like to release horror movies outside of the shadow of whatever late-October juggernaut franchise is popular. I guess either because they're unsure of the movie's ability to stand up to the competition or they want to give something a bit different a chance to flourish. I'm honestly not entirely sure which The Possession is.
Don't get me wrong, I liked the movie. I thought it was pretty decent and a largely unexplored concept with a pretty great 3rd act. However, there was something about it that made it hard to take seriously, and if you can't take a horror movie seriously it loses all ability to scare.
Firstly, I really enjoy it when a possession story takes a different approach to the mythology it's going to use. Most entries in the genre focus on the Catholic rites of exorcism, so I take particular interest whenever a movie bases itself on a different culture's possession myths. In this case, the Jewish dybbuk, which is more of a ghostly possession than the traditional demonic one. I recall The Unborn being about a dybbuk as well, and though the movie wasn't too creative with its scare design it had a few really good ones and I thought the unique concept elevated it a bit.
So The Possession is a story about broken family and their experiences after one of the daughters convinces her father to buy her a Dybbuk Box at a garage sale. She falls under the influence of the box and becomes increasingly dangerous to herself and her family as the dybbuk takes hold, while her father tries to convince his ex-wife that something is wrong with the girl and eventually to get an exorcism.
Jeffery Dean Morgan does a decent job as the ex-husband, Clyde, conveying a real sense of a father who just wants his kids to like him. His character is pretty well developed, without spending a lot of time on him which is really nice. Another standout in the cast is Natasha Calis is Clyde's daughter Em. She reminds me a lot of Chloe Moretz, and has some real acting skill. She does a great job here developing the character's mannerisms as the possession continues. There are some nice creepy moments that rely on her acting being convincing in order to carry them, and she sells them well. I wish there were actually more bits in the movie like that.
The sound design is also pretty unnerving. I've noticed this is something that does a really good job scaring me when it's done well. It's probably why I like Ti West's movies so much, he had the same sound designer (Graham Reznick) on House of the Devil and The Innkeepers, and he's really good.
The exorcism sequence itself was also very nicely done, being chaotic while still clear and focused. There are some contrivances to set the scene, but it is an effective setting once you forget how we got there.
However, I think the movie falters at a few points. One being Kyra Sedgwick is pretty unconvincing as the ex-wife. There are only one or two scenes where she seems to be putting the correct emotions into her lines. It's heavily implied she's angry at Clyde, and really into her new boyfriend and the various yuppie lifestyle trappings he brings, but the way she behaves never conveys that. She actually seems to be happy to see her ex most of the time.
Another issue I had is that the dybbuk is absurdly powerful, even when it's still trapped in the box it's able to send a grown woman flying across the room and snap her back. It ruins all sense of proportion, so nothing can escalate properly and the whole movie winds up feeling pretty flat. There are peeks and valleys with the action, but the average line doesn't move much.
It feels like the script had been rewritten or heavily edited several times. They make a lot of hints at what would have been really interesting bits of mythology to play around with, like in one scene Em finds a small carving of some sort of animal in the box, like a dog or a boar. A few scenes later some sort of animal you never see is shown having wandered into Clyde's house and raiding his fridge. Could it have been related? I dunno, would've been cool, though. They have a similar thing with a moth from the box, but then moths are made really prominent. I wish they had given some indication of why moths were so important. As nocturnal creatures they have obvious symbolism, but is that the intent or is it just "bugs are creepy"?
Scenes alternate tone drastically as well, and that keeps breaking the immersion, which makes the attempts at drama fall a little flat. You kindof lose the tension they're trying to develop, so the whole things feels a bit scattered. They also didn't really make use of the dybbuk mythology, and treated it more like a standard demonic possession with a sprinkling of Judaica. So yeah, it was entertaining. Not nearly as bad as everyone seems to be making it out to be, but it does fall a little flat. It's got a few good scare moments, but it never comes together as anything so it winds up being pretty forgettable.
--PXA
Don't get me wrong, I liked the movie. I thought it was pretty decent and a largely unexplored concept with a pretty great 3rd act. However, there was something about it that made it hard to take seriously, and if you can't take a horror movie seriously it loses all ability to scare.
Firstly, I really enjoy it when a possession story takes a different approach to the mythology it's going to use. Most entries in the genre focus on the Catholic rites of exorcism, so I take particular interest whenever a movie bases itself on a different culture's possession myths. In this case, the Jewish dybbuk, which is more of a ghostly possession than the traditional demonic one. I recall The Unborn being about a dybbuk as well, and though the movie wasn't too creative with its scare design it had a few really good ones and I thought the unique concept elevated it a bit.
So The Possession is a story about broken family and their experiences after one of the daughters convinces her father to buy her a Dybbuk Box at a garage sale. She falls under the influence of the box and becomes increasingly dangerous to herself and her family as the dybbuk takes hold, while her father tries to convince his ex-wife that something is wrong with the girl and eventually to get an exorcism.
Jeffery Dean Morgan does a decent job as the ex-husband, Clyde, conveying a real sense of a father who just wants his kids to like him. His character is pretty well developed, without spending a lot of time on him which is really nice. Another standout in the cast is Natasha Calis is Clyde's daughter Em. She reminds me a lot of Chloe Moretz, and has some real acting skill. She does a great job here developing the character's mannerisms as the possession continues. There are some nice creepy moments that rely on her acting being convincing in order to carry them, and she sells them well. I wish there were actually more bits in the movie like that.
The sound design is also pretty unnerving. I've noticed this is something that does a really good job scaring me when it's done well. It's probably why I like Ti West's movies so much, he had the same sound designer (Graham Reznick) on House of the Devil and The Innkeepers, and he's really good.
The exorcism sequence itself was also very nicely done, being chaotic while still clear and focused. There are some contrivances to set the scene, but it is an effective setting once you forget how we got there.
However, I think the movie falters at a few points. One being Kyra Sedgwick is pretty unconvincing as the ex-wife. There are only one or two scenes where she seems to be putting the correct emotions into her lines. It's heavily implied she's angry at Clyde, and really into her new boyfriend and the various yuppie lifestyle trappings he brings, but the way she behaves never conveys that. She actually seems to be happy to see her ex most of the time.
Another issue I had is that the dybbuk is absurdly powerful, even when it's still trapped in the box it's able to send a grown woman flying across the room and snap her back. It ruins all sense of proportion, so nothing can escalate properly and the whole movie winds up feeling pretty flat. There are peeks and valleys with the action, but the average line doesn't move much.
It feels like the script had been rewritten or heavily edited several times. They make a lot of hints at what would have been really interesting bits of mythology to play around with, like in one scene Em finds a small carving of some sort of animal in the box, like a dog or a boar. A few scenes later some sort of animal you never see is shown having wandered into Clyde's house and raiding his fridge. Could it have been related? I dunno, would've been cool, though. They have a similar thing with a moth from the box, but then moths are made really prominent. I wish they had given some indication of why moths were so important. As nocturnal creatures they have obvious symbolism, but is that the intent or is it just "bugs are creepy"?
Scenes alternate tone drastically as well, and that keeps breaking the immersion, which makes the attempts at drama fall a little flat. You kindof lose the tension they're trying to develop, so the whole things feels a bit scattered. They also didn't really make use of the dybbuk mythology, and treated it more like a standard demonic possession with a sprinkling of Judaica. So yeah, it was entertaining. Not nearly as bad as everyone seems to be making it out to be, but it does fall a little flat. It's got a few good scare moments, but it never comes together as anything so it winds up being pretty forgettable.
--PXA
Sunday, August 26, 2012
Horror Off-Season: Martyrs
It's no secret by now that I dislike gore-porn/gorror/whatever. I'm not going to deny that Hostel piqued my interest when it first came out. It had a pretty flimsy story with a few predictable reveals, but the visuals were really uncomfortable since nothing in recent memory had really done that level of torture in a movie. Of course, then I watched Cannibal Holocaust, the granddaddy of it all, and the 5,000 clones whose sole purpose was to do what Hostel did except MOAR! and the whole concept quickly wore thin.
So I knew I was going to have a hard time being objective about Martyrs, the 2008 French horror film directed by Pascal Laugier. Especially after last week's misadventure with The Loved Ones, I wasn't entirely sure I wanted to get into a movie from what is quickly becoming the most trite subgenre of horror. But I felt that if I didn't give it a fair chance I'd feel like a complete hypocrite.
One of my main defenses to the outright damning of any and all remakes is that a film should be allowed to stand or fall by its own merits rather than impossible comparisons. Martyrs sort proves my point in that I should really hate this film since it is literally about torture. However, I actually wound up walking away thinking this was something that provided some food for thought. If I had rejected the movie because it looked like it should be terrible, I would've missed out on this.
The story that unfolds is actually damn interesting. It's one of those narratives that gives you plenty of information but really doesn't like contextualizing anything. There's a tremendous amount of dots strewn about the screen and the movie actually respects me enough to trust that I can connect enough of them myself. It's something I can actually think about after the movie's runtime is over, and almost begs for it since the plot just doesn't make sense so you want to try to explain it.
What I'm not going to say is that Martyrs is the amazing or mindblowing film that scratches every possible horror itch imaginable because it's so multifaceted and amazing. The key problem is that it thinks its most interesting qualities are the visceral: The blood, torture, beatings, skinning, etc. So that's where the movie lays its focus. Even when it tries to slow down to let an emotional impact sink in, it's focusing on the impact of the physical torture instead of the more emotional hallucinations or flashbacks. It's almost bro-horror in how vehemently it denies the emotional engagement of its own story.
It's also somewhat strange in that the first 40 minutes seems like a totally different movie. So you've got a home invasion plot, then the invader starts to go a little crazy. She kills herself and then the movie sort of meanders for a few minutes before going into some cult/abduction/torture plot. There's a lot to explore in regards to the psychology of what's going on, but the movie kindof glosses over it so it can lovingly shoot and edit the repeated beatings of the protagonist.
Martyrs has an interesting story with the potential for a lot of good depth, but it's squandered because the movie is more interested in kicking the snot out of its characters and drilling things into people's heads. It's a decently well shot movie, and the special effects are really good. One thing that struck me was that even though it is really up front with the torture, it's not done in the typical "LOOK AT THAT, DUDE! THAT'S SICK!" fashion that a lot of these movies tend to do, it's actually somewhat artfully done. It's a pretty good movie that could have been a great movie if it just focused on story and character instead of trying so hard to be gory and shocking. In a lot of ways it's more like Saw than Hostel because it's not actually about the torture.
It's definitely got me interested in Pascal's other features: House of Voices and The Tall Man
UPDATE: I recently rewatched the movie and that has caused me to downgrade my opinion of it. The movie has illusions of profundity but utterly fails to live up to it. It's visually slick, but structurally jumbled. Each question to be explored was actually just answered with "Because MARTYRS, that's why!", or specifically with "Because the cult thinks torturing girls can reveal truth." which doesn't actually lead anywhere as a line of questioning. My original statement remains, this could have been a great movie if it cared about characters instead of just slapping them around, but I have downgraded it from "pretty good" to "...ok"
--PXA
So I knew I was going to have a hard time being objective about Martyrs, the 2008 French horror film directed by Pascal Laugier. Especially after last week's misadventure with The Loved Ones, I wasn't entirely sure I wanted to get into a movie from what is quickly becoming the most trite subgenre of horror. But I felt that if I didn't give it a fair chance I'd feel like a complete hypocrite.
One of my main defenses to the outright damning of any and all remakes is that a film should be allowed to stand or fall by its own merits rather than impossible comparisons. Martyrs sort proves my point in that I should really hate this film since it is literally about torture. However, I actually wound up walking away thinking this was something that provided some food for thought. If I had rejected the movie because it looked like it should be terrible, I would've missed out on this.
The story that unfolds is actually damn interesting. It's one of those narratives that gives you plenty of information but really doesn't like contextualizing anything. There's a tremendous amount of dots strewn about the screen and the movie actually respects me enough to trust that I can connect enough of them myself. It's something I can actually think about after the movie's runtime is over, and almost begs for it since the plot just doesn't make sense so you want to try to explain it.
What I'm not going to say is that Martyrs is the amazing or mindblowing film that scratches every possible horror itch imaginable because it's so multifaceted and amazing. The key problem is that it thinks its most interesting qualities are the visceral: The blood, torture, beatings, skinning, etc. So that's where the movie lays its focus. Even when it tries to slow down to let an emotional impact sink in, it's focusing on the impact of the physical torture instead of the more emotional hallucinations or flashbacks. It's almost bro-horror in how vehemently it denies the emotional engagement of its own story.
It's also somewhat strange in that the first 40 minutes seems like a totally different movie. So you've got a home invasion plot, then the invader starts to go a little crazy. She kills herself and then the movie sort of meanders for a few minutes before going into some cult/abduction/torture plot. There's a lot to explore in regards to the psychology of what's going on, but the movie kindof glosses over it so it can lovingly shoot and edit the repeated beatings of the protagonist.
Martyrs has an interesting story with the potential for a lot of good depth, but it's squandered because the movie is more interested in kicking the snot out of its characters and drilling things into people's heads. It's a decently well shot movie, and the special effects are really good. One thing that struck me was that even though it is really up front with the torture, it's not done in the typical "LOOK AT THAT, DUDE! THAT'S SICK!" fashion that a lot of these movies tend to do, it's actually somewhat artfully done. It's a pretty good movie that could have been a great movie if it just focused on story and character instead of trying so hard to be gory and shocking. In a lot of ways it's more like Saw than Hostel because it's not actually about the torture.
It's definitely got me interested in Pascal's other features: House of Voices and The Tall Man
UPDATE: I recently rewatched the movie and that has caused me to downgrade my opinion of it. The movie has illusions of profundity but utterly fails to live up to it. It's visually slick, but structurally jumbled. Each question to be explored was actually just answered with "Because MARTYRS, that's why!", or specifically with "Because the cult thinks torturing girls can reveal truth." which doesn't actually lead anywhere as a line of questioning. My original statement remains, this could have been a great movie if it cared about characters instead of just slapping them around, but I have downgraded it from "pretty good" to "...ok"
--PXA
Tuesday, August 21, 2012
Horror Off-Season: The Loved Ones
What the hell did I just watch? It claims to be a movie called The Loved Ones, an Australian horror film written and directed by Sean Byrne. What I think it actually is, is a prank in some absurd contest between horror directors for who can come up with the most deranged, over-the-top, stupid-bloody, bizarre and senseless crap possible.
I'm sure a lot of this is going to mirror my complaints about Asylum Blackout, but that movie actually had a character or two, a setup, and an ok ending. The Loved Ones exists solely to bombard the viewer with as much twisted violence as possible, delivered by some cute but mentally disturbed girl. Which I'm sure is part of its angle, a sort of "Oooo lookie she wears pink and lobotomizes boys with a power drill while giggling about it" thing.
Well, that jokes gets old pretty quickly and the movie has nothing else that makes any sense to offer. The beginning of the movie is a perfect example: It starts in teen movie mode, with pretty-boy Brent doing school, buying drugs, talking about condoms with his friend. There's a dance coming up and Brent is going with his girlfriend, Holly. This requires him to turn down a sweet, comely girl, named Lola. Brent goes to screw his girlfriend in the car, and after he gets to EXPERIENCE BIJ he goes home and acts depressed. Suddenly, he's decided to go into the wilderness and climb a rock face. After staring at the sun he for a while he's assaulted by an old guy and dragged off to a pickup truck. If that seems jarring and inconsistent, it's because it is. I have no idea why our protagonist went from getting laid, to listening to heavy metal, to mumbling at his mom, to free climbing, except to provide a conveniently isolated location for him to be abducted from.
The rest of the movie plays like a mating of the Mickey Mouse Club and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. With lobotomized cannibal pseudo-zombies. Can't forget those. They're in there, in some secret basement pit with blast-doors under the living room floor. And I think the worst part is that everything that I've mentioned, aside from the heavy metal and the rock climbing, are in the preview. There's nothing this movie has, plot wise, that hasn't already been shown. So the only reason to watch is to see everything that was hinted at get revealed in uncensored glory. It's like they made a trailer and then filled in the blanks.
The Loved Ones also does that high-contrast, slightly desaturated thing that seems pretty popular now in movies like yellowbrickroad, though the scenes in the torture house are sharply lit and over-saturated to make everything look even more screwed up and garish. I was half expecting low-angle shots with a fish-eye lens like a 90s grunge music video.
The one shot I actually enjoyed was right at the end where Lola's in the prom dress, bloody and beaten, crawling down the street with a cleaver in-hand.
Outside of that, this was like...Disney presents iCarly in HOSTEL. I am so sick of torture porn. I'm gonna go watch Absentia again.
--PXA
I'm sure a lot of this is going to mirror my complaints about Asylum Blackout, but that movie actually had a character or two, a setup, and an ok ending. The Loved Ones exists solely to bombard the viewer with as much twisted violence as possible, delivered by some cute but mentally disturbed girl. Which I'm sure is part of its angle, a sort of "Oooo lookie she wears pink and lobotomizes boys with a power drill while giggling about it" thing.
Well, that jokes gets old pretty quickly and the movie has nothing else that makes any sense to offer. The beginning of the movie is a perfect example: It starts in teen movie mode, with pretty-boy Brent doing school, buying drugs, talking about condoms with his friend. There's a dance coming up and Brent is going with his girlfriend, Holly. This requires him to turn down a sweet, comely girl, named Lola. Brent goes to screw his girlfriend in the car, and after he gets to EXPERIENCE BIJ he goes home and acts depressed. Suddenly, he's decided to go into the wilderness and climb a rock face. After staring at the sun he for a while he's assaulted by an old guy and dragged off to a pickup truck. If that seems jarring and inconsistent, it's because it is. I have no idea why our protagonist went from getting laid, to listening to heavy metal, to mumbling at his mom, to free climbing, except to provide a conveniently isolated location for him to be abducted from.
The rest of the movie plays like a mating of the Mickey Mouse Club and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. With lobotomized cannibal pseudo-zombies. Can't forget those. They're in there, in some secret basement pit with blast-doors under the living room floor. And I think the worst part is that everything that I've mentioned, aside from the heavy metal and the rock climbing, are in the preview. There's nothing this movie has, plot wise, that hasn't already been shown. So the only reason to watch is to see everything that was hinted at get revealed in uncensored glory. It's like they made a trailer and then filled in the blanks.
The Loved Ones also does that high-contrast, slightly desaturated thing that seems pretty popular now in movies like yellowbrickroad, though the scenes in the torture house are sharply lit and over-saturated to make everything look even more screwed up and garish. I was half expecting low-angle shots with a fish-eye lens like a 90s grunge music video.
The one shot I actually enjoyed was right at the end where Lola's in the prom dress, bloody and beaten, crawling down the street with a cleaver in-hand.
Outside of that, this was like...Disney presents iCarly in HOSTEL. I am so sick of torture porn. I'm gonna go watch Absentia again.
--PXA
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
