Kairo (also known as Pulse) is a 2001 Japanese horror movie about a web cam site that promises visitors interactions with the dead. It was remade in 2006 as the American film Pulse.
Kairo is possibly one of the most serious movies we've seen this year. The movie is very slowly paced and almost 2 hours long. There are a lot of lingering shots, and the color palette is really muted. It feels like it was filmed in the 70s, using fashions and computers from the 90s. It's also really creepy, if more than a bit confusing. For most of the film the view switches between 2 unrelated stories of people being affected by what's going on, which seems to be a city being slowly depopulated via mass suicides that don't leave traces. There's one thread that follows the staff at a greenhouse discovering the website after their techie friend commits suicide, and a 2nd one following a modern Luddite who spontaneously uncovers his keyboard and connects to the internet, stumbling upon the site for some reason I can't really remember. It just sort of happened.
What's impressive is that the movie is almost entirely bereft of special effects, presenting its ghosts as mostly people in shadow in the corner and using clever editing to make ghosts vanish into black stains on walls. It raises a lot of questions about if you're seeing the ghost, the person before fading away, or a hallucination of some sort as the character is initially unwilling to accept the death. It's incredibly creepy without really using a single scare, shock, or death.
It does falter a little bit because the plot is really hard to follow, I don't know if that's a virtue of the plot itself or just my missing something in the subtitles. I wouldn't mind a dub of this movie at all, I think it might help comprehension.
This is probably something that should be analyzed in much greater depth, but unfortunately I don't have a lot of time with the October marathon schedule. I may revisit this later and probably do some comparisons of it with the remake Pulse, which I also enjoyed, but it's a very different kind of film.
Anyway, internet week comes to a close with The Signal.
Saturday, October 13, 2012
Friday, October 12, 2012
October Horror 2012: Devour
Devour is a 2005 horror movie directed by David Winkler, who unfortunately bears no relation to Henry. It stars Jensen Ackles and Dominique Swain, probably best known for Supernatural and Lolita, respectively.
The movie is about Jake Grey, a pretty upright seeming kid who's stuck in a small town filled with morally tanked and bored delinquents. However, he's been plagued his whole life by ultra-real visions of torture, murder, and self-mutilation. One night at a party his friends introduce him to an online game called "The Pathway". When playing the game, players get phone calls from an unknown voice telling them to do specific acts ranging from sex, to vandalism, to violence, promising good fortune and power.
After some of his friends die while playing, Jake uncovers that "The Pathway" is a front for a devil worshipping cult that killed his mother. The cult is using the game to try to find someone, probably him.
The movie itself has bits where it's maybe over-stylized, but overall it's pretty sharp. The characters aren't terrible, but a bit flat and hammy. The movie shines in its visuals and scenarios. It's pretty imaginative in its setups, and the shooting and editing makes it all feel really fresh. It's got a lot of good stuff that's disturbing and uncomfortable without going too far and becoming ridiculous. The story isn't particularly impressive and I did zone out a bit towards the end, but for the most part I enjoyed it. There's a lot in there about facing fear, or facing temptation or the devil, but it's mostly window dressing to support its style. It's just deep and open ended enough to not be a complete wash but it has no illusions of grandeur. It's good.
Internet week continues with: Kairo, the original inspiration for Pulse (which I mention briefly in the 2009 overview).
The movie is about Jake Grey, a pretty upright seeming kid who's stuck in a small town filled with morally tanked and bored delinquents. However, he's been plagued his whole life by ultra-real visions of torture, murder, and self-mutilation. One night at a party his friends introduce him to an online game called "The Pathway". When playing the game, players get phone calls from an unknown voice telling them to do specific acts ranging from sex, to vandalism, to violence, promising good fortune and power.
After some of his friends die while playing, Jake uncovers that "The Pathway" is a front for a devil worshipping cult that killed his mother. The cult is using the game to try to find someone, probably him.
The movie itself has bits where it's maybe over-stylized, but overall it's pretty sharp. The characters aren't terrible, but a bit flat and hammy. The movie shines in its visuals and scenarios. It's pretty imaginative in its setups, and the shooting and editing makes it all feel really fresh. It's got a lot of good stuff that's disturbing and uncomfortable without going too far and becoming ridiculous. The story isn't particularly impressive and I did zone out a bit towards the end, but for the most part I enjoyed it. There's a lot in there about facing fear, or facing temptation or the devil, but it's mostly window dressing to support its style. It's just deep and open ended enough to not be a complete wash but it has no illusions of grandeur. It's good.
Internet week continues with: Kairo, the original inspiration for Pulse (which I mention briefly in the 2009 overview).
Thursday, October 11, 2012
October Horror 2012: Chain Letter
Chain Letter is a movie. Ok, seriously. Chain Letter is a 2010 horror movie written by Diana Erwin, Michael J. Pagin, and Deon Taylor. Also directed by Deon Taylor.
The movie is about a group of friends in a highly technological suburb who inadvertently attract the attention of a serial killer that determines his victims by seeing who fails to forward a chain letter. He also kills all his victims using chains.
The story is a bit silly, but the characters and acting are alright. We dislike who we're supposed to dislike, we're suspicious of who we're supposed to be suspicious of, etc. Unfortunately the characters who are supposed to be long-lived enough that we're supposed to root for aren't very well developed so it feels bit flat. Also, I'm not entirely sold on Keith David as the heroic cop figure.
The kill scenes are mostly creative and always very gruesome, which plays in the favor of this sort of movie. I do like that they illustrate sometimes the killer having to haul his victim elsewhere to make the kill because the original location where he abducted the teen wouldn't do.
There is an oddly heavy-handed social message about the faith we place in telecommunications, which given that this is an election season comes off as political and makes me reflexively dislike it. The movie's so obvious about it in the beginning and during a few moments with Brad Dourif's character, but aside from that they're pretty calm about the whole thing which is nice. The overall ideas are somewhat interesting, but I didn't realize the true nature of the killer until reading the wikipedia page on the movie which made the last act of the movie feel like it was leaving something out.
Non-linear story telling is used to surprisingly entertaining affect to connect the opening of the movie to the final scene, but there are a few steps to set that scene up that are a bit contrived.
While I imagine the movie doesn't have much to offer repeat viewings it's entertaining enough as a stock slasher with a technological twist to serve the first time through.
Tomorrow, internet week continues with Devour.
The movie is about a group of friends in a highly technological suburb who inadvertently attract the attention of a serial killer that determines his victims by seeing who fails to forward a chain letter. He also kills all his victims using chains.
The story is a bit silly, but the characters and acting are alright. We dislike who we're supposed to dislike, we're suspicious of who we're supposed to be suspicious of, etc. Unfortunately the characters who are supposed to be long-lived enough that we're supposed to root for aren't very well developed so it feels bit flat. Also, I'm not entirely sold on Keith David as the heroic cop figure.
The kill scenes are mostly creative and always very gruesome, which plays in the favor of this sort of movie. I do like that they illustrate sometimes the killer having to haul his victim elsewhere to make the kill because the original location where he abducted the teen wouldn't do.
There is an oddly heavy-handed social message about the faith we place in telecommunications, which given that this is an election season comes off as political and makes me reflexively dislike it. The movie's so obvious about it in the beginning and during a few moments with Brad Dourif's character, but aside from that they're pretty calm about the whole thing which is nice. The overall ideas are somewhat interesting, but I didn't realize the true nature of the killer until reading the wikipedia page on the movie which made the last act of the movie feel like it was leaving something out.
Non-linear story telling is used to surprisingly entertaining affect to connect the opening of the movie to the final scene, but there are a few steps to set that scene up that are a bit contrived.
While I imagine the movie doesn't have much to offer repeat viewings it's entertaining enough as a stock slasher with a technological twist to serve the first time through.
Tomorrow, internet week continues with Devour.
Wednesday, October 10, 2012
October Horror 2012: Hellraiser: Hellworld
Hellraiser: Hellworld is the last movie of the original Hellraiser continuity, released in 2005 before they rebooted the series with Hellraiser: Revelations.
The movie is set in a world where the Hellraiser series existed, and they made an MMORPG out of it. A kid named Adam got obsessed with the game and crafted a replica of the Lament Configuration puzzle box used in the series to summon the Cenobites. He then digs a large hole in his basement, presumably to bury the box, but then lights himself on fire and dies. Two years after his funeral, his friends have all gotten cooler and the "pretty" one has stopped playing the game entirely. The ones who are still playing discovered a "secret" in the game that allowed them to solve a virtual Lament Configuration for an invitation to a super-secret invite-only Hellworld party hosted by Lance Henriksen.
They go to the party, which is filled with the expect drunken sex debauchery and then shit goes totally south as they split up. There are a few OH SNAP twists, but the ending feels a little unsatisfying. Some of the kills are fun, but a lot are just throw-aways. There are even a few good mind-fuck scenes for a direct-to-dvd sequel.
The movie has token references to Hellraiser that while they could have done without, lends a certain aesthetic and mythology that really helped elevate it above a pretty flat horror mystery. The fact that we all know the mythology lets them play a little bit with the question of whether the legend is real or is it just a game. It's fun.
There are definitely worse movies in the series and Revelations was way crappier. Hellworld is entertaining enough to watch once or twice, the twists are OK and not too crazy. It's better than a lot of direct-to-dvd horror so it gets a solid "not bad".
Next up: Chain Letter.
The movie is set in a world where the Hellraiser series existed, and they made an MMORPG out of it. A kid named Adam got obsessed with the game and crafted a replica of the Lament Configuration puzzle box used in the series to summon the Cenobites. He then digs a large hole in his basement, presumably to bury the box, but then lights himself on fire and dies. Two years after his funeral, his friends have all gotten cooler and the "pretty" one has stopped playing the game entirely. The ones who are still playing discovered a "secret" in the game that allowed them to solve a virtual Lament Configuration for an invitation to a super-secret invite-only Hellworld party hosted by Lance Henriksen.
They go to the party, which is filled with the expect drunken sex debauchery and then shit goes totally south as they split up. There are a few OH SNAP twists, but the ending feels a little unsatisfying. Some of the kills are fun, but a lot are just throw-aways. There are even a few good mind-fuck scenes for a direct-to-dvd sequel.
The movie has token references to Hellraiser that while they could have done without, lends a certain aesthetic and mythology that really helped elevate it above a pretty flat horror mystery. The fact that we all know the mythology lets them play a little bit with the question of whether the legend is real or is it just a game. It's fun.
There are definitely worse movies in the series and Revelations was way crappier. Hellworld is entertaining enough to watch once or twice, the twists are OK and not too crazy. It's better than a lot of direct-to-dvd horror so it gets a solid "not bad".
Next up: Chain Letter.
Tuesday, October 9, 2012
October Horror 2012: .com for murder
.com for murder is terribad. Let's just get that out of the way: This is one of the worst movies I have ever watched. The only things that kept me from stopping midway through was that I wasn't expecting much to begin with and it was on the list for this month's marathon.
So .com for murder is a 2001 internet/crime/thriller written and directed by Nico Mastorakis and starring Nastassja Kinski, Roger Daltrey, and Nicollette Sheridan. Though, realistically I noticed Huey Lewis and Melinda Clarke more. Roger Daltrey is barely in the movie and the other two I didn't recognize at all.
Nastassja is presumably Roger Daltrey's wife and inexplicably in a leg cast. They have some chit-chat where he proves he's the MAN and insults the entire female gender as being technologically inept, then leaves for a business trip. The wife is left alone with her sister to take care of her since she's in a cast, and immediately guesses the password to Daltrey's internet account and hops on an erotic chat room. She hits on a girl that seems like she knows the screen name and then trolls some guy who is doing stuff in the room no one else can do.
This guy, woah, this guy. In his intro scene he is: Butt nekkid in a dark room with a huge TV-monitor, watching naked dancers blue-screened onto fire backgrounds. He's wearing a beanie, and has a ring painted around one eye. He's using a wireless keyboard that glows and has these little lights velcro'd to his fingers. He spends the entire movie quoting angst-ridden poetry, apparently from Faust. His only motivation to kill is for revenge since he thinks Daltrey's character had trolled him, and then curls up in his HUGE bathtub and cries.
The whole thing is non-sensical and character motivations are bizarre. The technology in the movie has absolutely no resemblance to anything that has ever existed. In one scene the killer is signed off and there are just low flames animating on his screen, I jokingly said "That must be his FIRE WALL, OHHHHH!" However, I was right and the screen was labeled "Firewall active". Literally the worst pun I could think of was what the writers decided to go with. It's just silly, poorly conceived, nonsense. Maybe Internet week was a poor choice.
ONWARD! To Hellworld!
So .com for murder is a 2001 internet/crime/thriller written and directed by Nico Mastorakis and starring Nastassja Kinski, Roger Daltrey, and Nicollette Sheridan. Though, realistically I noticed Huey Lewis and Melinda Clarke more. Roger Daltrey is barely in the movie and the other two I didn't recognize at all.
Nastassja is presumably Roger Daltrey's wife and inexplicably in a leg cast. They have some chit-chat where he proves he's the MAN and insults the entire female gender as being technologically inept, then leaves for a business trip. The wife is left alone with her sister to take care of her since she's in a cast, and immediately guesses the password to Daltrey's internet account and hops on an erotic chat room. She hits on a girl that seems like she knows the screen name and then trolls some guy who is doing stuff in the room no one else can do.
This guy, woah, this guy. In his intro scene he is: Butt nekkid in a dark room with a huge TV-monitor, watching naked dancers blue-screened onto fire backgrounds. He's wearing a beanie, and has a ring painted around one eye. He's using a wireless keyboard that glows and has these little lights velcro'd to his fingers. He spends the entire movie quoting angst-ridden poetry, apparently from Faust. His only motivation to kill is for revenge since he thinks Daltrey's character had trolled him, and then curls up in his HUGE bathtub and cries.
The whole thing is non-sensical and character motivations are bizarre. The technology in the movie has absolutely no resemblance to anything that has ever existed. In one scene the killer is signed off and there are just low flames animating on his screen, I jokingly said "That must be his FIRE WALL, OHHHHH!" However, I was right and the screen was labeled "Firewall active". Literally the worst pun I could think of was what the writers decided to go with. It's just silly, poorly conceived, nonsense. Maybe Internet week was a poor choice.
ONWARD! To Hellworld!
Monday, October 8, 2012
October Horror 2012: feardotcom
feardotcom.com.com...I have to say that I actually forgot to write this for several days after watching the movie, it really sort of washed over me.
feardotcom was directed by William Malone and release by Warner Brothers in 2002. It stars Stephen Dorff, Jeffrey Combs, and Natascha McElhone. There's a brief cameo by Udo Kier in the very beginning of the movie.
The movie itself is about a NYC cop (Dorff) teaming up with a Health Dept. Officer (McElhone) to uncover the cause behind a seemingly unrelated string of 4 deaths. I don't recall why the health department was involved, I think it was because of the black eyes on all 4 victims, but I don't exactly recall.
It turns out they all died exactly 48 hours after visiting a website, "www.feardotcom.com". I'm serious. At the time they made the movie they wanted to purchase the website "www.fear.com", which was owned by someone else who refused to sell. So they went ahead and made the movie anyway, but this led to some confused branding where you'd see "feardotcom.com", "feardot.com", etc. The website is the webcam site of a serial killer known as "The Doctor" who tortures his victims until they beg to die. But sometimes it's possessed by an alluring woman asking visitors if they want to hurt her, then tells them they're lying and demands they find her.
The movie is visually creative, but nothing hits. So you think it's cool while you're watching things but then forget exactly what had happened. The actors seem really disinterested, so none of the characters provide any emotional engagement. It's a pity because it looks interesting, but is too dull to resonate. The thing feels really similar to 2008's Untracable, except with a supernatural element and much weaker mystery.
A pretty unfortunate way to start internet week, but I wasn't expecting much. Horror doesn't usually seem to get technology. Anyway, we continue tomorrow with: .com For Murder.
feardotcom was directed by William Malone and release by Warner Brothers in 2002. It stars Stephen Dorff, Jeffrey Combs, and Natascha McElhone. There's a brief cameo by Udo Kier in the very beginning of the movie.
The movie itself is about a NYC cop (Dorff) teaming up with a Health Dept. Officer (McElhone) to uncover the cause behind a seemingly unrelated string of 4 deaths. I don't recall why the health department was involved, I think it was because of the black eyes on all 4 victims, but I don't exactly recall.
It turns out they all died exactly 48 hours after visiting a website, "www.feardotcom.com". I'm serious. At the time they made the movie they wanted to purchase the website "www.fear.com", which was owned by someone else who refused to sell. So they went ahead and made the movie anyway, but this led to some confused branding where you'd see "feardotcom.com", "feardot.com", etc. The website is the webcam site of a serial killer known as "The Doctor" who tortures his victims until they beg to die. But sometimes it's possessed by an alluring woman asking visitors if they want to hurt her, then tells them they're lying and demands they find her.
The movie is visually creative, but nothing hits. So you think it's cool while you're watching things but then forget exactly what had happened. The actors seem really disinterested, so none of the characters provide any emotional engagement. It's a pity because it looks interesting, but is too dull to resonate. The thing feels really similar to 2008's Untracable, except with a supernatural element and much weaker mystery.
A pretty unfortunate way to start internet week, but I wasn't expecting much. Horror doesn't usually seem to get technology. Anyway, we continue tomorrow with: .com For Murder.
Sunday, October 7, 2012
October Horror 2012: In the Mouth of Madness
So we are a few days behind but tonight we watched John Carpenter's In the Mouth of Madness and most of 2007's Cthulhu.
In the Mouth of Madness was released in 1994 and based on a screenplay written by Michael De Luca. It's got a pretty stellar class including Sam Neill, Jürgen Prochnow, David Warner, Charlton Heston and Frances Bay. This is the only movie this week that's not directly based on a Lovecraft story, but is a completely original screenplay. Obviously it's heavily influenced by Lovecraft's work, but oddly doesn't have a lot to do with H.P.'s At the Mountains of Madness aside from some token mentions of Shoggoths. It's got more in common with The Shadow over Innsmouth.
It's a what-if story that deals with 2 major points: What if H.P. Lovecraft was a contemporary author, hugely popular in the 90s? And what if stories have the power to become real if enough people believe in the reality?
The movie once again uses the framing device of having the story told in flashback while John Trent (Sam Neill) narrates the events to Dr. Wrenn (David Warner). Trent is a freelance insurance investigator, which seems to be an oddly specific form of private detective, who is hired to track down the missing author Sutter Cane. Cane is some sort of modernized version of Lovecraft himself, possibly with a dash of Stephen King thrown in for good measure. He sets most of his stories in a fictionalized New England town and writes about indescribable other-worldly horrors. There's an added wrinkle that his books are rumored to be so deranged they actually make some people go mad.
The publishing company needs Trent to find Cane's latest manuscript because the book is due out soon and they've already started to market it. The story is called In the Mouth of Madness...oh, hey, I see what you did there! Trent manages to find a clue in Cane's cover art, leading him to a small town which seems to be a real-life manifestation of Hobb's End, the town from his stories. Hobb's End is another common fictional town used by several authors in several stories, very similar to Lovecraft's Arkham. There's a nice mashup of insanity, hallucinations, sea creatures along with the meta aspect of meeting the author of the story with the same name as the movie. The ending is wonderfully meta.
The soundtrack was a little odd. Carpenter's usually involved with the music in his own movies but the soundtracks in his 70s and 80s movies were a lot more fitting, once he hit the 90s he started featuring rock guitars. It fit decently in Ghosts of Mars, since that movie was really action-oriented. In this movie it just feels a little awkward.
The creature effects were better in The Resurrected, so this movie kindof fails to scare with those. It does have some good camera work, but the narrative is what's creepy here. It's unsettling, but only if you think about from the perspective of Trent's character. Even if you can't get into his skin, the movie is still fun because it is a great what-if story.
In the Mouth of Madness was released in 1994 and based on a screenplay written by Michael De Luca. It's got a pretty stellar class including Sam Neill, Jürgen Prochnow, David Warner, Charlton Heston and Frances Bay. This is the only movie this week that's not directly based on a Lovecraft story, but is a completely original screenplay. Obviously it's heavily influenced by Lovecraft's work, but oddly doesn't have a lot to do with H.P.'s At the Mountains of Madness aside from some token mentions of Shoggoths. It's got more in common with The Shadow over Innsmouth.
It's a what-if story that deals with 2 major points: What if H.P. Lovecraft was a contemporary author, hugely popular in the 90s? And what if stories have the power to become real if enough people believe in the reality?
The movie once again uses the framing device of having the story told in flashback while John Trent (Sam Neill) narrates the events to Dr. Wrenn (David Warner). Trent is a freelance insurance investigator, which seems to be an oddly specific form of private detective, who is hired to track down the missing author Sutter Cane. Cane is some sort of modernized version of Lovecraft himself, possibly with a dash of Stephen King thrown in for good measure. He sets most of his stories in a fictionalized New England town and writes about indescribable other-worldly horrors. There's an added wrinkle that his books are rumored to be so deranged they actually make some people go mad.
The publishing company needs Trent to find Cane's latest manuscript because the book is due out soon and they've already started to market it. The story is called In the Mouth of Madness...oh, hey, I see what you did there! Trent manages to find a clue in Cane's cover art, leading him to a small town which seems to be a real-life manifestation of Hobb's End, the town from his stories. Hobb's End is another common fictional town used by several authors in several stories, very similar to Lovecraft's Arkham. There's a nice mashup of insanity, hallucinations, sea creatures along with the meta aspect of meeting the author of the story with the same name as the movie. The ending is wonderfully meta.
The soundtrack was a little odd. Carpenter's usually involved with the music in his own movies but the soundtracks in his 70s and 80s movies were a lot more fitting, once he hit the 90s he started featuring rock guitars. It fit decently in Ghosts of Mars, since that movie was really action-oriented. In this movie it just feels a little awkward.
The creature effects were better in The Resurrected, so this movie kindof fails to scare with those. It does have some good camera work, but the narrative is what's creepy here. It's unsettling, but only if you think about from the perspective of Trent's character. Even if you can't get into his skin, the movie is still fun because it is a great what-if story.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
