The Random Cafe

An essay on The Vanishing & other remakes

2011-02-07T06:47:00.000-03:30

Spoorloos, or the American title of The Vanishing, was originally released in 1988. Director George Sluizer made a film based on a novella by Tim Krabbe called The Golden Egg- the story is about a young Dutch woman named Saskia who disappears from a gas station in rural France, and her lover Rex who cannot accept her disappearance, embarking on a years long search for the truth behind it. The film received great critical acclaim from critics, and had it not been disqualified from the Academy Awards for 1988 (there was too much French dialog in the film to meet requirements for Best Foreign Language Film) it may very well have won a gold man for the Dutch. The National Board of Review listed it in the Top Foreign Films of 1991 when it was released in the United States, and Rogert Ebert also gave a great review of the film for the Chicago Sun Times. One thing I'd like to note also is that it holds a very high critical rating on Rotten Tomatoes, with 100% approval rating from critics with an average rating of 8.3 out of 10; I note this because nowadays with the internet, everyone is a critic, and for a movie to hold such a consistently high rating over time I find it incredible. Overall it can be said that Spoorloos is probably one of the best psychological horrors of all-time.

This is the part that really pains me.

In 1993, for some unknown reason, George Sluizer decided to remake his original film under American production. The film starred Jeff Bridges, Keifer Sutherland, Nancy Travis and Sandra Bullock; this really kills because I'm a fan of both Bridges & Sutherland. The movie is excellent for the first 3/4 and even a little bit past that, but suddenly at one point it becomes clear to the viewer what is going to happen. There comes a moment when you say to yourself, "I know how this is going to end..". At that moment, I lost almost all my faith in American cinema. I lost it because I realized that once it ended how I thought it would, you would clearly be able to see all that's wrong with American movies. The original film had such a devastating and disturbing ending that when I was finished watching it I could only sit there and stare off into space for awhile, dumbfounded. Spoorloos and The Vanishing both unfold slowly, in different ways- in the original, we get a longer look at the kidnapper and we watch in horror as he slowly plans what will eventually be his first victim. Once we get to the end, we're so complacent because we think we already know the full story that it shocks us right back into a disturbing reality. Yet for some reason Sluizer takes a different route in his American remake- we get it all tied up in a neat little bow, everything is now perfect and wonderful, the balance between good and evil has been restored. Instead of shocking me Sluizer has bored me to tears and made me a little upset with Jeff Bridges. Why would you take away the ending when that's what gives the movie such an impact? It's like if a candy company said "Okay guys, this is what we're going to do- we're going to take all the sour off the sour candies, we'll still call them sour candies, but there'll be no sour flavour on them and they'll just taste like everything else!". Where is the innovation? George Sluizer took a step back on the evolutionary film scale by making an American version of his masterpiece. The only thing that saves it is the fact that up until the terrible ending, everything else works pretty well; Bridges is pretty creepy although he has a terrible accent of some sort, and Keifer was awesome as a man torn between finding a new life but not letting go the disappearance of his girlfriend.

So what does American remake The Vanishing prove? It proves that American cinema wants to try and dumb down movies, that the Americans are sensitive to certain material. They don't want to have a kidnapper and murderer winning the battle- good lord, what would the world come to? No, they'd rather have the bad man die and then end the movie with a horrible joke before the credits roll. They don't want the sensitive viewers to have to feel terror, especially not in a psychological horror movie, where would the sense be in that? No, it's much better to build up the suspense and all the tension of the film only to flatten it all in one foul swoop. Why would George Sluizer even agree to do this? Was it his idea? I'd surely love to hear the full story on the remake because if I had made such an incredible film such as Spoorloos and then a production company asked me to remake it, changing the most important part of the terrifying conclusion, I'd laugh at them- plain and simple, I would laugh in their faces. The fact that Sluizer did this makes me wonder: was it money, or did he not like his original version? Or did he just want to make a movie with some American movie stars? Why George? Why? This remake proves what I've always thought about America, that it wants to dumb everything down. Even with the newer remakes of The Hills Have Eyes, The Last House on the Left & I Spit On Your Grave, all they're doing (for the most part) is just focusing in even more so on the base aspects of the films; in these three, it happens to be rape, except for The Hills Have Eyes which is one of the better remakes to come out recently. But they all exploit the rape scenes more so than their originals, which shows a new trend coming out of the 90s into the 2000s: instead of going for the psychological elements, let's just try to gross everybody out. So it's like American producers decided to try and give up what they were doing and go the other way, but now they're even more off the mark than where they were with The Vanishing. At least the film in question was pretty solid up until they butchered the ending, most of these new remakes just go for the splatter and gross out techniques which don't even evoke any thinking. Sluizer's remake at least stayed on track for the first three quarters of the runtime, it worked on the psyche and built the tension as the original did. Now America, with good intentions in mind, has aimed at trying to give us that shock that they were taking out of the movies but now they're aiming even further out into left field before. It seems every step is a step back and outside.

Briefly I'd like to mention another foreign film that I absolutely love- Battle Royale. The first time I saw it I was absolutely in love; I had started to get into a lot of great Asian films and I was having a great time watching some of the classics as well as the modern masterpieces, and I had heard a lot of Kinji Fukasaku's movie. It's an incredible horror movie that weighs in on the problems of society with a story about a near-future Japan where the youth have overrun and the government has installed a Battle Royale program where random classes of students will be sent to an island, armed with detonating necklaces, and forced to fight each other to the death until only one is survived- the one left will then be reintegrated into society. Sounds wild, right? It is. The film is a blast, from the horror to the black humour throughout it's a non-stop thrill. Of course America wanted to remake it! But it seems the plans have gone down the drain, and why is that? It is because of the Virginia Tech shootings like they reported after the tragedy happened? Is it because New Line hasn't purchased the remake rights yet? Or is it because Americans are too fragile minded to see a story about school kids, some of them barely into their teens, killing each other off to survive in a futuristic world? Did they not have the balls for it and then tweak the story, throw Stone Cold Steve Austin & Vinnie Jones in it, sell it about a bunch of prisoners given a chance at freedom and call it The Condemned? I think so. I think they just never made a big deal out of it, took the story and gave it a twist that they deemed appropriate for American consumption, passing it off as a different movie. I think that American cinema, for the most part, lacks balls.

Over the last few years there have been a few movies come out of America that have been a little risky, but for the most part when it comes to horror especially it seems that they just can't handle what the Eastern world is bringing. There are and have been a few exceptions to this, past and present, who have pushed the limits in their respective genres: Eli Roth, Lucky McKee, Quentin Tarantino, Sam Peckinpah, and early works by Wes Craven, just to name a few. Aside from that, the real masterpieces of cinema are usually found in the brilliant talents of Martin Scorsese, Clint Eastwood, Stanley Kubrick, Michael Mann, most of who don't really deal in horror films. The only hope I have is that maybe after Black Swan, someone like Darren Aronofsky might venture more into some horror (because I thought that film touched very closely on horror in the second half and really very psychologically horrifying throughout the entire thing), or maybe Christopher Nolan; the genre is dying for someone with innovation and integrity. Without some more help it looks like the aforementioned pair of Eli Roth and Lucky McKee might be on their own for awhile, pushing the horror genre themselves. One of these days I'll give them a hand, but then again does that really count when I'm Canadian? Until then, we'll have to deal with a lot of remakes and unimaginative entries into the genre, except for the occasional surprise. Meanwhile, dig into the foreign works because that's where the real love for the genre is.. and always will be.

A Serbian Film (Srpski Film)

2010-11-23T21:10:00.000-03:30

A Serbian Film (Srpski Film)

Release Date: 2010

Directed by Srdjan Spasojevic

Written by Aleksandar Radivojevic & Srdjan Spasojevic

Starring: Srdjan Todorovic

Sergej Trifunovic

Jelena Gavrilovic

Katarine Zutic

Slobodan Bestic

Ana Sakic

Luka Mijatovic

**** (4 out of 5 stars)

- WARNING: THIS MOVIE WILL SCAR YOU FOR LIFE -

Let me start out by saying this first- if you have any sexual hang-ups, if you're easily offended, if you've got a weak stomach, do not watch this film. That being said, this is still a 4 star movie. I wasn't sure exactly what I was in for when I threw on A Serbian Film but I knew the basics: a pornstar is lured into a new project by a mysterious film 'director' whom he is introduced to by a former flame and fellow porn actress. I also knew that he was lured in falsely, and that somehow this was going to be a dirty ride through an ugly terrain. I, however, did not even begin to grasp in the least what was going to happen to me during the course of this film, or what I would feel like after the credits rolled.

Milos is an aging, but still attractive, porn actor who is living the family life yet also trying to save up enough money to get away somewhere with his wife and child. Suddenly, he is offered a new project that is shrouded in uncertainty. He's also offered a whole lot of money to do so. After accepting, he slowly begins to figure out that the job is not necessarily what it was cracked up to be. Srdjan Todorovic plays Milos perfectly, a blend between family man and sleaze; we feel his emotion in a constant from the beginning to end. There are a wide range of emotions brought out in this dark and twisted script, and Srdjan Todorovic plays them out to perfection. He is the only actor that really has a lot of lines or dialogue, and it carries well with him in the role because he seems very natural.

Notable mention: the actor who played the depraved Vukmir, Sergej Trifunovic, was also incredibly moving and very creepy.

The violence is extreme and (often) gory. Mainly this film contains a lot of sexual violence, which makes it all the more unbearable. There are a few moments, one in particular involving a pregnant woman, that are excruciating but they serve the purpose. This film is all about disgusting, grotesque, vile individuals in a hideous world and the imagery (although nothing subtle at all about it) displays it all perfectly: we twist from mediocre uneasiness to the full blown need to vomit. The scene I mentioned previously with the pregnant woman has to be one of the most ridiculous and depraved scenes I have ever watched- by far surpassing anything in Cannibal Holocaust or Salo: 120 Days of Sodom.

Of course there are still a couple real cheese doodles mixed into the bag. One particular moment in the end comes to mind when Milos is exacting some revenge on his "associates", he pushes his erect penis right into a man's eye socket and begins to thrust into his brain, basically. Very cheesy type of special effect, although it is quite real looking. However, earlier in the film there is an extraordinary death scene involving a (sexy) decapitation. Trust me- to believe it, you HAVE to see it.

One of the major aspects of this movie that got me was the story itself. We see a lot of terrible premises for horrors and thrillers, so it's refreshing to see something new and exciting- even if it is absolutely wretched and void of any morals. The climax of this movie is something that we will NEVER EVER (let me repeat that: NEVER EVER) see in any film that's made in the Western world. I thought the climax and ending of Oldboy tested the limits beyond comprehension... until I saw A Serbian Film.

Even though I wanted to cry in my mom's arms about how horrible and sick the world is, all the while vomiting, I still can give this movie 4 stars. Mainly, this is due to effectiveness- I always try to judge a film on how effective it is in it's own right, in it's genre. This movie is meant to scar you, it's mean to rip your heart out and fuck it to death. I couldn't agree more on that with any other movie I've seen recently. A Serbian Film is truly shocking, weird and absolutely on another level.

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre countdown!

2010-11-16T20:14:00.002-03:30

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre Countdown

Seeing as how The Texas Chainsaw Massacre is probably the ultimate serial killer film, I decided to countdown the series in the order of my favourites. Check it out- let me know which one is YOUR favourite.

1) The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974)

***** (5 out of 5 stars)

Directed by Tobe Hooper

Written by Kim Henkel & Tobe Hooper

Stars: Marilyn burns, Edwin Neal, Allen Danziger & Gunnar Hansen as Leatherface.

When I was about 13 years old, I first saw the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre with my best friend. To this day, I have never had such a disturbing and haunting experience after watching a movie. It stuck with me like a bad cold, I couldn't shake it. The reason being is because most horrors (and even some thrillers) don't make you feel like you're right in that person's shoes, mainly due to the style in which they have been filmed; Tobe Hooper created a masterpiece from nothing because he made it feel real. Nowadays it's all reality television because people seem to literally want to live the lives of others, but back in 1974 Hooper made us feel like WE were the ones that were being chased by Leatherface, we were the ones stuck at the supper table with the cannibal family, we were the ones who couldn't escape the house no matter what. The Texas Chainsaw Massacre took the audience and plopped them right down next to Marilyn Burns and it made us run like hell.

One thing that helped The Texas Chainsaw Massacre was that it was billed as being based on true events, and while most are quick to say "That never happened!", it does have a small basis in reality. It's not hard to find striking similarities between Leatherface/his family and the most infamous resident ever to live in Plainfield, Wisconsin- Ed Gein. I'm not going to go into great detail for those who don't know Ed Gein, but here's what I will do for you. The following is a list of items found in Gein's residence- read these and tell me if you can find a similarity or two between the fiction & non-fiction:

- four noses

- whole human bones & fragments

- nine masks of human skin

- bowls made from human skulls

- ten female heads with the tops sawed off

- human skin covering several chair seats

- Mary Hogan's head in a paper bag

- Bernice Worden's head in a burlap sack

- nine vulvas in a shoe box

- skulls on his bedposts

- organs in the refrigerator

- a pair of lips on a draw string for a windowshade

**Notable mention: after his mother died, Gein decided he wanted a sex change and began collecting women's skin and making a 'woman suit' out of it all. Sound familiar?

So between the real, gritty feeling of the film and the story of Ed Gein pushing more people into the theaters to see the Massacre, Hooper had really found something that worked. Every time I watch it, I'm the one being chased with a chainsaw- it chills me to the bone. Some people look at it today and say that it's not scary, but coming from someone who never found anything too creepy about The Exorcist, I find this to be the most frightening film of all-time. I give it 5 out of 5 stars, and there isn't a single thing about this movie that pissed me off. Top notch. It's only too bad that Tobe Hooper hasn't really found success after such a great initial blast. Maybe if he'd get back to the gritty touch of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, we might see another classic.

2) The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning (2006)

***** (5 out of 5 stars)

Directed by Jonathan Liebesman

Written by: Sheldon Turner

Stars: Jordana Brewster, Matthew Bomer, Diora Baird, R. Lee Ermey, & Andrew Bryniarski as Thomas Hewitt/Leatherface.

This prequel to the re-imagined Texas Chainsaw Massacre is so close to actually being my favourite, even though the remake has nothing on the original. Reason being is because it's just an incredibly well made film, in my opinion. One of the things I loved about the remake is Sheriff Hoyt, played by none other than the amazing R. Lee Ermey (most of you know him as Gunnery Sergeant Hartman from Full Metal Jacket), and in the prequel to that story we get to see a lot of stuff about him: how he became Sheriff, where he lost those teeth of his, why are they killing people. The latter of those is the best and tastiest part- why do they kill? The original TCM is a stand alone, unbeatable piece of cinema but one thing I always wanted to know was the reason behind the family being so depraved. In the prequel, we get to see why the family kills (I won't ruin it for you). Also, we get a fairly well written story behind the upcoming victims of the family: two brothers and their girlfriends are having a little vacation before the older brother goes back to Vietnam and brings his brother over after he has been drafted. Along the way, the younger brother gets cold feet and before we get a chance to fall further into the story of these two brothers, the action begins. A biker gang causes some trouble for the traveling foursome, and one thing leads to another when Sheriff Hoyt shows up to see what caused the accident; he then takes three of the travelers (one of them hides when Hoyt blows away a biker chick) back to his humble abode. This sets off a chain of events, one of which explains how ol' Uncle Monty lost both of his legs, and of course as I mentioned before we see Hoyt get those pearly whites knocked out. We also get a little bit of the big fat lady who was in the 2003 remake living in the trailer with that stole child- she gives us the best and funniest line of ANY of the TCM movies (the quote refers to her as the Tea Lady and of course you have to hear the way she says the line to appreciate it):

Tea Lady: I just can't stop eating those little chocolates. They are soo good!

Luda Mae: I put coconut in them!

Tea Lady: Oh sweet Jesus!

For the most part, the kills are all fairly gruesome which is a big selling point for any horror but especially The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. The highlight for me was the killing of Leatherface's boss at the slaughterhouse, and also when he tears the tendons out of one of his victims in the basement; he also plays a part in Monty's mishap with his legs. The movie keeps up the dirty, gritty feeling that we got from the 2003 remake- this is why both of these movies are, in my opinion, excellent because they keep that real, disgusting feeling that the original film had. Even more so in these new movies, we get a dirty feeling even just looking at the screen (much like David Fincher created for an atmosphere in the movie Se7en).

**Notable mention: Lee Tergesen has a small part as the biker boyfriend of the chick Hoyt blows away. Anytime he is on screen, no matter what movie or show it is- I love it. Big fan of Lee.

This movie didn't really have anything that pissed me off, and for that I can certainly give it a 5 star rating. Check this out if you haven't seen it!

3) The Texas Chainsaw Massacre II

**** (4 out of 5 stars)

Directed by Tobe Hooper

Written by L.M Kit Carson

Stars: Dennis Hopper, Caroline Williams, Jim Siedow, Bill Moseley & Bill Johnson as Leatherface 'Bubba' Sawyer.

Another film out of the series that almost hits the number one spot is the second installment, once again directed by Tobe Hooper. This time, we have a Lieutenant (played by the wonderful Dennis Hopper) who is hellbent on finding the killer(s) of all these kids in Texas. Meanwhile, a radio show host gets some audio of a murder possibly committed by the chainsaw wielding maniac himself as she gets a call in from a couple teens out causing trouble. Eventually, they get together and begin to try finding the culprits and soon enough the radio host gets attacked by them, including Chop-Top Sawyer (played by another amazing actor, Bill Moseley, who I am a huge fan of!).

The best things about this movie are Dennis Hopper, Bill Moseley, and the fact that the story is fairly solid. It's a classic model of a cop desperately seeking the truth behind a series of killings, but it takes a new twist when Hopper goes to a shop and purchases several chainsaws- because if you can't beat 'em, join 'em. Nothing is better than seeing Dennis Hopper chop things apart with a 5 foot chainsaw and two small handheld chainsaws.

I give this film a 4 star rating, mainly because I just wish there was a little more backstory here. That's one thing I couldn't be satisfied with until they came out with the prequel to the 2003 remake. Other than that, I find this to be a solid entry in the series.

My only piss off:

- Leatherface is now Leatherface 'Junior' Sawyer... the only name I see fit for adding onto Leatherface is Hewitt, which is from the prequel in 2006. Everything else is just so unjustified.

4) The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003)

**** (4 out of 5 stars)

Directed by Marcus Nispel

Written by Scott Kosar (based on the 1974 screenplay by Kim Henkel & Tobe Hooper)

Stars: Jessica Biel, Jonathan Tucker, Erica Leerhsen, Eric Balfour, R. Lee Ermey & Andrew Bryniarski as Thomas Hewitt (Leatherface).

I never thought that The Texas Chainsaw Massacre needed to be remade, like most of the classics, but like Mick Jagger says: you can't always get what you want. However, Marcus Nispel (no, he's never really done anything worth shouting from the roof) turns in a pretty decent effort here. The biggest thing about this remake that I loved is the feel: it's a disgusting, dirty, gritty feel as if the camera lens was grimy the whole time. This is what made it feel connected to the original, for me- the tone, the atmosphere. Most of the new horror movies that come out have a lipgloss shine over it, and that's one thing that impressed me right off the bat. We get a little more out of this than we did sometimes in the original, mainly I enjoyed Sheriff Hoyt's character (played by the fabulous R. Lee Ermey) because it gave an even scarier take on the family- not only are they fucking lunatics, but they've got a Sheriff working with them.

The acting is fairly spot on in this film. Jessica Biel makes a pretty good frightened lady, Eric Balfour is someone I find to be intriguing in general (why, I do not know), Jonathan Tucker also plays a great stoner (I barely recognized him at first- I was a big fan of his due to The Black Donnellys). As I mentioned before, R. Lee Ermey is an excellent actor and he brings a terrifying role to life as Hoyt. There are a few minor roles that are also played very well, which rounds out the film as far as characters go.

The kills are all pretty gnarly! My favourite (which is actually not a kill, just a maiming) is when Andy is running through the yard where the sheets are on the clothesline, and Leatherface takes a big swing, chopping off part of his leg. Also when they pick up a hitchhiker, a female this time unlike the original film, she blows her brains out- that whole scene is pretty fucking intense!

All in all, this movie is a 4 star rating for me.

Biggest piss offs:

- The dirty, weird little kid. He served no purpose other than to lead them through a little hallway to escape the house, which could have been worked out some other way than having a stupid, inbred little kid running around. He wasn't even creepy- he looked like a hungry beaver.

- I was not a fan of Andy, his character wasn't anything special. His only redeeming point was when he decided he couldn't leave his buddy Kemper behind in the house. Other than that, he was useless.

5) The Texas Chainsaw Massacre III

*** (3 out of 5 stars)

Directed by Jeff Burr

Written by David J. Schow

Stars: Kate Hodge, Ken Foree, Viggo Mortensen, & R.A Mihailoff as Leatherface 'Junior' Sawyer.

The third installment of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre is awesome, although I only give a 3 star review because on a technical level it's nowhere near perfect. Right off the bat I wanted to see this because I saw Viggo Mortensen & Ken Foree on the bill- gnarly. The story starts out well enough, we get a couple of young people going on a road trip of sorts and all the while there are bodies being exhumed from makeshift graves in the desert along the highway. We get the ominous tone from the start, and that's usually what can make an average movie FEEL awesome. Then of course we get some creepy action going on at a rest stop along the way, where the young lady in the car gets peeped on by the attendant as she uses the washroom- to the rescue comes Viggo. Then slowly we're introduced to Foree's character and the action really lifts off. We get some truly creepy moments from Leatherface, and a fairly disturbing performance on Viggo's behalf, but other than that there is nothing that really makes this film stand out of the series. I was a big fan of Kate Hodge as Michelle- she gave a fairly balanced & natural performance as the object of the hunt for Leatherface.

Biggest piss offs:

- The climax

6) The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: New Generation

* (1 out of 5 stars)

Directed by Kim Henkel

Written by Kim Henkel

Stars: Renee Zellweger, Matthew McConaughey, Joe Stevens, & Robert Jacks as Leatherface Slaughter.

This is definitely the worst of the TCM movies, yet there are still a few things I do like about it. The beginning is a fresh little bit where we see a graduation ceremony going on and some teens wander off the beaten path, when the fun really begins. We get introduced to Vilmer (played by Matthew McConaughey) who seems to have some sort of leg disability, wearing a mechanical device around his thigh and knee on one leg. Of course some kids get killed and then one girl, Renee Zellweger, ends up back in the old house all alone with a psychotic family, including a wild, mentally handicapped transvestite- our new Leatherface. That's one thing that I do enjoy about this movie is that Leatherface has even more qualities of his influence, Ed Gein. Ed used to dress up in woman skin that he had taken from victims and howl at the moon, and old Leather really howls here. Gein wanted to be a woman, and that's why I enjoy the depiction of Leatherface here because he's dressed half in womanly attire and half macabre. McConaughey's character is a little too much for me at times but definitely creepy. The story ends on too strange of a note for me, having the house turn into some weird experiment by some sort of agency which is all never really explained- we get a really creepy shot of some guy with weird brands all over his chest pierced with large hoop rings. Weird.. even too weird for Leatherface and his family. The TCM is meant to be just the simple story of the family- there is no need to take it bigger and any further than that, it's as scary as it can be.

Biggest piss offs:

- The rings on the dude's chest, like, what the hell is that? No explanations, nothing. Whack.

- Leatherface and his family now have a last name: Slaughter.

- Renee Zellweger... she's squinting all the time, and it makes me mad.

- It's like a remake but they destroyed it; at least the remake in 2003 was scary and a little disgusting, this one just stinks like rotten meat.

- The fact that Kim Henkel directed this just came to my attention, and seeing as how Kim wrote the original screenplay with Tobe Hooper it just really disappoints me to see how terrible

Manhunter

2010-10-19T05:25:00.001-02:30

Release Date: 1986

Directed by Michael Mann

Based on the novel by Thomas Harris

Screenplay by Michael Mann

Starring: William Petersen

Kim Greist

Joan Allen

Brian Cox

Dennis Farina

Tom Noonan

Stephen Lang

***** (5 out of 5 stars)

"As a child, my heart bleeds for him. Someone took a little boy and turned him into a monster. But as an adult... as an adult, he's irredeemable. He butchers whole families to fulfill some sick fantasy. As an adult, I think someone should blow the sick fuck out of his socks."

A quote that maybe describes the topsy turvy feelings one can feel when on the subject of an abused person who later in life succumbs to the evils done against them and beings to do evil themselves. In possibly the finest of the films about Hannibal Lecter (spelled Lecktor here), even better than it's remake Red Dragon, Michael Mann serves up his classic style dropped into the world of Thomas Harris. We follow Will Graham as he is brought back in on a case for the FBI that puts him back in the hot seat; a few years before, Graham nearly went insane trying to capture Lecktor, and got seriously wounded in the process. Now, Jack Crawford wants him in to help catch The Tooth Fairy, a killer who takes whole families lives together. Slowly we watch Graham fall back into the mindset needed to catch a serial killer, and of course he goes back to his old pal Hannibal for some advice, a little quid pro quo. We watch two sides of the film between the killer's life and Graham's, a style which extended into Silence of the Lambs as we watch both Starling/Lecter battle with wits and Buffalo Bill a.k.a James Gumb as he goes about his routine. This film in particular is very interesting because it shows us Francis Dollarhyde's life (The Tooth Fairy) as he struggles to find love but succumbs to the dangerous urges inside him. It's a fairly twisted tale, and something that we don't usually see from Mann; I love his filmmaking, and having seen the 2nd film in the Thomas Harris series first I was pleasantly surprised to go back and see this one after already knowing about Lecter, and of course already enjoying Mann's style in other films.

William Petersen (most well known for his role as Gil Grissom, the overeducated crime scene forensics expert) is the true story of this film- he is on fire. Between this and To Live & Die in L.A, Petersen never has to be in another film for me to consider him one of the top actors in his generation. It's hard to look away from the screen when he's there, he commands the respect and the attention we give his character. It's hard for an actor to really nail a role on the head perfectly to where I want to see the performances go, but Petersen pulls it off and really makes me feel like Will Graham is in front of me. His delivery, his timing, the way he moves- everything feels right. Not to mention the slick look that Mann lays over the film like a glossy coat; the director's choices for atmosphere really pull us into Graham's character. We spend the long hours with him, we walk through the victims houses with him, we fall into his shoes. He makes us go round each corner with him, feel what he's feeling. A truly epic performance in my opinion.

Another exceptional performance I feel that's worth notice is Tom Noonan as Francis Dollarhyde. That being said- I love Ralph Fiennes' portrayal as well, but Noonan is just creepy in general. He later ends up on CSI up against Petersen's Grissom, which is pretty neat too. In this film, he is a loner- a big, tall, creepy creeperton of a man. He is shadowy, but also we get the feeling that at any minute maybe he could just smash someone to bits. He looks tall and lanky but behind that lies some sort of mysterious danger. He brings a quality to the role that Fiennes doesn't have in the remake. Fiennes plays a physically fit, physically commanding Dollarhyde while Noonan plays the character as dangerous, but even more detached physically and emotionally.

This movie is top notch, from acting to directing. One final scene at the end with Will Graham and his son sums it all up- the fight between the great evil and the great good. They watch a family of turtles swimming, and the boy asks "How many?", and Will replies: "Most of 'em.. most of 'em made it!". I take this a subtle metaphor for the families that Will has saved due to giving himself over to the FBI and what they needed. He saved countless families from the wrath of The Tooth Fairy by giving up pieces of himself, and almost pieces of those he loves. An excellent film, worth 5 stars.

Halloween (1978)

2010-10-19T03:58:00.002-02:30

Directed by John Carpenter

Written by John Carpenter & Debra Hill

Starring: Jamie Lee Curtis

Donald Pleasence

Nancy Kyes

P.J Soles

Charles Cyphers

Brian Andrews

Kyle Richards

***** (5 out of 5 stars)

With this film, John Carpenter single handedly changed the horror genre into intelligent filmmaking. He kept the killer hidden for the better part of the film, and still kept people tingling with fear. We watch the scenes with the killer in them from the killer's point of view: staring out the eyes of a mask. This creates a fear in the viewer that stems from the unknown. It runs parallel with our original fear of not being able to see the killer: we still can't see him. We look at him in the end and can only see a pale, white mask and while we look through his eyes we (of course) still don't see him. No matter what way it's filmed, we still don't know who Michael Myers is. This is a technique that really drives this film to greatness.

Michael Myers is not only a serial killer, but he is unstoppable. As the series goes on we find out more and more about how immortal he really is. Nothing works- no bullets, knives, falls, explosions or electrocutions. Myers is a force to be reckoned with, and even from the beginning we see this. He gets beat up, he just stands up and keeps walking through his victims. He has the strength of ten men, evident when he picks up a victim with one hand by the throat. He walks through doors and closets and fences, and we constantly cheer inside for the moment that someone blows his face off or cuts him up- that never happens. Even in the end, we're left with a "holy fuck" feeling. Where did he come from? This is the only thing I wished Carpenter had elaborated on, and I guess now I've got Rob Zombie to thank for that.

Something else about this franchise in general that I enjoy is the choice of songs. In this film, we hear "Don't Fear the Reaper" by Blue Oyster Cult- how fitting. Michael Myers is the Grim Reaper personified, except you'd probably have a better chance working out a payment plan with the Reaper. I'm not sure if this movie uses it, but in several of the other installments we hear different versions of "Mr. Sandman" which also work well as a creepy reference to Michael.

Jamie Lee Curtis really kicks this film into gear with her performance. She plays an every day type of high schooler who just so happens to have a muddy past as far as details go. She is the queen of scream, and always will be. Of course, Halloween will always be the horror film she's recognized for, but she has definitely made her mark on a couple.

Pleasence is always enjoyable as Dr. Loomis. The original is clearly where it all starts: the mad doctor desperately trying to convince the rest of the world of what he already knows. He is hellbent on stopping Michael Myers and he doesn't care if the rest of Haddonfield thinks he's retarded- he's going to stop him. An all-out performance by Pleasence, as always.

Halloween is absolutely iconic. It set the pace for the next 22 years until now, and to be honest no film has ever really come neck and neck with it in my eyes. Nobody has been able to come up with the same dynamic between characters as we find between Loomis and Myers, and nobody has been able to match the unstoppable force that is Michel Myers. Until the day someone can reinvent the slasher genre, John Carpenter will reign supreme- and Michael will sit at his right hand.

Halloween II (1981)

2010-10-19T03:45:00.001-02:30

Directed by Rick Rosenthal

Written by John Carpenter & Debra Hill

Produced by Debra Hill & John Carpenter

Starring: Jamie Lee Curtis

Donald Pleasence

Lance Guest

Charles Cyphers

Hunter Von Leer

***** (5 out of 5 stars)

It has caused me a lot of grief trying to sort out my feelings for this series. Michael Myers is by far my favourite slasher in movie history, and until some brave filmmaker decides to change my mind I'm sticking to my guns. The first Halloween movie was a step in a new direction: the unseen is where the terror lies. Carpenter figured out that by not showing the killer's face, he could create an air of mystery that lends itself to the terror of Myers and his brutal path of destruction. In this installment, we see everything. Worst of it is that now Laurie Strode is stuck in an isolated hospital just on the edge of Haddonfield, and we watch as Michael tears the place limb from limb to find his sister. The sense of isolation we feel in the hallways of the hospital are heightened by the fact that now we see Michael's face, and we watch as he creeps about the place, ready to murder in an instant. Now the terror is right in our faces, we can't get away from it. This contrast to the first film is what makes Halloween II one of the best films in the whole series.

As I just mentioned, isolation plays a huge part in this movie. When you can put yourself into the shoes of the characters and really feel the desperation of being in the hospital while a madman stalks the halls, it really puts you on the edge. The long empty hallways, the darkened rooms, the cold and sterile feel of hospitals, it all melts into one disturbing, long fight for survival. The hospital itself provides a unique environment; in particular, I think of a scene where a couple nurses are chatting and in the shadows we see Michael as he hangs out in a room full of newborn babies. Something about Michael in a place where people are supposed to be healed is almost ironic- after he's done with his victims, at least they don't have far to go to get stitched back up (if there's anything left to stitch). There are plenty of empty patient rooms and O.Rs for Myers to creep among, places to hide in the darkness right before an unfortunate individual walks by.

Jamie Lee Curtis is the only Laurie Strode there is, she is perfect in this role. She's a frightened, damaged young girl in this second film and this is where we first uncover the truth about her and Michael's relationship. I couldn't imagine any other actress to play the role.

Of course, Donald Pleasence is back as Dr. Samuel Loomis and this is him and at the height of greatness. Loomis knew right from the start that Michael would do damage, and once again nobody believes him. This is a central theme throughout the whole series: Loomis knows what's coming, but nobody heeds his warnings. Probably because he sounds like a maniac most of the time, shooting at anything that even resembles the shape of Myers. In the end though, he is always right. Here we get to see the big showdown between Loomis and Michael, ending in an excellent explosion. Pleasence brings a very down to earth feel to Loomis, who is written as a crazy, obsessed doctor; even on the rampage after Myers, Loomis is still played down to perfection. Any of the series' installments that have Loomis in them are mostly my personal favourites. The dynamic between Michael Myers and Dr. Loomis is incredible.

There are several really cool kills in this movie. Before I get to them, I have to mention something that almost ruined the movie for me until they cleared it up. At one point, someone wearing the same blank William Shatner mask is seen on the street and assumed to be Myers; a police cruiser then flies into him, pinning the man to a van, and then an explosion goes up leaving the man burning in flame. The police then get a call, and take off with Looms- what the fuck? They just left the man burning in flames. Whether or not it was Myers, wouldn't they take some time to look into? Over the course of the film, they do cover their bases and it saved their asses because I was almost ready to throw the DVD into the street because of it.

Moving on to the kills. Specifically a brutal kill in a hot tub, which left my jaw dropped. 1981 wasn't exactly the time of stellar effects, but they pull off a lot of great kills. Blood was never huge in this series, and that's something I enjoyed, but we do see the viciousness at the hands of Myers. We also see the beginning of Michael's routine: isolate everyone as individually as possible, then slaughter them one by one. He methodically picks everyone off, luring them out like a hunter with his prey. This is the standard for most slashers now, that the killer picks off all the victims one by one, sometimes in pairs. This is where the isolated hospital environment really comes in hand. We also get a lot more "Michael creeps out of the darkness" in this film (i.e a young nurse finds the doctor dead in his office and Myers slowly comes out of the darkness, his gleaming white mask seeping out of the background).

Overall, this movie is worth each of the 5 stars. I love the kills, the plot, and of course the acting. Another thing I love is the introduction of Samhain, essentially setting up the supernatural elements which start to take place in the rest of the series. Here we begin to see where they're going with Myers' character- instead of being just a random serial killer, now he starts to become something even scarier. I recommend this to any fan of old school horror, and anybody who's looking for a really creepy movie especially around October 31st.

A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010)

2010-10-19T03:24:00.002-02:30

Release Date: 2010

Directed by Samuel Bayer

Written by Wesley Strick & Erci Heisserer (screenplay)

Story by Wesley Strick

Based on characters by Wes Craven

Starring: Jackie Earle Haley

Kyle Gallner

Rooney Mara

Clancy Brown

Connie Britton

Thomas Dekker

** (2 out of 3 stars)

"You have nothing to worry about- this won't hurt one, little, bit."

Freddy was wrong- this remake, which was more unnecessary than most, certainly hurt quite a bit. Krueger is one of my favourite villains of all-time, horror or otherwise, and he's the only thing that saved this lame retelling of the original. We don't get anything special as far as kills go, and most of the time I wondered why the made Freddy look less scary than the first time around? We'll never know. That being said, the story behind Krueger's death and the part played by Jackie Earle Harley are both what saves this film. Other than that, there are a whole lot of emo kids and a whole lot of inconsistencies.

Instead of listing what's wrong with this movie, I'll give you what I enjoyed.

Freddy Krueger was a child killer and the parents got revenge- that was the extent of Wes Craven's explanation in the original Nightmare on Elm Street. There was no more, and no less. In this version, we see a darker version of what Freddy's past looks like. We get the feeling that he molested the children and tore them up with his claws, but then we also get the feeling that maybe Fred was pegged for something he didn't do. We don't exactly get much evidence for either, especially not the latter, but once the kids of Elm Street figure out what their naughty parents did they immediately question it. Rightfully so. If your parents told you someone had hurt you and so they murdered that person, wouldn't you at least question it? In the original film, this is something that I always wondered- didn't the kids have any questions? Regardless, the murder was uncalled for (I'm against the death penalty in all forms, vigilante or by law) but wouldn't you want to know what the proof was? It would certainly be easier to sleep at night knowing for sure that it was at least somewhat justified. This is something I really enjoyed- too bad the rest of the movie wasn't as thought out as this point was.

I saw Jackie Earle Haley in a movie called Little Children, and ever since that Oscar nominated performance I have been watching him. He is the only shining point as far as acting is concerned here. He adds a little something to Freddy that makes up for the terrible effects used on his appearance; a dark, creepy growl of voice and excellent delivery in the lines. He is void of all the humour that Robert Englund brought to the character, and I think that it's fitting. Even though this film didn't strike the bullseye by any means, Haley still gives Freddy dimensions that weren't present in the original performance and that is an attribute to this terribly flawed film.

It's hard to believe that Wes Craven was onboard for this one, but I guess that's the fad of the day- remake every and all horror film of the past 40 years, no matter if it needs to be remade or not. You'd think that they would stick to remaking movies that had great premises in the 70s and 80s but weren't well executed, yet we still see them remaking classics. I would assume it's all fueled by greed. To think that a movie like Nightmare or Friday the 13th would need to be remade is like pissing all over the classic pioneers of slasher films. I'll give it to Rob Zombie, he certainly impressed me with his remake of my all-time favourite slasher, Halloween. I'll even give Marcus Nispel and Jonathan Liebesman for their reboot of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (particularly the latter for the prequel to Leatherface and his family's story), which is also on the top of my list for classic horror films. But to me, there is no need to try and reinvent Jason or Freddy- above all, these two are iconic and immortal characters in the movie universe and we should just leave them alone. Some of the sequels in these franchises were enough shame, let alone a flaccid reboot.

I honestly gave this movie 2 stars solely based on Haley's performance as Fred Krueger, and the elaborated backstory to his death. Other than that there is nothing special about this film. Maybe if they pulled off something as gnarly as Johnny Depp's death scene in the original film I could give them another star, but unfortunately it was a brutal effort. Kudos to the filmmakers for trying- Wes Craven has some big directorial shoes to walk in.

Reykjavik Whale Watching Massacre (a.k.a Harpoon)

2010-10-19T02:36:00.002-02:30

Directed by Julius Kemp

Story by Torsten Metalstein Hvas & Sjon

Written by Sjon

Starring: Pihla Viitala

Nae Yuuki

Miranda Hennessy

Terence Anderson

Helgi Bjornsson

Gudrun Gisladottir

Stefan Jonsson

**** (4 out of 5 stars)

First, let me state that I have been waiting to see this movie ever since I saw the description of it on www.upcominghorrormovies.com even when it was just a plot synopsis. So when reading this review, keep in mind that due to my excited state when I finally got to see this movie I may be biased.

That being said: I love this movie. If you're looking for an hour and a half of pure debauchery, gore and mayhem then this movie has got what you are looking for. Some of the acting is a little off, and of course the script isn't exactly tailored to Bogart, but I still feel that this is a solid addition to the psycho family genre. It's original in the sense that usually we find this sort of story working in the backwoods down South, or in a remote region somewhere in the European areas; here, we find a demented family floating the oceans on a large whale hunting ship, scrambling for meat on the open water. The setup is a bunch of tourists that are going on a whale watching vessel to, you guessed it- watch whales. Of course, through the jigs and reels (pardon the lameness), they end up in the clutches of the aforementioned psychopathic family of whale hunters. The mother and her two sons are horny, hungry, and dying to kill. From here it's a run of the mill horror, with some of the tourists being killed off brutally and of course the family takes a few hits.

One thing that I didn't like about this film but it doesn't surprise me they put it in there, is the rape scene. One of the young tourists is a beautiful young woman, who we assume from the start seems to be damaged goods; she is lured by a crew member into a room downstairs, where she is then forced to have sex. The thing that bothers me most is that most movies in the horror genre always use that rape scene as the "go to" scene. Right off the bat, we get this. The other disturbing part about this scene which pushes it past the typical rape scenario is that when one of the other female members of the tourist group finds him forcing himself onto the other girl, she just stands there as if she is disgusted with her; you'd figure that from one woman to another, she would have at least asked "Are you alright?". Not here. Maybe that's what makes it a good placement, that it's not your typical rape scene, there is no feeling bad, there is no want for revenge. It's like we're meant to look at this girl as a skank, because that's what this other chick obviously thought. We don't even get to see anybody take some revenge on the guy either- the girl had sought him out to let him know the Captain of the ship had been seriously injured, and after he figures that out above deck he takes one of the lifeboats and sails the open sea by himself, leaving the tourists out on a limb. This is where the family comes in and all hell breaks loose.

The biggest plus for this movie overall are the amazing kills. We get everything from double head shots, a ridiculously cheesy decapitation, Kamikaze action, and a good flare to the eye. The effects were great- there was lots of excellent gore to satisfy the hungriest horror fans. Even in the end, the girls finally see a whale and it tries to kill them. Can't get any better than that.

Another thing that made this movie even better for me was the fact that the protagonist of this story is a gay, black man. We find this out shortly after the horror starts up on the whale hunting ship, and of course the leading lady is upset because now how is she going to get laid? The family hates black people, clearly, and it's excellent to watch his character get one over on them. Of course the joy gets cut short when the law shows up, and a devastating mix up happens- this adds more flavour to the pot.

The Reykjavik Whale Watching Massacre a.k.a Harpoon is one of the finer films to come out of this sub genre. Most of the movies that we see that are along the same lines usually fall short due to a terrible plot, terrible acting or even terrible effects and scares. This one serves up a healthy portion of great kills and some half decent acting; the story is pretty original when it comes to the setting, which adds a little something more. 4 out of 5 star movie, and I recommend it to anyone who loves horror movies; you'll certainly get a good kick out of this one!

Paradise Lost II: Revelations

2010-10-19T02:17:00.001-02:30

Release Date: 2000 (TV)

Directed by Joe Berlinger & Bruce Sinofsky

Featuring: Damien Echols

Jason Baldwin

Jesse Misskelly

Kathy Bakken

Steven Branch

John Mark Byers

Melissa Byers

*** (3 out of 5 stars)

The post-title says it all: Revelations. This film picks up several years after the original trial, and now Damien (along with the other two boys) is a little older, and has spent a long few years in jail. If it all isn't sad enough, we find out that Damien Echols has been raped repeatedly inside jail and nobody would help him out of the situation he was in. Due to the fact of the closed mindedness of a small town and the lapse of judgement on the part of law enforcement and the judicial system, a young man has been robbed of his innocence and manhood; of course, there are groups of people (especially in West Memphis) that would argue he deserves every bit of it, that nothing he gets is good enough to fit the crime he has supposedly committed. We get more and more disgusting commentary from Mark Byers, stepfather of one victim Christopher Byers, and others who were involved in the original case. A lot more mumbo jumbo, for lack of a better word, gets spilled from the lips of the closed minded folks who live in this small West Memphis town. Each time I watch either the first or second installments in this series, I keep thinking that I'm lucky to not have been 16 in a town like this because even today if the police raided my room and looked at my literature or media, they'd find enough to lock me up for eternity on their watch; apparently reading and listening to certain types of music or watching certain movies is no longer something that is attached to freedom. We are revealed with more and more disturbing evidence that points us in the direction of the rightful owner of these charges. Many more questions get raised the second time around, and at this point the filmmakers had gathered up quite a following. After seeing this film, I took more time to look into www.wm3.org and try to find more ways I could help out. The injustice that we see in both Paradise Lost films is absolutely appalling, and would make anyone with either bit of a warm heart cringe.

There was no doubt in my mind even after watching the first film that Mark Byers was responsible for the deaths of the three children, or at least had something to do with it all. After this second installment, there is even less than no doubt about that fact. We see more and more evidence pile up against Byers. The scariest of all is the fact that his wife's death is, to this day, due to unconfirmed causes. There is evidence that leans towards the fact that Mark Byers probably hurt her, and possibly caused the death; but we will never know. By the end of the film, we find out that the supposed holy man was arrested for selling drugs. We hear mounting evidence about how Byers had given a kid a knife and urged him to use it on another kid after he and his wife had left town and moved on somewhere else. When they had left town, they also robbed as much as they could from 'friends'. What makes everybody so easy to accept that these young kids were responsible for the murders and that a man like Byers isn't capable of anything like that? The man lies through his teeth, contradicts himself and his stories, yet people still lap up all the milk that police and the judges give them. Ignored is the fact that Byers had a knife with blood on it that matched his blood type as well as his stepson Christopher's type, and the fact that he blatantly lied about knowledge of blood on the knife and then twisting, turning his statement until it was barely even recognizable by the end. Worse is the fact that everybody still can't see past the lies and recognize that Jesse Misskelly is not mentally fit enough to testify for or against anybody, and that he was coerced into giving a false statement. We ignore all these things, and look past the fact that Byers is putting on the grandest show of all- he parades in front of the camera, having a makeshift funeral for the West Memphis 3 in the woods (where he calls the three dead children his "babies", which to me is indicative that he thought he had some relationship with the other two little kids), arguing with reporters and activists. The best way to hide is in plain sight, and that is what Mark Byers has been doing ever since the discovery of the bodies in Robin Hood Hills. He plays the church man, he plays the grieving father and husband, he plays the good ol' Southern boy.. while everybody watches. Not to mention that he did have an argument with his stepson on the day of the murders, and spanked him; this is something that always factors into motivation for murder, if anybody had altercations with a victim.

Later in the film, we discover that there were bite marks on the face of one of the victims. The three alleged murderers are cleared, but Byers could not be properly tested due to the fact that he has had false teeth since four years after his son's murder. Copies of dental records were used, but came up inconclusive. Byers then takes a polygraph and feels he has been exonerated, although he was on a variety of medications that could have affected proper testing (Xanax and Haldol are two of the substances). Every time he feels he has beaten the rap, it's like he is taunting the cameras, dancing for the onlookers. Byers is so in our face and so outspoken, it feels to me that he is the true murderer, or at last had some involvement. Anybody else would probably shy away and not want any attention; the average every day person does not want to be involved in a media circus surrounding murders, but Byers seems totally at ease with being there, almost as if he does feel that being the center of attention helps him hide in plain view.

A lot of this film is a rehash of the first, but I still enjoyed it. Enjoyment may not be the right term- I found this enlightening, just as I did the first. We get a lot more information, as I talked about previously, but in the end we stay at the same standstill as before. Damien Echols will now be a product of the system: forced to fight against being raped by other inmates, no doubt he will become a hardened shell of a man. Eventually, he could end up having to use force to defend himself and then probably add more charges to the already bogus one he is serving a sentence for now. The fact that they've locked away an innocent person who now has to fight to survive will only work against Echols; he'll eventually be conformed to life in the system, and no matter if he makes it out alive or not he will always have the strain of prison life sitting on his shoulders, reminding him of what was once taken from him. Neither three of the West Memphis trio will ever live a normal life again, all thanks to a conglomerate of individuals that were essentially working against them. We see more and more of what prejudice and closed minds can do to those who don't fit their view of 'normal'.

I gave this film 3 stars, not because it wasn't good but because as I mentioned previously there is a lot that just rehashes the original trial. I enjoyed it thoroughly, however, and I recommend this to anybody who has seen the first. These films are important to the future of our justice system- a very relative how-not-to story.

My Son, My Son, What Have Ye Done?

2010-10-19T01:27:00.002-02:30

My Son, My Son, What Have Ye Done?

Directed by Werner Herzog

Produced by Eric Bassett

Executive Producer: David Lynch

Written by Herbert Golder & Werner Herzog

Starring: Michael Shannon

Willem Dafoe

Udo Kier

Chloe Sevigny

Grace Zabriskie

Brad Dourif

***** (5 out of 5 stars)

So what? So, what? So.. what?

Sometimes you don't know what to think while watching Herzog's latest endeavour. Moments where the camera stops, and we literally watch a frozen frame: there is no pause or freeze to it, the actors literally stop moving and stare as if they're caught in the reality that is being filmed, as if to say "Hey we're making a movie here". Other times, Herzog literally just films people in their natural state. Brad McCullum goes to Peru to find himself and explore the world, and in one scene is walking through a market; it looks in this scene as if Werner Herzog literally just shot clips of people on the street and then edited to be from Brad's point of view, a very effective technique (along with Brad monologuing, talking about how people seem to keep staring right at him, into him). Music also plays a huge part in this film, and a strange one. Brad keeps playing a song by Washington Phillips, "I Am Born to Preach the Gospel", over and over, saying that this was "it". All these oddities create Herzog's world, where we weave in through past and present, blindly following McCullum on a bizarre trek through his mind.

Werner Herzog is probably my favourite director, and when I heard that Absurda (David Lynch's production company- of whom I'm also a huge fan) was putting out his latest work.. well let's say I was a little more than thrilled. My Son, My Son, What Have Ye Done? is, in my mind, a masterpiece; admittedly, there are some confusing elements to the story that the movie tells but it is a classic indeed. Based on a true story, Herzog tells the tale of a series of events that led up to a man killing his mother with a sword. We watch a series of flashbacks about the time leading up to the murder, told mainly by the man's fiancee (Chloe Sevingy) and close friend (Udo Kier) to the lead detective on the scene (Willem Dafoe). The man (Michael Shannon) claims to have two hostages with him inside the house, and the police are setup outside to try and defuse the situation. Slowly, the story of Brad McCullum unfolds before our eyes. For the most part it makes perfect sense but of course Werner Herzog, responsible for many classic films of both documentary format and fiction, has to give the story a thick air of mystery; a few scenes in particular leave the viewer truly wondering- what is happening?

The directing is always the highlight of a Herzog film for me, no matter if the subject matter is sensational or if Kinski was on the screen hamming it up; a filmmaker like him usually tends to be very true to form, very distinctive. At every point in this movie you can tell you're in his world. Even in his non-documentary films, Werner manages to give us such a real looking, real feeling environment that it may as well be a documentary that we're watching; this works even more effectively than normal, as this is based on a true story.

Michael Shannon is the true glory of this movie. I've seen him time and time again playing different roles but always seeming like the odd man out- here, Herzog places him at the center of a bizarre mystery that unravels the mind of an eccentric man. Shannon plays a man in his mid to late thirties, Brad, who still lives with his mother, and is trying to balance between that and a relationship with his fiancee (played wonderfully, as always, by Chloe Sevigny). It's not so much the eccentricities that keep us watching, it's the hope that eventually we will find something to explain the alienation of Brad McCullum. We never truly get a good explanation as to why he's turned out like this, maybe only the fact that his mother was overbearing and strange in her own right. Sevigny plays Ingrid well- a young fiancee trying to bring her husband-to-be back to reality and keep him grounded. She is a simple character but she plays the concerned party very well, just as her character in Zodiac played off of Gyllenhaal's determined persona; we also get to see Udo Kier, a guilty pleasure of mine, play a friend and fellow actor/director in the same capacity, as a worried friend.

Willem Dafoe is one of my favourite actors and has been since he played a powerhouse of a character in Oliver Stone's Platoon. He is an actor who doesn't seem to fall into the character, but always put his own little fun twist on who he is playing. One of the highlights is very early into the movie when he tells his partner, played by Michael Pena, about a law enforcement situation; Dafoe puts on his cute, Souther belle voice as he laughs with Pena about the story. This is something that always stands out for me with Willem Dafoe, the small idiosyncrasies he puts into his roles. Also worth mentioning is Brad Dourif who is always a pleasure to see onscreen, whether in a leading or minor role. Even as a blatant racist, Dourif is always worth watching (clearly everybody must remember Mississippi Burning!? Coincidentally, Dafoe is also in that film and plays a fine role indeed).

I had been waiting for a long time to see this movie, ever since I got word that Lynch and Herzog were both involved in a project. Finally I was able to see it and I was not disappointed in the least. Another 5 star film. Werner Herzog continually surprises me, and it's nice to see Lynch producing something that isn't totally confusing (although Lynch is up on the top 5 directors list in my mind) and mind boggling. Although that's not to say that this movie doesn't mess with your head, but the fact is that this is based on a truly bizarre and macabre man's life and there is no trickery. What you see is what you get. Leave it up to Werner and Lynch to make it spin like a top.

Cache (Watch this ASAP!)

2010-10-19T01:06:00.000-02:30

Cache

Directed by Michael Haneke

Written by Michael Haneke

Starring: Juliette Binoche

Daniel Auteuil

Maurice Benichou

Walid Afkir

Lester Makedonsky

Daniel Duval

Nathalie Richard

***** (5 out of 5 stars)

Wow. Possibly the only thing that I can say about this film. Cache shows us the life of a family flipped upside down by the appearance of videotapes and drawings at their front door; the videos are of their home, appearing as if they are being watched. Slowly we watch how these tapes terrorize the family. After awhile, we figure out that it has mostly to do with the father of the family, played by (actor's name). In the end, I'm not sure if we're supposed to know what's happened or if we sort of just make up the rest ourselves but by the finish of the film I was left with my jaw hanging. In particular one scene had me floored- I even rewound the part several times before continuing, it contained more shock value than Lars Von Trier's Antichrist just because of how unexpected it was in this movie. For a few minutes after it was all over, I sat and wondered if I was satisfied with the ending and to tell you the truth, I'm not really. Yet at the same time I consider this to be one of the finer thrillers I've seen in recent years. The reason being is because I feel as though it's like they built the story up, all about the tension and the unknown, and instead of giving us that sweet payoff we're hoping for the filmmaker gives us a very open ended finish. We are left to wonder many things.

The script was great. Lots of unexpectedness in this film which is something that we don't see much of in American Hollywood movies. The manner in which the story unfolds is classic suspense and mystery, something to keep us waiting for the next big thing, keeping us on our toes. A lot of things are left unexplained, or maybe they were and it all passed me by but it adds to the mystery. This, to me, seems like a sign of intelligent filmmaking: trusting the viewer. The filmmakers seemingly trust us enough to think, "Why show it when we can just allude to it?"; instead of assuming your audience is too dumb to follow along on their own, we are granted the permission to fill in the blanks. This is what keeps this movie rated as high as it does, alongside the other great qualities, is that the audience is respected and we're not spoon fed all the information. Albeit, confusing at times but still very innovative.

Juliette Binoche was wonderful. On one hand, you want to be mad at her because she is a little annoying and hard on her husband (who is clearly having a rough go of it) but on the other side you can totally understand her behaviour as a mother, and a loving wife. She is always classic and in this thriller of a film she is fairly subdued but still highly intriguing. Daniel Auteuil plays the man in the middle of it all with grace. We watch him go from anger to confusion to tears and back again, all due to the past. This movie is all about what catches up to you, it seems like everybody in the film has something running after them, and how everybody deals with; unfortunately, in this case, everything doesn't turn out as good as it could have for those running from something. The part of Majid, Maurice Benichou, is played wonderfully as well, a very haunting performance at the center of the story. The acting on all parts is near perfect, I was lost in the performances of the whole family in the story which made the plot move along much smoother than a lot of thrillers.

This movie is a full 5 stars because it has a great story, wonderful direction and expertly played characters by some wonderful actors and actresses. I would highly recommend this to anybody who loves a great mystery or thriller; this is a cut above, and it also leaves you with a strange feeling in the end. I still am not sure what the last scene really means. On one hand, you could think the worst, and on the other hand you could think a number of different scenarios up in your head. I enjoy an open ended conclusion because if it's carried out appropriately it can leave a movie with you for weeks, even longer. Cache has stayed with me months later and I still can picture it all in my mind.

When A Stranger Calls (1979)

2010-10-10T17:50:00.002-02:30

Directed by Fred Walton

Written by Steve Feke & Fred Walton

Starring: Charles Durning

Carol Kane

Tony Beckley

Steven Anderson

***** (5 out of 5 stars)

This film redefines the term 'creep'. A lot of people talk about how Black Christmas was the first to do the 'killer calling from inside the house' bit, but honestly (even though that's one of my favourite horrors) I love When A Stranger Calls and how it executes it's story. Carol Kane plays Jill Johnson, a young babysitter taking care of a doctor's children while he and his wife go out on the town. While hanging out in the living room and studying presumably, she gets a creepy call a few times in a row asking if she's checked the children. She soon calls police and long story short, it turns out the man is calling from inside the house on the other line. The man, Curt Duncan (played amazingly by Tony Beckley), has killed the two children and later we find out that he did it only with his bare hands. Seven years later, we find John Clifford (played by Charles Durning, who I'm a big fan of from Denis Leary's show Rescue Me) trying to track Duncan down after he has escaped the mental hospital in which he was a patient. Now we watch Clifford's search as well as Duncan trying to fit back into the world, which doesn't turn out so well. He stalks another woman and then when the heat is on and Clifford is right behind him, he finds Jill again and terrorizes her new family. For the time it was made, this film was very progressive mainly due to the fact that it was brave of Fred Walton to have the children killed; most films, even nowadays, either spare us the details or have children saved at the last minute but When A Stranger Calls pulls no punches in the gruesomeness of the murders. The film pairs the script with an atmosphere drenched in creepy suspense, something that works well because even the good guys aren't without their flaws- we find out halfway through that John Clifford is planning to kill Duncan, not bring him back to the hospital. It's a very dark film and it works well both literally and visually on that level.

The acting was fairly solid for a film of this genre, especially in the 70s. Carol Kane sometimes bordered on being a little too loud but other than that her performance was wonderful; conveying a sense of dread the way she did throughout the film isn't always easy, and the breakdown when she receives a call at the restaurant is very real and gritty, truly believable. Charles Durning and Tony Beckley make a great pair nemesis'- John Clifford, the hard-nosed, waddling private detective and Curt Duncan, the absolutely bat shit crazy criminal. There's even a chase scene which fits the two very well; Clifford isn't the supercop or all-star athlete we see in most crime movies, and Duncan isn't your typical villain more so just a really creepy psychopath. There is a lot of believability when it comes to these three roles and it's what makes this a top notch movie. There are many chances to stray into cheesy, hokey acting when it comes to this genre but these players manage to make this into a very dark, realistic portrayal of their characters. The highlight is Tony Beckley- he plays Curt Duncan in such a subtle manner that when we don't see him in flashbacks of the murder, it's almost hard to imagine that this man is a killer. Very impressive.

The colours of the movie and the lighting make this the gritty film that it is. We see Clifford roaming the streets, searching for Duncan. The city is dark but alive with faded neon lights, an eerie glow cast out all over the streets. One scene in particular after Clifford and Duncan's chase, when Duncan has eluded him he sits in the dark and talks to himself ("I don't exist. I was never born.."), the camera slowly fades into black so we see less and less of his face as he disappears into the darkness. This creates a figurative image in our mind, that Curt Duncan as a person is slowly disappearing and the only thing left is what he has done and what he is- he's a murderer. The lighting in the city during the film is something that really adds to the aura of the film itself, and a few particular scenes in the houses (both beginning and end) are what gives it that spectacularly creepy sensation.

This movie is a five star rating for me. I was generally unnerved by some of the scenes with Tony Beckley, and the all around feeling of the film is very dark and creepy. It's not often I find a movie that disrupts my thinking and makes me wonder what is in the shadows when I go to sleep, but this is one of them.

Paradise Lost: The Child Murders at Robin Hood Hills

2010-10-10T17:48:00.002-02:30

***** (5 out of 5 stars)

Paradise Lost is a story centered around a small town and their intolerance for people who are different than the rest. Three young teens (Damien Echols, Jason Baldwin & Jesse Misskelly) are arrested after one of them gives a confession stating they sexually ravaged and murdered three little boys; Jesse Misskelly is the first to be tried, as he gave the confession to police. Immediately we are able to figure out that Jesse is not a strong mind- his defense determines that he was forced into confessing, mainly due to the fact that he has a very low I.Q, somewhere in the 70s. From here we watch as these three teenagers are persecuted because they wear black, listen to Metallica, and read books about the occult and Pagan religion. Damien Echols is tarred as the leader of the group and is eventually found guilty, being sentenced to die via lethal injection. What's amazing about the whole case is that there is no physical evidence tying the three teens to these murders; the Prosecution relies solely on the fact that Jesse made a confession, and then drawing off the fact that they claim these young men were under the influence of a Satanic cult (Fact: FBI and other law enforcement agencies have never successfully been able to link a crime in the United States to a Satanic cult or ritualistic ceremony). This movie is a horror movie in it's own right. We also get the distinct feeling by the end that Mark Byers, the stepfather of Christopher Byers (victim), had something to do with the deaths of these boys; at one point, he gives the filmmakers from HBO a 'gift' which is an old knife. When the filmmakers discover blood on the knife, they hand it over to police (blood that was taken for a sample was found in the hinges of the knife, seemingly a difficult and awkward place to get blood in); the police test it finding Byers' blood type, which is also Christopher's blood type, but determine it to be inconclusive and eventually they get rid of the knife. The blatant disregard for protocol and sensibility on the part of the police, as well as the judge and prosecutors, is absolutely astonishing.

It's funny, because if the police came to my house and thought like the people from this town they would probably take me in for questioning because I have books about the Nazis, as well as The Satanic Bible by Anton LaVey. I have these because I like to read about these things- there is a huge line between reading for interest, and reading with intent to use the material for wrongdoing. What else I find funny is the fact that if these people that are prejudiced against freedom of expression and thought would read these books (specifically LaVey's book), they would discover that most of it is almost the opposite of what they think. The Satanic Bible is so far removed from what these God fearing people believe it to be that it's ridiculous. This movie further pushes the fact that there are still those who cannot, and will never, accept others for their differences. If I had lived in that town, it could be me sitting behind bars for a crime I didn't commit.

One thing in particular that really struck me about this movie is the fact that there are three of these teenagers accused. Did the prosecutors and police ever think for a second about the number of murders (of this nature) that happen involving three killers? The odds of having two people come together to murder is very slim (proven by the documented cases of coupled killers, such as Fred & Rosemary West, Bonnie & Clyde, Paul Bernardo & Karla Homolka), let alone three people will the same will, the same desire to kill. That right there is enough for me to have to think long and hard about, and I have. Another thing is the fact that none of them even seem remotely guilty. Most times, you can pick apart someone's behaviour when it comes to criminality and you can start to spot some indications of where this murderous ambition comes from; yet when we watch these teens talk about the proceedings, their innocence, each other, it doesn't look anything like watching three killers talk, it looks like watching three high school kids. Three innocent high school kids. Yet Damien Echols is sentenced to die, appeal after appeal going down the drain.

This is a very important movie about indifference to the freedom of expression and interest, justice, and small town life. I rated this movie a 5 start rating because it is an amazing documentary that needs to be seen by everyone. If we do not protect our freedom to be different than others, then this could and will happen more often. It's sad to think that these guys will never get out of jail, and all due to the fact that they wore a little black and read some weird books. I urge everybody to follow this link: WM3.org. After you watch the movie, go to the website and pitch in- you can donate, you spread the word, you can even write a letter to the boys (The West Memphis Three, as they're being called). I wrote a letter, mostly directed to Damien, and I hope that the three of them can read it; I tried to send along my hope, but I know that being behind those bars knowing they are innocent is enough to suck the life away from them. I can only hope that filmmaking like this will prevent and educate.

Jesus Camp

2010-10-10T17:47:00.000-02:30

Directed by Heidi Ewing & Rachel Grady

Edited by Enat Sidi

Cinematography by Mira Chang and Jenna Rosher

Original Music by Force Theory

***** (5 out of 5 stars)

I find it quite fitting to start this review off with my favourite quote from this film, which is something along the lines of this: "And while I'm on the subject, let me say something about Harry Potter. Warlocks are enemies of God.. and had it been in the Old Testament, Harry Potter would have been put to death". I literally couldn't even laugh, as much as it's one of the funniest things I've ever heard, because it was so shocking- can people really feel that way in the 21st century? Apparently they can. In one of the following scenes though my redemption comes as a few kids sit around a table eating lunch and one points out to the others that one of them looks like Harry Potter; they all laugh and one child says his mother won't let him watch Harry Potter movies (but he watches them anyways when he goes to dad's house- obviously dad is a dirty Democrat). As the movie goes on, we see more and more what these impressionable young people are being taught: evolution is foolishness, global warming doesn't exist ("It only went up 6% last year"), Harry Potter and his young wench Hermione are depraved, heretical witchcraft users. We watch as children scream in tongues directed by a youth Minister; they bawl and cry, writhing their hands, speaking in broken syllables through mouthfuls of tears, praising the "Almighty". The insanity that is Jesus Camp makes for a very eye-opening experience from start to finish.

One thing about this documentary is that it presents an ambush of information about what's going on behind Evangelical doors. I am not religious- I grew up and was raised a Catholic, but at the age of about 13 I was given the choice by my parents (who I'm proud to say were and are still very liberal people) to stop going, and I chose to stop. I have beliefs, but I do not subscribe to organized religions/any of the major religions; I don't believe in a god. The main thing that I found that intrigued me most as someone who is an atheist is there are three categories when it comes to "God": things he likes, doesn't like, and things he seems not to have made his mind up on. According to this movie it seems that "God" does not like the following: Harry Potter and (presumably) Lord of the Rings, ghost stories, schools, dinosaurs, Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, gays/lesbians, science/scientists, real facts that stem from research. However, God does like some things a lot it seems: war in his name, people that speak in tongues, children preaching the word of the "Lord", violence. There are a few things that it also appears he is divided on: rock music, where he likes to go to church, education. There are so many quotes from this documentary that I could probably take up most of the review with them. At one point we have a man onstage talking about the perils of science, and he says (while smirking as if the joke is on us): "You're not just a piece of protoplasm- whatever that is!". I almost felt bad watching the snide grin on his face as he chuckled silently over his 'joke' because unfortunately science is real- and the joke is on him.

We get excerpts from Ring of Fire, a radio show in Texas, that is run by a man named (insert name) who is a Christian but believes the Evangelical, fundamentalist way of doing things is just wrong. Numerous points he makes throughout the course of the movie as we watch and listen to him take calls are so valid that I felt like pumping my fist every time he would retort against a caller. He presents the frighteningly real case that these Evangelists are basically trying to make an Army of "God", which (name of youth minister) almost confirms in the film's early parts; his point is that nowhere does it show to him, and most devout Christians around the world, that Jesus' message was aimed towards what they're doing. He tells one caller: "The word learn is different from the word indoctrinate". This is a key point about the whole movie- these people are indoctrinating young children into this school of thinking. It reminds me of the Amish- at 16, sometimes until the age of 21, Amish teenagers are sent into the 'real world' to party, make 'English' friends, explore relationships, drink, and this is so that they can decide whether they will follow the Amish religion for the rest of their lives or not. At least the Amish, as far out as they may seem, give their own children the chance to choose at some point (just like my parents did for me). Evangelists seemingly don't care for their children's right to choose, and would it matter? It seems that all their big decisions are left up to "God" anyways.

This film is a 5 star rating because it presents information that I really did not know a whole lot about. Everybody knows that Evangelicals are very strict in their religious teachings, but not everyone knows the true extent of what these children are being 'taught'. I applaud the filmmakers for taking a, sometimes, brutal look at the way of life these children grow up in. In closing, the most interesting moment for me in this film happens right at the end during the beginning of the credits. One little girl at the end asks a bunch of black guys (you'll understand why I particularly say black guys), "If you were to die right now where do you think you would go?", and an older man says, "Heaven" immediately. She asks, "Really?", and then the next shot they're walking across the seat and she says, "I think they were Muslim". It just goes to show that they might think we're being hard on them because they live the way they live, but by the evidence of this last scene- aren't they hard on everyone else? Why should the touchy grounds of religion become a grounds for censoring feelings and thoughts? I guess Republicans are taking over the world, that's why.

The Cove

2010-09-26T14:48:00.000-02:30

The Cove

Release Date: August 2009

Directed by Louie Psihoyos

Written by Mark Monroe

Featuring: Richard O'Barry

Brook Aitken

Joe Chisholm

Kirk Krack

Isabel Lucas

***** (5 out of 5 stars)

Possibly the best documentary I have ever seen (winning the Academy Award for Best Documentary Feature at the 82nd Academy Awards). This film enlightens the world to a plight we don't see on television much, if at all. As thousands of dolphins die each year, we sit by and see nothing of it; worst of all, many places eat products from these dolphins which causes a great risk to human health as they are high in mercury. We not only see the viciousness of these hunters towards such beautiful creatures as dolphins, we also see the Japanese government trying to deny the fact that the mercury from the products is causing serious birth defects and health problems. This documentary is a mix between a piece of investigative journalist and an ecological adventure thriller which gives us some amazingly candid footage that Richard O'Barry and a crew of activists are able to capture through night vision technology and hidden cameras; these people filmed at great risk to their personal safety, and the final scene with Richard O'Barry literally made me cry. It is amazing that so many devote themselves to these causes, and as one interviewee points out during the film there are not many people to pick up from where a lot of these people will leave off. Hopefully my generation will start to pay more close attention to the world around them. The worst is that not only are the dolphins being massacred, but then some of the "good" dolphins are sold into captivity and sideshows purely for human enjoyment.

One of the big things about this movie is Richard O'Barry, who was the man that captured and trained the 5 dolphins who played the title character of Flipper in the hit television show. His passion for helping the dolphins after seeing what captivity does to these beautiful creatures is amazing; his eyes well up with tears time and time again during the film when they talk of the massacres or watch various footage. The final scene, which I mentioned before, is as emotional rollercoaster for several minutes: Barry walks into a meeting of the International Whaling Commission with a TV set strapped to his body that's playing footage of the Taijii dolphin slaughter, walking around to show everybody in the room until he is escorted out. The absolute passion of Barry is what makes this movie all the more special- he's not just some activity, he saw up close exactly what the forced captivity (let alone murder) of dolphins does to them and he decided to make a change.

This is all about the people who are willing to make the changes necessary for progress. The activists that take part in the team for this movie all did so at great personal risk; the Japanese people of Taijii will do anything to keep people from finding out what's going on in their little village, and as Barry says early in the film it's not out of the realm of possibility that they will kill to protect their secret. The intensity of the scenes where they go diving to place the sound device in the cove to monitor the dolphins cries, and when they place the hidden rock camera, is incredible; we feel every bead of sweat that must be rolling down their faces. It's an intense, emotional experience throughout if you have a heart.

The Cove is hands down a 5 star movie, all the way through. The investigative journalism combined with the wealth of ecological information makes this an amazing film that the world needs to take notice of. As quoted from the film: "Never ever depend on government or institutions to solve any major problems- all social change comes from the passion of individuals."

Halloween VI: The Curse of Michael Myers

2010-09-21T21:59:00.001-02:30

Halloween VI: The Curse of Michael Myers

Directed by Joe Chappelle

Written by Daniel Farrands, Debra Hill (characters) & John Carpenter (characters)

Starring: Paul Rudd

Donald Pleasence

Marianne Hagan

Mitch Ryan

*** (3 out of 5 stars)

This installment of Halloween has us back in Haddonfield as there is a sort of carnival to reignite the celebration of Halloween, an attempt to banish all the evil that Michael Myers created. This film is a little bit muddled nearing the end as it tries to quickly resolve the story behind the Zodiac-esque plot; I really enjoy the fact that, over the course of the last three films and this one, they've tried to give Michael a supernatural presence but the conclusion of this movie just falls a little short on explanation. All of that aside, I really enjoy this particular sequel. There are definitely some shortcomings in this installment but overall it's still a decent slasher flick.

Paul Rudd is one of my favourite actors when it comes to comedy but he plays a really quirky role in this, an obsessive who encountered Myers as a young boy. Pleasence is always great as Loomis, no matter how old and senile the doctor may get. The acting has never been so much a problem for me when it comes to most of the Halloween series, it's always been at least decent especially when Loomis or Laurie Strode are in the movie (both Donald Pleasence and Jamie Lee Curtis are classic in their roles). It's nice to see Rudd in a earlier role doing something serious. Although there is one part that always cracks me up- when Rudd and Loomis come back to his apartment, they get out of his vehicle and he leaps out like he's about to burst into action, and just the way he jumps out kills me!

The character of Michael Myers is always played well, of course a huge reason is due to the fact that he's completely mute. The thing is Michael serves also as a part of the mise-en-scene of the films; I'm sure that definition was never brought up too much on the set, although Carpenter definitely had it in mind during his time at the helm. One particular scene comes to mind when the old lady who owns the apartments is telling Kara Strode about 'the boogeyman' and in the background, we can barely see the outline of Michael as the lightning flashes through the window. It's a very subtle flash but if you can spot it, it lends an air of creepiness to the moment that would not be there without it. So, literally, Michael Myers is a part of the environment in the Halloween films. Every time he creeps in the background, the pale face of his mask barely visible, he lends an element to the visuals of the film that create that air of terror which is (pretty much) present in all the movies.

The writing for this installment was a little savage, and not in a good way. The story of the cult and those behind the witchcraft that is introduced associated with Michael and his evil ways is never fully explained. The script starts off with a lot of great promises but it never follows through on them. Other than that, the script is okay; dialogue is decent, nothing spectacular but there's not many a point where you're going, "Wow, I can't believe somebody really wrote that!". The main thing is the plot of this sequel, it just never fully unfolds. It has a lot of promise, starting off with Rudd's creepy character and the cult trying to take Jamie Lloyd's baby, but by the end we wonder exactly what we wondered in the beginning: what is going on? In the end, is it Loomis we hear wallowing in pain as a shot of Michael's mask laying on the ground with him nowhere to be found fades off screen? Who knows. I would have really liked more explanation, and sadly we never get any over the course of the last couple films either. Which is fine because it probably would have gotten even more muddled. I was hoping that Rob Zombie might do a little more with it all, but he even went a different route with Halloween II.

All in all, I give the movie a three star review. There were a few good kills, some interesting stuff going on even if it didn't all pan out in the end, and some decent acting. I'd love to see someone take on a movie explaining the supernatural elements behind this story of Michael Myers- maybe one of these days if I can get the rights, I'll have to do it. Michael Myers is one of the best slashers, if not the best, in the history of the genre and I feel that this part of his story could be what makes him the ultimate killer in movie history.

Halloween V: The Revenge of Michael Myers

2010-09-21T21:56:00.001-02:30

Halloween V: The Revenge of Michael Myers

Directed by Dominique Othenin-Girard

Written by John Carpenter & Debra Hill (characters) and Michael Jacobs

Starring: Donald Pleasance

Danielle Harris

Ellie Cornell

Wendy Foxworth

**** (4 out of 5 stars)

This is one of my favourite films in the Halloween series, for several reasons. I really enjoyed the previous installment, The Return of Michael Myers, because it started to give Michael a supernatural element. He wasn't just the unstoppable psychopath that we saw in the first two films but now he had this force behind him, this incurable evil even deeper than we had already thought. Halloween V: The Revenge of Michael Myers gives us more to the story of the link between Myers and his niece, Jamie. Even though I enjoyed Season of the Witch, it was off on it's own as far as Myers' story was concerned, and that's why I enjoy the previous film as well as this one because it picks up where it left off and gives us something else totally new to start looking at. Before now, Michael Myers was just a relentless serial killer but now it appears that there is something darker, more sinister at work behind the dreary, white mask.

One of the best aspects of this movie to me were some of the great scenes in which Myers just creeps out of the background, as he so often does, and kills his victims. For some reason, the scenes of this movie just stand out more for me than any other film in the series (although Halloween II is a stand out for me also). In particular, the scene where one of the girls is just out of the shower and she's looking for her dog, then afterwards the dog is found and the police were called but nothing was out of the ordinary- once she goes back inside, we start to see Michael creep around behind her for awhile before he moves in and stabs her to death with a pair of scissors. Just the quiet nature of these scenes is what keeps this film on par with the first two of the series. The original Halloween was so effective because of its subtle qualities: Myers always lurking in the background, we never see his face but only through his eyes, the quiet spaces that occupy the film solely to keep us on edge in a state of curiosity. These scenes make it a more whole part of the series, keeping the feeling and flow the same as before; as I said, I enjoyed Season of the Witch but it was more of a stand alone film, taking on its own life, and this film itself brings us back to the real story of Michael Myers.

The acting and the dialogue in this movie are pretty solid. Most times sequels tend to fall by the wayside when it comes to dialogue and scripting especially, but The Revenge of Michael Myers was penned fairly well; of course there is always going to be a little cheese when it comes to some horror movies though it seems the Halloween franchise has a lot less of the cheese factor than some of the others (particulary A Nightmare on Elm Street although it is one of my favourite horror franchises). The acting is also fairly spot on, most notably Donald Pleasance and (little girl's name). Pleasance makes Dr. Loomis into a really creepy character but yet he is quite the hero when it comes to Myers and his terrorizing of Haddonfield; we watch as Loomis is all but torn apart by the will to find Michael and send him to Hell. (little girl's name) is wonderful in this installment- she shows a lot of range for a young girl acting especially in the beginning when she is still traumatized by the events of the previous film and cannot speak. We watch her struggle to figure out what is going on, as she seems to have an almost psychic link with her evil uncle Mike. There are a couple intense scenes between her and Loomis when he is trying to convince her to help him, but she's still just a frightened little girl who has been through too much to really comprehend. Also a honorable mention goes to (lead actress) for playing a fairly good role as being the main character, aside from Jamie, that Myers is after throughout most of the film. All in all, I was pretty impressed by the acting from all the players involved- even the creepy, weird little kid who was in love with Jamie (he may have been handicapped and if so, I apologize for calling him creepy & weird!).

A solid installment in the Halloween series, ranking 3rd after Halloween and Halloween II respectively. The atmosphere and tone of the film are what makes it so great for me, accompanied by some fairly good acting and scripting it makes this a great slasher film. This is one of the films in the series, including the first and second, that I can watch frequently and not get tired of- that's something special for me, especially when it comes to horror films and the slasher sub genre.

Halloween IV: The Return of Michael Myers

2010-09-21T21:54:00.000-02:30

Halloween IV: The Return of Michael Myers

Directed by

Written by

Starring:

** (2 out of 5 stars)

Let's say that I enjoyed the premise of the fourth installment in the Halloween series, but the execution falls a little flat. This film picks up with Michael Myers again, after Season of the Witch went in it's own direction with the tale of a supernatural force in Halloween masks. I do love the fact that this one starts up the plot which has Myers becoming more than just a super killer- he seems to have supernatural powers of some sort. He's linked to his niece somehow and he's back again to try and kill everyone in his family, and any poor soul that gets in his way. Yet for some reason even though the plot intrigues me and I clearly love Michael Myers, this is the only film out of the whole series (including 20 Years Later and Resurrection) that I could watch in fast forward. Nothing in particular about this movie, other than some plot elements, kept my focus for any amount of time.

The script wasn't terrible. The young actress plays Jamie Lloyd excellently, and recurs the role in the next installment Halloween V: The Revenge of Michael Myers also doing an amazing job. The supporting actors weren't terrible which is something I've found mostly true about a lot of the films in the series- not to say that it's outstanding work either, but for the most part the casting hasn't been too bad. Nothing about the script and the dialogue stood out to me, just a typical slasher movie when it comes to the writing. As I said before, there were some elements that interested me but nothing really came of it until the next film in the series where we discover more about the link between Michael and his niece Jamie.

Nothing grabbed me about the fourth Halloween movie, I give it two stars because it didn't necessarily strike me as a terrible film it's just that there was nothing to make it a standout of the series. The beginnings of a supernatural quality in Myers are what make this at least an okay movie, and of course a few kills to make it your average slasher flick.

David Cronenberg Does Stephen King's Dead Zone

2010-09-21T21:52:00.001-02:30

The Dead Zone

Directed by David Cronenberg

Produced by Debra Hill

Based on the novel by Stephen King

Screenplay by Jeffrey Boam

Starring: Christopher Walken

Tom Skerritt

Martin Sheen

Brooke Adams

Herbert Lom

***** (5 out of 5 stars)

Cronenberg is one of my favourite filmmakers because he tackles a lot of strange issues, but here he adapts a story by Stephen King that turns out rather well. The beginning of the film plays a lot like a murder mystery: Johnny Smith (Christopher Walken) is a teacher who suffers a terrible car accident and wakes up after 5 years in a coma to discover he has a psychic detective ability- he can see the past and the future, people's darkest thoughts and memories. We watch as the local police are searching for a serial killer and try to enlist Johnny to help them. For the first half of the movie we watch the struggle of Johnny to cope with being gone for 5 years in a coma and him also coping with the new abilities he has woken up with. After the business with the killer, Johnny moves out of town and starts privately teaching a young boy. This is where the film shifts into gear and we discover what The Dead Zone is all about: if you were able to see something ahead of time and had the ability to stop it, at any cost, would you do it? Johnny relates this to Dr. Weizak (Herbert Lom), who was in Germany at the time of World War II, by asking if he could go back in time before the war, knowing what he knows now and kill Hitler. Of course the doctor replies that because he loves people and helping them, he would have no other choice. Mixed in halfway through is Greg Stillson, played by Martin Sheen- a devilish candidate for senator who is clearly a strong arm type of fellow. Here is where Johnny's choices come in. The "dead zone" is basically when, if he can see what will happen, he change the outcome of one of his visions.

The writing, of course, is incredible. We already have the story written by Stephen King, and in the hands of a master like Cronenberg. This is a lot unlike most of the material he has worked with but he works so well with it that it's surprising you don't see Cronenberg working with a lot more material of this style. The whole plot of the film is wonderful, we get a lot of very creepy interesting stuff happening in the first hour and then the last 40 minutes is the climax and then the slow discovery of Johnny's true abilities. A very well written film.

Christopher Walken plays a really excellent part- the movie is obviously a far out concept, but the character himself is someone that you don't usually see him playing. Johnny is a very reserved individual for the most part and especially after he is inflicted with his abilities we see him try to withdraw from the world. Walken enunciates the inner turmoil of Johnny; 5 years in a coma and he has woken up to discover a rash of killings, his mother passes away shortly after, he has lost the love of his life to another man, and we watch the anguish he goes through after all this only to now be burdened with psychic powers. A truly great performance. Martin Sheen also plays an absolutely love-to-hate villain, and a few other supporting roles are played very well.

This movie is a five out of five star movie because it shows me what David Cronenberg has in his bag of tricks (I'm a huge fan of his anyways) and I also enjoyed Christopher Walken as much as I ever have in a film, someone who constantly surprises me. The story itself is thanks to King, who is and has long been an inspiration of mine in my own writing. I also like to throw out there that Debra Hill is a producer here, also on one of my favourite franchises, Halloween.

Trouble Every Day by Claire Denis

2010-09-21T21:51:00.002-02:30

Trouble Every Day

Directed by Claire Denis

Written by Claire Denis

Starring: Vincent Gallo

Tricia Vessey

Beatrice Dalle

Alex Descas

**** (4 out of 5 stars)

Claire Denis' film Trouble Every Day has been panned by a lot of critics, but it has also received a lot of praise. Me, I definitely think it's one of the more disturbing, innovative and thoughtful films to come out of the horror genre in a long time. This film is about lust at the most base of all forms, an animalistic urge that drives some to the edge of sanity; two separate stories unfold and eventually become one as we watch Vincent Gallo's character Shane try hard not to have sexual intercourse with his new wife, for what reason we don't really know, but we get an idea that it's the same thing that Beatrice Dalle's character is experiencing. Shane and his new wife seem happy enough but we slowly see that Shane knows more than what his wife does, and that he's desperate to find a way out. The movie is gory in parts, subtle in others, creepy at points and very thought provoking the whole way through.

The acting is fairly spot on in this movie. Vincent Gallo, who I really enjoy due to the strange air he has, is a hit or miss- he hits the nail on the head of this performance. We watch him struggle throughout the whole film. One scene in particular comes to mind where he and his new wife are laying together in bed, back on to one another, and she is touching his arm- he slowly moves his arm away and curls into the fetal position, obviously in mental anguish. It's a very relaxed performance which is great because it definitely could look strained if the actor were a lot less talented; Gallo seems to understand this role very well. Beatrice Dalle plays a character who is the wife of a doctor, played by Alex Descas, and she also has the same 'disease' as what we assume Gallo suffers from. However, we see the carnage she unleashes whereas we mostly watch Gallo suffer through the emotions (until near the end); she is a sexual, killing machine. Her husband locks her in the house by day when he leaves so as to not create chaos; we get the impression he is struggling to figure out how to cure her and help her get rid of this ailment. The supporting actors are all wonderful as well, but it is because of the lead actors/actress that this movie excels.

Claire Denis has written a very innovative script, in my mind. The idea of how a certain type of plant or insect kills its mate in sexual cannibalism can be transposed to a story about two human beings who suffer from the same infliction is absolutely spectacular! One of the more ingenious scripts in recent years for the horror genre. This is what horror needs is new blood instead of remaking classic movies from 40 years ago. The dialogue is also very believable and natural, which helps in making everything more human. That's what this movie is all about- human nature, human instinct, human need in excess. I'm very impressed with Claire Denis and I hope that she might continue in creating some new life for the horror genre.

I had to watch this film with spanish subtitles because it was the only version I could find, and I still loved it. I give it a four star rating only because I really would have liked more explanations. Now I was still very satisfied with the film but it would have been fun to see more about what was going on, and if there was any hope. Maybe a few more kills. All in all, a great film.

The Orphanage

2010-09-21T21:50:00.002-02:30

The Orphanage

Directed by Juan Antonio Bayona

Produced by Guillermo del Toro

Starring: Belen Rueda

Fernando Cayo

Geraldine Chaplin

Roger Princep

Mabel Rivera

Montserrat Carulla

Andres Gertrdix

***** 5 out of 5 stars

Usually I try not to gravitate towards a film solely because it's directed by someone I'm a fan of, or produced by a big name, but in certain cases I just can't help it. Such is the case with Guillermo del Toro. I first watched ten minutes of The Orphanage and I wasn't taken by anything, and I turned it off- something I do not usually do. However, I watched it again and didn't take my eyes off the screen this time. The atmosphere was quite akin to del Toro's works, but it had it's own creepy atmosphere created by Juan Antonio Bayona which was pleasing because as much as Guillermo's name drew me to watch the film I was hoping that Bayona would certainly make it visibly his own. The subject matter of children in the horror genre is something that I, and a lot of others, find very creepy; both Juan Antonio Bayona and Guillermo del Toro (who frequently uses children in his works) seem to have a handle on the subject matter, and that's why this movie works so well as a team effort.

The script and the dialogue itself are all great, something that is a real big deal for me because there's nothing worse than watching a horror/mystery movie that has a terrible script or if the dialogue is poor. I was kept guessing until the very end which is something that rarely happens for me. It wasn't that I did or didn't know what was going to happen that mattered, it was the fact that the story had a lot of weaves that kept me glued to the screen. Along with the script, all the actors and actresses (including the children) did a fine job of portraying their characters. Belen Rueda gave an incredibly moving performance as a grief stricken mother who wants nothing but to discover the truth behind her son's disappearance; a couple scenes in particular with her husband really stood out to me as excellent. Several supporting roles were played nicely, mainly the medium who comes to the couple's house to investigate any ghostly occurrences, played by Geraldine Chaplin. She was creepy but yet in one scene with Simon's mother she displays a gentle, motherlike quality that gives the character a lot of depth in a short time; the scene in which she goes through the house in her 'trance' and sees the ghosts (which we do not see, only hear) is one of the creepier scenes in recent years that I can remember.

There was no blood or anything like that, which is something I love as a horror film fan, but it was perfect that way because this was strictly a ghost story. There are definite opportunities within the story of this movie to have shown some grisly, gruesome scenes, but Bayona chose to just stick with the story's main elements: grief, tragedy, and loss. These three key elements in the story are what makes it a top notch ghost story, and a mystery thriller as well. There are a lot of great things about this movie, and it's got a lot to do with the directing, the producing, and the story. Even if the acting wasn't top notch this movie would have been a great watch, but the fact that the acting was solid as well propels this into the upper echelons of the ghost movie ranks.

Antichrist review

2010-09-21T21:49:00.000-02:30

Antichrist

Directed & Written by Lars Von Trier

Starring: Willem Dafoe

***** (5 out of 5 stars)

This movie is beautiful and creepy all at the same time. The opening scene is haunting, as Lars Von Trier weaves sexual intercourse, the death of a child, and classic music into one lingering sequence to open the story. A husband and wife, therapist and writer respectively, grieve over the accident that killed their little boy, both ravaged by the effects. The husband convinces his wife to let him treat her, although not an approved clinical practice. She agrees, and from there we watch a twisted psychotherapy clinic run by the husband. He insists on not having intercourse after or during a session, but her grief leads her to sex and they end most of their sessions, or are interrupted, by making love. This movie is all about the nature of humans, both male and female, although the plot steers very heavily towards the nature of woman, and how nature is just like us all.

There are a few points in this movie where you will find yourself wondering, "Has Lars Von Trier lost his mind?", or maybe just curious if he's gone too far. The jury is still out as far as I'm concerned, but these scenes really do their job and stick with you long after the end credits. All very effective, and that's probably why he used these scenes, to climax the fear and uneasiness we've felt throughout the film. Coupled with the husband's weird dreams, these scenes really push the viewer over the top with how uncomfortable and painful it is to watch the film at some points. In that regard, I feel Von Trier successfully did what he set out to do.

Von Trier's script is a step away from his usual territory. It's nice to see film use a lot of symbolism, such as the various dead and decaying animals we see throughout. The story is about the nature of us all and how we are all inherently evil. We see various things that point us towards this fact from both Man and Woman (as they are described in the cast list without names): the mutilation of both sexual organs (both by Woman), and the final fight between the two. The graphic nature of the imagery compliments the script so as to literally and visually convey the evil nature of human beings. Inside the story, the Woman is writing a thesis paper on how women are evil and this also drives the plot further along- this is roundabout where the Man begins to get somewhat frustrated with the Woman, and the tensions start to really build. That's the best part about Lars' writing here is that the tension builds from word one and it doesn't let up until the end. The very end scene where the Man stands in the forest and watches crowds of faceless women walk on past him through the trees is absolutely breathtaking, and it could mean a dozen things but what I took it as is the opposite of women are evil- (maybe) the faceless women are the countless unseen, unheard victims of men. So maybe Von Trier is hinting at both sides of the argument, that it's not just man or woman that is evil... we're all evil. We see the evil at the hands of the Woman and then the end is the evil of Man.

Between the directing, the atmosphere present throughout the whole film, and the solid acting on both the part of Willem Dafoe and (insert actress' name), this is a 5 out of 5 star movie for me. Exactly what I didn't expect when I first heard about this movie, which I thought was going to be another typical film about a possession. Superb.

Strictly Adult Video, Pt. 1

2009-12-12T22:40:00.001-03:30

Had to upload... this sign provides many laughs but none more blatant or hilarious than this one!

Horror Fan Wants Some Fresh Meat

2009-12-12T15:54:00.001-03:30

As weird as it sounds, I am so interested in serial killers.

Not that I enjoy what they do it just fascinates me to get into their head, the psychology of why they kill. I also love horror movies- together these two things together have made me a huge fan of Jason Voorhees, Leatherface and Michael Myers (Fred Krueger too but he's strictly a supernatural villain). These characters give the serial killer a larger than life persona: they're relentless, nothing slows them down, they're everywhere and they're psychotic. I love that even when the cheese is at it's smelliest, these guys are terrifying. There are so many scenes that come to mind when thinking about any of these guys that absolutely gross me out; they are all such icons for a genre. You have the same when it comes to action movies, so many actors come to mind that have built franchises out of their characters but yet in horror we haven't seen classic characters like the ones I've mentioned. Did slashes films hit the peak with Scream? That movie gave a new twist to the unstoppable killer premise, but it seems that since then there hasn't been anything worth talking about it.

What happened to the old school of horror?

One movie that I will give credit to in my recent memory is Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon (featuring Robert Englund which is always stellar in my books!). It was a great take on these types of movies, giving us a look at a man who's constructed a persona and is now being followed by a film crew as he prepares to murder people serving up a legend he has created. Even chopping it down to rudimentary tasks like cardio. Leslie does a lot to keep in shape so he can keep up with his victims while walking as they run. The movies pokes tongue in the cheek of the slasher genre but yet it doesn't make fun, it's merely an homage to the greats.

While this movie has a lot of great stuff in it and some good killing it still doesn't create an icon in my mind. Jason, Myers, Leatherface and even a guy like Norman Bates, all had their own story and their own identity; Leslie Vernon is a make believe story that this guy has fabricated just so he can turn himself into a legend. Essentially this story is just about a guy who's completely off the wall and wants to be an infamous murderer- he just decided to have a little 'fun' with it. It's an awesome flick but it just doesn't create that franchise character I've been craving.

I'm an amateur writer when it comes to plays, stories, articles and mostly screenplays. I don't think I have all the solutions when it comes to revamping some genres that I love, I just feel that there's some things people are missing. Reality plays a big part even in the cheesiest, most out-there stories. Jason Voorhees had a great real story even though you had to stretch the limits of reality after the first part, and Michael Myers is possibly the absolute perfect story for a slasher (although after a few movies it's always hard to say "okay I'm cool with this"). Leatherface was partly based on Ed Gein, and also on a big fear of people when it comes to the back country of any area. Recently, the Saw series has the Jigsaw Killer- he has an amazing story behind him as well, but this is a new genre of horror which is more psychological and torture based. You need to have something real that strikes people, even the way Fred Krueger plays on your mind and what really happens when you dream. To make something terrifying it has to play on peoples fears you just have to find the right way to convey it.

Interesting deaths are obviously something that needs to a top priority. People watch horror movies to see blood. The Saw franchise is based around people being tortured to death- people want to watch other people die. It's a sick thing but that's what movies of all types are for, you release yourself and plunge into another reality where, at the end, everything is the same as it always was; your imagination is indulged, whether it be in comedy, horror, action or drama. You need to cut right to the source of peoples fears again but this time it isn't with the story it's with the imagery. Sometimes what we don't see is worse, or even when we see nothing and still hear it. Seeing the same old slasher deaths is boring, it's like movies don't try anymore. Remakes upon remakes come out (some of them are worthy and some of them are not worthy of release) and it's the same tired deaths. I want to see someone skinned alive and slipped into the tub with a few gallons of vinegar, or something like that, I don't know.. I just can't take anymore of the same neck slashing, eye stabbing, intestine pulling, hand chopping that's been going on any longer!

The biggest thing for me in a horror movie as well is acting. Now I'm not saying you've got to have someone acting at the highest calibre at all moments, I just mean that when it comes to the job of being scared and making me feel like I'm right there in the movie too you need to have someone who can do the job. It's hard to be real when it comes to that kind of terror because it's hard to get yourself into that mindset. This is why there are certain movies that terrify me, namely the Texas Chainsaw Massacre. When I first saw the original, I couldn't stop thinking about it for years until the remake came out and then I finally went back and watched Hooper's movie again. I kept thinking to myself, "What would I do?", and it felt like to me I would be frozen in terror in front of Leatherface. You put me in Dawn of the Dead and I'll flourish, but with a lone psychopath like old Face I think I would probably seize. This is why certain movies appeal to me because they have some component like that character that just terrifies me. So acting as the victims is big, but having someone who can carry that icon horror villain to the fullest is essential.

All I can do for now is hope that one of these days I'll finally make the right film, or that someone else will hit the right spot eventually. There are a lot of horror movies out there that I love, don't get me wrong, but I just feel a void in film where Jason and the rest of the boys sit that has been empty for too long. Maybe a crazy female slasher? Who knows. The best is yet to come I hope. Until then, I'll feed the void with zombies and my Nightmare on Elm Street boxset. Even the cheese tastes sweet.