School Killer (2001)

JUNE 26, 2008

GENRE: GHOST, SLASHER
SOURCE: DVD (ONLINE RENTAL)

With such a generic and lazy title, I wasn’t expecting much out of School Killer. I certainly didn’t expect it to be so damn convoluted and dialogue heavy. I also go to the school of “the actor listed first has the most screen time”, so I was a bit bummed to see that top-billed Paul Naschy only appears in the film for about 10 minutes total.

Before I talk about the movie itself, I want to make a few notes on the DVD itself. In addition to not providing a scene selection menu (what is this? Corpses?), the main menu is in Spanish, even though the title is English. I can sort of figure out what "Promosionales" and "Comienzo" mean, but again, this is a movie called School Killer – my brain has already been turned off. In addition, there is no subtitle menu, so if you are using a rather half-assed universal remote that doesn’t have a subtitle button, you are shit out of luck. Come on guys, little effort here.

I bring up the subs because the biggest problem with this movie is that no one ever shuts the fuck up for more than 5 seconds. Some of the dialogue is just your standard modern slasher shit, i.e. referencing other horror movies (strangely, they namecheck Scream 3, not, you know, one of the other two which actually have scenes set in schools), and assorted banter. That’s fine. But I’d say at least 2/3 of the dialogue in this movie is just explaining, overexplaining, and even RE-explaining every goddamn plot point. It’s not enough for someone to see a light and wonder how when the electricity should have been turned off (its an abandoned school). No, in School Killer, we get countless exchanges like this:

Guy: A light!
Girl: How can that be? The power has been turned off.
Guy: No, the permits haven’t gone through yet, it might still be on.
Other guy: But look, the line is cut.
Guy: That’s not the main line. The light we saw may be separate.
Other girl: No, look, the main line has been stolen! (huh?)
Guy: Maybe it was a gas or battery powered light.
Girl: No, the light was definitely from an electrical source.

I am not making this up, that is almost word for word an exchange in this movie. And we get one for just about everything that occurs in the film; a cell phone not working, how the tire got flat, why someone hasn’t come back from the bathroom yet, etc. It’s almost sort of comical how determined the screenwriters are to keep the audience from saying “Oh come on!” about any particular horror movie cliché occurring in the film – they will offer at least a half dozen explanations to choose from.

Another issue is a nearly half hour long flashback in which we see what happened to another group of kids about 30 years before, including one of our main group’s father. Apart from the ridiculous length, it’s just a giant waste of screentime, because we already know they all die except for the father. And at first it seems like we are about to watch an entire movie’s worth of their story, as we see them enter the school, joke around, etc, just like the stuff we just saw 20 minutes before with our original group. The only difference is that they don’t reference any horror movies.

Plus, it’s not really a good trade off to lose nearly a half an hour’s worth of suspense in order to provide 2-3 minutes’ worth of exposition. Also, a few of the scenes involve things that occurred where no one present has survived – how does our hero know what happened? That said, director Carlos Gil did a damn fine job casting and dressing the flashback group – they look like a traditional early 80s slasher group, and even the film stock itself seems older – you can almost imagine that this is footage from a genuine movie from the era.

And finally, the music. It is fucking terrible. It sounds like its on a loop and reminds one of the library stuff one would use in a film school project. Awful. Occasionally we get some Spanish punk music that doesn’t fit either, but at least it’s not as generic.

Otherwise it’s OK enough as a slasher. The look of the film is nice, and the cast is good (none of them are really annoying either, another plus). Naschy is a great villain in his few scenes (though he also suffers from an abundance of dialogue – before killing one girl in the flashback sequence, he asks how she was able to sneak out at night, and we are told her dad is on a business trip and her mom gave her permission to go out with her friends – all of this for a girl we already know is dead). And it’s nice to see one where they sort of know they are in danger almost all the way through, as opposed to the circular nature of some of the Friday the 13th movies, in which two kids go off, die, two more go off, die, etc, until our heroine realizes that all dozen of her friends have vanished.

So in short – the technical aspects are fine, the acting is good, but it’s all for nothing due to the overwritten script (except for the ending, which is as abrupt as any film I’ve ever seen). Here’s hoping the Gil and his crew get a better script and composer (and DVD release) next time.

What say you?

Read more »

Ghost, Slasher,

{[['']]}

Non Canon Review: The Fog (1980)

JUNE 13, 2008

GENRE: GHOST, REVENGE
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (REVIVAL SCREENING)

OK, I have to apologize to the makers of the remake of The Fog. In my review for that film, I mocked the idea of having an unveiling ceremony at 9 o clock at night. Well, that’s the way it is staged in the original, something I had forgotten. Granted, there are still plenty of other things to mock about the remake, but that is not one of them.

I say forgotten, but I’m still going to consider this a non canon review, because I remembered the jist of the film, as well as certain particular scenes (like when our two groups finally meet together in the church), even though I hadn’t seen it in over 10 years (and on a TV broadcast at that). I also remembered that I thought it was pretty damn good and didn’t understand why lots of folks (Carpenter included) considered it a letdown. I mean, yeah, it’s no Halloween, but it’s a solid ghost movie, with a fast pace, great cast, a few scares, and a super hot looking Nancy Loomis. What’s not to love?

One thing I really dig about the movie is how it’s like 3 different short movies combined. You got Tom Atkins and Jamie Lee Curtis investigating an abandoned ship, Adrienne Barbeau at a lighthouse/radio station with only Charles Cyphers to talk to (not a bad gig really, Cyphers rules), and finally Hal Holbrook, Janet Leigh, and Ms. Loomis discovering horrible secrets about the town that they are about to honor (at 9 pm!). Eventually, the stories blend (though Barbeau never shares a scene with any of the above), and the excitement is ramped up in kind. In a way, it’s even more “fun” than Halloween – it’s not as well made, certainly, but it’s almost nonstop in terms of different locations, story development, etc. I’ve read that Halloween was intended to be a thrill ride; if so, it’s like the first 30 seconds of a roller coaster, where you are slowly going around, coming up, and then hurtling to the bottom, whereas The Fog is the rest of the ride, with lots of ups and downs, twists and turns, etc.

If there’s one real issue, it’s the lack of ghost action. They only need 6 folks to kill, and they get 3 right off the bat. With this sort of “limit” in place, they don’t have a lot to do, and I’d like to see them more. It’s not a slasher film, so seeing them stand around watching our characters wouldn’t do, but why not just up that limit to an even 10 and get another 4 kills out of the deal? Rob Bottin’s ghost designs are pretty damn good, but we barely get to see any of them.

The score is fantastic as well. Not that that’s a surprise with Carpenter, but it’s easily one of his best scores. There’s some similarities to the Halloween themes, but you get some repetition with every composer. Look at James Horner, ALL of his scores sound alike, and he’s just composing! Carpenter is also writing, directing, and even acting, in his most visible role ever (until Body Bags anyway) as Holbrook’s assistant.

I also like how ridiculously long the opening credits last. We’re like 10 minutes into the film and they are still rolling out at a glacial pace. It’s awesome.

The DVD (which I finally opened when I got home, some three years after purchasing it) has some nice extras. For starters: a better than usual commentary with Carpenter and Debra Hill. He still drones on about lighting and frequently narrates the action, but he discusses a lot about shooting locations, effects, and the troubled production (without really going into details – he mentions Charles Cyphers’ role was reduced due to the reshoots, but doesn’t really explain how). It would have been nice to have some of the cut material presented in the extras, but alas. We also get an old making of from the time the film was release (produced by Mick Garris!), as well as a new one with lots of folks giving new interviews (no Jamie Lee though – her interview portions are recycled from the 1980 one). There are also a handful of trailers and a standard blooper reel, plus some notes from Carpenter on the interior sleeve.

Speaking of sleeves – what’s with so many new DVDs not even having the damn things? They used to be as standard as the outer sleeve – if nothing else it would have the chapter menu printed for easy reference. But they are so rare nowadays it was actually odd to not only see the thing inside, but to see that it had content (MGM was always pretty good with that though). Goddamn lazy home video departments...

It may not be one of Carpenter’s best films (I’d put it at around #7), but it’s certainly one of his best “crowd” movies. Halloween and The Thing are so highly revered it’s almost blasphemous to chuckle during their occasional “weak” moments (I use the term very loosely), but with The Fog it’s OK, and thus it makes for a grand experience. Even Carpenter has come around to it, now regarding it as one of his better pictures as well. It couldn’t have been easy for anyone involved to follow up Halloween (half the cast, and pretty much the entire crew from that film is present here), and considering the production problems, its something of a minor classic in retrospect.

What say you?

Read more »

Carpenter, Ghost, Non Canon, Revenge,

{[['']]}

Sight (2008)

JUNE 8, 2008

GENRE: GHOST, INDEPENDENT
SOURCE: DVD (STORE RENTAL)

Man, I wish Sight was merely a short story or novella that I had read. Or even if I had just read the script, I’d probably come away liking it a lot more. Because it’s an interesting story (a guy who sees ghosts gets caught up in a mystery involving a woman he meets just prior to being beaten into a 2 year coma by her ex-boyfriend), but Adam Ahlbrandt’s direction is abysmal at best, and all but completely betrays his own script.

For starters, the editing is just terrible. Shots last too long or not long enough (more the latter than the former – someone taking a bag out of the back of a truck somehow takes more shots than seconds) throughout the film, and nonsensical cutaways to things like keys being dropped into a bowl happen so quickly you gotta wonder why they bothered with them at all. As for the camerawork, it’s no better - blocking is confusing (his lack of following the 180 rule doesn’t help), everything is shot in canted angle close-ups that even Michael Bay would find extreme, there are almost NO reaction shots or even cross-cutting during conversations – someone says a line, then pauses, we cut the other person right before they begin to speak, they say their line, pause, we cut back to the other..., etc. Sound is also atrocious – whenever there is a cut, the audio level/tone cuts as well, and with the quick cutting, this gives some scenes (particularly the noisier outdoor ones) an incredibly unprofessional feel. Your movie can cost 100 million or 10 cents, it’s entirely free to record 2 minutes of room tone and lay it out over the entire scene to help blend the cuts together. Last I checked, Sight is not a sequel to a giant blockbuster – the release date isn’t set in stone, so you can take an extra few days to make your film more presentable. The old excuse “it’s supposed to make you feel uncomfortable” only applies when you employ the technique in small doses and in particular scenes; why should we ‘uncomfortable’ during a scene of someone delivering groceries (the woefully underrated film Stay, with Naomi Watts, is a good example of how to ‘break the rules’ effectively)? And normally I share the blame with the editor or DP, but in this case it’s all the same guy (he also composed the score, which I didn’t have a problem with). It’s admirable that he did so much on the film, but when his talents (writing, composing) are marred by his weaknesses (directing, shooting, editing), it’s ultimately just a shame.

Another flaw in the film is structuring it in a way that keeps the incredibly beautiful Allison Persaud out of it for a solid 40 minutes, but I won’t hold that against it.

The guy playing the lead has to have the record for most jobs held by a single person in a film (well, except for Ahlbrandt). Granted, all indies have some doubling or tripling of duties, but usually its like the makeup guy is also in the movie as the monster or the producer also did the music or something. But Clayton Haske takes the cake. Not only is he the star (and in every scene of the film except for a few flashbacks to his character as a kid), but also the producer, the casting director, and the production manager! Goddamn, man. He also resembles Jimmy Eat World lead singer Jim Adkins, which makes me wish Haske had used his producer/casting skills to actually HIRE Adkins to play the lead, which might have let him pay more attention to his director’s terrible camerawork and editing. Plus, maybe Adkins would break into “Carry You” or “Your Sweetness” and liven things up a little.

Still, like I said, it’s an interesting little story, and at 80 minutes it moves along OK enough, though it’s padded out with numerous quick cut flashbacks to information, as if we were stupid and couldn’t remember people’s names or something (at one point they ‘remind’ us of something we saw not 5 minutes before). There are some brutal killing/injuries for gorehounds to enjoy, and the twist ending is deliriously batshit. There is also a brief incestuous overtone; always welcome (THAT’s how you make an audience uneasy – not by framing a guy so you can only see his right cheek and eyeball).

Here’s a movie I am all for remaking. Take the script, maybe flesh out certain aspects of it, and have it filmed by someone who knows what they are doing, and viola: Decent/good, fairly original (irony of being remake aside) horror movie. But no, Lionsgate (who distributed this movie, and again they gave it an anamorphic transfer! Two in a row!) is more interested in remaking My Bloody Valentine, which is sounding more and more like a shot for shot remake (if that’s the case they better retain the goddamn end title song!), i.e. worthless.

What say you?

Read more »

Ghost, Independent,

{[['']]}

The Chair (2007)

JUNE 4, 2008

GENRE: GHOST, POSSESSION
SOURCE: DVD (STORE RENTAL)

Two days ago I made a rather unmotivated crack about Lionsgate’s utter ignorance of the anamorphic transfer for many of their DVDs. And sure enough, the next day I rented The Chair, which was presented sans anamorphic transfer, despite the promise of a 16x9 presentation (which I suspect their DVD department doesn’t actually understand the meaning of) and even anamorphic menus. It’s like they are just TRYING to annoy me at this point. Granted, it’s not a great film, but it deserves better (and F you to all but one of the other reviews I found for the film, even those on DVD sites, that don’t even mention this – maybe if more people point it out they will knock it the fuck off).

Here’s some advice to any filmmaker who is willing to take suggestions from a random horror movie fan who writes a blog: if your movie is only about one person, and it’s a slow burn of a film (neither of which are usually a problem with me), make sure that person is A. interesting, 2. fun to be around, and D. portrayed by a good actress. Alanna Chisholm, who stars in the film as Danielle, is pretty much the only character on screen for about 75% of it, but she is none of these things (though, strangely, she’s better as a crazy psycho than as a regular person). Making matters worse, her friend (or actually, sister, something that I refuse to believe since the two share not a single physical attribute) Anna, played by Lauren Roy, is a much better actress (and cuter to boot, IMO) and seems like someone I wouldn’t mind hanging out with for a whole movie. Danielle is, like the broad in Catacombs, dour and possibly delusional (and like that film, we’re never really given any information as to how/why she was crazy – it’s just a convenient plot point without any backup), which is fine if it’s a dramatic movie about getting over your fears, but the plot requires Danielle to more or less succumb to them, becoming slightly more interesting but even less likable, and the film awkwardly promotes Anna to the heroine with only 20 minutes to go.

There are many curious moments in the film that kept me relatively amused. There are at least two scenes of Danielle masturbating (one in the film’s first 4 minutes – way to set up a much more exciting film!), all of the phones in the movie have cords (do they even MAKE those anymore?), the film’s most exciting sequence is when the cute friend, er, SISTER, tries to sync a video up to a sound recording, and one scene inexplicably begins like this:

We are also told that the anniversary of the ghost’s original death took place 3 weeks before Danielle moved into the home, which means ‘something went wrong’ (what, we are never told). It also means that the ghost hung out for 3 weeks doing jack shit. Oh, and the ghost is apparently Powder:

It’s also yet another movie that attempts to spook us with a children’s song, in this case “Mockingbird”. Music is a problem throughout – at one point they watch a video (before it gets synced) and one of the girls makes a comment that there is no sound. But the film’s music score plays over the entire scene, so the silence of the clip (which would be presumably creepy) is sort of irrelevant.

But then the final 20 minutes save it. The titular chair finally gets built/used, on a little kid no less (for a movie about the ghost of a child killer, there is a distinct lack of child killing; just saying). Meanwhile, Anna goes off to the woods in order to find a body, and is helped by Danielle’s professor, who turns out to be the still-living Doctor from the video. He says the ridiculous line “A crowbar for Crow!” (why not a scarecrow or a DVD of The Crow?) and they find the corpse buried under what appears to be a thin layer of leaves. The corpse wakes up, has an Avid fart, the prof is whacked by a shovel, the corpse disappears via the worst CGI I’ve seen in a while, and Anna gets back in her car and drives home, where the kid takes a shovel to her. Lot of shovel action. It’s ridiculous enough to be entertaining; and a stark contrast to the rather dour and overly serious first hour.

The commentary track (buried in setup, not listed as a special feature) has some interesting nuts and bolts stuff, but doesn’t quite help explain some of the story’s lapses and holes (though to be fair, one or two issues I had were resolved upon watching the film again – there’s some rather subtle foreshadowing in the first act). They point out that most of the film was ADR, which is a surprise, as it’s never noticeable. In fact, with the exception of occasional use of the horrendous body-mount camera, all of my problems with the film are limited to the creative side; from a technical standpoint the film is pretty solid (and despite being shot on DV and given the standard lousy LG presentation, looks pretty good as well, with lots of nice camera trick shots that are more interesting in the ‘how’d they do that?’ way than anything resembling a scare). There are no deleted scenes either, just some making of stuff that won’t change your mind one way or the other regarding how you feel about such things (I find these 15 minute pieces rather boring 99 times out of 103).

I didn’t realize that the film was directed by the game guy who directed Ginger Snaps 2 (Brett Sullivan), which was not only a superior sequel but a good werewolf movie as well - two praises I almost never give out. It’s possible that this film is closer to his heart and all that (in addition to being an original, it’s also shot in his own home) but for the most part, it didn’t work for me. Hopefully on his next film he will find a way to keep the originality of this movie with the fun/suspense of Snaps.

One final note – the chair on the cover in no way resembles the chair in the film. Customary Lionsgate false advertising, though at least it’s only promising a chair and not things that aren’t in the movie at all (like zombies on Rise of the Dead, or a graveyard in The Off Season, or a decent looking werewolf like in Devil’s Hound). Progress?

What say you?

Read more »

Ghost, Independent, Possession,

{[['']]}

Séance (2006)

MAY 30, 2008

GENRE: GHOST
SOURCE: DVD (STORE RENTAL)

I hope the Blockbuster clerk was, like all Blockbuster clerks, completely oblivious to what I was renting/buying (or what anyone else in the store was doing, for that matter) the other night when I rented Séance, because I was also buying Highlander 5, and both films star Adrian Paul. I would hate for the sod to think I was some sort of Adrian Paul junkie, for as far as I know, there is no such thing and thus I would be the first. I’d also hate to think anyone actually realized that I was buying Highlander 5, for the love of Christ (excuses: I actually own all the others so I felt bad for the poor thing, and also they were doing 3 for 20 and I could only find 2 I actually wanted).

And it was not Paul, but the cover’s proud declaration that the film was “From The Writer of Vacancy” that piqued my interest. But sadly, it’s his script that is ultimately this film’s biggest problem. The cast is fine (more importantly, they look like regular college kids), the makeup and visual effects are good (other than some CGI rain in the first act – what the hell?), and it’s even a good looking film despite its digital origins. But the script was just too generic to really hold my interest. It’s yet another “kids fuck around and bring back a murderous ghost” movie, complete with a little “good” ghost girl, a Ouija board, the whole nine yards. There is nothing in the film you haven’t already seen in movies that weren’t that great in the first place. Luckily, since the other elements are perfectly fine, if you’ve never seen a film before, you will probably really enjoy this one.

There are a few nice touches, however. One line in particular made me laugh out loud; a girl says “He wasn’t there and then he was!”, to which someone responds “That’s how ghosts work!!!” Hahahaha, awesome. There’s also an odd moment where the girl is begging her boyfriend to “do something!” and he yells “Who do I look like, Harry fucking Potter?” and I swear to Christ she says “yes!” There’s also a delightfully nasty kill near the end involving an elevator (it’s not a particularly logical death, but it’s a good one nonetheless).

I would like to mention the music. There are two types in the film. One is a very Goblin-esque score that is pretty decent (and fits with the film’s sort of generic feel). But the other is just variations on "Itsy Bitsy Spider". Can we get a moratorium on horror movies using little kids’ songs from the past century and trying to make them creepy? It barely ever works, and it’s just ridiculous to boot. If you want to scare someone by singing a well known song, you gotta go with "Total Eclipse Of The Heart". “Turn around.... bright eyes....” - shudder.

There’s also a pretty hilarious moment where the heroine is breaking all of the lights (the ghost is only visible in the dark, another reasonably inventive notion). As she breaks the final one, the ghost appears and they begin a chase scene, which is lit by the obvious production lighting coming from the ceiling. It’s so obvious I almost expected Paul to grab the boom mic guy or maybe a key grip and kill him in the middle of the scene.

But while the film’s only real crime is being generic, the making of is just an abomination, making even the kissass-iest EPK piece of shit look respectable in comparison. Half of the footage (including the interviews) looks like it was stolen off of Youtube (I suspect the editor digitized the footage at low resolution in order to piece it together and never bothered to re-digitize at the proper resolution once he was done), the director interrupts his own actor’s interview, and there’s even a “hilarious” mock interview with a parrot. The editor also has never bothered to learn about audio tone, leaving jarring moments of complete silence in between clips. Or how to edit at all; a full minute is given to a PA bringing one of the actors a sandwich. Gripping footage. The only reason I would recommend watching it is to see Joel Geist, who plays the film’s resident loner turned hero, talking with a noticeable gap between his two front teeth, a ‘blemish’ that is covered in the film itself. Also, Adrian Paul discusses how he researched serial killers like “Ted Bundy and Robert Rodriguez”. While I am no defender of Spy Kids 3D or Sharkboy and Lava Girl, I would never go so far as to call Rodriguez a murderer for directing them.

(I assume he meant Richard Ramirez).

So it’s not a bad movie, just a by the numbers one. Like I said, if you haven’t seen the type before, it’s no better or worse than the others (well, it’s definitely better than that piece of shit The Brink, I’ll give it that much).

What say you?

Read more »

Ghost,

{[['']]}

Sick Nurses (2007)

MAY 23, 2008

GENRE: ASIAN, GHOST, POSSESSION
SOURCE: DVD (OWN COLLECTION)

If there’s one thing you don’t often see in Asian horror films, it’s the characters goofing off with one another. Everyone’s ususally so dour and serious, so it was almost strange to see a few of the titular Sick Nurses (aka Suay Laak Sai) do things like, well, smile. They tease one another, make faces, etc... just like regular girls! Of course, it’s not long before they are all crying and being terrorized by long black hair (it IS an Asian horror film, after all), but while it lasted, it was definitely appreciated.

One “back to back” movie coincidence I never thought I’d encounter is “Lazy subtitles”, but that is exactly what I got on Nurses, much like yesterday’s Frontière(s). It wasn’t nearly as bad; basically, they just didn’t bother with the titles that (I assume) denoted the time in which the scene took place (like “yesterday” or whatever). But since the movie was told with a lot of flashbacks, it got a bit more confusing than it would have been had the subtitler just paid the fuck attention.

On the subject of language, I should note that there is actually an English dub on the disc, something that is increasingly rare, especially with Asian films. Not that I have any use for it, but if you are the type who doesn’t like to read your horror movies, you can still feel free to check this one out! However, you run the risk of missing out on one of the film’s best small pleasures. Two of the girls are named Ae and Am. When pronounced by the real actresses, they sound like “Eh?” and “Um.” So you have scenes of a girl going “Eh? Eh? Eh?”. Definitely a chuckler.

The plot is fairly straightforward – a girl who was wrongly killed comes back to seek revenge. Nothing new. But director/writers Thospol Sirivivat and Piraphan Laoyont bring out the originality when it comes to the execution. Rather than the usual stuff, the ghost actually possesses the girls one by one and has them kill themselves or one another. They also toss in some Italian style non-logic; one girl is killed when another one removes the simple stitching that is keeping her head attached. She’s perfectly fine, but then the stitching comes out, and the head just falls off. Uh, bones and veins? And in the movie’s best kill, a girl devours a fistful of razor blades, which results in her jaw being completely severed. Awesome, but then one of those jar-based fetuses flies out of its bottle and lodges itself in what’s left of her mouth. Huh?

There’s also a transvestite.

It seems at time that the film is showing us someone’s imagination, or perhaps even just an exaggeration of something that occurred. The amount of blood would certainly suggest as much. Granted, it’s hardly a very serious film, but the kill scenes don’t seem to be played for laughs either. How else would one explain a scene where a group of hospital personnel sing a song about compassion while they are being drenched with blood? A little more clarification would have been appreciated, especially since the film is abnormally short (82 minutes) for an Asian film. These things always clock in at 100 or so.

The DVD has a very brief making of that is mainly just a few of the girls talking about their roles. Entirely skippable, except for when the girl involved in the aforementioned jaw scene says “When I eat the baby...”. It’s the only extra, but since distributor Magnolia gave us a wealth of stuff on The Host, it’s easily forgivable.

Anyway, I liked it. It was short, fun, and far gorier than most Eastern fare about vengeful ghosts. The fragmented storytelling isn’t without a few problems (without spoiling anything, there is a seemingly huge plot hole regarding the transvestite character), but for the most part it works. And bonus – the ghost never once uses entertainment technology to kill someone.

What say you?

Read more »

Asian, Ghost, Possession,

{[['']]}

Shutter (2008)

MARCH 23, 2008

GENRE: GHOST, REMAKE, TECHNOLOGY
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (REGULAR SCREENING)

I’m about at the point where not only can I not tell the Asian movies apart, I also can’t tell their respective remakes apart from one another (or the other originals). In short: they really need to stop fucking making any version in any language of a movie where a ghost haunts someone until they are properly buried. Shutter is the latest in a long line of films that are so formulaic and redundant, it’s a wonder they even bother shooting a new movie at all, rather than just release one of the others under a new title.

Like the original, we have a very unlikable “hero” (he broke up with a girl simply because he didn’t want to deal with her problems, and then had his friends rape her while he photographed them), except here this is revealed as a twist, so as to delay our hating the main character for a bit. The fact that the original dared to introduce this only about halfway through or so was pretty much the only original thing about it, so now we’re left with absolutely nothing. Other than the fact that Pacey manages to utter two “Fucks!” in a PG-13 film, there is zero here that can possibly entice an audience unless they have never seen The Ring, The Grudge, Pulse, Dark Water, One Missed Call, The Eye, and/or any of the original versions and/or any of the sequels (either language). And if you’ve seen them ALL (man, when I list them all and realize that... Christ), it can almost be considered rude of Fox to ask someone to pay for the damn thing. The least the studios could have done would be to offer a buy two get one free deal for this year’s 3 remakes, where if you paid for One Missed Call and The Eye, you get Shutter for free.

And yet Shutter is probably the best of the three. Like Moe, it’s still stupid, just not AS stupid as Larry and Curly over there. Keeping the locale out of generic America (though strangely in Japan and not Thailand, like the original) certainly helps, and there IS one sort of effective scare scene (dark apartment with camera flashes being the only light source). Plus it’s shorter, so that’s nice of them.

Still, you can’t take that as a sign of the movie achieving “maybe it’s not all that bad” levels. The flash/light scene might be good, but the subway scene (the scariest part of the original) is completely botched, even worse than Alba’s Eye remake botched its respective elevator scene. They also use completely ludicrous cinematic shortcuts: at one point the lead girl (Rachael Taylor) figures out that the ‘ghost’ in Pacey’s photos is pointing at a certain level of a building. She goes to the building, and instead of spending, I dunno, 12 whole seconds just counting floors to figure out where she needs to go, she looks at a GIANT DIAGRAM of the building, which conveniently shows each floor number in relation to the building’s logo, allowing her to quickly understand it’s the 17th floor she wants. And this is a shame, because director Masayuki Ochiai was the director of Infection (aka Kansen), a movie that a. I really liked and b. would be much better suited for the remake treatment than Shutter, since it wasn’t about another goddamn ghost haunting another goddamn electronic device.

It’s also wildly inconsistent. Throughout the movie they keep seeing/hearing weird things, and yet over an hour into the film, when Pacey sees the ghost in the bedroom and screams, she wakes up and asks “What’s wrong?”, as if by then she couldn’t have just assumed that he once again saw the ghost that had been plaguing the both of them for a week or so.

Speaking of the ghost, when her “plan” is revealed, I almost laughed out loud. “She was trying to HELP me!” says Taylor, when Pacey tells her about his rape photography past. But it’s already been established that the ghost had been there for a while, so why the fuck did the damn thing wait until they were MARRIED to “help” her? Since the girl was long dead, and Taylor didn’t know anything about Pacey’s relationship with her (they are seen dating for quite a while in the flashbacks), you gotta figure there was at LEAST two years in between her death and the wedding that opens the film. And why wait until they got to Japan (the film begins and ends in New York) to make her presence known, when it’s also established that the ghost doesn’t exactly need a passport to get around? Of course, none of these movies make any damn sense, but at least some of them carry a bit of dread and even the occasional scare to make up for it (or keep you from noticing the plot holes at all). When they are going this by the numbers, these things become all the more apparent, and you would THINK that after half a dozen tries, they’d start to get it right, or at least try something different. Sadly, no.

The good news is that the movie didn’t make all that much money this weekend, and will probably sink like a stone. Maybe after another 6 or 7 failures, the studios will start to consider whether or not remaking every goddamn J-horror film ever made is still a financially sound idea. Here’s hoping!

What say you?

Read more »

Ghost, Remake, Technology,

{[['']]}

The Amazing Mr. X (1948)

MARCH 20, 2008

GENRE: GHOST, MAGICIAN
SOURCE: DVD (BUDGET PACK 2!!!)

With a title like The Amazing Mr. X, I thought this was going to be some sort of sci-fi heavy monster movie. But no, it’s a movie about an inordinate amount of magicians (both professionals and hobbyists) doing their thing for little reason other than to nail one of two sisters. In theory, not a bad idea!

Like a lot of the budget pack movies, this one is a. so short and b. has just enough laughable moments to warrant giving it an OK mark. For example, within 3 minutes of the film’s beginning, we hear a woman say: “If a man ever chased me into the ocean in the middle of the night, I’d shoot him!” If you had a gun, why did you let this theoretical attacker chase you all the way into the ocean? And does the time matter? Is it more acceptable to be chased into the Pacific during broad daylight?

The conversation even gets more puzzling as the two women begin discussing whether or not one of them will accept a man’s proposal later that night. We are given the impression he has asked her before, and their entire attitude about the possible engagement is impressively laid back; they might as well be discussing whether or not they will go to church on Saturday afternoon or Sunday morning. Later, during the actual proposal, the guy seems just as shruggish about it; you get the idea that if the phone rang or something that he might forget to ask entirely. The movie’s message seems to be: Marriage - eh, why not?

Later in the film, it seems as if the writer was just trying to be a wiseass, which results in scenes like this:

(A sinister guy opens a door into a house, where the good guy is already inside)
Good guy: “What are you doing here?”
Sinister Guy: “Right now? Opening this door.”

This is even topped in dry hilarity about 10 minutes later. The bad guy has one of the good guys at gunpoint, and the good guy seems to think the bad guy is out of bullets. So he begins, “I started with 7 shells... I have one in the chamber-“ – and then he is cut off by the cops, who riddle him with bullets before he gets a chance to finish his line. It’s fucking hilarious.

As for, you know, the actual MOVIE? Eh. It reminded me of a few other budget pack ones, including Tormented. Like I said, it’s hardly long enough to get boring, and it’s kind of cool to see so many magicians act snooty with one another, scoffing at the others’ knots and such. There isn’t much in the way of horror, especially when the ‘ghost’ is revealed to be a hoax around the halfway mark or so, but it still moves along nicely, and director Bernard Vorhaus and/or DP John Alton are much more inventive with their camerawork and lighting than many of their peers (there’s a lot of great use of single light sources illuminating just the face on a portrait in a wide shot of a room, and things like that).

Unfortunately, the transfer doesn’t do the film justice. It may be one of the worst on the set thus far, in fact. The usual frame skips are larger than usual (at one point it seems a good 5 seconds is missing) and there picture is off center.

Can YOU read any of this shit?

There’s also the strangest transfer flaw I’ve ever encountered; strange to the point where I am convinced I am imagining it. During several scenes I swear I heard a “TV in the next room” type sound. It certainly wasn’t coming from any defined source in the film itself. If anyone else has the Horror Classics pack, please check on this. I can hear it particularly in the scene where the heroine goes to the house and sees a bird before talking to one of the magician guys. You might need headphones, for it is very faint. And possibly non-existent.

What say you?

Read more »

Ghost, Horror Classics, Magician,

{[['']]}

The Sickhouse (2007)

MARCH 1, 2008

GENRE: GHOST
SOURCE: DVD (OWN COLLECTION)

I am pleased to report that The Sickhouse is the first screener sent to Horror Movie A Day from a major studio! The irony, of course, is that that studio is in fact New Line, who more or less folded the day before I watched the film. Oh well, close enough.

Given the fact that it was direct to DVD and starring Gina Phillips, who is 0-2 in the non-existent HMAD sweepstakes (thanks to Dead & Breakfast and the truly awful Ring Around The Rosie), I wasn’t expecting much from the film. But I was pleased to find that it wasn’t all that bad – a fast paced ghost movie that resembles House On Haunted Hill in a number of ways but at the same time feels a bit original.

The HoHH comparisons stem from a few sources. One, this is the bluest fucking movie I have seen since, well, HoHH. In the rare moments that you see red (the blood looks more like black) it’s almost an eyesore. Lay off the filters, (director Curtis) Radclyffe! Strangely, the pics on the back of the DVD are shown in a brownish/yellow tint that resembles the Chain Saw remake. Well, whatever. Blue, orange, it’s all OK in Michael Bay’s world, and thus perfectly OK in mine.

Another similarity is that the backstory involves a rather confusing account of a doctor doing experiments, and now the ghosts of his victims are killing people. Or something. It’s all a bit baffling (and the ending suggests that the characters are stuck in a time loop?), but it’s still entertaining, which is really all I ask for anymore. Plus, the backstory is actually about the plague (“As in THE Plague?” a character asks), which is a topic I am quite interested in, and is also rather rarely used in horror films. Which is why the film feels more original than it probably actually is – there are bits and pieces taken from a variety of horror movies, but overall the concept is kind of unique.

Kudos to writer Romla Walker for doing something truly rare – making me care a bit about a criminal in a horror movie. For whatever reason, many horror movies have criminals (usually robbers) as our “heroes”, and I’m always cold to the concept. Fuck them, they are thieves! Kill em all! But in this I actually kind of liked the main guy, Nick (Alex Hassell), who is introduced by stealing a car and going joyriding with his friends. Of course, when someone in the car finds a video camera he almost immediately does a Blair Witch parody, so that helped immensely.

However, one thing about her script (I assume) that wasn’t so great was the rampant profanity. Now, obviously I have ZERO problem with the F-word and all its variations (I’ve even been known to make a few up), but sometimes a movie just has so many that it just sounds forced, and even worse, tiresome. Take for example, this exchange:

Nick: “Shut the fuck up you crazy fucking fuck!”
Gina: “Fuck you!”

Come on now. We can all do a lot fucking better. Had the film been a bit lighter, this could be construed as a joke, but the film is entirely dark and humorless other than the Blair Witch joke.

Another thing I was reminded of was the underrated Xbox game Condemned: Criminal Origins. In that game, there’s a sort of nonsensical sidequest that involves you finding the remains of dead birds around the city. This film also has dead birds, though it makes a bit more sense here, since... actually I have no idea what sense it makes. The ghost killer dresses like a bird. That’s about it. Hey, it works. That game also had an abandoned hospital as a level, if memory serves.

Like yesterday’s movie, this one has a rather disgusting birth scene, and damned if I didn’t applaud it. A girl suddenly squirts out not a child, but thousands of leeches. She then begins walking around, as more leeches and black fluid (which could be blood, though it seems thicker) pours out down her leg and all over the floor. Fuck yeah! Nasty bits like that are increasingly uncommon, so when you get a bit of it in a new movie, it’s a good sign that all hope is not lost for modern horror.

The surround mix is also quite good. Creepy kids' laughter and things of that nature will occasionally pop out of the rear speakers, and one time it even freaked me out a bit. I hope a lot of you have decent home theaters for these movies, I can’t imagine how different my opinion for some of these movies would be if I wasn’t being engulfed by the damn thing while I watched it (this may be why I tend to like stuff no one else does – maybe they’re just watching it on a stereo TV?).

You may wonder why I am a bit vague on story specifics. Well, that’s because I honestly can’t make heads or tails of the final 20 minutes of the movie, and need to watch it again (or have it explained to me via wiki entry). But I haven’t had time to do that yet, and no one else has seen it, best I can tell, so I guess I’ll have to wait. If this review is not updated by the time the DVD hits stores (March 18th I think?), feel free to explain the ending to me. Please include an explanation for the fox under the clock, why a guy who is flat out told he is going to die via hanging decides to wear a scarf anyway, and what the hell is going on with the cop at the end. Thanks!

What say you?

Read more »

Ghost,

{[['']]}

The Innocents (1961)

FEBRUARY 19, 2008

GENRE: GHOST, PSYCHOLOGICAL
SOURCE: DVD (ONLINE RENTAL)

One movie I never quite understood why people liked it was The Others, the 2001 Nicole Kidman movie. It wasn’t bad, but it certainly wasn’t scary/suspenseful (to me anyway), and the twist wasn’t all that surprising either. I thought about that movie a lot while watching The Innocents, because it had a similar premise/setting, that of two annoying kids in a giant house and the beautiful woman who takes care of them. And some ghosts.

I liked Innocents a lot more though, because the ending wasn’t necessarily a twist, but a downer nonetheless, and there were a few good scare scenes. Like many an old film, I’ve seen so many of the movies that have ripped it off over the years that it felt like I had already seen it, but I was able to put that aside and enjoy the movie anyway.

Adding to that enjoyment immensely was the lush black and white photography by Freddie Francis. This is easily one of the best looking B&W movies I have seen in ages. Lots of times the lack of color (and often poor transfers) results in a somewhat flat image, but this one seemed practically 3D at times, due to the deep focus and sharp detail in the transfer. Thanks, FOX! I can almost forgive you for putting the widescreen version on side B instead of A. A = better, and thus should be the widescreen side! Savages!!

One really sweet thing I dug was how the first 50 seconds of the film are black. The FOX logo THEN comes into frame, and fades out for some more black. I like that, it makes you feel uneasy (actually it made me check my HDMI cabling) right from the start. Also I liked when the little kid kissed the woman on the lips and for a split second she kisses him back. Creepy, vaguely incestuous overtones? Awesome.

However, one thing I DIDN’T like so much was how the script (by Truman Capote, of all people, working from Henry James’ “Turn of the Screw”*) was written in “Interrupto-plotting”. What this means is, rather than get all of the exposition at once, they simply have a character start to tell a story, providing SOME of the information, and then they are interrupted by someone else at the worst possible time. So if the characters weren’t rude, and instead waited to speak, lots of the movie could have been avoided. Using this device once or twice is fine, but they use it for pretty much every scene involving the backstory.

Another blemish is the rather odd fact that the house supposedly has a gardener, a cook, another maid, etc. and yet we never see any of them, resulting in a rather laughable scene where the heroine thinks she sees a man on the roof. She then asks the maid if anyone else works there besides the people she’s met, and proceeds to rattle off about a dozen house employees that WE have never met, nor were they ever previously mentioned. It kind of ruins the scare – we only think there are 4 people in the house, which is why the sight of another is unsettling. But why is she scared when there is apparently a busload of folks walking around the house at any given time?

Regardless, it’s a nice bit of uneasy horror. Patience is required, but it’s worth the effort, and far better than The Others.

What say you?

*Incidentally, I had rented this DVD a month ago and couldn’t find it, only to finally uncover it under my Lost episode guide. Lost fans will know why this is freaky.

Read more »

Based On Novel, Ghost, Psychological,

{[['']]}

White Noise 2 (2007)

FEBRUARY 16, 2008

GENRE: GHOST, TECHNOLOGY
SOURCE: DVD (STORE RENTAL)

Assuming I ever got off my ass and finished writing/uploading all of the reviews from February of 2007 (this blog began in April or May of 2007), there would still be a missing entry for February 16th. I was traveling, and being new to the whole thing, I had yet to make seeing a daily movie an almost effortless occurrence. But anyway, that means that the second White Noise 2 reached its nonsensical conclusion, I had officially gone 365 days in a row of horror movie watching. Yay me!

White Noise 2 was surprisingly watchable, no worse (or better) than the original, so I’m not sure why they didn’t at least give it a chance in theaters. Then again, between One Missed Call and The Eye, everything WN2 covered was already bombing in theaters, so shipping it off to Blockbuster was probably a wise move. The film’s two stars are more known for their small screen efforts anyway. Strangely, they both have a lot in common – quick, which one is known for starring in a cult sci-fi show, having a brief villainous role on a revival TV show about a tough female fighter, and being in a really bad Dimension movie: Nathan Fillion or Katee Sackhoff?* And I must admit, it was nice to see a scene where a character uses the internet and he uses Yahoo!, not GenericWebSearch.com. Seems to me that it would make a lot more sense to just ask Yahoo or whoever to use their image in the film (possibly get a few bucks for the use while they are at it) rather than design a distracting and ridiculous fake one.

Unlike Boogeyman 2 and some other DTV sequels of late, this one doesn’t even try to tie itself to the original; they don’t even have the requisite newspaper article with a file photo of the original’s star accompanied by some helpful exposition (“this guy had the same problem as you. Now he’s dead!”) that is synonymous with these type of sequels. But I guess it sort of makes sense, since this movie doesn’t really follow the same themes as the original. Fillion sees EVP on living people and tries to prevent their deaths, instead of Keaton watching static for ghosts and solving mysteries. So, yeah, this movie doesn’t really feature a lot of “white noise”. But I guess “Goofy Light Ray Filters Surrounding People That Only Our Hero Can See 2” would be a really stupid title.

The one thing it DOES share in common with the original is the presence of an actor who can almost make anything interesting. I’ve long claimed that Fillion could be the next Harrison Ford, but the problem is no one is going to give him a Star Wars (well, they tried to) or an Indiana Jones to put him on that level. It’s a shame to see him more or less wasted on nonsense like this and in thankless guest starring roles on Desperate Housewives and Lost (where the lucky sod played Kate’s husband – and even that wasn’t enough for me to even slightly dislike the guy). Sackhoff, on the other hand, should stick to Battlestar, because between this and Halloween: Resurrection I think it’s safe to say that whenever she plays a perky girly girl, she simultaneously plays the most annoying person on the face of the planet.

Two hundred paragraphs or so I mentioned The Eye: a film that also featured someone with the ability to prevent death. They also share a director, one Patrick Lussier, who reshot half the fhe other film after Lionsgate had problems with the original cut. And watching this film makes his contributions to The Eye all the more apparent; the guy has a serious hardon for symmetric tracking shots like this:

There are probably a dozen others, and there are just as many in The Eye. Maybe it's just some sort of Kubrickian homage, but the problem is he uses them so often they become a distraction, and the bulk of the movie is otherwise pretty standard (no fancy camera tricks and such), so they stick out even more than they should. And, much like his film Dracula 2000 (which featured Fillion in a small role – see how this all comes full circle?), WN2 has a lot of ridiculous religious ties. Granted, nothing in this film (or any other film, really) could ever hope to be as gloriously stupid as the idea that Dracula was in fact Judas Iscariot, but Lussier’s peculiar obsession grinds this movie to a halt when Fillion begins reading the Bible (out loud to himself, of course) and making numerology connections to Latin phrases involving Lucifer. Apparently, in addition to being the root of all evil, the Devil really enjoys coded logic puzzles. And, like any movie that features spiritual deadlines (everyone dies on the 3rd day of their being saved), the process is far too exact – I would think both God AND the Devil have better things to do than ensure that someone dies exactly 72 hrs to the minute after they were saved. It’s not quite as ridiculous as the Devil’s need to impregnate a woman by midnight in End of Days (“is that Eastern time?”), but it's still pretty silly.

There are a bunch of extras, including the most spoiler-filled “Making of” featurette I’ve ever seen on a DVD. Usually these things are promotional, not informative, so it’s strange to see one that shows a major character’s demise from the end of the film alongside all of the usual “fun” fluffy bullshit. There are also 30 minutes of extended/deleted scenes (most of them are worthless extensions, and on two or three of them I couldn’t even tell the difference) and a goofy piece about Fillion and some super cute PA chick walking around the allegedly haunted hospital where part of the movie was filmed. Finally, there’s a 20 minute segment on “real life” near death victims, all of whom apparently live in Seattle (the movie was shot in Canada, so your guess is as good as mine).

Oh and then there’s this guy, the fake Zach Braff:

Well, whatever. No one rents White Noise 2 expecting to be blown away. Fillion’s inherent charm is enough to keep the film watchable, and it’s nice to see him play “dark” for a change, but beyond that it’s nothing that will change your mind about the White Noise franchise.. Someone get the guy a good script, please?

What say you?

*Fillion was in Firefly, Buffy (the show, not the movie), and Dimension's Dracula 2000, Sackhoff is in Battlestar Galactica, the short lived Bionic Woman revamp, and Dimension's Halloween: Resurrection. Reaching? Maybe. But I like to demonstrate my worthless ability to make such connections.

Read more »

Ghost, Technology,

{[['']]}

The Eye (2008)

FEBRUARY 4, 2008

GENRE: GHOST, REMAKE
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (REGULAR SCREENING)

I know a guy who, no exaggeration, likes any horror movie in which the female lead is hot. It’s literally all it takes for him to enjoy the movie. Not that this is uncommon (I’m pretty sure Sophia Bush makes up for 90% of my Hitcher enjoyment), but with him there is literally no exception to the rule. For proof, I will offer that he even likes Captivity. So it’s probably a foregone conclusion that he will love The Eye, starring the admittedly hot but utterly boring Jessica Alba.

Like some of her peers (but to the extreme degree), Alba would best be used as a model. Her presence doesn’t exactly send moviegoers flocking to the theater (were you one of the 12 people that saw Awake or Into The Blue?), and for good reason: she can’t act worth a shit. The only somewhat decent performance she ever turned in was in Idle Hands, because she was required to be the dream girl and nothing else. But pity the poor sod that has to direct her in a film where she has any sort of dramatic arc to play, because it’s clearly just not in her repertoire. However, if she’s on the cover of Maxim, the issue will sell out.

But even someone who COULD act probably couldn’t save this dull bore of a film. Granted, seeing the original didn’t help, since it barely changes a damn thing (more on that later) and even copies the damn blocking and camerawork from the original on a few key scenes. Hell, even my wife, who probably got a bit tense during Troll, only jumped once in the entire film. If they can’t even scare HER with their film, then they have truly failed.

As for the changes to the original, there are only two worth noting. One, the specialist guy who helps out the girl is kind of a dick in this one. Alessandro Nivola (always a welcome addition to a film) plays the guy, and you half expect him to just punch Alba in the face a few times, since he’s so clearly annoyed by her constant whining (or horrible acting). But he also plays the role admirably half-assed, as if he was as bored as we were (though he’s also clearly amused by some of his dialogue, making it all the more entertaining). Kudos to Nivola for making the film watchable (Parker Posey should have fallen in this category too, but while she looks good, she has absolutely nothing to do).

The other major change is the ending. Like the original, Sydney sees an accident about to occur, and tries to warn everyone off. But here she succeeds. Everyone lives, “yay”! Not a single person doubts the crazy woman running around the highway telling them to get out of their cars. In the original, NO ONE believed her, and they all died. Not only is this a much better ending from an asshole’s point of view, but it also gave the film a bittersweet coda – the girl finally understood what it was like for the eye’s previous owner to have this gift and not be able to help anyone with it. But that’s all gone now, and Alba’s hammy final narration (sprinkled throughout the film, and she can’t even do that well) sounds like it was taken from the Daredevil script with all the “blindness is a blessing and a curse” nonsense.

So it’s not scary, it doesn’t have much of a moral, and the acting is either bad or bored. Is there anything to recommend? Yeah, there’s a fucking GREAT Dark Knight trailer attached. Check it out. Otherwise, no, there isn’t, unless you haven’t seen the original. Or you’re that guy.

What say you?

Read more »

Ghost, Remake,

{[['']]}

Shutter (2004)

JANUARY 26, 2008

GENRE: ASIAN, GHOST

SOURCE: DVD (ONLINE RENTAL)

Does the Asian world make any horror movies about vampires, werewolves, devil worshipping cults, killer dolls, etc? Other than Bloody Reunion and the occasional monster movie (The Host!), it seems every one of the Asian horror films I see -all of which are recommendations, including this one (by HMAD reader Secret Raconteur), and NOT based primarily on the fact that they seemingly all have American remakes - are about vengeful ghosts using some sort of ordinary device to haunt their victims. Shutter of course fits right in, what with a ghost appearing in some guy’s photographs and driving his pals to suicide. Come on guys, cars breaking down in the vicinity of cannibalistic rednecks must be a global problem.

This one’s got a couple of things going for it. One, it’s short, clocking in at 90 minutes or so (most of them hover near 2 hrs). Also, the story isn’t quite as fragmented as Ju-On or whatever; relatively speaking, it’s actually pretty logical and doesn’t leave you entirely clueless for an hour and then suddenly give you 10 straight minutes of exposition. So that’s a plus.

However, there are still a few issues. One is that the hero is not just flawed, he’s a downright asshole. You can extend the sympathy branch only so far, but this guy goes beyond that point, and simply making him slightly less of an asshole than his friends doesn’t quite cut it. Also, the movie is kicked off when him and his new girlfriend run over a woman in the street (thus beginning his assholity, as he demands they leave without helping her). Now, in typical Asian horror fashion, this means her ghost will be the one stalking him. Fine, but then we discover that she was his ex-girlfriend, and she’s not seeking revenge for being run over, but instead for something even worse that he did a year or so ago. Come on now. Not counting pranks gone wrong, how often do you know the person you accidentally run over and leave for dead? 67 out of 68 times it will be a total stranger.

Still, it delivers all the usual scares (ghost appears in the background, hero spins, she’s gone; an image of the ghost in a photo seemingly comes to life, etc.) so it follows the template closely enough to give the film enough merit (and by merit I mean, the remake is due this year). These movies are a dime a dozen, but if you haven’t seen any of the others this one is no better or worse a place to start.

Odd for a Tartan release, the extras are fairly slim. A few making of segments reveal what a dangerous production this was (every single one of them ends with the directors revealing how someone almost or easily could have died while trying to get the shot), and an interview. No deleteds or commentary. As generic as the movies themselves are, the extras on these are usually pretty fascinating, as our Eastern filmmakers are usually much more honest and direct than their ass-kissing American counterparts.

What say you?

Read more »

Asian, Ghost,

{[['']]}

Dark Water (2005)

JANUARY 21, 2008

GENRE: GHOST, REMAKE
SOURCE: BLU-RAY (STORE RENTAL)

Yes, careful readers of the “Source” listing will notice that I can now add Blu-Ray to my ever expanding (and expensive) home theater options, via the PS3 (which I’ve owned for four days now and have yet to play a game). I have had HD DVD for a year or so, but the increasing lack of studio support isn’t exactly promising, so now I have both just in case. And my inaugural Blu Ray viewing? No, not fucking Dark Water, Christ. Before I even actually bought the player I stopped by a used DVD store and picked up, naturally, the Blu-Ray of Halloween. I’ll talk more about that once I get this Dark Water review out of the way.

As is almost always the case with these movies, I did not see the original first (I think The Eye and/or Tale of Two Sisters will be the first time I watch the remakes AFTER seeing the original). But the differences seem very minute, so I probably won’t bother. Why? Well, the movie isn’t very good, and it’s far from interesting. Yes, once again, a little girl is dead, and her body has been left to rot somewhere far from a cemetery (is ANYONE in the Asian community buried properly???). Naturally, this leads her ghost to come wreak havoc. But unlike the 17 million other movies of this nature, this ghost doesn’t really do anything terrifying. Her power seems limited to... turning the water on, resulting in flooded apartments.

I’m not exaggerating. Literally NOTHING fucking happens in this movie other than plumbing issues. At least the movie delivers on the promise of its title, but for the love of Jebus, can we at least get someone dying of fright in the bathroom or something? No? OK. Instead, we also get lots of scenes that attempt to make us think that perhaps Jennifer Connelly is just imagining things. Well that’s all well and good, but imagining WHAT, exactly? We know the plumbing problems are real because other characters see them, and nothing else happens. Some kids who live in the same building occasionally make lewd comments to her, but that’s hardly the stuff of scariness. It’s Jennifer Connelly for Christ’s sake, who WOULDN’T ogle her???

The cast is so good you gotta wonder what the hell they all signed on for in the first place. Connelly makes sense – she won an Oscar, therefore she must do a shitty horror movie. But John C Reilly, Tim Roth, and Pete Postlethwaite usually have better options, and even if the movie delivered on the horror, they’d mostly be wasted anyway. The only sort-of exception is Roth, who plays the nicest lawyer in film history. He goes out of his way to help Connelly at every turn, and never even hits on her (despite lying and saying he has a family when he doesn’t; or at least, he doesn’t take them to the movies with him). I kept thinking that maybe if the movie WAS all in her head that maybe he was a figment of her imagination, but no. He’s just REALLY NICE.

Then again, there might be some post production shenanigans going on. For starters, Connelly is constantly on the phone talking to a woman we never actually see. These scenes are just a flurry of exposition, which suggests hasty reshoots; with Connelly providing info to the audience from scenes that were removed, done on the cheap without having to hire a new actress. Also, one of the few extra features is a 3 minute piece about the editing choices within a scene that isn’t actually in the film. OK.

So the movie’s not really worth your time, unless you’re a plumber and/or a resident of Roosevelt Island. Connelly looks good (even better in High Def!) but she looks good in movies that are also good, so just watch one of those.

Back to Halloween though: if you had any doubts about the validity of high definition, I can squash them. I’ve seen this movie probably 50 goddamn times and I noticed things I was never able to see before: the pom poms of the cheerleaders in the background when Lynda and Laurie leave school, Michael’s face in the car as he drives past them a few minutes later, etc. Obviously none of these things actually improve the film itself, but just the fact that these pointless little details are now crystal clear should give you an idea of how much better the stuff that IS important will now look. Of course, if you’re the type of person who uses the red and yellow cables that come with your AV components to watch stuff, you won’t care. But for the rest of you, trust me: it’s worth the cost, so long as you’re watching something besides Dark Water.

What say you?

Read more »

Ghost, Remake,

{[['']]}