[Rec] (2007)

MAY 26, 2008

GENRE: MOCKUMENTARY, ZOMBIE
SOURCE: DVD (SCREENER)

Last night I was playing Halo with some fellow horror movie guys, and one of them asked me if I had seen [Rec]. I hadn’t, so it was a bit odd when I went over a different friend’s house today and he put it on for a post barbecue movie. I only wish the first friend had asked me if I had ever won the lottery, or nailed Rachel Nichols. Could have truly been a Memorial Day.

Anyway, he had thrown me off a bit by saying that it’s a movie in which the last 5 minutes are the best part. Therefore, I was assuming that it was a slow burn, that nothing happened at all for the first hour and twenty minutes. So I was happy to see that the first zombie attack happens about 15-20 minutes in, and that the pace more or less kept up (or got more intense) as the film went on. The story is told almost in real time, in fact, which makes it even more impressive (real time usually equals, well, nothing happening until the last five minutes).

Like all “found footage” movies, a big part of whether or not it works is providing a reasonable excuse for the character(s) to keep filming. Here, it’s the reporters’ disdain for the way that the cops are treating them (quarantining them in an apartment building, not telling them why, etc) that keeps them rolling – they want proof of how they were treated. It gets a bit odd when the zombies begin attacking in greater numbers (the cops more or less all dead by now) that they keep rolling, but that fabled final five minutes (more like 10 I think) again gives a good enough reason – the electricity goes out and they use the camera’s night vision to see. Works for me, though I usually don’t mind the rather illogical actions of the characters in these movies. I want to make a found footage movie in which as soon as the horror shit begins, the camera is thrown to the ground and you see fucking NOTHING for the next 40 minutes. And then I come back on camera, as myself, and say “Fuck you! If we don’t film there’s no movie!”

Unlike Diary of the Dead, it’s actually shot like someone shooting under heavy distress. Yes, that means shaki-cam and “what am I looking at” compositions, but you also won’t ever forget the type of movie you are watching (in Diary, I actually forgot it was “documentary footage” on more than one occasion, because Romero shot it quite beautifully). Also, strange for one of these movies, all of the footage is shot by one person, the news show’s cameraman, whose face we never actually see. It helps maintain the pace and tension, and also spares us from a scene in which we see the characters film each other filming.

As for that last five minutes? Yeah, it’s great. Terrifying in fact. However, an explanation for the zombie’s origin is shoehorned in, and not only does it kind of slow the film down at a really odd time, but it’s a lame explanation as well. Apparently the upcoming US remake changes this backstory (though it’s otherwise a shot for shot remake, from what I hear), so that’s good.

Then again, maybe the subtitles just made something else up, because it was the worst subtitling job I’ve ever seen (along with Botched’s idiotic ‘funny’ subtitles, this makes four films in a single week that were dampened by their subs. Everyone needs to watch Night Watch and see how it’s done!). In addition to numerous spelling errors and bizarre symbols on the head and tail of certain lines, it was also just badly translated to boot. At one point the character clearly says “Muy bien.” (“Very good.”) but the subs offer “Let’s go.” They also, like Frontière(s), often seem like they were run through a thesaurus beforehand, which results in characters saying things like “Use your agility!”. They are also confusingly presented and not in sync with the dialogue, which makes it hard to even tell who is saying what. And I can only assume that the person was saying ‘Keep filming, mother fucker!” and not “Keep filming for your fucking mother!”

Not sure when it’s coming out (I assume before the remake hits theaters, but who knows), but if you’re not sick of found footage yet, then you should dig it. It’s simple and fast, and that’s always a plus with me.

What say you?

Read more »

Mockumentary, Zombie,

{[['']]}

Non Canon Review: Cannibal Holocaust (1980)

FEBRUARY 27, 2008

GENRE: CANNIBAL, MOCKUMENTARY

SOURCE: THEATRICAL (REVIVAL SCREENING)

One of the first times (possibly THE first; my memory is for shit) I went to the New Beverly was for a screening of Cannibal Holocaust, which if memory serves screened with a Fulci film. This was in like March of 2006, a few months after I moved to LA (and right around the time I finally had some sort of income that would allow me to go to the movies at all). The next month they showed Cannibal Ferox, another one I had never seen. So now, with like 600 movies seen since then, I had a lot of trouble remembering which was which. This is the one that DOESN’T have Giovanni Lombardo Radice, so therefore it’s not as good.

Sadly the crowd was pretty thin (and abnormally quiet – other than mimicking the legendary “Bwyoooooooo!” sound effect from the soundtrack, there was hardly a peep from anyone). And that's a real bummer for this movie in particular, because it’s so goddamn reprehensible, you need a big crowd (preferably a bit drunk) laughing at certain parts in order to enjoy it. Otherwise it’s just sort of an endurance test: can you watch the poor turtle get hacked up without looking away? Or any of the 2 or 3 rapes in the film? How bout the “pregnancy” scene? Etc. In short, it’s far from an enjoyable viewing experience for the most part.

Not that the film is entirely without levity. “He’s just switching reels” is an odd gutbuster, and the little kid running around in the park while our leads discuss the footage is also hilarious. The hauntingly beautiful “love theme” from the film also elicits a few chuckles, but you’re never more than 5 minutes away from another scene that’s just sort of awful.

Granted, the film is loaded with social commentary and the like, so we are supposed to be outraged or repulsed by certain parts of the film (mainly in the final half hour), but there’s little to enjoy alongside of it. Dawn of the Dead (or for a closer example – Diary) certainly have their share of commentary, but the films are still quite fun to watch at the same time. Not the case here – the characters are mostly despicable, the violence is too believable to be “fun”, and the nonstop animal killing is hardly entertainment.

This isn’t to say I dislike the film, in fact I think it’s quite good. But the New Bev is all about having a good time, so having this particular film play to an unusually subdued crowd (which wasn’t the case when I first saw it) had the opposite effect. Bummer.

What say you?

Read more »

Cannibal, Mockumentary, Non Canon, Video Nasties,

{[['']]}

Monster (2008)

FEBRUARY 5, 2008

GENRE: MOCKUMENTARY, MONSTER
SOURCE: DVD (STORE RENTAL)

Those of you who are familiar with The Asylum will appreciate the following anecdote. If you’re not, let me provide a quick explanation: The Asylum is a direct to DVD company that specializes in releasing quickie ripoffs of high-profile genre films. Some of their titles include Alien vs. Hunter, Transmorphers, and Snakes On A Train. They are usually released on DVD within a week of the real movie’s theatrical release, and very dumb people will often mistake them for the real deal. Their latest is Monster, which is a ripoff of Cloverfield (which was at one point titled Monstrous, so says the internet).

Anyway I knew I was going to be watching it tonight, because I had rented it last week and was running out of time on my week rental. So it was fitting that it was today that I stumbled upon a page in which the "writer" was copying whole chunks of my reviews and posting them as her own. An email and a blatant example pasted on the page has resulted in the site being deleted by the owner. You can still find it thanks to Google cache, but I thought it was kind of sad that the author would rather just abandon their efforts rather than admit to plagiarism. Oh well. Rest assured, if anyone else wants to write their own similar site, go for it! I'd love to know I'm not the only one doing this insane job. Just do it with your own thoughts. And don’t call it Horror Movie A Day (this person’s was simply Horror A Day – the title is now apparently eligible for use!).

This brings us to Monster, which, like all Asylum films, is a copy of another film, with superfluous changes and a much lower budget. This one is set in Tokyo, but otherwise the structure and plot are the same – some attractive folks are shooting on a consumer camera and end up making a documentary about a monster attacking a giant city. Instead of a bunch of hipsters, our characters are just two incredibly cute Americans who planned on making a documentary about global warming. The fact that the one scene in which they do this is almost entirely inaudible is sort of a blessing in hindsight – it would have been a shame if they had made their entire documentary, then went to edit it and discovered that they should have invested 60 bucks in a boom mike.

To be fair, this is actually the one thing that Monster has over Cloverfield – it actually LOOKS like it was shot with a consumer camera by a non-camera operator. Cloverfield was clearly shot with HD cameras by someone who knew what he was doing (the fact that the character is ESTABLISHED as not wanting to film the stuff since he didn’t know how makes this fact even more obvious). Then again, in Cloverfield, it was forgivable since the effects were top notch. Here, the bad CG jets and monster (who we never see in its entirety) are still noticeable no matter how many filters and jerky camera movements they use to try to hide them.

Speaking of the filters, I wish that the makers of this film (and the otherwise superior Poughkeepsie Tapes) would treat the audience with a bit of intelligence when it comes to presenting their footage. By now, anyone renting a DVD has probably used a digital camera (or watched home movies on one at least), and thus know exactly what camera errors look like. None of these following images are possible to achieve with a digital camera, no matter how broken it is, without adding filters and the like on it:

Come on now. The only “error” that looks like a legitimate malfunction is near the very end when some black horizontal bars sweep over the bottom of the image (a dirty tape will cause this).

Worse, though, is the editor’s outstandingly stupid decision to cut to blackness for anywhere from 1 to 5 seconds throughout the entire film (if you cut these moments out, the film would probably be 5 minutes shorter). Not only does the image go out, but the sound does as well. It is so goddamn annoying you’ll probably want to put some light background music on while you watch the film – you will never get used to the abrupt cut of the soundtrack.

Another odd copy from Cloverfield is the date – the “earthquake” takes place on January 18th (Cloverfield’s release date, and yet another fake title – 1-18-08). Of course, this is due to The Asylum having to make their film based on the same knowledge all of us had in the months leading up to the real film, which wasn’t much due to all of the secrecy surrounding it. But the year is said to be 2003. Why, I have no idea (Tokyo was hit with an earthquake in July of 2005, but I guess that would be too far removed from Cloverfield to warrant consideration), but this leads to numerous anachronisms, particularly the characters’ hope that their footage ends up on Youtube, a site about 2 years away from inception in ‘reality’.

I also enjoy how difficult it is for them to find anyone who can understand English when every street sign, restaurant hours, business name, etc is in English instead of Japanese. Little Tokyo is not Tokyo! This is made even more hilarious in the scene where one sister says “Look, we can see the whole city from here”, and we just have to take her word for it, since, for obvious reasons, the camera focuses on the girl instead of the alleged city view.

Now all of these things I can forgive if the movie itself was more enjoyable. But it’s not. The girls are decent enough actresses, but I still didn’t care about their fate (which is sort of foregone anyway), and the movie was an endless bore to boot. At one point I figured it was almost over, only to discover I wasn’t even at the 40 minute mark yet. That’s kind of a problem when you’re making an escapist monster movie. The attack scenes are too quick to leave much of an impact, and there are long stretches where the girls just walk around sort of dazed (one even does a little confession video, shades of Blair Witch).

So it’s a movie that I expected to be bad fun, but it was just a bad bore. A shame really. I can't call it crap, because I knew exactly what I was in for (nothing), and if you have yet to be exposed to The Asylum's brazen yet somewhat endearing forgeries, it's as good a place as any to start. But if you haven’t been convinced this one is a cheap quickie without any merit to it at all, look no further than the film’s one extra feature, a 5 min making of that’s about 3 minutes film footage and this following credit.

What say you?

Read more »

Mockumentary, Monster,

{[['']]}

Cloverfield (2008)

JANUARY 18, 2008

GENRE: MOCKUMENTARY, MONSTER
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (REGULAR SCREENING)

How’s this for weird: the main reason I watched Dragon Wars yesterday was because I knew that I would be seeing Cloverfield today, and thus I wanted to see both of the major US cities get destroyed (LA in Dragon, NY in Cloverfield) back to back. But 45 minutes or so into Cloverfield, I discovered another connection: character actor Chris Mulkey (who played the jerk FBI agent in Dragon) popped up as an army general or something to that effect. I like that guy.

But sadly, despite J.J. Abrams’ involvement, Greg Grunberg was nowhere to be seen.

But that’s pretty much my only complaint (Grunberg rules!) about the film, which is otherwise pretty f-ing great. It’s nice and short (it could even be shorter, see below), and while I wasn’t exactly enamored by all of the characters, director Matt Reeves and writer Drew Goddard DO invest enough time into their leads so that you care about them during what is essentially a 70 minute nonstop chase scene. Also, the lead girl, Odette Yustman, is ridiculously hot, which helps sell the basic narrative thrust of the film (our heroes’ attempts to rescue her out of the city, which is being demolished by the government just as much, if not more than, the monster). I’d grab my unlimited-battery and incredibly-professional-looking-for-a-consumer camera and run around Manhattan while a 30 story monster knocked everything down around me to help her too; probably get mad quality time afterwards.

Like I said though, the film could be a bit shorter, because they sort of go overboard with how much these average looking hipsters can survive in a short time. I don’t want to spoil anything, but let’s just say that there are two points before the ending where the movie could have conceivably ended, and with each “addition” you are required to put a little too much of your disbelief on hold. Considering that the whole film hinges on the “reality” presentation of this event, it’s a little strange that they expect you to believe regular people can survive 2.5 incredibly violent acts (sorry for slight spoiler, I’ve been trying to figure out a way to word it for like 10 min without spoiling anything and gave up).

Nerds will enjoy the film too, there are many video game references (I SWEAR I heard the army refer using a “Hammer of Dawn” to take out the monster) and a strange moment involving someone’s knowledge of Superman. It’s also pretty funny at times; you might THINK laughing at the idea of an immolated homeless person would never be in the cards, but there it is.

The monster itself is pretty sweet looking, and comparisons to the monsters seen at the end of The Mist are valid. And yes, the big monster spawns little monsters, but don’t let memories of the atrocious 1998 Godzilla cloud your brain – these fuckers are nasty and scary. I’m actually surprised that this got away with a PG-13; not that it’s particularly violent, but there are 2 or 3 scenes that are so INTENSE, something the MPAA has given R ratings for in the past. I actually kind of would have preferred an R rating; it seems a bit odd that a bunch of 25-30 year olds would watch the Statue of Liberty’s head roll down the street and not yell “WHAT THE FUCK?!?!?!”

I was also very impressed with the sound on this film. I saw it at the Mann’s Grauman’s Chinese, which is a HUGE theater without stadium seating, and the floor was rumbling throughout, a la IMAX. Definitely see this one at a THX theater if you can; the sound is worth the admission alone (can’t wait for the HD DVD, or, more than likely, sigh, BluRay). However, do NOT bother waiting til the end of the credits, unless you really like knowing a film’s MPAA number. Strangely, a good 80% of the crowd waited in their seats; it just seemed like the kind of movie that would offer an after credits epilogue. But nope, nothing. So leave, beat traffic.

I should point out how disappointed I was that Paramount did not offer a new Iron Man trailer OR an Indiana Jones 4 teaser, at least not at my screening. We just got a Star Trek teaser that didn’t even offer a full image of the Enterprise, only some guys welding it. Exciting. Hilariously, the fucking annoying dipshit in front of me got super excited once the words “Star Trek” appeared on screen. Big fan, you’d think, right? But he sat motionless through “A JJ Abrams film”, the legendary music, and a voiceover saying “Space, the final frontier.” I’m not a Trekkie by any stretch of the imagination and even I knew what it was long before him. Dumbass.

And if you aren't yet convinced this one is worth your time and money - I STAYED AWAKE throughout the entire film, which was a midnight screening. I can't even remember the last time I went to a movie that started after 9 pm that I never dozed for even a minute. Monsters eating hipsters > borderline narcolepsy.

What say you?

Read more »

Mockumentary, Monster,

{[['']]}

Welcome To The Jungle

NOVEMBER 23, 2007

GENRE: CANNIBAL, INDEPENDENT, MOCKUMENTARY
SOURCE: DVD (STORE RENTAL)

Earlier this year (or maybe late last year), there was some brouhaha over the nature of Welcome To The Jungle, with some folks reporting it was a remake of Ruggero Deodato's masterpiece Cannibal Holocaust, and Welcome writer/director Jonathan Hensleigh (a man who will forever be in my OK book due to his myriad Bruckheimer contributions, including my beloved Armageddon) claiming his film nothing to do with that film. Well, now that I’ve seen it, they’re both right.

On one hand, yeah, it’s incredibly similar to Holocaust. Some folks making a documentary run afoul of cannibals; the film being their found footage (something that actually only made up the 2nd half of Deodato’s film, but whatever). On the other hand, it’s absolutely nothing like that film, because in that one, SOMETHING ACTUALLY FUCKING HAPPENED.

In what is becoming the standard for Dimension EXTREME releases, the film is barely R rated, and would take minimal editing to secure a PG-13 (also see, or don’t: Buried Alive). Now, for that movie, that’s fine, because who cares about the 10 millionth teens in an old cabin movie. But when you are making a goddamn cannibal movie that is rumored to be a remake of one of the most graphic and intense films of all time (at least, of those that are somewhat well-known), you should at least deliver SOMETHING.

But no. In 80 minutes, the sum total of onscreen violence is about 12 seconds. There’s also some assorted gore (via body parts – these cannibals don’t seem to have a problem with wasting a lot of their food), but nothing particularly interesting or different. And yes, there’s an homage to CH’s most memorable image, that of a woman who is impaled thru her ass and out of her mouth, except here it’s through the back of her head. Top the original? It doesn’t even try. I just don’t see the sense in making this type of movie, knowing that it would likely not be a 2,000 screen big studio release, and not at least go all out for the finale. Gale Anne Hurd produced this movie for Christ’s sake, it’s not like they didn’t have any money for some decent makeup gags.

Plus, the cameraperson, who is a friend of the deceased, for some reason films the wounds in perfect close up. Some folks had a problem with the “too good” camerawork in Diary of the Dead; those folks would be utterly disgraced by the footage here. At one point, the characters seemingly cut back and forth (with one camera) to film both sides of their benign conversation!!!

So the film doesn’t deliver on the cannibalism, gore, or violence. Does it at least entertain? No. The four characters are wholly annoying, making the film’s refusal to kill even one of them until the final few minutes all the more ridiculous. I don’t want to spend any time with these people at all, let alone lots of time where they’re not even doing anything interesting (yet filming it all). Plus, they opt NOT to film the only thing they actually DO during the course of the film, which is build a raft. Christ, after a half an hour I was hoping one of the cannibals would put a fake fire hydrant outside their tent to set them up for adultery.

I also checked out the commentary track by Hensleigh, who sounds like Vince Vaughn. He reveals that the four actors were chosen from thousands of auditions. I cannot IMAGINE how fucking bad the others must have been. They’re not horrible actors per se, but in a film like this, where the actors are improvising a good deal of the time, you gotta wonder why they would choose to be this annoying/uninteresting, acting or not.

Dimension is really overreaching with this whole “extreme” nonsense. Say what you want about Rob Zombie’s Halloween (Christ knows I have), but at least it delivered on its promise to be graphically violent. The Mist (also Dimension) contains one of the most brutal endings ever seen in a studio film. Now I know that neither Buried or Jungle were actually produced by Dimension, only distributed by them, but why are they making a whole new label for the seeming purpose of simply overselling movies that are so goddamn tame? Just put them out on the regular Dimension label, same as whatever Hellraiser or Children of the Corn sequel they are releasing that week, rather than dupe the audience. Because, the fact is, neither of these films would have any troubles playing in theaters due to their subject matter or content, it’s just that no theater would want to bother showing them because they fucking suck. At least I know that 3 of their upcoming movies deliver on the promise (Inside, Automaton Transfusion, and Storm Warning), as none of them would be able to play as is in the multiplexes, and feature genuine disturbing moments (emergency C-section with a kitchen knife, fetus torn from pregnant woman, and a “rape prevention device”, respectively) that would never escape the MPAA’s wrath (plus, they are actually good movies to boot).

I’d also like to point out that my buddy Devin was so enraged by this film that he wrote an open letter to Hensleigh on his site, CHUD (an article that will link you right back to HMAD!). I didn’t hate it as much as him (if I did scores, I’d give it a 3 out of 10, mainly due to the quite nice looking HD photography), but it’s still worth a read. It also contains information about a pretty good LA bar that Hensleigh apparently owns.

What say you?

Read more »

Cannibal, Independent, Mockumentary,

{[['']]}

October Extras #16 - The Blair Witch Project (1999)

OCTOBER 16, 2007

GENRE: INDEPENDENT, MOCKUMENTARY, SUPERNATURAL

SOURCE: DVD (OWN COLLECTION)

LAST SEEN: 2003 (?) (DVD)

I remember it like it was 8 and a half years ago... I believe it was on Aintitcoolnews; a trailer for a horror movie called Blair Witch Project, which was made out of ‘found’ footage of missing film students. The teaser was mostly just Heather’s apology scene, and it freaked me out. I sent the link around to friends and began Yahooing (no Google back then, at least not as far as you know) the film to see if I could find some more info.

Sadly, on the film’s official site, they linked to an article about Josh and Heather attending a screening at some festival. What the hell?!?!? Way to spoil your own surprise. So sadly, when I finally saw the film a few months later (it was the first time I went to an “indie” theater!), I knew perfectly well that it was all fake, though I did my best to keep the illusion alive for folks I saw it with or just spoke to.

But even knowing that it wasn’t real, it didn’t make the film any less effective for me. I did then and still consider it to be one of the finest horror films of the past 10 (now almost 20) years, and it remains effective in my eyes. Like Halloween, the film was all about taking an incredibly thin storyline and executing it in a manner that proved, if nothing else, less is more. One simply needs to use a wayback internet search or something of that nature to see that it’s possibly the most parodied film of all time (I am part of this legion), because it was filmed with consumer electronics, not to mention without anything like sets, effects, etc. If you had a camera, the woods, and a really shrill shriek, you can make the exact same film with your friends. As it came out as I was just about to begin the non-intro shit of film school, it certainly inspired me; proving once again that you didn’t need a blank check budget and all the resources in the world to make an effective film (even more fitting that it came out the same year as Phantom Menace, possibly the best example to help this argument).

Some folks claim the acting in the movie sucks, but I don’t. I think they are great. First of all, none of them knew each other before they began shooting, yet Josh plays a good friend of both Heather and Mike (Heather and Mike didn’t know each other prior to the film), and there’s enough subtleties in their actions (mostly in the pre-woods section of the film) that help sell this idea, such as Josh’s obvious comfort in Heather’s home. Also, I should note I had a huge crush on Heather – I don’t care if she’s shrill, she’s cute and makes films. What else you need?

I was a huge nerd for this movie, and I still have all the shit I amassed: t-shirt, trading cards, numerous books, 3 PC games.... most of it was crap, but the "Blair Witch Dossier" was a great read, and even adds another layer of interest in the film. For example, remember the two guys that are fishing early on? According to the book, they are in-laws. This makes their light bickering all the more amusing, at least to me.

BWP was also the first movie I ever downloaded, as I learned somewhere that the download version was a bit different. I can’t recall all the changes now (they were minimal anyway), but one significant change was that this version did NOT have the jock looking dude talking about Rustin Parr putting kids in the corner. This was added later (and not even shot by the 3 kids – if you listen closely during his scene, Heather keeps saying “right” and it’s obviously stolen from another interview). And since seeing Mike standing in the corner at the end remains the most creeped out I have ever been at a movie, I am glad this scene, which foreshadows/explains the whole thing, was added.

Still freaky.

I also quite enjoy the sequel (a possible October Extra), though you need to watch it with the commentary to really appreciate it. Rumors of a 3rd film occasionally resurface, though I am not optimistic. Over the years, the film has been the unfortunate victim of a backlash, which is a damn shame as far as I’m concerned. I’ve seen it probably a dozen times now, and I still love it. And even if not, I would never deny its significance in the horror landscape (it was the film that finally broke Halloween’s 20+ year record of “most successful independent film”). Simplicity will always win over excess, and Dan Myrick and Ed Sanchez can be proud that their first film is one of the best possible examples of this fact.

Those PC games are fucking TERRIBLE though. Christ.

What say you?

Read more »

Independent, Mockumentary, October Extras, Supernatural,

{[['']]}

October Extras #15 - Behind The Mask: The Rise Of Leslie Vernon

OCTOBER 15, 2007

GENRE: COMEDIC, MOCKUMENTARY, SLASHER
SOURCE: DVD (OWN COLLECTION)
LAST SEEN: MARCH 2007 (THEATRICAL)

Not sure why I didn’t just write a review for Behind The Mask when it was in theaters for a minute or so last spring. According to my records, I watched Bloody Birthday the same day, and only wrote about that. Then again, this was prior to doing “Non Canon” reviews, and since I first saw the film at Screamfest last year, I guess I just opted not to write it up.

I didn’t say it would be an interesting anecdote.

The film is great, though it doesn’t hold up to subsequent viewings as much as I would have liked. All the slasher references are great (and more importantly – not very distracting), and one bonus to re-watching the film is picking up on a few others. According to director Scott Glosserman, there’s a Halloween reference in the film that NO ONE has picked up on yet, and I am determined to find it (after the Screamfest screening, he told me I was one of only two people, the other being the film’s composer, to point out another obscure one. *Nerd beams*). But some of the humor doesn’t really resonate on a 2nd or 3rd viewing as much as it originally did, and the film’s 3rd act loses some of its initial punch.

The 3rd act was reviled by some when the film first came out, and I am not sure why. It seems a perfectly logical payoff to the film, and it’s far from badly done. But again, as it was sort of a surprise the first time, watching it again, you just kind of wish they kept with the documentary stuff.

But the film is still incredibly well made, and sort of makes you proud to be a slasher fan. All of the little clichés are torn apart (and utilized), but in a loving and honored way. The scene where Leslie Vernon explains how slashers have to do cardio and tai chi in order to do that whole “Walk after someone running but still keep up with them” thing is possibly the most genius idea in the history of mockumentaries, and Nathan Baesel’s performance is pretty award-worthy if you ask me (and no one has). Also, it’s a nice touch to have Robert Englund more or less playing Sam Loomis, right down to the trenchcoat. It’s the best tribute I’ve seen to the character/actor (why hasn’t anyone made a Loomis talking action figure???).

However, the commentary track is pretty much the most annoying track ever recorded in all of DVD history. It’s four of the actors, and throughout almost the entire track, they are carrying on two separate conversations or just making in-jokes and laughing at them. It’s probably the first time in history I have felt like a 3rd wheel when I was technically by myself. When a track comes out like this, you gotta wonder why the DVD company (in this case, Anchor Bay) bothers putting it on at all. I admire anyone who can get through the entire thing in one sitting (took me three). The other extras are interesting, if nothing as unique as the film itself.

Roughly 20 people went to see this in theaters. All of the 5.9999999 billion other people in the world are on my shitlist. I kind of like the irony that Anchor Bay released the year’s two best horror films in theaters (the other being Hatchet), but no one showed up, presumably because they were broke from re-buying all the Anchor Bay titles that get re-released every other week or so (Halloween, with a new cover!).

What say you?

Read more »

Comedic, Mockumentary, October Extras, Slasher,

{[['']]}

Paranormal Activity

OCTOBER 14, 2007

GENRE: HAUNTED HOUSE, INDEPENDENT, MOCKUMENTARY
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (SCREAMFEST LA)

A scary haunted house movie! A scary haunted house movie! And it’s not even Poltergeist!

Yes, Paranormal Activity managed to do something that almost no other haunted house movie in the past 25 years has managed to do: actually be scary (1408 got a few jumps out of me, though nowhere near as effective as this). Like Blair Witch, it’s presented entirely through self-shot footage (or from a fixed tripod in their bedroom), and ramps up from simple noises to truly freaky ‘violent’ acts. The increasingly terrifying nature of the scares is what really makes the film work – if you just watched the finale by itself, you’d be pretty perplexed as to why anyone was scared by it (just like Mike standing in a corner isn’t really that interesting unless you’ve been totally sucked into the previous 80 minutes).

Also, as the film is entirely digital video that looks no better/worse than what any average Joe can shoot, the scares are fully believable. There’s a subconscious acceptance that what you are seeing is real when it’s digital video (it’s not all glossed up and “cinematic”), which is what made those Ratchet and Clank commercials work so great. So when added to the perfectly paced ramping of scares, it proves incredibly frightening.

The acting is also good, something that posed a problem with a few characters in Diary of the Dead. There’s really only two people in the film, and unlike Heather in Blair Witch, they never get too shrill or just plain unlikable, even as they begin to bicker with one another. I totally believe them as a couple, and they sell their fear quite well too. And the film does a good job of making their actions with the camera logical for the most part (100% admiration for how the finale is “filmed”).

The hilarious thing about the whole presentation was that it was preceded by 10 minutes of some new A&E show called Paranormal State, which deals with a “real” paranormal research team. The footage was cheesy and laughable, and without any sort of suspense. So yes, the “real show” wasn’t as believable as the movie that we knew damn well was fake. Then the guys who host/produce the show came out after the movie and more or less dismissed the film while tooting their own horn. Wisely, I (and many others) just left them to suck their own cocks while I talked to the filmmaker/cast of Paranormal Activity in the lobby. Which is the great thing about Screamfest, and any independent film festival in general; you can often just chat up with the filmmaker after the film and not be bothered by 40 other people in the process. Not to mention laugh at the actors in stupid basic cable shows for talking about things like “Dead time”.

Not sure if there’s a release date for this one (it doesn’t even have an IMDb page!) but hopefully it will play in theaters (though I suspect it will play just as well at home). Take it from me, dismisser of nearly every film of its kind I have ever seen – this one DOES work as an actual ‘scary’ movie.

What say you?

Read more »

Haunted House, Independent, Mockumentary,

{[['']]}

Diary Of The Dead (2007)

OCTOBER 12, 2007

GENRE: MOCKUMENTARY, ZOMBIE
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (SCREAMFEST LA)

It's almost shocking that today's movie was a brand new Romero movie. It's only been a little over two years since Land Of The Dead made a cameo appearance in multiplexes, and here we are with Diary Of The Dead, which Romero claims takes place at the same time as Night Of The Living Dead. Which I can't really buy, since the films take place in the respective time periods of their production year, and this film is quite obviously set in a modern world. Then again, the films have always reflected the era they were made, not really following a realistic pattern of a world left in ruins (so almost everyone is dead, but they still took the time to invent CDs and VCRs? Cool.), so I guess it doesn't matter.

The film is stylistically different than the others as well, in two major ways. Instead of a centralized location and a group of characters who are at odds with one another as well as the zombies, this one features a group of film students traveling around the mid east coast looking for safety. The requisite "Evil Human" characters are in the film for maybe 30 seconds, and the core group don't really have any major conflicts among them (even a hint at a love triangle is just that). Also, this film is presented entirely through the alleged video footage of the main character, Jason (the group was out in the middle of the woods making a mummy movie (?) when the zombie outbreak begins), with occasional stuff shot by the other characters and a few videos on Youtube and Myspace.

And that is part of a problem (not a crippling one, at least not for me) in the film. Supposedly this is all real time, "documentary" footage filmed during zombie attacks, running, all matters of chaos. But it doesn't really FEEL that way. With something like Blair Witch Project or even Alone With Her, there's never a point where you forget you are watching a document of real events. Here, everything is shot too well, as it were. The main character's best friends are being attacked by zombies, and not only does he not help (which I can buy as a result of shock or just plain weakness), he keeps everything in frame and in focus. There were a few times that I actually forgot I was watching something from a character's point of view, only reminded when one character filmed the other one filming. With hand-held camera footage in action/drama films becoming more and more the norm, it's not enough to just not use a steadicam to really sell this effect.

Another, bigger problem for me was the complete heavy-handedness of the film's social commentary. The reason why Dawn of the Dead is such a great and enduring film is that you can watch it just as a zombie movie and totally ignore the satire/commentary, because it was subtly implemented. Not the case here. It's impossible to watch this one as a "regular zombie movie", because Romero's ideas are so blatant. There are a few comparisons of guns and cameras (they both SHOOT, see?) in the film that make the shit Paul Haggis "says" in his films look subtle. Also, the narration constantly spells out what is pretty obvious. It's almost like Romero didn't trust the audience to "get" the film on their own (perhaps a response to the underwhelming box office of Land?) and felt the need to make it as obvious as possible.

However, these flaws are evened out, and then some, by what DOES work in the film. This is possibly the funniest film in the series. During the mummy movie shoot (why would a mummy be in the woods?), a character begins explaining why the 'mummy' can't run. "Hes undead, his ankles will shatter!", a line that got most of the crowd cheering. The movie even pokes fun at the insertion of social commentary in a horror film. Also, there's a deaf Amish character who, even in his brief role, ranks as one of Romero's best ever creations.

There's also a surprisingly high number of impressive and unique gags/zombie deaths in the film. You'd think by now that everything would have been thought of, but Romero pulls out a few crowd-pleasing "whoa!"s that will probably be spoiled in the trailer. I'll spoil one though - a zombie gets a bottle of acid smashed on his head. As he stumbles toward his victim, his brain slowly burns/decays away, and he dies. I've never seen that! So awesome.

Speaking of the trailer, I am curious how this one will be marketed. There are no stars (I spent the whole movie thinking that the male co-lead was the guy from Wolf Creek and Snakes on a Plane, but it was actually someone not even THAT 'famous'), nor is there a particularly high amount of action (at least compared to other recent zombie movies) or anything as "cinematic" as say, the zombies rising from the river in Land. Personally, I loved how low key it was (which is why I am going easy on its other flaws); i think the "Let's make it bigger than the last one!" mentality of sequels is a horrible trend (for a 'perfect' example, check out Die Hard Faux, a film so intent on being big that it forgot to be a goddamn Die Hard movie), and it's good to see Romero was more interested in doing something different rather than more 'exciting'. Had the script been given another pass or two in attempts to make the film's message less blatant, it could have easily been one of the better in the series. As it stands, it's a (possible) fitting finale to one of the most consistently interesting franchises in horror movie history, and kudos to George Romero (no spring chicken these days) for pulling it off as well as he did.

What say you?

Read more »

Mockumentary, Zombie,

{[['']]}

The Poughkeepsie Tapes

SEPTEMBER 14, 2007

GENRE: MOCKUMENTARY, SERIAL KILLER
SOURCE: UH.....

Well folks, I do believe I may be murdered soon. If so, I assume Horror Movie A Day will come to an end.

Let me explain.

On Tuesday, which you probably know was the 6th anniversary of the 9-11 attacks, I came home to find a DVD-R on my door. It was not labeled, but it did have a crude drawing of what looked like a Michael Myers type on it. I put it in my player and saw that it was a horror movie called The Poughkeepsie Tapes. Having already watched a movie that day, and with Wednesday and Thursday's movies already 'scheduled' (One I had to review legit for B-D, the other I had to return to the store before I got charged), I slotted it for today, Friday.

Then it gets creepy.

See, while the film is in fact quite good and unnerving on it’s own right, what really freaks me out is that in the film, the actual 9-11 (as in, 2001) figures prominently and quite chillingly at the end of the 2nd act. Now, this could be just a coincidence, but since I have yet to figure out who left the DVD on my door (the most obvious suspect I know for a fact wasn’t even in the country, as he was in Toronto for the Fearfest), it gives me the goddamn willies.

Plus, like I said, the film itself is unnerving. Sort of a cross between Blair Witch Project and a typical serial killer movie, I will honestly say that it’s one of the most genuinely upsetting horror movies I have seen in ages. The film is presented half through video footage, and half through documentary style interviews and police/news footage. There are no jump scares, instead just a general, almost nonstop feeling of disturbing creepiness, like later in the film when we see the killer (whose costume looks like the monster on the cover of Stephen King’s "The Stand") slowly crawl toward his intended victim, or when a couple of girl scouts enter his home during a cookie selling routine. The most disturbing scene, however, is when the killer walks up to the home of one of his victims, where the girl’s mother is outside smoking. He approaches her and says “Let me know if there’s anything I can do to help.” She says thanks, but then looks at him, and it slowly dawns on her who he is. She begins to cry, as he giggles and runs away. Gah!!! You won’t scream while watching the film, but it will stick with you later, and that’s more impressive anyway.

It’s not a perfect film however. There is never any explanation for the horrendous video quality of the killer’s footage. By now, you expect the fuzzy lines and things like that when a film presents video footage, but it’s really bad even by those standards. I mean, if this guy is documenting seemingly everything he does, you’d think he’d opt for a better camera. I understand the point, but it seems they went a bit overboard with the effect. Also a few of the actors are entirely unconvincing, something I normally don’t care about, but it IS a problem when it’s a ‘documentary’. One in particular, a Sarah Silverman-ish FBI agent, is atrocious, though luckily she’s only in a few scenes (and delivers a laugh out loud line concerning bureaucracy). For the most part though, you totally buy into the idea that this is real.

As far as I know, it’s not really based on any true events (though a scene with Ted Bundy suggests that The Green River Killer was at least a partial inspiration), but hopefully some folks will think it’s real, Blair Witch style, when the film is released in theaters next year. I know I plan to lie to those who are easily duped.

What say you?

Read more »

Mockumentary, Serial Killer,

{[['']]}