Funny Games (2007)

JUNE 16, 2008

GENRE: SURVIVAL
SOURCE: DVD (STORE RENTAL)

After a nearly year long attempt to rent (or even find) the original version of Funny Games, I decided to make an exception for my “watch the original first” rule when I saw that the remake was now on DVD. I figured it was a safe risk – by all accounts it was the exact same movie, shot for shot; and with the same director to boot. And once the film had concluded, I was quite thankful that it was the same thing, as it will spare me another wasted 110 minutes of my life.

The problem with this pretentious drivel is that writer/director Michael Haneke assumes that the only reason people go to see horror movies is to see people killed, graphically. No, asshole, we go for the suspense, and yes, STORY when applicable. I am sure that the success of Hostel and the Saw films led to him being able to remake his 1997 film, but the irony is that those films have better stories, more interesting characters, and more noble intentions in mind than simply mocking their audience. I’m not going to lie and say that I am not curious as to what sort of traps Jigsaw has come up with for us every October, but if the movies were as plotless and boring as this one, there’d be no such thing as Saw II, let alone V.

And fuck any movie that has a “rewind” sequence. Yes, I get the point – it’s “not the movie you came to see, you WANT to see the bad guys kill the good guys, blah blah”. Again, fuck you – your goddamn movie is long enough without spending 5 minutes showing us something and then rewinding it (rewinding it too far in fact) for a “do over”. At 75 minutes all of this could have been a bit easier for me to digest, but after an hour or so I am not hoping for someone to get violently killed because I’m a gorehound; I’m just sick of watching underdeveloped and snooty characters sit around doing nothing while two other underdeveloped and snooty characters talk to them. This might work as a play, but even then I’m not sure (it's worth noting that it doesn't work as a black comedy either).

Also, since one of the killer guys talks directly to the camera a few times, telling us that we want to see the good people die, it’s sort of a foregone conclusion that they all do. So there goes any suspense.

That said there are occasional moments where I was actually enjoying the film. There’s a great bit in the kitchen, with Naomi Watts walking back and forth with a doorway in the background. Having just watched Halloween again the night before, it’s easy to see where the idea for this scene came from; at some point, you’re expecting to see someone standing there watching, only to disappear the next time the camera passes. It’s suspenseful (it occurs before the guy talks to the camera), and well shot as well. Later, there’s a shot that’s something like 7 minutes long, detailing Watts’ attempts to free herself of her binds. It’s not particularly suspenseful this time around (this one’s after the 4th wall break), but on a technical level it’s pretty impressive.

There are also two things I flat out loved. One – despite like 5 production companies listed, only one has an animated logo at the top of the film. THANK YOU! The movie is long enough, thank Christ we are spared another two minutes of self-fellating logos. Second – there’s a scene where Watts runs out of the house and sees a car coming up. This scene always goes one of two ways in a horror movie: the heroine waves the car down, and it contains the villain, OR, her attempts to wave it down fail and the car keeps driving. But for once they do something different. She hides from the car to see who is driving before approaching it. She fails, and then of course the next car has our villains, but hey, it’s a start. But again, the movie is just shy of 2 hours long – it has to offer more than a handful of impressive moments and appeal to my hatred of logos in order to maintain my interest.

The irony, of course, is that the film has almost zero onscreen violence. The kid and the father (Tim Roth, NOT playing a hardass for once) are killed offscreen entirely, and Watts is merely pushed over the side of a boat. Oooh, so clever! I really wanted to see a kid’s head blown off, but instead I only got to HEAR it while I watched the other killer calmly fix himself a sandwich! Such brilliance!

(Actually, I DO want to see the kid get shot, if only to explain how the blood splatter from a kid barely four feet tall managed to have a central point located about 7 feet up on the wall. Was he diving through the air at the time?)

I dunno, maybe since I am neither a critic of “torture porn” nor someone who gets off on seeing such things, I’m just not the target audience for the film. I enjoy being held in suspense in the context of a good story with well written characters (at least for horror “films” such as this – if we’re talking popcorn junk, I just want to be entertained, a la Shocker), something Haneke and crew clearly weren’t interested in achieving. Romero and Cronenberg’s movies say something – but they work on an entertainment level as well. Making a pointless film to make a point (one that isn’t even totally valid to begin with) is just idiotic. In a way, it reminded me of that steaming shitpile Crash (not the Cronenberg one), albeit not as insulting or vapid. Still, the similarity is hard to dismiss; both films are trying to make a generalized and obvious point (and at least Crash’s point – “racism is bad!” - is actually true), and using a generic, dull film as a vessel of making it. I’m surprised Games didn’t win any Oscars.

What say you?

Read more »

Remake, Survival,

{[['']]}

Prom Night (2008)

APRIL 12, 2008

GENRE: REMAKE (?), SLASHER
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (PAID SCREENING)

Well I was wrong. The new Prom Night IS an improvement over the original, at least in general. It would be easy for me to join the bandwagon, and say that this movie is an abomination, complete waste of time, etc, etc. But that's not the case. If I had to choose to rewatch either of them, I'd definitely go with the new one, and would recommend it more than I would the original as well. And hell, it's literally a 'remake' in name only; absolutely NOTHING is carried over, not even a name (it's worth noting that the original's screenwriter is not given a "Based on a screenplay" credit that is customary for remakes, even those with little to do with their predecessors). Why it's been damned from its announcement I have no idea - I'm hardly the only one who dislikes the original, and it wasn't being made by Platinum Dunes (poster child for "Let's hate it before we see a single frame of the film" mentality). And no, it's certainly no masterpiece, but it's definitely worthy of a better reception. Christ, it's not even the worst movie I've seen this week (hello there, Scarecrow Slayer)!

Let's get the bad out of the way first. For starters, the final third of the film is a bit of a letdown. Like Assault on Precinct 13's remake, and Red Eye, the screenwriter opted to set the entire finale of the film somewhere completely removed from the film's focal point, in this case, the goddamn prom. Having run out of things to do, I guess, the action shifts to the less interesting locale of... the Final Girl's house. It'd be like if the finale of Halloween was set on Christmas. This is the exact opposite of the problem the original had, which took fucking forever to GET to the prom. Again, it's an improvement, but it severely breaks the tension.

Also, the 2nd in command cop, played by James Ransone. Who the fuck is this guy? (uh, James Ransone.) He resembles a video store geek or maybe one of the extras in Chuck's computer store. They don't try to make him a badass or anything, thank Christ, but still, it looks like most of the high school kids could take him out with a stern look.

And they somehow managed to make a costume LESS impressive than the original's ski mask. Our killer wears... a baseball hat. That's it. Granted, his identity is not a surprise, we are told who he is right from the start (the movie is refreshingly straight forward - there are zero twists or last minute revelations), but even so, if the movie's a smash hit, thousands of jock douchebags will be accused of dressing like the Prom Night guy.

And yes, there are a lot of fake scares. We are supposed to accept them because Final Girl (Brittany Snow) saw her family killed and thus is jittery, but they go a bit overboard. At one point she gets scared of her own boyfriend, sitting next to her in bed (something she had initiated to begin with). It's not as bad as When a Stranger Calls (The wind! The phone! The ice machine! The sprinklers!), but I would be happy with a few less.

But that's about it for complaints (oh, those and putting the beautiful Jessica Stroup under a pound of unflattering makeup. She's made to look like Lohan at her crackwhoreist). There is actually quite a bit here that is impressive. It's completely solid on a technical level (2.35:1 to boot!), which automatically puts it higher than most of the shit I watch (even other theatrical releases). And while the rating obviously means we are spared excessive gore, there is some light splatter. More importantly, it's actually pretty violent. The body count is higher than I expected (though many are off-screen), and it's even a bit sad when a few of them die. That is due to the fact that the kids are all likable, albeit in stereotype form. There isn't much in the way of characterization, but the actors are all good in the roles. Also, and this is surprisingly rare in slasher movies, we actually see the aftermath of how the deaths of friends affects our heroine (one benefit to the disjointed finale). One of my favorite scenes in Scream 2 is when Sidney says that she has to call Randy's mom and tell her that he is dead, and then Dewey lets her know that he "already made that call". It's a sad scene, and makes the death carry more weight when you know it's actually made an impact on the other characters. Same thing here - the boyfriend of one of the dead girls gets a nice moment of grievance.

Speaking of which, the guy in question is "the black guy". And yes, he survives. As does the resident bitch girl. These two archetypes are pretty much guaranteed knife fodder, but they survive (as do one or two other "sure things"). And this was surprising to me not just as a slasher fan, but as someone who read a review where the writer bitched and moaned that the killer was killing people for no reason. If you ask me, he was pretty selective - he even had the opportunity to kill the black kid and didn't bother. The review specifically pointed out the "pointless" killing of a maid, when in fact he killed her to get a master key which he used to get around. Fine, it's hardly the most original motive, but it's SOMETHING. It's not like the Halloween remake*, where Michael was seemingly going out of his way to kill people at random.

It's also reasonably suspenseful, and ironically I think the rating has a part of that. Since it's PG-13, we know that it won't be wall to wall killings. So when someone goes into a room by themselves, we aren't quite sure whether or not they will be killed, whereas in an R rated film it's pretty much a sure bet. They're also smart enough to avoid putting Snow into any such situations until the final half hour, as we know damn well she won't be killed or even harmed until the finale. I should point out that Variety, in their surprisingly positive review, made note that the kids separate for smarter reasons than usual. And they're right - I think this is the first slasher which put a girl by herself because she was starting to get her period. And since they aren't aware of any danger, there's no reason why they WOULD constantly stick together in the first place. The only exception is when one couple sneaks off to the room to fool around, 10 minutes before the announcement of Prom King and Queen (which they are both in the running for).

Idris Elba was the best thing about The Reaping, and he's damn good here too, as one of the better horror movie cops in recent memory. He's smart, he's not an asshole for no reason... he's a cop doing his job. The fact that Elba is a solid actor doesn't hurt, and he even pulls off the exposition scene (which comes surprisingly early) admirably.

Is it the best slasher movie of all time? Of course not. But is it the worst? Not even remotely. It's entertaining, it's well-made, the pace is good (we get a kill every 10 minutes, not too shabby), it has a cameo by Josh Leonard and the movie Can't Hardly Wait, and there wasn't a single point in the film where I was ready to throw something at the screen (except maybe the boyfriend scare. Come on!). I even went in expecting it to be decent, not listening to the reviews (most of which were seemingly written in the writers' heads prior to seeing the film), and it was even a bit better than my expectations. If it wasn't for the poor box office of The Ruins (why is no one seeing this??), I would wholeheartedly recommend going out to see it, so long as you can accept that anyone old enough to vote is not the target audience. As it stands, it's the year's best remake, and a reasonably decent slasher to boot. It's kind of depressing that simply doing what it set out to do and absolutely nothing else is enough to warrant a recommendation, compared to all the abysmal shit that comes out nowadays, but that's the reality.

What say you?

*The highlight of the screening was when it was over, the 60ish woman in front of me said to her husband: "Rob Zombie would have made it a lot worse!" If I was 30 years older...

Read more »

Remake, Slasher, Teen,

{[['']]}

2001 Maniacs (2005)

MARCH 31, 2008

GENRE: COMEDIC, REMAKE, SPLATTER
SOURCE: CABLE (SHOWTIME)

One of the first movies watched for Horror Movie A Day (in the pre-writing reviews days, though I will try to eventually write one up for all of those forgotten little movies) was Two Thousand Maniacs, which is one of Hershell Gordon Lewis’ best-known movies. I didn’t care for it much, though I liked the ridiculous death scenes (my favorite – the barrel roll) and the delightfully awful songs. So I was a bit hesitant for the remake, retitled 2001 Maniacs, since rule of thumb is that a remake pales in comparison. Also, another rule of thumb is to never get your hopes too high for a movie made by anyone involved with Snoop Dogg’s Hood Of Horror. Well, I’m happy to say that this version breaks the mold!

Tim Sullivan and Chris Kobin (Sullivan directed, both scripted) did exactly what a remake of a bad movie SHOULD do: improve on the weak areas while retaining the spirit of the original. The biggest problem with the first movie, for me anyway, was how completely fucking stupid the characters were. They practically deserve to die for entering such obvious traps so willingly. Here, the townsfolk are a bit trickier, and the victims are much smarter (though still atypically horror movie dumb), so that the death scenes are not only more interesting, but even a bit more suspenseful. Whereas before, the entire method of the trap was obvious from the start, here we are allowed to sort of be surprised when the death trap comes out. For example, the “Milk Maiden” scene, in which Day of the Dead’s Christa Campbell (boyoyoyoyong) seduces a dude. We know that he’s gonna be a goner, but it’s not entirely obvious when and how.

Also, the traps are pretty much all new (my memory sucks – didn’t someone get ripped apart by runaway horses in the original as well?). For example, the aforementioned Maiden scene – she forces acid down the kid’s throat, which melts him from the inside out. It’s a fucking great scene. Like the Final Destination movies, you can almost imagine the creative team sitting around thinking of different ways to kill everyone and then writing the movie around that. Which is fine by me.

Also fine by me? Casting Peter Stormare! I love this guy, and had no idea he was even in the film. Sure, his role is brief, but his purpose is a good one, as his scenes help develop the main characters before they head off on their ill-fated journey, unlike the original film, which pretty much began with four people that we didn’t know about to enter the town. Eli Roth also pops up, playing the same guy he did in Cabin Fever. The rest of the cast is pretty genre friendly as well: in addition to Robert Englund and Lin Shaye as the main heavies, Kane Hodder, Scott Spiegel, Johnny Legend, and Sullivan himself pop up in cameos.

The main cast is decent, if not really memorable. I’m hardpressed to remember any of their names, but since the villains are the real draw for this film, I guess that’s not really an issue. Still, their relative blandness makes it difficult to peg the survivors (if any), which also adds a touch of suspense to the proceedings. Again, it’s all about improving the original, which had an obvious hero right from the start.

One thing I was a bit disappointed by was the lack of the original music. The theme “South Will Rise Again” is sort of in it (they pretty much just sing the chorus over and over), but there isn’t much else in the way of non-score music. I would have liked to see one or two of the other songs pop up somewhere. Also, the juvenile humor of the hicks fucking farm animals doesn’t really work, especially once you get to the sort-of twist ending.

All in all, if you are like me, and felt that the concept was somewhat wasted on Lewis’ super cheap, super stupid original, the remake should be refreshing to you. It’s not exactly my favorite movie of the year or anything, but it certainly makes for a good example of how to effectively remake a film (provided the film warranted a remake in the first place, which of course isn’t the case 90% of the time).

What say you?

Read more »

Comedic, Remake, Splatter,

{[['']]}

Non Canon Review: Day Of The Dead (2008)

MARCH 30, 2008

GENRE: REMAKE, ZOMBIE
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (SPECIAL SCREENING)

You might wonder why this is a Non-Canon Review... that’s because I saw the Day of the Dead remake last fall at a test screening, and didn’t review it on the basis that A. I already had a review for that day and B. it wasn’t finished. My rule is, unless I love the movie almost completely (such as Repo), or it’s a complete, un-savable abomination (like Invasion), I wait for the final cut out of respect for the filmmakers. Plus, one or two scenes I like may be removed, thus making the film weaker, or one or two scenes I really hate might also be removed, making the film better.

And that was exactly the case with Day. This cut was much improved, even though only minor things were changed. More importantly, and this is the same way I felt when I saw it before, I really don’t get why this movie is being ripped to shreds on Aintitcool and such. I have watched at LEAST three zombie movies that are far worse just for HMAD, not to mention all of the ones I had seen before that were far more worthy of being raked over the coals. It’s certainly not a perfect film, but I don’t think anyone involved with this version of Day set out to make anything but a goofy, fun, action-zombie movie. Which is exactly what it is.

The irony is, Romero’s original is hardly beloved by the general horror fanbase, many of whom consider it boring and cheap. I happen to really like it (though not as much as Night or Dawn), but after I learned my lesson with the Dawn remake, I knew not to damn this one before I saw it. Sadly, it seems others don’t feel the same; even those who liked the Dawn remake seem to hate on this one for the same types of things that film had in spades (fast zombies, emphasis on action, younger cast, etc). It baffles me when people hate a remake for simply being a remake to begin with, but even moreso when it’s a film relatively few people defend anyway (though to be fair it’s been thankfully re-evalauted in recent years). It seems like people just wanted to hate this movie for the hell of it, regardless of reason. I even read a review from guy who seemed to primarily hate the movie because a lot of it didn’t take place during the day. Oh yeah, genius? Night takes place over 24 hrs, and Dawn takes place over several months. And the original Day takes place over the course of a week or so. So go fuck yourself!

Screenwriter Jeffrey Reddick did a Q&A after the screening, and revealed that originally his script had more in common with the original film, but due to rights issues, producer/director wishes, etc, pretty much all of those things were lost (he also dislikes the ceiling zombie as much as everyone else – “not my idea”). So, like Dawn 04, this is basically the same concept as the original (military, zombies, quarantine), but is otherwise its own movie, and it should be judged as such. Unlike other remakes, you certainly can’t accuse Reddick or Steve Miner for plagiarizing the original – there’s literally nothing repeated other than a few character names.

(Speaking of which, Ving Rhames plays Rhodes. He is NOT playing his Dawn character. However, Joe Pilato, who played Rhodes in the original Day, also appeared in the original Dawn as a different character, so in a strange sort of way, it’s fitting).

So what works, and what doesn’t? Well, there are some fantastic zombie gags, particularly the demise of Mena Suvari’s mother, which had the entire crowd cheering. And it’s certainly a step up from the original in action; once people begin turning into zombies, the film is almost nonstop action until the end. And the ensemble cast is good, a nice mixture of teens, adults, and older folks (Ian McNeice is a hoot as a radio DJ). Christa Campbell is a bit oddly cast as a mother (with a husband that looks twice her age), but who the fuck cares? She’s in the movie, which is good enough for me.

As for the humor itself, it’s pretty hit or miss. “I’ll give you some money...” (see the movie for context) is possibly the funniest line of the year, and McNeice also gets in a few good lines. Sadly, Nick Cannon is given the bulk of the ‘jokes’, and his racially tinged (and mostly improvised, according to Reddick) one-liners grow tiresome after a while (“Why do white people always want to split up?” is the biggest groaner – don’t ALL dumb horror movie characters always split up, regardless of race?). But he gets eaten, so it works out. Also, the editing is a bit too Halloween 6-y for my tastes - every time the action cuts to a radio station (where a few characters have holed up), we are given flash edits and Avid farts. They also crank the film speed on a lot of the zombie attack scenes, not always to a successful degree. It’s nowhere near as annoying as House of the Dead, lest you start to get the wrong idea.

Most importantly, the movie is just fun. I had a blast watching it with a big crowd, and it will play best when you have your buddies with you (and maybe a beer or two), even at home. It’s fast paced without being incoherent, most of the CG is good (it’s about a 50/50 split between CG and practical effects), the characters are likable (even Cannon is somewhat endearing), and best of all, it’s its own movie. Is Romero’s better? No (well, YES, but that’s not the point), it’s just different. Had they intended to make a film as serious and thought-provoking as Romero’s original, then this would be a colossal failure. But they wanted to make the movie fun, action packed, and a sort of roller coaster ride. And in that regard, the film is a success. Like Black Xmas, it’s OK to dislike it, but comparing it to a film that shares only a title is insulting to both films, if you ask me.

At the end of the screening we all got a DVD of the movie (with a lenticular cover!). Since I got two (who said being married isn’t beneficial?), I will give away one to a lucky reader! Just write in the comments why you would like a copy, and I’ll pick the winner (considering the abysmal number of entries for previous contests, I’m guessing it won’t be hard). Contest ends in 10 days (when this review is no longer on the main page). Good luck!

What say you?

Read more »

Non Canon, Remake, Zombie,

{[['']]}

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,

{[['']]}

April Fool's Day (2008)

MARCH 11, 2008

GENRE: CRAP, HOLIDAY, SLASHER
SOURCE: DVD (OWN COLLECTION) (for now)

Oh, April Fool’s Day, you fucking worthless excuse for a movie... why oh why do you exist?

Excluding cynicism, there are two reasons to remake a film: 1. To improve on a concept that was botched for whatever reason (studio interference, poor acting, whatever) in the original version, or 2. To introduce a once popular film to a new generation. Well, April Fool’s Day was NOT a popular film, and it’s only 20 years old, so the children of the teens that saw it in theaters when it was released are probably like 7 or so for the most part, and thus won’t really care. So does the film improve on the concept of the original?

(Note - spoilers ahead, but you'd almost have to TRY to not figure out the ending 12 seconds into the film).

No. Not even close. The original is actually a lot of fun, but it’s sort of spoiled by the ending, which reveals everything was a joke and no one’s really dead. So a remake would correct that, and have everyone REALLY die this time (or at least use AFD’s original ending and have the prank be revealed, and then suddenly a real killer shows up), right? Sadly, no one involved with this movie was that intelligent, apparently. In fact, they take their stupidity a step further – this movie actually has NOTHING in common with the original (different story, different characters, even a different setting entirely) EXCEPT for the idiotic ending!

Yes, once again, it’s all a prank. They try to sell one or two of the kills as real (one of them is an actress and thus has access to an entire Savini-style workshop, I guess), but for the most part they don’t even try. The main girl (Taylor Cole) is the only one who ever “sees” the murders, and even then she is always just stumbling on their bodies moments after they are “killed”. Maybe if you’ve never seen a horror movie in your life you will be fooled, but it’s so blatantly obvious that the killings are staged that I honestly thought for a long time that the twist would be that the killings WERE real this time around, and that the Butcher Brothers (squandering all of their promise from The Hamiltons, which wasn't much to begin with) were pulling a meta-joke on the audience – making real killings seem fake so the jaded audience familiar with the original would be surprised. Even the equally abysmal Catacombs did a better job at presenting a fake killer.

Unlike the original, this one isn’t very fun either. The characters are all completely unlikable (only Scout Taylor-Compton, queen of the unnecessary remakes, plays someone who isn’t a snooty prick) and they aren’t amusing. The original’s group had a nice repartee; I believed they were friends. These assholes don’t even seem to like each other, and while some of the girls are ridiculously hot (Cole looks like the scientifically amazing offspring of Chrarisma Carpenter and Evangeline Lilly, thus making her one of the hottest women in the world) the fact that we don’t even get to see any of them actually die just makes the movie WORSE.

Actually, there is one small exception – the character of David, played by Hamiltons’ Samuel Child. He’s an idiot running for Senate, so this results in a few Republican jokes. He also delivers one of the film’s two memorable lines when he drunkenly tells a guy “I’ll have you raped by a wizard!” for some goddamn reason.

The other good line comes from Blaine, our would-be hero, who’s also the most insufferable of them all. Most of the time he’s just being a jerk, but he takes a quick break from that winning character trait in order to deliver what HAS to be a meta line about the film itself. Scout’s character (the actress) is appearing in a bad slasher movie, and he comments “who cares about that movie - it doesn't even have any big stars!” Brilliant.

Let’s see, what else sucked? Well there’s the 25 minute prologue* that should have been 5 (it’s a year earlier and some of the characters are planning a prank. We know someone’s going to die – get the fuck to it!), nonsensical plot (the whole town seems to be in on the prank), a lengthy “Inside Edition” type news show with the fakest screen graphics I’ve ever seen in a film (note the hilarious “sports scores”) that does absolutely nothing but hint at the film’s obvious plot holes that result from some rewriting/post production editing, etc.

Yes, in this news scene one of the characters (another guy from Hamiltons) has written a book about the prank gone wrong, and the reporter cryptically notes that it’s not the first time he’s been involved with a high profile murder. It’s never mentioned again. Later, the heroine is explaining why everyone is guilty of something, and mentions that David couldn’t keep his dick in his pants, which caused a problem of some sort. No idea what the fuck she was talking about there. It’s later alleged that he had an affair with the dead girl (presumably BEFORE she died), but again – it seemingly has no bearing on anything. One only needs to read the confusing screenplay credits to know that this was a script that went through a lot of hands (it’s “based on a screenplay by” both the original film’s writer AND the Butcher Brothers, and yet written by someone else entirely), and boy does it show.

Look how hot this girl is, and I’m STILL calling the movie “Crap”!

All in all, there is absolutely no reason anyone should watch this movie. The “unrated” label means absolutely nothing – this film is BARELY worthy of a PG-13 (hell, they probably got a PG from the MPAA and were embarrassed by it), there is no actual gore or nudity, the twist is obvious (though to be fair they add a little extra bit of business to it, however it’s of no real consequence), the characters suck, and they don’t even bother to give the killer a mask. Everyone was surprised that it didn’t go into theaters – having seen it, it’s more amazing that the studio ever even considered it. Even Lionsgate would probably pass on this shit. This is easily the worst remake of the current crop (and no, I haven’t forgotten Scout’s other one) – I have to go back to Psycho 98 to think of one so utterly worthless.

What say you?

*I should note that this may be the first movie tagline (“She has a killer party planned”) that only references the film’s prologue – because there is no party at any other point in the movie. Also, saying “she” would pretty much spoil the ending if they were referring to the actual movie, since there are only 3 girls – one dies early on and the other is the one seeing all the murders. Nice work.

Read more »

Crap, Holiday, Remake, Slasher,

{[['']]}

The Uninvited (2008)

FEBRUARY 6, 2008

GENRE: PSYCHOLOGICAL, REMAKE
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (TEST SCREENING)

The shortest review in the Horror Movie A Day canon belongs to the original version of The Uninvited (which was named Tale Of Two Sisters). My whole review, if memory serves, was “I have no idea what I just watched, but I liked it.” And it’s true – I had to go back and rewatch a good chunk of the film to ‘get’ it. This was partially due to my standard 10% doze time as well as my increasingly common problem of watching a film in another language and not reading all of the subtitles. I almost wish these things would come dubbed, especially talky films such as these – you can go a minute or so without ever actually LOOKING at the film itself.

Anyway, not following will not be a problem for anyone who watches this version. In addition to being about 20 minutes shorter and being in English, the director and screenwriters felt that it was necessary to spell everything out for the audience, sometimes flashing back to things that happened only a few minutes before. The cast and PG-13 rating leave no confusion as to who this film is meant for, but even a 14 year old girl might feel a bit insulted at the ridiculous amount of hand-holding on display here.

Worse, the film is almost abnormally lacking in suspense or scares. Granted, seeing the original (which it follows in a general sense, though thankfully isn’t an almost exact replica like The Eye) doesn’t help, but even if you hadn’t seen it, I can’t see how anyone would be scared by the time the 19th dream sequence rolls around, and the scare scenes are presented very half-assed, with no build up (and since they are all dreams, there is no payoff either). In fact, even for a PG-13 this film is remarkably tame, with only one (off-screen) death in the entire thing. If not for the occasional swear and a joke involving the stepmother’s vibrator, this could probably get a straight up PG.

Speaking of the vibrator, this scene is a bit confusing. The girls take the batteries out to get back at their stepmom. In theory, this is OK, but if you think about it, it’s ridiculous. The whole reason they hate the woman in the first place is because she is fucking their father. If she goes to use her vibrator and the damn thing doesn’t work, she’s just going to fuck their dad even more! Score, I guess? Dumb broads.

Another thing that is a major problem is that it might be too obvious to even new audiences that the sister is a ghost/figment of the imagination/whatever (she’s dead, OK?). In Sixth Sense, there was always a good reason for no one talking to Bruce Willis in the few scenes that he was shown with someone else (i.e. his wife was angry for ‘missing’ their anniversary dinner), but here it’s almost laughable how no one acknowledges the sister, who is almost always around and ‘talking’ to people. Obviously it’s a tricky thing to balance, but while Sixth Sense was pretty successful, this film is not at all. For what it’s worth, there’s an episode of Scrubs that pulls off this trick better than any film I’ve ever seen. Check it out, it’s in the 3rd season (I can’t say which episode or else it’d kind of spoil the surprise, duh. Just watch em all! Great show).

So is there anything worthwhile in this remake? Well, the two sisters and their stepmom (Slither’s (and Scrubs'!) Elizabeth Banks) are easy on the eyes, that’s for sure, and the acting is good all around (the always dependable David Straithairn plays their father). And I admit I was pleasantly surprised by the new ending, which is actually MORE downbeat than the original in a few ways. This presents a few problems with the narrative (a character acts creepy and suspicious throughout the film, because we think they are the killer, but it turns out they aren’t, which makes their actions sort of nonsensical in retrospect), but kudos to pulling the rug out from under the feet of those who saw the original and were pretty bored by that point.

Unfortunately, it’s too little too late. Having an ending that differs from a film that is superior on every level doesn’t quite make it worth watching. Since I’m not the target audience, I guess I can’t complain if a few teenage girls see this and decide to check out the original, but they are likely to prefer the American one due to the simpler story and standard modern horror elements (i.e. a WB ready love interest for the main girl). It’s a good story, it’s a shame that one version is so dumbed down and the other is perhaps a bit too head-scratching for a general audience to fully enjoy.

On a final note, you may have noticed this is a test screening review (first for HMAD I think?). I dunno when the movie is actually coming out, and based on the remarks and comments from the folks in the focus group, the movie that comes out may be about dragons fighting puppies for all I know. So if it comes out and this review doesn't make sense anymore - sorry bout that.

What say you?

Read more »

Psychological, Remake,

{[['']]}

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,

{[['']]}

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,

{[['']]}

Halloween: Unrated Director's Cut (2007)

JANUARY 15, 2008

GENRE: REMAKE, SLASHER
SOURCE: DVD (Sigh... OWN COLLECTION)

While HMAD sort of got ‘famous’ for posting a list of all the differences between the “workprint” and theatrical versions of Rob Zombie’s Halloween, I never actually reviewed that version. And I kind of feel bad about that, because in all honesty, it was a much better film in that form. It still suffered from major problems, but many of the things I disliked in the theatrical version were corrected, or at least improved, in the original version. With that in mind, I was actually looking forward to Rob’s official “Director’s Cut”, which was issued on DVD alongside the theatrical. But as it turns out, this version is, astonishingly enough, the WORST of the three.

Luckily, some of the “workprint” stuff has been re-inserted in the film, such as Michael following Laurie home after school (the only sort of “stalking” scene of merit in the entire film) and another scene with Udo Kier, rendering his cameo slightly less jarring. So folks who never saw the workprint version sort of luck out in these regard, as these scenes help the film. Unfortunately, Rob chose to go back to the original, awful version of Michael’s escape, which involves raping a female inmate and more general redneckery. The theatrical version (Michael kills a bunch of cameos, er, guards during a transfer) isn’t all that much better, but it’s at least consistent with the film’s ideas. This version sort of sets up Michael as a sympathetic antihero, who escaped because it was convenient at the time. But making the whole thing even STUPIDER, this version also has the Danny Trejo death scene (not in the workprint), which means Michael just sort of hung around the hospital long after he could have escaped so he could kill the film’s only sympathetic character. Fine, whatever.

Some stuff in this version wasn’t in either of the previous cuts (see the updated list for a fullish rundown of changes), but most of it is sort of superfluous, like an extra asylum “interview” in which no one speaks. One thing of note is some grainy super 16 footage, presumably shot by Loomis, of young Michael in a mask. During these quick inserts (there’s like 3 or 4 sprinkled into the asylum sequence), Loomis explains a bit about all of the masks Michael made, and these bits also help clarify how much time has passed. The only other “new” addition of note is a quick bit during the finale that proves that Loomis HAS in fact survived his injuries. This struck me as odd – when I interviewed Rob for the DVD release I asked if Loomis survived or not and he said that’s up to the producers. But now it’s pretty obvious he lives – a few minutes after Michael squishes his head, Loomis grabs at Michael from the floor, and then Michael just sort of brushes him off. While it’s sort of an OK addition, it also makes the brutally bad continuity error of Loomis’ head injuries all the more apparent, so if it’s NOT there to help explain that Loomis is indeed alive, why bother putting it in at all? Again, whatever.

Speaking of the ending, this version has the theatrical ending (though I never noticed before, you can see an out of focus cop, possibly Brackett, in the background while Loomis talks; a remnant of the previous, and superior ending). This ending is not only insanely overlong (Michael smashes the ceiling for what seems like a full 5 minutes), but it also once again puts the focus on Laurie, who is a non-character in the remake. She doesn’t appear until an hour into the film, and even then she’s not exactly front and center for the most part. If not for the fact that the NAME “Laurie Strode” is important to the Halloween legacy, the film gives absolutely no reason for us to really care about her any more than her annoying friends (or anyone else in the movie who is actually allowed more than one scene). In the workprint version, the film is more clearly about Michael and Loomis, but in the theatrical (and now, this “definitive”) cuts, the movie is about Michael and Loomis for one half, and Michael and Laurie for another.

A couple of the editing decisions that were made for the theatrical release remain correct. The truly stupid scene from the workprint where Lynda pours a drink all over a female classmate is nowhere to be seen, and Rob was wise to keep in the “color spectrum” scene that was absent from the workprint. Not that it’s a particular highlight of the film, but it lengthens the asylum stuff, which is not only the best segment of the film but also delays the point in time where Michael escapes, at which point all three versions of the film fall apart (to differing degrees).

Rob’s commentary isn’t particularly enlightening; he mentions the reshoots on occasion but doesn’t quite go into detail about them, nor does he pull a Michael Bay and start going off on the public reception (listen to the commentary for The Island – all of a sudden Bay begins ranting and raving about the box office gross, it’s fucking amazing). Instead, he just sort of discusses where each scene was shot and tells some humorous anecdotes about a few of the actors (apparently Danny Trejo didn’t like that he looked “like a bitch” as he was drowned). So I was a bit disappointed; I would have liked to have heard him be a bit defensive and talk about the genesis of his ideas. But still, I like listening to Rob speak, even if I disagree with some of his choices, and frankly I’d much rather listen to him talk about Pasadena shooting locations than Laurie talk about being molested by the hardware store owner.

So oh well. The last chance the movie had at working, but it ends up being the least effective. Like I’ve said all along, I wasn’t on the “hate” train with this movie; I like a lot of remakes and I like Rob’s other films. And there are a few scenes that I really enjoy, plus there are two good jump scares. But overall it just doesn’t work for me. Can’t say I haven’t tried – this makes the 6th time I have watched the film in some form (7 if you count the commentary viewing), which is more of a chance than I have given any other movie in history that I’ve disliked (and 7 more chances than most of the film’s hardcore detractors ever gave it). I even bought the damn thing; this wasn't a studio freebie (gee, wonder why they didn't want to give me one for free?). Let’s move on, shall we?

What say you?

Read more »

Halloween Series, Non Canon, Remake, Slasher,

{[['']]}

One Missed Call (2008)

JANUARY 5, 2008

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

Somewhere in the world, possibly even reading this review (Hi there!), there exists a human being who thought One Missed Call might actually be pretty good. This person ignored all of the tell-tale signs (the PG-13 rating (meant to be R during filming); the early January release; the fact that it's the umpteenth remake of a J-horror film; the lead actress who can't actually act paired with the lead actor who simply chooses NOT to....) and said to themselves: "Yes, I want to be in the One Missed Call business."

Well that person's a dope. Everyone else in the world, even some of the teenagers who the damn thing was made for, knew this wouldn't be any damn good (my screening was like 90% empty, and the 15 year old girl in front of me was shaking her head as she left). And guess what? It isn't. It's not HORRIBLE, like Ring Two or Pulse were, but it's just so painfully by-the-numbers that you can almost see the script template on the screen.

Yes, once again, we have a vengeful ghost using technology to get back on people who had nothing to do with her (it's always a girl) unfortunate demise, with a ticking clock on our hero and/or heroine's life to maintain the suspense. There's a corpse who needs a proper burial, a lot of "you're going to think I'm crazy BUT...." conversations, a strange calling card that lets the heroes know the deaths are related (here, not only is it the phone call, but also a piece of hard candy in the victim's mouth). If FearDotCom and The Ring gang-raped The Grudge and got it pregnant, the result would be this movie.

But at least those three films offered SOMETHING to make it worth your while (Fear had gore and Udo Kier, Ring is actually good, and Grudge had... well, Sarah Michelle Gellar looked pretty good in it). What does this offer? Well I guess if you're one of those folks who think Shannyn Sossamon is the hottest woman in the world, you might get some enjoyment out of watching her do the bare minimum amount of acting in order to collect her heroin check. Ed Burns, the poor sod, doesn't even do that much; in several scenes he looks like he's one blink away from nodding off entirely (it's ironic, for once I actually stayed awake through one of these damn movies while everyone on screen looked like they'd rather be napping). Ray Wise is kind of amusing in his 35 seconds of screen time, and Margaret Cho (of all people) gets in a good line that sort of makes fun of the hard candy subplot. But all of these people have done better work in better films (though it's better than Sossamon's The Order, I'll give it that much).

There's also a nice little mean-spirited "p.s." in the first kill scene that made me laugh out loud. And Sossamon's friend gets hilariously nailed by a train. More stuff like this and the movie could have been a minor gem, but sadly after these none of the death scenes have any levity or black humor. Which is a major problem for the film - it takes itself too seriously. The concept is ridiculous (even moreso when we learn the back-story), and had the characters followed suit and just had some fun, again, this could have been something. But no, apart from a brief scene where Burns and Sossamon try to break into an apartment, there's absolutely nothing even remotely amusing (intentionally so anyway) in the film.

Although, Massachusetts residents might get a kick out of the area code in the film. Even though they never say where they are (that I can recall anyway), at one point the number being dialed has area code 508, which is a Mass code (or at least, it WAS - it was my area code for a while growing up, but a few years ago it was changed to 978, so maybe 508 got retired).

So there you have it: a film in which the highlights are an area code and a cameo by Leland Palmer. Enticing, no? No. I have yet to see the original (attempts to see it beforehand were thwarted by the "Long Wait" kiss of death on my queue) but from what I understand it was nothing special in the first place.

(I was going to make a joke about how the film wasn't screened for critics and screening phone calls, but why put more effort into wrapping up my review than they did writing their movie?)

What say you?

Read more »

Ghost, Remake, Supernatural, Technology,

{[['']]}

Non Canon Review: Black Xmas (2006)

DECEMBER 23, 2007

GENRE: HOLIDAY, REMAKE, SLASHER
SOURCE: DVD (OWN COLLECTION)

You’re goddamn right the source was my own DVD collection! I like Black Xmas, goddammit, and I will defend it to the death! In fact, I even tried picking a fight at last week’s screening of the original by saying, loudly, “Morgan and Wong did it better!”. But no one bit (and for the record, I don’t really feel that way; Clark’s film is better, but Morgan’s is good too), probably because a lot of the haters are likely people who just hate the film without having bothered to watch it and thus don’t know who the filmmakers are.

I really don’t understand why this one gets so reviled. Most fans love the Final Destination films, and this film has a lot of the same elements (ridiculous death scenes with Rube Goldberg style setups, lots of gore, black humor, hot girls), albeit applied to a loose remake of a slasher movie. Bob Clark even gave it his blessing, and he was always a guy who spoke his mind, not a paycheck grabber like Carpenter, which leads me to believe he truly did approve of what they were doing. So what’s the problem, exactly?

Is it a great film? No, not at all. They set up the 2nd killer to be some sort of surprise, but two girls die before the killer escapes. Also, there seems to be two of each girl: 2 bitches, 2 final girls, 2 dumb girls... as hot as they all are, they definitely could have combined a couple of them. And no, it’s not particularly scary (though there are some decent jumps and set-pieces). But really, that’s about it. Otherwise, it’s the exact type of modern slasher I would expect from Morgan and Wong, remake or not.

And as it only retains the basic plot and setting from the original, it can’t really be accused of bastardizing it in the same way the Psycho or Halloween remakes did. Say what you want about the film, but you can’t accuse them of copying the original scene for scene. Like Dawn 04, no characters were retained, no specific set-pieces (all of the murders are different, though the first girl to get killed again ends up in the attic by the window) were copied, the killer has a motive this time, and, unsurprisingly, there is ZERO social commentary (i.e. no abortion talk). Like I said the other day, from a thematic and sensibility standpoint, it’s more of a remake of Silent Night Deadly Night than Black Christmas.

In addition to all the hot girls, there's some bonus incest!

Plus, they do a great job of making the girls even in terms of survival probability. The Final Girl is a bit easy to pick, but the others are equal game, since they are given equal screen-time and also are about the same in terms of how famous they are in real life.

The DVD has some of the usual extras, though I am bummed about the lack of a commentary. It’s also unrated, but I can’t tell what’s different from the theatrical, though I think Michelle Trachtenberg (I’m glad she’s finally old enough that ogling her is OK) has a slightly different death, but that’s about it. I should note that the scenes in the trailer that are missing from the film were in fact only shot for the trailer, without Morgan’s knowledge. However, they do break the norm with a piece about, well, Morgan’s hatred of the film. While technically a making-of piece, he spends most of the time he’s on camera explaining why he hates these types of movies. He also points out that when he makes a movie that he likes (Willard), it bombs, so he has to cater to the audience just to get the opportunity to make something he DOES care about in the future. So there ya go, even the director hates the movie. I truly am the only one in its corner.

What say you?

Read more »

Holiday, Non Canon, Remake, Slasher,

{[['']]}

I Am Legend (2007)

DECEMBER 14, 2007

GENRE: BASED ON NOVEL, POST-APOCALYPTIC, REMAKE, VAMPIRE
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (IMAX)

It’s sort of a lie to say I saw I Am Legend in IMAX, as it was pretty much a fake IMAX. The screen was about the right size, but the theater setup and sound system were identical to any stadium seated theater. The whole point of IMAX is to be engulfed in the film with a curved screen that you are close to and sound that comes at you from all sides. This was not the case. So if you are in the Hooksett, NH area, and are considering going to their IMAX screen for the experience, don’t. Make the extra drive down to Reading, MA.

It was sort of fitting for the film though. It had the right intent, but it was missing key ingredients. Like the book itself and Last Man On Earth, the first half hour or so is the best part. Watching Neville go about his regular routine in a sort of half survival, half fantasy scenario is always the highlight of this particular story. In this version, Neville is in New York, and the scenes of him navigating the empty city are truly effective (though the effect is a bit dulled after Devil’s Advocate and Vanilla Sky did the same thing to a degree). There are some great “future” sight gags in these scenes as well, and the idea of a guy literally watching every movie ever made (in alphabetical order no less) has obvious appeal to me.

But, like always, the 2nd half flounders. Why can’t anyone, even Richard Matheson himself, ever come up with a good way to wrap up this story? Deviating from the book (even moreso than Last Man) is fine, but only if they improve on things, which isn’t the case here. Surprisingly, the film contains far less action than you’d expect from the trailers and pedigree (Michael Bay himself was once attached to this film, and the first scene with Smith is probably leftover from his involvement), though that isn’t really the problem. And considering how awful the CG vampires look, the less of them we see, the better. No, the problem here is that the movie fails to give Neville a real antagonist like his neighbor Cortman in the book. Here, the “big bad” is simply a slightly better rendered CG zombie-vampire thing (“played” by Dash Mihok, who is a recognizable character actor I usually enjoy), and he is given very little to do. There is very little sense that the vampires fear him (making this film’s use of the book’s title, the first adaptation to do so, all the more puzzling), rendering (no pun intended!) them largely inconsequential. Neville’s own crumbling sanity seems a bigger threat than the vampires ever do, with the exception of one (terrific) sequence set in a pitch black building.

They also include some truly idiotic “spiritual” nonsense (spoiler alert!). Early on in the film, during one of the flashbacks (the movie scores a few points by splitting these flashbacks up, Lost-style, but loses a few of those points for focusing pretty much on one night/scene), Neville’s kid randomly says “Look at the butterfly!”. Later, Neville sees a butterfly tattoo on a fellow survivor, and realizes what he has to do to save humanity. So, yes, this film essentially rips off “Swing away, Merrill!” and manages to make it even dumber. Who knows which writer is to blame on this though, since the film has had so many false starts and different creative teams over the past 10 years. This results in what has to be a cinematic first (at least for a film based on a book), as we are given a “Based on a screenplay by” credit in addition to the story/screenplay credits (and, of course, Matheson for his novel). And that’s just the credited writers!!!

So while it was far from a bad film, it was really disheartening to watch as the film went from great to merely OK. Like 30 Days of Night, this has the potential to be one of the years’ best genre films (luckily, the PG-13 rating is of no real consequence in relation to the film’s flaws), but the lazy script prevented such a thing from happening. Still, I was entertained for the most part, thanks in part to the antics of my fellow moviegoers. Going to get a snack, I witnessed a man screaming and yelling about his pretzel, which resulted in a refund, and then the guy went back to his movie... which was Alvin and the Chipmunks. I didn’t think anything would top that, but then I saw a girl buy a soda and Sour Patch Kids, and then throw the soda into the trash without even as much as putting a straw into the lid. What the hell kind of person pays 4 dollars for a cup of colored water and then immediately throws it away?

My enjoyment was also aided by a 6 minute preview of The Dark Knight (aka Batman 2). We watch pretty much a whole scene, detailing a bank robbery orchestrated by the Joker, who is believed to be pulling the strings from an unknown location, and not the 5th robbery member whose face we never see. The scene also includes William Fichtner brandishing a shotgun and generally being awesome. Someone get this guy a starring role!!!

UPDATE – the movie made 80 million over the weekend, beating even Return of the King for a December opening. So who cares what I think?

What say you?

Read more »

Based On Novel, Post-Apocalyptic, Remake, Vampire,

{[['']]}