Poltergeist II: The Other Side (1986)

MARCH 30, 2008

GENRE: HAUNTED HOUSE, SUPERNATURAL
SOURCE: DVD (OWN COLLECTION)

Ah, I remember it like it was only 22 years ago. Poltergeist II: The Other Side was the first horror movie I saw in theaters (for the record, of which no one is keeping, the first R rated one was Child’s Play 3). I don’t know for sure if I had seen the entire thing again since; while some sequences (such as the chainsaw to the car) seemed very familiar, others I had zero recollection of whatsoever, such as that baffling and ridiculous finale.

For a movie in which the original director(s?) and producers did not return (though the script has the same non-Spielberg guys credited), it’s not really all that bad. The original Poltergeist is the best haunted house movie ever, as far as I’m concerned, so it’s not like I was expecting a film equally as good (even as a kid I probably knew better). A couple of the scare scenes work well (the braces attack and Kane’s LET! ME! IN! sequence), and the ties to the original are thorough without rewriting things. It seems strange that a movie in which the message is “Family must stick together” would completely ignore the Dominique Dunne character (apparently she was written off as being away at school, but this scene was cut), but otherwise, it FEELS like a continuation, despite a mostly-new creative team.

Speaking of Dunne, this movie seems to be the most plagued by the so-called Poltergeist curse. Kane, Diane’s mother, Taylor, and obviously Carol Anne have all since passed on (Kane, aka Julian Beck, actually died during production), as have Goldsmith and director Brian Gibson. It also suffers the absolute worst effects in the entire series, and in pretty much any theatrically released, fairly big-budgeted (20 million) horror movie of the past 25 years. I don’t know who the hell did the compositing on here, but for the love of Christ not a single effect in the entire movie (except the braces) looks even remotely natural. Some of the matte effects even have plainly visible lines where different elements were placed over others. Worse, the chainsaw scene for some reason looks better on the trailer than in the finished film:

As you can see, the trailer version (2nd pic) has a blue tint to it, which suggests they knew their effects sucked and tried to hide it for marketing, but why not just do that for the film itself? It’s dark, it should be blue! I don’t know how Hooper/Spielberg/et al were able to sell an entire room full of toys flying around, 4 years prior and on a lower budget, better than these guys were able to pull off a (should be) simple monster in the same room as our characters, but it’s borderline embarrassing.

There are also a few times in the film where some editing (rumor has it that nearly 40 minutes were cut from the film) is painfully obvious. Craig The Nelson’s hair is long at the start of the film, suddenly it’s short for the rest. Tangina completely disappears from the finale. Carol Anne at one point startles Robby in the bathroom. His mouthwash disappears, and then Carol Anne walks away without ever explaining what the hell she wanted in the first place. Etc. By themselves, it doesn’t mean much, but altogether, it’s very distracting. Plus a lot of things seem very abrupt, such as the battle with the worm-monster, and the “Other Side” sequence. You’d think that the section of the film that dealt with the film’s subtitle would last more than 75 seconds, but you’d be wrong!

One thing they did get right was the dry humor from the first film. I love the two old broads at the restaurant, discussing one of them having an affair. And Carol Anne’s suggestion that they live at Dunkin Donuts ensures that I would be in love with her if she was still alive today. Speaking of which, if you have a Dunkin’s near you, feel free to mail me an apple n’ spice donut or two. Or twelve. And even though it’s been four years in between productions, the film claims it was only a year ago, and other than Jo Beth Williams’ severe drop in hotness (I blame her awful hair), the aging seems right. Then again, Oliver Robins looked the same age from 1980 (Airplane II) to this, so it’s not really a surprise.

Uneven. That’s the best way to describe the film. It's not particularly good, but not particularly bad either. For everything that works, something else doesn’t. It’s just a shame that the best haunted house movie ever was sullied by two sort of lazy sequels. Oh, and that pretty much everyone involved with the damn thing is now dead, which results in a REALLY lousy DVD.

What say you?

Read more »

Haunted House, Supernatural,

{[['']]}

Ron Currie, Jr.'s "God Is Dead"

Ron Currie, Jr.'s prizewinning fiction has appeared in Glimmer Train, The Sun, Other Voices, and Night Train. He has been shortlisted for the Fish International Short Story Award and Swink magazine's Emerging Writer Award.

In June 2007, he applied the Page 69 Test to his acclaimed debut novel, God Is Dead. Here he shares some thoughts on the cast should the book be adapted for the movies:

When I was approached about contributing to MBTM, my first instinct was to try to dodge the specifics of the site’s premise—namely that I should choose the actor(s) I thought would best portray the book’s characters—because I couldn’t for the life of me think of who could play the titular character. God, in the book, is a young, slender Dinka woman on the run from marauding packs of Janjaweed militia. If the role were straight tragedy there are probably a dozen actresses who’d fit the bill, but the tone of the story requires a slight yet palpable element of humor from the character, one that would need to be conveyed subtly, without the aid of any dialogue cues, a challenge not many actors are equal to.

So instead I turned to a few of the book’s other characters. First to mind was Colin Powell, who dominates the first chapter. This is not the stern, measured soldier and statesman you see on the evening news, though—he’s a furious, foul-mouthed race warrior who obsessively watches Samuel Jackson movies to learn how to speak “black.” I’ve got Terrence Howard in mind for this role—he’s somewhat young, given, but versatile enough to pull off both the over-the-top pimpspeak and the deep sorrow and resentment eating at the character’s soul.

Then there’s the talking dog who narrates the sixth chapter, “Interview with the Last Remaining Member of the Feral Dog Pack Which Fed on God’s Corpse.” Like Adam with the apple, this dog eats the Creator and is filled with a tremendous and terrible knowledge, something that he is not, for obvious reasons, equipped to deal with. This sudden omniscience drives him from the Eden of his existence within the pack, and the story then follows his doomed efforts to find a new home among human beings. They’re doing incredible things with CGI these days, but I’d be worried that visually a screen adaptation of this character would end up looking a lot like that live-action Scooby Doo debacle a few years back. That aside, as far as voicing the character goes, given my druthers it’d be Djimon Hounsou in a landslide—he’s got the accent, the timbre, the resigned solemnity (and hopefully by the time God is Dead hits movie screens everyone will have forgotten about Never Back Down).

Okay, I’ve avoided it long enough—given the title of the book I suppose I’m obligated to float at least a couple of possibilities for who should play God. Not too long ago someone suggested Halle Berry, and while she’s always nice to watch and has proven her acting chops, I just can’t get past Catwoman. Not that I ever saw it. Two other possibilities, off the top of my head: Thandie Newton, maybe, or Kerry Washington, who was terrific in Ray and The Last King of Scotland. Still, neither of them is ideal for the role. Perhaps I’m being too picky. But then again, it is God we’re talking about here, and keep in mind: whoever steps up is going to have to compete with both George Burns and Morgan Freeman.

About God Is Dead, from the publisher. Visit Ron Currie, Jr.'s MySpace page.

The Page 69 Test: God Is Dead.

--Marshal Zeringue

Read more »

{[['']]}

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,

{[['']]}

The Cook (2008)

MARCH 29, 2008

GENRE: COMEDIC, SLASHER
SOURCE: DVD (OWN COLLECTION)

Sometimes, you just wanna turn your brain off and be visually entertained for 80 minutes. And that is precisely what The Cook does. It’s not scary, and it’s not particularly funny, but for some reason it worked for me. It moves along nicely, it’s got a cast of incredibly cute girls (even the two nerdy ones are hot), the gore is plentiful, and the film’s sole primary male member (besides the killer) has a name for AND a conversation with his penis. What’s not to begrudgingly like?

The weirdest thing about the movie is how cheap it is in certain areas, but not in others. The actors aren’t the best, the audio seems to be recorded with the camera’s mike in a few scenes, even the (brief, contrary to what they try to make you believe) nudity is kind of half-assed (pun not intended, sadly). Plus they clearly didn’t bother hiring a proofreader:

And yet it’s also shot in the 2.35:1 ratio. I have no idea why, the frame is never filled, and it just looks awkward for such a small movie (the entire thing takes place in the house, except for the epilogue which was filmed in the Scrubs hospital, which ALSO looks strange in widescreen since Scrubs is pretty much the only non-reality show on TV that is still shot fullframe). Weird.

There’s also a scene that is bound to irk horror nerds. The two nicest girls and the penis talker are playing an extremely confusing trivia game, and one of the questions is about Friday the 13th part 4. At this point, they begin describing a scene from the film, and its intercut with the same thing happening downstairs to one of their friends. The problem is, the scene they are describing is not in Friday the 13th 4! You have offended my otherwise useless knowledge of horror movies, writer Nicholas Bonomo! Or Francisco Rodriguez.... or Dirk Van Fleet- why the FUCK did it take three people to write this movie?!?!?

Still, it’s endearing. The killer looks like a demented William H Macy/Greg Kinnear, and he’s chewing up the scenery with the best of them. And the cop at the end is so delightfully deadpan it made me a bit sad that he wasn’t in the movie for the entire time. You can tell everyone was having a blast, and taking any of it seriously even for a second would be your loss. And there’s even a rare Sling Blade reference! Besides, who can hate a movie in which the good Catholic girl stereotype is tied up and licked by another woman (however briefly)? Plus, the ending has a nice twist on who the Final Girl is, which is always welcome. So long as you’re drunk and/or can appreciate a completely cheapo slasher/comedy every now and then, you should have fun.

The commentary is OK, but nothing you’ll miss. They point out a few of the more ridiculous plot holes and laugh at the bad dialogue, but the guy playing the Cook seems to not be in on the joke, talking about lenses and shit. No one watching this cares, pal. Also, the director is not only absent, but its hinted that he didn’t get along with the producer/writers (like Poltergeist, it’s interesting to note how many of the same names pop up among the producers, writers, editors, etc, but the director isn’t listed anywhere else). There is also a making of (which is just random behind the scenes footage set to music), which is once again (for Anchor Bay) full frame but also anamorphic. So while widescreen owners have no problem, this makes the video seem windowboxed on a standard TV. How does one solve such a problem? I dunno, maybe frame the goddamn thing at the 1.78:1 ratio to begin with? The movie is 2.35:1, why go full frame to show a presumably interested audience how it was made?

What say you?

Read more »

Comedic, Slasher,

{[['']]}

Cut And Run/American Gothic

MARCH 28, 2008

GENRE: HORROR?, INDEPENDENT, SURVIVAL
SOURCE: DVD (ONLINE RENTALS)

Here’s a first for Horror Movie A Day – A dual review! Why, you may ask?

As has happened a few times before, Blockbuster sent me the wrong movie. I had asked for American Gothic, which is a late 80s inbred horror thing with Rod Steiger. They sent me American Gothic, a short film by some guy named Carlos Batts. “Fine, whatever,” I said to no one in particular, and put in Cut And Run (aka Inferno in Diretta), a Ruggero Deodato film that had a plot similar to that of his Cannibal Holocaust, only it was a conventionally filmed movie, not a ‘mockumentary’. Except the problem is, despite what IMDb claims, it wasn’t really a horror movie at all. But after doing some research, I discovered that the short film WAS horror, so I will combine: Horror (short film), and (full length) Movie A Day!

The horror angle of Cut comes from Michael Berryman, playing a guy who seemingly lives in the river and seeks to murder drug dealers (and pretty much anyone else). His scenes, largely inconsequential in the grand scheme of things, are gory and violent, and could be mistaken for a Hills Have Eyes sequel. And being a Deodato film, the gore is over the top (beheadings, guttings, etc), something you certainly don’t find in many non-horror films. However, the rest of the film is basically an action movie a la Rambo II, in which a couple of folks (including that hot blond from Prince of Darkness) go into the jungle to rescue their friend, and kill a bunch of “bad guys” with automatic weapons and such. Not exactly horror, right?

The cast is also very HMAD friendly. In addition to Berryman and the Prince of Darkness woman (Lisa Blount, for the unnecessary record), we get Karen Black (Burnt Offerings), Leonard Mann (Flowers In The Attic), and Richard Lynch (Halloween remake). Plus the score is by Claudio Simonetti, aka Goblin.

As for the movie itself, well, whatever. 80s action movies of this type sort of just run along on rails, and if you take away the random gore (and Willie Aames’ ridiculous character) you’re left with any old Chuck Norris/Michael Dudikoff movie; the type that I can only appreciate if I grew up with it. Or I’m at the New Bev (this movie would be ideal for that place, actually). The idea of a group of natives going out of their way to kill drug dealers is pretty awesome, but the movie is kind of dull. There’s a lot of stuff that we really don’t need to watch, like Aames and some broad laying out and then lighting a bunch of flimsy runway lights. And for the life of me I can’t figure out what Eric LaSalle’s strip club owner character has to do with anything, or why he is tossed off a platform into a train by two guys we never see again.

Strangely, the end of the film seems to have influenced the execrable Welcome To The Jungle more than Holocaust did. Our heroes are kidnapped and then held hostage by the very man they were seeking (Lynch), who has now become a sort of Kurtz like madman, and the natives all serve under him. The only difference is, this movie had something fucking happen previously, so there wasn’t any need for him to kill off the heroes like in Jungle (which saved any sort of action or violence for this final minute of the film, and even that was mainly offscreen).

Anyway, not too great, but it was a fucking masterpiece compared to American Gothic. While it was certainly more of an actual horror movie than Cut (what with zombies, a guy covered in blood, etc), it was also an utterly awful and pretentious pile of crap.

The thing about experimental films like this that I don’t get is why anyone besides the filmmaker is watching them. They are experiments! Do scientists hold press conferences and then say “OK, we’re gonna try something”? Of course not. They do their experiments in private, and then show us the finish results. Why can’t these films work the same way? No matter, this experiment certainly failed. The idea is fine (the psychological horror behind the creation of Grant Wood’s eponymous painting) but the execution is as botched as anything can possibly be.

Here is the entire 25 minute movie: An old guy talks to himself, a montage of moving images animated with After Effects, a zombie lies on the ground, two zombies dance, three dead chicks play with children’s letter blocks, the old guy begins stabbing himself with his paintbrush while saying “I wandered aimlessly among the living” over and over, more After Effects, credits. Throughout this nonsense we hear some metal songs. In fact the imagery often resembles a Matt Mahurin music video (think "Unforgiven") but without a. the entire song (the metal songs fade in and out at random, or to allow the guy to say “I wandered aimlessly among the living” again) or b. a point being made in a timely manner. Why this needed to be 25 minutes, I have no idea. It’s pretty sad when a short film is padded and overlong.

Oh fuck you, movie.

There was a kid in my film school who made shit like this. Any time we’d have to present our stuff to the class, he’d show his and there would be utter silence (everyone else in the program made films that were more or less accessible). When the teacher asked about it, he wouldn’t even be able to explain it himself. I’m all for being weird or whatever, but the problem is that shit like this can literally be made by anyone. Film a bunch of random shit, edit it with a blender, throw in some “film damage” filters, and viola! Instant art film! And when someone questions it, you can just say “look, you don’t GET IT.” Oh blow it out your ass. If we’re too dumb to understand your masterpiece why’d you show it to us? And in this case, I got the point of it, I just didn’t get why it had to be so long and obtuse. Like the film Gothic, it’s a fascinating idea to me to show the “real” horror behind a well-known work of art, but I don’t see why it’s apparently so difficult to tell this type of story without being a pretentious windbag. I may not have the slightest clue what’s going on at times, but at least David Lynch’s films are nice to look at (save Inland Empire) and reasonably entertaining. This crap is ugly and boring to boot.

Whatever I watch tomorrow better be a full length horror movie or else there will be hell to pay! I’ll grab Michael Berryman and a few machetes and begin wiping out anyone who ever said “Well, my film is CEREBRAL...” in a dismissive manner.

What say you?

Read more »

Crap, Horror?, Independent, Short, Survival,

{[['']]}

The Deaths Of Ian Stone (2007)

MARCH 27, 2008

GENRE: SUPERNATURAL
SOURCE: DVD (STORE RENTAL)

This year’s After Dark festival titles have hit DVD, so I can begin the likely burden (as opposed to joy) of watching all eight before the next one comes around. Luckily, Unearthed and Tooth and Nail are long since out of the way, and I hope to hell they are among the worst, and not the best of the bunch. Hopefully, more of them are like The Deaths Of Ian Stone, which is well-made, occasionally interesting, but ultimately “meh”.

(It’s too much to ask at this point that any of them are actually GOOD).

Ironically, Ian Stone works best when it’s not really a horror movie. Ian (Cloverfield’s Mike Vogel) gets killed, then wakes up in a different life. Every hour so he is killed again, and each time he wakes up in a different persona: college student, office lackey, taxi driver, junkie... After a while, Déjà vu sets in and he begins to put the pieces together, with a little help from a mysterious stranger. And this is where the movie begins to fall apart, as the back-story is nonsensical, not to mention full of plot holes. It’s probably the first movie in which once things start to make sense for the main character, they make less sense to the audience.

Luckily, the CG is pretty good (Stan Winston designs!), so when we get to the finale, which consists of a few of the Dementor-ish spirit monster things whaling on each other, it’s at least visually impressive. And the main girl reminded me of Alexandra Holden, so that’s always a plus. However, the last act also introduces a few character who inexplicably dress in Matrix leftovers, and the sight of them is not only distracting (I actually had to rewind the movie to hear some dialogue because I was so amused by the sudden appearance of Trinity’s outfit), but laughable.

In theory, combining Dark City, The Matrix, They, and Groundhog Day could turn out OK, and for a while it works. There’s a great sequence early on when Ian witnesses another guy who is being stalked by the monsters dying on the street, and then being chased himself. And I always like seeing characters put things together. Plus, as a man who once got paid to sing Jim Steinman songs (in MTV’s Wuthering Heights), Mike Vogel is aces in my book. I just wish they could have come up with something better than “Matrix wannabes who live on fear” as the ultimate antagonist.

The DVD is strangely lacking in extras. Usually the After Darks have a commentary and/or a making of, but the only thing Ian gets is a group of Miss Horrorfest webisodes (which have nothing to do with the movie) and the usual 4505 trailers. The final Horrorfest webisode, where the Miss is announced, was filmed entirely at a party that yours truly attended last fall. If you watch the video in slow-motion and zoomed in, you can still not see me at all! Probably because I spent the entire night hovering near the crew door so I could get first pick on whatever was being put on a tray. Hardly the stuff of interesting video footage. “Hey, stop filming the half naked girls, there’s a guy in a Hatchet shirt eating a cracker dipped in hummus!”

What say you?

Read more »

After Dark Fest, Supernatural,

{[['']]}

The Ruins (2008)

MARCH 26, 2008

GENRE: SUPERNATURAL, SURVIVAL
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (PRESS SCREENING)

If there is one plotline that doesn’t hold much promise, it’s “Four college kids are attacked by killer vines. That talk.” And if you want to sell it extremely short, that’s exactly what The Ruins is. But as it turns out, not only is it much better than expected, it’s the best horror movie of the year so far. Take THAT, One Missed Call!

The movie is based on a book (by Scott Smith, who also wrote the screenplay) that I haven’t read, and is directed by a guy I’ve never heard of (Carter Smith), and stars some folks who don’t often star in anything. And like I said, the plot didn’t really hold much promise. But everyone involved gave it their all; an A-Game approach to a B-Movie. The surprising R rating is well-earned, with some truly brutal and shocking moments (such as the first onscreen child killing in a horror movie in ages! YEAH! The movie’s got some goddamn balls!), and some truly impressive (but thankfully sparse) gore as well.

It’s also the rare survival horror film in which actual survival elements are implemented. 30 Days Of Night completely botched this part up, with a 30 day time window seeming more like 30 hours, partially due to the fact that getting food/water was never once an issue in the film. Not the case here; we see them rationing their limited food, crafting stretchers and such out of what they have on hand, etc. The main character, Jeff (well played by Jonathan Tucker, making up for his annoying performance in Bruce’s Hostage) is the most practical of the four, and watching him use his head and think things through was very refreshing.

The other three are good too. Jena Malone starts off as an annoying and whiny drunk, but comes into her own as things get worse for the group. Shawn Ashmore (Iceman!) and Laura Ramsey are the other two, also impressively more than just attractive kids in a horror movie. There are no stereotypes – they are all intelligent (and about equally “famous”), which makes it far more difficult than usual to peg which ones are going to be goners.

Smith also did a fine job of translating what has to be the silliest part of the book (besides the concept itself) onto the screen – the talking vines. Like I said, I haven’t read it, but those who did have told me that this was something that wouldn’t work onscreen. But I think it does, to a degree. The vines don’t talk in a traditional sense, like Audrey II or whatever, but instead mimic the sounds they hear, which include human voices. Apparently it was a bit streamlined from the book, but it seems natural, and is only used twice (to disturbing effect) in the film to boot. It’s nowhere near as disastrous as William Goldman’s attempts to visualize the “memory warehouse” in Dreamcatcher, something that was actually pretty awesome in the book but wholly idiotic when seen on screen.

The movie also contains one of my favorite lines in recent memory. When the kids are all despairing that they will die out there, Jeff tries to calm them by exclaiming “Four American tourists don’t just disappear!” Oh man. I lost it. Of course, the film had already reminded me of the sadly underrated Turistas (during the opening 20 minutes), and anyone familiar with these types of movies should enjoy the line as much as I did.

I should also point out that I saw the film on the Paramount lot. On the way to the screening room, I saw a building with a sign reading “Film Vault”. You can bet your sweet bippy that I wanted nothing more than to bust my way into that place, find the My Bloody Valentine footage that they cut for MPAA, and run off into the night, armed with the knowledge that I was doing the entire horror community a giant favor. BUT, I didn’t.

Please go see this movie, and not Prom Night. They are opening around the same time, and I would really really hate for Hollywood to get the message (again) that an unnecessary PG-13 remake is somehow a better financial investment than an intelligent, suspenseful, and at times downright disturbing horror movie. Come on now.

What say you?

Read more »

Based On Novel, Supernatural, Survival,

{[['']]}