Monday, May 30, 2011

Prince of Darkness





Film: Price of Darkness
Genre: Horror
Director: John Carpenter
Year: 1987
Starring: Donald Pleasance, Victor Wong, & Jameson Parker




As I stated in my Vampires review, John Carpenter is one of the film autuers who's heyday was in the late seventies and early eighties. Sometimes autuers would try and attempt different genres in each of their films, or different subgenres of one specific field. For the most part, Carpenter is known for his horror films, or horror sci-fi works. Prince of Darkness is Carpenter's "haunted house" film, in a similar vein as House on Haunted Hill, and House of Wax (not the one with a certain hotel heir.)

In Los Angeles in 1987, a priest who lives in an abandoned church dies protecting a horrible secret that had been held for two-thousand years. Upon the discovery of a key the dead priest kept with him, another priest (Donald Pleasance) takes a professor of metaphysics (Victor Wong) to investigate a strange canister that resides in the old church. Wong brings in a team consisting of his students, and a group of scientists to properly research the over-sized lava lamp. Over the course of the night the liquid within the canister starts to react, and brings about a world of evil upon the church, turning people into zombies, mirrors into portals, and a rather large amount of creepy crawlies.

With this being made in the latter half of the eighties, it was made by Carpenter past his prime. But, the film still has a creepy atmosphere like The Fog and The Thing, where Carpenter is king, and brings to the table whenever possible. Along with his signature long shots, the film also contains those practice effects similar to those in Big Trouble in Little China, and The Thing, but at a much smaller scale. With the more subtle effects, the audience can focus more on the characters, rather than the blood splats and body effects.

Though the atmosphere is great, the writing and acting can be lacking. You get the feeling that the old church is supposed to be creepy, you are not exactly sure why it is there. However you do understand what is in the canister, but was a whole the idea of what it is doing is left largely unanswered. There is where many critics found fault in the film, but let us think about this for a bit. Isn't that the point? To be left in dark, not knowing what it is that is trying to kill you and use your body as a vessel of evil, and marmalade. Also, the bugs in this film are actual insects, unlike today where they are just slapped on the film with Photoshop or a migrant worker. With actual crawlies, audiences are far more likely to be creeped out with real things, than with digital things (scientific terms, these are.)

Memorable moments:

• A zombie played by rocker Alice Cooper kills a scientist by stabbing him with half of a bicycle. (a murder unseen in any other movie. (to my knowledge anyways.))

• The shot where someone first goes though a mirror into the alternate world, where the absolute evil is held. Though the effects are simple, the basic image of two fingers appearing in shinning darkness is striking, and truly gives an other-worldly feel.

Sunday, May 29, 2011

Squirm





Film: Squirm
Genre: Horror
Director: Jeff Lieberman
Year: 1976
Starring: Don Scardino & some Georgians.




Creature features have been a staple of the horror genre for decades, taking ordinary animals and multiplying the numbers, suddenly they become "horrifying," or at least they try. Usually these films center on creatures that seem threatening to humans in some aspects, like snakes, ants, leeches, or giant frogs. But this film takes a bold step and uses worms as their beast of brutality. Yes, the worm; scourge of mankind!

During an large and violent thunderstorm a power line is knocked down, and the excess electricity goes into the ground, diverting it from the city of Fly Creek, GA. Fly Creek is the home to the Hee-Haw inspired family consisting of two sisters, Gerri and >Alma, and their overtly insane mother, who constantly employs the son of their worm farming neighbor: Roger. Eventually a northerner named Mick(Scardino) is invited down to Fly Creek by Gerri to look at some antiques (a true patron of testosterone, this man.) Hark! Remember all that excess electricity? It feeding into the ground has led to all the worms in the area to become rather grumpy, and decide the attack the town. In the process of attacking the town the worms attack the citizens, killing them by the sheer power of their numbers. In their mayhem they attack Roger, but instead of killing him they for some reason turn him into an angry mutant near worm-man.

The film's protagonist is Mick, who is played by Don Scardino. Who you would think would have disappeared into the depths of B-Movie hell after this piece of fantastic ham and genius. But, as I discovered after watching my 30 Rock DVD set, he is actually a fairly prominent TV director, who has won awards for his work, including two prime-time Emmys. In one of the commentaries he is asked if he misses his acting career, after chuckling to himself, he gives a reserved no. After discovering what he had become I rather enjoy his performance in this film, I see it as a stepping stone for him, leading to him working on one of my favorite television programs.

Despite the film being about worms, the villains are not really worms per-say. They vaguely look like worms, but act more like militant centipedes that have been coated in gasoline. Director Jeff Lieberman things he is able to make them look scary by providing many macro shots of the creepy-crawlies and making them roar. The result makes it seem more like a nature documentary more than a horror film.

So, should you see this film? If you like cheesy 70's era horror flicks, then go right ahead. It has an acquired taste that goes with people who enjoy grainy horror films, that aren't necessary. If you aren't into this kind of film, then just watch the Mystery Science Theater 3000 episode that lampoons the movie. If you watch this version, you will also be treated to a short film explaining the fantastical greatness of springs, and why you should never wish them away...

Memorable moments:

• Roger's line: "You're gonna be the worm face!" He then seems to stumble off screen.

• The shouting of "Mr. Beardsly!" (This is due largely to the MST3K episode, where it became a running joke.)


Saturday, May 21, 2011

The Frighteners


Film: The Frighteners
Genre: Horror/Comedy
Director: Peter Jackson
Year: 1996
Starring: Michael J. Fox & Jeffery Combs







Jackson has done it again (and by again, I mean he did it fifteen years ago.) Following up his gore-fest Dead Alive, he released The Frighteners. This also marks one of Fox's final roles as a lead character in a film, excluding his voice work for animation. Though significantly less violent than his previous film, it does provide a similar feel, but without a vat of Kayo syrup.

Frank Bannister (Fox) is a local psychic investigator, who having been in anear death experience, is able to see the spirits of the dead, and interact with them. During the film's first act he uses his abilities to con people out of money by performing exercises, which are nothing more but his ghost fiends moving objects around and spooking people. But, recently the city has had a string of unexplained deaths, all of which simulate a heart attack. Bannister does his own investigations, but the Feds send in their own paranormal agent named Dammers (Combs) to investigate. Because of this Bannister spends the film both learning what is killing everyone, and dealing with the insane Dammers in his attempt to possibly kill Bannister.

Though not as good as Dead Alive, this film is still enjoyable, and gives some nice horror elements, and atmosphere. But, there are some downsides to the movie. Fox's acting can sometimes fall flat, for as much as I enjoy his work, it seems lacking in some parts of the film. Though, I may attribute this to his having been diagnosed with Parkinson's, and perhaps on certain days during filming, his symptoms may have been worse than others. So, what few slip ups he has can be forgiven. Now, despite the presence of the great Marty McFly, Jeffery Combs is the best actor in the film by far. His performance is subtle, yet over the top at the same time, like his work in the Re-Animator series. Any scene with him is instantly comedic gold, but also just a bit creepy, he finds a good balance between the two without making his character seem fake.


Also, the fact that this film was made in the mid-nineties does work against it at times. It has much less practical effects in it than Dead Alive did, opting instead to use CGI. Being that this was in the age where filmmakers were starting the transition to more computer effects, their inclusion is obvious. Though in some spots they work well, for the most part they don't. Many of the effects simply do not work, and cheapen the look of the film. Perhaps if Jackson were to go back in and re-do the effects using today's technology, it will be much better.

Memorable moments:

• During a scene when Bannister goes to the natural history museum to try and prevents another murder he is cornered by the police. The frighteners then come and "haunt" the room allowing for him to escape. In the process of trying to apprehend Bannister, the police find a way to destroy almost the entire exhibit of artifacts, and dismember a mummy.

• Any scene with Jeffery Combs. His character is so fantastically written, and portrayed, with a mountain of personality quirks, with which Freud could fill an encyclopedia.

Friday, May 20, 2011

La Haine




Film: La Haine (Hate)
Genre: Drama
Director: Mathieu Kassovitz
Year: 1995
Starring: Vincent Cassel, Hubert Kounde, & Saïd Taghmaoui





"Heard about the guy who fell off a skyscraper? On his way down past each floor, he kept saying to reassure himself: So far so good... so far so good... so far so good. How you fall doesn't matter. It's how you land!" -Hubert

Without a shadow of a doubt, I can firmly say that La Haine is the greatest French film that I have ever seen. I first saw this film in my perspectives on film class, and it has left a great impact on me, and how I look at films. It's stark images, are fantastic, it's characters are compelling, and the plot moves along at a good pace, never dull, and gritty beyond normality.

The story of three young men, on the morning after Parisian riots against police brutality, you learn about each of them, and see what happens following a day of great violence. The protagonists are Vinz a Jew, Saïd an Arab, and Hubert an African, all of whom live in the projects outside of Paris. As the previous nights were plagued with riots, the three guys send much of their time walking around talking about what happened, Hubert is distraught because the rioters destroyed his gym, and Vinz is obsessively certain that he saw a cow wondering the streets during the mayhem. Though out the day, they see the effect the riots had on everyone's perspective, and the "hate" between classes, particularly between the lower-class and authority figures like the police.

Each of the three characters represents a different mindset. Vinz embraces his position in society, feeling that even though he is looked down upon by others, he is going to make the best of it, and try to make himself as credible on the street as possible. Hubert has the opposite opinion, he wishes to escape the projects, and make his life much better than what has been handed to him. Said is innocent in comparison to his two friends, he is largely ignorant to what is truly happening around him, and is always curious about everything.

Visually the film is fan-tabulous. To me, there is not a single dull looking shot, or something that feels out of place. The film's use of black and white makes it reminiscent of French New Wave films like The 400 Blows, or Breathless, but the subject matter is much darker. Shadows galore give this film a stark contrast, and allow the images to stick-out from the screen, and almost become a piece of art.

The film essentially is a character study. Though the three protagonists are young men, they are also little more than boys, in that they really do not have any control over their lives, and have never really known any truly serious situations, before the events of the film anyways. They go about talking smack about things they supposedly did, and you can just see them as a trio of twelve year-olds on the playground. In any case, I highly recommend this film, in the United States it is only available in the Criterion Collection, so it can be quite pricy, but Netflix carries it as well. Perhaps you should move this to the top of your list, and let Transformers 2 wait another week.

Memorable moments:

• While stuck inside inner-Paris the guys walk down a back street discussing who would win in fights between classic cartoon characters. Eventually it is noted that Jerry Mouse is a "brother," for everything he did to Tom.

• The guys crash a posh art gallery, taking more than their share of free food and drinks. Also, they critic the art, which is nothing more than random household objects glued to canvases.

• This monologue:



Sunday, May 15, 2011

John Carpenter's Vampries


Film: Vampires
Genre: Action/Horror
Director: John Carpenter
Year: 1998
Starring: James Woods & Daniel Baldwin






With the slew of vampire movies out today, it is refreshing to sometimes go back and look at films with the mythical creatures, wherein they don't sparkle and run about the woods. And, what a better way to look at these modern vampire films that pre-date the current craze, than with a film by my favorite director John Carpenter? The vampires in this film are dirty, vengeful, apparently have rancid breath, and are flat out brutal.

The story is about a professional vampire slayer named Jack Crow(Woods), who has been tracking down and eradicating vampires in the American southwest. Following an investigation of a house nested with vampires, Crow and his team are attacked by the head-vampire who kills everyone but Crow, his teammate Montoya(Baldwin), and a prostitute. Eventually they learn that the head-vampire is the original vampire, who has come to the United States searching for a relic that will allow him to walk in the daytime. Hasn't this happened to us all?

Visually, Carpenter's look well employed. His use of wide shots, and static camera movements has become a signature look in his film, and has essentially become his trademark. The cinematography works well in constructing the film's atmosphere, you truly feel as though you are in the southwest. The use of a pink filter on the sky gives an illusion of the romanticized west, and how you would imagine it after looking at endless hotel room painting.

As this was a film made by Carpenter in the 90's, it usually gets grouped in a category of lackluster films that aren't worth seeing. Noted, his films have been in a slow decline since his release of John Carpenter's The Thing in 1982, but that doesn't mean this film isn't worth watch. If you like gritty action movies, then watch this one. But, unfortunately, the film seems to lose momentum in the third act. Most of the antagonists just run away, Crow's character seems to go back and forth between attitudes, so it becomes almost impossible to attach yourself to him.


Memorable Moments:
• When the main characters enter the village of Sandiego for the final battle. The use of shadows, and lighting makes you feel as though this town is truly empty, but it also gave me a sense of waking. Like when to take a nap in the afternoon, and wake up at dusk.


• While looking for a car to steal Baldwin looks down a road, and due to the angle of his face, he looks like he is slowly transforming into someone else.






Friday, May 13, 2011

Memento



Film: Memento
Genre: Drama/Thriller
Director: Christopher Nolan
Year: 2000
Starring: Guy Pierce, Carrie-Anne Moss, & Joe Pantoliano




When it comes to modern film auteurs, Christopher Nolan is ranked up near the very top of the pyramid. With the help of his co-writing brother, he has found new and intriguing ways of storytelling in the medium of film. Memento was his first widely released film, and it set the standard for the rest of his body of work.


Memento is the out-of-order story of a man named Lenard (Guy Pierce) who suffers from a condition where he is incapable of producing short term memoires. He received his condition following an incident where his wife was killed by a man he labeled as "John G." As he is unable to remember anything since the accident, he keeps track of his life though a series of Polaroid photos, notes, and tattoos. The fact that Lenard does not remember anything for longer than several minutes makes his character kind of hard to get a grasp on. You feel sympathy for him, but you also don't really knows who he is, or what he has done, as does he.

Christopher Nolan has been known for tamper-tinkering with the way in which a plot is unveiled, and how the perspective of the viewer. Having seen the majority of Nolan's features (save his remake of Insomnia) I have come to expect different ways of having a story revealed to me. Memento can be seen as a transition period between his first film Following and his blockbusters. He even uses the idea of black and white, possibly as a way of paying homage to his first feature, but it also acts as a device to take the viewer out of the disoriented stream of events, and place them into the only part of the story that takes place in a forward chronological order.

This film has been cited as one of the best ever made (seems to be a theme Nolan has going) and at the date of me writing this is placed at #29 on IMDB.com's top 250. Personally, I do not enjoy it quite as much as his other works. Perhaps because I did not see Nolan's films in the order that they came out, but this one simply did not impress me as much as say The Dark Knight or The Prestige. But, that does not make it any less of a great film, which it is, without a doubt. Perhaps if I saw this before his other reality altering stories, I would have been more impressed, but as I had experienced his other films first, it seems less shocking in its first viewing.

Memorable Moments:

• Any of the scenes featuring Lenard on the telephone. These are some of the scenes shot in black and white, and just as Lenard, you are not sure who is on the other line.


• In a flashback to a man named Sammy (who suffered from the same memory condition as Lenard) he is going through a series of tests conducted by Reno 911's Thomas Lennon.



• While trying to find a drug dealer who apparently beat up Carrie-Anne Moss' character, he busts into a hotel room, rendering a man unconscious. Only after the fact does he realize that he was reading the room number upside down, and has knocked an innocent man out. He quietly says "sorry" and closes the door quietly.

So, where does the film go on the Cool Scale? (Bruce Campbell marking the epitome of coolness, while Nickleback marks the negative coolness)

Friday, May 6, 2011

Dead Alive (Braindead)


Film: Dead-Alive (aka BrainDead)
Genre: Horror/Comedy
Director: Peter Jackson
Year: 1992
Starring: Timothy Balme & Diana Peñalver






This movie has it all: gore, a stop-motion Sumerian rat-monkey, gore, a Nazi taxidermist, a kung-fu fighting priest, and did I mention gore? This is one of Peter Jackson's earlier films, before he became known worldwide for his adaptation of the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Oh, boy is it ever so much fun.

The story is about a young Wellington man named Lionel Cosgrove, who is under the thumb of his over-being mother, who makes sure he only looks after her, and doesn't have a life of his own. While spying on her son on a date at the zoo, his mother is bitten by a Sumerian rat monkey, leading to her zombie like transformation.
Eventually the infection spreads to others, instead of disposing of the zombies Lionel instead does his best to recondition them for normal society by injecting them with tranquilizers to keep them calm, and having them sit around a dinner table eating custard. But this ends up being futile, and eventually Lionel's uncle comes and throws a party at the house, which leads to one of the goriest fight scenes in the history of film.

The film is full of incredible visual effects, which remind one of horror films of the eighties (Evil Dead 2, Poltergeist) where what you saw on screen was a practical effect, as opposed to CGI. If you don't have a strong stomach for blood and guts, then this isn't the movie for you. Throughout the movie (primarily the third act) you are treated to a smorgasbord of blood and internal organs. The zombie effects and make-up is in a simmlar vein to Sam Rami's Evil Dead trilogy, and harkens back to Romero's earlier Living Dead films. If you are like me, then you are unhappy with today's over use of CGI, as it all looks far to clean, and beacuse of that it just seems too fake. So, this movie will feed your hunger for buckets of Kayo syrup, and red food coloring.

Memorable moments:
• When Lionel's mother is killing the Sumerian rat-monkey after being bitten, a man has a quick look of disgust, then snaps a photo.

• At one point Lionel has to deal with a baby zombie; instead of keeping it locked away in the house, he takes it to the park and watches the mothers caring for their children, in an attempt to try and nurture the child himself. But, to no avail, and he eventually has to start fighting with the undead child in the park, punching it in the face, and slamming it against a swing set. While this is happening fellow Wellingtonians just watch with slight concern.


• This:



Overall this a fun gross-out movie that doesn't pull any punches. It doesn't take itself seriously at all, giving it far more credit than the majority of horror films made today. If you can take the silly violence, I highly recommend it.