CreatureFeature

Darke Reviews | The Devil’s Pass (2014)

Posted by

0

So where last year I was doing a vampire movie every other day, this year I think I shall do a classic every other day. As we started the month with a classic horror, let’s jump to something a bit more modern. It is also quite likely something you haven’t heard of or seen yet. Added bonus for me to get to introduce such films. I should mention, I am a supernatural mystery junkie. Ghost Hunters, Fact or Faked, Unsolved Mysteries, etc all were favorites of mine. I have a shelf in my library around such topics. Now a few months before even hearing of this film I came across the Dyatlov Pass incident from 1959. The story of 9 hikers who were found in an unusual state some weeks after vanishing in the Ural Mountains. There are dozens of plausible explanations for it, but I love the idea of mystery.

The Devil’s Pass takes this mystery and applies the found footage genre to it. Made famous (and nigh inescapable) in 1999 by the Blair Witch Project this style of film is designed around the conceit of someone using a camcorder, cellphone, or some other recording to capture every moment of an event or experience. These films also are particularly known for shaky cam due to the nature of the work, which is a turn off for some watchers.  Night vision is also a regular trick of the camera work but is usually far more bearable and tends to add something to the film. The found footage aspect really isn’t wasted and the film utilizes it as one of the tools of storytelling rather than a style. The film was written by an unknown, Vikram West, but directed by a very well known Renny Harlin. Harlin has a strange career and aesthetic to his work, but most people know Die Hard 2, Long Kiss Goodnight, and Cutthroat Island.  This sort of film seems deeply out of the norm for him.

Since this one is definitely newer, I am retaining normal spoiler free territory.

It focuses on a group of college students from the University of Oregon trying to uncover the mystery of what happened in 1959.   The mystery and tension continues to build amongst the group and the environment around them as it bothers to explore some of the psychology of these events.  The actors, while falling to similar stereotypes, don’t really get too annoying.  They are overall rather smart and came with all preparations in mind. The only mistake they make is the one not to leave when things get odd. The individual characters themselves are all relatively interesting and worth watching. They do figure some stuff out on their own that made me smile and showed some awareness usually lax in teen/twenty something films. I believe the interactions between them and watching their own fears become manifest in the performances. Regretfully, I do lose track of who is who a few times as we have a cast of Abercrombie models, but it’s negligible with only a total cast of twenty in the film.

From a technical standpoint the movie has solid practical effects where possible and they sell themselves well. It doesn’t rely on a lot of gimmicks in the effects and lets your imagination do the work. The CG that is used occurs sparingly but is limited by budget and I can tell. The best is the avalanche that had to occur in any mountainy/snowy terrain for a movie like this. Yes, you can blow it off as the sounds it makes coming down, but at the same time they really did a good job of bringing the raw force of nature to life.

TL;DR?

I was really surprised by this film. I found it on a lark one day when I was searching my Netflix. I was reminded of the actual incident and thought I’d give it a once over. It was absolutely worth it. It is a slow burn that builds to a satisfying climax that is worth discussing with whomever you watch it with.

If you have issues with found footage though, give it a pass because the camera work is pretty normal for the genre and could make you nauseous. There is little blood or gore in this one – which I suppose hits some spoiler territory – but also in prep for the film you need to know.

All in all Devil’s Pass is a fun little horror movie and an enjoyable ride. It’s fun to think what if sometimes…

 

Darke Reviews | Nosferatu (1922)

Posted by

0

The full title of course is Nosferatu, eine Symphonie des Grauens. I thought I should conclude my every other day vampire review with the first (available) of the films to feature Dracula. As always I watch the film prior to the review and while I have two copies of this in my collection it never ceases to amaze even now 90 years later at what they were trying to do with film back then.

It’s worth mentioning this film was unauthorized. The studio that produced it could not and/or did not obtain the rights to the film. According to stories Stokers wife was sent a copy of a playbill advertising the film and demanded it be stopped and destroyed. The courts agreed with her and all the work prints were destroyed. Or at least thats what was thought, obviously as I am reviewing this tonight a print survived to allow us to enjoy now. Curiously the original film had changed the names of all the principal characters prior to its release to try to make them “original”. Makes me wonder why Vanilla Ice thought he could get away with it musically 70 years later.

The copy of the film I watched tonight had the title & scene cards changed back to their intended (and more accurate) formatting rather than the release versions. The infamous Count Orlock was once again Count Dracula. It is Jonathan and Nina (not Mina) Harker rather than Hutter and Ellen Hutter. Jonathan’s good friend Westenra and his wife Lucy vs the ‘original’ Harding and Annie. In researching this review I looked for IMDB, Wiki, etc, that had these more current credits and they are not in any of the main resources. The script however is available, which had them. I think I might have to make a point to get my hands on a non americanized copy.

The movie was directed by F.W. Murnau (Faust – 1926) who filmed on location in various places within his native Germany and eastern Europe. In the fashion of many modern directors Murnau actually rewrote several pages of the script for the ending of the movie. Unlike modern directors it was because the pages by scripter Henrik Galeen were reportedly lost. The film is without a single line of recorded dialogue and instead has orchestral music playing over the hour and twenty minute running time.

The acting is that of the stage; which is to say its completely over the top and meant to emote at a distant audience. The make up on the principals is designed for the same, where every color and line is made thicker and richer. Looking at it now it is admittedly ridiculous but when you consider how many people had worked in film by that point it makes sense. Max Schreck deserves special mention as the infamous Count. He enters and vanishes into the part in a way that some actors today could try to learn from.

Story wise there are significant variations from the Dracula you know and love, but the core is still there. Orlock/Dracula’s death is still an amazing piece of effects work for a film to attain in 1922.

For the TL;DR – go back and read. This is history.

Nosferatu is a cinematic classic. It is not scary in any way shape or form now. It is however worth watching for its aesthetic and historical content. I honestly wouldn’t expect most folks who aren’t vampire aficionados or film students to get through it, but I would say try.

This really is one of the ones that started it all.
There will be no review tomorrow, but Halloweens review wants you to Put..the Candle…Back.

Darke Reviews | Pumpkin Head (1988)

Posted by

0

So I had only one response on which movie to review tonight, but it was a good one! See this movie was directed by a man who won 4 Oscars and had 6 additional nominations. 31! This movie however isn’t an Oscar winner for him, nor did any of those wins actually come from directing, producing, writing, or even acting. They were all for visual effects and make up. Granted I don’t know how many people saw the movies he won awards for. I mean the Academy can get a bit stuffy at times. Let’s see 4 awards, three movies – Aliens (1986), Terminator 2 (1992), Jurassic Park (1993). Yeah, big flops that no one saw. Eh who am I kidding. This is the work of one of the greatest Make up and Special Effects artists to ever grace the world with his talent. His death at the age of 62 in 2008 was a huge loss to the world of movie magic and his work defined the careers of so many since. The man of course is Stan Winston. Pumpkin head is his sole feature length directorial and writing effort.

The movie does have the curse of having a total of five writing credits associated to it. There’s a triple credit on the story, Mark Patrick Carducci, Richard Weinman, and Winston himself. Double credit on the screenplay, Mark Patrick Carducci and Gary Gerani. It’s worth mentioning that there is a poem the movie may have been based on though no official credit is given to Ed Justin for this.

Much in the way of 80’s movies, the story focuses on a group of city kids who go to the country for a weekend get away. In their revelry the requisite jerk accidentally kills Billy Harley, the young son of a local shop owner, Ed (Lance Henriksen). Ed returns from an errand to find that those responsible have left the scene of the crime. In his grief he turns to a local witch and black magic to get revenge on the kids, no matter the personal price he must pay. With nothing left to lose, he has the woman resurrect a spirit of vengeance called Pumpkinhead. While it’s name may sound silly, it’s look is anything but as it appears to have stepped out of a nightmare. Those guilty of the death of Billy find themselves being picked off one by one by this force of nature; miles from civilization, with no friends and no hope.

There’s not much to the cast or acting on this one. A very young Mayim Bialik, before Blossom, Webster and Big Bang Theory. Tom Woodruff Jr. who is best known for never showing his actual face and being under a ton of prosthetics in everything from Monster Squad, Tremors, Goro in Mortal Kombat, Aliens, Predators and more. Sort of a larger version of Doug Jones. There is also the eternally awesome Lance Henriksen. If Tony Todd is the face of horror, then Lance is the face of Sci-fi. Most commonly known as Bishop from Aliens, if you love 80s Sci-fi you know this mans work, with 194 acting credits to his name in his career.

The technicals. Woof. Alright, this was made on the cheap, with a budget of around 3.5 million dollars. They used every penny of it to the best possible. Sure some shots clearly look like sound stages and yep, there’s no doubt that’s California and places we’ve seen on dozens of TV shows and low budget movies since. The creature itself is horrific. Though you can see that its design looked strongly inspired by the Alien of Geigers work and the movies. It has a life all its own and a movement as it crosses the screen that breathes menace. Effective lighting, darkness and sound add to the effect. It’s “soundtrack” is that of dozens of cicada and they work effectively in the way only insects can. It also bears mention Pumpkinhead isn’t a stupid monster, though it pushes its own credibility as a demon of vengeance at times and shows too much ingenuity. I will warn you know the ADR (Additional Dialogue Recording) is god awful and there’s a millisecond delay at times where the words and sound mixing just don’t work.

TL;DR

Pumpkinhead is a modern classic monster movie that has inspired three sequels in it’s wake. The original is a solid piece of 80s horror that any purist much watch. It’s not a great movie by any stretch but it does its job and does it well. It does it a helluva lot better than creature features since.

Tomorrow’s review will not have a word spoken.

Darke Reviews | The Conjuring (2013)

Posted by

0

This movies continues a predictably long line of Hollywood milking the low budget unseen horror film. Long line? Perhaps you’ve heard of Paranormal Activity (1-5), The Grudge, Insidious, Mama, Sinister? Horror movies work because they play on a fear. Typically fears of the modern consciousness and sometimes our subconscious fears that particularly attentive writers have tapped into as they create their projects. The writers usually say it is their own fear put to page and when created lets the audience realize it is their fear too.

The 80’s it was the slasher; the faceless killer, the stranger and something that could not be stopped. The 90’s had no real identity of it’s own and is actually very weak in the genre instead giving us the Teen Scream. This was a more literal transition of the Slasher film to focus on the teens themselves, such as Scream, I Know What You Did Last Summer, Halloween H20, Urban Legends, etc. At the end of the 90’s we were given the start of the found footage horror with Blair Witch; which began the start of the supernatural horror we are in now. In this decade, we are inundated with a slightly different take on the Supernatural/Unseen horror where it is blended with the Home Invasion. Movies like the Purge and Your Next, Dark Skies are all representative of this new wave of horror in their more physical sense. Insidious, Paranormal Activity and the Conjuring are a blend of home invasion and the unseen.

Granted these are just my perceptions on the horror genre and I could go on these at length (and may if so asked), so lets get down to the review itself.

2013 saw the release of a few movies in this vein and the Conjuring is the most successful. It actually ranks 5th in the most successful Supernatural horrors of all time. It had a production budget of $20 million and brought in $137. Not a bad haul and the reason that Hollywood will continue to take this route. The conjuring also uses one other theme of new horror -“Based on True Events”

Director James Wan (saw, Insidious) is the proud papa of some serious horror franchises. Despite my personal feelings on this genre, he has a clear understanding of how to shoot to build tension. How to get performances of his actors old and young that are believable and make them feel like people. It’s actually one of the strengths of the Conjuring, that every performance is balanced and well done enough that the characters fears are played to their most subtle and nuanced.

The story by the Hayes brothers, Chad and Carey, is set back in the 70s and focuses on a family who move into an old farmhouse. Shortly after they move in they begin to see and experience strange events, mostly centered around the children. To make matters worse the father Roger (Ron Livingston – Office Space) Perron is a truck driver who could be away for days at a time. The mother Carolyn (Lili Taylor – The Haunting) is even being attacked by these entities and reaches out to a married couple who specialize in Paranormal investigations. The couple Ed (Patrick Wilson -Insidious, A Team) Warren and Lorraine (Vera Farmiga – The Departed) Warren give lectures on the exorcisms and events they have helped people through. Much of their focus tends to be on the demonic and they even keep a collection of possessed objects in their home as a kind of museum. When the Warren’s arrive in the Perron home events begin to escalate to horrific conclusion. Where Ed must make a choice to save the lives and souls of the Perrons.

I’ve spoken briefly on the acting already. Every actor performs amazingly leaving nothing on the floor and holding nothing back. To be clear this isn’t over acting, but actors, adult and child alike, who put their everything into the performance. They get close in the final act to overacting due to the nature of what they must do and playing out an exorcism. I have to admit Wilson, Livingston, Taylor and Farmiga make this more intense than the Exorcist for me.

The technical aspects of the film are sufficient enough where they rely on the jump scares more than any other technique. The make ups for the dead and possessed are at this time getting a bit overwrought and while I cannot condemn them for it, I can say it’s maybe time to move to a new type of genre. The make up can only be done so many times and anything after this is getting redundant. The CGI when it happens is used to enhance the make up and create transitions to show claw marks, burns and other manifestations. These are definitely to the movies credit. I also cannot complain about movie that relies strongly on camera tricks and practical effects over CG.

TL;DR

I can see why the conjuring was successful and while this new breed of horror isn’t my cup of tea it works. The inspired and based on real events is also getting old, but again when you consider that there are tapes of the interviews between Ed Warren and Carolyn Perron from 1971 it adds a certain element of horror to it that cannot and should not be denied.

Overall I have to say it’s a solid film, and while it didn’t scare me, that will scare more than enough people out there. I do think Hollywood needs to stop while it’s ahead and get to a new genre before they milk this one dry.

Tomorrow’s review knows where the bastard sleeps.

Darke Reviews | Let The Right One In (2008)/Let Me In (2010)

Posted by

4

As one of the more interesting vampire movies in the recent years I wanted to talk about the Swedish film Let the Right One in, and it’s Americanized remake Let Me In. I watched both movies simultaneously tonight, writing this review as I watched.

This falls into a recent trend of films to be made in another country and then be remade within the States. The Japanese have taken the brunt of this foreign film exploitation; and lets be honest folks that’s what it is, the Norwegians are now experiencing it as well (Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, Troll Hunter). We, as in Hollywood, are letting other countries create new ideas, new takes on old ideas and rather than try to distribute THAT film here, the producers hire a team of monkeys, er writers and directors to remake and re-imagine the film within a few years of its release. A vast majority of the ghost stories we’ve had, starting with the Ring, were originally Japanese. Why not actually let us watch that one in a theatre? Sadly the answer my friends is us. The audience doesn’t want subtitles, they want faces they recognize even if the foreign actors are remarkable, I am sure there are other reasons that are just as BS.

So how do these two films compare? American vs Swedish? Interestingly. I warn you now to avoid spoilers (contrary to my norm) skip to the TL;DR.

The story focuses on a young boy (Oskar/Owen) living in a run down apartment complex, who sees a girl (Eli/Abby) his age moving in . He is bullied at school, being raised by his mother alone. He spends his time not in school alone outside in the snow in the complex courtyard playing with a rubix cube or stabbing trees imagining the tree is a bully. The boy and girl quickly become friends and he uncovers her secret, that she is a vampire. As their relationship grows, the girls relationship with her caretaker begins to wane. Things at school escalate with the bullies and the boy, while things further deteriorate around the girl and the body count rises.

The story is the same, though the names change. The US version is nearly a shot for shot remake of the Swedish. There are, however, some interesting choices between the two.

As expected, or should be, the Swedish version plays out more dramatically beat for beat. The american one starts out far more dramatically with an ambulance racing through the highlands of New Mexico dealing with an acid burn victim, while the Swedish version begin focused on Oskar alone and establishing his awkwardness. I suppose Matt Reeves (Cloverfield), director and writer – see what I mean from yesterday? – felt that a more romantic/dramatic start would disengage his audience and he needed to create an artificial bit of excitement to start. The US version also does not stay 100% practical and that is a massive failing of the film, where the CGI attack by Abby is no where near as intense or visceral as Eli’s practical one. It’s proof once again that CG is not better than a good make up or skill in shooting.

Lets talk about the actors and characters a bit, but I want to this in reverse order starting with the bit parts.

The Bullies. I hate Bullies, I laugh when they are mutilated, eviscerated and otherwise punished brutally in film. It brings me no end of joy. So while the nature of the bullies in the US version are more deserving of their fate, they are also two dimensional entities that you can have absolutely no sympathy for. The Swedish version, while they are still inhuman in their own right and have earned their Karma and pay it, have some depth. They pause, they have moments where the three of them are not all “complete” villains.

The Caretaker. Still a better love story than twilight. No seriously, it’s a love story between him and his vampire. In all the years and vampire films I’ve watched I have never seen one handle this so interestingly and creatively. While the man is clearly in his late forties in both films, if not mid fifties, there he is the caretaker to a twelve year old. To an outsider he would be the parent, but to a careful observer and viewer you see that they are more than that. He hunts for her nightly, killing people and bringing their blood for her to feed on. He is getting old however and making mistakes. In some of his final moments you get a true grasp of his relationship with the girl. Tenders touches from her, eyes closed and a sense of peace from him. His final acts, after a final failure is sacrifice. His love for her is that complete that he would not only pour acid on his face, but
then to let her feed from him because she had been unable to. It almost makes my black heart melt.

Lets talk about the boy. Oskar (Kåre Hedebrant) and Owen (Kodi Smit-McPhee). Hedebrants Oskar comes across more damaged. There’s a pleasure in his eyes when he finally stands up to the bullies. An eagerness as he stabs the trees mimicking the taunts of the bullies. There’s also a certain eagerness to which he embraces Eli, even as he tries to deny their relationship. The broken nature even shows as he torments her briefly to find out what happens if she isn’t invited in, though that scene is tempered by his care for her. Smit-McPhee comes across more of a victim throughout, eternally vulnerable and even as he stands up to the bullies there’s no real strength there and no hidden sadism. Though for cinematic reasons he puts Abby through the same lack of invite, there is no sense that it was even for a moment malicious. In fact he looks as if he’s about to jack rabbit the entire time until the very last minute. Even during a moment where the theoretical worm turns, Hedebrant plays the stronger boy willing to draw a blade to defend and simply turn his back on a murder. Smit-McPhee plays the same scene weaker, pleading and even trembling. Both boys play the vulnerable, weak love interest to their girl rather well and the inexorable slide into her grasp is entertaining to watch; which makes their final decision complete and logical from the way the story has been executed.

On to the girl, Eli (Lina Leandersson) and Abby (Chloë Grace Moretz – yes my favourite young actress). For the purposes of the story and relationship (that gets it’s own section this time), Chloë acts as well as ever but the nature of her looks weaken one of the plot points in the relationship. Lina’s performance is actually a bit darker due to her androgynous features. She looks twelve and neither pure girl nor pure boy and is a bit more haunting as she carries out several of the kills. Both girls deliver a remarkable performance as a vampire, but Lina is given the option to use her body language and a minimal amount of effects to achieve monsterousness, while Chloë is not afforded the same. Though she, much like in Carrie, has the body language down and performs fully has some of her performance masked by too much blood and too much CG overlay on her make up.

The romance needs to be talked about here as much as anything. It was controversial for several reasons when the original Swedish version came out. I was worried when I saw the US release if they would do the same. There’s an entire series of dialogue half way through the film, where she joins the boy in his bed in the middle of the night. She had already asked him if he would like her if she was not a girl; now he asks her to go steady to an interesting reply.

“I’m not a girl.”
“You’re not?”
“Does that bother you?”
“No.”

Now as she is prepubescent there’s debate as to what she means. Is it that she isn’t actually a girl, is it that she is but doesn’t consider herself one as she never even reached her teens, or the fact that she is a vampire makes her gender-less in her own mind? The conversation alone and it’s implications, much less his response, make it an interesting film. The options are also questions that are never answered which is a nice change of pace. It’s also fascinating to wonder as you look at the movie and understand the Caretaker that while the boy cares for her; you must ask yourself if she cares for him. Is she manipulating him to get her needs or are her emotions in such flux because of being eternally twelve? Again questions never answered and best left to interpretation. Even through the end of the film where the Caretaker cycle begins anew you just don’t know. Ultimately the viewer must decide, is it love or is it a monster – perhaps both.

TL;DR
\/uuuu\/

While your tastes may vary and I do like both films, the Swedish version is superior in many elements. It shows a better finesse and love for the story than the US version. The US version is sufficient and still good, but they missed the memo on show don’t tell – especially in the final pool sequence. The children all act well, with Chloë 12 at the time of filming.

I can comfortably recommend both and think vampire fans will enjoy (if you haven’t already seen).

No hints for tomorrow, since its a film I haven’t seen – it will be the Conjuring.

Darke Reviews | An American Werewolf in London (1981)

Posted by

0

If you ever get the chance go to Greenwich Village in New York, check out the Slaughtered Lamb pub. Quite awesome and obviously thematic. This film is widely considered one of the best Werewolf movies in existence. It’s not a huge genre like the ghost story or the even insanely more popular vampire. The films that do exist here are largely junk and partially that lays on the feet of the nature of the creature itself. You see Vampires are easy, their anatomy isn’t that difficult to do make up for. Werewolves have a few ways you can go. There’s the classic Lon Chaney-esque wolf man, which is more of a man wolf. The human anatomy doesn’t change at all, aside from pointed ears and a slightly pronounced jaw that makes for an almost muzzle. The more difficult and more commonly used – and abused – is the wolf head on a humanoid body. It doesn’t work, the bone structure isn’t there. The skull shape is too alien and unusually to effectively morph *and* have the actors effectively emote through and perform. Speaking is right out without ridiculous effects that take most people out of it while they laugh. A handful of films get this effect right, Underworld, Dog Soldiers and of course An American Werewolf in London.

I want to talk technicals right away. This movie won an Academy award for make up effects. Rick Baker who has a handful of credits in the few years prior to this, such as a little film called Star Wars, did an amazing job in designing and creating the practical effects. One of the scenes in the film is hands down the best werewolf transformation scene done without the use of CGI ever filmed. It’s a little ironic that nearly thirty years later he would be the senior make up artist on the remake of The Wolfman. Baker is one of the best in the industry and this movie was just at the start of his career. The raw amount of practical effects that hold up to this day are in a word – astounding.

Lets talk about the other aspects of the film, such as the fact that it was written and directed by the same man, John Landis. That seems to be a trend in the horror industry a written and directed by Credit. Landis is best known for his comedic work such as Animal House, The Blues Brothers and Clue. Those kinds of influences are clearly shown in the comedic and campy elements that make up the non horror elements of the film. While not the first campy horror, this one may be one of the finest blends. Landis brought beautiful dark and somber moments that are highlighted only by quiet music and saddening dialogue where moments before it had been embracing an almost ridiculous schlock and corny dialogue.

The story itself is around two best friends, David Kessler (David Naughton) and Jack Goodman (Griffin Dunne); Americans backpacking their way through England. While trying to get a bite to eat and a drink they enter the Slaughtered Lamb pub and stick out like a gangrenous sore thumb. They are quickly encouraged to leave and travel across the moor’s not heading the warning to stick to the road. The pair is attacked by a creature in the dark and Jack is killed. David severely wounded watches his friend die before him, only to wake up in a hospital three weeks later. Everyone questions David’s sanity, including himself, as he talks about what he saw. Then Jack shows up clawed face, torn throat and all telling David he is one of the undead, a sort of ghost in this film that cannot find peace. He tells David he is a werewolf and the only way to prevent more death is to kill himself. Of course, no one else can see Jack which makes David question his sanity even more. The rest of the movie centers around David trying to fight what he is to become, ever being tortured/tempted by Jack to do what must be done.
Aside from Landis direction much of the power comes from the performances of the two main actors. Both men have had relatively extensive, but not significant careers since the film. It’s unfortunate, but as movies to have a gem this is a good one. Even as a progressively rotting corpse Dunne’s performance as Jack retains human elements that keep him relatable and also humorous despite the message he is trying to convey to his best friend in the world. David for his part runs the gambit of emotions and lets you feel his pain as the curse drives him to the brink. His performance two thirds through the movie with the rise of the full moon is one that set the stage for nearly every werewolf film to come. He, Landis and Baker made the transformation painful, horrific and as realistic as possible.

Other performances such as Jenny Agutter as Alex Price, Davids nurse and caretaker after the accident, and John Woodvine as Dr. Hirsch help push the story forward while David languishes. There’s also a certain charm to the interactions David has with his other victims as the body count rises in the film.

The end of the film is also one of the few that you will find in Hollywood that ends on such a note. While this form of ending has increased in recent years, few do it so well and end so suddenly.
TL;DR

An American Werewolf In London is an absolute must see camp/horror classic. Nearly every other Lycanthrope film since then is but a pale shadow of this one. The need for CGI over the practical only diminishes newer films further.
Tomorrow will likely come a bit late as it’s a double review. It’s twelve has been twelve for a long time.

Darke Reviews | The Lost Boys (1987)

Posted by

1

This is a movie that opens with the perfect musical beats of The Sisters of Mercy’s Cry Little Sister and then leads into the Doors being covered by Echo & the Bunnymen “People are strange”. Few other films both capture their era so elegantly, so perfectly and tell you everything you need to know about the film you are going to watch. This movie came out in 1987 and every single aspect of it shows it from hair, to fashion, to music, to dialogue, to effects.

Welcome to Santa Carla, welcome to the Lost Boys. This review will absolutely focus on the first of the three movies; yes there are three. I have watched all three and as a warning to the generations yet to come I will not review them (this month). This is probably one of the last of the vampire genre of the 80’s and mainstream horror vampires we get for years to come. I want to make it clear, this is not the last vampire movie of the 80s and not the last mainstream vamp, but it is one of the last that is both Mainstream and actually HORROR. Is it particularly scary by modern sensibilities? No, but this isn’t a dramatic piece and it’s certainly not a romance. While it only grossed $32 million in 1987, that puts it higher than most horror movies in todays market with an adjusted gross of about $65 million. Despite what we consider low numbers, this is also a box office success when you consider it was made for about $8.5 million.

Now as I move to talk about the director, I usually indicate that friends don’t let friends watch Joel Schumacher movies. This is the man who gave us Batman and Robin and Batman Forever. When you’re done vomitting I will be here. While he does have a good decision here or there in his career; for the most part he is a train wreck. Lost Boys is one of his good decisions, in which he looked at a script that called for Goonies aged vampires and the Frog Brothers to be chubby scouts and went – “nah, lets make them teens and sexier.” Best decision ever as it’s created one of the most iconic and influential vampire films of the modern era. I’d talk more about the writers Janice Fischer and James Jermias, but they quite literally did nothing after or before it. The movie does have a third writer which by normal rules is a death knell , but somehow in this film it’s an improvement. If I had to guess he was brought in by Richard Donner (the producer who almost directed) to brush up and mature the script. The third writer is Jeffrey Boam, who is credited for Lethal Weapons 2 and 3, Indiana JOnes and the Last Crusade, Innerspace and as the creator of Brisco County Jr. Fascinating individual and one I would bet brought most of the sarcasm and charm to the script created by the other two.

The movie centers around Michael (Jason Patric), his brother Sam (Corey Haim) and mother Lucy (Dianne Weist) recently imported from Phoenix to Santa Carla California. An improvement I’d say. Michael in his quest to get laid (it’s not stated but watch, its what happened) encounters Starr (Jami Gertz) a hot young brunette who has a penchant for tank tops. She is also part of a local gang of toughs lead by David (Keifer Sutherland). As the gang brings Michael into the fold he finds out they are vampires. His little brother Sam, encounters the mysterious and strange Frog Brothers Edgar (Corey Feldman) and Alan (Jamison Newlander), who work in their parents comic shop and believe they hunt the supernatural. A third plot line is surprisingly successfully interwoven with Lucy meeting a charming man, and employer, by the name of Max (Edward Hermann). As the movie counts down to its gruesome conclusion the plot threads collide in like a head on collision. Along the way we are treated to some of the lovely music of the 80’s and the introduction to one of the most gothic songs to be released, Cry Little Sister.

When it comes to acting, the movie is generally lacking. It borders on camp at times from the levels of bad some of the characters hit. I blame part of that on the script. 20 year old Gertz is fresh from the bomb Solar Babies, yes that’s an actual title and still is very rough around the edges. This is the first movie with the two Coreys together but it’s clear they actually have a natural charisma together; even though the characters are young, stupid and insane – much like the Coreys themselves I suppose. Sutherland and his vampire crew which includes future Bill S Preston Esquire (Alex Winter) are mostly there to look ridiculous in that 80s biker goth way and chew scenery; which they do with wild abandon.

The effects are all practical, and I thank whatever dark god decided that, through the movie and surprisingly most of them hold up. I think that lays solely on the talents of an Oscar winning make up team including Face/Off judge Ve Neill.

As it pertains to the vampire mythos, it doesn’t add a whole heck of a lot other than character and flavor. It shows a new younger, edgier breed of vampire that we really had not gotten to see before. Gone were the cloaks and bad accents; in were trench coats and bad haircuts. It does hold a few element true from common myths, such as sunlight, staking, garlic, invitations etc. It also gave us the Buffy Brow that became the standard for vampires everywhere after.

TL;DR

The Lost Boys is a must see for any fan of the genre. If you are young enough to have never seen it – do so. While I was sad to never see its true continuation the Lost Girls, this one stands apart in the vampire genre and holds it’s own even now.

Tomorrow’s review wants to let you know if you lose the race you lose your car!

Darke Reviews | Carrie – Old (1976) vs New (2013)

Posted by

0

 

I had been waiting to watch this movie for a little over a year from the time I heard Chloe Grace Moretz would be playing the title role. Now since I began an old vs new review schtick recently I thought it just to do an OvN for Carrie – 1976 vs 2013. For fairly obvious reasons I had not seen the original when it came out, I was four days old; however I have watched it several times since and watched it again tonight so I could accurately compare it to the one I saw late last night. How do they compare? How does the new stand up to the classic Oscar nominated film? Lets break it down and much like last time I will use years to specify. This review WILL contain spoilers due to the fact its a remake!

Directing –

Kimberly Pierce (Boys Don’t Cry, Stop-Loss) brings a certain modernization to the new film, that was needed to tell the story for a modern audience. The performances she coaxes out of her cast and decisions made reflect a profound respect for Brian DePalma’s(Untouchables, Scarface) 1976 adaptation of Kings novel. She brings to 2013 a vast majority of the scenes and shots that dePalma did way back when. She is also wise enough to change it when needed and make her own choices that elevate the movie in many areas but hurt it in others. It’s hard to criticize dePalma’s work because of the classic nature of it, however there are a few things that he cut that Pierce didn’t. Other decisions that he made, such as using a full-powered hose and busting out PJ Soles eardrums during prom – not good. In a true match up 2013 uses more of the original script than 1976, but the overall performances and shots these directors chose are indicitive of their times and experience.

Lets talk script.

This is of course based on the Steven King novel of the same name released in 1974. It was the first of his stories to be adapted to film, the 1976 was adapted for the screen by Lawrence D Cohen. Cohen also adapted other works by King, such as It, Tommy Knockers, Nightmares and Dreamscapes and has a credit on the new film as well. 2013 has a writing credit also given to Roberto Aguirre-Sacasa, who has Glee to his credit. That’s it. I can’t really say what Roberto added as most of the 2013 movie is nearly line for line from the 1976. Obviously a few things have changed to bring it current, a beat here or there is altered but based on the overall story presented the 2013 IS the 1976 as it was intended to be.

The story

For the few of you who don’t know it, it’s that of Carrie White a homely teenage girl who is picked on and abused from all sides without sanctum or sanity. Most of the students and even a few teachers bully and torment her there, only for her to return home to a mother who is in short – an insane Christian fundamentalist. The poor girl has her first period in the showers in the school gym, surrounded by unforgiving classmates who throw feminine products at her chanting cruel things. Saved only by a teacher Ms Dejardin. During her outburst her telekinetic powers begin to manifest. The rest of the film is an exploration of her growth into her own identity while those around her would destroy her. She has few allies through it all, none who are actually saying anything to her directly. The story culminates with a Prom, Pigs Blood and Pain.
Acting/Performances

Sissy Spacek in 1976 achieved what almost no horror movie actress has in their role, an Academy award nomination. She had a look to the character which fits her nature. She is unassuming, forgettable, the classic wall flower. She never makes eye contact, she looks shrunken in on her own sense of self. She begins to find herself and sense of self as she studies her powers and is invited to prom. The transition for her is interesting and perhaps more subtle than Chloe’s in the 2013. Chloe is hands down the best thing of the new film, but also the worst. Spacek wasn’t pretty (by my standards) so when she performed Carrie it worked on a very specific level. Chloe cannot help but be pretty even when she tries not to be. I suppose though that it adds to the level of her performance as she expertly pulls off every other aspect of what it means to be Carrie. Her transition from girl, to woman, to monster is fascinating to behold. You are with her when she feels joy for the first time in her life. As she stands up to her mother and then when it finally comes burning down.

Before we talk about the other characters we need to discuss the differences between the breakdowns. Spacek goes to bye bye land. She is no longer home and no longer connected to reality when her eyes bulge and vengeance reigns. She is indiscriminate ending her foes and even her friends who she unable to comprehend anymore. Her walk home is that of a lost creature finding its natural habitat. Our 2013 Carrie is different. She’s decided to stop being prey and become a predator. She may have lost touch with reality on a different scale, but more importantly she lost touch with her morality as she deliberately targets her enemies and saves her one friend in the room. It’s important to note she actively does save a life. The rest, the rest just burn as she stalks her way home inflicting righteous suffering. There is actual bliss on her face as some of her enemies die. I think both performances are perfect in this aspect as both show the genie in the bottle being let out in different ways. I think, as a victim of bullying for 7 years of school, I prefer 2013 but that’s taste.

Supporting Cast

Margaret White, played by Piper Laurie in 1976 was a force of nature. She was down right insane and uncomfortable to be around and played perfectly by Laurie, which I believe also got her an Academy nod. Julianne Moore, in 2013, on the other hand is a different force of nature. She’s just as insane, but screams less and has a different level of uncomfortableness to her. You watch her self mutilate and have no touch with reality. Her speech to Carrie before the end of her conception is different in the 2013 and I think better for it’s lack of filth.

The Aggressors

I don’t need to go into too much detail here. They are vile in both films and deserve all that comes with it. The modern twist of filming the shower sequence and posting it online brings it home for the recent cases of cyberbullying and the effects of it. The 1976 cast included more names that had small careers in the 70s and early 80s and some grew into bigger ones. Some guy named John Travolta for example. I don’t think the new cast has such luck as none of them save Sue (below) had any real screen presence

The supporters

Sue Snell, Tommy Ross and Ms Dejardin. Much like I have said with others these characters are iconic to their times. They reflect it perfectly and also much like the aggressors the 1976 cast went on to bigger and better (William Katt and Amy Irving) and the 2013 cast will likely not with the exception of Sue, she might have something. She has a beauty that the camera loves and a bit of charisma that with the right directors could grow into actual acting. I found that the 2013 Dejardin was a little more empathetic to Carrie and showed her frustration with the school a little better.
Effects & Technical

While the fire sequences, lighting, film quality and camera work is better in the 2013 film I think much of that is a product of Hollywood evolution. The crucifixion in 2013 however took me right out of it as the CG was so painfully evident and when compared to the more practical looking flying knives from 76 just didn’t work. I will however defend the end of the film for its choice in the destruction of the house. It was in the original 76 to be done the same way and they couldn’t make it work and by 2013 they did. The same with the death sequences during the retribution, some of them just look better now, but again this is evolution not intent.
TL;DR (I know this was long)

This one is a flat out tie. Because the film plays so faithfully to the original, even going so far as to include several scenes the original cut I can’t say they are different films. They are the same movie filmed 37 years apart. If anything it’s a study in film making now and then.

What I can say is watching the new one, which I do recommend for those so inclined, I felt anticipation growing in my chest as the prom arrived and I was waiting for the bucket. That’s something few movies have done and its something to give credit for. I may add some comments below that are more about elements to the 2013 than a true comparison.

Overall – Both movies are incredibly successful in the translation of Kings story and are faithful to each other. I have to recommend the new one if you love the old. Appreciate all that they did in the making of when we live in an age where we wince at bad decisions in remakes.
Tomorrows review never stops with the whining, but will give you a choice it never had.

Darke Reviews | Monster Squad (1987)

Posted by

2

In the year I turned 11 I do not think there was a movie I watched more or that helped shape some of what was to come for me later in my love of monsters. A film that was a child of the 80s introduction to the wonders that were the great Universal Monsters in all their beautiful campy glory in a way only that the celluloid of the 80s can. It also taught me about the holocaust at a young age. The movie is ostensibly for children and young teens though watching it with the eyes of someone who is supposed to be an adult I both wonder what people were thinking and thank them for thinking it.

The movie of course is the underground and somewhat cultish hit The Monster Squad. Directed by Fred Dekker and written by Dekker and Shane Black. Yes, that Shane Black – I am surprised the movie isn’t based around christmas somehow. While it lacks the action, for obvious reasons, that the Lethal Weapons, Long Kiss Goodnight and Tony Stark 3 had; you can see that Blacks writing hasn’t really changed much in twenty six years. Dekker himself is also responsible for Robocop 3 and the Richard Greico film “If Looks Could Kill.” With what I know now of what was to come for these two in the years after, as this is Blacks Second film and Dekkers third, I wonder even as I watched it tonight – why the hell is it so damn entertaining?

I think the answer to that is a combination of things: Nostalgia, the magic of the 80’s and a love for the classic Monsters that are surprisngly treated as well as you can expect.

The story centers around Dracula (Duncan Regehr) who is hunting for a mystic gemstone that when destroyed will allow the creatures of the night to make their beautiful music all over the earth. Between him and success is an unlikely group of kids (none of whom you know now) who have a club called the Monster Squad. They have a wicked rad tree house I would have killed for and a love for horror films. No I assure you I was not in this film. Along the way they encounter and befriend Frankensteins Monster and face off with The Wolfman, The Creature from the Black Lagoon, The Mummy and the Brides of Dracula.

As I get into the technical aspects of the film, let me be clear next to nothing of it holds up. There are a handful of Make-Ups and prosthetics that are still nice looking but they also are perfectly suited for the 80s. The CG is incredibly horrible and you can even see the wires on the sickeningly fake bats.

You leave the movie knowing a few things though, Silver Bullets are the only way to kill a werewolf, Frankenstein saying “Bogus” is awesome, and that wolfmans got nards.

TL;DR?

Ok I have an absolute love for this movie. It is raw nostalgia and I know it. I burned out a VHS tape of it as a kid. It has a tone and feel to it that bring me back to a happier time; but even as I watched it tonight I know it’s not a good movie. Yes, there were even tears at the end for one of the scenes that get me today. Despite what they say, some children can act.

This one is to be watched for Nostalgia or curiosity alone.
Tomorrow’s review will be an old vs new, but wants to take you to prom.

Darke Reviews | Trick R Treat (2009)

Posted by

4

Many of us were first introduced to this film through its musically powerful and highly visual trailer. You say, thats how most people find out about movies, trailers, Duh. That’s true, but this one appeared in front of the DVD release for the movie 300. It had fans of horror movies positively salivating in anticipation. Then, never came to be. Finally a DVD was released in 2009; two full years after the trailer was given to us.

The trailer itself was timeless in it’s own way with a near perfect execution of imagery and sound. It promised us a tale of vampires, classic halloween costumes not seen since the early 80s, ghosts, ghouls and jack o lanterns. Most of you will read this review two weeks prior to the day, this is intentional on my part. This gives you time to watch it and get in the halloween spirit.

Is it a Trick or Treat though?

As normal first we examine sole writer and director, Michael Dougherty. Prior to 2007 he had given us Bryan Singers screenplays for X2 and Superman Returns. In both cases he was one of several involved. Fault cannot be laid soley at his feet and it appears as he worked both films he is friends with Bryan Singer. On his solo outing, he finds a voice all his own. He comes at the movie in a way I haven’t seen since the Creepshow movies or perhaps even Heavy Metal. He interweaves the stories and connects them through touches of subtlety that can be overlooked. What he also shows is a true passion and love for the holiday (my favorite of course) and crafts a tale bringing superstition, horror, and tradition together.

We have the story of a modern woman (Leslie Bibb – the reporter from Ironman 1 and 2) who scoffs at tradition and her husband (Tahmoh Penikett – Battlestar Galactica)who respects it. This is the shortest of them, but has some meaning as it lays the ground work for what is to come. There is also the tail of poor, sweet, virginal Laurie (Anna Paquin – True Blood), with her big sister and friends off to a party hunting for dates as storybook characters. One cannot forget the lessons by principal Steven Wilkins (Dylan Baker – Law and Order) and his son Billy; reminding us of all the warnings we grew up with and some of the modern traditions of Halloween. We cannot have a movie like this without a ghost story filled with tricks, treats, myths, and even revenge. A story of children on a bus left to die long ago and children today who were lost to the darkness inside all people. Of course there is also the final story – the obligatory haunted house. The old man who scares everyone and yet has dark secrets of his own that bring the darkness to him in ways he can only imagine in nightmares.

Now for the month of October many of my reviews, contrary to the norm, have been spoilerific. This one will not be, unless you’ve figured out things from how I said them. If so more power to you.

From a technical standpoint, this movie is everything Halloween should be. Had Carpenter gotten what he wanted in 1978, this film would have fit into his goals for what the Halloween series was meant to be. The effects done by Patrick Tatopulos (Underworld) while not perfect are some of the best I’ve seen for transformations and certainly original. The movie stays practical nearly 100% of the time on all the effects and those that aren’t I can’t tell. It also does something I have not seen much of when it puts actual children in the roles of the very children who are in peril – which is unusual for Hollywood. It also wisely knows when to leave well enough alone and let your imagination and a creative foley artist do far more than any gore effect. A lesson to be learned by many so called horror directors.

TL;DR

The movie has frights, but not too much to handle. It has chills and thrills, twists and turns. This to me, is an absolute must see in the horror and halloween genres. It’s barely flawed and almost perfect in every execution.

It is THE movie to have for a Halloween completist.
Tomorrows review let us know that Mummy came to his house