Horror

Darke Reviews – Underworld: Rise of the Lycans (2009)

Posted by

2

Continuing the countdown of the Underworld series we move now into the third entry of the franchise. Underworld, the story you didn’t really care about. I mean Underworld: The Two Towers. I mean Underworld Werewolves need love too. …gah sorry. Underworld Rise of the Lycans. In Hollywoods quest for mining blood from a stone they have resorted strongly to the prequel; with the Underworld franchise being no exception. This was the franchise film for my ex, she was the werewolf lover and me the vampire lover; which was no end of running jokes in our household.

Is Rise of the Lycans worth the 90 minutes of your time it takes to watch.

Much like last week, we have a total of nine credits under the writing category. Three belong to the original characters, so we get to ignore them. The story is by Len Wiseman , with the addition or Robert Orr and Danny McBride. McBride has a character credit, which leaves us Orr, who has done nothing else save the Jeffrey Dean Morgan thriller The Resident. Screenplay credits, in other words the script, goes to three: McBride (again), Dirk Blackman (how can that be a real name), and Howard McClain. Blackman was the scriptwriter on the the underrated sci fi take of Beowulf called Outlander, but vanished after this. McClain also worked on Outlander as both writer and director, who also vanished after.

Under their pen the story now focuses on the story of Lucian (Michael Sheen) and Sonja (Rhona Mitra) and their Romeo and Juliet like romance under the eye of her father Viktor (Bill Nighy). I am using the Romeo and Juliet romance accurately here. It adds to the story of Tannis (Steven Mackintosh) and introduces us to a still human Raze (Kevin Grevioux). We are now several hundred years in the past for this story, sometime after the trapping of William Corvinus, the first Werewolf, and before the birth of Selene. Time is subjective with this series at best.

We have the direction of former production designer and make up expert Patrick Tatopoulos. You may know him from the early seasons of Face/Off on SyFy, but he also was involved in Stargate, Spawn, Pitch Black, Cursed, The Cave, Silent Hill, Trick R Treat…..the list goes on. This was one of his first, and sadly only, forays into directing. He showed a strong hand at the helm and keeps the overall style of the original films. It has a tight focus overall, but act three quickly reminds me of The Two Towers with Michael Sheen going full Aragorn in his trench coat, the rain, and lots of swords. In typical series fashion it is on the lower end of the budget but they stretch it for all that they can.

The casting keeps all that they could reasonably. Sheen has to carry the movie as an ‘younger’ version of the leader he is to become. Thankfully he has all the charisma to do so; even if some scenes push credulity. Nighy continues to chew scenery like you wouldn’t believe, I am starting to think the heavy blinking is irritation with the contacts, but the man is able to carry himself as a heavy despite his comic background. He is also given the oppotunity to show a few different emotions this time, which he takes with quiet resolve. Playing the role of Sonja is Rhona Mitra (Doomsday, The Last Ship) , and unlike the actress from the first film, Mitra actually fits the description when the line is uttered “you reminded him of his precious Sonja”. As a bit of trivia, and a point of desire to be honest, she refused to remove her fangs during filming instead saying they felt as if they always should have been there. She clearly plays the role of someone who not only physically would remind Viktor, but also personality and general badassness. She does well with the raw physicality of the role and sensuality as well.

The technicals hold true to Underworld stylings with blue lighting filters, deep shadows, and an overall near black and white look to the film. The abundance of black leather remains surprising, but c’est la vie. When there is CG work it isn’t that great, but it never has been. The best shots are of the physical werewolves. These are some of the best were’s on screen looking large, in charge, and not entirely ridiculous. The challenge with any werewolf is to allow the actor to emote as both the skull and mouth are structured entirely differently, though they do what they can due to the large amount of time needing to focus on the werewolves.

TL;DR?

Lycans is not the weakest of the franchise. They were also painted into a corner with the story somewhat where some elements *must* happen. It also isn’t the best. From a financial standpoint it made its money back, almost in the first weekend and more than doubled it when you look globally.  That said, this also has the weakest financial turn for any of the franchise, with Awakening having the highest.

It isn’t my favorite of the series, but I do enjoy it. So where does that leave us?

If you feel the need to marathon the film series then you can absolutely enjoy this. I don’t think I’d recommend it as a standalone viewing unless you enjoy Underworld as a series. It does standalone with no real need to watch the others, but there’s not enough draw on it’s own either.

To sum up: “That was fun I guess.”

 

 

Darke Reviews – The Hunger (1983)

Posted by

1

Let’s go back to the vault a bit shall we? A little vampire film that took a bite of its generation and sold it to us to the sound of Bauhaus. The early 80’s were rife with films that captured various scenes, both so few captured both the underground Goth and Punk scenes as well as The Hunger. It is an iconic work within the vampire genre without which, in part anyway, we would unlikely have been given Vampire the Masquerade almost a decade later.

Does it stand up thirty years later?

We often complain about how often Hollywood adapts from books, this is not a new problem. Whitley Strieber, who also gave us the werewolf classic Wolfen, wrote the novel for this as well; just two years prior. It was adapted for the screen by  Ivan Davis, who did nothing else really, and Michael Thomas. Thomas on the other hand gave us another 80s cult classic Ladyhawke,  then vanished to relative obscurity until 2011’s Devils Double.  The dialogue is a bit straight forward with little to no actual subtlety in it, but the directness helps create an interesting tone mixed with the performances. No one in my experience actually talks like they do in here, yet it works within this early 80’s / late 70’s aesthetic.

The film toys with the ideas of bad pseudo-science that we all so love from that era with studies into things we now know are just down right silly; yet with a few tweaks could be brought to modernization via such terms as Stem Cells. What would you do to stop aging? What price would you pay? What if the clock had paused but then started again – what would you do? These are some of the questions the movie dances around and doesn’t quite give you the answer but instead leaves you to get invested and decide for yourself.

It takes a good director to build that kind of investment and for that we have the late Tony Scott. The younger brother of Ridley Scott would later go onto give us some of the most well known films of the 80’s and early  90’s. Little films like Top Gun, Beverly Hills Cop 2, True Romance, Days of Thunder,  and The Last Boyscout. The Hunger, is his first big Hollywood film. It does show at times, mixed with the style of edgy films at the time. Quick cuts, harsh blue and white lighting, and odd shadows. Unusual blocking mixed with limited sets  that combine claustrophobia and open space at the same time. The film feels shot on a budget, yet the hints of genius make it look like the budget was very well spent.

The actors are forced to do a lot with little. There is a near, hopefully, intentional withdrawal from emotion in the three big performances. Catherine Deneuve and David Bowie (yes David Bowie) play Miriam and John Blaylock, our vampires. Though interestingly, I don’t recall the word being used. Susan Sarandon is our scientist who comes in contact with the pair and ensnared in the life of the Blaylock’s. All three are riveting in their lack of overall emotions yet the passion they are able to bring, especially Sarandon and Deneuve. This is perhaps to me why Cliff De Young comes across so distant from them and jarring in his performance as another scientist and love interest to Sarandon. For all the reservedness of the three mains, he is opposite.  There are almost no other relevant cast members to mention as these four are critical to the story; and Deneuve and Sarandon steal every scene they share with each other and it’s hard to tear your eyes away, not accounting for how 80s Sarandon’s hair is.

From an FX perspective. THIS. DO THIS. I keep harping on how much practical is better than CG. This is why. While the effects are not 100% up to par thirty years later, a combination of practical  and camera work sell what effects there are. Make up effects do the rest and we love the movie for it. The movie knew this too as the credit is titled: Make Up Illusions. The two credits here go to Carl Fullerton and Dick Smith. Fullerton has earned two Oscar nominations in his career, and worked on other films suchas F/X, Wolfen,  and Silence of the Lambs. Recently he seems to be Denzel Washington’s personal make up artist. The late Dick Smith, is legendary in the FX community. His last film was the House on Haunted Hill; while his first was in 1941! I know a number of the major artists who credit Smith and his work for getting them into the industry. I tell you this to tell you how amazing the make up is in the film. Amazing

TL;DR?

I would be lying to myself, and you, if I told you that The Hunger holds up now as an overall product. Effects wise it does, but overall aesthetic, acting, and style it really doesn’t. It *is* better than some of the vampire schlock we get these days though. It’s erotic moments of which there are a few are shot with such care and precision that they are truly erotic.

You just don’t see that these days. A lesbian vampire film would be soft porn at best, without the hint of real, sensual eroticism to it.  The film also was riding the very end of the 70’s Hammer and other such erotic horror with the tune shifting already to films like Vamp and The Lost Boys.

The Hunger is an absolute must see for any vampire aficionado. Horror wise? Not so much. It does present a very specific slice of 80’s life and is still worth seeing overall. This is one I think I would like to see if it could be remade.

 

Darke Reviews | The Mist (2007)

Posted by

0

As we move back to more mainstream horror, let’s go to one of the most prolific and deserving men of the last half of the century, Stephen King. It would be easy to say he is one of the most recognized and important writers of the western world. I am proud to have a collection of most of his early works in hardcover within my library. Today’s review covers one of his stories that affected me the most as a child, The Mist. I had the opportunity to get this as a book on tape (with sound effects) around the age of 9 or 10. I grew up in a place that got mist/fog on a not too irregular basis so the one two punch made for an interesting time the next few times we had it. I’ve read the short story over a dozen times just because how good it is.

That makes this one of the violations of the read it first rules as I was reading this long before I imagined I would be writing reviews.

So how did the movie turn out?

Written and directed by Frank Darabont, who probably is the most successful individual at adapting King’s works with such films as The Green Mile and Shawshank Redemption. TV watchers may know him as the man who gave us The Walking Dead. He shows a brilliant command of moving his actors, the dialogue, and the vision through beat by beat and page by page. King gave a lot to work with, but history has shown us not all King adaptations are made equal (It, The Langoliers, Sleepwalkers); but Darabont not only lifts dialogue from page to screen, but the atmosphere and the scenes page for page. For a film like the Mist the atmosphere is critical. From an additional story standpoint the movie does a good job of showing multiple points of view during such an extreme crisis, those who turn to religion, those who deny at a flat earth level, and those who accept their situation and want to survive it. The discussions of humanity, fear, and human nature while mostly being sound bits are handled better than most films who spend time on it.

Of course good acting is a well to sell that the atmosphere and horror is something to be concerned about. For that Darabont put together an excellent cast of actors. Thomas Jane plays artist David Drayton a guy from the city living in a small Maine (of course) town. A massive storm damages his lake house and that of his neighbor Brent Norton (Andre Braugher: Brooklyn Nine-Nine); so Drayton, his son, and Norton head to town for supplies. A strange mist envelops the grocery store trapping Drayton and everyone inside. Shapes and sounds begin to move in the mist as well as the screams of those caught in it. Selling the horror is a cast of people we know even eight years later, Marcia Gay Harden (Law and Order: SVU) plays the whack-a-doodle Mrs Carmody,Laurie (Andrea – Walking Dead) Holden, Toby (Captain America) Jones, William (Die Hard 2, Iron Man 3) Sadler, Jeffrey DeMunn (Dale – The Walking Dead), Alexa (Clash of Titans) Davalos, Sam (Being Human) Witwer all play their A game to sell the film. While we are discussing the raw number of future Walking Dead, we even have Melissa (Carol) McBride in an unnamed role within the film.

The effects are a wonderful blend of practical and CG. The CG is a bit dated, but it tends to the higher end at the time. If you watch the movie in black and white, which is one of the DVD features they become nearly seamless between practical and computer. Now, this past few days I have been discussing how awesome KNB EFX is.  Once again they are the stars of the effects show with Berger, Kurtzman, and Nicotero at the helm. Seriously Hollywood go to these guys more and go less to your computer departments. Please? Creature design was top notch and original and perfectly in line with the book as well. It is positively Lovecraftian.

The ending, I will not spoil, but need to discuss – so bear with me. King is quoted as wishing he had the balls to do the ending that came from Darabont’s pen. Actually…go to the bottom of the post and roll over the SPOILER section to read more.

TL:DR

The Mist is a master class in horror film-making and book adaptation. Darabont was in top form and well deserving of getting to start the Walking Dead a few years later. Great cast, great effects, great film.

If you are a horror fan you need to see this at a minimum and have it in your collection if at all possible. Take the opportunity to watch it in black and white as well.

 

 

 

SPOILERS – ENDING DISCUSSION

 

DO NOT READ UNLESS YOU’VE WATCHED THIS

 

YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED

Ok, let’s talk the end.

Darabont went with kill your darlings. King went with hope and hopelessness. Both endings are really solid. Darabont pulls off the car and the final beats with an artist’s stroke, but then….then he ruins it. There’s two sides to this. One it increases the sense of hopelessness and the Lovecraftian break of a character’s sanity, but at the same time it also shows that the army comes in and saves the day. It ends the threat. King left the threat, still left you feeling hopeless but stood on the edge of hope. It left you with uncertainty as my friend said. 

To me, I would have preferred a combination of the two. The Kill-Your-Darlings and the chasm of Hope. It would have worked. It would have been better. The Darabont ending is really good and supremely brave to try to do, I don’t believe a studio would try it now. They don’t have it in them. So props for doing it but…..I would have preferred they film the King ending as well.

 

 

Darke Reviews | House on Haunted Hill (1999)

Posted by

2

I regret missing this one in theatres back in 99. It took me until video release and a friend recommendation to get a shot at it. Now to be clear I was working roughly from 4pm to 2am at that time and we watched movie after work. The lights were completely off, leaving us with the TV as our only source of illumination. I have come to find atmosphere truly does help with how one thinks of a movie. So I admit going in my memories are fonder due to that atmosphere. Had I watched it at noon on a Sunday with  lovely blue skies (*shudders*)? Less likely to care or be impressed.

Does it work?

Well, let’s talk story. It’s classic haunted house meets slaughterhouse. The actual story credit here goes to Robb White, who passed away 9 years before the film, a frequent collaborator of William Castle. Castle, like Hammer, was a master of low budget horror in the 50’s and 60’s creating films we now revere as classics such as 13 Ghosts and the original House on Haunted Hill. This is important because this is the first film from Dark Castle productions, named in honor of William. The movie was given the screenplay treatment for the millennium by Dick Beebe. Beebe would later write Book of Shadows: Blair Witch 2 and little else. Without comparing it to the original work I think the writer did a good job of setting up a good story, interesting characters, and good dialogue.

The director William Malone, another who sadly did not give us more, did a really good job with the atmosphere, blocking, and direction of the actors. The house is supposed to be a living, breathing entity here and they are 100% successful in that.  There are some very intelligent design choices in how and where they put the camera, lighting, and music. Under his direction and with the good script the characters avoid the stupid. They all hold, with one notable exception, skepticism for the supernatural like normal people. They react to the situation as normal people; you know…poorly.

Cast wise the film is fairly incredible for its time. Geoffrey Rush (Pirates of the Caribbean) delivers his best possible Vincent Price impression. While Rush doesn’t try to emulate the great horror icon, he does attempt the style; even his character is named Price. There’s also Famke Janssen (X-Men), Taye Diggs (Rent), Chris Kattan (SNL), Ali Larter (Heroes, Resident Evil 3 & 4), and Bridgette Wilson-Sampras (Mortal Kombat). The Re-animator himself, Jeffrey Combs, makes a small cameo appearance as well. So the cast is small and packed with some rather decent actors. That explains why they can rely on quiet moments when they do and why there feels like the right levels of chemistry and performance from them as the movie progresses.  Rush of course dominates any scene he is in and is a fantastic enough actor to pull back when he needs to let the others have a moment. Kattan is actually funny in the right ways. Diggs and Larter are beautiful together. Explains why I like them so much in any other project, they just have something.

From an FX perspective the movie has two sides. Like Phantoms yesterday when they go practical every single beat works. KNB once again gives us the blood, gore, and prosthetics. It’s when they go digital that the movie doesn’t work as well. Even a few of the CG enhanced practical effects tend to be pretty weak. A few of the jump scares come across as ridiculous when the music doesn’t sync right and is just a hair too loud. Though when it goes practical it works so beautifully well. There’s um one glaring intensively massive effects flaw with the film in the final beat as the sun rises over the Pacific….

Just let that sink in.

TL;DR

The movie works. It’s just smart enough and holds up relatively well fifteen years later. I like its atmosphere. I like it’s overall logic. The acting. The script. The house. The Marilyn Manson cover of Sweet Dreams.

Really, I have to recommend this for any horror fans as a standalone film. Do not try to compare to the original (I am likely to do that this month). Judging on it’s own merits it is a rather good horror film. Hell I can chase my best friend out of the house by putting it on.

Funky ol movie, ain’t it?

 

Darke Reviews | Phantoms (1998)

Posted by

0

Apparently this is also the month I review movies based on books by Dean Koontz. The other day with Odd Thomas, now with Phantoms. I might have to check to see how many other stories of his have made it to film and by extension to my collection. I do remember seeing this one when it came out and admit to being intrigued by it and it’s cast. This one falls under the near hundreds of movies Dimension films who provided us much in the way of low budget horror, some was effective, some was not.

Was this effective?

As mentioned before the film is based on a Koontz novel of the same name and is given the screenplay treatment by Koontz himself. Now per usual Jess rules, I have not read the book prior to watching the movie and have not read the book in the years since for no particular reason. So judging purely from a cinematic perspective the story does a good job of creating tension and even better job of atmosphere. I can’t say the third act does the movie any justice but that is the difficulty with page to screen adaptations.

The movie is directed by Joe Chappelle, since then mostly a TV director but with shows I rather enjoyed such as Wolf Lake, Witchblade, and the Wire. He does an interesting thing in the movie to create tension. The usage of an empty town and a lot of well chosen but jarring sounds to disorient the audience and the characters. For the most part these work and most of the jump scares are not eye rollingly bad – that is a compliment by the way. He and Koontz also did a great job with the geography to assist in the feeling isolation.

Due to the nature of the story the cast remains relatively small, but effectual. The late Peter O’Toole (My Favorite Year, Lawrence of Arabia) positively owns his scenes in the film and brings weight where a lesser actor wouldn’t have been nearly as impactful or successful. We also have young, we barely knew you, Ben Affleck. He hadn’t quite learned to reserve himself yet and almost disturbingly blinks too much. Odd quirk to notice, but it’s actually kind of distracting. In another we barely knew who you were we have Liev Schrieber (Wolverine, Scream, Salt) in an oddly quirky performance that is a bit off putting, but having seen his other works tells you how good he did here. Our films heroines come in the shape of an on the rise Joanna Going (Dark Shadows 1991, Wyatt Earp) and another dimension films ingenue Rose McGowan (Scream, Charmed). Both play opposite ends of the sister spectrum pretty well with McGowan as the young city girl and Going as the small town doctor. Everyone performs OK, they do well with the panic, they do well when its time to be quiet. Nothing great, nothing really bad either. Just ok.

From an FX perspective, again minus act three, the film relies pretty strongly on practical effects, sound, and lighting to build suspense. Now given Robert Kurtzman, Greg Nicotero, and Howard Berger of KNB EFX Group were on the project it explains so much. Now people like me know these names because of the fantastic effects work they have done over the decades and how amazing they are with gore, creatures, and prosthetics. Currently you can find their work on a no name show called The Walking Dead. These guys were incredible now and then and the movie benefits from it. The intelligence of the director to use practical effects here when possible was brilliant as the world was already moving towards not only using but abusing CG. Sadly, what digital effects were used didn’t look good then or now.

TL:DR?

Honestly this is a pretty good, if someone dated, suspense film from early Dimensions film works that did better than it’s extraordinarily dated trailer would lead you to believe. The movie does take an odd turn late in the picture which doesn’t quite resonate but also doesn’t destroy the film either.  There are some clear edits and scenes missing, but otherwise it works.

If you aren’t a fan of horror or suspense in general – give this one a good pass. They did a good enough job here to wave you off.

If you like 90’s era suspense and horror I think you could enjoy this film.

 

 

 

Darke Reviews | Freddy’s Dead: The Final Nightmare (1991)

Posted by

2

Another review from the request bank, quickly running out of those, comes one of the few Nightmare movies I had the opportunity to see in the theatre. I remember the weird push for 3D on it and even have some of the tie in merch. Considering how much the first Nightmare scared me years before I turned around and embraced Krueger. I had books, I watched the TV show after I was supposed to be asleep (it was really bad), even had comics for it.

So with that much love for the franchise so far, especially part 3 and 4, how did what was reported to be The Final Nightmare hold up?

We can start with the director on this one Rachel Talalay, one of the few female directors in the field and even more important in the field of horror. She was also one of the producers on Dream Warriors and Dream Master of the Nightmare series. This film would mark her directorial debut, she would go on to give us Tank Girl then is largely relegated to TV for her career to date. In the documentary Never Sleep Again you can tell how passionate she is about the series and how much she believes in the franchise. Sadly, I am left to wonder how we got this product and design. It makes no bloody sense even on expanding Kruegers story, nothing is sold.

So let’s look at the script where Talalay has the story credit, with screenplay by Michael De Luca.  De Luca would also give us In the Mouth of Madness and Judge Dredd (the silly one). Largely he is a producer and based on the turn out of this film he should stick to that. The story is nonsensical even for a Nightmare film with some of the worst possible dialogue in the franchise. I love that they let Freddy quip by part 3, part 4 was ok, part 5 was bad, this is worse with near product placement levels of dialogue from Krueger. I have seen old Warner Bros cartoons with less sound effects and slapstick. Any evidence of subtlety is just gone with effects that break even more of the rules of the franchise at a level that pushes to the ridiculous. I really could keep tearing into this part, but we should move onto the acting.

Englund clearly was in it for the paycheck. He was here to mug for the camera nothing more; I mean he is having a good time but it’s just comical now. Shon Greenblat as John Doe at least tries to play it as straight as he can along with other previous leads. He brings a level of self awareness to the not so subtle dream states that makes him watchable in that early 90’s teen kinda way. Lisa Zane, older sister to Billy, plays Maggie; and I swear I think Freddy took her ability to emote. Every line reads flat. Honestly, no one does a great job here, even Yaphet Kotto, Breckin Meyer, and completely random cameo’s by Johnny Depp, Rosanne Barr, and Tom Arnold. It just doesn’t work on any level.

Even the effects have gotten laughable. As mentioned I’ve seen Looney Toons with less ridiculousness. This movie is a freedy cartoon given to us in 3D. The make up is horrendous. Nothing and I mean nothing works. Even Krueger looks like he is wearing a twenty buck halloween mask.

TL:DR?

This movie is awful. Just awful. It isn’t the worst of the series, that belongs to 2, as this is at least watchable in how bad it is vs. being some kind of fetish film. It looks cheap. It is cheap. You can see the Matte painting back drops. The sets look left over from the even worse TV series. There’s so very little redeeming about this MST3K worthy film. It is just so silly. There’s nothing even remotely scary about it.

The best way to see this is with alcohol or sleep deprevation so you just don’t care.

There are no nightmares to be found in this film.

Darke Reviews | Odd Thomas (2014)

Posted by

3

This is another requested review for the daily reviews in October. It also happens to be a personal favorite of mine that I really do not know how I came across. I don’t remember any trailers for it. I don’t remember well anything about it. I just saw it on Netflix one night and saw Anton Yelchin on the cover and really that was enough. It still remains on Netflix and can often be found in the $7.88 blu ray bin at Wal-Mart. Because of my love for the film it’s hard not to spoil some parts of it, but I am going to do my best.

The trailer isn’t all that great.

Should you see it though?

This one gets another “Based on a Book” hashtag, as it is based on Dean R. Koontz novel. It may come as a surprise but I have never actually read a single Koontz book. No idea why I haven’t just haven’t. The screenplay and director is one of the ones who has done a better job of entertaining me than most, Stephen Sommers. Best known for The Mummy and Van Helsing yet equally lamented for GI Joe and Scorpion King. No one will ever accuse Sommers of making high cinema, but he does a good job overall of mixing moods and tones in a very fun, cotton candy way. It’s light, it’s fluffy, it’s rarely to be taken seriously; but if he needs to shift between story types he can rather well, as shown in Odd Thomas and Deep Rising. Here Sommers successfully crafts romance, horror, and comedy into a single film. Granted when I say comedy it mostly means light quips and general situations which bring a smile to your face as he did in the Mummy.

Part of that goes to the chemistry of the cast. Anton Yelchin (Star Trek, Fright Night) and Addison Timlin (The Town That Dreaded Sundown); the two of them have what to me is an almost fairy tale level relationship. It is so damn earnest and sweet and makes me love them both all the more. What makes things more interesting is unlike other movies such as the 6th Sense, the most important people to Odd believe in his gifts. Most notably his girlfriend Stormy (Timlin) and the chief of police (Willem frikkin Dafoe); not only using his gifts but helping him to use them. It creates an interesting breath of fresh air for a movie like this and allows it to continue at its rather brisk pace from beat to beat and scene to scene.  There is some honest chemistry between the protagonists in the cast. Yelchin has one of the most adorable every man acting abilities and helps make Odd a believable and likeable character. Timlin, well her interactions with Yelchin, character, and attitude make her a strong add to the cast rather than just an accessory to Odd. I want to see more of her than we get.

From a technical standpoint the movie does hit a few good points. The ghosts, as seen in the trailer, while not creepy are at least an original design. Make up effects are also pretty solid and at times pleasantly unsettling. What really helps is the pacing. The movie takes as long as it needs and never longer. The blocking, lighting, and editing work amazingly well. Though this kind of pace is common to Sommers films, I appreciate it as there is no extra fat. I don’t feel like I am missing anything and I don’t feel like I needed more of something. There’s even some amazing continuity through the film that brings revelations to light and doesn’t trip my annoyance levels. It sets up rules and doesn’t violate them. More movies need to do this.

TL;DR?

I really like this movie. I watch it every month or so. It has a lot of charm to it. I bought it on BluRay when I found it.

It does so much right and even after multiple viewings the connections I have with the characters, their deliveries, makes me feel for them. There are so many many movies out these days where I don’t care in the slightest what happens. Here I do.

Best part? Odd Thomas is an all ages show, teens and up. Also *not* scary so even if you aren’t a fan of horror movies you will be able to watch this one and I think really like it (I’ve tested this theory with people…it’s true).

Odd Thomas better than it has any right to be.

 

 

Darke Reviews | Final Girl (2015)

Posted by

2

I don’t know about you, but I hate when I see a trailer and the movie never quite makes it to the theatre. It never quite makes it to an easy to find DVD release. It’s especially painful when you want to see the movie. I talked about this with Trick R Treat last year.

This year the one that raises my ire is Final Girl. This would be the trailer in question:

I had been really looking forward to this one. If you are wondering about the title, it is based on the trope of most horror movies called the Final Girl. When you have a horror film think of who survives, who defeats the monster? It is almost always a girl who started out weak or unsure and develops into the hero that can defeat the beast.

So did the movie live up to my interest and expectations?

The movie has a total of four writing credits which doesn’t normally bode well. The three story credits go to Stephen Scarlata, Alejandro Seri, and Johnny Silver. A screenplay credit goes to Adam Prince. None of whom have done anything you’ve ever heard of or watched. The same can be said of director Tyler Shields.  Honestly, it shows. There are some interesting choices in how they light scenes with an overabundance of brightness. It is clearly intentional and works in some cases and is jarring in others. I can’t write reviews about how hollow and samey so many new movies are and then destroy one that is trying to do something different. The “floodlights” in the woods annoys me to no end, though the movie does it to create an almost stage like performance, I think I wish they would have fully committed to that then trying to give me a well lit forest for no reason.

The movie almost is going for a film noir style in both dialogue staging that wouldn’t work for many films. I can’t say it works here entirely either. Many scenes have an awkwardness to them that borders on uncomfortable while they try to address various tropes of the villain archetypes;  the momma’s boy, the frat boy, the daddy issues, and the harangued man.  Bearing in mind these are told with broad strokes and perhaps, hopefully, a bit of satire. Sadly these characters also have little chemistry either. Perhaps as sociopathic or psychotics they shouldn’t, but individually they function and together they do not.

I am not sure where the blame lies here. Our villains, as shown in the trailer, are played by Logan Huffman (V the Series), Cameron Bright (Thank You for Smoking, Twilight New Moon/Eclipse), Reece Thompson (Dreamcatcher, Perks of Being a Wallflower), Alexander Ludwig (Hunger Games, Vikings).  As a unit they come across little more than caricatures barely making it to 2 dimensional villains. For that reason alone I care little about them, but also want to see them suffer due to their natures.

On the flip side we have Wes Bentley (American Horror Story, Ghost Rider, Hunger Games) and Abigail Breslin (Zombieland, Maggie). Bentley is…well Bentley. I think he was trying to reach Agent 47 levels in his character and doesn’t quite make it; but he also is Wes Bentley and just has his own style of performance that I can see him being a future Nick Cage in the weird. Breslin, on the other hand, delivers a solid performance. I could see her as a scream queen or an action heroine in future projects as she is able to switch between stalker and stalked like a light switch.  I rather enjoyed her which makes her the bright spot in the performances of the movie, especially in the third act.

TL;DR?

Perhaps I expected more of it than it could deliver. Perhaps it never had the potential to deliver it at all. The movie just sort of lands flat and unsatisfying. With only one performance (Breslin) being interesting the movie fails on a lot of levels. They continued to shoot in a stage play meets noir vibe and never fully committed to it allowing me to appreciate that facet of it. There’s just some failures on storytelling that left me scratching my head what the point of some scenes were. That happened too often.

Sadly, unless you obsess over any of the actors Final Girl doesn’t make the cut.

 

 

 

Darke Reviews | Vamp (1986)

Posted by

2

So this is the first of the requests for reviews for this October Review-A-Day session. This also happens to be one I am ecstatic to review as I watched the VHS of this from my local video store back home so often the tape began to wear out. This underrated cult classic in the vampire genre bombed pretty hard in it’s opening summer release.  Granted it was against Aliens which made only 10 million in it’s first week that same time and was in the number 1 slot.. This is before the era of our modern summer blockbusters but to give an idea of other competition was Top Gun (10th week), Karate Kid II (5th week), Ferris Bueller (6th week).

But, Jess you obsess over vampire movies can you be fair about this one? Let’s see.

Written and Directed by Richard Wenk (The Equalizer) as his first film it perfectly captures the late 80’s cheese. It’s an interesting career since then with this as his oddest entry. Some movies can defy generation and time, others are locked in it so tightly they become near symbol of what that time was. This is the later.

The story is of two college frat pledges who offer to bring back a stripper as their initiation. In the wrong part of town the find more than they bargained for. Will any of them see the dawn?

It clearly has a mythos and a history to it’s world that it so intelligently doesn’t bother to explain like a more modern film would. It does fall into the horror comedy genre pretty solidly and while not truly campy, it does not take itself seriously either. It lives and breathes atmosphere through its tight sets, which do look like sets, and a near criminal abuse of neon lights. Neon is a character all to itself in this movie and it is an abundant living thing that permeates the film like the smell of bacon through a house.   It actually has some good dialogue beats in it that I’d appreciate more of in other vampire movies. It spent time to let a vampire and human have a conversation – when do you actually see that?

From an acting standpoint I am surprised anyone came out of this alive. The hero played by Chris Makepeace, who represents the typical 80s every man of the time, has a similar look and performance to that of Michael J Fox (duh), William Ragsdale (Fright Night) or Zach Galligan(Gremlins). Slightly nerdy, slightly all american white bread handsome.  He works in the film, but much like others kinda vanished into obscurity after. So few had the weight and raw charm of Fox. Robert Rusler, who plays the best friend AJ,  actually hits some good notes and gives a different performance than he did on Nightmare on Elm Street 2 (something I’ll have to be paid to review). He would go on to appear on Babylon 5 for two seasons but is otherwise also relatively obscure. The two stand outs and memorable are of course Grace Jones and Billy Drago. The film would be so much worse without their over the top performances (and wardrobe). They devoured scenery in all the right ways.

Effects wise, I’ve discussed the neon that functions as a set dressing and is otherwise impossibly over the top. I didn’t know pink and green neon were that abundant outside of a Joel Schumacher Batman movie.  From a make up and prosthetic standpoint they borrowed heavily from the influences of Fright Night and went full monstrous with their vampires with the overly enlarged mouths, claws, and extended appendages. Not your pretty vampires once they are ready to feed. Also it may include one of the few stakings by a shoe out there.

TL;DR?

If this movie came out today, I would rip it apart. All things being fair, I would tear into it with gleeful abandon as another bad vampire movie. This, however, has the benefit of some very blood stained nostalgia glasses. It’s not a good movie by any stretch of anyone’s imagination, but it has a lot of fun with itself and the audience.

I can see hints of the conception From Dusk til Dawn in the concept of this movie and it’s make up. While it isn’t good and was a bomb – it’s just too enjoyable. It is a hard find, I had to purchase it on one of my streaming accounts, but I have no regrets.

If you need some awesome 80’s cheese and vampires, this is a good film for you. I’m happy to have it in my collection finally, even if it is only digital.

 

Darke Reviews | Night of the Living Dead (1968)

Posted by

0

There are few examples in the last 50 years of a film that is so defining, so absolute, and so important to cinema that they have defined a generation and a genre. This could even be extrapolated to other genres as well, music, comics, television. It’s difficult to name a singular project in the thousands that have been released that so explore, spread, and influence our modern day world.

This is one of those films. The Zombie craze of today would not, could not, exist without this work. The rules, the style,  the look, even some of the types of shots and locations exist simply because George A. Romero gave us Night of the Living Dead.

So we know it is iconic. We know it is definitive, but does that mean it’s good?

The script was written by George Romero himself in conjunction with John Russo. Russo. This was their first writing credit on any film, and they would go to give us Zombie movies for the next 50 years together. 50 years. They haven’t been very prolific but consistent. There are not many folks who can claim 50 years of writing and directing as a claim to fame that are still working in Hollywood today. Of course Romero himself directed, another first for the legend.

That being said, the dialogue? Ain’t that great. It almost reads like a student film or stage play than a film at times. There are a lot of monologues and exposition to deliver information. The radio and television as a means to deliver information was actually well done. One of the better decisions is never fully committing to what may have caused the rising of the dead.

From an acting standpoint, the best performance comes from Duane Jones. He reads so natural and believable is is incredible, and perhaps a bit harmful to the rest of the cast. Not only is his acting so far above and beyond the rest of the cast, he is critical as the first African-American to have a starring and heroic role in a horror film. Judith O’dea also does remarkably well, even if she largely plays catatonic, as the infamous Barbara.

As a technical note, the camera angles and lighting choices, along with the choice of black and white vs. color also were brilliant decisions by Romero. So much of the film works because of the black and white, it allows the movie to hide some of it’s make up and flaws. There’s also a bit of genius in, what I believe, is the one of first uses of a child as the monster.

As a bit of trivia for those who enjoy these types of films, Tom Savini himself was to do the make up, but was unable to due to being sent to Vietnam.

TL;DR?

The movie holds up almost 50 years later. Though the word Zombie is never explicitly mentioned, in fact the word used is Ghoul, it defines every single film maker, writer, or producer when it comes to this genre.  It isn’t a perfect film by a long shot, if it were made today it would largely be laughed at; but because of when it was made and how it defies everything to become the legendary picture that it is.

I highly recommend this film not only for viewing, but to be in anyone’s collection.