HorrorMovies

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 | A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984)

Posted by

3

It seems fitting to start this years October reviews with the film that started it all for me. I channel surfed into it when it was on network TV a couple of years after its release. It is one of the few movies to ever actually scare me. It sticks with me today for more reasons than one. While not the original slasher film, not by a long shot, with Halloween and Friday the 13th beating it by a solid 6 and 4 years respectively. Heck, Halloween had already had two of its sequels out before this was released and Friday the 13th had four. This one stood apart from the rest though. There was something new here. So let’s talk about A Nightmare on Elm Street.

It should be noted, this may not be spoiler free due to the age of the film.

Written and directed by Wes Craven, a name now synonymous with the horror genre, but was at the time relatively unknown. He had some mild success a full decade before with The Last House on the Left and the Hills Have Eyes, but he was aboard the New Line Cinema train to get a new “slasher” out. Where as Michael Myers and Jason Vorhees are “men”, he wanted to create something new. Something scarier and he went into the land of dreams. Sure we all have nightmares, but what do you do when you can’t wake up from it? When the Nightmare follows you? How do you fight something like that? This added a new level of fear to the teen slasher and it was unlike much we had seen before.

The script uses similar tropes from other slashers of its ilk, which were relatively new at the time. You have your imperiled teens, quaint suburbian life, a brief bit of recklessness from the teens, and a relentless killer after them who is seemingly unstoppable. What makes our killer here different was motive. Jason was about revenge on the “type” of teenager. The people who let him die and the stereotype that exists all the way into todays films some thirty years later. Michael was driven by something else, something broken in him but at the time was purely human. His type was similar to Jason overall though, with anyone getting in his way just as much a likely victim as well.

Then we had Freddy. Freddy went after the kids not because of anything they did, planned to do, might have done, or didn’t do; but instead he went after them for the sins of the fathers and mothers. This makes him an entirely different kind of monster. He tortures the children in order to make the parents suffer for their crimes of killing him. The original film doesn’t entirely address whether or not he actually committed the crimes he was accused of and that the mob burned him for. It hints at it with the opening credits that he was in fact guilty of something, but that ambiguousness adds to the horror that is Freddy Krueger.  It’s never explained how he does what he does either, it just is (again original only), leaving that supernatural mystery to make him even more terrifying still.

All of this wouldn’t work without the right people though. Heather Langenkamp owns this film as Nancy Thompson, as much as Robert Englund does as Freddy. Her evolution from a scared teen, to understanding what hunts her, to trying to become the hunter is a classic to watch and sold for every single moment she is on screen – which by the way is most of the running time.  Englund gives the definitive performance of what it means to chew scenery in this as he cuts his way through the cast. The supporting cast is equally as important here for their own parts, with the esteemed John Saxon as Lt. Donald Thompson, Nancy’s father, and Ronee Blakley as Marge Thompson her mother. It’s one of the earliest times, to my recollection, we dealt with a couple who had divorced in a horror film with their child literally caught in the middle of it. The reasons for the divorce, the tension between them, and even how they deal with their own guilt through the film is as telling as any lines of dialogue. When discussing the supporting cast, its impossible to not mention a certain young mans first role – Johnny Depp as Glenn, Nancy’s disbelieving but big hearted boyfriend.

From a practical and movie making standpoint, while the effects don’t always hold up. The make up varies from scene to scene if you look too close; but this is an acknowledged mistake by the filmmakers. The music follows Cravens usual style of simplistic piano/keyboard with a guitar. It doesn’t sound elegant, but man does it work. It, much like the Jokers Theme from Dark Knight, is so offputting and uncomfortable it makes you squirm a bit. The lighting and practical effects help sell the movie and make it work. CG could only damage it and the weakest sequence is the one with some CG in it. One of the best and most iconic is Freddy pushing through the wall over a sleeping Nancy. For the record though, the one that got me was Tina’s death in the beginning.

TL;DR

If you have not seen A Nightmare on Elm Street and love horror movies, you must see this. It is one of the triumvirate of slashers and arguably the best.

While it may not be scary to individuals now, this one will always hold a special place in my heart and my nightmares. It is probably one of, if not the, most influential film of my childhood.

If you want to know more about the Nightmare saga, I recommend Never Sleep Again: The Elm Street Legacy. It’s on Netflix and runs 3 hours and I enjoyed every minute of it.

Darke Reviews | As Above, So Below (2014)

Posted by

0

There isn’t a lot that scares me when it comes to putting my own life in danger. I think I’d try anything  (relatively) reasonable if I thought it would be fun. Among those hobbies Urban Exploring. In many cases it is breaking and entering/trespassing – yet not always. I *love* the idea of exploring these old abandoned places. Finding history, truth, and perhaps a bit of mystery in them. So when I saw a movie about a group of individuals urban exploring a part of the Paris catacombs I knew I had to see it.

It’s also worth mentioning that of the jobs that exist out there if I couldn’t be a successful writer or what I am doing now didn’t pan out – my dream job is archaeologist. Much for the same reasons of the Urban Exploring. I love history, mythology, ancient cultures, and finding that which was lost or forgotten. So when the movie starts and there’s an archaeology element to it I am now even more interested.

How does it pan out?

This may be director John Erick Dowdle’s best original film. Along with his brother Drew, who co wrote the movie, I think they hit something new. Their earlier work together is Quarantine; which is just a lackluster translation of the superior spanish film REC. John alone directed the abysmal “Devil” (2010). They elevated some of the previous work , but are showing definite trends, which leads me to the technicals first.

I wish I could have watched the film. I had to keep my eyes closed half of it due to motion sickness from the hand held camera work. That is unusual for me, but it is a problem for some members of the audience who would want to see this. Odd camera angles as well as a preference for handheld cameras are showing in the history of his work and finally – it’s to his benefit. When I could watch the film the camera shots were well framed and added to the tension and emotion appropriately.

This being a horror film in the 21st century I have no anticipation that anyone will live, so I am kept on the edge of my seat wondering. Another technical that works really, really well is the fact with only a few exceptions the movie was filmed in the catacombs, even the piano from the trailer was filmed down there. You can’t fake good atmosphere and it shows in this movie. It was a good decision and I am happy that they made it. The dangers for the location scouting alone were real and it adds to the film to realize so much of it is not a set and that the lights in the shots are the ones on the head cams.

The acting was spot on with only a handful of logical fallacies and failures throughout. Ones that almost have to exist to be a successful horror film. Perdita Weeks does well as the driving force and catalyst for the events. Ben Feldman (Cloverfield, Friday the 13th) sadly has a character I just want to smack, but does as well with it as the trope he is playing allows for. François Civil’s Papillion is probably one of the most enjoyable to watch – and the most honest in his reactions.

I think what the movie does best is that, from a story perspective, it openly acknowledges the supernatural. People don’t spend (waste) time denying it exists when blatantly confronted. They react with horror yes, but within the confines of the narrative accept it in all its dark glory. This to me is a pleasant change of pace, especially when tied to an area of study I enjoy.

TL;DR?

Well this review should have gone up last night, but I was left so nauseous that I couldn’t finish. Overall the film is good and for horror fans worth seeing. The audience I was with genuinely seemed to enjoy it.

I just have trouble recommending it due to the camera work.

If you don’t ever risk the sensation of nausea from shaky cam work in excess *and* enjoy horror, absolutely go see it.

If there’s a risk, sorry, just not worth it. Sad that as the attention to detail by using the real catacombs was such a brilliant choice.

Darke Reviews | The Quiet Ones (2014)

Posted by

0

I told you guys I would be watching more horror movies, a genre I have long since avoided. Mostly because the films haven’t interested me. Partially because of nostalgia for my golden age of Horror. So marking the second theatrical review for me of this genre is the Possession Horror – The Quiet Ones.

As it seems to be, from what I can tell in the trailers, films like this are set as a period piece. They are also nearly always (it seems) based on “actual events”. Commence eye rolling. The original screenplay was by Tom deVille, who has only a few TV episodes and a short to his credit prior. Then, there are three writers credits over his. Craig Rosenberg (After the Sunset), Oren Moverman (The Messenger, I’m Not There), and John Pogue (US Marshalls, Rollerball (2002), Ghost Ship). Three writers credits and once again the rule holds true. You can see all the different hands in the film and that at no point they agreed on how the story should go. Is it science? Is it supernatural? What are the rules? Are there rules?

Pogue, was also the director and that may also be the problem. Ok, its not a problem in that he is able to receive elevated performances from all of his actors. Actors who mostly aren’t known, but even Jared Harris shows an interesting range of emotions and mental states as the film progresses. Some credit must go to the director. Blame for the movies pacing also goes to the director. One should not be watching a movie and look to their viewing partner and go “what time is it?”. I was trying to figure out how long I was watching it and how much longer it would go. But Jess, it’s a slow burn film. Slow burn implies things happen. It implies that the film is building tension. It implies that at the end of it there will be a climax worth having a reaction to. A reaction that isn’t “what the heck were you thinking?” This had none of that, its simply flat.

That isn’t to say I don’t care about the characters. Sam Claflin (Finnick from Hunger Games) and Olivia Cook (Bates Motel) are actually the best thing this movie has going for it. At times I thought Claflin was Nicholas Hoult with his wide eyed expressions, but I cared what happened to him. I cared about his emotional state and actually respected the haracter he was playing, because of his performance. Cook, looking fantastic with black hair, reminded me of Eva Green in how she moves her mouth and the slight facial tics she affected through the film. Her range is actually quite something. I would look forward to seeing other work for her so she can progress as an actress. The ability to flip your emotions, and be believable, like a lightswitch should not be discounted.

That being said, even good acting cannot save a movie that fails at the most primal aspect of a horror movie. Tension. I felt none. The final act of the movie came closest and was most intriguing. I have a little bias to it, but thats another story. I just wish they had taken another route. Yes, it was loosely based on an actual experiment from Toronto in the ealy 1970s. Paranormal experimentation in the 70’s is about as trustworthy as a politician trying to win an election. On top of that the “based on” conceit is all but utter garbage unless there’s actual evidence from the event. That means they could have gone even further with this and didn’t.

TL;DR

If you are a horror junkie, go ahead and see Quiet Ones. Otherwise I found this a good place to take a nap for an hour and fourty minutes.

That may be my shortest TL;DR ever. Anyway, next week we begin the summer blockbuster season (and pretty much more reviews from me than I can shake a stick at) with Spider Man 2.
Complete aside – if I were to hold a contest for a pair of movie tickets, would you fine folks be interested?

Darke Reviews | Oculus (2014)

Posted by

0

Ok, I admit I am a bit out of touch with the modern horror genre. I said as much when I did a review of The Conjuring. So what does a girl do who has had nightmares the last 5 days in a row? She goes and sees a horror movie to take her mind off of it. Why have I not watched horror? She who kept bullies away in 9th grade by writing the 250 horror movies she had already seen on her book cover?

I believe in a Golden Age of horror. One that didn’t exist. I grew up with Nightmare on Elm Street, Friday the 13th and Halloween. I grew up with Serpent and the Rainbow, Childs Play, THe Fog, Creepshow and Tales from the Darkside. People of my generation, by and large, have a terribly great nostalgia for these films and those like them. No one thinks about their sequels and all of the other horrible movies that came out at the same time. Every generation has them. The greats. Every generation has nostalgia for them and does their best to ignore the rest of the garbage. This has gone on since the 1930s. I could name a dozen greats in every decade and easily three times as many that were less so.

My point? It is not fair to judge the current style of horror films based on what came in decades prior. Judge them on their own merit. Judge them on their execution. Judge them on their originality. Do not, however, judge them against the films you grew up with. So where does that leave Oculus? In an interesting place. My rule of writing movie reviews without spoilers and trying to write a review on a horror/suspense film. Not particularly easy.

Written by Mike Flanagan, who also directed, and Jeff Howard, who have done nothing you’ve seen before. The movie is officially based on a short film of the same name by Flanagan and Jeff Seidman. Originality? Eh. Yes and No. I have a book in my library from 1954 that has a short story about a crack in a mirror and seeing your own death in it. Stephen King wrote the Reapers Image which was written in 1966 about a man who sees a dark spot in the mirror and vanishes from a tour as if he was never there. These bear the closest resemblance to the story we have. Of course, when it comes to horror we have a terrible fascination with mirrors. How many of you have played Bloody Mary? Much less watched a movie about it. Candyman? One of the best mirror horrors out there. Possibly nostalgia, but I will live with that.

The story this time, focuses on two siblings that experienced a traumatic event early in their life and now eleven years later decide to face it again. The movie actually rather deftly handles the paranormal sciences of ghost hunting with a combination of home invasion and psychosis. Home invasion is that which scares us as a society the most right now. Combine that with the paranormal and it manifests that fear perfectly. Something you can’t really fight, something you can’t see. Something that makes you feel defenseless. Thats what we have decided this generation is terrifying. Combine that fear with the media talking about “normal people” who go crazy and harm those they ostensibly love and the movie hits two things at once. A little bit Shining and a little bit Candyman.

To be successful though the movie needs good actors. People who can emote better than average and understand their own fears and know how to bring it to the screen. Oculus has that in spades. First you have Rory Cochrane (Speedle from CSI Miami) as the father shown mostly in flashbacks. The Jack Nicholson role. Then you have Katee Sackhoff (Starbuck from BSG), as the loving mother of two with her own internal and external demons. Brenton Thwaites (to be seen later this year as Prince Phillip in Maleficent) as the son, Tim,  in the current time frame. Karen Gillan (Dr. Who and Guardians of the Galaxy) rounds out the main cast as the sister Kaylie all grown up. You also have two young actors, Annalise Basso and Garret Ryan, as young Kaylie and Tim.

The four actors playing the children really carry the film, both in flashback and current timelines. Special credit goes to Gillan and Basso though who deliver in spades. I really believe they are the same person. Gillan really carries the scars of the past that Basso let affect her version of Kaylie. I want to see more of what Basso can do and already know Gillan has a long career ahead of her (or hope she does). What really got me was how the characters of Tim and Kaylie dealt with the events that happened years before. One with technology and parascience; the other with psychology and pseudoscience. Obsession and denial are as powerful as the Mirror in this. It’s actually really well done and intriguing to watch play out.

The technicals are also what helps. This comes down to a movie that paces itself well. It runs an hour and 45 and doesn’t deserve a minute more or less. It succeeds at doing what a horror movie should, building tension. It also, in the trailer famous lightbulb sequence reminds me I still have a gag reflex. That’s sound editing and make up folks. Done well. Lighting and camera work do their part as well building a terrific atmosphere through the film that uses light as much as it does shadow. A horror movie using stark whites? Yep! It stands apart, from all other horror movies I’ve casually observed recently, for that and its use of vibrant color when it does use them.

But…does it ultimately succeed?

TL;DR it is to answer that.

Perhaps I was expecting more. Something else?  I do recommend it for horror lovers. I recommend it for those who enjoy parasciences as well for how the movie executes it. Yet, I can only recommend this one as a matinee. For all the good it does, it never quite stuck the landing perfectly for me.

It did however, give me an opportunity to see what is best in the modern horror genre and I will likely be covering more of them as the year continues.

Next week – Transcendence, with Johnny Depp.

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 | 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!