HORROR

Wednesday, October 6, 2010

The Human Centipede: First Sequence (2009)

Wow. I wavered on the fence with this one, but just fell into the liked-it yard. This movie is bizarre in more ways than the obvious plot premise: it is a collage of parodic horror irony combined with cringe-eliciting gags, a superb female lead (whose dialogue ends at the beginning of Act II), and one of the creepiest mad surgeons I've (possibly ever) seen on film. The overall tone came across, at least to me, as I understand that this plot is over-the-top, so I won't take myself too seriously; but, at the same time, I can deliver just enough raw edge to please 'mature' horror fans. And sure, there are some jarring oversights (GPS units? A secret ground-level door that the surgeon uses?), but overall this is a fine movie that goes from parodic camp to nihilism.

Tuesday, September 28, 2010

Frozen (2010)

Hey guys! I'm back after a long hiatus, during which I successfully completed my master's degree (thank you, thank you). So, what's to say? I'm back to checking out some fresh horror DVD releases. First post-grad school movie is, officially, Adam Green's Frozen. And I've gotta say, right off the bat, it is much better than Hatchet. (I'll pause for a moment while you boo me and throw various rotted fruits at the screen.) It is much more mature filmmaking and exemplifies Adam Green's ability to do more than mediocre camp (I still eagerly anticipate Hatchet II). One thing is certain about Frozen: Green takes a simple idea that, at first, may seem largely implausible, and delivers a tight film of escalating tension and despair. This horror fan had a blast!

Monday, June 14, 2010

Shutter Island (2010): Perhaps You Can Sway Me

What is great about this movie? It has become a rule to use this "twist" in nearly every mainstream psychological thriller out there, so why the emphasis on the so-called mindbending twist the movie boasts? Everything pointed toward the ending, e.g. the disjointed perspective of the protagonist; and if you've seen one, you've seen 'em all. So, help me if I'm missing something. Perhaps you can sway me to watch this one again. Or perhaps you agree that this is mediocre at best. (And, yes, I realize that this is not a horror movie, though it was marketed as such.)

Monday, April 12, 2010

The Collector (2009)

Rating: C

Tuesday, April 6, 2010

Dread (2009)

Rating: B-

Monday, April 5, 2010

The Fourth Kind (2009)

Rating: F
This is like watching someone try to be cool and fit in. The movie tries harder than any other film out there in terms of making the viewer understand that THIS IS BASED ON TRUE EVENTS! I get it for cryin' out loud! Actual footage, actual voices, juxtaposition of the dramatization and actual footage here and there with an annoying split-screen. What's the point? This is largely boring with maybe two small flickers of potential, somewhere, I think, maybe.

Monday, March 29, 2010

Hidden (2009)

Rating: __
I can't give this a rating since I didn't finish it, but suffice it to say I couldn't make it through 90 minutes. This was noting more than a mash-up of every scare tactic and horror movie gimmick out there.

Sunday, March 28, 2010

Lake Mungo (2008)

Rating: A-
Behold, a conscious contradiction. I berated Paranormal Activity based largely on grounds that nothing really happened--it erred on the side of boring, in my opinion--yet I love Lake Mungo, despite the fact that even less happens! It creeped me out far more than Paranormal, while also throwing some unexpected and thoroughly interesting twists into the mix. As the story unfolded and beautiful cinematography created an ominous sense of dread and harm, I was pulled into a perpetual state of uneasiness. This is a great After Dark entry!

Friday, March 26, 2010

The Reeds (2009)

Rating: D
I have all eight of this year's ADH films on hand now, and I certainly hope The Reeds is no indication of the overall performance. Last year gave me hope, and I'm looking for the positive trend to continue. The Reeds, which I'm hoping is just a misfire, a poor first pick on my part, is trite and anticlimactic. Trite because the only element that makes it "original" or "fresh" is that the film takes place in a secluded expanse of reeds (but with telephone lines just in the background, I might add). Anticlimactic because of the two "twists." The first "reveal" is completely obvious because, like a gifted Vegas gambler, I employed cast-counting! The second "reveal" is just plain lame. The only thing that saves this film from the dreaded F-rating is decent acting.

Monday, March 22, 2010

TRANSCRIPT REVIEW: Antichrist (2009)

ATTENDEES: Jason, Lucas, Rex, Chris

(Credits roll. Everyone sits in stunned silence.)

LUCAS: That was stupid.

(Everyone laughs.)

REX: [Lars von Trier] was clearly a little depressed.

LUCAS: I don’t know. That was just…stupid. I think my expectations were set ridiculously high. It was just boring.

REX: What do you think Chris?

(Chris sits quietly, staring at the credits, his fingers steepled under his chin. Finally, exhales.)

LUCAS: Still absorbing it all?

CHRIS: I just. Wow. Well. Uh—there was a lot of sexual symbolism. That’s for sure.

(Rex agrees.)

CHRIS: Every time the movie put the male phallus triumphantly on display, femininity would dominate. For example, in the last chapter before the epilogue, everything is in grayscale except for the tree, a stout, glowing phallic symbol. But, then, a legion of women overcomes him.

REX: Definitely a lot of psychological investigation of human nature.

LUCAS: Man. I didn’t get any of that.

CHRIS: The one part I absolutely despised and I wish they’d removed was the talking fox.

(Everyone chuckles.)

REX: Yeah, I didn’t understand the point of that at all. It didn’t add anything to the movie.

JASON: I don’t think the fox was actually talking so much as Williem Defoe was imagining the voice and the fox mouthing the words. I liked the audio of the voice, but it didn’t really work right there. Maybe Lars wanted to break up the mood.

CHRIS: True. I still hated it. It took an otherwise serious, ominous tone and made it comical.

LUCAS: That was my favorite part! I thought, finally something is happening.

JASON: It’s obvious that he [Lars von Trier] was pissed off at women when he wrote this.

(Everyone agrees.)

CHRIS: I liked how it was an Adam and Eve story in reverse. We started in present day and traveled back to the advent of original sin in the Garden of Eden. And it was as if the movie’s Eve realized that it would be in the best interest of humanity if Eve were to remove the part of her that drove her sexuality.

(Everyone, including Chris, cringes.)

LUCAS: When she drove that bar through his leg, I was just thinking, yes, we don’t have to watch ugly people do it anymore. (Laughs.) I would’ve been fine if I didn’t see Williem Defoe’s junk.

REX: Well, that wasn’t actually Williem Defoe. It was mostly likely a porn-double or a prosthetic.

CHRIS: I’d say prosthetic. Did you see how unrealistically smooth it was?

REX: (Laughs.) And rodlike!

JASON: Speaking of that part [the immobilization scene]. I couldn’t help but notice that Williem was so concerned with his leg. That was pretty bad, but I would be worried about my aching nuts!

REX: He never checked them!

(Laughter and agreement.)

REX: I think it’ll be a while before the next handjob.

CHRIS: I was surprised at the level of detail given us by the camera during the castration scene. I thought the scene from Penance was the worst, but this topped that.

JASON: The female castration bothered me so much more, too.

CHRIS: There’s a notable essay concerning that. About how men cringe more at the sight of female genital mutilation versus male.

REX: As if we don’t want the womb, our starting point in life, our home, destroyed.

CHRIS: Saw that symbol, too, when he took refuge in the fox hole.

REX: Plus it was all tastefully, artistically executed. You could tell the film’s intention wasn’t to see how far they could go with something. Everything was displayed for a purpose, not for shallow shock value.

(Silence. Reflection.)

CHRIS: The point definitely wasn’t to define a superior gender.

LUCAS: Yeah, just like in the books she was studying for her thesis, she seemed to decide that women needed to be punished.

REX: He’s right. Women deserve or require the bondage, mutilation they suffered.

LUCAS: But, man, that was about a nine out of ten on the weird-o-meter.

CHRIS: One thing’s for sure. The film was well made. It’s been a while since I’ve seen a good arthouse film.

REX: The opening scene was outstanding.

LUCAS: Yeah, it was good.

JASON: The cinematography was painfully beautiful in the sense that the film was translated effortlessly.

(Collective agreement.)

JASON: The super slow-mo was akin to the dullness of a stomachache—tolerable yet uncomfortable nevertheless. He combined slowness with super-detailed close-ups that were almost too in-focus, and the contrast of the two were remarkable in the push-pull that it created within.

REX: Absolutely.

(Jason continues. Chris and Rex further engage. Lucas thumbs at his iPhone.)

JASON: Camera angles created a sense of softness and dread at the same time; the overhead shots of her walking gave the vantage point of some ethereal being, Satan, or just plain stark loneliness from minute to minute.

CHRIS: Especially in the metaphysical sequences.

JASON: The overexposed lighting technique again somehow was able to merge the dichotomy of good and evil in the same frame. Bright halos formed around her face and head at times emulating an angel, yet inside she was losing the battle with the evil that was consuming her. Brilliant play.

REX: One thing I noticed was that she didn’t really have any care-level guilt or remorse [concerning the child]. In fact, they were both mostly unremorseful. There was some superficial guilt, but for her it was more like recognition, clinical recognition, than remorse.

JASON: She was busy gettin’ it! (Laughs.) Seriously, though. Yes, and she felt her own guilt because she wasn't feeling as much remorse as she thought she should, so she targeting him for it. In addition that fact caused her physical and psychological condition to worsen, not because of the loss directly.

CHRIS: That makes sense if you compare Freud and Jung. The movie even took an explicit stab at Freud. In that light, I see the movie as entertaining the notion of Carl Jung’s shadow theory. She got upset with him, accusing him of being indifferent. But it seemed that he was projecting her shadow. As Jung says, people rarely like seeing their shadow in others.

REX: I subscribe to Jungian psychology.

CHRIS: And, like Jason said, if we don’t embrace and accept our shadow, it tears us apart.

LUCAS: You guys are reading way into it.

(Jason, Rex, and Lucas begin to depart. Chris gets up, turns off the TV.)

CHRIS: I’m definitely going to watch that again. There’s tons of symbolism going on.

LUCAS: I’m never watching that again.

(Group departs. Conversation continues next day.)

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)