The Descent Part 2 (2009)

You would think, after witnessing the abominable Nightmare on Elm Street remake, I would steer clear of cinematic trash. Yet, some force I couldn't resist placed me in front of a local Redbox last night, renting Descent 2.

What god have I offended that would allow me to watch two botched movie follow ups in one weekend?

Descent 2 is the sequel to Neil Marshall's brilliant horror film about 5 women adventurers exploring a cave that is home to the crawlers, who look like a mutant cross between bats and humans. These beings are blind, but are able to hunt due to their keen sense of hearing, and slowly pick off the party one by one.

I won't go into the details of the first film. If you haven't seen it, go buy a copy. It's one of the best horror films of the past decade and deserves to be in every horror fan's collection. This sequel, however, falls far short of the mark.

You should know, the first film was released with two endings. The original (foreign cut) is a chilling conclusion, while the version released in the States ends about three minutes early, with a standard jump scare. I'm sure the studio wanted to leave things open for a sequel. Watch the unrated version with the original ending and you'll understand what I'm saying.

To be fair, the film makers try to appease fans of both endings in the beginning of the remake. Sarah, the survivor of the first film, is found wondering along a road in the middle of the forest. She has no memory of the events in the cave, and is asking about her dead daughter (a nod to the original ending).

A search party has been looking for the women for a few days. Juno, the organizer of the original expedition, is related to a politician and this has sparked media interest in the disappearance. While Sarah is in the hospital, the local sheriff arranges for her release, in order to help with the search.

A tracking dog has followed her scent from the road to a long abandoned mine. Using this as a starting point, a rescue party heads down into the shaft, to explore a series of caves discovered by the miners.

Now, I normally like to dispense with a plot description before criticizing a film, but I was ready to scream at the television at this point. You see, the elevator down into the mines was inoperable and at the upper levels. The walls looked unclimbable and the passage way into the caves was still boarded up. No one had came out that way, unless Sarah had broken down the barricade, rebuilt it, then climbed a shaft that would pose a problem to a very experienced climber, and squeezed past the elevator blocking the exit. She might be many things, but even Houdini would find this impossible.

Regardless, the party continues. Within the caves, they find the remains of one of the original party. Sarah has a flashback of the events in the caves, attacks the sheriff and runs off. Eventually, the crawlers find the group, they split up and panic ensues.

Sounds like a great idea, right? But the execution is fumbled right from the start. The original film was able to generate a sense of claustrophobia with sparse lighting and great set designs. In this movie, the cave seems as open and well lit as a Disneyland ride. You can see everything, even with the meager light sources the party brought along. Any crawler moving in the background is so plainly visible that you wonder how the party could miss it. And this lack of tension renders all the jump scares impotent. I jumped at the introduction of the crawlers in the first film. In this one, I could only mutter, "Oh yea, didn't see THAT one coming."

Also, director Jon Harris seems to have a fetish for bodily fluids pouring into people's mouth. So many of the gore shots involve corpses or bleeding bodies emptying blood into screaming mouths, It doesn't take ling before you get sick of it, rather than sickened by the scene.

Okay, I'm getting into SPOILER territory here. If you plan on seeing this movie, against all my warnings, scroll down to the END SPOILER sentence.

The final nail in the coffin was the reappearance of Juno. Left for dead in the first film, she shows up late in the sequel to help lead the survivors out of the cave, after a quick fight with Sarah. This development is a major plot hole the film doesn't even try to fix.

Juno says she's found a way out, and offers to lead every to the opening. When asked why she didn't get out while she could, she says her flashlight died out. So, just think about it for a second. Juno found an opening, but didn't wait nearby to take advantage of it. Instead, she went back into the caves, where her flashlight burned out, rendering her blind. So, she's been surviving in a dark series of caves, fighting off/avoiding creatures adapted to such an environment. Yes, she's one tough lady, but how could she survive when she couldn't see the crawlers coming after her? Oh, wait. The caves are lit up like an amusement ride, she could see everything. I call bull.

END SPOILER

By the time the nonsensical ending arrived, I was done with this film. It's no wonder the studio dumped it directly onto DVD. An audience would have laughed it out of the theaters.

Then again, a lot of people flocked to Nightmare over the weekend.

A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010)

You'd think Platinum Dunes would eventually get it right. The studio has remade multiple horror films in the past few years and, like a room full of monkeys banging away at a typewriter, something worth of the Bard should come out of that someday.

Nightmare on Elm Street doesn't come close.

The film is soul destroying, a crass, lifeless remake that doesn't come close to the original, much less the franchise's worst sequel. It simply plods along, making you wonder if the film makers even know how to make a decent horror film.

The film's first mistake is making Kris (Katie Cassidy) the center of attention for the first part of the film. Maybe they thought renaming Tina (the original character) might throw the audience off, but it doesn't give Nancy (Rooney Mara) any screen time until half way through the movie. The delayed development of the "Final Girl" is a big mistake.

Nancy, in this film, is portrayed as a weak, mousy girl, someone you just can't see taking on Freddy. Yet, Tina dies, with her ex-boyfriend Jesse (Rod in the original) witnessing her death. On the run from the cops, he manages to convince Nancy that something in their shared dreams is trying to kill them, before being arrested and dying in his jail cell. Now Nancy, along with new romantic interest Quinten (Kyle Gallner) must uncover the truth about Freddy before they die in their sleep.

As I mentioned above, the problem with keeping Nancy and Quinten in the background for so long is that the audience doesn't get a chance to grow attached to them. The film brings them in as the protagonists too late for any real character development, and the few scenes towards the end of the film that try to make them feel like humans falls short. Yes, their flat performance could be rationalized as a result of sleep deprivation, but that would give the actors, and the screenplay, too much credit.

For all the frenzy generated by the casting of Jackie Earle Haley as Freddy, he's given remarkably little to do. Sure, he has a few creepy moments (like taunting a fresh victim with the fact that the brain keeps working seven minutes after death, giving them more time to "play"), and Freddy's pedophilic nature is more explicit than in the original films. But the script gives Haley little else to work with and his Freddy comes off like a fourth tier boogieman, much less frightening than, say, Jack Frost.

The film can't even spook the audience. The dream sequences are obvious from the start, ruined by changes in lighting, bombastic music cues and CGI ripple effects. The gore is minimal at best, so a basic shock scene is out of the question. All the audience is left with are simplistic jump scares, telegraphed to most horror fans and spoiled by the film's trailer. The film lacks any attempt at suspense, relying on simple "got 'cha" moments to make the audience jump.

And, as I mentioned in my review of The Crazies, it works for the right crowd. And a few members of the audience fell for them. But even the guys behind me, saying how each killing was "rad" and such, concluded that the movie was just "all right."

No, I wasn't eavesdropping, as their comments were audible to everyone in several seats surrounding them. As was the one who kicked the back of my chair with every jump scare. God, I hate the current cinema experience.

Getting back to the matter at hand, DO NOT spend your money on this mindless, soulless piece of drivel. Yes, I've said we should support R-rated horror films, if only to keep them in the theaters. But I'd rather see decent PG-13 horror movies than more of this dreck. Platinum Dunes has crossed the line far too often, and now we need to send them a message.

What's happening to R-rated horror?

Well, I discussed PG-13 horror earlier, which I feel can be quite effective. But I believe we are entering a phase where R-rated horror features in the major cineplexes will become very scarce. I don't like it, as PG-13 horror can not completely replace R-rated fare, but I think the writing is spelled out in blood on the wall.

I mentioned Snakes on a Plane in my post on PG-13 horror, and I need to revisit it for a moment. The studios had shot a PG-13 version of the movie, but internet buzz was furious and, in an attempt to cater to the seemingly obvious fan base, New Line Cinema added footage to earn the movie an R rating. Sure, the studio could have just let Jackson scream out his now famous tag line, but I assume New Line didn't want the fans to feel cheated, so we had some chilling (and horribly animated) scenes combining nudity and snake bites.

So the film was released and no one showed up.

Like a jilted date on prom night, I can only imagine the sense of betrayal running through New Line after the weekend box office results were released. All the money spent on reshoots and, like a prom dress or tuxedo, no way to get a refund. This was the beginning of the end for R-rated horror.

Let's go back a bit further, to Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. No, let's go further back, to Steven Spielberg's Jaws. Granted, the film is rather tame in the gore department, but when it was released, audiences didn't know what hit them. Jaws is a relentless film, so intense that people were afraid to swim in the ocean after viewing it. The film's PG rating came under fire, with many feeling the film was too horrific for children. And, not to anyone's surprise, it was.

In 1981, Spielberg and George Lucas teamed up to release Raiders of the Lost Ark. Again, while the film was a critical and box office success, many complained it was too violent for younger children. In fact, the film originally received an R-rating, dropped to a PG after a column of flames was inserted to obscuring Belloq's grisly demise.

Then came Temple of Doom and Gremlins. Both movies weren't really R-rated material, but were not for younger children plopped down in their seats and left unattended. Remember, this is the 1980's, when slasher films such as the Friday the 13th franchises were pushing the limits of on-screen violence and gore. I think that Temple and Gremlins both presented family units (of sorts) in peril, sticking together to overcome the horrors of outside forces, which the MPAA took into account when issuing both film's ratings.

After the uproar (but box office success) of these films, the MPAA created the PG-13 rating, indicating to parents that the films contained material unsuitable for younger children. At first, I feel this rating worked well. It kept films that might have earned an R-rating for minor scenes or thematic elements from being isolated from their target audiences. While younger children probably shouldn't have seen movies such as Red Dawn and Dreamscape, it allowed the teenagers to flock to them.

And there is the problem. Like Star Wars, which added a decapitated arm to avoid a G-rating, studios discovered that teens would view a PG-13 movie over one rated PG. Thus, the inevitable creep started. Studios began pushing the limits of a PG-13 rating, making movies that implied as much as possible. True, some things were still off limits, but at this point, I think you'd be lying if you said that Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me wouldn't have received an R-rating were it released back in the 70's.

Meanwhile, R-rated movies started stretching the limits of nudity and violence on the screen. I saw Freddy vs. Jason in the theaters on it's opening week and remember my jaw dropping at what was on screen. Not that I was shocked by the mayhem, but that an R-rated movie could get away with it. This was a level of violence that, 20 years ago, would have condemned a film to an X-rating, or forced the studios to release it unrated. And 2009's remake of My Bloody Valentine has Betsy Rue in a prolonged full frontal nudity scene that would have made submitting the film for an R-rating an exercise in futility.

Okay, so how does all this relate to the demise of R-rated horror, you are probably wondering. Yes, I can get a little wordy, but it all makes a point. If you look at the audience of most PG-13 movies, it's mostly families. These movies imply, but don't show, making them the Looney Tunes of this age. And teens can go to them without feeling like they're watching anything childish.

Yes, PG-13 movies can be as tame as Iron Man (come on, that was a PG film dressed up as a slutty PG-13), but it doesn't matter. The rating implies that it's not for kids and, added to the crack down on underage kids sneaking into R-rated films, it's no wonder the theaters are full of teens watching them.

Meanwhile, the R-rated film is aiming for it's target audience, the 17 and up audience, which is either download the film illegally, or waiting for it to reach iTunes or DVD. I know, as I'm guilty of this as well (at least the waiting for DVD part). What happened to Snakes on a Plane continues to be played out in theaters every month. The target audience won't be bother going to the theaters, waiting until they're able to catch the film at home.

(See how I tie it all together? Okay, I'll stop patting my own back now.)

I think the test for R-rated horror isn't this week's release of A Nightmare on Elm Street remake. No, the true test will be in August, when Piranha 3D hits the screen. Previous, non-3D films such as the Friday the 13th remake have shown a significant drop in the box office after opening weekend, but still make back production costs. However, My Bloody Valentine and The Final Destination both had strong box office draw after their opening weekend. Add to that the pounding both Saw 6 and Halloween 2 took at the box office, and the performance of any R-rated movie in 3D is going to be closely watched by other major studios as an indicator of things to come.

So, I feel R-rated horror might become harder to find in the theaters, unless the fans support it. So don't wait for the online version of A Nightmare on Elm Street. See the film in the theaters. I plan on it. Sure, we might all blow $10 on a piece of trash, but it's a small price to pay in order to keep R-rated horror in the theaters.

And no, I'm not paid by Platinum Dunes. However, I know that, when it comes to Hollywood, your dollars in the theaters is like voting, it's the only way your opinion will be counted. And I'm don't know of any other R-rated horror films opening in theaters after it until Piranha 3D. And that is a damn shame.

The case for PG-13 Horror films

Sorry for not posting too often over the past few weeks. Work has kept me busy (for which I am grateful, as things will slow down soon). And my room mate, who really dislikes horror movies, is traveling for the next few months, allowing me to catch up on my film backlog. So, as it's time to get back to writing, why not start out with a controversial topic.

It's no understatement to say most fans look down at PG-13 horror films. Not enough violence and gore, not scary enough; anyone online has heard all the arguments against them. But I think the horror community might be a bit too harsh and, perhaps, a little misguided.

To start, studios are cranking out PG-13 horror because it can fill the theaters. The films are more accessible to the teen audience and it seems that current cinema goers are shying away from R rated movies of any type. Look at last weekend's box office battle. The highly anticipated, R-rated Kick-Ass was edged out by the family friendly How to Train Your Dragon (according to Monday's New York Times; Box Office Mojo shows Kick-Ass pulling about $200K more). Sure, you could mention that the event pricing of the animated 3D movie gave it the edge. But Kick-Ass took in less than expected (only $19.8 million), given all the fan buzz surrounding it.

Of course, these are the same people New Line banked on to come out in droves for Snakes on a Plane. The studio even added several scenes to earn an R rating, though Samuel L. Jackson's major tag line would been enough. One has to wonder if, had the studio kept the PG-13 rating, SoaP might have been box office success. We could get into a discussion as to why this is happening, but let's face it. R-rated movies are not drawing a large audience right now.

But let's get back to talking about PG-13 horror and let's start with a true stinker, 2008's remake of Prom Night. It is an awful movie by any standards and is used as ammo by many of the anti-PG-13 ranters. But no amount of gore and nudity, the elements fans say they want in a horror film, would make this cinematic turd any better. Nope, all you'd have is maybe one or two nasty kills to talk about with your friends, which you'll remember long after the movie fades from your memory.

Another argument used before the remake even hit the theaters was that the original was R-rated, so the remake should be as well. To that, I say dig out your copy of the Jamie Lee Curtis "classic." It would only take a few seconds of editing for the original to earning a PG-13 rating. And the movie isn't really that good, with an overly long build up, major plot holes and tedious chase scenes. And let's not get started on the disco dance bit.

Even the classics of the time didn't always rely on blood and gore. The original Halloween could get a PG-13 today, with a little trimming of P. J. Sole's topless scene. And the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre (TCM) didn't need much on screen gore to chill viewers. Now, I'm not saying that film would ever get a PG-13 rating, but compared to horror films of the 80's, the violence is rather tame. You never see the chainsaw hacking into a human body, as you never see the knife pierce Janet Leigh in Psycho. But those three films didn't need a large effects budget. The scenes were crafted in such a way that your mind fills in the blanks. You are tricked into seeing more than was shown on the screen. A film doesn't need to show too much to be scary, and that is where a PG-13 movie can shine.

If you're still in doubt, check out the American version of The Ring. Director Gore Verbinski crafts a very effective movie, relying more on atmosphere and tension than gore and effects. The film works because a talented director was at the helm with a specific vision, not a hack looking to score a quick buck on title recognition. Drag Me to Hell is another example, with the PG-13 version better than the overdone "unrated" scene.

Now, I'm not saying we should give up on R-rated horror. I love a good gorefest as well as the next fan (as proven by my repeated appearance whenever Pieces is screened here in Portland). But I think the horror community can not openly dismiss any film as not good enough because of it's rating. Lots of recent R-rated fare has been pretty bad. And I'd rather be scared by any movie, even if it was rated G, then sit through another godawful gore fest.

The Good Sisters (2009)

Just to let you know, this review is courtesy of a screener sent to me about a week ago. Yes, it's been sitting on top of my "to-see" pile for a while, but life's been a bit complicated and work kept getting in the way of popping this flick into my DVD player.

Now, the reason I wanted to tell you about this being a screener (aside from the pride that someone sent me it to me for a review on my blog) is that I feel you should know that little fact. All the other reviews I've written involved movies that I either paid for, or saw for free on the internet or in a public preview. As this is my first screener, I felt you should know I will always mention when someone sends me a movie to review. I don't think this will altered my opinion of the film, as I'd rather have to buy the movie than lie to keep the free DVDs coming my way. But I think it's only fair I let you know about my screener policy.

Anyway, on the the review....

Debbie Rochon need to be in better movies. That's not to say The Good Sisters is a bad film, but Rochon is a far better actor than most B scream queens out there. Why someone working on, say, the Nightmare on Elm Street remake didn't snag her for a role, I have no idea. She really should be in bigger movies, though films like The Good Sisters will be lacking if she leaves low budget film making.

The movie follows sisters Breanne (Rochon) and Kindra (April Monique Burril) Good, two witches living in a boarding house. Their neighbors put up with the pair's odd chanting, but a new boarder (David Calhoun) has them on edge. They start to find clues that someone is knows about their witchy ways and might be out to do them harm. As their paranoia increases, so does the intensity of the spells they cast to protect themselves and, ultimately, attack those they perceive as a threat.

It's a simple story, well told, but suffering from a few pitfalls. The acting is a bit sloppy at times, though not bad enough to detract from the story. Director Jimmyo Burril does a decent job, but some of his video effects are questionable. Fast motion and skip frame sequences seem added in only because he had the ability to use them. The sequence by the riverside is the greatest offender, a jarring scene that would have benefited by a less distracting touch.

And his insertion of a overly long nude scene towards the end of the film is very out of place. Shot in such a leering manner, this moment derails the film's building climax and everything else up to that point.

Look, I know he was trying to show how this spell was the most powerful one the sister had cast during the movie. And I get the idea that the sexual energy released during the casting would add to the spell's power. But such a prolonged sequence, with the camera zooming to fill the screen with the actress's breasts, comes off as cheap, exploitative, and jarringly out of place with the rest of the film.

I also think the ending could have used a bit more work. Sure, the audience is given the final pieces of the puzzle, but it just doesn't fit together. Jimmyo Burril's screenplay leaves too many open holes, too many questions unanswered. I think a bit more set up earlier, concerning some of the secondary characters, would have helped in this regard.

And, finally, while we see the sisters casting spells, nothing ever comes of them. And they aren't sacrificing babies or animals when the film opens, so why are they so nervous? We are never given a solid clue as to way these witches are worried about being hunted down. Sure, the Salem witch trials mentioned throughout the film, but something in the sister's recent past would have made their paranoia, and their actions, more believable.

On the plus side, Rochon and April Burril play off each other well. And I loved the slowly building sense of paranoia conveyed in the movie, even if the story's conclusion let me down.

In short, The Good Sisters contains some solid work, despite it's flaws. And it stands as yet another example of why Debbie Rochon needs to be in bigger pictures.

The Case against Universal Monster remakes, Part 4

Well, I've stated my case against Universal Monster remakes. But it doesn't mean hope is lost. Here's my two suggestions to Universal that might bring the monsters back on screen.

How to Save the Universal Monsters

My first suggestion to Universal is to just abandon any attempt to remake the flavor and feel of the originals. It just won't work, for all the reasons I mentioned earlier. So, instead of trying to fit major action sequences and effects moments into a Gothic setting, the studios should make the blockbuster most of the audience seems to crave.

This formula paid off in Universal's The Mummy remake. Now, like most horror fans, I was upset when I found out the remake had almost no connection to Boris Karloff's classic version. Yet, when viewed on it's own merit, the movie was an enjoyable roller coaster ride. Not a true horror film, but a fast paced action film with horror overtones.

This idea is not fool proof (I'm talking to you, Van Helsing) and will take the right approach and script to pull it off. And we horror fans will have to settle for a movie more based in action than scares. But, and it pains me to say this, I'd rather sit through another viewing of The Mummy remake or its sequel than The Wolf Man.

Now, the second option is my favorite, yet I doubt Universal will allow it to happen. But if they want a true remake of their classic films, they should turn the property over to someone who cares about horror movies.

The most obvious choice of directors is Guillermo del Toro. Cronos, The Devil's Backbone and Pan's Labyrinth shows that he has a deep understanding of what makes a classic horror tale. You could argue that he's also the perfect choice for a more action oriented Universal Monster movie (as Hellboy illustrates), but I'd rather see Universal turn over a property like Frankenstein to del Toro and allow him to make a true horror film. It might be risky, but I think fans will get an Academy Award winning film that proudly proclaims itself as a horror movie.

While I don't think this will happen with Universal's blessing, it could become a reality. Del Toro is already talking about directing a version of Frankenstein, as the story is in the public domain. Universal holds the rights to its version of Frankenstein, not the original tale and I feel it would be better for Universal to hand the story over to someone like del Toro than try to beat his movie into the theaters with a action-centric version. Such a gamble will likely fail.

So, I still see some hope for the Universal Monsters returning to the big screen. It will just take the right director or the right script, depending on how the studio decides to approach the next remake. And, Universal studio heads, if you use any of my ideas, don't worry. It's my gift to you. I'm just honored you read my posts.

And, for HorrorBlips: 9375339153

The Case against Universal Monster remakes, Part Three

Well, I've been a bit busy, so I've had to put this on the back burner. But it gave me a chance to see a movie that backs my case against stars and Universal Monster remakes. Not that I needed any further evidence to support my thoughts, but judge for yourself.

How Star Power will Destroy Universal Monster Remakes

The story goes that, when casting ideas were tossed about for Tim Burton's Batman, someone got a picture of Jack Nicholson's face peering through a shattered bathroom door in The Shining. The picture was doctored to imitate the Joker's appearance, and this lead to Nicholson being cast for the role.

And he did a fine job. But such casting shows the downfall of star casting in Universal Monster remakes. And stars will be cast in any remake, as I believe this is the only way these movies will be able to get funded.

One might think, in this glut of remakes and reboots, that Universal Monster movies would automatically warrant a update. But these movies aren't the special effects driven vehicles like Star Trek or Transformers; nor can the monsters be played by a stuntman in a mask. The monsters have personalities, the characters have more depth and the stories are more plot driven. And without a massive special effects sequence or ten to hinge a trailer on, the studios will likely hire well known stars as a tease to bring people into the theater.

But this leads to a big problem, and Jack Nicholson is the perfect example of what can go wrong with this plan. While the casting worked, the audience was there to watch Jack Nicholson, not the Joker. He delivered on the role, but he never WAS the Joker.

Take a moment and ponder that thought. Jack Nicholson as the Joker was giving the same performance as he did in The Shining and would later in The Witches of Eastwick, Wolf, Mars Attacks and many other films. In fact, I think the last bit of acting Nicholson has done was in About Schmitd, where he didn't have his mania and trademark grin to fall back upon. Now, I'm not saying Nicholson is a one note actor, but when a film casts him to play a crazed character, he just puts on his Jack smile and runs with it.

Now, consider Heath Ledger's turn as the Joker. Unable to fall back on past roles, Ledger had to BECOME the Joker and, in my mind, gave a much better performance because he was forced to bring something fresh and new into his performance.

The same can be said for Johnny Depp as the Mad Hatter in the current Alice in Wonderland. He's a great actor, but his current roles feel recycled. His Hatter is just a modified version of Captain Jack Sparrow, or Willie Wonka. After a while, his performance is rather boring to watch, because you've seen it before.

And that brings us to Anthony Hopkins in The Wolf Man. Yes, Hopkins is a great actor, but as the story progresses, his character becomes more like a shadow of Hannibal Lecter than a part of the film. Even Hugo Weaving falls victim to this, as I started thinking of his role as Agent Smith in The Matrix the moment the words "Mr. Talbot" left his lips.

And, if a star is cast for his past performances, the problem can manifest in the script, as a role might be tailored to allow the desired performance to shine. Original, interesting characters will be sacrificed to allow another star turn by whomever is hired.

Of course, the reverse could be true. Watching Mary Shelly's Frankenstein, one can not forget that the Monster is played by Robert DeNiro. Unlike Karloff, who rose to fame in the role, DeNiro was too recognizable in speech, mannerism and appearance to let the audience be absorbed in the performance. No matter what the quality of the script, a star turn can be a distraction in many ways.

So, Hollywood has three ways to kill any Universal Monster remake, and it's likely all will come into play (as in The Wolf Man). But the situation is not hopeless. In the last part of my series, I'll offer two solutions that might help bring back the Universal Monsters to the big screen.