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.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
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.
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.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
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
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
Monday, March 22, 2010
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.
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.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Alice in Wonderland (2010)
Well, this was a first. I was bored at a Tim Burton film. Bored! I wasn’t bored during Burton’s Planet of the Apes remake. Pissed off, yes, but never bored.
Yet, by the time Alice makes it to the White Queen’s castle, I was squirming in my seat, hoping the end was near. Actually, I wish I’d left the theater before I witnessed the waste of time for Sir Christopher Lee as the Jabberwocky and the AWFUL dance from the Mad Hatter.
Oh, what a waste of an evening. And yes, this was while watching the 3D version.
As with horror films, fantasy movies are reaching a crossroads. thanks to CGI effects. After the Lord of the Rings trilogy, computer effects have infected fantasy movies like a virus. Scripts, character development and the like have taken a back seat to the spectacle generated with the right computer program. And Alice is the perfect example of this illness. We never get a quite moment with the characters. Every time the movie slows down, it feels like all the life is drained out of it, as if everyone involved is just waiting for the next cool computer scene.
It doesn’t help that Mia Wasikowska plays Alice as if she’s half asleep. Yes, I know Alice believes it’s all a dream and has forgotten everything about her last visit to Wonder/Underland. But she never seems to react to anything without looking dazed and confused. Even as she turns into Alice, Warrior Princess (maybe a spoiler, but you know it’s coming within a few minutes of her falling down the rabbit hole), she doesn’t convey her determination or fear with any more than a puzzled look.
That fact that she was surrounded by a green screen stage during most of the filming might not have helped Wasikaowska’s performance. Reacting to a tennis ball is not an easy job. But imagine the added pressure of having to play off the incredible cast of character actors assembled for this film.
But that’s another problem with this movie. The rest of the cast was hired because their persona fit the role. Depp’s Hatter is just a more maniacal version of Captain Jack Sparrow, Carter get’s to act regal and scream, and Hathaway simply looks around with placid acceptance. While it’s not fair to say the cast didn’t perform their parts well, it’s a shame they didn’t demand a script with a bit more depth, more character development for them to build upon. Or that Burton didn’t make some unexpected casting choices, giving some up and coming actors a chance to build the characters, not just cash a paycheck by playing themselves.
In all, a rather bland offering that is obviously pleasing audiences. I just wonder how much of the box office is due to the 3D spectacle, though many of shots in the "real" world are surprisingly weak. This is likely a result of converting the filmed scenes (shot in 2D) to 3D. But it seems to be working, as the public kept this movie at the number one spot for the second week in a row. I guess you can polish a turd, with 3D and the right marketing campaign.
Yet, by the time Alice makes it to the White Queen’s castle, I was squirming in my seat, hoping the end was near. Actually, I wish I’d left the theater before I witnessed the waste of time for Sir Christopher Lee as the Jabberwocky and the AWFUL dance from the Mad Hatter.
Oh, what a waste of an evening. And yes, this was while watching the 3D version.
As with horror films, fantasy movies are reaching a crossroads. thanks to CGI effects. After the Lord of the Rings trilogy, computer effects have infected fantasy movies like a virus. Scripts, character development and the like have taken a back seat to the spectacle generated with the right computer program. And Alice is the perfect example of this illness. We never get a quite moment with the characters. Every time the movie slows down, it feels like all the life is drained out of it, as if everyone involved is just waiting for the next cool computer scene.
It doesn’t help that Mia Wasikowska plays Alice as if she’s half asleep. Yes, I know Alice believes it’s all a dream and has forgotten everything about her last visit to Wonder/Underland. But she never seems to react to anything without looking dazed and confused. Even as she turns into Alice, Warrior Princess (maybe a spoiler, but you know it’s coming within a few minutes of her falling down the rabbit hole), she doesn’t convey her determination or fear with any more than a puzzled look.
That fact that she was surrounded by a green screen stage during most of the filming might not have helped Wasikaowska’s performance. Reacting to a tennis ball is not an easy job. But imagine the added pressure of having to play off the incredible cast of character actors assembled for this film.
But that’s another problem with this movie. The rest of the cast was hired because their persona fit the role. Depp’s Hatter is just a more maniacal version of Captain Jack Sparrow, Carter get’s to act regal and scream, and Hathaway simply looks around with placid acceptance. While it’s not fair to say the cast didn’t perform their parts well, it’s a shame they didn’t demand a script with a bit more depth, more character development for them to build upon. Or that Burton didn’t make some unexpected casting choices, giving some up and coming actors a chance to build the characters, not just cash a paycheck by playing themselves.
In all, a rather bland offering that is obviously pleasing audiences. I just wonder how much of the box office is due to the 3D spectacle, though many of shots in the "real" world are surprisingly weak. This is likely a result of converting the filmed scenes (shot in 2D) to 3D. But it seems to be working, as the public kept this movie at the number one spot for the second week in a row. I guess you can polish a turd, with 3D and the right marketing campaign.
Monday, March 15, 2010
Some Reviews for you: The good, the bad and the warning....
Well, as I start working on the third part of my attack against Universal Monster movie remakes, here's a few reviews of interest.
The Relic:
Currently available on Hulu, this is an enjoyable monster movie from the 90's. A museum in Chicago becomes the hunting ground for a monster that needs to eat a section of the human brain to survive. Of course, as in any monster movie, the museum has a big fund raising preview of their newest exhibit that can not cancel. The police are forced to keep the museum open, allowing more victims to line up for a monstrous buffet.
The film has lots of gory moments, as peoples stumble across the monster's victims. The decapitated heads are incredible, thanks to Stan Winston's crew.
The film holds off showing the main beast until the last half of the film. This allows for some nice moments of character development and keeps the audience on edge for the big revel. The acting is solid, with Penelope Ann Miller perfect as a grad student (both looking and acting the part). Tom Sizemore, Linda Hunt and James Whitmore are very good as well, while Audra Lindley steals the show in a bit role as the head coroner.
And the monster is a great creation from Stan Weston. While some of the CGI is a bit dodgy, the combination of computer and practical effects works well. And a scene were the monster takes off a policeman's head is stunning.
Available on Hulu right now, so check it out. It's not a classic, but a fun little monster movie.
The Final Destination:
AKA The Way to Kill a Franchise.
The original Final Destination movies are not classics by any stretch. The first one was fun, introducing Death as an entity that becomes really pissed off if its grand design is messed with by someone with a premonition.
The second was, in my opinion, the best of the bunch. We get the outstanding opening car crash, the kills are interesting and the characters, while somewhat stereotypical, are at least interesting enough to garner some sympathy.
The third was simply okay, a rather forgettable entry with an over-reliance on CGI effects. Now we have the fourth, released in the theaters and on DVD in 3D.
Now, I didn't see the 3D version, but I don't think any of the effects would save it. The film is simply a collection of kills, with no interesting characters to keep the audience's interest. And the actors tend to read their lines like they're in a high school play.
Also, the film breaks the rules set up by the earlier entries. We have a second premonition for no reason other than to set up a outlandish scene of mass destruction. And that's a problem, as Death has never taken out innocent victims during the re-taking of a victim. The film also has a set up trap that fails for no reason other than to generate a jump scare. And the kills just aren't that interesting, being too set up for the audience not to see it coming.
Not awful, but nothing to keep you interest. It was worth the free rental I got from Redbook, but I don't think I would have felt the same if I spend my own buck. Rent at your own risk.
Nymphoid Barbarian in Dinosaur Hell:
It seemed like a good idea. I was in the mode for something low brow, the movie was free off Hulu and I had picked up a good supply of microbrew beer on my way home. Time to nestle in and watch something cheesy on TV.
The film opened with the trailer, which really looked promising. Stop motion dinosaurs, mutants, barbarians and a girl running around in a leather bikini. The movie started with a tacked on opening tying it to Tromaville in the flimsiest way. But that's fine, as it's narrated by the Nymphoid Barbarian, in a breathless cross between Marlyn Monroe and a valley girl.
If only Lloyd Kaufman had spend a few more buck on this movie and given it a What's Up, Tiger Lily treatment. He might have created a classic instead of dumping a film that deserves to stay buried.
I don't believe Troma made this movie. I think they picked it up for cheap, set it up to look like a classic cheesy movie, then released it upon an unsuspecting horde of schlock fans. It's a classic bait and switch, and I wasted over 80 minutes of my life hoping it would get better.
The plot is simple. Barbarian girl is captured by Evil barbarian. Barbarian Boy goes out to rescue his Barbarian girl. Evil barbarian's henchmen can't seem to keep Barbarian girl from getting away, but they always recapture her until Barbarian boy saves her.
Oh, and there are a few dinosaurs.
Look, I'm a fan of cheesy movies, the type that are so bad most viewers can't watch without losing their sanity. But this one pushed me to the brink.
First, only one person is carrying a sword, which is a wardrobe requirement of any barbarian. Sure, Barbarian boy has a mini crossbow and a knife, and eventually graduates to a firearm. But no sword? Barbarian girl doesn't carry ANY weapon at all, fighting with any broken tree limb she can find. And without swords, we get a lot of hand to hand combat that comes off like grade school kids wrestling on the playground. It's that lame.
The dinosaurs are infrequent but not too bad. Sure, they look like something from a Sid and Marty Krofft Saturday morning show and they do eat a few people. But the battles between humans/mutants and dinosaurs are pretty silly, as the animation doesn't really interact with the actors.
Come to think of it, the Evil barbarian's mutant henchmen do look very similar to Sleestaks. And Barbarian boy and Barbarian girl are aided by a couple of older male characters.....
Maybe Will Ferrell's remake isn't that bad after all.
I'm warning you all. Avoid this movie, no matter how tempting the title sounds. It's not worth your time, even if it's free.
The Relic:
Currently available on Hulu, this is an enjoyable monster movie from the 90's. A museum in Chicago becomes the hunting ground for a monster that needs to eat a section of the human brain to survive. Of course, as in any monster movie, the museum has a big fund raising preview of their newest exhibit that can not cancel. The police are forced to keep the museum open, allowing more victims to line up for a monstrous buffet.
The film has lots of gory moments, as peoples stumble across the monster's victims. The decapitated heads are incredible, thanks to Stan Winston's crew.
The film holds off showing the main beast until the last half of the film. This allows for some nice moments of character development and keeps the audience on edge for the big revel. The acting is solid, with Penelope Ann Miller perfect as a grad student (both looking and acting the part). Tom Sizemore, Linda Hunt and James Whitmore are very good as well, while Audra Lindley steals the show in a bit role as the head coroner.
And the monster is a great creation from Stan Weston. While some of the CGI is a bit dodgy, the combination of computer and practical effects works well. And a scene were the monster takes off a policeman's head is stunning.
Available on Hulu right now, so check it out. It's not a classic, but a fun little monster movie.
The Final Destination:
AKA The Way to Kill a Franchise.
The original Final Destination movies are not classics by any stretch. The first one was fun, introducing Death as an entity that becomes really pissed off if its grand design is messed with by someone with a premonition.
The second was, in my opinion, the best of the bunch. We get the outstanding opening car crash, the kills are interesting and the characters, while somewhat stereotypical, are at least interesting enough to garner some sympathy.
The third was simply okay, a rather forgettable entry with an over-reliance on CGI effects. Now we have the fourth, released in the theaters and on DVD in 3D.
Now, I didn't see the 3D version, but I don't think any of the effects would save it. The film is simply a collection of kills, with no interesting characters to keep the audience's interest. And the actors tend to read their lines like they're in a high school play.
Also, the film breaks the rules set up by the earlier entries. We have a second premonition for no reason other than to set up a outlandish scene of mass destruction. And that's a problem, as Death has never taken out innocent victims during the re-taking of a victim. The film also has a set up trap that fails for no reason other than to generate a jump scare. And the kills just aren't that interesting, being too set up for the audience not to see it coming.
Not awful, but nothing to keep you interest. It was worth the free rental I got from Redbook, but I don't think I would have felt the same if I spend my own buck. Rent at your own risk.
Nymphoid Barbarian in Dinosaur Hell:
It seemed like a good idea. I was in the mode for something low brow, the movie was free off Hulu and I had picked up a good supply of microbrew beer on my way home. Time to nestle in and watch something cheesy on TV.
The film opened with the trailer, which really looked promising. Stop motion dinosaurs, mutants, barbarians and a girl running around in a leather bikini. The movie started with a tacked on opening tying it to Tromaville in the flimsiest way. But that's fine, as it's narrated by the Nymphoid Barbarian, in a breathless cross between Marlyn Monroe and a valley girl.
If only Lloyd Kaufman had spend a few more buck on this movie and given it a What's Up, Tiger Lily treatment. He might have created a classic instead of dumping a film that deserves to stay buried.
I don't believe Troma made this movie. I think they picked it up for cheap, set it up to look like a classic cheesy movie, then released it upon an unsuspecting horde of schlock fans. It's a classic bait and switch, and I wasted over 80 minutes of my life hoping it would get better.
The plot is simple. Barbarian girl is captured by Evil barbarian. Barbarian Boy goes out to rescue his Barbarian girl. Evil barbarian's henchmen can't seem to keep Barbarian girl from getting away, but they always recapture her until Barbarian boy saves her.
Oh, and there are a few dinosaurs.
Look, I'm a fan of cheesy movies, the type that are so bad most viewers can't watch without losing their sanity. But this one pushed me to the brink.
First, only one person is carrying a sword, which is a wardrobe requirement of any barbarian. Sure, Barbarian boy has a mini crossbow and a knife, and eventually graduates to a firearm. But no sword? Barbarian girl doesn't carry ANY weapon at all, fighting with any broken tree limb she can find. And without swords, we get a lot of hand to hand combat that comes off like grade school kids wrestling on the playground. It's that lame.
The dinosaurs are infrequent but not too bad. Sure, they look like something from a Sid and Marty Krofft Saturday morning show and they do eat a few people. But the battles between humans/mutants and dinosaurs are pretty silly, as the animation doesn't really interact with the actors.
Come to think of it, the Evil barbarian's mutant henchmen do look very similar to Sleestaks. And Barbarian boy and Barbarian girl are aided by a couple of older male characters.....
Maybe Will Ferrell's remake isn't that bad after all.
I'm warning you all. Avoid this movie, no matter how tempting the title sounds. It's not worth your time, even if it's free.
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
The Case against Universal Monster remakes, Part Two
Sorry for the delay, but work's kept me a bit busy. Here's part two of the case against Universal Monster remakes.
In a previous post, I wrote that current film making styles can not generate the feeling and mood of the original Universal Monster movies. But film style is not the only obstacle facing a remake of the classic monster pictures. Today’s special effects, as shown in The Wolfman, also threaten to overrun the production.
The Trouble with Transformations
This is where werewolf movies shine. While other monsters can change forms, only the Wolf Man is about the transformation, both in a physical and intellectual sense. The character is a dark look at humanity when freed from societal restrictions and able to fulfill our most primitive impulses. The Wolf Man is the truest embodiment of man’s animalistic nature and a most striking transformation.
CGI technology is a silver double-edged sword to werewolf movies. While such tricks can deliver new, more amazing transformations, it can also lead to the dilution of the film’s emotional impact. To understand how this can happen, we first need to discuss the past history of werewolf transformations.
The first werewolf transformations involved lap dissolves and other camera tricks combined with make up effects. In Werewolf of London, Henry Hull changed his appearance in one continual tracking shot. The change was achieved by stopping the camera when Hull walked behind an object, like a pillar. Hull’s make up was modified to appear further along in the transformation. Then, with Hull back behind the structure, the camera rolled and Hull stepped into view, walking to the next foreground object. After several such cuts, the transformation was complete.
But the transformation most familiar to classic horror fans came in 1941 with The Wolf Man, starring Lon Chaney Jr. The change appeared on camera, with no cutaways or pillars blocking the audience’s view. The technique involved shooting several feet of film, stopping the camera and rewinding the film a few frames while makeup is applied to the actor. The camera rolls again, footage of the new make up is shot. Then the camera stops and the procedure is repeated. The results are a series of dissolves from one make up application to another in smooth succession, creating a stunning on screen transformation.
The technique was time consuming for the crew and physically demanding for the actor. Chaney claimed he was forced to be stationary during the entire shot, while other accounts say various techniques were used to line the actor into the same position as before. Regardless, any movement or misplacement of the actor would be detected during the dissolve and look jarring, so extreme care was taking during the long shooting process. Due to the difficulty of filming such scenes, it’s not surprising that filmmakers used such techniques sparingly.
One last thing needs to be mentioned about the early werewolves of cinema. One can’t ignore the fact that these creatures were portrayed by men in make up. No matter how monstrous their appearance, the werewolf always retained a basic human form. But then came 1981 and two movies changed the look and transformation of the werewolf forever.
Released in April, Joe Dante’s The Howling was the first movie to use modern latex and animatronic special effects to bring the werewolf to life. From glimpses early in the first half of the movie, the audience senses that the werewolves are unlike any previous screen incarnations. And once the creature is seen in its full glory, the audience knows these creatures are not men covered in yak hair. The werewolf looks like a wolf walking on its hind legs. It has an elongated snout, long, claw-like fingers and is indeed unlike any previous screen werewolf.
The first full body transformation, mostly visualized by traditional cell animation teases the audience and serves as a fitting, perhaps unintended red herring to Eddie Quist’s transformation. This moment is a showstopper in every sense of the word. Over several minutes, we watch as actor Robert Picardo’s skin bubbles, bone shift and stretch, and he changes into the towering beast. All the changes occurring on screen, with no cuts or dissolves. By the time his snout elongates into his final, wolf-like form, modern special effects have changed werewolf movies.
While The Howling might have beaten John Landis’s An American Werewolf in London by 4 months, the movie’s transformation was even more stunning. Instead of turning into a biped beast, David Kessler (played by David Naughton) is turned into a snarling, four legged monster on camera, under the bright lights of a small apartment. Hair literally grows on camera as David’s body flexes and mutates into a beast of nightmares.
While more dramatic than the transformations in both Werewolf of London and The Wolf Man, the effects work are just as, if not more, labor intensive. The actor is subjected to a series of body and head casts, from which the special effects team will create the various latex appliances needed for the scenes. The resulting creatures must also be sculpted and created, along with various stages in between man and beast.
And this work is all before the cameras roll. To film the transformations, the actor must have the appliances glued to their face and body, along with small air bladder between the actor’s skin and the appliance to create the bubbling effect. In some cases, the actor’s body is hidden and replaced by a fully articulated puppet (Naughton’s lower body was hidden by a false floor for one shot). And a crew of effects workers is needed to control the creature’s body, both with the real actor and the completely fabricated monster.
Given the time and effort required to change a man into a werewolf, one may wonder what could be the problem with a CGI transformation. After all, the actor would not be subjected to as much physical exertion, allowing older, more experienced actors to play the role. The crew needed to generate such effects scenes would be minimal and changes can be made with relative ease (compared to running back to the shop to rebuild or redesign an effect).
But the problem is that now, transmutation scenes are too easy and less time consuming. Aside from making them easier and cheaper, it also allows the filmmaker to insert more of them. And that is what happened in The Wolfman.
In the two earlier films, the audience was treated to one full transformation. Eddie Quist’s second transformation was interrupted just as it started, by a silver bullet to the chest. David Kessler’s second transformation is only shown in two brief shots. The expense of creating new makeup appliances and effects riggings prohibited a second complete transformation. And, to be honest, it really wasn’t needed, as both films were coming to an end.
But CGI has changed that. The Wolfman has three complete transformations, each stopping the story as Lawrence Talbot (Benicio Del Toro) is affected by the full moon. And while this might not seem the case, remember that the script is written to show three transformations, each in different locations and under different lighting. And regardless of the dialog going on while the changes take place, these additional transformations hold up the story, as nothing really is able to happen until the change is complete.
In fact, one can say the second transformation freezes the story beyond the metamorphosis, as Lawrence prowls about London in a special effect laden sequence. He runs across rooftops and down alleyways, ripping into unfortunate Londoners that cross his path. It’s a rollercoaster ride of a scene, but adds nothing to the plot. And Lawrence isn’t given time to react emotionally to what he has done, as he has to be on his way out of London, courtesy of a traveling montage, to his next transformation.
Watching Del Toro’s Lawrence undergo so many changes and multiple attacks on nameless characters dilutes the overall power of such carnage. In Chaney’s The Wolf Man, the first transformation sequence is of Larry Talbot’s feet alone. He only kills one victim, but later discovers his next target is the woman he loves. While the changes and attacks are thrilling, it’s the stuff that happens while Larry is human again that forms the meat of the story.
In the original, we see a man racked with guilt, terrified of the part of his being that now eludes his grasp. The remake doesn’t give Del Toro a chance to reflect upon his nocturnal rampages (or the actor doesn’t deliver, depending on your feelings towards Del Toro’s performance). The audience isn’t given the chance to feel for Lawrence’s plight or his numerous, nameless victims. In fact, to accommodate the climatic final battle (SPOILER AHEAD), the film changes the focus of Lawrence’s pain from his violent, animal form to the curse bestowed upon him by his father. The movie veers wildly from the source material, much to the film’s detriment. Lawrence mourning for his victims takes a back seat to a familial tale of a son taking vengeance for the sins placed upon his shoulders by his father. An interesting idea for a movie, no doubt, but it doesn’t work when you add werewolves into the mix, as victims become nameless meat puppets tossed into the grinder for cheap thrills. (SPOILER ENDED)
But that is the results of allowing a filmmaker access to cheap and easy (compared to previous techniques) special effects. The movie becomes less about the humans within the story and more about how much action a film can cram into it’s running time. Like The Mummy remake, the subtlety that marks the power of the original is buried under an avalanche of special effects designed to please a target audience.
Next up, how star powered casting can spell doom for any monster.
In a previous post, I wrote that current film making styles can not generate the feeling and mood of the original Universal Monster movies. But film style is not the only obstacle facing a remake of the classic monster pictures. Today’s special effects, as shown in The Wolfman, also threaten to overrun the production.
The Trouble with Transformations
This is where werewolf movies shine. While other monsters can change forms, only the Wolf Man is about the transformation, both in a physical and intellectual sense. The character is a dark look at humanity when freed from societal restrictions and able to fulfill our most primitive impulses. The Wolf Man is the truest embodiment of man’s animalistic nature and a most striking transformation.
CGI technology is a silver double-edged sword to werewolf movies. While such tricks can deliver new, more amazing transformations, it can also lead to the dilution of the film’s emotional impact. To understand how this can happen, we first need to discuss the past history of werewolf transformations.
The first werewolf transformations involved lap dissolves and other camera tricks combined with make up effects. In Werewolf of London, Henry Hull changed his appearance in one continual tracking shot. The change was achieved by stopping the camera when Hull walked behind an object, like a pillar. Hull’s make up was modified to appear further along in the transformation. Then, with Hull back behind the structure, the camera rolled and Hull stepped into view, walking to the next foreground object. After several such cuts, the transformation was complete.
But the transformation most familiar to classic horror fans came in 1941 with The Wolf Man, starring Lon Chaney Jr. The change appeared on camera, with no cutaways or pillars blocking the audience’s view. The technique involved shooting several feet of film, stopping the camera and rewinding the film a few frames while makeup is applied to the actor. The camera rolls again, footage of the new make up is shot. Then the camera stops and the procedure is repeated. The results are a series of dissolves from one make up application to another in smooth succession, creating a stunning on screen transformation.
The technique was time consuming for the crew and physically demanding for the actor. Chaney claimed he was forced to be stationary during the entire shot, while other accounts say various techniques were used to line the actor into the same position as before. Regardless, any movement or misplacement of the actor would be detected during the dissolve and look jarring, so extreme care was taking during the long shooting process. Due to the difficulty of filming such scenes, it’s not surprising that filmmakers used such techniques sparingly.
One last thing needs to be mentioned about the early werewolves of cinema. One can’t ignore the fact that these creatures were portrayed by men in make up. No matter how monstrous their appearance, the werewolf always retained a basic human form. But then came 1981 and two movies changed the look and transformation of the werewolf forever.
Released in April, Joe Dante’s The Howling was the first movie to use modern latex and animatronic special effects to bring the werewolf to life. From glimpses early in the first half of the movie, the audience senses that the werewolves are unlike any previous screen incarnations. And once the creature is seen in its full glory, the audience knows these creatures are not men covered in yak hair. The werewolf looks like a wolf walking on its hind legs. It has an elongated snout, long, claw-like fingers and is indeed unlike any previous screen werewolf.
The first full body transformation, mostly visualized by traditional cell animation teases the audience and serves as a fitting, perhaps unintended red herring to Eddie Quist’s transformation. This moment is a showstopper in every sense of the word. Over several minutes, we watch as actor Robert Picardo’s skin bubbles, bone shift and stretch, and he changes into the towering beast. All the changes occurring on screen, with no cuts or dissolves. By the time his snout elongates into his final, wolf-like form, modern special effects have changed werewolf movies.
While The Howling might have beaten John Landis’s An American Werewolf in London by 4 months, the movie’s transformation was even more stunning. Instead of turning into a biped beast, David Kessler (played by David Naughton) is turned into a snarling, four legged monster on camera, under the bright lights of a small apartment. Hair literally grows on camera as David’s body flexes and mutates into a beast of nightmares.
While more dramatic than the transformations in both Werewolf of London and The Wolf Man, the effects work are just as, if not more, labor intensive. The actor is subjected to a series of body and head casts, from which the special effects team will create the various latex appliances needed for the scenes. The resulting creatures must also be sculpted and created, along with various stages in between man and beast.
And this work is all before the cameras roll. To film the transformations, the actor must have the appliances glued to their face and body, along with small air bladder between the actor’s skin and the appliance to create the bubbling effect. In some cases, the actor’s body is hidden and replaced by a fully articulated puppet (Naughton’s lower body was hidden by a false floor for one shot). And a crew of effects workers is needed to control the creature’s body, both with the real actor and the completely fabricated monster.
Given the time and effort required to change a man into a werewolf, one may wonder what could be the problem with a CGI transformation. After all, the actor would not be subjected to as much physical exertion, allowing older, more experienced actors to play the role. The crew needed to generate such effects scenes would be minimal and changes can be made with relative ease (compared to running back to the shop to rebuild or redesign an effect).
But the problem is that now, transmutation scenes are too easy and less time consuming. Aside from making them easier and cheaper, it also allows the filmmaker to insert more of them. And that is what happened in The Wolfman.
In the two earlier films, the audience was treated to one full transformation. Eddie Quist’s second transformation was interrupted just as it started, by a silver bullet to the chest. David Kessler’s second transformation is only shown in two brief shots. The expense of creating new makeup appliances and effects riggings prohibited a second complete transformation. And, to be honest, it really wasn’t needed, as both films were coming to an end.
But CGI has changed that. The Wolfman has three complete transformations, each stopping the story as Lawrence Talbot (Benicio Del Toro) is affected by the full moon. And while this might not seem the case, remember that the script is written to show three transformations, each in different locations and under different lighting. And regardless of the dialog going on while the changes take place, these additional transformations hold up the story, as nothing really is able to happen until the change is complete.
In fact, one can say the second transformation freezes the story beyond the metamorphosis, as Lawrence prowls about London in a special effect laden sequence. He runs across rooftops and down alleyways, ripping into unfortunate Londoners that cross his path. It’s a rollercoaster ride of a scene, but adds nothing to the plot. And Lawrence isn’t given time to react emotionally to what he has done, as he has to be on his way out of London, courtesy of a traveling montage, to his next transformation.
Watching Del Toro’s Lawrence undergo so many changes and multiple attacks on nameless characters dilutes the overall power of such carnage. In Chaney’s The Wolf Man, the first transformation sequence is of Larry Talbot’s feet alone. He only kills one victim, but later discovers his next target is the woman he loves. While the changes and attacks are thrilling, it’s the stuff that happens while Larry is human again that forms the meat of the story.
In the original, we see a man racked with guilt, terrified of the part of his being that now eludes his grasp. The remake doesn’t give Del Toro a chance to reflect upon his nocturnal rampages (or the actor doesn’t deliver, depending on your feelings towards Del Toro’s performance). The audience isn’t given the chance to feel for Lawrence’s plight or his numerous, nameless victims. In fact, to accommodate the climatic final battle (SPOILER AHEAD), the film changes the focus of Lawrence’s pain from his violent, animal form to the curse bestowed upon him by his father. The movie veers wildly from the source material, much to the film’s detriment. Lawrence mourning for his victims takes a back seat to a familial tale of a son taking vengeance for the sins placed upon his shoulders by his father. An interesting idea for a movie, no doubt, but it doesn’t work when you add werewolves into the mix, as victims become nameless meat puppets tossed into the grinder for cheap thrills. (SPOILER ENDED)
But that is the results of allowing a filmmaker access to cheap and easy (compared to previous techniques) special effects. The movie becomes less about the humans within the story and more about how much action a film can cram into it’s running time. Like The Mummy remake, the subtlety that marks the power of the original is buried under an avalanche of special effects designed to please a target audience.
Next up, how star powered casting can spell doom for any monster.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)