Posts Tagged ‘horror’

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0489270/

Dir. Darren Lynn Bousman

A masterclass in narrative failure and pointless grossness.

Scenes appear, then vanish without a trace or point. The narrative skips around between what feels like two separate, tangentally connected films. Proving again that the Saw series is a single half-decent idea poorly explored and extended for monetary purposes.

I will say that the acting in this is a LOT better and consistant than in Saw II. The character of the doctor is… dull, her reasons for being chosen by Jigsaw are lame and her scenes trying to keep the dying Jigsaw alive can never be tense because we know, as an audience, that her death can only really occur at the end of the film, too soon would leave us solely with Amanda watching Jeff undergo his test. Still, she is performed decently.

Amanda is, as she was in the second film, the more vocal and whiny expression of Jigsaw’s angsty quest. There are multiple sequences that retcon her into the first movie as being part of original game, which are simply there to pad the movie out. I am unsure of whether the film is trying to evoke sympathy for her, but if so it’s failing horribly. She is mostly annoying and spending so much time chronicling  her rubbish story drags the film down. Even with the ending twist.

Jeff, played by Angus Macfadyen, is one of the better performances in the series. His motivations are clear and understandable, his emotions abley portrayed in each test, but he is strangely relegated to the background when he is the more interesting than Amanda. Coming in at the end he still feels strangely unrelated.

Tobin Bell is, as always, playing a shitty character well.

The traps are disgusting, the gore is much more of a focus in this one and it’s the first point in the series where I could say the “torture porn” reputation is completely accurate. The pig trap was foul and the “angel trap” (as the DVD feature is currently telling me) that pointlessly killed Kerry was gross AND fake looking. This is film entirely for gore fans, nothing more, and it has the same sort of “eternally teenage” mood that created Backyard Wrestling.

It has many of the same problems as the second film and compounds them with an increasing mess of continuity. There’s no point in going into it.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0432348/

Dir. Darren Lynn Bousman

It’s time for Saw II and another tour with Jigsaw the whiny dying murderer who is impossibly skilled at avoiding consequences for his convoluted deathtraps.

I’m roughly seven minutes in and the cops have already been stupid beyond words, going into Jigsaw’s lair without checking for traps. He’s been doing this for eight, nine years and they hurf-a-durf their way through the doors and into certain death. Brilliant.

Now I’ve been introduced to our staple of victims being watched on the monitors of blatant after effects filters. They’re uninteresting and unlikeable from the off and I already don’t care about any of them, which is a very poor start to the proceedings. My guess right now is that actual horror and fear is far from the aim of this, it’s acting more like a gore-hungry slasher where the victims are mere meat. I’m not against slasher movies themselves, I enjoy a good laugh through an Elm Street or Friday the 13^th sequel (and genuinely love the original Nightmare), but the few good slashers that exist are either clever and actually scary or very dark comedy. This is currently neither.

What isn’t working for me in terms of horror is that the situations are so completely ludicrous that I am not afraid. In the first film the main setup in the room is improbable, but it is just grounded enough to feel possible, unfortunately the other flashback stories are somewhat idiotic (especially code flambé) and quickly detract from the idea that could have worked much better.

The performances are pretty awful from a lot of the victims in this, especially captain rough and tumble Xavier, he’s so horribly overplayed and poorly written. Out of all of them the kid, Erik Knudson is by far the best but Shawnee Smith is ok. Donnie Whalberg and Dina Meyer are passable, the other cops are poor. Finally Tobin Bell is actually quite good as Jigsaw, he’s just a stupid character with idiotic motivations, but I can see why he’s being latched onto as a new horror icon character.

I’ve just hit the point where they’ve stumbled into the original bathroom from the first film which is a dumb link. It’s a very lucky property he found with the massive house, secret underground passages to a bizarre underground bathroom, and an apparent upstairs floor so deep you could dig a pit into it.

Now the film is over and had a mixture of a decent idea and utter stupidity for the finale. The video feed not being live was a great idea, an actual clever twist in a film that was otherwise idiotic. It set up an incredible amount of plotlines that went no-where, the “link” they all had was never explored, the game itself was never really looked into, they barely touched on Jigsaw’s point, the characters were just meat and the whole film was built around the bloody overblown traps.  The final twist with Amanda becoming the new Jigsaw is painfully stupid.

The film just doesn’t work, it’s not scary, it’s not tense and it’s not particularly enjoyable. The direction and editing was pretty dire, the enormous flashback sequence was almost as painful as Silent Hill’s “All the plot in the final 10 minutes” pacing. Despite all these problems I am, partly for the purpose of study, but partly out of a weird curiosity to see how the series develops, going to watch Saw III when I can get my hands on it for cheap.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0464141/

Dir. Juan Antonio Bayona

A problem I find when watching a lot of horror is that more focus is placed on jumps and gore than on atmosphere and psychology. Fear is a complex emotion, what scares one person may not scare another, and so more time is spent just making cheap jumps rather than putting the effort to create something effective and resonating. This isn’t a new problem, genre film is always filled with hack work, but there has been a recent boom with the popularity of ‘torture-porn’ movies like Hostel.

The Orphanage is entirely removed from these issues. It’s a slow-burning, well crafted ghost story that allows the horror to be formed through the atmosphere rather than with cheap jumps or graphic gore. It tells the story of a woman, Laura, who spent her childhood in an orphanage and has returned, as an adult, with her husband and son to reopen it as a home for handicapped children. Shortly before opening her son begins to act strangely, talking to his new imaginary friend, and things don’t seem quite right.

Often when visiting old genres or styles of horror a film can lack effectiveness or impact, the fear stolen away by cliché or predictability and while The Orphanage is a traditional ghost story it doesn’t fall into this trap thanks to its impeccable production. The visuals are crisp and beautifully designed with the Orphanage itself an imposing location both inside and out. It has great turn of the century architecture and keeps a sense of decay and age, even when the family have moved in and done some renovations. The lighting complements the production design using shadow and highlight to enhance the atmosphere of each scene, which ranges from the lighter, happier scenes, to the creeping horror that builds.

The two things that I found the most impressive and effective in creating a fearful atmosphere were the sound and the editing. The sound design is stunning, the Orphanage itself feels like it has a voice, one of escalating malevolence throughout the film; each creak, each footfall, each crack of metal feels portentous. This works so well because it plays on sounds we are used to in our own homes and lives. Everyone’s house has its own personality of noises, a blend of building stresses, boilers and appliances that you get used to over time, yet in a strange building these sounds become amplified in our minds and have a strong mysterious power to scare.

Editing is, without a doubt, one of the most important things in horror cinema. Timing is what creates horror (and comedy) and if it is out by even a split second, the fear is lost. The Orphanage has absolutely perfect timing; building the atmosphere and tension of its scenes without ever letting shots linger or lose their impact.

I was impressed with the performances throughout. Belen Rueda as Laura is absolutely perfect, the film is carried on her shoulders and she does it with incredible intensity. Roger Princep as the son, Simon, is surprisingly good, it’s not often a child of his age can act as well as he does, and from watching the special features on the DVD it’s clear a lot of this came from the careful and passionate direction. I think seeing how he worked with Princep from the rehearsals to the filming is something that all aspiring directors should watch.

Finally I’d like to talk about one of the events within the film. I won’t say what part of the film it is, but it will be clear to anybody who has seen it and will stay vague enough for those who still want to watch it. There is a moment, a reveal, which is stunningly harsh and emotional that it took me aback. I was absolutely amazed by it, it felt so raw and yet so appropriate but I had not expected it to be done in the film. It is these kind of elements that raise The Orphanage to lofty heights in modern horror cinema, and it’s probably the best Spanish-language film I’ve seen yet.

I’m saddened that there is an American remake on the way, solely because people are unwilling to read subtitles, because the film is an obvious labour of love. It needs no alteration, no “Hollywood touch” and I cannot imagine any way that the remake could come out anything other than as a bastardisation of the original.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387564/

Dir. James Wan

I’m not much for the ‘torture porn’ genre of films, they’re there mostly just appease gore hounds and usually have no point. Still, in the interest of furthering my understanding of films I’m watching Saw right now. As such my paragraphs will be somewhat disconnected as points occur to me.

I’m around 50 minutes in and what is hitting me the most is that there is a total lack of atmosphere. Things are happening and while they’re competently directed the editing and music choices are ruining any atmosphere the piece could have, especially the awful fast-motion with nu-metal sequences, they’re more comical than scary. There is the germ of a good idea in here, unfortunately it’s underdeveloped and as such feels like the first draft of a student film which thinks it’s cleverer than it is.

I cannot believe a bloody minute of this film. The idea that jigsaw has been doing these ludicrous rube-goldberg traps for years on end without being caught is completely stupid, there would be a critical mass of forensic evidence given how much preparation is required. I know it’s a film and you’re meant to be more forgiving, but this is just idiotic. The cops are so stupid it hurt; after successfully finding Jigsaw they just act moronic, forget all their training and let him get away. In this scene there are many times they could have easily disabled, caught or killed him but they don’t.

The performances in this are exceedingly hammy. I’d imagine if the scenery weren’t so covered in shit and rust they’d be chewed thoroughly. The most convincing has been Danny Glover and it’s a role he’s very prepared to play, the angry ex-cop. These hammy performances have meant that the build-up to the moment the title is referencing hasn’t worked at all, it’s not got the power they wanted.

The ‘moral challenge’ idea is awful  because it’s naive and childish, it would have needed much more time being developed with a lot more thought put into the idea. It could have been a proper moral challenge with a real motive instead of just a dying whiner who wants other people to ‘appreciate life’. It just feels like pathetic setup.

The ending montage was terrible, fast cuts of obvious reveals with loose ends flying everywhere. No resolution, no point and no satisfaction in watching it.

The film was not what I expected, its reputation as a torture-porn gore film is undeserved. It’s got torture as a theme but it is far from graphic, especially when you look at other films like Final Destination 3. It feels like James Wan and Leigh Whannel watched Seven, missed out on what made it great, and tried to copy it.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0450405/

Dir. Paul Weitz

I ended up seeing this entirely at random and it was a waste of my time.

The film is a total and utter mess. It’s the story of Darren Shan (who is definitely not a self-insert for the author Darren O’Shaughnessy) a boy who is obsessed with spiders and his friend, Steve, who is obsessed with vampires. One night they go to a super-secret freakshow, which consists mostly of talented actors embarrassing themselves, and see a vampire, Mr Crepsley, perform with a deadly CGI spider. Once the show is over Steve insists that Mr Crepsley should turn him into a vampire, Crepes refuses because Steve’s blood “tastes evil” and Steve gets in a huff and storms off. Darren, meanwhile, nicks the CGI spider and goes home.

Darren, cleverly, takes the insanely deadly spider to school where it gets pissed off with being a waste of rendering time and bites Steve. In order to save his friend’s life Darren goes to Crepes and asks if he’ll give Steve the antidote. Crepes agrees, providing Darren becomes his half-vampire assistant, which he does.

Then there’s a whole bunch of crap about a fat guy who wants to bring about a war, Vampires and Vampaneze (the latter kill, the former don’t), and Steve getting really whiny about Darren “taking his place” as a vampire and becoming a Vampaneze and then fighting Darren.

The story is just trite, a mash of uninspired concepts and bland fantasy. The characters have nothing about them and it’s completely bizarre to see stars like Selma Hyack and Willem Defoe lend their time to them. The film has no idea whether it wants to be a comedy or a fantasy drama. Jokes will be followed seconds later by serious events but there’s no transition or subtlety which means neither element works. The performance of Darren is ham-fisted and flat, there’s nothing about him; bland and boring he’s essentially a fart in the wind.

It’s a film obviously made to cash in on the popularity of vampires, which has been roused by the teenage obsession for the godawful Twilight series, and feels like a rushed project. It’s not horrifically bad, but it’s not good either, it’s mediocre and forgettable on every level.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0359013/

Dir. David S. Goyer

What is good:

1)      Ryan Reynolds and his jokes

What isn’t:

1)      The script

2)      The story

3)      The direction

4)      The acting by everyone who isn’t Ryan Reynolds or Parker Posey

5)      The make-up artist who must have fought long and hard to make Parker Posey look bad

6)      Dracula being a character

7)      Wesley Snipes, who was an enormous arsehole on set according an article I read a long while back.

8)      The lighting

9)      The effects

10)  The soundtrack

11)   The use of the wrestler “Triple-H” as a vampire character

12)   “Blood Warehouses”

13)   Pretty much everything.

A terrible film that butchered an enjoyably cheesy action series.  It’s just horrible.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0465430/

Dir. Paul Andrew Williams

This is a British horror/comedy starring Andy Serkis, Reece Sheersmith and Jennifer Ellison. It’s essentially a two-part movie like From Dusk Till Dawn, complete with the abrupt switch in tone. The first section is a bungling crime caper and the second section is a slasher film and while both sections are enjoyable in their own right they don’t quite blend together as a whole.

I discovered, when watching it with the director’s commentary, that a lot of decisions about the structure (notably separating the crime and horror sections of the film) were made during editing; there was even an entire character cut out of the narrative because it wasn’t working. While some of these changes are for the better, which you can see watching the deleted scenes, the harsh separation of the two elements of the film does not feel like it was the best choice. The trailers for the movie, the posters and the DVD case all advertise it as a horror/comedy; keeping the horror out of the film for a long period of time creates an odd impatient for the film to arrive at what appears to be it’s main plotline.

In terms of horror the film is occasionally successful. There is little tension to the piece as a whole because the comedy is mixed so readily with the horror, unlike Shaun of the Dead where comedy occasionally takes a back seat to let the horror and drama work, but there are some moments of unexpected gore and actions that work to disgust the audience. The visual production is fantastic and it’s this that builds the majority of the horrific atmosphere; it complements the sick idea of the farmer who steals faces (even though this idea isn’t communicated as well as it could have been) and is one of the films strengths.

What really shines through the piece are the performances from Andy Serkis, Reece Sheersmith and Jennifer Ellison (Steven O’Donnell deserves a mention for being funny, even though it’s essentially the same role he always plays). It’s what keeps the film together and the performances and comedy are why it’s worth watching.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1129428/

Dir. Steven Sheil

Since the start of this year I have been reading much of Stephen King’s library of novels, he has always been one of my favourite authors but there were many books I had overlooked. In going back to his work I reawakened my love of horror, of the supernatural or just plain disturbing. To his end I was drawn back to an old love of mine, horror films, and this happened to be the first one I have watched in a while.

Mum & Dad is a microbudget horror which tells the story of a young polish woman, Lena, who is kidnapped and ‘adopted’ into a horrific Texas-chainsaw style family with a penchant for torture and murder.

It’s a claustrophobic horror that rarely leaves the house in which Lena has been confined. This works well, both for the story and the £100,000 budget that the film was produced on, as it keeps you trapped inside the experience that Lena is going through. It’s disturbing and uncomfortable without ever using cheap “jump scares” or resorting to the Saw “torture-porn” style of staring at gore, it creates it’s horror in atmosphere, in confusion and in the mounting insanity of the situation Lena is experiencing. It is the kind of horror that never uses fantastical elements and keeps the sense that the events are possible, that there are people in this world who are that sick (Fred and Rosemary West being the prime example for this film) and that plays upon your mind when watching it.

It’s an exceptionally strong film given its low budget and mostly unknown actors, who all perform exceedingly well, and I never once felt that it suffered from a lack of funds. The direction was solid and confident, and I’m not just saying that because I’m getting taught by the director at the moment, it really does work well. The actors inhabit their characters perfectly, especially Perry Benson as Dad, and it has well thought out, impressive visuals throughout the whole movie.

The one element that I felt did not work was the visuals of the planes. They were supposed to evoke the setting of Heathrow Airport but they felt oddly unimportant as the film went on and acted more like screen wipes than settings.

This film, combined with my earlier horror reading, has planted the seed of what I want to do with my MA. I want to examine horror; I want to see how it works and what new kinds of presentation can be explored in a genre that has, in a very short time, acquired a very strict set of rules and clichés.