Archive for the 2007 Category

« Older Entries

HATCHET (2007)

Posted in 2007, Horror DVDs, LL Soares Reviews, VIOLENCE! with tags , , , , , , on February 16, 2011 by knifefighter

(Here’s a blast from the past – my review of the original HATCHET from September 2007, during HATCHET’s brief theatrical release before it went quickly to DVD ~LLS)

MOVIE REVIEW: HATCHET (2007)
by L.L. Soares

I saw the movie HATCHET, and I have two reactions to it. The first reaction is that it’s the equivalent of a fun (but dumb) amusement park ride. My second reaction is that I feel like I’ve been cheated.

You see, I was really looking forward to HATCHET because it’s been advertising itself as “Old School American Horror.” To some of us, that phrase means something. It hearkens back to the golden decade of the 1970s, when we got treated to intense horror classics like the original THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE (1974), the original HALLOWEEN (1978), the original DAWN OF THE DEAD (1978) (Don’t you just hate that I have to put the word “original” in front of each of those movies, so you know what I’m talking about?), and the soon to be “original” LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT (1972) (since we all know it’s inevitable that will get the official remake treatment at some point too)  (EDITOR’S NOTE: AND I WAS RIGHT!).

HATCHET was building up a lot of buzz on the premise that it was a throwback to the horror films of the ‘70s, and me being the silly person I am, I thought this meant suspenseful, brutal, edge-of-your seat filmmaking. But it turns out I was wrong.  “Old School American Horror” wasn’t meant to imply the 70s at all in this context. Instead, HATCHET is  like the horror films of the ‘80s, especially stuff like FRIDAY THE 13th PART III (1982) – you know, when slasher films were getting a bad name and were becoming jokes because of all the damn sequels and cliches?

Which is kind of funny, because the monster in HATCHET is played by Kane Hodder who played Jason in FRIDAY THE 13TH Numbers 7 – 10. See how everything comes full circle?

HATCHET revels in the whole “jokey horror” genre, where we get as many jokes and one-liners as we get thrills. And frankly, I’m getting a little tired of that, since it’s seldom done well.  The story is simple enough – hell, it seems a bit too simple. A bunch of friends are at Mardi Gras. One of them, Ben (Joel David Moore) refuses to have a good time because he’s a whiner who’s devastated over his recent breakup with his girlfriend (who can blame her?). So his buddy Marcus (Deon Richmond) agrees to go with him on a late night “swamp tour” through the spooky bayou to lift his spirits. There are other people on the tour, including an older couple, a sleazy filmmaker and his two “actresses” (who constantly pull their tops down “Girls Gone Wild” style), and a weird girl who won’t say much. The guide for the tour is an Asian guy who talks in a cajun accent and pretends to be a local – but he has no idea what he’s doing. While out on the swamp, their boat gets damaged and they have to run to shore before the alligators get them. But, in the woods, there is a worse danger. His name is Victor Crowley.

Victor (Kane Hodder) is a deformed freak who looks an awful lot like the monster in Tobe Hooper’s THE FUNHOUSE (1981) with some ELEPHANT MAN (1980) thrown in for good measure. As a child, Victor was taunted by other children because of his tragic appearance. One Halloween, some kids threw firecrackers at his house to torment him and ended up burning the place down by accident. Trapped inside, poor Victor panicked and struggled to get out. His father, trying to get inside, used a hatchet on the door. Unfortunately, Victor’s face is pressed close to the other side….and you get the picture from there.

For some untold reason, Victor’s still alive. And, after being born deformed, then burned, hatcheted and left for dead, you can understand why he’s boiling mad!

What happens next is just what you think. The group of morons who got stranded in the woods get picked off one by one by the deranged freak.

Once Victor appears, the movie does take a big leap forward. Let’s face it, no matter how flawed the movie is, he’s a cool character who deserved a better storyline. But, until he shows up, it’s just a lot of lame jokes and annoying characters. And it is kind of fun how he constantly pops up when people least expect it, to kill and mutilate. There were rumors that this movie was going to get an NC-17 rating originally, and you can see why. There’s tons of decapitations, bodies getting cut in two, and arms being ripped off. But it’s more cartoony than scary.

A little Victor Crowley goes a long way, but unfortunately, he’s not enough to save the movie. And it certainly wasn’t good enough to justify the ten dollar ticket price I paid.

Sure, I laughed a few times, and I dug the carnage, but HATCHET was ultimately a disappointment. If they’d actually played it straight and emulated the films of the 1970s – you know, real OLD SCHOOL AMERICAN HORROR -  then maybe HATCHET would have been a film worth recommending. I know I was expecting something much more intense. If this sounds like the kind of goofy fun film you’d enjoy, then by all means, check it out. Everyone else, you can wait for the DVD.

Another lesson in “Don’t believe the hype.”

© Copyright 2007 by L.L. Soares

Leave A Comment »

In the Spooklight: THE TOMB OF LIGEIA

Posted in 2007, Edgar Allen Poe, In the Spooklight, Roger Corman, Vincent Price with tags , , , , , on October 8, 2010 by knifefighter

This column, on the Roger Corman/Vincent Price classic THE TOMB OF LIGEIA (1964), is from October 2007 and is another Halloween edition of IN THE SPOOKLIGHT, part of our month-long celebration of Halloween here at CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT.—Michael Arruda, October 8, 2010

IN THE SPOOKLIGHT: THE TOMB OF LIGEIA
by Michael Arruda

I prefer horror to be an emotional experience, which is why, sometimes Roger Corman’s Edgar Allan Poe adaptations don’t work for me.

THE TOMB OF LIGEIA (1964), starring Vincent Price, Corman’s eighth and final Poe adaptation, is a perfect example.

Technically, the film is flawless. It’s arguably Corman’s best job at the helm. The film looks phenomenal, there’s great use of locations, and the camera work is extremely stylish. For these reasons alone watching THE TOMB OF LIGEIA can be as rewarding and mouthwatering as reading a good novel. Your intelligence won’t be let down.

It also has a decent screenplay by Robert Towne, which lives up to its source material. (Towne went on to write classics like 1974′s CHINATOWN).

However, THE TOMB OF LIGEIA has never been one of my favorites because as it plays out, it’s as cold as a corpse with about as much life (unless of course you’re talking vampire and zombies, which get around rather well, but there ain’t no vampires or zombies here!). Perhaps this is on purpose, and perhaps it’s just another sign of Corman’s genius. Could be. But for me, the fact remains that as I watch THE TOMB OF LIGEIA, and as I recognize while watching that “Hmm, this movie is extremely well made,” I also realize I’m not emotionally invested in the characters or the situations.

THE TOMB OF LIGEIA tells the story of Verden Fell (Vincent Price) who’s—what else? —brooding over the death of his wife, Ligeia. When a new woman, the Lady Rowena (Elizabeth Shepherd, in a dual role, as she also appears as Ligeia) expresses interest in Verden, the ghost of Ligeia takes offense, setting off the usual, standard ghostly shenanigans. We learn that Verden isn’t mourning his deceased wife—he’s afraid of her— afraid that she’s not really dead. It turns out Ligeia was a bold, energetic woman who had asserted she would never die, and she definitely got inside Verden’s head.

It’s this part of the film that works best for me. Is Ligeia really a ghost?  Or is it Verden, so brainwashed by his deceased wife that he himself is causing the mayhem? On this level, the film works well.

And the performances by the two leads are terrific. Price stands out as Verden. His look, with the dark brown hair and dark glasses, to shield his ultra sensitive eyes from the light, is unique to this movie. Price moves through this role effortlessly, as if he could do it in his sleep. Elizabeth Shepherd is just as good as The Lady Rowena. Her portrayal of Rowena as a strong woman who is not intimidated by evil spirits is refreshing.

But THE TOMB OF LIGEIA fails to connect on an emotional level. Price’s Verden isn’t that likeable, and while Shepherd’s Lady Rowena is, she’s not a central enough character to carry the movie on her own. I don’t really care about these characters, and as a result, I don’t care all that much about what happens to them, which makes for a lackluster movie viewing experience.

THE TOMB OF LIGEIA is a mixed bag, which for Halloween, is OK. In a trick or treat bag, chances are you’ll get candy you’re not crazy about along with your favorites, but still, it’s candy, and you’re not going to throw it away. Likewise, THE TOMB OF LIGEIA is a stylish, almost beautiful, horror movie that is pleasing to the eye and the intellect, but not so attractive to the heart. For those of us who tell tales, the heart can be the difference maker. Still, it’s Corman, it’s Price, it’s Poe, it’s candy.

It’s Halloween. Eat up.

—END—

© Copyright 2010 by Michael Arruda

Leave A Comment »

In the Spooklight: SHAUN OF THE DEAD

Posted in 2007, Horror-Comedies, In the Spooklight, Zombie Movies with tags , , , , , , on August 6, 2010 by knifefighter

I’ve discovered in recent years that I really like zombie comedies, based on my affection for ZOMBIELAND (2009) and SURVIVAL OF THE DEAD (2010).  Of course, the movie that started this “era of good zombie feelings” was SHAUN OF THE DEAD (2004).  This column on SHAUN first appeared in the HWA NEWSLETTER in August 2007.  I’m also reminded of this movie today because its director, Edgar Wright, is at the helm of the upcoming SCOTT PILGRIM VS. THE WORLD, due out on August 13.

—Michael Arruda, 8/6/10


IN THE SPOOKLIGHT: SHAUN OF THE DEAD
by Michael Arruda

SHAUN OF THE DEAD (2004) is so well-written and acted, so thoroughly engaging, it instantly joins the ranks of the best of the horror comedies, up there with ABBOTT AND COSTELLO MEET FRANKENSTEIN (1948) and YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN (1974).

Yes, SHAUN OF THE DEAD is a horror comedy, a genre I usually frown upon.  Strange, considering it’s a genre that’s supposed to make us laugh.  Sad fact is it usually makes us sick, but not here.  SHAUN OF THE DEAD is funny, very funny.

SHAUN OF THE DEAD is the story of Shaun (Simon Pegg) an average guy stuck in a rut.  His life’s going nowhere.  He lives with two roommates who don’t get along, including Ed (Nick Frost, in an uproarious performance) who sits around playing video games all day, and things just aren’t working out with his girlfriend Liz (Kate Ashfield).   But Shaun is given the chance to redeem himself when the dead suddenly start coming to life again as zombies.  As the world is turned upside down by the flesh-eating zombies, Shaun decides to take a stand and lead his girl and his friends to safety.

The zombies here are from the George Romero school of how to be a zombie— slow, lumbering creatures, as opposed to the swift, athletic variety from 28 DAYS LATER (2002).   In spite of this similarity to Romero, and in spite of the film’s title, SHAUN OF THE DEAD isn’t a spoof of Romero’s DAWN OF THE DEAD (1978) or its 2004 remake.  It really isn’t a spoof at all, which is one of the reasons it works so well.  SHAUN OF THE DEAD is simply a very funny story that has zombies in it.

The film doesn’t skimp on the horror either.  There are some genuine scary moments, as you would expect in a movie about flesh-eating zombies, as well as one complete gross-out scene, which, to be honest, I could have done without.

The screenplay by director Edgar Wright and lead actor Simon Pegg is sharp, refreshing, and nonstop hilarious.  The characters are fleshed out (heh! heh!) and multidimensional, and director Wright keeps the pace quick and intense, in direct contrast to his slow-as-molasses zombies.

As Shaun, Simon Pegg creates a character you really root for.  The role could have very easily turned into somebody unlikable, somebody we wouldn’t mind seeing eaten by zombies, but Pegg prevents this from happening.  He’s natural, sympathetic, and most of all, funny.  Kate Ashfield shines as Liz, Shaun’s girlfriend, and Nick Frost as Ed steals nearly every scene he’s in.

Horror and comedy together is not easy to pull off.  In fact, in the history of film horror, horror comedies have failed far more often than they’ve succeeded.  There are only a handful of genre films that have made their names as successful horror comedies, the two most famous, again, ABBOTT AND COSTELLO MEET FRANKENSTEIN and Mel Brooks’s YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN.

The comedy duo of Abbott and Costello made a bunch of horror comedies where they “met” other famous monsters, Mel Brooks made DRACULA, DEAD AND LOVING IT (1995), and there was George Hamilton’s LOVE AT FIRST BITE (1979) which was popular in its day, but none of these films are more than just okay.  A host of others are awful.

It may not sound like much, since the competition is slim, but SHAUN OF THE DEAD, a comedy with as much bite as the work of Monty Python, is arguably one of the best horror comedies ever.

—END—

© Copyright 2007 by Michael Arruda

Leave A Comment »

HATCHET!

Posted in 2007, LL Soares Reviews, Slasher Movies, VIOLENCE! with tags , , , , on June 4, 2010 by knifefighter

(This review was originally written in September 2007, during HATCHET’s brief theatrical release before it went quickly to DVD)

MOVIE REVIEW: HATCHET
by L.L. Soares

I saw the movie HATCHET, and I have two reactions to it. The first reaction is that it’s the equivalent of a fun (but dumb) amusement park ride. My second reaction is that I feel like I’ve been cheated.

You see, I was really looking forward to HATCHET because it’s been advertising itself as “Old School American Horror.” To some of us, that phrase means something. It hearkens back to the golden decade of the 1970s, when we got treated to intense horror classics like the original THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE (1974), the original HALLOWEEN (1978), the original DAWN OF THE DEAD (1978) (Don’t you just hate that I have to put the word “original” in front of each of those movies, so you know what I’m talking about?), and the soon to be “original” LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT (1972) (since we all know it’s inevitable that will get the official remake treatment at some point too)  (EDITOR’S NOTE: AND I WAS RIGHT!).

HATCHET was building up a lot of buzz on the premise that it was a throwback to the horror films of the ‘70s, and me being the silly person I am, I thought this meant suspenseful, brutal, edge-of-your seat filmmaking. But it turns out I was wrong.  “Old School American Horror” wasn’t meant to imply the 70s at all in this context. Instead, HATCHET is  like the horror films of the ‘80s, especially stuff like FRIDAY THE 13th PART III (1982) – you know, when slasher films were getting a bad name and were becoming jokes because of all the damn sequels and cliches?

Which is kind of funny, because the monster in HATCHET is played by Kane Hodder who played Jason in FRIDAY THE 13TH Numbers 7 – 10. See how everything comes full circle?

HATCHET revels in the whole “jokey horror” genre, where we get as many jokes and one-liners as we get thrills. And frankly, I’m getting a little tired of that, since it’s seldom done well.  The story is simple enough – hell, it seems a bit too simple. A bunch of friends are at Mardi Gras. One of them, Ben (Joel David Moore) refuses to have a good time because he’s a whiner who’s devastated over his recent breakup with his girlfriend (who can blame her?). So his buddy Marcus (Deon Richmond) agrees to go with him on a late night “swamp tour” through the spooky bayou to lift his spirits. There are other people on the tour, including an older couple, a sleazy filmmaker and his two “actresses” (who constantly pull their tops down “Girls Gone Wild” style), and a weird girl who won’t say much. The guide for the tour is an Asian guy who talks in a cajun accent and pretends to be a local – but he has no idea what he’s doing. While out on the swamp, their boat gets damaged and they have to run to shore before the alligators get them. But, in the woods, there is a worse danger. His name is Victor Crowley.

Victor (Kane Hodder) is a deformed freak who looks an awful lot like the monster in Tobe Hooper’s THE FUNHOUSE (1981) with some ELEPHANT MAN (1980) thrown in for good measure. As a child, Victor was taunted by other children because of his tragic appearance. One Halloween, some kids threw firecrackers at his house to torment him and ended up burning the place down by accident. Trapped inside, poor Victor panicked and struggled to get out. His father, trying to get inside, used a hatchet on the door. Unfortunately, Victor’s face is pressed close to the other side….and you get the picture from there.

For some untold reason, Victor’s still alive. And, after being born deformed, then burned, hatcheted and left for dead, you can understand why he’s boiling mad!

What happens next is just what you think. The group of morons who got stranded in the woods get picked off one by one by the deranged freak.

Once Victor appears, the movie does take a big leap forward. Let’s face it, no matter how flawed the movie is, he’s a cool character who deserved a better storyline. But, until he shows up, it’s just a lot of lame jokes and annoying characters. And it is kind of fun how he constantly pops up when people least expect it, to kill and mutilate. There were rumors that this movie was going to get an NC-17 rating originally, and you can see why. There’s tons of decapitations, bodies getting cut in two, and arms being ripped off. But it’s more cartoony than scary.

A little Victor Crowley goes a long way, but unfortunately, he’s not enough to save the movie. And it certainly wasn’t good enough to justify the ten dollar ticket price I paid.

Sure, I laughed a few times, and I dug the carnage, but HATCHET was ultimately a disappoinment. If they’d actually played it straight and emulated the films of the 1970s – you know, real OLD SCHOOL AMERICAN HORROR -  then maybe HATCHET would have been a film worth recommending. I know I was expecting something much more intense. If this sounds like the kind of goofy fun film you’d enjoy, then by all means, check it out. Everyone else, you can wait for the DVD.

Another lesson in “Don’t believe the hype.”

Leave A Comment »

In the Spooklight: I WAS A TEENAGE FRANKENSTEIN

Posted in 2007, Classic Films, Frankenstein Movies, In the Spooklight, Michael Arruda Reviews, Monsters with tags , , , , on May 21, 2010 by knifefighter

(This one’s from May 2007, on one of my favorite old Frankenstein movies that wasn’t produced by either Universal or Hammer, I WAS A TEENAGE FRANKENSTEIN —Michael Arruda)

IN THE SPOOKLIGHT: I WAS A TEENAGE FRANKENSTEIN (1957)
by Michael Arruda

“Answer me!  You have a civil tongue in your head!  I know— I sewed it in there!”

That’s Whit Bissell as Dr. Frankenstein talking to his monstrous creation (Gary Conway) in I WAS A TEENAGE FRANKENSTEIN (1957), the companion piece to I WAS A TEENAGE WEREWOLF (1957).

I WAS A TEENAGE FRANKENSTEIN isn’t quite as good as its WEREWOLF predecessor, mostly because it lacks the strong central performance of a lead teen, in WEREWOLF’S case it was a young dynamic Michael Landon, but also because in general, the teens seem to be missing in this one. Other than the monster- who just happens to be built from bodies of teenagers- there aren’t many of the misunderstood youth around.

No, the central character here is Dr. Frankenstein, played as a villain by Whit Bissell (CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON [1954], INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS [1956]).  His characterization seems to have been heavily influenced by Peter Cushing’s portrayal of Victor Frankenstein in THE CURSE OF FRANKENSTEIN (1957) which came out the same year, but whereas Cushing could carry an entire movie on his shoulders, Bissell could not.   That’s not for a lack of trying.  Bissell is fun to watch, but his Dr. Frankenstein is all villain, and as a result one-dimensional.  Cushing delved deeper than this, making his Baron Frankenstein much more complex, and thus much more intriguing and enjoyable.

I WAS A TEENAGE FRANKENSTEIN takes place in 1950s Los Angeles, where Whit Bissel’s Dr. Frankenstein, a descendant of the original Dr. Frankenstein, is visiting from England.  The good doctor decides he’s going to build—OK, three guesses –  a) a house, b) a puzzle, or c) a— man.  Hmmm.

Convenient for him, a horrendous car accident occurs outside his house, and suddenly he has tons of teenage bodies to work with.

The best part of the film is the make-up on the monster, by Philip Scheer.  The face of the creature is among the most hideous of any Frankenstein monster ever.  You gotta love it.

To screenwriter Kenneth Langtry’s credit, the monster does have dialogue, but Gary Conway plays him like a relaxed Tarzan on a California beach.  (“You want to hurt me.”  “You, Jane.  Me, Monster.  How’s the surf?”). Conway would later star in TV’s LAND OF THE GIANTS (remember that one?), a 1960s series by Irwin Allen in which Conway played the lead, a relaxed Tarzan on a California beach.

It’s really the biggest difference between this film and I WAS A TEENAGE WEREWOLF.  Michael Landon’s performance in WEREWOLF raises that movie to another level.  How much better I WAS A TEENAGE FRANKENSTEIN would have been had the monster been the protagonist in the film and not the doctor.  After all, the film is titled I WAS A TEENAGE FRANKENSTEIN.

Still, the monster does have a few good scenes, especially when he’s lurking about in the dark. Director Herbert L. Strock makes good use of the monster’s hideous face.

Phyllis Coates (Lois Lane from the George Reeves SUPERMAN TV show)  is also in the cast, and she’s OK, although the most memorable thing she does is get fed to the alligator living underneath Frankenstein’s lab.  Well, it is a horror movie, after all!

In black and white except for the final sequence which was shot in color, a gimmick used often in the 1950s, I WAS A TEENAGE FRANKENSTEIN is actually quite the morbid little movie.  While it’s devoid of passion and characterization, it is rather fun in a grotesque sort of way.  Just don’t expect anything deep- except that is, for the scars on the creature’s face.

—END—

© Copyright 2007 by Michael Arruda

Leave A Comment »

ALIEN VS. PREDATOR: REQUIEM

Posted in 2007, Cinema Knife Fights, Science Fiction with tags , , , , , on December 2, 2009 by knifefighter

CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT: ALIENS VS. PREDATOR:  REQUIEM
By Michael Arruda and L. L. Soares

(FADE IN)

THE SCENE:

Inside a darkened sewage tunnel, with filthy water dripping down walls into a rushing river of human waste, an Alien opens its mouth and hisses at the unseen intruder it senses. Suddenly, the Alien suffers violent spasms and falls onto its back as it squeals in pain. The Alien’s chest bursts open in an explosion of guts and green blood, and out pops MICHAEL ARRUDA. MA brushes the green goop from his body and is about to speak when he hears a strange clicking sound behind him. He whirls around.

Turning off its cloaking mechanism, a huge Predator materializes in the sewer and aims a funky looking weapon at MA. The weapon jams, and from behind the Predator’s mask comes a loud expletive. The Predator removes its helmet to reveal— L.L.SOARES.

LS:  I’m glad I saved my receipt. I didn’t buy this get-up just for show!

MA (sighs in relief):  I’m glad to see you. For a minute there, I thought I was a goner.

LS:  For a minute there, you were.

MA:  Well, this opening has used up our budget for the year. Wait a minute. We’re a writing column. We don’t need no stinking budget!  But ALIENS VS. PREDATOR:  REQUIEM (2007), or AVPR, obviously had a budget, a decent one, and it showed.

I’ll be the first to admit, I’m a sucker for a good old-fashioned monster movie, and that’s what ALIENS VS. PREDATOR: REQUIEM is, and for that reason alone, I loved this movie, but I’m getting ahead of myself.

LS: What else is new? Hey, next time, how about suggesting we meet somewhere that doesn’t smell so bad?

MA: Really?  For some reason I thought you’d feel right at home here. Anyway, AVPR begins with a bang and really doesn’t let up. In the opening scene, aboard a Predator ship, Aliens emerge and attack, causing the ship to crash land onto present day Earth. The opening battle on the ship, as brief as it is, is still much better than most of what we saw in ALIEN VS. PREDATOR (2004), a film that I thought was OK but ultimately a disappointment. AVPR is much better.

The ship crashes outside a town in Colorado which opens the door for a host of small town characters to suddenly find themselves in harm’s way. There’s the big brother Dallas (Steven Pasquale) with a checkered past returning home from a stint in jail to make good and look after his little brother Ricky (Johnny Lewis). who’s struggling to make good himself and get through high school. There’s big brother’s best buddy Morales (John Ortiz) who’s now the sheriff, little brother’s beautiful love interest Jesse (Kristen Hager), and there’s the strong Sigourney Weaver-type, Kelly (Reiko Aylesworth) recently home from the military (Iraq, most likely, though the film doesn’t say) who ends up having to protect her daughter.

LS: Oh yeah, Kristen Hager is a knockout. And you can tell they were trying to add some poignancy with Rieko Aylesworth’s returning solider character. I just wish they’d developed her more.

MA: The cast are mostly newcomers, but they handle their roles admirably.

LS: The only actor I recognized was Steven Pasquale, who plays Sean Garrity on the FX Channel show RESCUE ME. He’s good on that, and he did a decent job here, despite what little he had to work with. It was good to see him in a leading role for a change.

MA: These characters and more are thrust into the middle of a deadly battle, as the Aliens breed like crazed bunnies and infest the town faster than maggots on rotting meat, and on their heels is a Predator who’s hell-bent on destroying them all.

LS: Yeah, when we first see him, he’s sitting in some kind of throne and then jumps into a rocketship to take them all on by himself, like Super Predator. Oh, and don’t forget the Alien/Predator hybrid that they were brewing up on that spaceship.

MA:  Yes, the Alien/Predator hybrid. I believe he was cooked up in the last film. Were you wondering, like I was, why Mr. Super Predator didn’t call for back-up?  Wouldn’t it have been much easier to hunt down the aliens if he had some help?

LS: I don’t think you understand the Predator mindset. They’re the ultimate hunters, and they love a challenge.

(LS finally gets his weapon to work and it shoots out a laser beam, but MA ducks. Instead the beam zaps another Alien who crawls out of the darkness.)

MA: Thanks! You’ve got fast reflexes. And FAST is the key word here. The pacing of AVPR is quick. With a running time of just under 90 minutes, you barely have time to breathe. Things happen right away, and there’s no let up. The action builds to a conclusion that frankly I saw coming, but the fact that it was predictable didn’t ruin it for me. The whole film could have been much worse, but it wasn’t. It was damn good. As I watched this movie, I kept expecting things to fall apart, but they didn’t.

After the opening battle in space, when the ship crash lands on earth, the first victims of the Aliens are a hunter and his young son. Both these characters meet grisly ends, yes, the little boy too. Now, I’m a parent, so it’s not that I want to see children harmed in a movie— and the fact is, you really don’t see the boy hurt— but since the filmmakers broke what traditionally is the golden rule of horror movies, which is, children survive the monsters, it was a refreshing way to begin. I thought, cool!  This movie is going to be good, and it was!

(A “face-hugger” alien jumps on MA’s face and he struggles with it, until it finally falls off.)

Man, I hate those touchy-feely types! AVPR was directed by Colin and Greg Strause, and they really deliver a kick-ass movie, chock-full of cool scenes. For example, the father telling his little girl after she sees the Alien outside her window that monsters don’t exist, only to have the Alien crash through the window at that moment. Now, this has been done before (think JURASSIC PARK 2) but AVPR takes it a step further because the Alien kills daddy in front of his little girl. Intense stuff for a sequel.

LS: Actually the whole “there’s a monster in the window” thing struck me as kind of cliché. And I was half expecting a “cat jumping out of nowhere” scene, too.

MA: AVPR is also a good example of blood, gore and violence having a place in a movie and being done right. These are friggin’ space creatures, so you want to see intense blood and gore, and you want to be frightened because in your heart you know this isn’t real. You’re not watching some sick bastard torture innocent people. As far as I’m concerned, there could have been MORE blood and guts here.

LS: Of course you like the gore in this movie. Because it’s safe. It’s just big goofy monsters ripping each other apart.

MA:  It’s imaginative. When I want gritty hardcore horror, I watch the 6 o’clock news. The script by Shane Salerno was also cool. The best line in the film comes when the characters are questioning the army’s advice to them, doubting whether or not the military is being truthful, and one of the frightened women cries, “What are you talking about?  The government doesn’t lie!”  The theater erupted into laughter.

LS: Yeah, like I’ve never heard that joke in a movie before (laughs).

MA: Sorry some of us don’t go to the movies as much as you!  Geesh!  I thought the special effects were a step above AVP1.

LS: Not a big feat.

MA:  I thought the battle sequences were better, and the creatures looked far less CGI than in the last installment. The story also was a step above the previous film. In fact, I’ll go so far as to say that AVPR is the most entertaining film of the Alien series since ALIENS (1986).

LS: Best since ALIENS? That’s not a big feat either. The sequels since then have been pretty lame.

MA:  Exactly. AVPR is far from lame. Drawbacks?  Sure. I realize that darkness makes for spooky atmosphere, but I would have enjoyed some better lighting. There was a lot of intense action going on, and a lot of it I couldn’t see clearly, so that was disappointing.

LS: I actually thought this was a big drawback. I guess that way they don’t have to worry about how good the CGI effects look. But every major battle took place in a dimly-lit place, and the monsters moved fast, which means you had no real idea what they were doing. They could have been playing patty-cake for all I know. But they were growling and grunting a lot, so I guess that means they were fighting. For once I’d just love to see a movie where these things fight in the daytime so you can really get a good look at them.

And how did you know the action was intense, if you couldn’t SEE it?

MA: I said I couldn’t see it clearly. But I agree with you that I’d rather see things fight in the daytime. And while I enjoyed the pacing in terms of storytelling, AVPR could have given us more minutes of character development. The characters in the film are likeable, and knowing more about them would have made the movie even better.

LS: The only one I wanted to know more about was Kristen Hager.

MA:  Stop that!  She’s playing a high school student, for crying out loud!  Though, she did look purdy good in that bathing suit. (Wipes slobber from his lips).

With the scenes of people in peril, especially in small town America, it brought to mind films as recent as THE MIST and 30 DAYS OF NIGHT, and as old as THE BLOB (1958). The scene where the high schoolers try to explain to the “adults” that they saw a monster reminded me exactly of a similar scene in THE BLOB with a young Steve McQueen.

LS: That’s funny. In saw comparisons to THE BLOB, too. This movie reminded me of those sci-fi classics of the 50s, only with scarier monsters. Unfortunately AVPR doesn’t have anyone as good as Steve McQueen in it.

MA: All in all, AVPR is well worth your time. I highly recommend this movie.

LS: I still think that the Predators are kind of outclassed by the Aliens, if only because the first two Alien films are classics and better than anything the Predator has ever appeared in. But both kinds of monsters look great and put up a good fight. I also think it’s interesting how viewers tend to relate more to the Predator character just because he appears to be more humanoid, but the Predator is far from a good guy (a dead man found hanging from a tree without his skin attested to that).

MA:  True, but he’s better at killing the Aliens than we are!  And when you’re being attacked by those buggers, that’s something!

LS:  While I don’t think this is a horrible franchise, and it was an entertaining film, it is kind of hokey at times and it’s hard to really care about what’s coming next (although the ending does set things up for yet another sequel).

And there are some other flaws. Early on in the movie, there are a few major explosions, including a spaceship crash-landing in the woods, and the same ship blowing up after a Predator booby-traps it, and yet nobody seems to notice. In fact, nobody seems to notice anything is wrong until the monsters attack a power plant and the lights go out.

And the acid blood of the Aliens only seems to show up when it’s convenient. When a hunter shoots an alien and its blood sprays on him, the corrosive fluid instantly eats through his flesh, severing his arm. Later on, when our human survivors fight in close quarters with the Aliens, and machine-gun one of them to death, the acid blood doesn’t seem to spray on anyone and cause any injuries.

And what was in that blue vial the main Predator kept using to pour on the aliens and their victims to get rid of the evidence? He sure did pour a lot each time, and the vial never seemed to run out of fluid! I wish I could find a beer bottle like that!

MA:  Also, I kept waiting for there to be some significance to the fact that the main character’s name was Dallas, which was Tom Skerritt’s name in the original ALIEN. But nothing came of it.

LS:  All in all, I thought it was a mixed bag. It was better than I expected after the first one. And it did remind me of old-fashioned horror movies – and it did move fast. But I don’t think it’s worthy of a HIGH recommendation. If you want to see a fun monster movie, check it out. But don’t go in expecting anything close to Ridley Scott’s original ALIEN (1979).

MA:  No, don’t expect ALIEN, but if you like monster movies, you’ll really like this film.

(MA suddenly drops to the ground and his chest bursts open, revealing another Michael Arruda!)

MA: What’s going on!

LS: You gave birth to yourself! That has to be the most disgusting thing we’ve ever had in Cinema Knife Fight!

MA:  No. This is.

(MA drops to the ground again, and his chest bursts open again. Out pops a Michael Arruda/L.L. Soares HYBRID.).

HYBRID:  I love and hate this movie.

—END—

(First published on Fear Zone on 12/31/07)

© Copyright 2007 by Michael Arruda and L.L. Soares

1 Comment »

SWEENEY TODD

Posted in 2007, Cinema Knife Fights, Tim Burton Movies with tags , , , , , , , on November 30, 2009 by knifefighter

CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT: SWEENEY TODD
by Michael Arruda and L. L. Soares

(THE SCENE: a dark, cold street in 19th century London. MICHAEL ARRUDA  holds his long coat tight to himself, since there’s a chill in the air and snowflakes have begun to fall. He sees light coming from “Mrs. Lovett’s Meat Pie Emporium” and like a moth to the flame, he approaches. As he opens the door, a bell jingles, and he sees L.L. SOARES sitting at a table which is almost completely covered in round, thick meat pies).

LS: It’s about time you got here! You’ve got to try these pies, they are quite delicious.

(MA sits down. A serving boy pours a pitcher of ale into his cup. MA hungrily grabs one of the meat pies and bites into it.)

MA:  What the hell?  What’s this?

LS: What’s the matter?

MA (pulls a finger from his mouth): By God, there’s a human finger in me pie!

LS:  Yes, isn’t that great? A prize in every pie, Mrs. Lovett says! I got a whole mouth full of teeth in one of mine. I’m going to put them under my pillow and get a fortune from the tooth fairy. What wonderful pies – delicious and they have more prizes than Cracker Jack.

MA: (looks disgusted):  Wonderful pies, my butt!  The damn things need salt!  (Pours salt onto a pie). Now we’re talking! Mmm. Yummy. Okay, on with the review.

LS: Okay. SWEENEY TODD: THE DEMON BARBER OF FLEET STREET is the new collaboration between director Tim Burton and star Johnny Depp. It’s the tale of a wrongfully imprisoned man who comes back to London to seek revenge on the despicably corrupt judge who sent him away in order to steal his wife. Once a kindly barber by the name of Benjamin Barker, he now takes on the nom de plume of Sweeney Todd to set up shop once more and bring customers to an untimely and bloody end.

The film is based on the stage musical by Stephen Sondheim, who is well known for his smart lyrics and for having a bit more of an edge than other composers, and the subject matter here is quite gruesome indeed. We have a barber who slits throats, bodies turned into meat pies, a creepy old judge who intends to marry his adopted daughter, roaches aplenty and devious con men. London of this time period is not a particularly cheerful place, and Tim Burton does a fine job of bringing the Broadway play to cinematic life. He has the visuals and atmosphere all down perfect. And you can’t ask for a better lead than Depp, who seems incapable of doing anything wrong these days.

But there is one problem I have with the film. You see, it’s a musical. And I friggin hate musicals!

LS bursts into song (Sung to the tune of “Jingle Bells”):

“Mu-si-cals, mu-si-cals
They’re like kryptonite to me
They make my hair stand on end
And my li-ttle ears bleed.”

MA(singing)(to the tune of The Beatle’s “Yesterday,” more or less):

“Musicals.
I have no problem with musicals.
I just don’t like this musical
It’s sad and boring and dark and dumb
And you don’t have no hair at all.”

LS: Sweeney Todd’s accomplice in this skullduggery is Mrs. Lovett (Helena Bonham Carter), a pie maker whose business has hit the skids, mostly due to the lack of good meat in London at the time. But when Todd makes his first kill, getting rid of a blackmailing con-man, and the subject of how to dispose of the body arises, Mrs. Lovett comes up with the wonderful idea of baking the corpse meat into her pies. Suddenly, her shop is a hit and she’s the talk of the town! And Todd’s wonderful close shaves are to die for!

MA: (rubs his cheeks) I could use a shave myself.

LS: Yes, yes. Soon, my friend.

MA: In your dreams, barber boy!  Get on with the review.

LS: The main focus of Todd’s bile however is the vile Judge Turpin (the fine Alan Rickman) who had him falsely imprisoned for 15 years so that he could pressure Todd’s poor wife Lucy (Laura Michelle Kelly) into marrying him. She takes poison soon after however, leaving behind the child she had with Sweeney, the equally fair-haired and beautiful Johanna (the striking Jayne Wisener), who becomes Turpin’s ward. But the judge does not look on her with fatherly eyes, as he plans to marry her himself once she comes of age. When she refuses his advances, he has her locked in a madhouse!

So the judge certainly deserves the fate Sweeney Todd has in store for him, but the question is, how will our hero get access to the judge’s throat? And therein is the plot of this particularly yarn.

Like I said, I hate musicals, and that’s my dilemma. The opening scene of the film encapsulates my problem entirely. As a large vessel approaches London harbor, we first hear the singing of Anthony Hope (Jamie Campbell Bower) whose voice is what one would call typical of the musical genre. He clearly has ability, but to tell you the truth, every time the lad opened his mouth, my head throbbed with an impending headache. So much do I hate the trappings of the modern musical.

And then, in response to Anthony’s song, we hear the voice of Johnny Depp. Many people have wondered if Depp can sing, and the truth is, he can, but not in any way like the “professional” musical-theater types, of which Bower is a perfect example. Depp’s voice is less trained, and he sounds a bit like David Bowie. And for that reason, his is the only singing voice in the film I can actually tolerate!

A subplot concerning the songbird Anthony and the imprisoned Johanna, with whom he falls in love, is like torture to me. Both sing in the classic musical style, and their scenes made me want to flee the theater screaming. Luckily, they are not on screen enough to ruin the film completely.

MA: I would disagree with you on that point. Can we just say the film stunk and go home?  I’ve got cookies to bake. Look, unlike you, I like musicals. I even like horror musicals. I liked the flawed PHANTOM OF THE OPERA (2004), for example. I didn’t love it, but it was OK. But I didn’t like SWEENEY TODD at all, and here’s why.

Number one, the music. The songs did nothing for me. I don’t think in the course of writing this column, I’ve ever agreed with you more, in that the songs and subplot involving Anthony and Johanna were torture, absolute torture!  And no kidding, when they were singing, that’s exactly how I felt as well- I wanted to get up and get the hell out of that theater, and I like musicals!  My skin crawled!  Now, this isn’t a reflection on their ability. Their singing was fine, but in a film about a throat-slitting barber, it just didn’t mix, and it didn’t help that the songs were nauseating. I left the movie without liking even one song. That’s pretty bad.

LS (Rises from his seat): I thought the throat-slitting went well with the throat-warbling, especially since I hated the latter. Alas, it is time for that shave I promised you! Upstairs we go!

(FADE TO BLACK)

(An unseen Narrator with a deep voice sings to the tune of “YOU’RE A MEAN ONE, MR. GRINCH):

“You’re a mean one, Mr. Soares
You’re a mangy, horrid man
Your breath smells of brimstone and you have brain matter on your shirt
Mr. Soares”

(A new scene unfolds, as we find ourselves in a shadowy apartment with a barber chair. LS is sharpening a blade on a leather strap merrily)

LS: Of course, not everyone here can sing that well. The lovely Helena Bonham Carter (who was so great in films like FIGHT CLUB and who is married to director Burton) gives it a hearty go, but falls short. And actors like Alan Rickman and Timothy Spall (as the judge’s thug) are pretty bad singers, but courageous nonetheless. This is not to put them down, I think the cast is great. One who fares better is Sacha Baron Cohen (yes, Borat himself!), who portrays the pompous Signor Adolfo Pirelli. He plays the role to the hilt, and is perhaps the funniest character in the entire production. His shaving showdown in the public square with Depp’s Todd is one of the film’s highlights.

Another fun part is a fantasy sequence where Mrs. Lovett imagines what it would be like to marry Todd, the object of her affections. In various imaginary scenes, which include the two on a beach and getting married before a priest, Todd stays true to form as dour, brooding and fixated only on his revenge plot, which is pretty funny.

MA:  I agree with you on both those points.

LS:  As I said, Burton’s direction is fine here, but he’s a very iffy director in my mind. I know he has a fanatical following, but for every film of his I’ve loved (ED WOOD is a true masterpiece, and I really enjoyed SLEEPY HOLLOW; both films of course starred Depp), there have been others that haven’t been as successful (his remake of PLANET OF THE APES is a travesty and one of the worst films I’ve ever seen). Depp does seem to be his good luck charm, though, and if there’s any reason to see this film, it’s Depp’s terrific performance as the demon barber.

MA:  I think I like Burton more than you, but I would agree that not all his films have succeeded, and that’s true for any artist. I just really like his visual style. Most of the time, I simply enjoy sitting back and looking at his movies. They usually look terrific, and SWEENEY TODD is no exception. Visually, it’s satisfying. And as much as I like Tim Burton, I have to agree with you again— I’m getting tired of agreeing with you so much today— that his PLANET OF THE APES is awful.

Johnny Depp is terrific, and his singing does sound like David Bowie. I thought he sung like Bowie, spoke like Michael Caine, and looked eerily like Michael Keaton as Beetlejuice (another Burton flick) at times!  Depp is the best part of this movie by far, though I enjoyed Helena Bonham Carter very much too, but they didn’t save the movie for me.

LS:  The Beetlejuice connection is not so far-fetched. There is a sight gag in Carter’s fantasy sequence where Depp is on the beach wearing black and white striped long underwear, which brings to mind a certain Michael Keaton character. Ready for that shave now? (Raises the open razor).

MA: Do you think I’m stupid?  I saw the movie. I know where you’re going with this.

LS: Oh yes, the gore. Another saving grace of this film is the generous amounts of human wine. Despite the musical numbers, Burton does not skimp on the bloodletting. Straight razors to the throat produce fountains of blood, and it’s this generous bleeding which balanced out the horrid singing for me.

MA:  See, I didn’t like the gore. We’ve had this debate many times before. I am not against blood and gore in the movies, but for me, it has to fit, there has to be a reason for it, and here, in a musical, albeit a dark musical, it’s just gross, especially in this day and age, when a certain group of individuals in the real world choose throat slitting and beheadings as their mode of terror, I just couldn’t get into it or have fun with it.

LS: Aw, you’re just an old sour-puss who takes everything much too seriously.

MA: I can’t help it. That’s what I was thinking as I watched those scenes. So, as much as I like Tim Burton, Johnny Depp, and Helena Bonham Carter, I didn’t like SWEENEY TODD. It looked good, the acting and singing was fine, but it was dreary, the songs weren’t memorable, the story predictable, and the gore gratuitous. SWEENEY TURD is a stinker.

LS:  What a downer. I had a mixed reaction. While I despised the horrible songs (except when it was Depp doing the singing), I suppose I enjoyed this film. If only I could have had a “mute” button for the irritating parts, the movie would have been better still.

But I must admit, I’ve had much more fun writing this column about SWEENEY TODD than I did watching the film.

MA: You can say that again.

LS: I should note that the story of Sweeney Todd is an old one, and has been filmed before in non-musical versions. If you enjoy the tale, you can also check out the wonderful 1936 British version starring the underrated Tod Slaughter in the title role, and one of my favorite low-budget directors, Andy Milligan, tackled the story in his 1970 film BLOODTHIRSTY BUTCHERS.

MA: Can we go home now?

LS:  How about that shave?

MA:  How about you listen to the songbird Anthony and the imprisoned Johanna sing again?

LS gives MA the finger— MA takes the severed finger and places it in a small bag.

MA:  Thanks. Just some extra ingredients for the cookies I’m baking later today. Extra crunchy. (Smiles slyly)

—END—

(originally published on Fear Zone on 12/27/07)

© Copyright 2007 by Michael Arruda and L.L. Soares

Leave A Comment »

THE MIST

Posted in 2007, Cinema Knife Fights, Stephen King Movies with tags , , , , , , on November 19, 2009 by knifefighter

CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT: THE MIST
by Michael Arruda and L. L. Soares

FADE IN:

(THE SCENE:  Inside a quaint, small town supermarket, MICHAEL ARRUDA pushes a shopping cart along the produce aisle. His cart is full of an odd assortment of items, including shrunken heads, skulls, severed body parts stained with blood, sweetened monster cereals in colorful boxes, and a hardcover copy of SKELETON CREW by Stephen King. Michael stops to select some Florida blood oranges.  Suddenly L.L. SOARES appears, shouting and waving a burning torch at some unseen menace.)

LS:  Watch out!  They’re coming!

MA:  Giant bugs?

LS:  No, an angry mob of naysayers who only read reviews before the film is released!

MA (shouting towards mob):  Film criticism is timeless, people!  Put down your torches!

LS:  They’re scared!  People revert to animals when they’re scared!

MA (to LS):  It’s all your fault. I told you to not to come out in public without your mask.

(An eerie mist clouds the view outside the glass storefront window. MA notices.)

MA:   That reminds me—we have a movie to review.

LS:  Take it away, Digby.

MA:  THE MIST, based upon the Stephen King novella of the same name, is one of those stories that begs to be filmed. Like a perfect storm, it’s the perfect blend of thrills, chills, and good old-fashioned suspense and adventure. After a violent storm the night before, a mist descends upon a small Maine town, and a bunch of people find themselves trapped inside a supermarket, as, from the mist, deadly man-eating creatures emerge. Eventually the strange creatures force their way inside. David Drayton (Thomas Jane) fights to protect his young son, and later finds himself leading a small band of survivors on a trek into the mist, hoping to escape the bloodthirsty creatures and find any remnants of civilization.

While I enjoyed THE MIST, it was nowhere near as good as the story on which it was based. Right off the bat, it suffered from a lack of believability. People were frightened before they should have been. Sirens are heard outside the supermarket, and customers react as if they’re in the middle of the cold war. I found their fear exaggerated and out of place. The sense of oncoming dread worked much better on the printed page than in the movie, no doubt due to the effectiveness of King’s writing. I thought this film got off to a flat start, but then picked up in the middle and gained steam as it went along.

LS: I totally disagree. I thought the pacing was good and the movie gets to the action fairly quickly.

MA:  Really?  I thought it plodded along till the tentacles scene. Speaking of which, the creature special effects were average and unspectacular. In fact, I found myself thinking they looked fake, which brings me to another problem. THE MIST wasn’t all that scary. At times, it played more like an old 1970s disaster film (who will survive?)— with its clichéd characterizations — than a horror movie.

Actually, the scariest part of the movie wasn’t the creatures, but Mrs. Carmody (Marcia Gay Harden, delivering the film’s best performance) whose religious fanaticism struck a nerve, especially in these post-9/11 times. She was frightening. Yet, even this part of the movie was flawed. I thought her screen time went on far too long. Of course, that’s the point of the story, that when people are terribly frightened, they revert to their primitive selves and forget what it is to be civilized. In short, they become scared, murderous bastards. Again, this theme works better on the printed page than on screen.

I would have liked less Mrs. Carmody and more giant bugs, because in effect, the movie version of THE MIST is an old-fashioned monster movie, and what it needed was more monsters!

(As if on cue, strange music plays, and a group of giant roaches and slimy trolls do a conga line down the isle, dancing and singing. LL and MA stare as they go by. Then the creatures disappear.)

MA:  Preferably monsters that don’t sing and dance. I also didn’t like the new ending. Writer/director Frank Darabont changed King’s original open-ended finale and opted for a much more concrete one. It didn’t really work for me. Intellectually, I bought into it. It packs a punch and delivers a message, but emotionally, I found it much too dark for what previously had been a fun monster movie.

The performances were solid, and the script effective— there were some terrific zingers  that got the audience laughing, but as a whole, it fell short. All in all, I thought it was OK, an average film version of a phenomenal novella. How about you?

(L. L. Soares snags a beer from the refrigerated section.)

LS:  Hell, the world’s coming to an end. Why let good beer go to waste?  Want one?

MA: No thanks. I’m working.

(A giant tentacle rises up from behind LS and tries to grab a beer bottle, but he slaps it away)

LS: Get outta here, ya creep! (opens bottle and takes a swig.). Well first off, make up your mind. First you complain that THE MIST isn’t scary and that it’s too much like a 70s disaster film. Then you say you enjoyed the fact that it was an old-fashioned monster movie. You can’t have it both ways.

MA:  Why can’t an old-fashioned monster movie be scary?  THEM! (1954) was an old-fashioned monster movie, and it was scary.

(A giant ant pokes its head out of a pile of canned goods: “Damn right we were!”)

LS:  Look, I enjoyed King’s original story a lot, too, and for the most part, the movie is faithful to it. I thought the cast was pretty good – Thomas Jane isn’t the most exciting actor in the world, but he’s good here, and between this one and DREAMCATCHER, he’s starting to become a King regular. He plays the typical King hero well enough. You also have Andre Braugher as Drayton’s pompous lawyer neighbor Brent Norton, who doesn’t believe any of this is happening until it’s too late. Laurie Holden (who was also the cop in SILENT HILL) does a good job as Amanda Dumfries, Drayton’s potential love interest (I say “potential” because, while the two do have a love scene in the original novella, that’s skipped in the film version). And even the kid who plays Drayton’s son Billy (Nathan Gamble) is just fine. You’ve also got solid character actor William Sadler as a Maine local, Toby Jones (who played Truman Capote in last year’s INFAMOUS) as a supermarket employee who takes Drayton’s side early on, and Oscar-winner Marcia Gay Harden as Mrs. Carmody. As you said, a good cast.

I had a mixed reaction to Harden, though. You thought she gave the best performance in the movie, but I thought that she was a little too over the top at times. But I guess if you’re going to play a religious zealot, you might as well go for the gusto. By the time the movie was in full gear, I was pretty much buying her performance, too.

(MA slices a blood orange and hurls a half at LS. The fruit hits LS square in the face. LS wipes off red pulp and looks at MA, who feigns innocence).

LS: The monsters aren’t the most amazing effects ever put on screen, but considering this movie did not have a huge budget, I think they did a decent job bringing King’s vision to life. And the movie did a good job of capturing the mood and the claustrophobia of the original story.

Director Frank Darabont has given us some of the best King adaptations so far. THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION and THE GREEN MILE were two solid films. And so is this one. But THE MIST is a change of pace. Where SHAWSHANK and the GREEN MILE focused exclusively on very human heroes and villains, THE MIST gives us a more otherworldly scenario. The monsters make this one a different animal, and Darabont directs it with a sure hand.

(A giant, ugly, flying insect buzzes around them. MA feeds it an orange).

In fact, I found just about everything about this movie decent. Not amazing. Not a modern day masterpiece. But pretty damn decent.

MA:  But didn’t that bother you?  I mean, the King story is obviously top-notch stuff, and the film just doesn’t measure up. Didn’t it bother you that it was just decent and not superb?  It left me disappointed.

LS:  Most times you’re going to say the book is better than the movie. That’s hardly new. But I thought Darabont did a good job adapting the story for the screen. In less capable hands it might not have been half as entertaining as it was. I didn’t feel disappointed at all.

(MA throws another orange, but LS ducks this time.)

LS:  If it does get a bit heavy-handed and obvious about how the people in the supermarket split into warring factions, it works because chances are good this is exactly how it would play out in real life. When people are in a situation that is totally alien to them, and which they feel completely helpless in the face of, they’re going to tend to revert to their base instincts.

MA: True, but this still worked better in King’s story than in the film. Somehow, it came off as forced in the movie, but natural and normal in the book, which I guess, is a testament to King’s writing.

(The flying insect buzzes above LS’s head, annoying him).

LS: As for that ending – which seems to have become a point of major debate – I liked it just fine. The disturbing and horrible choices that are made pack a wallop. Some people have said the ending is too much of a downer. But I thought Darabont’s denouement had a definite kick to it. These are people who are terrified, who are not thinking clearly, and in that context, it made sense to me. Beyond that, I won’t go into any details about what actually happens, because it’s an ending that deserves to be experienced, and I’m not about to spoil that for anyone.

Compared to a lot of cliché horror films that come to the big screen every year, I thought THE MIST was above-average. You could do a lot worse.

MA:  You could also do better.

(LS swats the monster bug dead with a gigantic flyswatter, showering MA with insect guts. MA wipes his face and licks his lips.)

MA:  Mmmm. Strawberry mist.

—END—

(First published on Fear Zone on 12/25/07)

(NOTE: Two years later, I have to admit, I like this movie even more than I did back then. In fact, it’s become one of my favorite Stephen King adaptations – LL)

© Copyright 2007 by Michael Arruda and L.L. Soares

Leave A Comment »

Cinema Knife Fight: FANGORIA VS. RUE MORGUE

Posted in 2007, Cinema Knife Fights, Horror Magazines, Special Columns with tags , , on November 17, 2009 by knifefighter

(And now for something completely different. This was a fun change of pace for us. Fear Zone editor Greg Lamberson suggested we compare the two premeire horror movie magazines, FANGORIA and RUE MORGUE. It was a big change from reviewing movies, but I think it turned out very well. We should do something like this again sometime. This one was originally published on 11/3/07 – LLS)

***

CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT: FANGORIA VS. RUE MORGUE
by Michael Arruda and L. L. Soares

(THE SCENE: a vast subterranean world full of stalactites and stalagmites, with geysers of flame shooting up into the air and rivers of magma bubbling. L.L. SOARES is sitting on a rock, laughing. He has two identical heads, each looking at a separate magazine. Suddenly, MICHAEL ARRUDA appears. He is not laughing.  He lifts a spear.)

LS:  What the hell is that for?

MA:  Well, you look like you belong in a Ray Harryhausen movie, so I thought I’d grab myself a spear.

LS:  That’s pretty rude. Do I go to your home and aim a spear at you?

MA:  I don’t know.  If I had two heads you might.  I see you have the magazines we’re reviewing.  Just looking at the pictures?

LS (growls): No, I’m doing something called “reading,” you wannabe Sinbad!  Yes, these are the magazines we’re reviewing, the new issues of FANGORIA and RUE MORGUE (each of his two heads is looking at a different magazine and suddenly the two heads merge into one with a loud POP).

MA:  I had no idea you were so talented.

(LS raises a hatchet that was behind the rock he’s sitting on, and MS tightens his grip on the spear, but both of them refrain from taking any action.)

MA:  Let’s get to the column, shall we?  This time we’re doing something different, reviewing magazines instead of movies, FANGORIA and RUE MORGUE, to be specific.  How about some background on these magazines?

LS: (puts down the hatchet): Well, I remember FANGORIA from way back. It first launched in 1979 as a companion mag to STARLOG. Where STARLOG catered to people who loved science fiction movies, FANGORIA was geared toward horror movies, with articles, reviews and interviews about the current crop of horror flicks and filmmakers out there. It varied from previous horror movie mags that I grew up with, like FAMOUS MONSTERS OF FILMLAND and THE CASTLE OF FRANKENSTEIN, which dealt mostly with older horror films, in that FANGORIA focused on new films, and gave their readers the inside scoop on movies that were coming up.

MA (sighs):  Will there ever be another FAMOUS MONSTERS OF FILMLAND?  Good old Uncle Forry!

LS:  The new issue of FANGORIA is Number 268, and features the new Stephen King movie THE MIST on the cover.

RUE MORGUE covers a lot of the same ground. It originates in Canada and first started in 1997 (which is why the new issue – Number 72 –  is their big “10th Anniversary Halloween Issue”). The magazine started getting distributed in the United States in 1999.

There’s even an article in the new issue about the history of the magazine, written by publisher Rodrigo Gudino. The article gives a good retrospective on how the magazine started and what they set out to do, showing us how RUE MORGUE progressed over the years.

RUE MORGUE deals with a lot of new films as well, but the anniversary issue also shines the spotlight on John Carpenter’s classic film THE THING, from 1982, with an extensive overview of the movie, including an article about the book it was adapted from, WHO GOES THERE? and some insight into its author John W. Campbell that I found interesting.

(A zombie teenager wearing an AC/DC shirt approaches them)

Zombie: They even have an article about me in the new issue!

LS: Goddamn Johnny Gruesome! He’s everywhere these days. Get outta here you decaying delinquent! (throws a beer bottle and the zombie runs away). Both magazines are very popular with fans, and each have their own annual horror conventions (FANGORIA with “Fangoria’s Weekend of Horrors”  and RUE MORGUE has their “Festival of Fear”), as well as their own radio shows (FANGORIA RADIO airs Friday nights on Sirius satellite radio, and  RUE MORGUE RADIO airs weekly as a podcast that you can download from the Internet).

MA: So what did you think of them?

LS: I actually found things to like in both magazines. FANGORIA is clearly the slicker publication, but it does have informative articles, and some good interviews. I also like features like the “DVD CHOPPING LIST” which gives you information about movies coming out on DVD in the next few months. For some reason, I’ve always liked lists like that.

RUE MORGUE is more eclectic. They cover horror films, too, but also have informative articles about things like horror-related music (in this issue, they have a history of Black Metal and an interview with Metal Blade Records founder Brian Slagel), and a history of General Mills Monster Cereals that we grew up with (Count Chocula, Frankenberry, Boo-Berry) that I found pretty entertaining.

There is a lot of overlap between the two magazines, but that’s understandable. Both of these new issues feature interviews with Clive Barker (who has a new horror novel out, as well as a video game), and articles about current films like 30 DAYS OF NIGHT. While FANGORIA has articles about all of the big Hollywood horror movies coming out and some information about smaller films, RUE MORGUE seems to give the indie and foreign films a bit more attention.

They also have different tones. FANGORIA is clearly for the fan of big movies, and the special effects crowd, with lots of glossy pictures (many of which will appeal to gore fans) and behind-the-scenes scoops. RUE MORGUE seems more thoughtful and literary. Even their interview styles differ. I thought FANGORIA’s interview of Clive Barker got to the point and brought up some very interesting projects Barker’s been working on, while his RUE MORGUE interview seemed more intimate and relaxed.

I actually don’t think you can go wrong with either one if you’re a horror movie fan. But my personal preference would be for RUE MORGUE.

MA:  I think you need to bring back your second head.  You sound like a politician, “you can’t go wrong with either magazine.”  Clearly, based upon the two issues I read, RUE MORGUE is the superior publication.  Now, this is not a knock on FANGORIA, especially since my criticisms are based on one issue.  But here’s the scoop as to why RUE MORGUE is so much better.

First, simply by handling the two magazines, flipping through a few pages, glancing at this and that, I decided to read RUE MORGUE first.  Why?  The look, the feel, even the smell of the pages were more attractive.

The quality and style of the writing from RUE MORGUE was also superior.  Take its retrospective on John Carpenter’s THE THING, for instance.  There were separate articles on Carpenter, special effects wizard Rob Bottin, actors Kurt Russell and Keith David, and other small tidbits that were very informative.  RUE MORGUE’s coverage of THE THING was thorough and fresh.  FANGORIA’s movie coverage, by contrast, consisted of one article for each title, certainly acceptable, but not phenomenal.

Like a good book, I couldn’t put my copy of RUE MORGUE down.  Article after article, I kept reading.  I found the article on Count Chocula and his breakfast cereal friends not only a real hoot, but also informative.  After all, I’ve wanted to know for years whatever happened to Fruit Brute.  Now I can sleep at night.

(In the distance, a howling cartoon werewolf chases a shrieking cartoon leprechaun from one cave into another.)

I also really enjoyed the pieces on Lon Chaney’s silent classic THE HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME (1923), the classic vampire flick FRIGHT NIGHT (1985), and F. Paul Wilson’s Repairman Jack novels.

As you can clearly see, there’s A LOT here.  The fact that RUE MORGUE bills itself as the magazine of “Horror in Culture & Entertainment” is not lost within its pages.  Horror is about so much more than just movies.  RUE MORGUE is an intensely satisfying read for the horror fan.

That’s not to say FANGORIA doesn’t have merit.  Head to head, both magazines covered the subject of our last Cinema Knife Fight column, 30 DAYS OF NIGHT, and I have to say I thought FANGORIA’S article was better, more thorough and informative.  I also enjoyed the articles on the upcoming movies THE MIST, I AM LEGEND, and the next ALIEN VS. PREDATOR flick.

However, unlike my experience reading RUE MORGUE, while reading FANGORIA, I wasn’t compelled to keep turning the pages.  I knew the next article was going to be about another movie, whereas with RUE MORGUE, I didn’t know what to expect, and I looked forward to what the next subject might be.

For me the choice was clear- RUE MORGUE over FANGORIA.

LS: While I’m in agreement that RUE MORGUE is the superior magazine, my point was that FANGORIA fits a niche as well. If you’re into big studio horror films, FANGORIA is going to give you more bang for your buck. And, to be honest, FANGORIA is not just about movies. There are reviews of video games (“Horrorcade”) and books (“Nightmare Library”) as well. But these non-movie articles aren’t given much room, and clearly take a back seat to all the movie coverage.

As a writer, I prefer the tone and the coverage that you find in RUE MORGUE. But I want to give our audience enough information to make their own decisions.

MA: Well, I found a clear difference in quality between the two and wanted to point that out.

LS: Yeah, yeah. Your opinion is so scary important. I think you’re forgetting something. You’re on my home turf this time, and I get the last word here….HIT IT BOYS!

(Small demons that have LS’s face come out of a cave, wearing top hats and singing): HE’S MISTER GREEN CHRISTMAS, HE’S MISTER SUN….

MA: Oh boy, entertainment!  (Grabs a bowl of his favorite sweetened monster cereal and begins eating in front of the show.)

—end—

© Copyright 2007 by Michael Arruda and L.L. Soares

2 Comments »

30 DAYS OF NIGHT

Posted in 2007, Cinema Knife Fights, Vampire Movies with tags , , , , , on November 14, 2009 by knifefighter

Cinema Knife Fight: 30 DAYS OF NIGHT
by Michael Arruda & L.L. Soares



FADE IN:

(THE SCENE: Barrow, Alaska. The northernmost tip of the United States. MICHAEL ARRUDA and L.L. SOARES stand in the middle of a vast snow-covered terrain. They are looking down at something mysterious by their feet.)

It’s a mound of 30 DVDs, burned almost beyond recognition. However, some titles can still be read among the charred remains—SIGNS, THE VILLAGE and LADY IN THE WATER.

MA: Who would do such a thing?

LS: Someone with taste?

(MA falls into a daydream and imagines LS strapped to a chair, shrieking, his eyes forced open with metal clips, while the movie SIGNS plays over and over in a loop on a large screen in front of him.)

LS: Why are you grinning?

MA: No particular reason. Heh heh.

LS: So, are you going to start the review or what?

MA: Sure. Today we’re reviewing the new vampire thriller, 30 DAYS OF NIGHT, which is based upon the 2002 comic book miniseries of the same name by Steve Niles and Ben Templesmith.

30 DAYS OF NIGHT begins with a winner of a premise, which is, the action takes place in the northern Alaskan town of Barrow, where the sun sets for 30 days every winter. What a perfect place for a vampire, or in this case, vampires! Folks, these aren’t your father’s vampires! Quick, violent, relentless, these things attack like zombies on speed. They are brutal and they are scary.

They are also efficient, killing most of the small town’s population in one swift swoop, but a small group survives, and it’s this group’s story that is told in 30 DAYS OF NIGHT. Led by the young sheriff Eben Oleson (Josh Hartnett) and his estranged wife Stella (Melissa George), who was in the process of leaving her husband just before the attack, the group of survivors tries to stay one step ahead of the vampires in order to stay alive until the sun returns. It’s a great premise, and it works throughout, as the film keeps you on the edge of your seat till the end.

I absolutely loved this movie. I thought it was scary, exciting, and most of all, extremely well-made. The writing, direction, the acting, to me, it was all way above the usual horror film fare. I was impressed. It reminded me of the kind of movie John Carpenter would have made in his heyday.

I particularly enjoyed the acting performances. I thought the two leads were terrific, and Danny Huston, as the main vampire, rocked. The rest of the cast was just as good.

I could nit-pick if I wanted to. For example, I thought the drama between the two leads, Eben and Stella, was unnecessary. Will they or won’t they get back together? I didn’t really care. They could have been happily married, and I still would have been scared for them. It played out more like a writing gimmick than a true need in the story. I also thought the ending was just OK, and too fast. I wanted more drama at the end.

But, as a whole, I thought it was terrific. It was good to see a vampire film that offered a new take on the genre- one that had a little BITE to it. What did you think?

LS: Director David Slade’s last movie was the controversial film HARD CANDY, about a teen-age girl who turns the tables on a predator she meets on the internet (this was the movie that brought Ellen Page to a lot of people’s attention before she became a star in Juno – LL). I thought that movie was ambitious, but overly talky and, by the end, incredibly annoying. I don’t think 30 DAYS OF NIGHT is quite as ambitious, but I did enjoy it a lot more.

By the way, in the comic, Eben and Stella are not estranged, and she is his deputy. Their relationship is close and it reminded me a bit of FARGO for some reason. I don’t think the new spin, of them being separated, added anything as far as drama goes. And yeah, I really didn’t care if they got together again or not, either.

Otherwise, the movie is fairly faithful to the comic. The visuals even strive to capture the feel of Ben Templesmith’s artwork from the comics, and do a good job at it.

The vampires themselves reminded me totally of the zombies in 28 DAYS LATER (ironically, another horror movie with a number of days in its title). They move fast, they’re vicious, and they tear into their victims in a frenzy. While I didn’t really care for 28 DAYS LATER (for reasons I won’t go into here), I think the vampires in this movie were pretty damn affective.

MA: They have great teeth. Their fangs were like shredders. (Show his teeth, mimicking a vampire’s hiss).

LS: Yours aren’t so hot.

MA: At least I’ve got some teeth.

LS (whips out power drill): Not for long!

MA: Don’t we usually wait until the end of the column before we do this sort of nonsense?

LS: Well…I do have more to say about the movie— (puts drill away). Where was I?

MA: The vampires.

LS: Yes, the vampires also screech to communicate, which reminded me a lot of the pod people from the 1978 version of INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS.

Josh Hartnett is a limited actor, and when he first comes onscreen I thought he was totally miscast as Eben. In the comic, he’s older, more experienced, and almost paternal to the town he calls home. Hartnett is too young and too much of a blank slate. He just doesn’t have much charisma or presence. But as the movie went on, I didn’t mind him so much. His acting isn’t great, but it’s not annoying enough to ruin the experience.

MA: I never read the comic, so I didn’t have that problem with Hartnett’s performance. I thought he was just fine.

LS: You don’t have to have read the comic to notice that someone has the acting talent of a block of wood. Well, he’s a little better than a block of wood. But not much.

MA: I meant the miscasting part. The fact that he was younger didn’t bother me.

LS: Melissa George (who most people might remember as bad girl Lauren Reed in the TV show ALIAS) is fine as Stella. She’s strikingly attractive in a pale, interesting way that seems to work well in a movie about vampires.

MA: Yes, she is strikingly attractive, in a plain hot sort of way!

LS: Danny Huston is suitably creepy as the head vampire. Unfortunately, we see him early on. In the comics, his character arrives later in the story to take control of things, and he makes a much more dramatic entrance. To tell you the truth, I wasn’t aware that it was Huston at first (with the pale makeup and shark teeth, he was almost unrecognizable, though familiar). This is the same guy who did such a great job as the outlaw leader in THE PROPOSITION, and he does a fine job here of exuding menace.

There’s also a human emissary to the vampires who comes to Barrow to pave the way for their arrival. He steals and destroy all the town’s cell phones (wouldn’t anyone notice this?)—

MA: Yep, I wondered about that as well. I think if everyone in town discovered their cell phones were missing, there would have been some noise made before the vampires showed up.

LA: He also sabotages all ways out of the town, so that, when the darkness falls, the vampires won’t be disturbed when they enjoy their all-you-can-drink buffet of blood. He’s played by Ben Foster, who recently got a lot of critical attention for playing a bad guy in the recent remake of 3:10 TO YUMA. Foster plays a kind of Renfield character who’s clearly insane, and he’s good for some creepy moments as well. But I swear, every time they showed his face up close, I thought he looked an awful lot like Screech from SAVED BY THE BELL.

As the survivors move around (way too much, in my opinion), they are picked off one by one by the vicious vamps, until we reach a big showdown in a power plant.

I was pretty happy to see vampires getting an overdue makeover. These bloodsuckers are scary and animalistic, the way they should be, putting an end to the era of well-dressed, mannered vampires who took all of the scare out of the genre. I also liked the fact that religion wasn’t an issue. There were no crosses and stakes. Just violent creatures tearing into human flesh (although there sure is a lot of blood at the murder scenes, which seems like a complete waste if that’s the fluid you thrive on – I guess these vampires are just messy eaters).

MA: What are you drinking by the way?

LS: (Gulping from a large glass) A blood shake.

MA: You might want to wipe your mouth.

LS: Thanks. I thought the ending was satisfying enough, and the trip to get there is entertaining. This is probably the best vampire movie I’ve seen since Kathryn Bigelow’s underrated 1987 classic, NEAR DARK. Like I said, the acting isn’t top notch (except maybe for Huston), but it’s serviceable. And the movie smartly sticks to most of the details of the comic, which works to its advantage.

30 DAYS OF NIGHT is one of the better horror flicks I’ve seen in awhile. If you’ve been unhappy with the state of horror movies lately, and vampire movies in particular, you owe it to yourself to see this movie. It gets a lot of details right, and it’s a lot of fun.

MA: Well, we agree for the most part, though I feel the acting was topnotch. As far as putting an end to the era of well-dressed, mannered vampires, sorry, but Bela Lugosi will always be with us. He’s even mentioned in the film, so don’t bury his type yet!

LS: I actually didn’t mean Lugosi. I was thinking more of Lestat and friends. But hey, to each their own. Well, I think we’re done. What about you?

MA: Yep, that pretty much covers it.

LS: Good. (takes out power drill again). No Novocaine!

MA: Did you say “No Novocaine” or do you have a stutter? ‘Cause I can do that too: S—S—SIGNS. (Pulls out DVD).

(FADE TO BLACK, with the sounds of screaming)

—END—

(First published on Fear Zone on 10/22/07)

© Copyright 2007 by Michael Arruda and L.L. Soares

Leave A Comment »

« Older Entries
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 81 other followers