Archive for the Twist Endings Category

« Older Entries

Horror-Mom’s Guide to Scary Movies Presents: THE GREEN MARKER SCARE (2012)

Posted in 2012, Animated Films, Horror, Horror-Mom's Guide to Scary Movies, Mystery, Sheri White Reviews, Teen Detectives, Twist Endings with tags , , , , , on December 5, 2012 by knifefighter

HORROR-MOM’S GUIDE TO SCARY MOVIES PRESENTS:
THE GREEN MARKER SCARE (2012)
Film Review by Sheri White

 

When Graham Jones asked me to review his new online movie, he told me it was animated by children. So I thought it would be perfect for this column. Graham did tell me that although it was animated by kids, it was definitely not a movie for kids.

I was skeptical, because when I hear that, and then watch the movie, it’s usually pretty tame. And I thought that about THE GREEN MARKER SCARE for the first 45 minutes or so. Sure, it was a little creepy here and there, but nothing most kids couldn’t handle.

Noreen is a young girl whose father is killed in a car accident. His last words inspire her to investigate the crash, since it doesn’t really seem accidental. Her findings lead her to realize there is something evil going on in her small town, and her father knew all about it.

The entire movie is drawn in green marker. There isn’t a lot of movement in the characters, which is a little creepy in itself—most of the time, only the eyes move.

There is no sex at all in the movie, and no overt violence. The only violence is off-camera, but it’s still shocking.

So is this movie appropriate for children? That’s actually a difficult question to answer in regards to this movie, unlike if I were reviewing (something obvious like) THE EXORCIST (1973). The subject matter in THE GREEN MARKER SCARE is definitely not for little kids, but then again, little kids won’t really get what’s going on. This is not in-your-face horror, and most young children will be bored since a lot of the movie is dialogue.

Older kids probably won’t be phased by the subject matter, unless they scare easily or are brought up in a very religious household.

I think this is more of a movie for adults, not just because of its subject matter, but because it is so quiet and dialogue-driven. Most kids who watch horror movies like the loudness, the gore and splatter. But adults, and especially parents, will appreciate how the movie comes together to horrify the watcher.

This is an Irish movie and the characters have Irish brogues—it was a little difficult to understand some of the dialogue at times, but the movie was so well put together, that I was still able to follow the story.

Variety magazine calls Graham Jones  “a very talented director,” and after watching THE GREEN MARKER SCARE, I would have to agree.

I give it four knives.

To view the movie for yourself, go HERE.

NOTE: Although children drew this movie, they were unaware of the subject matter.

© Copyright 2012 by Sheri White

Sheri White  gives THE GREEN MARKER SCARE ~four (out of five) knives!

Leave A Comment »

THE TWILIGHT SAGA: BREAKING DAWN PART 2 (2012)

Posted in 2012, Adult Fairy Tales, Bad Acting, Blockbusters, CGI, Cinema Knife Fights, Just Plain Bad, Melodrama, Twilight, Twist Endings, Vampire Movies, Werewolves with tags , , , , , , , , , , on November 19, 2012 by knifefighter

CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT:
THE TWILIGHT SAGA: BREAKING DAWN PART 2 (2012)
By Michael Arruda and L.L. Soares

(THE SCENE: A cemetery. L.L. SOARES has just finished filling up a grave. He rests on his shovel and looks at the tombstone with says “TWILIGHT.” MICHAEL ARRUDA arrives in a long black car and gets out.  He’s wearing a party hat and carrying balloons.  DRIVER of hearse steps out, appalled.)

DRIVER:  Balloons?  This is a funeral!  This is most inappropriate!

MA:  No it’s not.  This is a funeral for the TWILIGHT series.

LS (calling over):  Did you bring the vampire strippers?

MA (looks at Driver): And you think I’m inappropriate?

DRIVER:  I’m appalled!

MA: Don’t lose your shirt, Taylor Lautner.  (to LS) I didn’t bring any strippers.

LS: No strippers? Damn!

MA: We need to review a movie after all.  I didn’t think we needed the distraction.

LS:  Who asked you to think?

MA: Sorry.  Well, at least it’s over.

LS: You got that right.  We can finally put the damn TWILIGHT SAGA to rest. Best grave I ever dug. I made this one extra deep.

MA: All we have to do is to review BREAKING DAWN PART 2, then it will be over for good!

LS: True enough. (He is on the verge of tears). And then we’ll finally be done with this series. I thought this day would never come.

MA: Me, neither. I thought we’d be going to see these awful movies forever.

LS: If there’s a hell, then I’m sure someone is being forced to watch a never-ending marathon of these movies.

MA: So why don’t you give us a synopsis of this last movie.

LS: BREAKING DAWN PART 1 ended with the feisty, perpetually sneering heroine of the TWILIGHT series, Bella Swan (Kristen Stewart), finally getting what she’s been wishing for since the first movie — she finally got turned into a vampire like her beloved Edward (Robert Pattinson). We could tell because her eyes were bright red! Spooky!

As BREAKING DAWN PART 2 opens, Bella is trying to learn how to control her unquenchable thirst for blood. Edward takes his newly-vampiric bride into the deep woods so she can feast on a deer’s blood, but a mountain climber makes an unexpected appearance, and when he cuts himself, Bella goes nuts. Suddenly, that measly little deer doesn’t seem so filling.

MA: This series is so bad even “hunting” scenes like this are dull and boring, especially with Edward watching his new bride with that goofy grin on his face, as if we’re supposed to think, “Aww, isn’t she cute?  Bella’s hunting.”  Gag!

LS:  The big question was, would she be able to control herself and not bite a human, or would she just go nuts like a lot of “newbie” vampires do when they first get “turned.” Somehow, Bella is able to pass the test.

MA:  Because vampires in the TWILIGHT world would never feed on a human, or at least not vampires in the Cullen clan, the most mind-numbing vampire family you’ll ever meet.  Vampire family.  (Shaking his head)  That kinda says it all, doesn’t it?

LS: Speaking of which, Bella is then brought back to the home of the Cullens — the vampire clan that Edward belongs to, and now Bella does to — to meet her new baby, Renesmee. What kind of name is that anyway?

MA: An annoying one.

LS: Turns out everyone is afraid Bella will turn her newborn baby into dinner, since the girl is half human and has human blood running through her veins. If you remember from the previous movie, Bella got pregnant immediately after a wild bout of sex with Edward, and the baby threatened to kill her. Which is why Edward finally relented and turned her into a vampire— he pretty much killed her in order to save her life, if that makes any sense.

MA (mockingly nodding):  Of course it does.

(A couple of MOURNERS arrives, crying into their handkerchiefs)

MOURNER 1: Oh my God, it’s over! How will we ever go on with our lives?

MOURNER 2: This is just the saddest day ever. I don’t know if I want to live anymore!

MOURNER 1: I have an idea. Let’s make sure it never ends. Let’s go see BREAKING DAWN PART 2 again. And again. And then go back and read the books again and watch the DVDs again and then it will seem like the story goes on forever.

MOURNER 2: Oh my God, that sounds wonderful!

(LS suddenly raises his shovel and chops both of their heads off, with blood squirting everywhere)

LS: I’m sorry Michael, but I had to put those two poor, tortured souls out of their misery.

MA (grinning as blood spatters his suit): Totally understandable, although I was thinking more along the lines of a stern reprimand.

LS:  Anyway, in this new movie, the hateful Irina (Maggie Grace) spies Bella and her new baby and runs to tell the Voltari – those vampire overlords who act like the Vatican of bloodsuckers —because this is a big no-no in the tenants of vampire law. You see, in the past, babies and children who were turned into vampires were nothing but trouble, since they immediately stopped growing and stayed at their age (mentally and physically) forever. Suddenly, with a lust for blood and incredibly strength, they were huge threats to the human world (you don’t want to see a super-strong vampire baby have a tantrum!) and also threatened to expose the adult vampires who are always trying to stay a big secret to humankind. Thus, vampire babies are immediately destroyed. After Irana goes and finks on Bella (what a rat!), the Voltari are convinced that Renesmee is a baby turned into a vampire and the leaders of the group, especially big kahuna Aro (Michael Sheen), declare the child must be slain and those involved with her “creation” punished.

But, as we already know, they’re wrong, since Renesmee wasn’t “turned,” she was born a vampire/human hybrid because Bella was human during the child’s conception. Thus, the child is a rare creature and has started growing at an alarming rate. Like, she’s grown several years older in a matter of days!

The Voltari, however, have no interest in allowing a fair trial. If they could just talk it out, there would be no movie. Besides, Aro and his cohorts have had it in for the Cullens since the second TWILIGHT movie, NEW MOON (2009), and this is just the excuse they need to wipe out of the clan completely.

MA:  This is all so interesting.

LS:  I have to admit, it’s a little painful to remember all this stuff. I want to block it out of my mind.

The Cullens, in turn, find out about their impending doom when Alice Cullen (Ashley Greene) has a vision that the Voltari are coming to get them. This puts a plan into motion where the Cullens travel the globe to gather friends and allies as “witnesses” to demand that the Voltari listen to reason. These same witnesses might also have to fight if the Voltari won’t listen to them.

Also along for the ride are Bella’s other love interest, Jacob (Taylor Lautner), and his pack of werewolves. Jacob has sworn to protect Renesmee with his life, partly because he has “imprinted” himself on the child (something that happened in PART 1). It seems that werewolves automatically “imprint” a bond with someone when they have found their true soul mate. It’s completely out of their control. And the fact that Jacob has imprinted with a baby is kind of creepy, except when you realize that Renesmee will probably be a full-grown adult in a few months, based on how fast she’s growing.

MA:  Werewolves are really nannies.  Who knew?  Why didn’t someone tell Lon Chaney Jr.?  Larry Talbot would have made the perfect baby guardian. Look, it’s Uncle Larry!  Of course, when the moon was full, he’d have eaten the kid, but he would have been good for a little while, anyway.

Werewolves protecting little kids?  And people want to know what’s wrong with this series?  Sheesh!

LS:  And don’t forget the imprint thing. Sounds like a certain shirtless werewolf might end up on a sex offenders website if he isn’t careful. He better wait until she’s at least 18….er, days…old before he consummates their passion.

So the Voltari are coming to slaughter the Cullens. The Cullens have gathered allies to speak on their behalf, or fight for them if necessary, and the werewolves have pledged to help. And that’s the story in a nutshell.

MA:  In a nutshell?  It must belong to a coconut.  That’s one detailed synopsis.  Do we really need to know that much about this movie?

LS: Are you knocking my synopsis?

MA:  No, it’s a terrific synopsis.  It’s just making me relive some things I’d rather forget— like the entire plot.

LS:  You mean you weren’t intrigued by questions like: Will the Cullens survive? Will the Voltari listen to reason? Will Jacob take off his shirt? Well, I can answer the last question: Jacob will definitely take off his shirt! And simpletons in the audience will “ooh” and “ahh” like they always do.

I thought BREAKING DAWN PART 2 was very telling. I have now sat through five TWILIGHT movies, and you would think that, after all this time, I would have grown to care about these characters, and be concerned about what happens to them. But the truth is, I hate all of these characters just as much as I did before. BREAKING DAWN PART 2 is not going to win over any new fans.

MA:  That’s a good point.  These characters have been so annoying for so long throughout this series that I can barely stand to look at them, let alone watch a movie about them.  And I didn’t find the three lead characters to be quite as an annoying in this movie, yet, it didn’t matter.  Based upon the previous movies, I just didn’t care about these folks.

That’s pretty bad.   As you said, you’d expect characters in a series to grow on you, not grate on you.

LS:  Of course, that doesn’t really matter, because the fans of the series who already exist are more than enough. I actually got my ticket online before the showing, because the past few times a TWILIGHT movie has come out, all the showings on the first day sold out immediately. But even though I bought my ticket in advance this time, I still had to stand in a long line before they let us into the theater (even with tickets!) and the place was pretty packed. So this series has just as many—if not more— hardcore fans as ever.

But in all seriousness, I thought this movie was excruciating to sit through. We’ve seen worse movies this year—the latest RESIDENT EVIL movie comes to mind—but TWILIGHT is the only series that consistently bores the hell out of me every time I sit through another chapter. I still think Bella is irritating and I have no clue what Edward or Jacob see in her. I think Edward and Jacob are morons. I think the Cullen family is a snooze. And I really hate the Voltari—who are lame-ass villains—even though their number includes Dakota Fanning as Jane and Michael Sheen as Aro, two actors I normally like.

And there’s some new stuff this time around. It turns out a lot of these vampires have super powers. As if being a super-strong, blood-drinking vampire wasn’t enough! One guy can shoot fire from his hands. Another one can shoot out tendrils of darkness that can blind or suffocate someone. Other ones can foretell the future, create electric shocks or create shields around themselves.

Who knew these sparkly vampires were really THE X-MEN!

I actually found this “look at my cool powers!” aspect to be extra annoying, since there’s no logical reason for these extra powers.

(THE SCENE suddenly SHIFTS to a field of colorful wildflowers. BELLA and EDWARD are sitting in the flowers, snuggling and giggling)

BELLA: Oh God, I love you so much.

EDWARD: And I, you.

BELLA: I love you so much it hurts. I love love love you.

EDWARD: Oh, how I love the word Love.

BELLA: It’s is a lovely word, isn’t it? And it’s so wonderful to be this much in love.

(SHOT moves to JACOB and RENESMEE, sitting in a different part of the garden)

JACOB: And I love you, too, little Renesmee. You’re just a toddler now, but soon we’ll be lovers and I’ll sweep you up in my arms and we can have long-winded conversations about love, like Edward and Bella.

RENESSEE: Uncle Jacob, you’re really starting to creep me out, man. Besides, I hate the name Renesmee. It sounds stupid. I much prefer to be called HONEY BOO BOO.

JACOB: Anything you wish, oh love of my life. Oh joy of my jowls. Oops, I spilled some Kool-ade on my shirt. Would you mind if I take it off? This stain offends me so.

RENESMEE A BOO BOO: Oh boy. Do what you gotta do, buster.

(THE SCENE returns to the graveyard. LS is off to one side, vomiting)

MA: Ahem, the camera is back on us again.

LS: Oh, sorry (wipes his mouth)

I’m also sick of the exaggerated emotions and affectations of the main characters here. Everyone is in love in big CAPITAL LETTERS. The characters are pretentious, sappy, and stupid. At least Bella and Edward get to have some sex in the BREAKING DAWN movies. After three movies before that where the two of them were forever locked in torturous abstinence, it’s nice to at least see them go at it, even if it’s all very sanitized and romanticized. What a tasteful nibble of a neck. What a very safe interlocking of naked limbs with not a glimpse of any naughty bits…

The audience I saw it with was so emotionally invested in these dumb characters that it was embarrassing. They had reactions that were as exaggerated as the characters on the screen. And they laughed at everything – even things that weren’t funny. Like everything out of Bella (and Edward and Jacob)’s mouth was the most clever, witty dialogue ever written. Let me tell you a secret – it wasn’t. The only scene that struck me as even mildly amusing was one where Jacob takes  his clothes off in front of Bella’s father, Charlie (Billy Burke) to show him how he turns into a big CGI wolf, and Charlie looks very uncomfortable, wondering if he just stepped into a scene from MAGIC MIKE. But otherwise, it wasn’t as clever or as emotionally charged as the audience pretended it was.

MA:  Yes, that was a funny scene.  Hey, after five movies, they got a scene right!

LS:  I really, truly hate this series. And seeing the saga finally come to an end filled me with joy. I give this movie one knife for the fact that the story is finally over alone! Otherwise, there’s nothing here I can recommend. It’s complete crap.

What did you think, Michael?

MA:  Well, the best thing I can say for this movie is that it’s the first TWILIGHT movie that didn’t bore me to tears, but that doesn’t mean it’s good.  It means that for once, things actually happened in this movie.  They may have been stupid things — like lame vampire superheroes— but they were things.  See, usually, these movies are so dull I start chomping on my fingernails once the popcorn is gone.  My fingernails survived this installment.

Another positive is BREAKING DAWN PART 2 gets all of its whining out of the way early.  Bella whines at Jacob because he imprinted on her baby daughter.  Now, in past movies, we’d have to suffer through multiple scenes of Bella’s angst.  She’d talk about it with Edward.  She talk about it with Jacob.  She’d go back and talk to Edward some more.  Edward and Jacob would talk.  Blah, blah, blah.  But here in BREAKING DAWN PART 2, it’s one and done.  That’s a good thing.

They also got the boring “Bella talks to her dad” scenes out of the way early as well.

That’s because in this movie, there’s actually a plot and things actually happen.  There’s a build-up to a big battle showdown.  Did I enjoy this build up?  Not really. But somehow this one just wasn’t as painful.  And of course there’s a big bloodbath at the end— not really.  It’s a pretty lame battle.  You’ll find more intense stuff in a Disney movie.

The acting is what you’d expect, although I have to admit the three leads didn’t annoy me as much this time around.  I think it’s because they spoke less in this movie.  The closest thing I came to enjoying a performance was watching Michael Sheen ham it up as Aro.  His over-the-top performance is one of the movies few highlights.

LS: He actually has a couple of funny scenes this time. I can’t blame the guy for wanting a decent paycheck.

MA: Director Bill Condon could have easily filmed BREAKING DAWN as one movie as opposed to dragging it out into two parts.  PART 1, basically a wedding, could have been condensed in about 15 minutes of screen time.  PART 2 is definitely better, but again, this isn’t saying much.

Melissa Rosenberg wrote the screenplay, and she wrote the screenplays for the entire series.  Not something I’d want on my resume.

LS: But I’m sure she’s happy it’s on hers. These movies made a shitload of money!

MA: It’s funny, here we have this paranormal romance, this love story, this love triangle between Bella, Edward, and Jacob, but what is the series finale about?  Vampires with superpowers and the meddling Voltari.  The love triangle was resolved movies ago.

LS: And it was never much of a triangle. We always knew Bella had the hots for Edward. Her relationship with Jacob was always just an intense friendship. She never returned Jacob’s feelings like he wanted her to. So the triangle angle was almost kind of forced, don’t you think.

MA: Yep. To me, this just shows that this love story wasn’t much to begin with.  You’d think this series would be driven by a tale of unbelievable love, but it’s not, which just reinforces the ridiculousness of building a “saga” around these characters.

But, hey, at the end of the day, the TWILIGHT series will long be remembered for featuring the cutest werewolves ever!  One day, when Disney buys the franchise, we’ll see little Jacob-werewolf-nannies on the shelf next to Winnie the Pooh.

It goes without saying, but I am overjoyed that this series is finally over.  That being said, this last installment, TWILIGHT BREAKING DAWN PART 2, didn’t torture me with mind-numbing boredom, and as you said at the outset, we’ve seen worse movies this year.

I give it two knives.

LS: Fair enough. You’re much more generous than me this time around. Maybe you’re just relieved it’s finally over…

Or maybe your heart has finally let the love in…

MA:  I don’t think so.

LS:  Of course, the way it ends, the storyline could always be continued. And there could be spin-offs…and you know the studios will seriously consider it…but for now, this moment in time, let’s pretend like TWILIGHT is really over. That we never have to see another TWILIGHT movie again. And, for the moment, let’s sparkle with happiness.

MA: Now let’s go somewhere and celebrate!

LS:  Sounds good.  (Looks at TWILIGHT tombstone.)  It’s hard to believe.  We’ve buried the TWILIGHT movies forever.

MA:  It’s about time.

LS:  That celebration is long overdue.  Let’s get out of here.

(MA & LS exit.  From behind a gravestone appear a young man and his hunchbacked assistant. The young man carries a shovel, the hunchback a camera. They dig up the grave.  The young man holds a TWILIGHT DVD in his hand.)

YOUNG MAN:  It’s just resting.  Waiting for a new life to come!

HUNCHBACK:  Yes, master.

YOUNG MAN:  We shall give it life again.  We shall re-make them!

(Loud groans and wails are heard off-camera):  Nooooooooooooooooo!!

—END—

© Copyright 2012 by Michael Arruda and L.L. Soares

Michael Arruda gives THE TWILIGHT SAGA: BREAKING DAWN PART 2 ~ two knives!

LL Soares gives THE TWILIGHT SAGA: BREAKING DAWN PART 2 ~one knife!

2 Comments »

V/H/S (2012)

Posted in 2012, Anthology Films, Demons, Evil Kids!, Exorcism Movies, Ghosts!, Haunted Houses, Horror, Indie Horror, Killers, LL Soares Reviews, Paranormal, Secrets, Thrillers, Twist Endings, VIOLENCE! with tags , , , , , , , , , on September 25, 2012 by knifefighter

V/H/S (2012)
Movie Review by L.L. Soares

V/H/S is a new anthology horror movie made up of five shorts and a wraparound story. There seem to be a lot of these kinds of movies around lately. The other ones that come to mind are CHILLERAMA (2011) and THE THEATRE BIZARRE (also 2011). Both were mixed bags. But the good thing about anthology movies is that if you don’t like one of the stories, there are more to come, if you just wait. Overall, I tend to enjoy these kinds of movies a lot.

V/H/S is above-average in this regard. For the most part, all of the stories are pretty good. Sure, some are better than others, but I didn’t feel there were any clunkers this time around.

The film starts off with the wraparound story, called “Tape 56.” This ongoing segment is directed by Adam Wingard, who also made POP SKULL (2007), A HORRIBLE WAY TO DIE (2010) and YOU’RE NEXT (2011). Just a word of warning, if you start watching the movie, you might not care a lot for this one. But give it a chance. It just sets up the premise. But the characters involved are kind of despicable.

We are introduced to a bunch of guys led by Gary (Calvin Reeder) who are going around doing awful things and filming it for money. One of the things they do is follow couples and then attack them. The boyfriend is pulled aside and restrained, while the girlfriend is grabbed and her breasts are exposed for the camera. Gary says he gets $50 for each one of these he tapes, and he says he’s done about 25 of them so far. Needless to say, the characters who are supposed to be our point of view for this story start out being unlikable, which may put you off from the get-go.

The set-up is this: these guys are hired to go a house in the middle of the night and get a videotape. It has something to do with blackmail, and the guys say they plan to make copies of the tape, so they can make more money. What exactly is on the tape, we’ll never know. They don’t say (although one character does elude that it might be “a senator having sex on film”), but the job does pay big money—much more than they’re used to. So of course they jump at the chance.

They go to the designated house at the middle of the night, and we’re told there may be someone there, but it’s an old man and he won’t be any trouble. The guys get in, and search the place. They find two things. First of all, they find the old man, and he appears to be dead in a chair, in front of a wall full of television screens. There’s a VCR and a tape in it.

The second thing is that there are lots of videotapes in the house, and the guys aren’t really sure which one they’re supposed to retrieve. So they start looking through them, playing them one after another. And that is the theme of the movie.

The first short film we see is called “Amateur Night.” It is directed by David Bruckner, who also made THE SIGNAL (2007). And right off the bat, it might be my favorite of the bunch. It features more creeps. This time it’s three guys who plan to go to a bar, pick up some girls, and film themselves having sex with them. They’re Shane (Mike Donlan) Patrick (Joe Sykes) and Clint (Drew Sawyer). Clearly there’s a market for this kind of thing. Clint, a nerdy looking guy, wears a pair of glasses that have a camera and microphone built-in. They go to a bar and get sloshed, and find one girl who is willing to go back with them, named Lisa (Jas Sams). At the same time, a spooky girl with big eyes named Lily (Hannah Fierman) is sitting by herself, and Clint starts filming her. She gravitates toward him and keeps saying “I like you.” When they all go back to the hotel room (Lisa and Lily go back with the guys), things get decidedly weird. I have to admit, I wasn’t really surprised by what happened—I kind of saw it coming—but it was so well done, that I didn’t care. I really enjoyed this one. Featuring a great performance by Fierman.

A scary moment from V/H/S.

The second movie is “Second Honeymoon” by Ti West, who gave us HOUSE OF THE DEVIL (2009) and THE INNKEEPERS (2011). It’s about a couple on a road trip—Stephanie (Sophia Takal) and Sam (Joe Swanberg), who are filming it as they go—who stop at a motel. Sometime during the night, someone is in the room with them, watching them sleep, and it goes from there. Not the best of the stories, but a solid little piece from West, who I have to admit, I’m not a big fan of. I actually think he’s feature films are overrated. This one was kind of predictable, but decent, and I liked it better than his feature films that I’ve seen.

“Tuesday the 17th “ by Glenn McQuaid (who also directed 2008’s I SELL THE DEAD) is another one that seems by-the-numbers… at first. Four kids go out to the woods to spend some time in a secluded cabin. But once they get there, things go a little differently than expected. Once again, not something that will blow you away, but a solid little film.

The third one, “The Sick Thing That Happened to Emily When She was Younger,” (great title, by the way!), was directed by “mumblecore” indie director Joe Swanberg (who also acted in Ti West’s installment), and it’s another of my favorites. It features two people talking on Skype. One is a girl named Emily (Helen Rogers) who lives in a haunted apartment. The other is her boyfriend, calling from medical school, where he’s studying. Whenever something weird happens, she calls him so he can be a witness, and at one point we see some ghosts. This is another one, however, where things go much differently than we expect. I liked the weird twist ending a lot.

Finally, we have “10/31/98”, by four guys who go by the name Radio Silence (they are directors Matt Bettinelli-Olpin, Tyler Gillett, Justin Martinez and Chad Villella), three of the guys previously made a series of “interactive adventures” under the name Chad, Matt and Rob. This one is a really good one, too. Four guys jump in a car and go to a house for a Halloween party. They have a friend who always rents a house each Halloween and throws a lavish haunted house party. One guy is dressed as a nanny cam (a teddy bear with a camera), so he’s filming this one. They get there, to find the house empty. When they go exploring, they go up to the attic where they find a weird ceremony going on. They think it’s part of the fun, but it’s not. It’s a real exorcism. And things get scary from there.

The wraparound story pops in between the movies and at the end, as the guys in the house search for more tapes, the dead guy in the chair leaves at various points (we see this, but the guys don’t notice) and there’s a big, scary ending.

Another scary moment from V/H/S.

All in all, a great flick, and while there were three that really blew me away, the other two are pretty good, too. So no bad ones. I actually think V/H/S is pretty satisfying and the best of the new anthology horror films I’ve seen lately. It is currently on cable OnDemand in some areas and will get a limited theatrical release in early October.

This one is definitely worth checking out. I give it four knives.

© Copyright 2012 by L.L. Soares

LL Soares gives V/H/S ~ four knives.

1 Comment »

THE TALL MAN (2012)

Posted in 2012, Controverisal Films, Family Secrets, Indie Horror, LL Soares Reviews, Mystery, Plot Twists, Scares!, Surprises!, Suspense, Twist Endings, Twisted with tags , , , , , , , , on September 4, 2012 by knifefighter

THE TALL MAN
Movie Review by L.L. Soares

When I first heard about the movie THE TALL MAN, I thought it was another sequel in the PHANTASM series. For those who aren’t fans, the Tall Man is the main villain of that franchise. But this new movie has nothing to do with PHANTASM. So I thought, based on the title and the movie poster (with star Jessica Biel prominently displayed), that this was a standard horror movie. I was wrong on both counts.

Then I found out that THE TALL MAN was directed by French filmmaker Pascal Laugier, who previously gave us the movie MARTYRS (2008), which I consider one of my all-time favorite horror films. It had the same kind of effect on me when it came out as Takashi Miike’s AUDITION did in 2000. Needless to say, I was psyched and immediately sought THE TALL MAN out. It was supposed to be in limited theatrical release, but it wasn’t playing anywhere near me. Luckily, however, it was playing on cable OnDemand, so I was able to see it for myself.

I’m really glad I did.

THE TALL MAN is a movie full of twists and turns that are going to keep you off balance throughout, as you try to figure out who the good guys are, who the bad guys are, and what everyone here is up to.

It begins in a poverty-stricken small town called Cold Rock, Washington. It used to be thriving once, but the coal mines, the main source of work there, shut down, all the other jobs dried up, and people started losing their homes. Oh yeah, there’s one other reason why Cold Rock is such a sad place. Over the years, there have been several child abductions, and the children have never been recovered. A few people swear they got a look at who took their children, a dark figure that has taken on mythic proportions in the town. Everyone refers to the child stealer as The Tall Man.

It’s here in Cold Rock that Julia Denning (Jessica Biel, who we most recently saw in this summer’s big budget remake of TOTAL RECALL) tries her best to help people get medical care. Her husband was the local doctor, but he’s gone now, and since she was his nurse, she’s able to provide some basic services to those in need. It’s clear however, that even though her husband was respected and loved in Cold Rock, Julia will never be completely accepted by everyone in town. There are some people here who trust her, however, like the mute teenager Jenny (Jodelle Ferland) who will become more important as the film goes on.

Since she’s a widow, Julia has her friend (sister?) Christine (Eve Harlow) babysit her son, David (Jakob Davies) when she’s out making her rounds. David seems to be sickly, but lights up when his mother comes home.

Life is rough in Cold Rock, but Julia does what she can, until the day comes when she returns home to find Christine beaten and tied up, and a hooded figure running away from the house, carrying David in its arms.

While trying to retrieve her son David, Julia Denning (Jessica Biel) falls into a pit of mud in THE TALL MAN.

Julia runs after them, down the street to a large truck that drives away. Determined not to let them get away, Julia grabs on to the back door of the truck, and hangs on for dear life. She tries desperately to retrieve her son in a nightmarish sequence involving the truck, a vicious dog, and an accident. But eventually, she loses the trail, and collapses in the middle of the street, where Lieutenant Dodd (Stephen McHattie) finds her and brings her into his car. He drives her to the local diner where Sheriff Chestnut (William B. Davis) is, and tells him to get an ambulance, while Dodd goes back out trying to find the child stealer based on what Julia has told him.

It’s at this point that things get strange. While washing up and changing her clothes in the office of Trish (Janet Wright) who runs the diner, she hears the Sheriff and another man in a heated discussion, wondering what they should do next. It sounds like they mean to harm Julia. What’s going on here?

To give away any more of the plot would be unkind, but let’s say, at this point, THE TALL MAN stops being a typical horror movie and goes in a completely unexpected direction. This is business as usual for director Pascal Laugier, who is used to running us through a maze in his movies, MARTYRS being a perfect example.

The cast here is very good, especially Biel, who is turning into an actress you can count on to deliver a decent performance. She’s actually much better here than she is in TOTAL RECALL, partly because she’s the lead character, but also because THE TALL MAN is a more serious, intelligent film.

THE TALL MAN is out there.

M. Night Shyamalan might still have the reputation as the king of the twist endings – even if it’s no longer warranted and he’s become something of a joke. But Laugier proves here that he deserves the title more, and he delivers the scares along the way.

The other aspects of this film are finely tuned as well, including the score by Todd Bryanton, which compliments the film perfectly. I was very psyched when I found out that Barry Dejasu was interviewing Bryanton about his soundtrack for THE TALL MAN for his Scoring Horror column (this review is being posted as a companion piece to his interview).

THE TALL MAN is so different from the usual horror movies we keep getting, and is so much more ambitious in its storytelling, that it deserves a wider audience simply because it tries to do something different, and I was disappointed to see that this one has been getting such shoddy distribution. But if you look for it on cable, you would do yourself a favor to find it.

While I didn’t like THE TALL MAN as much as MARTYRS, which remains Laugier’s masterwork, I still thought it was head and shoulders above most of the horror movies Hollywood has been giving us lately. THE TALL MAN is in no way as visceral and nightmarish as MARTYRS, but it does deliver plenty of chills and it will surprise you.

One thing about THE TALL MAN, that you don’t normally get with horror films these days, is that you’ll be thinking about it long after it’s over.

I give it four knives.

© Copyright 2012 by L.L. Soares

LL Soares gives THE TALL MAN ~ four knives.

 

The French movie poster for THE TALL MAN calls it “The Secret” fittingly enough.

1 Comment »

Pickin’ the Carcass: RED STATE (2011)

Posted in 2012, Michael Arruda Reviews, Pickin' the Carcass, Religious Cults, Twist Endings with tags , , , , , on August 10, 2012 by knifefighter

PICKIN’ THE CARCASS:  RED STATE (2011)
By Michael Arruda

 

Welcome to PICKIN’ THE CARCASS, that column where we catch up with recent horror releases missed the first time around.  Sadly, most of the time, there’s a good reason these films were missed the first time around.  They’re not very good.

However, today, good news!  At long last, I’ve found a CARCASS morsel well worth the wait, and that morsel is RED STATE (2011), the action thriller by writer director Kevin Smith.

RED STATE tells its story in three parts.  The first part follows three teenage boys (Kyle Gallner, Michael Angarano, and Nicholas Braun) as they answer a sex ad from a woman who promises to have sex with them.  This first segment is light and funny, and you almost get the feeling you’re being set up for a teen sex comedy.  Nothing could be further from the truth.

That’s because the woman drugs the boys, which leads to the second segment of the film, and this is where the horror sets in.  The boys awake to find themselves held hostage by an ultra-right wing church known as the Five Points Church.  This church, supposedly so far to the right that even neo-Nazi groups distance themselves from them, is led by the charismatic but crazy Abin Cooper (Michael Parks).  The boys witness Cooper and his congregation execute a gay man in the church.  Up next are the teens themselves.

Following a tip from the local sheriff, armed ATF agents led by Agent Joseph Keenan (John Goodman) surround the Five Points Church compound, which brings us to the third segment of the film, the armed confrontation between the ATF agents and the church members, who are sitting on an arsenal full of assault weapons.

Eventually, all hell breaks loose, and there is a massive shoot-out, which leads to a clever ending that for several moments will have you scratching your head wondering just what the hell is going on.  I won’t give anything away, but I will say the ending to the movie is somehow both depressing and satisfying.

RED STATE was written and directed by Kevin Smith, an actor, writer, and director mostly known for his comedies.  (ZACK AND MIRI MAKE A PORNO (2008) and JAY AND SILENT BOB STRIKE BACK (2001), for example).  RED STATE is not a comedy, and I almost thought it was going to be played for laughs considering Smith’s involvement.  But it’s not funny, not in the least.

Far from it, RED STATE is a grim realistic tale that works because it is firmly rooted in truth.  The points this movie makes reflect disturbing trends in our society that, like it or not, exist.  And it’s scary because as outlandish and as exaggerated as things may seem, it’s still realistic.  A church congregation executes a gay man while singing hymns?  And this isn’t a black comedy?  No.  And the reason?  Sadly, horrifically, I could see this happening.  There are fringe groups out there that would do this.

RED STATE is scary without entering into any of the traditional horror movie tropes.  There’s nothing supernatural going on here.  The horror is in the people and what they do.

The movie enjoys a strong start.  The three teen characters are all believable, and the three actors who play them do an excellent job bringing these kids to life.  Kyle Gallner is especially memorable as the lead teen Jarod, and we saw him a few years back in THE HAUNTING IN CONNECTICUT (2009).

The dialogue here by Smith is also excellent.  It’s a hoot listening to these three guys, as they act and sound like real teens.  It sets the stage for the realism which permeates the entire film.

The second part of the film, where the boys are held hostage in the church, is also powerful.  The execution sequence is a riveting scene, and at this point, the sweaty palms meter was going full throttle.

The third act, where John Goodman’s Joseph Keenan leads an ATF raid against the compound is the least satisfying segment of the three, but it’s still very good.  It’s less effective because a standard action shoot-out just doesn’t pack the same wallop as scenes of teens being held hostage by maniac church members.

RED STATE features an outstanding cast.  In addition to Kyle Gallner’s fine performance as teen hostage Jarod, John Goodman also delivers a strong performance as ATF agent Joseph Keenan.  Goodman plays things realistically.  He’s not over the top, and as a result, he’s very believable.

Melissa Leo plays yet another crazy mother, this one a member of the Five Points Church.  Leo, you might remember, won an Oscar for Best Supporting Actress for her role as a crazy obsessed mother in THE FIGHTER (2010).  Yeah, her role here is almost the same, but she’s so good at it!  You just want to slap her!

And Michael Parks absolutely steals the show as the creep preacher Abin Cooper.  The best part of his performance, and really, the whole movie, is that it’s not played over the top.  Parks doesn’t play Cooper like some psycho in the movies.  He plays him like a real preacher.  I believed this guy, and this is what made it so scary.

One of the reasons the movie works so well is the excellent script by Kevin Smith.  Not only does it tell a believable story, but it also takes some outlandish situations, dangles them in front of you, and makes you realize, you know what?  This isn’t as outlandish as you think!

Smith also adds some stylish direction.  The action scenes are well-handled, and the camerawork during some of the chase scenes where the teens try to escape from the church makes you feel like you’re running right alongside them.

The movie also manages to takes its time without seeming slow-paced.  There are long sequences of dialogue, which somehow result in making things more unsettling and suspenseful.  It’s like you’re listening to Cooper speaking, and he’s creeping you out, and he’s going on and on, and you just want to get away, and yet you can’t.

Needless to say, I really enjoyed RED STATE.  As long as you’re not expecting a happy night at the movies, you’ll want to check out RED STATE.

It’s non-supernatural  horror at its best.

—END—

© Copyright 2012 by Michael Arruda

(NOTE: For a slightly different take on RED STATE, check out the 2011 review by L.L. Soares here)

Leave A Comment »

THE CABIN IN THE WOODS (2012)

Posted in 2012, Cinema Knife Fights, Fun Stuff!, Gore!, Hillbillies, Joss Whedon, Monsters, Supernatural, Surprises!, Twist Endings, Zombies with tags , , , , , , , , , on April 16, 2012 by knifefighter

CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT: THE CABIN IN THE WOODS (2012)
By Michael Arruda and L.L. Soares

(THE SCENE: A cabin in the middle of the woods. MICHAEL ARRUDA has just arrived, to find L.L. SOARES sitting in front the fire, reading a collection of H.P. Lovecraft stories)

MA: Nice to see you’re so comfortable. It took me forever to find this place.

LS: I know, I’ve been here for three days now. Did you get lost or something?

MA: This place isn’t on any map or GPS that I know of. How did you get here anyway?

LS: I borrowed THE FLY’s teleportation machine.

MA: That explains why you didn’t need a map.  Whoa!  You borrowed THE FLY’s teleportation machine?

LS:  Clean that wax out of your ears, son, that’s what I said.

MA:  That didn’t work out so well for Seth Brundle.  There weren’t any flies in there with you, were there?

LS:  No.  But there was this tarantula, and a scorpion.  Is that bad?

MA:  Aren’t you worried that you’ve somehow all been jumbled together, and that now you might be sharing some of their DNA?

LS (burps):  Not really.

MA:  Are you telling me that you—?

LS:  Yep.  They’re just delicious when you add some of Stubbs’ barbecue sauce.  Anyway, do you want me to start the review while you’re getting settled?

MA: Sure.  Man, you must have a stomach made of iron.

LS: This week’s movie is THE CABIN IN THE WOODS, and it’s the first movie directed by Drew Goddard, who mainly was a writer before this. He wrote CLOVERFIELD (2008), a movie we both liked a lot.

MA:  Yep, CLOVERFIELD was one of my favorite horror movies of the last decade.

LS:  CABIN is also written by Joss Whedon, who created shows like BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER and ANGEL two shows that Goddard also wrote for. And Whedon will be directing THE AVENGERS movie next month, too!

MA:   Goddard co-wrote the screenplay with Whedon.  In addition to writing CLOVERFIELD, Goddard also wrote several episodes of the TV show LOST, and I thought there were parts of this movie that reminded me of LOST.

LS:  THE CABIN IN THE WOODS starts out kind of strangely, as we see a group of scientists taking a lunch break before they go back to work. These are Hadley (Bradley Whitford) and Sitterson (Richard Jenkins) and they seem to be in charge of some strange experiment.

MA:  Strange is the operative word here.  The movie opens and I’m thinking, what an odd way to get this one started, but it caught my attention, and so I guess it worked!

LS:  Then the story shifts to five college kids who decide to take a weekend “off the grid,” kicking back at a secluded cabin in the middle of nowhere, which belongs to one of the kids’ cousin. They include  Jules (Anna Hutchison), a sexy, flirty co-ed who just dyed her hair blonde; her roommate Dana (Kristen Connolly), a slightly less outgoing, innocent-seeming redhead; Jules’ boyfriend Curt (Chris Hemsworth—yes, THOR himself), a jock;  Curt’s friend Holden (Jesse Williams) who Jules and Curt are trying to fix up with Dana; and fifth wheel, Marty (Fran Kranz) who is smart and a smart aleck and he smokes a lot of weed, and I wasn’t really sure why he was going along with them, but he’s a welcome addition to the group, as far as I’m concerned.

MA: Yeah, he’s the most fun— and refreshing— character in the movie.

LS:  They take an RV out to the country, where they come upon your typical, cliché’ redneck gas station owner, Mordecai (Tim De Zarn) who sets the creepy mood, and you just know these kids are in for some trouble.

MA:  This is the scene where I almost groaned out loud.  I’ve seen so many scenes like this one; it’s almost painful to sit through any more, so when this movie took this scene and did something completely different with it later, it was that much more refreshing.

(There is a knock at the cabin door.  MA opens door to find a redneck gas station owner at the door, and behind him his redneck son, behind him another old man, and on and on the line goes.)

REDNECK MAN:  This is no place for strangers!

REDNECK SON:  My advice to you is to turn around and go back to where you came from.

OLD MAN:  Turn back before ye perish!

EVEN OLDER MAN: You’ll be sorrrrry!

SKELETON IN OVERALLS: Don’t say we didn’t warn you!

MA:  I think I’m going to throw up.  (Slams door in their faces.)

LS: Yeah, I’m sick to death of those guys, too. Get a life! And get some teeth!

Anyway, like I was saying, you know these kids are headed for trouble. The thing is, what kind of trouble is something a little bit different than what we usually see in these kinds of movies. You might go in expecting yet another retread of THE EVIL DEAD or something along the lines of Eli Roth’s CABIN FEVER, but instead, we get something different than we’re expecting. This ties in to the fact that there are two smart, creative guys at the helm of this one, and they’re determined not to give us something we’ve seen before.

During a game of Truth or Dare, the kids find a doorway into a basement. When they go down to explore, they find lots of very strange artifacts, which will somehow decide their fate, depending on which one they choose. Dana picks up a diary of a girl who lived in the cabin back in 1908, and it’s rather disturbing. Meanwhile, outside, some strange figures start shuffling around, holding some vicious-looking weapons.

Beyond that, I don’t want to say too much, except that the kids in the cabin, the creatures stalking them, and the scientists back at the underground lab are closely linked, and that there really is a reason why all this is going on. A very cool reason. And I figured it out by the half-way mark, but that didn’t affect my enjoyment of this movie at all.

Not only is the directing and writing very good here, the acting isn’t too bad, either. I really enjoyed the interaction between Jenkins and Whitford as the scientists, who also involve their fellow employees in their activities. These are two good actors who turn in good performances.

MA:  I agree.  I thought veterans Richard Jenkins (who was in LET ME IN (2010), and received an Oscar nomination for Best Actor in THE VISITOR (2007), not too shabby), Bradley Whitford (who most people will recognize from TV’s THE WEST WING) were excellent and lent credibility to the proceedings.  They definitely help make the unbelievable seem believable.  Credit here also goes to the writing, which gives them plenty of lively lines to deliver.

LS:  The kids aren’t too bad, either. Hutchison as Jules is very sexy and Hemsworth is a muscular alpha male as Curt.

MA:  Yes, no doubt about it, Hutchison is hot.  The scene where she makes out with a stuffed wolf’s head in a game of truth or dare is worth the price of admission all by itself!

And I liked Hemsworth as Curt too.  Most jocks in these films are jerks.  Hemsworth makes Curt pretty likeable.

LS:  I wasn’t as impressed with Jesse Williams as Holden – he was okay, but nothing special. The two best performances here, however, are Kristen Connolly as the “virginal” Dana, who gets tough when she has to, and Kranz (who Whedon fans will recognize as Topher from the short-lived but really good series DOLLHOUSE). He pretty much steals every scene he’s in, and was my favorite character.

MA:  I agree with you wholeheartedly here.

LS:  Wholeheartedly?  That reminds me!  (Suddenly there is a bloody heart on LS’ plate next to a bottle of barbecue sauce.) Thanks, I didn’t want it to spoil.

MA: Where did that come from? That’s not yours, is it?

LS: Of course not! Mine isn’t this big. I had it in my pocket for a snack. And right about now, when you’re just about to go into a long rant, is as good a time as any for the munchies.

MA:  Long rant? I’ll save those for when I don’t like something!  Anyway, as I was saying, the two leads are excellent.   Kranz nearly steals the movie as Marty, a character who’s stoned most of the time.  Yet, this turns out to help him later in the story.  Hmm, a subtle plug for medical marijuana, perhaps?  (laughs) Kranz is funny, likeable, and best of all, refreshing.  He provides the film with its best moments.

LS: He was great on DOLLHOUSE, too. I’d love to see Kranz become a star because of his performance here.

MA: Kristen Connolly is also excellent as Dana.  She enjoys the best of both worlds in this movie, as she’s pretty hot herself, and yet she’s strong, capable, and more than holds her own when the going gets rough.  She’s also smart.

LS: Yeah, she is pretty hot, too. Gotta love a redhead. And I liked her character a lot.

MA: Nice job by both these actors. There’s also a surprise cameo appearance at the end that’s been generating some excitement.

LS: Yeah, except I didn’t find it very exciting. The person who shows up isn’t that big a deal, since he/she has been in these kinds of movies before. It certainly wasn’t as big a deal as Bill Murray’s appearance in ZOMBIELAND (2009). I don’t even know why we’re keeping it a secret.
MA: Yeah, I didn’t think it was a big deal, either.

LS:  The movie has its fair share of scares and laughs, and knows how to balance the two of them effectively. And the fact that there are some genuine surprises here means that CABIN is a movie you can really enjoy. It’s smarter than the usual Hollywood horror flick, and I enjoyed it a lot. In fact, I give it three and a half knives!

What did you think of it, Michael?

MA:  I enjoyed it too, but I didn’t love it.

LS:  Of course you didn’t.  (starts eating the heart)

MA:  THE CABIN IN THE WOODS is definitely different.  As advertised, it offers a refreshing take on the usual tale of young people trapped in a haunted cabin in the middle of nowhere.  For that, I commend the filmmakers, and I really did like this movie.

It’s just that, I’m not sure that I bought it all.  What was going on behind the scenes, in those scenes with Richard Jenkins and Bradley Whitford, bordered a bit too much on fantasy for my tastes.  Now, I know you won’t like this comparison, but some of the stuff was reminiscent of MEN IN BLACK, only better.  MEN IN BLACK was science fiction and it was pure comedic fluff, while THE CABIN IN THE WOODS is horror and never strays down the road to goofiness.  That being said, I still had a hard time accepting some of the things that happen in this movie once the explanations start rolling in.

LS: MEN IN BLACK? Did you really need to go there?

MA: Sorry, but I think I did.

(There is a knock on the door, and when MA opens it, there is a brutish BIG ZOMBIE standing in the doorway)

BIG ZOMBIE (to LS): You gonna eat that heart?

LS (talks with his mouth full): Way ahead of you. And I’m not sharing!

BIG ZOMBIE: Dammit!

(BIG ZOMBIE growls and skulks away)

MA: I actually bought into THE HUNGER GAMES more.  That was a movie that I thought I was not going to believe, but that one, with its combination of strong acting, writing, and directing, convinced me that those deadly games were in fact real.  THE HUNGER GAMES had more of an edge, I think, than THE CABIN IN THE WOODS, which as much as I liked it, would have been better served had it had a jagged edge of its own.

But I really enjoyed THE CABIN IN THE WOODS.  I enjoyed it a lot.  It’s a really creative flick, and it would be difficult not to like this movie.

I said earlier it reminded me a bit of LOST, in that you have a group of characters stuck in a situation that they at first think they know about and have a handle on, but soon they realize there is so much more going on, and it’s way more complicated than what they first thought.  At one point, one of the characters remarks that they’re like puppets, manipulated by outside forces, which reminded me of the survivors on LOST when they were dealing with “the Others” early in that show.

LS: Yes, I see what you mean about the LOST comparison, although I thought the ending of THE CABIN IN THE WOODS was more satisfying than the ending of LOST.

MA: And like CLOVERFIELD, which was also written by Drew Goddard, THE CABIN IN THE WOODS has well-written characters and fun, lively dialogue.

I thought the special effects were also very good.  I liked the monsters and creatures in this one and thought they looked genuinely scary for the most part. They were credible.

LS: I wish we’d gotten to see more of them!

MA: Not so credible is the plot.  Ultimately, did I really buy all that was happening?  And the answer to that question is no, I didn’t.  Because while the film never breaks out into a full-fledged spoof/comedy— it does get the humor right, and it’s smart in that the dark elements of the movie remain dark— it’s difficult to take the proceedings all that seriously once you learn the secret of what’s ultimately going on.

I liked THE CABIN IN THE WOODS for what it was— a wild, over the top, creative horror movie, but had it somehow been more believable, I would have loved it.

I give it three knives.

LS: Yeah, I liked this one a bit more than you did. But at least we can agree that it’s a lot of fun and that the folks out there should check this movie out.

MA:  Yes, it’s definitely worth checking out!

(There’s another knock at the door)

MA: I wonder who it is now.

(Outside the door, lots of REDNECKS and ZOMBIES are playing outside on the front lawn)

LS: What’s going on here?

REDNECK MAN: What does it look like?

REDNECK SON: We’re havin’ a picnic.

OLD MAN: Yeah, and we brought all the fixins’

EVEN OLDER MAN: We even brought the grill!

SKELETON IN OVERALLS: I can’t wait to eat. I’m starvin’ right to death.

REDNECK MAN: Yep, my great great grandpa needs to put some meat on those bones.

MA: That’s all well and good, but it looks like you’ve forgotten the most important part.  The food!  There’s no meat on the grill.

LS: Yeah, what are we supposed to be eating?

REDNECK MAN: Well, you’re not going to be eatin’ anything.

BIG ZOMBIE: We’re gonna be eatin’ you!

(CLOSE-UP of a LITTLE BOY ZOMBIE licking his lips)

MA (to camera): Gotta go!

(MA and LS run away in fast motion as the ZOMBIES and REDNECKS look on in bewilderment)

-END-

© Copyright 2012 by Michael Arruda and L.L. Soares

Michael Arruda gives THE CABIN IN THE WOODS ~ three knives!

LL Soares gives THE CABIN IN THE WOODS ~three and a half knives.

1 Comment »

INTRUDERS (2012)

Posted in 2012, Cinema Knife Fights, Enigmatic Films, Ghosts!, LL Soares Reviews, Supernatural, Twist Endings with tags , , , , , , on April 3, 2012 by knifefighter

CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT: INTRUDERS (2012)
Movie Review by L.L. Soares

(THE SCENE: A bedroom late at night. The lights are off, and L.L. SOARES sits on a chair in front of a closet, with a baseball bat in his hands)

LS: Hello! I’m here to prove, once and for all, that there’s no such thing as a boogeyman. I asked Michael to join me, but I guess he chickened out.

(The closet door open and a large man wearing a hood peeks out)

HOODED MAN: Hollow Face.

LS: Huh?

HOODED MAN: I’m not the boogeyman. I’m called Hollow Face. Because I don’t have a face.

LS: Oh yeah, I forgot.

HOLLOW FACE: Don’t worry about it.

LS: Anyway, as I was saying, I don’t think Michael is going to show up, but while we’re waiting, I might as well review the new movie INTRUDERS.

HOLLOW FACE: Sounds good to me. What’s it about?

LS: As INTRUDERS begins, a young boy in Spain, Juan (Izan Corchero) wakes up at night to go out in the rain and find his pet cat, when he sees a strange man climbing up some scaffolding outside his apartment. When the man slips inside a window, Juan hurries inside to find a hooded man attacking his mother. When the boy screams, the man attacks him instead. But is this a nightmare, or is it real?

Juan is haunted by a strange supernatural being with a hood and no face, and he constantly writes stories about this creature, who he calls Hollow Face. And it constantly disrupts his sleep, as every night there’s a chance Hollow Face might show up and try to steal the boy’s face. His mother, growing more and more concerned, even brings Juan to a priest, Father Antonio (Daniel Bruhl), fearing he might be possessed. Juan’s mother seems as terrified as her son is.

Meanwhile, something similar is happening in London. A girl who just turned twelve, named Mia (Ella Purnell, previously in 2010’s NEVER LET ME GO), also begins to see a hooded, faceless figure in her bedroom. She also finds a tiny wooden coffin in a hole in a tree. Inside of it is a story about Hollow Face on a folded piece of paper. A story which she continues writing on her own.

So we have two children in different countries, both writing about this Hollowface character, and both being tormented by him at night. Is there a link between them? Between the stories they are writing and the physical manifestation of Hollow Face?

Mia is very close to her father, John Farrow (Clive Owen)—this means that the daughter’s name is Mia Farrow! —who actually tries to help her to stop being afraid of this late-night boogeyman. He even creates an effigy in their backyard using an old hooded coat, boots, and a basketball for a head, and sets it on fire in an attempt to get rid of Hollow Face once and for all. John’s wife Susanna (Carice van Housten, who was previously in the great Paul Veerhoven WWII drama, BLACK BOOK (2006), as well as 2010’s REPO MEN, and the HBO series GAME OF THRONES), catches them and puts out the fire, finding the whole thing disturbing.

But things just get worse when John goes into Mia’s room late and night and sees an actual intruder holding her captive. He fights with the man, but he gets way. The police are called, and Mia is so traumatized that she is no longer able to speak and has to see a psychiatrist (Kerry Fox) daily.

So who exactly is Hollow Face, and why is he tormenting these people?

HOLLOW FACE: I was wondering the same thing. Tell me more.

LS: Sure. So there are several times during the story where you’re not sure if Hollow Face is a real supernatural being, or if he’s the result of emotional trauma and possibly even insanity, and there were several times when I thought the big revelation of what was going on was going to be as annoying as an M. Night Shyamalan movie, or similar to another Spanish “twist ending” movie, THE OTHERS (2001), by Alejandro Amenabar. A movie which I seem to be in the minority about, since I really didn’t like it.

But by the end, INTRUDERS redeems itself, giving us answers to our questions that actually make sense (well, not all of them, but most of the answers make sense). As it all ties together, we realize there have been clues throughout the film.

HOLLOW FACE: Fascinating.

LS: INTRUDERS was directed by Spanish director Juan Carlos Frednadillo, who previously made the Spanish film INTACTO (2001) and the sequel to 28 DAYS LATER (2002), called, ingeniously, 28 WEEKS LATER (2007). He does a good job here, working from a script by Nicolas Casariego and Jaime Marques.

The acting, for the most part, is pretty good. Clive Owen is the obvious big-name star here, and he does a good job as Mia’s concerned father. Owen’s been in some pretty good movies over the years, including the innovative SIN CITY (2005) and the underrated CHILDREN OF MEN (2006), and even though this isn’t one of his best roles, he does a serviceable job in INTRUDERS.

The real main characters of this movie, however are Mia and Juan, the two children who are trying to survive being tormented by the sinister Hollow Face. Both kids are good, but Ella Purnell is especially good as Mia. I thought her scenes alone with Clive Owen, as they try to face Mia’s fears, were the best in the movie. You really could feel the bond between father and daughter.

My biggest concern about INTRUDERS was how it was going handle the ending. I’m not a fan of twists, since most directors do not do them well. But Fresnadillo acquits himself well, and the movie was better than I expected.

I give in two and a half knives.

HOLLOW FACE: Sounds like you liked it.

LS: I did. I didn’t expect to, but I did.

(The lights come on, and MICHAEL ARRUDA enters the room)

MA: Well, here I am for the movie review. Sorry I’m late…(stops)…Who’s this?

LS: That’s funny, I thought it was you playing dress-up.

(They both turn to stare at HOLLOW FACE, who pulls down his hood to reveal a BLANK FACE!)

HOLLOW FACE: Boo!

(LS and MA yelp and run out of the house).

HOLLOW FACE (laughing): That was easy. Come back next time for another edition of Cinema Knife Fight.

© Copyright 2012 by L.L. Soares

L.L. Soares gives INTRUDERS~ two and a half knives!

1 Comment »

SILENT HOUSE (2012)

Posted in 2012, Cinema Knife Fights, Disappointments, Family Secrets, Killers, Plot Twists, Remakes, Twist Endings with tags , , , , , on March 20, 2012 by knifefighter

CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT: SILENT HOUSE (2012)
By Michael Arruda and L.L. Soares

(THE SCENE:  The interior of a summer home. It hasn’t been lived in for a while, and there are boxes piled everywhere, indicating that people are either moving in or moving out. MICHAEL ARRUDA & L.L. SOARES enter the living room.)

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  Okay. Let’s get started. Time to start fixing things up.

L.L. SOARES:  Wait a minute. I thought you said tear things up.

MA:  Why would I say that?

LS:  Because it’s more fun than fixing things up!

MA: Who says that, anyway?

LS: I don’t know. I thought this house might belong to someone you don’t like.

MA:  Gee, I’m not that bad!

LS:  That’s your problem, dude!  One of many, anyway.

MA:  Haha. Anyway, I don’t feel much like fixing the place up either. It doesn’t sound like much fun. How about we review today’s movie instead?

LS:  Good idea. You start. (pulls out cell phone) I have to tell all those people I just called that we won’t need their help trashing the place. It’s too bad; they were really excited about ripping this place to shreds.

MA:  SILENT HOUSE (2012) is a new thriller starring Elizabeth Olsen as a young woman terrorized in her summer home by an unknown intruder. The intruder is unknown because we never seem to get a good look at the guy—or guys.

SILENT HOUSE is based on the 2010 movie THE SILENT HOUSE by Gustavo Hernandez. The gimmick used in that movie was that it was shot in real time in seemingly a single take, and this was supposed to crank up the suspense. The same gimmick is used here in SILENT HOUSE, the American remake by directors Chris Kentis and Laura Lau.

LS: Yeah, the original movie was from Uruguay. I haven’t seen it. And after seeing this remake, I won’t be spending much time looking for it.

MA: I can’t say that I noticed the “real time single take” effect in SILENT HOUSE. It didn’t really work for me, as it didn’t add anything to the suspense, and I hardly noticed it. It was almost an afterthought for me.

LS: I guess the fact that they did this whole movie in one take is impressive. Unfortunately, it’s a completely wasted effort. In a single take, if one thing goes wrong, you have to start all over again. I wonder how many times they had to do that before SILENT HOUSE got made? Not that it really matters. Like you, I barely noticed, and frankly, I didn’t care. Even if they did 100 takes, this movie would still be a disappointment.

(A glowing figure approaches them in the dark room. As it grows closer, they see it is CASPER, THE FRIENDLY GHOST)

CASPER: Will you be my friend?

LS: Haven’t you been in some of our earlier columns? We can’t seem to shake this guy.

MA (rolling eyes): Sure, I’ll be your friend, little ghost.

CASPER (to MA): Gee, thanks, Mister. You’re nice. Do you have any cookies?

MA: Cookies?  What do I look like, a grocery store?  I don’t go around carrying cookies on me.

(CASPER suddenly turns into a giant, ferocious ghost with big teeth and claws)

CASPER: Damn you! Where are my cookies?!!

(LS pushes him out of the room)

LS: Beat it, kid. We’re in the middle of something here.

MA: Thanks for getting rid of him.

LS: No cookies. Next time bring cookies!

MA:  Well, the last time I brought cookies, someone ate them all!

LS:  What can I say? I like cookies.

Why don’t you tell the nice people reading this column more about the movie. I am sure they are quite interested in finding out more about SILENT HOUSE.

MA: Sarah (Elizabeth Olsen) and her dad John (Adam Trese) arrive at their summer home to pack things up, because they plan to sell the house. Sarah hears a noise upstairs that she thinks sounds like a person moving around, and so her dad goes up to investigate. Sarah hears a thud, and suddenly her dad isn’t answering her anymore.

LS: Spooky!

MA: She discovers her dad upstairs, unconscious, on the floor, and his face is mutilated and he’s bleeding badly. She vows to get help and come back for him.
Sarah hears someone moving around the house. Terrified, she tries to sneak her way out of the house without being discovered by the deadly intruder. This process is easier said than done, because every door in the house seems to be locked from the inside, and without a key, she can’t escape. The windows are also boarded up, in order to protect the house against vagrants.

LS: Yeah, some kids have been throwing rocks at the windows, so they boarded them up. How convenient. Also, you forgot to mention that the power is all turned off and everyone has to use flashlights when they move around the house. This makes for a really scary setting—not. It just seemed lazy to me. Oh yeah, and, as usual with these movies, nobody’s cell phone works. They just can’t seem to get a signal around the summer house. More laziness!

MA: Sarah eventually eludes the intruder and escapes from the house, only to run into her uncle Peter (Eric Sheffer Stevens), who grabs his gun and takes them back to the house in order to rescue his brother, Sarah’s dad. Back inside the house, Sarah and her uncle search for her dad, hoping that whoever was inside the house is now gone. But of course, that’s not the case.

Will anyone make it out of the house alive?  Does anyone care?

(LS is snoring)

MA: Wake up! We’re not done with the review yet?

LS: I’m sorry. I wasn’t sleeping. I was just resting my eyes.

MA: Did you care about this movie? I know I certainly didn’t. As I sat in the theater, I kept thinking that the title of the movie SILENT HOUSE referred to the audience I was sitting with in the theater. Not a scream or anxious sound to be heard.

SILENT HOUSE is one of the dullest movies I’ve seen this year. For long periods of time, nothing happens. We have to endure scene after scene of Sarah slowly making her way around the dark, silent house. Yawn!

And it’s a house she just can’t seem to get out of. The doors all seem to be locked from the inside, and her dad seems to have the only key. I’ve never seen a house with so many doors that have locks on the inside that require keys to open them. Outside, sure, but inside?  And she can’t escape through the windows because they’ve been boarded up to keep out squatters. But every window?  Even the ones on the second floor?  I’m supposed to believe that there’s not a single window in the house she can escape through?  I didn’t find this very believable at all.

LS: And there is an entire sequence where she goes downstairs to the basement. Why? Her injured father is upstairs. If you hear a noise in the basement, and you’re sure it’s not someone you know, why would you go down there? This is so stupid, little kids who just started watching horror movies would have more sense than Sarah.

MA: And once all the bad stuff starts happening, after her dad is injured, Sarah moves around slowly through the house without a sense of urgency. These scenes lack pacing and intensity. Why isn’t Sarah fighting for her life to get the hell out of that house?
LS: She’s too busy crying and whimpering and biting her sleeve to keep from making noise. It’s just damn annoying!

MA: And speaking of slow moving, the attacker is slower than Michael Myers. Sarah has time to hide and wait while the intruder slowly walks around the room. Just what the hell is he doing, anyway?  Remodeling the place?  He’s not trying too hard to locate Sarah, that’s for sure!  The poor pacing really detracts from the suspense and scares during these scenes.

Uncle Peter also wins the “Stupidest Character of the Year” Award for his bone-headed move in this movie. Sarah escapes from the house, finds her uncle, tells him everything that’s happened, and what does he decide to do?  Go back to the house!  Sure, he wants to save his brother, but excuse me, what about your niece?  You’re bringing her back to the house where she was almost killed?  Stupid!  So, Sarah, after escaping from the brutality of the house, returns to it and goes back inside. Yep. That makes a lot of sense.

LS: Well, at first she stays in the car and locks the doors. Until she realizes the back door has been left open. It’s then that she sees something, freaks out, and goes back into the house. Of course, we never see what scared her so much, but you assume the killers are all over the place.

MA: By the way, SILENT HOUSE is rated R, and I still don’t understand why. It’s not graphic, it’s not violent, it’s not intense, and it’s certainly not scary.

LS: It was rated R? Wow. I would never have guessed, if I hadn’t seen the poster outside. You’re right. There is nothing that earns this movie a rating above a PG-13. Sometimes I think movies try to get an R-rating just to look cool. But man, I want to see why on the screen if it’s R-rated.

MA: Worst of all , SILENT HOUSE has a ridiculous plot twist at the end that completely ruins the movie, which I guess isn’t saying much because it’s not much of a movie to begin with, but a strong ending certainly would have helped. Instead, the ending is even worse than all that came before it.

LS: We get a few clues along the way, mostly involving some odd photographs that keep popping up. But seriously, the ending  of this movie was a complete cheat. I won’t explicitly say what’s going on, but I will say two words. FIGHT CLUB. If you saw that movie, then you know what this movie’s rip-off ending is all about. That trick worked exactly ONCE. And this is no FIGHT CLUB. It’s just incredibly lame.

Normally I wouldn’t give that much away, except this movie is SO AWFUL I would be glad if no one wasted their money to see it.

MA: Elizabeth Olsen does “terrified” very well, and we get treated to lots of scenes of her looking scared out of her wits and trembling, but these close-ups get tiring after a while. Olsen doesn’t do much else beyond looking scared in this movie.

LS: You think she did “terrified” very well?

MA:  Well, it’s what she does in this movie. I’m being generous here.

LS:  Okay. To get ready for this one, I watched Elizabeth Olsen’s big breakthrough movie from last year, MARTHA MARCY MAY MARLENE. It was a small, indie flick where Olsen played a girl who escapes from a cult and tries to go back to a normal life with her sister. Some people said  MARTHA MARCY was so good, Olsen should have gotten an Oscar nomination for it. I certainly thought it was an impressive debut. And frankly, because of that movie, I was looking forward to SILENT HOUSE. But the two movies are as different as dollars and dinosaurs. MARTHA was a riveting, wonderfully acted little film. SILENT HOUSE is a complete piece of crap. I felt bad for Olsen as I watched it, and I hope she makes better movie choices in the future. After MARTHA, she should be getting better scripts. But man, this one was heartbreakingly bad.

MA: I did like Eric Sheffer Stevens as Uncle Peter, even if his character makes that bone-headed decision to bring Sarah back to the house.

LS: You liked that idiot? Why?

MA:  Well, the character was an idiot, but I thought Stevens had a likeable quality about him.

LS:  I didn’t like anyone in this movie. Olsen just cries and whimpers and bites her hand the whole time. I like her as an actress, but I hated her character here. The other characters, specifically her father and uncle, are just morons. I never once feel any connection with them, and I couldn’t care less what happens to them. The father, especially, is a complete jerk. And by the end of this movie, I hated the characters even more.

MA:  Yeah, the father is a jerk.

LS:  The movie tries to justify its twist and everything that has come before it by suddenly introducing a traumatic event and trying to make us sympathize with a certain character. But the thing is, it was too little too late. It doesn’t earn our sympathy, and I just didn’t care. Damn, I hated this movie.

The only character I liked even a little bit was Julia Taylor Ross as Sophia, an old friend of Sarah’s who stops by early on for a visit when she sees there are people in the house again after being abandoned for so long. Sophia is okay, but when she appears a second time, later on, she’s just as stupid as everyone else.

(LS shouts in frustration)

(A closet opens and the TALL MAN from the PHANTASM movies jumps out)

TALL MAN (pointing at LS): Boy!

LS: I’m not a boy, Simple Simon. I’m a man.

TALL MAN (pointing at MA): BOY!

MA: I’m not a boy, either.

LS: Yeah, get your glasses checked. You need a stronger prescription.

TALL MAN: Oh well (shrugs and leaves the room)

MA: SILENT HOUSE was directed by Chris Kentis and Laura Lau, the same husband and wife team that gave us the much-hyped OPEN WATER (2003), a movie that I was never crazy about. Lau also wrote the screenplay.

LS: I actually didn’t mind OPEN WATER that much. It was pretty simple, but it worked. This one doesn’t work for one minute.

MA: Yeah, that’s my memory of OPEN WATER. Pretty simple and okay, but I remember people loving it, and I just didn’t find it all that special myself.

I heard that SILENT HOUSE was a stylish thriller, but I didn’t find too much about it that was stylish. It also wasn’t scary or all that suspenseful. I was actually quite bored. There were way too many scenes of Sarah walking through her house without anything significant happening.

LS: This movie has as much style as an outhouse.

MA: Also, for a movie called SILENT HOUSE, I thought it did a poor job of establishing place. I never felt that I knew the house, and I found that this got in the way of the scares. At one point, Sarah’s running around the dark basement in tight close-ups, and I didn’t find these scenes all that scary because I couldn’t really see where the heck she was. I knew she was in the basement, but without really seeing it, it wasn’t that scary.

SILENT HOUSE should have bucked its title and made some noise. As it stands, it’s probably the least impressive movie I’ve seen so far this year. I give it zero knives.

LS: We will definitely be bringing this one up again when we do our WORST OF THE YEAR list months from now. You know, I was actually going to give this half a knife, or maybe one knife, because I like Elizabeth Olsen. But seriously, if she hadn’t been in MARTHA MARCY MAE MARLENE, and this was the only movie I had to judge her acting abilities by, I wouldn’t think much of her. So, judging this movie entirely based on what’s on the screen, not who is in it, I have to go with you. Zero knives.

I hope nobody who is reading this goes to see it. Rents it. Or even thinks “I wonder if I should see this on cable?” Just forget this movie exists. It’s lousy.

MA: I guess that means we didn’t like this one.

LS: You think?

MA:  Well, now that we’re done, are you ready to unpack these boxes?

LS:  Dude, I’m not unpacking anything, unless it’s cardboard and there are six beer bottles in it.

MA:  I can’t say that I feel like unpacking either. The hell with it. We’ll just let Casper and the Tall Man do it.

LS: Let’s blow this joint.

MA: See you next time, folks!

-END-

© Copyright 2012 by Michael Arruda and L.L. Soares

2 Comments »

Cinema Knife Fight: THE WICKER TREE (2010)

Posted in 2012, 70s Horror, Cinema Knife Fights, Cult Movies, Dark Comedies, DVD Review, Indie Horror, Jenny Orosel Columns, LL Soares Reviews, Pagans, Plot Twists, Sequels, Twist Endings, VIOLENCE! with tags , , , , , on March 14, 2012 by knifefighter

CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT: THE WICKER TREE (2010)
DVD Review by L.L. Soares and Jenny Orosel

(THE SCENE: A castle in rural Scotland. L.L. SOARES and JENNY OROSEL stand in front of group of locals. LS is wearing jeans, a jean jacket and a cowboy hat and JO is wearing a colorful May Queen’s dress)

LS: Howdy folks. So I guess we’re here to review the movie, THE WICKER TREE (2010).

JO: (smiles)  Aye, we are.

LS: Well, let’s not keep these people waiting much longer. Why don’t you tell these fine folks a little about the movie.

JO: There was a chunk of time in the 60s and 70s where British horror was like the perfect date—it didn’t take itself seriously and only wanted to show you a good time, with a little bit of naughtiness thrown in here and there.  The Hammer studios were masters of this genre, with Amicus tagging closely behind, and this era brought us the wickedly fun THE WICKER MAN (1973), a tale of Paganism on a remote Scottish island.  Now, almost forty years later, director Robin Hardy returns to that lovely heathen isle with THE WICKER TREE (2010), with all the affection for pure entertainment he carried in his heart during the original.

LS: There has been talk of a sequel for years now. Seeing THE WICKER TREE, I was just glad that this movie finally got made. Robin Hardy based it on his novel “Cowboys for Christ” (which was the original name of this movie). Hardy directed the original film, too, which was “inspired” by the novel “Ritual” by David Pinner, and Anthony Shaffer wrote the screenplay for WICKER MAN.

JO: THE WICKER TREE opens with dancing shirtless men that look straight out of a party at the Burning Man festival.

LS: How apt!

JO: Then we cut to a small Texas church, and the caricatures begin.  Folding chairs are filled with jean-clad, cowboy-hat-wearing folks about to send off two missionaries, country singer Beth Boothby (Brittania Nicol) and her boyfriend Steve (Henry Garrett), to Scotland where “they don’t even believe in angels!”  Or chastity, as is later brought up.  So we start with two people totally unaware that, in fact, Scotland is a predominately Christian nation.  Their enthusiasm and ignorance might not serve them well for the rest of the movie, but it will serve the plot well.

LS: Caricatures is right. They’re pretty goofy characters. And there weren’t many instances when they seemed like real people to me. Although Beth does kind of redeem herself by the end.

JO: When they first arrive in Scotland, Beth performs for sold-out houses.

LS: Yeah, Beth is a singer back in the States whose career is just starting to take off. I thought it was odd that someone who is just on the cusp of becoming a star would suddenly leave the country to perform missionary work. Then we find out that this isn’t her first time in the spotlight.

JO: Yes, a local reporter uncovers her previous career as a secular country-western singer whose biggest hit was “Trailer Trash Slut.” (subtlety is not this movie’s strongest point).  She and Steve retreat to a small village off the coast, lured by the notion that, although not Christians themselves, the villagers will be open to the messages of Jesus and chastity.

LS: The “Trailer Trash Slut” video is actually pretty funny. But another big reason why Beth and Steve head to the country is that, when they going knocking on doors in the more “citified” parts of Scotland, all they get is doors slammed in their faces. The couple who actually hosted their visit, Sir Lachlan Morrison (Graham McTavish) and his wife Delia (Jacqueline Leonard), suggest they might have more luck in the country, and bring them out to an island where the Morrisons pretty much own everything.

JO: I can’t imagine the experience of watching THE WICKER TREE without having any knowledge of THE WICKER MAN.  Part of the suspense for the next forty-five minutes is knowing what happened in the first movie, and knowing what the villagers like to do to Christian outsiders.   During this time we get to know the villagers, we find out that due to a nuclear accident, the men of the island are sterile and we see Steve fail at his chastity vows the moment he’s faced with a beautiful woman named Lolly (Honeysuckle Weeks – what a name!) bathing in the nude in the local pond (after first noticing her horse.  Having lived in Dallas for the past four years, I can say that is the most realistically Texas part of the movie).

LS: So much for Steve’s purity ring!

(A MAN in the crowd before them stands up)

MAN: And when will we be eating the haggis!

LS: What are you talking about?

MAN: The haggis, man! I’ve got me a mighty hunger, don’t ye?

LS: I don’t think I’ll be eating any haggis. That stuff sounds gross.

MAN: How dare ye insult the official food of Scotland! Off with his head I say!

(The rest of the crowd bursts with noise and the people argue)

JO: Sit down, sit down. We’re not done with our review yet. Don’t you want to see where this goes?

MAN: I suppose so. (he sits back down and the crowd grows quiet again)

JO: The first part of THE WICKER TREE was rather unexciting, but the actors made it interesting to watch, and knowing what happens in the WICKER world, the tension built.  Plus, Christopher Lee made a cameo and he’s like bacon—everything is better with Christopher Lee.

LS: I didn’t find the first part of the movie that unexciting. I thought it was pretty watchable, actually. And yes, if you didn’t see the original WICKER MAN, then you won’t fully appreciate this one. You don’t have to see the first one to understand THE WICKER TREE – it is completely self-contained – but if you saw the first movie, there’s a different level of suspense throughout, as you anticipate what is going to happen to these two naïve Americans.

As for Christopher Lee, it’s nice to see him here, especially since he played the pivotal role of Lord Summerisle in the original movie. But it’s definitely a case of “blink and you’ll miss him.” Lee is only in one short scene, (the credits call his role simply “Old Man”) and it’s a flashback, so don’t turn this one on expecting to see Lee in a major role here. I know he’s pretty old and not as active as he once was, but I was still disappointed he didn’t play a bigger part in THE WICKER TREE.

JO: During the last half hour, it suddenly turns into a horror movie.  Our missionaries meet with their inevitable fates.  Steve’s was especially shocking, both in what they do to him and the style in which they filmed it.  For that brief sequence the movie hovered somewhere between 28 DAYS LATER (2002) and HOSTEL (2005).  It definitely jarred me out of the movie for a little while.  I’m still not sure if that was a good thing or not.

LS: Oh, I thought it was definitely a good thing. The movie is pretty much all leading up to that part, and you want it to have some impact – and it does. By the way, the way the pagans get the Christian missionaries to take part in their annual festivities is to make Beth their May Queen, for the feast of May Day, the rite of spring. She gets to wear a fancy gown and everything. And Steve gets the symbolic role as her “Laddie.” What exactly he has to do as the Laddie is explained as the movie goes on, culminating in the jarring scene Jenny mentioned.

JO: Once we return to Beth’s plight, the movie goes back into fun mode.  In fact, the end shot looked straight out of some of the best Hammer moments.

LS: Yeah, the last half hour or so of this movie is the best part of it. But the very end seemed a bit rushed – we’re treated to several short scenes and are left to make our own deductions. I know it was the case where the viewer has to fill in the blanks themselves, but it would have been nice to get a little more information. Of course, I can’t explain that further, since I don’t want to give anything away.

JO: THE WICKER TREE is not without its faults.  As I mentioned earlier, it is far from subtle.  The characters tend to be over-the-top stereotypes, from Steve’s ever-present cowboy hat to the gratuitous kilt usage.  The gags are broad and blatant.  Other than the level of horror in Steve’s demise, there are no surprises.  But rather than try to hide its flaws (think TROLL 2 (1990)), director Hardy revels in them.  It fully embraces the campiness it was destined to have.  As long as you realize going into it that THE WICKER TREE is more humor than horror, you can have as much fun watching this little flick as they seemed to have while making it.

LS: Here is where I kind of disagree with you. I don’t think THE WICKER TREE needed to embrace a campiness at all. The original WICKER MAN played it completely straight and serious and the ending was all the more powerful for that. This time around, Hardy makes THE WICKER TREE so silly in spots that the movie does come off as a comedy for most of its running time. Making fun of the dumb missionaries who think they’re there to do God’s work. But I thought this was the completely wrong tone for a sequel. There was no reason why THE WICKER TREE couldn’t be as serious as its predecessor, without the broad stereotypes and the inside jokes and the winks to the audience. The only scenes I really liked were when the movie stopped playing around and got down and dirty. It’s almost like Hardy was trying to make a parody of his original movie at times, and I just don’t understand why.

(Another man jumps up. This one is holding out his arm upon which sits a raven)

LS: Oh no, it’s that annoying guy Beame from the movie! He’s always carrying around that raven and he’s always talking in rhymes.

BEAME: Ye’re right that Beame be’s my name, and that I stand here so. But bored of your review I very am, and I suggest you go!

LS: Get bent! We’re finishing this.

JO: Yeah! Give us a chance, won’t you.

BEAME: I shall hold my tongue for a minute more. But then I’ll be compelled to show you the door.

LS: Sit down, you village idiot!

(BEAME sits down)

LS: Where was I?

Oh yes. THE WICKER MAN is a genuine classic, and that’s mainly because of its power to surprise you. There really aren’t any surprises in THE WICKER TREE. You know something bad is going to happen to these two bumpkins, and it’s just a matter of how. If Hardy wanted to be truly subversive, he would have given us a twist we didn’t see coming, and completely surprise us in a totally new way. I mean, he’s had 40 years to come up with something fresh!

JO: That makes sense, but I can also see where Hardy was coming from.  The big reveal was such an integral part of the original, and he probably figured audiences wouldn’t fall for it a second time, and tried for something completely different.  I’ve seen a lot of people angry at the tone of this one because they were expecting THE WICKER MAN again.  Perhaps if he’d stuck with the COWBOYS FOR CHRIST title, it would have gone off better.

COWBOYS FOR CHRIST was the original title of THE WICKER TREE.

LS: Maybe you’re right. But I think THE WICKER TREE was a missed opportunity. Robin Hardy had a chance to make a movie every bit as memorable as THE WICKER MAN, and instead he gave us something that was more of a light comedy in comparison. I was disappointed.

(FIRST MAN jumps up again)

MAN: What are ye wearing pants for! Here in bonny ol’ Scotland, men wear kilts! Get a kilt on ye, I say!

LS: We’re in the middle of a review here. Stop interrupting, please. Besides, I’m not interested in wearing one of those funny skirts.

MAN: A funny skirt? Ye call a kilt a “funny skirt?” HOW DARE you insult the official garb of the Scotsmen! Off with his head, I say!

(Rest of the audience begins arguing again)

JO: Please, please, let us finish. There is no reason to be rude.

MAN: Okay, I’ll let it go now, for your sake, lassie. But there is only so much a Scotsman can tolerate!

(MAN sits back down)

LS: Ahem.

I guess we should also mention that THE WICKER TREE is not really a sequel at all. It’s kind of a “reimagining,” since it involves completely different characters and a completely different outcome. It simply takes the basic premise of an unsuspecting “innocent” finding themselves among a group of pagans with a hidden agenda, and does a variation on that theme. And THE WICKER TREE is in no way even close to being the movie THE WICKER MAN was.

If anything, I found another recent British movie, KILL LIST, to be more in the spirit of the original WICKER MAN, in the way it sets up a story to shock us with a completely unexpected ending. And it plays it completely for chills. KILL LIST is a totally different movie, but it sets out to jar us in a way similar to the way THE WICKER MAN did, and THE WICKER TREE doesn’t even come close to doing that.

JO: Well, I really enjoyed THE WICKER TREE for what it was. I give it three bloody knives.

LS: I didn’t hate it, and it was a fun flick, but it wasn’t the movie I was hoping for when I heard they were making a sequel to THE WICKER MAN. I wish they’d gone the serious route. I wanted a good meal, and they gave me a snack. I give it two bloody knives.

(The crowd gathered before them claps. LS and JO bow.)

(MAN jumps up again)

MAN: Are ye finished, finally?

LS: Yeah, yeah, we’re finished.

MAN: Well, goodie for ye. Ye go around spouting on about bloody knives. Well then, we’ll very well give ‘em to ye!

(Everyone in the crowd is now holding either a knife or a hatchet. They proceed to chase LS and JO around the castle in fast motion, as the “Benny Hill” theme plays)

-THE END-

© Copyright 2012 by L.L. Soares and Jenny Orosel

L.L. Soares gives THE WICKER TREE ~ two bloody knives!

Jenny Orosel gives THE WICKER TREE ~three bloody knives.

Leave A Comment »

KILL LIST (2011)

Posted in 2012, Bad Situations, British Horror, Disturbing Cinema, Hit Men, Killers, LL Soares Reviews, Murder!, Surprises!, Twist Endings, VIOLENCE! with tags , , , , , , , on March 6, 2012 by knifefighter

KILL LIST (2011)
Movie Review by L.L. Soares

Sometimes you find a movie that you don’t know a lot about, and you go in fresh, and it completely blows you away.

This doesn’t happen very often. With this age of media oversaturation, it’s almost impossible not to see the trailer for a movie a hundred times before it opens—not to mention countless ads on television. But every once in a while a little independent film, usually showing in a limited-run at an arthouse theater, slips through the cracks. You hear the buzz about it, and without too much effort you can avoid finding out too much about the plot, and you can have a fresh experience. Like I said, this is rare. The last time I felt this way about a movie was back in 1999, when Takashi Miike’s AUDITION had a very limited theatrical run (the theater I saw it in had it for two days!). I’d heard it was supposed to be good, but I avoided any reviews of it, and was amazed and surprised by it.

Well, sitting through KILL LIST was a very similar experience. It is nothing like Miike’s film, but it has been getting some buzz in the independent horror movie scene, and I was able to avoid reading too much about it, which is good, because it’s one of those movies that throws a few curveballs at you in ways M. Night Shymalan only wishes he could do. (Note: KILL LIST was made in 2011, but some people are only seeing it in the U.S. now, thanks to limited theatrical runs and services like OnDemand cable.Personally, I’m glad I got a chance to see it on the big screen.)

When it started, I thought maybe this one wasn’t going to live up to its buzz. It seemed like just another drama about British working people enduring hard times. Jay (Neil Maskell) has been out of work for months and his wife, Shel (MyAnna Buring) is getting more resentful with each passing day. Enter Jay’s buddy Gal (Michael Smiley) who comes over for dinner with his new girlfriend, Fiona (Emma Fryer) for some wine and chat, but the party turns ugly when Jay and Shel start screaming at each other in the other room. Meanwhile, their young son Sam (Harry Simpson) is taking the brunt of it all.

But things change when Gal offers Jay a chance to get his old job back. The two of them are veterans of the Iraq War and here’s where the first big story twist happens. It turns out that the two of them started freelancing as hired killers after the war ended. Jay has been out of work for a bit because of some mysterious mistake he made in Kiev (we never find out exactly what it was, but it must have been a doosy). But Jay gets a second chance and Gal seems genuinely happy to work with him again, “The Two Musketeers are back together,” as Gal puts it. They accept a job from an enigmatic man (Struan Rodger, who in the credits is simply referred to as “The Client”), who hands them money and a list of three people to kill, including a priest and a librarian. However, to seal the deal, the Client feels the need to take out a knife and make a deep cut in Jay’s hand, then proceeds to do the same to himself. Gal freaks out and pulls out his gun, but Jay seems able to overlook it and move on, even though he’s bleeding all over the carpet. Maybe he’s just happy to be working again and doesn’t want to blow it.

The people Jay and Gal are sent to whack are particularly unsavory types whose crimes shock and offend Jay, and he begins to take the job a little too personally, going after their accomplices as well. Gal starts to worry Jay is going to screw up again, and begins to seriously question the new partnership. Meanwhile Swedish beauty Shel decides to take their son and move out of the house to stay in a cabin they have in the country, leaving Jay alone to stew in his own rage.

It’s the final person Jay and Gal go to snuff that takes the movie in a completely unexpected direction. And about this twist I won’t say anything more, except that it reminded me a lot of two horror “classics,” one from the 1970s and the other much more recent. Needless to say, the ending is suitably disturbing.

The script is top-notch and the acting is equally good. You believe these characters are genuine people, and you care about them. I thought the camaraderie between Jay and Gal was especially good; these guys really do seem like best friends. The budget is clearly small, but director Ben Wheatley turns out a remarkable product all the same. Oh yeah, and there’s plenty of the red stuff for fans of gore. This is a movie that doesn’t look away when the rough stuff is happening. One scene involving a hammer is especially gruesome.

My only issue is that I couldn’t understand everything the characters said. In a few scenes, their Yorkshire accents get a bit thick, and I kind of wish the movie had given us some subtitles (which reminds me of another good but sometimes hard to understand movie, Gary Oldman’s NIL BY MOUTH, 1997). Don’t let this scare you off, though. You’ll get sucked in just the same and it’s pretty clear what’s happening at all times. You just might not catch a phrase here and there.

I’ve seen a few Hollywood movies lately where at the end, the audience feels the need to applaud. Most of the time, this is totally unwarranted (most Hollywood movies these days just aren’t that good). Besides, the people involved in making the movie can’t hear you anyway. But at the end of KILL LIST I wanted to applaud anyway. It was that good.

I can’t praise this one enough. I give it four and a half knives.

© Copyright 2012 by L.L. Soares

L.L. Soares gives KILL LIST ~ four and a half knives!

 

1 Comment »

« Older Entries
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 80 other followers