Archive for jack ketchum

Cinema Knife Fight Presents: THE BEST MOVIES OF 2011

Posted in 2011, Aliens, Best Of Lists, Cinema Knife Fights, LL Soares Reviews, Michael Arruda Reviews, Mutants!, Remakes with tags , , , , , , , , , on January 2, 2012 by knifefighter

CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT:  THE BEST OF 2011
By MICHAEL ARRUDA & L.L. SOARES

(THE SCENE:  A majestic movie theater, elegantly decorated, with an audience decked out in black tie tuxes and top designer gowns, a group fit for the Academy Awards. The camera pans through the audience to reveal select guests, and we see a large contingent of superheroes, including Captain America, Thor, Green Lantern, young Charles Xavier, Magneto, and other X-Men, all chatting with Samuel L. Jackson; a group of raucous apes led by a super intelligent chimpanzee who keeps throwing bananas at everyone; cowboys and aliens; medieval witch hunters, assassins and hired killers, one in particular who keeps racing a car up and down the aisles; Caribbean pirates led by a drunken Jack Sparrow; a group of kids filming everything with a Super 8 camera; vampires, lots of vampires, including two who can’t keep their hands off each other, even with a shirtless buff werewolf sitting behind them tossing popcorn at them; Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson, and Daniel Craig, sitting with a young Goth girl covered in tattoos to his right, and  fending off cowboys and aliens to his left, all the while trying to ignore his ghostly wife and kids sitting behind him.)

(On a stage in front of the movie screen, sit MICHAEL ARRUDA & L.L. SOARES.)

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  Welcome, everybody, to our CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT “BEST OF 2011” column, where we reveal our Top 5 Best Movies from 2011. As you can see, we’ve invited a lot of folks from these movies, and they’re all here anxiously waiting to see if their movie makes the final cut.

L.L. SOARES:  I wonder if they’ll still be here when we do our WORST OF 2011 column?  They won’t be so excited then!

MA:  No, they won’t. They’re certainly all invited back for that WORST OF column, which we’ll be bringing to you right after this one. Speaking of which, why don’t you start us off this year?  Here’s the envelope with your #5 pick. (Hands LS an envelope.)

LS:  What do I need this for?  I know what my picks are already!

MA:  I know, but it’s for dramatic purposes, for the audience here and at home.

LS:  Dramatic purposes?  How about this for some drama? (raises arms dramatically)  To be, or not to be?  Hmm. Not to be. (Hits MA over the head with a large mallet, knocking him to the ground.)  Okie-dokie, now that we’ve gotten the drama out of the way, here’s my #5 pick. (drum roll begins as LS tears open envelope).

And it’s THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO! Even though I had already seen the Swedish movie version of Stieg Larsson’s bestselling book, David Fincher did an excellent job with his remake. It’s rare that a remake gets raves from me, and even rarer that I would include one in my Top 5 list. But this one really worked for me, especially the fantastic performance by Rooney Mara as punk rock hacker Lisbeth Salander. Even though I pretty much knew the story going in (Fincher takes a few liberties with the ending), DRAGON TATTOO somehow seemed fresh and vibrantly alive, mostly when Mara is onscreen. The Swedish original was a really good movie. Fincher’s remake is just as good.

MA (getting back up and shaking off dizziness):  Give me a minute. I think I need to spit some teeth out.

I liked THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO also, but not quite as much as you did. It just missed my Top 10 List, and that’s because there were a lot of movies I liked this year. Had this been another year, THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO most likely would have made my BEST OF list, too.

Okay, before I reveal my pick for the 5th best movie of the year, a special announcement:  this just in!  (A colossal envelope swings from a wire across stage and crashes into LS, propelling him off stage and out of sight.)  Thank you, Godzilla, for that timely telegram.

My pick for the 5th Best Film of 2011 is one that, in all honesty, I’m embarrassed to admit I liked so much.

LS (from offstage):  It wouldn’t be the first time!

MA:  No, it wouldn’t, but you gotta be honest in this business, and however a film strikes you while watching it, you have to report on that, not what other people think. So, my #5 pick is the Amanda Seyfried movie, RED RIDING HOOD.

(The audience gasps).

I know, it’s not a popular choice. Most critics panned this one.

All I want to say about this one is that, in spite of how stupid some of the plot points were, this movie mesmerized me and really pulled me into its fantasy world of a village terrorized by a werewolf. Forget that it’s about Red Riding Hood, and you’ll find it’s a surprisingly entertaining werewolf tale. Sure, it’s directed by Catherine Hardwicke, who directed the first TWILIGHT movie (2008), but RED RIDING HOOD is much better than the TWILIGHT movies. It’s written by David Johnson, who also wrote ORPHAN (2009), another movie I really liked, and it also features Gary Oldman as an insanely driven werewolf hunter who  is so intent on killing werewolves, he wears silver fingernails.

But the best part of RED RIDING HOOD is the lead performance by Amanda Seyfried. I’ve seen Seyfried in several movies now, and she’s mesmerized me in all of them. By that I mean, I can’t stop looking at her, and I don’t mean that in a creepy way. I mean she has a presence that really rivets you to the screen.

(LS returns to the stage with a cannon.)

MA:  Errr, maybe we ought to call a truce until we finish this column. We might not survive to our #1 Picks.

LS:  Sure. Whatever. (Cannon goes off and propels a giant fireball across the stage.)

MA:  What the—?

LS:  Oops. It went off by accident. (Winks slyly at camera.)  Anyway, I have to admit, I haven’t seen RED RIDING HOOD, so I really can’t comment on it. The idea of a horror version of “Little Red Riding Hood” sounds kind of lame and cliché to me, but, like you, I’m a fan of Amanda Seyfried and Gary Oldman, so who knows? Maybe it’s as good as you claim it is. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt on this one.

MA:  My pick for the 4th best movie of 2011 is the assassin thriller KILLER ELITE starring Jason Statham, Clive Owen, and Robert DeNiro. This was a hard hitting action spy drama, full of espionage and exciting action sequences. I especially liked that you had two strong leads pitted against one another, Jason Statham vs. Clive Owen. It was like having two Jason Bournes going head to head in the same movie, and even though Statham got top billing, I actually enjoyed Owen’s performance more. Having DeNiro in the mix only added to the fun, and, combined with some really well done and intense fight scenes, KILLER ELITE thrilled me from start to finish. I loved it.

LS:  Zzzzzzzzzzz

MA: Wake up!

LS  (jumps up from his seat): Oh yeah, yeah. I’m awake. I’m awake!

It’s just that I found KILLER ELITE so boring that even your mentioning it right now put me to sleep. And I like Stratham, Owen and DeNiro—just not in this movie. I found the whole thing pretty tedious. There is no way it would make my Top 20, much less my Top 5.

MA:  I guess you’re just not that into espionage movies. I was really into the cloak and dagger stuff in this one, the secret organizations, and the multiple assassins all trying to kill each other, never sure who they can trust, even members of their own organizations.

LS:  Which brings me to my Number 4 pick for the Best of 2011 (pulls out envelope). By the way, you’re the one who insisted on these stupid envelopes. So why aren’t you using them for your picks?

MA: Last time I tried using one you hit me over the head with a mallet. I changed my mind, thank you very much!

LS: Good thinking. So after this one, I can forget about the envelopes.(Tears open envelope). My Number 4 choice is a tie: MELANCHOLIA and DRIVE.

In Lars von Trier’s MELANCHOLIA, Kirsten Dunst, in a terrific performance, plays a manic depressive who has an elaborate wedding day, only to fall into deep melancholia at the reception. Meanwhile, a new planet, called Melancholia, has suddenly appeared in our galaxy and is on a collision course with earth!! Charlotte Gainsbourg, as Dunst’s more grounded sister, suddenly finds she is just as helpless as her sister in the face of this new threat. With a great classical music score and beautiful – almost painterly – imagery.

In DRIVE, I thought Ryan Gosling was able to do an amazing acting job with as few words as possible, as a stoic getaway driver who wants to be a race car driver. Carey Mulligan is his love interest, whose husband has been doing some prison time. Great performances all around, in a kind of stark, existential film full of unspoken dread. Comedian Albert Brooks plays it straight here and turns in a spooky performance as a gangster who seems like a nice guy until he suddenly erupts with violence. Ron Perlman is his partner in crime.

Two movies that I really enjoyed this year. They both deserve to be seen by a wider audience.

MA:  I didn’t see MELANCHOLIA, so I can’t comment on it, but I did see DRIVE, and it made my list as well, so I’ll reserve comment on it until later.

Coming in at #3 on my list is COWBOYS AND ALIENS. Again, I think I liked this one more than a lot of other people did, but I really enjoyed the mix of a western movie adventure with the alien invasion story. It was all rather cool to me.

This one featured two superstars, Daniel Craig and Harrison Ford, but it was definitely Craig’s movie, as he’s the main character and delivers the more memorable performance. Ford is somewhat cast against type, as a grizzled old ranch owner who has little regard for the law, but who does soften eventually in time for audiences to like him a little bit more. Strangely, I liked him more at the beginning when he was a pain in the backside.

Directed by Jon Favreau, who directed the IRON MAN movies so far, COWBOYS AND ALIENS was nicely paced and featured fine special effects that included some neat aliens, alien ships and weaponry. While the look of all this alien stuff actually ran hot and cold throughout the movie, the end result was entertaining and satisfying. The film also featured a fine supporting cast, which included the likes of Sam Rockwell, Clancy Brown, and Keith Carradine, to name just a few.

LS: Don’t forget Olivia Wilde as Ella Swenson! WOWEE!

MA: While not perfect, COWBOYS AND ALIENS was one of my favorite summer movies, in a season where there were lots of good movies.

LS:  I liked COWBOYS AND ALIENS, and thought it should have been a bigger hit than it was. It was a clever idea, and you’re right about Craig being the best thing in this one. While I enjoyed it, it wasn’t a movie that I was gaga over. But I can see why you liked it so much. At least it tried to be original.

Now on to my Number 3 pick is Pedro Almodovar’s excellent plastic surgery horror film THE SKIN I LIVE IN. As the elaborate back story unravels, we learn the secrets of Dr. Robert Ledgard, played by Antonio Banderas, and his mysterious patient/prisoner Vera Cruz (Elena Anaya). I don’t want to go into too much detail about this one, since it’s chock-full of surprises that will astound you. But I thought this was one of Almodovar’s best films in years, and a great reunion of him and star Antonio Banderas (they last worked together on 1990’s TIE ME UP! TIE ME DOWN!).

MA: Now for my #2 pick. It’s DRIVE, the ultra-stylish thriller starring Ryan Gosling. Everything about this movie was efficient and slick, like a well-oiled engine. It was also extremely refreshing, as it didn’t play like a traditional action thriller at all. Kudos to director Nicolas Winding Refn, who turned in one of the more stylish mainstream movies of the year.

I liked Gosling’s quiet, understated performance, playing a character known only as The Driver, a man who makes his living driving getaway cars. I loved the chemistry he shared with Carey Mulligan, who plays his cute neighbor, a woman he falls in love with, and as a result tries to save when her ex-con husband returns home and lands the lot of them in deep trouble.

Albert Brooks also delivers a deliciously evil performance, cast against type as a cutthroat loan shark. His scenes are GOODFELLAS scary!

DRIVE was an action thriller that worked not because it had the most car crashes or the loudest explosions, but because it showed us the people involved in these situations up close. We were inside the cars with them, and we were taken for a ride that cut through all the action nonsense seen in too many action movies these days and went full throttle for the jugular, often-times spilling lots of blood along the way.

DRIVE is an intense thriller, not to be missed, certainly one of the best movies of the year.

LS:  I can’t disagree with you here, since it was Number 4 on my list. It was definitely one of the movies I enjoyed the most in 2011.

On to Number 2, I suppose. And my choice for the second best movie of 2011 is….(drum roll)….THE HUMAN CENTIPEDE II (FULL SEQUENCE)!

When Tom Six set out to make a sequel to his notorious midnight movie THE HUMAN CENTIPEDE (FIRST SEQUENCE) from 2009, he easily could have just started where the last one left off, as most directors would have done. But Six has a more sinister agenda this time around. Part 2 focuses on Martin (Lawrence R. Harvey), a grotesque little man who is also obsessed with the first movie, and desperately wants to create his own version of the Human Centipede. The problem is, unlike the first movie’s Dr. Heiter, Martin has absolutely no medical training and has to improvise when creating his own 12-person atrocity. With one of the bleakest endings of the year – which absolutely works – I thought this was one of the darkest and most original movies of 2011.

MA:  I didn’t see this one, and I have no intention of seeing it.

LS: Your loss.

MA: Okay. It’s the moment we’ve been waiting for. Time for us to make our picks for the Best Movie of 2011.

My pick for the Best Movie of 2011 was one I really had zero expectations for. It certainly wasn’t  one of the superhero movies I was looking forward to the most, but it turned out, not only to be the best superhero movie of the year, but my favorite among all the movies I saw in 2011. Yep, my pick for the Best Movie of 2011 is X-MEN:  FIRST CLASS.

This tale of how young Charles Xavier and Magneto first met and got the X-Men together entertained me from start to finish, and as far as how much fun I had watching a movie this year, nothing else came close.

I was impressed by the two leads, James McAvoy as Xavier and Michael Fassbender as Magneto. These guys easily made me forget about Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellen from the previous X-MEN movies. They also shared an onscreen chemistry that really drove this movie along. Additionally, Kevin Bacon lent his talents as a very effective villain, Sebastian Shaw.

Director Matthew Vaughn , who also directed KICK-ASS (2010), once again pushed all the right buttons and made yet another movie that basically kicks ass!  It also features a smart screenplay by Ashley Miller, Zack Stentz, Jane Goldman, and director Vaughn, and a hilarious cameo by Hugh Jackman as Wolverine.

X-MEN:  FIRST CLASS had the fewest flaws of all the superhero movies this year. I thought both CAPTAIN AMERICA and THOR had higher ambitions, but both fell short, while X-MEN: FIRST CLASS seemed to excel at everything it tried to do.

It also had a memorable music score by Henry Jackman, by far my favorite superhero score this year, and one of my favorite film scores of the year, period.

I even saw this one more than once on the big screen and it held up each time, proof that for me, no other movie comes close this year. Numero uno belongs to X-MEN : FIRST CLASS.

LS:  I went into this one with low expectations as well. After the disappointing third X-Men movie, X-MEN: THE LAST STAND (2006), I figured the franchise had run out of steam. But FIRST CLASS breathed new life into the X-movies. It made my Top 10, but not my Top 5.

And finally, my choice for the Number 1 movie of 2011 is a movie I saw at the Boston Underground Film Festival back in August. I didn’t even review it – John Harvey did. It’s called THE WOMAN, and it was directed by Lucky McKee from a script by McKee and horror fiction legend Jack Ketchum. Not only is this my favorite movie of the year, it’s my favorite Jack Ketchum movie so far, and there have been several. It’s kind of a sequel to Ketchum’s novels OFF SEASON and OFFSPRING (only the second one has been made into a movie previously), concerning a family of savage, barely human feral people. In THE WOMAN, there is just one survivor left from the killer clan (simply called “The Woman” in the film, she’s played by Pollyanna McIntosh, who gives an amazing performance here), and while living in the woods of Maine, she’s spotted by Chris Cleek (played by Sean Bridgers, who has been in everything from the HBO series DEADWOOD to the new FX series JUSTIFIED). He captures her and brings her back home for his family to see, and keeps her tied up in a root cellar, where he does awful things to her. The big question here is, who is the bigger monster? The feral woman who has no concept of what it is like to be civilized, or the sadist who puts on a normal face to the outside world, and terrorizes his family and THE WOMAN relentlessly? With an ending that contained a few big shocks – something you rarely see anymore in current horror films–this one was a controversial pick at this year’s Sundance Film Festival, and when I saw it, it definitely lived up to its reputation as a powerful, disturbing little film.

MA:  Yeah, I’d say that it sounds a wee bitdisturbing, and since it’s written by Jack Ketchum, what else would you expect?

LS: I just hope it gets a normal theatrical release, so everyone else can enjoy this harrowing gem as much as I did.

MA: So, that wraps things up for us here. We’ll see you next time for our WORST OF 2011 column.

LS (points to movie celebrities in the audience):  Don’t you folks go away!  We’re not finished with you yet!

MA:  That’s right. The WORST is yet to come!

—END—

© Copyright 2011 by Michael Arruda and L.L. Soares

Leave A Comment »

CKF ON THE EDGE: THE WOMAN

Posted in 2011, Extreme Movies, John Harvey Reviews, VIOLENCE! with tags , , , , , , , , , on March 31, 2011 by knifefighter

CKF ON THE EDGE
THE WOMAN Is Not for the Faint of Heart
Movie review by John Harvey

THE WOMAN is an extremely disturbing, emotionally-draining film that you should not recommend to friends lightly, or without a great deal of preparation. Even if a particular friend boasts casual ease at viewing franchise extreme horror (think SAW and HOSTEL), you still need to explain to them “Oh no … this is something else entirely.”

On that note, though you probably have not seen THE WOMAN, you might be familiar with the controversy surrounding the film’s premiere at this year’s Sundance Film Festival. In a nutshell, at the tail end of the showing, a man in the audience was so entirely offended by the film’s subject matter that he went a bit nuts and had to be escorted out of the theater. You can see the videos (which went spectacularly viral) here

and here

.

Aside from handing the film a massive amount of free publicity, it’s also obvious that this man didn’t get the film at all. THE WOMAN, written by Jack Ketchum and Lucky McKee (who also directed), tells the story about a brutal, sadistic psychopath of the most terrifying sort (one who blends into our society) and the women he abuses and oppresses at home. Outwardly, Chris Cleek (Sean Bridgers) is a successful and well-liked elder care and estate lawyer in northern New England, but it becomes clear pretty early on that he’s not wired like your average upper-middle class husband and father.

Cleek goes hunting near his home one day and encounters a feral Woman (Pollyanna McIntosh in an amazing and savage performance) washing herself in the river.  He’s aroused in all the wrong ways, and quickly forms a plan. Once back home, he “remodels” the root cellar near his barn and cheerily tells his family he’s got a surprise for them. His family also gives off a strong whiff of being completely broken, but hiding it for appearance’s sake. The wife, Belle (Angela Bettis who also starred in McKee’s MAY (2002)), and daughter Peggy (Lauren Ashley Carter) exist essentially as cowed and helpless prisoners. Both actresses give great performances. I’m not sure if this is a compliment, but nobody gives you twitchy and train wrecked like Bettis. Cleek’s son, Brian (Zach Rand), on the other hand is … well … definitely his father’s son.

Once Chris and his family complete modifying the root cellar, Cleek pulls the cover back on his surprise: he traps the feral Woman and manacles her in the basement. Why? The family has a new project. They’re going to “fix her.” Of course, Chris Cleek’s concept of “fixing” has little to do with rehabilitation in any rational sense.

At this turn of events, the film begins to pick up a tone that verges on the absurd. Though not in a winking-at-the-audience, pandering sense. Ultimately, this movie frames the real horror of abuse by magnifying the scale and outcomes by a factor of a thousand. Though, one could point to multiple news stories about men who’ve trapped women and kept them locked up for weeks, months, or even years of torture, and argue that perhaps it isn’t absurd so much as it’s that rare horror movie that actually portrays abuse as stomach-turning and emotionally sickening. As opposed to most franchise extreme horror, where elaborate violence has become light entertainment.

And this is the point in the film where McKee really starts to gradually ratchet up the tension and discomfort levels. And though Chris Cleek is already revealed as a monster and a sociopath, McKee continues to show more and more about his (and his son’s) depravity to the point where it becomes oppressive. Also, it becomes obvious to the more thoughtful viewer that McKee and Ketchum have a feminist streak a mile wide. Though men in the film do horrible things to the women almost continuously, it’s not done with the titillating (and in some cases, just plain dirty) sensibility of the old sexploitation films of the 1970s. Rather, McKee and Ketchum exponentially exaggerate the disparity of power between men and women in this movie, and therefore the crime and horror that sources from that disparity.

The amazing thing is that throughout most of the film, there’s very little gore and flying buckets of blood. Now, be forewarned that this changes drastically in the film’s last half hour. But up until that point, McKee and Ketchum manage to disturb on the most profound level without resorting to the gross-out shots. This may sound odd with regards to a movie that is so profoundly brutal, but it’s an elegant way to make a horror film. Another elegant touch is that the movie manages, in a few strategically-placed scenes, to be distressingly funny. Distressing because, in most films, humor is used to diffuse tension, while in THE WOMAN the humor makes the film that much darker.

It should be noted that if you see THE WOMAN, you may come under the impression that you’ve missed some plot points. The fact is that THE WOMAN is a sequel to OFFSPRING (2009), a film that was also based on Jack Ketchum’s book of the same name. If you haven’t seen or read OFFSPRING, then you won’t have any problems following THE WOMAN, but there’s a few scenes in THE WOMAN that make a little more sense if you’re aware of the story that preceded it.

THE WOMAN is a film that will polarize both reviewers and rank-and-file audience members alike. I’d argue that THE WOMAN is not suitable for wide, general audiences. The fact is that most moviegoers don’t want to be profoundly disturbed and uncomfortable when they leave the cinema. They want to be entertained. And this is why McKee is the first person to admit that he’s got no future in commercial films with major studios. But if you are the sort of person who likes their horror films to adhere to the literal definition of the word “horror,” then THE WOMAN was made for you.

– END –

© Copyright 2011 by John D. Harvey

2 Comments »

Jack Ketchum’s THE GIRL NEXT DOOR

Posted in 2008, Cinema Knife Fights, Extreme Movies, Horror DVDs with tags , , , , , , , , on December 4, 2009 by knifefighter

CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT (DVD EDITION): JACK KETCHUM’S THE GIRL NEXT DOOR
By Michael Arruda and L. L. Soares

(The scene is a dark basement. L. L. SOARES sits on a chair, surrounded by a bunch of shouting children. He is wearing a flowered dress and lights a cigarette. Meanwhile MICHAEL ARRUDA is in front of them, hanging from the ceiling by ropes that are around his wrists. As viewed from behind, he is naked. His buns are perfect.)

MA: Obvious stunt double.

MA (suddenly clothed and untied):  You know, after watching JACK KETCHUM’S THE GIRL NEXT DOOR, I’m not in the mood for parody. What do you say we just get on with the review and do this seriously for once?

LS:  I figured you’d wimp out on this one. Okay, kids, you’re all fired.

(Children booing and groaning as they exit.)

LS (still wearing dress, takes a drag from cigarette):  Not to be confused with other movies titled THE GIRL NEXT DOOR (there are a few of them), JACK KETCHUM’S version isn’t a comedy or a documentary. Instead, it is the adaptation of writer Jack Ketchum’s 1981 novel of the same name, which I believe is one of the most powerful, disturbing horror novels ever written.

This is one of those books where you think “There is no way anyone can turn this into a movie.” But somehow, it’s been done. Daniel Farrands and Phil Nutman have crafted a fine screenplay, which is very faithful to the book, and director Gregory Wilson has done a fine job bringing it to the screen . I have to say, I was quite impressed with how well this movie turned out.

The story, for those of you out there who never read the novel, concerns David Moran (Daniel Manche), a normal kid growing up in a typical small town in 1950s America. Next door to his house is where Ruth Chandler (Blanche Baker) and her kids live. Ruth is the kind of mother all the boys in the neighborhood like. She hands out beers like other moms hand out soda pop, she swears like a sailor, and she tells great stories. But the Chandler household gets some new additions when Ruth’s nieces Meg (Blythe Auffarth, in an amazingly courageous performance) and Suzie (Madeline Taylor) Loughlin show up – after their parents are killed in a car crash. In fact, poor Suzie has braces on her legs from the same accident and can barely get around.

Right from the start, it seems that Ruth has a problem with these new additions to her family. Her own kids are all boys, and she treats the girls as intruders. She takes most of her anger out on Meg, the older of the girls, and finds lots of excuses to “punish” her when the girl rebels against her tyranny. It begins with Meg being not allowed to eat for days because she’s “getting fat” and then degenerates as her “punishments” get more and more brutal.

The disturbing part of the story – which is based on a true incident – is that Ruth involves her own children in the punishments of these two girls, and other neighborhood kids as well. And things get more and more vicious as time goes on. Remember how cruel other kids could be when you were growing up? Well, Ruth channels this cruelty into the most bestial behavior possible as she gives the kids free reign to do whatever horrible things they want to poor Meg.

David, who has feelings for Meg, has to stand back and watch as things get worse. This is the 1950s after all, and people were supposed to mind their own business, and you didn’t get involved in the domestic problems of others. But David feels more and more guilty in the face of the helplessness he feels, and his inability to save Meg.

I have to admit I read Ketchum’s novel in two days over a summer weekend. I couldn’t put the book down, but at the same time it was very disturbing to read. Ketchum does a great job of bringing all of this to sinister life, but, like David, you feel like an accomplice the more you read. Which is why it’s such a powerful novel.

While the film does a good job of bringing the book to the screen and certainly has its rough moments, I don’t think it ever reaches the level of tension that permeates the book. The book just ratchets up the trauma more and more, and Ketchum’s writing really makes you feel bad as you keep reading. The movie seemed safer, for some reason, even though it has just as much brutality.

Both the novel and the movie are not for everyone. If this subject matter upsets you, you are not going to feel very good when the movie is over. This is intense stuff, and the reason it works is because it is simply unrelenting.

The fact that is it not for everyone makes it even more impressive that this movie ever got made. Somehow it even got an R rating! Although it is going straight to DVD (after being shown at some festivals and conventions), I think it’s easily the best “straight to DVD” movie I’ve seen in a very long time.

MA:  Well, I’m going to surprise you and admit that I liked THE GIRL NEXT DOOR. You are absolutely right. This movie is not for everyone, and it is unrelenting and extremely disturbing. I was uncomfortable throughout, so if that’s the point of the story, then the filmmakers succeeded.

This is a movie that did not look cheap at all. It looks like a mainstream film, from the sets and costumes, to the 1950s cars, to the acting performances; THE GIRL NEXT DOOR is high quality stuff.

The acting was very good. I thought three performances stood out. You already mentioned Blythe Auffarth as Meg, and you’re right to credit her with a courageous performance. But I also enjoyed young Daniel Manche just as much. He is an important character in that he’s the person we in the audience most identify with. We’re right there with him watching the horrible things done to Meg, and we’re there thinking this is horrible, yet we’re also there with him watching, and for those of us who make it to the end credits, we watch with David till the end. The third tremendous performance in the film is Blanche Baker as Ruth Chandler. Hands down, she’s got to be the creepiest, nastiest character seen on screen is some time, and thanks to the writing of Jack Ketchum, she’s not a one-dimensional villain. For everything she does, if you listen to the things she says in the movie, you know exactly what it is that is motivating her to do these horrible things, and it all comes down to things that have happened to her in her own life. It’s deep stuff for a movie, which is another reason why it succeeds.

LS: You’re totally right about the performances. Blythe Auffarth, as Meg, shines the most for me because she’s the one who has to undergo all this harrowing stuff, and she does so bravely and realistically. Not once was I not on Meg’s side – like Danny I wanted to protect her and save her from it all, which is crucial to making this story work. But you’re right about Daniel Manche – he’s a very sympathetic character and does not once seem to be going along with the cruelty of the other kids. Right from the start we know he’s different – but I do wonder why he hung around with these other kids in the first place – and why they didn’t turn on him sooner. He’s clearly more mature and sensitive than they are, and you’d think they’d ostracize him for that – or at least exclude him from their “fun” as things get more and more brutal. But everything Manche does as Danny is in character and you root for him.

Blanche Baker as Ruth gives a great performance, too. It’s a showy role, and she handles it well – giving us just the right level of viciousness without spilling over into caricature. These three characters are the heart of the film (and the book as well) and the actors do a great job. Without good actors in these roles, the film would fall apart. But instead, it has all the more impact because they’re all so believable.

MA: Another thing I liked about this movie is that in spite of its harsh, unsettling subject matter, it’s not exploitative. You’re watching this film, full of horrid images and cruelty which goes beyond entertainment, and yet never do you feel like you’re watching something pornographic. It’s not titillating. It’s sad. I wouldn’t say the subject matter is kept tasteful, because the subject matter itself is simply too disturbing for that word, but screenwriters  Daniel Farrands and Phil Nutman have prevented it from being tasteless by refusing to give in to any sense that what is going on is fun. You watch what these children are doing to Meg and even if you allow yourself to enter into their mindset and have fun at her expense, you are hit smack in the face like Meg time and time again by Farrands and Nutman to feel what Meg is feeling, and what young David is feeling, and ultimately you are just as pained as they are. You are not allowed to feel good. Farrands and Nutman should be commended for their efforts.

LS: I agree. The movie does not seem exploitative at all. It seems as if you’re watching real people’s story unfold and it’s as “tasteful” as it possibly can be, considering the subject matter.

MA: Now I’m going to put you on the spot. I want to go back to the source material, the novel by Jack Ketchum. You said Ketchum’s THE GIRL NEXT DOOR is one of the most powerful, disturbing horror novels ever written. I’ve heard many readers say the same thing. My question is, why?  I haven’t read THE GIRL NEXT DOOR, but I have read other works by Ketchum. I agree he’s a terrific writer, but what he writes about isn’t what I like to read about, in terms of horror anyway. As you know, I read horror more for fun than to be scared, and Ketchum’s novels aren’t exactly escapism. Mind you, this doesn’t take away from their quality, which brings me to my question.

Why do you feel that THE GIRL NEXT DOOR is such a powerful horror novel, as opposed to simply a powerful novel?  I’m not asking because I disagree with you, but because I want to understand. See, I don’t quite get it. A story like THE GIRL NEXT DOOR is powerful, yes, disturbing, yes, but why do I want to read a novel or watch a movie about horrible painful things being done to an innocent person?  What’s the point?  And why would a work such as this be considered a powerhouse horror novel compared to say an extremely literate and well-written tale about werewolves?  See, because I’m going to read the book about werewolves over the book about the crazy lady down the street who tortures young girls. Though to be honest if it’s a book about one werewolf gang fighting another, and then taking on a gang of vampires, I’d probably read about the crazy lady.

LS:  First off, I consider THE GIRL NEXT DOOR to be both a powerful novel and a powerful horror novel. It transcends any genre boundaries. But it is one of the best works the horror genre has to offer, so we should rightly claim it as our own.

As for why would anyone want to read such a thing? Well, it all comes down to your basic philosophy of what horror should do. I think you and I are a good combination for these reviews because we stand for totally different philosophies. You, for good or bad, think horror should be safe and entertaining. Vampires, werewolves, the like. You like stories that give us very clear lines of good and evil, and you like to leave the theater (or finish the book) knowing that good has triumphed. There’s nothing wrong with this, but personally I want something more. If you already know that it’s safe and that good will win, then why read it? If you’re going for a rollercoaster ride, then I can enjoy that too, but in the end, I don’t find it very satisfying.

MA:  Pardon the interruption, but your interpretation of my view on horror isn’t quite accurate.  To define my view as safe, where there are clear lines of good and evil, and where good triumphs, is wrong.  I liked THE GIRL NEXT DOOR, don’t forget.  I just don’t think it’s horror.  It’s drama.  To me, safe implies watered down horror, and I don’t think films like THE EXORCIST (1973) or David Cronenberg’s THE FLY (1986) are safe, yet I liked those movies and consider them horror movies.  When I watched THE GIRL NEXT DOOR, it reminded me, at least in terms of the disturbing emotions, of the old David Lynch film, BLUE VELVET (1986), a great movie, but not horror.

I guess we’re arguing semantics, which might be pointless.  It’s just that we review horror movies, and I wouldn’t think to include THE GIRL NEXT DOOR on that list.

LS:  If THE GIRL NEXT DOOR is just a simple drama, then why did you have such a strong reaction to it? Why did you have trouble making it to the end of a movie which deals with very HORRIFIC incidents? You don’t need a monster popping up to feel horrified, and this movie proves it.

It’s funny, first you say you enjoy horror for fun and escapism, then you say I’m wrong when I call you on it.

For me, the best books and movies are those that have truly affected me. Whether it’s the gritty violence of movies like the original THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE or a book like THE GIRL NEXT DOOR. I don’t think horror should ever be safe, and I think that reducing it to an amusement park ride is to sell the genre short. Horror is all about emotion, and the potential is there to make it one of the most powerful mirrors on the human condition. The subject matter horror deals in – death and violence in particular – are things that affect us all, and we all have to deal with.

While I can appreciate films that offer us an escape from everyday life, I don’t necessarily want every horror movie I see to fit that category. It’s like food. If you eat nothing but candy bars, you’re going to feel a little nauseous after awhile. I like to take a break from the sweets once in awhile and have a steak. Something that will move beyond the scares and give me some real insight into what it is to be human. The good and the very, very ugly. Because there is plenty of ugliness out there.

Horror at its best faces these things head on – but the most important works in the genre are those that don’t feel the need to sugar-coat anything or give us a safety net. I want to finish a book or see a movie that has a strong emotional effect on me. And that doesn’t happen very often.

Anyone can just make a movie or a film that shocks or disturbs you, and for every Jack Ketchum there are plenty of imitators who focus on the shock rather than the emotion behind it. Something like THE GIRL NEXT DOOR takes it to the next level, to the literary level, which is why it is such an important book in the horror genre.

MA:  I understand what you’re saying, but still if someone were to say to me they wanted to see a really good horror movie, I wouldn’t recommend THE GIRL NEXT DOOR. I’d suggest 30 DAYS OF NIGHT, for example, or even THE MIST, if they’re looking for recent horror. Now, if someone asked about a movie that depicts pain in a realistic, unsettling way, hey, go check out THE GIRL NEXT DOOR. But horror?  Again, I ask you, why does THE GIRL NEXT DOOR get included in the horror family?

LS:  I’ve had this discussion with a lot of people over the years and it once again goes back to personal philosophy. Some people believe that something is horror only if it focuses on supernatural horror. Things that are out of the ordinary, from beyond our scope of experience. But I don’t agree with that at all. I think that what humans do to each other is far more horrific than anything a monster could do. And I think that by exposing this, something like THE GIRL NEXT DOOR is as true to horror’s intention as it can be. Also, if we take the old Douglas Winter quote to heart, that “horror is an emotion,” then we should have an emotional response to it. And I don’t really have any kind of emotional response to something like 30 DAYS OF NIGHT, no matter how much I enjoyed watching it.

MA:  I thought the emotion of being frightened was pretty cool.

LS: Well, I guess 30 DAYS OF NIGHT didn’t especially frighten me.

Meanwhile, THE GIRL NEXT DOOR has an emotional punch, and thus it is true to Winter’s quote. And that’s why I feel it’s as pure an example of “horror” as you can get.

Would I recommend it to anyone who likes horror movies? No. Clearly some people would not be able to handle it, or would be deeply upset by it. This isn’t popcorn and gummy bears. But for those who can handle it, and who are able to take something away from it, then you can do a lot worse.

MA:  Eloquently stated, but ultimately a little too deep for me.  I also found it cool that we both know Jack Ketchum and Phil Nutman. That’s kind of fun. I also want to assure our readers that the fact that we know these guys didn’t affect our opinions. If I’d hated THE GIRL NEXT DOOR, I would have said so, and to be honest, knowing the subject matter beforehand, I thought I was going to hate it, but I didn’t. I’ll probably never watch it again in my life, but that doesn’t take away from the fact that it’s a good movie.

LS: I think the book takes a very repulsive story (based on reality, no less) and makes it literature. I also feel that Nutman and Farrands take a very difficult novel and do it justice on film. In lesser hands it could have been a depressing, exploitative travesty. And that’s not the case at all here. The movie is faithful and in the truest sense it’s an “adult” film.

(LS finishes his cigarette and crushes out the butt. A tendril of smoke rises as the scene fades to black)

-END-

(Originally published on Fear Zone on 1/11/08)

© Copyright 2008 by Michael Arruda and L.L. Soares

Leave A Comment »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 89 other followers