Archive for movie

« Older Entries

BAD BIOLOGY!

Posted in 2010, Campy Movies, Cinema Knife Fights, Horror DVDs, LL Soares Reviews, Low Budget Movies, Weird Movies with tags , , , , , , , , , , on March 15, 2010 by knifefighter

CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT: BAD BIOLOGY
by L.L. Soares

FADE IN

(The scene is a birthday party. L.L. SOARES is dressed like a creepy clown, waiting to perform.)

MAN: It’s time for you to go on.

LS: I’m waiting for my partner. It’s a two-clown act.

MAN: I don’t care if a hundred of you squeeze into a car. It’s time to go on.

LS: Okay (Looks at watch). I don’t believe I’ve gotta do this one alone.

(LS leaves the dark hallway and enters a brightly lit room. His audience is not children, but a bunch of deformed, freakish monsters, wearing paper birthday hats.)

(FREAKS cheer as he enters)

LS: Oh well, I guess I’ll be doing this one solo. Today’s movie is a little number called BAD BIOLOGY. Directed by Frank Henenlotter, the guy who gave us the low-budget horror classic, BASKET CASE.

(FREAKS cheer again!)

LS: This one is kind of hard to describe.

FREAK IN THE BACK: Describe it, already!

All FREAKS (in unison): DESCRIBE IT!

LS:  BAD BIOLOGY is kind of a love story about two people who have strange, mutant genitals.

FREAKS: MUTANTS! YAY!

LS: It starts out with this girl, Jennifer (Charlee Danielson) who is always sexually frustrated. She just can’t seem to find a man who can satisfy her. Maybe it’s because she has seven clitorises and often ends up killing the men she sleeps with, in the throes of passion. No one can keep up with her, and she’s eternally sad about this. And she almost always gets pregnant after sex, has accelerated births (which last minutes instead of months) and gives birth to strange, half-formed mutants which she abandons.

FREAKS: MUTANT BABIES! YAY!

LS: You know, I should probably mention here that I wrote a story a few years ago (so far unpublished) about a woman who gives spontaneous birth to mutant babies after sex. I’m not bringing this up to say there’s any connection – but rather to ask any writers out there, has this ever happened to you? You come up with what you think is a totally original idea, and then you read a story or see a movie where someone else has the same idea? I hate when that happens!

But I still enjoyed this movie.

FREAKS: GET BACK TO THE REVIEW!

LS:  Meanwhile, this loner guy named Batz (Anthony Sneed) is constantly buying all kinds of weird drugs from a dealer. But they’re not for him, per se, they are for his mutant penis. He is constantly injecting needles into himself down there and trying to tame the beast that is attached to him.

Jennifer is also a kind of artsy fashion photographer. She’s always doing weird photo spreads like one where the models wear masks that look like vaginas! Her magazine editor boss yells at her and says he can’t use any of her photos (“I said edgy, but this is so over the line”). All she seems to think about is sex.

When her assistant (Tom Kohut), finds a weird old yellow house, he suggests it would be the perfect place for Jennifer’s next photo shoot.  He offers Batz a hundred dollars (“I could really use five”) to use his house for a day. When Jennifer and her models come over, Batz stays hidden for the most part, until one of the models finds him peeking at her when she’s changing.

Jennifer is intrigued by this weirdo and explores the house. She finds Batz’s bedroom upstairs with tons of empty medication bottles, and steals his keys. Later, she goes back to his house to spy on him.

During her spying, she finds out that Batz has a monstrous penis with a mind of its own. When he has sex with a prostitute (Jennifer watches from a closet), the woman goes into orgasmic convulsions for hours, and Batz eventually carries the woman out to an alley and leaves her there. Jennifer decides this is the man who can finally meet her needs.

FREAKS: YAY! HER NEEDS ARE MET!

LS: Well, it’s a lot more complicated than that. But the movie has a twist ending that had me laughing out loud. Before she gets her chance to find out, though, there are some crazy scenes where Batz’s penis is able to detach itself from him and go on the prowl. These scenes are pretty wacky, and almost always involve some hot-looking girl reading on a couch, or about to take a bath, when the killer penis emerges from the floor, crashing through the floorboards, to have its way with these girls. I’d say they are rape scenes, but not really. The girls are horrified at first, but seem to have a good time when the monster does its thing.

All in all, BAD BIOLOGY is one extremely weird movie, and it’s not going to appeal to everyone.

FREAKS: WE WANNA SEE IT!

LS: For those who aren’t familiar with Henenlotter, he’s a one-of-a-kind director. His first film, BASKET CASE (1982) was about Duane Bradley (Kevin Van Hentenryck), who had a conjoined twin named Belial growing out of his stomach. When doctors separate them – against their will – somehow the deformed brother survives, and the normal one carries him around in a wicker basket!  The monster one wants to get revenge on the doctors who separated them. This little doozy spawned two sequels, BASKET CASE 2 (1990) and BASKET CASE 3: THE PROGENY (1992). All three were directed by Henenlotter, and all are pretty deranged.

(A lumpy looking creature in the corner raises his hand)

BELIAL: I’m here!

LS: Some of his other great films include BRAIN DAMAGE (1988), about a guy who has a symbiotic relationship with a worm-like alien parasite who talks to him, named Aylmer.

(A worm-like creature on someone’s shoulder wriggles)

AYLMER: I am here as well!

LS: And, of course, there’s FRANKENHOOKER (1990), about a scientist who stitches together body parts from hookers to create the girl of his dreams.

(A woman whose skin looks like a quilt stitched together stands up)

FRANKENHOOKER: I’m here, too!

LS:  Nice to see so many celebrities in the audience! All of Henenlotter’s movies are entertaining mixtures of horror and comedy, and they’re strange as hell.  He almost always has a miniscule budget to work with, but he does the best with what he has, and if you can get past the often  laughable special effects (which, no matter how crude, are at least original), you’re going to enjoy his work.

This one was kind of a big deal, because Henenlotter hasn’t directed a new movie since BASKET CASE 3 (1992), so there were a lot of fans waiting for this one, including me. I don’t know if it was worth an 18-year wait, but I did enjoy it. And it shows that Henenlotter certainly hasn’t mellowed with time. This one’s just as insane as his other films.

FREAKS: YAY!

LS: Henenlotter is also something of a historian when it comes to exploitation cinema (you might also know these kinds of movies as “grindhouse” flicks) , and he has done a lot of work with SOMETHING WEIRD VIDEO, a company that has been putting out strange and obscure movies on video (and now DVD) for a long time now. Henenlotter is kind of hero in the cult film community, because he has helped save so many films that would have been lost to obscurity.

But it was about time he returned to directing. While this film was made in 2008, it has only played in film festivals until now, and it only recently got released on DVD (and it’s, thankfully, unrated).  People who are into weird flicks should check this one out!

(LS goes over to a television and turns it on. MICHAEL ARRUDA pops up on the screen)

LS: There you are!

MA: You seem to be doing just fine without me. But, seriously, can’t you come up with anything negative to say about this movie?

LS: Well, the acting isn’t always top-notch. For example, there are scenes where lead actress Charlee Danielson seems kinda stiff, and she’s one of the better actors in this film. And she does some narration early on that sounds like it’s read in a monotone. She’s sexy though, and has real screen presence when she relaxes. It looks like Henenlotter likes to use amateur actors a lot. But, if anything, this contributes to the film’s camp value.

And of course, there’s the low budget. The monster penis certainly doesn’t look very realistic. It looks kind of like a big, veiny puppet.

MA: Something tells me, based on your description of the movie, they weren’t going for realism here.  Well, I’m glad I didn’t see it.

LS: (Shuts off the television) Oh go away! I forgot that you abandoned me here, you creep.

(FREAKS cheer!)

LS: Well, that’s it for me. I hope you enjoyed my little review.

FREAK IN THE BACK: Yeah, your review was okay, but you were hired to entertain us. Do some juggling! Do a magic act.

LS: I’m sorry to disappoint you fine creatures, but I don’t juggle. And I don’t do magic. Michael’s the one who handles those things.

FREAKS (in unison): BOOOOOOO!

FREAK IN THE BACK: Well, then it looks like we’re going to have to play “Smash the Piñata.” With you as the piñata!

FREAKS: YAY!

LS (Looks at watch): Well, it looks like my time is up. Gotta go. (He kicks off his giant clown shoes)

(The FREAKS chase him out of the house and across the lawn. A clown car pulls up, with 100 clowns squeezed together inside, and LS jumps in.  The car pulls away)

LS (Stick his head out the window as the car drives away): I hope you enjoyed this new Cinema Knife Fight.

(FREAKS throw rocks and bottles)

FADE TO BLACK as car horn plays calliope music.

© Copyright 2010 by  L.L. Soares

1 Comment »

SEED OF CHUCKY!

Posted in 2004, Cinema Knife Fights, Evil Kids!, Sequels, Slasher Movies with tags , , , , , on March 10, 2010 by knifefighter

CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT: SEED OF CHUCKY (2004)
by Michael Arruda & L.L. Soares

(A man dressed like Santa sneaks into a dimly lit room and puts two ugly stuffed dolls under a Christmas tree. The dolls resemble L.L. SOARES & MICHAEL ARRUDA.)

LS: Is he gone yet?

MA: I think so.

(Dolls begin to move)

LS: Good, now we can review our movie for this month, SEED OF CHUCKY, where the perennial evil doll returns to spawn a child. With references to PSYCHO, THE SHINING and even Ed Wood’s GLENN OR GLENDA?, to name but a few, this movie provides some laughs as it pokes fun at the horror genre. We meet Chucky’s “son” Glenn right away, as he turns up in England as a modern Pinocchio, forced to be a thug’s ventriloquist dummy and kept in a cage. But when Glenn sees Chucky and his “bride” Tiffany on television, he figures out who his real parents are and escapes to Hollywood to be reunited with them. Little does he know that the real business his parents are in isn’t show business – it’s killing.

The cast, made up of B-List celebrities (Jennifer Tilly and rapper Redman, fresh off his bad FOX sitcom), is lackluster at best. But we do have Brad Dourif once again as the voice of Chucky (Dourif actually is a great actor, although you may not be able to tell that here), and also along for the ride this time is cult filmmaker John Waters, as a paparazzo who gets a sulphuric acid facial. But It’s not the actors you go see a Chucky movie for, it’s the puppets. And like the recent TEAM AMERICA, you either get it or you don’t that puppets doing horrible things can be just plain funny.

By this point, the Chucky series has given up all pretense of being straight “horror,” and has degenerated into dark comedy, which isn’t totally a bad thing, since most horror franchises usually become parodies of themselves at some point anyway. At least Chucky is aware of this and embraces it.  Sure there’s gore, but it’s all in good fun. Some of the jokes work, many don’t. But like its predecessor BRIDE OF CHUCKY (also featuring Jennifer Tilly, and the movie that introduced us to her doll counterpart Tiffany), SEED can be kind of fun if you just go with the flow.

I thought SEED OF CHUCKY was okay, for what it was.  But you can definitely wait to rent the DVD for this one.

MA:  Well, I found nothing fun about SEED OF CHUCKY. It’s the type of film that gives horror a bad name, and even worse, a bad reputation, which is something we in the horror genre don’t need.  There is nothing redeeming about this movie.  When we horror writers tell people what we do, we are often asked why we enjoy all that senseless blood and gore, and we usually reply that horror is much more than that.  When it comes to horror literature, we’re usually right, but unfortunately, the general public gets their impression of horror from horror movies, and a film like SEED OF CHUCKY is the last film I’d want a potential horror fan to see.  It’s gross, disgusting, dehumanizing, and plain old dumb!

(The LS doll hums as he climbs up the Christmas tree)

MA:  I didn’t find it funny, mostly because I missed the part where killing is funny.  Don’t get me wrong.  I’m not against violence being humorous.  I like Monty Python, for example, and they’re about as bloody as comedians have ever been on screen, but they were funny.  I’ve said this before in other columns, and I’ll say it again- I don’t see horror movies to laugh.  When I want to laugh, I see a comedy.  Now, I love the use of humor in a good horror movie to break up the tension.  But here, there’s no tension to break up.  And it’s certainly not funny enough to stand up on its own as a straight comedy.  Unless of course you think a man being gutted at his dinner table is humorous.  I don’t.

LS: Well, I do, if it’s done right. It’s not reality, after all. It’s only a movie.

(MA shaking his head in disbelief)

LS:  Besides, horror and humor are actually the flip sides to the same coin and have more in common than you’d think. They both elicit an involuntary response – fear or laughter…

MA (muttering):  Blah, blah, blah.

LS:  …And I see no reason why the two can’t be combined. While SEED OF CHUCKY may not be a great example of this, another recent film SHAWN OF THE DEAD, does the humor/horror mix much better.

MA:  You just made my point.

LS:  I did? That’s news to me. I’m still not sure what your point is! But I don’t think SEED is a big enough deal to inspire the strong reaction you’re having, either. And don’t you think it’s a little ironic that you don’t like horror and comedy to mix, yet you write a humorous column that reviews horror movies?

MA:  You like to put words into my mouth. I never said I don’t like horror and comedy to mix. What I said was, I don’t go to a horror movie to laugh, and while I sometimes enjoy some good laughs during a horror movie, I didn’t with SEED OF CHUCKY, for the simple reason that it’s not funny.

It also fails as a spoof.  Take THE SHINING scene.  In THE SHINING, we have Jack Nicholson axing his way through a bathroom door, delivering his infamous (and funny!!!) line “Here’s Johnny!”  Here we have Chucky doing the same and saying, “I can’t think of a thing to say.”   That must have been what director/screenwriter Don Mancini was thinking when he wrote the script.

LS: Like I said before, not all the jokes work.  You know, you’re taking this way too seriously.   (Hurls some ornaments down on MA’s head).

MA (ducks out of way):  Yes, I am.  Know why?  I take horror seriously.  I love horror.  I’m moved by it.  I find beauty in it, not ugliness, and when someone serves it to an audience like garbage, I’m offended.  That’s why when I see films like the last two we reviewed in this column, THE FORGOTTEN and THE GRUDGE, two well-made yet flawed films, I give them the benefit of the doubt because they at least try to make a thought-provoking, moving, and scary movie.

SEED OF CHUCKY is a miserable piece of celluloid that unfortunately confuses “horror” with “horrible.”

LS: Well,  I’d rather see an entertaining “bad” movie like this than another cliché slasher film that takes itself seriously and bores me to tears. Obviously you didn’t find it funny, and that’s fine. Humor is subjective, anyway.

Personally, I think that the best horror movies are ones that are truly disturbing, that make you feel uncomfortable as you leave the theater. But there’s enough room in the genre for everything. Quiet, serious horror. Extreme horror. Jokey horror.  Even fun trash like this. It’s in the spirit of stuff like the movies of Herschell Gordon Lewis, Roger Corman’s LITTLE SHOP OF HORRORS, and Frank Henenlotter’s BASKET CASE. Are these great movies? Probably not. But they are entertaining.

And you claim to find beauty, not ugliness in horror. But if there is one genre where we can embrace both, it’s ours.

MA:  I embrace ugliness when there’s a point to it.  THE EXORCIST is one of my favorite films.

LS:   I enjoyed SEED OF CHUCKY more than I did THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW or even THE GRUDGE. Sometimes a big, serious movie that fails can be much more disappointing . SEED OF CHUCKY, with its bad jokes, lame puns, and all, didn’t strive to be anything more than it was.  And I at least respect its honesty.

MA:  You’re a sick man.

LS:  You’re the one who put on bunny ears last column!

MA:  No comment.

LS:  As for giving horror a bad name. I don’t think one film or series can do that all by itself.

MA:  Well, SEED OF CHUCKY certainly contributes to it.  You honestly don’t think a movie like this makes people in general look down upon horror?  My gosh, I’m a horror fan, and I was turned off by it.

LS:    You’re turned off by everything.  I’m actually much more insulted by big-budget idiocy like I KNOW WHAT YOU DID LAST SUMMER. Why don’t you just lighten up?

MA: Sure. If we’re done talking about the movie I’ll lighten up.

( LS pushes tree over and it crashes ) : TIIIIMBER!

MA (holds his broken doll head together): Now that really cracked me up!  Happy holidays, everyone!

LS: Rats! You’re still alive! (turns to audience) See you all again, next year! (evil laughter)

—END—


(Originally published in the Hellnotes newsletter on December 16, 2004)

© Copyright 2004 by Michael Arruda and L.L. Soares

Leave A Comment »

SORORITY ROW (2009)

Posted in 2009, Cinema Knife Fights, Remakes, Slasher Movies with tags , , , , , , , on March 8, 2010 by knifefighter

(NOTE: The DVD for SORORITY ROW came out recently (on February 23rd) and it is also currently available on OnDemand on cable television)

CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT: SORORITY ROW (2009)
by Michael Arruda and L.L. Soares


FADE IN

(THE SCENE: a wild party on graduation day on campus. As we can tell from the symbols outside the big, old house, it’s the Theta Pi Sorority House. College girls gyrate to the music, covered in soap bubbles – someone put bubble bath in the Jacuzzi again – while frat boys chug beer that’s poured down big rubber funnels into their mouths. Loud dance music permeates everything. L.L. SOARES puts the funnel in his mouth and kids pour beer into it.)

COLLEGE KIDS: Chug! Chug! Chug!

(MICHAEL ARRUDA pushes through the crowd and makes it to them. He taps LS on the shoulder)

LS (Stops chugging): What is it?

MA (Shouts): I don’t know what you’re doing, but we’ve got a movie to review.

LS: I was enjoying myself. This is a party, isn’t it?

MA: C’mon, you’re not a kid anymore!

LS: Damn (to kids) Sorry, but I’ve got to go.

(COLLEGE KIDS hiss and boo.)

(MA and LS go down the hall to the big, stainless steel kitchen area. They are alone, and it’s fairly quiet here. You can just faintly hear the percussion of the party music.)

LS: Gee, thanks a lot for making me look like a wimp back there. I could have out-chugged all of them.

MA: Yeah, yeah. You can drink beer anytime. How about our review of SORORITY ROW?

LS: Okay, okay, keep your shirt on.

The 2009 movie SORORITY ROW is yet another slasher movie remake. This time, it’s a do-over of the 1983 movie HOUSE ON SORORITY ROW, written and directed by Mark Rosman. I hadn’t seen the original film before, so I checked it out the night before I watched the new movie.

For those who never saw it, HOUSE ON SORORITY ROW is the story of a group of seniors, sorority girls, who are having one last big house party after graduation. The night before, they decide to play a prank on their domineering house mother, Mrs. Slater (Lois Kelso Hunt), involving a gun. When the prank turns deadly, the girls have to get rid of Mrs. Slater’s body, stashing it in a filthy pool no one uses. The following night, when they have their big party at the house, a mysterious killer begins knocking the girls off, one by one. Is it Mrs. Slater, come back from the dead for revenge, or is it something even stranger?

I have to admit, I found this movie to be a little dopey. The gun prank was a very extreme and unfunny joke to begin with, and seemed guaranteed to end badly. Then, when the girls realize they are being stalked, they handle it in such a stupid fashion, they’re practically begging to be killed. However, the strange ending was a little creepy (if cliché, after movies like HALLOWEEN and FRIDAY THE 13th (1980))  and almost redeemed it in a way. All in all, a minor league addition to the 80s slasher craze, but not without a few good moments.

MA: We’re reviewing the new movie.

LS: I know, but I’m comparing the two of them. So we’re giving the people two reviews for the price of one. What was I saying? Oh, in comparison, the remake, now just called SORORITY ROW, makes the original look downright terrific.

This time we’re treated to a totally different, but equally stupid prank. When one of the sorority girls’ boyfriends cheats on her, the girl, Megan (Audrina Partridge) plans a prank with her sorority sisters to get revenge, by making her boyfriend think he accidentally killed her. While trying to find a way to get rid of the body (the sorority girls pretend to try to help the guy out), things get ugly and Megan is murdered for real. Terrified that this will ruin their future lives (I mean, they just graduated after all!), the girls hide the body in a mine shaft and swear each other to secrecy.

MA:  I’m glad you used the word stupid here to describe the prank. The word was practically flashing in big red bold letters on my television screen!  I had less of an issue with the actual prank than with the events which follow as soon as the prank goes awry.

Still, the prank itself was none too smart. You could see what was going to go wrong from a mile away. Talk about not thinking things through, to allow what happened to happen.  Let’s leave our friend who’s pretending to be dead alone and helpless. You’d think someone would have stayed by her side.

LS:  But then, there wouldn’t be a movie.

The problem is, they stretch the prank out way too long. They should have said “gotcha!” way before they do.

MA: Then, afterwards, I don’t believe that not one of these people calls the police. I didn’t buy the whole “sworn to secrecy” bit of the sorority sisters. For such a scene to work, for people to decide to just toss the body into a mine shaft, you have to have more realistic characters, and not the cliché ones we have here.

LS: And how weird was it that the guy they were playing the prank on was one of the other sorority girl’s brother?! And still she goes along with “teaching him a lesson.”

MA: Nice sister!  Jeesh!  I can believe that people make stupid moves. We’ve all done it. But this is not a Coen brothers movie like BLOOD SIMPLE (1984), where realistic characters make realistic bone- headed moves, and you feel their pain as they get sucked along down the inevitable road to doom. Here, things are cliché and just plain stupid.

LS: I love BLOOD SIMPLE, but it’s way too good to be mentioned in this review.

MA: The girls talk about not ruining their future, and sure, if you’re convicted of murder, your future’s not too promising!  But isn’t it just as risky to try to make someone disappear?  To just hide a body and hope no one finds it?  Granted, they could come to the conclusion that hiding the body is the way to go, but the scene as performed and as written doesn’t satisfy.

LS: Hiding the body is an immediate, short-term solution to the problem. Nobody thinks things through here. But the real problem with this whole scene – that sets the entire tone for the rest of the movie – is that no one seems all that upset that they just were involved in the murder of one of their best friends. All they care about is how it affects them. That’s why this scene stinks. Didn’t anyone genuinely care about Megan at all? The girls are as superficial as this entire movie is.

MA:  And had they been realistic characters, I wouldn’t have minded as much. I would have said, this is a story about selfishness, about characters who only care for themselves, and what happens to these characters later. Unfortunately, what happens to them later makes no sense.

LS:  I’m getting to that part. The movie then skips to eight months later. It’s Graduation Day and they have a big final party at their sorority house to host. Then, someone starts killing them.

You know the drill.

The killer uses a kind of modified tire iron with blades, which is fitting because Megan was originally killed with a tire iron. So we’re kept guessing. Is it Megan back from the dead? Or is it someone else with an axe to grind.

MA: Bad pun. (College coeds jump up and down in background with their thumbs pointing down.)

COEDS:  Boooooo!

MA:  We’re actually getting booed.

LS:  They’re just sore because I can drink them under the table.

The sad thing is, there’s a lot that’s bad with SORORITY ROW. Starting off with that elaborate prank which goes on for too long and seems incredibly dumb. As they whip the boyfriend into a panic over what’s happened, they’re just asking for trouble, and they get it. Strangely, it seemed even stupider than the dumb prank the girls played on Mrs. Slater in the original movie.

Overall, the acting wasn’t that bad.

MA:  But it wasn’t that good either.

LS:  You’ve got all the archetypes, though, from the bitchy sorority president , Jessica (Leah Pipes), who is planning to marry the son of a senator, to the wimpy one, Ellie (Rumer Willis – the daughter of Bruce Willis and Demi Moore), who just whines all the time, to the slutty one, Chugs (Margo Harshman) who seems to have sex with anything that moves, to the tough, heroic one, Cassidy (Briana Evigan), who leaves the sorority right after the Megan incident, and who has come back for the final party, more out of obligation than anything else. The rest of their group is rather forgettable.

While the acting wasn’t horrible, for the most part, the script was pretty lame, and when these characters have decisions to make, you can bet they almost always make the stupidest choice.

I actually had a big problem with the fact that Chugs was the first of the girls to die, mainly because I thought she was the most interesting character.

MA:  I would agree with you there.

LS:  There’s also a house mother in this one as well. This time it’s Carrie Fisher as Mrs. Krenshaw, who turns out to be tough as nails and wielding a shotgun when she needs to be. This is a sad, sad point in the career of the woman who used to be Princess Leia, though.

MA:  Very sad.

LS: I never thought she was much of an actress to begin with. She actually belongs in a movie like this.

MA: Still, I have to admit, if there was one scene at all that I actually enjoyed in this movie, it was the sequence when Fisher goes around with the shot gun in search of the killer. It was the one sequence that actually had an edge to it. Though truth be told, it didn’t blow me away.

(Door opens and CARRIE FISHER enters the room, dressed as Princess Leia and wielding a shotgun)

FISHER: Who said I wasn’t much of an actress?

(LS and MA point to each other)

FISHER: Damn you! You don’t want to mess with me!

(She fires and shatters the chandelier above their heads. Two men dressed as Storm troopers rush in and take her away)

MA: That was interesting.

LS:  The absolute worst part of the movie, however, is its long, drawn-out ending.

MA:  I thought the worst part was the lame idiotic Friday-the-13th style murders. Ho-hum.

LS:  Not only are there red herrings galore, but the real killer’s identity doesn’t make a whole lot of sense, and is a complete letdown. As the end credits rolled, I just found myself thinking that I just sat through 90 minutes of worthless celluloid.

MA:  That is true. The identity of the killer makes no sense at all. It was as if screenwriters Josh Stolberg and Pete Goldfinger—.

(The lights dim, a wall moves aside, and suddenly a night club band with a sexy lady in a tight dress appear on a revolving stage, the woman singing, “Goldfinger!  He’s the man, the man with the golden touch.”  LS and MA applaud. The stage rotates, the woman and band move on, and the wall closes again.)

LS: That explains a lot! Of course this movie would be torture to sit through – it was written by a Bond villain!

MA:  I wonder what it’s like to go through life with the name Goldfinger?

LS:  Well, it’s better than Goldmember.

MA:  True. Anyway, back to the identity of the killer, it’s as if the writers just decided to pick the least suspicious character to make as the killer, without thinking it through.

LS: Without thinking at all!

MA: Yeah, the choice makes no sense at all.

LS:  Michael and I missed this one when it was originally in theaters. At the time, I was glad, because the trailer pretty much gives the entire plot away, and left me really not wanting to see the actual movie. But things have a way of circling back on us here at Cinema Knife Fight, and of course we’ve ended up reviewing it after all.

I’m sorry we couldn’t have missed this one completely. It’s not even worth watching on cable, or as a rental. Avoid this one. You’d be better off renting the 1983 original, which is still pretty bad, but head and shoulders above the remake.

Another thing that surprised me – and this might just be the old school horror movie fan inside me talking – was that neither version had much in the way of nudity in it. I mean, you hear a title like SORORITY ROW and you expect to see some skin in between the gore scenes. And it is in very short supply. Even the original was very skimpy on the skin.

MA:  I thought there was sufficient nudity in this one, even though, unlike you, the fact that a movie has nudity in it doesn’t really mean a whole lot to me, in terms of how much I like the movie. We could have seen naked sorority girls running around for ten minutes straight in this one, and I don’t think it would have saved the movie for me.

LS: Maybe not, but it would have at least kept my attention. Gore and nudity go together like peanut butter and jelly.

MA:  But I completely agree with you about SORORITY ROW being awful and not even worth watching as a rental or on cable. This movie is horrible!  The worst film I’ve seen in some time.

To me, the biggest problem with this flick is with how unrealistic it is. Let’s start with the opening shots of the sorority party, with college girls covered in soap bubbles and college males looking like they walked off the set of the NEW MOON werewolf club. What college is this?  Playboy University?

Yes, college parties can be wild, but this didn’t look like a college party. It looked like a scene from a Hollywood movie pretending to be a college party.

Like you, I thought the acting was OK, but it could have been better. I mean, other than Carrie Fisher in her one shot gun scene, nobody else really made an impression on me. I thought Justine Wachsberger as Katie, the sister of the murdered girl, had an interesting look, and her character had the potential to be more compelling than the other girls, but things don’t really pan out that way.

LS: I agree, Katie could have been a much better character, and I liked Wachsberger’s scenes, because she constantly pisses the prissy Jessica off!

MA; I thought the murders were all cliché and over the top, gore for gore’s sake, and oh so boring. There’s even a shower scene!  Talk about overused murder locations!

LS: There’s almost no nudity in the shower scene, too. Just some “blink-and-you’ll -miss-them” flashes. Now that’s just wrong.

MA: True, but it’s not like there wasn’t any nudity at all. There was some. I mean, if there was none at all in an R rated shower scene, then I’d find that strange.

LS:  As for the gore being over the top, did we see the same movie? I didn’t think this movie was all that gory. It was actually pretty wimpy in that respect too, except for a couple of scenes. But nothing I’d call “over the top.” This isn’t Peter Jackson’s DEAD ALIVE (1992)!

MA:  I meant “over the top” in the sense that the gore was phony, like shoving large objects down people’s throats, for example. Compare a silly scene like that to the meaningful “knife in the hand” scene we saw last week in the superior THE CRAZIES. But no, it wasn’t too gory.

The killer is about as interesting as a college chemistry textbook. His look, with a hooded graduation gown, is dull and uninspiring. And what college uses graduation robes that look like they belong to Anakin Skywalker?  I kept expecting to see the Emperor from the STAR WARS movies show up and beg everyone to join the dark side!

(A kitchen cabinet pops open and YODA peeks out )

YODA: Awful, this movie is. My money back, I would like, or angry, I will be.

LS: Shut up, you stupid muppet!

YODA:  Mouth you watch, or ass I will kick.

MA: The bottom line is I didn’t like any of these characters, and when you don’t like the characters, you’re not going to like the story. I thought these characters were rather despicable, and certainly not the kind of people I’d want to spend 90 minutes with.

LS: I’ve said this before, but I have no problem with characters being unlikable. There are a lot of unlikable people in the real world.

MA:  Yeah, but if you’re going to give us unlikable characters, at least make them convincing. Don’t give us both unlikable and superficial.

LS:  What bothers me is when characters are just plain boring. And for the most part, the characters here aren’t very interesting. Even if some of the actresses do give it the old college try!

(COEDS cheer!)

That said, I didn’t find every character boring. I still think Margo Harshman as the nymphomaniac Chugs had potential. And she had a real warped sense of humor. This is just a pet peeve of mine, but I have a problem with the “slutty” one always being killed off first. The first to be punished. Why is sex always viewed as so evil in these films? And it’s always the virginal one who finds reserves of strength she didn’t know she had. This is a tired old formula that needs to be retired.

MA: The heroine in this one wasn’t so virginal, but that’s neither here nor there.

LS: I didn’t say the heroine. However, the wimpy one who can’t get boys (the funny thing is, she’s pretty attractive when she’s not wearing her glasses), does have a defining moment near the end. Poor Chugs didn’t have the chance to prove herself.

MA:  Director Stewart Hendler does little with this mediocre material. There’s nothing visually striking about this movie, the pacing is off as the ending drags, and the murders are flat and uninventive.

LS: Even the tire iron with blades isn’t used interesting enough to make it that memorable. Another lost opportunity to take a mediocre original film and make a superior remake. Hendler completely drops the ball on this one. So why even bother making it?

MA: SORORITY ROW is horror movie making at its worst. Read a good book instead.

YODA: Agree, I do (he goes back inside cabinet and closes the door).

LS: You go read a good book, I’ve got a beer contest to win.

MA: See you next week everyone!

FADE TO BLACK

© Copyright 2010 by Michael Arruda and L.L. Soares

Leave A Comment »

THE FORGOTTEN (2004)

Posted in 2004, Cinema Knife Fights, Paranormal with tags , , , , on March 6, 2010 by knifefighter

(While Michael and I work on our review of the 2009 film SORORITY ROW, here’s another blast-from-the-past, archive column. See you Monday with a brand new review. ~ LLS)

CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT #7 – THE FORGOTTEN
by Michael Arruda & L.L. Soares

(FADE IN: A cabin in the middle of nowhere. The interior is bathed in darkness. There is the hiss of a match being struck, and a candle is lit.)

L.L.SOARES (whispering): This month, we’re reviewing THE FORGOTTEN. It’s the tale of Telly Paretta (Julianne Moore) whose young son Sam died in a plane crash and she is having a really hard time letting go. One day her husband and her therapist try to convince her that Sam never existed. That she had a miscarriage and created an entire imaginary life and son to cope with it. But Telly knows that this is a lie and is determined to prove it.

Things get stranger when Telly helps to jump-start the memory of an ex-hockey player named Ash (Dominic West), who is the parent of another child who died in that plane crash, but who has no recollection of having a daughter at all. His life has been unraveling for over a year and he hits the bottle on a regular basis. Once he also remembers the truth, that’s when the FBI gets involved and agents try to track them both down.

At this point, THE FORGOTTEN becomes a chase film, as Telly and Ash try to find answers  - to what happened to their children and why nobody else remembers them – and the government agents try to capture them. Somehow, Telly and Ash manage to stay one step ahead of them for quite awhile, even when the NY City police, led by Detective Anne Pope (Alfre Woodward), also get in on the act.

THE FORGOTTEN is a film that keeps you riveted. You sympathize with Telly, and want to find the answers to her questions. A big part of why the movie works is the acting, especially Julianne Moore, who is terrific as Telly. She might just be the best actress we have right now. Someone like Meryl Streep, who I think is really overrated, needs a good role to shine. But Moore shines no matter what she does. She always seems genuine, and her characters always seem real. She’s done some amazing work in films as diverse as FAR FROM HEAVEN, BOOGIE NIGHTS and THE HOURS. While THE FORGOTTEN may not be the best film she’s ever been in, she turns in another great performance here. Telly is the heart and soul of this movie.

Her supporting cast is solid, too. Dominic West is very good as Ash, who becomes her only ally. Gary Sinise and Anthony Edwards are good, as her therapist and husband respectively, even if they don’t have a lot to do here. Woodward is very human as the police detective on the case, and Lee Tergeson (Beecher on the HBO show OZ) stands out among the FBI agents in a scene where Telly and Ash hold him prisoner, tied to a chair in an isolated cabin.…just like this one…

MICHAEL ARRUDA (turns on the lights): Why are you sitting here in the dark?

LS: I was reviewing THE FORGOTTEN. What did you think of it?

MA:  I’m sorry.  Do I know you?

LS:  What?  Of course you know me!  I’m L.L. Soares!  I write this column with you!

MA:  Column?

LS:  Cinema Knife Fight?  We write it together once a month?  Have you forgotten?

MA (smiles, as if receiving a great revelation):  There you go.  You’ve got the wrong guy.  I’m not a writer.

LS:  Well, I agree with that. But otherwise, what are you talking about?

MA (smiles again, now a Norman Bates psycho smile):  Gotcha!  Just kidding!

LS: Aww, ya creep!

MA: About THE FORGOTTEN, I’m with you.  I thought it was a really good movie, though judging by what you’ve said so far, I think you liked it more than I did. Julianne Moore, I agree with you, was terrific, and I thought Dominic West as Ash was right up there with her the whole way.

There’s a couple of jolting scenes that actually scared me, which is a good thing.  As you and I have been talking about the past few columns, scary movies are hard to come by these days.

The one problem I did have with THE FORGOTTEN was the ending.  Fortunately, the weak ending here isn’t in the same league as the disastrous closing of THE VILLAGE, but it’s still a weak finish. The movie weaves a pretty good mystery- just who is it who is making people forget, and why? And what about those dead children?  Are they really dead?  It’s all very mysterious, and it works, and the payoff really isn’t that bad.  I wasn’t disappointed by the answer, but I was disappointed by the resolution.  It ends a little too easily for my tastes.  I don’t want to give anything away, but I expected much more of a struggle.  I found the ending blah and rather undramatic, unlike the rest of the movie, which was riveting and emotional.

LS: I agree with you for the most part. Things do seem to resolve themselves a little too easily by the end. But you’ve got to take the movie as a whole. And as a whole I think it works pretty well.

MA:  But the problem I have with endings is that it’s the last part I see, so if it’s a downer or a dud, that’s the part that stays with me.  I do take the movie as a whole, I think, but I can’t ignore a weakness, and to me the ending is the worst place for a film, or any other work of fiction for that matter, to be weak.

LS:  Well, it kept me interested throughout. And I liked the big explanation. I went into this movie with low expectations – the trailer really didn’t impress me much – and enjoyed it much more than I thought I would.

MA:  I went into it with no expectations because I really hadn’t heard anything about it, and other than its quick ending, I liked it.  I would like to say, however, as a word of warning to viewers, that it’s not an easy movie to watch.  It’s very heavy subject matter, the loss of a child to a plane crash.  I’m the parent of two young boys, and it was an emotional experience for me.  Not the kind of film where you kick back and eat popcorn.  Just so you know what you’re getting yourself into.

LS:  You know, another thing I liked was…. (suddenly LS is shot up into the sky at rocket speed, crashing through the roof).

MA (watching LS disappear beyond the clouds):  I must say, that special effect was one of the coolest parts in THE FORGOTTEN (points to sky), and it’s even cooler now seeing LL do his version of Rocket Man.  Pay back time!  On that note–. (Screams).

(MA suddenly is shot up into the sky as well.  In the distance, above the clouds, shouting is heard. Something about a machete….)

—END—

(Originally published in the Hellnotes newlsetter on October 21, 2004)

© Copyright 2004 by Michael Arruda and L.L. Soares

Leave A Comment »

THE VILLAGE

Posted in 2004, Cinema Knife Fights, M. Night Shyamalan Movies with tags , , , , on March 4, 2010 by knifefighter

CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT #5: THE VILLAGE
by Michael Arruda and L.L. Soares

(L.L. SOARES and MICHAEL ARRUDA are standing at the edge of the woods, wearing mustard-colored hooded cloaks)

LS:  Ssshhhh! Those We Do Not Speak About might hear us.

MA (whispers):  We’re here to review M. Night Shyamalan’s newest film, THE VILLAGE.

LS:  Ever since THE SIXTH SENSE, Shyamalan has become the master of the twist ending. So much so that audiences look forward to each new film he makes to be surprised. And THE VILLAGE is no exception.

THE VILLAGE is about a small 19th century village where the people live in fear of creatures who live in the woods beyond their settlement. The villagers and the creatures have established a kind of truce where neither invades the other’s territory, but events transpire that make the villagers realize that the truce may be coming to an end and their lives may be in danger.

(Kid in a cloak approaches them:) Mister, would you like to buy some magic rocks?

LS: Beat it kid, ya bother me!  (Kid runs away)  The always reliable William Hurt plays town leader Edward Walker. When Lucius (Joaquin Phoenix), the fiancée of Walker’s blind daughter, Ivy, is gravely injured by another villager, Walker allows his daughter to go out into the woods and to the towns beyond, to get the medicine needed to save Lucius’s life. His rationale being that because she is blind and therefore innocent, the creatures will sense this and let her pass, knowing she is not a threat to them. There is more to the story, but I won’t reveal the “surprise twist” here.

THE VILLAGE has many of the same qualities found in Shyamalan’s other movies. It’s rather slow paced, but effectively builds tension. Things are revealed gradually. The acting for the most part is pretty good, especially Bryce Dallas Howard (Ron Howard’s daughter) making an impressive debut in the role of Ivy.

I found the movie watchable and suspended my disbelief enough to go along for the ride.

MA:  Well, I was going along for the ride too, and two thirds into the film I was really enjoying it. You had terrific acting, a wonderful violin score, and creative directing by Shyamalan.  The result was a film experience that was truly mesmerizing, almost poetic.  And the woodland creatures are deeply, deeply frightening.  These things are scary!

But then, you have—- I won’t even dignify it by calling it a twist.  It’s an explanation.  And the explanation— or explanations, as the case turns out— completely ruins everything.  It couldn’t have been worse if one of the characters woke up and announced everything was a dream.  I felt absolutely cheated.

Had Shyamalan made the film which was advertised, he would have had an instant classic. Instead, we’re left shaking our heads at a very disappointing conclusion.

And the whole part where Bryce Dallas Howard’s blind character journeys alone through the woods seemed to me an excuse to satisfy a neat plot idea— blind woman walks through woods stalked by unknown menace.  Neat idea, good enough to build a story around, but Shyamalan should have spent more time building that story than concerning himself with, as you say, being the master of the twist ending.

LS: It’s kind of funny that I find myself having to defend THE VILLAGE, because frankly I thought it was just a so-so story, and while I wasn’t thrilled with the big twist either, it wasn’t a big enough deal to make me angry. If anything, I was much more fired up about his previous movie, SIGNS, which let me down by being too preachy and very illogical. Aliens whose one vulnerability is water invade a planet that is mostly water? Sounds like pretty stupid aliens to me.

Remember when we were kids and we’d watch TWILIGHT ZONE or NIGHT GALLERY, and some episodes were great, but other ones were kind of cliché and clunky, but you liked them anyway. Well, THE VILLAGE is like one of those clunky episodes for me

MA:  See, I disagree.  I think it started off great.  I was really let down by the “twist,” so much so that I can’t recommend the film.

LS:  And while the acting was mostly good, the characters were pretty one dimensional. Lucius was so stoic and stilted that I didn’t really care about him that much. I think Ivy was much more interesting and sympathetic, and I actually didn’t mind the focus on her in the second half.

MA:  I did.  I was enjoying Joaquin Phoenix’ performance.

LS: I’ve actually thought that Joaquin Phoenix was an overrated actor for awhile now. He did a serviceable job in THE VILLAGE, but the reason Ivy was more sympathetic to me was because I thought her character was stronger, and I thought Bryce Dallas Howard turned in a better acting job.

MA:  Phoenix is just as good as Howard.

LS (pulls out machete from beneath cloak): Care to debate that?

MA (reveals hideous-looking monster claws from beneath his cloak):  Any time!

(Man suddenly appears holding a presidential candidate sign):  Did someone say debate?

MA:  Sorry, pal, wrong venue.  Blood, guts, visceral mutilation, that’s down the street at the convention.  We just review movies here.

LS:  Beat it, buddy!

(Man walks away looking perplexed).

LS:  All in all, I was willing to accept that this was the movie Shyamalan wanted to make. THE VILLAGE was a pleasant enough way to waste an hour and a half, but I never really felt emotionally committed enough to feel cheated. I just can’t cop to emotions that aren’t there for me. I can think of a lot better movies to defend.

But I will say one thing.  Sometimes a “surprise” just isn’t enough…

(Woodland creature jumps out and attacks man in background.  Man shrieks and is taken to the ground).

LS and MA look over shoulders

MA:  Now that’s an ending I’d pay to see!

—END—

(Originally published in the HELLNOTES newsletter on August 19, 2004)

© Copyright 2004 by Michael Arruda and L.L. Soares

2 Comments »

THE CRAZIES

Posted in 2010, Cinema Knife Fights, Disaster Films, Remakes, Zombie Movies with tags , , , , , , , , , on March 1, 2010 by knifefighter

CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT:  THE CRAZIES (2010)
by Michael Arruda and L.L. Soares

(MICHAEL ARRUDA and L.L. SOARES are seated on the bleachers of a high school baseball game in small-town America. They are eating hot dogs and chips, and drinking soda).

MA:  This sure beats winter back home!

LS:  I’ll say!  And I don’t even like baseball!  But hot dogs, sunshine, 80-degree weather, it just puts me in the mood to watch a horror movie!

MA (Basking in sunlight): Here’s to the American dream. Baseball, apple pie, and zombies! (They toast their soda cans).

LS:  Here, here!

(A little KID with a mustard mustache is staring at them from the lower bleacher.)

LS: What are you looking at, kid?

KID (Looking directly at LS):  I haven’t figured out yet.

LS:  Why, I oughtta—.

MA:  Later, later. We have a movie to review.

LS:  You’re lucky, kid!

KID:  I’m lucky I don’t look like you!

MA (chuckles):  The kid’s pretty funny.

KID (to MA): I was talking about you, four eyes!

LS (to MA): That kid’s crazy! You were saying— about that movie we’re reviewing?

MA:  Riiight. (To audience)  Okay, we’re here today sitting at this baseball game in small-town America because today’s movie, THE CRAZIES (2010), opens with a key sequence at a baseball game just like this.

Sheriff David Dutton (Timothy Olyphant) and his deputy Russell Clank (Joe Anderson) are taking in a high school baseball game in their small town of Ogden Marsh, population 1260, when one of the townspeople suddenly steps onto the field carrying a shot gun. Sheriff Dutton quickly confronts the man while deputy Russell helps clear the players off the field. Dutton attempts to talk the man into surrendering his weapon, but he won’t cooperate. He simply stares at Dutton with a blank look in his eye before making the move to shoot the sheriff. Dutton shoots first, killing the man in front of the terrified crowd.

LS: The character’s name is Rory Hamill (played by Mike Hickman), and he’s suitably creepy.

MA: This is only the beginning, as soon other townspeople begin to act strangely, and more people die. Following a lead, Dutton and Russell discover the wreckage of a large plane hidden underneath the water in a local pond. They deduce that it’s possible that something on that plane has leaked into the town’s water supply, thus poisoning the townspeople, turning them into murderous zombie-like creatures.

LS: Zombie is the key word here. The original version of THE CRAZIES, from 1973, was directed by legendary filmmaker George A. Romero. It was after his classic NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD (1968) and before its terrific sequel, DAWN OF THE DEAD (1978). In fact, it was exactly smack dab in the middle between these two films. While not technically a zombie flick, THE CRAZIES seemed to be a variation on NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD, except instead of the walking dead, we have people who are infected with a virus that makes them go insane. However, there is definitely something “zombie-like” going on.

MA: Before Dutton and Russell can do anything about it, the town is overrun by the military, who begin separating townspeople from each other in an attempt to discover who is sick and who isn’t. Dutton is separated from his wife, Dr. Judy Dutton (Radha Mitchell), but once he and Russell escape their captors, they return and rescue her and her young receptionist, Becca (Danielle Panabaker).

What follows is a desperate race to get out of town, to flee from both the military hunting them and the crazies who will mindlessly kill them at a moment’s notice, in scenes reminiscent of the INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS movies (1956, 1978, and more).

LS: That’s the power of Romero’s best movies, as well. His zombies work because they’re monsters who look just like people we love and trust. The same with the new version of THE CRAZIES. And yes, this is definitely a trait they share with the BODY SNATCHERS films as well.

MA: THE CRAZIES is a non-stop rollercoaster ride of a movie that will keep you on the edge of your seat throughout. From the opening sequence at the baseball game, in a scene that is sweating with realism, the movie grabs you by the throat and doesn’t let go. For a movie like this, or any horror movie for that matter, the audience has to believe for it to work. From the get-go, THE CRAZIES will have you believing in every far-fetched thing that happens, and it’ll do it with great acting, directing and writing.

LS: I agree. I also feel this is something of a rarity – the remake that actually improves on the original material. I am a hardcore Romero fan, but I always felt that THE CRAZIES was one of Romero’s weakest films. To me, it just seemed too similar to his “Dead” movies to really have a personality of its own. So if someone was going to remake it, this was the perfect opportunity to take a flawed film and improve on it. In most cases, when we see remakes like this, they totally drop the ball. Just look at the crappy remakes of THE FOG (2005) and PROM NIGHT (2008), which made their flawed originals look even better than they were.

MA:  There you go with PROM NIGHT again. I think you secretly like that movie, you mention it so much.

LS:  I mention it so much because I like to point out how crazy you were for listing it among the “Top 10 Best Horror movies of 2008!”

MA:  Hey, it was a weak year. But I will say that I liked the PROM NIGHT remake better than the original, and let’s leave it at that.

(A ZOMBIE-like creature stumbles behind them.)

ZOMBIE:  Did someone say crazy? (Suddenly shoves a dozen hot dogs into his mouth at the same time.)

LS:  That’s the best you can do? In my prime I could put away 20 of those dogs in half the time!

MA:  I don’t need to hear things like that.

LS (To ZOMBIE):  You wannabe zombie!  Anyway, back to THE CRAZIES. In this case, director Breck Eisner riffs on the original material and turns in one helluva good horror movie.

MA: Yes, director Eisner crafts one compelling scene after another. The scene in the farmhouse where one of the townspeople, now a “crazy,” torments his family, is wonderfully done and terribly frightening.

LS: By the way, if the name Eisner sounds familiar, it’s because Breck is the son of former Disney head Michael Eisner.

MA: The image of the huge plane under the water is memorable, as I found it ominous and somehow very frightening.

And then there’s the scene where Judy and Becca are strapped to tables, and they are menaced by the man with a pitchfork. Talk about suspense!

LS: That was the school principal, Ben Sandborn (Larry Cedar) mercilessly forking people!

(WOMAN sitting next to them gasps and gives them a dirty look.)

WOMAN: There’s kids here, for crying out loud!

LS:  I said forking people!  Keep your shirt on!  And I mean that literally, lady. We can only handle one horror show at a time!

MA: ..and then there’s the even better scene in the car wash.

LS: One of my favorites!

MA: It’s been a while since a movie has had as many compelling scenes as this one. It’s a terrific movie.

But my favorite scene of all these involved a knife going through Dutton’s hand. I liked this scene because here we have this extremely graphic scene but it’s also clear that it wasn’t done just for the point of grossing us out. There’s a lot of drama going on here. It’s just really good stuff. Still, it’s not for the squeamish!

LS: There’s a lot of drama, because Eisner and company have given us characters that we actually CARE about. This is one of the keys to great horror – horrible things happening to good people. That scene with Dutton’s hand is terrific. He has to protect his wife, save his own life, and somehow free his hand, that is pinned to the floor, all at the same time.

MA: There were lots of small things that worked, too. The scene in the funeral parlor, where Rory Hamill’s wife slaps Dutton across the face for shooting her husband is particularly painful, though it reminded me of a similar face slapping scene in JAWS (1975), when Chief Brody gets his face slapped.

Speaking of JAWS, when Dutton and Russell approach the mayor and ask him to shut off the town’s water supply, and the mayor replies by saying something to the effect that this town is a farming town, and it needs its water- the water stays on!  I sat there thinking, “Dude, didn’t you see JAWS?”

LS: Yeah, the scene with the mayor reminded me a LOT of JAWS.

MA: Another scene, where a woman tells Dr. Judy Dutton that there’s something “not right” about her husband, was very reminiscent of INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS. These references aren’t bad things, but rather, serve as nice nods to some of the other great horror movies that have come before it.

LS: Yeah, it does riff on some other great movies.

MA: The screenplay was written by Scott Kosar, who also wrote the screenplays for the remakes of THE AMITYVILLE HORROR (2005) and THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE (2003), and Ray Wright, and it was well done. It was filled with one memorable scene after another, along with realistic dialogue and fleshed-out characters, who you really care about.

LS: Now this amazes me, because I am not a big fan of either of those other movies. Especially the remake of TEXAS CHAINSAW. I couldn’t care less what anyone did with AMITYVILLE HORROR, but CHAINSAW is a bonafide milestone in horror film history. One of the titans. And I thought the 2003 remake was both unnecessary and pretty much insignificant. This new film, also a remake, is in a whole other league. This time Kosar (along with Wright) turn in a killer screenplay.

MA: I thought both Timothy Olyphant as Sheriff David Dutton and Radha Mitchell as Dr. Judy Dutton stood out as the leads in the movie…

LS: I’m a big fan of both of them. Olyphant was just terrific as Sheriff Seth Bullock on one of my all-time favorite shows, DEADWOOD. And he’s been good in just about everything he’s been in before and since. Radha Mitchell, some of our readers might remember, was in PITCH BLACK (2000) and was also the lead in one of the few good video game-related movies, SILENT HILL (2006). They’re both strong actors and they bring a lot of humanity to their roles here.

MA: ….and I thought Joe Anderson was even better in the supporting role as Deputy Russell Clark. I think his was my favorite performance in the movie.

LS: Anderson was also in THE RUINS, but I didn’t recognize him right away. He was terrific, too. Another great performance. He takes what could have been a throwaway character and really makes you care about him. Especially when you start to wonder if he’s going to get infected or not.

MA: Danielle Panabaker, who we saw recently in the FRIDAY THE 13TH (2009) remake, also stood out as Becca Darling.

LS: Yes, she was very good, too.

MA: Now, the movie is not without flaws. I thought the scene where they meet up with the government agent, and he quickly tells them about the contents on the plane, was forced and obviously done for the benefit of giving the audience exposition. I don’t think a government agent, even with a gun pointed at his head, would speak so freely.

LS: Actually, the government soldiers were one of the only things I didn’t fully understand in this movie. They come to town and gather up the population, then for some weird reason they take off and leave all these people strapped to gurneys in the school. They just leave. And then they appear on and off. I wasn’t sure why they kept coming and going.

MA:  Yeah, that scene where they take off and leave the people strapped to the gurneys, I think they flee because a pick-up truck smashes into the compound, and the soldiers are afraid of the crazies, so they run away. That’s the impression I got. Now, I’m not sure how realistic this would be. You would think there would be some commanding officer telling these guys what to do. So maybe that’s why this scene was left unclear and confusing, because the soldiers’ actions don’t really make sense.

LS:  I also thought it was odd that they were all concerned about isolating the town, and yet they did a lousy job of blocking off the roads leading in and out of Ogden Marsh. There’s a scene where the main characters drive for awhile on the highway, and there are no roadblocks or anything. Eventually, helicopters show up. But they seem to do a sloppy job of cutting the town off from the rest of the world.

That was my only big complaint. The government presence wasn’t always consistent.

MA: There also is considerable time spent on whether Deputy Russell is becoming a crazy or not, and while I liked this as a plot point, I don’t think it was clearly explained why Russell, if he were changing, would take longer to change than anyone else.

I also thought the sequence near the end, when Dutton and his wife attempt to steal a truck, may have been one sequence too many. At that point, I knew where the movie was going, and I just wanted them to get into the truck so we could get to the inevitable conclusion. While the sequence was well done, I thought it slowed the pace a bit.

LS: I don’t know, I liked that scene. Especially Sheriff Dutton’s fistfight with a crazy underneath the truck. That crazy, by the way, was one of a group of redneck hunters who appear early on in the movie and then go on a killing spree once the contamination has begun. I thought they were interesting characters, too, and I wanted to know more about them.

MA:  Yeah, I agree with you about the hunters. I actually thought we were going to see more of them. I thought they were going to be the wild card in the plot, you know, not crazy like the crazies, but just as dangerous, so whose side will they be on? That sort of thing. But the plot didn’t really go there.

Also, while I absolutely loved this movie, I couldn’t help but wonder about the government’s methods here. Their answer seemed to be kill everyone involved, and I wondered, how would far would this go? What are they going to do? Kill the entire population of the country? I thought this logic was flawed and unlike the events in the movie, not very plausible.

But these are minor faults, because the rest of the movie works so well on an emotional level, that you’re not going to care if a few things don’t make sense, especially when most of the film comes off as very believable.

Overall, THE CRAZIES is a relentless horror movie, one that goes for the throat early on and doesn’t let go. By far, it’s the best horror film of 2010, one that every horror fan should get out and see. You’d be crazy not to!

LS: I liked it a lot, too. This has been a good year for remakes so far. I really enjoyed both this one and THE WOLFMAN. Finally, directors who can take an idea and do something interesting with it. Instead of just turning out more crap.

Oh, and make sure to stay during the closing credits. There’s a news bulletin that pops up during the credits that ties up some loose ends.

MA:  That about sums things up from here. We’ll see you next weekend with our review of SORORITY ROW, now showing on cable and DVD.

(To LS)  We can head out now. This game’s pretty much over.

LS:  Oh, there’s a game going on?

(As they leave, they notice the KID with the mustard mustache)

LS: That crazy kid is still staring at us!

MA: Go home kid, our review is over.

(The KID starts to foam at the mouth, and his eyes are wide and scary, like a zombie.)

LS: We don’t have time for this. I wanna go home.

(LS hurls his half-full soda can at the KID’s head, knocking him down)

(The crowd cheers!)

-THE END-

© Copyright 2010 by Michael Arruda and L.L. Soares

2 Comments »

THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW

Posted in 2004, Apocalyptic Films, Cinema Knife Fights, Disaster Films, Post-Apocalypse Movies with tags , , , , , , , on February 25, 2010 by knifefighter

CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT # 3: THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW (2004)
by Michael Arruda and L.L. Soares

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  Welcome to CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT.  I’m Michael Arruda and this is L.L. Soares.

L.L. SOARES: Yep, that’s me.

MA:  Today we look at THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW (2004), the much hyped disaster movie that is taking the nation by storm.

And storm is what THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW is all about.  Scientist Jack Hall (Dennis Quaid) warns a group of world leaders that unless serious measures are taken to stop global warming, there will be changes in the ocean currents that will lead to a second ice age.  When severe storms break out across the entire northern hemisphere, and temperatures drop dramatically, Hall realizes his predictions are happening right now.

We see tornadoes in Los Angeles, a huge tidal wave in New York City, and ice and snow that covers just about everything in its path.  The movie follows small groups of survivors who fight against the elements, including Hall’s teenage son Sam (Jake Gyllenhaal), and Hall himself, who travels from Washington D.C. to New York City to rescue his son.

As you would expect, the true star of THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW is the special effects.  To this end, I was disappointed.  When creating fantasy worlds, such as Middle Earth in the LORD OF THE RINGS trilogy, CGI effects are close to flawless, but in real life settings, there’s just something missing.  The look is almost animated and as a result the anticipated sense of awe and terror you expect when seeing scenes of great destruction, it’s just not there.

This is not to say I didn’t like THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW. As a fan of the disaster flicks from the 1970s, I enjoyed watching this movie, though I wish somewhere Charlton Heston would have shown up to say with his ’70s cynicism, “Oh my God.”

LS (doing a Charlton Heston imitation):  ”Damn Dirty Apes!”

Ahem…..This movie wants to be a new generation’s EARTHQUAKE (1974) or THE POSEIDON ADVENTURE (1972), but those movies had interesting characters, and storylines that kept you wanting to see more. I’d take Gene Hackman or Ernest Borgnine over Dennis Quaid any day of the week.

MA (pulls out ice pick.) (Hums).

LS:  I think I liked the effects a little better than you did, although I didn’t find them realistic as much as just fun….what are you doing?

MA (waving pick):  Just listening to what you have to say. That’s all.

LS: OK….Director Roland Emmerich provides us with a few good images, but when it comes to engaging characters, he consistently comes up short, as anyone who has seen his god-awful GODZILLA remake (from 1998) already knows. The movie starts off fast with a lot of potential. By the time giant tornadoes are ripping Los Angeles apart, I was actually digging it. But all the really good stuff happens early on and the second half of the movie just didn’t do much for me.

MA: I agree the characters weren’t all that interesting, but I did enjoy Jake Gyllenhaal’s performance as Sam.  He reminded me of a cross between Tobey Maguire and a very young Oliver Reed- I guess that’s the horror film fan in me!

LS: Jake Gyllenhaal is okay, until you realize this is the same guy who was the lead in DONNIE DARKO (2001), and in comparison, his DAY AFTER TOMORROW character is one-dimensional and inconsequential. He’s just some smart kid without much personality. So what?

And Dennis Quaid looks like he’d make a good leading man, but his acting is pretty wooden. I didn’t feel much empathy for his character because he seems like someone going through the motions, rather than someone who has genuine emotions. We’re expected to believe that he desperately wants to connect with his son again, even though most of his son’s life he’s been an absentee father by choice, choosing his career over his family. His goal to reach New York and his son doesn’t seem to have any emotional investment. It’s just a plot device to provide motivation for the second half.

I’d even go so far as to say that not one of the characters in this movie convinces us they are worth saving. There isn’t anything about them that makes them special compared to the millions who presumably die. They’re just dots on a line from Point A to Point B.

MA (slams ice pick into wall):  I completely disagree.  I thought Sam and his friends were likeable, and I bought into their plight in the library.

(PuLS out ice pick) For me, the biggest disappointment, especially in terms of this column, was that I didn’t find the film very frightening.  It’s rated PG-13 for “intense situations of peril” and to be honest, I didn’t find the situations very intense.  As much as I like to lump all sorts of movies into the horror category, I can’t do that with THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW.  It’s just not horror.

LS: Actually, nature striking back at humanity has a long history in horror. Done right, this could have been an effective movie. But as is, it’s just a mediocre and often implausible story with some nice visuals.

I also had a problem with a few times where things got preachy – it was like a big budget public service announcement for global warming. That kind of stuff really bugs me in a movie. Just tell the damn story!

MA:   Lucky for you, I agree.  (tosses pick aside)  I was also bugged that everyone in the movie watched “Fox News.”  That was the scariest part of the movie!

LS: I went into THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW expecting to absolutely hate it. I didn’t. But it’s only a so-so movie. And so-so movies just don’t justify a $10 ticket price.

MA:  No they don’t.  But Jake Gyllenhaal is good, and I hope one day he plays a werewolf!

—END—

(Originally published in the Hellnotes Newsletter on June 17, 2004)

© Copyright 2004 by Michael Arruda and L.L. Soares

Leave A Comment »

VAN HELSING!

Posted in 2004, Cinema Knife Fights, Garbage with tags , , , , , , , on February 24, 2010 by knifefighter

(Note: It sure is weird looking back on these old columns. This is the first real stinker we reviewed. I still can’t believe Michael says in this one that he thought the The Wolf Man in VAN HELSING looked better than the werewolves in AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON or THE HOWLING! ~LLS)

CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT # 2: VAN HELSING (2004)
by Michael Arruda and L.L. Soares

L.L. SOARES: Welcome to the second installment of CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT. Our film today is VAN HELSING.

The wise old vampire hunter played previously by Edward Van Sloan in 1931′s DRACULA, and Peter Cushing in countless Hammer films…

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  Five.

LS:  Huh?

MA:  Peter Cushing played Van Helsing or a descendant thereof in five Hammer Films.

LS:  Hammer Film geek!

MA:  I prefer the term historian.

LLS:  Where did I put that machete—?  Anyway, Van Helsing now has the gadgets of James Bond, the demeanor of Clint Eastwood, and the face of…well, Wolverine! While on his way to get rid of Dracula he crosses paths with hot gypsy monster-slayer Kate Beckinsdale (who appears to be doing a candy-ass job of it, since monsters are all over the place), and the two of them go off to conquer evil.

Throw into the mix a grating Dracula who’s a cross between a bad Bela Lugosi imitator and a pompous ass, a Wolf Man who is little more than Dracula’s dog, and a Frankenstein’s monster who’s a wimp who spends most of the movie hiding from Dracula, and you’ve got the latest rip-off of classic monsters by Stephen Sommers, the guy who previously took the 1932 horror classic, THE MUMMY, and turned it into an Indiana Jones knockoff.

You can tell by the way that he keeps going back to the well that Sommers loves the old Universal classics, but at the same time he doesn’t have the talent to do the characters justice. On the level of a popcorn movie, VAN HELSING works. There’s plenty of action, and things blow up right on cue, but instead of emulating the best films of the past, James Whales’ FRANKENSTEIN or Todd Browning’s DRACULA (both from 1931), it’s like Sommers preferred to use ABBOTT AND COSTELLO MEET FRANKENSTEIN as his template.

The thing that made the original movies work was their humanity. Frankenstein’s monster was tragic and misunderstood. Larry Talbot was eternally tormented. But what you have in VAN HELSING are monsters without the emotional baggage – one-dimensional creations that have more in common with Looney Tunes cartoons than 1930s horror films.

Hugh Jackman is fine in the title role, and Beckinsdale turns in a serviceable performance, too. They both look nice and pretty for the cameras. But despite all its tongue-in-cheek humor and cranked up action, the main problem with VAN HELSING, is that nobody in this movie has a soul.

MJA:  I didn’t like VAN HELSING either, although I wouldn’t go so far as to knock Stephen Sommers’ talent.  I for one liked his MUMMY remake.  The script was witty, and I liked his interpretation of the mummy, Im-Ho-Tep.  I thought it was refreshing. Now, the sequel, THE MUMMY RETURNS (2001), that wasn’t so refreshing.  Neither is VAN HELSING.

It plays not like a homage but like a giant video game.  If you want to see a true homage to 1930s Universal horror, watch YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN (1974).  Mel Brooks got it right.

VAN HELSING is one action sequence after another, which gets boring real quick.  It’s overkill.  The scene where Van Helsing uses his “machine gun crossbow” — he’s fires off, what?  Like 1,000 rounds of wooden stakes at the flying vampire creatures in a spectacular action sequence, and I’m sitting there asking myself, how many stakes does it take to do in a vampire?  One.  Just shoot one.  The guy’s got enough ammo to take on Middle Earth, and worst of all?  He MISSES!  He doesn’t even knock off one of the damned things!

LLS: I actually liked Dracula’s brides (the flying vampires) a lot more than Drac himself. They also seemed more dangerous than their “master.” The high-tech crossbow was a bit much, though. Maybe Van Helsing should go to the firing range once in awhile and LEARN HOW TO SHOOT! But on the whole, I didn’t think the movie was boring – despite a 2 and a half hour running time, it seemed to move along briskly enough. My problem is that it was all sizzle and no stake.

MJA (smiling):   Good line.  I like it.

LLS:  Thanks.  Speaking of stakes, I was wishing someone would stake Dracula in the first half hour.

MJA:  Yes, Dracula (Richard Roxburgh) was very disappointing, the worst part of the movie for me.  Richard Roxburgh is the same actor who played the sniveling villain in the Nicole Kidman musical MOULIN ROUGE (2002) and he was brilliant in that.  As Dracula he’s — let’s put it this way. He’s probably the most boring version of Dracula I have ever seen.  The Count on SESAME STREET is more dramatic.

LLS: MOULIN ROUGUE??  Now that’s a horror movie!

MJA: The Wolf Man was pretty scary though.  I thought all the werewolf scenes were the best ones in the movie.   He was certainly scarier looking than the creatures seen in AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON (1981) or THE HOWLING (1981).

LLS: The werewolf looked okay for a CGI effect. The only good thing to come out of this is that Universal just re-released a bunch of the old movies on DVD (in three box sets) to re-familiarize people with Frankenstein’s Monster, Dracula and The Wolf Man.

Instead of spending the cash for tickets to see VAN HELSING, you’d be better off buying the real deal.

MJA:  And if you do see VAN HELSING, don’t expect much of a horror movie.  I mean, it’s not scary.  Were you scared?

LLS: Scared? You’re screwing with me, right?

MJA: No, I’m serious.  ‘Cause if you found it scary, maybe you shouldn’t be carrying that machete!

LLS: You know, it’s going to be really hard for you to review the next movie if you don’t have any eyes…

MJA: Ah, save it for a JEEPERS CREEPERS review!

-THE END-

(Originally published in Hellnotes on May 20, 2004)

© Copyright 2004 by Michael Arruda and L.L. Soares

Leave A Comment »

First Cinema Knife Fight Ever! – SECRET WINDOW

Posted in 2004, Campy Movies, Cinema Knife Fights, Stephen King Movies with tags , , , , , , on February 23, 2010 by knifefighter

(BLAST FROM THE PAST DEPARTMENT: Well, since we’ve posted all of our Fear Zone columns here, it’s time to go even further back into the past to our columns for the horror newsletter HELLNOTES. This particular review is the very first Cinema Knife Fight ever! From way back in 2004! Boy, have things changed since then! ~LLS)

CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT # 1 – SECRET WINDOW
by Michael Arruda & L.L. Soares

MA: Hi.  I’m Michael Arruda.  I write the movie review column for the HWA Newsletter, IN THE SPOOKLIGHT.

LS: And I’m L.L. Soares, and I’ve written movie reviews for a bunch of places, including DVD RESURRECTIONS and WEIRD TIMES.

MA: CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT is a new review column in which we’ll both examine the world of horror movies.

Today we begin with the new Johnny Depp movie, SECRET WINDOW (2004).

SECRET WINDOW, based upon the 1991 Stephen King novella “Secret Window, Secret Garden,” tells the story of writer Mort Rainey (Johnny Depp) who is going through a very painful divorce process with his wife Amy (Maria Bello).  Rainey has moved out of his house and now lives in a secluded cabin in the woods.  One morning he is visited by a man named John Shooter (John Turturro) who accuses him of stealing one of his stories.

Rainey immediately denies it, but Shooter insists he prove it, and as the movie goes on, Rainey discovers that Shooter is an unsavory character who will stop at nothing to prove that Rainey stole his story.  This leads to a series of shocking acts, building up to the film’s violent conclusion.

While the directing, writing, and acting in the film is all topnotch, the first problem I had with SECRET WINDOW is that it doesn’t contain much of a secret.  I determined pretty much in the opening frame of the movie where the story was going to go, and what kind of plot twist we were to expect, so for me, that kind of ruined the movie.

(Strange voice with Southern accent): “Excuse me, Mistah Arruda, you stole my review.”

MA: What?  Where’s L.L.?  Who are you?

LS (Takes off black wide-brimmed hat): It’s just me.

Well, I agree that the “twist” ending is not all that much of a surprise. But I disagree that it ruins the movie. The big reason to see this one is for Johnny Depp. The guy can outact just about everyone in his generation and has already proven in the past that he can make an otherwise mediocre movie watchable. The thing is, I liked SECRET WINDOW. It’s a fun little thriller, and Depp makes it enjoyable, imbuing Mort with lots of personality and some interesting quirks. This is a three-dimensional character. It’s also the case of an actor improving the quality of a movie with relative ease, preventing it from being the run-of-the-mill horror story it could have been if someone less capable had played the lead.

John Turturro is no slouch, either. While he may have less screen time than Depp, he makes every minute of his part count, and the scenes when he’s tormenting Depp are the most enjoyable parts of the film.

The ending may not knock your hat off, but the fun is getting there in the first place.

And there’s humor in this film, too. I thought Depp’s scenes with Turturro had a real sense of dark comedy to them, and I laughed out loud at the “Redrum” moment in the movie. If you’ve seen it, you know exactly what I mean.

MA:  Let me take a moment to recover my senses and let my heartbeat slow down.  You really scared me there.  You do a good John Turturro.

I agree with you about the acting.  Depp and Turturro are both wonderfully creepy.  I’ll even take it a step further and say that Maria Bello as Amy Rainey more than holds her own with these two actors throughout the film.  She nails the wife’s emotions.  And then you have Timothy Hutton who also does a bang-up job.  To me, the acting is by far the best part of SECRET WINDOW and the reason to see it, but unlike you, I don’t feel it’s enough to save the movie.

It’s painfully obvious where the movie is going and what the “twist” is going to be.  Did you know early on?  I’m sure you did.  Once you know that, it’s just an excuse to have Johnny Depp do this thing.  Save yourself the money and see PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN instead.  Depp’s better in that, and there’s a far better payoff in the end.

LLS: PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN? I thought this was a horror movie column. And why are you wearing those Mickey Mouse ears?  That’s almost as scary as Turturro’s hat!

Actually, I thought Maria Bello’s character was kind of annoying and I couldn’t understand why Depp was wasting so much time pining away for her. I thought it would have been funnier if they had his real ex, Winona Ryder, in the role. Or even Kate Moss. At least that would have added some real tension to the movie. But you’re right about Timothy Hutton, some of Depp’s scenes with him are pretty funny, especially their run-in at the gas station. Watch out for that car window!

Listen, I don’t think this is a great movie, but it kept me entertained and I wasn’t wasting too much time worrying about whether the ending would be clever or not. I actually thought the ending that bothered you so much was kind of part of the joke. I just dug it for what it was. It’s a fun little showcase for Depp, and I think that’s good enough to recommend it. If nothing else, it’s at least worth a video rental.

MJA:   You’re right about Maria Bello’s character.  She is annoying, and that’s what worked for me.  And PIRATES OF THE CARRIBEAN IS a horror movie.

LLS: (pulls out a machete). Let’s discuss this some more…

—END—

(First published in the HELLNOTES newsletter dated April 22, 2004)

© Copyright 2004 by Michael Arruda and L.L. Soares

Leave A Comment »

SHUTTER ISLAND!

Posted in 2010, Cinema Knife Fights, Crime Films, Ghost Movies with tags , , , , , , , , , , on February 22, 2010 by knifefighter

CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT: SHUTTER ISLAND
by Michael Arruda and L.L. Soares


CUT TO: THE SOUND OF THE WIND HOWLING

(SCÈNE: the grounds of a menacing-looking mental hospital on an isolated island. A storm is brewing and the wind is building strength, as rain clouds threaten to release their bounty. Our intrepid reviewers, MICHAEL ARRUDA and L.L. SOARES have arrived on the scene. An armed guard greets them.)

GUARD: What would you fellers be wanting around these parts?

LS:  An apartment. I hear the housing market’s pretty good here.

GUARD (Looks over his shoulder at menacing building.):  An apartment?  Here?  What?  Are you crazy?

MA:  Well, if we were, we came to the right place, didn’t we?

GUARD:  Who are you guys?

MA (Leans into guard, very serious): Cinema Knife Fighters. (On cue, there’s a blinding flash of lightning combined with an explosive crack of thunder.)

GUARD: Oh, those idiots…I mean, guys. Come to snoop around our hospital. You’ll find nothing out of the ordinary here.

LS: This is a hospital for the criminally insane. What would you consider “out of the ordinary.”

GUARD: I know, I know, you want me to say “A peaceful day,” like they do in the movie, but I ain’t gonna say it…Follow me, won’t you?

LS: Didn’t you used to be the cross-dressing brother on THE DREW CAREY SHOW?

GUARD: I have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about. (Suddenly sings out) Cleveland Rocks!

(GUARD leads them to the office of SPOOKY OLD PSYCHIATRIST, who runs the joint)

SPOOKY PSYCHIATRIST: Nice of you boys to visit our homicidal maniacs. Er… I mean patients.

MA: This isn’t a visit, Doctor.

LS: Yeah, we’re here to review a movie.

PSYCHIATRIST: Well, don’t let me stop you!

MA: Don’t worry, you won’t.  L.L., how about you start us off?

LS (To PSYCHICIATRIST): Has anyone ever told you you look a lot like Ghandi?

PSYCHIATRIST: I have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about.

LS:  Okay…Our movie this time around is the new film by legendary filmmaker Martin Scorsese, SHUTTER ISLAND. This one was based on the novel by Dennis Lehane, who also provided the source material for the Oscar-winning film, MYSTIC RIVER.

MA: Another Boston-based crime drama, although to be honest, the island and psychiatric fortress perched on it reminded me a bit of Alcatraz, and so for some reason the Boston location didn’t fit for me. I kept thinking they were off the coast of San Francisco.

LS: Well, the Shutter Island of the title is off the coast of Boston, and this story is a bit spookier than your average crime drama. There are ghosts, and sometimes horrific hallucinations.

(Camera goes to an EXTREME CLOSE-UP of MA’s face. He looks out the window at the storm, and a glazed look appears in his eyes, as if he’s falling into a daydream. We suddenly see MA and LS dressed in drag skipping through a field of flowers. MA SCREAMS!)

LS:  Hey, partner, are you all right?

MA (Face dripping with perspiration):  What a horrifying image!  I’m sorry. I’m okay. I’ve just got this headache.

PSYCHIATRIST:  You must be getting a migraine. Here, take these pills. (Hands MA pills).

MA:  Gee, thanks, Doc. (Grimaces and looks at pills – they have skulls and crossbones imprinted on them).

LS (Notices pills):  I used to take that brand when I was a kid. ( MA downs the pills)).

Anyway, SHUTTER ISLAND is the story of U.S. Marshal Teddy Daniels (Leonardo DiCaprio), sent to the harsh, isolated Ashecliffe Hospital on Shutter Island to investigate the escape of one of its inmates, a woman who drowned her children years before. Teddy and his partner Chuck (Mark Ruffalo) immediately find themselves in a tense situation, as the hospital’s security force, led by Deputy Warden McPherson (John Carroll Lynch), makes it clear that they are unwanted there, and the marshals are ordered to surrender their firearms upon entering the facility. From here, things go from bad to worse, as the marshals are introduced to the man who runs the hospital, Dr. Cawley (Ben Kingsley), who at first seems helpful, but who is anything but. Clearly nobody wants these strangers snooping around the facility, and no one is particularly willing to cooperate with their investigation.

Teddy is plagued by migraines during their stay, and a hurricane traps them on the island for several days. As the movie progresses we find out about several plotlines that run through this film, such as Teddy’s visions of his dead wife Dolores (Michelle Williams), who appears to him as a ghost and gives him bits of information which actually seem to help him in his investigation. He also has flashes back to his time in the army, when he was one of the American soldiers who liberated the Dachau concentration camp during World War II, an experience that left a severe scar on his psyche, seeing what humans were capable of doing to other humans. Teddy is also searching for another possible inmate, Andrew Laeddis, the man who set the apartment fire that killed his wife.

With the storm raging outside, and the staff and inmates being uncooperative and hostile inside, Teddy seems to be in the middle of some vast conspiracy, with possible ties to the U.S. government. As he gets closer and closer to the truth, we approach a twist ending that turns everything on its head.

(MA groans, stumbles into corner).

LS:  Hey, bud, you okay?

(MA snarls and whips around, revealing he’s now a werewolf.)

LS:  Holy crap!

MA (Now normal):  What is it?

LS (Camera zooms in for an EXTREME CLOSE-UP of his face, as sweat is dripping from his forehead):  Now, I’m seeing things. I don’t know. I think I’m getting a migraine too.

PSYCHIATRIST:  Here, take these aspirin.

LS:  What the hell are these?  I want the ones with the skulls and crossbones on them!  You can’t trick me!

(MA turns to camera and looks perplexed.)

MA: Yeah, the twist in SHUTTER ISLAND. It didn’t work for me at all. There’s not a whole lot I can say about it without giving it away, but, because of the numerous clues early on in the movie, I saw this twist coming long before I should have, which in effect, spoiled the movie for me. For example, when Dr. Crawley (Ben Kingsley) explains his philosophy of psychiatry to Teddy Daniels, right there, I saw the way the movie was going to play out. To me, it was just WAY too apparent, and it’s difficult to explain it here, since I don’t want to go into too much detail and be a spoiler.

LS: I had a very mixed reaction to SHUTTER ISLAND. I thought it started out great – very claustrophobic and with a hint of film noir to the atmosphere. It goes without saying that Scorsese is a master of his craft and after making films for so many years, he has a lot of this down pat. However, once the movie begins to head in the direction of its twist ending, everything fell apart for me. I’d say, around the time Leonardo has a strange conversation with Patricia Clarkson in a cave. From then on, the movie becomes very talky as various characters reveal their secrets, and everything is explained in great detail. Too much detail, if you ask me. This all culminates in a finale that I saw coming a mile away, but which also was very unsatisfying for me as a viewer.

MA:  I agree, but it happened much earlier for me than that cave scene. I could argue that in the opening scene, when DiCaprio and Ruffalo are on the ferry to the island, right there, I saw hints which led me to believe this film would have the kind of twist it had. I know I should stop, but I can’t help myself. The clue has to do with water. Okay, I’ll shut up about it.

LS: Yeah, zip your lip. I saw the ending coming before the scene in the cave, too, but I kept hoping it wouldn’t go in that direction, that the story was still salvageable. By the discussion in the cave, I knew it was sunk.

MA: Anyway, I also enjoyed the plot early on. I like the reason the marshals come to the island, to investigate the disappearance of a female patient who disappeared from a locked room. I thought this was a compelling mystery, and I was really into it, and I think I would have enjoyed SHUTTER ISLAND more, had it been a straight crime-thriller rather than an exercise in the M. Night Shyamalan school of storytelling.

(Suddenly M. NIGHT SHYAMALAN pops up from behind a spooky corner)

M. NIGHT: What is this about another director stealing my idea for twist endings?

LS: But it’s the great Martin Scorsese! Besides, you haven’t made a good movie in years.

M NIGHT: That doesn’t matter, I AM THE TWIST GUY!

(CHUBBY CHECKER drops down from the ceiling and starts dancing)

CHUBBY (Singing): Come on Baby! Let’s do The Twist!

(LS and MA run to another room and close the door)

LS: Ahh, it’s nice and quiet here.

There were actually a few things about the movie I didn’t like. First off, I have a hard time taking Leonardo DiCaprIo seriously as some world weary, hard-edged G-Man. Maybe it’s his baby face beneath the stubble, along with his acting limitations, but I just didn’t find him completely believable in this role. Every time he tried to sound like some hard-edged cop, I just didn’t buy it. I know that Scorsese has really taken DiCaprio on as his favorite leading man these days (Leonardo also starred in Scorsese’s films GANGS OF NEW YORK (2002), THE AVIATOR (2004), and 2006’s THE DEPARTED), and Scorsese has gotten some good work out of him, but I still don’t find all of his performances to be equally compelling. And I think he is often miscast. Compare DiCaprio to the man who used to be Scorsese’s “go-to guy” earlier in his career, Robert De Niro, and there is a vast chasm between these two actors. De Niro, in his prime, could act circles around DiCaprio. Sadly, De Niro hasn’t had a really good role in a long time, either.

MA:  I would disagree with you here. Not about DeNiro, who remains one of my all time favorite actors, but about DiCaprio. I bought him in this role, and I think he was completely captivating as Federal Marshal Teddy Daniels.

LS: Because of his work with Scorsese, I like DiCaprio a lot more than I would have otherwise. But I don’t think he’s a great actor. And I still think someone else could have done a better job with this role.

MA: It took me a while to warm up to DiCaprio. For example, I didn’t really enjoy him in TITANIC (1997) all that much, but in films like THE DEPARTED (2006) and BLOOD DIAMOND (2006) he was excellent. I would argue that DiCaprio is one of the best actors around, and in terms of talent, I would put him in the same class as Johnny Depp. In fact, I’ve enjoyed his recent performances more than Depp’s.

LS: I think Depp is a much better actor. But he’s got to stop making those lame PIRATE movies.

MA:  But back to SHUTTER ISLAND, I thought DiCaprio was completely believable as the hard-edged federal marshal, and even more, I thought in the film’s climactic scene, a very disturbing scene that was difficult to watch, that he nailed the agonizing emotion his character was put through.

There were a lot of things I didn’t like about SHUTTER ISLAND too, but the acting, especially that of DiCaprio, wasn’t one of them.

LS:  As for the rest of the acting, for the most part, it’s all very good.

MA:  Yes, the acting was definitely my favorite part of the whole film.

LS:  Ben Kingsley and Max Von Sydow as creepy doctors, turn in excellent performances.

MA:  Isn’t Von Sydow great?  I am so happy this guy is still making movies. He’s such a dominating presence, and he clearly steals the scenes he’s in. He’s wonderful to watch. He’s also probably the only actor still going today who can say he’s been making movies longer than Christopher Lee!  Though I bet Lee’s made more.

I liked Kingsley too, though at times I thought he was doing an impersonation of Donald Pleasance from the HALLOWEEN movies.

LS:  Ruffalo is pretty good, too, as DiCaprio’s partner – a new guy who Daniels doesn’t know well, but who he has to trust in this situation. Michelle Williams is very effective in her scenes as Daniels’s dead wife (even if her accent seems a bit off sometimes), and there are great cameos by Elias Koteas (who we saw most recently in THE FOURTH KIND), as the man who’s pyromania led to the death of Daniels’s wife, and especially Jackie Earle Haley (Rorschach from WATCHMEN, and the new Freddy Krueger in the upcoming remake of A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET) as another inmate who, in trying to help Daniels, has gotten himself locked away in a hellish ward where the most dangerous inmates are kept – inside a former Civil War fort.

MA:  Yes, the cameos by Koteas and Haley were highlights, and Haley’s scene was the better of the two. Blink and you’ll miss Koteas. I liked Michelle Williams very much, and as the plot moves along, her character and her performance grow all the more haunting.

LS: I thought Michelle Williams’s role was risky. Often in movies when a character returns as a ghost to help the hero, it can come off as really lame. But Williams does a great job. Also very good is Ruby Jerins as a dead little girl who Teddy Daniels has visions of as well. She’s very spooky.

Another character I found compelling was Ted Levine as The Warden. The Warden is not on screen for very long, but there’s a scene toward the end where he gives DiCaprio’s character a ride in his jeep, and they have a very disturbing conversation. I thought that was a highlight, too. I wish he’d been in it more.

Hell, I really wanted to like this film. By half way through, I was definitely enjoying it and I thought it was a no-brainer that I was going to be giving this movie a good review. But by the last part, the movie just let me down in too many ways for me to recommend it.

Another major problem I have with Scorsese’s recent films is their length. All of the movies I mentioned that star DiCaprio run well over the two-hour mark. You could argue that when you’re someone as iconic as Scorsese, you  should go on as long as you want, but you’d be wrong. This man needs an editor who is not afraid to sit him down and tell him that he needs to start cutting his films down a bit. The length adds to the fact that there are definite slow spots (I found the final half hour, when all of the secrets are revealed, to be pretty tedious and badly paced). Better editing could have kept the entire film moving along as steadily as it does in its first hour.

MA:  As much as I like Scorsese’s work, I would have to agree with you here. The pacing of SHUTTER ISLAND suffers greatly towards the end.

LS: It wasn’t always this way. There was a time when Scorsese was great at pacing. Just look at classics like TAXI DRIVER (1976) and RAGING BULL (1980), two of my favorite Scorsese films. There’s not a minute wasted in those films.

There’s enough good stuff in SHUTTER ISLAND to recommend that you see it on DVD when it is released. But I don’t recommend paying the price of a movie ticket for this one.

MA:  This is scary, but I had nearly the same exact experience. I really wanted to like this movie too, and I was liking it, but like you, towards the end, things soured.

Technically, this movie was like a juicy steak. It looked terrific, the scenes were crafted to the point of making your mouth water, and I don’t know, I could pretty much watch a Scorsese movie all day. I mean, there was atmosphere everywhere:  storms, jagged cliffs, a lighthouse, mentally unstable patients and dark corridors. There’s nothing wrong with the look or feel of this film.

The acting was phenomenal, powerful to the point where some scenes silenced the crowded theater I was in. The flashbacks and the dream sequences were compelling, and they really worked for me.

There was certainly a lot to like, but the twist –which wasn’t much of a twist, since I saw it coming – cut the film down several notches. Also, the subject matter of a parent murdering her children is about as unpleasant as they come. This, combined with images of Nazi death camps doesn’t exactly make for a fun night out. By the time the end credits had rolled on SHUTTER ISLAND, I felt totally drained and depressed.

Now, I don’t mind that a movie tackles serious subject matter such as this, but in a murder/mystery /crime thriller, it’s too dark for my tastes.

LS: I didn’t think the darker aspects of the film were a detriment at all. In fact, they packed a punch. Too bad there weren’t more punches in this movie. By the end, it’s pretty limp.

MA:  Ultimately, SHUTTER ISLAND is a fine example of movie-making expertise by a master movie-maker, and it’s well acted by veterans of the field, but its story is dark and depressing, without any reward, and its effectiveness is further muddled by a forced plot twist that–if you’re paying close attention to the clues in the movie– you’ll know about long before you’re supposed to.

So, in spite of the fact that it’s a well-made thriller, I can’t recommend SHUTTER ISLAND either.

PSYCHIATRIST:  That’s too bad, gentlemen, because now you’ll have to stay here forever! (Laughs maniacally).

LS:  Not a problem. (Snaps fingers. A valet enters with their bags).We like it here. I’ll take the room overlooking the spooky lighthouse.

MA:  Damn!  Oh well, I’ll take the one with the view of the brick wall.

PSYCHIATRIST:  You two gentlemen are crazy!

MA:  No, we’re Cinema Knife Fighters! (Lightning flashes, thunder booms, and the lights flicker).

LS:  And don’t you forget it! (Turns to camera)  Don’t you forget either. We wouldn’t want to do this alone. Thanks for tuning in.

MA:  Yes, as always, many thanks to our readers!  Until next time—.

(THE LIGHTS GO OUT WITH A CRACK OF THUNDER)

FADE TO BLACK.

© Copyright 2010 by Michael Arruda and L.L. Soares

1 Comment »

« Older Entries
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 80 other followers