There are many hidden gems to be found in the realm of 1980's horror films. Fright Night is not one of them. In theory, this should have been at least mildly entertaining. It's a horror-comedy about vampires. What could possibly go wrong? As is usual, the answer is everything.
From the start, Fright Night is doomed. The plot can easily be summed up as follows: After teenager Charley Brewster realizes his new neighbor is a vampire, he must enlist the help of a washed-up actor to save Charley's girlfriend from the bloodsucker's clutches. And that's literally it. No twists, no turns, no subplots, and certainly nothing interesting going on. The story often feels incomplete, and many scenes seem to drag on for no other reason than to pad the length of the movie.
The characters are also severely lacking. Normally this doesn't matter much in a horror film, as most characters are usually just there to die. But Fright Night insists that we care about these characters, to the point of trying to cram in character arcs in the 3rd act. But this is to no avail, because our cast is nothing more than a grab bag of 1980's character archetypes, most of whom strangely look like other (and better) actors. Our main character is an amalgamation of John Cusack types with a dash of Billy Peltzer from Gremlins. He's supposedly obsessed with horror movies, which I can only assume is because he always has his TV set to the late-night horror movie channel. Other than that, he's just like every other bland protagonist in 1980's teen movies.
For our side characters, we have the vague Sigourney Weaver lookalike as the girlfriend, who scoffs at Charley's tales of vampires living next door, until she randomly changes her mind and sticks with him wholeheartedly the rest of the film. Then there's the sidekick, Ed, who looks strangely like Beavis. Towards the end of the film, Ed randomly (and rather traitorously) lets himself be turned into a vampire, with the promise of no longer being picked on after joining the undead. This makes absolutely no sense, because his character is never once shown being bullied, and up until then seemed to be getting along quite well with everyone else. The last of our protagonists, Peter Vincent, is a washed up actor who runs a late night horror movie program on TV. He doesn't really do much other than serve as a sidekick after Ed turns evil, so there's not much worth mentioning. Our antagonist, a vampire named Jerry, is played with extreme blandness, on par with every other actor in this film. The actor playing him doesn't look very menacing in the first place, and he fails to make up for appearance with his acting.
The film is also billed as a horror-comedy, which is odd considering there's not a single joke in the whole film. The tone isn't even tongue-in-cheek. The closest Fright Night ever comes to being funny is the sidekick Ed, who is only funny because he looks eerily like Beavis, and that wasn't even intentional. On the subject of Ed, I'm pretty sure his character is meant to be humorous, but he never says anything that would qualify as a joke. There's no allusions to other horror films, no winks to the audience, no flat-out humorous dialog, and not even an ounce of slapstick in the fight scenes. And yet somehow this film is labelled a horror-comedy. By today's standards, the film is pretty dated, and that may get a laugh out of some people, but other than that this film legitimately tries to play itself serious.
Special effects are often the strongest suit of horror movies and can greatly improve the quality of an otherwise terrible film. This is almost true of Fright Night. Aside from a brief scene early in the film, Fright Night is a vampire film with a surprising lack of vampire-related special effects. Thankfully we do get a few good effects in during the end fight scene. At one point, Ed transforms into a wolf and is subsequently killed with a stair banister. He then slowly transforms back into a human, which is probably the only truly interesting effect in the movie. During the last few minutes of the film, Jerry the vampire briefly turns into a large bat, and while the creature is obviously on strings half of the time, the design of the creature is very convincing. We also get a bizarre melting-type death when Jerry's henchman gets stabbed with a stake and then sort of just turns into green goo. But despite the apparent effort put into the special effects, their time in the film is fleeting, and sadly crammed into the last 15 minutes of the movie.
Overall, this is a disappointing dud of a vampire movie. It fails to deliver the very few things it promised to begin with; cheap scares and a few laughs. Even as a B-Movie, the film is lacking. The acting is bad, but it never veers into the over-the-top territory. And while the plot and dialog are often lame, they're both coherent enough to still be taken seriously, so we don't get any goofy one-liners or ridiculously forced banter. But then again, this film never promised much to begin with. If you like B-Movies, you may still want to check this one out, if only for the special effects, but you can probably find the ending on Youtube and save yourself the trouble. They're really the only good part of this movie.
Enjoyment- 2/5
Quality- 2/5
IMDB Page- http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0089175/
September 19, 2012
September 14, 2012
Movie Review- Carrie (1976)
Carrie is a 1976 horror-thriller based on Stephen King's debut novel of the same name. Seeing as it was King's first book, it's certainly not his best; it's not particularly frightening, and the pacing seems off at times. Coincidentally, the movie suffers from many of the same problems as the book. But whereas the book is a fairly entertaining read, the movie is actually quite boring. But that being said, it's certainly not terrible, and at least tries to respect the source material.
The main problem with the film is the book it's based on. Carrie adapts the book as close as is cinematically possible. But the book constantly switches back and forth between the regular narrative and excerpts from various psychology books and magazines that mostly focus on Carrie's psyche and an attempt at discovering what happened on the night of her high school prom. This adds a strangely suspenseful angle to the book, by giving the reader brief glimpses of the ending, which builds up until we finally see what happens from the regular narrative standpoint. The film leaves these parts out, as it would have not translated well to film. Unfortunately this kills a lot of the suspense, and the movie's ending lacks the punch that the book had. And while the film version thankfully fixes some of the pacing problems with the book, it does so at the price of further killing the suspense.
If there is anything good to be said about the film, however, it's the acting. Sissy Spacek was the perfect choice for Carrie. She fits the description King gave her in the book, and she has the acting skills to pull the character off. And while the ending does lack suspense, we genuinely feel sorry when Carrie gets humiliated in front of her peers. Piper Laurie was also a great choice for Carrie's mother. While personally I didn't think she looked like how I envisioned the character, Laurie still does a great job of portraying a religious zealot without turning it comical.
Artistically, this is a very strange film as well. After reading Carrie, the only word I could think of describing it as was "strange". And the film adaptation is very strange, too, but not in the same way. There's a great deal of soft light used throughout the film, causing many scenes to look like watercolor paintings. There's also a strange overuse of low-angle and high-angle shots, which then typically end up zooming in on something. There are scenes of normal conversation that are filled with these shot sequences, and it becomes very annoying and distracting after a while. Perhaps the director was trying to go for some artistic angle I'm unaware of, but regardless I still think the cinematography is strange.
Both the book and movie versions of Carrie are famous for their ending, in which Carrie kills all her fellow students with telekinesis after having a bucket of pig blood poured onto her. The scene is so famous, in fact, that it was depicted on the film's poster and subsequent home video releases. But one people often forget is that the sequence is much shorter in the film, and a lot less creepy. The last third act of the book is spent on detailing the sheer amount of carnage that Carrie brings upon the town. She literally decimates half the town, after blowing up the school, blowing up a gas station, downing power lines, and cutting the water supply to all the town's fire hoses. In the film she sprays people with a fire hose and some people accidentally get electrocuted. Needless to say, the movie's ending seems a bit underwhelming.
In both versions, Carrie eventually comes home, where her crazed mother tries to kill her. The film version ends with Carrie's mother being killed with not-so-subtle religious undertones, and then Carrie's house collapses in on the both of them. There's a brief scene showing that one of the characters still lived, a cheap jump scare, and then the film's over. The book ends similarly, except without the overtones and Carrie dies in a parking lot instead of a collapsed house. Not much difference there, but it feels like the film should have scrapped the house-collapsing scene and used the money for a better prom massacre scene.
Overall, Carrie is a strange but faithful adaptation of the book. It tries really hard to be as good as the book, but fails for the most part. If you haven't read the book, you'll probably enjoy the movie a lot more, but if you have already read the book, it's still worth looking in to. I'm sure there are a lot of people who enjoyed the book more than I did, and so those people will probably like the movie a lot better, too. As is with most of the movies I review, I certainly didn't hate it, but I thought it could have been a lot better.
Enjoyment- 3/5
Quality- 4/5
IMDB Page- http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074285/
The main problem with the film is the book it's based on. Carrie adapts the book as close as is cinematically possible. But the book constantly switches back and forth between the regular narrative and excerpts from various psychology books and magazines that mostly focus on Carrie's psyche and an attempt at discovering what happened on the night of her high school prom. This adds a strangely suspenseful angle to the book, by giving the reader brief glimpses of the ending, which builds up until we finally see what happens from the regular narrative standpoint. The film leaves these parts out, as it would have not translated well to film. Unfortunately this kills a lot of the suspense, and the movie's ending lacks the punch that the book had. And while the film version thankfully fixes some of the pacing problems with the book, it does so at the price of further killing the suspense.
If there is anything good to be said about the film, however, it's the acting. Sissy Spacek was the perfect choice for Carrie. She fits the description King gave her in the book, and she has the acting skills to pull the character off. And while the ending does lack suspense, we genuinely feel sorry when Carrie gets humiliated in front of her peers. Piper Laurie was also a great choice for Carrie's mother. While personally I didn't think she looked like how I envisioned the character, Laurie still does a great job of portraying a religious zealot without turning it comical.
Artistically, this is a very strange film as well. After reading Carrie, the only word I could think of describing it as was "strange". And the film adaptation is very strange, too, but not in the same way. There's a great deal of soft light used throughout the film, causing many scenes to look like watercolor paintings. There's also a strange overuse of low-angle and high-angle shots, which then typically end up zooming in on something. There are scenes of normal conversation that are filled with these shot sequences, and it becomes very annoying and distracting after a while. Perhaps the director was trying to go for some artistic angle I'm unaware of, but regardless I still think the cinematography is strange.
Both the book and movie versions of Carrie are famous for their ending, in which Carrie kills all her fellow students with telekinesis after having a bucket of pig blood poured onto her. The scene is so famous, in fact, that it was depicted on the film's poster and subsequent home video releases. But one people often forget is that the sequence is much shorter in the film, and a lot less creepy. The last third act of the book is spent on detailing the sheer amount of carnage that Carrie brings upon the town. She literally decimates half the town, after blowing up the school, blowing up a gas station, downing power lines, and cutting the water supply to all the town's fire hoses. In the film she sprays people with a fire hose and some people accidentally get electrocuted. Needless to say, the movie's ending seems a bit underwhelming.
In both versions, Carrie eventually comes home, where her crazed mother tries to kill her. The film version ends with Carrie's mother being killed with not-so-subtle religious undertones, and then Carrie's house collapses in on the both of them. There's a brief scene showing that one of the characters still lived, a cheap jump scare, and then the film's over. The book ends similarly, except without the overtones and Carrie dies in a parking lot instead of a collapsed house. Not much difference there, but it feels like the film should have scrapped the house-collapsing scene and used the money for a better prom massacre scene.
Overall, Carrie is a strange but faithful adaptation of the book. It tries really hard to be as good as the book, but fails for the most part. If you haven't read the book, you'll probably enjoy the movie a lot more, but if you have already read the book, it's still worth looking in to. I'm sure there are a lot of people who enjoyed the book more than I did, and so those people will probably like the movie a lot better, too. As is with most of the movies I review, I certainly didn't hate it, but I thought it could have been a lot better.
Enjoyment- 3/5
Quality- 4/5
IMDB Page- http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074285/
August 1, 2012
Movie Review- Tales from the Hood
Tales from the Hood is a horror anthology film produced by Spike Lee. It features a primarily black cast, and mixes real-life horrors such as domestic abuse with a supernatural element. This is a really interesting idea for a horror movie, and it mostly hits the mark. While most horror anthology films feel like rejected Twilight Zone episodes crammed into a movie, Tales from the Hood feels more like rejects from Tales from the Dark Side (A 1980's Twilight Zone knockoff). The horror elements work for the most part, but the twist endings and attempts at discussing important issues come across as clunky and poorly planned, much like Tales from the Dark Side's more serious episodes.
The narrative that weaves the short stories together is a strange one. Three drug dealers go to a funeral home to pick up drugs from a mortician, who claims to have found a stack of drugs in a back alley. As the mortician leads the dealers through the funeral parlor, he tells them stories about the corpses that are currently residing in the funeral home. These stories segue into the different segments that comprise the film. Once they reach the back of the funeral home, we're given a rather unexpected twist ending. The twist ending doesn't make a lot of sense, because there was no subtle buildup to it, but it was still a great creepy ending to finish the film. The scenes in the funeral home aren't all that great, though. The mortician is incredibly hammy, drawing overly long breaths between sentences for dramatic effect, and trying to hoarsely whisper his lines in an attempt to be creepy. Other than that, this is a fairly solid narrative; it serves its purpose and ties all the segments together.
The first story of the film is probably the best of the four. The mortician shows the drug dealers the body of a man he claims died from insanity. This leads into a story about some corrupt policemen who kill a senator that was out to stop crooked cops. A rookie cop witnesses the event, and quits the force. Weeks later he hears a voice telling him to bring the cops to the senator's grave. The rookie does so, and when the police arrive, the body of the senator comes back from the dead and gets revenge on the cops that killed him. It's then revealed that this all happened inside the rookie's head and that he's now in a mental institution for murdering the policemen. Out of the four stories in the films, this is by far the most serious and suspenseful of them. The characters are set up fairly well within the short span of time, as is the suspense. The special effects are good too, although the last death scene is a bit strange. However, as with the rest of the film, there is an undertone of social issues (In this case, police brutality and corruption) that doesn't quite flow with the horror elements of the film.
The next story could have easily been the best of the segments, but the ending ruined it. The mortician shows the dealers another casket, but this time we don't see the body. This time the story involves a little boy named Walter, who annoyingly whispers all his lines. His teacher suspects that Walter is a victim of domestic abuse, but Walter adamantly claims that he was hurt by a monster. When the teacher comes to visit Walter's home and speak with his parents, he's quickly thrown out by Walter's father, who turns out to be a monster. Ultimately Walter saves the day because he has magical powers that allow him to kill whatever he makes a drawing of. He crumples up the drawing, leaving the stepfather comically twisted into a pretzel. He lights the paper on fire, and we fade back to the mangled and burned corpse of the stepfather, in his casket at the funeral home. This could have been a very good sketch, but again the unpleasant undertones of social issues (this time domestic abuse) take away from the horror elements. The social issue aspect is never brought to light in any of the stories, and never discussed in any form, we're just left with unpleasant undertones.
The third story is the silliest out of the four. This time the mortician shows the dealers a voodoo doll. This segues into a story that involves a former KKK member who is running for governor in the south. He decides to take up residence in a former plantation that was once the scene of a massacre in the mid-1800's. There is apparently a local legend in the town that the spirits of the slaves who died in the massacre were put into voodoo dolls by a local magic practitioner, and the dolls are somewhere in the plantation. The politician refuses to believe the legend, until his PR assistant dies in a freak accident. Soon after, he starts seeing a doll all over his house. He eventually shoots it, but to no avail. A swarm of dolls appear and attack him, which is where the story ends. This is a really goofy segment. The main character is ridiculously bigoted and spews racial slurs constantly. The special effects are equally ridiculous. The puppets are completely mobile, and run around in some fairly decent stop-motion animation sequences, but it mostly looks like rejected footage from the Puppetmaster series. The ending is also very abrupt. Albeit, there wasn't a lot of room for the story to go from there, but it still felt like the story ended too quickly.
The last of the stories is by far the weirdest. The mortician shows the dealers the body of a man they once knew. This leads into a story about a man who is nearly killed in a gunfight, and sentenced to a life in prison. After a few years, he's offered a free pass out if he subjects himself to government testing. He's taken away to a surrealistic and strangely cartoonish testing facility, where's he put in a cage next a Neo-Nazi. The next day the man is taken to a room to be tested on by a female scientist who shouts most of her lines, and seems like she previously worked in community theater. The man is strapped to a table and subject to Clockwork Orange-style brainwashing, except he's forced to watch gang violence layered with rap music. The man is then put in a sensory deprivation room, where he hallucinates about everyone he's ever killed. He snaps back to reality, and in a strange twist is still in the gunfight from the beginning of the story, but this time he dies. The mortician finishes the tale, and it's revealed that the killers were the drug dealers. The film ends with the aforementioned plot twist.
Overall, this is a pretty decent film, but it suffers from shoehorned-in sociopolitical messages. If this were more of a thriller, the messages may have had more of an impact, but the importance is lost amongst goofy horror violence and terrible acting. The first segment is definitely the best, as it manages to create good suspense and some fairly decent characters within the time constraints. The sociopolitical themes are still prevalent, but it's the only segment where it actually fits in with the story. The twist ending at the end of the film is pretty good, too, if not a bit sudden. If you're looking for a change of pace in horror movies, this is good film to check out. But if you're interested in the horror anthology subgenre, the 1982 film Creepshow is a much better place to start.
Enjoyment- 3.5/5
Quality- 3/5
IMDB Page- http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0114609/
The narrative that weaves the short stories together is a strange one. Three drug dealers go to a funeral home to pick up drugs from a mortician, who claims to have found a stack of drugs in a back alley. As the mortician leads the dealers through the funeral parlor, he tells them stories about the corpses that are currently residing in the funeral home. These stories segue into the different segments that comprise the film. Once they reach the back of the funeral home, we're given a rather unexpected twist ending. The twist ending doesn't make a lot of sense, because there was no subtle buildup to it, but it was still a great creepy ending to finish the film. The scenes in the funeral home aren't all that great, though. The mortician is incredibly hammy, drawing overly long breaths between sentences for dramatic effect, and trying to hoarsely whisper his lines in an attempt to be creepy. Other than that, this is a fairly solid narrative; it serves its purpose and ties all the segments together.
The first story of the film is probably the best of the four. The mortician shows the drug dealers the body of a man he claims died from insanity. This leads into a story about some corrupt policemen who kill a senator that was out to stop crooked cops. A rookie cop witnesses the event, and quits the force. Weeks later he hears a voice telling him to bring the cops to the senator's grave. The rookie does so, and when the police arrive, the body of the senator comes back from the dead and gets revenge on the cops that killed him. It's then revealed that this all happened inside the rookie's head and that he's now in a mental institution for murdering the policemen. Out of the four stories in the films, this is by far the most serious and suspenseful of them. The characters are set up fairly well within the short span of time, as is the suspense. The special effects are good too, although the last death scene is a bit strange. However, as with the rest of the film, there is an undertone of social issues (In this case, police brutality and corruption) that doesn't quite flow with the horror elements of the film.
The next story could have easily been the best of the segments, but the ending ruined it. The mortician shows the dealers another casket, but this time we don't see the body. This time the story involves a little boy named Walter, who annoyingly whispers all his lines. His teacher suspects that Walter is a victim of domestic abuse, but Walter adamantly claims that he was hurt by a monster. When the teacher comes to visit Walter's home and speak with his parents, he's quickly thrown out by Walter's father, who turns out to be a monster. Ultimately Walter saves the day because he has magical powers that allow him to kill whatever he makes a drawing of. He crumples up the drawing, leaving the stepfather comically twisted into a pretzel. He lights the paper on fire, and we fade back to the mangled and burned corpse of the stepfather, in his casket at the funeral home. This could have been a very good sketch, but again the unpleasant undertones of social issues (this time domestic abuse) take away from the horror elements. The social issue aspect is never brought to light in any of the stories, and never discussed in any form, we're just left with unpleasant undertones.
The third story is the silliest out of the four. This time the mortician shows the dealers a voodoo doll. This segues into a story that involves a former KKK member who is running for governor in the south. He decides to take up residence in a former plantation that was once the scene of a massacre in the mid-1800's. There is apparently a local legend in the town that the spirits of the slaves who died in the massacre were put into voodoo dolls by a local magic practitioner, and the dolls are somewhere in the plantation. The politician refuses to believe the legend, until his PR assistant dies in a freak accident. Soon after, he starts seeing a doll all over his house. He eventually shoots it, but to no avail. A swarm of dolls appear and attack him, which is where the story ends. This is a really goofy segment. The main character is ridiculously bigoted and spews racial slurs constantly. The special effects are equally ridiculous. The puppets are completely mobile, and run around in some fairly decent stop-motion animation sequences, but it mostly looks like rejected footage from the Puppetmaster series. The ending is also very abrupt. Albeit, there wasn't a lot of room for the story to go from there, but it still felt like the story ended too quickly.
The last of the stories is by far the weirdest. The mortician shows the dealers the body of a man they once knew. This leads into a story about a man who is nearly killed in a gunfight, and sentenced to a life in prison. After a few years, he's offered a free pass out if he subjects himself to government testing. He's taken away to a surrealistic and strangely cartoonish testing facility, where's he put in a cage next a Neo-Nazi. The next day the man is taken to a room to be tested on by a female scientist who shouts most of her lines, and seems like she previously worked in community theater. The man is strapped to a table and subject to Clockwork Orange-style brainwashing, except he's forced to watch gang violence layered with rap music. The man is then put in a sensory deprivation room, where he hallucinates about everyone he's ever killed. He snaps back to reality, and in a strange twist is still in the gunfight from the beginning of the story, but this time he dies. The mortician finishes the tale, and it's revealed that the killers were the drug dealers. The film ends with the aforementioned plot twist.
Overall, this is a pretty decent film, but it suffers from shoehorned-in sociopolitical messages. If this were more of a thriller, the messages may have had more of an impact, but the importance is lost amongst goofy horror violence and terrible acting. The first segment is definitely the best, as it manages to create good suspense and some fairly decent characters within the time constraints. The sociopolitical themes are still prevalent, but it's the only segment where it actually fits in with the story. The twist ending at the end of the film is pretty good, too, if not a bit sudden. If you're looking for a change of pace in horror movies, this is good film to check out. But if you're interested in the horror anthology subgenre, the 1982 film Creepshow is a much better place to start.
Enjoyment- 3.5/5
Quality- 3/5
IMDB Page- http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0114609/
July 26, 2012
Movie Review- Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2
Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 is one of the strangest things ever committed to celluloid. It not only fails to resemble the original film in any shape or form (sans a rehash of the dinner scene), but it does so in such a bold manner it leaves the viewer dumbfounded long after viewing. The characters are utterly bizarre and the film itself feels very surreal; it constantly rides the line between horror and camp, but manages to keep the audience's suspension of disbelief despite the insanity on screen.
At first glance, the plot doesn't sound all that strange; a small-town DJ is kidnapped by Leatherface, and the father of the wheelchair kid from the first movie sets out for revenge. But the strangeness lies within the details. The hillbilly brother from the last movie is now a guy with a metal plate in his head who looks like Gollum but talks like Beetlejuice with a southern accent. The hillbilly guy also constantly picks at his metal plate with a heated coat-hanger. The cannibal family now lives in a network of underground tunnels, lined with weird trinkets and bones. Dennis Hopper chews scenery like crazy and has a chainsaw fight with Leatherface. Leatherface's dad from the previous film now runs a chili stand out in the open, and it's apparently made of people. There's so many strange quirks to this film, you could write an entire article about it.
Even if you put aside the differences between the first film and the sequel, none of this stuff makes any sense. None of the weirdness is ever played for comedic effect, which makes it even weirder. Most of the quirks aren't unintentionally funny, either. (Except for Leatherface. He's a complete goofball in this movie, and it's hilarious). The film could have easily played it towards the comedic side, and given a much more memorable film, but TCM2 takes itself so seriously it sucks all the fun out of a goofy screenplay, ruining all the potentially fun campy moments, and instead leaving us with several "What the heck just happened?" moments.
Another problem with this film is the violence. The original Texas Chainsaw Massacre relied heavily on suspense and atmosphere to give audiences the creeps. The sequel opts for unpleasantly gross violence and torment. Sure, the first film had a couple on-screen deaths, but the sequel is brimming with gross-out violence. The sequel still manages to be creepy though, but not in a good way. Whereas the first film relied on gritty cinematography and creepy locations to get a sleazy feel, the sequel uses constant threats of violence to get that feeling of unease. In fact, the majority of the second and third acts involve the heroine either captured in or running through the family's tunnel-hideout, which comes across as just mean-spirited.
Speaking of which, this isn't really much of a slasher film. The majority of the second and third act involve the
main character running around Leatherface's tunnel-home. There's very little supporting cast outside of Dennis Hopper and the villains. There's a couple minor characters that die, but we barely get to know them before they're offed. The rest of the movie mostly revolves around tormenting the lead. The end fight scene returns to the overly serious tone of the first half of the film, however. There's a chainsaw fight between Dennis Hopper and Leatherface that once again lacks any enjoyment because of the soullessly serious feel of the film. Leatherface's dad eventually blows everyone up with a grenade, except for the heroine and the hillbilly guy. A fight between the two ensues, and yet again it's shot in a grave and mean-spirited tone, which is no easy feat considering it takes place atop a Flintstones-esque hut on a plateau. (Because apparently the hillbillies store their dead grandma up their or something.)
Overall, this is an extremely bizarre piece of cinema. It takes itself way too seriously, despite the insanity of the characters. TCM2 often feels like it's going out of its way to gross out the audience, resulting in a very cold and mean feeling to much of the second and third acts. I didn't exactly have high hopes for this movie, but I certainly expected better than this. If you're a big fan of the first film, then I'd definitely skip this one. However if you like campy films, then you might want to check this one out. I didn't think the campiness was directed properly, but perhaps if you have a darker sense of humor, this might appeal to you.
Enjoyment- 2/5
Quality- 2/5
IMDB Page- http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0092076/
At first glance, the plot doesn't sound all that strange; a small-town DJ is kidnapped by Leatherface, and the father of the wheelchair kid from the first movie sets out for revenge. But the strangeness lies within the details. The hillbilly brother from the last movie is now a guy with a metal plate in his head who looks like Gollum but talks like Beetlejuice with a southern accent. The hillbilly guy also constantly picks at his metal plate with a heated coat-hanger. The cannibal family now lives in a network of underground tunnels, lined with weird trinkets and bones. Dennis Hopper chews scenery like crazy and has a chainsaw fight with Leatherface. Leatherface's dad from the previous film now runs a chili stand out in the open, and it's apparently made of people. There's so many strange quirks to this film, you could write an entire article about it.
Even if you put aside the differences between the first film and the sequel, none of this stuff makes any sense. None of the weirdness is ever played for comedic effect, which makes it even weirder. Most of the quirks aren't unintentionally funny, either. (Except for Leatherface. He's a complete goofball in this movie, and it's hilarious). The film could have easily played it towards the comedic side, and given a much more memorable film, but TCM2 takes itself so seriously it sucks all the fun out of a goofy screenplay, ruining all the potentially fun campy moments, and instead leaving us with several "What the heck just happened?" moments.
Another problem with this film is the violence. The original Texas Chainsaw Massacre relied heavily on suspense and atmosphere to give audiences the creeps. The sequel opts for unpleasantly gross violence and torment. Sure, the first film had a couple on-screen deaths, but the sequel is brimming with gross-out violence. The sequel still manages to be creepy though, but not in a good way. Whereas the first film relied on gritty cinematography and creepy locations to get a sleazy feel, the sequel uses constant threats of violence to get that feeling of unease. In fact, the majority of the second and third acts involve the heroine either captured in or running through the family's tunnel-hideout, which comes across as just mean-spirited.
Speaking of which, this isn't really much of a slasher film. The majority of the second and third act involve the
main character running around Leatherface's tunnel-home. There's very little supporting cast outside of Dennis Hopper and the villains. There's a couple minor characters that die, but we barely get to know them before they're offed. The rest of the movie mostly revolves around tormenting the lead. The end fight scene returns to the overly serious tone of the first half of the film, however. There's a chainsaw fight between Dennis Hopper and Leatherface that once again lacks any enjoyment because of the soullessly serious feel of the film. Leatherface's dad eventually blows everyone up with a grenade, except for the heroine and the hillbilly guy. A fight between the two ensues, and yet again it's shot in a grave and mean-spirited tone, which is no easy feat considering it takes place atop a Flintstones-esque hut on a plateau. (Because apparently the hillbillies store their dead grandma up their or something.)
Overall, this is an extremely bizarre piece of cinema. It takes itself way too seriously, despite the insanity of the characters. TCM2 often feels like it's going out of its way to gross out the audience, resulting in a very cold and mean feeling to much of the second and third acts. I didn't exactly have high hopes for this movie, but I certainly expected better than this. If you're a big fan of the first film, then I'd definitely skip this one. However if you like campy films, then you might want to check this one out. I didn't think the campiness was directed properly, but perhaps if you have a darker sense of humor, this might appeal to you.
Enjoyment- 2/5
Quality- 2/5
IMDB Page- http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0092076/
July 21, 2012
Movie Review- Night of the Creeps
Night of the Creeps is a mixed bag. For the most part, it's a very funny horror-comedy, but occasionally the film's true colors show through. Deep down, Night of the Creeps is a very pompous film; it's very self-referential, poking fun at different aspects of B-Movies and constantly gives a knowing wink to the audience, only to unintentionally suffer from the very aspects it was poking fun at. Despite these flaws, this is still a very fun and campy horror/comedy romp.
The script's plot is intentionally ludicrous; slug-like creatures from outer space attack a couple in the late 1950's, and the boyfriend is kept cryogenically frozen in a lab, only to be revived in a college prank nearly 30 years later. The slug-creatures apparently possess their victims, bringing them back to life as zombies. One character even remarks the situation as being like "a bad B-Movie", after finding the remains of one of the cryogenically frozen zombie's victims. Surprisingly most of the characters are flat archetypes, but there's one exception. One of the main characters is a grizzled cop who spouts nonsensical one-liners ("Miller time!") and has his own catchphrase, which he uses constantly. His character goes against the grain of the rest of the film. His character seems more fitting for a "Police Squad!"-type movie, not in a horror comedy about killer alien slugs. There's not much to be said about the other characters; the main character is the usual "I'm the relatable guy" type, and his sidekick is the annoying comic relief character. The sidekick's dialog is so over-the-top at times, it seems to be a parody of annoying sidekicks, though.
The humor here is very referential, and relies heavily on the viewer's knowledge of B-Movies. This isn't a parody or a send-up of horror movies however, even though it tries to act like one. This is just a very tongue-in-cheek horror-comedy, much like a precursor to the Scream movies, but with less direction in its humor. For example, there's recurring joke that different characters have the same surname as different horror movie directors (The main character's name Chris Romero, the love interest's name is Cynthia Cronenberg, there's a police officer named Sgt. Raimi, and so on). The dialog is also intentionally ridiculous, mostly coming from the annoying comic relief and the detective. But then at the same time the film has a straight-up parody opening, with a very ridiculous satire of 1950's science-fiction films. There's even a brief cameo by Dick Miller, a staple actor for any horror-comedy. The humor feels like it's all over the board, and that's because it is. Albeit the humor is usually funny, but some consistency would have been nice.
The main problem I had with this film, and really the only problem I have with it is the special effects aspect. For a film that makes fun of B-Movies constantly, and gives off a very smug "we're better than other horror movies because we're self-referential", it's really lacking in its special effects budget. The slug-aliens themselves look intentionally terrible, but everything else looks like they put effort into it. The zombie makeup and effects are ridiculously fake at times, and it doesn't seem to be on purpose, or else the film would have directed your attention towards that fact. For example, the end fight scene should have been really climactic and full of great special effects, because we spent the previous 70 minutes of the movie with a lot of buildup and almost no zombie or alien action up to that point. Instead we get shoddy-looking dummies in masks used for the impact shots, and really cheap looking makeup for the reaction shots any time a zombie is attacked. This culminates in a scene where the detective has to fight off several zombies, but we never get to see the fight. We hear the gunshots and cut to a brief bit with the main character. We cut back and the detective is standing over the twice-dead zombies. This could have been an interesting little gunfight scene, but instead we are left with an unsatisfactory reaction shot.
Despite all the flak I've given the film, it's still a fun watch. The opening sequence that parodies 1950's science-fiction films is absolutely hilarious. It's spot-on farce of the "meteorite lands near some teens in a car" plot device, and elements of the age-old "teens in the wood being stalked by a crazy guy" campfire story. The first two special effects in the film are pretty decent as well, which why I was so disappointed with the special effects at the end. Right before the sequence in the 1950's, we see some aliens aboard a space ship, trying to prevent one of their crew members from launching the space-slugs into Earth's orbit. The design for the aliens is really nifty looking (vaguely reminiscent of the cantina band aliens from Star Wars),and it's a shame we only get to see them during that one scene. We're introduced to the grizzled cop character in a dream sequence that contains the only other cool effect in the movie. The cop has a nightmare about the couple from the opening sequence, and upon finding their remains is confronted by the killer who for some reason looks like the Crypt Keeper from "Tales from the Crypt". We only see the killer briefly, but his design was really interesting. Strangely enough, when the killer is brought back to life via the space-slugs, the design for the killer/zombie is different than the one in the dream sequence.
Overall, this is a pretty entertaining movie. The jokes are funny for the most part, even if the characters spewing them are relatively flat. The special effects mostly lacking, but the two scenes that I previously mentioned are still really cool to look at. It's not a particularly suspenseful or creepy film, but it doesn't try to be. Night of the Creeps is more centered on the laughs. If you can tolerate some extremely tongue-in-cheek humor, than this is a film worth looking in to. If that's not really your thing, there are much better horror-comedies out there.
Enjoyment- 3.5/5
Quality- 3/5
IMDB Page- http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0091630/
The script's plot is intentionally ludicrous; slug-like creatures from outer space attack a couple in the late 1950's, and the boyfriend is kept cryogenically frozen in a lab, only to be revived in a college prank nearly 30 years later. The slug-creatures apparently possess their victims, bringing them back to life as zombies. One character even remarks the situation as being like "a bad B-Movie", after finding the remains of one of the cryogenically frozen zombie's victims. Surprisingly most of the characters are flat archetypes, but there's one exception. One of the main characters is a grizzled cop who spouts nonsensical one-liners ("Miller time!") and has his own catchphrase, which he uses constantly. His character goes against the grain of the rest of the film. His character seems more fitting for a "Police Squad!"-type movie, not in a horror comedy about killer alien slugs. There's not much to be said about the other characters; the main character is the usual "I'm the relatable guy" type, and his sidekick is the annoying comic relief character. The sidekick's dialog is so over-the-top at times, it seems to be a parody of annoying sidekicks, though.
The humor here is very referential, and relies heavily on the viewer's knowledge of B-Movies. This isn't a parody or a send-up of horror movies however, even though it tries to act like one. This is just a very tongue-in-cheek horror-comedy, much like a precursor to the Scream movies, but with less direction in its humor. For example, there's recurring joke that different characters have the same surname as different horror movie directors (The main character's name Chris Romero, the love interest's name is Cynthia Cronenberg, there's a police officer named Sgt. Raimi, and so on). The dialog is also intentionally ridiculous, mostly coming from the annoying comic relief and the detective. But then at the same time the film has a straight-up parody opening, with a very ridiculous satire of 1950's science-fiction films. There's even a brief cameo by Dick Miller, a staple actor for any horror-comedy. The humor feels like it's all over the board, and that's because it is. Albeit the humor is usually funny, but some consistency would have been nice.
The main problem I had with this film, and really the only problem I have with it is the special effects aspect. For a film that makes fun of B-Movies constantly, and gives off a very smug "we're better than other horror movies because we're self-referential", it's really lacking in its special effects budget. The slug-aliens themselves look intentionally terrible, but everything else looks like they put effort into it. The zombie makeup and effects are ridiculously fake at times, and it doesn't seem to be on purpose, or else the film would have directed your attention towards that fact. For example, the end fight scene should have been really climactic and full of great special effects, because we spent the previous 70 minutes of the movie with a lot of buildup and almost no zombie or alien action up to that point. Instead we get shoddy-looking dummies in masks used for the impact shots, and really cheap looking makeup for the reaction shots any time a zombie is attacked. This culminates in a scene where the detective has to fight off several zombies, but we never get to see the fight. We hear the gunshots and cut to a brief bit with the main character. We cut back and the detective is standing over the twice-dead zombies. This could have been an interesting little gunfight scene, but instead we are left with an unsatisfactory reaction shot.
Despite all the flak I've given the film, it's still a fun watch. The opening sequence that parodies 1950's science-fiction films is absolutely hilarious. It's spot-on farce of the "meteorite lands near some teens in a car" plot device, and elements of the age-old "teens in the wood being stalked by a crazy guy" campfire story. The first two special effects in the film are pretty decent as well, which why I was so disappointed with the special effects at the end. Right before the sequence in the 1950's, we see some aliens aboard a space ship, trying to prevent one of their crew members from launching the space-slugs into Earth's orbit. The design for the aliens is really nifty looking (vaguely reminiscent of the cantina band aliens from Star Wars),and it's a shame we only get to see them during that one scene. We're introduced to the grizzled cop character in a dream sequence that contains the only other cool effect in the movie. The cop has a nightmare about the couple from the opening sequence, and upon finding their remains is confronted by the killer who for some reason looks like the Crypt Keeper from "Tales from the Crypt". We only see the killer briefly, but his design was really interesting. Strangely enough, when the killer is brought back to life via the space-slugs, the design for the killer/zombie is different than the one in the dream sequence.
Overall, this is a pretty entertaining movie. The jokes are funny for the most part, even if the characters spewing them are relatively flat. The special effects mostly lacking, but the two scenes that I previously mentioned are still really cool to look at. It's not a particularly suspenseful or creepy film, but it doesn't try to be. Night of the Creeps is more centered on the laughs. If you can tolerate some extremely tongue-in-cheek humor, than this is a film worth looking in to. If that's not really your thing, there are much better horror-comedies out there.
Enjoyment- 3.5/5
Quality- 3/5
IMDB Page- http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0091630/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)