Originally written July 18th, 2014.
This oddly-subtitled flick is a 1987 Italian horror film about a community theater group that gets terrorized by an escaped maniac. The twist? The musical they’re performing is about an escaped maniac. Oh the irony! Plus it’s written by the guy who penned Porno Holocaust. How could you say no?
Overall, it’s a by-the-numbers slasher horror, but with one exception. As is typical of Italian horror, it’s gorgeously shot. Everything looks ethereal and surreal, and it’s really unsettling. The story is nothing special, but it has tons of stupid-silly moments to keep you entertained until the action starts.
Once the killer appears, things start to pick up. The gore is extreme to the point of being ridiculous, which adds to the surreal feel of everything. Plus the killer wears this ratty old owl mask, and it’s creepy as hell. It’s still the usual “And Then There Were None" deal, but it’s pretty intense. The final act has some great suspense and even better visuals. Things kinda fall apart in the last 5 minutes, when they try to force in one last scare before the movie ends, but other than that it’s pretty solid.
If you like horror and want to try something different, check out StageFright. It’s a poor man’s Dario Argento in a way. It has all the same creepy visuals, but on a smaller scale and a weaker story. There’s enough silly campy stuff to entertain during the dull parts and enough suspense and terror to fulfill the “Fright” part of StageFright.
November 3, 2015
Movie Review: Sinister
Originally written July 20th, 2014.
Do you have a weird fetish for 8mm projectors? Then boy, do I have the movie for you. Sinister is approximately 90% shots of Ethan Hawke assembling and fiddling around with an old film projector. The remaining ten percent is like that processed mystery meat in hotdogs, except with cliches.
Sinister scored big at the box office in 2012 because the only other horror movie with half a brain that year was Cabin in the Woods, and Cabin required too much thought from the average viewer to be successful. It did so well that the director was picked to direct the upcoming Dr. Strange movie for Disney. It’s as if everyone forgot this guy directed Hellraiser V and the Day the Earth Stood Still remake. Because the foul stench of this guy’s filmography hasn’t left Sinister.
The movie follows Ethan Hawke, who plays a true crime writer investigating a young girl who disappeared in the late 70’s. He decides to move into the victim’s old house for some reason (a fact his wife is amazingly oblivious to). While moving in, Ethan Hawke finds a box of Super 8 home movies and decides to watch them. To his surprise (well, the script wants him to be surprised but Hawke seems so disinterested in his role that he might as well have been asleep) the movies are graphic snuff films, and he suspects a connection between them and his case.
Rather than turn the films over to the police like a sane person, Hawke keeps them and tries to solve things himself. After porting the footage onto his computer, Hawke realizes that there is some sort of creature found in the background of the films. Hawke finally decides to get police help, so he of course enlists the comic relief cop. He is neither comic or a relief in this long slog of a movie. The cop puts him in contact with Vincent D’onofrio, a historian who gives as dead a performance as Hawke.
D’onofrio tells Hawke that the creature he saw was likely some ancient demon known as Mr. Boogie. (Yes, that really is what they call him.) The ol’ boogster apparently eats children and bears a striking resemblance to the Slenderman. And as an added bonus during one of his few on-screen appearances you can clearly see the actor’s green-screen glove. How frightening.
Eventually Hawke finds another box of tapes, quite seriously labelled “The Extended Cut”, and pops them in his projector. The bonus footage reveals that (no shock at all) it was the missing children from the films that killed everyone! Apparently the boogeyman makes kids murder people instead of eating them. This is supposed to be a twist or something, but it’s blatantly obvious what happened within the first 15 minutes of movie. And then Hawke’s daughter ax-murders him to continue Mr. Boogie’s kill streak. And then there’s a stupid jump scare to finish things off. The End!
Overall, this is just a bland movie. Structurally the movie is sound, because the pacing is admittedly really good (it’s dull but at least it doesn’t drag) and it has a great creepy ambient soundtrack. The problem is that nothing is particularly scary in the movie. There’s the occasional creepy visual like the opening tree scene, but the movie always follows up and does something stupid to ruin the creep. (They left that tree branch there? For 30 years? Really?) The acting is wooden and the characters aren’t engaging, so there’s no investment when anything happens to them. The only fun part is the comically lame Mr. Boogie, but he’s barely even in the movie. There’s nothing outstandingly bad about Sinister, it’s just middling and dumb. It’s best to pass on this one.
Do you have a weird fetish for 8mm projectors? Then boy, do I have the movie for you. Sinister is approximately 90% shots of Ethan Hawke assembling and fiddling around with an old film projector. The remaining ten percent is like that processed mystery meat in hotdogs, except with cliches.
Sinister scored big at the box office in 2012 because the only other horror movie with half a brain that year was Cabin in the Woods, and Cabin required too much thought from the average viewer to be successful. It did so well that the director was picked to direct the upcoming Dr. Strange movie for Disney. It’s as if everyone forgot this guy directed Hellraiser V and the Day the Earth Stood Still remake. Because the foul stench of this guy’s filmography hasn’t left Sinister.
The movie follows Ethan Hawke, who plays a true crime writer investigating a young girl who disappeared in the late 70’s. He decides to move into the victim’s old house for some reason (a fact his wife is amazingly oblivious to). While moving in, Ethan Hawke finds a box of Super 8 home movies and decides to watch them. To his surprise (well, the script wants him to be surprised but Hawke seems so disinterested in his role that he might as well have been asleep) the movies are graphic snuff films, and he suspects a connection between them and his case.
Rather than turn the films over to the police like a sane person, Hawke keeps them and tries to solve things himself. After porting the footage onto his computer, Hawke realizes that there is some sort of creature found in the background of the films. Hawke finally decides to get police help, so he of course enlists the comic relief cop. He is neither comic or a relief in this long slog of a movie. The cop puts him in contact with Vincent D’onofrio, a historian who gives as dead a performance as Hawke.
D’onofrio tells Hawke that the creature he saw was likely some ancient demon known as Mr. Boogie. (Yes, that really is what they call him.) The ol’ boogster apparently eats children and bears a striking resemblance to the Slenderman. And as an added bonus during one of his few on-screen appearances you can clearly see the actor’s green-screen glove. How frightening.
Eventually Hawke finds another box of tapes, quite seriously labelled “The Extended Cut”, and pops them in his projector. The bonus footage reveals that (no shock at all) it was the missing children from the films that killed everyone! Apparently the boogeyman makes kids murder people instead of eating them. This is supposed to be a twist or something, but it’s blatantly obvious what happened within the first 15 minutes of movie. And then Hawke’s daughter ax-murders him to continue Mr. Boogie’s kill streak. And then there’s a stupid jump scare to finish things off. The End!
Overall, this is just a bland movie. Structurally the movie is sound, because the pacing is admittedly really good (it’s dull but at least it doesn’t drag) and it has a great creepy ambient soundtrack. The problem is that nothing is particularly scary in the movie. There’s the occasional creepy visual like the opening tree scene, but the movie always follows up and does something stupid to ruin the creep. (They left that tree branch there? For 30 years? Really?) The acting is wooden and the characters aren’t engaging, so there’s no investment when anything happens to them. The only fun part is the comically lame Mr. Boogie, but he’s barely even in the movie. There’s nothing outstandingly bad about Sinister, it’s just middling and dumb. It’s best to pass on this one.
Movie Review: Thir13en Ghosts
Originally written July 21st, 2014.
My love of practical effects and prosthetic makeup is going to be the death of me some day. I recently saw a scene from Thir13en Ghosts on YouTube and decided to watch it solely on the awesome/gross effect of a guy getting bisected by a pane of glass. Robert Kurtzman of Wishmaster and Greg Nicotero of Army of Darkness were doing the special effects so it couldn’t be that bad, right?
I don’t think I’ve ever seen a major studio film with editing this bad before. This is Birdemic: Shock and Terror bad. But at least Birdemic has the excuse of being a zero-budget amateur production. The entire movie lurches blindly ahead like a rickety rollercoaster. Even in low-key dialog scenes the cutting is so frenetic that it’s a headache. There’s never that natural pause between dialog; it feels like the lines are all trying to force their way out of a door at once and then all come spewing out at once.
Editing needs to be paced properly so that things don’t feel rushed. There are numerous scenes of exposition that needed to be played slowly to ensure all the information is presented clearly, but the characters rush through everything so fast it leaves your head spinning. The action scenes are even worse. I think the director was trying to go for a music video feel, with lots of flashy jump cuts and things jumping at the screen, but it comes across as disorienting and obnoxious. It’s like someone trying to punch you in the face with a strobe light.
I’m all for unique editing styles. Edgar Wright pulls off jump cut sequences fantastically, and Event Horizon uses rapid-fire editing really well for its brief glimpses of hell. But both of those examples use the techniques sparingly. Thir13en Ghosts uses them the entire movie, and it’s an eyesore. It’s so difficult to tell what’s going on during the action sequences that anything of interest is immediately lost.
Despite the massive headache that is the editing, there are a few good things about the movie. There are some very creative ideas here and there, like the production design. The idea of having the house be a maze of shifting walls and stairs is pretty cool, and the glasshouse/clockwork design is stunning. The ghosts are really cool, too. We don’t get to see much of it, but the effects work from Kurtzman and Nicotero is top-notch. The naked ghost woman is really creepy, as is the guy covered in nails, and that guy with the cage on his head. It’s a shame the editing ruined everything, because visually, the movie had a lot going for it.
Overall, this movie is a complete wreck. When the movie isn’t jump-cutting your eyes into dust, it’s shoveling everything forwards at an unnecessary breakneck speed. There are momentary glimpses of a good movie trying to break through, like the bathroom scene and that “Black Zodiac” thing, but ultimately it’s all lost in the dang editing. The ghost designs are cool, and the effects work is great for 2001, but they get butchered to oblivion along with everything else. I haven’t seen the original 1960 film, but I have no doubt it’s better than the remake. So go watch that one instead and save your self the potential seizures.
My love of practical effects and prosthetic makeup is going to be the death of me some day. I recently saw a scene from Thir13en Ghosts on YouTube and decided to watch it solely on the awesome/gross effect of a guy getting bisected by a pane of glass. Robert Kurtzman of Wishmaster and Greg Nicotero of Army of Darkness were doing the special effects so it couldn’t be that bad, right?
I don’t think I’ve ever seen a major studio film with editing this bad before. This is Birdemic: Shock and Terror bad. But at least Birdemic has the excuse of being a zero-budget amateur production. The entire movie lurches blindly ahead like a rickety rollercoaster. Even in low-key dialog scenes the cutting is so frenetic that it’s a headache. There’s never that natural pause between dialog; it feels like the lines are all trying to force their way out of a door at once and then all come spewing out at once.
Editing needs to be paced properly so that things don’t feel rushed. There are numerous scenes of exposition that needed to be played slowly to ensure all the information is presented clearly, but the characters rush through everything so fast it leaves your head spinning. The action scenes are even worse. I think the director was trying to go for a music video feel, with lots of flashy jump cuts and things jumping at the screen, but it comes across as disorienting and obnoxious. It’s like someone trying to punch you in the face with a strobe light.
I’m all for unique editing styles. Edgar Wright pulls off jump cut sequences fantastically, and Event Horizon uses rapid-fire editing really well for its brief glimpses of hell. But both of those examples use the techniques sparingly. Thir13en Ghosts uses them the entire movie, and it’s an eyesore. It’s so difficult to tell what’s going on during the action sequences that anything of interest is immediately lost.
Despite the massive headache that is the editing, there are a few good things about the movie. There are some very creative ideas here and there, like the production design. The idea of having the house be a maze of shifting walls and stairs is pretty cool, and the glasshouse/clockwork design is stunning. The ghosts are really cool, too. We don’t get to see much of it, but the effects work from Kurtzman and Nicotero is top-notch. The naked ghost woman is really creepy, as is the guy covered in nails, and that guy with the cage on his head. It’s a shame the editing ruined everything, because visually, the movie had a lot going for it.
Overall, this movie is a complete wreck. When the movie isn’t jump-cutting your eyes into dust, it’s shoveling everything forwards at an unnecessary breakneck speed. There are momentary glimpses of a good movie trying to break through, like the bathroom scene and that “Black Zodiac” thing, but ultimately it’s all lost in the dang editing. The ghost designs are cool, and the effects work is great for 2001, but they get butchered to oblivion along with everything else. I haven’t seen the original 1960 film, but I have no doubt it’s better than the remake. So go watch that one instead and save your self the potential seizures.
Movie Review: The Lost Boys
Originally written September 8th, 2013.
The Lost Boys is a 1987 horror-comedy from director Joel Schumacher. Despite Schumacher’s checkered past with bat-related movies, The Lost Boys is actually a very fun and entertaining movie. It’s one of the few horror-comedies I’ve seen to properly balance scares and laughs, without one dominating the other. It’s also one of the only good vampire movies I’ve seen.
For starters, The Lost Boys is really, really funny. The relationship between Corey Haim and his brother is hilarious; after finding out his brother is a vampire, Haim’s first thought is to rat him out to their mom. Then there’s Corey Feldman, who plays a wannabe Van Helsing with a pseudo-Schwarzenegger voice. Plus the movie is very over-the-top 80’s, and if you get a kick out of the goofy hairstyles and clothes, you’ll appreciate this movie all the more.
The Lost Boys is really creepy when necessary, too. I normally don’t find vampires all that frightening, but Keifer Sutherland has a very intimidating presence, and the vampire attack scenes are shot very well, keeping the vampires hidden, leaving a lot to the imagination. The end is spectacularly creepy, too. Corey Haim and company have to fight off Keifer Sutherland’s vampire gang, leading to some excellently grotesque vampire deaths, and an awesome vampire duel between Sutherland and Corey Haim’s brother.
The movie is all around fun to watch, and while it is campy and has a bit of a deus ex machina ending, it’s still very funny and creepy, and a very entertaining movie. If you like horror-comedies, this is one of the best titles the genre has to offer.
The Lost Boys is a 1987 horror-comedy from director Joel Schumacher. Despite Schumacher’s checkered past with bat-related movies, The Lost Boys is actually a very fun and entertaining movie. It’s one of the few horror-comedies I’ve seen to properly balance scares and laughs, without one dominating the other. It’s also one of the only good vampire movies I’ve seen.
For starters, The Lost Boys is really, really funny. The relationship between Corey Haim and his brother is hilarious; after finding out his brother is a vampire, Haim’s first thought is to rat him out to their mom. Then there’s Corey Feldman, who plays a wannabe Van Helsing with a pseudo-Schwarzenegger voice. Plus the movie is very over-the-top 80’s, and if you get a kick out of the goofy hairstyles and clothes, you’ll appreciate this movie all the more.
The Lost Boys is really creepy when necessary, too. I normally don’t find vampires all that frightening, but Keifer Sutherland has a very intimidating presence, and the vampire attack scenes are shot very well, keeping the vampires hidden, leaving a lot to the imagination. The end is spectacularly creepy, too. Corey Haim and company have to fight off Keifer Sutherland’s vampire gang, leading to some excellently grotesque vampire deaths, and an awesome vampire duel between Sutherland and Corey Haim’s brother.
The movie is all around fun to watch, and while it is campy and has a bit of a deus ex machina ending, it’s still very funny and creepy, and a very entertaining movie. If you like horror-comedies, this is one of the best titles the genre has to offer.
October 23, 2012
Movie Review- Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon
Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon is a horror-comedy that's part mockumentary and part slasher. It's a pretty funny film, but there are a few key flaws that keep it from being truly great. The idea of the movie is quite clever; it's about a serial killer who hires a film crew to document him as he prepares for his newest reign of terror. However, the ending is weak and causes the film to fall apart, and ruins what could have been a horror movie that was a cut above the rest. But all that aside, the good moments in Behind the mask are excellent, and mostly outweigh the bad. It's rough around the edges, but it's a lot of fun.
A majority of the film is shot documentary-style, relying mostly on dialog and characters to move the story. This is really cool, because it's rare that a horror film ever spends much time fleshing out their characters. And while there's only a few characters that actually get any depth, it's still nice for a change to have a main character and a villain who aren't overused archetypes. The acting is really uneven, though. Leslie is played by a guy named Nathan Baesel, who sort of looks like Dane Cook, but unlike Dane Cook, this guy is actually funny. His performance is quite interesting; he plays the role seriously, but gives it the right amount of casualness to befit the film's comedic side. The comedic side of the character is ultimately his undoing, though, because the character of Leslie is a little too goofy to be taken seriously as a villain, and thus when Nathan finally dons the killer's mask, it's really hard to find him intimidating, even though the film clearly wants us to. The other main character is Taylor, the director of the documentary, and lead interviewer. She's fairly decent in her role, and at least doesn't ham up her role like everyone else in the film.
The supporting cast of characters are all intentionally stereotypes that parody the stereotypes in slasher movies. Accordingly, a lot of the acting from these characters is really bad. It's not the hilarious kind of bad acting, though. The supporting cast is mostly just annoying. Thankfully their screen time is limited, and most of the time they aren't talking. There's also a strange cameo from Zelda Rubinstein, the medium from "Poltergeist". She's barely on screen for two minutes, but even her performance is a bit lackluster. Fortunately we do get a fun performance from Robert Englund. He plays a brief role as a parody of Donald Pleasance's character from the "Halloween" series. Englund does a surprisingly good impression of Donald Pleasence, and while Englund doesn't get a whole lot of screen time, he's still a fun character to watch.
The problem with the main characters though, ties back to the weak ending I previously mentioned. There's a bit of a joke throughout the movie that the film crew documenting Leslie is very passive about his homicidal tendencies. They appear to be a bit apprehensive of him, but otherwise they have no problem with watching him set up his plans for his murder spree. Only until Leslie kills the first two of his teenage victims does Taylor the director suddenly grow a conscience and attempt to stop him, eventually guilting her camera crew into helping her stop him. This strikes me as odd, because Taylor and her crew didn't bat an eye when Leslie killed a librarian right in front of them. Why they suddenly started caring about Leslie's victims is beyond me. Taylor also tries to talk to Leslie's main victim early on in the film, to warn her about her impending doom or something, but again this seemingly comes out of nowhere; outside of those two instances, Taylor and her crew barely seem bothered by hanging out with a murderer.
The humor in Behind the Mask is great; it's heavily based on character quirks and the deconstruction of horror movies. Behind the Mask seemingly takes place in a universe where all of the major slasher film franchises were actual murder sprees. The whole point of the documentary portion of the film is to show how Leslie finishes up some of his last minute prep, while he explains how he has his entire killing spree planned out. It's quite funny to imagine Michael Myers or Jason Voorhees working on their cardio to prep for a murder spree, or meticulously nailing various windows and doors shut to ensure their victims can only leave through certain exits. It's hard to describe much of the humor besides those few examples, but the humor is definitely the film's strongest suit. If you enjoy movies like "This Is Spinal Tap" or "Waiting for Guffman", you're bound to get a few laughs here and there.
Unfortunately, despite the great humor, the film really falls short at the end, when it expects you to take it seriously. One of the major problems with the ending is the cinematography. Almost all of the film is shot documentary-style, except for the scene with the librarian, and a few times when Leslie is narrating his plans. Those scenes are shot in the conventional studio style, although it really only makes sense for the narration scenes. I could have looked past this, but when Taylor randomly decides to grow a conscious and save the teens from Leslie Vernon, she tells her camera crew to leave their equipment behind, and the rest of the film is shot like a regular movie. Logically, this makes sense, because no sane person would be carrying a video camera at that point. But this ruins the mockumentary tone, and sort of violates the fourth wall, like a toned down version of the ending of "Blazing Saddles". The movie had a vaguely realistic feel to it, and felt almost like a found footage film, and switching the camera's point of view feels a bit alienating.
From this point on, the film indicates that we're supposed to be scared, and that we're supposed to find these scenes suspenseful, because we supposedly can't anticipate Leslie's plans because of Taylor's sudden intervention. But there's no suspense or scares to be found, because everyone runs to or dies in nearly the exact same places Leslie said they would in the narration sequence earlier in the film. Even Leslie doesn't look that menacing; his mask is pretty creepy looking, but the rest of his outfit makes him look comically backwoods. This might have been funny if the third act was played with the same humor of the preceding hour of the movie, but we're clearly being told to find Leslie scary, and he's just not. (As a side note, the face paint Leslie uses under his mask makes him look like Alice Cooper, although I'm sure that was intentional. But even then, that makes him even less scary when he has his mask off.)
Towards the end of the third act, Taylor goes through the same character arc that Leslie said his final victim would go through. This is supposed to be symbolic or something, but it lacks any meaning because the audience was anticipating this, since Leslie previously narrated over a nearly identical scene. Taylor eventually faces down against Leslie in the exact same manner as he had predicted. Instead of this feeling like the film's events are coming full circle or something, it instead feels very repetitive, because as I've previously said, the entire third act was already played out in a narration sequence in the second act. The ending just doesn't work, because we've already saw the ending barely a half-hour prior.
Overall, this is a pretty good movie. The ending is lame, but the good mostly outweighs the bad. The funny moments are really funny, and even though the ending is lame, there have been far worse ending to movies. Heck, some of you may even find humor in the ending, even if they are trying to play it seriously. It's a hilariously dark and loving tribute to slasher movies of yore, and if you are a horror fan, it's worth checking out. It's not perfect, but for the most part it's hilarious, and if you can ignore disappointing ending, you'll probably enjoy the first two acts.
Enjoyment- 4/5
Quality- 3/5
IMDB Page- http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0437857/
A majority of the film is shot documentary-style, relying mostly on dialog and characters to move the story. This is really cool, because it's rare that a horror film ever spends much time fleshing out their characters. And while there's only a few characters that actually get any depth, it's still nice for a change to have a main character and a villain who aren't overused archetypes. The acting is really uneven, though. Leslie is played by a guy named Nathan Baesel, who sort of looks like Dane Cook, but unlike Dane Cook, this guy is actually funny. His performance is quite interesting; he plays the role seriously, but gives it the right amount of casualness to befit the film's comedic side. The comedic side of the character is ultimately his undoing, though, because the character of Leslie is a little too goofy to be taken seriously as a villain, and thus when Nathan finally dons the killer's mask, it's really hard to find him intimidating, even though the film clearly wants us to. The other main character is Taylor, the director of the documentary, and lead interviewer. She's fairly decent in her role, and at least doesn't ham up her role like everyone else in the film.
The supporting cast of characters are all intentionally stereotypes that parody the stereotypes in slasher movies. Accordingly, a lot of the acting from these characters is really bad. It's not the hilarious kind of bad acting, though. The supporting cast is mostly just annoying. Thankfully their screen time is limited, and most of the time they aren't talking. There's also a strange cameo from Zelda Rubinstein, the medium from "Poltergeist". She's barely on screen for two minutes, but even her performance is a bit lackluster. Fortunately we do get a fun performance from Robert Englund. He plays a brief role as a parody of Donald Pleasance's character from the "Halloween" series. Englund does a surprisingly good impression of Donald Pleasence, and while Englund doesn't get a whole lot of screen time, he's still a fun character to watch.
The problem with the main characters though, ties back to the weak ending I previously mentioned. There's a bit of a joke throughout the movie that the film crew documenting Leslie is very passive about his homicidal tendencies. They appear to be a bit apprehensive of him, but otherwise they have no problem with watching him set up his plans for his murder spree. Only until Leslie kills the first two of his teenage victims does Taylor the director suddenly grow a conscience and attempt to stop him, eventually guilting her camera crew into helping her stop him. This strikes me as odd, because Taylor and her crew didn't bat an eye when Leslie killed a librarian right in front of them. Why they suddenly started caring about Leslie's victims is beyond me. Taylor also tries to talk to Leslie's main victim early on in the film, to warn her about her impending doom or something, but again this seemingly comes out of nowhere; outside of those two instances, Taylor and her crew barely seem bothered by hanging out with a murderer.
The humor in Behind the Mask is great; it's heavily based on character quirks and the deconstruction of horror movies. Behind the Mask seemingly takes place in a universe where all of the major slasher film franchises were actual murder sprees. The whole point of the documentary portion of the film is to show how Leslie finishes up some of his last minute prep, while he explains how he has his entire killing spree planned out. It's quite funny to imagine Michael Myers or Jason Voorhees working on their cardio to prep for a murder spree, or meticulously nailing various windows and doors shut to ensure their victims can only leave through certain exits. It's hard to describe much of the humor besides those few examples, but the humor is definitely the film's strongest suit. If you enjoy movies like "This Is Spinal Tap" or "Waiting for Guffman", you're bound to get a few laughs here and there.
Unfortunately, despite the great humor, the film really falls short at the end, when it expects you to take it seriously. One of the major problems with the ending is the cinematography. Almost all of the film is shot documentary-style, except for the scene with the librarian, and a few times when Leslie is narrating his plans. Those scenes are shot in the conventional studio style, although it really only makes sense for the narration scenes. I could have looked past this, but when Taylor randomly decides to grow a conscious and save the teens from Leslie Vernon, she tells her camera crew to leave their equipment behind, and the rest of the film is shot like a regular movie. Logically, this makes sense, because no sane person would be carrying a video camera at that point. But this ruins the mockumentary tone, and sort of violates the fourth wall, like a toned down version of the ending of "Blazing Saddles". The movie had a vaguely realistic feel to it, and felt almost like a found footage film, and switching the camera's point of view feels a bit alienating.
From this point on, the film indicates that we're supposed to be scared, and that we're supposed to find these scenes suspenseful, because we supposedly can't anticipate Leslie's plans because of Taylor's sudden intervention. But there's no suspense or scares to be found, because everyone runs to or dies in nearly the exact same places Leslie said they would in the narration sequence earlier in the film. Even Leslie doesn't look that menacing; his mask is pretty creepy looking, but the rest of his outfit makes him look comically backwoods. This might have been funny if the third act was played with the same humor of the preceding hour of the movie, but we're clearly being told to find Leslie scary, and he's just not. (As a side note, the face paint Leslie uses under his mask makes him look like Alice Cooper, although I'm sure that was intentional. But even then, that makes him even less scary when he has his mask off.)
Towards the end of the third act, Taylor goes through the same character arc that Leslie said his final victim would go through. This is supposed to be symbolic or something, but it lacks any meaning because the audience was anticipating this, since Leslie previously narrated over a nearly identical scene. Taylor eventually faces down against Leslie in the exact same manner as he had predicted. Instead of this feeling like the film's events are coming full circle or something, it instead feels very repetitive, because as I've previously said, the entire third act was already played out in a narration sequence in the second act. The ending just doesn't work, because we've already saw the ending barely a half-hour prior.
Overall, this is a pretty good movie. The ending is lame, but the good mostly outweighs the bad. The funny moments are really funny, and even though the ending is lame, there have been far worse ending to movies. Heck, some of you may even find humor in the ending, even if they are trying to play it seriously. It's a hilariously dark and loving tribute to slasher movies of yore, and if you are a horror fan, it's worth checking out. It's not perfect, but for the most part it's hilarious, and if you can ignore disappointing ending, you'll probably enjoy the first two acts.
Enjoyment- 4/5
Quality- 3/5
IMDB Page- http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0437857/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)