Originally written June 18th, 2014.
I’m not a big fan of Clive Barker as an author, but I was pleasantly surprised by Candyman. It does a great job of expanding a short story into a feature-length screenplay, and generally outdoes its source material. It’s eerie and chilling movie from beginning to end. In a decade largely devoid of good horror movies, Candyman stands head and shoulders above its peers as one of the creepiest flicks of the 90s.
One of the film’s strongest suits is its production value. The movie looks fantastic, with many scenes shot on location in the Cabrini-Green projects. Poor housing projects are dreary and unsettling enough to begin with, and putting a boogeyman in there just ramps up those feelings. Plus there’s a lot of eye-catching imagery in the colorful graffiti that forms most of the film’s backgrounds. That shot of the giant Candyman mural is both visually stunning and disturbing at the same time, and has stuck with me for quite some time.
The acting is some of the best I’ve seen in a horror movie. Horror movies are almost always chockfull of bad acting, and the memorable performances are usually from over-the-top character actors. Memorable and fun, certainly, but not high quality stuff. That’s not the case with Candyman. Virginia Madsen definitely deserved her Saturn award that year. (She plays the “is it all in her head” bit perfectly.) Tony Todd’s role as the titular Candyman is probably the creepiest horror performance of the 90s. He is just fantastic. From his deep gravelly voice, to his creepy placid demeanor, the guy just knocks it out of the park.
The score is excellent, too. Avant-garde composer Philip Glass penned the score for the film, and he did an amazing job. The music has a spooky music box feel to it. The score is mostly ethereal piano loops with choir vocals thrown in here and there, and it’s creepy as heck. The main piece played throughout, Helen’s Theme, is reminiscent of Promise (Reprise) from Silent Hill 2. If you like that song, it’s worth looking up the Candyman soundtrack, it’s a really cool track.
As a standalone movie, Candyman is excellent. But how does it stand up against the source material? The movie is based on the Clive Barker short story, The Forbidden. It follows roughly the same plot as the story; a woman named Helen discovers the urban legend of the Candyman and faces the deadly consequences of her continued investigation. Overall the movie does a better job of telling the story than the story, but there are a few key differences that bothered me.
For one, they give the Candyman a backstory that does everything except explain why he only shows up when you say his name five times in front of a mirror. It seems kind of arbitrary for him to use that as his main method of transportation when they clearly show he can appear wherever he darn well pleases. As a means of drawing out the runtime, the writers threw in a “was it all in her head” element. Virginia Madsen plays this device really well, but if you’ve read the story then you know it’s not in her head after all. Thirdly the filmmakers felt compelled to “kill off” the Candyman in this version. The ending for the movie is definitely better than the Wicker Man ripoff the story has, but they could have kept the Candyman alive without it affecting the ending at all. Plus it makes no sense how they even killed him in the first place. (A flaming piece of debris? Really?)
Overall, Candyman is a knockout piece of horror cinema. It takes its time, builds up its atmosphere, and then hits you with creepy bee-infested ghosts. It’s a fantastic horror movie and definitely worth watching. I highly recommend it.
November 3, 2015
Movie Review: StageFright: Aquarius
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)