Originally written May 31st, 2014.
Lifeforce is freakin’ weird, man. No other way to put it. It’s just flat-out strange. Whether or not you enjoy this movie will likely be based on how high your suspension of disbelief is. Many will be turned off by a movie with space-vampires. The remaining few who stay are in for a treat.
For starters, the movie is based on a science-fiction novel called The Space Vampires. That’s the most amazingly stupid title for a book since the days of pulp fiction. Then there’s Alien scribe Dan O’Bannon writing the adaptation. The guy has a history of taking far-fetched and weird ideas and turning them into enjoyab, and Lifeforce is no exception. The movie is tightly paced and full of suspense and intrigue the whole way through. While the film’s content is more akin to a horror movie, the script runs like a great thriller, and it’s never a bore.
So what’s the movie even about? It’s quite a doozy. A NASA mission to scan Halley’s Comet discovers a strange spacecraft in the rock’s orbit. The astronauts go to investigate and find a trio of humanoids encased in pieces of the Fortress of Solitude. The astronaut find themselves compelled to bring the specimens aboard the ship, and that’s the last we see of them. When the ship returns to Earth’s orbit full of dead astronauts, their fellow scientists decide to get the bottom of things.
They bring the alien specimens in for examination, but one of the aliens escapes. The scientists realize that the creatures feed off of human souls, literally draining them of life. As the scientists tail the escaped alien, they realize that she has the ability to drain small portions of vitality, so that the alien can hop between the consciousnesses of people. Then for reasons barely explained, the partly-drained victims become zombie-like creatures, and the plague spreads like wildfire throughout London. This somehow sends soul-energy to the alien spaceship, which is now orbiting Earth. The scientists ultimately catch up to the alien, and the lone survivor of the NASA mission (who escaped in a handy-dandy escape pod) sacrifices himself to kill her. This apparently stops the flow of soul-energy and sucks the scientist and the alien up into the unknown. And that’s it. Freakin’ weird, man.
If that summary didn’t seem too weird for you, I highly recommend getting a hold of this movie. The scenes in space are stunning, especially considering the movie came out in 1985. The designs for the alien spaceship are gorgeous, and the movie has an overall fantastic look to it. Tobe Hooper, director of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Poltergeist helms this flick, and he has always had an eye for cinematography.
Even if the movie is a bit loopy, there are still plenty of tense moments. The survivor of the NASA mission formed a psychic link with the female alien and finds himself inescapably drawn to her. His struggle to resist the mind control is constantly tense and played with great subtlety. There’s also a fantastically creepy scene where we see what happens when the vampire drains her victim completely, and what happens when the victim tries to restore itself. The practical effects in that scene are horrifyingly grotesque, and really convey the sheer deadliness of the vampires.
Overall, this is a great sci-fi flick. There’s a smorgasbord of horror elements thrown in even if they don’t make sense, and that’s part of the fun. It’s a crazy and inventive take on the vampire mythos, and it never has a dull moment. If you have a high tolerance for weird stuff, this is certainly worth a watch.
November 3, 2015
Movie Review: Wishmaster
Originally written June 14th, 2014.
Wishmaster is a 1997 monster movie from FX wizard Robert Kurtzman. It’s been largely forgotten since its release, and it’s pretty much been universally panned. I’d hardly call that fair. It’s a terrible movie if viewed as a generic monster movie, but if you have the right mindset it’s a fun movie. It’s nowhere near perfect, but it is fun.
The movie is basically a 90 minute parade of special effects. If that sounds appealing to you, Wishmaster will deliver. This is purely Robert Kurtzman’s vanity project. Any notion of sense or logic is thrown out the window in favor of rubbery monsters and gore. The acting is beyond awful; the cast is nothing but goofy cameos and a few soap opera actors. The dialog is hilariously terrible and the plot is mind-bogglingly stupid. The negative reviews are completely valid, but I’m surprised there’s no cult following for this so-bad-it’s-good pile of weird.
Right off the bat we’re thrust into an orgy of makeup effects. The movie opens in 12th century Persia where the titular Wishmaster, a demonic djinn, is putting curses on the townsfolk, turning people into trees, snake-men, and making people's skeletons jump out of their skin and run around. This all happens suddenly with barely any explanation, and it’s hilarious. Not to mention, the effects look absolutely fantastic. This may be a stupid movie, but Kurtzman really knows his stuff. The king of Persia realizes his mistake in unleashing the djinn and imprisons him in a large ruby.
According to the movie’s logic, genies are trapped between the spiritual realm and the earth, and granting 3 wishes for their master will free them and allow them to take over the world. They also have the odd compulsion to grant a wish for anyone they meet. All the wishes are goofy “be careful what you wish for” twists. The twists are so stupid and predictable you can’t help but laugh.
Cut to the 20th century, and Robert Englund is overseeing a statue being unloaded off of a cargo ship. His assistant, played by Ted Raimi, is promptly squished by the statue when the crane unloading it short circuits. This is the first in a series of pointless but hilariously hammy cameos from horror veterans. It’s clear that none of the horror vets were taking their roles seriously, because every single one of them is played as over-the-top as possible.
The genie-ruby falls out of the statue and eventually winds up in the hands of a jeweler named Alexandra. The jeweler somehow awakens the djinn and becomes his master. The genie then breaks free from his prison and proceeds to go around killing people. This takes up a majority of the movie until Alexandra realizes that she can just wish the genie away by wishing that the statue never broke and released him. The end. A no-frills straightforward plot.
The best part obviously is all the special effects. The djinn makes a deal with a hammy hobo and kills another cameo character, that ice cream man from Phantasm. He then goes and steals a cadaver’s face which somehow allows him to disguise himself as a human and stay within the budget. It’s a shame that he spends most of the movie as a human, because the makeup and costume for the monster is great. He looks like a weird cross between the Green Goblin and a Power Rangers villain.
If I’m being honest, there’s not really much more to the movie. It’s just the genie going around and killing people in hilariously stupid wish scenarios. As I said, all complaints about this movie are valid. The effects are fantastic throughout, except for some horrendous 90’s CG. If you like stupid monster movies and haven’t heard of this one before, I’d say give it a go. If you like your movies to have a bit more brain to them, I’d skip it. Take it for what it’s worth, a shameless excuse for Robert Kurtzman to show off his special effects skills.
Wishmaster is a 1997 monster movie from FX wizard Robert Kurtzman. It’s been largely forgotten since its release, and it’s pretty much been universally panned. I’d hardly call that fair. It’s a terrible movie if viewed as a generic monster movie, but if you have the right mindset it’s a fun movie. It’s nowhere near perfect, but it is fun.
The movie is basically a 90 minute parade of special effects. If that sounds appealing to you, Wishmaster will deliver. This is purely Robert Kurtzman’s vanity project. Any notion of sense or logic is thrown out the window in favor of rubbery monsters and gore. The acting is beyond awful; the cast is nothing but goofy cameos and a few soap opera actors. The dialog is hilariously terrible and the plot is mind-bogglingly stupid. The negative reviews are completely valid, but I’m surprised there’s no cult following for this so-bad-it’s-good pile of weird.
Right off the bat we’re thrust into an orgy of makeup effects. The movie opens in 12th century Persia where the titular Wishmaster, a demonic djinn, is putting curses on the townsfolk, turning people into trees, snake-men, and making people's skeletons jump out of their skin and run around. This all happens suddenly with barely any explanation, and it’s hilarious. Not to mention, the effects look absolutely fantastic. This may be a stupid movie, but Kurtzman really knows his stuff. The king of Persia realizes his mistake in unleashing the djinn and imprisons him in a large ruby.
According to the movie’s logic, genies are trapped between the spiritual realm and the earth, and granting 3 wishes for their master will free them and allow them to take over the world. They also have the odd compulsion to grant a wish for anyone they meet. All the wishes are goofy “be careful what you wish for” twists. The twists are so stupid and predictable you can’t help but laugh.
Cut to the 20th century, and Robert Englund is overseeing a statue being unloaded off of a cargo ship. His assistant, played by Ted Raimi, is promptly squished by the statue when the crane unloading it short circuits. This is the first in a series of pointless but hilariously hammy cameos from horror veterans. It’s clear that none of the horror vets were taking their roles seriously, because every single one of them is played as over-the-top as possible.
The genie-ruby falls out of the statue and eventually winds up in the hands of a jeweler named Alexandra. The jeweler somehow awakens the djinn and becomes his master. The genie then breaks free from his prison and proceeds to go around killing people. This takes up a majority of the movie until Alexandra realizes that she can just wish the genie away by wishing that the statue never broke and released him. The end. A no-frills straightforward plot.
The best part obviously is all the special effects. The djinn makes a deal with a hammy hobo and kills another cameo character, that ice cream man from Phantasm. He then goes and steals a cadaver’s face which somehow allows him to disguise himself as a human and stay within the budget. It’s a shame that he spends most of the movie as a human, because the makeup and costume for the monster is great. He looks like a weird cross between the Green Goblin and a Power Rangers villain.
If I’m being honest, there’s not really much more to the movie. It’s just the genie going around and killing people in hilariously stupid wish scenarios. As I said, all complaints about this movie are valid. The effects are fantastic throughout, except for some horrendous 90’s CG. If you like stupid monster movies and haven’t heard of this one before, I’d say give it a go. If you like your movies to have a bit more brain to them, I’d skip it. Take it for what it’s worth, a shameless excuse for Robert Kurtzman to show off his special effects skills.
Movie Review: Candyman
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)