My Bloody Valentine 3D (Theatre) - Jennifer

Jennie was unusually amped for this movie. I remember when we were dating I was dragged to Spy Kids 3-D. It seems I married a teenager from the 1950s. Boy, does she love her some 3-D. I’m not sure I get why, but I go and usually enjoy the interesting film experience that the technology can give.

Now, it seems horror is a genre that is perfect for the out-dated technology. Think about it, scary men popping out, items being thrown at you, weapons being brandished in your general direction it’s all ripe for 3-Dedafacation. And this film actually used the technology well.

I’ll give you some examples. As the killer attacks a helpless victim she throws a bed frame in front of her to block the weapon, then the camera turns and we see things from the victims prospective and we see the weapon lunging out of the screen at us being blocked by the bed frame. It’s all very exciting. Another staple of the horror genre is the naked female that has just had sex, but now is killed for her indiscretion. Well, the director or maybe the writer – well, someone – seemed to love this concept cause they 3-D’ed the hell out of it. I'm not saying that is a good thing. I'm saying it is a ludicrously hammy thing. I’ve got a feeling that this is the first full frontal 3-D ever created, but I could be wrong.

As for the plot itself, it wasn’t bad – well, until the ending. It was classic horror film: killer on the loose in a small town. The players were set up nicely and there were false leads as to the identity of the killer. It was all very exciting. But when it came right down to brass tacks the killer was revealed with a whimper – the old boyfriend who just went crazy and thus was killing people when he didn’t know it. There were no clues, no way to figure it out. Even the killer didn’t know it was himself until it was revealed. The ridiculous nature of this reveal worked against the mediocre horror film that had constructed itself, and the 3-D aspect remained the only support the film had going for it.

I’m not sure what future 3-D has in the world of film, but it seems that it’s making a comeback. I can’t wait for the 3-D remake of The Big Chill (1983)!

3 out of 10 – would have been a solid five if it weren’t for the ending. Coming for the 3-D stay for the… 3-D.

Saw V (Theatre) - Both

The yearly output of Saw is an interesting feat. Is it impressive? Not really, they aren’t great movies. Is it sad? Not really, people still enjoy the films. Is it necessary? Not really, I’m not sure anyone would care if they stop. I have a feeling that it is coming to an end with the much-hyped sixth edition that has a role cast by an MTV show. So the fact that the killer has been dead for three movies might actually finally kill the Halloween juggernaut.

This particular iteration brings us up to date with Jigsaw’s secret apprentice. Supposedly this man had been with Jigsaw after his second or third killing. But not wanting to simply rehash old set pieces there is a new batch of young actors to slaughter in inventive ways. The apprentice is simply carrying out Jigsaws dying wish, and Jigsaw reveals that the apprentice will not fully understand the implications of this particular action until later. I have a feeling this means the sixth movie will reveal some master plan of Jigsaws to eliminate the apprentice. We shall see.

Jennie and I are driven to these films by little more than tradition, and I think we stopped enjoying ourselves in the middle of the second film, but on we trudge. The reason this particular Saw outing was so disappointing was the ending montage.

As most Saw fans have come to expect the last ten minutes are a solid reveal orchestrated to some steady drum and base revealing that which we thought we knew, but were wrong about. The first Saw was the only one to truly do this with any lasting effect, and the fifth Saw does this with the least amount of surprise. They reveal everything we already knew, and nothing we didn’t, a subpar reveal at best.

The acting is straight-to-dvd as well as the directing. Any innovation has since fled the theatre in search for children’s fantasy (a booming genre right now). Maybe in a year or two we will have a horror film that redefines the genre and sends Hollywood running to make a quick buck, but for now Saw will have to do.

By now most have grown weary of this durable brand and are surprised by the yearly treatments. Maybe one day we will live in a land without Saw, but if they are released it looks like Jennie and I will be there. Reboot in 2010?

2 out of 10 - Barely watchable. Not even much to say about it. Beat that dead horse!

The Happening (Theatre) - Jennie

Halfway through this movie Jennie leans over to me and whispers, “This is supposed to be camp.” I thought about this for a second. In my mind this movie had been a train wreck: the horrible acting, the ridiculous dialog, the gruesome mutilations. And as Jennifer’s revelation washed over me I immediately got mad at the individuals responsible for this film’s advertisement.

The last film Shyamalan put out suffered from the same problem. Lady in the Water (2006) was fantastic children’s film. It was a little scary for the youngest set, but it was a new fairytale. The Grimm brother’s tales are just as dark and fantastic but we have heard them all many times. Shyamalan created the first true fairytale in years. I went into Lady in the Water expecting what was advertised, a film much like Shyamalan’s previous work, when I didn’t get it I turned on the film. Only after Jennifer and I were leaving the theatre did she explain what he was trying to do. And I realized what a great film and story he had created.

Fast forward a couple of years and Shyamalan’s new film is advertised as, “the directors first R rated film.” Dark stuff, right? Again, I went into the film expecting Shyamalan in his normal state, and again I hated it, till Jennie revealed the real twist. This is Shyamalan doing a 1960’s B movie. In the style of such B movies as They Came From Beyond Space (1967), The Terror (1963), or Attack of the Monsters! (1969) The Happening has a ridiculous horror attacking the protagonists. The advertising should have gone a little something like this:

(in a large flamboyant font each words spins in and spins out before the next word shows up)Horror!
Terror!
(woman shrieks)
Unimaginable Fear!
(show a shot of a massive crowd running and screaming)Voice Over: Stay indoors, keep close to your family, pray for mercy from
(the screen goes black)
The Happening
(pizzicato strings, close up on a woman screaming)

You get my drift. This film is over acted, Mark Wahlberg is hilarious. The dialog is completely over the top and comical. The gruesome suicides are frightening and entertaining. This is Shyamalan doing camp. And he does it well. After “getting it” I enjoyed myself thoroughly. Now, I know it is popular to bag on Shyamalan, but go into this film thinking it is camp and you will enjoy it. Shyamalan is original. In a summer filled with superheros, remakes, and adaptations The Happening is fresh. Enjoy it, because there aren't many originals out there anymore.

Spoiler Alert, there is no twist.

7 out of 10: I loved what Shyamalan was trying to do, he got me to like camp as much as I will, and that aint much.

The Mist (Dvd) - Both

This is the forth Steven King adaptation for Frank Darabont. His previous works include The Shawshank Redemption (1994) and The Green Mile (1999). This leads me to believe he just found out that Steven King actually writes horror novels, but better late than never I guess. Darabont does a pretty good job with his first horror film allowing the horror to be human drama and not just blood and guts, which most horror films rely on these days. He also altered King’s original ending opting for a much grimmer finale.

This film quickly gets to the point. Ten minutes in and we are at our main set piece, a grocery store, and paranoia is brewing. The film is set in a small Maine town where a mist is quickly approaching after a particularly bad thunderstorm. At this ten minute mark a man runs into the grocery store alerting the principle actors to an unknown danger in the mist. The crowded store huddles in fear as the mist surrounds the now barricaded building. There is no further explanation as to why anyone should be afraid of this mist, but everyone buys into it and we begin our standoff. The group realizes, through deadly trial and error, that inhuman beasts inhabit the mist and any attempt to leave the store results in mutilation. The hysteria builds as a religious zealot claims the end is nigh, and converts soon begin to follow her. The level heads begin to plot an escape and while doing so find out that the beasts in the mist are inter-dimensional beings brought to earth through a dimensional-door opened by the military. This sounds ridiculous, but, frankly, I didn’t care. I went along for the ride, and was happy I did so. (On a side note: Turn off your brain sometimes and you will be pleasently surprised.) Eventually a group tries to escape the store and drive hoping they may find an end to the mist. The gas runs out and the survivors, realizing a horrible death awaits if they leave the car, take the quick way out. Since they only have four bullets and five individuals the male lead quickly murders the rest and exits the car screaming for the beasts to come.

This particularly grim ending is just one of the fantastic choices Darabont makes in this adaptation. King’s story ends with the survivors hearing one word out of the scrambled car radio, “Hartford.” They then head towards Hartford and the story ends. Darabont’s ending feels more realistic as it is missing the glimmer of hope. Darabont’s design crew also does an amazing job of making the fantastic creatures that inhabit the mist. My favorite shot in the movie happens as the band of survivors drive towards the unknown and a massive beast the size of a 10 story building walks out of the mist ignoring the small vehicle at its massive feet. On the flip side of the fantastic coin is Darabont’s ability to focus on the drama and horror of mob mentality. The religious zealot is able to be just as horrific and diabolical as the inter-dimensional beasts that rip people limb from limb. This isn’t to say Darbont’s film is perfect. The religious zealot is verbose and boarders on annoying at times. The mob seems all to willing to turn emotionally on a dime. And while the designs for the creatures were intense the effects crew did a particularly crude job in their execution of said designs. As a fan of Sci-Fi take my recommendation with a grain of salt. If you can’t believe in the fantastic don’t bother with this.

6 out of 10 – A satisfying Sci-Fi horror film that uses both human and inhuman horrors to tweak your nerves.

The Orphanage (Dvd) - Both

I had heard very little about this film. I just knew it was a horror film and had been out around Lansing playing somewhere at some point in time. Being that Jennie is a horror buff I figured we would give this a shot. By the time I popped it in the DVD player I found out that Guillermo del Toro was presenting this film (I’ve never been sure what that even means) and that it was Spanish language film. So my hopes had reason from interested to anticipatory.

I was greatly disappointed. The film is about a family who moves into a now defunct orphanage. Laura, the mother, was previously a resident of this orphanage and the first scene depicts her as a child playing with her orphan chums. After she is adopted the movie jumps thirty years to when she arrives at the house with her husband and child. She has adopted a son who has a group of invisible friends and a secret. He unknowingly has aids, a secret his mother keeps from him. I only point this out because the movie initially makes a big deal about this in the first twenty minutes or so, but then drops it all together after the boy finds out about it. The purpose of the young child having this disease was lost on me.

I’m sure you can figure out what happens simply by hearing this set up, but I’ll give you the nickle tour anyways. One of the boy’s invisible friends actually ends up being the ghost of one of the Laura’s orphan friends. This ghost friend supposedly kidnaps the boy and the mother is then forced to search for her lost son. After six months the father gives up looking while the mother swears ghosts have her child. In her search she finds out that right after she left the orphanage after being adopted the orphans accidentally killed one of their own. In an act of vengeance a worker at the orphanage kills all of the remaining orphans (the original murdered orphan was her child – I ask, then why was he at an orphanage? Who knows.). And, in my opinion, Laura surely would have heard of this massacre when she purchased the old orphanage but she seems unaware of it. Laura solves the decades old murder case and is then given the key to finding her lost son by the now happy ghosts.

I can’t tell you how much I hate this style of horror film. Do dead children always come back to have other people help solve their murder cases? There are so many movies out their like this, The Others (2001), Stir of Echoes (1999), the Ring (2002), must I go on? I figured since this was a foreign film this might be different. Maybe outside of America there is some originality.

3 out of 10 – Nothing here is original, it isn’t even that frightening. Though if your child is murdered fear not, he or she will eventually help solve their own murder case.

The Strangers (Theatre) - Jennie

I would be hard pressed to write this review without taking into account the experience Jennie and I had at the theatre while watching it. We had gone to see the Sex and the City movie but were idiotically surprised when it was sold out to overdressed overaged fans – more on that in the Sex and the City review. So we purchased our tickets for a Saturday showing of Sex and picked up tickets to see The Strangers instead. This ended up being the best thing we could have done. The theatre was packed with high school kids abuzz as young dating couples made idle chatter and text messages flew. This made Jennie and me antsy and feel somewhat claustrophobic. As the film started the noise subsided and the theatre grew dark. We heard a loud thump and someone shout out, “Oh, shit,” in a mundane cry for help as they fell to the floor. The theatre blew up in laughter as the patron picked himself up and hurried out of the theatre. After twenty minutes the customer came back saying audibly, “That shit hurt my knee!” to another roar of laughter. Throughout the viewing the audience participated yelling at the screen, “Oh. Shit. Girl, get out the house!” or explaining what was happening on the screen, “Them were some footsteps.” At some moments the audience screamed in fear and in other moments mocked the dialog. This made the film as enjoyable as it could have possibly been and I feel it has affected my view of the film.

From what I remember this film was a typical murder-for-no-reason horror film that dragged on for a little too long. I hate Liv Tyler and this movie didn’t help that view. Her tepid performance enticed me to root for her character’s departure. I do have to mention that I love that Glenn Howerton, Dennis on It’s Always Sunny, made a cameo though it was extremely short lived. The writing was on par with the rest of the genre, and continues the trend in horror films that Jennie and I love – everyone but the murderers die in the end. The direction was nothing to remember, but I will admit that if a sequel came out I would go see it - but only on opening night.

5 out of 10 – I feel you have already missed the window for this film to be enjoyable, but if you can watch it with a boisterous crowd, go for it. If not, then subtract two or three points.

The Ruins (Theatre) - Jennie

Horror movies recently have lost their identity. The torture-core of the last couple of years is dying down as are the Japanese imports. Every once in a while we will get one or the other, but overall horror movies are a drift in a sea of PG-13 schlock. Take the future release Prom Date; it seems to be about a very nondescript stalker who terrifies a young girl on prom night. Nothing pulls me in – and it is rated PG-13, how can horror movie be rated PG-13? In a year or two there will be a movie that reignites the genre, but for now I feel we are to be satisfied with remakes and weak fair that will please the public at large with their low rating.
The Ruins feels like a simple attempt to do something – certainly not reignite the genre –but something. Much like Turistas (2006) this film starts with a semi-attractive group of college-aged kids who ventured to the southern Americas in search of spring break fun. They meet a German who informs them that his brother knows of a temple that is not marked on the maps and that they could join him in a hike to this temple if they wanted to see something special. They oblige him and make their way to the temple. The temple turns out to hide a secret… Man Eating Plants! This does sound silly, I know. In fact, if I had to stop and think about the film, while I was watching it, I might have had less fun, but that was the monster – a plant that ate humans. Luckily this film doesn’t really give you time to stop and think about the preposterous nature of this fact. It keeps a brisk pace and throws up distractions such as an amputation without anesthetic and a search for a cell phone that is hidden in the dark recesses of the temple. The plants also have the ability to mimic speech, which, at the time, seemed like a perfectly normal thing for a man-eating plant to do, but now that I am writing this I feel somewhat stupid to be ok with it. They even gave an explanation that satisfied me (something about the plant being able to vibrate its flowers to a pitch that sounded like a human’s voice). Now, don’t get all persnickety with me and judge my ability to loose myself in a movie. Though, I am doing that as I write this. I dare you to watch this and not believe that a plant can fool humans into thinking that a cell phone is ringing with its flowers. Curse, even my defense sounds bad. Well, let me get out of this with some dignity and say that though this film's premise was laughably impossible the writer and director do a good job at throwing diversions at the audience to keep them from thinking to much about the situation.

5 out of 10: successful on some level – in that, I was entertained, but if you can’t turn off your mind for an hour and a half don’t bother.

Funny Games (Theatre) - Ashleigh & Matt

The previews for this film make Funny Games out to be another torture porn movie that attempts to make the audiences squeamish with close-ups of dismemberment and murder. However, this is not an altogether accurate portrait that has been painted. Funny Games shows no actual violence on screen (other than one hit with a golf club to the knee). In fact, if it weren’t for the psychologically violent scenes this movie would be rather tame when compared with Hollywood’s recent fascination with blood and guts. And, this is to say nothing of the most fascinating aspect of this film.

The film begins with a mundane scene; a top down shot contains a family vehicle that is making its way to its summer house. George (Tim Roth) and Anne (Naomi Watts) are playing "guess the composer" as their son Georgie (Devon Gearhart) and his dog sit and listen. The strings ebb and flow along with George’s incorrect answer to Anne’s choice of symphony in their game and the whole family smiles, a happy upper-class family. A jarring scream rips through the theatre as John Zorn and Yamantaka Eyes replaces the peaceful classical music George and Anne are listening to and the title card is shown, the family continues to smile as the animalistic shrieks bleat through the theatre's sound system – truly an offsetting scene. The family reaches their distention and the games begin. Michael Pitt and his creepy, puffed-out-version-of-Leonardo-Dicaprio-self plays a disturbing ringmaster to the family circus that is about to take place and his companion Peter, played by the equally creepy and unibrowed Brady Corbet, begins the action with a seemingly neighborly request to borrow eggs. The boys use this ploy to eventually escalate an argument with George Sr. This argument ends in George slapping one of the boys and seemingly in retaliation the boys attack George with a golf club, again the only real violence shown on screen. As things progress Peter and Paul take the family into the living room and prepare them for the game they are about to play. Paul makes a bet with the family that they will not live to see the next morning. The family is eventually murdered one-by-one and by nine a.m. Peter and Paul take the family’s boat to another pier and knock on the door. They ask the neighbor who answers if they could borrow some eggs.

The unique twist of this film is Paul knowledge of the theatre’s audience. He “breaks the forth wall” multiple times either to goad the audience or to explain to Peter why different methods of murdering are more entertaining to the audience watching the film. If the son remains alive, argues Paul, then the drama will be more intense. The director of the film uses the usual tricks that horror films evoke and dismisses them just as easily. Case in point, the films sets up that a knife has been accidently left on board the boat, but when the murders take the last surviving family member out to the boat and a last chance effort at survival for the family member could be made, Paul and Peter simply take the knife and throw it overboard in an anticlimactic snub to the theatre audience wanting some sort of justice for the dead family members. As an audience member it is believed that evil will be triumphed over by the end of the film, or at least some sign of retribution will be present by the last frame and Funny Games does not deliver on this and as Peter and Paul point out by the end of the film, this is not usual. Haneke, the director, peppers this device in just the right amount. But, I did have one problem with Haneke’s methods. At one point in time Paul rewinds the film in an attempt to undo some action he deems unsatisfactory. I felt that that was a little too much in terms of meta-entertainment. But overall I loved the self-aware shtick. The soundtrack was delightfully stark causing scenes as innocuous as borrowing eggs to have an edge. And the performances by the actors were brilliant; I believe Pitt was born to play Paul. I don't really understand why Haneke felt like he had to recreate his 1997 thriller, but I enjoyed the effort.

8 out of 10: a delightful addition to a tired genre, dare I say, a new Psycho?