Child's Play 2 and 3
Lake Dead
Unearthed
Demons, Vampires, and Ghouls 10 Disc Set
And that's just for the first few weeks, plus Netflix...
Monday, August 31, 2009
Deaths I'd Like to See, Part 1: Banana-flavored chaos!
Lately, I've been reading some guro manga by Shintaro Kago. If you're not up on your Japanese, Kago writes gruesome stories about seemingly ordinary people who do crazy things, as if we all have some strange secret or fetish. For instance, say you really like your neighbor. He's a friendly guy next door, helps you out by shoveling your driveway or something (if you don't get snow where you live, please swap that out for mowing your lawn or trimming your hedges [not in the sexual way, of course]).
But this guy's got a weird secret that no one knows about. Let's say that this dude really loves his bananas. He comes home with bags and bags of them; green, yellow, plantains, even rotten bananas. As a casual onlooker, you might think nothing strange about it, because we don't normal jump to evil conclusions. Instead, we'd say something like: "Oh, maybe he's having guests; maybe he runs a banana smoothie shop; maybe he just likes his banana splits; maybe he's a fruitist." But we most certainly would not say that he likes to seduce unwilling women back to his home, invite them in for some food, and then stab them in the heart with a stiff banana. No, that would never cross our minds, because this is reality, and reality cannot be as strange as fiction.
This exactly the type of thing Shintaro Kago might introduce into his manga, only with much more perverted themes that I'm not going to get into in this shpeel.
Let's talk about what might happen were we to see banana stabbings, or banana violence, in a film.
1. Banana stabbings would be a logical progression for a slasher film set in a grocery store.
Let's face it: most slashers aren't that inventive. So banana stabbings are a great way to heighten the creativity and irony in the film. Maybe the slasher is actually one of the victims trapped in the grocery store, so he or she can't carry around any visible weapons. Bananas are perfect! No one would suspect that that Chiquita banana would be the item to kill them off.
Or maybe it's a defensive weapon for the victim. The killer is running at them while the victim is lying on the floor in (undescribable) pain, the victim grabs a banana, and holds it out in front of him while the killer thrusts himself onto it! Of course, it may take a stroke of luck, as most bananas would crumble under the weight of a person, but if that doesn't work, you could always
strike the killer in the head with it. Maybe the victim was even the banana tender! What irony would that be to have what the character hated save him or her from certain death!Lest we give a woman a banana as a weapon, we add psychological analyses to our film, since the banana looks like a phallis, providing a nice Freudian slip. Except we all knew when we added that to our film that it was only for the story and that psychological standpoint is BULLSHIT. (Note my sarcasm toward this standpoint.)
2. Bananas can be easily disposed of.
That's right - if you need to get rid of the bloody murder weapon, just eat it! Hopefully, most of the blood will be on the peel of the banana, and the killer could always throw that in the spreading blood pool as a calling card.
3. Use it to capture the prey - or your enemy.
It may seem illogical, but banana peels really are slippery. Throw them down and BAM! Someone should be sliding right into the killer's open arms and knife-endowed hands. Same for the victim who's trying to get a leg up on the killer.
But there's another, better use for the killer here - the fat boy lure. Say you're the killer, and you've stuck everyone in a room where they can't get out. Drop a banana by a doorway, and the stereotypical fat boy will wander over for a bite to eat. You could poison the banana, but that wouldn't be fun, and would mimic Snow White's poisoned apple too much. Instead, the killer could grab the kid by the neck and start stuffing bananas into his throat until he suffocated. Much better and more grotesque.
Deaths I'd like to see - anything with bananas as a primary weapon. Get to it filmmakers. If anyone would actually like to make this death, please send the video to my email address or post it in the comments section. It's the fruit that kills...
Thanks to whoever for those weird and strangely fitting pictures...
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Make your life a little more sweet - and orange
That's right. This year, Chips Ahoy has joined Oreo in celebrating the holiday, opting to sprinkle orange chocolate chips in with their black and making their famous cookie into Dracula.
Suffice to say I picked up a couple of packages of both for myself, as this is what I live for, even if they are only cheap color changes. Do yourself a favor and take a trip to your local grocery store, because you can never start the Halloween festivities too early.
I'm waiting for you, orange and black Rice Krispies...
Indie horror comedy Always A Bridesmaid looking for funding
The independent low-budget company Charred Oak Films has a vision - to make a short horror comedy on a low budget, titled Always a Bridesmaid. Their cast and crew is working for free, attempting to bring gory fun into everyone's home. But here's the thing: they need help. Unlike people, props and special effects are neither free nor cheap. Neither is food, film, and the whole nine yards that needs to go into a film. So where do you come in? It's easy. Charred Oak Films has set up a pledge at Kickstarter, a new website dedicated to help give support for groups who need to raise money.
But what's it about!? I'll let the filmmakers tell you:
It sounds like a hilariously ridiculous plot full twists support independent film these guys sound legitimately ecstatic about making this. If you have any questions, feel free to contact the filmmakers, who are happy to share their endeavor with you.
"We need your help to make an awesome horror-comedy short film. In Always a Bridesmaid, a night of fun and naughtiness at The Voodoo Lounge before Valerie’s wedding day descends into utter chaos when Janet, her maid of honor, becomes possessed by an evil voodoo loa spirit and begins horribly killing members of the wedding party one by one. Despite the aid of two male strippers unwittingly caught up in the carnage, this bride may not get out of her bachelorette party alive!"
YOU pledge the money (everything from $1 and up is accepted, so pledge what you can give). YOU get a reward for your generous donation; some include a voodoo doll, your name on the filmmakers' web page, your name in the film's credits, a flight out to see the screening of the film, or even a chance to be written into the script and killed off in amusing and creative fashion. Remember that your pledge is only taken if the whole project is 100% funded, so no money will be withdrawn until the project succeeds. Again, click here for Always a Bridesmaid's Kickstarter pledging site. Check it out, give it some thought, and get some good karma by donating your money.
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Lake Mungo proclaimed worthy of 8 Films to Die For festival
No, no, this is not a documentary on the lake in Australia, but this ghost story about a girl who drowns and begins haunting her family does center around it. After Dark Films has officially announced that the Joel Anderson-directed picture will be the third film to join the annual 8 Films to Die For Horrorfest, joining the likes of Dread and The Graves.
Here's the trailer for the film:
The premise sounds pretty familiar, but the trailer looks promising, given the eerie documentary-style filming. I just hope it doesn't rely on scares that have been done numerous times before, especially the ghost-walking-past-a-door routine that we can see showcased in the trailer.
The fourth Horrorfest begins January 29th and scares unwitting theater-goers through February 5th, but only in select theaters (of course excluding anywhere near my location). Make sure to check out Horrorfest Online for updates and theater locations for some much needed unrest.
Friday, August 28, 2009
Chickenhawk video to feature zombies - lots of 'em
Horror, zombies, and music are mixing again. Chickenhawk, a UK experimental rock foursome currently signed to Brew Records, has made a video for their song "I Hate This, Do You Like It?" (find a sample at their Myspace link above) using a host of zombies. Check out the trailer for the video:
The video marks a "directorial debut from Danny North (NME) and featured over 200 zombie extras throughout Leeds shot over a 4 day period." And by the looks of the trailer, North has surely accomplished a fantastic feat indeed. Most of these clips look straight out of a Romero zombie flick, and the gore is fantastic. Of course, with Chickenhawk's pounding, fast-paced song, the video seems as though it will be a hit for those who like to rock out and those who love their grotesqueries.
The video hits the Interwebz September 7th, but for those of you who can't wait, check out the pics from the video shoot here. Plus, don't forget to preorder Chickenhawk's new three-track EP, A. or Not?, featuring the song mentioned above. I like this, do you like it?
The video marks a "directorial debut from Danny North (NME) and featured over 200 zombie extras throughout Leeds shot over a 4 day period." And by the looks of the trailer, North has surely accomplished a fantastic feat indeed. Most of these clips look straight out of a Romero zombie flick, and the gore is fantastic. Of course, with Chickenhawk's pounding, fast-paced song, the video seems as though it will be a hit for those who like to rock out and those who love their grotesqueries.
The video hits the Interwebz September 7th, but for those of you who can't wait, check out the pics from the video shoot here. Plus, don't forget to preorder Chickenhawk's new three-track EP, A. or Not?, featuring the song mentioned above. I like this, do you like it?
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Book Review - Swimsuit by James Patterson & Maxine Paetro
Swimsuit
A better title for Swimsuit might be "Run-of-the Mill Serial Killer." The book seems to feel like the red swimsuit pictured on the cover is the predominant theme of this fast read, when in reality, it has little or nothing to do with the overall story.
That's not why I'm being so sarcastic with this review, though; there are plenty of good things with bad titles. What really irks me about Patterson's newest book is that there's nothing exceedingly new or creative about this bland drama centered on a serial killer stalking a journalist who has gotten too close to the subject of his story. Patterson's quick, flowing prose is here in copious amounts, but his storyline falls too closely to any of the other 70 suspense novels you can find in a mystery book catalog. For a veteran mystery writer like Patterson, Swimsuit's underdeveloped plot stands out, not unlike Dean Koontz's latest.
Swimsuit relies too heavily on research about serial killers; consult any psychology book or non-fiction crime story and you'll find Patterson's descriptions of his killer fit to a T. Unfortunately, that's just not cutting it in this novel; there are significant death sequences, but overall the novel follows a generic plot sequence until the very end. That is except for the final moments of the novel in a showdown between killer and journalist. The stakes have been ramped up, the suspense at an all-time high, and then - just like that! - Patterson rips out those thrilling, dramatic pages and replaces them with some lame cliffhanger that fails to produce the desirable excitement. You mean I've read those previous 300 pages, not without enjoyment but with little to impress me, and that's what you leave me with? Inconclusive storytelling!
Certainly not a fresh take on the psychopath, Swimsuit won't make you bored, but it does fail to live up to Patterson's more original novels. Patterson has been cranking out the books, and maybe he's fallen a little short on ideas. Let's hope for better crafting of the next book.
A better title for Swimsuit might be "Run-of-the Mill Serial Killer." The book seems to feel like the red swimsuit pictured on the cover is the predominant theme of this fast read, when in reality, it has little or nothing to do with the overall story.
That's not why I'm being so sarcastic with this review, though; there are plenty of good things with bad titles. What really irks me about Patterson's newest book is that there's nothing exceedingly new or creative about this bland drama centered on a serial killer stalking a journalist who has gotten too close to the subject of his story. Patterson's quick, flowing prose is here in copious amounts, but his storyline falls too closely to any of the other 70 suspense novels you can find in a mystery book catalog. For a veteran mystery writer like Patterson, Swimsuit's underdeveloped plot stands out, not unlike Dean Koontz's latest.
Swimsuit relies too heavily on research about serial killers; consult any psychology book or non-fiction crime story and you'll find Patterson's descriptions of his killer fit to a T. Unfortunately, that's just not cutting it in this novel; there are significant death sequences, but overall the novel follows a generic plot sequence until the very end. That is except for the final moments of the novel in a showdown between killer and journalist. The stakes have been ramped up, the suspense at an all-time high, and then - just like that! - Patterson rips out those thrilling, dramatic pages and replaces them with some lame cliffhanger that fails to produce the desirable excitement. You mean I've read those previous 300 pages, not without enjoyment but with little to impress me, and that's what you leave me with? Inconclusive storytelling!
Certainly not a fresh take on the psychopath, Swimsuit won't make you bored, but it does fail to live up to Patterson's more original novels. Patterson has been cranking out the books, and maybe he's fallen a little short on ideas. Let's hope for better crafting of the next book.
Add two more Sorority Row vids to the body count
Coming soon after the first NSFW video, two more Sorority Row clips have surfaced out of the woodwork.
The first isn't mindblowing; in fact, it's rather lame in comparison to what we have been seeing from the NSFW clips, and we could easily piece this scene together from the trailers that have been coming out. No spoilers here, just some pretty boring stuff from the opening of the film.
The second is more interesting. It's another NSFW clip, this time totally unrelated to nudity, but it means you'll still have to go through the trouble of putting your birth date in (unless you lie). This is another kill sequence, and while I will admit that the death is pretty brutal, I've been very unimpressed with both stalkings. There's not much tension or suspense, and in this clip especially, it's very easy to foresee what will happen. I'm a little worried about why Sorority Row feels it is a good idea to release both of these deaths - we now know what happens to two of the women, and they're not exactly exciting me for the entire movie, as much of what I've been seeing seems to be generic slasher fare with slightly creative kills. Make of it what you will.
See the whole thing September 11. If they keep releasing these clips, I'm not going to have any time to post on other movies coming out for the fall lineup!
The first isn't mindblowing; in fact, it's rather lame in comparison to what we have been seeing from the NSFW clips, and we could easily piece this scene together from the trailers that have been coming out. No spoilers here, just some pretty boring stuff from the opening of the film.
The second is more interesting. It's another NSFW clip, this time totally unrelated to nudity, but it means you'll still have to go through the trouble of putting your birth date in (unless you lie). This is another kill sequence, and while I will admit that the death is pretty brutal, I've been very unimpressed with both stalkings. There's not much tension or suspense, and in this clip especially, it's very easy to foresee what will happen. I'm a little worried about why Sorority Row feels it is a good idea to release both of these deaths - we now know what happens to two of the women, and they're not exactly exciting me for the entire movie, as much of what I've been seeing seems to be generic slasher fare with slightly creative kills. Make of it what you will.
See the whole thing September 11. If they keep releasing these clips, I'm not going to have any time to post on other movies coming out for the fall lineup!
Sunday, August 23, 2009
New Sorority Row clip
Following up on my post of the upcoming remake Sorority Row, I wanted to mention that Bloody-Disgusting released an NSFW clip of the film, featuring four women in the community showers, plus a stalk-and-kill sequence. The three minute clip has a few boobs, so be warned, and a spoiler alert for those of you who are so pumped you want to wait for the full film - someone bites it.
Suffice to say, I think this clip gives us exactly what we were expecting from a horror film about a sorority. The good news: that death sequence was semi-cool (seeing the pipe through the mouth), even if the stalk was timid.
Suffice to say, I think this clip gives us exactly what we were expecting from a horror film about a sorority. The good news: that death sequence was semi-cool (seeing the pipe through the mouth), even if the stalk was timid.
Friday, August 21, 2009
Take a T.O.
I thought it was time for a little update on my own status here at The Moon is a Dead World:
I am all caught up with reviews, so I am accepting any film/book/television/whatever horror submissions here for review. As before, I cannot guarantee any exact date of posting, but I can guarantee it will get posted at some point.
For the future, I will be lacking in horror movie reviews; as you can see by my Netflix queue to the left, we have a slew of non-horror films coming soon (my girlfriend and I alternate, and she can only take so many horror movies); but! I will most likely be writing up some more Halloween horror films that are slated to hit the theaters in the fall.
As always, I've noticed that readership has been dwindling a little (not that it has ever been gigantic). Part of that is my fault; I have no systematic posting, nor do I visit others' blogs very much due to lack of time, etc. But if you're an avid (or even semi-regular) reader of this blog, I'd like to thank you and to ask two favors of you - first off, come out of the woodwork and post some comments and discussions!, and second, show your friends.
I have tried to get back to my fast and furious pace from when I first started this blog, waaaaaaay back in February of '08 (has it really been almost two years?!), but I have realized that that pacing is almost impossible now. However, I'm trying my best to become more regular and reliable, even if it does take me a while to get to review submissions and I rarely ever read or participate in the LOTTD. This makes me upset, but it's so hard to find the time, and there are just so many great blogs out there to read that it always feels a daunting task to get to them. And for those who are reading, thanks for taking the time out of your day to read my blog instead of someone else's, which is most likely more deserving.
As we push onward to Halloween, I hope to see and hear from more and more of you, and to post some new delights that I enjoy. I write a lot about movies and books but not enough about what I'm loving about horror, and that saddens me. Stay tuned, loyal or semi-regular or even one-time-wonder reader: I'm in it for the long haul. I just wish I had some creative ideas to do to turn this place into more fun.
I am all caught up with reviews, so I am accepting any film/book/television/whatever horror submissions here for review. As before, I cannot guarantee any exact date of posting, but I can guarantee it will get posted at some point.
For the future, I will be lacking in horror movie reviews; as you can see by my Netflix queue to the left, we have a slew of non-horror films coming soon (my girlfriend and I alternate, and she can only take so many horror movies); but! I will most likely be writing up some more Halloween horror films that are slated to hit the theaters in the fall.
As always, I've noticed that readership has been dwindling a little (not that it has ever been gigantic). Part of that is my fault; I have no systematic posting, nor do I visit others' blogs very much due to lack of time, etc. But if you're an avid (or even semi-regular) reader of this blog, I'd like to thank you and to ask two favors of you - first off, come out of the woodwork and post some comments and discussions!, and second, show your friends.
I have tried to get back to my fast and furious pace from when I first started this blog, waaaaaaay back in February of '08 (has it really been almost two years?!), but I have realized that that pacing is almost impossible now. However, I'm trying my best to become more regular and reliable, even if it does take me a while to get to review submissions and I rarely ever read or participate in the LOTTD. This makes me upset, but it's so hard to find the time, and there are just so many great blogs out there to read that it always feels a daunting task to get to them. And for those who are reading, thanks for taking the time out of your day to read my blog instead of someone else's, which is most likely more deserving.
As we push onward to Halloween, I hope to see and hear from more and more of you, and to post some new delights that I enjoy. I write a lot about movies and books but not enough about what I'm loving about horror, and that saddens me. Stay tuned, loyal or semi-regular or even one-time-wonder reader: I'm in it for the long haul. I just wish I had some creative ideas to do to turn this place into more fun.
Moon Minis - Ghost Town
Ghost Town
Ricky Gervais headlines this overly long comedy about an uncaring man (Pincus) who just needs someone to love - and he gets that chance when his colonoscopy sends him to the dead zone and back to the living world, allowing him to see ghosts. Greg Kinnear co-stars as Frank, a recently deceased man trying to break up his wife's (Téa Leoni relationship with a man who he feels is trying to steal her money.
Full of awkward moments thanks to Gervais' dialogue, Ghost Town is frequently funny and genuinely good-natured, but the plot doesn't stand out from the pack and the film runs tediously long through its final scenes. Kinnear's character is more an annoyance than good, and at times the film's pacing slows down the entirety of the romance. The finale tells us exactly what we were thinking from the beginning: Gervais' character needs to listen to everyone, especially the ghosts - not exactly a stunning revelation for those of us accustomed to the ghost-listener films and television shows. Unfortunately, Ghost Town becomes a smartly witty but forgettable story about a loner finding Mrs. Right with a bunch of the same ghosts around him. It makes the title seem a bit off; if Gervais was only going to help a few ghosts to get back to his lovey-dovey, doesn't that make it more of a "tight-knit group" than a "town?"
Look out for SNL cast member Kristen Wigg in the opening hospital scenes for a fantastically dorky performance.
Ghost Town on Rotten Tomatoes
Ricky Gervais headlines this overly long comedy about an uncaring man (Pincus) who just needs someone to love - and he gets that chance when his colonoscopy sends him to the dead zone and back to the living world, allowing him to see ghosts. Greg Kinnear co-stars as Frank, a recently deceased man trying to break up his wife's (Téa Leoni relationship with a man who he feels is trying to steal her money.
Full of awkward moments thanks to Gervais' dialogue, Ghost Town is frequently funny and genuinely good-natured, but the plot doesn't stand out from the pack and the film runs tediously long through its final scenes. Kinnear's character is more an annoyance than good, and at times the film's pacing slows down the entirety of the romance. The finale tells us exactly what we were thinking from the beginning: Gervais' character needs to listen to everyone, especially the ghosts - not exactly a stunning revelation for those of us accustomed to the ghost-listener films and television shows. Unfortunately, Ghost Town becomes a smartly witty but forgettable story about a loner finding Mrs. Right with a bunch of the same ghosts around him. It makes the title seem a bit off; if Gervais was only going to help a few ghosts to get back to his lovey-dovey, doesn't that make it more of a "tight-knit group" than a "town?"
Look out for SNL cast member Kristen Wigg in the opening hospital scenes for a fantastically dorky performance.
Ghost Town on Rotten Tomatoes
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Movie Review - Thicker Than Water: The Vampire Diaries Part 1
Thicker Than Water: The Vampire Diaries Part 1
Thicker Than Water, part one of Phil Messerer's dark vampire comedy trilogy, has recently been hitting up the indie circuit, to much praise. It's no surprise, really; Messerer's wacky characters and their attempts at keeping alive their vampire relative showcase a knowledge of horror and comedy that is surprising, fun, and creepy at the same time.
You see, something just isn't right with Helen (Devon Bailey) after her sister Lara (Eilis Cahill) accidentally casts a wicked spell on her in the hopes she can cause mild discomfort. Instead, the spell drains Helen of all of her blood through a fountainous nosebleed and kills her, with help from a negligent doctor of course. But Helen doesn't stay dead; she comes back on a stormy night covered in blood, wearing her body bag, crying of how she drank a man's blood. Their smart brother Raymond (Michael Strelow) analyzes Helen's blood and determines she is in fact a vampire who needs blood for sustenance. So the family starts killing off tourists one by one, Helen drinking their blood only when her hunger totally takes over her faculties.
Though the story seems pretty linear and frail, Messerer keeps it interesting through his clever depictions of the characters and their quirky personalities. A dinner scene involving the whole family comes to mind from the beginning of the movie; it's long and drawn out, and has nothing to do with vampires, but it plants the seed in the audience's mind of who the characters are, and it gets us identifying with them. In true comedic fashion, Messerer has created very distinct personalities between characters that always clash, mostly in dynamically mundane ways that help bring out the irony of the plot.
But it's not all comedy here as the plot tends to drop its jokey leanings and adhere towards a stricter horror atmosphere after Helen dies. In a scene that nearly scared the bejesus out of me, Helen comes back from the dead, showing up at the family's door covered in blood from head to toe and draped in her own body bag. There is something sinister about Bailey's presence here; maybe it's the fact that I did not expect Helen to come back from the grave so soon, or in so much displeasure; maybe it's the little prop of the white body bag splattered with blood that gets me, the sentiment in my mind that what is inside that body bag should stay dead, because that's why it's put there in the first place. Either way, the uncanny way that Helen is presented - blood dripping from her eyes, her mouth a ragged hole full of the plasma, her total loss of control as a human being - is enough to send shivers down anyone's spine, horror comedy or not.
It's this amalgam of horror and comedy, comedy and horror, that keeps the viewer intrigued throughout. To be honest, not too much happens in the plot that we can't already immediately write for ourselves in our heads. Lara as a protagonist and narrator seems almost unnecessary as well, as the audience can piece together the characters' traits themselves through the direction and script. And the movie can run a little long, focusing on details that may have been best left on the cutting room floor. Yet the movie still succeeds, a mish-mash of bleak vampire films of old and Shaun of the Dead-style screenwriting that holds the viewer rapt. This is, of course, not to mention the grotesqueries of special effects artist Randall Leddy that are over-the-top yet fantastic. Or the vintage filming that vaguely reminds of films like Nosferatu or the classic Dracula. I can't put my finger on it, but the low production gives an eerie cast to all of the scenes that is striking.
Unfortunately, Thicker Than Water is part of a trilogy, and we're left with a cliffhanger that may not be resolved for a while. As for me, though, I'll be on the lookout for part 2 of this surprisingly good series, and if you haven't already been exposed to Messerer's brand of horror funnies, you best be checking his website, Blood Junky, for all Vampire Diaries news.
Thicker Than Water, part one of Phil Messerer's dark vampire comedy trilogy, has recently been hitting up the indie circuit, to much praise. It's no surprise, really; Messerer's wacky characters and their attempts at keeping alive their vampire relative showcase a knowledge of horror and comedy that is surprising, fun, and creepy at the same time.
You see, something just isn't right with Helen (Devon Bailey) after her sister Lara (Eilis Cahill) accidentally casts a wicked spell on her in the hopes she can cause mild discomfort. Instead, the spell drains Helen of all of her blood through a fountainous nosebleed and kills her, with help from a negligent doctor of course. But Helen doesn't stay dead; she comes back on a stormy night covered in blood, wearing her body bag, crying of how she drank a man's blood. Their smart brother Raymond (Michael Strelow) analyzes Helen's blood and determines she is in fact a vampire who needs blood for sustenance. So the family starts killing off tourists one by one, Helen drinking their blood only when her hunger totally takes over her faculties.
Though the story seems pretty linear and frail, Messerer keeps it interesting through his clever depictions of the characters and their quirky personalities. A dinner scene involving the whole family comes to mind from the beginning of the movie; it's long and drawn out, and has nothing to do with vampires, but it plants the seed in the audience's mind of who the characters are, and it gets us identifying with them. In true comedic fashion, Messerer has created very distinct personalities between characters that always clash, mostly in dynamically mundane ways that help bring out the irony of the plot.
But it's not all comedy here as the plot tends to drop its jokey leanings and adhere towards a stricter horror atmosphere after Helen dies. In a scene that nearly scared the bejesus out of me, Helen comes back from the dead, showing up at the family's door covered in blood from head to toe and draped in her own body bag. There is something sinister about Bailey's presence here; maybe it's the fact that I did not expect Helen to come back from the grave so soon, or in so much displeasure; maybe it's the little prop of the white body bag splattered with blood that gets me, the sentiment in my mind that what is inside that body bag should stay dead, because that's why it's put there in the first place. Either way, the uncanny way that Helen is presented - blood dripping from her eyes, her mouth a ragged hole full of the plasma, her total loss of control as a human being - is enough to send shivers down anyone's spine, horror comedy or not.
It's this amalgam of horror and comedy, comedy and horror, that keeps the viewer intrigued throughout. To be honest, not too much happens in the plot that we can't already immediately write for ourselves in our heads. Lara as a protagonist and narrator seems almost unnecessary as well, as the audience can piece together the characters' traits themselves through the direction and script. And the movie can run a little long, focusing on details that may have been best left on the cutting room floor. Yet the movie still succeeds, a mish-mash of bleak vampire films of old and Shaun of the Dead-style screenwriting that holds the viewer rapt. This is, of course, not to mention the grotesqueries of special effects artist Randall Leddy that are over-the-top yet fantastic. Or the vintage filming that vaguely reminds of films like Nosferatu or the classic Dracula. I can't put my finger on it, but the low production gives an eerie cast to all of the scenes that is striking.
Unfortunately, Thicker Than Water is part of a trilogy, and we're left with a cliffhanger that may not be resolved for a while. As for me, though, I'll be on the lookout for part 2 of this surprisingly good series, and if you haven't already been exposed to Messerer's brand of horror funnies, you best be checking his website, Blood Junky, for all Vampire Diaries news.
Monday, August 17, 2009
Book Review - Danse Macabre by Stephen King
Danse Macabre
With my fascination with horror, and my love of books and writing, it's no wonder that one of my idols would be Stephen King. His writing is witty, creative, acerbic, and all sorts of other adjectives that can be categorized under the heading of GOOD. Those who follow his novels will tend to find he writes forewords and afterwords talking of his experiences with writing the novel in question, or what led to the idea - a very attractive attempt at getting in the head of the writer.
Danse Macabre is Stephen King's chance at discussing his own experiences in the horror genre, be it movies, television, or books. Some of what he writes about are influences on his own writing; others are aimed at picking out some of the greats of the period between 1950 through 1980. Of course, all of the opinions expressed by King are tinged with his own unique sense of sarcasm and comedy, along with side-notes of autobiographical accounts from his own life.
Despite the fact that this tome of King's favorites (or least favorites, depending on the subject matter) is outdated, it's still a great look at the genre for the years depicted. King has some fantastic picks for novels and films, many of which are more obscure than you might imagine. But what stands out more than King's list of top horror is what he has to say about them and how they've influenced his own writing. In fact, I found King's essays about his own life much more fascinating than his analyses of horror novels, which became quite fatiguing to read and seemed hypocritical to King's dislike of over-analyzing stories.
Although King can venture off on tangents, he mostly sticks to the topic at hand. The majority of the time, he manages to wrap back around to what he was talking about before, but it's easy for the reader to get lost in King's allusions and topic shifts. The end of the novel gets a bit bogged down with all of King's critiques on horror, and at times, King can come off as a bit of a critic himself, name-dropping those who aren't up to par with what he considers good writing. Yet that seems to be mostly what Danse Macabre tries to accomplish: pick out the good stuff and let the rest fall away.
Pick up Danse Macabre as a jam-packed roadmap to all the horror you may have missed. Great for those who never lived the '50s through the '80s, and even better for those wanting to get into the genre. The best part, though, are King's essays on his past and how it intermingles with horror; call me a junkie, but I sure love to hear about what influences some of my favorite horror, just as King tries to do here in his dance.
What kind of dance do you think he does? An Irish jig? Maybe twostep? What's the scariest dance?
Probably this one, actually:
With my fascination with horror, and my love of books and writing, it's no wonder that one of my idols would be Stephen King. His writing is witty, creative, acerbic, and all sorts of other adjectives that can be categorized under the heading of GOOD. Those who follow his novels will tend to find he writes forewords and afterwords talking of his experiences with writing the novel in question, or what led to the idea - a very attractive attempt at getting in the head of the writer.
Danse Macabre is Stephen King's chance at discussing his own experiences in the horror genre, be it movies, television, or books. Some of what he writes about are influences on his own writing; others are aimed at picking out some of the greats of the period between 1950 through 1980. Of course, all of the opinions expressed by King are tinged with his own unique sense of sarcasm and comedy, along with side-notes of autobiographical accounts from his own life.
Despite the fact that this tome of King's favorites (or least favorites, depending on the subject matter) is outdated, it's still a great look at the genre for the years depicted. King has some fantastic picks for novels and films, many of which are more obscure than you might imagine. But what stands out more than King's list of top horror is what he has to say about them and how they've influenced his own writing. In fact, I found King's essays about his own life much more fascinating than his analyses of horror novels, which became quite fatiguing to read and seemed hypocritical to King's dislike of over-analyzing stories.
Although King can venture off on tangents, he mostly sticks to the topic at hand. The majority of the time, he manages to wrap back around to what he was talking about before, but it's easy for the reader to get lost in King's allusions and topic shifts. The end of the novel gets a bit bogged down with all of King's critiques on horror, and at times, King can come off as a bit of a critic himself, name-dropping those who aren't up to par with what he considers good writing. Yet that seems to be mostly what Danse Macabre tries to accomplish: pick out the good stuff and let the rest fall away.
Pick up Danse Macabre as a jam-packed roadmap to all the horror you may have missed. Great for those who never lived the '50s through the '80s, and even better for those wanting to get into the genre. The best part, though, are King's essays on his past and how it intermingles with horror; call me a junkie, but I sure love to hear about what influences some of my favorite horror, just as King tries to do here in his dance.
What kind of dance do you think he does? An Irish jig? Maybe twostep? What's the scariest dance?
Probably this one, actually:
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Movie Review - S. Darko
S. Darko
Honestly, I was and still am a huge Donnie Darko fan, so when I heard the news that a new sequel was in the works that would build off of the original and have Daveigh Chase reprising her role as Samantha Darko, there was a mix of resentment tinged with excitement in my voice when I asked two of the most important questions of the film: "WHY! And... how?"
Well, now that time has come for me to view the film, to pick it apart as if it were a turkey dinner on Thanksgiving, and part of me wants to drop all of my reviewing pretenses and shout out that S. Darko need not be compared to Donnie - the age-old dilemma of not comparing brothers and sisters an apt metaphor here, if you will. Donnie Darko was such a cult favorite on its own that to compare its sequel to the original is setting S. Darko up for failure.
Unfortunately, S. Darko's direction makes it almost impossible to not bring Donnie's own story into context, as a lot of the theatrical stylings of the sequel have come straight from the original. Roaming dark clouds act as an interlude between scenes; Roberta Sparrow's book on time travel again comes into play; similar music plays in the background; the opening sequence to plays out eerily similar to Donnie's. This stuff is placed in the film for a reason: to bring about both nostalgia and a similar style, channeling the prior film's strengths into a familiar yet different arc.
But here's the thing - S. Darko fails miserably in story, attempting grandiose mountain climbs and only reaching an eighth of the height expected. There's something to be said for director Chris Fisher's high hopes; he seems like he knows the story of Donnie Darko, is familiar with the history and patterns, and even grasps the themes of the original. And what I think his thought processes were goes a little something like this:
"Hey, I love Donnie Darko. I'm an amateur director. Richard Kelly gave us a mind-fuck of a film that's sort of like an acid trip. I can do this. We can use Samantha Darko from the original, give her the same problems Donnie has. She'll be older, remembering the past. AND we'll do it backwards. Instead of having Sam change the future, she'll be the bringer of bad news to someone else!"
You know, it's a creative idea. It just doesn't work that well when the audience is supposed to relate to Samantha as a protagonist and a dead time-traveler. Sam is a whiny dud; she's not interesting and certainly not compelling enough to garner relations with the audience. Most of her on-screen time is relegated to moping around, shyly talking with friends or following her fate bubble trail. It may sound morbid, but the best Sam is the dead Sam. She's actually quite creepy in her frazzled hair, dirt-stained dress, and blue complexion. Jump cuts make her move quickly, so we never know where she will be next - but most likely, it's right in front of the camera.
However, the plot is so muddled that it doesn't matter if we like Sam or not; we're going to be spending most of our time in the movie lost, trying to figure out vague plot lines. Whereas Donnie's initial ambiguity worked because of the movie's successful pacing of important plot details, S. Darko has failed to conceive a good ordering of plot events. Instead, it wanders aimlessly around, at times removing certain storylines for a good portion of the film. It makes it even more confusing to understand what is going on, most of which can be blamed on the supposed complexity of trying to incorporate two time-traveling sequences into one film.
Pair that with the fact that S. Darko likes to sidestep major plot points. In a sequence sure to give everyone a grimace and head shake, Sam is walking away from her drunk friend, who has just insulted her in front of some cool guys that the friend is with. The guys think this is harsh and kick the girl out of the car, then drive off drunkenly. Almost instantly, a car smashes into them or something, killing Sam. If I sound a bit unsure of the events, you hit it right on the head. It seems as though a car came out of time and crashed into the guys' car, which then caromed into Sam. But none of this is shown, nor explained well, and instead of an emotional climax as in Donnie when Gretchen is struck down by Frank's car, all we're left with is a scratch of the head and a "Huh? What happened?"
This is the exact sentiment throughout much of the movie, where vague happenings culminate in a less-than-exciting ending that includes asteroids from space crashing into the earth, Sam's death and revival, and a very limited plot line about religious fanatics kidnapping little boys that includes Jessie from Saved by the Bell (Elizabeth Berkley)! S. Darko takes on a heavy load and doesn't know what to do with it. When the end comes, it's hard to piece together why this was such an important story in the first place - was the homeless guy really worth saving? The little boys will never be found, the asteroids may still slam into the earth (although I think we're supposed to believe that the guy who found it called them from space...), and it makes Sam's death and her friend's sacrifice to save her moot.
It's tough to go into S. Darko knowing how good Donnie was, and if you're a fan, you might see some light at the end of the tunnel with Sam. But as an honest-to-goodness film, S. Darko deserves its direct-to-DVD release, suffering from a lot of the same flaws that most of those indie films do. An unorganized plot that may have been good had it had some semblance of a better arrangement is what we're left with, a bitter disappointment of what could have been. But there was a reason that Richard Kelly left it at Donnie's demise: there's not much more you can do from that point, because the cat has left the bag. It's too bad time travel isn't real; the makers of this film could go back, scrap the film, and get their money back.
S. Darko on Rotten Tomatoes
Honestly, I was and still am a huge Donnie Darko fan, so when I heard the news that a new sequel was in the works that would build off of the original and have Daveigh Chase reprising her role as Samantha Darko, there was a mix of resentment tinged with excitement in my voice when I asked two of the most important questions of the film: "WHY! And... how?"
Well, now that time has come for me to view the film, to pick it apart as if it were a turkey dinner on Thanksgiving, and part of me wants to drop all of my reviewing pretenses and shout out that S. Darko need not be compared to Donnie - the age-old dilemma of not comparing brothers and sisters an apt metaphor here, if you will. Donnie Darko was such a cult favorite on its own that to compare its sequel to the original is setting S. Darko up for failure.
Unfortunately, S. Darko's direction makes it almost impossible to not bring Donnie's own story into context, as a lot of the theatrical stylings of the sequel have come straight from the original. Roaming dark clouds act as an interlude between scenes; Roberta Sparrow's book on time travel again comes into play; similar music plays in the background; the opening sequence to plays out eerily similar to Donnie's. This stuff is placed in the film for a reason: to bring about both nostalgia and a similar style, channeling the prior film's strengths into a familiar yet different arc.
But here's the thing - S. Darko fails miserably in story, attempting grandiose mountain climbs and only reaching an eighth of the height expected. There's something to be said for director Chris Fisher's high hopes; he seems like he knows the story of Donnie Darko, is familiar with the history and patterns, and even grasps the themes of the original. And what I think his thought processes were goes a little something like this:
"Hey, I love Donnie Darko. I'm an amateur director. Richard Kelly gave us a mind-fuck of a film that's sort of like an acid trip. I can do this. We can use Samantha Darko from the original, give her the same problems Donnie has. She'll be older, remembering the past. AND we'll do it backwards. Instead of having Sam change the future, she'll be the bringer of bad news to someone else!"
You know, it's a creative idea. It just doesn't work that well when the audience is supposed to relate to Samantha as a protagonist and a dead time-traveler. Sam is a whiny dud; she's not interesting and certainly not compelling enough to garner relations with the audience. Most of her on-screen time is relegated to moping around, shyly talking with friends or following her fate bubble trail. It may sound morbid, but the best Sam is the dead Sam. She's actually quite creepy in her frazzled hair, dirt-stained dress, and blue complexion. Jump cuts make her move quickly, so we never know where she will be next - but most likely, it's right in front of the camera.
However, the plot is so muddled that it doesn't matter if we like Sam or not; we're going to be spending most of our time in the movie lost, trying to figure out vague plot lines. Whereas Donnie's initial ambiguity worked because of the movie's successful pacing of important plot details, S. Darko has failed to conceive a good ordering of plot events. Instead, it wanders aimlessly around, at times removing certain storylines for a good portion of the film. It makes it even more confusing to understand what is going on, most of which can be blamed on the supposed complexity of trying to incorporate two time-traveling sequences into one film.
Pair that with the fact that S. Darko likes to sidestep major plot points. In a sequence sure to give everyone a grimace and head shake, Sam is walking away from her drunk friend, who has just insulted her in front of some cool guys that the friend is with. The guys think this is harsh and kick the girl out of the car, then drive off drunkenly. Almost instantly, a car smashes into them or something, killing Sam. If I sound a bit unsure of the events, you hit it right on the head. It seems as though a car came out of time and crashed into the guys' car, which then caromed into Sam. But none of this is shown, nor explained well, and instead of an emotional climax as in Donnie when Gretchen is struck down by Frank's car, all we're left with is a scratch of the head and a "Huh? What happened?"
This is the exact sentiment throughout much of the movie, where vague happenings culminate in a less-than-exciting ending that includes asteroids from space crashing into the earth, Sam's death and revival, and a very limited plot line about religious fanatics kidnapping little boys that includes Jessie from Saved by the Bell (Elizabeth Berkley)! S. Darko takes on a heavy load and doesn't know what to do with it. When the end comes, it's hard to piece together why this was such an important story in the first place - was the homeless guy really worth saving? The little boys will never be found, the asteroids may still slam into the earth (although I think we're supposed to believe that the guy who found it called them from space...), and it makes Sam's death and her friend's sacrifice to save her moot.
It's tough to go into S. Darko knowing how good Donnie was, and if you're a fan, you might see some light at the end of the tunnel with Sam. But as an honest-to-goodness film, S. Darko deserves its direct-to-DVD release, suffering from a lot of the same flaws that most of those indie films do. An unorganized plot that may have been good had it had some semblance of a better arrangement is what we're left with, a bitter disappointment of what could have been. But there was a reason that Richard Kelly left it at Donnie's demise: there's not much more you can do from that point, because the cat has left the bag. It's too bad time travel isn't real; the makers of this film could go back, scrap the film, and get their money back.
S. Darko on Rotten Tomatoes
Friday, August 14, 2009
Coming up:
I've got reviews of S. Darko, Stephen King's non-fiction book Danse Macabre, and Thicker Than Water coming down the pipe. Stay tuned, it's a busy time but I'm working through it.
Also, expect a look into my life as a horror fanatic soon in a Meet the LOTTD post. I think I've given a look at it before, but maybe I can shed more light on how I became the fan that I am, and what led to this blog as a review site.
Ryne
*Also, I've recently been asked to join 7tavern, a reviewing community for all sorts of media. The reviews will be the same posted here, but now you can find me in more than one place. Take a look, and maybe submit your own reviews!*
Also, expect a look into my life as a horror fanatic soon in a Meet the LOTTD post. I think I've given a look at it before, but maybe I can shed more light on how I became the fan that I am, and what led to this blog as a review site.
Ryne
*Also, I've recently been asked to join 7tavern, a reviewing community for all sorts of media. The reviews will be the same posted here, but now you can find me in more than one place. Take a look, and maybe submit your own reviews!*
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Moon Minis - Waitress
Waitress
Quirky characters and a strong performance from Keri Russell propel this romantic comedy about a pregnant woman's attempt at finding a life worth living from medium-rare to well-done. Though basic, Waitress' plot strikes an emotional nerve - if your life's no good, why are you still forcing yourself to live it? Russell's pizazz is due to her spot-on emotions, jettisoning from dreary to downright upbeat easily and without flaw. One must not forget her co-star and on-screen husband, played by Jeremy Sisto, whose despicable traits act as a fantastic obstacle to Russell's happiness. Nathan Fillion, who plays Russell's doctor/lover, also plays his part well, hitting his stride with his character's fidgety persona.
The cast is what really brings out the charms of the film, but the uplifting story doesn't hurt, either. Happily, Waitress is just as apt to portray Russell's struggle with her failing marriage and progression in pregnancy (or even beautifully-made pies, for that matter) as it is the budding romance between Russell and Fillion. Instead of mindless mushy drivel, Waitress becomes an attractive experience for both sexes which relies more strongly on its themes of finding happiness than finding the perfect relationship, a step up from the more generic, formulaic rom-coms of today.
Waitress on Rotten Tomatoes
Quirky characters and a strong performance from Keri Russell propel this romantic comedy about a pregnant woman's attempt at finding a life worth living from medium-rare to well-done. Though basic, Waitress' plot strikes an emotional nerve - if your life's no good, why are you still forcing yourself to live it? Russell's pizazz is due to her spot-on emotions, jettisoning from dreary to downright upbeat easily and without flaw. One must not forget her co-star and on-screen husband, played by Jeremy Sisto, whose despicable traits act as a fantastic obstacle to Russell's happiness. Nathan Fillion, who plays Russell's doctor/lover, also plays his part well, hitting his stride with his character's fidgety persona.
The cast is what really brings out the charms of the film, but the uplifting story doesn't hurt, either. Happily, Waitress is just as apt to portray Russell's struggle with her failing marriage and progression in pregnancy (or even beautifully-made pies, for that matter) as it is the budding romance between Russell and Fillion. Instead of mindless mushy drivel, Waitress becomes an attractive experience for both sexes which relies more strongly on its themes of finding happiness than finding the perfect relationship, a step up from the more generic, formulaic rom-coms of today.
Waitress on Rotten Tomatoes
Monday, August 10, 2009
Television Review - Harper's Island Episodes 3, 4, & 5
Harper's Island
There comes a time in every reviewer's life when he has to get over his stubbornness and admit that he may have been wrong, that he may have jumped to conclusions. That time is now, and though I'm speaking in third-person, I will come right out and say it - I feel I may have misjudged Harper's Island with my prior viewings.
Initially, I wrote Harper's Island off as a generic but violent television thriller that was doing no justice to TV horror. Now, after viewing a few more episodes of the series, I've found I've taken a liking to the characters of the Island and their dilemmas.
Before I felt like too many of the series' characters were stock, rarely rising above their stereotypical counterparts in other films to garner any sense of emotion from the audience. Further developments in the plot, however, have changed my outlook on the cast - in fact, I felt a pang of distress when a character was killed in an accidental shooting, a feeling that seemed lacking from the other episodes.
The plot has also become more intricate, with each episode weaving in original ideas that help to muddle the mystery of the island's killer even more. Each plot twist joins and separates the characters, forcing them to regain their footing within their relationships and adding more clues to the suspect list. The plot has actually jumped headlong into a more serious, intricate, and decidedly darker story while maintaining its comedic bent.
With the development of character and the patterns and twists that wind throughout the show, along with cliffhanger episodes that leave the viewer with a sense of bewilderment, Harper's Island has matured nicely. It seems the show was a late bloomer - for those who thought the plot was going to drop off into a by-the-book slasher and tuned out, I urge you to give a few more episodes a chance. The series has its hooks into me now, and I can forgive the shoddy scriptwriting, slightly corny dialogue, and questionable believability and just enjoy the show for what it really is - a complex web of intrigue, mystery, and grue.
There comes a time in every reviewer's life when he has to get over his stubbornness and admit that he may have been wrong, that he may have jumped to conclusions. That time is now, and though I'm speaking in third-person, I will come right out and say it - I feel I may have misjudged Harper's Island with my prior viewings.
Initially, I wrote Harper's Island off as a generic but violent television thriller that was doing no justice to TV horror. Now, after viewing a few more episodes of the series, I've found I've taken a liking to the characters of the Island and their dilemmas.
Before I felt like too many of the series' characters were stock, rarely rising above their stereotypical counterparts in other films to garner any sense of emotion from the audience. Further developments in the plot, however, have changed my outlook on the cast - in fact, I felt a pang of distress when a character was killed in an accidental shooting, a feeling that seemed lacking from the other episodes.
The plot has also become more intricate, with each episode weaving in original ideas that help to muddle the mystery of the island's killer even more. Each plot twist joins and separates the characters, forcing them to regain their footing within their relationships and adding more clues to the suspect list. The plot has actually jumped headlong into a more serious, intricate, and decidedly darker story while maintaining its comedic bent.
With the development of character and the patterns and twists that wind throughout the show, along with cliffhanger episodes that leave the viewer with a sense of bewilderment, Harper's Island has matured nicely. It seems the show was a late bloomer - for those who thought the plot was going to drop off into a by-the-book slasher and tuned out, I urge you to give a few more episodes a chance. The series has its hooks into me now, and I can forgive the shoddy scriptwriting, slightly corny dialogue, and questionable believability and just enjoy the show for what it really is - a complex web of intrigue, mystery, and grue.
Thursday, August 6, 2009
Movie Review - Orphan
Orphan
Orphan starts with a violent and uncomfortable birthing scene, a clip which immediately hooked me. "Huh," I said, alternating glances between the screen and my flip-flops, "that's pretty grotesque."
The fact of the matter was that I wasn't expecting a film about a killer child to be so exceedingly violent. I was wrong. Orphan is in fact a pretty gory movie, never losing focus on the kills which drive the plot. It's a good thing, too, because the lengthy run time makes necessary these action sequences. Once we are thrown into the lives of the couple (Vera Farmiga and Peter Saarsgard) we're following, it's a dry trek for a half hour or more as we are introduced to the family's problems and their subsequent adoption of Esther (Isabelle Fuhrman), a unique girl who seems an exact match to her new parents. We're treated to a lot of rising action as we continue to meet Esther, progressing more or less predictably based on the trailers of the film. Esther has a few strange "quirks," but she's an orphan and is still having adjustment issues. Fine and dandy.
But the next part of the film is where I lost a bit of my enthrallment in its plot. Esther is weird, understandably - and when she showcases her more violent tendencies, she becomes dangerous - but she never seems evil or foreboding. In fact, I never saw her as more than a minor problem in the family's household until she started murdering people.
Some events are blown out of proportion; for instance, Esther likes to lock the door when she takes a bath. Big deal. It's not that strange - she has just moved into a new house, after all, and wants to keep some of her privacy - but her mom thinks this is just plain weird. Conversely, some parts are underestimated. When Esther's caretaker from the orphanage turns up missing after visiting her, only the mother questions whether Esther has some involvement with the matter.
To be quite honest, I had a very hard time believing the father character at all, given the fact that he seemed to be blind to everything going on around him. Any attempts to characterize him more than the exposition fall flat (a womanizer? a kid guy? an artist?). His personality is all over the place, and the only thing that stays consistent is his inability to come to grips with the fact that Esther is crazy as shit.
But I can understand, in a way, why it might be hard to take Esther seriously. She doesn't feel menacing or creepy like more successful child horror movies portray their children. Throughout the film, we know Esther is messed up and we know she does everything that the characters think she's done. There's no supernatural tone to it; it's like we've got the evidence and are just waiting for the parents to put her away. Instead, most of Orphan's latter scenes are devoted to slightly maniacal actions that, again, fail to deliver more than minor scares. Esther is, let's face it, trying too hard to be evil. It's just not in her.
Orphan tries to scare its audience, that's for sure. The frights are posed so that many cliched scares are actually just toying with you, trying to get a rise out of you to get you when you least expect it. The problem with this technique is that many have tried this, and instead of being forward-thinking, people are expecting that the filmmakers are expecting the audience to be tricked. In a roundabout way, it again becomes cliched. Tough to get around, but something that must be pointed out for the film because of its lack of atmosphere.
It's not all bad, though. There's some great gore effects here, especially a broken bone that will have many grabbing their arms. Most satisfying, however, is when Farmiga gives Esther a giant slap to the face and then smashes her foot into her face. I've never seen a better kick!
Orphan's mediocre at best, providing a lot of the same routine with a new twist that's admittedly kind of cool, but plot elements don't add up (how is Esther not caught killing her caretaker? how did no one see her shift the car from park to neutral in a crowded school parking lot?) and there's not a whole lot the film can offer besides a few gruesome kills. It's fun for a while, but the kid's just not that sinister. No wonder this Orphan is parentless.
Orphan on Rotten Tomatoes
Orphan starts with a violent and uncomfortable birthing scene, a clip which immediately hooked me. "Huh," I said, alternating glances between the screen and my flip-flops, "that's pretty grotesque."
The fact of the matter was that I wasn't expecting a film about a killer child to be so exceedingly violent. I was wrong. Orphan is in fact a pretty gory movie, never losing focus on the kills which drive the plot. It's a good thing, too, because the lengthy run time makes necessary these action sequences. Once we are thrown into the lives of the couple (Vera Farmiga and Peter Saarsgard) we're following, it's a dry trek for a half hour or more as we are introduced to the family's problems and their subsequent adoption of Esther (Isabelle Fuhrman), a unique girl who seems an exact match to her new parents. We're treated to a lot of rising action as we continue to meet Esther, progressing more or less predictably based on the trailers of the film. Esther has a few strange "quirks," but she's an orphan and is still having adjustment issues. Fine and dandy.
But the next part of the film is where I lost a bit of my enthrallment in its plot. Esther is weird, understandably - and when she showcases her more violent tendencies, she becomes dangerous - but she never seems evil or foreboding. In fact, I never saw her as more than a minor problem in the family's household until she started murdering people.
Some events are blown out of proportion; for instance, Esther likes to lock the door when she takes a bath. Big deal. It's not that strange - she has just moved into a new house, after all, and wants to keep some of her privacy - but her mom thinks this is just plain weird. Conversely, some parts are underestimated. When Esther's caretaker from the orphanage turns up missing after visiting her, only the mother questions whether Esther has some involvement with the matter.
To be quite honest, I had a very hard time believing the father character at all, given the fact that he seemed to be blind to everything going on around him. Any attempts to characterize him more than the exposition fall flat (a womanizer? a kid guy? an artist?). His personality is all over the place, and the only thing that stays consistent is his inability to come to grips with the fact that Esther is crazy as shit.
But I can understand, in a way, why it might be hard to take Esther seriously. She doesn't feel menacing or creepy like more successful child horror movies portray their children. Throughout the film, we know Esther is messed up and we know she does everything that the characters think she's done. There's no supernatural tone to it; it's like we've got the evidence and are just waiting for the parents to put her away. Instead, most of Orphan's latter scenes are devoted to slightly maniacal actions that, again, fail to deliver more than minor scares. Esther is, let's face it, trying too hard to be evil. It's just not in her.
Orphan tries to scare its audience, that's for sure. The frights are posed so that many cliched scares are actually just toying with you, trying to get a rise out of you to get you when you least expect it. The problem with this technique is that many have tried this, and instead of being forward-thinking, people are expecting that the filmmakers are expecting the audience to be tricked. In a roundabout way, it again becomes cliched. Tough to get around, but something that must be pointed out for the film because of its lack of atmosphere.
It's not all bad, though. There's some great gore effects here, especially a broken bone that will have many grabbing their arms. Most satisfying, however, is when Farmiga gives Esther a giant slap to the face and then smashes her foot into her face. I've never seen a better kick!
Orphan's mediocre at best, providing a lot of the same routine with a new twist that's admittedly kind of cool, but plot elements don't add up (how is Esther not caught killing her caretaker? how did no one see her shift the car from park to neutral in a crowded school parking lot?) and there's not a whole lot the film can offer besides a few gruesome kills. It's fun for a while, but the kid's just not that sinister. No wonder this Orphan is parentless.
Orphan on Rotten Tomatoes
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Book Review - A Murder of Promise by Robert Andrews
A Murder of Promise
Robert Andrews used to be a Green Beret and a CIA operative. This might seem like useless information to someone who has never read any of his books, but it's relatively apparent that Andrews has had some sort of background in crime study. In fact, A Murder of Promise reads like an extended Law & Order episode.
That's certainly not a bad thing, as Andrews paints a fairly interesting picture of two close-knit cops working a homicide case that may or may not involve a serial killer. Andrews' characters are especially effective - Jose and Frank work well together, complimenting each other, finishing each others' thoughts, and generally seeming like they've made a friendship out of a tough job. A Murder of Promise showcases a lot of characters, and Andrews builds most up to round them out - even the dead ones.
But the pacing is a little slow, and one feels as though Andrews took his own knowledge of investigations too far. His prose is a rush of short, quick sentences, a great representation of cop detailing (though at first a little off-putting). Yet Andrews tends to include events that don't interest a whole lot, and while Frank and Jose make a likable team, the interrogations they produce can get a tad bit dry. Likewise, Andrews provides almost too much detail in some scenes; although it surely shows off Andrews' eye for info, it's not a necessity for the novel and bogs down some of the writing.
Andrews has succumbed to the upsetting theory that the unsuspected character who turns out to be the real killer will impress the reader with its twist. Instead, the ending feels contrived - a few hints and one lengthy scene with the killer are all that are provided in uncovering the mystery, resulting in a mix of enlightenment ("Ah-ha! I sort of suspected it was him based on metaphorical clues that could have been construed in a few different ways!") and frustration ("Well, that's a bummer - didn't really give me a chance to uncover the truth before the expository shit hit the fan...").
But cheer up - Andrews' lengthy plot will have the reader guessing at every turn, diving at every wild goose chase, and thinking that they're Encyclopedia Brown (sorry to say, though, that Encyclopedia Brown was a child detective finding wallets and missing kittens, so better luck next time). For the most part, A Murder of Promise is a solid read as long as one has patience; it will take you a while to get to the action-packed finale, sloshing through voluminous suspect interviews just as a PI might.
Damn realism.
Robert Andrews used to be a Green Beret and a CIA operative. This might seem like useless information to someone who has never read any of his books, but it's relatively apparent that Andrews has had some sort of background in crime study. In fact, A Murder of Promise reads like an extended Law & Order episode.
That's certainly not a bad thing, as Andrews paints a fairly interesting picture of two close-knit cops working a homicide case that may or may not involve a serial killer. Andrews' characters are especially effective - Jose and Frank work well together, complimenting each other, finishing each others' thoughts, and generally seeming like they've made a friendship out of a tough job. A Murder of Promise showcases a lot of characters, and Andrews builds most up to round them out - even the dead ones.
But the pacing is a little slow, and one feels as though Andrews took his own knowledge of investigations too far. His prose is a rush of short, quick sentences, a great representation of cop detailing (though at first a little off-putting). Yet Andrews tends to include events that don't interest a whole lot, and while Frank and Jose make a likable team, the interrogations they produce can get a tad bit dry. Likewise, Andrews provides almost too much detail in some scenes; although it surely shows off Andrews' eye for info, it's not a necessity for the novel and bogs down some of the writing.
Andrews has succumbed to the upsetting theory that the unsuspected character who turns out to be the real killer will impress the reader with its twist. Instead, the ending feels contrived - a few hints and one lengthy scene with the killer are all that are provided in uncovering the mystery, resulting in a mix of enlightenment ("Ah-ha! I sort of suspected it was him based on metaphorical clues that could have been construed in a few different ways!") and frustration ("Well, that's a bummer - didn't really give me a chance to uncover the truth before the expository shit hit the fan...").
But cheer up - Andrews' lengthy plot will have the reader guessing at every turn, diving at every wild goose chase, and thinking that they're Encyclopedia Brown (sorry to say, though, that Encyclopedia Brown was a child detective finding wallets and missing kittens, so better luck next time). For the most part, A Murder of Promise is a solid read as long as one has patience; it will take you a while to get to the action-packed finale, sloshing through voluminous suspect interviews just as a PI might.
Damn realism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)