Eyes Without a Face (1960)

Eyes Without a Face (1960)

Director:  Georges Franju

I didn’t expect this film to be a horror movie classic, but as it turns out, it is. I went into this movie not knowing what to expect, save for the fact that it’s one of those movies that you have to “see before you die”. I put off watching it because I thought it would be a boring film, but as I began to watch it, I was transfixed by the beauty in the imagery and the fact that it was going down horror movie territory, something totally unexpected for me. 

The story is all about a surgeon who is trying to give his daughter a new face. You see, she was in a terrible car accident and her face was horribly disfigured. Her father, the surgeon, concocts a way to give her a new face. Unfortunately, it involves ripping the face off somebody else! Will this procedure work? Will somebody stop the mad doctor? How far should science go to prove a point? 

First off, this film was beautifully shot. It took advantage, as many European films do of Europe’s beautiful architecture and natural landscapes. A director doesn’t need millions of dollars to make his movie look good, he simply has to have an eye for beautiful locations and the talent to shoot them well. This is what happens with Franju’s Eyes Without a Face, it simply looks amazing because Franju shot in these beautiful locations, this, if you ask me, elevates the material from its B movie roots and takes it into art house territory. Still, at heart, this is you’re a-typical mad doctor on the loose movie, there’s more than a passing resemblance with films like Frankenstein (1931) or Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Yes, this is a film is about a mad doctor, going above and beyond to make his theories come true, to make his experiments work. 

The film is most famous for its surgical operation scene, which I imagine must have been quite the show stopper back in the day. Reportedly, people passed out during that sequence. I do remember as I watched the film, I suddenly felt I was watching “the scene”. You know how when you’re watching classic films and see a famous sequence for the first time and you realize you are in the presence of greatness…that’s how I felt with that scene. It’s an art film mixed with a horror film, loved that about this one. 

After watching Eyes Without a Face I realized where Pedro Almodovar’s The Skin I Live In (2011) comes from. Almodovar’s film is extremely similar in premise and visuals so obviously this film was a major influence. The only thing is that Almodovar’s film dives a bit deeper into themes, while Franju’s film is simplistic in nature and almost kind of void of any themes. The film shocks, has an interesting premise and looks amazing, but what is it trying to say? What is its ultimate purpose? It seems to me like Franju’s film only manages to shock and titillate and that it does in a beautiful way, but it doesn’t go beyond that. So in that sense, it’s an exercise in style over matter, poetic/surreal imagery over depth or story. I’m sure back in 1960 this film must’ve shocked audiences, I’m sure it will be considered tame by today’s horror enthusiasts. Still, this is a beautiful looking horror film, a true classic of the genre. Definitely worth a watch! 

Rating: 5 out of 5

IT (2017)

IT (2017)

Director: Andy Muschietti

Cast: Jaeden Lieberher, Jeremy Ray Taylor, Sophia Lillis, Finn Wolfhard, Chosen Jacobs, Jack Dylan Grazer, Wyatt Oleff, Bill Skarsgard

Every generation gets their boogeyman and it looks like this generation is getting Pennywise, The Dancing Clown. Yes my friends, this killer clown from outer space has earned his rank amongst the horror elite. Pennywise is the brainchild of Stephen King who first introduced him with his hugely successful novel ‘IT’, which premiered way back in 1986. The book was then adapted into a television miniseries, where it frightened a whole generation of 90’s kids (myself included) thanks in no small part to Tim Curry’s brilliant interpretation of the title character. Now Pennywise has been resurrected via a theatrically released film. Considering how many terrible remakes we get on a yearly basis, I was hesitant to accept this one, as I always am when they want to mess around with a classic. Would Bill Skarsgard, the actor portraying Pennywise do the character justice, or was he just going to clone Tim Curry’s take on it? The same trepidation went for the director, Andy Muschietti, the director behind Mama (2003), which I’ve yet to see. Would he have what it takes to make a truly frightening movie or would this be another watered down “Horror Movie” afraid to truly scare us?

In case you’ve never seen the mini-series or read King’s book IT is all about this town in which kids keep disappearing for no apparent reason. A group of nerds and outcast who call themselves “The Losers” notice what is happening and decide to do something about it. Their explorations lead them to a discovery: there’s a strange, evil clown kidnapping the kids! Can they confront this evil entity and stop the disappearance’s from happening?

My big preoccupation with this movie was whether it was going to be truly horrifying or not. I’ve grown to learn that in modern Hollywood, an ‘R’ rating doesn’t necessarily equal intensity. Sometimes it’s just a hook to make you think the film you are about to watch is going to be “edgy” then you realize you’ve been had. In the case of ‘IT’ I am happy to say that this is a truly hardcore horror movie not afraid to shock us. In the first ten minutes, the film really shows us its fangs and lets us know it isn’t fooling around, if you stay, you are going to be horrified! So if you can’t take the heat, you better get out of that kitchen! The scares are well orchestrated, it is gory, it is intense and freaking Pennywise is a memorable boogyman! A memorable villain! My hats down to Bill Skarsgard for delivering a truly nuanced performance. Pennywise’s movements and facial gestures truly delivered a bone chilling villain, everything about him feels strange or “off”, his evil is felt in every part of the performance. Loved this villain, and I love the fact that he really goes for the jugular when the movie turns up the heat.

But apart from a strong, memorable villain, which by the way I’ve been dying to see in a film for a while now, we get a group of young characters who deliver believable performances that manage to capture that innocent age when everything is new, when you kiss for the first time, when you develop friendships that will last you a life time, and when you first start standing up to your parents. I’ve always liked that about ‘IT’, that idea that this group of friends truly care for each other, that feeling that you’re with people you can really trust in. This of course is something present in many of Stephen King’s stories like Stand By Me (1986) and Dreamcatcher (2003). King loves to tell stories of friends or a community coming together to defeat an ultimate evil, so he takes his time in writing situations where that bond, that love between characters is truly felt. Kudos to the director for seeing that and bringing it to the big screen. By the way, this film does something that all good remakes do, it gives us enough new elements so it doesn’t feel like we’re watching the same film over again.

What I loved the most about this adaptation is that it didn’t feel like a cheap horror film. It doesn’t feel like it was made by an idiot trying to scare us with cheap scares. Nope, this is a well-crafted horror film that looks beautiful, is truly frightening and has characters you care about, all without losing its edge and remembering its mission: to make you squirm in your seat. So yes my dear readers, Andy Muschietti and crew aimed to do make a truly memorable horror film and not something that you’d forget or worse yet, wish you’d never spent your time and your money on. This one was special in my book. It's filled with a lot of great moments, I think what Muschietti was aiming for was a roller coaster ride of horror and he achieved it. I was so impressed that I will be checking out Muschietti’s Mama (2003). Bottom line is IT is a fun ride, and should be experienced in a movie theater. By the looks of it, a sequel is assured, which is supposed to take place 27 years later, when the kids have all grown up. Here’s hoping they don’t give us a cheap ass sequel and maintain the same high level of quality with the next film. This film surpassed my expectations, and that’s a lot to say because normally new horror films fail to amaze me. IT was jaw-droppingly good!

Rating: 5 out of 5 

Alien: Covenant (2017)

Alien: Covenant (2017)

Director: Ridley Scott

Cast: Michael Fassbender, Katherine Waterston, Billy Crudup, Danny McBride, Demian Bichir, Guy Pierce, James Franco, Noomi Rapace

Ridley Scott’s Alien (1979), is one of those seminal horror films that changes the face of a genre so much, that it marks the way the genre will be for years and years to come. How many movies have imitated the style, the look of Ridley Scott’s original monster movie? Many that’s how many.I could write a list of films that look and play out exactly like it: Alien Contamination (1980), Galaxy of Terror (1981), Outland (1981), Leviathan (1989), Event Horizon (1997)…and the list goes on and on. Ridley Scott left that Alien franchise after having directed that first film and the sequels that followed were directed by talented directors that took each film in totally different directions, which is why I love this franchise, each director has put his stamp on each film, so they are all extremely different. Now if we fast forward a few decades, things have come full circle. Now Ridley Scott has retaken the franchise as if saying “this is my baby and I’m going to make it my freaking legacy to the world!” Which is what Prometheus and Alien: Covenant are, these films represent Ridley Scott’s reclaiming the franchise he started. Does Ridley Scott still have it?

Alien: Covenant is a direct sequel to Prometheus (2012), just in case you had your doubts. This is the story of how the xenomorphs came to be, those nasty sharp teeth, perfect killing machines with acid for blood. Alien: Covenant is the second film in a planned trilogy of prequels, they tell us the story of how the infamous aliens came to be. When Prometheus came out, audiences complained about the lack of xenomorphs, audiences wanted more of the creature that frightened them so much in Alien (1979), they wanted the horror element amped up, the wanted that nail biting, heart pounding suspense they got that first time around. But I like Prometheus for what it is, part of a trilogy of how these creatures came to be, it’s the back story. With Alien: Covenant we can definitely see a story unfolding. There are some surprises in store for fans of the Alien franchise, my mind was blown. I mean, yeah, these prequels are deeper and more profound, but that has to do with the fact that Ridley Scott has grown as a filmmaker, he has a lot more to say about life, hence, the difference in tone between these new prequels and the classic Alien films.

And speaking of depth and themes, what I enjoy about these prequels is that they explore the origins of man. Who would’ve thought that the Alien movies would end up touching such heavy themes? But here we are considering themes about the origins of man, about death, about who made us. The exploration of these themes begins with the introduction to androids, synthetic beings who are capable of thinking and feeling like humans. Similar to us in every detail save for one: they can outlive us. Questioning death and begging the universe for more life is a theme that Scott has been exploring since Blade Runner (1984) a film in which we have renegade androids begging their creator, their “father”, for more life. So yeah, Ridley Scott’s exploration of heavy philosophical themes continues in Alien: Covenant. These are questions that need answers, and Scott knows they cannot be ignored. After all, these are "the big questions" in life. It doesn’t surprise me that these are themes Ridley Scott has chosen to explore now, at the end of his career and last half of his life. Scott is probably feeling extremely identified with the themes explored in these films, questioning life, questioning where we came from, who made us and ultimately: why must we die? As I write this, Sir Ridley Scott is 79 years old!

Ridley Scott does not forget that the franchise started with what is essentially a monster movie, a horror film, and a very good one at that. When we go into top horror movies ever made, there’s no doubt Alien (1979) will make the list. And Ridley Scott knows that. So with Alien: Covenant he seems to want to go back to that horror, the spine tingling, nail biting suspense. And I have to say that Scott nailed it. There are some genuine scary moments here, there’s gore, there’s blood. Yes my friends, this one amps up the terror. But the great thing about Alien: Covenant is that it doesn’t forget that it is a sequel to Prometheus. So it’s like we get half of the philosophy and deep themes of Prometheus (2012), and half of the horror and suspense from Alien (1979), so it should satisfy both camps.

The film works even better because it has an awesome cast, and a very eclectic one at that. Here’s Danny McBride doing a serious role, he doesn’t do bad at all I have to say. But if one performance stands out it has to be Michael Fassbender in the dual role of David and Walter, the androids of the film. I simply love Fassbender in anything he does, but here he clearly plays two different roles and it is magnificent. But then again, so many things are magnificent here. The screenplay is so poetic, so good, the dialog sounds beautiful with many references to classical music and poetry. By the way, you’d do good in reading Percy Shelley’s sonnet ‘Ozymandias’, it comes into play at one point in the film. Finally, the production itself is gorgeous looking, the sets, the ship designs, the alien designs I mean, this film is simply beautiful to look at, which comes as no surprise in a Ridley Scott film. So go see this completely satisfying sequel! Here’s hoping this one makes some cash at the box office so we can get to see the next and final film in this prequel trilogy!

Rating: 5 out of 5      

  

The Conjuring 2 (2016)

The Conjuring 2 (2016)

Director: James Wan

Cast: Patrick Wilson, Vera Fermiga, Madison Wolfe, Frances O'Connor, Franka Potente, Simon McBurney

The Conjuring (2013) was one of 2013’s best horror movies, it harkened back to those serious horror movies of the 70’s that made audiences gasp and scream in the theater, then go to church the next day. It was the kind of movie that took advantage of people’s fears of the supernatural, of demons, of Christian mythology. Which means that if you’re a church goer, you’d find movies like The Conjuring extra scary because suddenly demons, possessions and supernatural shenanigans become that much more real. The Conjuring was the kind of horror film that got people talking, it had that “buzz” around it, which always translates to big bucks at the box office. And of course, one successful film is always followed by a sequel that will usually stick to Hollywood’s rules of giving us more of the same, only bigger and louder and with double the budget, which is exactly what they did for The Conjuring 2. Did it manage to be entertaining anyways? Does it avoid the trappings of ‘sequelitis’ a term us movie buffs use to refer to sequels that tend to go down in quality as a franchise moves along? Did The Conjuring 2 suffer from this ailment?

The Conjuring franchise is based on the supernatural adventures of The Warren’s, a couple that specializes in helping others deal with their supernatural problems, in other words, if you ever have any trouble with ghosts, demons or poltergeists haunting your home, you don’t call the Ghostbusters, you call The Warrens. In case you’re not up to date with who The Warrens are, well, let me enlighten you.  Ed and Lorraine Warren are real life paranormal researchers. They’ve been helping families deal with their supernatural troubles since the seventies. Their popularity grew when they visited the real Amityville home, there are pictures of this! Look them up, on your search, you’ll probably stumble upon pictures of the Raggedy Ann doll that had the habit of moving by itself and scaring the living shit out of some family. Said doll ended up being the basis for a film produced by James Wan called Annabelle (2014). Of course, many of these stories are total bullcrap and don’t have an ounce of truth to them. In fact some of them having been proven to be hoaxes. But whether these stories are real or not doesn’t matter because it gives the filmmaker an excuse to put the “based on a true story” slogan on the poster and boom, audiences are crapping their pants even before the movie has started.

For the Conjuring 2 James Wan decided to focus his story on one of the many cases that The Warren’s got involved with, the one commonly referred to as ‘The Enfield Poltergeist’. Do a little search on this case and you'll find pictures of these cases, the families, their homes, their frightened faces, of course, these pictures will only make the film all the spookier, because these people existed and supposedly experienced something like what we are watching on the film, albeit a bit exaggerated for dramatical purposes. You can even hear the voice of Janet, the little girl who was supposedly possessed by the ghost of an old man. In the recorded interview, this little girl talks in a scruffy voice which will have you believing in demons and possessions in no time flat. The premise for the film is that an angry ghost is terrorizing a family in England and The Warren’s are called in by the Catholic Church to be their unofficial eyes and ears on this thing, to make sure that it’s not a hoax. Of course it turns out to be super real and they end up fighting the specters. Question is,  will they survive the ordeal?

What I’ve always liked about James Wan is that he is a master at orchestrating a good scare. He might not be all that original in terms of the stories he chooses to tell, because most of the time you can tell exactly which films he is feeding from, but when it comes to scaring your pants off, he knows how to do it beautifully! If you've seen other James Wan films, like say the Insidious films, then you'll feel a familiarity here, he uses some of the same scares, but some of the scares are pretty original and well orchestrated, so expect a little bit of the old (like toys moving on their own) and a little bit of the new. And speaking of how Wan feeds off other horror films, The Conjuring 2 feels like a mix between The Exorcist (1973), The Amityville Horror (1979) and Poltergeist (1982), but that’s probably because all of these films are feeding off the same source materials, three  of the most famous “supernatural” stories out there. The possession of Anneliese Michel, which served as the basis for The Exorcism of Emily Rose (2005) and The Exorcist (1973), ‘The Enfield Poltergeist’ which is the case that inspired Poltergeist (1982) and the most famous case of them all, The Amityville Horror case which spawned a whole series of films on its own. What James Wan has done is, he joined all these cases in one huge hodge podge of a supernatural film. Hell, we even get demonic nuns on this one! So when people say that Wan has thrown everything but the kitchen sink in there, they aren’t kidding.

James Wan started his directorial career as a horror director with SAW (2004) and Dead Silence (2007). He even kicked off a successful horror franchise by directing Insidious (2010) and Insidious:Chapter 2 (2013). The Conjuring (2013) was his most successful horror film to date scaring in more than 137 million at the box office on a 20 million dollar budget. When your horror film makes more than six times its budget back, Hollywood tends to give you free reins on what you want to do, they also tend to throw big budget projects at you which is why Wan ended directing Furious 7 (2015). Wan even hinted at quitting horror for good, but I never bought it. It’s interesting he chose to go back to his horror roots with The Conjuring 2 (2016). It means he’s a real horror nut at heart, without realizing it; he’s becoming a true blue horror director, could he turn out to be one of the greats of his generation? Time will tell if he sticks with the genre. His next film is Aquaman for Warner Bros, yet another big budget film that’s sure to be successful, so it looks like we’ll be seeing Wan directed films for a while. But will he return to horror? All I can say is he’s demonstrated great ability at telling horror stories, He’s shown great command over choosing the right angles, the appropriate lighting, the camera movement, the control of atmosphere…he knows how important these elements are, how important it is for it to be raining, for those skies to look gray, for that wind to be blowing and those leaves to be rustling through the grass. He understands the importance of sound and music in a horror films, he knows how these elements work best and he uses them to tell his stories in the spookiest way possible. Here’s hoping he doesn’t give up on the genre!

Rating: 4 out of 5

Patrick Wilson and James Wan

The Witch (2015)

The Witch (2015)

Director: Robert Eggers

Cast: Anya Taylor Joy, Ralph Ineson, Kate Dickie, Harvey Scrimshaw

The quintessential ‘good horror film’ is a diamond in the rough, hard to find, elusive, so when it comes across your path you thank the cinematic gods for it; you cherish it like the delicacy that it is. The Witch is such a film, a true blue fantastic horror film that plays with your notions of religiosity and the supernatural. It takes place during the sixteenth century in New England, a place and time in which being a witch meant you’d get either tortured or hanged, most of the time both.

 On a personal note, it’s interesting that I saw The Witch days after taking a college class on the late works of William Shakespeare. On said class I wrote an essay on the supernatural elements in Shakespeare’s Macbeth. In this essay, I wondered if Macbeth, the power hungry king, had actually spoken to witches and seen actual ghosts and apparitions, or if it was all just part of a head trip in his guilt ridden mind. I concluded that it was a little bit of both. The Witch is similar to Macbeth in that sense; it keeps you on a loop about the witches. Are they real? Are the village folks simply bible crazy? Are they simply religious fanatics willing to take their beliefs to the extremes? Or are witches really snatching up babies for sacrificial purposes?

On The Witch we meet a family of Puritans who are psychologically traumatized by the fact that their baby has disappeared. I mean, literally, the baby was there one moment and the next it wasn’t, vanished into thin air. To make matters worse, the baby disappeared while under the care of the adopted daughter of the family, a girl whom they’ve always suspected of being a witch. But is she? Are they just looking for a scapegoat to blame? As you can see, there are always two possibilities to everything in The Witch; there’s that ambiguity to the story which I loved. You’re never really sure where to stand, which in my opinion makes the film incredibly effective.

Artistically speaking the film is a wonder to behold, the art direction, the wardrobe, the dialog; it all evokes its era to perfection. For starters, the film was mostly shot with natural lighting, this means, little to no artificial light was used during the shoot, which gives the film an amazing look. Interiors were lit with candles; exteriors were lit by the sunlight.  Few directors have pulled this off effectively because it’s a difficult way to shoot a film, a lot can go wrong; you risk images ending up grainy and losing definition. Yet on The Witch, this natural lighting goes so well with the era they are depicting, an era where there was no electricity. Last time I checked, Stanley Kubrick was the last one to pull this off perfectly in Barry Lyndon (1975). So The Witch has a great spooky dark look to it. Another added bonus that adds authenticity to the film is that the dialog rings true. It doesn’t feel out of time or place; this is due to the fact that they used real life accounts of “witchcraft” to write the screenplay. This is why the dialog sounds like something straight out of Shakespeare.

They also got the behavior of these characters right. You feel the backwards mentality of these Puritan Christians. You believe they truly think evil lies within the woods. You feel the paranoia, you feel that genuine fear of God and the Devil and you feel how dangerous it all is. How once you got blamed for possibly being a witch meant you were going to go down even if you weren’t, because now doubt had been planted. The film shows how dangerous religion and hive like mentality can be. How superstition can turn its back on you and bite you in the ass in a heartbeat!  I mean, back then they used witchcraft as an excuse to kill a person. Let’s say you were a rebellious woman who had an opinion, suddenly they’d blame you for witchcraft and boom, days later you’d be hanging from the ugly end of the rope. A lot of innocent women died this way. So you get that vibe with this film, that when the masses turn on you, you’re done for. For more films dealing with witchcraft watch The Crucible (1996), Witchfinder General (1968) or Haxan: Witchcraft through the Ages (1922), the last one being an exploration of the origins of witchcraft.

I have to hand it to director Robert Eggers for doing his homework and making sure every little detail is faithful to the time period, the 1600's. I mean, so many things worked in favor of this film, right down to shooting in a remote, real location where these actors could cut loose, that was genius. This isn’t some set in a green room, the exteriors were shot a real location, with real freaking trees and mountains and wind, that’s a plus for me in this day and age of computer generated everything’s. The isolated location lends itself to making everything look evil somehow, you know those films that make even nature and animals look evil somehow? Films like Lars Von Trier's Antichrist (2009)? Well, that's what they achieved with The Witch, where even aninals look like they could have evil within them, more so if they are black goats. And speaking of solid performances, that’s what you get all around. Special shout out to Harvey Scrimshaw, the child actor who portrayed the character called ‘Caleb’, he really knocks it out of the park with his performance. He portrayed a child whose psyche has been damaged by religion and its fears. And while I’m at it, kudos to first time director Robert Eggers who made this fine film on his first outing. Here’s hoping this wasn’t just some fluke and he ends up making more films as good as this one.

Rating: 5 out of 5  

The Green Inferno (2013)

The Green Inferno (2013)

Director: Eli Roth

Cast: Lorenza Izzo, Ariel Levy, Daryl Sabara, Sky Ferreira, Nicolas Martinez

When a director dedicates his career to horror films the way John Carpenter or Wes Craven did, it’s something special. Even more so today, when in my opinion, horror films have gotten the shaft by Hollywood. The glory days of horror films are long gone, supplanted with watered down horror for thirteen year olds. So when a director like Roth continues to make horror films in spite of the way horror films are being treated by Hollywood, then I pay attention, then I applaud. I mean, technically, by making films like The Green Inferno,  Eli Roth is going against the grain, he’s fighting for this type of film to get out there, to be seen. Like Rock and Roll, gory horror films aren’t dead yet. I speak this way coming from the perspective of a guy who lived through the glorious 80’s, a time when gory horror was king in cinemas and films like Cannibal Holocaust (1980) would actually get released in theaters! A time when Hellraiser films didn’t go straight to video! So, is Eli Roth’s The Green Inferno worthy of celebrating? Is it a true throwback to the glory days of gory horror?

The film is all about these activist college kids who want to tie themselves up to some trees in the middle of the Amazon jungle, you know to protect nature from the evil corporations who want to take the trees down in the name of ‘progress’. To these kids, this jungle belongs to the tribes that live in them! Problem comes when the plane they came in crash-lands in the middle of the jungle and the college kids are abducted by a tribe of hungry for flesh cannibals! Will the college students escape with their lives? Will they see civilization ever again?

The Green Inferno is the kind of film you hear about for years and years before you actually get to see it. For example, it was made way back in 2013, and its only now, in 2016 that I finally get to see it. This type of delayed release happens with films of this graphic nature, because major Hollywood studios don’t really want to back this sort of film up. They don’t even want to spend the money marketing it, because to them, these types of films are made for a cult audience, a small niche of freaks who will undoubtedly love it. To the rest of the world, this is a disgusting film, worthy of rejection. And it’s true, this is the way these films are perceived by the grand majority of people. I suggested The Green Inferno to some coworkers, I spoke of the films connections to Cannibal Holocaust, showed them some pics. Their reaction? The general consensus was that I needed psychological treatment. Typical. It’s safe to say that this film is definitely something gorehounds will no doubt appreciate, everyone else will find it too disturbing. The gore is truly something on this one. I mean, the camera does not shy away from the bloody bits. In this sense, The Green Inferno got things just right. Also, kudos to Roth for actually shooting in Peru, in the jungle in the middle of nowhere, it makes all the difference in the world.   

But is it a good movie? I say yeah, it entertained. It shocked. It complied with all those things you are meant to see in a cannibal movie. My only real gripe with the movie were some situations that were downright silly, I counted three of these situations. The problem with these unbelievable situations is that they takes you out of the film, which is so deadly serious most of the time. Okay, I’ll get down to it, if you don’t want to read about this scene, skip to the next paragraph [SPOILER ALER! SPOILER ALERT!] So the scene that was extremely silly and unconvincing was this scene in which the young college dudes who have been caught by the cannibals decide it’s a good idea to put a bag of weed inside of one of their dead friends, so that when the cannibals eat her, they will all get high. The idea being that this will give them a chance to escape. It’s not a bad idea, the problem is that it’s not enough weed to get a whole tribe high. Worse part is they put the weed inside of a plastic bag, which would not allow for the body to absorb it? The whole scene just made no sense. Soon enough the whole freaking cannibal tribe is high on weed and laughing and ha ha ha…the big payoff is of course that the cannibals get the munchies, and kablam, there is the punch line of the whole thing. I get it. But it was not pulled off in a convincing matter. [END OF SPOILER] Sadly, this was not the only nonsensical moment in the film.

Roth and his Peruvian cannibals. 

Though effective, The Green Inferno (2013) does not reach the levels of tension and intensity that say Cannibal Holocaust (1980) reaches, the latter being the most obvious influential film here. Eli Roth even includes a list of all the Cannibal films that came before The Green Inferno in the end credits, so it’s safe to say that The Green Inferno is a film that pays respects to a sub-genre that has long gone; society deemed these types of films too strong, too much. Plus, it’s hard to make money of a type of film that not everyone has the guts to see. A lot of people can’t take seeing cannibals eating eyeballs and tongues, even if it’s all actors and special effects, it’s the concept that gets people uncomfortable. For example, Cannibal Holocaust was banned in many countries, people stood up and walked out of theaters because they just couldn’t take it, the director had to go to court to prove the actors were not harmed or killed while filming, I mean, Cannibal Holocaust shook the film industry back in the early 80’s. The Green Inferno feels like an afterthought to all that, a homage every step of the way. In my opinion it needed better actors, these characters were too squeaky clean to ever attempt anything like this. I mean, okay, they were activists, but activists who do this sort of thing aren’t preppy, rich kids looking for an adventure. The young actors weren’t the best choice in my book, they didn’t feel like the kind of people who’d pull off a stunt like this. I guess that was the whole idea, to thrust rich daddy’s girls into the middle of hell itself, but it’s just one more element that wasn’t pulled off convincingly. Why does Eli Roth continue to populate his films with unlikable protagonists? All that aside, I ended up enjoying The Green Inferno, in an age where horror films are de-horrified, or watered down, I applaud this one for being so ‘in your face’.

Rating:  3 out of 5

Krampus (2015)

Krampus (2015)

Director: Michael Dougherty

Cast: Adam Scott, Toni Collette, David Koechner, Emjay Anthony

To make a Christmas Horror film is a tricky thing, especially if you’re criticizing Christmas as a holiday, which is what most Christmas Horror films do. They either expose the lies behind the whole Santa Claus thing, or just talk about how the holidays can drive you nuts. History has shown that these types of films do not make it big at the box office because they attack the cash cow of consumerism: Santa Claus. Films like for example Silent Night, Deadly Night (1984) died quick deaths at the box office because angry parents were furious at the idea of a killer Santa Claus, because you know, Jolly Saint Nick is supposed to represent goodness and happiness and we can’t have anything tinge that image that Santa Claus. But these movies keep getting made in spite of their sketchy track record at the box office. Take for example the super fun, ultra gory Santa’s Slay (2005). It also died a quick death at the box office and went immediately to dvd, but man, what a fun movie it is. It’s just that in it, Santa is a demon who kills a bunch of people with Christmas ornaments.  These movies aren’t “bad movies” perse, well some of the are, but most of them are actually good horror films; the reason they fail to make money is because they are shunned, put aside like an unwanted child. But whatever, usually I like these movies because they analyze the true nature of Christmas and its consumerist roots. I mean, come on, you all know Santa Claus as we know it was in large part created by the folks at Coca Cola right?  

Krampus is all about the Engel family; they are having a Christmas get together type of deal. You know, the kind where you have family members come over and visit you and everybody is jolly and merry together, drinking egg nog and reading Christmas stories. The only problem with the Engel family is that everybody hates each other. This family exudes so much hatred, that Max, the little kid in the family ends telling everyone that he hates Christmas and that he hates all of them. At this moment a demon known as Krampus shows up and starts killing family members because they didn’t celebrate Christmas properly, because the family hated each other instead of loving each other. The family must try and survive the night while creepy demonic creatures stalk them. Can the Krampus curse be broken? Is there a chance to survive this nightmarish night?

The director of this film, Michael Dougherty, is similar in many ways to Tim Burton in the sense that they are both obsessed with the holidays. Dougherty’s first student film was an animated short film entitled Season’s Greetings (1996), which was the basis for his first full length feature film Trick R’ Treat (2007), an anthology film where four different stories take place during Halloween night. Both Seasons Greetings (1996) and Trick R’ Treat (2007) are very atmospheric, creepy Halloween films that truly embrace the holiday, which is the same thing Dougherty does with Krampus (2015). On this film, Dougherty captures what Christmas is like for all of us. Dougherty paints a very contemporary take on the holiday by brilliantly starting out the film during Black Friday, with people punching each other over a television set. To the best of my understanding, no film has depicted Black Friday yet, so I thought it was genius that Dougherty captured the craziness of that day in which greed flourishes and I feel ashamed of humanity. On that day, people become monsters, consumerist zombies responding to the programming they’ve received through television. So yeah, I was glad that the film starts out this way, showing the ugliest side of Christmas, holding a mirror up to society.

Krampus also focuses on the spooky side of Christmas, which explains why during the first few frames of the film we see a television set showing Alastair Sim in Scrooge (1951), a Christmas ghost story. In this way, the filmmaker’s foreshadow the events ahead, they let us know from early on that Christmas mythology has its spooky side. What Dougherty did with Krampus is sort of the same thing he did in Trick R’ Treat (2007). If you remember correctly, in Trick R’ Treat there’s this story about an old Scrooge like character that hates Halloween and everything about it, so in comes this little monster that’s going to make him pay for not celebrating Halloween properly. Dougherty simply applied that formula to Christmas, which why Krampus is a demon that comes to kill you if you don’t celebrate Christmas properly. So in a way, Krampus is a film that while criticizing Christmas, it also promotes the celebration of Christmas. It’s  a film that says celebrate, be merry and love each other, or else!

I liked the premise of a family locked inside their house because of a raging blizzard because it amps up the creepy vibe. Suddenly the snowmen look evil, the trees are dead, the wind is howling…Dougherty expertly turns Christmas images into horrifying images. I loved the concept of Krampus, this giant demon with hooves, who looks like a zombified Santa Clause that has these evil ginger bread men, demonic teddy bears and clowns to help him carry out the curse. He also has an evil jack in the box to help him. At one point it was beginning to feel like Puppet Master vs. Demonic Toys (2004), but with a budget? Actually, it reminded me most of Gremlins (1984) in the sense that it was mixing horror, comedy and Christmas all in the same film. Yet even Gremlins (1984) was more graphic in nature than this one. I only had two problems with Krampus, number one is that at some point it felt a little repetitive, with the demonic toys jumping on people and looking all scary but not really doing anything save for looking and sounding scary, and the other problem is that it felt very light for a horror film. I mean you got demonic Christmas toys attacking a family, why don’t you go all the way instead of shying away from the blood? The film tries to be scary, but not too scary so the kids won’t run out of the theater in terror. I can’t blame the filmmakers for catering to their target audience; these guys knew exactly the type of horror film they were making. For gorier Christmas horror go and watch Black Christmas (2006) or Christmas Evil (1980). Or if you want to watch a similar film to Krampus that is far scarier, I recommend you watch Rare Exports (2010), because at its core, Krampus is more about spooky atmospherics than blood splatter, which is not necessarily a bad thing.

Rating: 3 out of 5    

      

Victor Frankenstein (2015)

Victor Frankenstein (2015)

Director: Paul McGigan

Cast: James McAvoy, Daniel Radcliffe

Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein is one of those characters that gets adapted on to film a lot. Like Dracula or James Bond, Frankenstein’s monster keeps getting brought back to life again and again; Victor Frankenstein is the latest attempt. The problem with popular characters such as Frankenstein is that if the new take on the character doesn’t offer anything new, it’s going to get ignored as another “unnecessary film”. That’s the first thing that popped into my mind when you hear that their making a new Frankenstein film. Is it necessary? What new angle does it attempt to impress us with? For example, Kenneth Branagh’s Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein (1994) showed us an eloquent version of the Frankenstein monster, an intelligent version of the monster was something we’d only read about in Mary Shelley’s book. On Roger Corman’s Frankenstein Unbound (1990) we were presented with a time traveling storyline. Mel Brook’s Young Frankenstein (1974) was a parody of all the old Universal movies, and so on. Each take on the character has to have an angle. Even the filmmakers know they are walking on tired ground, the first words spoken on this new film are “You’ve heard this story before” Yet onwards they went and made this film, and so now we have a new take on good old Frankenstein. Was it worth it?  

On this one we start to dive into Frankenstein’s world by seeing everything from Igor’s point of view, which I found totally innovating because Igor is always relegated to slave status on these films, we’ve never really seen his story. He’s always been the ugly, monstrous hunchback who follows Dr. Frankenstein’s every order by saying “Yes Master”, not so on this movie. On this movie Igor is a circus performer, a clown act who gets treated with no respect despite the fact that he’s actually a pretty knowledgeable person who educates himself by reading a lot. While visiting the circus Victor Frankenstein realizes Igor is actually brilliant and decides to take him in as his partner. The thing with the Igor character on this movie is that they did a complete overhaul of the character. On this one Frankenstein straightens Igor’s back, eliminates his hump and gives him a name all within the span of five seconds. Bim, Boom, Bam! Suddenly we have a handsome, clean cut, well dressed Igor. This constitutes the biggest change in the whole story, the desire to treat Igor with some respect, to give him some depth. He’s no longer an assistant, he’s a partner. He’s not an order receiving idiot, he’s actually part of the reason why the experiments flourish, because of Igor’s genius. Igor even falls in love and actually gets some, that’s right, Igor gets laid, this is not your grandfathers Igor that’s for sure. What’s most interesting is that Igor is a character who doesn’t even appear in Mary Shelley’s book, I think this makes it even more obvious where the inspiration for this movie came from; we’re talking about movies feeding on movies and then becoming something else entirely.

I enjoyed everything about this movie, they way it looks, how well it was written, how characters grow and have a depth to them. These are intelligent characters we can root for. I love the dialog on this thing, it didn’t waste any time, it goes quick and to the point while not forgetting to be eloquent and well versed. I’m not saying it’s Shakespeare, because this is still very much a commercial film every step of the way, even going as far as setting up future movies, but it is well written. It’s dialog sounds appropriate to the era it takes place in. I read somewhere that the director behind this film, one Paul McGigan, said that he considered Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein to be a boring book, which I have to admit, is true. It’s not a story told in an exciting manner, the book is introspective and philosophical, and it’s not exactly concerned with action or adventure. So I can see why the director would express himself that way about a beloved classic. In fact, I don’t think the filmmaker’s where even concerned with the book at all, they seemed more inspired by the different cinematic adaptations of the character. Their influences are more cinematic than literary. They even reference Young Frankenstein (1974) at one point, keen listeners will hear it. One thing is obvious, director Paul McGigan didn’t want to make a boring movie and if you ask me, he succeeded.

Thematically speaking the movie goes everywhere a Frankenstein movie should, it doesn’t lose the essence of the books themes. Frankenstein has always been about the difficulty of accepting death as a part of life. About accepting that at one point we’re all going to bite it and that there’s nothing we can do about it. The film goes into the whole religion vs. science issue. In the film, Victor Frankenstein is a realist, he doesn’t believe in any sort of superstitions or the supernatural; he is very grounded on logic and reality. This mentality is pitted against the mentality of the police officer conducting the investigation on Igor’s disappearance, who’s all about Christianity, wearing crucifixes and calling everything ‘sin’. Who will win this battle of wits? Religion or science? I liked that edge; I loved the audacity with which Victor Frankenstein screams “There is no Satan! There is no God! There’s only me!” So yeah, I liked the fact that the film tackles philosophical issues, as it should, being an adaptation of Mary Shelley’s equally philosophical book, so yeah, this film has some strong writing. This film was written by Max Landis, son of film director John Landis, the guy behind such films as An American Werewolf in London (1981) and The Blues Brothers (1980). So Max Landis grew up in the world of filmmaking, which always helps make a good screenwriter, or director or both. Children whose parents are famous filmmakers usually follow in their parents footsteps and sometimes end up being good filmmakers. Sofia Coppolla, Angelina Jolie, Roman Coppola come to mind. Max Landis is also a part of one of these show biz families, he’s known movie making his whole life, which probably explains why he’s such a good writer. Chronicle (2012) was fantastic, and so is Victor Frankenstein (2015).

The interesting thing about this movie is that it’s not really about the monster, in fact, you won’t see the monster until the films third act which speaks a lot about how well the film is made, it keeps you interested all the way through even when the monster isn’t around.  Bottom line is, this isn’t a worn out cliché filled take on Frankenstein. It takes everything known about the character and pushes it a bit further, faster, quicker, to the point. The film is a visual feast, loaded with atmosphere, beautiful colors and a great set design! I loved that whole sequence with the castle on top of the hill, next to the ocean, as thunder and lightning crashed, cool stuff. Honestly, I’m saddened that this one is bombing at the box office in my book; it doesn’t deserve to be a turkey. Sadly, this sometimes happens to good films. And it’s happening to this one; it still hasn’t even made its 40 million dollar budget back, and that’s a “small budget” Hollywood wise. It could that audiences are still suffering nightmarish flashbacks of the god awful I, Frankenstein (2014). Or it could be that all anybody cares about is Star Wars: The Force Awakens (2015), and fanboys are saving up their dough to see that one a few times. Maybe it has something to do with the absolutely bland poster. Whatever the case, Victor Frankenstein is a good film that doesn’t deserve to die a quick death at the box office. Go see this refreshing take on the character in theaters now! Save a good movie!

Rating: 4 out of 5