Halloween Horror Movie Marathon: Film 10

So last night I watched what is easily my favorite found-footage film to date.

In case it's not obvious, the title is "Record" abbreviated.

Right from the start "[Rec]" succeeds where so many other found-footage films have failed; we are introduced to characters we actually like. No, really, think about it. How many found-footage, horror films have you seen where you kept thinking, "will they just get to the scary part because these people are pissing me off." "Cloverfield" immediately comes to mind.

Anyway, the set-up is this; a reporter - a delightfully perky, young woman - is doing a fluff piece for a late-night news show. Basically, hanging out with firefighters for the evening to give her audience a taste of what day-to-day life is like for them. Things start off rather humdrum as she tours the station house, watches them eat dinner, even peeks in on them while they're sleeping.

But then the alarm bell rings.

A seemingly innocuous call; a woman is stuck in her apartment. Two firefighters are dispatched along with our plucky reporter and her camera man. They arrive to find a group of residents in the lobby who begin telling them about hearing the woman screaming in her apartment. Moments later the firefighters break down the door and, as is often the case in these films, all hell breaks loose. At that point everyone attempts to leave the apartment building only to find an army of police and government officials blocking the doors. The entire building has been quarantined, trapping the residents inside along with our reporter and firemen. From there I'll say no more of the plot and leave it for you to discover the horrors that await.

Coming in at a lean 70-plus minutes, "[Rec]" wastes not a moment. It is a tense little affair, packed with scares. Everything about it just worked for me, and most importantly the filmmakers easily clear the "why don't they just put down the camera and run away" hurtle that trips up so many found-footage films. It also holds up well on repeat viewings, which is why it has worked it's way onto my "must watch" list for the past few Halloween seasons.

"[Rec]" is a Spanish-language film, but please don't let that put you off. It's a wonderfully scary film and I can't recommend it strongly enough.  However, if you just can't stand the idea of reading subtitles there's this:

"Quarantine" is the English-language remake of "[Rec]" and it's pretty solid itself. I had a few problems with it, though. It's run-time is padded out to 89 minutes, so it doesn't feel as lean and tense as the original. Also there's a slight change to the idea concerning the source of the madness taking place in the apartment building that I didn't care for. But these are just quibbles. It's a good film. I just happen to prefer the original.

Halloween Horror Movie Marathon: Film #9

What's this? I'm recommending an action movie for Halloween? Well, when said action-movie features devil-worshiping cultists, child sacrifice, and a dead man's escape from Hell then yeah, I'm recommending it for Halloween.

"Drive Angry" isn't a scary film, that's for sure, but it certainly is one distinctly wacky film. Judging from the people I've watched it with, this is either going to be a film you hate or a film you love with very few folks landing in the middle. And while I acknowledge that it's a far from perfect film, count me on the love side.

The story follows a formerly-deceased man named John Milton, played by Nicolas Cage, as he seeks revenge against the cult leader who murdered his daughter and plans to make a sacrifice of her infant child. Along for the ride is actress Amber Heard as Piper, a sort of variation on the hooker with a heart of gold character; the tough as nails, trailer park, white-trash girl with a heart of gold. Heard plays the role with such abandon, such relish, that you can't help but love her. Cage, on the other hand, plays his role much more laid back and, dare I say, subtle. At least subtle for Nicolas Cage, especially considering how bat-shit crazy everything else going on around him is. And while many of us go to Nicolas Cage films to see just how far over the top he'll go this time, the fact that he plays it mellow here was the right call as it gives a grounded center to the surrounding insanity.

So yeah, Cage is chasing the bad guys, blowing people's arms and legs off with skillful shotgun blasts ... and that's pretty much the plot. Fairly straight forward, and it's really all at service of setting up some outrageous action sequences and bloody violence, but what bloody fun it is. Take for example the scene where Cage's Milton gets into a shootout with about a dozen or so cultists who try sneaking up on him while he's having sex. The battle ensues, only Milton never stops having sex. Now based on that description you'd have to assume that this scene is insufferably stupid, and yet writer Todd Farmer and director Patrick Lussier understand how wonderfully absurd the situation they've created is and treat it accordingly, so they are able to make it work.

But perhaps the best aspect of the film is the character known simply as The Accountant.  Played pitch perfectly by William Fichtner, The Accountant's purpose and motivations are endlessly fascinating and, to me, elevate the entire film above it's simple revenge plot.

SIDE NOTE: Oh wow, speaking of the cast, I just realized something; this is Tom Atkins film #3 as the actor has a small role here as a police detective. Jeez, this is unintentionally turning in to the Tom Atkins Marathon of Halloween Films.

But anyway...

Originally a 3D film in theaters, many of those goofy 3D effects now look particularly cheesy on your 2D television screen. But so what. It all adds to the over-the-top silliness of the whole affair. So if you're wanting a break from the straight up chills of other Halloween themed films, consider taking a little side trip with "Drive Angry."

However, if you just can't bring yourself to watch an action film for Halloween, maybe give Lussier and Farmer's previous film, the remake of "My Bloody Valentine," a try.  Similar nutty, bloody fun, but it's a straight-up horror film, so far more chills and scares.

(P.S.  Tom Atkins film #4)

Halloween Horror Movie Marathon: Films 6, 7 & 8

I've got a little catching up to do as I watched several movies this past weekend, so let's go with three, short reviews today, all three recommended, two with warnings.

Another 80's film I have a lot of affection for, "Dolls" was the third film from director Stuart Gordon following his two successful H.P. Lovecraft adaptions, "Re-Animator" and "From Beyond."  My best recollection is that "Dolls" wasn't received as well at the time because it's a huge departure from those first two films.  Where those were effects heavy, gorefests, "Dolls" is a bit of a throwback story, a child's fable for adult audiences. Oh there's a little splatter here and there, but nothing near the level of those earlier films.  The story concerns a young girl who is on holiday with her father and stepmother.  Evil stepmother, I should say. See what I mean.  Throw in the Gothic manse in the English countryside, dolls that come to life and witches, and I think you get the idea.  This is pure Grimm's fairy tale stuff with a little 80's horror sensibility thrown in.  And a lot of fun at that.  Oh, the story is pretty simple, to be sure, but what else do you need for some good Halloween fun?

"Dolls" is currently available on Netflix streaming.

P.S.  It was suggested to me that because of this film's title and the image on the poster that I should probably mention that it is not a ripoff of nor does it have anything to do with the Chucky movies.  Firstly, this film came out a year before the original "Child's Play," so definitely not a ripoff.  But besides that, this movie couldn't be more different.  So if you don't care for the Chucky movies, never fear, this is nothing like them. And if you love Chucky, rest assured, this film didn't copy "Child's Play," so give it a shot.

A Direct-to-Video sequel to a marginally successful theatrically released film.  Typically that's a recipe for a crap film, but "Wrong Turn 2: Dead End" is anything but.  Oh, it's low-budget shows to be sure, but director Joe Lynch and his writers knew exactly what they needed to do within their limitations to make it work; just go all in.  This movie is way more fun than it has any right to be because it is so deliriously over the top.  This is the "Evil Dead II" of mutant, cannibal hillbillies movies.  The setup is this; a new, Survivor-style, reality TV show is filming deep in the woods, which just happened to be inhabited by ... wait for it ... mutant inbred hillbilly cannibals!

What's probably most surprising for this type film is how much attention is paid to actually giving us well thought out characters.  Nothing overly complex, mind you, but definitely not the cardboard cutouts you get in so many direct-to-video horror films.  Also, the acting is surprisingly solid across the board here, with Henry Rollins a fun standout as the ex-military man turned reality-show host.

One warning; "Wrong Turn 2: Dead End" is a nasty affair.  Though it's all very cartoonish, this definitely scores an 8 1/2 to 9 out of 10 on the gore scale.  But, I mean, it's mutant inbred hillbillies killing and eating attractive young folk.  What else would you expect?  Look, you'll know if this film is for you by the end of the body-splitting, gut-splattering opening scene.

 

What a genuinely bizarre film this is.  It comes from Italian filmmaker Dario Argento, and, while not his best, it is a standout in his already unique canon of films.  Argento started out making thrillers in the 1970's in the Italian Giallo genre of thriller films.  Those films did quite well, and he became known in the cinema press as the "Italian Hitchcock."  Then with 1977's "Suspiria" he ventured into the supernatural horror genre, once again, to great success.

In a way, 1985's "Phenomena" is something of a mish-mash of all those things Argento loved; we have the thriller, police procedural, supernatural horror, and his love of Edgar Allen Poe all rolled into one mess of a film.  And yet somehow, if you're open to it, it works.  I mean, how can you not love a film featuring police investigating a serial killer, a young girl (played by a then 14-year-old Jennifer Connelly) who can communicate with insects, a mutant, killer kid, a swarm of helpful flies, and a chimpanzee with a straight-razor.

An edited version was released in the U.S. under the title "Creepers," and while I haven't seen that version, I can't help but think it might have helped some of the pacing issues as the European cut tends to drag now and then. Either way, if you can find a copy it's well worth a look.

My warning on this one; if you're new to the films of Dario Argento or Italian horror cinema in general, then I'm not sure that this the film to start with.  It's just so completely out there.  Maybe try "Suspiria" instead.

Update:  I just found that the U.S. cut under the title "Creepers" is available on Amazon streaming, and it's free if you're an Amazon Prime member.

Halloween Horror Movie Marathon: Film #5

Today, a recommended, must-watch for Halloween, plus a recommended must-avoid-like-the-freakin'-plague.

Beware of the fog ...

We can keep this pretty short and simple.  I love this movie.  Love it, love it, love it.  Directed by John Carpenter, and written by him and producer Debra Hill, "The Fog" was released in 1980, just a few years after the release of their now classic, "Halloween."  Coming off the surprising commercial success that "Halloween" became, expectations for this film - as expectations often are - were a little over the top.  As such, the film was looked at critically as a bit of a sophomore slump for Carpenter (despite actually being his fourth feature).  And while I would agree that, yes, technically, "Halloween" is the better made film, there's just something about "The Fog" that I find more entertaining, at least as a repeat viewing experience.

Here we have a classically styled tale of a town cursed by a past injustice, and the ghosts who come back seeking vengeance.  The tone of the film is established beautifully in an opening scene featuring the late John Housman telling ghost stories to a group of kids on the beach, perfectly setting up the campfire-tale flavor of the film's plot.  Of course there's a bit of a modern spin to the tale.  Well, 80's modern.  These aren't your simple haunting-type ghosts.  To put it simply, these are pissed off, sailor ghosts with swords and big-ass hooks, and they fuck people up.

Look, I could go on about the "The Fog" for a while, but I said I'd keep this one short.  Just trust me here.  "The Fog" is straight-up creepy, Halloween fun.

Oh, and if you need more convincing, "The Fog" sports an outstanding 80's horror movie cast including Jamie Lee Curtis, her real life mom, Janet Leigh (Psycho), Hal Holbrook, Adrienne Barbeau, and, making his second appearance in my Halloween Marathon, Tom Atkins, this time sans mustache.

  

Beware of the fog.  No, seriously.  Beware.

If you are out looking for a copy of "The Fog" to watch this Halloween, please be careful that you don't accidentally pick up this 2005 remake.  This movie is bad on so many levels one scarcely knows where to begin in bashing it.

Firstly, let me state categorically that I am not anti-remakes, so that's not where this is coming from.  Yes, I sometimes scoff and don't see the point, but look, I'm always happy to see a good movie, so if someone has a great idea for a remake and they make it work, awesome.  And if I don't like it, hey, they didn't do anything that changes the original.  At least not unless they're George Lucas.  But that's a different discussion.

So anyway, I heard they were remaking "The Fog" and I thought, okay, whatever.  Obviously I love the original, so I didn't see the point, but fine, whatever.  I mean hey, earlier that same year I'd been entertained by another remake of an early John Carpenter film, "Assault on Precinct 13," so why not give "The Fog" a chance.  Well, the movie comes out and I go see it just hoping to be entertained.  What I was, though, was insulted for about an hour and a half in almost every way a movie can insult you.  Now, I must confess; in the theater in 2005 is the one and only time I've ever seen this film, so I can't talk about too many specifics.  I just remember hurting.  But I do recall exactly the point when the pain began.  It was the introduction of the most insultingly racially stereotyped "comic-relief" black-man character to appear on screen this side of Amos and Andy.

From there it's all a blur.

Just do yourself a favor.  Stay away.  If you're looking for the original, it's available on Netflix streaming, and it's still available for purchase on DVD.  But if you come across a DVD and the stars of the film are that guy who played Superman in the TV show "Smallville" and the 30 year-old actress who played Liam Neeson's 17 year-old daughter in "Taken" you've got the wrong one.

Halloween Horror Movie Marathon: Film #4

Today's film posed an interesting dilemma  for me. I'm writing this series of blogs to recommend fun Halloween movies that I've always liked and watched for years, and to hopefully discover a few new ones to share.  Hence today's question. I watched a new movie.  I liked it.  I would recommend it.  But I would not recommend it as a Halloween movie, so should bother writing about it?  Obviously, I've decided to and I'll explain why after I tell you about the film.

"The Tall Man" is the new film from French director Pascal Laugier, and it's his first English language film.  Laugier is well known in the horror genre for his notoriously brutal 2008 film "Martyrs," another film I'd definitely not recommend for Halloween.  Actually I'm not sure I'd recommend that one at all.  Oh it's a good film.  It's aces in all the technical areas as well as the performances.  It's just ... it's ugly.  I've had several people defend the film saying the brutality is at service to a higher message that the film is trying to get across.  And I acknowledge that that's entirely possibly ... I just don't know what the hell that message is.  Granted, I've only watched it once.  But it's an uncomfortable experience, and I'm not sure I need to sit through it again to try and ferret out its message.  That and the fact that I'm not wholly convinced that it's not just pretending to be about something bigger in order to justify itself.  That aside, I do acknowledge it's a well made and effective film.

"The Tall Man" on the other hand does have very interesting ideas at its core.  The story concerns a mining town whose fortunes have gone south - way south - with the closing of the local mine.  Poverty abounds, and to make matters worse, children are seemingly vanishing without a trace.  Rumors link the missing children to a local legend known as The Tall Man.  Some see him, or it, as a dark, supernatural presence.  Others believe The Tall Man is nothing more than a child molester who will eventually be caught and prosecuted.

Enter our main character, portrayed magnificently by Jessica Biel.  If you'll allow me a quick tangent, this is easily the best acting of Biel's career thus far.  She stretches beyond anything I've seen her do in the past giving an emotionally complex, multi-layered performance that I'd put up there with any of the best I've seen this year.

Back to the story.  Biel plays a local nurse, and the only medical professional in town since the death of her doctor husband.  She is warm and compassionate, giving her all to the people who trust her.  Her life seems particularly in tune despite the dying town she lives in.  That is up until the night the Tall Man shows up for her son.  She catches the hooded figure in the act of abduction and gives chase leading to a visually intense pursuit, going from a foot chase to clinging to the side of a truck.

And from there I'll say no more about what happens as it would turn deep into spoiler territory.  All I will say is whatever you expect to happen, you're wrong.  I'd hesitate to call what takes place a "twist" as that often leads one to think of a forced, gotcha sort of story turn.  That isn't the case here.  It's just that the story goes off in a completely different direction than one would expect from a film built around child disappearances and local legends of supernatural entities.  It's a thoughtful film posing questions about poverty, wealth and the welfare of children.  Thoughtful, but not pretentious as it poses questions, but doesn't throw answers at you.  In fact, I'd argue it offers no answers at all.  It's more of a simple, hey, here's some ideas, think about them.

So why wouldn't I recommend this film for Halloween?  It's just not fun and it's not particularly scary.  Why write about it then?  Because I think the film deserves an audience.  It's a very good, thought-provoking film with a fantastic performance from the lead actress, so I'd recommend you see it sometime if what I've said has peaked your interest.  But for a Halloween film?  Nah.  For me, at least, I'm looking for more entertainment and chills, and I just didn't get that from "The Tall Man."

I caught "The Tall Man" on Netflix streaming service, it's available on Amazon Instant Movies for $3.99, and it's also available in some Redbox machines last I checked.

Halloween Horror Movie Marathon: Film #3

Back to the "classics," so to speak, today we have the third film in the "Halloween" franchise, though it has nothing to do with the "Halloween" franchise.

Now let's get this out of the way right up front; this isn't a really good movie.  It's got issues.  A lot of them.  But if you can overlook them, what you've got in the plus column is a lot of goofy, silly, 80's horror movie fun that would make for a good watch with a group of friends (maybe not so much on your own).

"Halloween III: Season of the Witch" was conceived as a new direction for the "Halloween" films. Instead of continuing the exploits of that wacky kid with a weird penchant for killing babysitters, "Halloween" would become something of an anthology series of feature films.  Each October would bring a new entry in the series, but rather than sequels, they'd all be original, standalone stories.

Not a bad idea.  Except of course they'd already made one "Halloween" sequel that picked up the original story at exactly the point where the first film ended thereby setting up audience expectations that future sequels would continue the story of Michael Myers. Perhaps a new story could have overcome those expectations  had the film been at least tonally similar to the first two films, another killer stalking teens picking up where Michael left off or something, then maybe audiences would have bought in.  But comparatively, this film feels completely alien.  Add to that the marketing for the film really did nothing to dissuade expectations of Michael Myers or at least a new killer and you end up with a completely pissed off audience.

Too bad, really, because had it been sold as a standalone film, or maybe just moved the "Halloween" to a subtitle - "Season of the Witch: A Halloween Film" - then it certainly might have fared better at the box office, especially during the cheesy-horror loving 80's.  As it stands, "Halloween III: Season of the Witch" is seen as kind of a footnote/misstep in the "Halloween" franchise.

But like I mentioned, this wasn't the best movie from the get go, so honestly, nothing may have saved it.  The story is beyond silly with it's attempt to marry science fiction with Gothic witchcraft, and a villain's sinister plot that makes absolutely no sense.  Really, I don't expect movies - horror movies especially - to make logical sense in the real world, but come on, at least make sense within the world you create.

So why would I recommend this to you?  What's it got going for it?  Come on!  It's "Halloween III."  It's just plain dumb, Halloween fun.  And it's got Tom Atkins running and screaming, plus big, squishy, wormy, snakey kid-head scene!

Oh, and that cheesy, yet creepy-ass commercial jingle is worth the price of admission alone.

Plus, it's a lot more fun than those god-awful Rob Zombie "Halloween" remakes.  Ugh!

"Halloween III: Season of the Witch" is available on Amazon's OnDemand service for a $2.99 rental or you can probably pick up an older DVD from the $5 bin at Walmart (where I got mine) or there's even a special edition Blu-ray if you're feeling all collectory.

Halloween Horror Movie Marathon: Film #2

So much for getting a head start.  Well, it's October now and I'd hoped to be a few Halloween movie suggestions into this by now.  But that lovely flu-like bug I had last week altered my plans.  On the plus side, I watched several movies while lying on the couch all week.  On the not-a-plus side, I didn't feel like writing about them.  

But oh well.  Such is life.  On with the show.

There seems to be very little middle ground when it comes to the "found-footage" style of horror film.  There's lots of love and lots of hate, but very little "ehh, they're ok."  And then there are those that refuse to see them not because of any dislike towards the found-footage style, but because the shaky-cam that inevitable comes with those films makes them nauseous.  And if it's allergy season, count me in that last group.  Sinus pressure equals headaches, and that plus shaky-cam makes Chuck a sick boy.  Seeing one in a theater, where the screen takes up your entire field of vision only makes matters worse.  I remember seeing "The Blair Witch Project" in the theater and, though I never hurled, I did need to take a long nap afterwards.

Outside of allergy season, though, I've got no issues with found-footage films if they are well made with a compelling story.  Style is just a tool for telling your story effectively.  If you've got a good reason for choosing a particular shooting style and it suits the story, then what's the issue?  If, however, a filmmaker thinks they'll shoot a found-footage film because it's "easier and cheaper" than doing it the traditional way, then fuck 'em because the end result will most likely be an insulting piece of shit.  I've definitely seen a few of those.

That whole preamble sets us up for today's film, "V/H/S".  This one is a new release, so new in fact that it hasn't even hit theaters yet, but will very soon.  It is currently available OnDemand on Amazon and DirecTV (which is how I saw it), and probably most other cable providers that offer an OnDemand option.  At $9.99 for a pre-theatrical rental, it's a pretty good bargain.

But what is it and should you bother?

"V/H/S" is an anthology film made up of five short films plus the wrap-around story tying them all together, albeit loosely, and all shot as "found-footage" films.  As with all anthologies, there are stronger and weaker segments to the film.  Never have I seen an anthology where every piece worked perfectly and equally, and that's certainly not the case here.  What they all are, though, are solid, well conceived stories that delivery plenty of creepiness and a fair bit of gore, so there is plenty here for the horror movie fan to like.  This really would make for an excellent Halloween movie watching experience, especially with a few friends over because everyone will likely have their own favorite as the segments each offer a different tone and are trying to achieve different goals within the found-footage framework.  Mine, hands down, was the segment directed by David Bruckner ("The Signal").  More than the slamming doors and "oww, did you see that in the corner of the screen!" stuff you get from something like "Paranormal Activity," this segment was downright ghoulish, with an excellent monster right there in your face.  Unfortunately, it's also the first segment in the film (after the wrap-around segment setup, that is), which made the rest of the film slightly disappointing to me as nothing else that followed lived up to the completely screwed up nature of that first story.  Things never got boring, mind you, and I also really dug the final segment directed by a group calling themselves Radio Silence.  But the stories in between those two really never achieve better than just "okay," with one actually being a disappointment (surprisingly it's the segment directed by Ti West, probably the most accomplished of the directors involved).

So final word; yes, definitely would recommend for Halloween viewing.  Fun, creepy, nasty and lots of other horror film related adjectives.  Two warnings; this is a hard R-rated film, so don't watch with the kids, and lastly, despite a lot of hyperbole from some reviewers who saw this film at Sundance and other festival screenings, it really doesn't break any new ground in the realm of found-footage films, so if you already don't like that type film, this one isn't likely to change your mind.  Otherwise, have fun!