Recent Japanese Thriller Versus Classic Japanese Thriller

"CGI running may be faster than real running, but it never seems like anybody is really working at it. We're watching an effect instead of an achievement." (Roger Ebert's review of The Promise, 2006, included in his book, Your Movie Sucks, p. 231)

Casshern (one and a half stars total) As anal retentive as it may be, there is a difference between war and wartime movies. This movie and the other one reviewed below are evidence of that. Avatar (2009) would be a war movie. Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow (2004) would be a wartime movie. What both of these sci-fi/action movies share in common with Casshern (2004) is that they all were shot with digital backlots (live actors performing in front of a greenscreen) and they all suck. My wife really likes Sky Captain but what bothered me was all the times Gwyneth Paltrow's character put the movie on pause to stare at her camera. There are lots of lingering shots in Casshern too. My complaint isn't about the overall pacing on either movie. My complaint is that some scenes just need to be left on the editing room floor/computer hard drive. They may be redundant within the context of the whole movie (Sky Captain), but more often they are devoid of any meaningful content no matter what their length or position (Casshern). I've already written about movies with video game sensibilities elsewhere on this blog (see my 8/14/10 Scott Pilgrim review), so I'll just close by saying that I have no appreciation for most video game graphics, the world doesn't need another version of Frankenstein (1818), and while I own the original Metropolis (1927), I'm less and less motivated to the see the anime (2001) that it inspired with each Japanese movie I watch.

"The first time I saw the film, I knew hardly a thing about Japanese cinema, and what struck me was the elevated emotional level of the actors. Do all Japanese shout and posture so?" (Roger Ebert's 2002 review of Rashōmon, included in his book, The Great Movies II, p. 362)

Onibaba (three stars total) Would someone please explain what's up with Japanese movies (anime or otherwise) and sex perversion? I haven't seen a lot of Japanese movies, less than a half dozen by director Akira Kurosawa, plus a couple of Cartoon Network imports (the "adult" in Adult Swim should've told me everything I needed to know). I've tried to read a fair share of (non-Shōjo) manga and all of it has included at least a passing reference to either cross-dressing, hermaphrodites, incest, striptease or supernatural rape. Onibaba (1964) literally translates as "demon woman," but the English title could just as easily be Cougar Serial Killer Mother-in-Law. An old widow throws herself at a neighbor who's half her age, but he goes after her young daughter-in-law instead. Nothing about this movie is suitable for network TV, and the funny thing about that is it's almost 50 years old. The setting alone is a horror movie waiting to happen. Two women, not blood relatives, are forced to live together in a rural swamp with no honest way to support themselves. They've taken to killing samurai and stripping them for items to pawn. When the older woman offs a samurai with a demon mask, she steals it to scare the younger woman away from the object of her disgusting desire. If you're familiar with the Goosebumps story, "The Haunted Mask" (either the 1993 book or the 1995 TV episode), you already know what happens next. Supposedly this movie (and probably the one reviewed above) are about the aftermath of atomic warfare, but not in the same way that Godzilla (1954; Casshern marks its 50th anniversary) is about the effects of the bomb. In one way or another, are all Japanese movies about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or just those that find their way to the U.S.?

'90s Psychological Thriller I Just Saw for the First Time

"The symbolic flesh-eating and blood-drinking of the Catholic mass has the same ancient roots as vampire legends; when gay demonstrators ('life-eating' monsters to the far religious right) disrupted the communion service at Saint Patrick's Cathedral in 1991, primitive and unarticulated blood-themes shadowed the publicly stated issues . . . A surprisingly high number of vampire aficionados (gay and straight) do turn out to be Catholics or ex-Catholics - at least in this writer's extensive, if unscientific, observation. In The Queen of the Damned, Anne Rice calculatedly imbued her ambisexual vampire with the traits of a pagan/Christian savior." (David J. Skal, The Monster Show: A Cultural History of Horror, p. 348)

Stigmata (three stars total) For yesterday's "Recent Psychological Thrillers" post, I originally intended to review a pair that are possibly still playing in theaters somewhere, Ryan Reynolds' "stuck in a coffin" movie, Buried (premiered at Sundance), and M. Night Shyamalan's "stuck in an elevator" movie, Devil (opened 9/17/10). The former wins my award for "Feel Bad Movie of the Year" and that's all I have to say about that. The latter would've just led me to write about my theological stance on angels and demons (not the Dan Brown novel, but we'll come back to him). I didn't want to be redundant with Shyamalan's final point on Devil, so I held off. Then the same themes showed up again in Stigmata (1999), so I'm taking that as a sign, but not like "Jesus in a pancake" (an actual line from Devil). Disconcerting as it may seem, I believe the devil's always around, but I also believe that angels are everywhere. I agree with Shyamalan that "we don't need the devil because man is capable of all evil alone." I also believe that temptation only matters inasmuch as we give in to it (this is where Stigmata comes in). Bad priests (or parishioners) can't discredit the good that any given church does. The devil is powerful but God's still in charge. The devil was allowed to let loose on Job but not to take his life, and in the long-term it was all for Job's good. I don't believe that the devil was ever trying to help Job in the long-term, nor do I believe he ever tempts us with what really matters. Conversely, I don't believe that God would ever try to hurt us in the long-term, nor do I believe he ever blesses us with what doesn't really matter. God gave Jonah an all-natural punishment inside the whale but I don't believe he would ever punish a person with the unnatural stigmata. I don't believe the movie Stigmata favors science over organized religion, nor do I feel it should shake anyone's faith in a loving God. It speculates on a conspiracy to suppress truth the same way that Dan Brown does in The Da Vinci Code, and it does so with better acting but worse music (here's looking at you, Chumbawamba).

Boris Karloff, Mad Scientist

"Very rarely is the purpose (of a movie doctor) to save a life or effect a cure . . . The favorite purpose of an operation on the screen is either disfigurement or the creation of a monster . . . Perhaps the most frightening aspect of this pseudo and sadistic science is its immaculateness . . . The blacker the heart of the surgeon the more fastidious he is likely to be in his professional methods . . . Ghosts and goblins that used to lurk in dark corners to pounce upon the unwary pale into ineffectual shadows before the grim figure of the demon surgeon brandishing his scalpel." (The Times, London, August 4, 1936, as quoted by David J. Skal in The Monster Show: A Cultural History of Horror, p. 195)

The Ape (three stars total) Whenever I hear Boris Karloff speak, I can't help thinking of How the Grinch Stole Christmas! (1966 TV special). Fortunately his role as Frankenstein's monster doesn't include too many lines of dialogue, so I can still watch that undistracted. His appearance changed more from film to film than Bela Lugosi's did on the six that they made together. Personally, I'll take his devil-worshipping widow's peak on The Black Cat (1934) or his eye hanging out of its socket on The Raven (1935) over Lugosi's consistent formalwear and supposedly "hypnotic" stare, which could be mistaken for constipation (it turns out he suffered from sciatica and that's how he became a painkiller addict). On The Ape (1940), Karloff wears a moustache so that - I'm assuming - he'll look grandfatherly and he wears glasses so that - I'm assuming again - he'll look smart. Like a medical doctor. Or like a mad scientist, because the lenses make his eyes look bigger. Why is it that crazy people are always portrayed with eyes opened as wide as can be? This was Karloff's fourth film to derive its title from an animal (the first was The Sea Bat, 1930, about killer manta rays off the coast of Mexico). Silent film fans sometimes complain about the unbelievable number of "old dark house" mystery plots involving apes (giant or otherwise, it's usually just a guy in a gorilla suit). Karloff flips that here by actually revealing himself to be the guy in the gorilla suit in a twist ending and practical explanation for the cheap special effects. If you're a Universal monsters enthusiast, you may recognize the name of Curt Siodmak on the opening credits for screenplay. The very next year he would write The Wolf Man (1941), along with the stories for Son of Dracula (1943) and House of Frankenstein (1944), plus a dozen or so other horror titles. This is the fifth film I've reviewed from Mill Creek Entertainment's $10 Horror Classics double-sided DVD collection (The Corpse Vanishes yesterday; Nosferatu last week; both The Phantom of the Opera and White Zombie last year, 10/5/09 and 10/6/09, respectively). You can look forward to Bluebeard and Carnival of Souls next week. If I never watch another title from the set, I'll still have paid less than $2 each for almost ten hard-to-find and historical hours of entertainment!

Classic Vampire Movies I Just Saw for the First Time

In general, there are three different looks for vampires. Each of the movies reviewed below depicts a different one. The first is the most human, both in terms of normal dress and appearance, but also in its desire to regain full humanity. The second is not quite human and may include claws or fangs that grow, distorted facial features and fur or wings, even when not shapeshifting. The third is the most monstrous and may stand taller than a human, with or without a conehead, or appear reptilian (like a chupacabra or a snake).

House of Dracula (three stars total)
Contribution to vampire movie mythology - Dracula seeks out a scientific cure for vampirism

Two years after Frankenstein's monster met the Wolf Man, they met Dracula for the second time in the House of Dracula (1945). It was the last "serious" Universal horror movie before the Abbott and Costello series (1948-1955). While it was the second time for John Carradine to play Dracula and Glenn Strange to play Frankenstein's monster, the only actor returning to a title role that had originally starred them was the (1941) Wolf Man's Lon Chaney, Jr. The real scene stealer though is an even lesser-known actress, Jane Adams, playing a beautiful lab assistant with a painful deformity. The way they reveal her hunchback is shocking enough that looking back, you might think she jumped out screaming, but all they do is show her face first and then zoom out. I'll never understand why Dr. Edelmann's hair has to get messy when he becomes a Jekyll-and-Hyde-like mad scientist. Nor will I ever understand why people get so excited for classic character team-ups or company crossovers, either on film or where they're the most popular, in comic books. I'll take my Godzilla without King Kong, my Superman without Muhammad Ali and my Aliens without Predators, thank you very much.

Mark of the Vampire (three and a half stars total)
Contribution to vampire movie mythology - a spoof of the Bela Lugosi vampire image (ironically by Lugosi himself, almost without speaking AND 60 years before Tim Burton's biopic, Ed Wood, which depicts a pathetic yet proud Lugosi in his, ahem, "twilight" years)

Say what you will about the twist ending. I loved it. I loved Lionel Barrymore's hammy acting, the foggy cemetery where a woman's nightgown gets caught on the ground directly above a grave and the scene of a vampire outside the window peering in. I loved seeing a roach infestation in a bed and a wall crawling with tarantulas. As much as I hated the Universal monster homage, Van Helsing (2004), I loved finding out that one of its unconvincing computer-generated images was possibly inspired by a very realistic effects shot in Mark of the Vampire (1935). I'm referring to a dress that transforms into giant, bat wings, worn by one of Dracula's brides in Van Helsing, or in the case of Mark of the Vampire, by Count Mora's daughter, Luna. Carroll Borland perfected the attractive-repulsive look for a vampiress at least three years before Morticia Addams appeared in The New Yorker magazine as a cartoon strip character and almost twenty years before Vampira became TV's first horror host on an ABC affiliate in LA.

Nosferatu (four stars total)
Contribution to vampire movie mythology - only a woman who is "pure in heart" can defeat a vampire, and she does this by keeping him out past sunrise

"If I were to make over the film, I should depict Nosferatu (1922) . . . not as terrible and fantastic but on the contrary in the guise of an inoffensive young man, charming and most obliging. I should like it to be only on the basis of very mild indications, in the beginning, that any anxiety should be aroused, and in the spectator's mind before being aroused in the hero's. Likewise, wouldn't it be much more frightening if he were first presented to the woman in such a charming aspect? It is a kiss that is to be transformed into a bite . . . It might be rather startling, furthermore, for the vampire to yield to the woman's charms, forget the hour . . . I can easily see him appearing a a hideous monster to everyone, and charming only in the eyes of the young woman, a voluntary, fascinated victim . . . He should become less and less horrible until he really becomes the delightful person whose mere appearance he only took on at first. And it is this delightful person that the cock's crow must kill." (Nobel Prizer winner for literature, André Gide, journal entry, February 27, 1928, as quoted by David J Skal in The Monster Show: A Cultural History of Horror, 1993)

'50s Vampire Movie I Just Saw for the First Time

Horror of Dracula (three stars total)
Contribution to vampire movie mythology - after a stake is driven through a vampire's heart, it returns to whatever human state it would've been in (old but dead, decomposed or dust)

By my count, Hammer Film Productions made sixty horror movies, although three of those are just video compilations from the only season of their TV series, Journey to the Unknown (1968; what Americans call "seasons," the British would refer to as "series"). Another ten off that list could be downgraded to psychological thrillers, and a couple are more horrific action/adventure hybrids than horror, if you're a purist about definitions. I was happy to see the new Hammer logo appear before the opening credits on Let Me In (which opened in theaters last weekend). After killing itself with kung fu experimentation and soft porn schlock starting in the late '60s, the company is now back from the dead. It's interesting to note that Hammer has waited until this current era of remakes to return, because it was remakes that really got the company going in the late '50s. You could almost consider Let Me In (2010) to be like a 50th anniversary celebration of The Brides of Dracula (1960). In my opinion, those two movies have about as much in common as Christopher Lee's Dracula (1958) does with Bela Lugosi's Dracula (1931). Lee doesn't try for a Romanian accent and neither do any of his neighbors down in the village. When we first see his castle, it's sunny and clean, no cobwebs or wolves howling. He focuses on raw physicality and shocking mood swings, much like the soundtrack focuses on drum banging and cymbal crashing. Extensive liberties are taken with the Van Helsing character. Aside from dramatic changes to Bram Stoker's plot, he's pretty much allowed to steal the show from the title character. When he kills his own friend who's become a vampire, Jonathan Harker, you know he means business (and you never see it coming). Peter Cushing plays Van Helsing as a human monster, reducing Christopher Lee's Dracula to a sympathetic animal that had to be put down. In other Hammer horror, he played a rapist Victor Frankenstein while his costar played another unfortunate monster. Look no further than the Star Wars series to determine which actor is scarier - Grand Moff Tarkin (Cushing), commander of the Death Star, or Count Dooku (Lee), who gets served by a little green muppet? And speaking of actors that later appeared in '80s and '90s movie franchises, if you want to see Batman's butler, Alfred Pennyworth, as a young man, check out Michael Gough on The Horror of Dracula as well.

Recent Western Movie I Just Saw for the First Time

"The Western depicts a struggle between good and evil in a setting where civilization and wilderness are in transition." (Melinda Corey and George Ochoa, The American Film Institute Desk Reference, 2002)

"Dad's appreciation of movies was less theoretical but also resonant. Two decades of watching war movies with a detail-oriented retired army reservist - 'Look at that, walking on a ridge in silhouette!' followed by Dad making a machine-gun noise to indicate he'd just killed all of our heroes - bred intolerance for flagrant inauthenticity." (Michael Adams, Showgirls, Teen Wolves, and Astro Zombies: A Film Critic's Year-Long Quest To Find the Worst Movie Ever Made, 2010)

The Burrowers (three stars total) The way I interpret the first quote above is that in a western movie, good and/or evil can come from either the civilizations OR the wilderness that is in transition. The Burrowers (2008) is a horror-western where the horror comes both from "civilized" Union soldiers' treatment of Native Americans and from wilderness creatures that turn to man for a source of food after the near-extinction of the buffalo. If that sounds hokey to you, know that it comes from the tested tastes of the paying public. On the DVD special features, the director says that he always wanted to do an old-fashioned western, but he didn't think anyone else would be interested unless he added monsters (and evidently not just any monsters, but giant, carnivorous, humanoid prairie dog monsters). As for the second quote above, my mom once told me that she hates fiction that tries to rewrite history as politically correct. Fortunately, The Burrowers doesn't claim that the Irish were treated any better than African-Americans or women OR buffalo. It leaves history as both good, evil, and well, horrific. Speaking of horror, it's been over six months since last October's horror movie review marathon so I felt refreshed enough to start a two-week western-themed marathon. Back to The Burrowers, I was surprised to see that the lead character, an Irishman, was played by an actual Irishman and that Sean Patrick Thomas (from Save the Last Dance) was in a western. I don't agree with those who say the movie got off to a slow start and after they did finally show the creatures, I wished I could've gone back to the quick cuts and sheer suspense of the first half. Why is it that all monsters these days look like something on a video game and sound like the dinosaurs from Jurassic Park? For the record, people walking like spiders wasn't scary way back on The Exorcist and it's still not scary now.

Wes Craven Versus Remake, Part II

The Hills Have Eyes (1977; two and a half stars total) One of my pet peeves is when movies claim to be set in New Mexico but they show a saguaro cactus, which is native to Arizona. I grew up around the counties where Billy the Kid rode and there's no saguaro cacti in those parts. I understand that most people assume there's nothing in New Mexico but aliens in Roswell and nuclear fallout around White Sands Missile Range. I even had a roommate once tell me that he didn't believe people really lived in New Mexico. He thought the whole area was storage space for government conspiracies and fenced off from the general public. For the record, Roswell shares nothing in common with Nevada's Area 51 and New Mexico doesn't all look like White Sands. Fortunately, The Hills Have Eyes doesn't claim to be set in New Mexico and then show saguaro cacti. Unfortunately, the remake (see below) tries to make White Sands into its own version of Area 51. Compared to Tod Browning's Freaks (1932), the cannibal mutant mining community in the original only look as freaky as their biker/caveman costumes. The freakiest shot in the movie is of a baby laying in its crib looking scared. Put a child, especially a baby, in any horror movie and it's automatically scarier. It may not be more ethical, but it will definitely have more tension. Add a creepy gas station attendant and it's perfect, right? Well, maybe not perfect, but it's high concept for sure. A family of beautiful people that wouldn't run over a jackrabbit at the beginning of the movie are stabbing and setting fire to people by the end. That part is novel, but their booby traps are more ridiculous than ones in Last House on the Left (1972) and the blood looks like Dairy Queen's cherry topping for ice cream cones. The second half is mostly shot in the dark and the dog gets the most of the credit for saving the day. Come to think of it, wouldn't Lassie vs. Radioactive Hillbillys have made a great title?

The Hills Have Eyes (2006; three stars total) I feel the same about movie remakes as I do about song covers (you can see a list of my favorites for the latter on my 3/10/09 post). If you're going to do something different, then really DO something different. I like string quartet tributes to heavy metal bands, hip hop sampling, house remixes and reggae versions of nearly anything. The Hills Have Eyes remake follows the plot of the original pretty closely but amps up the gore to focus on mutations from nuclear fallout. Birth defects like strabismus (misalignment of the eyes), cleft lips and elephantiasis are taken to the extreme and exploited. There's more character drama between the parents and the children, especially the father and his son-in-law, and between the teenage brother and sister. In the remake, this family is already on a vacation from hell before they even stop for gas. But before I make it sound like there's just more of everything, allow me to refer you to the gas station attendant and his illegitimate granddaughter, Ruby. In the original, those two characters are understandably trying to escape their situation and save the other family as well. This made the death of the gas station attendant so much more dramatic than Ruby's self-sacrifice in the remake, and it sure beats newspaper clippings for explaining how the characters are connected. The gas station attendant would've been better left as a tragic hero. In olde Europe, it was fairies, trolls or elves that would come in the night to replace your baby with a changeling, and while The Hills Have Eyes movie makes no reference to changelings, both their legend and this movie series are cautionary tales against inbreeding. I'd never heard of Sawney Bean until after I watched the movie, but apparently The Hills Have Eyes is a modern retelling of this 16th-century, Scottish legend about incest and cannibals. Both the clan in the legend in the mutant family in the movie live underground, but talk about doing something really different with an adaptation/remake!

"Adult" Movie Versus "Children's" Movie

Drag Me to Hell (two stars total) Which is which? If you go by the "PG-13" rating, Drag Me To Hell (just released on DVD) would be the "adult" movie and the plain PG-rated Where the Wild Things Are (just released in theaters) would be the "children's" movie. If you go by the maturity level of each, it's the other way around. The protagonists in both movies feel unfairly punished for selfish indiscretions but it's ironic that the audience is expected to feel sympathy for the adult who's unprepared for the real world and not the child. The girl in Drag Me To Hell has a big house in the big city, a boyfriend who's willing to sacrifice thousands of dollars to support her in something he doesn't agree with (even when his family doesn't approve of her) and apparently she can get clothing boutiques to open early just for her. Do I think she deserves a break? I think she's already had several breaks. I couldn't sympathize with the her character nor with Justin Long's character for standing by her and I normally like Justin Long. "You used to be a fat girl, right?" That's my favorite line from the movie and I'm pretty sure it had the opposite effect on me from what was intended. I thought it was awesome for someone say that to a total stranger and it hardly made me feel more sorry for the girl. I heard the movie had audiences both scared and laughing, but after I didn't laugh at all in the first fifteen minutes, the nervous parking garage scene started and I wondered if people had lied about the comedy side. Then the gypsy witch got stapled in the head and I started laughing. I never expected to see that or the projectile nosebleed or swallowing formaldehyde or a gravedigging scene and I laughed through them all. I never considered the possibility that the comedy and the horror would only work when together and that any scene without either would be a waste.

Where the Wild Things Are (three stars total) To all the parents who said this movie was too scary for their kids, what are you teaching them?!? In my experience, kids aren't naturally afraid of big animals, great heights or being alone in the dark. They have to learn fear from getting bit, falling hard or being told that there's a boogeyman under the bed. When I heard there were kids who started crying in Where the Wild Things Are, my first reaction was to wonder what their adult authority figures had said on the way to the screening. ("Hey kids, we're going to watch to watch a monster movie. You know what a monster is, right? It's a scary thing that eats you. And they're really real. And there's one that lives under your bed. And I'm going to tell it to eat you if you don't stop crying right now.") The only crying kid I saw when I went to the movie was the one on the big screen. For his age, he did a pretty believable job of it too. He whined, sniffled, screamed, roared and even laughed sadistically. He was hands down scarier than any giant Muppets. But I still don't think kids would be scared by another kid. If anything, they would be bored by the movie. If you were wondering how they were going to stretch a 37-page illustrated fantasty book into a feature-length, live-action movie, that's exactly what they did - they stretched it. And padded it. And turned it into adult therapy for loneliness and anger management. And kids don't care how great the technical aspects look and sound when the lines between good and bad get blurred. That kind of storytelling is for adults. There were only adults at the Saturday matinee I attended and most of them looked older than me. They were probably fans of the book and I think the movie stayed true to the book. If you were never a fan of the book, you probably won't be able to ever enjoy the best part of the movie, which is seeing the different illustrated characters brought to life. My favorite has always the one with the human feet (on the cover of the book I have). I was so pleased that he wasn't demystified by being linked with some actor's voice. He only has one line, and they save it for the end. It's not a particularly happy ending, nor is it sad, so I don't know why anyone would cry for either reason. Mostly I just don't understand why anyone would cry out of fear. It's not a scary movie, but I still wouldn't call it a kids' movie either.

'80s Horror Movie I Just Saw for the First Time

Hellraiser (three stars total) adds all new meaning to the phrase "skeletons in the closet." I can honestly say it was unlike anything I'd seen before, and I'm not just talking about gore. Demons in black leather I'd seen. A patchwork man I'd seen. Sadomasochism I'd never seen, but I'm referring more to the classy opening credits for a horror movie, the fast back-and-forth editing for flashbacks, a wife's infidelity with her brother-in-law and that brother-in-law's lewd comments toward his niece (a Britney Spears lookalike). The grotesque face morphing scene of the bounty hunter on Critters (1986) couldn't have prepared me for the regeneration of the brother-in-law's skeleton, muscles, blood vessels, nerves and flesh in Hellraiser (1987). The bug-covered homeless people in Prince of Darkness (1987) couldn't have prepared me for Hellraiser's pet shop cricket-eating scene. Not even The Lost Boys (1987) could prepare me for all the '80s hairstyles and the maggots I'd see in Hellraiser's Tudor-style house. The posters and the video case make it seem like the whole movie is about Pinhead but I learned from a reviewer on IMDb that the character only makes an extended cameo in this first movie of the series. I timed his appearances and they add up to just over five of the total 94 minutes.

100 Years of Horror Movies, Part II

Last Halloween I posted a list of horror movies with the concepts that each one popularized, dating back to 1908. I've seen all but ten of those, so they'll be some of the first I watch for a horror movie marathon I'm doing to do this whole month. You could call it my "31 Days of Halloween." I plan to write 31 reviews, to be posted here, starting with yesterday's and ending with Halloween's.

The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (three stars total) In the beginning of cinema, Germany created the look and mood of horror (The Golem, 1915) and science fiction (Metropolis, 1927). In Hollywood, they were still without form, and void. And German Expressionism said, let there be distinctive lighting, and there were shadowy sets and symbolism, dividing horror from the other genres. The producer of The Phantom of the Opera (1925) and the cinematographer of Dracula (1931) came out of this movement. I went into The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1920) expecting something like Nosferatu (1922), but what I got was closer in tone and style to The Illusionist (2006). I realize that curvy, Dr. Seuss-style architecture might have been odd or even scary in its time, but it's kids' stuff in our day and age, along with Hot Topic and anime about tentacled demons. The forest hill in the movie reminded me of Beetlejuice (1988, which first turned goth sensibilities into an animated series). What was probably intended to be the most non-realistic aspect of set design - the angular, colorfully painted walls and floors - ironically anticipated the graffiti-covered buildings and parks we now see everyday. The acting - always exaggerated but never forced - is the only scary element that's survived. Oh, I guess there's also the somnabulist's (sleepwalker's) makeup, borrowed by everyone from Alice Cooper to Brandon Lee's character in The Crow (1994). Considering how old the editing technology is, I was impressed to see a circular dissolve and a zooming caption. If you don't like silent-era movies, you can watch The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari Remix (NOT a remake; 2005) and still get your taste of history. It uses green screen to put new actors and sound over the original backdrops. It's missing the best parts to me, but to each their own.

Welcome October Horror Movies, Part II

What's the scariest movie you've ever seen? I started asking adults that question after reading The Scariest Stories You've Ever Heard book series in 5th or 6th grade (see my 10/16/08 post). My classmate's mom said it was The Changeling (1979), and she was speaking as someone who had read all of Stephen King's books and seen all the movie adaptations up to that point. A neighbor lady down my street went on and on about the ending of Halloween (1978). Another of my classmates told me that her mom had slept with a Bible on her chest every night since watching The Exorcist (1973). I asked some coworkers this question last week and one of them mentioned Alien (1979). which I wasn't expecting. My brother used to be scared of the cover art on the video case for The Company of Wolves (1984). I looked that title up on Netflix a few years ago and it was definitely creepy - children's fairy tales with trademark '80s makeup and special effects for gore. I've already given my definition of horror elsewhere on this blog (see my 9/29/08 post), but I want to expound here on two words I used in that last sentence, "creepy" and "gore," as they relate to horror and whether they're really synonymous with "scary."

What's your definition of "scary?" I realize the scariest movie you've ever seen may not even be a horror movie. Before I read The Scariest Stories You've Ever Heard, the scariest movie I'd seen was Never Cry Wolf (1983), a Disney-produced true story about being isolated in the Arctic. I thought having your hair fall out like in The Peanut Butter Solution (1985) was scary, and that was just a children's fantasy. Neither of those movies were creepy nor was there any gore in them. They didn't have any jump scenes. They weren't intended as horror movies or ever as thrillers. Webster's defines "scary" as "frightening" so you have to look up the word "fright" to find out that means something "alarming," like danger, or "unsightly," like gore. Webster's also defines "creepy" as causing "disgust." Evidently most people consider gore to be the scariest thing out there, but not me. What's disturbing about Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974) for example, isn't the massacre part but the inexplicable dinner table scene with the girl screaming nearly nonstop. What's scary to me is the unknown (to paraphrase FDR), what I can't account for or just explain away (which I CAN do for what's creepy and gore), but I'm interested in differing points of view.

Trick 'r Treat (three stars total) Why do I welcome October horror movies? Because once a year I gives me another chance to feel the way I did when I first read The Scariest Stories You've Ever Heard. I watched The Changeling, The Exorcist and Halloween based on the recommendations above and they were mostly boring. I've yet to see a movie I thought was scary through and through. I've never left a movie feeling out of control but I'll admit I've seen some pretty scary trailers. The scariest was for Trick 'r Treat (2007, but finally being on DVD next Tuesday). Some people hate it when a movie trailer doesn't give any of the story. I love it. What I hate is when the first 3/4 of a plotline are compressed into a three to four minute summary of clips. If that's truly possible to do with a movie, how good could that story possibly be? The original, pre-festival circuit trailer for Trick 'r Treat started off with a faux 1950s B&W educational film strip on Halloween safety, then cut to the scariest cello stabs you've ever heard and man, was I excited. I finally saw a screening at San Diego Comic-Con this year and unfortunately it didn't match my hype. The music from the trailer was gone and even though the movie was only an hour and fifteen minutes, it still felt stretched. I'm not a fan of Anna Paquin or Brian Cox (both from the X-Men movie series, along with the writer and director), but if you like anthology horror like Creepshow (1982) and Tales from the Darkside (1990), you'll love the Cryptkeeper-style comedy and surprise plot twists of Trick 'r Treat.

Documentary Versus Documentary

Every Little Step (four and a half stars total) DISCLAIMER: All I knew of A Chorus Line before watching this was the Michael Douglas film adaptation, (which my wife wants to rent now but it's been checked out everywhere). As I've mentioned here before, I'm not the biggest fan of Broadway musicals, and I have yet to see a film adaptation of one that's come close to swaying me, that is, until now. I'll even go out on a limb and say that this documentary improves on its source material. Every Little Step may be structured like a TV reality show competition, but without the annoying music, the constant recaps, and the useless judges/narrators getting in the way of the performers, it's worth revisiting, even after knowing the results. Getting to know the actors "backstage" before becoming familiar with the characters they were auditioning for actually made me care more about those fictional characters. I may not have liked all the actors that got hired from the beginning, but by the end, I agreed with ALL the casting choices. No disagreement with the rest of America about who should be its idols here. What's more, you get two stories for the price of one. The documentary goes back and forth between the history of the stage production, as it was originally dictated on reel-to-reel tape by creator Michael Bennett, and a behind-the-scenes of the contemporary revival, including awkward home videos. I loved the way they edited the songs seamlessy while still showcasing all the candidates each singing a line. It makes it so much easier to pick your own favorite. I guarantee you'll smile and perhaps laugh out loud. The audience I watched it with cried and even clapped at the end. I learned that this musical was the first ever to use the workshop device and the story's ending was changed after the first few performances so as to not "alienate the audience." My only slight would be against the '70s fashion; other than that, it's a bunch of "T&A" (for those of you that don't know, that's a reference to one of the songs in A Chorus Line) in leotards and tights, so what am I complaining about?



The Girlfriend Experience (three stars total) DISCLAIMER: This review is not for the faint of heart. When I heard that Steven Soderbergh, the director of sex, lies, and videotape, Out of Sight, Erin Brokovich, Traffic, and Ocean's Eleven was making a documentary about a call girl, I naturally pictured someone middle aged. I mean, look at the movies I just listed, and you can see for yourself that their common thread has to do with midlife crises, starting over, and character defining moments. I was so surprised to see someone younger than me as the subject, and not only that, but someone so reserved and small. To show how much I know about the porn industry, I thought its stars were all "gone wild" and as big as mud wrestlers. Why would a prude like me want to watch this and even write a review that my mother might read? Let me just say, there's nothing sensualized in it. Real life just isn't that hot. Yes, I was intrigued by its premise of an "escort in a committed (open) relationship." No, I wasn't as impressed by its being the first movie depiction of our current economic recession. That part was too redundant to all the conversations I hear in real life. I went to hear about a real life very different from my own, and not just the part about prostitution. I don't condone it, but I get why some dirty old men (and women, I suppose) pay for quick, anonymous sex. What I don't get is why one would want to pay $2000 an hour to chitchat all day, with or without sex. Is that honestly what some would consider "the girfriend experience?" All the while, the subject keeps a journal of what brands of lingerie she wears and how long she spends doing different activities with clients (e.g. eating out, watching street performers, sitting alone during important business calls). Is she getting paid to be herself, a real life girlfriend, or are they paying to be themselves around someone out of their league? Truth be told, she is both direct and honest, and that's real, but I agree with one guy who says, "if they wanted you to be yourself, they wouldn't be paying you." After she gets critiqued in an online review, she wants to cry, but she has a client and while she tries to focus on him, he still asks if she needs to "get some fresh air, go for a walk" and come back. Later she does cry, when she breaks up with her boyfriend over her belief system, and then gets stood up by a family man over a videochat with his children. It turns out she can neither be herself at work or at home. As I walked out of the theater, there was an elderly couple in front me, talking about leaving with more questions than answers. I asked them if they had attended the same screening as me, which they hadn't, and I replied, "We might as well have."

Best Use of an Alice in Chains Song

"It is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change." (Charles Darwin, as quoted by my coworker on his office door)

"Most people are afraid of change, but if you look at it as something you can count on, then it can be a comfort. There's not many things you can really count on." (Clint Eastwood's character on The Bridges of Madison County)

What do these quotes have to do with Terminator: Salvation? They basically sum up the moral I took from the movie: Be flexible at a moment's notice. Don't do anything motivated by fear, glory, greed or hate. John Connor isn't afraid of anything, he doesn't punish his well-meaning soldiers when they go AWOL, he'll even go AWOL himself for the big picture. Being responsive to change and having long-term perspective is the most important quality to have in a time travel story.

Terminator: Salvation (three stars total) On my way home after watching the movie, I stopped at the grocery store. The exit I had to take goes right by all these strip clubs (I live near a naval base, hence, the clientele). This time I noticed a lot of minivans in their parking lots, and a minivan means only thing - family man, or in this case, purported family men. I guess these guys do something besides blogging after their kids go to bed. This brings me to my favorite tidbit in the new Terminator - John Connor's wife Kate (the same Kate from T3: Rise of the Machines, I checked) is pregnant. We always knew John's character was a mama's boy, but now we know he's a family man too. There are some aesthetic changes I would make to the movie, including Kate's makeup (I've never seen Bryce Dallas Howard this dolled up before), because it doesn't seem realistic for a post-apocalyptic military base, especially on a pregnant woman, but oh well. Most people probably won't ask themselves why Skynet maintains clean, carpeted office space with glass partitions for its headquarters, or why machines with infrared need floodlights on their building's exteriors, but I understand why cameramen need them. I don't understand how a giant robot could sneak up on an isolated building in the middle of nowhere, but the movie's very realistic in other places. Sometimes you can almost smell the campfires and hear the wind blowing through the California desert setting. If you've ever been in a room with a bunch of computers during a power outage, then you learned how loud those seemingly quiet machines actually are. That's what I was reminded of during the human cattle corral scene when the machines make this horrible metallic squelching noise. I'm pretty sure the aerial canyon pursuit is a reference to the end of Star Wars and how could the motorcycle jump over the mines not be a reference to The Great Escape? My own obscure movie reference comes from Johnny Mnemonic. Just how efficient a CPU is the human mind, because I don't believe we'll ever mentally hack computer files with the ease that we channel surf on TV, but isn't that always how movies make that look like? Don't get me wrong, I loved nearly everything about this movie, except for the walking wax museum statue of Arnold Schwarzenegger and what Roger Ebert calls the "Fallacy of the Talking Killer" on his glossary of movie terms ("The villain wants to kill the hero. He has him cornered at gunpoint. All he has to do is pull the trigger. But he always talks first. He explains the hero's mistakes to him. Jeers. Laughs. And gives the hero time to think his way out of the situation, or be rescued by his buddy . . . most James Bond movies."), only this time it's done by a computer. I hated that part in Eagle Eye and I hate it even more here. The downfall of the Terminator TV show is the the machines display personality overload. Other than that, it's a great movie. It has the most explosive big rig chase since Live Free Or Die Hard and the moto-terminators are thankfully recycled from The Dark Knight's Bat-pod. It's beyond thrilling and inspirational also, in that it made me want to learn human anatomy, how to set booby traps and fix ham radios and burned-out cars.

In Anticipation of This Weekend's Big Movie Release, Part II

Terminator: Salvation gave me a good enough reason to finally catch up with Christian Bale's first (not counting his many kiddie supporting roles like Newsies) major starring role in American Psycho, which I never saw until this week, but meant to watch after seeing The Dark Knight. I like to watch movies in themed pairs, so I also grabbed Charlie Bartlett, starring Anton Yelchin in his first major starring role (not counting Hearts in Atlantis). Most people might recognize him from the recent Star Trek remake, which is what led me pick up Charlie Bartlett. But Anton also plays Christian Bale's time-travelling best friend/father in Terminator: Salvation, which I'll be reviewing shortly. In the meantime, please enjoy my reviews of these past, quirky art flicks available now on DVD:

American Psycho (three stars total) Imagine a world where what you do when others aren't looking isn't as important as what you do when they are. Sound familiar? It's because we already live in that world, but I've heard a life of virtue defined as one that is "consistent even when no one's looking." That would be the exact opposite of the main character's life in American Psycho. Thank goodness Leonardo DiCaprio didn't get this role right after Titanic, because apparently he tried to (wanted to crush the hearts of thirteen year-old girls everywhere). I learned about this from the very informative interviews on the special features of the DVD. Turns out, Christian Bale won the starring part because, according to the director, he was the only auditioning actor that got that the character was a total loser and wanted to play him as someone who thought he was one restaurant reservation away from being a winner (mind you, he's a loser with Harvard degrees, money, a perfect body, a devoted secretary and multiple lovers). Unlike the serial killer, Dexter, from the Showtime series of the same name (which stole the murderous-looking food preparation over the opening credits from American Psycho), the character of Patrick Bateman is wholly unlikable, and yet some people evidently don't get that. One of the movie's writers says in an interview that guys still come up to her all the time and claim to be "just like Patrick Bateman." To which she responds, "you mean, you're a dork? Or are you a serial killer? ...Or both?" To me, he's a metrosexual from before the label existed, overcompensating on masculinity and being a serial killer is a metaphor for city life and modern dating, but it's more horror than comedy in this darkest of dark horror-comedies. A true horror-comedy to me has scenes that are only scary and then scenes that are only funny. It's supposed to be jarring and there shouldn't be consistent overlap, otherwise it would be just another dark comedy. The horror of the movie (i.e. what one still thinks about after the credits have started rolling) comes in his repeated torture of a particular call girl and not in his isolated, random streetside slayings. But there is some comedy to be found here. The funniest scenes have to do with Bale's character comparing near-identical business cards for paper grade and font type. His music reviews/monologues are pretty good too, but the music, oh, the music is the best part. The movie's setting in the '80s is the next best thing, but it's not the kitschy '80s of The Wedding Singer. No wacky new wave one-hit wonder pop jingles here, just what people actually heard most and followed back then: Phil Collins, Whitney Houston, Huey Lewis, Robert Palmer and Simply Red. As a final note, one of my movie pet peeves involves schizophrenic protagonists that are revealed to be the killer as a plot twist (I'm talking about you, Fight Club) but American Psycho is almost a twist on that as you're never quite sure if Patrick Bateman has killed anyone at all. In fact, every scene where he's not with his cohorts could have happened in his head.

Charlie Bartlett (two and a half stars total - "perfectly average") Whether it's an incomprehensible Russian accent in Star Trek or mature beyond his years psychobabble in Charlie Bartlett, Anton Yelchin's comedy schtick seems to be in his speech patterns. I'm interested to see how his Charlie Brown-sounding strained vocal chords work for Terminator: Salvation. I mentioned in my 12/3/08 post about comic books that "I don't like fiction about mental illness, but I'll read about it in nonfiction" and that could somewhat apply to this movie. The premise of a high school student "prescribing" psychiatric meds to his classmates should not have intrigued me, but it's worthwhile because of a complex relationship triangle between a rebel student, his sympathetic high school principal, and the love interest/principal's daughter. There's no way Anton could've carried this movie alone, but he didn't have to because he had lots of help from Robert Downey Jr. (the principal), Hope Davis (his mother, for the second time since Hearts in Atlantis), and Kat Denning (the daughter; also in The 40 Year Old Virgin, The House Bunny, and Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist). Those supporting actors are probably the real reason I gave the premise a chance. Don't ask me why the main character goes for the principal's daughter over some other girl, other than it facilitates the rest of the plot, and gives him a miraculous chance to lose his virginity at one of those fabulous teen parties that don't exist in the real world. At least the party makes sense this time around, because Charlie's character actually IS filthy rich. The funniest character, Charlie's bully turned business partner, is like an ode to Grease, being a black jacket bad boy with a heart of gold, and in the end he gets the blonde bombshell cheerleader who's a realistic bad girl on the inside, but trying to be better. We've all seen variations of the main character before. Charlie is the misunderstood new kid who goes after the authority figure's daughter and changes the mentality of the entire student body (think Footloose). If I'm referencing a lot of high school musical movies, it must be a subliminal thing. Charlie does a lot of showtunish piano playing, especially when he's high on ADD drugs. I could've done without all that, but it does go to show how original this protagonist is from other teen comedies. His wardrobe transition from prep school uniform to emo chic is accented by some funny t-shirts. I wish the generic alt-rock/pop-punk soundtrack was up to par with the rest of the movie. If for nothing else, you should watch this movie to see the principal point a gun at a student and say, "I wouldn't shoot you - I've got too much RESPONSIBILITY." Now there's an after-school special message you'll never see the same way again.

Trick Question

Q: Which movie felt longer?
A: They're almost exactly the same length.

Australia (three stars total - twice as many as Watchmen) I went into Australia (165 minutes, 2008) expecting more of the musical melodrama from director Baz Luhrmann's previous work in Moulin Rouge! (127 minutes, 2001) but hoping for no less of the charm and cartoonish action of Romeo + Juliet (120 minutes, 1996). Although Australia was longer, it wasn't as epic as Nicole Kidman's Far and Away (140 minutes, 1992), neither in years nor in distance covered. It actually shares more in common with one of my father's favorite movies, Quigley Down Under (1990), but without the gunslinging and with a less impressive stampede than The Man from Snowy River (1982). Speaking of the stampede, it should have come 25 minutes earlier, immediately following a standard half hour of character introductions. Every subsequent plot point came 25 minutes too late after that. Which 25 minutes before the stampede would I cut? The ten minutes it takes to get from the bar to the station and the death of Nullah's mother. Call me cold-hearted, but all that came out of those scenes was the connection between Nullah and Lady Ashley (which could have started on the stampede) and the connection between Hollywood's Wizard of Oz and aboriginal gulapa (or magic, which led to most critics' biggest problem with the movie). In order to cut the movie down to the two-hour average, I would have also cut the 20 minute montage between winning the army contract and Nullah's walkabout, however I did appreciate hearing one of my favorite jazz tunes, "Begin the Beguine." and seeing Drover's tuxedo transformation. Carney's daughter could have still become Fletcher's wife without the montage, and the time saved could have been better used to make him a worse villain. As Australian movies go, I don't think this one's more romantic than Strictly Ballroom (94 minutes, 1992) or as thrilling as Crocodile Dundee II (110 minutes, 1988). The most interesting commentary I can make is that two people sacrifice their own lives to save another's and both happen to be aborigines. "Somewhere Over the Rainbow" may have been used repetitively, but it wasn't as bad as "Put On Your Sunday Clothes" in WALL-E.

Watchmen (one and a half stars total - felt twice as long as Australia) Director Zack Snyder seems to share the same fault as Baz Luhrmann for getting longer with each successive outing: Dawn of the Dead (101 minutes, 2004), then 300 (117 minutes, 2006), and now Watchmen (163 minutes, 2009). The opening credits by themselves cover 30+ years. That should tell you everything you need to know about how long this movie feels. My boss told me he walked out of the movie after the first 40 minutes and there's a reason for that. The entire first hour of the movie should have been cut, along with all the flashbacks, and the slow motion scenes should have been normal speed. So much time is spent going backward, it never feels like things move forward at all. Not that I would mind being stuck in the '80s, but this isn't the '80s I remember. It's interesting to consider what the '80s may have been like for those who weren't kids at the time. I remember '80s excess and fear of the U.S.S.R., but I remember action figures and gang culture much better. The movie covers all these things, but you wouldn't want to watch a movie about that, would you? I would have been unfaithful to the book and started with Nite Owl II and Silk Spectre II getting cornered in the alley by hoods, right before they beat them all down, because that scene sums up the whole movie. It's Matrix-style bullet time meets Revenge of the Nerds, where a geek gets the girl, and average-looking good guys look good fighting without getting so much as a scratch. It's all about B-movies going mainstream, and the corruption in that concept. I watched the movie to see the costumes (the best part), not to listen to funeral dirge soap opera music (the worst part). I should have been honest up front - I'm not a fan of the Watchmen comic book series (I hate when it's referred to as a graphic novel; it was a series before it was collected) and I tried not to hold that against the movie. I was hoping it might have some je ne sais quoi to make me sympathize more with characters that you're supposed to hate. Alas, I'm afraid the movie was TOO faithful in that regard and the narration, which works for comics but not movies, made me hate the characters more than I already did. The question is not whether the movie is better or as good as the book, because that question always gets the same answer. My question is whether any non-comics reader would have watched this movie if not for all the marketing?