The strangest thing about Daybreakers is that it's a b-movie. Why is that so strange? Well, simply put... because it isn't a b-movie.
Moreso than almost any other genre, the b-movie genre has gone through almost no evolution. Action movies have gone from James Bond to Die Hard to the Bourne Films, Romance has gone from Gone With the Wind to Breakfast at Tiffany's to When Harry Met Sally (and seem to have stalled there), but B-movies? B-movies haven't really changed, it seems, and there's an interesting reason why.
Strictly speaking, if there was a definition of a b-movie it would be a movie that doesn't innovate at all and is a possesses a simple, almost juvenile plot. The kind of plot a teenager would dream up while listening to some sick music on his mp3 player as he paces his room. A b-movie doesn't try to be a b-movie, in fact, any movie that tries to be a b-movie isn't one. A b-movie is, by definition I would say, a movie whose creator honestly thought that this movie is going to be totally awesome, that this teenage fantasy is phenomenal. In a way, they mimic pop culture without innovating at all or producing anything of real substance.
And that's totally fine. There's a sort of juvenile joy in watching a b-movie, a sort of callback to your own adolescent fantasies where you imagined yourself impressing all your friends as you acted totally hardcore and fought back a bunch of zombies. B-movies are a part of us, they are raw id.
Nowadays, though, most "b-movies" are accompanied with a certain amount of winking and nudging. The movies no what they're doing, they're savvy of the genre tropes they're running into. If they aren't directly homaging the b-movies of the past then they're at least not taking themselves seriously. And, while that certainly has its place, a b-movie it does not make. Oddly enough, however, these not-so-subtle homage/parodies of b-movies of the past have been taken to be the real thing. The parody has taken the place of the original. And, well, if you're always parodying the same thing, obviously the movies aren't going to evolve, the jokes aren't going to get fresher.
Nowadays, movies that try to be bad are called b-movies. The truth about b-movies is exactly the opposite. B-movies have always been movies that think they're really awesome, they're adolescent wet dreams where you use guns and science to score chicks and save the world. A b-movie can't try to be a b-movie. Daybreakers doesn't try to be a b-movie.
But Daybreakers is totally a b-movie.
And I love it for it. Daybreakers is one b-movie in a generation of new b-movies. It's trying to be a good movie, and... it is, kind of. It feels like a it could be a good movie but at the same time it doesn't. It's shot with a lot of cinematic flair, at times it certainly looks really cool, but the cinematic flair is so... flair-y that it almost feels inappropriate. It's devoid of any of the "genre-savviness" or humor of the b-movies of today. Daybreakers is super... nay... hyper serious. It has a few edgy, novel ideas like "Duuuude, what if humanity is the infection?!" that you would think is hilarious but, much like the Terminator movies (1+2, there are no others), while watching the fiction is totally serious and definitely happening.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Daybreakers is a pop culture spectrum. Its beginning is nothing like its ending. It starts as the Matrix, becomes Underworld and then is Blade. But in truth, it isn't really like any of those movies. It's a real b-movie. It's a movie that feels like the director simply went back in time, took a movie idea out of his teenage-self's head, and filmed it. If you watch it as an A-movie it isn't good. It doesn't bring anything new to the table other than maybe one or two novel ideas. But when you change your perspective, when suddenly you re-inhabit your adolescent self and watch and enjoy all of the fond memories of how you too (and don't tell me you didn't) fantasized about stab-punching vampires in the face. If you could just be that teenage boy again, pacing in his room and listening to his mp3 player, dreaming of being a vampire scientist stabbing dudes in the heart and making them burst into a fire-y explosion... well then, this movie becomes fantastic.
As an aside, though... what is with all the fucking bats?
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Hausu
Hausu.
I don't even know where to begin.
Well, let's start with the obvious. Hausu is a Japanese horror flick made in good ol' 1977. The acting is bad and the special effects are worse than bad. And that's why it's great.
There's something about hte incredibly bad... badness of this movie that makes it incredibly enjoyable. Somehow... the movie uses all of its bad effects to maximum potential and, through that, becomes something amazing. And I'm not saying this because of my usual fondness of b-movies, Hausu is a delicious romp through wtf that's done with such old effects and cheesy characters that you almost can't help but love it. Something about Hausu just makes you keep watching.
Hausu is the story of seven girls who go to a house and get eaten. The girls all have very "Snow White and the Seven Dwarf"-esque names. Sweet is sweet. Fanta has fantasies. Kung Fu is good at kung fu. The story really isn't too important, or maybe it is, (we may be dealing with metaphor here, it is Japan after all). Regardless of whether there is metaphor, (again, I don't know! I'm just covering my bases here. I honestly just don't. know.) there is still a lot to enjoy.
This movie is crazy.
There is something about it that's so... bizarre. From a horror film fan perspective... it almost feels ahead of its time. It feels reverrent, like it is an homage to 80's horror flicks... but it's made in the 1977's. Beyond that, though, it feels unique in its own right. There are few films like Hausu.
Around the time the first appendage begins floating you realize... oh balls, this is hilarious. The climactic finish is, just... wow. This movie is crazy and hilarious. I don't know if in 1977 it was actually unnerving, but I seriously doubt it. Hausu exists in the Twilight Zone, parodying and going beyond a film genre before the film genre really even existed.
Ever since the Bourne Trilogy, everybody has been copying the shaky-parcours-cam. That's great, I love that cam, it's a good cam. But, I just don't understand why no one has also picked up the Hausu crazy cam. Because that crazy cam is crazy. We need more films with that crazy cam.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Should you watch Hausu?
Hell. Yes.
Watch it with a bunch of people. If they do not enjoy Hausu, then you should not be friends with them. Simple. as. that.
Don't worry! It isn't scary! If you can handle Michael Jackson's Thriller video then you can handle Hausu.
Hausu's bad effects and acting are executed so superbly that it's good. It parodies something that didn't exist at the time of its creation. It's just... hilarious.
I don't even know where to begin.
Well, let's start with the obvious. Hausu is a Japanese horror flick made in good ol' 1977. The acting is bad and the special effects are worse than bad. And that's why it's great.
There's something about hte incredibly bad... badness of this movie that makes it incredibly enjoyable. Somehow... the movie uses all of its bad effects to maximum potential and, through that, becomes something amazing. And I'm not saying this because of my usual fondness of b-movies, Hausu is a delicious romp through wtf that's done with such old effects and cheesy characters that you almost can't help but love it. Something about Hausu just makes you keep watching.
Hausu is the story of seven girls who go to a house and get eaten. The girls all have very "Snow White and the Seven Dwarf"-esque names. Sweet is sweet. Fanta has fantasies. Kung Fu is good at kung fu. The story really isn't too important, or maybe it is, (we may be dealing with metaphor here, it is Japan after all). Regardless of whether there is metaphor, (again, I don't know! I'm just covering my bases here. I honestly just don't. know.) there is still a lot to enjoy.
This movie is crazy.
There is something about it that's so... bizarre. From a horror film fan perspective... it almost feels ahead of its time. It feels reverrent, like it is an homage to 80's horror flicks... but it's made in the 1977's. Beyond that, though, it feels unique in its own right. There are few films like Hausu.
Around the time the first appendage begins floating you realize... oh balls, this is hilarious. The climactic finish is, just... wow. This movie is crazy and hilarious. I don't know if in 1977 it was actually unnerving, but I seriously doubt it. Hausu exists in the Twilight Zone, parodying and going beyond a film genre before the film genre really even existed.
Ever since the Bourne Trilogy, everybody has been copying the shaky-parcours-cam. That's great, I love that cam, it's a good cam. But, I just don't understand why no one has also picked up the Hausu crazy cam. Because that crazy cam is crazy. We need more films with that crazy cam.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Should you watch Hausu?
Hell. Yes.
Watch it with a bunch of people. If they do not enjoy Hausu, then you should not be friends with them. Simple. as. that.
Don't worry! It isn't scary! If you can handle Michael Jackson's Thriller video then you can handle Hausu.
Hausu's bad effects and acting are executed so superbly that it's good. It parodies something that didn't exist at the time of its creation. It's just... hilarious.
Friday, December 18, 2009
Zombieland
Ahahahahahaha, okay so this is totally cheating. Zombieland is not a horror movie at all. It is, like, a slice of life movie.
But that's okay! I'm reviewing this shit.
First off, I find it interesting how much the zombie genre has really become... well... a genre. It's essentially a sub-genre of horror and apocalypse films, but its managed to develop into something of its own. Within the zombie genre we have such diverse entries as Invasion of the Body Snatchers, 28 Days Later, Dawn of the Dead, Shaun of the Dead... etc etc... It's ranged from serious to camp, from apocalyptic to... well... it's always been apocalyptic.
But still! The zombie genre is surprisingly teeming with activity. People really do love zombies.
And man... I love zombies too. I love those rotting bastards.
For this reason I at once love Zombieland and dislike it.
Zombieland follows the character of "Columbus", a teenage boy who looks like he just walked out of "Saved by the Bell". Awkward, nerdy, the only way Columbus has managed to survive the zombie apocalypse is by being really ocd. The movie makes a point of how he has a list of survival rules during a zombie apocalypse. Rules like "beware bathrooms" and "the double tap".
The next character to be introduced is the best character. That character is "Tallahassee", played by Woody Harrelson, the bounty hunter named Carson Wells in No Country for Old Men.
Everything after Tallahassee is just a diversion, an attempt to distract you and make you pay less attention to Tallahassee. Do not fall for this trick.
Tallahassee, a gun totin', kick assin' dude goes about totin' guns and kickin' ass. That is what Tallahassee does. He also eats twinkies and is probably the most relate-able and lovable character. He drives trucks and he hates bitches.
Bitches suck! Zombies suck! BREAKING STUFF IS AWESOME.
Okay, I lost track of what I was talking about.
Right. The cast.
After meeting up with Tallahassee, him and Columbus do stuff and this is great.
And then those two dudes meet up with some women.
Or, as I would call them, bitches.
Basically blah blah blah and Columbus gets a love interest with the one girl that's his age and there is also a little girl and they're sisters and they care for each other. I guess this is supposed to be heartwarming? But, like, Tallahassee has already got the heartwarming down. I mean, just listen to him talk about his dog. If you aren't affected by it... I don't want to speak to you.
OH.
I FORGOT.
ZOMBIES.
So the whole deal is that there are zombies. Essentially these four people are the only characters except for an awesome... awesome surprise fifth person. They traverse this wasteland, Tallahassee fights some zombies (Tallahassee fights some zombies), they stay in a hollywood place, they're having a great time... and then like, yeah... girl problems and the boy goes to rescue her because they're in love remember?
Tallahassee goes with the boy to help out, of course, cuz Tallahassee is just a really cool dude. That's just how he does things.
And then the movie ends.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
So what did I think of Zombieland?
Well, like I said, I like zombies.
In a lot of ways I appreciate what Zombieland does. It puts these people in a zombie setting and they stress how they're just ordinary dudes who do what they do. Comparisons are made with Zombieland and Shaun of the Dead and, while appropriate in a sense, I feel the comparison is fairly wrong. Zombieland isn't... silly like Shaun of the Dead was. Zombieland's humor falls pretty much entirely on Tallahassee being a rugged cool dude and Columbus being an adorably awkward teen.
What I like about Zombieland is that it pokes fun at the zombie genre without being stupid. When the people go to Hollywood and live in a celebrities house, I was thinking "Yes! This makes total sense and is exactly what I would do in a zombie situation."
And Tallahassee. Man. Tallahassee is the best thing this film has going for it. He's likable and, more importantly, he suits the circumstances. The circumstances being A ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE.
This is the problem with the film. The zombies are a backdrop. Like, the zombie circumstances add nothing to the slice of life, boy meets girl story that plays such a central role. And not in the silly, ha ha way portrayed in Shaun of the Dead. No, Zombieland's boy meet girl story is almost devoid of humor except for some cliche jokes.
That's the thing, despite sidestepping and poking fun at the cliches of the zombie genre, the movie just dives right into all of the cliches of a teenage love film and, despite being called "Zombieland", one of the major focuses of the film is that love story.
Because of this dichotomy the film's pace suffers. Naturally, zombies have to attack at some point. However, when they finally do it feels really out of place, and this is exactly because up until that moment the movie was Even Stevens.
And then the film just ends.
There wasn't a moment where I was excited or waiting to see what came next. The premise of a boy meet girl film set in a zombie world sounds pretty great but it would have worked better if the two ever crossed over. Instead the film just flips on and off and at the end of the film you feel like you just watched a heartwarming romantic comedy.
I didn't dislike Zombieland, in fact I liked it. But it didn't leave me with a feeling like it was very well organized or well realized. The concept was solid and, for the most part, that's what carries it through.
But that's okay! I'm reviewing this shit.
First off, I find it interesting how much the zombie genre has really become... well... a genre. It's essentially a sub-genre of horror and apocalypse films, but its managed to develop into something of its own. Within the zombie genre we have such diverse entries as Invasion of the Body Snatchers, 28 Days Later, Dawn of the Dead, Shaun of the Dead... etc etc... It's ranged from serious to camp, from apocalyptic to... well... it's always been apocalyptic.
But still! The zombie genre is surprisingly teeming with activity. People really do love zombies.
And man... I love zombies too. I love those rotting bastards.
For this reason I at once love Zombieland and dislike it.
Zombieland follows the character of "Columbus", a teenage boy who looks like he just walked out of "Saved by the Bell". Awkward, nerdy, the only way Columbus has managed to survive the zombie apocalypse is by being really ocd. The movie makes a point of how he has a list of survival rules during a zombie apocalypse. Rules like "beware bathrooms" and "the double tap".
The next character to be introduced is the best character. That character is "Tallahassee", played by Woody Harrelson, the bounty hunter named Carson Wells in No Country for Old Men.
Everything after Tallahassee is just a diversion, an attempt to distract you and make you pay less attention to Tallahassee. Do not fall for this trick.
Tallahassee, a gun totin', kick assin' dude goes about totin' guns and kickin' ass. That is what Tallahassee does. He also eats twinkies and is probably the most relate-able and lovable character. He drives trucks and he hates bitches.
Bitches suck! Zombies suck! BREAKING STUFF IS AWESOME.
Okay, I lost track of what I was talking about.
Right. The cast.
After meeting up with Tallahassee, him and Columbus do stuff and this is great.
And then those two dudes meet up with some women.
Or, as I would call them, bitches.
Basically blah blah blah and Columbus gets a love interest with the one girl that's his age and there is also a little girl and they're sisters and they care for each other. I guess this is supposed to be heartwarming? But, like, Tallahassee has already got the heartwarming down. I mean, just listen to him talk about his dog. If you aren't affected by it... I don't want to speak to you.
OH.
I FORGOT.
ZOMBIES.
So the whole deal is that there are zombies. Essentially these four people are the only characters except for an awesome... awesome surprise fifth person. They traverse this wasteland, Tallahassee fights some zombies (Tallahassee fights some zombies), they stay in a hollywood place, they're having a great time... and then like, yeah... girl problems and the boy goes to rescue her because they're in love remember?
Tallahassee goes with the boy to help out, of course, cuz Tallahassee is just a really cool dude. That's just how he does things.
And then the movie ends.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
So what did I think of Zombieland?
Well, like I said, I like zombies.
In a lot of ways I appreciate what Zombieland does. It puts these people in a zombie setting and they stress how they're just ordinary dudes who do what they do. Comparisons are made with Zombieland and Shaun of the Dead and, while appropriate in a sense, I feel the comparison is fairly wrong. Zombieland isn't... silly like Shaun of the Dead was. Zombieland's humor falls pretty much entirely on Tallahassee being a rugged cool dude and Columbus being an adorably awkward teen.
What I like about Zombieland is that it pokes fun at the zombie genre without being stupid. When the people go to Hollywood and live in a celebrities house, I was thinking "Yes! This makes total sense and is exactly what I would do in a zombie situation."
And Tallahassee. Man. Tallahassee is the best thing this film has going for it. He's likable and, more importantly, he suits the circumstances. The circumstances being A ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE.
This is the problem with the film. The zombies are a backdrop. Like, the zombie circumstances add nothing to the slice of life, boy meets girl story that plays such a central role. And not in the silly, ha ha way portrayed in Shaun of the Dead. No, Zombieland's boy meet girl story is almost devoid of humor except for some cliche jokes.
That's the thing, despite sidestepping and poking fun at the cliches of the zombie genre, the movie just dives right into all of the cliches of a teenage love film and, despite being called "Zombieland", one of the major focuses of the film is that love story.
Because of this dichotomy the film's pace suffers. Naturally, zombies have to attack at some point. However, when they finally do it feels really out of place, and this is exactly because up until that moment the movie was Even Stevens.
And then the film just ends.
There wasn't a moment where I was excited or waiting to see what came next. The premise of a boy meet girl film set in a zombie world sounds pretty great but it would have worked better if the two ever crossed over. Instead the film just flips on and off and at the end of the film you feel like you just watched a heartwarming romantic comedy.
I didn't dislike Zombieland, in fact I liked it. But it didn't leave me with a feeling like it was very well organized or well realized. The concept was solid and, for the most part, that's what carries it through.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Paranormal Activity
Paranormal Activity is an independent horror film made in 2007, winning awards in 2008, and got limited release in theatres in 2009. It was filmed with a claimed budget of 15,000 dollars.
Paranormal Activity centers around a new couple, moving into a new house. From those words only you might already be thinking "wow, cliche horror film". The couple is experiencing bizarre happenings... the girl feels that something paranormal is going on. The guy is dismissive and even mocking of it. At some point the guy walks up into a pitch black attic despite it being obvious he should not do this. A "paranormal expert" is called in, the word "demonologist" is said.
If you're thinking this sounds like a cliche wrapped in a trope, then you share the perspective I had when I went to watch this movie.
Now here's the kicker... you almost never notice. It's brilliant, despite going through all the paces of a b-movie rip-off of the Blair Witch Project, like all those other Sci-fi channel (SyFy) "ghost stories", it manages to circumvent all of it and come across as an original and chilling film.
I said Blair Witch Project rip off and for good reason.
The Blair Witch Project was an interesting idea. It sold itself as being a "true story", it gave the appearance of being a bunch of footage filmed by a bunch of teens out experiencing spooky shit. Now, as a caveat, I take issue with the Blair Witch Project. Mostly because those teenagers are retarded and pretty unbelievable. Not because of the horror but because those dudes were dumbasses.
Paranormal Activity takes the same route, meaning it is a bunch of footage filmed by the people experiencing the spooky stuff. Bad camera work, grainy footage... the works.
But Paranormal Activity does the homemade movie feel so... so so so SO much better than Blair it isn't even fair to compare them. And the couple in Paranormal Activity are very believable.
The good in PA? Here's the laundrylist.
1. The pacing.
The movie builds and builds. It doesn't rush into the horror, it develops its characters and the atmosphere perfectly.
2. The suspense.
The pacing plays into this but it deserves a separate point. Every time the film goes into showing the couple sleeping... you are literally on edge. I noticed that, everytime those scenes ended, my legs were brought up off the floor and my shoulders were hunched... I was clenched into a ball. The brilliant thing about it though? There were no sudden jumps, flashes of blood or teeth, it's almost as if nothing happened. And yet, I was scared.
3. The character development.
I cared for these people. The husband was lovable and I shared every feeling they had. When they started doing cliche horror moves, like going into dark rooms, I didn't feel it was forced or stupid. I felt like they were doing the right thing.
Now, I obviously really enjoyed this film, but that doesn't mean I don't have anything bad to say about it...
I said it manages to avoid being obviously cliche... but that's not entirely true.
Here's the bad laundry list.
1. A paranormal expert.
At some point the couple decides to consult a dude who specializes in the occult. When I heard this I rolled my eyes. The dude shows up and says a bunch of spooky shit with a completely straight face and, honestly? it just seemed silly. However, this is the most minor of offenses. It's offset by the husbands clear mockery of the "expert".
2. The rationalization.
Of course, the movie decides to make some attempt at rationalizing the haunting they are getting. (strictly speaking, it isn't a haunting. But whatever)
The rationalization is pretty mediocre and forced and I didn't care for it. It's cliche too. Luckily, it's given very little attention in the film.
3. A Ouija Board
A fucking ouija board.
What.
Why did you include this?
It gets close to undermining all of the believability the film had built up. I had to shut out its existence, it was so offensive. It moves at one point and spells out something, then lights afire.
I put my hand up to my eyes, not because it was scary... but because I just didn't want to see this dumbass scene take place.
--------------------------------------------------------
Nevertheless, the film does a fantastic job. Despite some hiccups, it never really loses its believability and suspense. It has a great vibe and is kept to a good length. You really fall for the characters and the bedroom scenes are spooky as hell.
And when the shit finally hits the fan? I was terrified.
What I appreciate about Paranormal Activity is that it appeals to horror film junkies and regular people alike. A horror film junkie can watch it and see all of the cliches, yet still appreciate it for the way it makes them believable. A regular viewer can watch it and see an original and chilling piece of fiction.
It definitely doesn't break boundaries or redefine the genre, but it plays the cards its dealt very, very well. Definitely something I would recommend watching. And if you have friends who aren't into the horror genre, take them to see this.
***********DON'T READ AHEAD IF YOU DON'T WANT THINGS SPOILED***************
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
The thing I appreciated the most? The entire film plays the "real footage" trope to the very end... until, of course, it reaches the end. At the very end, the demon destroys the camera. There were no survivors. It leaves a very eerie impression. The existence of the footage itself is... paranormal, that you are watching something that was touched by a demon. I appreciated that touch a lot, that it turns the "real footage" trope on its head.
And that scream at the end. Oh God. That is going to haunt me for a long, long time. One of the best screams I've heard in a horror film.
Paranormal Activity centers around a new couple, moving into a new house. From those words only you might already be thinking "wow, cliche horror film". The couple is experiencing bizarre happenings... the girl feels that something paranormal is going on. The guy is dismissive and even mocking of it. At some point the guy walks up into a pitch black attic despite it being obvious he should not do this. A "paranormal expert" is called in, the word "demonologist" is said.
If you're thinking this sounds like a cliche wrapped in a trope, then you share the perspective I had when I went to watch this movie.
Now here's the kicker... you almost never notice. It's brilliant, despite going through all the paces of a b-movie rip-off of the Blair Witch Project, like all those other Sci-fi channel (SyFy) "ghost stories", it manages to circumvent all of it and come across as an original and chilling film.
I said Blair Witch Project rip off and for good reason.
The Blair Witch Project was an interesting idea. It sold itself as being a "true story", it gave the appearance of being a bunch of footage filmed by a bunch of teens out experiencing spooky shit. Now, as a caveat, I take issue with the Blair Witch Project. Mostly because those teenagers are retarded and pretty unbelievable. Not because of the horror but because those dudes were dumbasses.
Paranormal Activity takes the same route, meaning it is a bunch of footage filmed by the people experiencing the spooky stuff. Bad camera work, grainy footage... the works.
But Paranormal Activity does the homemade movie feel so... so so so SO much better than Blair it isn't even fair to compare them. And the couple in Paranormal Activity are very believable.
The good in PA? Here's the laundrylist.
1. The pacing.
The movie builds and builds. It doesn't rush into the horror, it develops its characters and the atmosphere perfectly.
2. The suspense.
The pacing plays into this but it deserves a separate point. Every time the film goes into showing the couple sleeping... you are literally on edge. I noticed that, everytime those scenes ended, my legs were brought up off the floor and my shoulders were hunched... I was clenched into a ball. The brilliant thing about it though? There were no sudden jumps, flashes of blood or teeth, it's almost as if nothing happened. And yet, I was scared.
3. The character development.
I cared for these people. The husband was lovable and I shared every feeling they had. When they started doing cliche horror moves, like going into dark rooms, I didn't feel it was forced or stupid. I felt like they were doing the right thing.
Now, I obviously really enjoyed this film, but that doesn't mean I don't have anything bad to say about it...
I said it manages to avoid being obviously cliche... but that's not entirely true.
Here's the bad laundry list.
1. A paranormal expert.
At some point the couple decides to consult a dude who specializes in the occult. When I heard this I rolled my eyes. The dude shows up and says a bunch of spooky shit with a completely straight face and, honestly? it just seemed silly. However, this is the most minor of offenses. It's offset by the husbands clear mockery of the "expert".
2. The rationalization.
Of course, the movie decides to make some attempt at rationalizing the haunting they are getting. (strictly speaking, it isn't a haunting. But whatever)
The rationalization is pretty mediocre and forced and I didn't care for it. It's cliche too. Luckily, it's given very little attention in the film.
3. A Ouija Board
A fucking ouija board.
What.
Why did you include this?
It gets close to undermining all of the believability the film had built up. I had to shut out its existence, it was so offensive. It moves at one point and spells out something, then lights afire.
I put my hand up to my eyes, not because it was scary... but because I just didn't want to see this dumbass scene take place.
--------------------------------------------------------
Nevertheless, the film does a fantastic job. Despite some hiccups, it never really loses its believability and suspense. It has a great vibe and is kept to a good length. You really fall for the characters and the bedroom scenes are spooky as hell.
And when the shit finally hits the fan? I was terrified.
What I appreciate about Paranormal Activity is that it appeals to horror film junkies and regular people alike. A horror film junkie can watch it and see all of the cliches, yet still appreciate it for the way it makes them believable. A regular viewer can watch it and see an original and chilling piece of fiction.
It definitely doesn't break boundaries or redefine the genre, but it plays the cards its dealt very, very well. Definitely something I would recommend watching. And if you have friends who aren't into the horror genre, take them to see this.
***********DON'T READ AHEAD IF YOU DON'T WANT THINGS SPOILED***************
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
*****
The thing I appreciated the most? The entire film plays the "real footage" trope to the very end... until, of course, it reaches the end. At the very end, the demon destroys the camera. There were no survivors. It leaves a very eerie impression. The existence of the footage itself is... paranormal, that you are watching something that was touched by a demon. I appreciated that touch a lot, that it turns the "real footage" trope on its head.
And that scream at the end. Oh God. That is going to haunt me for a long, long time. One of the best screams I've heard in a horror film.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
28 Days Later
28 Days Later is a British zombie horror film directed by Danny Boyle.
Okay, okay. This is a bit of a digression, but... you know that song "O Danny Boy"? You know the one, "O Danny boy, the pipes, the pipes are calling from glen to..." anyway. It's an Irish song and it's pretty well known actually. Well, the first time I heard the director's name, I was wondering why they named him "Danny" instead of just Daniel. I'm thinking, since his last name is BOYle, they named him Danny Boyle as a reference to the song. Just a theory. ANYWAY.
28 Days Later is a bit of a departure from traditional zombie horror, and it's been a point of contention whether it is a zombie movie or not.
Personally, I think it's just semantics when people start arguing about this. I mean, a zombie to me is a human being who behaves like an animal, loses all humanity. That is exactly what 28 Days Later depicts. Don't give me bullcrap about how zombies have to be slow or zombies have to eat human flesh.
But the departure is that the zombies do not A: eat human flesh B: stagger. The zombies in 28 Days Later are infected with "Rage", a disease first found in monkeys (a reference to this is made in Shaun of the Dead at the end of the film). As the name suggests, "Rage" simply causes people do be ultra violent and filled with, well, rage. Except this rage does not extend to others infected with rage.
The film begins with a youth lying on a hospital bed. He awakes into post-apocalyptic London, seemingly devoid of life. He is soon attacked and saved by two human survivors. One survivor dies and later those remaining meet up with two other survivors (father and daughter) and they go out searching for a base of soldiers who supposedly have an answer for the infection.
Where 28 Days Later shines is its brilliant rendition of a world where humanity has experienced an apocalypse. The shots are often very beautiful, from desolate London to burning Manchester, to the pristine and quiet fields and glens of the countryside. It asks many questions and successfully answers several. It doesn't answer all of them and I wouldn't say that in a good way. It raises some questions that I feel it didn't want to raise, or didn't expect, and for that reason it doesn't touch them.
Part of me is just not satisfied with how the movie handles the fact that the protagonist brutally murders a group of army soldiers in such a horrendous way that he is mistaked for a zombie. He gets away with it. He succumbs to rage, this thing that has caused society to kill itself, and the movie portrays it like a good thing. It saves them.
And later, he lives a happy life!
(That is, if one goes by the theatrical ending. There is a second ending in which he dies, but nevertheless, he dies relatively unburdened)
I can reconcile it. It was rage that was underwent to protect love, to protect something fragile and beautiful. The movie suggests that love, our intimate interactions with other human beings, is what makes us human, is what makes life worth living. And since these zombies are creatures that possess no love, no reason to live, are filled only with rage, they are clearly no longer human. So perhaps the main character is faced with the question of becoming a monster himself to protect this precious thing that keeps him from becoming a monster. But the movie I don't think means to say that. He kills the soldiers because they aren't human too because they don't recognize what humanity is, what is precious, what is love (baby don't hurt me). I think there's a bit of a disconnect with that, but oh well.
----------------------------------------------------------------
It's still a very beautiful movie. And the questions it raises are interesting. It's not really a horror movie in that it isn't particularly scary, in my opinion. But hey, that really isn't what it's going for. It's not trying to scare you, it's trying to make you look at what humanity is and what keeps us together.
Okay, okay. This is a bit of a digression, but... you know that song "O Danny Boy"? You know the one, "O Danny boy, the pipes, the pipes are calling from glen to..." anyway. It's an Irish song and it's pretty well known actually. Well, the first time I heard the director's name, I was wondering why they named him "Danny" instead of just Daniel. I'm thinking, since his last name is BOYle, they named him Danny Boyle as a reference to the song. Just a theory. ANYWAY.
28 Days Later is a bit of a departure from traditional zombie horror, and it's been a point of contention whether it is a zombie movie or not.
Personally, I think it's just semantics when people start arguing about this. I mean, a zombie to me is a human being who behaves like an animal, loses all humanity. That is exactly what 28 Days Later depicts. Don't give me bullcrap about how zombies have to be slow or zombies have to eat human flesh.
But the departure is that the zombies do not A: eat human flesh B: stagger. The zombies in 28 Days Later are infected with "Rage", a disease first found in monkeys (a reference to this is made in Shaun of the Dead at the end of the film). As the name suggests, "Rage" simply causes people do be ultra violent and filled with, well, rage. Except this rage does not extend to others infected with rage.
The film begins with a youth lying on a hospital bed. He awakes into post-apocalyptic London, seemingly devoid of life. He is soon attacked and saved by two human survivors. One survivor dies and later those remaining meet up with two other survivors (father and daughter) and they go out searching for a base of soldiers who supposedly have an answer for the infection.
Where 28 Days Later shines is its brilliant rendition of a world where humanity has experienced an apocalypse. The shots are often very beautiful, from desolate London to burning Manchester, to the pristine and quiet fields and glens of the countryside. It asks many questions and successfully answers several. It doesn't answer all of them and I wouldn't say that in a good way. It raises some questions that I feel it didn't want to raise, or didn't expect, and for that reason it doesn't touch them.
Part of me is just not satisfied with how the movie handles the fact that the protagonist brutally murders a group of army soldiers in such a horrendous way that he is mistaked for a zombie. He gets away with it. He succumbs to rage, this thing that has caused society to kill itself, and the movie portrays it like a good thing. It saves them.
And later, he lives a happy life!
(That is, if one goes by the theatrical ending. There is a second ending in which he dies, but nevertheless, he dies relatively unburdened)
I can reconcile it. It was rage that was underwent to protect love, to protect something fragile and beautiful. The movie suggests that love, our intimate interactions with other human beings, is what makes us human, is what makes life worth living. And since these zombies are creatures that possess no love, no reason to live, are filled only with rage, they are clearly no longer human. So perhaps the main character is faced with the question of becoming a monster himself to protect this precious thing that keeps him from becoming a monster. But the movie I don't think means to say that. He kills the soldiers because they aren't human too because they don't recognize what humanity is, what is precious, what is love (baby don't hurt me). I think there's a bit of a disconnect with that, but oh well.
----------------------------------------------------------------
It's still a very beautiful movie. And the questions it raises are interesting. It's not really a horror movie in that it isn't particularly scary, in my opinion. But hey, that really isn't what it's going for. It's not trying to scare you, it's trying to make you look at what humanity is and what keeps us together.
Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978)
There are two Invasion of the Body Snatchers: the original and the remake. Both of them are very good. The original was made back in ye olden days of black and white and came about during one of the heights of the Cold War hysteria. The film explores mass paranoia and hysteria. The remake in 1978 does much of the same, except it occurs during the Vietnam era. It takes place in a city rather than a rural area and is still very exceptional.
The story begins with a woman named Elizabeth Driscoll and a health inspector named Matthew Bennell. Elizabeth begins to get hysterical as she becomes convinced that her husband has been replaced with someone else who looks exactly like him but is devoid of all emotion.
Matthew attempts to help her by taking her to a psychiatrist friend of his. The psychiatrist mentions that many people are coming in with reports of "replacements" and that some sort of mass hysteria is loose.
Soon, however, it becomes apparent that this mass hysteria is no delusion. Pod people are replacing loved ones and strangers alike, slowly taking over the entire population. Matthew Elizabeth and two friends of theirs, Jack and Nancy Bellicec, soon find themselves alone in a world of complete strangers out to assimilate them into their emotionless, alien world.
The horror doesn't jump out at you but the suspense builds and layers ontop of itself. The movie chills you to the core as the protagonists slowly lose their ability to fight back and are taken in by this expressionless mob. The paranoia and suspicion in the film is palpable and the viewer slowly begins to feel profoundly alone.
To my surprise, when I describe this film to others I'm usually met with shock. I suppose I can understand, with a title like "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" the film can easily seem like a cheesy joke. The truth is almost the opposite, Invasion of the Body Snatchers enters the sweetspot of horror where the viewer begins to feel cold and frightened because of what is inside and outside himself, not just what he is seeing on the screen.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Watch Invasion of the Body Snatchers. I'd recommend the remake, for starters. There is a skull crushed in once, and also boobs, if you need more convincing. It could very well be one of the best horror films you ever watch. It is one of the best horror films I've ever watched.
Just wait for the ending, it'll really get you.
The story begins with a woman named Elizabeth Driscoll and a health inspector named Matthew Bennell. Elizabeth begins to get hysterical as she becomes convinced that her husband has been replaced with someone else who looks exactly like him but is devoid of all emotion.
Matthew attempts to help her by taking her to a psychiatrist friend of his. The psychiatrist mentions that many people are coming in with reports of "replacements" and that some sort of mass hysteria is loose.
Soon, however, it becomes apparent that this mass hysteria is no delusion. Pod people are replacing loved ones and strangers alike, slowly taking over the entire population. Matthew Elizabeth and two friends of theirs, Jack and Nancy Bellicec, soon find themselves alone in a world of complete strangers out to assimilate them into their emotionless, alien world.
The horror doesn't jump out at you but the suspense builds and layers ontop of itself. The movie chills you to the core as the protagonists slowly lose their ability to fight back and are taken in by this expressionless mob. The paranoia and suspicion in the film is palpable and the viewer slowly begins to feel profoundly alone.
To my surprise, when I describe this film to others I'm usually met with shock. I suppose I can understand, with a title like "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" the film can easily seem like a cheesy joke. The truth is almost the opposite, Invasion of the Body Snatchers enters the sweetspot of horror where the viewer begins to feel cold and frightened because of what is inside and outside himself, not just what he is seeing on the screen.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Watch Invasion of the Body Snatchers. I'd recommend the remake, for starters. There is a skull crushed in once, and also boobs, if you need more convincing. It could very well be one of the best horror films you ever watch. It is one of the best horror films I've ever watched.
Just wait for the ending, it'll really get you.
Shaun of the Dead
Shaun of the Dead is a combination of British humor and zombies.
If that didn't make you decide to watch it right this instant then I want you out of this blog. Out.
Odds are, you've probably seen Shaun of the Dead already. Maybe you haven't though. If you haven't, you should watch it. And don't think you need to have watched other zombie movies first to get it. You really don't.
But anyway. To the movie!
Shaun of the Dead takes its name from the movie Dawn of the Dead, a zombie movie. There are two Dawn of the Deads: the one by George A. Romero and the later remake. It really doesn't matter which one Shaun of the Dead takes the name from, because it spoofs the entire zombie genre, not just one film.
The film begins with Shaun (Simon Pegg, co-writer), a salesman living a dull life in an English town, living with his childhood friend Ed and some prick named Pete.
He's having troubles with Liz, his girlfriend. There's an asshole named David who is an asshole. And Shaun doesn't get along with his stepfather too much and basically? The movie starts in traditional British style: awkward, timid and funny.
Cue the zombies. Shaun and his buddy Ed go over to his mum's and they get Stepdad and mum and then they head over to girlfriend and they get Liz and Fuckin' David and his girl Dianne.
They make their way to the winchester and in traditional zombie fashion are trapped in a building surrounded by zombies.
I know a film is good when I start swearing at people in the movie in order to back up the main character. It's one of my many ways of knowing whether I like a movie. And FUCKING DAVID! Damnit dave! I was so endeared to Shaun I wanted David to go jump into a mob of zombies. Thank goodness he does. I was cheering as his innards were pulled apart and the zombies lifted his intestines into the air in all their glory as they carved up his chest and stomach with their rotten hands.
Sorry, if you haven't seen the movie, you don't know what I'm talking about. Basically. There is David. He has a thing for Liz, Shaun's girl. He is in general a prick and a whining nancy boy. I may be harsh in my judgement of him, but this is a zombie movie, there is no room for whining, especially not his bullshit.
And what makes Shaun of the Dead even more golden is the constant referencing it does to other films. Obviously, George Romero's work is referenced heavily, but also things like Invasion of the Body Snatchers and The Evil Dead trilogy. One such reference is to the director of 28 Days Later, who insisted on several occasions that he did not make a "zombie movie". In the film when Ed mentions the word zombie Shaun snaps back "Don't say that!"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Basically, Shaun of the Dead is great. Its got a brilliant sense of black zombie humor combined with timid and self-deprecatingly terrific British humor. People who aren't fans of horror can enjoy Shaun of the Dead.
Except maybe during the disembowelment. I'm not gonna lie, it's pretty brutal.
Fuckin' Dave.
If that didn't make you decide to watch it right this instant then I want you out of this blog. Out.
Odds are, you've probably seen Shaun of the Dead already. Maybe you haven't though. If you haven't, you should watch it. And don't think you need to have watched other zombie movies first to get it. You really don't.
But anyway. To the movie!
Shaun of the Dead takes its name from the movie Dawn of the Dead, a zombie movie. There are two Dawn of the Deads: the one by George A. Romero and the later remake. It really doesn't matter which one Shaun of the Dead takes the name from, because it spoofs the entire zombie genre, not just one film.
The film begins with Shaun (Simon Pegg, co-writer), a salesman living a dull life in an English town, living with his childhood friend Ed and some prick named Pete.
He's having troubles with Liz, his girlfriend. There's an asshole named David who is an asshole. And Shaun doesn't get along with his stepfather too much and basically? The movie starts in traditional British style: awkward, timid and funny.
Cue the zombies. Shaun and his buddy Ed go over to his mum's and they get Stepdad and mum and then they head over to girlfriend and they get Liz and Fuckin' David and his girl Dianne.
They make their way to the winchester and in traditional zombie fashion are trapped in a building surrounded by zombies.
I know a film is good when I start swearing at people in the movie in order to back up the main character. It's one of my many ways of knowing whether I like a movie. And FUCKING DAVID! Damnit dave! I was so endeared to Shaun I wanted David to go jump into a mob of zombies. Thank goodness he does. I was cheering as his innards were pulled apart and the zombies lifted his intestines into the air in all their glory as they carved up his chest and stomach with their rotten hands.
Sorry, if you haven't seen the movie, you don't know what I'm talking about. Basically. There is David. He has a thing for Liz, Shaun's girl. He is in general a prick and a whining nancy boy. I may be harsh in my judgement of him, but this is a zombie movie, there is no room for whining, especially not his bullshit.
And what makes Shaun of the Dead even more golden is the constant referencing it does to other films. Obviously, George Romero's work is referenced heavily, but also things like Invasion of the Body Snatchers and The Evil Dead trilogy. One such reference is to the director of 28 Days Later, who insisted on several occasions that he did not make a "zombie movie". In the film when Ed mentions the word zombie Shaun snaps back "Don't say that!"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Basically, Shaun of the Dead is great. Its got a brilliant sense of black zombie humor combined with timid and self-deprecatingly terrific British humor. People who aren't fans of horror can enjoy Shaun of the Dead.
Except maybe during the disembowelment. I'm not gonna lie, it's pretty brutal.
Fuckin' Dave.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)