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.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
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.
Been out
Been out for awhile, but I'll be getting back into this. Recently saw Shaun of the Dead and Invasion of the Body Snatchers. Will be making posts for those soon.
Friday, July 10, 2009
The Shining
I can sympathize with Jack Nicholson. Were I trapped anywhere with his wife, I would want to kill her too. And I probably wouldn't have lasted as long as he did.
The Shining is a very schizophrenic thriller. It is in constant struggle between two colossal forces. One seeks to make the film utterly moronic and a waste, the other strives to raise it above the bog of stupidity. The Shining is a movie that is only half good. The other half is colossally bad.
Let's start with the good! Fighting for the forces of good (or, in this case I suppose, good horror) is Stanley Kubrick and Jack Nicholson.
Kubrick is an amazing director, and he is one of my favorites. Two of my favorite films, A Clockwork Orange and Dr. Strangelove were directed by him. The camera placement in this film is meticulous, the organization fluid and brilliant. Kubrick, in his time, directed many, many different genres and played them all masterfully (some better than others, I'll admit). What he brought to this horror was his strong knack for interweaving music into the film (the film has some truly chilling "musical" numbers, one's that made me jump slightly without any images to back it up). The cameras are also placed meticulously and the action rises and falls so well that it feels a bit like a rollercoaster.
Of course, being the director and producer, he is, in a way, responsible for EVERYTHING in the film. More on that later, though.
Jack's performance in The Shining is excellent, in a genre where acting is often... overlooked... Jack gives his character (Jack) an incredible energy and believability. That's right! Believability! In a horror film? NO.
BUT IT'S TRUE. Jack Nicholson did it! His character's evolution is brilliant, there never seems to be something quite right about him... and when he truly starts to lose it... BOY DOES HE LOSE IT! The changes in intonation, the movement and energy... it's wonderful to watch. At times, I actually found myself smiling because I was enjoying Jack's performance so much.
HOWEVER. Speaking of performances! ....Wooo-ee! Jack's wife?
uh.
I don't even know, you guys. When the camera would switch from Jack to her... it was as if someone flipped a switch and the lights just went off.
First off, I hate to be mean, but, um, what is with her mouth? I feel like there is something wrong with her mouth? Maybe it's just the way she keeps having it hang open like some neanderthal. And her running? Oh God. When you get to the climactic chase scenes around the end of the movie, and she is running around the house? Watch how she moves. Watch her hands, her head... her legs... HECK, look at any part of her body! IT LOOKS RETARDED. Like someone took a ragdoll, tied a string to its back, and then jerked it up and down while moving it forward, hoping it would resemble some sort of run.
Well, it doesn't.
Remember I was smiling when Jack was on screen? Because I liked his portrayal so much? Well, I was laughing when the wife was on screen... it was because it was retarded. I'm going to be honest, that is how I felt. I'm sorry if its insensitive. But her acting was retarded.
And, besides the wife... the kid? I don't know. I always tend to dislike children in movies who say lots of things. I mean, I can't expect them to be amazing actors. But still, the things that that kid was saying, and the things that that kid was doing? You would laugh too. And then you would cry.
Example? How about that his imaginary friend spoke by the kid lifting his index finger and bending and straigtening it over and over and then talking like he had a sore throat?
Or how about saying "Redrum" over and over again with a sore throat voice?
Yes. Well. That was one thing. That whole "redrum" business. Probably one of the dumbest things I've seen in a horror movie. In case you haven't figured it out yet, it's murder backwards.
Oh? You already figured that out? Well, guess what? NO. It's cryptic! We're gonna make the kid say it as if he's been chain smoking all his life over and over and over and over and over... AAAAAGH.
And. Well. I save this for last. The final force working for the axis of retarded horror movie is... Stephen King.
Folks, the Shining is written by Stephen King. And folks, Stephen King can't write.
And is it just me, or is this starting to sound formulaic? Family moves someplace new... kid thinks there's something bad gonna happen... father goes insane... this sounds a lot like Pet Sematary.
OH. DID I MENTION THE HOTEL THEY ARE STAYING AT IS BUILT OVER AN ANCIENT INDIAN BURIAL GROUND?
It must have slipped my mind.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final words?
Well, the movie is half very good, and half very bad. There were plenty of parts that were just unnecessary... like the parts where the meaning of the title "shining" is revealed... why the little boy needs to be able to listen to buildings is beyond me. And why the hotel needs to be on an ancient indian burial ground is beyond me. And why the wife has to flail about like a fish is beyond me.
But nevertheless... Jack Nicholson's performance is wonderful. And the music used mounts the suspense very well. It is just too bad that that was only half, if not less, of the movie.
what was the scariest part of this movie?
well...
+++++++++++++++++++++++SPOILERS+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
old woman breasts
+++++++++++++++++++++++SPOILERS END+++++++++++++++++++++++++
The Shining is a very schizophrenic thriller. It is in constant struggle between two colossal forces. One seeks to make the film utterly moronic and a waste, the other strives to raise it above the bog of stupidity. The Shining is a movie that is only half good. The other half is colossally bad.
Let's start with the good! Fighting for the forces of good (or, in this case I suppose, good horror) is Stanley Kubrick and Jack Nicholson.
Kubrick is an amazing director, and he is one of my favorites. Two of my favorite films, A Clockwork Orange and Dr. Strangelove were directed by him. The camera placement in this film is meticulous, the organization fluid and brilliant. Kubrick, in his time, directed many, many different genres and played them all masterfully (some better than others, I'll admit). What he brought to this horror was his strong knack for interweaving music into the film (the film has some truly chilling "musical" numbers, one's that made me jump slightly without any images to back it up). The cameras are also placed meticulously and the action rises and falls so well that it feels a bit like a rollercoaster.
Of course, being the director and producer, he is, in a way, responsible for EVERYTHING in the film. More on that later, though.
Jack's performance in The Shining is excellent, in a genre where acting is often... overlooked... Jack gives his character (Jack) an incredible energy and believability. That's right! Believability! In a horror film? NO.
BUT IT'S TRUE. Jack Nicholson did it! His character's evolution is brilliant, there never seems to be something quite right about him... and when he truly starts to lose it... BOY DOES HE LOSE IT! The changes in intonation, the movement and energy... it's wonderful to watch. At times, I actually found myself smiling because I was enjoying Jack's performance so much.
HOWEVER. Speaking of performances! ....Wooo-ee! Jack's wife?
uh.
I don't even know, you guys. When the camera would switch from Jack to her... it was as if someone flipped a switch and the lights just went off.
First off, I hate to be mean, but, um, what is with her mouth? I feel like there is something wrong with her mouth? Maybe it's just the way she keeps having it hang open like some neanderthal. And her running? Oh God. When you get to the climactic chase scenes around the end of the movie, and she is running around the house? Watch how she moves. Watch her hands, her head... her legs... HECK, look at any part of her body! IT LOOKS RETARDED. Like someone took a ragdoll, tied a string to its back, and then jerked it up and down while moving it forward, hoping it would resemble some sort of run.
Well, it doesn't.
Remember I was smiling when Jack was on screen? Because I liked his portrayal so much? Well, I was laughing when the wife was on screen... it was because it was retarded. I'm going to be honest, that is how I felt. I'm sorry if its insensitive. But her acting was retarded.
And, besides the wife... the kid? I don't know. I always tend to dislike children in movies who say lots of things. I mean, I can't expect them to be amazing actors. But still, the things that that kid was saying, and the things that that kid was doing? You would laugh too. And then you would cry.
Example? How about that his imaginary friend spoke by the kid lifting his index finger and bending and straigtening it over and over and then talking like he had a sore throat?
Or how about saying "Redrum" over and over again with a sore throat voice?
Yes. Well. That was one thing. That whole "redrum" business. Probably one of the dumbest things I've seen in a horror movie. In case you haven't figured it out yet, it's murder backwards.
Oh? You already figured that out? Well, guess what? NO. It's cryptic! We're gonna make the kid say it as if he's been chain smoking all his life over and over and over and over and over... AAAAAGH.
And. Well. I save this for last. The final force working for the axis of retarded horror movie is... Stephen King.
Folks, the Shining is written by Stephen King. And folks, Stephen King can't write.
And is it just me, or is this starting to sound formulaic? Family moves someplace new... kid thinks there's something bad gonna happen... father goes insane... this sounds a lot like Pet Sematary.
OH. DID I MENTION THE HOTEL THEY ARE STAYING AT IS BUILT OVER AN ANCIENT INDIAN BURIAL GROUND?
It must have slipped my mind.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final words?
Well, the movie is half very good, and half very bad. There were plenty of parts that were just unnecessary... like the parts where the meaning of the title "shining" is revealed... why the little boy needs to be able to listen to buildings is beyond me. And why the hotel needs to be on an ancient indian burial ground is beyond me. And why the wife has to flail about like a fish is beyond me.
But nevertheless... Jack Nicholson's performance is wonderful. And the music used mounts the suspense very well. It is just too bad that that was only half, if not less, of the movie.
what was the scariest part of this movie?
well...
+++++++++++++++++++++++SPOILERS+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
old woman breasts
+++++++++++++++++++++++SPOILERS END+++++++++++++++++++++++++
Thursday, July 9, 2009
A Tale of Two Sisters
Not many may know this (I didn't) but The Uninvited, a movie that came out in 2009, was based on the plot of a Korean horror film made in 2003 called A Tale of Two Sisters.
I have not seen The Uninvited, and I don't really intend to. Maybe eventually. I have watched A Tale of Two Sisters, and I guess I'll talk about that.
The plot? Well. I don't want to give any away, because the movie doesn't. The movie doesn't give away any major plot element until very, very late in the movie. Viewers will be guessing almost the entire time. While this does give an air of coolness to the final-final-final-final revalation (yes there are four, I'll put them at the bottom so that you can see if you got them all) it does leave the viewer a bit confused. I began to worry that perhaps there was some sort of cultural gap that made me incapable of getting what was going on.
Luckily, this is not so.
To be frank, I guess I wouldn't say the plot is "stellar". It is a pretty basic story. But at the same time, this basic story is what gives it its horrifying feel. A melodrama becomes a horror movie... it wasn't something I was expecting at all. To be honest, I was expecting something a bit grudge-esque as soon as I saw the two girls (and I'll be honest, it channeled The Grudge at times*) but instead what was provided was a disturbing, psychological horrorshow.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(trying not to sound like a hipster) I've always found a psychological impact has always been the redeeming quality of horror movies. When a horror movie fails to make any sort of contact with human psychology, it fails. Zombie movies are the easy ones to pull off. I mean, what has a more obvious psychological message than an apocalypse brought about by us fighting ourselves?
A Tale of Two Sisters finishes with a chilling psychological take on denial and guilt. Better yet, its narration makes us fall prey to the denial... allowing for a shattering disillusionment and horrifying recognition of what exactly has happened.
And finally. The music. Great music. I loved the music. The music is good. The direction is good. The scenery in the opening and end is beautiful.
*note, I'm not saying The Grudge is a great movie, but when I think of certain kinds of methods of frightening the viewer, I think of The Grudge, simply due to the sheer volume of it that was in The Grudge
+++++++++++++++++SPOILERS+++++++++++++++++++++++
Alright! Well. As far as I can tell, the four revelations are...!
ONE. That the sister is dead
TWO. Su-mi turns out to be the one doing all this freaky shit
THREE. The explanation of the closet
FOUR. The meaning of the phrase "You'll regret this moment" (important because of the major part guilt plays in this movie)
And, as long as I'm in the spoiler zone... I'd just like to reiterate how well this movie was narrated. It begins with serenity, calm and sisterly love. You immediately become attached to the two girls, you want to take care of Su-yeon... you hate the stepmother, you really believe that she is to blame (even though you know nothing of why!)
Then, as the denial thickens, you hate her more. It's all obvious, she's doing this! Why can't anyone understand!
Then as everything begins to unravel you scramble to find the truth.
Then you are left with the reality and are able to look back at what Su-mi is thinking, you can even empathize because you fell for the denial too...
+++++++++++++++++++++SPOILERS END+++++++++++++++
anyway. I liked it.
I have not seen The Uninvited, and I don't really intend to. Maybe eventually. I have watched A Tale of Two Sisters, and I guess I'll talk about that.
The plot? Well. I don't want to give any away, because the movie doesn't. The movie doesn't give away any major plot element until very, very late in the movie. Viewers will be guessing almost the entire time. While this does give an air of coolness to the final-final-final-final revalation (yes there are four, I'll put them at the bottom so that you can see if you got them all) it does leave the viewer a bit confused. I began to worry that perhaps there was some sort of cultural gap that made me incapable of getting what was going on.
Luckily, this is not so.
To be frank, I guess I wouldn't say the plot is "stellar". It is a pretty basic story. But at the same time, this basic story is what gives it its horrifying feel. A melodrama becomes a horror movie... it wasn't something I was expecting at all. To be honest, I was expecting something a bit grudge-esque as soon as I saw the two girls (and I'll be honest, it channeled The Grudge at times*) but instead what was provided was a disturbing, psychological horrorshow.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(trying not to sound like a hipster) I've always found a psychological impact has always been the redeeming quality of horror movies. When a horror movie fails to make any sort of contact with human psychology, it fails. Zombie movies are the easy ones to pull off. I mean, what has a more obvious psychological message than an apocalypse brought about by us fighting ourselves?
A Tale of Two Sisters finishes with a chilling psychological take on denial and guilt. Better yet, its narration makes us fall prey to the denial... allowing for a shattering disillusionment and horrifying recognition of what exactly has happened.
And finally. The music. Great music. I loved the music. The music is good. The direction is good. The scenery in the opening and end is beautiful.
*note, I'm not saying The Grudge is a great movie, but when I think of certain kinds of methods of frightening the viewer, I think of The Grudge, simply due to the sheer volume of it that was in The Grudge
+++++++++++++++++SPOILERS+++++++++++++++++++++++
Alright! Well. As far as I can tell, the four revelations are...!
ONE. That the sister is dead
TWO. Su-mi turns out to be the one doing all this freaky shit
THREE. The explanation of the closet
FOUR. The meaning of the phrase "You'll regret this moment" (important because of the major part guilt plays in this movie)
And, as long as I'm in the spoiler zone... I'd just like to reiterate how well this movie was narrated. It begins with serenity, calm and sisterly love. You immediately become attached to the two girls, you want to take care of Su-yeon... you hate the stepmother, you really believe that she is to blame (even though you know nothing of why!)
Then, as the denial thickens, you hate her more. It's all obvious, she's doing this! Why can't anyone understand!
Then as everything begins to unravel you scramble to find the truth.
Then you are left with the reality and are able to look back at what Su-mi is thinking, you can even empathize because you fell for the denial too...
+++++++++++++++++++++SPOILERS END+++++++++++++++
anyway. I liked it.
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
The Last Man on Earth
Another oldie this time, this time even older. 1964, the black and white in the movie Last Man on Earth is almost as grainy and scratchy as they come. Based off of the book I am Legend, it is truer to the novel than the new film "I am Legend" that came out in 2007, which is a good thing. The plot of this oldie is more compelling, but the direction, production and acting of the new version is far superior.
It possesses all of the charm of an old movie, and by no means is it a bad film. The plot is wonderful and dark, and doesn't end with the seemingly forced highnote that "I am Legend" the movie ended with. Both start the same, a scientist who is the last man on earth who kills the living dead one by one by day and battles with the incredible loneliness of being the only human in existence. No offence old movie, but Bruce Willis did this better. Not only that, but in the oldie we learn about the main character's entire past in one super huge flashback. One. The new one at least has the sense to parse them out over the film, keeping the viewer interested by making it more puzzle-like, and this also manages not to break the narrative flow as much as a nearly thirty minute long flashback did. The production technology and budget of "I am Legend" probably helped too.
But where the movie shines is the dark message it gives. It stays on message the whole way through and doesn't muddle about. Robert Morgan really is the sole human being in "The Last Man on Earth". In "I am Legend", introducing other human beings seemed like a cop-out, a shot at a happy ending, a sudden derailment of the chilling and lonely message the film was giving. Not only that, but in "I am Legend", there is never a particularly good reason why Morgan is a legend. It says its because he found a vaccine and everyone knows him for it, but again, it feels like a bit of a cop-out. In TLMOE, Morgan is a legend amongst the undead community, regarded with fear for being a "day hunter", someone who had slain countless undead. What do I think of when I think legend? Do I think of a man who made a vaccine? Or do I think of the guy who slayed the undead?
I'm gonna go with 2 on this one.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Last Man on Earth is a more chilling, darker retelling of the book I am Legend. Its acting is sup-optimal and its direction, I have to say, is a bit uninspired. One of the things that nagged at me was how lazily the camera was placed most of the time. At certain moments, I couldn't tell what the film wanted me to look at, because the camera wasn't very centered on it, it just lazily hung in the vicinity.
Scary? Ha, no. I didn't expect it to be scary, but in case you might think it would be... it isn't. The undead in this movie are the most pathetic things I have ever seen. No horror movie has had zombies that are more of pushovers.
But if you want a good story and you can bare a bit of laziness in direction, and don't want to read the book, then watch The Last Man on Earth. It's in the public domain, so you can go ahead and just download it free.
It possesses all of the charm of an old movie, and by no means is it a bad film. The plot is wonderful and dark, and doesn't end with the seemingly forced highnote that "I am Legend" the movie ended with. Both start the same, a scientist who is the last man on earth who kills the living dead one by one by day and battles with the incredible loneliness of being the only human in existence. No offence old movie, but Bruce Willis did this better. Not only that, but in the oldie we learn about the main character's entire past in one super huge flashback. One. The new one at least has the sense to parse them out over the film, keeping the viewer interested by making it more puzzle-like, and this also manages not to break the narrative flow as much as a nearly thirty minute long flashback did. The production technology and budget of "I am Legend" probably helped too.
But where the movie shines is the dark message it gives. It stays on message the whole way through and doesn't muddle about. Robert Morgan really is the sole human being in "The Last Man on Earth". In "I am Legend", introducing other human beings seemed like a cop-out, a shot at a happy ending, a sudden derailment of the chilling and lonely message the film was giving. Not only that, but in "I am Legend", there is never a particularly good reason why Morgan is a legend. It says its because he found a vaccine and everyone knows him for it, but again, it feels like a bit of a cop-out. In TLMOE, Morgan is a legend amongst the undead community, regarded with fear for being a "day hunter", someone who had slain countless undead. What do I think of when I think legend? Do I think of a man who made a vaccine? Or do I think of the guy who slayed the undead?
I'm gonna go with 2 on this one.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Last Man on Earth is a more chilling, darker retelling of the book I am Legend. Its acting is sup-optimal and its direction, I have to say, is a bit uninspired. One of the things that nagged at me was how lazily the camera was placed most of the time. At certain moments, I couldn't tell what the film wanted me to look at, because the camera wasn't very centered on it, it just lazily hung in the vicinity.
Scary? Ha, no. I didn't expect it to be scary, but in case you might think it would be... it isn't. The undead in this movie are the most pathetic things I have ever seen. No horror movie has had zombies that are more of pushovers.
But if you want a good story and you can bare a bit of laziness in direction, and don't want to read the book, then watch The Last Man on Earth. It's in the public domain, so you can go ahead and just download it free.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Eraserhead
Hoo! This is a tough one to tackle.
Eraserhead is an oldie. Black and white, released in 1977, its cast was composed of a bunch of no-names and directed by David Lynch, a man who, at the time, was a complete unknown to the film industry. He later went on to film The Elephant Man and Blue Velvet and was even asked by George Lucas to co-direct Star Wars: Return of the Jedi (which he refused)
Eraserhead is a cult classic, and unsurprisingly so! It's a weird, disturbing, artistic flick. What is real and isn't is never clear, and it can't even be said that anything that happens in this film is real. Rather, it stays eerily in the realms of the surreal and unreal.
So. Eraserhead. There isn't much I'll say because it really is a film you have to experience yourself, but there are a few warnings to be made first.
As I said, this is an old film. The special effects aren't stellar. The very opening to the film will no doubt produce a few laughs. It begins with Henry, the protagonist of the story, moving about sideways on the screen as if he was being dragged by computer-mouse from corner to corner. Behind him (or in front of him?) is a strange sphere (planet? animal? golf ball?).
My reaction to the first scene was silent laughter, it looked ridiculous. I was worried that the rest of this film, a film so revered by some, had lost its disturbing quality to time, it had become outdated and ridiculous.
Nope.
As the film continued, I found myself getting more and more engrossed into what was happening.
I could say much more about what was so compelling about this film, but I'll only list two.
One was the use of sound. Throughout the film there is background noise. Industrial grinding, doors creaking, a radiator hissing... the listener can never find a peaceful, quiet moment. It keeps you uneasy, it makes everything more sinister.
It changes too. As soon as the sound has fell into the background, where you no longer notice it, it begins to change, re-emerges into your consciousness where you can't get it out.
And at the very end... when the sound simply stops...
Two was how uncomfortable the film made me. I didn't cringe out of horror, I cringed out of how much I wanted everything to stop. I didn't stop watching, I forgot that I was watching a film, I simply wanted everything to stop, to go to normal, for the sound to fade away and for everything that was happening to dissapear.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What do I say about a film like Eraserhead? Is it a good watch? Yes... of a sort. Would I recommend watching it? Absolutely.
The acting, I'll admit, isn't incredible, yet somehow even that seems intentional, it adds to the uneasiness, awkwardness of the film. It makes you cringe even more.
If you can get over the special effects, then Eraserhead is an incredible movie. It is an experience to watch, an experience that you are probably better off not having. But have it anyway! It's wicked cool.
Eraserhead is an oldie. Black and white, released in 1977, its cast was composed of a bunch of no-names and directed by David Lynch, a man who, at the time, was a complete unknown to the film industry. He later went on to film The Elephant Man and Blue Velvet and was even asked by George Lucas to co-direct Star Wars: Return of the Jedi (which he refused)
Eraserhead is a cult classic, and unsurprisingly so! It's a weird, disturbing, artistic flick. What is real and isn't is never clear, and it can't even be said that anything that happens in this film is real. Rather, it stays eerily in the realms of the surreal and unreal.
So. Eraserhead. There isn't much I'll say because it really is a film you have to experience yourself, but there are a few warnings to be made first.
As I said, this is an old film. The special effects aren't stellar. The very opening to the film will no doubt produce a few laughs. It begins with Henry, the protagonist of the story, moving about sideways on the screen as if he was being dragged by computer-mouse from corner to corner. Behind him (or in front of him?) is a strange sphere (planet? animal? golf ball?).
My reaction to the first scene was silent laughter, it looked ridiculous. I was worried that the rest of this film, a film so revered by some, had lost its disturbing quality to time, it had become outdated and ridiculous.
Nope.
As the film continued, I found myself getting more and more engrossed into what was happening.
I could say much more about what was so compelling about this film, but I'll only list two.
One was the use of sound. Throughout the film there is background noise. Industrial grinding, doors creaking, a radiator hissing... the listener can never find a peaceful, quiet moment. It keeps you uneasy, it makes everything more sinister.
It changes too. As soon as the sound has fell into the background, where you no longer notice it, it begins to change, re-emerges into your consciousness where you can't get it out.
And at the very end... when the sound simply stops...
Two was how uncomfortable the film made me. I didn't cringe out of horror, I cringed out of how much I wanted everything to stop. I didn't stop watching, I forgot that I was watching a film, I simply wanted everything to stop, to go to normal, for the sound to fade away and for everything that was happening to dissapear.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What do I say about a film like Eraserhead? Is it a good watch? Yes... of a sort. Would I recommend watching it? Absolutely.
The acting, I'll admit, isn't incredible, yet somehow even that seems intentional, it adds to the uneasiness, awkwardness of the film. It makes you cringe even more.
If you can get over the special effects, then Eraserhead is an incredible movie. It is an experience to watch, an experience that you are probably better off not having. But have it anyway! It's wicked cool.
Monday, July 6, 2009
Pet Sematary
Let me get this out right now. I don't like Stephen King. I don't like his books and I don't like his movies. Other than "The Shining" (which benefits from the direction of Stanley Kubrick) "It" was the closest I ever came to liking a Stephen King movie, and even then it still seemed incredibly, incredibly stupid.
And that's the miracle! I LOVE stupid horror movies! Yet somehow, King manages to find a way to make bad horror movies that are just bad. There's nothing in them. There isn't even the satisfaction of a bad horror movie.
So. With that out of the way. Allow me to describe to you "Pet Sematary"
...
It starts out as a very traditional Stephen King movie. There is a happy group of people (in this case a family), who move someplace new. Trucks drive very very fast on the road. Because of this lots of pets die. The plot reveals itself like a children's book.
The movie starts out strong by giving away it's own ending. The little boy of the family is, at the very start of the movie, ALMOST ran over by a truck. But don't worry! He isn't! There's just very fast traffic nearby! So much so that lots of pets die! So much so that they have their own cemetary just for pets! Obviously, nothing will be run over in this movie.
By the way, I might add that the cemetary has its own path leading to it that STARTS AT THE HOUSE THE FAMILY JUST MOVED INTO.
Well, okay. I mean, no surprise there. The title is "pet sematary", of course the cemetary must be involved somehow!
Wwwwwell.... actually. No. It isn't really.
No I'm not joking.
The only purpose the pet cemetary serves, as far as I can make out, is Stephen King telling us we have to accept death. Seriously.
Other than that, it isn't a plot device. So don't worry. No zombie cats.
OH WAIT. What am I talking about?! There ARE zombie cats!
SO GUESS WHAT. Beyond the pet cemetary is an ANCIENT INDIAN BURIAL GROUND. The family cat is run over and the neighbor nearby takes the father of the new family beyond the pet cemetary to this ancient indian burial ground and instructs him to bury the cat there for no given reason!!!! It's in the shape of a pentagram!! And the father does as he's told!!! Why?
I have no f***ing clue.
So yeah. The cat comes back to life. And honestly, I cannot tell you how many times the movie chose to "surprise" us with that goddamn cat. While watching, you may ask yourself... is the suspense beginning to build? Is the camera claustrophobic? Does it feel like something is about to happen?
Well. 9 times out of 10, it will probably be the cat. The zombie cat.
Now of course. I told you the kid dies. And the father is TORMENTED. And I guess he goes crazy? And decides to ressurect his son at the ancient indian burial ground shaped like a pentagram that everyone says brings people back to life as demons.
But the dad's gonna do it anyway!
Git' er done! Dad!
...
Everything goes wrong.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is this a good movie? No.
Is this a good bad movie? No.
Honestly, it just felt bad. It made you feel bad watching it. It was like the movie was trying to tell me something but the message was so dumb I just wanted everyone to shut up. Do we need to be taught that we need to "accept death"? More importantly, do we need horror movies to teach us things? Maybe that we are horrible, or maybe that blood is red, I don't think it goes much further. This movie bored me so much that I PLAYED SUDOKU through 3/4 of it.
Plot is mere triviality. The holes are disturbingly large, even for a horror movie. Character motivations are stupid. Really. They are stupid. Everyone in this movie is just stupid.
However. There is one thing that honestly brought me some enjoyment. One line that was spoken. When I heard it, I wrote it down immediately.
Here it is:
"Today is Thanksgiving day for cats... but only if they came back from the DEAD"
Otherwise, it's unenjoyable. It's not silly, it's not scary, it's stupid and you should watch something else.
-Oh, and I will mention that Fred Gwynne is in this movie, the actor for Herman Munster. He was the only enjoyable part. (other than Thanksgiving for cats)
And that's the miracle! I LOVE stupid horror movies! Yet somehow, King manages to find a way to make bad horror movies that are just bad. There's nothing in them. There isn't even the satisfaction of a bad horror movie.
So. With that out of the way. Allow me to describe to you "Pet Sematary"
...
It starts out as a very traditional Stephen King movie. There is a happy group of people (in this case a family), who move someplace new. Trucks drive very very fast on the road. Because of this lots of pets die. The plot reveals itself like a children's book.
The movie starts out strong by giving away it's own ending. The little boy of the family is, at the very start of the movie, ALMOST ran over by a truck. But don't worry! He isn't! There's just very fast traffic nearby! So much so that lots of pets die! So much so that they have their own cemetary just for pets! Obviously, nothing will be run over in this movie.
By the way, I might add that the cemetary has its own path leading to it that STARTS AT THE HOUSE THE FAMILY JUST MOVED INTO.
Well, okay. I mean, no surprise there. The title is "pet sematary", of course the cemetary must be involved somehow!
Wwwwwell.... actually. No. It isn't really.
No I'm not joking.
The only purpose the pet cemetary serves, as far as I can make out, is Stephen King telling us we have to accept death. Seriously.
Other than that, it isn't a plot device. So don't worry. No zombie cats.
OH WAIT. What am I talking about?! There ARE zombie cats!
SO GUESS WHAT. Beyond the pet cemetary is an ANCIENT INDIAN BURIAL GROUND. The family cat is run over and the neighbor nearby takes the father of the new family beyond the pet cemetary to this ancient indian burial ground and instructs him to bury the cat there for no given reason!!!! It's in the shape of a pentagram!! And the father does as he's told!!! Why?
I have no f***ing clue.
So yeah. The cat comes back to life. And honestly, I cannot tell you how many times the movie chose to "surprise" us with that goddamn cat. While watching, you may ask yourself... is the suspense beginning to build? Is the camera claustrophobic? Does it feel like something is about to happen?
Well. 9 times out of 10, it will probably be the cat. The zombie cat.
Now of course. I told you the kid dies. And the father is TORMENTED. And I guess he goes crazy? And decides to ressurect his son at the ancient indian burial ground shaped like a pentagram that everyone says brings people back to life as demons.
But the dad's gonna do it anyway!
Git' er done! Dad!
...
Everything goes wrong.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is this a good movie? No.
Is this a good bad movie? No.
Honestly, it just felt bad. It made you feel bad watching it. It was like the movie was trying to tell me something but the message was so dumb I just wanted everyone to shut up. Do we need to be taught that we need to "accept death"? More importantly, do we need horror movies to teach us things? Maybe that we are horrible, or maybe that blood is red, I don't think it goes much further. This movie bored me so much that I PLAYED SUDOKU through 3/4 of it.
Plot is mere triviality. The holes are disturbingly large, even for a horror movie. Character motivations are stupid. Really. They are stupid. Everyone in this movie is just stupid.
However. There is one thing that honestly brought me some enjoyment. One line that was spoken. When I heard it, I wrote it down immediately.
Here it is:
"Today is Thanksgiving day for cats... but only if they came back from the DEAD"
Otherwise, it's unenjoyable. It's not silly, it's not scary, it's stupid and you should watch something else.
-Oh, and I will mention that Fred Gwynne is in this movie, the actor for Herman Munster. He was the only enjoyable part. (other than Thanksgiving for cats)
Sunday, July 5, 2009
Event Horizon
Those of you familiar with "Doom" (the game, not the movie) will probably already be very well acquainted with the plot of Event Horizon, a sci-fi horror movie set in the year 2047.
Laurence Fishburne, better known as Morpheus in the Matrix series, stars this movie alongside Sam Neil of Jurassic Park fame. The premise is as follows: 2040, a "research" vessel named the "Event Horizon" goes over to the far side of Neptune then dissapears. 7 years later it reappears and a search and rescue ship named the "Lewis and Clark" is sent off to go find it. With them is the scientist who designed the Event Horizon, "Dr. Weir" (Sam Neil). Captain of the ship is Morphe- I mean Captain Miller.
And cue the horror...
They arrive at the Event Horizon and the life signs are "strange" and "everywhere".
...
The good doctor explains to the crew that the Event Horizon was designed to warp space time, to defy physics.
...
This is something I love about sci-fi horror. You know, in reality, I'm sure when scientists say things everyone is like "oh that is very smart" and "yes mhm let us forward humanity's progress". But in sci-fi horror, when a scientist says that they designed a ship to "break the laws of physics" the viewer really can't help but want to slap them in the face and contemplate in terror what sick, demented horrors he has inadvertently and very scientifically released into this world. I mean really. Coming from your mouth, that sounds like a RETARDED idea.
Anyway. Morpheus is quick to ask what these explosive are doing on the ship. The good doctor explains that the explosives are there in case of emergency. If the engine malfunctions (or releases horrible nightmarish monstrosities) these explosives can be detonated to seperate the engine from the forward command, making a "life raft".
...
Do you think they will use this in the movie?
Blood is found...
One poor crew member is investigating the engine area, a room that looks better suited for elaborate torture then ship propulsion, and suddenly... the engine activates... the engine that WARPS SPACE TIME.
Suffice to say, shit hits the fan, the poor bloke is sucked into the WARPED SPACE TIME, the Lewis and Clark is severely damaged and everyone is really freaked out.
The bloke is then spat back out of the portal, his life signs are normal but he doesn't respond to any stimuli.
So, of course, something unexplainable just happened. Let's ask the guy who made the ship to see what happened!
Now, so far, the movie has been dropping fairly non-subtle hints that the good doctor is not exactly that good. As in, he is not quite right in the head. Something about some lady... she has no eyes... blood... she wants him to be with her... at this point you have no real clue, and you never really will. Upon being questioned as to what is wrong, the doctor says "nothing".
...
So everyone continues on their way. The Lewis and Clark needs repairs and stuff so everyone is trapped on the Event Horizon with the engine that DEFIES PHYSICS.
I won't go too much farther into the movie's plot, but what follows is a surprisingly unnerving montage of hellish hallucinations of different crew members as everything descends into chaos.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Event Horizon is an interesting movie. It manages to unnerve the viewer by postponing the "monster reveal" for a very long time. The hallucinations and paranoia of the crew make for great psychological unneasiness and when finally the true horror is revealed the viewer can't help but think how cool it is. At least, I thought it was cool.
Is it scary? Yes. The scariest? No. The movie does seem to use the "claustrophobia camera" a lot, used in order to make the viewer think something will jump out at them any moment. And something always does. There are many sudden "jump" moments, but I feel there are almost too many, so many that during one of the moments that was clearly supposed to be one of the most terrifying (when the good doctor is in a glowing green corridor where the lights go on and off repeatedly) fell a little flat. The psychological horror is good but the viewer is distracted by all these "shock" moments and so much of the effect is lost.
Nevertheless, Event Horizon is a very cool sci-fi horror movie that does a good job mounting the suspense.
Laurence Fishburne, better known as Morpheus in the Matrix series, stars this movie alongside Sam Neil of Jurassic Park fame. The premise is as follows: 2040, a "research" vessel named the "Event Horizon" goes over to the far side of Neptune then dissapears. 7 years later it reappears and a search and rescue ship named the "Lewis and Clark" is sent off to go find it. With them is the scientist who designed the Event Horizon, "Dr. Weir" (Sam Neil). Captain of the ship is Morphe- I mean Captain Miller.
And cue the horror...
They arrive at the Event Horizon and the life signs are "strange" and "everywhere".
...
The good doctor explains to the crew that the Event Horizon was designed to warp space time, to defy physics.
...
This is something I love about sci-fi horror. You know, in reality, I'm sure when scientists say things everyone is like "oh that is very smart" and "yes mhm let us forward humanity's progress". But in sci-fi horror, when a scientist says that they designed a ship to "break the laws of physics" the viewer really can't help but want to slap them in the face and contemplate in terror what sick, demented horrors he has inadvertently and very scientifically released into this world. I mean really. Coming from your mouth, that sounds like a RETARDED idea.
Anyway. Morpheus is quick to ask what these explosive are doing on the ship. The good doctor explains that the explosives are there in case of emergency. If the engine malfunctions (or releases horrible nightmarish monstrosities) these explosives can be detonated to seperate the engine from the forward command, making a "life raft".
...
Do you think they will use this in the movie?
Blood is found...
One poor crew member is investigating the engine area, a room that looks better suited for elaborate torture then ship propulsion, and suddenly... the engine activates... the engine that WARPS SPACE TIME.
Suffice to say, shit hits the fan, the poor bloke is sucked into the WARPED SPACE TIME, the Lewis and Clark is severely damaged and everyone is really freaked out.
The bloke is then spat back out of the portal, his life signs are normal but he doesn't respond to any stimuli.
So, of course, something unexplainable just happened. Let's ask the guy who made the ship to see what happened!
Now, so far, the movie has been dropping fairly non-subtle hints that the good doctor is not exactly that good. As in, he is not quite right in the head. Something about some lady... she has no eyes... blood... she wants him to be with her... at this point you have no real clue, and you never really will. Upon being questioned as to what is wrong, the doctor says "nothing".
...
So everyone continues on their way. The Lewis and Clark needs repairs and stuff so everyone is trapped on the Event Horizon with the engine that DEFIES PHYSICS.
I won't go too much farther into the movie's plot, but what follows is a surprisingly unnerving montage of hellish hallucinations of different crew members as everything descends into chaos.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Event Horizon is an interesting movie. It manages to unnerve the viewer by postponing the "monster reveal" for a very long time. The hallucinations and paranoia of the crew make for great psychological unneasiness and when finally the true horror is revealed the viewer can't help but think how cool it is. At least, I thought it was cool.
Is it scary? Yes. The scariest? No. The movie does seem to use the "claustrophobia camera" a lot, used in order to make the viewer think something will jump out at them any moment. And something always does. There are many sudden "jump" moments, but I feel there are almost too many, so many that during one of the moments that was clearly supposed to be one of the most terrifying (when the good doctor is in a glowing green corridor where the lights go on and off repeatedly) fell a little flat. The psychological horror is good but the viewer is distracted by all these "shock" moments and so much of the effect is lost.
Nevertheless, Event Horizon is a very cool sci-fi horror movie that does a good job mounting the suspense.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)