Posted by admin | 2 Comments

The House of the Devil- Review

reviewed by Danny
directed by Ti West, 2009
_____________________

Ti West’s camera is smarter than his characters.  Note how, when young Samantha, desperately in need of money for a new apartment, walks past a job-postings board,  the camera stays behind and allows Samantha to move off-screen as it zooms in on the “Babysitter Needed” posting.  It is only the first sign of how sharp the camera is and of just how much dramatic irony West is going to filter this classic horror story through.  Later, the camera will show us a room full of bloody corpses that Samantha won’t find out about until it is way too late.  It is commonplace in a horror film for the audience to be at least slightly more aware of the danger than the protagonist, but in the case of The House of the Devil, we are not only aware that the characters are in a horror film, we know exactly what kind of horror film it is.  And, we know it is going to end badly.

After the creepiest hire in the history of horror films, Samantha has the job and finds herself alone in a large house while the “parents” go off to watch a rare lunar eclipse.  As aware viewers, we know that there is a significance to the lunar eclipse, we know that Tom Noonan is more than a bit creepy, and we know that the best friend that dropped her off isn’t going to be coming back to pick her up.  Samantha only comes by these realizations slowly, and the film allows her to gradually become aware of her situations, to gradually grow more and more tense, and, finally, to become afraid.  The lyrical pacing lets the viewer progress with Samantha, even though we know where the road leads.  In the end, we are frightened for her and with her.

Part of the fallout from the recent success of the “torture porn” sub-genre (Hostel, the Saw films) is that many critics and horror-film lovers are waxing nostalgic for the days when “less was more.”  It is easy to find articles and forum posts discussing how much better horror films were when they chose not to show the viewer every grisly detail.  Well, here is a film for those horror fans.  The House of the Devil is set in the 1980s, but its influences are much older.  Its subject matter is straight out of the 1970s, but its tool set is older still.  Think Val Lewton or Todd Browning or, closer to the period and subject, Rosemary’s Baby.  Up until the absolute crisis moment when Samantha is actually in the hands of those wanting to sacrifice her, West avoids slamming down the gas pedal.  The film stays on cruise control.  Sure, her friend is killed violently on-screen, but the whole scene is less than a minute long.  We see the bodies of the family that really lived in the creepy house, but only for just long enough for us to realize what we are seeing.  The rest of the time we are treated to Samantha wandering about the house, slowly noticing that things aren’t right.  Then, the killers come for her and the film explodes.

Those late scenes where Samantha is fighting for her life, showing toughness and awareness we weren’t prepared for, are gripping.  It has been a long time since I rooted for a horror-film protagonist the way I rooted for Samantha.  Her encounter with the devil/demon is agonizing mostly because we have taken the journey with her and not been pulled out by constant beheadings, slashing of Achilles’ tendons, or buckets of blood.

If the film had ended after the encounter with the devil and his cult, The House of the Devil would easily move in to my short list of must-see horror films.  It doesn’t.  There is an unsatisfying epilogue clearly inspired by the classic films that the film references throughout.  The problem is that those denouements were often the weakest part of the classic films and the same is true here.  Still, even with an ending I could have done without, The House of the Devil is the best new horror film I’ve seen since Let the Right One In, and I recommend it without hesitation to film fans looking for a more lyrical and patient horror film.

Read More

Posted by admin | 0 Comments

Grace – Review

reviewed by Danny
directed by Paul Solet, 2009
_________________________

Grace is the story of a mother who after the baby she is carrying dies late in the pregnancy decides to carry the infant to term and go through with the birth. After the child is born, the midwife leaves the room to give the mother some time with her child. She returns and finds the mother nursing the now-living baby. The rest of the film follows the mother and child as the already unnatural situation devolves into the grotesque. It is a slow film about a painful subject, and it can be a chore to watch. However, unlike so many low-budget horror films that aim no higher than shock and awe, Grace seems to have something to say. Unfortunately, it message is muddled and obscured by unnecessary plot elements and poor execution.

The first thing we notice about Madeline is that after two reported miscarriages, she has embraced alternative health. She is a vegan, a fact that might exist solely as a juxtaposition for her later decidedly carnivorous acts. More importantly, she has decided to forgo the hospital and have a midwife (who happens to be her ex-professor and happens to be in love with her) deliver the child. Though we see this kind of reflexive denial of science in many people who feel the medical establishment has failed them, the cynic in me can’t help but think that the midwife subplot exists solely to have the birth happen out of the way of all those pesky eyeballs and vital-sign monitors of a hospital birthing room. Even if it is sincere, the film does midwifery no public relations favors, certainly. I kind of got the idea that this exchange happened at some point before the events of the film:

Madeline: “Guess what? I’m pregnant!”

Patricia: “Hey, I’ve got a hot tub and some forceps. You should have the baby at my house!”

Soon after getting the child home, Madeline discovers that it isn’t mother’s milk that Grace craves. Only blood will satisfy the baby’s hunger. At first, Madeline gathers the blood by milking it out of raw meat she gets at the grocery. I’ve read of some vegans who interpret the film as an attack on their lifestyle. I can’t be sure of the director’s attitude toward vegans but the images of the freshly drained meat and filthy Styrofoam packaging on the kitchen counter didn’t have me craving a hamburger.

Of course, as tends to happen in horror films, things quickly get worse. Turns out, Grace doesn’t really thrive unless the blood is fresh, very fresh. This leads to scenes where Madeline sacrifices first the evil doctor hired by her mother-in-law (I say evil because he seems to have an antique breast-pump fetish, and that has to come from a dark place)and then the mother-in-law herself.

The film ends with a fairly shocking image of a mauled breast, the result of Grace moving from fresh blood to raw meat. Kids advance quickly these days. Until that shot, the film is not particularly gory. The director seems to be going for a disquieting tone and any over-the-top gore early on would certainly have spoiled that. He makes good use of long, lingering shots of inanimate objects in the David Lynch style. Leave the camera on anything long enough (say a glass of unstrained wheatgrass juice) and it can become gross and scary. With that in mind, I’m not sure if the film-ending money-shot is necessary, but as final images go, it is pretty effective.

Those lingering shots and the film’s lyrical pacing lead me to believe that the surface plot isn’t all the film has going for it. Everything about the film screams that it needs to be read symbolically rather than literally. Unfortunately, I’m not sure that the message comes across clearly. My instincts say that it isn’t about the loss of a child but is, instead, about how having children changes a person. Madeline will do anything for Grace, including violating not only society’s laws but her own moral code. She goes from normal, loving mom to multiple murderer in the course of a few weeks. It reminds me of the conversations that are so prevalent after some heinous crime against a child has made the national news. I hear parent after parent say something like “If that were my child, I’d kill the guy.” Though that is usually just bravado, Grace presents us with the possibility that our moral code is malleable when it comes to protecting our children.

Truly, I can’t speak with any certainty to the message of the film. I can say, though, that, despite its weaknesses and absurdities, Grace rises above the camp and exploitation of a film like It’s Alive, which takes on a similar story in a much more garish way. If the summary elements above interest you at all, the film is worth watching. If you find the whole concept off-putting, I’m afraid there isn’t enough of quality within the film to make it worthwhile.

Read More

Posted by Hallo | 0 Comments

The Funhouse – Review

reviewed by Hallo
directed by Tobe Hooper, 1981
____________________

Atmosphere.  Successful horror films, those movies that keep fans coming back for more, are built on the groundwork of atmosphere.  If the perfect plot, perfect dialogue, perfect acting, and perfect scares are not placed in the context of a film that “feels” right, then those elements lose a grand portion of their punch.  This is what sets great directors apart from good directors; knowing how to get that right feel to a movie.  I can reflect over some of my favorite movies from different genres and there is usually one or two scenes that define the feel of  the movie as a whole and weaves all the other elements inside that atmospheric universe.  John Carpenter’s 1978 Halloween is my favorite horror film.  Horror fans might be surprised to know that my favorite scene is not the tilting of Myer’s head after nailing Bob to the wall with his knife.  It’s not the classic chase scene between Laurie and Myers.  It’s not even the memorable speech by Dr. Loomis (from which this review site is named).  All of those are incredible moments in horror.  But they connect so perfectly because of the simple scene where Laurie Strode sits on her street corner waiting for Annie to pick her up.  While there, Carpenter takes just enough time, not too much and not too little, to allow Laurie to gaze across the subdivision and watch trick-or-treaters do their thing.  Without that scene – the establishment of the atmosphere – Halloween would not be near the movie it is.  Thus, the mastery of proper atmosphere in a horror film can make what would otherwise be a mediocre movie into something special.  The absence of it can make what would otherwise be a terrific movie only average.

With that, I turn my attention to The Funhouse.  Director Tobe Hooper, who taught the horror world a thing or two about atmosphere with his classic The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (which is why all the remakes are not near the movie the original is), turns a simple, unimpressive horror plot into one of my favorite films all because of the feel of the movie.

Amy Harper (Elizabeth Berridge, best known for playing the wife of Mozart in Amadeus) is a typical teenage girl with a good heart but a desire to experience life beyond the stale, comfortable home in which she seems trapped.  The cure for that disease is a rebel, an older man in her life named Buzz, with whom Amy’s parent’s are not thrilled.  Despite her parent’s admonition to stay away from the local carnival because of ill reports, Buzz convinces Amy to check it out anyway.  They, along with another couple, set out for the carnival.  Once they arrive, the atmosphere begins to pile up in ways that can only be experienced by watching, not by writing.  Marco the Magnificent, an alcoholic magician, performs a spectacular trick with his assistant while recounting the history of Vlad the Impaler.  It is probably the best 20 second history of Dracula ever to be recorded.  Hooper masterfully captures the sights, sounds, and smells of a traveling carnival with all the rides, games, and sideshows.  But it is actor Kevin Conway who receives the top award.  In addition to the playing the main antagonist who operates the Funhouse, Conway also performs the roles of all the barkers for the attractions we meet at the carnival.  So, he is the guy standing outside the two-headed cow attraction barking “Alive, Alive, Alive.  There are creatures of God, not man!”  He stands outside the Funhouse, luring people into the haunted attraction.  And he stands outside the pseudo-strip club tent, urging guys to come check out the girls.  In all three of these scenarios, Amy is captivated by the barker for some reason.  And all three times, the barker makes eye contact with Amy in ways that is just downright creepy.  There is nothing special about it, but it makes the movie feel right.  The best part of the film comes when Amy is standing outside the stripclub tent and is listening the barker.  He is saying, “they wiggle and they dance.”  At one point, he catches the eyes of Amy and in what is just the most amazing scene, lets out one more the time the line, “they wiggle and they dance” while starring at her.  It is incredible.  How Hooper knew to include what seems like the most ridiculous line and scenario in his movie is a mystery, but it properly sets up everything else that happens in the film.

So, the group gets the wild idea to spend the night inside the Funhouse.  They take a ride on the attraction only to ditch out of the car halfway through.  Once inside, they start doing what teenagers do when the lights go out.  But, they are distracted by the shenanigans of the guy in the Frankenstein mask who helps operate the Funhouse and the fortune teller (played by Silvia Myles).  When she makes fun of the young man, he flips out and kills her – all while the group of teenagers watches through a crack in the floor.  Conway comes in to see what the fuss is all about and notices the dead fortune teller.  At this point we see that under that Frankenstein mask is not a normal human, but a strange kind of deformed monster.  We flashback to one of the sideshow attractions where the teenagers saw a weird fetus inside a jar.  This must be part of that genealogy.  Of course, someone in the group drops their lighter through the crack in the floor, alerting Conway that he has guests in the Funhouse.  What follows is a series of scares, chases, and killings that keeps us entertained and at times, spooked.

Although you will not be blown away by the dialogue, acting, or even the plot of The Funhouse, all of those elements are strengthened because Tobe Hooper packed this movie with atmosphere in ways that work.  This is one that I pop in my dvd player all the time, it is very re-watchable.  I highly recommend it as one of the great “secrets” of horror.  Take a look.

Read More

Posted by admin | 2 Comments

The Ruins – Review

reviewed by Melissa
directed by Carter Smith, 2008
___________________

The Ruins is Carter Smith’s adaptation of Scott Smith’s sophomore novel of the same name. Scott Smith also helmed the writing of the screen play. For those who do not know, Scott Smith’s first novel was A Simple Plan, which was adapted for screen and directed by Sam Raimi.

The film opens with an intense scene of a woman sitting in the dark crying and trying desperately to get a cell phone signal then being yanked into the darkness.

We then transition to Jeff, Amy, Eric and Stacy, who are two twenty-something couples vacationing in Mexico and vegging by the resort pool. In predictable fashion a fifth vacationer, Mathias, inserts himself into the group and convinces the couples to venture with him to a remote Mayan temple. Mathias wants to travel to the temple to find his brother who has gone to the site with a female archeologist who is excavating the temple. Needless to say after a drunken night of partying they meet early the next morning to travel to the temple with a sixth person, Dimitri. Foreshadowing the fact that they are making a bad decision we have a taxi that refuses to drive them to the hiking trail until bribed, two creepy children staring at them from the jungle as they search for the path, and when they find the path it has been deliberately hidden. Once they finally reach the temple I expected the pace of the film to pick up – I was wrong.

Immediately after the group arrives at the temple, some locals show up and start screaming at them in a language no one understands. As the group retreats from the locals toward the temple,  Amy and Dimitri step on some vines covering the temple and the locals begin brandishing weapons. When Dimitri steps off the vine towards the locals he is shot and killed and the rest of the group is herded up onto the top of the temple where the rest of the film takes place. Trapped between the locals and the evil that resides at the temple.

The Ruins is a slow paced movie that never really has another scary moment beyond the opening scene. The characters quickly settle into stereotypical roles including one who wants to make a run for it, one that wants to wait for rescue, one that goes berserk, one that keeps the group together, and an injured one. The worst part about the characters is none of them make any attempt to fight the evil, which is a bloodthirsty climbing vine that is about as scary as a ficus.

We are treated to a few gory scenes including a double amputation and the attempts by one character to cut pieces of the vine out of her own body. While these scenes were fairly intense, they were not enough to carry the movie. I was happy the premise of the film was different than the usual tourist horror movies however it quickly fell into the same old clichés.  The movie ends in such a way as to leave room for a sequel, which the director is quoted as saying was not his intent. This is a good thing.

Overall The Ruins was slow, the characters flat, and the villain laughable. This would be one to avoid.

Read More