Fright Night (1985) Short Review

I figured since I just did a review for the new version, I might as well do one for the 1985 original (the superior version). It’s one of the better horror comedies out there. Sure there are some weaknesses to the film (mainly the cheap 80′s soundtrack), but overall there aren’t too many vampire flicks that hold up as well as this one. Fright Night features fun performances by the actors and some cool visceral in-camera FX in the movie (no CGI). I’m a visuals kind of guy and I thought there was some fine work done by the production artists and crew.

The story is of typical teen Charley Brewster who enjoys his life living in an average American neighborhood living (with his single mom) and hanging out with his cute girlfriend Amy. His suburban paradise is interrupted with the knowledge that a genuine vampire has moved in next door. Being the fine upstanding citizen that he is, Charley feels the need to act. Hijinks ensue. That’s all you really need to know. There are some complications, but really, it’s a very ‘pure’ horror film with healthy doses of humor.

The creature FX were far more inspired than what’s offered in the new version (and I like the new version, BTW). It’s much more of a good old fashioned creature feature that took the ‘boring ol’ vampire who until this point had only been seen as semi-monstrous in appearance in Nosfratu, its remake, and Salem’s Lot where the head vampire looked like the vampire from… Nosferatu. Here, the filmmakers fully embraced the transformational abilities of the supernatural vampire. The vampires in this are much scarier than just actors with teeth prosthetics.

The vampire’s house even seems like a character itself at times; the director framed several very cool shots of it as when McDowell is re-entering the fog enshrouded house towards the finale. There are also many nods and winks to older classic vampire flicks, and not just with Peter Vincent’s name. In the finale you can spot several direct shots from a certain vampire classic, but its done the right way. A lot of contemporary filmmakers just steal outright and dont even try to use any imagination, but I digress…

Roddy McDowell is outstanding as the reluctant (and at times cowardly) Peter Vincent, a TV horror host sought out by one of his fans Charlie Brewster (William Ragsdale), who is convinced that an actual vampire has moved in next door. McDowell was always good in anything that he was in and had a very likable persona, even when he’s blowing off Charley at the idea of real vampires or acting as a coward in the film.

There are some actors that are great in one role and never find anything else to really suit their talents. I think that was true with Ragsdale (who plays Charlie). He does enough for the audience to get behind his character. His Charley is not nearly as hip with contemporary style as Yelchin’s Charley in the update. That’s not a bad thing, though. His lack of being the typical movie here makes fighting against the vampire villains seem that more of a daunting task.

Stephen Geoffreys plays horror geek Evil Ed, one of the more memorable characters who has a lot of extreme outbursts and several weird personality tics. He seems born to play this role being every bit as hilariously weird in this as Crispin Glover has been in… well, all of his movie roles. This film offered up a lot of ideas, such as with Ed who’s given the opportunity to embrace evil rather than live the life he’s living. Geoffreys and Ragsdale were both perfect in these roles. Amanda Bearse (who went on to fame as one half of  the unlikeable couple that lived next door to the Bundys on “Maried…With Children”) is the nerdy love interest. She’s somewhat unlikely as ‘the girl all the bad guys want’ to use a musical reference. But as all of the characters in this film, personality wise she is much more of a presence than her counterpart in the 2011 film played by Imogen Poots.

Chris Sarandon does a fine job with a very well written part as the vampire. His vampire is an unusually complex villain.

I think it’s interesting that one of the more evil deeds he poses in the film is what he poses to Charley. “Just look the other way”. It insidiously creates some empathy for the character, while the ultimate end to which he’s asking is to do nothing while he murders people. I believe Sarandon teamed with the director Tom Holland on Childs Play, also; another competent genre film. Sarandon was/is a very underrated actor that maybe should have had a bigger career than he’s had (he was a standout as a villain with intentionally less charisma in “The Princess Bride”).

This is not as campy as some reviewers claim; there’s plenty of comedy, but it still exists in a real world setting and is a right proper entry in the horror genre. The people that call this camp are people that just don’t like horror films and ESPECIALLY hate anything resembling a creature feature. You know, those people with zero imagination. This is a very entertaining horror flick. There’s enough tension in the film that you’re not quite sure who’s going to survive by film’s end. Fright Night’s a fun movie. I only wish the disappointing sequel had been handled as well as this one. It’s a MUST SEE for anybody who considers themself a horror fan and one of the better films of the 1980s (not just in the horror genre).

4.5 of 5

 

Choose (2011) Deservedly Short Review

The worst movie I’ve seen for 2011. I don’t know if I can remember a film where there was this sordid combination of terrible acting and unlikeable characters speaking brain-dead dialogue. I usually blame the director, but I think the actors and the writer deserve plenty of blame. also. The film’s story was a weird combination of Grrrrirl Power(!) and the all knowing/all seeing/all powerful serial killer film. Some of this was stolen from other crap horror films like the unholy Saw franchise and better films like the vastly superior Se7en.

There is a weak attempt here to throw in a twist at the end, probably because the filmmakers knew they had nothing up to that point. The fact that the true/other killer that turns up has already had his @$$ kicked by the protagonist earlier in the film (with one shot, mind you) ends the film on as limp a note as I have ever seen in any open ended horror film. But the acting… Wow.

Either the script or the director must have called for Fiona Wagner, the protagonist played by Katheryn Winnick,  to be perpetually at ‘that time of the month’, because she’s as unlikeable a female protagonist as I’ve seen in a horror film. Being a bitch to EVERYONE in the film (except for that one guy with a bar code reader) is not going to endear you to the audience. And on a side note, bar code reading phone apps are common nowadays. That’s what passed for cerebral here… And the Dewey decimal System. Even Kevin Pollak, who I’ve liked since he appeared on MTV’s Half Hour Comedy Hour as a stand up comedian, is terrible in this. That his daughter is so intellectually superior to him and the entire police force doesn’t help. And THEN, when you think it can’t get any worse, the King of Bad Acting (see “Silent Running” or just about ANY of his other films if you need more masochistic evidence), Bruce Dern turns up.

Just a terrible, TERRIBLE movie.If I ever have to CHOOSE between watching this again and having someone take a lawn mower to my face, I’m going with the lawn mower. Much less painful. This gets a half star and it only gets that because of the cinematography,. But with the quality cameras now available at next to nothing prices (for cameras anyway), what movie ISN’T shot with decent cinematography? A burning butt rash of a movie.

0.5 of 5

Our Idiot Brother (2011) Short Review

Our Idiot Brother has the same kind of idea as another fairly recent film “Happy Go Lucky” where the central character is a completely happy person content with their own life no matter what befalls them.  The central character is nowhere near as annoying as in that one, though. Paul Rudd plays Ned, a man that only exists to be happy and to make others happy. He is honest and trusts that those around him will be just as honest.

At the beginning of the film, he has a vegetable stand, but gets busted for drug dealing when a cop asks to buy some marijuana (because he’s really having a tough week). Ned, affected by the sad story offers him some doob for free, but the cop insists on paying for it so Ned reluctantly says “$20″. He’s immediately arrested and sent to prison.

When he’s released early for EXTREMELY  good behaviour behind bars, he goes home to his organic farm only to  find that his girlfriend has replaced him. He takes it very well, but is somewhat hurt that she’s going to keep his beloved dog Willie Nelson (and it’s fairly obvious it’s just to be spiteful). Having nowhere to live, he goes  to see his family. The family consists of his three (really good looking) sisters and his mom.

The first sister is the single woman Miranda (played by the ever sweet Elizabeth Banks) who is trying desperately to get her career (writing for Vanity Fair) underway. She wants to be a career woman and maybe takes everything a little too seriously. She doesn’t have time for anything else.

The second is the housewife and mother Liz (the decidedly English Emily Mortimer) who is married to a snide documentarian named Dylan (Steve Coogan who specializes in this kind of role) that no longer is interested in her sexually. They have a son that they are raising as… a sissy. That very word may anger some readers of a particular slant, but there’s really no other word for raising a boy by sending him to ballet classes when he really wants to take martial arts classes and then sending him to a child psychiatrist because he’s displaying typical kid behavior. You know. Wanting to have fun.

The third sister Natalie (played by the ever quirky Zoey Deschanel) is an aspiring stand up comedian, bisexual and in a lesbian relationship with a lawyer named Cindy (Rashida Jones who is great in a peripheral role where she tries to help Ned get his dog back). She also makes money on the side posing nude for an artist that has the hots for her.

All of the sisters want to help their brother, but not really. By the tile of the film, you get how the sisters feel about their lone brother. He manages to somehow insinuate himself into their homes in the course of the film and because of who he is, has a profound effect by illuminating the things that are holding them back, hiding or some truth that they aren’t facing. In each case, he is kicked out only to turn up at another sister’s home to exact more unintentional mayhem in their lives.

The film is light and there are times when the central character is painted as SO naive that it’s cartoonish, but the story worked for me. Each sister had an interesting segment that worked towards the bigger point of the film.

That’s sort of rare in films where they interweave a large number of characters. Sometimes you may like the movie, but wish that they had cut some of the more uninteresting characters. They’re all engaging enough in this and at no time did I feel that anyone was trying to be quirky. The quirks were all natural.

I liked this film very much. Even the topics that would have been given a heavier (and darker) weight in other films are dealt with in a bouncy way. There’s maybe one instant where the film for the expected ‘serious’ moment where everything comes to a boil, but largely looks at all of the problems of the various characters with an optimistic eye. Good film, but maybe not for cynical viewers. It’s way too uplifting for those people.

4 of 5

Fright Night (2011) Short Review

The remake of 1985′s vampire flick “Fright Night” isn’t going to make me forget about the original, but I did enjoy it to a large degree. It used enough of the ideas of the original (that worked) along with trying to make it contemporary. The new ideas were hit and miss. Like a lot of remakes, this one felt the need for more (unnecessary) backstory of various charcaters while sidestepping logic and character motivations.

Whereas the old film started on the film’s hero Charley Brewster and his girlfriend Amy making out while watching the local programming shlock horror show “Fright Night with Peter Vincent (the Great Vampire Killer)’, this one opens with the vampire getting right to work on the body count. An entire family is murdered by the unseen (as of yet) supernatural creature before we cut to the new Charleyand Amy played by Anton Yelchin and Imogen Poots.

There is much more emphasis this time on the past relationship of Charley and his weird former friend ‘Evil’ Ed. before, Ed was just the kid everyone picked on in the neighborhood. Here he’s the ex-best friend of Charley, who Charley abandoned when he made an attempt to be one of the ‘cool’ kids (and get dates). In this, Ed (Christopher Mintz-Plasse), not Jerry,  has discovered that Charley’s new neighbor is a vampire. He wants help from Charley, but now Charley treats Ed with the same disdain that the other kids do. When Ed turns up missing, Charley begins to suspect that his former friend may have been right, especially when the neighbor turns up exhibiting the characteristics of a vampire.

Charley poses as a journalist to ask Las Vegas stage magician Peter Vincent how to kill a real vampire. He even offers up evidence, but is thrown out for being a nutjob. Just like the original, there are things that make him change his mind.

Then the movie unexpectedly went into full-on over the top mode. Where the original film’s Jerry (Chris Sarandon) was a complex villain, who had some empathy for Charley and gave him several warnings to mind his own business (and live); this new Jerry (Colin Ferrell) has no qualms with very public tactics like causing very large amounts of property damage (blowing up a house), high speed car chases/wrecks, and a large body count in a very short time frame. I don’t know how he could have gone 400 years without being noticed. But, that’s minor. This film tries to be less horror and more  of an action film with supernatural overtones. there is a lot of convenience here. The original film used a logical framework to keep the story headed in the right direction.

This one hides the flaws with the action… And maybe the abundance of hot tail in the movie. Even Petere Vincent had a hot woman this time (the distracting Sandra Vergara as “Ginger”). The cast as a whole is a much better looking one than the original, but not quite as memorable. There was a definite ‘youth movement’ here by the casting director. Even the mother looks under 40.

I like Ferrell. I think he does a good job as the villain, but Chris Sarandon (who makes a cameo) was far more complex as Jerry the vampire. He displayed a wide range of emotions and seemed a lot more realistic in his methodology. He also had a very dry sense of humor. Yelchin is probably a FAR better actor than William Ragsdale, but something about Ragsdale’s performance was affecting. There was a lack of confidence in the way he portrayed Charley. It made Jerry seem all the more overpowering as an opponent. This might upset current Dr. Who fans, but David Tennant, while doing his own thing in this, just doesn’t have the nervous charm or wit that Roddy McDowell brought to the table. McDowell was even likable when he was obstinantly against helping Brewster. His Peter Vincent’s less than brave offscreen persona was another thing that made the movie works so well as a horror comedy. And “Evil’ Ed… McLovin does okay here. He also does his own thing. Yeah, he’s believable as a nerd. BUT… much like Crispin Glover’s inimitable role as McFly in Back To The Future, I don’t think there is anyone that could have done anything better than how Stephen Geoffreys  performed as ‘Evil’. He is a complete goofball with the creepy tics and laugh. Why he chose to steer his career in the direction that he did is baffling. The one role that this film one ups the original is with Imogen Poots (trumping Amanda Bearse) as the hottie love interest. Bearse might have had better comic timing… maybe even acting ability… But Bearse was geeky cute while Poots (with the unfortunate name) is just smokin’ hot. Do I miss when an entire cast of movie actors looked closer to the disparate variety of reality? Yeah… I think I do.

I also thought the FX were a lot more fun in the original… The fog seeping house… the pencil in the hand… The homunculous protector of  Jerry during the day (and his death scene)… Jerry’s bat-like incarnation… The cross burned into Ed’s forehead and his grisly demise/transformation.. the Nosferatu rising out of the coffin homage. This one lacked a little in creativity.

But I still liked this. It was far better than some other horror remakes that I’ve seen. As much as they did change this, though, you have to wonder why they couldn’t go a little further and create something new.

3.5 of 5

Don’t Be Afraid Of The Dark (2011) Review

“Don’t Be Afraid Of The Dark” is Guillermo Del Toro’s latest horror cinema home run. He co-wrote the screenplay (based on a TV movie from 1973, I think) and the film is directed by Troy Nixey. I wouldn’t say that it has a ‘throwback flavor’ so much as it’s just a very well told story. It gets rid of contemporary story gimmicks (there are no cats that are thrown onscreen to create artificial scares or stupid victims or plot conveniences). The story unfolds as it must until it gets to its natural end.  All of his films have aspects of the horror genre (even Blade II and the Hellboy films even if they do fall under “superheroes”), but his best entries that are at their ‘most pure’ always involve the horror being strained through a child’s eyes like this one is. They’re all vastly different films, though (Cronos, The Devil’s Backbone, Pan’s Labyrinth).

The film opens in the distant past  in an old Gothic mansion owned by a man named Blackwood. One night, one of the servants literally stumbles into a very horrible situation in the mansion’s basement involving the owner and something that’s in an old unused ash pit.

I don’t want to give any more of that away. It’s pretty rough in content, though and gets the movie off an running.

Flash forward to the present, where an architect named Alex(Guy Pearce) and Kim (Katie Holmes), an interior designer that doubles as his serious girlfriend, have bought the house. Alex is down and out and in the midst of restoring the home in hopes that he can make the cover of Architectural Digest to solve some of his financial woes. Meanwhile, his daughter Sally (Bailee Madison) has been sent by her mother to live with Alex (I think it’s hinted at that he won the custody battle, but I could be wrong about that). In any case, she’s there with dear ol’ Dad who is preoccupied with the house.

Sally is first shown to be a bit of a brat and verbalizes her disregard for this new woman in her father’s life. Kim, in turn, discusses with Alex that she’s not ready for a kid in her life. So it goes, until Sally begins to hear whispering voices in the topiary while she’s alone outside. She follows the enticing murmers until she discovers a certain basement that’s been locked  and covered up. Alex and company re-open the basement, but of course don’t believe the girl when she tells them of the voices. They beckon to her when she’s alone and want her to open the grill to the ash pit which has been bolted shut (for obvious reasons to the audience by that point)

Eventually, what’s behind the grill is released or else there wouldn’t be a movie. The creatures that emanate forth are some seriously sadistic little bastards to put it bluntly. You get an idea of what they want (which is the girl), but you really don’t know for what purpose (completely, anyway) really until near the end of the film. Roger Ebert didn’t like the design of the creatures, but I would disagree strongly.

They’re creepy enough and I think it’s a pretty good use of CGI, even better than the little creatures in Del Toro’s Pan’s Labyrinth. They help create some really suspenseful, tense scenes. There were a few ‘jump’ moments (at least, for me).

Director Nixey gets a performance out of Madison that carries the film. And it’s not hard to root for her when the things from within the walls show their true colors. Sally is put in one dangerous situation after another, all the while  her father is oblivious and even blames her for the deeds of the wall-things.

It’s always a tremendous joy to find a good horror film (for they are a rare animal). This is one of the better ones I’ve seen in recent times and surely will be one of my Top Films at the end of the year. It’s that good. I may even be rating this one a little low.

4.5 of 5

Hobo With A Shotgun (2011) Short Review

Jason Eisener’s ‘Hobo With A Shotgun’ is complete crap that’s presented in the guise of being a parody (wink wink) of exploitation films. The movie consists of low end blood spatter FX, braindead mass killings of incredibly stupid acting victims, constantly screaming women and their attackers who speak only in profanity. No wait. Everyone speaks that way in this movie, not just the attackers.

It also hides behind the fact that it’s a ‘parody (again… wink wink…) to laugh at society’s easiest targets, the homeless… Oh, and hookers, too. This doesn’t have enough parody to sustain a two minute short. The only time I laughed was the bear photo and I only laughed at how stupid the joke was. The violence was neither cartoonish enough to illicit laughs, nor gorey enough to shock, and I enjoy a good splatter as much as the next horror fan. The worst part is that it got more dull as it went and I eventually stopped paying attention.

There was a great exploitational parody that was realeased in 2009 called Black Dynamite. If you’re going to make an intentionally bad film it has to actually be funny like that one was or it’s just a complete waste of time. There must be some intelligence on the part of the writer and filmmakers to make a parody work and these filmmakers have all of the brain power of the kinds of kids I remember in high school that carved tattoos into their arms with razor blades for desperately needed attention. I’m a big fan of Rutger Hauer (Blade Runner, The Hitcher, Ladyhawke, Batman Begins and others) and I’m embarrassed for him. He took the cash for this.

I could be mistaken (saw Grindhouse the first day it came out and not since), but I think this was originally one of the fake trailers as ‘Machete’ was in the Grindhouse movie by Robert Rodriguez and Quentin Tarantino.
Neither of those two films were good enough to warrant more like them. In fact, they’re using the ‘it’s intentionally bad’ thing to excuse making a crap film. “Writing’s hard”. Easily the worst film I’ve seen this year.

1 of 5

 

No Progress To Report, So More Zombies…

The power was off earlier for several hours after one of those flash storms blew threw. It was a pretty good one, I guess.  Anyway I  didn’t work on what I intended to work on, so I’ll just post another old job. I don’t think I’ve posted this before (I post a lot of dead things). It’s from a Mardi Gras job I did a few years ago. It didn’t turn out as well as I liked, because of the limitations they had about colors, but I always kind of liked the pencils just because they’re about as ‘finished’ looking as I get in the pencil stage in recent times. I do most of the work in  the ink stage (as I did here…).

I left the two in back in silhouette just for presentational purposes. I think it kind of looks cool that way. Hopefully, if it rains anytime soon again, the power will stay on.

The Beaver (2011) Review

I wanted to like this more, but the longer it went, the more the structural flaws became apparent. It’s odd that the hokiest, hardest to swallow story device in the film, The Beaver himself (or itself), was the easiest part to accept for me. Mel Gibson IS a great actor, no matter what you think of him. He completely sells the idea of a man who clings to sanity by donning a puppet on his left hand and having it become who he is. The most hilarious thing is that he sounds so much like Michael Caine when speaking as the Beaver.

The story is about depression and the effects that can have on a family. The movie begins with Mel Gibson’s Walter Black (not very subtle) already at the point where his behavior has had an extremely detrimental effect on his business and his family. Five minutes in, he’s moving out of the house.

He contemplates suicide, but fate intercedes in the form of a Beaver hand puppet who kind of looks like the deranged cousin of Caddyshack’s Gopher. He dons the puppet on a whim and soon finds himself using the puppet as a way of getting rid of the ‘clutter’ that has become his life. At first, it begins to solve some of his problems, but  later… Well, I shouldn’t give anything away. It kind of goes where you think it will, with a few (minor)deviations.

Jodie Foster  directs as well as stars as Walter’s frazzled wife, who’s willing to cut him loose to protect her two sons. The acting part is no problem for her. That’s not to say that she did a bad job directing, but there were several lapses in the storytelling. For instance, the eldest son (Anton Yelchin), who is one of those movie geniuses who is adept at a very large number of skill sets as a teenager. He kept finding out details and past histories of classmates  and Foster always chose to just have him say ” You’d be surprised what’s on the internet.”

There’s never a scene where he’s at his computer doing this. It would have been better to at least give a brief nod to this instead of always having that come up in a scene while he’s recounting the person’s past.  This aspect of the character was actually a little creepy, too; the constant digging up of dirt of other people without any kind of conscience. That’s never even thought about here. He’s also conveniently a master of the human mind when it comes to his classmates, but when it comes to family all of the brilliant psychology goes right out the window.

The biggest problem of the film, though, is the Jennifer Lawrence character, whose role in the story is contrived and repetitive. The story should have focused on the father’s breakdown and maybe the son facing a predisposed falling into the genetic footsteps of his father’s mental illness, but the story tries to give the Jennifer Lawrence character more weight by having her own hidden sob story. Every big moment with her character was cliched,  artificial (the whole $500 for a speech thing especially) or not believable. In fact, her story should have been merged with the son’s story.  He is embarrassed by his father’s actions in the film (and who wouldn’t be?) and that should have been the focus. He should have been the one hiding everything behind a smile like everything’s all right (when it’s not) and coming to his own self revelation instead of being told. That just lessens the impact when there’s a middleman (or middleperson in this case).

There is also a tonal problem, mainly in the third act. The first two thirds of the film tackles the subject matter with plenty of humor. When Walter begins to reach his crisis, however, it abandons all laughs for melodrama and the weepies.

No, not THOSE Weepies…

If it had been a deliberate shift in tone, to heighten the depression that one of the characters had been hiding beneath their exterior, I still don’t think that it would have worked. And if the lack of laughs were deliberate here to maximize the dramatic aspect, it only succeeded in creating melodrama. There are also some other weird shifts in tone.  Foster employs the John Hughes 80s music video montage method of telling some parts of the story (and they’re actually surprisingly effective). I do think there are too many occasions where she decided to tell the story passively through dialogue instead of visualizing the actions.

I did enjoy what appeared to be a nods to Evil Dead II  in at least a couple of instances (I hope that was intended). There was also a very Shawshank like plot thread.  I liked the acting performances for the most part. Gibson is outstanding. Foster is great. Yelchin is decent, too, but again, the way the story is written (and told) weakens his character’s impact in the story. I think, in a more experienced director’s hands this might have worked better than it did here. Still interesting, though.

3 of 5 

Haunt Contest Entry

So I took a shot… Didn’t make the cut, of course. But you can’t win them all… Or “You can’t win them.” in my case.I had fun trying, though. Just for fun (and myself), I also did a cover version after I submitted my entry.

I don’t think it makes a bad cover, but what do I know? I drew it. What do you think?

As always I welcome responsible comments.

 

Wally Wood’s 22 Panels That Always Work!!