Cinema Verdict » horror

Cinema Verdict Review: Fright Night 3D

Jeff Ames — Tue, 23 Aug 2011 02:36:07 +0000

Fright Night 3D: OPENING: 08/19/2011; STUDIO: Dreamworks Studios; RUN TIME: 106 min; ACCOMPLICES:
Trailer, Official Site

The Charge
You can’t run from evil when it lives next door

Opening Statement
Fright Night 3D is one of those horror remakes that probably didn’t need to happen. Regardless, it’s fun, creepy motion picture entertainment boasting a strong performance from Colin Farrell and some fairly nifty special FX. The 3D ain’t bad either.

Facts of the Case
Charlie Brewster (Anton Yelchin) lives with his mother (Toni Collette) in a quiet suburban town just outside Las Vegas. Seemingly on the verge of escaping his geaked-out past playing superheroes with the school nerd (Christopher Mintz-Plasse), and preparing to dive head first into his red hot girlfriend’s (Imogen Poots) pants, Charlie’s life takes an unexpected detour when Jerry (Farrell) moves in next door and turns out to be, of all things, a vampire.

Charlie must enlist the aid of crazy magician Peter Vincent (David Tennant) in order to ensure his friends survive the blood sucker’s wrath.

The Evidence
Fright Night 3D taught me many things. One, that Hollywood will never grow tired producing vampire flicks, regardless of box office. Two, actor Anton Yelchin must know somebody fairly high up, hence Hollywood’s insistence on throwing him into every high caliber, potential blockbuster series, despite his obvious lack of cinematic presence. And three, Colin Farrell should’ve been on the A-list many years ago.

The talented veteran has retreated to starring in many little-seen films, namely the terrific In Bruges and London Boulevard, after flopping in early attempts to attain leading man status – see American Outlaws, Hart’s War, The Recruit, and Daredevil. Fright Night 3D gives him the freedom to play loosey goosey in a throwaway roll (reminiscent of his early bit in Steven Spielberg’s Minority Report), mainly because there’s not much else to the production. It’s as if the producers knew a remake of Tom Holland’s nifty 1985 cult classic was a bad idea, but realized Farrell was in it for more than just the paycheck and decided to let him run away with the show.

Good move.

Farrell instills life into an otherwise stilted film. His performance, comprised of slight twitches and snakely motions that even Voldemort would envy, carries Fright Night 3D above the annals of average cinema into a chasm above decent and below “actually quite good.” I was reminded of Heath Ledger’s Joker from The Dark Knight, and Johnny Depp’s Jack Sparrow in the first Pirates film (remember, when he was actually cool?). It’s one of those performances that can turn an average film into a good one, or a good film into a great one. Without him, Fright Night 3D would line Target discount shelves for years to come. With him, the damned thing might just find redemption…time will tell.

Of course, that doesn’t excuse the remaining film. What is it about modern horror films that keeps them from being scary? Is it the CGI FX, which pale in comparison to those grotesque, imaginative schlocky ’80s make-up FX? Or the need to lean heavily on pop culture to connect with audiences (Twilight is mentioned several times)? Or is it the glossy look caked over the production, making everything too neat, too perfect? Tellingly, I didn’t mind some of the CGI in this film, and felt Craig Gillespie (Lars and the Real Girl) did a fairly good job with the gore. It’s still not utterly grotesque, but at least a few people in my audience expelled grossed out reactions to the proceedings. (Some of his scare tactics were quite effective as well.)

However, what bugs me about modern cinema is the digital look all films seem to carry. Remember the old days when films like Tobe Hooper’s Texas Chainsaw Massacre had dust particles splashed across its images? Remember the murky, unprofessional lighting in the original Friday the 13th? Hell, even Sam Raimi’s Evil Dead films, while inherently low budget (and cheesy), still scared the crap out of you with its muddy, over-the-top happenings.

Maybe the problem is that all films these days receive a budget north of $100 million. With that kind of money, directors don’t have to be creative (unless you’re James Cameron, and must make imaginative cuts in order to ensure your film comes within its $300 million price tag); they simply point and click. Thus each shot is carefully laid out; everything looks and feels artificial because the creativity that carried on behind the scenes lacked emotional investment. Imagine if Gillespie was told to remake Fright Night 3D on a $10 million budget. Don’t you think a better film would emerge? One filled to the brim with creativity?

That’s why films like Paranormal Activity and The Blair Witch Project work so well: they require imagination. Everything looks and feels low budget and so the audience is never sure how far the director can go. The scares stem from utter surprise at a director’s ability to achieve the impossible in a film that costs less than a pack of chewing gum. When a production carries an enormous price tag and throws buckets of CGI blood in your face, shock and awe go out the window. By then, it’s not a matter of what the producers can’t do, but what they won’t do.

Perhaps I’m just fickle. In truth, I enjoyed Fright Night 3D for its offbeat humor, and Poots’ dooey eyed charm. Yelchin bores me. And I’ve grown tired of Mintz-Plasse’s foul mouthed MacLovin charade. At least David Tennant injects some much needed energy into the film’s latter half, even if he comes across as a bit too eager for laughs.

In truth, remakes never are necessary unless you can add something to counter the original (see True Grit). Fright Night circa 1985 never was a perennial classic, per se, but it was one hell of a freaky movie; one that gave me nightmares as a kid. Fright Night 3D won’t give you nightmares, but Farrell’s performance will give you chills.

Closing Statement
With Colin Farrell in fine form, Fright Night 3D becomes watchable horror fluff, even if it never truly frightens.

The Verdict
7/10

Cinema Verdict Review: Black Death

Clark Douglas — Thu, 24 Mar 2011 22:15:47 +0000

Black Death: OPENING: 03/25/2011; STUDIO: Magnolia Pictures; RUN TIME: 97 min; ACCOMPLICES:
Trailer, Official Site

The Charge
Repent

Opening Statement
I’ve never been much of a horror film junkie–not because I don’t like the genre, but because I foolishly insist on holding it up to the same standards of quality as I do every other genre. As far as I’m concerned, the levels of gore and the creativity of the kills are almost entirely insignificant in contrast to the story, the acting, the overall craftsmanship, etc. That’s why I’m grateful for films like Black Death, a thoughtful and genuinely unnerving period piece which effectively explores still-relevant subjects.

Facts of the Case
Our story takes place in the Year of our Lord 1348, when the bubonic plague is sweeping across England for the first time. Many believe that the plague is some sort of punishment from God, though there is a great deal of debate as to who has offended God and how. Ulric (Sean Bean, Patriot Games), the Bishop’s envoy, believes he knows the answer. There is talk of a pagan village which somehow completely evaded the plague, and Ulric is persuaded that this village has caused God to bring down a curse upon the entire country.

Ulric recruits a young monk named Osmund (Eddie Redmayne, Elizabeth: The Golden Age) to lead his team to the village (Osmund is familiar with the area) and serve as a spiritual advisor of sorts to the men. Upon arrival, Ulric and his men discover that the village appears to be a charming, idyllic little society, causing some of the men to question their initial assumptions about this supposedly terrifying community. Even so, Ulric remains persuaded that there is deep evil lurking within this place.

The Evidence
Black Death begins on a note of grim despair and grows progressively gloomier from there. It becomes clear very quickly that this is a tale which will end in tragedy; the only question is just how large the scale of that tragedy will be. A cinematic depiction of the horrors of the bubonic plague is certainly a despondent subject in and of itself, but this is merely a backdrop to an unflinching examination of man’s inhumanity to man and the dark side of unwavering belief.

One of the most admirable traits of Black Death is the manner in which it refuses to adopt a holier-than-thou stance towards the individuals in the film. It’s easy to look back at the misguided brutality of the era and judge it as mindless evil, but this was an era in which science had explained very little about how the world works. There is genuine belief that if the correct supernatural forces are appeased in some way, the plague will simply vanish. There isn’t a medical cure, so surely there must be a spiritual one? These characters are ignorant, but not willfully so.

And yet, then as now, there are many who simply use religion as a means of excusing their own vices and small-minded belief systems. Ulric may be a True Believer who is deeply convinced that he is on a holy mission, but most of the men who have joined him simply have a taste for bloodshed and barbaric behavior. If engaging in such behavior counts as serving God, then hey, they’re on God’s side.

By now you may think you’ve figured out what kind of film this is. You may very well be wrong. This isn’t a film in which the evil, mindless Christians launch an assault upon the gentle, peaceful pagans in the name of heaven. What the Christians eventually discover in the pagan village is horrifying, partially because it’s so familiar: a dark mirror image of barbarism and poisonous dogma. Black Death is such an effectively bleak picture because it depicts a world in which any traces of goodness are quickly suffocated. It is a world in which Christianity, atheism and paganism are similarly incapable of bringing humanity to a good place, because the plague of humanity’s nastiest elements (fear, intolerance, bloodlust) have infected them all.

The film is well-directed by Christopher Smith (best-known for his witty horror flick Severence), who brings an unyielding sense of dread and a surprising artfulness to the proceedings. There were moments when the scenes of Ulric and his men on their long journey to the pagan village reminded me of Werner Herzog’s Aguirre, the Wrath of God, though in this instance the building madness meets them halfway. Interestingly enough, many of the most horrific scenes take place in broad daylight, which curiously works more effectively than a shroud of darkness would have.

The performances are effective, if a shade anachronistic at times. Young Eddie Redmayne is technically the lead, as he has the most screen time and has the most substantial character arc. He moves from clear-eyed curiosity to intense agony in expert fashion; forming the film’s flickering emotional core. Sean Bean achieves something tricky in his role, convincing us that there is some semblance of pure-hearted innocence in his violent character. He is so certain that he is doing the right thing; we almost pity him at times. The pagans are represented by the mysterious Carice van Houten (Black Book), who adds a potent undercurrent of menace to her surface-level Patricia Clarkson-ish charm.

Closing Statement
I suppose Black Death isn’t a horror film in typical sense–there aren’t many things jumping out of the shadows accompanied by loud musical stings–but its subject matter is undeniably horrific. Many things in the film are chilling, but perhaps none moreso than the creeping realization that we haven’t yet escaped the cold cycle of historical repetition. There’s no escaping the film’s power, either: once its bleak grip takes hold, you can’t look away.

The Verdict
9/10

Cinema Verdict Review: Dream Home

Marco Duran — Sat, 05 Mar 2011 07:56:30 +0000

Dream Home

OPENING: 03/05/2010

STUDIO: 852 Films

RUN TIME:96 min

ACCOMPLICES:
Trailer,

The Charge
“In a crazy city, if one is to survive, he’s got to be more crazy.”

Opening Statement
So starts this story set in Hong Kong where the price of an apartment overlooking the sea is somewhere around $5 Million. This movie is supposedly based on a true story, and it is in some timely aspects as the ending so bluntly puts it, but, for the most part, it’s completely fiction. Cribbing off the Coen Brothers should put filmmakers in some sort of cinematic jail. There is no way that this film was based on a true story and that should have been my first clue that it was going for laughs and not for drama. My second clue is where the movie landed on, what I like to call, the horror arc. The arc starts with small fights, verbal or physical, progressing to more intense action film violence; around three quarters of the way slasher films come into play with their varying levels of blood and gore. But when all the dismemberment and disemboweling (beyond the torture porn levels) causes people to slip around on someone’s spilled entrails like they were banana peels, things stop being gross and start being funny. That’s where Dream Home fell.

Facts of the Case
Cheng-Li (Josie Ho, the title character in Street Fighter: The Legend of Chun-Li, but don’t hold that against her; she was a revelation here) is a young lady who is desperate to get a home with a view of the sea. Working at a job she hates, sleeping with a married man to coerce him for some extra cash, borrowing more money then she can ever afford to repay, and still with the price of the house she so desperately wants beyond her reach. So she must take drastic matters into her own hands. She will do whatever it takes to make her dream come true.

The Evidence
The main problem with my initial viewing of this movie is that I didn’t know it wasn’t meant to be taken seriously; that it had its tongue planted firmly in its cheek. I approached this film and fell into the utter darkness of its comedy and wondered why I couldn’t see what it was trying to say. Now, with new understanding of the tone and approach, re-watching the film was far more enjoyable. Throughout the first viewing I kept wondering why it took people a good eight to ten minutes to suffocate; to kick over stuff and choke and thrash about wildly and choke and writhe on the floor and choke and try to crawl away and claw at their throats and choke…well, now I know it was all meant for a laugh. A deep dark laugh.

The story is told as a fractured narrative where what happens almost at the end of the story is interspersed with flashbacks filling us in on how we got here. It gives the viewer lots of questions to begin with, but eventually it answers most of them. I struggle, though, to determine if the fractured approach actually added anything to the story and I don’t really think it did. Most if not all of the action, is at the end of the story’s time line and rather than build to it, the filmmakers decided that we needed bursts of energy between the bits of what essentially turns out to be exposition and explanation. However, I don’t want that to come across as if I felt the majority of the film was boring. Exposition has the connotation of being so, but when the focus of the audience is drawn towards what will become of our protagonist before motives are firmly established, the build up can be nothing but explanation.

Closing Statement
Then comes the end of the movie and the final punch line. The timeliness of said punch line and how all of us around the world are the butt of that joke really helps to hammer home just what kind of humor we’re dealing with here. The film basically says, See what we’ve been forced to become, been forced to do, to make it in this world? And just when we have wrung our hearts and sold our souls in order to be able to keep up with the niceties of life, the rug gets pulled out from under us and we’re cast into utter despair to wallow in our own guilt and shame. Funny, huh?

The Verdict

6/10

Cinema Verdict Review: Paranormal Activity 2

Jeff Ames — Sun, 24 Oct 2010 04:49:00 +0000

Paranormal Activity 2: OPENING: 10/22/2010; STUDIO: Paramount Pictures; RUN TIME: 91 min; ACCOMPLICES:Trailer, Official Site

The Charge
“Nothing can prepare you for what’s next.”

Opening Statement
Paranormal Activity 2 is an effective follow up to the 2009 original. It’s fitting the film is being released to coincide with Clint Eastwood’s Hereafter. You may just want to enjoy a quieter supernatural experience after you see the ghouls and demons on display in Tod Williams’ film.

The original Paranormal Activity was a shocker – a surprisingly efficient horror film that made good use of its ultra-low budget and visual set-up. That film, directed by Oren Peli, employed only one camera for its tale of a suburban twentysomething couple and their ghastly experiences with a demonic presence.

The sequel, adhering to the James Cameron rule of thumb regarding sequels– bigger, faster, and meaner–has a larger budget, more victims to toy with, and around six or seven cameras on which to capture the creepy happenings. The results are familiar, but entertaining.

Facts of the Case
Paranormal Activity 2 is a prequel to the original, with events leading up to those involving Katie Featherston and her doomed boyfriend Micah Sloat. This time, though, it is Katie’s sister Kristi who is the target of an unseen, demonic presence, one who may have an interest in Kristi’s newborn child Hunter.

After a supposed break-in attempt, Kristi’s husband Dan sets up a ring of security cameras throughout the house. It’s not long before the recorded footage begins revealing strange activities–bizarre noises, doors closing on themselves, the dog’s odd behavior–that worsen considerably each night.

Kristi’s stepdaughter Ali, meanwhile, suspects something sinister in the air and attempts to capture the footage on her personal camcorder. Her recordings reveal a shocking truth: that an evil entity is living amongst them.

The Evidence
How do you follow up one of the most successful low budget films of all time? You release a sequel as quickly as possible, up the ante, and double the screams. That’s exactly what Paramount Pictures has done, enlisting the aid of director Tod Williams (The Door in the Floor) to sustain its Paranormal cash machine.

Williams does a commendable job crafting scares–I jumped at least two or three times–and paces the film surprisingly well. His is an easy job. The blueprint was there, he just had to find a way to make it work again. And so we have a family beset by a strange apparatus that makes its presence known by slamming doors, and banging pots–kind of like a 3-year old toddler.

Of course, we saw all of this before in the original. It’s nothing new, but Paranormal Activity 2 doesn’t have to go for new. The scares in both films are akin to the slighter shocks found in other, more successful horror flicks such as Ridley Scott’s Alien, and John Carpenter’s Halloween. You know, the moment where a cat pops out of nowhere, effectively startling the audience before the true terror sets in? That’s Paranormal Activity 1 and 2 in a nutshell, sans the terror.

This is the kind of horror film where laughter is welcomed. You’ll laugh at yourself, laugh at your friends, and laugh at those around you for getting scared. It’s fun for a group on a Saturday night. If you’re alone and want true terror, I suggest Tobe Hooper’s Poltergeist.

From a production standpoint, I was surprised at how sharp the film was. Acting wasn’t top notch, but the cast held their ground. The best of the bunch was little baby Hunter whose innocent presence alone further darkened the nature of the demon. After all, it’s one thing to pick on an adult, or even a teenager for that matter, but stay away from the little ones. They don’t deserve it.

The camerawork was believable. I don’t recall a moment where anyone was holding one unnecessarily. Even when a character ventures into a basement with a handheld they utilizes the camera’s night vision to see into the dark. Personally, I’d go for the flashlight, but the gimmick is reasonable enough to buy into. Kind of like the film itself.

Essentially Paranormal Activity 2 is nothing more than cheap thrills strung together with little substance attached. It’s fairly intense with plenty of scares, but there’s little else to recommend. I was disappointed that the demon wasn’t further explained. There is talk of Kristi and her sister practicing witchcraft as kids, and of an old relative who may have made a pact with an evil spirit for riches, but that’s about it. Perhaps such explanations aren’t necessary. After all, audiences who flock to movies like Paranormal Activity 2 aren’t interested in understanding the scares, they just want to laugh and throw popcorn.

Closing Statement
While the novelty of Oren Peli’s original film is lost, Paranormal Activity 2 is still effective as a crowd-pleasing, bump-in-the-night ghost thriller thanks to sharp direction from director Tod Williams, who makes the most of a very basic, but decidedly unique concept.

The Verdict

7/10

Cinema Verdict Review: Let Me In

Christopher Kulik — Fri, 22 Oct 2010 00:57:11 +0000

Let Me In: OPENING: 10/01/2010; STUDIO: Overture Films; RUN TIME: 116 min; ACCOMPLICES:
Trailer, Official Site

The Charge
Innocence dies. Abby doesn’t.

Opening Statement
Should we trash-talk Hollywood again for churning out yet another remake of an international horror hit? Considering how stubborn and lazy American audiences can be when it comes to reading subtitles, we almost can’t blame Hollywood. Still, it ultimately means enduring a series of pointless retreads which come off as laughable (The Ring), greedy (Quarantine) or just plain despicable (Black X-Mas). Should Let Me In be placed in any of these categories, or is there more to this remake than meets the eye?

The Facts Of The Case
Lonely, 12-year-old Owen (Kodi-Smith McPhee) is constantly bullied at school while his divorced mother must endure phone calls from Owen’s father on a nightly basis. One night, Owen spies a young girl walking in the snow (in her bare feet) outside his bedroom window; the girl is accompanied by a much-older man, presumably her father. When Owen eventually meets the girl, who calls herself Abby, she seems distant; yet, over time, she warms up to Owen’s kindness and recognizes he’s as lost as she is. While they form a genuine bond, Owen is unaware that Abby is a vampire and that she must drink blood every night to survive. When Abby’s caretaker ends up in the hospital, a policeman becomes obsessed with tracking down the man’s identity—threatening to compromise Abby’s situation.

The Evidence
For the uninitiated, Let Me In is a remake of the 2008 Swedish film Let The Right One In, adapted by John Ajvide Lindqvist from his own novel, Lat Den Ratta Komma In. While I haven’t taken a bite into the novel yet, I did watch Let The Right One In and found it as intoxicating and rewarding as any film I’ve seen this year. And this is coming from someone who doesn’t dig vampire stories!

As we all know, the genre has exploded in the past two years; the Twilight movies and the cable series True Blood have given their respective fans a lot of blood to chug on. However, Let The Right One In is an unusual vampire flick in that it feels like it was written by the Brothers Grimm and directed by Ingmar Bergman. It wasn’t made for the popcorn crowd, nor was it specifically written for children; it exists in its own universe, supplying not only an original take on vampire lore but also never going into full-blooded horror mode.

Despite my aforementioned remake rant, there was one reason why I wanted to check out director Matt Reeves’ version: Chloe Grace Moretz, who became a star virtually overnight thanks to her eye-popping performance as Hit-Girl in Kick-Ass, plays the vampire. She does an exquisite job here as well, playing Abby to visceral perfection. Audiences must keep in mind she’s playing a character 100 times more subtle and nuanced than her previous role; her entrance intrigues us, she’s strikingly natural when she isn’t in vampire mode, and she scrapes up our sympathy even when she has blood all over face. Plus, her chemistry with Smith-McPhee (who played the son in 2009’s The Road) is tender, punctual and full of pathos. When they are both onscreen, they actually make you forget about the previous film—quite an accomplishment, considering how superb the kids were in the original.

The supporting cast is quite strong, too. There’s the unrecognizable Elias Koteas (The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button) as the policeman who investigates the disappearances of Abby’s victims. Newcomer Dylan Minnette will get under your skin as Kenny, the main bully who makes life hell for Owen at school. And Academy Award-nominee Richard Jenkins (The Visitor) packs a massive emotional punch as Abby’s “father,” despite the fact he leaves half-way through. The lack of A-list stars actually helps the proceedings; all of the performers are ideally cast, and none of them strike a false note.

Granted, Let Me In follows the original narrative on a largely faithful scale; but it also supplies its own ingredients, many of which surprisingly work. For example, the film is set in 1983 and the period detail is incredible. Every single frame yields a distinctive, dated texture; the cars, gas stations, hospitals, apartments, schools—everything feels vintage early-80s, making the viewer feel like they’ve travelled back in time for a couple of hours. What doesn’t work is the insistence on “electrifying” Abby’s character by visually transforming her into a vampire when she must get replenished every night; not only does it contradict the original, it also feels too Hollywood, leaning more towards traditional horror elements. In Let The Right One In, the girl always looks like a girl and that’s what made the story so unique, as we didn’t need her to become a monster right before attacking someone.

Another critical flaw is the amped-up use of CGI. There were effects utilized in Let The Right One In for the simple—and sole—purpose of showing that Abby could climb buildings, but they were never flashy or obtrusive. Here, Reeves “increases” the tension by violently emphasizing Abby’s attacks, turning her character into some kind of computer-generated acrobat. This also drifts away from the original, whose shock moments were done in a matter-of-fact style, almost to the point where the viewer does double-takes. Fortunately, there isn’t too much CGI used in Let Me In, as it’s smart enough not to depend on the technology, although it would have worked better had it maintained patience. Moretz was able to do the majority of her stunts in Kick-Ass without CGI, so why not here?

Despite these quibbles, Let Me In is still one of the best remakes in recent years. It has an artistic and ambitious edge which so many remakes (horror ones, in particular) fail to reach, especially when their primary purpose is to make money. Director Matt Reeves, who made the far more commercial Cloverfield, shows complete respect and devotion to its source and yet, wisely, doesn’t resort to unimaginative imitation in his script adaptation.

Devotees of the book will no doubt have their own personal qualms, but Reeves deserves credit for not turning Let Me In into a by-the-numbers bloodbath punctuated by today’s usual horror movie requirements (i.e. female nudity, excessive gore, extreme torture). Even though Abby is a vampire, the characters and story feel so real you buy much of what’s happening on the screen. Its powerful portrait of teen angst and innocence matches the original’s themes without becoming familiar or repetitive and, indeed, the scenes with the bullies tend to be much more frightening than the blood-sucking scenes. If only Reeves and his crew had maintained subtlety with the attack scenes and effects, this remake would have entered the realm of the sublime. Alas, it only scratches the surface of total satisfaction.

Closing Statement
While Let Me In is a better remake than it has any right to be, it’s still worth watching even if you’ve seen the original Swedish version. Kudos to Reeves for maintaining the story’s mood and spirit; ditto to Moretz as vampire Abby.

The Verdict
8/10

Opening Day: Daybreakers

adam arseneau — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 22:08:11 +0000

Attention readers: did you miss our review of Daybreakers from our Toronto International Film Festival coverage in September? If so, you missed out on a bloodbath, literally. Packed full of dismembered bodies, vampires and more Willem Dafoe than you can shake a stick at, horror aficionados are no doubt lining up for this one.

What did we think of Daybreakers? Head on over and read our review to decide for yourself!

Review: The Canyon

Daniel Kelly — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 01:10:20 +0000

The Canyon: OPENING: 10/23/2009; STUDIO: Truly Indie; RUN TIME: 102 min; ACCOMPLICES:
Trailer, Official Site

The Charge
Surviving is just the beginning.

Opening Statement
Hollywood has long been fond of the "ordinary people in hellish situations" genre. Based on box office returns for films like The Strangers and Open Water so too are contemporary audiences. Everyone loves a tense film. This particular style makes it easy for the viewer to get into the protagonists shoes and endure the rollercoaster horror through their own imagination. Richard Harrah’s The Canyon takes the action to the Grand Canyon, concocting a disastrous dilemma for two young newlyweds. While the film is far from perfect (with an unfortunately strung out opening), it builds to a satisfactory conclusion, facilitating momentum with fantastical ease.

Facts of the Case
Nick (Eion Bailey, Fight Club) and Lori (Yvonne Strahovski, NBC’s Chuck) decide to follow up their Vegas wedding with a Honeymoon near the Grand Canyon, planning to take a guided tour through the legendary landmark as a way to celebrate their nuptials. Initially struggling to procure an authorized guide on such short notice, they end up going with the rugged and mysterious Henry (Will Patton, Armageddon). Whilst a little unorthodox, Henry does appear knowledgeable and safe, but disaster strikes when a freak accident leaves the pair without their Mules, their supplies, and a fatally injured Henry. Now Nick and Lori have to face the expansive and merciless environment by themselves, hoping to escape before starvation finishes them or hungry predators decide they’d make a nice meal.

The Evidence
There is a fair amount to like about The Canyon, and it would certainly be nice if it could find a decent audience during its limited theatrical run. Director Richard Harrah has largely worked as a production executive within the industry and, in many ways, his robust and skillful handling of this project’s climax is its greatest asset. Audiences should be warned the film pulls very few punches. Those seeking a provocative survivalist picture are recommended to check this one out. However, if you are willing to accept The Canyon on its most basic and fundamentally suspenseful levels, many of its flaws are easily forgiven.

Bailey and Strahovski (both are relatively young performers) provide competent performances, a tolerable pair to hang such a genre effort on, giving audiences enough of a hook to care about their character’s fates. Due to an event that occurs halfway through the story, Strahovski is given a little more leverage to tear out her inner survivor, rising to the challenge admirably. The only other genuine presence is Patton as the roughed-up outdoorsman who takes them through the Canyon. While he only lasts for a third of the story, he offers an authentically ragged yet colorful performance, creating a character that keeps the audience on edge but also quite likable.

As a thriller, The Canyon doesn’t always manage to find the right note. The opening, for example, is overly stretched and liable to induce a vague sense of tedium. Debut screenwriter Steve Allrich struggles a bit with the exposition and, at times, the dialogue is truly woeful. Audiences will be rewarded by not losing faith and toughing out the first 20 minutes, but there is really no excuse for having them do so. When the story really kicks in and the characters are stranded, Harrah manages to find a more clinical pace, unearthing enough tension to excuse the continuously weak dialogue, before rushing to a brutal and more enjoyable second half. The film shoots out ravenous wolves, gory injuries, and gruesome snakes bites for a large portion of its runtime, but Harrah doesn’t neglect the innate and more subtle desperation such an event would conjure. I definitely commend the film for exploiting the eerie feeling of disconnection from wider society, and the panic which stems from knowing help isn’t on the way.

The Grand Canyon is a setting ripe for delicious shot construction and Harrah doesn’t disappoint. The film was reputedly made for a very modest $10 Million, so the fact it looks so lavish and attractive is no small feat, the camera manipulating the gorgeous surroundings rather than plumping itself for glossy visuals thrillers often lather themselves in. The scenes set at the night are given a pleasing dollop of atmosphere, due to a neat mixture of visuals and sound, creating an expansive and haunting feel. The Canyon builds to a wonderfully nihilistic and distressing final few minutes, in which most the movie’s problems dissipate thanks to the intrepid filmmaking on display.

Closing Statement
The Canyon is a flawed film and (outside of its conclusion) a bit forgettable, but still enjoyable. While it’s not likely to become a genre classic, it does provide a solid demo reel for what director Richard Harrah and his two leads might be capable of in the future.

The Verdict
6/10

TIFF Review: Daybreakers

adam arseneau — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 16:36:06 +0000

Daybreakers: OPENING: 01/08/2010; STUDIO: Lionsgate; ACCOMPLICES:
Trailer, Official Site

The Charge
Vampires that don’t sparkle! Hooray!

Opening Statement
Daybreakers stretches a modest budget to impressive lengths, creating a dystopic and gritty future where the world is overtaken by vampires, who are absolutely not interested in dating high school girls. Well, maybe to tear their limbs off. The plot and acting derail themselves faster than a freight train, but it’s refreshing to see a vampire movie get back to the basics of blood and guts.

Facts of the Case
In the year 2019, the world is a very different place. Vampire outbreaks have decimated the human population, who live on the fringes of society, hunted for their blood. The world continues as normal, but now the vast majority of the humans are vampires. Ten years into the new vampire world, the human population has been hunted to verge of extinction, and the vampire population simply cannot survive on the current supply of blood.

Edward (Ethan Hawke) works as a hematologist for a multinational vampire corporation that controls the blood supply for the planet, with walls of hapless individuals strapped to machines constantly pumping out their blood. Recognizing the fragile state of their own existence, Edward and his team search for an artificial substitute to satiate the masses, but all their efforts have disastrous (and messy) results. His boss, Charles (Sam Neill) urges him on, anxious to find a new market to capitalize on. For Ethan, he finds his work necessary to save the human species. Despite his own vampire nature, he finds himself feeling sorry for the humans, avoiding human blood at all costs.

Through a series of accidental events, Edward comes in contact with a small resistance group of humans harboring an earth-shattering secret. Their leader Elvis (Willem Dafoe) asks Edward to help them on a different approach to the vampire food problem: a cure for vampirism. As the vampire population starves slowly, blood riots break out and threaten to tear society apart, and Edward thinks he has a chance to save his world. But his corporation may not want a cure…

The Evidence
Directed by the Spierig brothers (Peter and Michael), who rose in the Lionsgate ranks after their low-budget Aussie zombie film Undead cleaned up with cult fans, Daybreakers is a serious upgrade from their previous work. During the Q&A at the screening, one of the brothers remarks that the entire budget of Undead was overtaken by the contact lens budget in Daybreakers. With an influx of cash and a surprisingly all-star cast, the duo spent the last few years perfecting the film, which lands a release date just as the world is finally getting tired of vampire pop culture. Don’t mention this to the Sperigs. They swear they started to work on this long before vampires were “cool” and “sparkly”. You won’t be seeing any romance in this movie, trust me.

Imagine the world of Gattaca if overrun by vampires, and you have a pretty good visual image of Daybreakers. The film makes great use of CGI and artistic design to create a dystopic world a mere ten years in the future where vampires are now the dominant species on the planet. People still go to work, live in nice houses, order coffee (20% blood) and take the subway, but they’re vampires. Life moves on. The movie is crammed full of newspaper articles, television news reports and sly technological working solutions to how a vampire manages to live a day-to-day existence, like cars that have special tinting that allows them to drive (via cameras) during the day, and a PA system in every neighborhood giving advanced notice of the exact time of sunrise. These geek-out moments are everywhere, and the nerds among us will delight in seeing all the attention that went into them.

As the film progresses, we learn of the human resistance movement; a loose rag-tag army constantly on the run from vampire hunters looking to farm their bodies for the growing demand for blood. It isn’t a David vs. Goliath situation, more like mice constantly scurrying and cowering from the army of cats on their heels. Edward, being sympathetic to the human cause, finds himself accidentally aligned with a group of on-the-run humans, who hope that his hematologist skills can aid them in finding a cure for the vampire condition. The logic behind the solution devised is questionable at best, drunken at worst, but it’s a moot point anyway, because Daybreakers is the kind of film that if you think too long about its premise, or its scientific explanations, blood will shoot out your nose. Don’t do it. Resist the temptation.

A fun horror film full of carnage, shocks and some great “boo” moments that will get audiences screaming, the experience of Daybreakers is easily ruined by the unauthorized use of brain cells to ask questions about the acting quality (horrible by any measurable standard) or the plot (riddled with puncture holes large enough to drive a car into) or the scientific justifications for the events on screen. Don’t ask why the cars are all current-models with glowing blue grills, or what logic dictates how vampires can go out in daylight sometimes, but catch on fire other times, or how you can cure somebody of vampirism via the method explained in the film (a genuine brain-killer), or why when you shoot a vampire with a crossbow they explode lie a canister of gasoline. Actually, I know the answer to the last one: because it’s @#$% cool. I think a lot of decisions in the conceptual drawing up of Daybreakers were answered this way.

Take for example the casting: Sam Neill as the primary villain figure, an expensive-suited vampire CEO plays his role with such over-the-top sneering contempt that you can hear the vitriol dripping from his tongue. He isn’t scary or menacing, just goofy. And speaking of goofy, Willem Dafoe, whose purpose in the film is so bizarre as to represent the single greatest casting decision ever in the history of the world. His name is Elvis, and he drives muscle cars, and he kind of affects a southern accent, but only on 25% of the words he speaks—the rest, Dafoe forgets about it. Every bit of dialogue is a hackneyed one-liner, every conversation an atomic bomb of logical fallacy. It is as if the Iraqi propaganda ministry wrote the dialogue for Dafoe’s character, piecing it together from every B-reel John Wayne film and archival episodes of Hee Haw. A performance this over-the-top stupid could tear a lesser movie in half, but Daybreakers feeds off it, channels it, turns it into an ironic “so bad it’s good” extravaganza you can’t help but laugh at. Ethan Hawke plays his Edward character as a wussy human sympathizer, cowardly and sniveling, but his performance is satisfactory—he doesn’t really have a chance at outperforming his two senior cast members, because they’re just so over-the-top bizarre.

All told, Daybreakers is a triumph of low-budget excess, pulling off complex sequences and spectacular gore with minimal financing. It looks great, sounds great and will entertain on a pure aesthetic and visceral sense, provided you avoid thinking about it too much. The blood and bullets fly, vampires and humans explode in equal numbers, and the dystopic world comes crashing down with glorious chaotic fury. No one is going to give the Sperig brothers an award for “Screenplay That Makes The Most Sense”, but the two have talent for the action and horror genres that will no doubt take them far in Hollywood.

A random observation: the score is a massive orchestral affair, sweeping and epic and grandiose, and feels mismatched to the grey-tinted fluorescent light themed future full of vampires. A score more low-key and gloomy would suit the subject matter better.

Closing Statement
Daybreakers emerges into the light of day with buckets of blood, frenetic vampire action and much style. The premise is a refreshing twist on an increasingly clichéd subject matter. If all you expect from your action/horror hybrids are slick one-liners, buckets of blood and hewn limbs, Daybreakers will deliver. The story and acting are laughably bad, so check your sensibility and logic at the door.

The Verdict
7/10

TIFF Review: Antichrist

adam arseneau — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 13:41:24 +0000

Antichrist: OPENING: 10/23/2009; STUDIO: IFC Films; ACCOMPLICES:
Trailer, Official Site

The Charge
“Chaos reigns”.

Opening Statement
Antichrist, the newest film by auteur Lars von Trier, debuted at Cannes this year to a decisively mixed reaction, kind of the way that a Ferrari going at 60 miles per hour and a brick wall “mix” after one too many martinis. Audiences were polarized, incensed, alarmed, disgusted and horrified. Some fainted, while others walked out in protest. The film was derided as misogynistic, hateful, offensive and excessively violent, even perverse. One could argue it was a rousing success, because there is no doubt von Trier (who wrote the film during a fit of crippling depression) set out to do exactly this. Even the title borders on the scandalous and inflammatory.

Is it all of these things and more? Oh yes. It is even worse, more horrible and unsettling, more soul-crushingly bleak and despondent than mere words can articulate. It may be the saddest and cruelest film ever made. Is it worth seeing? Absolutely it is.

Speaking of things worth seeing, here’s hoping you like the idea of seeing Willem Dafoe’s penis, because you’re going to be seeing a lot of it.

Facts of the Case
After the death of their young son, who tumbles out their apartment window while they make love in the next room, an unnamed couple (Willem Dafoe and Charlotte Gainsbourg) struggle through their grief. The woman ends up hospitalized over her grief, and the man (a psychologist) sets out to help his wife work through the pain and loss. He throws her medicines away, takes her into a reclusive cabin in the woods named Eden—a place she is terrified of—and slowly, painfully breaks down her mental defenses and emotional barriers.

As the woman grows more despondent and irrational, the environment around them changes; nature becomes foreboding and dangerous, animals behave strangely. As the man and woman try and work through their pain, destruction and torment slowly seep into their lives, causing them to lash out in increasingly sexual and violent ways.

The Evidence
There are good films, and there are bad films. A third, more dangerous category of film is one that belies such conformist categorization, opting to lay eggs in your brain that gestate, grow and explode, tearing your skull wide open. Antichrist may be the first film I have ever encountered to easily satisfy the criteria of all three categories, and in that order. The raw power and emotion contained in this film, the sheer ferocity and fury of its convictions and ideology is almost frightening. Antichrist is a dangerous film unlike any before it, full of vitriol and bile, contempt and hatred, depression and angst and a penchant for genetic mutilation that will knock you off your chair and into the fetal position faster than you can cry out for your mother. And you will be.

To observe that Antichrist is a film loaded with strong opinions on religion would be an understatement. The title is no joke. This is a film about Sin, with a capital “s”, usually preceded by “Original”; this is a film about evil and good, of mankind itself, in all its hideous cruelty and glorious debauchery. There are two characters in the film, each archetypal representative of the origins of Man and Women. When they are not screaming and causing horrible violence to themselves and to each other, they are having wild, animalistic sex. Most of the best sequences in Antichrist have them doing both at the same time. This is the Garden of Eden tale in horrible reverse, by way of pain and misery and sexual dysfunction. Those raised with Catholic ideological values are in for a serious kick in the teeth with this film. One might argue that the notion of Satan is not an abstract concept here, but a third cast member.

It is difficult to put one into the head space of von Trier. Much of Antichrist is straightforward; the plot at its core is simplistic, but so much of the film is metaphorical that any (and all) interpretation of the film is subjective at best. The film is divided into four chapters: grief, pain, despair, and The Three Beggars (an allegorical combination of the aforementioned three), which sound self-explanatory, but in actuality are just as vexing. The Eden and biblical elements are the easiest to appreciate, but perhaps the most challenging to truly comprehend, especially in the epilogue. Antichrist is a film about the nature of the world, both literal and pejorative: the nature of humanity, the nature of good and evil, Mother Nature, human nature, et al. The very elements of nature seem poised to strike out at any moment: forests hang full of darkness and dread, hailstones and acorns pummel the man and woman at every opportunity, and foxes have surprisingly profound statements on the subject of chaos.

This is a film that will haunt audiences brave enough to see it. The sexual and violent imagery is shocking, make no mistake—people fainted during the screening at Cannes, and I hardly blame them—but the true discontent in the film is subcutaneous, just below the surface, suggesting darker evils and deeper currents than we can truly fathom. There is no hope of any kind in Antichrist, only a vicious kind of sadness that is sharpened at the molecular level and wielded like a broadsword, slicing through all in its path. Nature itself bends to the grief and nihilism of the man and woman, foreboding and monstrous. The film is fascinating from an academic level, and lovers of the cinematic art will find this one of the most curious and debatable films in the last decade. On a personal level, do not expect to enjoy the experience: Antichrist is like a viral infection, feverish and clammy and nauseating; a deep sense of wrongness occurring at a level beyond our rational understanding. It is the cinematic equivalent of being shaken like a child, of sheer loss of control, of being hoisted up by our collar by forces larger and stronger than us, and being throttled within an inch of our emotional and spiritual life.

Women will find this film particularly challenging. Many have observed elements of misogyny in Antichrist, and I find it hard to rebuke them entirely, although I have faith in the artist that things are not quite as they seem. On first glance, things look grim: the woman has been working on a thesis about gynocide, or gendercide, and even suggests that the nature of women may be intrinsically evil. It is one thing to feel this way about women, say after a bad break up and a few beers, but another entirely to set the emotional premise of a film around it. As reality undulates and the allegorical metaphors pile up in Antichrist, the woman begins to behave oddly, erratically, violently towards herself and to the man in increasingly explicit ways. It would be easy to give a cursory glance towards Antichrist and criticize it on these elements. A film about the nature of evil and the intrinsic worth of humanity as a parable to the Garden of Eden mythology is, by its very nature, not going to be particularly flattering towards women.

There is something important here in Antichrist, a window into a kind of madness and passion that few films have ever approached. The film will terrify and alarm audiences to the core of their being, especially for those squeamish of constitution and faith, but the beauty in the craft cannot be denied. The performances by Willem Dafoe and Charlotte Gainsbourg are two of the finest performances ever put to camera, a career-topping tour-de-force of emotion and fury. This is the kind of role that could kill a lesser film career, but for a venerable actor like Dafoe, it merely cements his places as a master of the craft. Gainsbourgh walked out of Cannes with a Best Actress award, which is a testament to exactly how good her performance was. Despite all the controversy and disgust towards von Trier and the film itself, no one can overlook her. A stripped-down, emotionally bearing performance from both, their performances are horribly believable, tearing away at body and mind alike, with humongous commitments of emotional damage and full frontal nudity that would destroy lesser actors and actresses. An Oscar nod for Gainsbourgh is virtually assured.

A lyrical and enigmatic film shot with cutting-edge high definition digital cameras, the first five minutes alone of Antichrist are elegant and stunningly beautiful composition and cinematography. It sounds ironic, but Lars von Trier has crafted the most beautiful ugly film in the world, a film rotten and viscous at its core, but elegant and artistic in appearance and direction. Slow motion sequences of incredible depth and profundity give way to beautiful compositions of color, light and shadow. Eden alternates between earthy paradise of lush greens, bubbling brooks and drifting fog to the stuff of nightmare. Hands drift up from the roots of trees, animals become horrifying monsters, and shadows loom ominously. There is no score to speak of, save for an operatic piece from Rinaldo in the prologue and epilogue, but the film is far from silent. Chaotic and cacophonous ambient noises buzz and hiss ominously during key moments, alarming and unsettling in their pitch and fervor—only suddenly to vanish, and the silence is somehow worse.

Closing Statement
Antichrist is a beautiful and terrifying tapestry of immense complexity, full of spiritual and sexual dysfunction and unapologetic rage. To participate in its viewing is akin to assembling a jigsaw puzzle in the dark. We can sense the greater picture, we can feel the edges, and we can even snap something into place now and again, but the true understanding of the project eludes our senses.

Critics will rail against the cruelty and excess expressed in this film, as they should. The ideas being communicated to audiences in this film are almost entirely negative, full of spite and anger, sadness and repulsion, but it is how Antichrist communicates these ideas that will fascinate audiences and make this film one of the most talked-about of the year. Painfully nihilistic, Antichrist is a triumph of artistic cinema, a film that strives and communicates on levels that transcend the film, beyond sight and sound, beyond man and women, and beyond good and evil.

The Verdict
To paraphrase Douglas Adams, watching Antichrist is unpleasantly like being drunk. Ask a glass of water how that feels.

9/10

Review: Orphan

Clark Douglas — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 01:29:49 +0000

Orphan: OPENING: 07/24/2009; STUDIO: Warner Bros.; ACCOMPLICES:
Trailer, Official Site; SOUNDTRACK:

The Charge
There’s something wrong with Esther.

Opening Statement
I honestly didn’t expect much from Orphan, mainly due to the fact that it was directed by House of Wax helmer Jaume Collet-Serra and slightly due to its seemingly uninspired premise. The film begins in a fairly conventional manner and concludes in a similarly conventional fashion. Within those ho-hum bookends, however, is a crackerjack thriller that boldly dives into subversive territory without even blinking.

Facts of the Case
The film opens with an over-the-top depiction of a childbirth gone horribly wrong. At a certain point, the events become so bizarre we are sure it must be a dream. It is. The dreamer is Kate Coleman (Vera Farmiga, The Departed), a married mother of two who lost her third child just before giving birth. The baby’s death has left a hole in Kate’s heart, and wants to fill it by adopting a child and providing the love and affection she would have given her own. Her husband John (Peter Sarsgaard, The Skeleton Key) is supportive of Kate’s wishes, so off they go to one of those adoption events where you get to meet a bunch of children. My job has given me the opportunity to familiarize myself with such events in recent years, and I can tell you they are absolutely nothing like the one depicted here. But I digress…

While there are lots of cheerful children running around the orphanage, John casually wanders down the hallway towards one of the back rooms. He hears a girl singing, opens the door, and finds young Esther (Isabelle Fuhrman, Hounddog), a sweet-natured girl from Russia too shy to participate in the adoption party. John and Kate (Hey, wait a minute, those names sound familiar!) speak with Esther, quickly determine she is the child they want, papers are signed, and in no time Esther has become a member of the Coleman family. Unfortunately, tension, turmoil, and shall we say… less than ideal circumstances seem to follow Esther wherever she goes, leading Kate to suspect Esther may not be the sweet child they believed her to be. Is it possible she and John have adopted a very troubled child? Or worse, a flat-out evil child?

The Evidence
This certainly isn’t the first "scary child" movie we’ve seen and I it won’t be the last. Heck, this isn’t even the first go-round for actress Vera Farmiga, who just a couple of years ago starred in a film called Joshua. That one had a rather similar premise: an evil child drives a mother insane and the father doesn’t believe the child is evil. Joshua was simply too highbrow for its own good, making it creepier in theory than execution, more concerned with good taste than getting under your skin. Boy, that’s not a problem here!

Orphan is a shamelessly exploitative thriller that has no qualms about preying on the easily manipulated instincts of its audience. The film enters territory comparable to two other underrated flicks — Running Scared (which also starred Farmiga) and Tideland. If you saw either (doubtful, given their poor box office receipts) and were bothered by them, you would do well to stay far away from this. Sweet young children are forced to participate in all sorts of terribly perilous and violent situations. I won’t describe any, for sake of avoiding spoilers, but suffice to say you should expect to cringe at least a couple times. It would all be terribly offensive, if not for the fact that this is one effective thriller.

Orphan wanders into dark corners and allows itself to become less neat and comfortable than many modern horror flicks. Given the anything-goes world we live in, there may not be any violent act that makes every audience member squirm, but there is one scene on the living room couch which may just do the trick. It just goes to show not all horror is generated by the threat of violence.

The acting is stellar throughout. Farmiga makes an effective lead, nervously wringing her hands and allowing those expressive eyes to generate a wild intensity that removes the need for her to shout and scream all the time. Sarsgaard is equally effective as her husband, playing a man so level-headed and understanding you can’t help but get a bit irritated with him. After all, level-headed doesn’t always equal perceptive. The best performance comes from 11-year-old Isabelle Fuhrman, who demonstrates remarkable maturity and range in a very challenging role. While I have to wonder why her parents would allow her to play such a part, she does wonders with it. I was also pleased to see a brief but important appearance by Karel Roden (Hellboy), who provides us with the film’s most crucial piece of information.

Just a side note: Some adoption organizations are unhappy with the film, since they feel it plays on fears about adopted children and may potentially discourage people from considering adoption. I don’t think this is a serious concern. Any adult who changes their mind about adoption as a result of seeing this film doesn’t have the mental fortitude needed to raise a child anyway.

Closing Statement
The film does have its problems, succumbing to certain horror conventions, while lending a comfortable safety net of dreary familiarity to a story that tries to be ambitious. As such, Orphan is merely a good film rather than something special. Not a bad choice, if you’re an adventurous moviegoer looking for a movie with more bite than bark.

The Verdict
7/10