Split (2017)

Tags

Drama, Thriller, Horror

Here I sit and calmly wait
As others take the stage for now,
The normal ones who dominate
And cast their glares of fear and hate
Because they know my time will come,
No matter what they may allow.

Within our host, I wait my turn,
For others must prepare my way.
I’m just a rumor, no concern,
Until too late, the normals learn
That darkness kept beneath their thumb
Will be set free, and they will pay.
______________

MPAA rating: PG-13

After reaching an atrocious low with The Last Airbender, it seems M. Night Shyamalan has enacted a comeback, a return to the well-crafted psychological thrillers that first made him a household name. Found-footage horror The Visit was an improvement, wringing tension from a low budget, even if the story had holes and strange parts to criticize. And now, Split is another step in the right direction, boasting elements that are deserving of genuine praise, even if it’s not at the same level as Shyamalan’s early work, like Unbreakable.

The captivity thriller seems to be a popular subgenre of late, including 10 Cloverfield Lane, Pet, Berlin Syndrome, and of course, Split (or, as I call it, Sybil meets Psycho). Right from the start, outcast highschooler Casey (Anya Taylor-Joy) is abducted with two of her more popular classmates, Claire (Haley Lu Richardson) and Marcia (Jessica Sula), and they awake in a small locked room. Their kidnapper Kevin Crumb (James McAvoy) acts like different people whenever he interacts with them, and sessions with his understanding psychologist (Betty Buckley) reveal that he actually has 23 separate identities. We only get to see eight at the most, but three in particular have taken control of Kevin and, by kidnapping the girls, are preparing for the arrival of a much more dangerous personality called the Beast.

The best thing about Split is James McAvoy simply because, without his phenomenal acting, the film could collapse under a weaker performance. Whether he’s an OCD-ridden pervert, a threateningly proper matron, or a mischievous little boy named Hedwig, his acting, accent, and body language really sell Kevin’s divided character. He even manages to act as one personality pretending to be another personality. Betty Buckley and Anya Taylor-Joy do fine work as well, with the former convincingly laying out exposition and the latter capturing the fear of trying to keep her wits about her.

Unfortunately, Split’s sad and disturbing narrative makes it a film I’m not likely to see often. Aside from the claustrophobic captivity aspect and tension, which were also well-done in 10 Cloverfield Lane, there were moments that could have benefited from a rewrite or better editing, like the protracted kidnapping scene, which had me thinking “Why doesn’t she dart out the door?” rather than holding me on the edge of my seat. One bizarre dance scene with the Hedwig personality reminded me that, as with The Visit, I don’t think Shyamalan’s attempts at comic relief work as he intends; it’s just a very strange scene, even if it were done by the 9-year-old boy Kevin thinks he is.

My biggest complaint comes toward the end, where the already disturbing storyline turns murderous and goes a bit too far for me and my VC, even if there’s restraint in what is actually shown. I appreciated the semi-twist that made sense for the traumas shared by Kevin and Casey, but the ending doesn’t provide much closure to anyone’s story. Perhaps I’ll appreciate Split more with the arrival of the announced sequel it’s clearly leading into, and I’ll admit I’m more excited for that follow-up than I was about Split.

Even with my objections, Split is a definite step up for Shyamalan, well-acted and taut, and promises even more intriguing things to come. It’s perhaps best thought of as the birth of a supervillain, and while it succeeds in creating a dangerous and conflicted character, I’m more interested in the hero he’ll oppose.

Best line: (9-year-old Hedwig, after awkwardly kissing Casey) “You might be pregnant now.”

 

Rank: Honorable Mention

 

© 2017 S.G. Liput
497 Followers and Counting

 

Alien: Covenant (2017)

Tags

Action, Horror, Sci-fi, Thriller

When choosing to visit a faraway planet,
Some strange world never examined by man,
Those who can claim to be smarter than granite
May favor caution as part of the plan.

Instead of just landing and waltzing around,
Content to breathe air you know nothing about,
Perhaps wearing helmets would seem rather sound
Or keep parties small, if you have any doubt.

If common sense fails and you go out exposed,
With most of your redshirt crew ready to fall,
You’ll wish you’d seen all that this movie proposed,
Though you may have feared then to leave Earth at all.
___________________

MPAA rating: R

Earlier this year, I made up a Top Twelve list of 2017 movies I hoped would be good, and this is the first of the twelve I’ve gotten to see. I hesitated to give it a watch after hearing of the increased violence and mixed reviews, but my curiosity and loyalty to the Alien franchise won out. So, is it good? Well, sort of and no. It’s a thoroughly mixed bag of a follow-up to 2012’s Prometheus and the first chance Ridley Scott has gotten to directly sequelize one of his own films (since Prometheus was a prequel).

Unlike many, I quite liked Prometheus, especially upon a rewatch. It’s a different animal than the first Alien, more concerned with thought-provoking philosophical questions than extraterrestrial jump scares, though there are still enough of those for me. Alien: Covenant does indeed return to the dominant horror of Scott’s original film, but it feels more indebted to its predecessors, even if it does spice up some of the familiar beats. For one thing, it’s as if the story of Prometheus has started over, just instead of scientists seeking out humanity’s origins, we have a ship full of colonists headed for a distant new world, again all in stasis and again monitored by a Michael Fassbender android, this time the American-accented Walter. When a Passengers-style space wave damages the ship and kills the captain (James Franco, barely), the remaining crew who awaken pick up a signal from a closer planet and investigate its source as a new potential colony site. As you might imagine, the planet’s infection of alien DNA is out to get them from the start, and there’s a good deal of death and dismemberment, as well as the return of David, the other synthetic Fassbender from Prometheus.

If you liked Alien and Aliens, you’ll enjoy all the scary survival stuff that reminds you of those two, but Scott is still bent on explaining his alien mythos, with David as the creative force behind the biological set-up for the aliens we all know. In doing so, Scott’s bound to divide opinions on what David does and why. In fact, he’s far more interested with David than with the human characters, who are all couples for this colony mission and at least earn token sympathy when their spouses inevitably bite the dust. Katherine Waterston is the prominent Ripley of the group and does a reasonably good job at remaining sane while others make poor decisions out of panic. The acting is secondary, though; where the film excels most is in the dark visual wonder of the planet and the frightening intensity of the action. The double climax at the end may be suspiciously similar to that of Aliens, but it’s ratcheted up to even more thrilling levels. Those two scenes alone were worth seeing on the big screen.

Yet, two awesome scenes don’t quite make up for the fact that the rest adds up to an unsatisfying mess. (Moderate spoilers in this paragraph!) I had really hoped for more, considering the open questions at the end of Prometheus, where Noomi Rapace’s Elizabeth Shaw took off with David to search for the Engineers. Shaw is sadly only a memory here, with David’s actions toward her only slightly clearer than his intentions, and unless a future film provides another perspective, it’s a frustrating letdown for a character who deserved more. Likewise, casting David as a sort of Frankenstein figure obsessed with creation at all costs is more than a bit perplexing. Fassbender plays him well with a coldly self-righteous zeal, but I wish I knew why David is so enamored with these grotesque alien spawn. He clearly admires human art and music, so why does he see creative humans as unworthy next to these mindless killing machines? And then there’s the end, the twist I easily saw coming which follows a trend in horror movies I dislike where the villain gains the upper hand. It’s chilling but not a way to end a movie, especially when these Alien films aren’t reliable in picking up the plot threads and characters of what came before. It’s like the beginning of Alien 3 tacked on to the end of Aliens; if Aliens had ended like that, it wouldn’t nearly have the same respect it does.

On top of all the disappointing plot developments, Alien: Covenant has far more profanity and gore than its predecessors, which might please fans of those things but are inevitably a turnoff for me. The first two Alien movies may have had their notorious shock scenes, but the rest of the film usually thrived on the terror of what you didn’t see (Dallas in the tunnels, Burke opening that door), which is the kind of tension I prefer over the gruesome sort. I’m also not sure what to make of the film’s religious overtones. Billy Crudup as Oram, the insecure first officer who takes command after the captain’s death, is “a man of faith” and is intent on proving himself reliable and clear-minded, even if it also makes him cruel and unpopular. The trouble is that this early character point goes nowhere. I liked the simple but sincere and unbroken faith of Shaw in Prometheus, but considering what happens to her and Oram, I’m not sure why the subject of faith is even broached.

Thus, despite my high hopes, Alien: Covenant was a disappointment, even with its high-quality production, a few truly awesome scenes, and some perceptive literary references. Yet I had a similar initial reaction to Prometheus too, so maybe a rewatch will help, though I doubt it. Scott has stated that he’s willing to keep making Alien movies as long as fans want them, a prospect that doesn’t hold much hope for me anymore since, as much as I want more of this franchise’s strengths, its weaknesses are becoming more and more plain.

Best line: (Walter, with a naïve sentiment the film doesn’t support) “I think if we are kind, it will be a kind world.”

 

Rank: Honorable Mention

 

© 2017 S.G. Liput
491 Followers and Counting

 

Ghostbusters (2016)

Tags

Comedy, Fantasy, Horror

(Today’s NaPoWriMo prompt was to suggest how future archaeologists would look back on us today.  I applied my movie theme to the concept and even worked in a little of the biology class I’m taking right now.)

 

Welcome to my lecturing on modern archaeology:
Today the ancient world before the 22^nd century,
A cruder, ruder, desk-computer chapter in our history.

Just recently, our diggers found a reddish box interred in rock
And found within it simple disks that once were sold and kept in stock,
A kind of visual entertainment certain players could unlock.

Some were future sci-fi stories, which weren’t right on anything;
Some were labeled “Oscar winners,” which we’re still deciphering;
And one about pursuing ghosts was worth the price of tunneling.

As some may know, an older fossil from the Reagan-lithic zone
Had a concept similar and yet was not a perfect clone.
This proves the theory that some artists used ideas that weren’t their own.

It seems some stories were remade in efforts to indulge consumers,
Many of which found them lacking, but just why is up to rumors.
Though we can’t be sure since men evolved and lost our sense of humors.
___________________

MPAA rating: PG-13

When the latest all-female version of Ghostbusters was announced, I was never among the crowd that condemned and ranted against it. I was more in the eye-rolling crowd because remakes of classic movies always turn out well, right? Still, I decided to check it out with an open mind, and my opinion seems to match the general consensus:  it’s not terrible, but it’s not great either.

Instead of a sequel, this Ghostbusters is a reboot, treating the profession of paranormal poaching as an unexplored field, as if the original never happened. After an initial haunting that’s actually much scarier than the library beginning of the first film, Erin Gilbert (Kristen Wiig) is asked to look into it, even though she has tried to distance herself from her ghost-studying past. Soon, however, she’s back into the paranormal game with her old colleague Abby (Melissa McCarthy) and the Egon-esque Jillian (Kate McKinnon). Along with a street-savvy subway worker (Leslie Jones), they team up just as an occult weirdo (Neil Casey) tries to cause the apocalypse. Good timing, eh?

I’ll start out by saying that this Ghostbusters wasn’t entirely “meh.” There were even ways I thought it offered an improved story, mainly in providing a reason for all the ghost sightings rather than the original’s relative lack of explanation. The villain is fairly forgettable, but his actions indirectly bring about the Ghostbusters themselves, who rise to the occasion to stop him. I also liked the two-faced response from the governor’s office, secretly supporting the Ghostbusters while publicly denouncing them, which I found funnier and more believable than the initial outright denial of the government in the first two films.

The biggest problem with this Ghostbusters is a problem I have with the majority of modern comedies: it simply didn’t make me laugh very much. Oh, I chuckled in spots, snickered at the occasional clever joke or recognizable reference, but shouldn’t a comedy elicit more of a reaction than that? Far too often were moments I could tell were meant to be funny but just weren’t, and part of it may stem from my natural indifference to Wiig and McCarthy. McKinnon and Jones had stronger humor than the other two, but the film’s best surprise was Chris Hemsworth’s gender-swapped role as the ditzy receptionist Kevin. While the women were focused on the ghost-hunting plot, Hemsworth provided some needed laughs and was clearly enjoying himself, even without his hammer.

Ghostbusters didn’t deserve the instant hate it got and knowingly cracks a few jokes aimed at those nasty comment sections, but I would have hoped for a stronger return for the classic franchise. Perhaps the most wasted element was the cameos of the original cast members, all of which depend solely on “hey-it’s-that-person” appeal rather than being funny or important to the plot. (Dan Aykroyd’s was probably the best, but they couldn’t come up with something better for Bill Murray?) Whereas the original two are classics, this one settles for mere entertainment and so-so CGI, though the big battle at the end has its fun moments. It may yet get a sequel itself, but if not for the original’s reputation, I doubt this film would have fostered the same fondly regarded franchise.

Best line: (Patty, when a ghost escapes on a subway train) “I guess he’s going to Queens. He’s going to be the third scariest thing on that train.”

 

Rank: Honorable Mention

 

© 2017 S.G. Liput
475 Followers and Counting

 

They Live (1988)

Tags

Action, Horror, Sci-fi, Thriller

(Today’s NaPoWriMo prompt was for a creation myth, like maybe a sci-fi explanation for the way things are.)

 

When Earth and its people were young,
From out of the cosmos far-flung,
An alien race
With a butt-ugly face
Found humans worth living among.

They hid their exterior well
To blend in, so no one could tell,
And here they resided
Until they decided
Mankind didn’t raise enough hell.

Whenever they noticed a sign
Of man’s selfishness in decline,
They swayed and brainwashed
And summarily squashed
Good will by their evil design.

On magazines, screens, world affairs,
We see messages unawares.
What we do, they direct,
And as you may suspect,
The Internet’s probably theirs.

That’s how the world got to this place,
So high on hate, lacking in grace.
Although I can’t prove it,
You cannot disprove it,
So who is the real mental case?
__________________

MPAA rating: R (mainly for language and brief nudity)

John Carpenter seemed to direct films designed to be cult classics, films that it’s hard to call good cinema on the surface but which end up finding admirers anyway. Escape from New York and Starman are just two favorites that strike a unique balance between sci-fi depth and imaginative cheese, and They Live fits right into that mold. The film centers on a drifter known as John Nada (famed wrestler Roddy Piper), whose discovery of a secret resistance movement and some special sunglasses reveals an alien mind-controlling conspiracy that can only be taken out by a shotgun and a classic one-liner.

As is typical with the other Carpenter films I’ve seen, it takes a while for the story to get going, as Nada meets a fellow construction worker (Keith David) and slowly notes a few nearby oddities at a church. Piper isn’t exactly a world-class actor either, so the only reason to sit through the beginning is for the promise of action to come. When it does, though, it’s pretty darn fun as Nada goes from gawking at a black-and-white world decorated with words like “Conform” and “Consume” to blasting every skull-faced alien in sight. The most famous sequence has to be the five-minute-plus smackdown between Piper and David over convincing the latter to wear the sunglasses, a fist fight that becomes laughable simply by how many times they both get up to keep on slugging each other.

I’ll admit that, after the slow start, They Live is very watchable, but it does seem weak in several areas, and not just the so-so acting or occasionally fake effects. There’s a pointed critique of commercialism at its core, summed up by the invisible message “THIS IS YOUR GOD” printed on all dollar bills, and the film points fingers at the elite as collaborators with the alien overlords. Yet the satire doesn’t seem to develop far enough to have much depth beyond the obvious hidden words, and it’s never clear exactly why the aliens are doing this or what they get out of keeping mankind petty. It’s like the beginning of a great idea that’s only half-fulfilled. Even so, Carpenter’s cult classics don’t always lend themselves to the same kind of criticism as mainstream films, and the final scene of this one sort of encapsulates what it is: weird, a bit indecent, strangely funny, and keen on eliciting a reaction.

Best line: (Nada) “I have come here to chew bubblegum and kick a**… and I’m all out of bubblegum.”

 

Rank:  Honorable Mention

 

© 2017 S.G. Liput
471 Followers and Counting

 

The Visit (2015)

Tags

Comedy, Drama, Horror, Mystery, Thriller

(Today’s NaPoWriMo prompt was for a poem that looks at something from different viewpoints, such as how differently children view their grandparents.)

 

A visit with grandparents can be generous and merry;
Depending on the child, though, reactions often vary.

I.

Eager meeting, cheers of greeting,
Warm embraces, tender faces,
Cookies, pies, and counsel wise,
And cash they share for being there.
The rarity of reprimand
Will make you wish all parents were grand.

II.

Cheeky pinching, optic squinching,
Cling embraces, wrinkled faces,
Jell-O, prunes, and no cartoons,
And elder smells from creams and gels.
You wipe off lipstick with your sleeve
And count the minutes till you leave.

III.

Basements dreary, habits eerie,
Laughs as cackles, rules as shackles;
Attempts at cheer inspire fear,
An aged nightmare to keep you there.
Although dread comes with every visit,
I’m sure it’s nothing to fear, or is it?
_________________

MPAA rating: PG-13

After a string of films that ranged from poor to terrible (The Last Airbender being the absolute worst), M. Night Shyamalan gave his fans hope of a comeback with The Visit, a small but effective found-footage horror for everyone who was ever afraid of their grandparents. (Not me, of course.) Becca (Olivia DeJonge) and her younger brother Tyler (Ed Oxenbould) finally get to meet their grandparents, who reach out to their estranged daughter (Kathryn Hahn) and propose a five-day visit. While Mom is off on a cruise, the kids enjoy quality time with Nana (Deanna Dunagan) and Pop Pop (Peter McRobbie), a week that slowly takes a turn for the weird.

I’ve never been a fan of the shaky-cam found-footage style, except for Lunopolis, but The Visit finds a decent reason for everything to be caught on tape, namely Becca’s attempt to help her mom and grandparents reconcile through her recordings and interviews. Plus, she’s an aspiring filmmaker, and she and her brother apparently enjoy filming everything. At first, they record the quaint pleasures of meeting new family members and good-natured sibling bickering, but soon Pop Pop and especially Nana begin showing signs of bizarre behavior, particularly after dark. The first-person perspective does lend itself to some genuinely creepy moments, from an intense game of tag in the house’s crawlspace to slow reveals as the camera-holder approaches something eerie. In true horror fashion, Shyamalan imbues tension into seemingly ordinary things, like cleaning the oven, and in true Shyamalan fashion, there are clues dropped that don’t make total sense until a certain twist.

The one thing that I can’t quite reconcile is the description of The Visit as a horror comedy. I suppose it’s laughable that the kids and their mother at first blame the grandparents’ abnormalities on just being old, but there’s little here that I would consider funny, unless you’re amused by intense weirdness. In addition, the final explanation for everything has some shock value at first, but how it plays out is rather conventional, detracting from all the buildup. I did admire the fine performances and some subtle themes of forgiveness and letting go of resentment, especially at the end, but, even if it’s a step in the right direction, The Visit is still a far cry from Shyamalan’s early successes.

Best line: (Becca, explaining away a midnight snack) “I can’t sleep. I need Nana’s cookies. I’m gonna turn a personal addiction into a positive cinematic moment.”

 

Rank:  Honorable Mention

 

© 2017 S.G. Liput
463 Followers and Counting

 

10 Cloverfield Lane (2016)

Tags

Horror, Sci-fi, Thriller

 

I don’t know what dangers wait
Within the dark beyond the door.
Since entering in safety’s gate,
I’ve heard that horrors populate
The world outside and nothing more.

I feel the urge of tempting fate
And venturing where none explore,
But such is not up for debate.
I’m told the danger is too great,
And no one’s looking anymore.

The threats without intimidate,
But those within are growing sore.
And if I realize it too late,
I fear my safety will stagnate
Within the dark inside the door.
__________________

MPAA rating: PG-13

Who could have foreseen a follow-up to J.J. Abrams’ 2008 monster movie Cloverfield eight years later, especially when the first trailer for 10 Cloverfield Lane was released just two months before its release? I actually haven’t seen Cloverfield yet, but this not-quite-sequel is its own animal, following neither the first’s found-footage style nor apparently any of its characters. Instead, it’s a tense and claustrophobic thriller with only three main characters locked in an apocalyptic bunker.

While many have lauded 10 Cloverfield Lane as an outstandingly pleasant surprise from last year, my praise will be a bit more muted, but I don’t mean to write it off completely. It was indeed a pleasant surprise if for no other reason that no one expected it, and when an unexpected film is as effective as this one, there’s nothing wrong with giving due acclaim to the film and its debuting director Dan Trachtenberg. Particularly praiseworthy are the three central performances. Mary Elizabeth Winstead plays Michelle, a woman who awakes from a car wreck to find herself trapped underground by a creepily benevolent John Goodman. This Howard gradually explains that some disaster has occurred on the surface, and after rescuing her, he has graciously allowed Michelle and another local named Emmett (John Gallagher, Jr.) to stay in the confined comfort of his well-furnished safe space. The simple but menacing setup is reminiscent of M. Night Shyamalan in his heyday, and we’re never quite sure what to believe. Is Howard prudent or just crazy with his conspiracy theories, and are Michelle and Emmett better off staying inside, placating his demands, or trying to escape? Goodman is brilliantly unpredictable here, and even if there’s not a lot of development for the other two, having to deal with him is enough to spark concern for his captives.

For all its strengths, one thing that 10 Cloverfield Lane does not have is much in the way of originality. Many times I was reminded of two similar films: Misery, with John Goodman taking the place of Annie Wilkes’ possessive caretaker, and 2015’s underrated Hidden, where a family resides in an underground bunker in uncertain fear of what lies above. Putting these two concepts together essentially gives you 10 Cloverfield Lane, and even when it breaks free of the bunker for a slam-bang awesome finale, it still had echoes of War of the Worlds and The Terminator. Another point of comparison is Trachtenberg’s 2011 short film Portal: No Escape, which begins very similarly with a woman awaking in an austere cell with no memory of how she got there. It was that short that helped get Trachtenberg enough notice to earn him the director’s chair, so the parallels there aren’t surprising. (The short also proves he’d be a great choice to direct a feature-length Portal movie, and I, for one, hope it’s soon. You can check it out here.)

It’s unfortunate that 10 Cloverfield Lane lacks the originality of Misery or the emotional resonance of Hidden, but even as an amalgamation of prior ideas, it’s an impressively constructed nerve-jangler that balances shock and restraint and turned its world into a viable franchise overnight. With a third Cloverfield-universe film called God Particle slated for this October, there’s no denying the success of 10 Cloverfield Lane.

Best line: (Howard) “People are strange creatures. You can’t always convince them that safety is in their best interest.”

 

Rank: List Runner-Up

 

© 2017 S.G. Liput
451 Followers and Counting

 

Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein (1948)

Tags

Comedy, Horror

 

If Frankenstein or Dracula
Appeared and had his back to ya,
Would you be voiceless in surprise
Or too afraid to paralyze?
Perhaps you’d wake the neighborhood
With every bellow, if you could,
Or call a hotline in distress
Until they hear what you confess
And hang up on your craziness.

Perhaps you’d try to call a friend,
Who might be quick to condescend
If you appear at your wits’ end.
Perhaps you’d flee, still shivering,
But by that time your dithering
Would let the monsters notice you
And do what monsters tend to do.
Next time don’t wait to prove it’s true.
_________________

MPAA rating: PG

Okay, one more horror review for October, if this can be classified as horror. After I covered an anthology from the ‘70s, a classic from the ‘80s, and a modern cult classic, my VC thought I should review a much older and lighthearted member of the genre.

I can’t say I’m familiar with Abbott and Costello, but I enjoyed their antagonistic pairing in the spirit of Laurel and Hardy and predating Gilligan and the Skipper. In Abbott and Costello’s case, though, the thin one is gruff and bossy (Bud Abbott), while the stout one is the absentminded goofball (Lou Costello). My VC actually had the two confused until I told her who was who and rattled her perception of the universe.

The film itself is a fairly entertaining crossover, with Abbott and Costello meeting not only Frankenstein (Glenn Strange) but also Dracula (Béla Lugosi) and the Wolf Man (Lon Chaney, Jr.). Dracula plans to transplant the brain of Wilbur Grey (Costello) into the Frankenstein Monster, while the Wolf Man, Lawrence Talbot, tries to save him in between full-moon transformations. This was actually the last appearance of Chaney as the Wolf Man, and the only other time Lugosi played Dracula other than his famous 1931 film.

The presence of the monsters is really the only thing that would classify this as a horror, since the title duo ensure there are plenty of witty one-liners and slapstick. The horror-comedy combination actually reminded me a lot of Scooby-Doo, such as how Costello would scream and mutter about seeing a monster while incredulous Abbott would arrive just as the creature disappeared. I was actually surprised at how many aspects of the film seemed to have been copied by later ones, such as a hidden revolving wall anticipating the bookcase scene in Young Frankenstein. The monster-filled climax featured Dracula and the Wolf Man fighting and was like a CGI-less version of the final battle in Van Helsing. Even the very last gag was blatantly ripped off in the final scene of last year’s Goosebumps.

If Scooby-Doo is as scary as you want to get, Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein is a fun little caper, the last for the original three Universal monsters. The ending isn’t very decisive, but between the title pair’s friendly bickering, the spooky Gothic sets, and the presence of classic horror legends, it’s an amusing romp even decades later.

Best line: (Abbott as Chick Young) “Get up on your feet. It’s only a dummy.”   (Costello as Wilbur Grey) “Dummy nothin’. It was smart enough to scare me.”

 

Rank: List Runner-Up

 

© 2016 S.G. Liput
416 Followers and Counting

 

The Babadook (2014)

Tags

Drama, Horror

 

If it’s in a film or it’s in a book,
It might be as real as the Babadook.

Believing in fairies is darling and cute;
What is the worst they can do?
Believing in him will put him in pursuit,
And now he is after you.

You may say there’s no Babadook;
Deny it all you like.
It’s just a silly made-up book,
Until you see him strike.

The thought of him will mean he’s there,
Which means he always is.
The Babadook is everywhere,
When he decides you’re his.
____________________

MPAA rating: Not Rated (might be R for intensity and brief language, but actual content is closer to PG-13)

In the proud tradition (and bad habit) I’ve adopted of watching a scary movie alone at night (also done with The Others and The Conjuring), I decided to investigate the universally lauded Australian horror The Babadook. Like the other fright fests I mentioned, I found it to be very much my kind of horror: one with more focus on atmosphere than jumps, featuring complex relationships and psychological distress, and almost devoid of blood. But dang, is it frightening! Poltergeist is a walk in the park next to this top-hatted creature feature.

The story centers on Amelia Vanek (Essie Davis), a struggling mother still deeply grieving her husband’s death and quietly resentful of her young son Samuel (Noah Wiseman), who was born the day his father died. Samuel continually causes problems at school and obsesses over monsters he imagines himself fighting with homemade weaponry. Then comes an innocent bedtime story, where a randomly chosen pop-up book takes a swift left turn; how many books from your childhood ended with “You’re going to wish that you were dead”? After that, Sam becomes convinced the Babadook from the book is real, much to Amelia’s annoyance. When she learns that her denial makes the creature stronger, though, it begins to target her, turning her exasperation with her son into madness.

For her directorial debut, writer/director Jennifer Kent did an outstanding job with developing the mood of unease to which most horror films only aspire. With inventive camera angles and muted colors, the Vanek’s home becomes a breeding ground of anxiety, and after the picture book mentioned three knocks as the creature’s call sign, I liked how there were three knocks anytime someone was at the door, instilling worry regardless of who was really there. As I’ve said before, the most effective scares are often the simplest, and The Babadook doesn’t need set pieces or creepy dolls to freak out the audience. The most intense moment stems from the knowledge of a barely glimpsed something present, against which Amelia can only cover herself with her blanket and hope she is wrong. It’s the kind of visceral tension that hits on a child-like level. The fact that we only see flashes of the Babadook’s shape and long fingers only makes him more mysterious and frightening, a newly invented boogeyman for the ages, especially when he says his own name like some diseased Pokémon.

What makes The Babadook so intriguing is its symbolic nature. While it can be enjoyed as a familiar haunted house picture, it also puts an emphasis on the mother/son dynamic. When Amelia falls under the Babadook’s influence, she lashes out at Samuel, and we’re left uncertain how much of her rage is possession and how much is simply being released for the first time from pressure and lack of sleep. Samuel may seem like an irritating problem child at first, but his initial belief in the Babadook allows him to defend his mother, prove his love for her, and convince her to banish her oppressive grief. On a more conjectural note, the Babadook might also represent the demonic spirit behind all these news stories of murder-suicides that no one seems to comprehend, and Amelia and Samuel are just the latest to fall under its influence. Either way, the resolution is far different from the usual “evil-wins-to-scare-another-day” ending that most horrors try to spin into a sequel, and it makes clear the film’s bittersweet metaphor of grief.

As much as I admired The Babadook and acknowledge it as one of the most chilling films I’ve seen, there is one aspect that I think allows The Conjuring to edge it out in my opinion. They both depict evil being confronted by familial love, and while that’s enough for the purely secular Babadook, The Conjuring also utilizes religion in its arsenal against the malevolent spirit at work. I appreciate that the dark presence is subdued in both films, but the role of Christianity tips the scales for James Wan’s film and makes its conquering of evil more convincing in my eyes. The Babadook still has a meaningful end, though, especially when taken more allegorically than literally.

Although some of the editing is a bit choppy toward the beginning, I see why The Babadook is considered a modern classic. Because of its cult following, they’ve even distributed copies of the Babadook’s disturbing storybook; who would want one of those around the house?! With an emotional backbone, intense performances, and moments of unbearable suspense, it’s got more than the usual chills and thrills and doesn’t rely on gory effects to make an impact.

Best line: (crazed Amelia, to Samuel) “I AM YOUR MOTHER!!!”

 

Rank: List Runner-Up

 

© 2016 S.G. Liput
415 Followers and Counting

 

Poltergeist (1982)

Tags

Horror

 

Hearing of hauntings may trouble a tenant
And give them some pause and concern.
A bump in the night or mysterious light
Conjures notions of ghosts who may fancy a fright
To make known their unholy return.

Yet others believe their house couldn’t be haunted.
It’s mortgaged and newer than most.
But those are the ones who don’t know what they did
Till a closet or tree tries to gobble a kid.
Sure, then they’ll believe there’s a ghost.

So if you see signs of a spook or a spectre,
You’d best take it seriously.
Don’t wait for a coffin to pop from the floor
Before getting the heck out of Dodge evermore.
Less sequels the sooner you flee.
_______________

MPAA rating: PG

This is it, the movie I’ve been avoiding for years. I saw Poltergeist for the first time when I was about ten years old (I think), which was around the same time I saw Aliens. While I didn’t seem to have a problem with chest-bursting extra-terrestrials, I consider Poltergeist the movie that traumatized me, and it was all because of that one scene. Not the tree scene or the steak scene or the giant demonic head jumping out of the closet. No, it was the clown! I could handle the entirety of Stephen King’s It (albeit some years later), but a single jump scare involving a clown doll made me swear off this movie for over a decade!

However, now that I am my more mature self, I decided to brave Poltergeist once more, and truth be told, it’s not that bad. By that, I mean it’s a decent haunted house film, but it’s nowhere near as nightmarish as I recalled. With Steven Spielberg as writer and producer, the film’s pre-horror opening has an E.T.–style charm, setting up the Freelings as a typical happy suburban family.  Craig T. Nelson and JoBeth Williams are sympathetic as Steven and Diane Freeling, cutely fascinated by the supernatural occurrences they notice until they discover that their home sucks…literally. Trees suck you in; closets suck you in; swimming pools full of corpses suck you in; it’s a madhouse!

The creepiness begins early with young Carol Anne (Heather O’Rourke) in front of the iconic snowy television but remains mild for a while, and even after Carol Anne is abducted by the ghosts, a few touches of humor keep the film lighter than the dark mood most horrors try to achieve. Except for a rather shocking hallucination in a bathroom with the only violence to speak of, the film doesn’t aspire to full-blown horror until the end, starting with the infamous clown and going all-out with a scream-filled finale.

There are a few logic issues I couldn’t help noticing, particularly that the title doesn’t seem to fit. A parapsychologist (Beatrice Straight) helping the Freelings talks about how poltergeists are connected with a person, like Carol Anne, while hauntings are linked to a certain location. While Carol Anne’s importance seems to support the former, the end reveals that, no, it was the house and thus a haunting. A minor complaint, I know, but it’s true. In addition, the timing of the finale may make sense for horror pacing (false sense of security and then boo!), but it seemed odd after the house was supposedly “clean,” throwing the spiritual mumbo-jumbo and wisdom of Zelda Rubinstein’s psychic medium into doubt. Plus, while most of the acting is solid, the constant yelling of “Carol Anne!” and the screaming at the end (“What’s happening?????!!!!!!”) are a little overdone.

 Poltergeist is a horror classic for good reason, not only offering some manageable, mostly kid-friendly frights in a decade full of slashers but also explaining why the cable companies got rid of the late-night snow. Perhaps it’s because I’ve seen scarier and more compelling horrors since, like The Conjuring and the film for my last Halloween review for Sunday, but Poltergeist has lost much of its fear factor, for me at least. I suppose it’s like the basement in Home Alone or any number of scary things from our childhoods; with light and a little perspective, they aren’t so scary after all. Except that clown! It still gives me the willies.

Best line: (Carol Anne) “They’re here.”

 

Rank: List Runner-Up

 

© 2016 S.G. Liput
415 Followers and Counting

 

The House That Dripped Blood (1971)

Tags

Horror

 

Here is the house you’re considering renting,
A beauteous country estate.
Feel free to explore, though I mustn’t forget
Some minor concerns to relate.

I’d humbly suggest to stay out of the den;
A strangling there once occurred.
And that closet is full of the clothes of a tenant
Who vanished with nary a word.

The master bedroom is a sticking point too,
We couldn’t get all the stains out.
And stay out of the basement; not one is alive
Who’s journeyed down there with a doubt.

What’s that? Oh, you think this is not the right house.
Perhaps that decision is best.
I hate to lose tenants; I’ve told you of four,
But I won’t even mention the rest.
____________________

MPAA rating: PG

Ever since I outgrew trick-or-treating, I haven’t really celebrated Halloween much, so while other bloggers have been dedicating all of October to horror films, I tend to keep my distance. However, because ‘tis the season, I’ll be reviewing three horror films leading up to Halloween. They’re from three different eras too, the first of which being the horror anthology The House That Dripped Blood. Doesn’t that sound charming?

Now with a title like The House That Dripped Blood, you might have certain expectations for this film, but honestly this has got to be one of the most blatant examples of cinematic false advertising ever. Yes, there’s a house, but throughout the whole film, there’s not one drop of blood. Not that I’m complaining since I try to steer clear of gore in general, but didn’t the producer think people might be disappointed when he replaced director Peter Duffell’s original title Death and the Maiden with the more lurid name?

As an anthology, the film is made up of four smaller stories, all involving new tenants of a foreboding country home. One involves a horror writer (Denholm Elliott) whose character seems to jump off the page; one is about a waxworks museum that lures in two men (Peter Cushing and Joss Ackland); one features Christopher Lee as a stern father who hires a teacher to look after his potentially dangerous daughter; and the last sees a horror movie star (Jon Pertwee, the third Doctor Who) obtain a vampire’s cloak. All of the stories are relatively well-told, with the first two clearly being the best for suspense, but there’s very little that this film does that has not been done better elsewhere. I don’t watch many horror films, and I could tell that.

The biggest issue I had was the focus on the house. The film’s frame story stresses the house as a constant in each tale, but the truth is that the house never seems that involved or important. The supernatural elements that cause each story often come from outside the home, making the house’s significance feel rather shoehorned in.

The House That Dripped Blood works best as a curiosity. We get to see a host of British thespians going through the horror movie motions, but elevating the material with their mere presence. The first story also felt significant as a possible partial inspiration for Stephen King’s The Shining. While the resolution goes off in a different direction, Denholm Elliott’s writer character seems to become more unhinged by the mysterious happenings in the house, and I wouldn’t have been surprised if he’d been typing “All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.”

The House That Dripped Blood is nothing overtly special, with four stories that often lapse into boredom before the “horrifying” climax, but for those who prefer horror that’s tame, mildly creepy, and very British, it’s a decent enough experience.

Best line: (Paul Henderson, the famous actor) “That’s what’s wrong with the present-day horror films. There’s no realism. Not like the old ones, the great ones. Frankenstein. Phantom of the Opera. Dracula – the one with Bela Lugosi, of course, not this new fellow.”

 

Rank: Honorable Mention

 

© 2016 S.G. Liput
414 Followers and Counting