The Seven Year Ick

Usually it's the traffic or the smog or the hipsters that'll get you in Los Angeles. Nope. The Things That Go Bump in the Dark, they're what'll get you.

"Absentia" (2011)
written and directed by Mike Flanagan
starring Katie Parker, Courtney Bell, Dave Levine, Justin Morgan, and Morgan Peter Brown

How Is It?
Low-key, atmospheric, moody, and well-made. It doesn't rush to get you anywhere, and though it can feel like it's moving a little slow here and there, it really isn't. The story is about pregnant Tricia (played by Courtney Bell) whose husband has been missing for seven years. Her prodigal sister Callie (played by Katie Parker) moves in with her for support, as the county is finally ready to declare Daniel, the missing husband, deceased. It should come as no surprise that things go awry. Rather than spectacle the film focuses on the characters, no cats jumping out of cupboards or other cheap scares. "Absentia" is a slow burn, an eerily slow but steady burn.

The Players
The acting is pretty solid all the way around. Parker and Bell have good chemistry playing the sisters, as do Levine and Gordon as the police detectives. Brown as husband Daniel, while not on-screen as much, gets to play the widest range and to great effect. There's not a lot to say on this end, really. Very human, engaging performances from all quarters.

Behind the Camera
Mike Flanagan wrote and directed. It's a tight, clean script, nuanced and interesting, as is the direction. The cinematography and editing are sharp and keep you interested, focused, and engaged throughout. No frills, though. Flanagan kept the look and feel simple and did so to great effect. The visuals complement the story and the acting, a very adept movie package. The movie has a personal, intimate feel, coupled with an uneasiness, an uncertainty and sense of things being somehow off-kilter the whole while. Economically and effectively eerie and subtly unsettling, and that's good horror.

The Verdict
It's a solid flick top to bottom and side to side. If you're in the market for gore and screaming and action and slashing, this one is not for you. "Absentia" is a smart movie, a very good movie indeed. Not only do I recommend it, I'm buying a copy for my personal collection.

Three to start again...

"Frankenstein's Army" (2013)

World War 2 rages on, with the Communists storming through Eastern Germany, and while answering an advance unit's request reinforcement one Soviet unit finds far more than they ever bargained for, a secret Nazi lab in full swing making new kinds of super soldiers. The film's well made and fairly entertaining but does sag a bit in the middle, taking some too long playing one note before gearing up again for the run to the end. All in all, it really is a cut above average, even if just. Rentable.

"The Moleman of Belmont Avenue" (2010)

Two rather bumbling brothers have run their inherited brownstone apartment building into the ground, and adding to their woes, something's trying to eat every living thing in the place, starting with the tenants' pets. It lives in the basement, and it's up to the boys to stop the menace. It's not exactly a grabbing premise, and unfortunately the film keeps in line such. It's not a bad film. It's certainly not a good one, though Robert Englund stands out as Confab, a mildly creepy and at the same time cool older ladies man. The problem with the film is that only Englund seems to fire on all cylinders. Besides his performance and a few moments here and there, the film's really not that fun. Not recommended.

"Manborg" (2011)

I will only say that the poster says it all and that this film was made for $1,000 (Canadian). Beyond that, it's the best film on today's list and better than several I have reviewed on this blog. Watching it, it's the 1980s all over again. It's a marvelous pastiche. The nearly nonexistent budget is obvious in every frame, as is the ludicrous amount of fun, work, and love that went into it. "Manborg" is nothing but laugh-out-loud fun all the way through. It's definitely worth renting and/or buying.

Two night clerks alone in a soon-to-close old haunted inn. What could go wrong?

The Yankee Pedlar Inn is about to close after over a hundred years of business. Two clerks have desk duty for the last weekend. One of them is a mildly creepy but somehow almost lovably well-meaning guy who seems to be love with... his laptop, and the other is a rather cute, slightly clumsy, asthmatic young woman with a keen imagination and a desperate desire to... find the resident ghost. Oh, and Kelly McGillis is there, too. Between the tape recorder, the crystal, and the dark, locked basement what could possibly go wrong?

"The Innkeepers" (2011)
written and directed by Ti West.
starring Sara Paxton, Pat Healy, and Kelly MicGillis

How Is It?
It's old school horror and suspense, and it's done well. It's done really, really well.

The Players

All of the players in this film deliver spot-on performances, nothing over the top. Sara Paxton's Claire comes across pleasantly awkward, both socially and physically, and believably innocent, honest, and both serious and fun-loving. Pat Healy's Luke is quite believable also, never remotely unpleasant but with an understated and not well-hidden burden of loneliness. Kelly McGillis' Leanne rounds out the main character cast as the '80s tv celebrity turned mystical healer who is visiting the inn while touring on the convention circuit. The three work solidly together, as well as alone. Solid work all around in front of the camera.

Behind the Camera
Ti West can make a good movie. It was filmed on location in a real inn, and it was just the right place. West uses the interior geography of the place marvelously. It's homey and charming and quaint and all, and it's also a bit eerie, then pretty spooky, and then it's just plain sinister. And the real kicker is that it's never overdone, visually or audially. West keep the emphasis on atmosphere, ratcheting things up bit by both, punctuated with just the right amount of levity, and it winds up with the film really being, in my opinion, a course in how to make a haunted house movie. "Hometown Gothic" is how I would classify the film. For me it's reminiscent in feel to Robert Wise's 1963 classic, and quite possibly the finest haunted house movie ever made, "The Haunting", and that is high praise indeed.

The photography and lighting are good. The script is tight. The direction is top-notch.

The Verdict
I bought a copy the day after I watched it. It's a solid, dependable, excellent made film. It's a slow burn of a scare, and it's an excellent movie. "The Innkeepers" delivers. Highly recommended.

Don't Be Afraid of Watching Something Else

For reasons we never really get to know a little girl we really never get to know or care about gets sent to live with her not terribly supportive, workaholic architect dad and his designer/girlfriend in a big giant spooky house that turns out to have awful little mischievous and bloodthirsty CG creatures in the basement. Hilarity via predictability and narrative paltriness ensues.

"Don't Be Afraid of the Dark" (2011)
directed by Troy Nixey
written by Guillermo del Toro and Matthew Robbins
starring Guy Peace, Katie Holmes, and Bailee Madison

How Is It?

To put not too fine a point on it, it's rather flat, all told. It's designed beautifully and looks great, but most of the story and script are rather tired. There are a few good bits here and there, but overall... it's generally a rather ineffective gimmick movie.

The Players

If Guy Pearce had enough screen time in it or if his character was terribly important, which you would think would have been the case, I could tell you how he did. He did alright as an archetype, the Career Success Oriented And Not Terribly Empathetic Father. Katie Holmes manages well as the Awkward Girlfriend/Surrogate Mother Who Doesn't Feel She's Ready To Be A Mother But Finally Finds The Strength When The Kid Is In Danger. To give credit where it's due, both did alright with the material they had to work with. The movie belonged to Bailee Madison, who played the Misunderstood And Terribly Socially Awkward But Allegedly Quite Bright Child, who was let down by two things. One was a woefully ordinary and overly long script for the story. The other was she couldn't carry it and didn't have any help in the effort, primarily from the script and direction.

Behind the Camera

The film looks great. The sets are very nice and lit and shot pretty well. The shots are well framed, and the movie has atmosphere. And the creatures look good. Troy Nixey's first feature length film looks good. It's just not got much in the way of substance, and it feels maybe like it's maybe twenty or thirty minutes too long. There is too much wandering in the dark, too much spotty lighting, too much emphasis on looking mysterious without there really being any mystery whatsoever. It's not so much a haunted house film as it is a mouse hunt, which is a real let down, and much of it has to do with the script.

The script is subpar. There. I said it. There's not enough story for its hour and a half, and the story that we get is, well, more than a bit hackneyed. It pains me to say this about a script by Guillermo del Toro, who is one of my favorite directors and storytellers and a true artist of the macabre, but the script, by and large, is just painfully below average. The characters are cardboard and not original, plain and simple. The scares, or what passes for them, come quite by the numbers and are for the most part visible from miles away. And the whole thing reeks of melodrama and fails to establish even an internal reality beyond "This is supposed to be scary." The script is the foundation, and it doesn't work well.

The Verdict

A very weak script in the hands of a novice director has the odds against it at the outset. "Don't Be Afraid of the Dark" didn't beat the odds. The few good moments it had weren't enough to hold my attention as a viewer. Honestly, if I had not been watching it to review it, I would have switched it off before the thirty minute mark.

Not frightening. Dreadfully predictable. Characterless. Uninspiring. Not recommended.

Trailers, anyone?

I find trailers all over the place, and so it's time to start sharing. There are, of course, no guarantees on the full movies, but if the trailers look cool they'll get posted. And it starts with...

 "FDR: American Badass" (2011)

Barry Bostwick, Ray Wise, Bruce McGill, Lin Shaye, and Kevin Sorbo... and werewolves? Okay. I will watch this one for fun based on this cast list alone.

The Thursday List, Episode 6 (Late Edition)

"Chromeskull: Laid to Rest 2" (2011)

This is an impressive film, technically. Specifically, the makeup and effects of this film are impressive, mightily impressive. Unfortunately, saying that about a movie is rather like going to a concert and coming saying "Well, the seats were comfortable." Style is no substitute for substance, and this film was style heavy and substance poor. The script made little sense, but most of the actors managed well with what they had. All told, it wasn't really bad, though if it hadn't been for the special effects it would've been a bit below average. Recommended for fans of gore effects, not quite so for general viewers.

 "Scream of the Banshee" (2011)

When "SyFy presents" appeared at the opening, my heart sank a bit. As the movie progressed, my heart sank even more. The more the actors, brave men and women all, struggled against the bland and plodding script, the more they themselves sank into the SyFy swamp, an awful and hideous place wherein mediocrity and cheapness rule with a plastic fist (rather poorly painted to look like iron from a distance). It was obvious they knew as well as I that there was only one way for it to go, and in the end, we all went down together. At least they got paid for their time and energy, and it's still far and away and worlds better than Neighbor. Unless you want to make a drinking game out of watching it or you have a crush on Lauren Holly, this film is: Not recommended.

"The Omega Man" (1971)

This is an example of films that have aged about as well as Dorian Gray at the end of his story. The themes of Matheson's original 1954 novel, I Am Legend, are sweeping and universal, and it seems they were reduced down and twisted a bit to suit the cultural vogues of the beginning of the 1970s. They're clumsily handled in the script, and so instead of having an impact and encouraging you think it just preaches at you. The non-message parts of the film, on the other hand, are quite good. Heston's in great form and has some really good scenes, as does Rosalind Cash. It could have been better, but despite the ham-fisted handling of some of the themes and the near-comical 1970s-ness of it, it really is a slightly above average film, except for the ending. Oy vey. "The Omega Man" is worth watching, but don't go out of your way or be in a hurry to. Matheson's novel, though, should be required reading.

In an alternate universe, Superman and Jimmy Olsen police the undead.

Working class werewolves. Hip, sleazy vampires. Nebbishy zombies and one really angry one. An old guy with a pretty daughter gets murdered most foul, and a comedy sidekick gets murdered but gets better... ish. Oh, and the most vile and hideous of Hell's creatures ever to have walked the earth but then get trapped in an artifact is on track for being brought back for a command performance. Hilarity ensues.

"Dylan Dog: Dead of Night" (2011)
directed by Kevin Munroe
written by Thomas Dean Donnelly and Joshua Oppenheimer
starring Brandon Routh, Sam Huntington, Anita Briem, Taye Diggs, and Peter Stormare

How is it?

As I know I say a lot about movies, even if you haven't seen this movie you've seen this movie. It's not bad. It's not good. It's... competent... ish. Allow me to explain.

The Players

Again, as I know I say a lot in reviews, the cast does well with the material they were given, mostly. After three viewings in as many days I still can figure out Brandon Routh's performance as Dylan Dog. His performance comes across uneven, often a bit wooden. Some scenes work well enough while others don't seem to quite gel, and I can't figure out if it's because of him, the writing, possibly the director, or all three of the above. It was distracting for me as a viewer. Anita Briem as Elizabeth runs into the same problem, though to a lesser extent. Sam Huntington steals the show as Marcus. The comedy sidekick often does to a degree, but frankly, when he is on-screen he dominates. He was helped by having probably the best-written main role in the entire film. Still, he does breathe some extra life into the movie, which is good. Peter Stormare and Taye Diggs play the werewolf and vampire heavyweights, respectively. Stormare has the least screen time but of course gives his character, Gabriel, all he's got, while Taye Diggs is on-screen a fair deal more but doesn't much bring anything unique or interesting to Vargas, the vampire boss.

Honorable mention goes to Dan Braverman as Big Al, the zombie parts shop owner. He owned that scene. I wish Big Al had been in more of the movie. A small role, yes, but solid and memorable.

Behind the Camera

It never sounds good when the first compliment someone gives a movie is that it was lit and shot well. So of course this isn't the best start possible for this section of the review. But it's true. A good deal of director Kevin Munroe's experience has been in animation, production design, and art, and so "Dylan Dog: Dead of Night" has good visuals. Its production design, art direction, lighting, and photography are very good. Unfortunately, as I mentioned in the previous section, some of the performances are uneven, a problem which can be at least partly attributed to him. Part of the blame also rests with the script.

While the story and its details are interesting as concepts, the comedy works a lot more than the serious, especially the semi-noir narrations, which, like quite a lot of Dylan's dialogue, are rather stilted and seem to try a bit too hard to be (sort of) gritty. The structure of the whole thing flows, but it never quite seems to fire on all cylinders, except for the comedy sidekick stuff, which includes most of the zombies. It's almost as if  screenwriters Donnelly and Oppenheimer really wanted to write another movie while writing this one.

The Verdict

Despite this movie never quite coming together... and despite it being formulaic... and despite Routh's lead performance being uneven... I get an attitude from the movie that I genuinely appreciate. Truth be told, I bottom line this movie as "technically competent but not impressive" and "not bland but certainly average". But I like it. I like it more than I know I should. (Maybe I've got the generous holiday spirit early.)

"Dylan Dog: Dead of Night" really isn't anything to write home about, but it's probably good for movie night with some friends. You can laugh and have a good time watching it or ripping it apart, depending on your tastes. I'm sure there's a drinking game just waiting to be created for it as well. Recommended... ish.

The Thursday List, Episode 3

"Bunraku" (2010)

To put it simply, this is a visually striking, highly stylized live-action semi-noir four-color comic Samurai/Old West Good-versus-Evil fable. A lot of time, money, and talent on several levels went into making this film, and truth be told, you see every last bit of it. Some have claimed it was too long-winded and convoluted. I found it quite easy to follow and highly entertaining. I rented it on a whim because it was 99 cents, and now I'm going to buy it on Blu-Ray for my collection. Highly recommended.

"The Grand" (2007)

"The Grand" pokes fun at the colorful personalities of professional poker players and their tournament world. It's a very laid back, funny, good-natured film, which comes a good deal from the choices of actors, all of whom are quite good at guided improvisation, which is a euphemism for "not much in the way of a script". There are a few lags here and there, but its generally even. Woody Harrelson, Werner Herzog, Gabe Kaplan, and Dennis Farina kind of steal the show, but not by too much. It's a fun film that you don't have to think about but just relax and enjoy the laughs. Recommended.

"Night of the Demon" (1957)

Note to U.S. readers: "Night of the Demon" is an original U.K. production renamed "Curse of the Demon" by its American distributor for its stateside release.

"Curse of the Demon" (1958)

When I recommend a movie, that's one thing. When Martin Scorsese recommends a movie, it's another, much more impressive thing. He does. So it is. "Curse of the Demon" is a very effective horror film because it has a tight, lean script brought to life well by a talented cast and because it is absolutely dripping with atmosphere. The technical direction and cinematography are top-notch. Its production was more than a bit rocky, which makes it a bit more impressive that it all came together so well. It's a solid, effective, reasonably family-friendly horror film. Highly recommended.

Your suffering will be legendary... even for Hollywood.

Spoiled, dissatisfied rich California boys run down to Tijuana for some action but instead find a) they're just unhappy punks in Mexico too and b) a rather tidy-looking vagrant who gives them a puzzle box guaranteed to thrill. Things go downhill from there, for all of us.

“Hellraiser: Revelations” (2010)

directed by Victor Garcia

written by Gary J. Tunnicliffe

starring Nick Eversman, Jay Gillespie, Tracey Fairaway, Stephan Smith Collins

How is it?

Well, considering this is the ninth movie and the fifth consecutive direct-to-video release of the franchise, had a budget of about $300,000, was publicly and fiercely disavowed/disowned by Clive Barker, and did not feature Doug Bradley as Pinhead... you would be safe in assuming the answer is "Not too good."

The Players

As I often say, I'm sure they did the best they could with the script they had to work with. As an actor myself, I always try to give that when I can instead of disparaging the efforts of others. The acting was mostly decent... ish, mostly... kindasorta. It's just that the actors really didn't matter, not for this movie. You will find out way in a moment.

Behind the Camera

The company that owns the rights to Hellraiser had to make a movie because the rights were about to expire, and they wanted to do just enough to extend them. (That's what I read anyway.) So they scraped together some petty cash, had the former make-up effects guy of the previous DVD releases write up a script, and got a director, and viola! A movie is born. Yes, this movie was born simply to ensure they could make another Hellraiser movie later. So that's the background. Now on to the dissection.

The script's just a mess. It was overlong, had stilted dialogue in most scenes, featured genuinely unsympathetic characters that did some of the dumbest things, and it just didn't have a sense of pace. The Hellraiser universe is full of possibilities, but it gets hung up on the inability of most of Hollywood to be brave and try something different. Instead they just keep going back to the trough, the same old twists and turns and other known quantities, and calling it "new". There was nothing new done with what could have been an interesting story.

The directing was confusing. The framing and lighting of whatever action was going on on-screen was sometimes quite competent, even interesting here and there. Other times it was flat, bland, noticeably different. It made me ponder the hazards of second unit shooting on a shoestring budget and a short shooting schedule. (That's just a guess.) I have plenty of questions as to why Garcia made or allowed the actors to make certain performance decisions, though I suspect that again the script is the primary culprit there. Or time maybe constraints. Or maybe nobody in it really cared enough, given the miniscule budget and all.

I might ought not be, but I'll be generous and say everyone did the best they could with what they had to work with, which was a production company that wanted to spend as little money as humanly possible on a direct-to-video release so they could legally keep the rights to a franchise. I'll leave it at that.

The Verdict

It's genuinely saddening to see a legendary franchise actually hit the bottom the way Hellraiser has. This movie was made without a care in the world about whether or not it was any good or even decent. It was just business, the worst reason of all to make it, in my opinion.

And... Doug Bradley is Pinhead. Accept no substitutes.

What has been seen cannot be unseen.

You really have seen it all before. Seriously, you have. What's more is that what you saw before, the film released twenty-nine years ago and of the same name and premise, was better, even if you saw it edited for television, in black and white, and with the sound off.

“The Thing” (2011)

directed by Matthijs van Heijningen, Jr.

written by Eric Heisserer and Ronald D. Moore

starring Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Joel Edgerton, Ulrich Thomsen, Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje, Eric Christian Olsen, Jørgen Langhelle, Trond Espen Seim, Stig Henrik Hoff, Carsten Bjørnlund, Jan Gunnar Røise, Paul Braunnstein

How is it?

I'm biased. How biased am I? Check this out, and then read on. [pause] Okay... now I'll set aside my abiding respect and adoration of the 1982 masterpiece, and we will proceed.

So how is it?

It's just manages to reach the level of an average horror movie, and truth be told, that's being a little bit generous. What is lacks in suspense, atmosphere, cinematography, and dialogue it more than makes up for in lack of audience investment, predictability, and in computer-generated gore and fire effects. It moves in fits and starts, really only gets traction for one scene, and the rest of the time is altogether unsteady. Alas, it's the usual culprit, (attempted) spectacle over substance. In a word: hollow. (I'm not a fan of the "average" horror movie.)

The Players

It isn't an ensemble piece, but it's not really a vehicle for anyone in particular either, except maybe Joel Edgerton and Jørgen Langhelle. The actors all do what they can with what can't be called anything other than a very weak script, and that's unfortunate. The characters were all cardboard cutouts for the genre, up to an especially including Mary Elizabeth Winstead as Ripley, er- Dr. Kate Lloyd and Ulrich Thomsen as Ash the android medical officer, er- the diabolical but Euro-cool medical officer.

The only two that seem even remotely sympathetic and/or not plain old story devices are Edgerton as Macready, er- Sam Carter the chopper pilot and Langhelle as Clark, er- Lars the station dog keeper. Well... okay, three. Hoff as Peder, the station commander's XO, did stand out. These three managed to come out on top, and good on'em.

Behind the Camera

I'll start with the good...ish. That'd be the special effects... or most of them. During production and up until today the word has been they really favored practical effects and used digital to enhance, trying to keep close to the totally non-digital effects of the Carpenter film. Maybe it's a testament to the effects department's skill that I couldn't tell there were many practical, non-CG effects at all in the film. Some were obviously physical, and some had me wondering. The downside is they were awfully over-the-top, very Resident Evil, seeming far more for shock than for scare, and they looked rather raw, like they weren't really finished. Then there was the CG fire. Oy vey. All that CG fire. Yikes. Now on to the ugh portion of this review.

By and large, the direction and cinematography simply didn't do anything for the film except telegraph what was coming next and actually be a bit boring. Rather than usher a sense of claustrophobia and imminent dread, it just looked rather... well, meh, like it was just kind of there. I seriously doubt Heijningen will be given another $38 million to make another movie, let alone a get his mitts on a legendary franchise. Despite his ardent fandom and devotion to Carpenter's classic, his homage prequel didn't work.

The script was just kind of there as well. There's not much to say about it other than like much of the rest of the film it seemed very flat, impersonal, and paint-by-numbers. It's so disappointing because of what the producers and director claim to have been trying to do, what act they were attempting to follow. It really could and ought have been much better. There aren't excuses other than incompetence, not caring, or too many writers. It felt like they came up with a bunch of "cool moments" and "cool scenes" and worked out how to string them together. Honestly, I doubt that's what it was, but it's what it felt like watching it. I think they copied the 1982 film. Maybe that's what we get when you get a script approved and then before filming totally rewrite it, which was what happened to The Thing. There is a lesson there, Hollywood. Take it.

The Verdict

This didn't seem much like a prequel. It felt like one of those new-fangled "re-imaginings" Hollywood seems so keen on these days. It had a few interesting, even exciting moments, but they were few enough and far enough between to render the whole thing just on the lowest edge of average. It simply never gelled. If you've seen the trailer, there are no surprises for you in it at all.

Wait for it to hit the dollar theaters, cable/satellite, or streaming video. If then.