Movie 34: The Possession of Michael King

Starring: Shane Johnson, Ella Anderson, Julie McNiven, Cara Pifko, Tomas Arana, Dale Dickey, Luke Baines.

Director: David Jung

I remember this movie being okay, mostly in the scary stuff...other than that, I remember this movie having a really arch and mostly irritating premise...and now that I've started it I'm seeing it all over again.  The general idea: that a grieving man, angry at the world, has decided that he apparently has the influence and importance in the universe to prove religion is a bunch of bullplop by filming himself poking demonic stuff with a stick and seeing if it works.  It's not a bad premise, truth be told...it at least justifies the found footage device well enough, but it still basically makes a smug, douchey moron the center of attention.  And that's exactly what he is: a smug asshole who treats everyone with any faith like they're dirt and moves on. I mean, who is this guy who thinks that he will be the first person in civilization to prove there's no such thing as spirits, so how can we possibly like someone that arrogant?  Not to mention a documentary filmmaker making something that is undeniably biased, as well as being about NOTHING happening (since his "proof" is doing religious things and getting no result which, in his mind, proves his point)?  So, main character=unlikeable asshole, so...I guess we're off to a good start?

Of course, it wouldn't be a horror movie if it didn't bite him so...obviously, his poking actually does get him somewhere.  The trouble is that we don't like him, so we could really care less when he might be in danger from a couple of crazy people, or getting possessed with demons.  It'd work better if he was an embittered, arrogant jerk and was actually just curious.  The premise of "I want to get myself possessed out of curiosity" or seeking proof is much more interesting then the negative vibe the movie offers right out of the gate.  These scenes would be genuinely interesting if he wasn't so smugly skeptical about everything.

The "necromancy" scene is actually a pretty fun scene: it has the air of relative truth that makes it feel very read.  The creepy mortician, Michael taking some weird drugs and having some teeth sewn into his stomach...it's all very absurd and feels very much like some weird thing that would happen if you indulged a crazy person.  It has a good resolution as a scene, too: his apparent possession by a spirit and feeling like he was with his dead wife...it begs the question why he keeps going, though.  I mean, sure, a skeptic can find a lack of spiritual evidence just as easily as a person of faith can find spirtual evidence, no matter what is actually happening.  

I will say that there is a nice progression with Michael from douchey unbeliever to douchey believer...he never stops being douchey, though.  Actor Shane Johnson does a pretty good job with the performance, though: it's very natural, even while unlikable, but honestly the unlikable part is clearly deliberate.  

The movie does some neat sequences.  The flow and cohesion between scenes isn't quite there, but I like the back and forth of religion and science.  Michael does his demonic and spiritualism stuff, and then sees a Psychiatrist, and both basically end with what mostly the same loud noise and choppy editing...but hey, they're mostly somewhat effective.

This movie seems allergic to doing anything with supporting cast members whatsoever.  Michael has a sister who live with him, and a Daughter, and neither have any real personalities.  The sister never even seems to have a close-up of her face, and all she does is basically say "Michael, are you okay?  You're acting weird" and then vanishing into whatever hole she apparently lives in. It doesn't make any sense: she was Anna on Supernatural!  She's kind of a recognizable actress. You'd think they'd have at least one close-up. That being said, the scene where a possessed Michael feels up his sister in her sleep is legitimately creepy.  Very creepy, actually.  Better movie creepy.

Michael's pleading with the Demon to leave and getting a response...it's a nice scene.  So is his desperate run through the people who did the experimenting on him in the first place.  It's actually a nicely cathartic scene for the audience: Michael gets his comeuppance. It allows for him to move towards a more sympathetic direction, too: Michael the dick has become Michael the desperate, now that his dickery has landed him in genuine peril.  It's a nice change in direction.

There's some fun stuff going on once Michael is fully struggling against his possession.  Unlike most possession movies, Michael has no place to turn.  There's no Priest to come perform an exorcism,  It's an interesting position for the film to take: one man alone against an entity inside him.  The sequences of him being thrown around, a close-up of him stitching up a pentagram he carved into his own chest...they're effective.

I feel like there's only so many times Michael and the Demon can argue about killing Ellie.  It's basically been done over and over again for half an hour.  I get that the kid is really what's at stake, but the repeating of the argument really isn't doing much for anything.

Hey, finally a close-up for Julie McNiven...right before Michael snaps her neck.  Well, thanks movie.  I guess.

Maybe if I knew any facts about Ellie-does she like applesauce or something-I'd be more apt to worry about her as her possessed father chases her around.  Otherwise she's just a generic child.  I'm not saying that I DON'T care...it'd just be way more suspenseful if I felt any sort of connection.

The final shot: the actual imagery of what happened to his wife is genuinely effective on an emotional level.  I might have chosen to intercut it into the chase scene of Michael going after his Daughter, given how the finale ends up working.  But, hey, it was still sad and affecting.

Final Thoughts: As for real depth...there isn't a lot here.  I don't think there's much of a metaphor-maybe some razor thin "dealing with grief" subtext-going on.  It's more of a character piece and, unfortunately, the character doesn't have an awful lot of depth.  There's progression, and that's something, and we do see the man develop from one stage to another and Shane Johnson gives a solid enough performance.  The effects work and scare gags are mostly well executed even if they are superficial in the end.  Not too bad a film in the end, especially for found-footage.

Final rating: Two and a half stars.

Movie 33: Devil's Due

If memory serves, I came up with this irritable joke when I last watched this movie:

I feel like somewhere in a pitch room somebody said "You know Paranormal Activity?  Well this is Para-NATAL Activity!" And that makes me angrier than just about anything in this world.  That is, if this is the movie I think it is...I feel like there was a similar movie with a similar title and concept released around the same time, and I might be getting them mixed up.  Either way, I know I did see this movie and, if it IS indeed the film I'm thinking it is, it had a few so-so moments.  Out of those two similar movies-at least, I think, it's hard to keep track at my old age-this was the better of the two.  I think.

So it isn't the one I thought it was...kinda.  I had thought it opened with a reality show device-it used the premise that it was a reality show pilot, which was kinda clever-but it instead opened with a guy filming some a conversation with his wife that, well, there's no way someone would actually keep filming while having it.  The opening actually did have the somewhat clever misdirect that it was a stalker filming...and then they have that conversation.

Wedding videos are never interesting for anyone except the couple who got married...and even then I don't think I know of a single married couple who even watches them.  Blessedly, the wedding video sequence is very short.

I think it was Dennis Miller-before his right wing idiocy-who said "In order to buy a video camera, I think you should have to prove your life is interesting enough to film."  I wonder if Miller had any inkling or premonition about found footage films when he said that.  Watching the private videos of a couple on their honeymoon?  Not that interesting.  

That's always the trouble with found footage films in a nutshell: you have a character who is filming absolutely everything for no real reason and keep filming no matter what, and it makes no sense at all.  They film the most boring, minute details of their lives.  I've never met anyone who does this.  Ever.  Some found footage films give a decent reason for their filming.  Maybe they expect to see something, or their job is to film everything...I can buy into that line of reasoning.  If you have a character whose job it is to be a cameraman, I can understand their continuing to film at all times.  However, a couple wandering about on their honeymoon...why film absolutely everything?  I've been on vacation: the last thing I want to do is carry around and or worry about a camera.

The device does allow for some interesting things in this particular case: the evil cultists who seek to impregnate the young woman with the seed of their dark lord are entirely unaware of the camera so we can see the goings-on...kinda.  If memory serves, the cultists actually set up cameras in the couples house, too, which makes more sense than filming everything.  But, seriously:who uses the camera to wake up their spouse?!  

Honestly, I can't understand their proliferation.  I mean, I can: they're cheap.  But...I mean, I guess that IS the reason for their proliferation.  I know they aren't popular, though...I can't think of anyone ever saying "Boy, I sure do love found footage."  I'm known to be much more reasonable about them, really, then anybody else I know.

I'm spending this whole thing ranting on found footage.  There is a reason for this: nothing is happening whatsoever in this movie.  Twenty minutes in and we've basically watched their mundane, boring lives occur.  At least I do understand filming things for their unborn baby...within reason, anyway.

God...I am so bored.  She got a nosebleed and *gasp!* ate some meat. Basically, I'm watching Pregnancy:The Movie.

So she has road rage and freaks out at the doctors?  She doesn't need to be evil pregnant for that: I've dated a number of Women who do that just fine without having a demon child inside of them.  Come to think of it, they also occasionally have nosebleeds and eat raw meat, too.  Bloating and swelling sometimes.  So, basically, this movie does not have anything unique to evil pregnancy...maybe she could speak in tongues, vomit black fluids, bend her arms backwards, cross her eyes or pick her nose, ANYTHING AT ALL WOULD BE NICE.

Oh, yeah, the cultists do set up the cameras in the house in this one.  I actually kind of like that.  But we still mostly follow the husband with his own camera because he is still filming private conversations with his wife.

Wife screams at children and carves up her floor.  Again, not evil pregnant: just a DIY hipster who hates kids.  Also, movie: look, night vision isn't inherently scary, okay?  Suspense is scary. 

The effects work of the fetus pushing out of Mom's stomach was pretty okay looking, even if it's too telegraphed and kinda cliched to be scary.  

Bernard from LOST is the Priest(he was also Holland Manners in Angel, and that was rad).  I'm happy to see that: he's a fine character actor.  He does a good job with his weird nosebleed freak-out.  Actually, that scene had a nice subtle "blink-and-you'll-miss-it" moment of her eyes turning red.  It was actually a decent scene, and the red eyes thing almost justifies the found footage device.  Almost.

Huh.  The plot just kinda redeemed the use of found-footage all on it's own, actually: the husband goes through the footage in order to find out what happened before.  He provided his own exposition with found-footage.  That's actually somewhat intelligent.

The Priest recites the bible verse from the text in the beginning...so why did we have the text in the beginning? 

I have a very hard time believing that, during the entire production process, nobody ever said "Hey, so this is really boring, can we have someone's head explode or something?"  Not one person?  No focus group participant, no friend of the writers, no studio exec, actor or anyone?  I feel like someone should have read this script and said "Uh, this is incredibly uninteresting."  Friends don't let friends write bad screenplays.

The climax has some decent stuff in it: the main character-wielding his "adventure cam"-finding himself completely surrounded by cultists and out of his depth has some weight to it.  The moving of furniture and cracking of walls by themselves looks good, too...just wish it had been happening eight years ago when I started watching this movie.  The primary set piece of the nursery looks pretty good, too, actually.  It's not a bad climax, it just hasn't been earned at all.  There was no real sense of impending doom-and really, there should have been, given that pregnancy is a nine month countdown(actually, would a literal countdown have been a bad idea?)-involved.  If they had done more with the build-up, more demonic shenanigans besides "Boy, she is acting a little bit weird"...anything to build suspense or dread.  

God damn it...did The Gaslight Anthem do a song for the end credits of this?!  They're like my favorite band and...why did this have to happen?  Good for them, I guess?  Bad movie, great band.

Final Thoughts: No suspense, no build, just a bunch of dull stuff filmed by dull people under an admittedly explosive and interesting final seven minutes.  Plus, The Gaslight Anthem, apparently.

Final Rating: Two Stars.  One of them for The Gaslight Anthem.

Movie 32: Cub

Starring: Maurice Luijten, Evelien Bosmans, Titus De Voogdt, Stef Aerts,  Jan Hemmanecker.

Director: Jonas Govaerts.

Much like The Curse of Downer's Grove, this is another film that I know very little about...but I do know more about it than I did the aforementioned movie-such as it having some fairly solid reviews and being Belgian(I think, anyway) and maybe about child Werewolves?-and am kinda hopeful that it will treat me better than Downer's Grove did.  Like Grove, I picked this up in a desire to see something that was released this year and that I hadn't seen before because I sometimes like to break up the monotony of doing movies I've seen before.

This will be my second attempt at keeping up with a blog post while trying to follow subtitles, but Asmodexia went okay, I guess, so maybe this'll be okay. There were some rad looking trailers on the DVD I might need to look up, too.  But, okay, away we go.

Few seconds in and I've found two things I dig already: The Monster actually looks pretty cool (and is a practical effect, not that I'm one of those guys who bitches about such things) and the main score is very catchy and arresting.  Plus, Werewolves. 

Y'know, I was a boy scout.  Well, okay, not really:funny story.  I was a cub scout and I decided not to go ahead with the scouts because, well, I just wasn't that into it.  It was a little lame, really, but my Mom wanted me to do it so I did.  So, during the graduation ceremony, I was forced to stand off to the side on stage when the boy scout leader person mentioned "drop outs" in her speech...it was kind of embarrassing, but even then I found it kind of funny.  I still do.  My scouting experience was not like it is in Cub, though.  For one, there was way less slapping of the butts of cute blonde Women.  Second, there was way more bullying.  I'm not sure we ever went camping really, either.  There were never any Werewolves, no matter what jokes other cub scouts made about me.

I'm already fairly certain the actual villain in this film probably isn't the Werewolf.  Not sure who actually is-the laid-off factory workers make sense, as do the morons riding the go-cart in the potatoe field-but I'm betting the Werewolf is warning people or something.  

We didn't have "den leader" scouts when I was around...maybe the boy scouts did...but if there were I probably woulda taken a swing at them.  Giving a twelve year old power over other twelve year olds would almost certainly end badly, much as it does in this film.  That kid is a DICK.  Also, these scout leaders are kind of tools.  

Scariest thing to happen so far was when my stupid cat fell off the back of the couch.  Idiot.  She's fine, just dumb.

The music remains very pretty and ominous.  I rather like it.  Other than that, there's not much here so far.  We have very little understanding of the main character, Sam, other than that he's a withdrawn and imaginative kid and is picked on by his fellow scouts and, apparently, his scout leader.  Well, one of them anyway, the other one seems to mean well.  There's an undercurrent of sexuality-mostly in sexual awakening of young boys, which is a sentence I really would rather not type again-as the boys pull out their playboy magazine(which is taken by our Wolf kid or whatever), mention receiving sexual acts, and Sam using a pair of binoculars to spy on the female cook...that seems to be the only real subtext.

Well, the plot as thickened a little.  Sam has made contact-maybe even a burgeoning friendship-with Kai the Werewolf and we now know there's some weird guy with booby traps everywhere killing guys in track suits(living the dream)...y'know, other than knowing the woods are filled with traps and a maybe killer werewolf kid, the game of capture the flag they go to play looks kinda rad.  

Turns out: not a Werewolf.  That's a little disappointing.  It goes to show how effective the camera work and imagery is, though: the shots of Kai are so fleeting and his mask so interesting looking that I thought he was special effects.  Turns out it's just a feral kid with a mask.  The kid actor does a phenomenal job with his movements, too.  

I guess there is another level of subtext happening here, really: along with that sexual awakening stuff comes a certain element of alpha male behavior.  Sam is constantly bullied by Baloo the scout leader...and then when Sam sees Baloo with the camp cook making with some backwoods nookie, there's another violent reaction from Baloo and his dog.The Dog, somewhat predictably (and horribly) is murdered by Kai and Sam in an action of primal vengeance...which, from Sam's perspective, is cathartic but for us a fairly vile action. From the perspective of Kai it's the same as any animal action...it's an interesting enough scene.  Not an easy one to watch, but at least something occurred and we've got some story actually building.

Poor Kris The Scout Leader...he was an alright guy before getting a knife jammed in his eye.  Baloo, on the other hand, is a total shitheel and I hope he dies horribly.  

Not bad, kids!  Bad guy drives over a whole troop of cub scouts (that sentence I kinda actually always DID want to write), and Sam and his Buddy manage to kill the guy with a fairly intelligent ruse.  Nice action sequence.

Baloo got taken down.  That makes me very happy.

Oh, shit, this is getting ugly.  Kai is getting frisky with Jasmin the camp cook.  Now this is some unsettling stuff.  This movie actually went pretty nutty all at once.  Pretty large body count very quickly.

I think I might have hit the nail on the head: this movie very much is about savagery, sexuality, and alpha mentality.  Sam and Kai bond over that savagery, and then fight over sexual dominance over Jasmin...Sam takes quite a few beatings and slowly gets more and more aggressive...the villain even presents a "kill or be killed" ultimatum for Sam.  Sam is quite the survivor, too, really.  

This movie actually has some things in common with films like The Devil's Backbone.  Both films feature children in very adult situations, as having a lot of thoughts and feelings that are confusing and unsettling.  There's nothing fun or silly about being a kid.

Ooh, some nice camerawork happening as Sam and Kai fight: the camera switches angles to make the two characters indistinguishable as they wrestle for the knife.  They have become the same in that pit, having seen all the carnage and mayhem.  Their parallels meet and end.

Pretty dark ending here, actually.  Unlike Downer's Grove, though, it's an earned one.  There's an established lunacy to our lead character, comparisons between him and Kai are very pronounced, acts of violence are presented very matter-of-fact, and (really) all of the characters were kind of assholes that we didn't mind seeing as victims.  The last act of this film really was very aggressive, artistically and technically sound, and a very logical conclusion to a story about savagery among human beings, particularly when attempting to display dominance.  

Final Thoughts: Cub really does a pretty extraordinary job pulling itself together after a fairly scattered first half.  Looking back at it now the first half does some okay work in setting up themes and motifs, but it still doesn't quite find it's way until that halfway point.  There are some story slip ups-I don't think we needed any half-assed backstory about Sam being a "troubled child" or anything in the end-and tonal shifts, but that last act more than makes up for its limping beginning.  It's interesting to note that it has one female character and she basically is almost literally a sexual object. 

 It isn't a sexist film, though: given that the point of view is from an entirely male cast, ranging from horny young boys to adult men who are very much predatory, Jasmine is offered up only as those male figures see her.  It's very much a film about being male, and not a very flattering one.  From the boys ogling Jasmine, to her flirtation with Balloo, to Kai being interested in her body and ultimately to Sam's frustrated final moments with her, we have a view of Women that is actually despicable, and that is the entire point.  Men are viewed as aggressors from Sam's point of view: his fellow scouts bully him, his scout-master bullies him, Kai befriends but ultimately betrays him (as does his other scout master, at least as Sam sees it)...even earlier when the scout masters get into a fight with two track-suit wearing morons, we're offered up a view of masculine behavior as predatory, aggressive, and animalistic.  In short, Men of all ages are basically animals who seek dominance and sexual gratification over any sort of society or companionship and, ultimately, are only the slightest provocation away from becoming monsters.  It's very Lord Of The Flies but with booby traps and backwoods psychos and, most importantly, a Woman to further showcase masculine degeneration.  It's pretty smart stuff in the end, even if it was sometimes awkwardly presented.

Final Rating: Three and a half stars.

Movie 31: The Curse of Downer's Grove

Wait, written by who?!

Starring: Bella Heathcote, Lucas Till, Helen Slater, Penelope Mitchell, Mark L.Young, Tom Arnold, Keven Zegers.

Director: Derick Martini.

I know nothing whatsoever about The Curse of Downer's Grove.  I had read that it was a new movie out on DVD not so long ago with it's name, but knew nothing at all about it.  So, naturally, I plopped down ten bucks to pick it up at the store because I was in the mood to rock something entirely new.  

Imagine my surprise when the cover says it's written by Brett Easton Ellis, which is kinda mind-blowing and only a little daunting.  Ellis is a mixed bag more often than not, and so now I'm wondering just how this is all going to play out.  I'm assuming self-absorbed nihilism and obsession with status, since that's basically all he ever wrote about.  However, I do recall reading something about Ellis wanting to change things up and have more variety to his life, so maybe this will be something exciting and new.  

To be honest, I'm not terribly optimistic, but we'll roll with it and see where we end up.  

Okay, based on the opening narration it's definitely self-absorbed nihilism.  I don't want to type it all out, but we're almost certainly wandering into traditonal Less Than Zero territory.  Mopey teenagers discussing some local curse where a teenager dies before graduation every year...except our first exposure to it is some idiot climbing around on a water tower and falling to his death.  The kids blame the curse...

Sure, if the curse is stupidity.  I mean, that's hardly Final Destination stuff, where someone dies in an impossible freak accident. That is literally teens doing dumb shit that is likely to get you killed.

I think if I were casting a movie that is, apparently, ninety percent voice-over narration...I dunno, I'd cast a Woman with nice voice.  Bella Heathcote just has this throaty, bland voice...it does very little for me.  Actually, all due respect to Ms.Heathcote, she's actually kinda bland all over except for those piercing blue eyes.  

Hey, at least the main character just laid out the problem with the flimsy premise, which I rather like.  "It's all choices!  Climbing a water tower high, bad choice, bad result.  Going home to work on your paper?  Good choice, good result."  Thank you.  Actually, the main character-despite being a tad pretentious and precocious-is actually not bad.  She's smart, occasionally witty, and very formidable with dumb-asses.  She's got a bit of Daria going on.  The voice-over seems to have dropped, too.  Sadly, our leads do go the party with the dumb jocks who acted like assholes anyway...but, hey, this plot isn't gonna unfurl itself...or at all, it's beginning to look like...

Oh, no...movie...I was not in the mood for a rape tonight.  I mean, it isn't surprising, considering the character involved...oh, snap, she gouged his eye!  Awesome!  I take back everything I said about you, Ms.Heathcote.  Actually, I'm beginning to like some things about this movie.  As the jock/rapist gives chase to the leads, she throws a car battery at their vehicle and causes them to crash.  That's amazing.

I'm also at least somewhat happy to see Penelope Mitchell here, too.  She was fun in Hemlock Grove, and was, well, mostly present in The Vampire Diaries.  She's a pretty good actress, though, so glad to see her getting some play.

The voiceover is getting more tedious by the second...but Heathcote is winning me over.  I'm still finding the movie largely uneven and...well, is pointless too harsh sounding?  I don't mean it harshly, really, but it doesn't seem to have much of a point to make.  We have what is basically turning into a stalker film: guy attempts to rape girl(boo!), she gouges out his eye(yay!), and then he tracks her down(after his Dad, Tom Arnold(uh..yay?)throws him in a bathtub) and gets weird.  Somewhere in there is some sort of curse on the town which, so far, is basically background noise save for the heroine basically dismissing it but kinda wondering if maybe she's next...?  For some reason?  I'm sure it will get more relevant(I hope) but for now it's a pretty simple-albeit it worldly and smart in it's depiction of how to deal with these very real situations-teen drama.  

It should be noted that Ellis wrote the screenplay but it's apparently based on a book.

Apparently our rapist goes to a college that doesn't so drug testing for their football stars?  I know, I probably shouldn't quibble on that out of everything else going on.

It's official, though: I am now on board with Bella Heathcote.  She's giving a fine performance and is, despite the movies general schizophrenia, actually pretty well-written and developed.  While flirting with her garage mechanic beau, she actually blushes.  Like a lot.  It seems simple, but I don't recall it happening very frequently.  

There's a lot of honesty to a lot of the performances, actually.  When rapist shows up again during her date with the mechanic, the mechanic has a very real reaction of concern, confusion and anger all at once.  It's actually a pretty good scene.  This movie is becoming altogether about the realities of having a psycho stalker and not so much evil curses.  That isn't to say it's poorly executed, though...it's actually picking up some momentum.  I'm slightly irritated by the cops complete lack of interest in the case due to the rapists Dad being a former cop...I feel like there's a way past that.  Maybe there isn't.  I dunno.  It just feels like a little bit a cop out (see what I did there?).

I don't know why there are these dumb dream sequences (complete with Native Americans because spooky!) and the continued references to the curse.  The curse means absolutely nothing here.  It's adding nothing to the story in any way, shape or form.  It's not creating the desired sense of doom.  The escalating nature of the rapists antics are creating a sufficient sense of suspense, but the curse isn't helping.

Well, the boyfriend did the dumbest thing in all of dumbonia.  Picking a fight with the psychopath while a gaggle of his friends are around might be the most ridiculous thing ever...predictably, he gets his ass kicked...but, surprisingly, not by the group.

Wait, wait, wait, the guy breaks her younger brothers hand in broad daylight (really good scene, by the way:little brother shows some real stones) with a witness and the cops says their hands are tied?  That doesn't make a lot of sense.  But, oh well, we're past it and now we're getting into some intense stuff at the party.  Little brother gets revenge, boyfriend gets revenge (neither on the rapist, but on the rapists buddies, which is cool enough)...and there's a gun, which kinda eliminates some intensity but I suppose it's logical.  Actually the hand to hand stuff is pretty well done.  This climax is being handled pretty strongly overall.  I'm actually a bit more impressed than I thought I'd be.

Chrissie is just kicking all sorts of ass, actually.  This went into revenge movie territory pretty quickly and fairly seamlessly.  Tons of agency for our female lead, which is excellent.  I'm becoming worried about an unearned downer ending, though...really I am. 

Aww, fuck you, movie!  After all of that, with the main character getting through all of this, winning the day, and earning her happy ending you go ahead and pull a lame-ass bullshit move of the geeky best friend murdering her in her front lawn out of nowhere?  Go. To. Hell.

I do like the song during the end credits.  But I'm in a bad mood now. 

Final Thoughts: Well, up until that absolute bullshit ending things worked themselves out surprisingly well.  It really did mostly come from a place of a revenge/stalker movie despite having the silly curse shit dumped through it...but in the end, that ridiculous nihilism just had to win out in the end with an ultimate statement of "No Justice, just nonsense."  To take a resourceful heroine, who won over the hearts and minds of the audience and fully earned respect, and just take it all away from her for some desire to be "dark" and/or "existential" is basically just the poorest writing you can possibly do.  

Final Rating: Two and a Half Stars.  May have made a three without that lousy ending.

Movie 30: Annabelle

Starring: Annabelle Wallis, Ward Horton, Tony Amendola, Alfre Woodard, Kerry O'Malley, Brian Howe.

Director: John R. Leonetti.

I liked Annabelle when I first saw it.  I mean, I understood it to be a pretty uneven film from the get-go: there wasn't much substance or meaning to it, not a great deal of real plot cohesion and didn't have a particularly strong story.  What it had was a collection of random but effective scares, many of which I found to be pretty impressive and even a little genuinely frightening.

The stars are charismatic enough: I like Mia, after all...she has a little (more than a little intentionally) Mia Farrow in Rosemary's Baby going on.  Luckily for Mia, her Husband is way less of a tool than poor Rosemary.  The interactions between the two are lovey-dovey cuteness, and it's endearing enough for an audience to be fearful for them, and that's a very useful thing.  In fact, let's get that out of the way: this movie has severe Rosemary's Baby envy.  The main character is even named Mia.  I think once we realize it's a serious influence on the film, I think we can move past it and even somewhat admire its homage...it might even make the film a little better in the end.

The sequence of the cult attack is very well done, too.  Director John R. Leonetti uses tracking shots and worrying close-ups, shadows and tight light sources...it manages to even look rather natural.  The house is full of weird little corners-perfect for a slightly out-of-focus to spirit their way through creepily-and, well, how creepy is it when Mia is putting on her robe and hears "I like your dolls" whispered in the dark?  It's a pretty chilling moment, really.  The whole sequence has a breath-taking set-up and then is followed up with a really ferocious attack.  I don't know if the movie ever matches that sequence ever again during its running time, but it won me over the first time I saw and it won me over this time. too.

There is a sort of simple honesty to this film.  Character moments are very candid, the movie makes no attempt to subvert or in any way attempt to make you think that this is about anything other than that creep-ass doll.  

Following up an incredibly well staged cult attack with the horrors of Jiffy-Pop wasn't the world's greatest cinematic plan.  It moves us in the right direction in the end-we move out to a new location (a strange but interesting decision for a second act), the baby is born (changing the stakes) and we see our first minor element of demonic shenanigans with a good ole' invisible leg-drag (which we may want to put a moratorium on for the time being...it's getting a little old-hat).  But still, not the strongest transitional scare I've ever seen.

When I watched this on the theater, there was a pair of young women in the front row who always cringed and made small noises when Annabelle was on screen.  It was adorable at first and then, since this movie is ninety-five percent close ups of the doll, it got a little irritating.

Even the new apartment Mia and John have is a very clear homage to Rosemary's Baby-that long hallway with all the rooms branching off, high ceilings, gothic architecture.  The building is a dead ringer for the Dakota.  Again, much like their old house, it has those nice sharp corners...makes for a very nice set piece.  Actually, the set design in general is really nicely done here.  There's excellent use of space.

Oh, I forgot about the disappointing borderline-racist addition of Alfre Woodard.  Don't get me wrong, Woodard is a phenomenal actress and an absolute legend.  She looks like she's a little bored here, and who could blame her, and...well, look, she embodies the magical person-of-color trope that movies used to fall into years ago.  It's a shame to see Annabelle lazily (and, I think, unwittingly) backslide into that device.

John's joke about the creepy kid drawings is admittedly pretty funny and sounds like something I'd say under the circumstances: Mia asks, worried, "You see what I mean?"  John looks at the drawings, and says gravely, "Yes, I see...these aren't very good, I mean look at the proportions..." and grins.

Annabelle has another really solid scare in it that I felt legitimately frightening at the time I saw it: she follows a little girl through her apartment, sees her standing in a room across the hall...the door starts to close, little girl breaks into a dead run towards the door and, just as the door removes her view, the door bursts open and horrible undead chick continues the run at Mia...I genuinely got freaked out by that the first time.  I thought it was a great scare.

The Basement sequence and desperate run up the stairs is filled with cliches but it's still rather effectively done.  The elevator doors opening again and again into the creepy basement, the echoing sounds of a crying baby, and the spooky dark figure chasing her up the stairs...we've seen it all before but it feels...well, not exactly fresh, but not nearly as cliche as it should come across.  I'd say it's a fun horror scene, but not exactly the finest moments of cinema.

One of the biggest criticisms I could level at this film would probably be in its pacing.  It's a very stop and go film: big shock moments followed by plodding scenes of halting dialogue and close-ups of people looking concerned...it feels very much like killing time on occasion.  Things really do start to drag in the third act...and keep dragging.

The bait and switch of Mia thinking she's bashed out Annabelle's little stuffing-like brains and then being made to think it's her baby...that's pretty intense stuff.  I wondered for a moment if this movie was going to go that dark.  It didn't seem to fit...and it ends up being a misdirect.

So, Alfre Woodards divine purpose in life is the save a handful of white people.  Thank you, Hollywood.  I mean, I get the bond that occurs between the two Mothers, and Woodard's character is thinking purely in terms of getting to save the child she has been unable to save before.  It's a solid character motivation in the end, and one that is supposed to be color blind, but it has some unfortunate connotations in this day and age.  

Final Thoughts: This film is very technically sound and has a nice collection of scares.  It's awkwardly written and paced at times, has some unfortunate bad habits and poor connotations...has some great set pieces and designs and just has some really great individual scenes.  It's an entertaining enough scary movie, not a fantastic film.

Final Rating: Three Stars.

Movie 29: The Conjuring

Starring: Vera Farminga, Patrick Wilson, Lili Taylor, Ron Livingston, Shanley Caswell, Hayley Mcfarland.

Director: James Wan.

It's weird to me that The Conjuring is so contentious online. There are people who hail it as a modern classic and others who find it to basically be excrement and not a lot in between.  I, like with most things, find myself in that middle ground.  While my opinion of it isn't quite at the instant classic level, it's still a very positive one.  I remember seeing it in a fairly packed theater with an audience that was very much into it-yelling a lot of stuff at the screen, jumping and screaming-and thinking to myself that it was surprisingly good.  However, I was as into it on repeat viewings, which led me to think that its primary effect was to be a great scary theater going experience and not so much a work of greatness that stands up to later viewings(as in, it only fully works when you don't know what's going to happen-Wan's other highly successful work Insidious suffered a bit of the same problem-and sort of limps when you already do).  

It has some great moments, though, I do remember that much even with repeat viewings.  I do struggle with some elements-it's hard to take a movie seriously when it presents The Warrens as anything but con-artists, after all-but there's enough scary stuff to make it interesting.

The primary cast is top-notch.  I never know quite what to make of Patrick Wilson most of the time-he is sort of bland, but that actually kind of works for him in some ways because he can basically be damn near anything-but he works well here.  I positively adore Vera Farminga and am so thrilled to see her success on Bates Motel (which is really good, by the way, and Farminga is to die for in it).  Lili Taylor is a veteran of the game and a fantastic actress as well.

I once read an article (or maybe a review...maybe even for The Conjuring) that made the statement that director James Wan went from a hack to a horror legend over time and now strange that was.  I agree with that sentiment.  I'm not a fan of Saw or Dead Silence-particularly the latter-but came around with the highly entertaining Insidious.  The Conjuring takes what Insidious brought-a wonderful pastiche of horror film tropes used with a gleeful amount of knowledge and fun, and a level of self-awareness that doesn't get enamored with itself-and added some interesting throwback style into the mix.  I mean, the scare chords are very arch and gothic-again, it's that awareness of classic tropes being used to have some fun instead of to fall in love with itself-and a lot of the camerawork calls attention to the seventies in ways the costumes and technology can't.

The opening scenes, involving Annabelle the doll and apparent franchise stand out, are well done and suitably creepy even though they don't really accomplish much in the narrative.  It does set things up tonally, though: some early weirdness and scary stuff in a way that is reminiscent of urban legend scary stories, like the stories you and your friends might share in the middle of the night.  

Other than Annabelle, the movie is mostly a collection of haunted house tropes: dog dies, clocks stop, weird noises and the like.  I wonder if maybe that's where so many of the detractors get their opinion from: the movie smartly deploys traditonal tropes and, as such, is seen as cliche or hackneyed.  It wouldn't surprise me to find that people were adopting that mentality.  I don't think it's warranted here, though: Wan and his cohorts are far too aware of what they're doing to be hackneyed.  Plus, most of the major stuff throughout the film doesn't sit as nicely in that category, really.  The set-up certainly plays with those things, but I feel like they're cast aside when the plot takes a different switch.

There is some smart suspense devices used in this film, though, and most of it plays entirely on audience expectations.  Sure, the cynics might bitch about them being "jump scares" (because they apparently forgot what suspense is supposed to do), but little things like the kid telling Lili Taylor to use the music box and she'll see her new imaginary friend in the mirror.  Taylor uses the box, sound drops out, we get on edge and then the Daughter makes a loud noise. It's a good, well-handled jump scare.  They then follow up with an undeniably creepy game of "Clap" where something leads Taylor right up to the wardrobe.  Good stuff.

A lot of the scares are very subversive, too.  I think one of my favorite scares(maybe ever, really, it's such an effective one) involves damn near nothing happening: it's just misdirection.  The girl wakes up, hearing noises.  She looks under the bed.  Sound drops out.  We see nothing.  She sees the door move slightly.  She wakes up her sister, staring at the black expanse behind the door.  The sister stands in front of the door...the girl in bed says "It's standing right behind you" and...nothing.  Door slams.  It's a great scare.

Wan really does know good suspense, actually.  The use of buildup is really strongly handled here.  Taylor walking through the house, hears giggles, has a ball tossed to her (so simple!) and then lights a match at the top of the stairs.  Normally film rhythm works in rules of three: so she'd have one match, match goes out, new match, match goes out, and the scare happens with the third match.  But here, Wan does it on the second.  I know people have joked about the clapping ghost, but it worked for me.  Actually, right after that, he subverts normal rhythm again: we have one sister sees something the other sister doesn't except, as in the previous scene in the bedroom, the creepy thing shows up and attacks.  It's done a few times, actually: we revisit the music box, too.  It works.  I'd actually say that the second act of this film is pretty top notch...and that's usually the weak part in most films (the first act build and the third act resolution always take priority, and the second act is left to plod along).

The Warrens are both a blessing and a curse.  I've talked at length about other possession films and how the role of exposition-spouting paranormal expert is a pretty tough one to handle.  Farminga and Wilson do well enough with it, even when the dialogue is a little cringe-worthy.  Wilson as Ed Warren occasionally even seems phoney(which might be intentional), especially when he kind of leads the Perrons' answers. I feel like there's a screenwriting disconnect going on with The Warrens, too: the film can't seem to decide if it's about the Perrons or the Warrens.  Why are we meeting The Warrens' daughter, really?  To show what's at stake for them?  That doesn't entirely track.  So, maybe it's about them, which relegates the role of The Perrons as little more than plot devices...which isn't the strongest position to take.  That being said, all of the characters are pretty well established and fleshed out, even if their general importance tends to waver.  I'm not sure Farminga and Wilson has a lot of chemistry, either, and that doesn't do anybody any favors.  Farminga is so naturally likeable, though, that definitely bolsters Wilsons' side of the performance.

I suppose the worst thing that could be said about The Conjuring, and it's the same story with Insidious for that matter, is that a cynic could say "I liked it better when it was Poltergeist."  You wouldn't be entirely wrong to say that, either-I've said it, but mostly in jest, because I do like those movies-it just isn't the whole story.  There are similarities-too many to ignore-but I feel like there is enough to distinguish them from one another.  Style and performance choices do count for something, after all...and, honestly, if you want to go down that road, all stories are basically derived from the same handful of sources anyway.  Each horror subgenre probably does, at it's core, have one major movie that all others spawn from.

There is a pretty good possession/exorcism sequence at the end of this movie.  Taylor does some great work, and brings a lot of intensity to the scene.  Actually, all of the central actors do good work in keeping things very lively and energetic.  I wouldn't have minded a moment for Roger to say "Hey, Warrens?  My Wife is possessed and dying, now is not the time for you to have arguments about your value to one another."  Roger could use something to do in general, really, besides look worried.  

I expect a text denouement detailing how much therapy for The Perrons cost.

One of the more interesting things about The Conjuring is that nobody dies.  It's so rare: just a full amount of scary scenes and weird demonic activity without any murder sequences.  It's just neat is all.  There's a really stylish and fascinating end credits, too.

In closing, I stand by my original remarks.  While it's not a horror classic, and doesn't quite stand up to subsequent viewings, it's still a very watchable and occasionally smart, scary little horror flick.  

Final Rating: Three and a half stars.

Movie 28: The Sentinel

Now on  Bluray with three different audio commentaries!  Because it needed that!

Starring: Cristina Raines, Chris Sarandon, John Carradine, Burgess Meredith, Ava Gardner, Joe Ferrer, Martin Balsam.

Director: Michael Winner.

About ten years ago or so I hunted down and watched The Sentinel for the first time after watching The 100 Scariest Movie Moments and thinking it looked pretty creepy and found out that it was.  I remember the basic plot details and some pretty upsetting imagery but, as is a common thing for me to discover as I've started doing this blog, I don't have a lot of super vivid memory of the flick.  I've seen a lot of horror movies but I'm finding in my old age that specific memory is becoming an issue.  I'm glad I'm doing this blog so I can remind myself-and write detailed reviews-of all these films I've seen.

It's funny that basically everybody in this movie-except it's lead-is famous.  Hell, that was Jeff Goldblum right away there.  I swear, watching two movies with Burgess Meredith in them was completely an accident.  It was not intentional.  Not that I mind.

Chris Sarandon just oozes smarm.  I get that it's basically his, y'know, thing but even when he's trying to be likable he's just kind of Prince Humperdink from The Princess Bride.

Yikes, that flashback of the day she attempted suicide is really frightening, insane stuff.  Her as a youth, wandering into the room with her aging Father with overweight prostitutes and birthday cake...then him standing there naked, smacking her in the face...she even glances down...really in-your-face stuff.  

I wonder why Cristina Raines didn't become a bigger star.  She's great here.  Beautiful super model with a decent head on her shoulders and a megaton of baggage...lots of charisma.  

I can only hope to one day be the wacky old neighbor wandering around with a bird on my shoulder and a cat in my arms while forcing myself into people's apartments.  While leaving my own picture in said apartments.  Of course, if I have the misfortune of growing old in this world, I'd prefer to end up like Burgess Meredith in any movie he ever did as an older man.

Man, I forgot how WEIRD this movie really was.  She's visiting her female neighbors and the woman(blonde with all red leotard and impossibly blue eyes) just straight up masterbates to her while Alison sits there...and Alison looks more annoyed by it than disturbed.  It's such a bizarre scene, and very...aggressive.  

The best thing about the first act of this film is mostly how everything is just...slightly off.  The party scene, for instance, is only slightly surreal.  It's disturbing, but in that way that you might see something strange out of the corner of your eye, or a kid alone at night.  Just kinda weird.  Of course, they follow it up with some really weird Ken Russell-ish surrealist dream sequences.  See, I remember some of that stuff from the first time around: terrifying weird surrealist scenes that shock and disturb.

Allison Parker is a great horror heroine.  I mean, sure, she runs upstairs to confront a supposed intruder wearing a little nighty whose straps can't quite seem to stay on her shoulders but there's still that natural toughness she still embodies.  Actually, from there we get a really excellent scare sequence: she finds the cat feeding on the bird, which shocks her, and then walks through those really dark, empty apartments...and then the door starts to close and the figure of her Father walks through the room...god, it's really a scary scene.  This ghoulish monster just keeps coming for her, and she stabs it multiple times..sees the prostitutes sitting motionless on the bed...just an extraordinary sequence.

And then Christopher Walken...who doesn't seem to have lines.  Oh, he got one or two after all.  I do like the weird "Maybe Chris Sarandon murders his Wives" insinuation.  It might not be entirely necessary, and might even be a little bit of padding, but I still kinda like it.  

Do Priests actually say "My Child?"

The "Allison suddenly sees everything in latin" is a nice touch, too. Poor Allison just isn't taking this crazy ass shit well, though.  Neighbors who don't exist, Priests that don't exist, seeing her usually dead Father...poor lady.    Unfortunately, the second act of this movie slows down a lot.  Lots of exposition, history...too much Chris Sarandon exploring information.  I'd prefer more of Allison, really.  Doing some of her own detective work, maybe.  But, hey, William Hickey just showed up.  Can't complain about that.

The sudden description of the plot is kinda lazy.  I mean, Sarandon basically says the plot twist out loud to the audience (and William Hickey, who basically just leaves afterwards.  I would have liked to see him say "Yeah, I totally don't care" and wander off) with a music sting.  I get that it's kinda complicated, I just feel like there could have been a better way to do it.  Or you could just not explain it and count on the audience to put two and two together.  I suppose the "Allison is going to die tomorrow" creates some sort of suspense, a little anyway...

I find myself disappointed at how Sarandon has become the focus, really.  Allison just kinda becomes a plot device, which is a little out of place given her set-up as a reasonably strong character.  I guess you could just blame the seventies...but I feel like this movie would be stronger if Allison was forced to, y'know, confront the threat herself head-on.  Considering the background of her abuse and attempts on her own life, it seems to follow that the plot would involve Allison having to take some responsibility.  I mean, Allison goes after him, so there is that...I just would have rather this movie be more self contained, with Allison as the full focus of the story.

Chris Sarandon apparently has a thing with reading out loud...slowly...to nobody.  It was four sentences, dude, and not very complicated ones.  

Okay, hellspawn Sarandon, weird ass mutants...now we're talking.  The sisters eating Sarandon is pretty neat, too.  This whole final sequence is some pretty freaky stuff.  Not sure how I feel about the heroic music swell when the Priest shows up...but, okay, it's still a pretty okay sequence.  The make-up effects are quite fascinating.  

Jesus, Tom Berenger?!  Who isn't in this movie?

I guess it's not too sad that Allison ends up a blind nun in the attic...she doesn't seem to mind, after all.  I'm not sure why blind is automatically part of the package, but I'll shrug it off.

Final Thoughts: Despite some real awkwardness, especially in the second act, this is a pretty effective film.  Those great moments of subtle surrealism really make things work most of the time.  Too much of Chris Sarandon and not enough Cristina Raines...a halting storyline with the police that doesn't really seem to do much in the end...but, when it works it works very, very well.

Final Rating: Three Stars.

Movie 27:Burnt Offerings

Starring: Karen Black, Oliver Reed, Burgess Meredith, Eileen Heckart, Lee Montgomery, Bette Davis.

Director: Dan Curtis.

It was only a matter of time until I got to something with Karen Black in it.  I feel like that's my entire opening, really.  Actually, I probably don't even need to do the actual blog post: I think the Karen Black element is probably all you really need to know.

I saw Burnt Offerings for the first time fairly recently, actually, and really enjoyed it.  I was excited to pick it up for a song yesterday and just kinda couldn't wait to get to it.  It's just a fun haunted house movie, which is probably some of my favorite kinds of movies.

How does one get the job of sweaty old caretaker?  I think it might be my dream job, other than being the crazy old guy at the beginning of all the Friday the 13th movies who tells the kids that they're all gonna die.  Me in an old wife beater talkin' in ole' crazy slang talkin' and not like that big city fancy talkin'...I probably would have to do actual work, though, huh?  I bet if these stuffy folks got to know him they'd find out he had a masters degree in mechanical engineering or art history or something but, y'know, they're stuffy big city folks.

Burgess Meredith is such a wonderful ham.  He gives a wonderful mad-as-a-hatter performance here. Every line read he has is laced with some sort of evil irony...I don't think anyone would do business with him, really.  But then again, Oliver Reed is kind of a dick, so everybody kinda loses in this scenario. Oliver Reed comes from that long line of movie men when they were stiff-upper-lift, borderline emotionally dead tough guys...usually, they were kinda dicks.  It's like Gregory Peck in The Omen.  Oliver Reed just sort of wanders around, glaring and judging everyone.  Kinda like me.

They don't make actors like Burgess Meredith or Bette Davis anymore.  Davis is a delight here, obviously, as Aunt Elizabeth.  

Karen Black is doing something nice and Oliver Reed just runs through the house bellowing her name irritably.  He's quite the charmer.

The young boy gets unbelievably excited about ding-dongs.  I, too, know how this feels.  I mean, I'd rather it be Hostess Cupcakes, but...sure, I get excited about snack cakes.  All joking aside, it's a subtle moment...the bulb is back before anyone replaced it...spooky...

Karen Black is having a really hard time with the vacuuming. So Oliver Reed shots "Hey, slave!"  Wow.  It's okay, though: Bette Davis gives him the business.  She actually just gave one of the best "Go fuck yourself" laughs I've ever heard.

The Possession stuff comes on quick and is really intense and frightening...Ben nearly drowning his son is a very unsettling scene.  Especially that weird little hiss he does after his son wacks him one with the underwater goggles.  Black, of course, can make staring at photographs terrifying.  Her vacant stares are legendary.

Oh, I forgot about Ben's dreams about the creepy chauffeur.  That's seriously one creepy dude.

There's not a lot of bells and whistles to Burnt Offerings. There's not a lot of metaphor, either.  That's not a criticism, either: sometimes simplicity really is the best option.  There doesn't need to be any deep-seated, subtle commentary on the problems of the "modern" american family in order to be a great movie-it helps, though, seeing as how haunted houses and ghosts usually are metaphors for deeper psychological or personal issues of those encountering them-it can just be normal people being forced to act abnormal by outside influences.  I suppose a freudian argument could be made about Ben having some sort of competitive relationship with his son (their playing in the cemetery was somewhat aggressive and predatory, after all) but I think that might be reading too much into it.  Maybe.

I guess there in some deeper seated stuff, really...they're fairly clear about sexual frustration between Ben and Marian...mostly Ben.  In fact, their romance-turns-to-ugliness scene in the pool and then to the lawn is creepy, emotionally charged stuff.  Oliver Reed just seethes, it's actually a really good performance.  It's interesting to see a character in his position end up going in the direction that he does: ordinarily the traditional trope is that the Dad never really grasps what's happening until it's too late.  Usually, the more "sensitive" wife or child starts to become aware of the danger.  Here, the Dad gets worked on early by the house, starts to lose it, and then pulls himself back and realizes things are wrong.

One of the hardest things to watch in this movie is the deterioration of Aunt Elizabeth.  She goes from so vibrant and capable to doddering and forgetful and is so aware of her slowing down...it's one of my worst fears.   "Flowers for Algernon" is one of my greatest terrors, ever.  If I'm to lose my mind, I'd rather not remember what it was like to have my mind.  It's such a sad, frightening thing to watch.  It's a great performance from Bette Davis.

There's an effortless, quiet intensity to Burnt Offerings.  A lot of it comes from the cast and that wonderful score.  The use of bells, oboes and bassoons, music boxes...it's such a creepy little score. Bette Davis is crushing it in her weird post-stroke state...as she and Ben witness the creepy chauffeur coming into the room...she's just pure terror, but manages to still perform that without full range of emotion (her face is kinda paralyzed, and all she can do is stare and shout).

Oliver Reed does passive aggressive fantastically.  The post funeral scene is so much fun to watch.  He goes from incensed to "You heard your Mother, Davey.  You're messing up her table."  It's so icy.  I keep giving a lot of praise to the other actors but Karen Black is doing a helluva job, too.  She brings total conviction to her performance.  It's actually kind of a great transformative role: From sort of vacant and soft spoken to a force to be reckoned with...I think there's two kinds of hammy performances: there's the silly, tongue-in-cheek hammy and what Karen Black is doing here.

Ben's reaction to the houses' metamorphosis is perfect: Welp, I'm outta here and I'm not stopping for the wife.  If only he had left Davey.  Lay on the horn some more, you little shit.  You're dead weight. Ben's continuous smashing into the log is pretty awesome stuff.

The Deep End of the Pool: clearly Davey's worst enemy. Sometimes I feel like not wearing a helmet is Davey's worst enemy, though.  Despite that, Davey manages to not drown despite being dragged underwater for a particularly long time.  

I feel like as soon as Marian went back into the house, I'd just gun the engine and be out of there.  I mean, we've established how the house gets a hold onto her in particular...so as soon as she's like "Oh, I'll just totally leave a note, k?" I'd just be like "Look, Davey, we'll get you a new Mom" and get the hell out.  

The final scares of the last five or six minutes are fantastic.  The seventies really knew how to get shit done.

Final Thoughts: It's not a complicated film at all, and that really works in it's favor.  It's well performed and well paced and really doesn't screw around.  Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and a scary movie is just a scary movie.  

Final Rating: Four Stars.

Movie 26:Yellowbrickroad

Starring: Cassidy Freeman, Anessa Ramsey, Clark Freeman, Laura Heisler, Tara Giordano, Michael Laurino.

Director: Jesse Holland, Andy Mitton.

I've decided to abandon the plan to watch stuff in bursts of sub-genres.  After a dozen-give or take-possession films, I find the idea of watching another one unbelievably abhorrent.  So, now I'm just gonna watch whatever the hell I feel like.  So, in that spirit, here's YellowBrickRoad.

This one was chosen because, well, it's Fall now.  It's starting to even look and feel like Fall here in Maine, so I figured I'd watch one of the Fall-est movies I've ever come across.

I saw this once awhile back. The internet seemed to mention it a lot as one of those little known gems, and circled around forums and web-reviews quite frequently.  I watched it and rather liked it, even if it felt a little jumbled at times...I remember not really fully grasping the ending, and I wonder now if I just wasn't paying close enough attention to the film or whatever...or maybe the ending really is incomprehensible and that's just part of the fun that is this film.  So, let's give it a rip and see how it goes.

Old stories of urban legend disappearances are always great fodder for this sort of thing.  The general premise: a group of researchers attempt to find out what exactly happened when the population of a New Hampshire village went wandering up an unmarked trail, most to be found frozen and/or murdered, awhile back.  Of course, they go wandering and horrible shit happens.

The characters are established rather quickly in atypical horror movie fashion.  It's a fun way to do things: characters quickly say "Hi, my name is X and this is what I do," and off we go.  One of the guys smiles at all the ladies (despite being established as one of the only guys with a significant other) and offers drinks from his bottle of bourbon.  One of them is a Psychologist, which I remember being a nice touch in this film.  

I feel like I would have gone for this trail myself many times if there was something like this locally.  I don't think I could resist.  But maybe not: I can be a superstitious and nervous guy...so maybe I wouldn't go wandering down the death trail.  But maybe I would...

There's something subtly creepy about everything, right from the movie theater and the strange discussion (and sudden intensity and desperation) with Liv and her tagging along...there's some great performances here.  Different, subtle reactions to events that are seemingly innocuous: a lingering shot on Jill The Intern's face as they slowly begin to tease her more and more, the slightly escalating aggression of some of guys, competitiveness, frustration...it's quiet, it's not super pronounced.  Of course, mysterious music just blaring in the woods in the middle of the night is pretty creepy...see, if I did go wander down the death trail, I'd turn around the second that music started playing.

I had forgotten a lot of stuff about this movie...it's even kinda getting under my skin a little bit.  The use of still-photography to halt traditional pacing is brilliantly done.  The film presents a straightforward (like a direct trail) narrative and then breaks it up with still photographs, quick cuts, and then long uninterrupted moments of contemplation.  It's a movie that is literally all over the place structurally. 

The violence, when it finally occurs, is among some of the harshest, brutal and yet so casually and remotely executed.  Most of the violence is seen through the lens of binoculars, with no sound other than that jazzy music playing in the distance.  We don't hear what Daryl says as he is hacking through her limbs with a rock(!)...it's just so casual and matter-of-fact.  I don't wince often when watching violent sequences-I've seen far too many horror flicks in my time-but...as Daryl tears Erin apart (literally)...I needed a second.  It's really one of the best on-screen murders I've ever seen.

In earlier posts-such as with Scream-I talked a little bit about how madness is portrayed on screen. That madness is always broad and manic.  YellowBrickRoad shows it's madness through irritation.  It's really brilliant: rather than froth at the mouth and scream out lines, this movie projects things like hurt feelings or being bothered by someone's hat.  It utilizes anxiety and depression in a way most movies aren't able to do.  Fear, anxiety, depression, mania, melancholia...it's all here and it's marvelous.

The general device of the music is so simple but so very effective.  It's not hard to understand why they're going mad.  It also works on the audience.  I had talked a little bit before about how the film's narrative deliberately messes with audience perception visually: lots of starts and stops, cinematography to still-photography and back again...and then the music and sound starts to act up.  Dialogue, occasionally muddled, is replaced by loud music...then silence, then even louder music...then the sound completely drops out.  

When the group starts to completely lose its collective mind...man, there's just some great performances and line reads.  Jill The Intern just saying "None of you know me...you don't even look at me" is heartbreaking.  The dialogue is generally interesting: it's mostly gibberish, really, but much like everything else it just gets inside your head.  

It's rare to see a movie where dumb decisions actually make sense.  The old cliches are "people in horror movies make dumb decisions so the plot can move forward" but sometimes a film comes along that says "characters will make dumb decisions because they're being forced to."  It's good stuff. 

I liked Livs monologue about the "need for escape" and "the trail will understand."  It was well delivered.  Her accent is getting better, too.  

Aww, poor Jill The Intern.  She was sorry about the candy bag.  They didn't even notice.

"If we don't find a town soon, I'm going to do things to you that are unspeakable."  Man, this movie has a way with words.  

This probably is one of the craziest films I've ever watched.  Livs awkward attempts to break Cys neck...Walters suicide tape...its just nuts.  Highly emotional, too.  In fact, I'd say that this movie is raw emotion, and everyone is game to run with it.  

Yeah, I still don't really get the ending, but I don't think I really need to.  Just some weird-ass stuff to cap off a weird-ass movie.

In the end this is a movie of raw emotion and psychological torment, and a very well done one.  The performances really are something to behold...and the style has a way of getting under your skin, of disorienting you.  Maybe the ending doesn't quite make sense, and in the end we wonder what the hell happened, but the events themselves are such a mindscrew that I don't think it matters so much.

Final Rating: Three and a Half Stars.

Movie 25: The Atticus Institute

Starring: William Mapother, Rya Kihlstedt,  Harry Groener, John Rubinstein, Sharon Maughn.

Director: Chris Sparling.

The Atticus Institute is a newer horror flick released earlier this year.  I did see it somewhere, somehow, a few months back but I feel like I wasn't paying enough attention to really fully grasp it.  I remember really liking some of the scares, and it's presentation of the found-footage device was actually pretty well done.  The idea of a found footage movie that was made out of old security cam and paranormal research facility logs forty years ago is also interesting to look at.  I prefer the documentary format to normal found-footage.

We have a pretty simple story, and that's fine.  Reinventing the wheel really isn't necessary at all.  Forty years ago there was a research facility where they tested for ESP and the like, and a Woman walks in who is possessed.  We have a documentary that details what occurred, told by people who were there.  

It's actually pretty well done, really.  It's easy to forget that these people doing talking head bits for this "documentary" are dramatic actors performing lines, and that's pretty impressive.  The structure of the narrative is expertly done: it feels just like a documentary and you quickly forget you're watching fiction.  It's actually doing to be kinda difficult for me to analyze this one, actually...and maybe that's a credit to the film.  It actually might be brilliant: the documentary format allows you to hide negatives extraordinarily well.

There are well-crafted scare scenes.  The build-up is solidly done and solidly paced.  The recordings of her sleeping, then bouncing to rooms that have nothing occurring in them, and suddenly all hell is breaking loose and the innocent grad student ran for it.

I'm glad to see William Mapother and Harry Groener getting more work.  They're very fine actors.  Mapother was the menacing Ethan on "LOST" and Groener The Mayor on "Buffy:The Vampire Slayer."  Great actors, great roles.  They're limited in characterization-especially considering Groener is relegated to talking head reactions to scenes he's not in and Mapother gets small bursts of screen time-but they give a lot with the little they're given.

I don't know how SCARY a lot of the scenes are, but they're really well executed and look amazing, especially with the old-timey seventies filters on everything.  It's more fascinating than frightening, but that seems to certainly be the point.  Intrigue, not terror.  And it IS intriguing, mostly, but it can't quite seem to keep its pace up.  I find myself easily distracted while watching it.  It's not keeping my focus.  Every so often, though, they pull things together into really strong scenes, usually punctuated by a strong performance choice by Rya Kihlstedt or Harry Groener.   Kihlstedt is great, by the way.  Again, it's a completely physical performance with little to no character, but she nails it every time.

Oh, I always love the idea of the Government thinking it can use some sort of monster/alien/demon/whatever as a weapon or intelligence gathering device.  It's always so dumb, too.  But, maybe it's kinda realistic?  I suppose the military or whatever really would try to use a demon to fight their enemies...or maybe they've seen enough movies to know better.  I like the statement of "If those other encounters were real, I assure you, the government would have intervened," though.  That makes a lot of sense to me.  

That's an element that, I don't think, has ever been used in a film before or since, actually.  Government becoming involved in a demonic possession?  It's always the church or whatever, but never really science.  Now I'm racking my brain to see if I remember one.  I guess some of the "Exorcist" sequels did, in a way, but even that wasn't the government.  So I don't think it's been done?  I feel like maybe in an hour I'm gonna just yell "Oh, wait, THAT one" but for right now I can't think of one.  So, that's clever.

I guess I had zoned out, because I was shocked when someone said "Now we knew that they wanted to weaponize it all along" and I just said "Well, duh."  I thought they had said that out loud already, but I guess not.  

Ah, here we go.  Wouldn't be a possession film is a priest didn't show up.  Honestly, I kinda wish he hadn't.  I would have liked to see this "Science vs. Possession" thing go to its logical conclusion.  That would be a pretty interesting thing to see.  I'd like to see that as a regular horror movie, though, not a mockumentary or a found-footage film.  One that isn't The Lazarus Effect.  Again, no government involvement, really, but still "science vs. possession."

Despite the movie supposedly being about Mapother...not a lot of time is actually spent seeing what he was up to.  I think, in the end, this movie suffers from getting carried away with itself.  It's also, unfortunately, a bit dull in places.  It's a shame, because so much of the actual content is so well done and well constructed.  So, it has moments of greatness in a movie that is otherwise merely passable.

Final Rating: I'm gonna go ahead and give it three stars.  For the effort.