Dave tells you why the Saw films suck.

God, Saw... remember when you used to be cool?
What happened?
Now, I'm sure you're out there saying, "Duh Dave, of course the Saw films suck." Too true. And I know that you know that the Saw films suck. I'm not saying that we're dealing with the Citizen Kane-genre of movies here. But I am also a huge Huge huge horror fan. So, when I tell you that the single most successful series of horror movies are dogshit, I'd like to think I have my reasons here.  So, if you're bored, constipated, or just lonely and longing for the words of someone to whisper sweet nothing into your eyeballs, put on a pot of coffee, because this is going to get long.  (meaning: please read this, because I'm going to waste a lot of time typing this. Time that could have been spent helping save starving children. So, if you ignore this post, you may as well be starving the children yourself, right? Right! Blast off!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

Part I: Saw used to be cool.

I remember reading online back in like 2003 that there was this original, gory, twisted film hitting the indie circuits called Saw.  It had virtually no big name actors (sorry Murtaugh, you're finished) and was made by a couple of first time filmmakers for nothing. Then a couple months later, they released it in select theaters to a very limited promotional campaign. I saw maybe 2 previews for it. Plus the only theater that was playing it was the Kennedy Mall 6 in Dubuque here... The ONLY theater in like 100 mile radius, and it was a shitty mall theater.  Well, I saw it, and loved it.  Me, my dad and Courtney were all blown away by it.  (not the acting, mind you, but the concept.)  The original Saw was the perfect "concept movie."  What does that mean?  I mean, it's a movie based around a single idea that's easy to describe.  Another example? Human Centipede. Crazy German surgeon grafts 3 captured tourists' mouths to each other's anuses. Hilarity ensues.  Saw had a great hook that you could tell people and it immediately either turned them off it, or made them aching to go see it. "2 guys (no cup) trapped in a room forced to saw off their foot to escape."  That's it. That's all you needed to know.  Now, try to explain the plot of Saw 4 or 5 without having an anurism.  ("Um, some cops were after Jigsaw... and, um, was he dead yet in this one? I think he was, but maybe not... and they cut-no, blow up-no, they cut some guys legs off... and... there's a wife... and is Amanda in this one? Or did she die in the last one? Or is this the one where she's not really dead ?  Oh, Mark Wahlberg's brother gets his head crushed by some ice blocks. That's what Saw 4 is about."

Needless to say, they've gotten pretty muddy. And for very little reason. The Saw films have made it their main objective to painstakingly show every meticulous detail that is happeneing behind the scenes of the much better movie you just got done watching. How did Jigsaw create that trap? Well, here's a flashback of him drawing blueprints, then working at a retail job to make some money, then him walking to the bank to take out some cash to go to the hardware store to buy some sheet metal to construct a platform to hang a scale off of to put a chair onto so he can take his blood pressure while he hires a contractor to rig up a crucifix torture rack.

Do we really need that much exposition?  I've always been in the camp that favored the "less is more" approach to villains.  Why is Michael Myers scary? Because he's a regular kid that went crazy. You never know! It could happen to anyone.  (Not Rob Zombies version where he's a sympathetic little kid who came from a bad home). Another example is Christopher Nolan's Joker in Dark Knight. The whole, "You wanna know how I got these scars?" speech is more memorable than any backstory, because it leaves you wondering how he got the scars, and just how crazy this guy is.  So, in the case of Saw, I think the coolest Jigsaw has ever been, is in part 1. You don't get his whole backstory. It doesn't get into his fucking terribly hypocritical world views... I don't even remember if it goes into his cancer storyline... I guess it must, or else, you know, what the fuck, but it didn't beat you over the head with it.  By the end of the 4th movie I felt like I knew more about his past than I know about iCarly. And lets just say, Courtney watches a lot of iCarly.
It makes me mad when I think back to how much I enjoyed the first one when it came out, yet how easily I dismiss the whole series now. The first one was fresh. It was edgy. Now it's fucking Wal Mart.

Part II: I really wanted to like it

So, after Saw 1 became a hit, and I was no longer the only person asking co-workers at Sullivan's Foods," did you see Saw?" (to which they replied, "Did I seesaw? Why?") there was a quick and inevitable sequel. Cranked out and ready for consumption by Halloween of next year. I was there with bells on, opening night. (Note, I wasn't actually wearing bells. --REVISION-- I was).

Me and Courtney drove down to Dubuque, again, the only place that was playing it and saw it in the Carmike Cinema. It moved up from the crappy mall theater to the larger, less crappy-but still not pleasant theater). Opening night and it was just me, Court, and some goth teenager and her mom. We all shared applause when the Twisted Pictures logo appeared. Today I equate it's barbed wire encrusted logo with the boos and laughs that would follow a studio advertising M. Night Shyamalan's name before a movie. But at the time, it was cool... I think we were all like, "Okay, buckle up... here comes Saw!"

I wanted to like it so much, and if you asked me, I'd have said, yeah, it was really good. Not as good as the first one, but really good.  Truthfully, it's not terrible. It's actually a pretty adequate horror sequel. Kind of like Halloween II. Not as good, but a worthy follow up.  The problem was, it lost the confined atmosphere and real-time-esq. pacing of its predecessor.  For one, there were too many characters. Sure, they were slightly better characterizations than what was to follow, but none of them were very likeable or had any personality. They were simply angry tough guy asshole, or angry cop, or hot girl  And sure, some of the traps got cooler, but they also started to blur the lines of believability... and you had to take a lot from the first one with a grain of salt. Now, I know these are cheap horror films, but the first one was at least a well-thought out cheap horror film.

So, despite me saying the first Saw is the only good one, I'll admit the sequel isn't bad either. Not that I'd need to watch it very often, but I don't regret owning it.  Now, wouldn't it be funny if I went on to decide that I've been too hard on all of the films, and actually praise it as being a very well-constructed series of movies? Ha! Fat chance.  Here we go, this is where they go down hill...

Part III: The movies get really fucking awful.

Alright. One's great. Two gets a pass. Three is an abomination. I remember seeing it in the theater and thinking... what? .... happened?  With the exception of a pretty badass opening scene, I remember sitting in my seat thinking, okay, this is probably where it will start getting good... Sadly, I remember thinking that many, many times. I was never correct.  Even then, when I still had high hopes for the franchise, I realized that something was wrong. I even wrote a very detailed review of it and posted it to my myspace blog. I have since forgotten how to log into my myspace account, but I have found the blog. Check it out if what you're reading now isn't long enough for you. And it's actually pretty funny and poigniant.  Well, I guess it's not poigniant, but it is enthralling.
http://www.myspace.com/davesmovies/blog/185768419
You know what, fuck it, I'll post some highlights from it, because upon going back and reading it, and realizing I was a much better writer back then, it has some funny gems in it. Good job Dave.  So, here's what critics are saying about Saw III:

" I like Saw.  I kinda' liked Saw 2.  And to put it simply, I suppose I'd rather have Saw 3 than no Saw at all...  so, with that in mind, lets rip apart the movie together folks..."  (Oh how wrong I was...)

"The problem with the Saw franchise is that they took away the personal connection that the viewer felt to the characters.  The original Saw was very simple.  The characters awaken in a locked bathroom and neither they, nor the audience knows what's happening to them.  As the movie goes on and the story unfolds, more plot pieces are revealed and the story becomes more and more interesting.  It never dragged, because it stuck with the characters the whole time (aside from a few flashbacks that further fed the story).
Also, the deathtraps, although, undoubtably cool, were not the central focus of the film.  There were three, right at the begining (The barbwire maze, the broken-glass/safe combinations, and the reverse beartrap headgear, if I remember correctly)  And of course, the obvious "saw" trap, which lingered in the background, as the whole film led up to it.  While the original film had it's share of flaws (acting, over-acting, Danny Glover acting, low budget, time constraints) it inevetibly led to it's charm.  And it proved just how well made it was despite it's cons.  The originality and just simply awesome idea more than made up for it's problems.
Saw 2 and 3 seemed to fix all the problems the original had (acting, special effects, time, money, etc.) but in doing so, it lost all the things that made the orignal work (intersting story, characters, all that)"

"Just like Saw 2, Saw 3 suffers from having too much shit going on at once.  We begin Detective Mathews escaping from his cell (which I'll admit was great), then we move on to the female agent from the first 2 movies.  She investigates one murder (the chain trap) and in about ten minutes becomes a victim of Jigsaw's game as well...  All in the first twenty minutes... sounds exciting?  Well, kinda'... except it really only exists to include as many insane death traps as possible...  (it's real reason could've been summed up in about five minutes).  From there we meet a doctor who is down on life, and a father who is heartbroken over the death of his son in a car accident years ago.  Neither of these characters are interesting.  Perhaps if more time was spent on one of them rather than averaging the screen time between them, but probably not... they're all pretty one dimensional, and I didn't give a shit about any of them throughout."

(on the storyline) "Meanwhile, Angry McDad wakes up in a box, breaks out and starts wondering an abandoned building, going from room to room and finding various people strung up in various death traps.  Unlike the first film, where the traps test the victims' will to live, these traps are simply there for the angry father to choose if the victim lives or dies.  And it proceeds as follows:
Angry dad walks into room.  Sees victim chained up in various death trap devices.
Victim:  Help me.
Dad:  You were some how indirectly responsible for my son's death.
Victim:  Help me.
Dad:  Fuck you.
Then the traps begin to do their thing.  The victim screams and screams.  The dad watches until its gone on just long enough to possibly save them, then he realizes he probably should.  He rushes to get them out, oops!  too late, they're dead.  Moving on...
This formula got old really really quick.  In fact, all the deathtraps were completely unnessessary to the dad's story anyway.  They were simply there to showcase more sickening brutality.  (not that I'm complaining, because I decided about haldway through, I sure as hell wasn't watching Saw 3 for the story)  However, this movie goes about showcasing the traps completely ass backwards.  For example, what could have been about the most painful scene to watch (the dude who is forced to yank chains out of his flesh before a bomb goes off) is over in a matter of seizure-inducing cuts that last about ten seconds.  The Saw sequels decided early on that suspense was not something they were going to focus on.  Instead, lets recap the entire movie in a series of split-second flashes that take away from everything that is happening on screen at that moment.  Okay.  Same could be said for the torture rack that twists the guy's body parts 360 degrees.  This could have been horrible to sit through, but instead, they cut away so much, most of it is over by the time we cut back to him."

" The ending to Saw 3 is by far one of the worst attempts at a "twist" ending in the last couple of years...  Anyone who says "Awesome!  That was even better than the first one!" deserves to have their dick ripped off by a big rusty hook, that hasen't been cleaned or steralized properly.  The first major twist is... "Oh my God, the doctor and the angry father are husband and wife!"  I had no idea... I though she was with the other guy, wow... wait... who gives a shit?"

" I bet Jigsaw is one of those guys who would get pissed if you ate a grape at the supermarket and didn't pay for it.  Then he'd get into his car and back over a mother and daughter before tossing garbage out the window and driving wrecklessly into the sunset.
So, if I remember correctly, Amanda shoots the doctor (because she hates her) the angry father shoots Amanda.  The father then forgives Jigsaw, but in an attempt at humor pulls a "not" out of the bag and slashes his throat with a SAW ("see, we can use the title Saw!  It makes sense!!)  And then his wife's head explodes.  (it's okay... we didn't really like her anyway.)"

---I also wrote an additional scene of how the movie would've played out if Amanda (who, if you remember correctly was Ted Danson's secretary on the TV show Becker) kidnapped Becker and forced him to take care of Jigsaw:

"Scene 23:  Amanda brings Dr. John Becker to Jigsaw's Lair.  From here on out, Becker bitches about life and Jigsaw is surprised to find an individual with a more nihilistic outlook than himself.  In fact, when threatened with the bomb device, Becker insists that they just blow his head off right now and save everyone the trouble.  Then he tells Amanda to get her ass back to his reception desk and make him some coffee.  She does so, saying "Okay, sorry Dr. Becker..."  He then sits down beside Jigsaw and gives him the straight dope on his condition.  You have to stop killing people, jackass.  Go out and enjoy life, cause you don't have much time left.  Everyone agrees, and then Becker goes off to his favorite coffee shop and bitches about his day.  THE END. I already like it more."

So, that was pretty much my Saw III review.  And that was me being kind. That was me still holding out a shred of hope for the franchise...  good lord... here we go

PART IV: The exactly same thing happens as part III.

See above.

PART V: Now even the fans are starting the hate the series.

So, as you can see, I skipped over Part 4 because nothing whatsoever is accomplished. More Jigsaw backstory. More Amanda backstory. This isn't LOST, folks. More generic cops take the place of actual characters with any personality or acting talent. And the whole movie takes place during the events in the third movie?  Umm... cool?  No. Not cool. The shows that the series has literally STOPPED moving.  We are at the same place we were at the end of part 4. I think. I've really tried to erase part 3 and 4 from my mind.  I think Det. Hoffman might be introduced in this one. Which may be another reason I don't recall anything about it, because he is the most boring, one dimensional, uninteresting villain of any horror franchise.  So, yeah, we'll just skip over part 4.  All I remember about it is a hair trap, and Ice block trap, and a pedophile gets poked in the eye. (not by a penis)

Part 5, on the other hand, is a horse of a different color.  A whate of a different tail... wait, no, that's not... a thing.  Never mind.  For some reason people liked the 4th movie. One person, and I won't name names, even said it was the best of the series, to which I can only stand, mouth agape thinking, "wha? Did you just decide that by pulling names out of a bowler's hat?" (and yes, it's gotta' be a bowler's hat).  But as I was saying, Part 5, for some reason, really pissed people off.  Why? I have no idea.  I actually thought it was a little better than the last 2.  Jigsaw was finally, officially dead. I think Amanda is dead at this point too.  So, there's a mystery killer (for like the first 10 minutes before they reveal who it is... nice suspense guys, lets try that again in part 7...  REVISION- they did.  Apparently the new writers have no idea what suspense means).

This time, the killer is Detective Hoffman. A tough guy that looks like Stallone and acts like an asshole.  The other main character is an identical looking cop who looks and sounds just like Hoffman.  I mean, what?  Really?  You're going to take the most overly complicated series of movies, and then have the villain, and the protagonist played by two boring, identical looking actors, and expect the audience to keep them straight?  The audience is already bored between all those scenes someone decided to throw in between traps.  But anyway, some casting bigwig decided to go with the twins.  Early one, the good guy has to give himself an impromptu tracheotomy, so the rest of the movie he's talking with a scratchy voice and has a bandage on his neck.  You'd think that would be enough to keep them straight, but I tell you, I still had to actively pay attention and think about it whenever one of them was on screen.  Partly because the movie was terrible and I really didn't want to invest too much energy, but it's not like the series was Resident Evil-bad, where I had to literally get up and leave the room due to it's awfullness.

So, the movie goes on. More traps and stuff. More pointless backstory. Oh, Jigsaw had a wife. Oh, she miscarried. Oh, he tested his first trap on the druggie that caused the miscarriage (note: this may have been in the 4th movie, I can't remember, I'll have to go back and watch them again sometime  REVISION- nope, not happening).  All this flashback bullshit. It just doesn't matter.  How interesting was Jigsaw's life before he bacame Jigsaw.  Not very.  Slightly less interesting than after he became Jigsaw. Which is slightly more interesting than when he became a corpse.  He's just such a boring villain.  He lays in bed all the time. Talks very raspy and monotonous.  Makes me want to fall asleep.  Or force someone through a meat grinder.
I just can't take his whole world view.  You don't treasure your life, so I'm going to put you in a situation where you have to maim yourself to survive, yet, I'm not the bad guy.  I'm sorry, but yes, sir, you very much are the bad guy.  Sure, a handfull of Jigsaw's victims have been shitheads, but as the series went on, his tolerance for victims went way down... I'm pretty sure by this point he was picking out smokers and double-parkers. Can you imagine waking up to that recording. "Hello Eric. I wanna play a game. Last Tuesday, you blocked someone in while shopping for groceries at the local supermarket. That man was late for work because of your selfishness.  Now, you yourself are in a box. One that's getting smaller ever second. You have one minute to pull out your toenails and use them to pick the lock of your enclosure, or you'll be boxed in for all eternity. And the only ticket you'll recieve will be a toe tag."
Jigsaw's a dick.

And as I said earlier, at the beginning of the series, he was putting people in situations where they had control over whether they lived or died. As the series went on, the traps got WAAAAY to over the top and rediculous, but what was even worse is, he starts dragging all these innocent people into it. In part 3, because a father is mopey over his son's death, Jigsaw kidnaps his remaining daughter and locks her in a room with depleting oxygen.  Umm... sure.  Well, she probably did something wrong sometime. Maybe she fed her vegetables to the dog one night at dinner. Or had an affair with her best friend's husband.

Anyway, by the end of Saw V, fans were let down, the studio was scared because it had made significantly less money than its' predecessor's, and it didn't seem like there was much more to say with the Saw films. Hell, I thought they said everything they needed to by the end of the first, but apparently we needed 6 more.

PART VI: Uh oh. We're losing it.

So. After 5 pretty solid years of dominating the box office every Halloween (even to the extent that other studios were afraid to release any other horror movies at the end of October (that's why we had to wait 2 years for the kickass original horror flick, Trick R Treat)) Saw finally got knocked off its pedestal.  And wouldn't you know it, by something original, and low budget, with minimal locations... kinda' like the first Saw!

Sure enough, something had to break Saw's hold, and that something was Paranormal Activity.  Whether you liked it or not (I did), you have to respect its genious marketing campaign, it's spread by word of mouth, and OH yeah, it's ORIGINAL concept.  It's like studios were afraid that people wouldn't see their movies unless it had a giant Roman Numeral after the title.

Paranormal Activity destroyed Saw VI.  The funny thing is, all the Saw fans rallied behind this and started proclaiming brillaint exclamations like "HOLY SHIT! BEST SAW YET!"  "REALLY GUD KILLZ!" and "FUCKING AWESOME!"  But it didn't matter because apparently most of the world went and saw the other movie.  Bad year for Saw.
How was the movie you ask?  Umm... exactly like the other ones.

PART VII: We are no longer using subtitles.

This is what really pisses me off.  While I have no problem saying the series turned to shit, one thing I was ALWAYS there to give them credit for was the fact that they kept the roman numerals and the title consistant. Every movie was just SAW (#). It was simple. Almost elegant. No kitchy crap like Saw 6(66).  Or Saw 10: Jigsaw's Revenge.  Then Saw VI, or should I say Saw 3D: The Final Chapter came out.  Saw, apparently arriving very late to the 3D bandwagon, decided what better way to end the series than to cash in on the already out dated 3D craze.  It also helped them recoup their loss from the last movie.  So, instead of a complete series titled: Saw I, II, III, IV, V, VI, and VII, we got Saw I, II, III, IV, V, VI, and 3D: The Final Chapter.  Wow. Classy.  Because that's what the Saw films have been. Classy.

The problem with Saw 7 (other than the obvious problems that all the previous movies have that we've just given up on and decided to overlook) is that is just comes off so goddamn lazy.  Part of this is probably due to the fact that the director was forced into the project against his will. And it shows.  The director of Saw 6 (I'll use the numerals so it's easier to follow) disapointed Lionsgate with the poor box office numbers. So, they were going to go back to the director of Saw 5 for the newest one. (that's a good idea, pick the director of the one film all the fans unanamously hate). So, part 5 guy is hired. And the director of part 6 actually gets hired by rival studio to direct Paranormal Activity II. Isn't that ironic (don't you think, sorry, had to).  Well, Lionsgate is pissed that he's going to their rival, who actually beat them last year in the box office numbers, so they contractually force him to drop Paranormal Activity II and come back to Lionsgate to direct Saw 7. You know, the movie they didn't want him to do earlier.  They fire Part 5 guy, and now Part 6 guy is pissed because he didn't want to do Saw 7, he wanted to do Paranormal Activity II.  He actually wrote quite a few blogs and posted them all over.  I'm sure Lionsgate was thrilled about that.
So, we've got a tired franchise, helmed by a director that couldn't give two shits about it. Sounds great, huh? Let's watch THAT movie!  Now, I didn't see it in the theater (learned to stop after the 3rd), so I didn't see it in 3D. However, I've seen a couple films in 3D (Avatar being one, and I'm just not impressed by it. It actually takes me out of the movie). The problem is, whenever they tout a film as being 3D in the theater, it's completely lost on DVD.  They spend all that time and effort making it, and the majority of the people that see it will end up doing so on DVD. So you're left watching a movie that was not intended to be seen in 2D.  In any normal movie, you'd be wondering, 'God, why are they spending so much time having things fly at the screen?'  Even the title is SAW 3D.  How lazy.  They can't change that for the non-3D home viewing audience.

Then again, everything about the movie is lazy. I watched it over a week ago, and I've already forgotten most of it, but in this one, they just go all out. And by that I mean, they don't even attempt to make the traps believable.  People chained up in broad day light in a department store window... no one notices them till they wake up. How did they get there etc?  For a series that loves to give so much backstory and exposition, they dropped the ball on this one. I guess we'll find out all the inconsequential inner workings in SAW VIII: Back to the numerals. That is if it isn't rebooted in a year and titled HACKSAW. Or made into a prequel titled SAW ZERO.

Seriously though... the traps are so fucking ridiculous.  Buildings upon buildings of mechanical mumbo jumbo. Jigsaw's own personal car scrap yard. A Warehouse literally FILLED with fans.  What the hell!? In Saw I it was a chain and a hacksaw.  That was it. And it was good enough.
 Where did he get the money for all this?  Who built it all?  How'd he do it from a hospital bed?  And WHEN did he get all these other victims between all the other movies?  It seems like they would've mentioned all these other people in Saw 1-6. It actually became comical when all these Jigsaw survivors were gathering at a support group... for Jigsaw Survivors sharing stories.  Jesus, Jigsaw's been busy.  And what's even more laughable is all these people thinking he was a prophet... I'd think there would be a couple more folks angry about him forcing them to cut off a limb or two.

One of the biggest mistakes the movie made right off the bat was revealing that Dr. Gordan (you know, Cary "My family needs me!" Elwes) from the first movie is still alive. Alive and cynical.  Hmmm... I wonder if he'll come back at the end, you know maybe to carry on Jigsaw's legacy... I guess we'll have to wait and see. Or hope the audience forgets about him so they'll be surprised when he pops up in the last 5 minutes and, you know, carries on Jigsaw's Legacy.  Because that makes sense... why wouldn't you want to help out the dead maniac that tortured you, your family, and made you cut off your own foot.  I bet that bathroom floor was cold too... I would probably be pissed about that.

Another really dumb moment is how the traps go from ridiculously impossible, to childishly simple.  Like the guy in Part II who has to cut the key out of his own eyeball. Or all those poor bastards that have no way out of their traps and are only there as someone else's test.  Well, this one has the single easiest Jigsaw death trap imaginable. And it's the LAST trap of the movie, wait- the whole series!  This guy has to take these two meathooks on chains and stick them into his chest, then pull himself up using a pulley system and plug in an extension cord.  There is no villain there watching him, to make sure he does it accordingly.  So, what does he do?  Exactly that.  And his flesh rips and he falls.  And that's pretty much all you see of him.  It never occured to him to, I don't know, loop the hooks around his arms, or around his body and hook them together?  Then pull himself up?  Or stand on the hooks?  They're not gonna pierce boots.  Oh my God.  That part almost ruined the movie for me.  (HA!) Another part that bugged me, and showed how lazy they had become was where the character has to pull his teeth out with a pair of pliers... this could very easily become one of the grossest moments in any movie because it had the potential to feel real... everyone has been to the dentist, so there's a shared experience that everyone hates... they could've built up the tention with close ups of the pliers gripping the tooth, or even gone all out and had an inside the mouth cam... but no. They just have him yank them out with minimal difficulty, all from a stagnant, stale medium full body shot.  It's like the director just said, "Okay, stand in front of the camera and pretend to pull you teeth out."  Then the DP asked if he wants them to get any additional coverage, and the director said, "No. Lets just get this in the can so I can hopefully go shoot Paranormal Activity 3."

And also, Jigsaw had so many plans in advance.  He had deathtraps, tapes, and warehouses all prepared to a T, down to the wire, for numerous people and their loved ones.  And he's been dead for the past 4 movies!  This guy was a planner.
So, as the series came to a close, let me wrap up with a recap.  Jigsaw captures people and puts them through tests so they appreciate their life.  Then het gets killed by a nobody, as does his protege, Amanda. Then his other secret protege, Hoffman takes over, and Jigsaw's wife shows up to really do nothing but get Hoffman in trouble.  So Hoffman kills her, then Hoffman is killed by Jigsaw's first protege, Dr. Gordan, who was one of his first victims.  The end.  Wow. Great story. Thanks for wasting 7 Halloweens.  I could've been spending that time slutting around at various parties.

And why does the bathroom play such an important role in these movies?  So many of the Saw films end at that same bathroom... Sure, it's important to the audience, because its where the first movie took place, but it shouldn't be important to the characters, since Jigsaw has apparently been fucking with people before that?  It's not like it was his first, virgin trap...  It didn't bust his trap cherry... and it also wasn't the best trap he's ever had.  I mean, look at the size of that car trap... now that's a trap that'll leave you sore in the morning.  And it was like a 4 person trap, so come on, that's going to stick out in his head...  No, all the movies end in the bathroom because it takes us back to when the Saw movies used to be good.  It's like the filmmakers are saying... sorry about that, that last one was pretty weak, but you know what I'll do, I'll take you back to what's comforting...  I really appreciated the moment when Dr. Gordan looks over and sees his severed foot still chained to the pipe.  He gives it a bit of acknowledgement, then walks past, probably thinking of better days.

HORROR MOVIE catch-up: What the hell have you been doing, Dave?

Okay- I know what you're thinking. This is pretty late.  "We're 3 days from Halloween and Dave, you lazy asshole, you've only reviewed 9 movies.  What's your deal?"

Well first off, I underestimated how much of a dedication it would be to not only watch a 90-120 minute movie ever night, but then go and write a full review on it immediately afterwards.  And jeeze, if you miss one day, it just keeps piling on, making it pretty damn difficult to catch up.

And second, I don't have to answer to you, you're not my father.  So back off internet.  Give me a second to catch my breath (I ran all the way here to tell you this).


All kidding aside.  I've always wanted to do the horror movie a day thing for October, and unfortunately, it didn't quite pan out this year.  Work, family, etc.  If I was still a lonely bachelor, I probably could've written three years worth of these things, but alas, that time has passed.  So, maybe when Roman has graduated high school and moved away to college, I'll be able to delve into this and give it the commitment it needs.  Until then however, I didn't want to force this on myself because, hey, I love October, and if I'm making myself watch horror movies, then I'm not really enjoying it. 

So, there have been a couple days where I skipped a movie, but instead filled the time with fun things you can only do in the fall.  We took Roman to the Pumpkin Patch outside of Rockford, IL; a place that my parents used to take me every year.  This was his first time there, and it was a lot of fun.  He's still at the age where he doesn't quite know what to make of anything, but he seemed to enjoy most of it. Especially that damn bounce house. 

We also had a couple nights of making cut-out Halloween cookies, which I think I can say with 100% certainty, are the best cookies known to man.  Bats, Pumpkins, Ghosts, cats, and the standard penis-shaped cookie, created with the last remaining bits of dough.  Good times.  Then we carved some badass pumpkins (which unfortunately, almost immediately caved in on themselves once we put them outside.) 

One of my other favorite aspects of October, is the Halloween marathons and TV specials on TV.  AMC has been doing their usual, awesome marathons.  This year's line up has been particularly impressive, and it looks like they've got the rights to a ton of famous franchises.  Definitely some good TV-watching if you don't already own them.  I already had most of the good ones, so I found myself flipping through the line-up and DVRing the shitty movies that I never bought, and probably will never intend to watch.  Oh well. 

The Travel Channel has actually had some cool programs this year as well. (I know, the Travel Channel...) Lots of cool haunted locations, behind the scenes of haunted houses, scariest places in the world, etc.  Great stuff to get you in the Halloween mood.  And then Food Network never fails to amaze me, when they do their specials on the epic Pumpkin carving competitions, and sugar/cake sculpting.  Plus, Mythbusters did a Walking Dead episodes, that shitty Ultimate Spider-Man did a Dracula episode (guest starring Blade, Werewolf by Night, Man-Thing, and a couple other C-Level horror characters from the Marvel universe), and ABC even did a Toy Story Halloween special that was pretty damn good, especially since it had all the returning cast members do voices.

So, this is why I didn't get 27 movies watched by now.  But, I didn't stop at 9, as my blog would have you believe.  I've still been watching stuff, I just haven't had the time to go into too much detail on it.  And rather than backtrack and write up 10 painfully long, in-depth reviews, I figured I'd just give a quick run-down on what I've been watching, to get you up-to-speed.

So, here we go, picking up where I left off:

SUSPIRIA
-Classic Italian witch movie, directed by horror maestro, Dario Argento.  He had worked primarily in giallo horror films before this one (Giallo-being an Italian genre which usually involves an unseen killer stalking his victims before revealing the killer's identity at the end; they also usually have a lot of shots from the killer's POV- the more you know...) but this was his first foray into supernatural horror. 

Bright red blood, awesome electronic soundtrack, and the most vividly lit horror flick you'll ever see.  Suspiria is the first of many Argento movies where logic goes out the window, and you just sit back and take it in for the pure visual brilliance that you see before you.  This is the first of Argento's Three Mothers Trilogy (which, unfortunately, only goes downhill from here), and it follows an American girl, arriving at a famous Italian ballet school, which may or may not be housing a coven of witches.  Okay, it is.  Spoiler.  Gruesome deaths. Maggots raining from the ceiling. Service dogs turning on their owners. Falling into a pit of razor wire. And terrible Italian dubbing.  What's not to like? 

Also- on a odd note, it's been said that Argento himself does all the stabbings in his movies.  Meaning, it's his hand stabbing or strangling the victims in ever scene.  That's a little weird, huh?  But I guess no weirder than Mel Gibson doing the same during the crucifixion scene in Passion of the Christ.  Different strokes I guess.


PEOPLE UNDER THE STAIRS
-Wes Craven's take on the have and the have-nots.  The story follows a young, inner-city black boy nick-named "Fool," as he gets roped into robbing a wealthy house in hopes of helping pay his family's rent and medical bills.  A young Ving Rhames plays the guy who brings him along, but they soon find themselves tapped in a booby-trapped home of two psychotic Reagan-esq. lunatics. 

Not a great movie, but kind of a fun one, with lots of moments that stick out in your memory.  Courtney always remembers this movie, and I think she remembers it being better than it actually is.  It's a cool concept, and Craven seems to have a thing with setting traps in his movies.  It's almost like a companion piece to Home Alone, only with less shocking brutality.  (Poor Marv...)

Another off note- the two psycho home owners, referred to as "Mommy" and "Daddy" are actually played by the actors that play a husband and wife on the show Twin Peaks, which must've been airing right around this time.  I finished Twin Peaks for the first time earlier this year, so it was a shock to see them together again, playing a slightly more deranged pair. 

Some of the best moments involve the creepy images of the kids within the walls of the house, and the tongue-less kid (who would later go on to play Rickity Cricket in Always Sunny).  It's a fun movie, but it gets a little old around the 50-minute mark, because so much of the run-time involves them just running around this house.  It's worth a watch though.  And if you saw it when you were younger, chances are, you'll remember it being better than it actually is. 

 

 

TOY STORY OF TERROR
-Not a horror movie, and not much longer than 20 minutes, but still a fun Halloween flick, and I'd never turn down a chance to revisit the amazing Toy Story Universe.  I'll do this one quick.  The toys, now living with the little girl that Andy gifted them to at the end of the trilogy, are unexpectedly stuck at a hotel after the family encounters car trouble.  They check in, and explore the creepy hotel room, while acknowledging all the classic horror movie tropes that they manage to find themselves in.  Suddenly, they begin to get picked off one by one.  I won't spoil anything, in case you run across it, but the highlight of the short film is definitely the character Combat Carl, as voiced by Carl Weathers.  He definitely channels some of his Dylan-persona from Predator.  Good stuff, and quite funny.


WALKING DEAD
-Another one that's not a movie, but how can you talk about Halloween viewing and not touch on Walking Dead?  Since it premiered on Halloween night 4 years ago, this has been about the biggest show on cable since, I don't know... since Breaking Bad's finale last month?  (the timestream seems to be out of wack-  I'll check on it later).  Whether you're in the camp that loves it or hates it, there's no denying it's affect on pop culture. 

And even though last season's lack-luster finale left everyone with a bad taste in their mouth, how can you turn your back on a show that has fully embraced, gruesome, big-budget zombie horror?  They don't pull any punches on this.  You've seen the show- you know that no one is safe.  I feel bad that right now, among certain geek circles, it's become cool to hate on The Walking Dead.  Sure, it's not perfect, and yes, I wish they wouldn't have veered so far from the comic in some aspects too, but come on, is there something better that you're watching instead of this?  Get real.  It's a fucking well made zombie show.  Who would've thought this would become the most popular show on TV?

As for season 4, we're only two episodes in, but I already feel like it's a large step above the end of season 3.  A lot better characterization, and the fact that some time has passed, the threat of the Governor has subsided, and the characters are able to relax and try to start enjoying themselves, is really setting this up as a nice calm before the storm.  Still, even with a bit of a lull in the action, we've gotten two amazing zombie attacks, and a new mysterious virus that's killing off people without incorporating the zombie bite.  I'm intrigued, and I look forward to seeing where they are going with this one.

-Also- American Horror Story is on again as well.  I LOVED the first season, but missed the second one on TV. I picked it up on blu ray, but I'm waiting till after October to dig into it.  I'm also DRVing the 3rd season, so I can jump into that right away too.  I really like how each season is essentially, it's own, 12-hour stand alone horror movie.  Brilliant idea.  I can't wait to watch this. 


MONSTER HOUSE
-A fantastic kids movie about a haunted house.  I had forgotten that Spielberg and Zemeckis were producers on this, and after watching it for a couple minutes, it really shows.  It's got that great, retro feel of a Spielberg movie, following around a group of likable (not annoying) kids as they have a seriously dangerous and horrifying adventure.  Plus, it's got some great cinematography, that feels like this could have easily been a live-action film, if Zemeckis wasn't so infatuated with his CGI-motion-capture playground that he's been spending the last couple decades in. 

Overall, a really good, well-made kids movie, that feels a little like Poltergeist or The Gate; you know, those movies that are PG, but they could seriously freak you out if you saw them at the right age.  This isn't quite at that level, but it definitely doesn't pull punches for a kids movie.  And it's got Steve Buescemi, which is always a good thing, for any movie.


MANIAC
-Gruesome, artsy remake of a sleezy 80s horror flick.  This one, starring Frodo himself, Elijah Wood, as the titular "Maniac," a guy who owns a mannequin restoration shop, and apparently suffers from social anxiety syndrome.  Oh, and he likes to go out and scalp women in the night, and set their bloody hairpieces on his girlfriends (mannequins) that he has scattered around his bedroom.
Despite that one little tick, he's a fairly likable guy, and you can't help but feel sorry for him, both because he's just so socially awkward, and because the majority of the movie is shot through his Point of View, so we're seeing the film through his eyes.  That's right, so when he's having dinner with this hot chick, you're feeling pretty cool, excited to get her back to her apartment. Then it dawns on you, "Oh shit," he's going to kill this girl, and you're going to have to watch.  Hell, it's more like you're going to have to participate, since the movie plays out like a killer/rapist version of Goldeneye.  Too bad that didn't exist, maybe all those Halo-nerd frat guys wouldn't have rufied so many girls at college parties.

Worth a watch, for the creative camera work, the gruesome effects, and the fact the Elijah Wood gives it his all.  His face is really only in the film for about 10 minutes, but you feel like you're watching him for the whole movie.  I read that they were going to just get someone to be his hand double, but he was dedicated to the movie, and did all the hand work himself too.  So, even though you can't see his face, it's pretty much all him throughout the movie.  He also fondles a girl's boobs for a while, so that may have played a role in his decision as well. 





THE CONJURING

-Somehow, this movie recently became like the third highest grossing horror film of all time.  When did that happen?  I mean, I know it was pretty popular in theaters, but I had no idea it was that successful.  Should it have been?  Eh, I don't know.  It didn't re-invent the wheel, or do anything completely unique (like Blair Witch or something) (thank God), but what it did do, it did very well. 
Classic Haunted House 101.  I guess the interesting thing they did was focus the movie not only on the family experiencing the haunting, but also on the two real-life paranormal investigators, Ed and Lorraine Warren. 

The movie takes itself very seriously, and they hold back on the in-your face shocks for most of the film, before going pretty all-out in the climax.  Not a lot of surprise fake out, or jump scares.  Most of the shocks feel genuine and earned, and the house itself is a nice, creepy old farm house that you can believe exists out there somewhere.

The reason this movie is as good as it is is director James Wan.  So far, he's given us Saw, Dead Silence, Death Sentence, Insidious, this, and Insidious 2.  That is a pretty damn good track record.  He definitely knows how to craft an effective horror film, and if that's what you're in the mood for, this will definitely fit the bill.  Like I said, there isn't a whole lot of new ground covered, but it takes the classic formula and does it so well, you don't even care.


*****

So, there you have it.  I wouldn't call it caught up, but that's what I've been up to.  I also watched the badass revenge movie: Only God Forgives, but I can't really include it in this column, as it's not a horror movie.  Gruesome, yes. Horror, no.  Nicolas Winding Refn, the director of Drive and Bronson did it, and if you like those, check it out.  If you thought Drive was too slow, you'll hate this even more.  I loved it though.

AND I watched Pacific Rim, which was my favorite movie of the Summer.  Again, not really a horror film (although I guess you could make a case for it- giant monsters and all).  I'm not including it, but it was amazing.  I can't recommend it enough.  It was like a trip back to my childhood when I first saw Jurassic Park. 

 If you've read it this far, I thank you.  It's easy to get discouraged if you don't think anyone is reading this, but it sounds like a couple people have, so that's enough reason to keep up on it. 

I'm also in the midst of writing a couple original fiction things, which I hope to be able to share soon too.  I can assure you, they're better written then this, random train-of-thought thing that I do on this blog. 
Oh, and also- it's almost Halloween!  So go out and enjoy it!

IN THE MOUTH OF MADNESS: Day 9 of 31

John Carpenter is one of those directors that really grew on me the more I watched his work.  Upon first viewing of the majority of his stuff, it can come off a little cheesy.  The dialogue is always a little hokey, the effects consists of practical rubber monster suits, and the soundtrack is usually comprised of 80's synth that he composed himself.  I remember the first time I watched a number of his movies, I wasn't a huge fan.  But somehow, I just felt the need to rewatch them.  Again and again... all those little things that used to take me out of the movie became things I looked forward to, and awaited their occurrence in other movies he's worked on.

Once you know what to expect out of Carpenter's films, there is something strangely comforting about his entire body of work.  Sure, most of them deal with the end of the world, or serial killers, or a dystopian future on the edge of ruin, but they all have them quirky charm to them.  And man, how that electronic keyboard has grown on me! 

One of my favorite John Carpenter films is In The Mouth Of Madness.  It's just such a great horror film, made for horror fans, by a horror fan.  It's dark. I mean, it's about the end of the world and the loss of sanity and rationality, but again, there's something "fun" about this flick.  It's not near as bleak as his previous two installments of his unofficial "End of the World Trilogy" (The Thing and Prince of Darkness (also amazing)).  Maybe it's because by the time the film comes to a close, the main character (Sam Neill) realizes it's just better to accept insanity, rather than be the last same man in a world full of crazy people (oh- spoiler).  Either way, the whole movie feels pretty upbeat, despite the dark subject matter.  But again, that's just kind of how Carpenter rolls, baby.

The storyline is about an insurance claims investigator (Neill), who is hired by a publishing company to locate their missing author, Sutter Kane.  Kane is an obvious facsimile for Stephen King, and even more obviously, H.P. Lovecraft.  In fact, the entire story is basically one big tribute to the horror master, and the film basically paraphrases his entire body of work.  Unimaginable creatures lurking outside the realm of man's domain.  Forces at work with greater power than one can understand.  Sights and tentacled monsters so awful they'll drive you mad (title).  This was Lovecraft's bread and butter.  His contribution to the horror genre can't be matched.  Except maybe by Poe. Maybe. Stephen King is definitely the only current genre author that has come close to being comparable, so it's kind of nice that this movie makes obvious references to both of them.  Even the titles of the books, and the locations the characters make their way to are direct references to Lovecraft.  So, to put it simply, if you like the shit in this movie, go buy a Lovecraft collection... go straight to the source.

Anyway, Sam Neill's character tracks the missing author to a fictional New England town straight out of his writing.  There he finds bizarre, possessed townspeople, an epic black church (as in, the church has black spires, not a black congregation) and enough slithering, slimy creatures to bring this into respectable creature feature-territory.  Neill's guide through the town, a woman the publisher sent with him, is convinced that Kane's writing has become real.  After all, his work has been known to have an effect on people (memory loss, dizziness, urge to grab an axe and chop people up in the middle of the street, headaches, etc.).  Neill spends the whole film denying that theory because it is impossible.  He's quick to note (many, many times) that we live in a rational world, and these things can't possibly exist.  However, the movie frequently poses the question that, our world is only rational because that's the point of view of the majority.  If the ratio suddenly shifted, and the insane people took the majority, would the rational be considered insane?  Something tells me, no, not really.  At least not in a literal stand point, but it's still an interesting thought experiment.  And as you would imagine, outside in the world, Kane's writing is driving everyone mad, thus preparing for an insanity-driven coup of the rational viewpoint. 

This is one of those movies with a lot of hallucinatory images, lots of false jumps, creepy people saying mysterious things and then walking away, etc.  It all fits in with the overall off-kilterness of the story though.  It helps you get into the frustrating mindset of a man losing his grip on reality, but still clinging to the idea that reality is reality; it can't be altered.  (spoiler- it can).


 Overall, this is a fun, fast-paced horror flick.  If you're a fan of horror novels, this should be a definite must-watch, and if you're a Lovecraft fanatic (either you've never heard of him or you love him), there's no way you shouldn't know about this.  Sam Neill brings an excellent performance as always, and the effects are great, in a dripping-rubber-monster-in-the-shadows kind of way.  You know, the things that all the recent CGI-laden films are missing.  But if you're a horror fan, you already know that too.

Carpenter is definitely one of those directors where I'll just go through a spurt where I'll crave all of his movies.  They've all got the same tone and feeling.  You could flip on any of them and instantly know you're watching a John Carpenter film.  There's only a couple other directors with as much to their body of work that I could say that about.  David Cronenberg would be another front-funner.  Both of them have a sort of comforting quality to their films (for me anyway) despite being about dark, gruesome things.  I guess it's just nice knowing what to expect.  If you want a cool protagonist, facing off against unimaginable evil, with an unflinching eye for great effects and gore, then look no further.  Oh, and the synth keyboard.  You're gonna get the synth too.

THE CHANGELING: Day 8 of 31

 Okay, so I know I said yesterday's column was going to be a short one, but then I went on for like fifteen paragraphs.  This one, I will be shorter, I promise...

The Changeling (not the Angelina Jolie child abduction movie) is a really well-crafted ghost story from the early '80s, starring General Patton himself, George C. Scott.  Now, his acting period was a little before my time, but I've seen him in things here or there, and the guy is just such a badass.  I mean, in Patton, he was the most famous war general that ever lived.  In The Exorcist III (surprisingly, really good) he was a hard-boiled detective.  In this, he's a kind-hearted composer and pianist... ?  And even though he acts like the sweetest old guy in the world, he's still just got this undercurrent, this aura of take-no-shit badassery.  According to lore, the night he won the Oscar for Patton, he was absent from the award show because he was sitting at home watching a hockey game.  So, that's how this old-timer was.  He'd go in, get the job done, then go home and relax without a second thought.  No time for theatrics or show-boating.  They don't make them like this anymore.

So, what does all this have to do with The Changeling?  Not a whole not actually; I just don't have a ton to say about the movie itself.  It's a slow-burn ghost-story, centered more around the mystery of why this giant old house is haunted in the first place.  Scott plays a composer that recently lost his wife and daughter in an auto accident, so he moves out of his apartment and starts renting a house closer to where he is working at a prestigious music school.  It starts off slow- wait- scratch that.  I don't want to give it a negative connotation.  It's deliberately-paced, giving the movie time to build suspense and establish the creepy atmosphere of the old house.  Scott is obviously torn up over the loss of his family too, but he doesn't spend his days moping around.  He gets up, goes to work, has drinks with colleagues, and only occasionally slips into uncontrollable sobbing while he's alone in his bed.  But with good reason.  Luckily, he doesn't get a chance to wallow in sadness for too long, because he starts hearing strange noises around the house. 

It doesn't take too long before he's discovered that, yes, there is in fact a ghost haunting this building.  This is kind of a nice refreshing plot development.  Other movies might've had him constantly second-guess the weird occurrences, trying to make him think he's going crazy, or that he's imagining it altogether.  Nope. It's a ghost story.  Let's get to the ghosts.  Plus, he's a squared-away guy.  John Patton doesn't go crazy.  So, he goes through the motions of investigating the house's history, invites a medium over for a seance, the usual Saturday night routine.  Once they discover what the ghost wants, he goes on a mission to help put the spirit's, uh, spirit at ease.  I'm sure he started the quest to bring closure to this restless soul, but I'm guessing some of it was just so the ghost would stop banging around on the pipes so Scott could get a good cry going.

On his journey, the spirit takes him to an old, buried well, which hides the ghosts remains.  It's actually pretty similar to The Ring, although this ghost isn't such a vengeful bitch.  Rather than spreading it's suffering across the world, The Changeling's ghost is pretty reasonable.  It seems like it just wants justice for the wrong done to it almost a hundred years ago.  Also, the ghostly activity is pretty subtle.  Not a whole lot of jump scares.  Just lots of little things.  Whispers on a tape recorder.  Piano keys moving by themselves.  The occasional chase scene by an haunted wheelchair.  No big.

It's interesting that the ghost picked Scott out because it sensed his own loss, the recent death of his wife and child.  Makes sense.  And there's a little moment; powerful, but almost a blink and you'll miss it scene where Scott is having dinner with some friends when their children run in.  He looks at the young daughter, kind of longingly, forcing a smile, but inside, obviously wrecked with sadness at the reminder of his own child.  He doesn't oversell it, and the acting is so subtle, but great.  They guy is a master of his craft.  I really want to seek out more George C. Scott movies after this.

Overall, a decent little scary movie.  I don't think it ever became one of the true genre "greats," but I often hear it brought up in small circles, citing it as one of the scariest ghost stories of all time.  Truthfully, it's not horrifying, and the ghost never seems to be evil, or want to harm anyone.  It just has some well-done chills, and creepy moments that keep you invested and a little unnerved. Worth a watch if you're in the mood for something a little less fast-paced and in your face.
 

LORDS OF SALEM: Day 7 of 31

 

 

Rob Zombie has never been a film maker I would describe as subtle.  Or restrained.  Or mature.  But wouldn't you know, that's exactly what his latest film is.  It also has a scene where a priest forces a woman to give him felletio.   So maybe that early praise was a little bit pre-emptive.

I want to make this review kinda short since I'm a little behind, and I've still got today's movie to watch... (what did I get myself into?).  Luckily, this is a good movie to go a little briefer, because there really isn't a ton I would have to say about it.  And not really in a bad way.  Hmmm... let me start over...

I grew up worshiping Rob Zombie in high school.  I mean, I just thought that shit was the coolest.  When I heard he was directing a movie, I could hardly contain myself, and then four years later when it finally came out, I thought House of 1000 Corpses was just the bomb.  It was over-the-top, ridiculously crude, in-your-face, unapologetic horror.  It was also pretty poorly written, sloppily edited, and stole a ton of material from other movies.  Somehow, it just worked though.  For the people that could appreciate it anyway.  Mr. Zombie is obviously a huge horror fan, and he made his first horror movie about the kind of horror movies he loves.  It's definitely a labor of love, and you can see just what he wanted to do during his first time behind the camera.  Far from a cinematic masterpiece, but you know what, for horror films, it's not a bad candidate at all.  (and a great flick to watch on Halloween).

Next up, he blew everyone away with Devil's Rejects.  Now that he blew his horror-load on House of 1000 Corpses, he was able to dial back the craziness, focus on developing characters, and just make a lot tighter, more mature movie.  Shit, even Ebert and Roper gave this thing two thumbs up. It's a pretty great, gritty horror flick.  More of a serial killer film than a horror movie (if you've seen enough of these movies to be able to make a distinction).  Has some really unnerving scenes, and some great, great characters.  I saw this twice in the theaters, and it really put Rob on the map as someone to watch.

Then he remade Halloween and he lost me.  I'm not going to get into this too much.  That's another review entirely, but I was less than thrilled with his take of a bullied-Michael Myers, replacing the unexplainable evil that encompassed the killer in the original series. Still, I've watched his two Halloween movies multiple times, and I'd call them interesting failures.  There's definitely a lot more creativity and talent in Rob's remakes than in anything from the original franchise after part 3.  And Michael Myers is definitely an imposing, scary figure in these.  I just wish he didn't crud it all up by throwing his white trash, scum-bag characters into the whole thing.  In House of 1000 Corpses, it worked.  In Devil's Rejects, it worked.  In Halloween, it just doesn't.  The characters just don't fit in this series.  And every time another character is introduces, sporting the same ironic 70's rockband T-shirts and swearing like a sailor, it just becomes abundantly clear that, "Oh, okay Rob, so this is all you can do, huh?"  

It really put me off him for a while.  Like, I thought his monster-mash type of music was cool, because it was it's own thing.  Then his first two movies were cool, because they lent themselves to a bunch of sleazy trailer trash characters.  But then he did the same thing in Halloween.  And come on man, it's Halloween! It's like the most high end, prestigious horror film series after Psycho.  Show a little class. 

Oh well, I got over it, and when I heard his new film was a different approach, a more restrained, low-budget supernatural film, in the vein of The Shining, I had to say I was intrigued.  He's really 50/50 at this point, so I wanted to see which way this film broke the tie.

Well, I'm happy to say, I'm impressed.  The storyline itself is just kind of there.  Not really any driving force progressing the movie forward.  It just kind of floats along following the main character (his wife, Sheri Moon Zombie) as she starts losing her mind, haunted by the curse of a couple witches that were burned at the stake back in the Salem Witch Trial era.  Still, the movie is really well done.  it's intentionally a little slow, taking it's time to just drop hints of weird little shit here and there. 

Sheri Moon does a really good job as the main character; definitely a step up from her psychotic "Baby" in the House and Devil's.  And as usual, Rob casts a couple of genre favorites, like Ken Foree (always awesome) and Dee Wallace, who all bring their A-game. 

What sets this apart from his other work, is it never goes off the rails into the crazy shit department.  At least not like his previous work.  And yes, this movie does have a scene of Sheri orgasmically grabbing a burnt midget's intestines and flailing her arms around, which (I think?) causes her to become pregnant with the antichrist?  Maybe?  I'll have to listen to the director's commentary for clarification.  So apart from some weird hallucinations and dream sequences, Bob Zombie keeps it pretty restrained and dialed back.  He lets atmosphere carry the film, and allows the shots to linger on the moody hallways and bleak Salem scenery.  It's really an impressive looking film, which up until this point, I never would've guessed would have come from Rob.

My only complaint is, the movie feels like it loses focus a little in the middle, and into the final act.  The whole, character being haunted by weird happenings and hallucinations leads into a kind of anticlimactic ending that kind of feels like they just ran out of money.  Still, it feels like this is the movie Rob really wanted to make, and I respect the fact that he didn't sway from his vision.  It's not a very commercial or studio-type of film, which I'm all for.  I'd rather see mildly disappointing originality than bland cookie cutter garbage, so thanks for flying your freak flag high Bob. 

He had described it in an article I read as "Rosemary's Baby" as if imagined by Ken Russell (who directed the really bizarre "Altered States" film).  If you understand what I'm talking about, I think that is the absolute best description I could give this movie. 

It's elegant, while sleazy.  Slow-burning, with moments of graphic weirdness.  Interesting story while being pretty close to other witch-craft movies that came before it.  And it's got a really groovy soundtrack.  Great early rock tracks, along with a cool, spooky tune that resurrects the witch's curse when played over the radio (not as lame as it sounds).  It gets under your skin and gets kind of catchy in a maddening way. 

Lastly, my favorite thing I took away from the movie:  While Rob has his usual cast of trashy looking characters, they didn't behave like a bunch of filthy assholes like every other movie.  They were actually funny, (kind of intelligent), and all around, a lot more likeable.  And there are even characters that we are introduced to, which in any other horror movie, you know they're just there to up the body count, but they make it out unscathed.  Which is kind of interesting.  Like she has a dog.  And through the whole movie, I was just waiting for this poor bastard to die and her to find it's mutilated body.  But she never does.  Hats off to you, Mr. Zombie.  I didn't think you had it in you.

It's too bad I've heard him report that this is his last movie... just when he showed he could do something different.

Also- as you might expect, there are a ton of Sheri Moon ass shots.  Rob has made no effort in hiding the fact that he's definitely an ass guy.  Which is fine, I guess, because she definitely has a nice one and everything, but it really comes off... I don't know... needy?  Maybe that's not the right word, but that's the feeling I get from it.  And it's his wife.  And he constantly wants us to look at her ass.  I don't know, I've always been more of a boob man myself, so I guess I'm just a little exhausted from it by now.  We get it Rob, you like your wife's ass.  And you want us to as well.  But come on, you know... no matter how much you show it, it's just an ass.  Poop comes out of there. 

ROOM 237: Day 6 of 31

Okay; this is going to be a short one.  Why?  Because the movie sucks. 

Room 237 is a documentary focusing on multiple theories about hidden messages within Stanley Kubrick's The Shining.  The Shining, as everyone knows, is regarded as one of the greatest horror films of all time.  And director Stanley Kubrick is well known for being a meticulous and calculating director, placing all kinds of hidden meanings within is work.  So, this seems like it would be an interesting watch, right?  Wrong.

Without as much as an introduction, we're blasted right into a handful of people's ridiculous interpretations of what Kubrick is "really trying to say" with The Shining.  Which would be fine, if the theories weren't the most random, off-the-wall collection of insanity I've ever heard.  Conjecture of the movie representing the slaughter of Native Americans, to the Holocaust, to hypothesizing that Kubrick helped NASA fake the moon landing footage, and this movie was nothing more than a vessel for him to reveal it to the audience through subtle clues, like it was just something he had to get off his chest. 

It wouldn't be such a bad watch if there was some validity to what these people are saying.  But most of it comes off as someone looking for meaning in every little tiny detail, that they miss the big picture.  You know, the whole "see the forest through the trees," saying.  I think. I've never really used the expression before.  It just sounded right.  Maybe I'll research everything there is to know about trees, forests, forest fires, Smokey the Bear, lions, tigers, bears, wizard of oz, witches, Halloween, paganism, mass religion in general, God, Gods, the universe, the big bang, the universe before the big bang, nothingness, and everything.  Then I'll make a documentary about it.  That's pretty much the thought process behind how these people came to their theories. 

It's no secret that Kubrick was a brilliant filmmaker.  And it's no secret that his films, The Shining especially, have more to them than meet the eye.  But for these conspiracy theorists to think that an out of focus poster of a skier seen for a couple seconds is supposed to represent the image of a minotaur (I'm not joking),  it unfortunately forces the viewer to just check themselves out of this documentary. 

With that said, there are a couple kind of interesting tidbits that are unearthed and brought to the surface for examination.  Like the idea that the movie can be watched backwards, overlayed onto the normal viewing of the film, creating some weird synchronicity and patterns.  There are a few cool, kind of creepy moments that line up, but I'm guessing there's about another two hours of moments that nothing notable happens at all.  There are also some cool little goofs (?) such as rug patterns not matching from scene to scene, or objects in the background mysteriously disappearing.  The first instinct would be to blame them on continuity errors, and if the director was anyone other than Kubrick, that would be it; case closed.  However, knowing what we know about him, there's no way he would've let these goofs make it through to the finished film.  So did he put them in on purpose?  Any why?  Is the whole movie supposed to just be full of weird, nonsensical things that exist solely to drive the viewer mad when they try to search for meaning?  Maybe. Makes more sense than a goddamn Minotaur.

Overall, The Shining is a masterpiece of filmmaking, and I'm sure there are tons of hidden meanings.  I'm also sure that there are several things Kubrick hints at, and likens to, without having to say that "This is really what the movie is about.  The Genocide of the American Indians."  Can't movies just have themes and allegories?  Does everything have to be so literal?  The people in this documentary have wasted there lives looking for meaning in this movie, when it's quite possible that it has been purposefully created to have no meaning; to just be a decent into madness with no way out. That would actually be kind of fitting for these folks.  Enjoy your craziness, you obsessive bastards; can't say they didn't warn you.

There's another quote that comes to mind; I think it has to do with Freud, looking for sexual meaning behind everything.  Like bananas.  Things like that.  But sometimes, a banana is just a banana.  Quit hoping for a penis!  With a movie like this, the fun is in making your own interpretation.  The more you study it, the more you can pick up, but to say that this is definitely what Kubrick was trying to say with the picture just makes you look like a crazy, penis-obsessed loon.  Now go eat a banana and shut up.

*Okay- elephant in the room time-  this is like the third movie I watched this month that wasn't technically a "horror movie."  They all have ties or elements to the horror genre, but I'll agree, this wasn't really a horror flick.  So, to make up for it, I wanted to call out to some great horror flicks currently on Netflix this month.  If you're looking for some good, movies to check out on instant streaming for your Halloween enjoyment, here's a good place to start.  If you're not, then I don't know why I'm even talking to you.  Get lost. Go on, GIT!

Evil Dead and Evil Dead 2: Dead by Dawn:  Essential viewing in order to become a member of the Dave Tucker Friendship Alliance.  The first movie is low-budget, but so ingenious in the camera work and cinematography.  The second is the greatest slapstick-horror experience ever put to film.  Bruce Campbell earns his title as the greatest horror actor of all time with this one, the the over-the-top nature just makes it such an entertaining, one-of-a-kind experience. 

Cabin in the Woods:  A clever deconstruction of the horror genre, making fun of all the genre tropes and doing so in an original manner.  Crafted by Joss Whedon (I guess he's kind of a big deal on the internet), the movie shares his knack for clever dialogue without coming off "too-clever" as a lot of his work tends to be.  Plus the end of the movie is a horror fanatics wet dream.

Troll 2: Proudly carrying the title of the Best Worst Movie ever made.  Endlessly entertaining for all the wrong reasons, this terrible, terrible movie is one of the most enjoyable experiences you can have with a bunch of friends and a couple of beers.  When I first saw it with some buddies, we turned around it and immediately watched it again the same day.

Fire in the Sky: One of the most terrifying horror movies from my childhood.  "Based on actual events," this film follows the alien abduction of Travis Walton, and examines the legal drama that his friends were left in after his mysterious disappearance.  The last fifteen minutes of this has the freakiest, most disturbing alien sequence I've ever seen.  Seriously, this film scarred me for life when I saw it as a kid. 

Killer Klowns From Outer Space:  Come on, you know about this one.  I'm not getting into it too much here, because I plan on reviewing it later this month.  But you know what you're getting into with a title like this.

Human Centipede 1 and 2:  Gross-out film-lovers need only apply.  Although, I would argue the first film is a very well-crafted, disturbing suspense story, with ass loads of originality, and a truly original premise that is as horrifying as it is disgusting. It's also relatively tame (compared to the sequel), and most of the disgustingness is implied rather than shown.  If you really want to ruin a nice evening, follow it up with the sequel, which delivers on all the grisly promises of the original, without a shred of shame or humility.

Re-Animator: A close contender for the same category that Evil Dead 2 holds the title.  A brilliant, hilarious, horror film that acts as a modern (well, 80's) retelling of the Frankenstein formula.  Jeffery Combs is brilliant as Dr. Herbert West, the titular Re-Animator, and if anyone could compete with Bruce Campbell for the King of slapstick horror, it's him.  Extra points for being adapted from the legendary works of H.P. Lovecraft.  I actually proposed to my wife while we watched this movie.  So, take that as either a recommendation of the film, or an example of how weird I am.

The Host: Awesome Korean monster movie that isn't afraid to show the creature.  Some of the best computer-generated effects, which is a rare feat, since most movie monsters work best in the shadows with a degree of practical effects to them.  Tonally, kind of weird and all over the place, but it really is a cool, well-made movie.  Give it a shot, it's got a great opening sequence where the monster first attacks.  If you aren't sold by that, then I guess maybe monster movies aren't your cup of tea.

Hellraiser: Another classic.  Author Clive Barker's first turn in the director's chair, adapting one of his earliest novels, The Hellbound Heart.  And also cinema's first introduction to horror-icon Pinhead, or as he is credited in this film: Lead Cenobite.  Great, grisly gory fun. 

Creepshow 2: Another great anthology, adapted from a couple short stories by Stephen King, and helmed by George A. Romero.  The first and last story are a little lame (so why am I recommending this?), but the middle segment is so amazingly badass, it could be it's own film.  The Raft is about a couple of kids that swim out to a raft in the lake, only to be sequestered by a monstrous creature resembling a pool of black tar.  Such a great segment.  Worth watching just for this.  (which is strange because most horror anthologies usually drag in the middle segment.  A rare exception.)

Aftershock: Written and produced by Eli Roth (of the Hostel fame), this survival horror film follows a group of friends (also starring Roth) as they try to make their way out of an Earthquake ravaged city in Chile.  The effects are a little Sci-Fi channel, but the film is dark and unforgiving. The direction isn't on par with Roth's own movies, like Hostel, but the spirit and premise is pretty similar.  Worth watching because you have no idea what will happen next.  And man, are the characters expendable.

Slither: A campy throw-back to old creature-feature films.  This is a gross-out big budget shlock-fest brought to us by the folks that started their careers working on Troma films (the lowest-of the low budget (and brow) horror films in the industry).  It's enjoyable and well made, with a pretty impressive cast, great gore and make up, and a lot of hilarious moments. 

And lastly, if you have a lot of time on your hands this month, why not check out two amazing horror TV shows currently streaming on Netflix?  The Walking Dead (anyone heard of this?) and American Horror Story.  I really dug American Horror Story, because essentially, ever season is a stand-alone story, like having an original horror movie stretched out for 12 episodes.  They have time to craft some really cool stuff, and there is so much cool, creepy style to it. 


Well, that's all I've got for now.  I'm sure there's a couple that I'm missing (and I'll probably kick myself for it when I stumble on them) but I feel like this is a pretty good smattering to get you started...

GRAVITY: Day 5 of 31

So, I saw Gravity yesterday.  Maybe you've heard of it.  It's this little sci-fi film that's getting some interesting buzz around the web lately.  At least that's how it was referred to when I first heard about it earlier this year.  Now, you've probably heard it described as "The best film of 2013!" or "The greatest science fiction movie since Stanley Kubrick squeezed out 2001: A Space Odyssey!" or "The single greatest technical achievement by man in the history of ever. And always."

That last one may have been a stretch, but it's a pretty decent movie I guess.  I'm just joking; it's a very decent movie.  Best movie of 2013?  Eh, maybe.  It probably is one of the greatest special effect achievements ever put to film.  In terms of cinematography and story telling, it's light years ahead of anything else to date.  Definitely a game changer (oh God, how I hate that term) in that sense.

I also love the fact that the story takes such a simple premise (if you can call 'having two astronauts have to use their survival skills and technical expertise to try to return back to Earth after barely escaping certain death due to an onslaught of charging satellite shrapnel that destroyed their ship and left them stranded in space' simple), and focuses the entire movie on it.  I really dig minimalistic movies.  This storyline brings to mind a couple other favorites of mine that involve similar circumstances, where a character or characters are stranded or confined to one place and they're trying to escape certain death.  Open Water (which involved two scuba divers being stranded by their boat and everyone hated it) and Buried (which involved Ryan Reynolds trapped in a coffin for 90 minutes, and no one saw it).  Gravity kind of completes the environmental trilogy, proving that deep space is just as bad a place to get stranded as the middle of the ocean, or six feet under ground in a box.  Although I don't know if anyone was going to make an argument against that.

The really cool thing about this movie, that sets it apart from the other two is the production value. 
While Open Water was filmed with a couple digital cameras on the cheap, and Buried was done very well, but never once left the coffin, Gravity uses every single camera trick and special effect in its repertoire. And it does it seamlessly.  This is, without a doubt, one of the most amazing looking films I've ever seen in my life.  I've read that the director (who also did the amazing "Children of Men") spent the last four years working on this project.  Even spending a considerable time working on the 3D process, meaning the studio didn't just decide to post convert it later to make a couple extra bucks.  Knowing that going in, I opted to see it in 3D, and it was definitely the best 3D experience I had in a theater as well.  Much, much better than Avatar (ugh... but you know my thoughts on Avatar).


The reason the 3D works so well in this movie (and if you know the director's work, it's no surprise) is because of the extremely long takes that make up each scene.  While most movies cut to about 50 different camera angles to cover one action sequence, Alfonso Cuaron painstakingly films it all in one take without any cuts.  The long takes give your eyes and brain a chance to really register what's happening in front of you, and appreciate the robustness that the third dimension adds to the picture.

Now, that's not to say there aren't any cuts.  And since this entire thing was filmed on a green screen, I'm sure there's virtually hundreds of cuts in each of these 15 minute long takes.  However, the important thing is, we don't notice them.  It's all crafted together so beautifully with such a natural flow, it all just appears to be happening in front of you. Seriously, don't misconstrue what I said to mean there are cuts, but we don't notice them; for all intents and purposes, there are no cuts.  It's like you're right there, floating in space with them, not missing a beat.  Yesterday I said there was a short film in VHS2 that put the viewer in the eyes of the protagonist while he's haunted by ghosts. Well, Gravity puts you in the space suit of the astronauts, and you are directly in the middle of the action.  Or lack of action, as you drift silently through space.  It's a pretty miraculous achievement.

What makes this all the more note worthy, is that the storyline itself doesn't really need to be so technologically amazing. It could've just as easily been shot like a normal movie.  It could've even been shot for super cheap, and just edited together like a hundred other space movies we've seen.  The story of two characters on a quest to get home is nothing new.  But the way they present it, in a way we've never seen; experiencing their struggles first hand, that is what makes this movie amazing.  The viewer is watching anxiously as the characters bounce off the shuttle, trying desperately to grab hold of something in order to stop their descent into space. You hold your breath and grip your armrest as they miss ledge after ledge, drifting into total blackness.  This movie forces you to connect with them, and experience their panic first hand.  A rare feat these days.  And again, even rarer because it really didn't have to.  It's like someone came up with the movie idea, and pitched it to some executives.  The executives yawn and say, "Okay, go ahead; are you going to do anything different, that we haven't seen before?" and the production crew says, "Yeah, we're going to make it really, really good."  That's two reallys.  And they meant it.

So, premise of the movie: good.  Technical wizardry on screen: amazing.  Acting: Eh... two out of three aint bad, right?  Wait, what?  Dave, you didn't like the acting?  It's got George Clooney, everyone loves Clooney!  Yeah, I know. Clooney was the man. Clooney rocked this movie.  Well, that only leaves one other person... are you telling me you didn't like Bullock? Come on; she's an Oscar winner too!  Yeah, for the Blindside.  Listen.  Clooney was great.  Sandra wasn't bad.  She just wasn't all that good.  Her character wasn't very relatable, or likeable, or even someone that I cared a great deal for.  I never really found myself connecting with her, or really hoping she made it out other than just because she was the main character.  She gave a couple good moments, one especially good one when she is saying a quick prayer to her daughter who died years before (which now that I'm a parent, came off much more heart wrenching than I would've thought before), but overall, I just found her kind of flat.  Not someone I was actively rooting for.  Of course, I wasn't hoping she'd die out in space either; I just found her kind of "meh."  If I were to compare her to Sam Rockwell's character in "Moon," another terrific space movie from a couple years ago, I'd say they're not even in the same league.  Sam was warm, sympathetic, and you spent the whole movie feeling for him, and rooting  that he'd make it out. There were also a couple moments where I thought the writing was almost embarrassingly contrived.  The stand out is when she makes her way to a Chinese space shuttle and picks up a radio conversation between some random Chinese guy back on Earth.  This was one of the few weak parts for me; but not enough to do any real damage to the film, just kind of a low point.

Overall, with all minor criticisms aside, Gravity is one hell of a movie.  An absolutely amazing technical achievement that will undoubtedly be talked about in film circles for decades to come.  Plus, the storyline of overcoming adversity, and not giving up, no matter how dire things look is always a crowd pleaser too.  The movie has some twists, which I won't even hint at because the marketing people actually avoided giving anything away in the previews.  Seriously, everything I saw in the trailers took place in the first 15 minutes.  I had no idea what was going to happen after that, so I went into this pretty damn eager.  That doesn't happen a whole lot in this day and age.  Most movie trailers show you every single action beat, along with the jokes, money shots, and punchlines of just about every beat of the movie.  Horror movies like Quarantine even show the last scene in the movie in every advertising campaign they run. Hell, it was even the cover of the movie for Christ sakes!  Studios will release exclusive sneak peaks online, months before the film hits theaters, showing unbroken, 3 minute long scenes from the movie.  The Evil Dead red-banned trailer showed every single kill and action sequence in the movie, so when I finally got around to seeing it, opening night, it felt like I was just watching a longer version of something I already saw.  No mystery.  No anticipation.  No enjoyment.

And shit, what do I know, maybe Gravity does have some longer trailers they've released that show a whole lot more of the movie; I don't know.  I haven't been seeking them out because I wanted to go into it fresh.  And it paid off.  I suggest everyone else does the same.  Don't read anymore about it.  Quit listening to everyone say it's the best movie they've ever seen.  Just go into it and make up your own decision.  But at least keep in mind how astronomically amazing the effects are.  You may think you've seen something like this before, but trust me; you haven't.

PS- I know this isn't technically a "horror" horror movie.  But shit, it had my pulse pounding faster than anything I've seen in the horror genre lately.  And really, who's to say what qualifies as horror?  I would say being alone, endlessly adrift in space is far more terrifying than running from a slasher in a hockey mask.  But maybe that's just because they never seem to put any pep in their step when they chase their victims.  If he at least put forth the effort to speed walk, maybe I'd get some chills.