30 Days Of Night: Dark Days (2010)After the first "30 Days of Night" movie that had excellently viscious vampires, but human characters who barely had one personality between them, this was a massive improvement. This is not least because the vampires, even in spite of a lower budget, are just as brutal and terrifying in the first movie. However, the main advantage lies on the character front. The characters are distinctive, have real motivations and you find your genuinely care about them.
The movie follows the character of Stella previously played by Melissa George (Triangle), now played by Kiele Sanchez (???). We start in the aftermath of the massacre from the first movie. Stella has survived the massacre of a small isolated Alaskan village called Barrow. She is now trying to expose the vampires, but is having a tough time of it. During the opening credits we see a typewriter telling us various things about the vampires, most importantly that they are all over the world and not simply hiding in the snows of Alaska. The typewriting stuff is all signed "Dane", a mysteriously knowledgeable figure who will be introduced soon enough.
The movie quickly becomes distinctly more intriguing that the original movie. The characters have their own personalities, which makes a change. Admittedly the movie does have the "expendable black guy" trope, but then again I've got a theory which might excuse it. Since I've admitted that this trope is involved, everyone will quickly realise that Harold Perrineau plays the character who cops it. However, I think he is picked because he is the most endearing character. He quickly wins the audience over. (I recognised him from his part in the Matrix sequels, but it turns out he has also had parts in "28 Weeks Later" and "Romeo and Juliet".) If you want the audience to care about the first fatality you need to pick off someone they care about and it just so happens that Perrineau was best suited to the instantly likeable character position. Perhaps it's unfair and a cliche to make the black guy the first fatality, but I don't think they are without excuses for this one.
Some reviews of Dark Days on the internet claim that the pacing is slow. They seem to have forgotten how interminably boring the start of the first movie was. Dark Days is actually a great deal quicker to get started and has a much more interesting plot. Still I think one cause for people disliking this is that it doesn't stick to the plot of the graphic novel. It may well be that the graphic novel was rather more imaginative and less of a "people with guns defeat the monsters" kind of plot. Then again, from what I've seen of the graphic novels, the style of this movie was much more true to the style of the graphic novel than the original movie was.
The only thing that impressed me from the first movie was the vampires. They were refreshingly ruthless, with one particularly nasty scene where the vampires takes turns to slash their claws into a girl out of pure cruelty. I wasn't sure that this movie could live up to this and admittedly the budget does limit it. Here's a particularly unflattering example of the level of the effects in the movie (though actually this guy appears like this so fleetingly that it doesn't look anything like as naff as this screenshot might suggest):
In any case, the movie can't rely on the look of the vampires, so instead the cruelty of the vampires is often implied. There's an awful lot of blood in this movie, but the blood isn't the real shocker. In fact the blood often doesn't look particularly realistic, especially when we are shown an upclose image of some of it in a glass, where it looks distinctly like Ribena. However, the real strength of the movie lies not in the amount of blood shown, but the way the blood is shed. I had to look away on several occasions during the movie, not because the events on screen were so horrid, but because bloodletting can make me squeamish. Of course bloodletting happens in all sorts of movies, but in Dark Days they really make you feel it.
There was some rather poor acting from a rescued victim who seems rather more like Harmony from Buffy the Vampire Slayer complaining about how Spike is treating her than a survivor of extreme vampiric cruelty. Also, there is one scene where the exposition lines felt distinctly unnecessary (and too loud, since they are hiding from vampires at the time).
Mia Kirshner puts in a rather awesome turn as a vampire leader, though I'd have liked it if there was an equivalent of Danny Huston's vampire-in-a-suit character too. Danny Huston has also been in Children of Men, The Constant Gardener and The Aviator. Meanwhile Mia Kirshner's major role was in the movie "Exotica" (a rather odd film about exotic dancers). Her role in Dark Days is quite understated but effective.
Overall I found this sequel to have a better plot, better characters and to be generally more satisfying than its predecessor. The lower budget is used to good effect making this far from dull. Not only do I think this is an improvement from the previous movie, but I think it is a fantastic movie in and of itself. In fact, I would suggest that it makes more sense to skip the original movie and watch this sequel instead. There's not really much in the way of story elements in the original movie to catch up on and it's much more entertaining. This movie that I thought would be popcorn fodder at best, turns out to be blooming brilliant!
5/5Predators (2010)Yeah, this wasn't that great, but nevertheless I'm going to say that it was distinctly more imaginative than the first movie. I've always thought that the original "Predator" movie was overrated, but it had two things going for it (asides from Arnold Schwarzenegger in the starring role): It introduced the concept of the Predator (which, in spite of the movie's very limited quality, has nevertheless served to capture the imagination for a long time since) and the method by which the Predator is defeated is very clever too. However, "Predator" was actually pretty dull and unimaginative for the majority of the runtime and it's not until all Schwarzenegger's companions have been killed off that it really gets exciting.
In "Predators" we have a set of stock characters and some dodgy cliches, however I'd see that as a set up from the characterless figures in Predator. We are told that we have this variety of characters because they are the best of each of their styles of combat (to make them good sport for the Predators to hunt). However, in some cases they don't really seem to have the proper opportunity to show off their talents (e.g. Danny Trejo), while in other cases their opportunity feels a bit forced (Yakuza guy). On top of that we have one guy (and I won't name the actor because it's a great surprise to see him turn up) who talks to himself in the cliched Hollywood version of multiple personality disorder.
Still, in this movie we have some rather cool alien species, two breeds of Predator, a swordfight between a Yakuza and a Predator and some interesting fighting techniques used against the Predators. I was really confused as to how Adrien Brody was going to come across as an action hero, but the thing is that his skills relate to strategy rather than strength, so it works pretty well.
All in all, the movie is a series of set pieces which are hit and miss and the movie generally fails to go anywhere. Part of me feels like if Rodriguez had been directing, he could have made it work. Still a few of the cheesy lines would probably need to be removed, not least the ones where the characters state the obvious. In general the movie would need better pacing and a better sense of fun. Nevertheless, as it stands this movie is enjoyable enough to watch, even if it's a bit rubbish overall.
2.5/5 House Of The Devil (2009)I saw this a while back, but I never got around to reviewing it. It's an odd one really, but in a good way.
House Of The Devil has been made to look like it's an older classic horror movie, even to the point where it was given a limited release on videotape. I'd have said that the style looked like it came from the 70s, but it's more likely mimicking the style of movies during the 80s (which would fit with the whole "video nasty" scandal). At the beginning we are told about the satanism scare (also during the 80s) where people were convinced that children were being ritually abused by Satan worshippers. I think commenting further on why the satanism scare is mentioned might count as a spoiler, so I'm not going to elaborate any further on that aspect.
The ways the movie makes itself appear old fashione include that same untinted look that all movies used to have before everything
turned orange and teal. Perhaps it's just me, but in classic movies like Halloween there always seems to be an abundance of yellow from autumn leaves. House Of The Devil even features big yellow writing at the opening credits. Another feature is a protagonist happily and unashamedly sitting with a ciggerette in hand. Proper film students could probably list many more ways that this movie has been deliberately dated, but those are the ones that stood out for me.
The movie builds up the protagonists very well, making them feel like real people who are genuinely worth caring about. One of them needs money and ends up taking a job as a babysitter, but when the job description changes rather bizarrely at the last minute, should she be suspicious?
It'll actually be pretty obvious at the time that she ought to be very suspicious indeed. In fact, she's not stupid and fully realises that it's all very suspicious. That's thankful since otherwise we in the audience would be getting very annoyed indeed. Perhaps the most suspicious figure, putting in a spectacularly unnerving performance, is Tom Noonan. Rather fitting considering his prior work as the manhunter (or red dragon) in "Manhunter" back in the 80s. Noonan also played psychopathic drug dealer Cain (who essentially becomes Robocop 2) in the movie "Robocop 2" in 1990. Here he plays a suspicious yet seemingly well-meaning man with a walking stick.
House Of The Devil is genuinely scary without any need for the "whistle and bang" tricks which are so overused in mainstream horror these days. The tension is built up quite subtly and expertly with a pretty minimal budget. The eventual ending is a little over the top, but it's satisfying all the same. House Of The Devil actually benefits from not going for the levels of gore one would normally expect in a movie of this kind. Instead it focusses on atmosphere and does a great job of it too.
House Of The Devil is a great movie. A bit slow paced, with not quite the payoff one might hope for, but nevertheless with a great atmosphere, great acting and very well crafted overall. It's a solid movie with some elements that put it a cut above the rest.
4.5/5Hellraiser (1987)This was one of the most ridiculous movies I have ever seen. Be in no doubt that it was bloody terrible, but nevertheless it gets good points for creativity. Straight afterwards I saw the shorted version with bunnies (
click here, but beware of spoilers) and it just summed up how ridiculous the whole thing was. Everything about Hellraiser is so daft and stupid that you cannot help but cheer it on. I mainly found myself cheering on the bad guys. It gets to the point where you start feeling sorry for the bad guy who is having real trouble gathering enough blood to acheive his aims.
Interestingly, it seems that in Hellraiser the other dimension thingy isn't technically hell. It's a place which offers the heights of both pleasure and pain. It's supposed to be a sado-masochism paradise. So yeah, if you enjoy haven't hooks stuck into various parts of your body and then pulling at you as hard as they can, then it seems it's wonderful. The monsters in the other dimension are brilliant, which may be one of the main reasons why this film is remembered after all this time. After all, who could forget this guy?
This guy also looks pretty cool:
The film has managed to spawn a string of sequels. Here are the titles with RT scores:
63% -
Hellraiser (1987)
44% -
Hellbound: Hellraiser II (1988)
22% -
Hellraiser III: Hell on Earth (1992)
30% -
Hellraiser: Bloodline (1996)
N/A
- Hellraiser: Inferno (2000)
0%
- Hellraiser: Hellseeker (2002)
17%
- Hellraiser: Deader (2005)
20% -
Hellraiser: Hellworld (2005) (filmed back to back with
Hellraiser: Deader)
Looks to me that the sequels are fairly uniformly awful. They're also releasing a further sequel called "Hellraiser Revelations" later this year and there's a remake of the original movie in 2012. Oh joy. I mean as far as the remake is concerned I can't help but feel that it would be possible to make the movie better. Heck, doesn't it make more sense to take a flawed movie and improve it? But I can't help but feel that it's going to fail. Still, the things I would want improved are as follows:
- The effects. Perhaps the one part where there might be some hope. As per usual, they'd need a mixture of CGI and modelling rather than solely CGI on its own, otherwise it's going to look just as fake as the original did, if not moreso. No surprise there. Most important thing to change? Bones do not bend dammit! Even if you are stuck using makeup rather than more expensive models, try to avoid disguising something as bone when it is inevitably going to have to contort in ways that a bone simply wouldn't!
- If they keep the sinister Asian salesman who is in the movie for about two seconds, it's going to appear racist. After all, none of the beasties are Asian, just the salesman. Why are Asians often shown as sinister figures in posession of an unknown magic power? It's a dodgy cliche and that'll either have to be done better or it will have to go. I mean, "Gremlins" uses the same "Asian guy with mysterious stuff" cliche, but not only does it make the salesman endearing, it also introduces us to the salesman via his more western-influenced grandson. Not that I'm suggesting that they make the salesman a nice guy, but perhaps a little less exoticism might be nice?
- Some explanation as to why Frank knows about the box, rather than just going "hey this guy is sitting in a circle of candles with a box". I'm sorry, but it just looked silly.
- Lecherous builders whose leching is simply tolerated. What the hell?
- The "oh by the way his wife used to have a twisted affair with Frank" flashbacks. Perhaps flashbacks will still work, but they need to be done a lot better. Rather than seeming like someone with conflicted emotions and a complicated history, the wife ended up coming across as weird. Perhaps that's inevitable considering what she's got to do later, but that's even more of a challenge for the new writers to try and make these characters make sense. All too often people in this movie feel like stock characters rather than people in their own right. Frustratingly, the actors occasionally manage to bring something to their characters in spite of the script in just a few scenes, but they've only got so much to go on.
- The two nuns. I burst out laughing when the two nuns appeared randomly. What are they there for? Are they meant to represent guilt or something? Just do without the nuns - it's not worth it.
- I still don't know what the point of the hobo was. Particularly his weird actions towards the end.
But thinking about it, will it still be hellraiser without the weird hobo and his big finale, or without the random nuns, or without the laughably oh-so-very-evil wife, or without the cheesy effects? Perhaps that's the biggest problem with remaking Hellraiser. Any remake which solves these problems with simply be horrid without the endearing ridiculousness of the original.
But no, this wasn't a good movie. It wasn't even an average movie. This was a bad movie, but with an odd sort of charm. I'm glad I saw it, if only so I could laugh at the experience.
2.5/5All cross-posted to
candycorncomm