Wow, these are a whole bunch of old reviews I thought I'd already posted. Well, better late than never I guess!
We've got a Wes Craven theme going here, except I don't mean several Wes Craven movies. I mean one Wes Craven movie that I've always meant to sit down and watch: "Scream". And on top of that, two films which were released under the banner of "Wes Craven Presents" (in spite of having practically no involvement from the man himself).
Scream (1996)Not so long after this film came out I remember a friend showing me the opening scene. At the time I was completely unfamiliar with slasher films. (Anyone who has been following my blog for the last couple of years or so has seen my reactions to seeing slasher series for the first time.) Without any understanding of the slasher horror genre, the opening to "Scream" is somewhat unappealing. If nothing else, it has to be recognised that "Scream", the opening at least, is a love letter to the slasher genre. So when I first checked it out I didn't care, asides from realising that I'd been spoiled for the ending of Friday the 13th (before anyone was really using the word 'spoilers').
I must admit that the opening sequence is still kind of good. It's certainly a good start for the film. But I have realised that there was one element I didn't entirely understand at the time. The baddie is using a mobile phone. He's not ringing up from a nearby house. That simply wouldn't do the trick. He has to be able to walk and talk and a portable phone attached to the landline within the actual house isn't really going to work here either.
Unfortunately I don't think the writer had a clue how mobile phones actually work or phone records in general for that matter. Later on we have the police recognising the need to request phone records for a mobile phone. They seem to entirely forget that they can get the landline records for the house very easily indeed and that would mean that they would know the exact times of the calls.
But anyway, apparently having given up any hope of checking which students in the school have mobile phones or parents with mobile phones, they have no other option but to interview every single child and teacher in the school of the film's initial victim.
Now I know that Neve Campbell and Courtney Cox were considered big names at the time, but to be quite frank they aren't any more. And that's not just bad luck in their careers. These are not terribly good actresses anyway. It was surprising however to see Rose McGowan appear here, since I know her for a movie released ten years later: "Planet Terror". Skeet Ulrich, who plays Neve Campbell's boyfriend seems extremely suspicious for the whole film, not least because he acts pretty much exactly the same as the way he played his dirtbag character in "The Craft" (a film which I still love). Another actor I've seen being better elsewhere was Matthew Lillard, who was the nervous psychic in the silly horror comedy "Thir13en Ghosts". I think Matthew Lillard is pretty great here too and I wonder whether he might have a more active career today if it weren't for him having taken on the thankless role of the live action version of Shaggy in the "Scooby Doo" movies (which I feel blessed not to have seen).
Scream's attempts at self-referential cleverness become rather more rewarding towards the end when a geeky character starts putting forward rules for how to survive a horror movie. Never have sex, never do drugs, don't 'split up' and that sort of thing. It's not even the best version of those rules here, but the rules are at least presented well. We then see the rules applied to the movie "Halloween" with the characters gathered around the television to watch it. Basically this made me wish I was watching "Halloween", which is surprising considering that I wasn't exactly blown away by "Halloween" in the first place. But I was pretty certain that, whatever issues "Halloween" might have, it was a hundred times better than the boring disposableness of "Scream". (And I'd actually argue that "Halloween" already does some pretty cool horror movie deconstruction, such as the 'obscene caller that isn't an obscene caller'.)
The earlier parts of the film are handled with a serious tone. The final act of the film is utterly stupid. The one actually clever idea here, I felt, was the hidden camera with a time delay. That actually tickled me a little bit. Outside of that, I mostly felt like I was waiting for this to end. So far "A Nightmare On Elm Street" is still by far my favourite Wes Craven movie and I still think that has massive problems. I think perhaps Craven is better at coming up with visuals than he is at directing actors and "Scream" simply doesn't have the exciting visuals that "Nightmare On Elm Street" did.
D-
Wishmaster (1997)When I was first told about "Wishmaster" I was put off by the suggestion that Wes Craven was involved (having a bad personal reaction to the film "The People Under The Stairs" still fresh in my mind). However, it seems that Wes Craven had very little involvement here at all. This is actually the work of an effects guy from the "Nightmare On Elm Street" films.
The style here is clearly very similar to that used in films like "Nightmare On Elm Street" and it is wonderfully inventive. In an early sequence we see the power of the genie showcased extremely creatively with a whole selection of horrifying transformations occurring. The one that particularly stood out for me was where a man's own skeleton forces its way out of his body.
Eventually we move to modern day and, while I don't think all the acting is all that great, the effects are wonderful, the premise is explored wonderfully, and I felt that the script was pretty well written. The genie doesn't seem to need anyone to actually say "I wish". Simply to express a desire for something to happen appears to be enough. One actor who does do a fantastic job is Andrew Divoff who plays the genie (or djinn as it is known here). I also need to give props to Jenny O'Hara, who I found pretty damn impressive here and I'm surprised not to see more high profile films in her filmography.
By the way, asides from the reference to a specific number of wishes, the concept of the Djinn here seems accurate. According to Islamic belief, angels are creatures of light whose wills cannot falter from the will of God, while the djinn are creatures of fire who have free will to choose good or evil. In the Arabian nights djinn are often discovered trapped and getting a wish is often in exchange for freeing them. Djinn genuinely seem to be able to use supernatural powers to satisfy human desires, but you cannot trust them. That being said, none of this really marks them apart from demons. One controversy I'd just like to bring up though. Shaitan (the arabic word for the evil figure of Satan in Christian mythology) is believed to be an angel who chose to rebel against God. But that is impossible, since angels have no free will. As such, there is some suggestion that Shaitan must actually be a djinn and not just a fallen angel that commands djinns to do his bidding.
"Wishmaster" features some cool cameos from Kane Hodder (the most well-known and long-running actor to play Jason Vorhees from the Friday 13th films) and Tony Todd (Candyman, the mortician from Final Destination, etc.).
"Wishmaster" is great fun, well-made and if it had some better acting, particularly in the leading roles (not including the djinn mind you) then this could be an A-grade film. I don't think it was far off.
B+
They (2002)It's a bit of a non-specific title and when I read about this film online a while after seeing it the first time around, I wasn't entirely convinced it was the same film. Most descriptions of this film on the internet generally talk about how bad it is, which I found surprising. The main reason why that surprises me? Because this is, to me, better than anything I have EVER seen from Wes Craven. When I see "Wes Craven Presents" in the promotional material for this film, my concern isn't that they were using Wes Craven's name, but rather that they would downgrade their movie like that.
"They" is all about the most basic kind of fear. Fear of the dark. The baddies are monsters that live in a weird realm parallel to ours which can be found in the dark corners, under the bed, in the cupboard, and anywhere else you can think of. You know when you look into the darkness and you can't quite make shapes out properly and it seems almost like the darkness is crawling around? This film is playing on that.
The film focusses on a group of people who grew up with night terrors, but as adults they have found that the night terrors have returned. The suggestion is that the monsters that took them in the dark as children have marked them and, now that they are adults, the monsters in the darkness have come back to get them once again.
At the same time, the main protagonist is studying to be a psycho-therapist. She pretty much diagonoses herself at one stage, not just as someone regularly paralysed with fear of the dark, but as someone having schizophrenic episodes. But, like "Take Shelter" handles much more expertly, knowing that you are most likely suffering from a recognisable psychological condition doesn't mean you can deny the reality of your terrifying visions.
The ending felt really powerful to me. It's horrible, but really stuck with me. I don't even know why they even include the alternate ending on the DVD. Apparently some idiot thought it might be a good idea to have an "it was all a dream" ending where pretty much everyone in the film is a worker in a psychiatric hospital. What a stupid idea? A major theme of the film is that the main protagonist is able to assess her own psychological condition. The idea that the entire world around her is a delusion completely undoes anything that matters in the film. Thankfully they didn't choose that ending.
The main actress is able to do a good haunted look, but her performance is a bit lacking in subtlety. The guy played Riley in Buffy The Vampire Slayer here plays the boyfriend, and he's pretty much just playing Riley again - which is fine. (Confession time here: (i) Season four is my favourite season of Buffy and (ii) while the 'Riley' character isn't great, I think he's massively underrated.)
While the lead actress isn't perfect, everything in the film is well-handled. The theme is explored in a really interesting way and the film is genuinely creepy. I think the film unfortunately slows a little too much in pace in a few places. But this film is an intelligent horror movie with some fantastic imagery. I'd have been really interested to see what Darren Aronofsky might have done with this. This a really good film, with clear potential to be excellent and perhaps the biggest problem is that it seems to end rather suddenly. It feels like a serious of inter-connected moments, but it doesn't build to a crescendo. I think most of the best moments are probably in the first half. But this is a hideously underrated film and I'd pick this over "A Nightmare On Elm Street" any day.
B+
Blade: Trinity (2004)I haven't seen the original "Blade" in over ten years. I thought it was a bit meh even back then. I wasn't incredibly impressed with the second one either, but after becoming familiar with Guillermo Del Toro's "Pan's Labyrinth" I can appreciate it rather better. Perhaps, like with "Hellboy", a director's cut of "Blade II" will be released and it'll be much much better. Who knows?
Blade Trinity doesn't have Guillermo Del Toro involved, but it does keep on the writer of the first two Blade movies: David S. Goyer. Except this time he's not only writing, but directing too! And if this movie is at all representative, he utterly sucks as a director.
The main positive point I'd often heard for this film is Ryan Reynolds comedy. Ryan Reynolds has been in the enormous flop "Green Lantern", a number of cheesy romantic comedies, and "Buried" (which I liked, but is actually quite a serious film). So when this film turned up in a bargain bin, I thought I might at least finally discover what made him so popular for his comic acting. I'm afraid that aspect of the film completely eluded me. He appeared to have no comic timing whatsoever (though it cannot have helped that none of his lines were even within the same vicinity as 'funny'). Strangely I wasn't impressed when he shouted at a female vampire that she was a "c**k juggling thunder-c**t". (What the hell does that even mean???)
But if there's one thing that WAS funny about this movie, it's the Dracula figure. The vampires dig him up in a tomb somewhere in mesopotamia and he first appears as a cool looking monster, but it's not long before he opts for a less imposing shape. He chooses to look like some kind of wrestler or perhaps a contestant on Jersey Shore (not that I've seen that). He likes to wander around exposing his smooth hairless chest and decides at one point to lay waste to a shop selling Dracula-themed tacky items (like Dracula vibrators *eyeroll*).
The action is hard to follow and therefore boring, the characters have none, the plot doesn't plot, the tension isn't tense, and it's pretty hard to care about anything that happens from the moment Dracula reveals his male-model appearance onwards. A particularly poor moment is where one character is mourning another character's death and Blade is standing in the background insistently repeating "use it, use it, Use It, USE IT!!" over and over again. I eventually deciphered that he meant to use the pain they felt from the loss of their friend in order to fight the vampires better, but to be frank that was so poorly set up that he could have meant anything.
After the success of "Blade II" this film clearly wasn't lacking in budget, so there is no excuse for how appalling this was. You want a good vampire action movie? Look somewhere else. ANYWHERE except here.
E-
The Good Son (1994)There's something strange about this film. Macauley Culkin is an odd choice. The very idea of a film where Macauley Culkin acts side-by-side with Elijah Wood feels particularly odd to me. Naturally the promotional material has to make clear that this is a creepy film about a child capable of murder, yet this film has the most inappropriate soundtrack imaginable.
I think the film is being posed as a drama, so this means that early in the film we have 'children playing together isn't it lovely' music and even later when things get darker later on, we still have 'bad things are happening' drama music. This film is desperate not to be seen as a horror movie. Having seen what was done in "We Need To Talk About Kevin" it's much harder to make allowances for the way things are presented in "The Good Son". Even when we've got the sweet and lovely music in the early part of the film it is already clear that Culkin's character is, at very least, a jerk. A realistic jerk admittedly. I remember growing up with children just like that who tease and play power games and who think that kicking each other under the table is just how things are. But even with that in mind, the sweet and cheerful music felt out of place right from the start.
Elijah Wood does his trademark horrified expression that we've now seen so much of in "Lord Of The Rings". Macauley Culkin is essentially playing a psychopath (or something akin to that) and he fits the role pretty well, but he doesn't do subtlety very well and his creepy look involves squinting, which feels wrong somehow. This is a keenly intelligent figure who is constantly looking at how to manipulate people to his own advantage. I felt like he should have his eyes wide open.
The writing is often very well handled and so while it was a surprise to find that this was written by Ian McEwan of "Atonement" fame, it helps to explain some of the subtleties in the writing. However, this was a project taken away from McEwan and put into rewrites without consulting him, so while much of the film may bear his mark, I doubt this entirely fits with his original vision.
Certain parts of the film feel very twee and some themes feel hammered home so much that they barely feel clever any more. I am not sure that Culkin's character is always consistent in the extent to which he can hide his feelings.
This film was actually banned in the UK upon release because it was unlucky enough to coincide with the murder of James Bulger, which had a big impact on the country. Still, it was released after there'd been a bit of a gap, albeit with an "18" certificate which feels rather over the top. However, even in his early teens Elijah Wood is still clearly a good actor, and there's a lot to like here. But the offputting soundtrack is a big problem, not least since my biggest problem with "The Good Son" is that it didn't pull me in - and the soundtrack really didn't help me with that.
I think some people might enjoy this a lot more than I did. Perhaps I'm being unfair. But the whole style of the film rubbed me the wrong way and the emotional beats of the film didn't push my buttons in the right way. I felt like I was constantly a step ahead of the film waiting for it to catch up. Perhaps if the film was willing to think of itself as a psychological thriller (I mean, why the hell not?) then perhaps it could handle these issues a lot better. This movie will pass the time and it's not exactly a bad film, but I feel a bit meh overall about this one.
C-