Midnight Top Five - The "What I've Been Learning From Buffy and Angel" Edition

A couple of weeks ago, I wrote about Buffy The Vampire Slayer the movie because a) I love it, and b) I was watching a bunch of it.  And that's pretty much where I'm still at.  I think I'm in "I'm late to the party so I better hurry up and get as much partying in as I can before some drunk person makes everything awkward and things crash to an uncomfortable halt" mode.  I was about halfway through Season Three when I did that, and I had things to say that were kind of like this...

After powerhousing through the vastly improved season two (and now about half of season three) in recent weeks, I've certainly changed my position on television's Buffy.  I still struggle with some of the characters and it seems like there are more episodes where Buffy slays non-vampires than vampires, but it's got the same balance between goofy fun and serious drama (that refuses to be affected by an outlandish premise) that I've come to expect from the other things I've seen from Whedon. Sometimes I think that the way to tell if a TV show is great is to see whether or not you will continue to be addicted to the show when you wish the writers would change the characters' decisions or relationships.  For example, when you have to deal with Casey and Dana never working out on Sports Night or when Veronica Mars continues to choose the stupidest boyfriends ever (and manages to get roofied approximately 27 times) - but you stick with them anyway.  The Buffy Show passes that test with flying colors, because there are so many moments - particularly so far in season three - where I find myself thinking "Oh Buffy! What you doin' girl?!" or "Man, Xander just needs to never open his mouth again!". I think these things, but I'm still desperate to see where the show goes next and am already ready to forgive the characters as soon as they do something to totally redeem themselves.

Seriously, I wrote all of that in a review of something that wasn't what I was talking about...and now I have more to say. I'm almost done with Season Five of Buffy and Season Two of Angel - and boy, do I have things to say about Angel - so here's the first Midnight Top Five I've put together in a long while.  It might even end up with a Part 2 some day.

Top Five Things I've Learned From Buffy and Angel

It's OK for the Hero to NOT be Super Perfect

When Kristy Swanson was Buffy (which I will henceforth refer to as "Buffy 1.0"), the character was a flawed hero.  But she wasn't a serious flawed hero, she was comically flawed.  It was all "Oh ha! She cares too much about her hair and says what if!" imperfections, and the movie worked as a comedy because of it.  But the question I had as I dove into more Buffy - I still have next to no memory of Season 1, which might say something about Season 1 - I kept asking myself how a "serious" take on the teenage girl turned slayer could work while keeping Buffy acting like a "Buffy".  (Is there an Urban Dictionary definition for a Buffy? I probably don't want to know if there is, but to me the name - pre-Slayer - equates to aloofness.)

Sarah Michelle Gellar's "Buffy 2.0" definitely lacks the "Valley Girl" tendencies of her predecessor.  Sure, there are passing references to her shopping days and that weird moment when she wants to be Homecoming Queen, but this version of the Buffster is much smarter, darker, and more emotional than her precursor.  And yet, she remains decidedly imperfect.

The catch is that this Buffy, like I alluded to in the quoted article, makes some really dumb decisions. I don't mean this in the "horror movie character running up the stairs or dropping the knife" sense of dumb, I mean this in an interpersonal sense of dumb.  The thing is, this show is almost entirely about the interactions between the characters, and almost all of them are allowed to make plenty of mistakes by the writers.  We've got couples who cheat on each other, secrets being kept, and hidden powers, and no one on the show seems to be less-than-truthful more often Than Buffy.

When I commented that I sometimes wished the characters would change their decisions or relationships, I was thinking particularly of Buffy.  There are so many moments when I find myself looking at the screen and thinking 'Dammit Buffy, you're messing everything up again and being totally selfish" - like that time when she spent half a season obsessed with sexing a doofus or that time when she completely ignored Giles forever - and yet I recognize that her errors are incredibly human ones.  When I made an off-hand comment about Buffy's selfishness one time, I was immediately redirected that "she's earned" the chance to make some mistakes.  I'm not sure I entirely agree with that - there are times when she still lacks decency - but the show goes a long way to allow her flaws to be a part of the character arc. It's really fantastic to see a show give a heroic character so many inadequacies.

You Don't Have To Follow Monster Stereotypes

As a horror addict, it's easy to become a purist.  One of the things we struggle with the most is when someone changes the mythology or look or actions of one of our precious monsters.  Buffy and Angel balance on a fine line in this regard, using the "Chinese buffet" strategy with horror mythology- they take what they want and leave the rest.

For example, vampire staples are present throughout the Buffyverse.  Vamps can't enter homes without permission (and MAN, they use this as often as they can), wooden stakes through the heart kill them, and - obviously - they drink blood and can turn others into vampires.  But these vamps take on a lot of new forms, most notably the crinkled brow form as shown above, and the shows rarely feel like they're borrowing from things we've seen before. 

The "other" creatures - ranging from demons to ghosts to werewolves and more - that we encounter in the land of Buffy and Angel also seem to have new twists on old formulas.  There are still moments that make me cringe - the first werewolf transformation we see had me muttering 'Well, we all can't be Rick Baker" sarcastically - but both shows manage to keep things fresh by peppering in different takes on common monsters as they need to. One fantastic example is "Adam", who takes on a lead role in Season 4, a sort of Frankenstein with a deep, yet reasonable voice, and a very unique look and skill set.  Despite the floppy disk drive - one of the rare things that really shows the series' age - he's a neat twist on horror standards.

That Spike Character is Really Quite Something

Considering the fact that Buffy the Vampire Slayer seemed to exist as one of those teenage girl shows when it came out - one could argue that it had the exact same intentions as Twilight with none of the terrible incompetence - and I was a teenage boy when the show came out, a character who looked like Spike was part of the reason I didn't watch the show at time. There was football to be played and nacho cheese to be eaten, and I was just not going to go out of my way to watch a show about a teenage girl (even if it is a teenage girl I had a MAJOR teenage crush on) be wooed by vampires with bleached hair in leather jackets.  Yes, that's more the fault of the other guy I'm getting ready to talk about, but Spike's image seemed to sell the fact that Buffy was not for me to that younger and more "we must beat our chests and watch large men fight while being manly" than I am now.

But now that I'm an adult, it's come to my attention that Spike is the best thing about whichever show he's on 97% of the time.  James Marsters brings so much to the show every time he shows up, and I actually find myself rooting for more Spike every time I turn on Buffy.  The chip - an incredibly contrived idea that the writers continue to run with - was seriously the best thing to happen to Spike, because the writers suddenly have the ability to put the character into a crossover role that exists somewhere between being in the "Scooby Gang" and being the "Big Bad".  Spike is one of the more fluid television characters I know of, and the comedic stylings of Marsters - which start with the disconnect between his British accent and his stupid blonde hair - help make Spike completely entertaining in his role.

Now About That Angel Character...

I find Spike entertaining because of the freedom that his character is allowed.  Angel, on the other hand, is a character that I find completely fascinating because of his character's arc.  I started watching Angel - the show - as an afterthought, because I really didn't care that much about Angel - the character - while he was a love interest for Buffy.  There were moments when I was really in to the character (most of which seemed to occur while he was in vampire mode) during his Buffy run, but the whole dynamic between Buffy and him seriously derailed the show sometimes.  I think that was probably intentional and probably what I was supposed to care about, but I often found myself in "stop with the Romeo and Juliet and get back to fighting demons and showing off Eliza Dushku's hotness" mode instead.

When the switch to Angel the show happened, however, I was surprised to find myself completely trapped in his spin-off show.  David Boreanaz, like Marsters, shows the most range of anyone in the cast. He plays both sides of the equation well: his uncomfortable good guy is humorous and relatable, while his vampiric bad side is imposing and effective.  The good guy side is part of what really drew me in to season one of Angel - basically, Boreanaz is allowed to be an introvert superhero, something introverts like me can definitely smile at - and the twists with his character so far in season two - including a fantastic moment where he is thought to be "something different" by his opponents - do a lot for the show.  Buffy still seems like the more complete show so far - the "family" relationships between the characters elevate it to a special place - but I've found myself incredibly interested in most episodes of Angel thus far.

(Not one of the Five things, but I'd be a fool to not mention how much Charisma Carpenter's Cordelia brings to each show as well.  She has gone from vain gal to comic relief to soul-of-the-show thus far, and I've really enjoyed what I thought was first a throwaway high school stereotype character.  It's safe to say that the three characters that really draw me in to these shows - Spike, Angel, and Cordelia - are the three who have kept me most interested in their changing paths through their journey.)

By The Way...You Don't Need a R Rating to do Horror

I already knew this, but it bears repeating.  You simply do not need to be a gory, nudity-filled, and foul-mouthed thing to be an effective piece of horror.  Both Buffy and Angel are simply TV-14 - the television equivalent of PG-13 that's one louder - but they manage to be decidedly adult with their themes at times.  Buffy has lots of sexual scenes (many of which feed into that title character's flaws) that push the boundaries of what can be shown on TV, while the writing of Joss Whedon and pals always seems to find inventive ways to hurl insults and exclaim curses without actually using curse words.

And then there's the violence.  Sure, the shows both needed to cut a few corners to stay on network television, but they manage to show the things they need to show.  Blood flows from wounds often and dismemberments are a common theme.  There are some subtle and fantastic effects - one character in season two of Angel shows off an awesomely floppy neck wound that reminds me of Griffin Dunne in An American Werewolf in London.  And - most impressive to me - there's a kill near the end of season two of Buffy that is one of the coolest and most memorable I've ever seen.  The camera actually cuts back from the brisk moment of vampire violence (if you've seen the show, you might have guessed I'm talking about the moment pictured above - especially since I posted the picture), but the moment is presented beautifully.  The movement of the actors, the lighting, the sound effects and music - all of it just comes together brilliantly.  This is a completely perfect horror kill -  it's abrupt and shocking, even though we can see it coming - and it doesn't bother with blood or a close up of the damage.  It doesn't have to show us these things directly, because we're emotionally invested in the moment and don't even need the details.  More horror tales should follow its lead.

Obligatory image of evil Willow.

I could probably go on and on about things I've dug in these shows so far.  But I'll let you add to the discussion instead.  In case you're a vampire, I'll make it clear - I invite you to hit up the comments below and talk to me about your Buffy/Angel experiences.  

While you do that....I'm gonna go finish up season five of Buffy.  See you next time Midnight Warriors!

Oh, and I for some reason seriously love the Angel theme. Am I emo now? Does this make me emo?

The Mike's Top 50 Horror Movies Countdown: #21 - The Omen

Previously on the Countdown: Number 50 - Happy Birthday to Me  Number 49 - Prince of Darkness  Number 48 - House on Haunted Hill  Number 47 - The Monster Squad  Number 46 - Hellraiser  Number 45 - The Fog  Number 44 - Creature From the Black Lagoon  Number 43 - Zombie  Number 42 - Tales from the Crypt  Number 41 - Bubba Ho-Tep  Number 40 - Phantom of the Paradise  Number 39 - Dog Soldiers Number 38 - Pontypool  Number 37 - Dark Water  Number 36 - Army of Darkness Number 35 - The Legend of Hell House  Number 34 - Poltergeist  Number 33 - The Abominable Dr. Phibes  Number 32 - The Phantom of the Opera  Number 31 - The House of the Devil   Number 30 - Evil Dead II  Number 29 - Dead of Night  Number 28 - Carnival of Souls  Number 27 - Nosferatu  Number 26 - Candyman  Number 25 - The Texas Chain Saw Massacre  Number 24 - Horror of Dracula  Number 23 - The Wicker Man  Number 22 - Suspiria

The Omen

(1976, Dir. by Richard Donner.)

Why It's Here:

It's the silly to conclusion to what many call "The Unholy Trilogy" of horror films that crashed the Oscars in the late '60s and early '70s - along with the more successful Rosemary's Baby and The Exorcist - but The Omen still packs a rare punch to the gut despite its flaws.  The Omen takes an inventive stance on doomsday prophecies, while providing some of the most memorable on-screen deaths ever and the most ominous pieces of music in horror history.  The whole thing would be funny if it weren't so darn serious about its religious game of terror, as the film's dark tone manages to overcome the more ridiculous details of the plot.

The Moment That Changes Everything:

The "It's all for you Damien" moment is probably the film's most iconic scene, but I've got another scene that sums up The Omen to me.  It's the plight of Father Brennan, played with passion by Patrick Troughton, that has always been The Omen's biggest draw for me.  When the father tries to warn Gregory Peck's character of impending doom, that's when the film really starts to drip with tension.  And Father Brennan's final scene is the perfect representation of this over-dramatic horror tale.

It Makes a Great Double Feature With:

I've already mentioned the other two films that are most commonly referenced with The Omen, but the '70s were ripe with other horrors worth mentioning.  If you want to scare people out of ever having children, you could pair The Omen with Larry Cohen's It's Alive, a look at a much more physically monstrous child from the notoriously raw horror director.  The two movies back to back should provide nightmares for any expecting parent.

What It Means To Me:

I met The Omen relatively early in my exploration of horror cinema, so there are times when I feel like I might be giving it a free pass on some of its less desirable qualities - like its cast (Sorry, but Gregory Peck has never done it for me and Lee Remick is hammier than Christmas dinner) and its tendency to go all the way over the top at times.  But I'm still captivated every time I watch the movie, as those tonal issues just seem to add to the melodrama of the whole thing. The Omen is one of the loudest horror films out there - both literally and figuratively - but that has become its greatest asset to me.

Midnight Movie of the Week #134 - Blood and Black Lace

Mixing some overbearing music, lighting that randomly covers every color in the rainbow and - at least to us Americans - some incredibly stiff dubbing, Blood and Black Lace might not seem like a must see piece of horror history.  Some might argue that the film is little more than a cheap detective picture that looks like it was shot in a whorehouse. And when I put it that way, it sounds like a crappy flick.  Luckily, I'm the crappy one here - because I'm not the guy who can put all those elements together and somehow make something that's insanely fascinating.

That guy would be Mario Bava, whose films (along with Dario Argento's) reside in my mind as Italy's most valuable export.  Bava's a director who made a living by combining beauty with death, but he's never pulled this off just as well as he does in Blood and Black Lace.  There's an unhealthy dose of sleaze pouring off the screen - you could probably guess as much from the title - but there's trickery in his work too.

The film's debauchery begins as it follows a bunch of models and a bunch of men as a faceless killer moves about their house of fashion.  The house is large and full of mannequins and pretty people, but also the whole place is lit up like that scene in Vertigo where we see Kim Novak's silhouette against a dark background while the green light from the hotel sign pours in through her windows.  (Yes, that was literally the best way I could describe the lighting in this film. If you haven't seen Vertigo I can't help you here.)  I look at the cast, and I look at the setting, and I sit there and I think to myself "My God, if Bava was young and working today he'd probably cast porn stars in his film."

Of course, this is 1964, so Bava's brand of pornographic horror is incredibly tame compared to our times.  Clothes are ripped and lace is exposed, but nothing more than that.  There's an element of sexuality throughout the film - the black lace part of the title wasn't about doilies - but its an undercurrent for most of the movie.  The final act picks up the frantic sensuality of what is going on in the film's mysterious plot, leading to some hammy overacting as the film reaches its finale.

While the plot and motivations behind Blood and Black Lace could also belong to a late-night Cinemax presentation, it's Bava's ability to make all of this sleaze seem so artistic that makes his film something special. I mean, I freakin' compared it to Hitchcock earlier! Do you have any idea how much it means for me to compare something to Hitchcock?  It's a shame that copies of Bava's films are so poorly preserved, because I can only imagine how great this thing would have felt on a fresh print and a big theater screen.

It's unfair to say that the visual component is Blood and Black Lace's only redeeming factor, because Bava also seems to have strong control over the pace and tone of his film.  It's hampered by some production values and age, but the nuts and bolts are all in place and the final coat of polish over what we see leaves the film looking like a winner.  Blood and Black Lace is a simple proto-slasher with some Scooby-like detective moments, but it's also a piece of seedy art that provides a fantastic horror viewing experience.

FMWL Indie Spotlight - Rites of Spring

(2011, Dir. by Padraig Reynolds.)

Ever have one of those moments where you can't decide if a film is really good or just doing stuff you've seen before well? That's kind of where I'm at with Rites of Spring.  There are elements of a lot of different movies wrapped up in one package here, which sent my mind going in two different directions.

Part of me was quite intrigued by the film, because it seemed to deftly move between different elements of the story several times.  The opening of the film explains the odd disappearance of several people in 1984, and tells us that more and more people have disappeared throughout the years.  We're introduced to an old man who is praying to something about a ritual and a young woman who encounters a surprising terror outside a bar. And then, without warning, we get caught up in the middle of a kidnapping film.

I'm a big fan of films that manage to braid genres into one thread, and Rites of Spring succeeds in this regard.  Criminals hiding out around killers isn't new - it's happened in movies like 1974's Axe to 2004's Malevolence and plenty of times elsewhere - but director Padraig Reynolds manages to really tap into two different worlds at times.  There are scenes with the kidnappers - headlined by one of those "everyone has a gun" standoffs that are always cool - that remind of '70s crime films and feel very authentic.  At the same time, the other side of the film takes off on its own path.

Anessa Ramsey stars as the young woman who finds herself at the mercy of "The Stranger" who intends to carry out some blood ritual - yeah, this is actually a double kidnapping film! - and her performance stands out because it feels genuine.  By frantically moving through the film, continuing to run despite the horrors she encounters and never seeming to break from her mental faculties - the actress reminds of Marilyn Burns in The Texas Chain Saw Massacre by showing fantastic resolve and making the viewer root for her.  The film also reunites Ramsey with her co-star from The Signal (and recent indie horror MVP) AJ Bowen, who gives another low key performance that fits the film perfectly.  Acting is often a sticking point in slasher films, especially independent ones, but Rites of Spring definitely gets more from its cast than most.

But there's still that other side of my mind - the one that wasn't sure if Rites of Spring was really breaking any new ground.  It's easy to see that there's a lot of talent involved in this film - it's one of the more polished independent films I've seen in a long time - but I couldn't help feeling that it was a little too basic as the plot moved on.  I'm not sure I was surprised by anything I saw in Rites of Spring, as there are some effective moments of suspense, but nothing in the plot that really pushes the film to a new or interesting place.  Those who have seen farm based horrors - think Texas Chain Saw Massacre or (on a much lesser note) Jeepers Creepers - will probably be pretty prepared for what they'll see in Rites of Spring.

I really want to like Rites of Spring, and I can't stop myself from suggesting that horror fans should at least give it a try.  I wish there were a few more twists and turns to keep it interesting in the final act, but Rites of Spring still presents some solid tension and moments that remind us why the best slasher films work.  Part of me thinks it's a much better film than I'm giving it credit for - I watched it twice in a few days because I wanted to believe it was something special - but I just can't get behind it entirely yet. But, I do get the feeling that I'll watch it again to see how much I like it then - so maybe it really is on to something.

Since I don't know whether I love Rites of Spring or am kind of disappointed by it, I leave the verdict up to you.  The film will be available in select theaters and on VOD services nationwide starting this Friday, July 27th via IFC Midnight.  In the meantime, head over to the film's official site and find out more about it.

(And when you do watch it, come back here and tell me what you thought! I'm interested to hear what others have to say about this one.)

The Mike's Top 50 Horror Movies Countdown: #22 - Suspiria

Previously on the Countdown: Number 50 - Happy Birthday to Me  Number 49 - Prince of Darkness  Number 48 - House on Haunted Hill  Number 47 - The Monster Squad  Number 46 - Hellraiser  Number 45 - The Fog  Number 44 - Creature From the Black Lagoon  Number 43 - Zombie  Number 42 - Tales from the Crypt  Number 41 - Bubba Ho-Tep  Number 40 - Phantom of the Paradise  Number 39 - Dog Soldiers Number 38 - Pontypool  Number 37 - Dark Water  Number 36 - Army of Darkness Number 35 - The Legend of Hell House  Number 34 - Poltergeist  Number 33 - The Abominable Dr. Phibes  Number 32 - The Phantom of the Opera  Number 31 - The House of the Devil   Number 30 - Evil Dead II  Number 29 - Dead of Night  Number 28 - Carnival of Souls  Number 27 - Nosferatu  Number 26 - Candyman  Number 25 - The Texas Chain Saw Massacre  Number 24 - Horror of Dracula  Number 23 - The Wicker Man

Suspiria

 (1977, Dir. by Dario Argento.)

Why It's Here:

Dario Argento reached a new plane of horror with his 1977 hit, one of the rare films that feels like a genuine nightmare while still managing to make sense.  The director, most known for his slashery giallo films, managed to enhance that formula in Suspiria by adding a touch of witchcraft and some of the most well-placed red paint blood in horror history.  And don't act like that music isn't about the best thing ever added to a horror film.  Because it is.

The Moment That Changes Everything:

The minute Suspiria starts is the minute that sets it apart from the rest of horror. The music picks up, the rain starts to pour, and everything just seems to fit perfectly into place from the starting gun. Some ads for the film famously stated that "The only thing more terrifying than the last 12 minutes are the first 92.", but I'd take that a step farther and say that the first 10 minutes of Suspiria are a perfect piece of horror.

It Makes a Great Double Feature With:

Italy was a great place for horror in the '60s-'80s, and Argento wasn't the only director who mastered their craft during that time.  Setting the tone for directors like Argento since the 1950s was Mario Bava, who also balanced his art between giallo and supernatural terror.  If you want to see him at his best, I recommend the gorgeous Blood and Black Lace, which is as good-looking as any horror film I've seen.

What It Means To Me:

Suspiria isn't really scary in any way - this is one of those movies that the people who want to see a "scary movie" might scoff at - but it's the way Argento presents his film that really sells this as a horror masterpiece.  It's an otherworldly film filled with vibrant colors and ominous sounds, and the perfomers - particularly displaced American Jessica Harper - are perfect for the dreamlike film. Argento's masterpiece is a visceral triumph that must be seen.

Midnight Movie of the Week #133 - Midnight Son

Vampire. The word alone is enough to send some shivers down a horror fan's back these days.  We grew up loving vamps, learning their legends, and pondering every on screen vamp from Lugosi to Keifer and beyond.  Many of us recognized that the vampire was often tied into a romantic plot and presented as an ill-fated demon who fell in to the wrong circumstances. And then, Twilight happened.

While the story of Edward & Bella took the world by storm, one teenage girl at a time, a lot of horror fans pointed to similar vampire romances, like Kathryn Bigelow's Near Dark, as examples of how to mix vampirism with fatalistic romance.  And, back in November of 2010, a few indie filmmakers offered me the trailer for an upcoming vampire drama that looked like it could take back the night - literally - entitled Midnight Son.

Built like a drama and revolving around the study of its characters, Midnight Son follows a pale and anemic security guard named Jacob who works at night, burns in the sunlight, and can't seem to gain sustenance from anything but blood.  Jacob, played by Zak Kilberg, fits most of the characteristics horror fans expect from vampirisim, though the film plays with his fears in a few of its more humorous moments.  At one point, Jacob checks out the horror section at a local video store and tries to learn some tricks from the reels of Fright Night.  Unlike many horror films that exist on the fringe of their subgenres, writer/director Scott Leberecht is not afraid to show his characters are familiar with the concept of what ails them.

As Jacob learns about his own condition, he also begins a relationship with a young woman of the night who is off-kilter, but entirely human.  Mary, played by Maya Parish, has her own issues, but the two lost characters are drawn together.  Perhaps it's because they don't seem to fit into society, or perhaps it's just that they both know any better and need companionship at any cost.  There's no discussion of fate or true love or any of that baloney that sells a bunch of books and posters and awful movies, but Jacob and Maya's relationship becomes a centerpiece of the film because it is allowed to be a flawed attempt by two people to make sense of their differences in light of the connection they have made.  The vampire issue is only one thorn in their relationship, which makes the film feel a lot more genuine than big budget horror romances.

Through this all, Jacob learns about himself as he travels the underbelly of Los Angeles.  The people he meets, including a hospital employee who's willing to break the rules of waste disposal and an aged janitor who seems oblivious to any worries, each add their own element to the character's understanding of life and his ailments.  The keystone of the picture is certainly Kilberg's performance - he's completely committed to the role and seems to thrive against the deliberate pace of the film - but each piece of the story fits in as a nice compliment to one of the finer horror characters in a long time.

Like Near Dark and Larry Fessenden's Habit before it, Midnight Son recognizes that vampires don't have to be all about capes and bats and castles.  There's nothing about Jacob's state of being that is romantic or stylized, because when you strip away all that stuff you might realize that a young vampire is just someone who is really confused about how they fit in to their world. There's a slight conversation about good vs. evil that occurs, but Jacob's story is mostly concerned with survival and acceptance.  There are more questions asked than answered, perhaps, but the film isn't too concerned with wrapping everything up in a neat package. Midnight Son is the raw version of the vampire story, and it should keep the viewer intrigued with its minimalistic approach and smart approach to the subject matter.

Basically, according to that last paragraph, it's the opposite of Twilight. I can live with that.

FMWL Indie Spotlight - Scalene

(2011, Dir. by Zack Parker.)

Scalene promises that "the truth is just a point of view" in its advertising, a tagline that represents the film's jagged narrative.  It's a film that shows us one thing in the beginning, then works backwards to explain how we got to that point.  By bouncing from the perspective of one character to another, the film intends to create intrigue by drawing us in to what might have happened as it reveals the lives of its three main characters.

The description above is a little wordy, even for my tastes, and I never mean to get in to "rambling critic" mode so quickly.  But Scalene is a more ambitious film than a lot of the independent thrillers that come my way, and I wanted to point out the lofty aspirations of the film - before I move in to the things that bugged me endlessly about it.

The disjointed narrative follows the mother (Margo Martindale) of an invalid adult son (Adam Scarimbolo) who has been locked up for some sort of violent behavior involving his college-aged caregiver (Hanna Hall).  The film literally opens with a bang as the female leads go toe-to-toe over whatever has occurred, with Martindale assaulting Hall in her home.  The film backtracks from this point showing us how all of these characters got together, but I struggled to keep myself too interested in in their journey.

For starters, there's Ms. Martindale, who is certainly the central attraction of the film.  She's an actress who has shown a lot on much bigger stages - her work in the second season of TV's Justified is borderline amazing - but her work here seemed a little too far over the top for my taste.  The film aims for extreme realism - the setting and low-budget aesthetic remind me of Steven Soderbergh's experimental drama Bubble - but I couldn't shake the feeling that the actress was a little bit past the point of restraint that would have best served the film.

Though her character may be a little much for me, I can't say that Martindale wasn't interesting in the film.  The same can not be said for our other primary characters.  Hall is serviceable as the young woman charged with caring for the son, but she stands out as an actress against the members of the cast who look more at home in the "everyday" setting of the film.  On the other hand, Scarimbolo is an actor I had seen before - he had a memorable bit part in last year's Stake Land - but I did not recognize him as the affected young man.  Unfortunately, there's not a lot that stands out aside from his physical commitment to the role, and I at times wasn't sure if I was annoyed by the character because I was supposed to be or because the role was grating to view.

Scalene tries to be a lot of things, but I just couldn't find much to love about any of it. The Memento-style narrative feels forced and predictable, and the cast just doesn't feel right.  There is nothing that stands out technically (though that may be the fault of the DVD screener sent out by the distributor, which made the film look like a blurry copy of a VHS tape), and the final reveals don't inspire a lot of thought.  Scalene is a film with grand aspirations, but I felt like it missed the mark too often for me to recommend it. 

Scalene will be released on DVD and Blu-Ray on July 31st, so you'll have your chance to see if I'm wrong then. If you want to learn more, check out the official site and the trailer below.

The Mike's Top 50 Horror Movies Countdown: #23 - The Wicker Man

Previously on the Countdown: Number 50 - Happy Birthday to Me  Number 49 - Prince of Darkness  Number 48 - House on Haunted Hill  Number 47 - The Monster Squad  Number 46 - Hellraiser  Number 45 - The Fog  Number 44 - Creature From the Black Lagoon  Number 43 - Zombie  Number 42 - Tales from the Crypt  Number 41 - Bubba Ho-Tep  Number 40 - Phantom of the Paradise  Number 39 - Dog Soldiers Number 38 - Pontypool  Number 37 - Dark Water  Number 36 - Army of Darkness Number 35 - The Legend of Hell House  Number 34 - Poltergeist  Number 33 - The Abominable Dr. Phibes  Number 32 - The Phantom of the Opera  Number 31 - The House of the Devil   Number 30 - Evil Dead II  Number 29 - Dead of Night  Number 28 - Carnival of Souls  Number 27 - Nosferatu  Number 26 - Candyman  Number 25 - The Texas Chain Saw Massacre  Number 24 - Horror of Dracula

The Wicker Man

(1973, Dir. by Robin Hardy.)

Why It's Here:

Another one of those movies that stands out by being completely different than most everything else under the sun, The Wicker Man is serious business.  In fact, there might only be one or two horror movies out there with a more harrowing finish than this one.  It's not just a gimmick film either - the first two acts are engrossing and confusing in all the right ways.  Edward Woodward steals several scenes from genre favorites like Britt Ekland and Christopher Lee with his puritan performance, and the script by playwright Anthony Shaffer doesn't waste a moment.

The Moment That Changes Everything:

It isn't until the final moments that we really understand just how powerful The Wicker Man really is.  I'm not even saying the final twist, I'm saying the actual final moments.  Edward Woodward makes the movie work in a lot of ways, but the final things we hear from him hammer home just what this movie is.

It Makes a Great Double Feature With:

In the realm of movies where nothing is normal and the characters seemed to be trapped in their own personal hell, you might also find The Exorcist author William Peter Blatty's The Ninth Configuration.  I'm not sure it really has anything to do with The Wicker Man, but I know that both movies are really unique and really worth seeing.  If you want a night of deep thought (and some confusion) this double feature could exist.

What It Means To Me:

The Wicker Man is a hard movie to define.  And it can not be replicated - just ask anyone about the remake and the (even-worse-than-the-remake) sequel.  I talk a lot about movies being one of a kind or unique - seriously, they're the biggest cliches I use (I think) - but The Wicker Man really can't be compared to anything else. It's a horror/musical/comedy/religio-drama/work-of-freakin'-art that stands alone completely. It is the only film of its kind, and its kind is pretty amazing.

Midnight Movie of the Week #132 - Emperor of the North

Sometimes, the measure of a great actor is how well he or she can play against our expectations.  Like, when a guy we know as a comedic buffoon plays a sensitive poet or when a romantic comedy veteran plays an angry stripper.  Taking roles that are against type doesn't automatically make you awesome - if that's how it worked, Elizabeth Berkley would have all the Oscars for shedding her Saved by the Bell image (and all her clothing) for Showgirls.  Extenuating circumstances stopped that scenario from happening - plus she was never exactly Meryl Streep Jr. in the first place.

If we're talking about times when great actors (i.e. - not Elizabeth Berkley) surprised us with their range, we might talk about Emperor of the North.  Or at least I might.  In fact, I've been meaning to talk about this movie for a long time, and it's with a heavy heart that I finally bring it up now, just days after the death of its star, Ernest Borgnine, who has long been one of my favorite actors.

I first took notice of Borgnine, like many genre fans, when he appeared as the endlessly lovable Cabbie in John Carpenter's Escape From New York.  I was certainly late to the party, as Borgnine had been working in TV and film for thirty years when that film was made and closer to fifty years by the time I saw the film.  I'm positive it wasn't the first film I saw that featured the man, but it's definitely the first time I remember taking notice of how good the actor was at his craft.  And as I looked into his earlier films - including true classics like Marty, for which he won the Best Actor Oscar in 1955.

(Fun Fact: To win that Oscar, Borgnine beat a field of competitors that included no less than James Cagney, Charlie Chaplin, Frank Sinatra, and Spencer Tracy. An impressive - and well deserved - feat.)

Borgnine took on several villainous roles - in fact, he opposed Tracy in Bad Day at Black Rock the same year he won his Oscar - but I still generally saw him as a charming grandfather figure who makes me smile when he shows up in any film.  Which makes his work on Emperor of the North that much more impressive.

The film, set in 1933 and the height of the Great Depression, features Borgnine as a sadistic train conductor, known only as "Shack" to both his colleagues and the hobos who fear him.  No punches are pulled in creating this character, as the script calls for Borgnine to brutally beat a man with a large railroad hammer before the opening credits make their way to the screen.  Several of the down-on-their-luck types who populate the film speak of Shack as a mythical villain.  One of the characters even opines with fear that "Shack'd rather kill a man than give him a free ride", as if the character is completely devoid of a soul.

And that's where the surprise I mentioned earlier comes into the film. The script can say whatever it wants about Shack, but only the right actor can make us believe what we learn about Shack.  And - as you can probably guess by now - Borgnine does not disappoint.  There's an intensity behind the man's eyes that comes from a scary place.  It's kind of like that first time a kid sees their parent really angry, and feels like they're seeing an entirely new person, or like that scene from Monsters, Inc. when Boo sees Sully in scary mode.  Borgnine smirks and sneers and almost seems to get a rise from the violent attitude he shows on screen, and it's a complete change from what I used to expect from the jovial actor.

The performance works even better opposite granite faced tough guy Lee Marvin, who does not play against type in this role.  Another past Oscar winner, Marvin plays the cagiest 'bo (that's Shack-speak for hobo, naturally) on the rails, who makes it his goal to ride Shack's train despite the legends of cruelty that precede the railman.  Marvin, covered in dirt and sporting impressive whiskers, is the perfect foil to our snarling madman who has no real motivation for being so vicious.

In fact, it's that lack of motivation (along with some fun asides and a bit of perspective on the culture of that time period) for both characters that really pushes Emperor of the North into a special place.  Shack and his opponent are driven by little more than a desire to be the best at what they are.  Some would say that the hobo is riding for his survival - an idea that is referred to on an opening text that explains the railroad hopping hobo of 1933 - but most scenes that show Marvin's character off the train present a man who is relaxed and care-free in the moment.  My interpretation of the film has always been that this is a battle for supremacy, pure and simple - especially when you realize how little Shack really has on the line in regards to one stinkin' hobo and his tagalong (a young and raw Keith Carradine, who misses a few notes) catching a ride to Portland.

Emperor of the North has all the makings of a fun '70s flick, balancing the line between drama and grindhouse expertly.  But it's these performances that really make it something unique.  I've never seen Ernest Borgnine like he is in Emperor of the North Pole, and this brutal outlier serves as a great example of how seriously the man took his craft.  Shack is a bad, bad man - and Ernest Borgnine isn't going to let the fact that we all think he's the sweetest old man on the block stop him from becoming one of the era's most deadly villains.

R.I.P, Ernest Borgnine. Thank you for the memories, and know that I - and many others - have found great joy in your works. We will miss you.

The Aggression Scale

(2012, Dir. by Steven C. Miller.)

A new twist on the home invasion film arrives in the form of The Aggression Scale, which pits a team of hitmen against a seventeen year old girl and her younger half-brother.  It sounds pretty simple when I put it that way, but I haven't introduced you to the younger half-brother yet.

That youngster is played by a teen actor named Ryan Hartwig, but - with all respect to the young Mr. Hartwig - the actor alone is not what makes the movie work either. the thing that makes the film work is the character, Owen, who happens to be a bullying victim turned institutionalized mute boy turned teenage survival expert with a bad attitude.

The plot follows the two teens and their newly married parents - Bill (Boyd Kestner) and Maggie (Lisa Rotondi - as they movie into a secluded country estate.  But the film only takes us to this home after it introduces a violent killer (Twin Peaks' Dana Ashbrook), his team of accomplices, and an angry crime boss (Ray Wise) who has to leave the country to avoid prison and wants his revenge on whoever stole his money.  The set-up is simple - we've seen "upset gangster in city makes country violence occur" before - but the unique characters provide a spark.

Ashbrook is the film's first revelation, starting with a brutal opening scene that lets us know exactly what kind of movie we're about to see.  The actor is not a physical specimen by any means, and I never found myself physically afraid of his alpha hit man character.  But the film takes advantage of the actor's frailties, and when we do see the character lash out in anger it's effective because we know the character is willing to act inhumanely in an effort to complete his job.  The film also helps Ashbrook get our attention by adding towering horror veteran Derek Mears - who played Jason in the most recent Friday the 13th - to his team of killers.  In another intelligent move, the film makes Mears' character a comical failure, and the series of painful events that happen to his monster-sized character almost make us feel sympathy when he shrieks in pain with his entirely human voice.

Fabianne Therese is the final cog in the  cast, playing the teenage daughter who doesn't understand Owen but knows she needs his help to survive the four killers who have descended on their new home.  She's the voice of reason at times - though her logic when chastising Ashbrook's Lloyd in one crucial scene was a prime example of teenage thinking errors - and plays well off the silent blonde boy who is asked to be this film's Rambo.

Which takes us back to Hartwig, because it's the moments when the young actor is asked to do incredibly violent things that really carry The Aggression Scale to its greatest heights.  The first encounter between Owen and Mears' character is a fantastic moment that sets the stage for the film, with the seemingly catatonic teen rising to action and taking control.  Owen moves through this scene in a deliberate manner, and each move he makes indicates that the youngster has planned out his course of action for this kind of situation well in advance.  The film doesn't harp on bullying like many news reports do, but as we watch Owen act throughout the film we begin to realize that his past traumas have created a truly efficient survivor.

The Aggression Scale works well due to unique characters, well-framed action, and a few excellent performances.  But it reaches another level by handling the character of Owen so well, allowing Hartwig only a few sly smiles and still letting him get his point across.  If you're looking for a violent thriller with an intriguing hook, The Aggression Scale is a movie I definitely recommend seeking out.

The Mike's Top 50 Horror Movies Countdown: #24 - Horror of Dracula

Previously on the Countdown: Number 50 - Happy Birthday to Me  Number 49 - Prince of Darkness  Number 48 - House on Haunted Hill  Number 47 - The Monster Squad  Number 46 - Hellraiser  Number 45 - The Fog  Number 44 - Creature From the Black Lagoon  Number 43 - Zombie  Number 42 - Tales from the Crypt  Number 41 - Bubba Ho-Tep  Number 40 - Phantom of the Paradise  Number 39 - Dog Soldiers Number 38 - Pontypool  Number 37 - Dark Water  Number 36 - Army of Darkness Number 35 - The Legend of Hell House  Number 34 - Poltergeist  Number 33 - The Abominable Dr. Phibes  Number 32 - The Phantom of the Opera  Number 31 - The House of the Devil   Number 30 - Evil Dead II  Number 29 - Dead of Night  Number 28 - Carnival of Souls  Number 27 - Nosferatu  Number 26 - Candyman  Number 25 - The Texas Chain Saw Massacre

Horror of Dracula

(1958, Dir. by Terence Fisher.)

Why It's Here:

First of all, can I just have this poster? It's like the awesomest thing I've ever seen, and I don't even speak Dutch.

(OK, stop rolling your eyes.  I was kidding about the Dutch thing.)

Hammer Films are an acquired taste to modern horror audiences.  The studio produced movies that were essentially remakes - though no one ever seems to call them that - of Universal's classic monsters, and struck gold when they cast Christopher Lee as Dracula and Christopher Lee as Van Helsing.  The first film that offers this collaboration, Horror of Dracula, shines despite a meticulous pace and a lack of abrupt shocks.  This is dramatic - heck, even melodramatic - horror, but it's the kind that keeps me riveted.

The Moment That Changes Everything:

Lee's Dracula career - which went through a lot of ups and downs - began with a bang.  The opening seduction of Jonathan Harker by a gorgeous vampiress is ended quickly by the menacing figure of the actor, who stakes (no pun intended) his claim to the role with passion. 

It Makes a Great Double Feature With:

As I mentioned, Lee's tenure as Dracula was not completely positive.  He refused to speak in the first sequel he appeared in, and has lamented many of the later films openly.  But among some of the slips is Freddie Francis' Dracula Has Risen from the Grave, which features the keen eye of one of my favorite directors and my favorite Lee-as-Dracula moment of biting on film.  I wrote a bit about the scene in a guest piece for The Bloodsprayer one time, and I'm still pretty sure that scene makes the movie.

What It Means To Me:

Hammer films have always been the kind of films that inspired me to love horror.  They're not just here to get to the viewer on a visceral level - though they did offer vibrant colors, excellent music, and a lot of blood for their era - they're interested in telling an old fashioned horror tale.  And no film shows just how much they respect horror standards as Horror of Dracula does.  Some see it as slow and bloodless, I see it as horror poetry.

The Mike's Top 50 Horror Movies Countdown: #25 - The Texas Chain Saw Massacre

Previously on the Countdown: Number 50 - Happy Birthday to Me  Number 49 - Prince of Darkness  Number 48 - House on Haunted Hill  Number 47 - The Monster Squad  Number 46 - Hellraiser  Number 45 - The Fog  Number 44 - Creature From the Black Lagoon  Number 43 - Zombie  Number 42 - Tales from the Crypt  Number 41 - Bubba Ho-Tep  Number 40 - Phantom of the Paradise  Number 39 - Dog Soldiers Number 38 - Pontypool  Number 37 - Dark Water  Number 36 - Army of Darkness Number 35 - The Legend of Hell House  Number 34 - Poltergeist  Number 33 - The Abominable Dr. Phibes  Number 32 - The Phantom of the Opera  Number 31 - The House of the Devil   Number 30 - Evil Dead II  Number 29 - Dead of Night  Number 28 - Carnival of Souls  Number 27 - Nosferatu  Number 26 - Candyman

The Texas Chain Saw Massacre

(1974, Dir. by Tobe Hooper.)

 Why It's Here:

Too low? This is probably too low, right?  You can say it, I won't blame you.

One of the most intense films ever made, The Texas Chain Saw Massacre is one of those movies that you could throw at someone who doesn't know what a horror movie is and say "Here, watch this. This is a horror movie."  An unrelenting and unpolished opus of terror, Tobe Hooper's film features several of the best shocks you'll find and pairs them with memorable (and sometimes terribly annoying) interactions between the characters and moments of pure torture.  It might be the horror film that is most taxing to watch...which is actually a good thing.

The Moment That Changes Everything:

All I need to say is "the part where he slams the steel door". And if you've seen it, you know. Seriously, I can't think of a single moment in horror that has as much shock value as that one does.

It Makes a Great Double Feature With:

This is one of many films loosely based on the exploits of Wisconsin serial killer Ed Gein.  Most famously, Psycho and The Silence of the Lambs borrow from the same case.  But a film released a couple of years prior to Massacre, Deranged is a lesser known companion to Hooper's film.  It's dark in it's own ways - though it'll probably play like Shaun of the Dead next to Leatherface - and it features a one-of-a-kind performance from Roberts Blossom (aka, old scary guy who's actually nice from Home Alone) as the killer.

What It Means To Me:

If I had to guess why I rank a movie that I know is so important and I know shocks me to my core so low on this list (then again, it's not like 25 out of every horror movie I've ever seen is "low"), it's probably because this film is truly a chore to watch sometimes.  It's so brutal and it's so unforgiving and sometimes it's even a bit shrill and...well, sometimes that's just not as fun to watch as something else.  Of course, that just means it's doing its job really well.  When it's time to bring horror at its most vicious, The Texas Chain Saw Massacre is the movie I turn to.