FMWL Indie Spotlight - The Lashman

(2014, Dir. by Cameron McCasland.)

Review by The Mike.

One of my most common complaints with "retro" genre films - films like Grindhouse and Machete and dozens of low budget imitators - is that the pace is updated for modern audiences. Of course, there's an audience for fast-paced splatterfests out there, but I'm always appreciative of the filmmakers who pay homage to the past without forgetting that most genre films from the '70s and '80s didn't move at breakneck speeds.

One example of this is The Lashman, Cameron McCasland's debut slasher throwback in which some friends head off for a weekend at a cabin only to find that the angry spirit of a lash-wielding fella from the 1800s is at work in the woods. It's a simple kind of horror film - five friends, no civilization, a deadly legend come to life - but it's also an authentic reminder of the things we love about this kind of film.

(Now that I think about it, should I be dropping the s and just calling this a "lasher film"? I do love being accurate, and it would probably be a great poster quote if I said it's "The first great Lasher film!", but that's just too confusing for me. Excuse me if I continue to say "slasher" despite the film's lashing nature.)

The first thing you'll notice about McCasland's film is probably that it looks like something you'd find on a VHS tape in the 1980s. For the most part, the clothes, cars and settings look like something out of Just Before Dawn or The Burning. The film's sound design is also intentionally low-tech, and younger viewers might not understand that this is how some movies used to sound when they were made on the cheap. It's obviously a zero budget film, but the attention to detail in making the film feel dated is one of the things that made me interested in The Lashman from the opening scenes.

The characters are not original for a slasher movie - sensitive guy (David Vaughn), nice girl (Stacey Dixon), lustful couple who make immoral decisions (Jeremy Jones & Kaylee Williams), nice girl's brother who doesn't fit in (Shawn C. Phillips)- but the actors all seem to know what their place is in the script and fit it well. Jones is especially effective as the aggressive member of the group who drinks too much and thinks with the wrong head, while Vaughn, Phillips, and Dixon have no problems fitting into the film. Williams' character is probably the most interesting of the bunch because she's written as something of a wild-card who brings sexual tension to the group. The character is a nice addition to the otherwise paint-by-numbers set up, but none of the actors or characters is bound to be the most memorable thing about the film.

I worry that many people may find The Lashman's pace to be concerning - after the opening sequence establishes the villain it's a long stretch of time before blood flies again - but the slow build to madness is what won me over about this film. Patience pays off for McCasland, because the focus on these characters, the story of the Lashman, and the building tension in both their relationships and the setting is what makes The Lashman feel more like those early '80s slasher films that many of us love despite their flaws. Have you seen these tricks before? Probably. Do they still make for a great party horror flick? Absolutely.

Some of the film's charm is lost in the final act, as the showdown between the killer and his victims is brief and builds to an abrupt finale. There might have been some benefit to spreading out the kills a little more in the short film - which runs only 81 minutes with end credits - but the action is still entertaining and the film ends at a natural stopping point - which, of course, leaves the possibility of a sequel.

The Lashman probably isn't for everyone, but horror lovers who remember the VHS era fondly will surely admire it for what it is. Sure, none of the actors are going to win major awards and the script is simple and it's not the bloodiest thing you'll find and it's just simply not perfect. But I haven't seen a tribute to slasher cinema that feels as genuine as The Lashman does, and that alone should make it worth a viewing.

The Lashman will premiere this Saturday night at 7:00 pm at the Full Moon Horror Film Festival in Nashville, and if you're interested in keeping up with it you can check out the film's Facebook and Twitter pages to see when it'll be playing in your neck of the woods. Until then, enjoy the trailer below.

Here Comes The Devil

(2013, Dir. by Adrian Garcia Bogliano.)

Review by The Mike.

There's a sequence in the middle of Here Comes The Devil that reminds me of some of the best horror movies ever made. It's one of those perfect moments where a character - in this case, the mother of two young children who fears something terrible has happened to her children - needs more information about what is going on and finds out things are much worse than even she imagined. Up until this point the film does a good job of convincing the viewer that something unnatural is going on with these children, but as the mother finds out more information from her children's nanny, the film hits a Rosemary's Baby-esque high point that is a thing of surreal horror beauty.

The rest of the film isn't quite as effective as this manic, dreamlike sequence, but Here Comes The Devil fits together as an incredibly inventive horror film for a lot of reasons.

The most obvious reason for the film's success is writer/director Adrian Garcia Bogliano, who has put together a psychological horror tale that preys on some of humanity's worst traits while it makes us wonder if something inhuman is at work as well. Bogliano also spends a lot of time building a correlation between sexual behavior and evil - which leads to some uncomfortable themes when the children are involved - which makes the film seem rather insidious as it works its way into the viewer's mind.

The plot, in its simplest form, is about two children who go hiking on an ominous hillside and disappear while their parents are fooling around in the car, and who are simply different when they are found the next morning. Their mother (played by Latina pop star Laura Caro), becomes incredibly concerned about their behavior and doctors and psychiatrists get involved too, but as time goes on she starts to believe something more evil might be going on here - which leads up to that great reveal I already mentioned and the tense final act that follows it.

Caro makes her film debut here, and gives a rather fantastic performance at the front of the film. I had not previously heard of her musical work, so I was shocked to find out she was not an established actress. She works well off the child actors in the film, who are also pretty new to the trade, while never breaking under the dramatic pressure of playing a mother who's face-to-face with evil. 

The film doesn't hit all the right notes - there are a few twists that seem unnecessary and I felt like a few secrets that were revealed too early - but Here Comes The Devil is a dark and unique horror film and the few quibbles I did have didn't prevent the movie from sticking in my mind well after it ended. There's a bigger horror story that could probably be told based around what we learn in this film - in many ways, it plays like the origin story of what could become a gigantic evil - and Bogliano's family-based horror film definitely can be called one of the most interesting horror films of the year.

Here Comes The Devil is playing in select theaters as of December 13, and is also available on all those VOD platforms for rent. You can check out the Unrated trailer on YouTube at this link here.

FMWL Indie Spotlight - The Golem (Full Sound DVD/CD by HobGoblin)

A 93 year old movie is not typically what I cover when it's time to look at independent productions, but the good folks over at November Fire (who last year released the fantastic retrospective The Complete Bob Wilkins Creature Features) have provided an interesting twist on classic silent horror with their latest two part project, which aims to bring new eyes to The Golem, one of the titans (no pun intended) of the German Expressionist movement in early horror cinema.

This new release is a two part project, as director Strephon Taylor and his November Fire associates have provided a new soundtrack for the film, which comes to us in the form of a two disc CD package, and a "full sound" DVD of The Golem, which adds the soundtrack to the film - along with new dialogue and sound effects that make the film - kind of - a talkie. This is the third release of this kind that November Fire has produced - previously adding sound to Nosferatu and The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari - but it's the first chance I've had to check out one of these updated classics.

If the idea of adding dialogue via new actors sounds like blasphemy to you, you might not be interested in this release. As a classic film fan, I have to admit that I paused at the idea of adding sound and dialogue to this film and others. The title cards are part of the charm of silent cinema to me, and having them omitted and replaced by voice actors is difficult for me to stomach. Taylor has said that the project is intended to help silent film find a new audience - pointing out that younger viewers and TV stations have picked up these products since they are no longer silent - and I see his point, even if it's not my personal preference. There's an argument about right and wrong that I won't get into here - because I really don't care to be that guy - and I will say that it's an interesting twist to present these silent classics in a new way.

I guess I should comment on the movie, although people who are interested in it probably already know what they need to know. The Golem tells the story of a rabbi who creates a large clay creature that comes to life to help protect the Jews of ancient Prague from the Roman Empire. The creature, a hulking mass played by co-writer/co-director Paul Wegener, doesn't work out exactly as its creator planned, and the result is a lot of carnage, because that's what happens when a faulty clay goliath is on the loose. I've never really thought The Golem was extremely impressive - especially compared to those other two German classics I mentioned earlier - mostly because The Golem itself hasn't aged very well and the plot is also a bit dated. Nosferatu is timeless, Caligari is always interesting from a visual standpoint, but The Golem starts strong and kind of wears out its welcome before a big finish.

The film still has some iconic imagery, and November Fire's presentation does an excellent job of keeping the visuals strong. The film is tinted with colors and looks very good, even if it's not fully remastered through any high tech process. With the title cards removed the movie only runs 64 minutes long, which makes it a quick watch and good for those newcomers that the project is targeting. As for the voice acting, it's hit and miss. I'm not sure the tone the actors used was always serious enough, and it might be too over-the-top for some viewers. As someone who treats silent cinema with a bit of reverence - even when the film isn't among my very favorites - I found the sound to be distracting sometimes. I don't expect this to be the case for everyone, but it's another warning I have to put out there for purists.

On the other hand, the soundtrack that has been added by musical group HobGoblin is definitely the highlight of the package. It's got a definite rock/metal edge to it, but never seems to be abrasive and rarely seems like a distraction from the movie. There's a nice balance between classic horror score and modern rock here - with a little funk too - and I feel comfortable saying that the folks in HobGoblin definitely knew what they were doing here. It's another touch that will certainly appeal to new viewers, and I'd even say that it made The Golem - which I've seen and been a little bored by before - seem more engaging this time around.

I'm not in love with what this version of The Golem offers on a personal level, but I think that my reservations come more from my own cinematic experiences and the fact that I've never been entirely in love with The Golem either. (I'm interested to check out their versions of Nosferatu and Caligari, which I do love, just to see how their vision compares to my experience with those films.) I wouldn't necessarily recommend this product to people who haven't seen The Golem if they're silent film fans, but I agree with Taylor and company that this is a nice way to catch new viewers who haven't really experienced silent horror due to reservations. If nothing else, I hope that these sound versions of silent classics will open up the minds of new viewers and get them interested in what that era of horror has to offer them.

You can check out the DVD and CD releases (and the other mentioned products at the November Fire site I linked in the opening, as well as at Amazon (DVD here, CD here) and other retailers. Check them out, and keep classic horror alive!

Bad Milo!

(2013, Dir. by Jacob Vaughan.)

Ken Marino has long been one of those comic actors who's always memorable as a supporting character - dating all the way back to Wet Hot American Summer and peaking (at least for me) with Veronica Mars - so when I saw that he was going to headline a horror comedy that got picked up by the good folks over at Magnet Releasing my interest was piqued.

When I learned that the movie was going to be about a devilish monster who breaks out of Marino's colon and goes on a murderous rampage - well, then I definitely had to see the movie.

That movie is Bad Milo!, and it's as successful as it is ridiculous. Marino plays a timid businessman who deals with his mother (Mary Kay Place) dating a young Indian man, his father (Stephen Root) abandoning him, and his boss (Patrick Warburton) bossing him around. The result of all his stressors is a polyp on his colon, which sends him to a therapist (Peter Stormare) and some medical procedures. But I've already tipped you off to the secret - that polyp becomes Milo.

And Milo, the bug eyed, pointy-teethed, square-headed terror that comes into the film is one of the goofiest and most enjoyable new monsters to hit the screen in some time. He looks and sounds like something left over from the 1980s - fans of Basket Case will probably enjoy the film's joke - and he's presented with the same kind of balance between cute and evil that we remember from Gremlins. Of course, Bad Milo! also has a lot more toilet humor than Gremlins, but it spends more time on the monster and his creator (Can we call Marino's character a "creator" the same way we call Dr. Frankenstein a creator? It's a stretch, but I just did.) than it does making jokes that could take the film down the drain.

Marino is excellent in the lead, playing the straight and scared man for most of the movie, while the supporting cast does a great job of bouncing gags off of him. Stormare is particularly fantastic as the therapist who helps him deal with Milo, playing a rare light-hearted character and creating a lot of laughs with his laid back approach to this rectal monster. Others like Place, Warburton, and Root have smaller pieces of the film but all of them help Marino and his buddy Milo make the wacky plot funny.

Bad Milo! is an obviously R-rated horror comedy, with lots of blood and a bit of excrement spilled all over the screen and a few kill scenes that are barely shown on screen before we see the over-the-top crime scene that is left behind. It's a nice touch that writer/director Jacob Vaughan manages to show the gory monster side of Milo without taking the film too far from its comedy roots, which means that the film will probably play better for the Comedy Central crowd than the gore-obsessed horror crowd. There's a lot to like in the film for both crowds, thankfully, and anyone who can appreciate a ridiculous monster and some zany horror comedy will certainly have a good time with this tongue-in-cheek film.

(Bad Milo! is in select theaters starting today and is also available On Demand and via ITunes. If you're like me, you'll dig it.)

V/H/S 2

(2013, Dir. by Simon Barrett, Jason Eisener, Gareth Huw Evans & Timo Tjahjanto, Gregg Hale & Eduardo Sanchez, Adam Wingard.)

Few things are more exciting to me than when I see young horror filmmakers advancing their craft, which is a big part of why I had a lot of fun with V/H/S 2. It is unfair to compare this film directly with its predecessor (V/H/S, which arrived on home video last year and offered a raw (and slightly immature) new twist on the anthology horror formula) because the filmmakers are different this time around, but it seems blatant to me that the returning producers and directors worked hard to clean up some of the more maligned aspects of the first film.

Critics of that film - which I enjoyed, despite some uneven moments - will probably be pleased with the extra layer of polish that seems to have been applied to this sequel. It's still definitely an independent and experimental picture - especially in the first and fourth segments of the film - and it still feels like the found footage it is supposed to be in most scenes. At the same time, the film seems to feel a little more mature and cinematic than its predecessor, striking a nice balance between the raw horror of the original and some more artistic horror films of the era.

The film's increase in quality over the original is most notable in the third segment of the film, which is entitled "Safe Haven" and is directed by Gareth Huw Evans & Timo Tjahjanto. Evans uses a mostly Indonesian cast, as he did in his action masterpiece The Raid: Redemption, to take us inside a "Jonestown" inspired cult where things are much more devious than they seem. I don't even want to go in to what occurs in this segment, but I will say that it has more pure shocks and disgusting surprises than 99% of feature length horror films out there. It's a truly nightmarish little epic - it feels like it's longer than the other three main segments of the film combined - that is good enough to make the whole film worth seeing.

That said, the rest of the film works pretty well too. I might even say that the lowest moments of this film (the wrap-around directed by You're Next and A Horrible Way To Die scribe Simon Barrett and the zombie segment directed by Gregg Hale and The Blair Witch Project co-director Eduardo Sanchez) are better than the least impressive parts of the first V/H/S film. Barrett's wrap-around seems fresher and less hectic than the sequence he and You're Next director Adam Wingard put together for the first film (plus it has a better payoff at the end) while Sanchez and Hale's first person zombie tale feels like a neat little short that could be expounded upon in a different film.

The two segments that bookend the proceedings both stand out by being manic in their attempts to surprise the viewer. The first, directed by Wingard and written by Barrett, stars Wingard as a man who is fitted with an experimental camera eye that just happens to see ghosts all around him. The tone of this film is probably closest to that of V/H/S (plus Barrett and Wingard both bring back the "random topless women" factor of the first film) and it manages to bridge the gap between the films while providing a few good scares. The film's last segment, by Hobo With A Shotgun director Jason Eisener, is even more hectic and bizarre and the title - "Slumber Party Alien Abduction" - tells you almost everything you need to know about it. This sequence has one of the film's most annoying tricks, when Eisener mounts the camera on top of an in film dog for several scenes, but it's also the most ridiculously fun and carefree piece of cinema in the film.

As a total film, I really respect the manic energy of V/H/S 2. Each section of the film has a different tone and a different pace, but the flow of the presentation is never interrupted. I thought the first film worked similarly, but had a few bumps in the road that derailed it from being the kind of movie that is perfect for a crowded Halloween party. I think this sequel avoids the same pitfalls and earns a place at that party; it's a crowd pleasing horror anthology that's here just in time for the holiday season.

You're Next

(2013, Dir. by Adam Wingard.)

The bar of expectations has been set pretty high for You're Next, a film that debuted on the festival circuit in 2011, was lauded as a great new horror film, and then was bought up by Lionsgate - who promptly put it on a shelf for nearly two years. But, now that the film has finally seen a release - a wide release, at that, which already makes this a huge win for independent horror - I'm ecstatic to confirm that there's definitely something special about You're Next.

From the writer/director team of Simon Barrett and Adam Wingard (who wowed me with the dramatic horror tale A Horrible Way to Die and had their hands in the anthology hit V/H/S), the film tells the story of a large family that meets in a secluded country home to celebrate an anniversary and be systematically killed off by a trio of invaders in animal masks. (They obviously didn't plan for the latter, but it wouldn't be a horror movie if the characters' plans went just right.)  When I saw A Horrible Way To Die I noted that these filmmakers managed to bring a fresh approach to the torture-centered horror formula that has been popular of late, thanks to their focus on character and desire to create characters before killing them, and You're Next definitely succeeds in the same way.

The cast is pretty fantastic within Barrett and Wingard's film. It's led, for all intents and purposes, by a young Austrailain actress named Sharni Vinson, who plays the girlfriend of one of the sons and proves to be more than just a pretty face in a crisis. She's surrounded by many friends and associates of the filmmakers, including the same trio that carried A Horrible Way to Die (AJ Bowen, Joe Swanberg, and Amy Seimetz, each of whom has been heavily involved in the independent horror community both in front of and behind the camera), plus two experienced talents as the parents of this clan, Rob Moran and horror icon Barbara Crampton.  The fact that so many of the characters have experience directing horror must have made the process easier for all involved, but it's also worth noting that the actors all seem comfortable in their roles and definitely don't take anything away from the film. Small roles by other directors (like The House of the Devil's Ti West and The Last Winter's Larry Fessenden) should make horror nuts smile, and one sequence discussing underground film festivals had me laughing out loud when the character played by Swanberg (who particularly stands out as a performer in the film) dismisses the indie scene at the dinner table.

You're Next isn't exactly a character piece, but it doesn't jump straight into the fire without giving us reasons to think about who these people are and why they're here. We learn little pieces about each character through the family interactions early in the film, and most of these little reveals have an effect on how things play out once the assailants make their move on this family. The initial onslaught from the killers is handled fantastically, and I was shocked or surprised several times once the attack began. There are a few surprising moments of brutality that I think will stand up next to some of the great shocks in horror history, and I even found that the film's "anything goes at any time" approach reminded me of the original Texas Chain Saw Massacre.  There are at least four or five moments in the first half of the film that honestly caught me off guard, which four or five more than most horror movies I see can claim.

The intensity is so great throughout the first forty minutes of the film that it's almost a given that there's going to be a slight let down. I won't go in to plot details, but there's definitely a point where a revelation occurs and the tone of the film shifts strongly. That doesn't mean the film loses its edge, but the knowledge that the viewer gains at this point takes a little bit of the unpredictability out of the film. Wingard and Barrett still keep the film moving at a pace that had me on the edge of my seat and still offer plenty of brutal (and sometimes cathartic) violence, which means that the film doesn't really suffer too much. But I couldn't help thinking that the film explained away to much too early, and that there might have been a few more white-knuckle moments if the film hadn't given away a little information.

But the change in tone - which may have just occurred in my head, who am I to tell you what tone you'll get from the film? - is only a minor quibble with the film. The characters that we spend the most time with - particularly Vinson and Bowen - are wonderfully realized and You're Next always keeps us engaged in what's going on. After the early tension and the mid-film action it is a relief that the final scenes seem to sum up everything perfectly, which is just another reason to be impressed by the vision these filmmakers had for their film. Questions in our head get answered, but the film still manages to move on at a pace that kept me anticipating the bloody twist that was going to happen next.

I slept on the movie to collect my thoughts after the late night screening, and all day long I've been grinning about how much fun I had watching this bloody story unfold in front of me. Those who crave horror that is both brutal and intelligent should definitely see this one as soon as possible, and they should also be prepared to look over their shoulder a few times on the way home. You're Next might get under your skin, and if it doesn't I'm willing to bet it will at least give you a few good thrills.

 

The Conjuring

(2013, Dir. by James Wan.)

To me James Wan has always been one of those directors who was close, but not close enough, to making a very good horror movie. Saw was a huge hit and even reinvented horror for a few years, but it was also hampered by some serious issues with acting, pacing, and plotting. Then Insidious took his talents in another direction, but still left me cold as it too kept a focus on cheap thrills while feeling more like a video game than a film. 

However, my streak of disagreeing with him (it's not even really a streak, I kinda liked Death Sentence) has ended with the release of The Conjuring.  Dropped in the middle of the summer, slapped with an R-rating for being scary (although I get the feeling the suicide-by-hanging imagery throughout the film was the main culprit), and directed by Wan didn't look like a recipe for great success to me, but it overcomes some similarities to Wan's previous work and works on several levels.

The story has gained a lot of traction from the "based on real events" aspect of the advertising, as the film stars Patrick Wilson (returning to work with the director after Insidious) and Vera Farmiga starring as famous real-world paranormal investigators Ed and Lorraine Warren. The duo were involved in some of the most famous supernatural investigations of the last 60 years - most notably the Amityville "haunting" - and seem like the perfect characters to base a horror film around despite your beliefs on how real their experiences have been. I was lucky to have the real world Warrens fresh in my mind after seeing an aged Lorraine appear in the documentary My Amityville Horror earlier this year, so I had an idea of what I was getting into with these characters before The Conjuring. Like plenty of other viewers, I was giving the story a chance largely because these were real characters and I was interested in seeing just what somebody says might-have-possibly-maybe-one-time happened.

(Random Tangent: The upgrade from Insidious' Rose Byrne to the fantastic Vera Farmiga is another of the main reasons I gave The Conjuring a chance.  If I had to make a comparison, I'd say Byrne and her wooden reactions to everything are like having a package of processed cheese slices, while Farmiga's range as an actor is like owning a fully-staffed dairy farm. BTW, Can I have season two of Bates Motel yet? Please? OK, back to the movie.)

Though it was a look at the Warrens that got me interested in the film, it was the haunting story that sucked me in completely. The Perron family of seven - parents played by Office Space's Ron Livingston and Lili Taylor, who is apparently atoning for her role in the all-time-horror-dud remake of The Haunting, an their five daughters - moves into a big old house by a lake and quickly becomes one of the more interesting haunted families I've seen on screen. The number of characters certainly adds to the tension, making the film feel like a supernatural slasher film in which any character could be assaulted by unseen forces at any moment, and all of the cast members - including the five young women playing the daughters - do a good job selling their fear to the audience. Livingston, who is most known for his comedic work, is a refreshing presence as his patriarch character brings a calm presence to the family while visibly being shaken and confused by events that defy explanation. At the same time Taylor is perfect for the role of terrified potential victim - she did it relatively well in that awful Haunting movie too, the rest of it just really stunk - and her presence as the film's adult "scream queen" really moves the film forward.

Wan has shown that he understands the mechanics of cinema scares in his previous work - Insidious, despite feeling rather soulless as a film, could be used as a text book for modern jump-scare horror - and his control over The Conjuring's farmhouse is excellent. There are plenty of things you expect to see - doors slamming, creaky floors, and even possessed birds crashing into windows for the THIRD time in a multiplex horror film this year - but also some well-timed shocks that took even me completely by surprise. Some of the scare tactics don't really work - a subplot involving a possessed doll that looks like it was leftover from Saw or Dead Silence fell completely flat for me - but Wan definitely keeps The Conjuring feeling more fun than his previous haunts.

With strong performances by Wilson and Farmiga taking over the latter part of the film and the solid work of the family, The Conjuring builds up enough steam to coast through a rather chaotic and overproduced final act unscathed. There's too much going right to get caught up in some of the sillier twists and the film moves too fast to really get us questioning just how out of control the final battle for the Perron family's souls really is. It would be easy to pick it apart after the fact, but if I wasn't taken out of the film while watching it there's no reason you should be either. The Conjuring is one of the more engaging mainstream horror films in a long time, and it has a legitimate shot at sticking around as one of the most successful horror films of this generation. It's scary, it's fun, it's even kind of smart - it's possibly the perfect summer horror film.

Kiss of the Damned

(2013, Dir. by Xan Cassavetes.)

A high society vampire picture that hearkens back to horror films of the past, Xan Cassavetes' Kiss of the Damned firstly strikes me as one of the most beautiful films in recent memory.  There are some style versus substance questions that need to be pondered when looking at the whole picture, which is light on plot and visually playful, but the one thing that is certain is that the film makes a strong impression.

The story is a simple one - reclusive female vampire falls in love with a human, turns him into a vampire despite her reservations, then risks losing him and her way of life to her returning sister - who is a much more violent and uninhibited member of their vampire clan.  You could say what follows is a romantic vampire story, especially if you consider graphic (but not pornographic) sexual encounters and a bit of bloodletting romantic. (And if you do, I'm not judging. More power to ya.)

There's a decidedly European feel to the proceedings, with French actresses Josephine de La Baume and Roxane Mesquida carrying the film as the two vampire sisters. The former is Djuna, who takes in a screenwriter played by Milo Ventimiglia and helps him adapt to the nonviolent code of vampire life, apparently thinking that maintaining a low profile is key to the preservation of the species.  Her thoughts are shared by many vampires in power, but are shunned by her flamboyant sister Mimi (played by Mesquida, who genre fans might recognize from Rubber) who just wants to eat and screw people and thinks everyone else - including her sister's new lover - should feel the same way.

The actresses aren't the only European thing about the film, as horror aficionados will see obvious connections to both the work of England's Hammer Films and the oversexualized vampire films that came out of Italy and Spain in the 1970s. Your approach to the film will probably determine which aspect of those '70s films will have an effect on you - optimistic viewers might focus on the visual style and reliance on music to set the tone, while pessimistic viewers might struggle with the somewhat stilted performances of the stars - particularly Mesquida, who might grate on viewers through her performance.  I was most interested in the film's style, with scenes that seem straight out of The Brides of Dracula or Daughters of Darkness helping me to accept the film's flaws more easily.

While Mesquida's tone in the film is somewhat obnoxious - I attribute this more to language barriers than the choices made by the actress - it's her interactions with the other vampires that push Kiss of the Damned to its best moments for me. The interactions between her and her sister are intense conflicts of personality, and her few scenes with the matriarch of this vampire culture (played by another French actress named Anna Mouglais) are perhaps the most interesting in the film.  There's a neat connection of vampirism and addiction that comes out here and, though it's something that's been done plenty of times before, it makes me more interested in Mimi's attempts to revolutionize and corrupt the vampire system that rules the film.

Kiss of the Damned isn't an example of great storytelling, but it works for me because it takes vampirism back to the basics and manages to create a feud that is full of dangerous tension - both through its violence and its sex.  Writer/director Cassavetes (the daughter of John Cassavetes and Gena Rowlands) shows a lot of skill with this debut feature, and has created a film that I will remember as one of the most artistic horror films of the year. If you want to see a truly adult themed vampire tale, you could do a lot worse than Kiss of the Damned.

American Mary

(2012, Dir. by Jen & Sylvia Soska.)

After their debut feature, the unmistakably titled Dead Hooker in a Trunk, I felt like big things might be in the future for twin Canadian filmmakers Jen and Sylvia Soska. I was a fan of that film as a raw and bombastic piece of grindhouse fluff, and I could see them continuing to push the envelope while finding fun and unique ways to present carnage.

I underestimated them.

I came to this realization tonight while finally checking out their follow up feature, American Mary - which is conveniently available on DVD and blu-ray all over North America for the first time.  The sisters show a dramatic growth in their writing and their direction, and the result is a new kind of horror film that seems endlessly fascinating to me right now.

Katharine Isabelle stars as the title character, a medical student who wants to be a surgeon until her professional progress is derailed by a devastating act. Mary finds a home in the unique underground scene of body modification, working out of a seedy adult club that seems like the real world version of Hellraiser III and making new friends and enemies along the way.

Mary is a special character. Part of this is because the actress is so talented - Isabelle is hitting all the right notes and hasn't been better since her breakout performance in Ginger Snaps 13 years ago - and part of this is because the character fills such a unique dramatic role. Mary exists in the film as both a victim and a villain, allowing Isabelle to recapture the feral energy that made her so dangerous in Ginger Snaps while alternately making her a sympathetic being that is something of a fallen angel.

The film is open to plenty of interpretations when it comes to our characters, starting with Mary and trickling out to all of the souls she touches. The club's seedy manager also seems to have a sweet affection for Mary. A modified stripper with an affection for Betty Boop initially creeps Mary out, but becomes the film's most sincere and altruistic character as the story moves forward. A slew of patients come through Mary's door - including the directors, who offer a sinister cameo - but the viewer never seems to be forced to any judgment of these characters' worth.

The film's willingness to show us a strange world without pushing narrow-minded values is perhaps the most fantastic thing about American Mary. The Soskas offer plenty of blood and push plenty of visual boundaries, but the answers to questions about what is right or wrong are left up to us. I've already read a few discussions in which viewers debate what some characters deserved and what other characters did well, and I can tell that I'm going to love seeing people's reactions to each character in the film after they experience American Mary for themselves.

It's this restraint that really makes me appreciate what the filmmakers have done here. The Twisted Twins have brought back the same chaotic energy and unpredictable flair that made their first film so much fun, but they've added an artistic touch that pushes American Mary into a fascinating place. I'm not sure everything fits together perfectly as the parts of the film crash off of each other in the final act, but the events that unfold are never dull and mostly thought provoking. Combined with a powerhouse lead performance and a eerie visual style, American Mary is a must-see piece of original horror that should propel its directors and its star to greater heights.

Blu-Ray Review - Mama

(2013, Dir. by Andy Muschietti.)

The Movie:
I found Mama to be an incredibly frustrating horror experience. It's a film that I wanted to like, due to its unique supernatural story and some effective shocks, but also a film that loses its way technically and seems to stumble more often than not in its storytelling. It's easy to see that this is a small idea - originally a three minute short horror film - that has been expanded, but it's worth noting that I was surprised to find out the sequence that had the biggest impact on me was not the sequence that inspired the feature length film.

The film opens rather terrifically, following a criminal father (played by Game of Thrones' Nikolaj Coster-Waldau) who kidnaps his two young daughters after a heist and takes them to an abandoned cabin in the woods. Trouble follows, and the girls end up abandoned themselves, left to survive on their own until they are found five years later, and placed in the custody of their uncle (also played by Coster-Waldau) and his girlfriend (Academy Award nominee Jessica Chastain). 

As you can guess, the survival of two preteen girls in the wild doesn't happen by chance, and does have some side effects. The girls are protected by an unseen force they know as "Mama," and it becomes quickly evident that this supernatural force has followed them to their new home.  Chastain becomes the focal point of the film as she struggles to keep the new family afloat while accepting that she has to leave behind her passion for being a tattooed garage band rock star. Yes, I'm as surprised as you are to see Ms. Chastain put into that role, but the actress makes it work effortlessly.

As I was saying earlier, the opening of the film was gripping and unsettling and even a little bit surprising, and the setting sequence in the cabin had me prepared to enjoy where Mama was heading. Unfortunately, the film becomes rather difficult once the girls move to their new home, partially because the story becomes extremely predictable and primarily because the film misses a lot of marks while trying to creep out the audience.

The most difficult thing for me was the representation of Mama as a character. Initial scenes were mysterious and creepy, but as we see more of Mama she becomes less intimidating. The special effects used to create the character - a mixture of one frail actor, a lot of prosthetics and a ton of CGI - were laughably bad at times, particularly during a final showdown that seems to be leftover from some kind of fairy tale. This goofy looking creature - that reminded me of a department store Halloween decoration on a stick - combined with repetitive and predictable scares to overwhelm a lot of the good things Mama had going on.

There's a lot I like about Mama - the actors, some fantastic camerawork, an eerie/ugly green-orange-brown color palette that oozes through the whole movie - and some may be more forgiving of certain flaws than I was.  The story itself is a bit forgettable - I saw it last week and I had to look up the ending to make sure I remembered it correctly today - and the ghastly title character is unimpressive, and that was enough to take me out of the picture all together. I suppose it's an OK movie for a horror night with a crowd of friends, but there's not a lot under the surface to make me want more of what Mama's offering.

The Disc:
Being a film that's merely four months removed from its theatrical release, there's little reason to complain about Universal's presentation of Mama. The blu-ray picture is very clear - perhaps drawing out the flaws in the special effects more - and the surround sound mix sounded great on my standard home system. 

The disc has a few extras, most notably the 2008 short film by director Muschetti that caught the eye of producer Guillermo Del Toro.  I wish I had watched the short before the film, but it was still effective in setting mood and creating a horror image that seems ripe for an expanded story. Unfortunately, I don't think this expanded story did it justice.  The short is introduced by Del Toro, who shows up all over the disk in interviews, and should give you an idea of what to expect from the film. This feature is also available on YouTube, so feel free to check it out if you're still wondering about the movie.

Also on the disc are a collection of six deleted scenes - mostly short filler segments about Chastain's character adapting to the kids and the kids doing creepy things in the name of Mama - each of which have a commentary by Muschetti and his co-writer/sister.  The blu-ray offers two other featurettes, one on on the inspiration for the film and one on the special effects. The latter is exclusive to the blu-ray and shows a) that a lot of interesting work was put into creating Mama and b) that I still think she looks goofy and isn't frightening.  The disc also offers commentary on the film, the short, and the deleted scenes by both Muschetti siblings, and their passion for this project does ring through. It's hard to be the guy who doesn't like the movie when the filmmakers sound so passionate about their work, and they make me want to give Mama another chance despite what my head is telling me about the movie.

The disc also has a selection of trailers for other Universal products, starting the disc with ads for upcoming releases Dead in Tombstone (a pulpy DTV western starring Danny Trejo, Anthony Michael Hall, and Dina Meyer that has my attention), Side Effects (an odd inclusion here, but I always accept Soderbergh), and the TV series Grimm.  From the menu you can select to view several trailers for other spooky Universal releases of the last decade - from The Unborn to White Noise to The Last House on the Left - that could be compared to Mama in genre and quality.

Closing Thoughts:
Mama is being released on Blu-Ray Combo pack (with a DVD and an Ultraviolet copy) this Tuesday, May 7th, and will also be available in a stand alone DVD package.  Fans of the movie should be very pleased with the presentation, and casual horror fans looking for some good jumps might get something out of it. I wasn't wild about the film, but it has its positives. Check out the trailer below and make up your own mind this Tuesday!

John Dies at the End

(2012, Dir. by Don Coscarelli.)

At this point I've seen John Dies at the End three times in less than four months - and I still struggle to come up with any tangible thoughts to write down about it. That doesn't mean the movie is bad - the fact that I've come back to it twice and left all three viewings with a smile is about all you need to know - it just means that John Dies at the End is one of those movies where any simple description of the film is probably an insult to its complexities.

I might be overemphasizing the film's mysteries - I could say that it's a movie about a universe altering drug and two open-minded slackers who stumble into its path - but I'm pretty sure that I'm not. The film feels like a fully random series of disgusting and ludicrous events at times, with its series of meat monsters and demonic mustaches and journeys to "Eyes Wide Shut World" - but there's always something that kind of ties it all back together. It's hard to see, but there's clearly a method to the film's madness.

The film is directed by Don Coscarelli (of Phantasm and Bubba Ho-Tep fame) and the main characters, David Wong (Chase Williamson) and his titular friend John (Rob Mayes), fit right alongside the everyman heroes of the director's most famous works. David is our narrator and host for the proceedings - which are primarily told via flashbacks as he gives his story to a reporter (the always welcome Paul Giamatti) - and he's also the more sensible and restrained member of the team. John, on the other hand, is the more reckless half of the duo, a hard-rocking kind of guy who doesn't back away from much of anything. The two characters work because they are so simple, even when they're faced with otherworldly events.  Their calm reaction to all the weird events in the film provides a lot of humor and sets the tone for the whole adventure.

Along the way, David and John run into a lot of bizarre yet entertaining predicaments and meet some very memorable side characters.  The highlights of the film, for me, were probably Clancy "The Kurrgan" Brown as the kinda-omniscient mentalist Marconi and Glynn Turman as Police Detective Lawrence Appleton (who happens to share a name with the character from Perfect Strangers and I am not about to give up the dream that Cousin Balki was somewhere in this film too).  Brown's character is integral to the plot - once you get through the splatter and find it - but also functions as a kind of running gag thanks to the goofy presentation of the character and some fantastic one-liners. Turman's detective seems to be more grounded in reality than most of the characters in the film at first, but his transformation into a random force of destruction is a nice twist on just how upside down David and John's world has become. Both actors - along with Giamatti in his relatively thankless role as the interviewer - seem committed to keeping the film feeling important amidst the chaos, which works quite well for Coscarelli's film.

Once the characters are established  and the "soy sauce" is introduced, the film veers in multiple directions, bouncing between the realms of the drug-induced "trip" horror film, the Evil Deadesque splatter film, and the universe hopping sci-fi extravaganza.  It all seems to silly to really add up to anything, but there's something kind of special hidden in the chaotic existence of this film.  Coscarelli manages to make a movie that hits on all these random genre expectations while grounding his story in two accessible leads.  The film never does what you'd expect it to, and a first glance back might make it look like random gruesomeness - but when you closely piece everything together it actually makes a bit of sense.

Well, at least some of it makes sense.  And that eventually makes it more than just a darn fun movie.

 

Evil Things

(2009, Dir. by Dominic Perez.)

In the movies, there are two kinds of things: good things and Evil Things. But what interests me when a movie is trying to scare me is how it deals with ordinary things and whether or not it can turn them into extraordinary things.

Horror movies are, more often than not, housed in the land of the extraordinary. Something in the film - it could be the setting, it could be the character's mental status, it could be monsters - is out of the ordinary and causes conflict and fear. Sometimes, that's all the movie is about.

Case in point: Evil Things - a movie that makes sure that almost all of things inside of it are out of the ordinary. The fun part of this movie is that it's not just one part of the movie that aims to fear, because writer/director Dominic Perez takes every chance he has to add some tension to the proceedings.

Most aspects of the film will seem familiar to the viewer. A group of college kids head to a secluded location. Those kids are terrorized by an unseen driver behind the wheel of a simple van. And then they get lost in the woods. There's a full horror movie you could make just out of those elements, which makes it that much more rewarding when Evil Things adds even more to the mix.

A supernatural twist takes the film into its third act, and raises the question as to whether or not Evil Things has too much going on. The answer, for me, is a resounding no. "Too much" would be introducing all these aspects and then trying to explain them all away with final act exposition. Perez gives his film just enough gas before letting it coast through the final act, and he makes a wise decision that saves his atmospheric horror film.

With all these things adding legitimate tension to his film, Perez simply lets them go. He doesn't try to explain away all the details, he just settles for having a creepy and tense handheld horror. Some might want more reason, but I'm perfectly fine falling into a movie that sets out to creep me out and succeeds. Evil Things works because it aims to scare us and doesn't drown in all that other stuff that can set a horror movie back.  As the film rolls to its conclusion - and continues to creep them out beyond the end credits - I think most horror fans will find themselves smiling at the devious and clever little film.

Evil Dead

(2013, Dir. by Fede Alvarez.)

Evil Dead deserves its place in the world alongside the Evil Dead trilogy. That might be the least important thing you need to know about this reboot and I have so many other thoughts running through my head about the movie that I just experienced, but my first reaction has to be this. It is impossible for me, as a fan of all things in the Evil Dead universe, to see this movie and not immediately consider its worth in comparison to Sam Raimi's trilogy. Unfair or not, it is reality - and I'm excited that I can open this review by saying that - with no comment on "better than" or "worse than" - I'm glad Evil Dead exists.

Balancing - not always delicately - between "homage" and "new vision", Evil Dead offers five characters, a cabin, and a weekend gone wrong.  The mathematics are the same as the film(s) it exists to emulate, but the characters are new and the dynamics are changed. The major change worth talking about is probably the fact that our lead female is now a drug addict who is being forced into a cold turkey weekend by her brother and her friends, and that this character, Mia, is created wonderfully by actress Jane Levy. The young woman undergoes a few transitions in tone and a large amount of turmoil during the film, but she never misses a beat.

You could counteract the great character moments with a few concerns, like the fact that the blonde female character has three lines in the first forty-five minutes of the film, is never involved in any pertinent conversations, and is more often than not referred to as "Baby."  Characterization is not strong across the board, which will surely give some critical viewers pause as they enter this new Deadite-filled universe. I think this is a rather hollow complaint on some fronts - though I did find the fact that a movie with basically five characters appears to lose one of them for large stretches of the exposition - because a movie like this (or like the original The Evil Dead) are not about unique and outstanding characters.

To no one's surprise, this movie is all about the carnage that is unleashed via that dastardly Necronomicon (whose well known name, if I'm not mistaken, is never spoken in this film).  And what carnage it is. Director Fede Alvarez throws in plenty of trademarks from the first two Evil Dead films and sly nods to Sam Raimi and Bruce Campbell (for examples, look for returning shirts, camera tricks, and Oldsmobiles), but he also offers a whole new bloody vision that is a complete change of pace from anything we've seen in the preceding films. And a lot of what he does is freaking awesome.

Indeed, this movie works because it invents its own mayhem. It could be mistaken for being too serious, but I find it hard to really accuse a movie who changes pace so often and pushes so many bizarre images in our face as a humorless experience. Maybe I am desensitized to blood on screen, because I rarely found myself flinching - I did cover my eyes all three times a syringe came into play, but I was fine with dismemberment and disfiguration - while others were groaning in their seats. I was too wrapped up in how Alvarez was presenting his story to care that what I was seeing was gross. I knew what I was walking into, and if you've seen the film's trailer (if not, it's posted below) you probably have the idea that this film does not intend to pull its punches.  The changes to what the "evil dead" are and how they are represented is probably the biggest difference from original to remake, but it allows Alvarez to maximize the amount of splatter in the film.

Yes, I get that Evil Dead is not a perfect bit of storytelling and I am more than aware of the fact that it is not the original Evil Dead. These two issues will no doubt derail many viewers, but I prefer to look past them and see that Evil Dead is a perfect version of what Evil Dead wants to be. It's got a manic energy, a great visual style, and - probably most importantly - some of the most jaw-droppingly entertaining gore you'll ever see on a movie screen. I had a great time watching it. That's all I care about at this point.

My Amityville Horror

(2012, Dir. by Eric Walter.)

When I was a kid, I was once in the middle of an earthquake. It's hard to believe that I, a mid-Iowan farm boy, could have been caught up in an earthquake in my natural habitat - only 13 earthquakes have ever been recorded in the state, and none within a three county radius or a 15 year time span of my childhood - but I remember it vividly.

Well, actually, I remember my parents telling my sister and I that there was an earthquake after a glass that my sister was holding fell and broke. What actually happened, as far as I assume, is that my younger sister dropped the glass, which shattered and made her cry like a little girl. (In fairness, she was.) My parents, trying to shut her up, told us that there was an earthquake and that was why she dropped the glass.  And we bought it. Or at least I did, I think. Heck, maybe this never even happened. Maybe I dreamed it and just assumed it was real. I don't know. I was a kid.

So when I consider how gullible I was as a kid and/or how my memory may be playing tricks on me, it makes me naturally skeptical about My Amityville Horror, a new documentary that revisits one of America's most notorious hauntings through the memory of a childhood survivor. Daniel Lutz, the son of Kathy and the adopted son of George Lutz, was the oldest of three children living in the infamous house, and now he's the guy telling us about his life and his childhood experiences at 112 Ocean Avenue.

Daniel Lutz, now in his 40s and working for UPS in California, comes off as a volatile man with that stereotypical "New York" accent and attitude, and his distaste for any doubt of his story would probably make him mad at this reviewer already.  While it seems like I'm making light of Daniel's story by pointing out that children are a) susceptible to manipulation and b) not the most trustworthy folks at remembering things, I don't mean to condemn the person as much as I want to cast doubt on our faith in human memory. There's a reason why most Psychology professors and doctors and generally smart people will tell you that eyewitness testimony isn't generally reliable - because it's not.

Horror hounds might find themselves a little bored with the early stories told by Daniel in this documentary, as they seem to follow the events we've seen immortalized in print and on film far too closely. Who's to say that Daniel's memory hasn't been influenced by the public versions of what happened inside his childhood home?  Some of the second hand accounts of other peoples' experiences and the experiences of the few people involved that are left - mainly a former TV investigator and an elderly woman with connections to the supernatural - corroborate Daniel's story, but it's hard to really buy in to new accounts from 35 year old memories, especially when they are based in the supernatural.

Despite all of the reasons to be skeptical, it's actually pretty darn fascinating to see what has become of Daniel Lutz.  I don't know if what he says happened is what actually happened, but I am certain that Daniel Lutz believes that it happened. At the same time, the character is most fascinating when he talks about his relationship with George Lutz, who we all are still afraid of thanks to James Brolin, and there's a lot to read into when it comes to Daniel's hatred of his stepfather.  What we think about Daniel Lutz is immaterial, because the story that Daniel tells is told with such frank honesty.

Though I'm cautious about the implications of My Amityville Horror - which insists that a story that was generally debunked 30 years ago might still be true based on testimony of a child - I still found myself enamored with how it told its story. The production slickly moves between reminders of the events in the Amityville house and accounts of Daniel Lutz' life since then, and it's easy to feel sympathy toward a man who's had to deal with something - whether it's supernatural or criminal - of this magnitude for most of his life. My Amityville Horror inspired a lot of internal debate within me, but that added perspective on The Amityville Horror is more than welcome.

I may not believe the Amityville story is true, but I'll listen to Daniel Lutz talk about it just in case.  If you're interested in the book, the film, or just hauntings in general, you'll probably be interested in hearing his story too.

The Last Exorcism Part II

(2013, Dir. by Ed Gass-Donnelly.)

Ashley Bell returns to The Last Exorcism Part II, and by doing so she becomes the one great reason to see this film. The sequel to the 2011 independent horror sensation (which I pretty much love) seems like a studio cash in - especially after that film's much-maligned final twist - but with Bell leading the charge the film manages to pick up the pieces and run further into her character's battle against evil.

Both films are essentially about the damnation of "backwoods" teenager Nell Sweetzer, but the tone has changed from the first film to the second. In the first film, Bell's Nell was the innocent who has been possessed by a demon. Now, she's the survivor who's trying to move on with her life in a girls' home in New Orleans while dealing with young love, teenage girl drama, and the possibility that she's still the target of something demonic.  You could almost look at the film as a rape survivor's story - in fact, that is an accurate leap to make - but it's clear to us throughout this film that Nell Sweetzer is troubled by more than just human problems.

This Part II is most interesting when it allows Bell to fill the screen, because every trial she faces feels legitimate. The film does a fantastic job of showing things that are out of her control - like silent masked observers and middle-of-the-night terrors - to the audience while keeping the girl unknowing. The film is entirely about Nell's attempts to figure out what is happening to her - one character spells it out, saying bluntly that she needs to choose her own path - but the film gives more information to the viewer than it does to the girl. There's some unsettling tension to be had thanks to this, especially because the actress seems so pure.

Those who saw the first film have already seen Bell do and say a lot of shocking things, and considering this we shouldn't be so surprised by the actress' range here. But Bell manages to restore our faith in Nell in her new environment, and her ability to present innocence in human settings sets us up to once again fear for her when things get out of control. I truly believe her performance in the first film was worthy of Oscar consideration (as was the performance by Patrick Fabian in the lead, but horror never gets the love it deserves) and her ability to take the lead in this sequel only cements my belief that she's a talent to watch out for in the future. The 26 year old is willing to buy in completely to the role and everything it requires, and the range she shows lifts the film above a lot of its problems.

Those problems are numerous, unfortunately. The found footage aspect of the original film is gone, and without another strong presence across from her Bell often has to carry too much of the film's weight. Nell wanders through her bouts with evil without much guidance - save a few scenes from horror veteran Muse Watson (I Know What You Did Last Summer) and the returning Louis Herthum as Nell's father - and when she finally stumbles into someone who will help her it seems like the script is just jumping to a conclusion.  This leads to a final act that feels pretty forced, and some New Orleans-flavored voodoo takes away from the biblical battle that has been set up through the first film and a half.

The first film's ending was hated by many, but I've been impressed with its willingness to change directions and shuck audience expectations (while still making enough sense within the plot) since day one. Part II offers a similarly grand final act, but by the time it gets to it the twists that continue to one up each other have watered down the impact a bit. Also unfortunate is the cheap and ugly CGI work that bleeds into the conclusion. I shouldn't be so fickle, but the the final moments of the film offer fantastic ideas to think about and then distracts us from them by showing off some goofy developments that don't appear realistic in any way. I'm truly intrigued by the way the film wrapped up Nell's story (for now?), but the flaws in presentation take away from the effect that these developments have on us. If nothing else, the first movie got it right with its "less is more" approach to the climax.

I want to flat out recommend The Last Exorcism Part II, because I think Bell is that good in the lead and I think the story heads in a fascinating and engaging direction. The film had my attention piqued throughout and wasn't dull for a second, but it makes a lot of wrong steps that seem like shortcuts, particularly in the final act. Fans of the first film and Bell's performance there should at least get something out of this sequel, but I'm not sure viewers will be able to overcome all the little things that just don't feel right. Still, I'm glad I saw where Nell Sweetzer's story went, and if they brought Bell back for an (even more unlikely) Part III, I'd probably check in. This one's at least worth a rental for her work.

Dark Skies

(2013, Dir. by Scott Stewart.)

One of the most interesting arguments about movies, at least to me, is the one that compares movie viewing to addiction.  Most addiction theories talk about how an addict buys in to a high, but it's a high that decreases over time. The theory says that the high is greatest at first, but later in the addict's life the tolerance builds up and they can never reach that same feeling again. The theory makes sense there, and, unfortunately, occasionally makes sense with movies too.

If you're a horror fan like me, then consider that time when you were a kid and were first really scared by a movie.  You probably thought it could happen to you and came up with safe guards to prevent yourself from the movie and all kinds of silly kid things. Some people don't, but I know I did. Heck, I thought there might be something under the bed till I was 18. Did I get picked on and bullied in school? Sure I did. But it was a for a good cause.

Time, however, reveals all things. The more horror we watch, the more we become accustomed to the tricks, the more we start to recognize the twists, and the more we become cynical toward what we see. That first time you saw someone jump out from behind someone in a horror movie sure made you scream, but now think of the 437th time you saw it happen. Did you laugh? I probably laughed. Doesn't mean I didn't enjoy it, but it does mean that I didn't feel the same shock.

Which brings me to Dark Skies, a new horror movie full of old horror movie tricks. It follows in the footsteps of successful films from the same producers - as noted by the poster it's clearly riding the coattails of Paranormal Activity and Insidious, not to mention last year's creeper Sinister - which means it uses a lot of the same moves that we've already seen. The lighting, the music, and even the settings are entirely familiar to anyone who has seen those films. And it's not like those flicks were the first to use bump-in-the-night tactics to get audiences' attentions, which makes the film even more familiar to horror addicts. It's hard to really be shocked by anything contained in this film, whose biggest flaw is existing in the wake of literally thousands of films that have the same style.

Now that I've gotten my old man horror rant out of the way (And, good lord, it took me long enough!), here's the kicker - Dark Skies is a pretty competent little horror film. The plot follows the same arc that we've seen in the previously mentioned films, with the major tweak being that demons or ghosts have been replaced by aliens. This is sure to draw skepticism from plenty of viewers, and some of the reveals are a little silly. Yet the film never fully goes off the cliff of realism and manages to keep its feet as it moves through this battle with an increasingly problematic adversary.

The film gets most of its strength from the two actors in the lead. Keri Russell and Josh Hamilton are the married couple who, along with their two children, are terrorized by visitors and both give grounded and interesting performances. Russell is the bigger name and the one who is given the most screen time to uncover oddities and react with unease, but the character written for Hamilton is a truly interesting twist on the usual. Films of this sort often miss with the male character (i.e. - Mee-kah in Paranormal Activity), but Hamilton's character is never completely skeptical or distant from the proceedings. It's a fantastic addition to the film when we see this man go through a human range of emotions without being one note, and it cements that Dark Skies isn't just a cash in on a formula.

Of course, the fact that Dark Skies follows a formula I've seen a plethora of times doesn't discount the film for those who don't know the formula. As I watched the film tonight, a family of four with two pre-teen daughters sat across the aisle. Did one of the daughters scream loudly about 20 times during the movie? Yes, yes she did. Did I smile every time? Yes, yes I did. It was those moments, in which a young horror viewer reacted to the same kind of things I used to react to, that made me appreciate everything Dark Skies has to offer, both on its own and as a member of the horror family. The film works on the simplest level of horror, which should grab the viewers with a low tolerance, and offers new twists like the well-written family dynamic and some surprising dream sequences for the high tolerance folks like myself. Dark Skies will never go down as a revelation in the horror genre, but I'm pretty comfortable saying it does enough right to make it worth a viewing.

Cosmopolis

(2012, Dir. by David Cronenberg.)

Yeah, I'll admit it - I kind of put Cosmopolis on the back burner when it came out. Cronenberg's last film, A Dangerous Method, left me a little disappointed, but the main reason I ignored this movie was because it starred that Twilight guy. Look, I'm on the internet a ton and I hear people talk and I've picked up that it's not cool to like Twilight - which is great, because I've never given the series much thought - but I should have poo-pooed that bias and seen Cosmopolis in the first place. 

And so it came to pass that I was in the video store last weekend and looked up at this strange trailer that was playing on one of the TVs in the store and was instantly like "WHOA, what the frank is that crazy looking, good looking movie?"  And the answer was Cosmopolis. And I remembered how good Cronenberg can be when he's good. I'm not saying I made a beeline across the store, but I definitely made it a priority and didn't go home without it. 

(I'm also not gonna lie about one other thing - the moment in that trailer when i went from "I kinda wanna see that crazy looking, good looking movie." to "I GOTTA see that crazy looking, good looking movie!" was when the trailer showed the name of Kevin Durand, known forever to me as 'The Goonest Looking Guy in The World" as one of the stars. That guy is awesome.)

Which brings us to me actually watching Cosmopolis, an experience that quickly became a great one. I'm not necessarily sure I can tell you the movie is a great one - I saw it like four days ago and it's still rolling around my head and bouncing off of questions, usually without finding answers - but I can tell you that it works on a purely bizarre plane of cinema where nothing makes sense and every next scene is a mystery. The plot, in its basest form, follows millionaire businessman Eric Packer (played by Pattinson) who sets off across the city in his bright white limousine to get a haircut. Sounds like a boring plot, no? Well, you're in luck because the city in question is in an unpredictable state of political and financial turmoil, which means there's a metaphorical bullseye on the lead's head - which becomes literal when threats on his life are received by his chief of security (the awesome Durand, who looks as goon as ever, even in a suit) and riots break out throughout the city.

As Packer makes his trip across the city, perched in an eerily throne-like back seat and surrounded by a rotating troupe of associates, doctors, and prostitutes the film occasionally resembles an incoherent crackbaby parented by Ferris Bueller's Day Off and David Fincher's The Game.  Packer interacts with those around him using stunted means of communication, having incredibly personal dialogues with others while using as few words as possible.  We learn a lot about the man - about everything from his business empire to his marriage to his prostate - while never really getting too close to feel like he's much of a human.

As such, the pale and uncomfortable Pattinson is actually a perfect fit for the lead role. The actor seems to be very aware of himself in the role and never flinches despite the bizarre things going on.  Growing up around football coaches, one of the lessons that has always stuck with me was that a consistent commitment to the cause and a "buy in" to the goal at hand is often much more important than talent - and I feel like that's where Cronenberg and Pattinson were working here. I'm sure that Cronenberg - who has had films focused on talents like James Woods, Jeremy Irons, and Viggo Mortenson - could get almost any actor he wanted to play a lead that is on screen for nearly every minute of this film - but the marriage between he and Pattinson is the marriage that the film needed. It's gutsy casting, but I think it pays off.

The film also brings an all-star supporting cast to the table, even if most appear for only one sequence. Notable names like Juliette Binoche, Jay Baruchel, Samantha Morton and Paul Giamatti show up for a sequence each, and each brings something useful and interesting to the discussion.  One of the more attention grabbing segments features Emily Hampshire as a business associate who meets with Packer as he's also getting an exam from his doctor, and this early film segment might be the first real clue that this journey is going to go off the rails as the day goes on. The two people who show up alongside Pattinson most often in the film are Durand and Sarah Gadon, who might be the film's most fascinating mystery as Packer's new wife and the object of his desires. She is - not coincidentally - one of the few reasons he ever leaves the controlled environment of the limousine, and the cold of the character when interacting with the equally distant lead character really fits perfectly within the film's odd tone.

I'm not going to sit here and try to make sense of the bizarre film - on one hand it's quite straight forward, on the other it's batcrap insane - because that's a task for someone much smarter and more eloquent than I am. But I am going to recommend Cosmopolis to those who are interested in abstract cinema, because what Cronenberg has put together here is certainly the right kind of cinematic trip. There's some rust around the edges and the film never really becomes profound, but it's ambitious and different and (most importantly) interesting.  This isn't quite Cronenberg at his best, but it's a step in the right direction and a movie that is worth thinking about.

Sleep Tight

(2011, Dir. by Jaume Balaguero.)

Sleep Tight is a very simple thriller that makes itself great through very extraordinary methods.  The obsessed stalker subgenre has been an American favorite at times - particularly around the late '80s and early '90s - but this Spanish chiller dares to take risks that many filmmakers would avoid.  The result of those risks is a film that kind of blew my mind.

The story primarily follows two characters - Cesar (played by Luis Tosar), the concierge at a pretty decent apartment building; and Clara (played by Marta Etura) a twentysomething tenant who is young, beautiful, and the object of Cesar's lust.  In fact, we learn very quickly that Cesar spends most of his evenings hiding under Clara's bed and waiting until she's asleep and he can sedate her.

Now, I'm willing to bet that any female reader who just considered the possibility of a man hiding under their bed and waiting to pounce just freaked out. That's the natural, and probably correct, reaction to the premise.  Director Jaume Balaguero - who knows a bit about apartment based horror after co-directing the first two [REC] films - doesn't waste any time setting up Cesar's role as aggressor, and the first act of the film does more than enough to make us uncomfortable with the man. 

The thing about Sleep Tight - the thing that I think is truly amazing - is that it's not that easy to really hate Cesar. I feel awful saying that - I don't support stalking and raping, obviously - but Balaguero focuses almost all of the film's attention on Cesar, and the obsessed man is never painted as a one-note psychopath.  Many films of this sort add scenes that are entirely there to make us think the perpetrator is a total freak, but Sleep Tight takes Cesar's side in the story more often than you'd expect.  I couldn't help feeling like there were moments when Cesar was more like Cary Grant in To Catch a Thief than Anthony Perkins in Psycho, and I feel kind of crazy admitting that.

I won't say that I was rooting for the creeper, nor will I suggest that you should. But the real treat of Sleep Tight is that it doesn't settle for the simple approach to this story.  Cesar is a troubled man, not a representation of evil.  Clara isn't built up as the representation of everything that's good, either.  We have plenty of reasons to know that Cesar is a bad guy and Clara is a victim - the most obvious of which is common sense - but Balaguero knows how to create drama in any situation. I am still kind of shocked that I found myself worried about how Cesar would escape being found out in so many situations, but the film is so engaging that I just couldn't help it.

Sleep Tight will certainly go down as one of the most impressive and memorable horror films of recent years for me. It's got a truly Hitchcockian tone, a marvelous lead performance, and enough creepy moments to make most films of its type jealous.  Balaguero will be returning to the [REC] series soon to bring more hyperactive horror to us all, but Sleep Tight should put genre fans on notice that this is a filmmaker who can control a film in many different ways.  I've been thinking about it for days, and can't recommend it enough.

(P.S. - Why is everyone in Spain listening to music from America? Only thing that confused me about this flick.)

FMWL Indie Spotlight - Gut

(2012, Dir. by Elias.)

The snuff film is back with Gut, a psychological indie thriller that aims to draw us in with a deep focus on death.  It's not entirely successful in this regard, but it does leave an impression as a unique addition to the horror genre.

The film follows a family man, Tom, and his co-worker and friend Dan. The two men live a relatively boring life, working in a boring office and eating lunch in a boring diner and reminiscing about the good old days - which sound like they were boring except for watching horror movies. The thing is that Tom is Mr. Serious Married Man now and has little interest in those olden days, while Tom just wants to hang out and watch horror movies like Return of the Living Dead 3.

Since Tom is embracing the boring, the only way Dan can get his attention is by upping the stakes - which means he starts ordering gonzo horror flicks that seem to consist entirely of stomachs being cut open - and which also seem to look extremely real.  I'm not entirely sure this type of film appeals to me - then again, I have spent plenty of time watching YouTube videos of animals being vaporized by vehicles with friends - but Tom and Dan are soon enamored and trapped in the path of whoever makes these sadistic pieces of torture cinema.

The resulting events lead the characters into madness and violence, which you can bet makes their lives a little less boring. Along the way we learn that neither character is very wholesome - let alone very interesting - and we see their relationships with others quickly fall apart.  There's some commentary about the people who chase violent thrills to be had here, which is probably the best thing to focus on in the film. If you can avoid getting too caught up in the acting (Jason Vail, who plays Tom, is especially wooden) and pacing (plenty of shots seem to hold for far too long) and get caught up in the mysteries of what is going on and why it's having such a dramatic effect on these men, you might not mind checking out Gut.

I'm not sure the whole film works. It's raw, but it's raw in a bad "we're being way too deliberate" way and not a good "we're bucking trends and making our own rules" way. The idea is interesting, and it's one of those stories that could be fleshed out more with more interesting characters and more intrigue. Worst of all, the conclusion is incredibly disappointing, wrapping up with a previously teased confrontation that doesn't answer most of our questions. Part of that problem is on the actors - again, I just couldn't get past the stiff performance by Vail - but it's also a problem that the film gives us so much information and so little conclusion.

Gut has plenty of problems but, as I said in the opening, it at least leaves an impression. The snuff-ish sequences are definitely unsettling, and the sequences that surround them - as we watch the male characters become increasingly enamored in them - provoke a lot of thought. The whole product isn't fantastic, but it at least has moments that show a lot of promise. I'd be fascinated to see what writer/director Elias has up his sleeve in the future, because Gut feels like a starting point for an intelligent horror director's career - if he can get the right people around him.  Gut is worth keeping an eye out for if you're a fan of human horror, but to me it ended up as more of an interesting attempt than a winning success.

For more info on Gut, head on over to the official site or Facebook page.  The film is available for rent on plenty of platforms, details of which you can find at those links.