Dell's Good, Bad & Ugly Movie Reviews

[dell71]

Scream Blacula Scream
<strong>Directed by Bob Kelljan.</strong>
<em>1973. Rated PG, 96 minutes.
Cast:
William Marshall
Pam Grier
Don Mitchell
Richard Lawson
Michael Conrad
Lynne Moody
Janee Michelle
Barbara Rhoades</em>​

Willis Daniels (Lawson) isn’t grieving even though his mother has just passed away and, for some reason, is still lying on the couch in a room full of people. He’s too busy whining that she didn’t name him as her successor to become the high priest of their little voodoo cult. There will be a vote to see who gets the post and all the members assure him they won’t be voting for him, they’ll be voting for Lisa. Lisa is played by………Pam Grier. I love Pam Grier. Willis storms out. Not done with the affair, though, he goes to visit an old man who himself was once ousted from the very same position in the same group to get some help plotting revenge. The old man gives Willis a pile of bones (complete with skull) and an instruction manual, tells him this will help him get revenge and warns him of the immense power he’s about to unleash. Undeterred, Willis uses the instructions to resurrect whoever this heap of bones used to be. Of course, we know from the title that it is none other than our favorite non-Anglo vampire: Prince Mamuwalde, AKA Blacula. Our boy comes back to (un)life and bites Willis which sends us into the opening credits. When they stop rolling, Willis is a vampire and his storyline is largely forgotten. Did I mention that Pam Grier is in this movie?

Honestly, it’s probably a good idea we move on from Willis. Blacula is a far more intriguing character. If you saw the first movie then you know that right at the end, he becomes a strangely sympathetic character. When he shows up on the screen this time around, that’s gone and we’re right back into the horror. Like most sequels, the body count is amped up a bit. The story also takes a little while longer to take shape. Blacula spends much time hanging around the cult after he learns that the beautiful Pam Grier, I mean Lisa, is naturally gifted when it comes to voodoo. In between conversations with her and her boyfriend Justin (Mitchell) who collects ancient African artifacts, Mamuwalde chows down on random cultists plus a couple muggers that can’t take a hint. Of course, with all the bodies piling up and then disappearing Justin gets suspicious and tries desperately to convince the cops that a vampire is responsible. Meanwhile, I get increasingly jealous of the two men who get to sit very near Pam Grier.

As a whole, the visuals haven’t aged well which detracts from the fright factor. Still, the makeup is a bit better than it was in the original and there are a few very effective scenes based on tone and tension. The dialogue ranges from pretty good in spots to terrible in others. Most of the acting is nothing to write home about, either. Yet in the title role William Marshall, a Shakespearian trained actor and you can tell it, rises above his cast mates and endows Mamuwalde with the dignity and formalism befitting a prince. And yes, leading lady Pam Grier is mesmerizing. Hmmm…if I didn’t know any better, I’d say I was creepier than the movie.

Through it all, we get a fun, occasionally campy horror flick that manages to turn the same trick as its predecessor by making us feel bad for the bad guy. We don’t develop the same level of empathy we did the first time around but we don’t loathe him and look at him like an unfeeling monster, either. It’s these touches that mark the franchise as better than expected. Neither title leads you to believe the films will be any good at all. While they aren’t great, they’re both enjoyable. And this one has Pam Grier.

<strong>MY SCORE: 6/10</strong>​

 

[Buzzman]

Nice. Nice. I enjoyed the remake of Fright Night yet have never seen the original. Is that probably why?

 

[dell71]

^Quite possibly.

 

[SethMode]

Dell, well done sir, even for you. This is insane.

 

[dell71]

Don't Be Afraid of the Dark
<strong>Directed by Troy Nixey.</strong>
<em>2011. Rated R, 99 minutes.
Cast:
Katie Holmes
Guy Pearce
Bailee Madison
Jack Thompson
Julia Blake
Alan Dale
Trudy Hellier
Garry McDonald
Guillermo del Toro</em>​

Sally (Madison) is a tween who, according to her, was perfectly happy living with her mother. However, mom thinks the girl is a few Barbie dolls short of a complete set, if you know what I mean, medicates her and ships her off to live with her dad Alex (Pearce) and his girlfriend Kim (Holmes). Sure enough, soon after arriving at the mansion dad and Kim are not only living in, but renovating, she starts hearing voices coming from a basement no one knew existed. Dad busts open the basement, pleased he has more house to fix up. He doesn’t buy the voices so naturally he and Kim also think the girl is nuts but don’t know what to do with her since sending her back is not an option. On the other hand, we know she is completely sane and the things she hears and sees are quite real. What she sees are a bunch of tiny, evil creatures with a liking for sharp objects and a peculiar appetite. This is a remake of a made-for-TV movie from the 1970s starring Kim Darby. Almost forgot: PG-13 horror that somehow earned an ‘R’ rating ensues.

Okay, the prior sentence takes an unnecessary shot at Don’t Be Afraid of the Dark. It is better than that line implies. The creatures themselves are immediately reminiscent of those from The People Under the Stairs, at least to a person like me who hasn’t seen that movie in well over a decade. They are a particularly vicious lot when given the opportunity and prone to pop up suddenly, giving us a few jump scares.

Director Troy Nixey acts as an extension of Guillermo del Toro (director of Pan’s Labyrinth, both Hellboy movies) who hatched the idea to do this remake and serves as producer. Nixey gives us a sufficiently spooky tone, those aforementioned jump scares and a couple of truly harrowing scenes. He wrings what he can from a clichéd screenplay. As is often the case in haunted house flicks, dad is oblivious to what’s going on, while (step)mom is at first skeptical but slowly comes around. There’s also the old man who doles out ominous warnings and always looks nervous, obviously knowing more than he’s telling. Finally, we eventually discover some of the house’s dark secrets. These are not explained in nearly enough of a coherent manner, but still move the plot forward.

Speaking of the plot and things unexplained, we’re left with a number of holes and a blatant setup for a sequel. Given what happens in the beginning, the last scene doesn’t make sense other than to give those already frightened one last chill. This makes it a decent watch that falls apart under even rudimentary scrutiny. Therefore, it’s best if you don’t think about it too much. This includes not trying to figure out that ‘R’ rating I mentioned earlier. I get it, I guess. The opening scene is truly squirm inducing and one other scene is a bit on the bloody side. Still, it wouldn’t bother me one bit if this garnered a PG-13 especially since that’s the crowd likely to get the most enjoyment out of this. Either way, it’s best if watched in the dark you shouldn’t be afraid of with some jumpy people who are.

<strong>MY SCORE: 6/10</strong>​

 

[dell71]

Mother's Day
<strong>Directed by Darren Lynn Bousman.</strong>
<em>2010. Rated R, 112 minutes.
Cast:
Rebecca De Mornay
Jaime King
Frank Grillo
Patrick John Flueger
Shawn Ashmore
Lyriq Bent
Briana Evigan
Deborah Ann Woll
Warren Kole
Kandyse McClure
Tony Nappo
Lisa Marcos</em>​

Group A is a friendly crowd. They’re having a boozy fun time at the house of Daniel (Grillo) and Beth (King) to celebrate his birthday. There are nine, in all. Aside from our hosts, there is the young couple, the black couple, the middle aged guy/early 20s chick couple and random single female friend. Everyone is hanging out in the basement. It’s a nice setup: pool table, bar, music on blast – you know the deal.

Group B is not so friendly. Even though they’re very big on family, actually they are family, they’re not the kind you want to hang around. In fact, they’ve just finished robbing a bank. Well, it was a job gone horribly wrong. Johnny (O’ Leary), the youngest of the three brothers is dying in the back seat of the getaway car from a gunshot wound. Ike (Flueger) is the eldest. He controls the other two, somewhat, but the current situation has him a bit frazzled. The middle brother Addley (Kole) is always frazzled. It quickly becomes evident that their mother is the one who really pulls the strings. So it only makes sense that the boys head home to Mother’s (De Mornay) house. They come screeching into the driveway, burst in through the door and shout loudly for their mom. Lo and behold, the boys haven’t been in contact with her in a few months and are unaware that she lost the house due to foreclosure. That’s right, this is where Daniel and Beth live and Group A is hanging out downstairs. Not surprisingly, a hostage situation breaks out and luckily for the boys, there is a doctor is in the house. When they finally get a hold of mom on the phone, she fills the boys in on the house situation and hurries over to get things under control. Of course, Group A realizes that once she walks into the door, things have gotten considerably worse for their chances of survival.

From the moment Rebecca De Mornay appears on the screen we’re pretty much mesmerized. As our main protagonist, she gives a brilliantly odd performance that makes us believe we’re finding out what it would be like if June Cleaver (google her, young’uns) were a homicidal sociopath. She plays the role with unwavering assertion and drops the clichés our own mothers said to us in between giving her boys orders to do some heinous things. It’s a deliciously over the top and wicked performance that transcends many of the film’s weaker qualities.

Yes, there are some weaker qualities. For characters other than Mother, the dialogue is pretty much recycled from just about every other home invasion flick. Once you know the tropes the various characters represent, what’s going to come out of their mouths is fairly predictable. This bleeds into the rest of the movie, rendering it a bit easy to figure. Most figurable of all is the trite horror movie ending/set up for a sequel.

Thankfully, the movie creates plenty of tension and draws us to the edge of our seats with one outrageous scenario after another. As the movie goes on, the craziness gradually increases until we’re very near the breaking point. The stakes continuously grow as does the violence. Yes, it’s plenty violent and graphically so. Nothing less is to be expected from the same people heavily involved in the Saw franchise. So yeah, this isn’t for everyone.

Mother’s Day also manages to be fun. That’s because there is a thread of very dark comedy running all the way through the movie. It displays the kind of twisted sense of humor that only people with a twisted sense of humor will appreciate. This includes it functioning as a nasty little slice of recession era angst. It’s a remake of an old Troma movie from 1980 of the same name. I haven’t seen that one, but this may make me seek it out.

<strong>MY SCORE: 7.5/10</strong>​

 

[dell71]

Psycho
<strong>Directed by Alfred Hitchcock.</strong>
<em>1960. Not Rated, 109 minutes.
Cast:
Anthony Perkins
Janet Leigh
Vera Miles
John Gavin
Martin Balsam
Frank Albertson
Simon Oakland
Patricia Hitchcock
John McIntire
Vaughn Taylor</em>​

In the 50 plus years since its release, Alfred Hitchcock’s <em>Psycho</em> has been reduced to two iconic scenes: the shower scene and the big reveal near the end. It is known as one of the all-time great movies, but why has been lost in the shuffle. The film outside of the two moments I’ve just mentioned have practically faded into oblivion. This is too bad because the entirety of the story still sizzles.

That story begins not with the psycho but the victim. Marion Crane (Leigh) spends lots of time in seedy hotels with Sam (Gavin) whom she wants to become her legitimate boyfriend. He expresses doubts about his own ability to take care of her since his business isn’t exactly booming. Still, he agrees that he wants to spend as much time with her as possible, even out of bed. At work, Marion is a trusted secretary for a small real estate company. After all, she’s been there for 10 years. Therefore, it’s no surprise when her boss asks her to take the $40,000 in cash from the latest sale over to the bank rather than leave it in the office over the weekend. Seeing an opportunity to set her and Sam up, Marion literally takes the money and runs. However, she doesn’t go see her beau. Instead she takes off on a drive out of town. Tired, and having trouble seeing in a driving nighttime rain she decides to stop and rest. The only place to stay she can see is The Bates Motel. While checking in, she meets Norman Bates. He runs the place for his constantly angry mother who apparently never leaves the big spooky house at the top of the hill. He’s also obviously starving for a conversation that doesn’t involve mom berating him. Cutting to the quick, Mrs. Bates does indeed leave the house and stabs Marion to death during that famous shower scene. Still looking for his money, Marion’s boss hires a private eye, Det. Arbogast (Balsam) to find her. Eventually, her sister Lila (Miles) and Sam are involved in the search.

From here, Hitchcock gives us what is still a fairly unique whodunit. He shows us the killer, but soon casts doubt over what we’ve seen. Even so, the number of suspects remains sparse. The tale surrounding this is anything but. The director builds an interesting procedural and makes us sympathize with Norman Bates. Even though we plainly see him commit some despicable acts in an attempt to cover for his mother, we feel both sorry for and repulsed by him. He’s clearly damaged. To what extent, we’re not sure. Then, as the movie progresses what was once subtext floats to the surface. Sure, the passage of time and numerous other movies putting their own spin on what happens here have dulled the edge a bit. Still, the shift from investigation to character study is fascinating. All of it emanates from what seems like a throwaway line when we first hear it, before realizing that it was an ominous warning: “A boy’s best friend is his mother.”

<em>Psycho</em> is routinely listed among the top handful of horror movies ever made and with good reason. It has the storytelling that much of today’s fright flicks eschew in favor of gore and violence. That same gore and violence renders the kill scenes here a bit tame. Intuiting that action is less impactful than the lead up to and effects of it, that masterful shower scene is outdone by its own aftermath. Starting with the camera practically in her eye and slowly pulling back to reveal Marion’s lifeless body draped over the side of the tub, mouth agape, is still all sorts of unsettling. The morbid magic at work here is that it feels grounded in reality. With the current bent towards showing us death in ever more spectacular ways the simplicity on display here is sublime. Following this cleverly plain moment, complexities slowly unravel while appearing not to.

<strong>MY SCORE: 10/10</strong>​

 

[tigstah]

psycho deserves the 10/10....very good movie.
scream blacula scream and blacula, horrible movies in today's standards, but when i was a kid. scared the ish out of me. as did the night stalker.
now they are more comedy than horror.....

 

[Fox1994]

That was a great marathon you just ran, man. Bravo. There's a ton of movies I haven't seen that I want to, now. Including Blacula. ha.

 

[dell71]

That was a great marathon you just ran, man. Bravo. There's a ton of movies I haven't seen that I want to, now. Including Blacula. ha.

Had to save the most wonderfully terrible (and one good one) for the stretch run...

 

[dell71]

Cat People
<strong>Directed by Paul Schrader.</strong>
<em>1982. Rated R, 119 minutes.
Cast:
Nastassja Kinski
Malcolm McDowell
John Heard
Annette O’Toole
Ruby Dee
Ed Begley Jr.
Frankie Faison
John Larroquette
Scott Paulin</em>​

As a teenage boy I loved this movie. Even then, I watched as many flicks as I could get my eyeballs on. Summer trips from my native Queens to visit my grandparents in North Carolina meant an escape from the confines of VHF and UHF viewing (google it, young’uns) and a couple months with the infant known as cable television. This included HBO. During the hottest months of either 1983 and/or ’84, I forget which, they ran Cat People at least three late nights a week. I watched it as often as possible. It’s lack of explosions, somber mood and exotic looking leading lady made it seem artsy, to me. Watching it made me feel sophisticated as if this were somehow too snooty for my friends. Still, it has heavy doses of what budding bags of he-hormones crave: blood and boobs. I thought I discovered truly high caliber cinema.

Thirty years later, I realize I have no idea what I was watching, yet I love it just the same. I must say that today my reasoning is much different. What I took for bold artistic choics is simply misguided filmmaking. The storytelling is strongly of the “maybe no one will notice this plot hole” variety. Malcolm McDowell gives a typically unhinged performance while John Heard resides at the wooden end of the spectrum. Leading lady Natassja Kinski is still an exotic beauty, but her acting is more in line with Heard’s than McDowell’s. Superman’s mom and girlfriend (figure that one out) Annette O’Toole is somewhere in the middle but is more than reason enough to watch if you’re into redheads and maybe even if you’re not. The great Ruby Dee gets her Miss Cleo on while my boy Dan from Night Court (John Larroquette) has a small role. And I haven’t even mentioned how bizarre it all is. Unintentional humor, WTF moments and some surprisingly still effective special fx abound.

If you don’t believe that this is one strange trip, let me fill you in on our plot. It seems that some tribal people in the most backwards part of some third world country have sacrificed so many of their own children to the local black leopards over the centuries that the cats have evolved into a human/feline hybrid. They’re usually in human form. However, when they become sexually aroused they transform into black leopards. The only way they can turn back human is to kill. Nice. There’s a kicker. Paul (McDowell) has been living with this curse for quite a while. His sister Irena (Kinski) doesn’t yet know either of them have this affliction. She’s has just flown out to New Orleans to stay with her brother whom she hasn’t seen since she was four. Paul knows something else Irena doesn’t: the only way to get your groove on and not turn into a big black cat is by doing the oochie-coochie with a sibling. Ewww. Imagine Irena’s dismay and disgust when her big bro starts puttin’ the moves on her. I don’t mean the smooth player moves, either. I mean the overly forward desperate, sweaty, wide-eyed, screaming ‘I really need to get in your pants right now’ type of moves. Double ewww. Since sis won’t give him any, Paul continues dining on the local population of loose women. Meanwhile, Irena slowly comes to the realization of what she is and simultaneously falls for Oliver (Heard), the zoo curator. Yup.

By the way, this is a remake of a 1942 movie which I haven’t worked up the courage to watch. Somehow, I’m doubting the 1942 version is quite this bonkers. There were codes and restrictions and whatnot. This newer version dispenses with any notion of restraint and just goes for the full-on ridiculous. It’s saving grace, if it wants to be taken seriously are the special fx. Cat People isn’t loaded with them, but they’re effective. In particular, Nastassja Kinski’s transformation scene is among the best I’ve ever seen considering the era in which it was made. It even blows away stuff I’ve only seen recently. Unfortunately, nothing else here is nearly on that level. If you’ve seen this movie, you’re probably nodding your head in agreement right now. If not, you must understand the big lesson the movie teaches us. Suffice it to say, it shuns incest by extolling the virtues of bondage and bestiality. For that, it’s so bad it’s awesome!

<strong>MY SCORE: -10/10</strong>​

 

[dell71]

The Car
<strong>Directed by Elliot Silverstein.</strong>
<em>1977. Rated PG, 96 minutes.
Cast:
James Brolin
Kathleen Lloyd
John Marley
R. G. Armstrong
Ronny Cox
John Rubinstein
Kim Richards
Elizabeth Thompson
Kate Murtagh</em>​

The Lincoln Continental Mark III is a marvel of 1970s engineering. Sure, I could wax poetic about its classic look and sturdy construction, but suffice it to say what the people of Santa Ynez say about it: it’s big and black. Heeeeyyyy, that’s what she…nevermind. The most important feature of the particular vehicle we focus on is that it’s driven by Satan, himself. No silly, he’s not actually sitting in the driver’s seat. No one is. The townspeople of Santa Ynez can’t tell this from the outside, however. The windows are tinted an incredibly dense red. Red, Satan, get it? All they know is that this behemoth of a car is mowing down any pedestrians it comes across. Man, there are days I wish I could do this! Does that make me evil? Anyhoo, the race is on to keep The Car from running over the whole town.

Our hero is Captain Wade Parent (Brolin). The responsibility of stopping The Car falls to him after the town sheriff finds himself all killed and stuff. There is a subplot about Wade trying to get his two daughters to accept his girlfriend Lauren (Lloyd), who happens to be their teacher. However, this is about as important to the movie as you are. There is another slightly more relevant one about one of the deputies who is an alcoholic being so shaken he goes back to the bottle. I only mention it because he’s played by Ronny Cox, or as I like to refer to him, Lt. Bogomil from Beverly Hills Cop. Yes, I know he’s done plenty of other stuff. Sue me. Actually, you’re more important than either of those storylines because the movie needs you to watch and not ask silly questions. Why did the devil choose this particular town? Don’t worry about it. Just know that’s he’s there and be glad you’re not. How does ramming a bicycle directly from the back send it and the rider careening over the side of a bridge? Unimportant. How come no one tries any evasive maneuvers aside from waiting until the very last possible second to jump out of the way? Never you mind. How exactly does Lt. Bogomil’s, er – I mean the deputy’s wife get <em>those</em> into that top? Accept that some mysteries will never be solved.

There are some questions you might persist on asking. What can this car do that others can’t? You mean, aside from drive itself? For starters, it can turn sideways, flip itself and/or leap off the ground whenever it wants. Nice. Think you’re safe in your living room? Nope. Here comes the Car flying through your window, somehow landing back on the street despite driving straight through your house. Huh? Yes, that really happens. It can also flick open its doors with enough force to hospitalize a grown man and occasionally gale force winds kick up when it comes around.

Okay, what have we learned today? We’ve learned that Satan likes Lincolns and is pissed off at the (mostly) good people of the fictional desert town of Santa Ynez. We’ve learned that His Lincoln can routinely defy the laws of physics. We’ve also learned that this is a grade Z unintentionally funny, cheesy hunk of 70s horror. Believe me, I mean this in the most endearing terms possible. In other words, it’s so bad it’s awesome!

<strong>MY SCORE: -10/10</strong>​

 

[dell71]

Dr. Giggles
<strong>Directed by Manny Coto.</strong>
<em>1992. Rated R, 95 minutes.
Cast:
Larry Drake
Holly Marie Combs
Cliff De Young
Glenn Quinn
Keith Diamond
Richard Bradford
Michelle Johnson
Doug E. Doug
Deborah Tucker</em>​

Evan Rendell, Jr. (Drake) doesn’t just escape from the mental institution, he leaves a pile of dead and mutilated bodies in his wake. He fancies himself a physician and the nuthouse has been keeping him from the patients he so desperately wants to see. They don’t want to see him, but that’s beside the point. After so many years away, the doctor is in.

‘In’ means he’s made it back to his hometown of Moorehigh to settle the score with the good citizens who joined forces and killed his dad, naturally named Evan Sr., who was actually a real doctor. Unfortunately, dad snapped when his wife came down with severe heart problems. To find her a new one, he started taking the hearts out of patients who not only weren’t donors, they weren’t even dead yet. Judging by the town folks’ reaction, this practice was highly frowned upon. Junior trying to kill everyone in Moorehigh ensues.

Not only is the story typical slasher fare, it absolutely rips off both Halloween and A Nightmare on Elm Street (this includes having the local children sing a disturbing song about the doc). Dr. Giggles simply combines the plots of those movies and repurposes them to fit its villain. This was particularly problematic in 1992 since both movies were fresh in our collective mind as the brilliant originals of still-going franchises. Dr. Giggles neatly sidesteps this short-coming with a heaping dollop of morbid humor.

To call it a twisted comedy doesn’t quite do it justice. In fact, Dr. Giggles uses it’s jaded funny bone to do the impossible. It takes a string of doctor-speak clichés, uses them as blatantly corny one-liners and it’s somehow hilarious. For instance, take the scene in which he bludgeons someone to death. After they go flying across the room, he quips “Average reflexes.” Reading it here, you’re probably rolling your eyes at how bad that is. When you see it, you’ll be cracking up. The killer is (ha, I’m punny) Larry Drake delivers each line with a perfectly straight face, not even a hint of knowing how silly the words are coming from his mouth. At other times, his warped giggle causes our own uneasy chuckles. He’s simultaneously menacing and ridiculous, no easy feat.

Dr. Giggles is an underappreciated gem of a slasher flick that anyone not a fan of the genre might immediately dismiss. The rest of us won’t be able to contain our laughter even as bodies are sliced open. Speaking of bodies being sliced open, I haven’t even mentioned the morgue scene. That alone makes this worthy of a portion of the time you’ve allotted for watching DTMs (dead teenager movies), if you’re into that sort of thing.

<strong>MY SCORE: 7/10</strong>​

 

[dell71]

The Cabin in the Woods
<strong>Directed by Drew Goddard.</strong>
<em>2011. Rated R, 95 minutes.
Cast:
Kristen Connolly
Chris Hemsworth
Anna Hutchison
Fran Kranz
Jesse Williams
Richard Jenkins
Bradley Whitford
Brian White
Amy Acker
Tim De Zarn
Jodelle Ferland</em>​

What if the hunting and one by one killing of teenagers we see in slasher flicks serves a greater purpose than placating the sadism of their viewers? What might that purpose be? These are the questions pulsing through every frame of The Cabin in the Woods. Also evident is some interesting commentary presented in the most grotesque and/or humorous manner.

The story seems fairly typical. Five college students who are more types than actual people decide to spend their break at a secluded cabin, owned by a cousin of one of them, for some fornicating and inebriating. There’s the alpha male Curt (none other than “Thor” himself, Chris Hemsworth), his blonde and ditzy girlfriend Jules (Hutchison), the wise pothead Marty (Kranz), intellectual but hunky guy Holden (Williams) and of course, (not quite) virginal Dana (Connolly).

On their way to the cabin, they meet the prerequisite scary old man at the also prerequisite creepy, barely operational gas station and he gives the prerequisite ominous warning. Once there, they do slasher movie stuff: take a dip in the nearby lake, play “Truth or Dare” while getting high and find an old book in the cellar containing some gruesome passages in English and more passages in Latin, all read aloud. If you know anything about horror flicks, you know reading Latin aloud is never a good idea. With that, zombies come bursting through the grounds surrounding the cabin and the killin’ starts.

Unlike thousands of other movies, kids getting dead is only half the story. Co-writers Joss Whedon (The Avengers) and Drew Goddard (Lost) take us behind the scenes to see that, unfortunately for the victims, this is actually a somewhat controlled situation. Some super-secret organization is steering the group towards their own destruction and watching the whole thing from a remote location via cameras they have all over the woods. They even cheer, jeer and take bets on what’s going to happen next. They’re a bunch even more twisted than we are. Many seem to consider this aspect a spoiler however, I do not. This is something we find out really early on and there is oh so much more to it than this.

Assessing the perversion of the people in charge leads us to another interesting question. I won’t spoil the movie by specifying the literal reason they do what they do. I will say that it’s a metaphor for we, the target audience. The majority of profitable movies in any genre stick to a certain formula. Horror is no exception. With that being the case, who is really in control? Is it the studios who keep recycling the same material knowing that a certain segment of the population will flock to the theaters? Or are we in control, making them stick to the formula knowing that we will not fork over our hard-earned dollars should they stray too far from what’s expected?

Given the questions it poses during its runtime it’s fitting The Cabin in the Woods features strong special fx and countless references to other movies (mostly horror). For the first two acts, we get efficient, if unspectacular, slasher flick fare. The blood soaked third is an explosion of those visuals and references that will have you on the edge of your seat. All the excitement may make it hard to realize there is something deeper at work, here. It may be difficult to realize what answers the ending provides about those questions, assuming one is aware of them in the first place. In other words, it works on multiple levels. Its layers don’t merely cover, but enhance one another. This works so well that despite all the wicked cutlery and pointed or jagged fangs on display, the movie’s wit is sharpest of them all.

<strong>MY SCORE: 9/10</strong>​

 

[Fox1994]

That was a really high rating for The Cabin in the Woods. I may have to check that out. I mostly know the Car from a parody Futurama did of it. Your endorsement means a lot, so maybe I'll see it.

 

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

I'm shocked you didn't like The Woman In Black...

I thought it was a good, straight traditional ghost story. No frills or anything...just a regular ol, base hit kind of ghost story...that isn't a bad thing. I thought it told a good story. However, only a one time watcher. I can not imagine this film holding up for repeat viewings...as...you said, it can drag and be stagnant. But, for an original viewing...I dug it. Just a straight ghost story.

On the flip side...I thought The Cabin In The Woods was shit.

 

[dell71]

"The Woman in Black" bored me to tears. I thought "The Cabin in the Woods" was an extremely creative take on the slasher genre and very fun. It is a love it/hate it kind of movie, though.

 

[dell71]

The Artist
<strong>Directed by Michel Hazanavicius.</strong>
<em>2011. Rated PG-13, 100 minutes.
Cast:
Jean Dujardin
Bérénice Bejo
John Goodman
James Cromwell
Missi Pyle
Penelope Ann Miller
Malcolm McDowell
Bitsie Tulloch
Uggie</em>​

Before we get to the whos and whats of The Artist there is something you should know going in: this is a silent movie presented in black and white. I imagine legions of readers instantly closing this page, resuming their incessant clicking on the never ending quest to find something more interesting. If you’ve managed to keep your trigger finger in check, congratulations on at least temporarily overcoming the same untreated form of ADHD that is laying waste to our country, particularly the youth. Congrats again if you read and understood that last sentence in less time than it took for me to think it up. We are making progress.

Progress, though heavily mixed with nostalgia, is what The Artist is about. We’re not talking progress simply for the sake of it. We’re talking about that which is brought on by evolving technology and our insatiable hunger for what’s next.

We’re also talking about what happens to those who fail to adapt. The one stuck in his ways here is George Valentin (Dujardin). Heavily borrowing of the storyline from Singin’ in the Rain, he’s a silent movie star at the height of his powers in the late 1920s and blessed with all the trappings of success: mansion, fancy cars, adoring public, etc. Mere association with him pays dividends. Young and vibrant Peppy Miller (Bejo, incidentally the real director’s wife) gets her start in show business by accidentally bumping into him at a red carpet event, an instance caught by paparazzi. Things are going so swimmingly he scoffs at the notion of making “talkies”, movie with sound. He dismisses them as if a passing fad. When his boss Al Zimmer (Goodman) warns him that this is the future, he laughs even harder. A surprise only to him, talkies become the norm and his career nosedives. Things get so bad he’s reduced to a studio apartment he can’t really afford and spends most days inside of a bottle trying to drown his sorrows.

That surface story works well. We develop more than enough empathy for George as he goes through his trials and tribulations. If that doesn’t quite do it for you, as always, there’s the love story angle. What’s better though, is that The Artist is rich in symbolism and technique. These elements give the picture the needed depth to stay with us beyond its runtime. The symbols snowball into a collection of things we miss from the films of yesteryear and of the power movies have over most of us. The technique reinforces the symbols by creating a magic all their own.

Ironically, sound is a prominent technique used. Only the dialogue is truly silent. The score appropriately sets the tone every step of the way. Another irony is the most important and symbolic moment comes when the music stops for a few breaths. During this time, a nightmare sequence for our hero, things in the room with him actually make sounds. For instance, George hearing a glass as it is set down on the table is a shock for the both the character and the audience. It’s something we take for granted in most movies. Here, it’s downright startling.

It’s little things like knowing when to use conventional sound that make The Artist a delight. One huge thing makes it beautiful to gaze upon: the cinematography. Often, when we think of that polysyllabic word we’re picturing wide open vistas of beautifully framed nature. Here, it’s a key component in maintaining the illusion that we’re truly watching something from the era in which it is set. Additionally, everything we need to focus on is perfectly emphasized by the camera.

Alas, as much as I like it, The Artist isn’t for everyone. This isn’t something you whip out on movie night. Like I said right at the beginning: this is a silent movie presented in black and white. If you can get past the idea of not hearing people talk (or you’re already past it), you’ll be rewarded with a fun experience that has as much in common with recent flicks Hugo and Super8 as it does the film’s it emulates. Like those, it’s a love letter to the movies of our collective past.

<strong>MY SCORE: 8.5/10</strong>​

 

[red33]

cabin in the woods thought

 

for cabin in the woods, besides the metaphor you pointed out about them and us, I felt like the reason all went to hell was because they got the virgin and nerd wrong. The girl wasnt the virgin, she fucked her professor. Also shes a nerd, she wanted to bring her study books to the cabin. the stoner was the virgin and nothing about him says nerd besides his glasses and clothes.

 

[Maynard]

i saw the car when i was like 8 years old and scared the shit out of me. tried to watch it again a few years ago and couldnt believe how bad it was