You know, when I popped a movie whose title is an acronym for "Cannibalistic Humanoid Underground Dwellers" into the ol' DVD player, the last thing I expected was a fairly well-shot, decently written, and well-acted flick that - gasp - might actually qualify as a legitimately good flick. Lo and behold, that's just what I got, and after absorbing the 96-minute director's cut I can report that C.H.U.D. is one movie that deserves its "cult classic" status.
Since this was my first time watching the film, there's also some additional good news: no long-winded boring story involving my long childhood history with the movie in question. With that out of the way...
PLOT: Shot entirely within New York City, the movie's plot is basically a modernization of the fascinating "terror in the sewers" urban legends. A substantial number of the homeless population living in the subterranean bowels of the city have disappeared, and a massive government cover-up as to the "why" of the situation is going on. A large portion of the movie involves various characters attempting to get to the bottom of this conspiracy, which involves the transportation of nuclear materials and a few weasely figures in power who summarily make every wrong decision along the way, as is customary with movies of this nature. Oh yeah, and large monsters with big eyes and really sharp claws who sporadically attack people. It might not be The Shining in terms of material, but it's all executed well, with plenty of slow burn and attention to the characters.
PLOT RATING: *** out of ****.
CHARACTERS AND ACTORS: This is where the movie really roped me in. The movie introduces us to several people connected to the conspiracy and the monsters. There's George Cooper (John Heard), a sarcastic fashion photographer who lives with his pregnant girlfriend (Kim Greist). There's Captain Bosch (Chris Curry), the officer in charge of the precinct where the majority of the disappearances have taken place - and one of those disappearances is his wife. And then there's A.J. Shepherd (Daniel Stern), the guy who runs the local soup kitchen, has seen firsthand the dropoff in the number of his customers, and knows something big is amiss. All of these protagonists are fleshed out very well, extremely likable, and portrayed with tons of energy by legit talented actors. The human villains (largely bureaucratic government types) are a little one-note and predictable, however.
CHARACTERS AND ACTORS RATING: *** 1/2 out of ****.
COOL FACTOR: So now we get into the "horror" aspect of the movie. The general premise when it comes to the C.H.U.D.'s is that they have run out of available food (read: the subterranean homeless population) and now have to come to the surface for their meals. The attack scenes are sparse in the movie, and truthfully are not particularly scary. When we do get to see the creatures, the makeup effects seem to be fairly well done.
COOL FACTOR: ** out of ****.
OVERALL: Go figure. I watch a movie with the express purpose of shuffling a negative review amongst my usual moronic bits of positivity, and the movie surprises me by actually being good. From what I could gather on Wikipedia, Daniel Stern and Chris Curry rewrote more than half of the original screenplay, and their passion for the project comes through in their performances, as their characters really are the strong center that holds the film's admittedly preposterous plot together. If you're looking for a horror movie with a VERY heavy emphasis on story over scares, you could definitely do worse than C.H.U.D.
OVERALL RATING: *** out of ****. Worth a buy at a decent used price.
Tuesday, November 5, 2013
Tuesday, October 29, 2013
Chopping Mall (1986)
We're taking a trip firmly back to my youth today with Chopping Mall, a movie that used to get played A TON on one of my local channels circa 1991-92. As such, it's got a lot of nostalgic value for me. Back then, I thought it was cool to see robots roaming around killing people (including Murray Fudderman, no less). Today, while it's not QUITE the classic that I remember, I still think it's a relatively fun way to waste 75 minutes.
Useless background info: This flick was directed by Jim Wynorski, a guy who has a pretty decent cult following and a well-deserved reputation as a man who slathers on his cheese as thick as it can go. Not to say that that's necessarily bad, but it's best to know what you're getting into when you see this dude's name in the credits. It was also produced by Roger Corman, which acounts for the AFOREMENTIONED Murray Fudderman, a.k.a. Dick Miller, making one of his many appearances as a character named Walter Paisley.
PLOT: You know how Dawn of the Dead was set in a shopping mall? Well, so is Chopping Mall. Clever, huh? But instead of zombies, the villains in this film are three havoc-causing security robots, accidentally activated by an electrical storm and hellbent on eradicating a group of partying teens from the premises. Yeah, it's not the deepest thing in the world, and the execution occasionally wanders into dopey territory. But if you're watching a Jim Wynorski movie for Shakespeare, you're looking in the wrong place.
PLOT RATING: ** out of ****.
CHARACTERS AND ACTORS: Other than Miller, there's one name that I recognize - Russell Todd, best known to me as the would-be camp counselor attempting to get into Kirsten Baker's pants in Friday the 13th Part II. I'm actually kinda surprised that this guy didn't make it bigger during the '80s, as he was both talented and handsome enough to rise way higher than the B-level shitfests he's primarily known for. The characters themselves are your typical horror movie mixed bag, with nerds, jocks, pretty people and shy girls all represented, and none of them made me want to throw my remote at the screen, although none of them were particularly memorable. Well, except for Suzee Slater, who (a) has gigantic breasts and (b) is the recipient of this death scene.
CHARACTERS AND ACTORS RATING: ** 1/2 out of ****.
COOL FACTOR: A movie with a 77-minute running time has precious little time to waste, and this film wastes absolutely no time getting right to the meat portion of its story, as the characters play cat-and-mouse with the ultra mean battlebots. The robots themselves are designed very well, rolling around on tank treads and talking in the requisite deep, scary voice, and are able to shoot tranquilizer darts, electrodes, and laserblasts at their quary. It amounts to a couple admittedly coolly staged deaths and some sporadically tense chase sequences inside the mall.
COOL FACTOR: *** out of ****.
OVERALL: This is one of those movies that were a dime-a-dozen during the '80s. Come up with a basic premise, throw a relatively attractive cast together, commence series of deaths, go. Some of them were better than others, and Chopping Mall has managed to rise above the pack over the years and get a cult fanbase with its quirkiness and sense of humor. It may not be quite as good as I remembered during my childhood, but it's still worth a watch if you've got a couple bucks and slightly over an hour to spare.
OVERALL RATING: ** 1/2 out of ****.
Useless background info: This flick was directed by Jim Wynorski, a guy who has a pretty decent cult following and a well-deserved reputation as a man who slathers on his cheese as thick as it can go. Not to say that that's necessarily bad, but it's best to know what you're getting into when you see this dude's name in the credits. It was also produced by Roger Corman, which acounts for the AFOREMENTIONED Murray Fudderman, a.k.a. Dick Miller, making one of his many appearances as a character named Walter Paisley.
PLOT: You know how Dawn of the Dead was set in a shopping mall? Well, so is Chopping Mall. Clever, huh? But instead of zombies, the villains in this film are three havoc-causing security robots, accidentally activated by an electrical storm and hellbent on eradicating a group of partying teens from the premises. Yeah, it's not the deepest thing in the world, and the execution occasionally wanders into dopey territory. But if you're watching a Jim Wynorski movie for Shakespeare, you're looking in the wrong place.
PLOT RATING: ** out of ****.
CHARACTERS AND ACTORS: Other than Miller, there's one name that I recognize - Russell Todd, best known to me as the would-be camp counselor attempting to get into Kirsten Baker's pants in Friday the 13th Part II. I'm actually kinda surprised that this guy didn't make it bigger during the '80s, as he was both talented and handsome enough to rise way higher than the B-level shitfests he's primarily known for. The characters themselves are your typical horror movie mixed bag, with nerds, jocks, pretty people and shy girls all represented, and none of them made me want to throw my remote at the screen, although none of them were particularly memorable. Well, except for Suzee Slater, who (a) has gigantic breasts and (b) is the recipient of this death scene.
CHARACTERS AND ACTORS RATING: ** 1/2 out of ****.
COOL FACTOR: A movie with a 77-minute running time has precious little time to waste, and this film wastes absolutely no time getting right to the meat portion of its story, as the characters play cat-and-mouse with the ultra mean battlebots. The robots themselves are designed very well, rolling around on tank treads and talking in the requisite deep, scary voice, and are able to shoot tranquilizer darts, electrodes, and laserblasts at their quary. It amounts to a couple admittedly coolly staged deaths and some sporadically tense chase sequences inside the mall.
COOL FACTOR: *** out of ****.
OVERALL: This is one of those movies that were a dime-a-dozen during the '80s. Come up with a basic premise, throw a relatively attractive cast together, commence series of deaths, go. Some of them were better than others, and Chopping Mall has managed to rise above the pack over the years and get a cult fanbase with its quirkiness and sense of humor. It may not be quite as good as I remembered during my childhood, but it's still worth a watch if you've got a couple bucks and slightly over an hour to spare.
OVERALL RATING: ** 1/2 out of ****.
Tuesday, October 22, 2013
Restoring Mount Rushmore
Ordinarily, this is where I post some long-winded introduction and give some background information on the movie that I'm about to review. That's not the case this week, as, much like Chuck D, I got so much trouble on my mind. Last Saturday, I rewatched the remakes of Friday the 13th and Nightmare on Elm Street on AMC Fearfest. It was my first viewing of both since seeing them in theaters, and the thing that struck me like a lightning bolt was that I had never ONCE felt the urge to revisit either movie since that day.
It doesn't stop there. Going to all of the latest horror releases at the multiplex used to be practically a requirement for yours truly. No matter the genre - ghost stories, found footage films, modern-day slashers, remakes - I would eat them up. September and October, in particular, were circled on the calendar months in advance as the time when Hollywood unrolled its latest batch of big-time horror offerings to placate all of us Halloween-induced fanatics. And it didn't feel like a job. This is very noteworthy considering that Friday night is my designated "movie night," a move that resulted in a "20 hours without sleep" me struggling - and actually managing - to stay awake in a movie theater.
It's been a long, slow process, but I'm not the horror guru I used to be. There was a time when I would regularly check out websites like Dread Central and Bloody Disgusting for the latest release dates, trailers, rumors etc., all with the express goal of getting the good, nasty details on upcoming horror movies with the end goal of being an informed theater viewer. Those days, it seems, are long gone, and when I think about the timeframe that this attitudanal switch took place, I can pinpoint pretty accurately what it was. So allow me to come back full circle from that first paragraph and say that I really miss the Michael Myers, Jason Voorhees and Freddy Krueger of my youth.
Horror is a very vast genre consisting of many varied and defined subgenres. If you like to be scared and you've got a decent stomach, odds are that pretty much ANYONE can find something in the horror genre that they will enjoy, from over-the-top splatterfests to realistic films about serial killers. I don't think that many people would disagree, however, with the statement that the horror movie really has an unholy trinity of modern villains as its singular God. There's the father (Michael), the son (Jason) and the unholy ghost (Freddy). These three have come to define the scary flick for myself and two generations of horror fans, much like Dracula, Frankenstein and the Wolf Man defined it for past generations, and the fact that it has been more than three years since any of these three legendary characters have graced our theater screens is very troubling to me.
A very good online friend of mine once put what has happened to these horror icons in professional wrestling terminology. If he's reading this, hopefully he doesn't mind me outright stealing his point - suffice to say, it's perfect. All three of the AFOREMENTIONED characters have been recreated and reimagined in the past decade in remake form, and all three reimaginings (while varying in quality) have one similar characteristic. Instead of simply updating the familiar story for today with modern characters but similar styles and execution, these films have devalued their aces in the hole with stylistic shifts, changes just for the sake of change, and some truly head-scratching creative decisions. Here's where the wrestling metaphor comes in. Watching these films is like watching a wrestling company take its main event stars and continually job them out and/or put them in wacky, contradictory storylines, effectively killing off the drawing power of the chief reason why the fans pay their money to see the product in the first place.
Your opinion might vary, but the fact that only the redone Halloween universe made it to a second film (and depending on who you believe, the only reason that The Sequel That Shall Not Be Named even came to fruition was because Rob Zombie felt like making a 97-minute "fuck you" to critics of his first film) is very telling. If there was demand for more of them, Michael Bay and his goons would see to it that they would exist, believe me. My online buddy was right. 42 months after the release of the last film featuring any of these characters (the 2010 Platinum Dunes Nightmare remake), nobody is talking about them. And that makes the Lick Ness Monster a very sad panda.
But fear not, citizens. Nothing is beyond saving. Since this is October and we're trying to keep it positive, here's a guide for how we can bring these horror luminaries back to the forefront where they belong. Consider it "horror booking for dummies."
1. JASON VOORHEES
First things first - I don't think the 2009 F13 reboot is terrible. Having said that, it's not that good, either. For me, the true staples of the Friday the 13th series are fun, quirky victim characters and cool kills, and I think this movie failed to deliver in a big way in both of these departments. Instead of yet another reboot, what Jason Voorhees needs at this point is the one thing that the series has always prided itself on - reinvention while also being comforting and familiar. The movies started off being serious and scary and later morphed into being completely batshit "so bad it's good" entertaining, and I think it would be loads of fun to see a movie that goes back to basics and tries to be both. My answer? Jason Takes Christmas, with a group of teens spending the holiday at a cabin near Camp Crystal Lake only to run into the most uncheerful holiday spirit anyone has ever seen. It sets the action back in the familiar confines of the series instead of, you know, outer space, yet the very simple aesthetic shift of different weather conditions and the Christmas setting adds an entirely new dynamic to the story. Not to mention weapons (think pick axes, ice skate blades and tree toppers). One of my real-life friends once complained that this would mean losing the series' much-loved gratuitous nudity dynamic, but I respectfully disagree. How hard would it be for a couple of the more amorous teens to find a hot tub?
2. FREDDY KRUEGER
The Platinum Dunes Nightmare film did many things wrong, chief among them the harebrained move of making it seem for the majority of the film as though Freddy was FRAMED for the horrific crimes that got him summarily torched and turned into a dream demon. It also didn't help that the victim characters (and Rooney Mara in particular) showed about as much raw charisma as Jessica Alba on sedatives. This series was at its best when Freddy Krueger struck a good balance between schlock and slasher, exemplified best by Dream Warriors, the insanely popular third film. The template is there. Why not use it? Thus, this would be a different take on the Nightmare on Elm Street origin, starting the next film in the midst of a brutal string of mysterious suicides instead of the usual Freddy-Nancy story. Of course, these deaths would be the handiwork of the familiar guy in the red-and-black striped sweater. It would be a good idea to amp up both his manicness (but not to an over-the-top degree) and his power in this film, as he has two very determined and very charismatic final girls to contend with who make it their mission to rally the remaining teens to victory - Kristen Parker and Alice Johnson. Throw in a few interesting quirks for the remaining teens, some hard-hitting deaths, and this guy as Freddy and you've got a real winner with some solid sequel potential.
3. MICHAEL MYERS
This is perhaps the tallest order of all. Folks, the damage done to the character of Michael Myers in Rob Zombie's films is just simply mind-boggling, as the dreadlocked rocker took a character who was "the shape of evil" and humanized him. We spend almost 45 minutes with the unmasked, talking child version of Michael in the first movie, a move that takes away every bit of mystique and sense of danger that the guy in the Shatner mask possessed in the Carpenter-helmed originals. Still, it could be done. In this case, I don't think it could be anything less than yet another complete reboot, as the latter movies in the original series are also decidedly character-killing in their own regard. The best way to accomplish this would be to set the entire film in modern-day Haddonfield, Illinois, starting with Laurie Strode (who in this version is NOT introduced with a ridiculous series of vulgar jokes) going about her daily routine and eventually arriving at young Tommy's house to babysit. Commence series of killings, and introduce Sam Loomis midway through the movie. This way, Michael's past survives only in legend and in second-hand retelling by Loomis, restoring the mystique of Myers while also presenting the material in a slightly different manner. Another wise move would be to make Laurie's friends something other than completely detestable, F-bomb-spewing catty bitches who we actually, you know, DON'T want to see wind up chopped into bitty bits.
Ordinarily, this is where I would throw a summary paragraph in to wrap this little diatribe into a bow, but that's not the case this time, as much like New Beginning Tommy Jarvis I've got nothing to say. The above are my ideas to give these horror movie main eventers the push they deserve, and if anyone in Hollywood wants to use them they are welcome to do so free of charge.
It doesn't stop there. Going to all of the latest horror releases at the multiplex used to be practically a requirement for yours truly. No matter the genre - ghost stories, found footage films, modern-day slashers, remakes - I would eat them up. September and October, in particular, were circled on the calendar months in advance as the time when Hollywood unrolled its latest batch of big-time horror offerings to placate all of us Halloween-induced fanatics. And it didn't feel like a job. This is very noteworthy considering that Friday night is my designated "movie night," a move that resulted in a "20 hours without sleep" me struggling - and actually managing - to stay awake in a movie theater.
It's been a long, slow process, but I'm not the horror guru I used to be. There was a time when I would regularly check out websites like Dread Central and Bloody Disgusting for the latest release dates, trailers, rumors etc., all with the express goal of getting the good, nasty details on upcoming horror movies with the end goal of being an informed theater viewer. Those days, it seems, are long gone, and when I think about the timeframe that this attitudanal switch took place, I can pinpoint pretty accurately what it was. So allow me to come back full circle from that first paragraph and say that I really miss the Michael Myers, Jason Voorhees and Freddy Krueger of my youth.
Horror is a very vast genre consisting of many varied and defined subgenres. If you like to be scared and you've got a decent stomach, odds are that pretty much ANYONE can find something in the horror genre that they will enjoy, from over-the-top splatterfests to realistic films about serial killers. I don't think that many people would disagree, however, with the statement that the horror movie really has an unholy trinity of modern villains as its singular God. There's the father (Michael), the son (Jason) and the unholy ghost (Freddy). These three have come to define the scary flick for myself and two generations of horror fans, much like Dracula, Frankenstein and the Wolf Man defined it for past generations, and the fact that it has been more than three years since any of these three legendary characters have graced our theater screens is very troubling to me.
A very good online friend of mine once put what has happened to these horror icons in professional wrestling terminology. If he's reading this, hopefully he doesn't mind me outright stealing his point - suffice to say, it's perfect. All three of the AFOREMENTIONED characters have been recreated and reimagined in the past decade in remake form, and all three reimaginings (while varying in quality) have one similar characteristic. Instead of simply updating the familiar story for today with modern characters but similar styles and execution, these films have devalued their aces in the hole with stylistic shifts, changes just for the sake of change, and some truly head-scratching creative decisions. Here's where the wrestling metaphor comes in. Watching these films is like watching a wrestling company take its main event stars and continually job them out and/or put them in wacky, contradictory storylines, effectively killing off the drawing power of the chief reason why the fans pay their money to see the product in the first place.
Your opinion might vary, but the fact that only the redone Halloween universe made it to a second film (and depending on who you believe, the only reason that The Sequel That Shall Not Be Named even came to fruition was because Rob Zombie felt like making a 97-minute "fuck you" to critics of his first film) is very telling. If there was demand for more of them, Michael Bay and his goons would see to it that they would exist, believe me. My online buddy was right. 42 months after the release of the last film featuring any of these characters (the 2010 Platinum Dunes Nightmare remake), nobody is talking about them. And that makes the Lick Ness Monster a very sad panda.
But fear not, citizens. Nothing is beyond saving. Since this is October and we're trying to keep it positive, here's a guide for how we can bring these horror luminaries back to the forefront where they belong. Consider it "horror booking for dummies."
1. JASON VOORHEES
First things first - I don't think the 2009 F13 reboot is terrible. Having said that, it's not that good, either. For me, the true staples of the Friday the 13th series are fun, quirky victim characters and cool kills, and I think this movie failed to deliver in a big way in both of these departments. Instead of yet another reboot, what Jason Voorhees needs at this point is the one thing that the series has always prided itself on - reinvention while also being comforting and familiar. The movies started off being serious and scary and later morphed into being completely batshit "so bad it's good" entertaining, and I think it would be loads of fun to see a movie that goes back to basics and tries to be both. My answer? Jason Takes Christmas, with a group of teens spending the holiday at a cabin near Camp Crystal Lake only to run into the most uncheerful holiday spirit anyone has ever seen. It sets the action back in the familiar confines of the series instead of, you know, outer space, yet the very simple aesthetic shift of different weather conditions and the Christmas setting adds an entirely new dynamic to the story. Not to mention weapons (think pick axes, ice skate blades and tree toppers). One of my real-life friends once complained that this would mean losing the series' much-loved gratuitous nudity dynamic, but I respectfully disagree. How hard would it be for a couple of the more amorous teens to find a hot tub?
2. FREDDY KRUEGER
The Platinum Dunes Nightmare film did many things wrong, chief among them the harebrained move of making it seem for the majority of the film as though Freddy was FRAMED for the horrific crimes that got him summarily torched and turned into a dream demon. It also didn't help that the victim characters (and Rooney Mara in particular) showed about as much raw charisma as Jessica Alba on sedatives. This series was at its best when Freddy Krueger struck a good balance between schlock and slasher, exemplified best by Dream Warriors, the insanely popular third film. The template is there. Why not use it? Thus, this would be a different take on the Nightmare on Elm Street origin, starting the next film in the midst of a brutal string of mysterious suicides instead of the usual Freddy-Nancy story. Of course, these deaths would be the handiwork of the familiar guy in the red-and-black striped sweater. It would be a good idea to amp up both his manicness (but not to an over-the-top degree) and his power in this film, as he has two very determined and very charismatic final girls to contend with who make it their mission to rally the remaining teens to victory - Kristen Parker and Alice Johnson. Throw in a few interesting quirks for the remaining teens, some hard-hitting deaths, and this guy as Freddy and you've got a real winner with some solid sequel potential.
3. MICHAEL MYERS
This is perhaps the tallest order of all. Folks, the damage done to the character of Michael Myers in Rob Zombie's films is just simply mind-boggling, as the dreadlocked rocker took a character who was "the shape of evil" and humanized him. We spend almost 45 minutes with the unmasked, talking child version of Michael in the first movie, a move that takes away every bit of mystique and sense of danger that the guy in the Shatner mask possessed in the Carpenter-helmed originals. Still, it could be done. In this case, I don't think it could be anything less than yet another complete reboot, as the latter movies in the original series are also decidedly character-killing in their own regard. The best way to accomplish this would be to set the entire film in modern-day Haddonfield, Illinois, starting with Laurie Strode (who in this version is NOT introduced with a ridiculous series of vulgar jokes) going about her daily routine and eventually arriving at young Tommy's house to babysit. Commence series of killings, and introduce Sam Loomis midway through the movie. This way, Michael's past survives only in legend and in second-hand retelling by Loomis, restoring the mystique of Myers while also presenting the material in a slightly different manner. Another wise move would be to make Laurie's friends something other than completely detestable, F-bomb-spewing catty bitches who we actually, you know, DON'T want to see wind up chopped into bitty bits.
Ordinarily, this is where I would throw a summary paragraph in to wrap this little diatribe into a bow, but that's not the case this time, as much like New Beginning Tommy Jarvis I've got nothing to say. The above are my ideas to give these horror movie main eventers the push they deserve, and if anyone in Hollywood wants to use them they are welcome to do so free of charge.
Tuesday, October 15, 2013
Dark Water (2002)
Anyone who has followed my reviews for any amount of time knows that I'm a big J-horror mark. It was the first subgenre that I actively sought out once slasher movies started to wear a little thin, and the VAST (and that word is capitalized for a reason - it can't be overstated enough) difference in setup, pacing and character development from what I was used to popped and resonated with me in a big way.
Going through some of my archives, I can't believe that I haven't reviewed Dark Water yet. It was directed by Hideo Nakata, a guy that is held in a pretty high regard in Lick Ness Monster land, considering that he is also the guy behind the certified modern classics Ringu (for my money, one of the ten best horror movies of all time) and Kaidan, as well as the unintentionally hilarious Ring Two here in the States. Gotta love that deer attack. In this flick, he's fully in his element, slathering on the foreboding atmosphere like some sort of Little Dooey's style baste. Award for worst metaphor ever accepted.
One more thing - do not confuse this with the Jennifer Connelly remake. Not that it's terrible or anything, but it's forgettable as all get out.
2002
Director: Hideo Nakata
Starring Hitomi Kuroki, Rio Kanno, Mirei Oguchi and Fumiyo Kohinata.
PLOT: Let's see if you've heard this one before - a recently divorced mother and her six-year-old daughter move into a new apartment. Said apartment has slightly creepy but definitely very annoying problem in that it keeps randomly filling with water from the dripping ceiling. In a surprise that does not come as much of a surprise to the audience, this is connected to some sort of ghostly shenanigans connected to the apartment building. In other words, you won't remember Dark Water for its minty freshness if you have seen any other number of J-horror epics. While it has a lot of familiar tropes, however, the specifics make for some great story, as the subplot that runs throughout the entire movie involving motherless daughters elicits a ton of emotional investment. Oh, and water girl makes one badass villain.
PLOT RATING: *** 1/2 out of ****
CHARACTERS AND ACTING: This is the movie's true ace in the hole, but then again, that's the way it goes for many Japanese horror films. The vast majority of American horror films I've seen in the 21st century feature a main stable of either hopelessly bland or dislikable characters. Not so here. The main characters Yoshimi and Ikuko Matsubara, the AFOREMENTIONED mother and daughter combination finding themselves occupying living space with a vengeful spirit. Hitomi Kuroki plays the former, and while she is not quite as engaging as Nanako Matsushima in Ringu, she does a fantastic job as someone who is truly desperate on several fronts. Rio Kanno is Ikuko, turning in one of the better child performances in any horror movie I've seen. Right up there with the kid from House by the Cemetery, even. I kid, I kid. She's way less shrill than that.
CHARACTERS AND ACTORS: **** out of ****. Great stuff here.
COOL FACTOR: Much like the slasher subgenre, there is definitely no shortage of cool villains in the J-horror ghost pantheon. My personal favorite horror villain of all time fits this mold - Kayako Saeki of Ju-On/Grudge fame, the modern day equivalent of the traditional Onryo folktale. Hideo Nakata operates on an entirely different level from Takashi Shimizu - his horror is in what you DON'T see. Few guys on the planet are better at keeping a massive slow burn going leading up to a big reveal, and that aspect of Dark Water does not disappoint. For the vast majority of Stateside viewers, this movie might come off as a little slow, and you won't get much (as in, any) in the way of cool, imaginative Kayako-style deaths. I will say, however, that this movie has one of the best sustained, gut-wrenching sequences of silence in cinematic history during its finale, and that there are a LOT of directors obsessed with "LOUD NOISES" scares who could learn a thing or two from this scene.
COOL FACTOR: ** 1/2 out of ****.
SUMMARY: If you're a fan of J-horror, it's hard to go wrong with anything Hideo Nakata. One of this guy's better-known quotes is that a good director can make nothing other than a ghost standing near someone and looking at them scary. Nakata can accomplish this in his sleep. Even if you're not a J-horror freak like myself, you can find much to like in Dark Water, as it has an engaging story, a very leisurely pace, likable characters and a truly awesome final five minutes or so consisting of soul-splitting tension without a single drop of blood being spilled.
OVERALL RATING: *** 1/2 out of ****. Check it out.
Going through some of my archives, I can't believe that I haven't reviewed Dark Water yet. It was directed by Hideo Nakata, a guy that is held in a pretty high regard in Lick Ness Monster land, considering that he is also the guy behind the certified modern classics Ringu (for my money, one of the ten best horror movies of all time) and Kaidan, as well as the unintentionally hilarious Ring Two here in the States. Gotta love that deer attack. In this flick, he's fully in his element, slathering on the foreboding atmosphere like some sort of Little Dooey's style baste. Award for worst metaphor ever accepted.
One more thing - do not confuse this with the Jennifer Connelly remake. Not that it's terrible or anything, but it's forgettable as all get out.
2002
Director: Hideo Nakata
Starring Hitomi Kuroki, Rio Kanno, Mirei Oguchi and Fumiyo Kohinata.
PLOT: Let's see if you've heard this one before - a recently divorced mother and her six-year-old daughter move into a new apartment. Said apartment has slightly creepy but definitely very annoying problem in that it keeps randomly filling with water from the dripping ceiling. In a surprise that does not come as much of a surprise to the audience, this is connected to some sort of ghostly shenanigans connected to the apartment building. In other words, you won't remember Dark Water for its minty freshness if you have seen any other number of J-horror epics. While it has a lot of familiar tropes, however, the specifics make for some great story, as the subplot that runs throughout the entire movie involving motherless daughters elicits a ton of emotional investment. Oh, and water girl makes one badass villain.
PLOT RATING: *** 1/2 out of ****
CHARACTERS AND ACTING: This is the movie's true ace in the hole, but then again, that's the way it goes for many Japanese horror films. The vast majority of American horror films I've seen in the 21st century feature a main stable of either hopelessly bland or dislikable characters. Not so here. The main characters Yoshimi and Ikuko Matsubara, the AFOREMENTIONED mother and daughter combination finding themselves occupying living space with a vengeful spirit. Hitomi Kuroki plays the former, and while she is not quite as engaging as Nanako Matsushima in Ringu, she does a fantastic job as someone who is truly desperate on several fronts. Rio Kanno is Ikuko, turning in one of the better child performances in any horror movie I've seen. Right up there with the kid from House by the Cemetery, even. I kid, I kid. She's way less shrill than that.
CHARACTERS AND ACTORS: **** out of ****. Great stuff here.
COOL FACTOR: Much like the slasher subgenre, there is definitely no shortage of cool villains in the J-horror ghost pantheon. My personal favorite horror villain of all time fits this mold - Kayako Saeki of Ju-On/Grudge fame, the modern day equivalent of the traditional Onryo folktale. Hideo Nakata operates on an entirely different level from Takashi Shimizu - his horror is in what you DON'T see. Few guys on the planet are better at keeping a massive slow burn going leading up to a big reveal, and that aspect of Dark Water does not disappoint. For the vast majority of Stateside viewers, this movie might come off as a little slow, and you won't get much (as in, any) in the way of cool, imaginative Kayako-style deaths. I will say, however, that this movie has one of the best sustained, gut-wrenching sequences of silence in cinematic history during its finale, and that there are a LOT of directors obsessed with "LOUD NOISES" scares who could learn a thing or two from this scene.
COOL FACTOR: ** 1/2 out of ****.
SUMMARY: If you're a fan of J-horror, it's hard to go wrong with anything Hideo Nakata. One of this guy's better-known quotes is that a good director can make nothing other than a ghost standing near someone and looking at them scary. Nakata can accomplish this in his sleep. Even if you're not a J-horror freak like myself, you can find much to like in Dark Water, as it has an engaging story, a very leisurely pace, likable characters and a truly awesome final five minutes or so consisting of soul-splitting tension without a single drop of blood being spilled.
OVERALL RATING: *** 1/2 out of ****. Check it out.
Tuesday, October 8, 2013
"Waxwork" (1988)
Alright, kids, we're going to be trying something different from now on. In case you haven't noticed, it's been a long time since I've done these reviews with any regularity. I'd like to give my legions of (four) fans some hare-brained excuse as to why this is, but, really, there isn't any, other than being really, really tired of doing the reviews the way that they had gotten to be. Namely, gigantic. Hopefully, this is the beginning of semi-regular updates for the immediate and not-so-immediate future, and after some deep soul-searching that lasted all of five minutes, I decided that the best way to accomplish this was to preserve my own sanity.
Thus, consider this the fun-sizing of the Lick Ness Monster reviews. Instead of detailing every last nuance of these films, I'll be hitting the high spots as far as what I look for in horror movies - plot, characters and acting, and cool factor, along with a few (but much less) visual aids along the way.
See? That introduction was only two paragraphs. I'm already making progress.
YEAR: 1988
DIRECTOR: Anthony Hickox
STARRING: Zach Galligan, Deborah Foreman, Michelle Johnson, Dana Ashbrook, Patrick Macnee and David Warner
THE PLOT: This movie is one of the best examples of "let's get going already right now" I've seen. It wastes precious little time with anything resembling exposition, instead jumping right into its constant barrage of weirdness and movie/folklore references. In a nutshell, the movie is about a nutball (unintentional repeated use of a word, I swear) wax museum curator who convinces a group of suburban college students to go for a little night perusing on his property. The museum itself is basically alive, with different famous horror characters (the werewolf, Dracula, the Mummy, etc.) being represented as well as a few historical figures (the Marquis De Sade, Jack the Ripper). In the early stages of the movie, we witness a few of these characters wandering onto the wax displays, being transported to the world of the character, and summarily being murdered in some exquisitely gruesome ways. As the flick enters its second half, we're clued in to the plan of one Mr. David Lincoln (that would be the AFOREMENTIONED museum curator), who is some sort of occultist who needs to sacrifice victims to all of his waxworks in order to take over the world. Or something. It comes off a lot better on film than in this description, believe me.
PLOT RATING: *** out of ****.
CHARACTERS AND ACTING: Of course, I should have mentioned that David Warner plays David Lincoln. Warner is a really, really awesome actor with a pretty long horror pedigree. If you don't trust me, google him. Zach Galligan is basically your star as the most prominent of the college kids who find themselves wrapped up in the museum's weird goings-on, and he's not quite Billy Peltzer-likable but far from throw-your-remote at the TV grating. The rest of the kids, however, are just as disposable as one would expect.
CHARACTERS AND ACTORS: ** 1/2 out of ****.
COOL FACTOR: My definition of 'cool factor' is just as varied as all the reasons why people enjoy horror movies. Sometimes, it can mean good gore effects, and that's one thing that [i]Waxwork[/i] has in abundance. Special FX guru Bob Keen is your makeup maestro for this one, and does a great job creating several truly over-the-top, splatterful set pieces (see above). Having David Warner around also ups the coolness for pretty much any movie where this statement is true. If you're in the mood for some decent self-referential (read: non-annoying) humor, look no further than this movie, as seeing all of the various characters together in one movie is a real treat.
COOL FACTOR: *** 1/2 out of ****.
SUMMARY: Waxwork is a very enjoyable, very underrated little gem from the late '80s that somehow flies under the radar of even some hardcore horror fans. Anthony Hickox, who also directed Hellraiser III as well as the sequel to this film brings a genuine love for the horror genre that shines through in almost every frame. The finale might get a little Hal Needham-ish, as an army of characters connected to Galligan's grandfather (don't ask) duke it out with Warner's troupe of monsters, but it only dampens the experience slightly from a movie that comes very close to being a bit of a small classic.
OVERALL RATING: *** out of ****. Recommended.
Thus, consider this the fun-sizing of the Lick Ness Monster reviews. Instead of detailing every last nuance of these films, I'll be hitting the high spots as far as what I look for in horror movies - plot, characters and acting, and cool factor, along with a few (but much less) visual aids along the way.
See? That introduction was only two paragraphs. I'm already making progress.
YEAR: 1988
DIRECTOR: Anthony Hickox
STARRING: Zach Galligan, Deborah Foreman, Michelle Johnson, Dana Ashbrook, Patrick Macnee and David Warner
THE PLOT: This movie is one of the best examples of "let's get going already right now" I've seen. It wastes precious little time with anything resembling exposition, instead jumping right into its constant barrage of weirdness and movie/folklore references. In a nutshell, the movie is about a nutball (unintentional repeated use of a word, I swear) wax museum curator who convinces a group of suburban college students to go for a little night perusing on his property. The museum itself is basically alive, with different famous horror characters (the werewolf, Dracula, the Mummy, etc.) being represented as well as a few historical figures (the Marquis De Sade, Jack the Ripper). In the early stages of the movie, we witness a few of these characters wandering onto the wax displays, being transported to the world of the character, and summarily being murdered in some exquisitely gruesome ways. As the flick enters its second half, we're clued in to the plan of one Mr. David Lincoln (that would be the AFOREMENTIONED museum curator), who is some sort of occultist who needs to sacrifice victims to all of his waxworks in order to take over the world. Or something. It comes off a lot better on film than in this description, believe me.
PLOT RATING: *** out of ****.
CHARACTERS AND ACTING: Of course, I should have mentioned that David Warner plays David Lincoln. Warner is a really, really awesome actor with a pretty long horror pedigree. If you don't trust me, google him. Zach Galligan is basically your star as the most prominent of the college kids who find themselves wrapped up in the museum's weird goings-on, and he's not quite Billy Peltzer-likable but far from throw-your-remote at the TV grating. The rest of the kids, however, are just as disposable as one would expect.
CHARACTERS AND ACTORS: ** 1/2 out of ****.
COOL FACTOR: My definition of 'cool factor' is just as varied as all the reasons why people enjoy horror movies. Sometimes, it can mean good gore effects, and that's one thing that [i]Waxwork[/i] has in abundance. Special FX guru Bob Keen is your makeup maestro for this one, and does a great job creating several truly over-the-top, splatterful set pieces (see above). Having David Warner around also ups the coolness for pretty much any movie where this statement is true. If you're in the mood for some decent self-referential (read: non-annoying) humor, look no further than this movie, as seeing all of the various characters together in one movie is a real treat.
COOL FACTOR: *** 1/2 out of ****.
SUMMARY: Waxwork is a very enjoyable, very underrated little gem from the late '80s that somehow flies under the radar of even some hardcore horror fans. Anthony Hickox, who also directed Hellraiser III as well as the sequel to this film brings a genuine love for the horror genre that shines through in almost every frame. The finale might get a little Hal Needham-ish, as an army of characters connected to Galligan's grandfather (don't ask) duke it out with Warner's troupe of monsters, but it only dampens the experience slightly from a movie that comes very close to being a bit of a small classic.
OVERALL RATING: *** out of ****. Recommended.
Tuesday, April 2, 2013
"The Shining" - a pure, unadulturated creep the f**k out of you movie
The list of movies that I won't pop in the DVD player while trying to get to sleep is a very short one. There's Blood on Satan's Claw, a criminally underrated British opus about a village that falls prey to a demonic pile of bones. There's Kill Baby Kill, Mario Bava's pre J-horror ghost story where an eerie little girl stares people to death. Believe me, it's way more creepy than it sounds. And then there is The Shining, Stanley Kubrick's mammoth-sized tripfest from 1980 that still has more sheer willy-inducing power than pretty much any other movie I've seen.
First, a bit of background information. I saw The Shining before I read the novel. Every other review out there blathers on about the differences between the book and this movie, so allow me to throw my two cents into this very redundant piggy bank and add that, yeah, the two are vastly different. The book is much more character-driven, for the most part, with far more sympathy being lended to the Jack Torrance character while also focusing on what Stephen King himself dubs the "sheer inhuman evil" of the hotel that these characters find themselves trapped by. For my money, Stanley Kubrick and Diane Johnson took the framework of the story and used creative license to make it as flat-out weird and disturbing as they could possibly muster, and the result is something almost completely unlike anything you've seen in the genre. In a good way, I promise. Yeah, it's hard to connect with the characters. Yeah, we don't get that maudelin little bit of redemption for Torrance at the end. But, at the end of the day, what is more memorable - haunted holes in the ground or freaky-deaky transforming nude women? I rest my case. Besides, the officially-sanctioned Stephen King-endorsed film version is the 1997 TV movie, proving yet again that "closer to the book" does not necessarily always equal "better."
But enough about that. My goal with this review isn't to delve into all of the usual English major trappings or the drama and personal strife that this production went through. There are literally THOUSANDS of reviews and dissertations about The Shining on the great, grand ol' interwebz that do that very thing much better than this guy could, and if you want the Cliff's notes version, even the Wikipedia page does a pretty damn admirable job expounding on all of the hidden meanings and ambiguities as well as all the ways that Kubrick was a prick on the set. No, sir, what I'm going to attempt to do is give people who HAVEN'T seen this movie some semblance of just what it's like to watch it. Hopefully I'll be successful enough to persuade a few of those unfortunate souls to invest twenty bucks in a Blu-Ray copy, because let me tell you something (brother), this is one gorgeous-looking movie that REALLY pops in HD. During the daylight hours, of course.
Don't believe me? Here's the movie's original theatrical trailer.
To this day, that has to be the most effective, creepy trailer of all time. A truly classic example of "less is more" played out to perfection.
Meet Jack Torrance, played by Jack Nicholson circa 1980 during his "I'm the biggest superstar in the world" period. Like many Stephen King protagonists, Torrance is a full-time English teacher and part-time writer interviewing for the caretaker's job at the Overlook Hotel. The hotel itself is one of the main characters of The Shining, a huge, sprawling and infinitely luxurious hilltop resort that closes every winter due to the cost associated with keeping the surrounding roads cleared of snow. The caretaker's job is to make the winter less of a financial money pit, although hotel manager Stuart Ulman (Barry Nelson) makes it a point to reiterate the dangers of cabin fever while also giving the grisly details of the hotel's past involving one of the previous caretakers killing his entire family during one of those long winters cooped up together.
Throughout this opening expository scene, Torrance says all the right things and seems appropriately jazzed about the prospect of gaining this high-paying job and spending the winter in this veritable mansion with his wife and son, but while he is smiling externally, something about him just seems...off. It goes without saying that Nicholson is a truly awesome actor, and you would be hard-pressed to find people to dispute that, but this might very well be the best acting performance of his career. 141 minutes later, you won't be able to get him out of your head, for better or worse.
From here, we are introduced to Jack's family where we get more back story. His son Danny (Danny Lloyd) has an episode involving a strange hallucination. It should also be mentioned that he talks to his finger and returns fire in a low, croaky voice. As it turns out, said finger is actually the speaking mechanism of "the little boy who lives in his mouth" named Tony, an imaginary friend who serves as Danny's only real social outlet. We learn this from Wendy (Shelley Duvall), Jack's wife and Danny's mother, who informs us while talking to a child psychologist. When the psychologist asks about Danny's medical history, Wendy is forced to tell her that Jack once accidentally broke his arm while drunk but that he has been "sober for six months." Foreshadowing.
Since the movie could not launch forward if it didn't happen, Jack gets the job. A long sequence consisting of the hotel's closing day commences where Kubrick's camera work really begins to make its presence known. More than any story differences, this stuff - the technical aspects, the sheer creepiness that Stanley Kubrick lends to the Overlook Hotel - is where it shines head and shoulders above Mick Garris' 1997 TV movie. You know, they tried. I can't say that Garris and King himself (who wrote the screenplay for that particular adaptation) DIDN'T give it their damndest to bring the absolute best literary version of The Shining to the masses, but there was just no way that they could match the atmosphere that an artist like Kubrick was able to lend to this material.
The evidence? The creepy twins. Danny sneaks off into the hotel's game room and sees these two little demons in blue. They do nothing in the scene other than slowly turn around and walk away, all while Wendy Carlos' soul-destroying score sends an ice pick into your soul, but their mere presence has this uncanny ability to unnerve. We get a bit more unraveling here, as Dick Hallorann (Scatman Crothers), the chief cook of the hotel, has a long conversation with Danny where we learn that the young boy has the ability to "shine" - Hallorann's word to describe telepathic ability to not only communicate but to see both past and future events. Combined with just how synthy and abrasive the music in this movie is, we can deduce that this does not bode well for this family's future in the long winter to come.
Flash forward a month, and the real "meat" portion of the movie begins. Jack is using his newfound free time to begin a writing project that seems to be going nowhere. We are shown a series of events in quick succession indicating the day-to-day life that this nuclear family enacts inside the hotel, as Wendy and Danny navigate the outdoor hedge maze, Jack types away (getting more and more frustrated as he does so), and Danny rides his big wheel around the huge expanse of wood and carpeted floors. The tension builds masterfully in this section of the movie, as Jack snaps at Wendy after being interrupted from his writing while Danny has a terrifying hallucination where the creepy twins (which the audience can infer are the two daughters of Charles Grady, the caretaker in the AFOREMENTIONED slicing-and-dicing incident) invite him to play with them forever. And ever. And ever.

The snow piles up outside the hotel, and the event that really kicks this movie's horror aspect into overdrive is the incicdent in Room 237. During Danny's conversation with Hallorann earlier in the movie, the young boy asked his older friend what happened in Room 237. Hallorann's response? "Nothing. There ain't nothing in Room 237. So stay out, you hear me? STAY OUT!!" You know how the psychology of young children works. We are told that something is forbidden and thus become more and more curious about just WHAT lurks behind the secret door, so it isn't long until Danny finds himself inside that room after the hotel seems to virtually invite him inside. He shows up a short time later in the lobby that Jack has converted into his study, sucking his thumb and bruises around his neck, which Wendy immediately interprets as child abuse from Jack to Danny.
This sets Jack off, who heads to the ballroom and acts out one of the many classic sequences in this movie. A bartender, who either may or may not be in Jack's imagination, serves him drink after drink while we are clued in as to the deeper issues in the Jack-Wendy marriage. His buried resentment of her, about how she "will never let me forget what happened" comes through in shining (pun intended) colors, the desperation and venom in Nicholson's voice getting more and more pronounced with each mythical alcoholic beverage. Just like that, the scene ends, as Wendy shows up to inform her husband that Danny has come out of his zombie state and said that a woman in Room 237 tried to strangle him.
Now comes the scene that REALLY did a number on me during my childhood, and it still leaves me mighty unsettled today. Jack heads to the room to investigate, and with the low, sinister rumbling of a heartbeat reverberating underneath the music, he enters the bathroom. The shower curtain is slowly pulled back, revealing a beautiful woman soaking in the water. She stands up and walks to Jack, who looks mightily intrigued at this prospect. He begins to kiss her, and the camera closes in close to their faces. We, the audience, can tell that something is now subtly different, but it isn't until Kubrick cuts back to the full shot that all is revealed. The beautiful woman has been replaced by a disgusting, crusty hag who begins laughing maniacally, the music roaring to a crescendo, the shot juxtaposing between the laughing woman and her prone body in the bathtub as Jack runs away. Good God.
The novel does more to clue us in as to just who the hell this person was whose sole mission in the afterlife is to murder little kids and creep the holy hell out of middle-aged men. If I remember correctly, she was a hotel guest who spent a week at the Overlook years before the Torrance family's arrival. After a week-long orgy of booze and sex, she took one sleeping pill more than the recommended amount and accidentally drowned in the tub, maintaining this post as her vengeful command center in the afterlife. That's all well and good, but I prefer the way this aspect of the story plays out in the movie. It's always creepier when it's unexplained. Add that to "less is more" in the Lick Ness Monster guide to kicking ass at work and play.
Jack heads back to his family's quarters, lying to Wendy that he saw nothing inside the room. Meanwhile, Danny has completely shut down, and the concerned mother wants to cut their arrangement at the hotel short to get Danny some medical help. Jack scoffs at the idea, rapidly becoming more and more unhinged with each passing moment before storming out of the room for Parts Unknown.
The movie then gives us the immortal sequence inside the ballroom, now curiously loud and crawling with maybe-and-maybe-not partygoers. Jack begins downing some more bourbon before one of the party's butlers collides into him and inadvertently spills the alcohol. Soon enough, Jack learns that the butler's name is Charles Grady, and he recognizes both the name and the face of the man who "hacked his family to death." The conversation is the very definition of a slow burn, with Grady (masterfully played by Philip Stone) bouncing off these accusations before giving in to the dark side, playing the role of temptation on Jack as he convinces him that his wife and son need to be "corrected." It seems that the hotel has a vested interest in seeing that Jack Torrance fulfills his destiny - that destiny being joining the large pantheon of lost souls confined within the walls within to murder the holy hell out of any surrounding loved ones. It may not be said in so many words, but it's implied, believe me.
The following morning, Wendy gathers up her courage to confront Jack in his study. Bat in hand, she makes her way to the typewriter that he has repeatedly hacked away at throughout the duration of the movie. Much to her shock, the manuscript stacked next to the typewriter consists of page after page of one phrase formatted differently. "All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy," indeed. Turns out that insanity and art ARE very closely linked. Jack surprises her from behind and cuts loose on Wendy in perhaps the best-acted scene of Jack Nicholson's career. When most people yell, it comes across as overacting. Here, it just feels absolutely appropriate, the craziness, violence and desperation radiating off the screen with savage intensity. As he goes in for the kill, Wendy manages to smash him in the head with the bat and send him tumbling down a long flight of stairs, knocking him out.
He wakes up in the hotel's walk-in pantry, locked inside by Wendy. She plans to make a break for civilization using the hotel's snowcat; earlier in the film, Jack sabotaged both the snowcat and the hotel's radio, cutting off the residents from the outside world completely. Jack is later admonished by the voice of Grady who admonishes him for not being able to get the job done, playing on Jack's insecurity as he taunts the surrogate murderer. In a deadly serious tone, Jack says that he is capable of finishing his task. Moments later, we hear the audible "click" as Grady unlocks the door.
The finishing sequence of The Shining is classic in every way. It is suspenseful, violent and even mystifying in all the right places, so play like Samuel L. Jackson and hold on to your butts.
Danny writes "REDRUM" in red lipstick on the bathroom door, waking Wendy up by repeating the word over and over in his "Tony" voice (Danny no longer exists; Tony has taken over). "REDRUM" is, of course, "MURDER" spelled backwards, a fact that any fan of TNA wrestling and "RELLIK" likely would be able to decipher. Immediately after this revelation, the now axe-wielding Jack begins knocking his way into the family quarters. Acting instinctively, Wendy cordons herself off in the bathroom, shoving Danny out the window who promptly makes his way back inside the main lobby of the hotel. Meanwhile, Jack attempts to make his way into the bathroom where we get THIS immortal visage that everyone should be familiar with if you have ever strode down the horror aisle at the video store.
Before I finish this baby off, I have to make a few comments about Shelley Duvall's performance in this movie. A majority of the reviews aren't very kind to Ms. Duvall, calling her "Olive Oyl"-lite, unconvincing, weak and so on and so forth. I respectfully disagree with this assessment. No doubt due to the constant pushing from her director, Duvall - with her shrill line delivery, bloodcurdling screams and incredibly pained facial expressions - comes across as absolutely terrified, desperate, the claustrophobia and panic of the situation clearly overwhelming her. Through all of it, she bends but does not break. Everyone's milage might vary, but I find myself firmly in the corner of Wendy Torrance in these final segments of the film, Olive Oyl be damned.
Back to our regularly scheduled programming. Before Jack can finish Wendy off, he hears the front door of the hotel opening and shuffles off to investigate. Throughout much of the film's third act, the action periodically shifted to Florida as Mr. Hallorann enjoys his off-season vacation. As all of the creepiness at the OVerlook picks up, Hallorann seems to be seeing the events play out in his own mind and does his damndest to check up on the Torrance family. This, of course, is made impossible by the fact that the battery for the hotel's radio has been...misplaced. Wouldn't you know it, he has shown up at the front door after navigating the winding road leading up to the Overlook. The camera follows him in a long, almost unbearably tense steadicam shot before Jack emerges from behind a pillar, killing him with an axe shot to the chest and flushing Danny (who saw the whole thing in his mind) out of his hiding place.
What follows is a sort of chase on two very different fronts. Physically, Jack pursues Danny outside through the hedge maze, yelling threats at his son as he follows the footprints, inching closer and closer to completing his mission. Metaphysically, Wendy searches for Danny inside the hotel and encounters all of the hotel's ghosts in the various locales, including a first-hand look at a furry homosexual incident from the past. When popping in a copy of a film based on a Stephen King novel, a man dressed in a lion suit fellating a hotel guest is the last thing that you expect to see, but there it is. It would be chuckle-inducing in any other movie besides this one.
Eventually, Danny is able to outsmart Jack, stepping backwards into his own footprints and covering them with snow before backtracking through the maze. He navigates his way back to the entrance as Wendy exits the hotel. The two of them quickly enter Hallorann's abandoned snowcat and begin driving away toward safety, leaving Jack - unable to find his way out of the hedge maze - to freeze to death, caterwauling "WENDY" at the top of his lungs all the while before collapsing into a heap. The action immediately flashes forward to the dead body of Jack Torrance, snow and ice clung to his face before we get our final bit of ambiguity. The camera switches back inside to the photo gallery on the Overlook walls, slowly zooming in to a group photo from July 4th, 1921, with Jack Torrance first and foremost among the large crowd celebrating the holiday.
Roll end credits.
If you have not seen this movie, reading the above recap should make it pretty clear whether or not The Shining is for you. The best way that I know how to put it is that this is not a fun, happy horror movie. It's not the classic '80s Friday the 13th films, with their comforting cliches, goofy characters and cool kills. It's not Halloween with its badass villain and catchy score. Nope, what Stanley Kubrick set about to do with this VERY loose adaptation of a 1978 novel by Stephen King was to creep the holy fuck out of any unfortunate soul who found themselves subjected to it, and in that regard, he succeeded in spades.
From a technical standpoint, this is some movie, and still looks fantastic more than 30 years after its original release date (which, amazingly enough, was the same day as the first Friday the 13th film). But by my estimation, it's the human touches and the atmosphere that make this movie immortal.
First, the human aspect. Nicholson's performance stands as perhaps the greatest sustained acting job in any horror movie. Yes, Anthony Hopkins was quite great in The Silence of the Lambs, but he was only onscreen for something like 14 minutes. Nicholson outdoes that in the ballroom and "I'm gonna bash your brains in!!" lobby scenes alone. I can't really say that the guy is an out-and-out villain, because like the book, we are clued in that the hotel is manipulating him in some way. When the end comes, however, we're scared of this guy, his buried rage now completely on the surface and ready to strike. Duvall isn't that far behind, making an ideal horror heroine who almost quite literally goes to hell and back, emerging victorious after the horror that befalls her family.
Now for the atmosphere. With a combination of steadicam shots, music and color scheme, Kubrick creates what is one of the two most oppressively suspenseful locales of any horror movie (the other being Dario Argento's Suspiria). The hotel itself becomes a character in The Shining, the labyrinthine maze of corridors that Danny rides through before meeting the Grady twins, the pantry, the lobby and the ballroom becoming quirks on this very ominous figure lording over the other characters. Put more simply, there is a tangible presence of danger on the screen in this movie, that there are things in this hotel with the power and will to hurt people. By proxy, this power can influence human beings to stop restraining their own urge to do the same thing. That, I think, is what scares people about The Shining - that there are people with a small amount of evil buried deeply within, and with enough prodding that evil can be unleashed. That and murderous ghosts of elderly women. Those are pretty creepy too.
**** out of ****. In the realm of ghost story flicks, this is the Flair-Steamboat.
Saturday, December 22, 2012
@AWESOME
Yup, kids, I've officially adopted the "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" mentality and hopped on the Twitter bandwagon. Follow me around and I'll follow you right back: @LickNessMonster. #AFOREMENTIONED
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)



















