L.
L. SOARES
FICTION
ONLINE (Just click the link)
*
* *
Click
link below to go to:
|
CINEMA
KNIFE FIGHT
2004 COLUMNS
||||||||||||
CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT NUMBER ONE: SECRET WINDOW
||||||||||||
(Originally
appeared in Hellnotes, April 22, 2004)
MJA:
Hi. I'm
Michael Arruda. I write the movie review column "In The Spooklight."
LLS:
And I'm L.L.
Soares, and I've written movie reviews for Weird Times
(www.weirdtimesonline.com), among other places.
MJA:
CINEMA KNIFE
FIGHT is a new review column in which we'll both examine
the world of horror movies.
Today
we begin with the Johnny Depp movie, SECRET WINDOW (2004).
SECRET
WINDOW, based upon the 1991 Stephen King novella "Secret Window,
Secret Garden," tells the story of writer Mort Rainey (Johnny Depp)
who is
going through a very painful divorce process with his wife Amy (Maria
Bello). Rainey has moved out of his house and now lives in a secluded
cabin
in the woods. One morning he is visited by a man named John Shooter (John
Turturro) who accuses him of stealing one of his stories.
Rainey
immediately denies it, but Shooter insists he prove it, and as the
movie goes on, Rainey discovers that Shooter is an unsavory character
who
will stop at nothing to prove that Rainey stole his story. This leads
to a
series of shocking acts, building up to the film's violent conclusion.
While
the directing, writing, and acting in the film is all topnotch, the
first problem I had with SECRET WINDOW is that it doesn't contain much
of a
secret. I determined pretty much in the opening frame of the movie where
the story was going to go, and what kind of plot twist we were to expect,
so for me, that kind of ruined the movie.
(Strange
voice with Southern accent): "Excuse
me, Mistah Arruda, you stole
my review."
MJA:
What? Where's
L.L.? Who are you?
LLS
(Takes
off black wide-brimmed hat):
It's just me.
Well,
I agree that the "twist" ending is not all that much of a surprise.
But I disagree that it ruins the movie. The big reason to see this one
is
for Johnny Depp. The guy can out-act just about everyone in his generation
and has already proven in the past that he can make an otherwise mediocre
movie watchable. The thing is, I liked SECRET WINDOW. It's a fun little
thriller, and Depp makes it enjoyable, imbuing Mort with lots of
personality and some interesting quirks. This is a three-dimensional
character. It's also the case of an actor improving the quality of a movie
with relative ease, preventing it from being the run-of-the-mill horror
story it could have been if someone less capable had played the lead.
John Turturro
is no slouch, either. While he may have less screen time than
Depp, he makes every minute of his part count, and the scenes where he's
tormenting Depp are the most enjoyable parts of the film.
The ending may
not knock your hat off, but the fun is getting there in the
first place.
And there's humor
in this film, too. I thought Depp's scenes with Turturro
had a real sense of dark comedy to them, and I laughed out loud at the
"Redrum" moment in the movie. If you've seen it, you know exactly
what I mean.
MJA:
Let me take a moment
to recover my senses and let my heartbeat slow
down. You really scared me there. You do a good John Turturro.
I agree with you
about the acting. Depp and Turturro are both wonderfully
creepy. I'll even take it a step further and say that Maria Bello as Amy
Rainey more than holds her own with these two actors throughout the film.
She nails the wife's emotions. And then you have Timothy Hutton, who also
does a bang-up job. To me, the acting is by far the best part of SECRET
WINDOW, and the reason to see it, but unlike you, I don't feel it's enough
to save the movie.
It's painfully
obvious where the movie is going and what the "twist" is
going to be. Did you know early on? I'm sure you did. Once you know that,
it's just an excuse to have Johnny Depp do this thing. Save yourself the
money and see PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN instead. Depp's better in that,
and
there's a far better payoff in the end.
LLS:
PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN?
I thought this was a horror movie column.
And why are you wearing those Mickey Mouse ears? That's almost as scary
as
Turturro's hat!
Actually, I thought
Maria Bello's character was kind of annoying, and I
couldn't understand why Depp was wasting so much time pining away for
her.
I thought it would have been funnier if they had his real ex, Winona Ryder,
in the role. Or even Kate Moss. At least that would have added some real
tension to the movie. But you're right about Timothy Hutton, some of Depp's
scenes with him are pretty funny, especially their run-in at the gas
station. Watch out for that car window!
Listen,
I don't think this is a great movie, but it kept me entertained,
and I wasn't wasting too much time worrying about whether the ending would
be clever or not. I actually thought the ending, that bothered you so
much,
was kind of part of the joke. I just dug it for what it was. It's a fun
little showcase for Depp, and I think that's good enough to recommend
it.
If nothing else, it's at least worth a video rental.
MJA:
You're right about
Maria Bello's character. She is annoying, and
that's what worked for me. And PIRATES OF THE CARRIBEAN is, too, a horror
movie.
LLS:
(pulls out a machete).
Let's discuss this some more…
||||||||||||
CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT NUMBER TWO: VAN HELSING||||||||||||
(Originally
appeared in Hellnotes, May 20, 2004)
L.
L. SOARES: Welcome
to the second installment of CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT. Our
film today is VAN HELSING.
The wise old vampire
hunter played previously by Edward Van Sloan in 1931's
DRACULA and Peter Cushing in countless Hammer films…
MICHAEL
ARRUDA:
Five.
LLS:
Huh?
MJA:
Peter Cushing
played Van Helsing or a descendant thereof in five
Hammer Films.
LLS:
Hammer Film geek!
MJA:
I prefer the
term "historian."
LLS:
Where did
I put that machete…? Anyway, Van Helsing now has the
gadgets of James Bond, the demeanor of Clint Eastwood, and the face
of…well, Wolverine! While on his way to get rid of Dracula, he crosses
paths with hot gypsy monster-slayer Kate Beckinsale (who appears to be
doing a candy-ass job of it, since monsters are all over the place), and
the two of them go off to conquer evil.
Throw into the
mix a grating Dracula who's a cross between a bad Bela
Lugosi imitator and a pompous ass, a Wolf Man who is little more than
Dracula's dog, and a Frankenstein's monster who's a wimp who spends most
of
the movie hiding from Dracula, and you've got the latest rip-off of classic
monsters by Stephen Sommers, the guy who previously took the 1932 horror
classic, THE MUMMY, and turned it into an Indiana Jones knockoff.
You can tell by the
way that he keeps going back to the well that Sommers
loves the old Universal classics, but at the same time he doesn't have
the
talent to do the characters justice. On the level of a popcorn movie,
VAN
HELSING works. There's plenty of action, and things blow up right on cue,
but instead of emulating the best films of the past, James Whales'
FRANKENSTEIN or Todd Browning's DRACULA (both from 1931), it's like Sommers
preferred to use ABBOTT AND COSTELLO MEET FRANKENSTEIN as his template.
The thing that made
the original movies work was their humanity.
Frankenstein's monster was tragic and misunderstood. Larry Talbot was
eternally tormented. But what you have in VAN HELSING are monsters without
the emotional baggage - one-dimensional creations that have more in common
with Looney Tunes cartoons than 1930s horror films.
Hugh Jackman is fine
in the title role, and Beckinsale turns in a
serviceable performance, too. They both look nice and pretty for the
cameras. But despite all its tongue-in-cheek humor and cranked up action,
the main problem with VAN HELSING is that nobody in this movie has a soul.
MJA:
I didn't like VAN HELSING
either, although I wouldn't go so far as to
knock Stephen Sommers' talent. I for one liked his Mummy remake. The script
was witty, and I liked his interpretation of the mummy, Im-Ho-Tep. I
thought it was refreshing. Now, the sequel, THE MUMMY RETURNS (2001),
that
wasn't so refreshing. Neither is VAN HELSING.
It plays not like
a homage but like a giant video game. If you want to see
a true homage to 1930s Universal horror, watch YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN (1974).
Mel Brooks got it right.
VAN HELSING is one
action sequence after another, which gets boring real
quick. It's overkill. The scene where Van Helsing uses his "machine
gun
crossbow" - he fires off, what? Like 1,000 rounds of wooden stakes
at the
flying vampire creatures in a spectacular action sequence, and I'm sitting
there asking myself, how many stakes does it take to do in a vampire?
One.
Just shoot one. The guy's got enough ammo to take on Middle Earth, and
worst of all? He MISSES! He doesn't even knock off one of the damned things!
LLS:
I
actually liked Dracula's brides (the flying vampires) a lot more
than Drac himself. They also seemed more dangerous than their "master."
The
high-tech crossbow was a bit much, though. Maybe Van Helsing should go
to
the firing range once in awhile and LEARN HOW TO SHOOT! But on the whole,
I
didn't think the movie was boring - despite a 2 and a half hour running
time, it seemed to move along briskly enough. My problem is that it was
all
sizzle and no stake.
MJA
(smiling): Good
line. I like it.
LLS:
Thanks. Speaking of
stakes, I was wishing someone would stake
Dracula in the first half hour.
MJA:
Yes, Dracula
(Richard Roxburgh) was very disappointing, the worst part
of the movie for me. Richard Roxburgh is the same actor who played the
sniveling villain in the Nicole Kidman musical MOULIN ROUGE (2002), and
he
was brilliant in that. As Dracula he's - let's put it this way. He's
probably the most boring version of Dracula I have ever seen. The Count
on
SESAME STREET is more dramatic.
LLS:
MOULIN ROUGE? Now that's
a horror movie!
MJA:
The Wolf Man
was pretty scary though. I thought all the werewolf
scenes were the best ones in the movie. He was certainly scarier looking
than the creatures seen in AN AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON (1981) or THE
HOWLING (1981).
LLS:
The werewolf
looked okay for a CGI effect. The only good thing to come
out of this is that Universal just re-released a bunch of the old movies
on
DVD (in three box sets) to re-familiarize people with Frankenstein's
Monster, Dracula and the Wolf Man. Instead of spending the cash for tickets
to see VAN HELSING, you'd be better off buying the real deal.
MJA:
And if you do see VAN
HELSING, don't expect much of a horror movie. I
mean, it's not scary. Were you scared?
LLS:
Scared? You're
screwing with me, right?
MJA:
No, I'm serious.
'Cause if you found it scary, maybe you shouldn't be
carrying that machete!
LLS:
You know, it's
going to be really hard for you to review the next
movie if you don't have any eyes…
MJA:
Ah, save it
for a JEEPERS CREEPERS review!
||||||||||||
CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT NUMBER THREE: THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW|||||||||
(Originally
appeared in Hellnotes, June 17, 2004)
Michael
Arruda: Welcome
to CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT. I'm Michael Arruda and this is L.L. Soares.
L.L.
Soares: Yep,
that's me.
MJA:
Today we look at THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW (2004), the much hyped disaster
movie that is taking the nation by storm.
And storm is what
THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW is all about. Scientist Jack Hall (Dennis Quaid)
warns a group of world leaders that unless serious measures are taken
to stop global warming, there will be changes in the ocean currents that
will lead to a second ice age. When severe storms break out across the
entire northern hemisphere, and temperatures drop dramatically, Hall realizes
his predictions are happening right now.
We see tornadoes
in Los Angeles, a huge tidal wave in New York City, and ice and snow that
covers just about everything in its path. The movie follows small groups
of survivors who fight against the elements, including Hall's teenage
son Sam (Jake Gyllenhaal), and Hall himself, who travels from Washington
D.C. to New York City to rescue his son.
As you would expect,
the true star of THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW is the special effects. To this
end, I was disappointed. When creating fantasy worlds, such as Middle
Earth in the LORD OF THE RINGS trilogy, CGI effects are close to flawless,
but in real life settings, there's just something missing. The look is
almost animated and as a result the anticipated sense of awe and terror
you expect when seeing scenes of great destruction, it's just not there.
This is not to say
I didn't like THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW. As a fan of the disaster flicks
from the 1970s, I enjoyed watching this movie, though I wish somewhere
Charlton Heston would have shown up to say with his '70s cynicism, "Oh
my God."
LLS
(doing a Charlton Heston imitation):
"Damn Dirty Apes!"
Ahem…..This movie wants to be a new generation's EARTHQUAKE (1974)
or THE POSEIDON ADVENTURE (1972), but those movies had interesting characters,
and storylines that kept you wanting to see more. I'd take Gene Hackman
or Ernest Borgnine over Dennis Quaid any day of the week.
MJA
(pulls out ice pick.) (Hums).
LLS: I think I liked
the effects a little better than you did, although I didn't find them
realistic as much as just fun….what are you doing?
MJA
(waving pick):
Just listening to what you have to say. That's all.
LLS:
OK….Director
Roland Emmerich provides us with a few good images, but when it comes
to engaging characters, he consistently comes up short, as anyone who
has seen his god-awful GODZILLA remake already knows. The movie starts
off fast with a lot of potential. By the time giant tornadoes are ripping
Los Angeles apart, I was actually digging it. But all the really good
stuff happens early on and the second half of the movie just didn't do
much for me.
MJA:
I agree the characters weren't all that interesting, but I did enjoy Jake
Gyllenhaal's performance as Sam. He reminded me of a cross between Tobey
Maguire and a very young Oliver Reed- I guess that's the horror film fan
in me!
LLS:
Jake Gyllenhaal
is okay, until you realize this is the same guy who was the lead in DONNIE
DARKO (2001), and in comparison, his DAY AFTER TOMORROW character is one-dimensional
and inconsequential. He's just some smart kid without much personality.
So what?
And Dennis Quaid
looks like he'd make a good leading man, but his acting is pretty wooden.
I didn't feel much empathy for his character because he seems like someone
going through the motions, rather than someone who has genuine emotions.
We're expected to believe that he desperately wants to connect with his
son again, even though most of his son's life he's been an absentee father
by choice, choosing his career over his family. His goal to reach New
York and his son doesn't seem to have any emotional investment. It's just
a plot device to provide motivation for the second half.
I'd even go so far
as to say that not one of the characters in this movie convinces us they
are worth saving. There isn't anything about them that makes them special
compared to the millions who presumably die. They're just dots on a line
from Point A to Point B.
MJA
(slams ice pick into wall): I
completely disagree. I thought Sam and his friends were likeable, and
I bought into their plight in the library.
(Pulls out ice pick)
For me, the biggest disappointment, especially in terms of this column,
was that I didn't find the film very frightening. It's rated PG-13 for
"intense situations of peril" and to be honest, I didn't find
the situations very intense. As much as I like to lump all sorts of movies
into the horror category, I can't do that with THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW.
It's just not horror.
LLS:
Actually,
nature striking back at humanity has a long history in horror. Done right,
this could have been an affective movie. But as is, it's just a mediocre
and often implausible story with some nice visuals.
I also had a problem with a few times where things got preachy - it was
like a big budget public service announcement for global warming. That
kind of stuff really bugs me in a movie. Just tell the damn story!
MJA:
Lucky for
you, I agree. (tosses pick aside) I was also bugged that everyone in the
movie watched "Fox News." That was the scariest part of the
movie!
LLS:
I went into
THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW expecting to absolutely hate it. I didn't. But
it's only a so-so movie. And so-so movies just don't justify a $10 ticket
price.
MJA:
No they don't. But Jake Gyllenhaal is good, and I hope one day he plays
a werewolf!
---END--
||||||||||||
CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT NUMBER FOUR: JAWS|||||||||
(Originally
appeared in Hellnotes, July 15, 2004)
A
Tall Man Wearing Fisherman's Gear (brandishing a large hook):
And when a big fish comes along and bites, the hook tears into the mouth
like so. (Bites down hard and rips hook through his cheek).
Michael
Arruda:
Cool. (Fisherman
exits in pain).
Welcome to CINEMA
KNIFE FIGHT. We're coming to you live today from the village of Edgartown,
on the beautiful island of Martha's Vineyard off the Massachusetts coast.
With no new horror
movies out this week, it's time to unveil CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT CLASSIC,
where L.L. and I take a look at horror movies from years gone by. Which
is why we're coming to you live from Martha's Vineyard, because our pick
this month is my all time favorite July horror movie, the classic JAWS
(1975), many parts of which were filmed right here in Edgartown.
(Walks along a dock
as he talks)
JAWS is a movie that
transcends its material. In less capable hands than the 25 year-old Steven
Spielberg, Jaws could have been just another "monster" movie.
The story is simple, and the movie is easily divided into two parts. Great
white shark terrorizes a New England beach community, and then 3 of its
citizens set out to destroy the shark, the three men being Police Chief
Brody (Roy Scheider), ichthyologist Matt Hooper (Richard Dreyfuss) and
shark killer Captain Quint (Robert Shaw). By far, the second half of the
movie is the most compelling part and makes for one of the most exciting
and scary sea adventures ever put on film.
Why? The chilling
suspense built by Spielberg's energetic and creative direction is part
of it, but the other is that item so often missed in today's films, and
that is great character development. The three men are all different,
they are all multidimensional---Brody, the hero, for example, is afraid
of the water - brilliant! -and as a result they're all very real. It's
cliché, but you really, really care for these guys, even the fanatical
Quint.
JAWS is a movie I've
yet to tire from watching. I watch it every summer, and it gets better
each time.
MJA:
(comes upon L.
L. Soares sitting on the dock fishing. Behind him is a sign
that reads "Amity Island - No Fishing"): Oh, there you are!
What did you think of the movie?
LLS:
Well, I've
got to admit, I was amazed how well JAWS holds up, and how it doesn't
really seem dated at all. And it's still easily my favorite of Spielberg's
movies. I have a really mixed reaction to Spielberg's career as a whole
- for every film of his I like there are two I don't, but JAWS remains
an achievement that I simply can't speak badly about. Every scene works.
There isn't a false note in the whole movie, except maybe for the mechanical
shark, which does look fake when you see it really up close, but considering
the technology of the time, and the movie itself, this is easily forgiven.
In a weird way, the fakeness of the shark even adds to the appeal of the
film.
MJA:
You know, I
don't even notice the fakeness of the shark. I'm too busy being scared,
which is a testament to Spielberg's direction.
LLS:
You watch JAWS every
summer and the shark still scares you? Are you afraid of Bert and Ernie
too?
MJA:
Hey, if they
had choppers like Bruce the shark, yes!
LLS:
As for acting, it's
pretty much perfect. Roy Scheider, a favorite actor of mine, is terrific
as Brody. Richard Dreyfuss, an actor who can get on my nerves sometimes,
is really good as Hooper, and is actually pretty funny in a few scenes.
And the great Robert Shaw practically steals the movie as Quint, the Captain
Ahab of the bunch, who has his own horror story about sharks back when
he was a seaman in World War II and who sees this as a grudge match between
himself and the beast of the deep.
The movie works on
every level. The suspense is so thick you can cut it with a knife. John
Williams' score adds to that beautifully. The acting and the characters
are terrific. The motivations of everyone involved make perfect sense,
from the mayor who doesn't want to lose the precious tourist trade to
the leads and their personal reasons for wanting the shark dead.
MJA:
John Williams'
music score has got to be the best all time of any horror movie. You can
argue Bernard Herrmann's PSYCHO theme or John Carpenter's HALLOWEEN theme,
but as far as being the most effective, it's got to be Williams' JAWS
theme hands down. That music starts, and I can feel the gooseflesh on
the back of my neck. It's the best.
LLS:
Well, I could debate
whether the PSYCHO theme is better, but why bother in this instance? JAWS
is Spielberg at the top of his game, and unlike a lot of his later movies,
there isn't an ounce of schmaltz to be seen. And you also have to remember
how much of a cultural phenomenon this movie was when it first came out.
People genuinely were afraid to go into the water after seeing it. Real
shark attacks were suddenly front page news, and countless B-movie directors
churned out imitations, replacing the shark with everything from grizzly
bears to octopi.
MJA:
Not to mention piranhas, killer whales, bees, ants, spiders, even dogs.
(LLS
lifts bucket and pours
fish guts over
MJA's head.)
MJA:
What the---?
LLS
(Kicks MJA
off dock): Well that's it for us. Hope you enjoyed this month's Cinema
Knife Fight. See ya next time, chums.
MJA
(splashing in water):
You're taking this Knife Fight bit altogether too seriously! Now cut it
out!
(Huge dorsal fin
rises from water and JAWS theme begins.)
MJA:
Uh oh. (raises cell phone above water and punches numbers) Hello? Yes,
get me Richard Kiel--- fast!
---END---
||||||||||||
CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT NUMBER FIVE: THE VILLAGE|||||||||
(Originally
appeared in Hellnotes, August 19, 2004)
(L.
L. Soares and Michael
Arruda standing
at the edge of the woods, wearing
mustard-colored hooded cloaks)
L.
L. Soares:
Ssshhhh! Those We Do Not Speak About might hear us.
Michael Arruda (whispers):
We're here to review M. Night Shyamalan's newest
film, THE VILLAGE.
LLS:
Ever
since THE SIXTH SENSE, Shyamalan has become the master of the
twist ending. So much so that audiences look forward to each new film
he
makes to be surprised. And THE VILLAGE is no exception.
THE VILLAGE is about
a small 19th century village where the people live in
fear of creatures who live in the woods beyond their settlement. The
villagers and the creatures have established a kind of truce where neither
invades the other's territory, but events transpire that make the villagers
realize that the truce may be coming to an end and their lives may be
in
danger.
(Kid in a cloak approaches
them:) Mister, would you like to buy some magic
rocks?
LLS:
Beat
it kid, ya bother me! (Kid runs away) The always reliable William
Hurt plays town leader Edward Walker. When Lucius (Joaquin Phoenix), the
fiancée of Walker's blind daughter, Ivy, is gravely injured by
another
villager, Walker allows his daughter to go out into the woods and to the
towns beyond, to get the medicine needed to save Lucius's life. His
rationale being that because she is blind and therefore innocent, the
creatures will sense this and let her pass, knowing she is not a threat
to
them. There is more to the story, but I won't reveal the "surprise
twist"
here.
THE VILLAGE has many
of the same qualities found in Shyamalan's other
movies. It's rather slow paced, but effectively builds tension. Things
are
revealed gradually. The acting for the most part is pretty good, especially
Bryce Dallas Howard (Ron Howard's daughter) making an impressive debut
in
the role of Ivy.
I found the movie
watchable and suspended my disbelief enough to go along
for the ride.
MJA:
Well, I was going along for the ride too, and two thirds into the film
I was really enjoying it. You had terrific acting, a wonderful violin
score, and creative directing by Shyamalan. The result was a film
experience that was truly mesmerizing, almost poetic. And the woodland
creatures are deeply, deeply frightening. These things are scary!
But then, you have...
I won't even dignify it by calling it a twist. It's
an "explanation." And the explanation -- or explanations, as
the case
turns out -- completely ruins everything. It couldn't have been worse
if
one of the characters woke up and announced everything was a dream. I
felt
absolutely cheated.
Had Shyamalan made
the film which was advertised, he would have had an
instant classic. Instead, we're left shaking our heads at a very
disappointing conclusion.
And the whole part
where Bryce Dallas Howard's blind character journeys
alone through the woods seemed to me an excuse to satisfy a neat plot
idea
-- blind woman walks through woods stalked by unknown menace. Neat idea,
good enough to build a story around, but Shyamalan should have spent more
time building that story than concerning himself with, as you say, being
the master of the twist ending.
LLS:
It's kind of funny that I find myself having to defend THE VILLAGE,
because frankly I thought it was just a so-so story, and while I wasn't
thrilled with the big twist either, it wasn't a big enough deal to make
me
angry. If anything, I was much more fired up about his previous movie,
SIGNS, which let me down by being too preachy and very illogical. Aliens
whose one vulnerability is water invade a planet that is mostly water?
Sounds like pretty stupid aliens to me.
Remember when we
were kids and we'd watch TWILIGHT ZONE or NIGHT GALLERY,
and some episodes were great, but other ones were kind of cliché
and
clunky, but you liked them anyway. Well, THE VILLAGE is like one of those
clunky episodes for me
MJA:
See, I disagree. I think it started off great. I was really let down
by the "twist," so much so that I can't recommend the film.
LLS:
And while the acting was mostly good, the characters were pretty one
dimensional. Lucius was so stoic and stilted that I didn't really care
about him that much. I think Ivy was much more interesting and sympathetic,
and I actually didn't mind the focus on her in the second half.
MJA:
I did. I was enjoying Joaquin Phoenix' performance.
LLS:
I've actually thought that Joaquin Phoenix was an overrated actor for
awhile now. He did a serviceable job in THE VILLAGE, but the reason Ivy
was
more sympathetic to me was because I thought her character was stronger,
and I thought Bryce Dallas Howard turned in a better acting job.
MJA:
Phoenix is just as good as Howard.
LLS
(pulls out machete from beneath cloak): Care to debate that?
MJA:
(reveals hideous-looking monster claws from beneath his cloak): Any time!
(Man suddenly appears
holding a presidential candidate sign): Did someone
say debate?
MJA:
Sorry, pal, wrong venue. Blood, guts, visceral mutilation, that's down
the street at the convention. We just review movies here.
LLS:
Beat it, buddy!
(Man walks away looking
perplexed).
LLS:
All in all, I was willing to accept that this was the movie Shyamalan
wanted to make. THE VILLAGE was a pleasant enough way to waste an hour
and
a half, but I never really felt emotionally committed enough to feel
cheated. I just can't cop to emotions that aren't there for me. I can
think
of a lot better movies to defend.
But I will say one
thing. Sometimes a "surprise" just isn't enough…
(Woodland creature
jumps out and attacks man in background. Man shrieks and
is taken to the ground).
(LLS
and
MJA
look over shoulders)
MJA:
Now that's an ending I'd pay to see!
---END---
||||||||||||
CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT NUMBER SIX: EXORCIST: THE BEGINNING|||||||||
(Originally
appeared in Hellnotes, September 16, 2004)
(In
a desert amidst a driving sandstorm stand our faithful reviewers, Michael
Arruda and
L.
L. Soares.)
Michael
Arruda:
Bear with me while I try to speak over this sandstorm. Welcome to another
installment of Cinema Knife Fight. Today L.L. and I review EXORCIST: THE
BEGINNING.
L.
L. Soares
(raises
arms):
The power of Christ compels you!
(Sandstorm stops.)
MJA:
I'm impressed.
LLS:
It's only a movie…
MJA:
Speaking of which, EXORCIST: THE BEGINNING. Should you see this movie,
you might want to bring a book. Okay, it's not THAT boring, but it's not
all that exciting either.
EXORCIST: THE BEGINNING
is not a bad movie. It's just not a very good one. It tells the story
of Father Merrin (Stellan Skarsgard) and his first encounter with the
devil. The character of Father Merrin was played by Max von Sydow in the
original THE EXORCIST (1973), one of the best horror movies ever made,
and so, with that connection, there certainly is an emotional investment
in this film. Learning some of the history of the Merrin character is
rather interesting, and his scenes are the best ones in the film. Skarsgard's
performance I thought was a good one, and the character is likeable. No
problems here.
The plot is simple.
The ruins of an ancient church are discovered in a desert in Kenya in
1949, and Merrin is sent to investigate. What he discovers eventually
leads to his first meeting with Satan.
The film works best
when it's a ghost story mystery. I liked following Merrin along on his
investigation. But it's at its worst when it delves into its horrific
moments. For example, a key scene with hyenas is weakened by some poor
special effects. The creatures are obviously fake (compare this scene
to the famous "dogs in the graveyard" scene in the original
THE OMEN (1976) and you'll find there is no comparison). Also the climactic
exorcism is hindered by an abundance of special effects that take away
from the creepiness of the whole thing.
EXORCIST: THE BEGINNING
is well made, well acted, but very, very slow, and not all that scary.
In a strange way, it would have been more frightening if the grotesque
elements in the film weren't there. Shaped in a different way, this could
have been a more successful picture.
(MJA
turns to LLS and finds him snoring. MJA nudges him awake.)
LLS:
Huh, huh? What were we talking about?
MJA:
EXORCIST: THE BEGINNING.
LLS:
Oh, yeah, I knew that. Well, I sat in the movie theater waiting for something
to happen for a long time, and nothing happened. Some fake blood came
out of nowhere. Some kid's bed shook a lot. Stellan Skarsgard looked very
serious as he tried to solve some mystery about an ancient artifact. Computer-animated
hyenas and crows didn't help at all. And then, by the time someone finally
got possessed, it was so hokey it seemed like a parody of the first EXORCIST
movie.
THE EXORCIST is one
of the greatest horror movies ever made. But this new movie…
First off, we have
Skarsgard, who's been in lots of cool foreign and independent films, including
several Lars von Trier movies and the original version of Insomnia. He's
a solid actor. But what's he doing here? When we first see him, he looks
like a down-on-his luck Indiana Jones wannabe who is hired to find an
ancient statue. This is Father Merrin from the first movie? But he fools
us, because this isn't an action flick at all. In fact, you could call
it an inaction flick. Instead of Indiana Jones, he plays a man sleepwalking
through a movie.
The rest of the cast
is bland and forgettable. The script, co-written by celebrated author
Caleb Carr, is like a walk through the desert while you're on too much
codeine. Then you find out it is directed by Renny Harlin. Isn't this
the guy who made CUTTHROAT ISLAND? What's he doing mucking around with
THE EXORCIST?
You know, I really
like the fact that horror movies continue to do well at the box office,
but when is the last time you saw a movie that was really scary? I can't
think that far back right now.
MJA:
I found SIGNS scary.
LLS:
(head turns 360 degrees) Come on now, we're trying to do a serious review
here.
EXORCIST: THE BEGINNING
wasn't scary; wasn't much of anything at all. The funny thing is, there's
supposed to be a whole other movie, I guess also called EXORCIST: THE
BEGINNING, directed by Paul Schrader (who wrote TAXI DRIVER and directed
great movies like AFFLICTION). But the studio wasn't happy with his version.
So this one's an improvement? Somehow I think the guy who created Travis
Bickle might have made a film a little more interesting than this snooze-fest.
The whole time I
watched it, I felt possessed. Possessed with the urge to take a nap!
MJA:
Yes, I read about the Schrader version, too, and I hear it might show
up on DVD. As for this version, I found myself looking at my watch, that's
how bad things got! But the one thing--- the only thing--- that saved
this movie for me, and by "save it" I mean kept me awake, was
its connection to the original EXORCIST. Because of Max von Sydow in the
original, I like the Father Merrin character, and that carried over into
this film. And Skarsgard's good in the role, but other than this, I agree
with you that it's a yawn fest.
LLS
(now has the voice of an old woman):
The connection to the original film didn't do squat for me. This guy had
nothing to do with the von Sydow's Father Merrin. And this movie has nothing
to do with the original EXORCIST, as far as I'm concerned.
MJA:
I guess I have more of an imagination than you. I easily made the connection
from
von Sydow to Skarsgard.
LLS:
(voice of Paris Hilton) That's hot! Actually the reason the connection
didn't work for me was a little something called a weak script. Besides,
what do you know? You're the guy who found SIGNS scary. Did the big bad
aliens scare you? Maybe you're too fragile to be reviewing horror movies.
MJA:
No, big bad M. Night Shyamalan scared me, and I'm not ashamed to admit
it! As for you, I've had all I'm going to take (pulls out a bell, book,
and candle).
LLS:
(revs up chainsaw) Bring it on, SIGNS-boy!
MJA:
Until next time…
---END---
||||||||||||
CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT NUMBER SEVEN: THE FORGOTTEN|||||||||
(Originally
appeared in Hellnotes, October 21, 2004)
(FADE IN: A cabin
in the middle of nowhere. The interior is bathed in darkness. There is
the hiss of a match being struck, and a candle is lit.)
LLS(whispering):
This month,
we're reviewing THE FORGOTTEN. It's the tale of Telly Paretta (Julianne
Moore) whose young son Sam died in a plane crash and she is having a really
hard time letting go. One day her husband and her therapist try to convince
her that Sam never existed. That she had a miscarriage and created an
entire imaginary life and son to cope with it. But Telly knows that this
is a lie and is determined to prove it.
Things get stranger
when Telly helps to jump-start the memory of an ex-hockey player named
Ash (Dominic West), who is the parent of another child who died in that
plane crash, but who has no recollection of having a daughter at all.
His life has been unraveling for over a year and he hits the bottle on
a regular basis. Once he also remembers the truth, that's when the FBI
gets involved and agents try to track them both down.
At this point, THE
FORGOTTEN becomes a chase film, as Telly and Ash try to find answers -
to what happened to their children and why nobody else remembers them
- and the government agents try to capture them. Somehow, Telly and Ash
manage to stay one step ahead of them for quite awhile, even when the
NY City police, led by Detective Anne Pope (Alfre Woodward), also get
in on the act.
THE FORGOTTEN is
a film that keeps you riveted. You sympathize with Telly, and want to
find the answers to her questions. A big part of why the movie works is
the acting, especially Julianne Moore, who is terrific as Telly. She might
just be the best actress we have right now. Someone like Meryl Streep,
who I think is really overrated, needs a good role to shine. But Moore
shines no matter what she does. She always seems genuine, and her characters
always seem real. She's done some amazing work in films as diverse as
FAR FROM HEAVEN, BOOGIE NIGHTS and THE HOURS. While THE FORGOTTEN may
not be the best film she's ever been in, she turns in another great performance
here. Telly is the heart and soul of this movie.
Her supporting cast
is solid, too. Dominic West is very good as Ash, who becomes her only
ally. Gary Sinise and Anthony Edwards are good, as her therapist and husband
respectively, even if they don't have a lot to do here. Woodward is very
human as the police detective on the case, and Lee Tergeson (Beecher on
the HBO show OZ) stands out among the FBI agents in a scene where Telly
and Ash hold him prisoner, tied to a chair in an isolated cabin.…just
like this one…
MJA(turns
on the lights):
Why are you
sitting here in the dark?
LLS:
I was reviewing THE FORGOTTEN. What did you think of it?
MJA:
I'm sorry.
Do I know you?
LLS:
What? Of course you know me! I'm L.L. Soares! I write this column with
you!
MJA:
Column?
LLS:
Cinema Knife Fight? We write it together once a month? Have you forgotten?
MJA
(smiles, as if receiving a great revelation):
There you go.
You've got the wrong guy. I'm not a writer.
LLS:
Well, I agree with that. But otherwise, what are you talking about?
MJA
(smiles again, now a Norman Bates psycho smile):
Gotcha! Just
kidding!
LLS:
Aww, ya creep!
MJA:
About THE FORGOTTEN,
I'm with you. I thought it was a really good movie, though judging by
what you've said so far, I think you liked it more than I did. Julianne
Moore, I agree with you, was terrific, and I thought Dominic West as Ash
was right up there with her the whole way.
There's a couple
of jolting scenes that actually scared me, which is a good thing. As you
and I have been talking about the past few columns, scary movies are hard
to come by these days.
The one problem I
did have with THE FORGOTTEN was the ending. Fortunately, the weak ending
here isn't in the same league as the disastrous closing of THE VILLAGE,
but it's still a weak finish. The movie weaves a pretty good mystery-
just who is it who is making people forget, and why? And what about those
dead children? Are they really dead? It's all very mysterious, and it
works, and the payoff really isn't that bad. I wasn't disappointed by
the answer, but I was disappointed by the resolution. It ends a little
too easily for my tastes. I don't want to give anything away, but I expected
much more of a struggle. I found the ending blah and rather undramatic,
unlike the rest of the movie, which was riveting and emotional.
LLS:
I agree with you for the most part. Things do seem to resolve themselves
a little too easily by the end. But you've got to take the movie as a
whole. And as a whole I think it works pretty well.
MJA:
But the problem
I have with endings is that it's the last part I see, so if it's a downer
or a dud, that's the part that stays with me. I do take the movie as a
whole, I think, but I can't ignore a weakness, and to me the ending is
the worst place for a film, or any other work of fiction for that matter,
to be weak.
LLS:
Well, it kept me interested throughout. And I liked the big explanation.
I went into this movie with low expectations - the trailer really didn't
impress me much - and enjoyed it much more than I thought I would.
MJA:
I went into
it with no expectations because I really hadn't heard anything about it,
and other than its quick ending, I liked it. I would like to say, however,
as a word of warning to viewers, that it's not an easy movie to watch.
It's very heavy subject matter, the loss of a child to a plane crash.
I'm the parent of two young boys, and it was an emotional experience for
me. Not the kind of film where you kick back and eat popcorn. Just so
you know what you're getting yourself into.
LLS:
You know, another thing I liked was…. (suddenly LLS is shot up into
the sky at rocket speed, crashing through the roof).
MJA
(watching LLS
disappear beyond the clouds):
I must say,
that special effect was one of the coolest parts in THE FORGOTTEN (points
to sky), and it's even cooler now seeing LL
do his version of Rocket Man. Pay back time! On that note--. (Screams).
(MJA
suddenly is
shot up into the sky as well. In the distance, above the clouds, shouting
is heard. Something about a machete….)
---END---
||||||||||||
CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT NUMBER EIGHT: THE GRUDGE|||||||||
(Originally
appeared in Hellnotes, November 18, 2004)
(Michael
Arruda enters
an apartment in Japan. He removes his shoes and places a pair of Bunny
slippers on his feet. He steps into the living room.)
Michael
Arruda:
Welcome to
another edition of Cinema Knife Fight. Today L.L. and I review the popular
new thriller, THE GRUDGE, a film by Japanese director Takashi Shimizu.
You may be wondering
about the Bunny slippers. Well, truth be told, watching THE GRUDGE really
creeped me out, and having to walk through this apartment for the sake
of this review, well, I feel more secure this way.
The question on my
mind today is does the sum of the parts equal the whole? Can a film filled
with scary moments be considered a successful horror film if its story
doesn't hold up? That's the question that's been nagging me since watching
THE GRUDGE.
In a nutshell, THE
GRUDGE is the story of an unhappy spirit. To paraphrase an old Japanese
proverb quoted in the opening moments of the film, when a person dies
a violent death, they are often destined to haunt the earth with angry
temper tantrums. The ghost in THE GRUDGE has died a violent death and
haunts a Japanese apartment with a vengeance that makes the specter in
GHOST STORY seem like Casper. Of course, as we later learn, this ghost
is entitled to be bitter, and that works for me, though I don't quite
understand why it goes to the lengths it does to terrify the people in
this story. The people it terrorizes aren't responsible for its fate.
There are, without
doubt, some truly frightening moments in THE GRUDGE. I was a bit sweaty
in the palms watching this movie, and this hasn't happened to me in a
long time. So, as far as being scary, THE GRUDGE really packs a wallop!
The biggest problem I have is the film doesn't always make sense. This
ghost, for example, isn't your traditional spirit, limited to one house
to haunt. This baby gets around. How? I don't know, and that's part of
the problem I have with the movie.
I did like its narrative
style, however. It doesn't start from the beginning. It begins in the
middle and jumps around, telling its story through the lives of various
characters at different points in time. I thought this was very creative.
One drawback to this method, however, is you never really warm up to any
of the characters because no one character dominates the story.
The acting is fine,
as both Sarah Michelle Gellar and Bill Pullman turn in respectable performances.
I'm not sure I understand, however, how the key scene between these two
characters is possible, adding yet another question mark to an otherwise
scary picture.
(MJA
hears a strange scratching noise from behind a wall, followed by an even
stranger clicking noise.)
MJA:
L.L., is that you? L.L.? L.L.!!!!!!
(FADE TO BLACK)
LLS
(in same
apartment):
I wonder what
that annoying noise is. ... Must be mice.
Michael? Where is
that guy? Oh well, I guess it's my turn. Not only was THE GRUDGE not scary,
it didn't work for me on a lot of levels.
First off, let's
talk about the ghosts. We have a family who has died a violent death.
There's a bit of bait and switch where we first see a child's ghost (a
kid in white makeup - not exactly scare inducing) and then the main ghost,
his mother, who has long hair covering her face, except for one bulging
eyeball. I felt a strange sense of deja vu and then realized this is the
same exact ghost from THE RING. What's going on here? Do all evil ghosts
in Japan look like women with long hair and bulging eyes? This is starting
to become a new horror cliché.
I actually expected
more from THE GRUDGE. Its director, Takashi Shimizu, also directed the
Japanese version of the film, called JU-ON . I thought that it was interesting
that he was also tapped to direct the American version. The film is also
produced by Sam Raimi, who, before he became the SPIDER-MAN guy, directed
the EVIL DEAD films, which are classics of the genre. With this kind of
pedigree I had high expectations for THE GRUDGE.
But I was disappointed.
The acting didn't really impress me all that much. While I'm a fan of
Sarah Michelle Gellar's work on BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER, I don't feel
she had much to do here, and it certainly isn't the kind of performance
that shows off her acting abilities. She either looks scared or confused
most of the time. And everyone else seems to be going through the motions,
even Bill Pullman. As for the "scares" they were mostly predictable,
and I was actually ticked off that the false scare of a cat jumping out
at an unexpected moment (one of the biggest clichés in horror movies)
happened TWICE in this movie.
And on several occasions
the ghost attacks someone and they just stand there, doing nothing. At
least try to defend yourself! I would have at least taken a punch at the
damn thing. It might not have helped, but I would have felt better.
Despite its being
predictable and not very scary, I did appreciate the movie on a visual
level. Shimizu knows his stuff when it comes to building mood and atmosphere.
The very last scene, for example, worked for me, even though I saw it
coming a mile away. But other than the visual flair, I didn't feel that
THE GRUDGE was a very good movie.
(Hears a loud knocking
from behind a closet door. Opens door and discovers a body hanging from
a rope, wearing bunny slippers. It's MJA- he opens his eyes).
MJA:
Will you put that machete of yours to good use and cut me down from here?
It's damn uncomfortable!
LLS:
Nice slippers.
(Slices through the rope and MJA falls to the floor)
MJA:
(Brushes himself off and stands up): I think you're being too harsh on
the film. It has a lot going for it. For starters, just its setting, in
Japan, is refreshing. It's good to see an American movie, especially a
horror film, take place outside the U.S. And the ghost is cliché?
Two times hardly a cliché make! And as far as the acting, you say
Gellar looks either scared or confused most of the time, well, considering
that in the film her character is scared and confused, well, I think that's
the way she was supposed to look!
LLS:
If you want
to see a horror film set in Japan, there are plenty of better ones you
can rent. As for the ghost, back when I saw RINGU (the original Japanese
version of THE RING) the long-haired ghost seemed fresh and very effective,
but by the time I saw THE GRUDGE it had lost most of its ability to scare.
I'm not sure why this happened so quickly, but it did. And for Gellar's
acting - my point was that she was given nothing to do here to show whether
she can act or not. It would have been nice to have some actual character
development.
MJA:
I agree about the lack of character development, but I still think it's
a scary film, even though I have to admit that the audience in the theater
with me laughed at some of the film's shock scenes rather than screamed.
Still, if you ask me, it did sound a bit like nervous laughter.
LLS:
I think the
only one in that theater who was nervous was you. You know, for a horror
guy, you sure seem to scare easily. Are you scared of your own shadow,
too?
MJA:
I don't have a shadow.
LLS:
Oh, is that
supposed to be scary? I'll show you scary. (Puts on long haired wig and
bugs out his eyes ).
(MJA
puts on bunny ears.)
(FADE TO BLACK with
loud screams and weird clicking noises)
---END---
||||||||||||
CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT NUMBER NINE: SEED OF CHUCKY|||||||||
(Originally
appeared in Hellnotes, December 16, 2004)
(A man dressed like
Santa sneaks into a dimly lit room and puts two ugly
stuffed dolls under a Christmas tree. The dolls resemble L.
L. SOARES &
MICHAEL
ARRUDA.)
LLS:
Is he gone yet?
MJA:
I think so.
LLS:
Good, now we can review our movie for this month, SEED OF CHUCKY,
where the perennial evil doll returns to spawn a child. With references
to
PSYCHO, THE SHINING and even Ed Wood's GLENN OR GLENDA?, to name but a
few, this movie provides some laughs as it pokes fun at the horror genre.
We
meet Chucky's "son" Glenn right away, as he turns up in England
as a modern
Pinocchio, forced to be a thug's ventriloquist dummy and kept in a cage.
But when Glenn sees Chucky and his "bride" Tiffany on television,
he
figures out who his real parents are and escapes to Hollywood to be
reunited with them. Little does he know that the real business his parents
are in isn't show business-it's killing.
The cast, made up
of B-List celebrities (Jennifer Tilly and rapper Redman,
fresh off his bad FOX sitcom), is lackluster at best. But we do have Brad
Dourif once again as the voice of Chucky (Dourif actually is a great actor,
although you may not be able to tell that here), and also along for the
ride this time is cult filmmaker John Waters, as a paparazzo who gets
a
sulphuric acid facial. But it's not the actors you go see a Chucky movie
for, it's the puppets. And like the recent TEAM AMERICA, you either get
it
or you don't that puppets doing horrible things can be just plain funny.
By this point, the
Chucky series has given up all pretense of being
straight "horror," and has degenerated into dark comedy, which
isn't
totally a bad thing, since most horror franchises usually become parodies
of themselves at some point anyway. At least Chucky is aware of this and
embraces it. Sure there's gore, but it's all in good fun. Some of the
jokes work, many don't. But like its predecessor BRIDE OF CHUCKY (also
featuring Jennifer Tilly, and the movie that introduced us to her doll
counterpart Tiffany), SEED can be kind of fun if you just go with the
flow.
I thought SEED OF
CHUCKY was okay, for what it was. But you can definitely
wait to rent the DVD for this one.
MJA:
Well, I found nothing fun about SEED OF CHUCKY.
This is the type
of film that gives horror a bad name, and even worse, a
bad reputation, which is something we in the horror genre don't
need. There is nothing redeeming about this movie. When we horror writers
tell people what we do, we are often asked why we enjoy all that senseless
blood and gore, and we usually reply that horror is much more than
that. When it comes to horror literature, we're usually right, but
unfortunately, the general public gets their impression of horror from
horror movies, and a film like SEED OF CHUCKY is the last film I'd want
a
potential horror fan to see. It's gross, disgusting, dehumanizing, and
plain old dumb!
(The LLS
doll hums as he climbs up the Christmas tree)
MJA: I didn't find
it funny, mostly because I missed the part where killing
is funny. Don't get me wrong. I'm not against violence being humorous.
I
like Monty Python, for example, and they're about as bloody as comedians
have ever been on screen, but they were funny. I've said this before in
other columns, and I'll say it again-I don't see horror movies to laugh.
When I want to laugh, I see a comedy. Now, I love the use of humor in
a
good horror movie to break up the tension. But here, there's no tension
to
break up. And it's certainly not funny enough to stand up on its own as
a
straight comedy. Unless of course you think a man being gutted at his
dinner table is humorous. I don't.
LLS:
Well, I do, if it's done right. It's not reality, after all. It's only
a movie.
(MJA
shaking his head in disbelief)
LLS:
Besides, horror and humor are actually the flip sides to the same coin
and have more in common than you'd think. They both elicit an involuntary
response - fear or laughter…
MJA(muttering):
Blah, blah, blah.
LLS:
And I see no reason why the two can't be combined. While SEED OF
CHUCKY may not be a great example of this, another recent film, SHAUN
OF
THE DEAD, does the humor/horror mix much better.
MJA:
You just made my point.
LLS:
But I don't think SEED is a big enough deal to inspire the strong
reaction you're having, either. And don't you think it's a little ironic
that you don't like horror and comedy to mix, yet you write a humorous
column that reviews horror movies?
MJA:
You like to put words into my mouth. I never said I don't like horror
and comedy to mix. What I said was, I don't go to a horror movie to laugh,
and while I sometimes enjoy some good laughs during a horror movie, I
didn't with SEED OF CHUCKY, for the simple reason that it's not funny.
It also fails as
a spoof. Take THE SHINING scene. In THE SHINING, we have
Jack Nicholson axing his way through a bathroom door, delivering his
infamous (and funny!!!) line "Here's Johnny!" Here we have Chucky
doing the
same and saying, "I can't think of a thing to say." That must
have been
what director/screenwriter Don Mancini was thinking when he wrote the
script.
LLS:
Like I said before, not all the jokes work. You know, you're taking
this way too seriously.
(Hurls some ornaments down on MJA's head).
MJA
(ducks out of way):
Yes, I am.
Know why? I take horror seriously. I
love horror. I'm moved by it. I find beauty in it, not ugliness, and when
someone serves it to an audience like garbage, I'm offended. That's why
when I see films like the last two we reviewed in this column, THE
FORGOTTEN and THE GRUDGE, two well-made yet flawed films, I give them
the
benefit of the doubt because they at least try to make a thought-provoking,
moving, and scary movie.
SEED OF CHUCKY is
a miserable piece of celluloid that unfortunately
confuses "horror" with "horrible."
LLS:
Well, I'd rather see an entertaining "bad" movie like this than
another cliché slasher film that takes itself seriously and bores
me to
tears. Obviously you didn't find it funny, and that's fine. Humor is
subjective, anyway.
Personally, I think
that the best horror movies are ones that are truly
disturbing, that make you feel uncomfortable as you leave the theater.
But
there's enough room in the genre for everything. Quiet, serious horror.
Extreme horror. Jokey horror. Even fun trash like this. It's in the spirit
of stuff like the movies of Herschell Gordon Lewis, Roger Corman's LITTLE
SHOP OF HORRORS, and Frank Henenlotter's BASKET CASE. Are these great
movies? Probably not. But they are entertaining.
And you claim to
find beauty, not ugliness in horror. But if there is one
genre where we can embrace both, it's ours.
MJA:
I embrace ugliness when there's a point to it. THE EXORCIST is one of
my favorite films.
LLS:
I enjoyed SEED OF CHUCKY more than I did THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW or even
THE GRUDGE. Sometimes a big, serious movie that fails can be much more
disappointing. SEED OF CHUCKY, with its bad jokes, lame puns, and all,
didn't strive to be anything more than it was. And I at least respect
its
honesty.
MJA:
You're a sick man.
LLS:
You're the one who put on bunny ears last column!
MJA: No comment.
LLS:
As for giving horror a bad name. I don't think one film or series can
do that all by itself.
MJA:
Well, SEED OF CHUCKY certainly contributes to it. You honestly don't
think a movie like this makes people in general look down upon horror?
My
gosh, I'm a horror fan, and I was turned off by it.
LLS:
You're turned off by everything. I'm actually much more insulted by
big-budget idiocy like I KNOW WHAT YOU DID LAST SUMMER. Why don't you
just lighten up?
MJA:
Sure. If we're done talking about the movie I'll lighten up.
(LLS
pushes tree over and it crashes ): TIIIIMBER!
MJA
(holds his broken doll head together):
Now that really cracked me
up! Happy holidays, everyone!
LLS:
Rats! You're still alive! (turns to audience) See you all again, next
year! (evil laughter)
---THE
END---
+++END OF
2004 COLUMNS
NEXT UP: WHITE
NOISE!
On this page, Cinema
Knife Fight is © 2004 by L. L. Soares & Michael J. Arruda
|