L.
L. SOARES
FICTION
ONLINE (Just click the link)
*
* *
Click
link below to go to:
|
CINEMA
KNIFE FIGHT
2005
COLUMNS
||||||||||||
CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT NUMBER TEN: WHITE NOISE
||||||||||||
(Originally
appeared in Hellnotes, January 20, 2005)
(FADE IN: MICHAEL
ARRUDA &
L.
L. SOARES are seated in front of a huge array of electronic
equipment and a bank of television screens, which are all tuned to static.
On a large, central TV monitor, three dark silhouettes suddenly appear
from behind the static. MJA & LLS lean forward in anticipation. From
the TV, they hear "Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk! Whoo, woo, woo, woo!")
MJA
(jubilantly):
We've done it, L.L.! We've contacted your relatives!
(LLS
growls)
MJA:
Welcome to
another edition of CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT. Today L.L. and I review WHITE NOISE
(2005), a new thriller in which Michael Keaton uses electronic recording
equipment to receive messages from the dead.
Keaton plays architect
Jonathan Rivers, who in the opening moments of the movie loses his young
wife Anna (Chandra West) in a car accident. Soon afterwards, he is visited
by a stranger named Raymond Price (Ian McNeice) who claims to have been
contacted by River's deceased wife through EVP (Electronic Voice Phenomenon),
the idea that you can get messages from the dead through static on radios
and televisions. At first, Rivers wants nothing to do with Price, but
later decides to pay the man a visit. Inside the man's home, Rivers listens
to a recording of his wife's voice, and from that moment on, he's hooked.
He fills his own
home with the equipment necessary to record these messages from the dead,
and he soon begins to hear from his wife on a regular basis. But all is
not well in EVP land. There are evil forces at work, intent on harming
those of us who are still alive. Rivers discovers that his wife is sending
him information about the people whose lives are in danger from these
unseen evil forces. Like any good movie hero, Rivers decides it's up to
him to save the day.
Unfortunately, he
doesn't save the movie. The biggest problem I have with WHITE NOISE is
it suffers from a lack of honesty. Keaton is much too quick to accept
Raymond Price's story. He doesn't utter one word of skepticism. His wife
was a famous author. It could have been relatively easy for Price to have
obtained recordings of his dead wife elsewhere. Yet Keaton's character
doesn't question the validity of the recordings once.
And later in the
film Keaton forgets he's not Batman anymore. He goes about walking down
dark creepy streets and through dark abandoned buildings without fear.
Most people would use their cell phones and call the police before investigating
on their own. Sure, we wouldn't have a movie if that were the case, but
these are scary situations, and on screen, Keaton's simply not scared.
It doesn't ring true.
And the amount of
ghostly doings on television screens during this movie is ludicrous. If
it were so easy to contact the dead this way, and this much activity existed
for real, it'd be part of everyone's standard Cable TV package.
WHITE NOISE is a
flawed movie masquerading as a serious thriller. It takes a potentially
intriguing topic like EVP and reduces it to phony melodrama. While it
does have a good moment here and there, in the long run, it's just too
disingenuous a tale for me to recommend it.
What did you think?
(Everything goes
to static then focuses again)
LLS:
As you said, WHITE NOISE' s central prop is EVP. The thing is, instead
of writing a solid story which includes EVP in the mix, what we have here
is a basic idea (EVP) that has a very mediocre story built around it.
The first half of
the movie is pretty generic (despicably so) , and seems more like a bad
TV movie than a theatrical release. And then when Keaton starts getting
obsessed with these voices (and images), making tons of cassette tapes
and videotapes of static, looking for messages from his dead wife, the
movie just doesn't know what it wants to be. First it's a movie about
the dead trying to contact the living. Then his dead wife starts telling
him about tragic events before they happen, so he can play hero. Then
we have a scene at the end in a warehouse (very reminiscent of the end
of THE FORGOTTEN, by the way), where the movie become a battle with demons
from another world. Instead of focusing on one of these ideas and fully
developing it, the movie wants to eat its cake and have it too. The result
is a mess that's more frustrating than entertaining.
Also, for a horror
film, WHITE NOISE is pretty much devoid of scares. A couple of times when
the story really could have gotten scary, it wimps out big time. In fact,
until the very end, I wasn't entirely sure that this was supposed to be
a horror movie at all.
It also seems very
derivative. From POLTERGEIST (people talking through the television) to
THE RING (which it seems to borrow from pretty heavily with the weird
static imagery ) to THE FORGOTTEN , this is more a hodgepodge of other
people's ideas than a truly original film. The acting is pretty lame,
too. Keaton's "comeback" makes me wonder just how much acting
ability this guy ever had. I found myself wondering why he disappeared
after his fame reached its peak with the Batman movies. And then I thought,
this movie would be a lot more interesting if Keaton had used EVP to contact
his dead career.
(Loud hissing in
the background and the sound of deep voices speaking incoherently, followed
by "I'm Batman.")
MJA:
I thought Michael
Keaton was okay. This movie didn't ruin his "comeback" for me.
I think screenwriter Niall Johnson is more to blame for this mess.
But you touch upon
another reason I didn't like the film- its use of EVP. EVP, from what
I've read, is something a lot of people believe in. It's an intriguing
concept that is definitely worth exploring in a work of fiction, but the
movie doesn't do it justice at all. I'm not knocking EVP in real life,
but in this movie, it comes across as really fake. It's a terrible depiction
of a subject that is both captivating and somewhat spooky.
And speaking of borrowing
from other movies, the suicide scene in WHITE NOISE is heavily reminiscent
of the opening scene in THE GRUDGE. So, no points for originality here!
(More crackling,
and the sound of screaming)
LLS:
Yeah, it seems more like an infomercial for EVP than a real movie at times.
I think EVP is an intriguing idea and in the right hands someone could
write a really cool story about it. But WHITE NOISE isn't it.
Good call on the
similarity with THE GRUDGE, by the way.
Y'know, this is yet
another example of a trend that I've found very frustrating. There have
been lots of horror movies coming out in the last year or so, which is
presumably a good thing, but about 90% of them have been bad. And not
even in a "so bad it's good" way. Just bad in a "total
lack of entertainment" way. I thought the point of horror movies
was to scare us. But it's like they don't even try anymore. Just stick
a ghost in there and that's enough effort on their part. Meanwhile, there
are so many great horror novels out there just begging to be made into
films, and potentially great films at that. It's like we're banging our
collective heads against a wall.
MJA:
I was thinking
the same thing as I watched the previews for the next batch of horror
films, which, by the way, all look alike! Will any of these be worthwhile?
To find the answers to these and other insightful questions, keep it tuned
right here, to Cinema Knife Fight!
(LLS
pulls out a sawed-off shotgun and hands another one to MJA. They shoot
out the crackling television screens).
LLS:
Y'know, I think Elvis had the right idea.
(From the darkness
behind them, they hear "Thank you, very much!")
(FADE TO STATIC)
---END---
||||||||||||
CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT NUMBER ELEVEN: BOOGEYMAN||||||||||||
(Originally
appeared in Hellnotes, February 17, 2005)
(NOTE:This
is an UNCUT version of this column, which is slightly different
than the version that appeared in Hellnotes)
(MICHAEL
ARRUDA enters
a room and finds two chairs sitting in front of a closet door. One of
them is occupied by L.
L. SOARES) .
MJA:
What's going on here?
LLS:
I'm waiting for Him.
MJA:
Who?
LLS:
The Boogeyman,
of course. I want to see if this sucker is real. I just saw the new movie
BOOGEYMAN---.
MJA
(interrupting):
What a coincidence! So did I!
LLS(scowls
at MJA):
Anyway, I wanted to try this "facing him down" stuff for myself.
MJA
(sits in the other chair):
Why don't you
tell us a little about the movie, and then, like, maybe I'll say something,
and then it'll be like a review or something!
LLS:
What an original idea! (sighs)
Well, in the new
movie BOOGEYMAN, Tim Jensen has some real problems. The movie starts out
where he's a little kid who's afraid of the dark. He's sure there's something
under the bed, and he knows there's a Boogeyman living in the closet.
When his father comes in his room to reassure him and explores the closet,
things turn ugly, and the Boogeyman makes mincemeat of Daddy-O. In fact,
Daddy's gone, and the story Tim and his mother use is that he went for
a pack of cigarettes and never came back. But Tim knows better. In fact,
his daddy's death understandably haunts him from that point on.
Jump to 15 years
later and Tim is a college student (Barry Watson) who's been so traumatized
by the "evil closet monster" that he's taken all the doors off
the closets and cabinets in his apartment. When his mother dies, he goes
through her things in the house where he grew up, and the old Boogeyman
stuff bubbles up the surface all over again, and he comes to a point where
he just has to face this guy once and for all.
(The closet door
in front of them begins to rattle violently, then stops. Something inside
burps).
BOOGEYMAN is produced
by Sam Raimi and Rob Tapert, the same team who produced THE GRUDGE. Like
THE GRUDGE, it's more than a little flawed. In fact, BOOGEYMAN is pretty
much incoherent at times as it attempts to delve into the surreal. In
this movie, closets are more or less gateways into other dimensions and
when Tim finally decides to confront his tormentor towards the end of
the film, he enters closets that take him to other times and places, including
his childhood bedroom where his father got snatched .
I actually thought
the movie was pretty annoying for the most part. Director Stephen Kay
gets a little carried away with the loud sound effects and music - which
are just manipulative and lame - along with mostly incoherent flashbacks
that abruptly flash on the screen, trying to unsettle us further. The
overuse of these tactics is just plain irritating and amounts to a mountain
of false scares . Although one flashback to Tim's childhood shows us that
his mother was Xena the Warrior Princess! (not really a surprise, since
actress Lucy Lawless is married to producer Rob Tapert).
The last half hour
almost salvages the film. Almost. At least something happens at the end.
There are some scares as Tim finally confronts his childhood fears, and
this is basically what the movie is all about. Once we finally see the
Boogeyman, I thought he was kind of cool - for a about a second. Until
you realize he's just a CGI Freddy Krueger without the wisecracks. In
fact, this guy doesn't say anything at all as he goes on the rampage.
At least Barry Watson actually does a good job of looking sad as the eternally
tortured Tim, even if the movie gives him practically nothing to do that
makes any sense.
There was a time
when stuff like this would go straight to video or cable, but I guess
when your producer is the guy who directed the SPIDER-MAN movies, you're
going to be guaranteed theatrical distribution. BOOGEYMAN is a slight
step up after seeing something as totally devoid of scares as our last
film, WHITE NOISE. I can only hope that this is an omen that the horror
movies of 2005 will just keep getting better.
Well, I can hope,
can't I?
(The closet door
opens and a dancing dwarf appears, speaking backwards. The door closes
again)
MJA:
As in hope there aren't many more like this one!
BOOGEYMAN was BORINGMAN.
First of all, the
movie's called BOOGEYMAN, and this scary dude is on screen for---what?
About all of two minutes! If you have a monster, show him off!
I don't think the
ending salvages this film. I think it is flawed throughout. Early on,
Tim gets advice from his therapist to spend a night in the same house
where he saw his father killed. I'm sorry, but I think it's time for a
new therapist!
And then, he's inside
the house, he's terrified of closets, yet, when all these strange things
start happening, where does he go? Into the closet. Duh!
Didn't we see all
this "monster in the closet stuff" a few years back in the Disney/Pixar
flick, MONSTERS, INC.? That film had much more imagination than this one.
Yet, BOOGEYMAN does
its job. I saw it in a theater filled with the targeted PG-13 audience,
young teenagers, and they screamed in all the right places. Meanwhile,
I sat there daydreaming about Clint Eastwood's MILLION DOLLAR BABY playing
next door.
Now, I'm not a movie
snob. I don't expect every horror film to be Oscar worthy. But can't they
come closer to quality more often than not? I already know the answer.
It's a business decision. Horror movies make money the way they are. Throw
in a bunch of loud noises and music jolts at the right moments, and you've
got yourself a winner. You might as well just jab everyone in the butt
with an electric shock every 10 minutes or so. It's the same result. Instant
scare, but lasting? Hardly. Is there anything haunting about BOOGEYMAN?
Anything that's going to scare you hours after you've seen it? I know
the answer to this question, too. No.
It's all very sad.
But I haven't given up. There are talented filmmakers and writers out
there. There are horror masterpieces yet to be made.
For me, the scariest
part of the evening was when I smelled a strange odor from the person
next to me. This very large person was chowing down a meat stick the size
of a baseball bat. Now that'll give a grown man nightmares!
LLS:
As far as scares go, the ever-infuriating, audience-friendly PG-13 rating
didn't help. That's almost a guarantee that the movie will be watered
down to please the MPAA.
MJA:
Yeah, I know a lot of people look down upon PG-13 rated horror movies,
but I don't think it's the rating that's the problem. The problem is the
lack of story.
(The closet door
opens. Arte Johnson sticks his head out and says "Very interesting..."
The door closes).
LLS:
What is this, Laugh-In?
MJA
(snaps his fingers):
Damn! I was hoping for Billy Crystal in a monster suit!
LLS:
One thing to
note is that despite the fact that BOOGEYMAN is pretty bad, it was number
one at the box office in its opening weekend. So was the Robert DeNiro
film HIDE AND SEEK the week before. What this shows is that there is a
big and devoted audience out there for horror. Here's an idea for the
future - How about some movies that cash in on this audience without insulting
them?
(Closet door opens
again. Huge furry monster wielding a giant sausage roars at them. Door
closes, then opens again to reveal a woman dressed in a neat business
suit)
Woman:
I'm with the
FCC, and that was a blatant use of a phallic symbol! That's cause for
a fine.
MJA:
Would you believe, wardrobe malfunction?
LLS:
You should have seen the R-rated version. It wasn't a sausage he was holding!
(Slams closet door in woman's face). Let's get out of here while we can!
MJA:
I'm with you! Until next time, I'm Michael Arruda, this is L.L. Soares,
and you've been reading CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT.
LLS:
Outta here!
(They leave . Closet
door opens. LLS
& MJA
emerge from closet. )
MJA:
Interesting.
LLS:
It's about time this ended once and for all (Produces axe and begins to
hack closet door. MJA
produces a meat stick [or is it a baseball bat?] and joins LLS
in demolishing door).
---END---
||||||||||||
CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT NUMBER TWELVE: CURSED||||||||||||
(Originally
appeared in Hellnotes, March 17,2005)
(MICHAEL
ARRUDA is
standing next to a wax replica of THE WOLF MAN, while
L.
L. SOARES is putting golf balls with a cane that has a silver
wolf's head
on one end. They are inside a nightclub full of wax figures. MJA is writing
with a pen on the palm of his hand.
LLS:
What are you doing now?
MJA:
I'm connecting the dots to the pentagram on my hand, the sign of the
werewolf. In the old days, you'd get the whole star. Nowadays, you only
get
dots. You gotta connect them yourself. Budget cuts, I guess.
Anyway, I'm standing
next to a beautiful wax replica of Lon Chaney Jr. in
full make-up from the movie THE WOLF MAN. This figure appears in the new
werewolf movie, CURSED, by director Wes Craven and screenwriter Kevin
Williamson, the same team that brought us the SCREAM movies.
CURSED is the story
of a brother (Jesse Eisenberg) and a sister (Christina
Ricci) who hit a werewolf with their car. They are subsequently attacked,
and thus cursed to become werewolves themselves. Furthermore, the werewolf
who attacked them is still after them (whatever happened to the good old
days when a werewolf just shredded his victims and then walked away!),
and thus there's a mystery very similar to the one in the SCREAM films
(though nowhere near as good) where there are all these characters and
you have to guess, which one is the werewolf? Will the brother and sister
find out in
time to kill the werewolf and thus free themselves of the curse, or will
the werewolf kill them first? Even without seeing the movie, I'm reasonably
sure you can figure out the answer.
While I liked the
SCREAM movies and had fun with their horror movie
in-jokes and hip characters, I cannot say the same for CURSED. It's nowhere
near as scary, and the humor nowhere near as sharp. In fact, my favorite
part of CURSED was the appearance of this scary looking fellow right here.
(Nods towards wax figure).
LLS:
Thank you!
MJA:
Not you! I didn't hate CURSED. I just found it rather dull and
unimaginative. Now, I love werewolf movies, from the classics like THE
WOLF
MAN (1941) and Hammer's CURSE OF THE WEREWOLF (1961), to the 80s AN
AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON (1981). Because of my love for the genre,
I was actually into CURSED for a while, hoping it would surprise me, maybe
even scare me. It didn't. There really haven't been a lot of werewolf
movies,
and so there's still plenty to be done with this very scary monster. After
seeing CURSED, I can safely say, there's still plenty to be done!
Your thoughts on
the movie, my horrific buddy?
LLS:
Well, the hardest thing for me while watching CURSED was telling
myself over and over that this was directed by Wes Craven, the same guy
who
made such classics as LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT (1972) and THE HILLS HAVE
EYES
(1977).
MJA
(raises palm of his hand to reveal written words):
"I AGREE!"
LLS:
These are some of my favorite horror movies. Yet it's not unusual for
a filmmaker who started out making raw films to gravitate more and more
toward the mainstream. In fact, it pretty much guarantees that you'll
have
a long career. But does he need to make movies this shallow? Craven's
mainstream aspirations were evident as far back as the first NIGHTMARE
ON
ELM STREET (1984), but that still had some good things going for it. So
when did he totally give himself over to the Commercial Side?
Why, when he made
SCREAM of course! The movie that made screenwriter Kevin Williamson famous
and made fun of slasher movie clichés, while bringing
irony and annoying teenagers into the mix. SCREAM (1996), the movie that
single-handedly turned horror into a joke. Hollywood couldn't take the
genre seriously again for years, instead churning out crap like the SCREAM
sequels, I KNOW WHAT YOU DID LAST SUMMER, and the SCARY MOVIE parodies,
which, since the SCREAM movies were parodies themselves, were parodies
of parodies! And so it went, until the studios finally realized it was
okay to make a horror film with some depth and scares again, like THE
SIXTH SENSE (1999), finally putting an end to the curse of Kevin Williamson.
MJA
(lifting palm):
"LONG-WINDED EXAGGERATION!"
LLS:
(scowls) However, after the SCREAM movies made so much money, I guess
it was inevitable that Craven and Williamson would cross paths again.
CURSED looks even
worse compared to another recent teenage werewolf movie, GINGER SNAPS,
which actually did a great job of being a serious horror
movie with some genuine laughs. And if you want another interesting twist
on the genre, go rent the soldiers vs. werewolves flick DOG SOLDIERS.
If
Williamson had anything original or meaningful to say about werewolves,
I
could understand why Wes Craven wanted to make CURSED with him. But seeing
the final product, I just can't fathom why this got made. The script is
barely up to SCI-FI Channel TV-monster-movie fare.
MJA:
I agree. I did like the scene where the werewolf attacks the woman in
the parking garage, though. I thought it was well done, and I really liked
the close-ups of the werewolf's face, which I suppose is the work of Rick
Baker, since he worked on the movie. The rest of the time when we see
the
CGI werewolf, it's not bad, but you really expect to see Spider-Man come
leaping down onto the scene and strike up a fight with the creature. And
that's why I feel CGI doesn't often work in a horror film. It brings to
mind a cartoon, and very few of us are frightened by cartoons.
LLS:
You can tell Williamson wanted so badly to write an AMERICAN WEREWOLF
IN LONDON for a new generation, but CURSED is a wax mannequin compared
to the real thing. (Looks around at the wax figures.) Kind of fitting,
I think. And what's the point of hiring make-up effects genius Rick Baker
(who also did the effects in AMERICAN WEREWOLF, btw) to create your werewolf
effects, and then rely on bad CGI over half the time?
MJA:
I was also disappointed by the fact that in a movie called CURSED,
where the main protagonists are bitten early on in the film, they never
become werewolves. This was a huge letdown. The film really lacks a strong
lycanthropic presence. It plays like "werewolf light." Half
the calories of
your ordinary werewolf movie.
(LLS's
eyes begin to glow and his teeth turn into fangs. Suddenly he goes
back to normal): Oops, false alarm!
LLS:This
was a big problem I had, too. It's supposedly a werewolf movie.
So where are all the friggin' werewolves?
Along the way, we
get such clichés as a bully with a shocking secret, a
geek who suddenly gains confidence, characters out of bad teenage soap
operas, and jokes that just aren't funny.
MJA
(raises palm):
"AND SCOTT BAIO AS -- HIMSELF."
LLS:
After sitting through this movie, the only one I felt sorry for was
myself, for having been CURSED to sit through another bad horror flick.
MJA: Well, I hope
next time we see a movie that at least one of us
likes! This "both of us agreeing" bit is getting old! Not healthy.
LLS(takes
a swing at MJA with the wolf head cane):
Feel better?
MJA:
Yes. (raises palm): "KA-POW!"
LLS:
Enough already! How did you get so many words on your hand, anyway?
MJA:
CGI.
---END---
||||||||||||
CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT NUMBER THIRTEEN: SIN CITY||||||||||||
(Originally
appeared in Hellnotes, April 21,2005)
(In black and white,
L.
L. SOARES, wearing a trench coat, takes a seat at a
bar next to MICHAEL
ARRUDA.
Cigarette smoke fills the air, and a stripper
who looks a lot like Jessica Alba is performing on stage, twirling a lasso.)
LLS:
Gimme a
Chivas on the rocks.
MJA:
(in a tough
guy voice): Give me a chocolate milk.
LLS:
What are you doing here?
MJA:
We're reviewing
SIN CITY, remember?
LLS
(smiles and looks up a stripper):
Oh yeah. I thought you were here
to celebrate a year of writing Cinema Knife Fight for HELLNOTES.
(Their drinks arrive,
in color)
MJA:
That, too. Cheers.
(They clink glasses)
LLS:
Here's blood in your eye!
Okay. To begin with,
SIN CITY is the creation and personal vision of comic
book icon Frank Miller. Miller gained prominence in the 1980's with his
legendary work as writer and artist on such comic books as Marvel Comics'
DAREDEVIL and the groundbreaking Batman miniseries DARK KNIGHT for DC
Comics, which, along with Alan Moore's WATCHMEN, pretty much set the
standard for intelligent, adult takes on superheroes. After years of
working on superhero comics, Miller created his own series for Dark Horse
Comics called SIN CITY, which takes place in a world of his own creation,
a
violent take on 40's noir featuring strange, often grotesque characters
in
tales of betrayal and vengeance. The various SIN CITY miniseries are some
of Miller's best work, and are unlike anything else in comics.
Director Robert Rodriguez
had the foresight to bring Miller onboard as his
co-director for the movie version of SIN CITY, and it shows. I have never
before seen a movie that was as faithful to its source material. The look,
the atmosphere, the dialogue is all right on the money. From the use of
black and white with occasional bursts of color, to the stylized use of
shadow and light, SIN CITY the movie looks a hell of a lot like SIN CITY
the comic book, and this makes for a pretty unique movie-going experience.
The movie incorporates
storylines from three different comic book series,
which have been intertwined. The first concerns police detective Hartigan
(Bruce Willis), who saves 11-year old Nancy Callahan from the clutches
of a
child rapist/serial killer who just so happens to be the son of a prominent
Senator. Hartigan is framed for the kidnapping and spends 8 years in
prison, after which he gets out to find that he needs to protect the now
grown up Nancy (Jessica Alba) yet again.
The second storyline,
and my personal favorite, concerns a thug named Marv
who finds that the prostitute he spent the night with has been murdered.
He's framed for the murder, and then goes on a quest to find out who is
behind it and exact some revenge. Marv is a virtually indestructible man,
able to take tons of abuse and keep on going, and Mickey Rourke plays
him
with manic glee.
The third storyline
(partly directed by Quentin Tarantino) involves Dwight
(Clive Owen), recently released from prison and out to give a little
payback to the thug Jackie-Boy (an almost unrecognizable Benicio del Toro)
who abused his girlfriend while he was away. When his pursuit of Jackie-Boy
leads him to the prostitute-controlled Old Town, where the women enforce
their own brand of justice, Dwight finds himself in the middle of a
potential war between the mob, the girls of Old Town, and the police.
While not technically
a horror movie, SIN CITY has plenty of horrific
elements, from serial killers and cannibals to over the top violence.
Like
Tarantino's KILL BILL movies, SIN CITY isn't afraid to get its hands bloody.
MJA:
That's for
sure! First of all, I loved this movie, and I have to
admit that for me it was a guilty pleasure. SIN CITY is far too violent
for
my tastes, yet I loved it, and I'd see it again, though I must say violence
to this degree doesn't impress me. Do we really need to see someone's
crotch ripped out? I know I don't. I could write a list of everything
I
liked about SIN CITY, and not one scene of extreme violence would make
the
list.
LLS:
Y'know, sometimes I think you'd prefer reviewing Disney movies. I'm
tired of hearing you whine about violence in the movies. I'm happy to
say I
enjoyed every bloody minute of this film.
MJA:
I enjoyed it
too, but had this movie been made in the 1940s, when
violence as depicted here wasn't allowed, I guarantee you filmmakers like
John Huston or Howard Hawks would have made a film just as compelling
and
exciting as this one. Extreme violence isn't necessary. It's fluff.
LLS:
You're totally missing the point, as usual. Miller isn't trying to
recreate the films of the 40's. In the comics and in this movie, he's
filtering the trappings of film noir through his own sensibility and has
created a world all his own. And over-the-top violence is a part of that
world. This isn't meant to be a straightforward film noir. It's an
ultra-violent roller coaster ride. Sure Huston or Hawks could have made
a
movie as compelling, but it wouldn't be SIN CITY.
MJA:
Says you. Anyway,
let's move on to the good stuff. The look of the
film is breathtaking. The visual aspects of this movie are so impressive
it
plays like art. I was even more impressed by the script by Robert Rodriguez
and Frank Miller. The dialogue is witty and intelligent. It is so much
fun
to go to a movie and be mentally challenged once in a while! And this
from
an action film!
The cast is terrific.
I loved Bruce Willis and Mickey Rourke, who by far,
as Marv, is the best part of the film. But I also enjoyed Rutger Hauer
as
the Cardinal, and Powers Boothe as the Senator. These men are fine actors,
and so it's no surprise how good their performances are here.
LLS:
Don't forget the ladies.
MJA
(looking up
at stripper):
No, I'm not… I'm… I… aye yi yiiii!
LLS:
Put that tongue
back in your mouth! Rosario Dawson was my personal
favorite as Gail, but Jaime King does a good job as Goldie/Wendy, as does
Devon Aoki as deadly assassin Miho, and Jessica Alba provides some nice
eye
candy as Nancy Callahan. There's even Alexis Bledel (Rory from the TV
show
GILMORE GIRLS) as the prostitute Becky!
MJA:
The music by
John Debney, Graeme Revell, and Robert Rodriguez is
contagious. It hooks you in from the get go, and you don't want it to
stop.
I thought the make-up in this film was phenomenal!
And you're right
that it's technically not a horror movie, but it's
certainly dark fantasy, and it's very, very dark. It's a movie horror
fans
will enjoy.
Besides, director
Robert Rodriguez is no stranger to horror. While he's
known for his work on the SPY KIDS films, he was also at the helm of two
of
the better horror movies from the 90s, the much appreciated FROM DUSK
TILL
DAWN (1996) and the underrated THE FACULTY (1998).
LLS:
I think SIN
CITY blows away anything Rodriguez has done before. I
actually think his work has been pretty uneven, but this film is
practically flawless. Then again, I have to think Frank Miller's work
as
co-director and co-writer helps. Together, the two of them have taken
the
world of Miller's SIN CITY, from the bowels of Basin City to the alleys
of
Old Town, and brought it to adrenaline-soaked life. Y'know I'm really
surprised you liked this movie, considering how wimpy you are.
MJA:
Well, that
just goes to show you how wimpy I'm not!
LLS:
Aww, shut your cake hole!
MJA:
Those are fighting
words.
LLS:
You know it!
(LLS
pulls out a switchblade and slices ARRUDA across the chest. Great
geysers of chocolate milk spray out, splattering them both.)
MJA:
Bartender, can
I have another chocolate milk, please?
(Cut to the silhouette
of a wolf approaching MJA.
Wolf licks chocolate
milk from MJA's
shirt.)
MJA:
Better make
that two!
---END---
||||||||||||
CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT NUMBER FORTEEN: WAR OF THE WORLDS||||||||||||
(Originally
appeared in Hellnotes, July 28,2005)
( L.
L. SOARES and MICHAEL
J. ARRUDA
are hiding in a dark cellar. Outside,
Martian tripod machines are on the move.)
LLS
(whispering):
This month we're reviewing Steven Spielberg's movie WAR
OF THE WORLDS.
(A loud metallic
groan fills the air)
MJA:
What was that?
LLS:
I think it was my stomach.
MJA
(in Jedi garb):
I have a bad feeling about this.
LLS:
WAR OF THE WORLDS is the latest big film version of H.G. Wells' 1898
book. As a fan of the 1953 George Pal film version, and not particularly
a
fan of either Spielberg or star Tom Cruise, I went into this movie with
low
expectations. However, I have to admit, I really enjoyed it.
While Spielberg takes
liberties with Wells' novel, this is justified
because many aspects of the book are so dated now. But the basic story
is
still there. In this new version, instead of falling to Earth like
meteorites, the alien war machines were implanted into the earth eons
ago,
and are suddenly activated after freak lightning storms begin occurring
around the world.
Once activated, these
huge killing machines rise up and mercilessly attack
the human race. They crush everything in their path with tripod legs and
shoot out heat rays that explode humans into dust upon impact.
Tom Cruise plays
Ray Ferrier, a dockworker and divorced dad, who is just
about to start a weekend with his kids, sullen teenager Robbie (Justin
Chatwin) and precocious daughter Rachel (Dakota Fanning). When his son
takes his classic Mustang for a joyride without asking, Ray goes looking
for him, and finds himself a witness to a Martian tripod rising up from
beneath the streets.
The rest of the movie
is pretty much Cruise and the kids trying to stay one
step ahead of the aliens, who are wiping out everything around them.
WAR OF THE WORLDS
spills over from science-fiction into horror with the
merciless slaughter of humans, and monstrous machines that run on human
blood. Spielberg has said that the imagery was affected by the events
of
9/11, and this is clear in the scenes of destruction. When Cruise's
character returns home to his kids after witnessing the arrival of the
first death machine, he is in shock and covered in dust.
MJA:
I'm also a huge fan of the 1953 film, and while I still prefer that
version, I really enjoyed this movie. It's riveting from start to
finish. The only exception, the sequence where Cruise and Fanning seek
shelter in the cellar of Tim Robbins' character I thought was slow. Creepy,
but slow.
LLS:
I liked that part. We never know what Robbins' intentions are, but
he's clearly on the verge of madness and Cruise reaches the breaking point,
worrying if Robbins' behavior will expose them to the Martians. How Cruise
ultimately handles the situation seems extreme, but adds to the sense
of
desperation caused by the film's circumstances.
MJA:
I'm not a big Tom Cruise fan, either, but I liked him a lot here.
Enough to say it's my favorite Tom Cruise performance.
The special effects
were terrific. The path of destruction carved by the
alien machines looks real, rather than something created by a computer.
I
think Spielberg deserves a lot of credit for this. The alien machines
themselves, while not immediately as memorable as the machines in the
1953
version, hold their own and are frightening in their own way.
LLS:
I actually preferred the machines in the new version. The use of sound
is quite effective , too. As catchy as the tune the aliens played was
in
CLOSE ENCOUNTERS, the grinding metal sound of the war machines about to
strike in WAR is just as memorable.
MJA:
Yes, I agree. That sound was probably my favorite part of the film!
It's a really scary effect!
LLS:
Sure, the film has flaws: The way Cruise seems to be always a hair
away from death, for example. When the machines first shoot their death
rays, killing everyone around him as he flees, Cruise is somehow spared.
It
becomes ridiculous after a while. And the aliens themselves, when we
finally see them in the flesh, are a disappointment. The way their
insect-like bodies move is interesting, but their faces are downright
cutesy.
MJA:
Phone home!
LLS:
In spite of these flaws, I was so caught up in the story and the
plight of the characters that they didn't matter.
MJA:
You know, I also enjoyed Spielberg's use of the color red. It
generates a feel of tremendous bloodshed.
LLS:
The red vegetation is actually direct from Wells' novel and is a very
effective visual. Spielberg does have a notorious sappy streak, and while
this rears its head towards the end of the film, for the most part, WAR
stays true to its apocalyptic vision.
MJA:
My biggest problem with the sappy ending is it's not believable, and
whenever you sacrifice believability, it's not a good thing. I also thought
the end was a bit confusing. The conclusion could have been explained
better. But these are small matters. I agree with you, WAR OF THE WORLDS
is
extremely well done and well worth the price of admission. So, it looks
like we agree again. What's the world coming to?
(A HUGE metallic
blast splits the air)
MJA:
That wasn't your stomach, was it?
LLS:
No.
(LLS
pulls out a machete, while MJA
lifts an axe.)
MJA:
This time we have a common foe.
LLS:
To the death!
(LLS
& MJA
charge from basement screaming battle cries. They attack a
piñata tripod hanging from a tree and fight viciously for the candy).
------------------------
||||||||||||
CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT NUMBER FIFTEEN: SKELETON KEY|||||||||||
(Originally
appeared in Hellnotes, August 25,2005)
Outside a sprawling
Southern mansion, MICHAEL
ARRUDA and
L.
L. SOARES sit in a garden sipping sweet tea. Between them sits
a grizzled old man resembling John Hurt in a wheelchair with the baby
ALIEN protruding from his chest.
MJA:
Today on Cinema Knife Fight we're looking at the new voodoo thriller,
THE SKELETON KEY (2005).
THE SKELETON KEY
tells the story of young Caroline Ellis (Kate Hudson) who moves into a
New Orleans mansion to care for a recent stroke victim and invalid Ben
Devereaux (John Hurt). She also has to deal with Deveraux's abrasive and
protective wife Violet (Gena Rowlands), but she is encouraged to stay
on by the young family attorney Luke (Peter Sarsgaard).
When Caroline discovers
a secret room in the attic, filled with voodoo artifacts, she learns of
the horrifying history of the house. As things grow more mysterious, Caroline
suspects that Ben's life is in danger, and she tries to determine just
who it is who is out to harm him. Her investigation leads her deep into
a world of ghosts and voodoo.
(LLS
picks up a
voodoo doll of MJA
and starts sticking pins in it)
MJA:
Ouch! Damn mosquitoes! THE SKELETON KEY is a well-acted, intelligent thriller
that in spite of its slow pace, still delivers the goods. It's a performance-driven
movie, especially from its two female leads, Kate Hudson and Gena Rowlands.
Not to be overlooked, John Hurt does an admirable job playing a man who
can't move or talk. It's not as easy as it sounds, and Hurt makes it look
effortless.
(ALIEN creature poking
out of John Hurt's chest cheers and hoots.)
MJA:
Be quiet you! Just because his chest was your film debut is no reason
to make a fool of yourself now. (Alien frowns).
The twist ending
didn't knock my socks off, but like the film as a whole, was just good
enough for me to recommend it. How about you?
LLS:
(puzzled look
on his face) Did we see the same movie?
I guess the biggest surprise for me was how totally unscary this movie
was. And how predictable. It got better towards the end, as we start to
figure out what the "twist" is, but truthfully, it's not much
of a twist. In the old days, SKELETON KEY would have made for a mediocre
episode of NIGHT GALLERY. Instead, they've blown it up to feature length
and suckered some decent actors to star in it, all to trick us out of
our hard-earned money.
MJA:
I disagree completely. It's not a waste of money. It's actually a film
I think people should go out to see. Is it scary? Not really, but then
again, a horror film doesn't have to be scary to be successful. It just
has to be entertaining, and THE SKELETON KEY, though slow, is entertaining.
LLS(jabs
at voodoo doll) (MJA winces):
I found this movie too bland and predictable to be entertaining, despite
a mostly solid cast. John Hurt and Gena Rowlands are real actors. Rowlands,
in particular, is one of the best American actresses ever. As for Kate
Hudson, she's "adequate" at best here. Where is the charisma
she showed back in her debut film, ALMOST FAMOUS?
The thing that struck
me most while watching SKELETON KEY was how I paid ten dollars to sit
in a movie theater and watch a bad TV movie. With the PG-13 rating, it's
as safe and generic as anything on basic cable, with pretty much the same
script quality. In fact, I've seen edgier and scarier TV movies on the
Sci-Fi Channel. I am so sick of pabulum like this being dished into our
hungry horror plates on a regular basis.
MJA:
I'll tell you what I'm sick of, films containing one action scene after
another, one scene of incredible bloody violence after another. That bores
me to tears. Here we have a movie with an intelligent script, with wonderful
acting by everyone in it, including Hudson, by the way, and you're going
to fault it by calling it pabulum and a bad TV movie? Why does every film
have to be fast-paced? I think you're missing the boat here. This is the
kind of film that fans of Val Lewton's 1940s movies will really enjoy.
LLS:
You know me
better than that. I love the movies Val Lewton produced. And I find it
hilarious that you compare this claptrap to classics like that. I'm not
saying all horror films need tons of action and gore; all I'm asking for
is a decent script. And you're really exaggerating how intelligent this
movie is. We've all seen this story before, and the twist is old hat.
The fact that it surprised and entertained you is kind of laughable.
MJA:
I didn't say it surprised me. The twist is average, I'll give you that
much, and the script isn't Shakespeare, but it worked for me.
LLS:
What do you
know? The film had potential, but never lives up to it. If you want to
see a good voodoo movie, rent something like Wes Craven's underrated THE
SERPENT AND THE RAINBOW, or Val Lewton's 1943 classic, I WALKED WITH A
ZOMBIE.
MJA:
See, I think THE SKELETON KEY captures the spirit and feel of a movie
like I WALKED WITH A ZOMBIE. It's nowhere near as good, but if you like
I WALKED WITH A ZOMBIE, chances are, you'll enjoy this movie.
(LLS
sticks more
pins in the doll)
MJA:
Ouch! I've had enough. (turns to Alien) Get him!
(Alien jumps out
of old man's chest and attacks LLS.)
MJA:
In the name of good taste, we will not be showing you the bloody battle
going on behind me. Until next time---.
(Green alien goo
spatters MJA
in face).
MJA:
You just had to get that in, didn't you?
----END--
||||||||||||
CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT NUMBER SIXTEEN: THE EXORCISM
OF EMILY ROSE||||||||||||
(Originally
appeared in Hellnotes, September 22,2005)
In a room where twenty
clocks are all stopped at 3AM, L.
L. SOARES is on the floor, twisted in the shape of a pretzel,
when MICHAEL
ARRUDA enters.
MJA:
Yes! It's finally
happened! You're possessed!
LLS:
Nope, I'm just doing some yoga (gets up). But that reminds me of the movie
we're reviewing this month…. (Suddenly, LLS starts speaking in strange
languages).
MJA:
See, you're
speaking in tongues! You are possessed! Demons exist!
LLS:
No,
I'm swearing. I just stubbed my damn toe (grumbles).
This time around
we're reviewing THE EXORCISM OF EMILY ROSE. In it, Laura Linney plays
Erin Bruner, a defense lawyer who is also an agnostic. She is given the
job of defending Father Moore (Tom Wilkinson) who is charged with killing
19-year old Emily Rose while performing an exorcism on her.
Linney's opponent
in the case, ironically enough, is prosecutor Ethan Thomas (Campbell Scott),
who is also a main of faith. Scott's character has to convince the jury
that Father Moore's actions led to Emily's death by preventing her from
getting the medical attention she needed.
The court case is
pretty much the heart of the movie, but as we learn more and more about
the case, we are treated to lots of flashbacks to Emily's possession and
the exorcism itself.
The movie is based
on the supposedly true trial of a priest who performed a real exorcism
that turned lethal. The question is - is possession real? Or was Emily
Rose simply the victim of psychosis? While the movie pretends to be neutral,
it really isn't. We know right away whose side the film is on, and who
its sympathies are with, as even Linney's character begins to believe
in demons.
I had a real mixed
reaction to this movie. I thought the scenes of possession weren't that
bad - this movie was a big improvement over the last exorcism movie we
saw, the utterly boring EXORCIST: THE BEGINNING directed by Renny Harlin.
Compared to Harlin's lame take on this subject, EMILY ROSE is a work of
art.
But this movie has
a real sense of identity crisis. It was clearly promoted as a horror movie,
yet it's really a courtroom drama with horror flashbacks. It certainly
could have focused more on the horror aspects and been a lot scarier.
I have to admit, however, that I went into this movie with no expectations,
and it was better than I expected. The acting is very good, and the movie
at least tries to put an interesting spin to the topic of exorcism. It
by no means comes anywhere close to the sheer genius of William Friedkin's
original THE EXORCIST, but it certainly is better than most other films
on the subject.
I didn't love EMILY
ROSE, but I didn't hate it either. It was certainly better than most of
the movies we've been reviewing lately and isn't totally brainless at
least.
MJA:
I agree. Actually,
I think I liked it more than you did. Sure, it's not as good as THE EXORCIST,
but few films are.
First off, I thought
it was scary. I liked the exorcism scenes a lot. They weren't hokey. They
were real and frightening. And I found the events leading up to the exorcism
rather unnerving, where we see demons in various forms and the different
stages of Emily's possession. I also liked the scenes where Laura Linney's
character is alone in her apartment in the middle of the night, and she's
spooked. I was spooked, too.
LLS:
Everything spooks you! Boo!
MJA
(screams):
Cut it out!
LLS
(holding
a butcher's knife):
My pleasure! I know what your problem is. You're so starved from all the
awful movies we've seen lately, you think this is great filmmaking!
MJA
(slobbering
like a dog): What makes you say that?
The acting was terrific,
especially the two leads, Linney and Wilkinson. It's interesting how Emily
Rose's character isn't really all that important in the film, but the
movie doesn't suffer from it.
LLS
(head
spins completely around, but MJA doesn't notice):
I actually thought that the actress who played Emily Rose, Jennifer Carpenter,
was very good and convincing in the role. I wouldn't have minded seeing
more of her.
MJA:
I also enjoyed
the camera work, especially during the exorcism scenes where the film
has a gritty BLAIR WITCH PROJECT feel.
LLS
(pukes pea soup, then wipes his mouth):
For some reason, I really felt that they were holding back in the horror
scenes. That they could have gone further with the scares, but chose not
to. I think EMILY ROSE could have been a much better movie if it weren't
so restrained. Then again, this was probably a conscious choice to preserve
the desired PG-13 rating.
MJA:
It's just simply
a matter of being scary without being graphic. I have no problem calling
it a horror movie. It's not going to make audiences scream out loud, but
as we've said before in this column, there are many different forms of
horror. EMILY ROSE falls under the category of "horror courtroom
tale." Hmm. Pretty original!
This is a film where
you add up the parts and come up with a decent movie. You have solid acting,
a good script, and well-crafted, creepy scenes. It doesn't let the audience
down. It does have that TV feeling, since a lot of the film takes place
in a courtroom and there's lots of talking and little action, but to be
honest, I found the courtroom scenes both compelling and a relief from
the tense demonic scenes. All in all, THE EXORCISM OF EMILY ROSE was a
pleasant surprise.
LLS:
I
admit it was better than I thought it would be. I think EMILY ROSE is
worth seeing. I'd just wait until it came out on DVD.
(LLS
begins growling again)
MJA:
What's the matter?
Did you stub your toe again?
LLS:
No. I AM POSSESSED BY DEMONS!
LLS
grabs
MJA
and the lights
go out.
---END---
||||||||||||
CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT NUMBER SEVENTEEN: THE FOG||||||||||||
(Originally
appeared in Hellnotes, October 20,2005)
(In a deep, menacing
fog, a whistle blows---.)
MJA:
Tea's on! (Picks up kettle and waves away foggy steam.)
LLS:
You would drink tea!
MJA
(pouring water into mug):
Hey, Christopher Lee drinks tea. Nuff said! Welcome everyone to Cinema
Knife Fight. Join us while I drink some tea and L.L drinks--- blood, probably.
LLS:
Hey, Christopher Lee drinks blood!
MJA:
Touche! Today we're reviewing THE FOG, the remake of the John Carpenter
film from 1980. There are two words to keep in mind today, pacing and
style. THE FOG (2005 edition) has neither.
There's no pacing
whatsoever to this movie. It's as slow and as boring as--- well, fog.
The story, in a nutshell, for those of you who have never seen the original,
is a ghost tale. A ship carrying members of a leper colony sinks under
mysterious circumstances. One hundred years later, the ship and crew return
in an eerie fog to haunt the descendants of the small coastal community,
Antonio Bay, which caused the wreck in the first place. Not a bad premise,
really.
Now, I was psyched
to see this film because although I do like the John Carpenter original,
I admit the 1980 film has many flaws. John Carpenter is one of the few
filmmakers who has made great movies with lousy scripts. THE FOG (1980)
has more holes in its plot than SpongeBob Squarepants, the dialogue is
hokey, and the ghostly villains are never quite fleshed out enough to
make them truly scary, but what the 1980 film does have, and it's all
thanks to Carpenter, is style.
The fog in the 1980
version, with its otherworldly green glow, is immediately memorable, compared
to the fog in the 2005 remake, which, while being more realistic looking,
is also nothing we haven't seen before. It's like watching THE PERFECT
STORM again. And the scene on the fishing boat in the 1980 version is
one of the creepiest horror scenes of all time. The same scene in the
2005 version is just ordinary.
John Carpenter also
wrote amazing music for his films (anyone NOT know the HALLOWEEN theme?).
He wrote a similar haunting and effective score for THE FOG (1980). The
remake's score is ordinary. The 1980 version had a great cast which included
Jamie Lee Curtis, Adrienne Barbeau, and even Janet Leigh. The remake's
cast---you got it!--- ordinary.
(There is a loud
pounding on the door)
I went into this
movie wanting to like it. I was hoping the film would be an improvement
over the 1980 version. It's not.
LLS:
Y'know, my take on remakes is basically that the only reason to do them
is if you can make them better. A great example that comes to mind is
John Carpenter's remake of THE THING. He took an above-average 1951 sci-fi
movie about a violent alien discovered in the Arctic, and amped up the
frights and effects, and even improved on the story. It's one of the rare
examples of someone remaking a film and doing it even better. Unfortunately,
there aren't enough THINGs to justify remakes as a whole.
MJA:
Hammer Films made a living off remakes, don't forget.
LLS:
I was never much of a fan of Carpenter's original version of THE FOG;
I felt it was one of his weaker efforts- all build-up and not enough payoff.
It could actually be improved upon if it was remade by a director with
real ability
Unfortunately, that's not the case with the new version. Like the original,
this version takes forever to get to the good parts. And the characters
this time around are mostly one-dimensional and forgettable. Tom Welling,
TV's Clark Kent from SMALLVILLE, isn't horrible here, but he really isn't
given much of a chance to flesh out his character either. The same goes
for Maggie Grace (from LOST), as Welling's long lost love, come back to
town to visit her estranged family.
MJA:
It's interesting that in the original, the Jamie Lee Curtis character
is picked up while hitchhiking, and she immediately enters into a sexual
relationship with the man who picks her up, Nick Castle (Tom Atkins),
the male lead and good guy in the movie. In the remake, in a variation
of the same scene, the hitchhiker turns out to be Castle's girlfriend,
completely erasing the "casual sex" angle. What a difference
25 years makes! Ever get the feeling sometimes we're going backwards?
LLS:
You bet! Then again, casual sex might hurt Superman's clean-cut image.
(Loud pounding continues)
(MJA
opens the door to find some kids dressed as Michael Myers, Snake Pliskin
and The Thing):
Trick or ---!
(They see MJA
&
LLS
and scream and run away).
LLS
(shouts):
Wimps!
(MJA
closes door):
We have such good candy, too. (Glances at bowl full of squirming things).
LLS:
Selma Blair as Stevie Wayne, the disc jockey who talks and spins records
through most of the first half of the movie (what - CD's haven't reached
Antonio Bay yet in the new version?), was probably my favorite character
(although she's no Adrienne Barbeau).
MJA
(bruised
and bloody with a Sylvester Stallone chest):
Adrienne! Adrienne!
LLS:
But even she was one step beyond a cardboard cutout.
The good bits include
a few chilling scenes like a leprous hand that shoots out of a sink drain
and infects Stevie's mother, and shards of broken glass dancing in the
air around a priest before skewering him. But there aren't enough of these
moments to make the new movie worthwhile, which is sad, because this story
could have been done better the second time around.
MJA:
I agree. It really is too bad, because the premise has so much potential.
Ghost ships in the fog are creepy. It's a great starting point for a story.
It amazes me that neither film took full advantage of what they had.
LLS:
Maybe, similar to the lepers who haunt Antonio Bay every hundred years,
they'll keep remaking THE FOG every 25 years until someone finally gets
it right.
---END---
||||||||||||
CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT NUMBER EIGHTEEN: SAW II||||||||||||
(Originally
appeared in Hellnotes, November 23,2005)
(Lights come on to
L.
L. SOARES and MICHAEL
ARRUDA in
a filthy abandoned restroom, chained to the walls.)
MJA:
How did we get here?
LLS:
I don't remember. But slide me that hacksaw. I want to cut my leg off,
so I can get out of here.
MJA:
Here's some salt. Why don't you gnaw it off? (slides him a salt shaker).
LLS:
Actually, we're here to talk about the new movie SAW II, the sequel to
last year's hit horror film, SAW. The first film took place in an abandoned
room just like this one. It featured two men, chained to the walls, being
tormented by an unseen psycho called Jigsaw. This guy was a different
kind
of serial killer. Instead of actually killing you himself, he'd make a
game
of it, and make you do the dirty work yourself. Like giving you the option
of dying or sawing off a limb.
This time around,
Jigsaw (Tobin Bell) is finally caught by hard-ass cop
Eric Matthews (Donnie Walhberg). But Jiggy has the last laugh since he's
kidnapped several people and trapped them in a house of horrors. And one
of
the unfortunate victims is Walhberg's teen-age son. Walhberg has to watch
TV monitors of his son and the others being tormented, while trying to
get
answers out of Jigsaw as to where they are being kept.
The movie jumps back
and forth between scenes of Walhberg and Jigsaw
talking and Jigsaw's victims being subjected to more and more bizarre
tortures as the movie unfolds. Our killer actually has a reason for his
bad
behavior. He's dying of cancer and feels that too many people take life
for
granted, so he wants to put them in situations that will make them
appreciate being alive -- if they can live through them. At least that's
what he says. In reality, he's just a psychopathic sadist with a messiah
complex.
The scenes between
Bell and Walhberg are intense and effective. The scenes
of the people trapped in a mysterious abandoned house are pretty effective
too, as you wonder who will come to a horrible end next. We learn they're
all breathing in poisonous nerve gas which will rot away their insides
unless they get out in time and get an antidote. This sets the stage for
some very desperate and violent behavior on the part of those trying to
survive. One scene, where a person is forced to dig through a pit full
of
syringes for a key, is especially wince-inducing.
The movie feels like
a hyperactive rollercoaster ride. It doesn't let up
for a minute, and you're sucked into it, wondering what will happen next.
SAW II is a popcorn movie, and for what it is, it works just fine.
It's not going to
make it on my list of best horror films ever. But it was
an intense hour and a half, and it did exactly what a horror movie is
supposed to do. It screws with you as it doles out the scares.
Will you throw me
that hacksaw already?
MJA:
No. You have to listen to me first. Yeah, it's just a popcorn movie,
if you like your popcorn drizzled with blood!
LLS
(licks lips):
I do!
MJA: I prefer butter.
SAW II is yet ANOTHER serial killer movie filled with
lots of bloody mayhem and mutilation. Sure, the film looks good, and
there's some decent acting, especially the aforementioned Tobin Bell as
Jigsaw, so there's some obvious talent behind this thing. But it takes
talent to create computer viruses, too. And who likes those?
Why are serial killer
movies a genre, anyway? We don't have rapist movies.
We don't have pedophile movies. Why are these sickos different?
LLS
(reaching for saw):
Because in our society, murder isn't considered as
taboo as those other crimes.
MJA:
I wish we didn't have to glorify this sort of lunacy time and time
again. Hey, I love PSYCHO (1960), and I love SILENCE OF THE LAMBS (1991),
but a genre?
I'd rather suffer
a week long migraine headache (which I do get, by the
way) than watch another movie like this. It belittles the human condition.
SAW II is about as
much fun as having your eyelid's sliced with a scalpel.
Woo hoo! Yeah, right.
LLS:
You're totally missing the boat on this one, and showing your
conservative streak.
MJA
(wearing an elephant mask):
Huh?
LLS:
SAW II isn't really a serial killer movie. It's a cartoon.
MJA:
I'm sorry,
I must have missed the animation credits somewhere!
LLS:
While the movie pretends that these are real people and what happens
to them is of consequence, the truth is that nobody except Tobin and
Wahlberg is developed on any level to be a fleshed-out human being. These
aren't people who you can really care about or root for. They're cannon
fodder. And that's exactly what they're supposed to be. If this movie
had
any real meaning beyond a fun 90 minutes, then it would delve deeper into
the repercussions of violence. But it doesn't. It's an amusement park
ride.
MJA:
One that makes you throw up. And you're right -- the characters aren't
fleshed out, which is another reason not to like the movie. If I'm going
to
spend 90 minutes watching people suffer brutal tortures, at least let
me
care about them first!
LLS:
Look, the SAW movies aren't cinema classics, but they aren't exactly
an affront to humankind either.
MJA:
That's your opinion. I obviously disagree with you there.
LLS:
It all comes down to the basic argument of whether violence and gore
have a place in horror. The old subtle horror vs. extreme horror debate
that's been going on for decades. Which is better? Well, personally, I
think there's room for both if they're done well.
MJA:
I agree. I just think there're too many serial killer movies.
LLS
(finally reaches hacksaw):
Got it! Now for my leg! (starts sawing).
MJA
(Pulls out a key):
Should I tell him?
---END---
END OF 2005 COLUMNS+++
On this page, Cinema Knife Fight is © 2005 by L. L. Soares &
Michael J. Arruda
|