The last movie I watched was Halloween.
The end.
Wednesday, November 5, 2014
31 Days of Halloween: Day 31
Halloween (1978) Director: John Carpenter
The last movie I watched was Halloween.
The end.
The last movie I watched was Halloween.
The end.
Saturday, November 1, 2014
31 Days of Halloween: Day 30
The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974) Director: Tobe Hooper
This too, is one of the greatest movies titles of all time. Straight, and to the point. No one goes into this film without good understanding of what to expect from the title alone.
Many people (mom) have this prejudice against slasher films, believing that they're all trashy gore fests. The Texas Chainsaw Massacre is no exception, which is a shame, because not only is this one of the greatest films of the 1970s, but it also has hardly any blood in it at all.
That's right, for those of you who have not seen it, this film is rather tame when it comes to gore. Sure there is violence, but most of it is suggested through atmosphere and sound effects. This film was released before there was a PG-13 rating, so films were either G, PG, or R. The filmmakers behind Chainsaw were actually trying to get a PG rating, but got stuck with an R one from the MPAA. Can you imagine if the a film called The Texas Chainsaw Massacre was rated PG?
This film is not just good, it's fantastic. In 2012, it was given a bit of critical validation when it was ranked the 183rd greatest film ever made by the Sight and Sound critics poll. 183 may not seem that impressive at a glance, but that's relative to every film every made, and this is a serious list; none of that IMDb crap. When I first saw it, I was genuinely surprised at how good the film actually is.
So what makes it great?
The story is bare bones, but to the point. A group of kids go on a road trip in Texas to stay at an old house the belonged to two of the kids' grandparents. Shortly after arriving at their destination, the kids encounter a family of psychopaths that kill them one-by-one. There is no motive to the killings, or any sort of reasonable explanation for most of anything that happens. It's just pure insanity.
The world of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre is one completely without reason. The film is a visual manifestation of total madness. This is expressed both through the story as well as the filmmaking. Shot on 16mm, the movie has a distinct look to it that gives it the sort of "reality" that is seen in found footage films. The editing is also wild and fast in each of the intense scenes, which works to create a heightened sense of disorientation. Each of the actors of for the psychotic family are creepy to the ultimate level, but also hit different notes of crazy. Instead of being redundant, they complement each other well.
This film is like a thematic adaptation of Heart of Darkness, and translated into the horror genre. Tonally, Apocalypse Now (1979) has much in common with Chainsaw. The two portray a world that is ruled by those who have lost their mind, and whose influence has impacted the minds of others and their own perception of reality. In both films, the audience joins a group of people who enter the world perfectly sane, but the lone survivor escapes with a look in their eye that suggests that they have just seen Hell.
See this movie.
This too, is one of the greatest movies titles of all time. Straight, and to the point. No one goes into this film without good understanding of what to expect from the title alone.
Many people (mom) have this prejudice against slasher films, believing that they're all trashy gore fests. The Texas Chainsaw Massacre is no exception, which is a shame, because not only is this one of the greatest films of the 1970s, but it also has hardly any blood in it at all.
That's right, for those of you who have not seen it, this film is rather tame when it comes to gore. Sure there is violence, but most of it is suggested through atmosphere and sound effects. This film was released before there was a PG-13 rating, so films were either G, PG, or R. The filmmakers behind Chainsaw were actually trying to get a PG rating, but got stuck with an R one from the MPAA. Can you imagine if the a film called The Texas Chainsaw Massacre was rated PG?
This film is not just good, it's fantastic. In 2012, it was given a bit of critical validation when it was ranked the 183rd greatest film ever made by the Sight and Sound critics poll. 183 may not seem that impressive at a glance, but that's relative to every film every made, and this is a serious list; none of that IMDb crap. When I first saw it, I was genuinely surprised at how good the film actually is.
So what makes it great?
The story is bare bones, but to the point. A group of kids go on a road trip in Texas to stay at an old house the belonged to two of the kids' grandparents. Shortly after arriving at their destination, the kids encounter a family of psychopaths that kill them one-by-one. There is no motive to the killings, or any sort of reasonable explanation for most of anything that happens. It's just pure insanity.
The world of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre is one completely without reason. The film is a visual manifestation of total madness. This is expressed both through the story as well as the filmmaking. Shot on 16mm, the movie has a distinct look to it that gives it the sort of "reality" that is seen in found footage films. The editing is also wild and fast in each of the intense scenes, which works to create a heightened sense of disorientation. Each of the actors of for the psychotic family are creepy to the ultimate level, but also hit different notes of crazy. Instead of being redundant, they complement each other well.
This film is like a thematic adaptation of Heart of Darkness, and translated into the horror genre. Tonally, Apocalypse Now (1979) has much in common with Chainsaw. The two portray a world that is ruled by those who have lost their mind, and whose influence has impacted the minds of others and their own perception of reality. In both films, the audience joins a group of people who enter the world perfectly sane, but the lone survivor escapes with a look in their eye that suggests that they have just seen Hell.
See this movie.
Thursday, October 30, 2014
31 Days of Halloween: Day 29
Night of the Living Dead (1968) George A. Romero
This may well be the best title to a movie ever.
For no apparent reason, corpses are rising from the dead and going on a rampage of murder throughout the Eastern United States. A group of seven people find themselves boarded up in a country house as these "ghouls" try to break in. The plot is ingeniously simple in it's structure, but subtly complex in its execution. Most of the drama takes place within the home and the conflict between the inhabitants. In a way, this is just 12 Angry Men (1957) with zombies.
Although these creatures are never actually referred to as zombies. They are called either "ghouls," "assassins," or some other title of that sort. Regardless of what they are actually called, they are in fact zombies. While not the first zombie movie by any means (that title goes to White Zombie), it is the one that really launched the sub-genre into mass appeal.
Night of the Living Dead is often considered to be the first modern horror film. Now what that means is that the way in which it was shot represented the sort of template from which future films followed. This includes the use of handheld camera work, deeply psychological horror that reflected the current political climate, heightened level of violence, and an overall more "aggressive" quality to it.
The zombies in the film are generally understood to be a metaphor or the atomic age. There was a constant fear that World War III was going to erupt and all civilization was going to be wiped out with nuclear weapons. The foreboding doom of the zombies waiting outside of the house while most of the town has already been wiped out is what most vividly represents this. The climax of the film also stands to illustrate a sort of explosion of death that would come with the dropping of the bomb. The image of walking corpses could also symbolize the United States' involvement in the Vietnam War. All of Romero's subsequent zombie flicks carry political allegory.
Shot in black and white, the photography heavily uses shadows to create the dark mood of the film. It almost looks noir-ish at times. This also helps to make the special effects just as believable now as they were in 1968. For the devoured corpses, the crew used real meat covered in chocolate syrup. Yummy. The special effects artist, Tom Savini would later go on to do the effects the the latter two Dead films, and directed a remake of the original in 1990. The remake seems pretty unnecessary. Especially since Savini has stated in interviews that black and white is scarier but shot the remake in color.
This is the sort of movie that is ideal for the drive-in or a midnight screening. It was shot for a super low budget and it looks it, but in a good way. The way it was shot gives it a sort of raw, here-and-now quality that the digital format allotted 28 Days Later. From the start, Night of the Living Dead is terrific fun that expertly paced throughout while run time. This is one of the fundamental classics of the genre and one that any fan absolutely must see.
For no apparent reason, corpses are rising from the dead and going on a rampage of murder throughout the Eastern United States. A group of seven people find themselves boarded up in a country house as these "ghouls" try to break in. The plot is ingeniously simple in it's structure, but subtly complex in its execution. Most of the drama takes place within the home and the conflict between the inhabitants. In a way, this is just 12 Angry Men (1957) with zombies.
Although these creatures are never actually referred to as zombies. They are called either "ghouls," "assassins," or some other title of that sort. Regardless of what they are actually called, they are in fact zombies. While not the first zombie movie by any means (that title goes to White Zombie), it is the one that really launched the sub-genre into mass appeal.
Night of the Living Dead is often considered to be the first modern horror film. Now what that means is that the way in which it was shot represented the sort of template from which future films followed. This includes the use of handheld camera work, deeply psychological horror that reflected the current political climate, heightened level of violence, and an overall more "aggressive" quality to it.
The zombies in the film are generally understood to be a metaphor or the atomic age. There was a constant fear that World War III was going to erupt and all civilization was going to be wiped out with nuclear weapons. The foreboding doom of the zombies waiting outside of the house while most of the town has already been wiped out is what most vividly represents this. The climax of the film also stands to illustrate a sort of explosion of death that would come with the dropping of the bomb. The image of walking corpses could also symbolize the United States' involvement in the Vietnam War. All of Romero's subsequent zombie flicks carry political allegory.
Shot in black and white, the photography heavily uses shadows to create the dark mood of the film. It almost looks noir-ish at times. This also helps to make the special effects just as believable now as they were in 1968. For the devoured corpses, the crew used real meat covered in chocolate syrup. Yummy. The special effects artist, Tom Savini would later go on to do the effects the the latter two Dead films, and directed a remake of the original in 1990. The remake seems pretty unnecessary. Especially since Savini has stated in interviews that black and white is scarier but shot the remake in color.
This is the sort of movie that is ideal for the drive-in or a midnight screening. It was shot for a super low budget and it looks it, but in a good way. The way it was shot gives it a sort of raw, here-and-now quality that the digital format allotted 28 Days Later. From the start, Night of the Living Dead is terrific fun that expertly paced throughout while run time. This is one of the fundamental classics of the genre and one that any fan absolutely must see.
31 Days of Halloween: Day 28
The Descent (2005) Director: Neil Marshall
A group of beautiful, big-breasted women make a series of terrible decisions that lead to them getting lost in an uncharted cave system that contains some not so scary monsters.
I knew what the monsters looked like going into The Descent because there are pictures of them on the Wikipedia page. Knowing this, I was afraid that much of the movie's suspense would be lost. As it turns out, the first hour-or-so of the film has no monsters, but instead effectively manifests the environment itself into the antagonistic force, which then produce a very real fear of getting lost. One scene has a character getting stuck between some rocks, and the little shard of claustrophobia I have ignited as I leaned in as much as I could toward the screen in anticipation.
It is these earlier moments that are the strongest bits of The Descent. The horror is entirely psychological, and more importantly, easily relatable. Just last spring I went on a run in the woods and found myself getting lost. What was meant to be a 30 minute run ended up taking more than an hour. The whole time I had to tell myself that I would get out okay. The characters do the same in The Descent. There must be a way out of these caves. The anxiety grows as the group, as well the audience, can't help but question if by going deeper into the cave, are they getting closer to the exit, or going deeper into the labyrinth?
Even as I was watching the film, before the monsters appeared, I began to wonder of the film as a whole would be more frightening if there were no monsters at all. After watching it, I concluded that it indeed would have been.
The first time we get a full look at a "crawler," I did in fact gasp out loud. It was an exhilarating reveal, but once the shock had dissipated the scene quickly developed into a loud action brawl. It was at this point that I lost a chunk of interest in the film. Sure, the women made some stupid decisions to get into their current predicament, but now they continued to make a series of progressively worse ones. The most infuriating is a senseless betrayal that accomplishes nothing, and is only based on rumor. It almost seemed like a commentary on negative stereotypes of women who hold grudges and spread rumors.
The tension established in the first hour goes flying out the window when the monsters appear, and the film quickly develops into a series of jump scares. Most of these jump scares are obnoxiously predictable, but still made me jump a bit, simply because it was a loud noise prefaced by some quiet. It was no longer scary, but instead just plain annoying. The sort of irritation one gets when a kid keeps flicking stuff at the back of your head whenever you turn away from him. Ugh.
At least the jump scares in The Conjuring (2013) were actually scary. The ones in The Descent reminded me of how I felt when I was kid and saw a particular scene in Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (2002) for the first time. Harry has just teleported to Diafdjhgkshfgksfgs-ally via a chimney, and sees some creepy looking hand thing. I knew the hand thing was going to close on him, but it still mad me jump when it happened. That's not good filmmaking, it's just being a nuisance.
Anyway.
The monsters are also pretty easy to kill, so they quickly become unintimidating. One women becomes such a bad ass in her rampage against the crawlers that it felt almost like I was watching a Sam Raimi or Perter Jackson horror film. At this point the film becomes more comedic than anything else.
The Descent is by no means bad. It's just not scary, although plenty of people seem to think that it is. The first half is certainly chilling, but once we see the monster, the film becomes a splatter fest. So if splatter films are what you're looking for, then this will actually be quite satisfying for you. I didn't walk away from this film scared, but I was at least entertained, even with a few annoyances.
A group of beautiful, big-breasted women make a series of terrible decisions that lead to them getting lost in an uncharted cave system that contains some not so scary monsters.
I knew what the monsters looked like going into The Descent because there are pictures of them on the Wikipedia page. Knowing this, I was afraid that much of the movie's suspense would be lost. As it turns out, the first hour-or-so of the film has no monsters, but instead effectively manifests the environment itself into the antagonistic force, which then produce a very real fear of getting lost. One scene has a character getting stuck between some rocks, and the little shard of claustrophobia I have ignited as I leaned in as much as I could toward the screen in anticipation.
It is these earlier moments that are the strongest bits of The Descent. The horror is entirely psychological, and more importantly, easily relatable. Just last spring I went on a run in the woods and found myself getting lost. What was meant to be a 30 minute run ended up taking more than an hour. The whole time I had to tell myself that I would get out okay. The characters do the same in The Descent. There must be a way out of these caves. The anxiety grows as the group, as well the audience, can't help but question if by going deeper into the cave, are they getting closer to the exit, or going deeper into the labyrinth?
Even as I was watching the film, before the monsters appeared, I began to wonder of the film as a whole would be more frightening if there were no monsters at all. After watching it, I concluded that it indeed would have been.
The first time we get a full look at a "crawler," I did in fact gasp out loud. It was an exhilarating reveal, but once the shock had dissipated the scene quickly developed into a loud action brawl. It was at this point that I lost a chunk of interest in the film. Sure, the women made some stupid decisions to get into their current predicament, but now they continued to make a series of progressively worse ones. The most infuriating is a senseless betrayal that accomplishes nothing, and is only based on rumor. It almost seemed like a commentary on negative stereotypes of women who hold grudges and spread rumors.
The tension established in the first hour goes flying out the window when the monsters appear, and the film quickly develops into a series of jump scares. Most of these jump scares are obnoxiously predictable, but still made me jump a bit, simply because it was a loud noise prefaced by some quiet. It was no longer scary, but instead just plain annoying. The sort of irritation one gets when a kid keeps flicking stuff at the back of your head whenever you turn away from him. Ugh.
At least the jump scares in The Conjuring (2013) were actually scary. The ones in The Descent reminded me of how I felt when I was kid and saw a particular scene in Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (2002) for the first time. Harry has just teleported to Diafdjhgkshfgksfgs-ally via a chimney, and sees some creepy looking hand thing. I knew the hand thing was going to close on him, but it still mad me jump when it happened. That's not good filmmaking, it's just being a nuisance.
Anyway.
The monsters are also pretty easy to kill, so they quickly become unintimidating. One women becomes such a bad ass in her rampage against the crawlers that it felt almost like I was watching a Sam Raimi or Perter Jackson horror film. At this point the film becomes more comedic than anything else.
The Descent is by no means bad. It's just not scary, although plenty of people seem to think that it is. The first half is certainly chilling, but once we see the monster, the film becomes a splatter fest. So if splatter films are what you're looking for, then this will actually be quite satisfying for you. I didn't walk away from this film scared, but I was at least entertained, even with a few annoyances.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)