Horror Origins: The Omen

            Unlike dramas and (to a lesser extent) comedies, horror films do not so easily stand the test of time.  Ones that rely on special effects are especially susceptible film evolution, as new audiences have a harder time being scared by rubber masks and silly creatures.  So when you get my generation or younger talking about ‘classic’ horrors, they usually mention those that are psychological in nature. 

Movies like Rosemary’s Baby, The Exorcist and The Omen are the ones we remember fondly.  They don’t need a whole lot of effects (except maybe some green vomit?) in order to be scary.  It’s much easier, and more rewarding, to let the audience scare themselves.

            While I really liked Rosemary’s Baby when I saw it a few years ago, I felt that I was maybe just too old to be frightened by The Exorcist when I finally got a copy of it in the mid-2000’s.  The same thing happened when I finally watched Steven King’s It.  It just didn’t impact me, because I’d seen too many newer films that had taken the model and improved on it.

            So the big question for today:  Where does The Omen fall on the scale?

            On to the review!

            Well, this is embarrassing.  I realized that I actually had seen The Omen before.  What I didn’t understand was why I didn’t figure it out until I was an hour and 45 minutes into a 1 hour and 51 minute movie.

            It’s not a bad movie by any means; I just tried it out far too late in life.  So for those of you who may still be interested, I’ll try to be gentle.

            The Omen stars Gregory Peck as Mr. Robert Thorn, an American Ambassador to the UK.  He and his wife Katherine (Lee Remick) finally have the child they’ve always wanted in Damien (mostly played by Harvey Stephens).  The problem is, their son may or may not be something…otherworldly.

            You first get a hint that something’s not quite right when the nanny hangs herself in front of over a hundred guests at little Damien’s birthday party.  Soon after, a priest named Father Brennan (Patrick Troughton) tries to convince Mr. Thorn that his child is actually a product of Satan.  While Mr. Thorn doesn’t really buy that bull, he eventually comes to see its potential thanks to the eye-opening photographs of Jennings (David Warner).  It seems that Jennings had been tasked by a local paper to cover the Ambassador for some time, and his photos reveal some startling imagery.

            The best parts of The Omen when the film merely suggests something is wrong with the world.  Subtle scenes like when Damien becomes more and more freaked out as they near a church, or when the new nanny tries to influence Damien’s surroundings to better encourage his inner demons.  (See what I did there?)

            The worst part of The Omen is when the movie takes those subtle scenes and shoves molten lava into your earholes.  There’s nothing wrong with delivering a musical cue to inform the audience that something’s about to happen.  There’s everything wrong with making that musical cue the LOUDEST PART OF THE MOVIE, repeating it CONTANTLY and making the music itself ATROCIOUS. 

            Gee, I think I found out why I don’t care much for The Omen.  Unlike Rosemary’s Baby, this film lacks subtlety.  The plot is great, the acting is fine, and the ideas are all there.  Unfortunately for the audience, the entire film is choreographed minutes ahead both by the way the scenes are assembled and by the wretched, horrible musical cues.

Silent Hill: Revelation

            Here's all you need to know about Silent Hill:Revelation.  A guy three rows behind me fell into such a deep slumber that he snored through about 30 minutes of the film.

            On to the review!

            For the rest of my life, I am only going to refer to this film as Silent Hill: Exposition.  I'm aware that exposition can serve a positive purpose in catching the viewers up on something important.  The idea is to prevent having to add scene after and dragging the movie down.  However, you run the risk of going too far in the other direction.  Now, we suddenly have every character spoon-feeding the audience everything they need to know.  In case you didn't know, this kind of kills a film's momentum.

            Silent Hill: Exposition isn't a bad movie, per-se.  The action scenes are fantastic, the creatures are truly creepy (especially the doll-spider), and there is an interesting plot.  It's just that the plot is buried under poor acting, too much talking, lots of standing around and some of the cheesiest twists I've ever seen.

            Much of it can be blamed on the acting.  It's hard to blame the actors per se, considering they're the likes of Sean Bean, Carrie-Anne Moss and Malcolm McDowell.  So I'll go ahead and say that poor director Mark Tonderai was in waaaaay over his head.  Sean Bean is especially wretched as Harry, the father of our titular hero.  He keeps dropping his American accent and mixing in his native Queen's English, but it gets so muddled that at one point I was convinced he'd decided to play a Russian immigrant.

            Malcolm McDowell and Miss Moss aren't quite as terrible. I think they were given so little to work with they ended up just showing up, getting their money, and calling it a day.

            I can't be as nice to our two primary characters, however.  Adelaide Clemens (Heather) isn't very good at all, and her character development is painfully ridiculous.  We sort of need her to be someone we can root for, since she's, y'know, the main character and all.  It's a shame that all I could do was laugh at the ridiculous.

            Then there's Vincent, played by Kit Harington.  To say he's instrumental to the plot would be an understatement, but at no point in the movie did I give a flying pig's ass about whether he lived or died.

            As for the plot itself, it's pretty straightforward.  Years after Heather's mother sacrificed herself to get Heather out of Silent Hill, Heather and Harry are constantly on the run.  There's a crazed cult that wants to drag Heather back to Silent Hill for a dark ritual, and Harry's not big on that idea.

            Of course, Heather has complete amnesia about the whole incident, and she just believes that she and her father are on the run from the law after Harry killed one of the cultists in their home.

            Yadda yadda, blah blah, that doesn't work out, Harry gets kidnapped, and Heather recruits Vincent to help her get to Silent Hill and rescue her father.

            The beginning is silly, the middle is apparently snore-worthy, and the ending is laughable.  Strangely enough, there really is a lot to like if you're a Silent Hill fan.  There are tons of nods to the video game franchise,  and the creatures really are amazing.  Someone put a lot of love into the crazy demons, and it shows.  The nurses are especially fantastic, and I wouldn't have minded just seeing a 90 minute film that followed Pyramid Head around while he violently interacted with crazier and crazier critters.

            If you still want to go see Silent Hill: Exposition then you absolutely must do it in 3D.  The effects make it worth your time, and it takes a few good scenes and makes them phenomenal.  Unfortunately for us and the future prospects of this film, none of those scenes involve a single main character being particularly useful.

            As someone who loves the Silent Hill games (but sucks at them), enjoyed the first Silent Hill and still quests for good scares, I can tell you that this film would make a perfectly adequate rental. 

            Still nowhere near as good as Sinister though.

Horror Origins: Dawn of the Dead (2004)

            Two weeks ago I reviewed 1978's Dawn of the Dead for my Horror Origins series.  I'm not going to re-defend my position on believing it and not Night of the Living Dead is the true start of the series.  But I will readily admit that this gave me the opportunity to compare and contrast 2004's Dawn of the Dead remake.

            Muahahahahaha!

            On to the review!

            George Romero's original Dawn of the Dead was a very slow-burning horror movie that tried to scare us as much through the horrors of consumerism as it did with the horrors of a zombie outbreak.  Zack Snyder's 2004 version drops most of that sissy consumerism talk and gives us faster, scarier zombies to make up for it.

            Nurse Ana (Sarah Polley) wakes up one morning to find the neighbor girl standing in her hallway, refusing to answer any questions.  Despite this, Ana wants to find out what's wrong, but of course the ungrateful brat just proceeds to bite into her husband's neck.  This has the unsettling effect of first killing and then zombifying him.

            As she tries to flee her idyllic Milwaukee suburb, she joins up with police officer Kenneth (Ving Rhames), Best Buy salesman Michael (Jake Weber), petty crook Andre (Mekhi Phifer) and Andre's pregnant wife Luda (Inna Korobkina).  In an attempt to hide out from the growing zombie population, they head to the local mall only to find it occupied by three mall cops.  Of course, the leader CJ (Michael Kelly) is a giant douche and he locks them up in one of the stores.

            While they at first don't mind incarceration over being eaten, they later force a coup and take in several other survivors.  Over time they see their supplies and hopes dwindle, so they decide to try to get to a boat and make their way to an island, any island, in the hopes that it will be safer than the now-surrounded-by-the-undead mall.

            When I say that this is just an actioned-up, thought-free version of the original, I really mean it.  The zombies are scary-fast and viscously brutal.  There are no real subplots to speak of, other than a few character development arcs that do nothing in the end but add to the violence.  The mall is not the playground it's made out to be in the original Dawn of the Dead.  Here it is merely the set piece for some sexy, brutal man-on-zombie action.

            While the zombies are certainly better looking than the original thanks to 25 years of make-up development, it's somehow less frightening to see people caught and devoured by these new creatures.  When you're bitten by a dull-witted, shambling, sorry excuse for a murderer, there is a certain amount of shame and horror involved.  When you're grabbed by a drooling murder-creature running at a full Usain Bolt sprint, it's just a shitty day.

            For the observant, there are a few nods to the original.  For example, the original biker gang leader from the 1978 version, Tom Savini, shows up on TV as a cocky, confident County Sheriff who demonstrates how best to kill this new menace.

            One other point of interest is something I noticed while watching the opening scene.  The latest Resident Evil movie, Resident Evil: Retribution began with a nearly identical opening.  Similar deaths, similar chaos when the female lead steps outside, same violence and similar reactions all-around.  It's to the point that I would be interested to know if they actually used the same studio back lot.

            Overall, it's a fine, moderately entertaining action movie that did well enough to get its own remake sequels, but it's a far cry from the creepy, intense atmosphere of the original.  While the viewer was never really sure what was going to happen or who was going to die in the 1978 version, here you can pretty much label your characters as Victims 1-10.

            If you love action movies and violence, I would recommend Dawn of the Dead 2004 as your movie.  If you want a horror, you may want to look someplace else.

Paranormal Activity 4

            Maybe it's because I hold the first movie in such high esteem.  Maybe it's because I'm still on a Sinister high and every other horror movie pales in comparison.  Or maybe it's just that Paranormal Activity 4 really is a steaming pile of effluence.

            On to the review!

            I reviewed Paranormal Activity 3 last year and was friendly to it, although you may note that I hated the ending.  (Also, typos...typos EVERYWHERE.)  At this point I think the writers are taking bets on how terrible they can make these endings.  Guess what?  This one is the new winner.  The ending retroactively ruins what is already a very poorly done, cheap cash-in film.  Paranormal Activity is now no better than the Saw franchise.

            If you must know, it's now November of 2011.  A small family of 4 is living in Nevada, minding its own damn business, when a new family moves in across the street.  The new neighbors are Katie (Katie Featherston) and her 'son' Robbie (Brady Allen).  Katie is, of course, the same demon-possessed girl from the first three films and the film leads you to assume that Robbie is the kidnapped boy from movie 2.

            Our main character is Alex (Kathryn Newton), a teenage girl who actually gets along with little brother Wyatt (Aiden Lovekamp), has a mildly obnoxious boyfriend in Ben (Matt Shively) and two parents that obviously don't get along.  Much of the movie is spent scaring the shit out of Alex while mother Holly (Alexondra Lee) and father Daniel (Brian Boland) act as the disbelieving parents.

            The scares start up when Robbie comes to stay with them for a few days after his 'mother' takes sick and is hospitalized.  Robbie also brings his imaginary friend Toby with him and Alex can't shake the feeling that little Robbie is one weird little boy. 

            Since she's just a teenage girl, she can't exactly set up cameras in the entire house, so this film's method of recording is Skype.  She sets every laptop to constantly record and can then review footage from almost every room in the house.

            The idea is neat, as well as the idea to use the Microsoft Kinect's infrared camera to deliver the few genuinely spooky scenes.  Unfortunately they almost never actually LOOK at any footage, so our protagonists spend most of the movie clueless.

            The acting ranges from 'meh' to 'excellent' but only two characters fall into the latter category.  Young Brady is truly, genuinely creepy as Robbie, and he delivers his lines as if he's a grumpy old man.  This does a great job of convincing the audience that he knows far more than a young boy should.  The other excellent actor is Aiden as Wyatt, who does a good job of going from happy-go-lucky kid to haunted little boy as the plot unfolds.

            Everyone else is either boring, uninspired, or unconvincing.  Matt's character Ben was borderline unwatchable at times, especially during  his first scene.  His line delivery is almost exactly like that of a certain porn star from an amateur website that I shall not name because I can at least try to keep this site within an R rating.  Also, what's a teenaged kid doing getting acting advice from an amateur porn star?  For shame.

            As far as scares go, they're generally uninspired.  Almost a full three-fourths of them are jump scares.  Out of those, over half are your typical 'fooled you' jumps scares, caused by people and animals throughout the house.  (Although, when the cat jumps on-screen, a guy behind us screamed like a girl and the entire theater got a good laugh out of it.)

            While the 'scares' come more and more frequently as the movie proceeds, they never develop enough tension to actually keep the audience riveted.  It's almost as if the writers were scaring themselves, so someone comes along to diffuse the tension every other scene.  That in itself would be forgivable if it weren't for the ending.

            Oh god, the ending.

            It really is worse than any horror movie ending I have ever seen.  Of course, I don't want to ruin it for you (well, I do, but I won't).  So instead, I'll just throw up a quote from one of the people I saw the film with.  "That movie didn't scare me at all.  It just made me want to avoid single moms."

            So if you like horror movies, or if you still have a soft spot for any of the Paranormal Activity films, do not go see Paranormal Activity 4.  Give your money to Sinister.  Or save it for next week's Silent Hill: Revelations.  It may not end up being a good movie either, but at least there's Pyramid Head.

Sinister

My definition of a good horror movie is one that sticks with you long after the credits roll.  A truly fantastic horror pops back up into your forebrain at random times, especially when you're all alone with nothing but your thoughts (and the strange creaking noises that you can't quite identify).  I won't call a horror truly scary until I get in bed and turn off my light only to have a scene flicker behind my eyelids, causing me to sigh, turn the light back on and read for a few more minutes.

            Sinister is a genuinely good, scary horror film.

            On to the review!

            Let's run through what you already know about Sinister.  A guy and his family are living in a house, and the guy uncovers super 8 film that shows grisly murders in each reel.  Linking them all together is a strange figure called Bughuul, a Babylonian creature of myth.  Sounds kinda creepy but a little cheesy, right?

            Surprisingly, no, it's not cheesy in the least.  The plot unfolds when true crime writer Ellison (Ethan Hawke) moves his family into a Pennsylvania house where a quadruple homicide just took place.  He wants to uncover where the 5th member of the family, young Stephanie, has gone missing to.  In doing so, he hopes to write another hit novel that will hopefully refill his dwindling bank account.

            As he is unpacking, he finds a mysterious box in the attic and is immediately captivated and horrified by the footage he uncovers.  Making a decision to not take it to the police, he instead tries to singlehandedly discover the meaning behind the films.  After all, this is his last chance as a writer.

            Much of the movie is Ellison watching these grisly films and figure out who and why.  This leads to his uncovering of the mysterious Bughuul, whose reflection or image is seen very briefly in each super 8 film. 

            Thinking he may have uncovered something really big, he enlists a local deputy (James Ransone, doing a creepily awesome impression of a young Edward Norton) to help him with a few details he cannot uncover himself.  The entire time he is doing all this research, reality slowly crumbles around him.

            This is where Sinister sets itself apart.  Yes, there are some cheap scares, such as bumps and footsteps and the like.  However, these cheap scares actually have payoff.  A loud thud in the attic leads to an investigation that becomes far scarier than it has any right to be.  Unseen figures eventually resolve themselves only to leave the viewer even more unsettled.  There are no constant bullshit fake-outs.  (Well, there is one, but it's towards the beginning, it's kinda cute, and it's the only one.)

            Sinister is an amazing example of what a horror film can do on an intelligent budget (only $3 million purportedly, compared to the rumored $27 million budget of this month's Silent Hill: Revelations).  I can't say shoestring budget, because movies like Paranormal Activity and The Blair Witch Project put the idea of dropping $3 million to shame.  However, compared to most Hollywood films, $3 million will barely get you a competent cast, let alone an entire film.

            Most importantly, the acting is freaking great.  Ethan Hawke does most of the heavy lifting, but his wife Tracy (Juliet Rylance) is excellent when she's called upon, and the two children do just enough when needed to deliver that extra creep factor.  Trust me, the 'kid popping out of a moving box' part of the trailer not only makes sense in context, but it helps to add an extra layer of mystery to the entire proceeding.

            On a final note, the score.  THE SCORE!  I was blown away by how perfectly both the sound effects and the music perfectly pitched to every scene at hand.  I have never seen a horror film use sound so perfectly.  Yes, its music (though not its wordplay) is even better than Silent Horror.  Which is the best praise I can give.  Trust me.

            I state with all confidence that this is the best horror movie of 2012, and that anyone who even remotely considers themselves to be a fan of the genre should make time to watch it.  However, if you are a horror virgin or easily spooked, do everyone a favor and don't watch it in the theater.  I hate it when people cry during the scary parts.

Seven Psychopaths

            I got to see two movies this weekend!  While they were two totally different genres, they had one major plot point in common.  Both main characters were writers with a drinking problem.  I'll tell you all about Sinister on Wednesday (which you should watch if you consider yourself even a tiny bit of a horror film fan). 

            But first I'm going to convince you to go see SevenPsychopaths.

            On to the review!

            Seven Psychopaths stars Collin Farrell as Marty, a screenwriter who has fallen behind on his promised script.  Titled 'Seven Psychopaths,' (meta!) he kind of only has two or three psychopaths fleshed out and no plot to speak of.  This is a problem, and poor Marty would rather seek motivation in alcohol rather than the world around him.

            Fortunately(?) for him, he's got a friend in Billy (Sam Rockwell).  Part-time dognapper and full-time crazy, Billy genuinely cares about Marty and wants to see him finish his script, and maybe lay off the booze.  Unfortunately, Billy's not very good at being normal so his ideas tend to do more harm than good.

            The plot kicks off when Billy steals the dog of local Mafioso Charlie (Woody Harrelson).  Charlie has anger issues, and coupled with his lack of issues about shooting people, Billy and his dognapping partner Hans (Christopher Walken) find themselves in serious trouble.  While Marty is not part of the scheme, he finds himself caught up in the shenanigans.

            Meanwhile, Billy posts an ad asking for actual psychopaths to come and give their story to Marty in an attempt to motivate him.  We only meet one psychopath, but damn is he worth it.  Zachariah (Tom Waits) has a hell of a story, and it actually helps to fire Marty up.

            Because the plot hinges so much on its chaos, and randomly switching between the real world and the script for 'Seven Psychopaths,' I don't want to talk too much about it.  Suffice it to say that this is the first time since Adaptation that really nails 'writer having trouble with a screenplay' as a legitimately entertaining plot.

            This can all be attributed to the terrific work of writer/director Martin McDonagh.  His first film In Bruges was equally brilliant, if a bit melancholy.  He also knows just how to get what he needs from his actors.  While Woody Harrelson, Christopher Walken and Collin Farrell all hit their notes, it's Sam Rockwell who steals every scene he's in.  I actually think it's a shame that this isn't a 'prestige film' because I'd like to get on the 'Sam Rockwell for Best Supporting Actor Oscar' train.

            There are so many plots and subplots constantly weaving in and out of this movie that sometimes it's hard to figure out just where a scene is going, but it all pays off in the end.  The only thing that may turn people off is that McDonagh does a lot of self-referencing.  Very often the characters will discuss something from the script only to have it happen in real life, or vice versa.  While I personally felt he'd hit the perfect balance, other people may not be so forgiving.

            If you like movies that mess with your head, or just want to watch a film that somehow turns a stolen dog into multiple homicides, check out Seven Psychopaths.  

Horror Origins: Dawn of the Dead

            Do you consider George A. Romero’s breakout film, Night of the Living Dead, to be the true ‘Part 1’ of the series or do you see it as a prelude film?  I see it as a prelude, similar to how The Hobbit isn’t considered ‘Book 1’ of the Lord of the Rings Trilogy yet is important to the story.  Night of the Living Dead explored the opening days of the zombie outbreak in a very small scale.  It was also cinematically and culturally significant. 

            However, I honestly don’t think it follows the same arc as Romero’s future films.  Dawn/Day/Land etc. of the Dead all have a larger sense of scale. 

            So with that justification, here’s my ‘Horror Origins’ take on Dawn of the Dead.

            On to the review!

            It’s 1978 and thankfully there aren’t too many bellbottoms running around set, because the only thing worse than a zombie outbreak is one in which over 25% of the zombies are dressed as hippies.  Nobody likes a hippy zombie, not even other zombies.

            For those of you more familiar with the 2004 remake, 1978’s original Dawn of the Dead is a more exploratory film.  They both have the whole ‘people trying to survive in the mall’ storyline, but the original is far less claustrophobic.

            In the original, two SWAT team members, Peter (Ken Foree) and Roger (Scott H. Reineger), are getting a little sick of their coworkers’ actions.  Not wanting to deal with the ever-increasing insanity, they hitch a ride with reporter Fran (Gaylen Ross) and helicopter pilot Stephen (David Emge).  Destination: Anywhere but here.

            At first, they wander around a bit aimlessly, only concerned about food, water, and fuel.  After a few close calls, they come across a shopping mall.  Deciding it would be a good place to stay for awhile (what with all the food, guns, and defensible locations) they set up camp.  This is where the movie becomes a little less about man vs. zombie and a little bit more about man vs. man.

            There is a whole lot of romping around, playing around, and generally taking advantage of the situation.  In fact, the only times they have to fight zombies are when Peter keeps deliberately seeking out danger when he gets bored.  This will eventually leads to a little less Peter in everyone’s lives.

            Eventually, their moderately idyllic time in the mall is cut short not by zombies but by a roving gang of bikers who decide that it’s not right for the mall survivors to horde all the goods.  So naturally they break in and, being friendly bikers, try to kill every zombie and person they encounter.

            Yeah, being attacked by zombies and bikers usually ruins my day too.

            The best thing about Dawn of the Dead is how it revels in the everyday.  Sure, there are zombies that need to be killed or neutralized, but Romero’s characters are just as likely to worry about where they’re going to get food or figure out what they need from a department store as they are to care about the undead. 

At one point the film shows a bunch of hunters palling around and shooting any undead that come out of the trees.  It's as if people don't care about the outbreak itself, focusing instead on the fun to be had from lawlessness.  Heck, even the bikers that show up near the end of the film don’t really care about the zombies.  They’re there to get their hands on what the mall has to offer, be it food, clothes, or jewelry.

I’d say that’s the best part of the original Dawn of the Dead.  While most every zombie film to come after will focus on the zombies—even the remake—this one often pushes the zombies to the background so that they can concentrate on other, even more harrowing, problems.

As much as I prefer this plot and the characters over the remake, I’m really glad that both special effects and music have come a long way.  There is absolutely nothing about this soundtrack to suggest anything other than the 70’s, and the zombies are hilariously made-up.  It may have had a slightly bigger budget than Night of the Living Dead, but that doesn’t mean that the effects were in any way good.  It would be another decade before we could really start to look forward to zombies that actually look creepy.

If you’ve seen the remake of Dawn of the Dead but not the original, give it a try.  Aside from the sometimes-cheesy effects, it’s a far superior film.  It spawned many, many imitators.  Many other directors also tried to add social commentary to their horror films (though usually not nearly as well).  In fact, I’m going to go out on a limb here and claim that only Fido manages nearly as good of a job at being a zombie movie and something more.