Sunday, 29 October 2017

Happy Death Day


2017’s “Happy Death Day”, directed by Christopher Landon.

Starring Jessica Rothe, Israel Broussard, Ruby Modine, Charles Aitken, Rob Mello, Rachel Matthews, and Phi Vu.

What is it about?

Stuck up college student Tree (Jessica Rothe) wakes up in a college dorm, hungover and unsure of how she got there. The boy she thinks she slept with (Israel Broussard) is helpful, but Tree is in a hurry to celebrate her birthday with her sorority and manage her relationship with the married professor/doctor she’s dating. Unfortunately, while on the way to her surprise birthday party, Tree is murdered, and she wakes up at the beginning of that very same day. Despite altering her routine, again she finds herself murdered, and again wakes up at the beginning of the same day. Can Tree figure out how to catch her murderer and break out of her time loop so she can celebrate her birthday?

Why is it worth seeing?

1993’s “Groundhog Day” is a seminal classic, with virtually no room for improvement (it wasn’t made by George Lucas so it won’t have any digital characters inserted into the original film to further realize his vision either). And easily the second best version of the concept was 2014’s "Live.Die.Repeat", where you got to gleefully watch Tom Cruise die over and over while he became a fighting machine to combat aliens. Here, the focus becomes not necessarily on becoming a better person, or on saving the planet, but instead on solving your own murder so you can celebrate your birthday with the shallow sorority girls.
Due to the ham fisted and heavy handed (ham handed fisticuffs?) character development, we know that the awkwardly named Tree’s toxic personality will be somewhat less toxic as the movie advances, but it doesn’t change the fact that Tree is much less likable as a person than when compared to the woody perennial plant she shares a name with. As well, the sorority that she belongs to seems to hate disabled people, food, and each other. So I guess what I’m trying to say is, it’s a challenge to cheer for Tree to solve her murder so she can live. As well, the university’s mascot/logo of a baby is just bizarre, leading to a killer who must be frustrated they can’t transfer to “Scream” University for the superb dollar store masks.
“HDD”’s spin on “Groundhog Day” is somewhat interesting, but it’s unfortunate that by the time the suspects’ list has been crossed off we’re just hoping that Hollywood can break itself out of it’s production loop where they recycle ideas ad infinitum. The movie even references “Groundhog Day”- acknowledging what you should be watching instead.

Rating:

3/5



Saturday, 28 October 2017

Child's Play


1988’s “Child’s Play”, directed by Tom Holland.

Starring Catherine Hicks, Chris Sarandon, Alex Vincent, Dinah Manoff, and Brad Dourif.

What is it about?

Serial killer Charles “Chucky” Lee Ray (a perfectly cast Brad Dourif) is pursued by Chicago police officer (Chris Sarandon, a real Humperdick). Cornered and wounded inside of a toy store, Dourif (who knows Voodoo) recites a ritual that embeds his soul into the body of a popular Good Guys doll, which results in a store blowout. The next day on his birthday, 6 year old spoiled brat Alex Vincent wants his widowed mother (Catherine Hicks) to get him a Good Guys doll. After his first round of gifts fails to produce one, his whining eventually has Hicks meeting up with a peddler to sell her one. The entitled Vincent bonds with the doll, but he also claims that Chucky speaks to him, and not just with the catch phrases that accompany the model. Murderous accidents start to happen, and the family unit has to reconcile about the fact that their corporate doll is homicidal. Chucky himself realizes that his transformation has a limited time line, and sets his sights on transferring his soul into Vincent’s young body. With no one prepared to believe their story, and no receipt, will Hicks, Vincent, and Sarandon be able to survive the ultimate sticker shock?

Why is it worth seeing?

“CP” is a deliriously clever and campy concept, generated for anybody who has ever felt stirrings of pediophobia (fear of dolls). Lifelike but fake, possessing a realness that could never be considered real, I know I’ve looked at them in outdated china cabinets and cluttered shelves at thrift stores and waited for them to awkwardly blink their glass eyes or turn their lifeless heads at me.  
Written at least partially as a satire of the Reagan era’s greedy lust for selfish material consumption, particularly through obnoxiously pandering child manipulation, “CP” takes the fear of dolls and creates the perfect pint sized killer in Chucky. After watching 1984’s “Gremlins”, director and co-writer Tom Holland saw that animatronics had advanced to a state where he could create the iconic figure of Chucky. Part of what makes the figure work so well, is it’s whirring artificiality- while it sounds like Brad Dourif.


Holland creates some great scenes of tension, with him slow building to the doll character running amok. Part of the fun is how immobile the character initially is, with him waiting for his moment before striking. Once Chucky tires of waiting, we get to watch various characters grapple with the fact that this unbelievable concept is very real, and then knowing that they’re in a life and death situation while nobody will believe them. This goes double for the 6 year old Vincent. The film also starts off nice and fast with it’s chase sequence, and the “Sam-Ram-A-Cam” inspired POV shots are great.
However, “CP” can only get so much mileage out of it’s clever concept and satirical edge. There remains a nagging feeling that it’s hard to believe a rag doll sized chunk of hardened voodoo plastic would be so formidable as a fighting machine. Even with misdirection, his lurking underneath furniture, and patiently striking at the right moment, can’t somebody ward off this toy’s attacks? And watching characters wrestle with this prop shows why Spielberg went to such great lengths to show as little of the shark as possible in “Jaws”.
As well, there’s not much to the movie beyond it’s antagonist’s plans. Sarandon at times can be so wooden you wish he was a doll too, and the car scene where Chucky shows up to play whack-a-mole with his testicles makes you wonder if his car came with functional brakes. Finally, while we feel sorry for child actor Vincent’s plight, it’s tough to like him.
Reservations aside, “CP”’s success at the box office (making almost 5X it’s $9 million budget) combined with it’s franchise friendly confines (the unkillable killer doll), made for a number of sequels. It’s definitely a campy horror classic worth seeing, but with it’s antagonist’s sinister plans, you can’t help but wonder: can’t we just bury all of these things in landfills?


Rating:

3.5/ 5



Thursday, 26 October 2017

The Frighteners


1996’s “The Frighteners”, directed by Peter Jackson.

Starring Michael J. Fox, Trini Alvarado, Peter Dobson, John Astin, Jeffrey Combs,
Dee Wallace, Troy Evans, Elizabeth Hawthorne, Jake Busey, and Chi McBride.

What is it about?

Michael J. Fox stars as a hack paranormal investigator who uses his dead room mates’ ghosts to scam people to pay him for his “services”. Able to converse with ghosts, they have a friendly relationship. However, his town is turned upside down, when the grim reaper appears and starts murdering people, and Fox has to move past memories of his wife passing away in order to stop death’s dominion. Teaming up with a recently widowed woman who believes in him, will he be able to stop death- or will he end up going up into the light?

Why is it worth seeing?

“Frighteners” (along with 1994’s “Heavenly Creatures”) was Jackson’s entry into the mid tier of Hollywood. After impressing people such as Robert Zemeckis with his low budget and strange New Zealand splatter/exploitation films, they went to bat for him to get “Frighteners” made, while Fox signed on to star. Jackson’s next film(s) would be the “Lord of the Rings” Trilogy.


Possessing more great camera tricks and solid focus (as always), Jackson advances things better than the overall story deserves. It’s story involving Fox (now squarely in middle age) grappling with his own personal demons, while chasing a brutal and practically unstoppable grim reaper are compelling. However, the comic banter of his holographic-like business partners grows tiresome, as they blithely pop in and out of scenes. It’s also not clear about the movie’s rules/internal logic, in terms of whether ghosts can touch humans and vice versa (or not). Finally, the movie’s final scene ends with an indifferent sigh, as if the studio got tired of micromanaging and just rolled the credits.
But (usually) keeping things dark and even graphic at times, with a fantastic appearance by the perfectly cast Jake Busey, combined with a wonderful climatic sequence, makes The Frighteners’ sometimes great sense of adventure a spooky treat worth checking out.

Rating:

3.5/5



Tuesday, 24 October 2017

Rosemary's Baby


1968’s “Rosemary’s Baby”, written and directed by Roman Polanski.

Starring Mia Farrow, John Cassavetes, Ruth Gordon, Sidney Blackmer, Maurice Evans, Angela Dorian, Ralph Ballamy, and Charles Grodin.
Winner of an Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress (Ruth Gordon).
Nominated for an Academy Award for Best Screenplay (Roman Polanski).

What is it about?

Mia Farrow and John Cassavetes star as a New York couple, him a struggling actor and her a housewife, who move into a new apartment. They meet their elderly neighbours (Sidney Blackmer and Ruth Gordon), whom are quite nosy but also very welcoming and helpful. After making their acquaintance, good things start to happen for the couple- such as Cassavetes’ acting career taking off, and Farrow finally getting pregnant. However, with the help of an elder friend (Maurice Evans), Farrow begins to suspect that her neighbours belong to a cult. As they recommend her changing doctors, give her weird necklaces, and offer tons of ill tasting food, Farrow will need to change course if she’s to avoid the cult’s influence on her unborn child. Could the baby be a blessing, or an omen?

Why is it worth seeing?

Have you ever known something to do be true, and then watched in horror as nobody listened to you? That’s “RB”’s charm- watching something that is right there in front of our eyes run it’s course, like the Titanic just before the iceberg. It’s not a horror movie in the sense of things that go bump in the night, but more so about people’s ulterior motives making you a pawn in their scheme that you’re helpless to stop.
Is there a moral to the story? Farrow and Cassavetes certainly could represent urbane yuppies, who pay zero heed to the information presented to them regarding their building being a place where witchcraft occurred, and at least has had some horrific things happen to past residents. They’re just too focused on high ceilings and prestige. And the movie could also be a comment on the decline of religious values that were occurring in the 60’s decade, as the movie asks multiple times about god’s passing.


Farrow, who’s real life husband, Frank Sinatra, divorced her on the set of “RB”, was distraught, and it certainly didn’t hurt her performance here. And Gordon and Blackmer are wonderfully sinister, as the neighbours who are sort of evil, but also make decent bite sized cakes and at times provide interesting conversation. Gordon would win an Academy Award for her efforts, and both of them are wonderful as the frenemies that just can’t take a hint. However, there are rumours that Cassavetes didn’t get along with Polanski, and that may come across, as he is a little odd in the film (and not for narrative reaons).
The most horrifying aspect of “RB” isn’t the satanic cult depicted, or the paranoia that infuses the film as it goes on. It’s the rampant sexism and misogyny that were so prevalent in those times, which lay the groundwork for the bad intentions to spawn and ferment. As it is, “RB”  unquestionably could not be made today, as the female character would be too headstrong to put up with the patronizing nonsense she endures in her vulnerable state- and society wouldn’t allow it’s members to treat someone the way they do here. You don’t want to penalize a movie for depicting society the way it worked (more or less) at the time, but it is a fascinating time capsule of a world that, thanks to social evolution, no longer exists.


Polanski does yeoman’s work as the director and screenwriter here, creating a slowly paced and patient psychological journey. Creating amazing dream-like imagery at times, the rest of the time it’s no frills film making where there’s nowhere to hide for the ideas and the actors- which shows why they work so well. Featuring a great ambiguous ending, “Rosemary’s Baby” may not everybody’s favourite child, but it is one of mine (top 100).


Rating:

4.5/5



Sunday, 22 October 2017

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre


1974’s “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre”, directed by Tobe Hopper.

Starring Marilyn Burns, Allen Danziger, Paul A. Partain, William Vail, Teri McMinn, Jim Siedow, Edwin Neal, and Gunnar Hansen.

What is it about?

“TCM” is about 5 adults on a road trip in rural Texas. They have a very unpleasant experience with a hitchhiker (Edwin Neal), and then end up out of gas. They have no luck with the closest gas station (run by weirdo Jim Siedow), and end up getting separated. Some of the characters wander to a house, and then come face to face with an eccentric family (including Gunnar Hansen as the iconic “Leatherface”) that loves meat and doesn’t care for the gang’s pleas to not be the main course. Will they survive?

Why is it worth seeing?

“TCM” is not for the faint of heart- and after the credits roll silently you may be grateful you can now go outside and seek sunshine. But it’s primal, reptilian brain really lurks in those Texas flatlands, ready to dully and brutally carve into your amygdala should you be naïve enough to wander into that scary house with all the skulls on the wall. Ugly and awkward realness pervade this film, making it feel more personal than 10 serial killer films made today. Loosely based off the Wisconsin serial killer, Ed Gein, the film falsely claims to be a true story- Hopper’s attempt to mock authority figures such as the government who regularly lied to their constituents.



Made for (at the most) $300,000, “TCM” is a cultural milestone in American cinema, and it’s influence on horror films is long and profound. It made 100 times it’s budget, spawned (at least) 7 sequel/prequels, and the “Leatherface” character in time would become as iconic as other slasher celebrities such as Jason, Freddy, and Michael Myers. More importantly, it was significantly responsible (along with 1972’s “Last House on the Left”) for creating the slasher horror movie genre, where horny and dumb teenagers/young adults would be tortured and killed by a creature that is beyond morality. And that would be my biggest issue with the film: can’t we care about our protagonists more, even when suffused with doom?
In a way, the horror genre became a victim of “TCM”’s success, as Hopper set out to make a scary film that featured little actual on screen violence, and in fact was shooting for a PG-13 rating. It’s somewhat shocking to think about how violent slasher films have become, with their blithely obscene body counts and Goldbergian sadistic complexities, when you see how simple “TCM” is. I’m not saying it’s “The Sound of Music”, but only that it’s more about the depravity of these psychologically odd and socially isolated individuals, and the feeling of hopelessness to their ignorance, and not about trying to make the kills as creative and gory as possible. I know that because I can remember it. It’s unforgettable.

Rating:

4.5/5


Wednesday, 18 October 2017

The Others


2001’s “The Others”, written and directed by Alejandro Amenábar.

Starring Nicole Kidman, David Tennant, Fionnula Flanagan, Alakina Mann, Anne Stewart, James Bentley, Nicholas Stewart, Eric Sykes, and Elaine Cassidy.

What is it about?

Set in 1953, deeply religious Nicole Kidman lives in a darkened mansion with her 2 photosensitive children (Anne Stewart and James Bentley). Left to fend for themselves as they wait for husband (David Tennant) to come back from WWII, Kidman accepts the help of 3 housekeepers (Fionnula Flanagan, Eric Sykes, and Elaine Cassidy). They are a little odd, and their presence seems to set the children off- with them being aware of supernatural visitors in their monstrous home. With a fog surrounding the home, Kidman starts to see and hear things, and does everything she can to protect her children from intruders. Will she be able to save both her children and her sanity?

Why is it worth seeing?

The “Others” is a throwback to horror films of old, with a patience, reasonable budget, and emphasis on performance and mood that slasher films and self aware hip homages to the genre could learn a lot from. Director Amenábar also writes and scores the film, and gives it a personality and ambience that’s unique, personal, and feels consistent from start to finish.
Kidman is electric as the devout Catholic mother who wants to protect her children. Her performance is a bewilderingly ferocious combination of rigidity, maternal instinct, and fear, as things spiral out of control right from under her. Refusing to admit that ghosts exist as she runs around the house, it’s difficult to not feel for her.
It’s a bummer that “Others” came out so close after, “The Sixth Sense”, as both have parallels that rob it of some of it’s originality. And a late night viewing is not necessarily recommended, considering the film’s somewhat glacial pace. Finally, I’m rarely a fan of child actors, and both of the children here very much remind me of horror characters- never a good thing. But it’s originality, consistent tone, and religious questions make it a spooky treat.


Rating:

4/5



Tuesday, 17 October 2017

The Babysitter


2017’s “The Babysitter”, directed by McG.

Starring Judah Lewis, Samara Weaving, Ken Marino, Leslie Bibb, Emily Alyn Lind, Robbie Amell, Hana Mae Lee, Bella Thorne, and Andrew Bachelor.

What is it about?

12 year old Judah Lewis lives a sad life, being picked on by pretty much the entire world. Sheltered by his parents (Ken Marino and Leslie Bibb), he only has his older alluring babysitter (Samara Weaving) to help him have a chance of maturing into a teenager. Trying to impress his cute neighbour (Emily Alyn Lind), he spies on Weaving after he’s supposed to be sleeping, and finds out that she belongs to a cult that sacrifices people. Will Lewis be able to survive the world’s most deadly babysitter?

Why is it worth seeing?

Writer Brian Duffield’s script creates a post-post-modern kitsch filled genre mocking horror piece (similar to “Scream”), both aware of itself and winking constantly. Existing in a cartoonishly mean world, Lewis’ adolescent character struggles through being bullied by the entire town he lives in, and it’s only the existence of Weaving’s Manic Pixie Dream Girl (thanks Nathan Rabin) that he can rely on for inspiration. Able to create lists of her favourite hypothetical sci fi team ups, Weaving does an admirable job of at first being the wet dream inspiration that adolescent boys lust after, before turning into an assured maniac cult leader.


Creating set ups that he refuses to follow through with, director McG keeps things hip and flashy, which is distracting and detracts from the already thin pastiche that is created here. Lewis’ character takes turns making adult decisions that are smart in one turn, and than baffling the next. But “Babysitter” isn’t trying to elevate the genre, it’s trying to send it up. Entertainingly irreverent but instantly forgettable, after it winks at us at the end- we get to wonder how long til’ the sequel comes out.

Rating:

3/5



Sunday, 15 October 2017

Aliens


1986’s “Aliens”, written and directed by James Cameron.

Starring Sigourney Weaver, Michael Biehn, Carrie Henn, Lance Henrikson, Janette Goldstein, Bill Paxton, Paul Reiser, William Hope, Al Matthews, Mark Rolston, and Ricco Ross.
Winner for an Academy Award for Best Sound Editing (Don Sharpe) and Best Visual Effects (Robert Skotak, Stan Winston, John Richardson, Suzanne M. Benson).

Nominated for an Academy Award for Best Actress (Sigourney Weaver), Best Art Direction (Peter Lamont and Crispian Sallis), Best Sound (Graham V. Hartstone, Nicolas Le Messurier, Michael A. Carter, Roy Charman), Best Film Editing (Ray Lovejoy), and Best Original Score (James Horner).

What is it about?

In the original “Alien”, we were introduced to Weaver’s character, Ellen Ripley, whom while on a space exploration/mining mission to the moon LV-426 came into contact with a horrific alien Xenomorph. With the help of a coldly efficient and corporate values aligned android, the alien killed the rest of the crew, before Ripley defeated it and set her escape pod on a crash course back to earth.

In this sequel, we pick up 57 years later, where Ripley’s ship is recovered. Freshly woken from cryosleep, she gets a crash course about how things have changed in her absence. Her daughter has since passed away, and the company is looking for answers after Ripley blew up the ship Nostromo and it’s cargo, in an effort to kill the horrific alien. Ripley finds herself under investigation for her actions, while suffering nightmares from her experiences. The company then learns that after terraforming LV-426, that the colonists living there have gone missing. With some trepidation, Ripley teams up with a group of marines to go and find the colonists. When they arrive, nothing happens. And then… everything happens. In an alien environment, surrounded by hostile inhabitants, will Ripley be able to avoid history repeating itself?

Why is it worth seeing?

As written in the “Alien” review, I say that the Alien franchise (at least the first 4) is one of the more interesting, because of the unique views that the individual directors bring. Here, James Cameron creates what is (by some) regarded as one of the best sequels of all time. Cameron reintroduces us to the universe that Ridley Scott created, an organic and artistic hive of etched and carved biomass, full of hissing and disgusting creatures, and drops a group of bad ass marines in the middle of it all. In the middle of the melee, Cameron expands the story to include themes of maternal protection.
It’s not a stretch to say that “Aliens” is one of my favourite movies of all time. It’s story is science fiction action packed (a Cameron staple), but also tinged with plenty of horror, for it’s acid blooded antagonists and their disregard for human cavities as anything other than vessels for further propagation. Even better, Cameron takes his time in getting there, and first time watchers will be tempted to comment that the movie is too slow- before the roller coaster starts. You’re either averting your eyes from the alien’s disgusting biology or clutching onto your arm rest from adrenaline fatigue: the ultimate kind of sci fi action/horror hybrid.
Inspired by the technologically superior but environmentally overwhelmed situations that came from the Vietnam war, Cameron also brought something else: combat intensity. “Aliens” pulls no punches, and Cameron employs every trick known to man in stretching his $18 million budget to make it look 2-10 times that. It’s high tech toys nicely contrast with the biomechanical artistry of the environment the soldiers face.
But what keeps me coming back is a couple of other factors. For starters, the gang of marines that Ripley ends up going back to the planet with, at first merely seem like stock background characters, a bunch of grunts who take orders, shooting first and asking questions later. But upon reflection, with the limited amount of time granted to them, they are great character depictions. From the green lieutenant who has no experience, to the team leader who has every great military cliché memorized (my second favourite military portrayal next to R. Lee Ermey in “Full Metal Jacket”), to the heavy gunners who are heavy on fast twitch muscles, to the pilot who effortlessly flies and does little else, to the sarcastic private who hates his job, to the loud mouth a-hole who’s all talk until the shit gets real, to the intelligent next in command who reluctantly takes duty when there’s no one left, to the second toughest person (next to Ripley) in the group- who makes no bones about being a woman. They are joined by a less sinister android (an improvement on the last movie’s murderous version), and by a company man “overseeing” the operation who is easily the movie’s slimiest organism- in a movie full of burst body cavities, chicken carcass/vagina resembling face huggers, gooey alien pods, and birth sac explosions. Finally, the crew finds a survivor, a little girl who managed to avoid getting captured or killed by the Aliens. Together the cast gels, and then things get tough and all hell breaks loose, sewing the fertile seeds for character development.
The other thing that keeps me coming back to “Aliens”, is Weaver’s portrayal of the traumatized, but intelligent and tough as nails Ripley. It’s one of the greatest action movie performances of all time, and it still feels underrated despite a nomination for Best Actress that year (quick, name another Best Actress nominee from an action/science fiction flick). Weaver has said that she wanted to base her character as a “Rambolina” (Rambo was big back then, and Cameron himself wrote the script for one of the sequels), but I’d like to challenge that. When I think about her character, I can’t think of a better combination of vulnerability combined with resourcefulness. Don’t get me wrong, she kicks maximum ass and has the biggest and hairiest balls in the cast, but what propels Ripley into the movie pantheon stratosphere is moments of maternal compassion and kindness, alongside the action. Ripley goes through more trauma than the rest of the cast, but she never loses her head in the fight for survival, and never stops trying to protect her surrogate daughter. As the movie progresses, Ripley goes from being mocked and ignored, to listened to and followed by trained marines as the de facto leader. You would too, as she’ll outsmart you before punching your lights out while clad in an exo-suit- the ultimate form of platform shoes.
James Horner, who would feud here with the individualistic Cameron (and was nominated for an Oscar for his efforts), and then rejoin him to win an Oscar for “Titanic” 11 years later, here creates an unbelievable score to accompany the creeping dread that sneaks up on the group, before unleashing the orchestra for the marathon sprint. The score is so iconic, that it has been used countless times in movie trailers (particularly action ones).


Making 10 times it’s budget, “Aliens” catapulted Cameron into the master of blockbuster films echelon, inspired countless video games, and set the stage for at least 6 more sequels. None of them would be able to bring what Cameron does here: an action packed ode to killin’ bugs while filling old wounds. If in space no one can hear you scream, at least they can hear you cheering.


Rating:

5/5



Saturday, 14 October 2017

It Comes at Night


2017’s “It Comes at Night”, written and directed by Trey Edward Shults.

Starring Joel Edgerton, Carmen Ejogo, Kelvin Harrison Jr, Christopher Abbot, Riley Keough, and Griffin Robert Faulker.

What is it about?

In present day America, a plague of some kind has infected mankind, decimating the human race. We see a family hiding out somewhere in the woods, lead by father (an intense Joel Edgerton), with mother (Carmen Ejogo), son (Kelvin Harrison, Jr), and their dog. They spend their barricaded lives improving their basic resources, while living in fear of getting infected and occasional entanglements with both the infected and survivors of the crisis. Will they be able to survive, while wanting to?

Why is it worth seeing?

“Night” is the second film of Shults’ promising career (the first being his strong take on a family member’s addiction in 2015’s, “Krisha”). Sticking with the low budget indie vibe, “Night” isn’t really a traditional horror film, a fact that may have upset people who saw various trailers suggesting standard horror film scares. Instead, Shults’ has said that he wrote “Night” after his father died, and indeed, it’s arguably more of a meditation on grief and loss than a typical horror film. Substituting scares for creeping dread, we’re introduced to a world where survival isn’t the only goal for our characters- it’s wanting to be at peace with an uncertain world where death is always in the air. At times emotional while refusing to be sentimental, “Night”’s frequent pitch black darkness keeps the mental claustrophobia maxed out.
Shults uses long and slowly advancing dolly shots, perhaps to suggest dread encroaching, or to use the house that the family lives in as a suspenseful character itself. It both protects and imprisons them, while never truly keeping them safe, cranking up the societal metaphor factor.
As well, Shults’ breaking down of the brutal logistics of how to organize a survivor camp shows the vulnerable doggedness needed by the family to stick together no matter what- until that is no longer possible. While it’s commendable, one does wish that Shults could have left more possibility for something closer to the possibility of contentment- but maybe it wouldn’t be considered horror anymore?
With a great score by Brian Mcomber to supersize the dread, and natural lighting to emphasize the stakes, “It Comes at Night” makes me think of Kafka’s quote:
“Now the Sirens have a still more fatal weapon than their song, namely their silence... Someone might possibly have escaped from their singing; but from their silence, certainly never.”

Rating:

4/5



The Uninvited


2009’s “The Uninvited”, directed by the Guard Brothers.

Starring Emily Browning, Ariele Kebbel, David Straitharn, Elizabeth Banks, Maya Massar, and Kevin McNulty.

What is it about?

Teenager Emily Browning has an ailing mother who one night passes away. Unable to process the details of the event, she checks into a mental hospital, until released. She returns to her father (David Straitharn)’s house, who lives with her sister (Ariele Kebbel), and his controlling girlfriend (Elizabeth Banks). 2 things are clear: that the sisters don’t like Banks and her possible ulterior motives, and that Browning may not be processing things properly- and is in fact hallucinating. Will she be able to cope with her mental illness while convincing her dad his girlfriend isn’t welcome?

Why is it worth seeing?

Propelled off of the successes of adapting the Japanese horror film, “Ringu” into “The Ring”, and “The Ring 2”, producers than turned to South Korea. They discovered the 2003 movie, “A Tale of 2 Sisters”, which served as inspiration for, “The Uninvited”. 

Clearly made and marketed to teen audiences, “Uninvited” tries to do something resembling “Jacob’s Ladder”- but is closer to Snakes and Ladders. The movie introduces the Browning teenage protagonist as somebody we want to identify with, but when the script pulls the rug out from us, it’s unclear if we’re supposed to care. Worse, did anybody who made this care? Deeply cynical, while using mental illness as a fashionable plot device, even if the film was made better you’d have to be a sociopath to appreciate it.


The Guard brothers have some entertaining sequences and make this teen melodrama more entertaining than it ought to be, but they resemble the Strause brothers more than the Coen brothers. I just wish there was a moral to the story of mental illness and suspense other than, “Gotcha!”

Rating:

2.5/5