It Follows – Review

I probably sound like a broken record at this point, but it’s something I feel very strongly about. Horror movies these days have turned into spooky ghost stories filled with jump scares and very little real, lasting tension. But, there is a light, and it’s a bright one indeed. This light at the end of the tunnel of garbage is David Robert Mitchell’s It Follows. Why does this horror movie succeed where everything else seems to be failing? Well, pretty much every memorable aspect of this movie is the answer. It Follows is the best American horror film since the ORIGINAL Paranormal Activity, and is definitely one of the best American horror films of the decade.

Jay (Maika Monroe) is just your everyday college student that seems to be in your average, everyday relationship with he new boyfriend Hugh (Jake Weary). After their first time getting a little hot and heavy together, Hugh lets Jay in on his horrible secret. There is a supernatural entity slowly following him, and since they had sex, it will now be following Jay unless Jay can pass it on to someone else through a sexual encounter, and if not it will kill her. Now, with the entity slowly following her everywhere with the intent to kill, Jay and her friends have to find a way to get rid of it, by either passing it on, finding another way to get rid of it, or suffer the consequences.

The best part about this movie is that it made me feel something. It made me feel distressed and anxious, which in turn made me feel nervous and scared for the characters. There’s real suspense happening in It Follows and the pay off rarely ends in a cheap jump scare. Sure, there are a few, but those aren’t the parts that are important. What really pulled me in is the fact that somewhere in the world, this thing is walking towards whoever has it, and it may not catch them very quickly, but it’s always there and it’s always walking. Just put yourself into the shoes of the characters. That is an awful thing to have to think about, and it made me relieved that I was just watching a movie.

 

Let’s take a step back from the content and look at how the movie is made. It’s easy to shoot a bland movie. That may be why so many exist that really aren’t any good. I don’t expect too much technical achievements in a horror movie, but this one was just fascinating. Much like the supernatural being in the film, the camera always seems to be slowly moving towards the characters or peering through a door or window like some sort of deranged stalker. It’s a chilling effect and works perfectly for the movie. Now, add the excellent, retro score of Dangerpiece and you got yourself a treat. The music is eerie and unsettling and has been compared to the synth scores of horror movies in the late 1970s and early 1980s. The whole movie looks and sounds retro. Just count the cell phones.

What else do many horror movies of the past and present seem to be missing a good amount of the time? Intelligence? Yeah, intelligence. It Follows is a surprisingly intelligent movie with an original screenplay and characters written like actual human beings. Mitchell had a great idea and worked with it to achieve such an refreshing, original story. The actors in the movie also work well because A.) they’re talented and B.) they characters are written well and three dimensionally. It’s an excellent combination.

It Follows blew my mind, plain and simple. It’s a horror movie with brains, scares, talent, confident execution, and originality. There’s very little violence or gore, but there’s enough dread and suspense to keep me going for a life time. What David Robert Mitchell has done is get to the roots of what a horror film is and what it should do. There’s a message about sexuality and growing up weaved into it that makes you think while also being scared. Bravo, Mr. Mitchell. You’ve made something truly special.

The Night of the Hunter – Review

I’m not the biggest fan of movies from the 1950s just because the majority of the ones that I’ve seen are kind of straightforward, especially compared to the dark and gritty noir films of the 1930s and 1940s. However, one movie from the 1950s really sticks out when it comes to style and storytelling. This is Charles Laughton’s The Night of the Hunter. Taking inspiration from both German Expressionism and D.W. Griffith’s silent films, Laughton created a movie that may have been a bit too much at the time, but is now regarded as a horror/thriller classic.

When family man Ben Harper (Peter Graves) is thrown in prison for robbery and murder, he meets a preacher by the name of Harry Powell (Robert Mitchum). He tells Powell of the thousands of dollars he stole and how it is hidden somewhere on his property. After Ben’s execution, Powell quickly proceeds to woo and wed Ben’s widow Willa (Shelley Winters). Everyone quickly falls for the charm and eloquence of Powell, but Ben’s son John (Billy Chapin) knows better. When John makes his move to get his little sister, the money, and himself away from their new stepfather, Powell goes on a rampage of violence that won’t stop until he has the money.

Recently when I reviewed The Tenant, I mentioned that it was an example of how horror should be, and I have the same exact thing to say about The Night of the Hunter, but for completely different reasons. This entire movie feels like a dream from childhood that haunts you for the rest of your life. Harry Powell is as much a boogie man as Michael Myers, Jason Voorhees, or Freddie Kreuger, but even more so since he is seen through the eyes of a child. Anyone who tells me that the hymn Powell is constantly singing while being shot from afar entirely in silhouette isn’t at least a little scary is lying. Simply put, he’s one of the greatest cinematic villains of all time.

 

Upon its initial release, this film did horribly both with critics and audiences alike, and that shows how ahead of its time the movie was, especially since we are able to fully appreciate it now. Laughton drew a lot of inspiration from D.W. Griffith’s silent films and early German Expressionist films like The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari. Just looking at the picture above, you can see all the shadows and how the room seems distorted. There’s also a great scene where two children stand in front of houses that are obviously painted. This is an extremely odd looking, but beautiful movie, which reinforces what I say when it feels like a nightmare you would have as a small child. The over the top style combined with the fact that its about a preacher threatening to kill children while murdering women for money is pretty polarizing, especially for being made in the 1950s.

I can’t go through this review without drooling all over Robert Mitchum’s out of this world performance as Harry Powell, or even just drooling over how well written the character actually is. I said before that he is one of the best villains in movie history, and I say that with complete confidence. Mitchum was known before this as playing a cool sort of hero/antihero, but Powell is over the top and memorable for that reason. He’s manipulative but at the same time a cowardly weasel who has no problem running from a fight with someone as big as he is. He targets to children for heaven’s sake. Mitchum nails this crazy character with every aspect from his performance from his steadily escalating voice to the eerily perfect posture he has throughout the movie.

The Night of the Hunter is one of the most memorable, haunting, and beautifully shot movies you will probably ever see and it’s amazing how it was so negatively received when it was first released. Unfortunately, Laughton would never direct another film and died only a few years later in the early 1960s. This is a horror movie that comes straight from a child’s worst nightmares that will still haunt an adult of any age. It’s an amazing horror film from the 1950s that inspired film makers from David Lynch to Spike Lee to the Coen Brothers.

The City of Violence – Review

Sometimes it’s great to sit down and watch a movie that really challenges me. A movie that has complex art design and intricate storytelling that weaves in many thematic and moral questions while telling a story that’s wholly original and moving. Then there’s times where I want to sit down, switch my brain off, and just take a ride. That’s exactly what I wanted with The City of Violence and that’s exactly what I got. This movie isn’t difficult or all that original, but it is a whole lot of fun, but it could definitely have used a little bit more work in the story and character department.

When ex-gangster Wang-jae (Ahn Gil-kang) is murdered, three of his closest friends are reunited in their hometown for the funeral. Tae-su (Jung Doo-hong) is a cop from Seoul known for his controversial no nonsense attitude, Pil-ho (Lee Beom-soo) is the gangster that took over Wang-jae’s place, and Seok-hwan (played by director Ryoo Seung-wan) is the youngest of the three working as a debt collector. Tae-su and Seok-hwan are both hell bent on getting revenge for the murder of their friend and soon find themselves working together, turning the city upside down and blood red to find who are responsible. When it becomes evident that Pil-ho had something to do with the murder, the two investigators engage in a head on collision with one of their closest childhood friends.

So, really there isn’t too much to The City of Violence. It’s a pretty standard revenge movie, but definitely has some elements that make it memorable along with some problems as well. For one thing, it is extremely generic, and while that isn’t a huge detraction, it is worth mentioning. Another problem is that the movie didn’t have any sense of time or character development. Time seemed to move without cluing me in to how much time has passed or where I was. The characters are also incredibly bland. Like, blaaaaand. Not only that, but they also don’t develop at all. They are exactly how they were at the beginning of the movie, save for a few minor changes. For a story about revenge, I didn’t feel a strong sense of motivation coming from the characters. Things seemed to just be happening.

 

What I can say about this movie is that the action is fantastic. There are points where it felt like I was watching a video game, as many of the best martial arts movies make me feel. Seeing two guys throw down with an entire crowd of bad guys is just entertaining to watch. One scene that takes place in an alley with a whole bunch of different gangs is particularly memorable, especially since one of the gangs is based off of the Baseball Furies from The Warriors. There is so much destruction, both physically and environmentally, in every fight that it made each extended sequence feel exciting.

Another problem I have with this movie actually happened after I was done the movie. Yes, the movie has a good bad guy and exciting fight sequences, but there’s a lot of the movie that I don’t really remember too vividly because it isn’t anything special. As I’ve been thinking more and more about this movie, the less and less I really enjoy it. Part of the fun of watching a movie is the way that it makes you feel and think afterwards. Points go to a movie that makes me excited to talk about it and share it, but I don’t feel that way with The City of Violence. It’s more of a movie that you watch but then don’t really have anything to say about it in the days to come, which hurts a movie just as much as poor writing or acting.

The City of Violence isn’t a bad movie, in fact it’s a pretty good one. While I was watching it, I was really involved with what I was watching because it moved so fast and had great action sequences and characters that I recognized. What made it less enjoyable is the lack of development the story and the characters go through. Like I said before, things seem to just be happening. There’s plenty of style to enjoy, but sometimes that even becomes a bit too much. For martial arts fans, it’s definitely one to check out at least once, but I don’t think it’s going to be one that sticks with you forever.

The Tenant – Review

Roman Polanski. How many times have I talked about him on this blog? While he has dabbled in a lot of different genres, I’ll always remember him for his psychological horror/thriller films. Starting with Repulsion in 1965, Polanski started a trilogy of horror films that dealt with psychological torture in urban environments, especially in apartments. He continued this work with his 1968 film Rosemary’s Baby, which is the most memorable of the three and is considered a horror classic. Finally, in 1978, Polanski ended the trilogy with the most enigmatic entry, The Tenant. I didn’t really expect a whole lot from this movie, considering the other two, but this proved to be the most difficult movie for me in the entire trilogy.

Trelkovsky (Roman Polanski) is a timid file clerk who defines the term “pushover” who is need of an apartment. As luck would have it, he finds a cheap one that has become vacant after the previous tenant committed suicide. After winning over the miserable landlord Monsieur Zy (Melvyn Douglas), Trelkovsky moves into the apartment and begins getting constantly hassled by his neighbors from all sides for his being too loud, dirty, or having people over. The hassling becomes so persistent and obscene that Trelkovsky begins to suspect that the other tenants are trying to drive him to suicide by slowly turning him into the deceased tenant. As the paranoia begins to mount and Trelkovsky’s sanity slips further and further, he soon finds himself becoming lost in the character that he fears is being created for him, and the line between reality and fearful hallucinations become less and less noticeable.

Let’s get it out of the way from the start. The Tenant is a super weird movie that made me question what I was looking at more than once. That’s not to say that the other two entries in the trilogy aren’t weird, but this one just goes off the walls bat shit insane. There’s plenty of positives to that which I’ll get to later, but I want to get passed the not so great stuff first. For one thing, the movie has no clear way to tell what is real and what is in Trelkovsky’s head, and that’s fine. What isn’t fine is that the ending neither reaffirms or denies anything that has been seen or heard. It simply doesn’t make sense, and only seems to be in the movie to make the viewer scratch their head in utter confusion. The movie also spends a lot of time not really doing anything, making it feel a lot slower and longer than it wants to be. But that’s really where my negatives end.

I’ve spent a lot of time complaining about the state of so called horror movies these days, and its really hard to get away from that mindset after seeing a movie like this. This movie does exactly what a horror movie should do, and that is to create genuine fear, this time by using our fear of shit neighbors, letting other people bully you, and paranoia in the purest form. Where this movie succeeds is in its ability to frighten an audience without being loud. Delirious hallucinations in a run down bathroom and finding yourself spying on yourself is so twisted and weird that it succeeds in scaring more than any jump scare or spooky ghost. It’s a mental state that no one wants to live through, but how do you know you aren’t paranoid already? Confusion is more terrifying than something you can see.

There’s a lot of things that I should probably say about this movie, but after everything I’ve already said about, I don’t know how much more I can add. All I can say is that this movie is really, really weird and there’s plenty of scenes that really stick out in my head. That may actually be the strongest part of this movie, just how many memorable scenes there are and how original they seemed. The hieroglyphics in the bathroom and the tooth in the wall are just a few, not to mention a group of sadists playing with a human head in the courtyard.

While The Tenant certainly isn’t Roman Polanski’s masterpiece, it is still a film that shows how much he should be respected as a film maker. My only real gripe with the movie is the overly complicated ending and the amount of time spent doing nothing. Still, there are so many memorable and freaky scenes that it should be enough to create at least one restless night and things possibly hiding in the shadows. If you like horror films, this is a must see.

Ironclad & Ironclad: Battle for Blood – Review

Movies about knights and medieval warfare and castles and kings and all that can be really awesome. There’s so much historical material to choose from that finding something and successfully making a movie about it can be a daunting task, especially making it in such a way that impresses an audience. One major success that comes to mind is Ridley Scott’s Kingdom of Heaven. But let’s step away from a director of that magnitude and a budget that big. Instead we’ll be looking at two movies with much smaller budgets, these being Jonathan English’s Ironclad and the sequel Ironclad: Battle for Blood. One is a gleaming example of budgeted film making. The other is an absolute waste that unfortunately is stuck existing for all eternity.

Let’s start in 2011 with the original, as I deem that to be the most appropriate place to begin.

 

After pissing off everyone in England, plunging the country into a civil war, and eventually signing the Magna Carta, it seemed obvious that King John (Paul Giamatti) was going to chill out. Unfortunately, he only seemed to get worse. After hiring a group of Danish mercenaries, John went on a rampage of revenge in a quest that would give him absolute control of England once again. Baron William d’Albany (Brian Cox) hires Thomas Marshal (James Purefoy), who is a member of the Knight’s Templar, and a group of other soldiers to defend Rochester Castle, an area that controls most of England. As the soldiers set up the defenses at the castle, King John and his mercenaries soon arrive, and the two sides engage in a bloody battle that lasts many months.

I’ve seen this movie described as Braveheart meets Seven Samurai, and to that I have to say slow down. It isn’t anywhere near those two movies, but I see what they’re saying as they all share similar characteristics in story. As far as Ironclad goes, however, it isn’t destined to be a classic. The movie’s fatal flaw is the absolute bottom of the barrel bullshitty camera work. Every fight scene is shot like the cameraman is having a life ending seizure. It made me sick and made the fight scenes way less awesome than I feel they were intended to be. It made some of the movie nearly unwatchable.

Although it’s shot pretty miserably, I have to give it a lot of respect. Jonathan English wasn’t working with a huge budget, so the fact that he got good costumes and sets is really impressive. Also, Paul Giamatti and Brian Cox bring their best, as usual. Paul Giamatti especially really gives an amazing performance, which is reason enough to watch this movie. Also, I found it refreshing that instead of relying too heavily on CGI blood and gore, the film makers used prosthetics and other practical effects, which made me smile from ear to ear. Ironclad isn’t an especially good movie, but it is impressive considering the budget constraints. If you’re a fan of medieval movies, I might be inclined to say check this one out.

In 2014, Jonathan English returned to the director’s chair for Ironclad: Battle for Blood. The result is something best left forgotten.

After the events of the first film, we find Celtic warriors raiding England, terrorizing and murdering its citizens. After a devastating attack on his castle, Gilbert de Vesci (David Rintoul) has his son Hubert (Tom Rhys Harris) track down his cousin Guy (Tom Austen), one of the survivors from the Battle of Rochester Castle, to enlist a group of fighters to help defend the castle. Guy, along with Hubert and other fighters, arrive at the castle and engage in bloody battles with the Celts and their vengeful leader Maddog (Predrag Bjelac).

Does this movie sound familiar to anyone? Wait… doesn’t it sound exactly like the first Ironclad? Well, that’s because it pretty much is a rehash of the first movie except without all of the cool parts. Remember the awesome gore effects? Gone. Remember the incredible acting by Giamatti and Cox? Gone. Remember the really horrendous shaky cam action sequences? Fear not! They’re still here and worse than ever. I don’t know what frame rate was used to shoot these sequences, but holy hell it made the camerawork so much worse than it already was.

 

The only thing I really have to say about Battle for Blood is that everything that made the first one even a little bit worthwhile is completely gone. Instead we have pretty much a shell of a movie that shouldn’t even exist. I still can’t believe Jonathan English would return to direct and mess up everything he did before. The only semi cool thing is that Michelle Fairley of Game of Thrones fame had a role, and she’s not even in it that much. This was more than disappointing, it was downright stupid. Skip this mess.

Well, there you have it. The first Ironclad movie is pretty good and well worth checking out if you like the genre. It’s sequel, however, may rank as one of the worst movies I’ve seen in a while. Stick with the first movie, and you should have a pretty fun few hours.

Synecdoche, New York – Review

Here’s a movie that the late, great Roger Ebert called the best film of the decade back when it was released in 2008. This is Charlie Kaufman’s directorial debut, Synecdoche, New York. Before this film, Kaufman established himself as one of the greatest modern day story tellers with his screenplays of Being John Malkovich, Adaptation, and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, for which he won the Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay. He’s a writer like no other, and the puzzles that his movies present are proof. That being said, Synecdoche, New York comes off as his most personal and most challenging work yet.

Caden Cotard (Philip Seymour Hoffman) is a theater director working in New York City. His most recent play is a success, but life at home couldn’t be worse. First, Cotard begins to suspect that he’s suffering from a degenerative disorder that’s practically shutting his body down. To make matters worse, his wife Adele (Catherine Keener) takes their daughter to Berlin for an art show, but never return. To cope with this, Cotard begins working on a personal and extremely realistic piece of theater by constructing a replica of New York City inside a giant warehouse with thousands of actors playing real life people acting out situations that have happened in day to day life. As the line of Cotard’s fiction and Cotard’s reality begin to become one, he begins to lose all track of time and control on his other relationships with multiple women in his theater group.

Anyone who is familiar with Charlie Kaufman’s work knows that he is not afraid to put our minds through a cinematic blender. Eternal Sunshine and Being John Malkovich subscribed to a set of rules that seem only to exist in Kaufman’s mind. Things don’t have to make sense or follow any linear design as long as his story is there and he gets across what he’s trying to say, even though you may not get everything the first time through. You can’t really say that with most directors, but Kaufman makes it work. Unlike the other movies I’ve mentioned, the story in Synecdoche, New York completely goes off the rails leaving time and space to be a minor footnote to a work that’s much more important.

 

Aside from being mind boggling in story, Synecdoche, New York also succeeded at boggling my emotions. This is one hell of a heavy movies despite how completely off the walls it is. There’s so much stuff to find hilarious in this movie, for example doctors who do their best to give their patients as little insight as possible, a psychiatrist who doesn’t seem to be even listening, and a character who buys and lives in a house that’s perpetually on fire. However, and this is a huge however, once the movie starts getting into its later scenes and I began to realize more and more the message of the movie, I found myself getting hopelessly sad in a way that a movie hasn’t done to me in a while. So, yes, the movie is really funny in many scenes, but it’s overall quite upsetting, but upon closer inspection it may give you a surge of great joy.

With the huge emotional response and the fact that this world Kaufman has made exists outside the realm of conventional rules, it’s safe to say that watching this movie just once is a bad idea. Going back and thinking about this movie more has made me realize all of the little clues, themes, and symbols that I completely failed to notice the first time through. It’ll almost be like watching the movie for the first time all over again now that I know how much it really plays with your mind. The only complaint I can possibly have about this movie is that it seemed to go on and on. For a movie as strange as this with all of its complicated storytelling, it is a little bit long and I felt it necessary to take a little break in the middle.

Going back to what Roger Ebert said about Synecdoche, New York being the best movie of the decade, I wouldn’t go that far in my opinion. It is still a truly remarkable movie that feels very personal to Kaufman, but also works great as a movie that exists to figure out the meaning of the story and piece together all the clues that seem to be subliminally sneaked into the movie. Still, this movie is not for everyone. It’s so complex and difficult that the casual movie watcher may not be interested. For the nice audience that it is directed too, however, this is a fascinating and original film that fits perfectly into Charlie Kaufman’s filmography and succeeds especially as his debut film.