Tag Archives: review

“V/H/S: Viral” got a lot of negative reviews. This isn’t one of them.

I’m a little flabbergasted here with the negative critical response to “V/H/S: Viral” (2014).  I thought this was a fantastic little horror anthology flick that redeemed the “V/H/S” franchise from a pretty poor second installment.  (And apparently fans liked that one?)

I’d give this a 9 out of 10.  It certainly isn’t for everybody, with its violence, gore and disturbing content.  (I’m going to repeat that: as with past “V/H/S” films, this has some disturbing content, so beware.)  But it should be a damned scary treat for hardcore horror fans.

This time out, we’ve got three short films linked together by the running “wraparound” film.  (A fourth segment was edited out.)

The first is like a damn good episode of “The X Files.”  The fight with the cops was fantastic, and the special effects were surprisingly good for a “V/H/S” movie.

The second film is a wonderfully creative horror/science fiction tale that plays out like a terrific classic short story.  (Yes, it begins a bit slow, but I think that’s an intentional part of the narrative.)  This segment gets extra points for its unabashed use of some not-so-subtle Freudian body horror.

The third film isn’t perfect, with a thin story and some schlock horror cheesiness.  But it’s still really entertaining, thanks to the teen skateboarder anti-heroes (and their “photographer guy” tagalong) that were scripted perfectly and then performed perfectly by their young actors.  I am still laughing at how one character threatens to “pistol whip” another for interrupting him.  These kids were great.  They’re perfect malcontents at first — then, thanks to a nice flourish in the script involving a homeless person — they’re shown to have more depth than that.  Gimme a full-length feature film starring these brats.  I’m serious.

Finally, the wraparound tale’s finale was brutal and perfect.  And what a great use of classical music!

A few things left me scratching my head:

1)  We learn little about the story’s antagonist in the wraparound tale — exactly who or what is responsible for the speeding ice-cream truck?  I wanted to know more, despite the story’s deliberate ambiguity.

2)  Why does the main character’s girlfriend in the wraparound story enter the truck?

3)  How do people on bicycles manage to keep pace with the speeding truck?  One of them is a bicycle made for a young girl.  They … even outpace the pursuing police cars?

Forget the haters, check this out.

Oh!!  One more thing — if you view this via Netflix, as I did, you’ll find that the entire second segment is in Spanish.  You can fix this just by wiggling Netflix’ captions function at the bottom right.

viral-big

When is “Shaun of the Dead” not “Shaun of the Dead?”

When it’s “April Apocalypse” (2013).  Don’t let that dissuade you from watching it, though, because despite being a derivative zombie movie, it’s still quite good.  [THIS REVIEW CONTAINS MINOR SPOILERS.]

To be honest, it actually borrows more heavily from “Zombieland” (2009), with its tone and narrative style.   But … I actually think I like this more than “Zombieland,” because the humor of that popular movie often fell flat with me, and I walked away feeling that it was a little overrated.

“April Apocalypse” actually has a smart, funny script, with a likable kid as a protagonist (capably played by Reece Thompson, who reminds me a little of Ryan Reynolds).  There are a lot of genuine laughs, depending on off-beat, quirky characters and dry line delivery.  The family scenes are extremely funny — who would have thought that the prison rapist from “The Shawshank Redemption” (Mark Rolston) could be a hilarious dysfunctional Dad?  I’d give this movie an 8 out of 10, and I cheerfully recommend it to fans of the genre.

I … don’t always respond so well to horror-comedies, so some of the truly black humor was a turn-off for me.  We see a church full of desperate people perish in a manner that is supposed to be funny; one character dryly shrugs them off as expendable “Jesus Freaks.”  If you ask me, that’s disturbing, not funny.  Ask yourself this, secular friends — what if the script was different, and those sacrificed (in grisly fashion) were attendants at an American Atheist Convention?  Most of my close friends who enjoy “The Walking Dead” as much as I do are also Christian.  Which makes this joke, at the very least … icky, in my opinion.

We also see a running gag that I’ve seen pop up from time to time in zombie films and fiction.  Otherwise good-natured characters gleefully enjoy killing the zombie versions of people who they disliked when they were alive.  That’s some pretty dark humor, and maybe it’s transparently pathological.  I like survival stories of people coming together to fight an insurmountable threat — not murder-by-proxy jokes.

Finally, I would have gone with a different ending.  I won’t say more because I don’t want to make this post too spoiler-heavy.

Anyway, sorry to over-analyze and be a grumpy old man.  Do give this film a chance and watch it.  It was surprisingly good and made me laugh a lot.

april-apocalypse

My review of “When the Wind Blows” (1986)

“When the Wind Blows” is a decent 1986 British animated film that follows an elderly couple trying in vain to survive a nuclear war.  It was adapted from a graphic novel by Raymond Briggs, and the two characters are modeled after Briggs’ parents – which must have made this a challenging project to write, given the dark, tragic nature of the material. I’ve had a few friends recommend this – and I suspect it might have a bit of a cult following because it also features music by none other than Roger Waters, David Bowie and Genesis.

This movie employs irony on two levels. One, the animation style is deceptively child-like, and eerily contrasts a brutal story about two people who are woefully unprepared for the aftermath of a nuclear holocaust. It’s a mixture of traditional animation and stop-motion photography, with departures every now and again for really thematic montages, which make great use of fantastic imagery.

Two, the story focuses on the husband’s naive reliance upon government-issue pamphlets, which are entirely inadequate to help them. The feckless couple also romanticizes the British experience during World War II’s “The Blitz,” and wrongfully expects their experience with the new world war will parallel that.

I thought it was well done. I’m not sure the material warranted an hour-and-a-half running time, however, I think this could have been covered in 40 minutes to an hour. The caricaturized voices and vocal optimism also made the characters slightly annoying after about an hour.

Still, I’d give it a 7 out of 10.

when-the-wind-blows

I will not be reviewing “The Human Centipede 3” here …

… because I will not watch the movie.  I watched the entire original, and even reviewed it.  (If you guys are ever interested, look up Roger Ebert’s review of the first movie.  It’s a treatise on tactful, oblique language.)  Then I watched maybe the first 20 minutes of “The Human Centipede 2.”  Frankly, that is just about enough human-centipedey-ness for one lifetime.

I keep mistakenly calling them “The Human Caterpillar” movies … I think that might be some form of Freudian repression.

This film is just so … gross that it’s beneath even me and the reprobates that will occasionally populate my peer group.  I can’t link here to the film’s trailer, or even post a movie poster, because they are just too explicit and repulsive.

Why not focus instead on the Camden family, of The WB’s heartwarming Christian dramedy, “7th Heaven?”  They are far more pleasant, and I’m pretty sure that they inhabit a universe where films like “The Human Centipede 3” do not exist.

Oh you quirky Camdens, with your disarming foibles and well-intentioned hi-jinks!!  YOU’VE CHARMED EVEN THIS SECULAR CURMUDGEON, HAVEN’T YOU???

7th-Heaven-Cast-Reunion

A recommendation: Stephen King’s “Hearts In Atlantis.”

This book is, in a word, beautiful.

I still remember receiving my hardback copy one Christmas.  After tearing off the wrapping paper, I was nonplussed with its cover.  Peace signs and missing-cat posters?  This didn’t look like “Night Shift” or “The Tommyknockers.” The back cover’s synopsis did little to reassure me that I would like it.  It was some kind of “coming-of-age” drama, and promised nothing of the monsters and mayhem that I’d always loved in Stephen King’s work.  I got the sense that this was a gift book that I would read out of politeness.  If memory serves, I indeed only sat down with it years later.

I just recommended it to a college friend this weekend.  (And now I am tempted to go grab it again, even though I have been itching for so very long to revisit that quick, short little tale entitled “IT.”)  I tried to explain to my alum that “Hearts In Atlantis” was a “more mainstream” King novel that could be enjoyed by anyone.  She asked if there were “monsters,” and I told her, “Well, yeah, but they’re almost always mostly off-screen.”  (I have a habit of describing books as though they are movies.)

And I do think that’s a good way to describe it.  This is a great introduction to King for a mainstream reader.  The horror elements are minimal.  The fantasy elements are used as a plot device, but quite sparingly.  Yes, the “Low Men” from whom one character hides are fantasy characters from Stephen King’s sprawling and expansive “Dark Tower” multiverse.  But, since they are portrayed so mysteriously, they can be just as easily read as sinister government agents — and this would fit right in with the 1960’s paranoia that this period novel often establishes as part of its setting.

If you do happen to love “The Dark Tower,” however, the characters of Ted Brautigan and Bobby Garfield will be familiar to you.  And there is even a single, fleeting reference to a certain frightening provocateur for the violence and dissent in 1960’s America.  We only hear him spoken of once.  His initials are “R.F.,” although he is known to employ pseudonyms.  The reference to him makes perfect sense in the context of the story, and spells great sadness for another character we’ve come to like.

But, again — this is definitely a more mainstream novel, maybe more in the spirit of a dark drama like “Dolores Claiborne” (which I have not read).  Psychic powers and shadowy pursuers take a backseat to stories about people.  There isn’t just one “coming-of-age story.”  There are many, as we see key characters faced with trials and crossroads at different points during their often tragic lives, preceding, during and following a difficult and confusing time in American history.  (I keep calling it a “novel,” even though it’s actually several novellas and three long stories.)  Since it’s the same characters in the same universe, I like to think of it as a single overall novel.  The quite-good film adaptation in 2001, starring Anthony Hopkins, actually covers only one novella within the book, “Low Men In Yellow Coats.”  The eponymous “Hearts in Atlantis” novella is actually a separate tale — one that I enjoyed even more.  This book is a tour de force in showing the points of view for multiple characters.

I was going to state that this is the most moving King tale I’ve ever read.  I hesitate now … I know that a lot of fans point to “The Stand” for such a distinction.  (I personally don’t agree, even though that book is my favorite of all time.)  And certain entries in “The Dark Tower” series are very moving too.  We’ve got Jake’s introduction and fate in “The Gunslinger:”

He is too young to have learned to hate himself yet, but that seed is already there; given time, it will grow, and bear bitter fruit.”

“Go then.  There are other worlds than these.”

We also have Roland of Gilead’s tearful embrace with his father in “Wizard and Glass,” and Steven Deschain’s reveal:  “I have known for five years.”

Still, “Hearts In Atlantis” is a contender.  Parts of it are heartwarming; parts are unflinchingly sad.  It is alternately heartrending and sweet.  I think that this is Stephen King’s most intimate treatment of his characters, with the possible exception of “The Body” (which film fans know as “Stand By Me”).  (And bear in mind, we’re talking about a master of characterization and point-of-view.)  I read “The Body” (part of the collection, “Different Seasons”) when I was a young teen, and that’s so long ago that I cannot adequately compare them.  At any rate, we are a long, long way from straight genre-stuff like “The Boogeyman” and “The Raft.”

I found “Hearts In Atlantis” moving, to say the least.  I hate to invoke the somewhat tired and trite-sounding standby, “I felt as though this book was written especially for me.”  But I do feel that way, and I am not just thinking of one character or one part.  I identified closely with the stages of life and the crises depicted for several characters.  And I can’t even elaborate on why, because such information would be too personal for a public forum.  (Okay, here’s one exception — if anyone reading this lived in Mary Washington College’s Bushnell Hall in 1990 and 1991, there indeed were a slew of guys who played “Hearts” incessantly!!)  This book, which I read in my late 20’s, actually changed the way I looked at … hell, BOOKS.

I’m sorry to gush like a fanboy here yet again … I promise to return to form tomorrow by panning low-budget horror movies.  In the meantime, goodnight, friends.  And do stay ahead of the Low Men.

b1066b5a93bc14a51ce2cf3f3055dc12

A Review of Stephen King and Marvel Comics’ “The Dark Tower Omnibus.”

Marvel Comics’ “The Dark Tower Omnibus” is a fantastic two-tome deluxe set that offers an unprecedented and truly inclusive look at Mid-World and its place in Stephen King’s multiverse. It’s an almost perfect collector’s item, deserving a 9 out of 10, with new (and usually quite beautiful) looks at the people, places, monsters and magic that surround Roland of Gilead, the single-minded anti –hero first introduced to readers as “The Gunslinger” in 1982.

I was very happily surprised at what I found. This isn’t merely a comic book adaptation of “The Dark Tower” series of books. Although portions of it recount events seen in flashback in “The Gunslinger” and “Wizard and Glass,” most of it is new material. And it’s exactly what a hell of a lot of fans would want – chronicling Roland’s younger years, in which he and his closest friends train as Gunslingers, carry out their first quest, try in vain to prevent the fall of their kingdom and then meet their final fates at Jericho Hill. Also covered in great detail is the role of The Man in Black (known elsewhere as Randall Flagg, among other aliases) in the Fall of Gilead, as well as the destruction of Roland’s family and friends.

It’s a great book. I’d honestly recommend it to fans who have completed the series of prose novels, because much of the fun of those is the gradual exposition of Roland’s brutal childhood and the inception of his inter-dimensional quest. Much of that is rendered in detail here, which could ruin the narrative power of his tales and flashbacks throughout the books.

There are all sorts of treasures for people who fell in love with Mid-World, as I did in the early 1980’s. We see Steven Deschain and his contemporaries in action for the first time, in adventures that seem penned by King himself. (King was Executive Director of the project, while the story was adapted by Robin Furth and scripted by Peter David.) We see Flagg, known here as Marten Broadcloak, betray Roland’s father by seducing his mother, and the even greater tragedy that results. We see the Fall of Gilead and the Battle of Jericho Hill (even if they’re a little mishandled here). And, maybe best of all, we get to better know fellow young Gunslingers Cuthbert Allgood and Alain Johns as they fight alongside Roland – something only covered before in one book, “Wizard and Glass.”

The biggest surprise, however, is a DETAILED ORIGIN STORY FOR RANDALL FLAGG. Any King fan knows that Flagg’s nature and origin have been a mystery for decades – in all the various Stephen King novels in which he’s appeared. Here, we literally meet his parents and see him born, and are shown in greater detail his role in The Crimson King’s planned destruction of the infinite multiverse.

The art by Jae Lee is simply amazing – it’s some of the best I’ve ever seen in comics. All of the characters – except Flagg, regrettably – are portrayed how a reader might have easily envisioned them. Roland has a great look, and the characters of Susan and Aileen are beautiful. Lee makes great use of color, large panels and sweeping vistas that bring Mid-World to eerie, dreamlike life. Lee’s most fearsome portrayal is John Farson, aka The Good Man, shown here battling the forces of light in black armor and blood-red mask, astride a giant black steed. The art was just perfect.

The stories are generally good. The horror elements we’d hope for are all there, and there are countless moments that enrich the pre-existing books for us – often courtesy of Lee’s amazing talent.

Roland is mostly consistent with the character we love; Cuthbert and Alain are pitch-perfect and incredibly likable. This book was enhanced in many, many ways by featuring characters that were spot on and mostly what we would expect. Peter David is well known as a humorous comic book writer (he could have been a disastrous choice for this material), but he does very well. There were one or two moments that were awful attempts at unnecessary levity (they can’t start the quest because Sheemie has to “pee?”) But David’s talent for dialogue pays off extremely well with the banter between Cuthbert and Alain.

Farson, referred to only obliquely in the prose books, is terrifying. A terrific new character is Aileen, Cort’s niece, who is the first female Gunslinger (presumably created by Furth?). I wound up wishing she was included in the novels.

But the biggest character improvement was The Crimson King. Fans of the series have lamented the fact King’s arch enemy of the universe fell flat in “The Dark Tower,” the last book of the series. Even someone like me, who loved the books, can concede that. He’s different here – finally changed by Furth, David and Lee into a truly frightening enemy. He’s both better written and gorgeously illustrated. Here, “The Dark Tower Omnibus” actually improves on its source material.

Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of Randall Flagg. I felt his characterization here was way off. He resembles little of the Flagg that we know and loathe from “The Stand” and other books. He doesn’t seem terribly much like “The Man in Black” introduced in “The Gunslinger.” Instead, he sometimes seems like a mere stock character – the cartoonish evil magician. He even has what sometimes resembles a handlebar mustache! I was surprised that the creative team here excelled everywhere else, yet fumbled the ball with this extremely unique and popular character.

There were other aspects of the stories here that may have been less than perfect. I was surprised at how little the writers sought to exploit comic books as a medium. The stories are extremely dialogue-heavy for a comic series. The entire series seems to have missed opportunities to show the incredibly varied monster, mutants, cyborgs and demons of Stephen King’s dangerous, Kafkaesque universe.

There were also at least two anticlimaxes. We’re given tremendous foreshadowing and tension building up to The Fall of Gilead. Then … we’re shown it in only a few pages. After countless pages of conversations about how to wage the battle, the battle itself is … hardly shown. I wonder if some sort of mistake was made in the editorial process. Did they deliberately try to avoid showing too much action? The Battle of Jericho Hill is also seen as an incidental standoff after Farson surprises Roland’s forces, with little other relevance to the destruction of Mid-World or the planned destruction of The Dark Tower.

The second volume in the set is a wealth of supplementary information, mostly penned by Furth, composed as addendums to the comic stories when they were originally published. It almost seems like “The Dark Tower” series’ equivalent of Tolkien’s “Silmarillion,” with a broad and interesting spectrum of biographies, vignettes, maps, history and theology that make up not just Mid-World, but also the god and the demons who gave rise to The Tower and its parallel universes. All sorts of questions are answered here comprehensively – not the least of which is where and how Flagg came to be. There are even classifications of the mutants, cyborgs and robots with which Roland and his Ka-Tet tangled throughout the books. Mixed with those are tons of additional art, as well as interviews with the creators.

Again, this was a fantastic set, and a sheer treasure for any fan of the book series.

darktwrv3002_cov_col
207752_10150162284952472_3683764_n
1827373-battle_of_jericho_hill_no2
darktower5
darktwrv3006_cov
dt3cover_425
e287c69c40d6eeb25a0ba4d7cd91ec12
[Artwork by Jae Lee, Marvel Comics’ “The Dark Tower Omnibus.”]

A short review of “The Walking Dead” Season 3.

I am blogging my past TV reviews from Facebook; this was my take on Season 3 of “The Walking Dead.”

**********

When “The Walking Dead” capped off its third season last night, it was a bit anticlimactic. (Am I crazy, or did the “war” they’ve been building up to last less than three minutes?) The Season 3 opener had ten times the action, and the penultimate episode with Merle was also better. Last night’s finale was still decent, though, and it capped off a great season, to which I’d give a 9 out of 10.

Season 3 rescued the show from a lackluster second season, turning a … weirdly contexted melodrama into first-rate horror-thriller. Great action, scares and tension, and amazing special effects by Greg Nicotero. It had greatly improved dialogue, especially toward the end. (See Rick’s conversation with the Governor, for example.) The consistency and momentum of the plot and characters, while not perfect, were vastly improved too. Carl, the kid everybody loved to hate, just might be my favorite character, thanks to good writing that turned him into a complex, darker character. And the kid playing him is simply outstanding.

Walking_Dead_Season_3_Official_Poster

A tiny review of “V/H/S/2” (2013).

I wanted to love “V/H/S/2” (2013).  I really did.  I loved the first one, and I like the subversive, no-holds-barred tone of the franchise.  But I can only give this a 4 out of 10.

The first segment had a creative premise; the point-of-view device for the second segment was fantastic.  (Why hasn’t a zombie filmmaker thought of that before?)  But there is just too much bad acting, bad dialogue and annoying shaky-cam, along with some painfully low-budget special effects.

I’d recommend viewing only the second segment and skipping the rest.  (And even that one isn’t exactly high art.)

p9908920_p_v7_ab

When Stanley Kubrick Meets Alfred Hitchcock (A Short Review of “Ex Machina”)

I was all set to skewer “Ex Machina” (2015).  I thought that the title smacked of cliche and pretense, and it looked so much like a boiler-plate boy-meets-girlbot maudlin melodrama.  How wrong I was — this movie deserves a 9 out of 10 for being the smartest and most surprising film I have seen in recent memory.

I won’t say much, for fear of spoilers.  All three leads handed in perfect performances — Alicia Vikander is simply fantastic as an example of artificial intelligence, and this is coming from a nerdboy who has rewatched everything from “Blade Runner” to “2001: A Space Odyssey” to Ron Moore’s “Battlestar Galactic.”   Man, how amazing would it be to watch a film in which the HAL 9000 is her adversary?  (I want to say more here about that, but won’t spoil why it would be so interesting.)

If you are watching this movie and think it is descending into cliche and predictability, stay with it.  I counted no fewer than four major twists by the story’s conclusion.  One is predictable; the remaining three are not.  And the last one is a real killer.  I was all set to write up an account of the story’s plot holes, but director Alex Garland was 10 steps ahead of me the entire time.

My only two remaining criticisms are pretty mild, and they are echoing other reviewers.  One, this movie is a bit long and slowly paced.  Two, we see extremely little action, which wouldn’t have been gratuitous if the story called for it.  The one “action” sequence we see is also underwhelming and poorly staged.  (Its combatants seem to be on heavy doses of lithium.)  Please, people, do not pay for a ticket thinking you are about to see an action-thriller … Or … even a quickly paced thriller.

Don’t let those quibbles bother you, though.  This is a great cerebral science fiction movie.

images (4)

One scary “Mama.”

“Mama” (2013) was quite good; I’d give it an 8 out of 10.  Jessica Chastain does a great job with a well written character arc — initially unlikable, but then a surprising heroine.  And it’s great that she got top billing, instead of the film’s obligatory telegenic male protagonist, who actually spends a lot of time off-screen.

Guillermo del Toro actually didn’t direct this, as I thought — he was the executive producer.  The director and screenwriter was Andrés Muschietti.  But I swear this has the feel of del Toro’s work.  It could stand as a thematic sequel to the wonderful “Don’t Be Afraid of the Dark” remake, for example, which also had strong elements of childhood fantasy and motherhood as a theme.

And what a great and beautifully creepy use of CGI to render the title baddie.  In fact, the whole movie was visually terrific, with a fairy-tale-ish use of movement and color that was cool, creative and different.  There are really clever flourishes for fright-flick fans — I personally really liked the tug-of-war scene.

I occasionally noticed some plot-convenient mysteries … one character is assaulted but survives?  And “Mama” can move with either lightning speed or plodding slowness, depending on what the story calls for.  And … at one point … do we actually have a zombie?  Do we need to call on Rick Grimes and his band of survivors from “The Walking Dead?”

This was fun.  Check it out.

MV5BMTM5MjIwNDAwMl5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwNzQyOTY0OA@@._V1_SX640_SY720_