Apollo 18 (2011)

So I thought I needed to explain my tweet. Yes, this faux doc about "found footage" from a secret 70s moon mission is essentially Blair Witch in Space. Or Paranormal Activity in Space, depending how far back you want to take your cultural reference. But, it's not all that bad--not as good as the prior, but better than the latter.

My problem with A18, besides taking a little too long to get to the tension (felt like the script padding it probably was), is that it ultimately failed to deliver the kicker at the end. While I thought Paranormal Activity was a cheap stunt of a film, it did know how to close. This movie pulled its finishing blow, giving us just what we expected and nothing more. Honestly, I think they could have made the same movie with a better result if they had just spent a little more time developing the drama and raising the stakes.

Okay, SPOILER ALERT. I can see how they sold this story: astronauts discover "other" footprints on the Moon. Boom! There you go, solid hook. Who left the footprints? Dead cosmonauts who themselves had been on a secret mission years before. Gold. But, then what? No one wants a cold war political thriller here. So, how did the ruskies die? Well, something else is on the moon, too. Of course, horror's hot right now. So, some sort of alien monster naturally. However, it can't be too advanced. No humanoid ETs with spaceports we can see from Earth. Plus, we're spending most of the budget on food services. So, little creepy crawly...rock crab looking things? Rocks, right, they would have to look like rocks. No need to get all sciency, though. The audience is more than willing to buy aliens of any biological make or model. Almost done. I'm assuming the aliens kill the astronauts? What else would we do in the third act? So Astronauts arrive on the moon? Check. Astronauts find something weird? You got it. Astronauts bite it. And scene. But won't everyone see that coming? So what? The trailer will kill. Plus, it's only 86 minutes. MINUS

Devil

One of my first SMC posts was about John Erick Dowdle's excellent horror remake, Quarantine. At the time, I was disappointed that I would have to wait so long for his follow-up. This. Which sounded promising enough at the time: it's about people trapped in an elevator with the Devil. Then I saw that it was being produced by M. Night Shyamalan. Then I got worried.


Little did I know it would be the worst film of 2010. That actually would have been a momentous occasion, or at the very least, a fortuitous bit of foresight. Then again, Vinny H-L did tell me not to see it. But I saw it. Definitely not the high life.


I don't want to pick apart the story, which is one of these simpleton thrillers delusioned into believing it's some sort of grander mystery exploration. It's literally about the Devil and about how people do bad things and they shouldn't do bad things because the Devil will come and do bad things to them. It's grade school religious mumbo-jumbo that's intellectually and artistically insulting. So much so that I watched the whole thing just to get madder. That's how bad it was. What that says about me is a whole other post. MINUS

Playlist: A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010)

Here's why I can't stand Michael Bay (I'm trying to not say "hate" so much): it's not for the terrible movies he has made, but for the terrible movies he continues to make. At this point he's filthy rich and has enough sway in the industry to make any project he wants, yet time and again he just goes for the money grab. Not that we were exactly lacking in proof, but the man has zero artistic ambition. Why does that matter? Because, goddamit, he's in an artistic profession. (Bay only produces this dreck, leaving the director's noose for music video maestro Samuel Bayer. Bayer gets a pass because he directed "Smells Like Teen Spirit" and "No Rain", but then again that was almost 20 years ago. Really, look it up.)

The only reason I watched this was to see Jackie Earle Haley's take on Freddy Krueger. It's a no-win, though, as is reinterpreting any iconic character. Even so, they not only didn't win, but went out of their way to lose. Freddy worked brilliantly, not only at his best, but in spite of several terrible sequels, because he transcended the generic slasher templates he was stuck in. We watched the Nightmare movies because we liked this homicidal madman. So, of course, Team Bay decides to remove any personality from the character in order to give us, what, a more realistic take on a bogeyman that somehow manages to kill teenagers in the dreams?

Seriously, though, that's what they were trying to do by giving us a sympathetic back story for our ol' pal Fred. Get this: Krueger was a gardener who lived in the basement of a daycare. Please forget that this was the 1990s when there were actual laws in place to prevent such a dangerously creepy situation from ever happening. Then, to everyone's surprise because everyone was an idiot, the little kids started reporting that the gardener was doing a little no-no touching. The suddenly concerned parents then took the natural next step of hunting Freddy down and burning him alive. They covered the whole messy affair up, somehow brainwashing their kids along the way, until for some never explained reason because nonsense cannot be explained, Freddy began murdering the now teenage kids in their sleep. But wait, two of the teens somehow deduced that Freddy was actually innocent! (Full disclosure: I fast forwarded a lot of this, but from what I could tell this assertion was based solely on a wild guess.) How does this game-changing revelation affect the the events of the movie? Wait for it...it doesn't. In any way.

Haley seemed like an excellent choice for the role considering how much he looks like someone you wouldn't want standing next to you on a subway, let alone anywhere near children or small animals. But he's wasted here, reduced to an extra wearing a rather bland mask and growling a lot. That they even ruined Freddy's classic look is just further pointless stupidity.

What makes it even more frustrating is that 2003's Freddy vs. Jason was actually pretty good and opened the door to some interesting directions for the franchise. There was even talk of bringing Bruce Campbell's Ash from the Evil Dead films into the mix. (To see what could have been, check out the comic based on a proposed script.)

Playlist: The House of the Devil

There was a time not too long ago when, after nuclear annihilation, the biggest fear for many Americans was Satanic cults. This was the late 70s/early 80s--okay, that actually is long ago--and every so often Geraldo Rivera or some other goof would make a stink about this unholy danger to our children and, based on the go-to news imagery, our livestock as well. Of course, this only made pentagrams cool and gave horror writers a new vein to tap.

Ti West's 2009 film is a throwback to that era, right down to the 16mm look and the main character's gigantic Walkman. His filmmaking, however, takes us back even further, eschewing the slash and splatter for an earlier less-is-more sensibility. He builds suspense, slowly and deliberately, until you can't help but freaking out right along with the heroine. This isn't about killing time until the next gore scene by piecing together empty scare tactics, but skewering us with anticipation. It's negative fear, that dread lurking outside the empty spaces of the mundane (climbing a flight or stairs, entering a room, etc.).

That heroine mentioned before is college sophomore Samantha who, desperate for rent money so she can move out of her dorm room and away from her roommate, agrees to take a "babysitting" job against her better judgement and her best friend's protestations. Sure, it's an old Gothic mansion and the couple is creepiness personified, but she was getting paid $400 for a few hours work. Even a quarter century later, that's a lot of money. So, she stays and, well, the rest of the movie happens. All of which is not to say that Samantha is your typical horror movie ditz. Jocelin Donahue gives one of the better performances you'll see in a film like this, playing the character as a normal, naive kid. Her dialogue, particularly with her friend, is unforced and believable, which only adds to the atmosphere of the film.

Confession: the reason I watched this in the first place was because of the friend. Yep, it's Greta Gerwig. And, yep, even in a small role in a "traditional" film she brings her natural acting vibe (not to mention some very Farrah hair).

The movie climaxes in a chilling scene of desperation that made me want to turn the lights back on. But then, West tacks on 15 minutes, abandoning his pacing and focus and turning on the blood faucet. It's not really tacked on as the whole movie was leading to this point, but it's too brusque a tone shift. As for the very ending, um, I don't know what he was trying to say (if you want to know what happened, leave a comment and I'll explain). Overall, though, this is a great pick if you're looking for something fresh to watch this Shocktober.

Playlist: Pontypool

Why? One of the most buzzed about "zombie" movies in years

Damn it, this was so close. Helluva set-up: Grant Mazzy is a veteran radio personality stuck doing the morning show in a small, snowy Canadian town. What plays out next is pure Orson Welles as reports start to trickle in about strange occurrences in the area, including a gathering mob that soon turns violent. All the time, we see nothing but the inside of the studio as the tension builds through the reactions of Mazzy (character actor Stephen McHattie--think Lance Hendrikson mixed with Hugh Laurie) and his staff.

Which brings us to the crossroads. Go one way, director Bruce McDonald maintains the movie as a study of paranoia and the unknown, relying on his storytelling to escalate the terror. It's risky, but where else to take a narrative leap but in a low-budget genre film. The other way, which you probably guessed is the way we went, is to bring on the zombies. One choice isn't better than the other. It's what happens after the choice that counts.

To McDonald's credit, he has gone on record as stating that the infected people in this film are not zombies. He refers to them as "conversationalists" because the disease is language-based. Certain words--different for everybody--trigger a neurological lockdown where "you become so distraught at your condition that the only way out of the situation you feel, as an infected person, is to try and chew your way through the mouth of another person." It's always interesting to see a new twist, but there's no science here to back it up in the slightest. That's not even the real problem. There's not even any pseudo-science to back it up. The "why" is never fully revealed. Again, this is okay if you are confident to leave your story shrouded in mystery. Which leads us back to the choice to reveal the "zombies."

The radio station is soon overrun by infected townspeople as well as a doctor whose connection to the epidemic is never explained but who is presented as the key to solving the puzzle. The character (or the actor, or both) is a mess. He's goofy and babbling and kills the carefully-developed tone of the film. And adds nothing. At this point the whole concept breaks down and the resolution feels made up on the spot. It feels like no one had any idea what to do in the second half of the film. Still better than Dead Snow, though.

Playlist: Thirst

What's that, a Korean vampire movie, you say? Ye.

Famed director and violence maestro Park Chan-Wook turns his camera to the world of the undead with this 2009 erotic horror film. It's the story of a priest who signs up to be an experimental test subject in order to find a cure for the Emmanuel Virus, a deadly worldwide disease. Things don't go according to plan as he is infected and dies...and returns as a vampire.

He soon becomes involved with the family of a childhood friend who come to see the man of God who has become a bit of a celebrity for returning from the dead. He develops an attraction to his friend's neglected wife and the two fall into a pretty sexually explicit relationship. The rest of the film deals with him trying to balance his growing need for human blood (in order to keep the virus in check in his body) and his growing love for this woman. Unfortunately, he discovers that each action he takes has consequences that lead him further from the right path. You know, "With great power comes great responsibility." Or, 강대국으로 중대한 책임은 온다

It's a beautifully shot film and it's easy to see why Park has such a strong reputation. The performances by Song Kang-ho as the priest and, especially, Kim Ok-bin as the object of his desire give the characters needed emotional depth. However, at 133 minutes, it's too long, dragging at times in the middle. It's difficult for horror and comedy films to maintain their tension and edge at that length no matter how well made they are.

But along with Let the Right One In, it proves to be a strong addition to the genre in a good year for vampires.

Playlist: Let the Right One In

What's that, a Swedish vampire movie, you say? Ja.

I watched this a few months back, but since I started writing about the Six Shooter Film Series, I thought I'd finally get around to finishing this post. By now you have probably heard about Tomas Alfredson's 2008 film, based on the novel by John Ajvide Lindqvist. It's the story of a young boy named Oskar, a loner who wants nothing more than to get back at the school bullies tormenting him. One night, he meets Eli, the new girl who moved into his apartment building. She informs him that they cannot be friends--that she's not even "really" a girl--but they go on to develop a bond anyway.

It's a strong story bolstered by the captivating performances of the two leads, Kåre Hedebrant and Lina Leandersson, and its quiet, atmospheric vibe that's very much the product of its hauntingly bleak setting. It's an art-horror film, but it's also very definitely a true vampire film, not afraid to embrace and elevate the genre. More on this in an upcoming post.

It was so successful, in fact, that it is scheduled to be honored with an all-American remake by Cloverfield director Matt Reaves. But it will star the boy from The Road and the girl from Kick-Ass, so maybe it won't be terrible. Though there's no helping its pointlessness.

Playlist: Paranormal Activity

I was fortunate to see The Blair Witch Project before it blew up. At the time I was really into following the film scene (shocking, right?) and had read all about how this no-budget faux doc had taken Sundance by storm. I even made a trip into the famed Angelika Film Center in NYC as soon as it was released. And wasn't disappointed. The magic of it was that even though I knew it wasn't real, even though I knew the entire backstory was an orchestrated studio ruse, even though I'm not generally an idiot, I was scared. It worked, and worked well.

Jump to the present--literally, I just watched it--and the "new Blair Witch," Oren Peli's Paranormal Activity. Same idea in play: pieced together, after-the-fact found footage of an unexplained horror. But it's been ten years, so why not? Listen, I'm always willing to suspend my disbelief to be entertained until the filmmaker abuses that courtesy.

Now before I go on I should say I don't believe in ghosts. And even less so in recent years as the pseudo-science of shows like "Ghost Hunters" has completely warped any plausibility into ridiculousness. However, I cannot deny that we are all susceptible to our innate fear of the unknown playing tricks on us. That's why we watch horror movies and thrillers in the first place. It's almost as if we are taunting those primal emotions. So, like I said, I was all aboard for this movie.

Result? Eh. Halfway in the scenes started feeling staged and Peli chose to abuse the courtesy by building his tension through cheap scares and overplaying the monster card. It devolves into a standard possession story and the ending wasn't so much shocking as shockingly cliched. By comparison, I still remember how haunting that last shot in Blair Witch was to me.

Source Material: Quarantine vs. [Rec]

How's this? Quickie American remake of a cult fave foreign film that is not only faithful to the original, but ultimately better? I know, how very un-American, or at least, un-Hollywood. OK, plot: reporter follows firefighters on a call to an apartment building where they become trapped when the building gets quarantined. Why? There's a bad case of the cannibal crazies going around. The title of Jaume Balagueró and Paco Plaza's 2007 original, [Rec], comes from the fact that the entire story is told through the eye of a [rec]ording video camera. A bit jarring at times, but nowhere near the cinematic migraine known as Cloverfield, and used effectively as a plot device, most notably at the end.

As I said, John Erick Dowdle's 2008 Quarantine is nearly shot-for-shot loyal, which was the way to go because he already had the fool-proof people-trapped premise in play. (And he'll see our apartment building and raise us one elevator--see: next film, Devil.) Now, here's where I callback to the beginning of the paragraph. Nearly loyal.

Before I get to that, a note on the lead casting. Dowdle went with Jennifer Carpenter, best known as Dexter's sister (and his wife in real life...which I suppose is less creepy than if it were the other way around). I know, that's what I thought, too, but she's not annoying here, and truthfully, comes off strong. That said, Manuela Velasco was a revelation to me in the original. Just a captivating screen presence.

SPOILER ALERT. Alerted? Good. Now sit down for this. The American version has a smarter, less over-the-top ending. Their explanation? A new strain of rabies. Plausible, right? The Spanish take: Satanism. Really. The reveal isn't until the end, but it made me roll my eyes right out of the narrative. I don't know, Satan worship feels so 1983.

Worse yet, they actually made a sequel to the original--yes [Rec] 2--that sounds retardado absolutamente. But Manuela's back, so...

Both: PLUS