The Cabin in the Woods 2012

The Cabin in the Woods 2012

By necessity this may be the shortest review I ever do.  Cabin in the Woods is one of those rare movies with plot twists that aren't entirely ruined by trailers.  The twists, turns, and surprises are so interesting, unique and fun that I fear just by claiming that it has twists I could splat a big steaming pile of spoiler on it.  So I will rant and rave about a paragraph or so and then conclude this before I ruin it.

This wonderful horror/slasher/comedy written by the fan favorite Joss Whedon, with the director Drew Goddard, is clever and funny while still delivering a few thrills.  The plot does a few clever pirouettes without falling in the cliche traps of a M. Knight Shyamalan flick.  The acting is good with the ham and cheese delivered with comic timing better than the best rom-com.  The horror and kills didn't track down the trail of gore porn such as the Saw movies, which for this viewer is a good thing.  Overall this movie delivered on its promise of a fun horror comedy with a twist and went far beyond my expectations.  I would highly recommend this movie to horror fans and those looking for a comic take on the genre. If horror and/or comedy are your cup of tea, go see this flick before some jerk wad at the water cooler spoils it... Really go see it before I spoil it...

Rare Exports: A Christmas Tale 2010

Rare Exports: A Christmas Tale 2010

So who likes campy holiday horror movies?  Well to be honest I do, but Rare Exports: A Christmas Tale is actually much deeper than your average Santa slasher flick (see Santa's Slay 2005).  It is a Finnish flick and is a dark tale around some of the pre-Coca Cola versions of our favorite Christmas character.  It reminds me of an old fairy tale from the Brothers Grimm more than the horror flick I assumed it was going to be.  It might be a bit too dark for me to show it to a child that I don't wish to inflict nightmares upon, but it is pretty comic and has a good child actor in the lead.  It would be fantastic for kids that can handle movies with a dark turn like one of my childhood favorites, Gremlins 1984.  Well other than the liberal use of old man full frontal nude shots...

... Make up your own opinion about nudity and society, but for me this falls under personal opinion and to me it was inoffensive.  The nude shots were mostly from far away and quick so you won't be getting the 'giant blue ween' problem I noted in the Watchmen, but it is definitely there. Combining the nudity, dark themes, and a few translated swear words and this film earned itself an R rating by the MPAA (send them an email to complain about the rating, draconian ruling as usual).  I think the director, Jalmari Helander, might have served himself better with some editing for North American release, but that may have been his only mistake in this flick.  With the budget, style, and content it could not have been handled better.  The effects fall short of a big Hollywood movie, but much like Trollhunter they make great use of what they have.  It is done as realistically as a movie about Santa can be which keeps the camp down to a level that is comic without changing the movie into full blown spoof.  The story is great and the main character, played by Omni Tommila, is a protagonist my inner child identified with. Some of the dialogue is bad as it was translated and some of the characters do some odd stuff, but overall this movie isn't serious enough to worry about problems every holiday flick is guilty of.

Rare Exports is one of those foreign gems that I adore.  It is quirky, fun, and completely outside of the modular story telling I am used to in modern cinema.  I caught a few promo videos and the short films it is based on last year and have been eagerly anticipating its North American release.  After finally getting to see it, I can say that I don't regret the rental and will be picking up my own copy soon.   I would recommend Rare Exports to very open minded families and those looking for a completely different Christmas flick.

The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari 1920 / Hugo 2011

The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari 1920 / Hugo 2011

The review will meander a bit around a modern film before talking about the classic silent era horror film The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1920).  Earlier this week I gave in to the pressures of positive reviews, academy awards and my love of all flicks by Martin Scorsese and went to see Scorsese's new children's adventure movie Hugo (2011).  Hugo has some interesting ties back to early cinema and inspired me to re-watch to review one of my favorites of the silent era.  It was a hard choice between Metropolis (1927), Dr. Caligari, or a movie by Georges Melies (discussed below), but I chose my favorite silent flick The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari.  Now to stop dancing around the issue and get into the details of historic characters, film history, and finally some movie recommendations.

Hugo was the inspiration for writing about a silent film so I should discuss it and its ties to silent movies first.  It is a great adventure story with fantastic effects, sound, costumes, and a pretty darn good story, but that is better explained by the awards it received.  At the 2012 Oscars it took home awards for Art Direction, Cinematography, Sound Editing, Sound Mixing, and lastly Visual Effects.  Personally I saw it in 3D and minus a scene or two ruined with heavy 3D snow I can see how it won both cinematography and effects categories.  It is a great looking work that does some amazing tricks with 3D and regularly has staggering shots involving the mechanics of clocks.  It is no great surprise that it was a technically solid, beautiful movie with Robert Richardson as the cinematographer and Scorsese directing.  Richardson has worked with Scorsese in the past as director of photography on Shutter Island (2010) and worked on both Kill Bill flicks.  Scorsese is a directing powerhouse famous for a long list of masterpieces such as Raging Bull (1980), Goodfellas (1990), Gangs of New York (2002), and The Departed (2006).  Enough gushing about the talent behind the flick and to why it is relevant to my romp back into the silent era.

Hugo is the story of an orphaned boy seeking a last connection to his dead father.  The boy named Hugo, played competently by Asa Butterfeild, befriends the goddaughter of the owner of a toy shop in the train station where Hugo lives.  The store owner's story intertwines with the story of Hugo and his dead father through an early clockwork robot.  The historical significance in the film comes back to this toy shop owner.  The toy maker, Ben Kingsley who is awesome as always, turns out to be famous early film and effects genius George Melies.  The story of the character intertwines with Melies's fall from film making into obscurity working in a Paris train station and his rise back to recognition.  The movie does deviate from the true story of Melies but much of the silent movies shown are actual Melies films.  Hugo does a great job of opening up this fantastic film maker to a modern audience.  Meleies made silent movies from 1986 to 1913 and was an early pioneer in special effects.  He was one of the earliest film makers to explore genres of horror, science fiction, and fantasy with famous films that drew upon ideas from contemporary science fiction writers such as Jules Verne.  Kingsley portrays Melies as a man damaged by his fall from grace and financial failures which closely reflects the real life Melies.

So after a two hour modern flick extolling the wonders of early film making, I was overwhelmed with a desire to watch a silent era horror or fantasy film.  Naturally I drifted back to the film class favorite The Cabinet of Caligari because it was my first non-Buster Keaton silent film.  Dr. Caligari is one of best examples of early horror and expressionism in film.  It involves ideas of reality and insanity.  The story unfolds through a character recounting the tale of how he came to track a murdering hypnotist and asylum director back to the insane asylum.  It questions what is reality and who really is insane.  The recent Martin Scorsese film Shutter Island closely mirrors much of the same ideas and themes.  Dr. Caligari draws heavily on expressionism for its style and its heavy use of angles give the whole story the surreal qualities that further confuses reality and fantasy.  It is hard to explain the aesthetic style of Dr. Caligari and I suggest everyone checks out at least a few minutes of the film to understand how fantastic the art and sets could be in the early era of film.

OK enough of me feeding you a film history lesson and down to the important recommendations.  The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari is a wonderful film.  It is a simple story with very complex ideas and subtext.  The set design and style create a wonderful fantasy world and you will recognize parts of the set because modern film makers draw heavily from Dr. Caligari (Tim Burton flicks and coffin scenes from Dracula [1931] are a great example).  On the other hand I can't recommend Dr. Caligari to most audiences.  It suffers from the slow pace common in silent films.  Unless you like black and white or silent movies, Dr. Caligari will only be interesting for its historic context.

Hugo on the other hand should appeal to a modern audience from children right up to jaded art house fans.  Scorsese again pulls off a blend of pop film making and beautiful art.  It borders at time on a pretentious film history lesson (like this article!), but it is exciting and entertaining.  I didn't think that Hugo could live up to critical acclaim it has received, but I think it did.  While it wasn't the most engaging or fun movie last year it certainly was one of the most beautiful with staggering effects and some of the best sound work I have ever seen.  I would recommend Hugo to anyone looking for a deeper kids movie and anyone who loves Scorsese.

Repo! The Genetic Opera 2008

Repo! The Genetic Opera 2008

First of all I am going to keep this short.  I was on a quest tonight to watch two films with very similar subject matter (Repo! The Genetic Opera and Repo Men) so that I could do some critical thinking comparing the two, but I got stopped with shear wonder after watching Repo!.  It deserves a bit of a write up of its own instead of being used as a foil to compare and contrast another more popular film.  This movie fits into a rare class of albums and musicals lumped together as 'Rock Operas' or 'Rock Musicals'.  The genre is best known for albums like Tommy by The Who, Pink Floyd's film/album The Wall, or, to a casual audience, the puppet rock opera created by Segal's character during the film Forgetting Sarah Marshall.  One could argue for the inclusion of other off-beat modern musicals like cult classic Rocky Horror Picture Show or the super awesome, super villain musical Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog.  The music in the film is great, straddling the line between a musical and rock concert and one scene even features Joan Jett playing guitar in the background.

Repo! really strikes a cord of the wonder, awe, and fun of my first time watching Rocky Horror, but it is also a much darker tale with strong similarities to slasher-porn movies like Saw.  The connection to the Saw series is unmistakable as Repo! was directed by the writer/director of Saw II.  Darren Lynn Bousman brought his experience from directing three movies in the Saw franchise to Repo! giving it a chilling, grotesque quality.  The horror aspect didn't really appeal to me, but combined with the music it was so surreal that some of the more horrific scenes were more comical than gag inducing. The acting was sub-par for much of the cast, but their singing was generally good overshadowing the cheesy musical theater acting.  The cast includes the likes of Paris Hilton, Bill Moseley, Paul Sorvino, and stars the cute Alexa Vega.  A character and personality that steals every scene is the Graverobber played by Terrance Zdunich who also co-wrote the script.  Technically the film did great creating a dark, larger-than-life world, but at times the sets looked more like a stage set than a movie set. 

Overall the film is only going to appeal to a niche audience.  Within that niche though it has become a cult classic and I believe like Rocky Horror and Clerks will become more popular as the myths surrounding it grow.  This film does need a disclaimer that it is a slasher-horror movie and it is a musical.  One or the other will prevent most people from enjoying it, but I hope that those with an open mind give it a shot.  I would recommend this film to fans looking for the lighter side of slashers and anyone who needs a little more rock opera in their life.

Black Death 2010

Black Death 2010

This British film slipped by me.  I didn't know about its production, release, buzz, reviews, or critiques.  I love it when someone (in this case a friend known as Baron Von Awesome... freaking awesome handle) brings a film to my attention that catches me completely unaware.  It means that when I get around to watching it I have read only a few articles and maybe a review or two.  This one I couldn't even find a good review that didn't have spoiler warnings.  I went in only knowing the basic premise and that Sean Bean starred in it.  Bean is a great actor who is famous among nerds for his work in the Lord of the Rings series and his upcoming role as Eddard Stark in the HBO adaptation of George R.R. Martin's Game of Thrones.  Bean's high nerd cred is really what sold me on this obscure British medieval horror.

First of all it turns out Bean isn't even really in the real protagonist role.  He is merely the biggest name in the production, but the main character is Osmund played by Eddie Redmayne is fantastic so I don't mind that Bean got all the poster and box art time despite Redmayne playing the protagonist.  This is not to say that Bean plays a minor role, but Redmayne is the lead and John Lynch as Wolfstan seems to get the most lines.  Bean plays Ulric a knight working for an unnamed bishop somewhere in England sent to hunt down witches and a necromancer in a remote village in a foggy swamp.  Bean does an excellent job of being violent and devout at the same time.  He brings out the troubled nature in his character using his notable eyes to display fanaticism or insanity while keeping a calm, cool guise.  Along the way he picks up Redmayne's character Osmund as a guide. Osmund is a young monk who is straying from his vows due to the love of a beautiful young blond.  Along with them is a great group of actors playing the Christian warriors.  Of real note are Lynch as Wolfstan and Johnny Harris as the gruff, violent Mold.  They travel to a village that may or may not be anti-Christian or Pagan.  The village seems to be led by the beautiful Carice van Houten (Valkyrie 2008).  She also does a great job, but it is almost jarring as she is the only person in the cast who seems to be both clean and beautiful.  The makeup crew got a bit heavy with the mud makeup to say the least.

Speaking of makeup, lets talk about the technical side of the film.  The makeup overall was solid especially the boils and sores from the people dieing of the black plague.  There was a sharp contrast though between most of the world being presented as dirty with people smeared with mud and the village in the middle of the marsh where much of the clothing seems too pristine.  I think this was a purposeful decision to add yet more contrast between the Christian world and the supposedly evil village, but it brought me out of the world as I started wondering how the heck they got homespun shirts to look so nice.  So costuming overall was great other than what I just mentioned.  The armors for the most part looked used and worn and the clothes, furnishings, and building all looked genuine to a non-historian like myself. 

The rest of the technical aspects were just as solid.  The Director Christopher Smith, who most won't know unless they saw the comic horror Severance from 2006, really put together a great movie.  It got a bit heavy handed with the narration by Lynch at the end, but he really built a world where a battle between Christianity and a necromancer seems plausible.  You feel the superstitions of the age creeping in constantly while Smith also seems to regularly re-root the film firmly back to reality.  The writer Dario Poloni deserves some of the credit for that as he wrote this thrilling tale, but I feel the dialogue occasionally was too modern.  The Cinematographer Sebastian Edschmid did some great scenes even if the movie wasn't perfect.  One notable scene has the camera locked onto the face of a character as he is dragged and then crucified.  As in much of the film clever cuts don't show all the violence but being jerked around along with the character as he is tortured really was a good, dark touch.    The music and sound by (I believe) Christian Henson is good and plays with the absence of sound like I haven't seen since the last religious action movie I watched, Book of Eli

(2010).  It ratchets up the tension in those scenes like no music could.

So all in all I have to say I really like this thriller period piece.  Even after watching it I can't firmly identify if the movie was pro or anti Christianity, but it does seem to say it is against hunting witches... maybe?  I personally love when the message in a movie becomes a bit muddled, but some may dislike this.  It also deals with medieval Christianity and its sponsored savagery so some religious folk may feel like skipping it.  This movie will draw you into a world where questions aren't answered, the supernatural may be real, and violence or thrills lie in every dark forest.  I would recommend this movie to horror fans who want something deeper than Saw-like gore-porn and people interested in medieval history.