MOVIE REVIEW: Scream 4 (2011)



I honestly went into Scream 4, with moderate expectations. Even though I loved the first one and somewhat enjoyed the two sequels, I knew that a semi-reboot to go above and beyond the first would've been hard to top. With nearly ten years in between 4 and 3 (wow, has it been that long? I remember seeing 3 in the theater!...with my sister, who snuck me in, of course), horror films have gone the way of Saw/Hostel torture porn, ludicrous PG-13 thrillers trying to emulate Japanese ghost stories, and forgettable remakes that have tried to out-do the original in terms of gross-out factor. Without any good slashers in plain sight this past decade (save for Orphan, and I'm probably in the minority on that one!), all I can say is: "Thank God for Scream 4!"

If there is any film, especially in horror, that can go meta-theatrial-over-meta-theatrical, Scream 4 is probably it. If you know the series, someone famous or integral to the plot gets killed in a chilling manner that sets the scene for the rest of the film. This time, the opening actually messed with my head that I kept wondering what events were real and what weren't. For this installment, the plot is centered heavily around horror reboots, remakes, and the so-called "post-modern" aforementioned trends in the last paragraph. The story and script are very clever, with the new teen characters being very self-aware (not bad in the acting department, either). In spite of this, some of them (including the veterans) still fall victim to horror cliches, and the whole film itself features a few glaring examples. My favorites were the cute blonde girl vindicating her credibility to the killer on the phone, by claiming she had a 4.0 GPA, yet, she still flees up the stairs...come on! The other was when Sidney, the main character, witnesses a murder across the street, then enters the house, unarmed, to investigate the scene of the crime. Did she just surrender and snap? Or is she that ballsy? Not very smart, but whatever...

In Scream 4, Sidney, the main survivor of the last three films has carved a niche for herself as a famous author, and returns to her hometown on the 15th anniversary of the first film's murders to promote her new book. The other two are Dewey, who is now the police Sherriff, and his now-wife, Gail, who is itching to become a reporter again after marriage and domesticity have squandered her career. Upon Sidney's arrival, murders start happening again, with Sidney's teenage cousin, Jill, and her friends targeted as victims. In the ten years in between this and the last sequel, Sidney, Dewey and Gail have somehow become semi-legends; the lore of the serial killings has become popularized in a successful slasher series called Stab, and the ubiquity of cellphones, Facebook, YouTube, and blogging have forged a generational gap between the new and veteran characters. The killer knows this, and exploits the new tropes in some exciting and creative ways.

Good sequels are hard to come by, but I feel safe by saying Scream 4 exceeded my expectations by becoming a good enough film to standalone in it's own right. Besides the minor cliches bugging me, I also thought the tone was slightly uneven, early on - mild one minute, then scary the next. The thrills worked, and I was on the edge of my seat for the whole time, but in the beginning, they seemed sort of random. On a more interesting note, I kind of figured out who the killer was, in the middle, but I remained skeptical due to the plethora of red herrings. I'm obviously not going to say who it was, but when the killer was revealed, I felt really disturbed after the killer's motives were explained. Where the first Scream used obsession with horror movies as the catalyst towards the killer's main motives, like a chilling reaction to the spate of school-shootings in the 1990s, the killer in Scream 4 was motivated in a more completely twisted and sadistic way. Just like it's predecessors, Scream 4 manages to make it's own social-commentary, albeit more contemporary. The ending was perfect, for a solid slasher/thriller that made me enjoy the series all over again.

8/10

Peace,
- Jon

MOVIE REVIEW: Let Me In (2010)

Let the Right One In, a Swedish vampire-romance film between two children was everything Twilight should have been, and deserves over half the attention that the latter, pedestrian, disaster-of-a-vampire-film turned out to be. Now we have an American remake, Let Me In, which is more of a re-imagining of sorts that draws upon the original literary source material a la last year's True Grit. While it presents some stylistically interesting departures from how I originally came to know the beautiful story, I had a problem shaking the overall feeling of deja vu which made the two films seem almost too similar to one another.

In the early 1980s, a bullied young boy named Owen, living in an apartment complex in New Mexico befriends his new neighbor; a shady young girl named Abby. What Owen doesn't realize is that Abby is in fact, a vampire, and her serial-killer guardian assists in her dirty work in order to provide her the sanguine sustenance she needs for her survival. When the curiosity of outsiders and Owens bullying start to go to a head, the two decide to take matters into their own hands.

Having really enjoyed Let the Right One In, I was determined to view Let Me In with an open mind. The trouble is, there wasn't really a whole lot stylistically, aside from the cinematography and art direction, that allowed me to disconnect those feelings of overly-embellished familiarity. While the acting and directing are quite good, I was still yearning for the tragic, gruesome subtlety of the Swedish version. Let Me In is played out more like a contemporary horror film, complete with explicit gore and loud scares. I can accept that fact as this is supposed to be a re-imagining, but again, it distracted me from my interest in how the relationship between Owen and Abby was supposed to develop. There's a lot to enjoy in Let Me In, and fans of the original will probably find it entertaining, if not, somewhat indulgent, in the tradition of most American remakes.

7/10

Peace,
- Jon

MOVIE REVIEW: Antichrist (2009)

Hello friends! Sorry it's been awhile, but between work and training for my new promotion to Pharmacy Technician, real life has been catching up to me a lot faster than usual (and leaving me with less leisure time). So I'll be doing my best to catch up on my writing this week, now that I have a little bit more "me" time.

About a week ago, I watched this offering from Lars Von Trier and the Criterion Collection: Antichrist, and I will say, despite two scenes of disturbing footage, the film is probably the most disgusting thing I've ever seen since Salò, or the 120 Days of Sodom. Antichrist is a harrowing tale about a bereaved couple who retreat to a getaway cabin in the woods after the accidental death of their son. What they begin to experience, aside from the wife's depression-induced hysterics, involve a series of unsettling visions that suggest the woods is haunted by some mysterious force that threatens to consume the unsuspecting couple in their wake.

Antichrist sounded interesting to me on paper, but the execution of it was not entirely to my liking. After a very provocative silent black-and-white opening with the son's death punctuated by graphic depictions of sexual intercourse, the film takes a slow, quiet course that's periodically interrupted by an argument, or a sex scene, and later on, disturbing acts of violence. It goes without saying, I was bored with the gaunt, nihilistic approach to drama. Charlotte Gainsbourg is just depressed and crazy throughout, and Willem Dafoe seems tired and stoic. For the film's first hour and thirty minutes, the only thing that kept my attention were the occasional vision, punctuated by dark, fantastical imagery.

But here's where things really hit the fan, by making me gag and sending my libido into an all-time low. The following description is rather graphic, so I'll let you highlight the rest. To save any of you from the trouble of enduring such disgusting scenes I'll just point out - there's a moment where Gainsbourg, enraged at her husband, takes a 2x4 to his testicles and masturbates him to the point where he ejaculates blood. She later on, severs her own clitoris with a pair of scissors at the apex of her madness. I swear, I am not making any of this up. For these scenes alone, the film has done really nothing to make an impression other than physically nauseate me with disturbing imagery. While I can't deny it's artistic qualities, the tepidness of the story and the violence are enough for me to deny a recommendation for Antichrist, unless you're into these kinds of works.

4/10

Peace,
- Jon

MOVIE REVIEW: Inferno (1980)

Continuing my little Dario Argento-fest has been much more of a mixed bag than I expected, not to say that I haven't been entertained, but most of the time they've raised my expectations a little high. From the stellar Tenebre to the disappointing Bird with the Crystal Plumage, I've now seen Inferno; Argento's second entry in his supernatural "Three Mothers Trilogy". I have no desire to see the third film right now, as by all accounts, I'm told it's terrible. Inferno however, shows he still has some of the stylistic edge he retained from the brilliance of Suspiria, but it lacks some momentum on its story.

Inferno starts off with a woman uncovering tomes regarding three evil witches known as The "Three Mothers", one of whom inhabits New York and threatens to terrorize the world upon her release. When the woman goes missing, her brother, a music student, goes searching for her around the city, and finds her apartment. Among her eerily-lit abode, he encounters the strange denizens, all connected in some way to some big secret, surrounding the woman's involvement with the Three Mothers.

Most of this sounds pretty compelling, and stylistically, it is. So much of the lighting and mood are almost exact duplicates of the amazing work Argento did in Suspiria. Inferno is supposed to be it's spiritual sequel, so it's no surprise it shares some stylistic qualities in common with its predecessor. The problem is, a lot of the story is bogged down by some plodding kill sequences that are meant to build suspense by showing the characters searching around for someone, or something, but up until the actual horrifically graphic murder, it's just boring. And these kind of sequences happen a lot, so there's a lot of unevenness with the plot. They didn't really bother my enjoyment of the movie, that much, and I will say Inferno is worth checking out if you're willing to maintain the patience.

7/10

Peace,
- Jon

MOVIE REVIEW: The Bird with the Crystal Plumage (1970)

The Bird with the Crystal Plumage continues my enjoyable high off of Dario Argento films. This one, being his first is an interesting start, because for his debut film, Argento already displays the talents of his one-of-a-kind style. Unfortunately, as a thriller, I found it quite underwhelming in comparison with the intensity of Argento's later giallo and supernatural horror works.

Set in Rome (no surprise!), a young writer encounters a woman being brutally attacked in an avant-garde art gallery by a black-cloaked figure. Unwittingly involved as a witness to attempted murder, he decides to take matters into his own hands and solve the mystery on his own. A ton of red herrings ensues and some unsettling, but not exactly scary "kills" occur, until the killer is finally revealed. Rather than any reaction of shock, mine was disappointingly dulled to more of a rhetorical "oh, really?"

Perhaps it's unfair for me to judge the start of a healthy artistic career as inferior in comparison to later work, but as it stands, Bird didn't grip me as much as say Suspiria and Tenebre did. Both were relatively successful films later on in Argento's career, so I'm glad this one was enough of a hit for him that it allowed him to expand his creative wings. The relatively mild tension, somewhat aimless plot, and flimsy intimidation that the film exuded though, just happened to make it less of an enjoyable experience for me. It's a good thing some of Argento's later films fared much better.

5/10

MOVIE REVIEW: The Stepfather (1987)

The Stepfather is a slick thriller with a pretty creepy villain, but sorely lacking in a compelling story or characters. Terry O'Quinn, whom some of you may remember from "Lost" as John Locke is the titular "stepfather" - a serial killer whom is established in the first few minutes of having butchered a suburban family, changed his appearance, and relocated to a small town near Seattle to prey upon another unsuspecting family. His reason - to find the perfect family. When things don't go "perfect", he snaps into a murderous rage. This family in particular, has a troubled daughter, who's relationship with the stepfather is rocky at best. She starts getting suspicious when his behavior gets more irrational, and tries to uncover more about him.

From the looks of things, all of this may sound good on paper. But in fact, the film is very short on plot, and events seem to happen "just because", which only makes for predictability the majority of the time. Worse, it seems the writers gave O'Quinn's character the red carpet treatment, in terms of depth, but not as much to his supporting cast members. Perhaps it's the acting? For example, the lead heroine is this pipsqueak young lady who looks like she lept off of the cover of "Seventeen", and she's supposed to be a rough, violent, misanthrope who ultimately gets expelled. She plays vulnerable throughout the entire film; I felt like she was miscast. The same disappointment can be expressed for a lot of the other characters too - a clueless mother, and a meatheaded detective with an 80s semi-mullet.

O'Quinn however, steals the show in The Stepfather, his deadpan delivery of the film's darkly humorous dialogue and ability to flip personalities like a switch is a treat to watch. It's a shame the rest of the film is out of his league. The film reminded me somewhat of Orphan, only that film actually toyed with your sympathy for some of the characters, and here, the backstories are nebulous at best. We never actually figure out what compels Mr. Stepdad on his bloodthirsty quest, but maybe the writers couldn't either.

Apparently there's a remake out there that seemed to have came-and-went with little fanfare. I guess the remake's predecessor had enough of a cult following to justify being released in the first place!

6/10

Peace,
- Jon

MOVIE REVIEW: House (1977)

There's this well-known home video label in the US, known as The Criterion Collection; famous for putting out carefully selected independent, foreign, and culturally significant cinema. Every so often, one of my cinematically-inclined friends will persuade me to rent one of their products out of specific interest. Luckily, some insightful (and loaded!) patron supplies my local library with nearly every Criterion Collection DVD out there, so obtaining them usually isn't a problem for me. Especially when the rest of the population has to obtain these DVDs or Blu-Rays by either NetFlix or forking over the lump sum and praying it's a movie they'll not regret buying. The DVDs/Blu-Rays are intentionally expensive, due to processing costs (for more info, click the link to the Criterion site).

Needless to say, when I found out from one of my friends that Criterion put out a crazy, cult, Japanese horror film named House, whose box describes itself as "An episode of "Scooby Doo" meets Mario Bava", I had to check it out. Even with Criterion's pedigree, it didn't surprise me that they released something like this, especially when they had the balls to release the S&M torture-porn "masterpiece" Salò, or the 120 Days of Sodom (the thought of seeing it again still makes me shudder). The end result with House is some wacky fun that may turn off serious horror fans, but will definitely please anybody else who enjoys a good helping of "WTF?!" in their film.

House is about a girl named Gorgeous who takes her six female friends to visit her ailing aunt, for the summer, at her lush, cabin in the woods (already, you can see where this is going!). If you ever wanted to know where the stereotype for cute, sailor-clad, Japanese girls with machine-gun laughter came from, you need look no further than House, since the film promulgates it to no end! The seven girls themselves are a vague parable for the "Seven Dwarves" or the "Seven Deadly Sins", each with their own unique personality or talent (my favorite was the girl named Kung-Fu, for obvious reasons!). Upon reaching auntie's house, strange things start happening when a watermelon turns into a disembodied head and tries to bite a girl on her rear, or when the guest-room mattresses start to gang up and try to suffocate another. This is only the beginning, as the gags start to get more violent and weird. But boy, is it entertaining!

The director, seems to set us up for what would seem like an ordinary haunted-house movie with a gaggle of giggling teenage girls. Only unlike many films of House's time, these girls aren't getting drunk, horny, and naked (...okay, one of them does take a bath), they're simply hanging out, making dinner, and being all domestic until strange things start happening. This film isn't meant to be exploitation or straight-up horror, rather a stylized, 88 minute-long dream sequence with a really annoying theme song (It's no surprise either, that the director used to do music videos). As someone who enjoys crazy movies like Dead Alive or Airplane!, I felt right at home with House (no pun intended!). Although the film's bizarre nature can be a little grating at times, and the fact that I felt the ending dragged itself out a bit, House is a must-see for all fans of general comedy-horror.

8/10

Peace,
- Jon

MOVIE REVIEW: Tenebre (1982)

Lately, I've been on a bit of a Dario Argento kick. Don't ask me why, but I guess it all started when I rented Suspiria, after hearing that it was considered one of the scariest films of all time. Since seeing it, I was very pleased (and scared sh*tless!), so naturally, I've been taking interest in what has to be some of the most artistic horror films I've ever seen.

Tenebre is about an American horror-author who travels to Rome in order to promote his latest novel - a crime/slasher of the same name as the film. Upon arrival, an obsessed fan starts comitting murders similar in fashion to those outlined in his book. The author begins to become suspicious, and then nervous, as the bodies of those close to him begin to pile up...

Tenebre had a similarly brilliant effect on me as did Suspiria, in terms of atmosphere. Although it may seem unfair to compare the two, because Tenebre is more grounded in reality, Argento's use of style appears to have remained consistent in this period of his work. The drawback from these Italian horror films, aside from the dubbing is the misinterpretation of sleazyness or going "over-the-top" that may seem apparent to American audiences. In this case, we get extended sequences of gore, nudity, and unnerving musical score by the rock band Goblin. All of which are done well, and effectively in my opinion. Watching Argento can truly be like watching a nightmare unfold in front of your eyes, due to the vividness of all these qualities. Much of this is also supported by some great camerawork.

In spite of it all, I wasn't quite as captivated by the story in the end as I'd have hoped. Tenebre built itself up to what I hoped would be an explosive conclusion, but it came off more like a "Wait! That was it?"- kind of feeling. Not necessarily anti-climactic, but maybe not as shocking as I'd have hoped. At least they played the killer's demise and final showdown appropriately enough.

7/10

Peace,
- Jon