I'm a sucker for Stephen King's material, and there's already a lot out there. But here's some good ideas I would like to see made into real movies (or at least, tv mini-series):
Richard Bachman's Thinner, and Richard Bachman's Running Man.
These wouldn't just be remakes - they'd be really good remakes! The movies "Thinner" and "The Running Man" are old and outdated...and they don't follow the books well enough. Why? Maybe because the studios were trying to make "Stephen King Movies" instead of "Richard Bachman Movies." R.B. is much darker, and more twisted than S.K. There's a reason he wrote these under a different name - it's like they're written by an entirely different person. The Running Man has needed updating ever since it first came out. Who ever thought Schwarzenegger would be good for the part? Not to mention they changed almost everything else from the book. Thinner was much better the first time around, but I would still like to see a darker version with better special effects.
Monday, March 5, 2012
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Movie Review #13 - The Grand Fanale
Saw VII
Shock Value: 20 of 33
Queasiness: 33 of 33
Suspense: 20 of 34
Total Scare: 73 of 100
Ok – this is supposed to be the grand finale of the Saw series. It's actually called SAW 3D but I hate that title, so I'm keeping it Saw VII. This movie starts out – surprise surprise – with a trap. The big difference is that this looks like a public execution. WOW! That's new – that's something that hasn't been done. How does it tie into Hoffman, Jigsaw, or anything else in the Saw series? Who knows? They never explain who set it up, or if it provided the cops with any more clues. While this was a very intense intro scene they never brought it up again...and this is the last movie! There will never be a chance to explain it!
Ok – moving on... This movie probably has the most, and most grotesque traps in all the saw movies. The car scene in the junkyard was probably the most horrific, but there's plenty to choose from.
Hoffman seeks revenge from Jill. Now...think back to the last movie. John told Jill he PROMISED a way out for her. Did he keep his word? No. Somewhere in the story the promise changed – and the insurance that John was hinting at was for someone to take care of Hoffman WHEN and IF he tried to do anything to Jill. So – sorry Jill – even though he promised you, I guess he would rather wait and avenge your death than prevent it. (This just doesn't match John's character at all...I wish she would have been granted her escape – even if she didn't make it out, the way should have been there!)
The game in this movie has absolutely no bearing on Hoffman – except that he offers to end it if Jill is turned over to him voluntarily. We know that this game was designed by Jigsaw – the people in this game were all connected to him...so Jigsaw wasn't the one who authorized the game's end in exchange for Jill – that was all Hoffman, because he wanted revenge!
So the man in this game goes from room to room and again he has to save other people (The director of Saw 6 and 7 were the same...I don't think he understood the psychology behind the traps...in these last two movies it's all about saving someone else when the victims are supposed to save themselves.)
I was intrigued by the main character who lied about his original Jigsaw encounter...and it was perfectly fitting for him to re-enact the same trap that he had bragged about escaping. But does he succeed? With anyone? No – every person he tries to help dies...including his wife. Where's the justice in that? What's the point? Supposedly he was going to prove his love for her – is the writer/director saying that he didn't really love her? Or was the trap just “too hard”...(that wouldn't make any sense either – all of John's traps were escapable for those who valued life...)
The final chapter of this series still leaves us wondering “what's going to happen next?” and “what about the little girl?” (we have been shown scenes with the little girl enough now...we were expecting her to come back and point out Hoffman as the killer...I guess those were wasted scenes too, because she's never going to get her chance.) The return to the original set is fitting, but also pointless. If a certain doctor (who shall be left unnamed for those of you who haven't seen it yet) was really in on it from the beginning – how come Hoffman never knew about it? How come the cops don't know? What about Amanda – did she know? Yes – we were all expecting him to come back and play a part...but what part did he play? It had to be a small part to go unnoticed by so many people that were close to Jigsaw. I'm betting there will be another Saw movie...one of these days someone will start noticing all of the ends that weren't tied up, and they'll say: hey, what if we just made another movie? And again we'll get another boring knock-off that doesn't really answer anything.
-----------SPOILER ALERT------
And another thing...Every movie in this series has a WOW ending...except this one. Who thought of that great idea? Part 1: The killer is the dead guy! (Best ending of a horror movie ever!) Part 2: the kid was safe the whole time – the entire story surrounding the kid happened in the past! (excellent). Part 3: Jigsaw Dies, Amanda Dies... (how can Jigsaw keep rehabilitating people if he's dead?) Part 4: It's not a sequel but happens simultaneously as part 3! (I've NEVER heard of this twisted ending before) Part 5: They could have all survived! (it actually had a semi-hopeful moral to the story – strange and unique in the saw universe) Part 6: They weren't HIS family – he was responsible for her husbands/his fathers death! (they way the story is told you could never figure it out) Part 7: Hoffman dies to be replaced by another Jigsaw copycat? Wow...this plot device has been used throughout the series...(Jigsaw/Amanda, Jigsaw/Hoffman, Rigg was a suspected copy cat and so was agent Straum) and this is the ending to it all? Weak...
I had to lower the ratings on the Saw movies because, even though they're all very gross and shocking their story lines get weaker and weaker. The over-all story is very well designed, and you always want to know more about the big-picture. However, the smaller stories within each movie get very repetitive. Their only redeeming factor is the twist endings.
SAW MOVIES In order of favorite endings...
1, 5, 2, 4, 6, 3, 7
In order of favorite traps...
1, 6, 5, 7, 2, 3, 4
In order of favorite characters...
1, 3, 5, 6, 2, 7, 4
In order of favorite contributions to the overall plot
1, 3, 5, 4, 6, 7, 2
Shock Value: 20 of 33
Queasiness: 33 of 33
Suspense: 20 of 34
Total Scare: 73 of 100
Ok – this is supposed to be the grand finale of the Saw series. It's actually called SAW 3D but I hate that title, so I'm keeping it Saw VII. This movie starts out – surprise surprise – with a trap. The big difference is that this looks like a public execution. WOW! That's new – that's something that hasn't been done. How does it tie into Hoffman, Jigsaw, or anything else in the Saw series? Who knows? They never explain who set it up, or if it provided the cops with any more clues. While this was a very intense intro scene they never brought it up again...and this is the last movie! There will never be a chance to explain it!
Ok – moving on... This movie probably has the most, and most grotesque traps in all the saw movies. The car scene in the junkyard was probably the most horrific, but there's plenty to choose from.
Hoffman seeks revenge from Jill. Now...think back to the last movie. John told Jill he PROMISED a way out for her. Did he keep his word? No. Somewhere in the story the promise changed – and the insurance that John was hinting at was for someone to take care of Hoffman WHEN and IF he tried to do anything to Jill. So – sorry Jill – even though he promised you, I guess he would rather wait and avenge your death than prevent it. (This just doesn't match John's character at all...I wish she would have been granted her escape – even if she didn't make it out, the way should have been there!)
The game in this movie has absolutely no bearing on Hoffman – except that he offers to end it if Jill is turned over to him voluntarily. We know that this game was designed by Jigsaw – the people in this game were all connected to him...so Jigsaw wasn't the one who authorized the game's end in exchange for Jill – that was all Hoffman, because he wanted revenge!
So the man in this game goes from room to room and again he has to save other people (The director of Saw 6 and 7 were the same...I don't think he understood the psychology behind the traps...in these last two movies it's all about saving someone else when the victims are supposed to save themselves.)
I was intrigued by the main character who lied about his original Jigsaw encounter...and it was perfectly fitting for him to re-enact the same trap that he had bragged about escaping. But does he succeed? With anyone? No – every person he tries to help dies...including his wife. Where's the justice in that? What's the point? Supposedly he was going to prove his love for her – is the writer/director saying that he didn't really love her? Or was the trap just “too hard”...(that wouldn't make any sense either – all of John's traps were escapable for those who valued life...)
The final chapter of this series still leaves us wondering “what's going to happen next?” and “what about the little girl?” (we have been shown scenes with the little girl enough now...we were expecting her to come back and point out Hoffman as the killer...I guess those were wasted scenes too, because she's never going to get her chance.) The return to the original set is fitting, but also pointless. If a certain doctor (who shall be left unnamed for those of you who haven't seen it yet) was really in on it from the beginning – how come Hoffman never knew about it? How come the cops don't know? What about Amanda – did she know? Yes – we were all expecting him to come back and play a part...but what part did he play? It had to be a small part to go unnoticed by so many people that were close to Jigsaw. I'm betting there will be another Saw movie...one of these days someone will start noticing all of the ends that weren't tied up, and they'll say: hey, what if we just made another movie? And again we'll get another boring knock-off that doesn't really answer anything.
-----------SPOILER ALERT------
And another thing...Every movie in this series has a WOW ending...except this one. Who thought of that great idea? Part 1: The killer is the dead guy! (Best ending of a horror movie ever!) Part 2: the kid was safe the whole time – the entire story surrounding the kid happened in the past! (excellent). Part 3: Jigsaw Dies, Amanda Dies... (how can Jigsaw keep rehabilitating people if he's dead?) Part 4: It's not a sequel but happens simultaneously as part 3! (I've NEVER heard of this twisted ending before) Part 5: They could have all survived! (it actually had a semi-hopeful moral to the story – strange and unique in the saw universe) Part 6: They weren't HIS family – he was responsible for her husbands/his fathers death! (they way the story is told you could never figure it out) Part 7: Hoffman dies to be replaced by another Jigsaw copycat? Wow...this plot device has been used throughout the series...(Jigsaw/Amanda, Jigsaw/Hoffman, Rigg was a suspected copy cat and so was agent Straum) and this is the ending to it all? Weak...
I had to lower the ratings on the Saw movies because, even though they're all very gross and shocking their story lines get weaker and weaker. The over-all story is very well designed, and you always want to know more about the big-picture. However, the smaller stories within each movie get very repetitive. Their only redeeming factor is the twist endings.
SAW MOVIES In order of favorite endings...
1, 5, 2, 4, 6, 3, 7
In order of favorite traps...
1, 6, 5, 7, 2, 3, 4
In order of favorite characters...
1, 3, 5, 6, 2, 7, 4
In order of favorite contributions to the overall plot
1, 3, 5, 4, 6, 7, 2
Movie Review #12
Saw VI
Shock Value: 20 of 33
Queasiness: 30 of 33
Suspense: 20 of 34
Total Scare: 70 of 100
The series continues with it's blood-filled sequences, and characters that come and go. Hoffman is still around – he's causing a lot of problems. The FBI reveals that Perez never really died, and Hoffman is aloud to work with them. As they get closer to realizing it is Hoffman himself he gets ready to go berserk.
The game in this movie revolves around a manager of an insurance company. It seems to me that this movie really does a good job of drawing the audience to hate this man (and insurance companies all together.) He goes from trap to trap – each time he is the one who has to help someone else to survive.
In the previous saw movies the victims help themselves – this is the defining difference of this movie. He acts as a guide/decision maker and chooses which people live or die. The twist in this movie is also very good (probably the best thing about these movies is their fake-out endings). I won't spoil it, but I was happy when the ending came...I really don't think I could have seen it coming.
The traps in this one were ok – maybe a little less creative, but still gross and shocking. I didn't really like the scenes between a mother and son that had been locked up. Throughout the movie they are arguing on weather or not they should pull the lever. I mean – if that's all they're going to talk about why does the movie waste time SHOWING US that's what they're talking about...surely their characters could have been a little deeper, but no...if you watch this movie and you see the mom and her son, fast forward because all they talk about is the lever...
Jill's part is expanded again, I was grateful for that, and she plays a big part in the story when she strikes back at Hoffman – saying it was John's final will that Hoffman be tested.
Shock Value: 20 of 33
Queasiness: 30 of 33
Suspense: 20 of 34
Total Scare: 70 of 100
The series continues with it's blood-filled sequences, and characters that come and go. Hoffman is still around – he's causing a lot of problems. The FBI reveals that Perez never really died, and Hoffman is aloud to work with them. As they get closer to realizing it is Hoffman himself he gets ready to go berserk.
The game in this movie revolves around a manager of an insurance company. It seems to me that this movie really does a good job of drawing the audience to hate this man (and insurance companies all together.) He goes from trap to trap – each time he is the one who has to help someone else to survive.
In the previous saw movies the victims help themselves – this is the defining difference of this movie. He acts as a guide/decision maker and chooses which people live or die. The twist in this movie is also very good (probably the best thing about these movies is their fake-out endings). I won't spoil it, but I was happy when the ending came...I really don't think I could have seen it coming.
The traps in this one were ok – maybe a little less creative, but still gross and shocking. I didn't really like the scenes between a mother and son that had been locked up. Throughout the movie they are arguing on weather or not they should pull the lever. I mean – if that's all they're going to talk about why does the movie waste time SHOWING US that's what they're talking about...surely their characters could have been a little deeper, but no...if you watch this movie and you see the mom and her son, fast forward because all they talk about is the lever...
Jill's part is expanded again, I was grateful for that, and she plays a big part in the story when she strikes back at Hoffman – saying it was John's final will that Hoffman be tested.
Movie Review #11
Saw V
Shock Value: 25 of 33
Queasiness: 33 of 33
Suspense: 22 of 33
Total Scare: 85 of 100
Personally this is probably my second favorite movie in the series. While the story is no longer very suspenseful (the franchise uses the same formula for each movie...although each gets it's own twist ending you should know what to expect by now in pacing, deaths, gore, character and so on.)
The movie begins with a “jigsaw trap” - the pendulum and the man in the trap dies before he escapes. This is the first movie where jigsaw is actually dead all the way through...and Hoffman is the main villain. We see in this movie his involvement with jigsaw from the beginning. How did Jigsaw move all those bodies around if he's such an old guy? Well – he had Hoffman helping him.
In this movie Hoffman focuses his attention on the latest game – four rooms that house five people. They must complete each trap in each room before a certain time (when nail bombs explode killing anyone left in the room). At the beginning they are told “You will want to do one thing, but I implore you to do the other.” In the last room there is two survivors who discover that all five of them could have made it out...if only they had worked together. This is the theme that I love so much about this movie. While their reason for being in this trap is still vague at the end of the movie (They claim that they were all involved in destroying a building while there were still people living inside...none of them were punished for it...but how does Jigsaw know about this? What does he care?) their success is overshadowed by the larger plot of the movie – Hoffman is being chased down by agent Straum from the FBI.
Hoffman leads him ever closer and when Straum finds him he is told to get inside a glass coffin with broken glass on the inside – it's his only way out. Straum ignores the advice, and Hoffman ends up in the coffin...the room is one big compactor and crushes Straum, but Hoffman is spared. It seems like Hoffman gets away, for now.
My least favorite trap in this movie is the room with the glass bottles that hold the keys to the cells. It's a little too obvious that they could have all survived that one...but the resulting mess is quite stimulating...
Jill Tuck gets her character fleshed out – we see her relationship with John (before he formally became Jigsaw) and we also see her receive a mysterious box... Hoffman's escape and Jill's mystery box are a great ending. While we never learn about what happened to the survivors of the game we realize it doesn't really matter – their test was unique and they failed to see the answer before three of them had died.
Shock Value: 25 of 33
Queasiness: 33 of 33
Suspense: 22 of 33
Total Scare: 85 of 100
Personally this is probably my second favorite movie in the series. While the story is no longer very suspenseful (the franchise uses the same formula for each movie...although each gets it's own twist ending you should know what to expect by now in pacing, deaths, gore, character and so on.)
The movie begins with a “jigsaw trap” - the pendulum and the man in the trap dies before he escapes. This is the first movie where jigsaw is actually dead all the way through...and Hoffman is the main villain. We see in this movie his involvement with jigsaw from the beginning. How did Jigsaw move all those bodies around if he's such an old guy? Well – he had Hoffman helping him.
In this movie Hoffman focuses his attention on the latest game – four rooms that house five people. They must complete each trap in each room before a certain time (when nail bombs explode killing anyone left in the room). At the beginning they are told “You will want to do one thing, but I implore you to do the other.” In the last room there is two survivors who discover that all five of them could have made it out...if only they had worked together. This is the theme that I love so much about this movie. While their reason for being in this trap is still vague at the end of the movie (They claim that they were all involved in destroying a building while there were still people living inside...none of them were punished for it...but how does Jigsaw know about this? What does he care?) their success is overshadowed by the larger plot of the movie – Hoffman is being chased down by agent Straum from the FBI.
Hoffman leads him ever closer and when Straum finds him he is told to get inside a glass coffin with broken glass on the inside – it's his only way out. Straum ignores the advice, and Hoffman ends up in the coffin...the room is one big compactor and crushes Straum, but Hoffman is spared. It seems like Hoffman gets away, for now.
My least favorite trap in this movie is the room with the glass bottles that hold the keys to the cells. It's a little too obvious that they could have all survived that one...but the resulting mess is quite stimulating...
Jill Tuck gets her character fleshed out – we see her relationship with John (before he formally became Jigsaw) and we also see her receive a mysterious box... Hoffman's escape and Jill's mystery box are a great ending. While we never learn about what happened to the survivors of the game we realize it doesn't really matter – their test was unique and they failed to see the answer before three of them had died.
Movie Review #10
Survival of the Dead
Shock Value: 28 of 33
Queasiness: 28 of 33
Suspense: 24 of 34
Total Scare: 80 of 100
This is the start of “the sequels” section. Survival of the Dead is part 2 of Diary of the Dead. It has a funny introduction by George Romero that really shows a good sense of humor from the master of zombie movies. It might have been that introduction, or some other bias on my part but this movie really did feel pretty funny. Not “Scary Movie...STUPID funny,” but “Tremors...SCARY funny...” Many of the gruesome scenes had me laughing. Don't get me wrong – it was gross – but it was also a little over-the-top / yeah-right kind of grossness.
I was very pleased with some of the issues this movie brings out that other zombie movies ignore. Why don't the zombies eat animals? Are the zombies really dead? Can they be cured...or at least civilized? I love the characters in this movie...we begin with a band of characters that were “bad guys” in “Diary.” Then we include an old man from an island (who thinks he's doing the world a favor by killing all the zombies). The opposing force on that island had banished him so they could try and civilize their dead. It was a creepy thought. Survival isn't filmed from a hand-held camera, so its easier to watch. This gives you more of a third-party type of view which means you have to figure out who's the good guys and who's the bad guys. (In “Diary” you could argue that because the movie was filmed from the film student's point of view then they were automatically the good guys and any opposing force were the enemy. However – with this movie we begin with characters who we thought were bad...and now we see their good side.) The man who's trying to do God's will seems to be the one who is in the wrong...however – the end scenes of the movie suggest that maybe he wasn't wrong either. In a post-apocalyptic world it's not so easy figuring out who is on who's side, and who's side is the best side.
Shock Value: 28 of 33
Queasiness: 28 of 33
Suspense: 24 of 34
Total Scare: 80 of 100
This is the start of “the sequels” section. Survival of the Dead is part 2 of Diary of the Dead. It has a funny introduction by George Romero that really shows a good sense of humor from the master of zombie movies. It might have been that introduction, or some other bias on my part but this movie really did feel pretty funny. Not “Scary Movie...STUPID funny,” but “Tremors...SCARY funny...” Many of the gruesome scenes had me laughing. Don't get me wrong – it was gross – but it was also a little over-the-top / yeah-right kind of grossness.
I was very pleased with some of the issues this movie brings out that other zombie movies ignore. Why don't the zombies eat animals? Are the zombies really dead? Can they be cured...or at least civilized? I love the characters in this movie...we begin with a band of characters that were “bad guys” in “Diary.” Then we include an old man from an island (who thinks he's doing the world a favor by killing all the zombies). The opposing force on that island had banished him so they could try and civilize their dead. It was a creepy thought. Survival isn't filmed from a hand-held camera, so its easier to watch. This gives you more of a third-party type of view which means you have to figure out who's the good guys and who's the bad guys. (In “Diary” you could argue that because the movie was filmed from the film student's point of view then they were automatically the good guys and any opposing force were the enemy. However – with this movie we begin with characters who we thought were bad...and now we see their good side.) The man who's trying to do God's will seems to be the one who is in the wrong...however – the end scenes of the movie suggest that maybe he wasn't wrong either. In a post-apocalyptic world it's not so easy figuring out who is on who's side, and who's side is the best side.
Movie Review #9
Diary of the Dead
Shock Value: 25 of 33
Queasiness: 30 of 33
Suspense: 25 of 34
Total Scare: 80 of 100
One more installment into the Dead series. This is not the blockbuster (like the new Dawn of the Dead) and certainly not the wannabe blockbuster “Land of the Dead” but a straight to DVD, small budget movie by the zombie master himself: George Romero. Romero doesn't need big budgets to get big scares out of movie audiences, and this movie is a good example. While there is always a little bit of “going to far” to show the gore in these kinds of movies at least there is an attempt to present a realistic landscape and characters. The hand-held camera techniques seem to be more popular these days (perhaps after Cloverfield made its appearance) and it's (in my opinion) a great medium for a zombie movie. Romero picked it up at just the perfect time (I'm a little surprised that he hadn't thought of it sooner).
Zombie movies usually attempt to present a far-fetched horror tale in a very realistic style, and “Diary” goes one step further to make you feel like your in the movie. The narrator is one of the survivors who has edited the film sometime after it all takes place, and it's in memory of the kid who was supposedly shooting most of the movie. Near the end the film student dies and his girlfriend announces she's going to finish his movie for him.
Throughout the movie we are reminded about what a hassle the camera is for our team of survivors. No one really seems to appreciate the fact that the main character always has it with him and is always shooting the film. There are several statements made about photography, cinematography, directors, actors and the like which force the audience to think about the reality of it. When one character says “we are inoculated to the world around us by looking through a lens...”(paraphrased) she is directly talking about their experiences with death and zombies...but you can also see how the statement can be applied to the media and the movie industry our world. This is not a new technique but I think it is used successfully in this movie.
There aren't very many plot twists: that seems to be a recurring theme among zombie movies in general. We start with a group of people who are killed off one by one. They roam the country side looking for survivors. Sometimes they find someone still alive (usually that someone dies before they leave the temporary sanctuary) and sometimes they just find more zombies.
Another commonality among zombie flicks is the lack of explanation as to why or how the zombie virus spread. In most movies I would see this as a negative thing, but I think with zombie movies its actually important that we don't know the reasons for it. The idea is this: if it were to happen in real life, we probably would never figure it out. Suggesting a rationality for something like a zombie virus suggests that humans are powerful smart creatures that can overcome the unknown...but the purpose of most zombie movies is to express the opposite. That there are some things we'll never know and some things we cannot hide from. Survival is less sure. Have you noticed how most zombie movies end before the story ends? You usually never find out the rest of the movie, because the audience is forced to be a part of the story...and not a part of a survivor, but a victim. It's almost as if the directors/writers are saying there are no survivors...and if there are no survivors, what's the chance you'll get to be the last one alive? Not good. These story elements are almost essential to “the zombie movie” and are all included in “Diary.” I think Romero will be making these creepy movies the rest of his life...and maybe even longer...
Shock Value: 25 of 33
Queasiness: 30 of 33
Suspense: 25 of 34
Total Scare: 80 of 100
One more installment into the Dead series. This is not the blockbuster (like the new Dawn of the Dead) and certainly not the wannabe blockbuster “Land of the Dead” but a straight to DVD, small budget movie by the zombie master himself: George Romero. Romero doesn't need big budgets to get big scares out of movie audiences, and this movie is a good example. While there is always a little bit of “going to far” to show the gore in these kinds of movies at least there is an attempt to present a realistic landscape and characters. The hand-held camera techniques seem to be more popular these days (perhaps after Cloverfield made its appearance) and it's (in my opinion) a great medium for a zombie movie. Romero picked it up at just the perfect time (I'm a little surprised that he hadn't thought of it sooner).
Zombie movies usually attempt to present a far-fetched horror tale in a very realistic style, and “Diary” goes one step further to make you feel like your in the movie. The narrator is one of the survivors who has edited the film sometime after it all takes place, and it's in memory of the kid who was supposedly shooting most of the movie. Near the end the film student dies and his girlfriend announces she's going to finish his movie for him.
Throughout the movie we are reminded about what a hassle the camera is for our team of survivors. No one really seems to appreciate the fact that the main character always has it with him and is always shooting the film. There are several statements made about photography, cinematography, directors, actors and the like which force the audience to think about the reality of it. When one character says “we are inoculated to the world around us by looking through a lens...”(paraphrased) she is directly talking about their experiences with death and zombies...but you can also see how the statement can be applied to the media and the movie industry our world. This is not a new technique but I think it is used successfully in this movie.
There aren't very many plot twists: that seems to be a recurring theme among zombie movies in general. We start with a group of people who are killed off one by one. They roam the country side looking for survivors. Sometimes they find someone still alive (usually that someone dies before they leave the temporary sanctuary) and sometimes they just find more zombies.
Another commonality among zombie flicks is the lack of explanation as to why or how the zombie virus spread. In most movies I would see this as a negative thing, but I think with zombie movies its actually important that we don't know the reasons for it. The idea is this: if it were to happen in real life, we probably would never figure it out. Suggesting a rationality for something like a zombie virus suggests that humans are powerful smart creatures that can overcome the unknown...but the purpose of most zombie movies is to express the opposite. That there are some things we'll never know and some things we cannot hide from. Survival is less sure. Have you noticed how most zombie movies end before the story ends? You usually never find out the rest of the movie, because the audience is forced to be a part of the story...and not a part of a survivor, but a victim. It's almost as if the directors/writers are saying there are no survivors...and if there are no survivors, what's the chance you'll get to be the last one alive? Not good. These story elements are almost essential to “the zombie movie” and are all included in “Diary.” I think Romero will be making these creepy movies the rest of his life...and maybe even longer...
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Movie Review # 8
Book of Blood
Shock Value: 23 of 33
Queasiness: 27 of 33
Suspense: 29 of 34
Total Scare: 79 of 100
I found another Clive Barker story that I'd never heard of before that was turned into a movie. Book of Blood starts off like your normal ghost story. It has several familiar elements to Poltergeist and other such movies. If you liked Hellraiser, or even Midnight Meat Train (See Movie Review #2), then I would definitely recommend this movie. Barker does a good job at pointing out all of the disgusting little details. Its not just the images on the screen that give you the chills, but the ideas behind them. Also, he likes to push the story much further (and in stranger directions) than other story tellers.
If you find yourself watching this movie, you have to be very careful about finding yourself getting comfortable with the “all too familiar ghost story.” Don't forget how the movie opens, either. The first thing we see is a drifter who is caught by a sociopath who is going to kill him. The drifter doesn't struggle at all, in fact he almost seems to invite death to come.
The next thing we see is our main character: a middle aged woman professor who is also a paranormal investigator. The brilliant thing about this movie is character development. Our main character will reveal that she isn't so innocent, and although she says she's never recorded any proof of ghosts or other paranormal activity (don't worry, I'm not reviewing THAT movie) we later find out that she had several paranormal encounters when she was a child. It isn't clear how much her partner believes in the paranormal, but clearly he believes in her. As the movie plays out we see that he's very interested in her and as her relationship grows with one of her students her partner gets jealous. This is another interesting twist to this movie. Although the main character is a middle aged woman there is a kind of love-triangle between her, her partner, and a student. It's almost taboo, but then again: so is ghost hunting, isn't it?
The love scenes almost make you feel out of place, but I think it works well in this kind of movie where the audience isn't allowed to get too comfortable. Throughout the movie you want to be comfortable: this is a same-old, same-old ghost story movie, right? Wrong. The more you watch the movie the more you realize how different it is.
I won't spoil the ending, but I'll say I wish the last twenty minutes of the movie would have been made into the last half of the movie. There's a big turning point in the plot where you lose everything you're familiar with. It's no longer the same-old ghost story, but has been completely twisted into something new. Of course, the opening scene is shown again. Now we know a little more about the characters, and we think we understand that opening scene now...but no! Again, there is another twist.
While there weren't nearly as many “gross parts” to this movie the few scenes that showed blood did show A LOT. Again, this is a classic Barker strategy. I'm going to try and find this movie on DVD – its very well done for a low-budget movie.
Shock Value: 23 of 33
Queasiness: 27 of 33
Suspense: 29 of 34
Total Scare: 79 of 100
I found another Clive Barker story that I'd never heard of before that was turned into a movie. Book of Blood starts off like your normal ghost story. It has several familiar elements to Poltergeist and other such movies. If you liked Hellraiser, or even Midnight Meat Train (See Movie Review #2), then I would definitely recommend this movie. Barker does a good job at pointing out all of the disgusting little details. Its not just the images on the screen that give you the chills, but the ideas behind them. Also, he likes to push the story much further (and in stranger directions) than other story tellers.
If you find yourself watching this movie, you have to be very careful about finding yourself getting comfortable with the “all too familiar ghost story.” Don't forget how the movie opens, either. The first thing we see is a drifter who is caught by a sociopath who is going to kill him. The drifter doesn't struggle at all, in fact he almost seems to invite death to come.
The next thing we see is our main character: a middle aged woman professor who is also a paranormal investigator. The brilliant thing about this movie is character development. Our main character will reveal that she isn't so innocent, and although she says she's never recorded any proof of ghosts or other paranormal activity (don't worry, I'm not reviewing THAT movie) we later find out that she had several paranormal encounters when she was a child. It isn't clear how much her partner believes in the paranormal, but clearly he believes in her. As the movie plays out we see that he's very interested in her and as her relationship grows with one of her students her partner gets jealous. This is another interesting twist to this movie. Although the main character is a middle aged woman there is a kind of love-triangle between her, her partner, and a student. It's almost taboo, but then again: so is ghost hunting, isn't it?
The love scenes almost make you feel out of place, but I think it works well in this kind of movie where the audience isn't allowed to get too comfortable. Throughout the movie you want to be comfortable: this is a same-old, same-old ghost story movie, right? Wrong. The more you watch the movie the more you realize how different it is.
I won't spoil the ending, but I'll say I wish the last twenty minutes of the movie would have been made into the last half of the movie. There's a big turning point in the plot where you lose everything you're familiar with. It's no longer the same-old ghost story, but has been completely twisted into something new. Of course, the opening scene is shown again. Now we know a little more about the characters, and we think we understand that opening scene now...but no! Again, there is another twist.
While there weren't nearly as many “gross parts” to this movie the few scenes that showed blood did show A LOT. Again, this is a classic Barker strategy. I'm going to try and find this movie on DVD – its very well done for a low-budget movie.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
