Life imitating art imitating life.

Best Moments in Cinema - Part 1 

Or my personal favourites at least! Things are a bit slow on the review front right now, and asides from watching The Avengers this evening (which is fantastic, but I doubt I have to tell any of you that) I won’t be watching many movies the coming weeks due to uni deadlines. So to keep me in good spirits between work, and to keep this blog a bit more active, i’ll be posting up a few scenes from some of my favourite movies, so perhaps some of you can find some movies in here you might want to check out.
In no particular order, although the first is probably my favourite, given that it is my favourite film! Any film that is an ending will most likely contain spoilers, so don’t watch these unless the description says spoiler-free (descriptions will not contain spoilers).

- Charlotte 

[Click the images to watch the videos.]

1. ‘Amelie’ ending (or the final 8-10 mins) 

Without a doubt my absolute favourite movie; its so strange that I rate a film with such optimism about life this highly! Most of the films I enjoy tend to be quite grim. The last 10 minutes of this film I adore, I implore those who haven’t seen it to go and watch this film pronto, but my god the ending for this is just everything I could have ever wanted from this film. If you plan on watching the clip, then continue to the end to watch clips 11 and 12. Spoilers for those who haven’t seen the film. 

2. ‘Road to Perdition’, rain scene. 

I still personally think this is Sam Mendes’ masterpiece, regardless of what anyone else says, and fuck the critics because this movie is absolute excellence. Even if you can’t appreciate the plot, the acting, or the score, then my god you should at least be able to appreciate the breathtaking cinematography by Conrad L. Hall (this was the last piece he worked on before his death). This scene to be is such a standout scene in cinema, from the lighting, the use of sound (or lack of), the pacing, the acting, everything for me just works here. The first time I saw this film, and this scene, I just sat in silence staring at the screen, hardly believing what I was seeing. The whole picture looks almost like a painting, everything is just breathtaking to look at. Spoilers for those who haven’t seen the film. 

3. ‘Shutter Island’, dream sequence. 
 

A film I honestly wasn’t expecting to be as good as it was, and what sold it to me was a lot of the dream sequences, which reminded me a lot of films like The Shining and David Lynch. A pretty interesting and thought provoking thriller thats definitely worth a watch, and although the ending isn’t that shocking, the way in which it is presented certainly gives it a bit more spark. I wouldn’t say this film is particularly spoilery as it doesn’t really say a lot, but watch up until 3 minutes in for the bit i’m into. 

4. ‘Sunshine’, Capa’s Jump

Another one where i’ll say fuck the critics, this is a beautiful movie. My first proper introduction to Cillian Murphy as both an amazing actor and a beautiful human being, and the first film that made me acknowledge that actually, Danny Boyle is pretty good. Now that i’ve seen 2001: A Space Odyssey, its pretty obvious where a lot of the ideas in this film came from, but a good film nonetheless. I will not deny that this scene in particular, without fail, always makes me sob like a sissy little girl. Also a brilliant example of the genius that is John Murphy, what an excellent score! Not spoiler-ridden for those who haven’t seen it, as it doesn’t make much sense without seeing it in context with the film. 

5. The Fountain, ending. 

Something of a strange film, with lots of religious and spiritual symbolism that i’m not quite sure how it sits with me, and regardless of whether you think this film is a masterpiece or a load of pretentious nonsense, you can’t deny that it looks fantastic. These final scenes, bringing together all three character arcs in the movie certainly don’t tie together all of the lose ends, but the way in which it concludes with each story is both fascinating and beautiful to look and and listen to (again with the score -Clint Mansell is also a genius). Clip is definitely full of spoilers, and unfortunately not the best one rip of this movie as most of the HD versions have been taken down, so even better, all go out and buy this movie. 

Stay tuned for Part 2! 

The Cabin in the Woods (2011, Dir. Drew Goddard)

I’ve been neglecting my role in this blog a bit lately, which is silly given that i’ve seen rather a few good films lately, namely Take Shelter which you should all go and watch pronto. But most people who’ve heard of it know its good, theres not much I can say about that film that hasn’t already been said, and the same could be said for The Cabin in the Woods. But for those who don’t pay attention to reviews and instead go by trailers and movie posters - ignore them. The trailer advertises a horror movie with a twist that isn’t really explained, but it still looks like your standard horror film. The posters of the mis-mashed house are also pretty misleading; I was expecting a house that moves around. I know its a metaphor of reshaping the horror stereotype, but thats from having seen the film. Overall, the advertising for this film is pretty shoddy.

This is most definitely a film for people who are avid horror movie fans, and its much in the vein of the Scream series (which both myself and Chris are big fans of) in terms of its dark humour and overall mood, but it brings much more to the table than just a funny laugh at the slasher genre. Although there is a great deal of mockery of the genre involved in the film, its not afraid to bring crazy outlandish ideas onto the table, and while it doesn’t do this solely for laughs, it doesn’t take itself too seriously either. 

Some people will be familiar with director Drew Goddard, who works mostly as a writer (Lost, Cloverfield, Buffy the Vampire Slayer) as well as a producer (Lost, Alias) and this is his first piece as director and his directing and writing doesn’t disappoint. It’s also written by Joss Whedon (Toy Story, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Firefly), almost everyones favourite writer, so no doubt a solid team of writers will draw in a lot of fans and with good reason. The writing is excellent; the pacing and tone of the humour is spot on and never fails to hit the mark. Acting is all relatively spot on; a few familiar faces (Chris Hemsworth, Thor, Star Trek, and Richard Jenkins, Six Feet Under, Step Brothers, to name a few) and less familiar (Anna Hutchison and Fran Kranz) - they all fulfil their character roles and deliver the lines well, but nothing groundbreaking. Richard Jenkin’s character ‘Sitterson’ is one of the funniest in the film, delivering some top notch lines that will definitely have you chuckling. 

I don’t want to say too much about the films plot as I feel the details of that are best left unsaid so you can enjoy the film knowing as little as possible, but the perfect balance of comedy and horror makes this worth a watch. Its clever, witty, and well worth a watch if you’re a fan of horror and want a pleasant change from the run of the mill torture-porn flicks of recent years. 

- Charlotte

American Beauty (1999, Dir. Sam Mendes)

So anyone who has spoken to me within the past couple of months will know that I adored Mendes’ Road to Perdition, and its rapidly become one of my favourite movies ever. Sure, its not everyones cup of tea (although I feel critics judged it far too harshly in general really), but you can’t deny that it’s a pretty solid film. I hadn’t seen any of Mendes’ previous films, although i’d heard a lot about American Beauty as it’s his ‘defining’ film, or it is from what i’ve heard at least.

I finally watched it today and in all honesty? I really don’t know what to think of it.

The movie visually and musically isn’t too dissimilar to Road to Perdition thanks to a few recurring crew members; Conrad L.Hall (cinematography), and Thomas Newman (soundtrack). The visuals are very much those of a Sam Mendes film; the infamous sequences of Lester fantasising about Angela are certainly breathtakingly shot and wonderfully edited, and there are various stand out scenes in the film, like these, that look spectacular, and combined with Newman’s heartbreaking score, really work well to help the audience understand the minds of these characters, their motives, and their lives. Again going back to Hall’s cinematography; there are so many features that link the two films - the recurring window shots, the rain, and doors. 

Now, going back to the films actual plot a little bit. For those not familiar, the story revolves around Lester (Kevin Spacey, The Usual Suspects, Se7en) and his bid to turn his boring life around and appreciate the little joys and beauties of life, despite strong disapproval of his actions from estranged wife Carolyn (Annette Bening, The Kids Are All Right, Mars Attacks) and daughter Jane (Thora Birch, Ghost World, The Hole). Much of this is spawned from his infatuation with the young seductress Angela (Mena Suvari, American Pie), a friend of Jane’s. The film documents the life of this dysfunction family, their relationships, and the relationships with those around them and those they come into contact with. With an unhappy and miserable home life, Lester is trying to reclaim the lost joy from his youth but this soon proves to have unpleasant consequences, and makes him a few enemies along the way, including those closest to him. Its a study of american suburban life, the ways in which we live our lives, and the pressures and constraints of being a ‘family’. As far as being an exploration of inter-family relationships and self-(re)discovery, this film hits the mark perfecty. Writer Alan Ball really makes us understand the feelings of these characters, even if we don’t necessarily sympathise with them or find ourselves rooting for them, we can understand them because they’re just like you and me - everyday people with everyday problems.

The acting itself is top notch; it was nice to finally see Kevin Spacey in a role that wasn’t just him playing a total psycho nut-job, and although I do still think he has that kind of eerie sinister vibe to him thats been reinforced by films like Se7en and The Usual Suspects, he plays it well here by being the creepy awkward parent. Also worth commending are Annette Bening and Mena Suvari, both of whom portray their respective characters conflicting emotions two perfection; two characters who are both quite similar in their need to project a positive self image to audiences when really this only masks fear and failure. 

Mendes’ directing is of course, completely on form, from the pacing and overall mood of the film, to capturing the idillic supposed perfection of suburban america. 

Without a doubt, American Beauty is a great film. It ticks all of the boxes, and I can certainly see why it won so many awards and has gained such a reputation over the years. 

But did I like it? 

I’m still not sure.

I can’t help but keep comparing it to Road to Perdition. Which I know is a mistake, and I know that American Beauty probably appeals to a wider audience, and explores much more controversial and close-to-home topics than Road to Perdition, and yet I’m still not sold by it. It is very much a late nineties film; its a film of that time, and that place, and the feelings everyone felt in that moment. And now that moment has gone, I can’t help but feel i’m missing the point or the emotion of a lot of it because i’m seeing it from a very different perspective and a very different time. 

Thats not to say this isn’t an amazing film. I’ll certainly give it another try, because I didn’t dislike it. I just didn’t click with it. And I feel this is very much a film of its time; still very much a great film, and one definitely worth watching if you’re a self-confessed film fanatic, but I feel as though it appeals to a certain group of people, and I don’t think I quite fit that group. 

- Charlotte

(A/N: For those who have seen this movie, what were your thoughts on it? Did you ‘click’ with it, and why do you think so?)

Hobo with a Shotgun (2011, Dir. Jason Eisener)

I’m just going to start out by saying that this review is a desperate plea to co-blogger Chris, because despite his love for godawful movies, this is really not worth watching.

I was initially pretty excited by this movie. The premise - of an old homeless man fed up with the extreme violence in his city taking to the streets with a shotgun - is pretty mental. In fact, I expected this movie to be bad, in the way that cheesy 80’s low budget films are, with the over the top violence and ridiculous concept.

And that is exactly what Hobo with a Shotgun is trying to replicate and pay homage to, but instead of being a cheesy-bad-but-good movie, it’s essentially just a pile of crap. Instead of replicating that style and having fun with it, it tries too hard to maintain that style whilst also trying to add a serious tone. You know those movies that are so bad that they’re not even good? This is one of them.

Not even the cinematography could save it; it’s overly saturated colours looking like something made by a 12 year old using Photoshop for the first time. It’s sloppily done, and is just horrid to look at.

The script and acting are pretty bad across the board, minus Rutger Hauer (Blade Runner)  who is competent, (but heaven knows why he decided to feature in this) and all attempts at humour and character development fall flat. Even the few scenes of ‘bonding’ between the two main characters are completely devoid of emotion, not even laughable in their wooden and forced nature. 

This is a pretty poor movie. A real disappointment, bad across the board. Haur does a good job as the lead but ultimately even he can’t save a incredibly poorly crafted movie. Instead of capturing the cheesy fun of B movies, this takes away all of the fun and laughter and is a chore to watch.

- Charlotte

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011, Dir. David Fincher)

First off, i’m going to start by saying that this is a film for fans of the book. It’s watchable for those who haven’t read them, yes, but a lot of the reasons I love this film come from the fact that I am familiar with the story and it’s characters, and i’m also not personally a fan of the Swedish films. So needless to say, when I heard that Fincher was pinned to be directing a adaption to the books I was rather bloody excited.

For those unfamiliar with it’s story, the film revolves around two characters, Mikael Blomkvist (Daniel Craig, Casino Royale, Munich, Enduring Love) and Lisabeth Salander (Rooney Mara, The Social Network, Youth in Revolt); both very different people who through a series of events find their lives crossing over. Blomkvist is a journalist whose name has been tarnished after being sued by a man he wrote an article on, who is contacted by businessman Henrik Vanger who wishes to hire him to find the killer of his niece Harriet. Lisbeth is a troubled young adult with a violent past and a sharp mind who, after doing a background check on Blomkvist for a client, is hired by him as a researcher, and together they go on the hunt for Harriet’s murderer. 

The story is of course, much more than that; the books original title ‘Men Who Hate Women’ gives a clue as to the overrunning themes in the series. It is, of course, worth giving a warning that there are some very graphic sex scenes in this film, particularly of rape, and i’m really not sure how I feel about these. In the book, the key scene in which it features is very graphic; Larsson supposedly witnessed a gang rape in his teens and failed to act, which has had a great impact on the content of these books, and due to the nature and themes in the series I feel that the graphic depiction of rape in both the book and films is necessary. It’s about exposing the things we wish not to see, the things we wish to shove under the carpet and wish would disappear, but Larsson brings them out in the open - we suffer while we read about these scenes of violence, they make us feel uncomfortable, sick, and so on, but its all about exposing the fact that this kind of violence does happen. Of course, reading about it is one thing, and seeing it on screen is another, and there is a very different impact that actually ‘seeing’ these things has. Fincher hasn’t skimmed over these details in his version, and it’s worth noting that some may find scenes in this film to be triggering or upsetting, so it’s worth going in knowing what to expect. Regardless, some would argue that showing graphic details of horrible acts of violence doesn’t necessarily work in conveying what it’s supposed to, but if nothing else, Fincher has been true to the source material and kept the same kind of feel to the books. 

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is not a flawless film by any means. There are some details skimmed over, but in comparison to the Swedish film of the same name, it covers the events of the first film in a lot more detail, and in my opinion, stays far more accurate to the books. There was a lot of speculation as to how Rooney Mara would perform as the infamous Lisbeth Salander after Noomi Rapace’s stunning depiction in the Swedish films, but Mara shines in this film; not cinema’s greatest performance by any means and none of the acting in this film is ground-breaking, but Mara fits the bill perfectly, in both her image and portrayal of the movie’s heroine. I was also quite excited to see Bond-man Daniel Craig take on Mikael Blomkvist and despite the unexplained lack of Swedish accent, he fits the role perfectly, bringing some much needed humanity to his character, as I found Michael Nyqvist’s portrayal of him rather bland. 

I’m aware i’m making a lot of comparisons to the Swedish film and this isn’t without reason; there was a lot of uproar online when it was first announced than an American adaptation of the book would be made, with the usual comments of ‘this won’t be as good as the original’, ‘it’s just another crap american remake’ and I won’t deny that I shared many of these speculations prior to finding out Fincher would be the director, but it’s worth noting that this is very different to the Swedish version for those who have seen it. It isn’t a word-for-word copy, it’s an adaptation of the book that takes a completely different approach; from the characters portrayal, to the depth of story covered, the cinematography and the score; everything is covered in a completely different way and it’s worth mentioning just how different these films are to one another. I don’t doubt that fans will be divided; everyone will have different ideas of how various characters should be portrayed and what parts of the story should be most focused on, but there is certainly no need to give this film a miss just because you are a fan of the books previous adaptation.

Now, back to the film.

One of my favourite aspects of the film is it’s opening sequence. Fincher of course, is known for creating some pretty awesome opening scenes for his films, namely his thriller ‘Se7en’ (1995). Once again he has returned to his Nine Inch Nails sound by recruiting Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross (who also composed the award winning score for his previous film ‘The Social Network’) to create the soundtrack for this film, including the opening song, a cover of Led Zepplin’s ‘Immigrant Song’ featuring vocals by Karen O of the Yeah Yeah Yeahs. I won’t spoil this opening for those who haven’t seen it, but needless to say it’s pretty damned great. There is a version of it floating around on youtube for those who are curious, but it is rather different to the one used in the film’s opening. Going back to the soundtrack itself, Reznor and Ross have once again created some fantastically atmospheric sounds; although I loved the score of ‘The Social Network’, I wasn’t overly convinced as to how well it suited the source material, but here the music is completely relevant and works beautifully with the films dark, gritty feel. 

The cinematography is certainly worth a mention; Jeff Cronenweth (Se7en, Fight Club, One Hour Photo) has perfectly captured the snowy cold intensity of Sweden as it was described in the book, as well as contributing very well to the films overall grim and unsettling mood. The visuals and sound certainly go hand in hand here; both the cinematography and the score compliment each other perfectly.

Other notable mentions include Stellan Skarsgard (Good Will Hunting, Thor, Pirates of the Carribbean: Dead Mans Chest) as Martin Vanger, and on a more minor note, I really liked Goran Visnjic (Elektra, Beginners) as Armansky, who is one of my favourite characters in the book. One of the things I really liked about a lot of the minor characters was they they were introduced briefly, very much as they are in the first book, but from their minor roles you can tell they’re more significant than they appear. They weren’t skimmed over, but at the same time, they weren’t over-indulged; they had just enough screentime to hint at more significance.  

Overall, Fincher has done rather well in conveying the right kind of mood and overall themes from Larsson’s book, and I feel the casting is far supreme to the Swedish film. As I said originally, this is not a perfect film, but it’s an accomplished adaptation of some incredibly in depth source material, and I’m impressed by just how much material from the book made it on screen and in such an accurate and engaging way. At a staggering 158 minutes, this film doesn’t seem that long; the audience is kept engaged and on the edge of its seat throughout, and i’m excited to see how the later films in the trilogy will turn out, as this film only gives us a glimpse at the potential that this new trilogy has. 

- Charlotte

Road to Perdition (2002, Dir. Sam Mendes)

I’m going to start off by saying that this is one of the greatest films i’ve ever seen, and I can honestly say that I feel this is one of the best movies of all time. Everything about it is masterfully produced, from the direction, to the acting, flawless cinematography, score, and script. And before I go into great depth about the how’s and why’s, I would suggest that anyone with an interest in great cinema seeks out this film. 

Most of you would have heard of Sam Mendes’ work without even realising it; films like American Beauty (1999), Jarhead (2005) and Revolutionary Road (2008) are all down to his direction, so needless to say I had relatively high expectations for this film, purely due to the reputation that precedes him. I was not to be disappointed. Like I said previously, I can’t make any sweeping comparisons to his other features (I’ve only seen Jarhead, a very different movie to this) but this film, without a doubt, has changed the way I see cinema.

The story is a simple one - set in the 1930’s, mobster Michael Sullivan (Tom Hanks) is out on a job when disaster strikes, his young son Michael Sullivan Jr (Tyler Hoechlin) witnesses him commit a murder. The two are forced to go on the run from the mobsters Sullivan has dedicated his life to, head gangster John Rooney (Paul Newman in his last film) and his erratic son Connor (Daniel Craig). The film primarily focuses on the exploration of father-son relationships, mainly that of the two Michael Sullivan’s, but also that of the two Rooney’s. Both fathers are looking to protect their sons at any cost; Sullivan wishes for his son to seek redemption and avoid following the same path as he, and Rooney to shield his son from the mistakes that he has already made that put him in great danger. The only real criticisms i’ve heard about Road to Perdition are at the lack of emotion behind the key father son relationship of the Sullivan’s and this is certainly true; because of the feature’s gangster storyline, it is hard for any real emotion between the two to be explored fully. However we do see some bonding - Sullivan initially treats his son with a cold distance, but after some time they grow closer and work together as a team. Yes, the emotion isn’t as high as some films focusing on similar subject matters, but this film isn’t about emotional bonding, or happiness and warmth - it’s two people put into a tragic situation and forced to put aside their differences and work together. The distance between the two is not un-justified, and I feel it’s relatively in keeping with the movie itself and its themes.

The characters to me are certainly some of the stand out aspects of this film; based on a graphic novel by Max Allan Collins, I suppose we have him to thank for the interesting people we see come onto the screens in this film. Some of my personal favourites include Craig’s depiction of Connor Rooney; a troubled, unstable son of a gangster, whose spent his life waiting for the day when he’ll follow in his fathers footsteps, yet takes unnecessary, foolish measures to try and reach this goal, and hitman Harlen Maguire (Jude Law), an actor who i’m not usually fond of, but plays the insane photographer-plus-hitman wonderfully well. My only issues with these characters was that I wish they had been in more scenes.

Now my absolutely favourite aspect of this film is the cinematography. Conrad L. Hall (whom the film is dedicated to, also worked on films such as American Beauty, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, and Cool Hand Luke) does a breathtaking job at capturing the true essence of the film in certain standout scenes, such as Sullivan Jr witnessing the murder, and even Daniel Craig taking a drag on a cigarette becomes something quite beautiful. The rainy shoot-out towards the end of the film is surely one of the greatest movie scenes in cinema history, the combination of music, sound, and cinematic composition make this short scene truly powerful and earth-shattering.

Of course, Thomas Newman (Meet Joe Black, Wall-E, The Shawshank Redemption) is to be praised too for his beautiful soundtrack, which compliments the quiet serenity of the film well.

This is a stunning and totally overlooked picture. For something that came out in 2002, i’m surprised it took me this long to even hear about it. The praise for this film should be endless, and I hope in years to come people will truly understand what a great picture this is. This stands along films like The Godfather, and Goodfellas in terms of greatness, but even those without an interest in mobsters and violence can appreciate the true power and magnificence of this movie. I don’t care what you’re doing right now, hell, i’m supposed to be writing an essay right now, but this seems far more important to me. See this movie. 

- Charlotte

Anonymous asked: Transformers 3. Why?

Because Michael Bay hates art and and delights in the suffering of human beings above all things.

Halloween (2007, Dir. Rob Zombie)

(Note: The following review is based on the Director’s Cut of the film)

It’s hard to imagine an easier way to earn the ire of legions of horror fans in this day and age than to announce a brand-new remake of a beloved classic. From the moment of its announcement you can all but guarantee hordes of faithful fans who have stuck by their given franchise through the worst of the sequel-happy 80s descending upon the IMDB message boards en masse raging about the travesty is being wrought upon their once-proud series, as if the act of remaking a film somehow causes the source material to stop existing.

It took a long time and a lot of raging of my own to realise how silly the whole affair was. It’s true that horror remakes are almost invariably cynical exercises in brand recognition not worth the time it takes to watch them.  The same could also be said for a very great many horror sequels, with the added offence of being a part of the same continuity as the original and generally doing terrible things to the mythology in a way that retroactively taints their predecessors. No, most of these remakes have no damn cause to exist; but they do and there’s no real use nor reason in fighting them.

In retrospect it probably should have come as no surprise when Rob Zombie announced his intentions to remake John Carpenter’s 1978 seminal slasher Halloween. Both of his projects up to that point had been remakes after a fashion - the borderline-unwatchable House of 1000 Corpsesowed more than a little to The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and the shockingly excellent follow-up The Devil’s Rejects was at its heart a riff on Bonnie and Clyde imbued with the blood of countless 70s exploitation flicks. So it was that Zombie, armed with Carpenter’s blessing and the advice to make the project his own, set out to bring us a brand-new version of the timeless original.

Except he didn’t. It becomes abundantly clear only moments into this new Halloween that Zombie really has made the material his own. Indeed, there’s a lot that tells us from the opening moments that we’re watching a Rob Zombie film and very little that suggests a relationship to Carpenter’s work.

After a title card informing us that it’s October 31 in Haddonfield, IL (the year, by my calculation from the film’s other title cards, is 1992), we join events already in progress at what we’ll soon learn is the Myers household, where hardworking Deborah Myers (Sheri Moon Zombie, who has again come forward in ability by leaps and bounds since her last Zombie project) is struggling to manage the demands of both a teenaged and infant daughter, as well as the more juvenile yet Ronnie (William Forsythe), her trailer trash live-in boyfriend. It’s hardly surprising that she is out of energy by the time her son Michael (Daeg Ferch) emerges from the bathroom (we know, as she does not, that he was in there disposing of a murdered pet rat).

Off young Michael goes to school, where he is bullied mercilessly about his mother’s occupation as a stripper by resident school bully Wesley (Daryl Sabara). The ensuing fight sees Deborah hauled into the school to discuss Michael’s increasingly violent tendencies with the principal and psychologist Samuel Loomis (Malcolm McDowell), while Michael himself sneaks out to tail Wesley before beating him to death with a tree branch out in the woods in an incredibly vicious scene that is marred by what is thankfully the only poorly-judged slow-motion shot of the film.

Thus is the tone set for much of the next hour as Michael acts out his violent impulses on his family and is incarcerated in Smith’s Grove asylum under the treatment of Dr. Loomis, all filmed with a lot of queasy closeups and grainy cinematography intercut with faked news and archival footage (one touch I liked was the noticably shittier sound quality in the scenes where Loomis is seen recording his conversations with Michael) combined with just enough carefuly crafted longer shots that you couldn’t quite call it ‘documentary style’.

It’s fair, I think, to call this Zombie’s best work to that point, treading well-worn narrative ground with great panache and an unnerring craftsman’s eye. Watching Michael’s journey from teenage fuck-up to passionless killer is genuinely convincing and incredibly unnerving for it, and watching the toll it takes on his mother gives the film its most human and emotionally-charged arc. All good things must come to an end though, and Halloween hits a stumble it never quite recovers from at almost exactly the halfway mark of its 117 minutes.

The action jumps forward a number of years to 2007, when Michael breaks out of Smith’s Grove due to events that, in the director’s cut at least, are almost unspeakably vile. He’s only got one destination in mind, and it’s not long before he’s commandeered a vehicle and is headed straight for Haddonfield. It’s only now that we meet Laurie Strode, the character Jamie Lee Curtis played in the original Halloween and the one that film was chiefly concerned with, and the new Halloween starts actually retelling the events of its namesake.

Unfortunately, because we’re already an hour into the film at this point, something had to go to keep it a reasonable length and the axe fell on Laurie. Not content with butchering her role, she’s then placed in the hands of the wretched Scout Taylor-Compton, who has absolutely nothing in her repetoire beyond being shrill and and obnoxious. It’s a performance that makes even the few scenes spent introducing her and the two friends she spends her time trading crudities with (credit where it’s due - Zombie deserves kudos for giving us a Final Girl who is a far cry from pure and virginal) hard to watch.

There are two major flaws that cripple the retread half of Halloween. The first is that it’s too often content to outright copy John Carpenter, only not as well. It’s worth noting that the filmmaking in this half of the film is far more anonymous, although ‘anonymous’ in a Rob Zombie vehicle is a highly relative term. The second is that it’s absolutely not reconcilable with the first half in any meaningful way. Michael Myers as we see him in the second half is a largely characterless brute (played by the frighteningly large Tyler Mane) who shows no real echo of the Michael Myers we’ve just spent an hour with. The only link between the two halves, then, is Loomis, who is portrayed as an occasionally well-intentioned dick with a flair for melodrama that would make the late, great Donald Pleasance blush.

There are some small pleasures. Danielle Harris (in her third appearance in a Halloween film) is by a wide margin the most interesting of the girls as Annie Brackett, matched by Brad Douriff as her father, the town sherriff. The kills, unlike most you’d see in a slasher movie,  are distinctly unpleasant and not-at-all interested in audience satisfaction - the film is never terribly gory, but the deaths are every one of them brutal, held aloft on (perhaps unsurprisingly, given the director’s background) terrific, eye-watering sound design that makes you feel every damn hit. The terrible plot revelation that ruined the original franchise is far more organically a part of this version, and if it had come forty minutes earlier as a continuation of what we’d already seen and not been shelved in favour of bland Dead Teenager boilerplate, it might have been enough to save this wreck. It certainly adds to the impact of the film’s shocker ending, twenty seconds that tries to tie the two disparate halves together with only partial success, but serves in its own right as a pretty indellible image to leave the film with.

Halloween ‘07 is a font of so much wasted potential it’d just about make you weep, but it hits almost as much as it misses. Between the near-perfect first hour and a handful of moments of demented inspiration hidden amongst the dreary last act, there’s more than enough good in the film  to chalk it up as an interesting failure. And in the annals of horror remakes, ‘interesting failure’ is tantamount to ‘a damn masterpiece’. I’m glad the thing exists, and that’s something it has in common with very few modern horror remakes.

- Chris

Happy Halloween, everyone!

Day of the Dead (1985, Dir. George A. Romero)

Day of the Dead is oft-considered the black sheep of George A. Romero’s Dead Trilogy. For a time it was even widely reviled until Romero came back in the late 2000s to show audiences what a lousy Dead film actually looks like*. Even now, though, Day of the Dead is considered the weakest part of the three twentieth-century … of the Dead films. I can’t in good conscience refute that claim in light of how utterly incredible Night and Dawn are, but goddammit I’m going to try anyway because it just doesn’t seem fair.

After an absolute cracker of a hallucinatory opening that must surely stand among the finest images ever conceived across Romero’s career (one which serves the plot in no remotely meaningful way and feels all the more like something from a Dario Argento movie for it), we’re introduced to a gang of four flying high above a deserted city in a helicopter, an obvious continuity nod to the closing moments of Dawn. Over the course of the next few scenes we will learn that these four are members of a government research team, on a routine scouting run from an underground lab nearby.

All is not well at the lab, we soon learn. Tensions are running high between the scientists and the military assigned to protect them, and it’s in a direct confrontation between the two over the weekly progress reports that we learn something vital about Day of the Dead that is absolutely not true of either of its forebears: everyone in this film is a fucking psychopath. No-one is above scrutiny this time around - even the few characters who could even be considered and the same league as ‘good’ are so in a totally amoral way, and a great many more of them are irredeemably awful (there is a slight skew of this latter category towards the military, something carried over from Romero’s own The Crazies). Thus does Day reveal itself to be Romero’s cruelest satire yet; this time around there are no good choices and just maybe it’s because we don’t deserve them.

So does Day of the Dead proceed for most of its running time. The atmosphere and scenario are unmistakably that of a zombie movie but the shambling dead themselves are in short supply (when they do appear their purpose is as it always was - to underscore the brutality of the petty human goings-on) in favour of the human element. It helps that Romero’s cast of unknowns is the most even yet - there’s a little bit of overacting going on, but no more than the script deserves and everyone is tuned into the same wavelength. When the zombies themselves are given a chance to shine in the film’s finale they feel more like a force of furious divine judgement than a horde of decrepit corpses.

By God do they look the part, though. For the first time in the series’ history (due to a combination of budgetary reasons - Night, and creative ones - Dawn), the zombies actually look like the animated corpses they are. Longtime Romero collaborator Tom Savini is at the top of his (always impressive) game and by extension we’re treated to the most gruesome effects yet in a series that has pushed envelopes at every turn (remember that infamous gut-pulling scene from Dawn? Think of it as a jumping-off point here). All of it serves to give the violence a vicious kick in keeping with the film’s heavily ramped-up vicious tone.

It’s not fun watching any step of the way and maybe that’s why, as a reviewer I feel drawn to it over Dawn of the Dead’s overt comedic stylings. It is, so the field would have you believe, far easier to praise miserable, nihilistic films than to reward comedies that are every bit as human and artistically valid. It’s entirely possible. I couldn’t tell you myself why I bought Day’s uncrompromising bleakness over Dawn’s cheeky satire, but I did. I don’t know how Day would fare against its siblings in an objective assessment of quality, but that is not what a film review is and it never will be.

Day of the Dead is George Romero’s personal favourite of his own films (or so the marketing material would have me believe), and I think I’m inclined to agree with him.

*I am, of course, exaggerating wildly. Land comes achingly close to succeeding and Diary is at worst a flawed but fascinating film. Only Survival is really lousy, and only then by dint of being a merely adequate film by a director who is demonstrably better than that.

- Chris

This is the second-last of this blog’s October horror reviews. I’d have liked to have gotten more in (I’m particularly chafing over the lack of anything from Italy), but circumstances didn’t allow for it. I’ve finally decided on the film I’m going to review on Halloween proper, though. It’s an obvious choice, but probably not quite the one you’re expecting.

Phantasm (1979, Dir. Don Coscarelli)

Since I’m trying to place each of the horror movies i review this month among the genre as a whole, let’s start with a little history lesson.

In 1977 the genre was at an ebb - it had been three years since proto-slashers The Texas Chain Saw Massacre and Black Christmas had shocked cinemas and the game-changing Halloween was still a year away. It was now that indie filmmaker Don Coscarelli, a man with only two low-budget character films behind him took it upon himself to craft a new shocker with a science fiction streak made on rented equipment with a few of his buddies.

The resuting movie was Phantasm, and it was a three-hour character study in which the paranormal elements didn’t appear for over an hour. Correctly realising that such a thing was not remotely saleable, Coscarelli mercilessly snipped ninety minutes from his movie in the name of turning it into a breathless paranormal thriller.

During this drawn out editing and post-production process, fellow independent director John Carpenter would of course release his monumentally influential Halloween, the Film That Changed Everything. It didn’t impact the success of Phantasm, which accrued a dedicated cult following and influenced things to come right up to and including the creation of internet horror sensation Slender Man, but Halloween set huge things in motion that would change the genre’s face forever and left Phantasm feeling like a fond farewell to the horror days of yore.

And a damn good one, to boot. Now we have that out of the way we can talk about why exactly Phantasm is still worth talking about thirty-two years on.

It’s the story of Mike (A. Michael Baldwin), a young teen (Baldwin was fourteen at the time and as far as I know there’s nothing in the film to contradict that) who lives with his older brother Jody (Bill Thornbury) after their parents were killed in an accident not long before the beginning of the movie. Their lives are once again thrown into disarray after the apparent suicide of Jody’s buddy Tommy (we know from the very first scene what these characters don’t - Tommy’s death was murder most foul). Skulking around the cemetery while Jody and his remaining friend Reggie (Reggie Bannister) attend the service, Mike catches sight from the corner of his eye of strange, diminutive robed figures and the local mortician (Angus Scrimm) hoisting a coffin with one hand.

The film is, at this point, three scenes old. Any whiff of plot at all is implied and not outright stated and it’s no time at all before Mike is breaking into the local mausoleum to investigate the goings-on and its mysterious curator (known in the credits and to the fans as the Tall Man). It’s a dizzying series of increasingly bizarre and nightmarish sequences of shocking discoveries and attacks by the Tall Man, not all of which work as scares(although a great many do) but every one of them is earnest and in keeping with Mike’s state of mind at any given point.

The total lack of plot and firm emphasis on taking place inside Mike’s head leave Phantasm vulnerable; anyone who’s seen a lesser Spielberg effort knows the dangers of having your film rest upon the shoulders of a precocious youth, but Coscarelli as Writer, Director and friend of Baldwin’s treats the character with entirely the right level of respect and believability that turns the movie’s gaping weakness into its greatest strength. Indeed, not to discredit Jody and Reggie, who are both wonderful in their own ways, but the horrors in Phantasm are as much externalisations of Mike’s anxieties and past trauma as they are any kind of legitimate narrative right up to a shocker (non-) ending that indicates that much, if not all of the preceding 85 minutes were simply the nightmares of a young boy terrified of losing his only remaining family.

Coscarelli’s brutal editing job serves only to heighten the unreality of it all, favoring the horror elements of the film over the character moments and narrative exposition, alongside a suite of eerie sound design and an unforgettable theme (parts of both have turned up in a truly shocking number of terrible late-90s metal songs) that serve to completely separate Phantasm from the last of its Earthly roots and leave us with one of the tightest, most surreal and effective horror stories ever seen outside of Italy*.

- Chris

*Coming soon: a look at tight, surreal and effective horror from within Italy.