Horror films - 2017
| Happy Death Day | It | Annabelle: Creation |
| The Mummy | Kong: Skull Island | Get Out |
| Rings | Split |
____________________
 |
Even if you’re not a huge fan of the horror genre, the elevator pitch for Happy Death Day (Groundhog Day meets slasher flick) is almost too irresistible to pass up. The script by comic book writer, Scott Lobdell (X-Men, Uncanny X-Men), follows a college sorority misfit with the overly obnoxious name of Tree Gelbman (Jessica Rothe), as she relives the same day – the day of her death – over and over again while attempting to solve her own murder. Along the way, we’re introduced to all of the potential suspects as well as a potential love interest for Tree played by Israel Broussard. The supporting characters are, for the most part, two-dimensional, which makes any potential motive a character might have for killing Tree feel very thin. That being said, Rothe’s and Broussard’s performances are more than enough to carry the film and give it some heart.
The film is not overly riddled with scares and, with a PG-13 rating, you can be assured the gore is very mild. Even if it’s not a particularly scary scary movie, Happy Death Day is nonetheless very entertaining. It’s a fun mix of horror and comedy that leans more light-hearted despite its subject matter and dark social commentary. It’s a silly and fun film that revels in being exactly what it’s trying to be: a turn-your-mind-off-and-have-fun-at-the-movies movie. I’d recommend this film as a fun alternative to any of the darker, more sinister horror films out this Halloween.
- Michael Trainor
____________________
 |
Remakes, sequels, and reboots have filled up the cinema for a long time now. So it should be no great surprise to see Stephen King's popular horror story It being remade. It's true that the 1990 version was a two part television miniseries, but miniseries were big in those days. Another King-adapted story, Salem's Lot, had been quite successful in miniseries form in 1979. Recalling when it first aired, I still have vivid recollections of Tim Curry's iconic portrayal of Pennywise, the demonic clown that can get into your head, pull out your deepest fears, and then sadistically put them right in your face. So, I am bound to ask, as I have with other remakes, did we need this film? Does it bring anything new to the table?
Our story is set in the late 1980s. Bill's (Jaeden Lieberher) younger brother Georgie (Jackson Robert Scott) is playing outside in a summer rain with a boat Bill made for him. The rain washes the little boat into a sewer drain and it is here he encounters "Pennywise the Dancing Clown" (Bill Skarsgard), with grim results. Georgie disappears and everyone assumes he is dead except for Bill. Nearly a year passes and the school year ends. We are introduced to "The Losers Club" - Bill, his best friend Richie (Finn Wolfhard), Stan (Wyatt Oleff), and Eddie (Jack Dylan Grazer). They are the "losers" of their school - younger teens who aren't physically imposing and have some nerdy traits. In time, they are joined by Beverly (Sophia Lillis), a girl bullied by the other girls, Ben (Jeremy Ray Taylor), the new kid at school, and Mike (Chose Jacobs), the "home-schooled kid." The Losers meet up with both Ben and Mike in the aftermath of their violent encounters with the vicious local teen hoodlum Henry Bowers (Nicholas Hamilton) and his gang of bullies.
As the summer progresses, we are given glimposes into each of the Losers' lives and the things that haunt them - Bill's unresolved denial of losing Georgie, Beverly's abusive father, Stan's fear of a picture in his father's office, etc. With time, their fears take on new life as the demonic clown begins appearing to them one by one, exploiting what scares them. Together, they struggle to protect themselves and one another from the darkness that lies just under the surface of their small town of Derry, Maine.
So, how was it?
It's hard to compete with Tim Curry's Pennywise. Why would a clown be scary? It's a bit like someone telling you a bad joke - which is at your expense - and then mocking you for not having a sense of humor. It's scaring the bejesus out of you and then accusing you of not being able to take a joke. It's terrifying and demoralizing all at once. That was what Curry's Pennywise did so well.
I'm going to go out on a limb and go against some of the love that is being heaped on this film. I think the marketing campaign was very good and people have wanted the film to be good so much that they were willing to give it a pass on some things. But I just didn't think It was all that scary. Skarsgard is fine as the mirthful to vicious Pennywise, but so much was done to digitally or with makeup alter and make unnatural his appearance, that it's hard to say how much the actor is really responsible for. I've seen enough horror movies that the jump scares don't really surprise or phase me much anymore. The same is true of the unnatural movements and shape-altering created with cgi. After The Ring, The Grudge, and other films showing jerky, grisly animated images, it starts to look too familiar to have much impact. My pick for the most frightening film of 2016 was Don't Breathe, a film with zero special effects, just lots of suspense and terrifying situations.
Director Andy Muschietti's only prior film credit was Mama (2013), the story of two young girls who had a ghost as a kind of surrogate mother. One of my complaints of that film was of Muschietti's tendency to show too much. Stephen King adaptations have usually done well when they were able to create a moody atmosphere that built a feeling of dread. We could have used a bit more suspense-building here. In many ways, this felt more like an action film that a horror film.
Where It shines, however, is not in the horror. This movie - at least in my view - is actually about friendship. The overarching theme seems to be that it's not a safe world out there. Other people will try to prey on you - peers, bullies, parents, the guy behind the cash register, some demon escaped from Hell, or just your own doubts about yourself. But with courage and the love and loyalty of friends, we might just be able to get through it. At least we will have a better chance. Through the gifted and, I assume, well-directed performances of these young actors, their personalities and their relationships seem very genuine. We are able to invest in these characters and care about them.
Like the miniseries, this story will be told in two parts. It would be nice not to have to wait too long for It: Chapter Two, but production won't begin until spring of 2018. Part Two is about the Losers all grown up and coming together again to face Pennywise after his 27-year slumber. The grown up versions of the Losers haven't even been cast yet. I'm somewhat hopeful that when It is faced with adult adversaries, more adult fears may be addressed. I'm hoping for a part two which is twice as frightening as part one.
Pennywise's appearances are staggered by 27 years. Is it just a coincidence that the It miniseries aired in 1990 and now the big screen adaptation is here in 2017? What dark powers might be behind that?
- JC
____________________
 |
Imagine wanting a thing so badly, that after God says ‘no’ you are willing to ask anyone for help. Anyone - or anything - at all. Perhaps not a good idea.
Annabelle: Creation is the fourth film in New Line’s Conjuring series. It creates an origin story for the creepy Annabelle doll which has appeared in nearly every film.
In our story, a doll-maker and his wife lose their young daughter in a tragic accident. Several years later, they open their home to take in a nun and six girls displaced from a closed down orphanage. Shortly after their arrival, they began to experience eerie phenomena emanating from the dead girl’s locked up old room and a sinister-looking doll that had been sealed in a closet.
I have to give credit to the designers of the Annabelle doll from The Conjuring (2013). The actual doll that the movie doll is based on looked like a Raggedy Ann doll, nothing like the blood-chilling version from these films. Whatever power the real doll may have had has been eclipsed by the reputation and stories that have succeeded it. If the doll was actually possessed by a demon, I’m sure it is very proud of how the legend has grown. [For the record, let’s be clear. While the main Conjuring stories are based on cases of the Warrens, this story, as well as the previous prequel Annabelle (2014), is totally made up.]
Annabelle: Creation does successfully create dramatic tension with its mystery elements and its scary goings on. However, there were moments when I thought the suspense was too drawn out and actually made the story drag. It’s hard to stay invested in the characters when you are getting bored.
Since each Annabelle story has gone back in time a bit further and this one went to the beginning, let’s hope New Line will put Annabelle to rest. But as long as the money keeps coming in, Annabelle will probably try to creep up on us again.
- JC
____________________
 |
In these days of multi-billion-dollar grossing film franchises, I don't at all begrudge Universal for attempting to bring back one of the very first. Particularly in the 1940s, the movie theaters were filled with the eerie eploits of Dracula, Frankenstein's monster, the Wolfman, the Mummy, the Invisible Man, and others. Over time, audiences moved on from the moody and sinister to the more lurid forms of horror and threats from outer space. But the classics never really go out of style. Do they? And so, Universal brings us this first film in its Dark Universe.
The Back-Story: In story-teller form, we are shown the tale of Princess Ahmanet (Sofia Boutella) from five-thousand years ago. Born the daughter of the Pharoah - beautiful, cunning, and fierce - she anticipated the day she would inherit her father's rule. However, her father re-married and his new wife gave him a male heir. Ahmanet, rather than see her birthright stolen, sold her soul to the God of Death, Set, and murdered her father, his wife and son. But before she could perform the ritual to bring Set to Earth, she was captured and entombed alive.
The Story: Set in the present day, two solidiers, Nick Morris (Tom Cruise) and Chris Vail (Jake Johnson), unwittingly uncover a hidden tomb in Iraq. They are joined by Jenny Halsy (Annabelle Wallis), an archaeologist Nick had been briefly involved with (15 seconds?). Nick is able to free an ancient Egyptian sarcophagus from its containment and at Halsy's insistence, it is removed to be transported via plane by the men's military unit. Bad things immediately start to occur, since by freeing the coffin, Nick brought Ahmanet's curse upon himself and now she has designated him as Set's host in our world.
The Good: As always, Tom Cruise commits to roles and he brings his characteristic energy and charisma to this one as a somewhat anti-hero (though not really). Sofia Boutella seems to get cast in roles that require a feral sexiness - Gazelle in Kingsmen: The Secret Service, Jaylah in Star Trek Beyond - and this one is no exception. It was an interesting choice of Universal to change the gender of the Mummy, but in a Universe full of male beasts, she is convincing as a female one. As Dracula is a male monster who beguiles and seduces women, Boutella's Ahmanet could easily do the same to men. She reminded me somewhat of the Queen of the Damned character, Akasha, from Ann Rice's story. It was also a treat seeing Russell Crowe as Dr. Jekyll, leader of an organization attempting to thwart supernatural evil in the world, but also as Hyde, a cockney-voiced juggernaut with no such altruistic interests.
The Not-So-Good: In the past decade, we've been inundated with zombie stories, so the scenes of twitching corpses stumbling back to life and chasing the heroes has actually gotten old. Just as Ahmanet is reminiscent of Akasha, she is also unfortunately similar to the "Enchantress" character of last year's Suicide Squad. While the film was successful overall, the villainess was one of the key complaints. Drawing the inevitable comparisons to the Stephen Sommers Mummy films from the 2000s, the romantic bonds between characters on both sides seems lacking. An attachment between Nick and Jenny is supposed to exist, but there doesn't seem to be much chemistry present.
Here is the big question though, why is Tom Cruise in this film? Universal meant to launch their Dark Universe series with a film where the mythology is going to play second fiddle to this being another "Tom Cruise movie?" Perhaps they were concerned that unless they had an "A-lister" as a star, no one would pay to see it. Perhaps. But the film might have been better served with someone whose presence is less of a distraction.
I grew up with a genuine love for the old Universal classic horror films and their characters. The schlocky sci-fi horror of the 50s and 60s was a pale imitation. In the 1940s, film-makers didn't have the means to dazzle us with the (often grotesque) creature effects of the 80s, such as John Carpenter's The Thing (1982) or An American Werewolf in London (1981). They certainly didn't have the computer generated imagery which makes today's superhero films possible. In the 40s they had to generate unease on a black and white screen with mood, shadows, acting and direction. The remakes of these stories can improve on the effects, but can they offer anything else? I'm actually rooting for them because of a love for the characters. Hopefully they will keep telling their stories, even if their earnings aren't quite up to the level of the other franchises. Time will tell.
- JC
____________________
 |
Legendary Pictures continues its development of their “Monsterverse,” started in 2014’s Godzilla, with Kong: Skull Island. The film marks the giant ape’s first big screen appearance since director Peter Jackson’s epic remake of King Kong in 2005.
Our story scraps the classic tale of 1930s movie-makers blundering their way to a mysterious island with a blonde starlet to make a cheesy jungle movie. Instead, we find ourselves in 1973, where a secret government organization – “Monarch” – is trying to mount an expedition to the newly-discovered Skull Island in search of mythical creatures. And even if there aren’t any mythical creatures, we need to claim this new island before the Soviets do. Seriously. Like the Fantastic Four had to beat the “commies” into outer space in 1961.
Using this “red” herring, Monarch agent Randa (John Goodman) is able to talk a Senator into letting him and a handful of his scientists go to the island. They are accompanied by a helicopter squadron just leaving Vietnam, commanded by Lieutenant Colonel Packard (Samuel L. Jackson), a former British SAS Captain Conrad (Tom Hiddleston) as their jungle survival specialist, and photojournalist Weaver (Brie Larson).
The Monarch scientists’ plan is to penetrate the perpetual electrical storm that encircles the island in combat helicopters. Once they have reached the island, they intend to explore it seismically by dropping bombs all over the island. Seriously. They are “exploring” the island by dropping bombs on the terrain without making any serious efforts to explore the island by even looking around to see what or who may be there.
Not surprisingly, calamity ensues.
Apparently, the filmmakers listened to complaints about 2014’s Godzilla. The giant star was barely seen until the end of the film. One doesn’t go to a Godzilla movie to NOT see him. The same would apply to Kong.
As our hapless heroes are told by a WWII pilot, Marlow (John C. Reilly), who they find marooned on the island, living with the natives for 28 years, “You don’t go into someone’s house and start dropping bombs unless you’re picking a fight.” We aren’t forced to wait until the end of the movie to see what we came to see.
So, let’s be clear. The plot of this film is a bit sophomoric. The characters are more like caricatures. When Monarch has a team of scientists and they are accompanied by a squadron of recent Vietnam veterans, why is it again that they need a former SAS soldier and a photojournalist? But then again, does any of that really matter? The plot and characterizations are thin, but are they any worse than they were in Jurassic World? This isn’t Shakespeare or even Apocalypse Now (though it seems to want to be). It’s a King Kong movie. We get to see a 100-foot tall Kong fight combat helicopters and giant monsters and have occasional interactions with puny humans. And the Kong scenes really are a blast to watch.
Could the story and characters have been better? Absolutely. But this film really exists for its action scenes. Goodman was probably miscast in this role and doesn’t bring much to it. Jackson is over the top as a war-loving soldier who goes into Captain Ahab mode going after Kong. Hiddleston, more buff than I have even seen him, seems to be auditioning for leading man action roles. And Brie Larson is the obligatory King Kong blonde. On the other hand, the casting of John C. Reilly as the long-marooned WWII pilot was something of a stroke of genius, whether fully comprehended by the director, Jordan Vogt-Roberts, or not. He functions equally well as comic relief, provider of exposition about Skull Island, and stalwart hero.
But I don’t hate this movie. It’s big, dopey fun, like Arnold movies were in the 80s and 90s. If you just want to get a bucket of popcorn and root for Kong while he kicks ass, this is for you.
- Swift
____________________
 |
Get Out is the directorial/screen-writing debut of Jordan Peele. Peele is mostly known for a 15 year long career performing in comedy at Chicago's Second City and MADtv. He also co-produced and co-starred in the comedy Keanu (2016) with frequent comedic collaborator Keegan-Michael Key. So, his first film is a horror movie?
Scott Mendelson interviewed Peele about his new film for Forbes magazine. "I've been a horror fan for so long. I've done so much comedy. . , but you could recognize a lot of similarities between the genres. So much of it is pacing, so much of it reveals."
Get Out tells the story of a twenty-something inter-racial couple, Chris (Daniel Kaluuya) and Rose (Allison Williams), who are about to spend the weekend at the home of Rose's white parents, the Armitages. Both are doctors, Missy (Catherine Keener) a psychiatrist and Dean (Bradley Whitford) a neuro-surgeon and they live in a very upper-middle-class home in the country. The film zeroes in on the subtle racism that people feel. As many white people have come to understand, bending over backward not to "seem" racist is just another way of perpetuating the distinction. The Armitages seem very accepting, though sometimes in awkward ways, such as Dean's high regard for Obama and his apologies for their African-American maid and groundskeeper. But little things make Chris increasingly uneasy - the odd behavior of the black people he meets there, the Armitage's negative reaction to Chris' smoking, and Missy's hypnotizing Chris without his consent.
The plot manages to present us with the type of mystery common in horror films. What is really going on and why? And what are the rules of this world, or in other words, how far can this go? Are the Armitages involved in some psychological experiment with "domesticating" African-Americans by brainwashing them ("whitewashing," essentially) or is it something else entirely?
The performances of the lead actors are all very good. Lil Rel Howery provides both levity and, surprisingly, the voice of reason as Chris' friend, Rod, who is also black. Stephen Root (Officespace (1999)) is also a nice addition as one of Missy and Dean's white friends.
The film is a good standard horror thriller. It builds suspense very nicely up until the third act. The climax seemed a bit rushed however, which may have been an issue of the director's inexperience or something as simple as the budget. Perhaps I just wasn't ready for it to end yet. And while I won't spoil anything, there is a chilling twist near the end that shows what really makes a person a monster.
While this film succeeds as a horror film, it is mostly distinguished for its social commentary on the relationship between blacks and whites and this was Peele's intention.
"As with comedy, I feel horror and the thriller genre is a way . . we can address real life horrors and social injustices . . We go to the theater to be entertained, but if what is left after you watch the movie is a sort of eye-opening perspective on some social issues, then it can be a really powerful piece of art."
- JC
____________________
 |
The little girl who wants to hurt people is back. She says she is sorry. But it won't stop.
Twelve years after The Ring 2 (2005), we are given Rings. The Ring 2 was a disappointing follow-up to the highly successful film The Ring (2002). Often, a bad sequel can kill a franchise, but as we witnessed in last year's Blair Witch, film-makers are now less averse to trying to revive these franchises after a number of years. But as Blair Witch and Independence Day: Resurgence showed us, some sequels don't really need to be made.
In this story, the cursed video is found by Gabriel (Johnny Galecki), a college professor poring over and purchasing some old video equipment at an estate sale. By his ill-fated luck, he discovers a copy of Samara's tape lodged in the old VCR. He watches it, of course, and then observes the odd manifestations it triggers. We jump ahead an indeterminate period of time and find that Gabriel has had the hubris and stunningly bad judgment to take the death curse and "play with it." He decides to treat it as an object of study. He writes a paper on it as proof of life after death and involves students from his classes. He forms a methodology of passing on the curse so people can see it without it ever catching up to anyone. Julia (Matilda Lutz), the protagonist of our story, goes in search of her missing boyfriend, Holt (Alex Roe), who happens to be one of Gabriel's students. She finds him and then the two begin their struggle to survive the curse while learning the deeper mystery behind Samara Morgan.
Critical response to this film has been distinctly harsh. Rottentomatoes.com has a fluctuating single digit approval rating. Although the film is not up to the level of the original, I simply don't think it's bad enough to deserve all of this hate. The film does offer us suspense in the form of the threat of Samara and the ticking clock of her arrival. It also plays out as a mystery (as the first film did) as Samara passes along clues that tell more of her story. However, on the negative side, it does follow the trend I noted in Blair Witch and Independence Day: Resurgence, of casting pretty young people as leads instead of better actors playing more three-dimensional characters.
No sequel is ever going to have the impact of the first film. In The Ring, there was the mystery of what was happening to people and why. There was the threat of the curse and the fact that until nearly the end of the film we don't really discover the rules of this twisted universe - in other words, exactly what happens on that seventh day. But once you've seen the dead girl come out of the TV, the shock really can't be reproduced.
The ending of the film throws in a couple of twists, but they weren't that unpredictable. More Ring movies could be made, but I'm afraid that if they continue on the path they have displayed thus far, the next installment could be direct to video. An ironic twist indeed.
- JC
____________________
 |
M. Night Shyamalan continues his exploration of the kind of films he is good at (The Sixth Sense, Unbreakable, Signs) instead of the kinds he is not (The Last Avatar, After Earth) with the psychological thriller Split. This suspenseful yarn tells the story of three teenaged girls kidnapped by a man, played by James McAvoy, with disassociative identity disorder (multiple personalities).
This story works well on a couple of different levels. At once, it is a suspense tale of the three abducted girls. The writer doesn't insult our intelligence by depicting them as ditzy girls who either cower and cry or try to act like Wonder Woman. They work to understand their situation. They make attempts at escape from their obviously unhinged captor. McAvoy is uncanny and chilling as he adopts different personas and seamlessly shifts from one to another. This tale is also an exploration of the workings of the mind - one which in this case can house over twenty distinct personalities. How far might the powers of such a mind reach? To what extent can we make ourselves into whatever we believe ourselves to be?
Anya Taylor-Joy is good as the primary heroine of our story and Betty Buckley also as the psychologist who is both treating and studying Kevin (McAvoy). But honestly, McAvoy's performance stands out so much that it's easy to overlook the others.
Shyamalan is known for including twists in his stories and this one is no exception. The film's ending shows a relationship between this film and one of Shyamalan's others, hinting rather strongly that there may be more story still to tell. I hope this turns out to be true.
Split is a spine-tingler that may have you shifting in your seat. And James McAvoy's performance alone is worth the price of admission. It's good to have Mr. Shyamalan back doing the kind of work he does best.
- JC