CINEMA GLAMORAMA

captaincoolasfuck:

Stoker (2013)

I’m going to do my best to avoid spoilers with this review, but to start things off I need to make one thing clear: this is the definition of an incredibly well-made bad movie. The script is atrocious. With the exception of a flashback scene involving Matthew Goode’s character, Charlie, and India’s (Mia Wasikowska) father, Richard (Dermot Mulrooney), the writing is horrible to the point of head shaking. The dialogue of the entire first third of the movie is stale and just plain unbelievable. I haven’t seen Prison Break, but for Wentworth Miller’s sake, I hope he’s a better actor than he is a screenwriter. 

That being said, one of the most gifted filmmakers of our time, Park Chan-wook, was hired to direct and because of that the film was somehow saved. While the dialogue and distinctly high number of potholes detracted from my overall enjoyment, I found Park’s filmmaking to be mesmerizing. You leave the theater having been spellbound and entertained for the entire length of the film. 

Each of the three lead actors deliver satisfactory performances. Notably Matthew Goode as the mysteriously ominous, ‘Uncle Charlie.’ Goode is a fantastic actor, and like Rainn Wilson and Patrick Wilson, I often find myself scratching my head at the fact that these guys are constantly cast in bad and lesser-known films.

Nicole Kidman slacks here and there, chewing up scenery, but when she’s good she’s absolutely brilliant. Mia Wasikowska delivers the second best performance of the movie, just behind Goode. She makes her character believable enough so that you’re invested in the film in spite of its flaws.

Basically, if you want to watch a visually stunning film for a little over and hour and half and not get wrapped up in any sort of storyline, this is the movie for you. I will give Park Chan-wook all the credit in the world for making this watchable. Despite being poorly written with a number loose ends, Stoker sticks with you. It’s been on my mind since I saw it last night and my thoughts about it continue to fluctuate. This review could be very different six months from now, when it comes out on DVD and Blu-Ray. For now, I’m going to give it two stars. It is well worth a watch despite flawed storytelling. Give Park and the actors a different script and you’d probably have a great film.

Still, it makes me wonder how this script made the list of ‘Best Unproduced Screenplays’ and had the likes of Colin Firth attached to star. Something is seriously wrong in Hollywood.

**/****

THE INVISIBLE MAN (1933)

I am a pretty avid fan of the old, 1930s/1940s Universal monster movies. I’ve watched Dracula, starring Bela Lugosi, at least twelve times and I also own collectors’ editions of Frankenstein, The Wolfman and The Mummy. There are three major films which belong to that catalog of films, however, which I have not seen. One of them happened to be The Invisible Man. To me, he always seemed like the one of the odd men out. The Justice League had Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman, The Green Lantern, The Flash…and then it had Hawkman…and Atom…and Zatanna. Basically, the B-team of heroes. Well, I always looked at The Invisible Man, The Creature from the Black Lagoon and The Bride of Frankenstein as the back-ups to the starting line up that was Dracula, Frankenstein, The Wolf-Man and The Mummy.

I can’t say I expected much when putting the movie on, but ultimately I was pretty impressed with James Whale’s film. It’s engaging, which is more than I can say about The Mummy. We open up to a bandaged stranger, walking around lonesomely in the cold dead of night, until he stumbles upon a place of gathering that offers room and board. From there, we are slowly but surely introduced to the classic H.G. Welles monster derived from man. Unlike the others apart of the Universal collection, The Invisible Man is a human being. Okay, an argument could be made for the Wolf-Man but still, he’s a dog whenever the moon is full. Claude Rains portrays Dr. Jack Griffin, a man who subjects himself to a chemical test in order to accomplish what no other scientist has ever done - create legitimate invisibility. He does so, but unfortunately for him it is on reversible by means of death. This, however, doesn’t seem to phase him in the slightest. Griffin plans on using and abusing his invisibility to full potential. First by killing strong minor figures then eventually upgrading to political figures and world leaders. In order to do this, he requests the aid of Dr. Kemp (William Harrigan), but when Kemp is hesitant he is forced to strong-arm his one-time partner into agreement.

Horror Genre: ★★★★/★★★★★

Overall: ★★★★/★★★★★

Red State was…alright. I mean, it wasn’t this Earth-shattering film that Smithtards have made it out to be nor was it a complete piece of dogshit like Smith-haters have claimed. It was definitely a unique sort of film, though, and that certainly added to the charm of it, ultimately making me enjoy it more than I typically would have. I wouldn’t say that I am a hardcore Smith fanatic, by any means, but I do enjoy his movies for the most part. I’d say this is easily his most matured work, not in the sense that there isn’t a dick joke every five minutes, but that this is very likely his most well-rounded film. As others have stated before, Michael Parks is the true star of the show here. This role isn’t like any other he’s had before and if you solely associate his name with the character of Earl McGraw from Kill Bill, From Dusk Til Dawn, Planet Terror and Death Proof then he may be unrecognizable here to most. John Goodman is also excellent as Keenan, an ATF special agent put in control of the situation when all things go awry.

As a whole, I really enjoyed some parts of the film and thought others were underwhelming. I thought they pushed the whole anti-gay issue a bit too much, making some scenes come across as unnecessary anti-discrimination propaganda, when they could have just left things as is and gotten the same message across. In terms of acting, surprisingly the least impressive was Academy Award winner Melissa Leo. I can’t say I was totally invested in her performance, which is unfortunate, since she’s one of the best actresses in Hollywood.

I really enjoyed the vibe of the film. While Smith was trying to portray, or parody rather, the Westboro Baptist Church (and he did to an extent) it felt more like a mock-adaption of the 1993 Waco incident in which seventy-six people were either gunned down or burnt to death by government agents. This, obviously, was a huge inspiration for Smith and it certainly helped shape the film and make it what it was. The fact that he implemented this reality into the script as the entire second act was a fantastic decision and lead to some of the most interesting moments of the film. I’m not exactly sure why or how Red State has been labeled a ‘Horror Film’. I don’t evil truly consider The Devil’s Rejects a horror flick. This was in vain of something like that, or could even be considered a reverse-From Dusk Til Dawn where it starts out going in one direction yet ends in another. I love that. The transition from teenage slasher flick to unrequited shoot’em up is certainly a welcome one, at least in my book.

Maybe it requires another watch before I form a full opinion on it but for now, I’d say it was a very mixed bag - leaning toward positive. Overall, I’d give it a:

★★★/★★★★★

RETURN OF THE LIVING DEAD: PART II (1988)

In 2002, I became highly interested in viewing the entire George Romero ‘Dead’ Trilogy after coming across the Night of the Living Dead remake (directed by special effects wizard, Tom Savini) on cable one day. I traveled far and abroad (from the mall to Walmart) searching for this film on VHS or DVD, unfortunately to no avail. As all hope was lost, I decided to rummage through the bargain bin of a now-defunct local department store and, wouldn’t you know, I found myself a DVD with a title ending in “of the Living Dead”. No, it wasn’t the film I was looking for - it was, however, Dan O’Bannon’s homage/unofficial sequel to Romero’s film, The Return of the Living Dead. Needless to say, it was some sort of progress and when I got home and popped it in the DVD player, I was not disappointed.

It’s nine years later and here I am writing a review of it’s sequel Return of the Living Dead: Part II, which was directed by Ken Wiederhorn and released by Lorimar Productions. Yes, you may recognize that name from television - it’s the same company that produced such gems as Full House and Step by Step in the early to mid 1990s. I have a rule in my household, the less Patrick Duffy on my TV - the better. So fuck Lorimar Productions.

This movie basically serves as a sequel, reboot and parody to the original film. It completely ignores the events of ROTLD while subtly acknowledging the film itself through it’s two returning actors - James Karen and Thom Matthews (who I used to think was a young Michael Rappaport for the longest time.) Although, if you’ve seen the original film then you already know that both Karen and Matthews’ characters (Frank and Freddy) are the ones who initially release the toxin which resurrect the corpses of the living dead, and subsequently die due to their misdoings. So, how can deceased characters make a comeback in a sequel (that isn’t a prequel), you ask? It’s quite simple. They don’t. James Karen now plays Ed, an experienced grave robber who is in the midst of teaching his apprentice Joey (Thom Matthews), the ins and outs of stealing from corpses. Trailing alongside the duo (for whatever reason) is Brenda (Suzanne Synder), Joey’s love interest.

While they’re looting jewelry off of dead bodies, a few little boys (one of them eerily resembling Skut Farkus from A Christmas Story) decide to fuck around the same exact cemetery that they’re grave robbing in. Jesse, one of the film’s protagonists, serves as the voice of reason between the three boys and tells Skut and his toadie that they should fuck off and just ignore the barrel of toxic gas. To literally no one’s surprise, they ignore Jesse’s advice and as a result, the stray barrel of Trioxin is cracked open, thus releasing poisonous gas into the atmosphere.

Mimicking the original - both Thom Matthews and James Karen become infected alongside Skut and his toadie, but because Matthews and Karen are recognizable stars their ailment took longer to turn them into zombies. Jesse, meanwhile, remains clean thanks to being bound within a Mausoleum and eventually meets up with his sister and her boyfriend. Unsurprisingly, both characters happen to be the blandest ones throughout the entire movie. They also come across a doctor (Phillip Bruns as Doc Mandel), whose consistent goal over the course of the film is to just be absolutely shitfaced. He happens to be my favorite character in the sequel.

Now, the question is…how does Return of the Living Dead: Part II stack up against the original? And the answer is simple - it’s good, but it’s not that good. Unlike the first movie, this one is definitely lighthearted and more-so comical than scary (which the original was aiming to be.) They poke fun at zombie culture (to the point where they have a Michael Jackson look-a-like corpse dressed in Thriller garb) and do so shamelessly, which really works for the film. On many accounts, this is the definition of a bad 80s horror film - but it knows that, it accepts it and it enjoys having that stigma surrounding it. Some of the lines are absolutely cringe worthy and could put a Roger Corman screenplay to shame, but at the same time you’re laughing out loud at them. Matthews’ character Joey, shortly after converting to a zombie, has a brief discussion with his girlfriend as to why she should let him eat her brains. And succeeds by simply saying that they smell “spicy!” I mean, what the fuck kind of film is this where one of the only two female leads takes a seat and says “Okay, you can eat my brains, I guess. You said they smell spicy, so sure, go ahead and fucking eat them”!?!?!? It’s inane. What’s even more ridiculous is how easy it is to munch on somebody’s brains if you’re a zombie. Your teeth must turn to fucking metal once you’re dead because all they have to do is bite into the top of someone’s skull to have a bite to eat. I know that I’ve tried to bite into someone’s head before and that shit hurt. Maybe everybody had mushy baby-heads back in the 80s, I don’t know.

Also, these zombies aren’t the type who mindlessly stumble around from the 30 to 90 minute mark. They actually seem to be coherent and self sufficient when they choose to be. I’m pretty sure at one point there’s one driving a Jeep, with at least four of them tucked into the back. I guess my question is - why are they so retarded at some points and at others, they can drive after you and hold conversations with you? If it were strictly for the sake of comedy, that’d be reasonable, but there are some parts where their amount of intellect just doesn’t jive. But this film is about as smart as Corky from Life Goes On, so I suppose I can’t be too hard on it.

The biggest question I had was “Why is it they die in this movie but couldn’t in the last?” In ROTLD they used just about every method imaginable to try and stop the zombies. In this one, they make a few ill-fated attempts before discovering that electricity is the only way to kill them. So let me get this straight…you can decapitate one of these fuckers and they will talk back to you in a Southern accent, you can burn one into ashes and have it float around in the wind after you..but if you place an electric chord in a puddle that they just so happen to be standing in, then that will do the trick!? Granted, I haven’t seen any of the three sequels to follow this one and I have no idea if the zombies have some sort of secret origin where electricity is their kryptonite, but I’m calling bullshit on this one and Ken Wiederhorn should be forced to explain himself.

In the end, I found Return of the Living Dead: Part II to be enjoyable, 1980s horror fluff which just so happened to piss me off over all the continuity issues, but fuck it. It’s definitely a unique horror sequel, so good for Wiederhorn (what a shitty name) on doing something that no other film (horror or otherwise) has done before or after it. Now, for the Horror genre specifically I have two sets of five-star rankings: one is for the genre itself (I’m not a fan of comparing this film with the likes of Goodfellas) and one for movies in general (in terms of filmmaking/acting/whatever), which I believe is a fair approach to rating movies. Because this is a sequel that doesn’t necessarily suck and somehow manages to parody a parody, it earns my respect. And the fact that they brought back the two fan favorite characters of the first film (who died) without giving two shits, also deserves kudos. However, some of the dialogue in this movie is just too douchey to listen to more than once and that kind of kills the rewatchability of it for me. On top of that, the acting isn’t great either but it is forgivable given the type of film this is. As long as you enjoy Return of the Living Dead: Part II for what it is and don’t go into it expecting some sort of Romero-esque underlying social commentary, you’ll walk away from it somewhat pleased.

Horror Genre: ★★★/★★★★★

Overall: ★★/★★★★★

For the inaugural week, these will be the two films being reviewed - one as selected by you, the other selected by yours truly. Yes, I am quite aware these two movies have absolutely nothing in common with one another - but that’s kind of the point.