V/H/S 2 AND THE ANTHOLOGY HORROR MOVIE AS MORALITY PLAY

Saw V/H/S 2 sequel to V/H/S.  While it had a bigger budget and bigger visuals than the first film, I didn’t find the stories as interesting.  Out of the four stories and the wraparound narrative, the second story, which was about zombies, was the best.  It was short and tight and slightly moving and an interesting take on the well worn zombie tale.  The first story, another well used idea that of the eye transplant revealing ghosts, was also decent.  The third story, which was the longest and had the most spectacular effects, didn’t make a lot of sense.  The fourth story was a big nothing as was the wraparound story.

While it is nice to see the anthology horror story coming back, one thing that the V/H/S movies lack that classic anthology horror movies from Hammer and other British studios is the morality play.  That is, the sense of repayment for some past bad thing the character has done.

This was of course the foundation of the EC comics of the 1950’s and also the Twilight Zone and Night Gallery TV shows.  British films like THE VAULT OF HORROR and TALES FROM THE CRYPT (both adaptations form EC comics) as well as DR TERROR’S HOUSE OF HORRORS, THE HOUSE THAT DRIPPED BLOOD, ASYLUM (my personal fave) etc generally had someone do something evil or in some way disturb a supernatural force or engineer their own demise in a grimly ironic way.

The morality play was important because it invested the audience in the story – gave them a reason to watch because you saw the character, understood him, and wanted to see what would happen.  In a film where the horror is random, each segment becomes random and the result ends up being all about the gore and the special effects.

But that being the case I still think the first V/H/S film was very good.  I wrote about it here http://rgdinmalaysia.blogspot.com/2012/08/three-films-absentia-iron-sky-vhs.html

  

THE BURROWERS AND THE BATTERY -TWO MODERN HORROR FILMS THAT WORK

In this day and age, it seems horror movies, like every other type of movie, are running out of ideas.  The good news is this is less so than in other genres.  Foreign and indy horror has breathed new life into the horror film away from the corporate teenage slasher flick and torture porn neither of which are particularly interesting and inventive and are also often offensive.

THE BURROWERS ,which came out in 2008, works because it does two things - One the classic horror film does and one the successful modern horror film does.  Like a classic horror film (which it is), it has a slow burn introducing us step by step by to the monstrous menace and giving them an explanation and a methodology that fits the storyline beautifully.  There is not much gore and we don’t get a good look at the monsters until the end which are both to this movie's benefit.

It’s like modern horror with its downbeat ending and the injection of a social issue into the proceedings - In this case the treatment of Native Americans.  This is presented very effectively without the movie becoming preachy.

The Wild West setting helps as does the notion of undiscovered creatures – Cryptozoology themes are a win usually (although there have been too many Bigfoot films recently).

THE BATTERY, which I saw recently, works because it takes a really tired theme and makes something new and interesting out of it.  The theme in this case is zombies which are really over.  THE BATTERY works however because the zombies are incidental.  This is really a film about people getting along, friendship, survival and last but not least baseball.

The low budget hurts a bit but the great dialogue in the first half of the film, the awesome locales, and the firm grasp on the characters the two actors have more than make up for this.

I write about non-horror too but when it comes to modern films, horror is where it’s at and here are two films that function as a reason why.  

THREE FILMS - BLACK ROCK, STATIC, BEHIND THE CANDELABRA

BLACK ROCK

The successful feminist revenge/woman striking back film works because its focus is narrow – women getting revenge after the way they were treated by men.  This is not a very good film as its focus is confused – Is it men vs women or something else? – a comment on the Iraq War, a discussion of gender, an analogy on female friendship.  None of the characters are likable - not the men but even worse the women we are supposed to like and identify with.  It does have beautiful scenery though.

STATIC

The “we were dead all long” ending is really getting old and overused.  It’s become a cliché.  Despite that, this film does a decent job at creating a scary tone and the building tension is managed well.  Nice to see Sara Paxton from THE INNKEEPERS.  

BEHIND THE CANDELABRA

This is a bad film but an enjoyable one.  It’s bad like MOMMY DEAREST, a bio pic gone wrong.  Tremendously fun in places, so ridiculous that it makes me wonder if the whole thing isn’t a trolling operation.  Camp as hell but Michael Douglas and Matt Damon are clearly trying very hard (A lot of man on man kissing).

WHY CHRISTOPHER LEE IS THE BEST COUNT DRACULA

Christopher Lee is living history.  He hung out with JRR Tolkein, Muhammad Ali, and Errol Flynn.  In films, he played Frankenstein’s monster, Dr. Jekyll and Mr .Hyde, Saruman, Death, The Devil, Fu Manchu, Mohammad Ali Jinnah – 1^st Prime Minister of Pakistan, Willie Wonka’s father and numerous other monsters and baddies.  He even played a gay character in the movie SERIAL.

Perhaps the role he is most identified with at least the one I first remember associating him with is Count Dracula.

And I think Christopher Lee was the best Count Dracula for a number of reasons.

One was biological of course.  I reject the non-threatening suave James Bond Dracula which became a trend for awhile in vampire movies of the 70’s and the 80’s.  Dracula is scary and threatening and he doesn’t need to look innocent to fool any ladies, he has the power of hypnosis!  Lee at 6’5 with the countenance of a serious and dangerous looking guy was very, very imposing.  He had the perfect face and physique for the role as well as a deep, powerful voice on the occasions he did speak.  Dracula should not be overly talkative as I discuss in the next paragraph.  

Dracula’s not The Joker cracking one-liners while committing crimes.  He’s more like an animal with a deep hunger and an instinct for survival.  He is not joyful and insane, he is evil but I would argue he is more concerned for his own well-being than anything else (again, like an animal).  Unlike other versions of Dracula, where he is dancing, drinking champagne, living the high life, the Lee Count Dracula is usually settling scores with adversaries and always looking for necks to bite.

The settling scores part is important because the one thing Dracula feels other than hunger is anger.  Could be anger at the position he finds himself in no longer being human or anger at what forces placed him in this position or anger at humans still enjoying life or anger at those who fight him and seek to destroy him.  The Francis Ford Coppola version of DRACULA gave the count a back story but I don’t think that added anything.  Humanizing a monster only helps if you are no longer making a horror film.

So Christopher Lee’s humorless, menacing, angry, merciless Dracula was note perfect.  He’s not indulging in witty repartee with potential victims and enemies alike.  Rather, he’s coming to their bedrooms at night and hiding from well-armed foes.  Both of these make a lot more sense as far as how Dracula would act.

Vampires have increasingly been linked with sex in recent films, books etc.. I personally have never seen the connection.  Drinking someone’s blood is not erotic (at least not to me) rather it symbolizes swallowing somebody’s essence, consuming them whole, what Renfield playacts with flies and other creatures in the insane asylum.

Despite the fact that Hammer increasingly sexed up the Dracula films as the sixties wound down and the 70’s started and censorship standards loosened up, Lee’s Dracula remained outside of sex.  Others may misread what is going on but a vampire has more immediate concerns.  Lee not allowing Dracula to get caught up in the sexed up atmosphere was a great acting choice.

Dracula is an aristocrat and should have regal bearing but regal bearing in that part of the world at the time periods involved would not have been about sociability but about positions and tradition and ritual.  The demeanor of the proud, snobbish, more superior than thou member of royalty perfectly fits in Lee’s Dracula.  Perhaps this is one of the few parts of Dracula’s humanity that has stayed with him – The stiffness, the unapproachability, the looking down at lesser beings.  Becoming a vampire has only multiplied these.

Many actors have played Count Dracula but before playing a part like that one must know what kind of film you are making and how does Dracula fit in with that.  I feel that Dracula is a monster but a force of nature more than a calculating super villain type, more Godzilla than Hannibal Lecter or Blofeld.  Christopher Lee comes closest to that of any actor who ever wore the cape.

Seriously though there should be a bridge or a building named after Christopher Lee someplace.               

 

FIVE FILMS - OUTRAGE BEYOND, I DIDN'T COME HERE TO DIE, GRABBERS, SIGHTSEERS, IT'S A DISASTER

OUTRAGE BEYOND

Sequel to THE OUTRAGE has less graphic violence than its predecessor but just as much byzantine conspiratorial plotting.  You will never look at a baseball again in the same way – does for the batting cage what MARATHON MAN did for dentistry and DELIVERANCE did for the great outdoors and hicks.  Not as powerful as the first film but still entertaining.

I DIDN’T COME HERE TO DIE

Short dark black joke of a film that is a variant of FINAL DESTINATION and TUCKER AND DALE VS EVIL.  Low budget hurts but gore is surprisingly effective.  More like an episode in an anthology film that a full fledged move of its own.

GRABBERS

A bit like Tremors with the same sense of humor but with alien starfish monsters rather than giant worms.  The joke kicker of the film that alcohol and getting drunk are the only way to stop these creatures (and to stop one from being eaten) make this an amusing thriller.  A fun film for a Saturday night perhaps.

SIGHTSEERS

More of a comedy than a horror film although I give props for the violence which is gory.  As much a commentary on co-dependent relationships as a horror movie with parts that feel more like a sitcom than a horror movie.  Quirky unusual film with a bit of an unsatisfying ending.

IT’S A DISASTER

Nice to see David Cross in a  film that suits his sense of humor rather than a cameo in something like MEN IN BLACK.  Could have come out of one of his routines.  Very funny in places but I didn’t like any of the characters (which may be the point) 

  

DOGTOOTH - WHERE INTERESTING VISUALS AND GOOD STORYTELLING FAIL MEET DURING A FILM

As I was watching the Greek film DOGTOOTH, I kept thinking there’s a good film in here someplace.

The director knows how to frame a scene and there are many memorable images – The two sisters then the older sister by herself dancing at dinner, the scene where the older brother kills a cat, the family barking like dogs and meowing like cats.

Likewise, the story is well-thought out.  The idea of a father who deliberately isolates his family has been played out in the news in recent years although his near total web of lies is too far removed from a steadily encroaching real life as to be realistic.  The phony language they come up with and the character of each of the three kids are examples of how well thought out parts of DOGTOOTH are.

The problem is that these two positive elements (interesting visuals, good story) never meet in the actual film and the result is a confusing albeit ambitious mess.  A little back story might have helped and perhaps a little exposition too as there are many details from their life I couldn’t pick up from the story.  In addition, within this self-created self-contained universe, some of the behavior of the characters makes no sense.  They feel like the poorly thought out improvisations of an inexperienced actor.  We invest time in understanding these characters and some of their actions do not make sense to the armchair psychiatrist in all of us viewers.

Aside from the unrealistic setting and family life, the graphic sex scenes act as a distraction rather than help the plot.  This is the rare film where salaciousness dilutes the narrative.

Critics went nuts over this film when it came out in 2009 and parts of it do work very well.  The problem is the parts don’t work together and the result is unsatisfying. 

WHY IRON MAN III IS THE WORST COMIC BOOK MOVIE I'VE SEEN SO FAR

For the record, I’ve never been a big fan of Iron Man.  The character in the comic book was borderline fascistic and that wasn’t all.  Tony Stark was a sexist one percenter – A richer less violent version of the Comedian from The Watchmen.  I wrote about my feelings on Iron Man before http://rgdinmalaysia.xanga.com/659696905/iron-man---propaganda-the-comic-book-vs-the-film-and-supervillains/

The first movie was at least blessed by the presence of Jeff Bridges.  The second movie was a bore despite the presence of Mickey Rourke.  One thing I noted about Iron Man in the above linked post was that he has quite a good rogue’s gallery that filmmakers had yet to really tap into it.

So I was excited when I read that The Mandarin was to be the villain for the third Iron Man film.  For a number of years during the golden era of comics, he was considered Iron Man’s #1 foe.  When I heard that Ben Kingsley was to play the title role, I wasn’t worried as 1.) I understood racial sensitivities and the Mandarin’s Chinese stereotype 2.) Kingsley is a superb actor in whatever he is in.

So I saw Iron Man III this weekend and honestly it is the worst comic book movie I have ever seen.  It is an abomination.  A movie made by people who know nothing about comics (or plot or story).

Now comic books and film are two different mediums for sure.  Comic books have more in common with literature in which the dramatic ebb and flow and larger than life hero vs villain struggle is key.  More on that here  

http://rgdinmalaysia.xanga.com/651086670/everything-i-need-to-know-i-learned-from-comic-books/

Kevin Smith’s version of Daredevil is considered a failure but I thought he did a good job transferring the key elements of the Elektra/Bullseye story to the big screen both in compressing it for time considerations and in keeping the most important story points intact.

  

But what IRON MAN III does to The Mandarin is inexcusable. SPOILER - having him turn out to be not real but a drunken actor fronting for the real villain is a huge letdown especially when the real villain is a ridiculous, glowing red Guy Pearce (a normally reliable actor who has been in many great films – LA CONFIDENTIAL, MEMENTO, RAVENOUS, THE PROPOSITION etc.).

I have not liked The Dark Knight films as I feel they have demythologized a comic, a hero that was already compressed to real life size – That is the appeal of Batman!  This approach works even less successfully on Iron Man.  We need the fantastic nature of Iron Man’s foes to offset the stodgy, offensive Stark/Iron Man character and the limitations of his powers.  After all, he’s just a man in an iron suit – Basically, the suit does everything.