Book Review - the Road

Father and son go for walk through post-apocalyptic America. Father and son avoid cannibals, retain basic humanity, almost starve a couple of times. Father dies, son is found by Grizzly Adams and Missus Adams. Happiest ending possible in a world where everyone will be dead in a few years as the atmosphere becomes unbreathable (there are no plants left, after all).

This is one of the more over hyped books I've read in a while. Although there are some nicely written passages, overall, I found this to be a tedious read, with uninteresting characters, a needlessly annoying writing style (it is odd, eccentric, semi-grammatical, which would be fine if this were first person or in the form of a journal; as it is is, it makes the "god narrator" seem like he needs some ESL courses) and a recycling of standard tropes of post-apoc literature.

I guess, if this is your first exposure to the genre, cannibal clans, whacked out survivors, burned out cities, fortuitous bunkers full of food, etc might seem fresh and exciting. They are not.

Well, it is a quick read (assuming you can plow through 50,000 different descriptions of our heros sitting around in the rain) and it is not like you'll catch Ebola from the book. So, if you have an hour or two to kill, there are worse ways. Just don't expect very much.

Book Review - World War Z

It's George Romero meets Studs Terkel. Yep, "World War Z" follows the pattern of Terkel's "The Good War", a classic oral history of World War Two.

Brooks sticks with the format and uses it to good effect. The narrative is compose of about 40 'interviews' and, for the most part, they have distinct voices. Further, Brooks uses little devices - such as footnotes - to enhance the verisimilitude of the book.

However, there are a few glaring problems. First, Brooks makes clear allusions to real-world figures but does not name them. That serves to break the fourth wall. Also, a few of the stories either go on too long - particularly one that is "Bat21" with zombies - or are even too unrealistic for a book about a global plague of flesh eating ghouls. This is particularly evident in a story about a blind Japanese swordsman who appears to be a homage to Zatoichi. While a horror novel like this require a hefty dose of suspending disbelief, when the internal rules seem to be 'real world with zombies' anything that breaks that rule will stand out.

But, these are really minor points. The book reads like the kind of movie(s) a fan of NOTLD/DOTD would want to see...rather than Romero's last offering Land of the Dead.

Highly recommended.

Movie Review - Satan's Playground

If one was to look through my movie collection (topping the 3000 mark) one would find more than one film that would qualify as...well...cheesy. Super-Inframan...The Horrors of Spider Island...Invasion of the Bee Girls...The Devil's Rain...but even the worst film I have, has some sort of charm (well, maybe not The Incredible Petrified World).

Except, that is, for one of my latest acquisitions, Satan's Playground, I picked this up based on the premise (it is, in part, about the Jersey Devil and I have a thing for American folklore) and some of the reviews I had read. It sounded like low-budget horror, but that can be very entertaining.

Unfortunately, repeatedly jamming a pen in my eye would have been more enjoyable than the 2 hours...or was it two years...I wasted with this movie.

The acting...the filming...the directing...the script...the mishmash of horror movie cliches...there is absolutely nothing right with this film. It doesn't even have either a cracked sense of earnestness (check out some of Ed Wood's movies for examples) or at least a sense of fun.

Even writing this much about the movie is too much. So, do yourself a favor and avoid this movie like the plague.

Splattery Goodness

Yay, it's October! My favorite month and the time of my favorite holiday (Halloween).

So, to kick off the horror season, I watched a trio of fright flicks this weekend: Friday the 13th, Wolf Creek and Hard Candy.

Coming from a horror fan, it might sound odd, but I have never seen Friday the 13th before this weekend. I've seen some of the sequels, but just never got around to watching the original. Of course, I was familiar with it, as a trend setting movie (the real parent of the splatter sub-genre - films like Chainsaw and Halloween had very little gore and were, in my opinion, far more effective as thrillers; movie like Friday are more exercises in special effects and creative killing).

So, when I final got around to popping in the DVD, I was expecting, well, something more than I saw. The movie isn't bad (although the print used for the DVD seemed pretty murky...although, this may have been how the film originally looked), but just lacked any...well, oomph. Of course, for the time, I can see why it was seen as groundbreaking; but there is little tension and the characters are completely unmemorable. Am I glad I saw it? Well, as a film buff yes, I am. But, if I feel in the mood for a good, gory movie, I will not be popping Friday into the DVD player any time soon.

Much better - although not without some glaring flaws - is Wolf Creek. I won't bother with a synopsis; that's what IMDB is for.

Instead, I'll say that the victims (heroes really doesn't fit) are reasonable well drawn, not being completely one-dimensional. And the villain is pretty creepy. The Australian locations are fairly alien looking (although, to a city boy, seeing more than four trees together seems other-worldly) and lend to an aura of menace. And, the gore effects are well-done (this is a splatter movie, after all).

However, there are some odd plot holes (there are hints that something supernatural is going on, but that is never really explored) that could have been fascinating if explored, particularly given Australia's past (penal colony) and the native culture (with its myths of Dreamtime).

And, the characters exhibit all the horror movie cliches - splitting up, not killing the villain when they have the chance, wasting time and allowing the villain to catch them, etc. Even some of the set-pieces have been done before, and better (a mine full of body parts, for example).

Also, come may find the ending a downer - although it could have worked a bit better if the supernatural angle had been developed and explored.

It is not a film for the squeamish, but it is not bad, as far as the genre goes.

And finally, the best of the films - Hard Candy. This is not a horror film, per se. It is more of a psychological thriller and a revenge flick and, possibly, something of a ghost story, a la High Plains Drifter. Basically, a pedophile, rapist and murderer (or at least accessory to both) - played with immense charm by Patrick Wilson - meets his match in a 14-year-old played by Ellen Page, who comes across like a mix between an angel and Hannibal Lector.

I really don't want to give any more of the story away. I will say this is one of the most psychologically brutal films I've seen in a while, that is brilliantly acted, that the cinematography (with lots of sweaty, claustrophobic close-ups) is beautiful...essentially, the only real problem is with some of the narrative leaps made. Again, without giving to much of the story away, it will be hard to go into them. But, let's just say, there is a lot of suspension of disbelief involved in accepting everything Haley (the Ellen Page character) is able to do and plan for...unless, one looks at her as more of an avenging spirit, come to see that justice is done for a heinous crime.

Even if one just accepts that the flaws in the narrative come from poor plotting, the force of the acting and the harrowing nature of the narrative are going to be enough to keep most viewers (me included) riveted to the screen.

Anyway, so all I don't feel bad about spending time watching these films. Friday was a good viewing just as a film buff, although I don't think there is much point in revisiting it (unlike, say Halloween). Wolf Creek is one of the better survival horror movies of the last few years, although I think the writer/director missed out a great opportunity to make it a bit more of a supernatural horror film by exploring some of the aboriginal myths and by being saddled with too many horror film cliches. And finally, hard Candy is just a marvelous movie. Yes, it has some plotting problems and a few moments are a bit heavy-handed, particularly near the end (the "confessions" of Patrick Wilson in the last few minutes of the movie - particularly when he admits to himself that he is a killer at heart - lack the sly and subtle touch of the rest of the movie.

So, I would say Friday gets a 'C', Wolf Creek a 'B' and Hard Candy an 'A'.

Movie Review - Pulse

Last night, after a marvelous meal of cheese ravioli with a olive oil based vegetable sauce (courtesy of your humble author) and equally marvelous raspberry vodka tonics (courtesy of the GOP Baby, my own personal bar...tendress?) we decided to go to the late show of Pulse. Pulse is based on the J-horror flick Kairo, which I have yet to see (although it will be part of my collection in time for the annual Halloween moviefest; this year's theme, international horror movies).

So, at 2230, we made our way to the local cinema - conveniently located across the street -and settled in to the moderately comfy chairs. The trailers were unimpressive - The Wicker Man, in particular looks like pure manure; one should never try to remake a great movie (which the original is) and muck it up as the team responsible for the remake obviously has - and by the time the film started, I was ready for some cheap thrills.

Well, it 'kind-of' delivers.

First, the good. Although the director made the unfortunate decision to shoot the who friggin' movie through a blue filter, the Romanian locations make for a suitably depressing urban environment. There is some very disturbing/impressive imagery (I really liked a scene - although it is a tad overused - in which a gray, impassive apartment building has single, blood red window set in it), the ghosts are creepy (at least, at first) and some of the apocalyptic images at the end really work to convey the sense of a world gone mad. And, the sound effects are well done, using a kind of ambient electronic noise to good affect.

Second, the bad. Everything else. The acting is adequate, I suppose. The scares are the cheapest kind (things jumping out a people and the like). Rather than disturbing, they rely on the usual human reaction to a loud noise and sudden movement; we jump in our seats. The ending starts by having a nice "the world is at an end" and then mucks it up with an illogical "ghosts run the cities, humans everything else" voice-over, which betrays the oppressive tone the story was aiming for. Characters are mostly stereotypes who follow the horror movie "rules" to a fault...which is not surprising, given that Wes Craven was one of the writers. Plot holes abound (e.g.; the ghosts can't pass through anything covered by red tape. Well, how did anyone think of using red tape to repulse ghosts in the first place? It is never explained) most of which could have been covered pretty easily with a little more care in the writing. Part of the problem, I think, stems from the attempt to tack on a pseudo-scientific explanation to the ghost invasion. If it had just been "ghosts are using our comm system to enter the world" the inherent vagueness would have actually helped in the suspension of disbelief. However, when a story offers a partial explanation, that leads the consumer of the narrative to ask "well, if 'a', then why not 'b' and 'c'"? These kinds of questions are all over the place in the film.

A ghost story is inherently irrational, even more so than some other genre fare. Ghost stories lend themselves to moody, emotional plots and tones, not a hack sci-fi explanation. While this can be done well - The Legend of Hell House comes to mind - Pulse is not an example of this.

So, I guess I would say see it, but only if you are not paying full price for the ticket.

Or, just wait for the uncut version to come out on DVD; the movie is PG-13 and some of the cuts seem obvious.

technorati tags: pulse, kiora

The Lady In The Water

Well, I saw The Lady in the Water this weekend. The GOP Baby and I had wanted to see A Scanner Darkly, but had become otherwise occupied and didn't hit the local theater until late Saturday night. So, the pickings were slim.

I really don't like Shyamalan's films. While the concepts are often interesting - particularly the 'everyman superhero' idea in Unbreakable - the execution is weak. The worst thing about his movies is the pacing. The plot films move at a glacial speed. This can be a good thing if the plot demands it or if the payoff is worth the wait (for example, the film See the Sea uses a slow pace to develop a sense of unease and delivers a real jolt at the end of the movie that makes said pacing worthwhile). He also likes to populate his films with willfully strange characters and hard-to-swallow plot points (the water obsessed little girl in Signs and the aliens from the same who just happen to be allergic to H₂O, leading one to ask why they would come to a planet that is covered with water to kidnap creatures who are mostly made up of water). And, the 'lessons' his movies teach are so banal, that one wonders if his attempts at having a message are some sort of subtle in-joke.

That said, his films usually look nice and I do admire his ability to keep getting funding.

With the Lady in the Water, he continues to the trend of slow, ultimately dull and pointless movies, populated by characters who are so bizarre that one's suspension of disbelief is impossible to maintain. Oh, and the main "villain" looks like a very angry piece of shrubbery.

Basically, a water nymph comes to an apartment building to inspire a writer (Shyamalan). However, she is being stalked by the evil shrub and has to rely on the building super and a collection of borderline bipolar cases to help her achieve her goal and return home. Oh, and they are evil, law enforcing super-monkeys in the trees. Yes, you read that correctly.

Plot holes abound, the biggest being that everyone just accepts the water nymph as being, well, a water nymph. Why? Well, because they are insane, I guess. No one comes across as anything other than a collection of odd tics and quirks, so much so that I can't see how any more-or-less normal viewer could identify with them.

The monster never seems very threatening and our main hero (Paul Giamatti) is so pathetic and yet cliched (see, he's a building super, who once was a doctor who left the practice because his wife and children were killed and he couldn't cope with the loss and...oh, God, who cares...) that he becomes more irritating than anything else. And, not to sound too shallow, but a doughy, balding guy does not make a good fairy tale/mythological hero.

In short, this a long, tedious movie, with a inane message (we all have special gifts and violence is bad...dude, that is so deep), characters who are both strange and boring and a non-existent menace. Stay far, far away from it.

Must Review More Movies...Like This.

I'm not certain why I've been so bad about keeping up this page. I manage to update my other sites - Kinshasa on the Potomac and Link-O-Rama - on a daily basis. But, even though I love movies, pop culture and the rest, it seems harder to find the time or energy to post something worth reading.

Ah well, perhaps I just need to redouble my efforts...or change my format, to make things more interesting for me...

Hmmmm...this requires some thought.

In the meantime, I do have a review and recommendation for The Night Watch. This is a Russian movie, which follows the exploits of a group of grungy, moderately kick-ass, supernatural bureaucrats (essentially). Set in modern day Moscow, The Night Watch is full of vampires, shapeshifters, magic users, animated dolls, precognitive video games, and lots of crows. Lots of crows.

Anyway, Our Hero is a procog who works for Night Watch, keeping the forces of darkness in check and fully licensed (it would take a product of post-Commie Russia to have vampires needing to fill out forms before they can bite someone). These good "Others" - as those who are part of the supernatural world are called - are in turn monitored by the evil "Daywatch" (no slow-motion Pam Anderson shots, unfortunately).

The story kind of goes on, stuff happens, it all involves much drama and not a lot of sense. However, the movie is pretty and there is a sense...well...solidity to the world created. While the plot doesn't completely gel, the background does. and, since this is the first part in a trilogy perhaps setting up an engaging world that the story can play out against is enough.

The film is worth watching, but I recommend viewing it at least twice. I found that on a second viewing, parts that I had glossed over made more sense.

Unlike this review. Sigh.

Ah, time for another gin and tonic, I think.

technorati tags: night watch