Thank You Bruce Hornsby

World's Greatest Dad

I false started World's Greatest Dad three times before actually getting to the twist, and for some reason I stopped one more time before I finally followed it through to the great shoe-drop at the end. This movie works off of a tension verging on meanness. We hate Kyle, the teenage douchebag who seems to exist only to masturbate and push peoples' buttons. We find his father somewhat pathetic, and then lose all sympathy for him as he slips gently into capitalizing on his personal tragedy. We hate the flimsy relationships that he puts up with and passively cultivates, and his milquetoast attitude toward just about everything he does. Bobcat makes us wait until the last second to see Robin Williams explode into sincerity and stop worrying about his desire to reach an audience that misunderstands completely.
When the film finally ended, I had to think about what the resolution meant. Robin Williams had his talent confirmed and in doing so finally felt comfortable destroying his image; Kyle's best friend had his version of Kyle restored. They were now footloose and fancy free to pursue whatever kind of mediocre intoxication and movie watching suited them. Woo Hoo! Whatever happened to the gay jock, or all the other people who'd built a new Kyle to celebrate as a warning against isolation and creative repression? Only Bobcat knows.

See World's Greatest Dad if you're in the mood to think uncomfortable thoughts, experience a non-threatening variety of suspense, laugh nervously and feel genuinely confused. See World's Greatest Dad if you're killing time while Bad Lieutenant downloads. Also, see it if you're the least bit curious about what Peter Pan's aging body, not to mention penis, look like floating in a pool.

Feel-lame movie of the year? I must nominate Precious.

Hola Muchachos! Soy el nuevo escritor de este blog, y támbien uno de los fundadoros de este sistema de clasificación para peliculas. Voy a contribuir con frequencia y estilo elegante!


Precious DVDSCR.

People Dealing with... um... I'm not sure exactly what issue we could lump this under. Family perhaps, or Chaos or maybe just Nature.

Oh, what to say about Precious? I watched the whole thing, and I'm kind of dumbfounded right now. Precious is the story of an abysmal childhood, which, if presented as a darker-than-dark comedy, would probably have been cause for some kind of widespread, uninformed, public media outcry. The topics that Precious encounters on her harrowing cinematic journey toward teenaged single-motherhood and an eighth-grade reading level range from aids, to retardation, to incest. As it is, Precious has been nominated for a "Spirit Award" (this label is stamped across my copy of the film), and while I believe it contains just as much palpable human suffering as last year's winner The Wrestler, I'm struggling to understand just what to take away from Precious.
In the film we are given the privilege of following precious on her journey from horrible home to new school to halfway house and then into an ambiguous future, in which the increasingly empowered, HIV positive, Precious is finally able to worry about caring for her two children: both the products of incest on the part of her father, and one of whom is lovingly referred to as "Mongo" due to some form of mental retardation. Precious, who blacks out during sequences of particularly brutal abuse and enters a dream state in which she is some kind of celebrity and speaks in news-reporter-ish, eventually finds solace in the support from her gay (for some reason we needed to know this?) teacher, her fiesty alternative-school classmates, her male nurse friend and her state-mandated counselor, Mariah Carey. By the end of the film, Precious is able to express herself in a manner that her handlers find to be acceptable, and we are meant to be very proud of her, standing up to face the odds. But I'm still scared to death at the idea that teenaged, obese, HIV+, mother-of-incest Precious is going to have to go it alone in the big crApple. And even if we are to believe that things go rosy enough for Precious, she's got to be an uncommon example. Literacy seems like a sort of half-assed solution to the Precious scenario. What she really needs is perhaps a time machine, so she can find whatever juncture in her mother's life left her completely socially isolated and susceptible to unchecked fear and anger, and give her a shove toward some kind of human support.

Anyway, see Precious at your own risk. The acting is fine, the film engaging, the Mariah Carey understated, and the Monique blistering, But the film is a vicious, overwhelming/depressing mindfuck and a heavy journey into the bowels of urban social disfunction.

House of the Devil

2009
Director: Ti West
Cast: Jocelin Donahue, Tom Noonan and Mary Woronov

Plot: In the 1980s, college student Samantha Hughes takes a strange babysitting job that coincides with a full lunar eclipse. She slowly realizes her clients harbor a terrifying secret: they plan to use her in a satanic ritual.

Combining Babysitters and Satanists
by C. True

Instead of 70's horror throwback, House of the Devil changes it up with...70's horror throwback set in the 80's. I'm a big sucker for directors striving for the cinematography and stylized look of the 70's, with Rob Zombie's The Devil's Rejects the most shining example (though the bizarre Return to Sleepaway Camp also went for broke establishing the 70's cinema look and feel). Needless to say when the credits began to role for House of the Devil and the freeze framing began I was squirming in my seat with excitement. Samantha is our quintessential beautiful college student who really needs some cash and takes a babysitting job. Her job happens to be WAY out in the middle of nowhere, and the husband and wife seem a little unusual. Like satanically unusual. Tom Noonan gives a great performance as the husband, with an understated soft spoken creepiness that sets a great mood and had me hoping for greatness. He tells Samantha the babysitting job isn't for a child, but for his wife's elderly mother, and when Sam balks he ups the pay to $400. Obviously this should be a warning sign, but Sam really needs that money. After the husband and wife leave, the movie for all purposes just stops. There is literally about 30-40 minutes of Sam walking around the house alternatingly snooping and investigating strange noises. At ten minutes I was still engaged, at twenty I was hoping the action should start any minute but by the thirty minute mark I was annoyed. Once the action finally did start it looked great and was generally creepy but there was almost no story to follow. There is a lot of reference to the full lunar eclipse but the importance of this to the Satanist is never mentioned, we're just supposed to put together that an eclipse would be an opportune time for a satanic ritual. Presumably they impregnate Sam with Satan's spawn, giving her creepy visual hallucinations, but this isn't developed at all and the conclusion of the movie feels completely abrupt and asinine. SPOILER: Only 10 minutes after this Satanic ritual Sam is so convinced she's being possessed or impregnanted with Satan's spawn that she kills herself? REALLY?! Maybe she should have waited for a little more confirmation before ending it all, and maybe the idea of have Satan's child would have grown on her, after all Rosemary learned to love her little antichrist.

You just had to wonder watching this movie why there is 40 minutes of set up and no storyline explanation. Did the writer/director Ti West not have a story in mind before filming this? It sure doesn't feel like it and maybe we shouldn't be surprised from the person whose big claim to fame is Cabin Fever 2: Spring Fever. House of the Devil had a good look and a fine idea for a plotline, but watching this movie is about as exciting as reading the plot summary.

Them (Ils)

2006
Directors: David Moreau and Xavier Palud
Cast: Olivia Bonamy and Michael Cohen

Plot: Lucas and Clementine live peacefully in their isolated country house, but one night they wake up to strange noise... they're not alone... and a group of hooded assailants begin to terrorize them throughout the night.

Them: Just Not Scary (or Particularly Good)
by C. True

I was really sort of bummed that my tour of bloody French horror ended with Them. Especially because I’d heard good things about this movie and thought the plot sounded identical to the American film The Strangers which I had enjoyed. But something about this movie just didn’t do it for me. I was eating tortilla chips while watching it, maybe that distracted me. What was frustrating was that it felt like it should have been scary, but it in the end it was neither compelling nor frightening. Them tells the story of one harassment filmed night for a French couple, Clementine and Lucas, living in Romania. The harrassers are hooded figures, who first steal Clem’s car and then start bumpin’ and creepin’ around the property. At first the sounds and events are subtly creepy, and this movie relies on the anticipation of action which as we all know is often scarier than actual gore and violence. There’s really very little of either in this film, but there are lots of noises coming from just over there in the dark woods. The films progression is well done, building and swelling with dread and also revealing the assailants. I think it might have been scarier to not know who was committing these crimes, but Them importantly still leaves the question of why unanswered and doesn’t give too much away. The ending is chilling and faithful to the story. Why wasn’t it scary then? Maybe it was lack of character development but that’s an obvious cop-out since everyone knows character development in a horror movie is strictly optional. Maybe it was because Clem seemed such a strong female character that I didn’t fear for her, or didn’t feel that she was ever very afraid. I think this combined with the lack of any real violence or disturbing acts for most of the film might have been the downfall. Horror movie victims have to be a little bit weak, or out-numbered for you be scared for them. If there isn’t an underdog quality that is staggeringly obvious from the beginning than the viewer really needs to be scared, preferably up front, and I suspect this might be why the movie has a prologue murder. Without these murders the actions of the attackers would fall even more flat, and probably just seem like teenagers pulling a prank. Even with these murders at the onset, the attackers are underwhelming. Its scary if you cut the lights, but where is the scare in turning them back on again 10 minutes later? Things like this just reek of prank, and even knowing these hooded figures are killers didn't make me particularly scared for Clem and Lucas. I think maybe The Strangers works better with the same plot because it knows it must really scare its viewers into the mindset of the victims for the scares to work in the first place. In that movie the audience is repeatedly shown figures lurking in the shadows of doorways that the main characters do not see, and it is a creepier plot device to reveal that someone is already inside when the victim still thinks the attackers are lurking behind the safety of their door. In Them they are outside making noises, and then they are inside making louder noises, so they never really surprise attack or do anything you aren't already expecting them to do. All in all Them was a rather blasé, people who hated the very similar The Strangers will REALLY hate Them, and people who like The Strangers will see how unriveting getting harassed at your home can be when not done well.

Inside (À l'intérieur)

2007
Directors: Alexandre Bustillo and Julien Maury
Cast: Beatrice Dalle and Alysson Paradis

Plot: Four months after the death of her husband, a woman on the brink of motherhood is tormented in her home by a strange woman who wants her unborn baby.

Protect Your Baby and Your Face!
by C. True

Continuing on with French horror I chose the much reviled À l'intérieur, or Inside. Some quick research on the internet will inform you that by most accounts Inside is one of the goriest and most disgusting movies to come out of France, due in no small part to its somewhat taboo topic. Pregnant women don't usually make it into horror movies, and its a little surprising given what a truly depraved idea it is. Not only is the main character of Inside extremely pregnant but her pregnant status is at the crux of the entire plot. As such the story goes for a lot of cringy-worthy scenes and takes the plunge towards the all too inevitable gorey climax. The movie starts with Sara, who has lost recently lost her husband in a car accident and is now all alone and as stated at least 8 months pregnant. One night at home she hears a knock on the door, it’s a woman asking to use the phone. Sara refuses her stating her husband is asleep. But the visitor knows Sara’s husband is dead (uh oh!). She lurks around the house for a while, disappears when the police arrive, then later manages to get into the house. Our mystery lady reveals, surprise surprise, she would be more than happy to take Sara’s baby, if she doesn’t want it. While Sara finds safety locked in the bathroom a bevy of guests arrive at the house including her mother, her boss and a follow-up visit by the police. These visitors of course just offer us a chance to see the brutality of Sara’s persecutor, and really provide some of the only major events in the story. Sara is locked pretty well in that bathroom and as can be easily guessed that inevitable gut-wrenching scene has got to be the climax, so these visitors are just filling the time with gore. Its good gore I guess, not always original but definitely disgusting, which is most of the point after all. One bone of contention came with this attacker’s unwillingness to attack anything but her victim’s faces. Even if her weapon on hand is a pair of scissors and the only part of the face available for attacking is one of the thickest parts of the skull, namely the forehead, she is not dissuaded and goes for that head shot. I’m being a little unfair, one time she does jam scissors through someone’s hand but this was really to maim and not to kill. Needless to say Inside went more towards camp than say the equally violent French Frontier(s) but with a subject so disgusting its rarely touched in horror cinema I suppose a little silliness was needed.

Up until I saw this movie I was beginning to think the French showed their women a little more respect in the horror genre than Americans. It seemed that most of the heroines NEVER got to that exasperated breathy stage where they are giving it their pathetic all by spending most of their energy crying and gasping for air. Instead most of the women in French horror seemed determined to survive from the very beginning and their best effort seemed like it might actually be good enough for them to make it through the movie. That was until I saw Inside, where our main female victim gives it a real half-assed effort to make any sort of escape or retaliation against her attacker. Although the excuse maybe that she is pregnant and weak (not to mention already in a moody dejected state at the beginning) I really think the opposite reaction to this hostile situation would have worked better. Isn’t it possible that a pregnant woman would fight harder to save the life of her baby? And wouldn’t it have been creepy to see a pregnant woman carry out brutal survival-violence? Seeing victims reach their brink and turn against their attackers in an emotionally crazed state is one of the most satisfying horror twists and, when done right, can give the viewers the best of both horror movie worlds: scary helplessness and gorey revenge.

Good Hair

2009
Director: Jeff Stilson

Plot: Chris Rock explores the wonders of African-American hairstyles.

Good Hair Makes for Light Fun
by C. True

Chris Rock makes for a great narrator and interviewer in Good Hair, and the documentary works mostly due to his approach to the topic at hand. He comes at his subject of black women and their hair with an attitude of curiosity and playfulness. It reminded me of my big brother’s bewilderment with some of my fashion statements during my youth and his ability to poke fun without being cruel or mean. Chris Rock is also generally confused and amused at the same time at his subject as well as the people he interviews and it makes for the right tone of funny without condescension. This isn’t a movie just for black people and it also isn’t a movie about black people for white people. It’s a project Chris Rock claims to have started after his young daughter asked him in tears one day why she dosen’t have good hair. So Chris Rock seems to have gone out to answer at least three important questions. 1) What is good hair? 2) What are the techniques for obtaining good hair? 3) How far does the quest for good hair go?

The documentary starts introducing contestants for hair styling competition at the Bronner Brothers International Hair Show in Atlanta. In this completely over-the-top competition stylists must cut and style at least three people during the performance, they must present a coherent theme in the performance and they can have no more than 10 people on stage at any time. Editing of the film makes a fun surprise by holding back on introducing the most feared competitor at Bronner Brothers to reveal that he is in fact an effeminate white guy named Jason Griggers, who learned how to do black hair in a beauty school. Although all the contestants are odd Jason is definitely one of a kind. He allows Chris Rock to film a botox session in preparation of the show and while everyone else practices their performances with great seriousness and dedication Jason never bothers rehearsing his performance, such is his confidence in his hair-styling ability, not to mention showmanship. After the introduction of the competitors in the hair show Chris Rock begins by investigating the common usage of hair “relaxers”, asking what are they and should we really do this to a three-year old. He interviews various black celebrities including Maya Angelou who is as cute as a bug in a rug. When Chris Rock asks her how old she was when she had her hair relaxed for the first time she indicates it wasn’t until she was 70. Chris starts to exclaim “So you went your whole life without…” to be cutoff by an adorably indignant Angelou exclaiming right back “Not my whole life, I’m not dead yet!” Rock also has some expert witnesses to interview including a chemist who is shocked to find out the hydrogen peroxide is put on people’s head as a “relaxer” everyday. He demonstrates the chemicals ability to eat through a soda can and suggests its relaxing characteristics are due to its ability to break down proteins, not something you’d necessarily like on to put on your head. After relaxers Rock delves into the mysterious and pricey world of weaves questioning salons on price and layaway plans and the technique for sewing it on. He also spends time investigating where this hair used in weaves comes from. It’s India where girls frequently shave off their hair, which is culturally viewed as a sign of vanity, at temples. This free temple-hair which sells for big bucks in LA wouldn’t be enough to satisfy the American market and the funniest interview of the film is with a Hair Black Market Expert in India. When Rock asks how one illegally acquires hair the “expert” gives him a condescending look and replies “Girls sleep right?” and goes on to elaborate on his late night hair-snatching escapades. The movie ends of course with the Bronner Brother’s Hair Competition and it is as elaborate and at times ridiculous as expected. Although Rock gets into racial issues from time to time (no one wants their weave made out of black hair, and there are few black-owned companies in the hair market) the general tone is light-hearted and makes for a silly and fun hour and a half.

Frontier(s)

2007
Director: Xavier Gens
Cast: Karina Testa, Samuel Le Bihan and Estelle Lefebure

Plot: A gang of young thieves flee Paris during the violent aftermath of a political election, only to hole up at an Inn run by neo-Nazis.

Country Nazis Mean Business
by C. True

Continuing on with contemporary French horror, the next movie on the list was Frontier(s). It has a simple plot: a group of young Parisians flee the city during riots (they’ve done something illegal but I’ll be damned if I knew what it was) and stumble upon a totally sick and twisted family. Not just any kind of sick and twisted either, they are Nazis trying to start up a pure race. This means butchering the men who happen to stumble on their Inn (after the daughters have had their sexual fill) and capturing the women for wives! Even though they are neo-Nazi’s, and all about producing this pure race within their family they don’t seem to be that picky about who is a new wife since our leading lady is pointed out to be “unpure” with dark eyes and black hair. But no matter, just chop off her hair and pretend that she’s whiter. And the French seem to really love that symbolism of cutting off a woman’s hair, since lengthy moody hair-cutting sessions made it into both Frontier(s) and Martyrs. Initially I felt while watching the first half of this movie that I had seen this all before, but the movie really built up steam as it went along and I can tell you I don’t think it got banned in Thailand for the hair cutting scene. People get chopped up like mad in this movie. First, all the Parisian boys are tortured and killed in gorific ways, including one getting both of his Achilles heals cut with pliers that look like they belonged to a French Paul Bunyan. Then when there is only the girl left, we have a dinner scene reminiscent of the Texas Chain Saw Massacre. And while most of the family is just ominously German-looking, the father, who presumably was a Nazi, is a real creeper. With a lecherous grin he points out to our leading lady Yasmina that “I think you’ve met before” referring to the roast of boyfriend they are about to consume. But Yasmina is a fighter, and makes a ballsy escape from the dinner table by holding the “Father” hostage and this is where the movie really turned around for me. Your classic guns-pointed hostage standoff with quick cuts of the family members nicely built up the tension for the ensuing 30 minute final massacre extravaganza that was to follow. Yasmina barely escapes the dining room only to make it to the underground mine on the property where ominously deformed children of the family are kept (so much for pure genes). She is chased by Goetz, the dumb muscle of the family in the dark tunnels of the mine and his demise is intense so I won’t spoil it. When she finally makes it back to the elevator out of the mine shaft she is absolutely covered in blood and has got one bad case of the shivers. Yasmina is played by Karina Testa who I hope we can expect more from because she has one of the best screams I’ve ever heard and has got the traumatized tremors down pat.

Frontier(s) really delivers on all fronts for a formulaic chased-by-crazies horror film. It is scary, its is super gorey, it keeps a good pace and it ends when it should. It's not a breakthrough but it's a good example of how well the classic plot can work. If that doesn't sell you, this movie also contains one of the best head explosions I've ever seen, so there's that too.

Martyrs

2008
Director: Pascal Laugier
Cast: Morjana Alaoui, Mylene Jampanoi and Catherine Begin

Plot: A young woman's quest for revenge against the people who kidnapped and tormented her as a child leads her and a friend, who is also a victim of child abuse, on a terrifying journey into a living hell of depravity.

French Horror Goes Deep
by C. True

I recently rewatched Martyrs, which I had originally seen a couple of months ago, for the first film in a depraved romp through contemporary French horror films. I loved Martyrs the first time I watched it and was half expecting to be disappointed the second time around. It’s hard for some horror movies to retain their strength after the shock and surprises have all been given away in a first viewing. But Martyrs is not one of those movies. It is truly original both in its story and its handling of violence. And it is a violent one; if you’ve stomached any Eli Roth I don’t think the gore will bother you but it was certainly disturbing on both viewings (at my independent videostore this movie would have an added hand drawn sticker proclaiming “THEY KILLED THE KID!” reserved for movies so depraved that they actually…). The movie opens with our killer, Lucie, as a child escaping what appears to be a torture dungeon. She is taken in by an orphanage where she is befriended by another girl Anna. Since her rescue Lucie is haunted by a Ring/Grudge style figure who moves in that not-right-way that is unreasonable creepy. As a young woman Lucie thinks she finds the people who tortured her as a child and Anna tags along because she loves Lucie and senses how badly this could go. And boy does it. But the violence obviously has a purpose and the motivation for the brutality is one of the more unusual and original parts of Martyrs. Lucie kills not because of some sick masochistic drive, but because of revenge and importantly I think feminine revenge. She does not revel in the violence but instead is killing out of the pain she still feels from her childhood abuse. She is still the victim and although she feels she must exact revenge, it is not because she thinks it will make her feel better. She cries over the dead bodies still wondering why, not something I think a man, or at least a movie-man, would do if he were in a similar situation. It is still great to see Tarantino-style women get revenge and feel great about it, but this approach was more insightful, and worked more for the horror genre.

The fun thing is that the movie starts out with so many questions and they are solved with concise well done story-telling. Who or what is the figure that haunts Lucie? Is this figure real or is Lucie more mentally disturbed from her childhood than she knows? Were these really the people that tortured Lucy? And why was she tortured in the first place? I think undoubtedly the movie handles the first three questions well, but upon watching the movie with more people I suspect the answer to the last question will be viewed more controversially. You will likely either love this ending or you will think it flopped (“too French” was a complaint that was bounced around during my second viewing). It is a little deeper (or tries to be) than expected, but that was what I liked about it. If a horror movie delivers on the scares with a plotline that is even remotely original, I’m willing to watch whatever deep philosophical ending they can come up with. Even if you don’t think it works, it’s still a great change of pace.

2012

2009
Director: Roland Emmerich
Cast: John Cusack, Amanda Peet, Chiwetel Ejiofor, and Oliver Platt

Plot: An epic adventure about a global cataclysm that brings an end to the world and tells of the heroic struggle of the survivors.

Crust Displacement is Worse Than it Sounds
by C. True

In the special effects department 2012 is the apocalypse movie to end all apocalypse movies. My eyeballs literally hurt during this movie from being forced so wide open for so long. Some of the catastrophic delights you’re in for when watching 2012: earthquakes that leave giant canyons running through LA, Yellowstone National Park bubbling and exploding into fireballs (!), at least 3 scenes where small planes must be flown through either exploding land or buildings and giant tsunamis that take out the everything from the White House to Tibetan monasteries! And it all looks great! I mean really great! Particularly the scene at Yellowstone, in which the earth seems a thin film on top of a boiling soup and huge areas of land rise and fall in liquid motions before exploding into even more dangerous earth-cannonballs of fire and destruction. As you may have already gathered this movie really does shamelessly cram all possible disaster scenarios into one with the loosely defined “Crust Displacement” explanation. At first it’s discussed as crust dissolution, but that’s not quite right and there is some talk about the shift of the magnetic poles but this per se doesn’t really seem to affect anyone. Crust displacement does cause giant tsunamis, sometimes lava explosions sometimes dry explosions and sometimes the much punier giant earthquake. Also some areas of the earth seem miraculously unaffected while others like Hawaii are totally decimated. My suggestion for added destruction is that crust displacement also causes all meteors to be attracted to the earth so we could have meteors falling down while people try to outrun/fly the earth explosions and massive flooding. Trust me it would have fit right in and you would have loved it. The limited scientific explanations really fit the purpose of the film, as the consequences are far more important than the cause (the American People never even hear the words crust displacement).

The great and bad part about 2012 is that all of the catastrophes mentioned above all happen together within the span of probably 30-45 minutes. This makes for an awesome first half of the movie and is probably one of the reasons it seems so much more impressive and disastrous than other movies in this genre. The downfall of this is that we have to put up with a super shoddy plotline full of some of the worst sentimental crap of all time for the second half of the movie. (SPOILER) I don’t see any reason why the President would not take the opportunity to outlive the apocalypse and try to help rebuild his people and society afterwards. But instead he stays and makes crowds of injured people uncomfortable by walking around and saying things like “I’ll find your daddy.” Towards the very end there are some laughable dramatizations of how we just HAVE to try and save those last 400 people. The evil apathetic US leader, played by Oliver Platt, says no, it is not wise to try and save these people because it will probably end up killing everyone and really if you’re showing up for a seat on the Arc that will save all of humanity maybe you should have shown up half an hour early. I couldn’t have agreed more, issue resolved. But instead we have a 10 minute saga about how we’ll lose our humanity if we don’t try and save those people. Well you didn’t try to save the entire Earth did you? In fact only the superbly rich and powerful even know the Arcs exist, so the lets not start worrying about morality now.

No catastrophe movie would be complete without its relatable everyday family you follow throughout, which, in this case, was an exact rip off of the broken family in War of the Worlds. Parents are divorced, son is angry at dad and then son learns to trust and believe in dad blah blah blah. This is the least developed family of any end of the world movie I've seen and that's saying something. They aren't underdeveloped on purpose either, we have to spend a lot of time with them and yet there is never any dialogue or development that makes us wonder who they are or what they'll do after the end of the world. But you aren't going to see 2012 to learn about family values, you're going to watch the earth implode and explode at the same time and in that department I can't imagine anyone being disappointed.