All In The Family: Mending Texas Chainsaw 3D

I want to start off with a quote from the end of the film. In this piece of dialogue, and throughout the story, we are told the main theme.

“Farnsworth has instructed to give you a set of keys to the manor. The largest key opens the fortified door to the wine cellar. There, you will discover a metal door. Behind it lives your cousin: Jedediah Sawyer, your only remaining blood relative. He is family-bound, and will protect you. He simply requires your care in return. Edith, you are the last of my line of Sawyer. My blood runs through you. The decision to stay is yours. Just remember: you are a Sawyer… and this is home.”

Texas Chainsaw 3D wants you to believe that it’s a movie about family, and while I’m completely on board with that, it not only throws this wonderful idea out the window, it substitutes it for meaningless plot devices and uninspired characters that could have furthered the story’s integrity. This is not going to be a review but rather a breakdown of its problems and my attempt at fixing them. I will not include any criticism of the bland acting, the appalling CGI or its cliché-ridden script. 

Before I get into the bulk of this article, I must explain the idea of family throughout all the Texas Chainsaw incarcerations except for Next Generation because I refuse to watch it a second time. In the 1974 film, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, I always felt like the Sawyers (their surname was not introduced until the second film) were a bastardization of the humble Midwest family, and thus a grim, ugly satire of the American Dream. In the film’s final moments, we are introduced to the relatives in full. Like a distortion of the infamous ‘Thanksgiving” by Norman Rockwell, the Sawyers are seated together at the table, laughing, mocking and ready to kill our heroine. However, the element of family is present. Just like Rockwell’s vision of an ideal 1950’s household coming together for a grand feast, the Sawyers have gathered together to kill their last victim. It’s ugly, twisted and darkly comedic.  

In 1986, with The Texas Chainsaw Massacre Part II, we are introduced to Lieutenant Boude “Lefty” Enright whose sole mission in the entirely of the film is to seek vengeance on the Sawyer family for killing his niece and nephew. Already, there is the concept of family rivalry and retribution. (Think of a Hatfield and McCoy type rivalry). In the last third of the film, when Lefty invades ‘Nam Land, the Sawyers are seated together at their table, echoing the final moments of the first film. I will even argue that the dynamic between Drayton Sawyer and his two sons, Chop Top and Leatherface, is much more expressed. Their squabbling banter and slapstick antics seem inspired by those dysfunctional family reunions that we all experience. Drayton also seems adamant with preserving the family name by winning the local chili contest, and mentions the family skill of knowing good meat. There, we are introduced to hereditary pride.

Finally, we have Leatherface: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre III. Here, we are introduced to a whole new family but if anything we get a more intimate understanding of how they function and interact peacefully despite their cannibalistic nature. Some of the best moments are when our heroine, Michelle, is tied in the kitchen where the family prepares to cook her friend. Tex, one of the older brothers, hangs Michelle’s friend upside down while his kid sister kills him with a hammer-swimming device that her other older brother made.  This entire sequence serves as a furthering of previously established themes from the first movie, albeit cartoony and ham-fisted. There is a beautiful moment, as pictured above, where Leatherface embraces his kid sister. Norman Rockwell would be rolling his grave. Even the chainsaw has The Saw Is Family engraved on it, furthering the notion that family is all the Sawyers have.  

As for the 2003 remake and the 2006 prequel, I will not touch on them too heavily. With that said, the family in these incarnations are extended to aunts, uncles and a nephew. Like the ’86 film, though not as loony, there are squabbles between Sheriff Hoyt, the patriarch, and Leatherface. In fact, it seems like we are treated to a whole community of Hewitts that live within walking distance of each other. If anything, this franchise is built on family relations, so it seems only natural for Texas Chainsaw 3D to take this notion and run with it. I was all for it, too. I wanted this film to explore the family dynamic further, but I suppose it was all wishful thinking.

Texas Chainsaw 3D picks up right after the events following the 1974 film, where the sheriff and a posse attempt to arrest and enact vigilante justice one the Sawyers. However, the posse ends up shooting everyone, and then burns the house down. One of the posse members finds a young Sawyer woman with a newborn, kills her, and steals the baby to raise it with his wife. Decades later, the baby is now our heroine, Heather. We come to our first problem. We are never given enough time to understand Heather’s character or motivation! All we know is this: she has a boyfriend, and two other friends. She works as a supermarket butcher, and her relationship with her ‘parents’ is cold. We never get to see her feel isolated, lonely or detached. She seems relatively happy, but maybe if we extended some shots or added a few scenes, we could see that it was all a put-on to conceal her loneliness. She never has that “I feel like I am missing something” discussion with her boyfriend, and we hardly get any insight into her relationship with her seemingly unsupportive parents. If we spent just a little more time understanding her interactions with them, it would accomplish A) Heather’s feeling that she doesn’t belong with this family, providing leeway into the adoption conversation, B) it would portray her parents as crucial plot elements to juxtapose with her relationship with Leatherface later in the film, as opposed to stock clichéd rednecks, and C) a more extensive argument in which her parents prohibit her endeavor to Texas would make us understand Heather’s plight and little more clearly. If the writers took their time in fleshing out their character, rather than giving her jet-black hair and eyeliner, then perhaps we would have felt some sympathy towards her. What we get instead is a broad, uninspired final-girl.

Let’s get into the two pointless sub-plots. Our first plot-device is presented as a handsome drifter who, after charming his way into our heroes’ adventure, proceeds to pillage the house that Heather’s real grandmother willed her. Of course, Heather and her friends are blissfully unaware as they are in town gathering food for a barbeque. The idea of a robber could have worked and here’s how: as our thief makes his way throughout the house, pocketing jewelry and stashing silverware in his duffle bags, we follow him with the point of view of Leatherface (the killer’s POV). This adds voyeuristic tension. Seeing a stranger steal the possessions of his departed Aunt angers him, thus he kills him before he could reach the basement. This accomplishes two things: 1) it uses the robber as a means to convey Leatherface’s motivation rather than a cheap ploy to reveal our villain and provide a first victim, and 2) it sets up, early on, the concept that Leatherface is the protector of the Sawyer family lineage, and thus a guardian for our main heroine. None of these concepts would be realized until the very end. Instead, we get a dull sequence of the burglar pocketing valuables only to get his head shattered when he opens the door to Leatherface’s basement den, rendering his entire character pointless. We sacrificed thrill and character for dull, by-the-numbers storytelling.

Our final sub-plot: Heather’s boyfriend Ryan is having an affair with her best friend Nikki. In the film, this plot-point leads nowhere; Heather never finds out about the affair. It’s added to the story as an excuse for nudity and implied sexual conduct. Since the writers killed off Nikki’s boyfriend early on, they needed to find a way to get her naked. Thus, we get detoured away from time that could have been spent furthering Heather’s character. Here is what could have happened if the writers needed this plot-point: Perhaps Leatherface knew all along that Heather was his lost relative (her grandmother, his aunt, told him). He would then feel the need to protect her. When he witnesses the affair, he understands that Ryan, through his dishonesty, is hurting Heather, which prompts him to attack the couple but only kills Nikki. Chronologically, it must happen before Heather discovers Leatherface for the first time. Then, the film plays out normally where Heather is brought down to his lair. In this gruesome but possibly touching moment, we discover that Leatherface actually cares for her. Maybe he shows her his masks. As per the film, Heather escapes and hides in the graveyard. Leatherface finds her, she meets up with Ryan, they attempt to escape, Ryan dies, Heather is chased through the carnival, etc. Once more, this useless plot-point could have furthered Leatherface’s intentions of protecting his only relative, and may have possibly yield a devastating final moment between Ryan, the adulterer, and Heather our victim.

Finally, we have two moments near the end that could have been hauntingly symbolic. As I said before, if we provided a little more hostile interactions between Heather and her parents, it would juxtapose the scene where Leatherface finds her tied up by the town deputy. In that evocative and eerie moment, he lowers his chainsaw (possibly symbolic of a hostile life now passed) we see the love and affection he has for her, and conversely we see Heather feel as though she’s “at home.” When he cuts her down from the ropes, it serves as an allegory for Leatherface releasing her from her wrongful inherited bonds. It’s a shame because this scene comes so close to fruition but is tarnished by the deus ex machina birthmark element. Leatherface, just seconds before sawing Heather in half, sees her birthmark in the shape of the Sawyer family crest. Was this concept ever mentioned or alluded to in the film? If so, it was much more subtle then it needed to be.

The scene just before the final montage in which Heather’s grandmother posthumously narrates her letter, we find Heather and Leatherface together in the kitchen. This scene is played out as one final setup to a cheap jump-scare when it should have been the heart of the entire story. Heather, a little scared and slowly overcoming her shock, should embrace Leatherface as he is the only remaining relative of her true family. Also, this is supposed to be same Leatherface from the original 1974 film. He was already somewhat childish in his actions, despite wielding a chainsaw and a skin mask, and to see him embrace Heather as if she was his mother would have been an eerily touching moment. It would be bold but memorable. Leatherface, now in his fifties or sixties, should be tired and showing signs of age, making him much more sympathetic. He is no longer his youthful self anymore. Maybe, much like Heather, he too feels lonely and detached. That would mean that their unity is even greater as they fill each other’s voids. The film would have ended on an ambitiously high note.

Family is the main theme in the entire Texas Chainsaw oeuvre. It may be portrayed subtly or blatantly, but it’s always there. I wanted Texas Chainsaw 3D to set new grounds and turn our beloved horror movie icon into an anti-hero. I wanted it to take that bold new step in a completely wild direction. Sadly, what is given to us is a bland, inferior sequel to an iconic masterpiece. Texas Chainsaw 3D did not need to live up to its predecessor’s reputation, but it should have taken the franchise to its inevitable destination. When you have characters spout off lines like, “family is family,” or “no one loves you like your family,” it serves as a grim reminder of what could have been. The entire story was one enormous block of marble waiting to be sculpted into a striking figure. All it needed was careful molding, precise engraving, and delicate smoothing. Instead, the writers and producers fired up their chainsaws and reduced it to a haphazard abominable mess. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised.

Review: Standards of Living (2014)

I love watching independent films, especially those that lie within the horror genre because it seems they are more ambitious, risky and creative as opposed to their big-budget counterparts (zombie flicks being my favorite). It seems fitting that my first review in three years is an indie flick called Standards of Living by Aaron Mento, who I have the pleasure of talking to every now and then on Twitter. The movie is a mixed bag, not exclusively yielding to one genre. It has elements of horror, science fiction, fantasy and thriller. I can’t help but speculate that Mento is trying to appeal to the fans of all the genres he admires, and I would say that he succeeds in doing so. For a first film (shot on iPad 2, of all things!), it’s a damn fine production. At the very least, to you naysayers, he made a feature film. So, what’s the movie about? Well, before I lay out the details, I must admit that this is where the film gets a little convoluted, which may be the biggest setback it has. Not to say that it’s glaring or jarring but if you were to sit down and ponder it, it does make you scratch your head (perhaps that’s what it’s suppose to do).

NOTE: I may or may to be coming up with “fan theories,” here. Also, slight spoilers.

The plot in its most basic sense is this: Peter (Scott Yarborough) is a stand-up comedian who isn’t all that funny. Nobody seems to like him. Then, one night, he receives a phone call by a man known as Mr. Randall (played stupendously by Bill Ferris), who offers him a unique opportunity including double his pay. Peter takes the offer, arrives at his home and discovers that Mr. Randall has the ability to make objects disappear, than reappear with improvement. Example: he makes Peter’s scruffy silver peanut disappear only for it to reappear as a gold peanut. Well, Mr. Randall wants to send Peter to the place where the objects disappear to so that he could retrieve his daughter. Some time ago, a mysterious man with black teeth arrives to bestow this magical gift onto Mr. Randall but he also seems to have enchanted his wife and unborn daughter. That same night, she kills herself (it’s implied that the stranger warped her mind, somehow) and Mr. Randall attempts to use his gift to save his unborn daughter. Sadly, he ultimately makes her disappear entirely from the womb. Peter crosses over into the alternative dimension and finds his now-grown-up daughter living with Alternative Mr. Randall and his alternative servant Stu (played by Derek Houck). They believe he is an angel from God sent to deliver salvation. However, Peter soon discovers that the man with black teeth isn’t who he appears to be, and that Mr. Randall my have… dare I say it… alternative motives.

Now, to go back to my one complaint: I don’t think everything was completely fleshed out, which is why it was a little hard to keep up with the story. Let’s start off with the stranger with black teeth. Some may ask: who is he or where did he come from? That’s irrelevant. My question is, what’s his motive? Why is he doing this? We don’t need him to explicitly state why, but maybe the answer lies somewhere within the reality of the alternative dimension. This dimension is inverted from ours: non-Christians are firm-believers, and the Union seems to be the Confederacy, as there are still slaves. However, our black-toothed stranger claims that Mr. Randall’s daughter is the second savior and that he brought her there to save them. That’s some understanding into his motives but why does that dimension need saving? If we understood the alternative dimension a little more, we will understand why it needs saving, and thus the motives of the stranger. Fan theory alert and SPOILERS: I gather that this stranger is some inter-dimensional being, perhaps a police officer of sorts that regulates different dimensions. It would explain why he is so invested in everything. I understand why he gives Mr. Randall the ability (so that he could ultimately use it to benefit the other dimension) but why doesn’t he take it away right after?  What would be the benefit of leaving him with that ability? I wish we knew a little more about the character or perhaps about the alternative dimension. Mento gave us pinch of sugar when, maybe, we needed a teaspoon.

Onto the main characters! I loved all of them. First lets talk about Peter. Living in Chicago and going to an art school, I know tons of people who yearn to be successful stand-up comedians. It’s a tough gig to get into and if you’re not funny, you’ll fall hard. Immediately I understand Peter and his plight. He is our ‘fish-out-of-water’ character who is an everyday guy caught in a supernatural situation. When he’s confused, we’re confused. When we need some clarification, he asks for clarification. I enjoyed him quite a lot. He’s funny too! The audience just sucks. Now, lets get to Stu, my favorite character. He’s like Dave Thomas in Rat Race: monotone, not very expressive, devoid of personality on the outside but inside… he’s exploding. He gets impatient but he’s passive about it. He has a constant frown or grimace that adds just a little more depth to his character, and he genuinely cares for his employer (and possibly only friend). The striped Polo shirts and suspenders are fantastic touch, and he has some of the best lines. “It’s about a stormy interracial romance in an intolerable small town,” he says after defending his boss’ work. The context is lost, I know, but it’s presented completely straightforward. The genius of it is that it foreshadows what’s to come. As for Mr. Randall, he is a character who is shockingly complex. He is a loving husband and father. He makes an honest living, and he seems levelheaded. Underneath this mask he is an extremely determined man who will stop and nothing to save his daughter, however, when conflicts arise, he seems to question the morality of what he’s doing. It’s not explicit but you gather it based on his body language. I don’t want to discuss any other characters because it may reveal major plot details and spoilers.

Also, Bill Ferris looks an awful like a young Stephen McHattie.

The whole film plays out like an X-Files episode. The plot is essentially a missing persons report with a supernatural twist. From a horror perspective, I see influences of Raimi (visually exclusive), body disfigurement reminiscent of early Cronenberg or Gordon, and biblical themes as previously explored by Bergman or King. I may be far-fetched in those comparisons but it’s what I see. I believe there is something to be said about shooting on an iPad. The independent scene is rapidly adapting to the consumer market. Now, anybody can pick up their iPone or Galaxy Touches and make a movie. You’ll have hollow audio (thankfully all the dialogue in this movie is recorded separately and synched later) but you’ll have a movie. The future for the micro-budget filmmaker lies within these devices. They may not be widely accepted, now, but soon we’ll be seeing movies at Sundance or Cannes that were shot on phones or tablets. It’s the future folks! Standards of Living is a great kick-starter to this new style of filmmaking. Needless to say, I look forward to what Mento has in store for us. 

If you are curious, you can catch the movie here. 

For All Mankind: A Look At Apollo 18

 Let me first start off by saying that I was initially turned off by the trailers for Apollo 18. While they were spectacular, they suggested that the film would be just another run-of-the-mill found footage experience. Perhaps, on the surface, they were right. Critics panned the film, comparing it to Paranormal Activity, and complained that it was tedious and devoid of any charisma. Naturally, when it came to Netflix, I had to see it. This, of course, was following my extensive examination of the entire Criterion library. What I discovered was that I enjoyed Apollo 18 for all the reasons the critics hated it for. Then came the comparison between it and For All Mankind.  Now, comparing the two seems almost disrespectful to Al Reinert. However, the two films share tone, presentation and theme, with the obvious similarity in filmmaking style. It is for this reason that I should suspect that Gonzalo Lopez-Gallego was, in some way, inspired by Reinert’s documentary.

Before diving into this, I should explain why I found the film to be enjoyable. It’s not perfect by any means, it did not exceed my expectations (they were very low), and it’s not a film that has a large replay value. With that said, save for a few weird instances, Apollo 18 nearly knocks the found footage genre out of the park. With tiring movies like V/H/S, Devil Inside, Frankenstein Theory, and the most closely related Europa Report, it’s nice to finally see a film that feels like a found footage documentary. It’s presented in 4:3 and not 16:9 (this is crucial because a lot of VHS-based films are all in widescreen and clearly shot on digital cameras), the film has grain, there are moments where the film is over-exposed, and, above all, there is actually a reason for why they are documenting everything. The characters aren’t moronic teenagers or hack filmmakers, rather intelligent young men having fun on such a captivating odyssey through space. I never hated any of the astronauts, and they all seem to evoke a sense of playful awe similar to their real-life counterparts as presented by For All Mankind. I’ll dive into detail as I continue.

 Now, for what I didn’t like. I may be scrutinizing this film a little too in depth but I digress. The fictional story behind Apollo 18 is that somebody obtained classified footage of the mission, cut it into a documentary and released it to the public. There are sound effects that are clearly non-diegetic but as I understand it, it’s as if the documentarian is putting us into the world of the film. Fine. For All Mankind does the same. Then, we come across the instance when we first see a dead Russian cosmonaut. As one of our characters ventures into a crater, he uses the flicker of his camera to illuminate his path. When the body flashes on screen, we hear a sudden spike in the soundtrack (a jump-scare) as if we were watching a regular horror movie. On a documentary aspect, this doesn’t make sense, as it seems to trivialize the death of the cosmonaut. It would have been scarier and far more effective if there were no sound, or perhaps just the non-diegetic sound of the camera bulb flickering. Next, there are one or two scenes where the film deliberately points out weird movement in the background as if we couldn’t see it before. I hated this. Background disturbances should not be zoomed in on or isolated via a video filter. Then again, I suppose it does make sense. The last instance is the strangest. One of the astronauts becomes infected by an alien life form. He pulls a cliché by taking the camera to record our main character sleeping, and then turns the camera to himself. What follows is… out of place. He begins violently shaking his head back and forth, which is clearly edited, while the film splices in frames with a negative filter over them. Aside from the scene being a glaring cliché, why would our documentarian do this? It serves no purpose. I think if they took out the filters, sound effects and kept it raw, it would have been a lot creepier. These are all nitpicks but they do take me out of story.

 On to the basis of all this nonsense! Let’s talk about tone, which will inevitably bleed into presentation. For All Mankind starts off introducing some of our colorful soon-to-be astronauts in training and mission preparation. It focuses a lot on their expectations, who they are, and the journey from training to actual flying. While Apollo 18 skips the journey aspect, it manages to present our cast in the same fashion: as all-American men with happy families, high expectations and an eagerness to embark on their assignment. What I love about For All Mankind is that it presents the lead-in to the moon landings as an eerie, inspiring, albeit desolate odyssey into the unknown. The whole mission of Apollo 18 is too different. However, we get to see our casts (both in Apollo 18 and For All Mankind) as playful, often fiddling around with gravity-defying tricks, playing pre-recorded memories on tape, and engaging in manly behavior. In both films, Houston is represented as a warm, friendly, reassuring voice that comforts them as they make their perilous journey. But, this is only a brief few minutes for Apollo 18. The real similarities occur when we finally land on the moon.   

Here is where we really get into things. When Apollo 18 lands on the moon, it’s business as usual. Our characters play around, they set up their equipment and collect rock samples, which will soon prove to be their greatest mistake. The same happens in For All Mankind, naturally. But how is the moon represented both aesthetically and character wise? For starters, in each film, the moon is shown as a bleak, uninhabited landscape with an eerie black backdrop to the infinite space that surrounds it. The hills and crater edges are monumental. The ground seems sun washed, and we get a real sense of total isolation for both our characters and our real astronauts. The character of the moon is… characterless. Our sense of wonderment isn’t so much as the moon itself but rather that we are truly on an alien landscape far away from our blue home. Both films capture this. Only difference: one is the real thing and the other is in a studio. Or for some of you, the latter may serve both cases.

In terms of actual documentary style, there is a lot to be said. Aside from some bizarre instances (as aforementioned), layered beneath Apollo 18 and For All Mankind there is an unsettling ambient score. While For All Mankind may actually have a theme and a real composition, Apollo 18 has a low-resonating ambient track that seems to suggest that a jump-scare is in the near future but, in fact, only adds to the film’s creepy atmosphere. This is what I was shocked about when I first set eyes on the film: it’s a slow burn movie, sure, but I was not expecting a mood-piece. The jump-scares are minimal and it focuses on character relations and tone rather than just the typical monster-movie formulas. And, for a movie that has aliens, it’s really tame in it’s presentation of the material. Similarly, For All Mankind is not so much about the wonderment, inspiration and thrill of the moon landings (ala Apollo 13 or The Right Stuff) but more about the strange, tranquil beauty of it (ala Moon). This brings me to the core story of Apollo 18, which may be been influenced by a specific piece of dialogue in From All Mankind.

I had one dream was very vivid. In my dream we were driving a rover up to the north. It was untouched. The serenity of it had a pristine purity about it. We crossed a hill. I felt ‘gosh we’ve been here before.’ And there was a set of tracks out in front of us. So we asked Houston if we could follow the tracks, and they said yes. And we turned and followed the tracks. Within an hour or so we found this vehicle. It looked just like the rover. Two people in it– they looked like me and John—had been there for thousands of years. 

– Charles Duke.

I suspect that Gonzalo Lopez-Gallego must have been watching For All Mankind, came across this scene and it’s imagery, and thought it would be terrifying if the description was real. In Apollo 18, our heroes come across a set of additional footprints that lead to a discarded Russian module. The instance is uncanny to Duke’s description. Perhaps this was the basis for the whole plot. The astronauts find a dead cosmonaut. They discover that something otherworldly killed him. Enter aliens. It only seems natural. The closer we examine the two scenes, the more we uncover the heart and theme that each film shares. From my perspective, Apollo 18 and For All Mankind is about man’s inquiry into the abyss of the unknown and the consequences that may arouse or disturb our senses.

Freddy vs. Jason: One More Time

As a kid I had always been obsessed with Freddy Krueger and to me he was the definitive serial killer because he had a face and he wasn’t just an unstoppable physical force but rather a “demon” that kills you when you at your most vulnerable. Jason, on the other hand, was nothing special but I enjoyed the first three of his movies. Later, I would see his movie again and I came to the conclusion that I was never a big Jason or Friday the 13^th fan because it was all about body count and not the characters. Surprisingly, I saw more character development in the Nightmare on Elm Street movies then any other slasher. Perhaps I am missing the point but that’s one of my main arguments as to why I love the Elm Street movies.

When I first saw the previews for Freddy vs. Jason, I loved every minute of it because my favorite horror movie villain was going to be up against my least favorite horror movie villain. I was on Team Freddy from the very get go. I never saw it in theaters so I had to wait for it to come out on DVD and so I rented it from the library when it was released to home video. Upon my first viewing of Freddy vs. Jason, I hated it. There were only a few things that I liked but that didn’t outweigh the bad and so since 2003 I had never picked it up again. When asked by my friends why I hated it, I gave a number of reasons why and I feel as though I should try to summarize them and restrain myself from ranting and breaking off into a tangent.

The biggest problem I had was that I didn’t like any of the “human” characters. They were dry, stale, cardboard cutouts of typical Hollywood teenagers, they were nothing but slasher fodder and very expendable. I didn’t care about their problems and I wanted to see all of them dead because they were pests. I always commended Nightmare on Elm Street for giving me characters that I can relate to or characters that I feel sorry for but to see unlikeable characters on Elm Street seemed out of place and stupid. They felt like they would be more at home in Crystal Lake then Elm Street. I didn’t like the stoner and I didn’t like seeing Freddy take the form of a pot-smoking caterpillar. I felt like it was insulting him and I felt the same way when he became a witch or a comic book villain. I especially hated the fact that Freddy was afraid of fire and Jason was afraid of the water because if I remember correctly, Freddy used fire in many of his nightmares and never was afraid of it then. Also, I remember Jason being fine with water and never shying away from it. Additionally, I felt like the ending was a cop out because I thought they would end both franchises simultaneously but instead they show Jason walking away with a winking dismembered Freddy head. I felt like it was the last corny nail on the cheese coffin.

With all that said, I decided to see the movie again because most people I talk to say it wasn’t bad and for a “versus” movie, it’s pretty decent. I thought about it for a while and I realized that it’s going back to the old “meets” movies that Universal would produce. The movie Frankenstein meets the Wolf Man came up as being the first mainstream movie that pits two horror icons together. So, I buckled down and decided to give Freddy vs. Jason another go… this time looking at it from a fresh new standpoint since I hardly remember what happens. Now, after analyzing horror movies and broadening my horror taste, I felt like I was prepared for this movie. I’m older and not nearly as bias as I once was. My general consensus of Freddy vs. Jason after seeing it for the first time: I liked it. It wasn’t bad, pretty decent, and it has some charms that nod the original franchises.

Since I’m not a big fan of the Friday the 13^th movies and since there isn’t really anything to them other than a body count and Jason, I think I should talk about the Nightmare on Street portion of the movie as there is more to them. One of the biggest things I was dreading was that they wouldn’t properly transition from the real world to the dream world; the original Elm Street movie seamlessly brought you into the dream without you knowing. As for this movie, specifically the scene where the group was thinking about sacrificing the main heroine, half the time I couldn’t differentiate between the real world and the dream world. The dreams, although surreal like they should be, doesn’t offer booby traps within the “real” home. What I mean is this: in the first movie Nancy is running up the stairs when suddenly the stairs turn into goopy liquid or when the basement slowly turns into the boiler room. Much of that is missing but that does not mean it’s bad. I’m real glad they kept the boiler room.

What I liked more than anything, and this is what made me hate the film originally, was that the movie dived into the characters of Jason and Freddy. I understand why Freddy is afraid of fire because he was burned from it and Jason drowned so he’s afraid of water. I like this aspect despite the fact that both villains encountered each element before in their own respectable franchises. I feel like giving the villains a fear of something de-mystifies them and brings them down to a mortal level; it makes them more human, which is something that really turns the tables on things but it goes deeper into that. When Freddy encircles Jason with water we see Jason backing up, Freddy smiles, then we see a trembling, half-naked boy on the floor with a hokey mask. It’s such a good yet sad scene because it shows us that inside the undead, hulking exterior of Jason lays a frightened little boy who was emotionally and mentally scarred. Freddy, in almost a childish bully sort of way, goes on to mock Jason saying that his face is something only a mother could love. Then, we flash back to Camp Crystal Lake where Jason was picked on. It shows you that Jason was once a normal person and could have led a somewhat normal life despite his deformity, but it’s because of the severe bullying that he becomes the murderous psycho that he is. But this also shows just how merciless and cruel Freddy is and that he was born a monster, whereas Jason was made into a monster.

Then there are the battles between Freddy and Jason, which were pretty damn good. There are some wonderful massacre scenes, particularly Jason breaking somebody’s back by squishing them in half by the bed. There’s also a fantastic scene where Freddy controls one of the characters by making him doze off from smoking pot. It’s a fantastic scene because, for one, I thought it was pretty cool seeing somebody attack Jason wielding two syringes of sedatives. Also, for me at least, it was the most memorable scene where Freddy controls somebody since Nightmare on Elm Street 2. I don’t really count Dream Warriors because it was too campy, whereas Elm Street 2 was sort of playing on a “duel personality” level.

I should start wrapping this up before I trial off like I so often do. I’ll admit that for a while I was acting stubborn but I think Freddy vs. Jason is growing on me because it’s not a bad slasher and I really like the ‘versus’ plot. I’m glad that Robert Englund was in it and that earned it extra points in my book, it was gory, it had some great dream sequences and Freddy seemed to be a badass. I know I am really fixated on the Nightmare on Elm Street portions but that’s because those were the scenes I was worried about the most. It was fun seeing Jason hack and slash again and it was fun seeing Freddy take advantage of his traumatizing childhood because it added personality to Jason. Seeing Freddy, and Jason, afraid of fire and water elements brought them down to our mortal level and that’s something that was risky but played off perfectly. I think now I have a new take on this movie and it holds up. Then again, this wasn’t the first time I hated a movie at first but grew to like it. Hell, just ask Jack Frost or Uncle Sam. They’ll tell you.

Preserving the Thing

About a week or so ago I received an email by one of my Twitter buddies concerning The Thing prequel. Apparently the comment he wanted to leave on my review was too long, thus forcing him to email me it instead. He commented on why he doesn’t want to see the prequel and why the prequel might ruin the magic and mysteriousness of the Carpenter movie. While I liked the prequel and while it doesn’t ruin the magic for me, I thought this was a very interesting piece that I could not help but share.

I'm actually quite surprised you liked this at all, based on reading your review and knowing your love for the '82 film. I would say the ''82 film is in my top five favorite movies of all time, maybe the number 1 spot.

I have not seen this prequel and never will. Let me get that out of the way now, because I get heat from people saying I can't complain about something I haven't seen. I however say I CAN and WILL.

MacReady: "Now I'm gonna show you what I already know."

The idea of showing what happened at the Norwegian camp seems utter ridiculous to me now, as it was when I heard the film was going into production. The filmmakers stance of "we'll show you what happened, why the axe is in the door" cracked me up. Was there a huge number of '82 Thing fans looking for those answers, I have to believe that is not the case and I'll tell you why. When you watch Carpenter's movie the American's discovery at the Norwegian camp/station is foreshadowing of what they will soon encounter. We are offered small glimpses of information regarding the thing, how people reacted to it and where it came from. Seeing the burnt out camp, dead people, yes axes in doors (sweet Satan!) and the burned remains of a Thing mid-transform. This info also provides elements of mystery that are crucial to the story and tone of the film.

As the '82 film progresses, the Thing begins it's attack and paranoia set in and eventual battle up until the closing scene with MacReady and Childs. We can infer that what we just saw the Americans go through is essentially what the Norwegians went through without the requirement of a prequel film to fill in the blanks. Your own creative mind can fill in those blanks and I'd imagine do it in a much better fashion than this prequel does. Carpenter could have just as easily done the film from the stand point that the Americans discovered the alien, but he didn't and I don't think that was to lay any kind of groundwork for a prequel. All the information is there, all that is needed is in the '82 film.

Now, let me ask this. How can there be even a shred, a sliver of mystery or suspense to this prequel, when '82 fans know all the people from the Norwegian camp die and the Thing escapes? I can't get my head around that huge problem with this prequel.

Another huge issue I have with the prequel is what limited CGI I saw in the trailer. It looked atrocious, I laughed when I saw the thing come out of the block of ice. You said there are some practical effects in there, which is great, it sounds like the CGI is way overused and fake looking. That cast sounds utterly forgettable from what you said and that is a very very weak leg to this film I'd imagine. The '82 film had a fantastic cast that I know you love. If you didn't love the cast and their performances, this wouldn't be your favorite movie, bottom line. Your section about nitpicking the movie is also of grave interest to me and another warning sign to stay away from this film. If they are intent on showing every detail (because people wanted it for some ungodly reason) then why didn't it hone EXACTLY to the '82 film? It should be dead on.

I found the final minutes of the 2011 film on YouTube to see how the transitioned their film into the '82 film. Nice from the standpoint that they led right up to that films beginning, but I must ask. If someone is new to the Thing and watches this film first and then the '82 film after what many magical and fantastic things are killed for a moviegoer. For those people I feel truly sad. This prequel tries to bill itself with providing answers to questions it's actually killing for those new to The Thing…

This bit of dialogue is from one of my favorite scenes from the '82 film and the reason for me adding it to the end here is because this conversation for me kills an reason for the prequel.

MacReady: "I don't know, thousands of years ago it crashes, and this thing, gets thrown out or crawls out and it ends up freezing in the ice."

Garry: "The Norwegians get a hold of this, and they dig it out of the ice…"

MacReady: "Yes, Garry. They dig it up. They cart it back. It gets thawed out, it wakes up, probably not the best of moods. I don't know, I wasn't there!"

Childs: "How could this motherf@*ker wake up after thousands of years in the ice?"

George Bennings: "And how can it look like a dog?"

MacReady: "I don't know how. Because it's different then us, see. Because it's from outer space. What do you want from me? Ask him!"

Music Box Massacre 7

I’m rather late on reporting this but this past weekend (October 15 till the 16^th) was the yearly Music Box Massacre at Chicago’s own Music Box Theater. This year, unlike the past two years that I went, was different for me because I slept through half of the 24-hour marathon. I have no idea why I was suddenly tired all of a sudden but I missed out on some movies that I’ve wanted to see for a long time. Regardless, I was fortunate to experience three films on 35mm print one of which is a must for the Halloween season. So, without further ado, I’ll give you a short rundown and musings of the films I was able to catch.

The marathon started off with the silent film…

Waxworks (1924)

This fantasy film is considered horror but I’m not sure why. I feel it’s more action adventure than anything although I guess it’s because there are some elements of horror that must have been shocking for people back when it was first released. Personally, I felt it was a little boring but what I have to applaud was the live organ player who had to sit there the entire time.

Burn Witch Burn (1962)

After his wife confesses to being a witch, a college professor must find out whether or not she was telling the truth but time is running out because dark forces are descending upon him and the only way to stop them is by sacrifice. Also known as Night of the Eagle for some reason. This was a fun movie and a perfect candidate for MST3K or any other type of Riffing. Hammy acting, sexist dialogue and some really cheap but strangely effective special effects laden this film. I personally loved the part when you hear something howling, screaming and bellowing outside the door but never end up seeing it.

Hour of the Wolf (1968)

I slept through this movie.

The Abominable Dr. Phibes (1971)

I loved this movie but calling it horror is a bit much even if the final revealing of Phibes is shocking, then again I guess it could be considered a Slasher movie. Oh whatever, either way I liked it a lot. Price plays yet another interesting, stylish and charismatic killer that sort of reminded me of Theater of Blood. This time he plays Dr. Phibes, a doctor of music, who seeks murderous revenge on all the doctors who were unable to save his wife from a tragic accident. Dark British humor and the 12 plagues of Egypt make this movie work seeing and it’s even funnier watching it with a live audience.

Wizard of Gore

With special guest Herschell Gordon Lewis

I broke away for dinner.

Halloween (1978)

No party that takes place during October is complete without a 35mm screening of Carpenter’s infamous slasher movie. The print we saw was reddening, scratch and dust filled with horrendous jump cuts… everything I wanted to see to give me that authentic “grindhouse” feel. This time around, because I saw the movie so damn much, I began to notice the small things that gave away the film’s actual location of California. Not just the ridiculous foothills but also the palm trees in the background and the cactus looking plants in some people’s yard. If only Illinois had palm trees.

Poltergeist (1982)

Upon watching this for the first time in years, I was suddenly reminded just how much I love this film. It’s such a touching and sad story of how the parents of a little girl are willing to travel to another plane of existence to save their daughter. Unfortunately, in reality, Heather O’Rourke died young and went towards the bright light anyway. The subtle humor, the nods to childhood fears and the chilling yet uplifting score by the famous Jerry Goldsmith gave me this warm feeling as I sat in those uncomfortable chairs.

Pumpkinhead (1988)

After releasing an ancient demon to seek revenge on the youths that accidentally killed his little boy, a farmer must stop what he unleashed before it ends up killing him as well. I saw this movie only once before and I hated it. Upon watching it again, I enjoyed it and I loved the special effects (of course I would because it was directed by Stan Winston) but I feel that it was a little unjustified to release such a horrid monster after the teens apologized for the fatal accident. The climax is anticlimactic but then again we are talking about the 80’s.

Gates of Hell

I broke away to grab a quick snack.

The Vampire Lovers

I fell asleep to.

Children Shouldn’t Play With Dead Things

I drifted in and out of sleep to. I was awoken by the excruciatingly loud ending.

The Sentinel (1977)

“What do you do for a living?” “We fondle each other.” Indeed, The Sentinel is one of those 70’s movies too fucked up to describe but very simple when you get right down to it. Basically it’s about a haunted apartment complex that’s being investigated by one of the new tenants who claims to have been invited to an birthday party by the tenants. However, there are no tenants in the apartment except for a reclusive priest. Now the young woman must find out why the apartment is being haunted, why is she being plagued with unsettling visions and what is the priest guarding on the third floor. Naked fat women eating people’s brains, a cat in a hat, loud noises, non sequitur scenes and an ending that’s reminiscent of Browning’s Freaks makes this film a worthwhile acid trip.

From Dusk Till Dawn (1996)

What a perfect movie to end a noon-to-noon, 24-hour horror marathon. I’ve always loved this movie and it’s a roller-coaster ride to see it with sleep deprived horror fanatics. Whoever thought that vampires would evolve from charismatic, caped villains (Lugosi) to ancient Mexican strippers (Hayek)?

The Massacre survivors (12:00pm)

Try and spot me in this picture. Here’s a clue: I’m the one who is holding the brown pillow. Also, I was smart to bring a pillow and blanket to this.

Thus concludes yet another Music Box Massacre and although I didn’t meet anybody there like I would have, probably because this year seemed more packed then usual, I had a blast with all the films. I will close out this piece with one of my favorite quotes of the night (aside from Sentinel).

“Psychos do not explode when sunlight hits them! I don’t give a fuck how crazy they are!”

Pictures courtesy of WGON Helicopter, Kindertrauma, The Vault of Horror and Hey! Look Behind You.

Review - The Thing (2011)

Many of you know because of my Thing Week that The Thing (1982) is my favorite horror movie of all time for many reasons including one that trails back to my childhood. It was best home video experience I ever had and The Thing became a part of my life like no other horror movie. When I heard that The Thing was going to be remade, I shuttered to think how the CGI would replace the brilliant practical effects that Bottin had worked on. Then, it was released that it would be a prequel rather then a remake but even that made me cringe because I never wanted to know what happened to the Norwegian outpost. Most of the ominous mood and fright comes from not knowing what happened, leaving only your imagination to fill in the blanks. I isolated myself from this movie and when I saw the trailer I had a lot of doubts but it also made me curious to see what they could do. So, I patiently waited for it’s release and I sat in the middle of the theater waiting to be wowed by an unnecessary “premake.” So, what is my verdict on a prequel to a personally beloved horror movie… well, after I mulled over it that night I came to the conclusion that I enjoyed it. Yeah, I really liked it but I feel as though I must nitpick it here and there.

The story is much like Carpenter’s film. A group of Norwegians locate a crashed alien saucer that has been buried under the ice for thousands of years. They enlist the help of two American scientists to help them figure out what crawled out of the ship and froze beneath all the ice. In the midst of their celebration, the alien entity thaws out of the ice and begins killing and replicated anybody that comes in its way. Now, the outpost residents must find a way to stop the alien before it reaches a populated area but how do they know who is human and who is a thing? Paranoia settles in and the storm outside is getting worse and worse.

So what exactly did Matthijs van Heiningen, the director, do that made me like this movie. Well, understand that I am not praising this movie and although I liked it… I don’t think it was flawless or brilliantly directed. However, what I really loved was all the little nods to Carpenter’s film that were scattered throughout the movie. These are little things that would go overlooked in some people’s book and would provoke some people to say that this film was more of a remake then a prequel. They explain why there was an axe stuck in the door, they explain what that two-headed thing was and what it was like when it was alive and in that respect there was a wonderful tribute to Norris’ death (think spider legs, upside down heads and open chests). There is a wonderful nod to the cinematography from the Carpenter film; the scene where the camera trucks forward to reveal the big block of ice that held the alien. This shot was so small and minute that not many people would even realize it was from Carpenter’s film. There’s many more throughout the film that made me pleased.

Now, what about the characters? Are they as good as Carpenter’s cast and does our new heroine resemble MacReady and his sarcastic and tired frame of attitude? The cast is great but I feel as though they are mostly forgettable except for one person who I think was the best character. As for our heroine, Kate Lloyd, although she does have that survivor woman persona she doesn’t really stand out to me as being unique. MacReady, to me, was unique because he was sort of an anti-hero; he drank, he had a temper, he was tired, worn out and on the edge of going crazy. Lloyd is any typical survivor girl from any given horror movie but I still liked her. She took things into her own hands and understood what the thing was. There are two Americans that look and occasionally act like Childs and MacReady and the person who lives to the end (and where the Carpenter movie begins), he was a badass and it’s tragic to see what would inevitably happen to him.

And now for the meat of the movie: the special effects and how the creature looks. As much as I wanted it to have practical effects I had to abandon that hope a while ago and I accepted that this movie would heavily use CGI. The film does use CGI but it also uses a good variety of practical effects but before I get into that I want to comment on my love/hate relationship with the CGI of this film. I hate the CGI because, like in most horror movies that use it, it looks a little unpolished and cheesy at times. It felt like a video game, ironically because the director stated that he never based anything off the video game adaptation. Some of the CGI made me laugh and say, “Oh man, really?” However, I love the CGI because for the first time I saw the Thing almost exactly how I wanted to see it for a long time. I saw somebody’s chest open up with red tendrils wrapping around somebody. I saw the two-headed thing crab-walking and attacking people and I saw a one-on-one battle with somebody and the Thing. It was a pleasure but too bad it was done with some iffy CGI. As for the practical effects, they were good and they looked painful and slimy just as they did back in ’82. I feel as though, at times, they used CGI when it involved the Thing attacking and running around but for the most part they used practical effects as much as they could. I respect that.

So now lets get into some fan nitpicking here. One of the biggest errors or problems that I found, choose your poison, was the discovery of the alien craft. In Carpenter’s film, the Americans were looking over the tapes they took from the Norwegian camp. The tape clearly shows the Norwegians forming a circle around the craft and then blowing open the layers of ice that buried it. Similarly, this was done in the Howard Hawks adaptation in the 50’s. However, in the prequel, we never see the Norwegians forming the circle and it isn’t until the end where they finally blow open the ice encasing and it wasn’t even by dynamite. When the ship was activated, the engines blew open the ice above it as if they tired to create their own version of how the ship was exposed. Another thing, maybe I didn’t see it the right way or maybe I’m right, but in Carpenter’s film… they find a body with a slit throat. The person obviously cuts his throat with a straight razor but in this prequel the man cuts himself (I think) with a hacksaw. It’s really nitpicky of me to bring this up but as a fan of the original it’s my duty to do so. Personally, for me, the biggest problem was seeing them discover the shape of the craft and blowing it up… it’s like a staple scene in the entire franchise and it was never committed to the final version.

The other big problem that I had with this film that the Carpenter film had was the mood. In Carpenter’s film, the colors were ranging on heavy blues and oranges in order to simulate hot and cold temperatures. By doing this he made me feel like I was trapped in a cold and dark place where my only salvation was gravitating to somewhere warm and… orange. Plus, the entire film is a dark piece, not just figuratively but it’s a very dark place with a lot of shadows and some dim lights. While the prequel gives me that cold feeling with it’s use of blues and light blue coloring, it doesn’t at all give me a sense of darkness and seclusion. This problem was expected and it’s very difficult to replicate so I won’t knock the movie for it but it’s something that I would have like to have seen done.

I need to cut this review short but as I stated before, I liked this movie and I thought it was a fantastic prequel to Carpenter’s film as well as a tribute to Campbell’s novella and Hawks’ film. The ending, which trails into to where Carpenter’s film picks up, was one of the very few moments where I got chills of nostalgia. The score, the cinematography and the “cut to black” ending made me smile like never before. It’s even more tragic when you find out what character ends up making it through till the end only to know that he eventually gets shot and killed. With all this being said, I still won’t consider this to be as perfect as the ’82 classic and when I refer to The Thing, I will always be referring to Carpenter’s film. If I ever expose people to The Thing, I’ll only expose them to the Carpenter’s film unless they are really interested. I feel as though this movie is like the black sheep but a black sheep that I have some respect towards. It was an unnecessary prequel that still diminishes the horror and imagination that was in Carpenter’s film but at least they did a fine job of adapting it. If anything, it gives me even more respect to Carpenter’s Thing.