In 2013, we saw the
release of the remake of “Evil Dead.” Directed and co-written by Fede Alvarez
and starring Jane Levy, the remake managed to be a surprisingly faithful
reimagining that I loved a lot more than I was expecting. Sure, it might have
been due to Sam Raimi, Robert Tapert, and Bruce Campbell being attached as
producers of the flick, but it still managed to deliver a very effective horror
film, that I would definitely say rivals up there with the original. And with
the film’s success, it led to two very good things happening: the new Starz
series, “Ash Vs Evil Dead,” and Fede Alvarez working on a brand new film,
“Don’t Breathe.”
The film is about
three young delinquents: Rocky, Alex, and Money; who are common house robbers,
who dream of leaving their dead beat town for a better life in California. When
they come across a blind war veteran who has a big fortune with him, they
decide to make that their next target, but just because he’s blind, doesn’t
mean he’s harmless.
I have to say, for a
follow up to his version of “Evil Dead,” Fede Alvarez did not disappoint.
“Don’t Breathe” is very suspenseful thriller that constantly had me on the edge
of my seat more so than most of the horror films that I’ve seen this year. One
of the key things that it excels with is its use of sound. There isn’t a lot of
jump-scares in this movie, but with a character who relies purely on the
slightest hint of noise made, every creaking footstep, every slight rubbing of
the fingers, and every breath taken in this film is amplified to increase the
tension. Hell, I even found myself holding my breath. I also love the
claustrophobic atmosphere this film gives us, something that “10 Cloverfield
Lane” did great with too. The only difference between the way these two films handle
that atmosphere, is that this film never drops the tension, whereas “10
Cloverfield Lane” has a few more relaxed scenes. Do I think one is better than
the other? Not really, because they are both totally different scenarios, so it
just depends on what you’re in the mood for.
Jane Levy plays
Rocky, the main character we follow through the film, and it was really nice to
see her in a lead role again. While she is technically a crook, her motivations
and portrayal of the character make her very likable, as she only does what she
needs with the best intentions. I’m really hoping with the best with Jane Levy,
because she really is a very strong actress, even in the horror genre.
Hopefully she’ll get a chance to work on “Ash Vs. Evil Dead” soon. Dylan Minnette,
best known for his work in “Prisoners” and “Goosebumps,” plays Alex, and I was
really impressed with what he delivered. Being someone who can hack into
security systems, he shows himself to be very reliable to Rocky and Money. You
see that he does care for what happens to the two, and will do whatever he can
to make sure that they come out as unscathed as possible. Speaking of which,
Money is played by Daniel Zovatto, who played Greg in “It Follows,” and it was
really nice to see him in another great horror film. Unlike Alex, who is clean
and calculative, Money is more of the quick and dirty kind of guy in
comparison. Not that he isn’t careful, but he does take a riskier approach to
things.
Of course, as good as they are,
Stephen Lang steals the show as the blind man. Why? Well, if you watch the
trailer, you know exactly why. Lang is downright terrifying in this movie, with
his portrayal of the blind man. Like I said, with even the slightest noise made
being amplified, you always tense up, fearing that he will be coming around the
corner at any minute. And as this film goes on, his character gets even more
fucked up than you could predict. Trust me, when it got to that point, even I
exclaimed out loud “oh fuck!”
Now, do I have any complaints with
the film? Yeah. For one, if the film had just ended with the police arriving at
the house, then that would have been fine. However, it just kept going, and the
very last scene of this film felt very unnecessary, like it was the alternate
ending on the blu-ray. Also some people have pointed out that this has a lot of
similarity to David Fincher’s “Panic Room” and Wes Craven's "The People Under the Stairs." And…yeah, after watching it a
second time, some of those similarities became very obvious, especially with
the end credits. At least the film executed those similarities well. If this
film was like “Chappie” or “The Legend of Hercules (2014)” where they were both
rip-offs AND shit movies, then I’d have a problem, but it didn’t.
Overall, “Don’t Breathe” is a very
suspenseful and tightly made movie that really keeps you on the edge of your
seat. The tension, the atmosphere, the scenario, it’s all tightly made and
executed really damn well. It’s one of my favorite horror films of the year,
and it gets my recommendation.
If you’ve
read my review for “Scouts Guide to the Zombie Apocalypse,” you would know that
I detested that piece of shit with a fiery passion. Not just because it was easily the most insufferable horror comedy I've ever seen, but because it was one of the worst movie theater experiences I've had in years. Let me explain, I saw the film on Halloween night of last year with a group of friends, and I was the only one who hated it. That's probably the worst thing that could happen when seeing a movie with friends, when you're the odd man out. I'm not saying they're wrong for liking it...but I fail to see why. The characters were unlikable, the action scenes were
uninspired, the comedy was beyond tasteless, at times didn't make any sense, and it was the film that made
me completely sick of zombies. Yeah, that’s how bad the
film was. It was already bad enough that "The Walking Dead" made me bored of the genre, but "Scouts Guide" was the film that completely destroyed my enjoyment for anything zombie related. Hell, not even re-watching “Shaun of the Dead” or
any of the Romero films cheered me up. And considering how over-saturated the genre was
becoming, I figured it was time to put it to rest and let zombies go the way of westerns. Sadly, that'll take time before it comes into effect, so we'll still have to deal with them for the time being. Until then, let's talk about today’s topic: “Pride + Prejudice + Zombies.”
Based on
the parody novel by Seth Graham-Smith, we are given a retelling of Jane
Austin’s “Pride & Prejudice,” but with zombies. Nothing more, nothing less.
I didn’t really have high expectations for this movie, so if the film didn't work, I wouldn't have been disappointed. But during its
opening weekend, and since I had some time to kill after seeing “Hail, Caesar,”
I decided to give it a chance. And boy…did I have fun with this film.
While the film does take itself
seriously for the most part, it does have some pretty exciting and
humorous moments to it, especially for those who know the original “Pride &
Prejudice.” Not only that, the action scenes were very good, especially with it
being director Burr Steers first action film. I’m also glad that the zombie
effects and mannerisms are consistent, and I love how they explain how they
keep their humanity intact, despite being infected, by having them feast on brains that aren't human. Take note of this, Chris
Landon!
Lily
James, Bella Heathcote, Suki Waterhouse, Ellie Bamber, and Millie Brady, really
do a great job portraying the Bennett sisters. They handle these characters
with dignity, both in their mannerisms and how they’d prepare for battle in
this time period, in a believable way. Same can be said for Douglas Booth as
Mr. Bingley. As a fresh and up-and-coming actor, he showcases that he can
really dive into a time period with such ease, and portray a convincing man of
class, both in mannerisms and skill. I especially love how he and Lily James
work off of each other, especially in their fight scene that has a nice homage
to “The Mask of Zorro.”
With what
I had good to say about it, was there anything that didn’t work with me? Well,
like the original “Pride & Prejudice,” it has some very dull moments, and I
mean DULL. I know that might sound childish of me, but it is supposed to be a
fun popcorn film too, and each transition through zombie fights does take some
time to slog through. That, and the film does tend to have trouble shifting through tones, something that “Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter” had a
problem with, which I thought was handled more smoothly in “Hansel &
Gretel: Witch Hunters.” That, and the biggest problem I had was with Matt Smith
as Mr. Collins. I did not give a damn about this character in the film, nor did
I think there was any reason to have it be Matt Smith. This is the second film
I’ve seen him in where he’s flat out wasted, the other being “Terminator Genisys.” But
at least he wasn’t as underused as Lena Headly as Lady Catherine. I mean, she’s
great, but we don’t get to see enough of her in action. I mean, it’s Lena
Headly, the wife of Leonidas for God’s sake!
Overall, looking past some boring moments and a bit of wasted potential, I still managed to have fun with“Pride + Prejudice + Zombies." If you like
the original “Pride & Prejudice,” or if you’re someone who wanted it to be
a little more entertaining, I’d recommend seeing this. it. It
may not be the best zombie film ever made, nor is it the best satire action
film I’ve seen, but it does what it wanted to do. And unlike "Scouts Guide," "Pride + Prejudice + Zombies" was a film that allowed me to have fun.
Witches are a stable on
the Halloween tradition. They’re instantly recognizable. Depending on what
generation or region you grew up in, everyone has their own view on what a
being under the influence of witchcraft is supposed to be. Of course, we’ve had
different kinds of witches exist in pop culture, especially in entertainment.
From the light hearted sitcoms like “Bewitched,” to aura of mystery (or lack
thereof) with “The Blair Witch Project,” and to the film that brings us to the
origins of witchery, in the form of Robert Eggers “The Witch.”
In 17th
century New England, a family leaves its church and plantation due to different
interpretations of the New Testament. After settling on a farm of their own,
the family’s newborn is taken from them by a witch, and a curse is bestowed
upon them.
Now let me be clear,
that this film isn’t going to be for everyone, and I can totally understand
why. The beginning is very slow, and it does take a while to get invested with
what’s happening on screen. Even I’ll admit, that I got a little sidetracked
with the beginning of this film when I first saw it. That, and with the
dialogue spoken like it was in that time period, it does take a while to
understand what they’re fully saying, without the use of subtitles. If you’re
unable to get past that, then I’m guaranteeing you’re going to hate this movie.
However, if you can
muster yourself past that point and feel invested, then you’re in for a treat. The
best way that I can describe “The Witch,” is that it’s a horror film that is
100% pure atmosphere. There is not a single jump scare or gory gesture in this film,
at all. Sure, there is some blood and murder, but not the extent of other
horror films these days. The scares in this film are attributed to that of
silent horror films, where the visuals are subdued and atmosphere are what is
supposed to scare the audience. The score composed by Mark Korven is equally as
haunting, adding more to chill that this film carries.
As for the cast, they
all managed to do exceptionally well. While it is hard to understand them, considering
the old English is vastly from what we communicate with today, I have to give
props to the actors who dedicated themselves to mastering the dialogue, to make
it truly feel like it was this time period. Not only that, but the dynamics
between this family, even before the witch makes her first strike, is deeply
haunting. A boy with lustful yearnings for his sister, twins talking with their
goat like it’s a chant, a mother slowly driven to madness, a father slipping
control over his family, and the daughter who may or may not be cursed.
As for the witch
herself, it is an unsettling sight when she pops up. However, unlike other
creatures, her appearance is kept to a minimum, so they don’t throw out there
as much would one expect. She appears about three different times in the movie,
and when she does, it gets really unsettling.
If you’re looking for a
film that brings witches back to their demonic roots, then this is the film I
would recommend to you. It may be a little rough to get settled into, but once
you’re in, there’s no turning back. If there’s a future in Robert Eggers
career, I hope he’ll bring on more horror such as this.
Much
in the trend of celebrating anniversaries this Halloween, I’ve decided to take
a look back on a film that had a remake not too long ago. In fact, I reviewed
the remake back when it was originally released. And that film was none other
than “Carrie.”
Stephen
King’s first novel “Carrie” is regarded as one of the most iconic works of
horror fiction. It centers on an unpopular school girl named Carrie White, who
goes through traumatic experiences, being bullied by her classmates and abused
by her highly religious mother, Margaret. One of the girls, Sue Snell, decides
to apologize for what she did by having her date, Bobby Ross, take Carrie to
the prom. During this time, Carrie starts to learn more about her new found
telekinesis abilities, seeing if she can control it better. The book not only
stands as an iconic work of horror, but also brought a strong outlook at social
commentary and bullying. There are kids that were and still are bullied at
school to this day, which has led to them most likely committing suicide or
homicidal acts. “Carrie” is a prime example of how words and actions can be
taken too far. Since its release, many adaptations of such have been made,
including a Broadway musical. The two most notable adaptations of the story are
the 1976 Brian De Palma film, and the recent 2013 Kimberly Pierce remake.
The De Palma film has been regarded as a masterpiece of horror,
while the remake has been panned by viewers for being unnecessary and
unwanted…but is it, really? I mean, as someone who read the book, I’ve seen the
film in a very respectful light, and maybe even better than what some people
may give credit for. So I've decided to give you an in-depth analysis comparing the two films. If you’re familiar with Doug Walker’s segment of “Old vs.
New” as the Nostalgia Critic, then you should know how things will be done
here. So, in celebration of the original film’s 40th anniversary,
welcome to my Old vs New of “Carrie.” Or as I like to call it, “A Tale of Two
Carries.”
To
start things off, let’s take a look at the different actresses playing the main
character, Carrie White.
AAs we know, Carrie White is a
shy timid girl, who all she wants is to be
accepted and treated as a normal girl. However, because she's dealing with such horrible people and lacks social contact, it makes it difficult for her. In the De Palma film, Carrie
was played by Sissy Spacek, who pulls off the tormented outcast role very well, begging for help and forgiveness without all the violence brought upon her to do so.
It's also important to note that Spacek's performance was nominated for the Best Actress Oscar, so that tells you right off the bat that she set the bar high. In the
Pierce film, Carrie's played by Chloe Grace Moretz, who's had experience with films about bullied outcasts, as seen in the 2010 remake, “Let Me In.” She delivers the right tone that's needed for the role, constantly feeling like she's in the wrong place wherever she goes, even at home. Much of the
criticism with Moretz was that she looked too pretty to play Carrie, and that realistically, wouldn't be much of an outcast. While
technically speaking, she is prettier than Spacek was back then, it didn't seem to bother me that much. In this day and age, you can still be bullied no matter
how you look, something the remake may have been aiming for with its
casting of Moretz. Despite this, I find myself leaning towards Spacek's portrayal of the character, which has a better vision of uncertainty
to herself, and that aura of just wanting to disappear and never be found. Moretz
has that too, but there were a couple moments where you can tell she looked a little too comfortable with
her surroundings. As much of a good job Moretz does, Spacek's Carrie was a bit
stronger, or in this case, weaker.
De Palma: 1
Pierce: 0
The
next big aspect we have to look at in this mother-daughter relationship, is the
mother. Let’s take a look:
Here we come to Margaret
White, the psychotic religious mother that torments Carrie, as much as the
bullies at school. In the De Palma film, she was played by Piper Laurie, who
performs it as a church preacher at the podium, begging for the lord to show
forgiveness for those who act human. The Pierce version is played by Julianne
Moore, who makes the character seem more sadist, constantly punishing herself at almost any given moment, even if it's just simple small talk with a
neighbor or customer. Both characters do give off a chilling and fearful vibe
to them, but Moore's performance feels superior. No matter what, she always has
that same expression on her face throughout the whole movie, as if showing
emotion is considered a sin. Her interactions with people other than her daughter, are not only unsettling, but from a psychological point of view is downright mortifying. I mean, take for example the scene where she talks with Cynthia Preston who plays Sue Snell's mom. This woman constantly hurts herself to the point of drawing blood, in front of somebody no less, mumbling biblical stuff under her breath, and she hardly even blinks. That's pretty fucked up. With Laurie's scenes with the neighbors, you could buy that this woman would still get along decently with society, and while she does have her intimidating moments, at times she gets a little too hammy. Let's compare their death scenes: When Moore dies, she treats the scene naturally. Brutal and not overstaying its welcome. When Laurie dies, she acts like she's having an orgasm with every stab into her…I did not mean for that to sound sexual. Overall, as memorable as Piper Laurie's Margaret is, Julianne Moore gave the more disturbing performance. So point goes to her.
De Palma: 1
Pierce: 1
With
every leading character or two, there's always a supporting cast to back them up. So
which one had the stronger cast of characters? Let’s find out:
First up, we have Ms.
Desjardin, the P.E. teacher who punishes her class for the shower incident at
the beginning of the story. The Pierce version does have a compelling
performance given by Judy Greer, who really gets the viewer on her
supportive side, especially when it comes to defending one of her students from
a group of bullies. For some reason, the De Palma film had the character's name
changed to Ms. Collins, played by Betty Buckley, who's just as supportive as
Greer is, but the name change seems a bit off. With Buckley, she does help give
Carrie confidence, but she's still a teacher first and a friend second. Greer
is the opposite, which is made more obvious when she actually tries to reason with Carrie in the prom scene, resulting in her being spared in the massacre.
It's a bit of a coin toss, as I feel that both are very strong and respectable in their own right. Then there's Sue Snell, the girl
who wants to make amends with Carrie, and Tommy Ross, her boyfriend who ends
up taking Carrie to prom. The Pierce version of these characters, played by
Gabrielle Wilde and Ansel Elgort, are fleshed out better, as we have more
scenes with them together, and see how they both feel about the idea of Tommy
taking Carrie to prom, before deciding to completely go with it. Amy Irving and William Katt are good, but it didn't feel
like we got to know them that well, aside from exposition. Now it rolls down to
the villains, Chris Hargensen and Billy Nolan. In the De Palma film, Billy was
played by John Travolta, in one of his first feature films. As he's introduced,
it tells us that he's a blue collar rebellious guy, drinking a beer while driving and talking trash to his girlfriend. Alex Russel in the Pierce version, while fine with what he's given, wasn't
particularly memorable. He plays it off like the generic bad boy you see in
most horror movies today. I feel like he wasn't really trying that much to make the character stand out, where as Travolta in all his..."Travoltiveness," does leave an impression on you, good or bad. Now it's all down to Chris Hargensen, the main cause
of all of Carrie's troubles. The De Palma film had Nancy Allen and the Pierce
version had Portia Doubleday, who are both despicable in their performances.
Allen is a complete bitch, especially when she tells Carrie to “eat shit,”
right to her face in the beginning, but Doubleday is much worse. Not only does she give other
people shit for not thinking her way, mouthing off to her teacher, believing she's in the right, but she goes as far as to exploit her spoiled rich brat attitude by bringing the situation up with Daddy, confronting the principal, and posting the video of Carrie having her period on YouTube for everybody to
see. For Doubleday's performance as Chris alone, the Pierce version has the
superior cast.
De Palma: 1
Pierce: 2
Now
when talking about “Carrie,” the first thing that comes to people’s minds is
the “Night of the Black Prom.” So which movie brought this to life the strongest?
Both films really handle
the Black Prom with such excellence, but as you can tell, are done with totally
different styles. With the De Palma version, the look of it has foggy but dreamlike atmosphere to it. Everything seems to
be going right, and the moment Carrie's announced queen, most of the sound is
silent, and all you hear is the iconic Pino Dinaggio score that slowly building
up, getting faster with each passing second. In the Pierce version, the scene
is shot like any other typical scene, with the music by Marco Beltrami building it up, but with the audio from the cast being kept in. The turning point of
the entire scene is of course Carrie getting pig blood dumped over her, and she
lets out her inner rage against everybody. The way the De Palma version
presents itself, is it has Carrie constantly hearing the words her mother said,
“They're all going to laugh at you,” overlapping the waves of laughter from
everybody at the prom. During this, Carrie's face is struck with fear, pain, and anger all at once, showing that she's finally snapped. In the Pierce version however, Carrie’s
humiliated further, as the very video of her that Chris took is projected. So not
only is she humiliated with pig blood over her, but an embarrassing video of
her freaking out in the shower is shown for everybody to see, letting the
shame go even further than you’d expect. With how these scenes are done, it's brought back between Spacek and Moretz as Carrie, when they finally let their demons
loose. Spacek, during the killings, kept that iconic blank haunting stare
throughout the whole scene, only looking at the next object she tends to possess.
Moretz, does the killings more with her hands in motion to control them, making her attack a bit more theatrical for others to witness. So where De Palma gave
us a memorable moment in horror history, Pierce shows us a moment of "I'll show you fuckers whose boss." They both are handled very well, especially with how most of the
killings are executed (puns), but the De Palma version wins it, mostly
for the stronger build up, and creating one of the most haunting scenes in film history.
De Palma: 2
Pierce: 2
Now it comes down to the
major factor of it all, the story. Which film handled the story of a bullied
girl with telekinetic powers the strongest, and how well does it stay true to
its source material? Let’s find out:
Let’s analyze the De
Palma film first. That version starts out with a game of volleyball, which
shows us a bit about the kind of people that Carrie is classmates with, and how
timid Carrie herself is with others. With the Pierce version, we actually get a scene of
Margret giving birth to her child, which sets the tone for HER character, and
THEN we go into the volleyball scene. When the scene with the principal
happens, Carrie in the De Palma film showed a bit of her powers when the
principle kept calling her “Cassie” instead of “Carrie.” In the Pierce version,
her powers in the principal’s office occurred when she was against her mother
picking her up, adding some depth to the kind of relationship the two have, and just how afraid Carrie is of her mother. The biggest difference
with these films is that De Palma focused more on the horror aspect, whereas
Pierce focused on the social commentary side. While both aspects are represented in
each film, you have to look at what King's original intentions were with the
story, which is about a bullied girl who gets back at the culprits with
telekinesis. The De Palma version had the bullies mess with Carrie once,
before the prom scene, and that was the shower incident. The Pierce version,
however, has her not only humiliated during the shower scene, but it has Chris
record a video and upload it to YouTube, two boys outside the principal’s
office make blowjob gestures, and the words “Carrie White eats shit” are
written on the hallway lockers for her to see, adding more to the blow, as opposed to the De Palma
version where it's written in the gym where she COULDN'T see it. The way Carrie kills Chris and Billy after the prom in the Pierce
version has a much more satisfying end to it. Unlike the De Palma film, where
Carrie just flips over the car they're driving and it explodes, she stops the
car and hurls it into a gas station, leaving them both with a huge concussion
and glass sticking out of their faces, before disconnecting a telephone wire to
set the leaking gas on fire, causing it blows up. In my regard, that is a much
more satisfying death to watch. Of course, there's how these two endings differ. The De Palma version ends with Carrie and Margaret dead, and Sue having a nightmare of Carrie's corpse grabbing at her, as she puts flowers on her burial. However, the Pierce version gives a little bit more detail, as Sue arrives at Carrie's to explain the situation, and Carrie tells her
that Sue's pregnant with a girl, before sending her out of the house as it collapses. Immediately after, Sue is in a court case to explain what happened,
so it's likely that the book's original ending may have happened in this movie. In the ending of the book,
because of the events at the school and within town, the whole country is now
aware of the possibilities of telekinesis, resulting in schools to forbid
bullying at the point of being concentration camps. While it doesn’t exactly show that, it does
hint it closer than the De Palma version.
So in conclusion, despite
the grand nature that the De Palma film has, I feel like the Pierce version is the
better film. It sticks closer to the book's themes on social
commentary, without the horror aspect overshadowing it too much. Besides, while there are some people who believe it's not as bad as it was when they were young, bullying in our society has actually gotten worse, especially with the advantages we have when it comes to communication. It's important for the story of "Carrie" to be re-told time and time again. Sure, De Palma may have
delivered a horror classic, and will be remembered as such, but Pierce had a better understanding of the themes that King had set out for.
De Palma: 2
Pierce: 3
So,
that’s my analysis on the two “Carrie” films. I hope you enjoyed it and got a
good insight on what I’ve talked about. If not, then sorry to have disappointed
you. And with that, I’ll see you guys next time.
