Scream 4

First horror movie on this list. I could have gone with some of my favorite horror films first, but since I was pretty excited to check this film out, and I saw it a few days ago, I thought I would throw in my two cents while it was fresh in my mind. 


Just to set some expectations: I really like the first two Scream films. I think the first film is the slasher horror film of my generation. It single handedly revitalized a fledgling genre, breathing fresh new life into a genre of film that had been stabbed just as many times as its unfortunate cinematic victims, and left for dead. Scream 2 took meta-film to the next level by capitalizing on the expectations of the audience, while delivering an entertaining knife-happy second round through Woodsboro. 


Scream 3 made the mistake of fully becoming exactly what the filmmakers were lampooning in the first 2 films. 


Now, a whopping 11 years later, Scream 4 is out. And I can't remember the last time I have had so much fun in a theater. But, that doesn't make this a great movie. It makes it a fun one. 


Scream 4's opening is something an audience member either loves, or hates. I loved it. It opens as any Scream film does; inside a house with the first victim receiving a phone call from our friendly neighborhood sociopath / horror geek. But the filmmakers are out to make a movie that is self-aware, and what follows is a series of movies within movies within movies. Openings of the various movies based on the main characters trials of the first three Scream films, affectionately titled "Stab" are shown to the audience. Even though I felt it was slightly over the top (the head-fake happens twice), but overall I felt it was in line with what the movie had to say about the post-scream horror films. There are many comments thrown around about movies that aren't scary, but are instead gross (Saw, Hostel et all). This is the kind of dialog I enjoy listening to, courtesy of screenwriter Kevin Williamson, who wrote the first two entries, along with some assistance from Ehren Kruger. This dialog can only come from Williamson. His deconstruction of horror movies today is on point, and kept me interested in the dialog enough until the mayhem begins. 


The whole "meta" aspect of the film is something that I feel many movie goers are split on, which is why this whole opening could potentially make or break the experience. Since I love to talk about film to others, there is nothing that appeals to me more than to watch a film where people have the same discussions (and sometimes share the same opinions!) as I do, while demonstrating how people with that knowledge react when put in a situation that is similar to the films they love. I find that to be entertaining, and that is really the crux of why I love the Scream films. I can always relate to the characters in the film (especially the designated nerd), and find that this connection make the film that much more fun to watch. 


Being a fan of the first two films, it is nice to see all of the principles back in the fray. I feel the stand-out here is David Arquette's Dewey. He is that lovable goof ball you are always rooting for in the previous films, and his is a welcome return. All of the characters look their age. Voices have gone raspy, husky, and have dropped an octave. Even Ghostface's voice sounds like the original's after a few years of aging and/or smoking. Not even omnipresent psycho-killers can avoid father time I suppose. This plays in favor of the film, which is not afraid to show that their principles are real people. There was a great moment in the film where Gale Weathers (Courtney Cox) is planting a cameras at a party in the film. The cameras themselves look like fairly large and bulky security cameras. But the killer has the same idea, and has cameras of his own. Except they are sleek, round and wirelessly controlled webcams. Although not very subtle, the effect was amusing. It seems the movie revels in showing how different the era's of the first Scream and this one are.


The stand-out new character is by far Kirby Reed (Hayden Penettier). This girl is kind of awesome in this movie. This is probably because I have a huge boy-crush on her character. She is attractive, spunky, and most importantly, a horror movie nerd. She goes toe-to-toe with Macaulay Rory Culkin in a horror movie trivia stand-off, which was just mind-blowing. Just her little trivia session scene with the killer near the end of the film was worth the price of admission. Great hot, nerdy, awesome character and probably the only new character who is worthy of any attention. 


The film also takes a few shots at Hollywood remakes and the generally creatively deprived state of Hollywood genre film making as a whole. I appreciate the film trying to call out the competition, and trying to emphasize that it is an original property which is a rarity these days. It is strange for the film to take such a stance, the irony here being that Wes Craven has had many of his movies remade, and some he has even had hand in remaking. The Hills Have Eyes (and it's remake sequel), Last House on the Left and Nightmare on Elm Street are all remakes of Wes Craven movies. The first two in the list he is actually credited as producer. 


Odd as that is, the film has one major problem: it cannot avoid the pitfalls it is calling out in other films. Look, there is a certain amount of predictability to this type of film. But the Scream series has always been about anticipating that audience... anticipation, and throwing something else at them. This movie, despite all of it's talk, simply cannot avoid the standards of the genre. While I am not overly concerned with plot cliches, I am incredibly concerned with suspense technique and atmosphere, which can make this movie irritating to watch at certain points. Wes Craven is an established film maker with many years of experience. He can spin a tightly woven suspense tale in a creative and unique way (Red Eye). Sure he has had some pitfalls in the past (Cursed... what the fuck was that?), but in the end, if Craven can do anything, its create a sense of suspense and dread. 


So, why the fuck is it that he falls back on cliched editing, sound design, and camera tricks to try to make the audience afraid? Let's talk about some examples:


Editing:
- Now you see him now you don't move. I like to call this "Ninja, Vanish" or "Batman Syndrome". The killer is lying on the floor one moment, and the next has vanished into thin air. Now, the only fictional person who is allowed to do this is Batman. And maybe members of the Foot Clan. But a human maniac with no training or supernatural assistance is not allowed to do this in a film. This is a cheap move that will always, always always get a tired groan out of a movie going audience, even if they are enjoying the film.


Sound Design:
- Consider this. Take a preview audience, put them in a dark theater, and have nothing but text from this book scrolling slowly on the screen. Now, play the loudest fucking noise you can get your hands on randomly during this... film. Each and every time your audience will jump. Scream even. Does that make you a good horror film maker? No. It does not. This is not suspense. This is shock. And it is not hard to shock people. Craven, even after all these years, relies on shock cutting, and shock sound design to scare the audience. A hand reaching from the shadows to grab a character is always accompanied by some sort of loud electronically created sound that causes the audience to jump. I admit, "Jump-scares" are an essential part to a film of this type, but you have to earn them. Relying solely on them means you have run out of ideas.


Camera Trickery:
- Ever feel like the characters in a film are blind as bats? Consider the character standing in a hallway, only to get completely blindsided by a killer running at full tilt. This would imply 


a) This character has absolutely zero peripheral vision.
b) This character is completely deaf. 


It annoys me to no end that the framing of the camera seems to assist the killers element of surprise, keeping him just out of frame. It almost always feels like if we can't see him in the frame... then the character most certainly cannot see him. This is despite the fact that any average human being would be able to detect the killers presence by either seeing or hearing him coming. The killer must be wearing his hush puppies to be running around so silently. 


Look up "Horror Movie Cliches", you will find each of the three above topics in some form or another. 


Craven employs each of these tactics in this film. Not as much as an inexperienced director mind-you, but they are still there. If anything, he has truly perfected this "art". I really wish we could just get away from these types of cheap tactics. Craven has proven he can create an atmosphere of suspense and dread with Red Eye. Why not make use of some other tactics? I always wish horror film makers would not cut the film so tightly, and let the film relax a little bit. Tight cutting doesn't always equal tension. A slow burn shot of the killer approaching his victim out of focus in the background would be a welcome change from some of the jack-in-box maneuvers pulled in this film. 


That is not to say that the film is devoid of suspense. I actually quite enjoyed Ghostface's banter on the phone, and felt it added to the tension. While sounding older, his dialog is more relaxed. Sometimes, it is down right funny (one scene, after being accused of being a kid playing a prank named Trevor, has him exclaiming in annoyance "THIS ISN'T FUCKING TREVOR!"). Those moments of amusement are cut with flashes of extreme anger and make his conversations unpredictable. I enjoyed the fact that he almost always starts with disarming conversation, and suddenly (violently) changes over to something a little more sadistic.


Re-visiting the dialog for a moment, I really enjoyed all of the shout outs to what is probably the last 20 or 30 years of horror movies. The "Cinema Club" at Woodsboro Highschool contains posters for many movies I have enjoyed in the past, and it is nice to see the movie pay homage as well as poke some self-aware fun at the films that inspired its creation. Also, the "Stab" films within the film are directed by Robert Rodriguez. That is all sorts of awesome. 


One particular shout out I thought was pretty great was the name of the cop that Anthony Anderson plays. They keep referring to him by his last name, "Perkins", until once and only once in the film he is called by his first name, "Anthony". That would make him Anthony Perkins, the actor who played Norman Bates in the original Psycho (and sequels). Funky. While we are on this, I also thought it was worth noting that Anthony Anderson is no stranger to the genre, having parts in Urban Legend: Final Cut, and going as far as to being the star of Scary Movie 3 and 4 which started out as lampooning the Scream franchise!


The movie's stand-out death occurs in when a character is attacked in her room, while the neighbors watch helplessly as she is sliced and diced. This scene, and the scene leading up to it were handled exceptionally well. I felt the tension ramp up as multiple phones were being used, and the distance between the characters seemed to get farther and farther as the scene went on. And the pay-off attack scene was filmed and edited for maximum shock, but it was shock that I felt was earned. 


I also enjoyed how the town of Woodsboro itself has handled the killings. It is interesting to see that the town has embraced them, and looks to capitalize on the tragedies. Dewey says it best, "One generations tragedy is another's joke" (that is from memory, I could be a little off on the actual line). I feel that the movie is at its best when it emphasizes the generation gap, and shows how the town has learned to cope. Woodsboro has moved on, but the murders have become a part of the town, and there is no way to escape it, and pop culture ensures that the wound will never heal.


Let's talk about the ending. The main strength of the first film comes from its enigmatic villains, and their motivation. This film has the motive, but the villains themselves are stale at best. Their delivery of the why and how of the whole situation at the conclusion of the film is weak when compared to Mathew Lillard and Skeet Ulrich's charming and energetic performances of the first film. The actor and actress playing the killers are low-energy, and you really don't buy into their state of mind. You do not FEEL that they believe what they are saying. That is a shame, because I felt the reasoning, while a bit convoluted, had some merit. I thought the filming of all the murders to up the ante was a brilliant idea. Our tech-savvy, pop-culture infused society would eat that "product" right up. Williamson was hitting the nail on the head with the line


"Look around, we all live in public now, we're all on the internet. How do you think people get famous anymore? You don't have to achieve anything! You just got to have fucked up shit happen to you."


This couldn't be more true. Antoine Dodson is a good example. His sister was nearly raped, and he got famous! 


Bottom line: these villains had a good motive, but the actors performance could not hold a candle to the original "motive-orgy" of the first film. 


A quick word on the posters for the film:

- That's what I am talking about. No floating heads. Stick to the iconic imagery established by the franchise, and make it unique. Not a SINGLE actors face on the poster! Amazing! Both are simple, elegant, effective. The one on the right ups the creepy factor with the morph into a knife at the bottom. This type of poster design gives me hope that we will get more creative posters for big Hollywood films. 


Having a look back on what I have written here, you may think I did not enjoy the film. I actually did. The crowd we saw it with was really into it, and there were plenty of screams and squeals of delight as the scares came a mile-a-minute on the screen. That whole atmosphere really helped the film come alive, and lead to one of the more memorable experiences at the theater. Wes Craven and Kevin Williamson have crafted a sequel that tries to break out of the box, but still falls victim to classic cliches. Despite this, the film has something to say about the horror genre and society's hunger for information. It also delivers some good old fashioned jump-scares while being quite funny in the process. Yes there are groan inducing cliches. Yes the best death in the movie is ruined by a truly out of place one-liner. But the films meta-charm and self awareness make it interesting and fun experience. Watch it with a group of friends. 

13 Assassins

13 Assassins


Let's start off with something that is fresh in my mind. I just saw 13 Assassins with a couple of friends this past Sunday. There has been a lot of buzz about the film since it started making the festival runs. This isn't surprising considering it's director is Tikashi "Audition" Miike. Now let's get one thing out of the way: I have only seen one Miike film, "Sukiyaki Western Django" (which I will probably write about soon). I have not seen "Ichi The Killer", or "Audition". Although I have heard they are both suitably fucked up.

After Django, I kind of went into this film expecting a very slow burn, a build up to a final climactic event. And thinking about it now, that is kind of what I got, albeit in proportions than I ever thought possible. This movie is literally split in half.

First half: Character and motivations are set up
Second half: Dismemberment/disembowelment of various kinds

The introduction of the film is actually its most powerful scene which depicts a Samurai performing seppuku. Oddly enough this is the most gut wrenching (!) scene in the film, and Miike handles it with a reverence and grace that such an act deserves. The shot it an unmoving, steady framing of the mans upper torso as he slowly and deliberately locates the correct spot on his stomach and slices himself open. It was mesmerizing, revolting and inspiring all at the same time. It was then that Miike had my complete and undivided attention. What follows is a bit of political drama and a classic banding together of men who recognize that something must be done about a seemingly bat-shit insane up and coming lord named Naritsugu. The first half of the film is the band planning the lord's assassination. The second half of the film is the execution of that planning.

The weakest link in this film is the antagonist. Naritsugu is a real asshole, there is no doubting that. Doesn't that make you hate him, and in turn, doesn't that make him a good bad-man? Not quite. This guy is SO evil, for reasons that are completely unclear, that you can't help but think the makers of the film could have replaced his scenes with a bill-board of the atrocities he has committed instead of actually having the character in the film. The film-makers are simply TELLING you he is evil.

Here is an evil man.
Here are the evil things he has done:
- Chopped off a woman's arms and feet and ripped out her tongue
- Raped a man's wife and subsequently killed her husband

He may have also killed the man's wife, but I don't remember. The fact I cannot remember is telling. I don't remember because in the end, I didn't care. Whenever he showed up on screen, I was simply waiting for another unspeakable atrocity to be committed by this prick and the scene to cut back to the infinitely more interesting characters in the film (anyone else). His shifty eyes and random acts of vicious violence made me think that this man would just up and rape anything in any scene he was in. He is THAT evil. So much so, that the character was nicknamed "Rapey Eyes" during the course of the film.

Rapey Eyes: I hate you because I was told too.  

But, in the end we get the message: He is a bad man, and he must be raped stopped.

That's where our protagonists come in, who are a colorful, if slightly clichéd group of individuals who take it upon themselves to take this asshole out. They are a mix of lovable rogues, money loving scoundrels, inexperienced youngsters and honorable leaders. Their interactions with each other and with Rapey Eyes' captain of the guard were believable. That being said, the characters have arcs that we have all seen before: the captain of the guard who wrestles with the realization that his Lord is psychotic, the showdown between friends, the youngster who is experiencing killing for the first time. These cliche's are depicted competently and are assisted by what I feel are two of the films strongest attributes: location and time period. I found the depictions of samurai culture quite arresting, and the  arc of the characters suddenly weren't clichéd. They fit. You can feel the strength of samurai code, good or bad, seething from the film as it goes. So effective was this depiction of samurai culture that I did not second guess any of their motivations. Gutting yourself in protest of serving a man you felt was evil seemed to be common sense. It all seemed to fall into place. Well, except one part... I will get to that.

One scene in particular during the first half stood out for me, which involved the dismembered woman. Miike films this with delicacy, not reveling in the woman's pain, but delivering a visual I won't soon forget. The mournful cry of the woman near the end of the scene gave me goosebumps. And the lead samurai's reaction to that scream of pain? A smirk. Literally. Maybe I need to watch it again, but I swear, the man smiles to himself immediately after the woman wails. Why? Because he has been looking for a reason to die honorably, and with the advent of the acts committed by Lord Rapey Eyes, has found a noble cause to do just that. He is so happy about this, he SMILES. Anyone can see that this may be considered an dick move. But, I understood why he would. So much is this movie steeped in Samurai code, that although I took note of his completely insensitive reaction, I believed that his smile was justified given his reasoning. The film has a strong sense of location and culture that it fully takes advantage of to great effect.

Alright, let's get into the second half of the film. The seemingly overcomplicated assassination attempt becomes a 200 on 13 orgy of violence. Miike is surprisingly adept at depicting action. I was very impressed with how the scenes were shot, and more importantly, how they were edited. For each individual fight, I understood where the combatants were, and how what they were doing was effecting their surroundings and each other. That is saying a lot in an age of films where hyper-editing can take a huge smelly shit on a well-covered, well-shot action scene. The strongest element of the scenes, and something I admire about great actions scenes in general is that these bastards are actually trying to kill each other. Watch the sword fighting in this closely, you will notice that no fight is a 10 minute swashbuckling/dancing-with-the-stars epic. They are exactly the opposite. Fast, hard and brutal. 3 or four strikes at most and someone is down. The ferocity of which the protagonists swing their swords makes you believe they could take 200 men. The sound design is also great, if not a bit over the top. I mean, how much noise does slashing or stabbing someone really make? The sound for slashing and stabbing in this is definitely amped up to increase the impact of the fights, but it gets to the point where the sound production was nearing light-saber levels of sonic-overload.

There are some times when I actually felt sorry for the lord's guards. These 13 Assassins were just decimating their army. Great shots of extremely nimble samurai running from roof to roof, climbing ladders, leaping into crowds of enemies and annihilating them. The energy with which Miike has put together this final incredibly long action scene kept me engaged without boring me. But one scene really had me scratching my head.

I had said I would talk about a scene in which not even the location and culture of the film could explain. After herding the Lord's army into their death trap, they begin to kill many guards from the rooftops via an arrow storm and well-planted explosives. Smart. Can never be too careful when its 13 on 200. After they have reduced the guard numbers significantly, they.... voluntarily throw their bows away and proceed to engage the army in sword to sword combat.

...

They have spent most of the movie despairing over the size of the Lord's army. Logic has been something that the film had stuck to up until this point. Although the whole assasination scheme was a little contrived, it was a very politically fueled environment, and that sort eliminates the direct approach. At least the film convinced me of that. But this scene left me with a big "what the fuck!?" moment. It is inconceivable that they would give up their incredible advantage of higher ground and projectiles for close quarters combat.

You really could have just arrowed this asshole in the chest...

Other than that minor slip in logic, I found the action portion of the film to be a well shot, well edited high energy example of good action film-making. This will look and sound incredible on Blu-Ray.

Just a word on the add campaign: I really enjoyed the posters for this film. Particularly the poster used to introduce the post, and the following one:

Fantastic little piece...

No floating heads + Full figured forms + Embracing the setting and landscape = Great poster campaign.

Despite some lapses in logic and a shallow antagonist, I found 13 Assassins to be an enjoyable film. It is a tried tested and true formula, which by making excellent use of it's setting, transcends the average men-on-a-mission film to deliver something energetic and engaging. 

And here we go...

Alright. This is brand new for me. Being a pretty private person, I guess starting a blog warrants a bit of an explanation.

I love film. I love comics. I am a nerd. This is not something I hide. On the contrary, its something that I am proud of. I have met others like me that I have got along with. I have met others like me that I have not got along with. But more importantly, I like to discuss art after it has been experienced with anyone that is willing to talk about it. It is this discussion that is the reason for the creation of this blog.

Often I find myself in discussions with people that are incredibly opinionated, sometimes forcefully so. I feel that these opinions can sometimes be built on nothing but pre-conceptions and judgments based on anything BUT the material that is being discussed. None are more guilty of this than the hard-core nerd fan-boy. That is exact opposite of what I want to do here. My personal approach to experience art is to do my best to keep an open mind. Even with what would be widely considered a "bad" film, I tend to find, and focus, on what I liked about the film. That is not to say I lose perspective of what I feel the film did to earn its place at the bottom of everyone's shit-list, but I try to extract what I liked about the film and put the emphasis on that. As for the films faults, I try to be as constructive as possible.

Having said that, I am a fan-boy myself, so I would imagine that we will be seeing some childish outbursts of my own from time to time. I am sure I will go off my rocker now and again... Such is the curse of being a nerd.

The contents of the blog are going to very from films that I have seen, comics or books that I have read, film news, trailers, posters etc.

For films specifically, you will see all kinds - foreign, independent, big Hollywood productions and the rest.

I try to diversify genres, but having nerd-blood running in my veins, I do have genres that I cannot help but gravitate towards... none more dominant than the Horror Film. I will get into that more later, but I have a special strange affinity for watching crap-tastic, schlocky horror films. Hopefully, as this blog gets going, I can being to think about WHY I have this ridiculous addiction. I also like good movies. Honest!

Bottom line: This is a place for me to dump my opinions on various forms of art for the world to see. I try to keep an open mind and hopefully someone out there will find the opinions interesting enough to read, and maybe respond to.

Alright. Let's get this shit started...