Red State (2011)

I feel like I've been waiting years to write this post...and I have so much to say that I'm terrified I won't say enough, or that I'll write way too much and crash Firefox (again). But since it's all about to pour out of me, I might as well just begin. First, let me just state that the above poster is not the "real" one. I've posted that one before. I used this one because it's much more raw, and for me, exemplifies the best, most frightening scene of the film (and the real message, via the tagline).

Now, I've been a fan of Kevin Smith's work for close to ten years. Despite his many, many, many detractors, I think his films are clever, hilarious, well-written, feature a cast of wonderful, mostly unknown actors and touch on subjects that mean nothing to 90% of the world's population, but a great deal to those of us who feel as if we don't really fit in anywhere. He is an important voice, in Hollywood, for those who rarely one - something which is most evident in the excellent Clerks. He has taught a generation of us to live the way it makes sense for us, despite what anybody else says, and that we can do anything to which we set our minds. 

 The one on the left was Jack's son in Will and Grace. Go figure.

It was with a mix of trepidation and excitement, that I greeted the news that Smith was making a horror movie. His forte is, surely, comedy, and while horror-comedy is possible, it's incredibly difficult to do (see, Fright Night remake). So, I wondered, would this be straight horror? Would it be funny? Would it exist in the View Askew universe? Would Jason Mewes star (sadly, no)? Above all else, I hoped it would be good, I hoped everyone would like it, but most of all, I hoped it would be well-received. In America, it was. In Ireland, it was not. Two of my favourite critics panned it (however, one of whom is incredibly high-minded and likes only upper class, indie fare and films with subtitles, despite whether they're any good or not). Their reactions made me nervous to even think about what Mark Kermode will have to say (I still haven't listened to his podcast from last week), since he is one of my heroes, an excellent movie critic and a horror buff. Some day soon I will face up to his critique. But not just yet.

This man is god

The good news, as far as I'm concerned, is that Red State is great. It works as a horror, as a drama, and as a strange little addition to Smith's other religion-centric film, Dogma. The story concerns a family cult in middle America, known as the Five Points Church, which is led by Pastor Abin Cooper, played with crazy eyes and undeniable charisma by the fantastic Michael Parks (why the fuck does this man not work more!?). Three horny teenage boys are lured into their clutches via an internet sex ad, but when they turn up to cash in, they are greeted by middle-aged, mumsy Melissa Leo, in full wretched hillbilly look. Next thing they know, they're tied up, watching mental sermons and ritual killings. The film then quickly descends into a shootout, between the forces of law and the crazy clan. 

It's worth noting that the film looks and sounds fantastic - possibly the best of any of Smith's films. The camera work is jumpy in places, but in a great way, and the editing is very well done. The colours remain dark and broody throughout, adding to the tense atmosphere. The tone almost changes drastically towards the end, but, unlike the majority of net nerds, I was glad that it didn't, and was pleased with what I saw as the logical closure point. After all, Dogma is fantastical and silly, so there's no real need for Red State to be. 

I would de-flower her

As a horror, Red State works very well, and it is indeed horrifying. The extended scene in the chapel, with Michael Parks delivering a particularly mad, Old Testament-centric sermon, is tense to the point of nausea, due to one of the protagonists being locked in a cage throughout, while a sheet ominously hangs over a giant cross (as seen in the poster above). What happens when the sheet is pulled off doesn't really matter (although it is frightening), it's the thought of what's underneath it that really builds the tension. Several critics felt this scene dragged a little, and that there was too much sermonising involved. I was on the edge of my seat throughout, and while long, Pastor Cooper's sermon only made me more nervous - which is a very good thing.

Although the shootout takes away from the horror element somewhat, turning the film down a different route, John Goodman is great as the leader of the feds, and commands each of his scenes with ease. The action itself is fast-paced, and the deaths quick and consistent. However, since protagonists are dispensed with with such ease, it's difficult to sympathise with anyone, making the viewer somewhat detached from what's happening onscreen. This, coupled with the political conspiracy ending, meant I left the cinema feeling somewhat unsatisfied. The reason, I feel, was the length of the film. At just 88 minutes long, it's slightly rushed. Not enough is shown about the inner, daily workings of the Five Points Church, and I could've used more of a backstory, to elaborate on their actions. A nod to the Phelps family ("No no, not them, we like them" - cue nervous laughter) is a total pussy move on Smith's part, and wholly unnecessary. The subject matter of the film is brave, especially considering the real-life existence of the Phelps family, so I would've respected more if Smith had've just left it up to us to decide whether or not he was referring to them throughout. None of this made the Cooper clan any less sinister, though. 

Michael Parks is the star of Red State, and it's an absolute travesty that he doesn't get more work. Kevin Smith claimed he wrote the part of Abin Cooper specifically for Parks, and wouldn't have done the film without him. That may sound crazy to some, but he makes the story work, so I totally understand it. John Goodman is another gem, as are the three main lads, who do a great job of appearing both naively horny and absolutely terrified. Although I felt the film could've been a good twenty minutes longer, and that more needed to be said about the cult, Red State still kicks a serious amount of ass. If I don't see it again in the cinema soon, I'll be very surprised.

Salem's Lot (1979)

As previously stated, I hadn't realised that Salem's Lot was originally a TV miniseries and thus, split into two separate discs in its DVD incarnation. I thought the ending to the first disc was the ending - and quite a bad ass one it was, too! But finally, a week later, I managed to finish the three-hours of Salem's Lot that I should've watched in the first place. And very glad I am that I did, even though it involved several cups of tea and about a hundred rice crispie cakes (I made some for Randall's birthday). 

I was warned by my brother (who, for some unknown reason, is terrified of this film) to watch Salem's Lot "properly", i.e. with the blinds shut, the light dimmed, and a big blanket to hide under. Since it was raining at the time, I obliged. And funnily enough, it was also raining during my viewing of the first disc. It got me thinking about whether a horror atmosphere can be created prior to watching a film. I may write about it some time. But I'm getting off the point. Onwards!

"We can still be friends, right..?"

To be honest, Stephen King isn't somebody with whose work I could claim to be particularly familiar. In fact, I think the only other film of note, based on one of his novels, that I've seen to date, is Stand By Me which, as far as I'm aware, was based on The Body. I love Stand By Me. It's one of my all-time favourite films, and sits proudly on my too-small stack of DVDs. But a horror story it is not (not in the traditional sense of the word, anyway). And if there's one thing King is famous for, it's horror stories. Not to mention that this particular incarnation was directed by one of the great horror directors, Tobe Hooper. Thus I was delighted to find that Salem's Lot, despite being slow in places, and undeniably aged in others, does the job of a decent horror movie - it manages to scare and enthral.

The plot of Salem's Lot, such is the way with most of King's stuff, takes place in a small, quiet town somewhere in Maine, and revolves around a suspicious writer and a horror-obsessed kid. The writer has returned to town to write a novel about the Marsden house, somewhere known for being haunted, and in which he had a frightening experience as a child. He begs the question - "Can a thing be inherently evil?" and then spends much of the movie trying to convince the unassuming townspeople that yes, it can. What this film does very well, thanks in part to the unsettlingly minimalistic score, is to create an atmosphere of safety for the audience. Scenes of marital distress and childish games play out so softly and easily, that it's easy to lose oneself in the story and forget that, pretty soon, the rug will be pulled out from under us. 

His hair will surely save the day

It's worth noting that, because this was originally broadcast as a TV miniseries, it is a very slow-moving, quiet film. When things do happen (and they do), the pace remainds slow and steady. Ghostly vampire kids float towards windows and scratch their long nails against the panes of glass. A shadow rises up and envelopes the screen. Marks appear on necks and the townspeople begin to get tired and weak. If Salem's Lot were being made today, it would probably concern an epidemic, as opposed to a vampire infestation. Everything happens so slowly, and the townspeople are so blissfully unaware, that it would be easy to just dismiss this as a boring character study of small-minded people in an out of the way town, who refuse to see anything or anyone outside of their little bubble as relevant. But it is, to its credit, a horror film, and a great one at that. 


I'll admit that there were very few moments, during the first half of the film, where I could honestly say I was scared, but I was definitely on edge. And that tension extended far into the second part, and even further too. The first sighting of the head vampire, in the local jail, made me scream and jump out of my seat in shock. It's not just that he pops up out of nowhere - he is genuinely terrifying to look at, even today after I've been desensitised to most villains besides a dude with a big knife. And after vampires have been so ruined by the bullshit that is Twilight, it is truly inspiring to see a real, snarling, bloodthirsty creature of the night, the way it should be portrayed. 

The scariest thing my grandmother has ever seen

When Barlow, the head vampire, transformed from a black cape on the kitchen floor, to his full form, I felt the real fear of knowing something terrible was about to happen, even though I knew the screen would fade to black before it did (another nice touch, and one that gives the film a genuinely creepy edge). The kills are quick and the audience sees practically nothing, but somehow that just adds to the tension.

My grandmother told me recently that this is the scariest film she has ever seen and, although Salem's Lot probably isn't as relevant today as it was twenty years ago, it is still definitely worth a look, and sits rightfully next to newer films, such as 30 Days Of Night, that show proper, genuinely terrifying vampires, as they are meant to be shown - as monsters who will suck the blood out of anyone they choose, as opposed to sparkly statues who eat deer and write lullabies for fat emo kids. May it live forever as the antithesis to Twilight and give us hope that vampires can be, and are, still scary. 






Next time....finally! Red State! Will it be as good as predicted? Will it be better? You'll find out next time.

Final Destination 5 (2011)

I should be reviewing Salem's Lot this week, in keeping with the vampire theme of late, but I am quite stupid and didn't realise until it was too late that the movie is in two parts and, as a result, on two DVDs. Now, I could just review the first half and perhaps end the post on a cliffhanger, but I don't think that'd do much good. Instead, I'm going to focus on the other film I saw this weekend, Final Destination 5. As somebody who doesn't necessarily have much time for these films, while not hating them either, I awaited this entry to the series with slight trepidation. I'd already read, in great detail, about all of the deaths online (I love spoilers, depending on the movie - I'd never spoil Red State, for example) and I was curious to see them on screen. Happily, FD5 is a fun, dumb, harmless little escape that zips along at a lively place and never quite takes itself too seriously. 

 

For the uninitiated, the Final Destination series began in 2000 and has spawned a whopping four sequels in the eleven years since its’ inception – some of which (my personal favourite is the third instalment, complete with roller coaster disaster and bimbos being burnt alive in sun beds) have been great. Funnily enough, although it pains me to admit it now, my 12-year-old self was quite terrified by the original film. The idea of Death stalking me really got to me, although fuck knows why, since, as I’ve grown up, I’ve realised it’s quite a silly concept. But hey, I’m all for dumb fun every once in a while, and if there’s one thing the Final Destination serious does, or at least should, do right, it’s crazy, mind-bendingly complicated death sequences, that make one wince and laugh in equal measure. 

 ACTING!!

It has been hit and miss over the years, and I managed to avoid the fourth instalment without even realising I’d done so, which doesn’t say much in favour of the series’ staying power. However, the fifth film, the second to be presented in under-whelming 3D (still not impressed), is amusing, inventive and fun, without ever forcing the viewer to think too hard. It opens with an impressive, albeit slightly long, 3D credit sequence, during which fire, knives and shattered glass fly towards the audience, all set to a piece of music that wouldn’t be out of place in a James Bond film.

The suspension bridge collapse, about which everybody has been gushing, is jaw-droppingly awesome, and the deaths incurred by it are gruesome and hilarious, in equal measure. Of course, the main characters (I think there are around 8, but what does it really matter) manage to escape their fate thanks to the main dude’s premonition about the inevitable accident, and they then spend the rest of the film dying in a spectacularly silly fashion. 

 

To make people think of Saw maybe..? 

The plot itself, of which there is little, doesn’t really matter, and nor does the character development, or whether we even give a shit about who’s on screen at any given moment. The point of watching these strange little films is to see attractive people being killed in interesting, cringe- or laugh-inducingly, odd ways. Therefore, the most important element of FD5, for me, is whether the deaths are any good.

For the most part, they are. Although the original shock value of wondering if somebody is going to be killed a certain way, only to see him/her killed in a completely different way, has all but disappeared, there were still certain moments that caught me off guard. My personal favourite death was one caused by a gymnastics routine. Although silly, it was the only death that really made me squirm in my chair. Otherwise, I was guffawing with the rest of the room. FD5 is definitely not as funny as FD3, but that has an awful lot to do with the uncharacteristically likeable cast. Usually, the dialogue is painfully awkward and the acting stiff and uninspiring, but with the new cast of unfortunates, the producers have managed to do the unthinkable – create characters that are genuinely engaging. 

 Spot the weird Tom Cruise dude!

Nicholas D’Agosto is particularly warm as the leading man, while his pal, who looks and acts a lot like Tom Cruise, does a great job of losing the plot about halfway through. Emma Bell, she of the brilliant, criminally underrated Frozen is great in the girlfriend role, and hopefully she gets to ascend from here into the star she rightly deserves to be. She is, after all, so much better than Final Destination. Another happy edition to the line-up is the great David Koechner, starring here as the snarky, disbelieving boss of the company in which the others work. Although he’s a welcome edition, I was a bit sad to see the man I know mainly as Champ Kind from Anchorman die so gruesomely. I couldn’t help thinking “Whammy!” when it happened, and a quick glance to my left assured me that Rich (whose horror collection puts mine to absolute shame) was thinking the exact same thing. It also got me thinking about how silly we all must look in 3D glasses, but how little we care when the film is good and we want to turn excitedly to each other. It’s hard to kiss with them on, but luckily I’ve only smooched during one 3D movie (it wasn’t this one).

The 3D itself isn’t terribly impressive, although I did find FD5 less dark than other 3D films, such as Fright Night, for instance. Seeing people being impaled, while the object shoots out of the screen towards the audience, is by no means revolutionary, but it is quite good fun. Aside from that, nothing much is added by the third dimension. It doesn’t take away from the film though, which is good, but it’s still quite unnecessary. A trailer for a film I am very much looking forward to, Shark Night, had me very excited but, once again, slightly confused, due to the addition of 3D to the proceedings. I can’t imagine why a shark film would need to be in 3D, since sharks popping up out of the water are scary enough all by themselves, but either way I am very excited to see it (albeit, hopefully in 2D). As for FD5, it’s harmless, brainless, gory fun of the best kind, and definitely a welcome addition to a series that should’ve ended years ago. The ending, and so-called twist, had me rolling my eyes, as did the heavy-handed messages about death (including the idea that one can kill someone to save oneself, something which up until now did not exist in the Final Destination universe), which are unnecessarily high-minded for a film with its tongue firmly in its cheek. Still, it’s great fun nonetheless, and definitely worth a look if you’re in the mood for something light-hearted, bloody and relatively short. 

Looks way scarier than it actually is

Queen Of The Damned (2002)

So, I'm kinda cheating this week... Although I'm sticking with the vampire theme of last week, I've chosen to review a movie that I've seen countless times, a movie I adore with all of my little goth heart, but one for which nobody else seems to share my enthusiasm. I am, of course, referring to Queen Of The Damned, which shockingly enough, is ten years old next year. Damn, that makes me feel old. I became obsessed with this film pretty much instantaneously. There were two main reasons why - the incredible soundtrack, created by Richard Gibbs and Jonathan Davis, and the delicious Stuart Townsend, in the role of vampire turned rockstar, Lestat. My tastes have developed somewhat over the years, thankfully, so I decided to do a so-called "nostalgia check" on this, one of my favourite films, and try to discover what my 23-year-old self really thinks of it, while being as objective as possible. 

Anne Rice has written a lot of silly, sexy vampire fiction. And Queen Of The Damned, by extension, is a silly, sexy vampire film. It's worth noting that it's aged significantly since its original release. The fact there's no Twitter or Facebook, or even Google, is strangely off-putting throughout, especially since, I feel, if this were set nowadays, there would've been less people who believed Lestat's story about being a vampire. And the fact his band are only playing one gig ever because, as he puts it, "I don't like repeating myself" is laughable. Being a vampire is a gimmick, but not enough of a gimmick to justify only playing one show for one's entire musical career. Isn't that Dir En Grey dude supposedly a vampire? Lucky his band are so shit.

The acting is pretty dreadful across the board. The vampires all speak in that ridiculously over the top Transylvanian tongue, especially the late Aaliyah, as the titular Queen, who is actually supposed to be from Egypt. Stuart Townsend, one of our countrymen, had a special dialect coach for the film, and also learned to play the fiddle. Although he does a very good job of being sexy throughout, and faily scary at times too, him being a rock star doesn't really come off - especially when it's Jon Davis's iconic, one-of-a-kind voice that's coming out of his mouth when he sings. A flashback to his creation does nothing to move the story along, although his maker, Marius, seems to be the only one having any fun throughout the film. Lestat is an incredibly miserable character, whining about being alone for eternity. For fuck's sake, he's a vampire! He can kill anyone he wants! 

 

 Whoever made this, thank you

Despite the title, this is very much Townsend's movie. He struts around in leather pants like Colin Farrell only wishes he could, and he does give genuine (forgive me) bite to the role. But the film is forgettable, and the story is fairly stupid. And, as previously stated, he is fairly emo at times. The character of Jessie is ridiculously needy and desperate, despite her ties to the strong, immortal vampire family. She stalks Lestat throughout the film and then lets him kill her - all to prove that she's...what, exactly? Strong? Independent? She also has no idea how to dress to go to a vampire club, or a rock show, despite the fact Lestat refers to her as a "London goth". Shame on you, producers! You're making a vampire movie!

As much as I hate to say it, Queen Of The Damned really does not hold up. It feels incredibly dated, which I wasn't expecting, and although the soundtrack is still fantastic, it's about the only truly interesting thing about the film. The story is fairly silly, especially ten years later in the digital age, and the acting is poor at best. That's not to say I won't watch it again, because I most definitely will, but let's just say that the Jon Davis cameo, as a ticket tout, is about the only thing that truly gets me excited about watching this these days. And Stuart Townsend in leather pants.

Next time....more vampire stuff! And, will I finally see Final Destination 5?  

Fright Night (2011)

And, to the vault of unnecessary remakes, we add Fright Night, the 2011 reboot of the 1985 vampire film of the same name.The original is a camp, silly, funny, frightfest, scored with silly, plodding 80s beats, and starring a vampire who dresses like he's been pilfering from Jared Leto's stage wardrobe. The remake stars Colin Farrell. 


I don't mean to be a traitor to my country. Farrell is a very fine actor, and he showed real range in In Bruges and Intermission. But when I think of Colin Farrell, I don't think scary, I don't think vampire. I think skanger, or wise-cracking Irishman, possibly a Hollywood leading man, at a stretch (dreamy bad boy anyone? I don't get the appeal to be honest). The fact that I was forced to see this in 3D, a format which I have yet to be properly impressed by (Toy Story 3 came close, but was perfect without it) did not bode well with me, nor did the constant complaints from the dude who is forced week upon week to watch bad horror with me, hereafter referred to as Randall, since we have been compared to Dante and Randall from the universe of Kevin Smith movies. He also happens, like Randall, to hate everyone, and everything seems stupid to him. And he is terribly, stomach-achingly funny. Anyway, the point is, he was not excited, and the glasses were hurting his eyes before the film even began. 

"Can we fuck now?"     "Hush, he's doing something totally normal for a human being"

The film starts promisingly enough, with a fairly scary vampire attack. A kid hides under a bed, a bloodied body is dragged around, there's a blood-curdling scream  and a rockin' tune launches us off to the desert suburbs of Las Vegas, where people work nights and sleep during the day...or something. It's an interesting setting for a vampire film, although not quite as interesting as that of Frostbite, a fantastic Swedish outing set in an isolated town which gets a month of solid darkness per year. We meet Charlie Brewster, but not as we know him. This poor man's Elijah Wood reminds me a lot of the kids from Superbad, if one of them had decided the others weren't worth his time and that he ought to go hunt for pussy before it's too late. 

And to that end, Mc Lovin turns up, only this time he's paranoid and swears a lot more. It turns out he's "Evil" Ed, which is an odd casting choice, but since Christopher Mintz-Plasse is a fairly gifted actor, I wasn't annoyed at his presence. Moreover, I was delighted to see Imogen Poots - Brit actress and star of the excellent Chatroom turn up as Brewster's hot, popular chick girlfriend. Other than those three, the other teens on the sidelines are irritating as hell. One of them speaks with a permanent stoner tongue, which is absolutely infuriating. Luckily, he only has a few lines. Speaking of which, the clunky dialogue doesn't help. It's so bad it's like it was stolen from the "Understanding Teen Lingo" handbook for out-of-touch adults. The teens themselves look pained even delivering their lines. 

For those who don't know the story, it's very simple. A handsome, mysterious man moves in next door to Brewster, and then kids start disappearing. Ed tries to warn him, but he ignores him because he's an asshole and only wants to get laid. Then Ed disappears and somehow that makes Charlie give a shit again, and he starts stalking his neighbour to the point of madness, till the neighbour flips the shit and comes after him with a vengeance. The plot to the original film was perfect, so why the makers of this reboot felt the need to update it for modern audiences by making Charlie into an arsehole, who abandons his friends for a chick, is beyond me. It makes it near-impossible for us to care whether he lives or dies.

He's not mourning her passing, despite what it looks like

As for Farrell; he's definitely a handsome, charming man, but a bloodthirsty vampire he is not. Even when he's chowing down, it's so easy to just roll one's eyes and imagine him making fun of Brendan Gleeson. It's not that he isn't a good actor, because he is. And it's not that he hasn't got the ability to be scary, because as the scumbag, Le Hiff, in Intermission, he was totally believable, as a heartless arsehole who punched a girl in the face, just to rob the till. But, as a vampire, he doesn't quite get there.

It doesn't help that Stuart Townsend, a fellow countryman, played a far superior, sexier and scarier vampire in Queen Of The Damned. I spent most of that film lusting after him, but when he fed, I believed it, and it was scary (I still wanted him, but that's part of my perversion, as opposed to his acting). Farrell does a good job of being an asshole, but he's not a believable vampire. He's got some funny lines, and he is suitably suave and attractive, but the show is stolen from him by the excellent David Tennant, who is criminally underused here, as Peter Vincent. 

Much like Roddy Mc Dowall in the original, Tennant steals every scene he's in, playing a deliciously wretched, modern version of Peter Vincent, who stars in his own vampire-themed Vegas show, complete with wig, leather pants (have mercy!) and fake tattoos. Some critics have claimed the role would've been better suited to Russell Brand, or even that Tennant is playing him somewhat, but I completely disagree. Tennant brings a sexiness and a mischief to the role that Brand could only dream of, although he is a talented actor and comic, I must admit. Tennant chews the scenery as usual, and does go a little Doctor Who towards the end, but mostly he just struts around, clad in leather, drinking constantly and swearing like a sailor - all cynicism and with eyes that have seen too much. He gets all of the best lines and provides a running commentary for the audience, complete with "Holy shit!" moments and with laugh-out-loud disbelief at whatever is happening to him at the time. He is an absolute joy to behold and, although it is Charlie who eventually defeats Vampire Colin Farrell (spoiler!), sadly it is David Tennant I remembered most fondly. 

He goes a little Doctor Who for a moment, but it's rather enjoyable

It must be said that there's not a lot to like here. David Tennant is without a doubt the best part of the film, and he's not in it nearly enough. Christopher Mintz-Plasse is funny and competent, but is done away with far too early. Colin Farrell does not convince as anything more than a suave ladies man. And the teenagers, besides Imogen Poots, plod through their lines with not nearly enough self-referential humour (the best line coming from Mintz-Plasse, "I'm so fucking mad that you think I read Twilight"). Where the kids in the original Fright Night were freaked out but determined to fight back, those in the remake are all slack-jawed disbelief, laced with over-the-top paranoia. Whenever I watch a horror movie, I try to imagine how my mates and I would react, were we to end up in the same situation. We certainly wouldn't have acted like the kids in this. However, going to Peter Vincent is a great idea.

How dare you waste the time of firemen with your Satanic burning of crosses!? 

As pointed out by Randall before the film even began, the 3D really doesn't make sense here. Vampire films, by their very nature, are dark. 3D, by its very nature, makes everything darker, so why use it in a vampire film? The unfortunate result of this is that much of Fright Night is too dark and murky for the viewer to decipher what the hell is going on, or who's onscreen. I took off my glasses several times, just to check if it was Colin Farrell I was looking at. If the story were good enough, or funny, or properly scary, the 3D would add another element to it. And, although there are moments when the effects are used properly, e.g. when a vampire explodes in the sun and the blood and guts fly towards the audience, for the most part it's all just a bit murky and bland. 

As for being genuinely scary, there are some moments of dread and tension. However, for the most part, this a fairly family-friendly affair, which only earned its 15A certificate due to swearing and sexual references (I'm guessing).  A scene in an all-white corridor, where Colin Farrell has his victims imprisoned, is fairly creepy. But I spent most of the running time waiting for the big battle to come at the end, and even that fell slightly flat. The sight of newborn vampires crawling out of the soil should've been scary, but it was just strange. Furthermore, Colin Farrell's admission that he killed Peter Vincent's parents made me and Randall roll our eyes so far back into our heads, I worried they'd never return to the other side. 

It's difficult to make a horror comedy, because both elements have to be right. And, to echo the sentiment of the fantastic Mark Kermode, Fright Night just isn't scary or funny enough to be vert memorable. It's enjoyable but bland, funny but boring, creepy but not scary. Overall, a poor effort to redo a film that did not need to be remade. There was one great element to it, with which I will leave you.

 

Fright Night (1985)

I'm a sucker for cheesy 80s movies. I'm a sucker for cheesy 80s anything. If I had've been a teenager in the 80s, I would've been an awesome little Goth kid, like Winona Ryder's character in Beetlejuice. And, when it comes to classic 80s horror movies, you can't go wrong with the hammy, cheesy, totally great Fright Night. This weekend was my first time seeing it, and I only did so because the remake has just come out, and I wanted to form some sort of comparison prior to viewing it. 

I'm a total vampire nerd, but let's face it, vampires have been royally fucked with over the past few years, and not in a good way. In fact, the only decent vampire movies, which present the creatures as properly scary, of recent times, are 30 Days Of Night and the superb, Let The Right One In. Unfortunately, because of the pure tripe that is the Twilight series, vampires have become a bit cuddly and romantic (the hilariously cutting Vampire Money by My Chemical Romance says it perfectly). Everybody seems to have forgotten that they are bloodthirsty creatures of the night, who drink blood and dispose of carcasses like we would chicken bones. So it was interesting to see how my favourite creatures of the night were dealt with twenty years ago, before the Twilight generation stole them and made them sparkle.

Sparkle sparkle

Fright Night tells the story of cute, nerdy, everykid, Charlie Brewster (what an American name!). He lives in a typical suburban neighbourhood, with his mother, and has a cute girlfriend who wears dungarees pretty much constantly. Everything is going well for him in school and everywhere else, even despite the fact his best bud, who has major ADD, "Evil" Ed, keeps spouting nonsense non-stop. But then everything changes, when a suave, sophisticated, mysterious gentleman moves in next door and, all of a sudden, strange things start happening.


The whole vampire angle has been totally overdone at this stage, so it's interesting to see how it was handled back in the 80s. Jerry, the vampire (better vampire name than Emmett?), is handsome and charming in his human form, but transforms into a toothy, hideous, creature of the night in his vampire form, which is refreshing to see after all of the "sexy" vampires I've been rolling my eyes at lately (not Stuart Townsend as Lestat, he's exempt). I wasn't particularly afraid of him, but he was still an effective villain. The house he lives in is wonderfully gothic, and the way in which he lures women into his evil clutches is admirably skilled. One scene, in a nightclub, where he seduces Charlie's girlfriend, is very well played, and involves lots of cringy, lingering looks and vampire bum-grabbing.

He makes this face for most of the film, oddly enough

Of course, the best thing about this film is, without a doubt, the superb Roddy Mc Dowall, as vampire hunter and star of TV's "Fright Night", Peter Vincent. Although he dismisses Charlie's claims at first, when he does come around and turn up for the final battle in the end, it's difficult to not cheer him on. A truly gifted actor, with a stunning voice and presence, he steals centre stage from Charlie, or even Jerry, and is a delight to behold. When he snipes that nobody cares about vampires anymore because "All they want is madmen running around in ski masks, hacking up virgins", I wanted to worship at his feet - never were truer words spoken in a horror movie. 


The "Evil" Ed character is also fantastic. The best bud with all the answers, who of course nobody believes, he remains crazy-eyed and loud for the duration of the film. His cackle and taunts of "You think you're so cool, Brewster!" are hilarious, and I was really rooting for him to survive, even after he'd been turned. As for Jerry, he is so suave and fancy that he never really comes across as threatening, but there's something shining behind his eyes that lets the viewer know that not everything is as it seems, which is just as scary as in-your-face madness.

He is the MAN

Tension is ratched up with news reports of murders and missing persons, a blood-curdling scream followed by the lights shutting off, etc. It's simple, but effective. The effects are fairly impressive for the time, and the final struggle is not as predictable as I'd thought. All of the characters are likeable and easy to root for, while the situation, although it never feels dire, is just frightening enough to create a real sense of impending doom.

Fright Night has real charm in its silliness, and it's no surprise that it spawned sequels and a TV series (and, this year, a proper Hollywood remake). It hadn't occurred to me before, but the age-old tale of mysterious goings-on next door will always resonate, no matter how technologically advanced we are, or how safe we feel, shacked up in our rooms with the curtains closed and garlic hanging above our heads.

Friday The 13th (2009)

Before we begin, a word about that tagline - "Welcome to Crystal Lake" - how shit is that!? If you've seen the original, it's kind of scary, but if not, it makes zero sense, not to mention the fact that Crystal Lake, if nothing else is known about it besides the name, sounds so nice and picturesque. Sadly, the tagline isn't the worst thing about this clunky, confused, quite dreadful remake. I've mentioned before how Jason has failed to scare me in the past, and sadly that has not changed after viewing Michael Bay's trashy redo of the 80s classic (my opinion of which was probably made worse by the fact that I saw the original just last week). 

First off, this incredibly disjointed picture begins in the strangest of ways - with two prologues. The first looks like it was shot in the back lot of some shitty non-studio behind a KFC, and presents a poor imitation of the final struggle between Mrs. Voorhees, and the final girl, from the end of the original Friday the 13th - only with more rain, bad acting and no tension whatsoever. Oh, and this time around, kiddy Jason is watching from the bushes (I thought he lived in the lake!?). This whole episode, although interspersed with flashing titles ("Produced by Michael Bay" - aaaaaaah!! Oh god, make it stop!!!), does nothing to build tension or fear. It's simply boring and totally unnecessary. Anybody who has seen the original already knows what the deal is, while anybody who hasn't is just watching a Michael Bay movie to see tits and guts. After all, his other horror remakes, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and A Nightmare On Elm Street were both grossly superficial affairs, filled with unconvincing gore and unfathomably sexy teens. And neither of them were scary. I shuddered to think what he could do to Jason, whom I didn't really care about to begin with, when he had almost wrecked the incredible Freddy and Leatherface.

This moment is over so quickly, it doesn't even register

The second, longer prologue, details the demise of six college kids, who are on a search for weed near, you've guessed it, Camp Crystal Lake. They find it (apparently it belongs to Jason - huh?), but they all die soon afterwards. The deaths, all of which are at the hands of someone in a mummy mask, are quick, brutal and somewhat amusing (one girl is burned alive in her sleeping bag, which is suspended above a fire). A decrepit house is discovered, wherein it appears Jason himself may reside. There's a bloody bathtub, a dismembered head, all of the usual crap. And then another chase scene, somebody's caught in a beartrap, somebody screams - and then the title comes up, red and bloody and totally unexpected. Had the movie not already started!? It's very confusing. This prologue, while slightly better than the one before it, still serves very little purpose. There's some bullshit with a locket, which my faithful cohort mused would probably end up saving someone's life, but more on that later. There's one spectacular moment, when Jason is standing next to the campfire, and for one precious second I forgot what I was watching and started thinking about the music video for Psychosocial.

Anyway, then the story, if one could even call it that, really begins, with a whole new crowd of pretty, vapid teenagers. One of them is particuarly angry and mean, so I spent most of the film's loooong running time (108 mins to be exact) vying for his inevitable death. And there's Jared Padelecki, of Supernatural fame (surely he's too good for such a piece of shit?). He did the House Of Wax remake a few years back, which I actually rather liked, so I suppose he's in good company. Anyway, Jared is looking for his sister, who was one of the original group from the prologue (keep up, now). He hassles various redneck locals with flyers, along with the new group of teens, who aren't too impressed when he holds them up in a queue (who cares about your possibly dead sister, we want beer!). He's warned by one particularly crazy-eyed old lady that his sister is dead, because when people disappear around this area, they don't come back. She also warns him to leave HIM alone (guess who she means, har de har). 

 Seriously, is that his real head or...?

It's at this point that the film descends into pure cliche, with little in the way of plot or character development to move things along. Even the kills are dull; Jason stabs this dude in the head, then he sharpens his machete, then he walks around a bit, and dismembers somebody else and oh god when will it end!? The BOREDOM. I got so bored watching this movie that I began to notice stupid shit, like how big Jason's head is, how confusing it is to have the characters running back and forth from the same places, even with the sign emblazoned with the words "Camp Crystal Lake" above them (how far away are they, when they must drive one minute, but can walk the next!?), and how amazing one of the chick's tits are. It really is that slow-moving. In fact, there are big sections of it with no blood or tits at all. And then what are we left with? Something produced by Michael Bay? Now that's scary.

The problem with this reboot is that it does nothing new whatsoever with the story. Friday the 13th, and Jason himself, have been flogged to death at this stage, so updating the story for a modern audience was always going to be something of a challenge. But this really makes it seem like nobody involved with the film even tried. There's a pathetic sequence, after Jason disposes of some greasy redneck, when he discovers a hockey mask and swaps his mummy one for it. It's so cliched, it almost brought a tear to my eye. Aside from that, Michael Bay's cum-covered teenage boy fingerprints are all over this project - from the lingering body shots, to the clunky dialogue, to the tits and blood and beer pong. Clearly none of these teens have ever seen a horror movie. Forget the smart, savvy, quick-witted group of Scre4m, this lot are dumb as fuck. One makes fun of Jason, another thinks a wok will ward off any threats, one girl freaks out and cries on the floor, a couple refuse to stop having sex despite their friends screaming that they're all in danger, one guy grabs a gun but wastes lots of bullets shooting at nothing, and so forth. 

Hurry up guys...I can feel my career disintegrating around me...

Although Jason still fails to truly scare me, he kills quickly and effectively in this. His aim (he kills one person with a bow and arrow, and throws an axe several feet to dispose of another) is excellent, especially for somebody who has lived alone in an abandoned camp for most of his life. And he's an absolute tank, too, although not as much so as Rob Zombie's Michael Myers (swoon). After it becomes clear that he has kept Jared Padelecki's sister captive for an unspecified amount of time (possibly a month or so, she looks very clean either way) the film takes a turn towards the dark, Texas Chainsaw end of things. There is a system of underground tunnels, very sophisticated, especially since they seemingly were constructed by Jason, in which several creepy things occur - machete sharpening, bodies being carried about, lots of crying. I feared needless torture scenes, of which there were mercifully none. In fact, the only times true tension is built throughout this film is when Jared's sis is legging it through the impressive tunnels, in which she has been held prisoner, trying to make her escape. But, of course, nothing of note really happens. 

Other than that, the film passes by without incident. None of the characters, besides Jared Padelecki (I'm really not sure if his character had a name...Jim?), are in any way likeable, but because the kills, and Jason himself, are so mind-numbingly boring and run of the mill, it's difficult to even revel in their deaths. The score, which belongs in an action movie, doesn't help, while the weird bluey-green colour present throughout, despite what time of day or night it is, makes it almost impossible to follow what's happening on screen. 

 

This is a teaser for what she gets up to later (I'm not complaining)

The real problem here is that slasher movies have been so degraded over the years that, for example, the original scares in Friday the 13th, which were so effective in 1980, are seen to be boring and outdated by today's standards. Everything must be nastier, bloodies, loudier, dumber. But, as somebody who watched the original just last week, and the remake all of three days ago can attest, the older slashers, despite the clothing of the teens, the lack of technology (nobody can get a signal in a horror movie these days anyway, so wash) and the strange settings, are more effective because there's no bullshit. Michael Myers just kills. There's nothing behind it. And nobody can bargain with him, especially not after robbing his locket.

The characters in horror movies, especially slashers, are usually one-dimensional - that's a given. But when they are so vapid and empty, it's difficult to root either for them or against them. When one feels nothing towards any of the people on screen, what's the point in watching? I wasn't even particularly invested in Jason's character. He's carrying a body around at one point, while Jared and the-one-who-was-almost-the-final-girl freak out as quietly as possible, which in reality would be terrifying, and when he turned on the camp floodlights I should've been shaking, but I was simply reminded of the original, and saddened by how little this revamp was getting to me. Why aren't modern horror movies scary? I have yet to be properly scared by anything new, in years. Rob Zombie's Halloween was fairly atmospheric and creepy, but still not properly scary. 

 This looks scary, but really isn't

I don't mean to sound elitist. I love lots of shit movies. Queen Of The Damned is one of my absolute favourites, and the soundtrack is probably my favourite of all time. It's not a good film, it's incredibly silly, makes practically no sense and is little more than a sexy, gothic, metalhead fantasy. But I love it. There are a lot of great B-movies too, like Megashark vs Giant Octopus. Last year's Piranha 3D was a fantastic, fun film, which contained moments of real, honest, fear and proper gore, not to mention loads of nudity. I don't need my horror films to be clever or pretty, I just need them to be somewhat honest, and, obviously, a little bit scary. If all else fails, some tits and gore will do just fine. But it all has to fit in with the world of the story, and the characters have to be somewhat believable and real. 

For a moment, let's compare it to the other horror remake I saw recently, Rob Zombie's Halloween. Scout Taylor Compton (be still my beating heart) did a very shrill, emo Laurie Strode, but at least I was scared for her when she was being chased about the place. Her friends, not so much, but they were just dumb and annoying enough for me to enjoy their bloody, violent deaths. Friday the 13th lacks any real punch or soul or scare...I screamed a grand total of 9 times, which may seem like a lot, but really isn't, considering it was because of jump scares every single time. Oh, and the girl with the locket does survive (spoiler alert!). Seriously though, don't see this. See the far superior, mildly scary and totally thrilling, All The Boys Love Mandy Lane, which I will soon probably gush over.. 

Next time - Fright Night double post. Hooray!

 

Friday The 13th (1980)

 

So, in keeping with the theme of old-school slashers (most of which have been remade, or updated since their original release), I bring you the thoroughly enjoyable, mildly scary, Friday the 13th, which helped shape the horror genre and also happened to spawn a bazillion sequels. Jason Voorhees is one of the classic horror villains, but I've never been afraid of him. I don't really get the fear factor with Jason at all, especially compared to, say, Michael Myers. I mean, he looks kind of silly with that hockey mask (although the machete is a good weapon), and he ambles after people like any old serial killer. He has no real zest to him, no real appetite for destruction. Yawn. However, I needn't have worried, because he only makes a fleeting appearance in this, the first movie in the long-running series. 

The events of the film take place around the iconic Camp Crystal Lake, an area so secluded and picturesque that one just knows some bad shit is going to go down once the lights are out (or possibly even before - the scariest things happen during the daylight, after all). Surprisingly, It opens with a fairly gruesome murder, from the first-person perspective of the killer (always a welcome addition to a slasher movie). As a first kill, it's fairly bloody - not too much, not too little. And the fact that it happens to unsuspecting, cutesy, horny teens, who are in the midst of a make-out session no less, does not bode well for the the rest of the characters. 

 

 Kind of a mannish pair of hands there...

On that note, I decided to play a little game while watching this, and count how many typical horror movie "bad signs" I noticed throughout the film. You know, the typical horror fare that's become stale and repetitive at this stage, but back in the '80s would've created genuine tension. For example; people having sex, the power going out, someone wandering out in the rain alone, a thunderstorm, the phone lines being dead, the last remaining people splitting up to investigate shit alone, hiding in stupid places with just one escape route - all of which happened within the course of Friday the 13th. That's not to say that it was boring or predictable, just that it played by the rules which, let's face it, were established by this film, and Halloween, and everything that came after (I'm just used to it all at this stage, sadly, but that doesn't mean it's not fun!). 

I guessed who the final girl was immediately, but was wrong (possibly for the first time ever). She was the first one to get a name, and she was so bright-eyed and adorable and unassuming that I just figured she was cliche enough to be it... And then, she died, after a fairly frightening forest chase scene (see above). Besides that unforunate chick, the other teens who are setting up Camp Crystal Lake for its' grand re-opening, after horrific murders years beforehand (the film's opening sequence takes place in 1958), are all attractive, energetic and fairly generic, i.e. perfect horror movie victims. They are warned on several occasions, by creepy Ralph (the town loon), that they are doomed and will not survive if they stay in the camp. But hey, who's going to listen to some crazy old dude, who's shouting in a bizarrely over-the-top Irish twang as he rides off slowly on his bicycle!? Not these kids. They're too busy fucking and drinking and playing Strip Monopoly - oo-er!  Besides, the camp is in a secluded area in the middle of nowhere, miles from the local town, which is filled with loveable, cliched, small town locals - what could possibly go wrong!?

 

 That top is bloody ruined now

The story, as such, is fairly simple. The teens are slaughtered one by one, at a fairly regular pace, by somebody whom we don't get to see until the very end of the film - simply catching glimpses of an arm here, a hand there, a foot there. It's an interesting method, one I haven't experienced in a while, and it did manage to creep me out quite a bit. Usually the killer is seen trailing behind or hiding somewhere, but rarely is just an illusion of he/she given, which just proves that what we imagine is nearly always more frightening than the reality. There are scenes in Friday the 13th that create true terror, despite very little happening - like when one girl is in the shower block and sees the curtain moving, or another ventures out into the rain when she hears a woman's voice screaming for help, only to end up under the floodlights on the archery range. Very little is explicitly done or said, which just makes it all the more tense.

However, the kills, when they are shown, are bloody and inventive. Kevin Bacon, in particular, dies in a fairly gruesome way. But he looks lost and confused up until that point, so it's not really a big deal (plus he'd just got laid, so at least he died happy). Bodies turn up at totally inopportune moments, causing me to jump out of my skin, which hasn't happened during a horror movie in a while - especially not at silly scares like corpses hanging off doors or being thrown through windows. But the tension is ratched up so effectively throughout that it's impossible to ever feel secure (the final girl can't even close the curtains in her cabin, for fuck's sake!). 

 

  She's still somebody's mother!

The killer's reveal at the end is quite odd. Since the movie came out thirty years ago, I have no problem discussing its relevance here. Just in case, like me, you were deprived of slasher movies for most of your life, look away now! Finding out that a middle-aged, fairly normal-looking woman, in a jumper no less, has been the knife-wielding maniac all along is disconcerting enough. When she begins talking to herself as her son (we all know who he is) and going on about horny teens being the reason he's dead, the tone changes significantly, even verging slightly on the ridiculous. But she's still scary. Quite scary, indeed. And I ended up gasping when she said the name "Jason", even though I knew it was coming. So perhaps Mrs. Voorhees should've been in Jason's shoes all along...though that would've been weird...and it would've changed the landscape of modern horror forever.

There are many fakeouts before she is eventually defeated, all of which kept me suitably on edge. Once again, it was impossible to ever feel secure or safe. One scene, in the pantry, is particularly cringe-inducing. The final girl, in fairness to her, manages to put up a bit of a fight, punching and kicking at Mrs. Voorhees with all she's got. The camp setting is just as disorientating for her as it is for the audience, and when the killer turns the power back on, so that it'll be near impossible for her to hide, a real sense of "Oh fuck!" washed over me. What seemed scary in the darkness suddenly seems terrifying in the light.

  No more dancing for you, Bacon

Put simply, when Friday the 13th works, it is very effective. The characters are just thin enough to be disposable, but fleshed out enough for the audience to give a shit about what happens to them. Mrs. Voorhees is just nice and normal enough for the final girl to trust her, before turning completely psychotic and being truly terrifying. The audience doesn't sympathise with her, but it's also difficult to completely hate her because her kid drowned in the lake due to negligent counsellors in that very camp. Still not really a reason to murder innocents, but whatever.

Since this is a slasher, the final girl manages to get away, and for some reason hops in a canoe and wades out into the middle of the lake. What follows is one of those jump scares that only really works if one doesn't know it's coming. I did, but I still freaked out. As far as I'm concerned, the movie should've ended there, on a high. Unfortunately, it rambles on for another five minutes, finally settling on an image of Crystal Lake, so that the audience is left in no doubt that a sequel is on its way. 

 Peekaboo!

Overall, Friday the 13th was great. I was scared, the story moved along at a decent pace, the kills were inventive, the killer was frightening, and I screamed a total of 6 times, which is quite a lot for somebody who watches this kinda shit on a regular basis. I shudder to think what Michael Bay has done to sex it up, but I await his efforts with a shrug.