Movie Review: "The Human Centipede 3 (Final Sequence)"

"I castrated him myself!"

"Yes sir; we're all aware."

I suppose Tom Six should feel proud for achieving what he has with the Human Centipede series. From, let's say "humble", beginnings - a simple b-movie body horror tale with a horrific (and creative) premise - Six gained obscure pop culture recognition for a gimmick that makes everyone gag just a little. Someone like myself who is grossed out by toilet bowl selfies, being sewn mouth to anus is pretty unsettling. And a little funny, too. I had a great time watching the first movie in the theater, with an audience giggling along the way.

The sequel, (Full Sequence), was a joyless affair of self commentary, pointing a finger at his audience by taking things to the next level of disturbance. If the first movie was Drive, consider this to be Only God Forgives. The follow up nobody expected or wanted; I suppose Tom Six deserves applause for that.

I suppose much about Tom Six, but, he might just suppose less of himself.

A Creature Birthed From Smoke: "Tusk" Review

One of the things I liked about Clerks 2 (and I liked many things) was how it both capped off and started a new era of filmmaking for Kevin Smith. Once the color faded in over the Quick Stop window, a process began of Smith showing off skills he had developed since the first Clerks, but hadn’t utilized fully in a single movie; a roaming camera, the planning out of where actors ought to be placed for said camera, edits and transitions that kept scenes — individually and collectively — at a good pace, etc. This was a more polished Kevin Smith, from writer who directs to director who orchestrates. 

Fast forward a few years and a few movies, and we have Tusk. Hmm.

Review: "World War Z"

In This is the End (which I quite liked), Emma Watson remarks to her celebrity friends that she believes the disaster that has hit Hollywood is a zombie apocalypse. Now, it turns out to be the rapture in that movie, and not a single zombie is actually seen. But This is the End does share some common ground with that horror genre. The setting is a tight space (a house), and the characters pose an equal threat to each other when compared to what is happening outside.

Traditionally, the zombies are merely a catalyst for getting the characters together, and presenting the real threat - humans. We bicker, fight, make selfish choices and even kill one another. The looming danger outside only heightens the true danger inside. Commentary through horror. If only we had just gotten along.

Brad Pitt's World War Z is a sort of mix between 28 Days Later and Outbreak, with less insight into humanity and politics and more money spent on... action? Star power? CG zombies?

The story is about an ex U.N. investigator that has been tasked with assisting in finding the origin of (and possible cure for) a plague that is quickly turning the world into ravenous beasts. The word zombie is spoken here and there, and with a sense of "you've got to be kidding me" from those talking about it. We are thrown into a mysterious worldwide disaster with grave consequences and palpable tension. Refugee camps, walled up cities and command centers in the ocean. That's the contingency plan, folks. We're screwed.

The actors all do a fine job of getting us invested in these events, showing exhaustion and uncertainty very well. It's fun and suspenseful watching people quietly move around the undead by using greased up bicycles. It's terrifying having to calm down your children, while they cry for their blanket in the midst of a crisis. And it's hilarious when we see several closeups of a zombie biting down on his teeth like a squirrel.

Wait... what?

Indeed. Emotional intensity is undercut by unintentional hilarity and overdone action set pieces. Over shadowing moments that reflect the good and bad people do in panic mode are silly chases and conveniently placed sequences meant to stop your heart. There is a scene early on when Brad Pitt's wife is almost raped in a grocery store aisle. Not by zombies, but by regular men. Everyone is scrambling for food, water and medicine, and here are these scumbags, causing a problem where there doesn't need to be one. The opening of this movie is filled with things like this. Later, just after a city is destroyed in a pulse pounding rampage, a zombie attack happens on a plane. Why? Because it would be exciting to have an attack happen on a plane.

Oh, and the zombie actors were either instructed or given permission to bang their heads against walls with funny sounding foley attached.

I'd be willing to bet these were problems that came from the troubled production, and the editors did what they could to have it all make sense. It does, but the tone feels off. The movie tries too hard at pleasing every person in the audience - an effort that ends up a detriment. The irony of it all is that if they had left the original ending alone, the end result would've been a captivating cliffhanger and a ballsy move. Instead, they chose to play it safe. Such a shame.

The only commentary I took from World War Z is that when pushed into a corner, people will do what they can to survive. I'm not talking about the characters, but the behind the scenes people. Trapped in an office, feeling the walls closing in, they only made the situation worse. If only they had just gotten along.

2/5 *s

Review: "Birdemic 2: The Resurrection"

There’s something charming about certain kinds of “bad” movies. For me, I can say that they remind me of my middle school days, when I’d run around the neighborhood, making short films on my palmcorder and S-VHS camera. I cringe whenever I view this old footage - it is just horrible. However, there is an earnestness that comes through clearly; a wanting to make a movie because you love movies, skills be damned.

Birdemic: Shock and Terror was made and put out into the world with the kind of passion that some mainstream directors lack. Through word of mouth, midnight screenings and an excellent Rifftrax commentary, the movie became a cult success. And, like with most successful films, plans for a sequel came out.

Would the same charm that people loved carry over?

Made with a sense of self awareness, Birdemic 2: The Resurrection is exactly the kind of sequel I was expecting. Set in Hollywood - a few years after the events of the original - we almost get the same exact structure: A man and woman fall in love and enjoy great career success along the way. This time, the man is a filmmaker and the woman a struggling actress. Rod (the previous lead) returns, with girlfriend Natalie, to be a financial backer of his friends movie. But, when blood rains from the heavens, birds rise from the tar pits to attack humanity!

Like before, there are no character arcs, no twists, and no real explanation for anything happening. Permission may have been given to shoot in and around better locations and all, but it’s almost the same exact movie. Seriously. The opening, the restaurant scene, the girl getting a gig, the guy getting money, the dancing, the hotel, etc.

Why mess with what worked before, the director must’ve stated.

And if he said that, he’s right. The fans that came out in droves for the original are responsible for the sequel even being made. Knowing what they liked before, director James Nguyen delivers everything with a wink, a smile and a thank you. One line of dialogue in particular, delivered by the boy Rod and Natalie saved in the original, has me convinced of the jokey nature of the production: “I wish my sister were here to see this; she died after eating the fish Rod made.”

Combined with the callbacks and references, this is ultimate fan service. I can’t say that I connected with this the same way I did with the original, but that’s ok. Birdemic 2: The Resurrection is a loving sentiment to a devoted audience. Nguyen may not be good at making movies, but he’s good at showing that he loves movies. A scene where a moviegoing crowd is attacked by birds was shot with real fans in a real theater. I flashbacked to Gremlins 2 at that moment, and remarked to myself how much fun they were all having.

Has the charm returned? Well... it’s more like a twinkle.

All over again, I found myself cringing at the bad line reads and poor edits and shots. But, if I had made this movie as a wide eyed middle schooler, I would be very proud of myself, and look back on that time with fondness. It’s still bad, though.

1/5 *s

Birdemic 2: The Resurrection is coming to NOLA’s Prytania Theatre on April 20th at 10PM, with a special Q&A afterwards. Be there, or download the movie from Chill.com!

Review: "Evil Dead"

It doesn’t take much to impress me, but it does take a lot to scare me - when it comes to movies, I mean. At my most recent outing, a colleague teased me a bit about my lack of interest in watching horror flicks. Then, just prior to the movie starting, a security woman yells at us all, “If we catch you with an electronic device, you WILL be escorted out by the police!” For me, real instances like this are much scarier than anything that flickers on a screen.

After being bombarded for years by trailers and DVD’s for movies that offer nothing but jump scares and familiar killers, I’m kinda lukewarm towards this genre. Reviewers like The Cine-Masochist make me feel a bit picky and unfair, but it’s just how I feel.

That being said, I should re-state that it doesn’t take much to impress me. All I need is something fairly clever, easy to follow and very fun to watch; if the cast and crew are having a blast, so am I (Troma is great at this).

And watching a demon vomit vibrant, non CGI blood on a woman, only to be chainsawed in half later on, is indeed “a blast” and “fun to watch”.

The new Evil Dead (based on the original Sam Raimi classic - a kind of remake/reinterpretation) begins with the quickest of expository sequences I’ve seen in a long time: Five friends go to a cabin from their youth to help one of them kick drugs, brother and sister have problems, friend and friend have problems and all sorts of groovy weapons are established. Got it? Good. This movie knows what the audience came to see, and is just as antsy to get there as we are.

The book of the dead is found, read aloud, and the drug addicted friend becomes possessed by a demon, setting off a chain of events that could lead to hell on Earth beyond the woods. In one scene, the two men in the group discuss how to end this nightmare. One of them suggests they kill the drug addicted one, as the book suggests to do. When asked if it’ll work, we get one of the best lines EVER, “I don’t know; this isn’t a science book!”

I haven’t watched the first two original Sam Raimi films, so I will just compare this to a movie that gave me equal feelings, Marvel’s The Avengers. Both had high expectations amongst fans, relatively unproven directors (Joss Whedon had only done TV and smaller scale flicks) and the perfect storm of elements to turn them into train wrecks.

Almost a miracle before my eyes, this movie rocked.  

Like with last summer’s superhero blockbuster, Evil Dead gets it all right. It’s a simple story, with enough character depth and conflict to break the first dimension. Smart cinematography and placement of objects in a shot gave weight to what could’ve been flat. The editing was smooth and aware of genre expectations, playing with the typical jump scare beats we’ve all gotten used to. And the effects - 99% practical - made the happenings much more vibrant and very unforgettable. I bet the producers had a tight grip on this one...

I also got the impression that the movie wasn’t just another part of a familiar franchise, but a statement on how modern horror can and should learn from past horror. There is an opening shot that might as well have been taken directly from The Shining - an upside down then right side up shot of a car driving down a long and remote road. Then, of course, there was all the blood. Remember that bleeding elevator sequence? How about a movie featuring fountains of crimson rain? There are not only great effects workers out there, but also genuine fans of thrills and chills, dying to make a movie like the ones they grew up on. Maybe Evil Dead will start a trend.

There was a little kid who, after the screening, stared at the poster for the movie with a huge smile on his face. “The Most Terrifying Film You Will Ever Experience.” it said. I wanted to take a photo with him in front of that, as we were both feeling the same thing; cinematic bliss. Though, the fact that his parents let him go see this shocked me more than the movie itself... Yep, I’m still not scared. But, I am impressed. Very.

5/5 *s

Review: "House of Bad"

Just the other day, the good folks at MovieBoozer setup a debate between myself and fellow reviewer Mitch Hansch over the movie Olympus Has Fallen. Despite some problems with the format, we came to a mutual understanding for each others opinions. When the recording was over, however, I couldn’t help but wonder; are all opinions on movies created equal?

Far be it for me to deny another critic their right to review, or for an audience member to express themselves, but some ratings just confuse me. How can someone rate 2001: A Space Odyssey six beers or The Happening thumbs up? Sometimes, a movie can generate opinions from both sides of the spectrum, and that’s fine. But sometimes, there just is no valid opposing view.

For House of Bad, there can be only one grade - poor.

And I really hate that I typed that, but it’s just true. The movie is about three half sisters (though maybe only one of them is half?) who have just robbed a drug dealer of his stash, and hide out in the most secure and off the grid place they can think of; their old childhood home. They figure they’ll hide out for two weeks, then skip town (even though skipping town first might’ve saved them some trouble). The big sis takes full control, the one confirmed half sis struggles with drug withdrawals and the middle sis tries to hold it all together. But the dark history of the house may be too much for them to handle…

…or for the director. Overacting, over expository and redundant dialogue, bad editing and confusing story moments all make for something unintentionally funny. Horror films are known for a level of campiness and fun, but this was going for a more dramatic thriller theme. Unfortunately, it approaches its theme with the skill level of a bad late night cable softcore porno. At one point, the big sis is standing alone in a room, naked, bathed in moonlight, with a gun to her head. She goes on and on about how her life got so messed up, before a vision of her evil father appears. Continuing to monologue, she stares out the window, with an eye twitching like a mad scientist in an insane asylum. I laughed hard, knowing that I probably was supposed to feel unnerved.

There is another scene where the man they stole the drugs from shows up at the house, and ties the girls up. He drones on and on, over using the f word and repeating himself (possibly bad improv to fill in the blanks of the scene?) before finally getting stabbed on a bad edit, and then shot in the head with a dot of paint with bad squib exploding from behind his head. When you have made me laugh more than a schlock horror flick like The Granny, and your tone is that of a supernatural thriller… As Alfred said to Bruce Wayne, “Know your limits”.

I’ve read quotes from reviews that have been promoted on the films’ facebook page. They say it’s one of the best new horror films, it’s an example of great independent cinema, etc. With no level of arrogance or doubt, I can say that these reviewers either A) weren’t watching the movie I watched B) didn’t watch the movie at all C) were way too kind or D) were influenced by some demonic being. Filmmaker Jim Towns is a wonderfully nice guy, and I genuinely look forward to his next project, but House of Bad is just not good. No other opinion fits.

1/5 *s

@NOFS Review: "The Innkeepers"

The Innkeepers (film) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Have you ever been tricked into watching an internet video that scares you out of your seat? You know the kind; the description suggests a shocking event (girl gets kidnapped, a car accident, something supernatural, etc), but when played, you get a quiet and somewhat boring setting. Then…BAM! A monster or ghost bursts into the frame, screeching something horrific that almost pops your ear drums. This practical joke just about works every time.

“The Innkeepers” plays this scenario out in its first few minutes. The joke is played on Claire, a young front desk clerk at an old hotel, by her coworker Luke. The pair are working the hotel’s final weekend before closing, and are bored as all hell – though it’s suggested that they’re bored even under normal circumstances. They perform the daily tasks with a sigh, just waiting to get back to the only interesting thing about work; finding evidence of the ghost that is rumored to haunt the hotel.

The two leads remind me very much of Dante and Randal from “Clerks”. No, they’re not as vulgar, but they are equally stuck in life. While Luke seems a bit content with his position (much like Randal), Claire begins to realize that she has no aspirations outside of the hotel – what will she do with herself after the place shuts down in a few days?

Almost as a way to find the answers to her own existence, Claire seeks out the ghost that too is stuck in the hotel. She doesn’t really have a goal in terms of freeing the spirit or anything like that; I think she just wants to know it’s there. Maybe to reassure herself that she’s not alone? Maybe to just have a cool story to tell? 

Much like the video that tricked Claire, the movie is more fun and whimsical than scary and creepy. Yes, there are a few scare moments, but, in the end, you’re left with a smile instead of a nightmare.

It’s funny to me how two thirds of “The Innkeepers” reminds me of a movie like “Waiting…” minus the toilet humor, but one thirds feels like the more suspenseful moments of “Shutter Island”. I can’t say this is a horror film, but it does have it’s moments – the real terror isn’t that there IS a ghost, but that there MIGHT be a ghost. That, and is working a dead end job better than working amongst the dead?

"The Innkeepers", presented by the New Orleans Film Society, will be playing at Chalmette Movies from March 25th to March 27th.  

3/5 *'s

The Joy Is Back! Let's Book A Movie...

Since posting my previous entry on The Joy, the theatre has re-opened and played host to musical acts and stage productions. It's great to know that the venue is up and running again, but one thing concerns me; no movie screenings have been scheduled.

With its' history as one of THE premiere movie palaces on Canal St., it surprises me that a screening hasn't at least been booked. It can't be a lack of interest from the local film community, can it? Whatever the reason, I have a few ideas for possible movie events at the revamped Joy: 

Movie Pitchers Revival

I never had the opportunity to visit when it was in operation, but from the stories I've listened to and read, Movie Pitchers was a house with character. From Mike Miley Online:

"Yes, Movie Pitchers was a complete dump, but it was a film lover’s dump. For $5, you could see all the foreign and arty indie films that didn’t play anywhere else in town other than the overpriced Canal Place in the French Quarter … and you could drink while you were there. Magnolia, The Big Lebowski, Deconstructing Harry,Hands on a Hardbody - I saw them all at least twice at Movie Pitchers. Plus, they showed Disco Dolls in Hot Skin, which, if you don’t know, is a 3-D porno starring John Holmes (remember what I said about the couches?). It was disappointing, but it has one of the most messed-up flashback structures ever put on film. How could a film lover not live at a place like this?"

Unfortunately, the theatre was demolished in the early 00's.

So, what am I proposing? Let Movie Pitchers take over The Joy for a night! Call it a revival of sorts; the original owners/fans, programming a series of films they used to show. Original ticket prices, original drink brands/prices (The Joy has a bar), maybe even decorate the screening room with original furniture (a longshot), all for one night of nostalgia. Currently, there is a Facebook group, set up by dedicated fans, calling for their return - they might have some ideas...

Film Festivals

The New Orleans Film Society presents, every fall, the New Orleans Film Festival, and books screenings at theatres across the city. Maybe this year, The Joy can play host to the opening/closing night events? 

Taking place soon after is the NOLA Horror Film Fest. To screen on Canal St. would bring plenty of attention to this young fest.

And, of course, there is this:

Our Worst Film Festival (which also played at Movie Pitchers) was revived a few years ago, and has since existed as gatherings held throughout the year. Why not give it a bigger venue? Maybe it could become a regular thing; showing bad movies once a month. People show up to Prytania's midnight movies, why not come to The Joy for notoriously bad/incredibly obscure films? And maybe this could merge with B Fest; 24 hours of bad movie programming. Consider that ticket bought.

Hollywood South Premieres 

New Orleans has seen many major film productions, but very few film premieres. Let's fix that. I call on all producers and distributors to world premiere your NOLA shot films IN NOLA. You did a red carpet type event for Sandra Bullock at The Prytania, you can do the same for Sylvester Stallone at The Joy.

However it happens, I'm sure a movie will eventually screen at The Joy. When it does, I'll be there. Unless it stars Dane Cook.