Krampus (SPOILERS)
Cert: 15 / 98 mins / Dir. Michael Dougherty / Trailer
Ah, Christmas, Christmas, Christmas*1. The annual season of cheer, goodwill and unfettered capitalism has been the hand-in-glove companion for the film industry since 1901's Scrooge; Or Marley's Ghost. Of course, not all movies are candy-cane-sweet, and so the self-aware sub-genre of 'Christmas Horror' was created for moviegoers who like to think they're a bit more cynical about the whole thing. Which is precisely why I'm going to be as cynical as I am about the latest addition to the festive-library, Krampus…
Based around the (suddenly remarkably well known) alpine legend of St Nicholas' diabolical counterpart, we begin with possibly the most facetious title sequence for a Christmas movie in living memory, watching a slow-motion montage of sales-shoppers destroy everything in their path in the bloodthirsty quest for a bargain. It's especially notable given how formulaic the film becomes after it. The problem is that the idea at its core is reasonably good; but the film is rarely more than reasonable. Too many of the movie's central family are unlikeable to the point that their continued survival doesn't become important to the audience, but they're not quite despicable enough that their grisly ends can be met with any satisfied glee.
This isn't helped by a ninety minute screenplay which drags its heels in dispatching most of its hapless inhabitants, leading to a mass cull in the last ten minutes that feels more like carelessness than a crescendo. Krampus can never let go and become as boldly different as it'd like, struggling to reconcile a mainstream horror flick and a relatively tame black comedy. Rather than working together, the styles spend too much time undermining each other's effectiveness. That said, when The Horror™ does finally arrive in force, it's still a little too cartoonish to hold any real sense of threat on its own. By the third-act finale, Krampus has begun to resemble the old Puppet Master series, with a range of festive atrocities who - although finely crafted and realised - seem to have been designed to cater to a secondary revenue-stream of t-shirts and high-end maquette collectables. More Hot Topic than Hammer House of Horror.
But it's not awful at all. This is just the kind of low-rent monster-flick which usually gets released straight-to-DVD (which, for shameless Cousin Eddie rip-off, David Koechner, is the second one in as many months). The production values are all relatively high, but they're dragging around a screenplay which needs a thorough polish.
For a Christmas-based black-comedy/horror that's truly quirky, you'd be better off with 2010's Rare Exports, although this pared-down Hollywood re-tooling is perfectly acceptable for a night in with the sherry and the eggnog…
Spoilers - highlight to read: Mind, that Bobby-Ewing-stepping-out-of-the-shower ending can fuck right off, as well.
Not unless mainstream horror is really your thing.
Maybe buy it for the Christmas-pile, but wait until it's under a fiver.
It does not.
It does not.
I will not.
There is not.
Krampus stars (inexplicably) Toni Collette, who also appeared in 2000's Shaft remake, alongside Sam 'Windu' Jackson.
*1 Of course, the most annoying thing about reviewing these movies is reading back what you've written and seeing that you've put the word 'Christmas' three times in one paragraph and twice in the next. And there's only so many times you can get away with 'festive', 'seasonal' and 'holiday season' instead. Bunch of arse. Anyway, Christmas Christmas Christmas...
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
Take a good look at that poster, there. It may not be quite at Drew Struzan's level, but it's painstakingly executed in a classical style, and tells you everything you need to know about the tone of the film and the visual markers you'll get along the way. It's a bloody good one-sheet. I imagine it also took more hours to bring to completion than the screenplay…
Okay, I should really try not to be too hard on Scouts Guide To The Zombie Apocalypse, as it's clearly been made on a restrictive budget. Then again, the effects, filming and general production values of the movie aren't the problem; that dubious honour belongs to the first-draft of a script stuffed to the gills with everyone else's stuff, and which appears to have been cast with the actors who agreed to the roles in the shortest time. Ploughing full-tilt into the 'horror-comedy' sub genre, the film can't decide which side of the fence it's based on, and the result is that it's not convincingly both, but neither.
As comedies go, it's broad and sloppy; but as a horror-flick, it's an outright mess. Equally in stylistic debt to Superbad and Shaun of the Dead, the film ropes in a couple of From Dusk Till Dawn's beats just to keep things moving. And as amiable as most of the movie is, SGttZA's not as funny, clever or heartwarming as its obvious influences, and it has nothing else to bring to the party to make up for that. It's as satisfyingly predicable as a greatest-hits album, but a one which is also being performed by a cover-band. There's also a definite air of "Oh, it's got Champ Kind from Anchorman in it! I guess that's where the budget went…"
Admittedly, my other main problem (and more tellingly, I think) is that I'm a massive, unashamed snob when it comes to zombie movies. I think they're very difficult to do 'right', and more to the point I'm glad that that's the case. There'll always be room in the market for schlocky knock-offs, where the "wouldn't it be cool if…" moments are more important than the craft. But if you're going to successfully navigate the land of the dead, you're going to need more than swagger, luck and an overworked knob-gag. This film wants to be Zombieland, but it's not even Cockneys vs Zombies. The comedy/horror (or horror/comedy) sub0genre isn't an overcrowded graveyard, but it's a one littered with failures and also-rans which should serve as a warning to all who fancy their chances.
But, credit where it's due: I smirked, I smiled and at one point I guffawed out loud. But I also rolled my eyes and winced more than I should have. When the film's on-form it's a perfectly enjoyable 'DVD with a few beers', but that's not a consistent state and there are a few scenes which shouldn't have made it into the shooting script, never mind the editing suite (to put it delicately*1, the film earns its 15 certificate more by poor-taste than actual gore).
Ultimately, Scouts Guide To The Zombie Apocalpyse isn't awful, it's just a transparent attempt by a studio to pick up any audience that isn't currently wanting to see James Bond.
You can't blame Paramount for trying, although in this case you can certainly blame them for not trying…
In case you hadn't gathered, no.
Either a rental or £3 when it's on the bargain-shelf in Asda.
From the cast-members I've seen before? No.
From the ones I haven't? I hope not.
Even with its low ambitions, not quite.
Oddly, no.
I didn't hear one, but there's a lot of wailing and shrieking going on. It's entirely possible that there's a Wilhelm mixed in there somewhere, but if that's the case then it's the only subtle thing about this film.
SGttZA stars Tye Sheridan, who's due to appear as Cyclops in X-Men: Apocalypse; a film which also features Rose 'Dormé' Byrne and the voice of Oscar 'Dameron' Isaac.
*1 Which is more delicate than anything the film does. Let's just say that stabbing a naked woman in the head with a broken bottle seemed less awkward when Nicholas Hoult did it, somehow..?
Oh, and how come if the old-lady-zombie can't bite Carter's arse because she hasn't got her false teeth in, the 'eating out' zombie manages to chomp away on his victim despite not having a lower-jaw? Answer: Because they're both incredibly cheap jokes which say more about the scriptwriting process than the film's actual dialogue.
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
No-one can accurately predict which movies will become breakout hits. On the surface, there's not a lot to differentiate 2004's Anchorman from its classmates; just the right cast, the right script*1 and the right time. The film's success promoted Will Ferrell and Steve Carell to the A-List, and provided a plethora of quotable lines for the office, the pub, and the marketing department for Anchorman 2*2. But how could Dreamworks capitalise on this success? Well, in lieu of a sequel, re-issues of the Anchorman DVD featured a 'bonus movie', Wake Up, Ron Burgundy, created from unused subplots and alternate takes from the film. And that's sort of what Anchorman 2 feels like; a collection of disparate sketches and threads, with the cracks papered over by getting Will Ferrell to ad-lib exclamations (of the 'by Odin's beard!' variety).
Now don't let that dour, judgemental opening fool you: I liked Anchorman 2. There are sketches which work really well (the cruise-control camper van), skteches which fall a little flat (most of the scenes with James Marsden), ones which are excruciating for the right and the wrong reasons (the family dinner*3), and some which just retread past glories (jazz-flute and the battle finale). The problem (for me) is that most of these threads just don't connect with each other; and considering that the film's about a news team and many of Anchorman's finest moments were the on-air antics of that collective, we spend precious little time in the studio with the guys in the sequel (even though the film is centered around them moving to a new station). It may have been written by only two people (Ferrell and director, McKay), but it feels like it's been edited by someone who's never met either of them. Or read the script. That said, even I was impressed by the roll-call of celebrity cameos for the showdown in the park; not impressed that the film could get the names, more that they were all clearly so keen to have it on their CV's (Ford was a pleasant surprise and Cohen and Neeson I'd expect, but not Cotillard).
Apart from that, Anchorman 2 is what you'd imagine, really. Perhaps a little too much. If you're in the market for undemanding laughs then Adam McKay's got something he'd like to sell you, but don't expect to fall in love with Ron Burgundy all over again.
Maybe I'm just expecting too much? Or maybe when the producers of a film wait eight years to make a largely unnecessary follow-up, then there's an expectation that it'll be (at least) the equal of its predecessor? Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues is frequently very funny, but occasionally lazy and feels sloppily assembled. And with the pedigree behind it, you know it's capable of better.
I enjoyed it, and I think most audiences will, too. I, er... just can't think of many good things to say about it…
Well, the trailer is what the film wants to be. You'll understand if you've seen both.
More than half of the time, but less than all.
Making you laugh? Yeah. Continuing the legend of Ron Burgundy? Not really.
You won't lose anything by watching it on DVD.
No.
I will, but not right away.
There isn't, and I genuinely thought we were going to get one in the park-showdown.
…am I asking too much of an Apatow-stable comedy?
*1 Or more accurately, performances, as many of the best lines were ad-libbed. As in actually ad-libbed. Not just having Melissa McCarthy pulling faces and shouting 'fuck' at someone not speaking in the scene. #miaow
*2 Because seriously, some of the tie-in crossover promotions leading up to this film have been just embarrassing. Like they've been written by someone who's watched Anchorman every day for the last eight years and thinks that scripting out previously-used ad-libs isn't going to completely destroy not only the timing, but also the dignity of Ferrell, repeating his 'famous' material like some sort of moustachioed Peter Kay. And yes, I realise I'm being a purist over a Will Ferrell movie.
*3 I also wasn't too keen on how crassly the whole 'Ron's blind' segment was handled either, given that there was no real reason for it being there. Then again, I'm a wooly-liberal at heart, so what do you expect.
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
