Review: The Conjuring (Spoilers)

The Conjuring (SPOILERS)
Cert: 15 / 112 mins / Dir. James Wan

So, from what I can gather after the very final altercation in Insidious, Patrick Wilson's character Josh got hit by a car, or something, and lost consciousness.
When he comes around, he's in 1971 and has a job as a paranormal investigator. Is he mad? In a coma? …or back in time? If he can use his paranormal knowledge to crack the case of a local family who've moved into the area and are experiencing ghostly visitations, then maybe he can figure out why he's here… and find a way home.

Not really. I wish my interpretation of events had been the case, because it would have been a damn sight more entertaining than the film I saw tonight. The problem is that it never lives up to its promise. It's a very slow start for not-enough-payoff, and while the cast do an admirable job of playing things straight, they're working with a dud, frankly. The film draws from the well of recent horror movies as deeply as it does from 'the old staples', but seems to add nothing of its own. Everything from slaughtered pets, stopping clocks and a boarded-up cellar, all the way through to a creepy doll, a creepy music box and whispering voices on a tape is ruthlessly mined for shocks which arrive with thudding, clockwork regularity.

Whether it's the child-murdering-possession of The Woman In Black, the multiple-ghosts-appearing of Insidious, or just the birds-crashing-into-the-house of Dark Skies, you've seen it all before, and you've seen it all better. The final act plays out like a mashup between The Evil Dead and Ghostbusters, and is every bit as funny as the image that evokes, sadly. The screen I saw the film in was five seats short of selling out. I thought this would make for a great atmosphere, as any tension and resulting release would be exaggerated throughout audience. We jumped once, and that was in the first half hour.

So, usually in this sort of thing an expository section between acts two and three fleshes out why the main victim is being harassed/haunted/possessed, and details the horrific events which have led up to the present case. In this story, we get Vera Farmiga sifting through some photos and pointing at a map. Any ghost aside from the main bad-girl, Bathsheba, is given half a line of dialogue to justify their presence, and then never seen again. As for bad-mamma herself, she's disposed of so easily (and with so little fallout or consequence) as to be laughable. But the film does end with a twist, in that when you're watching the family step out into the sunlight, hugging and relieved that it's all over; you're expecting the demon to resurge one last time before the credits… and it doesn't.

And while I'm on the subject, what the hell has Bathsheba got to do with Annabelle The Possessed Doll™? The film explicitly states that the possessions and murders only take place on the original plot of farmland, so unless The Warren Ghostbusters live on that land, it doesn't matter how many sentimental lockets Lorraine leaves in the basement, The Ghost™ shouldn't be able to just text The Demon™ and ask for a favour, surely? I imagine the Warren's Indiana Jones' Warehouse of haunted artefacts will be exploited in the sequel. Can't wait.

Despite all my pissing and moaning, it's not a "bad" horror movie, but it's so on-par with everything else that's being released these days that it's robbed of the very thing it needs to succeed: horror.

If anything, it oversells it.



Not really. And neither did the sold-out audience I watched it with.



Nope.



DVD, at best.



Yes. Yes, I will..



Nope.



Nope.

So does "true story" mean "it's true that someone told this story"?

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.

An open letter to NBC Universal

Dear NBC Universal Bigwigs,

As part of your impressive business portfolio includes the now-retired MCA Television brand, you currently hold the intellectual property rights and design copyrights for one of the most influential television programmes of all time. A family oriented comedy series which also holds cult appeal, accessible to old and young alike, the show has been absent from our screens for 22 years.

Now is the perfect time to resurrect 'The Munsters Today'.

The Concept

As a standalone comedy/horror show, The Munsters Today was truly magnificent (even if it was maligned by critics as "a re-badged Addams Family for the late 80's" - how misguided they were!), but what about a sequel? Even better, one whose key feature is the fact that so much time has passed since its predecessor!

As I mentioned above, it's been an astounding 22 years since the last episode of The Munsters Today aired in 1991. A lot has changed in the intervening years, and this will be the Unique Selling Point of the new version. My idea for revitalising the show is not to simply pick up from where we left off, but to set the events of the new series now, in 2013! Ideally, the new show would employ a device whereby the Munsters family find themselves transported to 2013, and the comedy arises from the situations where they're effectively 'fish-out-of-water'; either failing to fully understand new technology, or social attitudes and accepted norms of the 21st century. This differential will provide a bottomless well from which to draw a limitless supply of comedy, and most importantly: it hasn't been done before!

Oh, the title?

"The Munsters Today Today".



Regarding that name, I feel it's vital that we add "Today" to the end. This creates a strong link to the original series, so that casual viewers know the two are directly connected, yet it also lets people know that the show is set in the present day and shouldn't be confused with the previous iteration (where the word 'Today' was used as a device to let the audience know episodes were broadcast in 'real time', with the events of each one lasting 22 minutes in a single unbroken shot, and taking place a week apart). On no account do we want our audience to believe that this is a standalone show like The Munsters Today was. That would be insane. None of the jokes will make sense if it's treated as a unique entity.

The name is a deal-breaker, I can't state that emphatically enough.

The Mechanics

The perfect method to get the Munsters family into the here and now would be time-travel. However, it's essential for the narrative that after arriving in 2013, the Munsters's can't simply return (at least initially) to the soft-focused innocent days of 1991. If Grandpa were to invent some sort of time machine that malfunctions after its first use, that would be ideal. I had an idea about it maybe being powered by plutonium, but I'm still working that one out.

Failing that, maybe Grandpa could concoct some manner of sleeping potion or magic snooze-coffin or some such, which inadvertently puts the Munsters into a coma for 22 years. As Marilyn Munsters is human she'd probably die, but we can always re-cast her; hey, it's been done before!

The Episodes

I'm currently drafting episodes for the first season with the following titles:

• Back To Back To The Future
• Munster Mash
• Herman's Sherman (Tanks a lot!)
• Vlad, the Inhaler
• Marylin's Man/Son
• The Craigslist Murders
• It Works Using Blood
• Collateral Damage
• From The Ashes
• Frankenrampage!

The Casting

After The Munsters Today's John Schuck's now infamous episode with a stage hypnotist in 1999, which left him pathologically unable to lie - and by extension, act - we'll be looking for a replacement Herman Munster. Might I humbly suggest Mr Fred Gwynne? Now I know what your first words are going to be, and you're right… he is a little old, but I'm sure with the judicious application of prosthetics and CGI, we can make him look the part. And don't worry about his comedic past: with a supporting role in the screen adaptation of 'Pet Sematary', he's no stranger to the horror genre!
Oh, he is dead, but then so is Herman Munster! I'm sure you'll work something out.

The Marketing

Have you been in Accessorize or Hot Topic lately? This nouveau-retro-goth is exactly what the kids want. They're wearing Nightmare Before Christmas t-shirts, for Burton's sakes, and if that doesn't illustrate the window for mainstream 1990's faux noir, I don't know what bloody well does. T-shirts, pencil cases, action figures, subscription-based MMO games - we're sitting on a chuffing goldmine, here.

The Deal?

An associate producer credit and 13% of the net profit on distribution/syndication and merchandising, plus spin-off rights. Or 11% with extras if I can have a walk-on role in episode 1 as the first person the Munsters encounter in this confusing new age. Either / or.

Thanks for hearing me out, NBC Universal bods. Unless I've fundamentally misunderstood something, I really think we can make this work.

Get your people to call my people; we'll do lunch.

Love,
@MightyBlackout.

PS. If you're interested, I'm also developing a few spinoff projects:

1) An in-universe docu-comedy where Herman Munsters talks the rest of the family through the history of The Beatles' 'Sgt Pepper' album and its production. Paul McCartney's legal team is currently looking over the script for The Munsters Today Today It Was Twenty Years Ago Today.

2) A screenplay in which the Munsters family have to survive ecological armageddon when Mother Nature gets angry and lashes back after one of Grandpa Munster's experiments. The Munsters Today Today The Day After Tomorrow is currently in its second draft.

3) A thinly-veiled eco/humanitarian alien-invasion flick, The Day The The Munsters Today Today Stood Still. So far, title only.

Tweet me, yeah?.


DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• I feel I should reiterate; sarcasm and facetiousness. Yeah? Good.
• TL;DR version? Click here. Yes, all of the above could have been (and was) done in 117 characters.
• Seriously though; it is 22 years since The Munsters Today ended, and that's the same length of time that passed between The Munsters and its ill-advised, terminally unfunny sequel.
• 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.

Review: Evil Dead (1981)

Evil Dead (1981)
Cert: 18 / 85 mins / Dir. Sam Raimi



Let's not get all precious about it; The 1981 version of Evil Dead looks pretty terrible and is acted appallingly*¹. That's not to say it isn't a massive amount of fun*², but don't put it on a pedestal while you're berating the remake.

As much as I love this film, it hasn't aged very well, although obviously it wasn't really intended to be shown on today's technology. With shots that are slightly out of focus and patchy sound in places, this is best suited to your living room (although isn't that where we all originally saw it anyway?*³).

Oh, and for those of us (myself included) noting that the remake is lacking the humour of the original? You/I/we're thinking of Evil Dead II. There's the odd dark chuckle here and there, but it's pretty much on-par with Alvarez's version in terms of laughs.

And yet for all my grumbling, it really is an outstanding achievement, and I can feel the love and dedication in. every. frame. Even the ones with the plasticine models. Dammit, especially the ones with the plasticine models.

Join us...

Kinda. I mean, that tells you what you're going to get, yes.



Hand on heart? Mostly laughing and wincing.



Yes.



DVD*⁴.



Probably not.



Absolutely.



Not that I heard.






*¹ Although Bruce is giving it his all, I'll admit, he just hadn't sharpened those tools at this point.
*² Okay, apart from The Tree Sequence. That never becomes comfortable.
*³ Not in MY living room, obviously. Yours. We all saw it in YOUR living room. I think you were out that night?
*⁴ Obviously, I saw this in the cinema, hence the review, and hence my opinion on the DVD being better. And for the record? I sat in a room with 8 (eight) other people to watch it. Horror-fans of Berkshire and the surrounding areas, you should be fucking well ashamed of yourselves. Don't say they never give you anything ;)

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.

Review: Evil Dead (2013)

Evil Dead (2013)
Cert: 18 / 91 mins / Dir. Fede Alvarez

"There's no school like the old school, and I'm the fuckin' headmaster..."
Lenny Cole, Rock'n'Rolla, 2008

Wise words indeed, and director Fede Alvarez has well and truly taken a leaf out of Sam Raimi's book for this exhilarating, and thoroughly old-school, horror flick. The Evil Dead remake boasts a near constant intensity that I haven't felt in a long time, and manages to pull off supernatural-horror without it seeming silly at all. Most of the dark humour of the original has gone, and while the story setup is broadly the same, it comfortably becomes its own film in a short amount of time (despite several Easter-Eggs and references to ED1 & 2).

The greatest thing for me, is that Evil Dead doesn't feature (or even reference) the internet, mobile phones or ropey CCTV setups. While it's still unmistakably "modern day", there's nothing to suggest which decade the story is taking place in (80's, 90's, 00's), lending it an almost timeless quality. On top of this, whereas the fright-technique of the 21st century seems to be 'close-up… quiet… quiet… quiet… LOUD!' in almost every recent ghost and slasher flick, this features none of that nonsense. There are quiet moments, but it's not a loud bang that scares you, it's more likely to be a very still shot of someone whose face you can't quite see, speaking in a voice that isn't quite theirs.

Alvarez's determination to stick-to-the-formula saves the day here, where it's been the downfall of many an imitator. There's no real spin, no real twist, just five kids in a cabin in the woods, uncovering a book which can unleash a demon upon the Earth. The only minor deviation is their reason for being there; to put their friend Mia, the central character, through cold-turkey to kick a heroin habit, rather than the traditional setup of teenage sex and booze. As it turns out, it makes the beginning of 'the trouble' all the more intense as the characters have an obvious reason for disbelieving their friend is possessed by evil spirits.

I should also take a moment to say that the cast of this film are fantastic. As mentioned above, they play out the movie with credibility, which is a massive achievement when you take into account the getting-routinely-possessed-by-a-demon and general carnage with broken mirrors, a crowbar, nailgun, shotgun, chainsaw and electric carving-knife. Especially outstanding is Jane Levy as Mia, whose 'human' side is just as compelling as her demonic one. She features in what may become my scene-of-the-year, but to describe it would be to wade into spoilers. Maybe in another review.

The only thing that made me raise an eyebrow was the 5-second scene after all the credits. It was nice an'all, but adds absolutely nothing. Bless him, though ;)

If you can regard 2013's Evil Dead as a companion to the original, rather than a replacement, you'll have immense fun. If you've liked any of this film's spiritual predecessors, but are naturally wary of remakes, you should give it a chance, it really is that good.

Almost. The film is more intense..



Fuck, yes.



Fuck, yes.



Cinema / DVD.



Yes.



Yes.



No.




It's a very - very - high-six, and may go up to full marks with more viewings.


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.

Review: Dark Skies

Dark Skies
Cert: 15 / 97 mins / Dir. Scott Stewart



The most terrifying thing about this film is the amount of product placement the Apple Corporation have secured. Made all the more prominent by the hauntingly generic "Search" page which tells us the film-makers couldn't get a 'yes' from Google.

So anyway, Dark Skies is basically Poltergeist with aliens, and it's every bit as derivative and lazy as that sounds. It's exactly like every haunted-family horror you've seen over the past 5-10 years, which is a shame because there are a few nice ideas dotted here and there, and the cast do an admirable job of playing things straight. But there are too many extreme-close-up/quiet-quiet-LOUD moments, and creepy children's drawings, and night-vision surveillance cameras, and weird wise old conspiracy theorists for me to actually commit to taking any of it seriously. Normally I'd say that this sort of thing is a good entry-point to the genre, but it's not. Insidious is a far more solid film by comparison, even if it's just as colour-by-numbers.

And I'm not even going to mention the 'why would you introduce a notedly aggressive Alsatian dog into your already troubled family-space with the intention of using it as an early warning system and ultimately sending it batshit-insane when trouble kicks off, when you could just leave the television on to act as a less-bitey-alert, because fuck it you've managed to buy a pump-action shotgun over the counter on the same day with no waiting period, and then have the aforementioned television on and watch the aforementioned dog go apeshit but not get aggressive at all, just shit-scared, so what exactly was the point of putting the dog in the film?

Oh, I just did.

Ultimately, I can't hate it because I think it's been made with some genuine gusto. Sadly that didn't extend to the writing.
Don't spend money seeing this film.

Pretty much.



Not really. Although I suspect I did laugh more than I was supposed to..



Not for me.



None.



Yes.



No.



No.





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.

Review: Silent Hill - Revelation (3D)

CAUTION: Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.



Silent Hill: Revelation (3D)
94 mins / Dir. Michael J. Bassett

It makes even less sense than the first film, which is an achievement given that they stop to explain everything every 12 minutes...



Sepia-toned pallette / Desaturated pallette / Too dark to see anything.
LOUD NOISE.
Monster with a bum for a face.
Mr Triangle Head.
Unremittingly dull.

All that, for an hour and a half.

Like being chased though an abandoned funfair by Rammstein, but with none of the excitement that implies.
A half-arsed rehash of a film that was barely finished to start with.
3D is functional but a waste of time in a film as pointless as this.



Shitting awful, but I can't mark it lower than The Possession.


DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.

• 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.

Review: Frankenweenie

CAUTION: Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.



Frankenweenie
90 mins / Dir. Tim Burton

And so the third of this year's horror-themed animations hits cinemas, and if this doesn't school the young'uns in the ways of Classic Creeps and Chills, nothing will...



So, yes. Despite being trailered well in advance of its brethren, Tim Burton's spook-fest limps in last, more than likely using Hallow'een as an excuse for its tardiness. You'd think that with Disney behind the production, some money might have been spent using computer animation, to help the speed, if not the quality, but no. Burton's new film uses old-fashioned stop-motion photography, limiting the things that can be shown on-screen to the extent of the model-maker's skills.

As a further insult to the ticket-buying public, Frankenweenie has been made in black and white, of all things! Apparently this is some kind of tribute to old-fashioned horror films, but if that's the case, why isn't there a Dracula in the film? Or a wolfman? The name Frankenstein is used, but I notice there's no likeness of the monster - probably so that Burton didn't have to pay the full amount of money for the rights to use it. The story seems largely derivative of the classic horror genre, but without any proper namechecks.

Elsewhere, the voice-acting is left to a cast that features Winona Ryder (who's a Burton favourite anyway), and Martin Short as its high-points. If only someone had spent more money and gotten the likes of Adam Sandler and Kevin James on board; they could have injected to much needed humour into the proceedings. Instead, we're treated to 90 minutes about a boy who doesn't learn to let go of his pet dog and becomes a necromancer as a result. What kind of message is that sending to our children?

One thing's for sure: It's no Hotel Transylvania.

Spoilers: Oh, of course I enjoyed it. Sure, it's a little self-indulgent, but putting this much love into a film is bound to have that effect. You don't need me spending three paragraphs telling you how gorgeous Frankenweenie is, there are plenty of reviews doing that already ;D It's funny, dark, touching, and above all else, it has an actual message. If you don't enjoy this film on some level, you're a heathen.

DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.

• 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.

Review: House at the End of the Street

CAUTION: Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.



House at the End of the Street (SPOILERS. ISH.)
101 mins / Dir. Mark Tonderai

Catapulted into teen-icondom Jennifer Lawrence, the biggest face in Hollywood, has to put on her bravest act in this stark horror film...



Okay, two things…
1) When you put 'with an awesome twist' on the poster, the entire audience views the film waiting for that twist, and everything that comes before that revelation is wasted on them.
2) You seem to have confused 'twist' with 'plot development'.

If you can get past an hour and a half of completely unnecessary shaky-cam (complete with filters which make you think the Director of Photography might have been Jeff Instagram), and Elisabeth Shue in full 'made-for-TV-movie overacting' mode, House at the End of the Street is a fairly passable psychological thriller/horror.

And therein lies The Rub. This is not the 'horror' which the trailer promises, yet the film itself goes on to use the standard scare-tactics of the genre which all fall flat as there is no supernatural element at play. While the events that unfold are horrifying, it's in a very 'real world' sense and all the quiet-quiet-quiet-LOUD! moments only serve to underline the stupidity of a clearly vulnerable character deciding to explore a locked cellar in a house with a murderous history at a time of uncertainty. So yeah; in a standard horror-flick it would be par for the course, but the actual story is more intelligent than that, and it's a real shame to see it wasted on this screenplay.

That said, I went in with minimal expectations, and HATEotS surpassed them. This certainly appears to be the key to enjoyment, sadly.

It's okay, but horror and slasher buffs may be disappointed at the lack of beef.





Interesting, but hamstrung by its need to scare.

DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.

• 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.

Review: Paranorman (3D)

CAUTION: Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.



Paranorman (3D)
92 mins / Dir. Chris Butler & Sam Fell

Watch...



The Good: …It's only like a flipping cartoon of Necroscope, innit? AWESOME!
Paranorman manages to be kid-friendly horror without turning up the camp (Hotel Transylvania), and spooky without turning up the kooky (Frankenweenie), and in that respect it's like a blast of fresh air. Well, fresh air with a whiff of decomposing zombie about it.

Its main strength is that it's a pretty solid ghost story, and that a lot of the humour is underplayed (which is a nice way of saying that I chuckled frequently but only guffawed once or twice). But Paranorman is more charming than any animation I've seen since The Pirates, and they both succeed by making the characters likeable without laying on the schmaltz, and funny without relying on fart jokes.

There are plenty of verbal and visual easter-eggs for grown-up fans of the horror genre, but it's still inherently 'safe'. I'm not sure what the religious-right will make of it, but that's a subject for another post.

The Bad: For all its strengths, the themes of fear, pack-mentality and social unrest and handled pretty ham-fistedly. As a result, anything that might have previously passed as subtext is essentially hollered out from the screen with a knowing wink. Maybe that's aimed at kid-level, but I think the younger audience are smarter than this script gives them credit for.

The Ugly: Outside of the opening/closing titles, the 3D is fairly pointless. On more than one occasion I was able to look over my glasses and see pretty much the same thing, only lighter. This is another thing the film has in common with The Pirates, and it's worth noting that both movies are based on actual stop-motion rather than full-on CGI. Maybe the physical scale limits the capabilities of 3D? (for obvious reasons of special effects, there is CGI in Paranorman, but it's still not eye-poppingly glaringly 3D).

All-in-all: I really enjoyed it, but I'm aware that the reasons I thought it was great are the same things that could disappoint the Burtonites. I'd recommend seeing it at the cinema just so you can witness all the model-work in its glory, but in all honesty, you probably won't lose too much by watching in on BluRay.



Yes, that good.

EDIT: Oh, and am I the only one to think that Mitch's model seems to be based on a muscular Happy Days era Ron Howard? Can't seem to find reference to it anywhere, but it's glaringly obvious to me…


DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.

• 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.