Rest Stop (2006)
Director: John Shiban
Starring: Jamie Alexander
Screenplay by: John Shiban
This movie sucks. Sucks. I give it a holy crap this movie sucks. Because I am rendered partially speechless by the utter suckitude of this film I shall repost my netflix review of said film in its entirety below. :
"I am a huge fan of random slaughterfests of this sort, and the concept of this movie is extremely interesting (and has the potential for real scares). A lonely rest stop miles from nowhere, an inhumanly cruel, faceless threat: it sounds like the basis for an interesting film. OH, HOWEVER...this has to be one of the most "confused" horror movies I've seen. I'm not sure exactly where it all went wrong: the writer? the director? the actors? the HUGE AND GAPING PLOT HOLES? The answer is probebly a little bit of everything. Despite having "borrowed" ideas from three or four better horror films, this film is filled with the kind of ridiculous actions / reactions / premises that are usually only reserved for low budget horror movies made in someone's back yard. I suspect that the writer and/or directer felt they were being somehow mysterious or clever at key points, but really there is nothing mysterious or clever in this film; there are only ridiculously unlikeable characters, enormous plot holes, pointless scenes, unconnected characters and events and zero explanation. A side note, if there was any truth in advertisitng the alternate endings described as "each one scarier than the next" would need to be changed to "each one more puzzlingly stupid than the next." "
I first have to say, that the review above is a rarity, I seldom, if ever, bother with reviews on netflix (or at all if you notice the frequency, or lack thereof, with which I'm placing reviews on this page). I just couldn't stop myself this time though. I thought, if I could just get one person to delete this movie from their queue then I will have done a very good deed. I hate movies that seem SLICK and turn out worse than most low-budget, backwoods, dentist-directed ex-genius crapfests (I'll give three dollars to anyone who can figure out what movie I just referenced). Now, some movies have low budget sillyness I can get behind; movies like, "There's nothing out there" (a self-aware goof fest)and even "Manos, Hands of Fate" (whose only charm is its successful MST3K-ification). But I hate movies that are oblivious to their own failure. I am positive that the filmmaker, director, whatever: John Shiban thought this was a tour-de-force, I mean after all JOEY LAWRENCE IS IN IT! (And in the only accidentally funny scene in the movie...I laughed for like 10 minutes, I'm stifling a giggle now as I shake my head over the shame of it). And there is where it all went wrong. Why set out to make a "type of movie?" Make a good movie, tell a good story, make me scared. This film was sadly all candy coating with no center. (I would swear they spent the majority of the filming budget on corn syrup and the editing for the trailer.)
So, now I'm at an impasse, I can't think of a way to talk about horror theory in relation to this movie. Maybe I'll just say this: sometimes what scares us doesn't need to be made so obvious. I'm thinking of movies like "Last Broadcast" (almost perfect...if it wasn't for those last four minutes), or even the love-it/hate-it "Blair Witch Project" where the thing that frightens us isn't shown, it is imagined. Isn't the fear in the imagining of the horror? The anticipation of it? This film had all the makings of something interesting...if it just hadn't tried to explain anything at all, for when it tried it failed quickly and left more holes than ideas. Nothing came together, but not in an interesting Gestalt kind of way...just in a "dammit, I want my two hours back" way. Stupid movie.
Side notes:
The main character is probebly the most dislikable character I have ever experienced in a horror movie. This was a very strange direction for the film to take: usually we like the main character, it is important to like them, for we want them to live. Taking the unconventional approach in this movie, making the main character a whiney, unlikable, useless dingbat really backfired (unless that was the point, but I just can't fathom what the point of doing this ON PURPOSE would be), I think? Oh, who can tell.
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Friday, January 19, 2007
Elements of Horror
Elements of Horror a short pdf borrowing heavily from Noel Carroll's famous "Philosophy of Horror" something I have used frequently when teaching horror theory.
A Synopsis of Carroll's Work.
I'm posting this now because I'll be referring back to it kiddies. Pay attention. This is important. Later on when I mention horrific metonymy or massification you'll want to be clear as to what I mean.
A Synopsis of Carroll's Work.
I'm posting this now because I'll be referring back to it kiddies. Pay attention. This is important. Later on when I mention horrific metonymy or massification you'll want to be clear as to what I mean.
Psychoanalysis and Horror Films
Psychoanalysis in/and/of the Horror Film by Stephen Jay Schneider, an excerpt from the introduction to Freud's Worst Nightmares.
This isn't a collection of psychoanalytic criticism of particular genres, trends or films, but is a collection of essays analyzing the psychoanalytic criticism that has been applied to horror. Stephen Jay Schneider insists on a meta-theoretical approach in this collection that looks at why and how psychoanalysis has been applied to horror films and what assumptions and conclusions have been made about horror as a result of those analyses.
Although I'm not a huge fan of psychoanalysis in most forms (and a vehement Freud-hater), I do think it's a worthwhile pursuit. And it can be fascinating when applied to horror films, but often the results of these analysis seem at odds with one another. Are horror movies dependant on oedipal desires? Are they the result of castration fear? penis envy? Since they are based on fears, according to standard psychoanalytical theory, they must also contain a desire. What are those desires? This can be a fun exercise, AND it can serve to point out pervasive societial fears/desires...or it can be a self-serving waste of time.
One of my favorite genres to "analyze:" werewolf films. They lend themselves beautifully to psychoanalytical theory, and the best films realize the connection and exploit or contort the tradition to expose something new and interesting about the furry insides of humanity. Some good werewolf (with great psychoanalytical possibilities) films to see: "Ginger Snaps," "Ginger Snaps II," "Ginger Snaps Back," "In the Company of Wolves," "The Howling II/III" and "Brotherhood of the Wolf." Or wait for the new release of "Blood and Chocolate". I hope they've at least thought about the tradition of werewolf films and metaphors...it seems they may have considering the title. (Oh, it's about women...they like chocolate...hurk hurk. Sometimes I hate how clever hollywood thinks it is. If it were half as clever as all that, there would never be a bad big budget horror flick.)
I do think it is an interesting project to analyze analyses. I've done this myself with several critical theories and rhetorical strategies. It can be quite telling about the nature of critical thought.
This isn't a collection of psychoanalytic criticism of particular genres, trends or films, but is a collection of essays analyzing the psychoanalytic criticism that has been applied to horror. Stephen Jay Schneider insists on a meta-theoretical approach in this collection that looks at why and how psychoanalysis has been applied to horror films and what assumptions and conclusions have been made about horror as a result of those analyses.
Although I'm not a huge fan of psychoanalysis in most forms (and a vehement Freud-hater), I do think it's a worthwhile pursuit. And it can be fascinating when applied to horror films, but often the results of these analysis seem at odds with one another. Are horror movies dependant on oedipal desires? Are they the result of castration fear? penis envy? Since they are based on fears, according to standard psychoanalytical theory, they must also contain a desire. What are those desires? This can be a fun exercise, AND it can serve to point out pervasive societial fears/desires...or it can be a self-serving waste of time.
One of my favorite genres to "analyze:" werewolf films. They lend themselves beautifully to psychoanalytical theory, and the best films realize the connection and exploit or contort the tradition to expose something new and interesting about the furry insides of humanity. Some good werewolf (with great psychoanalytical possibilities) films to see: "Ginger Snaps," "Ginger Snaps II," "Ginger Snaps Back," "In the Company of Wolves," "The Howling II/III" and "Brotherhood of the Wolf." Or wait for the new release of "Blood and Chocolate". I hope they've at least thought about the tradition of werewolf films and metaphors...it seems they may have considering the title. (Oh, it's about women...they like chocolate...hurk hurk. Sometimes I hate how clever hollywood thinks it is. If it were half as clever as all that, there would never be a bad big budget horror flick.)
I do think it is an interesting project to analyze analyses. I've done this myself with several critical theories and rhetorical strategies. It can be quite telling about the nature of critical thought.
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Review: Pulse (US version 2006)
PULSE
Director: Jim Sonzero
Starring: Kristen Bell, Ian Sommerhalder
Screenplay by: Wes Craven
Pulse (2006) is an American remake of a Japanese 2005 Kiyoshi Kurosawa horror film of the same name. The basic premise of the movie is the same as the Japanese version: a computer virus releases paranormal presences on a previously undetected frequency. The differences that exist between the two versions seem to exist for the sake of clarifying things for American audiences.
An interesting premise: that the dead come through on a particular frequency, this is taking EVP (electronic voice phenomenon) to the next level. Not only can the dead be heard on specific frequencies, but now they can act and interact. I get the feeling that if I had not seen the Japanese version first I would have been more interested, as it stands though this movie is slow paced and (interesting side note...at least to me) takes place in a "Columbus, Ohio" that is NOT "Columbus, Ohio." Bad move on the film's part...I kept looking for landmarks only to decide by the end of the movie that the location seemed to be picked at random (I can imagine that brainstorming session: "let's call it anywhere USA." "No, it has to be a city." "A city in the midwest? Chicago?" "Too big, we want Mr. and Ms. Joe Shmo America to feel for these characters." "Um, okay then Columbus, Ohio it is!"). At least they are adhering to the strong tradition of Ohio towns/places as settings for horror films. Somehow it seemed to work better in Tokyo though.
Some things worth noting:
1. Cat in a closet does not jump out...it is mostly dead. Is this a clever nod to a horror cliche'? You decide. Personally, I think it tried to be clever, but wound up being as pointless a scare as a live cat in a closet. Who keeps cats in closets? I have never understood the need for a pointless scare. The cat in a closet is somehow become, unfortunately, a horror film obligation of sorts. It's a cheap gag. The worst incident of "Cat in a Closet" occured in the strange mocu-docu-horror film "The St. Francesville Experiment." I single this out as the WORST cat in a closet incident in the history of horror films because not because of its ridiculousness (and it is ridiculous), but because it signals a huge error in the film. At this point it is all downhill. The mocumentary style has been compromised and the film itself NEVER recovers, it only digs itself deeper into a hole it can't crawl out of (not even with detatched zombie arms).
2. Hopelessness is the name of the game and I love a hopeless horror film. I don't need to feel good at the end of the film. Sometimes those "feel good" endings are so counterintuitive that they destroy a movie. I like a sense of hopelessness and foreboding, that's real. That's life. (And it's a type of horror film move that the Japanese have Schooled us in).
3. What exactly did Wes Craven do in this? It doesn't really feel like a Wes Craven film. Maybe they just needed a name? It's true I'm more prone to watch a film if my favorite names are attached to the title, regardless of how minute their input in the final product.
4. This is a classic fear of technology film. Many of these DO come out of Japan, but the US has a strong tradition of fearing the future: think about films like "Lawnmower Man," or even the dozens of pre-cold war magnification (atomically enlarged insects, lizards, people, etc) horror films...and every horror film that takes place in outer space from "Leprechaun in Space" to "Aliens" is essentially a version of the classic fear of technology. What does this say about American culture as a whole? I suspect that it says we have shifted our very human fear of the unknown from a purely psychological and/or paranormal(spiritual, supernatural) focus to a fear of technological and scientific advancements COMBINED with paranormal elements. I'm not proposing this is a new fear, consider the biological and social advancements that lead to Mary Shelley's Frankenstein; those fears are no different than the fears expressed in this film the supernatural and the scientific are not at odds, but in cahoots (this time to destroy mankind).
Director: Jim Sonzero
Starring: Kristen Bell, Ian Sommerhalder
Screenplay by: Wes Craven
Pulse (2006) is an American remake of a Japanese 2005 Kiyoshi Kurosawa horror film of the same name. The basic premise of the movie is the same as the Japanese version: a computer virus releases paranormal presences on a previously undetected frequency. The differences that exist between the two versions seem to exist for the sake of clarifying things for American audiences.
An interesting premise: that the dead come through on a particular frequency, this is taking EVP (electronic voice phenomenon) to the next level. Not only can the dead be heard on specific frequencies, but now they can act and interact. I get the feeling that if I had not seen the Japanese version first I would have been more interested, as it stands though this movie is slow paced and (interesting side note...at least to me) takes place in a "Columbus, Ohio" that is NOT "Columbus, Ohio." Bad move on the film's part...I kept looking for landmarks only to decide by the end of the movie that the location seemed to be picked at random (I can imagine that brainstorming session: "let's call it anywhere USA." "No, it has to be a city." "A city in the midwest? Chicago?" "Too big, we want Mr. and Ms. Joe Shmo America to feel for these characters." "Um, okay then Columbus, Ohio it is!"). At least they are adhering to the strong tradition of Ohio towns/places as settings for horror films. Somehow it seemed to work better in Tokyo though.
Some things worth noting:
1. Cat in a closet does not jump out...it is mostly dead. Is this a clever nod to a horror cliche'? You decide. Personally, I think it tried to be clever, but wound up being as pointless a scare as a live cat in a closet. Who keeps cats in closets? I have never understood the need for a pointless scare. The cat in a closet is somehow become, unfortunately, a horror film obligation of sorts. It's a cheap gag. The worst incident of "Cat in a Closet" occured in the strange mocu-docu-horror film "The St. Francesville Experiment." I single this out as the WORST cat in a closet incident in the history of horror films because not because of its ridiculousness (and it is ridiculous), but because it signals a huge error in the film. At this point it is all downhill. The mocumentary style has been compromised and the film itself NEVER recovers, it only digs itself deeper into a hole it can't crawl out of (not even with detatched zombie arms).
2. Hopelessness is the name of the game and I love a hopeless horror film. I don't need to feel good at the end of the film. Sometimes those "feel good" endings are so counterintuitive that they destroy a movie. I like a sense of hopelessness and foreboding, that's real. That's life. (And it's a type of horror film move that the Japanese have Schooled us in).
3. What exactly did Wes Craven do in this? It doesn't really feel like a Wes Craven film. Maybe they just needed a name? It's true I'm more prone to watch a film if my favorite names are attached to the title, regardless of how minute their input in the final product.
4. This is a classic fear of technology film. Many of these DO come out of Japan, but the US has a strong tradition of fearing the future: think about films like "Lawnmower Man," or even the dozens of pre-cold war magnification (atomically enlarged insects, lizards, people, etc) horror films...and every horror film that takes place in outer space from "Leprechaun in Space" to "Aliens" is essentially a version of the classic fear of technology. What does this say about American culture as a whole? I suspect that it says we have shifted our very human fear of the unknown from a purely psychological and/or paranormal(spiritual, supernatural) focus to a fear of technological and scientific advancements COMBINED with paranormal elements. I'm not proposing this is a new fear, consider the biological and social advancements that lead to Mary Shelley's Frankenstein; those fears are no different than the fears expressed in this film the supernatural and the scientific are not at odds, but in cahoots (this time to destroy mankind).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
