By Brett Blake Given that Halloween will arrive at the end of this week, we thought it would be very appropriate to devote an episode of The Cinematic Confab to a celebration of the holiday, and more broadly, a celebration of the horror genre in all its forms: books and literature, music, television, and movies. Breanne Brennan and Brenton Thom join me for the wide-ranging discussion of our favorites in those categories, and I think it may be our finest show thus far. We cover an incredible variety of material, and we even throw in a few music and movie clips for some added entertainment value! You Will Hear… - Selected music clips from the likes of Jerry Goldsmith, James Newton Howard, Danny Elfman, Bernard Herrmann, Michael Jackson, and many others! - A debate over whether the scariest part of Unsolved Mysteries was the theme music, or Robert Stack as the host! - Fond memories of the Goosebumps book series! - Clips from some of the greatest horror movie trailers of all time! - Bad impressions of semi-famous character actors! - A nearly violent confrontation over the issue of The Rocky Horror Picture Show! - Examinations of the appeal of the Halloween holiday itself! - And much more! Disclaimer: The Cinematic Confab is a non-profit entertainment and analysis podcast. All audio clips and music cues used are the property of their individual copyright holders. They are presented here under the banner of “Fair Use,” for the purpose of analysis, criticism, and/or humor. No infringement of copyright is intended.
0 Comments
By Brett Blake FURY As I think back on it, director David Ayer’s FURY is a film I appreciate and admire more than I actually like or enjoy. On a sheer technical level, it’s very accomplished, and the picture it paints of warfare is, in all likelihood, quite accurate, a side effect of which is a kind of coldness that keeps the audience at an arm’s length. Telling a rather straightforward tale of a tank crew making their way deeper into Germany in the waning days of the Second World War, FURY benefits from five quite strong performances. Michael Peña and Jon Bernthal do fine work as the more larger-than-life personalities in the group, and Shia LaBeouf is surprisingly affecting (and seemingly always on the verge of tears) as the most religious member of the team. Brad Pitt is convincing as the hard-ass leader (though we do get some glimpses of his true internal feelings), and Logan Lerman give the performance of the film as the meek, very green new soldier who is thrown in with the tank crew. As you can probably sense from reading those descriptions, all of the characters are pretty much stock “types” that you can find in any war movie, and there’s no real surprise to be found in what happens to any of them, or how their relationships develop. Lerman’s character, in particular, has an arc than anybody who’s ever seen another war film should be able to predict within the first minute of his screentime. That said, Lerman does do a terrific job of selling the character’s journey, however hackneyed and overplayed it might be. I called the film’s premise straightforward, and that’s both a blessing and a curse. It’s a blessing in the sense that there are no subplots, no convoluted plot mechanics to distract from the visceral, hard-hitting impact the movie is aiming for; it’s a curse in that there’s a distinct lack of any kind of propulsion to the narrative. We move from scene to scene, moment to moment, on an almost arbitrary basis, and it is only in the final third of the film that our protagonists are given any sort of concrete “mission.” Up until then, we basically just follow them patrolling deeper into the German countryside. Tonally, FURY is tightly-regulated. It presents a very grim look at the soul-crushing realities of what this particular war must have been like for some of the men fighting it. While it is beautifully shot (and features some quite haunting imagery), there’s a dirtiness to the look, a sense of everything covered in grime, that is very effective. The violence is highly grisly and unflinching, and the dialogue has a terse, hard edge which underscores the feeling that we’re watching what is potentially a very dire situation. And on top of it all, we have the tank combat sequences, which are remarkably staged and edited so as to be quite frightening and intense. The movie resists the temptation to sentimentalize (in fact, I’d call it a spectacularly unsentimental film) any of what we witness, which is admirable, but it does create a situation wherein the characters are hard to fully engage with and like. There’s no emotional hook, and for all the tension mined by the filmmakers, it’s hard to really care about the characters as people. But, I suspect that is a purposeful choice. Director Ayer seems more concerned with dropping the audience into this scenario in a way which will shake the viewers. That’s a valid approach, and though I don’t think the movie is any sort of masterpiece (due to that coldness; perhaps “ruthlessness” might be a better word for it), it certainly does succeed at giving its viewers a powerful, visceral experience. THE JUDGE Anchored by two great performances (one of which is flat-out tremendous), THE JUDGE is a somewhat messy - though undoubtedly entertaining - tale of family dysfunction, small town relationships, and legal entanglements. Centrally, the premise is this: Robert Downey Jr. stars as hot-shot defense lawyer Hank Palmer, who is called back to his hometown after the death of his mother. Being rather severely estranged from his father (Robert Duvall), needless to say he’s not thrilled to be back home, but when his father (who is a well-respected judge) is accused of murder, Hank finds himself in the position of having to defend him. Downey Jr. is terrific fun to watch as the slick, big city lawyer returning to his old stomping grounds; if I'm being completely honest, it does at times feel as though we're watching RDJ playing Tony Stark playing the character in this film, but there's enough added dramatic heft to his interactions with his father that it feels distinct enough. As the titular judge, Robert Duvall completely owns the film as the tough, stubborn title character, and watching him come to blows with Downey is a treat. Duvall plays the material with a level of emotion that I, frankly, was not expecting, and it is an Oscar-worthy performance from him. That is not hyperbole - he’s that good in the movie. The central duo are backed up by some fine, well-calibrated performances from the likes of Vincent D'Onofrio, Vera Farmiga, and Billy Bob Thornton, each of whom make the most of characters who - on the page - are fairly one-note. Thornton, in particular, does a lot with very little screentime to sketch out an interesting variation on the “asshole prosecutor” character type we’ve all seen before in other courtroom-themed films. There's also a strong thematic hook for the film - involving letting go of past actions and regrets - that hits home with a surprising amount of power in the third act, and the whole package is bolstered by a fine (if very much the kind of thing we've heard from him before) score from Thomas Newman. All of that is good, but the movie is not without flaws; it's probably twenty minutes too long, as we spend an awful lot of time on some digressions/subplots that ultimately don't add much to the central narrative of the Downey/Duvall relationship. For example, Vera Farmiga (who, as I said, is very good in the movie) is engaged in a subplot that is of quite minor overall significance, and there could have easily been a cut of the film in which her character is excised, an editing choice which would change nothing about the overall effectiveness of the central father/son relationship. Also, the movie finds itself pulled between three separate styles of movie: it's an intense family drama, it's a courtroom thriller, and it's a small town comedy. Each of these individual elements work really well on their own, but they occasionally don't feel "of a piece" with the others. That may be a bigger problem for some than for others, but I do think that another draft of the script to tighten things up and to really hammer down the tone would have elevated THE JUDGE from the "good" to "great" category. However, as it stands, it's solid entertainment with a nice amount of sentimentality featuring two phenomenal actors hashing things out… none of which is a bad thing. By Brett Blake As a huge fan of the horror genre, I feel it’s incumbent upon me to single-out some movies that, for any number of reasons, haven’t gotten the kind of exposure or respect they deserve, or films whose reputations don’t do true justice to how good they really are. So, with Halloween right around the corner, there’s no better time to talk about some of these. If you’ve seen all of the following movies (presented in no particular order), then you’re obviously doing something right. The rest of you, though, may have some work to do! THE EXORCIST III (1990) The Pitch William Peter Blatty (writer of the original novel, and the Oscar-winning screenwriter/producer of the first film) returns to the series to tell a spooky paranormal detective story involving ritualistic serial killings, reincarnation, and - yes - even some demonic possession. TRAILER Why’s It Overlooked? To be frank, THE EXORCIST III doesn’t get nearly enough respect because of the reputation of 1977’s EXORCIST II: THE HERETIC, one of the worst films - let alone sequels - ever made. It’s a film so bad that it has tainted all further EXORCIST installments through a kind of “guilt by association” effect. Why Should It Be Seen? It’s of a surprisingly high quality, and it takes its subject matter seriously. It’s intelligently plotted, with a genuinely unsettling central mystery (focused on a rash of murders utilizing the same M.O. - one kept secret by the police - as a long-deceased serial killer). The dialogue is literate (and even witty), George C. Scott (who will reappear later on this list) gives a committed performance, and it also contains what is - in this writer’s opinion - one of the most effective (I might even say downright terrifying) jump scares in all of horror cinema. IN THE MOUTH OF MADNESS (1995) The Pitch A Stephen King-type celebrity novelist goes missing mere days before his latest manuscript is to be delivered to the publisher. An insurance investigator (played by the great Sam Neill) is hired to track the author down, and in the process uncovers an ancient and insidious evil force on the brink of taking over the world. TRAILER Why’s It Overlooked? It was not particularly well-received at the box office, so those who were its fans from that original release were few in number, and not in a position to really evangelize the movie and its merits. A cult has started to grow around this one, but it’s (so far) been fairly slow-growing. Why Should It Be Seen? The film is, I think without question, director John Carpenter’s (of HALLOWEEN fame) last unequivocally “good” movie. It has an overpowering atmosphere of dread, and it draws upon the writings of H.P. Lovecraft to provide the backbone of the evil presence hovering over the story. It also has Sam Neill (Dr. Alan Grant from JURASSIC PARK) in one of his strongest performances, one that allows him to cover the gamut from smooth, “with it” investigator (with some film noirish undertones) to full-blown madness by the movie’s end, and he completely sells the character’s transition. PSYCHO II (1983) The Pitch Norman Bates has been rehabilitated after the events of Alfred Hitchcock’s classic original film, and he returns to the Bates Motel in an attempt to restart his life. However, cryptic phone calls and notes begin to plague him, and as bodies start to pile up, Norman has to question whether his grip on sanity is weakening. TRAILER Why’s It Overlooked? It’s the sequel to one of the greatest movies ever made. That’s really the only reason. In most people’s minds, it could never live up to the original PSYCHO (and of course it doesn’t, but it also doesn’t try), so why bother giving it a chance on its own terms? The movie wasn’t unsuccessful in its theatrical run, but it’s all but disappeared from popular consciousness. Why Should It Be Seen? It’s as good a sequel to PSYCHO as you could hope for. It treats the Norman Bates character with respect, and it does not simply retread the story of the first movie. This is a new mystery, one in which Norman may actually be the hero, and the way the screenplay slowly reveals all the pieces is quite well done. It also has a very effective score from the great Jerry Goldsmith, which never hurts. And on top of it all, Anthony Perkins gives an even better performance in this go around as Norman than the first, earning the audience’s sympathy at every turn. Given the events of the first film, that’s a big accomplishment. TALES FROM THE CRYPT (1972) The Pitch Five strangers on a tour of a creepy, run-down mausoleum find themselves trapped in an eerie crypt with the Crypt-Keeper, an old man who shows them how they all will die. TRAILER Why’s It Overlooked? The movie has been supplanted in pop culture by the very popular early 1990s television series from HBO. Though few people would probably know that the show was based on a line of comic books, even fewer probably know that this British film was the first to adapt some of the classic Tales from the Crypt comic stories. Why Should It Be Seen? It’s one of the best anthologies (a film made up of several smaller segments or stories) ever made, and it has a surprisingly nasty, mean-spirited edge. The five stories presented are all memorable, and feature some terrific twists and reversals. The gimmick of the Tales from the Crypt comics was that they would often feature horrible people who receive some kind of grisly comeuppance, and that’s in full, delightfully macabre effect in this film, which features homicidal madmen, dismembered corpses, and the living dead, among other things. TRICK 'R TREAT (2007) The Pitch Set on Halloween night, we follow a series of semi-interconnected stories involving walking corpses, serial killers, werewolves, and the living spirit of Halloween itself - a dangerously playful, masked little imp named Sam. TRAILER Why’s It Overlooked? Warner Bros., the studio behind the film, botched its theatrical release, keeping it on a shelf for nearly two years before dumping it to home video. As such, it never received the kind of advertising exposure it would have were it a wide theatrical release, and many people I’ve encountered have never heard of it. Still, the movie has begun to find its audience, and a sequel is in the works. Why Should It Be Seen? There is no better cinematic distillation of the creepy magic of Halloween night than this film. It captures the rituals, the traditions, the decorations, the costumes, the candy, and the weird, intangible thrill of a night where all manner of spooky encounters seem possible. The cast is great (Brian Cox is the movie’s MVP), and the creation of the Sam character as a kind of Halloween ambassador (in the way Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny are for their respective holidays) works incredibly well. Plus, with a runtime of just over 80 minutes, it flies by and leaves you wanting more. Required viewing for anybody who has even a passing interest in Halloween. THE CHANGELING (1980) The Pitch After losing his wife and daughter in a horrible car accident, an aging pianist retreats to a huge, cavernous mansion… which just so happens to be haunted. TRAILER
Why’s It Been Overlooked? This is a curious one, because it has all the ingredients to be remembered as one of the all time great ghost stories. Sure, those who have seen it know how good it is, but the proverbial man on the street tends to not have heard of this one, which is perplexing. Why Should It Be Seen? THE CHANGELING is second only to 1963’sTHE HAUNTING as the best cinematic ghost story ever told. It is hugely effective in establishing mood, and there are moments in here that are utterly bone-chilling. George C. Scott gives one of the performances of his career, and he carries the movie on his shoulders with ease. The movie is a slow burn (which is to say that those with short attention spans might call the movie “slow”), but it builds and builds before culminating in a very memorable climax. Watch this one late at night, in the dark, and with nobody else around… I dare you not to be creeped-out by it. I could probably easily name another twenty films that could go on a list like this, so these six are just the tip of the so-called iceberg. Are there any horror movies you think don’t get the exposure or respect they deserve? By Brett Blake A spin-off/”sidequel”/companion piece to last year’s box office hit THE CONJURING, ANNABELLE can’t even begin to live up to its predecessor, either in effectiveness or sheer entertainment value, but it’s not at all a total loss, and there are some moments that are wonderfully creepy. It’s not without at least one major (huge!) flaw (which I’ll get to eventually), but as a mid-level chiller, it’s more than passable. Centrally, the plot concerns a young married couple in the late 1960s, Mia (Annabelle Wallis… yeah, the lead actress of a film called ANNABELLE is herself called Annabelle; a freakish coincidence) and John (Ward Horton), who are shortly expecting the birth of their first child. Before that joyous occasion, however, they are attacked in their home by a pair of Satanic cult worshipers; they survive the attack, but soon find eerie occurrences transpiring in their home, occurrences that seem to be centered around a particularly creepy doll in Mia’s collection. The “evil doll” horror subgenre is one that was once quite prevalent, but has since kind of faded away. You had the CHILD’S PLAY series, of course, and even things like 1978’s MAGIC and 1987’s DOLLS are admirable offerings (the original iteration of the classic TWILIGHT ZONE television series had the famous “Talky Tina” episode, which remains one of the best of the series). Personally, I’m a fan of doll horror, so ANNABELLE struck me as a decently effective entry in that subgenre. Strangely, given its subject matter, the film’s primary influence is not any of the media mentioned above, but rather Roman Polanski’s ROSEMARY’S BABY; there are more than a few nods to that movie in here, from the main character’s name (Mia, after ROSEMARY star Mia Farrow), to the anxieties she feels surrounding motherhood, to the apartment complex in which the bulk of the story is set. None of this is a bad thing, per se, and the nods are affectionate and unobtrusive in a way I appreciated. The usage of a cult attack as the backdrop for the story is interesting, as it’s an angle that conjures up mental images of the likes of Charles Manson and his followers. Keeping the story set in the late 1960s allows the filmmakers to play with that kind of imagery in a fairly canny way, and the sequence in which Mia and John are attacked is terrifically staged. Indeed, there are several such setpieces (for lack of a better term) that are, frankly, excellent little works of suspense and terror put together by director John R. Leonetti. Yes, the movie frequently relies on loud noises and orchestral bangs to get the audience to jump (THE CONJURING was not free of this, either, but the jump scares there were far more memorable than the ones found here), but there are also plenty of moments that utilize more subtle methods of framing and composition, and which are refreshingly fun. One scene, in particular, which involves Mia going down to the basement of the apartment building, is one of the best singular horror sequences of recent years; we’re shown just enough of the supernatural “presence” attached to the Annabelle doll to provide a creepy thrill, but not so much that it becomes overwrought or silly. It’s a great section of the film, and the clear high point. The entire movie, for the most part, has a very nice, slick look. The cinematography brings a clean and crisp flavor that is a marked contrast to the kind of green-brown aesthetic we often find in cheap horror films, and the period setting helps the movie to look richer and more expensive than it probably really is. Actors Wallis and Horton look suitably sixties-ish, and they make an unusually appealing duo; so often in (bad) horror movies, the audience is saddled with following terrible characters, but Wallis and Horton retain likability at almost every turn… even when their characters make some occasionally questionable decisions. So what’s the problem? Well, ANNABELLE’s biggest issue arrives in the form of its ending. I’ll not spoil it explicitly, but I do need to attempt to articulate why it’s such a big letdown, so if you’re ultra-sensitive to somebody even tap-dancing around spoilers, skip down to the next paragraph. Chiefly, the ending sets up that the demonic force attached to the Annabelle doll has a very specific goal/desire, and rather than finding some cool, unique way to thwart the demon, the filmmakers go in a different direction, one that results in a head-scratching conclusion that is - I think - meant to somehow be seen as narratively and thematically satisfying, but is - in reality - hugely underwhelming and a truly puzzling choice on which to end the movie. The filmmakers want to have it both ways (a happy AND scary ending both at the same time), and it really falls flat. It’s a big miscalculation, and it drops the movie down a couple of notches, because up to that point, it’s a pretty fun ride. In the final analysis ANNABELLE is nowhere even close to as bad as a cheap cash-in probably should be (and make no mistake, this is absolutely an attempt by the studio to quickly and inexpensively cash-in on the success of last year’s THE CONJURING while we wait for the true sequel to come out next year), and even with its disappointment of an ending taken into account, the big scare sequences work well enough (and in some cases they work like gangbusters) to warrant (at least) a marginal recommendation. By Brett Blake GONE GIRL is one of 2014’s best films. I feel the need to state that right up front. While it’s arguably a kind of trashy(ish) story told with a lurid sensibility, it also features top notch filmmaking on all fronts, and a slew of tremendous performances. Director David Fincher has managed to put together a dark - though hugely entertaining - tale of marital conflict, murder, and the media’s hysterical overreaction to such things. It’s a captivating cinematic experience. An adaptation of Gillian Flynn’s popular novel, GONE GIRL concerns Nick Dunne (Ben Affleck), whose wife, Amy (Rosamund Pike), goes missing on their fifth wedding anniversary. Foul play is assumed, and Nick quickly finds himself the primary suspect. To go into further detail would be unwise, as one of the movie’s great pleasures lies in the way it continually unfurls unusual developments and surprises (and boy, are there surprises; there’s no shortage of moments that could potentially make the audience gasp in shock), but suffice it to say that we meet a host of characters, from Nick’s twin sister, Margo (Carrie Coon), to his ace defense lawyer (Tyler Perry), to a mysterious man from Amy’s past (Neil Patrick Harris). The most important thing to be said about the film is just how masterfully director David Fincher has pulled all the elements together. Just on a sheer filmmaking level, it’s a fantastic piece of work, and certainly right up near the top of the list of his best movies. There’s a preciseness to the film - in its stunningly evocative cinematography, in its stark and effective editing - that is trademark Fincher, and he also brings some of the gallows humor inherent in the plot developments to the forefront; not in a way that is distracting or compromises the tone, but rather in a way that compliments the tone. I’ve read some reviewers describe the film as a black comedy, and while I wouldn’t go that far (this is very much a thriller, and a terrifically tense one, at that), there is definitely some much-needed (and surprisingly biting) levity peppered into the film at key moments. For a film this bleak, it never feels like a slog, and while we can certainly credit a lot of that to Gillian Flynn’s screenplay adaptation of her own novel, it feels like Fincher took particular care to get that element into balance with the overall mood of the piece. Speaking of Flynn’s script, it should be the current front-runner for the Best Adapted Screenplay Oscar. Having not read the novel, I can only speculate as to what she might have changed or reshaped for the cinematic version, but I can state with some authority that the screenplay is ingeniously structured, alternating between the viewpoints of both Nick and Amy Dunne in ways that reveal key details at just the right moments to land with the maximum impact for the audience. Flynn’s script presents information in a truly engaging and compelling way, and that’s purely praise for the structure, setting aside the savage and complex portrait the script paints of a marriage in the process of a total collapse. Ditto the media satire elements, which feel remarkably astute, pointed, and believable. Much of this, no doubt, is right out of Flynn’s own source material, but her inclusion of all these elements amounts to a quite deft balancing act. It’s the year’s best screenplay so far. The members of the cast - top to bottom - are excellent. Affleck is the one who gets to carry most of the emotional material, and it is one of his finest performances. His Nick Dunne is an affable guy, one seemingly carrying around a tremendous weight, and Affleck makes this man - whose actions at times could easily render him unsympathetic - worthy of the audience’s empathy. It’s a “flawed everyman” performance in the best sense, and I found myself pulling for him from the start… even as it’s unclear if he’s free of culpability for his wife’s disappearance. Playing his twin sister, Affleck gets to spend a lot of time bouncing off of Carrie Coon, who delivers a sardonic, bitter, but still - ultimately - supportive performance; she's a great foil for Affleck. Then you have the duo who just might be the secret weapons in the cast: Tyler Perry and Neil Patrick Harris, neither of whom are particularly known for their dramatic work. Perry is so good in his role as the charming defense lawyer that it’s almost shocking; he brings a level of warmth to an otherwise cold film that is welcome, and he gets what is undoubtedly the most pointed (and funniest) dialogue of the movie as he sums-up Nick and Amy’s relationship. Just as Perry gets to show a side of himself we’re not used to seeing, so too does Harris. He’s not in the movie a huge amount, but he makes a very strong impression when he does show up as a man who instantly gives off a bit of a creepy vibe, but whose rather sad, lovesick past with Amy gives that creepiness less of an “ick” factor than it might otherwise have had with a more stereotypical “weirdo” actor playing the part. And then, finally, we have the titular “Gone Girl” herself, Rosamund Pike. It is not only the performance of her career, it is also the performance of the year so far (she will certainly be a Best Actress contender, and by all rights the award should already be hers). Pike’s Amy Dunne is an enormously complicated woman - sometimes vulnerable, sometimes full of steely-eyed determination. It is here that I now arrive at a difficult point; it’s truly hard to dig in and really discuss Amy (and why Pike is so great in the role) without getting into spoiler territory, so SKIP TO THE NEXT PARAGRAPH if you want to remain totally unsullied. The thing that Pike does that is so remarkable is that - when we finally get a complete sense of who Amy is and what drives her - her work is utterly bone-chilling. Amy Dunne may be one of the most repugnant and horrifying people I’ve seen in a movie in a long time (were the story not written by a woman, I could see an argument being made that this is a rather misogynistic creation, as Amy is truly every man’s worst nightmare made real in the most stark and unflattering way), and it is a testament to how effective Pike is in the role that I reacted as strongly to her character as I did. She never overplays it, never gives in to histrionics. It is a tightly-controlled performance, just as Amy controls the many faces she presents to the people around her. Give Pike the Oscar, already; she’s more than earned it with her work here. On the subject of Oscars, it would not be a surprise to see Jeff Cronenweth nominated for his gorgeous, moody, shadowy cinematography. There are some shots in this film that could be framed and displayed in an art museum, so tremendous are the visuals presented here. Also really effective is the score by Trent Reznor an Atticus Ross (director Fincher’s now-usual collaborators); it’s their best work in the scoring realm so far: occasionally chilling, but always haunting, the score fits the film like a glove. Given the direction the film takes in its final third, I can understand some people dismissing the movie as ridiculous, trashy, pulpy fluff, and I suppose I can kind of see where they’re coming from (there are definitely some outlandish things that take place down the movie’s home stretch), but Fincher and Co. pull it all off with such style and confidence that I really can’t be bothered by such criticisms. GONE GIRL is completely engrossing on nearly every level, and it is thriller filmmaking of the highest order. |
Archives
January 2023
Categories
All
|