The Thing Review (1982)

The Thing

A remake of the 1951 original, The Thing was helmed by director John Carpenter. This was his first big studio effort, with previous films including the original Assualt on Precint 13, and Halloween. Carpenter couldn't have picked a worse time to realese the film. As it was set, The Thing came out only two weeks after Steven Speilberg set out his own alien film, that one the hearts of moviegoers, and went on a box-office rampage, E.T.. Since then, critcs and audinces members have repented, and The Thing has become a much beloved cult classic, earinging its spot at #162 on IMDB.com's top 250 films of all time.

The plot is relativly simple, but creates for a very confusing story, that will keep you guessing all the way through. A group of scientific reasearchs are in a base in Antarctica to to some sort of study. While there we meet a whole cast of characeters, that are all very interesting and unique. The Norwegians from a nearby base begin to act strangly, and won't return calls. Pretty soon, the crew is sent to investigate, only to find that they have pulled something strange out of the ice. Once back at base, dogs begin to howl, and create very strange noises, only to have their heads explode, and turn into an octopuse creature shortly thereafter. Soon, this strange parasite has infected a few members of the crew. But the question is, who do they kill to find out?

Let's start this off by saying that John Carpenter is a master of his craft. He has proven to us that he can do suspense, and scary multiple times before, just look at his track record. He virtually is a tour de force in the name of horror. Once you have a title like Halloween under your belt, you have it made. There are a few things that I really enjoyed about his style this time around, and other things that I didn't. Firstly, since it had a bigger budget, we have better sets, and lighting, and camerawork. But the bigger budget also attributes to the loss of classic eariness, that comes through natural lighting, and home-brewed sound effects. Personally, I think Carpenter works best with a minimal budget, when he is forced to be created, but this certainly is one of his best big films.

A lot of The Things infamy comes from its gratuitous violence, and excellent special effects, which you can see displayed above. And I have to say, they are pretty amazing, especially for the time period. Most of the accolades for this great achivement can go to Roy Arbogast, the speical effects director. He created some truly horrifying and gruesome things for this film. I am really shocked that this wasn't nominated for more awards in effects departments. Not to mention, all of them are practical. Not one effect you see was done with a computer, which is something to marvel in itself.

The film has a fairly slender cast, with the only big name being Kurt Russel. He's a decent actor, in my opinion, and he continues his streak of decency throughout this film as well, neither here, nor there. The supporting cast does a great job for a group of relative unknowns, such as Wilford Brimley, T.K. Carter, and David Clennon. They round out a diverse cast of characters decently. But the problem is, since the film relies so much on what the characters say and do (because thats how we decided who we think is infected), I wish a better cast could have been attributed to a great idea.

Overall, The Thing is a fun movie. A nice little horror monster flick to watch inside on a wet day, or when you take a sick day. The film is disgusting in its violence. Gruesome in its gore. And unrelenting when it comes to special effects. It's an interesting idea, pulled off by a decent cast of people, and a decent directing job by John Carpenter, who is truly a master of suspence, and an excellent choice for the director of this film.

I Give The Thing:
Four Zombi's Out Of Five
(I seem to be giving that a lot lately)

Daybreakers Review (2010)

Daybreakers

Okay, before we start anything here, can we talk about how awesome this one-sheet is? (One-sheet for those who don't know, is the industry word for poster). For me, this is the perfect kind of movie poster. It's simple. Has the title. Has the realese date. Catches the viewers attention, and you pretty much know what it is going to be about. I've been looking forward to this movie for a long time, even before it was officialy announced. Why and how you ask? Let me explain.

Back into 2003, the directors of this film, the Spierig Brothers, made a little independent zombie film called Undead. It had a budget of around $1 million, and was given limited realese, along with some festival screenings. The film sold incredibly well on DVD, and while not being a great movie by any means, I still enjoyed it quite a bit. Now, six years later, the Brothers are back again, this time with vampires and $30 million. I heard they were making a movie about a world overrun by vampires, about a year after this was announced, I saw the Daybreakers trailer, and basically, I had a freak-out

Now, in case you don't know, Daybreakers takes the premise of your typical zombie and vampire films, and turns it on its head. The world has been virtually overrun by vampires. Not crazy, insane, brainless vampires, but vamps that run buisinesses, and drive, and drink blood coffee. People that do not get enough blood, go crazy and turn into your run-of-the-mill brainless vampire. There are a few humans left in the world, and those who are, simply try to survive. Unfourtanetly for the vampire society, the human population is almost extinct, and they are running out of blood, so soon, every will be "Underdwelers", going crazy, ravenous, and consuming all.

For a weird horror genre-bender, Daybreakers actually has a fairly nice cast attached to it. Ethan Hawke plays our main vampire, with Sam Neill as the evil corporation executive. Then we have our heroes, played by Claudia Karvan and Willem Dafoe. Surprisingly, the cast does fairly well for the most part. Ethan Hawke does a fine job as our main character, and Willem Dafoe is always fun, especially in supporting roles.

The Spierig Brothers (Michael and Peter) do a good job for the most part, adapting their script to the big screen. Unfourtanetly for them, they aren't the best of writers, and these wonderful actors are given some pretty bad dialouge to read. Most of the effects are done decently, and there is a substanstial amount of gore in the film as well. The only problem is, the entire film takes place in one town, which would be fine, but the entire world is suppose to be overrun, and all we ever see is the tiny little town. Also, a good surprise, the Brothers managed to fit a little political message in here as well, and hopefully people will pick up on this, with the healthcare bill just being past and all.

Overall, Daybreakers was a fun goofy ride. It was a film about vampires taking over the world, and thankfully, it knew what it was, and never took itself to seriously. The make-up, and visual effects are done rather nicely for a moderate budget, and they had some very good actors to play some interesting roles. Unfourtanetly, the budget was a little to small for the scope of the project, and the dialouge is a little weak. But like I always say, there is a difference between a good movie, and a fun movie, and Daybreakers was definatly a fun ride.

I Give Daybreakers:

4 Zombi's out of 5

Hard Candy Review (2005)

Hard Candy

Yes, before Juno, before Whip It, before she was really popular, Ellen Page starred in this little indie gem from 2005. It is directed by David Slade, who may not have made a very big paycheck off this film, but is sure to in the soon future. He also directed the hit vampire film 30 Days of Night, and is currently set to direct the 3rd Twilight film. It's so sad when an excellent director switches to the dark side. However, this is a very different Ellen Page then the one you have come to know and love. She is not your smart, sassy teen, but rather strong a brutal. And has a very short hair-cut.

While many have called for the reform of the MPAA's rating system for film, many say that Hard Candy is a perfect example why. While the MPAA currently rates film based on their content, such as language and violence, people question about film that have little bad content, but mature subject matter. Enter Hard Candy, a film that does have some strong language, and a little gore, but is much heavier-handed in political tones involving criminal penalty and molestation. Should films be rated based on context, or convention, or a combanation of both? Or should film go without rating, as to not ruin their artistic creativity, as some have also suggested.

Hard Candy is a very difficult film to process. And not an easy one to watch. Not because of graphic violence or anything of that sort, but because of it's story. It involves a young girl named Haley, who meets a man named Jeff over an internet chatroom. The two of them decide to meet, and as it turns out, Haley is 14, and Jeff is 32. They go back to his place, where we find out that he is a photographer, his home doubles as his studio, and he his brought back, and photographed many girls the same age as Haley. I think you get where the story goes from there. But, Haley is a lot more resiliant than she looks, and may even be more deviant and evil than Jeff.

While much controversy will be stirred in the audience over to subject matter, this is where Hard Candy really sticks out. It creates such a dynamic conflict in the viewer. Do we root for the young girl, to hold her own, or do we root for the pedophile, who is being very physically mutilated by his would-be victim. I think this is one of Ellen Page's strongerst performances. Much stronger than her showing in Whip It, and about on par with Juno. Also here we have Patrick Wilson, who plays Jeff. He does a fairly decent job, and has to go through a very wide range of emotions very quickly, often switching over and over again per scene. Also, Sandra Oh shows up very, very briefly, but does play a very nice supporting role, in an otherwise small cast, consisting of a total five characters in the credits.

Another place that the film works very well in is the direction. David Slade does a very good job with pacing and style, creating a subperb tension, and unease between this two characters. You never really know which way it is going to go, and it works very well. The film also has a great visiual style and flow that it uses. The red walls that you see in the picture above, are sometimes the only major color on the screen, while everything else has been bleached out. Credit is also due to Brian Nelson, who wrote such an awesome screenplay, and kept things very equal between the characters, and dared to do something not many other people would have. Not to mention the amazing ending.


One of the few major flaws that comes with Hard Candy is the fact, that at it's core, it is basically a torture film. Granted less so than most others, this young girl does capture, taunt, tease, violate, and mutilate this man, much to her sick amusement. It doesn't help that the film also has a scene, that will have men crossing their legs, in fear for their family jewels. Hard Candy acts like it is a step above the other torture films, which it is, but that does not completely clear it of it's true face.


As a whole, Hard Candy is a very solid picture. It has a very interesting story, and payoff that will split the audience members in a half, and definatly create a stir with the group you are seeing it with. The actors all perform rather well, especially Ellen Page, who gave a solid performance for an incredibly hard role, at a relativly young age. David Slade directs well, keep the tension between these two evils at an equal, and also has a nice visual flair. It is however a torture movie, granted a very smart, and good torture movie, but still a torture movie nontheless.

I Give Hard Candy:
Four Zombi's out of Five.

Why So Many Romero Zombie Films?

Since I was to lazy to post an actual review this week, I've decided to give you something else. Seeing as there are so many un-official sequels, prequels, remakes and spin-offs of Romero's classic zombie tale, I'm going to sort them. Sound Good?


THE CORE:
Night Of The Living Dead/Dawn Of The Dead/Day Of The Dead/Land Of The Dead/
Diary Of The Dead/ Survival Of The Dead



NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD:
The Return Of The Living Dead/Return Of The Living Dead Part II/
Return Of The Living Dead 3/Return Of The Living Dead 4/ Return Of The Living Dead 5/
Remake/3D Remake/Children Of The Living Dead/Flesheater/Escape Of The Living Dead/
Flight Of The Living Dead



DAWN OF THE DEAD:
Zombi or Zombi 2/Zombi 3/Zombi 4/Zombi 5/Zombi 6/Remake



DAY OF THE DEAD:
Day Of The Dead 2: Contagium/Day Of The Dead 3(in pre-production)/Remake



And there you have it. I just wasted your time giving you something you could have easily found on the internet! Happy Birthday!

Cloverfield Review (2008)

Cloverfield

One of the most secretive films of recent times, Cloverfield, didn't have an official title, until about two months before realese, and was only known my it's realese date, 1-18-08. The film became famous for that date as well, breaking January box-office records, which it still holds. Much of it still remains a mystery, as we get no real answers throughout the movie, if you want answers, you'd have to sift through dozens of websites, created for an intense, and very smart marketing campaign.

The idea for Cloverfield, was created by the leading sci-fi writer of the decade, J.J. Abrams, creator of Alias, Lost, Fringe, and the remake of Star Trek. He was on a trip to Japan, when he looked inside a toy-store, to find one of the most popular items was still Godzilla merchendise, he decided it was time for America to have its own monster, and thus, Cloverfield was born. Abrams should get some credit for this film, but not all, he created the idea, but did not write or direct, only produced. Matt Reeves should get some attention, for directing one of the hardest genres, the shaky-cam.

Cloverfield has an impossible backstory, which I will not attempt to explain here, as the average movie-goer would not go to the lengths I did to find the answers, I will give you the story the film does. Rob is getting a new job in Japan, as VP of a drink company called Slusho, a group of friends decides to throw a surprise party, and record his last night stateside. But, a horrible accident occurs as something emerges from the Harbor, and begins stomping around Manhattan. We get very little invitation, as the film is done completly through a hand-held camera. We get the same amount of information we would, if we were really on the streets, one of the reasons some people hated it, but one of the key reasons, I enjoyed it.

Now, Cloverfield is not the type of film to win any major awards, but it is very fun. It's not a film that's just plain bad and fun, (Transformers), it's actually decent. Matt Reeves does an excellent job of directing mostly improv lines, and making the film seem real. A key player, and major credit need to go to Kevin Stitt. His name is barley attached to this film, but he made it what it truly is. As the editor, he makes every transition, and cut seem fluid and effortless, which would be very difficult with the film type he has to mash together. The visual effects are pretty nice as well. The film is short, lasting only about 1 hr. 15 mins. but we do get a few very nice shots of the secretive monster, buildings being destoryed, cars crashing, and the Statue Of Liberties head crashing to the ground.

Surprisingly, these are decent performances. My favorite character was Hudson, or Hud, as he is mostly called, he plays the cameraman, and gives excellent comentary throughout the film, and adds a bit of light comedy to a mostly dark movie. Here is one of my favorite lines:
Rob: Hud, will you just shut up for five seconds!
Hud: Sorry, I have to talk about something, or I'm literally gonna shit my pants in the stairwell!
The only problem with the acting, is it has very little matter, as the objective that is driving them to get through the city (and not to a safe zone) is rather stupid. But, all these actors and actresses are very good, performing in mostly improv roles, particularly T.J. Miller, as Hud, and Lizzy Caplan as Marlena.

Overall, Cloverfield is a fun, monster-movie experience for the modern age. It's isn't particulary scary, but definatly has some thrilling moments. The effects are pulled off nicely, for having to add them into constantly shaking footage, the editor and director definatly deserve more attention than they get, and the performances are done rather nicely. The only problem for the film, is it's near lack of story (which can be done well), but not really here, though I respect the creators for truly trying to make it as real as possible. If you can't tell, I thoroughly enjoyed Cloverfield, and own it on DVD.

I Give Cloverfield:
4 Zombi's out of 5.