 Under the Radar
Not to be confused with the Emma Watson/Tom Hanks dramatic thriller, 'The Circle', here we have a relatively intense, relatively original sci-fi thriller involving 50 strangers, a mysterious chamber, and deadly odds. A point of interest about this group is that they are all very different. Men, women, varying races, varying cultures, varying ages. I think the biggest name we have here is Carter Jenkins of 'Mad Men'. The rest of the cast, I didn't recognize, which either makes them no-names, or I've actually seen far less movies than I imagined. The group wakes up, and starts dying off one by one, ridding us of several characters fairly quickly. They soon figure out that they each have the ability to "vote" for who dies next, and it becomes a gruesome process-of-elimination game. The thrill of the film not only comes from how they end up having to inevitably decide who goes next, but the fact that they really don't know where they are, or why they're made to do this. In other words, there's no creepy 'Saw' puppet to guide them. These, folks are left to their own devices. The overall premise is really simple, and the film is definitely of the "bottle" variety, pretty much the whole way through. So if you don't wanna watch 50 strangers killing each other off for an hour and a half, this movie might not be for you. However, much like with a movie like 'Buried', there's more to the film than just claustrophobia. This film ends up being far more of a character study than anything, in that with such a variety of people, we see a lot of varying prejudices as well. The elderly, the dark-skinned, the gay, women (some pregnant), and yes, even a child, are all put to the test, usually against a mouthy, greedy, Caucasian dude. So there's definitely a sense of personal politics going on here, although I will say it doesn't cover everyone, it definitely gets its message across. The whole thing could be seen as a take on the white-washed world. The only real problem the film has, in my opinion, is its acting. It's not all bad, but some of the delivery feels like I'm watching a high school (maybe college) play. But when I don't recognize any of these faces, I can't be too nit-picky about such a thing. The real draw to this is the overall concept, and the execution does feel pretty intense. One must keep in mind that at the end of this, only one person comes out alive. So, much like with 'Game of Thrones', try not to establish a favorite character. 'Circle' can currently be found on Canadian Netflix if you'd like to check it out for yourself. I don't highly recommend it to just anyone and everyone, but if you wanna see an hour and a half bottle movie about, essentially, how our world of prejudices works, I totally recommend it. I definitely enjoyed it, for the most part. 4/5
0 Comments
 Now Playing
This one isn't exactly what you'd call a "Halloween" title, but there's an air of mystery and thrill, and I thought it might be in the same vein, at least. Anyway, regardless, here we are with 'Bad Times at the El Royale' - a film that floated under many radars, despite its wide theatrical release. It even debuted at #7 for its opening weekend, according to the Box Office Top 10. However, despite mostly positive reviews, it simply didn't take off because too many people were busy, at the time, arguing about whether or not 'Venom' was any good. This one kinda revisits the bottle mystery sub-genre; movies along the same lines as something like 'Clue', or to match this particular title a bit closer, 'Hateful Eight', as I actually found it to be rather Tarantino-esque in overall style. This one comes from Director Drew Goddard, who's most notable directorial film is 'The Cabin in the Woods' - a movie you either love, hate, or love to hate (I love). This is a step away from that style and, as I say, a bit more Tarantino-esque (maybe that was just me, but I stand by it). The overall plot sees a group of characters come together by chance at the run down El Royale - a hotel with the border of Colorado and Nevada running through it, and a dark history. Each character - a priest (Jeff Bridges), a singer (Cynthia Erivo), a vacuum salesman (Jon Hamm), a hippie (Dakota Johnson) and the hotel's only worker (Lewis Pullman) all have checkered pasts of their own. Before the night is through, true colours are exposed after the arrival of Rose Summerspring (Cailee Spaeny) and her manipulative love-interest, Billy Lee (Chris Hemsworth's Abs). All in all, this is one of those times where I don't fully know what to make of a film. I'd have to say it was enjoyable, but by the end of it all, I kinda just wanted to rewatch it with familiar eyes. It's one of those movies that goes back and forth according to different character perspectives, and it's easy for a dude like me to lose track of exactly what's going on sometimes when a movie does this. With that said, however, we had great performances, atmosphere, and intensity, so the film did a good enough job with its overall execution. So, the jumping around aspect of it really was my only major problem. I tend to find this can be fixed with multiple viewings, so odds are, I'll wanna check it out again at some point down the line. But really, it's still one of 2018's lesser titles, despite all it has working for it. I think if it's given some time once its released on DVD and Blu-ray, it has the potential to be a cult hit, but until then, it kinda stands as an enigma to me. Somehow it manages to be good but forgettable all at once. Maybe it's because we've seen this kind of thing before. Maybe it was other titles at the time drowning it out. Maybe it's all the jumping around between time and characters. All I know is that I can't recommend or not recommend this movie to anyone for any reason. It's just kinda there. We'll see what happens, but I suspect this one will suffer for a while until the right audience discovers it and wonders if it was ever released in theaters. 3/5  Screening Suggestion
What can I say about 1982's 'The Thing' that hasn't been said before? Probably not much. It lands in my "Screening Suggestions" category with very good reason. My opinion aside, however, this is a title that tends to end up on a lot of All Time Best Horror Movie lists - usually somewhere near the top. But is an alien invasion movie worth all that? What makes this one so special? Why was it criticized to pieces upon its initial release, but has grown to become a cult phenomenon among horror fans? The basic plot involves a group of American researchers in Antarctica who, after a strange circumstance, investigate a Norwegian station, only to find some remains of a malformed body. The body is brought back to be researched, but nothing unusual is found. However, when a sled dog that was recently being pursued by the Norwegians is kenneled, and in a very grotesque way consumes the other dogs, we learn very quickly that there's something terrifying going on. Eventually, it is discovered that a shape-shifting being of sorts is alone with the crew in this dark and desolate location. The scariest problem it carries with it, is the fact that it can turn into anything or anyone it wants. And that right there is what makes this movie such a great film for horror buffs. The film's scares are pretty abundant, but it's less about grossing us out, getting violent, or making us jump. The real horror lies in the overall seclusion of the group, and the idea that not one member of the crew can actually be trusted anymore. All of the on-the-surface scares still hold up quite well, but the intensity of the situation is what really sells the film. Going back to this being released to negative reviews at the time, it's hard to say exactly what caused it. Some believe it was released too close to 'E.T.: The Extraterrestrial'; a much more family-friendly look at aliens. Others just see it as just bad timing due to the early 80's recession, and audiences didn't go for the more negative tones that this had to offer. If you look at the film by today's standards, however, it holds up in a big way with its general themes of antitrust, and practical effects that SOMEHOW still hold up better than the 2011 prequel film of the same name, relying on bad CGI. Add to that a cast consisting of people like Kurt Russel, Wilford Brimley, and Kieth David, and you've got yourself a pretty solid flick. If you happen to be reading this right now, haven't seen this movie, and you consider yourself a fan of horror, there's nothing you should be waiting for. Watch this movie. It may be a bit dated here and there, but the overall execution of it is great, and some of the imagery is bound to haunt your dreams.  Under the Radar
In my search for Halloween-ish movies that float under the radar, this particular recommendation caught my interest. Aside from the disturbingly intriguing title, the concept sounded good to me. As far as I knew, going into it, we had Jessica (Zohra Lampert); a recently released mental patient who may or may not be losing touch with reality again. And what I got was... well, pretty much that, but in a much different way than I had assumed. Jessica and her husband, Duncan (Barton Heyman) move into a quiet farm house only to find a girl named Emily (Mariclare Costello) is squatting there. The couple end up inviting her to stay, and soon, Jessica starts seeing strange things - namely a girl's body floating around in the lake, know to have not been found after she apparently drowned. It really does end up being a bit of a Michigan J. Frog situation in that whenever Jessica wants to show and/or tell her husband and friends something, they kinda just brush it off and wonder if she's mentally healthy. For the most part, I honestly found the film to be pretty dull and boring. It does carry a decent atmosphere, has some pretty genuinely creepy moments, and attempts to tackle the truly horrific matter of mental health issues, but does so in a sort of lame way. It's just another ghost movie at the end of the day, at least for me. I just think I've seen it done much better. This may not be a bad movie for those seeking something that's not truly horrific, but eerie. But I'd be lying if I said I didn't find it just sort of dull. Not without its moments, but overall just dry and dull. I guess its meant to be something more psychological, but again, it's just been done better since, in my humble opinion. When all said and done, I don't think I can take much away from this one, and I don't really recommend it for those seeking a good scary movie. This almost turns out to be something you could find on Sunday afternoon TV. I can't truly give it to the performances, the soundtrack, the overall execution, or much else. The only leeway I can give it is that it was 1971, and this is well-before a lot of the better horror out there anyway. So, here I sit wanting to write something a little more genuine about the film, but I've honestly said all there is to say from my perspective. For myself, this was straight up watching paint dry for the most part. Small points for atmosphere and creepy imagery, but again, I have seen creepier. This is just a one-off 70's flick no one needs to revisit, or hardly even visit once. I'm just glad the dialogue wasn't insultingly bad. 2/5  Catching Up
Surprisingly enough, although the Creeper from these three films has largely become one of the more famous modern horror villains, I've gone all this time without bothering. For whatever reason, there just wasn't much of a draw for me. And oh yes, it has been a highly recommended series for me, as a horror fan. Anyway, this year I figured I'd finally give it a whirl for my Halloween special. We are introduced to two siblings, Trish (Gina Phillips) and Darry (Justin Long) who are taking a long scenic route home for Spring Break through Nowheresville. Soon, the driver of an erratically-driven truck is seen by Darry, seemingly dumping dead bodies down a hole near a church. Convincing Trish to go back and check it out, Darry falls down the hole and finds himself in a very disturbing setup involving human bodies being sewn together. Upon escaping, the two find themselves being hunted by the Creeper - a monster of sorts, who kills you because he wants to eat some specific part of you in order to gain strength in whatever that part gives. Pretty scary concept, considering you never quite know what this thing is after if it does start chasing you. Now, perhaps it's because I came into it so late in the game, but there was something about Justin Long that threw me off here. It reminded me of seeing Paul Rudd in 'Curse of Michael Myers', in that I just couldn't get enough seriousness from the actor. That said, 'Curse' sucked while this was actually still pretty entertaining for what it was. I'm not sure I loved it or anything, but it was a fun horror survivor adventure. I have to admit that I enjoyed the design of the Creeper as well. Once you see this thing up close and personal, it's an interesting combination of makeup that looks sort of cheesy, but still sort of horrifying. Kinda like someone who just went all out on a Halloween costume. He's actually kinda badass as well, considering his kills. He kills in a bit more of a Jason fashion - quick and brutal, and there's something about that I dig when it comes to slashers. The thing that really makes the movie stand out, at least speaking for myself, however, is the ending. I won't say what happens, but it leaves you with this truly uneasy feeling, along with a sort of respect for the Creeper as a new horror villain who could stand out among others. What more can be said? This first film left me wanting more. Not scrambling to get at more, but a genuine curiosity to see where things could potentially go. I think I'll be checking out the sequels at some point or another soon enough, so keep an eye out for that. 4/5 |
RSS Feed