So, this is either a really good thing or a really bad thing for this "Bad Movie Review", but I have to confess that I've never actually seen the original John Carpenter/Deborah Hill collaboration. In some ways, that sucks, as I have nothing to compare it to. I don't know how close this represents it either - what they got right, what they screwed up, etc. In some ways though, it's good, because I can say with certainty that this movie does a good job of being bad on its own, without the need for any sort of comparison. This was one I caught in theaters when it was released, and I can remember coming out of it thinking it was a pile of junk then, too. Although, I will say that I started this whole concept of bad movie reviews fairly loosely with this set of three bad horror movies. This will be made up for as these reviews keep going because I think I went with "forgettable bad" over "classically bad". But I digress. All of this considered, this is still a stinker, and even though I admit to not having seen the original from 1980, I can still safely recommend that version over this one, if only because it's considered a bit of a Carpenter classic. On the fictional island of Antonio, off the coast of Oregon, the small community is preparing to unveil a statue which commemorates its founding fathers. Meanwhile, Nick Castle (Tom Welling) and his friend Spooner (DeRay Davis) disturb a couple of underwater artifacts that seemingly set things into motion - namely a pocket watch and a hairbrush. These artifacts once belonged to a ship known as the Elizabeth Dane, which we only really know burns in the beginning. The rest of the history of the ship's fate unveils itself as the film unfolds, as it's all part of the grand mystery. Sticking to the main part of the story and trying not to spoil any details of this story (if anyone even cares), Nick soon meets up with his former girlfriend, Elizabeth Williams (Maggie Grace), who has come back after being away for six months for some reason. They hit it off immediately again, despite the fact that Nick tries picking her up on the side of the road, thinking she's just some sexy hitchhiker. Eventually, the aforementioned pocket watch is given to Elizabeth by the film's harbinger of doom, Machen (R. Nelson Brown), and the hairbrush is found by young Andy Wayne - son of the local radio host, Stevie Wayne (Selma Blair). It's not long before things start going weird. A thick fog seems to be the source of it all, but the film is full of unexplainable phenomena that get a lot of funny and/or weird reactions. For example, in a scene involving Elizabeth sitting in a chair with water droplets falling on her from the ceiling, it seems clear that ghostly footprints are appearing above her head. A creepy situation, sure, but her reaction is far more that of a clueless person who can't seem to wrap her head around the concept of moving. Furthermore, no part of her seems scared, and the scene just comes across as incredibly bland when it's meant to be scary. There is just a lot of bad going on here, and so much of it comes from all three major culprits of acting, writing and direction. At the end of the day, these are the things that are probably most important to telling a good on-screen story. All of it is pretty weak here, and the whole thing comes off as much more of a late-night made-for-TV thriller than the apparent classic the 1980 version was. You've also got actors here that simply don't compare to the original portrayals of these characters. I mean, scream queen Jamie Lee Curtis vs Maggie Grace? Cult horror legend, Tom Atkins vs Tom Welling? Slasher film birth-giver Janet freaking Leigh vs Sara Botsford? There's no contest here. Even having said all of that, I have still read numerous times, something along the lines of this being a bad remake of a film that's really "just okay". I have a feeling I could join the originals' cult following rather easily the more I read about it, but if the general consensus is that the original is a bit of a middle-ground horror, that should speak volumes as to how rough this flick really is. It seemed to get a mild pass upon its release, but I can't say I'm surprised at not being able to find it to stream anywhere (I found it to rent on YouTube). As mentioned earlier, it's just plain forgettable. I feel like if the original didn't exist, this would have had an even shorter lifespan. Now, I will defend the film in just a couple of aspects. For one, the score is half-decent. It does a good job of adding some creepiness to the atmosphere of things. It's well done in its subtlety, using ominous tones to set the mood. But even having said that, and again without having seen the original, there's no comparison to the awesomeness that is the original score. Carpenter definitely had a knack for delivering a good creepy soundtrack. So once again, when it comes to old vs new, I think the old takes it. Another aspect of the film I have to give it credit for is the visual effects... even if sometimes the fog machine they're using is far too obvious.
The ghouls look pretty cool here, and the film's use of silhouettes is nice and creepy. We also get visuals of an old, haunted clipper ship that are pretty effective. I wouldn't say it's "visually stunning", but you can kind of tell where the budget for this thing went. However, visuals and music are just not enough to save it. In truth, all re-watching this made me think of was why I wasn't finally giving the original a proper chance. That'll happen eventually, but first I'll need to wash the bad taste this one left, out of my mouth. It's definitely one of the lamest horror movies of the 21st century... which says a lot. 1/5
1 Comment
Bad movies come in all types of flavours, and with that in mind, I intend to keep these bad movie reviews focused on particular themes every month. This month, we're dealing with some of the worst-ranked supernatural horror movies out there. But the truth is, sometimes some of those "terrible" movies are something I can manage to find something I like about. If nothing else, titles like 'The Room' and 'Troll 2' lend themselves as being guilty pleasures. Junk food for the brain when you just feel like indulging. I felt like kicking this month off by taking a look at a movie I feel has been long since forgotten (and probably with good reason) called 'Darkness' - not to be confused with 2016's 'The Darkness' or 'Darkness Falls', which came out just one year later. This was a pretty average haunted house movie that took a lot of influence from other, better material like 'The Shining' and 'Amityville Horror.' In other words, Dad starts to go crazy, and it's all centred on some sort of supernatural element at work. This is no different, except there's also a sort of "cult" element to it - which 'The Shining' eventually got to anyway with 'Doctor Sleep,' but at least we can say that happened after this movie. Still, even reading that director Jaume Balagueró drew influence from 'Shining' and 'Amityville,' that doesn't necessarily mean this will be seen as "good" so much as "copying." Something like this just makes the audience think that they've seen it done before, but better; especially when both stories (never mind the movies) are complete classics that have captured our imaginations and gripped us with fear since they were published. It's hard to imagine a 2002 film that's far too similar to these stories is going to stand out. But oh, it gets better! Before I dive in, I have to mention that there was a lot of seemingly disjointed material here, and there were a few times when I got confused about what was happening. That might just be a "me" thing (usually is), but there did seem to be a lot going on here that felt unnecessary or had me asking, "What? Why?". All in all, one CAN figure it out, but it just feels like there's a lot of odd filler here, and this could have worked out reasonably well as something I could see on my TV instead (at the time, I mean). If a couple of things were changed, this could have been an episode of 'Are You Afraid of the Dark?', as it delivers just about as many scares. The opening credits show that something has occurred that has a kid running for his life. The surviving kid narrates to, presumably, a psychologist, and we get that 5 other kids have gone missing during an occult ritual. Forty years later, we cut to a family of four, moving into their new, completely secluded house. So secluded that a city bus stops right in front of it at one point! We're introduced to Dad, Mark (Iain Glen), Mom, Maria (Lena Olin), teenage daughter, the lead character, and prominent "survivor girl," Regina (Anna Paquin), and token kid connected to the paranormal, little brother, Paul (Stephan Enquist). However, Mark's father, Albert (Giancarlo Giannini), is located not too far away from them and is also a doctor. Their short distance from each other is mainly for convenience to help with Mark's progressing Huntington's Disease, which seems to be making him more and more aggressive. It's not long before young Paul starts seeing a small group of kids lurking in the shadows, making him fear the dark for the first time. When Paul is seen with bruises, fingers point at Dad. But soon, Regina starts to wonder if it might have something to do with the house itself... just like 'Shining' and 'Amityville' again. Regina and her love interest, Carlos (Fele Martínez), go looking for answers about the house's past and what went on there. All is eventually revealed by the film's end, but one can't claim things to be too surprising or entirely predictable. I have to say that for me, there really wasn't a lot here to send shivers up my spine - last of all, a group of ghouls who seemingly don't need to be there and, I swear, just look like different versions of the same 'Dick Tracy' villain. It's right up there with "Darth Maul" popping up in 'Sinister' - except 'Sinister' was still a bit more thrilling. In the end, a lot of the film's themes seem to be about the "power" of the darkness, and why we should fear it. But even having said that, I feel like I'm reading too much into it. If you want to see this story essentially done in a similar way but much, much better, do a back-to-back of 'The Shining' and 'Doctor Sleep'. They both make for better, more thrilling horror flicks, and together, they pretty much have the same ingredients as this. They're great stories, too, as opposed to this somewhat jumbled mess that uses lame visuals and jump scares to fill its gaps.
This one seemed to have come and gone upon its release, and completely swept under the rug. It's not really hard to see why, especially since there has been a lot of better material released since then. More than anything, this felt like a cash-in idea, using Paquin to their advantage, remembering that at this point in time, she was a big deal as Rogue in 'X-Men'. By the end, it just ends up being a badly done, discombobulated mess of a copy of better material. BUT it does make for a good drinking game - 1 shot for every time Anna Paquin calls out for any of her family, be it "Paul", "Dad" or "Mom". 1/5 |