Freddy Vs. Jason

This isn't my usual style of horror. But what drew me to this film was the premise. It may sound like the most cliche' thing in the world, but have you ever actually seen two slasher icons throw-down before? There were films like "Dracula Vs. The Wolfman," or "Frankenstein vs. The Mummy," but films like that stopped being made fifty years ago, before slasher icons even existed. And yeah we have films like Alien Vs. Predator, but those are more animalistic battles, Freddy Vs. Jason is a fight between two sentient entities of pure evil. Even if it's been done before in some b-movies I've never seen, I can guarantee it's never been done with any bigger slasher icons than these, because these are the two biggest slasher icons of them all.

If you go into a film like "Freddy Vs. Jason" expecting a cinematic masterpiece, you're being rather silly, aren't you? The original A Nightmare on Elm Street is probably the only film out of the 20 or so films associated with either franchise that would be considered a masterpiece by the critics' reckonings. And while the Friday the 13th series is an undeniable horror classic, by "Jason X" not even the most hardcore Voorhees fans would be calling this high brow stuff. And Freddy Vs. Jason came after that.

With that in mind, I thought the plot here was very well done. The people around Elm Street have figured out how to defeat Freddy Krueger -- they stop talking about him, stop acknowledging him, and over time the memory of him fades away. If kids don't fear him, he can't inhabit their dreams.

So Freddy taps Jason Voorhees to do his dirty work. Freddy assumes the guise of Jason's mother and orders him to punish the teenagers of Elm Street. When bodies start turning up, the memory of Freddy is rekindled and he starts to gain power again. But things run afoul between our demonic duo when Jason refuses to stop killing and starts robbing Freddy of victims he wanted for himself. Then the ultimate slasher showdown begins.

The film wasn't brilliantly written, but it was competent, it was well shot, and it was entertaining. The characters were stock archetypes, but Ginger Snaps' titular Katharine Isabelle did get to play an uber-cool tomboy, more beautiful now that she's not competing with the gorgeous Emily Perkins (hey, don't judge me... Perkins is four years older than her in-film older sister and was 23 even in the first Ginger Snaps! She's more than ten years my senior.)

All in all, Freddy Vs. Jason will obviously never rise to my favorites list, but I enjoyed it. In fact, out of the handful of mediocre teen scream flicks I've watched, I enjoyed this one more than any others (such as Wild Country, the Night of the Demons remake, Grizzly Park...). Though that may be because the premise was more original in this one.

The only thing I strongly disliked about this movie is that it portrayed Jason as the hero and Freddy as the villain. I mean, really here?? There's no 'lesser of two evils' between these two monsters. You could argue that Freddy is worse because he killed children before he died. But, then you should consider the fact that Jason has ten original continuity films, while Freddy only has six. So even while Jason isn't the killer in all of his films, he's still probably killed a much larger number of people than Freddy has. Why does this film have to have a good guy and a bad guy?

I don't mind that the teenagers themselves are rooting for Jason. They're operating under the hilariously optimistic belief that if Jason wins, they can return him to Crystal Lake and he won't have any reason to kill people anymore (as if he ever needed a reason!), but if Freddy wins, he'll merely continue his revenge on the denizens of Elm Street. So misguided though they are, I understand why they're trying to help Jason. What irks me is that the film itself is portraying Jason as the good guy, e.g. by playing triumphant music while he's winning the fight, and evil music when Freddy has the upper-hand.

Me personally, I was rooting for Freddy, because I think he's much cooler. The fact that this is the original Freddy Krueger, Robert Englund, in this film insures that the performance is tops. Jason is a very intimidating beast of a man but he just can't stand up to the iconic Krueger.

If they were ever to make a sequel, I would go see it in theaters. What greater praise is there than that?

Scream 4

Warning: Since the mystery is pretty much what a Scream film is all about, this review contains major spoilers not just for Scream 4 but for Scream 1 and 2 as well. Be forewarned!

The secret to the Scream formula is that these films play at half a dozen games, and win them all. That's a major reason why this franchise is so popular, you can watch them for a variety of different reasons and still come away satisfied.

First, and perhaps foremost, they are world-class "whodunit" stories in the age-old tradition. Where everyone is a viable suspect, and you won't know until the end who's good, and who's evil.

Secondly they are, of course, brilliant deconstructions, which is arguably what made Scream famous. It took a genre awash in cliches and injected a spark of awareness to make it all feel new again. It was a quintessentially 90s idea, the Nirvana of horror films, so it's no surprise I love it.

But the deconstruction is about more than just a hip eye-wink to the audience. How many horror films exist in a universe apart from the horror culture that we fans live and breath? How many zombie movies are there where no one has heard of George Romero, and the walking dead are called, well, the walking dead and never "zombies?" How many classic slasher set-ups are there where the kids never bother to realize they're the unfortunate recipients of a tragic archetype? 

As a horror fan, if I ever found myself living in a by-the-numbers horror scenario, movies are the first thing that would come to my mind. How could they not, with them being such a part of my life? And that's where Scream comes in, to rectify that perplexing lack of awareness which makes so many horror films feel slightly disconnected from the real world we live in. That's why films like Scream are such a hit with hardcore horror fans despite taking their share of cheeky 'stabs' at the cliches of the genre, these are films that connect the fandom of horror with the medium of horror. 

Thirdly, the Scream films are the two things they're supposed to be, the two genres they're born from. They're the all-time ultimate "teen scream" genre films, full of hip dialogue, drunken parties, sexy characters and teen angst. It's also beyond question the highest quality slasher franchise in 20 years, full of creative kills, intense chases, and doomed ingenues.

Unlike other fun horror films like Shaun of the Dead or Dale & Tucker Vs. Evil, Scream is fun but it's not a comedy, it's a horror film that takes itself seriously and even delivers a couple of decent scares. Come on, all alone in the house, the killer calls, but wait, he's in the house! The intros are always pretty darn creepy, admit it. One who is so inclined could ignore the deconstruction, and even the mystery, and just enjoy these films as slasher films. And they'd still come away with a good experience.

Lastly, in regards to the Scream series... Not being a veteran slasher fan, I've never really had one of those iconic killers to call my own before, but I have to say I've grown very fond of Ghostface. The creepy voice, the obsession with horror films, the meticulous planning, he's a fantastic 'character,' even if technically he's someone new each time. And that signature move he has when he turns his head to the side after a character says something to him, is just fucking amazing. Despite being a mask, it totally gives this powerful impression of mock-concern, almost pity. It's such a simple little thing but whoever came up with that was a genius. 

Now on, specifically, to Scream 4.......

The concept that Scream 4 is a makeshift, in-universe reboot of the original Scream in addition to another sequel is what really kept the mystery fresh and alive for me. That's because you have all these archetypes from the first film (and some, even, from the second film -- I was definitely looking at that one nosey reporter with suspicion during her one short scene), except it's impossible to know which of the archetypes are going to pan out as they originally did, and which ones are going to be turned on their head. So you have all of these obvious killers and yet you still have no idea who it's going to be. This gave Scream 4 a dimension of ingenuity where it feels like we're treading on uncharted territory instead of just being the fourth iteration of the same set-up. In other words it doesn't feel cheesy ala "really, everyone gets caught up in the same kind of murder mystery AGAIN?" when (in-universe) the killer is intentionally recreating the past again and (conceptually/on the filmmaker's meta level) the film is intended as a tongue-in-cheek way to win new viewers, many of whom would not have been around to watch the original Scream 15 years ago. 

Some people have complained that the film isn't modern enough. Admittedly  it definitely appeals a lot more to original Scream fans than to newcomers  characters like Dewey and Gale are never even fully explained (as far as their history goes), so newcomers would probably feel at least a little in the dark. But what's wrong with Scream appealing to the classic formula? If they wanted to do a true reboot they'd probably have named it Scream Again or Scream Louder. People complain so much about modern horror, is it so wrong for one film to hearken backwards?

More importantly, though, I think the movie's classic 90s feel was intentional, because it's another piece of the deconstruction, and it actually helps to make the film relevant to today. It's a pseudo remake, after all, retro is the idea! Even when they aren't remakes, retro horror has been very successful recently, with period films such as The House of the Devil, Paranormal Activity 3, and Let Me In. So rather than detracting from Scream 4's relevance, its bygone style actually marks it more clearly as a comment on modern horror.

And that gets into what makes Scream 4 so special for me, individually. The original Scream films played on the slasher classics of the 80s. Scream 4 ingeniously arrived just as dozens of modern remakes of these classic slashers started pouring out of film studios. But the remake craze isn't restricted to slashers, remakes of all kinds of creature features and exploitation films joined in as well. And Scream 4 was able to perfectly nail the tropes of all these silly remakes, really down to a T. I've never been an avid fan of the classic slashers, so the original Scream films only tangentially connect with me on the deconstruction level. But I'm quite familiar with these modern remakes so Scream 4 makes an intimate connection with me. 

The only mild criticism I have is that it feels like they should have 'gone for broke' and made this a climactic finish to the series, maybe even kill off a major character. Instead, they had their sights on rebooting the franchise and following through with more sequels. Unfortunately, Scream 4 performed below expectations, and the idea for further films has been scrapped. Even so, I have to admit, had new films followed, that would have been worth a lot more than the shock & awe of killing Sidney or another major character in Scream 4. As badass as it would have been, nothing's better than more Scream films, and a Scream film without Sidney, Gale, & Dewey sounds like it would be hard to pull off, quite possibly a "jump the shark moment."

In hindsight, part of me wishes the killer had turned out to be Sidney, because her motive and backstory would be by far the most compelling. The film definitely started to build it up with her whole arc about not being the victim. Well, in a slasher, you're either a victim, or you're the killer. After sustaining atrocity after atrocity in her life, it's plausible that Sidney could have developed a need for murder in order to prove to herself that she's not powerless, that she in fact wields the power to end a life. Sidney Prescott has actually killed several people over the course of the series. It's always been strictly in self-defense, but killing that many people has to change a person, it could reasonably have germinated a taste for murder inside her. 

Of course had the series continued, it's possible the plan was to eventually make Sidney the killer, perhaps with Gale as her accomplice. Part of me thinks Kevin Williamson is too sentimental to go that route, and I can respect that. If they went that route but they failed to pull it off excellently, if it ended up kind of cheap or weak, then that would retroactively damage the rest of the series for some people, by ruining the Sidney character. Of course if it was pulled off really well, it would add a whole new dimension to all the previous films. On the other hand, it might just be too cheeky and brutal for the Scream franchise. As Scream 4 very aptly quipped, "the unexpected is the new cliche," and the Sidney-Gale killer ending would very much play into that.

All in all this is one of my favorite horror films by far. Don't just rent it online, buy or rent the DVD, because it contains an extended version (with a different chain of events) of Britt Robertson's intro scene. I wish she had been cast in one of the main roles, her snarky precocious style (not unlike a young Katie Holmes) was perfect for Kevin Williamson's writing (perhaps she could get a gig on The Vampire Diaries). It also contains an extended ending with an interesting tone. And it contains a bunch of other deleted scenes, one or two of which should definitely have been included in the film because they expound on the deconstruction aspect, and those are always the best scenes.

Home Movie (2009)

Home Movie

Rating: 4 stars out of 5.

Notice: No spoilers until stated. 

Overview: A well-executed and harrowingly realistic tale of a parent's worst nightmare.

In the case of paranormal subjects, found footage can make the unreal appear real. And while these films are often terrifying, they also contain a little spark of awe and wonder inherent in making fantasy come to life. In the case of more realistic subjects such as serial killers and rapists, the fantasy is gone and in its place exists only the grim understanding that what you're seeing could genuinely occur.  Many of the most disturbing films of all-time are of this variety, including the original found footage film, Cannibal Holocaust.

Home Movie is of the latter variety, and while it's not one of the most disturbing films of all-time, it's definitely disturbing, and some of its dark images have continued to linger with me long after viewing.

Home Movie concerns a small family: the minister father, the psychiatrist mother, and their twin children Jack and Emily. The family has just moved out to a secluded house in the woods to live a quiet, idyllic life. The parents are warm and nurturing, but the children aren't quite normal. The ten year old twins are developing an unhealthy taste for killing and causing pain.

No matter how many times a found footage film takes me to the woods, it is always good. Is there any better setting in the world? The woods just has an intrinsic foreboding to it somehow. The house and locale here are beautiful, it's an inherently chilling setting and they pulled it off perfectly.

The first act of this film is especially excellent. The early scenes of the happy mother and father nurturing their children are incredibly real and well-written. The foreshadowing at this point is strong without being obvious. The placement of the children's story about the dragon with a paper bag over his head verges on brilliant. It's heartbreaking to see such loving parents and then to witness what transpires with the children. The rising action that follows is handled aptly with a creepy aplomb. Even if the direction becomes obvious after the first time the kids act out, the disturbing journey is worth more than the mystery.

While the hints are subtle, another area the film excels in is portraying the children's interest for the macabre. It's frightening to imagine these regular looking kids who see death and become obsessed with it.

The only thing holding this film back from ranking higher is a certain problem I have regarding the film's final act.

~SPOILER WARNING BEYOND THIS POINT~

At the end of the film, the kids make their move on their parents. Surprisingly, after how perfectly handled the rest of the film is, this part leaves something to be desired. A more simple, direct treatment would have been exceedingly more terrifying. I like the concept that these kids are clever, possibly even savants, who have meticulously planned this grand salvo. However, the way it's done is just too much. The rest of the film is amazingly realistic, but this part is too complex, it's more like a slasher film or even some kind of Bourne-esque action movie: the kids set traps, drug their parents, beat them, tie them up, let them escape, toy with them, tie them up again, it's way too much to feel intuitively real. One or two of these aspects alone would have driven the point home while maintaining the illusion.

In any case, it was a smart, disturbing film with some of the best acting I've seen in found footage. Definitely recommended for people who don't mind being a tad disturbed.

Paranormal Activity 4 (2012)

Paranormal Activity 4

Rating: 3 stars out of 5.

Overview: The series continues to get bigger and wilder with its complicated storyline, but PA4 veers from the tradition of the first 3 films enough to make it a genuinely exciting film to watch. It admirably avoids many of the downfalls that plagued Paranormal Activity 3.

Notice: No spoilers beyond basic expository information.

After watching the astoundingly terrifying Atrocious last weekend and being reunited with what true found footage film-making is all about, I was apprehensive about what Paranormal Activity 4 may be like. I knew it could never live up to the precedent so recently set by Atrocious. And sure enough, Paranormal Activity 4 is the least scary of all the Paranormal Activity films thus far. Never the less, the film really managed to impress me. I enjoyed it much more than the third film and I'm actually excited about seeing Paranormal Activity 5 next year (god willing). 

While PA3 was scarier, it was basically existing on borrowed ground. It retained the plot progression of the first two films while never even approaching the level of scares they achieved. So it felt like an exceedingly well-made Asylum film, the production values were good but it's a story you've already seen told, and told better. 

I read one review which stated PA4 is the first of the series to play it safe. On the contrary, PA4 was the first of the sequels to veer from the formula of the original film. When all you're dealing with is the demon, you pretty much know how it's inevitably going to end. After the first film you know pretty much how the demon operates and what to expect. But the fourth film enters a number of new elements which made the story's progression far less foreseeable, and for that I found this a very exciting film to watch.

The third film jumped the shark by injecting convoluted mythos into a series which had previously succeeded on a primal, intuitive level. But the fourth film transcended the misstep of the third by taking it even further and severing the series from its instinctual roots. In doing so it became something different entirely, and managed to be good on its own merits. No, it's certainly not as good as the first two PA films, but it was a very interesting movie, and it impressed me. I am actually really excited to be invested in the Paranormal Activity franchise again after the frustrating mess of misfires that confounded Paranormal Activity 3. 

At this point the Paranormal Activity mythos has become overwrought, bizarre, and a little bit nonsensical. But with PA4 it's finally reached that sweet spot where it's crazy enough to be interesting, without being too campy to take seriously. It's clear that the series will never return to the terror-inducing simplicity which made it famous in the first place, but that may be for the best, as it was never liable to recapture the spark of the first two films anyway. I'm genuinely excited to see it get even bigger and wilder as the film series goes on, because now I'm confident they can do it without pissing all over the franchise. It's gone into the territory where it's silly but still cool.

Atrocious (2010)

Atrocious

Rating: 5 stars out of 5.

Notice: No spoilers beyond basic expository information.

Overview: An unparalleled control of found footage basics informs this clever spin on the classic formula. A true and formidable successor to The Blair Witch Project. Atrocious is one of the scariest movies I've ever seen.

Three kids and their mom take a trip to a secluded summer home, right next to a big ole' labyrinth. An old legend states that if you get lost in the labyrinth at night, the ghost of Melinda will lead you out, and the kids want to film a self-styled documentary about her. Think you've heard this one before? Well, maybe you have. But Atrocious adds enough, and deviates enough, and executes itself well enough to stand on its own as a classic of found footage.

Even while I was scared shitless, which was quite often, I couldn't help repeating in my head "wow, this is a good feeling." What feeling, you might ask? The feeling that comes from a watching a found footage film where the filmmakers intrinsically understand what makes found footage good in the first place. It's been a long time since I've seen a found footage film that properly handles itself. I had seen so many midlevel entries into the genre since then, I forgot how amazing it was when you stumble upon a film that does it unmitigatingly right. There are so many mediocre films out there, I had honestly thought that I might be getting tired of found footage! Ahaha, oh my. Atrocious was brilliant.

The premise may mirror Blair Witch quite unsqueamishly, but the two films' respective atmospheres are well removed. The hedge maze labyrinth of Atrocious is a very different beast from the sprawling pines of Blair Witch. And without giving away too much, don't expect the story arcs to match either.

What sets Atrocious so far apart from its peers is its flawless command of the fundamentals. The fundamentals are what define any good found footage film, and a failure to grasp the fundamentals will invariably break one. But Atrocious nails it. The setting, god the setting, it's old school creepy. Their basement is full of stone walls and unsettling clutter, the labyrinth is full of gorgeously utiliized ancient stone benches and pyres and so forth, all of which give me the willies. The camera direction is spot-on, invoking [REC]'s unnerving corridors and the terrifying, shaking uncertainty cultivated by the masters of subtlety in The Wicksborro Incident.

Bottom line, Atrocious will never be quite as flawless as The Blair Witch Project, but there's no shame in being beaten by the best. There are a lot of good found footage films out there, however in the last few years these films have made their name by eschewing the formula rather than mastering it. [REC] was action-packed rather than slow-burning, V/H/S is the first notable anthology of the genre, and so on.

Atrocious doesn't do that, Atrocious makes its name by being able to weild this old form with genuine skill. The classic found footage formula is what got me into this genre, and at the end of the day there is nothing I like to see more. Problem is, despite how utterly simple it seems, most filmmakers fall flat on their face when attempting to copy it. Meanwhile Atrocious hits nearly every salvo with apparent ease, and for that it is superb.

I didn't even realize quite how much Atrocious had scared me until I went to bed that night and had a nightmare about it. This is a film that really stayed with me. Originally I was thinking of giving it 4 & 1/2 stars, but after noticing that it scarred me for life, I have to bump it up to 5. (I'm of course exaggerating, it only scarred me for a day..... so far. And I watched it yesterday.)

Trollhunter (2010)

Trollhunter

Rating: 3 stars out of 5.

Notice: No spoilers beyond basic expository information.

Overview: In a genre often accused of repeating itself, Trollhunter provides an awesome and much-welcome counterpoint. It's more clever than it is frightful, but it's an exciting ride.

Trollhunter is easily one of the most critically-applauded found footage films of recent years. And the praise is relatively well deserved, Trollhunter takes a genre with a strong temptation to remain formulaic, and ventures beyond in both subject matter and style. Hunting giant trolls is a subject perfectly suited to Norway's mythological heritage, and it's rare that a found footage film (particularly one with good production values), succeeds in being funny.

It starts with a group of kids following a mysterious bear poacher, but they soon learn there's more to his story. Over the course of the film, this veteran Trollhunter shows the kids the ropes of his secret trade. He details the natural characteristics of trolls (species variation, intelligence level, diet, habitation), strategies for taking them down, and the governmet conspiracy to keep them under wraps. This gives the film an admirable mythos and sense of reality. But since the film is funny at least as often as it is serious, the attention to mythical detail seems a tad wasted. Even so, in-universe consistency is always appreciated. Even a goofy movie becomes less impressive when they lack a coherent base.

I can't say I love Trollhunter quite as much as many seem to, as comedic and tongue-in-cheek films aren't so much my fancy. Cheesy, trashy, zero-budget films, hell yes, but there's a fine line between that and films which are traditionally funny like Trollhunter. All in all Trollhunter has excellent production values, great creatures and a solid plot. It's an admirable addition to the found footage genre from the great nation of Norway, and one that I'm sure will still be viewed years from now.