A Fortnight of Terror: The Cabin in the Woods novelisation
In the world of books, novelisation is kind of a dirty word. Perhaps it is the fact that, even more than film, literature is the ultimate auteur art form. Indeed whilst the director is the creative focus of the analysis of film, their vision is filtered through and enhanced by collaboration with others. Literature is a solitary art form though. With a novelisation, the author is essentially a bringing someone else’s vision to the page. That may be why the novelisation is derided somewhat as an art form.
I cannot even remember the last novelisation that I read, I know I definitely read some as a kid. So I thought I would take a look at Tim Lebbon’s novelisation of the fantastic Whedon/Goddard horror film The Cabin in the Woods (2012). With its meta approach and visceral, visually arresting finale, the film is one that perhaps does not lend itself totally to the written form. It is a credit to Lebbon then that he is done a pretty darn good, if pulpy, job of bringing it to life. Anyone who has seen the film will know that it is essentially a film split in two. On one hand are the ‘puppet masters’, pulling the strings from an industrial lab style setting. Then there is the titular cabin in the woods, where what is essentially a standard slasher in the woods narrative takes place. This part of proceedings hews very close to The Evil Dead (1981) actually.
Some of the incredible visuals from the end of the film
Initially the book is a little jarring to read. Most of this is down to a relatively clumsy method used to insert more narrative voice into the book (generally incorporating narrative voice is an issue going from page to screen, but I wouldn’t have thought it necessary when doing the opposite). These italicised insertions are bothersome, but once you get into a rhythm of the book, they become less noticeable. As a writer, Lebbon is best at establishing place. The early run down servo is an especially good (and bloody creepy) example, but both the cabin and the puppeteers’ compound are also starkly brought to life. Whilst I would definitely not argue the book is better than the film, it does do some things exceptionally well. It fleshes out some of the underlying themes and ideas, possibly even better than the film does. The notions of surveillance and nanny states, as well as the toying with ideas of free will are all thrown around in a really interesting way, which makes them much more than just superficial. I guess to balance that, the final explosive passage of the narrative (which I think is one of the most mind-blowing sequences I have experienced on film for a long while) is hurt by not being as searingly visual as it is in the film. But that is not to bag Lebbon. I’m not sure that any writer could bring it to life as well as the film does.
Whilst not always blisteringly written, this is an enjoyable experience and I very happily flicked the pages over at a rapid pace. Like its filmic source, the novel does a good job of engaging with and subverting horror/slasher film conventions without becoming too wink wink about it.
Verdict: Stubby of Reschs
Over this fortnight, you have the chance to win an as yet unconfirmed (but definitely choice) prize courtesy of Madman Entertainment, so be sure to get liking and commenting to go into the draw.
Like what you read? Then please like Not Now I’m Drinking a Beer and Watching a Movie on facebook here and follow me on twitter @beer_movie.
A Fortnight of Terror Trailer for your Weekend: I Frankenstein
This week’s trailer is for I Frankenstein, a forthcoming film which I think is based on a pretty well received graphic novel. The film was shot in Australia as well, so got a fair bit of press out here. A shame then that this trailer makes it look like utter shite. It has more than a whiff of Van Helsing about it, which you know is not a good thing at all. Aside from Aaron Eckhart looking the goods, there is basically nothing here that gives any hope this film will be worth your time.
Anyone disagree with me on this?
Over this fortnight, you have the chance to win an as yet unconfirmed (but definitely choice) prize courtesy of Madman Entertainment, so be sure to get liking and commenting to go into the draw.
Like what you read? Then please like Not Now I’m Drinking a Beer and Watching a Movie on facebook here and follow me on twitter @beer_movie.
A Fortnight of Terror Guest Post: The Pumpkinhead Series
This guest post of awesomeness comes from everyone’s favourite elusive blogging figure, The IPC. Some say he refuses to visit Australia because there are not enough animals that can kill you here. Some say that Mrs The IPC and Daniel Day-Lewis have never been seen in the same room at the same time. Some say that he considers Billy Bob Thornton’s performance in Sling Blade to be “tepid”. All I know is that he drinks moonshine for breakfast and literally put his head inside a pumpkin to bring us this killer post. And for that, I am exceptionally grateful.
Pumpkinhead (1988)
There’s a back-story to this movie that I’ve always found funny which I am going to share and hopefully you appreciate it. I’ve whined before about being an only child and sitting around moping and being depressed and such, but I did have one friend I more or less grew up with (even though I only saw him once a week or so). Anyway, we spent a lot of time at the movies as kids and by 1988 we were into our teens and going in separate directions in our lives. I was running off to chase chicks and drink beer and he was pursuing higher education. Anyway, this was the last movie we ever saw together and to this day, when and if we talk, we still argue over whether or not it was any good. I’ve always claimed I liked it and he thought it was total crap.
This movie stars Lance Henrickson, who is one of my favorites, as a hillbilly farmer type who runs a general store in the middle of nowhere with his heavily bespectacled kid. One day some punks from the big city roll into town and accidentally run over the child so Henrickson gets a witch to call up the monstrous Pumpkinhead and avenge his death. Blah, blah, blah kids get killed and Henrickson grows a conscience and eventually almost everyone’s dead. It’s your typical monster story with Monster Man Stan Winston directing and there’s really nothing too remarkable about it (think 80s hairdos, outfits and music).
Verdict: Stubby of Reschs
But it’s a fuckin’ masterpiece compared to:
Pumpkinhead 2: Blood Wings (1994)
WHAT IN THE WORLD WAS THIS??? Did anyone even read the script??? This was TERRIBLE. At one point the sheriff and the CSI lady go into some barn / post office where some bald, fat guy was murdered. Well wait, this is how it went. The night before, fat guy is bopping some blond. After he – uh – is finished he sends her out to the truck for some more beer. As he is pulling up his drawers, Pumpkinhead roars in and rips him to pieces. The next morning (somehow) the sheriff and the CSI lady get news that he’s been killed so they’re at the crime scene investigating when the blond comes running and screaming out of a closet. Being the badasses they are, the CSI lady pulls a syringe out of bucket and tranquilizes her. “What’s happened here?? What’s happened here??” Talk-screams the sheriff. “Can’t you see??” CSI lady responds. “She’s in a fright induced coma.” *CUE CLOSE-UP OF BLOND’S FACE* “It’s one step away from being…. scared to death.”
In the first one, Pumpkinhead was a malevolent demon thing hatched from the pumpkin patch. This time he’s something like the mutated monster of some deformed kid killed 40 years ago. And the monster goes around drawing “red wings” in blood on the walls of his victims… because the group of kids that killed him were in a clique at the local high school called “The Red Wings”…. but he would never have ever EVER known that since he was a deformed kid living in some run down dump eating slop out of a bowl like a dog. Oh, and Punky Brewster is in this.
I know I run the SHITFEST but I always do try and find some sort of merit in the things I watch but there’s not much to go on here. I suppose the practical creature effects were decent enough but the rest of this movie is awfully laughable.
Verdict: Schooner of Carlton Draught
Pumpkinhead: Ashes To Ashes (2006)
No matter how bad Number 2 was, this was measurably worse. I have to be honest and admit that, in order to get this done on time, I had to watch some sort of Nordic version of this on YouTube with Nordic subtitles and terrible English voiceovers (Christ you should search it out just to hear the treatment they give Doug Bradley’s voice). I also think this version is cropped for length. Either that or this is some of the shittiest editing I have ever seen. Either way, this is an awful movie and I’m not looking forward to number 4.
This time around, Pinhead Doug Bradley runs a funeral home, harvests live human organs to sell and dumps the bodies out in the swamp. Lance Henrickson (from the first) shows up as a ghost and a blond lady summons Pumpkinhead after Bradley “butchers her baby”. I could have missed something if this was cropped for run time but she didn’t seem to care about her missing baby until she sees its corpse. Huh? BLAH BLAH BLAH Pumpkinhead kills a bunch of redneck assholes… this movie was totally stupid. Oh yeah, there’s some pretty hilarious looking 2006 CGI in this too.
Verdict: Schooner of Tooheys New
Pumpkinhead: Blood Feud (2007)
BY GOD THIS WAS BAD. Filmed in Romania – using Romanian actors trying to pull off a deep south, American accent – boy – yeah, I uh,…. not good. I mean – it’s laugh out loud quality. And, Jeez, the acting is just pitiful. This was gory though – probably more bloody than all of the others put together but it was just awful. Thinking about it, the script could probably be done right – or better – if there was some money behind it but this end product is pitiful
In America there is an old folk story about two groups of families who have a “blood feud” for dozens of decades – the Hatfields and the McCoys. For some reason this version of Pumkinhead finds us dealing with those two families in modern day America. One of the Hatfields (I think) is in love with the McCoy daughter (a good looking English actress who really has a lot of trouble filtering out her accent). One night they are out by the wishing well making out when her McCoy brothers come out and accidentally kill the Hatfield sister. So, the Hatfield boy sets Pumpkinhead on them since nothing says I love you more than having a demon kill your entire family.
Verdict: Schooner of Carlton Draught
Well – that’s over with. Aside from the first one this franchise is pretty bad. It’s OK if you have nothing else too do but -…. THANKS TIM for having me over again!! These weren’t great movies but this was good fun!
Thanks so much to Mr Pictures Conclusions for taking part. Please head on over to Isaacs Picture Conclusions and get involved with some of the fantastic stuff he has going on over there.
Over this fortnight, you have the chance to win an as yet unconfirmed (but definitely choice) prize courtesy of Madman Entertainment, so be sure to get liking and commenting to go into the draw
A Fortnight of Terror: Long Weekend
Given the disappointment of not being able to catch Patrick (2013) during this terrifying fortnight, I thought I should check out a little classic Aussie horror action. Enter Long Weekend (1978).
I always try and keep expectations low when chucking a DVD on. But when the DVD in question has the tagline “their crime was against nature… nature found them guilty” it is quite hard to stop expectations from skyrocketing. Thankfully, Long Weekend more than lived up to the expectation created. The story focuses on Peter and Marcia who escape for a long weekend in the hope of repairing their relationship which has fallen on rocky times. The film begins by contrasting the urban and wilderness landscapes as the couple leaves the city for the weekend. Camping is in some way the intersection between those two worlds, a soft entry into the wild world, so it is notable that is what Peter and Marcia are doing. The fact they cannot leave their city slicker life behind and adjust to the wilderness leads them down some dark paths. Their mistreatment of the environment is an awesomely unsubtle allegory for the treatment of our world, one that still rings as true (truer) now as it did 30 years ago. This is a couple who think nothing of tossing cigarette butts out the window, littering, shooting animals for sport and chopping down trees simply because they have the power. They perpetrate wanton destruction as they focus on themselves and nothing else.
Much of this really fantastic film is not what you would call straight horror. One side of it is an intriguing psychological relationship drama full of secrets, hinted at deception and attempts at controlling behaviour. Then on the other side there are the creepy goings on, with animal attacks, spear guns firing seemingly of their own volition and so on. Both of these would make really taut and fun movies. But combine them, and you have something pretty special I think. The film looks really pretty. The cinematography is first class and the whole visual side of proceedings is helped no end by the fact that the action takes place in some pristine Australian wilderness. Long Weekend is also a delightfully Australian film. As well as looking real pretty, the location serves to create a whole lot of atmosphere. Forests that look stunning lit up in the daytime, take on a positively chilling air at night, lit only by headlights. Then there is the wildlife. Numerous birds, a tassie devil, kangaroos, even a fricking dugong make appearances. It says a lot about the quality of the film’s construction that all of these animals have a menacing presence, yet the film is not particularly over the top or camp. Topical and ahead of its time, this would be an ‘issues film’ if it was not so damn fun to watch.
Before checking it out, I had only ever heard Long Weekend hinted at. But I now consider it to be a bit of a minor Aussie classic. Do your best to track it down if you can (it is distributed on DVD by Umbrella here in Aus) and hopefully you will enjoy it as much as me. A film as atmospheric and taut as this, from a country that supposedly doesn’t make genre films, should be seen by plenty more people.
Verdict: Pint of Kilkenny
Over this fortnight, you have the chance to win an as yet unconfirmed (but definitely choice) prize courtesy of Madman Entertainment, so be sure to get liking and commenting to go into the draw.
Like what you read? Then please like Not Now I’m Drinking a Beer and Watching a Movie on facebook here and follow me on twitter @beer_movie.
A Fortnight of Terror: The Evil Dead
Sam Raimi’s The Evil Dead (1981) is one hell of a beloved horror flick. Judging from blogs I follow and other things I read, I would venture that it is probably more beloved than any other horror film ever made. Which makes me worry how many people will be a bit bummed with this review, cause I did not particularly like this film at all.
There is no doubt Raimi and friends did a pretty exceptional job on the production front. You can tell this film was made on the cheap, but that never stops the creativity shining through. The creativity does not always work, the whirling camera first person shots for example, but it is an aspect of the film that you have to respect. And perhaps watching this for the first time in 2013 means that I am not able to appreciate just how big a deal the film was when it hit. But other classic horror films, such as Halloween (1978) and Nightmare on Elm Street (1984) that I feared might have lost some of their impact when viewed for the first time in the 2010s, still worked exceptionally well for me. The set up is pretty archetypical cabin in the woods stuff. Think Cabin in the Woods (2012). One issue is that, unlike Whedon’s film and the best of the genre, I think this film skimps a lot on the establishment of the characters. For whatever reason the film is in too much of a rush and I think that hurts the film later on. For me to care about the characters being killed, I need to have gotten to know them or connect with them… or at the very least be slightly intrigued by them. But here I wasn’t, so I was not particularly fussed when they started to be knocked off. Even just establishing them as clichés would have increased the effectiveness of the film a great deal. I think this rushed beginning also means that the creepy isolated house in the woods atmosphere that the filmmakers were aiming for was not entirely there.
There are a couple of other key areas where The Evil Dead falls down for me. Firstly, aside from the easy charisma of Bruce Campbell, I thought the acting ranges from the pretty stilted to the pretty terrible overall. I don’t think that is helped by a script that I definitely consider to be pretty weak. Another aspect of the film that I think pales in comparison with classic slashers (I am thinking particularly of Halloween here) is the soundtrack. In films such as Carpenter’s, the soundtrack plays a major role in enhancing and elevating what is occurring onscreen and is a major player in the setting of tone and more importantly atmosphere of the experience. I found the sparse soundtrack here to be more annoying that anything else, failing to really add anything and actually reducing the tension at times. I am sounding pretty negative, but The Evil Dead is not without its upsides. There are a couple of quite cool ‘bump in the night’ moments and for a fair section of the middle part of the film, it is really quite frightening as well. But I think as the action really ramps up in the film’s final act, at times relying on some terrible effects shots, the really frightening impact is lost. I did really like some of the stuff with the Book of the Dead and the tape recording though, and thought that was much more atmospheric than what the rest of the film was able to achieve.
As a personal view, I found The Evil Dead to be dated, much more so than other classic horror films of its vintage. I thought the pacing and manner in which the film ‘builds’ (or doesn’t) meant it was a bit of a let down for me. A slasher/horror film does not need to have stunningly nuanced characters. But the undercooked teen characters onscreen here really let the rest of the film down. I know a bunch of you guys absolutely love this film. So let me know (civilly of course) in the comments below what I am missing with it.
Verdict: Schooner of Carlton Draught
Progress: 94/1001
Over this fortnight, you have the chance to win an as yet unconfirmed (but definitely choice) prize courtesy of Madman Entertainment, so be sure to get liking and commenting to go into the draw.
Like what you read? Then please like Not Now I’m Drinking a Beer and Watching a Movie on facebook here and follow me on twitter @beer_movie.
A Fortnight of Terror Guest Post: The Evil Dead vs The Thing
One thing I love about having theme weeks (or fortnights in this case) is that it gives me the chance to showcase voices other than mine on the site. Lucky for all of us, Chris from the fantastic Terry Malloy’s Pigeon Coop has joined in on the fun this time, with this comparison of two stone cold horror classics. Perfect timing too, as I will be reviewing one of these films myself tomorrow.
I first watched The Thing (1982) quite a few years ago. Since then I have watched the original Evil Dead (1981) for the first time and, having watched The Thing again, it shocked me just how similar the two are; sure, a lot of horror films stick by certain rules and display particular tropes, but the comparison between these two films seemed more similar than most others. The Evil Dead might be more supernatural horror compared to the alien/monster horror of The Thing, but the parallels are definitely there. Spoilers ahead, naturally…
Lead men
Both The Evil Dead and The Thing have pretty strong male leads who have become somewhat iconic in the horror genre. The Evil Dead has Ash, played by the legendary Bruce Campbell, who although doesn’t really stand out for the first third or so of the film, by the end is undoubtedly the hero of the group, stepping up to take care of business when needed. Campbell then become the central figure for both Evil Dead sequels, cementing his role as a cult figure.
The Thing has a similarly strong male lead in Kurt Russell’s Mac. Like Ash in The Evil Dead, Mac takes charge of the situation and has to do the unpleasant thing of putting people out of their misery. This is still one of Russell’s most iconic roles and arguably rivals Campbell’s Ash as one of the most recognisable leading men in horror films.
Isolated location
The Evil Dead’s fabled cabin in the woods is one of the most referenced and copied features of the film. It virtually invented the trope and it has rarely been used to such great effect. The cabin’s location is a forest in the Tennessee hills and, thanks to Sam Raimi’s direction, manages to create a simultaneous feeling of isolation and claustrophobia. It really feels like there is nothing for miles around, nowhere to escape from the evil forces within the cabin.
The Thing is set in the Antarctic at an American research station. Just like the cabin it feels truly isolated; there’s little to no chance anyone could escape without dying in some way, yet the inside of the research station feels scarily confined. The darkness of the Antarctic stretches on forever and the research station might as well be the last place left on Earth.
Mutant-like possession
Upon playing a recording of incantations from the book of the dead, the group start to become possessed by evil spirits. The result is almost mutant-like possession, grotesque and horrifying, exemplified by the budget make up and visual effects. This is ever so slightly comical but nonetheless disturbing.
The mutant possession in The Thing is on somewhat of a larger scale, with more obvious mutations, but it’s still a similar process. The alien parasite takes over each of its hosts one by one, turning each against the rest of the group. Again, some of the effects might seem comical to some, but the practical effects rather than CGI give it a more authentic feel.
They have to kill their own
As each of the cabin’s inhabitants becomes possessed by the evil force, Ash has no choice but to get his hands dirty and deal with those who were once his friends. He does so through pretty much any means possible, be it lopping them to bits with an axe or gouging their eyes out with his thumbs.
Likewise, in The Thing the group have no choice but to end their friends and colleagues once the alien parasite grabs hold of them. Their methods are equally brutal, often involving fire, which lead to some really rather gruesome deaths.
Someone’s held prisoner
One of the lasting images of The Evil Dead is of a possessed Cheryl (Ellen Sandweiss) locked in the cellar. This is similar to the previous point of the group having to kill their own in that they’re having to take drastic action against one of their friends. It’s an image so important to the film, that it’s also become one of the key images of the 2013 remake.
With The Thing, we also have someone kept prisoner in Blair (Wilford Brimley). He’s locked up by the others after being caught destroying equipment and killing the group’s sled dogs. Unlike The Evil Dead, this character is not kept captive after transforming, but it is Blair who becomes one of the most famous monsters in the film, another similarity to Sam Raimi’s film.
It was their own doing
As is the case with most horror films, most of the bad things that happen result from bad decisions made by the characters. In the case of The Evil Dead, the whole debacle could have been avoided if they had just left the Book of the Dead and the cassette recorder alone. hey could have avoided the whole sticky, blood-curdling situation. Although it probably wouldn’t have made a very compelling film that way.
The Antarctic researchers in The Thing aren’t quite as culpable as the idiots in the cabin, but it still could be classed as their own doing. They take in an infected dog into their research station, sling it in with the rest of the dogs where it transforms into one of the horrific creatures and attacks the rest of its canine buddies. Although they weren’t to know, it was the taking the dog with them that started it all. Arguable but I’m running with it.
Ambiguous-ish endings
If I haven’t spoilt the films enough for you already, then this is where I well and truly kill them off. With the ending of The Evil Dead, it appears that Ash has seen off the evil spirits by tossing the book on the fire. However, just before the credits role, we take the POV of something slaloming through the woods towards the cabin. Ash then turns around in horror as whatever it is, seems to attack him. Cut to black.
The ending of The Thing is similarly ambiguous. The last remaining monster has apparently been destroyed, along with much of the research station, and only Mac and Childs (Keith David) are left, sharing a bottle of scotch as they lie there with the camp burning around them. There is much debate as to whether the the Thing had indeed been eradicated, whether it was still alive somewhere, laying dormant or whether Mac or Childs were actually infected by it. We’re left to make up our own minds as to what the outcome is.
So there we have it: my comparison of The Evil Dead and The Thing. I might be reading far too much into their similarities, and feel free to tell me if you think I am. Also, if you can think of any other horror films that fit this structure, then let me know.
UK based Chris Thomson is the creator and writer of Terry Malloy’s Pigeon Coop. Be sure to visit his fantastic site and like his page on Facebook here to keep up with all his reviews.
Over this fortnight, you have the chance to win an as yet unconfirmed (but definitely choice) prize courtesy of Madman Entertainment, so be sure to get liking and commenting to go into the draw.
A Fortnight of Terror: All the Boys Love Mandy Lane
I thought I would throw a couple of live tweet reviews in this Fortnight of Terror to mix things up a bit. After The IPC suggested it would be “greatness” if I did a live tweet review of All The Boys Love Mandy Lane (2006), I thought that was a pretty good place to start. Here is how it turned out. Share your thoughts on the film in the comments section below.
Over this fortnight, you have the chance to win an as yet unconfirmed (but definitely choice) prize courtesy of Madman Entertainment, so be sure to get liking and commenting to go into the draw.
Like what you read? Then please like Not Now I’m Drinking a Beer and Watching a Movie on facebook here and follow me on twitter @beer_movie.
A Fortnight of Terror: Sixty Second Slashers
I recently stumbled across the Sixty Second Slashers Youtube account and have been having some fun checking out their work. So I thought I would share the love with you guys, thought some of you might get a kick out of it.
Many (but by no means all) great short films are just a single idea executed really well. Sixty Second Slashers takes that notion as far as it will go by delivering, you guessed it, slasher films that take place in a single minute. It is a great concept, to strip away all the artifice and just get these genre flicks right back to their core. I am not really sure who the folks behind the series of films are, but they really know their stuff cause the production values are pretty spot on.
Occasionally it does not entirely work. That is to be expected when you pin all your hopes on a single idea. When that one idea is not as sharp as it could be the film obviously suffers. There is a comedic slant to most of the films, which occasionally hits but definitely misses on occasions. But more often than not, these guys pull their concept off pretty well and there is some fun to be had watching these.
Enough of my rambling, here are my top three Sixty Second Slashers (there are currently 11 of these up on their Youtube account as well as a longer, The ABCs of Death 2 entry). Let me know what you think of these in the comments section below.
#3: Final Girl – This one actually manages to pack a fair bit of story into a very short package.
#2: Broken Fantasy – There is a cool tone to this one. It is light, but doesn’t feel the need to go OTT with the comedy.
#1: Back to the Post-Apocalypse – My favourite of the lot, and a good illustration of the power of a single good idea – in this case, a skype slasher.
Over this fortnight, you have the chance to win an as yet unconfirmed (but definitely choice) prize courtesy of Madman Entertainment, so be sure to get liking and commenting to go into the draw. Check out all the details here.
Like what you read? Then please like Not Now I’m Drinking a Beer and Watching a Movie on facebook here and follow me on twitter @beer_movie.
A Fortnight of Terror Guest Post: James Wan… Boo!
The first guest post for this week comes from Jon Fisher, a very good friend of mine. Here he turns his focus onto the fantastic young Australian horror director James Wan.
Horror has always enjoyed a love/hate relationship with movie audiences. Because of their cost-effectiveness and inbuilt audience (hardcore fans and teenagers), in any given year there’s guaranteed to be a dozen or more horror titles. Most of them are made on autopilot, with plots and characters cobbled together from any number of clichés. Some are more memorable, tapping into humans’ natural trepidation with things that fall into the Uncanny Valley – events or beings that confuse our brain as to whether or not danger is present or not. The most enjoyable and interesting horror films try to present the supernatural as living exclusively in the Uncanny Valley. Inanimate objects that appear to move of their own accord, malevolent demons that come from somewhere… else, with dubious motivations; bumps in the night, in short, spook the hell out of us.
In the era before movies (and certainly before the era of modern Western hyper-rationality), ghost stories were widely believed, and even specific locations avoided by communities because of the supernatural mischief-makers supposedly lurking within. (I once stayed in a country town in which seemingly all of the town’s 3,000-strong population would change their route to avoid walking past an old mansion in which they swear any entrant would receive what they called a ‘ghost-massage’).
Rationality, of course, ruins the fun. Every time any thinking person hears a so-called ‘expert’ in a horror movie babble on about the occult as if there was a body of empirical evidence to back up what they’re saying, the illusion is busted. Think of the ghost hunter in Paranormal Activity (2007), who floats in and out of the haunted house with the air of a prize-winning economist. The challenge of making a really good horror movie is to present material that is, innately, completely irrational, and yet still manage to convince audiences that it’s creepy.
The films of James Wan are informed by all of this – a deep familiarity with the Uncanny Valley, an appreciation for the schlock and inherent silliness of the horror genre, as well as an understanding that such subject material, if treated the right way, can engage audiences as well as creep them out. And that is, truly, what Wan’s films try to do – give us the creeps. It’s regrettable that his breakthrough hit Saw (2004) is seen as the film that ushered in the filthy torture-porn renaissance of the middle of last decade, because Saw relied far more on manipulation of the human psyche than on explicit torture.
After a dodgy middle period (including Dead Silence (2007) which bordered on self-parody), James Wan has been active again over the last two years, with Insidious (2011) and The Conjuring (2013) arriving in relatively quick succession. The films act as sort of companion pieces to each other. Both are about a young family moving into a classic haunted house, full of high-ceilinged bedrooms, secret passageways, ominous basements and an endless supply of nooks and crannies. Both movies linger ever-so-slightly on the ‘technical’ gibberish that surrounds ghost whispering and paranormal investigation (the sombre lectures given by Ed and Lorraine Warren in The Conjurer, the humorous squirting machine methodically employed by Leigh Whanell’s character in Insidious). The Conjuring even discloses to us, in the pre-credits, that it is ‘based on the true story’, although it’s not clear if it means that in a Coen Brothers Fargo sense or a Texas Chainsaw Massacre sense.
I’m not aware of whether James Wan believes in ghosts or if he just believes in ghost movies. Regardless, he approaches the material with a plethora of enthusiasm and verve. His manipulation of the Uncanny Valley is first-rate – the weird prologue of The Conjuring about a possessed doll; a game of ‘hide-and-clap’ in which a poltergeist decides to mess with the homeowner.
Occasionally Wan’s work is amusingly derivative (i.e. the toothless crone waiting on top of a dresser), other times it is outstandingly stylish – the final shot of The Conjuring, for instance, is tense, suspenseful, and beautifully timed. Much of the set-up of Insidious is artfully crafted. Sometimes, though, Wan almost ratchets the tension up too high; so high that the scene can’t be resolved satisfactorily. Take, for instance, the slow-burning scene in The Conjuring in which a child wakes up his sibling, insisting that something is standing next to the door. The scene builds and builds beautifully, but how does it end? With nothing more than the slam of a door.
Which highlights another issue with Wan’s films; the repetition. Maybe there just isn’t enough meat on the bones of his screenplays to warrant a two-hour feature. Wan injects both Insidious and The Conjurer with at least the semblance of an emotional arc, but usually the relationships between the characters are suggested rather than explored. We understand the sentiment in The Conjurer when Ed tells Lorraine he can’t let her join him in an exorcism because of the danger posed, but only in an abstract sense. Ditto the pain that Josh Lambert feels in Insidious about his family’s crumbling dynamics, so much so to the point he returns late at night just to avoid them.
In the midst of all that, there are sequences in Insidious and The Conjuring that work on their own terms so well. Are such moments worth the price of admission? Do our expectations of how much movies can achieve emotionally automatically lower simply because they belong to the genre of horror?
Viewers probably know if they are likely to enjoy a James Wan movie. Those who won’t find anything to enjoy in his work are probably the sort of person who hates any sort of horror film. But for those that are willing to suspend some disbelief, to give the material a chance and who have a relatively firm constitution, movies like Insidious and The Conjuring are a breath of fresh air compared to the dreck of horror movies normally shoved down the general public’s collective throat. All else aside, it is fair to state that if you are a squeamish person, James Wan makes movies that are likely to make you squeam.
Jon formerly wrote The Film Brief website and hosted a podcast of the same name (with me as his co-host). You can now find Jon’s latest work at Wide Angle Iris, a site he runs with the talented Rollie Schott. Be sure to check out their stuff over at that site.
Also don’t forget that over this fortnight, you have the chance to win an as yet unconfirmed (but definitely choice) prize courtesy of Madman Entertainment, so be sure to get liking and commenting to go into the draw. Check out all the details here.
A Fortnight of Terror Trailer for your Weekend: Patrick
In a strange way, I really wish that I was not sharing this trailer this week. Patrick, a remake of an Ozploitation classic from 1978 opened this week so I was going to check it out and review it. Inexplicably though, the film is not showing in any of Canberra’s cinemas. So I will have to make do with the trailer. The original is perhaps the most famous of the iconic range of classic Australian genre films made famous by the documentary Not Quite Hollywood, a film which got a lot of impetus from having a gushing Tarantino as one of the interview subjects.Ironically, that film did exceptionally well here, but audiences continually shun new and fantastic Aussie genre films.
The director of Not Quite Hollywood Mark Hartley is actually the director of this film in what I believe is his fiction debut. Sharni Vinson, who has burst on to the international scene this year with You’re Next is one of the stars, joined by some quality Aussie actors such as Rachel Griffiths and Damon Gameau. Overall I think the trailer looks promising and the film, whilst perhaps not doing anything too hugely innovative, should hopefully be a slice of genre fun. It looks decidedly atmospheric that’s for sure. Just a shame then that I will have to wait until I can catch it on blu-ray to confirm.
What do you dudes think of the trailer?
Over this fortnight, you have the chance to win an as yet unconfirmed (but definitely choice) prize courtesy of Madman Entertainment, so be sure to get liking and commenting to go into the draw. Check out all the details here.
Like what you read? Then please like Not Now I’m Drinking a Beer and Watching a Movie on facebook here and follow me on twitter @beer_movie.
Beermovie.net 