Author Archives: Keith Garlington

“The Descent” – 4 STARS

by

30

When it comes to horror movies, we’ve seen it all. Whether it be haunted houses, possessions, zombies, vampires – Hollywood has explored them all in a variety of different ways. I think that’s one reason “The Descent” works so well. This is a fresh and original horror movie concept that also has its share on genuine scares. Writer and director Neil Marshall brushes with several unique strokes in crafting a film that bucks many of the genre’s trends while never running away from what makes the genre great. “The Descent” is a fairly simple piece of survival horror but don’t let the straightforward narrative fool you. It’s also a gruesome edge-of-your-seat nail-biter that will remind you of just how entertaining a well conceived horror movie can be.

One of Marshall’s touches that I really liked was his decision to make this a predominantly female story. It couldn’t have played out any better. Its been a year since Sarah (Shauna Macdonald) lost her husband and daughter in a tragic car accident. Five of her adventurous friends plan a caving trip that they hope will help Sarah who is still struggling with her loss. There’s a fun and playful dynamic established between the girls and we get a brief introduction to each of them during their overnight stay in some mountain cabins. Juno (Natalie Mendoza) is the ring leader who organized the entire outing. Early the next morning she leads the girls out to a remote cave entrance and they begin their adventure. As they make their way deeper into the caves, Sarah is nearly killed during a cave-in that blocks their way out. It’s here that Juno reveals that she has taken them to a set of caves not recognized in the guide book and that no one knows where they are. Alone and scared, the group sets out to try to find a way out.

The movie does a fantastic job of making the cave the women’s first big enemy. They’re forced to manuever tiny crawlspaces, deep chasms, and jagged ledges all hidden in the pitch-black darkness. Marshall’s camera puts the audience in the same dark and claustrophobic conditions as the characters. He also masterfully manipulates light and sound to give the caves a greater sense of danger. The women use helmet-mounted lights, flares, and light sticks which offer the only illumination amid the darkness and clouds of dust. He also heavily uses sound to help create a tenser ambiance. There are the cavernous echos, the clanging metal of the climbing gear, crumbling rock, and water drips. This is perfectly realized and intense environment really drew me in.

But the cave isn’t the only enemy. As they are forced deeper underground, they cross paths with a pack of vicious and carnivorous creatures. This is where “The Descent” moves from suspenseful survival to full-blown horror and let me say that it’s mighty effective. It’s basically a “lets see who makes it out alive” story but it’s hard not to be hooked. The intensity really amps up and the scares are authentic. I rarely jump even while watching my favorite horror movies. But “The Descent” got me on several occasions and not with the cheap, conventional tricks that we see so often. The creatures are frightening and when you throw them into the already established dark and creepy environment, you have a wonderful horror mixture.

“The Descent” is a fine horror movie but it isn’t perfect. While I was able to stay interested in the six main characters, I couldn’t help but want a little more character development before diving straight into the caves. The performances are solid and the characters are interesting. But it felt as if there was information left out that would have given the women and their relationships more depth. In fact, there are hints at an underlying tension between Sarah and Juno prior to their adventure (and I’ll leave it at that) but we only get small tastes of that. I would have liked to see more. And then there are some head-scratching questions that the story doesn’t seem to anticipate. One thing we see after the creatures make their appearance are bones, lots and lots of bones. Some are from animals but there are tons of human bones. I couldn’t help but wonder how that hundreds of people could have been killed in that area and it not be noticed? Wouldn’t it be well-known that people were disappearing in that neck of the woods?

While those negatives did stand out to me, they certainly didn’t ruin the movie. “The Descent” was a welcomed change from the traditional horror film formula. It incorporates several familiar techniques that we’ve seen in everything from psychological to slasher horror. But they’re used in a unique and fresh environment and I was hooked from the moment they entered the cave. This isn’t a movie for the faint at heart. Things get pretty gory as we get further into the picture. But for old-school horror fans, it’s a perfect fit and when you toss in some genuine scares and a superb cast you have a nicely packaged modern horror film.

5 Phenomenally Goofy Horror Movie Villains

by

17

It’s the Halloween season so this is the second Phenomenal 5 that’s about the scares. But lets start the week on a lighter note. We all know the Jasons and the Freddys of the genre. We are all familiar with Dracula, Frankenstein, and the Mummy. These horror movie villains have made names for themselves and to some degree or another gained large followings. But not every horror movie terror is all that frightening. In fact, there have been many that are just plain goofy and that’s where this list comes in. We’re looking at five of the silliest, goofiest horror villains to ever grace the movies. There are so many to choose from therefore I wouldn’t call this the definitive list. But I think we can agree that these are five phenomenally goofy horror Movie villains.

#5 – THE GREEN GOBLIN SEMI-TRUCK (“Maximum Overdrive”)

“Maximum Overdrive” was an odd horror movie about machines coming to life after a comet passes by the earth. Makes a lot of sense, doesn’t it? The machines, ranging from vending machines to automobiles, begin attacking people. At a North Carolina truck stop Emilio Estevez and a handful of survivors are trapped inside as a number of “living” semi-trucks continue to circle the building. What’s even goofier is that they have a leader – a menacing black semi with a huge Green Goblin face mounted on its front. There’s a big final battle between the human survivors and the trucks (no, I’m not kidding) which is almost as absurd as the concept behind the movie. But ultimately it comes down to stopping the green-faced 18-wheeled evil. This film was based on a Stephen King short story and it marked King’s one and only foray into directing. I think it’s easy to see why.

#4 – KILLER CLOWNS (“Killer Klowns from Outer Space”)

Yes, this is a movie that’s just goofy as it’s title. Now to be fair, “Killer Klowns from Outer Space” knows it’s idiotic and it does have a little fun with it. But it’s still a horror picture with antagonists that fit perfectly on this list. Do you need proof? Ok, how about this – an army of “Klowns” land on Earth in their circus tent-shaped space ship and begin killing the residents of a California town. We find out these Klowns (and yes they are actually clowns) are here to harvest us as a food source. But the town fights back and soon find the Klowns have one big weakness. Remember how zombies die with a bullet to the head? Well Killer Klowns can be killed by taking out their bright shiny noses. Shoot them in the nose and watch them spin like a top before blowing up into pieces. But it’s not a simple thing to do. They’re armed with everything from deadly ray guns to lethal balloon animals and acid pies. Now do you question their inclusion on this list? I thought not.

#3 – CHUCKY (The “Child’s Play” Series)

I still find it amazing that Chucky has made five movies and there’s still another one in the works. In case you don’t know, Chucky is a children’s doll possessed by a serial killer. Sounds like a completely rational idea for a horror villain, doesn’t it? Yet regardless of how preposterous it may sound, Chucky gained a strong cult following that resulted in several sequels. This foul-mouthed, murderous, red-haired doll kills indiscriminately and learns to enjoy his new “body”. He’s a tough cookie too. Chucky has been shot, burned, melted, blown up, decapitated, and cut into a million pieces. But despite all of the attempts he keeps coming back. And life has been good for Chucky. He’s met a female doll and married her. He’s even a proud father. Ok, I feel idiotic even typing that. It’s hard to believe that a corny concept like a killer “My Buddy” doll could have had such success. But if you doubt me, just keep your eyes open. It sounds like he’s coming back to theaters yet again.

#2 – KILLER TOMATOES (“Attack of the Killer Tomatoes”)

It’s obvious that the creators of the 1978 horror film “Attack of the Killer Tomatoes” intended to inject a lot of humor into their movie. I mean how could they avoid it with a title like this? If you think about it, how many ways can a tomato actually kill you? But don’t underestimate the proficiency of these vine-ripe terrors. The have many plump and juicy methods including devouring their prey and drowning their victims in tomato juice. Pretty scary stuff, huh? But like every ominous threat, these killers have a weakness. Their kryptonite isn’t a sharp knife or boiling water. No, it’s the song “Puberty Love”. Whenever they hear it they begin to shrink and are easily squashed. There have been three other “Killer Tomato” sequels but none have reached the B-movie cult status as the original. And let’s be honest, are there any other horror villains quite like them?

#1 – ZOMBIE ENTRAILS (“Dead Alive”)

If you haven’t seen Peter Jackson’s earlier film “Dead Alive” you’re probably trying to grasp the idea of zombie entrails. But yet it’s exactly what you think. “Dead Alive” is a nutty, off-the-wall gorefest that soaks the audience in blood and laughs. It takes the zombie and splatter films to new heights and I promise you it’s like nothing you’ve seen before. It all starts when nerdy Stewart’s mother is bitten by a Sumatran Rat-Monkey that’s carrying a disease. It ends up turning her into a zombie and you know that there can never be just one. Soon things get way out of hand highlighted by zombified entrails that attack our hero Stewart. The entrails chase him, throw him, and strangle him and it takes his greatest innovation to survive. Sounds terrorizing doesn’t it? This film has been called by some the goriest movie of all time. It’s also very funny and how can you argue with the horror of zombie entrails?

There you have them – the goofiest of the horror villains. I can think of several others that could grace this list but I think these have earned their spots. So how about your choices? Who would you include on this goofy list?

“Silent House” – 3 STARS

by

4

“Silent House” is a challenging horror thriller. It isn’t challenging in terms of thematic meaning, narrative structure, or emotional punch. No, the challenge is in sticking with “Silent House” through its occasional lulls in order to appreciate what the filmmakers are trying to do. The movie was co-directed by Chris Kentis and Laura Lau. You may remember them from the 2003 psychological horror flick “Open Water”. With this film they go in an entirely different direction and they succeed even though they hit a few speed bumps along the way.

Narratively speaking “Simple House” is pretty simple stuff. In fact, the finished script was only 55 pages and there was concern as to whether or not they had the material for a full movie. They ended up with a compact 87 minute movie but it took some stretching to get that. On the other hand, they employed a clever technique to try to give the movie the illusion of being one long continuous take. Obviously that would’ve been impossible to do yet amazingly they did the entire film in twelve takes. It’s an interesting visual approach and I was surprised at just how well it worked.

“Silent House” has a whopping cast of four (Not counting the two brief visions that we see later in the film). Rising film star Elizabeth Olsen plays Sarah, a young woman who comes to help her father and uncle fix up an old Victorian home in order to resell it. The house is a wreck and the filmmakers take advantage of the poor condition to give us the perfect horror movie atmosphere. For example, all the windows were busted out by a group of mischievous kids so it’s completely boarded up. And there’s no electricity because of rats chewing through the wiring. Dark and closed off – sounds like the perfect horror movie house, doesn’t it?

Sarah’s uncle takes a break and heads into town after a spat with her father. That’s when she starts hearing strange noises upstairs. She convinces her unconcerned father to check it out. With lanterns in hand they search each upstairs room but find nothing. A short time later Sarah hears the sound of her father falling down. It’s here that we get the first of several scenes of Sarah moving room to room in the darkness. The long, fluid, continuous take does create a good sense of tension. But they go to this a few too many times and the sequences can feel long and drawn out. After a search she finds her father knocked out with a severe head wound and quickly realizes that they aren’t alone in the house. This sets up the questions that drive the rest of the movie.

Olsen continues to impress as a young actress. This performance is more about emotion, expression, and body language and the camera never leaves her through the entire film. In perfect Scream Queen fashion she sells her terror through tears, tremors, and some intense close-up shots. It’s really quite convincing. Even when the material drags, it’s fun watching Olsen handle her character and the situation that she’s in. In fact, the entire movie hinges on Olson’s performance. If she doesn’t convince us and persuade us to care about her and her predicament the movie falls apart. Add the difficulty of working in long takes and you can’t help but be impressed with what Olsen’s doing here.

Like many of these films today, “Silent House” tries to throw you a curveball later in the movie. While it’s not completely satisfying it does work reasonably well even though it’s nothing that will catch you completely off guard. Yet, as a whole, this was a movie that I appreciated more after watching it. I did occasionally feel bogged down watching Olsen deliberately creep throughout the house in the darkness. But there were also moments where I was completely wrapped up in the intensity of the scenes. I remember one instance of being so focused on the screen that I jumped out of my chair when my phone vibrated next to me. That’s good stuff.

“Silent House” isn’t a movie that will redefine the horror or psychological thriller genres. In fact, it’s a movie that probably won’t stay with you very long after you see. But I don’t want to overlook or downplay what the film does well. The filmmakers actually pull off their ambitious visual style of storytelling and I can appreciate the work that went into it. Plus we get to enjoy Elizabeth Olsen giving another strong performance. But more importantly the movie works – granted, in a minimal way – but it works.

REVIEW : “Cloud Atlas”

by

26

“Cloud Atlas” has already stirred up quite a discussion between moviegoers. It’s safe to say the film has earned its fair share of fans. But it’s also true that it has its share of detractors. To be honest I can see where people could either love it or hate it. It’s a highly ambitious picture that pulls off an incredibly clever storytelling technique. But it could also be viewed as a three-hour grind that features many of the Wachowski’s familiar self-indulgences. So how was it for me, a groundbreaking cinematic accomplishment or an epic sized disaster? Well neither, But I did find it a chore to sit through despite the things it does right.

It’s practically impossible to give any kind of brief synopsis of the plot of “Cloud Atlas”. It’s basically six individual stories that take place at different points in time. The first story is set in the 1800s and follows a young lawyer handling business for his father on a voyage across the Pacific. The second story takes place in England during the 1930s as a young unfulfilled composer is hired to help an older accomplished composer create his music. The third story is set in the 1970s as an investigative reporter finds herself in danger after uncovering a nuclear energy conspiracy. The fourth story, set in 2012, follows a writer and publisher who finds himself in debt and in deep with some local mobsters. The fifth story jumps to a futuristic high-tech Seoul, Korea where a clone is believed to hold the keys to the future. The final story leaps further into the future where mankind is left to live in a barbaric caveman-like world.

Now there’s a process to watching “Cloud Atlas”. First the audience must adjust to the fractured form of storytelling. The Wachowski’s and co-writer and co-director Tom Tykwer don’t tell the six stories separately. Instead, the movie jumps from one story to another requiring the audience to keep up. For this to work, we first have to get to know the characters. For the most part the introductions work pretty well although I did struggle to connect with some of them. Once the characters and their stories are laid out then the audience can sit back and watch things unfold. This is when the movie was most effective. In fact, I found myself completely absorbed in what I was seeing during the middle of the film. Then the audience has to piece each of the stories together, some through more obvious and straightforward connections and others through more cryptic and allegorical meanings. This is another place where I felt the film really stumbled.

I want to start with the positives. The storytelling technique employed in “Cloud Atlas” could have potentially been a disaster. Earlier I used the word ambitious and for good reason. Taking pieces of six individual stories, breaking them up, and interweaving them together while maintaining a good strong narrative is an incredible challenge. I was blown away with how well it was done in this movie. We seamlessly move back and forth from story to story and the filmmakers are able to keep total control of the narrative. Even later when the transitions seem to come quicker and quicker, the broader story never loses its sense of cohesion. It’s intelligently crafted and executed and it serves as a great reminder of the power of cinematic storytelling.

There are also some amazing special effects and spectacular cinematography. The overall visual presentation of “Cloud Atlas” gives it a true epic motion picture feel and it beautifully captures the various time periods that it dabbles in. I loved the period-perfect look of the 1800s as well as the futuristic landscapes and technologies from the later period. Every place we visit in time looks and feels perfect. It also helps to have such a superb cast involved. The movie is loaded with strong performances from actors and actresses playing multiple roles. Tom Hanks, Halle Berry, Jim Broadbent, Hugo Weaving, Susan Sarandon, Keith David, Hugh Grant, Bae Doona, and Jim Sturgess all do great work in bringing this complex story to life. Each play a variety of different characters in the different storylines often in heavy prosthetics and sometimes in full drag. This is a good lead-in to some of my questions and concerns about “Cloud Atlas”. I’m not certain why it was necessary to have these actors play multiple roles. I’m assuming the filmmakers felt it added a sense of connection between the stories. Or maybe there was another underlying intention that I just don’t care to figure out. Regardless, do we really need to see Hugo Weaving dressed up as a husky female nurse?

Then there is the issue with how some of the individual stories end. There are a couple that I found quite satisfying. But then there are those that feel a little too tidy and borderline conventional as well as one that’s just flat-out silly. Also I never felt as though I made the full connections between some of the storylines. The movie simply doesn’t tie them together sufficiently. Now to be fair, a movie like this almost begs to be viewed a second time. I’m certain there are little nuggets of information that I missed. But the problem is that I’m not sure I want to tackle it again and that’s in large part due to the sometimes laborious 3-hour running time. Now I don’t mind long movies, but there were stretches in “Cloud Atlas”, particularly in the first and third acts, where the film seemed to be spinning its wheels. This isn’t unusual for the Wachowskis and I had a similar problem with their Matrix series. Much like those movies, this film at times feel bloated and self-indulgent. I also found the social commentary to be obvious and heavy-handed. Even in the instances where the message is good, they sometimes come across as blatant and contrived. Now to be perfectly honest, I’m not at all familiar with the source material, but I can’t imagine it being as glaringly in-your-face as the film can sometimes be.

“Cloud Atlas” is a difficult movie to process. It can sometimes be exhilarating cinema and at other times a frustrating chore. From a technical standpoint the film is astonishing. Both the visuals and sound design are phenomenal and the ability to capture the uniqueness of each time period is quite amazing. Even more impressive is the artistry involved in the unconventional storytelling method. There’s a crisp lyrical harmony to how we’re moved back and forth from one story to the next. Unfortunately there are a host of other problems, including those mentioned above, that keeps “Cloud Atlas” from being a really good film. But I haven’t asked the bigger question surrounding this movie. What’s it really about? Is it above love conquering all? Is it about choices and the blessings or consequences that follow them. Is it about a deep interconnection that all mankind share? I’m not sure, but in the end “Cloud Atlas” is a relatively small movie hidden underneath its lavish ambition and grandeur. It’s an exercise in style over substance that has enough flaws and misguided conceits to overshadow the things it does really well. That’s a shame.

VERDICT – 2.5 STARS

The Keith & the Movies Valhalla Induction – “NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD”

by

2

The Keith & the Movies Valhalla is a place of tribute for those movies that I hold in the highest regard. These are films that embody everything that is great about motion pictures. These are the best of the best – movies that I truly love and that stand above the rest. There are many great movies that won’t find their way into these sacred halls. But here you will find those films that I believe personify brilliance in filmmaking, storytelling, and entertainment. These glorious 5 star accomplishments are worthy of special recognition as the very best. In other words, these are my favorite movies of all time.

______________________________________________________________________________

NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD (1969) – Few movies can say they forever changed a genre. George Romero’s zombie classic “Night of the Living Dead” is one of those films. Made with a miniscule budget and essentially a no-name cast, Romero managed to craft an exceptional horror film that still maintains it’s creepiness today. It develops an eerie atmosphere and tone thanks to the wonderful original black and white, the clever use of moody music and sound, and other chilling little details sprinkled throughout the film. It’s also credited with making zombies the craze they are today. This is a movie I love and for me it’s the greatest horror movie of all time.

Night of the Living Dead is the second inductee into the Keith & the Movies Valhalla. But there are more amazing movies to come in the near future so stay tuned. What are your thoughts on this horror movie classic? Is it worth the cult status it’s received or is it an overrated picture? You now know my opinion. It’s one of the very best. Take time to share your comments below.

REVIEW: “28 Weeks Later”

by

10

As the title obviously suggests, “28 Weeks Later” is the sequel to Danny Boyle’s widely successful zombie flick “28 Days Later”. Juan Carlos Fresnadillo takes over the directing reins and goes to great lengths to capture the same frantic style and pacing that helped make the first movie so unique. Mission accomplished! “28 Weeks Later” does something few sequels are able to do. It gives us a better film than its predecessor. Make no mistake, I really liked “28 Days Later”. But for me it lost its way in the third act which ultimately hurt the film a bit. The sequel steers clear of that and the result is a terrifying action horror movie that is relentlessly brutal but thoroughly entertaining.

I’m sure you remember the premise of the first film. A radical animal rights group storms a laboratory in England and inadvertently unleash a highly contagious Rage virus. 28 days later London and the surrounding areas are abandoned with the exception of Rage-infected people running the streets. That brings us to the sequel where many things have happened in the 28 days since the outbreak. The infected are believed to have died of starvation. A U.S. led NATO force has come in, quarantined an area, and created a safe zone for resettlement. It’s here that Don (Robert Carlyle) is reunited with his daughter Tammy (Imogen Poots) and young son Andy (Mackintosh Muggleton).

“28 Weeks Later” is smart with its storytelling. The movie opens up with a brief but brilliantly horrific scene that shows Don narrowly escaping a raging group of infected. But in order to escape Don makes a highly questionable decision and I found myself quick to judge him for it. But in a very subtle way the movie asks the audience what they would do in that situation. And of course the question grows more complicated when we learn there are children involved. The film forces several of its characters to make important yet difficult choices. Jeremy Renner plays Sgt. Doyle, an Army Sniper forced to choose between his superior’s orders and his moral convictions. Idris Elba plays General Stone that has to make a choice that will either save or end hundreds of innocent lives. Harold Perrineau plays a helicopter pilot called on to make some critical decisions by his best friend Doyle. It’s a movie of tough choices.

But c’mon, this is a zombie horror movie so you know things go bad at some point. I don’t want to give anything away but the Rage virus gets loose in the safe zone in a very surprising way. Just as in the first film, the infected are brutally vicious and ravenous. They’re genuinely frightening as they relentlessly pursue their potential meals. They run at breakneck speeds, burst through windows and doors, and spew gallons of infectious blood. They are pretty grisly sights and Fresnadillo doesn’t shy away from the gore. The infected transformation scenes are gruesome and the various zombie head shots, decapitations, and torchings aren’t for the faint of heart. Yet the graphic effects feel right at home here.

“28 Weeks Later” doesn’t stop to smell the roses. The story moves at a frantic pace with tension and intensity playing bigger roles than genuine horror movie scares. But the entire concept is laid out so well that there are moments that are utterly frightening. This is helped by some deeply committed performances. Renner is really good and convincing as is Elba. I was also impressed by the performances of Muggleton and Poots as the two kids who play a major role in the story. I also have to mention Rose Byrne’s solid work as a military doctor who makes saving the kids her top priority.

I expected “28 Weeks Later” to basically be exactly like the first film and that’s not a bad thing. But I certainly didn’t expect it to be a better movie that grabbed me early and kept me on the edge of my seat all the way to it’s fantastic final shot. Fresnadillo perfectly matches the style and tone of Danny Boyle’s first film while also making this movie his own. It’s much more straightforward but equally intelligent. “28 Weeks Later” is a wild ride and as far as horror movies go this one was right up my alley.

VERDICT – 4 STARS