Halloween Movie Month: Re-Animator

Re-Animator (1985)
unrated
Netflix instant

Re-Animator is about a medical student, Herbert West (played by Jeffrey Combs) who is fascinated (if not obsessed) with finding the scientific answer to re-animating dead tissue.  West believes that he has found the correct formula for a serum to bring the dead back to life, but there are still a few kinks to work out.

I hate to admit it, but this is the first time that I have ever seen Re-Animator.  Aside from knowing that it is a cult classic, the setting, tone, acting, etc. have a cult-classic feel right from the beginning.  It does not take long for there to be gore, mad scientists, and exploding body parts.  While the effects and acting were pretty cheesy, there is just something about movies from the 70s and 80s that feel so much more real.  Maybe "real" isn't the best word...but, at least more genuine.  Even when doing a schlocky comedy horror, the actors still portray the roles with conviction.

Re-Animator is one of those movies that knows the horror tropes, when to use them, when to give a new take on them, and how to do them appropriately.  For example, most horror movies have the "here kitty, kitty" bit where there is a strange noise and the characters go out in search of the source of the noise, hoping that it was just a cat in the alley.  In Re-Animator, there is still a "here kitty, kitty" scene, but it is when they are actually looking for the cat because they realize that they have not heard from it in a while.  It's just a nice little twist that a lack of noise is what prompted the scene, rather than a startling noise.

Another thing that I love about this movie is that it is a horror comedy that actually gets the horror aspect and the comedy aspects right.  The music, though repetitive, does well at setting the appropriately creepy mood.  There are plenty of gory, gruesome, creepy scenes.  But, amidst those scenes, there is very dry humor.  The humor is done well in that it gets me to laugh (at the very least, chuckle) without completely breaking away from the scene.  Too many horror comedies make the mistake of either focusing too much on one aspect while the other withers, or having the horror and comedy completely separate from each other.

The plot is not really anything new - bringing back the dead and the search for immortality.  While the general plot might be familiar, it is done very well and I actually care about the characters.  Also, the two main characters are actually complex.  Rather than just being straightforward "good guys," they each have their flaws and their moments of compassion.  This movie has a similar type of fright as a classic sci-fi mad scientist, but with the "horror" factor of mortality and what it means to actually be alive.  I especially appreciated the way in which people who were brought back from the dead were presented as being more animalistic monsters.  Is this because there is no soul to keep things in check?  Is it just the reanimation of the biological drives?  Or would bringing someone back from the dead bring their soul back too?  While watching Re-Animator, I found myself thinking about what it is to be human and what it means to be truly alive.  I pondered why the search for immortality leads to so many problems.  While it might not have necessarily been the intention of the movie bring up these questions, I think that there is great potential for very interesting conversations brought up by the movie (but outside of just talking about the film).

Rating and Recommendation:  4/5.  I absolutely loved this movie!!  I am not necessarily saying that the quality of the movie is better than other movies that I have seen, but I am saying that Re-Animator delivered in pretty much all of the ways that I wanted it to.  It is exactly what a cult classic should be!  It had its shortcomings, but overall it was incredibly enjoyable to watch.  This one is absolutely a must see!  It is currently available on Netflix instant, but I enjoyed it enough that I will still probably buy a copy to add to my personal library.  It should be noted that there is gore, swearing, nudity, and plenty of other things that make this movie exceedingly not suitable for kids.


Be sure to check back soon for more reviews in Halloween Movie Month!  In the meantime, leave comments on this (or any other) review, follow me here and on twitter (@GargyleReviews), and let me know what movies you'd like for me to review for Halloween Movie Month!



- The Gargyle

Halloween Movie Month: Frogs

Frogs (1972)
PG

Frogs is about a freelance photographer (Sam Elliot) doing a photojournalism piece on pollution of a lake.  In the middle of the lake is the island estate of a disabled millionaire, who cares little for nature and is the source of most of the pollution.  In the days leading up to the millionaire's birthday celebration, the animals start taking revenge for the destruction of nature.

Aside from the overwhelmingly blunt message of "if you pollute, you are evil!!", this movie actually had a decent amount of heart.  Maybe it's because it was a small cast and just about everyone (except for Sam Elliot) was family.  Since it takes place in the day leading up to the millionaire's birthday, you get to see some of the family interactions, allowing for more of an opportunity to sympathize with (or just despise) them.

Even though seeing the family in a variety of situations allows you to form a closer connection with them, that also works against the movie.  I get that the family is using too much pesticides and has been killing too many animals (some through dumping of chemicals and some through hunting for sport), but the family is never really shown as being quite evil enough.  Things are shown too quickly, in terms of the actual plot of the animals taking revenge.  Rather than actually showing the family do some of the terrible things, the audience is just told about them.  The only reason that the audience knows that these people are the antagonists is because we are told that they have been too bad to the environment.  While most of the family "deserves" what they have coming to them (again, based primarily on the audience being told that the family deserves it, rather than showing their more heinous acts), there is one old woman who does not seem like she is doing any damage other than just enjoying catching butterflies - and she has probably the most torturous death of the entire movie.

While the family is an ambiguous and underdeveloped antagonist (yes, even though the millionaire grandfather is the primary antagonist, the entire family has played some part in the destruction of the environment), Sam Elliot is very clearly the protagonist and I think that he is a major factor in giving the movie heart.  Sam Elliot (probably most notably known for his role as Virgil Earp in Tombstone, though he has an extensive resume) plays the same good-hearted cowboy (though, this time without the hat) that he plays so well.  He was one of my favorite things about the movie and his acting kept the movie from straying too far into the horribly cheesy territory.  My biggest complaint about his performance is that he did not have a mustache.  This is the first time that I have ever seen him without a mustache, and it was weird.

Rating and Recommendation:  2/5.  Frogs was fairly standard cult, B-movie fare.  There was some good:  some things about it were endearingly tropey and/or cheesy, Sam Elliot proves that his cool, collected, cowboy persona were cultivated at an early age, and there is a message with heart (that is overwhelmingly hitting you over the head).  There was some bad:  we are told how we are supposed to feel about the characters rather than being shown actual evidence, too much footage is used setting the physical setting rather than the emotional tone, and even though the movie is called frogs, they are never actually shown doing any of the killing.  But there wasn't anything especially amazing about the good that makes it a must see, nor was there anything especially terrible that makes it an instant pass.  It was enjoyable enough and I would be willing to watch it again, but I also won't lose sleep at night if I was told that I would never be able to see it again.  If someone took the time to re-edit the movie and cut out a lot of the pointless B-roll of frogs and only show scenes that actually show us anything about the characters, I think that it would actually make a pretty interesting and enjoyable episode of something like Twilight Zone or Outer Limits.  But, as it is, Frogs falls short and lands itself in "pass" territory.


Be sure to check back soon for more reviews in Halloween Movie Month!  In the meantime, leave comments on this (or any other) review, follow me here and on twitter (@GargyleReviews), and let me know what movies you'd like for me to review for Halloween Movie Month!



- The Gargyle