full review postponed

My apologies, everyone, for the delay in the update.  I was able to watch Dracula (1931) this morning, but shortly thereafter my day started getting busy.  The rest of the day turned out to be a little more hectic that I was expecting it to be, and this is the first chance that I have had to be online.  So, I'm pretty tired right now. And if I tried to write an actual review, it would probably come out something along the lines of "marhanfhgvb....Dracula...Lego-see...good....Dracooooola....Dra-cool, yo....bbahabnamfd."

I will try to post a full review tomorrow when I have gotten some sleep and am actually able to put together a coherent review.  Hopefully tomorrow won't be as hectic, and I'll actually be able to post the full review, as well as the review for tomorrow's movie.  But, so I will be able to say that I've held true to posting a daily review, here's a very brief review.  Dracula (1931) is a classic, and Bela Lugosi helps to set the precedent for Dracula being a refined and cultured monster.  The plot was a bit more developed, and there was better production quality, in Dracula than in Nosferatu.  But to me, Schreck's portrayal of Orlock is way creepier than Lugosi's portrayal of Dracula.  It's a classic, so of course it's going to be a "must see," but more so for historical value than for any sort of scare factor.  Can't decide if I would give it a 3/5, or a 3.5/5.

Ok, that's all I've got for tonight.  Hopefully I'll be able to get an actual full review posted tomorrow.  But if tomorrow turns out to be just as busy as today, I might have to settle for doing brief, mini-reviews the day of the movie...and then posting the full reviews as soon as I have the time to actually get them done.

-GR

Halloween movie month: Creature

Creature (2011)
Netflix, instant
Rating 1/5

Basic plot:  A group of friends taking a trip get lost in the backwoods of Louisiana and are attacked by a part-man/part-alligator creature.

There isn't really all that much to comment on, so I'm going to get right to the recommendation.  Pass.  This movie is pretty horrible.  And not in the "it's so bad it's good" sort of way.  This is just bad in the "it's so bad it's bad" sort of way.  It's not even bad in the "it was so bad that there is so much to talk about, as far as how bad it was."  It's just a bland and boring kind of bad - so bland that even trying to go into detail about what makes it bad is boring and bland.  Bad acting with bad accents. Bad sound mixing. Horrible stereotypes of "backwoods, ignorant, incestual, lunatic, religious folk."  There are absolutely no scares or startling moments.  There are several "twists," but they aren't surprising or shocking at all.  They try to play on the "it's over...or is it???" but they overdo it (as in repeating it a few times in a row) and it just becomes annoying.  The creature is lumbering apparently can only stand/look up if it is doing it very slowly - like the first time you see a monster in a movie, where it does the "slow reveal" to give the characters plenty of time to be horrified...but it does that every single time it stands up.  Honestly, I'm not really sure who the target audience for this movie is.  It's got too much gore and nudity (in the sense that it has any) to be family friendly, but it doesn't have enough to please those who are fans of that genre.  The production quality is too good to fall into the campy, B-movie genre, but the acting (and basically everything else) is too bad to be considered a good movie.

The only person who I think did a good job in the movie is Sid Haig's character.  But that might have been due mostly to the fact that he basically plays a cajun version of his character in House of 1000 Corpses, so the directing of him was probably something along the lines of "remember Captain Spaulding?  Be him, but without the clown make-up."  Pruitt Taylor Vince was also in this movie, and I'm normally a fan of his (for those of you unfamiliar with him, you might recognize him as Otis from The Walking Dead).  But his character was not only pointless, it also wasn't done very well.  This shows how important it is to have a good director at the helm.  Without a good director, even an actor like Pruitt Taylor Vince can give a bad performance.  A look at the director's (Fred Andrews) IMDB page gives some explanation as to why the production quality wasn't bad, but everything else fell short.  For those of you who don't like clicking on links, it's because he's a production designer.  Creature is the only thing he has to his credits as far as writing or directing.  Maybe if he's able to get some more experience, then he'll be able to make a movie that is actually worth watching.  But he's definitely not there yet.

Side note:  Not that I really expect any of you to actually watch this movie, but in case you do, SPOILER ALERT:  There's a reason that the poster has those four characters on it.  The creature, obviously, is because that's what the movie is about.  But as far as the three people, it's because they are the only three of the main characters that are introduced that actually survive (there is another character that "survives," but not in the same way she was at the beginning of the movie).


Be sure to check back tomorrow for the next review in Halloween movie month.

-GR

Halloween movie month: Dead Snow

Dead Snow (2009)
Netflix, instant
Rating:  3/5

Basic plot:  A group of friends vacation in a mountain cabin, where they encounter Nazi zombies.

 This Norwegian import follows the formula for your standard "cabin in the woods" horror film (not talking about the film Cabin in the Woods, but about that genre of horror films).  A group of college students (in this case, med students) go to the mountains for a ski trip, and stay in an isolated cabin where there is no cell phone reception.  Shortly after arriving at the cabin, a mysterious old stranger shows up out of nowhere and warns them of the evil lurking in the mountains.  Dead Snow not only follows the cabin horror genre, they also acknowledge the fact that they are following the formula.  Eight minutes into the movie, one of the characters asks as they are hiking up to the cabin, "how many movies start with a group of friends on a trip to a cabin with no cell phone signal?"  The self-referencing in horror movies has started to become so common, that it is almost a horror genre in and of itself.  Thankfully, there are only a couple of scenes where a character directly makes a horror movie formula reference - so this doesn't play up too much of the self-referencing.

Playing on the horror genre actually helped to make some of the early sequences even more suspenseful.  Since you know that the cabin horror genre frequently either has something jumping out of the dark, or being there when a character turns around, you know that is eventually going to happen.  And there are a few scenes where everything is quiet, it is almost pitch black, and you think to yourself "this is where a zombie is going to jump out."  So you prepare yourself.  You are on the edge of your seat.  The tension rises.  You know it's about to happen.  And then.....nothing.  This rise in tension, without the release of a scare factor, has you even more tense the next time a similar situation occurs.  I'm not going to say how many times that happens, or what is going on when the zombie finally jumps out though.  I don't want to spoil all the suspense.

The opening chase sequence is set to the tune "In the Hall of the Mountain King," and I really like that decision.  Not only do I love the song, but the crescendo and increasing speed of the song lends itself nicely to raising tension during a chase.  It helps that "In the Hall of the Mountain King" is Norwegian and is about monsters, and whatnot.  The rest of the music, I didn't enjoy as much.  I wish that all of the songs had been classical music - I think it would have worked very well.  As far as ambient music to set the tone, this film actually relies more on silence to set the tone.

Visually, it was pretty decent.  It wasn't a major blockbuster or anything, but the production quality was actually pretty good.  The effects were realistic enough, and the actors played the roles seriously enough, that it didn't have the "cheesy, B-movie" quality to it.  And honestly, when you read a description of a movie about Nazi zombies, you kind of expect it to be in the B-movie range.  The effects of the zombies weren't very zombie-ish, but I think that might have been intentional.  There were a few things about these zombies that strayed from your typical zombie, which makes me think that maybe they were supposed to be something else.  For starters, these "zombies" moved fast.  But, there have been other zombie movies that have had fast zombies...so that's not enough to think they're something different.  Beyond just being fast, these zombies have coordination.  They get into fights, like punching, rather than just grabbing/clawing/biting. Plus, these zombies bleed like they still have blood pumping through them, rather than just what is left over from when they died.  And at one point, you see the breath of one of the zombies in the cold.  It didn't look to me like it was just an oversight, or something that they couldn't edit out.  It looked to me like they were intentionally showing the zombie breathing.  There were a few other things that led me to believe that they aren't actually zombies, but I'll not spoil them...you'll know them when you see them.

Recommendation:  Overall, it was an enjoyable zombie flick.  Even though you basically know what is going to happen, there are some good moments of tension and actual suspense, aided by the use of silence and close ups (so you can't see if anything is coming).  As with most horror movies, the tension of waiting for something to attack is more suspenseful than when the zombies are actually attacking.  But after the zombies do start attacking, there is some pretty good action.  And I like the fact that these characters actually fight back, rather than just running and screaming the entire time.  It follows the basic formula for a cabin horror story, and it does it pretty well, but there isn't really anything about it that makes it stand out above the rest.  The fact that it is foreign, and that the zombies are Nazi zombies, helps to make it a little different - but not significantly so.  Although the actors do a good job, and play their roles seriously, the characters themselves aren't really all that developed.  So you don't really have a connection to any of the characters when any of them die.  Overall, it's done pretty well, and worth seeing.  But if you are sick of the "cabin in the woods" story line (again, the genre, not the actual Cabin in the Woods film), then you can skip this one.  There isn't anything about this movie that makes it amazing or a "must see," but there also isn't really anything that makes it horrible or a "must pass."

Side note:  There are several scenes where blood and/or dirt splatters on the camera.  Sometimes that works to help you feel more immersed in the world of the movie, and sometimes it just gets in the way.  And in this case, it didn't work.  It didn't really happen often enough to completely get in the way, but it definitely was unnecessary.


Be sure to check back tomorrow for the next review in Halloween movie month.

-GR

Halloween movie month: Creature from the Black Lagoon

Creature from the Black Lagoon (1954)
Netflix, instant
Rating:  3.5/5

Basic plot:  After finding a strange and unknown fossil in the Amazon, an archaeologist, a group of scientists, and their guide go on a search for the rest of the remains.  Their search leads them down river to a lagoon (the Black Lagoon) where they eventually discover that there is still a living form of this ancient creature (they never actually say if the creature had been around since pre-historic times, or if it's a descendant).

As with many movies in the 50s and 60s, there is a narrator setting the stage in the early acts of the film.  I have mixed feelings about narration in current movies, depending on how well it is done, but I generally like the narration in older movies.  Maybe it's because it brings about an inherent sense of nostalgia.  Or maybe it's because the narration in movies was basically the same type of narration that was used in documentaries of the day - which, in a way, makes the movie seem like a documentary and suggests that you should accept that what takes place really happened (or, at least, could conceivably happen).

This movie actually does a lot to suggest that the creature could conceivably exist.  For starters, the movie starts off by saying that God created the world, and then describes the millions of years of evolution that took place afterwards (and then explosions.  Lots of explosions).  So, whether you are religious, scientific, or both (or Michael Bay...cause of the 'splosions), this movie starts off with a viable explanation as to how there can be such strange and unknown creatures in the world.  There is also a conversation between two characters over whether or not they can believe the creature actually exists.  During that conversation, they discuss the lungfish (they explain that it is a creature that has basically remained unevolved for thousands of years), as well as how people believe it is possible for there to be life on other planets but they have a hard time believing in the unknown under the water on Earth.  And after watching River Monsters: with Jeremy Wade on Animal Planet, it's not that hard to believe that there are unknown creatures lurking in fresh waters.

I talked about the importance of music in my Nosferatu review, and the same holds true for Creature - the music plays a major role in helping to set the tone of the scene.  One of the reasons that the music is so vital in Creature from the Black Lagoon is that many of the scenes with the creature take place under water.  This was in the days before scuba masks that allowed people to talk to each other under water, so the music is the primary way of conveying the characters' emotions.

The look of the film isn't too bad either, but I think that a lot of that has to do with the film being in black and white.  When they are traveling on a boat, it's clear that the backdrop behind them is a video of scenery moving and not actually following a moving boat.  But it didn't look nearly as bad as some current movies that use a green screen to give the appearance of movement.  The creature effects weren't too bad either.  Nothing terribly amazing.  But, they did at least pay attention to enough detail to have air bubbles coming out of the gills rather than out of its nose/mouth.  Even though I didn't think that the effects looked too bad, I think that was due in large part to the overall picture quality and to it being in black and white.  For instance, the creature didn't look too bad because there were less details to focus on to notice whether or not it was bad.  Nowadays, everything is filmed and projected in much higher quality.  So when something doesn't look quite right, there is a much bigger discrepancy.

Recommendation:  It's a classic - everyone should see it.  As far as leading up to Halloween, it's worth seeing, but I wouldn't say that it's necessarily a "must see."  The scare factor of Creature from the Black Lagoon comes mostly from the fear of the unknown.  There is one scene in particular where Julie Adams's character is swimming in the lagoon and the creature swims up to her and touches her leg a few times before she swims back to the boat - playing on the fear that anyone who has ever swam in nature can tell you about...when something brushes against their leg and there is instant terror of "what was that??!!!??"  You might not have a fear of a part man, part fish, part reptile creature grabbing you when you are swimming - but there are certainly plenty of other deadly creatures that hide just below the surface of the water - and that scene reminds you of it.

Side note:  expect typical 50s movie stereotypes:  guys with dashing hair (even immediately after getting out of the water), damsels in distress (and the related sexual undertones of creatures capturing women.  After all, horror creatures need love too), etc.


Be sure to check back tomorrow for the next review in Halloween movie month.

-GR

Halloween movie month: Nosferatu

Nosferatu (1922)
Netflix instant
Rating:  4/5

Basic plot:  Loosely based on Bram Stoker's Dracula (though, having to change the names and some of the details for legal reasons), Nosferatu is about a vampire named Count Orlock that comes to a small German town, bringing death with him.  The standard cast of vampire characters are there:  the vampire, the protagonist, the protagonist's love (in this case, his wife), the vampire's servant, and the town mob.

Nosferatu, being made in the 1920s, is a silent film.  Being from an era of classic movies not only gives it some of its charm, but a lot of its creepy factor.  Without talking from the characters to tell the story, the entire story has to be driven by the musical score and the physical acting of the characters.  Music has always played a major role in films, and to this day helps to set the tone...especially in scary movies.  In silent films, the music not only helps to set the tone...it IS the tone.  Ok, so, that's an exaggeration.  But it definitely played a much bigger role back then.  So how was the music?  Pretty good, actually.  It's probably not a soundtrack that I would listen to just for the sake of listening to it.  And there aren't really any instantly noticeable songs (such as the themes to Godfather, Star Wars, or Superman, which are known to everyone - even people who have never seen those movies).  But there is no question about what tone is being conveyed in each scene.  And there are musical themes that you will pick up that belong to each main character.  There were a few times that the music reminded me of the theme from Halloween.  To me, this shows how the tones that helped to set the scenes in Nosferatu have persisted on into today's horror.

As far as the look of the film, there are some beautifully composed shots.  And some of the effects, which must have been groundbreaking at the time, still hold up for helping Orlock be super creepy.  Unfortunately, because the film is so old, the quality of the film has not fared well and there are several times that the color will change.  Most of the time, it's a standard sepia tone.  But on occasion will have tints of blue, green, or red.

Now, onto the physical acting.  For the most part, the acting was what you would expect from your average silent movie - big smiles and over-exaggerated movements.  Except for Orlock (played by Max Schreck).  Schreck's blank expressions, unwavering stares, and cold, deliberate movements are such a stark contrast that it really helps to set him apart.  While there wasn't much "startle" factor, there were a few scenes that are downright creepy! There are rumors surrounding the movie (rumors that served as the basis of the movie Shadow of the Vampire) that Schreck himself was an actual vampire.  And with how well he played Count Orlock, I can certainly see why those rumors were started.

Recommendation:  This is definitely a must see!  Whether you are a fan of horror movies, or just a fan of movies in general, you owe it to yourself to see this classic.  There was no blood, so this certainly isn't going to be the goriest movie of the month.  And there weren't really any startling moments of loud noises as things jump out of the shadows or of closets, so this isn't going to be the scariest movie of the month either.  But Nosferatu was able to be creepy from just the music and the performance of one character (seriously, Schreck nailed that role).  It was creepy in the same way that reading a book can sometimes be scarier than watching a movie, because your imagination fills in some of the missing pieces.

On a side note:  From a film-lover's view, this film seemed to have such an impact on many other movies that I loved that were a bit creepy.  Most notably, the music at times reminded me of Halloween, and the look of Count Orlock reminded me of The Strangers from Dark City (see below) and the vampires from 30 Days of Night.

Nosferatu - doorway scene

Dark City - doorway scene

Be sure to check back tomorrow for the next review in Halloween movie month (if you have any suggestions for a catchy name for this month of reviews, feel free to send them my way).

-GR