Change Your Image
lunalelle
Reviews
The Haunting in Connecticut (2009)
Conventional but character-driven
"Haunting in Connecticut" is a conventional haunting movie. No doubt it has cinematic ties to "The Amityville Horror," which I haven't seen yet (bad horror fan, bad). But over the last few years, I have seen several conventional horror films, and so much about them has been sub-par that it was a pleasure to walk into a conventional haunting movie and not feel like I was somehow let down.
In particular, the acting seems to suffer tremendously in conventional horror films, but "Haunting in Conn." had three solid main actors who carried the movie.
Virginia Madsen, who has horror cult ties through her work in "Candyman," is not one of those shrill, stupid mothers that one might see in a PG-13 horror about a family being attacked. She plays her part with sincerity and strength, as an actor and a person. At every point of the movie, it is hard to tell whether she is even acting, and that's the mark of quality right there. And honey, she's still got it. That kind of it.
Kyle Gallner plays Matt, the teenager sick with terminal cancer. You may know his face from a number of guest starring roles in television shows. I know he's made an appearance in just about all the shows I've been watching lately. He's commonly typecast as the troubled teen, and that's because he's damn good at it. Like Madsen, Gallner never forces the acting. You don't feel like slapping him upside the head and telling him to grow up like you sometimes want to do to teen actors doing the troubled teen riff. Gallner doesn't do emo. He's just troubled. Because, dude, he has terminal cancer. And you believe him completely. He doesn't have to do much besides be in pain and get haunted, but he does it well.
Elias Koteas is the reverend who bonds with Matt during an experimental cancer treatment that they are both undergoing. Koteas himself is a fine actor, and like Madsen, he underacts just enough to make everything he says and does meaningful but not forced. And he just has one of those faces. The kind that doesn't impress, but you also never quite forget. His role as a reverend seems only like the clothes he wears, just a part of him rather than being the whole of his life, which is the mistake that some movies make when they want to bring in religion.
"Haunting in Conn." is character-driven, which so few conventional horror pieces fail to do. Are there violins screaming for cheap scares? Those funky strobe lighting effects borrowed from Asian horror? Shadow people? Yes, there are all of these things. And to the conventional horror movie's credit, I actually screamed a little at one point and winced at another, and I wasn't the only one in the theater who did. If you're like me and you love all kinds of horror, and not like me in that you don't actually get caught up in those cheap scares, there are still people that you actually care about and a story to follow.
I've said it before, but I love a horror story that works on two levels: the first level is the conventional horror level, and the second is a commentary on real life. In the case of "Haunting in Conn.," the second level is the young boy battling terminal cancer. Now, I've only gotten smatterings of rumors about what happened during the actual haunting in Connecticut on which the movie is based. I understand that the boy actually had terminal cancer, and there was some speculation during that time that all the things he saw were simply vivid hallucinations brought on by his cancer or his treatment. The first half of the movie did not discount that possibility, and for that, I deeply respect the scriptwriters and director. The terrible realization of mortality, of that fine line between life and death
that's what made the first half of the movie draw me in. It's why the story worked - there was all that time devoted to the character, to contemplation.
The second half is where things began to unravel a bit as it delved exclusively into the supernatural without enough explanation or build-up on that side of the scale. But it was not nearly as bad as it could have been under someone else's direction or other actors. I know that I still had a lot of questions after the movie about the necromancer Aickman and his assistant, the medium Jonah. Was Jonah a willing medium, or was he forced into the business? How much did he willingly participate in Aickman's necromancing? Why was Aickman necromancing in the first place, since he seemed as frightened of the dead himself? Lots of questions from the nineteenth century side of the story and not nearly enough explanation - maybe fifteen minutes more of the movie might have helped.
The religion actually did not strike me as an unnecessary or intrusive part of the movie. The religious aspects of "Haunting in Conn." were very small and subtle - it was personal among the characters rather than being a force on its own. When Madsen concludes the movie with something like "They say God works in mysterious ways. They don't know just how mysterious," I don't feel like it is the final say on the matter. I did not feel that the themes were thrown in my face. It was very much how religion seems to act in real life, and I appreciated that.
So, in summary: "The Haunting in Connecticut" is certainly conventional as far as horror goes, but as a character-driven movie delivered by solid actors, it is still a pleasure to watch for those who love horror for the sake of horror.
I Am Legend (2007)
See it for the first 3/4 of the movie
Basically, I think I agree with a lot of people on this. I loved most of the movie. I reminded me of 28 Days Later without riding its back. From the beginning to the dog's death (which wrenched a few tears from my mother and me), the movie was taut, raw, and believable. It was when Anna came into the scene and started talking about God and his plan that I felt the movie lost its impetus. The entire movie was going down a pretty straight road (no, I'm not trying to emulate Emma Thompson's explanation of her 'vaccine,' although I suppose it's apt that my metaphor resembles it), and then suddenly near the end it twists to the side and you wonder where the ending came from because that didn't seem to be the direction you were originally going.
I'm not talking about predictability and I'm not talking about convention. I'm talking about a story arc that reaches a satisfying conclusion. Movies (and other forms of literature) resemble real life, but we all know that movies can't completely mirror real life. Whereas life is a series of overlapping waves, movies need to have a connected arc. There was no theme through the greater part of the movie that lead to the end, and in my opinion (although I may be biased), Robert made a pretty compelling argument against Anna's God. Anna's sole purpose seemed to be to bring God into the situation without any other precedent in the movie. Suddenly, all these butterflies come along when the only connection that I could remember was from his daughter. And that's all. It was not significant enough to draw upon for a climax. I am Legend wasn't Signs. At the end, I only had the sensation of being force-fed a theme that the rest of the movie did not support. The butterflies at the end struck me as a fantastic coincidence and not the Fate Given By God that the director intended. I walked away unsatisfied.
Halloween (2007)
A different movie from the original, but still respectful
The original -Halloween-, in spite of the general love for it in the slasher/horror community, didn't really pique my interest. I liked it better the second time I saw it, but it was still kind of meh for me. A lot of build up for a climax that ultimately fell short. It's partially my villain preferences. A faceless, characterless villain, a shell of a person, does not interest me. There's no fear when there is nothing there. Things are scarier when there's no discernible motivation sometimes, but when there's no character, where's even the interest in motivation? The real attraction to the original -Halloween- was the oddity that it didn't have all that much blood. It worked on suspense alone, and a bloodless follow-through. Well, Zombie's -Halloween- is a bloodbath, but in my opinion, it's a sensitive bloodbath. Rather a strange way to say it, I know.
In Zombie's version, the creepiness of the mask is the same, but we're given a look behind the mask. Michael Myers is just as much of a monster, just as much of a psychopath, but there's a human there, too. It doesn't make him sympathetic, but it does give him a motivation. In my opinion, that makes him an even better villain. There's a whole back story for why he goes after Laurie - not because she reminds him of his sister that he killed, but because she's the sister he let live to make his perfect family. It shows a piece of him that might have saved him, maybe, but when Laurie shows that she's not beyond trying to defend herself by killing him, he does go into his psychopathic killing mode with her, too. Again, there's sympathy, but he's not sympathetic.
There were a lot of tit and sex shots - no complaints here - but in my opinion, there was just a touch too much screaming. Even if it seems right for real life to have that much screaming, it can become grating and irritating when used in a film. That sounds kind of callous, but then again, I know the difference between fiction and reality. :) Oh, and there's Brad Dourif. That's all that really needs saying. Brad Dourif. I've never seen him in a character I didn't like.
In my opinion, it was a better remake than I think anyone expected, especially since it seemed that Zombie held great respect for the original. It also seemed that maybe Zombie had the same issues with Michael as a villain in the original as I did, because he gave me exactly what I needed.
The Phantom of the Opera (1989)
An adequate version of PotO
I'm a fan of the Phantom of the Opera story, from Leroux's actual book to Webber's musical and its later movie manifestation to Maury Yeston's American musical, although I've yet to see the Chaney version.
I must say that after reading some people's reviews, I was pleasantly surprised by the movie. I love Robert Englund, whether he's playing a villain or not, and while there were shades of Freddy (Krueger is such a notorious character, Englund will always be remembered only for him), I can tell Englund wasn't being Freddy at all. Freddy was a caricature, larger than life, fast and slick. Englund as Erik gives him a chance to play more to the camera than for scares. There was depth to Erik, although I blame a slasher script for not letting Englund go even further in depth.
I have a special place in my heart for the slasher films of the eighties, and this brought the plebeian level of the slasher films to a slightly more artistic level. It was not just a slasher film, but also a Victorian era Gothic. The combination was oddly compelling, following the spirit of the PotO story, if not Leroux's actual vision.
Englund stole the show, really. Christine Day was okay - Schoelen is a charismatic actress, but she doesn't really seem to be acting properly. Her style better befits a stage than it does a film.
In order to really enjoy the movie, you have to understand the genre. This is not Webber's version or Yeston's version. This isn't simply Gothic. This is meant to bring Leroux's story from Gothic into horror. Whether or not the decision was sacrilegious is another question altogether, but as a genre film, I quite enjoyed it. As an Englund film, I quite enjoyed it. As a good, artistic film, not a chance. But it never attempted to win an Oscar - it just wants to be violent fun. And it is.
My advice to those considering the movie, approach it with an understanding of what it is trying to be. Don't expect it to be a non-musical version of Webber's.
Silent Hill (2006)
An excellent transition to a horror film
****SPOILERS**** Upon hearing that Silent Hill was a movie from a video game, I was a bit nervous, particularly because I was coming to it with high hopes - I wouldn't go to the opening afternoon of a horror film unless I had high hopes.
However, I walked away quite pleased with the outcome - if I hadn't known that this was a video game, I would have never guessed, although I noticed a few video game elements while watching, such as the burning babies at the beginning and the running through the halls.
Radha Mitchell and Laurie Holden did excellently - their terror never reached a shrill pitch that some screaming horror films can become. Under the circumstances, they remained remarkably held together with appropriate moments of just giving into emotions that were never unbelievable. Jodelle Ferland was surprising good - I can only imagine what it takes for a girl her age to be a demon. I was worried that Sean Bean's character would be lost, but they integrated him very well, and I didn't feel like he was extraneous to the plot.
I was pleasantly surprised by the graphics as well as the actors who played most of the creepy people - I was tense the whole way through. It engages me and terrified me without sending me under my seat, and although it played on music sometimes, I never felt it was only the music that made it frightening. There were a few questionable additions to the film that never were explained to my satisfaction, such as the origin of the executioner creature and the bugs. The rest, such as the fire alarm, the burning babies (I loved the inclusion of "Ring of Fire" following that...), the walking creature on the street, the nurses, and the burned Alessa all were suitably creepy and pertinent. The barbed wire bit at the end was easily the most gory scene I've ever watched and was really the only part that made me cringe, but somehow, it seemed... right.
Perhaps it is just me, but the ending did not give me a sense of closure. For me, closure does not have to be a period. However, I feel unsatisfied when it's a question mark. I don't understand how the end happens, not even a suggestion of it. So... maybe when the DVD comes out, the ending will make more sense.