Movie news on your iPhone today!
Advertisement
Sign in
Username   Password         Forgot password?
Wanna join? Sign up
Find movies you'll love

TheWorkingDead Blog

  • Slither: Close But No Cigar

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Slither  (2006)

    2 Weeks? Has it really been more than 2 weeks since my last blog post? Of course, I'm being facetious; no one is more aware of how long it's been since my last post than me. It bothers me daily that I haven't updated this thing, and I wish I had a good excuse for my absence. I haven't been too busy at work, I haven't been ill, depressed, or otherwise preoccupied in a way that would interrupt my writing habits, I just haven't been able to write anything. It may be due to the movie I've been attempting to write about; Slither. It's not that I don't have things to say about this film, I do. And it's not that I haven't tried, I have. I've tried almost daily to write about this film, and then my interest just shuts off and I can't continue. It's probably due to the fact that I'm a bit disappointed with this film, and I wish I could give a good reason as to why. My friend Karena(shout out to my homie in lock up, can I get a what what) suggested that I might actually be growing out of my love for silly, cheesy horror films. I can assure you this is categorically false, because silly, cheesy horror movies are something that I enjoy on a regular basis. Just, not really this one. Bear with me as I try to discover why that is.

    As a concept, the 2006 horror movie Slither has a slightly convoluted genesis. It draws it's inspiration from the nastiness, craziness, and yes, fun of splatter flicks from the 80s, which themselves drew much of their inspiration of sci-fi/horror flicks from he 50's and early 60's. Go back and take a look, and you'll see that films like Night of the Creeps, Re-Animator and The Evil Dead seem to have much more in common with 50's horror films(with their exaggerated dialog and over the top dramatic punctuations) than they do with the much more recent and obvious progenitors like Texas Chainsaw Massacre and the burgeoning slasher genre. And to give it credit, Slither realizes this debt, and pays homage to it by setting the proceedings in an anachronistically quaint Midwestern town that could have been stuck in a time warp the past 5 decades.

    That's one of the things that Slither got right, and to give credit where credit is due, a lot of this film is a pretty spot-on homage, hitting most of the marks it aims for. The dialog is more in-line with the current Hollywood vogue for realism, but reaches some nice melodramatic highs("it's a conscious disease!") that recall some great B-Movies, and the score in particular is a great throwback. However, it doesn't quite hit the bulls eye on everything, when all is said and done. I think it has something to do with writer/director James Gunn's background as a writer/star/producer/slave for Troma studios. If you haven't seen a Troma film, well, I can't truly say whether you're lucky or culturally deprived. I myself have a fondness for The Toxic Avenger, but I can't really call any of their films good in a traditional sense. The films are pretty much typified by a 'throw it at a wall, see if it sticks' attitude, veering wildly from joke to joke, gore scene to gore scene in an attempt to offend as many people as possible, with little attention paid to things like plot, acting, or style. And I really do enjoy that sometimes, but for the most part I like things a little more... cohesive in my movies.

    To be honest, I wasn't too thrilled with this film in theatres, and re-watching it last week only slightly raised my opinion. I still don't consider it to be a great film, but I was able to appreciate the ride a bit more the second time around. I'm still somewhat at a loss as to exactly why I don't really like this movie, especially since it seems perfect for me. I love this type of movie, and I'm always game for a good monster flick. Too much of today's horror is preoccupied with bland slasher films or knock offs of Asian flicks, so it's refreshing when someone does an honest-to-goodness monster movie. Still, this movie doesn't quite cut it with me, which is a bit of a mystery, since the film seems to do pretty much what it set out to do, and it is fairly enjoyable. I even tried watching the commentary in an attempt to determine what was lacking in the film.

    The film throws a liberal amount of comedy into the proceedings, which, by and large, are fairly grim. In this aspect it attempts to be more American Werewolf in London than Scary Movie. The problem is, the non-comedic bits are highly disturbing, making the mix a little uneasy. Take the scene where the recently infected-by-alien-slugs Grant Grant impregnates Brenda, a realistically pitiful, white trash, stay-at-home mom. Brenda's depiction, the fact that it happens in front of her baby, and the overall atmosphere of this scene, draw the disturbing elements out of the field of horror and into the realm of drama. That's not always a bad thing, but it is upsetting to see such a graphic rape scene treated so lightly. But is that enough to make me dislike the entire movie? It's certainly not as upsetting as any of David Cronenberg's films, and I'm a huge fan of most of those.

    The main similarity here would be the uncomfortable sexually deviant undertones(and, often, overtones) prevalent in Cronenberg's horror films, most importantly(for our purposes), Shivers. The sexuality and overall unease in that film are light years beyond anything in Slither, so that alone can't be the reason I don't like it. But then again, James Gunn is no David Cronenberg. Cronenberg is pretty much a genius when it comes to how sex is dealt with in his films, making the sexuality such an integral part of the story that it doesn't seem exploitative even in it's most explicit forms. Take A History of Violence, the sex scenes of which leave quite an impression in a very explicit, non-Hollywood way. However, these scenes aren't just fitting, but crucial; they provide a telling glimpse into the inner lives of these two people, and how they've changed throughout the movie. But I digress, we're talking about Slither here, and contrasted with the example I just gave, Slither comes off as crass and a bit unsure of itself. Comedy, horror or drama? James Gunn had the same problem with his remake of Dawn of the Dead(he wrote, but didn't direct). In the middle of an otherwise solid zombie film, there's a scene with a woman giving birth to a baby that may or may not be alive. It's a pretty distressing scene, and fairly effective, until it's ruined by a cheap joke that MAY have been more easily digestible had it not looked so cheesy. This serves as another example of not knowing how to meld tones.

    Coming after what I've just explained, the following complaint is going to seem very hypocritical; I don't think Slither goes far enough. The level Slither is trying to reach is a very sick, disgusting, and outrageous one. And I will admit that there's some pretty enjoyably nauseating stuff in there, but when you compare it to Society, Re-Animator, or any of the other splatter films this one tries to evoke, Slither comes off as the most hardcore PG-13 horror movie ever. It feels too slick in it's presentation(however uneven the tone), it doesn't capture the insanity inherent in most of the films it emulates. Slither feels a bit reigned in, as if Mr. Gunn, outside of the protective umbrella afforded by Troma, didn't trust the audience to go along with whatever sick thought entered his mind.

    I guess my complaints are a bit vague, and seem a bit unformed to my own eyes, and I suppose I could spend another two weeks trying to pin this down, but really, who cares? In the end my main problem with this movie is probably one I try to avoid; that of expectations. I always try to enter the theatre fresh; I may hype a movie up before I see it, but once those lights go down I'm ready for whatever the filmmaker chooses to throw at me. In this case I guess I couldn't avoid it. It's a genre I love, from a filmmaker who's work showed promise, and the film was promising to go all out in it's attempts to disgust and amuse you, but in the end it was unfortunately middle of the road. I can't say this is a bad movie, and by all means you should go and check it out, it's worth it, but it's not something I think will find a lasting place in my collection.

  • Dead Heat

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Dead Heat  (1988)

    Zombies make everything better. I think I've said this before. Several times. But they do, usually. As crappy as a movie is, zombies would instantly make it better. That's not to say there aren't shitty zombie movies. There are. But with very few exceptions(Tombs of the Blind Dead 1&2, Zombie Lake) I've enjoyed them immensely on one level or another. Even Hell of the Living Dead, which is widely regarded one of the worst zombie movies ever, still fills me with glee when I recall some of it's absurdly silly scenes of zombie gore. Yes, zombies make even the worst movie tolerable. So it is with Dead Heat, which may not qualify as one of the worst movies ever, but it's certainly not one of the pinnacles of quality cinema. Not that a movie needs to be in order to be a success.

    Dead Heat came out in 1988, and is a prime example of that decade's genre film making. It's a decade that usually gets written off for it's cheesy fashions and synth-laden pop music, it's neon-colors and valley girl lingo, but the 80's is a goldmine of forgotten cinematic treasure. I'm not saying that horror cinema has died, or that the quality has gone down since the 80s, but certainly the level of inventiveness isn't there in the mainstream film making anymore. They Live? Big Trouble In Little China? Buckaroo Bonzai? Can you imagine these films getting a green light today? Dead Heat lives up to this tradition in spirit, at least, with a Frankenstein's script cobbled together out of a variety of genres; The buddy-cop-action-comedy-zombie movie.

    Treat Williams And Joe Piscopo play two mismatched cops/best friends. The generic odd-couple of action movies. Treat Williams plays the by-the-book suit wearing cop with a car no honest policemen could afford, and Joe Piscopo basically plays Joe Piscopo. Slovenly, prone to violence, and not really as funny as he thinks he is. I've never seen the appeal of Joe Piscopo as a comedic talent, other than his ridiculously muscular arms. He always comes across as that loud uncle who probably drinks too much and has appointed himself the family fool. These two are investigating a series of high profile 'smash and grab' robberies that seem to be committed by one gang of individuals. After pumping an insane amount of lead into two of these gang members, and finally having to off them with a grenade and a moving car, they are told by the coroner that the two men had been dead much longer than they know to be true.

    Following the trail of these two men leads them to a pharmaceutical company that seems a bit shady. And rightfully so; during this visit Treat Williams and Joe Piscopo are attacked by a hideously deformed giant of a man, and Treat Williams is killed. That's not as much of a spoiler as you might think; Treat Williams' character is named 'Roger Mortis'. What does the distraught Joe Piscopo do? Well, he finds a machine that can reanimate dead tissue, and sticks his friend into it, who comes out good as new. Almost. The process is still imperfect, and he has only 12 hours to solve his own murder before Roger's tissue degenerates into a puddle of steaming bile. Speaking of which, some note should be paid to the effects in this movie, which are better than you would expect from a movie of this perceived quality. The effects were done by, among others, Nick Benson, who had a whole string of great work in movies of varying quality in the late 80s, including the Blob remake, Tremors, Bride of Re-Animator, and one of the most disgusting movies you've never seen; Society. The highlight set piece is set in a Chinese butcher shop where all of the dead animals on display are reanimated. It's delightfully queasy, and you'll be laughing at the silliness of it while holding back disgust at how gross it all looks.

    So, the big question; Does the movie work? As a buddy-cop movie? No, not really, even if the chemistry between the two leads seems more genuine than other, more standard buddy-cop films. As a zombie movie? Well, as has been evidenced I'm very lenient in how I judge a good zombie film. Certainly this isn't your typical zombie film, since the reanimated dead keep much, if not all, of their intelligence and personality, and there's no flesh eating at all. The biggest mistake this movie makes is criminally underusing Vincent Price in a role he could have slept through, and, at times, that's just what he appears to be doing.
    So, maybe this doesn't work as a zombie film per se, but I'd still say it works. The film is goofy, and I wouldn't rank it nearly as high as An American Werewolf in London or the Evil Dead movies when it comes to horror comedies, but it's overall pretty damn fun.

  • Renny Harlin's Crimes Against Humanity, Casefile #1: Mindhunters

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Mindhunters  (2005)

    [Spoiler warning! I normally try to avoid giving away too much information about a movie, but this weeks "film", Mindhunters, requires I spend a bit of time going into detail about the ending. If your at all interested in this movie, and want to be surprised by the climax, I advise you to skip this entire post. Actually, I'd advise you to skip this movie altogether.] 


    Those of you who are regular readers of this blog(I'm sure those people exist) may remember during my post on Nightmare on Elm Street that I expressed distaste for Finnish filmmaker Renny Harlin. His films usually start out promisingly enough, but devolve continuously until they resemble made-for-basic-cable cheapies and sub-Bruckheimer action drivel. I'm maybe being too harsh on the man, and somewhere in his oeuvre he may have a few good films, but everything I've seen leads me to believe that isn't the case. The one film of his I do actively enjoy, Nightmare 4, is still only the 4th or 5th best in the series. All of his films have a generally sound idea. Not genius or inspired, but certainly the groundwork for a fun, pulpy good time. Long Kiss Goodnight? Perfect opportunity for some hard-boiled nasty fun, is instead a fairly by-the-book action movie with most, if not all, entertainment coming from Samuel L. Jackson.

    It's pretty much the same story for Mindhunters, but minus the Samuel Jackson. So logically, minus the entertainment. Like The Matrix without the special effects, or a root canal without the Novocaine. Mindhunters is one of the most offensively brainless movies I've seen in the past few years. To be fair, though, my movie watching has decreased markedly since having a child 3 years ago, so there are probably a few more brainless movies out there. Case in point; I haven't seen a single Uwe Boll movement. I mean movie.

    Mindhunters started out promisingly, with another great, pulpy concept involving a group of FBI profilers on an island for a training mission running into a serial killer who is profiling them. And, for the first part of the film I let my inhibitions go and just went with the film, even once the incredibly ludicrous killings started. There was some poor, post-silence of the lambs back story for the heroine, and a bit of angsty character development for everyone, but I ignored it for the most part. The thing is, the film didn't really capitalize on any of it's potential, and never improved after the opening, rather it coasted slowly down to earth, sinking a little lower with each minute.

    Realism isn't necessarily something you expect from a movie of this nature, but in the age of crime procedurals and CSI franchises, audiences are a little more sophisticated and require some more convincing explanation when it comes to the science of murder. This may not technically be the fault of the filmmakers, since this one was filmed back in 2002, back in the days of only one CSI, and they maybe thought they could get away with flubbing some of it.

    One thing that isn't forgivable, however, is the twist ending to the film, which soured my entire tolerance of the preceding hour and a half. It's actually something that bothers me a lot these days; the twist ending. Why does every film feel it needs a dramatic reversal of expectations in the last 5 minutes to leave an impact? I blame the 90s boom of Seven, Fight Club and the 6th Sense. It's not enough to tell a good story, now the filmmaker has to try and fool the audience. When this works, it's usually because the clues are laid out through the film, so that once you've seen the ending, it seems obvious in retrospect. When it fails, it's because the ending comes out of nowhere and feels like the filmmakers have been basically playing an extended practical joke on you. Can you guess which one Mindhunters falls into?

    I expected a surprise reveal of the villain, and I'm happy to say that it originally wasn't who I thought it would be. I say originally, because 5 minutes after revealing the villain, and having him kill a character and speechify about how and why he did it, they pull a switcheroo and reveal that he WASN'T the killer, and the guy you kinda expected all along was actually the one who did it. Now, this man may not have actually killed anyone(turns out it was all a big switcheroo by the real killer), but he still stalks and brutally beats our heroine before the reveal that he wasn't the serial killer. And then he saves her from the real killer, and all is forgiven. In fact, it isn't mentioned again as they ride off into the sunrise together in that vaguely romantic way that all male/female action movies end. BUT HE ACTUALLY ADMITS TO THE CRIMES!!! He has a big speech giving away his entire motive and everything!

    The only thing I can think of is that Renny Harlin directed several different endings to try and keep the real identity of the killer a secret, and forgot to take one of them out.

 

Like what you're reading?

Subscribe
Search
  Go

Browse previous
<August 2007>
SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
2930311234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
2627282930311
2345678


Categories
 


Advertisement