Tuesday, July 13, 2010

Scream to Scream, Scene by Scene: SCENE 7 of Scream (0:21:14-0:29:49)

In this project I attempt to review the entire Scream trilogy scene by scene in chronological order. Heavy spoilers and gore throughout!


SCENE 7
Length: 8mins 35secs
Primary Characters: Sidney Prescott, Ghostface and Billy Loomis
Pop Culture References:
  • Tom Cruise and All the Right Moves (Tatum suggests watching it)


As someone who has watched this movie more times that he can count, I find myself always noticing little things that amuse me. I always forget about this moment in which Sidney steps off the school bus and heads towards her house with Sidney's enthusiastic friend waving at her and screaming "CYA SIDNEY!" and what does Sidney do? She doesn't even acknowledge her. Oh Sidney, you really are a bit of a bitch, aren't you?

By the way, I always seem to remember there NOT being a girl on the bus. Is it possible that they digitally added in a girl for the DVD? I distinctly remember chuckling many years ago when Sidney's invisible friend would talk to her and yet the proof is right there. It confuses me.


Gah! I want to live here.

One thing that disappoints me about this scene - and there's really not much of anything that does - is that they show so much of the house, both exterior and interior, and yet the chase sequence utilises so little of it. There's an entire patio there and so many rooms and corridors inside and yet it's only a one-way chase.

"...it's like deja vu all over again!"

Yes Sidney, that's what deja vu means. Something happening again. Unless you've already experienced deja vu and now you're experienced the deja vu again. Wow. Complicated. Let's move on!

I do like that they made Neve Campbell wear rather plain clothes. Ya know, the sorta clothes you wear when you're just hanging out at home by yourself and not, like, some $300 top from a trip to LA or something.


Aah, the blessed fake scare! At least a cat didn't jump out. One thing I like though is that whenever opens a door or, basically, does anything that you expect the killer to pop out from is is actually just setting the scene for when something does happen. Such is the case here when you expect the killer to be inside only to find nothing and then later when Ghostface does lunge out later in this scene or in Scream 2 when CiCi (Sarah Michelle Gellar) opens one door and we expect to see the killer only to have him/her/it jump out from a different one.


EXPOSITION ALERT!!!

Gale Weathers is, without a doubt, my favourite character from the entire Scream trilogy and I love how this very brief moment with her sets up this mysterious case between the two. The look of Sidney's face says there is a history between the two, but we still don't know what it is.

I actually think a lot of my very initial love for Scream came from my obsession with Friends. I was a total Friends addict from seasons 1-6. Monday night was Friends night and I had posters upon posters adorning my wall. Courteney's "Monica Gellar" was my favourite despite Phoebe and Rachel stealing more episodes outright. So, yes, part of my initial Scream fascination was by seeing my favourite actress at the time play this bitch reporter in a slasher movie. There's even an episode in season 4, "The One With the Embryos", that aired in 1997 right between Scream and Scream 2 where Monica lets out a big scream and I got a bit of enjoyment outta that. She was rehearsing for her big lung belter during Scream 2's news van sequence.


Just by the way, isn't that episode just the best? I actually think it's my favourite episode of Friends from all 10 seasons. Even the less than stellar ones at the end had some great episodes, but I don't think anything quite beats that episode.

Moving one.


Our first glimpse of Sidney's mother, and the realisation of what everyone has been walking on eggshells to sidestep, comes in this 50th screencap for the project. Fitting then since she is catalyst and motivation of the killers in each movie. Even in Scream 3, which we'll obviously be discussing later, when the insertion of her into that felt overplayed and a bit forced, she's a constant presence in the entire trilogy so it's apt that she's here at the 50th screencap mark.

In fact, even though this trilogy has absolutely no connection whatsoever to the universe of Twin Peaks, I like that the story of Maureen Prescott (at this stage seen only in photos of actress Lynn McRea) mirrors that of Laura Palmer. Both lived seemingly innocent lives in idyllic American towns and yet under the surface lived a life full of adultery, sex and scandal that their family is not willing to admit despite everyone in their hometown being well aware. Both are memorialised somewhat in video (Maureen later in Scream 3, Laura in the pilot episode) and both are, obviously, murdered before the start of the narrative.


These three consecutive shots on sundown are really quite gorgeous, but I really like how they match the colour of the artwork of The Town that Dreaded Sundown, a title that is referenced later on in the movie.


"Practice ran late, I'm on my way."
"It's past seven!"
"Don't worry. Casey and Steve didn't bite it until way after ten."
"Oh, that's comforting."
"I'm gonna swing by the video store, I was thinking Tom Cruise All the Right Moves? You know if you pause it just right you can see his peeenis!"
"Whatever, just hurry, okay?"
"Ta ta, Sid."

I love this little dialogue exchange between Tatum and Sidney. It's the sort of stuff that actually makes you believe they were friends before the movie began and not just because the screenplay said they were (if that makes any sense). Plus, it's true (NSFW). One thing that will be interesting about Scream 4 in that regard will be how they do that sorta thing since friends don't telephone each other anymore. It's not exactly dynamic drama to have people text messaging back and forth. Reminds me of this that a mate of mine created.


I seem to be going off on a lot of tangents in this entry, don't I?


"Hello Sidney..."

And so it begins.


This is probably one of the defining moments of the entire trilogy. The franchise's first true indication that not only have the characters within it seen horror movies, but that they know the clichés that you yell at the TV screen as you watch one. To the mysterious voice's question of "What's your favourite scary movie?" she replies:

What's the point? They're all the same - some stupid killer stalking some big-breasted girl who can't act who's always running up the stairs when she should be going out the front door. It's insulting.



"Are you alone in the house?"
"Randy, that's so unoriginal. I'm disappointed in you."
"Maybe that's because... I'm not Randy."
"So who are you?"
"The question isn't who am I, the question is where am I?"
"So... where are you?"
"Your front porch."

I am on the record for thinking Kevin Williamson's script is very, very good (Oscar-worthy, even - well, nomination worthy). Dialogue like this is just so spine-tingling. Gets me everytime. Those moments where the caller says "Maybe that's because... I'm not Randy," and "Your front porch" so nonchalantly are just as creepy as "I wanna know who I'm looking at" from the opening scene.


Despite knowing that stupid girls run upstairs in horror movies, Sidney apparently doesn't know the unofficial (it's not in Randy's speech later in the movie, but it is a valid "rule" and one that Ghostface acknowledged in our last encounter with him) that you should never go outside to investigate (whether it be "a strange noise" or to call a mysterious phone caller's bluff). Not only could she have easily been attacked right then and there she left her front door wide open for someone to enter. Sidney falls victim to the rules of a horror movie despite being a smarter cookie than most.


"If you hang up on me you'll die just like your mother. Do you wanna die, Sidney? Your mother sure didn't!"

Yikes. Not a friendly mysterious phone caller, is he?



I like the story about how Harvey Weinstein apparently thought the "Ghostface" mask was stupid and demanded it changed, but then once he actually saw a scene with it he promptly changed his mind. There's something so disconcerting about seeing this odd-looking Halloween costume used as the mask of evil in a film. Especially since at the time of originally seeing Scream all the horror titles I had watched were of either fantastical originals (Freddy Krueger and various other killer dolls/ghouls/ghosts) or inhuman beings like Jason Vorhees, Michael Meyers or zombies/vampires. Even the "real life" horror villains I had seen had elements of outside forces to them such as Carrie. I don't recall seeing a horror film in which the killer was quite clearly a human with normal human abilities and all that jazz. And wearing this sort of cheap mask gives it an extra "what the fuck?!?" sensibility to it that really ramps up the scariness.



There Sidney goes, running up the stairs when she should be going out the front door (how insulting!) Alas, at least she tried to go out the front door, but damn those chain locks! Worse than deadbolts, I swear! Still, it is fun seeing Sidney succumb to the very cliche she chides horror movie heroines from doing. Note that the "big breasted girl" of this movie, Tatum, has the most original and unclichéd death of them all! Tatum may break the common sense rule of "don't try to escape through a cat flap", but it's certainly not a cliché.



There's that weird design flaw again! It works so well, doesn't it?

Oh hai Billy! Fancy seeing you here.


What intrigues me most about this scene is what purpose it serves. Were Stu and Billy really trying to kill Sidney in this scene or was it merely a way to frighten her? If they were really trying to kill her why didn't they try harder? If it was merely a rouse to frighten here then Stu (the one in the mask) seemed to be trying awful hard to get to her. It would make sense that the plan all along was to have the final climax to their plan take place as it does later in the movie, but what if this plan to merely frighten her went wrong and they were injured or killed? And so it goes...


...did Billy deliberately drop his phone so that he would become a suspect only to be released and to make Sidney feel bad? What if Billy being arrest backfired and they actually discovered something that made them believe he killed Casey and Steve like the police question him over (a couple of scenes ahead of myself here).

It seems to me that Stu knew Tatum was going to be picking up Sidney at some point and that's why they had to do their attack earlier than they did with Casey and Steve, but then Tatum was late so were they running behind, too? They really were a bit cocky, weren't they? I guess the trick is that Sidney (and Casey, for that matter) live in houses surrounded by vast nothingness so it'd be easy for them to get away if interrupted. Actually, fun fact! The Becker house is right next door to the house in Cujo!

This scene brings up so many questions related to logic, and yet I still just do not care because it's a fantastic sequence and one that sets so much up so perfectly. One last piece of confusing logic...


Why is Deputy Dewey holding the mask up like that? That just seems cruel to whoever he expects to open the door!

But, then again, it is Deputy Dewey and who can't find him adorable?


No one!

Intro, Scene 1 Scene 2, Scene 3, Scene 4, Scene 5, Scene 6

Friday, July 9, 2010

Black & White Friday: Shutter Island


Perhaps an obvious choice, but even though I didn't like the movie I still thought there would be enough within it to sustain a Black & White Friday entry. I was surprised by how modern the film felt and, perhaps, I might have liked it more if it had surrendered to the classicism of it all (not that I would expect Martin Scorsese to go there, but this tale was begging for a big ol' noir-tinged camp telling, don't you think?) I just could not buy Leonardo DiCaprio and Mark Ruffalo as characters from the 1950s and with so many modern filmmaking flourished from Scorsese mixed with the obvious gothicism of it all and Shutter Island felt confused and really quite boring.


Interesting, I found the art direction of Shutter Island quite bothersome. The exterior scenes were great, but the interior ones were just too over the top in 1950s insane asylum decor. And yet when the colour is gone I feel that the interior scenes looked better. Strange, that. Whoever scouted this location, however, deserves a special cheque from Marty.


I quite liked Ben Kingsley here. Not in any particular "wow, his acting is superb" kind of way, but I thought he totally fit into the vibe of the movie. I can see him slotting right into the same role had this movie been made in 1954 (er, if he'd been alive and all that jazz of course) with his propensity to overact and be a bit larger than life. It's just a shame that Martin didn't really frame him in any particularly interesting ways.


The skies of this movie always looked so manufactured (and not in a matte kinda way like they would've been in the past), just so much CGI! gah! In black and white they look excellent, though.


See what I mean? Lovely shot by any means.


This is what I was talking about before. In the movie, this scene is just quite putrid and unappealing, but in black and white it feels so much more classical and less like I'm gonna get tetanus.





The women of Shutter Island. Scorsese can work miracles with actresses so it is always a shame when he doesn't just knuckle down and make a movie with a female lead role. He went there with The Age of Innocence and it's one of Marty's very best and just thinking of the performances from the likes of Sandra Bernhard, Lorraine Bracco, Cate Blanchett, Sharon Stone and the women of After Hours makes me shudder in delight. My favourite of the women in Shutter Island was Patricia Clarkson (and I love the shot I captured of her, actually looking quite old fashioned) because she was just so "on" and focused. Her role is thankless, really, but she does good stuff with it. Same goes for underrated actress Robin Bartlett (at the top). Emily Mortimer is good in her prison cell scene, too, although I admit I was very wrong about predicting her Oscar win.

And that leaves Michelle Williams, the weakest of the four. She doesn't really get much to do, does she? Despite having the most screen time of them all she basically just has to stand around and look a little bit sick, a little big ethereal and a little bit like there's not much going on upstairs. I chose this shot, however, because it reminded me of a similar moment in David Lynch's Mulholland Drive which, let's face it, Scorsese was clearly inspired by in some respects.


I really liked this scene. It had compelling actors actually doing good acting, advancing the story (and not just needless plodding like so much of the rest of the movie) and it was one of the very few moments that fully embraced the concept of this kinda noir, kinda camp, kinda artificial world (notice how it actually does look like an old kinda movie that it's halfheartedly trying to be).


This moment very much looks like a shot from an old movie, I reckon. Perhaps that's because we can't see the faces of any of the very modern actors? Perhaps.

Wednesday, July 7, 2010

Scream to Scream, Scene by Scene: SCENE 6 of Scream (0:19:12-0:21:13)

In this project I attempt to review the entire Scream trilogy scene by scene in chronological order. Heavy spoilers and gore throughout!


SCENE 6
Length: 2mins 1sec
Primary Characters: Sidney Prescott, Billy Loomis, Tatum Riley, Stu Macher (Matthew Lillard) and Randy Meeks (Jamie Kennedy)
Pop Culture References:
  • Basic Instict (reference to female serial killers)
  • Jerry Lewis (Randy appears to imitate him)


And so we start this scene with yet another glorious crane shot of the school. Isn't this school yard just the most gorgeous school? Good grief, my high school was a lot of grey slabs of concrete and patches of badly torn up grass lawns. No water features as far as I recall (although I have blocked a lot of that out.)


This is one of my favourite scenes as well as an important one. We're introduced to two vital characters in the form of Stu and Randy. Randy has always been one of my very favourite characters from the entire trilogy. When I first started going to Scream message boards (after Scream 2, but before Scream 3) my handle was "Randy's Twin" because I saw myself in him. I wasn't like him, really, but in the universe of this franchise I was certainly closer to Randy than Billy or Stu. It's a bit sad to see what happened to Jamie Kennedy. Even sadder to realise he's more well known for his prank comedy than for this trilogy. :( Sadface.


The dialogue in this scene is totally brilliant. It does many things in forwarding the idea that these character have actually seen horror movies as well as sneakily, and yet with big bold neon arrows, leading us into the direction of who the killers are.


"The killer could easily be female; Basic Instict?"

Notice how nobody mentions Friday the 13th in response to Tatum's argument that a woman could have been the killer. Some people call that silly, I say it's smart. Referencing Mrs Vorhees so soon after she was brought up initially in the opening scene would have rung too many alarm bells.

TATUM: "They didn't ask me if I like to hunt."
STU: "That's cause there's no way a girl coulda killed 'em."
TATUM: "That is so sexist. The killer could easily be female; Basic Instinct?"
RANDY: "That was an ice-pick. Not exactly the same thing."
STU: "Yeah, Casey and Steve were completely hollowed out and the fact is it takes a man to do something like that."
TATUM: "Or a man's brutality."
SIDNEY: "How do you gut someone?"
STU: "You take a knife and you split 'em from groin to sternum..."
BILLY: "Hey, it's called tact you fuckrag."

I love last line there for some reason. Almost like Billy's saying "Dude, shut the fuck up! You'll give us away!"


But, naturally, this scene belongs to Randy who instantly enters my heart due to his line reading of "It would certainly improve your High School IQ" as well as, basically, everything else he says.


"Besides, it takes a man to do something that that"

Oh, Randy.


"You better leav'r alone. Hahah. LIVER ALONE. Hahaha. Liver... liver... live... It was a joke."

OR WAS IT?!?

Yes. Yes it was.

Intro, Scene 1 Scene 2, Scene 3, Scene 4, Scene 5

Public Service Announce: See The Horseman

I don't too often do this, but i feel it is necessary.

It has been nearly two years to the day that I saw Steven Kastrissios' debut feature The Horseman at the Melbourne International Film Festival. The cinema was the tiniest at Greater Union on Russell Street and it was late at night so this tiny cinema had even fewer people in it. I had no idea what to expect other than it was some sort of Aussie revenge flick. If you have good memories then you may remember my review in which I wrote:

...unlike far more nihilistic and violent films such as The Passion of the Christ and Saw, the film around it is so incredibly strong and powerfully made that the violence is there to truly serve. It makes you question the lengths people will go to for justice, and the depths of depravity that lurk beneath the surface of even the most peaceful individual.

That amongst so much more praise. It's a stunning film. I named it the 8th best Aussie film of the decade, ahead of titles such as Japanese Story, Ten Canoes and Wolf Creek. I also listed Peter Marshall's astonishing performance as the 70th best moment of the decade. Marshall's performance is a thing of true power and I would rank it as one of the five best male performances from the 2000s.

I feel like I've been with The Horseman since the start since, if I remember correctly, that MIFF screening two years ago was its "world premiere". In the two years that have followed I have been frustrated at the lack of Australian release. It's played at a festival here or there, received a UK cinema release last year and has even found its way onto American DVD and Blu-Ray. So it's with great happiness that I see it is finally getting a (very) limited Australian release starting from tomorrow.

It will only be screening at the Chauvel in Sydney, The Tribal in Brisbane and the Cinema Nova here in Melbourne (late shows only on Friday and Saturday) so I beg anybody with access to it to please go and support this excellent film. It will be so much more rewarding than seeing something like The Karate Kid while Predators and Toy Story 3 will still be there next week. Beware though that it is rated R18+ for a reason. Still excellent though!

Monday, July 5, 2010

Review: Predators

Predators
Dir. Nimród Antal
Year: 2010
Aus Rating: MA15+
Running Time:

It has been a very long time since I saw John McTiernan's 1987 sci-fi classic Predator. I didn't recall too much about that film as I headed into Predators, a 2010 modernisation of the franchise from writer/producer Robert Rodriguez, but figured it did not matter as this new addition was a remake. As I sat in my seat watching the movie, enjoying it a lot, I couldn't help but feel like this wasn't a remake at all. Firstly, Predators is not set on Earth whereas McTiernan's 1987 original was. Turns out I had my facts all wrong and this new film from curiously named director Nimród Antal was a sequel. It makes so much more sense now and, strangely, makes my fondness for this new film increase.

Opening with a thrilling sequence that throws the audience in as much befuddlement as the characters, Adrien Brody's "Royce" is falling through the sky approaching the ground faster and faster. Crash landing in thick jungle he soon discovers several others in the same mysterious situation. There's "Isabelle", a black ops fighter played by Alice Braga as well as a Tijuana drug cartel enforcer (Danny Trejo), a doctor (Topher Grace in comic relief mode from the word "go!"), an African death squad officer (Mahershalalhashbaz Ali), a Russian troop from the Chechen War (Oleg Taktarov) and a death row inmate (Walton Goggins). They quickly realise they are, firstly, not on Earth and, secondly, not alone. Commence distressed monologues that end conveniently just as a new and extravagantly violent set-piece is to begin. Don't you love that about the movies? The monsters always wait conveniently until the hero has explained their dark and traumatic history of warfare.


Conveniently forgetting about Alien Vs Predator and it's own sequel Alien Vs Predator: Requiem (neither of which I have seen), Antal's Predators is exactly the sort of movie I wanted it to be. I was a fan of Antal's previous horror venture, Vacancy, which is a one-set film that took a nasty shredder to Psycho and came out being one of the few movies to legitimately scare me and have my curling up into a ball in recent years. Predators works in many ways that will surely satisfy audiences. Jumps and frights are here, but thankfully not overdone, and the action scenes are suitably bloody and fast-paced. Editing by Dan Zimmerman is nicely done, making the action easy to follow while John Debney's music is effective, taking cues from Alan Silvestri's original theme and his own brand of atmospherics and Jaws inspirations. Sound design and sound editing are both top notch and should warrant attention from certain awards bodies if they weren't so squeamish about certain genres.

What really should be commended is the cinematography by Gyula Pados. I admit that going from the royal estates of The Duchess to the jungles of a far away planet is a leap, but Pados does it well. In an era where it seems every big budget action movie is lensed through a filter of mucky, gray water, Predators is filled with vibrant greens of every shade, bright yellows and eye-popping reds. Even the aliens themselves have glowing green blood rather than some blackish, brownish goop that would be the popular, grungy thing to do. Unfortunately the final act descends into more common dark and grimy aesthetics. Perhaps Rodriguez and Antal ran out of ideas because at this stage the film becomes less interesting as it follows predictable patterns leading up to its conclusion.


As for the actors, they seem to be working at an above average level than I would expect for a film like this. Adrien Brody has been trying to make this alpha male tough guy routine look natural for him for a while now and here he gets it mostly right. Seeing this man with a weaselly face and a deceptively well-formed body strut around as the leader of the pack is actually kinda fun. I'm thankful he cut his ugly wispy bangs for starters. The rest of the cast do well, although Topher Grace is transparent as the good guy doctor and a late entry cameo by Laurence Fishburne is over-the-top. Predators is a perfectly solid action horror flick that should satisfy anybody who actually likes these sort of movies. There's a strong backbone to this movie that is missing from so many other action movies of late. B

Friday, July 2, 2010

Scream to Scream, Scene by Scene: SCENE 5 of Scream (0:18:39-0:19:11)

In this project I attempt to review the entire Scream trilogy scene by scene in chronological order. Heavy spoilers and gore throughout!


SCENE 5
Length: 31secs
Primary Characters: Sidney Prescott, Deputy Dwight "Dewey" Riley (David Arquette), Sheriff Burke (Joseph Whipp) and Principal Himbry (The Fonz Henry Winkler)
Pop Culture References:
  • A Nightmare on Elm Street (Henry Whipp appears in Scream as a Sheriff, in the original Elm Street, directed by Wes Craven, Whipp played a police officer)



Henry Winkler as Principal Himbry is a creep. I find it interesting that the screenplay seems to make a big deal about how... off he is. Off being a good word to describe him, I think. He's a little too tender, a little too angry (as we'll see later), and little bit off. Perhaps that's why the killers decide to off him later in the movie, I don't know. But I do know he's a creep.


*shudder*


Even Sheriff Burke sees it! That very subtle look he gives the Principal is just one of many subtle moments that are easy to miss.


"Sheriff Burke... Dewey..."
"That's Deputy Riley today, Sid."

Bless Dewey's heart, isn't he a cutie (in this movie, anyway).
What I like about this brief scene is the way it further develops this *thing* that has happened to Sidney. Already mention by Billy when discussing their once "hot and heavy" relationship and then again by Tatum. This time it's Principal Himbry's turn to lay down the backstory:

Sidney Prescott. She was daughter of...

Although why he'd need to tell the Sheriff that I'm not too sure.

Intro, Scene 1 Scene 2, Scene 3, Scene 4

Black & White Friday: Evil Dead II: Dead by Dawn


Sam Raimi's cult sensation Evil Dead II: Dead by Dawn (as it's called on the DVD box here in Australia, but I can't seem to get confirmation on where the subtitle is actually used) had gone unseen by me for far too long. Having been a fan of the grungy horror of the original I had been turned off by the knowledge that it took an overtly comedic turn in the sequel. However, during my recent horror binge (still going on as far as I can tell) I decided to take a gander and... well, a look at the screening guide to the right will tell you all you need to know.


It was this shot, within the film's opening minutes, that made me take notice of the rest of the film for this series. This shot reminded me of, strangely enough, Alfred Hitchcock's The 39 Steps with it's obviously studio reproduced mountainous terrain. I wasn't quite the bounty of possible moments to use, however. I took over 20 screencaps and had to whittle it down to a mere ten. Woe.


The main reason why Evil Dead II: Dead by Dawn was such a treasure trove for this feature was the way director Sam Raimi and his cinematographer Peter Deming (he of Lost Highway, Scream 2 and Mulholland Drive) play with the classic framing devices of shlock horror with its plays on shadow and light. In black and white it looks far classier than it does in colour and could easily be mistaken for a respectable fright flick from the early days of horror.


This was a killer shot in the movie and while it lacks the punch of its bright orange colour here it is still excellent from a purely composition point of view.


I captured quite a few shots of this demon character since she reminded me so much of an old movie villain. Perhaps a bit more grotesque (especially in colour, obviously) than those, but she reminded me nonetheless. There's something quite charming and Ed Woodian about being able to see all the layers of makeup and fake grotesqueness.


For me, the film's crowning achievement was this moment so I had to capture it in its hilarious glory. I can't admit I didn't jump and then very quickly burst into laughter as the headless chainsaw-wielding body ran into the tool shed. And it only got better.


More shadows. Yes, Evil Dead II: Dead by Dawn is shlocky with its gore, but it could have been so much worse and I am very glad that they made a lot of it off screen and in shadow.


Well I had to include this shot, didn't I?


In black and white the whole Addams Family riff is even more obvious. This wasn't my particular favourite shot of the chopped off hand, but it's so well known and it's funny so I felt I had to include it.


I needed at least one shot of these guys (Kassie Wesley and Dan Hicks) because they are definitely entertaining (more so than Sarah Berry!) and this moment makes me chuckle. I tend to really enjoy performances of characters who have absolutely no idea what the hell they've gotten themselves into because they tend to verge of hysterical madness and I like that.


It really does look like something from Romero's Night of the Living Dead, doesn't it?

I think that was quite successful, no?

Thursday, July 1, 2010

Review: Long Weekend

Long Weekend
Dir. Jamie Blanks
Year: er...
Aus Rating: MA15+
Running Time: 84mins

Just last week I was discussing Gus Van Sant's shot-for-shot remake of Psycho quite a bit and this week I watched Jamie Blanks' remake of Colin Eggleston's 1978 man versus nature film Long Weekend. It may not be a shot-for-shot remake like Van Sant's film, but it is surely a scene-for-scene remake. I didn't remember all that much of Eggleston's film as I sat down to watch the much, much, much delayed remake, but as I sat there I did recognise almost every single scene as one that I had already seen. Both versions were written by local horror legend Everett de Roche so that may have something to do with it.

The newer version of Long Weekend is not a good movie, but I would argue that neither was the original. That one starred John Hargreaves and Briony Behets as a couple who take a camping vacation down the coast over the long weekend (which one isn't specified) in the hopes of repairing their fractured marriage. He was a brute, she was a shrill terror and together they went about destroying nature at every chance they got. Littering, liberally applying bug spray, destroying bird eggs and killing sea creatures was just some of the fun they got up to before nature took revenge. "Revenge" being, apparently, umm... not having an exit sign on the driving track. Nature is a bit weak in these movies.

Blanks' film is, as I have said, the exact same thing. This time starring Jim Caviezel (yes, Jesus) and Claudia Karvan. Oh the movies I will watch to satiate my Claudia Karvan appetite! I had heard some particularly vicious things about Long Weekend circa 2008/09/10 (seriously, it's been banging about the system for a while now before finally getting a direct-to-DVD release recently), but in all honesty it's just the same movie as the 1978 version, but this time with added blonde highlights (on him, not her).

What Jim Caviezel is doing here is a mystery. I generally don't care when international actors show up in local productions, but this one seems particularly baffling. No explanation is given as to why this American man is married and living in Victoria. That really shouldn't matter, but these two characters are so thoroughly unlikable that it would have been nice to get some sort of character development other than "she's a bitch" and "he's a pig". But, like I said, it was the same in the original, too.


The biggest problem with the film is the fact that the "man versus nature" idea is barely utilised in any exciting manner. There's not much you can do unless you're willing to go full on Evil Dead and have trees uproot themselves and have a fern unfurl to strangle the humans. But, hey, at least that would've been something. The final 20 minutes or so is, just like the original, the best part of the movie and features the only frights worth a damn.

In the end though, there's really nothing separating either film other than improved visuals. The remake is certainly a brighter, more visually compelling film, but they're just as boring as each other. Neither are ever particularly terrible in any particular way, which makes it hard to truly eviscerate, but they're certainly not exactly thrilling. There is one scene in the remake that I can't recall from the original so I'm going to go out on a limb and say Long Weekend '08 is the only film in the history of cinema to feature a scene of a woman masturbating and being interrupted by a dugong. I can't say I've ever seen that before, can you? C-


PS; Long Weekend goes by the title Nature's Grave in the USA.
PPS; Claudia Karvan is divine, but let's not speak of this movie for a while, okay?
PPPS; How great is this poster and retro international VHS cover for the 1978 original? Answer: Very great.