Review: Piranha 3D (2010)

Given my distaste for High Tension, another movie directed by Alexander Aja, it might come as a surprise that this is another personal favorite of mine.  But I not only eagerly saw it in theaters back when it first came out (and loved it) but it has been regularly watched in the intervening years.  It's exploitative, trashy, lowest-common-denominator filmmaking and I love every minute of it.

The film takes place in Lake Victoria, Arizona (not a real city, but I appreciate the somewhat surprising decision to put it in Arizona of all places) and primarily follows Sheriff Julie Forester (Elisabeth Shue, giving just the perfect amount of character to this part) and her son Jake (Steven R. McQueen in one of the only two movies he has been in) as they deal with spring breakers partying alongside the emergence of prehistoric piranha released by an earthquake.

This movie is filled with other character actors - all of them having a blast - filling out roles both big and small.  Ving Rhames, Adam Scott, Richard Dreyfuss, Christopher Lloyd, Dina Meyer, Jerry O'Connell, Kelly Brook - all of them are playing to the cheap seats, which is exactly what this movie needs.

I've talked previously about movies where it is obvious that the gore are effects are done with a gleeful 'look what we can do!' attitude and Piranha 3D is at the forefront of my mind every time I mention it.  This gore is fantastic and plentiful, and if High Tension had to exist for this movie to be made, than it is absolved of at least a few of its sins.  In addition to the bites and tears from the piranhas, we have head smashes, decapitations, and  - in the movie's very best effects shot - a scalping via boat motor.  This movie is not for the squeamish.

It is also not for those uncomfortable with nudity: this movie displays mammaries like it wanted to see if it could set a record.  It's almost inspirational, the ways Aja finds to get women out of their clothes.  However, if you are a fan of the male body, prepare to only see guys in swim trunks, for this film is aping a particular type of exploitation flick, and it isn't one that is equal opportunity in that regard.

I mention the performances playing to the cheap seats, and the best in that regard is Jerry O'Connell.  Playing a character somewhat inspired by Joe Francis of Girls Gone Wild infamy, he is relishing being as scuzzy as possible while also being hilarious.  It perfectly matches the tone the film is going for and is a highlight of every scene he is in.

Now, this movie is obviously not for everyone - the gore and nudity more than earn the R rating, and it wouldn't surprise me if it was on the cusp of an NC-17 - but for fans of the genre who appreciate effects work, this is a must see.  Fans of horror in general should enjoy it, even if it also has a healthy dose of comedy.

8 out of 10

Review: Alligator (1980)

One thing I have pushed for this year and last with my horror-movie-a-day tradition in October is to primarily watch movies I hadn't seen before and write reviews on them - a goal I have been fairly successful with.  But in doing so, I started missing out on several of my favorites and, more importantly, I didn't get the chance to recommend those beloved horror movies to the (beloved) people that read them.  So tonight's movie was an opportunity to address that.

For 1980's Alligator is amongst my favorite horror movies.  It's a real gem of a film, giving character actors like Robert Forster and Robin Riker the opportunity to play the lead while lampshading several famous critiques of this brand of creature feature.  It even goes out of its way to add extra plot points that one would think would've come up already in this particular genre.

This is a smart film.  People act like human beings (never a given in horror movies where we often get, at best, a singular trait for each of the characters), most of the decisions are fairly rational outside of the villains, and the story progresses in a fairly believable way.  Having this level of competence after watching movies like Tentacles or The Food of the Gods - even if I did enjoy the latter of those - is a balm of the soul.

Do we really need a plot summary?  If so: Building on the urban legend of giant alligators in the sewers after being flushed down the drain, Alligator follows Detective David Madison (Forster) as he deals with two investigations.  The first involves people's pets disappearing and, if they are found, the pets having grown much larger than they should have in a normal time.  The second involves people disappearing in the sewer systems under Chicago, with their remains eventually coming out from the same sewer exit as the oversized animals.  Seems our alligator has been feeding on test experiments dumped into the sewer and has somewhat mutated itself.

Now, to go into the genius of the script: it allows the audience to figure out the connection well before our characters do.  Madison starts to piece it together after meeting with herpetologist Dr. Marisa Kendall (Riker), and the movie doesn't waste time revealing who is responsible for both the pet kidnappings and the giant alligator (tying those two plot threads together nicely).  At that point it is off to the races as they try to stop the alligator from its killing spree.

Riker and Forster play off each very well throughout the movie, and while the early scenes aren't bad, the movie takes off once the two start working together.  There's also some dry humor throughout - including a particularly well done running gag.

The effects for this movie are also fairly strong.  While some of it has aged poorly - what wouldn't after 45 years? - the practical work rings truer than the CGI of many later films. The centerpiece 'animal runs amok' scene still works all these years later because of the effort put into the practical effects.

If I were to critique it, I would say the direction - outside of one particular scene that scared me something good as a child - is pretty pedestrian.  Nothing mindbogglingly bad, but nothing of note outside that one scene.  There's also a character (Thomas Kemp, played by Bart Braverman) that seems to be missing a scene or two.  He very much comes across as having an agenda against Madison, but it feels underexplored.

All that said, I recommend this movie to everyone.  It has just the right level of everything - humor, gore, story, scariness - without going overboard.

8 out of 10

Review: High Tension (2003)

High Tension (or Haute Tension, if we are using the French title) follows best friends Marie (Cecile de France) and Alex (Maïwenn) as they go to the latter's parent's house for the weekend.  While there, a man appears and attacks the family, with Marie spending the greater part of the movie trying to either get help or defeat The Killer (Philippe Nahon) and save Alex.

This movie was at the forefront of the New French Extremity movement: French films that had excessive violence and explicit sexual imagery.  Filled with all sorts of gore, and occasionally extreme sexual violence (which this film thankfully did not have), it was part of a movement of filmmakers that pushed the limits of what film allowed at the time, and there are still films today that are considered influenced by, if not a continuation of, this movement.

Now there is something to be said for the critic's view of violence in cinema.  Is the filmmaker trying to say something?  Is it necessary to the plot?  Is there some sort of metaphor that the director/screenwriter is trying to use?  In the case of this film, I think the answer is: Let's show some violence and it doesn't go any deeper than that.

I did not like this movie.  Not because of the violence - I have seen worse, and there is something to be said for how well done the effects are for this film in that particular department - but because it doesn't make sense.  There is a late twist - which the movie became famous for, though thankfully I had forgotten the spoiler before watching it - that doesn't make any sense.  I don't mean they didn't set it up properly (there is actually a decent bit of foreshadowing for it), I mean that there are several scenes that absolutely do not work once you factor in that twist.

So much of the film just falls apart if you bother to look back on it.  It's frankly astounding that it happens because this is a movie with so much thought put into it that for this twist - which creates so many different plot holes - to be used requires a complete divorcing of critical thinking.  Even if we try to work with what is presented to us, maybe think of the film as having an unreliable narrator, it still doesn't cover up what we are shown - there are too many characters present for it to work.

The movie isn't completely without merit - our main actress is quite good, and the movie does have a few scenes with well-built tension, but that damn twist just undoes all of the work put into the rest of the film.  And given the lack of scares in this film - it really does count on the gore to do most of its work - you have time to think about what doesn't work.

Maybe if they had wrapped up the movie about 10 minutes earlier?  Or cut out a section of the post-reveal?  I don't know, the movie is already a fairly short 95 minutes - a relentlessly paced 95 at that - but something needed to be changed.

It really is disappointing, as I have heard good things from multiple people about this one.  I definitely would not recommend it - except maybe as a hate-watch, but there are better movies to do that with than this - and it took all of my energy to not reveal the twist because this movie doesn't deserve to be unspoiled.  I don't even want to bump up its score for the craft and acting, because I worry that it might encourage someone to watch it despite that.

2.5 out of 10

Review: Vermines (2023)

It's always interesting to watch a horror film with Themes.  Vermines, released as Infested in the US, is a movie practically dripping with them.  Racism, classism, police brutality, friendship, honor: all have a part to play in this, much deeper than something described to me as 'French Arachnophobia.'  It was a woefully inadequate description of what I ended up watching.

Thankfully, the movie still works well even if you don't engage with the themes - though it is nothing if richer an experience to do so - telling a creepy story of spiders rapidly reproducing and taking over a Banlieue in Paris.  A group of friends works to save themselves from these highly aggressive spiders, with the predictable, and a few unpredictable, challenges in the way.

Our main character is Kaleb (Theo Christine), collector of exotic animals, who buys the first of the spiders to invade the building.  He and his sister Manon (Lisa Nyarko) are arguing over selling or keeping their home, with Manon doing quite a bit of renovating in hopes of moving away.  They are helped by Mathys (Jerome Niel), a friend of both, and Kaleb's estranged friend Jordy (Finnegan Oldfield) and Jordy's girlfriend Lila (Sofia Lesaffre).

The dynamics of this friend group is an essential part of the story, with buried resentments amongst them, particularly after the death of Kaleb and Manon's mother, adding extra stress once the bodies start piling up.  This feels like a believable group of people, and their reactions to one another and the situation drives the story moreso than the attacking spiders.

The first 75% of the movie works amazingly well.  There are interesting shots, music choices, along with some decent character building of not only the group of friends, but of other residents within the building.  Every attempt to control or evade the spiders is staged well, and the film never gets less-interesting when the spiders are not on screen.

That last 25% though...

It is not uncommon for creature features to lose a bit of steam towards the end as they work to either escape or defeat whatever monster they are up against.  Vermines does a better job than most at overcoming this, but it still starts to turn me away with some choices made regarding the spiders.

I won't spoil said choices, but it involves an escalation that I don't think was necessarily needed, plus a slight tonal shift that is part of the transition to the climax that forces the movie to basically rebuild the energy.  It overplays certain emotional payoffs also, which is more minor sin of the ending, but another glance at that final section of the script might've been warranted.

It doesn't remove the movie, thankfully, but it does let the air out a bit as you get to the end.  I'd still readily recommend this movie though.

7 out of 10

Review: The Abominable Dr. Phibes (1971)

I did not vibe with this movie.  It is perfectly adequate as far as films go, though not without critique.  It just didn't really work for me.

The Abominable Dr. Phibes is a tale of revenge: Dr. Phibes (Vincent Price) is hideously scarred and believed dead after an accident.  Said accident was caused by him rushing to the hospital where his wife had died during surgery.  Blaming the doctors and nurse that performed the operation for her death and his own disfigurement, he sets about killing them using the plagues of Egypt as his inspiration.

This is a weird movie.  Tonally all over the place, it vacillates between comedy, horror, procedural, and mystery while never really doing any of them well.  Price is excellent in his role, but otherwise the film feels like it isn't quite sure what it wants to be.  The ending is played as if it were a tragedy, but I don't think the audience is really meant to be on Phibes's side, which would be necessary for it to work.

The comedy is mostly on the side of the police, and while a few scenes are rather successful, humor-wise, it is at odds with the fact that all of these people are getting killed, some of them quite brutally.  If this tone had permeated the entire movie, it could have worked, but since so much of it is played straight, it feels especially incongruous.

There is a certain amount of camp to the movie that is what ultimately saves it.  It doesn't quite make it a great movie - although there are some that disagree with that statement and consider this amongst the best work Price has done - but it does make it fascinating to watch.  Price, saddled with a character who cannot move any part of his body above the neck - no, really - sells the hell out of it, delivering monologues with such verve that one wonders what the performance would have looked like with facial movements.

More camp comes from the various manners in which Phibes kills the doctors (and single nurse, which seems weird to foist part of the blame on), which in many cases only use the plagues of Egypt in the broadest interpretation of them.  Many of them lack all reason (the nurse, who gets possibly the most brutal of the kills, requires a person to not only believe that a person would sleep so soundly that they wouldn't feel a large amount of a syrupy substance dumped on their face, but also so soundly that they could be eaten alive without being disturbed in the slightest).  It only works if you just give up on applying anything resembling logic and just roll with what is happening.

It's a bit of a mess, plotwise, which makes sense as the writers had no other major credits before or after this film.  It hobbles along, carried in some parts by Price, in others by camp, and in a few by both, but it doesn't ascend to a climax so much as stumble into a finale that I'm still not sure was adequate for the proceeding film.

Would I recommend it?  Probably?  Vincent Price is a treasure, and there is merit in his performance here, but I might have to watch this movie again before I can decide where I would settle on its rating.

For now, we'll say 6.5 out of 10, but who knows what I'll feel in the future.

Review: Resident Evil (2002)

A caveat:  I watched this on a Blu-ray released many, many years ago (Resident Evil: Extinction is one of the previews on my copy) and it was not a very good transfer.  Several scenes have a weird fuzziness to them that I am fairly certain weren't supposed to be there, so I will be refraining from discussing technical aspects of this film - not that those are ever large parts of my review, but this one will feature less than normal.

So, Resident Evil, directed by Paul W.S. Anderson (he of Mortal Kombat and Event Horizon fame) and starring Milla Jovovich, Eric Mabius, and Michelle Rodriguez.  Savaged by critics when it came out, but more recently reappraised with a more positive response.  I remember seeing this one in theaters and fondly remember the viewing experience.  And rewatching it,  I am glad people have come around on it.

Now, this is a cheesy movie, make no mistake.  This was a film made about a video game in the early aughts, the fact it is any sort of good is a minor miracle.  But Anderson gave the movie the right amount of seriousness to go with the cheesy, plus a decent amount of homages to the game it was based off of, which helped win the audience over.  Most of the performances are also pitched perfectly for what the movie is (though I don't think Rodriguez is very good in this one).

The plot moves along fairly quickly, the exposition delivery is somewhat clunky but overall justified, the action is top notch.  Really, the biggest issue for this movie is the computer effects, particularly that of the Licker, aging fairly poorly.  There are a couple of scenes where a practical one is used and it is so much better looking that I wished it had been feasible for it to have been used more.

I think the only other criticism I would have would be the death of a character towards the end.  They are kept around pretty much only to serve as a deus ex machina, the abruptly killed off during the climax.  I really feel like the character should've been a survivor, or at the very least not killed off so thoughtlessly.

I know the more recent one was much more well received, but to me, this is still the best of the many movies in this franchise.  It might just be nostalgia, but it is probably more that these characters are at least somewhat competent once they realize the situation they are in.  Either way, this is a film I am generally happy to rewatch, and one I'd readily recommend.

7 out of 10

Review: The Boogeyman (2023)

This movie needed to be rated R.

Almost every critique I have of this movie comes back to the PG-13 limitation placed on this (on a Stephen King adaptation!  After IT had already come out!).  It works within that limitation well, but it is fighting a losing battle against that PG-13 rating.

To give a clear example of how that rating cut this movie off at the knees: Only 3 people die in the entire film (not necessarily a bad thing), and 2 of those are within the first 15 minutes of this roughly 100 minute movie and both are offscreen.  You cannot have a child-murdering monster movie where nothing happens for a large chunk of the movie.

Even calling the titular Boogeyman a child-murdering monster is a bit of a stretch.  Unlike the aforementioned IT adaptation, this movie pulls its punches to a severe degree when it comes to actually endangering the children.  It's almost as if the Boogeyman is going out of its way to not kill the child and teenager it is terrorizing.  It doesn't matter how many scenes you have of the creature slowly menacing Sadie and Sawyer (Sophie Thatcher and Vivien Lyra Blair) - even if they are well-done escalations of the creature's threat - if ultimately the creature doesn't do anything other than scare them, it loses quite a bit of its mystique.

And it's frustrating because the movie is actually good despite this.  Both Thatcher and Blair give  strong performances, as does Chris Messina as their father and Madison Hu as Sadie's friend Bethany.  Hu might just be the best performance in the film even if it feels like a decent chunk of her character was cut.  David Dastmalchian also makes a cameo appearance as a previous victim of the monster and spins quite a bit of gold within his shortened screentime.

As mentioned above, director Rob Savage does effectively build tension throughout the film, with a major assist from cinematographer Eli Born.  Lighting is especially important for this movie, and genuine effort was put into making the scenes dark while still allowing the audience to see just enough of the monster to let the imagination run wild.  The final full reveal of the Boogeyman is a bit disappointing, but they do build up to that reveal masterfully.

So yeah, this is a pretty decent movie that just needed the handcuffs taken off of it to be great.  Ah well, I think I'd still recommend it, but never as a first choice.

6.5 out of 10