Review: Event Horizon (1997)

It is of no surprise to me that the director of Event Horizon is also the director of 1995's Mortal Kombat and several of the Milla Jovovich-starring Resident Evil movies.  Which isn't to say that it is the same as those movies, but that it has the same energy as them.  Whether or not you can vibe with that energy will probably determine whether or not you enjoy this film, and as a fan of some of his other work, I think it is safe to say I do vibe with director Paul Anderson's dynamism.

While watching this with my brother, we both made comparisons: he mentioned similarities to the Warhammer 40K novels and how space travel works within them, and I said this was a more thoughtful Doom - and let me tell you, I never would have imagined saying Anderson would direct the more thoughtful version of anything.  Not in a negative way, mind you, it's just that his forte tends to be on the popcorn side of the moviemaking experience.

To give a brief summary: Event Horizon takes place in 2047 (oh, the optimism of where science would go during the 90s) and follows a rescue crew sent out to Neptune to save the crew of a previous mission (onboard a ship called Event Horizon, thus giving us the title) that disappeared 7 years prior.  Captaining the ship is Miller (Laurence Fishburne), with Dr. Weir (Sam Neill), who designed the missing ship, traveling with them.  They find the ship, the remains of the crew, and quickly realize that something is wrong.

One of the things that really worked well for me was how well this movie subverted my expectations.  A character that I had pegged as one to make it to the finale ended up being the first to die, and another character that I was sure was going to die first ended up surviving!  Other subversions occurred, but these were the most notable to me given my penchant for correctly calling out who would live vs who would die in genre films.

Another high point is the design, both of the titular spaceship and the rescue ship.  They are distinct from one another while still feeling as if they came from the same original source.  Even better, the directing gives the audience a fairly good idea of the layouts of both ships, which allows for the more horror-focused scenes to disorient the audience as well as the characters.

My one big criticism of the film would be that it really wants a more violent version of itself.  Apparently it did at one point, but executives forced Anderson and editor Martin Hunter to cut the film down from a 130 minute version to a more reasonable 96 minutes, with the gore effects the biggest victim.  Now, I don't think this movie needed a two hour version, but 3 to 7 more minutes of gore would have gone a long way towards increasing the impact of the story.

However, the 96 minute version that we do have is very much something special, and I can see why this film not only developed a cult following, but is now considered amongst the best horror films ever made.  It is definitely impactful.

Would I recommend this film?  Not to everyone: I think this is more of a horror movie fan's horror movie than anything.

7.5 out of 10

Review: Pulse (2001)

You know, writing these reviews every day in the month of October, I sometimes forget that these movies are meant to be scary.  I might wax poetic about childhood nostalgia, or brutally mock the decision-making of a film, or even talk about my love of the more terrible attempts at making a horror movie, but I seldom talk about movies that are scary.  Looking back at last year's list of movies, I can only count Shelby Oaks, Dark Night of the Scarecrow, The Taking of Deborah Logan, and maybe Wolf Man as movies that were actually frightening - even the more respectable classics I watched were viewed more with a sense of detachment given how well versed I was in their histories.  So it was quite nice to go into this movie blind and be genuinely unnerved by it at various points.  It makes sense that this movie is credited with starting the J-horror movement alongside Ringu.

Pulse is a 2001 Japanese techno-horror movie with dual storylines:  One following Michi (Kumiko Asō), a plant shop worker whose coworkers start disappearing; the other following Ryosuke, a college student who sets up his Internet and immediately starts having weird things happen on his computer.  The characters go through similar experiences as strange things start happening to them and the other citizens of Tokyo.

The first 45 minutes of this movie are damn near perfect: the first scare is set up so perfectly that when the shock comes - not as a jump scare, but as a horrified reaction - you are left questioning what has happened just as much as the character.  It's filmed with a hazy, dream-like quality that makes every movement or dialogue feel like it can go in unexpected directions.

The movie goes further by setting up what seem like traditional scares, then somewhat letting the air out of them (both the audience and the characters relax, if only briefly) before hitting us when something truly horrific.  The movie doesn't use jump scares for any of this, but keeps the tone, the color, the mood of the film in an ever-foreboding state so that when we reach these moments relaxation, we cling to them that much harder for relief.  It's astoundingly effective even now, 25 years later, even though this movie is very much about 2001.

With every potential relief ripped away from the audience, they begin to feel the same exhaustion and lethargy that begin to affect our protagonists.  When we finally get a moment where a character screams, it feels as if she is screaming for all of us - a primeval wail that is one of the rare moments where the audience gets a brief release.

Everything about this feels deliberate:  Writer-director Kiyoshi Kurosawa makes every moment of this movie count in ways both big and small.  The terror can be present in front of us, or just out of sight: around the corner or on the other side of the door.  He is guiding us through this story he wants to tell without it feeling manipulative, but making sure we feel what he wants us to throughout.

I will recommend this movie to everyone.  It is in Japanese, so make your peace with subtitles, but this is what great horror is meant to be.

9 out of 10.

Review: The Boy (2015)

A breakdown of The Boy - no, not the one you are thinking of

The Good:

• David Morse and Rainn Wilson are both very good in this movie
• This film has atmosphere for days, and it serves the movie well
• There is some startling and effective imagery scattered throughout
• The Boy has a pretty cool poster

The Bad:

• While I understand why it is classified as horror, I would not consider it a horror movie
• This movie is slow - apparently trying to be meditative and instead being soporific
• Far too much of the plot doesn't really go anywhere interesting
• Much of this film rests on lead child actor Jared Breeze, and his is not the most compelling performance

The Ugly:

• Though I haven't seen it, I am willing to bet the 2016 movie of the same title is a better film
• Several scenes are outright tedious and none of them are short
• It's bad when your movie is a reasonable 105 minutes and still feels like it needed to be edited down
• The poster, while cool, sells a very different movie then the one you get
• I would only recommend this to someone who is either pretentious or I disliked

3 out of 10

Review: The Legend of Boggy Creek (1972)

Sometimes, a movie is pure nostalgia, a comforting blanket that - even if scary - takes you back to childhood, sitting around a campfire or in a dark room and telling your friends creepy stories, each of you trying to outdo one another.  Nothing too terrible, but tales of creatures in the woods, or ghosts in the attic, something that doesn't cause you to jump, but instead works its way into your skin and settles there.  It fades, as does childhood, and though it might never again cause you to stay up all night terrified of every sound, the memory of it lingers, striking you at random moments and making you feel like a scared child again, if only briefly.  The Legend of Boggy Creek is such a film for me.

Made by the legendary regional director Charles B. Pierce, The Legend of Boggy Creek is a shot in a documentary style, interviewing residents of Fouke, Arkansas as they talk about the local Bigfoot-like creature that wanders the area and the terror it causes.  Several reenactments of encounters are displayed, guided by narration from Vern Stierman, as the viewer learns of the ever-escalating appearances, and later attacks, that petrifies those who encounter it.

This low budget film - made for $160,000, eventually grossing over $20 million - used local residents, often portraying themselves or relatives, to give the movie an air of authenticity, and it works wonders.  A child watching this - and indeed, I was a child the first time I saw this movie - would readily believe this tale as only a child can: Woods are mysterious, and who's to say something monstrous doesn't live somewhere deep into them?  And if parts of it look fake, or threadbare, well this is just a tale of the monster, not the actual thing.

It really is amazing that this is a first film.  Pierce, who would direct thirteen other films and assist in the making of others, shows a natural talent for setting up shots, building tension, and using his location.  He actually worked many behind-the-scenes roles, serving as cinematographer (and nailing it) and as producer.  This movie feels instinctual, almost as if the camera just accidentally caught something magic, which speaks to the talent and effort of everyone behind the camera.

Rewatching it some 30 years later, I am amazed at how well it holds up.  I talked of the effect of this film in the first paragraph, and all these years later I can still feel the terror of the night after I watched this movie - like a scar I had forgotten about and then noticed in the mirror.  Everything about this film works, and things that would normally be a strike against it - some wooden acting or the look of the creature - somehow instead work in its favor to make it seem that much more authentic.

I really cannot recommend this film enough, to anyone.  It is very much in the same vein as 1963's The Haunting or The Conjuring, more creepy than scary, but damn if it doesn't work just as well as those other films.

8.5 out of 10

Review: The Howling (1981)

It's hard to not compare this movie to the other 1981 werewolf movie An American Werewolf in London (and I suppose, 1981's Wolfen, which seems to be an also-ran amongst the three), possibly my favorite movie from that particular year.  The Howling is a much more serious take on the werewolf myth, and the different approach helps to separate the two even if comparisons are inevitable.

The film primarily follows journalist Karen White (Dee Wallace) as she helps the police to capture serial killer Eddie Quist (Robert Picardo), the experience of which causes her such trauma that she and her husband Bill (Christopher Stone) end up going to The Colony, a secluded resort where she can receive treatment.  Things do not go well for her there.

The first and only direct comparison I will make has to be the transformations between the two movies.  While An American Werewolf in London's transformation is (justifiably) legendary, The Howling has nothing to be ashamed of.  Both make the process look painful, and The Howling has the benefit of multiple transformations from multiple characters.  There is a bit of inconsistency in the transformations, but they are minor and do not take anything away from the film.

The acting is relatively strong, although the acting styles are all over the place.  Weirdly, this works for the film - you have some performances camped up (Picardo and Elisabeth Brooks), some that are performing as if they are in a Hammer film from the 50s (Patrick Macnee and John Carradine), and some with a more naturalistic approach (Wallace and film standout Belinda Balaski).  You'd think this mishmash of styles would cause friction, but it all blends together perfectly.

Director Joe Dante has some interesting shots scattered throughout, though nothing as fun or as inventive as in Piranha or Gremlins.  He doesn't make any questionable decisions, but it does lack a bit of the spark that those other two movies had.  Perhaps he was more comfortable indulging in a bit of humor in those other two which this one lacked.

Overall, this is a pretty solid movie.  It won't be my favorite werewolf movie, Joe Dante movie, or Dee Wallace movie, but definitely one I'll probably end up watching again.  The real question is, will I watch any of the 6 other movies in the franchise?  Maybe, but probably not for this month's movies.  But I would recommend this to others, especially if they enjoy horror.

7 out of 10

Review: American Gothic (1988)

"Want to make a horror movie based off of a painting?"

"Sure, what painting did you have in mind?"

"I was thinking American Gothic."

"What, will it be a Texas Chainsaw thing?"

"Kinda, only we're going to set it in Washington."

"The state?  Why not have it be Bigfoot then?"

"No, that's cheesy.  Instead it's going to be a nutty family that lives alone on an island and kills anyone that ends up going there."

"Cannibalism?"

"No, just crazy.  We're going to have a bunch of 50-year-olds acting like children and murdering people with kids stuff, like swings and jump ropes."

"If they act like kids, how would they survive?"

"There will be a Ma and Pa based off the painting to keep them in line."

"Okay, how's the final girl going to get out of this situation?"

"She doesn't."

"What?  She dies?  People hate the sort of downer ending."

"I didn't say she died."

"Well, then how does she survive."

"Trust me, you won't see it coming."

"Okay, but this sounds a little strange - can we get a big name for it?"

"We already got Rod Steiger and Yvonne De Carlo to play Pa and Ma."

"Wow, they are slumming it."

"Are they, though?"

"Fair."

"We need to keep this somewhat serious so they aren't laughing throughout it though."

"Maybe have the crazy family be scary?"

"No, we can't do that.  Instead, our main girl is going to have a dead baby."

"Isn't that a little dark."

"No, it's character depth.  Besides, it is only important in the beginning and end of the movie."

"Well, okay then."

"Okay, let's make this movie."

"Are we going to refine the idea at all?"

"No."

5 out of 10

Review: Coyotes (2025)

I remember when I first saw the trailer for this and how excited I was to watch it.  Then it seemed to never come out.  Turns out it did a very limited release before going to streaming where, when I attempted to watch it last year, they wanted to charge a frankly obscene amount for a rental.  Thankfully, it was at a more reasonable price this year and I can finally cross it off the list of movies that grabbed my interest that I needed to watch.

Coyotes follows comic book artist Scott (Justin Long), his wife Liv (Kate Bosworth, giving us real-life married couple playing this fictional one), and their daughter Chloe (Mila Harris, not related to her fictional parents) as a natural disaster near their Hollywood Hills home leaves them trapped, without power and menaced by a large pack of coyotes.

Now, this premise is absolutely ridiculous, and the movie thankfully knows this, so it takes the horror-comedy approach with a heavy lean in the comedy direction.  It mostly succeeds in this goal, though the seams show a little bit in both the humor and the special effects departments.

This movie screams of multiple rewrites with vastly different approaches to the humor.  There's a weird misogynistic streak to some of the humor, forcibly softened by making Liv and Chloe among the more competent characters, and some topical humor that falls flat (a character blames the coyotes attacking on chemtrails).  If those had been more fully excised, the movie would have been much better overall, because much of the remaining humor works well and is gamely delivered by the cast.

The movie does improve once it moves to the more action-y part of the film, even if it does have several moments that stretch the suspension of disbelief.  Nothing too unforgiveable, thankfully, but will make a perceptive viewer role their eyes a bit.

The special effects for the coyotes range from acceptable to bad, with some of the coyotes not even glancing at realistic, and others making the audience think more of a wolf.  The other effects - primarily the gore and makeup of various attacks - is much stronger, and while I understand why CGI had to be use for the coyotes, I wish they could have gone in a more practical direction.

The acting is generally good across the board, with Bosworth giving the best performance.  It was nice to see Long play a well-meaning if slightly incompetent character after playing a series of more sleazy ones.  Also, is Long considered a scream king at this point?  If not, I think he should be.  Brittany Allen, as Julie, also has some great bits.

Overall, this wasn't a bad time.  It certainly isn't the best movie I've watched this month, but it is also far from the worst.  I think I would recommend it to a few people, if only for its blessedly-short 92 minute runtime.

6.5 out of 10