So, let's review.
NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD: A pretty damn good movie, basically having a major hand in transitioning horror from something typically enjoyed only by moms and kids with airbrushed t-shirts of bela lugosi to something that only weird sheltered nerds really care about.
DAWN OF THE DEAD: Best zombie horror film, possible best horror film. No other comments apply.
DAY OF THE DEAD: Some people say critically underrated film satirizing the government and the stupidity of man, others say the first signs that Romero is cracking as a director. Don't see why I can't be both!
LAND OF THE DEAD: A movie that will remembered by my generation as one of the greatest disappointments, a film that we all tried so hard to convince ourselves to enjoy (LOOK DENNIS HOPPER, A FAT SAMOAN NAMED PILLSBURY, UHHH YUHHH), but eventually we all had to admit was just eye-rollingly bad. Anyone that disputes this probably needs to go back and watch the ending. I know it's scary, but we all have to face our fears and trucks shooting out fireworks after making peace with the zombies and jesus christ remember when we thought bub was going to be the limit of trying to make the undead sympathetic.
DIARY OF THE DEAD: Just watch, REC, jesus.
Seriously, why do I keep watching these movies? Romero ran out of creative steam years ago, and now apparently sits on some cursed throne that gives counterfeit issues of Hollywood Reporter with headlines reading "WHERE ARE MOVIES TELLING US MAN IS THE REAL MONSTER?" Carpenter at least has the decency to try new things, even if they are all uniformly awful. Oh wait Romero did Bruiser, that counts for something no it doesn't.
So here comes Survival of the Dead, or in a world of perfect honesty, So You Assholes Don't Consider Day of the Dead a Good Movie Huh Well Here's How It Would Have Looked If I Smeared Shit Over Every Aspect Of That Film. At least with Diary, there was something interesting about seeing Romero try to one up the new generation's love for all that first person nonsense. It failed miserably, but at least you could argue that Romero was trying there. Survival, by comparison, is possibly one of the laziest horror movies ever put out in semi-widespread release.
As noted above, the plot essentially is what would happen if you stuck Day in a Ziploc bag, added a cup of clam chowder, and shook for a full minute. Okay so see the army guys aren't the bad guys sort of but there's an island of warring family clans and one wants to kill all the zombie and one wants to make the zombies eat pigs because that will solve the whole problem??? The plot is dumb as hell, but far more importantly, it's boring as shit. It feels like Romero had an idea for some awesome setpieces and wacky character exchanges, with the rest of the film being thrown out to the four winds with the hopes that some acceptable zombie fanservice will blow in.
Oh the fanservice. I'm sure there is a fair share of people who will continue to watch Romero's awful films because oh boy look at all these cool zombie deaths. Whoa, that zombie got shot in the chest with a flare and now its head is on fire this movies rules! Wait what's this copy of Dead Rising 2 coming out of my couch noooooooo. Hey assholes, remember all the cool gimmick deaths in Dawn of the Dead? There was that wicked helicopter scene AND THAT WAS FUCKING ALL. I hate to sound like some potbellied asshat who winces when a well-meaning friend dares to get a movie with fast zombies, but a single low-tech gunshot kill in Dawn had more verve and poise than all the wacky "achievement unlocked" deaths in Survival.
So everyone hated Survival of the Dead. But alot of people really liked Mother of Tears, which was only slightly less dumb than Survival. What gives?
I think the initially positive critical wave is the same sort of reaction we all had with Land of the Dead, wanting to believe that as a great horror director finally finishes what most consider to be his most important series after an extremely, there is no way it can be bad. But there has to be something else, since while Land of the Dead was bad, you could at least squint and sort of see the same directing style that Romero had with his earlier zombie movies. With Mother of Tears, there is literally no way you could argue that this is the same direction we saw with Suspiria and Inferno. Gone is anything resembling atmosphere or creepiness, and instead we just get lots of murders and spooky chases. Alot of horror reviewers made much about the film's balls to the walls action, but they neglect to mention that any scene that doesn't involve someone getting stabbed is unrelentingly boring. Not a creepy boring, but a "shot of walking from train to bookstore for five minutes" sort of way. My girlfriend fell asleep during the movie, and I don't blame her, as anyone that isn't as invested in Argento's filmopgraphy and/or feels compelled to kowtow to a horror great probably didn't give a shit about this movie anyway.
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
Fright Night (2011)
So how long has it been since I said I unequivocally enjoyed something???? The Fright Night remake is a good horror movie. Not great, but not that far from it.
Much credit for this goes to the writing. Much of the dialogue and sight gags manage to toe that line between being attractive to teenage moviegoers while also throwing bones to dedicated horror fanatics like myself. That is to say, everything is very "fun" in this movie. For example, there is the inevitable Twilight joke, but the reference is cleverly handled and quickly removed, while a lesser film would have not stopped going BOY THESE VAMPIRES SURE AREN'T LIKE THOSE SPARKLEPIRES HUH HURR HUR HURR. Some things slowly fall apart by the end of the film (as in 50% of everything out of David Tennant's mouth, but more about that later), but by then you're impressed with the actually scary parts and everything sort of works out.
Most of the actors and actresses are terribad, but who cares? I couldn't remember what almost anyone looked like in the original until I rewatched the trailer, but I certainly remember Jerry. In both Fright Nights, it's a basic truth that while you maybe don't want to see the mortals die, you're way more interested in what this suave and very dangerous Nosferatu is all about. And by gum, Colin Farrell pulls things off, wisely avoiding aping Chris Sarandon's portrayal and instead shooting for a sort of insular suburbia demon, feeding on people in between viewings of Jersey Shore.* In some respects, it was probably a conscious decision to fill the movie with relative no-names (OH WAIT THAT GUY WAS CHEKHOV WOOPS), as then the audience will then rapturously await the next scene with Farrell, which are expertly spaced out so we aren't overloaded on his character. The editor was also brilliant enough to severely limit McLovin's scenes. I think I speak for everyone intelligent when I was initially timid about the film based on the trailer showing that dude all over the place, but really he's there for like 20 minutes so it's all cool. Also, fun fact, when you try to make that dude look scary, he just sort of turns into Zoolander.
Unfortunately, no great writing nor editing can save us from perhaps the most unnecessary 3D additions ever conceived. I'm echoing the choir, but why in fuck's sake would you do a 3D film where every important scene in in the dark? I don't feel that the 3D effects really harm the film, as both me and my girlfriend ultimately had a grand time laughing at the movie's desperate attempts to justify the use (FREE TSHIRTS FLING), but it still seems weird, and probably says alot about the slow waning of this current horror age that the studio executives felt this movie wouldn't get enough box office sales without such a gimmick. Shames, shames. On the other hand, this probably means less torture horror, so hooray!
Really, my only complaint is about Tennant, and I realize it's kind of stupid. KIDS THESE DAYS wouldn't understand or care about the concept of late-night horror shows, so I get that they had to change the role of the older vampire hunter helper. But couldn't you have gotten someone better than a vague Criss Angel parody? I can't think of anything better, but that's why I'm writing shitty blogs like this. What I could suggest would maybe be a little less Han Solo bitchery. Did Roddy McDowell complain this much in the original? Probably not, but even if he did, I'm pretty sure he was less of a ponce about it.
Fright Night is a pretty good movie. It occupies that same place as the Dawn of the Dead remake, not necessary in any sense of the word, but still fun and scary to watch and certainly heaps better than anything featuring girls crying into cameras as needles are pushed into their knees or whatever. And it's certainly a more necessary remake than GODDAMNED STRAW DOGS WHY WOULD YOU REMAKE THAT WHY FUCK YOU AMERICA
...excuse me.
*In between amusing little details like that and the understated theme of the foreclosure crisis helping vampirekind, I confidently state that Fright Night is a hundred times more effective parody than Red State is going to be.
Much credit for this goes to the writing. Much of the dialogue and sight gags manage to toe that line between being attractive to teenage moviegoers while also throwing bones to dedicated horror fanatics like myself. That is to say, everything is very "fun" in this movie. For example, there is the inevitable Twilight joke, but the reference is cleverly handled and quickly removed, while a lesser film would have not stopped going BOY THESE VAMPIRES SURE AREN'T LIKE THOSE SPARKLEPIRES HUH HURR HUR HURR. Some things slowly fall apart by the end of the film (as in 50% of everything out of David Tennant's mouth, but more about that later), but by then you're impressed with the actually scary parts and everything sort of works out.
Most of the actors and actresses are terribad, but who cares? I couldn't remember what almost anyone looked like in the original until I rewatched the trailer, but I certainly remember Jerry. In both Fright Nights, it's a basic truth that while you maybe don't want to see the mortals die, you're way more interested in what this suave and very dangerous Nosferatu is all about. And by gum, Colin Farrell pulls things off, wisely avoiding aping Chris Sarandon's portrayal and instead shooting for a sort of insular suburbia demon, feeding on people in between viewings of Jersey Shore.* In some respects, it was probably a conscious decision to fill the movie with relative no-names (OH WAIT THAT GUY WAS CHEKHOV WOOPS), as then the audience will then rapturously await the next scene with Farrell, which are expertly spaced out so we aren't overloaded on his character. The editor was also brilliant enough to severely limit McLovin's scenes. I think I speak for everyone intelligent when I was initially timid about the film based on the trailer showing that dude all over the place, but really he's there for like 20 minutes so it's all cool. Also, fun fact, when you try to make that dude look scary, he just sort of turns into Zoolander.
Unfortunately, no great writing nor editing can save us from perhaps the most unnecessary 3D additions ever conceived. I'm echoing the choir, but why in fuck's sake would you do a 3D film where every important scene in in the dark? I don't feel that the 3D effects really harm the film, as both me and my girlfriend ultimately had a grand time laughing at the movie's desperate attempts to justify the use (FREE TSHIRTS FLING), but it still seems weird, and probably says alot about the slow waning of this current horror age that the studio executives felt this movie wouldn't get enough box office sales without such a gimmick. Shames, shames. On the other hand, this probably means less torture horror, so hooray!
Really, my only complaint is about Tennant, and I realize it's kind of stupid. KIDS THESE DAYS wouldn't understand or care about the concept of late-night horror shows, so I get that they had to change the role of the older vampire hunter helper. But couldn't you have gotten someone better than a vague Criss Angel parody? I can't think of anything better, but that's why I'm writing shitty blogs like this. What I could suggest would maybe be a little less Han Solo bitchery. Did Roddy McDowell complain this much in the original? Probably not, but even if he did, I'm pretty sure he was less of a ponce about it.
Fright Night is a pretty good movie. It occupies that same place as the Dawn of the Dead remake, not necessary in any sense of the word, but still fun and scary to watch and certainly heaps better than anything featuring girls crying into cameras as needles are pushed into their knees or whatever. And it's certainly a more necessary remake than GODDAMNED STRAW DOGS WHY WOULD YOU REMAKE THAT WHY FUCK YOU AMERICA
...excuse me.
*In between amusing little details like that and the understated theme of the foreclosure crisis helping vampirekind, I confidently state that Fright Night is a hundred times more effective parody than Red State is going to be.
Fifteen Hours In Review: Persona 4
They should really call this game Atlus Shrugged because holy shit is this game a fucking slog. Fifteen Hours in, and I'm only in the second dungeon, which is apparently the hardest one in the game which also makes me concerned about things. That isn't to say that I didn't get obliterated when I ran into the guys that cast group attack magic which apparently guarantees an extra turn now, but now that I know they're just like every other non-weak enemy and weak to ailments, it'll be a pushover.
The gameplay is better, sure. It's nice being able to know that my teammates aren't going to do something hilariously boneheaded that will cost me a boss battle. A better equip screen, sure. Not having to choose between experience and gold in after battle card games? I don't know I kind of liked that man. Everything changed in Persona 4 seems like a reaction based on perceived issues in Persona 3, but some of those issues were charming in their clunkiness.
Most perplexing to me is the method at which dungeoning is done. As you go into the MYSTERIOUS TV WORLD in the afternoon, now you have to choose between doing some dungeons or talking to random wanks so your mythical duck warrior will be a little stronger when you fuse him. This is a direct inversion of Persona 3, where only a few night social links were neglected if you quested nightly. It's not really a big deal since I'm clearing these supposedly hard dungeons in 2 days, but it's still weird and awkward. Likewise to the new system of not automatically refilling your magic power when you return to the central hub, but instead forcing you to suddenly remember that Persona has physical attacks and pay a fox whose fees...will lower throughout the game?
As mentioned above, the difficulty curve just perplexes me. Persona 3 took it pretty easy at first, with the first hard boss arriving after two in-game months of relative ease. Persona 4 kicked my ass almost immediately, but it wasn't so much due to game difficulty as just not having enough ways to fight back. So here I am at the first dungeon boss, with a design basically designed to kill you a few times, having to mash the circle button for three minutes each time because of course there is not a skip button during this fucking boss dialogue. Of course you might counter that the Full Moon bosses of Persona 3 had the same endless dialogue preamble, but WHO DIES TO THE FULL MOON BOSSES.
But all these things would just be nitpicks, mere bitching if I could just get into this game.
The biggest hindrance is probably the plot, or rather how the game handles the plot. Persona 3 wasn't Shakespeare (or hell, even good by anime terms), but at least it presented a strange mystery quickly and propelled you into it. Persona 4 seems convinced that you, the player, are not fully understanding of any plot point unless it is repeated a dozen times in VOICE ACTED CUTSCENES. Even now, I'm getting HM WHY ARE THEY PUTTING PEOPLE IN THE TV AWFULLY STRANGE discussions lasting for ten minutes. I realize that judging by fanmade creative content the vast majority of people playing this game are 12-year-olds, but I think even they understand things at this point.
Also adding to my malaise is the way the game handles deadlines. Maybe I'm just some adult baby, but I liked the certainty of the moon system in Persona 3. Roughly 30 days to clear the new dungeon block, cool. Now I have no idea how much time I really have to rescue people or even when they're going to be captured unless I push away my dysfunctional uncle's daughter away from her quiz show to look at the weather. It's like the game is desperate to remove any urgency from my playing, which would be fine if I wasn't playing something billed as an anime murder mystery.
I hate all the characters. Granted, I hated almost everyone in Persona 3, but at least there I got Koromaru and Elizabeth (also, point of order, the persona fighting game coming out better have one of those two in the roster or I will be so het up). The closest personality to acceptable is New Junpei, if just that the game writers ratcheted up Old Junpei's closet issues a hundredfold.
So it's really bad news that Nocturne finally went on sale, because holy shit I've only played an hour and I'm already fighting stuff and things aren't being explained to be in excruciating detail. Fuck this game.
The gameplay is better, sure. It's nice being able to know that my teammates aren't going to do something hilariously boneheaded that will cost me a boss battle. A better equip screen, sure. Not having to choose between experience and gold in after battle card games? I don't know I kind of liked that man. Everything changed in Persona 4 seems like a reaction based on perceived issues in Persona 3, but some of those issues were charming in their clunkiness.
Most perplexing to me is the method at which dungeoning is done. As you go into the MYSTERIOUS TV WORLD in the afternoon, now you have to choose between doing some dungeons or talking to random wanks so your mythical duck warrior will be a little stronger when you fuse him. This is a direct inversion of Persona 3, where only a few night social links were neglected if you quested nightly. It's not really a big deal since I'm clearing these supposedly hard dungeons in 2 days, but it's still weird and awkward. Likewise to the new system of not automatically refilling your magic power when you return to the central hub, but instead forcing you to suddenly remember that Persona has physical attacks and pay a fox whose fees...will lower throughout the game?
As mentioned above, the difficulty curve just perplexes me. Persona 3 took it pretty easy at first, with the first hard boss arriving after two in-game months of relative ease. Persona 4 kicked my ass almost immediately, but it wasn't so much due to game difficulty as just not having enough ways to fight back. So here I am at the first dungeon boss, with a design basically designed to kill you a few times, having to mash the circle button for three minutes each time because of course there is not a skip button during this fucking boss dialogue. Of course you might counter that the Full Moon bosses of Persona 3 had the same endless dialogue preamble, but WHO DIES TO THE FULL MOON BOSSES.
But all these things would just be nitpicks, mere bitching if I could just get into this game.
The biggest hindrance is probably the plot, or rather how the game handles the plot. Persona 3 wasn't Shakespeare (or hell, even good by anime terms), but at least it presented a strange mystery quickly and propelled you into it. Persona 4 seems convinced that you, the player, are not fully understanding of any plot point unless it is repeated a dozen times in VOICE ACTED CUTSCENES. Even now, I'm getting HM WHY ARE THEY PUTTING PEOPLE IN THE TV AWFULLY STRANGE discussions lasting for ten minutes. I realize that judging by fanmade creative content the vast majority of people playing this game are 12-year-olds, but I think even they understand things at this point.
Also adding to my malaise is the way the game handles deadlines. Maybe I'm just some adult baby, but I liked the certainty of the moon system in Persona 3. Roughly 30 days to clear the new dungeon block, cool. Now I have no idea how much time I really have to rescue people or even when they're going to be captured unless I push away my dysfunctional uncle's daughter away from her quiz show to look at the weather. It's like the game is desperate to remove any urgency from my playing, which would be fine if I wasn't playing something billed as an anime murder mystery.
I hate all the characters. Granted, I hated almost everyone in Persona 3, but at least there I got Koromaru and Elizabeth (also, point of order, the persona fighting game coming out better have one of those two in the roster or I will be so het up). The closest personality to acceptable is New Junpei, if just that the game writers ratcheted up Old Junpei's closet issues a hundredfold.
So it's really bad news that Nocturne finally went on sale, because holy shit I've only played an hour and I'm already fighting stuff and things aren't being explained to be in excruciating detail. Fuck this game.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
