REVIEW: Horsemen (2009)

Genre defining movies are tough. Sometimes when you watch a detective mystery film, you get something really cool and interesting like Se7en. Then it catches on and everyone tries to rip it off. Sometimes that produces cool movies like Antibodies. Other times, you get crap like Horsemen.

Director: Jonas Akerlund

Starring: Dennis Quaid, Ziyi Zhang

IMDb

This is basically Se7en made by idiots. That’s about the best way to sum Horsemen up, and I basically don’t have to write anything else – that’s the entire review. But because I love torturing myself and have nothing better to do than watch 4^th rate rip-offs of one of the best movies of all time, I might as well sift through this and see if any jokes can come out of it. That way at least some good can come of this whole mess.

We start off with the best actor in the world, Dennis Quaid, playing a father who is so cool that he routinely abandons his sons to go and do police work. Is this a cliché that is literally so old that it’s practically becoming revolutionary? Well, no. It’s still lame. Quaid’s character is basically that he just shouts a lot. But when he sees that he’s been called out to look at a miniature silver platter full of bloody human teeth, well, it’s safe to say he has no words at all.

Pfft, that's not a kill scene; that's Hannibal Lecter's equivalent of spitting out the seeds when eating a watermelon.

Apparently they called him for this because he has the oddly specific and not AT ALL contrived position of being an expert on teeth. Does this ever come up again? No. Is it completely useless to the movie and just put in to give him an excuse to be called out to look at teeth? Yes.

Back at the office everyone is just SO BAFFLED by these teeth, but then they get an even bigger call to go to a murder scene straight out of the first SAW movie.

...along with colors that make I Know Who Killed Me look subtle.

Apparently someone snuck in and did this in these peoples’ home. They question the kids downstairs but learn absolutely nothing, and so they just go and re-enact a scene from Se7en entirely. Yeah, they go to see a guy who invents crazy sex contraptions like the machine the woman was found dead in. The guy bitches about it a little, Quaid and his porno-stache partner threaten to arrest him for drugs, and he gives in. Totally pointless scene. The one from Se7en establishes some tension and heightens the drama going on. The one in this movie just takes up running time. Like any good scene in a good movie, you know.

Oh, and I forgot to mention the stupid “catch phrase” the kill scenes have written on the wall. Apparently the killer writes “Come and see” on the wall every time they string up someone in that weird torture contraption thing:

Because every movie like this has to have a stupid catch phrase for the killer. Otherwise it wouldn’t be allowed into the secret club of serial killer detective movies. It’s an exclusive group. It doesn’t even matter that the catch phrase makes no sense with the method of killing. Why bother having any logic to it? It’s not like having a more nuanced and well-thought-out connection between the two would make the movie meaningful or thought-provoking, right? Oh wait yes it would you hacks.

Through some rather dull scenes, Quaid discovers that the “come and see” thing is from the Bible, and is part of the myth of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. While this isn’t the most original set up for a movie – hell, Dexter Season 6 would do it way better a few years later – it does have potential. Unfortunately the potential is not that well realized here. He goes in and tells everyone at the station about his discovery, and they all rightfully call him crazy for a few seconds before believing him – another scene that will be indicted into the all-time greatest moments in cinema history, for sure.

Oh please, he can't actually read. Otherwise he wouldn't have signed on for this script.

We get some boring detective scenes with too-dark lighting that really don’t have much to do with anything. They find another victim strapped up to a harness, get a suspect – her ex boyfriend or something – and then that guy turns up dead, too. Very snore-inducing. We also get scenes with Quaid’s emo son back at home. Apparently Quaid’s wife died of cancer a few years ago and his son blames him for it, because he’s a hormonal teenager, and why not alienate what little family you have left?

There’s one scene where the son bakes a cake for his dead mother’s birthday like, apparently, they do every year. This prompts a big argument when it appears Quaid has forgotten about it. Quaid shouts a lot and the son says that Quaid wasn’t there “when it really mattered” – we get some dialogue a little bit later that alleges to the fact that the son was apparently the only one there when his mother actually died, with Quaid off working a case or something. And thus we have the reason why this family is falling apart: the father feels guilty and detached, and the kids are left alone to become more distant because of it.

Oh, and he doesn’t take them to basketball games because of his job; can’t forget that:

Can you smell the stench of disappointment coming off of these two?

But really, how well done is this whole segment? I really don’t think it’s handled all that well. Honestly, there isn’t anything in this plot that hasn’t been done before. Which isn’t a death sentence automatically, but come on. This whole “distant father, dead wife, neglected kids” thing NEEDS some more substance to it! Just having Quaid and the son shout at one another and then Quaid telling them that he’s “not going to be detached anymore” five billion times during the film doesn’t cut it! The characters aren’t interesting and there’s nothing particularly stirring about the drama going on. If all you’re going to do is pick a hackneyed scenario that everyone has seen done better a billion times before and try to pass it off as meaningful drama, what’s the point?

Sigh. But hey, at least we get some more riveting detective scenes. Like how Quaid is such a good detective that he can’t solve anything; the murderer, who is a small Asian girl, just walks up to him and confesses. They talk a bit, she hugs him, and then she says she “didn’t know her mother had this inside her,” while pulling out a dead bloody fetus in a plastic bag.

Well I for one think it's perfectly normal to carry around aborted fetuses in bags in your pocket...

Okay, okay…a few things.

First off, so what, Quaid is such a shitty detective that even though he’s been looking into this for days now, very intensely, he has to have the killer just WALK UP and talk to him to find her? At least Se7en had a psychotic Kevin Spacey as the discovered killer. This movie just has a tiny Asian girl. That a trained adult male detective couldn’t catch without her revealing her role herself. Don’t put that one on your resume, Quaid; I’m not sure it’s something you should necessarily be proud of.

Second, yeah, so she just carries around that fetus in a bag days after the murder. Right. Not like that would start to smell or anything, right? And you know, carrying fetuses around in plastic bags in your coat pocket is totally awesome and not going to draw attention in any other way, either. Plus it’s gross. And you’re gross. And you need help.

I guess that was this chick’s “evil switch,” because after that she gets arrested and pretty much becomes the movie’s Hannibal Lecter, constantly cajoling and taunting from behind bars. I don’t quite understand why she had to do this, except for the fact that otherwise, they would never be able to catch any of the killers. She has nothing to gain from being arrested, but I guess anything goes when you’re too stupid to think of real ways to move your plot along.

Insert Dark Knight joke here...or don't, either way it's still cliche and boring.

So yeah, her whole role in the movie from this point on is to look evil and vomit out plot exposition like a robot with a conveyor belt attached to its mouth. Without her in the movie we would never learn anything about who the killers ended up being. Basically, according to Psycho Asian Aborted Fetus Bitch here, the Four Horsemen are actually just a bunch of whiny kids who had fucked up childhoods, and so now they take out their rage by torturing their parents for hours and cutting them up like Swiss cheese. Real good motive there, movie…we then see exactly what she’s talking about!

Yup. The next scene is some gay kid and his douchebag brother who can’t accept the fact that the kid is gay. At first I thought the brother was being so rude and indignant because he found out the kid was part of the Four Horsemen torture-fuck club, but nope, it’s just because he’s gay. “Hey, bro, it’s totally cool that you’re a member of a group of freaks that tortures their parents for no reason."

"What? You’re gay? I WANT NOTHING TO DO WITH YOU.”

I guess maybe his brother doesn’t know about the torture thing yet. Possibly.

But it’s okay, because the kid then shows him!

More nightmare fuel for you...

And herein lies one of my other problems with the movie: this scene. It’s the only real “torture” scene we get, and despite the brother’s face with all those wires holding it up looking like a bad Adult Swim animation, it’s pretty indefensible. The kid shouts at his brother a lot about not accepting him, yadda yadda, and while it maybe could’ve been done well, with a radically different script…it’s just not working here. Okay, so yeah, this kid has been mistreated by his brother. That’s fine, and his brother is definitely portrayed as a real jackass and a thoroughly unlikable person. But when your solution is to tie people up and torture them in horrible ways, it doesn’t matter what the fuck your reasoning is – you are always wrong, and it is impossible to feel sympathy for you anymore.

Which is fine, as not every movie that has such themes is asking us to feel sorry for these characters. Sometimes it’s more complex than that, as in a movie like Chronicle. But with Horsemen, they don’t really try to do anything with this concept. As the concept of mistreated kids lashing out with repressed rage is quite delicate and weighty, it really needs a professional to handle it in fiction. With Horsemen, you don’t get that – instead you get the same old generic “shock and awe” reaction to these kids’ crimes. You are supposed to be shocked that this is happening, but the movie fails to engage you on any other level besides shock value. It takes the careful subject of a child’s failed upbringing and turns it into a circus act.

Again, look at Chronicle – a movie that takes a story about just one kid who has a shit home life and goes bad, and does a very good job at telling a story about it. The film portrays him as a human being, not just as some cardboard cutout intended to evoke some plastic, half-assed sense of carnival sideshow shock. In other words, it’s not Horsemen. Because Horsemen is lowest common denominator crap.

Well, luckily for me, the kid doesn’t actually torture his brother at all. Instead he kills himself.

You’re doing it wrong! I think you have this whole torture thing a little backwards actually…either way it’s a stupid scene, and while it coulda been done better maybe if the brother wasn’t harnessed up in that stupid contraption and just like, tied up, I’m not going to dignify this with trying to level with its story.

So basically, they come and take away the kid’s body later and the brother is still on the ground – his response to the whole thing is calling his dead brother a faggot again. Yeah, well I guess people really don’t change, do they? Once a bigoted douchebag, always a bigoted douchebag.

After that, after talking to Psycho Bitch some more, Quaid sends his porno-stache partner over to his house to make sure his family isn’t being targeted, because doing it himself would violate Quaid’s code of being a shitty parent. What was he saying earlier about wanting to be part of their lives more often again? I guess that was just bullshit. The partner guy gets knocked out, and Quaid thinks NOW it’s a good time to go home and check! So he goes home and finds…

Oh please, that doesn't mean anything - the editors just forgot to dump an overload of one particular color on this scene.

Yup, and apparently the fact that his son’s room is painted white means that he’s the leader of these four horsemen types. Why didn’t Master Detective Quaid notice this before? Well, apparently he hasn’t been inside his son’s room for three years. I know this because the movie says so just a few minutes later when they meet up. Now, pardon me if I’m not exactly up to speed on the conventions of modern parenting, BUT WHAT THE FUCK IS THAT?! He hasn’t been in his son’s room for THREE YEARS?!? Are you shitting me?

I mean honestly, that has to take the cake for worst hackneyed way to explain a plot device I’ve ever seen. For a movie that isn’t a joke, and seems to be very serious in its execution, I really am just baffled at how this made it past anyone who wasn’t lobotomized! Movie, I’ll ignore the obvious social and parenting-related repercussions of such an implication – nobody cares. But I will talk about the plot of this film: you’re basically admitting here that Quaid is so unobservant and so bad at his job, that he didn’t notice HIS OWN SON was a part of a serial killing, torturing group of maniacs? And not only that, but also could have found out easily by just GOING INTO HIS SON’S ROOM? That is astronomically bad. I mean wow.

Ugh…so I guess Quaid goes and finds his son hooked up like a marionette at some kind of auditorium place. His son tells him that there are actually thousands of horsemen, all just waiting to unleash their hormonal rage upon the world. But for some reason only if the son dies…I think. Quaid shoots the ropes holding him up and he falls. The son dies and we fade out.

Quaid goes home and kisses his other son goodnight, the thousands of horsemen all around the world begin a mass murder and torture spree, and the movie ends on a happy note.

No, really, it ends on a happy note – I guess the fact that there’s a whole bunch more of these “horsemen” kids in the world doesn’t matter, since they never bring it up. Go figure. This movie is crap. While I guess I’ve seen worse movies, it doesn’t excuse the awful writing in this movie. And even if the writing were better, Dennis Quaid hams it up while simultaneously not giving a shit, and the kids in the movie are pretty much just High School Musical versions of famous thriller movie villains. It’s just an empty film without much to recommend about it.

But on the bright side…it isn’t World War Z.

Yeah, that’s the next review. God help us all!

Images copyright of their original owners, I own none of them.

REVIEW: Lord of Illusions (1995)

Am I dreaming? Is this movie part of some kind of freakish, nightmareish sub-reality in my mind brought on by some guy sticking his fingers in my head? Is Clive Barker stupid or actually so subtly gifted and talented that I can’t even perceive how great he truly is? Was the Kennedy assassination the work of a lone gunman, or was there something more at work? For the answers to all of these questions…don’t watch this movie, because it’ll just confuse the shit out of you and you’ll spend your time pondering the answers to those questions PLUS the myriad more brought on by the film’s insanity. Trust me. I know. I’m a survivor of Lord of Illusions.

Director: Clive Barker

Starring: Scott Bakula, Kevin J. O'Connor

IMDb

After watching this, you will be transformed! Transformed into someone who hates the art of cinema! Into someone who thinks the only way to make a good movie is lots of referential crap to dated stuff that nobody watches anymore, plus tons and tons of gore! Transformed into a mindless slave of the Clive Barker cult of nonsense!

The film begins with some people going in to stop this fat, balding guy who apparently has magical powers from using those powers to do something with a girl he kidnapped – it’s not entirely clear what his plan is. Except, of course, for being a fat, balding guy with no charisma, charm or acting skills…seriously, what is the draw to this guy? People are apparently worshiping him and lining up to join his magic cult thing, but this is the first really big hole. Who would follow this guy? He’s about as charming as a wooden fence post.

So yeah, I’m not kidding here, THIS is the leader of these mercenaries…rebels…whatever the hell they are:

What is that? The bastard child of Steve Buscemi and a weedwacker? Well, whatever, he goes in and tries to save the girl, telling her it will be OK but not actually saving her yet. Isn’t that the best kind of rescue? Also, why do they always gag people in movies where they can still talk? Doesn’t that go against the point of a gag?

She can clearly still talk through that, and as we'll see in a few scenes, she can still pick up and use a weapon even with her wrists tied like they are. So basically this is a failure of a hostage situation.

Then we see the best method of villainous plotting ever conceived – hanging out behind a rotating wall and then dramatically revealing yourself when you could have just stabbed your enemy from the start when he came into the room:

I guess the plot here is that this magician guy, Nix, is obsessed for some reason that is never fully made clear with that Steve Buscemi lookalike, whose name is Swann, and so he wants to “show him the truth of the flesh” or some inane bullshit; you know, the usual Clive Barker formula. Have a guy intone deeply and say cool sounding things that mean nothing, and then play some gory shots over it that also mean nothing. Maybe his philosophy is that two meaningless things, when put together, will create something of substance. But I think it’s fair to say it just annoys the living piss out of his audience and makes him look like a giant tool.

Then Nix gets shot in the back by the hostage girl he tied up. Gee. Maybe you shouldn’t have left her hands untied enough for her to use a gun. And maybe you shouldn’t have been so unobservant as to let her near that gun in the first place. You’re really not much in the brains department either, are you Nix? How the hell are people following this guy again?! They bury him underground and say he’ll never come back, but since the movie still has an hour and a half left, how much do you wanna bet he comes back?

They're putting down their bets right now...and hoping to win! The woman in the middle is putting all her rent money on the table even.

Oh, and this was all in less than the first ten minutes, by the way. Isn’t that a beauty? I’ve talked about so much already and the movie isn’t even close to starting its main plot yet. Ugh…

We then fast forward 13 years to New York City, where some private detective named Harry D’Amour gets a house call from his boss, generic frumpy white businessman. The conversation that follows is – I’m not gonna lie here – probably the most generic movie conversation ever made in the history of cinema. The guy in the suit says he has a job for D’Amour, who is skeptical about it while popping a bottle of beer. But we know he’s going to say yes and just go. Why wouldn’t he? When in the history of movies has the drunken, down-and-out detective ever said no to the One Final Job?

5 o'clock shadow? Rich 1%er boss with one last mission for him? Alcoholism problem? All checked off! You are officially the lead character in your very own terrible detective story...and seriously, how poorly acted is this character anyway? He blends into the background so much you almost forget he's even there most of this movie. I mean, he's only supposed to be our moral center of things. I guess that wasn't important.

So he ends up in Los Angeles chasing some guy who apparently is conning someone. He follows some guy to a fortune teller’s office where he finds a guy holding the fortune teller hostage, having already stabbed him several times in the chest. Then D’Amour is attacked by some bald bodyguard guy. How will D’Amour beat this guy? He slams the door in his face aaaaaaand that stops him cold!

Ugggghhhhhhh doors!!! I was trained for everything except fighting through them! Doors are my mortal enemies!

When the bodyguard FINALLY gets through the door several minutes later, D’Amour throws him out a window. Truly this guy was the best henchman ever. Then the other guy leaves as well, leaving D’Amour to tend to the wounded fortune teller, who dies. What are D’Amour’s chilling, poetic words to summarize witnessing such a painful death scene? None other than “Shit.” That’s all he says, and isn’t it just perfect? I think I’ve heard better eulogies from a five year old flushing her goldfish down the toilet.

So I guess the story behind this is that someone or something is killing off all the members of the squad who brought down that Nix character 13 years ago. Why did the killer take 13 years to get started with that brilliant plot? Because that fits the time this movie was released in the mid 90s. There literally is no other reason besides that. D’Amour gets hired by the wife of that Swann weirdo who is now a big time stage magician, who wants him to figure out what the hell is going on. Even though…he was already doing that anyway and didn’t need to be hired twice. Oh, wait! I know the reason!

"We have no reason to be attracted to one another besides the fact that I'm the main hero in a poorly written film noir detective story! Let's have sex!"

Literally without even saying anything, you know they’re going to have sex before the movie ends. It’s that friggin’ obvious. Why else even have this shit in the movie at all, if not for a cheap and poorly written romantic “plot”? This movie is as predictable as a weather forecast in the middle of a drought. I know it’s trying to be all homage-y to classic film noirs and detective stories, but god, would at least a little bit of energy and cleverness be too much to ask for?

Then D’Amour ends up going to one of Swann’s shows with the wife, whose name is Dorothea. The show is…well, it’s not really much of a magic show. It’s more like what would qualify at the video store as “special interest.”

Is that the Yogurt statue from Spaceballs?

Yeah, nice Power Rangers poses there you morons.

If you like seeing a bunch of mostly naked men wrapped up in metal wiring dancing around a statue of an ambiguously Indian-looking idol statue, well, then you would be in for a treat. I just imagine here all the people who brought their young children to see this, expecting a magic show. Wouldn’t this be just so strange to them?

Then Swann performs his ultimate trick – bloody, violent death!

Eh, I've seen better magic shows. 7/10.

And in the words of Harry D’Amour to describe the situation: “Shit.” That about sums it up.

Afterwards, D’Amour investigates some other magician guy and comes across the name Nix, which he figures is connected to the deaths of all these people, and when he asks Dorothea about it, she sends her butler to tell him to stop working and go home. So he finds out what she was looking for and she doesn’t like it? He DID HIS JOB, WHAT SHE ASKED HIM TO DO, and her response is telling him she doesn’t like it? What the hell? Is some kind of semblance of a logical sequence of events REALLY THAT HARD? Jesus Christ, Clive Barker! What’s wrong with you? Can’t you even just…try, for once, to write something that isn’t totally talentless hack work and just, maybe, I dunno, might be a crazy idea, TELL A REAL STORY? God!

So after that D’Amour ends up going over to Dorothea’s mansion where they have this conversation:

D’AMOUR: [Swann] thought Nix was coming back, didn’t he? Didn’t he?

[DOROTHEA slams her hands on the table and looks distressed.]

D’AMOUR: I can’t help you unless you talk to me.

DOROTHEA: Nobody can help me.

Normally dialogue like this wouldn’t be anything worth pointing out, except for what follows:

I mean really, REALLY?! "Oh, I just want to help you solve this crime" = making out with a stripper pole between your boobs? What universe is this?

Well, I called it, and it was totally predictable that they would end up having sex. But honestly, what the hell led to this? They were talking about the case and then, bam, they were making out, and one scene later they were in bed. Did Barker just miss a page of the script where they started flirting with one another? There was no build up to this at all! Usually there’s…something, at least, like a scene or two of them sort of being coy with one another, but here it’s literally just a totally unrelated conversation leading to them doing it! It’s like a parody of a film noir rather than a homage. But then again, expecting Clive Barker to start understanding anything about human interaction now would be an exercise in futility.

Then we see the worst special effects this side of Cube II: Hypercube as the ghost of Nix chases them around the palace and stuff:

If they were going for "childish red crayon scribble" then they got that one 100% correct!

After that, we find out that Swann is actually still alive, and faked his death so that the ghost of Nix would leave him and his loved ones alone. This is so stupid that even a dunce like D’Amour can point out the holes in it, like that Dorothea was the one who actually shot and killed Nix to begin with, so why wouldn’t he go after her anyway? It all just comes to point out how much of a goddamn pussy Swann is, and him being alive…really adds nothing to the rest of the movie, seeing as it’s almost over. So why add it? To pad out the running time, of course!

So apparently that one guy from earlier, who killed that fortune teller, is the main villain now as he kidnaps Dorothea and takes her to the site from the beginning of the movie, where they raise Nix from the grave as the incarnate of Frank from the first Hellraiser movie:

Can you tell this was made by the same guy yet? If the poorly written story and lack of serious atmosphere didn't give it away...

He almost kills Dorothea, but D’Amour saves her. Nix decides that he wants to explode Swann’s brain, so he does exactly that, rendering him a brainless vegetable. Then we see that he corrupts D’Amour by sticking his fingers in his head and making him see other people like this:

Well to be fair watching Clive Barker movies for too long makes me see people that way too.

…until Dorothea shoots Nix in the head and kills him!

Oh, did I say that kills him? I’m sorry. I meant he’s still alive after being shot! I always get those two confused…and seriously, can’t this shit JUST END ALREADY?! They push him down into a hole and kill him that way. What did we learn from this? That if you push people into holes and shoot them, they die? What the hell was the point of any of this garbage? I feel ill just thinking of the time wasted on this that I could have been using for something more productive, like watching paint dry, or reading my neighbors’ tax returns.

Lord of Illusions’ only real illusion is that it somehow got green lighted. You thought you were getting a good movie, movie studios? Well POOF! Bait and switch and you’re left with Lord of Illusions. God, what a mess. Did people ever really take this seriously? I mean Hellraiser is one thing; that at least had an iconic and memorable main villain. This? This has N-O-T-H-I-N-G. Sigh. It’s like Clive Barker has some kind of magical spell over his audiences blinding them to his talentlessness…some kind of strange pull over the minds of the weak…

…nah, people are just too easy to please and that’s all there is to it.

REVIEW: Fallen (1998)

There’s always a charm to movies like this. Fallen is a 1990s thriller movie starring Denzel Washington and John Goodman; isn’t that a kick-ass cast?

Director: Gregory Holblitt

Starring: Denzel Washington, John Goodman

Website: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119099/

This is easily one of the better Denzel Washington movies, in which he plays a cocky detective who ends up on the trail of a body-jumping demon called Azazel. This is just one of those great bare-bones detective thrillers with a premise that is original enough to stand out without trying too hard to be anything it isn’t. All the tropes you would expect are in this movie – you have the stoic and serious main character slipping to the dark side. You have the hesitant and mysterious female lead who slowly opens up to the main character. You have a little kid character, in this case Washington’s nephew. You have a stern boss and a concerned sidekick character – the latter is Goodman’s role here.

The difference with Fallen is the quality with which it is executed and the great atmosphere it exudes. The pacing is really good and keeps you on the edge of your seat the whole time. There are no real unexpected twists, and yet the story is told in such a way that you want to see what happens next anyway – that is an impressive feat. The events that transpire are carried out with a real seriousness and weight that make them compelling. It’s surprising how credible they make a body-jumping Biblical demon seem, too, and it never comes off as corny or anything. The scenes where you can’t quite tell who Azazel has possessed are the best ones in the film. Creepy and atmospheric, keeping you guessing.

Speaking of atmosphere, a word I have bandied about quite a lot already, this film is flooded with it – I especially like the use of the Rolling Stones song as a constant motif throughout. I don’t really know how Azazel knows a Rolling Stones song. But it works as a suitably eerie repeating theme throughout the film. And hearing John Goodman sing it at the end…that’s just great, man. A lot of the movie is set in crowded, urbanized city streets in the wintertime, which is good because the wintry setting bespeaks a cold, frigid feel, and the crowded and urban setting makes Azazel’s people-jumping skills all the more confusing and disorienting. It’s like he has a whole flock of unsuspecting, helpless chickens to feed on.

So Fallen is a kick ass thriller. It’s well written, well acted and professionally executed, with flair and style. There’s nothing about this movie that really speaks out as something transcendent of its genre, but sometimes all you need is a good, solid B-grade movie in the genre. Fallen adheres perfectly well to all the clichés of the detective thriller genre, and does them all beautifully.

That pic does not belong to me. All copyright to its original owners.

REVIEW: Don't Torture a Duckling (1972)

Lucio Fulci movies are always a pleasure. If you don’t know who he is, he was an influential and renowned director of Italian cinema, with work ranging in many genres from fantasy to horror. He became famous in the 80s for his gore-splattered horror tales such as The Beyond and City of the Living Dead – both of which are absolutely awesome, by the way. His movies never had the greatest production values or acting/dubbing, but they were intriguing and watchable due to great stories, strong directing and an ironclad love of filmmaking that shone through as bright as day. Today I’ll be reviewing Don’t Torture a Duckling, one of his 70s flicks that is definitely one of the more ambitious and artful of his films that I’ve come across so far…let’s take a look.

Director: Lucio Fulci

Starring: Tomas Millan, Barbara Bouchet

Website: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0069019/

The film’s story revolves around detectives in a small town trying to solve the vicious chain of brutal child murders in town that have been cropping up like flies around a pile of waste. They’re baffled by the case and can’t figure out who to convict, as every suspect turns up a dud. The boys themselves are also given some screentime, as we see them interacting together and with the adults of the city, which adds a level of humanity and realism to the movie. These seem like real people – even despite the shaky dub-work on their voices…but the acting is theatrical and fits the atmosphere like a glove.

This is a very intricately put together movie with clear, simple messages that speak to you through the vivid and dramatic direction, lighting and acting. It’s a story about prejudice and how we judge people based on what we know of their general “type” – prostitute, gypsy, homeless man and priest are all some of the “categories” put under light here. Some of them are given harsher treatment by the law than others. The film illustrates quite a stark and biting point about who a society collectively turns against first when crisis comes to call, no matter if the evidence supports it or not. When a horrible crime is committed, society turns to the people they already find suspicious by nature, without asking questions. The title of the film – Don’t Torture a Duckling – will make a lot more sense after you’ve seen the social commentary on hand, and the film remains relevant even today.

And that’s the cincher as to why this is a great piece of art – it is a message-heavy film that is still relevant today. The social implications are somewhat obvious if you’re looking for them, but I don’t really think I can dock it points for that, as the meanings are still intelligently written into the film, and the whole point is for them to be noticed anyway. The movie itself is entertaining, gritty and engaging, but the message and meaning behind it make it stick out from the pack as a real cinematic great. Go see this; it is an excellent film and will enrich your life in some measure, I am sure. Very well done.

REVIEW: Taking Lives (2004)

Director: DJ Caruso

Starring: Angelina Jolie, Ethan Hawke

Website: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0364045/

This was really dull and contrived. Angelina Jolie was supposed to be a secret agent in this? Could have fooled me. She acts about as secret agent-ish as a love-sodden high school girl most of the time in this movie. I couldn't believe that performance for two seconds. Ethan Hawke does a good job, but the writing is just all around shoddy, and provides little in the ways of interesting moments. The story moves sluggishly through various cliches and hoops of the detective-serial killer movie genre, and while some parts are interesting, I was never really sold on this. Gena Rowlands was pretty interesting as the mother of the killer the cops are chasing, but she's really not given her due in terms of captivating scenes, and so mostly it's just kind of a waste. There are some interesting plot points here and there, like a few of the chase scenes and some of the deceptive thrills, and there is at least an attempt at atmosphere made, but the writing is just poor, with very little interesting dialogue and very few scenes that really make you sit up and pay attention. This isn't necessarily awful, but it does not really engage you at all, and there are honestly just so many other, better movies you could be watching, so why waste your time with this anyway?

Review: Endure (2010) TH

One life for another

A bound and gagged woman in central Florida is driven to an out of reach location in the middle of the night by a stranger and has her photograph taken as she's tied against a tree in the woods. Leaving her alive and alone, the man drives off and somewhere on his trip suddenly has a deer go through his windshield killing him. An experienced detective named Emory Lane (Judd Nelson)--who's at home with his terminally ill wife Sirena (Joey Lauren Adams)--is called out to what initially looks like a normal car wreck but because there is a photograph, blood and handcuff keys the police want to look further into the suspicious evidence that might point to foul play.

A young, former west coast detective named Zeth Arnold (Deven Sawa) is called in as an apprentice in account of Lane being tied up in his personal life. They frequently butt heads as Arnold is over-confident and has a somewhat brash way of handling the case than the by-the-book veteran. Judd Nelson plays the character somewhat reserved and contemplative to the point of appearing detached. His character has trust issues, but gives some leeway as he can't be two places at once. Devon Sawa delivers some dry banter and his character speaks what's on his mind, which comes off as cocky but might actually have something to offer under that rookie demeanor.

There are hundreds of miles of roadway and five hundred thousand acres of swamp to comb through, so the detectives start with what they know. They question the dead man named Macey's neighbors, who explain that he was a loner, not right in the head and doesn't have any living relatives that he keeps in touch with. The girl is identified as Daphne (Clare Kramer) by a friend who said she just talked to her last night but is currently missing. A profiler is called in and suggests that there might be an accomplice that he seeks approval from. Taking cues from John Lithgow in "Dexter" of who you wouldn't expect, Tom Arnold brings a good-guy face to his role as Simon but makes you think twice about what's underneath. From one revelation to the next the detectives uncover an underground network, which gives them more to contend with to save the young woman's life before it's too late.

This is a gradually paced drama about searching for answers. It also deals with saving a life and watching one depart. Lane's wife is cooped up with nowhere to go, and he wants to stay but has everywhere to be; though he eventually uses the time away to push aside his feelings and in an odd sense cope. What a viewer gets: a basic story about human suffering that isn't confusing or muddled with layer upon layer of twists as it keeps it conventional as far as crime plots go. This is more held back than the typical shoot-'em-up-warrantless-bustin'-down-the-door-alcoholic features you normally see in the genre. This injects some feelings and leaves ample room open for the viewer's own interpretations, as well as the actions and motivations in the movie seem reasonable.

The major issue with "Endure" is it doesn't always capitalize on its own story line due to trying to meld two different subplots and be thoroughly realistic while at it. This isn't going for the usual cinematic experience, as the editing and cinematography are restrained, the dialogue is close enough to how real people speak and the situation isn't glamorized or sensationalized. There's drama to be had here though the delivery felt somewhat flat and the characters didn't end up being as memorable as they could have. At times it comes across as cut and dry, even when a piece of evidence is unraveled to get closer to finding the victim while she's still alive. Not until the latter portion is there much in the way of being gripping. There's no sense in over-dramatizing the story like so many do and force it, but the atmosphere feels calm and relaxed to the point of being dozy and less important than it should be, as the dire circumstances at hand don't always have the capability of captivating one's undivided attention for the then and now.

Director: Joe O'Brien
Starring: Judd Nelson, Devon Sawa, Joey Lauren Adams, Tom Arnold, Clare Kramer
Website: IMDB