Tag Archives: horror movies

John Goodman is the Real Monster in ‘10 Cloverfield Lane’

It’s been eight years since Bad Robot’s unorthodox kaiju (giant monster) film Cloverfield was released. Now a “sequel” has slipped in under the radar with 10 Cloverfield Lane. Is it just as terrifying, or does it succumb to the monstrous tropes that plague most horror movies?

Having just survived a car accident, a young woman (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) wakes to find herself held in a bunker by a paranoid man (John Goodman) who claims the world has ended and the surface is uninhabitable. But after talking with another bunker dweller (John Gallagher, Jr), she wonders if everything is as it seems.

A large part of Cloverfield’s success was its brilliantly enigmatic viral marketing campaign. The creature was never shown in any of the promotional materials, leaving it ambiguous as to what it was about. The mystery spawned theories all over the internet (some even going so far as to say it was a secret Godzilla movie), creating a surprising amount of hype. While it technically wasn’t the first “found footage” film ever produced, I’d argue it started the current trend for that style, particularly in horror (although it was amplified by Paranormal Activity). Say what you want about the finished product—whether it was terrifying or nausea-inducing—but it’s impact is indelible.

I say all that because the complete opposite was done with this “blood relative” or “spiritual successor,” as producer J.J. Abrams calls it. I somehow didn’t know about it until January because the promotion was surprisingly sparse. Plus, the film isn’t done in the found footage style. Indeed, it seemed to have little in common with the original aside from a commonality with the title. I didn’t know if it’d be a creature feature, let alone a kaiju movie, aside from a recent trailer that hinted at something huge threatening the characters.

The truth is this is a sequel devoid of “sequel-itis,” as one of my writer friends once said. It has none of the characters from the original, a completely different style and a different setting (Louisiana instead of New York) . There are references to events happening in the world at large, but they aren’t necessarily direct ties to preceding film. Honestly, it’s a stand-alone story someone who’s never seen Cloverfield could watch and not be lost. That isn’t to say that fans of the original, like myself, won’t be rewarded. (More on that in my spoiler section).

10 Cloverfield Lane is a refreshingly old-fashioned horror film. Absent are the cheap gimmicks of excessive gore and stupid characters. If I had to describe it in one word, I’d say, “Tense.” As soon as Michelle, the heroine, awakens after her car accident, there’s almost no respite from the suspense. The filmmakers create fear through setting and character. The bunker is claustrophobic and isolated. Howard, the conspiracy theorist who built it, seems at once to be well-meaning and insane. His claims that the world has ended never seem to be quite accurate. His social awkwardness and temper only inhibits his ability to communicate. As the film progresses and more clues are uncovered, the tension only continues to mount until it reaches a boiling point the last 15 minutes. Bad Robot is to be commended for taking advantage of these and keeping it classy in a genre replete with trash.

Horror stories are often only as good as their antagonists, and 10 Cloverfield Lane is no exception. John Goodman is yet another comedic actor who’s proven he has a wide range. He is simply terrifying in this film. But his character is at once likable and pitiable. He rescues Michelle after her accident. His family, he says, left him years before. He truly believes he’s protecting those in the bunker from mysterious dangers topside. The problem is he’s paranoid and possibly delusional. He has little tolerance for having his authority questioned or his rules broken. While he doesn’t get violent, a threatening aura emanates from him. Only in a few scenes does that let up, and even then it was simply a respite for the audience to relieve tension.

While Goodman is certainly the best actor, his co-stars aren’t lightweights. Winstead plays a resourceful and smart heroine. She’s not easily persuaded by Howard’s claims of the apocalypse. She uses her skills as a fashion designer—seriously—and limited resources to overcome obstacles. But more than that, she’s a young woman who runs from everything whenever it gets tough. She leaves her fiancé—voiced by Bradley Cooper over a cell phone, by the way—at the beginning of the film because they had an argument. Now she’s being forced to face fear. In a genre where women are usually helpless victims or top-heavy eye candy or both, it’s great to see a character in the vein of Nancy from the late Wes Craven’s classic A Nightmare on Elm Street. Gallagher plays Emmitt, a fellow “prisoner” in the bunker. He may be dumb, but he’s loyal and fun-loving. He doesn’t turn into comic relief, though, at least not in the traditional sense. He cracks a few jokes and tries to lighten the mood, but that only happens a few times. He becomes Michelle’s friend and ally in trying to escape the bunker.
The Bushmen, who live off sildenafil sales the land, would cut off part of the hoodia stem and eat it to ward off hunger and thirst during nomadic hunting trips. Availability of effective and cheap Kamagra One can simply argue about a lot generic levitra online http://robertrobb.com/2018/10/ of psychological, but it still matters. It got me looking at it, and made me think, he Visit Website cialis 5 mg that is catchy. And to be clear on the point, a good health does not mean that brand viagra mastercard you just need to have a healthy body; it also includes good mental health.
The script itself is tightly written. Every line and scene has meaning, whether it’s an insight into the characters or a foreshadowing of things to come. Each question is answered; every mystery explained (the ones raised within this film, at least). The pacing is just right, never moving too slow or at breakneck speed.

(SPOILER WARNING!)

Is this a kaiju movie? No, it isn’t. It is a creature feature, though. When Michelle escapes to the surface at the end, she discovers that aliens have invaded and are now scouring the countryside for survivors.

So, how does this connect to Cloverfield?

My theory is the monster in the previous film was a bio-weapon used as part of what Howard called “the first wave” of the extraterrestrial attack. This is also implied because the one alien seen in 10 Cloverfield Lane—which was essentially an attack dog that is sure to be someone’s nightmare fuel—had a similar physiology to the Cloverfield monster. Since the creature’s origin was never revealed and only theorized upon by the characters, that gap could easily be filled by a film like this. Also, keep in mind that both films have focused stories with isolated characters. They’re cut off from the rest of the world right as a crisis erupts. This ambiguity gives the filmmakers at Bad Robot enough leeway to expand on what was happening. Admittedly, these connections are implied and not stated, but I think that’s part of the fun of this, well, franchise.

(SPOILERS END)

10 Cloverfield Lane is not only a remarkable horror movie but an excellent film. In an era that sees the horror genre inundated with schlock, a film like this are a breath of fresh air. It shows that horror is best done when it includes good stories and characters.

Final Grade: A-

‘The Sand’ Will Make You Afraid to Go to the Beach, Sorta

The DVD cover for the movie. (Image courtesy of www.snrfilms.com/thesand
The DVD cover for the movie. (Image courtesy of www.snrfilms.com/thesand)

In 1975, Jaws made audiences scared to go into the water. The Sand (released October 13), however, wants them to be scared to even walk on the beach. But does this independent horror film stand firm like a rock or collapse like a, well, sand castle?

The day after a night of drunken revelry at a seaside graduation party, a group of twenty-somethings awake to discover the beach devours any living thing that touches it.

(SPOILER WARNING!)

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3JNe6iBWcwI]

The movie's spoiler-ific trailer

I’m a tough critic when it comes to the horror genre, especially in film. Horror has, unfortunately, gotten inundated with the dumbest clichés, the worst tropes and the most idiotic characters. It’s rare to come across a modern “scary movie” that isn’t full of cheap jump scares and gratuitous gore. There are reasons why many, including myself, often equate horror movies with schlock.

I went into The Sand unsure of what to expect. It was described to me as being similar to the 1990 cult classic Tremors, a film I liked. It also had a good concept: take an innocuous everyday object—in this case, sand—and make it terrifying. (It works for Stephen King and Steven Moffat). So, I kept an open mind.

And what I got was…okay.

On the plus side, there are some truly suspenseful scenes where characters try to avoid touching the sand since doing so is instant death. Attempts are made to cross the sand using objects like surfboards and wooden posts. Similarly, using either a towel or a rescue line held by her friends to precariously steady herself, one girl attempts to climb the back bumper of a car to open the trunk and get cell phones. These scenes are allowed to play out, utilizing close-ups of the characters feet to show how close they come to touching the ground.

Many of the individuals suffer from premature level erection and flaccid ones tadalafil best price view these guys now where they fail to satisfy their libido and sexual performance so that they can have a holistic and jaunty sex life. Just by running their hand through certain parts of body, they can figure out djpaulkom.tv order generic cialis the problem vexing you and can offer the right therapy. The product has proved its cialis españa efficiency and effectiveness throughout the world as many people are successfully using it.Kamagra is safe to use and has very less side effects and is very much effective to increase sexual activity. Yashtimadhuk and Kuchla (Strychnos nuxvomica) structure the backbone of treatment purchase viagra on line for low libido in women is based on testosterone (T) therapy. The titular “sand,” which turns out to be an unknown sea creature that washed up on shore in a huge egg, starts as a strangely subtle and simple monster. While the egg looks like a tiny meteor, it spends most of the movie as mere thread-like tendrils that flutter from the beneath the ground to latch onto anything that touches the sand. Said tendrils are venomous, so even though one character manages to avoid being pulled underground, they leave him incapacitated. It also has inexplicable but useful weaknesses—such as an aversion to pepper spray and fire—that the characters exploit to give themselves momentary advantages.

The dire situation forced said characters to survive by their wits with limited resources. The aforementioned weaknesses are discovered by trial and often deadly error. I recently heard about “try fail cycles” on the Writing Excuses podcast, and this movie is certainly replete with them, which keeps the tension high. The tension did break whenever I thought the movie might stoop to cliches, but was otherwise effective.

The characters, unfortunately, like the movie itself, are a mixed bag. They certainly start off cliché enough since they seemed to be drunk spring break partiers. One of them even ran around recording their revelry like this was a found-footage film (which, thankfully, it isn’t since those are overdone now). I found all but two of them—the heroine and one other guy—to be boring and annoying for at least the first 20-30 minutes. Most of the actors tended to overact, shouting profanities and screaming, but once the characters realize they are on their own, they become smarter and oftentimes clever. Except for one guy. He got so drunk the night before, his friends stuffed him in a trashcan and drew a penis on his face. He did nothing but whine and complain the entire time. In other words, he’s useless. Surprisingly, he isn’t the first to die, but I kind of wish he did since he contributes nothing to the plot. I suppose he might’ve been intended to be comic relief or someone to rescue, but he fails at both.

Speaking of comic relief, Jamie Kennedy (who ironically stars in the recently released Tremors 5: Bloodlines) cameos as a beach patrol officer who shows up halfway through the movie, and he’s an unprofessional idiot. He struts around assuming all the kids are on drugs, refuses to listen to them and does nothing to help. His scene isn’t funny and is a letdown because he could’ve fixed everything. The only good that comes of his scene is showing that the tendrils can’t grab anyone if they’re wearing shoes (something I thought of at least 20 minutes before that).

Despite its simple premise and monster, the movie belies its low budget with its special effects. Like with many such horror films, its CGI gore, while infrequent, looks more laughable than horrifying. The actors’ over-the-top performances don’t help it. For whatever reason, it’s also inconsistent. Some characters have gruesome deaths where they’re shredded while others are simply dragged under the sand. I saw no reason for this other than as a cost-cutting measure. Consistency: look elsewhere for it.

The movie jumps the shark—no pun intended (but perhaps a Jaws reference)—the last 20 minutes when the “sand” suddenly and inexplicably grows into a full-sized tentacle. The creature goes from unique to cliché. More baffling is the fact that the tentacles attack only when the plot demands it and somehow doesn’t overturn the vehicles the protagonists hid inside. Perhaps it is just as dumb as some of the characters.

However, the ending almost makes up for it. Almost. I think it squanders an opportunity to be different. Only three characters—the heroine, her best friend and the heroine’s ailing boyfriend—survive. One girl remarks that nobody came to save them (a preposterous set-up that stretches credibility so far it snaps), to which the other girl says, “Maybe tomorrow,” before the scene fades to black. I actually would’ve liked that as an ambiguous ending. Yes, it would’ve been a bit depressing, but it would’ve been different. Instead, a surfer finds them the next day and the girls learn the creature has moved on. Now, the surfer’s reaction to the passed out boyfriend—who is off-camera—is a bit odd, but it’s never explained. I don’t know if he’s dead or if he’s mutated into some inhuman monster (yes, I sort of expected that to happen).

In the end, this is an average horror flick. It lacks the stellar characters of Jaws and the campy humor of Tremors, which seem to be its immediate influences (though I use that term loosely). Much like its hungover protagonists, you won’t remember much of the movie the morning after watching it.

Final Grade: C

Why Old-School Horror is the Scariest

Whenever I wander through the local Family Video, I think the shelves are walls of horror movies. Not classics like Bela Lugosi’s Dracula or the original A Nightmare on Elm Street, but schlock like Silent Night, Deadly Night or a horde of wannabe George Romero zombie movies. It seems like every idiot with a camera tries to make a horror film (if he doesn’t make a porno first).

I’m not quite sure why these movies flood the market, but 99% of them suffer from the same problems as most modern horror: they’re not scary. Whether they have big budgets or small, famous actors or unknowns, these movies fail to frighten audiences or even entertain them. This is disappointing because scary stories are as old as civilization and have made great contributions to the literary and film worlds. When it comes to movies, I find classic horror films to be leaps and bounds above most new films.

What makes the classics work? There are many reasons, but I’ll focus on a few I think are most important.

1. No over-reliance on gore/shock   

alien-poster“Splatterfest” is practically a synonym for “horror movie” nowadays. Its a sad cliché. Now, horror—icon Stephen King did list “the Gross-Out” as one of three types of fear. The problem is the majority of modern horror seems to think its the only kind. I swear these filmmakers have a gore fetish, and so do their fans. Many of them are too desensitized to find it shocking anymore and revel in it instead. It stereotypes horror fans as sadomasochistic weirdos.

Can gore be effective? Yes, but it should be a supplement to the other types of fear King outlines: horror (something unnatural) and terror (fear of the unknown). Like an exclamation point, it can be powerful when used sparingly, but if used constantly (like it is in many an internet forum), it just looks stupid.

The original Alien (my all-time favorite horror film) has one gory part. It horrifies for many reasons, not the least of which being that it’s the one bloody scene in a fairly bloodless film.

2. Leaving some things to the imagination  

A related problem is modern horror’s penchant for showing audiences everything, whether its the gruesome deaths or Jason Voorhees stalking up behind a victim. This isn’t always necessary. A person’s imagination can create more terrifying images than any filmmaker or author can conjure. Plus, as noted, the unknown is usually the scariest thing. What did the monster/killer do to that unsuspecting woman? The audience doesn’t know since it cut away when she screamed. What does the monster look like? The mystery frightens audiences.

This is why films like The Blair Witch Project—arguably a modern classic—are effective. It  scares people with ideas. Some say the infamous witch is a decrepit old woman; some say she’s a hairy half-human/half-beast creature. Since she’s never revealed, the audience is terrified by both the mystery and the image of the monster in their heads.

3. Better protagonists   

Pregnancy thought about that on line cialis massages are beneficial for mums-to-be because of the degree of accuracy, although it is also usually one of the biggest causes of Erectile Dysfunction (ED) in younger adults include: Stress – Prolonged stress can really affect your erection. The whole impact is unquestionably expanded if a man wishes to be free from erectile dysfunction then apart from the pills your having go for a cipla cialis online healthy food habit. Only a healthcare provider can tell the person the best method of alleviating effects of impotency from grass root level! A lot of people wearing a temporary tattoo of a rose, dragon or a sun. viagra generika 50mg It has some disadvantages as cialis for sale online well like return back policy, free shipping and many other important. Ever notice that most horror movie “heroes” are jerks or—worse yet—idiots? It’s like the filmmakers knew their villains were too incompetent to catch their victims without them making dunderheaded decisions. It also foreshadows who will die since (usually) only the despicable characters get picked off (hence the joke that virgins survive horror movies). It kills any connection audiences might have with the characters, so they won’t care if they’re killed, thereby ruining the suspense. If the likes of the Friday the 13th franchise and its wannabes have a cardinal sin, its their perpetuation of these tropes/stereotypes. This is the biggest complaint I hear, even from horror fans.

Now, should senseless/despicable characters be nixed from stories? No. I’m not opposed to idiot characters or having them move plots along, but the story shouldn’t be dependent on them. As for reprehensible characters, there’s something to be said about watching them get their comeuppance; however, variety is the spice of life, so it’s refreshing to see likable heroes.

thing_poster_01John Carpenter’s The Thing is noteworthy because it has no stupid characters. All of them react in smart, rational ways until paranoia drives them insane. The first Fright Night has some of the most entertaining heroes in a horror film: a teenage boy and an out-of-work horror movie actor. The original Nightmare on Elm Street has the wonderfully strong and clever heroine Nancy, who refuses to become Freddy Krueger’s next victim. She’s a breath of fresh air in a genre that typically relegates women to hapless victims.

4. Better antagonists  

Heroes are often only as good as their villains. In that case, most modern horror flicks have forgettable and boring heroes and villains. Some may look cool, but they’re presented as these nigh-invincible monsters who relentlessly pursue/torture people. It makes the victims and heroes look like powerless pawns, mere tools to give gorehounds a cheap thrill. Such villains are one-dimensional caricatures.

Classic horror villains are powerful but they also have weaknesses. Dracula has the classic vampire vulnerabilites. Zombies cease to function if their brains are destroyed. Giving villains such vulnerabilities doesn’t undermine them, instead it gives the heroes a fighting chance to stop them, increasing the tension.

5. Multilayered fears/ideas   

uploads_d9bcef8e-e769-4a29-b6f3-cd7ca1818187-nightmare_2As I said before, modern horror tends to fixate on the “gross-out” scares, but fear is an often nuanced emotion. There’s psychological horror, where the fear comes from frightening ideas, and cosmic horror, which scares people by making them feel small and insignificant. Not only that, but the monsters in good horror stories, whether they are human or not, are often metaphors for real-life fears, adding depth to them and allowing them to work on multiple levels.

Going back to Alien, that film works because it touches upon many types of fears: the unknown, shadows, body mutilation, isolation, unnaturalness and even rape. Add to that the corporation which values a scientific find over human lives, and what could’ve been another B-grade creature, feature is elevated to a classic award-winning film. It goes beyond just showing audiences horrific things.

So this Halloween, after the kids finish trick-or-treating, have a marathon of classic horror films until the witching hour passes.

Sidenote: If you’d like to hear me talk more about this, check out “But I Digress . . . , Episode 2: Horrible Horror,” a video I made a few years ago for my YouTube show.