![Teething [2007]](http://ambival.net/images/teething.jpg)
![Karma Shot [2008]](http://ambival.net/images/karmashot.jpg)
As I said I think in my review of the last installment, with each of these I get more and more lost regarding the main story because I just didn’t initially think we were supposed to be following it that diligently, lol. I can only go by the movies as they stand alone to date, not having given myself the opportunity to watch them all again yet (perhaps next Halloween – mental note made) – and what I can say is, each new installment so far has only distanced me ever more from the fact that when I saw the original movie, I was genuinely blown away – it still now sits comfortably in my top 500 and my top 50 horror lists … a fact, with the time passed in between and the degeneration of each subsequent sequel combined, that honestly baffles me so I kinda can’t wait to start from the beginning again, lol. Anyway, this one didn’t waste time in grabbing me with a great opening and the clever death scenes we’re frankly all here for are well interspersed throughout. I can only give it the benefit of the doubt that continuity is obeyed … other than that, what can I say other than that it’s better than most horror sequels?
Posts Tagged ‘serial killer’
![Toolbox Murders [2003]](http://homepage.mac.com/shoat/movies/t/toolbox-murders.jpg)
Toolbox Murders [2003]
Friday, April 25th, 2008The Tobe Hooper remake of the ‘78 “classic” immediately hits the highest level of interest that the original stirred in me by the mere presence of Angela Bettis, who I could happily watch for two hours waiting for a bus. That we see her early on doing her laundry, deliberately or not invoking memories of May, only pulls me in more. But that’s pretty much where the draw for me ends here, and it’s unlikely I’ll watch it again even for her.
There’s nothing particularly wrong with the movie – in fact, there are some really nice ideas. For one, the manner in which they use the source material – clinging to sketchy details but most importantly using the Bettis character as an outsider who witnesses the whole thing through the walls of her apartment in a spooky old Hollywood hotel. The first time she hears scary noises and reports them, it turns out to be some actors rehearsing, which makes the nailgun scene that follows, which I loved so much in the original, particularly riveting.
Unfortunately, it runs out of steam too quickly, and rather shoots itself in the foot in the end with occult nonsense the likes of which you’d expect to find in a dire 80s TV movie. The gore has nothing on the Seventies version, and really aside from Bettis there’s little reason to recommend it over the more haunting original.
The Silence of the Lambs
Sunday, February 17th, 2008The classic. I think. This is one of those movies I’ve watched so many times both for fun and for study that I can’t help but quote vast chunks of it out loud as it plays. There are just so many things about this movie that, to my surprise every time, lift it far above the quality genre pieces the other installments in the series are.
It’s a perfect screenplay, to start with. Syd Field talked a lot of nonsense (I realised, eventually) about screenwriting and his “paradigm” is broken down with every recent passing week, but one of his books I’d still recommend is “Four Screenplays” which simply broke down four screenplays – this one, Thelma and Louise, Terminator 2, and Dances with Wolves – and showed why his system worked, owing a lot of course to Joseph Campbell, whose thoughts on mythology are overwhelmingly present here too – I think Jodie Foster in particular is fond of talking about the mythical aspects of this movie whenever she’s asked about it.
It’s interesting to me to notice that all those four screenplays, all produced between 91-92, have some seriously powerful women in them – Clarice Starling, Thelma and Louise of course, Sarah Connor, Stands with a Fist – and one of the most stand-out things about Silence is that it was made at a time when doing the whole feminist thing still actually meant something, before people started to see such things with an eye for cynicism and post-modernism.
I like the lightness here too, though, and it’s something I noticed while watching Hannibal is yet another thing I think they got right (in comparison to the very straightlaced Red Dragon and Hannibal Rising) there; “If this door should fall down or – heh-heh – anything else …”, “No … no, you ate yours,” – I think part of the reason I for one really didn’t object to Thomas Harris thinking a romance was spawned here is because of how the sharp minds of Clarice and Hannibal right from the off even resembled one another in the humour department.
It’s really just one of those perfect movies you can’t say much of for or against, being as it’s there in front of you as it is and it couldn’t be any other way. Even though I practically know it by heart, I still love it, could even watch it over again right now just a few days after watching it before. It’s classic Jodie, definitive Hopkins, perfect in genre; basically, more deserving of the Oscars it received than just about anything since. What else is there to say?
Red Dragon
Sunday, February 17th, 2008I’d truly forgotten how fantastic some of the sequences in this one are, having really only seen it once, at the time of its release, and probably in a rather shoddy format. I’m surprised to find it now even better than I remember, and I remembered it as pretty good; out of all the Hannibal movies that have followed the classic Silence of the Lambs, prequels and sequel alike, this is the one perhaps that most closely resembles it. Kristi Zea back on board as production designer certainly contributes to that; Danny Elfman’s score draws heavily on Howard Shore’s work; and in addition to Anthony Hopkins reprising Hannibal, there’s as Anthony Heald Dr. Chilton; most crucially, I think this must’ve completely bypassed me when the movie first came out, Ted Tally returns as screenwriter.
I certainly think I’d still say Manhunter is the better adaptation of this story – I haven’t seen that one in a while, but I know that everytime I watch it (and I’ve seen it a few times) I’m pleasantly surprised by it all over again – but I like that even with the time passed since Silence, someone thought it worth taking the time to fill in the gap in the Hopkins Lecter series; and considering that time passed, it’s surprising how well it works – especially that last scene of him in the cell, that leads directly into Silence … like, how bold can you get in goading comparisons? When you watch them all in order like I have this week, the effect is really quite amazing. This is all before even mentioning the other cast members: Ralph Fiennes, Emily Watson, Philip Seymour Hoffman … had enough yet? … how about Harvey Keitel, Frank Whaley, and Lalo Schifrin as a conductor? Boy did they pull all the stops out on this one, and it was far from a wasted effort. I didn’t even mention Edward Norton, like he even needs mention. But the most amazing thing about all this? It’s directed by Brett Ratner. Which kinda almost makes the movie a small miracle all over again.
Hannibal Rising
Wednesday, February 13th, 2008I have to ashamedly admit I tried watching this last year and I fell asleep – and I hardly ever fall asleep just ‘cos I’m tired. But I still gave it the benefit of the doubt and figured since I plan to make Hannibal the centrepiece of my Valentine’s Day this year as has long been my intention, I may as well do the whole series beforehand, and fit a virgin viewing in to boot 
“You’re not following the human order, Hannibal. You’ve got to stop hurting the bullies.”
With a line like that and a cinematic legacy like Hannibal Lecter, this movie should really be so much better than it is. I was wary about a movie that looked so much like it was going to extend the “waahhhh boohoo I’m a victim of the 20th century” excuse for Hannibal Lecter even further than Hannibal went. Like I’ve said before, I think Hannibal is one of the most romantic movies ever … more on that maybe on Thursday … but there’s a point where the 20th century excuse can be applied so broadly as to demand a line to be drawn. So if you think I’m weird for thinking what I think about Hannibal, lol, then you might wanna think twice before venturing here.
In all, this is ever so slightly better than I feared (having fallen asleep the last time, how could it not be? lol) … but it’s ever too involved and procedural to the point of distraction. I was inclined at first to blame this on the adaptation process but as I followed that thought through I realised that actually, though the screenplay clearly tries to keep a lot of events in that could easily be cut for the screen, those events actually wouldn’t even be relevant even in the longer novel form. As the end credits rolled I realised Thomas Harris himself was responsible for the adaptation, so I guess either way the blame falls to him. There’s a good story here, but it needs to be so much clearer, if only to match the simplicity of what came before in the Lecter story onscreen, even going back to Manhunter.
It’s basically very up and down – for every moment worthy of the title, there’s something like the, “The little boy died years ago – his heart died with Mischa,” line that makes the psychobabble at the end of Hitchcock’s Psycho seem positively legit lol; for all the good that Rhys Ifans and Dominic West put in by being so totally different from anything else they’ve appeared in, there’s things like the mask thing … yes, it has more sense to it than my initial kneejerk reaction of “WTF, why would he willingly put that mask on back in the 1950s!??!?” lol … but again, it’s just not made clear enough what it is nor what it signifies; basically as if it’s purely been shot for the trailer.
But for all that up and down that preceeds it, the main “transformation” scene where Hannibal gets his first taste of flesh is actually quite beautifully done – Gong Li walking away, “what is left in you to love?” with his creepily familiar tilting of the head at her followed by the animal dive to bite at a cheek … I can’t deny it left me with something almost approaching what Hannibal left me with … albeit it far less romantic … it’s by no means a failure, and I’ll no doubt watch it again to see if there’s anything else to it.
![Black Christmas [1974]](http://homepage.mac.com/shoat/movies/b/black-christmas-1974.jpg)
Black Christmas [1974]
Thursday, January 3rd, 2008I’m gonna come clean here and say, I actually watched this last week but I really couldn’t bring myself to review it because my response was so utterly non-existent compared to what I’d heard about it over the years. It’s directed by Bob Clark, who made A Christmas Story years later, a movie I was similarly underwhelmed by compared to its reputation.
So, I’ve seen it twice now. I get that it was 1974, it preceded all the slashers we all think defined the genre etc, like it even has the POV thing 4 years before Halloween. But, y’know, I’d always pegged Psycho and Night of the Living Dead and Peeping Tom for doing many of these things anyway. It’s better than the remake, I’ll give it that, but, having given it the second chance I give few movies that disappoint me, I’m really still just as I was after the first watch. It gets a little creepy just as they’re realising the killer is in the house, etc, but really, I was close to falling asleep both times. Very disappointing indeed.
Saw IV
Sunday, December 30th, 2007I wasn’t surprised to find this time around that, like part 3, this really relies on a lot of the backstory of the whole series. I’d actually intended to watch the first three movies again prior to this but I just didn’t have the time this time of year. As the end credits roll here, I kinda realised that it probably wouldn’t have helped anyway. That this movie might strike a newcomer as being a hash of a mess doesn’t bother me – that’s as it should be, why would you watch this without watching the other three first? But that it strikes someone who’s watched them all that way – if only once and in a semi-interested way – that’s a problem …
These movies (well, the sequels, at least) feel so much like the Architect’s speech at the end of Matrix Reloaded. You know it all makes sense so you nod and smile and look like you’re taking it in; but you really don’t have the energy to follow every nuance of it. It’s like that speech combined with the David Blaine episode of South Park, where Jesus is like, “Okay, now turn around?” when doing the simplest of illusions. When the reveal is made here, it’s certainly presented well and you’d be forgiven for gasping … but if you’re jaded like the rest of us, you’ll find it hard to resist giving the movie a snarky golf-clap for its efforts.
For the record – and I wish I’d written something to this effect in my review of the last installment – if you are the kind of fan who has followed all the intricacies of the plot as religiously as the screenwriter obviously wants you to, you’ll probably be much more satisfied than anybody with how the story continues. For the rest of us, the gore scenes are gorey and the movie’s well shot and edited and acted and everything, and in this genre it’s hard to stay mad at a movie too long when it checks all those boxes.