The Thompsons (2012)

I've been waiting for this movie ever since I heard a rumour about it on the net -  and then promptly forgot about it, because my memory is shitty when it comes to things that don't exist yet which I have to remember for a (somewhat remote) future. Now it's here, now I was able to watch it, and now I can safely say that I am not disappointed at all.

First things first: If you haven't watched The Hamiltons, this movie will bring you much less joy than it does if you have watched it. The protagonists / main characters aren't explained or given a lot of characterisation - in fact, there's pretty much none of that. Besides for a quick "this is me, these are the twins, this is my oldest brother, and this is my little brother" via voice-over, don't expect anything on the protagonists. Then again, this is perfectly acceptable - characterisation happened in the first movie, and if you want to know who the people are that you're watching, go and watch The Hamiltons. It's fucking worth it.

We start out with Francis (Cory Knauf) in a box... looks like he's been buried.

The narrative is being told in a pretty interesting way - it practically starts over three times, which may make it appear a bit confused in the beginning. However, this style of storytelling actually serves to heighten the suspense and makes it much more interesting than if it had been told straight from the beginning of the story. Very well done, Butcher Brothers. I already liked your previous movies, but this takes the cake. It's not just serving us a simple story from the beginning to the end - it's starting right somewhere in the middle, runs with it, then turns around and starts again earlier, runs with that, and then turns its back on us in order to start once again. And for some reason it works. It works really well. Kudos to the guy(s) who came up with that idea - in this day and age, we're all too used to straight storytelling. Something more complex like this is very much welcome: The story becomes much more interesting this way, and the viewer is sucked into the narrative straight on. The voice-overs (all of them by the main protagonist, Francis, played again by Cory Knauf) also help to intensify the experience.

The narrative told in this movie is that of our beloved monstrous family trying to find others of their kind in "thee olde worlde", which is USA-speak for Europe. It's not directly picking up where The Hamiltons left us - at least 6 years have passed. Francis has grown up admirably, Wendell (Joseph McKelheer) gained some weight, Darlene (Mackenzie Firgens) has a new haircolour (and did she lose weight?!), David (Samuel Child)  is less stuck up in his ass, and Lenny (Ryan Hartwig) actually became a member of the family that's not locked up in a cage.

Other things haven't changed that much, though: The twins (Wendell and Darlene) are still slightly psychotic (enjoyably so!), Francis still broods, and David still has some kind of idea about American family values to be held up. Together with their Need for human blood, the family values they all share are the reason why the Hamiltons / Thompsons are not in their native USA anymore but instead chose to haunt good ol' Europe.

Why? Well, after an incident on the road (people were eaten and killed, not really sure in what order, as we're talking about my beloved family of vampiric miscreants here) during which their youngest brother was severely injured, which resulted in them having been forced to leave the US. I just say "vampire killings"*... these resulted in the family ending up in Europe - separated, searching for others of their kind with their little brother Lenny hovering on the brink of death.
The twins went to France, David (+ Lenny) and Francis went to the UK, all of them (supposedly, in the case of the twins) trying to find ...well, others like them who can help them with keeping Lenny alive. After all, being (living) vampires and all that, they can't just march up to a hospital and ask for help. I guess(?).

Lots of people seemed to think that The Hamiltons wasn't a proper or even good vampire movie due to the lack of fangs and neck-biting (or so I gathered from discussions and reading reviews). The Thompsons does definitely not suffer from this. It's overdoing the whole vampire-angle at some times in my opinion (RRRAAAAAH! FANGS! RRRAAAAAH! RED EYES!! RRRAAAAH! JAWS!!!), but hey - I'm a fan of subtlety when it comes to certain genres of horror. Nonetheless, it's a great fucking movie. It's no secret that I'm a big fan of The Hamiltons**, and this is a GREAT sequel.

It brings up the question of the monstrosity of our protagonists again - "we need blood to survive. Our disease makes us kill to live. We're that kind of monster."

The topic is brought up in a different way than in the first movie, though. We are still watching the narrative mainly through the interpretative lens of Francis - but unlike in The Hamiltons, he has grown up, and this is reflected in the narrative.

It is also reflected in the acting; Cory Knauf - although I still think he mostly plays himself - has definitely gained weight as an actor (not in the physical sense!). His portrayal of Francis is much more nuanced than in The Hamiltons. 

Here, we have acceptance of the monstrosity that defines our protagonists. It's not Francis whining on about why his family sucks, why his family and life is horrible or why he feels horrible anymore. He grew up and learned to accept that he will never be a normal human being, will never have (normal) human friends and a normal human life. It is the acceptance of the inevitable, the acceptance of how horrible life can be whilst still making something out of it. Whilst still creating a positive narrative for himself, against all odds, against all of the fucked up terror that is their blood-dependend existence.

Back to the plot:

Francis is told to travel to a small English town called Ludlow*** in order to find someone ('Masterson' -- heheh, nomen est omen, eh?) who could know how to keep Lenny alive - and how to live as a monster in this all too human world of, well, non-monstrous humans. Because let's face it: If you're not human and never were taught the human rules of the game of life, the rules of how to act around humans, you'll have difficulties fitting in without being noticed as being different. And being noticed as being different is bad.

Take eating food. At about minute 34 we're treated to a vampire family feast that is in no way what you'd imagine. The following dialogue takes place between the British vampire patriarch (a good but not outstanding performance by Daniel O'Meara) and Francis:

- "Haven't you trained your body to eat?"
- "I get sick. Don't you?"
- "Part of living among other in this world is presenting the idea that you're no different."
- "We put up our fair share of charades, but... There's nobody here..."
- "That's the lack of discipline that landed you here."

---- Agreed. But if no one ever tells you that not eating is weird and makes you suspicious in human eyes, you simply can't really know that, much less understand it. On that note: Yes, training your body to eat 'normal' food indeed makes people less wary of you. It's weird, I know.

Anyways - Francis is, after initial (weird!) problems that at times masquerade as rites of initiation, accepted into the vampire family he finds in Ludlow... and then everything foes horribly, horribly wrong. The family of others he thought he had found turns out to be... well. Quite elitist, to say the least, and not at all as friendly as he initially thought them to be. Vampire fights, woooot!
I'm not going to spoil this one, as the twist(s) are actually not foreseeable in their entirety and add to the enjoyment of the movie A LOT.

The Thompsons is not a gory movie, but it has its moments. It adds the topic of hunting for food, monster-on-human violence, human-on-human violence (aka 'serving dinner'), monster-on-monster violence, and rape. Could be considered tough shit for someone not as desensitised to violence as myself.

AND it deals with the whole family-thing we already know from The Hamiltons. This time, though, it's from two different points of view - that of the Hamiltons, and that of the British vampire clan. One wonders - would everything be so much different if the situation was reversed...?

Also, the interesting issue of being an outsider is raised again, just as they did in The Hamiltons. Francis and his family are outsiders to humanity; Francis is an outsider to his own family (or at least he was in the first movie)... and here, we see how it is to be an outsider within a family of monsters. A very good idea that not just implies but brutally shows the subjective nature of the concepts of 'normality' and 'outsider' - it all depends on what you define as 'normal' after all...

Sociologically sound, with a depth of social issues clad in the garb of vampire-horror that is hardly ever seen in vampire flicks or horror flicks in general. The Thompsons opens up the can of worms of multiple layers of social stratification within the realm of the monstrous, and that these layers interact with one another. It also touches upon the need for trust in (non-)human beings and how we all deal with betrayal - and it also deals with the nigh inevitable fact of betrayal as part of a stratified society when not knowing the rules that other people made up and you should, ideally, live by, without having any idea about the why and how. 

Something that definitely differentiates The Thompsons from The Hamiltons is that the story they create is actually a story worthy of a full-length movie. I did comment on the issue of how the original story of The Hamiltons isn't really material for a full movie in my review of that flick - and this time, they managed to actually come up with a story that fills this movie instead of milking one single assumption ('teenage-vampire-initiation-story') to the death in 80+ minutes. Kudos for that. 

Honestly, I expected this movie to be shit - and yes, I can look forward to a movie and still expect it to be shit. Gladly, the Butcher Brothers managed to thwart all of my fears, creating a well-crafted flick that deserves to be watched by more people than just hardcore (indie-) horror fans. Good script, good story, nice pictures, solid camerawork.

I would totally give this movie a *really* high score, if it wasn't for the CGI. It sucked. Seriously. It's most obvious with the fangs and jaws of the evil British vampires****. It truly doesn't look enticing. Maybe this is because I am not a big fan of CGI in general, however. The red eyes were irritating as well, to say the least.
Camera and cutting are consistently good, though. The one other point of criticism I'd have would be that I'd have enjoyed more of the twins, but then again, this movie is mainly about Francis (again!) and his interaction with the 'other' family of monsters. 

The ancient distinction between 'Us' and 'Them' is shown here once again - but, which makes it much more interesting than the normal Us vs. Them stories, this narrative takes place within the realm of 'Them'. I would be hard pressed to define blood drinking living vampires as 'Us', and I guess so would be everyone else watching this movie; out protagonist is, however, clearly one of 'Them' - and at the same time, by virtue of being our protagonist, one of 'Us'. I would so draw a diagram to illustrate the intricacies of differentiation between the concepts of the Inside and the Outside in this movie, but I shall spare you that. Yes, I am a wonderful person, I know.

7.95 / 10 torn-off faces in a French apartment

* Best. Comment. Ever. from voice-over Francis on the topic - "They called it the 'vampire killings', as if we were some stupid cult or passionate Twilight lovers...". I had to laugh out loud so freakin' hard. *winks at the target audience*

** And there will be a review of The Violent Kind!

*** Am I really the only one who sees a horror reference in that name?
**** One wonders whether this should be interpreted as a reference to the incestuous inbreeding-habits of the royal families of Europe and their at times monstrous regimes over the non-royals aka every-fuckin'-one else...

Tucker & Dale vs. Evil (2010)

Sheesh. A person turns their back onto modern horror in order to descend into madness for a career in stuff no one's interested in besides for the occasional madman or creep, only to return and see that they fucking missed a lot of cool stuff in the two years they were busy. Jeez. Give a body some rest.

Then again, I distinctly remember seeing the DVDs in a friend's preferred video store, thinking something along the lines of "this is so not going to be funny". And now, roughly 2 years later, I can come here and say 'dude, I was wrong. SO WRONG', because this, ladies and gentlemen, ghosts and ghouls, zombeasts and vamplings, is frelling hilarious. And I mean HILARIOUS.

So... let's start with WEST VIRGINIAAAAAAAA!!! Not just the home of my favourite band Blitzkid - who are going to finally split up after this tour, and damn, I shall have to run amok if I cannot manage to get to their final gig in Köln on Halloween - but also the trusty location where all horror movie nerds from around the world* know to find the evil woods that house, well, hillbillies. Murderous hillbillies. Madness, murder, slaughter, violence, death! Not necessarily in this order, though.

So yeah, the second we move into West Virginia, we know we're in for... well. A ride. I would totally offer you screenshots of the West Virginia woods scene in Tucker & Dale vs Evil and drag up my old West Virginia woods screen from Wrong Turn now, but alas, this laptop is not able to do that.

Our two heroes are Tucker and Dale. Tucker (Alan Tudyk) is one of the nifteh guys from Firefly in case you think you remember that face; in this movie, the eponymous Tucker is one of two 'hillbillies' on their way to their vacation in their dilapidated cabin in the woods; he is a simple yet philosophically skilled man who understands the truths of the world as it presents itself to us (and, according to Dale, also quite the man with the ladies, which I feel compelled to believe him). Dale - played by Tyler Labine - is the sweet-natured, slightly bigger guy. To be honest, I felt eerily reminded of Cannibal Flesh Riot! and the comedic trope of the tall, thin, clever guy teamed up with the beer-belly, bigger, less clever guy; the slight Cannibal Flesh Riot! - feeling probably comes from the fact that both movies subvert the trope successfully.

Tucker & Dale vs Evil is something that will probably be funny to most people, but only hilariously funny to those of us who have watched a few too many horror flicks. Every single stereotype is there, magnificently enhanced by the movie's joy to take the genre-specifics that all make us groan and just run with them; there's no need to pretend that the victims are not picked out for our viewing pleasure, that what happens is actually happening due to circumstances and not because it's what happens in horror flicks, that people get hilariously killed in extremely funny ways not because this is a horror flick but because this is, you know, serious business.

Generally speaking, this movie did everything right.

I particularly want to praise how writer** and director Eli Craig made it really easy for the viewer to see the two sides of the story - the hapless Dale and the a-bit-less-hapless Tucker (reminding at least me not just a little of his Firefly-character Wash) with all the weird stuff that happens around them, seriously confused by what they experience: perfectly contrasted with the young college people (I freely assume they are being young college people as actors of that age and dressed like that in such movies are always college people) and their preconceptions about what kind of people Tucker and Dale might possibly be.

As someone who is fascinated with the differences that make up each of our realities due to inferring that the world is the way we see it, I find this movie to be simply AWESOME - funny and awesome. It is hilarious, but at the same time, I could easily make a comparison between our college youths and Nazi Germany - but alas, I will refrain from doing that***.

The faithful horror fan will enjoy the scenes presented in Tucker & Dale vs Evil so much more than a non-horror viewer - although I have to admit I do not think too many people without at least a slight penchant for horror would watch it. Then again, I have no idea what normal people who are not into horror actually watch...

Old horror movie key-scenes and tropes have been used in such a fucking ingenious way that I feel it would be unfair to rob you of them by talking about them. Let's just say that the scenes are nearly flawless.

Oh, and I want to state that the free use of beer is awesome in this movie. Beer is an important part of civilisation, and these two proud men know it. Tucker and Dale are on the case!

Seriously though: Serious message (do not assume that people are what you think they are just because of their looks and your preconceived notions of stereotypes), hilarious flick. Along with the fun, the brain-stuff, the subtle social undertones we also get some really heart-warming scenes about friendship and acceptance (and cute romance). As I said, in my opinion, this has pretty much everything and has been done very, very, very very well. :D

The acting is pretty solid throughout - our two male leads and the female lead (Katrina Bowden as Allison) are obvious in this regard, but the college kids are also... more believable than their non-funny-horror-flick-with-hillbillies-counterparts on which they have been modelled. Then again, overacting such a part is way easier than trying to act believably - I mean come on. Would you be able to act in a believable way if you were to be cannon fodder for a woods-slasher-movie? I know I probably wouldn't.

The dialogue, too, is one of the most hilarious things ever, especially if you're watching this with the horror stereotypes we all know and love in mind. To be honest: Writing a review for this is a bit weird for me because I am giggling most of the time if not laughing out loud due to the hilarity of it all.

Hence:

Highly recommended to everyone!

9.5 / 10 creepy college kids hurling themselves to their premature death ("...Grab a leg!")

* Including females with hardly any idea about the geography of the world today who are nonetheless still able to split hairs about how much distance can be calculated to be lying between two ancient sites that have been ancient and dead for more than 4,000 years, obviously.

** Together with Morgan Jurgenson.

*** Take the superstitions the college kids have towards our friendly heroes and how that enrages them to act further and further, drowning down the spiral of pointless violence, under the aegis of a leader, and simply compare mentally with how the Germans and Austrians had these weird superstitions towards the Jewish people and how that enraged them to act further and further, drowning down the spiral of pointless violence under the aegis of a Führer... damn, I did it! ><

The Hamiltons (2006)

What does it mean to be happy? To be content in the world around you?

*...I don't know why I continue to see the Butcher Brothers' feature The Hamiltons as a short - I have watched it often enough to be familiar with and aware of the 86:35 playing length, so it can't be that. I am not usually stoned and/or drunk when watching it, and have not experienced intoxicant-induced blackouts recently, so it can't be that either. I know the story, the structure, the characters. But it still remains a short in my mind - short movie as well as short story.

It is a good story, though - perfect material for a short story. A novella if you really want to dig into the material, but being one of the creatures with a penchant for stringing words together so that they may look pretty, shiny and appetising, I'd spontaneously go with the short story-format.

Take care: A teenager is rebelling against his family whilst slipping into puberty. Twist: He's from a family of (...) monsters (?).

Essentially, this is the plot. And I can see how you can work a solid story around this, how to use the particularities of a teenager trying to figure out where he fits into the world in the case of a family without parents trying to figure out their place in the world. The isolation, the problems. Seriously - I would like to write something like this if I would be more inclined to A) take up the pen again, B) had any sort of connection to that concept - besides for having been a teenager once myself, as I suppose most of us have. But the thing I would not be able to do is wring more than is in the story out of it. And I think that this is what The Hamiltons is attempting. It does not fail - it works commendably considering what it has to work with. However: Do not make full-length movies (or stories!) out of short-story-material.

That said:

I have a soft spot in my heart for anthropomorphic non-traditional monster portrayals in which the monsters can also be, you know, 'normal' and stuff like that. Considering that, I really should appreciate the new millennium, as the fad of using outsiders and monster-like creatures as protagonists doesn't seem to stop anytime soon, but I am admittedly not the biggest fan of those ...thing-ies. Do remember, however, that Cannibal Flesh Riot! is the best movie in the whole world evar.

So... monstrous humanoid family. I guess it's not a big secret that the actual kind of monstrous humanoid being under consideration here are vampires (and yes, I dread vampire flicks these days...).

I imagine that people who perceive human blood on a superficial level (smell through skin, aroma on sweat, see the subcutan veins and capillaries, are aware of the pulse and/or heartbeat, can see the minute movements of skin spread out over the pathways of blood...) all.the.effing.time appear to be spaced out a bit when they are caught up in someone's blood's perception. An I imagine near-perfect portrayal by young actor Cory Knauf - so yeah, in order to check the acting we'd need to observe a starved blood-drinker in its natural surroundings, and I somehow doubt that this will happen anytime soon. As long as monsters are not being revealed to mankind as real, we have to take this performance as the best we can get at the moment (not counting TV-appearances by self-proclaimed 'real vampires' - more power to those of my awesome readers who happen to be of that persuasion, but: srsly?).

Staying with that topic for a moment, I shall rant: Amazingly, this movie is not on the hot-list of real vampires all over the world, or at least so I gather from the occasional mention of 'real vampires' disapproving of this movie on the various online media which cater to movie-lovers and other creatures of the horror movie world, under which I freely subsume those who need to proclaim that they are licking other irresponsible people's blood off the tiny wounds they inflicted with diabetics' tools. *shakes head* Srsly. People who want to be taken seriously should attempt to stay away from clichés like having a fake European accent, being all pale and clad in black, wallowing in self-pity - in general: Try not to be V:tM. Even if it goes against even your most uninhibited animalistic instincts to throw yourself at the mercy of the media and rational people waiting to point their fingers at you mockingly.

So.

Enough of subtly insulting minorities, on with the review in question.

How would you feel if you knew you were suffering from a rare disease of unknown origin - one that made you need human blood, one that made you need to drink it (-- fresh --) regularly? In large doses? A disease for which there was no cure, which wasn't even acknowledged by the medical sciences or even within the emerging fields of new medical research? Something apparently genetic, which has already changed you, made you different from other people - and you know that you'll need to drink at some point, else your health and sanity fail.

What would you do?

The Hamiltons tries to tell this story from the POV of a teenager (Francis, played by aforementioned Cory Knauf) born into a family of blood-drinkers. 'real vampires', if you will. They're apparently not immortal, nor immune to diseases, aging, wounds etc. - or the effects from lack of food. They love, hate; they feel passion (mostly for one another, but who would blame then - if you'd be part of a family of monsters that eats humans, you wouldn't exactly want to be with a human being unless you truly enjoy making yourself suffer mental and psychological agonies like straight from the abyss, or at least that's my guess). They try to live a normal life in a world that doesn't really offer up a place for them, stuck in a society in which they're not really able to 'be normal' at all; and the need to take in human blood as per survival makes normalcy within a human society very, very complicated... especially for teenagers of a rebellious age. And a family this volatile.

So... the family:

- David (odd but good performance by Samuel Child), the oldest of the siblings: Working as a butcher, he remains the one attempting to make their lives as normal as possible. Under 'normal', David understands 'banal', 'trifling' and 'American', judging from the things he enacts in order to introduce normalcy to their lives. He is also a quiet homosexual and raging with suppressed anger, which comes out pretty clearly in how Child chooses to depict the 'nice elder brother[-thing-from-the-beyond]'. 

- The twins, Wendell and Darlene (Joseph McKelheer and Mackenzie Firgens respectively). They are the ones who don't care for normalcy or 'fitting in' with the crowd - after all, the crowd consists of food. Point. The incestuous couple seems to follow a hedonistic life principle, where enjoying yourself and feeding, using, abusing and playing with people is one of the more fun things to do. Add sex and slight bi-polar tendencies in both, and you got yourself an explosive mix.

- Francis - teenager. 'nuff said.

Teenager Francis' plight is actually understandable in hindsight: Watching the movie for the first time, statements like "But I really don't fit in there!" in regards to school, just to state one example, just seemed eternally, abysmally bad. After the ending, re-watching the flick to see how I responded to the movie after knowing the story, I found the stereotyped scenes to be amusing and a kind of an inside nod to the viewers in the know rather than a mistake of the script / movie's conceptualisation. It's things like this that make up for the lack of the story's potential outside a short. It would be my guess that the Butcher Brothers are quite intentionally portraying ironically heightened stereotypes of certain rôles within society these days - a pointed and realistic portrayal of people in need of portraying people due to not-really-being-people. Gods, this is complicated at times like this...!

Talking to an acquaintance about this movie, I realised that the plot's elements actually correspond quite perfectly to van Gennep's theory of rites de passage - in this particular case, the class of initiation rites. What Francis is going through symbolises the classical transition from child to adult, the coming-of-age as it is more commonly known - within the universe and mythology the Butcher Brothers established in this movie. The focus of the movie on transitions is palpable throughout, as well as a focus on boundaries and the transgression of them. I don't want to accuse the movie of having been structured after ritual theory and/or other anthropological/sociological/psychological etc. concepts, but if you're taking those into consideration, it helps to enrich an otherwise pretty (low-)standard flick. And make me wax philosophically about fucking ritual theory... I really should get a grip on myself.

Speaking of people not-really-being-people: Why, do these vampiric types always decide to dutifully eat food that they know they cannot stomach properly, leading to the inevitable throwing up after eating? Why? I mean... WHY?! What could it possibly be that makes people eat things that make them throw up violently? A kind of weird, pseudo-humanistic insistence on being like everybody else, only not in the sense that solid food makes you vomit (...then again, I am the last person that should talk when it comes to throwing up 'normal food' and living with an unusual diet...)? What kind of twisted world view is this?
...I am baffled. Simply baffled.

Besides for this complex topic: David actually is merely keeping up a rational and sane persona all the time - which breaks at around the hour mark, when he starts exsanguinating a blonde twat and rants to her about random things - I would be more specific here, but alas, I don't want to watch the movie again for merely this quote. 

Admittedly, this is exactly the point where I would suspect someone who has kept a mask of sanity all the time around others and who gets triggered by the scent and/or sight of blood to break out of the persona and fall right into the pit of self.

As for being a stickler for details:
During the exsanguination, David uses some sort of... I don't know, a mix between a dialysis-machine, those things used for washing plasma and simple bags and tubes.
I cannot see the pumping equipment; also, as far as I am aware of, you need thicker plastic tubes to transfer blood effectively from the human body to some receptable (like a blood bag, as used in this movie). However, I shall believe the pwetty pictures, so I'll let these things slide. For nao.



6.2 / 10 memories slipping away in blood. And family.

 

"We live with a disease.
[...]
And everything you thought you knew about us is wrong.
We live in the houses next to you; we work in the stores you shop at; our kids play with your kids. We're just trying to be an ordinary family trying to figure out where we fit in in the world.
But we do need blood. And we need a lot of it.
Preferrably fresh, and not frozen."

* No screenshots for the time being; the laptop I am using is not able to handle that much stress. 

Moon (2009)

Let me preface this review by stating that I was never a big fan of science fiction. It's not that I don't like sci-fi; I read Perry Rhodan when I was a kid, but the amount of science fiction books I own is not a lot. And by that I mean really not a lot. The only sci-fi I actually enjoyed reading is/was the stuff by Michael Moorcock (because Michael Moorcock rules), which I chanced upon when I started collecting his stuff. So maybe it's my lack of exposion to science fiction that leads me to... not exactly appreciate this movie.




To put it bluntly: This movie (from the UK - shame on you, Great Britain!) is a complete waste of time. Do yourself a favour and watch something else. I found myself sitting in the dark, rocking back and forth with my chair (which I hadn't done since school before I saw this movie) and thinking wistfully of jewels like Death Machine or Lesbian Vampire Killers. Or, fuck it, Gothic Vampires From Hell.

But this wouldn't be a movie if I wouldn't tell you a bit more about it, would it? So, on we go.




The movie starts out with a really interesting advert, telling us that 70% of the earth's energy needs are met by harvesting He3 (Helium 3) from the moon. This is done by Lunar Enterprises - and after the spot, we say hello to our protagonist, Sam (played by Sam Rockwell). Sam is the only person on the Sarang Base 1 on the moon, accompanied only by the roboter Gerty (voiced by Kevin Spacey). His contract runs for 3 years, and he's soon to return to earth to meet his wife and baby daughter again. The only information he gets from the outside world comes in via pre-recorded video messages, and he communicates in the same way, as for some reason the interception of a live feed is impossible.




Sam is an interesting character. When we first meet him, he's not in the best of moods, in a way that Gerty the robot is worried. The only human being on the base shows irrational behaviour, is more aggressive than usual, complains of headaches etc. The lack of human communication is getting to him, and he worries about getting home - in only two weeks, his stay on the moon would be over.





In the past years since he got there, he developed a relationship with the plants on the base (he talks to them), started woodcarving (an entire little town, complete with people - impressive), and generally started to talk to himself more often and regularly.



Then something weird happens: As he goes to get some hot water, he sees a beautiful young woman sitting on the chair in the living quarter. Staring at her, completely distracted, he doesn't even notice that he's burning his hand with the burning water. Gerty, who fixes him up, is worried that Sam starts hallucinating - he doesn't mention the word, but it's implicit enough.




The next day, Sam has an accident.

Long story short, he wakes up in the infirmary. Gerty talks to him, asking him if he remembers what happened, but he doesn't, suffering from slight amnesia. Gerty wants to keep him in the infirmary for a few days to run some tests, and Sam is indeed very tired as the robot suggests.




When getting up for the first time, Sam's legs don't work. As if... as if he'd not been using them for quite a long time. Gerty runs quite a few tests on him, some of them cognitive etc., because he might have suffered damage from the injury. The observant watcher notices that the burn on the back of the hand disappeared. And Sam is suffering from nightmares. And the robot won't let him out of the base.




Sam sabotages the base and manages to convince Gerty to let him out in order to fix the damage - he promises just to fix the damage. Nothing else. So, as expected, he runs off with one of the massive 6-wheelers of the base to the site of his accident. And finds himself, lying wounded and dying in the wreck.




This all happens within the first 30 minutes of the movie. There is practically everything to make a compelling movie: The shots are beautiful, as well as the special effects. The whole set of the Sarang base and the moon is very well done and practically awesome. I liked the bulky look of the equipment and its intentional simplicity (although having them had Sam run a sneak Linux machine would have been nifteh as well). The colours were crisp and clear, and the contrast between cold and warm colours is used with great care and to the expected effect. The music adds to the bleak atmosphere of the moon and the isolation and, indeed, despair our main character (Sam #1) goes through.




After minute 27, the movie remains somewhat interesting until minute 35. During this time, the problem of the character is established... and after that, you can more or less turn off the movie and do something more interesting, like watering your houseplants or lying on the bed and looking at the wall.

The movie takes the interesting premises it worked half an hour to establish and then forgets them in a corner of the bathroom after having taken a piss and some valium. Quite a few of the nice little blue pills, in fact.




I watched it together with Riesenkater, who definitely knows more about science fiction than I do and has actually seen movies of that particular genre, and his reaction was eerily similar to mine. When I mentioned to him that this movie has been compared to 2001: A Space Odyssey, he just shook his head and said that that must be the opinion of semi-intellectuals who want to glorify something they don't understand because they don't understand it. The problem is not that the movie is "intellectual" or anything remotely connected to that: The problem is that there just is nothing interesting or new in the movie. It starts out impressive and fine, then takes a turn and violates your boredom-receptors. It RAPES them, actually.

It came as a surprise to me to learn that the movie was already out, and I was looking forward to it. Maybe it was exactly that which turned out to be the problem - my high expectations. Or maybe not.



Oh, and don't get fooled into thinking that this movie contains any horror elements. It's about as much "horror" as Twilight. Only that Twilight is more entertaining. Seriously.




3.5/10 for looking good and having tried in the first 30 minutes.

Vampire Diary (2007)

Lead Us Into Temptation

...and deliver us from the goths.

You see the characters and you hate them. That makes it hard for me to objectively review this movie adequately. But then again, every review of mine turns into me ranting subjectively on something, so there we go.

Meet the gang! Yippiiee!

Vampire Diary starts out in a special subset of the goth-scene: The vampire lifestyle scene, in this special case that of London. For some reason I cannot fathom, these people call themselves "weekend vampires" - a bunch of young adults who like to "play vampire" in their free time. They dress up as vampires, put fake fangs in their mouth (I guess that makes it hard to talk without a slight lisp, as can be heard throughout the movie, which is quite amusing) and dance to loud music and frantic, epilepsy-inducing lights when they are not cutting each other's arms in something they call "the exchange" in order to suck on the small cuts.

Within this freaky scene we find Holly, a quite normal young filmmaker who decided to shoot a documentary about this group of young people, associating with them and filming all the while.

Plothole: The "documentary" focuses around a core of 4 or 5 people (+/- some) - I can't for the life of me imagine that they'd just let themselves be filmed all the time and somehow taking it for granted. Especially not given the wider circle of friends and acquaintances and the entire subculture itself.
And especially not given the set of circumstances - I don't exactly know if cutting other people for blood at parties is the most legal or even sane thing to do. Is there a group of people like that in London? Scary thought. I find it doubtful that such a scene would accept to be filmed just like that all the time by someone who isn't a trusted friend. Yet Holly somehow seems to exist in a vacuum - it is useful for the viewer, because her view of this scene of people is as distant as ours, but it makes a few aspects of the documentary-approach just not believable.

Preparations for "The Exchange"...

Her character is constructed as an outsider to the weekend vampires, partly as a plot device, partly for the viewer and style of the "documentary" - but there's no way people like that would let an outsider film all of their secret ...indulgences (no insults intended for any of my readers who happen to be of this persuasion. More power to you, really.).

Scary fact:
Somewhere, someone is masturbating to the thought of blonde vampire nurses in short uniforms.

This approach worked in Man Bites Dog, a French movie (correct me if I'm wrong, it has been years since I've seen it on a VHS) - but the approach of the filmmakers in that mockumentary was different, and the relationship(s) between the filmer and the filmed more closely cut defined. Plus, for Raptor Jesus' sake, they filmed a serial killer. Holly (Morven Macbeth) is filming a fringe group of goths who think vampires are really cool. Not a serial killer. It just doesn't really work out the way it should.

Anyways, on with the plot. Holly films the weekend vampires, and one day, a woman named Vicky appears in London's underground scene of those living the vampire lifestyle. She is beautiful, she is mysterious, and she captures the attention of Holly's camera quickly. Especially since Vicky is also holding a camera - filming her.

Vicky soon seduces the (straight) Holly, and the two women fall in love with one another - and in the vampire scene, people start to disappear. And Vicky never eats anything, and questions quickly pile up. It turns out that she is a "real vampire" - she has to drink blood in order to survive - human blood. As the relationship between the two women spirals down the rabbit hole because of Vicky being a vampire, it takes a turn for the worse when it turns out that the vampire vixen is pregnant after she had been raped by a male "real vampire". The fetus grows quickly, and Vicky grows ever more hungry and careless in acquiring victims. The situation grows (there we go, I really hoped not to use it a third time, but apparently I can't help it) ever more desperate as the weekend vampires begin to wonder about some things.

Plothole: It is highly unlikely that a "real vampire" would film all it does. Who in their right mind would want to capture on camera how one kills people and drinks their blood? For what purpose? The Saturday Night Romantic Movie Evening With Blankets? "Oh, look honey, that was when I killed that bum. Doesn't the blood look stunning on my face?"*

It's not so much a real horror film than a relationship drama that centers around the problems of the age-old adage how the love between a vampire and a human can unfold (as witnessed by the Twilight craze)... and where to get new victims.

The movie really isn't bad. If you take it as a "vampire-love-story"-kind of movie, it certainly works good. As a horror movie... not so much. However, the vampire lore is something a little more unusual here; as you might have gathered from me mentioning Vicky's pregnancy, "real vampires" can procreate - but only with others of their kind, which would make them another species entirely. "Real vampires are born with two sets of fangs and really really need to drink blood - and only human blood will do. I honestly don't remember whether they mention that "real vampires" are immortal or whether they age normally, or slower, or whatever, but it makes for some nicely played situations.

And the goths are so freaking annoying.

The camera is as could be expected from a fake documentary, but it sometimes offers really pretty shots. And the subtle use of very, very, very slow zoom can be applauded. I liked the zoom.

Another thing... once again, it's Rippy the Razor time;

We get some erotic scenes (as evidenced below), some vaguely gory scenes... they're more tools than anything else. The main character of the story is doubtlessly Vicky, with a great performance from ex-model Anna Walton. She puts in a very strong performance as the "real vampire", and frankly, without her, the movie would be crap. I haven't seen Hellboy II, and I can remember Mutant Chronicles only dimly (too boring), so I can't really comment on her overall acting skills in different roles, but she really carried the movie.

Yes, this is an accidentally shot view of a woman's body. No, no naughty parts.

Useless Trivia of the Day: The song you hear at 0:44:40 is "Lesbian Vampires from Outer Space" by the Scary Bitches.

You really have to accept and like that sort of movie. I was pleasantly surprised... if only more goths had been killed. On the other hand, the movie as a whole concept, taking aside Walton's performance for a moment, it's... not that great. *sighs*

I'm being generous. To encourage a bit more violence and less goths.
7/10 difficulties getting coagulated blood out from between the teeth.


*Yes. Yes it does.

The Living and the Dead (2006)

I really don't know how to classify this movie - but that's not a bad thing at all. Let me try to explain...

Attention: screenshot - intensive.

The Brocklebanks are a weirdly dysfunctional family. Father Donald Brocklebank has, at the verge of bankruptcy, decided to leave the family manor Longleigh House for London, to get treatment of his terminally ill wife Nancy. The main problem, though, isn't Nancy's disease - it's their son, James, a young man who is a little bit... unstable.




I may have to define my use of the term 'unstable' a little bit more: His breakfast consists of medication. A lot of it. I have to take a lot of meds in the morning, but my pharmaceutical breakfast looks ridiculous compared to the amounts that James is taking - even when he's under-medicating himself. Because James needs his medication.





James seems to be on the verge of psychosis most of the time, his erratic behaviour getting more extreme. He seems to be aware of his condition, shooting himself up with medication, which seems to calm him down (I'd like to know what it is that he's injecting himself with).




His father, who has to leave the mansion they're living in (without any people working for them - it's just Donald, his wife and his insane son) and who appears to be strict, harsh even when dealing with James, shows a touching side of a father's love for his son when he finds him early on in the movie, a wound on his head from banging it against various objects, passed out on the kitchen floor. He may be harsh, but he does care for James - his pale, erratic son...






Something will go wrong, we realise, as James decides not to shoot himself his much-needed medicine the morning after his father has left for London.




He tells his mother that he will take care for her whilst her husband is away, and that the nurse which is supposed to do that cannot come. His mother is suspicious... and worried. She is bedridden and cannot care for James... who would need being cared for just as much as she does.




At minute 26, there is a sudden change in the tone of the movie. An urgency is gained that has not been present before, and it will be with us at certain times throughout the rest of The Living and the Dead.

Hectic. The focus shifts from James' mother to himself and his frantic experience of the world around him - dissociative, breaking apart. He reminds me of some of the schizophrenics I have met in associated hospitals, and his distorted perception of time also seems familiar, though in a less insane way. It hits a nerve... or two.




James decides to lock out the nurse (Sarah Ball) when she arrives, and this, for some reason, sends the woman into some nameless, urgent feeling of dread and panic. She leaves, and James is left with his mother - who doesn't want him to stay with her any longer, as she clearly sees the change taking place in her unstable, demented son.




He feeds her pills that she doesn't want to take, obviously scaring her. His aggression becomes more and more intense, and he's forcing her to swallow more pills after he attacks her. She has difficulties breathing and wants to speak to his father, but he becomes even more erratic and aggressive, yelling at her that he "is the man in the house".

Finally, his mother throws up the pills, and he is devastated, screaming and yelling at her while she flees in her wheelchair...




James has degraded into a raving madman as he watches his mother flee, falling out of her wheelchair onto the stairwell.




The second day arrives... and James doesn't take his medication. Again. And now, the movie truly begins... taking us with it on a meandering, surreal path through mind, illusion, reality and time - down the rabbit hole, towards the abyss, where Da'ath lurks, and with it - madness and despair.






This movie tells a story - a long, sad story, one of madness and loss, of pain and dissociation from reality. Its language is mainly the medium of pictures - it is hard to convey in words what each of those pictures alone says, on a multitude of levels. Opulent in its simplicity, I am confident to say that this movie is brilliant in its optical execution of a dreamlike, surreal experience that bespeaks a philosophical depth rarely seen in a conventional horror movie.




The eyes drink in the ever growing intensity of the pictures and scenes, whilst the mind struggles with making sense of it - what is real? What is illusion? What is future, what is past? Is there something like reality? What is madness, and what is not? Or is all madness? Time loses meaning, becomes something we cannot make sense of anymore. The Living And The Dead blends the various scenes and episodes that take place in a seamless way which creates the illusion of coherence where none exists - for there is no coherence left within the depths of psychosis.




This brings me to the second strong point of this movie: the acting. As we are following only three characters throughout the whole movie, we can see them in a variety of scenes which help to define their personalities. We know next to nothing about them - but yet we see into their souls, into their fears, despair and inner struggles - and their insanities. And all three main protagonists are doing a really great job.




Which impressed me most was the performance of Leo Bill, who played James Brocklebank (thank you, imdb.com, for the information on the family's last name). His portrayal of the character was most convincing, and he brought an unexpected depth to the staple idea of "the lunatic". It's because of him and through him that we experience the mixing of reality with illusion, of hallucination with reality, of hallucination with hallucination, of reality with reality. Kudos to him. His portrayal of body-wrecking physical and mental agony that comes in advanced stages of certain forms of psychotic attacks was stunning, and I applaud him for it.




There was a merciless realism to his portrayal of psychotic, dissociative behaviour. It touched me, because this is something very personal for me. It hits too close to home to be entirely comfortable.




Also impressive was Roger Lloyd-Pack, who played James' father, Mr. Donald Brocklebank. He certainly is a good actor, and although his performance was outshone by that of Leo Bill, he still brought life and depth to his character. Personally, though, I find that Kate Fahy ranks in on second place when it comes to the portrayal of the depth of a character. She plays James' mother with a natural ease that betrays her experience as a mother (this by no means implies that her kids are in any way like the fictional character of James Brocklebank). She's a really good actress for this sort of characterisation, as her portrayal of different emotional states was very convincing.




The stories we are being shown in The Living and the Dead are brilliant - because they are real, each single one of them. No matter what version of reality you want to see or will see if you don't embrace all of them as equally real - you will be touched.




It is a dreary movie - there is no joy in it, for even those precious few moments are overshadowed by the gloomy atmosphere of Longleigh House.




Much of the dark, but achingly beautiful mood of the movie is carried by the setting of the old, decaying manor. Set entirely within those brooding walls, the merciless maze of versions of reality gains an extra depth, one that perfectly represents the isolation which is such an integral part of The Living and the Dead.




Isolation - it rings through the movie as a central theme, made out of hollow echoes of bleak despair. Longleigh House is isolated, far outside in the countryside, far away from help. Donald Brocklebank is isolated - all wealth is lost, his wife terminally ill, and his son is lost to him. Nancy is isolated - her health is falling apart, and so is her family and her dreams. And James... James can't even reach outside himself, confined within the fractal madness of his own broken mind, fractalised, dissociative, fraying out at the borders. Reality - lost; to him as well as to us.




The camerawork is outstanding as well. Simon Rumley (who wrote, directed and produced The Living and the Dead) truly shines with this movie - it is executed nearly flawlessly on all levels. The use of light and shadow are brilliant, the camera's angles unusual but highly effective, the frantic editing of some scenes are blending seamlessly into the movie as a whole whilst still delivering the intensity and hectic, dissociative sense of urge that is so characteristic of James' perceptions, the pictures are beautiful... Flawless.




Weaving a net of sounds and impressions is the language. The dialogues never seem artificial or forced - there is, again, a stylistic minimalism at work here, which adds a particular feel of loneliness and - again - isolation to this piece of art. And the soundtrack by Richard Chester is of particular intensity as well. It is hard to describe, but the music has the effect of a painter's few final, highlighting strokes with the brush against the painting as a whole. It is admirable.

I don't know what to say.





11/10