Change Your Image
alex_nox2
Reviews
Verão Fantasma (2022)
Lunges between the harrowing and the beautiful
Six friends meet for a holiday in an isolated beach house, and strange things start happening.
You might think you know this story, but you're so very wrong.
The story - or at least what can be guessed for a story - is everything but original, similar to any other slasher/shocker/splatter/ghost story. The innovation of this film is actually form - it's all about form indeed. This picture oozes style. The plot is just an excuse for setting a beautiful mise-en-scène, photography, people and songs - and still it doesn't sound like Sweeney Todd, though it definitely borrows some (modern) gothic elements.
It is portrayed in a dream-like form (or nightmare-like, if you may), so what may seem like cringeworth moments, plot holes and screenplay errors are carefully purposeful, in order to stress the dream-like quality. For instance, the friendship between the two main protagonists develops in a rushed and unrealistic way - specially considered the utterly unamicable circumstances in which they met, by one hitting the other in head because the latter was disguised as a zombie/ghost. It also doesn't make sense at that moment why he was like that, if not for performing a fake scare in the audience, and even after the scare the hitter takes for granted that people like to dress like that when they're occupying their dead aunt's house. On the other hand, the transition of said friendship to love is carefully and truthfully developed, to the point that at a certain moment I was already screaming "Go on an kiss already!".
This is specially due to the obvious influence Matheus Marchetti has had of Italian Horror, specially Dario Argento and Mario Bava - the child killer, childish atmosphere and past traumas borrowed from the former, especially "Deep Red" and "Sleepless", and the location and its use from the latter's "Bay of Blood", as well as the lavish lightning from his color gothic horrors and "gialli". There's also an abundance of homages to Ken Loach, "Naked Lunch", "Evil Dead" and even "Ringu".
The inattentive audience might react just like Rocky Hudson did after watching "2001 - A Space Odissey", since little is given at face value; however, in a truly lynchean way, several interpretations of the story might be inferred - and, as far as we know, they are all true.
It also has funny, corny and even cute moments - and they're all effective, which, more often than not, is not when they are attempted in horror films.
Although the production is exclusively Brazilian, this film's DNA is definitely European. I'm not short of saying this is Cannes or Venice material, and "Phantom Summer" should be submitted to these festivals, in order for it to achieve the recognition it's due.
Halloween Kills (2021)
This film is a brutal massacre
People have been bashing this film so much I was motivated to share my own thoughts, even though I don't usually feel like it.
I watched the theatrical version about a year ago in cinemas and have just watched the Extended/Unrated Cut on BD. As far as I could tell, differences where that the killing scenes where extended, more explicit and/or bloodier, and, of course, the alternative ending - which would be better called Extended too.
Anyway, this Halloween reboot is definitely surpassing anything done with the series from Halloween II onwards (I personally love Halloween III, but it's a different movie entirely apart from name, so I'm not considering it). Can't say it's better than Halloween H20 yet, since I haven't had the chance to watch it though.
Still, the screenplay is interesting and providing new ideas, performances are pretty solid, and I'm definitely fond of how the John Carpenter legacy of the series is being respected - to the point of him doing score again, and bringing so many actors and actresses from the original to reprise their roles.
The first installment brought the thrilling perspective of Laurie actually fighting back Michael and preparing for his return (but she's not just being a badass, this is also a consequence of the deep trauma the 1978 experience caused her).
In the second installment, we realize it's not just Laurie who's traumatized, it's the whole town of Haddonfield - and it's their turn to hunt down Michael Myers.
I'm not sure if it was the intention, but it so happens that HK turns the table around and effectively conveys a strong anti-violence message - which is terribly risky in a slasher film, but I've found it utterly successful, and actually makes this film stands out from other slashers, having depth and philosophy you wouldn't expect in this genre - and without giving up the entertainment factor, which for Horror fans is evidently the violence, blood and guts.
As we could see in the previous installment, the only person who actually had a chance at succeeding in fighting and killing Michael Myers is Laurie Strode - and yet, she fails, but not out of her own fault. After all, how could firepeople expect to be killed by the very person they've just saved from a fire? (Which also provides a thrilling sequence of slaughter).
The police fails to capture and kill him. The mobs gathered to linch him fail miserably and simply end up killed themselves - not surprisingly, some of them shot from their own pistols, cut from their own chainsaws, and beat up with their own baseball bats like Tommy himself - the main instigator of the linch mob.
The highest point is made, however, when a disorganized and chaotic mob at the Haddonfield Memorial Hospital mistake another Creek escapee (this time just a person with mental disability who definitely needed help) for Michael, persecute him and try to kill him. No matter how Laurie and Karen try to convince the crowd they're after the wrong man, they're brutally shoved away, stepped upon, and Laurie even has her recent stitches opened up (by people who should just be sympathetic with what she just went through). Karen then tries to hide and protect the scapegoat, who only realizes his situation is helpless and kills himself jumping out of the window. Needless to say the police
is useless and the Sheriff is as helpless as the man he had the duty to save.
"Now he's turned us into monsters", says ex-Sheriff Brackett (who's also keen on revenge for his daughter killed in '78 and ultimately meets her same fate). This is question the film ultimately raises, intentionally or not: is Michael Myers that different from us?
At the end of the film Laurie and Hawkins realize it: you can't defeat evil with evil, it only makes it stronger. Even though the film doesn't provide a clear alternative - because Karen is also punished for trusting too much a system that's failed -, it is pretty much clear on the point that violence is not the answer, not even against Michael Myers (and ironically and actually pointing the finger at slasher and horror fans and saying: this is you, deep down inside you're not righteous and civilized as you think you are, afterall you're relishing on Michael Myers bloody feats). A bold and dangerous point to make in a slasher film, but I've found it nothing short of brilliant.
Which is why, I think, the extended ending was removed to only stick with the shock factor of Karen's death. The scene actually segues in the Unrated version to Karen's mobile buzzing (it's Laurie calling from the hospital payphone). Michael answers and only breaths on it, recalling another scene from the original. This time, however, Laurie answers "I'm coming for you, Michael", hungs up and walks out of the hospital with a bloody knife on her hands.
David Gordon Green explicitly says in the Extras that, since they've decided to go forward in time in Halloween Ends, this ending might have given the wrong impression the sequel will continue straight from this point with Laurie chasing Michael, trying to avenge her daughter, and this is why it was cut from the theatrical release. I personally loved it, it's badass, and consistent with the Laurie we saw in the previous film. But not consistent with the character evolution and change in THIS film we just watched, and the message it implied. I mean, after just realizing she can't beat Michael through violence cause it just makes him stronger, Laurie just throws it out of the window the moment she realizes he killed her daughter, and runs out of the hospital chasing him with a butcher knife? It was brilliant, but didn't make any sense. This is why I ultimately think it was changed and the theatrical ending actually works better, even if, considered only in itself, the extended ending was more thrilling and had more impact.
Still, real fans of slasher genre have a lot to enjoy, with reportedly the highest body count of all Halloween films so far. The killings are brutal, gory and inventive, and special make-up effects are also quite impressive. This film is a bloody massacre, and the creators where obviously trying to surpass everything that has been done before in the series, and yet without deviating from Michael's style and character.
Last, but not least, I was in awe of the 1978 sequences. They were obviously done with meticulous care and it paid off. Lighting, photography, scenery, make up, film grain, everything was done so perfectly it actually seem they're deleted scenes from the '78 film and not new material filmed in digital. When I first watched it in theater, I actually believed Sam Loomis was brought back with CGI, but the filmmakers actually found a crew member who has an uncanny resemblance to Donald Pleasence in 78 - and with a little make-up, careful editing and lighting, we can witness movie magic at its best.
Even the Ghost song at the credits was nice and adequate, and I plan on downloading it shortly.
The only thing I miss and I have yet to see in a Halloween film is the notion that Carpenter used in the original that people die because they are distracted (drinking, doing drugs, having sex, etc.), and Laurie survives because she was attentive. This film obviously went in the opposite direction (and also to be coherent to the now classical super-(in)human approach to Michael Myers), but it had a definitely purpose in doing so.
So, my advice is to approach it with an open mind and you probably find a lot to enjoy, specially if you're a fan of slasher, of John Carpenter and the Halloween series. I'm personally looking forward to Halloween Ends.
Exorcist II: The Heretic (1977)
A beautiful film, but not "The Exorcist"
I can understand why both professional critics and audiences loathe this film. I've just watched both the original Exorcist and this sequel in a row. The first one is a classic that pushed the boundaries of horror filmmaking and is a major influence on today's filmmakers, both because of its morbid tone, special effects and eerie soundtrack, and deserves no further comment.
However, I think Jason Boorman did a beautiful film with "The Heretic". A beautiful and eerie soundtrack from Ennio Morricone (who never disappoints), solid performances by the main characters (specially Linda Blair and Richard Burton), and special effects which are still impressive today (specially the beautiful matte paintings by Alfred Whitlock, who never disappoints either). The story was captivating, I found interesting the mixed use of technology, modern psychiatry and religious myth in a way that has never been reproduced since, and the explanation that demons tempt exceptionally good and talented people actually makes sense.
The one fatal mistake both Boorman, the producers and Warner Bros. Did in the first place (an original sin, if you may) was attach this film to the Exorcist franchise. This is a completely different film, altogether in tone, pace and theme from William Friedkin's celebrated flick (which may have a "happy" ending, but still leaves a bitter taste in your mouth with the sacrifice and tragedy necessary to achieve it, and still haunts the audience and leaves them in awe with the power of evil, and how much it takes to defeat it). Boorman did a "feel-good" film which actually resonates better as a drama or Sci-Fi flick, and doesn't even fit in well in the horror category.
Early on, Boorman and the producers should have realized they had a gem which didn't fit the Exorcist lore and made the necessary changes (specially characters and the title) to make it a standalone film - I honestly believe it would have fared better with both critics and the audience this way. The director even recognized later on (which is obvious) he didn't deliver what the public expected from an Exorcist sequel. Unfortunately, we know well that's not how Hollywood works, and that executives would try to fare on the first film's success at any cost, to the point of tagging a film as a sequel even if it has nothing to do with its intended predecessor. Such narrow-minded thinking didn't even reach their main objetive, resulting in a critical and box office failure.
Rasen (1999)
An interesting entry in the Ring universe
Since no-one ever bothered to write a review here, I thought I could give my share.
First of all, it is implied that this is a sequel to "Ring: Final Chapter" (also by Fuji TV), but can be viewed as a stand-alone work. The only references to the other series is the cursed tape whose viewer will die after watching it in 13 days (instead of the canonic 7), and the fact that Akiko Yada and Tae Kimura reprise their roles as Mai Takano and Sadako Yamamura, respectively. They are the only characters to show up again, however - apart from an unnamed voice-over in the first chapter warning Mai that Sadako is willing to be reborn (presumably from the late Ryuji Takayama).
Actually, the adaptation loosely departs from the novel in several instances. Mitsuo Ando is a high-school teacher, instead of the coroner/Professor of Pathology and Legal Medicine of the novel, and he's not at the verge of divorce - his wife Miwako had a nervous breakdown after Takanori's death and is at a mental facility, still believing their son is alive.
The series start with a mysterious incident in an office building in which all employées die of heart attacks at the same time - except for a former student of Ando's, Misaki Nishijima, who has no memory of the event. As thus, she's prime suspect by the police. Her sister Kumiko is still Ando's student and asks for his help. He is also aided by another former student and friend of Misaki's, Natsumi Aihara, who now works at the Scientific Police. However, her investigations are being blotched by her mysterious boss Miruka. She is also aided by a young coroner, Kyosuke Oda, who seems to have a love interest in her.
Mai also seems to have psychic powers (though they are never explained or referred to as such) and feels Sadako's presence, aiding the main characters.
Meanwhile, a student of Nostradamus's predictions, Toru Kawai, gains TV celebrity posing as a fortune teller himself, and predicting the return of a so-called King of Terror (who gives him mysterious prank calls).
Ando and Aihara discover in the office a CD-Rom that appears to contain Sadako's cursed video in digital form (thus explaining the deaths of the employées). Misaki didn't die because she was impregnated by it - and as series's fans might guess, the fetus grows impossibly fast and Sadako is reborn as the new-infant - becoming, however, a kind of a clone of the impregnated host. She keeps dying, however, until she finds a suitable body in Mai Katano and becoming her clone, after careful disposal of the "original".
I had a hard time trying to figure out what the murderer Akita Gozo and the King of Terror had to do with Sadako, until it was neatly wrapped up in the last episode.
This is TV drama, so you can expect a lot of walking around the bush and over-the-top acting, but in the end I've found it entertaining, and, although inferior to "Ring: Final Chapter", it had scarier elements. I could relate enough to the characters and there was enough suspense to keep me interested.
I was dissatisfied with the ending, though. I liked the display of a certain sympathy towards Sadako in the last episode (the novels really made me question if she was really evil, unfortunate or just trying to survive in a cruel world), but after all she went through to be reborn, her suicide by mere jumping from the high top of a building felt unreal, vain and utterly unbelievable. Ando's choice to die - after sacrificing himself to destroy the cursed tape AND being reborn almost as a prize for his selflessness - left a bitter taste in my mouth, it felt stupid and unnecessary, almost as if his own trajectory as a character had been worthless by his own choice.
I missed Myashita - who was Ando's sidekick in the novel and actually appeared in "Ring: Final Chapter" as a female doctor helping Asakawa, so I actually expected the character to show up again in this incarnation, who was sweet, charming and likable, but the telewriters missed a great opportunity (or maybe the actress didn't agree to return).
There's no "ring virus" in this instance - only a minor reference in the last episodes when the villain Higashi/Oda develops a synthesized virus that accelerates cellular growth and causes people to instantly age and die.
I also missed Ando's "Sofia's choice" in the end (featured both in the novel and the theatrical adaptation). Takanori is indeed ressurected by Sadako halfway through, but the fact that she can't prevent his death (again) by controlling cellular growth - and that this poker move is easily realized by Ando - diminishes its dramatic impact. It did provide for an interesting conflict for Sadako to put Miwako temporarily against Ando. Even "Ring: Final Chapter" reproduced Asakawa's final conflict satisfyingly, though in a different way.
I also enjoyed the fact that - almost spookily - the series presented the evolution of the cursed video tape to digital form, an idea Suzuki himself would reproduce in the sequel "S" almost ten years later.
All in all, it was an interesting entry in the Ring universe, although I'd only recommend it for diehard fans.
The Omen (2006)
Worthy hommage to the original, brilliant stand-alone film
I'm absolutely surprised at how poor this film is being rated and reviewed. Probably hardcore fans of the original who shiver at the mere prospect of a remake.
Honestly, I've just watched all Omen films back-to-back (having bought "The Ultimate Collection", which includes this remake), and I think I'm in position to make an objective comparison, having both versions quite vivid in my mind. And, to be frank, all of this loathing seems undeserved.
This is almost a scene-to-scene remake (like Van Sant's "Psycho") (so I don't understand what the moaning is all about), but it's much more than that. Actually, I'm curious wether Brian Setzer wrote an entirely new screenplay with rehashes scenes from the original or if the director/producers decided to use the exact first draft of the '76 version including the scenes Richard Donner, with his no-nonsense approach, chopped off (either in writing phase, or left at the cutting room floor). However, I'm inclined to believe in the latter possibility: this film is 90% faithful to the bone to the original, including entire dialogues, scenes and situations, and new scenes are strikingly similar to cutscenes from the '76 version (either scripted but unfilmed, such as monstrous gothic appearences, which were vetoed by Donner already in pre-production, or Mrs Baylock's death, which had an alternative scene which is used on the remake).
Second, let's face it: it's absolutely rare for remakes to stand up for their originals, with a few very notable exceptions (such as John Carpenter's "The Thing", Phillip Kaufman's "Invasion of the Body Snatchers", or, arguably, Zack Snyder's "Dawn of the Dead"). Still, I came to watch this flick with no preconceptions at all and I was quite thrilled.
Even though Richard Donner's original no-nonsense approach was respected, a couple of nightmare sequences included gothic monstruosities which were very effective - and, nightmares as they are, they don't affect the plausability of the story. The original's sense of dread and growing suspense is effectively maintained through careful editing and innovative sound effects. It was also beautiful to see digital technology improving visuals from the '76 version, and photography in general was a bliss to the eyes.
Overall, acting was solid and believable. As for Robert Thorn, it should be recognized that the shadow of Gregory Peck's incomparable and inimitable performance is far from easy to shake off, but Liev Schreiber does an interesting job conveing this secretive, emotional and finally vengeaful character on his own basis, without trying to imitate his predecessor in the role - which would have been disastrous.
Whislt Lee Reming did a brilliant job conveying a caring mother who slowly becomes estranged and finally scared of her supposed offspring, Julia Stiles was detached from the start from a child which unconsciously she's always known it's not hers, though she tries hard to love and nourish. The conflict expressed in these mixed feelings, to my mind, where brilliantly expressed from an actress that, until now, I couldn't care less and had found blunt and uninspiring.
Pete Postlethwaite and Michael Gambon do their respective cameos with the usual solid mastery. I also loved an unexpected and unrecognizable (til I saw the credits) cameo from Italian trash star Giovanni Lombardo Radice ("City of the Living Dead", "Cannibal Ferox") as Father Spiletto. David Thewlis is also inspiring as doom-fated photographer Keith Jennings, nothing short of David Warner's thrilling performance.
Now, let's be frank, genious children actor/actresses are rare, and Seamus Davey-Fitzpatrick is not one of them. However, he's so downright ugly and creepy (and director John Moore actually said one of the reasons he was hired was because he's a handsome child - I can't really fathom!) that he does need little more than stand still and stare to have the desirable effect as Damien the demon child. One scene that was out of the final cut but brought me the chills (I think it's in the trailer) was Damien waving goodbye - VERY slowly - right before the eponymous balcony fall. It creeped so much the hell out of me that it really should have been kept in the final cut - I've found the dubious mixture of childish naïveté and deep-rotted vicious evil rather disturbing, if ever conveyed in a manner so simple.
I also thought a stroke of genius relating the "Angel's Trumpets" to early 21st century catastrophes, such as 9/11 and Katrina - it actually makes the spectator wonder if the Antichrist isn't walking unbeknownst among all of us at this right moment, in a way I felt even the original did not.
Overall, I've found it a worthy hommage to the original Omen (even if it's not superior, as it was to be expected by the way) and a brilliant stand-alone film. However, even though succeeding the great Jerry Goldsmith would be a scaring task in any instance, and specially with the award winning "Ave Satani", I've found Marco Beltrami's score a little further than decent. He obviously tried to follow his own path and avoid comparisons with the '76 avant-gard soundtrack, but in this instance he didn't succeed as much. I really missed "Ave Satani" and other gregorian chants which became a trademark of the Omen series. We actually have a second-lenght glimpse of it midcredits, but it is so anti-climatic it could have been left off.
I have another problem with the graveyard set design. Why in Heaven (pun intended) would an Etruscan - therefore pre-Christian - graveyard have crosses all over it, some of them even upside down (after all, Christ is the obvious historical precedent to the Antichrist, is he not?). Even though it added a great atmosphere to the scene (altogether with the brilliant use of snow in the dark), the original release was much more historically acurate - and therefore believable - in this matter.
However, these are minor flaws that don't justify the backlash this otherwise brilliant and entertaining film is receiving here.