Change Your Image
angryitalian
Reviews
Smiley (2012)
The Shining + Rosemary's Baby = Smiley?
In YouTube 2011, a sea of people (myself included), became mystified and terrified after a screen-shot of a bloody smiley face started circulating the web. Seeking out the source of the clip, I found the trailer for this film on "TotallySketch" YouTube channel. My thirteen year-old self watched it with intrigue and when it ended, I wanted to watch the movie. Sadly, I never saw it...until now.
Now sixteen, I have a better index of horror films like "Jaws", "The Shining", "Halloween", "Psycho", and "The Thing", so I got my hands on a copy of "Smiley" and finally watched it.
Moments after watching the film, I sat and wondered three things: a) Does Michael Gallagher (the director) know what a horror movie is? b) Hasn't been on the internet more than once? And c) Has he gone to a college in his life?
Following this film, I watched an interview Gallagher did just before the film's release and said he used horror classics such as "Rosemary's Baby" and "The Shining" as inspiration, which made me walk away more confused than before. The reason for this is that both films had the following three things: a) A great, unique narrative propped up with stunning and beautiful cinematography, b) Real, complex, and relatable characters brought to life by an impeccable screenplay and great director, and c) An eerie, unsettling atmosphere throughout the film and a great, memorable ending to wrap it all up.
"Smiley" had none of these things.
Why go in threes, you ask. And to that I say, "Candyman" rip-off!
Within the movie's first three minutes, we're told the Smiley killer is an urban legend who is summoned via a ChatRoulette-like site with the phrase "I did it for the Luz" typed thrice, and Smiley kills a person on the other end of the chat room. And while ludicrous- sounding enough, the premise was fine and seemed original, until right after the first ten minutes, I realized what type of film this would be.
Filled to the brim--no, overflowing--with jump scares to point of predictability and humor; predictable so, that should you invite your friends to your house and should agree to watch this film, it'd make a great drinking game. With the number of jump scares I'd watch it though, the 29-32 jump scares might give you a hangover.
All the characters, like the film "Not Cool", are brought to life by Internet personalities (Shane Dawson, Toby Turner, etc.) and still wonder if the director assumed that their fame on YouTube transferred into the movie world or just though each YouTuber would bring a certain number of moviegoers. I'm assuming number two, primarily because, being a MASSIVE Toby Turner fan back in the day, I would've gone to see it solely because he was in it.
The main girl, Ashley (Caitlin Gerard) is who we are supposed to root for, care about, and worry for after she kills an anonymous stranger by summoning Smiley and now thinks Smiley is after her, is the most annoying character in this film; with the vocabulary and mindset of a fourteen year-old girl, anything that came out her mouth just drove me crazy and her laugh was so dreadfully painful to hear, I'd think being stung by a scorpion would be less painful.
The supporting cast simply added salt to the wound; Ashley's roommate, Proxy (Melanie Papalia) represented the typical cliché character of "nothing's really happening", then coming full circle to being "now that it's going down, I'm all screaming and whining". Her "love interest", Binder (Shane Dawson) is so wooden, a coffee table could give a better performance.
Perhaps the biggest quarrel I have with this film was it's ending.
*DEFINITE SPOILERS FOLLOW*
This film has a twist ending, much like "The Village" and it's just as illogical as the latter, but the difference being that M. Night Shyamalan had build a pretty decent amount of suspense and story in "The Village" so that made me more angry than this film that build pretty much neither.
As all the college campus kids are revealed to have been pulling an elaborate prank on Ashley and all "pretended" to be Smiley, it's also brought up that they're Anonymous and 4chan hackers bent on spreading the word of Smiley.
It presents not just one plot hole, but so many that if the movie were a water balloon it'd burst. To list them; a) Why would "Anonymous" set-up such an elaborate scheme to just get one annoying girl? b) How were they everywhere "murdering" anonymous people anywhere online when they're is only seven of them? c) How would the whole confrontation scene boil down so much to coincidence? And d) What was the purpose of even trying to kill her??
Mind-boggling.
To wrap up, this movie was pretty terrible and only watch it with a friend, just to see him squirm in annoyance like I did. The last ten minutes destroyed whatever the movie had going for it and made me completely check out. But not to say "Smiley" didn't have OK moments; the classroom scenes weren't that bad and Roger Bart and Keith David bring all they can to the table. But the table is pretty bare...
All I can say is, that if the director dreams building a franchise with "Smiley", then I say the dream is dead and it's time to wake up and smell the coffee.
Not Cool (2014)
Just One Long YouTube Video...
Here's the deal:
I'm a fellow YouTuber with a passion for cinema and the art of film- making and I, along with a myriad of other YouTubers, make short films with our sweat, blood, and tears in the hopes of one day have film-making go from a dream hobby to a reality career. Many of us either remain stranded on YouTube or simply grow tired of film- making. However, a select few achieve the dream and make a real movie, like Shane Dawson, and Michael Gallagher before him with "Smiley". However, both of them have helped suggest to people that YouTubers deserve no position in film.
"Not Cool" lives up to the title; the movie is nothing but one long YouTube video devoid of humor for any audience above age 12 and a clichéd story that's been done in all possible coatings. Filled to the brink with toilet humor, there's a poop eating hobo, glory holes, public sex, and a girl using a zucchini as a dildo to lose her virginity; all in the first seven minutes mind you.
I'm aware that Dawson aimed this film at his fans, who love his YouTube videos for their slapstick, toilet humor, vulgarity-ridden tones and that's perfectly fine. No harm done. The harm is done when nearly one million dollars is wasted on a film poorly written, horribly shot, terribly scored, and just absurdly put together.
The actors, like "Smiley" are faces from YouTube and the web and also like "Smiley", they help suggest talents from YouTube are horrible actors. Only Keith David and Roger Bart aren't in "Not Cool" to help carry this film.
The characters are either cliché-ridden or just plain annoying; Scott (Shane Dawson) is the biggest wooden actor who whines for 60% of the film, Tori (Cherami Leigh) is the most pessimistic, loathing, depressing, angry, annoying downer I've ever seen period and it's hard for me to even consider liking her, despite the fact she's the main character, Joel (Drew Monson) is the stereotypical, annoying "gonna-try-to-fuck-my-obsessive-crush-if-it's-the-last-thing-I-do" character and I had a headache every time he was on screen, and Jaine (Michelle Veintimilla) hangs around a group of promiscuous girls (one played by Dawson) and is the character than annoyed me the least...so positive?
Another point to emphasize the idea of this film feeling like an hour-and-a-half long is that, mentioned above, Shane plays multiple parts in this movie from his YouTube videos (exaggerated roles of a promiscuous teenybopper girl, an outlandish bus-driver, etc.) which further proving that Dawson made no attempt to mature from YouTube onto the silver screen as he claims he wants to.
Now I'm sure some reading this review will point it out being for a reality show film produced on a budget on $800,000 and that I'm being harsh on Dawson for being a young director.
My response?
I haven't watched "The Chair", the show financing it, nor the other competitor's film (and to be honest, I probably won't) and have only seen this one, due to it being more publicized than "Hollidaysburg". In terms of "low budget", I understand it's restricting, but numerous directors have produced American classics with a budget lower than this film. Examples include: Halloween ($300,000), Assault on Precinct 13 ($100,000), THX-1138 ($777,777.77), American Graffiti ($777,000), and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (<$300,000).
I will close this review by reiterating that I hated this movie, but I fully support Shane Dawson transitioning into film and the when he does his next film, I'll go see that and the one after that, because I like seeing YouTube filmmakers accomplish their dreams of making a movie. But I suggest you avoid this pile of trash unless you're a die-hard Shane Dawson fan, or...wait, there's no "or".
Shane, if you read this, take advice and make an effort to disconnect your YouTube sketches from your films; Hollywood is a newer, broader, and bloodier battlefield...prepare.
The Babadook (2014)
"The Babadook": A NEW Horror Classic
I am a poor lad, having been born in 1999. Now, I live in an age where classic horror is dead and the term "horror" has became a joke with modern "horror" movies like Ouija, Devil's Due, Smiley and the once great Paranormal Activity franchise taking the meaning of "horror" for "an orgy of endless, predictable jumpscares". This leaves few good modern horror movies like The Conjuring, Sinister, and The Ring to carry the torch of what horror once was and can still be.
Now, The Babadook has arrived.
I'm unsure of how jumpscares became a necessity for horror, and while I'm not completely against jumpscares, it's all too easy to get tired of them once you see them coming before they're on screen. Even good horror films have one or two jumpscares, but they create a creepy, ominous atmosphere well-deserving of at least one pass.
The Babadook challenges this theory by creating one of the most eerie, unsettling, dark, nightmarish inducing atmospheres ever put to modern horror...and not a single jumpscare is thrown out.
The film's story at heart is not about the monster haunting them (more on that later), but the family being tortured by it's lingering presence. The family, a mother, Amelia, and a son, Samuel, live a rather pathetic existence, with Amelia spiraling further into depression after the death of her husband in a car accident, while her son concocts small wooden weapons to protect himself against the "imaginary" monsters of their house. When Amelia reads Samuel a story called "The Babadook" for bed, the Babadook makes his grand entrance.
Aside from delivering a refreshing, unsettling atmosphere, The Babadook seems to have something almost no horror films, even good ones, have; a soulful story. The interactions between the Amelia and Samuel are perhaps the heartfelt (and heartbreaking) moments in recent cinematic history as the main theme of the film is dealing with grief and depression; a subject that no horror film, and even many other movies, do not tackle it with this force.
The main characters, portrayed by Noah Wiseman and Esse Davis, each gave award-worthy performances as a mother and son going from day to day living a bleak, dis-interesting lifestyle filled with grief and depression. And the film, with subtle yet obvious symbolism, uses the Babadook monster as a euphemism for grief and depression.
Before wrapping up, I'd like to back my point up how jumpscares have swallowed what good, genuine horror is in modern films; due to the lack of cheap, cliché scares, small audiences saw this while larger audiences saw jumpscare-riddled horror films leading to The Babadook never getting a full release in theaters. So my advice to you, reader: don't watch thinking you'll get your regular dose of clichés, watch knowing this a soulful story under the guise of a terrifying, unsettling horror atmosphere.
Watch "The Babadook" if you can, it's on DVD and Netflix, as this film is going to be remembered as a THE horror classic of the 21st century.