It Follows (2014)

It Follows (2014)

Director: David Robert Mitchell

Cast: Maika Monroe, Olivia Luccardi, Keir Gilchrist, Lili Sepe, Daniel Zovatto

It Follows is a little miracle in the world of American horror films because normally today’s American horror films are nausea inducing and not because they are horrifying or morbid, or god forbid gory; no, no, no, today’s American horror films are nausea inducing because they are not what they should be, which is horrifying, scary, or dare I say, frightening. Of course, there are rare exceptions when an American horror film is actually scary and good, but what passes today for the modern American horror film is so bland and fluffy, that I hesitate to call it horror. But of course I speak of theatrically released horror films, which by the way are less and less every day. In today’s horror world if you want to find a truly good horror film, like say The Babadook (2014) or V/H/S/2 (2013), you’ll have better luck finding it on video because the really good ones don’t make it to theaters. Sadly, when horror films do make it to theaters they comply with two norms: either they are ‘soft horror’ depending solely on those damnable jump scares or they are religious horror films, aimed at propagating religious fear and amplifying the faith of the masses. The problem with horror films of that ilk is that they tend to be repetitive and dull, and therefore, not scary. The same situations and themes get played out ad nauseam, and it’s not that you couldn’t do something new with these themes, it’s that Hollywood just won’t go there. They don’t want to make a truly scary film. They want to scare you just enough so you’ll go to church, but not enough to truly disturb you. The result is a series of disappointing horror films that aren’t worth our time. Thankfully, daring filmmakers aren’t dead yet and every once in a while a film is made that revives my hopes for the American horror film, a film like It Follows. Not a perfect film, not the end all be all of horror, but at the very least It Follows is a film that lets us know that better horror films can be produced.

It Follows tells the story of a young girl who goes out on a date with this guy who seems like your typical nice guy, the only thing is that he believes someone is following him all the time, always on the edge. One thing leads to another and he ends up seducing her. After having intercourse with the guy, he warns her that she is now cursed and that a supernatural entity will now follow her until it kills her. It is slow, but it is not dumb and she cannot let it touch her. That’s all you need to know.

So that’s the premise, it’s simple, but damn is it effective. The first thing a true horror connoisseur like myself realizes while watching It Follows is that it’s a throwback to horror films of the 70’s and 80’s, the whole vibe of the film is very old school. The wardrobe, the cars, the houses, they all seem to come out of the 70’s and 80’s. Another thing that’s retro is the soundtrack, which is an obvious homage to John Carpenter’s score for Halloween (1978), which is an obvious influence here. The whole thing with the supernatural force following you around is reminiscent of Jason Voorhees or Michael Myers, you know, those slow moving types that still get to you in the end. It Follows also has a bit of A Nightmare on Elm Streetfranchise in it because it’s all about teenagers and their preoccupations, the kind that glaze over adults consciousness. It’s the kind of film in which adults are completely oblivious to the life and dangers that teenagers are living. In fact, I only saw one parent appear in the film and for only a couple of seconds; basically, the entirety of the film is centered on teens and their world. Teens are dying and its teens helping each other discover the who and the why of the events that are transpiring, forget the grownups and the police!  So it’s a very old school type of film, which is a good thing because the horror films from the 70’s and 80’s are vastly superior than a lot of the horror films being made today.

So is it a slasher or is it a supernatural thriller? Well, it’s true that at times it feels like a Halloween or a Friday the 13^th  film with the relentless killer after you, but then again, there are no gory deaths save for one, so I can’t really categorize this as a slasher. I’d say it’s more of a supernatural horror film that comments on the horrors of sexually transmitted diseases, which if you’re not careful can follow you around like a curse all your life. I say this because the whole film is centered around people who want to have sex, amplified by the fact that the film main characters are all in the prime of their youths, having their first sexual experiences. For example, in the film, in order to get rid of the curse you have to have sex with someone in order to “pass it on”. The person who has the curse has this whole mental struggle, should they or shouldn’t they have sex with someone just to get rid of the curse? In this sense, It Follows is a bold film thematically speaking; it plays with themes that are hardly touched upon by Hollywood. In fact, the only other film that I can remember that is an allegory for sexually transmitted diseases is David Cronenberg’s Rabid (1977), the latter being a real influence on It Follows. Both of these films play with the struggle a person has when they don’t want to pass a sexually transmitted disease to someone, but their sexual libido and basic need for human intimacy is so strong that they end up transmitting the disease anyways. Though in It Follows, the person with “the curse” is seen under a sympathetic light, not like in Cronenberg’s Rabid where society deems these individuals as garbage to be thrown out in a dumpster!  Point It Follows has something to say, it’s not here just for the scares.

Allegories and symbolisms aside, the film is quite creepy with some genuinely horrifying moments and visuals. I loved how the film uses very little jump scares. Instead, it attempts and succeeds in building up those scares in a genuine way. That whole idea of an ominous looking thing coming for you, slowly, yet relentlessly is so effective. I loved the suspense created by this concept which isn’t new of course, but it was well played here, the whole film is built upon that concept and they really went with it. It Follows is not a perfect film but it has more good things going for it than bad. For example, while characters might do stupid things at times that make you scream at the screen, it does manage to get you all worked up and that’s a good thing in a horror film. It Follows works so well, I mean this movie even went as far as making daylight scenes scary, not an easy feat for a horror film to achieve, most just go with night scenes to augment their scares, but in It Follows, even scenes that take place on a beach, in the middle of a sunny day can be scary! Kudos to the director David Robert Mitchell for that and also, for shooting such a good looking horror film, some of the compositions are just beautiful to look at. It Follows proves that low budget horror doesn’t have to be crap and that you don’t need gazillions of dollars to make an effective horror film, definitely looking forward to this directors future work.    

Rating: 4 out of 5

The Babadook (2014)

The Babadook (2014)

Director: Jennifer Kent

Cast: Essie Davis, Noah Wiseman, Barbara West

I don’t get why excellent horror films like The Babadook get a limited theatrical release while terrible horror films like Ouija (2014), a poor excuse for a horror film so nauseating with its blandness that I didn’t even bother writing a review for it, get a wide release. It makes no sense to me! The Babadook is an obviously superior horror film! So well crafted! On the other hand, Ouija is a nonstop avalanche of clichés and cheap scares, yet itsOuija that gets the wide release. But whatever, we all know Hollywood embraces formulas and runs away from originality. So it’s up to us, the film lovers, to discover fine films like The Babadook and tell the world of their awesomeness. For those not in the know, The Babadook is an independent Australian horror movie made by first time film director Jennifer Kent and it’s all about a single mother protecting her son from a boogeyman. While The Babadook didn’t get the wide theatrical release that it deserved, it is finding its audience in the home video front. Like many films of its kind do, it’s steadily building its cult audience with reviewers raving about its spookiness.

The Babadook tells the tale of Amelia and Samuel, a single mom and her child. Samuel is displaying signs of odd and antisocial behavior at school. It’s becoming a problem to the school, his family and even his own mother who desperately screams at him “why can’t you be normal!” Still, Amelia loves her son, warts and all, even though everyone else seems to reject him, even his aunts and cousins who can’t stand being around him. One night, Samuel asks his mom to read him a story before going to bed, so she looks through Samuel’s story books and finds a book called ‘Mister Babadook’. She doesn’t know where the book came from, but she starts to read it. As she turns the pages and reads, she realizes this book is far too creepy for kids, so much so that he ends up crying after reading only a few pages! Soon after Samuel starts seeing Mister Babadook all over the place. Is it all in his mind? Or is Mister Babadook really stalking Samuel and Amelia?

The Babadook is an effective horror movie because it has all the right influences coming from all the right places, and pretty strong ones too. For example, as I watched this movie all I kept thinking was how much it reminded me of Roman Polanski’s Repulsion (1965), my personal favorite Polanski film about a young ladies descent into madness. It also reminded me a bit of the crazy father figure in Kubrick’s The Shining (1980) and the crazy religious mom in Carrie (1976). The director also showed appreciation for Mario Bava’s Black Sabbath (1963), by showing a clip from it during a particularly creepy scene in the film. Other shots show love and appreciation for William Friedkin’s The Exorcist (1973), who by the way had this to say about The Babadook after having seen it: “I’ve never seen a more terrifying film than The Babadook, it will scare the hell out of you as it did me” Now that’s a lot to say, specially coming from the guy who made The Exorcist (1973)! There’s even hints of the German Expressionism aesthetic here and there. So as you can see, this movie is an amalgamation of lots of great horror films, yet also displays lots of originality. Question is, is The Babadook actually that scary? Which of our fears does it play with?

Above, a scene from The Babadook (2014), below, a scene from The Exorcist (1973)

I think the root of the films effectiveness comes from the fact that it plays with our fears of being a parent, of thinking our kids are weird somehow because of their particular child like behavior. Ever seen your kid grinding their teeth at night? Scary, but only because we don’t see ourselves doing it when we sleep. Children’s fear of imaginary monsters makes us think our kids are schizophrenic, truth is all kids are scared of imaginary things. The filmmakers effectively use these fears against us, so in many ways, a parent will enjoy this horror film a whole lot more then someone who’s never had a child of their own. Why is Samuel so apparently disturbed? Is his behavior justified? Or is just weird and screwed up? Amelia, the mother in The Babadookis dealing with these issues all on her own, while at the same time dealing with her husband’s death. So we have the fear of being alone, the fear of losing a loved one, which is to say, the fear of death.  All these fears are embodied in the form of the terrifying ‘Mister Babadook’, a character that looks like a mix between Lon Chaney in London After Midnight (1927) and Conrad Veidt in The Man Who Laughs (1928). Like I said, the inspiration for this film comes from all the right places.

The film works with the notion that the less we see, the more it will scare us. Truth be told, you don’t see Mister Babadook that often, but when he is in the room, you will feel it. I suggest turning up the sound on this one, the director effectively mixes sounds with visuals.  Another asset is that this film looks amazing in the sense that director Jennifer Kent pays close attention to atmosphere, ambiance and horror movie lighting. This means everything on screen is carefully constructed to look and feel spooky, dark and scary. Rooms are dimly lit, skies are gloomy, trees are dead, leaves are falling, the wind is blowing and shadows move in the dark. The film is perfectly creepy this way. Like some of the best horror films, The Babadook shows you just enough to creep you out and then lets your mind do the rest of the work. This film is an impressive debut for director Jennifer Kent, who by the way was an actress before she was a filmmaker, which probably explains why the performances from everyone in this film are excellent. Final words are that this movie is a special type of horror movie, don’t let the Baba-dook-dook-dook escape you, turn down the lights and watch this one in the dark.

Rating: 5 out of  5    

The Phantom of the Opera (1989)

Title: The Phantom of the Opera (1989)

Director: Dwight H. Little

Cast: Robert Englund, Jill Schoelen, Bill Nighy

There’s a couple of cheesy versions of Phantom of the Opera out there, I’d say that the most incredibly outlandish version I’ve seen to date is Dario Argento’s Phantom of the Opera (1998), which had the titular Phantom raised by rats. In that one The Phantom also had these crazy surreal visions, which translated into some really crazy Ken Russell type visuals, you might want to check out that version of Phantom of the Opera, just for kicks. If you’re in the mood for seeing something out there, plus it’s a bit on the gory side. Another outlandish version would be Phantom of the Paradise (1974), which is this crazy rock and roll version of Phantom of the Opera that feels like Rocky Horror Picture Show’s long lost brother (or sister). That version of Phantom of the Opera I’ll be reviewing today was directed by one Dwight H. Little, the director behind such horror classics as Halloween 4: The Return of the Michael Myers (1988) and  Free Willy 2: The Adventure Home (1995). This version of Phantom of the Opera is runner up for first place as the stupidest version of Phantom of the Opera ever made. This doesn’t mean it isn’t watchable, on the contrary, it’s highly watchable in its cheesiness and goriness.

This version starts out in modern times with a young would be soprano named Christine Day, trying to get her big break in a new play. She’s looking for an impressive piece to sing for her try out, so she goes to this old book store where she finds this ancient opera composed by a guy called Erik Destler. The opera? Something called “Don Juan Triumphant”. So anyways, she makes it to her audition and as soon as she starts singing it, a sand bag falls from the rafters of the theater, hits her on the head; this for some reason magically sends her back in time to 19^th Century London, or is she just remember a past life? I don’t know, the filmmakers don’t make it very clear, but I’m going with the ‘it’s all happening in her head’ theory. Anyways, when she wakes up in 19^th Century London she’s part of a theater group practicing for ‘Faust’. On this theater group, Christine is not the star of the show, she’s just the understudy, she wants to be a star, but she’s just an understudy. But wait, the mysterious Phantom of the Opera is in love with Christine and wants to make sure she ends up being the main attraction because her voice is “like the voice of an angel”. Who will the Phantom kill in order to assure Christine’s success?

What sets this version of The Phantom of the Opera apart from all others is that Robert Englund, a.k.a. Freddy Krueger, plays the Phantom, and he does a good job at it too. In this version the Phantom doesn’t just wear a regular mask on his face; he uses human flesh (which he sews onto his own face) as his mask! Another distinctive feature of this version of Phantom of the Opera is that it’s gory. Argento’s Phantom of the Opera is the goriest, but this one is a close second. Why is this version so gory? Well, it was made in 1989, when gory, make up effects filled horror movies where the norm. Wait, scratch that, gory horror movies were making huge loads of cash in theaters is what I meant to say. Freddy Krueger was a house hold name, so where Jason Voorhees, Pinhead and Michael Myers. I’m guessing that Robert Englund made this film to try and get away from playing Freddy Krueger, unfortunately, the producers had other plans. What they really wanted to do was exploit the fact that Englund was known for playing Freddy. This is evident in the makeup effects work for The Phantom, which looks exactly like Freddy’s burned face.   The promotional work for this film also makes it abundantly obvious; they wanted to make people think this was another Nightmare on Elm Street film.

Certain elements will remind you of the Nightmare on Elm Street films, for example how the entire film is supposed to be a dream? Like the fact that the main character is a boogy man of sorts killing people in morbid ways while cackling away? So yeah, expect some similarities with the Nightmare on Elm Street films, they are no coincidence, in fact, I’d say they were entirely intentional. This does not surprise me when we take in consideration that the film was produced by Menahem Golan, an exploitative producer if there ever was any. He’s part of the team who made all those Missing in Action movies back in the eighties, which were made to exploit the popularity of First Blood (1982) and Rambo II (1985). The same exploitative logic applies with this version of Phantom of the Opera; it wasn’t made because Phantom of the Opera adaptations were particularly ‘hot’ during 1989, it was made because Nightmare on Elm Street movies were making millions and the producers wanted to make their own cheesy version of A Nightmare on Elm Street, which they did in the form of this movie.

Like most Cannon Films, the ideas and situations on this version of Phantom of the Opera are so ludicrous that they end up being funny. For example on this version of Phantom of the Opera, the Phantom actually sells his soul to the devil so he could become famous; the twist comes when the devil gives him his fame, but burns his face as well. Oh and the ludicrous angle? The devil is a midget? Okay, not enough craziness? How about having The Phantom have intercourse with a whore to release his sexual frustrations with Christine? And that’s without counting all the gory deaths, of which there are many. Actually, this movie was so gory that the MPAA had the producers edit a huge chunk of the film down, so there’s tons of gore actually missing from this one! In the end, what we ended up with is an entertaining, cheesy, gory movie, that will horrify Phantom of the Opera purists and entertain the horror fans, cause its freaking Freddy playing The Phantom. I thought it was funny that at one point The Phantom is wearing a suit that has the exact same colors from Freddy Krueger’s famous black and red sweater; a nudge to the Nightmare on Elm Street films? Sure it was! Then Christine wakes up and it was all in her head and yet again, it feels like a Freddy film.

Rating: 3 out of 5