What horror/sci-fi films have you been watching?

MIRRORS

SPOILERS AHOY:

Saw the remake finally. It was awful. INTO THE MIRROR was by no means original but MIRRORS is derivative in the extreme and the various shock effects are over familiar and just tired by this point. The pacing is bad and supporting characters are under-written (Amy Smart's character only exists to get naked and die). Instead of a shopping mall on the verge of re-opening after a fire, we get an admittedly atmospheric (though under-utilized) burnt-out ruin of a store (in New York, of course) (real original) that is tied up in litigation (no mention is made of the compensation battles that were a subplot of the Korean original). The store used to be a mental institution (real original) that shut down in the fifties after a possessed girl supposedly died and caused the rest of the patients to kill themselves. The fire was set five years ago by a guy who said the mirrors killed his family (no mention is made of any weird things in the fifty years since the hospital shut down) and a night watchman is seen running from mirrors in the opening and his reflection kills himself.

Keifer Sutherland replaces him as nightwatchman (the traumatic shooting that caused him to be put on leave from the force is just your standard cop trauma here whereas it had more to do with the Korean original's main character) and immediately his SHINING-esque little boy starts seeing things in the mirror without provocation. Sutherland's much younger wife is a coroner so she can offer some info about the security guard's death (we are shown that the shard of glass the guard uses to kill himself is bloody in the mirror but not in real life through photographs but no one points out that the supposed suicide was seemingly committed with the victim's left hand when he was right handed - I think - which was a cause for suspicion of foul play in the Korean original).

While the audience was miles ahead of the hero in the Korean film as to what was going on, his being lead to belief in a supernatural cause was believable whereas Sutherland's nightwatchman is hit over the head with supernatural visions (the side effects of the pills he is taking to stop drinking and the many scenes of his wife showing concern over his erratic behavior serve no purpose other than to pad out the running time). The rival cop in charge of the investigation in the Korean original was a dimensional character that had a bearing on the plot whereas there is little for Flemyng (who doesn't show up until 45 minutes in) in the remake to investigate so he goes from being suspicious over Sutherland's possible involvement in his sister's mysterious murder to supplying Sutherland with old case files without any questions (this probably should have been two different characters). Amy Smart's much-promoted death scene should have happened later on in the film as should the wife's first supernatural sighting (also spoiled in the trailer). The psychiatrist's explanation of schizophrenia, multiple personalities, and mirrors as spouted out here sounds ridiculous and sounds like it was lifted directly from the script of the original (in the original, the psychiatrist is a friend of the protagonist who is speaking figuratively but here it is someone who gives him background on the guy who torched the store and it is delivered without a shred of conviction and out of context since in the original it has a bearing on the protagonist who has told his therapist friend that he can't bear to look at himself in the mirror after the shooting).

After a nonsensical fiery climax involving an unscary CGI demon nun (as opposed to the find the corpse expose the killer and give him supernatural retribution climax of the original) the ending coda is copped from the Korean original but has less impact (it does not appear at all in the alternate ending of the US version seen in the disc's extras).

SPOILERS

What I thought was especially terrible about the end of MIRRORS is that there's no particular reason why this situation Sutherland finds himself in is "bad" - I mean, so, what, he has to read stuff backwards now, so what? A STOP sign with POTS on it still means the same thing...

SPOILERS

In the original, at the end he is actually in this backwards world (and we've been shown the cut on his hand enough times to realize that it is now on the other hand) - when he signs himself out of the hospital, the nurse observes that he signed his name backwards - while in the remake no one seems to notice him. Is he dead in the reflected world or his reflected self in the real world?

WEREWOLF WOMAN (1976) - After discovering a story in her family history, young Daniella (Annik Borel) gets it into her mind that she is a werewolf. So, on the night of a full moon, she runs around naked and bites the throat of anyone who crosses her path. Her father puts her in a mental institution but Daniella breaks out. After a few more killings, she then moves in with a film stuntman and seems to have her life in order. Naturally, something happens to break this bond she has formed with stability. Wow, this Rino Di Silvestro flick really took me by surprise. Knowing absolutely nothing about it, I thought it was just going to be a cheap werewolf movie. Instead, it is a study on mental illness that is comparable to George Romero's is-he-or-is-he-not-a-vampire classic MARTIN. Don't worry though as this is a particularly sleazy character study as Borel spends a lot of her screen time in the nude and the gorgeous Dagmar Lassander delivers more nudity as her sister. Howard Ross is the kind stuntman and Tino Carraro is Daniella's wealthy father. The Media Blasters DVD has a nice 17 minute interview with Di Silvestro where he talks about his intentions with the film and recalls working with the cast.

I like the first more gothic half of WEREWOLF WOMAN. The US release ran about 15 minutes shorter but it improved the pacing (although it cut the barn sex scene and the resulting kill).

IT'S ALIVE (2009) - Or, IT'S AWFUL. Terrible remake of Larry Cohen's 1974 mutant-baby classic. Dull, pointless, and poorly-acted, though poorly-dubbed might be more accurate. Although set in New Mexico for no particular reason, this is one of those Millennium Films, shot-in-Bulgaria jobs where the mostly-British supporting cast is dubbed by hollow voices speaking words that sound disconnected from the people mouthing them. Bijou Phillips, who's done good work in the past (most notably in Larry Clark's BULLY), stars, and is absolutely terrible. She's not even attempting to mask that this is strictly a paycheck, and really, who can blame her? Where Cohen's original had some social subtext and was anchored by a riveting, wholly convincing performance by the great John P. Ryan, Phillips just sort-of ambles along, not really registering much of anything when she finally figures out that her child is a monster.

The new script (which includes an obviously cosmetic co-writing credit for Cohen, when the only things retained from the original are the killer baby and the character names) introduces a potentially interesting element late in the game (in the '74 version, the mutation was caused by fertility drugs; here, it's caused by a dodgy abortion pill that Phillips buys online), but does nothing with it. The screenwriters and director Josef Rusnak (last seen helming the abominable Wesley Snipes vehicle THE ART OF WAR II: BETRAYAL and exhausting the last bit of goodwill that the underrated THE THIRTEENTH FLOOR provided him) could've explored some serious issues here about abortion, pro-choice, etc., but no...why do that when you can fill the screen with janky CGI effects and a bunch of digital gore? And yeah, maybe they didn't want to make it that complex, but then, they didn't really do anything at all with it. There's just no reason for this to even exist. The filmmakers didn't care, the actors didn't care, and a sanctimonious Cohen only blasted the remake after he got paid, so he's just as culpable. Forget it.

IT'S ALIVE 09 really stinks. Gotta love the Bulgarian idea of an "American" house, though; completely dark, and spatially senseless. And you really only see the baby in its monster guise once (yes, it's a transformer, though not the vehicular kind).

And the thing is, they really could've made something interesting here. Maybe explore the idea that the infant would harbor a raging resentment towards its mother for what she attempted to do. I don't know that it could've been done without making it political. This could've been a serious film that provoked post-viewing discussion. Wait a minute...I think I just put more thought into the thing than the filmmakers did.

And yeah, what was up with that house? The exterior looks like a chain Mexican restaurant. Seriously though, is it me or was the dubbing in this unbelievably bad?

This post has been edited by Mark Tinta on Dec 5 2009, 09:23 AM

You know something is wrong when Larry Cohen tells you, "Damn, your movie sucks!"

Seriously, it is a shame that the current crop of remakes are (mostly) getting into the hands of folks who want nothing to do with expanding or exploring the previously established universes like Carpenter or Cronenberg did. Definitely more of a "It was a success in the 70s so our remake will be a success now" kinda crowd.

NIGHTWISH (1989) - A college professor (Jack Starrett) brings four grad students out to an isolated house in the country to do some paranormal testing. Of course, since he is also a professor studying dreams and the effects of fear, you know something crazy is going to go down. This is one of those late 80s movies that I love where they throw about 10 billion things into it and try to make it stick. No joke, this films mentions/deals with dreams, mutated animals, mutated humans, ghosts, satanism, mad professors, deranged assistants, bugs, viruses, cannibalism, earthquakes and aliens. Kind of like DEMONWARP without the Bigfoot. Director Bruce Cook is going for a THE HAUNTING vibe, getting lots of help from an atmospheric location and his unique use of green lighting. Also, KNB delivers some gross and surreal FX bits (the unrated VHS is the way to go). You also have a solid cast with Starrett, Robert Tessier, Alisha Das, Elizabeth Kaitan (who went on to do the VICE ACADEMY series), Clayton Rohner and Brian Thompson. In one of his last roles, Starrett looks generally unhealthy but he does give it his all. Look for a goof where Rohner's character Jack has part of his right hand ring finger snipped off by Tessier, only to have his left hand bandage in the next scene and his proper hand bandaged in the scene after that.

I think Jack Starrett was already dead by the time NIGHTWISH came out. I've seen a film he made the year before called DEATH CHASE, where he looks very unhealthy. When Chris Poggiali's Starrett biography finally comes out, we'll probably learn more about the man's last years.

I have fond memories of NIGHTWISH - my roommate and I rented it and were completely dragged in and befuddled by the piling on of genre events, and then, about 2/3 of the way in I suddenly said "OH!, I get what's going on!"

It's quite fun for a bad movie.

CUJO (1983)—Directed by Lewis Teague. Stars Dee Wallace, Daniel Hugh Kelly, Danny Pintauro, Christopher Stone, Ed Lauter. ALLIGATOR director Teague is perfectly cast for this suspenseful killer-pup flick from the pen of Stephen King (though he reportedly replaced Peter Medak during production). It’s still one of the best King adaptations with its natural performances and one corker of a third act. I imagine most people who watch CUJO soon forget the first half, which chronicles the crumbling marriage of Donna (Wallace) and Vic (Kelly) Trenton, their timid little boy Tad (Pintauro), Donna’s unsatisfactory affair with handyman Steve (Stone), and the family of mechanic Ed Camber (Lauter), who exist only to set in motion the extended setpiece that makes up most of the second half. Tautly staged by Teague, it traps Donna and Tad inside the tiny Trenton Pinto with no defense against the Cambers’ rabid St. Bernard Cujo. Little Pintauro is either one of the best child actors I’ve seen or he’s really terrified in his scenes with the dog, because his hysterical crying is chilling. Likely, any CUJO remake would jettison the subtext developed in the opening scenes in favor of a larger body count. Also with Mills Watson (Perkins!), Sandy Ward, Kaiulani Lee, Jerry Hardin, and Billy Jacoby. Charles Bernstein’s score is very good. Teague’s next film was another King movie, CAT’S EYE.