Carrie by Kimberly Peirce

Carrie by Kimberly Peirce

A re-imagining of the classic horror tale about Carrie White, a shy girl outcast by her peers and sheltered by her deeply religious mother, who unleashes telekinetic terror on her small town after being pushed too far at her senior prom.

First off, it’s going to be very hard not to compare this remake to the original. Not because of the original’s success or how revered it was, but because of how similar both films are. This new remake of Carrie from director Kimberly Peirce, unfortunately, doesn’t do enough to justify its retelling.

The original Carrie explored the theme of power and control between adults and teenagers. Carrie’s mother Margaret hits her when Carrie doesn’t listen to her. And in another scene, a teacher cusses at a group of students and smacks one of them in the face in front of the entire class.

What works against the remake is today’s current standards of parenting.  In today’s age, hitting a child is much more frowned upon than it was in the seventies. If a kid is cussed or smacked by a teacher in school nowadays, they can legitimately fight back by bringing it to the school board or by calling the police. These politics ends up watering down the film’s themes, removing a lot of the edges off of the story. The threat of violence, whether it’s coming from adult onto the teenager or vice versa, is dampened. The state of today’s politics is not something I hold against the film, but the film doesn’t seem to want to challenge current social taboos and play in the politically incorrect. The entire effect of the horror is watered down as a result.

Director Kimberly Peirce makes up for this by adding modern horror movie aesthetics onto the story. There are loud jump scares, sharp objects are held closely into people’s faces making frantic expressions and people creepily walk by in the background undetected. The major difference between the original and the remake lies in the way that it scares its audience. In the original, the horror was a looming creepiness that stayed with me after the film ended. I reflected upon the inevitable tragedy of Carrie being an unfortunate outcast being pushed to the point of no return. In the remake, the horror is emphasized in the immediate present of the physical violence that’s about to be unleashed.

Everybody looks attractive and for a story about a social outcast in an image-conscious high school environment, that is a problem. In the novel, Carrie is described as a plump girl. Chloe Grace-Moretz is pretty regardless of how much the filmmakers try to dress her down. This works against her, but other than that, Chloe Grace-Moretz does a good job with what’s she’s given.

Julianne Moore is scary as Margaret White. It’s much more over-the-top than Piper Laurie’s version. I would argue Moore’s performance is scarier, if only because it was more psychotic and violent by comparison. The most engaging scenes are between Margaret and Carrie. The supporting characters end up becoming more black-and-white and it comes off bland. If you ask me, what makes the story so tragic are the grey areas, the edges and how it was hard to imagine how things could have ended otherwise.

Carrie is an okay adaptation that doesn’t completely honor the mechanics of its tragic story and deters from challenging the political correctness of today. It comes off more like a fairy tale than a tragedy. What the remake ends up proving is how tight the original movie was and how things are much scarier when the horror stays with you long after the story has ended. I can only say this because I seen the original film. So overall, people who haven’t seen Brian DePalma’s Carrie will probably like this version more by default.

The Conjuring by James Wan

The Conjuring by James Wan

The Conjuring by James Wan

Paranormal investigators Ed and Lorraine Warren work to help a family terrorized by a dark presence in their farmhouse.

The fact that The Conjuring is based on a true story is competently incorporated into the film’s design. James Wan takes his time with his world creation and properly sets up a believable reality. These characters act like real people. Most people wouldn’t be quick to jump to the conclusion that their house is haunted and it would realistically take a while for a family to seek help. I couldn’t spot anybody making stupid horror movie mistakes. The initial scares did not scare me, but step-by-step the scares put me into the world. As I understood the science and how these ghosts worked, my mental defenses begun to weaken and I began dreading the scares.

Wan uses every trick in the book for the scares, but they are effectively scary. Judging it from a pure horror film fan’s view, the design of the scares by themselves are probably not that fresh. But it’s genetically encoded together with the story in such a way that if you were to show one of the film’s scary sequences on Youtube to a friend, the actual scare will be dampened without the context of the story.

The best thing The Conjuring achieves is that it properly balances the horror movie genre elements with its dramatic portions. It does so by focusing on Ed and Lorraine Warren, who are fascinating larger-than-life characters and are the heart of the story. Watching the paranormal investigators set up their ghost hunting equipment and explaining how ghosts behave was equally entertaining as any of the film’s fright sequences. Where in a typical horror movie that will rely on its scares to entertain the audience, The Conjuring has an interesting real-life story and characters that we can not only be scared by, but also speculate and ponder long after the scares are over. The Warrens are the X factor what will unite horror film fans and a typical movie go-er to enjoying this movie on multiple levels. I immediately Googled the Warrens afterwards and read about their other real-life paranormal investigations. I am glad the studio has decided to make a sequel with Patrick Wilson and Vera Farmiga playing these characters again.

Evil Dead by Fede Alvarez

Evil Dead by Fede Alvarez

Five friends head to a remote cabin, where the discovery of the Book of the Dead leads them to unwittingly summon up demons living in the nearby woods.

The three Evil Dead films is a trilogy of inconsistencies. The opening of Evil Dead 2 rewrites the events of first Evil Dead, and Army of
Darkness’
opening rewrites the conclusion of Evil Dead 2. The sequencing of events has always connected only inside the audience’s minds as a complete storyline. My first-ever experience with the Evil Dead franchise wasn’t watching the films but instead going to see Evil Dead Musical, which combined the first two Evil Dead story lines together (which in my opinion was much better). So I didn’t know what a remake would mean in context to continuing the story or what kind of expectations to have for an Evil Dead remake. So to get right into it…

The new Evil Dead… is so-so. I did not find the reason that justified this remake.

The major issue with Evil Dead is that there is no X factor. It’s neither funny or has a lead performance akin to Bruce Campbell’s in the original that raises the piece above the sum of its parts. I’m not asking for either again. The story plays fast and loose with its characters, as a result we never genuinely know who we should be rooting for till it’s too late. The typical stupid horror movie mistakes they make are unbelievably stupid. The lack of humor in itself is not a problem but there’s no additional layer or emotion contrasting to what’s going on. So the audience is left simply moving through the plot points, guessing who’s turn it is to die next. That would be okay if we weren’t
already so familiar with the story. Evil Dead completely relies on its scares to entertain the audience alone, and somehow that falls short.

The practical in-camera effects deserve praise, as they add effective weight to the scares and sufficient texture to the gore. The end
result is quite cringe-worthy. Practical effects bring more weight to the spectacle than CGI and I applaud anyone who is not letting
practical effects die. I suspect director Fede Alvarez would say the X factor is the gore and the scares. But after the Joss
Whedon-produced Cabin in the Woods, I’m expecting more now by default. If only this movie was released first….

It’s been reported Sam Raimi is going to make Army of Darkness 2, which will connect to the events of this remake. He’s
free to do what he wants, but it’s not going to improve this Evil Dead remake by any means. For that, viewers who haven’t seen The Evil Dead will be probably enjoy this more. Fans of the original like myself would probably like this remake a lot more if it wasn’t called Evil Dead.

World War Z by Marc Forster

World War Z by Marc Forster

Gerry Lane, a retired United Nations employee who must travel the world to find a way to stop a zombie pandemic.

I haven’t read the original novel going into World War Z. There have been some complaints that this film departs heavily  from the novel, but apparently the novel reads like a series of personal accounts. If that’s the case, it’s probably more effective to experience the story through a first-person perspective for a film. On with the review…

The PG-13 rating has always been an interesting constraint for horror movies as it cancels the use of gore and forces more ingenuity in creating the scares. Marc Forster creates a constant frantic sense of jeopardy and properly raises the stakes. Even though it’s possible to outsmart and escape from these running zombies, we fear that the characters will eventually fatigue and lose from being outnumbered. The opening set piece was shot too shaky and cut too fast and it seemed like Marc Forster didn’t learn anything from the action in Quantum of Solace. But the set pieces improve as the film progresses.

By the finale, I was fully immersed into this world, alert of everything that can startle the fast-running zombies and looking out for every possible human mistake. I was cringing at every door squeak and wished a can of WD-40 would just fall out of the sky on their laps. That said, the characters don’t make typical stupid horror movie mistakes. Even in times of risk and with the occasional accidental mistake, they take the proper precautions and do the most sensical thing.

Zombie films typically are set in a town or city. What makes World War Z an unique experience is its international scope, we get to see the entire world react to the zombie outbreak. It gives a political and cultural cross-section of how different countries would react to such a catastrophic event. It holds a mirror to our current world. This was the most interesting part of it for personally as it sets itself apart from George Romero films or The Walking Dead.

The most valuable Brad Pitt brings to the film besides his star power is the big-budget production values itself. The cast performs fine but it’s by no means a performance-driven film. The studio has decided to produce a sequel, as the war in the novel lasts for a decade. And it will probably continue to draw from the U.N reports in the novel. Depending if Brad Pitt returns to the role or if the story unfolds with a new protagonist, the story can go either which way. I’ll probably see it then but for now, the epilogue doesn’t tease me that much.

Stoker by Park Chan Wook

Stoker by Park Chan-Wook

After India’s (played by Mia Wasikowska) father dies, her Uncle Charlie (played by Matthew Goode), who she never knew existed, comes to live with her and her unstable mother Evelyn (played by Nicole Kidman). She comes to suspect this mysterious, charming man has ulterior motives and becomes increasingly infatuated with him.

Screenwriter Wentworth Miller has stated that this is not a vampire movie. To this I say, “Trust the tale, not the teller.”  Regardless of what Miller says, it’s a vampire film or not, Stoker is clearly playing to the beats of a vampire film underneath its surface.There are things at play that suggest this, Uncle Charlie is fixated with India and he preys on her. India seems to possess some kind of innocence or purity that is at stake of being corrupted. Lastly, the movie is called Stoker. That’s no accident.

It’s as if someone took a traditional vampire movie, folded it inside out, wore it like a bag on his head looking outside from within. That’s the way to watch Stoker. Anybody who says there is nothing happening in this story is not looking at the subtext. The subtext is the supertext, that’s where the story is taking place. Park Chan-Wook leaves a lot of empty space for the audience to ponder about what’s going on. There is a whole lot going on if you tune to the film’s grammar and look in the right places.

Matthew Goode has always had this steely piercing look that looks sinister and that quality is well used under Park’s direction. Park knows how to pull back and just shoot an actor in a certain pose to emote a mood or feeling. As Uncle Charlie, we never know what he’s thinking or if we can really trust his intentions. Mia Wasikowska and Nicole Kidman give fine performances but Matthew Goode gives the standout performance. The real star of the film however is Park Chan-Wook himself. He elevates the script by adding a visual poetry that subtlely implies. Everything is played at such a low volume that the audience is unnerved waiting for the tension to crescendo.

A good companion piece to Stoker is Park Chan-Wook’s 2009 vampire horror film Thirst; it’s probably what got Park the job. This is probably one of the best English-language debut for an Asian director. It’s a smooth transition as his directorial stamp is very much present. You will need to put in more brain work for Stoker, but it pays off.

Kill List by Ben Wheatley

Kill List by Ben Wheatley

“Wait, so it’s a horror movie about hitmen? How does that work?” That’s how I reacted the first time I heard about the premise of Kill List. What possibly can be scary about hit men?

The set-up? A British soldier Jay (played by Neil Maskell) returns home from Kiev. He is suffering from his disturbed past from a non-specific failed mission in Kiev. He’s strapped for cash and his wife Shel (played by MyAnna Buring) urges him to take a job with his old friend Gal (played by Michael Smiley) as contract killers. His disturbed past surfaces as he spins out of control during jobs and ominous employers raise the stakes.

You may be thinking: what the heck is scary about that?

The way we take information has progressed and audiences have evolved. Subtext has now become supertext. Kill List is a film that understands this and chooses to plays all it’s beats beneath it’s surface.  It is not about what is being shown to the audience. It is everything that is not being shown: an off-kilter look, an obscure comment and a random action. There is something happening behind the curtains and all these random little things engage you to ask questions. “What the hell is going on?” “Why did she do that?” Kill List engages through creating distance with its audience.

One must remember the first rule of horror: it is never being literal. Horror stories are about ideas. Anything physical (i.e. a monster) is a mere physicalization of an idea.

The film ended and I was unnerved. I did not know what idea it was that I was rattled by. It’s a looming feeling that sits there in front of you. I felt like rewatching the film again to check if I missed anything. But I did not miss anything. I had no grasp on what it was and that’s quite unsettling.