Final Destination 5 (2011)

Typically when a franchise reaches a certain point the movies become more and more painful to watch.  And especially after forcing my way through the second, third, and fourth installments of the Final Destination franchise, I approached this latest offering apathetically.  It was just a time-filler, a duty as a horror blogger.  I even made a French press of the darkest, strongest coffee available to me, so as to stay awake for the whole thing.  But, lo, in the wake of its infinitely lame predecessor (title The Final Destination, as if the definite article "the" would really lead us to believe they wouldn't try to squeeze more money out of the series), this was the best of the lot since the first film!

But it didn't seem to be headed in that direction for the first ten minutes or so.  What we open with is a tumultuous, seemingly never-ending montage that combines credits with references to deaths throughout the series thus far and to come.  It was sort of cool, but wore out quickly.  Then the actual movie opens and plays out like a glossy teenaged soap opera--highly polished set and lithe, nubile characters with thick makeup (and eyebrows); lingering dramatic stares; and maudlin, melodramatic dialogue.  A recycled introduction of stock, uninteresting characters--check.  Indeed the first fifteen minutes do not promise an good remainder.  Just accept the mandatory Hollywood gloss and move on--the fun is yet to come.

Then follows the trademark of the series: a character has a premonition of a disaster--which in  this movie delivers some amazing effects--and then jolts back to reality in time to save a handful of characters from the impending doom.  Thus, they cheat death, who pursues them for the rest of the movie.  As the horror icon Tony Todd warns them, death does not like to be cheated.  So now the setup is in place, and we've got a lot of movie to go.  I was already thankful to be spared the ridiculous theatrics of the race-track disaster from the previous installment.

The obligatory funeral scene is where the movie takes an interesting turn.  A turn for the best.  It adds in humor that works.  As in, it caught me off guard and I really laughed.  This thread of irony and playful humor would continue throughout the film and was more than welcome.  The humor around the IT Guy, whom the manager thought was dead (a reference during the eulogy and later in the film are perfectly timed), and small ironic comments here and there, combined with the creative, inventive kills--the trademark of FD--work to keep the film entertaining and fresh.

In the final scene (or what I thought was the final scene), I braced myself for the big flop.  I fully expected the film to have lost steam after it's crowd-pleasing middle parts, and fall flat on its face.  And, yes, what was actually the penultimate scene is predictable and unoriginal.  The actual final scene completely won me over and secured my loyalty to the franchise (or, at least, the first and fifth films).  The ending isn't a great epiphany or mind-bender, by any means; it's just pleasantly creative.  And immediately following is another montage of actual footage of the various kills throughout the series (not just references to the instruments of death as in the opening montage).  It's killing me to not talk about the ending, so I'll just throw out an obscure literary reference: "riverrun, past Eve and Adam's, from swerve of shore to bend of bay, brings us by a commodius vicus of recirculation back to Howth Castle and Environs."

Skew (2011)

Probably one of the more confusing movies I seen, Skew's greatest obstacle is its apparently lofty aims of cerebral profundity.  Or perhaps this is one of the better indie films.  I just can't decide because, for every negative of the movie I find a positive, and for that reason I'm simply left unsettled, without any closure.  One thing I can say with certainty: this movie begs for a re-watch, and I honestly wouldn't mind sitting through it again.

That I'm considering a re-watch is amusing to me now because within the first half hour I found myself thinking, I will never suffer through this again.  Within another ten minutes I was thinking, What is the real plot here?  My expectations were heightened by the film's opening quote.  Most of these films open with a quote from a more familiar figure (to most of the demographic), like, say, Poe or Lovecraft.  But Skew opens on a quote from none other than the 19th century French literary titan Honoré de Balzac.  A student of literature, familiar with French titans such as Balzac, Rimbaud, Rabelais, Verlaine, et al., this impressed me.  It said to me that this write was deeper than most, influenced by more profound literature.  Later I would find that the writer/director is the Canadian Sevé Schelenz.  (I would also find that the film was 6 years in the making, mostly due to the FX and budgeting.)

Then we're introduced to a trio of some of the most annoying characters I've ever encountered.  I couldn't em/sympathize with any of them at any time throughout the duration of the film.  Whiny, flimsy, volatile, frustrating characters, they are.  It only takes about fifteen minutes to realize what's going on between two of the characters, so I'm not sure if the filmmaker intended for it to be that way or not.  Either way, it's a subplot that permeates the movie and appears to be an intentionally mysterious element to keep the audience engaged.  I imagine a group of people sitting in a room with this script, debating on whether it's too subtle or not, and finally leaning toward the more obvious approach.  The final product is an insult to the audience's intelligence.  Or is it a plot device that is used to distract us from that more important clues?

The mockumentary style, brought to popularity by The Blair Witch Project, is growing old, so it's always interesting to see how certain things will be explained.  I can't remember exactly why our videographer, Simon, has the camera or why he's shooting (other than for fun), but it's a simple little recorder without a flipscreen (as we're specifically told in the film).  Simon also establishes that he does not care to be on camera, and the film sticks with that (except for a brief moment on a police station security camera, and even then we don't see Simon's face).  And with the established constraint that we're going to stay in  the camera's/Simon's perspective, the filmmakers have the obstacle of explaining underlying plot points while dealing with how to get the explanations on film for the audience.  No easy feat.  But Skew has the answer: the camera turns itself on.

And now for a few words about the "main" plot, or what we can think of as the marketed plot.  For this, the film borrows from Final Destination and The Ring, and the end product isn't moving in the least.  There's no creative factor, and there's no mystery (for all of Final Destination's failures, it has always prided itself on inventive deaths and intense buildups).  This plot does, however, setup three of the more unusual scenes in the movie, all involving people who have recently been killed.  These little scares were a mixed bag because (a) they were completely unexpected and inexplicable; and (b) they were completely outside of the scope of the mockumentary subgenre.  Then again, perhaps this is the change-up we're looking for to breathe new life into the genre?  Whatever the explanation for these choices, I don't think the marketed plot is the one the film spent its efforts to develop.

The ending is one of the strangest and most confusing endings I've ever seen.  Or is it the most brilliant ending that begs the viewer to watch the movie again?  (I'll update this post once I've re-watched the film, and let you know!)  Suddenly the film becomes a psychological breakdown that raises a myriad questions.  The whole "what's real" thing starts going on.  At the same time, though, there is no great epiphany.  There is no a-ha! moment.  Just before the movie ends, with several unresolved points that are still driving me crazy, the film is rewound (not for the first time) to moments that occurred before the point at which the movie started.  At first, I was delighted, and I sat up in my chair so as to really take in what they were going to unfold.  The film had me completely engrossed.  Unfortunately, the film only "revealed" explanations I'd ascertained in the first part of the movie.  And not content with leaving me completely disappointed, the film gives one final shot that is rewound a couple times and played back the last time with the slow-step function so as to show an image that I must assume is the key to this movie.

My review seems quite negative.  The only hope is that re-watching the film unlocks the secret of its greatness.  Based on the final confusing shot, I must assume that the movie has subtle clues scattered throughout, clues which the viewer overlooks the first time for their subtlety.  The other explanation is that it's one of these films that prides itself on its inexplicability, which I don't usually favor unless its done strikingly well.  To me that screams of someone who is intelligent and does not want to be able to be explained (forced profundity).  Then again, I'm a huge fan of David Lynch, so, Skew, you'd better have something  to show me this second time around!

The Innkeepers (2011)

I've been waiting for this one for a while--not because it hasn't been available, but because of my self-imposed Netflix dependency.  Let it be known up front that I am a Ti West fan.  Though I sympathize with those who cannot tolerate the slow burn and the flaws of a "neophyte" filmmaker, I have enjoyed watching West mature from The Roost to Trigger Man to--one of my all-time favorite horror movies--The House of the Devil.  (I will include Cabin Fever 2 parenthetically.) And now we have his most mature film yet, The Innkeepers.  But along with maturity comes a film with which I wasn't, at first, completely smitten.

 I watched the movie Friday night, alone, late, with the lights out; in the exact conditions that horror-movie watching should be conducted in.  And, after the movie was over, I sat for a while, noodling it over.  Quite a different reaction from my last Ti West experience.  But I quickly checked myself each time I began comparing this film back to his last film, forcing myself to think (as much as possible) about the film at hand.  Then I went into the bonus features and activated the commentary with Ti West, Sara Paxton, and Pat Healey.  I don't typically rewatch a film immediately, especially with commentary turned on, but I highly recommend it with this one.

I see a lot of reviewers calling out the childishness of Paxton, but for me it works.  I find Paxton's performance, coupled with the sarcastic, passive-aggressive Pat Healey, charming.  In fact, given West's penchant for the slow-burn, this is the best cast yet.  Paxton and Healey have great chemistry and they own their bored, aimless character roles well.  After listening to the commentary, it's even more enjoyable to observe what West talks about when he says he realized that Sara cannot run or scream!  And, as I said, Healey's passive-aggressive sarcasm works well.  It never tends toward annoying or cliché, even though it is annoying and cliché.  There's at least one moment ("Yeah, I know which room you're in.  I work at the hotel.") that is perfectly executed by Healey.

Regarding the horror factor, this could be considered a chiller.  In fact, it could very well be a movie made for the Chiller TV channel.  But the chills are evenly spaced, which stands apart from West's usual pacing.  With the exception of the more overt chills (when something is actually shown), the chills work really well.  The piano scene is fantastic.  Over all though, the best scary moment comes from a super close-up of Healey's laptop; and even though I, like most others, had seen a similar video floating around the Web, it was still the most intense scene in the movie (whether that's good or bad, I'll let you decide).  In the end, what shines through all of the intense horror moments is West's cinematic decisions: video and audio, especially audio (putting us in the perspective of the headphones). 

In order to eschew spoilers, suffice it to sat that West breaks some genre conventions, which is an interesting choice.  At the same time, however, I experienced no real response, no epiphany, no a-ha moment, etc.  But, again, that's not to say that the film was bad.  I don't agree with the all's-well-that-ends-well philosophy.  It's just another variable that went into the movie's formula, to which I responded, initially, with indifference--or, rather, ambivalence--and then walked away with satisfaction.  Yes, this is a satisfying movie, mostly to the more serious, meticulous, pedantic genre fan.  It's not a game-changer; it's not mind-blowing; but it is an entertaining, well shot horror movie with a handful of crowd-pleasing moments.

The Wicker Tree (2011)

A huge disappointment for fans of the original British classic, The Wicker Man (1973).  There are amusing moments, but overall the film is just another offering from the horror movie assembly line.  Skippable.

The Cabin in the Woods (2011)

Possibly the most entertaining horror movie I've ever watched, The Cabin in the Woods cannot disappoint genre fans.  Luckily, aside from it having overt allusions to Evil Dead, I didn't know anything about the film beforehand; and for that reason I don't want to say too much.  If you're a horror fan, this movie is for you.  In fact, if you like to poke fun at horror fans, this movie is for you.  If you like to watch movies, well, this movie is for you, too!

11-11-11: The Prophecy (2011)

This could work for someone who's never seen a horror movie before, but it's essentially an exercise is refurbished horror movie gimmicks throughout the decades of the genre.

La Casa Muda (The Silent House) (2010)

Now here's a great, creepy little flick that has stuck with me for about a week now.  I'm dying to watch it again.  Wonderfully subtle, this is the type of horror movie I thoroughly enjoy.  Watch this before the American remake, which I'm sure will add too much to retain the beauty of this piece.

The Divide (2011)

Rigid acting; stupid plot execution.

Skippable.

Don't Be Afraid of the Dark (2011)

Two duds in a row.

I think I need to take a break from horror movies for a while.

Inkubus (2011)

Unwatchable.