Renee S. DeCamillis
Sinister
Release Date: Oct. 12, 2012
Genre: Horror/Mystery/Thriller/Supernatural
Studio: Alliance Films, IM Global, Blumhouse Productions
Director: Scott Derrickson
Writers: C. Robert Cargill, Scott Derrickson
Cast: Ethan Hawke, Juliet Rylance, Michael Hall D’Addario, Clare Foley, James Ransone, Fred
Dalton Thompson, Nicholas King, Vincent D’Onofrio
Rating: R
Anything for Inspiration
True-crime writer Ellison Oswalt (Ethan Hawke) is desperate to write another bestseller, so much so that he moves himself and his family into a house where a brutal murder took place, and his wife and kids have no idea. Anything for inspiration. As he is unpacking and storing empty boxes in the attic, he discovers a box of old 8mm home movies—one box left in the middle of the empty attic. Watching the films puts him in the front row seat of the brutal murder that had once taken place in his family’s backyard. But that’s not all. Ellison discovers that he has opened a can of snakes that he cannot put the cover back on. One unsolved multiple-murder leads to many more, and Ellison is so desperate to write that next bestseller that he puts everyone he loves at risk as he tries to solve the cases alone.
Eventually Ellison asks one town deputy—his one fan on the force—for assistance, but “Officer So and So” (James Ransone) has no idea about the uncanny occurrences that start taking place at Ellison’s new home. Once Ellison does finally break down and tells the deputy that weird things have been happening, the deputy tells him that sleeping in the house where those murders took place is bound to get in your head. Plus, the deputy is a believer in the supernatural, but Ellison is not. Much to Ellison’s surprise, he ends up needing to rethink his stance on whether or not the supernatural does exist.
I have one caution to anyone who considers watching this film—if you do not believe in the supernatural at all, you will probably not like this film. Too many times I have read reviews or spoken with people who have read or watched supernatural tales only to hear them slam those stories and the writers and say how much they dislike them because the tales are unrealistic. And all too often I end up finding out that most of these people are complete nonbelievers in anything supernatural. So it is not surprising that they would not enjoy stories that involve any type of supernatural events. To all you nonbelievers—don’t waste your time with this film, because I don’t want to hear you bitch about it after.
Another note on what others have said about this film—there are many false accusations about so-called “goofs” that happen in the movie. On the IMDB website there is a list of 12 various “goofs,” and out of all of them only part of one of them is correct. There is one called a “Factual error,” but I did not bother to look that one up; considering that all the other accusations are false, I did not want to waste my time. So, my advice to you is to watch the movie if it interests you and decide for yourself if it is good, bad, or somewhere in between. Not even I can tell you if you will like it. All any of us reviewers can do is give you our own personal opinions.
Back to the movie itself: I have to say what a complex and round character Ethan Hawke plays. Ellison claims that he is purely seeking justice for the victims of these unsolved murders, but various times throughout the film he states how this is going to be his big break. In one scene he says that he is on to something bigger than ever before. In this same scene he even says to his wife Tracy (Juliet Rylance) that this book could get him a movie deal—a “mega-hit”—could get him on the talk show circuit, more money. He states, “We could live wherever we want to.” But then there is a scene prior to this one where he is shown watching a video of an old interview of his where he says to the interviewer, “I’d rather cut off my hands than write a book for fame and money,” which completely contradicts what he says to his wife. That particular comment comes at the end of a passage where he talks about how when the police get things wrong with these murder cases “Good crime writing can set things right.” It is like he is out to prove himself smarter than the cops, seeking fame for uncovering bad or neglectful police work, and it often seems like he is doing it all for the recognition and the money. This happens all through the film. Ellison does appear at times to show genuine concern for finding the killer, or killers, responsible for these murders, but, at the same time, he cannot get the fame and money out of his head. This makes for a compelling character whose story I enjoy following. I am not even a big Ethan Hawke fan, but he does an excellent job portraying the complex character of Ellison Oswalt in this movie.
Also in reference to Ellison’s complex character—he loses any potential sympathy audience members may have for him when he first discovers there are more murders documented on those home movies and he calls 911 to report them, but then at the last second he changes his mind and hangs up before giving his name or telling anyone what he has found. But then later in the film he regains a bit of sympathy when Tracy freaks out on him because of a murder-drawing their son creates at school, and Ellison says, “Nothing about what happened to these people is okay. Bad things happen to good people. And they still have a right to have their story told. They deserve that much.” This yo-yoing of sympathy for Ellison’s character happens throughout the film, and it is a huge factor that holds my interest throughout the movie, and it is a major contributing factor that makes him such a compelling character to follow.
This film is also not short on creepy scenes. Once the movie gets going and we know what types of horrific scenes are shown on these 8mm home movies, every time that projector starts running the chills set in. What is the next film reel going to reveal? How is the projector running when Ellison is not at the controls? Why do we hear the film rolling when it is not rolling at all? There are also a few spots that made me jump, which I am always a fan of, but these scare tactics were not overused and they were spaced out throughout the movie.
As great as this film is, there are some holes and discrepancies that I have found with the story line. There is one murder scene shown (spoiler alert) where a family is burned alive in their car. Even though each person is bound with duct tape inside the vehicle, and we later find out (spoiler alert) that all the victims were drugged before they were killed, the car is wrapped in chains to keep them in. This is a bit of overkill—quite unnecessary. Then there is a
scene when Trevor (Michael Hall D’Addario), Ellison’s 12-year-old son, is found crawling out of a cardboard box screaming from a night terror. (This is a super-creepy scene, by the way.) But the problem I find with this is that Ashley (Clare Foley), his younger sister, is never woken up from the sound of his screams. Then the next morning when their parents are talking about Trevor’s night terror, Ashley asks what a night terror is. My issue with this is if her brother has been suffering with night terrors for as long as the parents say, then Ashley most likely would already know what they are because she would have heard them talking about them before, and she most likely would have witnessed at least one of them in the past.
Even though there are some discrepancies and holes in the story line, this film is worth watching. It is full of creepy visuals, eerie sound effects and music, brutal kill scenes, questionable kids, mysteries of missing children and unsolved murders. And what is found when this story unfolds is a link of intricately woven together mysteries that reveal an uncanny and intriguing cause. Once Professor Jonas (Vincent D’Onofrio) gets involved in the investigation, the intrigue builds to great heights. It is definitely a creep-fest that will make you jump and double check your locks. If you are the least bit squeamish, I suggest not watching this film alone on a stormy night, as I did. Even though, for me, that is the best way to watch a horror movie.
I give this movie 4 out of 5 stars.
Reviewed by Renee Young DeCamillis
October 24, 2014
* * *
Deliver Us from Evil
Release Date: July 2, 2014
Genre: Crime/Horror/Thriller
Studio: Sony Pictures, Jerry Bruckheimer Films
Director: Scott Derrickson
Writers: Scott Derrickson & Paul Harris Boardman (screenplay), Ralph Sarchie & Lisa Collier
Cool (book)
Cast: Eric Bana, Edgar Ramirez, Olivia Munn, Chris Coy, Sean Harris, Olivia Horton, Scott
Johnsen
Rating: R
Lights Out: The Devil Does Not Exist
The Devil’s most treasured trick—to make you believe the Devil doesn’t exist. Good versus evil is an age-old story theme that’s been told and retold through many centuries and is the premise for the 2014 film Deliver Us from Evil. Based on the true events of Ralph Sarchie, which he documents in his 2001 book, Beware the Night, co-written by Lisa Collier Cool, the story behind this film is a testament to the existence of primary evil—demons—in the world. I do admit, I have not read Sarchie’s book, but, after watching this film, I will be sure to pick myself up a copy, eager to devour every page.
I know this film has received many negative reviews, but it’s the movies with bad reviews that I tend to enjoy the most; I gravitate towards them, not trusting the cynicism of many movie critics. The most notable negative critique of this film is for unoriginality, but I will admit that I am a sucker for a based-on-true-events-exorcism-tale. That said, it is no wonder that Derrickson also directed the 2005 film The Exorcism of Emily Rose, another gut-grabbing story based on true events. And, yes, it’s another film I love, but I’ll save my thoughts about that movie for another review.
On the topic of the accused unoriginality of Deliver Us from Evil: I do agree that the title is bland, and that there are no shortage of stories and movies about exorcisms that came long before this film, but the way this story is delivered through a mix of genres—crime, thriller, horror—is refreshing to my movie and story loving palate. I admire writers who don’t lock themselves into a one-genre box; that, to me, is a courageous writer, someone who is not afraid to cross the imaginary lines of the marketing world. Since this film is based on true life events of an NYPD police sergeant’s experiences with demonic possessions, the mix of genres is the best choice for the writers to have made. Bravo, Mr. Scott Derrickson and Mr. Paul Harris Boardman!
Even though this type of demonic tale has been around for centuries, it doesn’t lessen the scare factor. From the mouth of Derrickson in an interview with Joe Berkowitz, “As long as there’s been religion, the idea that there’s a dark afterlife has been scary—great horror writers like Dante have been using (it) for centuries. I think it’s the mystery and the unknown—the unknown is always the scariest thing. Whatever religion, it always sets up a vast ocean of the unknown.” Derrickson goes on to discuss the importance of developing the main character in order to get the audience invested. You can read more of this great interview at http://www.fastcocreate.com/.
A war zone in the middle of the desert and jungle of Iraq in 2010 is the setting for the film’s opening scene. In the night’s darkness, three soldiers, including one videographer, enter an underground cave. Sounds of static, flashlights flicker out; full darkness soon swallows the three fish-out-of-water soldiers, then spits them out—forever-changed. And you can’t put a cave in a horror flick without swarms of bats, piles of skulls, and a message written on the wall in a language the character’s don’t understand. Check. Check. And check. Cliché? Maybe. Creepy as hell? You bet!
Back in New York City in 2013, a handful of back-to-back uncanny violent crimes by various individuals take place, with a 911 call about a haunted basement seasoning the dish of wicked occurrences. At first this all appears like typical cruel criminality—drug addicts and psychotics—for the NYPD, but deeper investigation quickly proves otherwise. When a priest insists that a thought-to-be mentally ill woman whose been arrested for killing her son is actually possessed by evil, thought-to-be-reality is flipped on its head and twisted inside out.
Time to reevaluate all your thought-to-be certainties.
Much appreciation comes from me when a skeptic is the one who has to face the music of hidden truths, hidden worlds, a reality unforeseen. This is the role of Sergeant Sarchie, the main character played by Eric Bana. Paired with an unconventional priest, Father Mendoza (Edgar Ramirez), Sarchie is shown the meaning behind what his partner Officer Butler (Joel McHale) calls Sarchie’s “radar,” those gut feelings he gets that always lead him to the evil taking place in the city. Sarchie is an Italian Catholic who claims he’s “outgrown God.” Working with Mendoza shows him there’s more to be seen behind the scenes, more to uncover under the veil of many criminals’ violent actions. Simply secondary evil of man? Think again.
The blinking out of lights is one sign you’re potentially in the presence of primary evil. And if you start seeing images of a bloody face appear out of nowhere and start hearing children laughing and songs by The Doors start playing everywhere you go while everyone else around claims you’re nuts, you better make sure you have a crucifix or rosary beads handy—demons abound.
If I wasn’t a huge fan of The Doors I might say this particular decision was a bad choice. But since I am a huge Doors fan, and knowing a bit more than the everyday person about Jim Morrison, the choice is very fitting. Some may ask, “Why would the Devil use such music to communicate his presence,” and my answer would be—The Devil uses every tool in the shed, and that includes icons from pop culture.
What I admire most about the use of The Doors is that the band name is used symbolically; the band’s songs pop in just before dialogue in the film speaks about doors to the spirit world, doors to the demonic world, the doorway to Hell, the doors in the mind that open a person up to suggestion and possession. The lyrics of the songs utilized are also symbolic of what is taking place in the story—“Break on Through to the Other Side,” “People Are Strange,” “Riders on the Storm.” I was pleasantly surprised that more obscure words from The Doors and Jim Morrison are also appropriately used—lyrics from “Celebration of the Lizard Part 1” and lines from Morrison’s poetry. If you don’t understand the demon’s use of the lines, “Is everybody in? Is everybody in? Is everybody in? The ceremony is about to begin,” I suggest checking out more work of The Doors and Jim Morrison’s poetry to fully understand and appreciate the meaning.
In the film there are a number of chases in the dark with nothing but flashlights—often malfunctioning—to lead the way. Cats—big, small, splayed open—also play a creepy role, and this brings to my mind the use of humor. I’m a sucker for a horror movie that weaves in subtle humor, and this one does just that. Not overdone. Not cheesy sit-com crap. The humor is often dry, sarcastic, and right up my alley. The use of humor in horror and other dark material gives the viewer time to breathe and loosen their muscles, even if only for a couple seconds.
Now don’t go thinking I’m all-love for this film. An issue that I have (spoiler alert) is that Sarchie and Mendoza get away with performing an exorcism in an interrogation room of the NYPD. Sarchie insists the other officers leave the two alone with the insanely violent Santino who has already broken out of restraints once. Sarchie states that he’ll take full responsibility for what transpires, and the other officers obey. Even with one cop watching the eerie events of the exorcism unfold before his eyes through the observation room one-way window, the exorcism is allowed to go on. Even after Santino breaks free again and starts eating his own leg, no one busts up the freak show. This is a farfetched scene but highly intense and entertaining at the same time. One of my favorite aspects of the scene is the characterization of Mendoza. He shows that priests have weaknesses and inner demons just like any other person; after all, priests are human too. Thinking of this scene brings me to a must-mention—
. . . the extraordinary talent displayed among the actors in this film. Not only are the main actors Bana and Ramirez excellent, but the supporting actors—Olivia Horton as Jane, Sean Harris as Santino, and Scott Johnsen as Lt. Griggs—are magnificent. Creepy insane evil! The above mentioned scene is a great example, but you must watch the whole film to really see what I mean.
There is so much more I could say about this film, but I’ll save you all from my complete dissection; I’m sure you don’t want me to give it all away. Watch it and dissect it for yourselves.
Even for nonbelievers of the supernatural world, Deliver Us from Evil is an action packed crime thriller wrapped in a bow of horror. Does it go off the map with its originality? No. Does it keep the viewer tense and on the edge of their seats? Sure as shit it does! Another take on a story about demonic possession and primary evil among us, Deliver Us from Evil is a film sure to entertain, and it may make you question your ideas of reality.
I give this film 4 stars out of 5.
Reviewed by Renee Young DeCamillis
7/9/2014
* * *
Oculus
Release Date: April 11, 2014
Genre: Psychological Horror
Studio: WWE Studios
Director: Mike Flanagan
Screenplay Writers: Mike Flanagan & Jeff Howard
Cast: Karen Gillan, Brenton Thwaites, Katee Sackhoff, Rory Cochran, Annalise Basso, Garrett
Ryan, James Lafferty
Rating:
Supernatural Phenomenon or Psychological Disturbance? You Decide.
“Believe only half of what you see and nothing that you hear.”
I’m sure many of you have heard this Edgar Allen Poe quote, or something similar. This nugget of wisdom is exactly what Kaylie (Karen Gillan) and Tim (Brenton Thwaites), the main characters of Oculus, come to learn as their story moves forward—except they start realizing they can’t believe anything they see or hear, at least not when they are in the vicinity—a thirty foot radius to be exact—of a particular antique mirror.
This brother and sister duo first encounter the strange and brutal occurrences surrounding this mirror when they are only children. It’s when they’re in their twenties, when Tim is released from an eleven year incarceration in a psychiatric hospital for the supposed murder of their father, that Kaylie tracks down the mysterious mirror. She is on a mission, a mission to prove her brother’s innocence, clear his name, by proving that it was supernatural forces that had killed their father all those years ago.
What I really admire about this film is how the story structure shows the events of their childhood unfolding right along with the events of their adulthood; the flashbacks are woven through in a way that balances past with present, holding the mystery of what is real and what may be a psychological disturbance of memories—potentially false memories. The film opens in the middle of a flashback scene from Tim and Kaylie’s childhood, a scene involving what appears as a supernatural occurrence connected to the mirror. Then the story jumps to the present when adult Kaylie tracks down the mirror and manages to get it into her possession and soon back in place in their childhood home, the same house where their father was killed. She is preparing her investigation and times it out precisely when Tim is released from the hospital. She wants his help.
The way the flashbacks are laced through also helps viewers see and understand the disturbing events Tim and Kaylie experienced as children, why Kaylie is so hell-bent on exonerating Tim, why Tim is so hell-bent on not believing in the supernatural, and what really happened to their father and mother. As you watch the film, you may ask yourselves—“Why is their mother not involved in their investigation”—as I did at first. The flashbacks will eventually show why that is, and I can assure you that it’s extremely disturbing—just the way I like my stories to be.
This film does have its hiccups. Though Kaylie tells Tim about the mysterious deaths and dog-disappearances linked to this dreaded mirror, there is not much more of a backstory about it. I wanted to know more about its history. Though this lack of more history does keep the story from falling into the “unoriginal/rip-off” category, it also gives the idea that it potentially falls into the “cowardly writer” category. The writers, Mike Flanagan and Jeff Howard, appear to have avoided doing what all writers should do—make it your own; Flanagan and Howard don’t own the mirror’s story, but rather the audience does, the viewers. In this film the mirror is a character, perhaps even multiple characters, playing the role of antagonist, like the Overlook Hotel in Stephen King’s The Shining, and it is the writer’s job to know every character inside and out. Even if the writer doesn’t include all that knowledge in the story, it must still somehow be implied. But, to play Devil’s advocate, that tends to happen a lot with stories—the writer leaves you to fill in the blanks, to use your own imagination to create a story of your own, draw your own conclusions, your own hypotheses. But I wonder if Flanagan and Howard left out too much. I suppose that’s for each individual viewer to decide for themselves.
The other hiccup I picked up on is how Kaylie states that anyone who tries to break or destroy the mirror ends up dead. Kaylie tells Tim many instances of past accounts that appear to support her theory. But here’s the hiccup: as children, Kaylie and Tim both attempt to smash the mirror but survive to try it again as adults. You can be certain that I will not give away whether or not they survive their second attempt at mirror-destruction; you will have to watch the film and find out for yourselves.
Something I especially love about this film is how it puts abnormal psychology and the idea of a supernatural world—Tim’s idea and Kaylie’s idea—into a no-bullshit faceoff, and each sibling is trying to disprove the other. This type of stuff always intrigues me, which may say I’m biased in my enjoyment of this film, but tough shit—I like it, even with its hiccups and imperfections. I’m also biased in liking this film because I’m a believer in a supernatural world. That being said, this is a big like-or-dislike/believable-or-unbelievable story, as all supernatural tales are; if you’re a nonbeliever in the supernatural, chances are you will hate this film, but if you’re a believer there’s a good chance you’ll enjoy it. Though some viewers may not be able to get past the hiccups and imperfections, I stand in the court of non-snob-horror-fan; I love B horror flicks just as much as I love films such as Kubrick’s The Shining and Hitchcock’s Psycho.
I can’t end this review without commenting on the superb performance by Rory Cochrane, best known as Slater in Dazed and Confused. In Oculus Cochrane plays the role of Alan Russell, the father of Kaylie and Tim. His character of loving father and husband slowly and creepily starts unraveling after he purchases the mysterious and imposing antique mirror for his home office. The more time he spends near this beautiful artifact the more he can’t pull himself away, and the more he starts changing. Cochrane’s portrayal of a man with a slowly deteriorating mind is sinister and unsettling. After you witness his outstanding depiction of someone with a quietly tormented psyche with a potentially dangerous outcome, don’t forget to ask yourself—“Do I really know who my neighbors are?”
Reviewed by Renee Young DeCamillis
Friday, June 13th, 2014
I give this film 3 ½ out of 5 stars.
* * *
The Lords of Salem
Release Date: April 18, 2013
Genre: Horror/Thriller
Studio: Alliance Films
Director: Rob Zombie
Cast: Sheri Moon Zombie, Meg Foster, Bruce Davison, Jeff Daniel Phillips, Ken Foree, Patricia Quinn, Dee Wallace, Judy Geeson, and Maria Conchita Alonso
Rating: R
“We’ve been waiting . . . we’ve always been waiting.”
Are you mad? Are you delusional?
Or are Satan and his minions real and out to get you?
Were there ever real evil witches in Salem? Is Satan real and out for revenge? Is there such a thing as fate, fate that “leaves you no choice?” Or do we all shape our own destiny, and can we “premeditate the outcome?”
Salem, Massachusetts radio DJ Heidi LaRoc receives a mysterious record that is personally addressed to her, and the only other thing it says is, “a gift from The Lords.” Once she plays the album, which is a thick vinyl record, she begins to experience visions of Salem’s horrific past. Every time she hears the unusual sounds of the song, her visions become more frequent, more detailed, more complex, more real, as though the visions are not visions at all. These uncanny experiences cause the rising of Heidi’s inner demons. The darkness within her soul is released. Is she able to tame her demons? Will she find the strength to shed light on her inner darkness? Will she find out the meaning of her visions? Or will she sink into a bottomless abyss, with no hope for recovery?
Rob Zombie’s latest horror film, The Lords of Salem, has received extremely mixed reviews. People either love it or hate it. Many say it is his worst film ever, while many others say it is a work of genius, his best work to date. I am on the side of seeing it as a work of genius, the best film he has ever created. It is disturbing, nightmarish, nerve-rattling. It has depth that many may fear to look into. It makes one wonder what is real and what is a delusion or hallucination, what is created through inner demons and what is created by actual demons. I believe that the haters of this film had expected one of Zombie’s previous horror flicks to be regurgitated into new packaging, only to find out it is nothing like any of the horror movies out there today, and nothing like the in-your-face gore Zombie is known for.
My rant—how I see this drastically split-review issue: Movie viewers, horror lovers especially, have been desensitized to real fear. They no longer get scared unless they see gore, CGI, and people getting killed and physically tortured. It is a sad truth of the movie-going-masses and of the commercial movie industry of today. How can it not scare you to imagine having no control over your actions, and experiencing complete confusion with what you are seeing and hearing? Believe me, if the Devil, or mental illness were ever to take control of your mind, then you would know real, true fear.
In Zombie’s The Lords of Salem there are absolutely no digital effects used. Imagine that—a 21st Century movie that does not rely on CGI to induce fear or shock and awe in its viewers. No, The Lords of Salem is more like a classic horror film, instilling fear through atmosphere, uncertainty, moodiness, ambiguity, imagery, light and shadows, and awkward-yet-artistic camera angles.
Now, the novel, on the other hand, has all the in-your-face gore and brutality of Zombie’s other horror movies, but it also has the depth and artistic touch that is in the movie. The novel also gives a more detailed characterization of Heidi, more understanding of what she is struggling with internally, as well as more horrific scenes associated with the airing of The Lords song on the radio. To all the haters of this film—read the novel and you will be right back into Zombie’s bloody-disturbing mind with all the gore and killing that you had hoped to see in the film. But that’s not to say that the film does not have its share of blood and gore. It just does not rely on it, or overuse it like many other modern horror films do.
I do have some minor criticisms of this film. I think Zombie could have made Heidi’s struggling recovery from drug addiction more evident early on in the film, like it is in the book. This could have been done with the addition of specific types of props, or voicemail messages, etc. Low cost additions. I also think he should have made it more evident early on in the film, again, like it is done in the novel, that she has replaced her drug addiction with alcoholism. It is also not evident early in the film that Heidi is severely depressed. These aspects of her character could have easily been made more evident earlier in the film and at minimal cost and time in doing so. I was able to pick up on these aspects of Heidi’s character, but I have talked to a lot of viewers who missed these crucial character traits in the beginning, and some missed them all together. Also, I don’t know how happy Nathaniel Hawthorne, the writer, would be for the spelling of his name being used to represent Jonathan Hawthorne in the film. Nathaniel changed the spelling of his name for that specific reason—not wanting to be connected to the John Hathorne of the Salem witch trials.
Putting my nitpickiness aside—The Lords of Salem is eons ahead of any of Zombie’s previous films, and any other commercial horror films out there today. While I am a big fan of Rob Zombie’s earlier works, the way this film is written and directed shows the depth of Zombie’s artistic vision. The film opens with an image of Heidi riding along in the passenger seat of a car at night, head resting against the windowpane. Then an image of a goat appears on the screen, but only for a moment. Then viewers are zipped back in time to 1696, where Reverend Jonathan Hawthorne is writing an entry in his diary about a coven of evil witches that he believes are gathering in the woods around Salem and playing insanity-inducing music. To God he swears that he will destroy all persons who pledge allegiance to Satan. The next scene brings viewers to a gathering of witches around a bonfire, chanting, blaspheming “the book of lies” [The Holy Bible], denouncing Jesus, revering Satan, shedding clothes, and getting overly ecstatic in their loyalty to the Lord of the underworld.
That is what this film does; it juxtaposes scenes and images together in a way that implies the meaning, showing the viewer the significance, the connections, rather than slapping people in the face with a spoon-fed-storyline. This film makes you think, makes you pay attention, makes you connect to dots to an intricately woven tapestry of religion, paranoia, obsession, brutality, addiction, mental illness, and the all around mind-fuck—manipulation.
Other wonderful aspects of this film are the on-location scenes and camera shots. Being a frequent visitor of Salem myself, I do think more on-location scenes should have been incorporated, but the ones Zombie chose to use work wonderfully for this story. Salem’s history is seen through its architecture and natural eerie atmosphere. Having shot the film in the fall, when the skies are gray and the trees are skeletal, adds to the creepiness, as do the local cemetery scenes. Some of this, such as shots of the tourist attractions, works as a statement, or rather a question, about the commercialization of Salem’s tragic past, the money made off from other people’s tragedies.
Rob Zombie’s growth and depth as a writer, director, and horror creator became evident with his remakes of John Carpenter’s Halloween I and II, where Zombie created a Michael Myers with depth, as opposed to the invincible killing machine of the original version of the character. What that does is make a purely evil villain more sympathetic, more understandable, more likely for viewers to want to follow. And, again, with Heidi, the protagonist of The Lords of Salem, Zombie has created a character with tremendous depth. Not only does the protagonist have depth, but Margaret Morgan, (played by Meg Foster who gives a most chilling performance), one of the many witches Reverend Jonathan Hawthorne swears to God to eradicate, has depth, has understandable reasons for why she does what she does. And what it is she does . . . you will have to find out for yourself by watching the film—if you dare.
I give this film a five star rating.
Reviewed by Renee Young DeCamillis, 10/10/13
* * *
THE DEVIL’S REJECTS
Release Date: July 22, 2005
Genre: Horror
Studio: Lions Gate Films & Cinerenta
Director: Rob Zombie
Cast: Sid Haig, Bill Moseley, Sherri Moon Zombie, Ken Foree, Matthew McGrory & William Forsythe
With Rob Zombie’s latest film, The Lords of Salem, set to hit theaters on April 19th, I thought it only appropriate to take a look at his last original film The Devil’s Rejects, the sequel to his first film House of 1,000 Corpses released in 2002.
Though a sequel, The Devil’s Rejects does not pick up right where the first film leaves off, but, rather, it jumps back into the lives of the Firefly family less than a year later when Sheriff John Quincey Wydell storms their farmhouse with a slew of cops ordering the family to surrender. But this is not the type of family to roll over and take what’s coming to them. With a cellar full of caged women, a mass grave of bodies under their house, and Otis snuggling with a dead naked woman in his bed, the family gears up for a shootout. Homemade body armor, metal masks and enough firepower to put up one hell of a fight, each family member loads, aims, cocks and shoots their way to a good old-fashioned chase-down.
Sheriff John Quincey Wydell does not only arrive at the farmhouse seeking revenge for the murder of his brother, Sheriff George Wydell, which happens in the first film; he is also seeking justice for the murders of over seventy-five innocent people, mostly women, whom the Firefly family killed in House of 1,000 Corpses. Once Baby and Otis escape and the police storm the house, Sheriff Wydell and his men discover the Firefly family’s scrapbooks and diaries documenting all the atrocious acts the family members have committed. Seeing images of Captain Spaulding and his involvement is when Wydell’s unscratchable-itch for revenge starts to evolve into a destructive drive that can lead no place pleasant. Post-mortem pictures of his brother, and sinister coaxing from Mama Firefly, during a not-by-the-book interrogation, pushes Sheriff Wydell to take the law into his own hands. And at the same time, in this scene these two characters display their intense love and devotion for family.
An intense hell ride ensues for both Wydell and the outlaws evading arrest. This involves taking hostages and hiding out in an out of the way motel, the reemergence of Captain Spaulding to the outlaws on the run, an ever-rising body count, hired hit men, a brothel party, and a terrorizing showdown you won’t want to miss. The Firefly family finds themselves questioning who they can trust, and their love and devotion for family takes the driver’s seat when the wrath of Wydell hits hard. And Sheriff Wydell finds out just how far his desire for revenge will take him.
Yes, this is another Rob Zombie film filled with lots of graphic kill scenes, but there is more depth to these characters than their depictions in House of 1,000 Corpses. Neither film ever clearly gets at the why behind this family’s murderous nature, but this one gives a glimpse of the humanity in the remaining members of the Firefly family. This may only be a small slice of humanity, but it makes them more real and a little less like heartless killers. They show a love of family so strong that they will risk their lives to protect one another. This is clear from the opening shootout scene to the final scene. Don’t get me wrong, they are still ruthless killers, but I enjoy getting to peak at the softer aspects of their personalities. It makes them rounder, more interesting three-dimensional characters. This is the mark of a talented writer—someone who can depict characters with a voracious appetite to torture and kill people while at the same time showing that they are still human beings with feelings and enough love and devotion for family to make many sane people appear coldhearted.
Though I greatly admire Rob Zombie and all of his works, I do see a few discrepancies in this sequel. First, the Firefly family farm and the land it resides on are both very different than they are depicted in House of 1,000 Corpses. In the first film the driveway and the house are more secluded with lots of trees all around the property. In the sequel, the farmhouse is on a plot of land that is wide open, with a lot less trees, and lots of fenced in cattle and horses are roaming around in the front and side yards. Plus, the house in the first film is just that, a house, not the farmhouse of the sequel, and no cattle or horses are seen or heard anywhere on the property. There are antlers here and there, along with other animal remnants, and animal trophies hang on the walls of the house, but the only live animals on the property are two dogs and a couple chickens. So, all of these differences make it appear as though the family has relocated since the first film, but how they did that with all those prisoners and dead bodies just does not make sense, especially not in less than a year that is said to have taken place from film one to film two. Plus, I wonder what ever happened to “Grampa” from the first movie.
But in taking these discrepancies into consideration, I also take into consideration the fact that House of 1,000 Corpses is the first film Rob Zombie had ever created. And I see how much he has grown as a writer and director just from his first film to his second film, not to mention how much he has grown in both respects even since the making of The Devil’s Rejects. This rapid growth of his is what makes me very excited to see his next creation—The Lords of Salem.
As horrifying as the events are in The Devil’s Rejects, as are the events in all of Rob Zombie films to date, there is no shortage of humorous one-liners. I have the utmost respect for the horror writer who includes comic relief to help lighten the heavy subject matter of such a gruesome tale. But I will curb my desire to include said lines and let you all experience them first hand for yourselves when you watch the film, and watching the film is what I highly suggest to all lovers of horror.
Rob Zombie is a horror genius, and his genius is growing with every subsequent creation of his. I don’t know about any of you, but my love of horror makes me want to see how such horror geniuses as Rob Zombie came to be, how their creations evolve and grow over time. Rob Zombie has made a big name for himself in the world of horror films and that name keeps on getting bigger. I have a strong feeling he is here on the horror scene to stay, so I suggest you horror lovers put your love to the test; seek out his work and experience his genius—if you dare.
I give this film a 4-star-rating.
Reviewed by Renee S. DeCamillis 2/17/2013
* * *
THE WOMAN IN BLACK
Release Date: February 3, 2012
Genre: Drama/Horror/Thriller
Studio: CBS Films & Cross Creek Pictures
Director: James Watkins
Cast: Daniel Radcliffe, Ciaran Hinds, Janet McTeer
Rating: PG-13
Ever feel like somebody is always watching you? Maybe there is; they’re just too elusive to be caught—or stopped.
When I watched this film, The Woman in Black, for the first time, my mind immediately thought of Victorian ghost stories, specifically those by Henry James and J.S. LeFanu. Since this film is set not long after that era, it makes sense that the original writer of this tale, Susan Hill—author of the 1983 novel—chose to depict it in that style. I am an admirer of both James and LeFanu, and I am also an admirer of this film. The imagery and subtlety surrounding the haunted occurrences in the Drablow mansion is superbly executed. But I must first back up.
In this film, Mr. Arthur Kipps, played by Daniel Radcliffe, is a desperate, widowed real estate attorney from London with a young son to provide for. In order to save his job he is ordered to travel to the estate of the late Mrs. Alice Drablow, and he is to stay until he reviews all of her paperwork. The location of this mansion is horror movie perfection—it resides on a small piece of land that juts out off the coast of a small, dreary, fog-filled village called Crythin Gifford. And when the tide comes in, the connection between the Drablow mansion and the main land is lost. Isolation is a key aspect to incorporate in order to instill fear.
When Mr. Kipps first arrives in the small village, he notices that all its residents, which are few in numbers, usher their children away from him, even though the kids stare at him with awe-struck curiosity. The parents do not even want the kids to look at him, let alone be in any type of close proximity. Of course he finds this strange, but he shrugs it off in order to fulfill his task at hand, in order to save his job. When the inn Mr. Kipps initially stays in no longer welcomes his business, Sam and Elizabeth Daily, the wealthiest couple in the village, played by Ciaran Hinds and Janet Teer, offer their home and hospitality to him.
His stay with the Daily’s is troubling. Mrs. Daily has episodes appearing like mental breakdowns that her husband believes are caused from grief over the death of their young son. When these so-called fits occur, her husband has her medicated as a means to sedate her. As the movie progresses, we find out there is much more behind these episodes Mrs. Daily experiences. Mr. Kipps decides to stay at the Drablow mansion in order to complete his work in a timely manner, and he takes Mr. Daily’s dog Spider along for company. The more Mr. Kipps uncovers about the sordid past of the Drablow family, the more creepy his stay at the estate becomes. And once darkness falls and the tide rolls in the haunting begins and there is no means of escape, and no hope of a rescue.
The show of the haunted occurrences is excellently rendered. The viewer must pay very close attention to images looming in the blurry background and mysterious corner-of-the-eye visions. Accompanying these are unusual noises, footfalls in a thought-to-be empty estate, creepy dolls with watchful eyes, shadows of questionable origins, unexplainable reflections in mirrors and windows. Throughout the time spent in the Drablow mansion there are visions and sounds that occur then vanish with your next breath. At first, it makes the viewer doubt, along with Mr. Kipps, that anything actually occurs at all, until Spider reacts. Plus, it helps that Mr. Kipps appears to have a touch of the sixth sense, which makes him more susceptible to pick up on what many others would brush off as silly superstition.
Meanwhile in the remote village, it appears as though the children are going mad. The strange occurrences at the Drablow estate may make you jump out of your skin, but the children Mr. Kipps comes in contact with start dying off one by one in unexplainable ways that will make you cringe in dread and disbelief. Are the children going mad? You must watch the film to find out for yourself.
As for Mr. Kipps, his character is very well developed, round. He is a man dealing with the death of his beloved wife, with a career that is in jeopardy, and he has a young son to care and provide for. He does not run when the haunting begins; he stays to save his job, provide for his son, and to uncover the truth behind the tragedies of not only the village of Crythin Gifford, but also of the Drablow family. Arthur Kipps goes to great lengths to try to save people he has never met before, people who shun him and try to run him out of town. And what he tries to do for deceased members of the Drablow family is heartwarming, the sign of a strong and sympathetic character.
What I love the most about this film is the ending. I am not one for spoilers, but this ending is packed full of contradictory meanings. And there is nothing I love more than meaningful contradictions. (I will try to keep the spoiler to a minimum.) It cannot be entirely classified as a happy ending or a sinister ending; it is a touch of both. Just as you think it is sad and sinister, there is a flicker of happiness. But this hope for happiness is dashed with the final ominous image, and the lingering sound in the viewer’s mind of the words “Never forgive.”
I give this movie 3 ½ stars.
Review by Renee S. Young DeCamillis 9/5/12
The Haunting
Release Date: September 18, 1963
Genre: Horror/Supernatural
Studio: Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer
Director: Robert Wise
Cast: Julie Harris, Claire Bloom, Richard Johnson and Russ Tamblyn
Rating: R
Dark and Shadows:
Fear of the Unknown
“Unknown—that’s the key word. When we become in a supernatural event, we’re scared out of our wits just because it’s unknown.” Dr. John Markway, a character from the 1963 Robert Wise film The Haunting, based off Shirley Jackson’s novel The Haunting of Hill House, speaks these lines to main character Eleanor, Nell, Lance after she describes the frightening occurrences from the night before. It is the unknown, the unseen, the sounds the shadows and the sordid history of Hill House that drives all visitors away, except for Nell, who feels she belongs there. This film is overflowing with interesting subjects of discussion, but for the purposes of this article, the focus is fear of the unknown—what is heard but never seen, feelings from invisible forces and the power of darkness and shadows.
The ending credits roll and not one ghost, monster or creature of any kind is ever seen through the whole film. Not even a prankster is shown or insinuated to exist. Unaccountable cold spots are felt; these are the first suggestions of a haunting that characters Nell and Theo encounter. This is accompanied by the rustling leaves of house plants, as if by a wind, and the sound of whispers—whispers only Nell can hear—that seem to come from nowhere, or the house itself. This is the feeling, or idea, that comes to Nell; she tells Theo, “The house is alive.” The hallway in which these questionable occurrences happen is unlighted and filled with looming shadows. When this moment passes, and Dr. Markway turns on the lights, the ladies throw off their fear with a shrug, blaming it on being scared of the dark.
This nonchalant reaction comes from the ladies again, accompanied by hysterical laughter, once their second run-in with unexplainable noises passes. This second spook happens when they are in their bedrooms sound asleep. Nell wakes to loud banging sounds. Theo hears them too. Nell runs into Theo’s room, and both ladies feel unusually cold as they huddle together listening to the unexplainable banging and pounding. Adding to the fright of this scene are the intermittent moments of silence. Just when the ladies think the noises have passed, and their fear is calmed by the quiet, the banging and pounding sounds return louder, accompanied by the turning of the doorknob. A moment of silence returns. This is followed by scraping sounds and laughter from an unknown source. All sounds stop once again. The ladies feel warm. Theo says she knows it is over, because the cold feeling is gone. A moment later the men arrive. When Nell and Theo find out that the loud noises did not come from the two men, the ladies’ laughter rolls through the room. They feel silly for having been scared.
Nell and Theo brush off both unusual occurrences, assuming their imaginations are creating everything. They cannot explain the noises, the sudden cold sensations, the doorknob turning by itself; therefore, they think they are frightening themselves with their thoughts. This technique of using the unseen, the unknowable—keeping the origins of creepy occurrences off camera, behind the scenes—to instill fear allows the characters’, as well as the viewers’, imaginations to fill in the blanks. The imagination can often create more fear than having everything uncovered.
When the Dr. and his three research assistants are observing the statue of the Crain family, the original owners and inhabitants of Hill House, Nell says she saw Mr. Crain move. This happens just as she is about to turn and walk away. Theo asks her, “Of course, don’t you see how nothing in this house seems to move until you look away, and then you just catch something out of the corner of your eye?” These corner-of-the-eye visions cause them to question whether their sight is playing tricks on them. And because they do not see the objects move while looking directly at them, they feel they imagine such movements, and then they disregard what they thought they saw.
Throughout the movie, Nell is the one most sensitive to the unusual happenings, and she eventually becomes overwhelmed by the unexplainable phenomena. This causes her to begin thinking it is all in her mind. Dr. Markway tells her that cannot be; there are witnesses. Nell comes back with the idea that even all the witnesses may only exist in her mind, and that none of what she sees and is experiencing is real; the entire situation is occurring in her head. Dr. Markway responds to this by saying, “Oh sure, that’s the easiest way to dismiss the supernatural—by pleading insanity or accusing others of it.” This line is superb. This often happens in horror movies, literature, and in real life, when people experience similar instances that they have no other explanation for. Since there is no widely accepted, undeniable proof or knowledge of the supernatural, people often blame the happenings on mental illness. Insanity is the supernatural world’s scapegoat, what it relies on to make people believe it does not exist.
Every image of Hill House from the outside shows its face and towers immersed in shadows. And on the inside, shadows are often cast on the walls by inanimate objects, and the lighting rarely appears to fill entire rooms or hallways. This adds to the fear. Shadows supply places for anything and anyone, natural or supernatural, to lurk and remain unseen. Shadows often symbolize an evil not yet discovered. In Jungian psychology it represents certain aspects of the unconscious mind, what is unknown yet felt, and the shadow impacts every person’s personality; therefore, the shadow can be thought of as a dark, repressed side that is unlived. This idea is similar to the supernatural world—a repressed existence, dark, unknown, unproven, where many of the inhabitants are thought to be spirits of the dead. And the supernatural world is thought to impact the natural world.
It is the multiplicity of odd occurrences, and the fact that everyone becomes a witness to these oddities that finally makes Luke, the heir of Hill House and the only skeptic present, a believer in the supernatural. It is also what ceases the women’s laughter and mistrust of their senses. By including recurrent accounts of strange happenings and having numerous witnesses to them helps to make the supernatural more believable, even to nonbelievers.
In the 1963 film The Haunting, what the eyes cannot see the imagination fills in the blanks. To instill fear, producer and director Robert Wise relies on the unknown and the unseen. The dark and shadows fill spaces where anyone and anything could be lying in wait. And who or what it is lurking there is often thought to be linked to evil because of the symbolism of the shadow that has existed for many generations. Whether referring to the supernatural or not, it is undeniable—what is unknown is often what people fear the most.
I give this film 4 stars.
Review by Renee S. Young DeCamillis 6/29/12
* * *
The Raven
Release Date: April 27, 2012
Genre: Mystery, Thriller
Studio: Intrepid Films
Director: James McTeigue
Cast: John Cusack, Alice Eve, Luke Evans
Rating: R
The Raven depicts a serial killer who uses Edgar Allen Poe’s stories of murder and mystery as inspiration for a horrific killing spree. The film opens with a murder scene taken straight out of Poe’s “The Murders in the Rue Morgue.” Detective Fields, played by Luke Evans, recognizes the uncanny resemblance, and recruits Poe, played by John Cusack, to assist in hunting down the madman responsible for the atrocity. After this opening scene, the film turns into a mosaic-like representation of Poe’s tales of the grotesque and macabre, not detailed to every spec in Poe’s writing, but creatively pieced together, with twists from the killer’s perverse mind, and uniquely adjusted to fit the movie’s intriguing story line.
Since I am a Poe aficionado, I have to say that my first viewing of this film disappointed me. I felt that a better job could have been done with the accuracy of detailing the specifics of Poe’s life. This opinion of mine comes from the literary side of me, not the horror movie side. That being said, my biggest irritation, which may seem ridiculous to many, is that Poe has always been pictured with a mustache, not a goatee. Though many poets, painters, and intellectuals—known collectively as Bohemians, of the 19th Century often sported the goatee, Poe did not. Though this is an inaccurate representation, it may have been a creative decision made in order to show how Poe was a Bohemian-like individual—a poor, intellectual artist, poet and prose writer; therefore, I can forgive this minor detail. There are other biographical inaccuracies as well, such as the character of Emily Hamilton, Poe’s love interest, but for now I will set my literary nerdiness aside, and turn back to what movie fanatics would rather hear.
Cusack’s portrayal of Poe as the struggling literary genius is well executed. He shows Poe’s arrogant side, which often reared its ugly head due to his desperate need for acceptance in the literary world. The real life of Poe was filled with rejection from a very early age; his father abandoned him and his mother when Edgar was only one-year-old, and his foster father, John Allen, had always been disappointed in him (Poe) because of his lack of interest in business, so much so that John sent his son away to school with no money for everyday necessities, and ended up leaving him out of his will. But John made sure to include his illegitimate children in his will. The arrogance of Poe first comes out in a barroom scene early on in the film. Though I am biased because of my love of Poe, I have to admit that this scene is embellished. Poe’s belligerent drunkenness is well executed by Cusack, but Poe’s literary snobbery is a bit over the top, making him appear like a pompous rock star demanding admiration and special treatment. With the exception of this one scene, Cusack’s representation of Poe seems to be spot on, showing his dark melancholic demeanor, paired with his compassionate and romantic side.
I love the details of Poe working as a literary critic, writing reviews for a local Baltimore paper. Known for his harsh critiques, he slams Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, just as he had in his real life, as well as Ralph Waldo Emerson. The competition of the literary world, as well as Poe’s work as a literary critic, shines through in these scenes. It is Poe’s boss, the editor of the paper, who has one of the best lines in the film. When speaking of Poe he states, “God gave him a spark of genius drenched in misery”—superbly accurate of Poe. Every woman he ever loved died horrible deaths, most of tuberculosis, or what was termed “consumption” in the 19th Century. And although Poe was a literary genius, he lived a poor, depraved lifestyle. All of this loss and degradation is what led to his alcoholism and frequent opium use, which is what gave him a bad reputation later in his life, contributing to negative biographical representations by some who despised him. In the film, there is brilliant line spoken by Poe’s character that sums up his miserable life perfectly—“Melancholy has followed me like a black dog all my life.” And Poe’s character, always dressed in black, mirrors the image of this black dog throughout the film.
Cusack also shows Poe’s hopeless romantic side in his relationship with Emily, his lover in the film, played by Alice Eve. Even with the threat of death from Emily’s father, Poe is determined to be with her at all costs, and she with him. In the film he writes his poem “Annabelle Lee” for Emily, which she adores so much that she is shown reciting it on more than one occasion. This is a poem of deep, undying love. But here my literary side rears its critical head, again. This poem of Poe’s is also a poem about losing the love of his life to death; he actually had written it in 1849 for his late wife, Virginia, who died of tuberculosis in 1847, after suffering with the deteriorating disease for five years, with Poe by her side each step of the way, caring for her every need. With this knowledge, it makes no sense representing it as a romantic gesture of Poe’s towards Emily. But I digress.
There is one more line I must mention, spoken by the killer to Poe near the end of the film. Because Poe responds to the killer in a way that is unlike any of the characters in Poe’s stories, the killer states, “That’s life; so much less satisfying than fiction.” This is a great line because it is thought by some that Poe, the “Father of the detective story,” wrote tales of mystery in order to fulfill his need for logic; since he could not solve the mystery of his life of melancholy, he wrote mysteries where he could solve the crime through the use of logic and reasoning, two things his life seemed to have lacked.
This film, though filled with sadistic and torturous murders, may appeal more to literary minds than horror movie fanatics. But, even if you are not of the literary type, I strongly suggest seeing this film. In addition to the grotesque murder scenes and the mystery of seeking out the killer, the lighting and imagery is creepy to its core, setting an ominous mood, with dark and cloudy full moon night skies, foggy chases through skeletal forests, and gloomy graveyard searches. But what thrills me the most about this film is having Poe’s superb shocking tales on the big screen today, opening up a whole new generation to the works of a literary genius, the man who deserves all of our thanks for having been the inventor of the detective story, and master of the macabre.
Review by Renee S. Young DeCamillis 5/08/2012
