Movie Review: 1922 (2017)

    

"Slow burn" is the term used continuously by critics when describing 1922, Zak Hilditch's adaptation of Stephen King's novella featured in Full Dark, No Stars. This is a movie about a farmer (played by Thomas Jane) who conspires with his teenage son to kill his wife. The weight of that guilt puts a burden on each of these characters, their personal lives, and the intimate relationship that develops between them during the 101 minute runtime. The critical consensus can be misleading and biased, but 1922 is a great, yet extremely slow, horror movie which succeeds in creating a lucid, haunting effect. Thomas Jane gives a sinister and manipulative performance and here is a project where Jane has a lot of range with his acting. Perhaps even better in his shadow was Dylan Schmid who has to channel emotional pain far beyond the level someone of his age would be expected to go through. Hilditch's direction is gorgeous; with wide angle landscape shots and fantastic depth in each and every frame. The look and feel of this movie is so impeccable in places, that it's hard to believe there are flaws. 1922 is a great film, but it does bare issues and narrative holes. Getting to that slow burn, the movie is more of a building of tension in order to get Wilfred's character (Jane) to arch. Yet in doing so, the pacing suffers and lags in many places. This is not a boring movie, but the script is dragged out to the point where any meaning is flattened and voided of any possible impact. The movie also contains heavy handed exposition throughout the entire film as Thomas Jane's character Wilf gives a narration. This is one of those elements where viewers may be torn. On one hand the narration provides some background and sets up the lifestyle and culture surrounding this salt-of-the-earth family in the early twenties. But it also means that our understanding of this film, which is a visual phantasm, could not be complete without someone constantly explaining everything to the audience. And it is these two elements that make the movie feel a tad uneven. Don't be misleaded; this is a GREAT horror movie that is very creepy and makes every inch of your skin crawl, but it doesn't payoff instantly. There are no jump scares in this movie, no loud sound effects (sound design was outstanding though), no blatant usage of CGI. This is a type of film that will polarize audiences, as it has polarized your writer. Yet the pros do outweigh the cons which is enough to satisfy even the least schooled Stephen King fans. Overall, 1922 is a slow build, with an emphasis on the human condition, that will polarize and yet never fails to please. Three stars= A-

Movie Review: Friday the 13th (1980)

It is an axiom that every Friday the 13th, the cult-classic horror movie will resurface in online and in person conversations. Not to mention the debate that people have had (for what I perceive) to be quite a long time: is Friday the 13th a good movie? Sean S. Cunningham's slasher movie revolves around a group of teenagers who are stalked and killed by an ambiguous murderer while staying at a summer camp. The movie is extremely low-budget and from the establishing shot we can tell that the shoe-string, B-movie feel is going to either sink or swim. Thirty seven years later, I think it simultaneously serves and dismembers itself. Friday the 13th is a fun watch that (if not taken too seriously) can be legitimately entertaining and scary. That being the case, the lack of a budget does show and it causes the film to not hold up as well all this time later. The acting is not on the table and character development seems to be the last thing the creators of Friday the 13th contemplated. Instead we get a shooting range for characters that we don't care about. For a ninety-minute runtime this was acceptable. This is a fun movie and it should be given credit for teaching aspiring filmmakers how a big budget is not always needed to make an enjoyable, campy (no pun attended) horror flick. There is also some really promising gore in this movie which I had forgotten since last watching this. Another great part of the film is how it ends. Without spoiling anything, Friday the 13th crafts it's ending in the perfect way to set up a sequel, and man are their tons. Between endless Jason movies, Freddy Vs. Jason, and a comic book series, there is certainly a lot of universe building when it comes to this franchise. It wasn't uncommon for that to happen either, Halloween did it, and even Pumpkinhead managed to establish a world of it's own. That said, the best film in the Friday the 13th series for a non-lore fan would be this one as it isn't trying to be a seed for forthcoming projects. Sure, it isn't perfect, but this is a far more suitable film than one might expect in the 21st century. Overall, Friday the 13th is an enjoyable, entertaining slasher movie that makes good utilization of a shoe string budget (even though sometimes it is two-fold) and delivers great bloody fun. Two stars= C+

Movie Review: Pumpkinhead (1988)

At the root of all good horror is pain. Which is exactly what Lance Henriksen's character Ed deals with in Stan Winston's Pumpkinhead. After Ed's son is killed in a freak motorcycle accident, he conjures the spirit of the 'Pumpkinhead' which can be sent after someone who has committed a raw crime against you. The young adults (whose performances are the definition of forgettable) responsible for killing his son gather in a cabin where Pumpkinhead  proceeds to kill them. Winston's vision for this movie and storytelling is quite on point. Understanding what true horror is and how to craft it well throughout a film is a task many have failed at, but it's one of the areas where Pumpkinhead succeeds. The emotional drama in this movie is quite well placed and hits home. What fails in this movie are the performances. Aside from Lance Henrisksen who is stellar, the rest of the cast flops and it becomes increasingly more apparent when the movie derails in it's third and final act. This is a fun and entertaining movie that is perfect to pop in during Halloween time. However, there is nothing really under the surface, other than a decent concept and some flushed out characters. The entertainment factor is high here and that is what saves Pumpkinhead from being a flop. To classify this movie and to critique it is difficult because it's so unconventional. The concept is a combination of wondrous originality and horror movie tropes that we've seen endless times. Pumpkinhead is fun though and it's interesting to see how much people like this movie. The special effects are great for the late eighties and that is one of the more redeeming qualities of this film. Not to mention that the beginning of the movie really does set up an interesting premise and unique storyline, but as the film progresses it spirals out of control and descends into a generic, if not dull, horror movie that is so very unoriginal. Overall, Pumpkinhead is an alright movie, but an entertaining horror film which had it stuck to the more original roots would have been a much more unique and engaging horror movie. Two stars= C+