Showing posts with label LEIGH WHANNELL. Show all posts
Showing posts with label LEIGH WHANNELL. Show all posts

Friday, October 27, 2017

Dying Breed


Dying Breed (2008)
Dir Jody Dwyer
Written by Michael Boughen, Rod Morris
Starring Leigh Whannell, Mirrah Foulkes, Nathan Phillips, Melanie Vallejo




DYING BREED is one of those movies they made for those After Dark Horrorfests they used to have for a little while in the mid-2000’s, arriving the same year as FROM WITHIN and a year after BORDERLANDS. And “one of those movies” really is a pretty good description of it. Like the vast majority of AFTER DARK HORRORFEST entries (or, if we're being entirely honest, most horror movies produced in the 2000s), it’s generally competent without exactly being effective, serious-minded without exactly being interesting, gritty without exactly being scary, and based on a decent concept which never exactly develops into an actual plot. The kind of thing which is good enough that you wish it was either better or worse, instead of just sort of there.


I do like the hook, though. The film begins in Tasmania in the early 1800s, with infamous escaped convict and confessed cannibal Alexander Pearce (sporting what look to be straight-up monster teeth) killing a victim and then using the flesh to befriend the local predacious Thylacines (better known as Tasmanian Tigers). Though it’s executed without much elegance, this is clearly the opening to what can only be a pretty badass movie. Except that it then immediately abandons this setup and leaps forward in time to present day (2008), where Nina (Mirrah Foulkes, THE GIFT[ 2015]) is traveling to the Tasmanian wilderness in an effort to find proof that the Tasmanian Tiger (believe to be extinct since 1930) actually lives on, hidden, in the isolated countryside. Obviously this is a worthwhile endeavor, but she also has a personal flashback-related reason to do this: her older sister died doing the same thing several years earlier. I don't know about you, but when I have a friend or loved one die while doing something stupid and dangerous, I avoid doing that thing instead of rushing out immediately to exactly repeat the experience, but you know how it is in crazy mixed-up upside-down Australia-land. Along for the ride are her accommodating boyfriend (Leigh Whannell, COOTIES, at his most bland), his obnoxious crossbow-toting alpha male buddy Jack (Nathan Phillips, SNAKES ON A PLANE), and Jack’s cannon-fodder girlfriend (Melanie Vallejo, apparently star of one of the dozens or hundreds of Power Ranger variations). They will quickly discover evidence of the elusive Tasmanian Tiger, but even more quickly discover that the DYING BREED of the title is in fact not the elusive marsupial, but actually the backwoods inbred cannibals still indigenous to the area.




And that’s actually a shame, because there’s something genuinely intriguing going on here, thematically linking the gradual extinction of the Tasmanian Tiger (nobody ever calls it a Thylacine, because that’s the kind of movie we’re dealing with here) with the slowly dying Tasmanian wilderness village culture, killed off by encroaching modernity and a lack of fresh blood, and just as vicious as the Tasmanian Tiger when cornered. It could almost be a sort of ode to the feral outback culture which --like the Tiger itself-- became a key staple of Australian identity only as it was in its death throes (it's certainly part of the DNA of 2011's THE HUNTER, which also focuses on a hunt for the Thylacine). And tying the infamous Pearce into that history (it’s implied that he founded the film's community of inbred [spoiler] cannibals, though in reality he was captured and hanged less than a year after his escape) smartly weaves a bit of Australian home-grown folklore into the mix.


Writers Michael Boughen (Producer of THE LOVED ONES) and Rod Morris (second unit director here, in his only screenplay) and director Jody Dwyer (a few short films and nothing else) definitely seem to understand there’s something tantalizing going on here with these connections, which after all have no real narrative reason to be here and seem to be included purely for thematic purposes. Unfortunately, after having neatly assembled the raw pieces of an interesting theme, they're frustratingly unable to figure out how to actually weave them into something coherent, let alone do so within the context of a plot. And unable to think of anything interesting to do with the premise they’ve set up, they retreat almost immediately into an unexceptional HILLS HAVE EYES retread. All that stuff with the opening in 1822, the maybe not-quite-extinct Tasmanian Tiger, the talk of a dying culture… it never meaningfully informs the rest of the movie. Instead, all you get is four victims being gradually picked off by a clan of murderous inbred backwoods psychos in the most standard possible mode. It’s respectable enough as far as these things go, I suppose, but it’s not a genre I have a lot of affection for; like so many things from this era of horror, it’s too cruel and humorless to be much fun, but also way too silly and phony to be seriously disturbing. It wants to shock and horrify, it really does, and it doesn’t skimp on the sadism or the gore, but it lacks much imagination for either of those things and the merely adequate filmmaking can’t make up the difference.




This was, after all, the heyday of what came to be called, fairly or unfairly, “torture porn,” and there’s certainly more than a little of that impulse on display here. Superficially, the Redneck Inbred Cannibal Killer subgenre has a lot in common with the Slasher subgenre: a group of victims get killed off one by one in gorey, over-the-top ways by a colorful villain in both of them. But to me, there’s a crucial difference between the two subgenres in the actual mechanics of the horror. Slashers tend to be structured, at their most fundamental level, as suspense movies; we know the killer is stalking the horny teens, but mostly they don’t realize what’s going on until the big climax, when the “final girl” has to confront and escape the killer in what is hopefully an exciting chase. The Cannibal Killer subgenre, on the other hand --taking its cues from HILLS HAVE EYES and TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE-- tends to eschew suspense in favor of creating a harrowing experience. The victims typically know they’re in danger almost immediately, but are unable to do much about it. They spend the whole film being terrorized and brutalized by their tormentors, completely disempowered or at least only falteringly able to offer defense. Which really describes “torture porn” at its most definitional level too, no? The emphasis is on the victim’s suffering, not necessarily on the tension over how and if they will escape, since most of the time escape, or even defense, is simply impossible. I know there are people who go for that sort of thing, and certainly in a few select cases it’s resulted in real masterpieces (TEXAS CHAINSAW, obviously), but at least to me, grueling is a much less engaging mode than gripping. And grueling is definitely what’s on DYING BREED’s agenda, but it’s just not smart or creative or well-made enough to achieve the kind of visceral potency that approach requires.


I’ll give it this, though: it’s mostly pretty rote and uninspired, but it does have one thing that it’s just great at: bear traps. Its solitary two sequences of any real potency are both bear trap porn, the first being a journey through a long, black tunnel full of them which our heroes have to gingerly navigate (and will eventually have to flee desperately through), which is a fine, sturdy bit of cringe-inducing setpiecery. Later, the film’s only “good kill” comes from one of our victims stepping in a bear trap… and then falling face-first into another bear-trap. I’m pretty sure I’ve seen this little antic before in some other movie (pretty sure they do that in PUMPKINHEAD IV, for example), but it’s definitely a good one, and this time I really noticed the appealing crunching sound a human skull makes when it attempts to resist the iron teeth of death. A good show, there.




Otherwise, though, it’s a film in search of a reason to exist. Despite the exotic location and the intriguing setup, there’s not much to distinguish it from any given WRONG TURN sequel, except that with only four victims it takes way too long to get going and suffers from a lack of potential victims. Most of it isn’t very well staged (the climax, in particular, feels clunky and fragmented and confusing, like maybe they couldn’t really shoot everything they wanted and just had to make do with the bits they had) and although it is appreciably gory in places, it’s just not interesting enough to make its sadism anything but a turn-off. Case in point: its idea of the obligatory dark final twist at the end is that [spoiler] Nina survives, but only to be repeated raped and used as breeding stock by giggling toothless yokels until her death. She’s barely even a character (the story seems to posit her as the protagonist, but inexplicably dumps her to follow the men once the genre stuff gets going) but even so, that’s just no fun. The movie seems pretty pleased with itself for going there, but I dunno man, maybe I’m just getting old, but sometimes going there simply for the sake of going there isn’t enough. You need a reason to go there, and DYING BREED never really comes up with one.


Still, a good bear trap death is a good bear trap death. I’d probably watch a sequel, I dunno.


There are no martini glasses in the movie, unfortunately.


CHAINSAWNUKAH 2017 CHECKLIST!

The Discreet Charm of the Killing Spree


TAGLINE
Every BODY has different taste, emphasis theirs. Also, Some Species Are Better Off Dead, which seems unnecessarily harsh.
TITLE ACCURACY
Accurate
LITERARY ADAPTATION?
No
SEQUEL?
None
REMAKE?
No
COUNTRY OF ORIGIN
Australia
HORROR SUB-GENRE
Inbred Cannibal Psychos (just a hair’s breath from CABIN IN THE WOODS ‘Zombie Redneck Torture Family’)
SLUMMING A-LISTER?
None
BELOVED HORROR ICON?
Leigh Whannell counts, I think.
NUDITY?
Just as a dismembered corpse.
SEXUAL ASSAULT?
Yeah, pretty bad scene there, even if it’s not graphic
WHEN ANIMALS ATTACK!
Animals figure heavily into the plot, but tend to be victims instead of perpetrators of violence. Think there might be a jump scare with a growling dog, though.
GHOST/ ZOMBIE / HAUNTED BUILDING?
No
POSSESSION?
No
CREEPY DOLLS?
No
EVIL CULT?
No
MADNESS?
Some
TRANSMOGRIFICATION?
No
VOYEURISM?
Someone is said to be watching this couple bone
MORAL OF THE STORY
If your sister died a horrible painful death while doing something incredibly dangerous, stop for a minute and ask yourself if you should now do the exact same thing which just killed her.


Thursday, February 16, 2017

Cooties


Cooties (2014)
Dir. Jonathan Milott, Cary Murnion
Written by Leigh Whannell, Ian Brennan
Starring Elijah Wood, Alison Pil, Rainn Wilson, Morgan Lilly, Jack McBrayer, Leigh Whannell

This poster is almost a parody of what comically terrible, low-effort photoshop would look like on a movie poster.

COOTIES is part of an increasingly pervasive invasion of movies --almost certainly underwritten by the Kremlin to destroy our resolve as Americans-- which follow in the footsteps of 2004’s SHAUN OF THE DEAD and 2009’s ZOMBIELAND to comprise a subgenre now known as the Zom-Com, or, often, the Zom-Rom-Com. As we discussed in the badly-named but fun WYRMWOOD: ROAD OF THE DEAD, you can’t throw a gnawed-off finger these days without hitting some smirking wannabe clever Zombie riff with some stupid gimmick and a low-effort pun for a title. This trend was quite frankly getting a little tedious ten years ago, and yet for some reason we’re still going with no end in sight. ZOMBEAVERS, really? That’s a pun which would strain to get a chuckle out of a room of stoned teenagers, and yet lucky us, we get a whole movie about it.


But COOTIES, I must admit, has a pretty good hook -- it’s about a zombie outbreak which occurs in an elementary school and specifically targets only the children, pitting the teachers against a raging, homicidal horde their former wards. As a one-time public school teacher myself, I can safely say that this is already how teachers feel, so it’s nice to have some art which offers a little catharsis. Plus, as a horror fan, there are few come-ons more tempting than the question of who can will a child? It’s exactly the kind of inherently sensitive topic which a good horror comedy should be able to tweak some gleeful bad taste from. Good (or even decent) Horror-comedies are pretty rare, of course, but if we’re coasting on outrageous content I think we can safely accept over-the-top zombie child kills as acceptable horror fare, even if the auterial intent is naughty snickering instead of spine-melting terror.




Indeed, COOTIES is much more comedy than horror in tone, and, like its obvious predecessor ZOMBIELAND, doesn’t even seem particularly interested in its horror elements, except as a plot device. It’s not in any sense a parody, nor does it have any real drive to examine or push the genre’s form. In fact, it doesn’t much appear to be made by anyone with a lot of understanding or affection for horror films in general (of the creative team, only SAW writer Leigh Whannell has any previous professional experience with the genre) nor does much of its humor derive from any particulars of its horror scenario. The plot is as boilerplate as these things come: a group of teachers get caught in a zombie student uprising during the school day, and have to grudgingly work together to survive and escape. But that’s mostly just a framework for the movie to coast on -- the comedy comes from the broadly-drawn stereotypes the movie throws into this situation: nebbish aspiring novelist Clint (Elijah Wood, MANIAC), his vaguely-defined romantic interest Lucy (Alison Pil, Zelda Fitzgerald in MIDNIGHT IN PARIS), her inexplicably assholish boyfriend Wade (Rainn Wilson, SUPER), the gay guy (Jack McBrayer, 30 Rock), the shrill right winger (Nasim Pedrad, SNL), the awkward weirdo (Leigh Whannell, THE BYE BYE MAN), and the holy shit what the fuck were they thinking regressive racist caricature (Peter Kwong, BIG TROUBLE IN LITTLE CHINA).


If that sounds a tad sit-communist to you, I can only commend you on your keen powers of observation. But just because COOTIES is entirely comprised of one hack premise haphazardly stuffed into another hack premise, doesn’t mean it’s not entertaining. Sometimes lazy writing can still be funny in the right hands, and it turns out that Wood, Pil, Wilson, McBrayer, Whannell and Pedrad are indeed the right hands for this.* They all seem to realize that they’re playing cardboard-thin stock types (McBrayer has literally nothing but gay jokes) and correctly redirect their focus from acting to entertaining. With this script and premise, entertaining was all it could ever hope to be, and entertaining it is, with each actor playing their required type with enthusiasm and a singleminded focus on generating amusement from whatever’s handy, resulting in gags about speech impediments, stoners, obnoxious right-wingers, wannabe artists, and yes, poop. Lowbrow? Sure, but not without its charm. It’s brisk, energetic, and liberally sodden with featherweight goofiness.




That’s not a bad thing -- in fact, I quite enjoyed its breezy 88 minutes. But for a movie which seems to really, really want to be a transgressive midnight movie, it’s hard not to notice that it’s just not really mean --or imaginative-- enough to make the grade. If you want to see child killing, there’s a little in there, but the movie is pretty squeamish about it and mostly dodges the many opportunities the scenario presents. In fact, while it doesn’t completely eschew the expected zombie gore, it doesn’t really linger on it either, or seem especially interested in cultivating any big fright moments. It’s far more interested in the boilerplate romantic triangle between Wood, Pil, and Wilson which provides most of the narrative conflict. That’s where its priorities lie, for better or worse.


I have mixed feelings about how well that works. The result, of course, is a film which seems to be a horror film in a surprisingly offhanded sort of way, like they used the zombie setup as a convenient story structure to frame the quirky comedy they really wanted to make. But while the comedy is clearly the movie’s strong suit, I can’t in good conscience say it’s any great shakes either. It’s amusing in its broad, silly sort of way, but that’s mostly a result of the winning performances of the cast, more than the inherent worth of the material. If it weren’t for the zombies, this would absolutely not be a story worth telling, and yet the zombies feel weirdly sidelines and underutilized, which makes the whole thing feel slight and underbaked. It’s cheerful and ingratiating, but there’s something wrong with your zombie movie when the most unique thing in it is the socially awkward weirdo character played by Leigh Whannell, who is introduced reading a book called “How To Carry A Normal Conversation.” That’s very nearly identical to a joke I wrote for a short school play in 6th grade, but at least it’s still a funny one. Should we be shooting for more ambitious comedy than a lazy 6th-grader? Maybe, but I guess a joke that works is still a joke that works. COOTIES is not a bad way to waste an afternoon, but one can’t help wish the ambitions here were a little more robust.


* No offense to Kwong, who admirably commits to a character too fundamentally ill-conceived be salvaged.  

I'd watch the shit out of the movie that this poster advertises.


CHAINSAWNUKAH 2016 CHECKLIST!
Good Kill Hunting


TAGLINE
You Are What They Eat. and Please Don’t Feed The Children
TITLE ACCURACY
Sure, whatever.
LITERARY ADAPTATION?
No
SEQUEL?
No
REMAKE?
No
COUNTRY OF ORIGIN
USA
HORROR SUB-GENRE
Zombies, horror-comedy
SLUMMING A-LISTER?
Elijah Wood? I mean, it seems like he’s done nothing but horror movies since his LotR days, but I think he’s still a pretty big deal, right?
BELOVED HORROR ICON?
Leigh Whannell. And I think we probably have to count Wood too by this point.
NUDITY?
No
SEXUAL ASSAULT?
No
WHEN ANIMALS ATTACK!
Just children
GHOST/ ZOMBIE / HAUNTED BUILDING?
Zombies, but they’re the “infected” running variety
POSSESSION?
No
CREEPY DOLLS?
None
EVIL CULT?
Nah
MADNESS?
None
TRANSMOGRIFICATION?
Just people into zombies
VOYEURISM?
None
MORAL OF THE STORY
Who can kill a child? Pretty much anyone, if the little fucker is persistent enough in trying to bite you.