Jul
31
It took me a long time to warm up to “Hellraiser.” When I first got into horror, I was all about slasher movies, particularly the “Friday the 13th” films. I also dug the exploits of Freddy, Michael Myers, Leatherface, Candyman and even Chucky. So “Hellraiser” seemed like it’d be up my alley. A chap with a face full of nails shortening people’s life spans can hardly disappoint, right?
Well, “Hellraiser” isn’t really a slasher movie. The first time I saw it, I watched most of the movie in fast-forward. I didn’t fast-forward the gore scenes, but the character stuff, the gobs and gobs of character stuff. There’s actually a story being told in “Hellraiser,” believe it or not. In fact, the movie’s based on a novella by Clive Barker, who also directed the film. At 13 I couldn’t have cared less about the plot of “Hellraiser.” I simply wanted to watch hell being raised.
Now I love “Hellraiser.” It’s so gooey and grimy and great. Pinhead — the fellow who looks like he ran afoul of a nail gun — isn’t in the movie all that much, nor are his disfigured comrades in arms, the Cenobites. But the movie’s not really about him. Still, he has some bad ass lines: “No tears, please…it’s a waste of good suffering!”
I’m a loon.
Anyway, “Hellraiser” is one of the very few Clive Barker movies I like. But I am looking forward to the upcoming “Midnight Meat Train,” based on a short story by Barker. Unfortunately, Lionsgate is dumping the film in $1 theaters tomorrow, says Bloody Disgusting. Barker’s trying to ramp up an email campaign to get the film a better release pattern. I don’t think it’s going to happen.
I’m puzzled as to why the studio that “Saw” built has so much hate in its heart for “Midnight Meat Train.” Lionsgate has put out some real stinkers in recent years. Cripes, it’s the studio that foisted “American Psycho 2″ on an unsuspecting public. To be fair, it was a DTV entry. But Mila Kunis had to work overtime to earn back my trust for appearing in that bit of unholiness. At any rate, Lionsgate seems relatively shameless in releasing bad horror movies. That said, how bad can “Midnight Meat Train” be? The title alone suggests greatness. So why is the studio almost guaranteeing this film will have an anemic opening weekend? I dunno. Even if the suits at Lionsgate think it blows, they could more than likely recoup their production costs before word-of-mouth kills it by releasing the film in first-run theaters across the land. Every studio does that with their clunkers. Ask Uwe Boll.
On a side note, are there really still $1 theaters in America? I remember them from when I was a kid, but I haven’t been a kid in awhile. The last time I went to a “cheapie” theater, I paid like six or seven bucks to see a movie that had come out a few months ago.
Anyway, I’m not driving out to the boonies to watch Vinnie Jones carve up humans, not this weekend. And why should I when my favorite movie house in L.A. — the Nuart — is showing the film at midnight on August 15th? (Scroll down to the very bottom of the link for info.) The director will even be there, too. I just hope he’s not behind the counter selling popcorn.
-Brad Lohan
Jul
31
A “Venom” Filum?
Filed Under Comics, Movies | Leave a Comment
I’m an apologist for “Spider-Man 3.” Having gotten into comics in the early-’90s, I found it to be a fairly faithful adaptation — either intentional or not — of the types of comics that came out during that period, during the speculator boom that nearly tanked the industry. Characters became dark for darkness’ sake, origin stories were retconned for retcon’s sake, and Venom was in absolutely everything.
So who — or what — is Venom? Well, in the comics, Venom started out as an alien symbiote costume that Spider-Man happened upon during the first “Secret Wars” mini-series. Spidey’s outfit had been badly damaged, so he traded up for a midnight black outfit with a super-stylized, wraparound spider-symbol. That it was alive and sentient didn’t matter so much to him…at first anyway. It could imitate regular clothes! After returning to Earth — always a person’s first mistake — the costume tried to become Spidey’s BFF for life and bond with him permanently. He managed to rid himself of it with the help of Mr. Fantastic, but it escaped containment and came back angry. Spidey ultimately removed it from his person with the help of some noisy church bells. Unfortunately, the costume then bonded with Eddie Brock, a Catholic and a sociopath. Together, the symbiote and this Brock fellow became Venom — a beastie with Spidey’s powers and Beavis’ underbite.
“Spider-Man 3″ jettisons all the “Secret Wars” stuff and simply brings the alien costume to Earth via a meteor shower. In the film, it seems to augment Spidey’s superhuman strength and makes him more aggressive and gives him emo hair. It also makes him quite the dancer. But after he unintentionally pimp-slaps his ex-girlfriend, Spidey decides the costume has to go. What follows is straight from the comics.
According to the Hollywood Reporter, Sony’s developing a standalone “Venom” movie. Maybe the studio executives missed “Spider-Man 3″ or collectively went to the bathroom during the scene in which Spidey vaporizes Venom with a pumpkin bomb. Even for a comic book character, it’s hard to survive something like that.
Now, in the comics, I believe Eddie Brock is dead or something, and Mac Gargan — formerly the Scorpion –is currently wearing the symbiote costume. Alien parasites’ bereavement periods are surprisingly short, it seems. But in the flick, Brock and the symbiote die.
I guess another one of the meteors that crashes to Earth at the top of the “Spider-Man 3″ could have a symbiote in it. Maybe they all do. Whoa…that’s a lot of symbiotes. At any rate, I suppose it’s possible to have another guy — Gargan, perhaps — stumble upon one and become all Venom-y. I remember when I found out that the comics’ Venom isn’t Brock anymore. I was kinda disappointed. Then the Gargan Venom bit a dude’s arm off, and I was happy again.
I’m not sure what direction the film will go. Venom — the Brock one — sorta made peace with Spider-Man in the comics, and they teamed up to fight Venom’s psychopathic offspring, Carnage. Marvel had a mad on for symbiotes in the mid-’90s like you wouldn’t believe. I’d like to see Venom as a super-villain, not some dark hero, and the movie to be like a comic book take on “Scarface.” What if the thief who had shot Uncle Ben got spider-powers? I’m pretty sure something like that wouldn’t be box office poison.
-Brad Lohan
Jul
30
My, oh my, how far the parody movie genre has fallen. Remember “Airplane!” or “The Naked Gun” or even “Hot Shots?” Those movies were like feature-length “MAD” magazine parodies. Played totally straight, said movies were send-ups of a given genre — the airport disaster film, the police procedural, etc. — and breathtakingly funny, because for all their absurdity, they never overreached. Each film had a reverence for the source material and worked within those conventions. On top of all that, they told stories.
“Airplane!” is about an ex-fighter pilot named Ted Striker (Robert Hays). Having been shot down in Vietnam, Striker suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder and is terrified of getting back on a plane. But his stewardess girlfriend Elaine (played by Julie Hagerty) has just walked out on him. He follows her to the airport to convince her to stay with him. She refuses, so in his desperation, he buys a ticket for the flight she’s on, hoping that maybe he can still win her back if he persists. Once in the air, the flight crew and a number of the passengers become deathly ill from food poisoning. Striker’s the only one on board who has experience flying an aircraft and isn’t sick. So it falls on him to safely land the plane in Chicago with the help of his estranged girlfriend in the co-pilot’s chair.
And it’s a comedy!
“Airplane!” has a fairly melodramatic plot, huh? It’s supposed to. The movies “Airplane!” is based on have melodramatic plots. What makes the movie funny is that every scene that advances the plot does so in humorous way, by playing with audience expectations. We’ve seen movies like this hundreds of times before. “Airplane!” has fun with that. See, the film uses what’s called “intertextual knowledge,” our understanding of certain character types, plot contrivances and current events, for comedic effect. As an example, take Striker’s “drinking problem.” We’ve all scene movies with a character who has a drinking problem, right? But Striker’s drinking problem is different. Each time he tries to have a drink, he ends up throwing the beverage in his face.
It’s funnier when you see it.
What isn’t funny when you see it is any one of these new “Movie” films. You know what I’m talking about: “Scary Movie,” “Date Movie,” “Epic Movie,” “Superhero Movie,” and now “Disaster Movie.” These monstrosities clearly want to be like “Airplane!” but they have no effing idea how to pull it off. Or they don’t care. These movies simply dress up a bunch of no-name actors like characters in recent hit movies and shoehorn them into a series of loosely-connected scenes that are like scenes in other recent hit movies. Then someone hits his head on something! That’s your cue to laugh. Hmm, maybe I told the joke wrong.
No, the joke is on you if you watch this crap. The jerkstores who write and direct this drivel — Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer — aren’t telling stories, they’re not playing with audience expectations. These “Movie[s]” of theirs are plotless, pointless and more than a little plagiarized. They’re not only unfunny; they’re unoriginal. They have to blatantly steal from others.
Their latest effort, “Disaster Movie,” has a character that looks strikingly like Ellen Page in “Juno.” Here’s a news flash: “Juno” is a comedy. “Disaster Movie” is making fun…of a comedy. And these movies do this sort of thing every time. I can’t tell them apart really, but I know one had a guy who looked like Borat and another had a guy who looked like Napoleon Dynamite. How is this funny? These quasi-filmmakers are just telling someone else’s jokes. This is comedy for fans of Dane Cook.
I simply don’t understand modern day film audiences. They crave distraction, but not in any form that remotely resembles quality. The war cry of “I just wanna be entertained!” rings false with me when it comes to people want to see these movies. “Airplane!” will entertain you. It’ll tell you a story and make you laugh and stay with you long after you’ve seen it. You and your friends will quote it endlessly. It’s something you’ll watch over and over and find new things every time. Can anyone say that about one of these “Movie” films?
If so, that’s not funny, not funny at all.
-Brad Lohan
Jul
30
The last time I went trick-or-treating as a kid, I went as the Punisher. I was a little long-in-the-tooth — 12 or 13, making me the Roger Moore of trick-or-treaters — but my homemade costume was pretty sick. It’s unfortunate that said costume, particularly the Punisher’s milk-white stylized skull insignia, has never been fully embraced by the various film adaptations of the character. In the 1990 direct-to-video Dolph Lundgren entry, Punny doesn’t have a symbol on his chest at all, giving you some idea how loose an adaptation the film is. In 2004 Lionsgate put out a new Punisher film, starring Tom Jane. He had a runny-looking skull logo on his shirt in some scenes, but the character was too busy trying to fool villain Howard Saint (played by John Travolta) into thinking his wife was cheating on him to dole out all that much punishment; this whole infidelity subplot involved the Punisher using a fake fire hydrant. It’s amazing how filmmakers are so quick to jettison certain comic book elements — even awesome ones like the Punisher’s grim-looking chest insignia — but not some of their own criminally stupid ideas.
So let’s talk about “Punisher: War Zone,” the upcoming film directed by Lexi Alexander. It’s not a sequel to the ‘04 version, but another do-over. They’re going “back to one,” as they say on-set after a blown take. Never mind that the Tom Jane film was already a retcon. Part of me hopes that Lionsgate keeps rebooting the franchise until they get it right. I want video store racks to be lined with Punisher one-offs, like a dozen of ‘em. It’s sort of amazing to me that a character as simple and straightforward as the Punisher can’t be realized on film all that well.
For the uninitiated, the Punisher (nee Frank Castle) started out as a Spider-Man villain in the mid-’70s; he’s a vigilante who’s declared a one-man war on crime after the mob killed his family. His popularity led to more guest appearances in “Amazing Spider-Man” throughout the 1970s, a solo mini-series in the late-’80s, and at his peak in the early-’90s, four monthly titles: “The Punisher,” “The Punisher War: Journal,” “The Punisher: War Zone” and “The Punisher 2099.” Interest in the character soon began to decline as the market became flooded with more and more blood-drenched killing machines. And it could be said that the Punisher was a little overexposed. He even teamed up with Archie — yes, that Archie — in a one-shot crossover at one point. Currently, the Punisher appears in two monthly books, a “mature readers” title that probably is the finest interpretation of the character to date, and a more teen-friendly series with the most a laughably bad take on the character I’ve ever seen.
That said, I have yet to see Lexi Alexander’s “Punisher: War Zone” film adaptation. The ComiCon footage didn’t really blow me away, but I enjoyed the bit where the Punisher shoved a chair leg through a gentleman’s eyeball. Still, I’m just not entirely sure if Ms. Alexander deserves all the blame if this movie is the flop that many fans are prognosticating it will be. Film School Rejects is reporting that she’s rumored to have been fired from the project — never a good sign. Still, I’m somewhat convinced her behind-the-scenes battles with producers weren’t due to the fact she’d made a bad movie; rather, she hadn’t made it bad enough.
Now, I admire Gale Ann Hurd. She’s produced some fantastic films — “The Terminator,” “Aliens,” “The Abyss” — and some lesser ones as well, the 2004 version of “The Punisher” being chief among them. I am nevertheless completely enamored of women working in producing and/or directing roles, another reason why I’m hesitant to badmouth Lexi Alexander. Women filmmakers are so few and far between, and ones that make movies about people getting their heads blown off are all the more special. I’d like to imagine that a pairing of Ms. Hurd and Ms. Alexander would not result in a misfire. Alas, it seems that Alexander’s departure may be the result of her not wanting to play ball and make a movie that punishes mobsters and movie-goers alike.
-Brad Lohan
Jul
29
Harry Potter and the Trailer for a Movie Based on a Book I Haven’t Read
Filed Under Books, Movies | Leave a Comment
I’ve read the first three Harry Potter books and the last one. J.K. Rowling got a bit too wordy for me with “Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire.” I managed to power through the first 100 or so pages of that leviathan before I said, “The hell with it!” and waited for the movie-film. I did read the whole of “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows,” though, which comes in at around 7 million pages. It’s a little flabby in the middle, and at the climax, I was almost convinced that Harry and Lord Voldemort were just going to B.S. each other to death for all the dialogue that goes on between them.
At any rate, I’m somewhat unfamiliar with the goings on in book 6, “Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince,” apart from the fact that the half-blood prince is (*Spoiler Ahead*) Hans Gruber (*End Spoiler*). I’ve heard that the book’s talkier and less action-oriented than the others. Rowling loves her some exposition. The trailer for the upcoming film adaptation, now all over the Internets like ugly on an ape, is also a little light on action. The bulk of the 90-second spot is about a young Tom Riddle before his nose fell off and changed his name to something so sinister most people refuse to say it.
I really dug the last three Harry Potter movies. After Chris Columbus — director of movies one and two — realized he has about as much vision as your average second unit director and handed his bullhorn over to filmmakers like Alfonso Cuaron, the series really started to become more fantastical and less stage-bound. What I see in the new trailer looks interesting. Check out the embedded YouTube clip below.
-Brad Lohan
Jul
29
Quake Me Today
Filed Under Culture | Leave a Comment
The earth shook this morning in So. Cal. just before lunchtime, and it seems like everyone but me went ape. You’d think Californians wouldn’t be quite so rattled by…being rattled. I mean, I’ve been on “Earthquake: The Big One” during the Universal Studios Backlot Tour enough times to know that the undulations we felt today weren’t nothin’. According to the AP, the quake was a meh-worthy 5.4. Back in college, I’d learned in my astonishingly boring geology class that each tenth of a point you move up on the Richer scale is actually exponential. So the difference between a 5.4 and a 5.5 is fairly substantial, but not nearly as catastrophic as when you get up into the 6’s or higher.
So why’d everybody pee themselves this morning? I understand we live in a post-”Cloverfield” America, but still. This is California. We’re lousy with natural disasters — floods, wildfires, mudslides, earthquakes, “Meet Dave.” Besides, it’s not like the earth opened up and Satan crawled out.
I’m not trying to talk tough or anything. The last thing I want to do is be buried alive in some cataclysmic earthquake. I’ve already bought a ticket to see “The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor” this Friday, then I want to catch a midnight screening of “The Crow” at the Nuart afterwards. I’ve got stuff lined up is what I’m saying. But today’s little event was hardly worthy of going into full on panic mode. That said, the closer we get to the release of next year’s “Watchmen,” the more paranoid I may become about seismic activity.
When I got home from work this evening, I noticed the quake had taken its toll on many of the occupants in my apartment. Nearly all of my action figures on display — save for the Ninja Turtles Leonardo and Raphael — had toppled over. There weren’t any DVDs or books littering the floor, fortunately. The cat seemed just as kooky as usual.
Everything seems to be okay, L.A. Moving forward, I’ll let you know when it’s time to panic.
-Brad Lohan
Jul
29
I go to the movies a lot. A lot. Way more than you. Unless, of course, you’re a film critic, and then you go to the movies too much. Worse, you have to see movies like “Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants 2.” Face!
In going to the movies all the time, I’ve noticed that many, many people who also go to the movies often bring along one or more people. I mean, what’s more fun than ignoring your closest friends and/or loved ones for two hours while a movie’s happening? Well, that’s not true. They don’t always ignore each other. Some folks are apparently oblivious to the fact that it’s kind of understood there’s no talking during a movie and chat it up with their idiot friends for the entire running time. I’ve always wished a few ceiling tiles in the auditorium would come loose and fall on those people, but that has yet to occur. I remain hopeful.
At any rate, what I’m trying to get at is the sort of unwritten rule of moving-going: One never goes to the movies alone. Yes, you pay for your own ticket, you buy your own popcorn, candy and/or beverage, you find your own seat in the theater; but, you absolutely must do all of these things with other people. Going to the movies alone is Travis Bickle-type stuff. What are you, some kind of friendless weirdo? You have to go to the movies with at least one other person. To that, I say, “Pfft.”
If every time I went to the movies I had to go with someone else, I’d probably never see a movie again. Getting people in L.A. to do anything is like herding cats. I see hundreds of Los Angelinos at the movies every time I go and wonder how in the hell they wound up there. You have to master the art of compromise to pull off a trip to the movie house with your friends. Even then, you’re selling yourself short. First, they — these so-called friends of yours — never want to see whatever it is you want to see. Second, what they want to see is bilge. Third, your compromise film is either something you’ve already seen or something you’d rather wait to see on DVD if at all.
Last night, a friend of mine was in town. I met up with her and her annoying friends for dinner. The subject of going to the movies came up at one point. These gals clearly don’t read my blog. Here’s what they suggested we go see: “The X-Files: I Want to Believe,” “Mamma Mia” or “Wall-E.” Ugh. I bailed shortly thereafter, leaving them to their margaritas and bad taste in movie-films. Oddly, my friend has yet to see “The Dark Knight” — a flick I would’ve seen a fourth time with them had it been suggested — as she is the one and only human being who does not like Batman. How we are friends is fast becoming a mystery to me.
I realize that I take movie-going much more seriously than the average person. It’s not just something I do as a casual viewer, but as a ritual. Even in this town, it’s hard to find people who are as excited as I am about the experience of going to the movies. But if my taste stunk as bad as theirs does, I guess I could understand why I’d need the support of my closest friends to actually make it to the theater.
-Brad Lohan
Jul
27
We Don’t Need Another Anti-Hero
Filed Under Movies | 3 Comments
The term “anti-hero” annoys me sometimes. You want to know what an anti-hero is? A villain. But we live in a such a cynical time, where there’s apparently no room for conventional heroes. Mainstream audiences want some sort of complexity…but not really, hence the popularity of so-called anti-heroes. “The Dark Knight” is pwning every box office record known to man right now. The movie’s seemingly a celebration of anti-heroism, but not in the form of the titular character. No, the anti-hero in that film is Harvey Dent. We could play a game of semantics and state that the Joker is also and anti-hero, but let’s just call him the villain of the film and be done with it.
So what is an anti-hero, anyway? I’m glad you asked.
I’ll take back my earlier assertion that an anti-hero is simply the big bad, but only to some extent, which I will explain in a moment. “The Dark Knight” is as good an example as any to explore heroes, anti-heroes and villains, since the movie has one of each. Batman is the hero of the film, the Joker the villain and Harvey Dent the anti-hero. Why isn’t Batman also considered an anti-hero? I mean, he acts outside of the law, right? True. But Batman, like all heroes, is serving a cause that’s greater than himself — the pursuit of justice. Were Bruce Wayne to become a policeman or a lawyer or a politician, he would be resigning himself to some institution that can be corrupted. In the guise of Batman, he’s above all of that. Yes, he blows up private property and manages to invade the privacy of every Gothamite, but it’s all in the service of a greater good, bringing about justice.
We all know what a villain is, so let’s just skip over the Joker and get to the meat of this blog — how to define an anti-hero.
At the beginning of “The Dark Knight,” the new D.A. Harvey Dent is described as a “white knight.” He’s not intimidated by attempts on his life by the mob, nor does his lament Batman’s efforts in busting criminals’ heads. What matters to him is cleaning up Gotham and deepening his relationship with an on-the-rebound Rachel Dawes. Like Batman, he’s incorruptible and relentless in his pursuit of justice. He’s your typical flawless do-gooder. (*Spoilers Ahead*) Then he gets half his face burned off in a warehouse explosion and loses the love of his life in a similar blast. (*End Spoilers*) His world, not to mention his concept of justice, is shattered. He’s no longer interested in the pursuit of justice, but revenge. Revenge is not about serving a great good; it’s about serving oneself. Harvey Dent has gone from being a hero at the top of the film to being anti-hero by film’s end.
And that’s why I chafe when every protag is branded an anti-hero for whatever reason. More often than not, they’re the very definition of your standard hero. Folks might suggest that the reason so-and-so is an anti-hero is because he’s reluctant. A “reluctant hero” is a redundancy. Do you want to know what a hero does once he receives his Call to Adventure?” He says, “Hell no!” The first step of the hero’s journey is the Refusal of the Call. Remember all the hemming-and-hawing Luke Skywalker did when Obi-Wan Kenobi asked him to come to Alderaan with him? All heroes start out reluctant. If they dove right in, it’d make them less interesting — and less relatable — as characters.
So who do I consider to be an anti-hero? Well, Snake Plissken in John Carpenter’s “John Carpenter’s Escape from New York” (yes, I wrote John Carpenter’s name twice as a gag) is a pretty good example. He’s about as self-serving as one can get. It isn’t until tiny explosive charges are embedded in his carotid arteries that he becomes all that interested in getting the President out of the maximum security prison that Manhattan Island has become. His heroic actions are secondary to his own best interests. Once he’s saved el presidente, he even sabotages the commander-in-chief’s peacekeeping efforts, proving that he serves no cause but his own.
See, an anti-hero isn’t just someone who is unlikely. He’s someone who is only slightly less bad than the villain. He has a code of ethics, but they apply only to what he stands to gain from going on the journey. He’s compelled by a cause rooted in personal interest (revenge, enrichment, self-preservation, clearing his name, a way out of the life he’s chosen, etc.), not anything more than that. This doesn’t diminish anti-heroes as characters, being in it for number one. They can act heroically and unheroically in equal measure. Their unpredictability is their appeal.
Now I like anti-heroes…when they’re actually anti-heroes. I hate it when they’re mislabeled. Hollywood’s clearly not interested in creating a demarcation around how an anti-hero is defined. A dude wears black, and boom, there’s your anti-hero. But he’s still just your average good guy in ungood guy drag. I’m anti that.
-Brad Lohan
Jul
27
“Baghead” Review
Filed Under Indies, Movies | Leave a Comment
I hadn’t heard the term mumblecore until just recently. Considering the Wikipedia definition of the filmmaking style, it appears that I should be more than a little familiar with it, as I’ve made a couple shorts that could easily be described as mumblecore. The term sounds like a pejorative, though. Mumblecore filmmakers are simply using cost-effective approaches to storytelling, like guerilla filmmakers have for decades. It’s easier now with DV cameras are living in a town lousy with out-of-work actors. That reminds me. I really need to get on the ball and make a movie-film.
This afternoon, I saw the Duplass Brothers’ “Baghead.” It’s a mumblecore film about four aspiring actors that hole up in a cabin for the weekend to write a movie that will star them. There’s doughy Chad (Steve Zissis), bohunk Matt (Ross Partridge), pixie-like Michelle (Greta Gerwig) and model-quality Catherine (Elise Muller). Chad’s in love with Michelle, but Michelle likes Matt, and Matt used to date Catherine. What’s more, they’re being stalked by some lunatic wearing a paper grocery sack on his head.
I like scripts that are partially improvised. Coming from someone who’s a writer, I guess that may sound weird to you. But solid actors can be more than just mouthpieces for scripted dialogue. Sometimes you discover things in the moment that aren’t on the page. At any rate, the script for “Baghead” seems like it’s more of a jumping off point than a to-do list. I think the performances in the film really have a life and energy that would’ve been lacking had the actors been slaves to a standard indie dramedy dialogue. There are just so many great little nuances that sound authentic, fragmented speeches and conversations that don’t quite go anywhere. None of it is “mumbled” or inaudible, either, like what you’d expect from something that’s been dubbed mumblecore.
Is “Baghead” scary? Well, I don’t want to give too much away in regards to the horror elements. The movie definitely spends more time on the relationships than on the stalk-and-slash. When it becomes clear to the four character that there’s someone else in the woods, someone who’s really stalking them and not playing a game, the movie is more gripping than your average dead teenager flick. You’re invested in these characters and want to see them make it out of there alive.
I liked “Baghead.” It’s a fun little genre-bending indie, the kind of movie that inspires you to grab a camera, grab some friends and make a mumblecore film of your own. Just make sure everyone speaks up, so the audience can hear.
-Brad Lohan
Jul
25
After I graduated from film school in 2002, I moved to Hollywood, thinking that my talent for writing would easily land me a screenwriting gig. Well, it’s been almost 6 years now. A couple of my scripts have been semi-finalists in screenplay competitions, and I’ve had exactly one meeting with a producer about a low-budget script I’d entered in the Nicholl Fellowships. But nothing’s really come of any of my screenwriting efforts to date, regardless of the fact that I live right where it all happens.
Meanwhile, a buddy of mine from film school, Sean Gleaves, stayed in Washington and found himself a writing gig on an independent film produced there called “GPS.” As part of the Action on Film International Festival program, I finally got to check it out. The film was screened in Old Pasadena at the One Colorado — a theater I used to work across the street from during my days at Yahoo. So my living in Los Angeles fortunately positions me that much closer to art houses screening my former classmates’ films.
At least I’ve got that going for me.
Anyway, before I begin my review of “GPS” in earnest, I have to mention the short film, “Apparition,” that was screened before it. Now I’ve seen some truly awful shorts — hell, I’ve written and directed a couple myself — but “Apparition” is like a punch to the man-parts. It’s about three friends on a camping trip. On the drive home, their SUV goes over a cliff. Two of them manage to escape, but they can’t pull the third one out in time. So they leave him to die in a firey explosion. A month later, the surviving female friend has a vision of the dead guy — all burned and gnarly looking — while taking a tastefully-shot shower. Later, the surviving male friend comes over to her house. She sees the dead guy again, this time in the kitchen, standing behind the guy who’s not dead. She dumps the guy who’s alive for no reason, he leaves, and she goes to bed. THAT’S THE WHOLE FRIGGIN’ MOVIE!!!
I understand that “Apparition” is a short, and short films don’t always have endings that tie up everything like feature films do. But, WTF?! The film ends about two acts too soon. Even shorts have a three-act structure. It’s not as though I wanted “Apparition” to go on much longer — as it is, it’s a pretty horrid way to spend 10 minutes of your life — but they weren’t even trying. If anything, it’s inspired me to make another short film just to show idiots like the auteurs behind “Apparition” how it’s done.
With all that out of the way, what follows is my review of “GPS.” It’s a stalk-and-slash movie about a group of campers on a GPS hunt, looking for $2 million in stolen money a friend of theirs has hidden deep in the woods. Before seeing the film I was completely unfamiliar with the concept of a GPS hunt. Like I said, I live in Los Angeles. As far as I’m concerned, going into the woods is something you do if you’re interested in having your head split open by some hatchet-wielding psychopath. But there are some folks out there, I guess, who go on these types of hunts — plugging coordinates they get off the Internet into their hand-held GPS units — to find all sorts of treasures…when they’re not getting stabbed repeatedly, shot full of arrows, or being impaled on a tree branches.
Now I love slasher films. There’s something about stupid young people being destroyed way out in the middle of nowhere by a masked killer that appeals to me. Probably my biggest critique of “GPS” is that it’s not a more straightforward slasher movie. Tonally, it’s a little uneven because the horror is introduced rather late in the film. I initially thought the movie was a light-hearted adventure until about the midpoint when the kids discover footage of one of their friends getting his head caved in.
Knowing Sean as well as I do, I imagine most of the issues I have with the script — co-written by the director Eric Colley and star Hallie Shepherd — probably weren’t his idea. I’d bet cash money that the ridiculously overwrought motive the killer provides at the end of the film wasn’t something he’d suggested during the development stages. It’s almost a self-reflexive send-up of all the bizarro contrivances that drive a slasher movie psychopath to cut people into tiny pieces, it’s so out of left field.
Despite its flaws, the movie was produced. I can’t say that about anything I’ve written. So for those of you keeping score it’s…
Sean: 1
Brad: 0
“GPS” hasn’t quite put Sean on the map yet — har, har. But when and if it does, I hope he doesn’t forget about the little people like me, not to mention my extremely well-written entertainment blog that doubtless made it all possible.
-Brad Lohan