A Rundown of the 13 (+1) Best Horror Movies I've Seen in the Past Year

[2 of 13]

EXCISION

(January 2012)

Writer/director Richard Bates, Jr. expands on his 2008 short film, Excision, transforming the original 18-minute short into an 81-minute study of disturbed youth and the dreams of the perfect family just gone horribly wrong, as 90210’s AnnaLynne McCord takes the role of Pauline, a high school student with aspirations of becoming a surgeon.

Now, while normally, a teen-ager with ambition who knows exactly what they want out of life is a good thing, it’s so not a good thing where Pauline is concerned.

With a stellar supporting cast--Roger Bart, Traci Lords, Marlee Matlin, Malcolm McDowell, Ray Wise, and John Waters as Reverend William (!)--Excision, just like Pauline, knows exactly what it wants, and knows how to get there; the basic beats of the short are taken and transformed into pivotal scenes in the feature, while time is taken to further explore the narrative’s key filial relationships.

Infused with the black humour of Heathers, and compounded by gore and disturbing sexual imagery, Excision is the kind of film that lays out its cards and isn’t shy to tell you where it is it’s going to end up.

Still, filled with that sick sense of foreboding, you’re hoping it doesn’t go where you may imagine it will, because that way will only end in tears.

But of course, it does, and even though you may have anticipated it, the climax still packs a gut-wrenching wallop that’s both horrifying and tragic.

(Excision OS courtesy of bloody-disgusting.com; DVD cover art courtesy of shocktillyoudrop.com.)

¡Qué horror! 2013

Candidate # 2

SMILEY

(October 2012)

There are a lot of interesting and intriguing ideas that inform Michael Gallagher’s feature debut, Smiley, which is ostensibly a Candyman for the age of the internetz.

Gallagher takes a screenplay he co-wrote with Glasgow Phillips (who’s written for such animated TV shows as South Park and Father of the Pride, and who came up with the story alongside Ezra Cooperstein) and gives us a crackerjack title that explores the idea of evil and nihilism as filtered through the enormity and anonymity of cyberspace.

Plus, we’ve also got Roger Bart in a supporting role, and one of the most simple yet freakily disturbing (and yes, awfully du jour) slasher designs ever seen on screen.

(Smiley OS’ courtesy of impawards.com.)

¡Qué horror! 2013

Candidate # 1

EXCISION

(January 2012)

Writer/director Richard Bates, Jr. expands on his 2008 short film, Excision, transforming the original 18-minute short into an 81-minute study of disturbed youth and the dreams of the perfect family just gone horribly wrong, as 90210’s AnnaLynne McCord takes the role of Pauline, a high school student with aspirations of becoming a surgeon.

Now, while normally, a teen-ager with ambition who knows exactly what they want out of life is a good thing, it’s so not a good thing where Pauline is concerned.

With a stellar supporting cast--Roger Bart, Traci Lords, Marlee Matlin, Malcolm McDowell, Ray Wise, and John Waters as Reverend William (!)--Excision, just like Pauline, knows exactly what it wants, and knows how to get there; the basic beats of the short are taken and transformed into pivotal scenes in the feature, while time is taken to further explore the narrative’s key filial relationships.

Infused with the black humour of Heathers, and compounded by gore and disturbing sexual imagery, Excision is the kind of film that lays out its cards and isn’t shy to tell you where it is it’s going to end up.

Still, filled with that sick sense of foreboding, you’re hoping it doesn’t go where you may imagine it will, because that way will only end in tears.

But of course, it does, and even though you may have anticipated it, the climax still packs a gut-wrenching wallop that’s both horrifying and tragic.

(Excision OS courtesy of bloody-disgusting.com; DVD cover art courtesy of shocktillyoudrop.com.)

A Rundown of the 13 Best, Most Recent Horror Movies I’ve Seen
[8 of 13]
HOSTEL: PART II (June 2007)


[Director Eli] Roth manages to keep things tight and engaging, as both groups on either side of the torturer’s chair, spiral deeper into the blood-caked labyrinth, and move inexorably towards the fateful meeting in the infamous factory.
Along the way, we catch glimpses of the psychology of torture and murder, the pitiless commodification of human life, and the cruel vagaries of business.

Read the entire review here.

(Hostel: Part II OS courtesy of impawards.com.)

HOSTEL: PART II
(Review)

I think I’ve mentioned this ‘round these parts before: I loved Eli Roth’s Cabin Fever, then was slightly less enamoured of his follow-up, Hostel. I did, however, come to appreciate Hostel because it is, after all, a well-made, and skillfully (ahem) executed film.
So it was with some curiosity and trepidation that I received word of Roth’s decision to go down the sequel route, this time, with a trio of females as protagonists. Given the bad rep gorno has managed to rack up for itself, I was concerned that Hostel: Part II would be an ultimately pointless exercise in cinematic misogyny.
I am so glad to report that it is not.


After a brief opening section which serves to wrap up the events of Hostel (yes, Pax is back), we are introduced to Beth (Lauren German, from The Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake), Whitney (Bijou Phillips, from Almost Famous) and Lorna (Heather Matarazzo, from Scream 3 and Saved!), Hostel: Part II’s would-be victims, and in a separate subplot, Todd (Richard Burgi, TV’s The Sentinel) and Stuart (Roger Bart, who previously worked with Burgi on Desperate Housewives), the tale’s would-be torturers.
It is this subplot, which explores the world of those who indulge in this gruesome enterprise, and those who run it, that elevates Hostel: Part II above the rest of the gorno pack.
In fact, it seems a misnomer to refer to Hostel: Part II as “gorno”: it’s arguably less bloody than the original, and ultimately plays better. One of its most disturbing sequences has absolutely nothing to do with the disfigurement of human anatomy or on-screen gore, instead displaying the insidious reach of those who traffic in misery and murder.
Hostel: Part II is actually more thriller (an effective one, at that) than a catalogue of voyeuristic killshots and fake bloodletting.
I hereby officially cease to use the word “gorno” in this review.


Roth manages to keep things tight and engaging, as both groups on either side of the torturer’s chair, spiral deeper into the blood-caked labyrinth, and move inexorably towards the fateful meeting in the infamous factory.
Along the way, we catch glimpses of the psychology of torture and murder, the pitiless commodification of human life, and the cruel vagaries of business.
The principals are also effective, particularly German and Bart. Given that I’ve gotten used to having Bart make me laugh (in Frank Oz’s The Stepford Wives and Susan Stroman‘s The Producers), I’m suitably impressed by his performance here; considering Stuart’s character arc, Bart is a fantastic choice for the role.


I should note though that as much as Part II is less gory than the original, there are nonetheless a couple of “Oh, that is so wrong” moments that will cling to you even after the film has completely unspooled.
And for fans of the original, some favorites—the lovable Bubblegum Gang and the too-cool-for-school Desk Clerk Jedi—return for a second helping. And, just as the original sported a Takashi Miike cameo, Part II boasts Ruggero Deodato. (Cheekily enough, the director of the infamous Cannibal Holocaust appears as “The Italian Cannibal.”)


Clearly, Hostel: Part II is not the sort of thriller that’s to everyone’s tastes. If, however, you like your suspense with teeth and subtext, you should feel free to leave your passport at the desk, and check in once more.
Enjoy Slovakia.
I know I do.


Parting shot: Adult Harry Potter fans may be interested to note that Stanislav Ianevski (Viktor Krum from Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire) joins all the fun as Miroslav.
Also appearing in a small role is Cabin Fever’s Jordan Ladd, who also appeared in Quentin Tarantino’s Death Proof.

Parting shot 2: Reviews of Oz’s The Stepford Wives, Brian Dannelly's Saved! and Tarantino’s Death Proof can be found in the Archive, where the article “Revelations: Getting At The Truths of Apocalypse Cinema”—where Cabin Fever is discussed—can also be found.

(Hostel: Part II OS courtesy of horror-movies.ca; images courtesy of shocktillyoudrop.com; Eli Roth on-set image courtesy of twitchfilm.net.)

reVIEW (19)
THE STEPFORD WIVES

In light of Frank Oz’s upcoming Death at a Funeral (the trailer of which looks all sorts of funny), this one’s coming out of storage.

Like Keanu in bullet time, Nicole Kidman is dodging bullets as fast as they come.
An injury on the Moulin Rouge set forced her to bow out of David Fincher's Panic Room, which, along with The Game, turned out to be one of Fincher's least notable works. She was also supposed to star in Jane Campion's artily-shot but horribly flawed adaptation of In The Cut; Kidman remained co-producer, even as Meg Ryan ended up in the buff for the role.
At certain points in their development, Kidman was also attached to star in last year's Catwoman and The Forgotten, the less said of both, I believe, the better. Instead, for 2004, she starred in Jonathan Glazer's Birth, and Frank Oz's The Stepford Wives. And though neither was a box-office hit, either one was certainly better than The Forgotten, and, from all I've heard about it, Catwoman as well.

The Stepford Wives was originally a novel written by Ira Levin, the same man who gave the world Rosemary's Baby, Roman Polanski's film adaptation of which, in turn, gave us the enduring, indelible image of a frail, paranoid Mia Farrow, painfully pregnant with the Devil's child, on the run from a cult of Satanists. The Stepford Wives was no less frightening, though here, the terror was not supernatural, but rather stemmed from the realm of science.
A work that studied the horrors of conformity (for which the term "Stepford" has come to mean, informally joining the English language as an adjective), The Stepford Wives had a film adaptation in 1975. Directed by Bryan Forbes, that version delved more into the horror aspect of the tale. Frank Oz's version is, at first blush, a lighter, more comedic look at the material.
Career-driven network president Joanna Eberhart (Kidman) is suddenly and unceremoniously fired after an unfortunate incident during the unveiling of EBS' new season line-up. Following a nervous breakdown, she asks for a chance to start over with her husband Walter Kresby (Matthew Broderick) and their two children Kimberly and Pete. Off they go to the suburbs of Connecticut, to the exclusive community of Stepford, where all is not what it seems.

From its opening credit roll, accompanied by visuals from old adverts of the latest in modern technology, of products designed to make life easier and more convenient, it's evident that behind the comedic veneer of the film, there are some serious statements to be made, just as there is something deeper behind the Tupperware smiles of the eponymous Stepford wives.
In that respect, as well as its overt idea of a return to a simpler time—in Stepford, there is "no crime, no poverty, and no pushing"—it is similar to M. Night Shyamalan's The Village. (Incidentally enough, both are quite possibly last year's most misunderstood and underappreciated films.) But, whereas Shymalan never loses track of his narrative while aiming to get his Message across, Stepford's script by Paul Rudnick seems both weak in its rhythm, and genuinely confused as to the exact nature of the change the women undergo, not to mention rudely dismissive of Joanna's children, who are no sooner introduced, before they completely drop off the face of the film, mentioned thereafter, but never actually seen.

While the Stepford process in the original source material is pretty much straight-forward, in Oz's revision, there is talk of nanochips being inserted into the brain, chips which contain the Stepford program, which should mean these women are still organic after being "perfected" by the treatment. And yet we are treated to the sight of an eyeless and bald mannequin that is Kidman's dead ringer, as well as the ATM sequence (the single most chilling and disturbing visual from the entire film); both incongruous and illogical, if these are really still women with some computer chips stuck in their heads.
Given though that the narrative could have been stronger, the idea of perfection taken to its extreme, of the forced submission and commodification of women—of a wife as the ultimate consumer product, complete with personalized remote control—is difficult to ignore. Amidst the scathingly funny one-liners are harsh observations of the gender wars, of, to paraphrase the film, women wanting to become men, and men wanting to become gods.

Arguably, the reversal that comes at the film's climax might be seen, on the one hand, as a clever little reference to the third sequel of the 1975 version. On the other hand though, it could actually subvert the whole piece in one telling blow, reducing the entire idea of homogenizing the world into the Stepford ideal as a plan born of lunacy, and not a cold, calculated conspiracy.
Whichever the case, this version of Levin's novel, with its wistful, pastel nostalgia for days long gone by, is funny. The script has zingy wit and irony to spare, and with a cast that includes Bette Midler, Christopher Walken, Roger Bart, and Glenn Close, the comic timing is near-perfect.

By and large, it's sad and ironic that the film doesn't live up to the Stepford ideal, and isn't the perfect movie it could have been. But then again, as Joanna says, perfect doesn't work. In this case though, imperfect doesn't exactly work, either.
Panned by the critics, by turns confused and narratively-challenged, The Stepford Wives is nonetheless a funny comedy, and has quite a lot to say about men and women, and the world they live in, and if only for that, must be seen.
And honestly, a couple of years down the road, should I find The Stepford Wives and The Forgotten both on cable at the same time, I know which film I'd zap myself to with the remote. Do you?

(The Stepford Wives OS courtesy of impawards.com.)

(The above review began life in 2005 under the title, “Welcome Back to Stepford.”)