Showing posts with label brian cox. Show all posts
Showing posts with label brian cox. Show all posts

Sunday, October 1, 2017


A Rundown of the 13 Best Horror Movies I've Seen in the Past Year
[6 of 13]


THE AUTOPSY OF JANE DOE
(September 2016)


"Mommy told me something a little girl should know.
It’s all about the Devil and I’ve learned to hate him so.
She said he causes trouble when you let him in the room.
He will never ever leave you if your heart is filled with gloom.”
--“Open Up Your Heart”

The body of an unidentified young woman found under strange circumstances is brought in to the Tilden Morgue & Crematorium, where father and son Tildens, Tommy (Brian Cox) and Austin (Emile Hirsch) set about to uncover cause of death.
But this is far from a cut and dried post mortem, as the Tildens soon discover…

The Autopsy of Jane Doe is a rousing “Welcome Back!” for director André Øvredal (who was last seen ‘round these parts in the 2011 ¡Q horror! rundown, with Trolljegeren).
This time though, there are no amusing, humorous chuckles to be had. This is dark and disturbing stuff, courtesy of a script by Ian Goldberg and Richard Naing, which is, honestly, a welcome surprise.
Familiar with some of Goldberg’s work on Once Upon a Time and Dead of Summer (for which Naing also wrote an episode), I hadn’t expected him capable of horror of this grimness. I’m glad to be divested of that impression.


So effective is the film that no less than Guillermo del Toro (“A fun, stylish, beautifully built funhouse of horror!”) and Stephen King (“Visceral horror to rival ALIEN and early Cronenberg. Watch it, but not alone.”) have sung its praises.
¡Q horror! can do naught but agree…

“Whatever the hell happened in here… we are way past possible.”

(The Autopsy of Jane Doe OS’ courtesy of bloody-disgusting.com & mondotees.com.)

Monday, April 17, 2017


¡QUÉ HORROR2017
Candidate #13

THE AUTOPSY OF JANE DOE
(September 2016)


"Mommy told me something a little girl should know.
It’s all about the Devil and I’ve learned to hate him so.
She said he causes trouble when you let him in the room.
He will never ever leave you if your heart is filled with gloom.”
--“Open Up Your Heart”

The body of an unidentified young woman found under strange circumstances is brought in to the Tilden Morgue & Crematorium, where father and son Tildens, Tommy (Brian Cox) and Austin (Emile Hirsch) set about to uncover cause of death.
But this is far from a cut and dried post mortem, as the Tildens soon discover…

The Autopsy of Jane Doe is a rousing “Welcome Back!” for director André Øvredal (who was last seen ‘round these parts in the 2011 ¡Q horror! rundown, with Trolljegeren).
This time though, there are no amusing, humorous chuckles to be had. This is dark and disturbing stuff, courtesy of a script by Ian Goldberg and Richard Naing, which is, honestly, a welcome surprise.
Familiar with some of Goldberg’s work on Once Upon a Time and Dead of Summer (for which Naing also wrote an episode), I hadn’t expected him capable of horror of this grimness. I’m glad to be divested of that impression.


So effective is the film that no less than Guillermo del Toro (“A fun, stylish, beautifully built funhouse of horror!”) and Stephen King (“Visceral horror to rival ALIEN and early Cronenberg. Watch it, but not alone.”) have sung its praises.
¡Q horror! can do naught but agree…

“Whatever the hell happened in here… we are way past possible.”

(The Autopsy of Jane Doe OS’ courtesy of bloody-disgusting.com & mondotees.com.)

Monday, July 1, 2013

¡Qué horror! 2013 Candidate #14


¡Qué horror! 2013
Candidate #14

HANNIBAL
(April 2013)



For the record, I love Bryan Fuller’s TV work (though the Mockingbird Lane pilot did leave me wanting), and the show of his I really, truly, and completely loved was Wonderfalls.
So the fact that Caroline Dhavernas is part of the cast of Fuller’s adaptation of Hannibal is all sorts of awesome.

Of course, that’s not the reason why I’ve singled out Hannibal--another TV series (after Les Revenants)--for a ¡Q horror! candidate slot this year; Dhavernas is many things, but a “horror” she most certainly is not.
Hannibal is here because this is a solid adaptation of Thomas Harris’ serial killer novels featuring Hannibal “The Cannibal” Lecter.
Ostensibly, Red Dragon is the main source material for the show, a novel which has already been adapted to film twice, in 1986 by Michael Mann under the title Manhunter, and in 2002, by Brett Ratner.
According to Fuller’s roadmap of the show though, Hannibal Season 4 would be the adaptation proper of Red Dragon, while, if the stars align, we may actually see a television adaptation of The Silence of the Lambs,* envisioned as Season 5 of the show, should we get that far.
And if the level of creative quality remains constant (or hopefully, actually increases), then that’s a future I’d very much like to see. 

In Season 1 alone, we’ve got some heavy directorial hitters like David Slade (whose excellent Awake Pilot was one of last season’s TV highlights), Michael Rymer (who solidified his geek cred with his work on Ron Moore’s Battlestar Galactica), and 75-year-old Peter Medak (who scarred many an audience member with the chilling quiet horror of 1980’s The Changeling).
Then there’s Guillermo Navarro, frequent cinematographer for Guillermo del Toro (including the upcoming Pacific Rim), who won a whole slew of awards--including the Oscar--for his work on El Laberinto del Fauno. Navarro had previously worked with Fuller as DP on the Mockingbird Lane pilot, and here, he directs a trio of episodes (as do both Slade and Rymer, taking a lion’s share of the season between the three of them).
Some Twin Peaks episode helmers are also in here: James Foley (who also brought us the big screen adaptation of Glengarry Glen Ross) and Tim Hunter (no, not the Books of Magic kid).

All that livewire creativity and talent behind the camera, and we haven’t even gotten to the excellent cast.
The cold, clinical detachment Mads Mikkelsen brings to his Hannibal is a fine offset to the twitchy, tortured nature of Hugh Dancy’s Will Graham. And, you know, Mikkelsen had to walk in the intimidating footsteps of both Brian Cox and Sir Anthony Hopkins.
Plus, there are those guest star turns:
Gillian Anderson, who enters at the midpoint of the season, under the beautifully unlikely name of Dr. Bedelia Du Maurier;
Fellow Chris Carter alumnus, Lance Henriksen;
And other past Fuller collaborators: Raúl Esparza, Eddie Izzard, Ellen Greene, and Ellen Muth (but that was a pretty evil way to wrap up her guest starring stint, Mr. Fuller, an evil way…).
So with both Dhavernas and Muth having made their appearances, all we need are either Lee Pace or Anna Friel (or both) to enter Hannibal’s world, and we’ll complete the Past Fuller Leads Trifecta.
Hurrah!

In a world where TV procedurals have reached well beyond saturation point, one of the things that saves Hannibal from the potential pitfall of becoming just another one of those “serial killer of the week” shows is the serialized nature of its narrative.
Coming into the show with a general idea of the overarching narrative (from the Harris novels and the previous film adaptations of the material), the audience is hooked. They want to see how the cards fall, they can’t wait for the other shoe to drop, for Graham and company to discover exactly what kind of a monster Lecter really is.
It’s the same approach to story that was successfully utilized in Smallville (at least, for the first few seasons), and more recently, in Bates Motel.
We all know Clark Kent eventually becomes Superman, we all know Norman Bates eventually kills his mother and a whole string of unfortunate motel guests, we all know Hannibal Lecter eventually ends up in the loonybin where he gets to play cat and mouse with Clarice Starling.
Part of the fun lies in watching how we get there.

And thus far, this is some morbid, gruesome “fun.” (Network television is getting away with a lot these days…)
If I could ask for something though, I’d ask for a bit more psychopathology; the show doesn’t really bother to explain the whys of their killers. We meet them fully (mal)formed, without any significant idea of how these sick puppies got so ill, without knowing the twisted road they walked to get here.
It’s almost as if Fuller and company are saying, serial killers really are inexplicable.
It’s almost like they’re saying, there is no “Why.” Serial killers simply are.
And that’s a truly horrifying thought…


* A possibility that both intrigues me (because there were some bits of the novel that were dropped in Jonathan Demme’s adaptation; among them, Jack Crawford’s turmoil, the seeds of which, have already been planted by Fuller and company in Season 1) and terrifies me (because The Silence of the Lambs is one of those brilliant lightning in a bottle moments in cinema, where everything seemed to align exquisitely).
Again, for the record, Demme’s Silence is, thus far, the only Harris film adaptation that I’ve been completely floored by. All the others--from Mann’s Manhunter, through until Peter Webber’s Hannibal Rising--haven’t come even close.
Here’s hoping Fuller’s Hannibal can succeed where all those others failed…

(Hannibal OS’ courtesy of impawards.com.)

Monday, November 16, 2009


TRICK ‘R TREAT
(Review)



For the record, I love Superman Returns; along with The Dark Knight, it’s one of the most mature superhero films out there (for very different reasons, of course).
There are a myriad of reasons why I love Superman Returns, but the one that has relevance to this review, is the screenplay, written by Michael Dougherty and Dan Harris. It’s a screenplay whose deceptively straight-forward narrative belies its emotional and thematic complexity.
Both Dougherty and Harris had previously worked with director Bryan Singer on X2, which also goes a long way in explaining why X2 was a whole lot better than the first X-Men film.
Now, the script that got Dougherty and Harris the X2 gig? Well, that happens to be the script for the film we’re taking a look at now: Trick ‘r Treat.
Finally getting a DVD release after two years of sitting on a shelf, this is one hell of a great horror movie that tips a Halloween hat to the memorable horror anthologies of yesteryear.


It’s Halloween in the little town of Warren Valley, Ohio, the night when the barriers between the living and the dead are at their thinnest, a night when we meet a number of individuals, whose stories weave in and out of (and at certain points, wind back on) each other, individuals who are about to find out that Halloween is more than just about costumes and candy…
Now what sets Trick ‘r Treat apart from those horror anthologies that came before, is the fact that the script is structured in such a way as to combine all four tales into a single narrative.
Whereas in the past, we’d have a framing sequence, and the separate tales of terror (Creepshow, Twilight Zone: The Movie, Asylum, et al), with Trick ‘r Treat, we have a film that has the kind of narrative structure you’d find in a Go, or a Pulp Fiction.
It’s a structure that helps inform the film with an added layer, where what seem to be throw-away lines and incidental little bits, turn out to have weight and bearing on all that we will eventually come to see over the course of the running time.


Another important distinction of Trick ‘r Treat is that this is the sort of horror film that’s fun. And that’s the sort of fun that doesn’t step foot into the horror-comedy arena, but basically still stays on the horror side of the fence, but laces itself with moments of black comedy and a sense that things don’t have to be all serious and sober.
What writer/director Dougherty calls “fun horror movies,” the ones that have a lot of replay value, as opposed to, say, what the French are contributing to the genre. I mean, I love some of those too, but you don’t see me rushing to give Inside a second viewing…
As a first-time director, Dougherty not only captures the essence and spirit of Halloween (spotlighting its dark, pagan origins in the process), he also understands this type of film perfectly.


And he’s got some formidable back-up.
For starters, there’s a rather good cast in this. If I had to cherry pick the best though, that would have to be Dylan Baker (as Principal Steven Wilkins) and Brian Cox (as crotchety Mr. Kreeg), both of whom also shone on the flawed, though certainly ambitious (and sadly truncated) reimagining of the Biblical story of David, Kings.
Here, in Trick ‘r Treat, they happen to be neighbours, and though their tales are ultimately separate from each other, they do occasionally intersect in wryly amusing ways.


Dougherty’s also got Bryan Singer producing, Glen MacPherson behind the camera, and Douglas Pipes on the score (Pipes also composed the score for Gil Kenan’s Monster House, another one of those “fun horror movies”; yes, ostensibly, it’s a CGI kiddie flick, so it skews a bit younger, but it’s a rather dark kiddie flick, if you think about it).
Plus, thanks to his visual background in animation, Dougherty also manages to introduce us to potential horror icon in the making, freaky little Sam (short for Samhain, one would assume, and played by Quinn Lord, who also plays the little peeper who gets to see Anna Paquin in the dressing room, lucky little…).
If it’s one thing that can keep a horror film at the forefront of the genre’s mass consciousness, it’s a visually unique character. Think Pinhead, or Freddy, or Chucky, or the masks of Michael or Jason or Ghostface.
Well, now we’ve got Sam, and hey, we’re all the better for it.


If Christmas can have titles like Doug Liman’s Go and Satoshi Kon’s Tokyo Godfathers, then Halloween should have some go-to films too. And John Carpenter’s Halloween is long overdue some deserving company.
So, if you’re looking for some fun Halloween viewing, Trick ‘r Treat is most definitely the ticket.
Just be sure not to piss off Sam, you hear?


“I’m just trying to create a horror film that I think hearkens back to the horror films that we all know and love and grew up with. I keep pointing to the early to mid-‘80’s when we had [A] Nightmare on Elm Street and Poltergeist and Creepshow and things like that, that to me are terrifying horror films but also fun and funny. I miss those, a lot.”
-- Michael Dougherty

(Trick ‘r Treat OS courtesy of shocktillyoudrop.com; Michael Dougherty image courtesy of hollywoodreporter.com.)

Wednesday, March 28, 2007


ZODIAC

(Review)

I LIKE KILLING PEOPLE
BECAUSE IT IS SO MUCH
FUN

Among the handful of non-fiction reference books I own is a copy of Robert Graysmith‘s true crime novel, Zodiac. It’s one of three serial killer cases I’ve long been interested in, the other two being Jack the Ripper and the Green River Killer.
I’ve also been a long-time fan of David Fincher, ever since he raised the entire Alien trilogy to the level of allegory with Alien3. Of course, he’s also disappointed me in the past, with films like The Game, Panic Room, and to a certain extent, Se7en. So when I first heard he was taking on the Zodiac, I was both excited and anxious.
Right now, I’m relieved.

IT IS MORE FUN THAN
KILLING WILD GAME IN
THE FORREST BECAUSE
MAN IS THE MOST DANGEROUE
ANAMAL OF ALL TO KILL

Based on Graysmith‘s non-fiction accounts, Zodiac and Zodiac Unmasked: The Identity of America’s Most Elusive Serial Killer, the film follows the torturous investigation of the notorious serial killer who held San Francisco in a stranglehold of fear during his reign of terror.
Like Jack the Ripper, the Zodiac wrote letters to the local newspapers, taunting the police for their apparent inability to catch him. Caught in the wake of the killer’s trail were a number of policemen and newspaper men, some of whom would ultimately be consumed by the mystery of the elusive Zodiac. Principal among these were Paul Avery (Robert Downey Jr.), crime reporter for the San Francisco Chronicle, Detective Dave Toschi (Mark Ruffalo), lead investigator on the case, and Graysmith himself (played by Jake Gyllenhaal), a political cartoonist for the Chronicle at the time of the Zodiac’s emergence onto the public stage.

SOMETHING GIVES ME THE
MOST THRILLING EXPERENCE

Toning down his trademark visual flair, Fincher succeeds in giving us a riveting and involving police procedural that isn’t just about unmasking the killer; what makes Zodiac a noteworthy piece is the fact that we also become witness to the effect the killer has on the people involved in the case, how the protracted investigation impacted on these people’s lives.
The principals are effective, particularly Gyllenhaal, one of the most talented actors of his generation. His Graysmith is an introverted ex-Eagle Scout, whose fascination with puzzles becomes the doorway that allows him access into the world of the Zodiac, a journey that skirts the borderlands of obsession.
That performance, along with Ruffalo’s and Downey Jr.’s, is ably supported by a (excuse me) killer cast which includes Brian Cox, Elias Koteas, John Terry, Donal Logue, Philip Baker Hall,* Chloe Sevigny, and Clea Duvall.

THE BEST PART OF IT IS THAE
WHEN I DIE I WILL BE REBORN
IN PARADICE AND THEI HAVE
KILLED WILL BECOME MY SLAVES

The script by James Vanderbilt (who also wrote the bland Darkness Falls and the enjoyable The Rundown) effectively takes the salient points of the case and presents us with a 2 hour 38 minute-long narrative that doesn’t feel long at all. For the duration, we are absorbed into this investigation that had so many other victims beyond the dead, an investigation hampered by pre-computer age technology and conflicting jurisdictions, an investigation that never quite got its man.
It’s a solid triumph for Fincher, who submits a serial killer thriller without the excessively contrived sordidness of Se7en; a film that, due to the strength of the source material and Vanderbilt’s script, also successfully evades the style-over-substance trap that holds prisoner not just Se7en, but Panic Room as well.

“My life has been one glorious hunt.”

With at least four previous films based on the Zodiac (among them, Alexander Bulkley’s The Zodiac, which was a perfectly good waste of Robin Tunney), as well as a host of fictional madmen loosely based on the killer (notably “Scorpio” in Dirty Harry and the “Gemini Killer” in The Exorcist III—a film director William Peter Blatty based on his own novel Legion—as well as the serial killer featured in the Millennium episode, “The Mikado”), the case has been visited often enough through celluloid.
But what Fincher and company do here is present the case as it unfolded, over the course of years, in a narrative that is as much about the investigators as it is about the murderer. In a world with a million CSIs and a gazillion CSI rip-offs, this is a procedural that isn’t about flash and glitz and methodology. It’s about people and mistakes and dead ends, about frustration and obsession and trying to uncover the truth even when the rest of the world has left the mystery behind.

“Only after the kill does man know the true ecstasy of love. It is the natural instinct. Kill, then love! When you have known that you have known ecstasy!”

* Interestingly enough, Philip Baker Hall also appears in Bulkley’s The Zodiac.

(Text in capital letters from the Zodiac’s letter published August 1, 1969, and decoded by Donald Gene Harden and his wife Bettye June. All misspellings and grammatical errors are as per the Zodiac’s message.)

(Zodiac OS courtesy of aintitcool.com.)

Wednesday, March 14, 2007

RUNNING WITH SCISSORS (Review)

Being a Nip/Tuck viewer, I was naturally curious to see Ryan Murphy’s adaptation of Augusten Burroughs’ memoirs, Running with Scissors. How was I to know I’d be seeing one of the most singularly moving films of 2006?

Running with Scissors follows the bizarrely improbable but true story of young Augusten (Joseph Cross), who is basically abandoned by his alcoholic father (Alec Baldwin) and unstable, struggling poet of a mother (Annette Bening), and left in the “care” of his mother’s psychiatrist, Dr. Finch (Brian Cox).
In Finch’s cluttered, pink monstrosity of a house, Augusten meets Finch’s wife, Agnes (Jill Clayburgh), his daughters Hope (Gwyneth Paltrow) and Natalie (Evan Rachel Wood), and Hope’s cat, Freud. His friendship with Natalie then leads him to meet Neil (Joseph Fiennes), Finch’s adopted son, who is both schizophrenic and gay, as is Augusten (gay, that is, not schizophrenic).
It is among these psychologically damaged individuals that Augusten struggles to find himself and his dream (which he at first believes to be the building of a hair empire, ala Vidal Sasoon, but ultimately is something else entirely).

As he had already proven in Nip/Tuck, Murphy is adept at sifting through the psychologies of the walking wounded, at showing the audience the scars of traumas past, and the odysseys we all need to go on in order to heal and find closure.
He brings that insight to bear on Running with Scissors, showing us the quirks and the insanities, as well as the humanity that lurks beneath the psychoses. Loony as some of them are, these are people struggling for some sort of normality, trying desperately to see past the delusions we all nurse to make things seem bearable.
The delusions springing from misplaced love and devotion are perhaps the most insidious mirages of all, and there are many of those in Running with Scissors, from Augusten’s need for a kind and nurturing parent, to Agnes’ need for a family to care for. Insidious because, as Natalie points out, sometimes, we can’t help but love someone who doesn’t deserve that love, because frankly, they’re the only ones in our lives.

Families (whether nuclear or extended) are always a tricky thing, a potential mine field of unspoken emotion, both good and bad. This is exacerbated by the fact that biology and genetics take the choice away from our hands; unlike our friends, we can’t choose our family. These are people foisted upon us by DNA, people we need to get along with, whether we like them or not.
And in a set up like that, love can blind just as easily as it can heal.

In Augusten’s world, the only other people are just as damaged as he, perhaps even more so. It is through this impossible situation of the blind leading the blind that Augusten must navigate as he comes of age. These are people who can’t really even care for themselves, much less for others.
And it is in this world that Murphy finds moments of poignant, painful clarity; when true love is communicated in the presence of a bag of dog food and an episode of Dark Shadows; when emotions are laid bare in the cramped confines of a car as rain falls in sheets outside; when a son’s tears roll down his cheeks at his birthday party.

And not only does Murphy find these moments, but he assembles a cast that brings those moments to wrenching life. These are fine performances, particularly from two of the youngest members of the cast, Cross and Wood, and the veterans, Bening (why does she keep on losing to Hilary Swank?), Cox, and Clayburgh (who has appeared on Nip/Tuck, as has Baldwin).
It’s probably only Paltrow who doesn’t quite come across as the Bible-dipping, favorite daughter; her performance doesn’t seem as honest as those of the other ensemble members. (Which is kind of sad, given my excitement at the reunion with her Shakespeare in Love partner, Fiennes.)

Still, this is a film that should resonate for anyone who’s ever thought, “Why can’t my family be normal?” And let’s face it: that’s you and me and every other one of the 6 billion souls on our planet.
This is a film that is both funny and moving, as life has the tendency of being. And despite it being based on a true story, it is at times, so bizarre that by film’s end, I’d somehow managed to forget I was watching real people and their fractured lives. It was something of a surprise to run through the “what happened to them afterwards” sequence which is a staple for based-on-a-true-story films.

Running with Scissors is a triumph for Murphy, who proves he is comfortable on the big screen, unlike some other TV writer/directors, who can’t seem to grasp the differences between the two media. It’s entirely possible in fact, that Murphy might be more at home in a finite setting like a feature film, as opposed to the continuous nature of a weekly TV serial. (Some of the best moments in the four seasons of Nip/Tuck can be found in particular episodes that are usually removed from the long-running plot threads, or in the season enders, as was the case with the Season 2 finale, which capped the stunning Ava Moore storyline, and which was the episode that featured Alec Baldwin.)

So, if you haven’t already seen it, this comes with my recommendations. However, if your tastes run more towards the Hollywood family dramedy (I loathe that marketing term) where everything is solved by an impromptu song-and-dance routine while lip synching to some oldie but goodie, steer clear of Running with Scissors. Like every sensible parent knows, it can be very dangerous.

Parting shot: As if to prove he likes working with familiar faces, Bening, Clayburgh, and Paltrow are all reportedly set to star in Murphy’s next feature, the post-Watergate set Dirty Tricks, with Jim Broadbent as Richard Nixon!

(Originally posted 021207)