Archive

Archive for the ‘Movie Review’ Category

Movie Review: Mama

January 22nd, 2013 No comments

Mama, the highly anticipated ghost story directed by Andy Muschietti from his 2008 short by the same name and executive produced by Guillermo del Toro, was released in theaters across this fine nation Friday, January 18. The story follows a young couple, Lucas (Nikolaj Coster-Waldau) and Annabel (Jessica Chastain), who, after spending five years tirelessly searching for his nieces, Victoria (Megan Charpentier) and Lilly (Isabelle Nélisse), find and adopt the long-lost and now feral girls. No one is quite sure how they managed to survive all this time on their own, but Lucas is determined to take custody and raise his nieces. Unfortunately for Lucas and Annabel, the girls already have a mother and she is not looking for joint custody.

For some reason, and I am still not sure why, when Gilly del T works on a film that is in Spanish, like The Orphanage or The Devil’s Backbone or a project that simply has roots in Spanish, like Mama, the all-round quality of the film is heads and shoulders better than something in English, like Don’t Be Afraid of The Dark. One thing I definitely appreciate about this movie, as well as The Orphanage and The Devil’s Backbone, is that it is a throwback to an earlier era of horror when plots were simpler, the scares were classier, and audiences were more open to playful chills and bumps in the night. Where Mama falls flat is that it is narratively thin, repetitive, and relies too much on “gotcha” moments that quickly grow tiresome. However, I suppose that is to be expected when one stretches what was originally a three-minute short into an hour and a half full-length feature.

At the risk of dishing major spoilers, I have to say that there is one thing I absolutely love and one thing I hate about Mama. I want to end on a good note, so let’s start with the bad. Gilly has fallen prey to America’s greatest fraud (that something interesting is never worth explaining), so we, the audience, must take it upon ourselves to fill in the blanks. I have unanswered questions about Mama’s untenable borigin story – that’s a mix of boring and origin for those who didn’t know – and the symbolism of the moths.

The character of Mama bares some similarities to the Mexican folk legend of La Llorona, a beautiful young woman(aren’t they all?) who drowned herself and her children after getting dumped by the man she loves. Though accounts differ, most retellings warn that La Llorona will kidnap wandering children who resemble her missing children or children who disobey their parents. However, all we know about Mama is that she escaped from the nervous hospital for “sad people,” broke into the church next door, kidnapped a baby, burned it’s eyes out, jumped off a cliff, dropped the baby, and drowned. We don’t know any of the particulars about how she came to be in the hospital or why her child was removed from her care. We don’t even know for sure if that baby was actually hers! Mama also has unusual facial features. There is no clear bone structure to her face. I am not sure if this is the screenwriters trying to convey a sense of her being underwater, as is the case with her flowing hair and clothing, but it leads me to believe that her elongated, Modigliani-inspired appearance might be an outward symptom of a birth defect or disfiguring illness that would have landed her in a hospice in the 1800s and would have also classified her as an unfit mother at the same time, assuming she was even pregnant before entering the hospital for that matter.

Now, what is the deal with the moths? In my efforts to uncover the mysteries of the moth symbolism in film and literature, I found that our fuzzy-winged friends are closely associated with vulnerability, concealment, shadows, dreams, psychic awareness, secret knowledge, – whatever that means – and ironically enough, subtlety. I think that from these key terms, we can easily enough suss out the connection on a surface level. A master of disguise, the moth can blend in to the point of invisibility. This is a metaphor for us to use our environment to our advantage, blend in when necessary, adjust and adapt when the situation requires it. But what about that weird cocoon thing at the end? I personally feel that the resolution is the moment when the film is at its weakest. Funny enough, the same goes for future-moths and could-be butterflies when they are undergoing metamorphosis. Obviously, this has to do with the changing of Mama’s character. In particular, moths and butterflies have a parallel use, where moths are often thought of as “ugly” or ”dark,” variations of the ”beautiful” and ”pure” butterflies. The contrast between the two as similar beings with differing attributes is often used to show two sides to characters, or in this case, the melding of Mama and Lily.

Time for the good news! I am not a fan of CGI. In most movies, I find it distracting, unnecessary, overused, and cheap-looking in most cases. However, I am pleased to announce that Mama was played by an actual person! Yes, an honest to God human being, Javier Botet, who readers might know as the emaciated demon girl in [REC]. While there is clearly some CGI in play, I want to be clear that Botet wore an actual costume and makeup for the part. Mama’s movements are his movements. It gives me hope that maybe other films, genre aside, will tone down the CGI and utilize more elaborate make-up and costume design.

“…Botet as Mama was done entirely practically, with shots layered over each other to get the proper spooky effect…”

In closing, if I were to rate this movie on a scale of full price, matinee, Netflix, torrent, or streaming, I would give it a solid matinee. Like The Ring and others that came before it, during Mama you will be stressed out and extremely tense for no other reason than the amount of pressure you are under to keep cool in front of your fellow movie-goers. And while you collect your belongings and file out of the theater, you won’t feel frightened. However, Mama is a torpedo that shoots into your brain but doesn’t detonate until the sun goes down. Once you pull on your jam jams and roll into bed, every creak and groan of your poorly maintained Brooklyn apartment will become that spider-finger bitch creepin’ around, feeding bugs to your kids and ruining your wallpaper.

Read more about the making of Mama here

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Movie Review: The Possession

September 7th, 2012 2 comments

Oy Vey! Last Friday, The Possession, you know, the movie based on a true story, was unleashed onto the supple minds of the movie going masses. Admittedly, I was excited for its release and I did pay full ticket price, but before I tuck into this one, we should all take a moment to recognize that in the end, The Possession is, point blank, just another movie about a possessed demon child who does the things that possessed demon children do. The sad predictability of the film as it toppled from the horror movie Etz haChayim and hit every cliché on the way down is not my fault and I am not trying to spoil anything for anyone.

The Possession, with Kyra Sedgwick as its leading lady, may be one degree from Kevin Bacon, but just a nugget of truth doesn’t amount to a truly vindicating ghost hunting gold rush. Whether or not you believe in the “true story” on which this film is “based,” that real-life backstory is more titillating than its cinematic dybbuk dramatization.

The movie, for those who are not aware, chronicles how one broken family must reunite and overcome their past grievances to survive the mysterious evil encapsulated within a suspicious antique wooden box found at a yard sale. Little does the family realize, this box was built to contain a dybbuk, a wandering spirit of Yiddish folklore that inhabits and ultimately devours the soul of its human host. Driven by a love for his children and the burning desire to one-up his ex-wife, Clyde (Jeffery Dean Morgan), drives to Brooklyn to strong-arm Matisyahu (literally) into performing the Hasidic rights of exorcism on his daughter. Sounds juicy, right? Only if you like your juice made of freshly squeezed lies. The story played out in The Possession has very little to do with the real thing.

A dybbuk (“clinging of an evil spirit”) in Jewish mysticism is a human spirit who cannot cross over because they must atone for a sin they did not make right prior to death or a spirit tormented by a grave injustice in life that must be revenged. The spirit literally attaches itself to a person and forces them to physically perform the necessary tasks. This is not exactly what we encounter in this story or the movie. Rather, it’s attached to an inanimate object – in this case, the box – that essentially poisons anyone who comes into contact with the object or the person who owns it. This explanation seems to align itself with the sort of alarmist and farfetched legend that the box actually contained an evil spirit which was brought to America by a Holocaust survivor after WWII.

outside look at the original dybbuk box

Outside look at the original dybbuk box

In the Hasidic belief system, people are not able to be possessed as one thinks of in the traditional Roman Catholic sense. Jews believe that there can be a possession of a living person by a displaced soul that has yet to move on due to unfinished business. The dybbuk is drawn to someone who is in the state where their soul and their body are not fully connected with each other because of severe melancholy, psychosis, stuff like that — where you’re not integrated. It seeks a particular person who in their current lifetime is going through what the possessing spirit went through, and so the spirit is drawn to someone who is struggling with the same thing it did. For example, in my heart I have an overwhelming desire to punch every baby I see, but I don’t follow through because I don’t have the chutzpah. The spirit of someone who has actually done it will be drawn to my desire and will possess me because we’re compatible. However, a possession does not always have to be a negative thing.

The second kind of dybbuk possession is called ‘sod ha’ibbur,’ which is Hebrew for ‘mystery impregnation.’ This kind of possession is a good possession — it’s a spirit guide (i.e. patronus). The spirit of someone who has struggled and overcome what you have struggled with and can’t overcome will be lent to you from the spirit world to possess you, encourage you, and help you overcome what you have not been able to overcome and what it has been able to in its lifetime. Then when it’s done and you’ve managed to achieve what you need to achieve in your life, it leaves you.Anyways, getting back to the real issue, the IRL portion of this ride came to the public’s attention in 2004 with an article in the Los Angeles Times that opened like this:

“A small wooden cabinet went up for auction on EBay. Inside were two locks of hair, one granite slab, one dried rosebud, one goblet, two wheat pennies, one candlestick and, allegedly, one “dybbuk,” a kind of spirit popular in Yiddish folklore. The seller, a Missouri college student named Losif Nietzke, described the container as a “haunted Jewish wine cabinet box” that had plagued several owners with rotten luck and a spate of bizarre paranormal stunts.”

Inside contents of the original dybbuk box

Inside contents of the original dybbuk box

There are also several accounts documented by the original owner of the box in question. One such occurrence goes like this:

“At the time when I bought the cabinet, I owned a small furniture refinishing business. I took the cabinet to my store, and put it in my basement workshop where I intended to refinish it and give it as a gift to my Mother. I didn’t think anything more about it. I opened my shop for the day and went to run some errands leaving the young woman who did sales for me in charge. After about a half-hour, I got a call on my cell phone. The call was from my salesperson. She was absolutely hysterical and screaming that someone was in my workshop breaking glass and swearing. Furthermore, the intruder had locked the iron security gates and the emergency exit and she couldn’t get out. As I told her to call the police, my cell phone battery went dead. I hit speeds of 100 mph getting back to the shop. When I arrived, I found the gates locked. I went inside and found my employee on the floor in a corner of my office sobbing hysterically. I ran to the basement and went downstairs. At the bottom of the stairs, I was hit by an overpowering unmistakable odor of cat urine (there had never been any animals kept or found in my shop). The lights didn’t work. As I investigated, I found that the reason the lights didn’t work also explained the sounds of glass breaking. All of the light bulbs in the basement were broken. All nine incandescent bulbs had been broken in their sockets, and 10 four-foot fluorescent tubes were lying shattered on the floor. I did not find an intruder, however. I should also add that there was only one entrance to the basement. It would have been impossible for anyone to leave without meeting me head-on. I went back up to speak with my salesperson, but she had left. She never returned to work (after having been with me for two years). She refuses to discuss the incident to this day. I never thought of relating the events of that day to anything having to do with the cabinet.”

A later occurrence relays a reoccurring dream experienced by the owner and any family members or friends who came into contact with the box:

“I find myself walking with a friend, usually someone I know well and trust at some point in the dream, I find myself looking into the eyes of the person that I am with. It is then that I realize that there is something different, something evil looking back at me. At that point in my dream, the person I am with changes into what I can only describe as the most gruesome, demonic looking Hag that I have ever seen. The Hag proceeds then, to beat the living tar out of me. I have awakened numerous times to find bruises and marks on myself where I had been hit by the old woman during the previous night.”

The authenticity of it all depends, essentially, on what you believe as the site says, “Here is the story of the haunted wine box, exactly as it appeared on eBay. You form your own opinion.” As far as the movie goes, on a scale of full price, matinee, Netflix, torrent, or streaming, I would give it a Netflix/torrent. The movie is not the most original thing I’ve ever seen, but its technical production is not completely wretched and it has some pretty excellent quotables. Plus, you get Matisyahu, The Closer, Papa Winchester, and the moths from Silence of The Lambs all in one movie.

For the Full Original Story:  Click here

For continued reading on dybbuks: Jewish Encyclopedia 

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

To Ouija, or Not to Ouija

March 10th, 2012 No comments

You scream; I scream; we all scream for – scary movies! Yes, even the upcoming ones that have just a smidgeon of a chance to turn out totally lame. Enter “Ouija,” Universal Pictures’ newest interest in the realm of paranormal-genre movies. Although the idea sounds a bit cheesy, hit director Michael Bay’s production company is being mentioned often, which is doing a great job of keeping the interest factor high. So what is all the hype about? Why is the Ouija (or anything relating to the use of one) always so intriguing?

“Ouija,” with a release date set for sometime in 2013, has been on and off of the chopping block in the past, with a script that seemed left for the dead. It was, however, recently revived, only with a budget that seems to have lost a little blood. Interestingly, Jason Blum; the producer behind the “Paranormal Activity” set, is also poised to pounce on this opportunity to connect the dead, with the living, again. We can only hope for him to pull off something as insidious as, well, “Insidious.”

A movie about the Ouija board? Well, at least that hasn’t been done for a few years… but wait, if we WATCH someone doing the Ouija, isn’t that supposed to open us up to being bothered by evil spirits? Or is that only if you’re touching the board? So really, you are signing up to join a movie theater full of demon-possessed zombies? Count me in. I’m certain watching five million dollars be totally wasted will be worth it, as long as I get to take home my very own ghost!

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Woman in Black

February 21st, 2012 1 comment

<img class="alignleft size-medium wp-image-3797" title="the woman in black daniel radcliffe" src="http://theoccult

section.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/the-woman-in-black-artwork-poster-300×225.jpg” alt=”" width=”300″ height=”225″ />When I saw the first trailer for “The Woman in Black” I was excited; I love the book and jumped at the chance to reread it before seeing the film. I anxiously awaited the movie release and today a friend and I saw it in matinee. Within the first half-hour I was annoyed and by the end I was angry. Don’t get me wrong, the movie had GREAT creep factor: seriously spooky moments, frightening ghosts, and terrific props. The set designers did a bang-up job, down to the soot marks on the wallpaper from the candles in the sconces. The location scout picked the perfect house/town/landscape. They changed the time-period to good effect, because 1950s England wouldn’t be nearly as spooky a place for a ghost story as Victorian/Edwardian England and the book reads like a Victorian gothic novel so it’s appropriate. However, the scriptwriter screwed up the story in so many ways it would be easier for me to say what I like vs. what I despise. If Susan Hill were dead, she’d be rolling in her grave. I think she might be rolling in her bed at night, disturbed by what they did with her book.

My biggest complaint is that they turned a good Gothic ghost story into Victorian melodrama by twisting some of the events to unnecessarily heighten the drama. For instance, in the novel, Arthur Kipps is not going to Eel Marsh House as a last-ditch effort to save his job, which has suffered from his depression after the death of his wife in childbirth. Although in the beginning of the book he is not married, I understand why this, among other things, has been changed for dramatization: in the book he marries at the end and it takes a few years for the events of the story to manifest themselves in his life (no spoilers!). That time lapse is difficult to convey in a movie, so it makes sense to have him married with a son at the beginning of the film. But why have his wife die in childbirth? Why add a scene with his boss threatening to fire him for being dead weight? I will say, without ruining anything, they change the end quite a bit; his wife must be dead in the beginning so they can add more ridiculous melodrama to the end. Every change made in the script was overwrought and fell flat in execution.

I could sit here all day and nitpick over what I feel is a blasphemous rewrite of a great story, but that’s boring and you get my point. I am unable to describe the more ridiculous moments because it will ruin the movie for those of you who still want to see it. If you don’t care about a plot-line that is so absurd it insults your intelligence, then by all means, see this film. Visually it’s impressive, the acting is good, and the scares are well-timed and 95% not cheesy. The script is awful, however, except in the very few parts where they left the original story intact.

Rich Text AreaToolbarBold (Ctrl + B)Italic (Ctrl + I)Strikethrough (Alt + Shift + D)Unordered list (Alt + Shift + U)Ordered list (Alt + Shift + O)Blockquote (Alt + Shift + Q)Align Left (Alt + Shift + L)Align Center (Alt + Shift + C)Align Right (Alt + Shift + R)Insert/edit link (Alt + Shift + A)Unlink (Alt + Shift + S)Insert More Tag (Alt + Shift + T)Proofread WritingToggle fullscreen mode (Alt + Shift + G)Show/Hide Kitchen Sink (Alt + Shift + Z)
FormatFormat▼
UnderlineAlign Full (Alt + Shift + J)Select text color▼
Paste as Plain TextPaste from WordRemove formattingInsert custom characterOutdentIndentUndo (Ctrl + Z)Redo (Ctrl + Y)Help (Alt + Shift + H)

When I saw the first trailer for “The Woman in Black” I was excited; I love the book and jumped at the chance to reread it before seeing the film. I anxiously awaited the movie release and today a friend and I saw it in matinee. Within the first half-hour I was annoyed and by the end I was angry. Don’t get me wrong, the movie had GREAT creep factor: seriously spooky moments, frightening ghosts, and terrific props. The set designers did a bang-up job, down to the soot marks on the wallpaper from the candles in the sconces. The location scout picked the perfect house/town/landscape. They changed the time-period to good effect, because 1950s England wouldn’t be nearly as spooky a place for a ghost story as Victorian/Edwardian England and the book reads like a Victorian gothic novel so it’s appropriate. However, the scriptwriter screwed up the story in so many ways it would be easier for me to say what I like vs. what I despise. If Susan Hill were dead, she’d be rolling in her grave. I think she might be rolling in her bed at night, disturbed by what they did with her book.
My biggest complaint is that they turned a good Gothic ghost story into Victorian melodrama by twisting some of the events to unnecessarily heighten the drama. For instance, in the novel, Arthur Kipps is not going to Eel Marsh House as a last-ditch effort to save his job, which has suffered from his depression after the death of his wife in childbirth. Although in the beginning of the book he is not married, I understand why this, among other things, has been changed for dramatization: in the book he marries at the end and it takes a few years for the events of the story to manifest themselves in his life (no spoilers!). That time lapse is difficult to convey in a movie, so it makes sense to have him married with a son at the beginning of the film. But why have his wife die in childbirth? Why add a scene with his boss threatening to fire him for being dead weight? I will say, without ruining anything, they change the end quite a bit; his wife must be dead in the beginning so they can add more ridiculous melodrama to the end. Every change made in the script was overwrought and fell flat in execution.
I could sit here all day and nitpick over what I feel is a blasphemous rewrite of a great story, but that’s boring and you get my point. I am unable to describe the more ridiculous moments because it will ruin the movie for those of you who still want to see it. If you don’t care about a plot-line that is so absurd it insults your intelligence, then by all means, see this film. Visually it’s impressive, the acting is good, and the scares are well-timed and 95% not cheesy. The script is awful, however, except in the very few parts where they left the original story intact.
Path:

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Eyes of the Mothman

February 22nd, 2011 No comments

The strange, twisted tale of Mothman is not one that can be easily summarized. Even within the paranormal community, Mothman eludes easy and agreed-upon categorization. To some, it was merely a misidentification, a large sandhill crane. To others, it was a cryptid, some as-of-yet undiscovered animal. Theories became even wilder when reports of UFOs, Men In Black and the enigmatic Indrid Cold were thrown into the mix, suggesting the creature could be of extraterrestrial or inter-dimensional origin. So it’s no surprise that there hasn’t been an in-depth documentary on Mothman. Until now.

mothman, eyes of the mothman, mothman movie“Eyes of the Mothman” is the new film from director Matthew Pellowski and Red Line Studios/Virgil Films, and is available starting today on DVD. The film takes a slightly different approach to exploring this paranormal phenomenon than most of the other TV shows and documentaries in the genre have. And in this case, it really works.

Mothman has been examined before, on such shows as “MonsterQuest” and “Weird Travels,” as well as numerous books. But “Eyes of the Mothman” sets out to tell a story, not just of Mothman, but of the town of Point Pleasant, West Virginia, in which he made his home, and of the people who lived through his 13-month stay from November of 1967 to December of 1968. Reenactments are kept to a minimum, and most of the story is told by eyewitnesses, members of the press who reported on Mothman, and residents of Point Pleasant who lived through the weirdness. All of the filming was done on location in Point Pleasant. You are seeing the town, hearing the stories from the people who actually experienced Mothman, and all of this gives the viewer a sense of immersion. The film clocks in at 155 minutes, but if you want a thorough and comprehensive telling of the Mothman story, it can’t be done in an hour.

The film starts off with the tale of the Curse of Cornstalk. Briefly stated, Chief Cornstalk was a Shawnee leader who tried to negotiate peace between his people and the white settlers, but he was betrayed and killed. Legend has it that with his dying breath, he cursed the land that would later become Point Pleasant for 200 years. Residents go on to detail some of the hardships Point Pleasant has dealt with over the years, including fires, floods, poor economic growth, contaminated wetlands, the collapse of the Silver Bridge, and of course, Mothman.

We are told about the TNT area, an old munitions plant that was operating during World War II but has long since been abdondoned and turned into a nature preserve. Ironically, many of the chemicals used in the making of the explosives have seeped into the ground and water of the preserve, contaminating it and according to some reports, mutating some of the indigenous species of fish. The real impact of the contamination may never be known.

Next we get to the actual Mothman sightings. The reports of a tall, hulking, flying creature with glowing red eyes terrorizing the people of the town are chilling, especially heard from first-hand witnesses. Many people actually experienced physical and psychological aftereffects as a result of seeing the creature, including nightmares, conjunctivitis, and in some cases, a harsh sunburn or something akin to radiation burns. The most popular skeptical theory, that Mothman was simply a sandhill crane (or perhaps even a mutated sandhill crane) is examined, and while not shot down by the filmmakers, eyewitnesses explain why they believe this theory was a bit too neat. In an interesting twist, the Mothman legend is also likened to other flying beasts in cryptozoology and folklore, such as the Jersey Devil and the thunderbird.

During the Mothman weirdness, Point Pleasant also experienced an explosion of UFO sightings, sometimes with dozens per night, with many witnesses. People who reported their sightings were often visited by the mysterious Men In Black, who seemed to appear human but acted strangely and were apparently not familiar with such things as ball point pens. A local newspaper woman, Mary Hyre, was even visited by of of these MIBs.

But the story gets really strange when Indrid Cold enters the picture. This enigmatic entity may have been an alien, or possibly an inter-dimensional traveler, or simply a figment of the imagination of Woodrow Derenberger. Mr. Derenberger reported a man who looked as “ordinary as any other” who had a strange smile. He apparently communicated via telepathy, and Derenberger reported that Indrid Cold took him on his spaceship to other planets. This sounds strangely familiar to the “contactee” stories of the 1950s, but there are also many stories of “The Grinning Man” in folklore that has some eerie similarities to Indrid Cold.

The movie ends by detailing the collapse of the Silver Bridge. The bridge spanned the Ohio River and on December 15th, 1968, collapsed into the water, apparently due to too much traffic on the bridge and a weakened eye bar. But according to Mothman legend, this was the culmination of his visitations. Mothman, the UFOs, the Men In Black, and Indrid Cold were all blamed for the collapse. And once the bridge was gone, so too was Mothman and his cohorts. While part of the legend of Mothman is that he was a portent of disaster, and once the bridge collapsed, he had served his purpose, “Eyes of the Mothman” posits another theory: that the townspeople were simply too busy grieving for loved ones, and picking up the pieces after yet another disaster in their quiet little town. They couldn’t pay attention to silly things such as Mothman and UFOs any more.

“Eyes of the Mothman” is about Mothman, to be sure. But it is much more than just a Mothman film. It is about Point Pleasant, about the people who live there. This is a documentary told by the people who lived the story. The tale of Mothman may not have the same impact, the same creepiness, if it took place in any other town, and giving the legend that context is the real strength of this film.

Related Posts with Thumbnails

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,