Showing posts with label horror movies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label horror movies. Show all posts

Saturday, April 19, 2014

Oculus (2014) Review

Directed by 
Mike Flanagan


            Demonic possessions take many forms in the movies.  From Chucky dolls (Child’s Play) to videotapes (The Ring) to cars (Christine), cinematic demons show little discrimination for what material form they choose to manifest themselves through. 
            In Mike Flanagan’s Oculus, the object providing a medium for demons to haunt innocent victims is an antique mirror, and this leads to the first major problem with the movie: The fact that a mirror serves as the object of possession proves ultimately rather incidental.  It may as well have been a chandelier or window or toenail clippers or a toilet seat cover.  Demons possessed Chucky in order to communicate with the other characters in the movie, while in The Ring, characters who watched the video died shortly afterwards.   In other words, those demons were purposeful in selecting their channels for interacting with the real world.  In Oculus, it is not as though the characters enter the mirror and are transformed into an altered and distorted state.  That would demand a higher degree of originality and creativity that this movie simply doesn’t have.  No, sorry to say, the mirror is just your typical run-of-the-mill possessed object – you know, the ones that kill people and turn off the lights and cause everyone else around the main characters to call them crazy. 
As for the mirror itself, it looks innocent enough – not unlike one found in a backroom of a secondhand pawn shop.  But somehow unbeknownst to nearly every character in Oculus, it actually carries a long and ominous history of owners who have gone crazy and killed themselves and others (it’s pretty remarkable how comprehensive and detailed this history is, but I’ll try to suspend my disbelief).  As the film opens, we are introduced to a pair of grown siblings who have been separated for a considerable amount of time as a result of being traumatized by the mirror as kids: Kaylie (Karen Gillan), who has devoted much of her young adult life to tracking down the mirror through auction houses, and Tim (Brenton Thwaites), who is just being released from a prolonged stay at a mental institution.  Their deceased parents fell victim to the mirror when Kaylie and Tim were pre-adolescents, and now that they have found the mirror once again, they have vowed to show the world its supernatural sinister power.
 At least that’s what Kaylie wants to do.  Tim’s many years of psychotherapy have convinced him that the tragic events of the past were simply the result of all-too-human malice, and as a result, he spends much of the first half of Oculus functioning as the conscientious skeptic pitted against Kaylie’s firmly committed truth-seeker.  In a strange way, the movie bears resemblance to The Butterfly Effect (which also featured a lead character named Kaylie): The horrible things which transpired in the past are framed through the present-day perspectives of the grown characters.  This leads to an interesting but ultimately pointless strategy by writer-director Flanagan: Instead of structuring the narrative in discrete flashback and present-day units, events of the past and present are shown as fluid, meaning that on occasion pre-teen Tim and grownup Tim share the same space within the frame (it would have been nice to see the two versions of Tim have a conversation with one another like the witty diner scene in Looper, but the movie is too concerned with boo! moments than Kafkaesque self-inquiry). 
I call this strategy pointless because it doesn’t really reveal anything important or identifiable in the ways in which the mirror haunts Kaylie and Tim.  After seeing Oculus, I can definitively state that the most effed-up thing the mirror does to its victims is make them think they are using a particular object for a specific purpose, but in fact it turns out to be a completely different object.  For example, a character thinks that he or she is biting into an apple when – Whoops! – it turns out to be a lightbulb.  But this only happens two or three times.  Nearby plants die, the power goes out and the phone lines go down.  Yada yada yada.  And yes, demons are unleashed through the mirror, but they do little except for scream and run around clumsily.  They’re not too unlike the zombies in Zombieland.
Anyway, the real thrust of Kaylie’s experiment is to prove definitively to Tim and the rest of the world that her father (Rory Cochrane) wasn’t a sadistic psycho who randomly killed his wife (Katee Sackhoff) shortly after moving her and young Kaylie and Tim into a new house.  She wants to show that the mirror was the thing that convinced him to do it.  That’s fine and dandy, except (A) How Kaylie is able to get ahold of the mirror without anyone else knowing the backstory of her relationship to it is completely implausible, (B) She doesn’t seem to realize that messing around with the mirror won’t bring her parents back to life or meaningfully exonerate her father, and (C) The damage has already been done – her parents are dead and her brother’s spent his teenage years institutionalized.  And then there’s the fundamental (and unanswered) question of why as kids Kaylie and Tim were impervious to the powers of the mirror in the first place.  Of course, you’re not supposed to ask these questions of logic during a horror movie like Oculus.  But that doesn’t absolve the movie of a responsibility to uphold the intelligence of its audience, which it fails to do particularly during its final half.  Malevolent things happen for no reason which is of course bad for the characters, but it’s bad for the movie when the audience stops seeking to locate a reasonable explanation and simply chalks it up to “demons are really bad and all-powerful.”
 Oculus has two initial strengths working for it.  One is the mirror itself – a fertile and creatively rich object which could be used in a variety of primordial ways to freak the characters (and audiences) out.  The other is the Moulder-and-Skully-like dynamic between Kaylie and Tim.  But somehow, neither of these strengths ever really materialize.  Worse yet, the movie isn’t even all that scary.  Because we know the supernatural power of the mirror from the onset, witnessing its sensational effects is never really that shocking.  And because the movie emphasizes that the mirror distorts reality, we soon sense the manipulative ways in which the screenplay selectively chooses to merge and divide the real-world from illusion when most convenient.  
Once upon a time, there was a movie called Candyman which also featured a demon using a mirror to channel its evil prowess.  In that movie, Virginia Madsen played a graduate student (getting her degree in folk studies, not horticulture) who is told to look into the mirror and say Candyman’s name five times.  Then, a Lionel Richie-looking demon would become unleashed and put the poor souls at Cabrini-Green out of their misery.  That was a movie which worked not only because it used mirrors better but because it more closely adhered to a proscribed set of rules.  Oculus doesn’t use rules, which makes for bloody chaos.  Instead, a movie should have been made about someone giving the antique mirror as a gag gift to Billy Bob Thornton.  At least then there would have been some legitimate terror. 

Rating: 2 stars


Saturday, July 20, 2013

The Conjuring (2013) Review

  Directed by 
James Wan


          Horror movies are held up to a decidedly different threshold than any other major film genre – the mark of success is less whether the movie is good or not, but whether it has effectively and repeatedly scared you.  This discrepancy is illustrated in the case of The Conjuring, which is a perfectly adequate story obfuscated in relatively cheap “gotcha!” thrills and stock horror movie clichés.  The result is a movie which is doubtless entertaining and perhaps even moderately satisfying in a world where the horror genre is synonymous with bloodied limbs, chainsaws, and stupid teenagers (The Conjuring fortunately has none of those).  But is the movie really scary?
          Like most horror movies, the answer to that question lies in the eyes of the beholder.  On a “scary scale,” I would rank it somewhere above, oh, the American remake of The Ring but below, say, The Exorcism of Emily Rose.  That sentence alone would probably satisfy many eager perspective viewers deciding whether The Conjuring is worth seeing.  But for those rare 2013 horror audiences with the audacity to hope for an actual good movie, The Conjuring is worth exploring in greater depth.
          The film stars Patrick Wilson and Vera Farmiga (who seems to be in every horror movie or TV show made nowadays) as a married team of demonologists, Ed and Lorraine Warren, who investigate paranormal and demonic events.  “Paranormal investigators” is one of those wonderful vocations which only people in the movies seem to occupy (other such jobs include “Hooker with a heart of gold,” “Janitor with exceptional abilities,” and “Boring office drone who is secretly a spy”) but the movie informs us that they were, indeed, a real couple and the events of The Conjuring actually happened in 1971.  Right.  Anyway, an early scene shows how the Warrens store all their keepsake possessed objects in their basement, leading one to wonder whether they are just abundantly nostalgic or have a secret kleptomaniacal proclivity.
          Meanwhile, a Naïve Family, the Perrons, moves into a Big Haunted House and begins experiencing strange events.  The clocks all uniformly cease ticking at 3:07.  The mother (Lili Taylor) shows mysterious signs of bruising on her body.  Each of the five adolescent daughters at some point gets pulled off their bed in the middle of the night, although strangely no one wonders whether the demonic spirit is just a restless young male apparition with puerile pranks.
          Soon, Lili Taylor begs the Warrens to investigate.  This leads to the first major problem of The Conjuring: Everyone seems immediately complicit in their belief that demons are real, and they are occupying the Big Haunted House.  Part of what made The Exorcist, The Blair Witch Project, and Paranormal Activity so effective is that the main characters were skeptics who questioned the veracity of ghosts – we therefore associated with their initial incredulity and eventual genuine aghast surprise.  In The Conjuring, there are no skeptics.  In fact, the Warrens probably talk to about 100 people over the course of the film (including large lecture halls) and no one seems to remotely question their evidence.  A newspaper reporter writes a doe-eyed story about them, a police officer happily joins their exorcisms, and even the local Catholic priest is friends with them – apparently to the point that Ed is even permitted to perform exorcisms (at this point, I was reminded of the scene in The Exorcist, a movie celebrating its 40th anniversary this year, when Father Karras talks about how silly, archaic, and inane the ritual is.  Is it possible films in 1973 were more sophisticated and cynical in their treatment of exorcisms?) 
          The priest and the cop, in particular, lead to The Conjuring’s second problem: At times, the movie tries to be funny, taking a great deal away from the suspense the film has so carefully tried to build up.  Officer Brad, played by John Brotherton, is a buffoon who unintentionally opens the bathroom door slowly like a ghost (gotcha!) and doesn’t know what an ultraviolet light is.  Another member of the Warren’s crew is Drew (Shannon Kook), who operates the camera equipment while sheepishly trying to hit on the Perron’s oldest daughter.  When the four members of the exorcism crew, the two parents, and the five daughters are all in the house investigating, The Conjuring reeks of narrative excess, at times feeling like the middle passages of Jurassic Park – everyone is afforded their nice little isolated one-on-one encounters with the demon.  Remember the stark alienation of the film crew in Blair Witch or the young couple in Paranormal Activity?  Not in this crowded surrounding, although thankfully the filmmakers refrain from indulging in the cliché of the demon running past the doorway, but oh wait, it’s actually just Little Cindy.
          The final problem of The Conjuring is that the mythology and supernatural abilities of the demon (and its motivations for haunting the poor Perron family) are unclear and poorly defined.  Apparently, it all goes back to the Salem Witch Trials, when a mother was hanged for killing her infant under demon possession.  So why is this demon targeting anyone other than poor Lili Taylor?  In addition, birds and other animals fly around until they eventually collapse suddenly, and in one crucial scene, it is implied that the demon is somehow related to an earlier case of the Warrens involving a demented doll.  But the movie seems only content with showing us these images rather than explaining why we are seeing them in the first place.  When the dust is settled and the morning sun shines at the end of the movie (in a scene that the packed audience I sat with laughed at), one is left wondering whether the Perrons’ real problem the whole time was Vitamin D deficiency.
          Of course, in horror movies, all of these shortcomings can be forgiven so long as the movie provides sufficient thrills.  This is mostly not the case in The Conjuring, which panders too frequently to jilting strings and ominous ambient sounds blasted to 11 when the creature suddenly appears.  Remember how scary Paranormal Activity was without music?  Sure, The Conjuring provides a few genuine chills, especially in the early parts of the film when we are not quite sure where the movie is going.  In addition, there are several admirable attempts by the director, James Wan, to innovatively frame certain shots so that the audience should be seeing the terrifying things the characters are seeing, but is unable to.  But then there are other times when it appears Wan has watched too much 1970s-Amityville-type schlock – most endemic of which are the ominous but excessive zoom-ins and zoom-outs of the Big Haunted House.  When we see this repeated shot for the seventh time, I think it’s fair to assume the audience gets the message.
          The Conjuring arrives in summer theaters with positive reviews and good word-of-mouth.  In some ways, it is a relieving antidote to the profusion of violent slasher movies.  It never feels long at 112 minutes.  It will provide a few honest scares, several cheap thrills, and a great deal of channeling of its 1970s cinematic predecessors.  But it lacks the imagination, wit, character depth, and even the cynicism of those other more effective horror films, such as The Exorcist and Poltergeist.  It makes you wait for the time when demonic spirits will graduate from grabbing people’s legs or smashing family pictures in the stairway to perhaps something really impressive and genuinely surprising to its victims in the theater seats.

Rating: 2.5 stars