Bad Lycan Seed

GINGER SNAPS 2: UNLEASHED (2004)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

"Ginger Snaps: Unleashed" is one of the scarier horror sequels since the "Nightmare on Elm Street" series. The difference from most slasher cum horror series is this sequel actually builds on one of the main characters it established in the first film, bringing the tension to a grisly finish that will leave you in stitches.

In the original "Ginger Snaps," Brigette (Emily Perkins) was the dour high-school girl, the loner who wanted to save her sister, Ginger (Katharine Isabelle), from reaching maximum lycanthropic heights. Since Ginger died at Brigette's hands, Brigette is now infected, slowly but surely she will become a werewolf. She cuts herself daily, to see if she heals any faster with the antidote she concocted - a bluish, purplish liquid, basically wolfsbane, that she injects into her arms, legs, wherever. The problem is that she is building an immunity to the stuff. There is also a werewolf after her, for reasons never made clear, and somehow Brigette finds herself in a psychiatric facility for girls. She also has to contend with Ghost (Tatiana Maslany), a young, wise blonde girl who runs around the facility and often takes care of her grandmother who nearly got roasted in a fire. Question: if this is a psych ward for girls with mental and other problems, what is a burn victim doing there? Anyways, Ghost learns of Brigette's problems and they become pals - Brigette's main concern is to escape the facility since she is in danger from the monstrous werewolf.

"Ginger Snaps: Unleashed" has several moments of frightful surprises, and the tension is unbridled throughout. Director Brett Sullivan unleashes quite a few scares from the start and the gory flash frames, used sparingly, the tremendously foggy, snowy landspaces, the dank art direction (the psych ward and Ghost's booby-trapped house are especially creepy) add enormously to the film's atmosphere.

What really lends support is Emily Perkins' performance as Brigette, a girl suffering inside and out from her curse. She does not give in to her sexual impulses, thanks to her sister Ginger who appears occasionally as a ghost to tempt her. Brigette knows it is a hopeless situation, but she accepts her eventual, full scale transformation. Also worth noting is Tatiana Maslany as Ghost, a devious yet seemingly innocent girl - her last scene will give you major goosebumps.

"Ginger Snaps: Unleashed" is frighteningly good, occasionally gory fun (and its psych ward is far more interesting than the one in "Girl, Interrupted") but it does have a few loopholes (who is that werewolf really?) Still, for a genre that used to be rooted in slasher routines, this sequel ups the ante on devilish surprises, piquantly written, and leaves the werewolf to the imagination (only seen in quick close-ups). Is it as good as the first cult horror film? No, but it comes darn close. What gives the film an extra ounce of demonic pleasure is the performances by Perkins and Maslany. At least one of them gives new definition to the term: bad seed.

Crop circles restrain Mel Gibson

SIGNS (2002)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

(Originally reviewed on Sept. 22nd, 2002)

There are definite signs that M. Night Shyamalan is destined to be the next Spielberg. Or the next Hitchcock. Or whatever. I am still waiting. After the phenomenal success of "The Sixth Sense" and the solemnity of "Unbreakable," Shyamalan was left wondering what to do next. He crossed over into a story involving aliens and that leaves us with "Signs," an artfully made thriller with echoes of faith written all over it, yet completely lacking any real emotional conviction. If only the lead character was not such a zombie.

Mel Gibson plays former Father Graham Hess, a widower with two children to raise, a younger brother, Merrill (Joaquin Phoenix), and a farm full of corn stalks. He is a former Reverend who questioned his faith after his wife died in a tragic car accident. Merrill has moved in to help him cope. Graham has two children, Morgan (Rory Culkin), and Bo (Abigain Breslin), who have their own eccentricities. Morgan becomes immersed in extraterrestrial books. Bo leaves half-empty glasses of water all over the house for fear of contaminants. Merrill stays glued to the television hidden in a closet, awaiting further updates of aliens hovering all over the planet. All this after crop circles have materialized from Bucks County, Pennsylvania to India. These very same crop circles have materialized in Graham's own farm land (which is set in Bucks County). Are there really aliens occupying Earth or is it an elaborate hoax?

The signs are there, and this is where the movie really works. The Hess's dog tries to attack Bo and is killed by Morgan. There are the glasses of water. Strange language patterns are heard in a baby monitor. Graham hears noises in his farm land, and sometimes hears and sees someone leaping all over their property. A Brazilian video birthday party shows a green man waltzing by (a nod, no doubt, to the famous Bigfoot footage from the 1970's). And, of course, there are those crop circles. Is the world going to end? Are these aliens friendly or hostile? Will Graham restore his faith in God by believing that these aliens are a godsend?

After a tight, fright-filled forty minutes, I began to suspect that Shyamalan was going to hit us with something profound or give us some kind of epiphany involving these aliens and the Hess family. Sadly, nothing ever comes out of the initial premise. I was hoping for a more studied look at hoaxes versus reality and how they affect a family willing to believe in the impossible. Shyamalan holds back and just focuses on the family members. That is all fine and dandy, but there is no real presence in the leading character played by Gibson. Graham is shown to be emotionless and faithless. Gibson plays him with such solemnity and restraint that there is nothing left to look at except at a robot. Thankfully, Gibson has no over-the-top shouting matches in the movie but there is not much else either. It is one thing for a character to be humorless and devoid of personality, but an actor like Gibson, who can be humorous and full of life, makes Graham about as interesting as a refrigerator.

Only the kids come forth with any hint of vibrancy. Rory Culkin shows more range than his older, famous brother, and Breslin has that childlike innocence that always works. I also enjoyed Joaquin Phoenix as the less-than-straight-arrow brother, but even he seems to have toned down his performance. Excepting the kids, it is like watching a movie with zombies instead of real people (one of the flaws that plagued Shyamalan's "Unbreakable"). The climax is shoddy at best and a letdown. M. Night Shyamalan still has talent to spare in his choice of framing shots and building suspense with ease, but empathetic characters are still needed to make the suspense work. The buildup is all there for a gripping, compelling film. All we get is the buildup that leads to numerous signs and little else.

Those Who Do Not Speak of the Twist

THE VILLAGE (2004)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

(Originally reviewed in 2004)

M. Night Shyamalan has been known as the new prince of suspense and horror in movies. He's also been crowned as the new Spielberg, an achievement that is still unclear to me. Prior to Shyamalan's "The Sixth Sense" hit, he directed two largely unknown films, one of them was "Wide Awake." After "The Sixth Sense" came the solemn "Unbreakable" and the even more deadening "Signs." Okay, so now you know I am not a big fan of the Nightman, but where is the Spielbergian comparison? Shyamalan is more geared towards suspense and atmosphere that lead to the inevitable twist ending. Spielberg makes films that are awesome in scale and sentiment, but typically he does not lend his hand to horror or suspense. So now comes the Nightman's newest suspense shocker, "The Village," a film that has already driven Internet movie fanatics wild with its ending, something which M. Night fans knew the outcome to prior to the showing of the first trailer! My, my, my, how I crave the days when nobody expected to be shocked by the double twist finale of 1955's "Diabolique," a film that ends with a warning to kids to keep mum about its secret ending. And so here comes "The Village" and I must say that I was pleasantly surprised. The twist was a surprise to me, but the movie is a humanistic, scary ride into one of my favorite locations for any horror film, the forest.

Set in the 1890's, the film takes place in a village that has its own community of elders, teenagers and children. The village is Covington, Pennsylvania, presided by its patriarch, Edward Walker (William Hurt), a professor. Walker has two daughters, the shrill Kitty (Judy Greer, always great at being shrill) who is eager to get married, and the blind Ivy (Bryce Dallas Howard) who can see people's aura in the form of a color. There is also Lucius Hunt (Joaquim Phoenix), his widowed mother, Alice (Sigourney Weaver), and the village idiot (Adrien Brody). There is also a triangular romance, dances by candlelight, young women happily sweeping leaves off of their balconies, men worrying about wrinkling their shirts, and so on.

This village is unique in its spaciousness despite being so closed-in. The reason is that the woods surrounding the village are filled with creatures in red cloaks, also known as Those We Do Not Speak Of. There has always been an understanding between the creatures and the village people, to keep a barrier barring either party from entering each other's space. Also, the color red is forbidden since it will entice TWDNSO (which begs the question, if there is a mutual understanding between them, why would the creatures know if anyone is wearing red or keeping a red flower)? Unfortunately, something wicked has come to the town. Livestock and animals have been skinned alive and left for dead. Is it the creatures? Resourceful Lucius Hunt wants to find out and cross into the woods, but he needs permission from the elders. But there is something else beyond all that foliage. A road to an unnamed town exists where Lucius could bring back medicine (despite the fact that the village has a doctor). Since there is no medicine, children and elders sometimes die, no doubt due to sickness. Was every late 19th century village like this?

"The Village" has more up its sleeve. Think I will tell you more? Nope, no way. This is a relatively SPOILER-FREE review. Sorry Nightfans, but I cannot dispense much more info. Suffice to say, if you have seen the Nightman's other films, you can expect a few surprises here and there. Of course, something happens at the end that...well, can't say it or divulge it.

What starts out as an atmospheric horror film, using such handy devices like fog over an indecipherable horizon, close-ups of silhouetted tree branches and so on, radically becomes a different kind of film. Let's say that the...my, not sure I can say that either. I am not a paid film critic nor was I told by any studio to keep a secret, but it would be unethical of me to say much more. I can say that the performances deliver on cue, including Adrien Brody as the unrestrained village idiot who is always laughing at those damn creatures making weird sounds in the forest. William Hurt is always a marvel to behold, delivering his usual slow tempo of speech - you're always eager to hear what he has to say next. The brightest spot in the film is Bryce Dallas Howard (Ron Howard's daughter) as the truly resourceful heroine of the film, though I can't reveal more than that. Joaquim Phoenix is a disappointment, if only because he plays a far too stolid character. Sigourney Weaver is not much better, looking a little bored due to a severely underwritten part. By contrast, Cherry Jones as one of the village women sparkles and seems to be occupying a real time and place.

As compared to the Nightman's other flicks, "The Village" is far superior to "Signs" or "Unbreakable." It has the sentiment and the pulsating heart of "The Sixth Sense," focusing on the director's penchant for families drawn together by unforeseen circumstances. The Nightman also knows how to evoke scares and shock tactics like a true magician. And like any magician, he certainly has a lot up his sleeve.

Three wishes, first one: AVOID THIS MOVIE

WISHMASTER (1997)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

(Originally reviewed in 1999)

There is one great shot in the hopelessly overwrought "Wishmaster." It is a quick shot but definitely a keeper. The heroine of the film, Alex (Tammy Lauren), visits the well-kept house of a curator (Robert Englund). The curator shows her various historic, priceless statues, including one of Pazuzu! Yes, the very same one from "The Exorcist," though perhaps smaller. It is a great shot, and one of mystery, allure and introspection, all the things the rest of "Wishmaster" is not.

The titled character is an evil genie, also known as the Djinn (Andrew Divoff, who played the anonymous biker villain in "Another 48 HRS."), who is ready to wreck havoc on the world by granting people their innermost wishes and desires. The trouble is that he takes their simple wishes and exploits them in an evil manner. For example, he grants a wish to a homeless man who wishes the rude pharmacy manager would contract cancer and die. The Djinn grants the wish and the manager grows pale and dies within a few minutes after the wish is granted. Surely the homeless man did not mean to do that!

Alex, the jewel expert, (Tammy Lauren) inadvertently unleashes this evil spirit from a fire opal and, in a nod to "Nightmare on Elm Street 4," she can feel pain each time a victim falls prey to the genie. She has to grant him three wishes and in return, he gets to destroy the world or rule it or whatever he plans to do with it.

"Wishmaster" could have been an enjoyable, highly moralistic little horror film if done with some imagination and taste. Instead it feeds on buckets of gore to make its exclamatory points about why you should think about the wishes you make before making them. The film quickly grows ponderous and silly, particularly with the Wishmaster's tired one-liners (do genies truly utter four-letter words? Haven't they been around long enough to make more snappy remarks?) Divoff is convincingly menacing as the Djinn but he even he grows tiresome. Only Lauren rises above this mess with some measure of dignity, if only because it shows a woman can defeat evil genies. Here's a wish: I wish Wes Craven would direct the films he produces.

P.S. Buck Flower plays the toothless homeless man in "Wishmaster," a similar role to his Bread character in the "Back to the Future" movies where he also played a homeless man. Alluding once again to the "Exorcist," Flower has a similar line to the homeless man in that film: "Hey, can you help an old altar boy? I am Catholic." Sacrilege!

Sin is good

VAMPIRE IN BROOKLYN (1995)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

(Originally reviewed in Fall 1996)

Eddie Murphy is pretty much on the same wavelength as Whoopi Goldberg: they are both big, audacious comic stars who don't easily fit into any of the countless tired Hollywood formulas written for them. Whoopi has had a little more success than Eddie in the 90's, prior to Eddie's "The Nutty Professor." As a result, Eddie has not had a major comedy hit since 1988's "Coming to America," arguably his best picture. The new Eddie Murphy played a vampire in a film by Wes Craven back in 1995, a role you'd never expect the old Eddie from "Beverly Hills Cop" to play.

Murphy plays an African vampire with a goatee named Max who travels to Brooklyn to find his soul mate. His soul mate turns out to be a frustrated, edgy cop played by the lovely Angela Bassett ("What's Love Got To Do With It"). Max bites a few necks along the way to get to her but he can't do it all himself. He enlists the help of a young thief who becomes a sort of deteriorating, latter-day Renfield. We've seen this type of story countless times before, and there is no reason any of this should really work. Murphy as a vampire in a Wes Craven flick? Is this comedy-horror or a horror-comedy?

The surprise is that "Vampire in Brooklyn" is not half-bad at all, a minor guilty pleasure. There are plenty of good laughs, dozens of one-liners, frenetic camerawork from Max's point-of-view as he soars across Brooklyn, nasty dream sequences, and Murphy shows ample skill as a vampire who can shape-shift into a holier-than-thou, Al Sharpton-type Reverend or a thick-accented Italian gangster named Guido. The photography is appropriately dark and damp considering most of the story takes place at night. There are some nice, subtle touches such as the flickering candlelights that surround Murphy and Bassett's erotic dance and arm lanterns that extend from the wall, all lifted from Cocteau's "Beauty and the Beast" and Coppola's "Dracula."

I also found there to be pleasant chemistry between Murphy and Bassett - it would be nice to see them in more romantic pairings in the future. The scenes of Murphy inviting Bassett to dine with him ("I would like to have you...for dinner") are priceless and fitfully funny. The other plus is Murphy's impeccable impersonations and marvelous make-up jobs that show him off as the talent he always was - still, these scenes have little to do with the story at hand. Often such comedic highlights, which are precious few, interfere with the ghastly blood and gore.

"Vampire in Brooklyn" is packed with gross gags galore and unnecessary gore. A horror-comedy should balance both horror and blood equally rather than going overkill on the gore, as also witnessed by John Landis's excruciating "Innocent Blood." The ending is also strangely unfinished - I would love to have seen a more imaginative killing method rather than the traditional stake-in-the-heart. A little originality would not hurt - who can ever forget Christopher Lee's Dracula killed by both a cross and the rays of sunlight?

"Vampire in Brooklyn" proved to be a failure as Murphy's comeback - a year later, he wowed audiences and made a major comeback with "The Nutty Professor." This film certainly beats the last dreary "Beverly Hills Cop" picture he did though not as harmless and fitfully funny as "The Distinguished Gentleman." It is a hoot and a half and sporadically funny but not enough of a challenge for dear old Eddie. My advice to Eddie Murphy is to return to his raw, politically incorrect roots, as it were. He was funnier and more outrageous when you did not know what to expect.

A Moderate scream, baby!

SCREAM 3 (2000)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia

(Originally reviewed in 2000)

I know of very few finite horror trilogies. The "Evil Dead" is the only example I can think of. The nearly parodic original "Scream" certainly never gave the impression that a sequel was necessary, or a trilogy. Yet "Scream 3" is here, and the surprise is that it is not bad - a decent if pale reminder of the previous two entries.

This time, the nearly traumatized heroine Sidney Prescott (Neve Campbell) is living in a secluded area outside L.A., which makes sense considering she has escaped the wrath of a ghostface killer in two movies. She has now changed her name, and works as a woman's crisis operator! She also has visions of her dead mother walking in the wooded area outside her house (if you recall, Sidney's mother was killed by her boyfriend in the original).

But the nightmare is not over as we witness the making of "Stab 3: Return to Woodsboro," a Hollywood production with a novice film director Roman Bridger (Scott Foley) at the helm. The ingratiating Parker Posey plays Gale Weathers, the bitchy reporter. Courteney Cox Arquette returns of course as the real Gale, seeing her life once again depicted in a movie (as evidenced by the outstanding success of the first "Stab" film shown in "Scream 2.") I hope this all makes sense. But somebody is offing all the cast members of the latest production, and it is up to Gale and witty returnee David Arquette as the bumbling former cop Dewey, now technical advisor for "Stab 3", to solve the crime and determine who is the new killer with the cape and Edward Munch mask. Whoever it is has a fixation on poor Sidney and her dead mother.

"Scream 3" is the sequel-within-the-sequel-near-parody that almost takes its idea and turns it on its head, as "Scream 2" did. Unfortunately, the script by writer Ehren Kruger ("Arlington Road") eschews some of the clever wit and puns of the first two films, concentrating instead on slicing and dicing methods of cruelty. In other words, "Scream 3" almost becomes the generic slasher movie that these movies made a mockery out of in the first place. Frankly, Sidney and their pals have forgotten how to play by the rules they were so proudly an authority on. Never run up the stairs as opposed to outside the house and never say the name of the person you are looking for since they are most likely dead. Oh, and please never go inside a dark basement and for God's sakes, use a cell phone when you really need it in a moment of crisis.

Despite a number of false scares (some did make me jump) and red herrings, "Scream 3" is fairly okay, at least far superior to "Urban Legend" or "I Know What You Did Last Summer." There is enough tension throughout and some good performances, particularly Neve Campbell. She has matured since the original film and shows ample strength and humanity - never has a heroine seemed so sympathetic in any of these slasher flicks. I also enjoyed watching the Arquettes mingle and throw verbal asides - my favorite is when Gale asks Dewey about Sidney's phone number and if he has it in his memory. He thinks for a moment, and then she shouts, "Phone memory!" Independent film starlet Parker Posey is the big star of the film and she is tremendously fun to watch, delivering all her lines with ironic gusto. I also enjoyed the scenes where she spars with Courteney Cox as they investigate the murders and question various suspects. I did not enjoy the unimaginative by-the-numbers scenes with Jenny McCarthy as an actress (are we cringing yet?), Patrick Dempsey as a cop (!) and Lance Henriksen as a Roger Corman-type producer. The supporting actors playing the supporting actors of the sequel-within-the-sequel are bland and forgettable.

"Scream 3" is a fitting conclusion to a popular movie series that spawned so many horrible copycats in its wake. From director Wes Craven, who can make these movies in his sleep, it is markedly better than most other rip-offs. If only screenwriter Kevin Williamson returned to write this one, it would have been a real scream, baby.

Another Stab at the Genre-within-the-genre

SCREAM 2 (1997)

Reviewed by Jerry Saravia
(Originally reviewed in 1997)

"Horror movie sequels suck," says a film student at one point. "The entire horror genre was destroyed by sequels." I couldn't agree more considering the junk that preceded the original "Scream" such as "Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers" or the slew of other horror sequels. I approached "Scream 2" with the same kind of dread: why make a sequel to a self-referential movie that didn't exactly ask for a follow-up? Surprisingly, "Scream 2" is that rare sequel that is far superior to the original in every aspect - it is wittier, funnier, bloodier and, double surprise, more cunning and clever. It's also a more effective commentary on teens and twenty-somethings who get wrapped up in the mundane slasher/horror films of yesteryear.

"Scream 2" brings back Sidney (Neve Campbell), the strong screaming heroine from the original Scream, who now has a new boyfriend (Jerry O'Connell), and is attending a midwestern school called Windsor College. This time, she has caller-ID and can tell when someone is playing a prank on her. Jamie Kennedy is also back as the geeky survivor from the original who is now a geeky film student at the same college. All is well until someone dressed in the Edvard Munch-like mask and black cape begins to stalk the streets again. The killer is now hacking off girls at the college's sorority, a group whom Sidney wisely decided not to join (Shades of "Black Christmas"). The corpses begin to pile up forcing tabloid reporter/superstar Gale Weathers (Courteney Cox) to unwisely report on the murderous news, once again. These incidents also bring the former police officer Dewey (David Arquette), another survivor from the original, back to visit his old friends and to rekindle his romance with the unwilling Gale. And we also see Liev Schreiber (he had a brief cameo in "Scream") as the wrongly convicted Cotton who's looking for a little pay back.

"Scream 2" might seem like just another slasher picture with better actors, but it is more than that - it manages to be a sequel-within-a-sequel film that keeps referring back to itself in clever, original ways. For example, we see that Gale's book on the events in the first film had been made into a feature film called "Stab." We see clips from the film starring Heather Graham ("Boogie Nights") in the Drew Barrymore role, and Tori Spelling as Sidney, an actress whom the real Sidney had scoffed at in the first film. And then we have the coup de resistance: the opening sequence set in a movie theatre showing the film "Stab" where most of the audience is in costume waving fake knives. However, the real killer may be somewhere in the theatre.

And there are the requisite in-jokes and little asides. My favorite is when Gale refers to her nude Website as her head on "Jennifer Aniston's body." I also liked the scene where the geeky film student is talking to the killer on a cell phone: "My favorite scary movie is 'Showgirls'. Very frightening." And the aforementioned sequel discussion in film class is a classic.

"Scream 2" is very effective in establishing its characters including Sidney, the 90's horror version of Jamie Lee Curtis impressively played by Neve Campbell, who still harbors certain doubts about the people in her life, such as her boyfriend who may or may not be the killer. Campbell has several good scenes, and she, once again, makes Sidney a sympathetic, heroic character. She has a very moving scene where she is performing the part of Cassandra on stage stalked by actors in demon outfits. One of them turns out to be the killer wearing the mask, or was it just a hallucination? Courteney Cox is more animated and hilarious, this time, as the media-obsessed Gale who has a fixation on the killer and can't wait to see when he'll strike next. She has a hysterically funny scene where she hires a new cameraman who's hesitant to work for her because he might get killed like the last one. "He wasn't gutted. I made that up. His throat was slashed," admits Gale. The cameraman's response: "Gutted, slashed - the guy is not in the union anymore. Besides, brothers don't last long in situations like this." Isn't that the truth?

"Scream 2" is strictly by-the-numbers in terms of plot structure and story, but it also tends to be unpredictable. There are the usual scares but some of them are unexpected. Basically, it's a sequel about a sequel being made as we are watching it - you can almost feel the giddiness in Gale's character as she becomes aware that the events happening around her is good material for her next book that will eventually be made into a movie sequel to "Stab." Get it? "Scream 2" is part of the 90's postmodern movement where we are consistently reminded we're watching a movie about a movie-within-a-movie.

Director Wes Craven still knows how to build suspense and thrills better than any other horror director: the opening pre-credit sequence with Jada Pinkett as a moviegoer at the "Stab" screening is one of the most frightening and compelling scenes I've ever seen, certainly topping the Barrymore opening from the original. Screenwriter Kevin Williamson, who also helmed the original, has crafted a smarter, more character-oriented script with sharper dialogue and a keener eye for detail. "Scream 2" also succeeds in pinpointing the problem of teenagers and twenty-somethings obsessed with violence in American movies today, especially horror movies, and how many of them will blame the entertainment industry for their own blood lust.

"Scream 2" was easily one of the most entertaining movies of 1997, and it is Wes Craven's best work since the original "Nightmare on Elm Street." Neve Campbell and the whole cast bring a sense of humanity and pathos that definitely makes this a cut above the rest. As a character rightly suggests at the end of the film: "It's going to be one hell of a movie."