« Wristcutters Finally Lands | Main | Friday Estimates by Klady - 10/19 »

October 19, 2007

Wow… That Was Bad

Ironically, I just saw Hard Candy on my TV this last week, in hi-def. Given the positive buzz, I was not surprised by it. But I thought it was an effective little off-Broadway piece of theater with very stylized production values. Smartly shot in a tiny box of a space, the film worked. Bravo to director David Slade.

But given a little more space and budget, it turns out that Slade really can’t much direct after all. I mean, not even the most basic stuff. His second feature, 30 Days of Night, is a pretty compelling style effort… well, for about 10 minutes. It’s rinse and repeat from there.

I have to say, I have never seen that much blood and guts and violence get such a muted reaction from a crowd in a theater on opening night. But Slade turns the trick by really not knowing how to handle the basics of movement once he sets up his vampire tale.

He does have a remarkable instinct for making the otherwise attractive seem pretty ugly. I mean, this guys loves pores! And he finds every possible bad angle on Melissa George’s hard to assault face.

But much more importantly, he manages to make a guy ripping out another person’s throat with their teeth seem mundane… and that’s not easy. Humans into a giant shredder? Yawn. People set on fire… yeah… been there, slept through that.

Maybe he would have been better off with a smaller budget and the demand of a PG-13. At least then, he might have tried harder to get away with it. As is, you get all the blood and guts, but very little impact. There is all the close-up, jerky slo-mo (what is that effect called) stuff… but you never know where anyone is in any action scene, not even in a two person fight.

The one special effect in the film that is truly special is Danny Huston, who not so coincidentally is the one vampire who has not been make-uped into being superweird looking. He has white skin, but otherwise, it’s his face… and he is kick ass brilliant. God, what I would pay to see a face-off scene a la (a very low budget) Heat between Huston and Bill Nighy, the two great lanky character men of the moment. Hell, throw in McKellan and watch people’s heads explode.

Anyway… not a good movie. Not even a good kill movie. But hey, it will open. Welcome to show business.

Posted by poland at October 19, 2007 10:58 PM

Comments

Memo from the office of missing the point:

Dude, you totally missed the point of the movie.

The violence that is most striking in 30 DAYS is the violence committed by the NON vampires in the film. The lack of fetishising vampires biting people works here because, well, vampires gots to eat. I'm sick of all this biting in slo-mo and making it look all erotic. The vampires here are treated like sharks in a feeding frenzy and it kicked ass.

It's hard to really get into specifics because I don't want to spoiler anyone, but some of the death scenes in this film actually made my mouth drop open. I couldn't believe they "went there" but this did...and then went there again.

I thank the MPAA Gods that this film is gross, bloody and rated R for a reason. I also love Slades visual style in this one. The aerial shot of the town going to hell was amazing and the sparse, gray tones not only paid homage to the graphic novel (without the as late annoying tendency to bring the artwork to life) in a perfect way. The film also reminded me of ALIEN for some reason.

I do agree that weird stutter slo-mo effect has gotta go. It's way played out.

Posted by: PetalumaFilms [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 19, 2007 11:45 PM

Well, I will admit that the look piqued my interest in the graphic novel. But the movie does fetishize the vampire attacks... and lets the human off the hook often, even making a head chopped off seem mundane.

Judged the movie based on what was on the screen, not the notion of what I hoped or expected it was.

Oh well.

Posted by: David Poland [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 19, 2007 11:51 PM

Alas that it could not live up to the lofty standards of a Marcus Nispel film.

Posted by: jeffmcm [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 20, 2007 02:37 AM

^ ZING!

Posted by: AbeFroman [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 20, 2007 07:20 AM

I agree that it started off with a lot of potential and then devolved into a typical pick of the victims one by one flick.

It was interesting visually though.

Vic

Posted by: ScreenRant.com [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 20, 2007 08:45 AM

True enough, Jeff.

Some might not like the Chainsaw remake, but I would imagine, based on previous discussions, that it was somehow more about it bastardizing their idea of what was important to them about the original Chainsaw and not because Nispel can't shoot a scene with any tension.

But thanks for trying.


Posted by: David Poland [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 20, 2007 10:18 AM

I couldn't agree more David. But hey, for those people who can't get enough vampire action, I guess this will do, though I have to wonder why the vampires had so much trouble killing everyone. They had 30 days for crying out loud, they could've torn down every house. I guess the fun is in the chase.

Posted by: brack [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 20, 2007 10:22 AM

I will never understand hating Hostel II but thinking so highly of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake...

Posted by: ManWithNoName [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 20, 2007 11:04 AM

Why do you crush my dreams, David Poland? I loved Hard Candy, it was one of the best films of last year, and I've had my hopes up about Slade's follow-up since I started seeing ads for it. I'm still going to see it, but I'm getting nervous that it won't be the brilliant film that Hard Candy was.

Posted by: Tom Houseman [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 20, 2007 01:02 PM

^^^ lol

Posted by: brack [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 20, 2007 01:31 PM

MWNN - I think it's because I had no great investment in what TCM was, just what the remake was. For me, the most horrible scene in TCM was the cop making the girls lie face down in the dirt... a scene about terror and their anticipation.

Camera moves through people's giant gunshot wounds don't bother me. The guy hanging from the hooks trying to get off of them doesn't bother me. Hang that same guy naked, bound and gag, upside down, then kill him slowly with a smirk on your face and that bothers me. Rip the skin off Jessica Biel's body then sell her at a discount... that would bother me.

Whatever may be inferior about the TCM remake - and I am open to others feeling differently about it than I did - it has motive for the "bad guys" and the "good guys" and it is not about torture for the smirky pleasure of the audience.

This is the same distinction I make on the Argento, which has many of the grotesque elements, but none of the smirk of Roth. Same with Miike, who can be more visually violent than either, but always has a purpose. And Fruit Chan's Dumplings, which features ground fetuses, is actually, at its full length, quite brilliant... a high for genre.

Clearer?

Posted by: David Poland [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 20, 2007 02:26 PM

Not really, because I would say there's as much pandering and gratuitousness in TCM'03 as any horror movie released in the last decade. And no, I would not agree that Nispel can shoot a scene with tension. He can shoot a scene with 'tension', i.e. attractive people screaming and pretty cinematography and big mean monsters leering over them, but not the real deal.

Posted by: jeffmcm [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 20, 2007 02:56 PM

"There is all the close-up, jerky slo-mo (what is that effect called) stuff…"

If it's the kind of slo-motion I think you mean, I call it the "this-part-sucks-but-it's-too-late-to-reshoot-anything-so-let's-just-make-it-slo-mo-in-post" shot. Action movies that don't know what they're doing are littered with this effect and I can't think of a single time it's ever worked right.

Posted by: Hallick [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 20, 2007 02:57 PM

Eli Roth has written to Nikki Finke saying he is no longer going to make any more torture porn. Bad news for all the sickos out there; good news for normal people.

"As far as violence goes, I think at this point I've pushed the boundaries of horror as far as I can, and it's someone else's turn to take over spilling blood and guts. I have new challenges and much more ambitious ideas that are not horror related that I'm working on, as well as other artistic endeavors outside of film. I love directors like Sam Raimi and Peter Jackson, who pushed the boundaries of gore and horror in their early career, and then took that same energy and aesthetic and applied it to other genres. I'll always love horror and I'm sure I'll make more horror movies, but once you've spilled that much blood, you kind of have it out of your system and look for other ways to make audiences scream and cheer and vomit."

Posted by: Ian Sinclair [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 20, 2007 10:03 PM

"Eli Roth has written to Nikki Finke saying he is no longer going to make any more torture porn. Bad news for all the sickos out there; good news for normal people."

I hate this. Why isn't it enough to dislike the movies? This sicko happens to think the Saw flicks are fun, weird, increasingly baroque little stories. If you can't take it, don't watch them. Jesus.

Posted by: eugenen [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 20, 2007 10:16 PM

Can't argue with your opinions on Miike, Chan, or Argento, but Nispel is in nowhere near the same league as any of those directors.

Posted by: ManWithNoName [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 20, 2007 10:50 PM

Eli announced weeks ago that his next film would be a comedy. He's done dozens of appearances in the last week... so many so that I have done three interviews about him in the last week.

And why did he "write to" Nikki? Because he is Sony's bitch during the DVD release of Hostel 2 and the studio that most runs Nikki threw her some meat. Gotta love corporate synergy.

Posted by: David Poland [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 20, 2007 10:52 PM

Having now seen 30 Days of Night, I have to say that I agree more with DP than with Petaluma - it's poorly directed, disjointed, and badly cast outside of Danny Huston, who's great. But it also has some things that I liked, like the atmospheric location and the look of the vampire, so: mixed thumbs-down.

thanks for the quote, Hunter.

Posted by: jeffmcm [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 21, 2007 01:15 AM

Oh, there isn't any slo-mo in the film, the visual effect DP was mentioning has to do with a wide shutter angle on the camera. It's not a post-production effect.

Posted by: jeffmcm [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 21, 2007 01:30 AM

Wasn't Roth planning a Cell adaptation or something?

Posted by: KamikazeCamelV2.0 [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 21, 2007 02:13 AM

The traditional "jerky slo-mo" effect is called step-printing, and it's achieved by the very simple process of printing each frame two or more times until the desired speed (or lack of it) is achieved.

Posted by: Cadavra [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 21, 2007 12:00 PM

Well, 30 DAYS is certainly NOT a movie I'm going to spend time defending....I didn't love it that much. But, I'm surprised people are kind of...universally not liking it. I really liked it and thought the violence was just wicked for a mainstream horror flick. I definitely saw DP's points (some) and get what people are saying, but I still found it a fun day at the movies.

I can't wait for Eli Roth's comedy....then we will once and for all see how much he hates women and he can't use the horror guise to cover for it. Should be fun.

Posted by: PetalumaFilms [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 21, 2007 12:12 PM

The Cell adaptation got put on hold due to the book it being based off of... sucking. HIYOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!
That aside; 30 Days of night is a goofy horrour flick based off of a goofy horrour comic. I can uderstand like Heat disliked it. Yet... per usual... Heat lashes out at something while clearly loving and defending an utter piece of shit like the Chainsaw remake. This makes him endearing and frustrating at the same damn time.

Posted by: IOIOIOI [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 21, 2007 04:36 PM

Pretty late in the game, I feel this rallied just a little, mostly thanks to Danny Huston and some increased suspense, and nicely haunting final couple scenes, but mostly DP is correct in the absolute directorial incompetence on display for most of the first 80 minutes.

I kept getting confused as to who people even WERE, which is a bad sign in one of these NOTLD-type siege movies where you're supposed to be on the edge of your seat pulling for the survivors. This rag-tag crew was so ill-defined I kept trying to search my brain to remember if we'd even met them before.

Prime example: 3/4 of the way in, Melissa George goes all maternal to protect some child, who I can't for the life of me remember every being in the movie up till that point. I couldn't even tell if it was a boy or a girl.

WHO THE HELL WAS THAT KID????

The passage of time was COMPLETELY unconvincing, the rules of the game were unclear, the spatial orientation was a complete fucking disaster.

Posted by: LexG [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 22, 2007 02:28 PM

"horrour"?

Posted by: KamikazeCamelV2.0 [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 23, 2007 12:48 AM

Post a comment

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)


Remember me?