The Ward (2010)

Introduction:

Well here is John Carpenter’s latest film, and coming nearly five years after his installment for Masters of Horror and almost a full nine years after his last theatrical film Ghosts of Mars. Is he breaking new ground or sticking with the tried and true? But more importantly, is the movie scary?

Summary:

Kristen (Amber Heard) is a very disturbed young woman. She is found in front of a burning farmhouse ranting and raving. That is why she ends up in the North Bend Psychiatric Hospital. And since it’s 1966, there’s some experimental treatments going on as well as the classic electroshock therapy. She meets the other gals in the ward, as well as what appears to be a very pissed off ghost. This specter is targeting all the girls and taking lives. But the staff believes that these traumatized women are just suffering from their own mental and drug related issues. Will Kristen be able to solve the mystery of the haunting and escape the hell of The Ward?

Good Points:

• Solid performances all the way around
• Some great mood setting scenes
• Has a good mix of jump scares and gore

Bad Points:

• The setting and plot are pretty familiar
• The twist ending may be pretty obvious to some viewers
• Those with high expectations will be disappointed

Overall:

I think some folks were really hoping for a grand slam here, but what you get instead is a respectable double. All the elements work well enough to create some tension and a few good scares. But the story and the unreliable point of view are nothing terribly new. The script could have used an injection of unique, and that could have really made this something interesting. Otherwise you’ve got an average horror film, handled in a functional way.

Scores (out of 5)

Visuals: 4

Sound: 3

Acting: 3

Script: 3

Music: 3

Direction: 3

Entertainment: 3

Total:  3

In Depth Review

I think the main problem I’ve seen in other reviews of The Ward is that expectations are sky high for any Carpenter film. Everyone wants him to make another Halloween or The Thing. But most filmmakers just can’t crank out top-notch material every time, especially directors who have to play within the budgets they’ve got to deal with.

What seems odd about Carpenter is that his films seem to find audiences a few years after the movie is released. The Thing was really slammed and ignored by audiences back in 1982, but now its considered one of the best horror films of the ‘80s. No one knew what to make of Big Trouble in Little China when it was released, but now with anime and comic book films being so prevalent it has a strong following.

I get the feeling that The Ward is going to fall in the same boat. It’s not a game changer by any means. But is an effective horror film, with some very good acting and excellent suspense building.

Carpenter does enjoy using long slow shots to build tension. These days it’s rare to see any shot lasting longer than thirty seconds. And some folks just don’t have the patience for it. There is more than a little Kubrick in the style of The Ward and for me it worked excellently to build atmosphere and make those jump scares really count.

The period is also used to a good advantage here. Once we see the old equipment used in the ward, we know just how bad this can turn out. In addition, the head doctor is using experimental treatments, and that always leaves a little room for something to go awry. Combine this with an unreliable main character and it keeps viewers guess at what they are really seeing.

Usually Carpenter creates his own music for his films (and boy did he love his keyboards back in the ‘80s). This time he’s got Mark Kilian to compose some very interesting stuff. There’s quite a bit that sounds like Carpenter’s typical stuff, but the opening credits music and images do a great job of setting the mood.

I also have to give all the actresses some credit here. They do a good job making us feel bad for them and want them to get out of the situation alive. I’ve never seen Heard in anything before this, and she does a real great job here. She’s in nearly every scene of the film and her emotions run the gamut, but she always keeps the performance grounded and that keeps us rooting for her.

But one issue here is the story. It’s either going to work for you or it’s not. The twist is very familiar, and was used in a recent Hollywood film to great and memorable effect. Many of the reviews I read compared the two films with The Ward losing the battle. But these movies are quite different in their goals and themes.

Besides to ignore this movie is to miss out on some very good performances, some great jump scares, excellent atmosphere and a solid nights entertainment. Yes, this is an average horror film, but compared to some of the crappy horror flicks floating around out there now, this feels like a real breath of fresh air.

Cigarette Burns (2005)

Introduction:

Back in 2005 John Carpenter joined a group of directors to bring a set of one-hour horror stories to the small screen. They called the series, The Masters of Horror. Carpenter’s first entry in the series hits on a few familiar tropes from his work, and is based on an influential gothic horror story by Robert Chambers. Nice pedigree, but was it worthy of the title Master of Horror?

Summary:

Kirby (Norman Reedus) is a down on his luck theater owner who hunts down prints of hard to find films as a sideline. He is hired by the eccentric but very wealthy Bellinger (Udo Kier) to find one of the most infamous films of all time: Le Fin Absolue du Monde. According to history, the only showing of the film caused a riot that ended in many deaths. As Kirby starts digging into the history of the film he finds a trail of madness and destruction. It also triggers visions of “cigarette burns”, like the kind found in old film prints. With each burn, Kirby begins to wonder if he isn’t losing his mind too.

Good Points:

• An interesting adaptation of The King in Yellow
• Some pretty gruesome gore effects
• Udo Kier looks like he’s having a great time

Bad Points:

• Reedus isn’t convincing
• The script makes some serious missteps
• The impact of the ending is weak

Overall:

This almost works, and yet the whole thing gets scuttled by two important factors. The script almost feels like it got pared down to fit the hour timeframe, and it ended up crippling the whole story flow. And then there is Reedus, who just doesn’t click as the character. The ending should have a powerful impact, but Reedus performance keeps it from resonating. Fans of the director may want to check it out, but most other folks probably won’t get pulled into this one.

Scores (out of 5)

Visuals: 4

Sound: 4

Acting: 3

Script: 2

Music: 3

Direction: 3

Entertainment: 2

Total:  3

In Depth Review

What frustrates me about this one is that the premise has a lot of promise, but it takes a solid script and a deft hand to pull it off. Chambers’ story The King in Yellow is obviously the inspiration here (with it’s cursed play that creates insanity in whoever reads or watches it). But this plot is also shared by The Ninth Gate by Polanski and Carpenter’s own In the Mouth of Madness.

Maybe Carpenter was frustrated by the reception of his previous film, and decided to tackle this type of story again. But the script suffers from not quite pulling off the key ingredient – dread. We never feel that dread building like it should. We should fear for Kirby’s sanity and the consequences of finding the film. The stakes just never seem to gel and attempts to use Kirby’s back-story to drive his actions fall flat, especially in the finale.

Reedus is a big part of the problem. He’s fine when he’s playing the whiney prick that sticks his nose where it doesn’t belong. But he just doesn’t work as the tortured soul, or the man questioning his sanity. I never believed he was afraid of the outcome; he just didn’t seem to care. In a way, that is a very frightening thought - a man with only selfish desires is sent to find the film.  It could work wonderfully actually, but that angle is not explored.

On the other hand you have Kier who seems to be having a blast playing up the eccentricities of Bellinger. Any time he’s on the screen it really helps the film and his final scenes are the real capper to the film (and the gore effects here and sounds are just plain nasty).

As to the Le Fin Absolue de Monde itself, well that is also a problem. Any time you deal with this type of storyline, you risk disappointing your audience. Show the mind shattering film and people will wonder why it’s so tame. Don’t show it, and you’re cheating. Carpenter does what he has to do, shows a little bit of it here and there. What you do end up seeing looks more like a snuff film, instead of something more otherworldly and challenging. I was hoping for some twisting visuals, maybe like something out of Ringu or surrealist like Un Chien Andalou.

In the end, it’s an interesting experiment, but I think In the Mouth of Madness  was a more effective film. It was worth seeing Kier lose his mind in such a spectacular fashion. 

They Live (1988)

Introduction:

Carpenter. Piper. Roddy Pipper that is. Yeah, that’s the combo for this movie, and it sounds pretty darn promising. Add one of the greatest phrases ever uttered by a bad ass in any film and you’ve got a sure-fire winner, right? Well, just like the people in this movie – everything is not as it appears.

Summary:

Nada (Roddy Piper) is a homeless man who is trying to survive during the tough economic times of the ‘80s. But things get even worse when Nada discovers a pair of glasses that allow him to see the truth. All around him are skinless smirking monsters disguised as humans. They control the advertising, the television and the music. They are slowly taking over the earth and only a small band of humans can stop them. Can Nada unite other forgotten people together to fight this seemingly unstoppable force of insidious evil?

Good Points:

• Roddy Piper’s performance is worth catching
• The fight scene in this movie is just as long as you heard it was
• Some very interesting social commentary at the heart of the film

Bad Points:

• Takes its sweet time getting anywhere
• Never really scary or intense
• The ending lacks the punch the rest of the movie goes for

Overall:

I really wanted to like this movie. Carpenter obviously had a lot to say about the state of the world in 1988, but all that delving into social commentary ends up dragging the whole movie down. Instead of keeping this crisp and fast paced, the movie slogs from scene to scene, but without building any tension. There are some classic moments in this movie (including the famous “I’m here to chew bubblegum and kick ass” quote). But they never add up to anything much more than an average flick.

Scores (out of 5)

Visuals: 4

Sound: 3

Acting: 4

Script: 3

Music: 3

Direction: 2

Entertainment: 2

Total:  3

Curious about a full review, sent me an email and I’ll make additional thoughts to this review.

Note: Roddy Piper has a ton of charisma in this movie and should have been in more stuff. Check out Obscurus Lupa’s review of a little gem called Hell Comes to Frogtown to see more of Roddy's work.

Prince of Darkness (1987)

Introduction:

I had a horror fiend friend back in Junior High who was so excited about seeing this movie. And that was about all I knew about Prince of Darkness. But the boys over at H.P. Podcraft mentioned it a couple times (as well as Carpenter’s frequent inspiration from Lovecraft) and I put it on my viewing list.

Summary:

A mysterious death at a run down church causes a priest (Donald Pleasence) to enlist the aid of Professor Howard Birack (Victor Wong). Wong gathers a top notch squad of graduate students to study a bizarre cylinder of green matter in a secret chamber under the church. As their research continues, the team concludes that they are facing pure evil and attempting to quantify it! But evil never sleeps, and it uses this opportunity to attempt an escape, one that will tear the very fabric of reality apart and bring about the arrival of trans-dimensional being that will destroy our world. Oh and Alice Cooper is on hand as possessed homeless man.

Good Points:

• The Lovecraftian core story is intriguing
• Some solid jump scares
• Gets creepier the longer you think about the implications

Bad Points:

• Goes overboard explaining the premise
• Slogs down a little too often while trying to build tension
• The ending lacks the punch it was hoping to deliver

Overall:

A really interesting concept that is restricted with some clunky exposition and a budget that can’t quite pull it off. Carpenter tries to recreate the isolation and building dread that made The Thing and The Fog work so well, but he never quite manages it here. Part of the problem Is the characters are less compelling here, and the pacing never really works out. It is an interesting watch and one that provided a neat twist on pure evil. I get the feeling this will work better in a second viewing a few months from now.

Scores (out of 5)

Visuals: 4

Sound: 3

Acting: 3

Script: 4

Music: 3

Direction: 3

Entertainment: 3

Total:  3

Curious about a full review, sent me an email and I’ll make additional thoughts to this review.   

The Thing (1982)

Introduction:

Another movie I hadn’t seen in years, but remembered fondly. The movie freaked me out so much that I was actually a little afraid to revisit it. But the Lovecraft podcast I listen to mentioned it on several occasions, so I figured it was time to check out The Thing again.

Summary:

An American Antarctic expedition finds themselves facing something much worse than cold weather. A chance encounter with survivors of a Norwegian expedition brings what appears to be a disease into the camp. But it becomes rapidly apparent that some kind of alien creature with the ability to appear human is running amok. The expedition is cut off from the outside world and each member suspects the others of being the invader. How far will these men go to survive the hunt for The Thing. The ensemble cast includes Kurt Russel, Wilford Brimley, Keith David and Donald Moffit.

Good Points:

• Amazing visual effects – a real star of pre CG age
• Balances atmosphere and thrills perfectly
• Beautiful and bleak all at the same time

Bad Points:

• The overall grimness of the film may be too much for some viewers
• The dog massacre will upset animal lovers
• Gets really gross with the mutilations

Overall:

Holy crap is this movie still scary. It’s a great combination of slow building terror and masterful special effects. While the story itself isn’t anything too new, the execution is what makes this work. Carpenter creates a truly bleak film, which has viewers jumping at shadows. Lots of folks say this is his best film – I think I agree with them.

Scores (out of 5)

Visuals: 5

Sound: 5

Acting: 4

Script: 4

Music: 4

Direction: 5

Entertainment: 5

Total:  5

Curious about a full review, sent me an email and I’ll make additional thoughts to this review. 

Escape From New York (1981)

Introduction:

Continuing to catch up with Mr. Carpenter here. I’d seen this film a long time ago and fell in love with it. But for some reason, it fell off my radar over the years. Truth was I was a little afraid to revisit it, afraid it wouldn’t be as much fun as I remembered.

Summary:

In the distant future (the 1990s according to the film) New York City is one huge prison, while the rest of the US is pretty much a police state. On his way to a vital summit meeting the President (Donald Pleasence) crashes in the middle of the city. The military, lead by the cunning Hauk (Lee Van Cleef) is unable to extract him, so they come up with a brilliant plan B. Send in Snake Plissken (Kurt Russell), one of the most dangerous criminals around, and an ex-special forces soldier in to save the man. Plissken accepts (on pain of death) and finds himself in a dangerous world of gangsters, cannibals and gladiatorial games. Can our anti-hero survive long enough to accomplish his mission? Harry Dean Stanton, Adrienne Barbeau and Ernest Borgnine round out the cast.

Good Points:

• Kurt Russell is the ultimate bad ass
• Carpenter creates a solid atmosphere in this movie
• The whole cast goes for broke

Bad Points:

• The first twenty minutes of set up take a little too long
• Some of Carpenter’s music is going to induce chuckles
• I actually know some people who dislike the ending 

Overall:

I still had a great time with this movie. Carpenter does a great job creating an excellent self-contained world that is very believable. But the main reason this movie works is Russell who makes Snake Plissken the toughest hard ass of 1981. You want the movie to keep going, just so he can kick more ass. Its easy to see why so many movies were inspired by this flick (including really bad knockoffs like Warrior of the Lost World). This movie is well worth checking out for action fans.

Scores (out of 5)

Visuals: 4

Sound: 4

Acting: 4

Script: 4

Music: 3

Direction: 4

Entertainment: 4

Total:  4

Curious about a full review, sent me an email and I’ll make additional thoughts to this review.

The Fog (1980)

Introduction:

I’ve been catching up with John Carpenter’s movies lately and been enjoying them. This is one I somehow missed in my younger days. The only thing I know is that a remake was made and that Tom Servo mentioned it during the riffing of Pod People.

Summary:

The small town of Antonio Bay is gearing up to celebrate its founding. Little do they know that an ancient evil has awakened to take revenge. Soon the fog rolls in, and with it an undead menace terrorizes the town. Folks like Stevie Wayne (Adrienn Barbeau) and Nick Castle (Tom Atkins) do their best to escape the town with anyone they can grab along the way. But Father Malone (Hal Holbrook) may know more than he is letting on. Once the fog clears will there be any survivors, or has doom truly come to Antonio Bay?

Good Points:

• Great atmosphere and build up
• Solid performances by the ensemble cast
• Has some good scares along the way

Bad Points:

• Not a fast paced film at all
• Anyone looking for gore will be disappointed
• The overall concept may not click for some viewers

Overall:

Carpenter goes for a more classic gothic style horror story and it works pretty well. You’ve got to be in the mood for a slow build up, as he sets up the characters and situation. But once the fog rolls in the chills and jumps come pretty regularly. It’s great for anyone looking for a classic style horror film with minimal gore.

Scores (out of 5)

Visuals: 4

Sound: 3

Acting: 3

Script: 4

Music: 3

Direction: 4

Entertainment: 4

Total:  4

Curious about a full review, sent me an email and I’ll make additional thoughts to this review.