The Eye (2008) – Horror Film Review

All too predictably, this remake of the Hong Kong horror film THE EYE (“Gin Gwai,” 200) recreates the original story with slick but anonymous Hollywood production values replacing personal vision. By now, the formula has become so mechanical that one wonders whether the filmmakers could be replaced with some kind of device, the cinematic equivalent of Photoshop, which would take the existing work and “retouch” it according to a programmed set of parameters: The dialogue must be translated into English. The location must be shift to the United States. The story should be presented more or less intact even if it makes less sense in its new language and location. To compensate for anything lost in translation, a few extra jump-scares should be added at arbitrary moments. The horror scenes should be enhanced with more elaborate makeup and/or special effects. The cast should be young and beautiful but not necessarily talented or famous. The script should spell everything out in letters as big as those on top of an eye-exam chart, lest viewers be too short-sighted to spot subtle details; and just in case, the actors should read the chart loudly, slowly, and clearly, so that the audience will hear everything they failed to see on their own. In the case of THE EYE, the result feels like a case of the blind leading the (presumed) blind – the filmmakers keep point to details that we see coming from a mile away.
The story features Jessica Alba as Sydney, a blind violinist who is able to see again after a corneal implant. Unaccustomed to vision, she cannot account for some of the strange sights she sees, including frightening figures who arrive to collect the souls of the dead at her hospital. Later, a series of visions and nightmares (including a rather lame haunted oven – shades of GHOSTBUSTERS’ haunted refrigerator) leads Sydney to discover the identity of her donor. This turns out to have been a young woman in Mexico, branded as a witch because she could forsee impending death (which she was powerless to prevent, because her warnings went unheeded).  On the way back from Mexico, the violinist and her doctor are trapped in a traffic jam: visions of flaming explosions foretell of approaching disaster, but can it be prevented…? 
Ripped from its cultural context, the story seems contrived and artificial, a curious spooky tale worth being retold at a slumber party sleepover but lacking much conviction. For example, in the original, the dark and placid figures who escort souls to the afterlife are based on the Buddhist equivalent of the Angel of Death; here, they are rendered as generic scarey boogeymen, who snarl a lot because they do not appreciate being observed by the living. Without the underlying belief system to buttress the story, the film wobbles with uncertainty. Sydney objects that her doctor does not believe her visions, but it is not clear what she believes them to be; she merely says that what she is seeing is “impossible,” imlying a certain lack of belief on her own part.
This uncertainty weakens the character, a problem exacerbated by the film’s attempt to play up her emotional distress. In a silly piece of melodrama that stalls the story midway, Sydney decides she has had enough of visions, breaks all her lighting fixtures, and wraps a cloth over her eyes, recreating her former blindness. In the context of a genre piece, the film simply is unable to sell the “drama,” which seems forced and contrived. (Curiously, Sydney’s whining self pity more closely resembles the ill-conceived characterization from THE EYE 2, which also short-circuited the story.)


Although Alba tries hard, she fails to overcome this limitation in the writing. She ably conveys Sydney’s emotional reaction to regaining her sight, but the script expects the impossible: Sydney is supposed to be simultaneously freaked out by her condition and also strong and determined enough to overcome it. This leads to some bizarre moments, such as an early scene wherein Sydney attempts to convince her doctor of her sincerity by taking his face in both hands – a ridiculously intimate gesture at far too early a stage in their relationship. (As dubious as the gesture is, far more amusing is the reaction – or non-reaction – of her doctor, played by Alessandro Nivola, to being touched by his ravishingly beautiful patient: no conflicting waves of attraction and guilt, of romantic desire checked by professional ethics. At most, he looks vaguely uncomfortable, like a teen-aged boy receving an unwanted kiss from his Great Aunt Tilly.)
To be fair, if you have not seen the original, the new version of THE EYE works well enough as a technically competent but artistically uninspired scare show; it faithfully recreates the original scares (including the famous elevator scene) and adds one or two new jumps. There are even one or two instances where, rightly,  the filmmakers attempt to correct flaws in the original vision.
We see a bit more of Sydney adjusting to life with vision. One very nice shot displays her adjusting to walking down crowded sidewalks, bumping into pedestrians who expect her to do her share in avoiding collisions – something she never had to worry about when her white can tipped people off to her blindness. There are other nice details: watching Sydney learn to sight read musical notation or falling back on her old habit of using an index finger to judge when a glass is full.
The screenplay also attempts to improve upon the ending. As good as the original EYE was, its story did feel a bit arbitrary; its full-circle structure left you feeling as if you had gone on a journey only to return to the same place, wondering what was the point. The remake goes for a SIGNS-type approach, implying that all the suffering and confusion was a thorny path leading to a decisive moment when Sydney can come to the rescue. It’s a laudable attempt to re-think something that did not quite work the first time, but it comes across as too pat. The closing narration, which spells it all out, only aggravates the problem.
As expected THE EYE ends up looking like a glassy imitation of its progenitor. It’s a bit dull and colorless; adding a nifty set of contacts or a stylish pair of shades is not enough to hide the deficiency. At least the film is not much worse than THE EYE 2, and it is considerably less ridiculous than the misguided THE EYE 10. The next time someone returns to this franchise, instead of a little cosmetic surgery, they should try a complete transplant.

TRIVIA

Patrick Lussier is listed in the credits as “Visual Consultant,” a job description that is not defined by any guild; Lussier previously had this credit on DARKNESS FALLS and WHISPER. Lussier’s more traditional credits include editing several films for Wes Craven (including SCREAM) and directing several direct-to-video films (including DRACULA 2000 and WHITE NOISE 2).

THE EYE (2008). Directed by David Moreau & Xavier Palud. Screenplay by Sebastian Gutierrez, based upon the the screenplay for GIN GWAI by Jo Jo Yuet-chun Hui, Oxide Pang & Danny Pang. Cast: Jessica Alba, Alessandro Nivola, Parker Posey, Rade Serbedzija, Fernanda Romero, Rachel Ticotin, Obbat Babatunde, Danny Mora, Chloe Moretz, Brett Haworth, Kevin K. Tamlyn Tomita.
FILM REVIEWS: The Eye The Eye 2The Eye 10
ARTICLES: Remaking Asian Horror – A Brief History

"Diary of the Dead" in theatres February 15

The zombie plague begins in Diary of the DeadDIARY OF THE DEAD – the latest installment of George A. Romero’s zombie magnum opus – will get a limited national release on February 15, with exclusive engagements in major cities around the country. The official MySpace page for the film has a list of these theatres, which we have re-created below the fold. As we mentioned here, the film will be screening at the Film Socity of Lincoln Center on February 14, the day before it reaches theatres nationwide.
NEW YORK CITY

  • AMC Empire 25
    (212) 398-3939
  • City Cinemas Village East
    (212) 529-6998

LOS ANGELES

  • AMC CityWalk Stadium 19 (opening 2/22)
    (818) 508-0711
  • Landmark Nuart
    (310) 281-8223
  • Mann Chinese (opening 2/22/08)
    (323) 464-8111

CHICAGO

  • AMC Pipers Alley 4
    (312) 642-6275

SAN FRANCISCO

  • Landmark Lumiere
    (415) 267-4893
  • Landmark Shattuck
    (510) 464-5980
  • Camera 12 Cinemas
    (408) 998-3300

ORANGE COUNTY

  • AMC 30 At The Block (opening 2/22/08)
    (714) 769-4262

SACRAMENTO

  • Regal UA Laguna Village 12 (opening 2/29/08)
    (916) 689-0483

PHILADELPHIA

  • Landmark Ritz – Bourse
    (215) 440-1181
  • AMC Neshaminy
    (215) 722-4AMC

NEW JERSEY (SOUTH)

  • AMC Jersey Gardens 20
    (908) 289-1855 
  • AMC Cherry Hill
    (856) 486-7420

DENVER

  • Landmark Starz FilmCenter
    (303) 820-3456

BOSTON

  • Revere 20
    (781) 286-1660 
  • AMC Boston Commons
    (617) 423-5801
  • Landmark Kendall Square
    (617) 621-1202

DALLAS

  • Angelika Film Center and Cafe-Dallas
    (214) 841-4700 
  • AMC Mesquite 30
    (972) 724-8000

HOUSTON

  • Angelika Film Center-Houston
    (713) 225-5232 
  • AMC Gulf Pointe 30
    (281) 319-4AMC

PHOENIX

  • Harkins Arizona Mills
    (480) 820-0387

ATLANTA

  • Paulson Plaza Theatre
    (404) 873-1939
  • Regal Hollywood 24
    (770) 936-8235

SEATTLE

  • Regal Meridian
    (206) 622-2434
  • AMC Alderwood 16
    (425) 921-2985

MIAMI, FL

  • Brand Dolphin Cinema 19
    (305) 591-9380

ORLANDO

  • AMC Universal Cineplex 20
    (407) 354-3374

PORTLAND

  • Regal Lloyd Center 10 Cinema
    (503) 287-0338

DETROIT

  • Center Uptown Palladium
    (248) 644-3456

SAN DIEGO

  • AMC Palm Promenade
    (858) 558-2AMC

LAS VEGAS

  • Cinemark South Point 16
    (702) 260-4061

BALTIMORE

  • Muvico Egyptian 24
    (443) 755-8992

PITTSBURGH

  • AMC Waterfront
    (412) 462-6923

RALEIGH-DURHAM, NC

  • ACME Carolina Theatre-Durham (opening 2/22)
    (704) 643-4AMC

ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA

  • AMC Ontario Mills 30 (opening 2/22/08)
    (310)289-4262

[serialposts]

Cloverfield (2008) – Opening Night Reaction

After all the pre-release hype, CLOVERFIELD seemed like the kind of movie worthy of a trip to Hollywood, where one could enjoy the experience in a truly grand theatre, in this case Graumann’s Chinese on Hollywood Boulevard. Besides a wonderful setting and state of the art projection, this has the added advantage of allowing you to immerse onself in the film while surrounded by an enthusiastic opening night audience, eager and pumped up – the sort of people who not only could not wait another minute to see the film but also chose to see it in the finest theatre available.
After taking the Red Line Subway to Hollywood and Highland, we hurried down the walk of fame, passing Godzilla’s star on the way – a double reminder for me: ten years ago, I suffered through the disappointment of seeing the American GODZILLA on opening night in Hollywood; four years ago, we were fortunate enough to enjoy the world premier screening of GODZILLA: FINAL WARS in the Chinese Theatre. Those two films set the outer limits on my spectrum of expectations for the evening’s experience, but in the end CLOVERFIELD was very little like either of them, despite being a giant monster movie.
Outside of the theatre was a ten-foot-tall miniature mock-up of the film’s iconic advertising image: the decapitated Statue of Liberty. We entered to find the seating crowded but not sold out. During intermission, there was some annoying video programming on the big screen that could not be seen clearly because the house lights were on and could not be heard clearly because the audience was buzzing – so why bother?
Thankfully, when the lights dimmed, the real buzz began – that of eager anticipation. The traditional THX clip (designed to impress the audience with the theatre’s sound system) consisted of a humorous bit with Barry B. Benson (from the animated BEE MOVIE) doing some foley work that blasts out the amplified sound system of the on-screen control room. As with the promo spots that preceded the release of BEE MOVIE, this was funnier than anything actually seen in the film.
Up next was a handful of trailers, which were appropriately matched to the subject matter of the feature film. I am sure I have mentioned somewhere, probably more than once, that I do not find the “Starfleet Academy” premise of the upcoming STAR TREK feature to be particularly promising, but I have to admit that the teaser trailer does raise a pleasant sense of expectation: It consists of shots of outer space construction, with Leonard Nimoy’s voice supplying the familiar narration, finally revealing that we are seeing the Enterprise.
Based on the preview footage, I cannot say I have high hopes for 10,000 B.C. Whether or not the movie is any good, sabre-tooth tigers and wooly mammoths do not have the same appeal as dinosaurs. THE RUINS looks like low-budget horror junk. But on the positive side – the really positive side – the trailer for IRON MAN is one of the best I have ever seen – a little mini-movie that stands on its own as a work of art. That strategy of the preview is based on surprise: you don’t know what you’re seeing until the title character makes its appearance, accompanied by the familiar strains of the titular Black Sabbath song. That kind of surprise revelation, obviously, cannot exist in the film itself, where people have paid for their tickets knowing what they will see. I just hope the film itself has its own qualities that will live up to the preview. In any case, the trailer certainly does its job: as it faded out to the title card “Coming May 2,” the young woman in the seat next to me whispered in frustration, “Why couldn’t it be coming out tomorrow?”
By the time the main feature began to unspool, the audience was primed and ready, and for the most part they were not disappointed by what followed. CLOVERFIELD is far from perfect, but it proves that a good concept can focus a movie in a way that blurs the flaws around the edges, keeping audience attention on what’s right instead of what’s wrong.
WARNING: THERE WILL BE SOME MINOR SPOILERS AHEAD
In this case, the concept is to tell the story of a monster movie from Ground Zero, seen through the eyes of civilians who barely have an clue of what is happening. This is achieved by filming all the action as if it were seen through a camcorder – a dangerous gambit that pays off. Yes, the sloppy hand-held work can grow tiresome and even give you a headache (as the movie wears on, you wish that Hud, the character behind the lense, would learn how to operate the camera properly), but it keeps the action believable and locks the director into a point-of-view that precludes a lot of the usual manipulative Hollywood filmmaking techniques: there are no Michael Bay montages, no crane shots or Steadicam moves.
Most important, the conceit forces the director, except for some brief moments (e.g., on board a helicopter) to keep the camera at ground level, which means that the monster, when it is glimpsed, looms high above, emphasizing the sense of gargantuan size. (This is often a problem in Japanese giant monster movies, which fell into a habit of filming Godzilla, Gamera, etc. at eye-level, destroying the sense of perspective that would have made them seem huge.)
The blurry shakey-cam technique serves one other purpose: it keeps us from getting a clear look at the monster. As frustrating as this is, it is probably a good thing, because from what we see, the monster design is not particularly impressive. It’s a fairly generic ugly beastie, and the film wisely allows the destruction it causes to upstage the actual creature. The monster does have one good moment near the end, when it confronts one of the major characters (sort of a sinister spoof on the eye-contact scene with Matthew Broderick in GODZILLA). Unfortunately, even this scene has problems, but more on those later.
Deliberately referencing September 11, 2001, CLOVERFIELD captures a chilling sense of ordinary people going about their ordinary lives until something catastrophic intervenes to rupture the well ordered calm, throwing them into pandemonium. In this regard it supremely trounces the recent THE MIST, which tried a similar strategy but succumbed all too easily to bad computer-generated imagery and a silly, manipulative twist ending. Unlike THE MIST, CLOVERFIELD actually knows how to make its monster action frightening (which is all the more impressive when you realize that, unlike Frank Darabont, director Matt Reeves did not have the option of using slow-motion, insert close-ups, cutaways, and other standard elements of film technique).
Again, in this regard, CLOVERFIELD trumps most of the famous giant monster movies of the past, such as the clumsy 1998 GODZILLA, which tend to emphasize spectacular destruction at the expense of genuine suspense. This is definitely not an “ain’t it cool” movie, wherein you cheer on the special effects; you really are on the edge of your seat, afraid that the characters will not survive the night.
Despite the mostly convincing verisimilitude of the approach, the film does succumb, especially in its last act, to some cheap manipulation, one or two bad stereotypes, and some cornball Hollywood schmaltz.
The first sign of trouble occurs shortly after evacuation from Manhattan has been cut by the monster’s destruction of the Brooklyn Bridge: we see a bunch of black people looting an electronics store. That’s right, folks: in a disaster, African-Americans are less interested in self-preservation than in grabbing some free merchandise. Rather conveniently, the broken doors allow our white hero to step in and get a new battery for his cell phone, so that he can make contact with his estranged girlfriend. Whether accidentally or intentionally, the contrast between the two behaviors (one from greed, one from altruism) feels like an echo of media coverage of the Katrina disaster (in which photographs of black people were captioned as “looters” while photographs of white people were captioned as “scavengers”).
The next doubtful moment is the result of a scary subway encounter. The Cloverfield monster sheds smaller, arachnid like creatures; although the film never specifies, they seem more like parasites than off-spring. The nimble little monsters are not as impressive as the big fella, but they do generate some creepiness in the subway confrontation. Unfortunately, we get the first “exemption pass” of the movie: although our camcorder jockey has previously captured televised footage of fully armed soldiers being overwhelmed by the parasites, our nimble band of civilians manages to fight them off with nothing more than a few improvised clubs.


However, one of them is bitten, and the payoff is handled in a way that is deliberately confusing. Although this is part and parcel of the film’s overall strategy – with the characters swept along by events and unable to take stock of what’s happened – the scene is needlessly frustrating, especially because there is a hint that the rescue workers on hand have some idea about (or at least some expectation of) what is happening. (Apparently, this is the umpteenth variation on the old cliche of what happens when you are bitten by an alien: you are either infected or impregnated; either way, you come to a messy end.) It seems a like a cheap ploy, leaving unanswered questions to be sorted out in a sequel. Also, the execution of the scene is  arbitrary – throwing in a gratuitous dollop of bloodshed just because that’s the sort of thing you do in these movies.
These early missteps are not enough to send CLOVERFIELD stumbling; one easily overlooks them as the film sweeps along. Only in the final act does the movie stagger and drop like a rhedosaurus after being shot with a radioactive isotope. The plot thread motivating the characters (besides survival) is that Rob (Michael Stahl-David) has alienated the affections of Beth (Odette Yustman), who is now lying wounded in her apartment in midtown Manhattan. Driving by a combination of guilt and love, Rob risks his life to get to her, leading to some hair-raising moments inside a high-rise building that has been reduced to the modern equivalent of the Leaning Tower of Pisa. When he finally reaches her, we are treated to this dialogue exchange (quoted from memory, so it may not be word-for-word):

BETH: You came back for me.
ROB: Sorry it took so long.

Frankly, it sounds uncomfortably like the intentionally bad Hollwyood dialogue from the film-within-a-film at the end of THE PLAYER:

JULIA ROBERTS: What took you so long.
BRUCE WILLIS: Traffic was a bitch.

Suddenly, and irrovocably, we have left the world of convincing pseudo-cinema verite behind, and we are now in Hollywoodland, where all kinds of crazy things happen just because the screenwriter says so:

  • Beth is impaled by an iron bar, but a few minutes after being pried off of it, she is running around as if nothing happened.
  • Like the titular shark in the JAWS-ripoff GREAT WHITE, the Cloverfield monster will pull a helicopter out of the air.
  • The crash will kill the pilots, but our heroes will get a “lead character exemption pass.”
  • At least Rob injures his ankle, but he exhibits the same miraculous recooperative powers as Beth, so that he is soon running around again like normal.
  • And finally, the monster’s one genuinely frightening scene is undermined by the its extremely unlikely surprise appearance. Critics who accused the T-Rex in JURASSIC PARK of turning into a stealth dinosaur at the end will have a field day with this. Although the scene retains its power to throw a scare into the audience, the ridiculous contrivance, coupled with the sloppy point-of-view camera work, had me half-hoping that the filmmakers would go all the way into parody and show a night-vision shot of the camera sliding down the creature’s gullet – and possibly out the other end as well!

In spite of all this, the film ends up on a reasonably effective somber note that seems directly lifted from the 1988 sleeper MIRACLE MILE (another ode to seeking out your true love in the face of apocalyptic disaster). Staying true to its concept, the film finishes with the end of the camcorder recording, offering no day-after denouement to make sense of anything. One has to give the filmmakers credit for not copping out, but the effect is frustrating, and you could feel the sense of disappointment settle over the audience in the Chinese Theatre.
Nevertheless, they applauded appreciatively as the credits rolled, willing to forgive the flaws in favor of celebrating the successes of the film. As one might expect in Hollywood, it seemed as if discrete chunks of the audience were friends of some of the filmmakers: as obscure names in the cast and crew slide by on-screen, there would be small spatterings of exuberant shouting and hand-clapping from different corners of the theatre.
My own personal reaction is that CLOVERFIELD is the second film in in little more than a month that is three-fourths great, only to fall apart in the final reel (the previous being I AM LEGEND). In an era when junk like THE MIST is treated as if it were the best the genre had to offer, even three-fourths of a good film is nothing to sneer at. It’s not a masterpiece, and I doubt it will go on to become a classic, but it does much right that other films of its type do wrong. In a way, I almost look forward to a sequel that might take a different approach to the material, expanding on the limited point of view used in CLOVERFIELD and answering some of the nagging questions.
CLOVERFIELD (1/18/2008, Paramount). Produced by J.J. Abrams. Directed by Matt Reeves. Written by Drew Goddard. Cast: Lizzy Caplan, Jessica Lucas, T. J. Miller, Michael Stahl-David, Mike Vogel, Odette Yustman, Anjul Nigam, Margot Farley, Theo Rossi, Brian Klugman.

CLOVERFIELD and its spectacular Monster

CLOVERFIELD has apparently been the recipient of a great deal of Internet hype, which I must confess, I was totally unaware of. In fact, I almost skipped seeing the film, thinking it might be just another awful fifties monster on the loose rip-off. However, on the basis of hearing that Phil Tippett’s Berkeley studio was in charge of creating the Cloverfield monster, I felt it might be worth checking out. Then, when I read Paramount’s brief synopsis on the film, I became a bit apphensive again. It states: “Five young New Yorkers throw their friend a going-away party the night that a monster the size of a skyscraper descends upon the city. Told from the point of view of their video camera, the film is a document of their attempt to survive the most surreal, horrifying event of their lives.”
Well, I hate the kind of jittery, cinema-verite camerawork that usually serves no purpose, except making you want to throw-up, so I began to have some second-doubts about seeing the film. Of course, when I finally saw the picture, to my great surprise, I was quite delighted by it. I found it to be the kind of exciting old-fashioned monster on the loose movie that not only scared you when you were 12 or 13 years old, but in fact still scared me at a somewhat more advanced age. It also was quite a lot of fun to watch.
In fact, CLOVERFIELD is really quite an impressive achievement, considering how hard it would be for anyone to tell a coherent story as if it were told and seen entirely from the POV of an amateur cameraman. Obviously, this can also be seen as a stunt, just as Hitchcock’s one continuous long take was seen as a stunt when he made ROPE (in 1948). But even granting that, I think it’s a stunt that works not only well, but succeeds spectacularly.
Continue reading “CLOVERFIELD and its spectacular Monster”

One Missed Call (2008) – Film Review

Clearly, it’s time to hang up on these Hollywood remakes of Japanese horror films. No telephone company would get away with this kind of shoddy long-distance service. The call gets through, but the signal is so weak and garbled in the cross-Pacific transit that the message is lost, leaving audience on hold, waiting for scares that never come.

In case you cut class, here is a little history lesson: In 1998, there was RING, the first in a wave of J-horror that included numerous sequels, remakes, and rip-offs. RING (or RINGU, as it is called in America) is one of the few films that warrants the designation “Instant Classic,” in that its visual strategies and plot elements (specifically, a ghostly girl with long dark hair hiding her face) became immediate cliches, used and reused by other films. America got into the act with THE RING (2002) and THE RING 2 (2005), not to mention other remakes such as THE GRUDGE (2004) and PULSE (2006). By the time cult director Takashi Miike got around to filming the Japanese version of ONE MISSED CALLin 2004, the J-Horror formula was about as predictable as a 12-bar blues progression, and the only thing left to do was push the familiar tropes to the point of parody. Watching the film, one got the impression that Miike was trying to eat his cake and have it, too: delivering the anticipated horror while simultaneously satirizing the overly familiar plot elements (such as a lethal supernatural force whose victims know their appointed time of death down to the minute).

This sort of self awareness – which was the whole raison d’etre of the original – is totally lacking in the remake, which follows the standard strategy for this kind of thing: take the original story, recast it with American actors, and goose it up with some additional frights, usually in the form of computer-generated imagery, which might or might not suit the subject matter. The result is one lifeless, uninspired trudge through a rut worn so deep into the moldy ground that one expects the walls to collapse any second, burying the whole mess like a rotting corpse.

The film starts with its best (not good but best scene): a young woman in a backyard garden hears some splashing noises, checks out the pond, and gets pulled in by a pair of ghostly hands – which then grab her cat as well (for no other reason than that the filmmakers reckoned it would be a surprise). Although the woman’s demise is all-too-predictable, the image of her her hoovering over the placid surface – which we just know is going to erupt with some kind of horror – represents the one moment of genuine suspense in the film. (Unfortunately, even this bit is undermined when we subsequently learn that the victim was a recipient of one of the ominous phone messages foretelling of death: if she knew her appointed time had come, why was she not acting a trifle more cautious, instead of walking right into the line of fire, so to speak?)

After the funeral, Leann (Azura Skye) receives a “one missed call” message on her cell phone: although the incoming number indicates that the call was from her dead friend, the voice on the message is her own, screaming in fear, and the date indicates that the call originated a few days in the future. At the appointed time, Leann falls from an overpass into the path of an oncoming train, and after the impact her friend Beth (Shannyn Sossamon) is close enough to see Leann’s dead hand dialing a number on her cell phone. (Whether Beth does in fact see this is not clear. One should also note that in the Japanese original, it was quite clearly a severed hand that was dialing the number.) It turns out that the recipient of the call was Beth’s platonic roommate Ray (Jason Beghe), who soon has a close encounter with a piece of scrap metal from an explosion at a construction sight.

With three on-screen deaths under its belt, the film finally decides to give up the episodic death structure and settle into a plot. Beth teams up with a cop named Jack (Edward Burns), whose sister recently died while hiking; curiously, her body was found with a piece of hard candy in her mouth – which was also true of Beth’s dead friends. After Taylor (Ana Claudia Talancon) receives one of the fateful phone calls, Beth and Jack race to trace the calls to their source, the trail leading them to a missing woman and her two daughters, one dead, one alive. It seems mom had  a record of continually bringing her daughters to the hospital , one for asthma, the other for injuries. Could she have been a child abuser? And did her evil somehow spawn this lethal string of phone messages?

Tracking down the chain of phone calls provides enough plot to keep the movie going, and the mystery has just enough twists to keep the film mildly interesting. Klavan tries to clarify (or at least rationalize) plot points that were vague in the original, but he also provides his own lapses of logic: After a skeptical police officer (Margaret Cho) tells Beth that no mysterious messages were found on the cell phones of her dead friends, do Beth and Taylor take Taylor’s phone to the police when she misses a call? No, they destroy the phone and throw it down a sewer. And why, oh why – when they know that a missed call is the harbinger of doom – do Beth and Taylor turn off their cell phones and take the batteries out – instead of answering every incoming ring so that there will be no more missed calls?

In the end the film cannot escape the arbitrary nature of its own premise. The screenplay by Andrew Klavan (which is credited to both the source novel Chakushin ari and to the 2004 film) inserts some techno-babble dialogue to explain how a ghost might be able to manifest itself through a cell phone, but that still leaves a big, gaping “why?” that is never satisfactorily answered: Why must the ghost manifest through a missed call that provides a premonition of a death to come – wouldn’t it be easier to simply kill instantly? (The real reason, of course, is to imitate RING, which also dealt with phone calls and time limits, but there it made sense: the dead Sadako wanted her victims to have time to duplicate the cursed videotape and show it to others, so that her curse could spread.)

With this contrived and ultimately unconvincing foundation, the film needs to support itself on style and scares; unfortunately, these are in short supply. Director Eric Valette presents the horror straight up, with a lot of CGI spookiness thrown in; we never get the heightened exaggeration that turned Miike’s film into a virtual parody. Also, Valette bungles the two highlights that Miike milked so well in the original. In the first, a reality show hosted by Ted Summers (Ray Wise) promises (falsely, it turns out) to exorcise the ghost before it can kill Taylor. In the second, Beth finds the missing mother’s corpse in the burned wreckage of a hospital, only to have it come to life in front of her.

Both sequences are treated almost like throw-aways; the television show, in particular, is a disappointment, lacking the overtly satirical approach of the original. Overlooking the convenient coincidence of the death being scheduled during prime-time, Miike staged the scene as a live broadcast, presumably being watched by millions of people nationwide; Valette has the death being taped, but the tapes are wiped clean, leaving no evidence. Perhaps the American filmmakers were fearful of the implications (ignored in the Miike version) of what happens when a nation is violently confronted with photographic proof of a lethal supernatural curse.

With such lifeless material, it is little surprise that the cast emerges as bland and unmemorable. Sossamon walks through looking more glum than frightened for her life; the victims are pretty much just walking targets; and when the ghost responsible for the haunting finally reveals his/her evil face, the effect is about at the level of a grade school play. (You can practically hear Count Floyd crying, “Oooo…scary, kids!”) The chief exception is Ed Burns, who is competent enough to play a cop with conviction, even when he’s on the trail of a ghost. And it is fun to see stand-up comedian Margaret Cho in a bit part; hopefully, this film will provide fodder for her next stand-up tour.

Striking a note of optimism unwarranted by the previous eight-five minutes, the ending of ONE MISSED CALL leaves the story open for a sequel. As with the rest of the film, the handling of the supernatural elements is so arbitrary that you can easily imagine the feverish screenwriter making it up as he goes along without regard for rhyme or reason: Evil manifests itself for the big climax. Good, after taking its own sweet time, finally manifests itself to defeat the evil. (Apparently, the Good Ghost in the movie has some kind of “Final Girl Exemption Policy” that requires intervention only to save Beth at the ending.) But then, wouldn’t you know it, that eerie ring tone begins playing at the Final Fade-out. Somehow, it is hard to imagine anyone bothering to answer this call.

TRIVIA 

Of the film’s several unanswered questions, perhaps the most intriguing is this one: Did the cat in the opening scene have its own cell phone, and did it receive a call foretlling of its death?

According to the Internet Movie Database’s entry for the film, director Eric Valette never watched the Japanese film, and asked his actors to avoid it as well. Too bad – they might have learned something.

ONE MISSED CALL (2008). Directed by Eric Valette. Screenplay by Andrew Klavan, based on the novel Chakushin ari by Yasushi Akimoto and the screenplay by Miwako Daira. Cast: Shannyn Sossamon, Edward Burns, Ana Claudia Talancon, Ray Wise, Azura Skye, Johnny Lewis, Jason Beghe, Margaret Cho, Meagan Good, Rhoda Griffis, Dawn Dininger, Ariel Winter.

The Signal – question-and-answer with co-director Jacob Gentry

THE SIGNAL was one of the best movies I saw at last October’s Screamfest Film Festival in Hollywood. The premise involves a mysterious transmission that turns those who view it into homicidal maniacs. The plot follows a married woman and her lover, who are trying to avoid her husband after he views the “signal.” Although some people liken THE SIGNAL to a zombie movie, it is closer in tone and execution to David Cronenberg’s RABID (1977) with Marilyn Chambers. The unqiue thing about the film is the vague line separating the maniacs from the normal people, with characters crossing back and forth from one condition to the other, making it difficult if not impossible to know whom to trust and whom to fear.

The film is supposed to get a platform release this February. Below is the question-and-answer session from after the Screamfest screening.

Zodiac – Film Review


EDITOR’S NOTE: With all the annual “Top Ten Lists” lists sending our memories racing back to the best that 2007 had to offer, we thought this would be a good time to post a review of a fine borderline genre film that we had previously overlooked because it came out early last year, before Cinefantastique Online powered up. 
David Fincher (director of SEVEN) returns to serial killer territory with this fact-based movie about the infamous Zodiac murderer, who taunted police in the San Francisco Bay area in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Based on two non-fiction books by Robert Graysmith, the lengthy scenario tries to pack in as much information as possible about the search for the killer, whose identity was never determined. (No one was ever indicted, much less convicted, for any of the Zodiac’s crimes.) Early sequences – which depict the handful of murders definitely attributed to Zodiac (he claimed numerous others) – are grim and horrifying, playing upon audience awareness that these are real people who died. Later, the film slides into a bit of a rut as the case grows cold and the efforts to solve it fall to Graysmith (played by Gyllenhaal), a newspaper cartoonist-turned-amateur-sleuth, who refuses to give up the search. Nevertheless, ZODIAC displays an admirable attention to the details of the case and the era, emerging as a solid effort to capture a piece of history on celluloid.
Continue reading “Zodiac – Film Review”

2008 Horror Movies

[EDITOR’S NOTE: This post was originally a list of horror movies that would be released in 2008. We have updated it to include some information about how well those films did at the box office, extracted from this article about the success of science fiction, fantasy, and horror titles during 2008. For a list of reviews and interviews about horror movies released in 2008, click here.]
2008 HORROR MOVIE ROUND-UP is another article (like “Holiday Films for 2008“) looking forward to next year’s releases. Slightly mistitled (it should of course be called “Horror Movie Preview”), the article gives a good glimpse of potential horror hits for 2008:

I have seen SHROOMS, DIARY OF THE DEAD, and THE SIGNAL, all of which are worth seeing. I have no hope for remakes THE EYE and ONE MISSED CALL, but CLOVERFIELD looks interesting. Hopefully, 2008 will turn out to be a strong one for the horror genre.
UPDATE 12/4/08: Links have been added to the films that have been reviewed at CFQ.com. We should note that THE CHANGELING turned out not be be a horror film but rather a moody piece of “California Gothic,” according to Lawrence French. Horror titles that did not make it onto the original list include:

  • The Happening
  • Mirrors
  • Mother of Tears
  • Prom Night
  • Quarantine
  • Saw V
  • The Strangers
  • Twilight

UPDATE 1/2/09: In “2008 Box Office for Science Fiction, Fantasy & Horror Films,” we take a look at the ticket sales for last year’s genre films. Here is the excerpt pertaining to the horror genre: 

The one bloody wound on this otherwise smiling face is the poor performance by horror films. The closest thing to a horror blockbuster was eighth-placed TWILIGHT, which is actually more of a teen romance with little actual terror on screen. Otherwise, during 2008 success was reckoned less by how many tickets its sold than by how cheaply the film was made – hopefully, cheap enough to turn a profit on rather meagre sales. So-called horror hits like SAW V and THE STRANGERSended up in the low-to-midd $50-million range, but they managed to turn a bigger profit than some higher-grossing films. Nevertheless, the genre’s box office fortunes seem in decline: SAW V slashed its way through another $56-million – continuing the steady decline from the $87-million height point of SAW II.


No doubt part of the problem is that the genre offered mostly a series of recycled sequels and remakes: PROM NIGHT, QUARANTINE, THE EYE, ONE MISSED CALL, SHUTTER, and MIRRORS – all failed to ignite interest among either the horror crowd or general audiences, and the few attempts to craft mainstream thrillers with wide appeal also fell short. Although CLOVERFIELD started off strong, it faded quickly, barely passing $80-million in North American theatres. HELLBOY II – a superhero film with horror movie undertones – also faded fast. THE HAPPENING, M. Night Shyamalan’s attempt to regain the box office lustre of SIXTH SENSE and SIGNS, was less a comeback than a comedown, stalling out at $64-million – and proving that an R-rating (Shyamalan’s first) is no guarantee of an improved scare quotient, despite the continuing chorus singing this tune at such blood-drenched websites as Bloody-Disgusting.com.
Meanwhile, good horror films – from both newcomers and old pros – barely registered. The well received THE RUINS could not reach $20-million, and interesting films like THE SIGNAL, DIARY OF THE DEAD, and MOTHER OF TEARS receiving platform release designed not to sell tickets but to boost DVD sales. 

Read rest of this article here.

The Dark Knight returns – in IMAX

JoBlo.Com points us to this nifty promo featurette, in which director Christopher Nolan and others discuss using IMAX technology to film THE DARK KNIGHT:

This sounds like incredibly good news. The IMAX format is truly impressive, and I cannot even begin to imagine what the action scenes with Batman and the Joker will look like splashed across the giant screen. More and more, we are seeing feature films screen in IMAX theatres (which used to be exlusively devoted to short, specialty films), but too often those features are shot in 35mm and then blown up for IMAX exhibition. Actually filming in IMAX should create some spectacular results.